Sunday, December 27, 2015

Reason to Believe


Christians usually claim that the evidence for the gospel stories is very good, and that's why they are justified in believing them.  If a skeptic tries to tell them that the evidence really isn't that good, they never, ever listen to the reasons offered by the skeptic.  Instead, they tend to double down with one excuse after another to convince themselves that their belief is based on rock-solid evidence.  At the same time, they often try to minimize the value of historical evidence for other events that are generally accepted as having occurred in the course of history.  So on the one hand, they insist that their evidence is solid as any evidence can be.  On the other hand, if they are forced to admit that it's not so solid after all, they have the backup position that accepted history is based on equally bad evidence, and therefore, we should accept the gospel stories lest we be seen as using a double standard.

This raises the question: What constitutes good evidence for accepting the truth of historical stories?  I'm sure it would come as a surprise to many Christians that history is a kind of science, as noted by historian Marc Comtois, with a methodology that is designed to produce the most reliable results possible.  As with other sciences, the raw material the historian has to work with is a body of evidence and objective facts, such as the existence of documents or records relating past events.  In the case of written or oral accounts, it is not necessarily the events related by those accounts that are to be regarded as objective facts, but the existence of the various documents and records, which might be wholly or partly fictitious, and which may contain discrepancies and inaccuracies, along with facts of authorship and other information relating to the creation of those documents and records.  The historian must piece together information about past events to produce an account of the past that is the most likely among numerous possibilities.  As with any scientific hypothesis, it represents not the ultimate truth, but a historian's best or most likely approximation of the truth based on the available evidence.  Objectivity is a key characteristic of the historian.  It is doubtful whether a Christian can be objective in evaluating the historical reliability of the gospels.

Historical method encompasses a variety of techniques that are used for selecting information that is more likely to be reliable, and weeding out the less reliable, as described in Wikipedia.  One significant problem faced by the historian is the fact that testimony may or may not be true.  The historian must evaluate the source of information in an effort to assess its credibility.  Eye witness testimony is better than hearsay.  The motivations of the author can be major source of bias.  The gospels contain no eye witness testimony at all about the life and works of Jesus, and the authors are obviously motivated by their religious ideology.

One key characteristic of any scientific approach to evaluating a historical hypotheses is verification by physical evidence or corroboration by multiple independent sources.  The more the better.  Verification and corroboration are severely lacking in the case of the gospels, despite Christians' protestations to the contrary.  The gospels contain many tales of miraculous events without any trace of physical evidence to prove that those events happened, or any corroboration from sources outside the bible itself.  To make matters worse, much of the text of the gospels is clearly derived from a single source, and the parts that aren't copied verbatim tend to contain many discrepancies, both major and minor.  These discrepancies cast serious doubt on the veracity of the stories.

When examined in chronological order, it is clear that there is a progression of the narrative.  The earliest gospel, Mark, tells of a man who performs miracles, but otherwise is not divine.  There is no virgin birth, no claim of being the son of God, and no resurrection, at least in the original version.  (The final verses that tell of the resurrected Jesus were added later, according to most scholars.  And considering that the story says that the witnesses never told anyone about it, it is literally impossible for this part of the tale to be a factual account of events.)  Subsequent gospels embellish the tales by adding fulfillment of prophecy, divine origins, claims made by Jesus about his own divine purpose that appear nowhere in the earlier narrative, and of course, the resurrection of the body.  (Note that the earliest mentions of resurrection were made by Paul, who says that Jesus was "resurrected in the spirit".)  The progression of the narrative over a period of decades when the gospels were most likely written, is strong evidence that Jesus had taken on a legendary status, and the narratives of the gospels reflect the evolution of the legend.

One tactic of Christians, faced with the knowledge that the gospels have very weak historical support, is to claim that other widely accepted historical accounts also have weak evidentiary support.  Victor Reppert cites an essay that attempts to cast doubt on the historicity of Napoleon Bonaparte.  Another example of this Christian strategy is the claim that the historical record for the destruction on Pompeii by the eruption of Vesuvius is just as sketchy as the historical record in support of the Gospels.  Christians may want to present these as a means of weakening the case for accepted history in order to make the case for the historical accuracy of the gospels seem more acceptable.  But the truth is that there is much better historical evidence for them, in the form of multiple independent corroborating accounts, than for any of the stories told in the gospels.  And that's precisely why there is not significant doubt about the historicity of these things.  Nice try, but no dice.

Christians who insist the the evidence for the gospels is rock-solid are fooling themselves.  It is much more reasonable to believe that Jesus was a charismatic preacher who acquired a devoted following and came to be seen by his followers as a messiah - one who would save them from the tyranny of the Romans.  The Romans, in turn, came to view him as a subversive and put him to death.  Upon gaining a legendary status, the oral accounts of his life became progressively more embellished, crediting him with numerous miracles.  Paul created a religion based on the oral stories and the claim that he has been resurrected in the spirit.  The stories continued to evolve, even as they were being committed to writing, with the addition of divine status and many of the features commonly attributed to the divinities of other religions of the day.  All kinds of anecdotes were invented to show the fulfillment of prophecy, and resurrection in the spirit morphed into resurrection in the flesh

There is nothing in this hypothesis that is inconsistent with known facts about the people of the time and their religious traditions.  Nor is there anything that would stretch credulity.  Plus, it has the advantage of explaining the many discrepancies and contradictions found in the New testament.  Judicious application of historical method should lead any reasonable and objective historian to conclude that the gospels simply don't present an accurate reflection of the truth.  But there are reasonable alternative accounts that are far more likely to be true.

27 comments:

  1. The information contained in Timothy McGrew's series of lectures (there are about 9 or 10 in all) on the historical reliability of the Gospels pretty much blows your idea of there being a double standard at work right out of the water.

    I post this link to the lectures solely for the benefit of those innocent souls who may inadvertently come upon your misinformation here. They need to know that an excellent case can be made for regarding the Gospels as faithful records of historical events. Regrettably, I highly doubt that you yourself will listen to them with an objective, unprejudiced mind.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The information contained in Timothy McGrew's series of lectures (there are about 9 or 10 in all) on the historical reliability of the Gospels pretty much blows your idea of there being a double standard at work right out of the water.

    I post this link to the lectures solely for the benefit of those innocent souls who may inadvertently come upon your misinformation here. They need to know that an excellent case can be made for regarding the Gospels as faithful records of historical events. Regrettably, I highly doubt that you yourself will listen to them with an objective, unprejudiced mind.

    (Second posting due to broken link in first attempt.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that's interesting. I listened to the first half hour of McGrew's lecture. Sorry, I don't want to invest so many hours to listen to the entire series, because I think I got a sense of what he's telling us. Basically, his message is pay no attention to what the scholars have to say about it. Forget about historical method. There were church officials during the second, third, and fourth centuries that issued statements telling everyone what they are supposed to believe about the origins of the gospels, and therefore, all Christians should simply believe those statements. It doesn't matter that those church officials were the very same people who shaped the early church and its doctrines - as well as its history. Just believe whatever they tell us. That's McGrew's message as it came across to me.

      As I said in my post: It is doubtful whether a Christian can be objective in evaluating the historical reliability of the gospels. You have made that abundantly clear.

      Delete
  3. It is doubtful whether a Christian can be objective in evaluating the historical reliability of the gospels.

    Wow, talk about a stupid statement! (Sorry for the bluntness, but there's just no other way to put this.)

    Just think about it for a millisecond. Assume you've got an historian examining the evidence for the Resurrection, and after sufficient study, he concludes that it actually happened. Now, wouldn't he be the Biggest Fool in the World if he did not become a Christian? Therefore, it should be no cause for wonder that all historians who profess the historicity of the Gospels are Christians. Just what kind of idiot would decide they are true stories about real events and still not believe? The only objective attitude toward the Gospels would be one of belief!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Assume you've got an historian examining the evidence for the Resurrection, and after sufficient study, he concludes that it actually happened. Now, wouldn't he be the Biggest Fool in the World if he did not become a Christian?

      Yes, I agree that you have to be a Christian to believe some of the claims made in the gospels. And that's perfectly consistent with the point I made about objectivity.

      But there's more to it than that. Set aside those miraculous claims for a moment, and take an objective view of the facts and circumstances about the creation of the gospels. What evidence is there that Matthew was the first gospel written, other than the claims of the church fathers? Why do you suppose scholars have concluded that Mark came first? Is it just because they rebel against the teachings of the church, or because they have evidence-based reason? How do you explain that people who claim to be witnesses to these events don't agree on the particulars? Do you really think that the apostles witnessed the events of the birth of Jesus? Where did they get that story from, and which version of the story is correct? What about the ending of Mark? Was Mark there to see it? If so, then why doesn't the story tell us that? If not, then how does Mark know about it?

      If you look at these things objectively (which Christians either can't or won't do), then you have to conclude that there are too many things that don't add up. Even without consideration of the miraculous events, there are just too many aspects of these stories that simply don't make rational sense.

      Delete
  4. Why do you suppose scholars have concluded that Mark came first? Is it just because they rebel against the teachings of the church?

    Yes. That, and they want to make a name for themselves. In the business model world of today's "professional" scholarship, no one gets noticed by saying things like "The Gospels were written in the order they're presented in the New Testament by the people by whose names they are called." Not gonna happen. But if you dream up some new spin on the subject that people can attach your name to, well then, just start counting the book sales and celebrate the tenure!

    How do you explain that people who claim to be witnesses to these events don't agree on the particulars?

    But they do! Go back to my (correct) link, and watch lectures 3 and 5a. I think you'll find there are no contradictions.

    Do you really think that the apostles witnessed the events of the birth of Jesus?

    Mary did, and she told them to Luke.

    What about the ending of Mark?

    What about it? Even it it wasn't written by Mark (something that's never been proven), it's still canonical. After all, Romans has two authors, but it's all still Romans. So does Second Corinthians, Philippians, and Colossians. First and Second Thessalonians even have three! So what?

    there are just too many aspects of these stories that simply don't make rational sense

    On the contrary, there are way too many details that make no sense if they aren't real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that, and they want to make a name for themselves.
      You deny the findings of serious scholars of history, in favor of the pronouncements of the church. Sounds like fideism to me.

      Go back to my (correct) link, and watch lectures 3 and 5a. I think you'll find there are no contradictions.
      Not if you believe they've all been explained away. Trouble is, those explanations don't satisfy someone who isn't pre-disposed to believe them. I other words, they don't accomplish anything at all, because you already ignore or downplay the discrepancies, and I don't buy the rationalizations of them. The fact remains that no matter how much you try to rationalize it, the gospels are chock full of discrepancies and contradictions.

      Mary did, and she told them to Luke.
      I guess she told Matthew a different story, because the two aren't even close. But I'm sure you've explained that away, too, right?

      What about it?
      Evidence indicates that the ending was added later (actually, there was more than one). But I'm talking about the fact that the people in the story never told anyone about it. I suppose the impossibility of this story is insignificant to you. But I'd like to know how the author (whoever it is) learned about it.

      On the contrary, there are way too many details that make no sense if they aren't real.
      Well, that's one way of thinking about it. The whole thing is so ludicrous, it has to be true, because who would make up something that so defies rational sense? Part of the explanation could be one of two possibilities: 1) the various authors didn't compare notes to make sure they were telling the same story, or 2) the successive authors thought that the earlier versions would not be preserved, so there would be no remaining discrepancies to explain away.

      Delete
  5. I guess she told Matthew a different story, because the two aren't even close.

    Matthew got his info from Joseph, not Mary. And the two accounts (Luke and Matthew) dovetail nicely with each other. Not one single contradictory element.

    I'm sure you've explained that away, too, right?

    I just did.

    I suppose the impossibility of this story is insignificant to you.

    Mark does not say for how long the women kept silence - only that they were so for a time. They obviously eventually got over their fright, and only then related what they had seen and heard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark does not say for how long the women kept silence

      No, he just says they didn't tell anyone. So in Christian-speak, that translates to "they waited a while, and then they told Mark about it." Do you see my eyes rolling to the back of my head?

      Delete
    2. If they are, it's because you do not wish to see what is in front of your face.

      Delete
  6. And by the way, about those supposedly contradictory Infancy Narratives.

    1. The angel Gabriel proposes to Mary (living in Nazareth) that she become the mother of Christ. Mary accepts, and virginally conceives. (Luke)

    2. Mary immediately rushes off to her cousin Elizabeth's home in "the hill country". (Luke)

    3. Meanwhile, Joseph the carpenter (a.k.a., "day laborer"), who was likely out of town on a job during the Annunciation, hears rumors that his fiance is pregnant. (Remember, Mary is with Elizabeth, and Joseph has had no opportunity to question her personally.) (Matthew)

    4. An angel informs Joseph that Mary is pregnant through the Holy Spirit, and hasn't been unfaithful to him. (Matthew)

    5. The newly married couple then proceed to Bethlehem to comply with the census/tax. (Luke)

    6. Jesus is born in Bethlehem. Shepherds come to see Him. (Luke)

    7. Eight days later, Jesus is circumcised at the Temple in Jerusalem, where Simeon and Anna make their prophesies. (Luke)

    8. Meanwhile, Wise Men from the East, prompted by an astronomical phenomenon, arrive at King Herod's court, asking where the King of the Jews has been born. They're directed to Bethlehem. (Matthew)

    9. The Magi offer gifts to the Christ Child. (Matthew)

    10. Joseph, being warned of Herod's murderous intent, taking his wife and the infant Jesus, flees by night to Egypt, where they stay until Herod's death. (Matthew)

    11. Upon learning of Herod's death, Joseph figures it's safe to return to Israel. But upon learning of Archelaus's ascension to the throne, decides the most prudent course of action would be to return straight to Nazareth, bypassing Bethlehem. (Matthew)

    12. Jesus spends his childhood and young adulthood in Nazareth. (Luke)

    Now where are these supposed "contradictions"? The two narratives mesh neatly into a single, coherent story.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not only do the two versions (Luke and Matthew) not contradict, they actually reinforce each other in critical places. For instance, Joseph's initial ignorance about Mary's "unusual" pregnancy in Matthew is quite puzzling until you realize that Mary was not available for questioning. She was off visiting her cousin Elizabeth, as recorded only in Luke. In like manner, Luke gives no explanation of Joseph's otherwise curious acquiescence in Mary's pregnancy, whereas Matthew (and only Matthew) provides the missing information (Joseph's dream).

    Even John, who has no infancy narrative per se in his Gospel (unless you count the Prologue as such), provides valuable insight into the circumstances of Mary's giving birth in Bethlehem despite being a native of Nazareth. (See John 1:43-46, 7:25-28, and 7:41-43.)

    There is other (once again, non-contradictory) information to be gleaned from Mark (Mark 6:3) and Paul (Galatians 4:4).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's as if Matthew and Luke got together, wrote down a story, cut it into pieces, divided the pieces between them, and agreed to each write only the parts that were in their respective pieces. This is utterly ridiculous. Don't you think it makes more sense if you understand that they simply wrote two different stories? For example, Matthew completely fails to mention traveling to Bethlehem for this census. Isn't that a key part of the story?

      The story of the census was obviously contrived to give Luke a reason to place the birth in Bethlehem, on the assumption that the family of Jesus already lived in Nazareth. But Luke got his facts wrong. Quirinius didn't even reign until a decade after Herod was dead. That's something we know from independent historical accounts. And even if he conducted such a census, it is ludicrous to think that people would be required to return to their ancestral hometowns, rather than to the city of their taxation district. Matthew didn't concoct such a ridiculous story.

      On the other hand, Matthew's main goal was evidently to show the fulfillment of prophecy, so he concocted all kinds of other absurdities toward that end, including the escape to Egypt to elude Herod's attempt to kill Jesus. (Luke simply had them moving to Nazareth after the circumcision.) The trouble with Matthew's account is that the mass murder of infants by Herod should have been a news-worthy event, but was never even mentioned in any independent historical accounts, and that's very good reason to believe that it never happened.

      This gets me back to my original post. Historical analysis involves using as many independent sources as possible to get a more complete picture of what really happened. And this is how we can conclude that some accounts of events are not consistent with the broader body of historical knowledge.

      Delete
  8. it is ludicrous to think that people would be required to return to their ancestral hometowns

    Here is an edict concerning a Roman census taken in the early 2nd Century, which compels all to report to their home towns to register. So Luke's account meshes perfectly with known facts about how the Romans might conduct a census.

    The objection about Quirinius's governorship of Syria is not serious. We know from an inscription on a marble fragment preserved today in the Lateran Museum of Christian Antiquities that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, but we know for certain the dates of only one of those terms (AD 6-9). When was the other time? There is no record - except in Luke!

    So how can Luke contradict non-existent records?

    The trouble with Matthew's account is that the mass murder of infants by Herod should have been a news-worthy event.

    I doubt that seriously. The probable population of boys 2 years old and under in Bethlehem at that time was likely at most a dozen. Such barbarities as their massacre were sadly commonplace in the 1st Century (and indeed today in many parts of the world), and would no more likely be preserved in an historical record than a traffic accident would today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is an edict concerning a Roman census
      The document you present only shows what I have said. People were directed to return to their "hearths" in order to be counted for purposes of taxation - not to their ancestral homeland. This makes sense, but the idea of traveling to the ancestral homeland is absolutely ludicrous.

      We know from an inscription on a marble fragment preserved today in the Lateran Museum of Christian Antiquities that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria
      Oh, really? The life of Quirinius is fairly well chronicled by numerous sources. Here is a brief history of his life. His census was in 6CE, and there is no dispute about that (unless you're a Christian, desperately trying to rationalize the gospel stories).

      Such barbarities as their massacre were sadly commonplace in the 1st Century ..., and would no more likely be preserved in an historical record than a traffic accident would today.
      The most likely source of this myth is the fact that Herod had his own children murdered. This event was chronicled by Josephus. The historical consensus is not a product of Christian apologetics, but of genuine historical scholarship.


      Delete
  9. Google "Quirinius" and you'll find page after page of sites that adequately explain the controversial passage in Luke, and demonstrate how it can be reconciled to all other known historical data about his life. I don't think this is a deal breaker either way. There is certainly no reason to definitively think Luke was in error, since he is so easily (and widely) defended.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "adequately explain"

      to gullible Christians, but not to real historians.

      Delete
    2. real historians

      Is that what you are?

      Delete
    3. I'm just someone whose reading extends beyond Christian apologetic literature.

      Delete
    4. All well and good, but what have you to say about Plank's comment at December 28, 2015 at 10:41 AM?

      Your reply to him indicated that you totally misunderstood the point. You wrote, "you have to be a Christian to believe the claims made in the gospels." But that is totally backwards. What Plank said was essentially the opposite - something like: "to believe the claims made in the gospels you have to be[come] a Christian."

      So your labeling something "Christian apologetic literature" does not make it less reliable, but rather the reverse. Anyone believing in the claims of the Gospels who was not a Christian would be a fool (or worse).

      Delete
    5. There are Christians who don't believe that the bible (as a whole) is literally true. But anyone who does believe the bible is true is a Christian by definition. The same may be said of the gospels. It is entirely possible that a Christian may take a skeptical view, and not believe everything the gospels say. But it is not possible to believe the gospels without being a Christian. My statement "you have to be a Christian to believe the claims made in the gospels" is true because everyone who believes the gospel stories is a Christian.

      I agree that labeling something as "Christian apologetic literature" does not make it less reliable, but as you pointed out, a quick search on Google reveals a wealth of material that defends the truth of the gospels. Much of this material is not consistent with serious historical analysis. the reason for that is the fact that most Christians are not capable of evaluating their own religious beliefs objectively.

      Delete
  10. that most Christians are not capable of evaluating their own religious beliefs objectively

    And you have demonstrated many times over that you are incapable of evaluating your own atheism objectively.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That may well be the case. I'd be happy to entertain any evidence you may have to demonstrate that. The discussion here has been about Christian belief.

      Delete
    2. Incidentally, Edgestow, I know rthere are examples of Christians who are rather more objective than you. For example, here is one who admits that there is a problem that doesn't have a simple solution, as has been proffered by many Christians as a way to smooth over difficulties like this. That doesn't stop him from believing, but at least he takes a more honest view of the evidence.

      Delete
  11. And here is another that is more objective in relation to how Christianity should reflect society in the modern era. Indeed he elucidates the following:

    Points For Reform of Christianity[edit] [These "Twelve Points for Reform" come from Spong's book A New Christianity for a New World]:

    1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
    2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
    3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
    4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
    5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
    6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
    7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
    8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
    9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
    10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
    11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
    12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

    Moreover he is as faithful to teachings of Jesus today as he ever was throughout his life. One gets to wonder why theists are so pathologically afraid of change?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One gets to wonder why theists are so pathologically afraid of change?

      Why? Because it' been pounded into them from the time they were born. Stock Cristianity is not a doctrine of reason. It is a doctrine of unquestioning belief. They have been threatened with eternal punishment if they should have the temerity or the intellectual honesty to stray from the officially sanctioned teachings. And worse than that, they face being rejected and ridiculed by their fellow believers.

      Delete
  12. I look at the gospels as a collection of fan fiction. ;)

    ReplyDelete