The objection that Jesus didn't appear to enough people isn't new. It was raised by Celsus in the second century, and Origen considered it something "which is not to be lightly passed over" (Against Celsus, 2:63). The objection has taken different forms. Sometimes it will be asked why Jesus didn't appear to more non-Christians. Other times, it's asked why He didn't appear to more people in general. Or both points might be brought up.
I've addressed this subject in the past, such as here and here and in chapter 11 and appendix 7 of The Infidel Delusion. What I want to do here is provide a summary. You can get more details by reading sources like the ones I just mentioned.
This objection is similar to another one that's popular today. Often, skeptics will ask why Christians don't believe in the miracles attributed to Apollonius of Tyana, Marian apparitions, or something else they present as a parallel to the resurrection of Jesus. We've addressed that objection before, such as here. It's similar to the objection I'm currently addressing in that it doesn't explain the evidence for the resurrection. Rather, it's attempting to demonstrate Christian inconsistency, the alleged insufficiency of the case for the resurrection even if it's true, or something else. Whatever merit such an objection has, it should be distinguished from other objections, which attempt to argue that the resurrection didn't occur. Asking what Christians make of the evidence for another miracle or asking for more evidence for the resurrection doesn't explain the evidence we have for the resurrection.
And we should remember that the evidence for an event can involve more than seeing the event occur. The empty tomb, which was accessible to far more people than those who saw the risen Jesus, was evidence for the resurrection. So was the testimony of those who saw Jesus risen from the dead. You wouldn't have to be in Paul's place as a resurrection witness in order to have access to Paul's testimony. We're confident about thousands of historical conclusions and verdicts in law courts, for example, based on the testimony of people who witnessed things that we didn't witness. It would be beneficial to have more evidence, but we distinguish between sufficient evidence and evidence that's more than sufficient. Should we expect more evidence just because some people demand it or would prefer it?
The New Testament doesn't tell us how many people Jesus appeared to. It mentions a few hundred people, but it doesn't tell us whether others were involved or how many.
It also doesn't tell us how many of them were non-Christians. The guards at the tomb witnessed some of the effects of the resurrection, even if they didn't see the risen Jesus. The language of Matthew 28:11 suggests that there were at least three individuals involved. The accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts tell us that at least two non-Christians were with Paul on the road to Damascus. James seems to have been a non-Christian when Jesus appeared to him. See here. And Jesus may have appeared to at least one of His other brothers who weren't Christians at the time. See my discussion of that possibility in appendix 7 of The Infidel Delusion. The evidence suggests that at least seven individuals mentioned in the New Testament were non-Christian witnesses of the resurrection in some form: the guards at the tomb, James, Paul, and Paul's travel companions.
At least two of them, James and Paul, were prominent leaders in the early church. If the early Christians not only had several non-Christian witnesses they could cite, but even had some of them within the highest ranks of their leadership, critics will have to explain why more was needed.
Given the inadequacy of skeptical theories that attempt to explain the evidence we have for the resurrection, the objection that there isn't more evidence is dubious. What we have is more than sufficient, even though we can imagine ways in which the evidence would exceed what's sufficient by an even wider margin.
Given the inadequacy of skeptical theories that attempt to explain the evidence we have for the resurrection, the objection that there isn't more evidence is dubious. What we have is more than sufficient, even though we can imagine ways in which the evidence would exceed what's sufficient by an even wider margin.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence is more than sufficient for many people but not all. The charge of insufficient evidence is usually one that is made as a rebuttal to arminian Christian claims that God "wishes" all mankind to be saved. Reformed Protestants already have an answer for this objection: God does not wish the salvation of all mankind.
Walter wrote:
ReplyDelete"The evidence is more than sufficient for many people but not all. The charge of insufficient evidence is usually one that is made as a rebuttal to arminian Christian claims that God 'wishes' all mankind to be saved."
That's not the context I was addressing. And witnesses to the resurrection wouldn't be needed to convert people to Christianity. Objecting that there weren't more witnesses to the resurrection wouldn't be much of an objection to Arminianism. Non-Calvinists like William Lane Craig appeal to the witness of the Holy Spirit and other means of converting people that don't depend on resurrection witnesses, let alone having more such witnesses. Even if we limit ourselves to individuals who are converted to Christianity by means of the resurrection witnesses, why should we think that more witnesses are needed?
Even if we limit ourselves to individuals who are converted to Christianity by means of the resurrection witnesses, why should we think that more witnesses are needed?
ReplyDeleteBecause the evidence would have more weight if you had people such as Pontius Pilate or Herod Antipas writing that they saw a risen Jesus. The evidence would carry more weight if you had the letters of dozens or hundreds of people who attested to seeing Jesus' ascension to heaven. You claim that the evidence we have is sufficient to believe. That is obviously true for many Christians. The question is why didn't God give us better evidence? Why not have Jesus come to us in the 21st century where his miracles could have been subjected to scientific scrutiny and deemed truly supernatural? Why not have Jesus ascend to heaven in front of CNN cameras? The only answer, that I can see, is that God does not desire more people to believe. Or maybe, he doesn't care whether we believe or not.
WALTER SAID:
ReplyDelete“Because the evidence would have more weight if you had people such as Pontius Pilate or Herod Antipas writing that they saw a risen Jesus.”
i) Of course, if they did that, they would be instantly discounted as credulous believers who were writing faith-statements and religious propaganda rather than sober history. Their testimony would be further discounted as a mass hallucination, to which primitive folks were allegedly predisposed.
ii) Likewise, any writings attributed to them would be automatically discounted as 2C pseudepigrapha, concocted by the ambitious, power-hungry prelates.
“The evidence would carry more weight if you had the letters of dozens or hundreds of people who attested to seeing Jesus' ascension to heaven.”
For diehard unbelievers, any naturalistic explanation, however unlikely, is more likely than any supernaturalistic explanation.
“The question is why didn't God give us better evidence? Why not have Jesus come to us in the 21st century where his miracles could have been subjected to scientific scrutiny and deemed truly supernatural?”
For diehard unbelievers, miracles are, by definition, unscientific.
“Why not have Jesus ascend to heaven in front of CNN cameras?”
What about 9/11 Truthers? All those cameras didn’t restrain them from positing a vast conspiracy to suppress the “real” story.
“The only answer, that I can see, is that God does not desire more people to believe. Or maybe, he doesn't care whether we believe or not.”
Well, not having the Walters of the world on board is no great loss.
Well, not having the Walters of the world on board is no great loss.
ReplyDeleteI can feel the Christian love just radiating from you.
Walter wrote:
ReplyDelete"Because the evidence would have more weight if you had people such as Pontius Pilate or Herod Antipas writing that they saw a risen Jesus."
And the evidence would have even more weight if God had created a world with forty trillion inhabitants who were all witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. And fifty trillion witnesses would have carried even more weight. Seventy trillion would have been even better.
You're ignoring what I said earlier about the distinction between sufficient evidence and evidence that's more than sufficient. Why are we supposed to think that the larger amounts of evidence you've referred to are what's needed?
How do critics explain the evidence we have? Are their explanations so reasonable as to suggest that more evidence is needed? They posit something like a series of individual and group hallucinations, involving both Christians and non-Christians, accompanied by a tomb that became empty without a resurrection or was mistakenly thought to be empty by both the early Christians and their Jewish opponents. Each step in that sort of theory is highly problematic. We've written about those problems many times. See our collection of resurrection material linked here, for example. For a discussion of the principles involved in estimating a probability, see the article by Timothy and Lydia McGrew here. And moving the pieces around in the skeptical theory, or removing one piece or adding another, won't change much. Claiming that the early Jewish enemies of Christianity didn't actually acknowledge the empty tomb, for example, just relocates the problem. You'd then have to explain why we should think that all of the historical sources who commented on the subject were mistaken. Every skeptical theory to date has a series of major problems. People who theorize about a hallucinating Paul don't have much credibility when they claim that Pontius Pilate or Herod Antipas should have been added to the list of witnesses.
You're also ignoring what I said in my last post about the multiple means of conversion available to God. Nothing like a historical, philosophical, or scientific argument would be needed to convert anybody to Christianity. Though God can use such means if He wants, He has no need to use them maximally when He does use them. Even under non-Calvinist systems, God isn't ignorant of facts such as who will believe and how much evidence, if any, is needed. He's not an ignorant human who's trying his best to persuade as many people as possible while knowing little or nothing about the details of their lives.
Your comment about evidence that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny is also problematic. That's what many people believe we have with the Shroud of Turin. Gary Habermas, who probably knows the data relevant to the resurrection better than anybody else in this generation, has estimated the probability of the Shroud's authenticity at about 80%. It's not a subject I've studied much. But it would have to be addressed before dismissing Jesus' resurrection as something that can't be scientifically scrutinized. We can imagine scenarios that would allow for more scrutiny than the Shroud does, but it does potentially give us some additional evidence that's of a more scientific nature.
By the way, Walter, since some modern paranormal phenomena are supported by the sort of larger amount of evidence you've referred to, do you accept such phenomena as authentic? For some examples, see here. In my experience, the people who object that we need more witnesses to the resurrection, evidence of a more scientific nature, etc. also reject modern paranormal phenomena that are supported by such evidence. And they reject the Shroud of Turin.
ReplyDeleteWALTER SAID:
ReplyDelete"I can feel the Christian love just radiating from you."
You make cynical use of emotional leverage to manipulate the discussion. So you can spare me the faux injury.
You make cynical use of emotional leverage to manipulate the discussion. So you can spare me the faux injury.
ReplyDeleteI can assure you that you did not injure me. It is not in your power to do so. I would have to care what you think for that to happen.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteProbabilistic historical evidence can never take one to a position of dogmatic certainty. I can acknowledge that certain events seem to defy naturalistic explanations, but I can never be sure with absolute certainty what happened several thousand years ago.
Since you believe that people come to the "truth" of Christianity via some form of Holy Spirit epistemology versus a critical evaluation of evidence using pure human reason, then I guess to answer your question, God would have no need for any historical witnesses at all.
Walter,
ReplyDeleteI didn't refer to "dogmatic certainty" or "absolute certainty [about] what happened several thousand years ago". I didn't argue that "people come to the 'truth' of Christianity via some form of Holy Spirit epistemology versus a critical evaluation of evidence using pure human reason". Those are your attempts at reframing the discussion, and they don't address what I wrote in my earlier responses.
WALTER SAID:
ReplyDelete"Since you believe that people come to the "truth" of Christianity via some form of Holy Spirit epistemology versus a critical evaluation of evidence using pure human reason, then I guess to answer your question, God would have no need for any historical witnesses at all."
If your grasp of theology is that bad, it's no wonder you became an apostate.
Regeneration creates a predisposition to believe testimonial evidence (as well as other types of evidence). It is not a substitute for evidence. So you've given us a false dichotomy.
You also act as though what counts as evidence, as well as the evaluation of evidence, are value-free considerations.