Is the incredulity of the disciples plausible?

From a Facebook exchange:

Eric

This usually involves the assumption that we can assume the gospels followed the conventions of critical ancient historical writing (including critical historical biographies) even though they display almost none of the features we find in critical ancient history writing at anything like a comparable frequency.

Hays

On traditional authorship, the Gospels are more like oral histories. Matthew and John are eyewitness accounts, while Mark was resident of Jerusalem, so they naturally don't reflect the kind of research you have in say, Thucydides. The closest comparison would be Luke. 

Eric

It also usually involves ignoring important features of the gospels that don't corroborate this paradigm; for example, the fact that their authors are more interested in bringing Jesus into line with the narratives of the OT, which, apart from one another other, is pretty much the only source we know with certainty that the gospels used.

Hays

Naturally they're different in that regard since Jesus is the fulfillment of OT messianic expectation, unlike an account of the Peloponnesian War. 

Eric

Their use of the OT amounts to nothing but crystal ball-esque scriptural divination.

Hays

A vague tendentious assertion. 

Eric

There is also a tendency to argue from interesting factoids in the gospels to their historical reliability, when in reality these factoids (relating to topography, customs, personal names, etc.) only show that the authors weren't removed from the geographical and cultural setting of their stories. I wouldn't say this is irrelevant or inconsequential. In fact, I would say to be fair that these features are more expected on a hypothesis of historical reliability than unreliable myth-making. But once you factor in other features of the gospels, it becomes clear that the reliability of the events of the narrative can't be inferred casually from these other factoids. No totalizing explanation, such as, "The gospels are reliable/historical/true", or, "The gospels are unreliable/fictional/false' can explain all features of the gospels." 

Hays

1. Except that folks like Bart Ehrman contend that the Gospels were written by anonymous authors far removed in time and place from Palestine in the time of Jesus. So how could the Gospel authors be in a position to get so many niggling details right? It's not like there were reference works they could consult for Palestine in the time of Jesus. And it's not as if the niggling details are there for entertainment value, to spice things up. So why would they be reliable in peripheral matters but unreliable in central matters?

2. Regarding the psychological plausibility of the disciples or the Jewish opposition being so incredulous or recalcitrant in the face of Jesus' miracles, I'd make several observations:

i) It's one thing to believe that Jesus could and did perform miracles. You see him doing it. He's the source. He's alive. It's another thing to believe in the Resurrection, ahead of time, because in that event the miracle-worker has died. The source of the miracles has died. So that's a different proposition. 

ii) What if Jesus deliberately picked incredulous disciples as a foil? 

iii) What if God did indeed harden them for climactic effect?

iv) Religious folk can be strikingly inconsistent or conflicted in this regard. For instance, Michael Licona admits that his default mode is skepticism. Yet he has an occult family background where he witnessed spooky, paranormal events. 

v) There are cessationist Christians who swear by all the miracles in the Bible. And they assure you that they are open to modern miracles. Yet they automatically discount all Catholic or charismatic miracles that run counter to cessationism, regardless of evidence. They're just as dismissive, and use the same arguments, as secular debunkers like James Randi, Michael Shermer, Martin Gardner, Paul Kurtz, Carl Sagan, &c. Doesn't matter how well-documented the miracle. Their theology preemptively overrides the evidence. 

Or, like the Jewish opposition to Jesus, they chalk it up to the dark side. So the behavior that Eric Bess finds so implausible is actually realistic, even though it's patently illogical.

Let's take another example. Michael Sudduth is an acquaintance of mine. He's a philosophy prof. at San Francisco State U. Last time I checked, he's quite skeptical about personal postmortem survival, and he's written A Philosophical Critique of Empirical Arguments for Postmortem Survival.

What's ironic is that by his own admission, he lived in a haunted house where he witnessed lots of hair-raising poltergeist activity. After doing some research on the house to eliminate naturalistic explanations, he traced the onset of the poltergeist activity to a former owner who committed suicide on the premises. So how can he doubt personal postmortem survival when he had firsthand experience of a ghost?

Well, at least for a time, Michael was into Hinduism and Buddhism, which rejects personal postmortem survival. So his religious beliefs trumped what he saw with his own eyes.

Eric

"Oral histories" doesn't work as a generally utilized convention for the gospels. We know when it is in an ancient historical work because their authors tell us. And biographers of the era who were eyewitnesses or who were writing near to the events they narrate (for example, Tacitus' Agricola) tend to relate their firsthand experiences in the first person singular.

Hays

i) To begin with, I don't assume that the Gospels are modeled on Greco-Roman Bioi. They might just as well be modeled on OT biographies. Or they might mix the genres. 

ii) In addition, illeism was a stock convention in ancient historiography:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/05/illeism.html

Eric

Luke's very short preface, which in fact does not say Luke consulted eyewitnesses

Hays

I didn't say his preface made that claim, but he had plenty of contacts in the nascent Christian movement who were eyewitnesses to the public ministry of Jesus, so it stands to reason that he consulted them. He doesn't have to tell the reader that. It's understood. He's make use of what he had had his disposal. 

Eric

while we know speeches were basically made up in antiquity.

Hays

An overstatement.

Eric

I am quite surprised you would seem to suggest in response to me that Jesus is *objectively* the 'fulfillment of OT messianic expectation' and not in the subjective estimations of the NT writers utilizing rather 'liberal' interpretive techniques, as even evangelical scholars have long acknowledged (e.g., Bruce Longenecker 1999, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period).

Hays

There are multiple commentaries on the Gospels as well as monographs that carefully trace out how the fulfillments are contextually legitimate, your one-sided reading to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Eric

Honestly, I don't know if a discussion with some one who thinks that is even worth my time.

Hays

It's not like you're doing me a personal favor by responding. I don't share your sense of self-importance. What you deem to be worth your time is hardly my standard of comparison.

Eric

As I didn't invoke Bart Ehrman or his position, I'm not sure why that was mentioned.

Hays

It was mentioned for reasons I gave, which you conveniently neglected to mention. 

Eric

you should probably see M. David Litwa regarding how fictional writers added details to their narratives and tried to pass them off as historical.

Hays

A completely inadequate response since it fails to explain how the the authors of the Gospels had access to these details unless they were eyewitnesses or interviewed eyewitnesses. Try again.

Eric

Regarding psychological plausibility, I find your response extremely unpersuasive.

Hays

Your plausibility structure is not my benchmark.

Eric

The fact that Jesus died doesn't matter if he told them explicitly about his death and resurrection several times

Hays

Again, there's an essential difference between watching someone perform miracles and believing he can perform a miracle on himself after he died.

Eric

If you'd like to make a case that "Jesus' miraculously or ingeniously masterminded his own followers' stupidity as a way for you to get around the problems I raised, then go for it.

Hays

If Jesus is the Son of God, then that's easy to imagine that he had the foresight to pick disciples who'd react in a way that furthered his aims.

Eric

If you can divine God's intentions to explain these problems and demonstrate how you did it, I'm all for considering an excuse like this too.

Hays

You seem to have forgotten already that you're the one who originally floated that explanation. The only difference is that you don't believe it (because you're an atheist?) whereas, from a Christian standpoint, there's nothing implausible about that suggestion.

Eric

Michael Licona believes in miracles, and appears to be generally gullible when it comes to reports of miracles to him from 'trusted' people. But this is irrelevant, since you won't be making a case that Mike Licona has seen or experienced miracles directly on the scale and in the quantity reported in the gospels for Jesus's followers.

Hays

He oscillates between his default skepticism and belief in miracles. 

You then resort to special pleading about the scale and quantity of miracles. But that's a diversionary tactic. The point is that what Licona personally witnessed is incompatible with naturalism. 

Eric

This is another false analogy, since it's nothing like the reported experiences of the disciples in the gospels.

Hays

i) I gave examples of how religious folk can have inconsistent reactions to miracles despite the evidence.

ii) In addition, you exaggerate the reaction of the disciples by acting like it was monolithic. But the reactions were varied. There wasn't uniform incredulity in response to the Resurrection.

Eric

Again, not seeing any analogy.

Hays

What you're prepared to see is irrelevant to me.

Eric

If your 'acquaintance' once believed in postmortem survival but now…doesn't

Hays

That wasn't the comparison.

Eric

why would that be an analogy to the disciples of Jesus?

Hays

Are you playing dumb? He's skeptical of the phenomenon despite firsthand experience of the phenomenon. 

Eric

Are you saying your guy currently believes he saw a genuine postmortem survivee while simultaneously believing they don't exist?

Hays

He believes he personally witnessed evidence of a ghost, but denies their existence. Yes. People can be wildly inconsistent. That's the point.

Eric

I'd like to hear that from the guy first...not from your hearsay.

Hays

1. You seem to labor under the misconception that I'm here to convince you. Wrong. You're just a foil. 

2. You then resort to more special pleading as if this is a quantitative question rather than the demonstrable ability of people to be incredulous in the face of evidence, even incontrovertible evidence, to the contrary.

3. Two additional examples:

Back when he was a Toaist, Richard Carrier had a vivid experience of old-hag syndrome. But in spite of his direct encounter with the paranormal occult, he's a militant atheist.

Likewise, Michael Shermer had a paranormal experience with the dead:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/anomalous-events-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/

Yet he remains a committed naturalist. People can be stubbornly or unaccountably incredulous about the supernatural despite firsthand experience.

Eric

The gospels aren't ancient histories, but biographies (although of a popular kind)

Hays

Actually, there's no reason to shoehorn the Gospels into an ironclad genre.

Eric

perhaps because it doesn't serve your illeism excuse above

Hays

An excuse? You were the one who objected to third-person narration by an eyewitness. I gave counterexamples from ancient literature. 

Eric

probably isn't worth anyone's time.

Hays

What you deem to be worth your time isn't my concern. Your priorities are askew.

Eric

I have already said the authors must have been familiar with the geographical and cultural setting of the events they narrate.

Hays

Which poses a dilemma for your position. If they had demonstrable access to facts on the ground, where's the presumption that they got the setting right but the story wrong?

Eric 

you should probably see M. David Litwa regarding how fictional writers added details to their narratives and tried to pass them off as historical…I was explaining to you the reasons why the gospels might wish to be accurate with details of setting, but fabricate events.

Hays

There are basic problems with classifying the Gospels as historical fiction:

i) Who do you imagine to be the target audience for the Gospels? How many readers would be in a position to recognize and appreciate accurate incidental details about a backwater of the Roman Empire? Including incidental details about rural Palestine? 

ii) In addition, historical fiction is risky. If the author bungles the details, then the exercise backfires. I once watched the first few episodes of a new TV drama. The scripted location was Seattle and the pilot episode was shot in Seattle, but subsequent episodes were filmed in Vancouver BC. As a native of Metropolitan Seattle (who's been to Vancouver BC several times), I could spot the discrepancy between the scripted setting and the actual setting.

Likewise, I once saw an episode of a TV drama where the scripted location was forested area in Spokane. But as someone who's been to E. WA many times, I could instantly tell that it wasn't filmed in Spokane county. Rather, the forest resembled something in W. Washington or W. Canada. Indeed, the episode was actually shot in a rural location around Vancouver BC. And even if I couldn't tell where it was filmed, I could certainly tell where it wasn't filmed. 

iii) The Gospels aren't written for entertainment value, like the romance genre. The Gospels contain a great deal of moral ugliness. What's the poplar appeal in writing that kind of historical fiction? 

Eric

They could have believed Yhwh was going to do it…

Hays

That wasn't their experience. Their experience was watching Jesus perform miracles. Now you're suddenly shifting grounds from your original argument.

Eric

…or another prophet.

Hays

In the Gospels, what other prophet was on the scene to pull that off?

Eric

Maybe even themselves, since Jesus gave them that power (again, Mt 10.8).

Hays

i) They didn't have custody of his body, and their supernatural ability was temporarily delegated to them by Jesus to do missionary work in Palestine. Why would they assume they retained those abilities after the source of their abilities (Jesus) died?

ii) You also act like they should have been in a cool, collected state of mind, but they just lost their leader under traumatic circumstances, and were terrified that the authorities were going to arrest them. They no longer had Jesus to protect them. They were on their own and terribly exposed. 

Eric

In any case, this excuse doesn't work even if they would have had some trouble with the idea of self-resurrection. The guy who can glow on a mountain and summon ancient legends as well as Yhwh affirming him as his son, magically create food, magically dispel storms, magically heal blind and lame people, magically pass through crowds, magically knock over an entire cohort (that is circa 500) of soldiers coming to arrest him, etc., would probably be believed when he says he can resurrect himself after death."

Hays

Whether or not a reader finds the Gospels plausible depends in part on whether or not he believes in miracles. If he's an atheist, he will find reports of the supernatural incredible. There are, however, collections of well-documented modern miracles by researchers like Craig Keener and Robert Larmer. More recently, Bill Dembski has given some examples. Likewise, there are some well-documented miracles in association with Lourdes. 

So the credibility of the Gospels (or Acts) depends in part on whether a reader believes that we live in the kind of world where events of that kind happen. In my experience, atheists rarely study academic literature documenting modern miracles. 

Eric

no one is arguing that people don't deny things in the face of evidence.

Hays

Except that you want to have it both ways. 

Eric

Guys waltzing around Palestine for extended periods of time witnessing and performing numerous instances of large-scale magic doesn't explain why they suddenly have a problem with one particular instance of magic...that they had already seen.

Hays

Witnessing Jesus bring someone back from the dead is quite different from having confidence that he could bring himself back from the dead, or come back from the dead. 

Eric

The disciples of Jesus were not naturalists.

Hays

You're being intellectual evasive. That's not the level at which the analogy operates. The question at issue as you yourself framed the issue is incredulity about the Resurrection by individuals who, according to the Gospels, witnessed Jesus perform miracles. 

I'm citing examples of individuals who remain incredulous about the supernatural despite their own firsthand evidence to the contrary.

Eric

And if these naturalists are admitting they have had experiences that humble their avowed naturalism, that is more than one can say for Jesus's followers...who behave in this respect as if their experiences didn't even happen.

Hays

Their experience didn't humble their avowed naturalism. Just the opposite: they remain defiantly committed to naturalism in spite of their firsthand experience to the contrary.

Eric 

Moreover, as I keep having to point out, your explanations are *not* the explanations the gospels offer. But apparently you don't believe the gospels saying Satan and God did it as dei ex machinis.

Hays

To the contrary, I granted both explanations. Mind you, the case of Satan is confined to the possession of Judas.