steve, quick question from someone who doesn't follow apologetics to someone who does: is it fair to say that all evidence of the Resurrection that Christians provide to unbelievers is a subset of the general belief in the eyewitness testimony of the disciples? Meaning, when specific texts or the NT are debated, or the time of the writing of the NT is debated, etc, we're still, at base, arguing that the testimony of the disciples to seeing Christ raised from the dead is the truth. Do you see that as accurate, too much of an oversimplification, or just wrong in some way? Thanks.
The direct evidence is ancient documentary evidence, but that's supplemented by answered prayers directed to Jesus in Jesus name, including miracles, as well as contemporary visions of Jesus (I'm not saying every reported vision of Jesus is authentic).
You can find a collection of many of our posts on Easter issues here. The articles linked there discuss evidence for the resurrection from a lot of sources, including extrabiblical ones. The testimony of individuals who saw Jesus risen from the dead, like the Twelve, is part of what's relevant, but there's a lot of other evidence involved as well.
steve: "The direct evidence is ancient documentary evidence"
And that documentary evidence, basically, testifies that various people actually witnessed Jesus risen from the dead, yes? Meaning, when we say that we believe that documentary evidence from, say, Mark 16, we're basically saying that we believe that, yes, we believe that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus risen?
I'm asking because of the previous video you posted. I'm not trying to be a pest, just trying to make sure I actually understand what i think you guys are saying.
"And that documentary evidence, basically, testifies that various people actually witnessed Jesus risen from the dead, yes?"
As Steve and Jason have noted, the documentary evidence (e.g. Gospels, Acts) is in part based on the disciples who saw the risen Christ firsthand, with their own eyes, but likewise recall what Jesus said to Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe...but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn 20:29, 31).
"Meaning, when we say that we believe that documentary evidence from, say, Mark 16, we're basically saying that we believe that, yes, we believe that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus risen?"
Is there a good reason to doubt the historical reliability of the Gospels?
So...yes? hawk. bro. Yer killin me. Of course there isn't a reason to doubt the historical reliability of the gospels. I'm being serious here. if the question sounds stupid, it's because, as I said, I don't follow apologetics. I just found this blog from Dave Armstrong's place recently. Like I said, I"m Orthodox. I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Period. End of story. No qualifications.
The Resurrection is not like a volcanic eruption. It doesn't leave a physical trace that would confirm its reality even in the absence of documentary evidence. And since there were no video recorders 2000 years ago, the only direct evidence that we can have is eyewitness reports.
The picture changes if we consider the claims of Joseph Smith. Physical evidence now becomes relevant. For one thing, it would be reasonable to expect the golden plates to still be available for inspection. Failing that, we might expect the claims of Joseph Smith regarding the ancient history of the Americas to be verified by archaeologists, which hasn't happened.
A comparison with Islam might seem more appropriate. Christianity and Islam both began with claims that could not be verified scientifically. But there is a crucial difference. In the case of Islam we have one man who claims to have received a revelation. In the case of Christianity we have multiple people claiming to have seen a dead man returned to life.
You can appreciate the difference by considering what might happen if you wanted to start your own religion. Let's say that there are two ways of doing it. Either you can try to convince people that you have received a revelation, or you can try to convince people that multiple witnesses have seen a dead man returned to life. I know which would be easier.
Steve has mentioned some examples of evidence for the resurrection other than the testimony of individuals like the Twelve, and there are more examples on the page I linked. Something like the argument from prophecy (e.g., Jesus' fulfillment of the Suffering Servant prophecy in general implies his fulfillment of the resurrection referred to in verses 10-11 of Isaiah 53 in particular) can't be equated with the testimony of the Twelve and other such individuals. Similarly, something like the Shroud of Turin or corroboration of the empty tomb from non-Christian sources can't be equated with the testimony of the Twelve and other people who saw the risen Jesus. The evidence is far more extensive than you're suggesting.
Okay, let's go back to your original question. You originally asked if "all evidence of the resurrection" is a "subset" of "eyewitness testimony". I wouldn't say so.
Let's back up a bit. In fact, much of ancient history depends in large part on eyewitness testimony. So the resurrection isn't unique in that respect.
At the same time, "all evidence of the resurrection" can't necessarily be entirely subsumed under "eyewitness testimony". Rather, as Jason and Steve have pointed out, there are other evidences for the resurrection. Steve has pointed out contemporary visions of Jesus, answered prayer, and miracles which, if true, would be evidence that Jesus is alive. That he is risen.
Jason has pointed out corroboration from extrabiblical literary sources (e.g. Josephus, Pliny) as well as the argument from prophecy.
There's likewise indirect evidence in terms of, say, archaeology (e.g. the Pilate stone). See a book like Peter Williams' Can We Trust the Gospels? for much more. Point being, archaeological evidence may also help support or substantiate the eyewitness testimonial evidence of the NT without being a subset of eyewitness testimonial evidence.
Thanks, everyone. My stupid PTSD brain can generally follow something as complex as, say, quantum mechanics, but sometimes fails to make connections that would be obvious to a five year old, so I appreciate your patience.
Speaking of which, I think part of my question stems precisely from the issues quantum mechanics raises. What does that do to the nature of evidence and how we perceive it when it comes to something like the Resurrection? Meaning, even apart from quantum mechanics, are we busy arguing that gravity is a force when it's really a bending of space, so to speak? I think I asked my original question because while believing that the disciples' testimony of seeing the risen Christ is *part* of why I believe, I don't think it's actually *why* I believe. IOW, I don't think I believe on the strength of evidence and arguments. I experienced a miracle and while that's certainly also part of it, I don't think that's actually the why of it either. It's something I can quite put my finger on.
But when I read about the weirdness of quantum mechanics, something there feels like that's where the answer is. For me, anyway. Not trying to speak for anyone else.
Meaning I don't think I believe in Christ for the same reason(s) we conclude that Joe Schmoe is guilty of murdering his wife. I think I believe in God generally because of a kind of internal witness, so to speak, and I don't have anything external to support that (a person can look at nature and come to the opposite conclusion). I could point to Scriptural agreement and support of what I feel, but then I'm in a circular argument with myself. It's not evidence, just something that agrees with my premise. I end up stuck with belief as something non-rational (irrational, atheists would say).
But what if, like quantum mechanics, the root "explanation" for the risen Christ is something which only appears irrational because we're not thinking about it correctly? Meaning, do we actually need to accept Hume's premise that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature? Meaning, maybe it needs to be argued that Hume's definition of reality is deficient? One certainly wouldn't have been faulted 50 years ago for going with Einstein. But Bohr ended up being right. Nature is much weirder and contradictory than we could have imagined. So maybe what we consider to be rational arguments when it comes to faith...aren't as useful as we used to think. Which would mean that the atheist has to completely rework his objections.
The subtitle of the book is to my mind pretty obviously an echo of the subtitle of Michael Licona's book, which was, "A New Historiographic Approach."
Is it possible to tell if Loke means this to be a hat tip, in the sense that he's building on Licona's work, or a partial alternative, since he uses "investigatory" rather than "historiographic"?
Hi Lydia, I'm afraid I don't know the answer, because I haven't read the book, but I figured it might be worth mentioning (in case you don't already know) that Loke's book is currently available for free on Kindle as well as on Loke's own academia.edu (pdf).
That said, and for what it's worth, if anything, I think Loke is something of a disciple of William Lane Craig, and Craig himself has even called Loke "the William Lane Craig of Asia" (or words to that effect).
steve, quick question from someone who doesn't follow apologetics to someone who does: is it fair to say that all evidence of the Resurrection that Christians provide to unbelievers is a subset of the general belief in the eyewitness testimony of the disciples? Meaning, when specific texts or the NT are debated, or the time of the writing of the NT is debated, etc, we're still, at base, arguing that the testimony of the disciples to seeing Christ raised from the dead is the truth. Do you see that as accurate, too much of an oversimplification, or just wrong in some way? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThe direct evidence is ancient documentary evidence, but that's supplemented by answered prayers directed to Jesus in Jesus name, including miracles, as well as contemporary visions of Jesus (I'm not saying every reported vision of Jesus is authentic).
DeleteYou can find a collection of many of our posts on Easter issues here. The articles linked there discuss evidence for the resurrection from a lot of sources, including extrabiblical ones. The testimony of individuals who saw Jesus risen from the dead, like the Twelve, is part of what's relevant, but there's a lot of other evidence involved as well.
Deletesteve: "The direct evidence is ancient documentary evidence"
DeleteAnd that documentary evidence, basically, testifies that various people actually witnessed Jesus risen from the dead, yes? Meaning, when we say that we believe that documentary evidence from, say, Mark 16, we're basically saying that we believe that, yes, we believe that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus risen?
I'm asking because of the previous video you posted. I'm not trying to be a pest, just trying to make sure I actually understand what i think you guys are saying.
"And that documentary evidence, basically, testifies that various people actually witnessed Jesus risen from the dead, yes?"
DeleteAs Steve and Jason have noted, the documentary evidence (e.g. Gospels, Acts) is in part based on the disciples who saw the risen Christ firsthand, with their own eyes, but likewise recall what Jesus said to Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe...but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn 20:29, 31).
"Meaning, when we say that we believe that documentary evidence from, say, Mark 16, we're basically saying that we believe that, yes, we believe that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus risen?"
Is there a good reason to doubt the historical reliability of the Gospels?
So...yes? hawk. bro. Yer killin me. Of course there isn't a reason to doubt the historical reliability of the gospels. I'm being serious here. if the question sounds stupid, it's because, as I said, I don't follow apologetics. I just found this blog from Dave Armstrong's place recently. Like I said, I"m Orthodox. I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Period. End of story. No qualifications.
Deleteto steve, jason and hawk: apologies. To clarify, I literally believe the Nicene Creed. My original question is genuine.
DeleteThe Resurrection is not like a volcanic eruption. It doesn't leave a physical trace that would confirm its reality even in the absence of documentary evidence. And since there were no video recorders 2000 years ago, the only direct evidence that we can have is eyewitness reports.
DeleteThe picture changes if we consider the claims of Joseph Smith. Physical evidence now becomes relevant. For one thing, it would be reasonable to expect the golden plates to still be available for inspection. Failing that, we might expect the claims of Joseph Smith regarding the ancient history of the Americas to be verified by archaeologists, which hasn't happened.
A comparison with Islam might seem more appropriate. Christianity and Islam both began with claims that could not be verified scientifically. But there is a crucial difference. In the case of Islam we have one man who claims to have received a revelation. In the case of Christianity we have multiple people claiming to have seen a dead man returned to life.
You can appreciate the difference by considering what might happen if you wanted to start your own religion. Let's say that there are two ways of doing it. Either you can try to convince people that you have received a revelation, or you can try to convince people that multiple witnesses have seen a dead man returned to life. I know which would be easier.
chris,
DeleteSteve has mentioned some examples of evidence for the resurrection other than the testimony of individuals like the Twelve, and there are more examples on the page I linked. Something like the argument from prophecy (e.g., Jesus' fulfillment of the Suffering Servant prophecy in general implies his fulfillment of the resurrection referred to in verses 10-11 of Isaiah 53 in particular) can't be equated with the testimony of the Twelve and other such individuals. Similarly, something like the Shroud of Turin or corroboration of the empty tomb from non-Christian sources can't be equated with the testimony of the Twelve and other people who saw the risen Jesus. The evidence is far more extensive than you're suggesting.
Hi chris,
DeleteOkay, let's go back to your original question. You originally asked if "all evidence of the resurrection" is a "subset" of "eyewitness testimony". I wouldn't say so.
Let's back up a bit. In fact, much of ancient history depends in large part on eyewitness testimony. So the resurrection isn't unique in that respect.
At the same time, "all evidence of the resurrection" can't necessarily be entirely subsumed under "eyewitness testimony". Rather, as Jason and Steve have pointed out, there are other evidences for the resurrection. Steve has pointed out contemporary visions of Jesus, answered prayer, and miracles which, if true, would be evidence that Jesus is alive. That he is risen.
Jason has pointed out corroboration from extrabiblical literary sources (e.g. Josephus, Pliny) as well as the argument from prophecy.
There's likewise indirect evidence in terms of, say, archaeology (e.g. the Pilate stone). See a book like Peter Williams' Can We Trust the Gospels? for much more. Point being, archaeological evidence may also help support or substantiate the eyewitness testimonial evidence of the NT without being a subset of eyewitness testimonial evidence.
Thanks, everyone. My stupid PTSD brain can generally follow something as complex as, say, quantum mechanics, but sometimes fails to make connections that would be obvious to a five year old, so I appreciate your patience.
DeleteSpeaking of which, I think part of my question stems precisely from the issues quantum mechanics raises. What does that do to the nature of evidence and how we perceive it when it comes to something like the Resurrection? Meaning, even apart from quantum mechanics, are we busy arguing that gravity is a force when it's really a bending of space, so to speak? I think I asked my original question because while believing that the disciples' testimony of seeing the risen Christ is *part* of why I believe, I don't think it's actually *why* I believe. IOW, I don't think I believe on the strength of evidence and arguments. I experienced a miracle and while that's certainly also part of it, I don't think that's actually the why of it either. It's something I can quite put my finger on.
DeleteBut when I read about the weirdness of quantum mechanics, something there feels like that's where the answer is. For me, anyway. Not trying to speak for anyone else.
Meaning I don't think I believe in Christ for the same reason(s) we conclude that Joe Schmoe is guilty of murdering his wife. I think I believe in God generally because of a kind of internal witness, so to speak, and I don't have anything external to support that (a person can look at nature and come to the opposite conclusion). I could point to Scriptural agreement and support of what I feel, but then I'm in a circular argument with myself. It's not evidence, just something that agrees with my premise. I end up stuck with belief as something non-rational (irrational, atheists would say).
But what if, like quantum mechanics, the root "explanation" for the risen Christ is something which only appears irrational because we're not thinking about it correctly? Meaning, do we actually need to accept Hume's premise that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature? Meaning, maybe it needs to be argued that Hume's definition of reality is deficient? One certainly wouldn't have been faulted 50 years ago for going with Einstein. But Bohr ended up being right. Nature is much weirder and contradictory than we could have imagined. So maybe what we consider to be rational arguments when it comes to faith...aren't as useful as we used to think. Which would mean that the atheist has to completely rework his objections.
The subtitle of the book is to my mind pretty obviously an echo of the subtitle of Michael Licona's book, which was, "A New Historiographic Approach."
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to tell if Loke means this to be a hat tip, in the sense that he's building on Licona's work, or a partial alternative, since he uses "investigatory" rather than "historiographic"?
Hi Lydia, I'm afraid I don't know the answer, because I haven't read the book, but I figured it might be worth mentioning (in case you don't already know) that Loke's book is currently available for free on Kindle as well as on Loke's own academia.edu (pdf).
DeleteThat said, and for what it's worth, if anything, I think Loke is something of a disciple of William Lane Craig, and Craig himself has even called Loke "the William Lane Craig of Asia" (or words to that effect).