Is the resurrection of Jesus supported...

[Goose]

Chaosborders and I have agreed to a head-to-head. Chaosborders has suggested the question for debate as well as the thread title and I have agreed. The question for debate will be:

"Can the resurrection of the man commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ be sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence that it should be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes?"

I will affirm the positive and Chaosborders will affirm the negative.

We have agreed to a maximum of ten rounds (twenty total posts).

I will post first.

Comments welcomed here.

[ChaosBorders]

Round 4

Here[/url] is Tacitus' account of the blind man being healed via Vespasian. How does this reduce my argument to the absurd? Are you arguing it is absurd that a man regained his sight when he wasn't totally blind in the first place as Tacitus reports? Are you arguing a miracle is absurd? Are you arguing the supernatural is absurd? Are you arguing the existence of God or gods is absurd? What exactly is absurd? If Vespasian's healing a blind man had enough evidentiary support to be taught as a literal fact it wouldn't falsify my argument. Nor would it reduce my argument to the absurd. Nor would it hurt the resurrection.

In the context of academic history miracles, the supernatural, and the impact of any God or gods is automatically excluded as the result of the process of historical reasoning. Most likely I will only get to internal criticism in this post and historical reasoning will have to wait until the next post, at which point I will go into greater detail as to why this is the case. However, for now I will simply point out that the logical conclusion of your argument’s form is the allowance of many events, this being one example, that are most reasonably labeled fables, propaganda, hoaxes, etc. to be taught as literally factual events.

Further, your argument’s form relies on what is already being taught as literally factual, which is often a VERY different thing than what SHOULD BE (which I have already argued in previous posts are events that pass through historical methodology created by experts in the field and you have ignored as ‘irrelevant’) as the result of politics. So your argument’s form allows sweeping in such stories as Vespasian’s miracle through comparison against other events that may not themselves be true.

It broadens the things that could be taught as literally factual extensively, and in doing so can be allowed to teach two mutually exclusive events so long as each side has more support than a third party event that is taught as literally factual. This is its most fundamental flaw, though even by your argument (which given you set it up so that you could, shouldn’t even be difficult for you to ‘prove’ at all) the resurrection seems not to be overwhelming the assassination as greatly as one would expect.

Cicero is far from explicit here. But like I wrote earlier, at best we can infer from Cicero that he believed Caesar was assassinated. It still appears you are interpreting Cicero through later writers though.

Unless someone in the audience speaks up and also does not feel Cicero is being explicit, I am inclined to think you are merely being stubborn on this point, as I earnestly do not know how someone with above high school level reading comprehension skills can read the 10th and 11th paragraphs and not think Cicero is stating Caeser was assassinated.

If you are willing to uncritically accept this oration recorded by Dio as authentically from Mark Antony, even though it was written by Dio almost 300 years after, then this gives the assassination a second early source along with Cicero. However, by appealing to Dio here you just opened the gate for a flood of evidence for the resurrection if we are to be fair. As examples, I can now appeal to anyone preserved in the writings of others up to about 300 years after the resurrection such as Eusebius. I'll get to that...

Not entirely uncritically. James Anthony Froude writes in his biography of Caesar, Caesar:A Sketch (1879), “Dion Cassius ‘can hardly have himself composed the version which he gives, for he calls the speech as ill-timed as it was brilliant.’� I am a more skeptical person than Froude, but if one reads the speech and compares it to the other material available it would seem to cohere to the character presented for Mark Antony exceedingly well. So if Dion is a fraud, he really is a remarkable one.

You argue as if the Second Philipic was actually delivered by Cicero in a speech to the Senate. It wasn't.

No, I argue as if it was circulated among the senate. I know that it was not an actual ‘speech’. However, for your assertion

And apparently it wasn't published until after Cicero's death.

Perhaps you would care to source yourself, given:

2nd Philippic (pamphlet, conceived as a senatorial speech, 24 October 44[4], possibly published only after the death of Cicero): Vehement attacks on Mark Antony including the accusation that he surpasses, in his political ambition, even Lucius Sergius Catilina and Publius Clodius Pulcher. Catalogue of the "atrocities" of Mark Antony. It is the longest of Cicero's Philippic speeches.

“Possibly published only after the death of Cicero� certainly is not a conclusive statement that it wasn’t. Further, it is stated as being conceived 24th of October 44 so I don’t see how a delay in its publication would render my points irrelevant in the least.

I'm of the opinion that Antony and Cicero unequivocally agree Caesar was killed. And that's about all they agree on.

And I don’t see how anything else is relevant.

Further, you haven't countered the point that it would be an idiotic thing for Christian writers to write things to people who presumably would be aware that things were being made up.

How exactly would they be aware that things were being made up? Unless you specifically state someone as being a witness who wasn’t, how is anyone going to disprove there were “five hundred unnamed witnesses�? It’s not remotely similar to accusing someone of ASSASSINATING THE EMPEROR.

The writers reputation would be tarnished if they did. Something even worse could happen to these writers as they named the witnesses who potentially could have been persecuted for their belief in the resurrection.

My apologies, but could you extrapolate here? I only see you as remotely having a point if the writers are making up the named witnesses, but in this statement it seems that it is assumed the named witnesses do indeed believe the resurrection occurred, so I am not sure what your point is.

Unlike Cicero who seems reluctant to come right out and directly accuse by naming names and didn't actually speak his accusations in public.

Hardly seems reluctant to me:

End of paragraph 10 and paragraph 11

Whose name was there which was not at once made public? I should sooner say that some men had boasted in order to appear to have been concerned in that conspiracy, tho they had in reality known nothing of it, than that any one who had been an accomplice in it could have wished to be concealed. 10 Moreover, how likely it is, that among such a number of men, some obscure, some young men who had not the wit to conceal any one, my name could possibly have escaped notice? Indeed, if leaders were wanted for the purpose of delivering the country, what need was there of my instigating the Bruti, one of whom saw every day in his house the image of Lucius Brutus, and the other saw also the image of Ahala? Were these the men to seek counsel from the ancestors of others rather than from their own? and out of doors rather than at home? What! Caius Cassius, a man of that family which could not endure, I will not say the domination, but even the power of any individual,—he, I suppose, was in need of me to instigate him? a man who, even without the assistance of these other most illustrious men, would have accomplished this same deed in Cilicia, at the mouth of the river Cydnus, if Cæsar had brought his ships to that bank of the river which he had intended, and not to the opposite one. Was Cnæus Domitius spurred on to seek to recover his dignity, not by the death of his father, a most illustrious man, nor by the death of his uncle, nor by the deprivation of his own dignity, but by my advice and authority? Did I persuade Caius Trebonius, a man whom I should not have ventured even to advise? On which account the republic owes him even a larger debt of gratitude, because he preferred the liberty of the Roman people to the friendship of one man, and because he preferred overthrowing arbitrary power to sharing it. Was I the instigator whom Lucius Tillius Cimber followed? a man whom I admired for having performed that action, rather than ever expected that he would perform it; and I admired him on this account, that he was unmindful of the personal kindnesses which he had received, but mindful of his country. What shall I say of the two Servilii? Shall I call them Cascas, or Ahalas? And do you think that those men were instigated by my authority rather than by their affection for the republic? It would take a long time to go through all the rest; and it is a glorious thing for the republic that they were so numerous, and a most honorable thing also for themselves.

If someone were making up stories about me that could potentially get me in trouble or persecuted I'd take action against that person. At the very least I'd defend myself by writing a rebuttal. Wouldn't you?

Yeah, and I’d circulate it too. While I was still alive.

What kind of evidence would you like?

A professional historian’s opinion supporting yours, at the least, would be quite nice.

I've already provided an argument for why Nicolaus got his data from Antony.

And I have asked for evidence. Your personal opinion does not qualify.

Where do you think Nicolaus got his data if not from Mark Antony?

Any younger senators involved, servants, etc. might be plausible candidates. Anyone they told are also possibilities.

Further, I've already given evidence, which you ignored, that suggests Nicolaus reported in a biased manor. Nicolaus himself calls Julius "the great Caesar" and speaks glowingly of him. He also portrays Caesar and Antony's relationship favourably and cites Antony as one of the avengers of Julius.

And Cicero rejoices at his slaying. If it were not for him, just maybe the hypothesis that Anthony made up the assassination for political reasons to make Caesar look like better and passed it on would hold some tiny amount of weight. As it is, there is no reason to consider that as evidence without a professional historian backing you up.

Furthermore, Mark Antony and Cicero agreeing on the matter is about as classic a case of enemy attestation as I can fathom. Early religious leaders disagreeing on some doctrinal details, on the other hand, are not good examples if they came to odds long after conversion. But if you care to list these opposing groups, I will address each case specifically to show why they are not good examples of enemy attestation when compared to Mark Antony and Cicero.

Now you are arbitrarily raising the bar for enemy attestation. You stated earlier...

The whole point of enemy attestation is that if there is agreement on something between two groups of people who don’t normally agree on things, the probability one group is making it up is decreased.

Christians that oppose one another and don't normally agree on things but agree on the resurrection fits your description of the whole point of enemy attestation nicely. There is no requirement for them to be mortal enemies or enemies in the same sense Cicero and Antony were enemies to be considered enemy attestation. You've given me enemy attestation whether you like it or not.
As for lists: If I were arguing from the Bible at this point I would cite Paul and Peter's opposition to one another (Galatians 2:11ff). But I don't need to cite the Bible for this. Eusebius confirms this opposition between Peter and Paul in chapter twelve of the first book of his Church History. Yet they both Paul and Peter agree on the resurrection. I'll also note the two extreme wings of the Marcionites and Ebionites (and the main stream proto-orthodox as well) that opposed one another and existed by the early second century. They all agree on the resurrection.

If there is anyone in the audience who actually feels he gets enemy attestation, please comment in the Peanut Gallery on what you feel is valid and I will address it. Otherwise I am not going to waste my time or the audiences rebutting this.

This is still arguing for why persecution can cause beliefs to become more entrenched over time. I'm willing to acknowledge that persecution can cause a deeper conviction of one's beliefs. However, this still does not address the issue that persecution can help minimize bias. You acknowledge that it can when you state that, "many [of the persecuted Chinese pastors in the study] had their faith damaged."

If one is biased, and their convictions are strengthened, that does not help minimize their bias. It just makes them more biased.

Further, this forum itself is evidence that persecution can aid in minimizing the tendency to be biased. The extreme fundy atheists and Christians are both either ridiculed or ignored here (both forms of persecution). Their biases are curbed somewhat and kept in check because of this. Those that stay on this forum generally tend to develop (or at least present) over time a much more balanced, less dogmatic, and less biased perspective. Thus demonstrating persecution can effectively aid in minimizing the tendency to be biased.

The majority of those at the extremes end up getting banned or leaving quickly. Further, those whose faith were damaged sufficiently are not likely the ones writing, and their writings are not likely to be preserved given the churches early penchant for book burning. That persecution can have the opposite effect means there is no reason to assume it minimized the bias of the writers.

You are arbitrarily raising the bar here by requiring Jesus to explicitly state thou shalt not create stories about me or something along that line. Jesus teaches following the commandments, including do not bear false witness (i.e. do not lie), as a requirement for eternal life (Matthew 19:16-18).
This is a powerful motivation to help keep in check the potential for Christians to lie or to be biased. I don't see any effective way for you to argue against this.

Bearing false witness is not a prohibition against all lying, as 1 Kings 22: 19-23 can make clear.

19 Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
22 " 'By what means?' the LORD asked.
" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
23 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

I can extrapolate further, but would prefer to focus on how things were done that were not considered deception back then that would be now than on instances of deception that were condoned and exploring the original meaning of bearing false witness.

Claiming someone had returned from the dead, if in fact he had not, would have been considered a lie in the first century ANE as it would be now. Are you seriously disputing this?

Visions were a lot more culturally accepted then. Although I would prefer to into more detail once I get to the historical reasoning part of historical methodology, for now I will leave it at being that if the first few genuinely believed they saw Jesus resurrected as the result of varying potential neurological and psychological causes, and said so, then later details end up getting filled in as the result of cultural practices and other pretty standard neurological phenomena (which I can extrapolate on, but would also prefer to do when going over historical reasoning in the next post).

What are you talking about? My mother-in-law is a published author and writes under a different name. It happens quite often and I'm not aware of anyone considering it lying. Further, and more importantly, your premise here is false anyway. There are multiple examples from different well known Christian writers honest enough to question the dubious nature and authenticity of later potentially pseudepigraphical gospels. So obviously it was not an acceptable practice amongst Christians ad your premise false.

How late were these Christian writers though? I’m certainly not suggesting all of the books are pseudepigraphical, but if accepted at the start, some can (and most scholars believe have) end up being misattributed to the wrong person and ascribed evidentiary value when there is no reason to believe they actually have much, if any at all. More importantly, however, is that it establishes many among the early Christians did not think of it as lying to make up stories or details that conveyed a moral truth. I can give both a list of works that made it into the Bible and even more extensive that were kept from becoming cannon, though some of which were circulated for hundreds of years in some areas.

Not to mention now you need to establish, for example, that Cicero's writings were not pseudepigraphical as it is allegedly not unprecedented for Hellenistic authors to engage in pseudepigraphy as well.

Not really, unless you actually have some accredited historians who think otherwise, the authenticity of Cicero’s writings are pretty well established. Probably has something to do with being able to analyze and compare over fifty speeches and eight HUNDRED letters. Many early Christian writings, however, have significant opposition based upon textual analysis.

So, if pseudepigraphy among Christian circles is evidence that they did not view truth the same way we do then this also applies to writers for the assassination such as Cicero and Nicolaus.

No doubt, which is why I’ll never argue the details surrounding the assassination should be taught as literally factual. The assassination itself I feel has enough support that it’s worth using as a comparison as we move through historical methodology, but I would like to point out that the more you try to undermine the assassination the more you show just how insignificant the burden of proof is for teaching something as literally factual when using your argument. Further, if you undermined it sufficiently that it could be declared as not being well enough supported to be taught as literally factual, then by your own argument it does nothing to show that the resurrection should be taught as literally factual. As I have tried to point, that it IS taught in history does not mean it SHOULD be taught in history (and given I am in quite an ABYSMAL history course right now to fulfill my state requirements, I can find more than a few examples of things being taught that are blatantly false). So without a standardized way to determine whether the assassination itself is worth teaching, your argument becomes one of constantly shifting goal posts by its very nature. Thus regarding all of your statements along the lines of “this can be applied to the assassination as well,� firstly I would ask that if you really think so, find some accredited historians who agree, as I am sure I can find some backing my position if you would like, and secondly, even if you can, at a certain point it becomes extremely counterproductive as eventually I can just concede that the assassination is too unreliable to teach as literally factual and you’re right back to square one.

Of course Christian writers had a bias. I've already conceded this just as you've conceded no historian is without bias. Are you denying this now? I've further given argument for why Cicero, Antony, and Nicolaus had motive to be biased and even lie. And that's all I need to do to reduce the evidentiary support for the assassination to be on par with the resurrection because that's all you've done regarding resurrection sources. That is, all you've done is provide a reason to think Christian writer's had motive to be biased. You'll argue that Christian writers had greater motive to be biased with weaker reasons to minimize and the evidence for the resurrection is therefore weaker. I'll disagree with your subjective opinion here on who had the greater bias. Appealing to people that have their own axe to grind, like Bart Ehrman, won't help you either. It's like trying to argue which is more beautiful, a sunset or a sunrise. All we can objectively agree on is that both are beautiful and both writers for the resurrection and assassination were biased.

Bart Ehrman became an evangelical as a teen and so desired to learn more about the word of God he learned five different languages so he could read the original manuscripts. He received a PhD and M.Div from Princeton Theological seminary, was president of the Society of Biblical Literature, is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and has a pretty impressive list of professional awards. Though I personally view his falling away from the faith as the result of his studies to be saddening (and a strong indicator one should not base one’s beliefs so heavily on a book being inerrant) not only is dismissing one of the most accredited biblical scholars alive merely as someone with an “axe to grind� disingenuous, it suggests (not for the first time) that you think your personal opinion is just as valid regarding academic concerns as experts in the fields under consideration. This is rather indicative of either a failure to understand how academia works, or that your bias makes you unable to accept expert opinion’s if they disagree with yours. Either way, though you may think appealing to qualified people who’ve spent most of their adult lives studying the material “won’t help me,� I suspect the vast majority of the audience will disagree.

Historian Dr. Gary Habermas[/url] gives an overview and lists some scholars that hold to pre-Pauline creedal passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 originating very early.

I’ll concede the creed within a couple of years, though it is still not as early as the second philippic.

Within about two months of the crucifixion around the day of Pentecost Peter preached...

"Jesus from Nazareth was a man...you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up and destroyed the pains of death, since it was impossible for him to be held in its power."

Not only have you now given me an early source in Paul's creeds but you also have given me enemy attestation between Paul and Peter agreeing on the resurrection. But it gets even better. By introducing Antony's oration via Dio you just gave me a very early (within only 2 months of the crucifixion) eyewitness testimony with Peter! Cha-ching...

Perhaps, if you trust Luke’s memory. Considering the traditional view is Luke was authored by a companion of Paul, but it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... e_Apostles]noted [/url] that “Acts and the Pauline letters appear to disagree about the number and timings of Paul's visits to Jerusalem, and Paul's own account of his conversion is slightly different from the account given in Acts�. For that matter, Luke’s own accounts of Paul’s conversion somewhat differ.


Criterion: Multiple independent sources strengthen the credibility of the message...

On this criterion the assassination does not fair anywhere near as well as the resurrection.

Firstly, an independent literary source generally means there is no evidence of dependency (e.g. copying) on another literary source. As far as I'm aware there is no need for the origin of the info to be someone different. For example, even if Nicolaus had recieved his data from Cicero, Nicolaus would still be considered an independent literary source. If there was evidence that Nicolaus had copied from Cicero then we could not fully class Nicolaus as independent. At least not at the parts where he copied. Capiche?

The reason that you think the resurrection does so much better is because you do not understand what “independent source� means.

Independent sources, in journalism, criminal justice and general research, represent two or more people or organizations which attest to a given piece of information.

Further:

If two witnesses to an event discuss what they saw before they are consulted and agree on a consistent story, they are also no longer independent.

So not ONLY do you need two people, there is little reason to believe the apostles themselves are independent given most descriptions have them “witnessing� the resurrection together.

What YOU have is a case of Circular Reporting.

In source criticism, circular reporting or false confirmation is a situation where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in fact is coming from only one source.

Getting your information from someone and then restating it does NOT make you a new independent source.

The only truly undisputed independent sources you have presented are Mark, John, and possibly Paul.

Even if that were true this would still be more independent sources than the assassination which has,
by your reasoning, only one truly independent source in Cicero. Therefore the resurrection wins on this criterion.

Actually, given there is no reason to believe Cicero made the speech written in Dios considering how positive it made Anthony look, even if one does not assume it to have been Anthony’s actual speech it can be asserted as an independent attestation that the assassination actually occurred since whoever did write it was taking it to be a fact. So at a bare minimum the assassination has two, compared to the resurrection having at most three that can be reasonably asserted as independent.

But yes, ultimately the resurrection can be seen as winning on this criterion (though barely and by even less than I initially assumed it would).

This analysis has led to Historical Criticism. Based upon Historical Criticism it can be determined that the author of the Gospel According to John almost certainly had no direct connection to the historical Jesus, further damaging its credibility of an independent source.

"Almost certainly," huh? Really? That's quite the claim you've made (or should I say wikipedia has made). Please support it with something more than an argument by link to wikipedia which in and of itself is unsupported. The gospel of John internally claims to be written by a witness. Do you deny this?

Well without Wikipedia it certainly makes it harder to state early criticism of it as a forgery from Marcion and Celsus since I’m certainly not going to dig through their manuscripts myself for where they stated that. But modern scholars include:

Bart Ehrman in Jesus, interrupted: revealing the hidden contradictions in the Bible (and why we don’t know about them) on page 112

Dr. Francisco Lozada, Jr., Chair of the department of Religious Studies at Vanderbilt University in New currents through John: a Global Perspective on page 208

E.P.Sanders, former Arts and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University and winner of the Grawemeyer Award for the best book on religion published in the 1980s, in The historical figure of Jesus on page 57.

Robert Funk, former chair of the graduate department of religion at Vanderbilt University, co-founder of the Jesus seminar, summed up the majority view of a 150 scholars with advanced degrees in biblical studies, religious studies, and related fields in the introduction of The five gospels. The opinion was so overwhelmingly against John that it was concluded the Gospel of Thomas was a better source of historically accurate information, and the second pillar of the “Seven pillars of scholarly wisdom� developed as a base of modern critical scholarship on Jesus became “Recognizing the synoptic gospels as more historically accurate than John.�

Geza Vermes, Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies and Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford who has been described as the greatest Jesus scholar of his time, concluded in The authentic gospel of Jesus that the author of the Gospel of John was most likely not even Jewish, much less the disciple of Jesus it is ascribed to.

Stephen Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University, in Understanding the Bible on pages 266-268 took the view that it is a largely unreliable account forged by an anonymous author posthumous to the Apostle.

Admittedly, it would have been simpler to just make a link to Wikipedia; but as can be seen, that link would hardly be unsupported.

Criterion: Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred...

I don't need to argue that Paul was a witness here. It is sufficient that we know Paul had spent time talking with witnesses which he did (see the first two chapters of Galatians).

But it matters not now as you've given me eyewitness testimony from Peter as recorded by Luke (or potentially from 1 Peter depending upon how we treat it).

Fair enough. I’m fine with treating Peter as someone who at least claims to have been an eyewitness, though I can find no such claim in 1 Peter.

Again, on every criterion the resurrection is at least as good, if not better, than the evidence for the assassination. After several rounds and additional criteria my argument remains sound.

Every? I think the audience would quite disagree with that. However, on the Source Criticism aspect I always expected the Bible to have a lead (and thought it would be much less narrow than it is). Though I could probably even further argue such points as independent sources and Peter as an eyewitness, I would rather get into Internal Criticism.

Because there is no doubt that the resurrection is mentioned more often. And there is little doubt that the vast majority of the ones mentioning it believe that it occurred. So based on Source Criticism, which is part of External Criticism, just maybe it would have sufficient evidence to be considered literally factual. (Though so would just about any myth mentioned by more than one person).

But in academic history, that is simply not enough. There are two more stages to the historical method, Internal Criticism and Historical Reasoning. For this post we will explore Internal Criticism, which is also known as Historical Reliability. Another way of putting it is that external criticism helps to keep us from using completely false evidence, things people have totally made up without any external reason for actually believing themselves, whereas Internal Criticism goes further and helps us determine the reliability of the evidence that makes it through source criticism.

The first method applies to eyewitnesses, so we will go through Peter and for that matter Paul since Paul claims to be a witness.

Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?

I think Ehrman actually makes a pretty good case that the first to say they saw Jesus never meant it in a literal sense and that most at that time would have understood it as a vision. I don’t really want to spend a lot of time on that in this section though since it is not set in stone that’s what was originally meant.

How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?

This is where Paul already fails. There is no indication at all that he had ever met Jesus while Jesus was alive, thus even if he ran into someone claiming to be Jesus he cannot reasonably assert that it was indeed Jesus risen from the dead and not some lunatic/imposter claiming to be.

What is more, neither Peter nor anyone else claimed to see the resurrection itself, but rather inferred its occurrence having supposedly seen someone they saw killed walking around again.

How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?

Peter presumably had the ability to report and is said to have done so through speeches and definitely stated it occurred in his letter (though I find no claim to being a witness in said letter, despite a statement that he witnessed the Jesus’ death).

Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?

I can scarcely imagine with someone with more motive to be biased. Either he’d just spent years of his life following around a nobody fraud who just got killed (which rather makes him less than a nobody) or he was a disciple of the Son of God. A host of psychological issues give him incentive towards finding a way to believe the latter.

When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.

If Acts is to be believed, it was at least a month after the first appearance. If taken as authentic, the letter is believed to have been written 60 at the earliest, almost three decades after the event was supposed to have been taken place. Acts brings up the question of, if Jesus was resurrected, why did he not prance around in public and make it as clear as possible he was indeed alive? Whereas the letter brings up the question of why Peter does not have any writings that are earlier? Paul wasn’t even a disciple but beat him to the punch? What is more, most biblical scholars argue that it is psuedigraphical and not even written by Peter at all. Even if assumed that it was a disciple of Peter, the earliest date believed for that is 70, over almost four decades after the alleged event, with most arguing for an even later date.

What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?

In the case of Acts, to convert people. In the case of 1 Peter he was reporting to people who already believed and appears to use the resurrection as a backup for his moral exhortation to them. Certainly both cases would require the resurrection, as no one has any reason to convert to the religion he wanted them to or follow the morality he wanted them to without such a momentous act. “Please follow the teachings of the guy who got crucified� just doesn’t have quite the same weight behind it as “Please follow the teachings of the guy who got crucified…then was raised from the dead by God and ascended into heaven.�

Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?

Not the tiniest bit indifferent. And whatever statements he might have made that seem damaging to himself (if any), he effectively elevated himself from loser nobody to beloved disciple of God. Further, his stated casual information is a being that cannot be proven to exist.

Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?

Yes. Dead people do not come back to life. Even if accounting for modern technology and a loose definition of ‘dead,’ they certainly do not come back to life without human intervention.

Are there inner contradictions in the document?

There are at a minimum contradictions between Luke and Acts, believed almost universally as being written by the same person, hurting the credibility of the author as a whole. And 1st Peter, besides being believed by the majority to be pseudigraphical, never seems to actually have Peter claiming to be a witness to the resurrection.

Ultimately there seems little reason to accept either document as providing reliable testimony from an eyewitness, and plenty of reason not to.
Now if these documents, as well as Paul and John were taken to be the accounts of secondary witnesses (still disputed), even if the first question of “On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements?� could be determined with certainty, and the 2nd and 3rd questions of “(2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony?� be satisfactorily answered such that it could be considered we actually have the gist of someone’s primary testimony, the reliability of said testimony would still be hurt by the same problems as 1st Peter. In particular, the problems of bias and the inherent improbability of a dead guy coming back to life.

Given I have seen no academic challenges at all to the reliability of the assassination, I will leave it to you to try and show the documents concerning it as somehow being less reliable than the documents concerning the resurrection.

But back onto John, it is at a minimum considered by most to be the result of an oral tradition, so let us see what happens when we run it through the considerations set up for examining oral traditions.

Broad conditions stated.

The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series of witnesses, reaching from the immediate and first reporter of the fact to the living mediate witness from whom we take it up, or to the one who was the first to commit it to writing.

Many of the scholars do not consider it an unbroken series and believe it to have no direct connection at all, but even if that were assumed to be true:

There should be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question.

Of the hundreds who supposedly saw Christ after his resurrection, and of the thousands who supposedly converted and thus took up the tradition following Christ’s supposed ascension into heaven, we have at most a few ‘series’ of witnesses that can be reasonably stated as independent.

It does not seem like John firmly meets the broad conditions very well.

Particular conditions formulated.

The tradition must report a public event of importance, such as would necessarily be known directly to a great number of persons.

Certainly if it happened it can be thought of as one of the most important events to ever occur in human history.

The tradition must have been generally believed, at least for a definite period of time.

Yet despite the importance it should have had, over 260 years later there were still at most 5-8 million (from The Rise of Christianity page 6) out of over 50 million.

Not exactly 'generally believed' when not even a third of the population believes it after 300 years of 40% growth.

During that definite period it must have gone without protest, even from persons interested in denying it.

Justin Martyr makes clear in his Dialogue with Typhro that there was indeed protest against the resurrection:

but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. Moreover, you accuse Him of having taught those godless, lawless, and unholy doctrines which you mention to the condemnation of those who confess Him to be Christ, and a Teacher from and Son of God.

From him we know that Jews were protesting the resurrection, believing it a hoax by the disciples.

The tradition must be one of relatively limited duration. [Elsewhere, Garraghan suggests a maximum limit of 150 years, at least in cultures that excel in oral remembrance.]

This one it actually meets. Fair enough.

The critical spirit must have been sufficiently developed while the tradition lasted, and the necessary means of critical investigation must have been at hand.

I see little indication, but if you would like to offer evidence it meets this criteria I would be happy to see it.

Critical-minded persons who would surely have challenged the tradition — had they considered it false — must have made no such challenge.

Besides Justin Martyr’s description of the Jews, we also have Tacitus labeling Christianity as a whole as a superstition. It certainly seems there were indeed challenges.

So even in conjunction with the other documents, John can scarcely meet the broader conditions, and itself fails at almost every particular condition that must be met for it to be accepted.

Ultimately, when internal criticism is applied, the documents fail to be shown as reliable. When historical reasoning, the final step of the historical method, is gone through in the next post, it will be shown that this unreliability makes the resurrection so much less plausible than alternative hypotheses that to teach it as a literally factual event would be a completely unreasonable violation of what is used by historians to form academic history.

[Goose]

If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will [be] fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.

I suggest Chaosborders reviews the above fallacy as he had made it multiple times in his last post. In cases where he merely cites the name(s) of a scholar as support for his position I'll assume he cannot address the actual argument presented.



Regarding Chaosborders attempt to reduce my argument (A) to the absurd...

Round 4

Here is Tacitus' account of the blind man being healed via Vespasian. How does this reduce my argument to the absurd?...

In the context of academic history miracles, the supernatural, and the impact of any God or gods is automatically excluded as the result of the process of historical reasoning. Most likely I will only get to internal criticism in this post and historical reasoning will have to wait until the next post, at which point I will go into greater detail as to why this is the case. However, for now I will simply point out that the logical conclusion of your argument’s form is the allowance of many events, this being one example, that are most reasonably labeled fables, propaganda, hoaxes, etc. to be taught as literally factual events.

There is no logical reason for the process of historical reasoning to automatically exclude a supernatural explanation or a miracle. The process itself argues to the BEST explanation that has both scope and power. To automatically exclude a supernatural explanation or miracle claim a priori because it is a supernatural explanation or miracle claim is circular logic. Surely Chaosborders recognizes this. So the only way he can reduce my argument to the absurd in this manner is if he firsts commits the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Further, your argument’s form relies on what is already being taught as literally factual, which is often a VERY different thing than what SHOULD BE (which I have already argued in previous posts are events that pass through historical methodology created by experts in the field and you have ignored as ‘irrelevant’) as the result of politics. So your argument’s form allows sweeping in such stories as Vespasian’s miracle through comparison against other events that may not themselves be true.

You are correct my argument relies on what is already taught as factual. My underlying assumption is that what is taught as historical in secular history has already passed through the historical method. If you would like to argue that there are things currently being taught in secular history classes as literally factual, such as the assassination of Caesar, that should NOT be because they would not pass the historical method, be my guest.

It broadens the things that could be taught as literally factual extensively, and in doing so can be allowed to teach two mutually exclusive events so long as each side has more support than a third party event that is taught as literally factual. This is its most fundamental flaw, though even by your argument (which given you set it up so that you could, shouldn’t even be difficult for you to ‘prove’ at all) the resurrection seems not to be overwhelming the assassination as greatly as one would expect.

You tacitly acknowledge the resurrection is overwhelming the assassination. Thank you. I agree. And thus my argument is sound. Logically, you have no choice but to accept its conclusion.

Look. Let's lance this boil to prevent any more whining. Simply replace where my argument says "another historical event" with "the assassination of Julius Caesar." Thus it would read:

Argument (A):
1. If the historical evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus is at least as good as the historical evidence for [the assassination of Julius Caesar] that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event, then the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well.
2. The historical evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus is at least as good as the historical evidence for [the assassination of Julius Caesar] that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event.
3. Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well (via modus ponens).

Now if you would like to argue that the assassination doesn't pass an historical method or it is not taught in secular history classes as literally factual, be my guest.



Regarding Dio's recording of Antony's oration...

Not entirely uncritically. James Anthony Froude writes in his biography of Caesar, Caesar:A Sketch (1879), “Dion Cassius ‘can hardly have himself composed the version which he gives, for he calls the speech as ill-timed as it was brilliant.’� I am a more skeptical person than Froude, but if one reads the speech and compares it to the other material available it would seem to cohere to the character presented for Mark Antony exceedingly well. So if Dion is a fraud, he really is a remarkable one.

I think you apply scepticism to the resurrection sources but appear to be quite forgiving on the assassination. For instance. You assert that Dio's speech coheres with the character of Mark Anthony presented in other material. What other material would that be? I'd wager if we dig we'll find out it's circular reporting. Something you seem to think the resurrection sources are guilty of. I'll also note that you feel as long as the character presented in one source coheres with the character presented in other material this is enough to establish reliability in the case of Antony's oration by Dio. That alone gives me the reliability of almost every source for the resurrection.



Regarding Cicero...

Unless someone in the audience speaks up and also does not feel Cicero is being explicit, I am inclined to think you are merely being stubborn on this point, as I earnestly do not know how someone with above high school level reading comprehension skills can read the 10th and 11th paragraphs and not think Cicero is stating Caeser was assassinated.

Let's put it this way. Where does Cicero explicitly state "Caesar was assassinated" as you claim he does? Quote it.

No, I argue as if [the Second Philippic] was circulated among the senate. I know that it was not an actual ‘speech’. However, for your assertion

It wasn't circulated amongst the senate either. If you think it was provide your evidence.

Perhaps you would care to source yourself, given:

2nd Philippic (pamphlet, conceived as a senatorial speech, 24 October 44[4], possibly published only after the death of Cicero): Vehement attacks on Mark Antony including the accusation that he surpasses, in his political ambition, even Lucius Sergius Catilina and Publius Clodius Pulcher. Catalogue of the "atrocities" of Mark Antony. It is the longest of Cicero's Philippic speeches.

You are right. We don't really have any idea when it was published. I should have written, "And apparently [the Second Philippic] possibly wasn't published until after Cicero's death." Can you show it was published before Cicero died? If not we have no reason to assume it was published before Cicero died.

“Possibly published only after the death of Cicero� certainly is not a conclusive statement that it wasn’t. Further, it is stated as being conceived 24th of October 44 so I don’t see how a delay in its publication would render my points irrelevant in the least.

Your points revolve around the assumption the Second Philippic was in circulation among all the accused and other senators while Cicero was alive. You haven't established this. At this point it's merely a self serving assumption.

I'm of the opinion that Antony and Cicero unequivocally agree Caesar was killed. And that's about all they agree on.

And I don’t see how anything else is relevant.

Being killed doesn't necessarily imply an assassination. We've been over this.

How exactly would they be aware that things were being made up? Unless you specifically state someone as being a witness who wasn’t, how is anyone going to disprove there were “five hundred unnamed witnesses�? It’s not remotely similar to accusing someone of ASSASSINATING THE EMPEROR.

Paul names more than just an anonymous five hundred witnesses. Paul writes, "[Jesus] was buried, he was raised on the third day in keeping with the Scriptures-and is still alive!-and he was seen by [Peter], and then by the twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Next he was seen by James, then by all the apostles, and finally he was seen by me, as though I were born abnormally late." So Paul explicitly names Peter, James (the Lord's brother), and the "twelve" which are understood to be the disciples. Further, you are again assuming Cicero publicly accused certain senators of assassinating Caesar. He didn't.

My apologies, but could you extrapolate here? I only see you as remotely having a point if the writers are making up the named witnesses, but in this statement it seems that it is assumed the named witnesses do indeed believe the resurrection occurred, so I am not sure what your point is.

For example, Paul writes that Jesus had returned from the dead and named the witnesses, such as Peter, in a letter that was intended to be circulated. Don't you think Paul would have been discredited if it were not true? We have evidence that the disciples taught the resurrection and were persecuted for their belief in it. Don't you think Peter would have taken action against Paul if it were not true what Paul had written? Especially considering we have evidence that Peter was worried about the consequences of being associated to Jesus.

Unlike Cicero who seems reluctant to come right out and directly accuse by naming names and didn't actually speak his accusations in public.

Hardly seems reluctant to me:

End of paragraph 10 and paragraph 11

Whose name was there which was not at once made public? I should sooner say that some men had boasted in order to appear to have been concerned in that conspiracy, tho they had in reality known nothing of it, than that any one who had been an accomplice in it could have wished to be concealed. 10 Moreover, how likely it is, that among such a number of men, some obscure, some young men who had not the wit to conceal any one, my name could possibly have escaped notice? Indeed, if leaders were wanted for the purpose of delivering the country, what need was there of my instigating the Bruti, one of whom saw every day in his house the image of Lucius Brutus, and the other saw also the image of Ahala? Were these the men to seek counsel from the ancestors of others rather than from their own? and out of doors rather than at home? What! Caius Cassius, a man of that family which could not endure, I will not say the domination, but even the power of any individual,—he, I suppose, was in need of me to instigate him? a man who, even without the assistance of these other most illustrious men, would have accomplished this same deed in Cilicia, at the mouth of the river Cydnus, if Cæsar had brought his ships to that bank of the river which he had intended, and not to the opposite one. Was Cnæus Domitius spurred on to seek to recover his dignity, not by the death of his father, a most illustrious man, nor by the death of his uncle, nor by the deprivation of his own dignity, but by my advice and authority? Did I persuade Caius Trebonius, a man whom I should not have ventured even to advise? On which account the republic owes him even a larger debt of gratitude, because he preferred the liberty of the Roman people to the friendship of one man, and because he preferred overthrowing arbitrary power to sharing it. Was I the instigator whom Lucius Tillius Cimber followed? a man whom I admired for having performed that action, rather than ever expected that he would perform it; and I admired him on this account, that he was unmindful of the personal kindnesses which he had received, but mindful of his country. What shall I say of the two Servilii? Shall I call them Cascas, or Ahalas? And do you think that those men were instigated by my authority rather than by their affection for the republic? It would take a long time to go through all the rest; and it is a glorious thing for the republic that they were so numerous, and a most honorable thing also for themselves.

Really? We aren't even told by Cicero what it is he is referring to here when he says "that conspiracy." We must infer it is the assassination. No where here does Cicero state any of these named people assassinated Caesar. Again you are inferring it. You wouldn't have any concrete idea what Cicero was even speaking about here if it were not for later writers such as Nicolaus and Plutarch.

Yeah, and I’d circulate it too. While I was still alive [if someone were making up stories about me that could potentially get me in trouble or persecuted].

Right. Because that is the natural thing to do if the stories are false. Accordingly, we have no such accounts regarding the resurrection. No one such as Peter, for example, writing, "Wait a minute, I never witnessed Jesus alive like Paul says I did."



Regarding Nicolaus...

What kind of evidence would you like [that Nicolaus got his data from Antony]?

A professional historian’s opinion supporting yours, at the least, would be quite nice

You call that evidence? I can't meet your demand because historians don't know where Nicolaus got his data. It could have been Joe the bartender for all we know. For some reason this doesn't seem to bother you...

I've already provided an argument for why Nicolaus got his data from Antony.

And I have asked for evidence. Your personal opinion does not qualify.

Why not? A second ago you were willing to accept personal opinion as evidence. Further, I've not merely given my opinion. I've given an argument. I'll concede it may not be a cogent argument. Nicolaus may have also received his data from Augustus. But even then Nicolaus is still getting his data from the same pro-Caesar vein.

Where do you think Nicolaus got his data if not from Mark Antony?

Any younger senators involved, servants, etc. might be plausible candidates. Anyone they told are also possibilities.

Talk about a shot in the dark. In other words you haven't got the foggiest where Nicolaus got his data. Maybe it was the pool boy...

So let's see. I've provided an argument that Nicolaus probably received his data, or at least some of it, from Antony based upon the premise that Antony was Nicolaus' employer. I'll concede this may not be a cogent argument as the evidence that supports Nicolaus being the tutor comes from Sophronius and is very late. But it is at least something to go on. And my argument here is more cogent than your argument that, well, it could have been almost anyone. Well duh! Your argument is basically a truism. Apparently it is acceptable to you that Nicolaus' source of data remains a mystery. Go figure...

And Cicero rejoices at his slaying. If it were not for him, just maybe the hypothesis that Anthony made up the assassination for political reasons to make Caesar look like better and passed it on would hold some tiny amount of weight. As it is, there is no reason to consider that as evidence without a professional historian backing you up.

Cicero's reaction is irrelevant. You haven't countered my argument and the evidence provided that Nicolaus reports in a biased manor. You've had two opportunities to rebut this but keep dancing around it.



Regarding the criterion of enemy attestation...

If there is anyone in the audience who actually feels he gets enemy attestation, please comment in the Peanut Gallery on what you feel is valid and I will address it. Otherwise I am not going to waste my time or the audiences rebutting this.

Dodging this argument by appealing to the Peanut Gallery doesn't make it go away. The argument stands.

However, if you wish to change your mind now and be more rigid in the application of the definition of enemy attestation that's fine. I will too. Strictly speaking the assassination doesn't have attestation from Cicero OR Antony. What you have is an inference from Cicero (as interpreted through later writers) on the one hand. With Cicero's version of what he claimed Antony said and Dio writing 300 years later on the other hand. No enemy attestation there either I'm afraid.



Regarding factors that minimize the tendency to be biased in Christian writers...

If one is biased, and their convictions are strengthened, that does not help minimize their bias. It just makes them more biased.

Bad logic. It makes them more convicted not necessarily more biased.

The majority of those at the extremes end up getting banned or leaving quickly. Further, those whose faith were damaged sufficiently are not likely the ones writing, and their writings are not likely to be preserved given the churches early penchant for book burning. That persecution can have the opposite effect means there is no reason to assume it minimized the bias of the writers.

This does not negate the fact that persecution can help minimize bias.

Bearing false witness is not a prohibition against all lying, as 1 Kings 22: 19-23 can make clear.

19 Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
22 " 'By what means?' the LORD asked.
" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
23 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

The point of 1 Kings 22 being God will use whatever means he chooses to accomplish his will. This does not give a green light to Christians to lie which you seem to be arguing it does. It's as though you are arguing Christians use 1 Kings 22 as a good for the goose, good for the gander type argument to allow lying. And I know of no Christian or theologian that does. Do not bear false witness means do not give false testimony whether in court or anywhere else. That is, do not lie, full stop. Christians are instructed by Jesus to not give false testimony and therefore instructed not to lie. I can't imagine how anyone would not see this as a motivation to minimize the tendency in Christian writers to be biased or lie. Which is all I need to meet the criteria's request to restore the credibility of Christian writers that are biased.

Visions were a lot more culturally accepted then. Although I would prefer to into more detail once I get to the historical reasoning part of historical methodology, for now I will leave it at being that if the first few genuinely believed they saw Jesus resurrected as the result of varying potential neurological and psychological causes, and said so, then later details end up getting filled in as the result of cultural practices and other pretty standard neurological phenomena (which I can extrapolate on, but would also prefer to do when going over historical reasoning in the next post).

Nice dodge. The issue of visions is a Red Herring at this point. Apparently, you do not dispute that claiming someone had returned from the dead, if in fact he had not, would have been considered a lie in the first century ANE as it would be now.

How late were these Christian writers though? I’m certainly not suggesting all of the books are pseudepigraphical, but if accepted at the start, some can (and most scholars believe have) end up being misattributed to the wrong person and ascribed evidentiary value when there is no reason to believe they actually have much, if any at all.

It still remains that your premise is false as relatively early Christian writers did not accept pseudepigraphy as a practice. Therefore, Christians did not accept as a practice this form of "lying" as you claim they did.

More importantly, however, is that it establishes many among the early Christians did not think of it as lying to make up stories or details that conveyed a moral truth. I can give both a list of works that made it into the Bible and even more extensive that were kept from becoming cannon, though some of which were circulated for hundreds of years in some areas.

Another non-sequitur. It does not logically follow that historical claims such as the resurrection or details surrounding it were "made up" because stories, such as parables, were made up to convey a moral truth.

Not really, unless you actually have some accredited historians who think otherwise, the authenticity of Cicero’s writings are pretty well established. Probably has something to do with being able to analyze and compare over fifty speeches and eight HUNDRED letters.

Circular. Demonstrate with evidence Cicero wrote his letters and they were not pseudepigraphical.

No doubt, which is why I’ll never argue the details surrounding the assassination should be taught as literally factual.

Fine. I'm not arguing here that the details surrounding the resurrection should be taught as literally factual either. Thus, by your reasoning, pseudepigraphy is moot and irrelevant to the debate.



Regarding Chaosborders complaints about my form of argument...

The assassination itself I feel has enough support that it’s worth using as a comparison as we move through historical methodology, but I would like to point out that the more you try to undermine the assassination the more you show just how insignificant the burden of proof is for teaching something as literally factual when using your argument.

I smell sour grapes. What I'm accomplishing by this form of argument is to show how good the evidence for the resurrection really is. And we are discovering through this process of comparison to the assassination, which is by ancient standards very well supported evidentially and considered an undisputed historical fact, the evidentiary support for the resurrection measures up very well. I'm also showing how the type of sceptical reasoning often used against the resurrection when applied to the assassination causes similar problems for the assassination as it would for almost any other event from antiquity.

Further, if you undermined it sufficiently that it could be declared as not being well enough supported to be taught as literally factual, then by your own argument it does nothing to show that the resurrection should be taught as literally factual.

The evidentiary support for Caesar's assassination, by ancient standards, is very strong. So strong in fact that I would contend very few if any other events from the same era are as well supported. In other words, if the assassination is not well enough supported to be taught as an historical fact then almost nothing from that time would be.

As I have tried to point, that it IS taught in history does not mean it SHOULD be taught in history (and given I am in quite an ABYSMAL history course right now to fulfill my state requirements, I can find more than a few examples of things being taught that are blatantly false).

It sounds like you want to argue the assassination of Julius Caesar should not be taught in secular history classes as historical. Is that where you really want to go now?

So without a standardized way to determine whether the assassination itself is worth teaching, your argument becomes one of constantly shifting goal posts by its very nature.

Patently false. I've set the bar very high and left it there by using the assassination as the goal line. I'm struggling to think of another event from around the same period that would be better evidentially supported (not including the resurrection) than the assassination of Caesar. Can you think of one? If the assassination isn't worth teaching as literally factual because it lacks enough evidentiary support then I'm afraid very little from a similar era will be.

Thus regarding all of your statements along the lines of “this can be applied to the assassination as well,� firstly I would ask that if you really think so, find some accredited historians who agree, as I am sure I can find some backing my position if you would like, and secondly, even if you can, at a certain point it becomes extremely counterproductive as eventually I can just concede that the assassination is too unreliable to teach as literally factual and you’re right back to square one.

The writing is on the wall now and you are about to be check-mated. If you would like to argue the assassination is not well supported enough or too unreliable to be taught as factual be my guest. Like I wrote earlier:

Maybe [Chaosborders will] be telling us soon that he doesn't believe Caesar was assassinated.

But don't feel badly. This is usually the fall back position of sceptics of the resurrection when the evidentiary support is compared to other historical events from a similar era. The resurrection is so well supported evidentially that you must either accept its historicity or go down the absurd path of rejecting the historicity of most of antiquity in order to be consistent.



More on bias...

Bart Ehrman

<...snipped Chaosborders off topic blurb about the life history of Ehrman and his credentials for brevity...>

...This is rather indicative of either a failure to understand how academia works, or that your bias makes you unable to accept expert opinion’s if they disagree with yours. Either way, though you may think appealing to qualified people who’ve spent most of their adult lives studying the material “won’t help me,� I suspect the vast majority of the audience will disagree.

I'm logically under no obligation to accept the opinion of a person on the basis of their credentials alone. Especially when there are other credentialed experts that would disagree. I'll tell you what though, I'll accept Ehrman's opinion if you accept William Lane Craig's...

You've drifted off onto a diversion about how fantastic your favourite scholar is because you can't counter my point that all I need to do to reduce the evidentiary support for the assassination to be on par with the resurrection is provide reason to think there was motive to be biased, which there was, on the part of the assassination writers. However, I've built the resurrection writers credibility back up by showing they also had motives to help minimize the tendency to be biased in 1) persecution and 2) Jesus teaching not to lie.

All this time on bias and we've accomplished very little.



Regarding the criterion of early sources...

I’ll concede the creed [1 Corinthians 15:3-4] within a couple of years, though it is still not as early as the second philippic.

Well, now you are splitting hairs. We're talking the difference of about one to three years. But it matters not anyway. If you are going to be this rigid I've got Peter's preaching within only two months and therefore an earlier source to the resurrection than the Second Philippic is to the assassination. Not to mention Peter is an eyewitness. In this light, the resurrection wins on this criterion if we are going to be rigid.

Not only have you now given me an early source in Paul's creeds but you also have given me enemy attestation between Paul and Peter agreeing on the resurrection. But it gets even better. By introducing Antony's oration via Dio you just gave me a very early (within only 2 months of the crucifixion) eyewitness testimony with Peter! Cha-ching...

Perhaps, if you trust Luke’s memory.

I trust Luke's memory writing about 50 years later more than I trust Dio writing almost three hundred years later. But it's not Luke's memory anyway per se. It's the memory of the witnesses he spoke to. Further, some of Paul's and Peter's sermons as recorded in Acts by Luke contain creeds as well. So the memory objection shouldn't be a significant issue. Add to this, all Luke really had to remember (or at least the winesses he interviewed had to remember) was that Peter and Paul preached the resurrection. Not something likely to be forgotten.

Considering the traditional view is Luke was authored by a companion of Paul, but it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... e_Apostles]noted[/url] that “Acts and the Pauline letters appear to disagree about the number and timings of Paul's visits to Jerusalem, and Paul's own account of his conversion is slightly different from the account given in Acts�. For that matter, Luke’s own accounts of Paul’s conversion somewhat differ.

So what? They don't disagree on the resurrection. Compare this to Cicero and Nicolaus which differ in their "lists" of senators. In fact, Cicero doesn't even give a detailed account at all where Nicolaus does. And Cicero contradicts himself in the Second Philippic. (See below)



Criterion: Multiple independent sources strengthen the credibility of the message...

The reason that you think the resurrection does so much better is because you do not understand what “independent source� means.

Independent sources, in journalism, criminal justice and general research, represent two or more people or organizations which attest to a given piece of information.

Firstly, we aren't discussing "journalism, criminal justice and general research." We are discussing ancient history and specifically the resurrection. So I'm thinking more along the lines of independent literary source as applied by John P. Meier:

The criterion of multiple attestation (or "the cross section") focuses on those sayings or deeds of Jesus that are attested in more than one independent literary source (e.g., Mark, Q, Paul, John) and/or in more than one literary form or genre (e.g., parable, dispute story, miracle story, prophecy, aphorism). The force of this criterion is increased if a given motif or theme is found in both different literary sources and different literary forms.

Secondly, if we go with your definition of what constitutes an independent source then Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1 Peter, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp are ALL independent as they all attest to a given piece of information - i.e. Jesus returned from the dead.

Further:

If two witnesses to an event discuss what they saw before they are consulted and agree on a consistent story, they are also no longer independent.

If the source in question must be a witness as one of the criteria to be considered independent, then you no longer have any independent sources for the assassination. Cicero wasn't a witness and neither was Nicolaus. Unless you can show that Cicero consulted different witnesses to the assassination before they had a chance to consult one another. I don't see how this possible as the witnesses to the assassination were in a group, like the resurrection, and undoubtedly consulted one another after the deed but before Cicero had a chance to speak with them.

So not ONLY do you need two people, there is little reason to believe the apostles themselves are independent given most descriptions have them “witnessing� the resurrection together.

Hello? The witnesses of the assassination were together in a group too. So, say bye-bye to any independent sources for the assassination. Bye-bye assassination sources...

What YOU have is a case of Circular Reporting.

Hello again? All the witnesses of the assassination were together and we are told they conspired amongst one another. YOU have circular reporting then too for the assassination. For some odd reason you seem to think it is different for the assassination. It isn't.

In source criticism, circular reporting or false confirmation is a situation where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in fact is coming from only one source.

Getting your information from someone and then restating it does NOT make you a new independent source.

Ditto for the assassination...

Actually, given there is no reason to believe Cicero made the speech written in Dios considering how positive it made Anthony look, even if one does not assume it to have been Anthony’s actual speech it can be asserted as an independent attestation that the assassination actually occurred since whoever did write it was taking it to be a fact.

Are you serious? You reveal yet another double standard here. By your reasoning here anyone that writes about the resurrection that takes it to be a fact is independent attestation that the resurrection actually occurred. What happened to being from a witnesses that had no opportunity to consult one another just a moment ago? Guess those criteria only apply to the resurrection, huh?

So at a bare minimum the assassination has two, compared to the resurrection having at most three that can be reasonably asserted as independent.

Even with the blatant way in which you've applied a double standard and erroneously tried to squeeze in Antony as recorded by Dio to bring the tally for the assassination up to two independent sources the resurrection still has more independent sources and wins. Face it. The assassination loses on this criterion.

But yes, ultimately the resurrection can be seen as winning on this criterion [of multiple independent sources]

Why all the fuss then? So we agree. The resurrection wins on this criterion as well. And therefore the resurrection should be seen as having stronger credibility.



Regarding the assertion that the Gospel of John has no connection to the historical Jesus...

Well without Wikipedia it certainly makes it harder to state early criticism of it as a forgery from Marcion and Celsus since I’m certainly not going to dig through their manuscripts myself for where they stated that. But modern scholars include:

<...snipped the Appeals to Authority for brevity...>

Admittedly, it would have been simpler to just make a link to Wikipedia; but as can be seen, that link would hardly be unsupported.

Citing the opinions of scholars without providing the evidence and their arguments isn't really my idea of support. Especially on a controversial subjective where I can cite respected scholars such as Simon Greenleaf, F.F. Bruce, or William Lane Craig to name but a few that would support my position. But it was my fault for not specifying what I meant by support. So I'll grant you another opportunity to support, with evidence and argument, your assertion that the author of the Gospel According to John almost certainly had no direct connection to the historical Jesus.

You ignored my question by the way. Do you deny that the Gospel of John internally claims to be written by a witness?



Criterion: Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred...

Fair enough. I’m fine with treating Peter as someone who at least claims to have been an eyewitness, though I can find no such claim in 1 Peter.

Because there isn't in 1 Peter and I've not claimed there is. I've only argued 1 Peter affirms the resurrection.



Regarding my argument (A) remaing sound...

Every? I think the audience would quite disagree with that.

Really? Of the many criterion we've looked at which one do you feel the assassination wins? Of all of them the only one the assassination possibly has a shot of winning is the criterion of having the earliest written document with Cicero's Second Philippic. Even though it isn't really much earlier, by ancient standards, than Paul's letters. And I'd concede this one if it wasn't hampered by the fact that Cicero doesn't come right out and unequivocally affirm the assassination. We need later writers such as Nicolaus and Plutarch to interpret Cicero. So I stand by my assertion that on every criterion the resurrection is at least as good, if not better, than the evidence for the assassination. Thus my argument (A) remains sound.

However, on the Source Criticism aspect I always expected the Bible to have a lead (and thought it would be much less narrow than it is). Though I could probably even further argue such points as independent sources and Peter as an eyewitness, I would rather get into Internal Criticism.

Chaosborders concedes the resurrection wins on source criticism. Thank you.



Regarding Internal Criticism...

Because there is no doubt that the resurrection is mentioned more often. And there is little doubt that the vast majority of the ones mentioning it believe that it occurred. So based on Source Criticism, which is part of External Criticism, just maybe it would have sufficient evidence to be considered literally factual. (Though so would just about any myth mentioned by more than one person).

You Beg the Question, what myths?

But in academic history, that is simply not enough. There are two more stages to the historical method, Internal Criticism and Historical Reasoning. For this post we will explore Internal Criticism, which is also known as Historical Reliability. Another way of putting it is that external criticism helps to keep us from using completely false evidence, things people have totally made up without any external reason for actually believing themselves, whereas Internal Criticism goes further and helps us determine the reliability of the evidence that makes it through source criticism.

The first method applies to eyewitnesses, so we will go through Peter and for that matter Paul since Paul claims to be a witness.

Well, considering the assassination doesn't even have a contender for an eyewitness, as a comparison I'll run Cicero through the same criteria as he is at least your earliest source.

Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?

I think Ehrman actually makes a pretty good case that the first to say they saw Jesus never meant it in a literal sense and that most at that time would have understood it as a vision. I don’t really want to spend a lot of time on that in this section though since it is not set in stone that’s what was originally meant.

You are wise not to. What did Cicero really mean when he wrote about a "glorious banquet"?

How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?

This is where Paul already fails. There is no indication at all that he had ever met Jesus while Jesus was alive, thus even if he ran into someone claiming to be Jesus he cannot reasonably assert that it was indeed Jesus risen from the dead and not some lunatic/imposter claiming to be.

Paul is irrelevant here. As I mentioned earlier I'm not arguing Paul was a witness. As for Cicero he doesn't even claim to be as a witness.

What is more, neither Peter nor anyone else claimed to see the resurrection itself, but rather inferred its occurrence having supposedly seen someone they saw killed walking around again.

Patently false. Peter, as quoted by Luke, directly claims to be a witness...

"You rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you, and you killed the source of life, whom God raised from the dead. We are witnesses to that."

Cicero again is a non-starter here.

How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?

Peter presumably had the ability to report and is said to have done so through speeches and definitely stated it occurred in his letter (though I find no claim to being a witness in said letter, despite a statement that he witnessed the Jesus’ death).

See the quote above regarding Peter claiming to be a witness. Paul also reports Peter was a witness in 1 Corinthians 15. So I have enemy attestation that Peter was a witness.

Cicero wrote a speech which he never delivered in public to be scrutinized by others in the know. Neither was his speech circulated amongst them.

Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?

I can scarcely imagine with someone with more motive to be biased. Either he’d just spent years of his life following around a nobody fraud who just got killed (which rather makes him less than a nobody) or he was a disciple of the Son of God. A host of psychological issues give him incentive towards finding a way to believe the latter.

Back to the issue of bias. Cicero had substantial motive to be biased too. Plenty of power driven motives for Cicero to lie.

When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.

If Acts is to be believed, it was at least a month after the first appearance. If taken as authentic, the letter is believed to have been written 60 at the earliest, almost three decades after the event was supposed to have been taken place. Acts brings up the question of, if Jesus was resurrected, why did he not prance around in public and make it as clear as possible he was indeed alive? Whereas the letter brings up the question of why Peter does not have any writings that are earlier? Paul wasn’t even a disciple but beat him to the punch? What is more, most biblical scholars argue that it is psuedigraphical and not even written by Peter at all. Even if assumed that it was a disciple of Peter, the earliest date believed for that is 70, over almost four decades after the alleged event, with most arguing for an even later date.

You've got all the same problems for the assassination. It's amazing you don't see it. Cicero doesn't give a detailed account and beats around the bush. Why? If the alleged accusations in Cicero's Second Philippic are true why didn't Cicero get out there and deliver his speech or promote it to everyone? Why aren't there more early writings attesting to the assassination? There were allegedly dozens of senators involved in this monumental event and what do we have? Crickets...Until Nicolaus 60 years later. Then more crickets until Plutarch 115 years later...

What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?

In the case of Acts, to convert people.

Luke wrote to convince Theophilus and possibly others. Acts was a two part book. Luke tells us why he wrote it and where he got his data.

Since many people have attempted to write an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were passed down to us by those who had been eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning, I, too, have carefully investigated everything from the beginning and have decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke was writing to Theophilus, who had already been taught, so he could be certain. Luke apparently got his data from eyewitnesses.

In the case of 1 Peter he was reporting to people who already believed and appears to use the resurrection as a backup for his moral exhortation to them. Certainly both cases would require the resurrection, as no one has any reason to convert to the religion he wanted them to or follow the morality he wanted them to without such a momentous act. “Please follow the teachings of the guy who got crucified� just doesn’t have quite the same weight behind it as “Please follow the teachings of the guy who got crucified…then was raised from the dead by God and ascended into heaven.�

Please... as though Cicero had no motive to lie. "Hey, Caesar got into an argument and then a fight with Brutus and in the heat of the moment Brutus killed Caesar" doesn't carry the potential to implicate one's political rivals like "Hey, Caesar was assassinated by some senators. My arch political rival says I was in on it but I wasn't. He was..."

Cicero wrote to defend himself and accuse his rivals. He reported purely for his own benefit. We don't know if Cicero's audience would be likely to suggest distortion because Cicero never publicly delivered his speech to the people that were in a position to know the truth.

Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?

Not the tiniest bit indifferent. And whatever statements he might have made that seem damaging to himself (if any), he effectively elevated himself from loser nobody to beloved disciple of God. Further, his stated casual information is a being that cannot be proven to exist.

What statements did Cicero make that were damaging to himself? In his Second Philippic he tries to argue he had nothing to do with the death of Caesar while also rejoicing in his death. He tries to make his case he was not an accomplice. Cicero effectively made himself an innocent hero that was on board with it all.

Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?

Yes. Dead people do not come back to life. Even if accounting for modern technology and a loose definition of ‘dead,’ they certainly do not come back to life without human intervention.

Dead people have been reported to return to life without assistance after having been pronounced dead in a modern medical facility by qualified medical personnel on several occasions. Further, it conflicts with our general experiences of politicians that dozens of senators would in broad daylight stab the head of state until dead. It's more probable that a head of state would die of natural causes, or at least be killed by accident, than by a stabbing assassination conspiracy involving many people.

Are there inner contradictions in the document?

There are at a minimum contradictions between Luke and Acts, believed almost universally as being written by the same person, hurting the credibility of the author as a whole. And 1st Peter, besides being believed by the majority to be pseudigraphical, never seems to actually have Peter claiming to be a witness to the resurrection.

I think if we looked in more detail at those alleged contradictions between Luke and Acts we would find you are over stating your case. As for 1 Peter you are right it doesn't internally claim to be a witness. But I don't need it to. I have Peter's words, as recorded by Luke, claiming to be a witness.

Does Cicero contradict himself? Apparently he does. Cicero can't seem to keep it straight to whom he is addressing his speech in the Second Philippic. Sometimes he is addressing the Conscript Fathers. At one point he's addressing a wise man. At other points it's the immortal gods. At times Cicero is addressing Mark Antony. Cicero is all over the map.

Also, Cicero writes that Antony's accusation was, "'When Caesar was slain,' says [Mark Antony], 'Marcus Brutus immediately lifted up on high his bloody dagger, and called on Cicero by name; and congratulated him on liberty being recovered.'" But only a few sentences later Cicero changes what Antony said to, "For thus [Antony] spoke:—'Marcus Brutus, whom I name to do him honour, holding aloft his bloody dagger, called upon Cicero, from which it must be understood that he was privy to the action.'" Cicero can't keep his story straight over the span of even one paragraph for crying out loud!

Ultimately there seems little reason to accept either document as providing reliable testimony from an eyewitness, and plenty of reason not to.

Ditto then for Cicero.

Now if these documents, as well as Paul and John were taken to be the accounts of secondary witnesses (still disputed), even if the first question of “On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements?� could be determined with certainty, and the 2nd and 3rd questions of “(2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony?� be satisfactorily answered such that it could be considered we actually have the gist of someone’s primary testimony, the reliability of said testimony would still be hurt by the same problems as 1st Peter. In particular, the problems of bias and the inherent improbability of a dead guy coming back to life.

Same for Cicero regarding bias. A dead man coming back to life is only a problem for those that rule it out a priori.

Given I have seen no academic challenges at all to the reliability of the assassination, I will leave it to you to try and show the documents concerning it as somehow being less reliable than the documents concerning the resurrection.

Done.



Back to John...

But back onto John, it is at a minimum considered by most to be the result of an oral tradition, so let us see what happens when we run it through the considerations set up for examining oral traditions.

Oral tradition? John internally claims to have been written by an eyewitness. Why are you ignoring this fact?

Your following assessment, using the criteria for oral traditions, of the Gospel of John is irrelevant as you are Begging the Question that it was the result of an oral tradition. So I see little need to address with any seriousness your comments on this matter until you establish with evidence John was the result of oral traditions and not an eyewitness account as it claims to be.

Broad conditions stated.

The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series of witnesses, reaching from the immediate and first reporter of the fact to the living mediate witness from whom we take it up, or to the one who was the first to commit it to writing.

Many of the scholars do not consider it an unbroken series and believe it to have no direct connection at all, but even if that were assumed to be true:

The Gospel of John internally claims to be a witness. Further, the last chapter affirms it was written by a disciple. If this isn't enough you have argued yourself that Polycarp and Ignatius probably received their data from the witness John. So either way we have an unbroken chain in either the Gospel of John, Polycarp, or Ignatius. Compare this to Cicero or Nicolaus. We don't have any evidence that I'm aware of that there is an unbroken chain of witnesses.

There should be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question.

Of the hundreds who supposedly saw Christ after his resurrection, and of the thousands who supposedly converted and thus took up the tradition following Christ’s supposed ascension into heaven, we have at most a few ‘series’ of witnesses that can be reasonably stated as independent.

Which is more than we can say for one of the most pivotal events from antiquity - the assassination of Julius Caesar. All we have is one independent source in Cicero. And to make matters worse we don't know where he got his data.

It does not seem like John firmly meets the broad conditions very well.

He meets it better than Cicero.

Particular conditions formulated.

The tradition must report a public event of importance, such as would necessarily be known directly to a great number of persons.

Certainly if it happened it can be thought of as one of the most important events to ever occur in human history.

Like the assassination was for the future of the Roman Empire.

The tradition must have been generally believed, at least for a definite period of time.

Yet despite the importance it should have had, over 260 years later there were still at most 5-8 million (from The Rise of Christianity page 6) out of over 50 million.

Not exactly 'generally believed' when not even a third of the population believes it after 300 years of 40% growth.

Firstly, I'm puzzled how the logical fallacy of an Appeal to Popularity could be considered a legitimate historical criterion. Which leads me to conclude either the criterion is fallacious or you are misapplying it. Secondly, these types of estimates you've linked us to are extremely speculative. For instance your source says about the city of Alexandria, "[it] was perhaps between 500,000 and 750,000." I'll add that 5-8 million out of 56 million (assuming these numbers are even remotely accurate) by c. 300AD sounds like a lot to me and impressive considering this was accomplished during a period of heavy persecution. At any rate, the tradition was generally believed among those that witnessed it anyway. Which is the only group in a position to know the truth and therefore of any real importance here. Comparatively, outside of the relatively few that would even know about the assassination how many believed the tradition that Caesar had been assassinated?

During that definite period it must have gone without protest, even from persons interested in denying it.

Justin Martyr makes clear in his Dialogue with Typhro that there was indeed protest against the resurrection:

but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. Moreover, you accuse Him of having taught those godless, lawless, and unholy doctrines which you mention to the condemnation of those who confess Him to be Christ, and a Teacher from and Son of God.

From him we know that Jews were protesting the resurrection, believing it a hoax by the disciples.

This is an odd criterion. Personally, I would of course expect parties interested in denying something to deny that thing and not be surprised when they do. Just as I would expect parties interested in promoting something as true to do so as well. Further, we don't know if this dialogue you've quoted falls in the time frame of a "definite period" because we aren't given that period or explanation for why that particular period is right. At any rate, it's really of no surprise the Jews protested the resurrection and tried to find other explanations. They were protesting Jesus from the start and at every step of the way so this protest from them over the resurrection carries little weight.

The critical spirit must have been sufficiently developed while the tradition lasted, and the necessary means of critical investigation must have been at hand.

I see little indication, but if you would like to offer evidence it meets this criteria I would be happy to see it.

John tells us that Jesus' own brothers did not believe in him (7:5). John includes the story of doubting Thomas (20:24-29). Now, please provide the evidence that Cicero for example meets this criteria.

[