Theism.net Options: home
| articles
| books
| search | webmaster
.gif){kind=small}
e-mail: j
This exchange
began in the E-Mail
MailBag under Meet
Brian Holtz.
Debate opened January 2003
Do you
agree that (NT) scholars are individuals whose works are read, used, and
learned from by academia, not pop readership? Also, they are fully studied in
the archaeology, languages, anthropology, and history pertaining to New
Testament times? Please answer “yes” or share the basis of your disagreement.
No other comments will be posted.
Holtz:
NT scholars indeed are characterized
much more by their academic work than by their popularizations, and they
usually have the expertise you cite (although "fully studied" implies
some unspecified standard of fullness). I respect (and often cite) the secular
peer-reviewed professional scholarly consensus, especially as reflected in
reference texts. And I reserve the right not to demonstrate the truth of
propositions that are asserted as uncontroversial by that scholarly consensus.
The historical scholarly consensus indeed agrees
with your proposition A that Jesus existed, and even
goes beyond your proposition B to assert that he not only "faced"
crucifixion but died thereby. However, your C
"there is no body" goes somewhat beyond the consensus in its
present-tense implication that in the days and weeks after Easter there was an
actual missing-body problem noted by the relevant disciples. (I think there's a
fair probability that crucial disciples so noted such a problem, but that
probability simply does not rise to the level of confidence historians have in
Jesus' existence and death by crucifixion.) Similarly, your D "disciples
saw something" again exceeds what scholars would agree is the
uncontroversial consensus -- that, at minimum, some disciples had powerful
post-crucifixion experiences that came to be interpreted as manifestations and
even visions of a risen Jesus.
Okay, we agree on an operational definition of scholarly authority. We further agree that Christ existed, was crucified and became quite dead. What do you consider came of His body?
Holtz:
You write at http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/holtz.htm:
Okay,
we agree on an operational definition of scholarly authority. We further agree
that Christ existed, was crucified and became quite dead. What do you consider
came of His body?
For my thinking about the body's disposition, see my article at http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/GospelProbabilities.html.
I note that you do not dispute my correction of your
characterization of the baseline scholarly consensus. Does your
"definition of scholarly authority" include a provision that you
don't have to defend your mischaracterizations of the baseline consensus
produced by that "scholarly authority"?
Do you
agree or disagree with my affirming our agreement you quoted above? If agreed,
I shall move on to your “article.”
Moving on:
Regarding your ending statement
found in your link above, “That theists tend not to seriously consider alternative
superhuman explanations is another sign of their dogmatism,” I now solicit your
best “alternative superhuman” explanation as to Christ’s body’s
whereabouts—then and now.
Holtz:
The alternative I mentioned is not an
alternative set of hypothesized events to explain the evidence, but rather the
same outward events you say happened, but with an alternative
interpretation of the causing agency's intentions (or ability to
make those intentions understood). Again, I doubt whether you would be
non-dogmatic enough to seriously consider such alternatives.
If you want to focus on what events
caused the resurrection reports instead of on interpreting those events, are
you at least willing to demonstrate your freethinking about the disposition of
the body, specifically by assigning numeric probabilities (with
any confidence margin you choose) to a taxonomy of possible
explanations? For example, you might propose the following probabilities
for the gospels reports of an empty tomb as resulting from:
- the perfect salvific plan of an omnipotent omniscient benevolent
Yahweh: 0.99994
- Jesus surviving
crucifixion: 0.00002
- Jesus' corpse being
deceptively unaccounted for: 0.00002
- Most early disciples
knew of deception: 0.00001
- Most early disciples
duped: 0.00001
- Jesus' corpse being
innocently (and naturalistically) unaccounted for: 0.00002
- Tomb emptied
innocently (e.g. reburial): 0.00001
- No empty tomb (wrong
tomb, group burial, etc): 0.00001
Are you more dogmatic than this, or less? By how much? Or, what estimates would you assign in some other taxonomy of possibilities? Do you at least admit that it's untenable to assign zero probability (i.e. logical impossibility) to all non-Yahweh explanations?
Steve and Ed are doing such a thorough job of rebutting your thesis about the body's disposition that I don't want to distract you from giving them the best answer you can. If you're unwilling to seriously explore the entire space of possible explanations for (what you do not disagree is) the baseline scholarly consensus, then we should defer further discussion.
Now we are
getting somewhere. First, my ignoring your “mischaracterization” charge was
intentional, for I never implied non-theistic scholars agree with my
determination of the causing agent, only the fact of Christ’s existence,
crucifixion, death, and followers’ visions. Obviously, they deduce another
causing agent must have been in force or else they would not be non-theists,
now would they?
With that
said, probabilities
already came up in my mail with non-Christian theist
Dr.
Cavin. In his case, he
rejects all secular theories as to the causing agent other than his own Twin
Theory. Whilst an atheist, I held the position that if the Christ story was
more than myth, the probability of science explaining the phenomenon was vastly
higher than the probability of a preternatural entity raising Jesus from the
dead. I still respect that position. Understand, however, the fact remains that
such a position is science-based faith rather than theistic-based.
My change in position came after a Christian challenged me to back up my reasoning behind my rejection of the resurrection’s veracity. As I presented in the early Lock’s debate pages:
Miracle 1: an
extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs 2: an
extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment (Webster’s 9th
New Collegiate Dictionary)
Secular explanations
disputing Christ’s divinity required I accept numerous scientific and historical
improbabilities. The scientific principle of parsimony (Occam’s
razor) asserts that the best explanation for a set of facts is the simplest
one. I would have to apply the notion that "highly improbable"
translates into "impossible" equally to the swoon, twin,
dog-and-bird-eating, legend-developing, joint-hallucinations, martyrdom-of-
hoaxers, etc., explanations of the Resurrection account. All of those
explanations are "an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or
accomplishment" in themselves. To combine any or all of them is yet
another miracle.
Skeptics who value
science often refer to the Resurrection as a matter of faith (in its veracity)
and impossibility (of its veracity). Yet scientists reject the idea of
"impossibility." Skeptics who truly value truth and science should
refer to the Resurrection not as impossible but highly improbable. Christians,
I thought, who truly value truth and science would do the same. Who, I
wondered, is on steadier ground: the Christian with the parsimonious
explanation, or the skeptic with the convoluted explanation?
I wondered whether one
of the sides employs a double standard. To reject the Resurrection, I would
have to accept a conglomerate of highly improbable events, thereby accepting a
set of miracles over one miracle, the Resurrection.
I
ultimately remained true to probabilities considering I found it
extraordinarily more probable that a single highly improbable item answers the
resurrection story better than a conglomerate of highly improbable items.
Have a
little fun with the improbability factor of the Jesus-was-eaten-by-animals
theory considering, though improbable, it is not highly enough improbable as to
be considered nearly impossible. Nonetheless, to employ it requires enlistment
of other too highly improbable items.
As far
as asserting a probability such as yours:
“the perfect salvific plan of an
omnipotent omniscient benevolent Yahweh: 0.99994”
If a
Yahweh exists, which is possible, and all other variables remain constant, the
probability skyrockets to near certainty.
Holtz:
Attachment: To
You write at
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/holtz.htm:
my ignoring your “mischaracterization” charge was intentional, for I never implied non-theistic scholars agree with my determination of the causing agent, only the fact of Christ's existence, crucifixion, death, and followers’ visions. Obviously, they deduce another causing agent must have been in force or else they would not be non-theists, now would they?
The fact remains that your statement
nearly all NT scholars agree [..] there is no body [and] Jesus'
followers saw SOMETHING
is an
overt misrepresentation of what "nearly all NT scholars agree" on.
What does it say about your commitment to truth that you are unwilling to
acknowledge a prima facie misrepresentation in your oft-quoted creed-like
"position" about what "nearly all NT scholars agree"
on? I can only conclude that you are trying to give your thesis a level
of scholarly backing that it simply does not deserve.
With that said, probabilities
already came up in my mail with non-Christian theist
Dr. Cavin. In his case, he rejects all secular
theories as to the causing agent other than his own Twin Theory.
Nothing in the linked article (about
a Twin Jesus theory) comes close to evaluating the relative probabilities of
any of the possibilities I listed.
Whilst an atheist, I held the
position that if the Christ story was more than myth, the probability of
science explaining the phenomenon was vastly higher than the probability of a
preternatural entity raising Jesus from the dead. I still respect that
position. Understand, however, the fact remains that such a position is
science-based faith rather than theistic-based.
Your ability to type the phrase
"science-based faith" does not constitute an argument. Do you have a
precise definition of 'faith', or are you just saying "I'm a mirror,
you're glue..."? :-) My definition of faith is "belief based on
revelation and exempt from doubt". The simplistic claim that all belief
involves faith is addressed in my book at http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#WhatFaithIsNot:
Faith is not simply an absence of doubt, because
tautologies are beyond doubt and yet are recognized not revealed. Faith
is not simply any confident reliance on authority, because an authority can be
relied upon even confidently without being held exempt from all doubt. Faith is
not simply any provisional hypothesis believed without complete evidence,
because a proposition can be provisionally believed without being held exempt
from all doubt. Faith is belief based on revelation and exempt from
doubt. Fideists often say skeptics too have
"faith" in science or reason, but this corrupts the definition of
'faith'. Faith must be embarrassing if its only defense is the claim that
everybody is guilty of it.
The scientific principle of
parsimony (Occam's razor) asserts that the best
explanation for a set of facts is the simplest one.
Parsimony is a principle of
epistemology, from which science merely inherits it.
I would have to apply the notion
that "highly improbable" translates into "impossible"
equally to the swoon, twin, dog-and-bird-eating, legend-developing,
joint-hallucinations, martyrdom-of- hoaxers, etc., explanations of the Resurrection
account.
You (yet again) fail to address my
points that
- most of the disciples
were probably not aware of any theft of the body, and
- Peter and James are the
only resurrection witnesses who the New Testament names (John
Do you really have no answers to these arguments against the Christian resurrection thesis?
All of those explanations are
"an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment"
in themselves. To combine any or all of them is yet another miracle.
I say that a minority of disciples
stealing the body is not "extremely" unlikely; but is (a posteriori)
close to a 1 in 2 likelihood (with a prior plausibility
of perhaps 1 in 1000). If you disagree, I challenge you (for the third
time) to tell me what you think that a posteriori likelihood is closer to: 1 in
10^2? 1 in a 10^6? 1 in 10^20?
One possible scenario is that Mary Magdelene arranges (through Joseph of Arimathea?)
to steal the body. The facts about her are suspicious: a longtime disciple [Lk 8:2] "out of whom [Jesus] had driven seven
demons" [Mk 16:9, Lk 8:2] and who (unlike any
apostle) attended both the crucifixion and entombment. She was the first to
visit the tomb on Easter [Mt 28:1, Jn 20:1], and the
possibility of removal [Jn 20:2,14,15]
was not unimaginable to her. She weepingly lingered [Jn
Skeptics who value science often refer to the Resurrection as a matter of faith (in its veracity) and impossibility (of its veracity).
Anyone who thinks of science as an alternative to religion is making a basic mistake. Science is not a worldview, and any "conflict" between science and religion is actually an epistemological conflict between skepticism and faith.
Yet scientists reject the idea
of "impossibility." Skeptics who truly value truth and science should
refer to the Resurrection
You again fail to distinguish between differing possible theses that could be labeled "the Resurrection", as outlined at http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/GospelProbabilities.html.
not as impossible but highly improbable.
As I say in that article, your
thesis of "the Resurrection" is not impossible, but rather has a
probability of about 1 in 10000. However, I think that other possibilities
raise the overall "Resurrection" probability to about 1 in 50. I'm
sure you would reject these other possibilities (e.g. malevolent Yahweh), but I
doubt you've ever written (or read?) a justification for doing so.
Who, I wondered, is on steadier ground: the Christian with the parsimonious explanation, or the skeptic with the convoluted explanation?
You misunderstand parsimony if you
think the shortest explanation is the most parsimonious, because then
"miracle(s) happen(ed)" would always be the most parsimonious
explanation for anything. Parsimony is about explanatory economy, and
"miracle(s) happen(ed)" is not a very economic explanation. (However,
it is not impossibly uneconomic, and I once debated
into a corner some atheists who claimed that
miracles by definition can never be the best explanation for any phenomenon.)
To reject the Resurrection, I
would have to accept a conglomerate of highly improbable events, thereby
accepting a set of miracles over one miracle, the Resurrection.
The crucial issue is the overall
comparative improbability of the competing theses. Calling one "a
set" and the other a singleton is not a meaningful comparison.
I found it extraordinarily more
probable that a single highly improbable item answers the resurrection story
better than a conglomerate of highly improbable items.
This finding is only valid if you
have an argument that the "conglomerate" is indeed more improbable
than the "single". I see such an argument against the (ludicrous,
i.e. 1 in 10^9) Twin Jesus, but I see none against the Most Disciples Duped By Body Theft thesis.
Have a little fun with the improbability factor of the Jesus-was-eaten-by-animals theory
I made no mention of this subcase of the empty-tomb-story-resulted-innocently thesis.
As far as asserting a
probability such as yours: “the perfect salvific plan
of an omnipotent omniscient benevolent Yahweh: 0.99994”
If a Yahweh exists,
You here (yet again) ignore the
question of the nature (e.g. benevolence, supernaturality)
of the superhuman agency causing the Resurrection.
which is possible,
You here beg the question of the
likelihood of whether your version of Yahweh exists. Nobody here is arguing
that your version of Yahweh is impossible.
and all other variables remain constant, the probability
skyrockets to near certainty.
You (yet again) give no overall quantitative estimate of your confidence. Is the likelihood of a merely human explanation closer to 1 in hundred than it is to 1 in a trillion?
Baye’s Theorem
First, you
make the same mistake as science philosopher Dr. Cavin:
Historians DO NOT use Baye’s Theorem. There is a
reason why: it does not work on history. As I presented in my probabilities
link, applying the theorem to
To accept
that some disciples were duped, we have to accept:
a)
They accepted a
resurrection format outside of their biblical resurrection perception.
b)
They either pretended
or deluded themselves into believing they saw what the deceiver disciples
convinced them they should be seeing.
c)
The fruits of this new
life in the ancient “Hallu-Deck” proved rewarding
enough to live out the fantasy through persecution and some even to martyrdom.
d)
The thought never
occurred to any of them that perhaps the body had been stolen.
e)
Not even one eventually
came to his senses.
f)
All of them were
initially mentally unhealthy enough to undergo such fanaticism, for a mentally
healthy person would not likely adopt any of the above.
g)
Their metal illnesses
conveniently came together to accommodate the deceptive hearts of the other
disciples.
h)
The duped disciples’
illness and the deceitful disciples’ deceit conveniently came together to
accommodate Paul’s distant psychosis.
To accept
that other disciples stole the body, we have to accept:
a)
Items g and h
b)
They had a motive.
c)
The fruits of this new
life of con artist(s) proved rewarding enough to live out the scam through
persecution and possible martyrdom.
To accept
that some disciples stole the body and the others were duped, we have to
accept:
a)
A legend was birthed in
two generations rather than the centuries historians accept as needed for
legend creation.
From my debate with Temy Beal:
The historicity of the gospel
writers is more reliable than Alexander the Great’s.
Non-theistic scholars claim reports about the disciples arose after sufficient
time elapsed to develop legends. In contrast, historical documentation for
Alexander the Great’s existence appeared nearly 400
years after his death. Nevertheless, scholars agree he existed. If the gospels
were written 150 years after the crucifixion (and some historians have dated
the letters to the churches to under 30 years after the event), they are more
reliable than accounts of Alexander the Great. Scholars of both theistic
mind-sets accept Alexander the Great’s historicity,
but theism versus atheism splits scholars regarding the Gospels. Other
established historical figures include Suetonius, Tacitus, Thucydides, and Herodotus. Writings about them
appeared 800 to 1300 years after their existence yet are considered credible by
scholars of either theistic camp. Other than disliking the message, what is the
reason for this split?
b)
A new religion would be
created against the odds. Again, visit Holding at http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html
.
I
presented 11 highly improbable events. Most are considered “possible” only
because scientifically we avoid the use of “impossible.” They are, indeed, definition
2 of miracle, “2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or
accomplishment. Again, I find it
easier by far to accept one miracle of resurrection over 11 in secular
explanation.
Debate Tactics
Holtz often attempts to allow his argument items to end further debate as his previous attempts with me.
Holtz
“debated” no one “into a corner.” A reader could rationally accept either
position argued in Holtz’s referenced page. I read his other links; nothing
earth shattering there. My points remain. I will, though, forward Holtz’s Cavin comments and correct calculations to the professor so
he can discard his Twin Theory. Mr. Holtz is possibly a mere legend in his own mind.
Holtz’s
arguments ultimately lead to mental illness of Christ and His followers then
and now. See his exchange with J.P. Holding. He further attacked my character and the character of A.S.A.
Jones in his “analysis” of our testimonies.
Do note that, at last glance, Holtz has not provided his readers with a
link to our replies to his analysis. Let us hope he does so soon, for he will
be removed from these pages if not.
Holtz commonly argues that his operational agreed-upon definitions are actually something other than what the words and sentence structure indicates. Then he charges misrepresentation on those who do not share in his vision. I ask that Holtz please describe for us just what “There is no body,” means in his English. An address would be helpful for us to pay it a visit. Short of that, he needs to accept it as fact that there is no available body—only theories as to its whereabouts.
Non-Issues that matter to Holtz
“Your
ability to type the phrase "science-based faith" does not constitute
an argument.”
Then stop
arguing about it:
http://www.tektonics.org/whatfaith.html
“most of the disciples were probably not aware of any theft
of the body. . .”
Though I addressed that above, I add that Holtz presumes
non-resurrection. Had Jesus been raised,
that, too, would account for no thought of theft.
“. . . and
Peter and James are the only resurrection witnesses who the New Testament names
(John
A case of a single martyr under such circumstance warrants a revisit to psychology journals; two further the case. Granted, no evidence exists that recanting would have prevented martyrdom. No evidence exists to the contrary, either. Either way, I have never heard of a case of a hanging person being saved by spewing forth last words claiming innocence. Nonetheless, persons facing execution commonly have something to say. Frankly, I expect circumstances prior to death would have already possessed a person to back out of a lie about visions or the body. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume there is substance to Holtz’s concern: Holtz can then calculate the probabilities above excluding two martyrs. My point remains.
Theism.net
reader and participant, Daniel Pech, had comments:
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/emailbag_files/dan2mail.htm
February 2003
Holtz:
Attachment:
To_Jordan_2003-01-30.html
You write at http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/holtz.htm:
First, you make the same mistake
as science philosopher Dr. Cavin: Historians DO NOT
use Baye’s Theorem. There is a reason why: it does
not work on history. As I presented in my probabilities
link, applying the theorem to
You are right to reject a naive
application of probability, of the kind that would consider any poker hand to
be a miracle. Mine is not that kind of analysis. My only mention of prior
probability was to say that body theft by disciples -- the crux of the issue
here -- had perhaps a 0.001 prior probability, and I did not try to multiply
that probability against other prior probabilities in the chain of (even
uncontroversial) gospel events.
Instead, my analysis is of posterior possibilities:
analyzing the logically possible explanations of the existing evidence, and
partitioning the 100% probability of that evidence's existence among the
explanations that might account for that existence.
In fact, a case can be made that by applying probabilities, Christianity could not exist (http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html).
Turkel's analysis indeed appeals to the kind of naive poker-hand
thinking you criticize. (My detailed rebuttal of his essay is at here.) In fact, in my forthcoming response in that debate, I
considered analogizing his argument not to the American Revolution but to
America's miraculous WWII victory at Midway. But I don't think I'll pursue it,
because as you say, poker-hand thinking is already so obviously fallacious.
I reject Brian’s probabilities
because historians reject their application.
I doubt you could name a single
professional historian who 1) denies that the logically possible explanations
for a historical fact (e.g. the existence of the gospels) must sum to 100%
probability, or 2) claims that no judgments can be made about the relative
probabilities of those possible explanations. So: what is your next
excuse for not quantifying your claim that a human explanation is improbable?
:-)
To accept that some disciples
were duped, we have to accept:
a) They accepted a
resurrection format outside of their biblical resurrection perception.
Arguments that there was only one
possible kind of resurrection concept among potential members of the early
Jesus movement are easily countered by
- the existence of many
mutually inconsistent early Christian heresies about Jesus' divinity and
resurrection: Ebionism, Docetism,
Adoptionism, Dynamic Monarchianism,
Sabellianism, Arianism,
Marcionism, Apollonarianism,
Nestorianism, Monophysitism,
and Monothelitism;
- the pre-gospel
epistolary silence about physical resurrection;
- prima facie pre-gospel
epistolary evidence of a non-physical resurrection concept (e.g. 1 Cor 15:42-49, 1 Pet 3:18);
- arguments by Christian
apologists that the Jesus movement was a distinct innovation over
traditional Judaism;
- traces in the gospels
of an unimpressiveness and ambiguity in the
resurrection appearances that are more consistent with the early
resurrection tradition being spiritual rather than physical:
- Afterward Jesus
appeared in a different form to two of them [Mk 16:12]
- Jesus himself came up
and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him. [Lk 24:15-16]
- she
turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that
it was Jesus. Thinking he was the gardener, she said ... [Jn 20:14-15]
- Jesus stood on the
shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus. [Jn 21:4]
- When they saw him,
they worshiped him; but some doubted. [Mt 28:17]
- trace evidence in the
gospels that the early resurrection traditions were based on appearance
claims that were not very believable:
- But they did not
believe the women, because their words seemed to them like idle tales. [Lk 24:11]
- When they heard that
Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it. [Mk
16:11]
- These returned and
reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either. [Mk
16:13];
- the apostles' Easter
confusion and disbelief about the empty tomb, in spite of hearing Jesus
say at least four times [Mk 8:31, 10:34; Mat 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Lk 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 24:46] that he would "rise
from the dead" or be "raised to life" "on the third
day".
You continue:
b)
They either pretended or deluded themselves into believing they saw what the deceiver
disciples convinced them they should be seeing.
c) The fruits of this new life in the ancient “Hallu-Deck” proved rewarding enough to live out the fantasy
through persecution and some even to martyrdom.
f) All of them were initially mentally
unhealthy enough to undergo such fanaticism, for a mentally healthy person
would not likely adopt any of the above.
g) Their metal illnesses conveniently came
together to accommodate the deceptive hearts of the other disciples.
It's quite common for religious
fervor to induce certain degrees of delusion and fanatacism,
which can sometimes actually be strengthened by persecution and the
prospect of martyrdom. It's an obvious strawman
to say I call such believers "mentally unhealthy". This is the
usual apologetic fallacy of the excluded middle, in which everyone is either
mentally ill or thoroughly and rationally skeptical.
d) The thought never occurred to any of them that perhaps the body had been stolen.
I need not claim that, and on the
contrary, you even quoted me telling you that "the possibility of removal
[Jn 20:2,14,15] was not
unimaginable to" Mary Magdelene. (It's
fascinating that you are here unable to correctly construe my position.)
After turning away from their families, vocations, and possessions to follow
Jesus, the disciples can easily be forgiven for choosing to believe in Jesus'
triumph instead of in the obvious alternative of his humiliating failure.
e)
Not even one eventually came to his senses.
I obviously need not subscribe to
this strawman. It's hard to imagine that not a single
former follower of Jesus was among "the Jews" who Mt 28:15 says
believe "to this day" that the body was indeed stolen. Jesus
complains [Mt 11:20-23, Lk 10:13, Jn
10:32, 12:37, 15:24] in the gospels that even
witnesses of his miracles could deny him, so why would all such denials (e.g. Jn 6:66) cease after the post-Easter appearances (to only
"witnesses whom God had already chosen" [Acts 10:41])?
h)
The duped disciples’ illness and the deceitful disciples’ deceit conveniently
came together to accommodate Paul’s distant psychosis.
Paul's vision was years after any
body theft, and through his persecution of Christians he likely had all the
information he could need to have the appropriate vision.
To accept that other disciples
stole the body, we have to accept:
a) Items g and h
b) They had a motive.
As I said before, and as you
ignored: knowing just the evidence up to Good Friday, I would have guessed only
a 1 in 1000 chance of any disciple stealing the body. (Probably even a
little higher, since it's not unprecedented for religious zealots to
intentionally deceive their co-religionists for the greater good of continued
faith in a righteous cause.) But given the evidence about what happened after
Good Friday, and given the alternative possibilities (which you still decline
to even discuss), the odds of a stolen body rise IMO to almost 1 in 2.
c)
The fruits of this new life of con artist(s) proved rewarding enough to live
out the scam through persecution and possible martyrdom.
The deceptive disciples would
nevertheless remain believers in the cause of Jesus as the "Son of
God" and sacrificial redeemer. One suspect that I named (and whom you
ignored -- Joseph of Arimathea) was in very little
danger of persecution, since he was only "secretly" a disciple of
Jesus [Jn 19:38] (and thus adept at deception for the
sake of a justifying end). The New Testament is utterly (and suspicously) silent about the subsequent history and fate
of the other suspect I named, Mary Magdelene. The NT
says almost nothing of the specific risks and fates experienced by the core
apostolic group (other than Peter and James). At any rate, my hypothetical
deceivers would have been acting out of zealousness for the cause, and not to
undermine it -- or else they would have produced the body.
To accept that some disciples stole the body and the
others were duped, we have to accept:
a) A legend was birthed
in two generations rather than the centuries historians accept as needed for
legend creation.
No need for "legend
creation" from whole cloth here; we need only tall tales, exaggeration,
hallucination, and revelatory one-upsmanship.
The historicity of the gospel
writers is more reliable than Alexander the Great’s.
Non-theistic scholars claim reports about the disciples arose after sufficient
time elapsed to develop legends. In contrast, historical documentation for
Alexander the Great’s existence appeared nearly 400 years
after his death. Nevertheless, scholars agree he existed.
I'm not a Jesus ahistoricist,
so you're preaching to the choir. Also, for documents mentioning
Alexander, you're probably confusing dates of extant manuscript copies with the
dates of the copied texts' composition.
If the gospels were written 150
years after the crucifixion (and some historians have dated the letters to the
churches to under 30 years after the event), they are more reliable than
accounts of Alexander the Great.
What account about Alexander 1) says
he was the Son of God and 2) says [cf. Jn 20:31] it
has "been written so that you may believe" this? The gospels
are indeed reliable evidence of Jesus' life and teachings, but any accounts of
miracles by Jesus or Alexander are subject to equal skepticism.
Other established historical figures include Suetonius, Tacitus, Thucydides, and Herodotus. Writings about them appeared 800 to 1300 years after their existence
You again make it sound as if we
have no reason to think that there were copies of the relevant texts before the
currently-surviving manuscripts were copied down.
b)
A new religion would be created against the odds. Again, visit Holding at
http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html .
Again: read my demolition of his
piece here, and stay tuned for my nearly-completed
demolition of his response.
Again, I find it easier by far
to accept one miracle of resurrection over 11 in secular explanation.
Again, that finding is only valid if
you have a good argument that my 1 in 1000 body theft explanation is more improbable than a "one miracle" that
is freighted with a creaking superstructure of paranormal abilities and intentions.
You don't have such an argument, as is evidenced not only by my rebuttals above
but by your continuing unwillingness to quantify how much "easier by
far" it actually is to you.
That continuing unwillingness is also evidence that
you recognize the corner I backed you into when I asked whether the likelihood
of a merely human explanation is closer to 1 in hundred than it is to 1 in a
trillion. If you say something like the former (e.g. 1/thousand), then it's
obvious that such an improbable human explanation is still to be preferred over
a supernaturalism that is otherwise unwarranted. If instead you say
something like the latter (e.g. 1/billion), then it's obvious that you're a
dogmatist who isn't seriously considering a merely human explanation. Either
way, you lose; hence your silence.
Holtz often attempts to allow
his argument items to end further debate as his previous attempts with me.
I indeed have no desire for
interminable debates with the Christian apologists I've so far encountered on
the web, as they so rarely offer any arguments for which I don't already know
the answers. That is why I originally was seeking merely to learn whether your
conversion was due to any such arguments. It's clear that it wasn't.
H: I once debated
into a corner some atheists who claimed that
miracles by definition can never be the best explanation for any phenomenon.
J: Holtz “debated” no one “into a corner.” A
reader could rationally accept either position argued in Holtz’s referenced
page.
No they couldn't, for the reasons I
give there.
I read his other links; nothing earth
shattering there. My points remain.
Your every contrary point remains
rebutted; many of my arguments remain completely unanswered (see below).
If in your opinion we are at reflective equilibrium -- i.e., we've each offered
our best rebuttals against the other's statements --, then I'm happy to
consider this debate finished and allow our readers to evaluate those rebuttals
for themselves.
I will, though, forward Holtz’s Cavin comments and correct calculations to the professor so
he can discard his Twin Theory. Mr. Holtz is possibly a mere legend in his own
mind. [..] He further attacked my character and the character of A.S.A. Jones
in his “analysis” of our testimonies.
How ironic that you sophomorically attack my character, and then two sentences later charge that I've attacked yours -- when in fact you've offered no response to my previous detailed denials of doing so:
[A]nalyzing
your conversion does not constitute a "character attack"; [..]
Investigating conversion stories might help uncover better arguments than one
has seen (or appreciated) before [..]
[P]ersonal problems are a potentially confounding
influence that can make it harder to decide how much the arguments that helped
convert you could help convert other atheists with different histories. [..]
I asserted no conclusion about the strength or weakness of your character; I
merely noted that your history might confound a conclusion that you
"converted to Christianity purely because of comparing arguments".
[Y]our learning as an atheist seemed not to include first-hand familiarity with
the text of the Bible [..]
[Y]ou may not be a good example of "an atheist
having long-term experience with both side's arguments who later converted to
Christianity purely because of comparing those arguments." [..]
One's current "position" may be quite unrelated to the processes
involved in one's conversion. Your page's discussion of your being
"saved" and your "acceptance" of Jesus is several
paragraphs removed from this presentation of your "position", and
surrounds a link to your "personal testimony". Your conversion
story in fact reiterates your "position" as #8 of the 10 things you
"determined" during your conversion, and I quoted the heart of that
determination in my analysis.
Each and every one of these sentences can easily be defended as an objective statement of fact that is relevant to the issue of whether your conversion points to better arguments than an atheist may have seen before. The only issue of "character" here is whether you will desist from such legend-in-own-mind aspersions and from repeating your now-thrice-rebutted charge of "character attack".
Holtz’s arguments ultimately lead to mental illness of Christ and His followers then and now. See his exchange with J.P. Holding [aka Robert Turkel].
Your citing Turkel is ironic, since you repeat his fallacy of the excluded middle: that Jesus was "nuts" or God. There are varying degrees of delusionality, and no human could reasonably claim to be completely rational all the time. (To see the full unedited history of my exchange with Turkel, you actually have to go here.)
Do note that, at last glance, Holtz has not provided his readers with a link to our replies to his analysis.
I've included the link, and posted
my full correspondence with you, so that our readers
can more easily see just who has or hasn't replied to the other's analysis.
Holtz commonly argues that his
operational agreed-upon definitions are actually something other than what the
words and sentence structure indicates. Then he charges misrepresentation on those
who do not share in his vision.
False, and false. I explicitly state my definitions, and ask my interlocutors
to state theirs. (For example, I quoted my definition of 'faith' and asked you
to quote yours. You haven't.) I daresay I'm among the most careful users
of English that you'll ever encounter, and your failures to clearly write what
you mean do not constitute a failure of mine to correctly read what you write.
I ask that Holtz please describe for us just what “There is no body,” means in his English.
Those are your words, so I
ask you what -- precisely -- they mean. Do you deny that in "there
is no body" there is an implication that in the days and weeks after
Easter there was an actual missing-body problem noted by the relevant
disciples? Do you claim that such a prompt noting of a missing-body
problem is part of the settled consensus among academic historians? Or do you
speciously claim that "there is no body" just means there is no body
today?
he needs to accept it as fact that there is no available
body—only theories as to its whereabouts.
"There is no available
body" today for John the Baptist or Judas, but that doesn't mean either of
them rose from the dead. If your missing-body
problem really is just about why the body is missing in 2003CE instead of
c30CE, then your "position" is not interesting enough to debate.
H: Your ability to type the
phrase "science-based faith" does not constitute an argument.
J: Then stop arguing about it: http://www.tektonics.org/whatfaith.html
If Turkel
has a definition of 'faith' that you like, then cut and paste it here. If
instead you're going to emulate his tactic of argument-by-link-to-tektonics-obfuscation, then let's declare this debate
suspended so I can devote more of my theopolemics
time budget to debating Turkel directly.
H: most of the disciples were probably not aware of any theft of the body. . .
J: Though I addressed that above, I add that
Holtz presumes non-resurrection.
I don't presume it; I conclude it.
H: . . . and Peter and James are
the only resurrection witnesses who the New Testament names (John 21:18,19, Acts 12:2) as martyrs, but there is no evidence that
recanting their presumed belief in physical resurrection could have saved them.
T: A case of a single martyr under such
circumstance warrants a revisit to psychology journals; two further the case.
Martyrs are a dime a dozen; just
sift the ashes down in Waco. Peter and James are indeed exceptional in
that they had intense and long-term personal relationships with the salvific martyr for whom they presumably died, and so their
martyrdoms are exceptional only in being easier to explain than most.
Granted, no evidence exists that
recanting would have prevented martyrdom. No evidence exists to the contrary,
either.
Not quite true. We know that
Christians were routinely spared for recanting monotheism (which the Romans
considered effectively atheistic). I know of no Christian ever spared
merely for recanting the physical resurrection while still affirming Christian trinitarian monotheism. Thus the traditional
apologetic argument that martyrs and persecution verify a specifically physical
resurrection is fallacious.
I expect circumstances prior to
death would have already possessed a person to back out of a lie about visions
or the body.
You here do not correctly construe
my argument, let alone answer it. I have never said that any visions were
a "lie", but instead say they were sincerely misinterpreted cases of
mystically intense emotion or outright hallucination.
However, for the sake of
argument, let us assume there is substance to Holtz’s concern: Holtz can then
calculate the probabilities above excluding two martyrs. My point remains.
My rebuttals remain. If you're
satisfied that your "points remain", then I'll just repeat the points
of mine that remain unanswered:
- Your statement
nearly all NT scholars agree [..] Jesus' followers saw SOMETHING
is an overt misrepresentation of what "nearly all NT
scholars agree" on.
- The simplistic claim
that all belief involves faith is addressed in my book [..]
- You still fail to
distinguish between differing
possible theses that could be labeled "the
Resurrection". [..] I think that other possibilities raise the
overall "Resurrection" probability to about 1 in 50. I'm sure
you would reject these other possibilities (e.g. malevolent Yahweh), but I
doubt you've ever written (or read?) a justification for doing so.
- You misunderstand
parsimony if you think the shortest explanation is the most parsimonious,
because then "miracle(s) happen(ed)" would always be the most
parsimonious explanation for anything. Parsimony is about explanatory
economy, and "miracle(s) happen(ed)" is not a very economic
explanation.
- You here (yet again)
ignore the question of the nature (e.g. benevolence, supernaturality)
of the superhuman agency causing the Resurrection.
If instead of answering arguments like the above you plan to
throw at me more Turkel URLs and specious charges of
"character attack", then let's agree that
this debate has outlived its usefulness and part amicably.
Jordan:
Brian
continues clinging to probabilities, which are not used in historical
hypotheses—period! My case was made; he ignored it. He claims his probabilities
escape naiveté. You, the reader, be the judge.
This
debate has reached completion (07 March 2003).
e-mail:
j
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster