Another example of Miller's confusion is his quote from the Res Gestae. He uses "Roman people" instead of "Roman citizens", but apparently fails to notice that an empire wide registration of Roman citizens is a very different kettle of fish from a census of all inhabitants. Similarly, Luke's census only makes sense for the purpose of a poll tax and no such empire wide poll taxation has been recorded, and Miller pointing to Herod taxing land is equally irrelevant, as it doesn't require a census.
Well hello again SpencerBenedict I wasn't addressing whether the tomb was empty or not. I was referring to WLC's apparent lack of understanding of the historical method. Since the dating, authorship and origin of the 4 canonic gospels (i.e. our main sources for Jesus) are so obscure, and since they're obviously religious texts, rather than an attempt at writing history, you can't simply take them at face value. And they're certainly not independent sources (Markan priority & 2 source hypothesis)
The only "gap" in the lists of governors of Syria is a brief period 4-1 BC (after Varus, but before Vipsanianus), and there are plenty of other candidates who fit. And the problem remains, that it is highly unlikely that Luke, if he's the "great historian" that some Christians claim, would not use Herod as a reference point, if the census was conducted during his reign, and not the governor of neighbouring Syria, who had no authority in Judea.
That's the crux: Either you can use arguments from silence to demonstrate the non-existence of physical objects, or arguments from silence are inherently fallacious in which case you cannot demonstrate the non-existence of physical objects. However, as Nielsen pointed out, even in the latter case, the continuous failure to positively prove existence should make us highly suspicious of this positive claim, and while unable to prove it wrong, it suggest the negative is more likely/plausible.
Oh, and in being an actual historian, I'd like to think I have a leg up on Glen M. Miller in this context, because his degrees are BAs in Computer Science and Theology, an MA in Computer Science and "one year+ toward a Ph.D. in philosophy (never to finish)" (according to Miller himself).
This beckons the question, if an empire wide census was taken: Why have we no record? As the purpose was likely an empire wide poll tax; why have we no record of such a tax? Why would the people of Judea meekly submit to an empire wide census, yet rebel against a local one in 6 AD, when the latter uprising cited biblical prohibitions? Apparently, Craig feels free to use arguments from silence when it suits his purpose, and to ignore them and declare them an invalid method when it doesn't...
It's not only the timing which is the problem. It's also the very unclear origins, i.e. we don't know where they got their information on Jesus. But if you do want some contemporary ancient sources, I would mention Caesar's Gallic Wars.
Does anyone know whether Veritas Forum (Finland) has any palpable plans of inviting any Christian apologist of Craig's caliber in the immediate future?
besides.. the whole timeline of history before BCE and CE was BC and AD.. AD stands for "Anno Domini", which translates to "the Year of Our Lord," referring to years after the birth of Jesus Christ... and BC.. before christ.
No, "relics" to a historian are not "artistic effects", but physical remains as opposed to textual sources ("narratives"). An original manuscript could thus be both a "relic" and a "narrative": For instance, an original handwritten diary would both provide an account ("narrative") of a life and physical remains ("relic") of that life. Relics of Alexander and Caesar are things like coinage, temples, and for Alexander the various Alexandrias.
Well, why would this absence of evidence be useful if arguments from silence are per definition (as Craig indicates when discussing the NT) fallacious? We would expect a census to be recorded if it was empire wide (because we have Augustus bragging about citizens' censuses), not to mention that the one we do know of (Quirinius' of 6 AD) caused a rebellion in Judea where one of the grievances was that the OT forbids such censuses.
There probably was some sort of "historical Robin Hood" as well, but it's likely that the difference between "historical Jesus" and "biblical Jesus" is as big as the difference between "historical Robin Hood" and "Disney Robin Hood" or "Kevin Costner Robin Hood".
In 1954 J.R.R. Tolkien published "The Lord of the Rings". The story was told far and wide and reached the homes of everyone's imagination for time immemorial. If someone decided today that the story of Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn was true and we should honor their memory as gods upon the earth, how far do you think that person's "faith" would go? Would he do what any of the Apostles or disciples did, that is willingly go to tortuous length and death to spread the message of Jesus?
"contemporary are the authors and they are eye witnesses of the events." Since we don't know who wrote the Gospels (hence also the wide variety of supposed composition dates), we have no idea if they were eye witnesses to the events described. The consensus dates I've referred to argue against it. From possible, but unlikely in the case of Mark, to highly unlikely (early dates for Matthew & Luke), to de facto impossible (John, late dates for Matthew & Luke).
Trans-Atlantic flights are scheduled overnight going west-east because the sun on the water causes evaporation, making the air more turbulent. E-W flights are scheduled early in the morning before the ocean has warmed up
Now Craig, on the other hand, once claimed that he could prove that there was no living Tyrannosaurus Rexes on Earth today. That's a very interesting task, if Craig actually applied maxim that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Unfortunately, Craig didn't explain how he could demonstrate the non-existence of current living T-rexes without essentially relying on an argument from silence and thereby violating his own maxim.
The lives of every martyr beginning days after the Resurrection of Jesus are the relics of Jesus. And they're more indelible upon history than any of Alexander's coins. After all, they changed Rome--the capital of all ancient aristocracy--into a gaudy shrine at every corner to the memory of a silent and humble Jew.
No, just an appeal to a bit of consistency in the argument from authority that relies on Luke being " a very, very, very reliable historian" (quote from Glen Miller)
So wondering why no contemporaries of Jesus either noticed or bothered to write about is a "total conspiracy"? Or is it the most agreed upon dates for Gospel composition among New Testament scholars which is the "total conspiracy"?
"....would certainly have treasured any source mentioning Jesus..." That is how we have all the apocrypha right. Rome with its political tradition is not christianity.
Furthermore, unless you have a very specialised oral culture where lore is kept by specially trained individuals (aboriginal tribal elders, Norse skalds, Celtic bards), the likelihood that a story, particularly about a messianic figure, will grow in the telling. The fact that the non-Christian sources are so scarce constitute "an argument from silence" against the "Biblical Jesus" of multiple miracles. It's simply not plausible that such events weren't noticed.
Two obvious problems: 1. If Josephus' actually wrote the entire passage, it chimes badly with him not writing anything else about Jesus. 2. A Jew would hardly include phrases such as "if it would be lawful to call him a man". That's why it's widely regarded as dubious at best (i.e. we don't know which part is Josephus) or an outright later addition.
"....If you only look at Craig's work...." I have not looked at Craigs theological work - I have red some of his philosophical work. What historians have you red that do not agree that Jesus existed?
No, it's not a "Historian's fallacy". That Glen Miller claims it is, suggests that he either doesn't know how historical methodology works, or simply ignores it in this instance. He effectively reverses the burden of proof and puts the onus on those who disagree with him to prove a negative (that a universal Augustan census didn't take place). And for your information, I am a Historian, and I can tell you that arguments from silence are a standard tool, exactly because you can't prove negatives.
"...Since we don't know who wrote the Gospels..." you maybe do not know - I do not have reasons to doubt early sources on authorship. "if they were eye witnesses to the events described." It depends what evidence you do take in acaunt. "The consensus dates I've referred to argue against it." Concensus gives reasons for dates this far I see no reason to doubt early references.
Furthermore, Ehrman was meticulous in only posing hypothetical scenarios which fitted Craig's facts, but which don't require the departure from standard historical analysis that appeals to *magic* entails. Craig's supernatural scenario is a form of special pleading, because I'm pretty certain he wouldn't accept a similar supernatural conclusion for, for instance, the Mormon golden plates, which are at least as well documented as the NT events.
"there are 40 authors writing about the events". Well, that's nice, but where did their knowledge originate? It's the basic question any historian would ask of the sources. All sources were not created equal. That's why HKYSPP asks for contemporary accounts. No historian would simply tally up the number of sources and conclude that the higher the number of sources the more believable the event.
"And accounts written 30+ years after an event are hardly "contemporary" by any stretch of the definition. "Can you name any antient source that does meet your standart?
Wow! "At least 6 independent sources" for the empty tomb? Oh, they're all from the New Testament... Then they're not necessarily independent are they Dr. Craig? Independent means authors not relying on (preferably not even possessing) the other accounts. It means authors with some form of 'privileged access' to knowledge of an event (either by first hand experience or accounts of such). Since the origin of the NT is so murky, it's very hard to claim independence authorship of the various parts.
Crucifixion is hardly the salient feature of "biblical Jesus", the resurrection is. Furthermore we've already been over the pros & cons of Tacitus and Josephus elsewhere. So let me just point out briefly that Tacitus mentions the crucifixion, but nothing about resurrection which also only appears in the Josephus passage obviously tampered with by later Christians.
So you consider Ehrman a "hyper-liberal lunatic"? Because he dates Mark to ca. 70 AD. The Luke/Matthew inconsistency is so well known (and recognised) that it hardly needs my reiteration. But if you insist, It's the conflict between Matthew placing the nativity during Herod's reign (died 4 BC) or Luke who placed it in the subsequent decade when Judea was incorporated into the Roman province of Syria where Quirinius was governor and under whom a census was conducted in 6 AD.
Actually, one (sadly quote mined) atheist philosopher, Kai Nielsen discussed this and reached the opposite conclusion. Now I find his stance rather extreme, but it is coherent (examples were the non-existence of unicorns and Santa Claus). Your cheesy moon example would be countered with: Well the surface is rock, but underneath it's cheese. But again, the analogy is not a good one because we could actually go to the moon if necessary. We can't go to the past until someone invents a time machine.
Hi, actually Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection is the best attested fact in ancient history. so not believing in this man's righteous life, then crucifixion, and finally the appearances of Jesus after his burial would cut out Nero, Alexander the great, and most of all history.
"1000 years after supposed original "??? So you don't think Caesar wrote the Gallic Wars? Or do you just reject it because we don't have original manuscripts?
No, there's no such evidence. Also, even if true, it would make little sense for Luke to use Quirinius as a reference point for a story taking place in neighbouring Judea, rather than Herod. This also suggests that Luke is writing of the 1st decade AD when Judea was incorporated into Syria and hence he would reference the governor.
"Relics?" Do you mean rather, artistic effects? If that's your rubric of evidence, then you would Jesus has a lot more to his name and iconography than any historical person ever known. Just take a walk in Rome, it's a literal shine at every corner to him. The city that was the materialist capital of the world. I don't think we'll ever find the bones of a Caesar or Alexander the Great, nor would we be able to reference-match a DNA strand found on such relics.
Isn't it strange that WLC has degrees in philosophy and theology, but none in history or the natural sciences, yet he spends most of his time trying to argue on the basis of historical and scientific analyses? I'm not qualified to judge either his theology, philosophy or his natural science analyses (though you can find qualified trashings of those even on YT), but I can tell you that the quality of his historical analyses most likely wouldn't get him past a first year historical methods course.
"....I would mention Caesar's Gallic Wars...." you must be kidding :-) 1000 years after supposed original - that is contemporary - I have no more questions.
Life expectancy of the era... And accounts written 30+ years after an event are hardly "contemporary" by any stretch of the definition. Secondly, we have no idea of who the actual Gospel authors were (and hence the origins of their information about Jesus). Pliny wrote of Christians roughly two generations after the crucifixion. Josephus has obviously been tampered with by later Christians. We have are obscure sources (Gospels) and unreliable sources (Josephus), all postdating events by decades.
"What "valid historical method" are you talking about?" The one where you, in contrast to Craig, don't have to check every piece of evidence or rational argument with your inner "thought policeman" ("the witness of the Holy Spirit") and then reject what it doesn't like...
No, none of these were contemporary with Jesus. The canonical gospels were most likely written ca. 65-75 AD (Mark), 70-100 (Matthew), 80-100 (Luke) and 90-110 (John). Hence they're very unlikely to be eye witness accounts of events taking place ca. 0-33 AD. Josephus wrote 93-94 AD, Pliny 110-112 AD. As to the Letter to the Hebrews, while attributed to Paul, consensus is that it isn't Pauline, and anyway it's usually dated to ca. 63-64 AD, again roughly a generation after the crucifixion.
Where am I inconsistent? I just gave you a very good reason not to take the Gospels at face value (the unlikely scenario that their authors were the only ones who noticed Jesus' multiple miracles). Furthermore, it's unlikely that we've lost non-Christian sources for Jesus as it was Christian monks who preserved most of the ancient texts we have today, and they would certainly have treasured any source mentioning Jesus and made sure it was copied (or "improved" as with Josephus).
Jesus has never left squat. The subsequent religion has of course left countless traces, but Jesus himself left nada. If you had taken even an introduction course in the historical method you would understand what I'm talking about. And no, I don't "believe in Alexander" at all. But it's pretty hard to explain those Alexandrias, the coins and other such CONTEMPORARY relics without him being a historical person, while we don't have anything like that for Jesus.
Yes. We know exactly when and where it took place. We know exactly who swore to have seen the plates, their backgrounds and when they lived. We know exactly who got the whole thing started in the first place, context etc. Contrast with the NT whose authors are anonymous. Whose central characters are equally unknown. Whose narrative time frames vary (nativity in Matthew vs. Luke). Whose date of authorship is still contested. And whose sources are equally murky.
"Schoolars agree on reliability of gospels as historical source." Eh no, they don't. And that's for the simple reason that they concern events not described anywhere else, and gives various accounts even of these events. Only apologists such as WLC make such absolutist claims of historical reliability, and that's due to dogma (of Biblical inerrancy), rather than analysis.
Sorry, but you're just plain wrong: Historians don't rely solely on written sources (narratives), but also on physical remains (relics), which are considered much better evidence than narratives. We only have narratives for Jesus vs. relics for all of the other usual examples given (Alexander the Great, Nero, Caesar or what have you). Furthermore even the Jesus narratives are not great sources (unknown authors, unknown composition dates, unknown origin of their Jesus information).
No, but neither is it of any use in proving they were right either. The "martyr argument" can be used for any number of other religions. It's quite odd that Craig turns up the scepticism when considering the "disciple conspiracy theory", yet is willing to accept supernatural explanations, even when alternative (non-*magic*) scenarios could equally well fit his facts - as pointed out repeatedly by Bart Ehrman. But I guess that's due to Craig being a theologian, rather than a historian...
Christopher Hitchens was dumb. He didn't answer direct questions about how the universe came about. He didn't prove atheism within a shadow of a doubt. That is how clever your statement is. Anyone can marginalize people unfairly. It doesn't change the fact that this man is brilliant, whether or not you agree with his beliefs.
Jews rebelled both in 6 (Judas of Galilee) and 66-73 AD, the latter being far larger and more violent. And yes, just supposing that Luke is right, that all of our other extant sources have ignored an empire wide census, and then that we just haven't found "the real source" yet is completely ad hoc. Did you accept my (intentionally ridiculous) claim that we just haven't found the source proving the disciple stole Jesus' body yet? Because that's the exact same style of ad hoc thinking you used.
"....Only apologists such as WLC make such absolutist claims of historical reliability, and that's due to dogma (of Biblical inerrancy), rather than analysis." WLC is not biblical inerrantist ..... What will you do if I will give you sources that are not christian and claims Gospels to be reliable historical source?
"....Wow, then why do we need historians, or Bible scholars?..." In the light of evidence schoolary evidence - I conclude. Historical analyse is most relevant here. Liberal interpretation lacks the evidence for total conspiracy you are claiming.
Sigh, back at the good old "but people died for it so it must be true" aka "the martyr fallacy". Need I mention the various faiths and/or political ideologies people have been willing to die/suffer for over the millennia? Just to take one of the more recent and glaring examples: Ever heard of Heaven's Gate?
contemporary are the authors and they are eye witnesses of the events. By your standat of scrutinity there are no antient contemporary sources to anything even Cesar of Rome. One more thing - in oral traditions there is no need for written sources - everything is memorized. Other example - Latvian folk songs. So how eyewitness accounts that are not chalenged by other contemporary sources are not valid?
No. It's that simple. The only ones who still cling to "traditional authorship" are those of a particular, let's call it "conservative", theological bent. We don't know anything of the disciples outside the NT, and next to nothing about Jesus. And yes, Matthew/Luke are clearly at odds at to whether Jesus' birth should be dated to about 6 BC or 6 AD. Or from about 70AD (Mark) to 90s AD (John).
Well, "relics" has is defined as either the physical remains of a bodily person, OR the "artistic effects" of their person. These "artistic effects" can be anything like you described, which I've already made the point, are incomparable to the physical legacies of Jesus of Nazareth. Are you telling me you believe in Alexander just because you found coins, temples, and cities named after him? Well guess what, Jesus has the very same physical legacies himself! You're just biased!
"I do not have reasons to doubt early sources on authorship." Wow, then why do we need historians, or Bible scholars? You just have to lack "doubt" about some conviction about what happened and when, and any historical analysis is irrelevant...
"...why no contemporaries of Jesus either noticed or bothered to write about is a "total conspiracy"?" Total christian conspiracy is what you claim as expanation. "among New Testament scholars" That is what you are ignoring. Schoolars agree on reliability of gospels as historical source. It is good that you are not yet claiming there are no manuscripts :-)
"....towards saying the stories are true..." You will be surprised if you will look at the actual scientific data. Craig did his doctorate under Panenberg on the subject,lol. I guess you just go with new atheists that negative has no burden of proof. Not the magical is the most interesting - It is the actual - that is the most interesting about Jesus and a lack of evidence for alternatives.
Yes, and maybe we'll find this amazing lost record which instantly proves that the disciples stole the body... Seriously, just saying "Well, maybe we'll find it tomorrow" is totally ad hoc. And it leaves the question of why such a major undertaking isn't mentioned in our extant sources, such as Josephus or the Res Gestae As to your "maybe because of Jesus himself?"; is that an attempt at a joke or are you seriously arguing that Jews wouldn't rebel around year 0, yet do so in 6 AD due to Jesus?
"...But can you give any contemporaries?..." Jon, Mark, Mathew,Luke, Paul, author of letter to hebrews ect. are Christian contemporaries. Pliny, Josephus, Mishna, Rabinic tradition ect. for none Christian. Your turn - so Many written contemporary sources for Robin Hood :-)
".....How about contemporary accounts?..." there are 40 authors writing about the events - 22 you would disregard as christians. Considering that cesar of Rome has 8 there must be something interesting about that carpenter. "How about accounts that don't all contradict each other?" those are called forged testimonies. "not a lot of evidence to say he did." not all is certain but you copared it with Robin Hood. Give me a brake,lol.
Yawn, yet another WLC video, which doesn't address the question of source material: How do we know "what Jesus said and thought" (as well as of the resurrection itself)? From the Gospels. Are they good sources? No, because they were written by unknown authors some time between 50AD and the 2nd century, and are of course heavily biased. What facts do we have even just near contemporary evidence for? The possible existence of Jesus + crucifixion, full stop (Josephus & Tacitus).
No, but they are CONTEMPORARY. Which part of this don't you understand? What you claim are "relics" for Jesus postdate his supposed lifetime by decades if not centuries. Alexander's coinage etc. are CONTEMPORARY. Need i repeat? OK, repeat after me C-O-N-T-E-M-P-O-R-A-R-Y. There, that wasn't too difficult was it?
"...Where am I inconsistent?.." you gave standart for sources and then broke it. Gospels 30 years after - unreliable Gallic wars 1000 years after compleatly reliable. That is hipocricy. "....ones who noticed Jesus' multiple miracles...." Miracle part in the story is the least interesting one. Details of stories correspond to evidence therefore - seeing Resuracted Jesus becomes plausible explanations of evidence science has. You do not need my permition to stay ignorant - it is your choice.
And where is the evidence of Craig's *magic* version? Historical analysis doesn't mean blithely accepting sources as gospel (pun intended). Craig strongly indicated that he's an inerrantist, by refusing to give any examples of errors or embellishments despite the question being posed three times by Ehrman and repeated by an audience member during the Q&A. Historians are especially sceptical about sources posing uncorroborated *magical* phenomena used to present a particular narrative.
Yawn, yet another WLC video, which doesn't address the question of source material: How do we know "what Jesus said and thought" (as well as of the resurrection itself)? From the Gospels. Are they good sources? No, because they were written by unknown authors some time between 50AD and the 2nd century, and are of course heavily biased. What facts do we have even just near contemporary evidence for? The possible existence of Jesus + crucifixion, full stop (Josephus & Tacitus).
