# Evidence for the resurrection **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594 "2006-05-13T03:25:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/181 "2006-05-20T05:18:16Z")
Actually, i am willing to grant Ramsay the adjective “great” when applied to his archaeological investigations. He did, indeed, provide a wealth of information reagrding the "map"of Asia Minor in the first century and he did it at a time when archaeology, itself, was in its infancy. I think swipes at his credentials in that regard are unnecessary. That said, it remains true that he was working in the infancy of archaeology as a discipline and not every conclusion he reached would necessarily be supported with the evidence we have accumulated in the 80 years since he retired from the field. More troubling, to me, are the constant claims from sites with religious agendas that persistently claim he was trying to refute various books of (Christian) Scripture. There is simply no evidence that I have been able to find to support such a claim. It seems to be an odd aspect of one particular variety of Fundamentalist Christian writer that they must portray everyone who has provided any claim supporting their side as a skeptic or atheist or unbeliever who tried to “disprove” Scripture only to be persuaded of its accuracy on the (rather scanty to my eyes) evidence. (It is rather like the frequent claims among the same group that Charles Darwin recanted of his Theory of Evolution on his deathbed. They need to portray all their supporters as having been converted from unbelief while characterizing their opponents as having “seen the light” (although never soon enough to publicly recant).) I think it is unfair to denigrate or dismiss the efforts of Ramsay–although there is no need to accept his word on “authority” when the evidence clearly points in another direction. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/182 "2006-05-20T05:20:09Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Which underscores another problem. People keep saying, “What if the Apostles were mentally ill?” or “What if there was bias in what Eusebius recorded? Maybe he can’t be trusted.” Once again though, that’s why I emphasize the distinction between _evidence_ and _proof_. The mere possibility for bias or error is not sufficient reason to discard evidence. … > > Now, this is the point at which **ambushed** and his like would say, “But you still haven’t proven that the Resurrection occurred, or that the Apostles were martyred!” and so forth. As I keep reminding people though, I am not out to provide **proof**. Rather, I contend that there is evidence for the Resurrection, despite what some say. You might propose alternate explanations, if you wish, but guess what? That doesn’t make the evidence vanish. As **tomndebb** said, it might not be compelling or conclusive evidence, but it’s nonetheless evidence to consider. Your harping protestations have become quite tiresome. Furthermore, you are being quite dishonest as you keep putting words in our mouths. I never demanded **proof** , I only demanded reliable **evidence** , and you have provided no such thing. Your so-called “evidence” boils down to nothing but the NT itself (which cannot be evidence – evidence, I wrote, not proof – of itself) and later writers simply repeating obviously embellished hearsay. So not only is there no proof, there’s **no reliable evidence whatsoever**. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/183 "2006-05-20T05:30:21Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, i am willing to grant Ramsay the adjective “great” when applied to his archaeological investigations. He did, indeed, provide a wealth of information reagrding the "map"of Asia Minor in the first century and he did it at a time when archaeology, itself, was in its infancy. I think swipes at his credentials in that regard are unnecessary. > > That said, it remains true that he was working in the infancy of archaeology as a discipline and not every conclusion he reached would necessarily be supported with the evidence we have accumulated in the 80 years since he retired from the field. > > More troubling, to me, are the constant claims from sites with religious agendas that persistently claim he was trying to refute various books of (Christian) Scripture. There is simply no evidence that I have been able to find to support such a claim. It seems to be an odd aspect of one particular variety of Fundamentalist Christian writer that they must portray everyone who has provided any claim supporting their side as a skeptic or atheist or unbeliever who tried to “disprove” Scripture only to be persuaded of its accuracy on the (rather scanty to my eyes) evidence. (It is rather like the frequent claims among the same group that Charles Darwin recanted of his Theory of Evolution on his deathbed. They need to portray all their supporters as having been converted from unbelief while characterizing their opponents as having “seen the light” (although never soon enough to publicly recant).) > > I think it is unfair to denigrate or dismiss the efforts of Ramsay–although there is no need to accept his word on “authority” when the evidence clearly points in another direction. I wasn’t trying to denigrate him. His work, as far as it goes, looks legitimate. I just think that characterizations like “one of the greatest archaeologists of all time” are hyperbolic and I know that his alleged skepticism is an exaggeration. From what I recall from reading about him in offline sources. he was always a Christian, he just wasn’t always a Biblical literalist. He wasn’t trying to “debunk” Luke, he just didn’t necessarily expect that Luke would always be accurate. For whatever reason, what he did discover was more impressive to him (and more persuasive to him personally of the historicity of the NT) than what he expected when he began. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/184 "2006-05-20T05:46:19Z")
> [@jimmmy](#): > > Well I waited and waited but no one is going to do it by me wishing it so: > > I would be interested in a GD ruling on this from\*\* Diogenes\*\* and **Tomndeb** and\*\* whomever else \*\* cares to weigh in. > > I think that the extraordinary claim that Jesus was entirely mythical while the scientific/historical consensus\* (save an iconoclastic and usually less credentialed few) is that he existed. If that is in fact true, then the burden to overturn a scientific consensus, in other words a hypothesis, needs provide proof not the other way around. > > [\*Not to pick on **ambushed** but sort of what he said in post 108] > > So who does have the burden of proof the guy who says: Jesus was entirely a myth or the person worshiped/mythologized & who we are discussing here is based on a real Jesus a Jew lived in Galilee and Judea ~5-32AD You either didn’t read my post very well or you are misrepresenting my position. I do not claim that Jesus was “entirely mythical” – hell, I don’t even know what that means! What I said was that **I have no burden of proof to establish that Jesus didn’t exist.** What I said is that it is impossible to prove that someone didn’t exist and that therefore the burden of proof is on those who wish to establish the historicity of someone like the NT Jesus. And no one has ever done that, as Mack and others have pointed out. The data are simply insufficient. I readily admit that the consensus of those who have looked for a historical Jesus believe that some historical person was at least in some vague, often unspecified way the most likely source of the inspiration for the Jesus Christians believe in. While I don’t understand on what valid grounds they hold this belief, I differ from it only in degree and also in my belief that the historical inspiration for “Jesus” was a composite of several people rather than just one. This is hardly an assertion on my part that “Jesus was entirely mythical”. You have misrepresented my position and those who think like me. And let me repeat: when it comes to establishing the existence of something or someone, the burden of proof falls on the those attempting to establish it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/185 "2006-05-20T05:47:25Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I wasn’t trying to denigrate him. His work, as far as it goes, looks legitimate. I had not thought _you_ were denigrating him. I just thought that the poor man should not have to suffer the dismissal of _other_ posters (in the eyes of the viewers at home) simply because some religious zealots have mischaracterized his efforts. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/186 "2006-05-20T05:53:57Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > My answer would be basically the same as **tom’s** on this but with a caveat that it might be the wrong question. I think that the issue is more complex than simply asking in a vaccuum whether Jesus was historical, it’s a question about what constitutes a better explanation for a known phenomenon. Namely, is the origin of Christianity better explained with a historical person at the core or without one. It could be said that the Gospels are myth either way (in the literary sense of the word) but the question is whether it’s mythicized history or historicized myth. Was Jesus a real person who has become buried under layers of myth and legend (essentially the mainstream view of historians and NT scholars), or do the gospels represent an attempt to _create_ a history for a figure who was originally pure myth (which represents the dissenting view of Doherty, Wells, Price, Carrier and others)? > > Since I think this is a question without a certain answer, I think it’s overstating it to say all the burden is on those who believe in HJ, When the question is framed in terms of what constitues a better explanation of history, I think the default is really somewhere in the middle. While it can’t be said that we have any real. smoking gun, incontrovertible proof that Jesus existed, I also don’t think we know enough to be certain that he did _not_. My personal opinion on this is that we don’t have enough data to know either way and I essentially agree with **tom** (and Burton Mack) that it’s probably fruitless to search for HJ in the evidence we have available to us. I think trying to find HJ in the Gospels is like trying to learn about the 4th Century Bishop Nicholas of Myra by reading Clement Moore’s “A visit from St. Nicholas.” There was really a St. Nicholas but you can’t learn much about him from the Santa Claus mythos. > > I should also point out that the HJ question raises the non-inconsequential issue how we determine the minimum requirements to qualify a historical person as being identical to the Jesus of the Gospels? How much does he have to resemble that person in order for us to say that Jesus existed? What if there was a teacher named Jesus who is the authentic author of the common sayings tradition found in the gospel but that he was not crucified? What if he _was_ crucified but did not originate the teachings attributed to the Jesus of the Gospels? need he have healed people? Performed any miracles? Been resurrected? > > Obviously, this question doesn’t have an easy answer and since there could be a lot of hypothetical kinds of historical figures at the root of the movement, I just don’t think it’s methodologically sound to say that we can be certain that there was nobody there at all. Cecil doesn’t like gushing and I’m sure you don’t either, **Diogenes** , but I want to second what I found to be an exceptionally good reply on that whole question (it’s far better than mine!). Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/187 "2006-05-20T10:10:00Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Despite your denial that you are claiming that Jesus was completely imaginary, that is the pretty clear subtext of your statements. I contend you are reading something into my statements that isn’t there, because I again deny that Jesus was “completely imaginary” and I deny I ever made such a claim or even hinted at it. To believe that Jesus was completely imaginary, one must posit that he was a completely invented character bearing much of the attributes and words the NT presents from virtually nothing in a single person’s imagination in a single moment in time, which is a preposterous view that I most adamantly do not accept. No, sir, my views are much more nuanced and I ask you to note this. To put it briefly (and therefore crudely and imprecisely), I think that the composite figure that was at some point given the name “Jesus” more likely arose prior to the early years of the first century CE (perhaps as early as roughly 100 BCE) and may possibly have been given the initial impetus by the model of the Righteous Teacher of the Essenes (though I am certainly not convinced that this is so; it’s little more than speculation). I think we have to posit a pre-Millennial origin for the synthesis (NOT outright invention) of Jesus out of various wandering Cynics and others (and possibly the Righteous Teacher model) along with their sayings (which I believe eventually became Q) to account for the belief in this (unknownst to them) composite character in the pre-Paulines. I agree with your later post in this thread that it is absurd to believe Paul or his contemporaries constructed Jesus; that’s simply too late in time. In fact, I don’t believe that Jesus was synthesized at any one specific point in time. Accretions (and that’s what I believe Jesus was) only occur gradually over time. But the main argument is that the are simply too many “Jesuses” for it to be possible that there was a single historical figure who served as the inspiration for the NT’s Jesus. Let me repeat part of my earlier quotation from Mack: > [@](#): > > [We have] the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (a lawyer for the defense), the pre-Markan miracles stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. \*\*Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential. \*\* Mack has thus compellingly argued that there can be no “historical Jesus” _per se_ and that this character can only be a composite of several individuals (whether one of them happened to be named Yeshua is besides the point). Such compositions are never “entirely imaginary” or “entirely mythical” since they are based – however loosely – on historical people. But the characters are mythical (again, in the sociological sense) nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/188 "2006-05-20T10:26:08Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Galatians 2:9:Cephas (Kephas), is certainly Peter of the Twelve and James and John are quite probably the two apostles prominently named as brothers. … Given that Paul certainly knew some of the twelve (at least to argue with)… As I’ve pointed out to others, you have **no foundation** for that claim. Where is your evidence that the Cephus (or anyone else) that Paul writes of was one of Jesus’ direct disciples? One of the NT’s original “Twelve”? Hell, if you can establish that Cephus was actually one of the Twelve, you have effectively established the existence of the historical Jesus! You are talking about a plainly historical person who would have directly witnessed the life and teachings – if not the miracles and resurrection – of Jesus himself! If there were evidence for that claim regarding Cephus, the quest for the historical Jesus would have long been effectively settled and I would believe in HJ. I beg you as I have begged the others making that claim to produce the evidence! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/189 "2006-05-20T13:24:26Z")
> [@Ambushed](#): > > I contend you are reading something into my statements that isn’t there, because I again deny that Jesus was “completely imaginary” and I deny I ever made such a claim or even hinted at it. Had you posted your views expressed in [Post #183](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7411461&postcount=183) earlier, I would not have inferred that you were making the claim I posted. Your posts prior to that spent a lot of time denying what we might know about Jesus without saying much beyond the denial. Without the proposition of an alternative source for the Jesus story, a denial that he might be real pretty much leaves us with only a subtext that he did not exist. I find your view that Jesus must have been a combination of multiple people to be a bit odd, given the lack of evidence you have presented, but it at least addresses the issue of where or how the story might have originated. > [@](#): > > Hell, if you can establish that Cephus was actually one of the Twelve, you have effectively established the existence of the historical Jesus! You are talking about a plainly historical person who would have directly witnessed the life and teachings – if not the miracles and resurrection – of Jesus himself! Yep! 😃 On the other hand, I can hold that Paul wrote a letter to a group of people in which he mentions a direct personal conflict with a person named Kephas and names James and John with the presumption that his audience would know the persons to whom he referred. He also mentions them in the context of the leadership of the Christian community. Does this “prove” that Kephas/Peter was one of the Twelve? No. But it provides a context in which three names that are associated with the leadership of the nascent church are identified by a contemproary witness as being leaders of that church. To posit that all these named people were simply constructs of later authors with no serious connection in reality is possible, but it seems rather unlikely. Certainly I cannot prove beyond a doubt that they existed in the context in which we find them, but I find the various coincidental and mutually reinforcing references much more plausible than some other construction. You may claim that there is “no foundation” for that supposition, but I would contend that such mutual “coincidences” suggest a more plausible (not proven) context than hypothesizing about multiple same-named persons suddenly coalescing into a legendary figure with no antecedents. YMMV ---
**Author:** ![jimmmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@jimmmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmmy)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/190 "2006-05-20T14:03:41Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > You either didn’t read my post very well or you are misrepresenting my position. I do not claim that Jesus was “entirely mythical” – hell, I don’t even know what that means! Well that is technically true because you said it, then took it back then danced around the edges of saying it again **ambushed** in Post 86 There are other alternatives, by far the most likely explanation (grossly simplified) is that the Apostles and Jesus never historically existed and that the Gospels were written by people who wished to create a faith-inducing narrative that combined in a chronological and easy-to-understand manner the many divergent stories they had heard (and believed, though unjustifiably) about what they didn’t realize was actually a mythological (in its sociological sense) figure created by their forbears and neighbors **ambushed** in Post 108 It is, of course, true that most historians and NT scholars do believe that Jesus was a historical person. However, as you can see in my reply to Lissa above (post 105), Burton Mack (among many others, though they are in the minority) compellingly argues that there are inadequate grounds for such a belief Then Diogenes called you on your misunderstanding/misinterpreting of Mack to support your assertions of mythicising in Post 116 we see your tone change. **ambushed** in post 116 This I take to be equivalent to stating that no one has ever established the existence of a historical Jesus. This is precisely what I believe. I make no flat assertions that Jesus was a mythological figure, I merely offer that as a compelling alternative hypothesis to explain the New Testament. So \*\*Of course you did \*\* say Jesus was a myth there is no doubt about it – you say it twice in fact– but you took it back – sort of – before I noted it. That may have been, a bit, assh\*lish of me but it certainly didn’t call for the supercilious tone you answered with. * * * As to the “Explosive Growth” has anyone read Rodney Stark’s famous [analysis](http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_n3_v56/ai_17612365) in the Sociology of Religion? It purports to show early Christianity and Mormonism probably grew at about the same rates and places an enormous emphasis on Christian Women as the growth engine (rather than mass conversions). * * * So I joined the parade and piled on \*\*JT Thunder \*\* a bit. And am feeling guilty (and fearing lightening bolts). I had this saved to argue with **Diogenes** with on the cross thing, but he typically took a sensible position rather than being a harda$$… So I offer this the [Nazereth Inscription](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth_Inscription) – which Christians Apologists for over a century point to as “evidence” of the Resurrection. **I DO NOT**. Let me say is that all it shows is that about 41 AD the Romans in Galilee were concerned about people messing with Graves and (to the point of this thread) people removing the entombed. I think it shows (again) that the Romans were really sensitive to this being an issue with the Jews and were trying to keep peace. Others say it shows a concern - _apologists it is easy to overstate the importance – there are always laws against grave robbers_. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/191 "2006-05-20T15:15:59Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > Fine. Joseph Smith’s tablets were. Golden tablets sent by God, and the witnesses signed a document stating they had personally examined the tablets. The witnesses testified that the had seen the tablets, not that they had seen them delivered by God or the angel Moroni. Nothing miraculous about that. Moreover, as I have repeatedly said, such testimony could count as _evidence_, although not necessarily compelling evidence. There is no inconsistency between accepting the apostolic accounts and the claims of Smith’s alleged witnesses as evidence, as this does not necessarily compel one to draw firm conclusions in either situation. > [@](#): > > No one can verfiy–even in principle-- that a man came back to life after being dead for three days. Nonsense. If people saw him dead beforehand, and if they saw him alive afterwards, then this would be reasonable verification thereof. For that matter, if they saw multiple credible testimonies from people who claimed to have interacted with the resurrected man, along with corroborating details, then one can likewise verify the resurrection. Absolute proof? Perhaps not… but once again, we are not dealing with absolute proof, nor do archaeologists typically expect to do so. > [@](#): > > You are asking people to believe the\* medically impossible\* on the words of a couple guys who claim to have seen it two thousand years ago. For the purpose of this discussion, I am not asking them to do so. Once again (and hopefully, for the last time), we are merely talking about whether there is EVIDENCE for that claim, not whether the claim is itself correct. One must first establish the evidence before drawing the conclusion. Moreover, if we are going to automatically dismiss the testimonies of people who existed “two thousand years ago,” then we must chuck a huge portion of ancient seculary history. This is clearly a double-standard. I’m willing to accept an increased degree of skepticism with regard to miraculous claims, but to suggest that we should automatically disregard their testimonies is not the hallmark of sincere investigation. And FTR, we are talking about multiple individuals, not just “a couple of guys.” Once again, I do not claim that this proves anything, but let’s at least characterise their accounts accurately. > [@](#): > > Yeah, if you take “in princple” to mean “we’ll take their word for it that there were other witnesses, though none of them ever recorded their observations.” Again, _not_ taking their word for it. In a courtroom, one may considere the testimonies of alleged witnesses without necessarily assuming that their accounts are 100% accurate. Once more, it is a matter of weighing the evidence first before drawing the conclusions. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, no archaeologist worth his salt\* ever\* goes out seeking to “disprove” Biblical or classical accounts. No responsible museum or university would fund such axe-grinding nonsense. And why not? Ramsay believed that the accounts of Luke would be readily disproven by archaeological evidence. He proved himself to be wrong. > [@](#): > > Again, the man may have been brilliant, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a loon, and I have a very, very hard time believing that such work was respected by his collegues. Let me quote what **Liberal** said about Ramsay [in a previous discussion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2133298&highlight=william+ramsay+doctorates#post2133298): "Sir William Ramsay, born in Glasgow on March 15, 1851 to a third generation Scottish lawyer, was appointed as the first Professor of Classical Art and Archaeology at Oxford in 1886. Archeology was a very young science. Few that held the formal title of “archeologist” even existed. "Ramsay was an historian who held nine earned (not honorary) doctorates — one each from Oxford, St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cambridge, Edinburgh, New York, Bordeaux, and Marburg. He was one of the founding members of the British Academy, and was awarded the Victoria Medal of the Royal Geographical Society in 1906. "According to the London Times (April 22, 1939, page 14), “Ramsay’s abiding fame will rest first on his comprehensive exploration of Asia Minor; … and secondly, on the new method which he developed and taught to students of ancient geography. On account of both he received worldwide recognition.” The obituary talks about Ramsay’s interesting and original approach to this new archeological science, “Taking into his purview sites of all periods down to the Byzantine, he sought the help of evidence neglected or little used before, notably that of local coin types, and that of Christian authors and legends, and set out to interpret the ancient geography of Asia Minor by noting the relative positions of points on roads and by applying the method of exclusion to administrative groups of towns, of which some members were already fixed with fair certainty in the map.” "Insisting on first-hand acquaintance with the facts, he read the manuscripts then extant himself in their original Greek and Latin, and used these to form the framework of his searches. His authority on the geography and history (i.e., archeology) of Asia Minor became legendary. After several visits and years of work in the area with other famous scholars, he wrote nearly a hundred articles for the ninth edition of the Encyclopeadia Brittanica and scores of other works that were spread out here and there. "The academic community clamored for him to compile his work into a single volume. The Royal Geographic Society published his magnum opus, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor in 1890. He wrote in his introduction, “My scheme has been (after several experiences of the difficulties caused by accepting wrong conjectures of modern writers) to make an absolutely fresh work founded on the ancient authorities alone, in which the geographical situation, the natural surroundings and the commercial advantages of each city should be set forth in an account of its history.” “He retired in 1911 after being knighted five years earlier during the celebration of the four-hundredth anniversary of the University of Aberdeen (where he was a professor of Latin) for his ‘distinguished service to the scholarly world.’” In the same discussion, **Liberal** also said, “Incidentally, it was in St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 1884, that Sir Ramsay discussed how his extensive research changed his mind. He wrote:” > [@](#): > > I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth. "Among his credentials listed are Honorable Member, Athenian Archaeological Society, 1895; former Professor of Classical Archaeology and Fellow of Exeter and of Lincoln College, Oxford, and Levering Lecturer in Johns Hopkins University, 1894."Was he nothing but a loon? The evidence suggests otherwise. Moreover, merely raising the _possibility_ that he was a loon does not prove (or even suggest) anything. Anybody can sling mud; providing reason to believe that Ramsay was a raving lunatic is much more difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/192 "2006-05-20T15:25:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Moreover, if we are going to automatically dismiss the testimonies of people who existed “two thousand years ago,” then we must chuck a huge portion of ancient seculary history. There is no testimony for a physical resurrection of Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/193 "2006-05-20T15:31:16Z")
BTW, in the interest of accuracy, I should point out that **Liberal** did cop to a few [errors](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2135088&postcount=209) in his initial post. Six of Ramsay’s doctorates were indeed honorary, and he held three prestigoius chairs rather than four. None of this detracts from the fact that he was still an archaeologist with an exceptional reputation that few men in history (if any) could match. The acclaim and honor placed on him by both academics and society at large still remain. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/194 "2006-05-20T15:40:13Z")
Three of his Fellowships were also honorary. Now that you’e done with yet another appeal to 19th Century authority, what is that you think Ramsay actaually _proved_? What did he even provide _evidence_ for? Many of Homer’s locations in the _Oddysey_ were real too. So what? King Kong climbed up the Empire State Building in New York. New York is real! The Empire State Building is Real! Therefore we have evidence that King Kong was real! ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/195 "2006-05-20T16:29:03Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > The witnesses testified that the had seen the tablets, not that they had seen them delivered by God or the angel Moroni. Nothing miraculous about that. Smith himself never claimed he saw them buried by God or Moroni. Those around him apparently believed his claim that he had been told where to find them. Let’s also add into the equation that Smith was not a rich man, and coming by enough gold to make the tablets would have been extremely difficult at best. > [@](#): > > Moreover, as I have repeatedly said, such testimony could count as _evidence_, although not necessarily compelling evidence. There is no inconsistency between accepting the apostolic accounts and the claims of Smith’s alleged witnesses as evidence, as this does not necessarily compel one to draw firm conclusions in either situation. Okay, let me see if I’ve got this straight. The words of a handful of apostles are enough to make you believe that a _man rose from the dead_ but the words of dozens of witnesses who actually saw the tablets (and swore to it by affixing their signatures) isn’t “compelling?” Aren’t you giving a higher standard of proof to the Mormons than you give to your own faith? > [@](#): > > Nonsense. If people saw him dead beforehand, and if they saw him alive afterwards, then this would be reasonable verification thereof. For that matter, if they saw multiple credible testimonies from people who claimed to have interacted with the resurrected man, along with corroborating details, then one can likewise verify the resurrection. Absolute proof? Perhaps not… but once again, we are not dealing with absolute proof, nor do archaeologists typically expect to do so. I noticed you ignored my question about whether they were certain of their identification of Jesus after the crucifixion. Again, I ask that you not make statements about what archaeologists and historians do when you obviously are not familiar with the workings of either field. > [@](#): > > For the purpose of this discussion, I am not asking them to do so. Once again (and hopefully, for the last time), we are merely talking about whether there is EVIDENCE for that claim, not whether the claim is itself correct. One must first establish the evidence before drawing the conclusion. And, as yet, no evidence besides the words of the apostles themselves, has been established. > [@](#): > > Moreover, if we are going to automatically dismiss the testimonies of people who existed “two thousand years ago,” then we must chuck a huge portion of ancient seculary history. This is clearly a double-standard. I’m willing to accept an increased degree of skepticism with regard to miraculous claims, but to suggest that we should automatically disregard their testimonies is not the hallmark of sincere investigation. Again, I tell you that no real historian or achaeologist takes a \*single work \*as concrete evidence that something happened. They would try to iodentify the site mentioned from internal clues, and then they would go and search the area for signs of inhabitation. Only if evidence of inhabitation, a battle or camp were loacted would they give credence to the claims. For pete’s sake, even the journals of Lewis and Clark are subject to historical skepticism. Archaeologists are always excavating newly-identified sites trying to see if Lewis and Clark were accurate. As another example, take the ancient city of Jericho. Archaeologists have studied the cite and from the evidence therein, they know there was a city (multiple ones built on the same location, actually, atop the ruins of the last) and that it was burned and destroyed a couple of times. (They see charred wood, items left in the rubble that citizens would not leave behind in a simple abandomnent, etc.). They also know that there were walls around the city, which at some point did collapse, but that’s not all that unusual, because most defensive walls fell at some point or another. That does not mean that Joshua caused them to tumble with a blast of his trumpet. (The desturction dates far before Joshua’s time.) > [@](#): > > And FTR, we are talking about multiple individuals, not just “a couple of guys.” Once again, I do not claim that this proves anything, but let’s at least characterise their accounts accurately. The acoounts ARE by a handful of people who CLAIM that others witnessed the event, but do not name them. “Taking into his purview sites of all periods down to the Byzantine, he sought the help of evidence neglected or little used before, notably that of local coin types, and that of Christian authors and legends, and set out to interpret the ancient geography of Asia Minor by noting the relative positions of points on roads and by applying the method of exclusion to administrative groups of towns, of which some members were already fixed with fair certainty in the map.” "Insisting on first-hand acquaintance with the facts, he read the manuscripts then extant himself in their original Greek and Latin, and used these to form the framework of his searches. His authority on the geography and history (i.e., archeology) of Asia Minor became legendary. . . . “My scheme has been (after several experiences of the difficulties caused by accepting wrong conjectures of modern writers) to make an absolutely fresh work founded on the ancient authorities alone, in which the geographical situation, the natural surroundings and the commercial advantages of each city should be set forth in an account of its history.” [/quote] Uhhh . . . could you point to the part again which says he was out to disprove the Biblical accounts? > [@](#): > > I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the **topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor**. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth. Seems to me what Ramsay is saying is that he did not think the scriptures would be accurate in the placement of ancient cities, things they saw there, or the cultures they encountered. Not surprising. I wouldn’t take the “Odessy” with me as a map if I were going back in time to ancient Greece. Ramsay says NOTHING about archaeology proving the miraculous claims of the apostles. > [@](#): > > Was he nothing but a loon? The evidence suggests otherwise. Moreover, merely raising the _possibility_ that he was a loon does not prove (or even suggest) anything. Anybody can sling mud; providing reason to believe that Ramsay was a raving lunatic is much more difficult. I apologize for my previous comments. I was going off your claims that “the greatest archaeologist of all time” (who I, as a historian who works closely with archaeologists had never heard of) went out on a mission to disprove the Bible, which to me, would be the actions of a loon, not to mention that of a piss-poor archaeologist. Now that I know he did not, I retract it. > [@](#): > > TW, in the interest of accuracy, I should point out that Liberal did cop to a few errors in his initial post. Six of Ramsay’s doctorates were indeed honorary, and he held three prestigoius chairs rather than four. None of this detracts from the fact that he was still an archaeologist with an exceptional reputation that few men in history (if any) could match. The acclaim and honor placed on him by both academics and society at large still remain. I bet Zahi Hawass could kick his ass. ---
**Author:** ![Tripwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@Tripwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripwire)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/196 "2006-05-20T19:53:37Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Was he nothing but a loon? The evidence suggests otherwise. What I and others suggested was that the story of his findings and conversion sounds a bit mythicized (and guess what: it was, just as predicted!) and that merely citing his reputation and telling his story in the copy-paste parlance of a breathless evangelical tract is not itself an argument that Luke was an accurate historian as he felt he was. > [@](#): > > Moreover, merely raising the _possibility_ that he was a loon does not prove (or even suggest) anything. Anybody can sling mud; providing reason to believe that Ramsay was a raving lunatic is much more difficult. This is doubly unfair of you because it is simply another dodge from any attempt to discuss exactly what it was that convinced Ramsay. Every evidence seems to suggest that he was, just as you pre-attacked DtC for, overly impressed with the fact that Luke did not place his acocunting of events in a mythical geography. You’ve focused almost exclusively on characterizing substantive criticism as merely slinging mud or attacking his reputation. But it wasn’t anyone else that tried to rest the argument almost entirely on an appeal to his reputation. If your hyberbole has to be deflated, it’s your fault for relying mostly on hyperbole and not presenting any sort of accounting of his actual arguments to discuss. You attempt to shift responsibility here is stunning and shifty. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/197 "2006-05-20T21:45:11Z")
From Ramsay: > [@](#): > > I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. If this is the point on which people have declared > [@](#): > > In the past, I’ve cited the account of Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archaeologists of all time. He spent several years in the Holy Land, attempting to disprove the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. After decades of futile searching, he was forced to declare that “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense…in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.” To suggest that we have absolutely zero reason to believe Luke’s account is overstating the matter. then the people writing those web sites (or the works on which they are built) are singularly dishonest. The Tübingen Theory was not an effort to deny the Scriptures and an adherent of the Tübingen Theory would, generally, have believed that the Scriptures were true. The only issue that the Tübingen Theory brought to the discussion was a characterization, rooted in Hegelian dialectic, that various books of the New Testament were written to support either a “Petrine” or a “Pauline” theology which were in conflict. Ramsay discovering various archaeological facts that supported the geography and history of the Eastern Mediterranean while investigating the facts on which Luke based his story was a bonus. His “mind unfavorable” was not a belief that the Gospels had been imagined out of whole cloth, but a belief that many of the details would have been shaped to support the story. He never set out to “disprove” the Gospels or Acts and such a claim goes beyond error into the realm of falsehood. No believer of the Tübingen Theory would have considered the Gospels “false” or spent any time trying to “disprove” them. That he found so many of the people and places in the works of Luke described correctly was a valuable contribution. Of course, it then had the unfortunate consequence of opening him to too readily accept errors such as his claim for the census at the time of the birth of Jesus (_I know, we’ve argued over that before, as well_). ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/198 "2006-05-20T22:28:09Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > …the people writing those web sites (or the works on which they are built) are singularly dishonest. The Tübingen Theory was not an effort to deny the Scriptures and an adherent of the Tübingen Theory would, generally, have believed that the Scriptures were true. The only issue that the Tübingen Theory brought to the discussion was a characterization, rooted in Hegelian dialectic, that various books of the New Testament were written to support either a “Petrine” or a “Pauline” theology which were in conflict. I, for one, do NOT say that Ramsay was attempting to disprove the Scriptures in general. In fact, I have said nothing about his treatment of the Scriptures as a whole, except for Luke and Acts. We could quibble about what it means to “disprove,” but the point remains that Ramsay initially thought that the Lucan accounts were of late authorship and that their reliability would be in question. As F. Fyvie Bruce said, “When Ramsay first set out on his archeological work, in the late 'seventies of last century, he was firmly convinced of the truth of the then fashionable Tubingen theory, that Acts was a late production of the middle of the second century AD, and he was only gradually compelled to a complete reversal of his views by the inescapable evidence of the facts uncovered in the course of his research.” Moreover, even if we disregard this particular detail, the heart of his claim remains: He is an exemplary scholar who gives a glowing account of Luke’s accuracy, despite initial skepticism. To say that we have no reason to believe the gospel accounts is, at best, an overstatement. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/199 "2006-05-20T22:43:50Z")
BTW, the following are Sir William Ramsay’s own words on this issue: “I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth.” - Sir William Ramsay, _[St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/paul_roman.pdf)_. As I said, we may argue about what it means to “disprove” Luke’s accounts, but the point remains. Ramsay was forced to conclude that Luke’s accuracy is exceptional, even though he was previously disposed against this conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594/200 "2006-05-20T23:33:06Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > BTW, the following are Sir William Ramsay’s own words on this issue: Which are, as it happens, the words already quoted, above, from which I extracted the smaller quotation. > [@](#): > > As I said, we may argue about what it means to “disprove” Luke’s accounts, but the point remains. Well, the actual line I quoted from you (which I attribute to your quoting one of authors who has tried to lionize Ramsay out of all proportion and not to your own particular views) was: > [@](#): > > He spent several years in the Holy Land, attempting to disprove the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. I see no evidence that Ramsay ever intended to disprove anything. He went out to the field with one preconceived notion of history that he simply accepted and when he found contrary evidence, he dutifully reported it. (Good on him.) On the other hand the Tübingen Theory was already in serious decline from other attacks upon it even without his efforts. Examples of the sort of dishonesty I keep encountering on some sites include (from [this site](http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn004/gn004f05.htm) > [@](#): > > The abundance of archaeological evidence in support of the Bible can strengthen faith, and in some cases it has greatly contributed to giving birth to belief where none existed before. > > An example of physical evidence building one’s faith is the life of Englishman William M. Ramsay (1851-1939). Born in the lap of luxury, Ramsay was dutifully raised as a nonbeliever by his atheist parents. He graduated from Oxford University with a doctorate in philosophy and became a professor at the University of Aberdeen. > > Determined to undermine the historical accuracy of the Bible, he studied archaeology with the aim of disproving the biblical account. Once ready with the necessary scientific tools and learning, he traveled to Palestine and focused on the book of Acts, which he fully expected to refute as nothing more than myth. No one outside such websites makes any mention of his family being “atheists,” his father died when William was six, making the claim that the “family” raised him to be atheist suspect, and the “lap of luxury” claim is a bald lie. Beyond that, Ramsay’s own claims are that his goal was to explore the area where Europe and Asia met–with no declaration he intended to “disprove” a biblical account. * * * Luke’s accuracy was only “exceptional” if one takes the most extreme view from the most extreme Tübingen proposals of a very late second century author. His accuracy is about adequate for any literate author of the late first century–sort of like lauding the typical Doper for knowing the geography of the current era. What sets some people to thinking that Luke’s accuracy was “exceptional” was that some of the stuff he recorded (as current events) when he was writing happened to have undergone name changes or loss of provenance after 1800 years of Roman, Byzantine, Caliphate, and Ottoman disruption, so came as a surprise to the people of the late 19th century. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-the-resurrection/356594.md?page=11)