I dunno, JThunder. The Roman authorities probably didn’t figure it was possible to solve anything by producing a body, assuming it even existed and they knew where it was. This was before genetic testing, remember? If they presented some corpse, and said, “Hey guys, got your Messiah right here,” I assume the Christian community would have discounted it as a trick, just as would happen to me today if I tried to hawk Christ’s femur on the 700 Club.
There are several such sites, but you may be thinking of the Mayo Clinic analysis of his suffering and death.
(© Journal of the American Medical Association, March 21, 1986, Volume 225.)
Also, there’s
They posted a guard at the tomb, so they knew where it was. Besides, even if they didn’t know, all they had to do was ask around.
Besides, why wouldn’t they at least try this tactic? It would be far, FAR easier to convince people that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, than to convince them that he did. In other words, the weight of the evidence would have been on their side – yet the Roman authorities didn’t even try this gambit.
At the very least, it would have been a way to keep the Christian growth down – and tt would have certainly been MUCH, MUCH easier than mobilizing their military forces to exile or execute the Christian believers. Heck, one would at least expect to find some writings that say, “These foolish Christians! The tomb isn’t even empty!” Yet interestingly enough, there is an absence of writings to that effect.
From Introduction to the New Testament rev. ed. by Werner Georg Kümmel, translated by Howard Clark Kee (the current version of the work begun by P. Feine and carried on by J. Behm, now in its 17th edition), §38.1.b, 247:
(The B in the papyrus catalog number should be in Gothic font to match the actual catalog entry.)
(The Nestle text is the Novum Testamentum Graece originally edited by Eberhard Nestle (and updated by Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland) that produces the entire New Testament in Greek, using the text that the majority of scholars believe is accurate, while providing footnotes of all discrepancies and the texts in which they appear.)
In discussing the date of John, Kümmel says
(Feine==>Behm==>Kümmel’s Introduction is a compendium of all serious scholarship on the New Testament in which they do champion various decisions/interpretations, but in which they give acknowledgement to all serious discordant voices. They note seven persons who argue earlier dates, and no one who argues a later date.)
I am not sure where I got the “127” date. Kümmel mentions nothing so precise. I was typing from memory, but do not remember where I picked up that (possibly erroneous) factoid.
And where does Schumacher go for this evidence? The best source I can find is the Perfetto Legendario which relates that:
(From http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/medart/texts/saints/Jameson/AJ-SLA-Matthew.html)
I have no idea when the PL was written, but it appears to be a very obscure apocryphal text. And as we can see, even church traditions, which I already hold in great suspect, can’t agree on whether Matthew was martyred or not. Color me unconvinced unless you can produce a contemporary or at least near contemporary source relating Matthew’s martyrdom in Ethiopia that isn’t full of clearly imaginary fairy tales about wicked kings and diabolical magicians keeping the population in subjection with wicked spells.
The same goes for everyone else. Here’s what the Catholic encyclopedia has to say about Mark:
(From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09672c.htm)
The fourth century! That’s three hundred years after the events. Tell me, how seriously would you take a story about the Salem Witch Trials that didn’t start circulating until, say, today?
How about Matthias?
Again, from the Catholic Encyclopedia
I’m not going to waste my time looking up everyone else when it should be your job to provide me good evidence in the first place.
Me too. I don’t dismiss Schumacher’s testimony because he is a Christian, but because the evidence sucks.
Well, much of the “counter-evidence” is in the contradicting traditions about the various disciples. Your argument about “no refuters” is extremely weak. I can tell you a thousand things that are not contradicted by any ancient witness, but which modern scholars believe to be nonsense. The ten thousand year reigns of Babylonian Kings, Herodotus’s giant ants in India, Josephus’ cow giving birth to a goat (or maybe vice versa), Paul baptizing a talking lion, etc.
Sigh. Tell me, how long do you think a body would have lasted before embalming? Probably a couple of months before it’s completely unrecognizable. By the time we get to Claudius, Jesus has been dead for around a decade! What is producing a set of bones going to prove to anyone?
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. In addition to containing numerous errors, and being primarily a theological, rather than an historical work, Luke fails to cite a single source that he uses. Josephus quotes his sources throughout, as do most ancient authors.
No, the gospel of Matthew says they posted guards at the tomb. None of the other three gospels say this. Matthew is fond of making up other facts (Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, zombies roaming Jerusalem), so I’m not inclined to believe this when the other three gospel authors don’t report it.
Please. You really think people are convinced by evidence? Look at Galatians. Does Paul present evidence that Jesus rose from the grave? No, he argues how the doctrine makes sense and why it’s a good thing to believe. This is how things worked in the ancient world. People believed things based upon the sincerity of the person telling them the message and how much they wanted to believe it. Richard Carrier has written an excellent essay on this topic. If the Romans spent time trying to debunk every miracle claimant, they’d have no time to run the government. Even the claim of a resurrected God was commonplace in those times.
Hmm. Do you know where Jesus’ tomb is? Thought not. Nobody does! This whole argument about the Romans digging up the body assumes that everyone knew where Jesus’ tomb was and that they could have waltzed in there anytime, pulled out a skeleton, and quashed the entire Christian movement in a heartbeat. But the real evidence presents a much more complex situation, in which even the notion of a tomb may not have developed until decades after Jesus’ death, or in which the disciples had no idea where Jesus’ body had been buried by the Romans, and picked a random tomb to act as a symbolic locale.
The idea that the entire post-crucifixion story of Jesus in the gospels is a later development is a common one in scholarly circles. An excellent summary of the position can be found in Russell Shorto’s short book Gospel Truth. Given the fact that the resurrection is a supernatural claim, I find the evidence sorely lacking.
Uh, no, you missed the point entirely.
The point is that all of the information we have about Jesus is unreliable.
That’s all. I’m not claiming he didn’t exist, although that is an open question. All I am saying is that the best information we have about the man is highly dubious, to say the least.
It is idiotic to state that it is a fact that there was an empty tomb. There just is not enough evidence to raise this supposition to the level of a fact. It is even more ludicrous to say that there is enough evidence to warrant the belief that he rose from the dead.
An extraordinary claim like that requires an extraordinary amount of evidence. And not only is there not any extraordinary evidence, there is no reliable evidence whatsoever.
Don’t try to make it seem like the skeptics are the ones making the outrageous claims. It is the followers of Christianity who must defend their claims. It is not unreasonable to be skeptical about extraordinary claims. It IS unreasonable to expect people to believe them, without offering an extraordinary amount of evidence.
You forget that every letter Paul wrote (except Romans) was to churches that he himself started. There would be no point in him talking about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to people who already knew about it and believed it. And in Romans, a lot of doctrine was laid out to make sure that the Roman Christians were believing correctly. Therefore, in all of these, the death, burial, resurrection is pretty much considered a given…
And as far as the disciples/apostles, wasn’t Peter crucified rather publicly in Rome?
With all due respect, themoon, I think you’re displaying your naivete when it comes to matters of history. This is clearly idnicated by your insistence that there is NO evidence for Jesus Christ, or that there is ZERO historical evidence for the apostle’s martyrdom. In fact, the overwhelming majority of professional historians do believe that Jesus existed – and Cecil Adams himself said that this was a safe claim to make.
I think you’re really jumping the gun on most of your points. Let’s look at some of the points which stand out the most.
And it’s clear that you’re speaking from enthusiastic naivete.
Yet earlier, you insinuated that there was NO evidence for Jesus Christ. In fact, your exact words were “Would it be too much to ask for a single shred of historical evidence for Jesus?” Now you’re clearly backpedalling.
There was enough to convince Sir William Ramsey, a prominent archaeologist. There was also enough evidence to convince Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the world’s foremonst authority on admissible testimony and legal evidence. Ditto for attorney Frank Morison, author of Who Moved the Stone. All of these men set out to discredit the Biblical accounts, yet the weight of the evidence forced them to change their minds.
World-class authorities such as Ramsey and Greenleaf were forced to admit – despite all their preconceptions – that the Biblical accounts were trustworthy. In that light, might you not be too hasty in stating that NONE of the historical evidence is reliable?
When you insinuate that there isn’t a “single shred of historical evidence for Jesus,” it’s clear that you’re the one who’s making the extraordinary claim.
Perhaps some people felt that way, but the same can be said of modern man as well. Moreover, we see that Matthew’s gospel consistently appealed to fulfilled prophecy to support his claim. Acts 17:17 says that Paul “reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshippers, and with those that happened to be there.” And Peter told believers to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).
Obviously, not everyone was willing to believe something, based merely on the sincerity of the speaker. Sure, there were gullible people in those days – but the same can be said of any era.
Remember, these were civilized men, and many of them were literate. It would take some serious revisionism to ahow that an entire culture was so mentally incompetent that they’d believe anything, based merely on the speaker’s sincerity.
Allow me to quote from the Logical Fallacies reference page:
Allow me to suggest that you have committed this very fallacy.
I am not saying that there is NO evidence for Jesus’ existence. I am saying that there is no historical evidence for his life and works, outside of the bible. This is simply a fact. The earliest mention of Jesus in secular history was in 96 C.E.
It is naive to say that the information we have about Jesus is unreliable???
No, I am not. There is simply nothing outside of the Bible, until 96 C.E. If you have something, I would love to see it.
From the logical fallacies site again:
I really don’t care what authority X has to say about it. I want to see the evidence for myself.
No, I am not. It is a fact that, outside of the bible, there is not one shred of evidence, not one mention of Jesus, until 96 C.E.
And again, I am not claiming that he did not exist. I am just saying that what we know of Jesus the man is at best hearsay, and unreliable hearsay at that.
A naive layman might say no – just as naive layman also often think that only eyewitnesses can write reliable history. Professional historians know that this isn’t sufficient reason to dismiss an historical account. Heck, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Plutarch and Arrian FOUR HUNDRED years after his death, yet historians consider these accounts to be trustworthy.
Dude, embalming was already practiced at the time! That’s one of the things myrrh was used for. In fact, John 19:39 explicitly says that Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. Verse 40 says that they wrapped Jesus’ body in strips of linen that were soaked in this mixture. Embalming was most certainly practiced at the time!
Oh, come on. The fact that we don’t know – after the passage of two millenia – doesn’t mean that THEY didn’t know, or that they couldn’t find out.
The gospel record is that he was buried in a tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy and prominent member of the Sanhedrin! Moreover, even in the unlikely event that the Roman authorities could not determine its location, one would still have to postulate that Christ’s followers did not know, or that they never bothered to check if the tomb was empty.
Heck, the Romans could have just said “Let’s ALL look at the tomb! This should shut you up, you rabble-rousers.” It would have been a perfect opportunity to humiliate and discredit these gullible church leaders, yet there is no record of such an attempt – nor even any insinuation in the Jewish polemic that the tomb wasn’t empty.
Not true. First of all, you explicitly asked for a “single shred of historical evidence for Jesus” (your exact words). Your statement said nothing about demanding EXTRABIBLICAL sources. This was an addition that you made long after the fact.
Moreover, there IS extrabiblical evidence for Jesus Christ, as Cecil’s article showed. You have historical records from Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Tertullian, Thallus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Phlegon and others – many of whom were HOSTILE to Christianity!
Besides, a real historian wouldn’t reject an account, simply because it came from a Christian. That’s not how professional scholars work. As JThunder said, that would be tantamount to rejcting EVERYTHING that a Democratic official says about the Democratic Party.
No, professional historians consider the balance of the evidence, which is why the overwhelming consensus is that Jesus Christ REALLY EXISTED.
And Alexander the Great’s biographies were all written more than four centuries after his death. That does not automatically invalidate their testimony.
Based on the arguments that you’re using? Certainly.
Moving the bar yet again, I see.
Your original challenge – which I quoted exactly – said nothing about extrabiblical sources, and it said nothing aobut 96 C.E. We’ve already seen that extrabiblical sources exist, so now you’ve tacked on the “96 C.E.” requirement. There’s a term for that – backpedalling.
Sigh. It’s only a fallacy if the person quoted is not an authority in the field in question. As you youself quoted, “This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert.”
Sir William Ramsey is an archaeological authority, and Dr. Greenleaf was one of the foremost authorities on evidence and admissible testimony. Hence, your claim of fallacy is demonstrably wrong.
Merely citing an authority is NOT fallacious. If it were, then trial courts would have to disgregard ALL expert testimony and forensic evidence. Schools everywhere would have to throw away their textbooks, and YOU would have to disregard all the sources for your “historical” claims.
See? In fact, your statement is another example of the “enthusiastic naivete” of which I spoke.
sigh
Again, I am not claiming that Jesus the man never existed. It is a Straw Man attack to argue that he did, because I am not disputing this claim. I never said Jesus did not exist!
I think that he probably did, but not because of the evidence you cite. You are citing people who wrote about him long after he died. IMO, this is not compelling. The time that passed between when he supposedly died, and when people started writing about him is more than long enough for a mythology to grow up around him that had very little relation to the actual events.
HOWEVER, what I do find compelling is the evidence for a source, ‘Q’ document, which the authors of the gospels used as their primary source. The evidence for this document IS strong, and the existence of this document would make Jesus’ existence a near certainty.
The reason I say that there is no historical evidence for Jesus is that I discount completely the gospels and the epistles, in and of themselves, as history. These books were written by zealots with an agenda, and hence are completely unreliable as history. Since these are the only documents we have about Jesus that were written before 96 C.E. (well, two of the gospels, maybe, and the fanatics’ letters), there is no reliable evidence dating to before 96 C.E. that Jesus existed.
Randel Helms’ Gospel Fictions is one of my favorite books on the gospels, and their fictional nature. Helms argues that the gospels were not intended to be history, and to take them in that light is to miss the point. It is clear that the authors embellished and changed the stories that had been passed down to them, in order to suit their purposes. This does not mean that the works are worthless, just that they are not history. They are theological fictions, intended to communicate religious ideas.
So, what I am arguing is simply that whatever we think we know about Jesus the man is highly dubious. Most of it is conjecture, and conjecture based on accounts written by men who never met the man, and who were relying on verbal tradition, and probably the ‘Q’ document containing some of Jesus’ sayings.
One other thing, about the appeal to authority.
It is a fallacy to say, X believes Y, and X is an authority, therefore Y must be true. If X has compelling evidence, then let him present it, and we will examine it on its merits.
You compare this to using an expert witness in a trial. But, there is a difference between an expert witness and an authority. An expert witness presents evidence, and the jury deliberates on this evidence to make their decision. The judge doesn’t just say, “believe whatever this authority has to say!”
You did not provide any of the evidence your authorities thought was so compelling, you simply said they were authorities, and that therefore we should accept what they had to say. If you think their views are compelling, then give some of the evidence for these views, or at least give the outlines of the evidence.
I will never believe anything just because some authority says it is true. Even if it is Richard Dawkins. 
tomndebb,
Thanks very much for the references! Very interesting stuff!
Mark was not written by Mark. No serious biblical scholar believes that any of the gospels were written by the people whose names are attached to them. None of the authors of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
So? Paul never met Jesus. Thus, whatever he wrote about Jesus was at best hearsay.
No, but religious zealots are hardly reliable historians, especially when they are writing about the very thing they are trying to propagate.
Well, since the Roman authorities were mute on the subject of Jesus, it’s really a moot point. In fact, if any of the Roman authorities HAD said anything about Jesus, your case would be much stronger.
It is impossible for the gospel accounts to be true, for the simple fact that they contradict each other, and give mutually exclusive accounts of events. For example, what were Jesus’ last words? Who was his grandfather?
Not saying that. This is a Straw Man attack.
And, btw, the fact that you would refer to William Lane Craig doesn’t say much for your critical thinking skills. That guy is a liar, and a moron.
Ahh, the old argument from authority. Care to present any evidence that Luke is reliable history?
I don’t really care what Ramsey has to say. If the evidence IS compelling, then let’s hear it, and let us be persuaded by the evidence ourselves.
I’ve had enough of fundy sites. They are good for a laugh every once in a while, but they get old real quick.
themoon,
As do skeptic sites. Other than a single, rather egregious error (dealing with translating “within” as “among”), have you found anything wrong with the link I provided you? Not all parts of Mark were written at the same time, and it is likely that some parts of Mark were written by Mark.
I’d like to see you address some of Muller’s points.
I think the argument going on here is largely derailed on the basis of people hearing others arguing points they are not making. The questions to be analyzed are:
-
Did a man known as Jesus of Nazareth live? General consensus is that while it cannot be conclusively proven, evidence points to it.
-
Did the guy become some sort of religious leader with teachings that survive in some form to the present? Same answer.
-
How much evidence can be given to the writings about him? Mileage varies, but I think everyone would agree that the Evangelists (gospel writers in this use, not hellfire preachers) wrote slanted accounts aimed at proving their concepts of who He was.
-
Was He in fact what the Gospels say He claimed to be? And in particular, was He in fact what the 4th Century Creeds claim Him to be? Mileage varies all over the place, and this question does not admit of a factual answer, being based on faith. (No non-theist can admit that He was the earthly manifestation of an active God, since the latter is not part of his worldview. No dogmatic Christian can examine the question other than with reference to his faith.)
I’d recommend Spong’s book on the Resurrection, entitled something like “Resurrection: Fact or Myth,” for a non-faith-based conclusion (by a Christian theologian!) as to how the change from Mohammed/Moses-like religious leader to divine avatar came about.
A gross exaggeration, at best. While many scholars do contest their scholarship, many others do not.
Paul claimed to have met Jesus on the road to Damascus, so me most certainly did claim to be an eyewitness. He was also a close associate of the other Apostles, and was therefore in a prime position to report what they taught.
Ah, but here, you are handily dismissing them as being “zealots,” which is an unscholarly approach to history.
Volumes have been written on these alleged contradictions, which are typically rooted in careless scholarship. (Example: None of the gospels say “These were Jesus’ final words,” or purport to record everything he said on the cross.)
But even if we grant that such contradictions occur, no serious historian would throw out a historical record simply because of some contradictions – whether perceived or real. Once again, you are clearly speaking as a zealous but naive layman, unaware of how history is truly researched.
Oh, really? Earlier, you said, “Paul never met Jesus. Thus, whatever he wrote about Jesus was at best hearsay.” (Emphasis yours.) If it’s not a direct eyewitness account, then it is hearsay – and so is the vast majority of recorded history.
Moreover, you still haven’t substantiated your claim that Mark’s gospel is a fourth- or fifth-hand account. Even if we grant that Mark wasn’t the actual author, how did you jump to the conclusion that these were merely fourth- or fifth-hand accounts?
I see. So now you’re resorting to abusive ad hominem attacks. Okay.
BTW, a confident debater does not typically resort to calling someone “a moron” – and he does not call someone a liar without first defending this accusation thoroughly.
For that, I refer you to William Ramsey’s own writings in The Bearing of Recent Evidence on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1953).
Moreover, you were insinuating that there isn’t “a single shred of historical evidence” for Jesus (a claim which you later amended twice – first to demand extra-biblical evidence, and then to demand evidence prior to 96 C.E.). Once again, if a noted archaeologist was forced to admit that the NT documents are reliable (despite his previous attempt to destroy their credibility), does this not suggest that your claim was a tad hasty?
And finally, there’s nothing wrong with appealing to authority – in fact, it’s usually a necessity. Scientists, engineers, attorneys, detectives, and trial judges do it all the time. If you wish to refute his claims, that’s fine – but I suggest that you do so cautiously, lest you be trapped by hastiness and excessive zeal.
[QUOTE]
**
I don’t really care what Ramsey has to say. If the evidence IS compelling, then let’s hear it, and let us be persuaded by the evidence ourselves.
Once again, I refer you to The Bearing of Recent Evidence on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. A well-stocked public or university library can probably get it for you.
Don’t forget that this book was written by someone who was formally trained in history and archaeology, and whose goal was to utterly destroy the credibility of Luke’s gospel. He spent fifteen years striving toward that goal, and was forced to recant his position. Surely such a story deserves some audience.