On the general skepticism about ancient miracle reports
Many highly educated ancient historians (by which I mean historians that study ancient history, not historians that are really old) believe that the historical evidence supports the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected. For example, they point to the strong evidence for the empty tomb, post resurrection appearances, and the beliefs of the earliest followers of Jesus that he was in fact resurrected. In addition they note the extraordinary phenomena of some of the most devout monotheists the world has ever known — people who would submit to having their tongues cut out by Antiochus Epiphanies rather than eat pork — becoming convinced not only that Jesus was resurrected but that he was God incarnate. (To get a sense of how radical this is, it is like key members of Planned Parenthood suddenly becoming prolife and suppording Sarah Palin for president. If that happened I’d certainly countenance the possibility of extraordinary events as the occasional cause!)
And that is not all. These historians would also note the evidence that key people in this early group of disciples included Paul and James, brother of Jesus, both of whom were skeptics during their life time. Finally, they take note of the rigorous rabbinic context of the earliest disciples in which one does not add or pad the teachings or life of one’s rabbi but rather faithfully passes on that which was received (1 Cor. 11:2, 11:23, 15:3; Gal. 1:8-9). This was not a milieu in which the passing on of tradition can be marginalized by an analogy with grade two students playing the old “Telephone game”.
And yet despite all this, there is a remarkable incredulity among many skeptics toward even considering the possibility of a miraculous resurrection. Far from consideration as the best explanation of all the data, it is not even considered as a remotely plausible explanation. Why not?
In many cases the dismissal appears to be rooted in a general incredulity toward ancient miracle claims. This is, in effect, the perfect storm. You start by being incredulous toward miracle claims generally. But throw in an enormous span of time and a pre-scientific age and the incredulity cuts off at the knees any and all miraculous reports no matter what the evidence.
C.S. Lewis dealt with the suspicion that ancient peoples were particularly gullible, and their reports subject to a debilitating skepticism, in his classic book Miracles:
“the idea that the progress of science has somehow altered this question is closely bound up with the idea that people ‘in olden times’ believe in them [miracles] ‘because they didn’t know the laws of nature.’ Thus you will hear people say, ‘The early Christians believed that Christ was the son of a virgin, but we know that this is a scientific impossibility.’ Such people seem to have an idea that belief in miracles arose at a period when men were so ignorant of the course of nature that they did not perceive a miracle to be contrary to it. A moment’s thought shows this to be nonsense: and the story of the Virgin Birth is a particularly striking example. When St Joseph discovered that his fiancee was going to have a baby, he not unnaturally decided to repudiate her. Why? Because he knew just as well as any modern gynaecologist that in the ordinary course of nature women do not have babies unless they have lain with men. No doubt the modern gynaecologist knows several things about birth and begetting which St Joseph did not know. But those things do not concern the main point—that a virgin birth is contrary to the course of nature. And St Joseph obviously knew that. In any sense in which it is true to say now ‘the thing is scientifically impossible,’ he would have said the same: the thing always was, and was always known to be, impossible unless the regular process of nature were, in this particular case, being over-ruled or supplemented by something from beyond nature.” (74)
In the twenty-first century a young man that finds his fiancee pregnant and knows he didn’t do it doesn’t immediately leap to the conclusion of divine action. But neither, as Lewis points out, would a young man in the first century. In both cases extraordinary evidence would have been required to overcome the general incredulity toward miracles (and the general suspicion of infidelity). As Lewis puts it, “Nothing can seem extraordinary until you have discovered what is ordinary. Belief in miracles, far from depending on an ignorance of the laws of nature, is only possible insofar as those laws are known.” (75) So if some evidence persuades a person today that a particular event is miraculous we should heed that evidence. And this is likewise the case when the reports come from the first century.
Tags: apologetics, C.S. Lewis, historiography, Jesus Christ, miracle, naturalism, resurrection, skepticism
18 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
MGT2 says:
Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 10:29pm
Well said Rauser.
The skepticism is also a product of the denial of the legitimacy of biblical documents as credible historical sources.
randal says:
Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 11:12pm
Exactly right. As the eminent New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce once observed, ““Somehow or other, there are people who regard a ‘sacred book’ as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing.”
Walter says:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 12:32am
It is my understanding that many ancient “biographies” are often filled with legendary embellishments concerning the hero of the story. Why should I assume that the gospels are any different? The gospels are propaganda documents written by believers for believers. Sure, I believe there is some real history in there, but I do not think the gospels are “Just the facts, Ma’am.”
As far as the implication that skeptics often have double standards, I would demand the same evidence for a contemporary resurrection as I do for an ancient one.
randal says:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 1:38am
“The gospels are propaganda documents written by believers for believers.”
What do you mean by “propaganda”? In the ancient world it was very expensive and difficult to write a document on papyrus or vellum (to say nothing of the cost of employing a scribe). Consequently nobody wrote anything down unless they had a particular perspective or “agenda” they were trying to further. But to use that as reason to dismiss all ancient historical documents as “propaganda” would be nothing short of bizarre.
Walter says:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 2:38am
Consequently nobody wrote anything down unless they had a particular perspective or “agenda” they were trying to further. But to use that as reason to dismiss all ancient historical documents as “propaganda” would be nothing short of bizarre.
I didn’t say anything about dismissing all ancient documents. I am saying that documents written for a particular agenda should come under careful scrutiny. I have stated for the record that I do believe that the gospels contain some real history, so I am not in the pure mythicist camp. It just seems overly credulous to uncritically accept everything that has been penned in the gospels.
Walter says:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 12:21am
Mark 6:14 And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
6:15 Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.
6:16 But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.
Nah, those folks weren’t credulous at all.
/sarcasm
toryninja says:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 1:39am
Hi Walter,
You bring up a very good and interesting passage. However, I think the way you are reading the text is in error. If I am understanding you correctly, you are implying that this text is saying that people were quick to say Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected or raised from the dead? That they weren’t thinking critically and rushed to some crazy superstitious conclusion? But I am not so sure that is the right reading of this text.
I think the context of the Gospel shows that people who believed that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead were not actually saying they thought John the Baptist had resurrected. Rather, since Jesus was aprox. thirty years old at the time and a known contemporary of John, this saying is not actually teaching that John had come back to life, but rather that Jesus was woking miracles in his [John's] power. No one would actually be asserting the resurrection of John the Baptist (for such an idea would have been considered ludicrous at the time). Rather, the saying concerns not literal resurrection but personal identity. We see this all the time in Jewish writings at the time. For example, this concern led to all sorts of identifications, such as Pinchas = Elijah; Shem = Melchizedek; Melchizedek = Michael; Aachan = Zimri, etc.
Thus, this passage is not implying a literal resurrection, or raising of the dead, and therefore your reading that this passages shows the incredulity of the people of the time seems mistaken.
Walter says:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 2:28am
No one would actually be asserting the resurrection of John the Baptist (for such an idea would have been considered ludicrous at the time)…
Thus, this passage is not implying a literal resurrection, or raising of the dead, and therefore your reading that this passages shows the incredulity of the people of the time seems mistaken.
The plain reading of Mark 6:16 seems to say otherwise.
Mark 6:16
But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.
Ray Ingles says:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 1:20am
So, you think Pheidippides really met Pan on the way Athens?
randal says:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 1:33am
Uh no. Do you believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon?
Ray Ingles says:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 12:31pm
A general acceptance of miracles and divine intervention pervaded the ancient world (and quite a bit of the modern). Greek history is just as full of miracles, including gods appearing on Earth and taking part in battles and so forth. The record of Pheidippides meeting Pan on his famous run is related just as matter-of-factly as everything else about the story.
On what basis, specifically, do you discount the miracles in Greek history? Do you discount the miracles attributed to Mohammed? If so, why?
beetle says:
Friday, March 4, 2011 at 8:13am
Yes, I came back. Congratulations on your blog thriving.
I think you are making a joke, but for folks playing at home, here is The Rubicon Analogy in Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story
randal says:
Friday, March 4, 2011 at 2:22pm
Kill the fatted calf! The prodigal son has returned! Welcome back B-496.
randal says:
Friday, March 4, 2011 at 2:26pm
The point I was making wasn’t about how much evidence there was for the resurrection over-against the Rubicon crossing. Rather, the point was that the skepticism about ancient history is weighted against Christianity. The Rubicon crossing includes non-historical elements but the basic historicity of the event is not in question. Likewise, pointing out prima facie discrepancies between, say, one young man and two angels being at the empty tomb does not undermine the common testimony that the tomb was empty.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 1:39am
Just a few questions from the friendly neighbourhood skeptic:
1. If miracles were so plentiful in Biblical times, why don’t we have any now?
2. What “extraordinary evidence” do you rely on to support the story of the virgin birth?
3. Jesus was, presumably, the product of Mary’s ovum and … what?
4. If Jesus was truly the son of God, why didn’t he pay visits to the other human civilizations in existence in the early first century? Why didn’t he go to China? For that matter, why wasn’t he born in China?
Walter says:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 2:51am
Another example of ancient credulity would be recorded in Acts 12:13-15
12:13 And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda.
12:14 And when she knew Peter’s voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate.
12:15 And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel.
It must have been quite common for one’s angel or ghost to go around knocking on people’s doors back then. :-0
The Atheist Missionary says:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 1:16pm
This is the best take I’ve seen in a while on modern miracles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BBZcbeTq0k
Warning – you will never get the 5 minutes and 34 seconds of your life back.
Steven Carr says:
Friday, March 4, 2011 at 9:49am
‘For example, they point to the strong evidence for the empty tomb…’
In other words, not one single person in history ever wrote a document naming himself as seeing an empty tomb, just like not one person in history ever wrote a document naming himself as seeing a second gunman shoot JFK.
If there had been an empty tomb, Christians would have been hammered for decades with charges of grave-robbing, and the first Novel would never have just written that the body was lying around for followers of Jesus to access,leading to frantic rewrites by later Christians who were forced to change the story and add imaginary guards,as the first Novel had so many plot errors.