Reserection "historical Reality"

[Looking4Answers]

While we are exploring the idea of the historical reality of the resurrection, let's talk about something in parallel:

 

The historical reality of the existence and miracles of Apollonius of Tyana

 

This ancient Greek miracle worker, a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, is quite the interesting character. According to what is written, he prophesied, possibly raised someone from the dead, dealt with vampires, he was tried at a court and either disappeared straight out of the courtroom or die. Whatever happened his followers said he ascended to heaven. While the primary writing about Apollonius of Tyra dates much later than his life, the writing itself contains data from older writings. There are other written attestations to this person and what he may have done.

 

It seems to me that if we use the criteria that is being asked of us here to accept the story of the resurrection as a historical reality, then we could use that same criteria to accept Apollonius of Tyra (and a myriad of other messiah-like figures) as as historical reality, including the things their follows said about him and what he did.

[Badger]

Wasn't it you that said it was wrong to use our modern methods of criteria for determining the historicity of something when it comes to the Bible (such as the Gospels and Acts)?

I think I didn't. I found these,

 

One should not assess Luke by modern standards and expect he measure up.

It would be wrong to expect ancient historians, using different standards, to measure up to modern standards.

 

The point was that we should compare Luke with other ancient historians.

[Badger]

It seems to me that if we use the criteria that is being asked of us here to accept the story of the resurrection as a historical reality, then we could use that same criteria to accept Apollonius of Tyra (and a myriad of other messiah-like figures) as as historical reality, including the things their follows said about him and what he did.

I can't understand why it's so hard. I'm not asking anyone to accept Jesus' resurrection as a historical reality. I'm not using any criteria to prove the resurrection.

[Ouroboros]

Apollonius is quite interesting, especially when Christian apologists try to refute his existence, or his miracles, or the textual support. One argument I heard was that it was unlikely that Apollonius did all those miracles, because the document is: too long, and contains too many details, places, and history, to be considered a bioi (ancient biography).

 

From the horse's mouth: "Furthermore, the biography of Apollonius violates a number of the conventions of ancient biography: It is over 4 times longer than any other biography known from ancient history, having some 82,000 words ([burr.WAG, 169] - and I would add, it is rather tedious reading); it contains geographical, historical, and ethnographical information of the type found in "sophistic novels" of the time (ibid., 172); and finally, it has the traits of both novel and romance. It has rightly been wondered if this work belongs in the bioi genre at all! " (Source)

 

So why would the Gospels with less of these things be more "accurate"? I don't get that...

[Badger]

That's a question of the genre not accuracy?

[Ouroboros]

That's a question of the genre not accuracy?

I see. It could be that point he's making. But he goes on and put other arguments too why (it seems like at least) the document shouldn't be taken literal or historical. (Hence his reference to sophistry)

 

I'd say the Gospels fall into religious sophistry. Material written (made) to convince the "accuracy" and "historicity" to the followers.

[Looking4Answers]

I think I didn't. I found these,

 

One should not assess Luke by modern standards and expect he measure up.

It would be wrong to expect ancient historians, using different standards, to measure up to modern standards.

 

The point was that we should compare Luke with other ancient historians.

 

But that is what I was addressing. Luke should be compared with other ancient historians. But ALL those ancient histories are compared and evaluated by modern standards. We want to find the truth, not just what one person, historian or otherwise, is asserting as truth.

 

I can't understand why it's so hard. I'm not asking anyone to accept Jesus' resurrection as a historical reality. I'm not using any criteria to prove the resurrection.

 

But that's the entire topic of this thread. That is the title of this thread. And the history, as contained in Luke/Acts uses the resurrection of Jesus as a literal, historical event (historical from the perspective of the author).

 

Apollonius is quite interesting, especially when Christian apologists try to refute his existence, or his miracles, or the textual support.

 

This is what caught my attention as well. The very arguments they bring against the historicity of this person (especially his supposed miracles) would, in most places, apply directly to the New Testament canon as well. There is a definite lack of consistency when it comes to evaluating other supposed ancient messiahs and miracle workers when compared to how the Christian historian/apologist approach Jesus and the Bible.

[Looking4Answers]

That's a question of the genre not accuracy?

 

Yes, it is. But once you get a work labeled as something other than historical then the work is not considered for serious historical evaluation. If the Gospels and Acts were categorized as non-historical, perhaps as ancient fiction or mythology, then they would be looked at quite differently, wouldn't they?

[Ouroboros]

I think I didn't. I found these,

 

One should not assess Luke by modern standards and expect he measure up.

It would be wrong to expect ancient historians, using different standards, to measure up to modern standards.

 

The point was that we should compare Luke with other ancient historians.

 

But that is what I was addressing. Luke should be compared with other ancient historians. But ALL those ancient histories are compared and evaluated by modern standards. We want to find the truth, not just what one person, historian or otherwise, is asserting as truth.

I think what he means is that Luke and other documents from the ancient past shouldn't be evaluated the same way as you would evaluate a modern historian. In other words, listing sources, quoting appropriately, critically assess material and so on, which you would expect and demand from an author of biography of today, can't be expected from the ancient writers, we can't expect to find the same quality. So the lower expectation we have of Xenophon also would apply equally to Luke. I think Badger doesn't propose to have a lesser standard for Luke, and higher for other ancient writers, but equally less. (Which of course leads to my earlier statement, that we have to see ancient history based on probabilities rather than factual.)

 

But personally I have a small problem with Luke, which is that he's biased. Every author from that time was biased, but when it comes to religious documents, there's a tendency to go way out there and extrapolate and exaggerate quite a bit. The "healing of one flu" becomes "healing of the 1,000 blind, deaf, and lame." It tends to have the fisherman attitude. "If I don't make this sound really amazing, no one will listen or buy into my belief. I have to make them say I'm awesome for being part of this amazing movement... because I'm so cool..."

[mwc]

Unimpressed?

You choose to focus on this one word instead of the idea that he got the doctrine elsewhere? I'm not surprised.

 

Yes. Unimpressed. Go read Galatians 2 again. He is clearly not impressed.

 

He says explicitly he visited in Jerusalem, and saw Peter and James, before the verse 22. And there Paul only says he was unknown "to the churches of Judea."

In v22 it says "I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ" and "by sight" is loosely "by eye." So if he supposedly persecuted the churches in Judea on the authority of the temple prior to his conversion then there are pretty good odds that these are those same churches and these people would know him by more than mere reputation. Unless, of course, we accept he had a 100% success rate, which is highly doubtful. So he must not have been active in this area but his own testimony of not being the area and by his own testimony that the churches did not recognize him except through reputation.

 

So what he was doing in Damascus is unknown and why he went to Arabia is unknown and why he returned to Damascus again is also unknown. By the information provided above he was not in the business of persecuting churches in this area. No one knew of him except through his reputation. He was someone who was supposedly based in Jerusalem (the temple even) and persecuted the churches in the surrounding region.

 

But that issue is not relevant. We are not trying to find out which of those easter stories is the correct one.

You asked me to explain the origin of 1 Cor. 15 did you not? What you really want me to do is simply acknowledge it exists and therefore it exists but that's circular. I won't do that.

 

Are you serious? How can we know if anything in history is true?

You seem to know.

 

Of course it means. As you admit there was wide variety of appearance stories.

Stories based on stories.

 

How can you trust on those reports? Nazareth was a hamlet according to reports.

I forgot. My experts aren't trustworthy when it comes to matters you wish to be different. You can look at the report anyway. It's just the recent one in a series (I don't have the prior one handy). I'll leave it to you to tell the IAA that Nazareth in the early first century is something different than what they keep digging up since I'm not a part of this. But I'm sure they'd love to find THE NT Nazareth because that means even more tourist dollars for Israel. But nothing so far.

 

I do know they are biased. History is always that. And no, I didn't read since it didn't work. Nothing there.

I'm surprised neither link worked. Since the PDF is a graphic of the original text I can't really cut and paste it.

 

If anyone else is bothering to read this can you guys try those links I posted and see if they worked? They did for me but that doesn't always mean much.

 

mwc

[Looking4Answers]

Nazareth is interesting. I've been there ... didn't live all that far away from it. There is a little mission/tourist trap called the Nazareth Village that tries to recreate a supposed 1st century village there, claiming it is the "Nazareth that Jesus Knew." Reading the information on the site, they are very careful to not say that the village they are recreating is based on the actual village of Nazareth. While they have found some things there (three watch towers, etc) they don't list the dates of them. They mention the area (in general) was farmed from some time in the BCs until the 1st century. Again, not stating the specifics of the site. They say enough to let the imagination roam and enough for most people to conclude that what you see when you go there is the Nazareth that Jesus saw as a child or at least something very much like it.

 

Nazareth village was a lot of fun when I was there. I would go again if I were back in Israel.

[Badger]

I think what he means is that Luke and other documents from the ancient past shouldn't be evaluated the same way as you would evaluate a modern historian.

Yep. Indeed. Thanks.

 

But personally I have a small problem with Luke, which is that he's biased. Every author from that time was biased, but when it comes to religious documents, there's a tendency to go way out there and extrapolate and exaggerate quite a bit. The "healing of one flu" becomes "healing of the 1,000 blind, deaf, and lame." It tends to have the fisherman attitude. "If I don't make this sound really amazing, no one will listen or buy into my belief. I have to make them say I'm awesome for being part of this amazing movement... because I'm so cool..."

And Luke wasn't even historian... rather theological historian. Or something like that.

[Looking4Answers]

And Luke wasn't even historian... rather theological historian. Or something like that.

 

Yet the document itself (the Bible) calls him a physician (Colosians 4:14). So he was neither a theologian nor a historian ... not by trade and, per the Bible, not by reputation.

[Badger]

Thanks mwc. I think we are done.

 

Some comments on the discussion, however. I find mwc's position to be over-sceptical when compared to the scholarly opinion. This begs the question wheter one should assume that quite a number of scholars are mistaken or there is something wrong with mwc (like special pleading). Not that I wanna insult him, but I think the question is justified. The scholarly consensus doesn't always or necessarily guarantee that information is reliable, but I would say it's more likely that it does than doesn't.

[Badger]

Yet the document itself (the Bible) calls him a physician (Colosians 4:14). So he was neither a theologian nor a historian ... not by trade and, per the Bible, not by reputation.

You just wanna argue, don't you?

[Looking4Answers]

You just wanna argue, don't you?

 

No. Not really. Not in the sense of being contentious. What I want to do is push a point to see its soundness. All these people want to say that Luke (or the author of Luke/Acts) was a historian. They give him this label. Yet he is called a physician. You added to the title of historian, that of theologian. I simply corrected you. If you want to see that as an argument, then so be it.

 

The point is, it seems you see whatever you want to see. It does not matter if MWC points out this, that or the other, if what he states is contrary to what you think or have stated, you discount it. And if he persists, then you just tell him you are done. If I try to correct or point out something that is opposed to what you have said or believe, then I am arguing.

 

I think what you are failing to see here is that you have stood by a belief despite evidence. You have a belief that the author of Luke is a credible historian. However, this may not be the case. Others here have tried to show you this. Despite what has been shown you discredit it this way and that, then declare you are done with one member and that the other just wants to argue. That's one way to bow out of a dispute, I suppose.

[Ouroboros]

And Luke wasn't even historian... rather theological historian. Or something like that.

Yeah. Something like that.

 

It would be similar to if lets say a Scientologist, like Travolta or Cruise, would write the biography of Ron Hubbard. Even if he or she would get some details right, we can be pretty sure many parts got a spin to fit their belief. May it be positive or negative depiction, it all depends on what the religious beliefs are.

 

In Christianity the people (apostles/disciples) would be painted in a less favorable, but yet in the light of "divine connection," just because part of the message is that we are nothing but sinner, in need of salvation, rotten eggs in the basket, and by God's grace we'll become sidekicks to superman and can do cool stuff. It's not really surprising to see this in the Acts, or the Gospels, of humans failing, but yet achieving "enlightenment" through the process which is part of the religious belief. "Sip the sap of God's power, and the magic potion will make you invincible." (Are there similarities to the Asterix story perhaps?)

[mwc]

Thanks mwc. I think we are done.

 

Some comments on the discussion, however. I find mwc's position to be over-sceptical when compared to the scholarly opinion. This begs the question wheter one should assume that quite a number of scholars are mistaken or there is something wrong with mwc (like special pleading). Not that I wanna insult him, but I think the question is justified. The scholarly consensus doesn't always or necessarily guarantee that information is reliable, but I would say it's more likely that it does than doesn't.

Then I guess I am wrong because I actually read what the various authors wrote and it doesn't hang together.

 

You cannot seem to understand that Paul could have gotten his information from somewhere other than Cephas, James or John. I didn't want to use Acts directly but I guess I will since maybe you can follow an example if it comes more from texts you are familiar with:

 

10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!" "Yes, Lord," he answered. 11 The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying.

...

20 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21 All those who heard him were astonished and asked, "Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn't he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?" 22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.

So we will assume Saul is Paul. And that being the case who could he have possibly obtained the information in 1 Cor. 15 from? Certainly NOT anyone in Jerusalem. Certainly NOT Cephas. Certainly NOT James. Certainly NOT John. Perhaps Ananias? Perhaps an Judas? Perhaps another unknown xian in Damascus? But the others were supposedly in Jerusalem. They aren't the source. They CANNOT be. He won't even speak to them for THREE years and yet he is already preaching according to this. That is why he supposedly has to go to Arabia in the first place. If I'm expected to believe he didn't hear of the resurrection aspect of the story for three years then that is clearly preposterous.

 

You're the one that wants the disciples at Jerusalem to be the source of all of this. You desperately seem to want me to concede that point. But it doesn't hang together. I won't concede it. The source of the information for Paul is other xians. The source of the information for the other xians is unknown but obviously other xians.

 

mwc

[Badger]

No. Not really. Not in the sense of being contentious. What I want to do is push a point to see its soundness. All these people want to say that Luke (or the author of Luke/Acts) was a historian. They give him this label. Yet he is called a physician. You added to the title of historian, that of theologian. I simply corrected you. If you want to see that as an argument, then so be it.

Maybe you don't know, but "theologian" and "historian" are widely used labels for Luke. That's because his work shows a keen interesting in both.

 

The point is, it seems you see whatever you want to see. It does not matter if MWC points out this, that or the other, if what he states is contrary to what you think or have stated, you discount it. And if he persists, then you just tell him you are done. If I try to correct or point out something that is opposed to what you have said or believe, then I am arguing.

Or maybe it's mwc who see whatever he want to see, or you? Maybe you're discounting my points because they are contrary to your points, huh?

 

I think what you are failing to see here is that you have stood by a belief despite evidence. You have a belief that the author of Luke is a credible historian. However, this may not be the case. Others here have tried to show you this. Despite what has been shown you discredit it this way and that, then declare you are done with one member and that the other just wants to argue. That's one way to bow out of a dispute, I suppose.

Despite evidence? Maybe you didn't realize that I used minimal facts accepted by the majority of scholars. And what about Luke. It may be the case that he is reliable and you discredit the evidence. That Luke is not perfect doesn't mean he could not be reliable.

[Badger]

Then I guess I am wrong because I actually read what the various authors wrote and it doesn't hang together.

Well, maybe. I must ponder your points.

[bdp]

Maybe you didn't realize that I used minimal facts...

 

[Ouroboros]

Maximal faith on minimal facts... that's right, it's belief without complete information.

[Guest Marshall]

If anyone has read this book and can explain to me why he is convinced by this evidence or can point me out to great counter articles to the Resurrection it would be greatly appreciated.

 

I would propose the following events as "historical facts:"

• Jesus died due to crucifixion and was buried afterwards.
  
• His tomb was (probably) discovered to be empty.
  
• The disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
  
• Due to these experiences, they were radically transformed.
  
• James, the sceptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he had similar experience.
  
• A few years later the same happened to Paul, who was the persecutor of the Church.
  

(As a side note, this is actually the opinion of the majority of the scholars, non-Christians and Christians alike, who have studied the resurrection of Jesus. Of course we can't conclude that something is true simply because so and so many scholars agree with each other, but this is good place to start in oder to avoid hyper-scepticism.)

 

I'm very late to this conversation, but felt it necessary to respond to the historicity of these historical facts.

• Jesus died due to crucifixion and was buried afterwards. - OK, no major objections.
  
• His tomb was (probably) discovered to be empty. - Major objection. We have no reason to believe this outside of the claims made in the gospels (almost all written by individuals who never even met Jesus).
  
• The disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. - or so they claimed, a claim just as easily made if they were telling a lie.
  
• Due to these experiences, they were radically transformed. - we have nothing to base such an assumption on.
  
• James, the sceptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he had similar experience. - Hmmm...let me get this strait; Jesus' birth was announced by an angel; he was born of a virgin; a star appeared directly over the location he was born; Herod slaughtered all the male children around Bethlehem to kill Jesus; Magi appeared shortly after his birth bearing valuable gifts; angels appeared at his birth; he and his family had to flee to Egypt to avoid being killed by Herod; however later his brother James was surprised to learn that his brother was “special”...whatever. Fact, we have no evidence that James ever considered his brother a god or believed that he resurrected from death.
  
• A few years later the same happened to Paul, who was the persecutor of the Church. - Fact: there is no evidence, outside of his own personal claims (and those of his lackey Luke), that Paul ever persecuted anyone. Claiming such a thing to a bunch of Greek Pagans was an easy way to gain credibility without anyone actually knowing it was a lie. There is no evidence of a Jewish lead persecution of the Christians shortly after Jesus' death and it seems very unlikely that Saul actually ever killed anyone. Paul was a brilliant liar and knew that this was simply a very cleaver way to be taken seriously by the Greeks he was attempting to convert.
  

 

I love this claim that these “historical facts” are widely accepted by most non-Christian scholars. This has not been my experience and I would like a list of just who the individuals are if possible.

[RationalOkie]

[*]James, the sceptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he had similar experience. - Hmmm...let me get this strait; Jesus' birth was announced by an angel; he was born of a virgin; a star appeared directly over the location he was born; Herod slaughtered all the male children around Bethlehem to kill Jesus; Magi appeared shortly after his birth bearing valuable gifts; angels appeared at his birth; he and his family had to flee to Egypt to avoid being killed by Herod; however later his brother James was surprised to learn that his brother was “special”...whatever. Fact, we have no evidence that James ever considered his brother a god or believed that he resurrected from death.

 

Hmmm....James, the first Atheist. I like that.

[RationalOkie]

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us?"

-- Pope Leo X (1513 - 1521).

 

Unless someone can prove otherwise, I believe this has been proven to be a fraudulent statement attributed to Pope Leo X. I've never found a reliable source confirming that he said this. I think it's likely not true that he said it. Again, I don't have all of the facts but that's my recollection.