A commenter on another blog challenged me to explain the reasons why I think it reasonable to be agnostic about the existence of a historical Jesus. As the blogger didn’t want to get into the substantive issues, I decided to make my response a post here even though these are all points I have made in previous posts.
Most historical figures from the ancient are known to us today because they were literate or prominent people or they did things during their lives that had an impact on their literate or prominent contemporaries. It was the impact of their lives that caused information about them to be preserved. Information about Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, was preserved because some person or persons claimed to have encountered him after he was dead. Had it not been for a belief that arose in supernatural events occurring after his death, we cannot be certain that Jesus would have left any mark in the historical record that would be discernible two thousand years later.
There is nothing out of the ordinary in supernatural events being associated with historical figures in the ancient world. Fantastic supernatural stories about Alexander the Great spread after his death, but it was a result of the impact of the things he accomplished during his natural life. Stories about Jesus’ natural life, on the other hand, were preserved and perpetuated as a result of the belief that arose in the things he accomplished supernaturally after his death. If you strip away the supernatural stories about Alexander the Great, you still have a significant historical footprint. If you strip away the supernatural stories about Jesus of Nazareth, you strip away the reason that any information about him was preserved in the first place.
None of this constitutes evidence that Jesus didn’t exist or that the mythicism is likely true. However, I do think it creates unique problems for the historian insofar as historians reason by analogy. If a historian wishes to evaluate data concerning a poorly documented general or king from the ancient world, he can compare it to the data for many other generals and kings, some of whom will be much better documented. On the other hand, the reason a first century itinerant preacher like Jesus couldn’t be expected to leave much of a historical footprint is because no first century itinerant preachers left much of a historical footprint. As a result, it becomes very hard to reason by analogy.
I don’t think that I have seen any historical Jesus scholar adequately address these issues, but what troubles me even more is how often they will compare doubting the existence of a historical Jesus to doubting the Holocaust or the moon landing on the grounds that the consensus of scholars on all these issues is so strong that to doubt any of them is to engage in nihilistic skepticism. This strikes me as ridiculous as little that happened in the ancient world is as certain as anything that happened in the twentieth century.
History is about establishing what probably happened and probability is determined by the quantity and quality of evidence, not by the number of scholars who look at the evidence. Doubting that Shakespeare wrote The Tempest is not comparable to doubting that Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address regardless of how strong the consensus of scholars might be on the former. It is perfectly sensible to be more certain about the latter.
It may be that it is objectively more likely than not that a historical Jesus existed. However, until I encounter historical Jesus scholars who have a little better grasp of probability, I think I will remain agnostic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Vinny, I actually appreciate that you’ve attempted something, even if I think some of your conclusions are wrongheaded.
ReplyDeletePart I
Let’s take a look as some of your points:
“Most historical figures from the ancient are known to us today because they were literate or prominent people or they did things during their lives that had an impact on their literate or prominent contemporaries. It was the impact of their lives that caused information about them to be preserved.”
-Your first point stands to reason only because the written record is the only means by which historical figures of the ancient world are testified to. But neither is it unusual for the situation in modern history. People generally don’t write histories about people who haven’t *done* anything in the world. Regular people are rarely if ever the object of the historian’s interest unless we are speaking about people in a collective sense (for instance, Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States).
“Information about Jesus Nazareth, on the other hand, was preserved because some persons or persons claimed to have encountered him after he was dead.”
This statement is wrong on many different levels: First, you’ve made a historical statement without providing any evidence of what was in fact believed and what the motivations were that prompted preservation of tradition. Moreover, there are many different Gospels accounts, and at least two of them (Mark and Luke) did not claim to have encountered Jesus after his death (either explicitly or by tradition). Luke is explicit: “they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:2). And Luke in this situation is not saying that those who passed the traditions along did so because they encountered something supernatural after his death. They were eyewitness of his life and his teachings, and ministers of word, namely some taught others. This would mean that at least part of the reason preserving the traditions was to teach others. In other words, the reasons traditions about Jesus were preserved has to be more than that some persons claim to have encountered him after his death. No doubt he was significant to some because they believed that he had risen from the dead, but the reason cannot be that people claimed to encounter him. A clue to this should be seen in the fact that the traditions about Jesus have very little to do with the post-death appearances. They are usually reserved to a little less than a chapter at the end, and have more to do with the witnesses’ experience than they do anything else. What this suggests is that the reason the traditions were preserved was for some other reason than that they wanted to prove Jesus was risen from the dead. They wanted to teach others what he did do and what he had said, because it had a certain relevance for Christians.
Part II
ReplyDelete“Had it not been for a belief that arose in supernatural events occurring after his death, we cannot be certain that Jesus would have left any mark in the historical record that would be discernible two thousand years later.”
–This seems to me to be a silly thing to say. If history were different from what did happen, yes, it might be the case that things would be different. This tells us nothing about what is the case in the real world. You or I cannot say what would or would not be the case in world that doesn’t exist, since the probability of matters would be different. Sure we cannot be certain, but nor can we be certain something wouldn’t have been written about him. All you are doing is appealing to a possible world, in which we have little to tell us what would or would not be probable. But, look at Rabbinic Judaism—there are plenty traditions and sayings ascribed to Rabbis (who did not work miracles). But there we have it—we have traditions about them preserved; and none of them mustered a following comparable to that which Jesus supposedly did.
“Fantastic supernatural stories about Alexander the Great spread after his death, but it was a result of the impact of the things he accomplished during his natural life. Stories about Jesus’ natural life, on the other hand, were preserved and perpetuated as a result of the belief that arose in the things he accomplished supernaturally after his death. If you strip away the supernatural stories about Alexander the Great, you still have a significant historical footprint. If you strip away the supernatural stories about Jesus of Nazareth, you strip away the reason that any information about him was preserved in the first place.”
-Here you’ve done a strange thing. You’ve admitted that Alexander the Great existed. That supernatural feats were ascribed to him after his death. And that they were the result of the impact of the things he accomplished during his natural life. It would stand to reason that something similar should be the case for Jesus. I could (by using your logic employed about Jesus) say, well the reason Alexander the Great’s natural life was preserved was because people held supernatural beliefs about him. We would thus get to be agnostic about his existence as well.
Now you state that the stories about Jesus were preserved because of what people believed about him. But how do you know that stories about him were “preserved and perpetuated as a result of the belief that arose in the things he accomplished supernaturally after his death”? Where is your evidence for this. Yes it might be true that certain people had certain beliefs about him as regards to what happened after his death, but to know the precise reason that traditions were preserved require evidence and argumentation and not just assertion. Isn’t quite possible that they preserved because people simply wanted to preserve them? Or because they make for didactic aids or any number of reasons? You’ll have to explain why your reasons are correct, and other possible explanations incorrect. But before that you’ll also have to explain why you ascribe historicity to those persons as well.
Moreover, not everything in the Gospels is a supernatural story. If you strip away all the supernatural stories in the Gospels you still are left with traditions that (combined) have more content than for any one single rabbi. The crucifixion is not supernatural. Plenty were crucified. A whole swath of ethical sayings, debates with religious teachers, baptism. . . .
Part III
ReplyDelete“If a historian wishes to evaluate data concerning a poorly documented general or king from the ancient world, he can compare it to the data for many other generals and kings, some of whom will be much better documented. On the other hand, the reason a first century itinerant preacher like Jesus couldn’t be expected to leave much of a historical footprint is because no first century itinerant preachers left much of a historical footprint. As a result, it becomes very hard to reason by analogy.”
What precisely are you suggesting is poorly documented? There is an overwhelming abundance of documentation for Jesus’ life as compared to other ancient figures. Actually I don’t know if there is anyone who exceeds him in that regard. Jesus does leave a large footprint even though he shouldn’t have. Of course, this may mean he wasn’t merely an itinerant preacher.
“little that happened in the ancient world is as certain as anything that happened in the twentieth century.”
-What makes you certain about this? You’ll have to explain your logic here.
“History is about establishing what probably happened and probability is determined by the quantity and quality of evidence, not by the number of scholars who look at the evidence.”
-This sounds to me like something you or others have picked up from Ehrman, and rehearsed by people life Loftus. It’s a misunderstanding of what history and historians do. The job of history and historians is to explain precisely what happened regardless of how improbable or probable that which occurred is in itself. The flying of planes into buildings is not in itself a very probable event. It will do no favors to anyone in the future if a thousand years from now historians tell their people that 9/11 never happened, because it’s not what “probably happened.”
The fact I think that you are missing about consensus or the number of scholars who ascribe to some position is that each one had to ask himself at some point whether or not something like Jesus’ existence seemed correct, plausible. To think that they are all mistaken (and keep in mind these are individuals who through history came to this conclusion individually) is really to undermine an evolved human faculty, replete with heuristics, that allows us to determine fact from fiction, truth from falsity, etc. Mothers are usually good at knowing when their children are lying, Police are often aware when their interviewees are lying as well, what about juries, students and plagiarism, etc. There is a certain something that has developed in us all which helps us to figure out what’s true and false. Now, I’m not stating that we all get it right all the time, but the point is there is usually some explanation for why we were wrong in those cases. Jesus’ existence however is not an issue that there is a lot of doubt about, and unless you want to question the intuitions of a whole host of people (separated by time and space), I think it is ridiculous to assume that Jesus didn’t exist.
Part IV
ReplyDelete“However, until I encounter historical Jesus scholars who have a little better grasp of probability”
-Why do you think your grasp of it far exceeds that everyone else? I mean you have presupposed Alexander the Great’s historicity without giving any reasons whatsoever; you’ve presupposed that the were Jesus’ followers with very specific held beliefs which created their need to preserve traditions. Yet why did you assume this? What is the historical method you employed to get there? What evidence do you have? You don’t get to assume things and deny others just because they happen to suit your purposes. I expect more from someone who prides himself in having a better handle of probability than a whole host of others.
Isn't an agnostic just an atheist without balls?--Stephen Colbert to Bart Ehrman
ReplyDeleteThis statement is wrong on many different levels: First, you’ve made a historical statement without providing any evidence of what was in fact believed and what the motivations were that prompted preservation of tradition.
ReplyDeleteThis statement is wrong on only one level, basic logic. My statement is not wrong simply because evidence is not provided. It is simply a statement for which evidence is not provided. It may nonetheless be perfectly correct.
Moreover, there are many different Gospels accounts, and at least two of them (Mark and Luke) did not claim to have encountered Jesus after his death (either explicitly or by tradition). Luke is explicit: “they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:2). And Luke in this situation is not saying that those who passed the traditions along did so because they encountered something supernatural after his death.
So what? I am not claiming claim that any of the Evangelists claimed Jesus appeared to them or that every single person who passed on stories about Jesus claimed he had appeared to them.
Now you state that the stories about Jesus were preserved because of what people believed about him. But how do you know that stories about him were “preserved and perpetuated as a result of the belief that arose in the things he accomplished supernaturally after his death”?
I believe this to be case because the earliest Christian writer tells me that belief in Jesus' resurrection was of "first importance" for the movement and that all was "in vain" without it. It was the motivation behind the whole movement.
To think that they are all mistaken (and keep in mind these are individuals who through history came to this conclusion individually) is really to undermine an evolved human faculty, replete with heuristics, that allows us to determine fact from fiction, truth from falsity, etc.
I haven't seen any evidence that many New Testament scholars have even thought about the question. In Did Jesus Exist?, Bart Ehrman wrote that he was unaware for most of his career and that most of his colleagues are unaware of the challenges to the idea of the existence of Jesus.
What precisely are you suggesting is poorly documented?
First century itinerant preachers who live their lives unnoticed outside a small band of peasant followers. The lives of first century crucified criminals.
“little that happened in the ancient world is as certain as anything that happened in the twentieth century.”
-What makes you certain about this? You’ll have to explain your logic here.“little that happened in the ancient world is as certain as anything that happened in the twentieth century.”
-What makes you certain about this? You’ll have to explain your logic here.
No. I don't.
Why do you think your grasp of it far exceeds that [of] everyone else?
I don't.
-“This statement is wrong on only one level, basic logic. My statement is not wrong simply because evidence is not provided. It is simply a statement for which evidence is not provided. It may nonetheless be perfectly correct.”
DeleteHave you actually taken logic? Logic does not determine what statements are true or false; it dictates what can and cannot be derived from true and false statements. Whether a statement is true or false is not something logic shows.
Quibbling with me about logic because you have no evidence for your claim about why Jesus traditions were preserved doesn’t strengthen your case. “It may nonetheless be perfectly correct” without any evidence may at best get you a cup of coffee—but that’s about it.
-“So what? I am not claiming claim that any of the Evangelists claimed Jesus appeared to them or that every single person who passed on stories about Jesus claimed he had appeared to them.”
Yes, but you haven’t provided one instance of where there is someone who preserved the traditions because of their encounter. I at least can provide you with some evidence that there were other reasons for the said preservation. Moreover, keep in mind what is included in the “of first importance” section is also all the other statements in 1 Cor 15:3–8.
-“I believe this to be case because the earliest Christian writer tells me that belief in Jesus' resurrection was of "first importance" for the movement and that all was "in vain" without it. It was the motivation behind the whole movement.”
But here you are assuming what about this “earliest Christian”? That he was writing at a time close enough in proximity to the events that such that his statements would have some relevancy. What is your argument that he should be assumed to have lived in such proximity? How did you reach that historical conclusion? What’s your historical methodology?
-“I haven't seen any evidence that many New Testament scholars have even thought about the question. In Did Jesus Exist?, Bart Ehrman wrote that he was unaware for most of his career and that most of his colleagues are unaware of the challenges to the idea of the existence of Jesus.”
I have in mind for the statement you are referring to which I wrote either cases where Jesus’ existence has been presumed or where it has specifically been argued. At some point, after looking at the Gospels one has to make a judgment about whether these either historically refer or whether they do not (whether in part or wholly).
What precisely are you suggesting is poorly documented?
-“First century itinerant preachers who live their lives unnoticed outside a small band of peasant followers. The lives of first century crucified criminals.”
But Jesus is the exception to this. There is a greater wealth of information than just about any other historical figure of the ancient world.
“little that happened in the ancient world is as certain as anything that happened in the twentieth century.” -What makes you certain about this? You’ll have to explain your logic here.
-“No. I don't.”
Well, of course, you don’t *have to. But that isn’t quite the sense with which I used “You’ll have to explain . . .,” which really possesses an internal logic of “If one is to be justified in holding this belief, he or she will have to explain (whether to himself or another) why it is that he holds such and such to be the case,” or something to that effect.
But you are quite right, I think, you don’t have to explain it to *me. But if you care to, explain it to yourself at least.
//Have you actually taken logic?//
DeleteHi John. I teach logic. Vinny is right. Your statement that Vinny's claim is wrong because he hasn't produced evidence for it is false. Just as Vinny said, that he didn't produce evidence for it didn't make it wrong. This is a basic point of logic, and Vinny's analysis of the logical point is spot on.
You went on to make the point that since he'd provided no evidence, his point doesn't have much force. For what it's worth, that's right. But this does not constitute a criticism. It is at best a characterization--"This premise in your argument is one I don't see a reason to agree with." No problem. This just means you're inviting the discussion to move into reasons for or against believing the premise. You're not showing that there's a level at which the statement is "wrong." You're explaining where you think the conversation ought to turn, if it is to continue.
Later in your comments you said that history isn't about what probably happened, because what actually happened may be extremely improbable. You actually took Vinny to task over his understanding of probability in following up on this comment! You have to understand, though, that it is your comment that displays the fairly breathtaking lack of understanding of how probabilistic reasoning works.
Basically: If you have established that something actually happened, you have thereby established that it probably happened, because to establish that something actually happened just is to establish that its probability is one over one.
I don't think I can discuss your 9/11 example because I don't know enough about the hypothetical scenario you outlined to say what's probable or improbable from the point of view of the future historians. What I'd be interested in is hearing from you an example of a historical event you think is both actual and highly improbable. (Ideally, but not necessarily, this would be an event that is widely acknowledged by historians.) I'll use that example to show you why, if the event is actual, it is actually highly probable.
Well for anyone else who may be reading and isn't sure what I mean (or for John himself if he's still reading this or simply hasn't gotten to reply yet), a very simple example would be this. If I think to myself "seven of clubs," and then draw randomly out of a fair deck the seven of clubs, I can imagine someone saying "that was an actual but improbable event." But while it is improbable in one sense (in the sense that it's a very rare occurence), it's not improbable in the sense indicated when we say a historian's job is to figure out what probably happened. In a case like this, "what probably happened" is what actually happened--a seven of clubs was drawn. If there was some question about what probably happened, (i.e., if for some reason after drawing the card I doubted I'd actually drawn a seven of clubs) all I have to do is examine the evidence (the card in my hand, for example) and I can confirm for myself again that "what probably happened" is the erstwhile "improbable" event--the drawing of a seven of clubs.
DeleteOf course, if I'd already replaced the card in the deck, and I had reasons to think my memory was inaccurate, it may not turn out to be possible for me to be confident about "what probably happened." In such a case, even if what actually happened was that I did draw the seven of clubs, nevertheless, since I don't have good evidence for this, my most responsible option is to say "I don't know what happened" at best. To affirm, in this revised scenario, that I'd drawn the seven of clubs, would be positively irresponsible--it would be making an affirmation on insufficient evidence.
But with that caveat stated, the main point is: A very rare and surprising event (i.e. one we'd call "improbable" before looking at the relevant evidence for determining what happened) can nevertheless be _probable_ in light of the evidence we do have. In affirming surprising or apparently miraculous events, a historian shouldn't think they are going against the idea that a historian's job is to figure out what probably happened.
Vinny, you've been a gentleman for indulging me. I'm officially out. You have last word, should you want it. All the best in your interests and inquiries.
ReplyDeleteHave you actually taken logic? Logic does not determine what statements are true or false; it dictates what can and cannot be derived from true and false statements. Whether a statement is true or false is not something logic shows.
DeleteI have in fact taken logic. Logic determines whether conclusions follow from premises. The conclusion that a statement is wrong does not follow from the premise that it did not provide evidence.
But here you are assuming what about this “earliest Christian”?
I am assuming that the earliest Christian's writings are relevant evidence of what the earliest Christians believed.
At some point, after looking at the Gospels one has to make a judgment about whether these either historically refer or whether they do not (whether in part or wholly).
Actually one doesn't. One can simply accept on faith what one is taught in one's church. If one never thinks to question a matter of faith, one can go on believing it without ever making a historical judgment.
Well, of course, you don’t *have to. But that isn’t quite the sense with which I used “You’ll have to explain . . .,”
I think the sense that you used "You'll have to explain..." is the same sense in which a five-year old asks "Why?" ad nauseum. It gives them a feeling of control over the conversation.