Repeatedly, Licona tells us we need to look at the evidence and use the best hypothesis; he's very willing to discount numerous Biblical details as being products of legend. The evidence in question for the resurrection seems to boil down to:
Paul of Tarsus "received oral tradition," only a couple years after Jesus's death (as he relates in certain letters he wrote reproduced in the Bible) that Jesus was crucified and afterwords appeared bodily multiple times to groups of individuals. Licona is convinced that Paul is passing on this tradition faithfully, and that the tradition itself reflected actual statements of witnesses to these appearances, due to the strong respect for unalterable tradition among the particular Jewish sect that was the source of the tradition and Paul's distinguishing clearly in his speech between what he's received and what new ideas he's putting forward.
Luke the host comes back at him with Hume's argument against miracles, and Licona replies that we have no basis for positing prior probabilities for the miraculous based on observations of non-miraculous nature. The argument then gets very repetitive and frustrating; Licona does not have a response for how then, having thrown out Hume's claim that we're epistemologically bound to discard highly implausible explanations (i.e. we don't have the grounding for saying that they're implausible) we can disclaim the many other miracle claims. Licona is ready to grant, instead, that contemporary miracle reports may in many cases be legitimate and insists that this historical evidence for the resurrection is stronger than that for other alleged miracles. To their credit, both Licona and Luke have enough interest in this that they have numerous alleged miracle examples on hand for consideration, but really, given that Licona has a 67 page bibliography in his dissertation on sources considering the resurrection miracle, Luke is not going to have the resources to effectively counter Licona's claims.
The whole discussion makes me very curious about the philosophy of history, i.e. how much evidence do respected historians require before they grant that some event occurs. A great deal of Licona's argument rests on this threshold being extremely low, and that having Paul's testimony is apparently sufficient to meet this threshold.
I take Licona at his word that he made a good faith effort to put aside his biases, but I think I need a second opinion or three before I find any of his comments even about "the consensus of historians" on his point convincing. If anything, this reinforces the common conviction expressed in some moments on our episode that folks with different temperaments are going to interpret the same evidence differently. I'm generally optimistic about our ability to overcome such bias, but without looking at all of Licona's evidence and maybe doing some sort of psychological evaluation of him (and me) if what he's seeing doesn't look at all like what I see, I can't say anything more definite here.
All in all, this is a great discussion, and Luke is a sensitive and engaged interviewer on topics like this. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the discussion (and per usual with many of these things, listening to it on double speed is a handy way to make it go by more quickly, if you have an iPhone or some other way to make that happen).
-Mark Linsenmayer
Hi guys,
I started following your podcast recently and have enjoyed the recent philosophy of religion discussions (and I’m looking forward to the upcoming New Atheists episode). Since you’re following up some leads, I thought I’d chime in and suggest a few resources.
I was also put off by Licona’s apparent gullibility in this interview about alleged supernatural phenomena. Imho, he did himself and his position a disservice. I think he represents himself better in the following radio debate with Bart Ehrman on the resurrection of Jesus: http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={32EC8B32-035E-4C2D-AB44-38C0210FD9FD}
Other Christians arguing for the resurrection on philosophical grounds include Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and Tim and Lydia McGrew (Luke interviewed her too on an episode of CPBD). Gary Habermas is known for his historical work on the resurrection, and N.T. Wright makes a historical case for it too. You’re probably already aware of some of these.
Some of these approaches deal with Hume’s argument, some seem to just bracket it. The state of the philosophical debate over Hume’s argument against miracles seems to take John Earman’s book “Hume’s Abject Failure” as its starting point. Peter Millican (Oxford and co-editor of “Hume Studies”) wrote a reply defending Hume. The abstract can be found here: http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2009/12/humes-abject-failure-millicans-reply-to.html
Folks like Licona, Greg Koukl, Bill Craig, and J.P. Moreland all seem to have made careers rehearsing each others arguments for the resurrection of Jesus. Actually, Bill Craig is probably the one conjuring up the thoughts that the rest of them then think after him. But from what I’ve seen, their case for the resurrection goes as follows:
Evidence Statement (E): Jesus’ tomb was found empty, the disciples experienced postmortem appearances of Jesus, and the disciples came to believe that Jesus was Israel’s resurrected Messiah.
(1) The hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead, if true, would explain E very well.
(2) The best naturalistic rival hypotheses are very implausible.
(3) Therefore, probably God raised Jesus from the dead.
The intelligent person will know that even if both (1) and (2) are true, (3) in no way follows. First, E is hardly a statement of all the relevant data. Inferring (3) merely from the fact that the resurrection hypothesis is very good at explaining E commits the fallacy of incomplete evidence. Second, as Bayes’ Theorem (which Licona and Craig usually avoid like the plague) shows, in order to infer (3), we must also attend to the prior probability (i.e., the plausibility of the hypothesis independent of the data) of the resurrection hypothesis. That, of course, would require assigning a probability to the following conjunction:
God exists and God chose to raise Jesus from the dead.
Clearly the historian, qua historian, can say nothing of interest about the probability of God’s existence. That is why historians can’t prove the resurrection occurred, not some nonsense about naturalistic biases that these apologists love to distract their readers into arguing about. Licona and Craig have very little of interest to say about the prior probability of the resurrection. But without a sense for its prior probability, we will not be able to infer (3), or even the weaker claim that other evidence held equal it is probable that God raised Jesus from the dead. In their debates, Craig and Licona spend a lot of time arguing for premise (2) above. They don’t seem to realize that even if the naturalistic explanations are implausible, it could still be the case that they are more plausible than the resurrection hypothesis. The nature of the beast requires that the reasoning be comparative throughout, but they seem to think that they can begin their victory dance without making the comparative judgment.
Re: the Bayesian stuff, I’m not an expert, but it’s worth noting that Hume’s argument (which started off the PEL discussion) is not Bayesian (obviously that’s anachronistic, but still relevant) since all he seems to consider is the prior probability, which is admittedly low. He doesn’t consider whatever specific evidence there might be for the claim in question, which in a Bayesian analysis could overcome low priors. I take it this is the meat of Earman’s critique. The McGrews use a Bayesian analysis to argue that this is in fact true in the case of the resurrection even given very low prior probability. Although the alleged facts they adduce may be controversial, they at least assign a low prior probability to miracles. And they don’t assume theism in their approach. Some salient material here: http://bit.ly/cWgfpz
I’ve read the McGrews’ article. Unlike Licona, the McGrews don’t argue that it is probable that Jesus rose from the dead. Instead, they argue that the evidence is strong enough that it could overcome a very low initial prior probability.
People don’t come to believe in the resurrection based on evidence, they believe it because they have already assented to the authority of the testimony and because of the sheer lack of alternate explanations that would better explains the facts and that would provide good reason to reject the authority of the testimony.
All alternate theories are little more than diabolical conspiracy theories, which would require people to give ordinary men some pretty amazing, collaborative, and sinister powers (obtained from the dark forces of hell, mwahahaha!) in order to be believed. But we know there are people who are willing to throw their brain in the trash and assent to believing “a well-orchestrated diabolical conspiratorial plot waged against mankind was afoot” before they’d ever be willing to admit that the resurrection is the most simple and is consequentially the most plausible (least offensive to reason) among all the explanations given the facts. And to admit that isn’t to admit that the resurrection occurred, it’s to admit that alternate theories are goofball conspiracy theories that are far too vast and diabolical for any person with good sense to believe.
The resurrection is the best theory not because it’s oh so reasonable, it’s the best as a consequence of the alternate theories being so frickin’ nutty that simply by comparison the resurrection stands as the most reasonable and least offensive to good sense.
There are people who can’t even believe non-supernatural extraordinary events occurred now even if its the most simple explanation and has the best evidence, and instead believe diabolical conspiracy theories instead. (911 truthers). We’re not even talking about supernatural events here, before 911, no one would have believed that hijackers would fly planes into buildings and take down the WTC’s. And there’s a very large and vocal movement that outright refuses to believe it happened the way it did now.
Holocaust deniers cannot comprehend the holocaust either, and not even video and Nazi confessions and the German governments own admission will convince them. “No, it’s a conspiracy, everyone is trying to trick us and I am smart because I’m onto them and their trickery. Can’t trick me. I ‘get’ stuff. You gotta read between the lines and connect the dots, then you’ll that see a well-orchestrated diabolical plot by the rich and powerful to trick mankind is afoot! If people just used their noggin’ like I do they would totally see that.”
I personally hate conspiracy theories, even the mere dabbling and entertainment of them, and think they make men so suspicious to the point of committing some great evils simply because they have assented to giving men near-supernatural evil powers in order to make their nutball theory coherent. The holocaust itself is an example of what can happen when people give credence to conspiracy theories that assert that there’s a diabolical plot afoot after engaging in a tweakers favorite pastime game of connect-the-dots.
And aside from that, just about everything we believe that we can’t prove ourselves we accept on human testimony and authority. Being skeptical and practicing discernment is good, but it’s no longer a healthy skepticism when one has to resort to conspiracy theories. At that point it becomes blind faith in the true sense of the term, it’s the conviction to somehow explain and make everything somehow fit into what you already DESIRE to be the case when the historical evidence is working against what you **need** to be true. It’s a skepticism that is not too different from the sort practiced by a YEC who invents diabolical conspiracies about the scientific community and Academia because the evidence is working against what he **needs** to be true in order to maintain his favorite interpretation of Genesis.
And respecting Mark’s question about the historical method and the weighing of evidence, I don’t believe any historian is required nor obligated to mark the resurrection or any supernatural event as a historical fact. No one for that matter is obligated to, even if any supernatural explanation was the best the explanation available. But historians can only work with the evidence available to them, and if they practice the kind of skepticism that conspiracy theorists practice, then they’d be forced to toss just about all the entire historical record into the trash. Naturally, historians don’t like that idea, and in order to preserve history, rather than chalk the whole thing up to BS, they must accept the authority of human testimony and practice discernment and make personal judgments when faced with contradictions, conflicting accounts, or holes, or any other thing that makes human testimony difficult. Otherwise, they’d have to toss it all right out the window or even worse, invent conspiracy theories. And historians don’t have any authority to do either one. Speaking of which, I think that’s also a good marker of an unethical historian who has given himself more authority than he’s entitled to, when he starts dreaming up sensational conspiracy theories and calling it history…usually done in an effort to more sell books by enticing the irrationally paranoid.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.
Hi
would somone be so kind as to explain to me which “majority of scholars” claim that ancient religious texts and the oral traditions related in them are evidence for an actual physically occurring resurrection of christ? I doubt there are any actual historians who do, exempting biblical scholars whoI have to regard as really little more then very specialized literary critics/historians.
I mean seriously, doesn t a person citing religious texts as testimony really fundamentally misunderstand how to scientifically approach to history. Not being a historian myself (I study English and haven t majored yet) I can t say very much about the methodologies used in the field but licona’s standard of proof seems radically different from mine .. i suspect our very different judgements of the historical veracity of biblical sources may have something to do with that.
I believe luke refers to this when he says something like “we have very different epistemologies”
a far to lenient approach in my humble opinion …
In any case I have to say the sheer mindboggling cheekiness of the whole argument almost left me speechless. But given the fact that are so often very vocal in their proclamation of the “authority of the testimony” I felt it neccessary to show colors, and demonstrate that some listeners of your podcast actually prefer sceptical rational thinking to pseudo history and apologetic sophistry for which US culture unfortunately seems so much tolerance (I blame the largely puritan roots of the initial settlers.. ). In europe people who believe in the bible as historical document in the sense that it attests to the actual existence of the protagonists and any of the supernatural claims made therein are at best considered rather eccentric (or at least I hope so) …
without wanting to offend anyone, but the more I see how christian religious fundamentalism influences US culture and politics the more I understand people like sam harris, hitchens etc.
Despite my personal agnosticism with strong tendency towards the no, I used to have lots of sympathy for the quest for spiritual ideals religion in part represents but listening to discussions like these just shows how a undeserved respect given to the pursuit of spiritual truths, and the claims made in its name emboldens crazy people to say crazy things. And it starts with letting them get away with statements like “it is undisputed by any scholar that the disciples witnessed jesus’ resurrection”, leads to people shooting abortion doctors in defense of their believes and ends god (hehehe) knows where …
As a historian, I can accept the Epistles as genuine historical documents, accepting at the same time ‘the authority of human testimony and practice discernment and make personal judgments when faced with contradictions, conflicting accounts, or holes, or any other thing that makes human testimony difficult’ as noted above by Ace. In this context, we must remember that the Bible is not a single source, but a collection of writings that date from the 1st century and that were later collected into a single volume, i.e. it is a collection of writings that became a holy book. The only part of the New Testament that I think can rightly be called ‘scripture’ is limited to the utterances of Jesus (assuming they were rendered faithfully).
At the same time, I’m not willing to accept these accounts at face value. First, even as a believer, I have problems with anything miraculous, and I’m not going to accept anything as literal that flies in the face of science. Second, and this is related, I don’t think the entire text was meant to be read literally (i.e. there are many clues throughout the New Testament that point to a non-literal interpretation).
While I believe that the Gospel accounts are generally trustworthy (as trustworthy as any other text of comparable age), I also believe that the Gospel writers had an agenda, that being to legitimize the station/message of Jesus among the Jews, and to vilify their detractors among the priesthood.
Relative to the question of the resurrection, the Jewish origins of Christianity is important because, as far as I know Jews do not believe in physical resurrection. Also, as a historian, I see no compelling reason to accept such a fantastic event as literally true because other explanations are more plausible (dreams, vision, it’s metaphorical), especially with other clues pointing away from literalism.
Only after Paul starting preaching a more universal creed, and taking the message to the gentiles, did Christianity move out from under its original Jewish context. Then, after the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Jews (including the followers of Jesus) were scattered throughout the Roman world, which spread what became Christianity (thanks to Paul’s universalism) among the Romans.
As Christianity spread among the Romans (despite the persecutions), and because many or perhaps even most of these converts were not Jews, Christianity became Romanized. It is here that we find a more plausible explanation as to how Christians came to believe that the resurrection was literally true.
In the Roman world, the gods were visualized as people, and men (emperors) were elevated to the status of gods. Thus, in the early centuries when Christianity was developing, it was in a world where it was quite easy to a man as a god, and thus easy to see Jesus as God. Couple this with the archetypal ‘dying god’ common to European and Near Eastern mythology, and we can see that the story of Jesus dying and returning would have been easily accepted among the Romanized Christians who canonized the Bible in the early 4th century (i.e. they selected those Gospels and epistles that best fit their world view). As such, Christianity is as much a 4th century Roman phenomena as it is a 1st century Jewish one.
Wow! Evangelical scholar Michael Licona just denied the presence and testimony of the Holy Spirit in his heart in a discussion on Bart Ehrman’s blog today:
Dear Dr. Licona: Is it true that since you were ten years old (the age of your conversion to Christianity), you have believed that the spirit (ghost) of an executed first century man (Jesus of Nazareth) lives inside your body and communicates with you in some fashion, “testifying” to you that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an historical fact?
Michael Licona: No.
Yet on his Facebook page, Licona says that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is “essential” for someone to believe in Jesus as his resurrected Savior! Why the discrepancy???
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
—Gospel of Matthew 10:33