This post will serve to wrap up my discussion of Michael Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Licona is convinced that a fair examination of the evidence will lead to the conclusion that Jesus was raised from the dead. But yet I’ve not heard of anyone changing their mind after reading the book. I don’t doubt that somewhere someone has been convinced, but I’ve not heard of such an instance. So for the sake of argument, let’s say that a handful of people have become convinced that Jesus was raised. Why don’t more? Some will claim that Satan has blinded the masses, others that it’s due to a reluctance to believe a Christian claim, and still others that it’s simply because the evidence just isn’t enough. I want to illustrate this last suggestion by proposing my own hypothetical scenario…
Imagine that you are transported back to the year 34 C.E. and you are able to speak and understand both Greek and Aramaic, and whatever standard you require to be convinced that you truly are in 34 C.E. is met. While in Jerusalem, you find your way to Peter, John, and James the brother of Jesus. Amazed at this opportunity, you begin asking them questions and learn that all three of these men are convinced of the following things:
- Jesus died by crucifixion.
- He was buried in a tomb.
- Two days later a group of women discovered the tomb empty and some of Jesus’ male disciples also visited the tomb to verify the women’s story.
- Peter saw Jesus alive.
- James the brother of Jesus saw Jesus alive.
- A group of over 500 people saw Jesus alive.
- Several other times Jesus was seen alive by some of his followers, and these followers, including Peter, John, and James, ate and talked with Jesus.
- Some guy named Paul, who had formerly opposed these disciples, claimed two years ago (two years after Jesus’ death) to have seen Jesus and has now begun teaching that Jesus truly is Israel’s messiah.
Even after having such an experience, I doubt that more than a handful of people who were previously skeptical would change their mind and become convinced that Jesus rose from the dead. Our worldviews and preconceptions are too powerful to overcome – skeptics would still remain skeptics, and believers would feel even more affirmed in their beliefs. What do you think? Would any skeptics be convinced within this scenario? Am I too skeptical about it?
Granted my suspicion, it comes as no surprise to me that books such as Licona’s seem to accomplish as little as they do in persuading doubters. If someone wouldn’t believe under my hypothetical scenario, they sure won’t believe 2000 years later.
Dale Allison’s description puts things exactly as I see them:
It is our worldview that interprets the textual data, not the textual data that determines our worldview. One who disbelieves in all so-called miracles can, with good conscience, remain disbelieving in the literal resurrection of Jesus after an examination of the evidence, just as a traditional Christian can, without intellectual guilt, retain belief after surveying the pertinent particulars. (Resurrecting Jesus, 342)
I think you are one of my new favorite biblioblogs. Gotta agree with you with everything, excpet I don’t know about the details like the whole eating fish story
Assuming that those who left this time and was transported to the year 34 CE still retained their scientific perspective, then I would say that they would not be convinced, not as you have presented it. Of course, if I went back to the year 34 CE, then I would have many more questions for the eyewitnesses and with more information, I may be able to come to a more complete understanding of the events. However, ultimately, it is not the events of 2000 years ago that matter to me. The question for me, Is Jesus a powerful enough symbol of certain ideas, a powerful enough exemplar of a way of life so as to create a life changing experience in my life, so as to open my spiritual self to a transforming experience of God (ultimate reality, power of the future, ground of being, love, creatively, whatever you may want to call God), so as to have this Jesus rise in my life so that I can participate completely in reality with the result of happiness, abundant life, and well-being? So far, I must say the answer is a resounding yes. Jesus lives in me and he is raised from the dead everytime I respond to his example, resulting in a more complete life for me and others.
If one is forced to remain in the realm of historical-scientific objectivity, one is likely to remain skeptical. However, none of the writers, not even Dr. Henderson, has mentioned the Holy Spirit. For it is by the witness of the Holy Spirit that we are empowered to understand the reality of God, because God exists beyond the bounds of the physical. History can only demonstrate that Jesus lived and Jesus died. While history can allude to the fact that Jesus was resurrected, it can only be believed via faith. ANd that is as God intended.
What is the testimony of the holy spirit? Where is it? What is it? Where is it written down? How can I get access to it? How can I verify it? Why did it tell Calvin one thing and Luther the opposite? What evidence is there that it even exists? How is invoking the spirit different for any skeptical investigator from saying “I wish it were true”? Why doesn’t the holy spirit ever tell anyone how to unify quantum mechanics and relativity, or how to end the suffering of the poor?
My speculation as to why the Holy Spirit does (or doesn’t do) anything would be meaningless. I do think society understands how to deal with the issue of the poor. We certainly have the resources, we simply lack the united will. Individually, we can do our part through organizations like Feed my starving children, Compassion, and World Vision, to name a few. The Holy Spirit exists right in the midst of love, hope, faith, joy, and peace – perhaps even the source of those qualities. The Holy Spirit testifies directly to our spirit. While certain aspects of the Spirit are documented in the Bible, many would find the written evidence insufficient. Fortunately, the Christ-Follower is able to experience the Holy Spirit without cost or obligation. And like love, the experience is more gratifying than the evidence. Take care.
“Two days later a group of women discovered the tomb empty”
Two days? Love it!
I chose “two days later” because that’s how most modern people would describe the span between an event on Friday afternoon and another on Sunday morning. My point was to assume that the NT chronology on those points is correct.
I think the juxtaposition of the actual “two days” against the traditional “three days” forces the reader to mentally reset their thinking of these accounts as potentially historical events.
Put it another way. If you told all these things TODAY about someone you had never met, would you believe them?
I think it is also worth mentioning that the majority of the people in Jesus’ own time did not become Christians when presented with the same story. Skepticism, presuppositions and competing beliefs are not unique to the modern times. Abandoning your current belief system is an expensive proposition. Paul remains remarkable in part because such a 180 is so unusual.
Hi, Tim. Thanks again for the post. However, I wonder if there are some considerations that you do not address which establish the validity of Licona’s project, particularly as an example of similar work done by others.
First, competing worldviews (to use a term I am uncomfortable with, but it will work for now) nevertheless overlap and intersect both with each other in various ways. They can pose questions to each other in ways that make sense to both, even if the standards for what will count as a answer will differ. Those questions can potentially, though not necessarily, provoke various types of considerations and even transformations within a given worldview. In other words, prior committments to a certain understanding of reality does not mean that it is impossible to have urgent conversations with those who disagree, that publically-recognizable standards cannot be agreed upon, or that we are all locked in iron-clad presuppositions that cannot be reconsidered, reformulated, or rejected.
Second, even if adherents to competing worldviews will naturally have different standards of evidence, this does not mean that an attempt to demonstrate the resurrection as a historical event (or however one wnats to phrase it: “real event of the past,” if one is shy of using “historical” here) has no merit. If one’s worldview commits one to a belief in the possibility of divine action in the space-time world AND to the validity of historical research, then there is a logic for Licona’s (et al.) work WITHIN his own set of assumptions, regardless of whether or not any skeptics are convinced.
Finally, thoughtful Christians may wonder whether, given the POSSIBILITY of direct divine action in “our world,” there does in fact exist evidence for miracles such as the resurrection. This is a perfectly valid question for believers to have, and a perfectly valid audience for Licona’s work.
Finally, I can summarize my position by strongly objecting to Allison’s remark, since by making it he has clearly cheated: “It is our worldview that INTERPRETS the textual data, not the textual data that DETERMINES our worldview.” Well, this is simply perhaps the lamest platitude that this otherwise brilliantly gifted scholar has penned. First, to be accurate, it is our worldview that provides the framework within which WE interpret; worldviews do not interpret anything, being inanimate. Second, and more importantly, of course the textual data does not DETERMINE our worldview–who claims (or has ever claimed) as much? But textual data, and the historical reality to which they point, CAN provoke us to reaffirm, reformulate, or transform our worldview. It happens all the time.
Robert – I agree with a lot of your points, even your clarification of Allison’s remark. In fact, I “interpreted” his statement to mean essentially what your “improved” statement says. I wonder if Allison would even agree with your critique, since the way you put it is the way I understand Allison to be operating.
By the way, sorry about the two “finally” ‘s. It got carried away (but at least I have a good precursor! See Phil 3:1, 4:8)
BTW, are you not going to address Licona’s Resurrection Hypothesis (RH) in the same way that you presented the other H’s? I would appreciate your evaluation of the former in the context of the others.
Scott – I wasn’t planning to do that, since I assumed everyone knew the book’s ending. This post was my way of saying that I don’t see this book changing many minds, but as some have pointed out, maybe that wasn’t Licona’s main goal.
I am one who has wrestled with the issues of the historicity of the Gospels and has changed his worldview as a result.
I have become convinced that a solid core of real experiences — of a real person — is the only explanation for the ultimate source of the New Testament documents.
The material is presented didactically and kerygmatically, but it is unrealistic to attempt to separate these forms from their objective base in the apostle’s experience of Jesus. (This includes the most important of their experiences, their encounters with the risen Christ.)
Jesus was an itinerant rabbi who gathered disciples to travel with him and to study his words and way of life — with the apparent purpose of showing them that he was MUCH MORE than another rabbi.
The idea is untenable that the first Christians had lost touch with what he had said and done and decided to build their own versions of him from a meager store of memories.
The personality of Jesus is indelibly inscribed in all the Gospels and is inseparable from his cosmic claims and the miraculous deeds he performed.
I’ve read a lot and talked to a lot of people about these issues — from all sides. And I’ve noted, there’s a tendency toward a fortress-mentality on the part of most. In addition, I think that the greatest problem educated people have in reading the Gospels is:
On one hand, they say these are faith-oriented, teaching and preaching documents; then, on the other hand, they dissect them as if they were historical, detail-by-detail chronicles of the life of Jesus. In taking this approach, grammatical distinctives and parallels in the Gospels prompt either thorough-going theories of theological development or a search for clues for the existence of imagined communities that freely created their own versions of Christ. Surely the bulk of such speculation and explanation is lame.
The object of our study — the Gospels themselves — are not subject to such analysis. As to historicity, we can draw some valid broad generalizations from them; but we are incapable of taking material like this and building bridges to history from the minutia of this or that saying or story.
If the Gospels reflect authentic memories, we may find some unplanned — and other intentional — references that intersect with historical sources outside the Gospels. And we may find other details that do not. But we cannot — with validity — take details, differences, and parallels and build our own histories from them.
Finally, regarding Tim’s observations as to why studies and discussions of books like Licona’s don’t seem to accomplish much:
I always learn something and am prompted to study more.
Whether or not we can be convinced by GOOD ARGUMENTS from such sources and are able to dissect BAD ARGUMENTS, depends more on our moral character than anything else — to go along with the sweat, the note-taking, and the careful reflection it takes to shape a wise worldview.
I’ve had to struggle more with my own motives and lack of initiative than any other hindrances in making up my mind about Jesus.
May God help me — and help us all — to think clearly about these matters in the future.
Why am I not convinced post-Licona that Jesus was raised from the dead?
First, I don’t buy the underpinning for his arguments, which is based on eyewitness reports of Jesus sightings post-resurrection. Most of these reports are contained in books of the New Testament that may not have been written by the eyewitnesses. I distrust hearsay. Paul is, I believe, the sole direct testimony available, and even if I was willing to trust a single direct eyewitness report of a miracle, there’s a problem with Paul: he never saw Jesus prior to the crucifixion, so how can I know that his vision was really of Jesus?
Second: there is a general problem with reliance on eyewitnesses. Licona takes it as historical fact that 500+ people witnessed Jesus post-resurrection. My own faith tradition states that more than 3 million witnesses experienced God give the law to the Jewish people at Mt. Sinai, but that’s never been persuasively argued as a reason why the whole world should convert to Judaism (nor should it be!). My experience as an attorney tells me that multiple direct eyewitnesses can testify to a given event, and that these eyewitnesses can sometimes be wrong. I have been in the presence of magicians who have produced illusions I cannot explain. When we are dealing with hearsay, the chances of getting it wrong increase substantially. So I am reluctant to rely solely on the testimony of eyewitnesses as proof of any historical event.
Third, closely related to second, is that none of the reports (not even Paul’s) is contemporaneous with the events reported. The accounts in the gospels and Acts were written (according to the scholarly consensus) 30 to 80 years after the death of Jesus. Even Paul’s accounts in his epistles were written many years after his conversion experience. The memory of events (even earth-shaking events) fades and changes over time. Particularly when reports are second-hand, the passage of time allows for the accretion of legendary material, and for key details to be forgotten or distorted, and this is the case for the most accurate of witnesses.
Fourth, I’m not convinced that the eyewitness reports of Jesus sightings should be taken as historical reporting. People tell stories for any number of legitimate reasons other than to give forensic testimony of what they saw. The New Testament is not intended as a book of history; it is also a work intended to spread the good news of Jesus’ ministry and the meaning of his life and death. This good news can legitimately be spread using any number of literary techniques. Remember how Licona himself got in trouble with the literalists by claiming that some events reported in the gospels may best be understood as something other than historical fact.
Fifth: if I am to buy into the idea that miracles can be proven by historians, I lay myself open to any number of competing historical miracle claims, not to mention claims of paranormal events such as ESP and alien visitation. We are bombarded by such claims, and I think the only way to approach these claims is with extreme skepticism.
Sixth: even given the testimony of the eyewitnesses, I don’t agree that Licona’s resurrection hypothesis is the best one out there. Personally, I found other hypotheses more persuasive. The job of deciding which hypothesis is best is not mine, and it’s not solely Licona’s job either, as the criteria for this decision are neither agreed-upon or purely objective. If Licona fails to change the minds of his readers, that’s an indication that the consensus (both publicly and among historians) is that his hypothesis is NOT the best one available.
Seventh, even if the resurrection hypothesis is better than the alternatives, that doesn’t mean that this hypothesis represents historical fact or even historical probability. If there’s only a 1% chance that the resurrection hypothesis is true, it doesn’t become historically acceptable merely because all competing hypotheses have less than a 1% chance of being true. Sometimes, the best historical hypothesis is to conclude that we can’t explain what happened.
Eighth (closely related to seventh) concerns the jump from something we cannot explain naturally to something we assume is miraculous. Unless we are to take as miracle any event which we cannot persuasively explain, we’re forced into the difficult position of determining which unexplained events are miracles. This is certainly a matter for theology, not for history. Licona tries to make this distinction on the basis of which events have a religious context: so a miraculous recovery from a disease may be a miracle if it was prayed for. This effort is based on a theological assumption that we can determine which contexts are religious and that we know when God will act.
Ninth, even if I accepted the eyewitness testimony and concluded that there were good historical grounds to accept a supernatural explanation for the reports of the Jesus sightings, that would be as far as I could go. We have insufficient historical evidence to conclude that the particular supernatural explanation for these sightings was a resurrection. God could have caused these sightings by simply creating an apparition that appeared to have a body. To accept the resurrection explanation requires us to accept the explanation of the eyewitnesses both for what they saw and WHY they saw it. Licona has advanced no argument (not one I know about) that we should accept the eyewitness testimony as the testimony of experts in distinguishing resurrection miracles from all others.
Tenth: as many of the commenters above have written, the truth of the resurrection is not historical. It is a matter of faith. It is demonstrated in the life of my Christian friends, in their love for others, in their testimony of what the risen Jesus means to them. It is a truth for them that need not be a truth for me, or a truth that is accepted by any particular guild or academy. If Licona has accomplished anything, it is to help those of us outside of this truth to appreciate and understand it.
Larry, thank you so much for your comment. I could not have said it better even if I had tried. Peace and love to all!
John, you’re welcome. I enter my Shabbat with a smile on my face!
It doesn’t bother you that one of the Republican candidates for the Presidency thinks, that because it is true for him, that the government ought to start enforcing the Mosaic law? that so many millions of Christians want to interfere with the teaching of science in schools because of what they believe, and many other such things?
Helena Constantine,
Was you questions above rhetorical? Let me assume that they are not. “…bother you…..enforcing the Mosaic law?” Yes, that does bother me, particularly if it comes from a place that assumes the value of the Mosaic law based upon some type of authority. However, if someone were to suggesting the Mosaic law as a source for consideration and reflection and suggestion, I would not have a problem. After all, parts seem to me pretty good suggestions. (Hmmmmm……”Do not commit murder”). “……interfere with the teaching of science…..” This bothers me quite a bit more. As a Christian who is NOT anti-science and has NO desire to interfere with any of science teaching in schools, any candidate that opposes science education would NOT get my vote.
Helena, were you addressing your question to me? The short answer to your question is yes, it bothers me a great deal. I don’t think the “Mosaic law” should be the law of the United States. Also, and this may not be relevant to your concerns, I don’t think that the candidate you have in mind has the vaguest idea what the “Mosaic law” might be. Unless he advocates a ban on bacon cheeseburgers.
This is partly why I wrote nine reasons not to accept Licona’s argument. Taken to its logical extreme (and Licona does NOT take his argument to that extreme), we must all become Christians because the truth of Christianity has been proven objectively. As a Jew, I know the history of these kinds of arguments and where they have led.
I think Licona is reacting against a prevailing intellectual and academic atmosphere that tends to belittle and marginalize the things he most values. I think Licona (and many like him) would like matters such as miracles to be studied and discussed, not just by theologians, but by the mainstream: historians, biologists, physicists, chemists and others who today hold the keys to what we deem to be objective truth. I don’t think that what Licona wants here is workable, hence the first nine points I made above. Miracles are by their very nature things of wonder, events that we believe have happened even though they defy physical laws and normal experience. To explain a miraculous event requires a methodology that goes beyond physical laws and normal experience (i.e., theology, not history).
Your comment raises the more difficult issue of how religious people should act upon their religious beliefs. I have strong opinions on this as a member of a minority religion. I have no problem with a person being motivated by religious faith to act in the public arena. I will judge those actions based on my own standards, which will be influenced by MY religious beliefs. But at the same time, politics depends on consensus. This requires all of us to identify community and national values we can share in common, and also requires that we be willing to compromise when our values conflict. Religion can play a positive role here, or a negative one. I think that when a politician’s religious views make him less willing to compromise and less able to understand other points of view, that’s a dangerous thing.
I am concerned that arguments like those of Licona may erode the willingness of some to engage in political compromise. The response to Licona might be, “my religious beliefs are objectively and historically true, so why should I compromise those beliefs to accommodate the beliefs of others that deny this objective and historic proof?” I’m trying to put forward a notion that different religions can put forward different truths, and that we can and should respect these truths.
Pingback: Elsewhere (01.14.2012) « Near Emmaus
Your eight points omit an essential factor in the gospel we see presented in the New Testament: that all this was according to the Scriptures. I find this common in presentations of people who say there is not enough evidence of the resurrection to persuade them. Such people often assume that the ancients were less skeptical but you can see skepticism from one end of the book of Acts to the other. The ability to show that the Hebrew Scriptures anticipated the resurrection of the Messiah was a key part of making a persuasive argument.
The Allison quote overlooks the fact that people change their views.
Can you show me one passage in the Hebrew Bible that predicted anything that is described in the New Testament? I’ve never seen any such thing. There are passages that NT authors used as literary models or source material, assuredly, but that is quite different.
Helena Constantine,
Deuteronomy 18:15 (as explained in Acts 3:18-26).
That strangely looks to me like someone who had read Deuteronomy when he was casting around for biblical authority to support his new conception of Jesus. Intertextual literary references are not prophecy!
I don’t view Peter as “casting around for biblical authority to support his new conception of Jesus.” Rather, it was Jesus who was instructing Peter about how the Scriptures had long testified of Christ’s sufferings and glories to follow (Luke 24:25-27; 44-48; 1 Peter 1:10-12).
The crowds who were pricked in their hearts by Peter’s stinging indictment – “Be saved from this perverse generation!” – probably would not say that the Galilean fisherman was merely sharing with them an “intertextual literary reference” when he quoted Psalm 110 and said it applied to the resurrected Jesus (Acts 2:32-40).
If such examples were presented, would it change your mind about anything?
Your question seems to insinuate that the time traveling interrogation would essentially confirm the accounts in the canonical Gospels (or sortieing similar to them–it simply couldn’t confirm the visitation to the tomb stories since there are 4 mutually contradictory ones).
What if Peter said: “His body was left outside overnight because the Romans wouldn’t let us take it and the next day it was gone. But I don;t think that means his body came back to life”?
What you have to realize is that there was little or no connection between Peter and James and John and the communities founded by Paul that later composed the Gospels (whenever they were located). You have to realize that whatever the individual congregations believed was based of forty years or more of no. 8. That is going to give you myth, not history.
But even if the answers given to the time-traveler did, in fact, support the Gospels in some signification way, according to the way you framed the question, its going to give you a sampling anecdotes telling you what certain people believed. You can’t overturn the whole scientific understaning of the universe on the basis of someone telling you, “I saw my teacher walking around after he died.”
What arguments like this proves is that the Gospels are so completely unsuitable as instruments of conveying the salvific message of a loving god, that no rational person could believe that is what they are.
“But even if the answers given to the time-traveler did, in fact, support the Gospels in some signification way, according to the way you framed the question, its going to give you a sampling anecdotes telling you what certain people believed. You can’t overturn the whole scientific understaning of the universe on the basis of someone telling you, “I saw my teacher walking around after he died.””
It would be pretty unwise to ‘overturn the whole scientific understanding of the universe on the basis of one person’ telling you something. That’s pretty easy to agree with. But would it be wise to cling to the current scientific understanding of the universe if a more reasonable explanation existed?
If you presuppose the supernatural as unreasonable, than it would, by definition, make any supernatural explanation unreasonable. If your worldview permitted the existence of the supernatural, then a supernatural claim could be considered reasonable.
I think this whole thing gets back to the original article. It sounds like you presuppose the nonexistence of anything supernatural. I’m not sure what it would take to convince someone carrying such a worldview that any event was a miracle, because no matter what evidence was presented, a final default ‘science-of-the-gaps’ argument could always be used (for example, “We can’t explain this now, but science will someday explain it naturally”). For someone who considers the supernatural in their worldview, the information gathered in the time travel experience may be enough to convince them of Jesus’ divinity.
Josh, I don’t think the question of proving miracles is as simple as presupposing (or failing to presuppose) the supernatural. Personally, I assume that miracles do occur, so I am capable of being persuaded that this or that event is miraculous. But I’m not going to be convinced of the occurrence of a miracle by historical argument. My willingness to acknowledge a miracle is partially a matter of my theology (i.e., the event in question looks to me like the kind of thing the God I believe in would want to bring about) and is partially my subjective reaction of wonder at the given event. Both of these things are subjective, personal to me, beyond proof and (given my desire to respect the right of others to their own individual theologies and senses of wonder) not the sort of thing I’m likely to argue about, let alone try to prove.
Also, I think it’s possible to be an agnostic when it comes to miracles, just as it’s possible to be agnostic regarding the existence of God. It’s perfectly reasonable to say, maybe there are or are not miracles, who knows for sure? The leap to believe in miracles is a leap of faith, just as belief in God requires a leap of faith and cannot be proven.
I agree for the most part. However, I was careful to say “may”:
“For someone who considers the supernatural in their worldview, the information gathered in the time travel experience may be enough to convince them of Jesus’ divinity.”
If someone had additional information and the right worldview, the information may be enough to convince them. For others, it may play a role in convincing them, and in still others, it may not affect them at all.
The main reason for my differentiation between worldviews on how they view miracles is to say that if one always appealed to a ‘science-of-the-gaps’ argument, I’m not quite sure quite what it would take to convince such a person that anything is a miracle. Agreeably, no amount of second-hand stories would contribute to a change of mind.
Josh, I once had a face to face meeting with paranormalist Uri Geller. He was looking for an attorney and was considering our firm. Before the meeting, we attorneys promised each other that we’d treat Geller just like any other celebrity, and we DID resist asking him to do any of his famous feats. We resisted … for maybe 30 minutes tops.
So I had a chance face to face to see Geller bend metal spoons we picked out from our office supply. If you’ve never seen it on YouTube, Geller barely touches the shaft of the spoon and it appears to melt away, the spoon bowl dropping suddenly. He also performed feats of ESP that I cannot explain and were quite remarkable. Geller himself was quite modest about it all, saying that he doesn’t know how he can do these things and that he assumes we all possess the abilities he has.
You might call what Geller does “magic”, but the difference between magic and miracle is largely a matter of faith. Geller himself has subjected himself to a variety of scientific tests, where he’s placed in sealed rooms and poked and probed by scientists. Geller’s experience is both a demonstration of how one might go about proving a miracle and (since these tests end up inconclusive at best) how such testing changes no one’s mind.
BTW, I’m agnostic on Geller. He did some things I cannot explain, but in his case I would not go further than a “science of the gaps” kind of explanation.
Absolutely loved your 10 points in a previous comment… however Uri Geller is an illusionist in skills, con artist in actions (as he claims that he is “really” doing those tricks). I’d be interested in any sources for his undergoing scientific tests (especially any that had other magicians in the room… being able to fool people who aren’t “in on it” is exactly what a magician does)… if so he could have easily won the $1M Challenge from the James Randi Foundation. That said, every single trick he does has a well-known explanation. A classic demonstration of him being a trickster is when he was on Johnny Carson, except that Carson (himself a magician) provided the materials rather than letting Geller bring his own. Not surprisingly, Geller claimed the “negative energy” was affecting his abilities.
Geller is simply not a case where we need to even pose the choice of “magic or miracle”.
Josh, I’m leaving this as a comment to my own comment as Tim’s blog does not allow me to leave a comment on your latest comment. I brought up Uri Geller not because I think he can work miracles or because I can defend him as a paranormalist or whatever you want to call him. I brought him up because I’ve witnessed his act first-hand (if he’s a con, he’s a very good one) and because I know he’s subjected himself to scientific testing (for example see http://bit.ly/yM15UO). I understand that the results of this testing are mixed at best, but in theory at least it would be possible to put a purported miracle worker inside of a scientifically controlled environment and try to “prove” a miracle. My personal suspicion is that such testing would always prove inconclusive at best.
Theologically, if God wanted to prove something to all of us by miracle, God could do so in a way we’d be forced to acknowledge and recognize — a heavenly announcement broadcast worldwide at 120 db plus a 24 hour period where we could all walk on water would do the trick. I would argue that it is the nature of miracle that it can be plausibly denied, and that the recognition of a miracle requires a leap of faith. One might say that the leap is required because there’s no such thing as miracle, or that the leap is required because our modern mindset leaves us blind to miracles; nevertheless, there’s nothing in the investigation of a miracle that’s sufficient to make us leap.
Thanks for the nice words about my earlier comment!
Thanks for your post, Tim. You’ve made good points and said them very well. I hope you get a moment to see this response at my blog:
Apologetics aren’t for Unbelievers
There’s a lot of prattle going on here that can be picked up in a thousand places on the Internet.
It would take a book to respond intelligently to all the assertions — and pronouncements — being made.
Why don’t we let this particular stream of comments die a pleasant death and wait for Tim’s next post?
Pingback: Biblioblog Carnival February 2012 « Cheese-Wearing Theology
Recent article, On Visions and Resurrections, contra Licona’s (and other apologists’) defense of the resurrection:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-01/#feature
____________________
Official companion site to The Empty Tomb:
http://sites.google.com/site/theemptytomb/
____________________
Richard C. Miller, Mark’s Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity, Journal of Biblical Literature, v. 129, no. 4 (2010) The story of an empty tomb as found in the earliest Gospel owes more to similar Hellenistic stories of “bodily translation” than Christian scholars have been wont to admit. Miller’s work is currently online, see pages 759-776:
http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/JBL1294.pdf
Miller’s work will be appearing as a monograph in the next year or two.
The point for me of Miller’s article was that Mark is the earliest Gospel with the most simplistic translation story. But of equal importance is that Markan scholars have noted the way Mark’s Jesus is depicted as a direct counter to Rome’s rulers, employing the same terms. See Crossan’s list of the terms carried over from Roman rulers to Jesus. Mark also depicts Jesus’ punishment and crucifixion as paralleling glorification of Roman conquerors, rulers. Mark also depicts the spirit settling on Jesus “like a dove,” i.e., the opposite of the Roman eagle standard. A Hellenistic translation story (such a story also was popular concerning the founder of Rome itself) fits right in with the construction of the Gospel of Mark, i.e., in direct competition/contrast with Hellenistic notions.
I have also been reading about the parallels between the demoniac/pigs story in Mark and the conquering by Roman soldiers of a city in Palestine during the first Jewish revolt against Rome. Mark also features mimetic parallels to Homer. Mark’s Helllenistic elements and themes are being recognized more and more by scholars, including the translation story at the very end of the Markan “Gospel” (the term “Gospel” was also employed in reference to Augustus).
Speaking of archeological signs of Hellenism in Palestine. There are shrines to Augustus in Palestine, even a statue of Hercules was found there. And Charlesworth recently delivered a paper concerning the origin of the story in John about the angel disturbing a pool with a miracle to follow, in which Charlesworth argues that the healing pool was a common Hellenistic notion involving a Roman god of healing (but a portion of the pool in Jerusalem may also have been used for ritual Hebrew cleansing. He argues that the Roman god-healing mythology became reinterpreted as a “healing angel” story). So, to understand the Gospel of Mark (in the case of the healing pool story in John) one must understand not only the Jewish context but the Hellenistic context as well, viz., the comparisons and parallels Mark is drawing, as well as recognize the creativity of the author of the first Gospel. There is no room for genuine human creativity in the world of inerrancy–instead, the Gospel writers were believed to be creative primarily in so far as they were inspired to be creative. The writers were primarily reporting as God inspired them to report, they weren’t trying to “make a case” for their beliefs. But I suspect otherwise via comparing say, the translation story in Mark with the later empty tomb tales, and also noting the Hellenistic comparisons/contrast being drawn in the earliest Gospel. (There are also points being made in Mark of Jesus being a greater miracle worker than Elijah or even Elisha (the latter of whom asked for and rec’d double the miracle working power of the former, Jesus is depicted as surpassing both of them).
Concerning Richard C. Miller’s view, based on his article that appeared in the 2010 winter edition of the Journal of Biblical Literature, please go to the link at: http://www.wix.com/christofthenations1/1#!studies.