Answering an Unbelievable Sceptic

Well, I started this blog many years ago and never kept it up.  I decided to resurrect it.  I don't know how often I will post on here, but I think I will do it at least occasionally. 

Today I want to answer some questions from a sceptic of Christianity from the Unbelievable Facebook group (the group associated with the Christian broadcast Unbelievable).  Mr Simon Humphrey.  Simon Humphrey asked some questions relating the historical evidence for Jesus. I tried to reply in group, but it wouldn't take it (too long maybe).  So I thought I would put my reply here, and put a link to it in the group.  Here goes.

1. "Do you agree that writers in those times felt free to fabricate contents of speeches, even events, if they served the account they were writing? Indeed, that they were taught how to do this?"

It's possible, but as I understand it historians don't just make such accusations unless there is reason to believe that a particular writer did that. As far as the gospels go though there are quite a few things that give them a ring of truth. For example, the gospels report that the women followers of Jesus were the first people Jesus appeared to, which wouldn't lend them credibility in the rather sexist culture they were written in.

Oh and just the fact that they were proclaiming belief in a resurrected crucified Messiah is just not something anyone would seriously consider making up, given that crucifixion was such a dishonourable way for someone to die. Don't forget of course that Greek culture also looked on the idea of resurrection as offensive and absurd. No one would have anything to gain by making up a story like that. They could expect to be shunned by Greek and Jew alike.

2. "Do you agree that we have written works where mythological characters were set within historical contexts, as if they had actually lived?"

Yes, but the Gospels are written in the style of ancient biography which was meant to be read as factual. See this article for details:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospelbioi.php

3. Do you agree that we don't know who wrote any of the gospels, let alone whether they suffered?

"No I don't agree. There are some very good reasons for thinking that the Gospels are written by who they have been said to have been written by."

Matthew:- There was a very strong early church tradition that attributed the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew the tax collector. Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome all attribute it to this Matthew. The author of Matthew uses technical monetary language not found in Luke and Mark. That is something you would expect if the author were a tax collector. Based on information in the gospels, Matthew is also known as Levi suggesting that he was by ancestry of the priestly tribe of Levi. Someone like that would have proper Jewish religious training and we traces of this in how he deals with the Old Testament and Jewish issues.

Mark:- Always was said to the interpreter of Peter (Peter's scribe). Testified as such by Papias, Clement of Alexandria, Tetullian, Irenaeus, Eusebius and Jerome. As would be expected Peter stands out as the main character after Jesus. It has the most limited vocabulary, seeming to be written in common Koine Greek reflecting someone without much formal education. That would fit Peter (no disrespect).

Luke-Acts:- Luke the Doctor, attributed as the author by Clement of Alexandria, Tetullian, Irenaeus, Origin Eusebius, Jerome. It seems to be written by a well educated and cultured person, which you would expect if Luke were the author. His Greek is excellent, the best of all the Gospel writers. To have the time and resources to write a two volume account at least points to someone fairly wealthy. The author is noted for sensitivity and empathy which you would expect from a doctor.

Evidence of a connection to the Apostle Paul is evidenced by the abrupt ending of Acts with Paul awaiting trial in Rome (62 AD). If Luke-Acts were written after this date we would expect there to be some references to Paul's execution given that the author documented the stoning of Stephen and James the brother of John.

John:- Good reasons exist for thinking the Apostle John wrote it. The author is very accurate when it comes to the local Geography, Jewish customs and Jewish sects prior to AD 70, halakhic forms of law and Samaritan forms of thought. John's gospel also omits several episodes found in the Synoptics where John played a role. This would have been in line with a principle of honour present at the time that you shouldn't give yourself too much attention.

As for them suffering, it's a popular apologetic argument to bring up the alledged martyrdom of the apostles, but it is not as well established historically as people like to make out. A better argument is to point out that anyone preaching a crucified and risen saviour would lose their kinship and the honour that went with it. That was considered worse than dying in that time and culture and is therefore not something they would give up for something they knew to be a lie.

4. "Do you agree that many people back then were very gullible, e.g. thinking that a couple of guys were gods merely because one of them survived a snakebite?"

There is nothing to suggest that ancient people were in any sense more gullible than anyone today and only smug, modern day Western bigots would suggest that they were. As a friend of mine retorted, they had people who thought guys who survived snakebite were gods and we have 9/11 truthers and people who think the moon landings were faked.

5. "Do you agree that a common religious motif at the time included the idea of someone dying and then rising from the dead, and that believers could gain spiritual benefits from that through various mystery rites, such as baptism? There were messiahs running around all over the place, and heaps of competing mystery cults that gained many followers, some lasting centuries."

Does Simon have any evidence that any such concepts were present in First Century Judaism? Judaism had a concept of a future resurrection at the end of the age, but not of any resurrections before that time. The dominant Messianic expectation at the time was that the long awaited Messiah would come as a military leader who would defeat the Romans and usher in a time of peace. The idea that the Messiah would be killed was inconceivable. A dead Messiah was a false Messiah as far as the thinking at the time was concerned. Add in that the Messiah would be crucified and you would have something so obscene and offensive that any right-minded Jew would faint from shock! This is why Christianity would never have got off the ground if there had not been something very tangible behind it.

The background of Christianity is First Century Judaism, not mystery cults. Jews in the First Century AD absolutely despised those religions.

6. "Do you agree that there is not even one mention of any of the incredible things Jesus was supposed to have done, written at the time? He turned all of Jerusalem upside down... and Jerusalem didn't notice?"

I love it when people ask me stuff like this. When Simon says "not one mention" he does of course exclude the Gospel accounts as though they somehow don't count, and ignore the fact there are references to Jesus in Josephus, Tacitus and the Jewish Talmud.  However, leaving this aside, there really is no reason to expect to find all that many written references to Jesus for the following reasons:

(i) First Century Israel was a predominately oral culture, not a written one. Teachings were more often passed on orally since no more than 10% of the population could read or write (and that's a generous estimate).

(ii) Roman and Jewish writers had their own prejudices and presuppositions just as modern atheists do today. Very few of them would have seen fit to write about the alledged miracles of (in their eyes) a low class Jewish peasant from some horrible, trashy place like Judea, especially when they were told that the guy got himself hanged on a tree!

(iii) Historians of the day were not modern Western tabloid journalists. They didn't report things because it was entertaining or exciting. They passed on things that they thought were useful and valuable to their readers.

7. "Do you agree that there were some commentators at the time who recorded natural events such as earthquakes and eclipses? And that not one of them recorded the alleged events written about in the gospels?"

This question is pretty much related the previous one and therefore I think I have already answered it sufficiently. I would however like to ask Simon to ponder something now:

Simon, I want you to imagine that during the First Century there was a huge volcano which erupted somewhere in the Roman world. This eruption was a major disaster. Two well known Roman towns were completely destroyed and over 1500 people horribly died, including some prominent people. Certainly it was an event that quite dramatically and immediately impacted Rome far more than some Jewish miracle worker in Judea. How much written material would you expect to find detailing such an event?

"Do you agree that if we were to place the above facts on a scale that measured historical reliability, it would indicate "not reliable"?"

Only if we are very misinformed, as Simon appears to be.