Publius
8th April 2008, 18:15
What good evidence is there to doubt it as a fact of history? Don't worry, I'm too much of a materialist/reductionist to be swayed to the Light Side, but I'm interested, what reasons do we have for rejecting the Gospel accounts, other than the fact that there's no good reason to suppose supernatural shit actually happens?
I'm becoming especially interested in the empty tomb. How can it be secularly accounted for? Should it just be regarded as a fabrication? But on what basis can we do that? I mean, it seems unlikely to me, but the point of historical analysis is going on the texts. Now we have good reason to doubt that the Gospels are first hand accounts written by the named authors, but the empty tomb story seems difficult to account for, from a secular point of view.
What's the best explanation?
The entire story, from the guards being posted to the Romans giving the body back is a fabrication? This seems likeliest to me. I read the Gospels and the story of why temple guards were posted seems like a post facto fabrication ("They'll try to steal the body 3 days later.") I know that was prophesied, but really, I can't imagine people took the prophecy seriously outside of the Christian sect.
But still, that it feels unlikely isn't a good enough reason to reject the texts. Basically what I'm asking is what reason do I have to doubt the Gospels more so than I have to doubt other historical texts? Much of what we know about ancient Greece we know through Roman proxy, yet we accept it no problem.
Does the fact that early Christians had a motive to lie sufficiently temper their stories?
What about the point often brought up by Christians that early converts were martyers, and so couldn't have been lying. Is this true? It seems to me the only people who would really be "in on" the lie would be the Apostles themselves. Were any of them martyered? Is that well-accounted?
I'm looking to some of the more knowledgeable people here for an explanation, or at least a link to reputable sources that I can read on my own. I don't want tendentious Internet Infidels type of stuff, I know that line already, but what real scholarship is there for doubting, because I've been interacting with a lot of learned Christians who, naturally, seem very confident in their account of history. But I'm not so sure. I think they're glossing over some facts, but I don't have enough learning to know what they're missing out on.
Does anyone?
I'm becoming especially interested in the empty tomb. How can it be secularly accounted for? Should it just be regarded as a fabrication? But on what basis can we do that? I mean, it seems unlikely to me, but the point of historical analysis is going on the texts. Now we have good reason to doubt that the Gospels are first hand accounts written by the named authors, but the empty tomb story seems difficult to account for, from a secular point of view.
What's the best explanation?
The entire story, from the guards being posted to the Romans giving the body back is a fabrication? This seems likeliest to me. I read the Gospels and the story of why temple guards were posted seems like a post facto fabrication ("They'll try to steal the body 3 days later.") I know that was prophesied, but really, I can't imagine people took the prophecy seriously outside of the Christian sect.
But still, that it feels unlikely isn't a good enough reason to reject the texts. Basically what I'm asking is what reason do I have to doubt the Gospels more so than I have to doubt other historical texts? Much of what we know about ancient Greece we know through Roman proxy, yet we accept it no problem.
Does the fact that early Christians had a motive to lie sufficiently temper their stories?
What about the point often brought up by Christians that early converts were martyers, and so couldn't have been lying. Is this true? It seems to me the only people who would really be "in on" the lie would be the Apostles themselves. Were any of them martyered? Is that well-accounted?
I'm looking to some of the more knowledgeable people here for an explanation, or at least a link to reputable sources that I can read on my own. I don't want tendentious Internet Infidels type of stuff, I know that line already, but what real scholarship is there for doubting, because I've been interacting with a lot of learned Christians who, naturally, seem very confident in their account of history. But I'm not so sure. I think they're glossing over some facts, but I don't have enough learning to know what they're missing out on.
Does anyone?