I came
across this video while browsing YouTube. An atheist, radio talk
show host is interviewing agnostic, liberal scholar, Bart Ehrman when
the subject of the existence of Jesus comes up. The host (who's name
I don't have but his subtitle calls him, “the Infidel Guy”) makes
a usual atheist claim that we really have no evidence that Jesus ever
lived. He doesn't get the response he expected.
Ehrman
answers, “I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts
the existence of Jesus.” You can tell the Infidel Guy is taken
aback and begins to challenge Ehrman but we quickly see he is way out
of his league.
Infidel
Guy first tries to say that there were many people identified as
Jesus. Ehrman explained that there was only one Jesus but it was his
belief that different “portraits” of Jesus rose in different
parts of the Roman Empire. Hence, we have different gospels that
emphasize different things. Infidel Guy next asserts that we don't
really have any “hardcore” evidence for Jesus. Ehrman disagreed
and rebutted by asking, “What hardcore evidence is there that
Julius Caesar existed?”
The
Infidel Guy entire argument consisted only of bald assertion after
bald assertion. Each point he made was struck down by the historian.
At one point, Erhman said to him, “If you say that historical
evidence doesn't count, then I think you get into huge trouble
because then how do you... I mean, why not just deny the holocaust.
Or why not deny that Abraham Lincoln lived?” At another point,
he makes the bold claim that “We have more evidence for Jesus
than we have for almost anybody from his time period.”
Ehrman
later goes on to affirm the historicity of Paul's writings –
specifically his letter to the Galatians. He comments that he
doesn't know a single historian who doubts Paul's authorship of
Galatians. It's funny to hear. Ehrman, who reminds the host on at
least 3 occasions that he's not a believer, sounds like a Christian
apologist. He remains civil the entire time but I can detect a
certain amount of frustration Ehrman has with Infidel Guy's empty
assertions. I certainly can empathize with him.
The
video is 7:19 long but I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Christians have
been saying many of these same things for years. The historical
writings handed down by contemporaries of Jesus are EVIDENCE about
the things He said and did. Critics, though, are very arbitrary
about which evidence they'll consider.
4 comments:
I was vaguely under the impression that you did not approve of arguments from expert consensus, and held that evidence, by itself, says nothing: it is all in how we interpret the evidence. Wouldn't that tend to put Infidel Guy and Erdman on an even basis?
Now, granted, Infidel Guy is in a weaker position than you are here, when it comes to proposing an alternate explanation of the evidence: a proponent of atheism cannot very well appeal to a supernatural cause that merely happened, for ineffable reasons of its own, to make the evidence for Jesus' nonexistence look remarkably like the evidence for his existence. But you tend to state such things as "it all depends on one's interpretation of the evidence" as if it were a generally applicable principle (at least with regards to events in the distant past), hence applicable to this question.
We have, by the way, accounts of Julius Caesar's life purporting to come from his own hand. We have accounts of his life from contemporaries who were not allies or followers of Caesar. We have coins with his image, name, and title on them. There are quite a few historical figures whose existence is generally accepted for which there is less evidence than there is for Jesus, but the really well-known names of ancient history tended to leave a fair amount of hard evidence behind.
I presume that you did not mean to imply, by your title, that disbelief in the historicity of Jesus is the default position of atheists. For that matter, the existence of a historical Jesus is one thing an agnostic can be agnostic about.
Steven J,
The feigned uncertainty in your first paragraph is well played: “I was vaguely under the impression that you did not approve of arguments from expert consensus” Good one! Most assuredly, I am never in favor the logical fallacies of appeals to authority or appeals to consensus. I was not trying to say, “here is a liberal scholar who says Jesus is real so it must be true!” Neither was I trying to say, “this man says no serious historian doubts the historicity of Paul so it must be true!” I was trying to say, “Look how funny it is to see this guy getting beaten up because he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.” I thought the title said it all.
I don't want to give the impression that I believe evidence is “king.” You already know that I'm opposed to the self-refuting philosophy of empiricism. Nevertheless, I have said before that the Bible is evidence for creation. On a more foundational level, it's evidence for the existence of God and the absolute standard for morality and worship. For people who claim to be interested in evidence, many atheists and evolutionists reject the Bible a priori. They do so on the flimsy grounds of “well, it's not scientific evidence.” Let's not go down that road again right now.
I have blogged in the past about extra-biblical references to Jesus but, again, it's not really the point of this post. I was merely trying to highlight how the scholar was trying to present evidence and the atheist was rejecting it without any apparent, good reason. I thought it was amusing. I've been there many times myself.
Thanks for your comment. God bless!!
RKBentley
Greetings once again. :)
After our discussion about evolution I saw this conversation and could not resist popping over. (and by the way, I hope that you will find all of my comments to be, at the very least, civil and respectful, even if I disagree with you).
I think that you may find my position on this conversation somewhat surprising after our prior discussion. I'm inclined to side with you on this one. There is sufficient evidence to assert that, at the very least, Jesus really did live when he was said to have lived and really was a single person. Proving that he made the miracles happen is somewhat more hotly contested, however, most serious historians agree that Jesus did live.
As the Agnostic rightly points out, there comes a point where you have to have a certain amount of faith in the historical accounts of history. It may be true that the Bible was written after Jesus had died, true. But, archeologists have found evidence that supports that many of the major events in the Bible took place, which would lend it a certain amount of credibility. After all, for what reasons would ancient historians have to lie about Jesus' existence?
My own personal view on religion seems to be somewhere in between Steven and Mr. Bentley. I absolutely believe in God. I can't not believe in God. It makes sense. However, I also believe in science, in evolution. I do not think that the Bible's events always happened litearally. Was the Earth created in 6 days? well, certainly not 6 Earth days. But a day on Mars is longer than a day on earth. If a day where God lives happens to be 1,000,000 earth years, then both accounts could be correct. After all, our entire perception of "time" is compeltely human and is entirely based on the physical properties and characteristics of this planet in both it's orbital velocity and it's sidereal rotation. It's all a matter of perspective.
My own view of religion firmly rejects the "god-with-the-playdough-set" theory of creation. Instead I tend to believe in more of the "God-as-a-brilliant-scientist" theory. I dont beleive that he sat there and created each creature by hand. However, I do believe that created all of the elements and building blocks of life knowing what the end result would be. That being the case, I could argue that God created evolution and that both science and the bible are correct.
Most creationists that I know counter that statement with the argument that "God created us in his own image". I counter with this; my son looks as much in my image as I look like my father, and so on. And yet, at no point during our lives are my son and I exactly the same. We think on different levels, we look physically different, we both grow and age and have experiences. Why is it so hard to believe that God created mankind as a primitive species that would evolve, physically, spiritually, and mentally, into something who's final end-result would be more God-like?
Many creationists discredit the intelligence of Apes and so they find the very thought of us being related to them as abhorrent, even though modern science has furthered that claim even more.
The Bible teaches us that God is patient and kind and that he's quick to forgive. That certainly doesn't sound like the human species. We fight with each other, we murder each other, we enslave and imprison one another. That doesn't seem very God-like. It doesn't seem to do justice to God's image. But, if you consider the progress that has been made over the last few hundred years collectively, as a species, we are becoming more tolerant of one another, we recognize and handle differences better, etc. This would seem to suggest that we are becoming *slightly* more God-like, more like his image. But, these changes happen of the course of many lifetimes, slowly, over hundreds of years, like evolution.
Johnathan,
I moderate comments only to filter out spam and offensive language. I don't reject comments simply because they disagree with me. As a matter of fact, disagreeing with me will almost guarantee publishing. Your comments are certainly respectful and civil, so thank you. They're also interesting so I'm happy to reply.
BTW, you occasionally refer to me as, “Mr. Bentley.” We tend to be a little less formal around here. “RK” or “Bentley” will suffice. I sometimes refer to Steven J as SJ and The Paleobabbler as PB (or TP). If you don't mind, I'm abbreviating your name to Johnathan; I feel a little awkward calling you JC. On that note, I've started studying Hebrew. You might already be aware but “Johnathan” in Hebrew means, “Jehovah gives.” What a wonderful name!
You said, “I think that you may find my position on this conversation somewhat surprising after our prior discussion. I'm inclined to side with you on this one. There is sufficient evidence to assert that, at the very least, Jesus really did live when he was said to have lived and really was a single person. Proving that he made the miracles happen is somewhat more hotly contested, however, most serious historians agree that Jesus did live.”
I'm not surprised that you think this way. From your other comments, I suspected you have a certain amount of religious leanings.
As I said in my comments to SJ, I try to avoid using logical fallacies like appeals to consensus or appeals to authority. Perhaps the evidence is sufficient that it has persuaded a majority of historians but it is not true simply on the grounds that a majority of historians believe it. I wasn't trying to make that point in my post.
You said, “As the Agnostic rightly points out, there comes a point where you have to have a certain amount of faith in the historical accounts of history. It may be true that the Bible was written after Jesus had died, true. But, archeologists have found evidence that supports that many of the major events in the Bible took place, which would lend it a certain amount of credibility. After all, for what reasons would ancient historians have to lie about Jesus' existence?”
Some of the things Ehrman said are the same things that Christian apologists have said. He's using evidence like the disinterested remarks made by Paul to support the veracity of Paul's writings. Given that atheists usually claim to follow the evidence, I thought it was funny how the Infidel Guy continuously rejected Ehrman's evidence, seemingly without any reason.
You said, “However, I also believe in science, in evolution.
You seem to conflate the terms “science” and “evolution” as though they are synonymous. I “believe” in science (if that is an appropriate term). I don't believe in evolution. ToE is a theory within the scientific discipline of biology. It may be a scientific theory but it's not all of science. I can reject it without rejecting science.
You said, “ I do not think that the Bible's events always happened litearally.”
It's a straw man of my position to say I believe every word in the Bible literally. Rather, I understand the plain meaning of the words of the Bible. I could read “I rode a horse” or “I could eat a horse” and understand what they mean. One is literal and the other is not.
You said, “Was the Earth created in 6 days? well, certainly not 6 Earth days. But a day on Mars is longer than a day on earth.”
In the commandment to observe the Sabbath (Exodus 20:11) God said, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” God was commanding the Israelites to work six days and rest the seventh. Do you think they understood what God meant by “six days”?
The rest of your reply is interesting but off subject. I've gone too long already so I'll end it here. Thanks again for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment