Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[Gary]

Hello, dear TW friends,

Just popping in to share this news with you: I just read Habermas' article regarding his research in which he claims that 75% of scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb. I was shocked. Shocked, I say, by what I read. I did a full review of Habermas' article on my blog today. Here is a brief summary for your perusal and enjoyment. :)


Dear Reader. Let me summarize my critique of Gary Habermas' above research regarding the position of scholars on the historicity of the Empty Tomb:

1. This is not a peer-reviewed article. That is a BIG problem. Unless Habermas opens up his records; shares his data with other scholars; and allows other scholars to critique his data and methodology, all we have in this article is one man's hearsay.

2. Habermas did NOT take a survey of scholars to arrive at his claim that 75% of scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb. This could have very easily been done. Why didn't Habermas do this and why has he still not done this? No, instead of surveying scholars on this question, Habermas reviewed all articles on the subject of the Empty Tomb and recorded how many articles supported the historicity of this claim and how many did not support the historicity of this claim. There are several problems with this methodology. First, it only includes scholars who have written published articles on the Empty Tomb. What percentage of NT scholars have done so? He doesn't tell us. However, it is safe to say that fundamentalist and evangelical NT scholars, whose faith and world view depend on the existence of an empty tomb, will have written many more articles on this subject than NT scholars for whom an empty tomb is unimportant (say, a Jewish scholar or a liberal Christian scholar).

Secondly, Habermas does not tell us whether or not he counted only authors of Empty Tomb articles or the total number of Empty Tomb articles. The problem here is that if he is basing his percentage on articles, not on scholars, his number will be biased towards the fundamentalist/evangelical position of an empty tomb and a bodily resurrection, as these scholars are much more motivated to write on this subject. For instance, if Mike Licona has written ten articles on the Empty Tomb, and someone like Levine has never or rarely ever written on this subject, Habermas' statistics will be biased towards the conservative Christian position. We need to know this information before asserting just how accurate Habermas' study really is.

3. Habermas states that the participants in his survey are primarily (Christian) theologians and NT scholars, with a smaller group of historians and philosophers. Why? This is an historical question, not a theological question. We are not asking scholars to tell us the meaning of Jesus' death, for instance. That is a theological question. Why not ask the experts in the relative field: HISTORIANS! But I doubt that Habermas will ever want to do this because he knows that the results of this survey would most likely be very different from the results of his survey of mostly theologians and NT scholars.

(You knew in your hearts that I couldn't stay away forever!)

[Adrift]

Hello, dear TW friends,

Just popping in to share this news with you: I just read Habermas' article regarding his research in which he claims that 75% of scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb. I was shocked. Shocked, I say, by what I read. I did a full review of Habermas' article on my blog today. Here is a brief summary for your perusal and enjoyment. :)


Dear Reader. Let me summarize my critique of Gary Habermas' above research regarding the position of scholars on the historicity of the Empty Tomb:

1. This is not a peer-reviewed article. That is a BIG problem. Unless Habermas opens up his records; shares his data with other scholars; and allows other scholars to critique his data and methodology, all we have in this article is one man's hearsay.

2. Habermas did NOT take a survey of scholars to arrive at his claim that 75% of scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb. This could have very easily been done. Why didn't Habermas do this and why has he still not done this? No, instead of surveying scholars on this question, Habermas reviewed all articles on the subject of the Empty Tomb and recorded how many articles supported the historicity of this claim and how many did not support the historicity of this claim. There are several problems with this methodology. First, it only includes scholars who have written published articles on the Empty Tomb. What percentage of NT scholars have done so? He doesn't tell us. However, it is safe to say that fundamentalist and evangelical NT scholars, whose faith and world view depend on the existence of an empty tomb, will have written many more articles on this subject than NT scholars for whom an empty tomb is unimportant (say, a Jewish scholar or a liberal Christian scholar).

Secondly, Habermas does not tell us whether or not he counted only authors of Empty Tomb articles or the total number of Empty Tomb articles. The problem here is that if he is basing his percentage on articles, not on scholars, his number will be biased towards the fundamentalist/evangelical position of an empty tomb and a bodily resurrection, as these scholars are much more motivated to write on this subject. For instance, if Mike Licona has written ten articles on the Empty Tomb, and someone like Levine has never or rarely ever written on this subject, Habermas' statistics will be biased towards the conservative Christian position. We need to know this information before asserting just how accurate Habermas' study really is.

3. Habermas states that the participants in his survey are primarily (Christian) theologians and NT scholars, with a smaller group of historians and philosophers. Why? This is an historical question, not a theological question. We are not asking scholars to tell us the meaning of Jesus' death, for instance. That is a theological question. Why not ask the experts in the relative field: HISTORIANS! But I doubt that Habermas will ever want to do this because he knows that the results of this survey would most likely be very different from the results of his survey of mostly theologians and NT scholars.

(You knew in your hearts that I couldn't stay away forever!)

Yep, figured as much. Too full of yourself to keep your own word. I give till the end of the year before you flip yer wig again and leave in another huff. Feeling sorry for your poor wife already.

Anyways, you're too late. You're repeating the exact same argument Rhinestone made 2 pages ago from Carrier's same goofy blog, and again, the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, is, in fact, a double-blind peer reviewed journal.

[One Bad Pig]

(You knew in your hearts that I couldn't stay away forever!)

I'm sort of impressed you managed to stay away for over a month.

[Gary]

Yep, figured as much. Too full of yourself to keep your own word. I give till the end of the year before you flip yer wig again and leave in another huff. Feeling sorry for your poor wife already.

Anyways, you're too late. You're repeating the exact same argument Rhinestone made 2 pages ago from Carrier's same goofy blog, and again, the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, is, in fact, a double-blind peer reviewed journal.

Do you have proof that Habermas' "research" was peer reviewed?

"Since 1975, more than 1400 scholarly publications on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus have appeared. Over the last five years, I have tracked these texts, which were written in German, French, and English. Well over 100 subtopics are addressed in the literature, almost all of which I have examined in detail. Each source appeared from the last quarter of the Twentieth Century to the present, with more being written in the 1990s than in other decades.[1] This contemporary milieu exhibits a number of well-established trends, while others are just becoming recognizable. The interdisciplinary flavor is noteworthy, as well. Most of the critical scholars are theologians or New Testament scholars, while a number of philosophers and historians, among other fields, are also included." ---Gary Habermas

Source: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...s_3-2_2005.htm

Gary: Has Habermas disclosed the names of each of these 1400 publications and the names of their authors? Has he listed his methodology for deciding if an author believes in the historicity of the empty tomb? For instance, did the author have to say, "I believe in the historicity of the empty tomb" to be counted in the "Yes" column, or did Habermas include authors who were in the middle and said something like, "it is possible that the empty tomb is historical"? Big difference. Just because an author thinks something is possible doesn't mean he believes it did happen.

Please give a link to any NT scholar who has been given the opportunity to review Habermas' data and methodology. I would like to read it.

And look at Habermas' definition of a competent scholar who is qualified to answer the question of the historicity of the Empty Tomb: Most are theologians and NT scholars! Wow! Talk about stacking the deck! He also throws in some philosophers. Since when are theologians and philosophers considered experts in determining historical facts in ancient history??? Do we consult theologians and philosophers to determine if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or if Alexander the Great invaded India? It's outrageous! If anyone set up a study using this group of "experts" for any other alleged historical event, they would be laughed out of academia.

I have no issue with New Testament scholars being included in the expert panel, but for goodness sake, the majority of the panel should consist of professional historians! This isn't a theological question. This isn't a philosophical question. This is an HISTORICAL question, for Peter's sake!

Why didn't Habermas simply mail out or email a simple questionnaire to every professional historian and NT scholar on the planet with this simple question: "Do you or do you not believe in the historicity of the empty tomb of Jesus?" and enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope??

But that would be too easy (and would very probably give a result that Habermas would not like)!

[Gary]

I'm sort of impressed you managed to stay away for over a month.

Ah shucks...you MISSED me, didn't you, Pigster?

By the way, my birthday was a couple of days ago. Theology Web sent me a birthday greeting. I was so touched that I had to come back and chat up my ol' TW friends.

[Adrift]

Do you have proof that Habermas' "research" was peer reviewed?

"Since 1975, more than 1400 scholarly publications on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus have appeared. Over the last five years, I have tracked these texts, which were written in German, French, and English. Well over 100 subtopics are addressed in the literature, almost all of which I have examined in detail. Each source appeared from the last quarter of the Twentieth Century to the present, with more being written in the 1990s than in other decades.[1] This contemporary milieu exhibits a number of well-established trends, while others are just becoming recognizable. The interdisciplinary flavor is noteworthy, as well. Most of the critical scholars are theologians or New Testament scholars, while a number of philosophers and historians, among other fields, are also included." ---Gary Habermas

Source: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...s_3-2_2005.htm

Gary: Has Habermas disclosed the names of each of these 1400 publications and the names of their authors? Has he listed his methodology for deciding if an author believes in the historicity of the empty tomb? For instance, did the author have to say, "I believe in the historicity of the empty tomb" to be counted in the "Yes" column, or did Habermas include authors who were in the middle and said something like, "it is possible that the empty tomb is historical"? Big difference. Just because an author thinks something is possible doesn't mean he believes it did happen.

Please give a link to any NT scholar who has been given the opportunity to review Habermas' data and methodology. I would like to read it.

And look at Habermas' definition of a competent scholar who is qualified to answer the question of the historicity of the Empty Tomb: Most are theologians and NT scholars! Wow! Talk about stacking the deck! He also throws in some philosophers. Since when are theologians and philosophers considered experts in determining historical facts in ancient history??? Do we consult theologians and philosophers to determine if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or if Alexander the Great invaded India? It's outrageous! If anyone set up a study using this group of "experts" for any other alleged historical event, they would be laughed out of academia.

I have no issue with New Testament scholars being included in the expert panel, but for goodness sake, the majority of the panel should consist of professional historians! This isn't a theological question. This isn't a philosophical question. This is an HISTORICAL question, for Peter's sake!

Why didn't Habermas simply mail out or email a simple questionnaire to every professional historian and NT scholar on the planet with this simple question: "Do you or do you not believe in the historicity of the empty tomb of Jesus?" and enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope??

But that would be too easy (and would very probably give a result that Habermas would not like)!

What do you mean, do I have proof that Habermas' research was peer reviewed? Do you doubt that Habermas' paper on Resurrection Research was accepted by the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, or that the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus does double blind peer review?

Also, you seem to be under the bizarre impression that "theologian" equals "Christian". Where are you getting that idea? Influential non-Christian scholars like Vermes, Ehrman, Casey, Aslan and others are widely recognized as both theologians and historians. And the philosophers that Habermas has in mind also fit under this umbrella.

[Doug Shaver]

and again, the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, is, in fact, a double-blind peer reviewed journal.

That's nice, but considering whom the journal's editors would consider peers, I don't think "peer-reviewed" in this instance means "reviewed without an apologetic bias."

[Doug Shaver]

Early on the Christians were persecuted

According to whom?

[Adrift]

That's nice, but considering whom the journal's editors would consider peers, I don't think "peer-reviewed" in this instance means "reviewed without an apologetic bias."

[Gary]

Unless you can tell me that Habermas provided all his data and fully specified his methodology to his colleagues in the field of NT studies, his "research" has NOT been peer-reviewed. I don't care how the journal identifies itself in general. I want the specifics of this ONE study.

I want to know if anyone has been allowed to see the list of articles Habermas used to come up with the 75% figure, and, I want to know his methodology for designating whether an author is placed in the "Yes, it's historical" column versus "No, it's not historical" column. Did he include authors who suggested that the historicity of the empty tomb is "possible" in the "yes" column or only those who gave a definite yes? This would make a huge difference in the outcome of the survey.

And please note: The claim that Habermas' study found that 75% of scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb is blatantly FALSE! By his own admission, Habermas' study is simply the percentage of authors (or articles, I'm still not clear on that point) of articles published from 1975 until the present, on the topic of the Resurrection, which take a position on the historicity of the Empty Tomb. Has every scholar of the New Testament written an article in which he or she takes a position on the Empty Tomb? Habermas doesn't tell us. Maybe there is a significant number of scholars who have never written an article on this controversial topic. If so, their opinion is not present in this survey.

Bottom line: Christians cannot use Habermas' study to claim that 75% of NT scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb as Nick and others have been claiming on TW and elsewhere on the internet and in the books of Christian apologists. It is a FALSE and misleading claim. Anyone who has read Habermas' article and continues to makes this false claim is either a poor reader of the English language or guilty of disseminating false information.

In regards to the issue of using theologians to decide the veracity of an historical claim. If Habermas is going to include theologians in his survey, why not include ALL theologians? Why use a select sample of theologians, overwhelmingly Christian, with a couple of Jews and a couple of agnostics thrown in? Why not include all Jewish theologians? Why not include all Muslim theologians in the survey? Are there any Muslims on the editorial board of this journal? If not, why the bias against Muslim theologians? Could it be because Habermas knows that the overwhelming majority of Muslim theologians do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and this would upend the desired outcome of his survey?

Habermas has stacked the deck. Admit it, Christians and stop the silly spin.

[DesertBerean]

*snort*

Keep the goal posts where they are this time.

[Doug Shaver]

We were discussing the empty tomb, and specifically I linked his paper Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present which was, in fact, published in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, which uses a double-blind peer review process.

I found a copy of that article at http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cg...t=sor_fac_pubs. Some off-the-cuff comments:

Which suggests a resurgence of what I have called quasi-inerrancy, which was ascendant during the 19th century among Protestant scholars who believed in the divine inspiration of scripture but rejected the occurrence of miracles. Any modern scholar, even if not an inerrantist, who is committed to a belief that the New Testament writings are the word of God must regard them as more or less reliable history, even if the scholar admits that the writers might have gotten a few incidental details wrong.

E.P. Sanders initiates his discussion in The Historical Figure of Jesus

But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.

It must be noted carefully that this conclusion does not rest on the scholarly critical consensus, but on the reasons for the consensus, such as those pointed out above. (pp. 151-52)

This case is built entirely on critically ascertained texts, and confirmed by many critical principles such as eyewitness testimony, early reports, multiple attestation, discontinuity, embarrassment, enemy declarations, and coherence. (p. 152)

Yes, it is at least the New Testament claim, but it is also only the New Testament claim. There is no other independent evidence for any of it.

Not necessarily. All we really need is a plausible explanation for how a particular set of religious writings (1) came to exist in their extant form and (2) came to be considered authoritative by leaders of a religion that evolved into the historically orthodox version of Christianity.

[Kbertsche]

Unless you can tell me that Habermas provided all his data and fully specified his methodology to his colleagues in the field of NT studies, his "research" has NOT been peer-reviewed. I don't care how the journal identifies itself in general. I want the specifics of this ONE study.

I want to know if anyone has been allowed to see the list of articles Habermas used to come up with the 75% figure, and, I want to know his methodology for designating whether an author is placed in the "Yes, it's historical" column versus "No, it's not historical" column. Did he include authors who suggested that the historicity of the empty tomb is "possible" in the "yes" column or only those who gave a definite yes? This would make a huge difference in the outcome of the survey.

This is a ridiculous requirement. You sound just like the YECs who demand that radiocarbon labs release all of their "raw data". This is not how research is done. Not in science, not in biblical studies, not in anything that I know of.

If you disagree with Habermas' results, do your own study and get it published in a leading journal.

[Gary]

This is a ridiculous requirement. You sound just like the YECs who demand that radiocarbon labs release all of their "raw data". This is not how research is done. Not in science, not in biblical studies, not in anything that I know of.

If you disagree with Habermas' results, do your own study and get it published in a leading journal.

Please give me a link for the extract for Habermas' research article. Peer-reviewed articles typically have an abstract that clarifies its purpose, methodology, and conclusion. I will be happy to withdraw my claim that the article was not peer-reviewed if I can see that other scholars were given access to Habermas' data and his methodology is clarified.

However, the most important point is this: Habermas' research cannot be contorted to represent the false claim made by Nick and other Christian apologists that "75% of scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb". Habermas did not conduct a survey of all "scholars", he only did a literature search.

Here is a question I would like to see answered: What percentage of the articles were written by evangelicals? I would bet a very high percentage as the Empty Tomb is absolutely critical for their argument that the Resurrection of Jesus is the most plausible explanation for the early Christian Resurrection Belief. Without an empty tomb, conservative Christians are left with appearance claims by mostly uneducated, superstitious peasants. NOT terribly convincing evidence.

[Gary]

Sorry. Not "extract" but "abstract".

Oops.