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

[Gary]

Against my better judgement...

Consensus opinion generally refers to blanket agreement, or agreement by all. That's not typically what we mean when we say that there is majority opinion on something.




Licona is literally referring to scholars "on the subject". Scholars of what? Scholars on the subject of Jesus' death and resurrection. Same with Craig. Craig isn't talking about all scholars everywhere. He's not referring to scholars of Medieval Byzantium, or Classicists who study the works of Cicero. He tells the reader that he's referring to New Testament historians.

Yes, NT historians specialize on different subjects, but it's obvious that Craig is referring to those NT scholars who've studied the subject he's referring to. Why would anyone even think he's referring to anyone else? What would be the relevance of that? Are you imagining Craig is sneakily including some mysterious group of New Testament scholars who haven't written about the death and resurrection of Jesus? If so, why?

It seems you're under some strange impression that there exists a cadre of NT scholars who don't write about the burial and resurrection of Jesus because they don't believe in the burial and resurrection, and those you consider "apologists" are sneakily counting this strange group of NT scholars into their work to puff up the numbers and importance of their claims or something. But that's ludicrous. As has already been explained to you, there are plenty of scholars who do not accept the resurrection who still write about it, who still even believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb.

And when scholars refer to the "majority of scholars" who agree with such-and-such opinion, there's no need for them to stop to tell the reader that they're referring to those scholars who study the subject they're referring to. It's implied. Sanders refers to a number of details generally agreed by scholars about Jesus. He doesn't stop mid-way to explain to the reader that he's not referring to those scholars who focus only on Paul. It's implied he's referring to those NT scholars who have written about the subject he's discussing. That's just common sense.

Also, there aren't that many major NT scholars who haven't written something on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Even when they specialize in another field.


This splitting hairs you do when you've run out of arguments is tedious. Habermas tells us that not only do 75% of scholars accept one or more arguments for the empty tomb, but that this also includes the majority of critical scholars. And nowhere in his paper does he say that those who do not accept the empty tomb are all atheists. You've oddly lumped together in your head that those who believe in an empty tomb also believe in the resurrection of Jesus by default. We've explained to you dozens and dozens of times that that isn't the case. We've even cited for you scholars who are definitely not Christians who believe that the tomb was empty.

Gary, you have no argument here. You've brought absolutely nothing new or novel to the table.

Ridiculous. If you want to claim that you have surveyed the "critical scholars" on the subject of the alleged first century Empty Tomb of Jesus you the need to include all historians who have an expertise on first century Palestine, which would include scholars of the Roman Empire, scholars of the Near East, and, yes, New Testament scholars. Only by doing a proper survey of all these scholars can you then say that a "majority of critical scholars" believe or don't believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb.

Your bias is pathetic. Pleaser provide any research, other than that of Habermas discussed above, which indicates that a majority of scholars/New Testament Scholars/Bible scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb. Based on Habermas' research alone, all you can say is that the majority of authors writing on the subject of the Resurrection between 1995 and 2005, who expressed an opinion in their articles as to the historicity of the Empty Tomb, 75% favored its historicity.

I would be curious to know Stein's opinion on Licona, WLC, and Habermas' statements I have listed above. What do you think, Stein? Have these three Christian scholars clearly and accurately expressed the position of relevant scholars on this issue in these three quotes?

[One Bad Pig]

Ridiculous.

Thank you for describing your coming reply so succinctly.

If you want to claim that you have surveyed the "critical scholars" on the subject of the alleged first century Empty Tomb of Jesus you the need to include all historians who have an expertise on first century Palestine, which would include scholars of the Roman Empire, scholars of the Near East, and, yes, New Testament scholars. Only by doing a proper survey of all these scholars can you then say that a "majority of critical scholars" believe or don't believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb.

You're splitting hairs (wrongly, I might add); all first-century evidence of the Empty Tomb, AFAIK, resides in the New Testament (while some corroborating evidence is available outside the NT, it must be interpreted with the NT in order to have any meaningful bearing on the subject).

Your bias is pathetic.

Quit looking in the mirror.

Pleaser provide any research, other than that of Habermas discussed above, which indicates that a majority of scholars/New Testament Scholars/Bible scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb. Based on Habermas' research alone, all you can say is that the majority of authors writing on the subject of the Resurrection between 1995 and 2005, who expressed an opinion in their articles as to the historicity of the Empty Tomb, 75% favored its historicity.

Sure. Peer review found his research publishable. It's also more or less at the limit of what can reasonably be accomplished. There is a whole host of critical scholars out there, and the best way to determine what they believe is to read what they've published.

[Gary]

Thank you for describing your coming reply so succinctly.

You're splitting hairs (wrongly, I might add); all first-century evidence of the Empty Tomb, AFAIK, resides in the New Testament (while some corroborating evidence is available outside the NT, it must be interpreted with the NT in order to have any meaningful bearing on the subject).

Quit looking in the mirror.


Sure. Peer review found his research publishable. It's also more or less at the limit of what can reasonably be accomplished. There is a whole host of critical scholars out there, and the best way to determine what they believe is to read what they've published.

Ok, then let's do a literature search on Joseph Smith and his alleged reception of golden tablets from an angel in the 1830's.

If the majority of authors writing on this topic state belief in the historicity of this event, then we must accept this event as an historical fact. In addition, let's submit this literature search to a scholarly organization whose membership is 80-90% Mormon, and if this primarily Mormon group accepts this literature search to be published in its journal, this is more evidence that the findings of the literature search reflect the position of most "experts" on this subject.

[Gary]

Dear Readers of Theology Web:

Who is being upfront with the evidence, accepting true scholarly consensus, and who is twisting themselves into pretzels, contorting the definition of who qualifies as a "critical scholar" and who does not on the issue of the historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus?

You decide.

I encourage everyone, whether Christian or atheist/agnostic, to accept the truth and nothing but the truth, no matter how painful and uncomfortable that may be. Accept true majority expert opinion on subjects in which you yourself are not an expert. Your feelings, intuition, preferences, and personal biases are not sufficient reasons to reject majority expert opinion.

Christians have a right to claim that the majority of theologians, NT scholars, historians, and philosophers writing articles on the subject of the Resurrection of Jesus between 1995-2005, who have expressed a position on the historicity of the Empty Tomb in their articles, favor its historicity. But they cannot claim that a majority of "scholars", "critical scholars", or "relevant scholars on the historicity of the Empty Tomb" believe that it is an historical fact. They have ZERO research which supports this claim.

[MaxVel]

Dear Readers of Theology Web:

Who is being upfront with the evidence, accepting true scholarly consensus

Pretty much everyone not named 'Gary'. Even Shunyadragon sometimes manages this.

, and who is twisting themselves into pretzels, contorting the definition of who qualifies as a "critical scholar" and who does not on the issue of the historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus?

Uhh... ...you.

You decide.

I encourage everyone, whether Christian or atheist/agnostic, to accept the truth and nothing but the truth, no matter how painful and uncomfortable that may be.

Why don't you practice what you preach, then?

Your line of argument has been defeated, deflated, rejected, rebutted, demolished, destroyed, mocked, ridiculed, humiliated, depantsed, defenestrated, dechlorinated, derided, bamboozled, confabulated, and discombobulated. Yet still you persist... ... can't handle the truth, huh?

Accept true majority expert opinion on subjects in which you yourself are not an expert. Your feelings, intuition, preferences, and personal biases are not sufficient reasons to reject majority expert opinion.

Christians have a right to claim that the majority of theologians, NT scholars, historians, and philosophers writing articles on the subject of the Resurrection of Jesus between 1995-2005, who have expressed a position on the historicity of the Empty Tomb in their articles, favor its historicity. But they cannot claim that a majority of "scholars", "critical scholars", or "relevant scholars on the historicity of the Empty Tomb" believe that it is an historical fact. They have ZERO research which supports this claim.

Jesus wasn't resurrected because a professional hair-splitter found a hair to split? Say it's not so....

Jesus didn't rise from the dead because Christians can't cite a majority of scholars who aren't experts in the relevant field?



You're funny. Thanks for the laughs.

[Gary]

Pretty much everyone not named 'Gary'. Even Shunyadragon sometimes manages this.




Uhh... ...you.




Why don't you practice what you preach, then?

Your line of argument has been defeated, deflated, rejected, rebutted, demolished, destroyed, mocked, ridiculed, humiliated, depantsed, defenestrated, dechlorinated, derided, bamboozled, confabulated, and discombobulated. Yet still you persist... ... can't handle the truth, huh?





Jesus wasn't resurrected because a professional hair-splitter found a hair to split? Say it's not so....

Jesus didn't rise from the dead because Christians can't cite a majority of scholars who aren't experts in the relevant field?



You're funny. Thanks for the laughs.

You are absolutely correct. Christians' belief that Jesus rose from the dead is not dependent on a scholarly consensus on the historicity of the Empty Tomb. In fact, no evidence whatsoever is necessary to believe this tale. However, the fact that a scholarly consensus does NOT exist for this claim makes it much more likely that the majority of educated non-Christians will be NOT be convinced that he did.

[psstein]

Again, I agree with you. If only all skeptics and Christians could agree on the issues that meet the scholarly consensus and leave the rest to personal opinion, these ongoing debates would not be necessary. If Christians want to believe that there was an Empty Tomb, go ahead! But stop claiming that it is the scholarly consensus! It isn't.

I asked Erhman if he had ever read Habermas' study and he said "he hadn't had the opportunity" to do so. I find that response very odd. Is that scholarly code for "I haven't read it because I think its nonsense"??

Evangelicals and other conservative Christians use Habermas' research to repeatedly bash skeptics over the head on the question of the historicity of the Empty Tomb, accusing us of being anti-intellectual for not accepting "scholarly consensus". Habermas, WLC, and Licona use this false claim all the time as the primary evidence to prop up the claim that a group of women really did find Jesus' tomb empty three days after his death.

Why would Ehrman not have taken the time to read this study, unless he thinks it's bogus?

Very odd.

I'm in the same field as Ehrman, so I don't take it as "it's nonsense." The field of NT has been blessed and cursed by having voluminous literature. You could spend your entire life reading nothing but commentaries on Luke and you'd still die before reading some. There's a ton of literature to read and engage; you have to be selective what you read. At the moment, I'm working on a paper about the Synoptic Problem (hopefully a book at some point). As a result, I'm largely reading literature focusing on the Synoptic Problem. I don't have the inclination (or time, frankly) to read literature about the Pauline Epistles or the Didache.

There's also the fact that certain questions interest certain scholars far more than others. For example, I really don't care about different exegetical styles (e.g. queer exegesis, feminist exegesis, etc.). A feminist exegesis of a pericope about Mary Magdalene is simply not interesting to me. As a result, I'm far less likely to read literature about it. I imagine that Ehrman may have a similar point of view with regard to the empty tomb- he's probably more interested in text critical questions.

[psstein]

1. Widely held, but outside of non-Mosaic authorship, not consensus. There's been renewed skepticism in recent years about JEPD and whether or not one can actually delineate between sources. You'd probably have to pay some heed to Van Seters' chaotic hypothesis and Whybray's redactional hypothesis.

2. Among biologists, definitely consensus.

3. Among relevant scientists, something like 97% hold to that, so probably consensus.

4. Not a consensus position, but widely held in North America and Europe. You'd likely have to provide an explanatory note.

5. Probably a consensus position; I don't know of anybody critical dating Daniel before the 3rd century.

6. Likely consensus, but you may have to pay Casey/Crossley's theory some heed in a paper, as well as paying attention to the scholars who date Acts in the 60s (though I disagree with them).

7. Likely consensus, I don't know anybody critical who holds to 2 Peter as authentic.

8. Not consensus, you'd probably have to address Luke Johnson's arguments in a footnote. 90% hold to it, but it's not really "consensus."

I have to stress what I mean by "consensus." If I submitted a paper to NTS or Novum Testamentum or JSOT, a consensus position is not one I'd have to provide an explanatory note for (e.g. Markan priority). If I have to provide an explanatory note or qualifying remark, it's not a consensus statement.

[psstein]

I would be curious to know Stein's opinion on Licona, WLC, and Habermas' statements I have listed above. What do you think, Stein? Have these three Christian scholars clearly and accurately expressed the position of relevant scholars on this issue in these three quotes?

Licona and Habermas aren't saying anything incorrect. Licona's remark explicitly states "75% of scholars who've written on the topic," and I'm inclined to agree. Most scholars seem to accept the empty tomb, though as it's been pointed out throughout the thread, it's by no means universal, as opposed to Jesus' crucifixion, which everyone accepts.

With regard to Craig, the first fact is accepted by something between 70 and 75%; he's likely going off of Habermas' statistic. Almost everyone accepts the second one, even those who deny the first fact. Finally, with number three, I would agree, but with qualification. The huge majority (probably 90%+) would agree that the disciples thought Jesus had been risen from the dead. As for whether or not it was in spite of having "every predisposition to the contrary" is more a matter of debate. There are some scholars (Crossley, most recently) who have argued that the disciples made sense of the Easter experiences in light of OT texts, like the resurrection of the righteous martyrs in 2 Maccabees. Yet, I would still agree that the majority of scholars don't seem to think that there was a belief in a dying messiah. Messianic expectations were rather different.

[Gary]

Licona and Habermas aren't saying anything incorrect. Licona's remark explicitly states "75% of scholars who've written on the topic," and I'm inclined to agree. Most scholars seem to accept the empty tomb, though as it's been pointed out throughout the thread, it's by no means universal, as opposed to Jesus' crucifixion, which everyone accepts.

With regard to Craig, the first fact is accepted by something between 70 and 75%; he's likely going off of Habermas' statistic. Almost everyone accepts the second one, even those who deny the first fact. Finally, with number three, I would agree, but with qualification. The huge majority (probably 90%+) would agree that the disciples thought Jesus had been risen from the dead. As for whether or not it was in spite of having "every predisposition to the contrary" is more a matter of debate. There are some scholars (Crossley, most recently) who have argued that the disciples made sense of the Easter experiences in light of OT texts, like the resurrection of the righteous martyrs in 2 Maccabees. Yet, I would still agree that the majority of scholars don't seem to think that there was a belief in a dying messiah. Messianic expectations were rather different.

"Most scholars seem to accept the empty tomb."

Would you clarify which "scholars" you believe accept the Empty Tomb?

Near East scholars? Roman Empire scholars? Archeological scholars? Historians as a whole, or, just New Testament scholars?

Bart Ehrman believes that the majority of New Testament scholars probably do believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb. But he also points out that the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are Christian believers. Therefore the fact that the majority of NT scholars believe in the Empty Tomb is not impressive to him.

I have no issue with the statement that "most NT scholars seem to accept the Empty Tomb", but I disagree with your statement that "Most scholars seem to accept the empty tomb", without clarifying exactly who you are identifying with the term "scholar". I don't believe that this statement can be accurately made without first providing research other than Habermas' literature search of "primarily theologians and NT scholars" along with a minority of "historians, philosophers, and others".

[DesertBerean]

Hi Luke.

I think that people are more apt to be civil to one another if they know each other by (at least) their first names rather than pseudonyms.

[Gary]

"I'd like to encourage people to use their real names when participating on Metabunk. I think discussions are more likely to be taken seriously if people recognize they are talking to a real person - and people tend to be more polite when they are not hiding behind a pseudonym."

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/real-names.t1479/http://www.wired.com/2014/12/disqus/https://www.abine.com/blog/2011/inte...nymity-or-not/

[psstein]

"Most scholars seem to accept the empty tomb."

Would you clarify which "scholars" you believe accept the Empty Tomb?

Near East scholars? Roman Empire scholars? Archeological scholars? Historians as a whole, or, just New Testament scholars?

Bart Ehrman believes that the majority of New Testament scholars probably do believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb. But he also points out that the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are Christian believers. Therefore the fact that the majority of NT scholars believe in the Empty Tomb is not impressive to him.

I have no issue with the statement that "most NT scholars seem to accept the Empty Tomb", but I disagree with your statement that "Most scholars seem to accept the empty tomb", without clarifying exactly who you are identifying with the term "scholar". I don't believe that this statement can be accurately made without first providing research other than Habermas' literature search of "primarily theologians and NT scholars" along with a minority of "historians, philosophers, and others".

NT scholars. When I said "scholars who accept the empty tomb," I was indirectly referring to NT and Christian Origins scholars who've written on the subject of the empty tomb.

The majority of NT scholars are Christian believers. So what? The scholars of Bultmann's generation were entirely Christian, but they overwhelmingly rejected the empty tomb as a historical fact. There are Christian scholars today who deny the empty tomb as a historical fact, or are agnostic to it. NT scholarship has historically been incredibly critical of the claims of the NT, but the huge majority of NT scholars from the 1800s to today were Christians.

[Gary]

NT scholars. When I said "scholars who accept the empty tomb," I was indirectly referring to NT and Christian Origins scholars who've written on the subject of the empty tomb.

The majority of NT scholars are Christian believers. So what? The scholars of Bultmann's generation were entirely Christian, but they overwhelmingly rejected the empty tomb as a historical fact. There are Christian scholars today who deny the empty tomb as a historical fact, or are agnostic to it. NT scholarship has historically been incredibly critical of the claims of the NT, but the huge majority of NT scholars from the 1800s to today were Christians.

"The majority of NT scholars are Christian believers. So what?"

A majority of Book of Mormon scholars believe that Joseph Smith's reception of Golden Plates from an angel is historical fact. A majority of Book of Mormon scholars are also Mormons.

A majority of Koran scholars believe that Muhammad's claim that he flew on a winged horse to heaven is an historical fact. A majority of Koran scholars are Muslim.

Just because the majority of scholars of a particular religion's holy text believes that a major claim in that holy text is historical fact is NOT good evidence that it is a fact, or, that non-experts should take the position of these experts on these religiously linked claims seriously. The potential for bias is just too great.

This is why Bart Ehrman does not believe that "scholarly consensus" on this issue is any form of evidence for the claim that the Empty Tomb is historical and most likely why Ehrman can't be bothered with reading Habermas' biased research on the subject.

[DesertBerean]

"I'd like to encourage people to use their real names when participating on Metabunk. I think discussions are more likely to be taken seriously if people recognize they are talking to a real person - and people tend to be more polite when they are not hiding behind a pseudonym."

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/real-names.t1479/http://www.wired.com/2014/12/disqus/https://www.abine.com/blog/2011/inte...nymity-or-not/

I learn something new every day. However, given that, how is it you find it OK to mock Adrift as "Drifty" , "Driftless" etc?