Occasionally, I
will hear some pretty weak a priori
objections to Jesus’ Resurrection. Unless these objections are particularly
good or appropriate, I call these “lazy man objections.” The reason is that it
allows the objector to disbelieve the Resurrection without examining any
evidence whatsoever. What is this particular objection?
Well, it is this:
World War II historical documents vary, have personal biases, and overall skew
the data. This event was only 70 years ago, and look how corrupted reports can
be. Just imagine how much worse it must be for stories that have been repeated for
the past 2,000 years!
This is a very
weak objection, and there are a variety of reasons why. First, it’s a puzzling
example. So what are we supposed to conclude from this? That World War II didn’t
happen? That biases of historians make what really happened in World War II
unknowable? Surely no one questions whether or not World War II, or the major
events surrounding them, happened.[1]
Perhaps it’s supposed to mean that particular events are questionable, and may
even be influenced by biases or fabricated as a method of propaganda. No doubt
this is true; however, what should we conclude from that? That historical data
cannot tell us what really happened?
I think what
this objection is happens to be more or less a dressed-up version of the
Telephone Game objection. This objection states that when something is repeated
long enough, under whispered conditions (I suppose the “bias”), then ultimately
the message will be too mangled to know. This leads to our next objection.
If this were
true, then no conclusions should be made on any historical event that has had
both time and persons involved in its reporting. But why should we think we
have no way of saying whether or not Caesar crossed the Rubicon, or Alexander
the Great lived, etc.? It won’t do merely to bite the bullet on the issue and
say that we cannot have historical knowledge after all. They must also give
good reasons why the evidence given in those cases is not sufficient to
establish a historical claim. In fact, they must do this for every case.
Next, it’s just
not true that we do not know what the main sources said about Jesus of
Nazareth. Most NT scholars, believers and unbelievers, are quite happy to grant
that a majority of the New Testament text, as we have it across all
manuscripts, is what was originally written. Even Bart Ehrman grants this.
Basically, only seven passages are really in dispute, none of them affecting
doctrine or the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So it’s just not
true that the historical data cannot indicate what the earliest sources
actually said about Jesus Christ. That is, this a priori claim flies in the face of the evidence, and that’s why it’s
a lazy-man objection.
So what will you
do with Jesus? The evidence suggests he was raised from the dead, by God, and if that
is so, it most plausibly was a vindication of his message—that he was God! John
14:6 says that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes unto
the Father but by him.
[1] Well, virtually no one.
There are a handful who deny the Holocaust, but these scholars have poor
arguments, more akin to conspiracy theories than actual scholarly work.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please remember to see the comment guidelines if you are unfamiliar with them. God bless and thanks for dropping by!