Jed,

Thanks for all your responses and for the post on the resurrection. I think it it’s especially brilliant! You cover a lot in a few words, and I like the way you set it up by addressing each of the alternative hypotheses in turn. So, I guess we could start with that.

You have definitely warmed me to the veracity of the resurrection. I didn’t previously know about the evidence concerning James’s conversion, and there are a number of other points I hadn’t considered before. I think you make an excellent case that it is the most reasonable hypothesis to explain all the evidence we have on the matter.

I’m not sure where exactly that leaves me on this issue. I guess I would bring up three things that I’m thinking about:

1. On Belief

It is definitely true, as you say in the section on “Presuppositions,” that presuppositions are “of fundamental importance.” I think there are two I have that are worth acknowledging:

First, I don’t think I’m a naturalist (at least not in the usual sense), and I’m quite open to the possibility that miracles can occur; they probably do. Nevertheless, I would lean toward favoring a naturalistic hypothesis in most situations by default due simply to the nature of miracles as something relatively rare. Sure, there may be “small miracles” of various sorts that happen routinely, but the kinds of miracles we are concerned with here (e.g. rising from the dead, sudden miraculous healings) do not happen often. This is of course why they are noteworthy in the first place. So, I tend to think we should be skeptical of any significant claims of supernatural occurrences from the get-go. While I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to say we should always favor a naturalistic hypothesis no matter how implausible, I do think — all things being equal — a naturalistic hypothesis holds slightly more weight with me.

The second related presupposition I have is that agnosticism is a reasonable and wise position to adopt by default with respect to most propositions about which there is significant ambiguity or room for argument. In other words, I don’t always feel I have to take a stand on a question or buy in to any particular hypothesis or explanation, and that includes the question of the resurrection. So, I guess that’s where I am right now — agnostic, but with some definite leanings toward the resurrection being true (thanks largely to you).

2. On Authority

I found myself resonating strongly with the questions you raise in your final paragraph, about whether the whole Christian tradition is true even if the resurrection happened. As you can tell from my list of objections, the resurrection is one issue for me, but it’s not the only one and not even the main one that would keep me “outside” of Christianity. One of the things I found compelling about your whole post is that I think you make a great case for the resurrection that doesn’t necessarily rest on the Bible having any kind of special authority, infallibility, or being the Word of God in any sense. Instead, it seems to hold a lot of weight even if the NT documents are taken as any other historical sources (at least, that’s how it seems to me).

However, I don’t think we can say the same of many of the theological claims that comprise mainstream Christian doctrine. While you may be right to say that the truth of the resurrection serves as “strong evidence that Christianity is true,” I would suggest that evidence doesn’t get us that far unless we also buy into the authority of scripture, which in turn rests on the authority of Church tradition (as you say in your response to my Objection 2). In other words, I guess the next question that would be begged for me is why we should believe in either of those things — the authority of scripture or the authority of church tradition. So, maybe that’s the thing to turn to next.

3. On History

Following from those questions in #2 above is the question of which Christian traditions ought to be under consideration in the first place.

I know this is ground we have covered before, and I understand at least some of the reasoning that would lead you to believe there is one distinct tradition we can identify as the correct one leading all the way back to the beginning. Nevertheless, I remain skeptical that this is how we should think about the history of early Christianity. Part of this has to do with my default agnosticism mentioned in #1 above, part of it probably from my theoretical approach to history in general, which is colored by significant Marxist leanings, and part of it from the basic observation that Jesus was a pretty enigmatic figure — apparently even to his closest disciples, even according to the canonical scriptures!

I guess what this means is that questions like “is Christianity true?” are already problematic in my mind, because I’m skeptical that anybody had Jesus very well figured out. It seems to me that some of the tensions and ambiguities present in Christianity from the start are a major cause of both the diversity within the tradition throughout history and my own present reluctance to accept particular doctrines as authoritative.

---

I hope that all makes some sense. It seems to me a lot depends on the authority of scripture, which is maybe where our conversation should go next. Let me know what you think about any of this! Or, just wait a while and I’ll try and get back to you on some of the other topics when I can.

Joel

Series Navigation

<< The Historical Case for the Resurrection of JesusOn Christian Origins >>