Holding and Gerkin debated the following proposition: 

"The '15 Factors' listed by JPH in The Impossible Faith constitute decisive evidence in favor of the resurrection being a true event."

Holding defended the affirmative and Gerkin defended the negative.

Holding's posts are in plain text 

Gerkin's posts are in bold.

Here's a quick index for the debate:

ROUND ONE

After wrangling with lesser minds like skepticbud and Joe Wallack it’ll be a pleasure to deal again with someone as intelligent as Kyle. I just hope that no stupid has rubbed off on me from these other opponents.

We now proceed to Part 2 of discussion on The Impossible Faith (TIF) in which we discuss the 16 (now 17, since the last debate) social factors that I argued contributed to making Christianity an impossible faith. Kyle says that he has “no significant disagreement with any of the factors I do not list,” and as it happens, the amounts to the larger number of them. He has also been discussing related issues in a Rel 101 thread with Wildcat, Jezz, and others, and has indicated that he will be using some of his observations from there, so between this and that we won’t be discussing all 17 factors, I expect we will have a more easygoing time this round.

One update before I begin. I promised at the end of TIF I to start an article on the likelihood of grave robbery as an answer for Jesus’ missing body. As you might expect, there aren’t many books on this subject; I found only 3, and 2 are not available to me (and interlibrary loan has crashed hard, making it likely I will never get them). But I do have a few preliminary results at http://www.tektonics.org/graverob.html that I present here merely for information and not for debate as yet, as I still hope to get those other sources at some date.

With that, I move now to Kyle discussion of the factors, beginning
with Factor #2, “Neither Here No There: Or, A Man from Galilee??” Kyle says that he can “agree with the main thrust of this item, which is that people in ancient times would be prejudiced against savior from a backwoods place like Nazareth.” Kyle adds that Jesus is said to be born in Bethlehem, which on one hand would suggest prestige as the city of David and the Messianic hometown. On the other hand, this does not negate the stigma of Nazareth (though I do not see that Kyle is certainly arguing this). As noted, Nazareth was not far from prestigious Sepphoris, and would have been a much better choice for Jesus to claim residence from, or to have his ministry headquartered (rather than Capernaum).

In terms of a charge of illegitimacy, Kyle allows this as “a consideration” but replies:

…but if the early church was trying to advance the claim that Jesus was God incarnate (yet were saddled with the historical existence of Jesus' human mother) then I don't see that they had much choice.

I think perhaps Kyle is assuming here that the theology of the virgin birth was full-fledged at this time – in fact that theology, that Jesus has to be virgin-born, was not put together until Augustine. Before then, there’s no real evidence that a virgin birth would have advanced the idea that Jesus was “God incarnate” (I prefer to say “the Wisdom/Word of God incarnate” but that is a side issue). So if anything I would say that the evangelists DID have a choice in terms of this issue.

Other than this Kyle makes some comments about a birth narrative lacking in John that is more of a tangent where TIF is concerned, so I will not discuss it here.

That’s all for now. I’ll pick up with the next factor Kyle discussed after this.

I am delighted to once again be engaged in a formal debate with my worthy adversary and friend, JP Holding. As has been made clear, this is a sequel to an earlier debate based one of JP's foundational papers, The Impossible Faith, and my own essay which responds to JP's piece. The "second half" of JP's paper lays out 16 factors which, according to him, point towards Christianity being a true faith. Thus, the proposition being debated by us here is: "The '16 Factors' listed by JPH in The Impossible Faith constitute decisive evidence in favor of the resurrection being a true event."

While I agree with JP that the "factors" would've existed (to some degree anyway), and that they would've posed problems for the nascent Christian movement, I reject the notion that early Christianity could've only overcome those obstacles if it was, indeed, a true faith. And that's why we're here. 

JP opens the debate with a discussion of Factor #2 “Neither Here No There: Or, A Man from Galilee??” JP originally argued that people would be unlikely to follow a religious leader from a backwoods town such as Nazareth. I granted this, but pointed out that the gospels suggest a more prestigious birth town for Jesus--Bethlehem. But JP says, "...this does not negate the stigma of Nazareth." Perhaps not, but it should certainly temper it, Bethlehem being the supposed birth town of the Messiah. JP also reiterates that, "...Nazareth was not far from prestigious Sepphoris, and would have been a much better choice for Jesus to claim residence from..". This may be true, but we must consider that Jesus' residence in Nazareth was likely a well known fact, which could not be altered simply for the convenience of the movement.

JP also originally suggested that the story of the virgin birth opens up Jesus to a charge of illegitimacy. In response, I noted that the gospel writers might not have had much choice. To that, JP says:

I think perhaps Kyle is assuming here that the theology of the virgin birth was full-fledged at this time – in fact that theology, that Jesus has to be virgin-born, was not put together until Augustine. Before then, there’s no real evidence that a virgin birth would have advanced the idea that Jesus was “God incarnate” (I prefer to say “the Wisdom/Word of God incarnate” but that is a side issue). So if anything I would say that the evangelists DID have a choice in terms of this issue.

I am curious, would a God born to two human parents be conceivable among ANE peoples? There are certainly examples of Gods born of a union between a human and a God (i.e. Hercules), and Gods appearing ex nihilo, but do we have any examples of Gods born to two regular human parents? If not, Matthew and Luke may have felt the need to concoct something like the virgin birth to establish the divinity of Jesus.

And I guess that's all for now folks. Catch you in round 2, JP.

ROUND TWO

Yes, it is nice to be back with Kyle on the other side of the fence again!   I’ll go right into the reply points on Factor 2 to start, then see about Factor 7, the next one Kyle commented on.

Kyle asserts that the stigma of Nazareth “should certainly” be tempered by the Bethlehem birth. Perhaps it would, IF people could be sure of it – what little info we have from the gospels suggests no one in the everyday world knew Jesus was born there (John 7:42, which has an ironic touch!). This might have changed after missionary work which pointed to Jesus fulfilling prophecy, but then we are right to the problem of why the Messiah, though born in Bethlehem, moved to the wrong side of the tracks and stayed there. It would be counterproductive as a move if you wanted to promote Jesus as Messiah.

In terms of Sepphoris, Kyle notes that “we must consider that Jesus' residence in Nazareth was likely a well known fact, which could not be altered simply for the convenience of the movement.” Yes, that is true – but I am emphasizing here that Jesus himself could have moved to Sepphoris and given his movement status and himself status thereby. Perhaps I was not clear on that.

Kyle raises a good question regarding the VB: “..would a God born to two human parents be conceivable among ANE peoples?” I have spent a lot of time looking into alleged parallels on this, and can only say that all the gods I have seen born to a human parent were conceived between a woman and a god – usually Zeus up to his usual tricks, as with the Hercules example Kyle noted. The closest parallel I have seen was Zoroaster born of human parents, but his spirit installed with a ray of light, but this is in the Avesta, which is dated later than Christianity. The Zoroastrians are not quite ANE, but I would have to answer that certainly among the Jews, a God born to human parents (here again I would mean the Wisdom of God) would be surprising and unexpected. Inconceivable, I do not think so. But in this light, Kyle says: “ If not, Matthew and Luke may have felt the need to concoct something like the virgin birth to establish the divinity of Jesus.” If I understand right Kyle is saying that if the pagan gods did the big nasty for divine conception, maybe Matt and Luke figured a VB would trump that. Now this leads to an interesting question. Who does Kyle suppose came up with the idea? I don’t think he wants to say M and L came up with it independently of each other. I realize that inevitably Kyle’s paradigm will require a naturalistic explanation, so I expect we’ll hit that wall before long but I would like to hear a more developed explanation if Kyle is willing. But of course even if M and L did merely concoct the idea, it still leaves the problem of that it is inherently questionable and leaves the matter open to a charge of calumny. I don’t see any way that excuse can be circumvented. It would have been easier to do a “Zoroaster” or adoptionism.

Now for Factor 7. Kyle allows that this “is a generally sound argument,” and adds, “as usual, my answer would be that the gospel authors took care to not mention connections that weren't (at some level) genuine.” As a side matter of interest I am reading now Samuel Byrskog’s Story as History, History as Story which argues that ancient historical writers had a notable preference for reporting detailed accounts only if they were backed by eyewitnesses, and this suggests an extra level of care in reportage. In any event Kyle, though expressing the expected skepticism of some events :brow:, first allows that the disciples would be called out, but that:

…after a couple of decades, memories can get fuzzy. And memory is a malleable agent, prone to suggestion to start with. Those inclined to believe might actually start "remembering" the earthquake and the darkness

Here I have to disagree strongly. One point Kyle may not be aware of (which is also confirmed by Byrskog) is that ancient memories did NOT tend to fuzziness at all. Keeping in mind that the population was 90-95% illiterate, a trained memory was something these people needed to make their way in life. As for malleability, I would ask: Isn’t this a problem when someone is inclined favorably to believe? And isn’t that the opposite of what was happening for Christianity, as the entire premise of TIF has been? Kyle’s last idea may be his best option – the evangelists tied in actual events with their own illicitly. (To answer his question, quakes are known to occur in Judaea.)

And now finally, we come to what I think is a key issue for my factors. Kyle offers a hypothesis that there was less success among Jews, and more among Gentiles, for:

..it would have been much more difficult for the average Gentile to invalidate a claim from a far away land, several decades in the past. After all, fantastic claims from distant lands were not exactly uncommon, and I doubt if the average Gentile could spare the expense to thoroughly investigate these matters.

I would first remark that 1) it is not clear that the Jewish mission WAS a failure, or any less successful pro rata among the population than with Gentiles; 2) “several decades” is really no more than one or two! But the biggest sticking point is that ability to investigate. This is something Kyle is discussing in that thread I first mentioned, so some of this may get repetitive, but here is my general reply to that idea.

First, claims like this from a faraway land would simply not be uncritically accepted. The ancient Mediterranean was a society of a sort that anthropologists call “group-oriented”. In such societies, behavioral codes are enforced by the group, and the people continually mind each other’s business. Neighbors exerted “constant vigilance” over others; those they watched were constantly concerned for appearances, and the associated rewards of honor or sanctions of shame that came with the results. In such a society, strangers, such as the early Christian missionaries would have been, were viewed as posing a threat to the community, because, as Pilch and Malina have put it, “they are potentially anything one cares to imagine...Hence, they must be checked over both as to how they might fit in and as to whether they will subscribe to the community's norms.” Missionaries would find their virtues tested at every new stopping point!

Ancient people controlled one another's behavior by watching their neighbors, and by spreading word of deviant behavior. In a society where nothing escaped notice, there was indeed every reason to suppose that people hearing the Gospel message would check against the facts -- especially where a movement with a radical message like Christianity was concerned. That’s simple enough in Judaea close to the time, as Kyle seems to allow and as I must emphasize: the empty tomb would be checked; Lazarus would be sought out for questioning; the priests would have said their piece. Excessive honor claims, such as that Jesus had been vindicated, or his claims to be divine, would have been given close scrutiny. Checking of the facts would be inevitable, since it would be assumed that checking Christian claims, and presumably disproving them, would help control the deviant Christian movement. Think of it this way: If the Pharisees checked Jesus on things like handwashing and grain picking; if large crowds gathered around Jesus each time he so much as opened his mouth, how much more would things like a claimed resurrection have been examined!

But now the second and more critical point. An analysis of the converts who are mentioned in the New Testament shows that early Christianity was top-heavy in terms of those who had higher social status. In the Greco-Roman world, an extreme majority of the people were poor or living in wretched conditions, but for its size, Christianity had an unusual number of the rich and the powerful in its ranks. As the Biblical scholar E. A. Judge has put it:

...the Christians were dominated by a socially pretentious section of the population of big cities. Beyond that they seem to have drawn on a broad constituency, probably representing the household dependents of leading members.

Christianity therefore had among its membership people who would be the most educated, and the least likely to be gullible, and the most likely to be concerned with the social factors I have laid out in TIF. They would be the persons who had the most to lose, and the least to gain, in terms of worldly interests, by becoming converts to this new and strange religion.

With that groundwork laid, I may now directly address Kyle’s reply. It was precisely this socially pretentious section of Greco-Roman society that Christianity was top-heavy in that had the time and the resources needed to travel, or to send travelers, to do the needed investigative work, to send letters, to ask questions of the right officials, and report their findings to others. Moreover, many of the acts of Jesus and the Apostles were witnessed by Jews from all over the Roman Empire, who returned to Jerusalem for the Jewish festivals on a regular basis, giving them ample opportunity to seek out and question persons who would have the needed knowledge. It is my contention that many of Christianity’s first converts beyond Jerusalem (where the facts were already easily accessible) were people who originally set out to disprove the faith’s claims, as a means of trying to get the new and strange movement under control, and ended up being stymied by the ultimate rebuttal -- a certain, trustworthy, and undeniable witness to the life, miracles, and finally, the resurrection of Jesus, the only event which, in the eyes of the ancients, would have vindicated Jesus' honor and overcome the innumerable stigmae of his life and death. It was an event that had certainty that could not be denied, having enough early witnesses (such as the 500 witnesses mentioned by Paul), and having enough solid and indisputable testimony that made it harder to not believe than to believe.

So I conclude then that there was no need for the “resources of mass media, the internet, public libraries, etc.” I also would reply that the Hinns and the Popoffs are in an entirely different social setting than this one – perhaps Kyle could apply my factors to them and see what he gets! 

JP starts with some additional comments on Factor #2, so I’ll start there as well.

JP admits that a Bethlehem birth would temper the ignominy of hailing from backwater Nazareth, but he says that brings us,

…right to the problem of why the Messiah, though born in Bethlehem, moved to the wrong side of the tracks and stayed there. It would be counterproductive as a move if you wanted to promote Jesus as Messiah.

But if it was well known that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, I don’t see that the gospel writers had a choice, counterproductive or not. As a consideration, both Matthew and Luke provide a rationale for moving back to “the wrong side of the tracks”. Matthew tells us that Joseph was warned in a dream against going to Judea, and so he withdrew to Galilee. And Luke has Nazareth listed as the hometown of Jospeh and Mary, making it reasonable for them to return there.

I misunderstood JP’s original point about Sepphoris. Apparently, he was suggesting that if Jesus was a false messiah, he could’ve moved to Sepphoris in order to raise the status of his movement. That would’ve been viable if Jesus were planning to be a religious leader since he was a young lad. However, I am inclined to believe his “awakening” occurred around the time of his baptism by John. At that point, it was a little late to move to Sepphoris, however wise such a move would’ve been in retrospect.

JP confirms my suspicion that there are no examples of ANE Gods born to two human parents, and that such an idea would be quite shocking to the Jews. I suggested the VB would be a way of establishing the divinity of a Jesus who, ostensibly, was born to two human parents. JP says,

If I understand right Kyle is saying that if the pagan gods did the big nasty for divine conception, maybe Matt and Luke figured a VB would trump that.

Not exactly. I am suggesting that the VB was a way to make God the only genuine “father” of Jesus (in both a metaphorical and genealogical sense) without resorting to actual physical intercourse between Yahweh and Mary (which presumably would be unacceptable to the Jews). The VB is sort of an intermediary between the physicalism of the pagans and the abstractness that Judaism was gravitating towards.

Since I suggested that Matt and Luke concocted the VB, JP wonders who came up with the idea first. I really have no idea, although I would speculate that they were both drawing from a common oral source. So perhaps I was sloppy to say “Matt & Luke concocted it”, although one of them certainly could’ve been the origin of the oral source.

In closing on this issue, JP argues that a VB is still a dumb way to go, because,

…it is inherently questionable and leaves the matter open to a charge of calumny. I don’t see any way that excuse can be circumvented. It would have been easier to do a “Zoroaster” or adoptionism.

But do we actually have any evidence that a “Zoroaster” or adoptionism ploy would’ve been more palatable to Jews, and would’ve been more likely to establish Jesus’ divinity?

Now, we can move on to Factor #7-- Stepping into History. JP initially argued that early Christianity wouldn’t have made claims that weren’t genuine, for fear of getting “called out”. I generally agreed, but only to a point. Obviously, as a skeptic, there are some events that are hard to swallow. For instance, the earthquake and the darkness seem highly unlikely. I have actually done considerably more research on that subject since I wrote Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No. In light of that, I am inclined to abandon my earlier hypothesis of “fuzzy memories”, and throw my support behind the idea that the gospel writers hijacked an eclipse/earthquake from “about that time” and tied it to Jesus’ death in an early effort to mythologize him. The fact the neither John, Paul nor any other NT writers mentions these events, leads me to suspect they were part of an isolated tradition, and were not used in evangelism until much later in the life of the movement.

With regards to the fantastic claims made by early Christians (especially the rez), I questioned whether potential converts would view them critically, and even if so, whether they would have the ability to investigate those claims. JP appears certain the claims would not be accepted uncritically, and repeatedly points out that the ANE was home to “group-oriented” societies, full of nosy neighbors and suspicious townspeople. This is all well and good, but it doesn’t mean that ANE people weren’t superstitious and prone to believing supernatural claims. Indeed, in a group-oriented society, fantastic stories might propagate through the gossip grapevine rather quickly. JP asserts that,

Missionaries would find their virtues tested at every new stopping point!

But even in Acts, this does not always seem to be the case. For instance, in Acts 28 Paul arrives on the island of Malta. Almost immediately after arriving, Paul survives an encounter with snake bite, prompting the people of Malta to proclaim his godhood. Now, these people had just barely met Paul, and yet they were willing to believe him a god based on the paltriest of “miracles”. That does not strike me as a particularly critical attitude. Similarly, in Lystra (14:8-18), it is all Paul can do to persuade the populace not to sacrifice to him as a manifestation of Zeus -- and they were convinced on the strength of a mere “faith healing” which has been replicated by innumerable carnival hucksters. Again, it appears there were any number of people in the mission field who were not lacking in the credulity department. Outside of the NT, historians like Josephus record the activities of various charlatans who duped people into thinking they had incredible powers at their disposal. Josephus tells us of a man called “the Egyptian” who had a flock of 30,000 (Jewish War, 2.261-2). Presumably, this man wasn’t able to perform genuine miracles, but that didn’t stop people from believing in him. Indeed, skepticism is not what ended his movement but rather a massacre at the hands of Roman troops. Plutarch relates to us the public’s belief in incidents involving statues talking, weeping, bleeding (Life of Coriolanus, 37.3) . And so on and so forth. It appears that the ANE was not exactly a bastion of skepticism.

But surely there were some people who did not buy the Christian story, hook, line and sinker. These people may have wished to investigate. Did they have the ability to do so? JP says yes, noting that,

An analysis of the converts who are mentioned in the New Testament shows that early Christianity was top-heavy in terms of those who had higher social status.

And furthermore,

It was precisely this socially pretentious section of Greco-Roman society that Christianity was top-heavy in that had the time and the resources needed to travel, or to send travelers, to do the needed investigative work, to send letters, to ask questions of the right officials, and report their findings to others.

Firstly, I must question our evidence for early Christianity being top-heavy in this way. Isn’t it possible that the converts mentioned in the NT represent an inaccurate sample? Wouldn’t the NT writers have been apt to report “prestigious” conversions of the social elite, while passing over less noteworthy converts? Is there any evidence for this “top-heaviness” outside of the NT?

Secondly, even if someone had the both inclination and the means to investigate the rez, we must consider what their investigation would actually turn up. Unfortunately, the dates of the Gospels become important here. That is a point of contention between JP and myself, but I believe he dates them in the 60s AD. So, even if we go with his dates, the first record we have of the claims comes three decades or so after the events. And we cannot know whether the gospels accurately reflected the evangelistic teachings at the time when they were written. So, it is possible that the early evangelists did not make many of the claims in the gospels. I am willing to grant that the following claims were made by the early evangelists:

a) The empty tomb.
b) Appearances to the women and the eleven disciples.
c) Maybe the angels.
d) Also, we know that Paul was claiming appearances to "over 500" around 50 AD, but we have no way of telling whether this was claimed prior to that.

Were the above claims verifiable in a meaningful sense? In other words, even if the rez happened could an investigator looking into things a few years after the events confidently conclude a supernatural rez from verification of the claims? Let's look at them one by one:

a) An investigator could seek the tomb and look inside. Presumably, he would not find Jesus' body in there. But there are many ways to get a body out of tomb besides resurrection. Never placed there to begin with, moved to the criminals' graveyard, stolen body, a survived Jesus escaped, etc. So this is inconclusive.

b) An investigator could interview the disciples and the women. But the investigator could not be certain whether they were lying (conspiracy) or mistaken (survival/hallucination). So this is inconclusive

c) This is the same situation as in (b), except with even less witnesses. Again, perjured testimony remains a viable option, so this is inconclusive.

d) An investigator has nothing to go on here, since Paul does not give the names or locations of any of the 500. One could speculate that an investigator would ask Paul for names and locations, but we have no way of knowing whether Paul would divulge such information, or whether he would even claim to know it. In other words, Paul could say, "Oh, there were a bunch of fishermen in Galilee, some farmers outside of Capernum, etc." So this is definitely inconclusive.

Thus, when all is said and done, our thorough investigator has little more than an empty tomb and a handful of testimonies from the grassroots members of the cause. Which is really no different than we'd expect if the rez DIDN'T happen.

Admittedly, this was probably enough evidence for many converts, but I won’t be voting for any of them as “Skeptic of the Year”. 

Round 3, here we come!

ROUND THREE

Round 3 and off we go! 

I suppose we’ll hit a wall here when it comes to Jesus’ awareness of his mission, which is at the core of the “why Nazareth” question at this point. Kyle places this at the baptism by John, presumably such that the cameo in Luke of Jesus in the Temple as a young man is explained another way. Beyond this we’d divert into a scope beyond TIF2, in terms of why the baptism is chosen as a time of awareness – and we can save that for another debate.  The only thing I will add is that it would never be too late to move to Sepphoris – after all, Jesus did move his ministry to Capernaum early in the ministry game when it was apparent Nazareth wasn’t laying out a welcome mat.

I thank Kyle for clarifying his point about the VB. Now on this point I would only note that something like adoptionism (the idea that Jesus was an “average Joe” picked off the street by God) would have been a far, far easier pill to swallow. Indeed we have confirmation of this in that some of the later Ebionite sect of the second century – a Jewish-Christian sect centered in Judaea – preferred this view and denied the VB. (Others of the sect DID accept the VB, though likely as a result of having come out of the Christian mainstream.) It is here that we would find an intermediary that could be stomached, I would say, by Jews – not a VB, which raises too many questions that adoptionism would not. The Ebionites provide the indication Kyle requests that adoptionism would be more palatable to Jews. (And I’ll clarify here that the “Zoroaster” option is a form of adoptionism, just in the womb, whereas classic adoptionism sees Jesus picked from the crowd as an older person.)

Now again to Factor 7. Kyle allows now for the idea that the evangelists "hijacked an eclipse/earthquake from ‘about that time’ and tied it to Jesus’ death in an early effort to mythologize him.” From here I suspect we would hit that wall; I think this is as close as we may come to any agreement without someone converting  . A comment though on:

The fact the neither John, Paul nor any other NT writers mentions these events, leads me to suspect they were part of an isolated tradition, and were not used in evangelism until much later in the life of the movement.

Briefly, my reply to this would be:

1) There are substantial clues that John is written in a way that is intended to supplement Mark’s Gospel. Hence, John is writing his account in a way that would allow him to pare out such events in order to be able to include other things not found in Mark.
2)As far as Paul goes, and the other NT writers, I believe Kyle is making an elemental assumption that is invalid – none of Paul’s letters or those of other NT writers are for the purpose of evangelism. They were all written some years after the readers would have been evangelized, and hence there is no reason to mention these things. We could take this further; it would mirror my efforts against Doc Alward in an earlier debate, and Earl Doherty.

Next up, Kyle suggests that perhaps some uncritical folks would be willing to take Christian bait and spread it around, the social factors I alluded to notwithstanding. He writes:

For instance, in Acts 28 Paul arrives on the island of Malta. Almost immediately after arriving, Paul survives an encounter with snake bite, prompting the people of Malta to proclaim his godhood. Now, these people had just barely met Paul, and yet they were willing to believe him a god based on the paltriest of “miracles”. That does not strike me as a particularly critical attitude

I am not so sure surviving a snakebite is “paltry”!  But this really does not serve as a good example anyway. In this incident in Acts, an incident occurred and people drew their own conclusion concerning identity. There is no gullibility here insofar as Paul made no claim to be a god; at best we have herpetological ignorance by the natives, which I think is the most likely explanation since ancient people often thought ALL snakes were poisonous (and the snake that likely was involved here, and still lives on Malta, LOOKS like a viper). There is no point of comparison here for people possibly believing gullibly in a resurrection, since no claim was made, and none especially that would cause these people to question what happened. The mistake of the locals was rooted in a common perception they had little reason to question, and they had no professional herpetologist around to correct them. The same could be said of the incident in Lystra, which actually had roots in local legends about Hermes and Zeus coming for a visit there in the past and making bad news for the town. This was not comparable to a new and offensive claim made against the social grain.

I cannot speak of the Egyptian in Josephus much, since we do not know indeed what it is he did to attract people. In his case especially, I suspect more people came out of a desire to smack Rome’s hands than because of any particular miracle or alleged miracle. I’m also not so easily swayed to allow that he couldn’t have done some sort of miracles – Jesus does after all warn of such people – or that Plutarch’s statue might not have had some genuine miracle behind it -- but that takes us to the wall again. I can only say briefly then that this is part of the inherent worldview the two of us possess, and that in no case Kyle offered was there a matter of questionable or offensive claims which would prompt investigation. (Or else, as with the Egyptian, there were available “ulterior motives”.) Hence I cannot agree that these are parallel situations.

Kyle then offers: “Firstly, I must question our evidence for early Christianity being top-heavy in this way. Isn’t it possible that the converts mentioned in the NT represent an inaccurate sample? Wouldn’t the NT writers have been apt to report ‘prestigious’ conversions of the social elite, while passing over less noteworthy converts? “ In the contexts offered, not really – the data for this comes from NT letters, where Paul (or others) mention people offhand and deliver instructions. There is no indication that there was an effort made to particularly mention prestigious people for any particular reason. Kyle also asks, “Is there any evidence for this ‘top-heaviness’ outside of the NT?” Offhand I only know of mentions in Tacitus of a member of the late first century Emperor’s family being “carried away by Jewish customs” which is taken to be a reference to a Christian conversion, since Judaism was a legal religion at the time. The NT of course would be our primary source for such data.

We then get to the issue of “what their investigation would actually turn up.” To answer Kyle’s implied question, I prefer to date Matthew and Mark to the 50s and Luke to the early 60s; John I can put anywhere between 50 and 90 with no beef. I do not consider the two or three decade gap problematic even so. Oral traditions underlying the Gospel record I place back to the 30s and the origins of the kerygmatic mission; and there are far greater gaps between what is reported in secular works and the time that the works were written. And obviously I would dispute any claim that the gospels did nor accurately reflect evangelistic teachings at the time they were written. But we can actually cut to the chase here, for Kyle sets out some points he is willing to allow were made, and these are not far from my own ideas. He allows:

a) The empty tomb
b) Appearances to the women and the eleven disciples.
c) Maybe the angels.
d) Also, we know that Paul was claiming appearances to "over 500" around 50 AD, but we have no way of telling whether this was claimed prior to that.

Actually this is not far from what I would call the “pillars” of early evangelism. I would exclude c and collapse b and d together, of course; but the tomb and appearances would of course be a foundation. What else was preached? I take my clue here from the missionary preaching in Acts, of which this is a rep sample:

Acts 2:22-25 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved...

This quote from Acts, and other examples of missionary preaching from there, suggest that early missionary preaching mainly appealed to facts about Jesus. Peter, Paul, and others called for repentance on three basic grounds:

Miracles, wonders, and signs. Peter explicitly refers to Jesus as “a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs.” The many public miracles of Jesus -- the man whose withered hand he restored (Matt. 12:10), the lepers he cleansed (Luke 17:11-14), even the wine he miraculously produced at Cana (John 2:1-10) -- would have provided substantive testimony to his divine authority. Thereafter, and throughout Acts, the public miracles experienced and performed by the Apostles -- the tongues falling at Pentecost (Acts 2:3-11), the healing of the man who sat at the Temple gate (Acts 3:1-11), Paul’s public exorcism of a familiar spirit (Acts 16:18) -- would have similarly provided authority for the Gospel message they preached. The Apostles also undoubtedly appealed to the darkness at the time of the Crucifixion (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44) and the signs within the Temple (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45) as evidence of God’s vindication of Jesus. Though Kyle suggests that some of these could have been dismissed as coincidence (earthquake) or charlatan’s tricks as above, I do not see that there are all so easily refuted. But for the present, and beside any hitting of the wall, I would make the point that early investigators could check into these claims and witness the apostles at work themselves.

The Empty Tomb. The Resurrection of Jesus was the central fact of the Christian Gospel, and it is appealed to time and time again in the church’s missionary preaching (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30; 17:31). We agree on this as an element of the kerygma.

The fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy by Jesus. Throughout the Gospels and in Acts, the New Testament claims that Jesus specifically fulfilled Old Testament prophecy in his historical actions. Peter in Acts 2:17-20 claims that the falling of the tongues on the believers was a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32. In Acts 2:25-36 he claims that Jesus fulfilled Psalms 16:8-11 and 110:1. Matthew 2:15 claims that Jesus fulfilled Hosea 11:1, and Matthew 4:14-16 claims that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 9:1-2.

These three appeals, although varied in their subject matter, all return to the same basic premise: God acted in history in a public way, and these public displays testified to the historical reality upon which the Christian faith was grounded. They were things that could be checked out and confirmed by those who listened to the Gospel message. Some acts could perhaps be faked, but certainly people could see that a man lame from birth (Acts 3:1ff), or blind from birth (John 9:1ff) had been healed. They knew that the Temple curtain had been torn, and that darkness had been over the land, precisely at the time Jesus had been crucified; even if the latter were coincidence, correspondence of all such events would become harder to swallow. They could see for themselves the Apostles performing signs and wonders. They could ask whether Jesus had indeed gone to Egypt as a child. None of these things, as Paul said to Agrippa, had been done in a corner.

Thus we lead into Kyle’s core question for this round: “..could an investigator looking into things a few years after the events confidently conclude a supernatural rez from verification of the claims?” In a sense, no, since one could hypothesize space aliens or unknown tomb robbers just as we do today. But all this means is that they would have to go through the same process we are going through now, and testing the conclusions. It means they will have to decide whether to hit the wall or go through it, just as we do here. They would check the witnesses’ stories, check with hostile reports, weigh claims and evidence. Kyle will say, as a Skeptic, that we can’t be sure Paul would give info on the 500. I say, as a non-Skeptic, that he had a good handful of references for anyone who asked – and suggest as well that in light of the TIF factors, only a certain, trustworthy, and undeniable witness to the life, miracles, and finally, as I have said previously, the resurrection of Jesus, having enough early witnesses (such as the 500 witnesses mentioned by Paul), and having enough solid and indisputable testimony that made it harder to not believe than to believe, explains why the movement DID survive. In light of these factors, “Oh, there were a bunch of fishermen in Galilee, some farmers outside of Capernum, etc." would not have been enough and would have had Christianity a dead letter by the 90s AD.

In close, I’ll just note that Kyle’s comments on Factor 10 seem to center on the same sort of issues we have been discussing here for 7, so I think we’ll not need to say much about that. I’ll try to rope in some comments of his on Factor 11 next round.

JP and I appear to have reached "agree to disagree" points on the issues on "why Nazareth?" and the VB, where further elaboration would take us outside the scope of our current topic. So it looks like we can close out Factor #2 (for now).

As for Factor #7, JP has some more to say, and so do I. The last time around, I suggested that the absence of eclipse/earthquake accounts in the writings of John, Paul and other NT authors supports the speculation that "they were part of an isolated tradition, and were not used in evangelism until much later in the life of the movement." But JP says,

As far as Paul goes, and the other NT writers, I believe Kyle is making an elemental assumption that is invalid – none of Paul’s letters or those of other NT writers are for the purpose of evangelism. They were all written some years after the readers would have been evangelized, and hence there is no reason to mention these things.

I have heard this before from JP (and others), and probably should have addressed it in my last post since I could see it coming. I am not asserting that the lack of an eclipse/earthquake incident in the other accounts is ironclad proof that the events did not occur in conjunction with the crucifixion. It is certainly possible, as JP proposes, that the other writers simply had no good reason to reference such events. But, since the non-synoptic NT documents do record some miracles, but lack the earthquake/eclipse, that absence can be used to support my speculation. Does it seal the deal? No. But inasmuch as a miraculous account only appears in three tightly related documents (the synoptics), it is reasonable to remain suspicious of its authenticity.

I argued for the existence of a general credulity in the ANE, and gave some examples to support my case. But JP takes issue with them. One such example is that of Paul being mistaken for a god on the basis of a snakebite survival. On this, JP says,

In this incident in Acts, an incident occurred and people drew their own conclusion concerning identity. There is no gullibility here insofar as Paul made no claim to be a god; at best we have herpetological ignorance by the natives,

But that is irrelevant to my point. It may not strictly be "gullibility", but it is an example of credulity--abetted by ignorance. In other words, it demonstrates a penchant for leaping to paranormal explanations in order to explain events that are much more likely to have prosaic causes. And that is where the relevance to the rez lies. Along these same lines, with regards to Josephus' "Egyptian" and Plutarch's statues, JP notes,

...in no case Kyle offered was there a matter of questionable or offensive claims which would prompt investigation ... Hence I cannot agree that these are parallel situations.

Again though, it is not necessary for these other claims to have a one-to-one correlation with the Jesus movement in order to support my point. And the point is simply that a significant number of ANE people were apparently quite willing to believe paranormal claims on the basis of shoddy evidence (unless, of course, you suppose these events were genuine, but we will have to put that possibility to the side for now).

JP and I agree that some segment of the population would've had both the desire and means to investigate the claims of early Christianity. But just what claims were available for investigation? Perhaps surprisingly, JP and I seem to agree on the answer to that question. He states that the empty tomb and the appearances would've been the "pillars" of early evangelism, and I have no quarrel with that (indeed, I suggested it myself in my last post!). JP also lists two other teachings that would've been used in evangelism. The first falls under the heading of "miracles, wonders, and signs" and mostly includes examples of "faith healing". Given that similar healings have been performed by numerous fraudsters and carnival men throughout history, I have no problem granting this. In fact, I think faith healing was one of the keys to Jesus building his movement. I should note, however, that I do not concede that the synoptic "Jesus death miracles" (darkness, temple veil, risen saints, etc) were part of mainstream early evangelism. The second teaching mentioned by JP is the fulfillment of OT prophecy by Jesus. I agree that this too would've been used by evangelists. Of course, as JP knows, I have always rankled at prophecy fulfillment since actions can often times be retro-fitted to existing prophecies. Also, with Jesus believing himself the messiah, we have the very real possibility that he purposely and consciously acted out the fulfillment of a number of prophecies. This would be true whether he was the genuine messiah or not.

JP goes on to agree that some "healing" acts could be faked, but,

...certainly people could see that a man lame from birth (Acts 3:1ff), or blind from birth (John 9:1ff) had been healed.

How do we know the healed men weren't shills? Or that they were even suffering from the ailment to begin with (if you don't believe that is a legitimate possibility, read James Randi's The Faith Healers)? Or that (at least in the case of the lame man) the "healing" was more than a temporary psychosomatic one? Or, for that matter, since names of the "healed" are not generally given, that these specific accounts aren't fictionalized? There are just way too many unknowns to conclude with any confidence that paranormal healings occurred.

JP also points out that people,

...knew that the Temple curtain had been torn, and that darkness had been over the land, precisely at the time Jesus had been crucified; even if the latter were coincidence, correspondence of all such events would become harder to swallow.

Again, it bears pointing out that I'm not convinced these things were widespread teachings in the early going. Also, I should clarify my position. I am not suggesting that an earthquake/eclipse just coincidentally occurred in Jerusalem on the day Jesus died, but rather that these events occurred "around that time", as in maybe that same year, not even necessarily in Jerusalem (Bithynia perhaps?).

And that takes us to what JP aptly labels as the core question of this round (and perhaps this debate): "even if the rez happened could an investigator looking into things a few years after the events confidently conclude a supernatural rez from verification of the claims?" Ultimately, JP agrees with me that an investigator could not confidently conclude such a thing, but says,

...all this means is that they would have to go through the same process we are going through now, and testing the conclusions. It means they will have to decide whether to hit the wall or go through it, just as we do here.

And with that, I am in total agreement. Sometimes it amazes me how often JP and I are on the same page. We can read the same thing, reason from it very similarly, and draw many like conclusions. But when that wall looms on the horizon, I pull up short, whereas JP just ducks his head and charges right through. And that makes all the difference. Of course, I would argue that there are good reasons for respecting the wall, but alas, that's another debate.

In any event, it appears that we have come to a consensus of sorts, where we agree that early converts who demanded evidence would've been primarily fed the empty tomb and some witness accounts from the disciples. And we agree that many converts were probably also told of the "miracles" Jesus performed, and given examples of how Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy. Based on that evidence, JP believes that an inference of a genuine resurrection and Jesus' deity is justified, whereas I would characterize such an inference as slipshod. And that's probably as far as we can go with that.

See you in Round 4.

ROUND FOUR

Indeed, I did not think Kyle was “asserting that the lack of an eclipse/earthquake incident in the other accounts is ironclad proof that the events did not occur in conjunction with the crucifixion.” It may surprise him to know that I consider some Biblical “miracles” to be more miracles of timing than of action. Or maybe it wouldn’t surprise him. I seem to have a hard time doing that.

Now for the snakebite, Kyle argues that the example, despite my reply, is one of “credulity” abetted by ignorance –but I can only agree to that, and that it “demonstrates a penchant for leaping to paranormal explanations” with a serious qualification: it demonstrates such a penchant only when explanatory data is otherwise inaccessible. We can hardly blame our ancestors for attributing supernatural causes to certain events whose natural workings they were unable to investigate. Attaching diseases to demons is far from a credulous theoretical resort in an age prior to the advent of microscopes. They are “credulous” from our perspective only because we have the better explanation. Is it really fair to call these persons “credulous” when no other explanatory option was immediately available? “Credulous” means “disposed to believe too readily” – but the definition implies that there are other alternatives that could have been considered, and here, I am arguing that there were not. And of course, I have seriously questioned whether this sort of inaccessibility of explanation is relevant in the case of the resurrection. Unless Kyle wishes to propose (as some have) that the rez was the result of a natural process heretofore undiscovered, I don’t see room for a parallel to incidents like the snake attack. It has been my argument that in the case of the rez, prosaic causes were accessible and were investigated. Not so with the snake attack, thousands of years before the first herpetologist.

We would probably hit a wall too soon discussing miracles and OT prophecy, to say nothing of going too far off point, but it is worth it to take a small, informational diversion. It may surprise Kyle (maybe not!) to know that “retro-fitting” was more or less what was done with OT texts by all Jewish exegetes of the period. Midrash is one of the terms that comes to mind. In essence, an event happened, and if an OT text described it in some way, it was thereafter regarded as a prophecy of the event. And this also means that yes, Jesus would consciously try to fulfill certain passages – the NT says as much, as when Jesus is reported to have purposely asked for a drink to fulfill prophecy. But the appeal was grounded in the event, not in the text itself. So interestingly, most appeals to Messianic prophecy today are running backwards from the norm.

We hit the wall indeed with healing, and the “how do we know” questions Kyle presents. How do we know? We don’t any more than a report, the same as any historical report. How do we know Caesar crossed the Rubicon? We don’t – he told us so. Even so, one must consider likelihoods. In that respect, the man born blind in John 9 underwent a thorough questioning by the authorities, along with his parents. They were the James Randis of the day, and I have argued in TIF that the social world of the day provided us with Junior Randis who would and could and would want to dispose of Christian claims. Of course the wall makes us then ask a greater series of “how do you knows” in line with our inevitable worldview presupps. The last few paragraphs, Kyle agrees we have reached a consensus (separated only by that darned wall!) so I’ll move ahead to Kyle’s factor 11 response. Kyle acknowledges that “there must have been unavoidable historical reasons for the women witnesses” and refers back to the three scenarios we discussed in TIF debate 1. Looking closely at Kyle’s response, I realize that my answers would be more or less the same plate of hash we have already eaten in the first debate, so my comments will be brief. The first note is that Kyle suspects Mary (I assume he means Magdelene) may have been “caught up” in the hoopla. Indications from John’s Gospel, though, are that the appearance to Mary M. was either the first to get an appearance, or else was unaware of the others, for she reacts as one who thinks the body has gone missing (John 20:2, 13) and has no idea that Jesus has appeared to anyone.

Kyle’s point 13 seems to go over much the same ground we have (as would my response) so it looks like we may close this set out sooner than the last.  So I’ll deal with Kyle’s conclusion next round, and propose that TIF II round out in Round 5. And now, I’m gonna have me a strawberry smoothie.

Well, this debate seems to be winding down mighty fast! Darn it, JP, why can't we find more to disagree about? 

JP makes some important points about credulity in ancient times, noting that,

We can hardly blame our ancestors for attributing supernatural causes to certain events whose natural workings they were unable to investigate. Attaching diseases to demons is far from a credulous theoretical resort in an age prior to the advent of microscopes. They are “credulous” from our perspective only because we have the better explanation.

And with this I would generally agree. It fits right in with my acknowledgement at the outset that ancient people were not inherently any dumber or more superstitious than people today. Rather, the increased credulity of ancient people was a product of their culture which, in turn, was a product of extant knowledge at the time. As JP recognized, without the advantage of modern science, people often turned to supernatural explanations which were in error. As scientific knowledge increased through the centuries (especially the last couple hundred years) it became evident that an enormous number of things once given supernatural causes were perfectly explainable by naturalistic science. Indeed, I believe the fact that science has time and again explained things that were once the province of supernatural forces has been the impetus behind the cultural shift today (at least in intellectual circles) towards dismissing all paranormal accounts in the absence of scientific evidence. And that brings us to the key point: explaining unusual events with appeals to the paranormal was perfectly acceptable in ancient times. In that climate, I suggest people would be "too readily disposed" to a paranormal explanation for the empty tomb, as well as a belief in the Jesus story at large.

JP suggests we have hit the wall on the healing issue and my "how do we know" questions. He says,

How do we know? We don’t any more than a report, the same as any historical report. How do we know Caesar crossed the Rubicon? We don’t – he told us so.

This is a bit of an exaggeration. Yes, Caesar told us so, but there is some additional evidence.

1. Caesar's enemies, including contemporaries such as Cicero, report the event.

2. There are a number of inscriptions and coins produced soon after the Republican Civil War related to the Rubicon crossing, including mentions of battles and conscriptions and judgments, which in fact form almost a continuous chain of evidence for Caesar's entire march.

3. We have the story of the "Rubicon Crossing" in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a measure of proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they all quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a regular desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn't enough, all of them cite or quote sources which were written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing its repercussions.

4. The history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey's forces in Greece.

(Tip of the hat to Carrier on the Rubicon stuff).

Now, I realize that JP was probably purposely exaggerating to make a point, but it bears recognizing that none of the Bible's "miracles" are on anything like the same footing as the Rubicon crossing. JP admits that "we don't know any more than a report", and I must say that's simply not good enough. Such minimal information leaves wide open the possibilities of deception and hucksterism; possibilities that have been borne out in many similar cases.

JP then suggests that,

...the social world of the day provided us with Junior Randis who would and could and would want to dispose of Christian claims.

But we have access to the Senior Randi today, and yet his protests fall largely upon deaf ears. So I suspect the impact of Junior Randis would've been negligible.

On the issue of Mary Magdalene as a witness, I originally speculated that perhaps, "once rumors of resurrection appearances started floating around, Mary was caught up in the hoopla and began reporting a visitation of her own." In response, JP says,

Indications from John’s Gospel, though, are that the appearance to Mary M. was either the first to get an appearance, or else was unaware of the others, for she reacts as one who thinks the body has gone missing (John 20:2, 13) and has no idea that Jesus has appeared to anyone.

I think JP may have misunderstood what I was proposing. In the possibility I outlined, Mary visits the empty tomb, but does not experience an appearance, and thus she does not report one. However, once the disciples start touting appearances, Mary decides to fabricate an experience of her own and starts spreading the story of an encounter at the tomb. The disciples are not happy about this, but they can hardly accuse her of lying. And the story becomes so well known that the gospel authors are unfortunately forced to include it in their accounts, despite Mary's gender.

JP ends by proposing we wrap this puppy up in Round 5, and that is entirely acceptable by me. I can hear you knocking at that wall, JP! 

ROUND FIVE

He he,

Darn it, JP, why can't we find more to disagree about?

I’ll think of something else. 

As we’re winding down, I’ll start with previous comments by Kyle, then comments on his conclusion to responding to TIF, which will include rounding-up remarks.

Since we agree that “credulity” in the ancient world was often due to lack of knowledge – and therefore not something these people could help – what have we left that is not a matter of running headfirst into the ideological wall? Not much. This wall leads some (I am not sure if Kyle is among them) to believe that the advance of science in proving natural causes for things once supernatural is a pointer to there being no supernaturalism at all. Of course whatever is true, if there were any supernaturalism in the first place, the actual amount of it never changed – all that has changed is discovery. But Kyle does clearly offer that:

In that climate, I suggest people would be "too readily disposed" to a paranormal explanation for the empty tomb, as well as a belief in the Jesus story at large.

That might be worth note, except that (as the whole of TIF has been pointing out) everything about Christianity led people of that time to be explicitly indisposed to accept such an explanation. Their credulity on matters supernatural is balanced – indeed, I say, overthrown -- by their critical nature on these other points. A simple “ready disposition” is not enough for belief.

Kyle does rightly recognize that I used Caesar crossing the Rubicon as an example picked out of a hat. I appreciate the confirming data, which I was unaware of; but my point remains the same: Much of what is reported in history is told to us by one source. Let’s pick one that I am fairly sure IS a “sole source” report – Tacitus’ report of Vespasian healing two men. How do we know it’s true? How do we know it was or was not supernatural in origin? We don’t – we have to perform a critical analysis with what source material we have, same as for the Gospels. (That HAS been done in one of Glenn Miller’s essays.) But it occurs to me that much of what Kyle offers on Caesar can be turned on its head, to wit:

1. Jesus’ enemies like Celsus and the rabbis (or neutrals like Josephus) report that he was capable of supernatural feats.

2. Only an official body produced coins, and only the rich usually could afford inscriptions – but as a parallel, there are a number of documents produced soon after Jesus’ life related to his performing miracles (i.e., he NT!) including mentions of specific miracles which in fact form an almost continuous chain of evidence for miracles during his ministry.

3. We have eyewitness testimony (Matthew, John) and writers who used testimony of eyewitnesses (Luke, Mark).

4. The history of Christianity could not have proceeded as it did had Jesus not been a miracle worker.

Are the miracles not really on the same footing as the Rubicon crossing? To the extent that any private event (like Vespasian’s healing crusade) is inevitably going to have less footing by its nature, they are not; but in terms of such private events, I would argue that the “footing” for the miracle stories is on as good, if not better, footing than most (if not all) such private events recorded. Is this not good enough? I think it is, when accompanied by analysis such as that offered by TIF. Otherwise, appealing to “possibilities of deception and hucksterism” seems to me little more than the ideological wall being built that disallows any possibility of supernatural intervention.

We never of course expected to cross that wall in these debates.  And we didn’t. The difference of opinion at the core is illustrated here:

But we have access to the Senior Randi today, and yet his protests fall largely upon deaf ears. So I suspect the impact of Junior Randis would've been negligible.

Yet does Randi Sr. have to deal with such matters as an honor-shame dialectic, or national prejudices, or philosophical concerns? Randi’s targets, note well, have ALREADY gained acceptance and thus Randi is fighting an uphill battle against prior and cherished belief. Christianity was fighting to get accepted AT ALL and in an entirely different social setting that Randi never has to deal with. Would Randi even be needed if Benny Pophagin came to town and was widely known to be a child molester or a Grand Dragon of the KKK?

In the possibility I outlined, Mary visits the empty tomb, but does not experience an appearance, and thus she does not report one. However, once the disciples start touting appearances, Mary decides to fabricate an experience of her own and starts spreading the story of an encounter at the tomb. The disciples are not happy about this, but they can hardly accuse her of lying. And the story becomes so well known that the gospel authors are unfortunately forced to include it in their accounts, despite Mary's gender.

Ah, I see. But the text also belies such a scenario, and it is all the evidence we have. Mary’s special visit clearly occurs before she has any idea that anyone is touting appearances. Obviously one can hypothesize that Mary was confused about the timing…or whatever else is “possible” but unattested. I am also not agreeable that the gospel writers would have “had no choice” but to include the story – certainly if false such a story could have been “nipped in the bud” as Fife would say, and not allowed to get to the point where “no choice” was open. I also wonder how Mary would manage to spread the story outward from Palestine such that audiences in Rome, Antioch, and elsewhere would know of it, and believe it to the extent that it had to be included in the Gospels.

Well, now to the conclusion of Kyle’s comments:

The rise of Christianity from the crushing defeat of the cross is an amazing story. If an Ancient Las Vegas had existed, and its bookies were taking odds on Christianity becoming the world's premier religion, anyone betting on Christianity would've cleaned out the house. Credulity is stretched to the limit if we suppose that nothing extraordinary whatsoever happened after Jesus' death. But is a supernatural resurrection the only possibility left open to us? As I have indicated in the preceding, it is not. There are at least three distinct scenarios which would also explain the preached resurrection appearances. The scenarios are, admittedly, improbable. But what must be decided is whether they are more improbable than a supernatural resurrection.

Since we debated these three scenarios earlier, there is nothing really to add. This (and the accompanying quote from Hume) illustrates that inevitable interposition of the ideological wall. For Kyle, “whatever other explanation, no matter how improbable, must be true” (to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes!). Yet I cannot help but notice, as critics of Hume have noted, that Hume draws a circle around his own experience – which is hardly the measure for proof of anything beyond it – and takes that as the sufficient measure for what is plausible. More than this and we’d have a new debate. 

I have enjoyed this exchange of ideas and believe we have both stretched our minds and done a good turn to keep others informed. Thanks, Kyle!

In response to my suggestion that people would be "too readily disposed" to a paranormal explanations, JP says,

That might be worth note, except that (as the whole of TIF has been pointing out) everything about Christianity led people of that time to be explicitly indisposed to accept such an explanation. Their credulity on matters supernatural is balanced – indeed, I say, overthrown -- by their critical nature on these other points. A simple “ready disposition” is not enough for belief.

Perhaps. But there was more than a simple "ready disposition" at work. To quote myself, "Christianity did offer the promise of eternal life (that's a biggie), consolation for present suffering in the promise of an accounting after death, a Judaism that could practice non-violent submission to Rome, a Judaism that was (relatively) free of racial limits, and a Judaism that focused on inner instead of outer expressions of faith (like circumcision -- yikes!). These positives, plus some level of evidence (the empty tomb, a disciple's testimony), combined with general credulity would be enough to convert many people, I believe."

JP then attempts to apply my Rubicon criteria to Jesus. I'll grant him #1, but #2 and #3 are really the same thing, and do not represent independent lines of evidence. As well, the witnesses cited there have a declared bias towards persuasion and conversion. As for #4, JP is not quite correct. He says,

4. The history of Christianity could not have proceeded as it did had Jesus not been a miracle worker.

But, more accurately, that should have read: The history of Christianity could not have proceeded as it did had people not believed Jesus was a miracle worker. A subtle, but vital distinction.

JP then wonders,

Are the miracles not really on the same footing as the Rubicon crossing? To the extent that any private event (like Vespasian’s healing crusade) is inevitably going to have less footing by its nature, they are not; but in terms of such private events, I would argue that the “footing” for the miracle stories is on as good, if not better, footing than most (if not all) such private events recorded. Is this not good enough?

No. It's not good enough disallow the always viable possibilities of deception and hucksterism which have been prevalent through all history. Not for Jesus or Vespasian or any other private paranormal event.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call "The Wall".

As far as the ineffectiveness of Randi Sr. is concerned, JP raises the following point.

...does Randi Sr. have to deal with such matters as an honor-shame dialectic, or national prejudices, or philosophical concerns? Randi’s targets, note well, have ALREADY gained acceptance and thus Randi is fighting an uphill battle against prior and cherished belief. Christianity was fighting to get accepted AT ALL and in an entirely different social setting that Randi never has to deal with.

Yes, it was certainly a different social setting, but not all aspects of that setting benefited the Junior Randis. Allow me to borrow from Carrier one last time in this debate, and consider the following.

"There didn't exist such things as coroners, reporters, cameras, newspapers, forensic science, or even police investigators. All the technology, all the people we have pursuing the truth of various claims now, did not exist then. In those days, few would even be able to check the details of a story if they wanted to--and few wanted to. Instead, people based their judgment on the display of sincerity by the storyteller, by his ability to impress them with a show, and by the potential rewards his story had to offer. At the same time, doubters didn't care to waste the time or money debunking yet another crazy cult, of which there were hundreds then. And so it should not surprise us that we have no writings by anyone hostile to Christianity until a century after it began--not even slanders or lies. Clearly, no doubter cared to check or even challenge the story in print until it was too late to investigate the facts."

And that's about all I have. I could punch out a concluding paragraph, but after 15 rounds of debate on this issue, I think that would amount to unnecessary redundancy. So instead, I will close out with my heartfelt thanks to JP for participating in this exchange, as well as a thank you for all the readers. I hope everyone is able to take something valuable from the discussion--I know I will. Indeed, I am very pleased with the outcome of this debate, as I believe we took the issues as far as we could, and agreed upon as much as we could, short of one of us converting. I'm sure JP and I will meet again in the Wrestling Ring someday. Maybe then we can work on getting over that wall.