I've posted here before about why I think that historical arguments for Christianity don't work, due to an empirical deficiency in research: they don't answer competing claims from other religions (the example I gave was the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama), which (a) demonstrate enough to show that they should be taken seriously, and (b) would, if true, immediately prove (orthodox) Christianity wrong, no matter what the state of our own arguments. However, I am wondering whether even this is giving too much credit to the historical arguments; maybe they can't even in principle do this much?
Where do we get our knowledge of classical, orthodox Christian doctrine? From Paul, from Peter, from John, (from Priscilla?), from the church throughout the years, and so on. Now, even if Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried, and on the third day rose again as the Son of God (i.e. fully God and fully man) in power, it could still stand to reason that almost everything else that these later thinkers wrote is dead wrong. Maybe a good try, but wrong. Jesus' resurrection and the accurate transmission of the NT and OT texts has nothing to do with their theological validity.
At this point, one could say that God wouldn't leave His people hanging, and would give them direction through his inspired Word. Well, 2000 years later, I'm still looking for that direction; the church has quibbled, and no one really agrees on these issues of utmost importance. We look to our readings of Scripture, but so does the other side. We change our minds, and read back our thoughts to past transmitters of the tradition. Where is the guidance? There isn't enough to establish the argument that the NT is valid theologically, at any rate.
Ok, fine, granted, but what about Jesus? He said some stuff too, and maybe that at least shows that what later thinkers said was good, when it was strictly concerned with unpacking what He said. If He truly were God Incarnate, He would have been right too, and so an historical argument which gives evidence that He was who He said He was (and which further gives evidence that He said that He was God; not exactly a finished task!), gives evidence for some NT theology. But first, why think that we understand Jesus when no one around him seemed to do so? To be honest, even the speeches at the Last Supper where the disciples thought that Jesus spoke plainly are pretty opaque to me if I don't start by assuming that one tradition or another is true, so why should I think that I understand His parables?
Second, if Jesus was truly human (which would be necessary for any sort of orthodox Christianity), then how did He have perfect knowledge? If He truly were tempted in every way as we have been, then He had to wrestle with epistemological problems which cause so much grief for those concerned with knowing the truth rather than merely with having a spot of worldly comfort. So, how could He have known all the theological truths?
The answer could be that it would be like the way in which He did not sin: Jesus as human was tempted to sin and had to struggle for correct knowledge, but Jesus as God together as the entire Trinity saw to it that Jesus the unified person would come through in both practice and theory. But, are these two equivalent? It seems that it would be possible for someone not to sin, even within social settings according to a normal life, even if extremely difficult. But how can one, growing up in an environment with wrong thinking (as every environment is) without any source to correct that, to suddenly reach the Truth through human means? If there were no demons which possessed people, how would the human Jesus have come to know that? If a miracle, then Jesus didn't face our struggles; if not a miracle, then it is highly implausible that Jesus' judgments were all correct. But if this is the case, then why take Jesus' thoughts on theology as more than a highly inspired individual?
Maybe this shouldn't be a problem for theology; God could still have performed a miracle. It is logically possible. But for an apologetic argument, creating a key bridge from an historical resurrection to orthodox (or even mostly orthodox) Christianity by resorting to an actual miracle (not merely the possibility of miracles, but a really instantiated one) which nonetheless has absolutely no historical backing, seems to me to defeat the purpose. There may even need to be two miracles: one, that Jesus got it right, and two, that we have understood him properly in all the details we hold dear.
So, if this (together with former posts) is right, then there is no argument (even a strictly evidential one) outside of Christianity which could provide grounds for accepting it, and I therefore have no reason to prefer it to Islam or Buddhism, or just a straight-up rational religion or a pure pluralism. Further, anyone who thinks they do, either started by assuming Christianity or took a blind leap of faith. One can still choose to be a Christian, but it is nothing more than a gamble with bad odds, unless perhaps pluralism is true.
9 comments:
I think I'll have more to say later, but in a rush, here are two thoughts:
1) When you say "...even if Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried, and on the third day rose again as the Son of God...in power, it could still stand to reason that almost everything else that these later thinkers wrote is dead wrong. Maybe a good try, but wrong", are you taking into account Acts 1:3 which claims Jesus spent forty days after the resurrection with his disciples, not only giving them evidences that his passion and his resurrected life were genuine phenomena, but also "speaking about the kingdom of God"? Sometimes I wonder what it was Jesus said during those 40 days about the Kingdom. It seems to me that the theological authority of the Synoptics at least, if not the writings of Paul, is strengthened by this claim (if it is true). I don't think the inerrancy of all NT teaching is secured by this. But neither do I find it at all reasonable that, given the genuine identity and authority of Jesus and his teachings, that "almost everything else that these later thinkers wrote is dead wrong". According to the Gospels, Jesus seems to have spent considerable effort and time interpreting the events of his life, passion, death, and resurrection to his disciples, using the scriptures.
2) Can you say more about this paragraph? I'm not following your train of thought. I'm not sure all of your premises are sufficiently clear.
"Second, if Jesus was truly human (which would be necessary for any sort of orthodox Christianity), then how did He have perfect knowledge? If He truly were tempted in every way as we have been, then He had to wrestle with epistemological problems which cause so much grief for those concerned with knowing the truth rather than merely with having a spot of worldly comfort. So, how could He have known all the theological truths?"
(By the way, I would hesitate to accept the proposed explanation of Jesus' sinlessness, which makes it premised upon his divinity.)
As I said, more later.
Sorry I haven't at all kept up with our other conversations. February was a very busy month.
This follows up on my 2) in the last comment.
The following is intended as a reconstruction of part of your argument:
1. In all cases, human beings that possess knowledge either came to have that knowledge by non-miraculous means (i.e., natural means), or came to have that knowledge by miraculous means (i.e., supernatural means). (premise)
2. It is impossible for a human being, by natural means, to come to have perfect knowledge about the will and character of God. (premise)
3. Epistemic struggle and anguish is partly constitutive of ordinary human experience. (premise)
4. Coming to have perfect knowledge about the will and character of God by supernatural means is necessarily incompatible with the epistemic struggle and anguish that is part of ordinary human experience. (premise)
5. If Jesus was a human being, then he experienced all that is constitutive of ordinary human experience. (premise)
6. Jesus was a human being. (premise)
7. Jesus experienced epistemic struggle and anguish. (from 6, 5, 3)
8. Jesus did not come to have perfect knowledge about the will and character of God by supernatural means. (from 7, 4)
9. Jesus did not come to have perfect knowledge about the will and character of God by natural means. (from 6, 2)
10. Jesus did not possess perfect knowledge about the will and character of God. (from 8, 9, 1)
I think this is a formally valid argument.
I want to resist its logic; that is, I want to resist that Jesus’ humanness entails he did not possess perfect knowledge about the will and character of God.
To reject the conclusion (10), therefore, at least one of the premises (1) – (6) must be rejected.
I accept (1) and (2) as unproblematic. I accept (6). I want to resist the combination of (3), (4), and (5).
I could deny (5). Perhaps some pieces of ordinary human experience could be missing from Jesus’ experience without diminishing Jesus’ full humanity. This turns on the qualifier “ordinary”.
Christian theologians sometimes say that Jesus possessed a fully human nature, but that his human nature more closely approximates that of a human being prior to the Fall; that is, Jesus does not have a “sin nature”. In order to maintain that Jesus experienced temptation just as “ordinary” human beings do—a point of at least pastoral significance, and from which Christians are told to take moral encouragement—it would seem that the Christian theologian must say that Jesus’ “sinless nature” entails only that Jesus’ will is uncorrupted—he makes the right choices—and not that Jesus’ experience of temptation is significantly different from that which characterizes “ordinary” human experience. Jesus experiences temptation, but consistently chooses to resist it. This is consistent with (5), for Jesus’ experience is still “ordinary” although his choices—his will—are extra-ordinary.
However, in other ways Jesus’ sinlessness entails there are certain pieces of “ordinary” human experience that were not part of his own experience. For example, the guilt of having committed a willful sin. Also: the experience of repentance, and the experience of being forgiven. It does not seem (to me) that the lack of these experiences in Jesus’ life diminishes his humanity in any significant way. Note several experiences that Jesus does have: that of being rejected as if he were guilty of sin, that of being unfairly punished, that of making requests to God in prayer, that of being disappointed.
Do you find the denial of (5) implausible? Or, do you find a theology which denies (5) less attractive in some way? In either case, can you please express why?
On the other hand, I could accept (5) and deny (3). I would do so by understanding “ordinary human experience” to encompass all experiences that are necessary for being fully human, and perhaps some experiences in addition to these—all of which I might understand as necessary for Jesus to meaningfully sympathize with me as an ordinary human being. Then, denying (3), I would argue that epistemic struggle and anguish are not experiences necessary for being human, nor experiences that Jesus had to have in order to meaningfully sympathize with me as an ordinary human being. Now, I certainly do experience epistemic struggle and anguish. But I would contend that such experience is no more necessary for Jesus to meaningfully sympathize with me, nor for Jesus to be genuinely human, that are experiences of guilt or of being forgiven by God. These latter experiences are certainly profound components of my experience as a human being. But in my experiencing them, I relate to Jesus as Lord and God, and not as brother and fellow human.
Would you argue that epistemic struggle and anguish is necessary for Jesus to meaningfully sympathize with me as an ordinary human being? If so, can you please express why?
What of (4)? Might this be resisted? I could, perhaps, resist it by saying that Jesus experienced epistemic struggle and anguish in other domains than knowledge of God’s character and will. Or, perhaps I could suppose that Jesus experienced epistemic struggle and anguish even in this domain prior to the beginning of his adult ministry; perhaps prior to his baptism by John.
Here, too, is a possibility I think ought to be considered. Jesus might not have had perfect knowledge concerning the will and character of God. And yet, his knowledge concerning all those things which he taught in his capacity as an inspired prophet may have been perfect. And perhaps he even had second-order knowledge of what he knew and what he did not know, thus exercising care never to assert as an inspired prophet things concerning which he was uncertain. At the moment, this possibility even seems quite plausible to me. Perhaps the difficulty raised by this position, however, might be that Jesus’ followers may not have been perfect in their discernment between Jesus’ inspired teachings and Jesus’ casual remarks.
I am aware that none of this really addresses your ultimate claim: that outside of the assumption of Christianity (or at least some version of Judaism) there is no rational argument to compel a person to accept orthodox Nicene Christianity. Rather, I approach the question from within. And you might rightly criticize my position as a result.
Hey guys,
Bear with this philosophical lightweight, as I try to make a few profound points in as few words as possible. ☺
First, Michael, your post seems to have an element of randomness to it (i.e. not exactly a thesis with all main points supporting it in a sequitir manner), so forgive my rather sporadic responses to a few arguments you raised.
1. I agree that if you compare Christianity’s historical claims with the historical claims of any other religion(s) with equal historical attestation, that we have a problem proving Christianity (or the other religion) historically preferable. (Though I'm not sure the historical-theological assertions of any other religion are as verifiable, let alone verified, as Christianity's. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're not.)
2. In several places (para. 2-4) you seem to rely on a presupposition that historical and theological accuracy are necessarily at odds (e.g., “Jesus’ resurrection and the accurate transmission of the NT and OT texts has nothing to do with their theological validity.”) You seem to be accepting the possibility of the historicity of the crucifixion and resurrection but not the rest of the NT material (narratives, sayings). Fortunately (or unfortunately—however you see it), the same criteria by which we establish the historicity of the resurrection (or any NT event) is used to establish the historicity of the rest of the NT. If we concede that some of the NT is less than trustworthy, then virtually none of it is (only that which is corroborated in extant extrabiblical sources). (I can elaborate on this if need be.)
When we limit our focus just to the gospels, we have to view history and theology together as “theological history.” Again, evidence of redaction is not evidence against the historicity of the events and sayings they record. Historicity must be evaluated by other criteria. (Again, I can dig these up if need be. I'm presuming you're familiar with the basic criteria for establishing the historical veracity of ancient documents.)
3. The conservative argument from providence is unnecessary to establish the historicity or theological validity of the NT.
4. Re: the blatant disconnect between the profound density of mind of those who were consistently ignorant of the meaning of Jesus’ sayings pre-resurrection (pre-Pentecost?) and the subsequent clarity and confidence of interpretation, is the NT itself not clear as to why this is so? The Holy Spirit!
In fact, this profound reversal, rather than being an argument against the theological validity of the NT, is actually a powerful argument for it. How do you explain the radical, instantaneous change in the minds of all eleven men? If it were not due to the Holy Spirit, it would have to be a fanciful invention, not on the part of one man (contrast, e.g., Mohammed, Buddha, Joseph Smith), but eleven. But what would possess all these men to fabricate such an elaborate, fanciful theological story? What was in it for them? Not social prestige. Not material well-being. Certainly not their comfort, convenience, or safety (to understate things considerably). Were they delusional? All of them? Anything is possible, I suppose. But what’s most probable? Inspiration by the Holy Spirit is most probable, hands down.
5. Re: the full humanity of Jesus, I may be off-base here, but I think there’s ample biblical support for the finiteness of Jesus’ knowledge while incarnate on earth. He speaks several times of not fully knowing the will of the Father, of not knowing the exact timing of certain eschatological events, and of not considering equality with God something to be grasped. I haven’t thought through how to square this with full divinity, but I’m able to leave it for now.
Another thing to consider is what we mean when we refer to Jesus’ full “humanity.” In what sense is he human? I would follow Athanasius in understanding Jesus as the ideal/perfect human. In that sense, Jesus was wholly different from us, yet nonetheless human. In fact, he was more human than we are.
Again, I apologize for the brevity/simplicity and relative disconnectedness of my observations. I’m not offering a coherent response to the basic thrust of your post, but rather counterpoints to the specific statements I cited.
Shalom, :)
matt
Scott - Thanks for the analysis on 2! That's pretty much what I was thinking, and there are the two aspects - both why this requires a miracle to justify apologetics (and as you noted, your argument doesn't affect this), as well as the problem for within Christianity.
As for the latter, I'm probably biased; as someone who not only struggles epistemologically, but for whom almost every moment is a struggle to determine what is true so that I can act on it, live the proper life, teach correctly, etc., I'm not really sure how to relate to someone who had that sort of perfection handed on a plate. It's not just a specific kind of right living which I would be unable to look to Jesus for, but a component which is involved in most practical deliberation for me. But, I'm willing to say that this is not the normal believer's experience, and so my argument may fall apart there.
As for (1) in your first post, you do bring up a good point concerning the 40 days after Jesus' resurrection. I'm still concerned that we have no way of knowing how much of what was taught in the rest of the NT follows from that, though, especially since Paul wrote so much of it (did he check everything with the other disciples? And even if he did, how much was on his own?).
Matt -
2 - I don't hold that historical and theological accuracy are necessarily at odds; I just hold that there is no necessary connection between them. You can prove to me that Paul really did write all of his letters, without having shown anything about whether what is in those letters are true. The Resurrection, by contrast, was an historical event, so historically verifying the texts supporting the event also helps to verify the occurrence of the event itself.
3 - It was more or less my argument that the argument from Providence is indeed necessary to establish theological validity, if not historical. I am curious as to why you disagree with specific points in the argument, if they are different from what you've said otherwise?
4 - I fail to see how the Holy Spirit changes anything - maybe I'm missing something in your argument? Many people have changed their minds quickly and certainly; any conversion experience in any religion can testify to this, since I suppose that the HS on your view is not working on most of them. And I don't think that we have enough support to say that all of them changed their minds to the same basic doctrine, or that it was the same as Paul's or the later church's; for most of the disciples, we neither have writings by them nor of their thought.
I think that I more or less agree with you on 1 and 5, though I don't think that there's been enough work done on the issue of the historical verifiability of other religions from within a Christian apologetic context to make any positive claims, unless one starts from the standpoint that Christianity it true (which doesn't really work for apologetics, though it would for theology).
I'm with you on the fact that accepting Paul's orthodoxy seems to be a big step (though probably not a leap) of faith. But then again, I confess to having read very little on the doctrine of Scripture (or what I've read—Jensen, Goldsworthy—hasn't been very satisfying). The whole canonization issue still bewilders me. When we turn to the gospels, I think the issues are much more black and white, because we're dealing almost exclusively with history, even if theologically framed. What is unique about Christianity, especially the Christianity of the gospels, is that it is inseparably tied to historical events. Overwhelming emphasis is placed on "witness" of these events. What we see from the evangelists is that they were extremely concerned with historical veracity. And then we go back to the question, Why are they so concerned about these events? and their theological motivations find their justification.
I think when we approach Scripture, it's necessary to get first things first. Evangelicals like to spend a lot of time in Paul, because he unpacks the theology for them. But we have to see the epistles as sort of "add ons" to the gospels... commentary on the gospels (authoritative interpretations, i would say, but i know that's a bigger step). At the risk of sounding heretical, i'm going to venture to say that we could have Christianity with just the gospels. The clarity of teaching on the way to eternal life and the way to eternal death are more than sufficient. Kingdom ethics abound. All the necessary data of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are there. The Great Commandment and Great Commission are there.
So from an apologetic standpoint, the gospels themselves can and should be evaluated on their own. Again, it ultimately boils down to trustworthiness. Do we trust the authors to be telling the truth? We can't be 100% certain that what they tell us really happened. It's not possible, because we aren't there. End of story. But human existence does not function in the realm of absolutes. We talk of absolutes, but what we are really referring to are relative certainties. But alas, faith is not equivalent to making informed decisions based upon absolute facts. It's about trusting the testimony of others, based upon their demonstrated trustworthiness. If you can't trust, then you can't have faith. And I won't insult you by mentioning what Scripture says about faith. ;-)
Concerning faith: If nothing else, there are many ways (maybe even infinite) of escaping the tragedy of human existence (as I was talking about in my other comment). Christianity is merely one. If I am to have blind faith, then I have effectively zero reason to have choose Christianity instead of something else.
But if there is demonstrated trustworthiness, this by its demonstration deserves to be put to the test; and I've been finding it lacking, and no one has yet given me reasons for thinking otherwise, and most have given me nothing other than the same old apologetics I've been hearing since I was a kid and which I imbibed for years.
I have to make a leap of some sort, and I absolutely despise reality for the fact that this has been forced on me. But I have to go the way the evidence leads for me, as paltry and as relative as it may be, and this is currently away from Christianity.
I do find it difficult to hold that the Gospels contain all our theology. It could be read that way, probably more or less coherently, but I'm skeptical that it determines the orthodox reading. I base my reasons for this on the readers themselves: people who see it as containing orthodox Christian teaching seem to be the ones less willing to even try to see it from any other perspective, so I have reason to believe that the determinateness of the reading has more to do with tunnel-vision than the text. Maybe I'm wrong in my method, maybe I'm wrong in my conclusion, but I have to get on with life somehow.
And you're OK with agnosticism in light of the possibility that faith during this present life potentially has eternal, post-mortem implications? i know you hate Pascal's wager.
I reject Pascal's wager or equivalents as utterly irrelevant to contemporary discussion. It treats the problem as if Christianity on the one hand, and secular atheism on the other (with agnosticism clearly in the latter camp) were the only two options. But that's clearly false. There are too many ways to be damned for a wager to really make much sense. Even if a leap of faith is demanded, that could just as easily be to Islam (and then to either Sunna or Shi'a). Or Judaism (Orthodox? Conservative? Reformed?). Or to (Vishishta)Dvaita Hinduism. Or ISKCON. And that's just to name some monotheistic or at least monolatrous alternatives. The only reasons I see for leaving these out of the wager are cultural, and such contingent factors seem to have very little to do with either truth or probability.
Plus, I care more for the truth than for my hide; if I saw this more in the church than in Nietzsche, then I would have reason to take her claims seriously.
Matt wrote:
"Evangelicals like to spend a lot of time in Paul, because he unpacks the theology for them. But we have to see the epistles as sort of "add ons" to the gospels... commentary on the gospels (authoritative interpretations, i would say, but i know that's a bigger step)."
-- Please keep in mind that the Gospels were written much later than Paul's letters. Paul may have relied on earlier traditions from which the canonical Gospels draw, and perhaps can be seen as writing commentaries on those traditions at points. However, Paul himself seems to insist that his apostolic authority comes direct from Christ, and is not mediated by the other apostles' or their eyewitness experiences with Jesus. (Paul could be wrong, but if we're trying to do a biblical theology, that theology should not be seen as giving precedence to the Gospels).
"At the risk of sounding heretical, i'm going to venture to say that we could have Christianity with just the gospels."
--Now, this doesn't strike me as at all heretical (or wrong)! Not to say that we DONT have more than the Gospels, or that the Gospels have more weight. (Read what Scot McKnight says in Blue Parakeet about "Maestro" strategies for reading the Bible.) But if we suddenly lost the rest of the NT, we'd still have enough to follow Jesus from the Gospels. (And, I think vice versa).
BTW - I personally see my views here as causing no problem for my theology on any major point--soteriology, Christology, eschatology, or political theology (anti-imperialist pacifism), for example. These are based on themes that I see as consistent throughout the NT.
Post a Comment