Commentary by Dave E. Matson
The Oak Hill Free Press
P.O. Box 61274
Pasadena, Ca 91116

Editor’s note: The following essay was sent thru the postal-service to ITW and was hand-typed out for the greater public in response ITW’s own essays:
Introduction to an Object of Faith (Believing the Resurrection Story of Jesus Christ) - by Brian Lawson
A Believer Objectively Comments on the Resurrection of Jesus - by Mark McFall
It's a Bird...It's a Plane...It's Superman! (Identifying the Resurrection Body of Jesus) - by Brian Lawson

Dear Brian, 

As I followed your heroic efforts to fit together various, diverse pieces of the gospels in order to come up with a bit of historical reconstruction, a vision came to me. In my mind I saw you doing the same for “Alice in Wonderland.” The significance of the painting of the roses, the watch, the tea party, and all the other little details were being relentlessly probed in an effort to construct a meaningful, historical account! In the midst of this mighty work nobody stopped to ask whether these details should be taken at face value. Mainstream Bible scholars, many of whom are devout Christians who would hardly have abandoned traditional doctrines willingly, have long ago abandoned the Gospels as historical accounts. Why should the skeptic do otherwise? Why should the facts in “Alice in Wonderland” be taken as historical givens? 

Those same scholars tell us that the four Gospels are, in truth, four versions of how early Christian communities envisioned Jesus decades after the historical, human Jesus lived (assuming the Jesus story isn’t wholly mythological, that point having been raised recently by Tom Harpur, a leading Christian author of Canada). Each Gospel is a kind of instruction manual to define and preserve that group’s doctrine in the face of adversity. They were never meant to be laid side by side! What we have here is evolved doctrines that may or may not have a kernel of actual history embedded in them. Details, names, and stories, likely the result of evolved, pious traditions, are preserved or invented according to the doctrines and needs each author was laboring under. Jesus must have done this or that, so it becomes “history.” If necessary, traditions and Old Testament literature would have been searched—and interpreted—to add details, to fill in the blanks. I suspect that most of these biblical authors viewed themselves as preserving the holy truth—even as they created false history.

Brian, you say that you are encouraged by the historical nature of the Bible. Does this mean that you take the account of Noah’s ark and flood literally? Despite the lengthy quibbling of a Woodmorappe or a Henry Morris, there is no credible way to stand that story on bare facts. If it is to be defended by miracles, then we skeptics would like to know by what means you have determined that such miracles, in fact, occurred? To answer honestly, you would have to say that those miracles are assumed, because of a doctrinal need to uphold the veracity of Scripture. Thus, the story is defined by “rescuing” it from the facts. Needless to say, if an account is advanced on grounds other than an appeal to factual data, then it is hardly an exemplar of good, reliable history, which must be based on reliable facts. Of course, you could take the liberal approach and view Noah’s ark and flood as just a story, perhaps a garbled legend based on a local flood or floods. If so, will you do the same for “Adam” and “Eve” inasmuch as their story flatly contradicts biological principles on at least two levels, genetics and evolution? The story of Noah’s ark, of course, isn’t the only account totally at odds with the evidence. We have the story of the silly plagues that God supposedly inflicted on Egypt, leading to the highly improbably exodus account. (God sure showed pharaoh who’s boss!) The idea of 3 million people (or so) living in the Sinai, tramping about with their herds for 40 years without leaving a trace of evidence, just boggles the skeptical mind. We could go on and talk about the fact that Jericho wasn’t there—as a strong, walled city—during the only reasonable time slot historically available for Joshua’s supposed conquest. But I’ve made my point. We skeptics have our reasons for rejecting the Bible as reliable history. We are not saying that there is no history in the Bible, or that skeptics have never been wrong about such things, but rather that biblical history must be evaluated in the total light of our knowledge. If in some places, where the data can be checked, the Bible greatly errs in its history, whence our confidence in its unchecked claims?

Looking at Mark McFall’s contribution, “A Believer Objectively Comments on the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus,” I find Till’s argument about parallel resurrection to still be powerful. Granted, that the older resurrection stories do not logically invalidate the claim for Jesus’ resurrection. However, they do provide the obvious model or nucleus for the mythical development of such accounts. It is a lot easier to believe that yet another savior-god (in a long line of savior-gods) came into “being” according to the accepted pattern than it is to believe that Jesus’ resurrection was real, the one exception in this long line of savior-gods. McFall says that Jesus’ resurrection is the best attested of all, and for that reason we should take it seriously. This is a rather slender reed upon which to put so much weight! Had one of the other ancient religions succeeded instead of Christianity, no doubt their account (with the benefit of later refinement) would have assumed the role of the best-attested account, whereas Christian writings would have been scattered, fragmented and generally lost to us. But, it was Christianity that succeeded, so it was the pagan accounts that were subject to being scattered, lost, or purged, accounts that did not undergo later development and refinement. Thus, we have to be exceedingly careful about how we handle such facts.  

As for Paul’s writings, they seem to bear no relationship at all to the Gospel stories about Jesus. Except for the name and some overlap in theology, the two accounts might have been talking about different entities! As support for the historical nature of the Gospels, Paul’s writings leave much to be desired.

As for the “500 witnesses” that Paul mentions, keep in mind that there was no mass media in those days. Paul’s writing had a very limited audience, an audience that was neither inclined nor able to check up on his claim. More importantly, a statement claiming that an event was “witnessed by 500 people” could mean almost anything. It could refer to a mass hallucination (of which psychologists can point to modern examples), or it might be no more than wishful thinking, i.e., 500 people must have witnessed it. If the details were missing, we might think that Paul’s own, crucial encounter with Jesus was personal and direct. In that case enough details were given to cause many to speculate that Paul had an epileptic seizure. Thus, the report of the 500 need not have been born out of dishonesty, while still being fanciful. Consequently, McFall’s objection carries no weight, and that statement hardly enhances the claimed historicity of Paul’s writings. 

I applaud you for you efforts at trying to be object. Nevertheless, as a skeptic, I find much in your presentation that seems to amount to a kind of wishful thinking. While Jesus, the person, may have existed, Tom Harpur notwithstanding, we skeptics do not see any good reasons for believing in Jesus’ resurrection and other miracles, despite our own efforts at careful, objective study.

---End Article---

END                    Revised: 03/14/05