Jordan copied me a few emails he had with Prof Cavin who he had criticised in our and Temy's debates. Jordan emailed me for comment on his new page http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/probable.htm and since then Jordan and I have been having the following exchange. Any new emails will be added as they are sent/received.Notes
Thanks for all the updates.
Regarding your discussion with Cavin, both you and he appear to assume
that the resurrection accounts are historical and that the "he appeared to
over 500" is reliable, which is not my view as I will discuss in more
detail later when I put some new pages up. In the meantime as I've
already said in our debate so far, the appearance to 500 is rejected
by several scholars as unhistorical because it is only mentioned by
Paul. If such an event had actually happened, it would have been
the strongest evidence the gospel writers would have had for the
resurrection. It would also be expected to have been included
in the Gospels or Acts both for this reason and because 1
Corinthians 15 has Paul presenting it as if part of a list which
paints itself as part of the tradition (even Craig thinks it is part of
an "early tradition"). The fact that they did not mention it is suggestive
that this is not a reliable text (the Gospels show no knowledge of this
"early tradition") and it did not happen.
There is a fuller discussion of problems raised by Price that I asked
you to read that are indicative that the 500 passage is rather a later
interpolation, not actually by Paul and even later than the Gospels.
Did you read Price on this?
I take it from your webpage that you believe that the 500 refers to people
witnessing a physically resurrected Jesus during the ascension? What do
you make of the point I raised in my first reply to you on this - i.e.
that even just from biblical passages alone the 500 is problematic?
e.g.
when Paul states that Jesus "appeared" to "over 500 brethren at once" (1
Cor. 15:6), that would have been to a far greater number of "brethren"
than were said to have existed before Jesus' physical body supposedly
rose into the clouds. (Only 120 "brethren" existed at the time - Acts 1:9,
14-15, 22). So by the Bible's own admission, whoever or whatever may
have "appeared" to "over 500 brethren" could not have been a physically
resurrected Jesus, since his body left the Earth before that many
"brethren" existed.
Ironically, the "500" passage is thus an argument against the physical
resurrection of Jesus. Far more likely is that if there genuinely were
(which I doubt for the reasons above) 500 witnesses of something, then
they were like those at many other emotional religious gatherings. People
sharing a common emotion which they interpreted as an experience of the
"risen Christ," just as people still do at religious rallies today.
Acts 10:40 says: (TEV)
"But God raised him from the dead three days later
and caused him to appear, not to everyone, but only
to the witnesses that God had already chosen, that
is, to us who ate and drank with him after he rose from death."
So unless there was a mass banquet, there was no 500 appearance.
Or in other words, the writer of Luke-Acts knew nothing of the 500 as
purportedly written by Paul. Very odd if it was true or even if merely
believed by the early Christians to have been a mass appearance.
I'm afraid the NT writers are not averse to adding stories to make
Christianity sound more impressive. Remember that the
Gospel of Matthew adds "[When Jesus died on the cross] the
graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept
arose. And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went
into the holy city [Jerusalem], and appeared unto many." (Mat. 27:52-53)
What an incredible miracle! And yet why is there no report
of this "resurrection of many" and "appearance to many"
in Josephus' detailed history of the city of Jerusalem? Remember
Josephus' father was a priest in Jerusalem at the time of the
crucifixion (The Life of Flavius Josephus, 2:7), and yet Josephus
(who details much about minor religious movements of this time)
mentions nothing about a midday darkness that was followed by
an earthquake and a mass resurrection from the dead. It really
should be quite clear even from this one example that the resurrection
accounts contain much made up or embellished material.
If you still don't believe me that Christians make stories up about Jesus
then why are so many of the books of the bible considered "apocryphal"?
Have you read the Gospel of Peter? Have a look at the resurrection story
there. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Regards,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
Then came 3 emails from Jordan...
I received your mailings. Currently, I am dealing with the disciples' visions. I shall comb through your mail for those mentions. Your other thoughts will be dealt with individually--probably soon. I will be sidetracked only so far regarding my challenge to Steve about the disciples' visions. We'll get theere but first things first.
Until then,
--
"Jordan"
===============================
G. Zeineldé Jordan, Se.
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan
===============================
--
From: "Steve Locks" Steve Locks
To: G. Zeineldé Jordan
Subject: Re: Cavin
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:05:04 +0100
Steve,
Understand that I neither accept nor reject the 500 passage. I referred to Cavin's claim that a mass hallucination was more probable than a Christ resurrection because it would only require a shared vision of 500 people. My concern is the disiples' and Paul's visions. Once that is determined, we'll let apologetics go where they will.
I hope that clarifies my position.
Jordan
--
"Jordan"
===============================
G. Zeineldé Jordan, Se.
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan
===============================
--
----- Original Message -----From: "G. Zeineldé Jordan, Se." <G. Zeineldé Jordan>To: "Steve Locks" <Steve Locks>Sent: 20 October 2002 16:47Subject: FWD: Re:---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:10:18 -0700
Jordan writes:
<<Steve, Understand that I neither accept nor reject the 500 passage. I
referred to Cavin's claim that a mass hallucination was more probable than a
Christ resurrection because it would only require a shared vision of 500
people. My concern is the disiples' and Paul's visions. Once that is
determined, we'll let apologetics go where they will. I hope that clarifies
my position.>>
Cavin responds: Jordan's approach here is exactly what Logic dictates. The
500 is a red herring. The issue is as Jordan states.
In His Name
I replied with the following 2 emails...
Thanks for your response, although it was a bit skinny. Are you intending
to respond more fully later - possibly after I put up my new pages?
I'm afraid I find your position more confusing rather than clarified. It
certainly appeared from your page on Cavin (and our debate) that you
believed Jesus ascended in front of 500 witnesses. Are you really
saying that this is not (and never was when you originally wrote on it)
a positive belief of yours but rather an undecided position? If you
really are ambivalent about the 500 then don't you think your
webpages are misleading and you should state that you are
undecided one way or the other on the truth of the 500 passage?
Previously you told me that you were a "fundamentalist as far
as the NT is concerned." If this is still the case, then how can
you "neither accept nor reject the 500 passage"?
On the other hand if you still don't actually reject the 500 passage then
why is this in the light of the problems I raised in my "Re: Cavin" email?
Can you see why I find your ambivalence on the truth of 500 odd
and it strange that you have now dropped it as a "red herring"
(assuming Cavin was correct in his assessment of your position)
or at least something you "neither accept nor reject" rather than
seeing it as a "proof miracle" which was definitely the impression
I got about your opinion on it before. i.e. to paraphrase you
"mass hallucination is ridiculous, therefore 500 really seeing
something is far more likely and thus reason to believe Jesus
was raised!"
You did say in your first email to me
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html that (regarding
Cavin) "...to accommodate his presupposition that a resurrection is
impossible, he rejects the evidence." Hence I take it you believed that
the 500 was "evidence" whereas now you appear to be saying that you are
ambivalent towards it. Do you agree with Cavin that it is a "red herring?"
In your "Birth and Death of an Atheist" you wrote "I also reject that the
apostles and the 500 witnesses to His ascension into Heaven experienced
joint hallucinations." Why did you bother with this if you "neither accept
nor reject the 500 passage"?
As I explained before it is not about assuming that 500 people all had a
"sensory experience" that was either Jesus or a hallucination, but that
firstly the bible appears unreliable in the 500 passage (amongst many) and
secondly that far more prosaic religious experiences, common still today,
could easily be interpreted as "seeing Jesus" (or "Seeing Buddha" or - for
Catholics - "seeing Mary" etc.).
I have already written a lot on the presumed visions of the disciples. Not
only is this sort of thing common amongst religions but the historical
reliability of the gospel stories is in question as I have already
discussed and will do so some more later. Far more impressive for
attested visions and the transformed lives of disciples despite the
most enormous setback is the story of Shabbetai Zevi which I discussed
in my first debate page with you
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/zevi.html which went
uncommented by you.
Again, did you read Price http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html?
I think your main Achilles' heel is over-reliance on the historical
reliability of the bible, as if critics have something to "explain away"
in accounting for the purported visions of a resurrected Jesus. The
earliest Gospel did not even have *any* resurrection appearances and
subsequent gospels embellished and invented material until it became so
ridiculous that even the various groups who voted on the different Cannons
could not swallow the stories and they were assigned to various apocrypha.
We also don't have *any* first hand reports of an "appearance" other than
Paul's which was a vision common amongst religions. I take it you don't
accept Mohammed's first hand accounts of his visions of the Angel Gabriel,
let alone Joseph Smith's or the avadavats regarding the miracle of the
golden plates in the book of Mormon?
Indeed what do the letters attributed to Peter say - do they mention
seeing the resurrected Jesus? The only "proof" of Jesus' divinity
that the purported apostle's letter gives is the transfiguration (and
that without the detail in the Gospels!) In the epistles attributed to
him, it states in 1 Peter 3:18, that Jesus was put to death in the flesh
but made alive in the spirit. No mention of an empty tomb nor physical
return. Entirely consistent with religious emotion such as seen across
religions and completely weird if a physically risen Jesus had really
been witnessed. Also note in 5:1 that he emphasises the sufferings
of Jesus when he claims to be a witness. Surely here he would also
claim his witnessing of a physical Jesus after burial? Nowhere in the
letters attributed to Peter will you find a mention of an empty tomb and
physical resurrection.
As I've already discussed and will do so again, Christianity shows all
the signs of an evolved and eclectic religion like many others and
would likely have remained in relative obscurity were it not for
Constantine who "saw" Jesus 2 years after he "saw" the Sun god Sol.
Regards,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
Exactly the same argument could be construed for the uncritically accepted
"proof miracles" of any other religion/supernatural event as literal
reportage. Remember the avadavats in the book of Mormon, the visions of
Shabbetai Zevi etc. I'm afraid your discussion with Cavin reminds me of a
point I made previously where the biographer Plutarch, a contemporary of
Josephus, engaged in a lengthy digression to prove that a statue of
Tyche did not really speak in the early Republic (Life of Coriolanus,
37.3). He claims it must have been an hallucination inspired by the
deep religious faith of the onlookers, since there were, he says, too
many reliable witnesses to dismiss the story as an invention (38.1-3).
That's why I think your conclusion is not dictated by logic but is rather
a logical fallacy (special pleading) unless you are willing to make the
same "Baye's Theorem" argument that the statue of Tyche spoke
and criticise Plutarch for his "faith" in unspeaking statues.
Meanwhile that the twin theory does not stand up to criticism does
not lead to any greater probability for a supernatural resurrection - that
is a false dilemma.
Could you respond to my "Re: Cavin" email that I sent before? Everything
that ends in a "?" is intended for a response - it is all relevant to the
resurrection.
The 500 is far from a "red herring." Unless you can show my arguments are
erroneous I think I have demonstrated that the 500 passage gives good
reason for doubting a resurrection and the reliability of NT scripture.
BTW I was also surprised by your remark "one improbable happening
(i.e., Christ resurrected)." Surely as a Christian you do not think this
is improbable, so isn't the issue more one of "presuppositions" for
you? Who exactly would give a low but finite probability to Jesus'
resurrection?
<< In His Name >>
I assume that was you and not Cavin!
Regards,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
All of you are blindcopied for e-mail address privacy concerns. I much appreciate everyone's feedback.
Two of you offered possible corrections to a previous mailing to me. Those are my priority.
I've been saving Dr. Cavin's mail so I could later deal with the Twin Theory of itself.
Meanwhile, Locks wishes to argue with me and Dr. Cavin regarding the relevance of the 500 passage, claiming it is evidence against the disciples' visions. He is welcome to do that in his formal response coming up in our current debate. Until then, it waits.
A fellow apologist wrote me that he's found a Colorado and a California source to acquire a copy of Dr. Cavin's Doctoral Dissertation. Before adding more to my plate (Twin Theory), I'll see where that goes. I'll probably give it the priority after Locks and I wrap it up.
I regret that I am unable to spread myself out so thinly as to manage so many fronts, particularly at election time. Again, Locks and I must first take the next step (Disciples' visions).
Thanks again, everyone, for your understanding.
In truth,
--
"Jordan"
===============================
G. Zeineldé Jordan, Se.
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan
===============================
--
Whilst awaiting my new webpages, to give a clue of what's to come please see:
- my previous discussion on the common grave and
- Robert Price's discussion on the disciples' purported visions ("Guarding an Empty Tomb") written whilst he was still a Christian. This is something that I have already given as an essential link in this debate rather than having to repeat material. Unfortunately it has so far been ignored, so I will use similar material in my next response.
- Ed Babinski initiated a discussion with Jordan which will be of much interest to readers of this exchange. Since only a shortened version is available on Jordan's website I have obtained both Jordan and Ed's permission to post the full discussion here.
Leaving Christianity contents | email me