Posted by Mike O on: 05.15.2008 /
In Jason’s Friday Thought Experiment, he made this statement:
They have a wealth of information that is available to them, all the science, history, philosophy, medicine, religion, etc that is available on our own world but without the cultural bias.
That got me to thinking about the historical portions of the Bible, and whether the events recorded there could be counted as actual history - particularly, the recorded miracles.
Events recorded in the Bible are actual history on one condition - the condition that they actually happened.
I believe the Bible to be dependable as a historical record, particularly where it has been corroborated by extrabiblical records. For example, there are extrabiblical accounts referring to the man, Jesus. So whether his claims to being the Son of God are true or not, it is at least supportable that the man was an actual historical figure.
There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of stories recorded in the Bible as if they actually happened, using real names of real people in real places at real times. Every one of these stories either happened, or it didn’t. If it happened, it is history. If it didn’t happen, then that story is either a fable, a hoax or an error.
Back in 2004-2005, I did a read-through of the entire Bible looking for every recorded miracle in the Bible. By my count, there are 314 distinct miracles recorded as historical events in both the old and new testaments. (Note - I counted only those miracles that, if they actually happened, there would have been some observable proof of it.) For example, consider the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. It’s interesting that the characters in this story are real people and it is set with an historical backdrop.
Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.” But when Jesus heard this, He said, “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it.”
[...]
So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days. Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off; and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother. Martha therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went to meet Him, but Mary stayed at the house. Martha then said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. “Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.”Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”
[...]
Therefore, when Mary came where Jesus was, she saw Him, and fell at His feet, saying to Him, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.” When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled, and said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to Him, “Lord, come and see.”Jesus wept. So the Jews were saying, “See how He loved him!” But some of them said, “Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind man, have kept this man also from dying?”
So Jesus, again being deeply moved within, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. Jesus said, “Remove the stone.” Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, “Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days.” Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?” So they removed the stone Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me.”
When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.”
The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.” Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. But some of them went to the pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done.
Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
[...]
So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.
If Jesus really existed, and Lazarus and his sisters really existed, and the Chief priests and Pharisees really existed (and probably really convened a council to plot Jesus’ death - after all, we do have the historical account that they crucified him), what we have is a miracle wrapped in history. So the central question in my mind is did the miracle part of this historical account actually happen?. Did Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead?
It’s impossible to prove that he did, but the Bible also records real witnesses after the fact:
John 12:1-2, 9-11, 17-19
Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him.The large crowd of the Jews then learned that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He raised from the dead. But the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death also; because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and were believing in Jesus.
So the people, who were with Him when He called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead, continued to testify about Him. For this reason also the people went and met Him, because they heard that He had performed this sign. So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him.”
So we have an account of an historical miracle - Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. We have people who saw him die, and we have people who saw him alive again. And we have religious leaders who wanted to take action and kill both Jesus and Lazarus.
Is this a fable? Fables are not clothed in history.
Is this a hoax? Could be, I suppose, but to what end? People are trying to kill them over this!
Was it just an error? Maybe Lazarus wasn’t really dead. But if that were true, Lazarus would never have propagated the lie. Why would Lazarus put his life at risk to protect the man who made his sisters cry and left him for dead in a cave for four days?
Maybe miracles really do happen.
The 314 miracles I documented range in “spirituality” from the immaculate conception of Jesus recorded in Luke 1:26-38 and Matthew 1:18-25 to healings and other miraculous signs, to more mundane examples such as an axe head floating in II Kings 6:1-7.
Every miracle can be classified into one of four groups - If they aren’t true, they could be fables, hoaxes or errors. And if they are true, they are history.
Jonah being swallowed by a big fish - if it isn’t history, it is a fable.
The axe head floating - if it isn’t history, it was a hoax.
The Biblical account of creation - if it isn’t history, it is an example of error - the Bible writer came to the wrong conclusion based on the information he had at the time.
If there is no God, then there are no miracles and none of the 314 recorded miracles I found really happened. Every last one of them is either a fable, hoax or error. And if there are no miracles, yet Jesus claimed he performed miracles, then Jesus was a deliberate fake.
Yet we have countless people who followed him because they believed what they saw. We have religious leaders - people who were definitely not followers of Christ - plotting his death because they believed what they saw.
We even have historical accounts of 11 of the 12 disciples being martyred because they believed what they saw. People don’t die defending a fraud - especially a dead fraud - who had duped them out of everything. Jesus’ disciples sacrificed everything to follow him because they believed what they saw - they believed the miracles. To them, Jesus was who he said he was - the Son of God. Jesus was worth dying for, and they did.
I can’t prove Jesus was the Son of God, but when I look at history, I see people who knew Jesus firsthand and died believing he was.
Finally, I’ll cite an account recorded in the book of John. The Jews didn’t believe in Jesus any more than atheists do today. In his own defense, Jesus refers to his miracles. It’s interesting that the Jews don’t dispute them!
John 10:22-42
Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Jesus answered them, [...] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. Here he stayed and many people came to him. They said, “Though John never performed a miraculous sign, all that John said about this man was true.” And in that place many believed in Jesus.
Maybe miracles really did happen. Of the 314 examples I found, could it be that some are actually true?
Comment by: Jason
1I wouldn’t go that far. I’d say that the Bible is dependable as a historical record only where it has been corroborated by extra-biblical records.
You state that if the miracles detailed were not actually true miracles then they were either fable, hoax or error. Could it also be that they were exaggerations. No part of the bible (NT) was written at the time of the events depicted. There are no diaries of Jesus or Mary or any of the disciples. Who knows, perhaps most of them could not read or write.
Oral traditions have a tendency to receive small alterations in the tellings. A game of Chinese whispers will show this to be true.
There is another explanation: perhaps the stories were never meant to be taken as literally as modern readers do. The traditions of the time may well have accepted exaggerated tales as the normal method of retelling or as metaphors for something.
I don’t know, these seem more logical to me than the idea of willful deceit on the part of churches. I wouldn’t discount that entirely as it is, to my mind, much more likely than supernatural events.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
2I don’t think there’s willful deceit either - like Jason, I wonder if the claims in the stories got bigger and bigger over time as people kept sharing them with one another.
I lost interest in whether the Bible is true when I became doubtful that I could see any difference between Christians and other people today.
It’s like someone wanting to show me a blueprint of a house when I’ve been to the site where the house is supposed to be and it’s not there. It doesn’t even make sense to me to discuss the ‘accuracy’ of the blueprints until I’ve found a satisfactory explanation for the lack of house.
Comment by: Mike O
3Jason said
That’s a possibility, I guess. I doubt people would die for an exaggeration they knew was an exaggeration (like the disciples did) so there must have been something concrete to bring them to that level of commitment. At least that’s how I see it.
Helen said,
Is that what it looks like to you? That’s a powerful insight that Christians need to hear.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
4Mike, yes, that’s what it looks like to me.
Actually though I’m not looking for a satisfactory explanation for the lack of house because there is none. If Christianity is real then it must make a significant difference I can perceive as I look at Christians and atheists. That’s what I need - to see the difference - ‘the house’. Explanations of why I’m not seeing it wouldn’t help because as long as I’m not seeing it why would I buy into it? “Here’s a product no better than your current one, but you should switch…” Why? No reason if it’s no better.
I’m not perceiving it.
Comment by: Mike O
5I think I understand exactly what you’re saying. You don’t see a difference in the adherants, so why adhere?
To me, an adherant, it begs the question - what are we doing wrong that is ruining it? To me, it’s not God, and it’s not Jesus, it’s us. It’s the followers.
So looking at it from your perspective, I see why you say “why switch?”
But looking at it from my perspective, it just means Jesus’ followers are getting in the way. Last year I wrote a post called Casting Shadows about this.
Comment by: Karen
6Perhaps. The problem is, we have no way of going back and verifying any of them that happened in the distant past. The bible’s historical accuracy has been seriously questioned (you might say ‘demolished’) by many scholars, not only bible scholars but historians and anthropologists, etc.
Of course people who already believe in the bible’s truth will assert that the bible is accurate historically. But people who come from a more objective viewpoint don’t tend to find historical verifications for much of what is said in the bible. There is lots of scholarship available on this topic.
The other point you make:
So what? Followers of all kinds of religious leaders have believed their “messiah” was god in the flesh and he was worth dying for. Does it prove that Allah is god and Mohammad is his prophet? Well, lots and lots of martyrs are dying for that belief, but I don’t think that proves it is true. People believed David Koresh was god-in-the-flesh and they not only died for him, they let their children die for him too. Does that make his claim true?
Of course not. It just means that people can be powerfully persuaded that something is absolutely true, and that persuasion can be so overwhelming that they are willing to die for it, even if it’s a delusion. That’s just the awful truth of human nature, and it’s a big part of why I’m a skeptic.
It’s sad to me when I see so many Christians blame themselves and their fellow believers for the shortcomings of their religion. Jesus promised that a holy spirit would come into believers lives and make them so different from the world that they’d be recognizable by their actions (the fruit of the spirit). If that’s not happening, why blame the believers who seem to me to be sincere and earnest for the vast majority? For me, it’s much more logical to conclude that god isn’t there and neither is the holy spirit.
Comment by: Mike O
7Good question. The only answer I have is just as unprovable - there is also an evil side to the supernatural equation, and Christians are just as susceptible as everyone else to being distracted and distorted by it (apparently). We lose credibility. Combine that with the fact that atheists disregard the supernatural because it’s unprovable, and we come across looking like quacks grasping at straws.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
8Mike, the issue for me is, your explanation seems unnecessarily convoluted.
Suppose I put my keys on the radiator yesterday and they’re still there today.
That could be because no-one has moved them: the simple explanation. Or perhaps space aliens who are silent and can go through walls came down in the night, borrowed my keys for a couple of hours and returned then before I woke up. I’m more likely to go for the first explanation.
With Christians seeming essentially the same as everyone else, “that’s because they are the same” seems more likely to me than “they are supernaturally empowered in a way other people aren’t, but net effect of their supernatural empowerment plus their tendency to sin is zero, so they look just like everyone else”.
By the way that would imply they are MORE tempted to sin to result in a net effect of zero - do you have a reason why they’d be more tempted to sin than other people?
For me the issue is not discounting the supernatural - it’s that what I see is what I’d expect without even considering the supernatural so there’s no reason to go there. Just like my keys - there’s no reason to speculate about space aliens.
If my keys moved and no-one else had touched them then I’d start looking for other explanations.
Likewise, if Christians struck me as significantly different from other people then I’d start looking for explanations.
It’s things we can’t explain which make us look for explanations.
With me, this happened the other way around - my Christian beliefs failed to explained why Christians were the same as everyone else because they should have been at least somewhat different. I looked for an explanation outside Christianity, since I couldn’t find a satisfying one inside. And as soon as I looked outside, there it was: they seem no different because they are no different! It was too easy to find in that, it gave me no incentive go to back inside Christianity and look there some more. (Plus, I’d already done a thorough search inside before I went outside - that was a last resort after the inside explanations failed me)
Comment by: Pseudonym
9I can’t agree with the premise of this article:
Heroditus is full of fanciful stuff, but we’re not afraid to call it “history”. George Orwell’s Animal Farm is a wonderful piece of commentary on real historical events, even though nothing in the book actually happened.
Part of the problem here is that we’re coming at it from a post-enlightenment point of view. Our journalists and historians have rules and methodologies that they have to adhere to, which ancient writers did not.
Moreover, we understand a distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” which people of 2000 years ago did not. As far as they were concerned, acts of God were just part of the universe, and it was no more remarkable to talk about them than it was to talk about how long some king ruled. (Mike hinted at this in his comment about the Jews believing the miracles that Jesus performed. He seems to find this remarkable. I don’t.)
Consider, for example, 1 Cor 12:28-30 (I’m using the NIV here):
Paul seems to see no distinction between working miracles and being a good administrator. It’s all good as long as it’s useful, as far as he’s concerned.
Finally, it might be worth doing a survey of miracles and, rather than examine what happened, examine what the effect was. Certainly in the Gospels, every miracle has a point: It changes the life of person to whom the miracle happens, for the better. Given that, I don’t have a problem with describing even mundane events as “miraculous”, if that’s the effect.
And this brings up my final point: Whether these events were “history” or not, who cares? What use is history to how you live your life, except as metaphor or allegory?
Just a thought, anyway.
One last comment:
Actually, we’ve got better than that. We’ve got an unbroken chain of historical records from Jesus to the present day. We have letters written by people who knew those mentioned in the Gospels and the Epistles. And then we have letters written by people who knew those writers, and so on right up to today.
(This is one of the reasons why I’m terribly unimpressed by Brian Flemming’s poor attempt at pseudo-history. He doesn’t seem to understand just how history works. That he also bought into the urban legend about Horus clinched it for me.)
Comment by: Jason
10By this definition getting a new job, moving house, or getting married\divorced could be construed as miraculous. Even an annual pay rise could be a miracle (OK, maybe where I work). Does this also make bad life altering events curses?
You must have to draw the line somewhere. I wouldn’t attribute any event to a miracle, no matter what the effect, unless it ran contrary to natural laws. Not only would it need to defy explanation by natural means but actually to break natural laws.
Comment by: Mike O
11That’s a good analogy, but not really comparable. Better would be for your keys to have not moved, and someone told you they had moved them and put them back, but you didn’t believe them because they couldn’t prove it.
Comment by: Pseudonym
12If it completely changes your life, it could be. And, moreover, there are plenty of people around today who would describe it as such.
This breaking of natural laws that you speak of is very much post-enlightenment thinking. There’s nothing wrong with that, but be aware that it’s not in keeping with the cosmology of the Biblical authors and intended audience(s), where miracles were considered part of the natural order.
To try to explain the Biblical miracles scientifically is, as Michael Shermer correctly pointed out, to miss their point completely. It’s an interesting exercise, but that’s not what sacred texts are for.
Comment by: Jason
13So, I’m post-enlightenment. I can live with that. However if the intended audience is one who attributes divine intervention to mundane events (or less than mundane but life altering events) then why are people still looking for miracles? People are still looking for miracles aren’t they?
You know the idea of miracles being a cultural phenomenon makes a lot of sense. I can see how successive cultural interpretations would exaggerate the stories and build upon them. I can see how extraordinary events could gain a supernatural status.
That does further diminish the value of miracles in my mind though.
Comment by: Pseudonym
14Me too. There’s definitely a lot of value in being post-enlightenment, but it does mean you have to radically alter your thinking.
(Incidentally, I think that creationists make exactly the same mistake. Trying to read a pre-enlightenment text as a post-enlightenment science book misses the point of the text completely.)
As to why people think what they think, I’m afraid I can’t help you there.