One of the things that's coming up quite a bit at the moment in discussions and lectures is the presuppositions that we bring when we come to look at a text.
For example, there are plenty of accounts of Jesus performing miracles.
If someone looks at them with the presupposition that miracles can't happen, they will have to conclude that the account should not be taken at face value, but is either untrue or is using metaphor in some sense to communicate that truth. That's actually an underlying principle behind a lot of modern liberal theology.
They'll look at a passage from the Old Testament, for example, and notice that it has some straightforward historical accounts (which can frequently be verified archaeologically) and a scene where an angel turns up and does something. They'll then conclude that the passage they're reading is actually a composite made by combining a genuine historical document with a fictional account with angels in or something.
On the other hand, a Christian (me, for instance) could read the passage and say “Historical events, yep. Angel appearing, fine. No worries.”
I've got some sympathy with the liberals here. I think they're wrong, and often far too arrogant in stating their position, but I understand where they're coming from.
It looks the same as we might do with the Iliad. The Iliad is a long poem by Homer, about the Greeks attacking and capturing Troy. And again, the Greek gods do a fair bit of stuff. People used to think the account was totally fictional, until some archaeologist with a name like Schliemann or something discovered the ruins of Troy. So what classical historians do now is they try to keep the story, but take all the god-bits out of it. And it's reasonably possible to do – it turns out that the god bits are mostly back story – and you can end up with a story a lot like the one in the film Troy, except with the gay sex bits kept in.
So if that's ok with the Iliad, why isn't it ok with the Bible? The difference is in the role the “supernatural” bits play in the story. In the Iliad, the gods are mostly used to explain motivations (when there could have been other ones), to give ideas to people (which they could have had anyway) and so on. In the Bible, God does much more than that. He doesn't just slightly influence the course of battles, he strikes all of one side dead before the battle starts. He parts rivers to let people through. He brings people who have died in a very real, public and verifiable sense back to life. The Iliad can be rewritten without the god-stuff as the story of a great military victory, which it would make sense to write poems about. Without Jesus' miracles and rising from the dead, there isn't anything special about him for the whole religion to have started around.
So if we look at the Bible with the presupposition that supernatural events don't happen, what we are left with is an impossible puzzle. In the early apostles, we have a group of people who were clearly in a position to know what had happened, claiming not just that there were everyday events to which they attached a supernatural significance, but where the events themselves could only be explained supernaturally and where the events have a significance which is deeply uncomfortable.
It also raises the question as to what the correct presupposition is when we are looking at an alleged supernatural event, and I think I can explain this with reference to science.
Scientists argue about whether cold fusion is possible. Pretty much all serious scientists agree that it hasn't happened, most think that it can't happen either. But that doesn't stop people trying (mostly because it could make whoever discovered it very rich indeed). Suppose that someone claims that they've managed to achieve cold fusion, and that I, as a scientist, am asked to investigate.
What should I assume? Should I go in assuming that cold fusion is impossible, and whatever evidence comes up, keep on believing that it's impossible? No – what would be the point of either asking me to investigate or me investigating? I'd just conclude that it hadn't happened, whether or not I could come up with another explanation.
What I should assume is that it might be possible, and then look at the claims and at alternative explanations.
12 comments:
In the Iliad, Achilles is said to be the son of a mortal man and a goddess, therefore the gods can't be taken totally out of the story without the removal of Hercules. I also believe that Achilles' mother appears close to the start of the film.
The point I was trying to make was that Achilles's parentage and his childhood (e.g. the dipping in the Styx) are actually back-story to the main events.
It is quite conceivable that, as in the film, he turns up as a warrior who doesn't know who his father is.
(Yes, you could claim the same for the birth narratives of Jesus in the gospels, but the issue there is that the "miraculous" remains in the main story - you can expunge little bits of it but not all of it, which doesn't solve the problem at all).
Yes but without those parts the story doens't work at all. His death and the explanation of it in the Iliad doesn't work without the dipping in the Styx bit.
I was impressed that it did seem to work just fine in the film without the dipping in the Styx bit.
That's true.
Maybe the directors of the film assumed that the film's audience were already familiar with the early life of Achilles.
Quite possible.
On the other hand, the story doesn't require Achilles to be completely invulnerable everywhere except his heel; it just requires him to be a very good fighter who is killed with a wound to the heel (which is what the film shows).
The difference is that scientists look at the evidence and draw conclusions. Whereas you religious folks make up your conclusions and then discount all evidence that does not support your story.
Show me evidence that miracles currently happen. Documented miracles, that's all I'm asking for. The bible does not count.
Umm... let me get this straight.
Am I a scientist?
Was I a scientist until last month (which is when I stopped being paid for teaching science)?
Why doesn't the Bible count as documentation? (apart from the fact that it comes to different conclusions from you)
What level of documentation would convince you that a miracle had taken place, and from whom? (not that I believe on the evidence of what you mean by "miracles", nor do I expect you to)
And getting back to the point of the post, what events do you think underlie the accounts in the gospels?
I don't know whether or not you are a scientist. Having a teaching credential does not generally qualify one as a scientist, at least in this country, so that doesn't answer anything either.
My point is that you have to look at the evidence to decide whether an event is true. What you have is some 2,000 year old stories of "miracles" written during a period where accounts of "miracles" were all too common. Why would you suppose that these were anything other than fables written by superstitious peoples? Do you take as true accounts of Zeus? Do you accept as gospel the stories of any other gods from this time period? Of course you would think anyone who did was completely bonkers. So why does the Bible get exempted from the same logic? The events in the gospels are a compilation of myth and OT stories retold. The letters of Paul (those that are considered to be authentic rather than later forgeries) would have the historical basis of being some documentation of his attempts to start Xianity and spread his philosophy.
Where are the contemporary (21st century) documented miracles? There are none. Zip, zilch, nada. And let me define miracles, in case that is a stumbling block for you. Miracles are events that cannot be better explained by ordinary natural processes. An amputee suddenly growing new legs would be a miracle. Someone whose head was chopped off having his head reattach spontaneously and then coming back to life would be a miracle. The earth suddenly reversing its orbit without natural intervention and without loss of the planets' inhabitants would be a miracle. Passing your driving test, decidedly not a miracle.
Why is it that Xians can never show me an actual miracle outside the Bible? Didn't your god promise miracles to believers?
Dictionary definition: an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
Quick thought - your definition of "miracle" doesn't work.
In 9th century Norway, for example, lightning would have fit the bill perfectly.
And on science, I don't think my teaching qualification makes me a scientist.
My first class masters degree in Natural Sciences, specialising in experimental and theoretical physics from the University of Cambridge might though.... ;)
My point is that you have to look at the evidence to decide whether an event is true.
Agreed, as long as you count testimony about an event as evidence. After all, it's the only way we know most stuff.
What you have is some 2,000 year old stories
Lets be clear. The age doesn't matter as affecting validity, neither does the fact they are narrative (intended to be understood as true rather than the mildly pejorative "stories").
So what we have is people who lived a very long time ago saying that 1) they were in a position to know what happened and 2) that these things happened. Doesn't necessarily mean they are right, but that's what we have.
of "miracles" written during a period where accounts of "miracles" were all too common. Why would you suppose that these were anything other than fables written by superstitious peoples?
because they quite clearly didn't act like that's what they were.
Do you take as true accounts of Zeus?
No, and the Greeks didn't either. Just read Plato!
On the other hand, the Christians quite clearly did take the stories of Jesus as true. Does that mean they were more credulous? Hardly, they are often the same people...
Do you accept as gospel the stories of any other gods from this time period? Of course you would think anyone who did was completely bonkers. So why does the Bible get exempted from the same logic?
Because it is quite clearly indended to be a different category of thing. The Bible stakes its whole authenticity on the truth of the space-time event of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead - see 1 Corinithians 15, for example (by Paul, early, not contested).
The events in the gospels are a compilation of myth and OT stories retold.
which those closely associated with the authors (and quite possibly the authors themselves) were willing to die because of their belief in the literal truth of what was written...
The letters of Paul (those that are considered to be authentic rather than later forgeries) would have the historical basis of being some documentation of his attempts to start Xianity and spread his philosophy.
Which incidentally he believed to be based on space-time events and true.
Where are the contemporary (21st century) documented miracles? There are none. Zip, zilch, nada.
I thought I'd already shown that based on your criteria for documentation, there are no events that documented anyway, whether allegedly miraculous or not.
Didn't your god promise miracles to believers?
Ummm...
1) Where?
2) I've already shown that the Biblical words translated "miracle" do not correspond to your definition, so you're very much barking up the wrong tree.
Post a Comment