The Historicity Of Jesus

More common sense from Farrell Till concerning the 
historicity of Jesus (read Mt 27:45-55 to get the 
background for the following comments). From the 
Errancy Discussion list, 19 June 1997:

> TILL
> Peter, there are arguments from silence, and there are arguments from
> silence. It is unreasonable, for example, to suppose that certain events
> could happen and go unnoticed in contemporary records. How likely 
   would it be that the bombing in Oklahoma City would not have been 
   mentioned in contemporary records?

KIRBY
OK, I'll buy that. I would agree with you that the saints and the darkness
probably didn't happen. This only seems to have relevance to the doctrine
of inerrancy, not the historicity of Jesus.

TILL
But can't you see! The complete silence of secular contemporary records on
the life of a man who allegedly attracted multitudes from foreign countries
and surrounding towns and cities, and performed in their presence all sorts
of amazing signs and wonders makes it extremely important that the writings
about him that were left by his avowed disciples be exceptionally
trustworthy, but how can anyone consider records trustworthy that contain so
many impossible-to-believe entries like the three-hour period of darkness
and the resurrection of the many saints? If we wouldn't give claims like
these the time of day if we found them in any other book, why should we
accord them any more consideration just because they are found in a book
with "Holy Bible" embossed on the cover?

My argument all along has been that the NT gospels are so saturated with
fantastic claims about this man Jesus that, without extrabiblical
corroboration, it is impossible to determine what is fact and what is
fiction. Unfortunately for the Christian position, there just are not any
extrabiblical corroborations for its central claim of a resurrection from
the dead.

>TILL
> Far more likely than that a three-hour period of
> darkness from the failure of the sun's light would go unmentioned.
> Josephus's father was a priest "of great reputation in Jerusalem" (*The
    Life of Flavius Josephus,* 1:2), who would have therefore moved in priestly
> circles at the time Jesus was allegedly tried, crucified, and resurrected.
> Chapter 1 of the autobiograph will give a chronology that establishes the
> time frame. Matthias would have been in his 20s at the time. Chapter 2
> discusses Josephus's education, but he makes no mention of his father 
   ever having referred to the extraordinary events that allegedly 
   accompanied the crucifixion of a man named Jesus. I find this very 
   unbelievable and a most compelling "argument from silence."

KIRBY
I think you mean "believable."

TILL
No, you missed the point I was making. I was saying that I find it
unbelievable that Josephus's father could have witnessed three hours of
darkness at midday and a resurrection of many saints and yet not talked
about them enough to have made an impression on Josephus that would
have been reflected in his works by references to those events. When
World War II ended, I was 12 years old. I had a first cousin who piloted
an LST (landing barge) on D-Day that ferried soldiers from ships out at
sea to Omaha Beach. When he returned home, family members would
sit mesmerized and listen to him tell about his experiences that day, and
all that he experienced were only ordinary, perfectly natural events that
accompanied a massive invasion. I had another cousin on the other side
of my family who was a tail-gunner on a B-29 in the pacific area, and
we enjoyed listening to his reflections on bombing missions his crew
had flown, but there was nothing miraculous about any of the events
he talked about. Are we to assume that Josephus's father and countless
other contemporaries saw very phenomenal events in Jerusalem one
day and just shrugged them off and never talked about them or reported
them to people they had contacts with. Again, I will say that I find this
very unbelievable.

Farrell Till

Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled

The following is from the October-December, 1991 issue of *The Skeptical Review*. It is a thorough refutation of the claims of prophecy fulfillment in the Bible. (Be warned, it is equivalent in length to about 44 standard type-written pages):

by Farrell Till

Prophecy fulfillment is a popular argument that bibliolaters rely on in trying to prove the divine inspiration of the Bible. They claim that the Bible is filled with recorded events that prophets foretold years and even centuries before they happened. They argue that there is no way to explain how these predictions could have been so accurately made except to conclude that the Holy Spirit enabled the prophets who uttered them to see into the future. In prophecy fulfillment, then, they see evidence of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.

A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamuses and Edgar Cayces of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:

"If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, `Let us go after other gods'--which you have not known--`and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for Yahweh your God is testing you to know whether you love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut. 13:1-3, NKJV with Yahweh substituted for "the LORD").

By the Bible's own testimony, then, natural psychic ability could offer a perfectly sensible explanation for any example of prophecy that bibliolaters might cite in support of the inerrancy doctrine, but an unbiased contextual examination of the alleged prophecy will very likely uncover an even more rational explanation. Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.

When The Fig Tree Puts Forth Its Leaves

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999/May-June:

by Farrell Till

In the past two issues of TSR, I have discussed various claims of prophecy fulfillment that Bruce Weston expressed concern about in his article "Doubts But Questions about Prophecy" in the January/February issue (pp. 6-7). In one case, he thought it possible that what skeptics consider an example of prophecy failure wasn't necessarily a failure. This was the occasion of an apparent promise that Jesus made that he would come again before "this generation" had passed away. In Matthew 24, the disciples of Jesus asked him to tell them what would be the sign of his coming and of the end of the world (v:3). Over the space of several verses (4-31), Jesus answered their question and told of several "events" that would happen prior to his return and the signs that would accompany his coming, after which he made the statement that Weston inquired about.

Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near--at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place (vs:32-34, emphasis added).

Weston wanted me to address "the Christian defense that by saying this generation, Jesus was talking about the same generation that sees the fig tree put forth its leaves (and not to the current generation of His time)" [TSR, January/February 1999, p. 6]. Weston then went on to suggest that the fig tree was "symbolic of Israel, which was reborn as a nation in 1948," and so this interpretation would mean that Jesus was saying that he would return before the generation that witnessed the "rebirth" of Israel had passed away and not before the passing away of the generation of his own time.

More On The Resurrection...

From the Errancy discussion list, 8-26-95:

Till

Roger Eisinger has sent me personal messages about an inconsistency in the resurrection narratives that I believe I posted on this list. Since it pertains directly to the purpose of the list, I am going to post our exchanges here for everyone's consideration. The problem I presented was the one about inconsistencies in Matthew's and John's depiction of Mary Magdalene on resurrection morning. Matthew's narrative has Mary M hearing an angel say that Jesus had risen, but John's had her believing that the body had been stolen. My position is that these are irreconcilable inconsistencies.

Eisinger

I think that some of the difficulties in trying to reconcile those 

two gospel accounts can be avoided by considering the possibility that 

neither Matthew, Mark or Luke bothered to record the portion of the 

resurrection story that the writer of John relates in John, Chapter 20 vs 

1-10. In John's account, Mary Magdalene approached the tomb two times. 

The first time, she sees only that the stone is rolled away. 

Till

This is a common "explanation" that inerrantists use to explain the discrepancy in Matthew's and John's depiction of Mary Magdalene on resurrection morning, but it just won't work. You said that Mary Magdalene approached the tomb twice in John's account, and the first time she saw only that the stone had been rolled away. Well, that couldn't have been all that she saw, because if she did not look inside, then she couldn't very well have known that the body was gone. That, however, is just a minor problem in your explanation, because Matthew said that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb on the first day of the week, and "behold there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door and sat on it" (28:2). So Matthew's Mary M didn't just go to the tomb and find it empty as John's Mary M did; she saw the angel remove the stone. The narrative went on to say, "But the angel answered and said unto THE WOMEN..." (V: 5). I asked you to state who these women were, but you didn't do it, so will you do it now: who were these women that the angel spoke to? You have to say Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, because they are the only two women identified in Matthew's narrative. So what did the angel say to THE WOMEN? "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord Lay" (verses 5-6). If Mary Magdalene learned that the body was gone, it would have had to have been at this moment, wouldn't it, when the angel invited THE WOMEN to see where the body had lain? If so, she discovered that the body was gone within the context of an angel's telling her and the other Mary that Jesus was gone because he had risen, as he had said he would.

Jesus Christ: Stunt Rider

The following is an excerpt from, *Prophecies: Imaginary And Unfulfilled* by Farrell Till:

As noted earlier, no event was too trivial for Matthew to see prophecy fulfillment in it, and one of his silliest prophecy-fulfillment claims concerned the so-called triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem shortly before his betrayal and crucifixion. The story was related by all three synoptic-gospel writers, but Matthew's version differs significantly from Mark's and Luke's. Mark and Luke simply had Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a colt to the cheers and hosannas of the multitudes (Mark 11:1-10; Luke 19:28-40). Matthew, however, had to build it into a dramatic prophecy-fulfillment:

When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethpage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, 'The Lord needs them.' And he will send them immediately." This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying, "Tell the daughters of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them (21:1-7, NRSV). 

There are two conspicuous points of difference in Matthew's version of this event and Mark's and Luke's: (1) Matthew had Jesus riding BOTH a donkey and her colt; Mark and Luke had Jesus riding only a colt, and (2) Matthew saw it as fulfillment of a prophecy; Mark and Luke said nothing at all about prophecy fulfillment being involved.

I won't address the familiar fundamentalist "explanation" of the numerical inconsistency that says, "Well, if there were two donkeys, then there had to be one." Inerrantists invariably resort to this dodge to "explain" numerical discrepancies in the Bible. Did the gospel writers appear to disagree on the number of people who went to the tomb on the morning of the resurrection? Well, no problem! John simply chose to tell about one of them (Mary Magdalene); Matthew chose to tell about two (Mary Magdalene and the other Mary); Mark chose to tell about three (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome). If, however, there were several who went, as Luke indicated, then there is no error, because if there were several, then there was one, exactly as John said, and there were two, exactly as Matthew said, etc. Although this argument apparently satisfies diehard fundamentalists who are going to believe in Bible inerrancy regardless of what evidence to the contrary may exist, it offers no sensible explanation as to why the omniscient, omnipotent Holy Spirit would inspire John to write an infallibly perfect account of the visit to the tomb that mentions only one person, but on different occasions the same omniscient, omnipotent Holy Spirit would inspire Matthew, Mark, and Luke to write infallibly perfect accounts of the same story that all differ in the matter of who went to the tomb. After the first "perfect" gospel story had been written, what could have been going through the Holy Spirit's mind on these subsequent occasions that made him decide that this point had to be changed, not just once but three times? That is a confusing matter, to say the least.