Just because one is a follower of some leader does not mean they would start to believe that leader rose from the dead. "I have dead friends but I've never been inclined to say that they rose from the dead."
Martin writes, "Given these problems and the fact that the Resurrection is understood as a miracle and although not impossible, has high prior improbability, it is extremely important that there be some independent confirmation before the Resurrection story is accepted".
On the basis of the available evidence (and the arguments I've seen), I conclude that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection.
The Contemporary Debate on the Resurrection
Secular Objections to the Resurrection
Assessment
Martin's Arguments
The Reliability of the Eyewitnesses, the Reporters, and the Scribes
My response to this is, "Yes, but." While I agree with Martin that the reliability of the eyewitnesses, the reporters, and the scribes is unknown, it is unclear what he expects to accomplish with this argument. We have several other historical documents where the author is unknown, but we nonetheless tend to accept what was written, unless we have good reason to do otherwise. It is unclear why we should reject the New Testament as historical documents, simply because we do not know much about the eyewitnesses, the reporters, and the scribes.
It is important to note what Martin's argument assumes. Martin seems to assume that one of the reasons for doubting the resurrection stories is because they are based on the alleged eyewitness accounts of his followers. However, just because one is a follower of some leader does not mean they would start to believe that leader rose from the dead. Indeed, I can imagine a Christian response to Barker would be something like, "I have dead friends but I've never been inclined to say that they rose from the dead."
Lack of Independent Confirmation
I think this was one of Martin's strongest points. He even framed the discussion in the context of the background probability of the resurrection. He writes, "Given these problems and the fact that the Resurrection is understood as a miracle and although not impossible, has high prior improbability, it is extremely important that there be some independent confirmation before the Resurrection story is accepted" (Ibid., p. 84). Overall, though, I think he makes a strong argument here.
Conclusion
Both sides in the contemporary debate over the resurrection assume that the "material" interpretation of the resurrection is the only possible interpretation of the resurrection. Moreover, most participants avoid the issue of background probability, and make arguments about miracles that presuppose their world view. Finally, there are serious flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides. And even if those flaws were corrected, the arguments would still not constitute a strong apologetic for the resurrection. On the basis of the available evidence (and the arguments I've seen), I conclude that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection.
Page 19
Go to Page 20
These files, and many more are available at the Secular Web: http://www.infidels.org/. For more information send mail to [email protected]
- Go back to The Rock Temple
NOVO's Library