Those fully conversant with Gary Habermas’s latest views about the authenticity of the gospels will appreciate the subtle but highly significant differences between the two simple arguments summarized below.
Habermas’ argument can be summarized as:
Peter told Paul about the resurrection in Jerusalem. Paul then propagated Peter’s claims. Unknown gospel authors then immortalized Peter’s claims in their gospels
My slightly different version can be summarized as:
Peter lied to Paul about the resurrection in Jerusalem. Paul then unknowingly propagated Peter’s lies. Unknown gospel authors then unknowingly immortalized Peter’s lies in their gospels
I can’t prove Peter lied to Paul and Habermas can’t prove he didn’t and the final outcome is exactly the same either way, namely resurrection claims in the gospel that are based entirely on unsubstantiated hearsay claims made 2000 years ago by an unsophisticated peasant fisherman from Galilee [aka Apostle Peter]. Peter’s unverified hearsay claims still remain unverified.
The evidence backing up my claim that Peter lied to Paul was published originally back in 2014, but a revised & updated version of The Christianity Myth can now be read online free of charge [click here if interested]. It’s a 2-3 hour read about the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. Although it addresses the very roots of early Christianity, it’s an easy cogent read, offering a decent overview of first century Christianity. It gathers together all the available factual information relevant to the alleged Jerusalem resurrection and it establishes a timeline of relevant events. Many other far more knowledgeable authors have already done this, and done it in far greater detail, but this book does what most of these other authors fail to do, namely it examines the authenticity and veracity of the assembled data to see if it will withstand close scrutiny. It then uses the results of this close scrutiny to ascertain what really happened 2000 years ago. The primary goal of this book is not to reinforce the existing orthodox dogma, nor to maintain the existing status quo. The primary goal of the unique book is to ascertain the real reason why, 2000 years ago, many people came to believe Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. Christians daring to read this book will find it a disturbing and challenging read.
Ken, please check your comments page one of my comments to Prof is stuck in moderation.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Ark-can’t see any problems my end
LikeLike
Hello Ken, hello Ark.
Reading over the discussion you both were having reminded me of a multi-part series Bart Ehrman is currently blogging about. For example: “Scribes Who Changed Their Texts on Purpose, A Christian Forger Caught in the Act,” and “An Ancient Author Trying to Justify His Deceit.” This series of Ehrman’s blog-posts are mostly drawn from his 2012 book “Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics.“
Regarding A) authentic, cumulative historical records versus B) their narrations/stories about real persons and/or events AND C) our modern abilities to verify factually the entire content of these narrations/stories as well as the hand(s) that wrote/scribed them, is not an exact science in all cases. Theories abound. Degrees of probability, plausibility, unlikely, maybe, etc, are current Best Determinations — until further evidence says otherwise or confirms. LOL 😉
Regarding ancient (liberal) literary license by 1st thru 4th-century CE writers, Dr. Ehrman says (and bear with me on the length please):
Ehrman points out that Harnack’s differentiation of mocked vs. forsaken fits very well within the broader literary context of Mark, written around 67-70 CE when Christian Gnostics (in Arabia, Nabataea, northern coast of Africa) were in raging theological debates about Jesus’ real nature, life, and purpose for death throughout the next several decades!
Skipping way ahead on Ehrman’s blog-post, Ehrman writes:
Point being, with Antiquity and the clash of hard-line stubborn cultures like 1st-century Jews in Judea, Nabataea, and Syria versus the mighty Roman Empire — and her short fuse of patience/tolerance to dissenters! — rarely are the historical facts happily married to a conquered people heavily partial to their ways of living, and dying for them. LOL
Personally, I think what CAN be unanimously agreed upon by us three gentlemen about the veracity of the NT’s four Gospels, their authors, a person/disciple named Peter, and a person/Jew named Saul is that according to limited historiography within a tiny region of an obscure, quite volatile Roman province eventually destroyed, slaughtered, and forced to heed to Roman authority and daily respect to Pax Romana as conquered people/servants… there is no such thing (currently 1,974+ years later!) as 100% certainty regarding Judeo-Christian FACTS in light of (contaminated, skewed) independent historical records/authors, primarily Roman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bearing in mind the claims made by Saul/Paul in the biblical texts and the complete lack of evidence to support them one can be forgiven for suggesting the historicity of these characters is dubious at best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, to be more precise the “evidence” comes from very partial, biased, DEPENDENT sources to corroborate: the Apostolic/Patristic Church Fathers, who were themselves mostly Hellenic (Herodian?) slanted Christological Followers of a distorted caricature not of a Messiah of true/pure Second Temple Judaism, but instead one of a more preferred Greco-Roman Christos near identical to long traditions of Greco-Roman Apotheosis — the latter being the Victorious who write history, not the exterminated Palestinian Jews. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
The lack of evidence supporting Paul’s claims that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem we can agree on. The dubious historicity we can agree on. Professor Taboo’s earlier comment addresses the reasons why it’s never going to be easy/possible to completely ascertain what happened back then. It’s a jigsaw with many/most of the pieces either missing or, if we’re lucky, just faded. We have to discern “the picture” as best we can with what’s available.
LikeLike
If I may … As neither Peter or Paul appear in the historical record how do you ascertain that they were genuine historical figures?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Ark, Good question as usual. Christianity exists. The Christian New testament exists. The genuine Pauline epistles in this NT exist. Many accept these as contemporaneous historical records. All these facts have to be explained somehow. The absence of proof is not proof of absence. All the main characters associated with early Christianity including Jesus Peter & Paul were essentially “historical nobodies” whilst alive. Their significance was not recognized until much later. It took at least 50-100 years for a nascent new belief system based on an alleged resurrection that never happened to “bed in”. Until it did, nobody outside of its influence paid much heed to this new belief system. Hence the [almost] complete lack of contemporaneous historical records. Why would any classical scholar/historian waste their time writing about something that, at the time you are referring to, was both insignificant & irrelevant in the world they occupied?
LikeLiked by 1 person
As these characters do not appear on the historical timeline anywhere then I am inclined to consider that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and has no more substance that the nonsense peddled by Habermas.
LikeLike
I thought I had addressed that issue in my reply. Why do you expect to find any contemporaneous traces? The epistles written by Paul are historical documents accepted by many relevant scholars who know a dam sight than you & I. Why do you discount this info and continue with your claim that there are no records?
LikeLike
The official epistles are regarded as genuine – written by the same hand.
Paul/Saul does not feature in the historical record therefore the historicity of this character is suspect. And the epistles never surfaced until presented as a collection by Marcion there is no way to establish their claims of veracity re the character Paul.
The biblical character Peter even more so.
So, no there are no independent historical records to support these characters.
LikeLike
According to mainstream scholastic opinion the genuine Pauline epistles were written many decades before Marcion entered on the scene.
LikeLike
Except there is no evidence to support this. Much like the dating of the gospels which are based on the destruction of the temple.
LikeLike
Guess we are never going to see eye to eye on this. Seems like you see things totally differently……so let’s just leave it there.
LikeLike
Fair enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Furthermore, there are no records of a Jewish ”Christian Hunter”, schooled under Gamaliel.
And it is highly unlikely that Saul would have gained permission from Roman authorities to pursue Christian to Damascus.
The tale is farcical.
LikeLike
Added my two-cents Ark down below. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person