The New Testament Gospels are Not History
Kevin R. Henke
September 26, 2022
In Henke (2022ac), I listed two major complaints about some misrepresentations of my positions in Mr. Lundahl’s essays:
1. I NEVER said that miracles were impossible (also see Henke 2022ae). I’ll gladly accept the existence of miracles if Mr. Lundahl or others give me the required evidence. Nothing ranks a zero on my probability curve for past events in Henke (2022b).
2. I NEVER tried to “prove” anything (Henke 2022ad). Proof is for mathematics. History and science deal with evidence and probability. As I further discuss in Henke (2022ab), Mr. Lundahl frequently and improperly talks about having “proof” and “proving” issues.
I appreciate that Mr. Lundahl listed my two complains in Lundahl (2022r). However, rather than seriously taking my advice about not arguing for “proof” when discussing history, Lundahl (2022r) then proceeds to discuss a “reasonable proof” for any historical fact:
The most reasonable proof for ANY historic fact is to demonstrate:
· it's reported in a text that is historic rather than fictional
· and it is NOT reported for some obvious fraud
· and also not for some obvious misunderstanding on part of someone.
These three are, taken together, a good prima facie case for any given historic fact. To counter it, you'd have to demonstrate:
· it's a work of fiction
· or the historic document is lying about something
· or the author had a perspective that made him misunderstand something.
This is the same irrespectively of what probability an event has prior to being reported. Except when the probability is zero.
As I stated in Henke (2022gc), Henke (2022dv) and Henke (2022eu), Mr. Lundahl’s approach to history is all wrong. With any claim, skepticism is the default position. I don’t have to demonstrate that a document is a work of fiction (although Carrier 2014 effectively does this with the Gospels), Mr. Lundahl has to demonstrate that the document is probably historical with external evidence. We should only identify something as probably historical if it’s supported by some good quality archeological or other external evidence. When investigating the past, the quality, and not just the quantity, of the claims is essential (Henke 2022fg). Also, as I argued in Henke (2022b), it’s not a good idea to claim zero probability when dealing with history. I don’t even give the silly stories in Genesis 3 and Numbers 22 zero probabilities of being real.
Just because some clever writer managed to pass off a work of fiction as “history” and that a gullible “first known audience” believed that it was history, that does not make it history. In response to the first three points of Lundahl (2022r), I argue:
· Fraudsters often try to pass off works of fiction as history (e.g., The Gospel of Peter).
· The fraudsters sometimes convince their readers and get away with their lies.
· Large groups of people frequently misunderstand or accept lies as reality (e.g., Henke 2022ek; Henke 2022es).
As I mention in Henke (2022gc), Carrier (2014) extensively demonstrates that the texts of the New Testament Gospels are works of fiction trying to pass themselves off as “history.” Since it was so long ago, trying to identify the fraudsters that wrote the Gospels is not possible. Yet, would Mr. Lundahl accept the Gospel According to the Hebrews, the Gospel of Peter, and other apocryphal works just because they claim to be history and no obvious fraudsters can be identified at this time? This is the problem with the approach that he outlines above. Eventually, he has to judge the New Testament and apocryphal gospels, epistles and revelations not on the basis of his “first known audience” scam or the historical claims in the books, but subjectivity based on the dictates of his Church and fallible tradition. If Mr. Lundahl took skepticism as the default position, he would be better able to separate the histories with good evidence from cases that are possibly history and the cases that are likely fiction.
Lundahl (2022r) then continues going in the wrong direction:
“So, if Henke is wasting time on saying "belief in historicity doesn't make a text historical" he is misunderstanding my point. Historicity of text was never a total guarantee of total factuality of its content. But if he goes on to make no claims on "the historian was lying, and this is how he came to be believed" or "the historian misunderstood such and such, and this is how it really happened" - it becomes obvious, that he is not making any investigation or tolerating one on my part, into the historicity of the event at all. He is indeed using the "breaking of laws of nature" as a kind of crow bar, to rule out, not just factuality of content, but even historicity of text, in one go. So, if he is not conscious of trying to "prove" anything, I am very conscious of the way his proofs actually are going.”
Again, as I pointed out in Henke (2022dt), I don’t label an account as historical unless it has a fairly high probability of being historically accurate. Lies and disinformation don’t deserve to be labelled “history.” Otherwise, Mr. Lundahl is degrading the meaning of the word “history.” Also, I’m not asking for a 100% on my probability scale for past events that I presented in Henke (2022b). That is, I NEVER asked for a “total guarantee of total factuality” for a document. Even historical accounts that have good supporting evidence are likely to get some details wrong. As I stated in Henke (2022bh):
“Now, I fully understand that any historical account is likely to contain some errors. A history of D-Day may get the time incorrect when the first Canadian troops landed on the beaches of France on June 6, 1944. An historical account of the Apollo 11 Moon landing may not get all of Neil Armstrong’s first words correct when he stepped on the Moon. However, overall, the accounts of the D-Day landings and the Moon landing are correct and historically reliable.”
It’s Mr. Lundahl, and not me, that groundlessly believes that some documents are infallible scriptures. Mr. Lundahl should finally learn what I’m saying and not saying.
As can be seen in the critical discussions in Carrier (2014), it’s not just the miracle accounts in the Gospels that expose them as works of fictions. The characters, their irrational behavior and other events in the Gospels are unrealistic. As I’ve stated before, I’m willing to accept that miracles occur if I’ve given evidence with modern studies. Until then, I’ll rank the miracle stories in the Bible as highly improbable, but not impossible.
Reference:
Carrier, R. 2014. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 696pp.