Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Pree]

> Why would the legend of the hero expand to the point where NOW the story is told with him being first discovered by… a loony-bin woman??

Because maybe it was discovered by a loony-bin woman. I don’t dispute that. That still doesn’t give us the right to declare the rest of the story historically accurate. When legends grow over time, they can still retain bits of accurate historical information.

What we’re trying to determine is, Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that the disciples really ate with and touched Jesus? Pointing to the women at the tomb doesn’t get the job done. I already believe that there were women at the tomb.

> You've missed 1 Corinthians 15.3-7

No, I didn’t miss it. As I stated before, I believe the apostles had appearances. I’m just not convinced that they touched and ate with Jesus. That’s what we’re trying to demonstrate here. That’s the crucial point. And there’s nothing in 1 Cor 15 about eating with or touching Jesus.

[jimwalton]

> That still doesn’t give us the right to declare the rest of the story historically accurate.

You're right, it doesn't. We take each piece and do our best analyses. We will never know for certain, since it's history, not science. Since the past is forever gone, we can't just watch it or reconstruct every detail. It isn't subject to scientific experimentation or observation. At best it comes to us condensed through the eyes of the writer. We seek the most plausible conclusion. Already, though, we have reason to believe the writer intended to be historical, not the purveyor of legend.

> That still doesn’t give us the right to declare the rest of the story historically accurate.

Correct, but we would need to also evaluate what motivates you to assume or conclude "legend".

> Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that the disciples really ate with and touched Jesus?

We have in hand two fairly indisputable facts: (1) Jesus’s disciples taught he was raised from the dead and appeared to individuals/groups, and (2) Jesus’s disciples intended for us to interpret the resurrection as an actual event.

The evidence we have at hand for "did the disciples eat with and touch the body of Jesus" is the Gospel records. Two of them specifically mention the eating and touching. Since Luke's explicit agenda is "to draw up an orderly account" (Lk. 1.1, 4) accurately communicating what was "handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses" (Lk. 1.3) based on "careful investigation" (Lk. 1.3) so that "you may know the certainty of the things" (Lk. 1.4). The burden of proof lies with the prosecution (you) that Luke is passing on legend. Luke's historical accuracy in his Gospel is stellar (accepting that the Quirinius reference is hotly debated). Aside from Quirinius, what Luke mentions about political figures, cultural practices, religious attitudes, and geographic locations are flawless. Many are corroborated. From the external, hard evidence we have, Luke is a careful historian. By what evidence do you accuse Luke and John of fabrication, fictionalization, and legend?

> 1 Cor. 15.3-7

Ah, your statement was "As you can see, there’s an obvious progression from NO appearances to ONE appearance to TWO appearances to FOUR appearances." That is what is patently false, since Corinthians is the earliest testimony we have of appearances, and there are multiple appearances, not a progression of none to 1 to 2 to 4. That's the crucial point. Your theory of a progressive development of appearances (which makes it sound legendary) is what is false.

[Dan Kind]

> No, the sensible/rational this is investigate it against how we test the truth of a thing.

But you just said supernatural stuff cannot be tested.#

> As I mentioned, there are only a limited number of things that are confirmable by empirical evidence.

And you've proved that first the supernatural exists and then that it is one of those things?

> We don't use Fahrenheit to test miles per gallon

Fahrenheit is a measure not a test.

> and we don't use science to test whether Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Not entirely true but largely irrelevant anyway.

> Supernatural claims can't be confirmed by science.

Why can they not?

> But there IS a reason to accept it. You really saw it. You KNOW it's true

I know nothing of the sort. I could well be hallucinating or otherwise impaired.

> In these cases, we accept something as true because of the evidence but instead because of the reliability of the source

You think humans are reliable sources? You don't just accept stuff of this magnitude because you think the person telling you is trustworthy.

> If your friends really trusted and respected you, and they could see your body language, hear your tone of voice and your conviction, there is reason to accept it.

They could accept that I think that is what happened, but to accept that as truth just on the strength of me claiming it? No way. That's not how rational people work.

> Everyone says that about books they don't believe. That's what every critic says. It would be my estimation that you haven't given the Bible an objective assessment.

It's not corroborated and talks about things that simply didn't happen. But yeah, it's just because I'm biased right?

> Then should I put any stock in your assessment of the Bible?

How is that my experience of a thing happening? Dishonest conflating once again...

> Possibly this is a good time for a fresh look.

Looked plenty thanks.

> Of COURSE they are, and that's my point.

Then why talk about things like rainbows and what our friends tell us in direct comparison to god claims?

> That's one of the reason I find the Bible to be true. The quality and amount of evidence is more than sufficient.

What evidence? As for quality...it's not corroborated, it's not contemporary. It's a load of entirely unfounded claims.

> Actually, people's experiences of spiritual beings and realities is pretty well-documented and widespread through all of history.

Superheros are pretty well documented, doesn't mean shit about the reality. Prove anything "spiritual" exists.

> 2.2 billion people on the planet self-identify as Christians.

Is that relevant?

> That's a substantial number to motivate someone to investigate it as objectively as possible.

How do you figure that?

> Again, you have obviously not objectively engaged the material.

Oh the old "you just need to pray/open your heart/etc" nonsense.

> Historical material is all over the Bible.

Claims of historical events that don't appear to be recorded anywhere else certainly do show up all over the bible.

> Of course I'm serious. It has been a beneficial moral guide for people all over the world for millennia.

So you just ignore all the horrific moral stuff? And pretend the god is good.

[jimwalton]

> " and we don't use science to test whether Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon." Not entirely true but largely irrelevant anyway.

Certainly true enough to substantiate my point. Since the past is forever gone, it can neither be viewed directly nor reconstructed precisely or exhaustively. It cannot be subject to scientific observation and experimentation. Our knowledge of it comes exclusively through incomplete, selective, and even biased sources. The past comes to us fragmented. Our link to the past is always through the eyes of someone else. Historian Michael Oakeshott said, "What really happened [is] what the evidence obliges us to believe. The historical past, itself a construction based on reasoning from evidence, is ultimately a construction within the historian’s ‘world of ideas’.” History is philosophy, perspective, and methodology to determine plausibility. It's not scientific in the sense of reproducible phenomena that can be studied under controlled conditions to give confirmatory results. History is concerned with unique events in the past that cannot be repeated. There is no reproducibility in history.

> "Supernatural claims can't be confirmed by science." Why can they not?

First of all, because supernatural claims don't fit the necessity of science to deal with reproducible events under controlled conditions. Secondly, science depends on the foundation of testability that can yield unambiguous and confirmatory results such that the meaning is clear. Supernatural claims are not within the orbit of science, just as many claims are not. As I mentioned in my hypothetical situations in my previous post (God actually appears to you, or God answered your prayer), there is nothing about that confirmable by science unless you (1) knew it was coming, (2) were able to establish a hypothesis and determine an experimental method, and (3) were able to control all mitigating factors. It just isn't possible. Science is awesome in its sphere of knowledge, but it cannot be the determinant of all knowledge. That's an irrational overreach.

> "But there IS a reason to accept it. You really saw it. You KNOW it's true." I know nothing of the sort. I could well be hallucinating or otherwise impaired.

Sigh. Remember the conditions of the hypothetical: You KNOW it's true. You seem to be claiming that nothing can be known, that your experiences are unreliable, your perceptions are unreliable, and your reasoning power is suspect. In that case, this conversation is meaningless, you should not have engaged, and never should again. I can't take your points as valid if knowledge and reasoning are always suspect, experiences are unreliable, and perceptions are untrustworthy. In that case we need to shut down the sciences and all education as illusory pretenses.

> [The Bible is] not corroborated and talks about things that simply didn't happen.

Of course the Bible is corroborated. History and archaeology have corroborated thousands of references in the Bible. And as to "things that simply didn't happen," the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim. How do you know they didn't happen?

> Superheros are pretty well documented...

Seriously? Well, let's see the evidence. My goodness.

> "2.2 billion people on the planet self-identify as Christians." Is that relevant?

The statement, as you recall, was "people's experiences of spiritual beings and realities is pretty well-documented and widespread through all of history." So, yes, i[ts perfectly relevant.

> How do you figure that?

Christianity is worthy of investigate because it has been acknowledged to be true by 2.2 billion people (still alive right now). Also because it has been a positive influence in the history of the world in the areas of law, philosophy, art, music, education, medicine, science, literature, and ethics. Also because the major religions of the world (Hinduism, Islam, and of course Christianity) all honor Jesus. It means he is worth an honest investigation.

> Oh the old "you just need to pray/open your heart/etc" nonsense.

Straw man. Red herring. Fallacy of irrelevance.

> Claims of historical events that don't appear to be recorded anywhere else certainly do show up all over the bible.

Red herring. Claims of historical events that are corroborated also show up all over the Bible, thus "historical material is all over the Bible."

> So you just ignore all the horrific moral stuff? And pretend the god is good.

Fallacy of missing the point, drawing the wrong conclusion from the premises. The accusations against God are largely the result of shallow readings, distortions, lack of adequate research into the situation, and willful suppression of evidence to the contrary.

[Anonymizes]

About presumptions:

Yes, the documents are claiming to be historical. But that is not their primary purpose - their purpose is to persuade. They are using the claim to historicity in order to persuade. However, we are aware that there are historical mistakes and inaccuracies present in the texts - some of which contradict with each other in ways which show that there was an attempt to use historicity as a persuasive force. (I am thinking here primarily about the date of the birth - was it during the reign of Herod (died 4BC) or the Census of Quirinius (6AD)?)

I would not credit the claim that the authors got their bias "from evidence." It came from their belief and their intention to spread that belief.

> Since their aim was not to discredit anything or anyone, and their agenda was to report accurate history, and they had little or nothing to gain from taking the stance they did, it’s more plausible to consider their bias as useful rather than detrimental.

...sorry, but I have to point that section out as being completely wrong from beginning to end. I think a good model of understanding the rise of Christianity is as a revitalization movement. The socio-political position of Israel conflicted starkly with the predictions and paradigms of conventional Jewish faith - so a new interpretation was found that amalgamated elements of the parent belief along with elements from the beliefs and philosophy of the dominating culture/s. As such yes, they were trying to discredit something - traditional views of Judaism and concepts about the Messiah. Their agenda was not to "report history", it was to further their religious viewpoint. Yes, they had something to gain - firstly, living within a paradigm which made sense to them; secondly, the social position which comes from building and leading a congregation. As such, I would say an objective look at the documents (including the religious literature which did not make it into the canon) indicate that several different groups were experimenting with the pluripotent mytheme that is the figure of Jesus; these aimed to gain credence through the genre of historical reportage, although it is evident that many details were invented or accreted inaccurately, showing us that this was an intentional effort to gain unearned belief in the face of ahistoricity.

Re: surviving a crucifixion. Yes, I know it was unpleasant, I have studied it extensively. Yes, it is unlikely - and in fact quite rare - for a person to be mistakenly declared dead. And yet it is a possibility in everyday life. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that it is a possibility, and resurrection relies on something actually breaking the rules of reality, it is much, much more likely that such a reanimation happened through natural survival rather than through religious intervention.

The fervor of belief argument is also patently ridiculous. Consider the Heaven's Gate cult for example. These folk believed that their last chance for survival was to kill their earthly bodies and travel as their souls up to the spaceship that would take them away from this imploding world. 39 people killed themselves for their utterly ridiculous belief.

To conclude: You place far too much faith in the texts as accurate reportage. They don't deserve this level of belief. Furthermore, even if they accurately reflect a seemingly miraculous survival from crucifixion, it is much more likely that natural processes allowed for this rather than divine intervention.

[jimwalton]

> Yes, the documents are claiming to be historical. But that is not their primary purpose - their purpose is to persuade.

Of course it is. Good scholarship is about convincing others to espouse our view instead of merely asking them to do so.

> However, we are aware that there are historical mistakes and inaccuracies present in the texts

We most certainly can't just throw this blanket onto the field and let it lie. That's neither responsible debate nor scholarship. Each situation must be discussed.

> the Census of Quirinius (6AD)?)

I hope you know this is hotly debated. I'll assume so. The terminology and grammar are important. We know Quirinius was a governor of Syria, but Luke uses the term hegemon, not governor. What position did he fill before he was governor of Syria? According to Tacitus, he was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Empire, with some evidence that he was a co-ruler (hegemon) with the then governor of Syria, Quintilius Varus. Is this the position to which Luke refers? Secondly, Luke specifies that this was the FIRST registration, which would indicate there were at least two. The exact idea of "first" (πρώτη) is not certain. Most probably Luke's idea is that there were more than one registration under Quirinius. It is the first of a series. Since we know about the one in AD 6, is this a previous one to which Luke refers? Third, the article doesn't occur with "This was (the first)" in v. 2. This form often pointing to something previous in time. It could possibly indicate the earliest or earlier of the possible references. And if πρώτη means "prior," Luke could even be indicating that this occurred *prior* to when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Fourth, you probably know the verb Luke uses is ἐγένετο, subject to a variety of possible meanings. Perhaps a straightforward alternative translation is warranted: "This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria."

The text literally says αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου· “This census *proete* Quirinius [was] hegemon of Syria.” That's as tight as we can accurately translate it. The text certainly can mean, "This census was the first while Quirinius was governing Syria," but one would normally expect an article before ἀπογραφὴ (census) and again before πρώτη (first; before) if that were Luke’s intention. It could also just as accurately be translated "This census was before [one] when Quirinius was governor." The census in AD 6 under Quirinius was particularly infamous because it provoked the railed rebellion by Judas the Galilean. So it would be natural for a biographer or historian to refer to an earlier census with reference to the later, much better remembered one.

In other words, we just can't cavalierly claim Luke has made a historical mistake.

> I would not credit the claim that the authors got their bias "from evidence." It came from their belief and their intention to spread that belief.

I can understand that this position is an opinion, but it carries no weight as such, especially since the Gospel writers, and particularly explicitly Luke, purports to write historiography. But as I said, it's no secret that their intention was to spread that belief. That agenda is no cause to assume inaccuracy. The women behind the #MeToo movement also wish to spread a belief, as do the eyewitnesses of Auschwitz. We cannot justifiably assume that the wish to spread a belief leads us to unreliable accounts.

> I think a good model of understanding the rise of Christianity is as a revitalization movement.

I couldn't disagree more. The outright dismissal of circumcision, the Sabbath, obedience to the Law, the priesthood, and the sacrifices takes us to a far different plain than "revitalization." The apostles were not revisionists, visionaries, or purveyors of a novel paradigm, but preachers of an entirely new (new of a different kind, not new of the same kind) message. One of the unique aspects of early Christianity was the startling message of a physical resurrection back to this life, a belief that has no roots in either Judaism or in the Greco-Roman worldview. There was no such theology of which to build off.

> As such yes, they were trying to discredit something - traditional views of Judaism and concepts about the Messiah.

The explicit words of Jesus, and also the agendas of the apostles, is notably NOT to discredit the traditional views of Judaism, but rather to show how Jesus "filled up" the prophecies and in his person and acts brought completion to Judaism. There was no attempt to discredit Judaism. There is not a single shred of evidence that Jesus at any time repudiated his obligation to the Law. Jesus observed the expected practices of Jewish piety (alms-giving, prayer, fasting). He presupposed the validity of the Temple, the sacrifices, and the Jewish sacred feasts and holy days. He read and quoted from the Torah and regarded it as authoritative. He never rejected the law or sought to discredit it. In addition, Jesus never relaxed the requirements of the law as such.

> Their agenda was not to "report history", it was to further their religious viewpoint.

Luke, in particular, would explicitly disagree with you. His stated agenda is "to draw up an orderly account" (Lk. 1.1, 4) accurately communicating what was "handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses" (Lk. 1.3) based on "careful investigation" (Lk. 1.3) so that "you may know the certainty of the things" (Lk. 1.4). The burden of proof lies with the prosecution (you) that Luke's "agenda was not to 'report history', [but] ... to further [his] religious viewpoint". Luke's historical accuracy in his Gospel is stellar (accepting that the Quirinius reference is hotly debated). Aside from Quirinius, what Luke mentions about political figures, cultural practices, religious attitudes, and geographic locations are flawless. Many are corroborated. From the external, hard evidence we have, Luke is a careful historian.

> As such, I would say an objective look at the documents (including the religious literature which did not make it into the canon) indicate that several different groups were experimenting with the pluripotent mytheme that is the figure of Jesus

Perhaps you can help point me to apocryphal religious literature from the 1st century, and therefore contemporaneous with the New Testament writings, that didn't make it into the canon, as you are mentioning. The pseudepigraphal writings are second century and later. The growth of this kind of mythical legendary writing is clearly not in the minds of the New Testament authors. The details of the Gospels are not in that same genre or era of legendary additions to the persona of Jesus.

> Therefore, by virtue of the fact that it is a possibility...

The weakness of this view is that it gives insignificant possibility weight over plausibility. An examination of the NT documents shows us the deep conviction the apostles had that Jesus had physically risen from the dead, and it's virtually incontrovertible that (1) Jesus’s disciples taught he was raised from the dead and appeared to individuals/groups, and (2) Jesus’s disciples intended for us to interpret the resurrection as an actual event. Also, given the rise of the Church in the capital city of Judaism, we are left with N.T. Wright's conclusion: "Neither the empty tomb by itself…nor the appearances by themselves could have generated the early Christian belief. The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world. However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief.”

As far as "breaking the rules of reality," scientifically speaking, the odds of the resurrection occurring may be infinity to one, but theologically speaking they are x:x (unknown to unknown). Miracles are outside of the scope of probability calculations, and so to deprecate the odds of veracity on the basis of our understandings of reality is moot.

> The fervor of belief argument is also patently ridiculous. Consider the Heaven's Gate cult for example.

The depth that one believes something is not an indicator of its veracity, nor is the fervor of that belief. My point is different: They intend for us to believe in the historicity of the resurrection not on the basis of their fervency but rather on the basis of the reliability of their eyewitness testimony grounded in the evidence (Acts 2.32; 4.20; 5.32; 1 Jn. 1.1-3).

> You place far too much faith in the texts as accurate reportage.

It's not that I place faith in it, but instead that I find the evidence of authenticity compelling.

[Taxi]

> I create a chart as I repeat the experiment 100 times to create a graph. Are my experiences valid,

Yes, but only so far as to others being able to repeat, confirm and validate your findings. Indeed if no-one is able to recreate your findings - and instead make different findings - then as far as science is concerned, your experiences are indeed worthless.

Try this as an example. I make an experiment or procedure to try and split an atom. I then state that I did. I can even publish a paper ( or testimony). I can get all my colleagues who were with me to also publish their testimonies. I could bind all those testimonies in a single book. Billions of people all over the world might read the book, take me at my and my colleagues' word and truly believe that I split an atom.

But do you know how much validation science actually gives to my claim if no-one else can also split an atom using the methods I used? Bugger all. Just look at happened with cold fusion a few years ago. Utter scientific embarrassment.

And that's why even you used the phrase " our experiences" rather than "my experiences". "Our experiences" in science can be compared, tested, confirmed, validated. "Your experiences"- in and of itself - cannot.

That you asked that question in such a clumsy way as well as your other comments demonstrates that you literally do not understand what is meant by the scientific method - or how it is used

[jimwalton]

So if I can't repeat, confirm, and validate that I had a stomachache last week, and if no one is able to recreate my findings, then my experience was worthless? Are you actually asserting that the only authentic knowledge is what is reproducible? That can't possibly be, so I'll try not to assume it, even though that seems to be what you are saying. Certainly in the natural sciences reproducibility is the necessary corroboration on the path to truth, but in other disciplines (jurisprudence, historical studies, philosophy, and logic, for instance), confirmation by reproducibility is not how we determine truth.

Historiography (including the biblical writings) are subject only to limited scientific inquiry, if at all. The past is forever gone, and it can neither be rewound and viewed nor exhaustively reconstructed. It is not subject to scientific observation and experimentation. Our knowledge of it comes exclusively through incomplete, selective, and sometimes even biased sources. History cannot be approached scientifically, and no one can look at it objectively. It's not that kind of discipline. We use a philosophy-based methodology, based on hard evidences, using our intelligence and a pinch of imagination, and a historiographer writes his interpretation of the facts. That's the best we can do. What we have from historians are experiences: their engagement with the material as viewed through the lens of their worldview, accumulating anecdotal information, filtering and editing it to reconstruct an event or perspective, and then writing it.

Personal experiences count. Otherwise we wouldn't bother to listen to the women behind the #MeToo movement, the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, or the Jews about the Holocaust. Though "experiences," in and of themselves, cannot be tested, it doesn't mean they should be disregarded as irrelevant. Science is not the only measure of truth. Science, for instance, could not confirm Dr. Ford's experiences. Do we conclude, then, it didn't happen?

[Anonymizes]

Well, let's see if we can unpack that a bit.

Re: the intentions of the text. You relied on the argument that the texts are intended to report historically accurate information as a reason why their information should be trusted. I replied that no, the intention was to get people to believe the depiction the authors were constructing. If that is so (and I think that's clear) then no, you can't rely on that perspective as a support for the reliability of the texts. As an historian, I would not use that argument for any other historical text - we are always looking for the reasons behind the representation and how that affects reliability. The intentions of the authors, in this context, do no bode well for our estimation of their reliability.

Quirinius: Yes, the text is somewhat complex and unclear - but what we know is that Judea was not a Roman province until 6 CE. It would have been incredibly unusual for a census to be conducted in a client kingdom, so it is highly unlikely that the text refers to a previous census. But that's hardly the only issue - Roman censuses did not require people to travel back to their places of origin (just for another example). Much more likely that Luke was mistaken in his representation here owing to the fact that the character and history of Jesus was a mytheme that one could manipulate and use for the construction of a system of beliefs. Mythopoesy.

Spreading belief and inaccuracy - sure, there's no right to assume that a wish to persuade entails disbelief. But it is a good reason to start asking the difficult questions and to not assume that such calls are correct before verification.

Revitalization - I think you need to read a bit more about what a revitalization movement means. I think Christianity fits the model quite well - including a lot of those changes that you mention above. I would expect many of the changes listed to occur during a period of revitalization.

> There was no attempt to discredit Judaism

I know. That's not what I said: I said they were discrediting an interpretation of Judaism - that is, the traditional model and the militaristic notion of messianism.

Luke and history - Sure, I know the claim is that Luke is historically minded: what I am saying is that this is a representation for the rhetorical aim of persuading people of a religious reality. It's like putting "Based on actual events" at the beginning of the movie - it gives the sense of plausibility about whatever comes afterwards. But when looked at in detail no, it's not accurate. What I am saying is this: simply because a text attempts to appear historically accurate does not indicate that it ought to be believed.

Apocryphal writings etc - There's actually a bunch of religious texts from the period contemporaneous to the gospels etc. The fact that they're not in the canon does not exclude them from consideration - what they show is that there were multiple different accounts of the life of Jesus and events surrounding that, and that it was fairly common at the time to muck about with such a character and freely invent events to support religious conceptions. Mythopoesy again.

Plausibility and possibility - The fact that there were folks who were convinced in no way convinces me, nor ought it convince anyone else. Nor do I believe that the claims that there were an empty tomb ought to be believed either, but if we are to charitably go with this then the explanations need to be weighed. Although being mistakenly declared to be dead is rare, it's not as rare as we might like it, and owing to the fact that there are several descriptions in the ancient literature of people waking up as they are being burned or buried or otherwise mourned we need to consider this a possibility as an explanation. Now: when we are using our abductive reasoning skills, it is reasonable to exhaust the plausible explanations before reaching for the religio-magical. As we have at least 1 remaining plausible explanation (in actual fact we have several), it is unreasonable to consider a religio-magical explanation for the resurrection accounts at this stage.

> ...on the basis of the reliability of their eyewitness testimony grounded in the evidence

And I think I have shown how none of that is remotely reasonable to believe at this stage. If you find it compelling I think we have rather different standards.

[jimwalton]

The post is getting too broad to comment on everything. I'll restrict my responses to those where I think further discussion is beneficial, though I have responses for each area.

> You relied on the argument that the texts are intended to report historically accurate information as a reason why their information should be trusted.

My claim was not that they should be trusted because their intent was historiography, but rather that their intent was historiography and not religious propaganda. But even if their intent was historiography, it's still not only legitimate but also necessary to evaluate the quality and reliability of their historiography, and for that we use every tool at our disposal to assess their trustworthiness.

> Quirinius

Luke's claim is that the registration was of the entire Roman οἰκουμένην—the inhabited earth. There is no particular justification to limit the term to legitimate provinces vs. protectorates or regions of another status.

It is of course true that Judea did not technically become an official province until AD 6, but it was certainly a Roman territory. Pompey attacked Jerusalem in 63 BC and was made a tributary to Rome. Caesar defeated him in 48, and Herod the Great was put in his position by his father as a Roman governor of Galilee, still completely under Roman rule. He was also proclaimed "king" by Octavius and Antony. Palestine was a "client kingdom" under the authority of Rome. To claim that the Palestinians would not have been part of the registration because they were not an official province lacks credibility. With a Roman military presence there and Roman governing officials, one can be confident Rome was collecting taxes from the population.

> Luke and history: this is a representation for the rhetorical aim of persuading people of a religious reality. It's like putting "Based on actual events" at the beginning of the movie

I understand this is your opinion based on your perspective, but I fail to see any evidence that Luke is writing rhetorically. I would be pleased to see some evidence (besides the Quirinius debate) that Luke, when examined in detail, is "not accurate." My study and observations lead me to the "extremely accurate" category.

> Apocryphal writings etc - There's actually a bunch of religious texts from the period contemporaneous to the gospels etc.

I'm only aware of two: Josephus, which isn't really a religious text, and 1 Clement, which is not in contradiction to the Gospels. I'd be interested to know to what texts you are referring. I can't entertain your conclusion of mythopoesy until I see the documentation.

> Plausibility and possibility

I agree with what you wrote. Where I disagree most is that we have natural plausible explanations of the resurrection that actually substantive merit.