Resurrection of Christ: Historical or History Making?
Jurgen Moltman
I affirm the literal resurrection of Christ, as I affirm the Nicene creed. Unfortunately, affirming it and proving it are two different things. Many apologists try to use the Resurrection as proof in itself that Jesus was the Son of God. The problem is, the event itself has to be proven, and is of equal dispute to the claims of Christ deity. Thus, I doubt that it makes a great tool for verifying the claims of the faith, since it is itself such a claim. On the other hand, let us ask ourselves, "was the true purpose of the resurrection as a proof of Jesus validity?" I think not. I think the true purpose was not offer modern scientific "courtroom evidence" of the event, but to confirm in a religious way, for insiders, by provision of an important symbol. Tillich says that a symbol participates in the thing it symbolizes. Thus a bull fighter dying young is a symbol of darning courage going awry, but a non specific figure like the American flag is not a symbol but an emblam. Thus the resurrection of Christ can be a theological symbol and stil be a real event! Thus the true importance of the event is its theological significance and not its market place value as an apologetical tool.
Atheists have argued, but more importantly historians have argued, that a view like that of the resurrection of Christ can't be understood as a historical event, thus can't be proved by historical evidence becuase history is intrinsically naturalistic. Historians must make naturalistic assumptions thus miracle can't play role in history. The first thing to notice about this argument is that far from contradicting what I've said, it supports my position in that I argue that atheist's only have ideological objections to the resurrection. There's no historically based disproof. If untrained non-historian apologists mistakenly argue "this is historical" their objections are not based upon disproving the historically based evidence they are only based upon ideological assumptions. Evoking the rules of history is also ideological assumption.
Secondly, I don't say "O I'm going to prove the resurrection historically." In the heat of argument I may have said words to that effect, but my actual position is not "yes we definitely prove the resurrection." There is no way to prove something that hapepned 2000 years ago, at least not to the point of making it indubitable. The only way to do that would be to go back in time and watch it happen. It's as unfair a requirement that it be "historical" as it is to say we are going to prove it historically. Either way is an unfair requirement becuase it's not something that can be proved. The prohibition on supernatural evidence in history not withstanding it's unrealistic, and therefore, unfair, to expect it to be proved. Be that as it may all is not lost for the historically minded apologist. There is still a good argument to be made for the resurrection and it invovles historically-based evidence.
The better decision making paradigm is not "proof," that is unrealistic, but "warrant." If we don't claim we proving historical events but rather that understanding an event in a certain way (as true) is warranted by the evidence, then we are not imposing the unrealistic burden of proof nor are we evoking the category of "history" to explain it thus we are not transgressing historical protocols. Rather we are finding that the placing of confidence in a hypothesis for private belief is warranted by the evidence. Toward this end we need to see text as an artifact. So rather than say "this is true becasue so and so says it,"we are saying "this is what the early community of faith believed as evidence by their texts. To the extent that we can trust their testimony we can place confidence in the hypothesis that this belief may communicate a truth. Thus private belief that this is the case is warranted. Thus the resurrection, not put in the cateroy of "historical fact" is nevertheless understood as both a religious symbol and a likely event.
Religious Symbol and Historical Likelihood.
Be that as it may, the event of Christ's resurrection offers more to the unbeliever and the cause of Christian apologetics than one might think given what I wrote. Rather than give up on it as an argument, we need to put it into a different context: we need to abandon the "court room" model of proof in apologetics, and take up a historian's perspective. The point is not that we can prove the resurrection "really happened." The importance of historical evidence surrounding resurrection is its possibility as a history making event. By that I mean, it's not as important to prove "conclusively" that it happened, as it is to show that the perimeters shaped by the evidence still leave open the validity of the possibility that such an event occurred, once one clears away the ideological clutter of naturalism. The evidence need only point to the fact that the belief tenet is still "in the running" as a possibility, not that it actually happened, although we believe, as Christians, that it did happen. The event described cannot included as a historical event, because history as a modern social science is constructed upon naturalistic assumptions; but it can be understood as a history making event, one that shaped the nature of our society and culture.
Away with the Court Room Model
So much past apologetics has been based upon the model of a court room debate, then declared to "prove history." We see this most especially in McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict (the classic case). We also see it in the works of a vast array of apologists who say things like, "the man who invented rules for court room evidence (Simon Greenleaf--1783-1953 ) argued for the Resurrection, and he was a smart lawyer, so he must be right." But historians do not "prove" historical 'arguments' by holding courtroom debates! If we are going to make historical claims for the resurrection, we have to think like historians, and not like lawyers. We have to hold the evidence to the perimeters of historical evidence, not to those of jurisprudence.
History is probability. It's not mathematical probably, but it is probabilistic. One cannot go back in time and verify the assumptions of historians, all we can do is argue from extrapolated data as to the most likely conclusion based upon the "facts." But how are these "facts" ascertained? They are not derived from debate, they are not derived from physical artifacts, and they are certainly not given in any kind of absolute certainty. Many skeptics place the level of confirmation they seek on a par with a TV camera recording an event it happens. History is documents! History is not a documentary featuring live footage, although such material is no doubt going to be included in future historical records. But history is the impression we find most likely as a probabilistic guess based upon the data we find available in written documents of the past. Historians do debate documents, but they do not say things like, "would this be accepted in a courts of law?" Historians don't a flying spit wad about what is accepted in a court of law (but one hears that phrase in apologetics quite a bit). Thus, in accessing the prospects for the validity of the resurrection, one cannot worry about courtrooms, or about exact proof as though we could take a TV camera to the tomb and watch the angel move the stone. The best we can ever do is to access the possibility and its place int he likelihood of events, given our world view assumptions vis a vie, supernatural events.
The History Making Concept.
In his great ground breaking work, Theology of Hope (1964) Jurgen Moltmann did something radical. It suited Moltmann to be radical because he was one of the major influences upon radical theology of the 60s, including liberation theology. Being German Moltmann took the structures of historical scholarship very seriously. He knew that historiography of the nineteenth century had ruled out any but naturalistic assumptions in the category of "historical." Moltmann argues, the rules of history exclude the miraculous. This is because historians, as heirs to the enlightenment, automatically exclude the supernatural. For this reason the resurrection cannot be seen as historical, a priori, for the rules of making history are set by an ideology of metaphysical assumptions which dogmatically exclude anything miraculous. History must be predicated upon the assumption of a coherent natural world, therefore, the supernatural cannot be part of history (176). Yet he felt it was important to make a place for the resurrection in modern thought. So he argued for changing the rules. Rather than calling the resurrection "historical" he calls it "history making." The belief itself has shaped the outline of historical event. This is apart from the question of its truth content, the fact of belief in it made history what it is. This introduces the concept of understanding the belief as history making thus the evidence that supports the belief is also history making. His solution: change the rules. We wont call it "historical" but "history making."
Skeptics are too quick to argue that the resurrection is not historical fact. Before they jump into this fray, they should first ask themselves about the nature of historical facts. Most historical "facts" are not proven. "History" (whatever that is) says that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo, yet evidence indicates he did not.* History, like science is a social construct, and is determined by those with the clout to write history. In modernity we have gained an anti-supernatural bias, and so the believer is forced to ask rhetorical questions like "did Jesus raise form the dead?" and then to answer them rhetorically. The German Theologian Jurgen Moltmann changes the rules. Rather than ask if the resurrection is "historical" he merely argues that it doesn't have to be, it is history making. We change the rules of the debate because predicated upon the preaching of the resurrection is one of the most profound developments of world history; the growth of the Christian faith which has shaped the entire Western tradition. We view the Resurrection of Christ as history making because the belief in it did change history, the doctrine of it has made history, and belief today shapes the basis of all Christian doctrine. We put aside the hypocritical skepticism of naturalistic circular arguments and allow ourselves to accept the verdict of a history that has been made by faith in the event, in light of the fact that there is enough there to base faith upon. (see Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 1968).
The doctrine furnishes the basis for hope, when grasped in faith, that offers a much more profound answer to any of questions about life and death than any form of skepticism or pride in confusion ever could. Rather than merely declare a rules change, I will argue that this rules change is warranted based upon the evidence. In other words, not that the resurrection can be "proven" in the same sense that any other aspect of historical research can be proven, but that the resurrection evidence is credible enough that one can feel confident in asserting its truth as a tenet of faith. The actual case can never be proven, or disproved, but the evidence allows one to believe with impunity.
In keeping with my policy of enlightening the reader about my sources, I must point out that I do lean heavily upon two major evangelical sources here: F.F. Bruce, and William Lane Craig. Bruce is, however, one of the most highly respected Evangelical scholars, even among the liberal camp, and Craig is renown as a highly credible and effective apologist. The other sources such as D. E. H. Whiteley, Stephen Neil, Gaalyah Cornfeld, and Luke Timothy Johnson are basically liberal or moderate.A few major liberal theologians, such as Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg have defended faith in the resurrection.
Historical Verdict Reversed
"The real case for skepticism of the resurrection of Christ was actually developed by 19th century liberal theology, and though they don't know it, the objections of most Internet skeptics today are echoes of those arguments. But in the postwar era even major liberal theologians began to defend the resurrection. Ernst Kasemann, student of Bultmann, at Marburg in 1953 argued that Bultmann's skepticism toward the historical Jesus was biased and Kasemann re-opened a new Quest for the historical Jesus. The great modern liberal theologian Wolfheart Paennberg argued for the resurrection of Jesus. Hans Grass argued that the resurrection cannot be dismissed as mere myth, and Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen defended the historical credibility of Jesus empty tomb." (in William Lane Craig, "Contemporary Scholarship and The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Truth, 1 (1985): 89-95. "Equally startling is the declaration of one of the world's leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapid, that he is convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Lapide twits New Testament critics like Bultmann and Marxsen for their unjustified skepticism and concludes that he believes on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead." (Craig, Ibid.)
Before the apologist can even posit the turth of the resurrection, his truth is refuted by the very nature of historical "facts" as modern thought construes them; supernatural events cannot be part of history. But Moltmann turns this around on the nature of modern thought by arguing that before modern thought can posit a naturalistic history, the content of history is already shaped by supernatural claims.
Be that as it may, the event of Christ's resurrection offers more to the unbeliever and the cause of Christian apologetics than one might think given what I wrote. Rather than give up on it as an argument, we need to put it into a different context: we need to abandon the "court room" model of proof in apologetics, and take up a historian's perspective. The point is not that we can prove the resurrection "really happened." The importance of historical evidence surrounding resurrection is its possibility as a history making event. By that I mean, it's not as important to prove "conclusively" that it happened, as it is to show that the perimeters shaped by the evidence still leave open the validity of the possibility that such an event occurred, once one clears away the ideological clutter of naturalism. The evidence need only point to the fact that the belief tenet is still "in the running" as a possibility, not that it actually happened, although we believe, as Christians, that it did happen. The event described cannot included as a historical event, because history as a modern social science is constructed upon naturalistic assumptions; but it can be understood as a history making event, one that shaped the nature of our society and culture.
Away with the Court Room Model
So much past apologetics has been based upon the model of a court room debate, then declared to "prove history." We see this most especially in McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict (the classic case). We also see it in the works of a vast array of apologists who say things like, "the man who invented rules for court room evidence (Simon Greenleaf--1783-1953 ) argued for the Resurrection, and he was a smart lawyer, so he must be right." But historians do not "prove" historical 'arguments' by holding courtroom debates! If we are going to make historical claims for the resurrection, we have to think like historians, and not like lawyers. We have to hold the evidence to the perimeters of historical evidence, not to those of jurisprudence.
History is probability. It's not mathematical probably, but it is probabilistic. One cannot go back in time and verify the assumptions of historians, all we can do is argue from extrapolated data as to the most likely conclusion based upon the "facts." But how are these "facts" ascertained? They are not derived from debate, they are not derived from physical artifacts, and they are certainly not given in any kind of absolute certainty. Many skeptics place the level of confirmation they seek on a par with a TV camera recording an event it happens. History is documents! History is not a documentary featuring live footage, although such material is no doubt going to be included in future historical records. But history is the impression we find most likely as a probabilistic guess based upon the data we find available in written documents of the past. Historians do debate documents, but they do not say things like, "would this be accepted in a courts of law?" Historians don't a flying spit wad about what is accepted in a court of law (but one hears that phrase in apologetics quite a bit). Thus, in accessing the prospects for the validity of the resurrection, one cannot worry about courtrooms, or about exact proof as though we could take a TV camera to the tomb and watch the angel move the stone. The best we can ever do is to access the possibility and its place int he likelihood of events, given our world view assumptions vis a vie, supernatural events.
The History Making Concept.
In his great ground breaking work, Theology of Hope (1964) Jurgen Moltmann did something radical. It suited Moltmann to be radical because he was one of the major influences upon radical theology of the 60s, including liberation theology. Being German Moltmann took the structures of historical scholarship very seriously. He knew that historiography of the nineteenth century had ruled out any but naturalistic assumptions in the category of "historical." Moltmann argues, the rules of history exclude the miraculous. This is because historians, as heirs to the enlightenment, automatically exclude the supernatural. For this reason the resurrection cannot be seen as historical, a priori, for the rules of making history are set by an ideology of metaphysical assumptions which dogmatically exclude anything miraculous. History must be predicated upon the assumption of a coherent natural world, therefore, the supernatural cannot be part of history (176). Yet he felt it was important to make a place for the resurrection in modern thought. So he argued for changing the rules. Rather than calling the resurrection "historical" he calls it "history making." The belief itself has shaped the outline of historical event. This is apart from the question of its truth content, the fact of belief in it made history what it is. This introduces the concept of understanding the belief as history making thus the evidence that supports the belief is also history making. His solution: change the rules. We wont call it "historical" but "history making."
"The resurrection of Christ does not mean a possibility within the world and its history, but a new possibility altogether for the world, for existence, and for history. Only when the world can be understood as contingent creation out of the freedom of God...does the rising of Christ become intelligible as nova create [new creation]. ...it is necessary to expose the profound irrationality of the rational cosmos of the tech scientific world." (179)
"The resurrection of Christ is without prattle in the history known to us. But it can be for that very reason regarded as a 'history making event' in the light of which all other history is illumined, called into question and transformed." (180)
Skeptics are too quick to argue that the resurrection is not historical fact. Before they jump into this fray, they should first ask themselves about the nature of historical facts. Most historical "facts" are not proven. "History" (whatever that is) says that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo, yet evidence indicates he did not.* History, like science is a social construct, and is determined by those with the clout to write history. In modernity we have gained an anti-supernatural bias, and so the believer is forced to ask rhetorical questions like "did Jesus raise form the dead?" and then to answer them rhetorically. The German Theologian Jurgen Moltmann changes the rules. Rather than ask if the resurrection is "historical" he merely argues that it doesn't have to be, it is history making. We change the rules of the debate because predicated upon the preaching of the resurrection is one of the most profound developments of world history; the growth of the Christian faith which has shaped the entire Western tradition. We view the Resurrection of Christ as history making because the belief in it did change history, the doctrine of it has made history, and belief today shapes the basis of all Christian doctrine. We put aside the hypocritical skepticism of naturalistic circular arguments and allow ourselves to accept the verdict of a history that has been made by faith in the event, in light of the fact that there is enough there to base faith upon. (see Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 1968).
The doctrine furnishes the basis for hope, when grasped in faith, that offers a much more profound answer to any of questions about life and death than any form of skepticism or pride in confusion ever could. Rather than merely declare a rules change, I will argue that this rules change is warranted based upon the evidence. In other words, not that the resurrection can be "proven" in the same sense that any other aspect of historical research can be proven, but that the resurrection evidence is credible enough that one can feel confident in asserting its truth as a tenet of faith. The actual case can never be proven, or disproved, but the evidence allows one to believe with impunity.
In keeping with my policy of enlightening the reader about my sources, I must point out that I do lean heavily upon two major evangelical sources here: F.F. Bruce, and William Lane Craig. Bruce is, however, one of the most highly respected Evangelical scholars, even among the liberal camp, and Craig is renown as a highly credible and effective apologist. The other sources such as D. E. H. Whiteley, Stephen Neil, Gaalyah Cornfeld, and Luke Timothy Johnson are basically liberal or moderate.A few major liberal theologians, such as Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg have defended faith in the resurrection.
Historical Verdict Reversed
"The real case for skepticism of the resurrection of Christ was actually developed by 19th century liberal theology, and though they don't know it, the objections of most Internet skeptics today are echoes of those arguments. But in the postwar era even major liberal theologians began to defend the resurrection. Ernst Kasemann, student of Bultmann, at Marburg in 1953 argued that Bultmann's skepticism toward the historical Jesus was biased and Kasemann re-opened a new Quest for the historical Jesus. The great modern liberal theologian Wolfheart Paennberg argued for the resurrection of Jesus. Hans Grass argued that the resurrection cannot be dismissed as mere myth, and Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen defended the historical credibility of Jesus empty tomb." (in William Lane Craig, "Contemporary Scholarship and The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Truth, 1 (1985): 89-95. "Equally startling is the declaration of one of the world's leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapid, that he is convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Lapide twits New Testament critics like Bultmann and Marxsen for their unjustified skepticism and concludes that he believes on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead." (Craig, Ibid.)
"According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.:"(Ibid.)
Before the apologist can even posit the turth of the resurrection, his truth is refuted by the very nature of historical "facts" as modern thought construes them; supernatural events cannot be part of history. But Moltmann turns this around on the nature of modern thought by arguing that before modern thought can posit a naturalistic history, the content of history is already shaped by supernatural claims.
Yes but that's just a simple matter of you not understanding my argument. I"m not saying "this is true because they say it is." I'm saying:
(1) Gospels are historical artifact that ques us in to a historically validated set of readigns that can be understood as even older artifacts.
(2) these artifacts testify to the early nature of the empty tomb as a belief of the community.
(3) community contained eye witnesses. so this fact would have been screened out if it as false.
(4) It was spread about from an early time thus we can infer form it that the eye witnesses to the situation approved.
(5)not proof but it is a good reason to assume it's valid as a belief.It has historical verisimilitude.
The standard I set my arguments:The Resurrection was a history making event. Whatever truly happened, the actual events which are make by the claims of witnesses and faith in the veracity of those witnesses, the upshot of it all is that the historical probabilities suggest the likelihood of an event, and that event shaped the nature of history itself. The faith claims cannot be historical claims, but they don't have to be. The faith itself is justified, it cannot be ruled out by history, but instead lies at the base of modern history in some form. We can suggest throughout the strength of the evidence that those actual events were the very events attested to in the Gospels. We cannot prove this claim with absolute certainty, but the warrant provided by the evidence itself is strong enough to make the historical nature of the religious hope valid. Some religious hopes are just ruled out by the facts. For example, the idea that the Native Americans are part of the 10 lost tribes of Israel; this can be dispelled by genetics as well as dentistry. The Resurrection, on the other hand, can be accepted as likely Given the suspension of ideological objections of Naturalism.
*Crockett died at the Alamo the evidence clearly indicates that (I would have to assert it anyway,I am rom Texas). The point is it's not something we can prove. We call it "fact" but it's only assumption based upomn perponderence of the evidence.
Comments
Broadly I agree with what you say up to this point, but this idea of warrant has certain... issues. If the evidence is heavily stacked towards something then clearly I am warranted in thinking it happened. What if the evidence is about 50/50? Am I warranted in believing something happened if the evidence only suggests a 50% chance that it really did? I would say no. Even if the probability is 80% that would only warrant a belief that it probably happened.
This then is the problem for me. This idea of warrant seems to be a way to justify certainty from doubt.
1. The evidence suggests a 70% chance the event happened
2. Therefore I have warrant to believe it happened
3. Therefore I am certain it happened
That is not how history works, that is how rationalising your beliefs works. This is how history works:
1. The evidence suggests a 70% chance the event happened
3. Therefore I believe there is a 70% chance the event happened
[I appreciate there are no nice convenient figures for probability; numbers are illustrative only.]
JH: Many skeptics place the level of confirmation they seek on a par with a TV camera recording an event it happens.
Many (and perhaps all) Christians claim that degree of certainty that the resurrection happened, so why be surprised when sceptics ask for that level confirmation?
Pix
JH: (1) Gospels are historical artifact that ques us in to a historically validated set of readigns that can be understood as even older artifacts.
They certainly are historical artifacts. In what sense are they historically validated? They are validated in that we are pretty confident they come from the right time and place (though the authors are debatable and unknown); that is, they are not forgeries. However, their content has not be validated to the extent that we can assume they are all true. They are apologetic works first and foremost, not historical records.
JH: (2) these artifacts testify to the early nature of the empty tomb as a belief of the community.
Certainly by the end of the first century.
JH: (3) community contained eye witnesses. so this fact would have been screened out if it as false.
It would have contained witnesses for a while, but until when?
Who witnessed the empty tomb? According to the original version (Mark), Mary and Salome, and they never told anyone, and were perhaps 50 years older at the crucifixion, and likely dead when Mark was written.
Who witnessed the risen Jesus? All the original version said was Jesus would see the disciples in Galilee in some unspecified manner. All the Jerusalem appearances, any account of a physical Jesus were written after witnesses were dead.
JH: (4) It was spread about from an early time thus we can infer form it that the eye witnesses to the situation approved.
But we do not know exactly what they approved. I am pretty sure the disciples saw something that they took to be the risen Jesus, but whether this was anything more than the bright light Paul saw is unknown.
We have to give the original document priority, and the text in the original Mark clearly indicates Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee and not in Jerusalem. This makes it highly likely that the Jerusalem sightings were later embellishments.
Pix
you have to pull off a warrant os you fail to produce evidence that warrants,you must show some means of proving that it's 50/50.
This then is the problem for me. This idea of warrant seems to be a way to justify certainty from doubt.
1. The evidence suggests a 70% chance the event happened
2. Therefore I have warrant to believe it happened
3. Therefore I am certain it happened
That is not how history works, that is how rationalizing your beliefs works. This is how history works:
that is how history works except mot historians don't attach numbers, historical probability is without nunbers,
1. The evidence suggests a 70% chance the event happened
3. Therefore I believe there is a 70% chance the event happened
we are not talking about historical facts we are talking about religious faith, you don't to actually prove it to have faith, 70% is strong warrant. you are also not factoring in confirmation, once I already acted on faith and it's proven tome as a private matter thatit;s true.
[I appreciate there are no nice convenient figures for probability; numbers are illustrative only.]
JH: Many skeptics place the level of confirmation they seek on a par with a TV camera recording an event it happens.
Many (and perhaps all) Christians claim that degree of certainty that the resurrection happened, so why be surprised when sceptics ask for that level confirmation?
Pix
It makes much more sense to believe your beliefs than to feel a vested imterest in destroying the belief of others,what does it hurt you if i believe in Jesus?
3/27/2017 01:20:00 AM Delete
With regards to the actual evidence:
JH: (1) Gospels are historical artifact that ques us in to a historically validated set of readigns that can be understood as even older artifacts.
They certainly are historical artifacts. In what sense are they historically validated? They are validated in that we are pretty confident they come from the right time and place (though the authors are debatable and unknown); that is, they are not forgeries. However, their content has not be validated to the extent that we can assume they are all true. They are apologetic works first and foremost, not historical records.
JH: (2) these artifacts testify to the early nature of the empty tomb as a belief of the community.
Certainly by the end of the first century.
no by the middle, the article net week will prove that,
JH: (3) community contained eye witnesses. so this fact would have been screened out if it as false.
It would have contained witnesses for a while, but until when?
only 18 years to mid century there were a lot of witnesses left y that time,James, Peter, John
Who witnessed the empty tomb? According to the original version (Mark), Mary and Salome, and they never told anyone, and were perhaps 50 years older at the crucifixion, and likely dead when Mark was written.
totally wrong, no evidence it was Mark Salome did not witness she found teh empty tom,
Who witnessed the risen Jesus? All the original version said was Jesus would see the disciples in Galilee in some unspecified manner. All the Jerusalem appearances, any account of a physical Jesus were written after witnesses were dead.
read my pages on doxa I harmonized and made wnse of it
JH: (4) It was spread about from an early time thus we can infer form it that the eye witnesses to the situation approved.
But we do not know exactly what they approved. I am pretty sure the disciples saw something that they took to be the risen Jesus, but whether this was anything more than the bright light Paul saw is unknown.
story of the empty tomb in witting by mid century and it;s an independent tradition from the canonical gospels. don't you remember our go round on this stuff? we covered it all. how we met
We have to give the original document priority, and the text in the original Mark clearly indicates Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee and not in Jerusalem. This makes it highly likely that the Jerusalem sightings were later embellishments.
Mark was not the first writing just the first canonical, Gospel of Peter is am early tradition indidenpnent of the four,
Pix: Who witnessed the empty tomb? According to the original version (Mark), Mary and Salome, and they never told anyone, and were perhaps 50 years older at the crucifixion, and likely dead when Mark was written.
JH: totally wrong, no evidence it was Mark Salome did not witness she found teh empty tom,
What are you trying to say here? Mark 16:1 says Salome and Mary(s) found the empty tomb, with no suggestion anyone else knew anything about it.
JH: read my pages on doxa I harmonized and made wnse of it
Read Mark in isolation, and see what it says. Sure you can harmonise all the accounts, Christianity has had nearly 2000 years to do that. But the original indicates no appearances in Jerusalem.
JH: Mark was not the first writing just the first canonical, Gospel of Peter is am early tradition indidenpnent of the four,
But what we have now is a heavily edited version of Peter, and we do not know what was in it originally and what was added later.
Pix
fair enough
Pix: Who witnessed the empty tomb? According to the original version (Mark), Mary and Salome, and they never told anyone, and were perhaps 50 years older at the crucifixion, and likely dead when Mark was written.
Mark is not the original version,there were other versions written before Mark including Ur Mark written the 30s. They told the stories in the groups before they wrote them down so they all knew the story and the telling was controlled with eye witnesses there.
JH: totally wrong, no evidence it was Mark Salome did not witness she found teh empty tom,
What are you trying to say here? Mark 16:1 says Salome and Mary(s) found the empty tomb, with no suggestion anyone else knew anything about it.
since that was not the first version written there had to be others,Mark wasn't there,he learned it all from Peter.Mark acted as Pete's interpreter in Rome.
JH: read my pages on doxa I harmonized and made wnse of it
Read Mark in isolation, and see what it says. Sure you can harmonise all the accounts, Christianity has had nearly 2000 years to do that. But the original indicates no appearances in Jerusalem.
Obviously I've read Mark,im Geek why are yo putting so much emphasis on Mark?
JH: Mark was not the first writing just the first canonical, Gospel of Peter is am early tradition indidenpnent of the four,
But what we have now is a heavily edited version of Peter, and we do not know what was in it originally and what was added later.
Gospel of peter was not really written by Pete. Mark has more influence from real Peter according to Papias. Bit Gospel of Peter does use an independent tradition that is as old as mark. We can also reconstruct Q which is older than Mark. Much of the Gospel of Thomas reads Like Q and is as old as Mark.
There is the Gospel of the Savior and Egerton 2 these are as old as mark or older.
I appreciate there are versions prior to Mark, but Mark is the earliest telling that we have. Although we have Peter, what we have is a heavily edited version that post-dates Mark by several years, and no way to tell what was in the original. Similarly, we have no idea what was in those stories they told each other besides what we see in Mark.
JH: since that was not the first version written there had to be others,Mark wasn't there,he learned it all from Peter.Mark acted as Pete's interpreter in Rome.
How does this relate to your comment about Salome?
JH: Obviously I've read Mark,im Geek why are yo putting so much emphasis on Mark?
Because it is the earliest version that we have. Matthew and Luke are clearly derivative, and John was wruitten even later. Surely you appreciate that the earliest document will generally be taken as most accurate?
JH: Gospel of peter was not really written by Pete. Mark has more influence from real Peter according to Papias. Bit Gospel of Peter does use an independent tradition that is as old as mark. We can also reconstruct Q which is older than Mark. Much of the Gospel of Thomas reads Like Q and is as old as Mark.
The Gospel of Peter, like Mark, ends without Jesus seen physically, and instead implies that Jesus was seen - in some manner - outside Jerusalem. This is even more evidence that all the Jerusalem appearances were later embellishments.
While it does have the empty tomb, it is not at all clear that Peter pre-dates Mark, with many scholars saying it depends on all four canonical gospels (eg Raymond Brown).
JH: There is the Gospel of the Savior and Egerton 2 these are as old as mark or older.
Early Christian Writings date Gospel of the Savior to AD 120-180. Egerton 2 is certainly dated earlier than that, but the text has nothing about an empty tomb or resurrection or indeed anything at all miraculous.
Pix
JH: Mark is not the original version,there were other versions written before Mark including Ur Mark written the 30s. They told the stories in the groups before they wrote them down so they all knew the story and the telling was controlled with eye witnesses there.
I appreciate there are versions prior to Mark, but Mark is the earliest telling that we have. Although we have Peter, what we have is a heavily edited version that post-dates Mark by several years, and no way to tell what was in the original. Similarly, we have no idea what was in those stories they told each other besides what we see in Mark.
True but that doesn't justify making assumptions based upon Mark as though it is the exact actuate retelling to exclusion of all other data,
JH: since that was not the first version written there had to be others,Mark wasn't there,he learned it all from Peter.Mark acted as Pete's interpreter in Rome.
How does this relate to your comment about Salome?
no reason to assume she wa alone, We can peice together what happened amd Mary M's sighting becomes important too
JH: Obviously I've read Mark,im Geek why are yo putting so much emphasis on Mark?
Because it is the earliest version that we have. Matthew and Luke are clearly derivative, and John was written even later. Surely you appreciate that the earliest document will generally be taken as most accurate?
no, especially since you just admitted it;s not the bearlike, you are saying lets pretend it;s the earliest because it;s what we have. Even so Mark does not say they did not tell anyone,
JH: Gospel of peter was not really written by Pete. Mark has more influence from real Peter according to Papias. Bit Gospel of Peter does use an independent tradition that is as old as mark. We can also reconstruct Q which is older than Mark. Much of the Gospel of Thomas reads Like Q and is as old as Mark.
The Gospel of Peter, like Mark, ends without Jesus seen physically, and instead implies that Jesus was seen - in some manner - outside Jerusalem. This is even more evidence that all the Jerusalem appearances were later embellishments.
we do see Jesus coming out the Tomb in Peter although probably not the early stuff,
While it does have the empty tomb, it is not at all clear that Peter pre-dates Mark, with many scholars saying it depends on all four canonical gospels (eg Raymond Brown).
Peter commotions an early independent tradition but we can't say "iot" pre dates becasue "it" is a compilation of different traditions,
JH: There is the Gospel of the Savior and Egerton 2 these are as old as mark or older.
Early Christian Writings date Gospel of the Savior to AD 120-180. Egerton 2 is certainly dated earlier than that, but the text has nothing about an empty tomb or resurrection or indeed anything at all miraculous.
wrong/ those are the final produce of the fragments we have but the diesterronic research that led to koester;s stuff a out PMPN identifies both sources as contain compassion narrative readings,
I am sure it is not. However, it does offer a snapshot of what was believed at the time of writing, and the point here is that that gives a better idea of what actually happened than the snapshots prvided by the other canonical gospels, as they appeared later.
JH: no reason to assume she wa alone, We can peice together what happened amd Mary M's sighting becomes important too
Who said she was alone?
JH: no, especially since you just admitted it;s not the bearlike, you are saying lets pretend it;s the earliest because it;s what we have.
If we want to work out what really happened, the place to start is the earliest text that we have. Earlier texts that we do not have are really not going to tell us much because we do not have them.
JH: Even so Mark does not say they did not tell anyone,
Mark 16:8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
JH: we do see Jesus coming out the Tomb in Peter although probably not the early stuff,
I am looking at this version, translated by Brown. In it, Jesus is not seen, but they are told he will be seen in Galilee, consistent with Mark, and implying he is not seen in Jerusalem.
JH: Peter commotions an early independent tradition but we can't say "iot" pre dates becasue "it" is a compilation of different traditions,
Okay.
JH: wrong/ those are the final produce of the fragments we have but the diesterronic research that led to koester;s stuff a out PMPN identifies both sources as contain compassion narrative readings,
If they have nothing from the passion narrative then it can tell us nothing about what was in the passion narrative. Sure, they may have had that at one time, but that does not help; we still get nothing from them about what was in the passion narrative.
the passim narrative was dissected and dispersed through new docs that's how Gospels were constructed. But enough original readings survive we piece it together,
Pix
Your neighbor publishes this story on her weekly psychic blog.
Within days, several of your neighbors report having seen “something” above your house the night of your missing keys. Some even claim to have seen the aliens on your roof.
There is no other evidence to suggest why your keys are missing.
Question: Should you believe this very extraordinary explanation for your missing keys just because there are eyewitnesses and it is the only story that exists?
God is Real
God entered human history as a man, the incarnate logos
As a man the incarnate logos died on the cross as a statement of solidarity between God and man,thus creating the ground for our forgiveness, and rose from the dead as a symbol of the ultimate transfomrative experience God offers us.
That idea has been valued, accepted, developed by some of the greatest mins in history. there is no reason why I should see it an analogous to the crap you were jabering about.
And there are multiple, much more probable explanations for a missing body and for alleged reanimated-dead-body sightings than the very extraordinary explanation that an ancient middle eastern deity breathed life back into a three-day-brain dead corpse even if there are alleged witnesses and it is the only story that exists.
Many of us skeptics acknowledge the possible existence of evidence for a generic Creator. But we do not believe that this evidence automatically translates to evidence for Yahweh. To us, if there is a Creator, he/she/they/it have determined that the universe is to operate by inviolable laws that are NEVER violated. Yahweh claims to have repeatedly violated these laws. Since science has found no evidence of these violations, we believe that this is but one piece of evidence of Yahweh’s non-existence. And there is more evidence of his non-existence: The consensus of geologists is that Noah’s Flood is a myth. The consensus of archeologists is that the Exodus is a myth. The consensus of biologists is that the Creation story is a myth. The consensus of cosmologists is that the age of the earth as determined by the genealogies in the OT is a myth. In addition, Yahweh believes that a “firmament”, a dome or shell, exists above the earth. Scientists say no such entity exists. There is just too much evidence to believe that Yahweh exists. It is much more probable that he is the figment of the imagination of an ancient, scientifically ignorant people. And without presuming the existence of Yahweh, there are just too many much more probable explanations for the early Christian resurrection belief than a never heard of before or since reanimation of a three day brain dead corpse.
Gary this is what logicians call a "red herring" but it also borders on argumet from analogy, you want to drag us off the scent by talking about a completely different issue, we are not talking about keys we are talking about a tomb guarded by Romans that turned up empty, that is not analogous to lost keys.
And there are multiple, much more probable explanations for a missing body and for alleged reanimated-dead-body sightings than the very extraordinary explanation that an ancient middle eastern deity breathed life back into a three-day-brain dead corpse even if there are alleged witnesses and it is the only story that exists.
so how did they get the body past the guards? Roman solders were executed for sleeping on duty so they could not bribe them, the tomb turns up empty they died, how did they get the body poast them?
you just can't tell me what they are, but that's true that belief in God is a major difference but also it's because I came to believe in God through the experience of God's power in my life,so that shows me that he's real.
Many of us skeptics acknowledge the possible existence of evidence for a generic Creator. But we do not believe that this evidence automatically translates to evidence for Yahweh. To us, if there is a Creator, he/she/they/it have determined that the universe is to operate by inviolable laws that are NEVER violated.
that would explain them being inviolable.
Yahweh claims to have repeatedly violated these laws.
no he doesn't. No passage anywhere quote's God saying I have voided these laws. He just does it. I've seen it.
Since science has found no evidence of these violations, we believe that this is but one piece of evidence of Yahweh’s non-existence.
Do you realize your augment contradicts science? Scientists say Physical laws are not real laws they are descriptions of the way the universe behaves. mere descriptions can't be inviolable that would make them prescriptive laws.
Moreover, since God created the laws he's not subject to them and he can rewrite them or suspend them.
And there is more evidence of his non-existence: The consensus of geologists is that Noah’s Flood is a myth. The consensus of archeologists is that the Exodus is a myth.
There is no evidence that God does not exist.m first your inviolable law nonsense is pure naive, it's contradicted by all major scientific thought since the nineteenth century. it;s contradicted by Karl Popper. We can't prove the universe is always going to act the same way you would have to make infinite eternal observations to prove that. Science can only extrapolate all it gives us is verisimilitude.
More importantly evidence that the bible stories are wrong is not evidence of no God.The most it proves is that the stories are wrong,it doesn't even disprove the Christian God
No big deal thee is no logical reason why God's existence, or even the truth of Christianity is tied to the Bible. No passage in the bible says: this is the bible you must believe it." No passage in Bible says Genesis has to be a literal histoircal account.
Stat by showing how they got the body past the guards. That alone blocks your argument.
Even if we held not no miracles at all there is still reason to be a Christian.The resurrection,even though I believe in it, without being literal is still a powerful symbol of something that is real.I have 200 studies backing that something,ie religious experience.
I know you are smarter than this, Joe. I have interacted with you many times. You are very much aware than even many Christian scholars doubt the historicity of "Matthew's" Guards at the Tomb story. But even if there were guards at the tomb. Which is more probable given cumulative human experience:
-professional soldiers get sloppy and leave their post for a brief time, allowing the body to be stolen.
-a three-day-brain-dead corpse comes back to life.
I do not doubt that you seriously believe this, Joe. But sincere belief does not prove that your belief is true. There are hundreds of religious belief systems in the world, each one with very devout followers who believe that they follow the one and only truth. Neither do intense feelings and intense personal experiences prove the existence of your god, Yahweh. Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, etc., all share testimonies of similar intense feelings, miracles, and personal experiences of their gods.
So feelings and personal experiences are not good evidence for the existence of Yahweh and the veracity of Christianity.
Moreover, since God created the laws he's not subject to them and he can rewrite them or suspend them."
You are correct that the "laws" of nature are not laws in the legal sense of that word. For instance, the "Law" of Gravity can be abolished if new evidence is presented that proves this concept is false. In reality, all natural laws are really just theories. We call them "laws" when they are so probable to be true that they are accepted as fact UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.
There is no confirmed evidence that the theories which scientists refer to as "the laws of nature" have ever been broken. Therefore claims of miracles are only that: claims. They cannot be used as clear evidence for the existence of a god.
You are absolutely correct. If Yahweh exists, he can suspend the "laws" of nature anytime he chooses. But so can Zeus, Jupiter, and the Spaghetti Monster...in theory. However, if you want to prove scientifically that one of these entities has actually violated the "laws" of nature, to scientists, you need to provide evidence following the standard protocol of the Scientific Method. If you want to appeal to "faith" to believe that violations of the "laws" of nature have occurred due to the supernatural powers of Yahweh, or Zeus, or Jupiter, or whomever, you are certainly free to do so, but if you want anyone outside of your religious community to take you seriously, you need actual evidence, collected in the proper manner.
As you state that you are not a fundamentalist, I am surprised that you seem to either not be aware or not accept the consensus position of NT scholars that the Gospels are not primary source documents; they were not written by eyewitnesses. Even NT Wright says, "I don't know who the Gospels authors were, nor does anyone else."
If these documents were not written by eyewitnesses how in the world can we be certain that they are historically accurate? I am willing to accept as historical fact that Jesus existed; was crucified; and that shortly after his death his followers believed that he appeared to them in some fashion. Beyond that, we are into the world of speculation.
I know you are smarter than this, Joe. I have interacted with you many times. You are very much aware than even many Christian scholars doubt the historicity of "Matthew's" Guards at the Tomb story. But even if there were guards at the tomb. Which is more probable given cumulative human experience:
-professional soldiers get sloppy and leave their post for a brief time, allowing the body to be stolen.
-a three-day-brain-dead corpse comes back to life.
two early independent sources attesting to the guards, Matthew and PNNPH as seen in Peter.
Romans really killed guards who deserted the post s they would not do so,
"you just can't tell me what they are, but that's true that belief in God is a major difference but also it's because I came to believe in God through the experience of God's power in my life, so that shows me that he's real."
I do not doubt that you seriously believe this, Joe. But sincere belief does not prove that your belief is true. There are hundreds of religious belief systems in the world, each one with very devout followers who believe that they follow the one and only truth.
hat doesn't disprove Christianity just because there's a possibility of some other faith being true. more importantly they are all true that the same experiences of God are filtered through culture. the fact that religious experiences are the same indicates they are in contact with the sane reality,
Neither do intense feelings and intense personal experiences prove the existence of your god, Yahweh. Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, etc., all share testimonies of similar intense feelings, miracles, and personal experiences of their gods.
the effects of having the experience or the point not the intensity of feeling
So feelings and personal experiences are not good evidence for the existence of Yahweh and the veracity of Christianity.
they are fantastic evidence if yo know how to use them. Most atheists run from the knowledge so they don't even try to listen.
"Do you realize your augment contradicts science? Scientists say Physical laws are not real laws they are descriptions of the way the universe behaves. mere descriptions can't be inviolable that would make them prescriptive laws.
Moreover, since God created the laws he's not subject to them and he can rewrite them or suspend them."
You are correct that the "laws" of nature are not laws in the legal sense of that word. For instance, the "Law" of Gravity can be abolished if new evidence is presented that proves this concept is false. In reality, all natural laws are really just theories. We call them "laws" when they are so probable to be true that they are accepted as fact UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.
so they are not inviolable especially for God
There is no confirmed evidence that the theories which scientists refer to as "the laws of nature" have ever been broken. Therefore claims of miracles are only that: claims. They cannot be used as clear evidence for the existence of a god.
we are not talking about breaking them we are talking about making them. If the law is made with a proviso that it's creator gets to bend the law his own will when he chooses he's not breaking it is he? If he did he made it so he has the power.
You are absolutely correct. If Yahweh exists, he can suspend the "laws" of nature anytime he chooses. But so can Zeus, Jupiter, and the Spaghetti Monster...in theory.
that's irrelevant,The fact that we could call God any name doesn't eliminate the fact of God. There's no reason to assume those are actual gods or that tetchy are above the true creator. Those gods in their respective myths were not creators.
However, if you want to prove scientifically that one of these entities has actually violated the "laws" of nature, to scientists, you need to provide evidence following the standard protocol of the Scientific Method.
No I don't, logic is quite sufficient
If you want to appeal to "faith" to believe that violations of the "laws" of nature have occurred due to the supernatural powers of Yahweh, or Zeus, or Jupiter, or whomever, you are certainly free to do so, but if you want anyone outside of your religious community to take you seriously, you need actual evidence, collected in the proper manner.
I just appealed to neither science nor faith, but to logic. it behooves you to argue logically therefore.
Blogger Gary said...
"Gary, There is plenty of backing for the historical validity of the Gospels."
As you state that you are not a fundamentalist, I am surprised that you seem to either not be aware or not accept the consensus position of NT scholars that the Gospels are not primary source documents; they were not written by eyewitnesses. Even NT Wright says, "I don't know who the Gospels authors were, nor does anyone else."
That's not necessarily the case, even for liberal scholars. It's tricky what er mean by primary source.for example Mat uses Q so Q is mammary not mat but that does not mean that Mat is invalid as a record of Jesus' teachings or actions. WE no primary document since we don't have Q.It's not necessary since the community that produced Matt was the witness. You need to read Luke Timothy Johnson, Helutt,Koester, Raymond Brown,
If these documents were not written by eyewitnesses how in the world can we be certain that they are historically accurate?
they are, the gospels are produced by communities and the continuity was full of witnesses.The communities allowed the witnesses to tell and to control further telling of the stories,
I am willing to accept as historical fact that Jesus existed; was crucified; and that shortly after his death his followers believed that he appeared to them in some fashion. Beyond that, we are into the world of speculation.
Not quite, there are two other things (1) community testimony OT the gaurds on the tom and the empty tom (2) our on experiences of god in THE WORLD
Major assumption. The glue that holds together the Christian supernatural claims, I'm sorry to say.
NT scholar Richard Bauckham, the darling of conservative Christians, believes that the author of the Gospel of Matthew, who was not Matthew, borrowed Mark's story about the calling of the tax collector Levi to create the fictional story about the calling of the tax collector Matthew! Mike Licona believes that "Matthew's" story about dead saints being shaken out of their graves at the moment of Jesus' death is literary hyperbole, not historical. If your "witnesses" existed and were so zealously guarding the truth, how did they let these fictional stories into the Gospels?
1. This position is only held by fundamentalists.
2. Feelings and personal experiences are not good evidence in most situations. Most people find the scientific method has a better track record of accuracy.
(Joe)"the gospels are produced by communities and the continuity was full of witnesses. The communities allowed the witnesses to tell and to control further telling of the stories..."
Major assumption. The glue that holds together the Christian supernatural claims, I'm sorry to say.
first stop misusing the term Supernatural,It doesn't mean non-science or miracles or anything wired. It essentially refers to mystical experience, Secondly, nothing SN about witnesses telling thier story, however you use the term.
NT scholar Richard Bauckham, the darling of conservative Christians, believes that the author of the Gospel of Matthew, who was not Matthew, borrowed Mark's story about the calling of the tax collector Levi to create the fictional story about the calling of the tax collector Matthew! Mike Licona believes that "Matthew's" story about dead saints being shaken out of their graves at the moment of Jesus' death is literary hyperbole, not historical. If your "witnesses" existed and were so zealously guarding the truth, how did they let these fictional stories into the Gospels?
First of all Bauckhom is a fine scholar,its stupid to dismiss him as:darling of conservatives," he has some very important arguments that need to be known. Secondly, peripheral issues like the story Matt's calling and who Matt was are not important that is only one guy's opinion.
4/10/2017 03:07:00 PM Delete
Blogger Gary said...
"(1) community testimony OT the guards on the tom and the empty tom (2) our on experiences of god in THE WORLD"
1. This position is only held by fundamentalists.
Wrong! ray Brown was not a fundie and heis eh major source on taht argument. Sour major literal scholars who believe in the Resurrection: Moltmann, Kaseman, Pannenberg,Pinkus, maybe more.
2. Feelings and personal experiences are not good evidence in most situations. Most people find the scientific method has a better track record of accuracy.
wrong,you are afraid of feelings as are most atheists because they don't know how to control them. That isone of the first things the Holy Spirit teaches us is hkow tocontrol feelings.
My book the Trace of God, draws upon 200 empirical peer reviewed studies from academic journals and all of eh prove in one way or another that religious experience is valid,vital,true,and good for you, the experiments leave the effect upon those who who experiences it of caning one's life and they transform people's love accords the board.
My book
The trace of God
the effects of religious experience upon the experiencers as found by two of the major studies,
Wuthnow:
*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style
Noble:
*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion
It's an ancient tall tale, Joe. You are a smart guy. Honor and follow the wonderful humanistic teachings of Jesus but dump all the supernatural hocus pocus. The world will be much better off without religious superstitions.
apparently they do at times, you are just begging the question, You re basing that upon the fact that we seem never to observe ordinary mortals coming back to life, that's what makes it a miracle. The explanation is Jesus was not not ordinary he was the son of god,so while the average person can't do it apparently the son of God can.
It's an ancient tall tale, Joe. You are a smart guy. Honor and follow the wonderful humanistic teachings of Jesus but dump all the supernatural hocus pocus. The world will be much better off without religious superstitions.
you need some palm-plams to go with that cheer, you are not arguing, you just are cheer leading,
atheism atheism sis boom bahm,atheism atehisism rahr rfah rah,
still using the term supernatural wrong, since SN really refers to mystical experience I have 200 studis taht prove teh SN,
Possible? Yes. Probable? Absolutely not.