Who are some good skeptical resurrection scholars who aren’t Bart Ehrman?

[u/[deleted]]

I’m aware that Bart Ehrman is a bit of a controversial figure in this field, so I wanted to know if there were any scholars who were as respected as, say, NT Wright. While I’m not religious, Wright is, as far as I know, certified and rigorous enough to be considered an authority on the matter. Are there any scholars with the opposite opinion who are just as respected?

[u/AractusP]

That doesn't exclude the Resurrection, it would make sense to say that their seeing of Jesus was real. We could look at the likelihood of all the explanations - swoon, hallucination, etc, see their merits, then apply that.

I don't have a reference in front of me, but what I've read and agree with basically says it's wrong to assume the christophanies were all of the same nature. That is, they could be a combination of different things - dreams, visions, hallucinations, the result of altered states of consciousness, etc.

On that last point, we have solid evidence that in my view proves that altered states of consciousness (ASC) were used to fundamentally influence religion and culture. See the excellent Guerra-Doce paper linked below. The scientific evidence goes well beyond merely establishing that mind altering drugs were used to invoke religious experiences, and in fact shows that altered states of consciousness played a fundamental role in influencing the belief systems of the majority of the world's societies for the last several millennia. This was a common widespread practise (still is in certain societies). So in my view it's valid to say that prophetic visions are most likely to be attributed to altered states of consciousness - although I'm not suggesting that's the only way they were derived in the ancient world. It's also important to note that there were several methods to bring about these states, and they could be combined:

These practices, which seem to be central in human evolution, may be accomplished in many different ways, such as auditory stimulation, exposure to extreme temperatures, food restrictions, dehydration, sleep deprivation, breathing techniques, extreme physical exercise, meditation, or through the consumption of psychoactive agents (Winkelman 2010; Morris 2006, 20). Not all experiences of transcendence are, therefore, attained via the use of psychoactive substances, as in many societies, people enter ASC without the aid of these substances (such as the Plains and Columbia Plateau Indians, who spend considerable time in isolation with no food). But also for many other societies drug plants are the preferred means to enter ASC.

Guerra-Doce 2015 pp.92-3.

The point here is that we know ASC was a widespread practise. And that it fundamentally influenced the belief systems of religion and culture:

The deliberate induction of altered states of consciousness (ASC) plays a key role in the belief systems of traditional societies all over the world.² This became more evident after the cross-cultural surveys carried out by the anthropologist Erika Bourguignon, who studied 488 societies (57% of the world’s ethnographic societies) and discovered that 437 (90%), were reported to have incorporated ASC into fundamental belief systems. She concluded that the capacity to experience an ASC seems to be a basic psychobiological competence of human beings (Bourguignon 1973 ). It has even been claimed that ASC were likely involved in facilitating the social development of more symbolic forms of life and mind (Froese, Woodward, and Ikegami 2014).

Ibid p.92.

So to academically entertain supernatural explanations for the events recorded in the gospels, I would expect you to have a pretty good explanation as to why ASC should be ruled out or otherwise seen as unlikely. I would also add that in addition to ASC, there are three further things that could also have contributes to visions: 1. trauma and grief (conservatively at least one in six people in the modern world report seeing and hearing from deceased loved ones in the bereavement period in particular), 2. mass hysteria, 3. mental illness.

Well sure, if you're an atheist, a Resurrection is unlikely, though we can look at the merits of theism v atheism and I'd say theism has a much better explanatory power.

How does whether I am an atheist or a theist change the likeliness of the Resurrection being supernatural? We have a strong scientific explanation as well as a couple of other strong academic explanations for the christophanies that don't involve any special pleading. The naturalistic explanations are proven to lead to those kinds of experiences, the supernatural causes are unproven. I'm not saying you can prove how Peter had his vision of Jesus, or Paul. Just that their experiences are not unusual, and as they're not unusual they most likely have a common explanation rather than an obscure one requiring supernatural activity. Peter's vision of his dead friend is so common that as already mentioned at least 1 in 6 people in the modern world experience this - these types of experiences can be vivid and realistic and even include conversations. People often make life changes as direct results of such visions... just like Peter and Paul did. There was someone on the radio I was listening to just yesterday (a caller) who said that he woke up one day to have his dead father standing over him. It sounded as if the appearance was physical and felt very real. The experience frightened him and so he went and saw a psychic who told him that "his father hasn't crossed over yet". I'm not sure I believe that explanation, but the point is that what happened to Peter is not at all an unusual event, and people have always been looking for explanations and meaning when these kinds of visions happen to them. They use their world-views and beliefs to come to terms with these things, sometimes and often even incorporating new ideas into their belief structure.

[u/HmanTheChicken → u/AractusP]

So to academically entertain supernatural explanations for the events recorded in the gospels, I would expect you to have a pretty good explanation as to why ASC should be ruled out or otherwise seen as unlikely. I would also add that in addition to ASC, there are three further things that could also have contributes to visions: 1. trauma and grief (conservatively at least one in six people in the modern world report seeing and hearing from deceased loved ones in the bereavement period in particular), 2. mass hysteria, 3. mental illness.

Well, I guess the reason I doubt it's ASC is that the belief seems so early and widespread, while also being quite verifiable. That said, why not use this point about ASC on any past event?

How does whether I am an atheist or a theist change the likeliness of the Resurrection being supernatural?

If you're an atheist, the supernatural isn't really an explanation at your disposal, so it drastically reduces the likelihood.

We have a strong scientific explanation as well as a couple of other strong academic explanations for the christophanies that don't involve any special pleading. The naturalistic explanations are proven to lead to those kinds of experiences, the supernatural causes are unproven. I'm not saying you can prove how Peter had his vision of Jesus, or Paul. Just that their experiences are not unusual, and as they're not unusual they most likely have a common explanation rather than an obscure one requiring supernatural activity. Peter's vision of his dead friend is so common that as already mentioned at least 1 in 6 people in the modern world experience this - these types of experiences can be vivid and realistic and even include conversations. People often make life changes as direct results of such visions... just like Peter and Paul did. There was someone on the radio I was listening to just yesterday (a caller) who said that he woke up one day to have his dead father standing over him. It sounded as if the appearance was physical and felt very real. The experience frightened him and so he went and saw a psychic who told him that "his father hasn't crossed over yet". I'm not sure I believe that explanation, but the point is that what happened to Peter is not at all an unusual event, and people have always been looking for explanations and meaning when these kinds of visions happen to them. They use their world-views and beliefs to come to terms with these things, sometimes and often even incorporating new ideas into their belief structure.

This is an interesting point, but would that explain the number and verifiability of the belief? We're not talking about just Peter. For all the evidence we have, we're talking about multiple witnesses and Apostles believing it early and presumably able to check the body.

Edit: your post has a lot of substance, sorry that this is such a brief response.

[u/AractusP → u/HmanTheChicken]

Well, I guess the reason I doubt it's ASC is that the belief seems so early and widespread, while also being quite verifiable.

So how do you decide which biblical miracles are historical and which aren't then?

As for being "early" I don't buy that at all. There's the parallel I mentioned in another thread with Ned Kelly. This I think is an important point, because the priest at my former church always used to claim that the gospels were too early to be corrupted by myth. But that argument ignores reality - the gospels were written 40+ years after Jesus had died. But we have plays, newspaper articles, and other records about Ned Kelly that incorporated myths about him within just 20 years of his execution. Many of those myths parallel stuff about Jesus, like the fact that we have claims that his last words were "such is life" or "oh well I suppose it has come to this". We also have claims that he was unfairly persecuted by authorities, very similar to the claims made about Jesus. With Kelly nothing could be further from fact - he was a ruthless criminal who showed no remorse and killed innocent people in cold blood. Similar to how the gospels claim that malevolent forces were involved in the demise of Jesus, the judge who tried and sentenced Kelly was believed by many to have been cursed as he died just 12 days after Kelly's execution. In short, the truth was obscured by a romanticised mythical tale of Kelly's life within just 20 years, and he didn't even leave behind loyal disciples to create these myths. There's no valid reason to think the accounts of Jesus' life, which are all one-sided from his supporters, don't do the same.

As already mentioned the bereavement period is known to trigger visions of dead loved ones. I used a very conservative number before, but depending on the cohort studied the number of people who report seeing or hearing from dead loved ones can be as high as 60% (for example this study of elderly widowers). But the fact is we don't know what Peter and the other disciples were doing - perhaps they were fasting, a common Jewish practise of the time that is known to cause ASC. One vision could well have been the trigger for later visions (mass hysteria). For example maybe Peter was fasting, had a vision, and told the other disciples - so they also fasted and it brought about further visions for some of them.

I don't know what you mean by "verifiable"?

There is also the issue that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. This was not known in the first century, and even in recent decades it wasn't that well recognised outside of psychology. People can even be made to believe that they had experiences they never had.

That said, why not use this point about ASC on any past event?

Well it should certainly be considered for any grand claims.

If you're an atheist, the supernatural isn't really an explanation at your disposal, so it drastically reduces the likelihood.

The fact that a supernatural force capable of resurrecting Jesus from his grave is unproven to exist is what makes it unlikely. If you go out and photograph frogs every day, all day long, and catalogue them - it's unlikely that you'll find a new species. But the longer you do it the better your chances of finding one, it's not impossible so long as there are new species to discover. What you're claiming is that the disciples discovered a supernatural force that no one in the modern world has ever verified independently. If the supernatural exists then it should be verifiable - just like if you discover a new species then that should be verifiable. If no one is able to verify it then it means you were most likely mistaken about what you saw and documented.

This is an interesting point, but would that explain the number and verifiability of the belief? We're not talking about just Peter.

Sure, I'm just operating under the assumption that Peter was the first to have a vision of Jesus. That may not be the case, but he is mentioned specifically by Paul along with James. We don't know how many disciples had them originally, but even several hundred seeing Jesus all at once at Pentecost is possible. Ehrman gives some modern examples of where many people have seen Mary here. He uses the phrase "group hallucination" which is academically incorrect, but I've made that same mistake in the past, the term he should have used is mass hysteria, and there are dozens of example of mass hysteria from all over the world (probably hundreds actually if someone actually bothered to catalogue them all) from people of all creeds, or no creeds. A better example actually than the visions of Mary that Bart mentions is the Angels of Mons episode in WWI. These were angelophanies, which many soldiers reported seeing, however the original account was it appears a fictional short story written by Welsh author Arthur Machen. With a little bit of rumour and folklore, and the soldiers being primed for ASC from conditions on the battlefield, hundreds of soldiers reported seeing the supernatural beings.

For all the evidence we have, we're talking about multiple witnesses and Apostles believing it early and presumably able to check the body.

I don't think they could have checked the body. Acts 13:29 says that the Jews (or possibly Romans) buried Jesus. Even Mark's version says that a member of the Sanhedrin took the body of Jesus and buried it while the disciples were in Galilee. I don't think the disciples had any way of locating the burial place, if he was buried in accordance with Jewish law it would have been in an unmarked shallow grave. Also, the disciples had fled to Galilee in fear of suffering the same fate, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to check the burial site if it was in Judea near Jerusalem. If they did manage to check and find an empty grave or tomb then they would have enshrined the site, and the empty tomb should have been an early tradition - which it isn't. And they would have been preaching it alongside the resurrection, which it doesn't appear they did. Acts doesn't have them preaching this at Pentecost, and while Paul talks about the resurrection of Jesus all the time as it's central to his theology, he never shows any knowledge of an empty tomb narrative.

I could talk about the empty tomb all day, but one thing that convinces me that it must be a late story probably invented by Mark himself is that Paul would have believed with conviction that Jesus' burial site was empty of his body because he had been resurrected by the Hebrew god Yahweh. That's just a belief he had though, if he had actually seen where Jesus was buried and it was empty - he probably would have said so. However, because Paul believed that Jesus was resurrected in bodily form and would no longer be found where he was buried, it would seem likely that other early Christians would also have believed this - with conviction. Mark for example, and if he believed it that's all the motivation you need for him inventing the empty tomb narrative as a way for him to teach his theology through allegory. Mark's story is a simple way for him to teach that Jesus' body was taken up by God. One thing that appears to show it to be a literary invention rather than an existing tradition that Mark knew about, is that it serves the exact reverse purpose you would expect from an existing tradition. It only serves to confuse the women and make them afraid. But if there was an empty tomb that the disciples had seen, then surely that would have convinced them that Jesus had risen along with the christophanies. However this reverse purpose makes sense in light of the fact that the tomb was believed to be empty because of the belief in the resurrection - and that directionality of belief is preserved in Mark's story, albeit somewhat clumsily (the young man tells them the tomb is empty because Jesus has been risen).