Spring Break
Who dies for lies?
William Mulgrew
Issue date: 4/13/07 Section: Ed-Op
- Page 1 of 3 next >
Nearly 2,000 years ago, on a day we now celebrate as Easter, a man named Jesus Christ supposedly rose from the dead. The debate of what really happened continues and I'm told that we must be open to many possibilities.
Some say that Jesus didn't really die on the cross, but secretly survived, or had someone else die in his place. Others say that he died, but his disciplines stole his body and propagated the lie to preserve his legacy.
We know from the principle of Occam's Razor that not all possibilities are equally logical or valid. All things being equal, the simplest explanation, or the one with the least assumptions, is best. How does Occam's Razor apply to the death and resurrection of Christ and why is this so offensive?
So often some resort to textual criticism as the first line of attack: The Bible is too old to be trustworthy. It was written some 2,000 years ago, and that's an awfully long time, too long for us to place trust in its accuracy. We don't really know if the Bible we have today is what the authors intended. There's also a gap between the original manuscripts and earliest copies of the New Testament, enough for myths and legends surrounding Jesus' life to emerge.
The problem with this theory is that modern archeology contradicts it. It exists only in popular media, not among serious scholars. When we compare the New Testament to other historical documents, the question arises as to whether we create an arbitrary, unachievable standard.
Does it bother academics that only seven manuscripts exist of Plato's Tetrologies, with the earliest copy dating 1,200 years after Plato wrote them? Yet, we read Plato's Republic and other works without any objections raised over their accuracy.
Perhaps Herodotus, the father of history, could help us out. Only eight manuscripts exist of his History, the earliest copy dating 1,300 years since he wrote it. For Sophocles, Plato's teacher, 100 manuscripts exist (finally, we're getting somewhere!), but the earliest dates 1,400 years since his life. How does the New Testament hold up against this?
Some say that Jesus didn't really die on the cross, but secretly survived, or had someone else die in his place. Others say that he died, but his disciplines stole his body and propagated the lie to preserve his legacy.
We know from the principle of Occam's Razor that not all possibilities are equally logical or valid. All things being equal, the simplest explanation, or the one with the least assumptions, is best. How does Occam's Razor apply to the death and resurrection of Christ and why is this so offensive?
So often some resort to textual criticism as the first line of attack: The Bible is too old to be trustworthy. It was written some 2,000 years ago, and that's an awfully long time, too long for us to place trust in its accuracy. We don't really know if the Bible we have today is what the authors intended. There's also a gap between the original manuscripts and earliest copies of the New Testament, enough for myths and legends surrounding Jesus' life to emerge.
The problem with this theory is that modern archeology contradicts it. It exists only in popular media, not among serious scholars. When we compare the New Testament to other historical documents, the question arises as to whether we create an arbitrary, unachievable standard.
Does it bother academics that only seven manuscripts exist of Plato's Tetrologies, with the earliest copy dating 1,200 years after Plato wrote them? Yet, we read Plato's Republic and other works without any objections raised over their accuracy.
Perhaps Herodotus, the father of history, could help us out. Only eight manuscripts exist of his History, the earliest copy dating 1,300 years since he wrote it. For Sophocles, Plato's teacher, 100 manuscripts exist (finally, we're getting somewhere!), but the earliest dates 1,400 years since his life. How does the New Testament hold up against this?
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
tm324
Tim McGovern
posted 4/19/07 @ 2:12 PM EST
It was not Sophocles, the tragedian, but rather the philosopher Socrates that was Plato's "teacher".
Post a Comment