“Tekmerion.”
In Greek, the word means “decisive, infallible, or convincing proof.” In his Institutio Oratoria, Quintilian said this about the word, “All artificial proofs, then, as I say, are distinguished, first of all, into two kinds, one in which the conclusion is necessary, the other in which it is not necessary. The former are those which cannot be otherwise, and which the Greeks call τεκμήρια (tekmēria) or ἄλυτα σημεῖα (aluta sēmeia), "irrefutable signs." These scarcely seem to me to come under the rules of art, for when there is an irrefutable indication, there can be no ground for dispute. This happens whenever a thing must be, or must have been; or cannot be, or cannot have been; and this being stated in a cause, there can be no contention about the point.” (See here for more.)
The New Testament uses the word only once (of which I’m aware). Where? Acts 1:3: “After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs (tekmerios) that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the
While many today have challenged the resurrection, for Luke, Jesus’ bodily and physical resurrection from the dead was beyond doubt. The Christian faith isn't founded on a fable, but on the hard fact (the tekmerion) of Jesus' resurrection. Jesus lives!
6 comments:
The bible makes the claim that some, in those times, received what would have to be, if the stories are true, evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus rose from the dead.
The million dollar question, of course, is whether we have reasonable basis for being convinced that those events and evidences actually occurred as claimed in the stories of the New Testament.
After all, even if Thomas put his hands in the wounds of a risen Christ (and certainly that would be evidence, for Thomas, the one who experienced it, only a fool would doubt), WE have only a book claiming that Thomas experienced those things and practically no evidence outside the bible's mere claims to validate those claims as fact.
And that hardly rises to the level of "tekmerion".
You’ve hit the nail on the head! Can we trust the Bible’s claims?
It’s true WE only have a book claiming that Thomas saw the risen Jesus, but it’s a book written by eyewitnesses. And it was written during the lifetime (estimated dates range from the 40s to the 90s) of those who were alive during the time of Jesus (as Paul says in Acts 26, it didn’t happen “in a corner”). John could have made up the Thomas account, but hundreds (possibly thousands) of people could have said, “That’s not true! Jesus is still dead; look here’s his tomb.” Nobody said that and nobody in the Christian community claimed the resurrection was only spiritual; they were quite emphatic: it was physical.
Even more, what did John stand to gain by inventing a lie? The other apostles were martyred for declaring Jesus’ resurrection. It seems they were fairly certain Jesus was alive (who dies for a lie?). Just look at John’s account in 20:19; the disciples are huddled together in fear of the Jews and a mere 50 days later they are powerfully proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection in Acts 2, joyfully being flogged in Acts 5, and being stoned to death in Acts 7 because they are proclaiming the resurrection. Something has to account for the change. I’d say seeing and touching the risen Jesus is the best explanation.
And we have to account for St. Paul. He goes from persecuting Christians for proclaiming the resurrection, to passionately preaching the resurrection. What accounts for that change?
And book after book in the NT proclaims the resurrection (Paul even records an early Christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15. If Paul began writing in the 40s and 50s, it means the belief in the resurrection was already well established a mere 10 years after Jesus rose). That’s multiple accounts by different authors. It seems a lot of people were firmly convinced that Jesus was alive and nowhere in history do we find anyone saying, “But here’s his body.”
Even more, folks like Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian of Samosata all discuss the historicity of Jesus. Pliny (c. 112 A.D.) even says Christians worshipped Jesus as “a god.” Who worships a crucified and dead god? Pliny understood that Christians thought Jesus was alive.
And the Scriptures are repeatedly corroborated by archaeology (unlike, say, Mormonism).
In terms of historical reliability, nothing in antiquity comes close to the NT. We generally accept the biographies of Alexander the Great as truthful even though they were written over 400 years after his death. The NT was written within 15 to 60 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Sir William Ramsay (one of the greatest archaeologists ever and initially a hostile witness) said, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy… this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.”
And Luke is the one who, after “carefully investigating” (Luke 1:3) everything, concluded Jesus’ resurrection was “tekmerion.”
Taken together, I’d say the evidence is pretty convincing. But I’d love to hear your thoughts.
It’s true WE only have a book claiming that Thomas saw the risen Jesus, but it’s a book written by eyewitnesses.
Please establish this claim. The authorship of many of the books of the NT are very much in doubt among scholars.
And it was written during the lifetime (estimated dates range from the 40s to the 90s) of those who were alive during the time of Jesus (as Paul says in Acts 26, it didn’t happen “in a corner”).
Even were this true and even if one could assume no changes to the manuscripts we've received from the originals (the oldest ones we have are from a couple of centuries or more after Jesus is supposed to have died)---it would still do nothing more than establish that people between the years 40 and 90 made particular claims about Jesus.
Even more, what did John stand to gain by inventing a lie?
1. I don't know with any degree of surety who wrote the Gospel of John.
2. I don't know if the Gospel of John has come done to use in the form it was originally written.
3. Humans lie and humans delude themselves. We have people living today who have claimed to see, with their own eyes, gurus in India perform remarkable miracles. I don't buy these peoples stories, presumably you don't either, so why should we be inclined to believe mere ancient manuscripts when we don't believe such stories from the mouths of living persons?
Even more, folks like Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian of Samosata all discuss the historicity of Jesus. Pliny (c. 112 A.D.) even says Christians worshipped Jesus as “a god.” Who worships a crucified and dead god? Pliny understood that Christians thought Jesus was alive.
Which only shows that the Jesus cult existed during the time of these historians---and no one really disputes that.
In terms of historical reliability, nothing in antiquity comes close to the NT. We generally accept the biographies of Alexander the Great as truthful even though they were written over 400 years after his death.
Ancient historians record all sorts of wildly ludicrous supernatural events (pagan, christian, and otherwise) which they present as fact.
We don't not generally take these seriously in the ancient histories when they are records of supposed pagan miraculous events and we have no reason to take the christian claims any more seriously.
No more than we generally do such wild claims as they occur today by people claiming to have been eyewitnesses.
Even in the best case scenario (which is far from what we have) you have nothing more than "ancient people not long after Jesus died believed and claimed Jesus rose from the dead".
That's not much.
The authorship of many NT books is questioned by some scholars. I agree. As far as I’m aware, however, few question the authorship of the synoptics.
You said, “Even were this true and even if one could assume no changes to the manuscripts we've received from the originals (the oldest ones we have are from a couple of centuries or more after Jesus is supposed to have died)---it would still do nothing more than establish that people between the years 40 and 90 made particular claims about Jesus.”
Even if the books weren’t written by actual eyewitnesses (or those who interviewed eye witnesses), they still make truth claims that could have been challenged by people who were alive when Jesus was. No one challenged their truth claims.
And in regard to the synoptics, why claim to be Matthew (a tax collector), Mark (not an eye witness), or Luke (not an eye witness)? If Christians were going to try to gain credibility, wouldn’t they have said the Jewish high priest wrote their book or at least Peter?
In regard to changes in the manuscripts, no one doubts that spelling errors and copying mistakes were made, but there are several recorded events that have been preserved that most certainly would have been changed by anyone trying to paint a positive picture of a new world religion. A couple examples: the disciples are continually portrayed as not understanding Jesus and in the resurrection account Jesus first appears to women. There’s no way these would have been preserved by anyone who was changing the story to make it more credible. An excellent book on the historical reliability of the Gospels is Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. I think he’s fair and takes a balanced approach.
In regard to the copies, you’re right the oldest copies we have are from the 3rd and 4th centuries (although we do have a fragment from the early second century), but when you compare that to other works of antiquity, it far exceeds them all. Take Homer’s Iliad, for example, we have over 600 copies of it, but they are 400 years removed from the original. We have eight copies of Herodotus’ History that are over 1300 years removed. We have thousands of NT manuscripts (fragments, partials, and completes) within a couple hundred years. It is by far the best attested document in the world. Why accept any other ancient historical document and not the NT?
I know the question remains, “Can we trust them?” Well, it’s all too easy to say, “The possibility exists that they could have been substantially changed. Therefore, I won’t trust them,” but that leaves me doubting almost every historical account I’ve ever read.
It’s true that ancient historians record all sorts of “wildly ludicrous supernatural events,” but the NT is careful to set Jesus’ supernatural events in a specific historical context. They opened themselves to correction. Many of the pagan supernatural events take place “once upon a time.”
You say, “Even in the best case scenario (which is far from what we have) you have nothing more than "ancient people not long after Jesus died believed and claimed Jesus rose from the dead.” The fact that anybody believed Jesus rose from the dead is remarkable. I don’t think it’s fair simply to say “People believe strange things. The NT is no different. So, I’ll dismiss them all.” I think the more you investigate the other “strange things” against the “strange thing” of Jesus’ resurrection, the more you’ll see the marked differences between what people actually were claiming and believing.
If you are genuinely interested in this topic and want an extensive study on it, check out Larry Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Warning, it’s over 700 pages of thickly footnoted material. It’s only something you will want to read if you really want a thorough study of the topic.
I’d love to continue our conversation. As we do so, please offer me specific criticisms so I can be challenged to respond individually. Painting in broad strokes obviously isn’t working for either of us.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Even if the books weren’t written by actual eyewitnesses (or those who interviewed eye witnesses), they still make truth claims that could have been challenged by people who were alive when Jesus was. No one challenged their truth claims.
Actually, we don't know that. We only know that no record of any challenge, if it was made, survives.
And why would we expect it to? Who would have bothered to make records of the challenges to the claims of what to most at the time would have seemed just another nutty cult?
And even if such records had existed somewhere at some time who would have bothered to copy and preserve them over the course of the centuries? Christianity came to dominate Roman society and religions tend not to preserve the writings of their enemies too well.
It’s true that ancient historians record all sorts of “wildly ludicrous supernatural events,” but the NT is careful to set Jesus’ supernatural events in a specific historical context. They opened themselves to correction.
Really. And how would anyone skeptical of the claim that Jesus rose from the dead "correct" the claim that he had done so?
You said previously that they could have displayed his body.
But that would only be possible for a very short period of time after his death before identification became impossible by that means due to decay. Even the Bible, in the Book of Acts, records that the missionary work began more than sufficient amount of time after his death that the body would not have been identifiable.
I’d love to continue our conversation. As we do so, please offer me specific criticisms so I can be challenged to respond individually. Painting in broad strokes obviously isn’t working for either of us.
Its difficult for me to give particularly specific criticism when your claims are so broad and general.
I'll be happy to give more indepth counterarguments if you offer more indepth arguments in the first place.
Take Homer’s Iliad, for example, we have over 600 copies of it, but they are 400 years removed from the original. We have eight copies of Herodotus’ History that are over 1300 years removed. We have thousands of NT manuscripts (fragments, partials, and completes) within a couple hundred years. It is by far the best attested document in the world. Why accept any other ancient historical document and not the NT?
Why accept other historical documents and not the NT?
Is there any historian who "accepts" THE ILIAD as historical fact, as written, complete and entire?
I rather suspect not.
The question is not "why accept other documents and not the NT" but why accept the NT in a way and to a degree that we accept no other document in all of history---especially in regard to such utterly remarkable claims---the sorts of claims not taken seriously not only in regard to ancient extraordinary claims recorded by ancient historians but even by living person in our own times.
Who takes seriously the stories of alien abduction today?
Practically no one. Probably you don't any more than I do. And this when there are thousands, THOUSANDS, of people, alive right now, who claim this happened to them.
And that's only one of thousands of extraordinary claims made by people living today, claiming to be eyewitnesses, that you surely take no more seriously than I do.
The authorship of many NT books is questioned by some scholars. I agree. As far as I’m aware, however, few question the authorship of the synoptics.
I did a quick look on wikipedia for sources related to the Gospel of Matthew.
It claims that concerning biblical scholars today that "the majority agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name" citing page 92 of Bart D. Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, published in 2004, as its source.
I'm not endorsing wikipedia as an infallible source of information. Just a place to make a quick search of sources of relevent information.
What are your sources for thinking "few question the authorship of the synoptics"? My own reading on the topic (though admittedly many years ago that I researched this issue) indicated that scholars have been in great doubt as to the authorship of the synoptic gospels.
Post a Comment