Peter

Your examples of post modernist thought are apposite. I suppose my only point is that it obfuscates rather than clarifies to bring together under a single descriptor the quite diverse ebbs and flows of thought and theory in the various fields you mention. Further, these conceptual movements are nothing special- they are what has always happened in the history of thought.

Out post modernism, out I say!!

You say

But as regards the historicity of the New Testament, and the resurrection of Jesus in particular, the testimony of the NT itself is that the story depends on its factual basis

I do not deny this is what the NT claims, not at all. What I do claim is that the evidence in support of it is woefully mismatched with the claim that is made.

The claim about the resurrection has two relevant characteristics

1. it is about an extraordinary happening that is completely contrary to anything you or I have ever experienced

2. it is a happening of supreme importance not only for humanity’s future but also for the world’s; and if I accept it I will need to change my life.

If I need evidence to support my belief in the resurrection it will thus need to be very good evidence. As regards 1 above, Hume’s argument is relevant: it is more likely that the observer is mistaken than that something so contrary to the natural order occurred. You could say in response, what about if the evidence is very good- let us say, as good as the evidence that George Bush was inaugurated for a second time on Jan 20 2005 with all the still and motion camera pictures, sound bites, oral testimony of close family, friends and aides as well as thousands of others physically present. Would such evidence undermine Hume’s argument, if it were obtainable for the resurrection? Perhaps yes, perhaps no ( you could argue that the first George Bush was secretly replaced second time round by an artfully contrived wind up doll on the grounds that it was likely to be more intelligent).

The point is that nothing like this mass of evidence is available in the case of the resurrection so Hume’s argument is very convincing.

As regards 2 above, I might say of extraordinary occurrences such as the dual nature of light or the esoterica of quantum mechanics or black holes that I believe in them without really worrying too much about whether I have checked out the evidence- because they make no personal claims on me.

But supposing someone said that belief in black holes determines whether I live or die- suddenly the question of the cogency of the evidence becomes very important indeed.

In other words there are two converging reasons for saying that if belief in the resurrection depends on historical evidence then the historical evidence has to be very strong indeed.

And it plainly is not.

But who (apart from the original witnesses) believes in the resurrection because they look at the historical/forensic evidence and say to themselves “Hmmm, that looks pretty sound, I guess I can cop that”. Very rare, I would have thought. That is why I argue that the requirement for historical/forensic evidence is really a post factum concern about whether belief in such a thing is intellectually respectable- respectable enough to satisfy someone like Hume.

And the answer is that it is not- as 1 Cor 18ff cheerfully accepts.

In your final para you say

Christian faith is no more ‘truth’ that can be objectively proved than anything else in which proofs are being applied. On the other hand, its operations do somewhat depend on events which require a historical anchoring for their validity. It relates to this world, and our lives; this world’s history, and the place our lives occupy in that history. It is not, in the end, purely a spiritual, existential phenomenon, and by no criteria could that be said to have been the message Jesus came to bring.

I do not think my view of the historicity of the resurrection entails Christianity as being a purely a spiritual, existential phenomenon. However I think there are real issues about the how God appears in the world. Is God the inveterate interventionist and puppeteer of the OT? Or is God a hidden God? For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. 1 Corinthians 1: 25

Paul