How Do You Know If You Have Lices

The gospel is historical evidence. Why doubt it? The paradox of mimicry

the comment of a reader, Pasquale, gives me the opportunity to put together a few wires to introduce a new and interesting dialogue Sam Harris. Pasquale asked me, in the comment in question:

believe that there has been a man named Jesus who said and did everything that is written about him is not so different from believing that it is there was a man named Julius Caesar did or said what is written about him. So why do you think, without being issues, that everything you have learned of Julius Caesar is true and everything you have learned of Jesus Christ is false?

I would respond in three ways:

1. The first answer is simply that, as far as I know, the historical evidence on Julius Caesar are credible. The same can not be said of what is written in the Gospels about Jesus (think of the resurrection being, are born of a virgin, resurrected to having people, etc.).

There is a rule of common sense, that all people in the world follow in most of its life, saying " the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence . If you walk into a room saying "sorry for the delay, I missed the bus," I I have no reason to doubt it. However, if you enter a room and say that you came flying into the room, waving his arms like a bird, I am entitled to be skeptical. Be skeptical attitude is the "default" to certain statements incredibly unlikely. And I'm willing to bet that our reader Pasquale behaves well in the rest of his life.

2. The second reason is that there are other historical evidence that contradicts the Gospels. For example il Corano afferma che Gesù non ebbe natura divina, e che chiunque lo pensi passerà l'eternità all'inferno. Le due testimonianze storiche sono incompatibili. Perché credere all'una e non all'altra? Perché non perdi il sonno chiedendoti se dovresti convertirti all'Islam?

Come se non bastasse, i Vangeli si contraddicono anche tra di loro , e molto spesso (il che ci dice che almeno uno afferma sicuramente il falso). Abbiamo già visto un capitolo del libro di Dawkins in proposito . Per usare le parole di Christopher Hitchens , nel suo ultimo libro "God is not great":

I cristiani fanno l'errore di assumere che i quattro Vangeli siano in qualche modo un resoconto storico. Ma gli autori multipli dei Vangeli -- nessuno dei quali scrisse nulla fino a molti anni dopo la crocifissione -- non riescono a concordare su niente di importante. Matteo e Luca non riescono nemmeno a concordare sulla nascita da una vergine o sulla genealogia di Gesù. Si contraddicono palesemente circa la fuga in Egitto, dove Matteo dice che Giuseppe fu "avvisato in sogno" di fuggire immediatamente e Luca dice che tutti e tre rimasero a Betlemme fino alla "purificazione di Maria secondo le leggi di Mosé", il che significherebbe 40 giorni, e poi tornarono a Nazaret attraverso Gerusalemme. [..]

I Vangeli sono il prodotto di una trascrizione durata generazioni, by many "Chinese whisperers", each of which slightly distorts the content, and each having its own religious agenda . The Gospels themselves are written in order to pass the previous prophecies (descent from David, born in Bethlehem, etc.), and committed to do so forzature history that historians can now verify independently. In this connection reference once again to chapter of "The God Delusion" on the Holy Scriptures.


3. The third reason why we should not believe the testimony of the Gospels is also the most interesting, and draw from a new dialogue with Sam Harris I am going to translate:

Semplicemente perché anche nel ventunesimo secolo le testimonianze di miracoli sono molto comuni. Ho incontrato letteralmente centinaia di persone educate in Occidente, che pensano che il loro guru indiano preferito abbia poteri magici. Ci sono testimonianze dirette di miracoli. E sono molto comuni. Ci sono yogi induisti che, secondo queste testimonianze, camminano sull'acqua, resuscitano i morti, volano senza l'aiuto della tecnologia, leggono il pensiero, divinano il futuro.

Prendete ad esempio Sathya Sai Baba: anche a lui sono attribuiti tutti questi miracoli . Ed afferma anche di essere nato da una vergine, che tra parentesi non è un'affermazione rare in history: Genghis Khan was born of a virgin, Alexander the Great was born of a virgin.

Consider: these miracles are attributed to Sai Baba by literally thousands and thousands of eyewitnesses still alive. few years ago gave a birthday party and there were a million people. There are millions of people who believe it is a living God.

[So why do not you lose sleep wondering if you should convert to "SaiBabanesimo? Litanies].

Now consider, as if for the first time, the fundamental claim of Christianity: the claim that some miraculous stories, the kind that surrounds Sai Baba today, and are not convincing anyone except his faithful suddenly become credible in a special way, if seen in the context pre-scientific and religious of the Roman Empire in the first century, decades after their alleged occurrence.

The truth is that the miracles of Sai Baba does not even deserve an hour on the Discovery Channel. But put these signs in an ancient text, and half the people on this planet consider him a legitimate project around which to organize their lives.

See also here.