Re "Lastly, Miller says there’s a “failure of alternative explanations.”"
Miller is really embarrassing when he claims the resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb. Actually it is the worst, aka least likely. Far more likely is the tomb was robbed. Another more likely explanation is that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in another tomb but told people it was in the tomb he own, to prevent the tomb from being defiled or robbed. The women who did the body preparation were in on it. Maybe J of A took Jesus's body outside of the city to bury it in the caves above the Sea of Galilee. And, the Romans stealing the body so the Jesus followers would not is also possible and more probably than a resurrection. Failure of alternative explanations, my ass.
Interesting piece Benjamin, thank you. I came at this through the popular apologists before concluding history can’t prove the resurrection. But I’m no longer convinced history can disprove it either. The earliest Christian proclamation wasn’t simply that a dead man lived again, but that death itself had been overthrown: the traditions I am now most sympathetic to would say this claim is larger than what historical method can settle.
Re "If there had been 500 eyewitnesses, and this was known at least as early as when Paul was writing, why didn’t the canonical gospels incorporate that evidence in their accounts?"
And I am suspicious of nice round numbers like 500. Did they count them? A number like 164 is more likely and more acceptable, so why 500? Sounds like a fisherman's story about how his fish was " ... this ... big!"
Re "Lastly, Miller says there’s a “failure of alternative explanations.”"
Miller is really embarrassing when he claims the resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb. Actually it is the worst, aka least likely. Far more likely is the tomb was robbed. Another more likely explanation is that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in another tomb but told people it was in the tomb he own, to prevent the tomb from being defiled or robbed. The women who did the body preparation were in on it. Maybe J of A took Jesus's body outside of the city to bury it in the caves above the Sea of Galilee. And, the Romans stealing the body so the Jesus followers would not is also possible and more probably than a resurrection. Failure of alternative explanations, my ass.
Interesting piece Benjamin, thank you. I came at this through the popular apologists before concluding history can’t prove the resurrection. But I’m no longer convinced history can disprove it either. The earliest Christian proclamation wasn’t simply that a dead man lived again, but that death itself had been overthrown: the traditions I am now most sympathetic to would say this claim is larger than what historical method can settle.
Re "If there had been 500 eyewitnesses, and this was known at least as early as when Paul was writing, why didn’t the canonical gospels incorporate that evidence in their accounts?"
And I am suspicious of nice round numbers like 500. Did they count them? A number like 164 is more likely and more acceptable, so why 500? Sounds like a fisherman's story about how his fish was " ... this ... big!"