Inventing Arguments out of thin air? Revisiting the Amount of Certainty that can come from History

When I was thinking about Ehrman's argument why women might be invented as the first witnesses to the empty tomb (critiqued here), my thoughts drew toward this quote from ambitious atheist Keith Parsons (ironically someone who also had one of Ehrman's arguments):

"It might not be possible to prove such beliefs wrong, especially if their proponents are allowed unlimited room for ad hoc maneuvering. But those who would follow Hume's dictum that 'the wise man proportions his belief to the evidence' will decline to harbor such beliefs." (1)

I'll quickly point out that the "ad hoc maneuvering" (detailed in the original post) is to say legend writers would value historical facts over embarrassing testimony, and people would invent women and only women witnesses in the historical account of the empty tomb. I dealt with the certainty we can have of the resurrection in the conclusion to the big blog project, and it uses an indirectly related piece of non-historical evidence. Here I wish to present some test cases to show how improbable it is when we go against strong evidence. 

I have mused about baseless arguments against evidence for Jesus, similar to when Ehrman thought of alternative explanations to the resurrection in his debate against William Lane Craig(2). It's funny, because these assumptions get debunked by what I do know, because the evidence isn't inconclusive of my beliefs. 

Like it always is with reasoning, you  have to know when enough is enough. I probably could endlessly muse, but if they build on each other they start to become more and more improbable. The real question is where the evidence leads, if it even is strong enough evidence to support a conclusion in the first place.

I've recently put together how I think a person can reasonably know when enough is enough. It's what I'm trying to do with my blog, with revisiting posts and citing the other side. I came to think of it as "rounding the fence." For example, although the Gospel of Mark has to do with all the other Gospels, they are separate books and can be excluded from the picture when considering evidence specifically about Mark. The subject of Mark is in the fence, and I finished building a round corral around it. Then, I considered evidence for it and possible arguments against it. Once someone has gotten the other side and their side -- what I like to call a well-rounded (I now realize this is open-minded, because it consists of being willing to accept the other side) view -- they can come to a conclusion with certainty. It is possible that something else will overturn it, but if the evidence seems to say something beyond rational doubt, it is improbable and not intellectually entertainable. 

I think of the possibility of inventing Jesus coming from Nazareth, which Ehrman shows is an unlikely invention (the first explained in this post). Why would someone want to lie about that? Maybe a number of early Christians from there did. But why would a small, low place have such influence? Well, Jesus did teach in His Beautitides that the lowly are blessed (Matthew 5:3-12). So some people made it up, and it was bought. Never mind the fact that even those from Nazareth probably wouldn't want to insult Jesus by making that up, even if they are aware He said other poor people were blessed. Why not invent other traditions, like from Jerusalem, or Bethlehem? (Skeptics like Ehrman have argued that the virgin birth stories of Matthew and Luke were invented later to fit Biblical prophecy and prove Him as the Son of God.) 

So it is with women's testimony: why would they only lie? Influential Christian women creating a story with only them as witnesses is as implausible as only being looked down on in court. Why didn't men choose different traditions, or make their own? 

One specific account I argued can be prove comes from Luke, where he says in 24:11 that "they did not believe the women, because their words to them seemed like nonsense." Even if a woman wrote Luke (skeptics say we don't know who did, but would argue it probably wasn't a woman, because they just weren't nearly as prominent of writers back then), Luke 24:11 doesn't make sense because they are already greatly elevated, and why try to hammer Jesus's chosen Disciples? This woman is a dedicated Christian, obviously. That argument is improbable and the evidence has to be moved around, and still doesn't work. 

But maybe she invented it because of the church still suppressing women, somewhere (think about all the prominent women in Paul's ministry, some cited here). But if a woman can write a Gospel, she obviously is not experiencing that. Also, why not invent appearances, like Matthew from around the same time and John? Maybe 24:11 would suffice and she doesn't want to keep making stuff up. But she already knows she's a liar, and wouldn't it fit a forger like this to have an appearance from Jesus first to women?

With a male author, the skeptics say the story diverges from Mark (otherwise there is multiple independent attestation), so the author Luke (who used Mark) could easily say no to such an idea, or include male witnesses. (Ehrman has a reason, or reasons, for believing Peter verifying the empty tomb was later added by a scribe, cited in the original post. If Luke really did pen it, it would take care of specifically the women as first witnesses, at least if all the early church would need is male witnesses seeing the tomb sometime, but not Mark or Matthew, or 24:11.) 

Citations:

1. J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist? The Debate Between Theists and Atheists (Prometheus Books: 1993), 192.

2. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman