Question: does anyone know if "multiple attestion" is used in any discipline outside of the analysis of the New Testament?

Next question: is there any example of "multiple attestation" being used to establish the truth of a miraculous event outside of the Bible?

In short, guys, we're getting off topic here. The claim has been made that the Resurrection has been the best attested to event in ancient history (and please, Layman, don't make me go get that quote again) which, from what I know of ancient history, is ludicrous. The question is not how New Testament scholars come up with their conclusions, the question is whether they are comparable to the methods used by historians of secular history. If they are not, then the claim that the resurrection is a historical fact is shown to be false and the province of faith, not knowledge.

So the ball in your court, Layman. It is up to you to do what I did; do the research and present a case. Grant was presented to this board as an authority on ancient history, not of the New Testament, by Nomad. His credentials are solid. If you can't answer the two questions above (and the second one is key), then everyone here will be forced to conclude that the claims made about the resurrection being historical fact is nothing more than hyperbole.

Notice the verbal jab here from deLayman to Zoroaster; the implication being that Zoroaster's comments have not been substantive or of note.

And thus we have the problem with ruling out the words like "asshole". People like deLayman simply disguise their verbal abuse in a slightly different, more cloaked manner - but it still goes on, only in a slightly more "intellectual" fashion. But it's still verbal abuse and condescension.

So I am not sure what is gained by ruling out one class of comments, when other such comments (as deLayman's above) are permitted to continue. There are those of us who prefer the straightforward honesty of speaking exactly what is on our minds - - as opposed to carefully crafted comments designed to jab at the opponent, while judiciously staying inside some arbitrary boundaries of "politeness".

Meta =>The most common use of it is not in the sense of different sources supporting the same event, but of different Manuscripts saying the same thing, and that being used to establish a certain reading in textual ciriticism. That is very valid. In history it is used all the time, but it's not really called that. But of course if several authors or several eye-witnesses to an event say the same thing that is taken more seriously than if only one says it. But I wouldn't use it to try to prove miracles. I don't think the point of arguments about the resurrection are to prove that "this really happened." there's no way to "prove" that in any historical question. All one can ever do is establish a strong likleyhood, and with the res all we can do is establish that the basic facts are as calimed; the tomb was empty, people calimed to see him risen, from an early period.



Meta =>That was a Josh McDowell quote, or should I say a Josh McDowel exageration? But there are many events accepted by historians, that no historian questions, which are less well attested; Nero burning Rome, although that is questioned by some its generally accepted, one example. Do Biblical histoirans use the same methods as other historians? Do other historians use the same methods? That would be a better question.

Historians fall into two major groups, ancient and modern. Of these two groups the methods differ a lot because the evidence availbe differs a lot. Of modern historians, the methods differ depending upon wheather one is a social historian, economic historian, cultural histoiran, sicentific historian, Philosophical historian, ect. So which do you think they need to be compared to?

The social science methods have been slower to catch up with "chruch historians" than with most others. But that's because what is commonly called a "chruch historian" today differs from wat it was 50 years ago. Fifty years ago few historians of any kind used the same methods used today, those of the social sciences. The use of such methods depends largely upon the availibility of archival data. Biblical historians were always concerned with any texts from the ancient world they could get their hands on which reflected any bleiefs about the Bible. In that sense they were ahead of the times in that now the craze is the use of biaries and personal papers from ordinary people, which were largely ignored by most historians 50 years ago. So it really just depends upon what you are talking about.


If you are asking if, in general, there are good biblical histoirans, there are and there always have been. My favorite is Bernette Hillman Streeter, who died about 1945. There are others I like a lot, Stepeh Neil, who is still alive I think, Herbert Butterfield (who also became the first and still one of the top historians of science) Theologian Paul Tillich wrote history of Doctrine and was pretty good, ditto Wolfhart Pannenberg. Of course among the greats we have Van Harrnack, who deserves mention.Ernst Kasemann is one of my favorites and he still living and does use soical science methods. None of these guys unsed modern social science methods but they were all bang up histoirans.

Meta =>Grant's credentials are good, but they aren't those of a Biblical scholar. What you quote of his credentials doesnt' even say what field he's in. I had to deduce that he's an historian, and largley what we need is a textual critic, so I dont' think he's all that qualified for the task. We could get a bunch of historians who agree with us. Grant is just one guy. The point is the evidence not how many authority figures can agree with our side.

But for the record major liberal theologians who did History agreed with the Resurrection. Panenberg and Kassemann.

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited April 15, 2001).]

What's the point of that? Just to get Craig, we hate Carig! Ok fine, big deal. Obviously the real point is to argue against the resurrection, otherwise why care about Craig? and not to say anything bad against the old 'hired gun for thiesm,' but to stick to the level of Craig's arguments is by definition not to go deep.

That's a silly standard, and regardless of what Grant says it is not the way historians think in general. Every historian I've asked about that has responded "If we used that as a criterion, we would have no ancient world history, because it's all polemical and it's all religious" (just about).

In fact the guy I worked for last year was trained at Cambridge, he has a big name reputation in his field, and he was totally incredulous about it, said I shouldn't waste my time arguing with "dunderheads" (not you guys, the issue was the Christ myth thing). But he would say something similar on this issue, he doesn't even believe in the Resurrection. He believes in good history and to him the evidence favors early resurrection stories, claims of sittings fromt he begining and a real empty tomb. That you can make of what you will.

<chuckle> I'll try to let Mr. Craig know of how lowly your regard him.

As for "hating" Craig I certainly don't hate him. I just don't hold the beliefs he does. I don't think Lowder hates him either, though I could be wrong.

'Sez who?

"In short, guys, we're getting off topic here. The claim has been made that the Resurrection has been the best attested to event in ancient history (and please, Layman, don't make me go get that quote again) which, from what I know of ancient history, is ludicrous."

I'm sorry, but you are going to have show me where and who made this claim, especially since you refuse to admit that you have misrepresented Nomad's claims as to Grant. As I remember it, you first claimed that Nomad said there was more evidence for Jesus than Ceasar. Then you kinda conceded that he was speaking about Jesus' execution. Now you are saying that "the claim has been made" that the resurrection is the best attested event in history.

I'm willing to believe this has been said, but by whom, when, and where?

Says a well-credentialed ancient historian named Michael Grant. Since you've conceded that you are not much of a historian, why should anyone take your word over his?

As for "misquoting" Nomad, I suggest you shuffle off to his "What Happened" thread. I'm sorry, but I simply don't have the time to find the quote I've already posted in other places. Your refusal to recognize what is plainly true doesn't turn truth into falsehood. If you think I've misquoted him, then show me my error. I've provided quotes; you've provided squat. Don't you think people are noticing that?

So I repeat my two questions (since neither Metacrock or Layman addressed them).

1. Is there any instance of "multiple attestation" being used in historical analysis outside of New Testament scholarship?

2. Is there any instance of it used outside of Biblical scholarship to confirm a miraculous event has occurred.

And Metacrock, I appreciate you saying that the claim that the Resurrection is a historical fact is a "Josh McDowell exaggeration." Since my whole point has been exactly that, a tip of the cap to you. It's also ironic that Nomad did say the same thing over in his "What Happened" thread, since he like to scream "Fundamentalist Atheist" whenever he feels his not doing so well in a debate.

But Nero burning down Rome, however poorly attested, hardly constitutes a miraculous event.

Says a well-credentialed ancient historian named Michael Grant. Since you've conceded that you are not much of a historian, why should anyone take your word over his?

Where did Grant say that we could not distinguish between the Christian influenced and the non-Christian influenced sections of the Talmud?

As for "misquoting" Nomad, I suggest you shuffle off to his "What Happened" thread. I'm sorry, but I simply don't have the time to find the quote I've already posted in other places. Your refusal to recognize what is plainly true doesn't turn truth into falsehood. If you think I've misquoted him, then show me my error. I've provided quotes; you've provided squat. Don't you think people are noticing that?

Please see the thread which started this entire discussion. I posted a long and content filled explanation as to who said what and when. It clearly shows that you were confused as to what Nomad was claiming.

For your convenience:

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000378.html

It is the last post. You have failed to respond to it.

You should not allow the accusation of lying, even if it is conditional or implied, linger when you have been clearly demonstrated to be wrong.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 16, 2001).]