Doug Shaver

In the context of this discussion, I have no idea what you might mean by that.

Given two statements, it is either possible for both to be true or not possible for both to be true. There is no other possibility -- not one, not a gazillion.

John Kesler

What I was saying is that each text has to be examined, its likely meaning ascertained (via exegesis, not forcing its meaning based on a preconceived idea of what it is "supposed" to say), then compared to another text to see if they are in agreement. The death of Judas Iscariot as recorded in Mathew and Acts is a good example. When each text is analyzed, they are found to tell two different versions of how Judas died.


Actually, "aspiring professional historian" Richard Carrier tells how historians approach texts in this article, emphasis mine:

Steven Avery

Hi Doug,

A gazillion possible contradictions that can be claimed within the Gospel texts as a whole. The claim of full harmony would have to prove every statement and every relationship to the satisfaction of ... somebody.

That is why the claims of contradictions are then boiled down to claims of specific contradictions, like the half dozen or so of Richard Carrier in the 'Nativity' article. And those are viewed individually. The choice of the supposed contradictions originates from the one claiming - and he is the one who needs to provide the evidence for examination, with a sensible "burden of proof" for examination.

Hopefully not a transparently superficial claim as we saw in the Simeon and Anna case. In a scholarly article there is also a requirement to indicate the response. Carrier does in fact show the responses selectively in the overall theme of the article (perhaps as much as he is awares) on the major issue of the dating of the Nativity. However he falls down completely, a total flunk, in in the drivebys. There he becomes only a propaganda fluff artist. That is why they glare out as questionable in a purported scholarship article.

Gazillion == large number .

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi John,

Can you show me anything there about an aspiring professional historian using the concepts of "contradiction" and "burden of proof", the theme of this thread ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

John Kesler

When Richard Carrier says: "I am not aware of any ancient work that is regarded as completely reliable...Historians begin with suspicion no matter what text they are consulting...Historians have so much experience in finding texts false, and in knowing all the ways they can be false, they know it would be folly to trust anything handed to them without being able to make a positive case for that trust..." and speaks of the "implicit distrust of texts," this clearly indicates that the burden of proof is on the text. It is usually Christian apologists who allege just the opposite--that the texts should be accepted at face value--and segue this premise into a "dictum" that harmonization of texts is valid because it "gives the benefit of the doubt" to the text, not the critic.

Steven Avery

Hi John,

You are confusing the burden of proof of historical accuracy in with the burden of proof of a supposed internal contradiction.

Shalom,
Steven

Solo

There is no principle of logic that says that a meaningful statement must be either true or false. Logically, any assertion flowing from a given set of uncontested premises, is either true, or false (or 'inconclusive', which equals 'false' if strict proof is required). Further,

a) conditional statements are not statements of fact (but hypotheses);

b) statements of belief are not statements of fact (but of a state of mind);

c) there is no such thing as 'obligation of belief' in logic.


Jiri

John Kesler

It is Christian apologists who make the leap from "the texts are historically accurate" to "my harmonization of texts should be accepted." In my opening post, I stated my position about determining whether a contradiction exists. And this will be my final post in this thread.

RED DAVE

From praxeus:
With regard to historical research, involving matters of fact, these are, essentially the same thing.

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

Not at all.

There are lots of places where Josephus is thought to be accurate, others where he is thought to likely be inaccurate. Such cases are discussions of "historical accuracy". There are likely many hundreds of such cases in of the Josephus corpus, where his "historical accuracy" is either accepted or looked at less unfavorably. Simple example, his numbers are sometimes considered to be exaggerated, ergo historically inaccurate, yet they don't contradict anything.

Then there are a few cases where it is indicated that Josephus might even contradict himself, an internal contradiction (if so, at least one indicator would be wrong). Probably not very many of these potential "internal contradictions". Then one would look closely first to see if he really does contradict himself. Perhaps all his words on the dating of the death of Herod and eclipses and fasts and such is consistent, perhaps not. And if he does contradict which of his assertions are right and which wrong ? Or perhaps both are wrong. You would then have one or more historical inaccuracies as well as an internal contradiction.

If you can't see the difference between "historical accuracy" and "internal contradiction" .. hmmmm.

Shalom,
Steven Avery