Doug Shaver

In another thread, Praxeus asserted:

I responded:
Praxeus replied:
I have presented my own general view on the burden of proof in an essay on my Web site. Concerning this particular case, I begin with two observations: (1) Praxeus made an assertion concerning the burden of proof, and (2) I made no claim in response, contrary or otherwise. I didn't even say he was wrong. All I did was ask him to defend his claim. Since he made a claim and I made no claim, I would assert that between the two of us, he has something to prove and I have nothing to prove.

But, let us move on. Elsewhere his reply, Praxeus raised the question of whether it even matters whether historians have any rule regarding alleged contradictions. That is an interesting question in its own right, and I shall address it as briefly as I can before moving on to what I think is the larger and more relevant issue. On this question, too, I have posted some general comments on my Web site. If there is a consensus among the experts, then it is relevant but not determinative. If the particular question, is whether, given two ancient documents, one of them contradicts the other, the opinion of professional historians who specialize in the field where the documents are most relevant is to be given much weight, but is never to be deemed infallible. The experts can be wrong, and there is no reason why a layman or other non-specialist cannot prove them wrong. Historical truth can never be discovered by asking "Who says so?" It can only be discovered by cogent argumentation from uncontroverted facts, and it matters nothing who presents the argument. The cogency of an argument is never contingent on the credentials of the arguer.

Now, we have two ancient documents. Both make a certain assertion about a certain event. Person A says, "Both documents cannot be right, because they contradict each other." Person B says, "No, the documents are consistent. There is no contradiction." Who then has the burden of proof?

They both do. Putting the burden solely on either side entails a presumption. In criminal law, that presumption is the innocence of the accused. Because of that presumption, and only because of it, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Now, there is a reason why that presumption is in place -- but that reason is irrelevant outside of the criminal justice system. No person's freedom or any other right is at stake in any historical debate. Ancient documents have no rights; neither do their authors.

This is not to suggest that historians do, ought to, or even can work without any presumptions whatever. No intellectual endeavor of any kind is possible without the making of assumptions. But the fact that some assumptions are necessary does not imply that any particular assumption is not to be questioned, and Occam's razor is always applicable. Whatever else we might reasonably assume about ancient documents, we never justifiably assume anything inconsistent with their human authorship or with the universal fallibility of human beings. This is particularly so in the case of documents whose authors cannot be identified to some probability not far from certainty. But regardless of authorship, if it be alleged that a document contains no errors, then every assertion in that document must be individually proved true.

Unless religious dogma counts as knowledge, the authors of the gospels are unknown, and so are their sources. Therefore, no assumptions about what they must have known, and therefore probably could not have been mistaken about, is justified. This is not a claim that any of them ought to be assumed wrong. It is a claim that no assumption should be made either way about whether they wrote the truth about anything.

It is a principle of logic that any meaningful statement must be either true or false. This does not mean, though, that given any meaningful statement, we are obliged to believe either that it is true or that it is false. Knowing that it must be one or the other, we can still say we do not which is the case if no advocate for either position has a convincing argument.

In particular and in conclusion, it is wrong to assume that any apparent contradiction in the gospels must be an actual contradiction, but it is just as wrong to assume that there are no contradictions. Advocates for either position should be obliged to produce supporting evidence and to connect that evidence to their conclusions by valid argumentation.

Sven

Great post!

Let me add this: Given that we know that humans make errors (I don't believe you will find any book of a comparable size to the bible without an error), isn't the assumptions justified that an apparent contradiction is an actual contradiction, until proven otherwise?

Chili

Not at all. The bible is an inspired book that contains many warnings that our eyes must be opened before it can be understood. From this follows that he who braggs about the contradictions in the bible is really shouting a condemnation upon himself.

aa5874

I need a pair of those eyes installed, preferably in the 'opened position'.

Sven

I stopped trying to understand Chili's post long ago. I'm still not sure if he isn't just BoroNut's sock puppet. :huh:

gstafleu

Only if the bible completely succeeded in its goal is this completely true.

Gerard Stafleu

Chili

Correct, and I do not claim to be one of those. It is true, as you will agree, that all (?) new born again [so called] Christians will say that there eyes have been opened and now the bible appears to be speaking to them personally. Heck, some even say that the grass look greener.

It sure did open Luther's eyes and here I hold that they were only half opened and that Purgatory (purification) is where they must be fully opened.

John Kesler

There is a previous thread about the burden of proof to which I contributed. What praxeus is advocating--"The burden of proof is upon the claim of a contradiction"--sounds like the oft-repeated "Aristotle's dictum," appealed to by apologists like Robert Turkel, which (allegedly, but never documented with an actual quote from Aristotle) claims that, "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself." Can praxeus cite any professional historian who actually follows this "dictum" or claims that the burden of proof always rests with the one asserting a contradiction?

Texts should be examined to determine their most likely meaning, then compared to see if they are in harmony or disagreement, rather than a priori placing the burden of proof on either position.

Steven Avery

Hi John,

You are mixing two different issues. What is the "most likely meaning" .. something about which there may be disagreement but at least the phrase is clear .. and a "contradiction" .. which implies essentially a 100% authoritative claim.

It is unlikely that I will have (or had) Rice Cream for breakfast this morning. If I did so, while it might be unusual, it would not be a contradiction to any of my breakfast beliefs and patterns and abilities.

All sorts of "unlikely" things happen every day. That is why post facto probability claims are so dicey. Is it "likely" that at 7:50 AM EST I would be responding to a post by John Kesler. No, but it is happening at this very instant !

As for "professional historians" (and maybe even aspiring professional historians like Richard Carrier) can you show where this question of "contradiction" and "burden of proof" is even in their purview, their range of intellectual motion ? I never claimed it was and we saw Sauron especially wrongly claim at least three times that it was the context and sense of my statement. Does a false statement repeated often enough become true on IIDB ?

In my experience the analysis of "contradiction" and "burden of proof" is in the realm of logic. One purpose of this thread, as I understood it, was that some folks would attempt to show that these phrases and concepts had a differing and specific and defined meaning in realms like history or philosophy.

So far that has not been done.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Doug,

However, in some sense (whether objective or subjective we can discuss) it is either simply true or untrue that there are contradictions in the gospels. If it is in fact true that there are no contradictions, and that is what someone has seen to date, there is nothing at all wrong with being an advocate for that position. Since a contradiction is a logical construct, and there are potentially a gazillion contradictons, there would be no practical way for the harmony proponent to prove or demonstrate his position conclusively to those of the other view. (In fact, he might even assert that the surety of the position has a faith component.) In practical terms the contradiction must be asserted and demonstrated by those who claim they have "found" same. Leading us to "burden of proof".

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic