Family Man

Nomad is fond of accusing those who disagree with his interpretations of history of holding a double standard. This never ceases to amuse me, as not only does he never define what this supposed double standard is, but it is apparent to anyone who knows a bit about how history is actually done that the person holding the double standard is Nomad himself. Specifically, he insists that we have to take biblical pronouncements at face value, when in reality statements he champions would be examined more critically and rejected as being historical.

One example is Paul's statement that he appeared to 500 witnesses. Nomad would have us accept this statement, apparently, on the ground that, Paul wouldn't have lied. Why Paul should be exempted from this particular human fraility is unclear, but as we will see, it is hardly necessary to postulate a deliberate lie to dismiss this particular claim. Let's consider the claim and see why Nomad's historical claims are simply silly.


How does a historian evaluate such a claim? Whole books have been written on the subject -- something Nomad ought to look into -- though obviously I can only hit the highlights here. But, for example, Jacques Barzun and Henry Graff, in their book The Modern Researcher advises historians to look carefully at the biases of the writers of historical documents. Specifically, they recommended asking the following questions on pages 187-188:

Clearly, the answer to all these questions for Paul is no. Paul wasn't writing a dispassionate history; he was writing propaganda with which to promote his religious beliefs. That doesn't make his testimony valueless -- as an example of what early Christians believed it is of considerable value. But as a reliable chronicler of what actually happened, Paul has to be considered suspect because of his obvious bias.


But do ancient historians look that closely at the biases of their sources in determining how much credit to accord the claim? Of course they do. For example, Michael Grant, in his book The Ancient Historians, page 189, casts a critical eye over how Julius Caesar, in his Commentaries, explains away his failures:

So why is it that Caesar's self-serving statements are to be questioned, but Paul's equally self-serving and unverifiable claims are to be accepted without question. Nomad's double standard is very clear.

And it isn't as if scholars don't apply critical methods to the NT itself. E.P. Sanders, a scholar with a background in divinity, in his book The Historical Figure of Jesus had this to say about the early Christians on page 62 (and, gee, Nomad I hope this is adequated sourced for you):

Now, of course, there is a lot of room for disagreement over the nature of Christian relevation. But clearly, more circumspection is required than what Nomad provides. As Sanders says on pages 278-280 about the resurrection:

and

These words of circumspection, given the questionable nature of the evidence, are words Nomad would do well to heed. And it might be wise for him to refrain to accuse others of double standards when, in fact, the shoe fits him much better.

And I wonder, if Nomad deigns to respond to this, how badly twisted it will become.

[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: DennisM ]

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: DennisM ]

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: DennisM ]</p>

lpetrich

As to manufacturing history, classical Greek and Roman historians would often invent speeches for those they discussed -- something that was acknowledged in antiquity, perhaps as a form of illustrative fiction.

aikido7

DennisM, an excellent post. We are fast becoming privy to the dissonance that naturally arises when we are confronted by both history and belief, both full force and full bore. It is not an "either/or" choice, however, and it is vexing and threatening to many Christian believers....

Layman

You are easily amused. Which does not surprise me.

Nomad is usually quite clear about what he considers to be the double-standard before him. I'm at a loss, however, how anyone could respond to your vauge, but at the same time grossly overbroad statement, since it includes no mention of any particular instance of Nomad's supposed amusing labelling of double-standard. Without such references, your accusations are impossible so support or deny.

Let's apply the factors you just articulated to yourself.

"1. Was the writer fastidious or crude in selecting and marshaling his facts? That is, was he hard upon his own hypotheses, fairminded to his opponents, committed to the truth first and foremost?"

I detect not a shred of fairmindedness in your post. In fact, it is quite clear that the sole purpose of your post is to attack Nomad, without giving him any benefit of the doubt or any attempt to see things from his perspective.

"2. Was he self-aware enough to recognize--and perhaps to acknowledge -- the assumptions connected with his interest?"

Again, I detect no self-awareness of your own stubborn, anti-Christian bias, distorted, agendaized interest in your post.

"3. Does the work as a whole exhibit the indepensable scholarly virtues, however noticeable the bias?"

I see nothing in your post that shows any sense of any of the "indepensable [sic] scholarly virtues." In fact, I've never seen you write anything that displays any scholarly virtue.

But I digress. By your own test you have failed. Obviously, given your clear bias and lack of any attempt to be fair, your statements about Nomad's actions cannot be trusted.

I have never. Not once. Ever. Seen Nomad ask--much less insist--that anyone take any "biblical pronouncement" at face value. Your statement has no relation to reality.

Do you really even read Nomad's posts? Please find and post the quotes were Nomad insists that you take all Biblical Prononucements at face value. Pretty please.

And again. As discussed above, your description of Nomad's actions fails all three of your tests, so you simply have to be wrong about them. Eh?

Is that the only reason that Nomad has asked anyone to accept this statement? I haven't seen him say that. Admittedly I've been gone for a while, but I did see a number of posts and never saw him say anything that conclusory. He usually explains his positions at length.

As I said, I don't remember Nomad ever saying that Paul was exempt, just that he-as do most historians I've read--believes that Paul was passing along an established and early tradition. That is, he doesn't think Paul simply made it up. But I detect a distinct lack of "fairness" and a lot of "assumption" in your statement that it is "hardly necessary to postulate a deliberate lie to dismiss this claim." You are not approaching this in a fair, detached, unbaised manner. Most people that do accept that Jesus' followers experienced resurrection appearances. You are only obviously just chomping at the bit to come up with any reason to "dismiss this claim." Again, you fail your own tests. So if that is enough to dismiss everything you say, I guess you shoudl dismiss yourself.

Is it? I like the way you pronounce that without ANY analysis of Paul or his statement or his circumstances at all. Again, NOT the actions of someone who is himself dispassionately analyzing the facts and being fair to the opposition.

I think you are wrong and are full of erroneous assumptions. Paul is not claiming to have witnessed Jesus appear to 500 people at one time. He has only claimed that Jesus appeared to him at one time. What he is recounting here is a well-established tradition that obviously preexisted his conversion and had its source in Jerusalem. He introduces the statement with a "tradition indiciator" (I passed on what I received).

Was Paul committed to the truth behind these appearances? I would say he was, since he profoundly attacks false doctrines and false reports of messiahs and/or the return of Jesus. Moreover, Paul suffered terribly for his belief in these appearances. Certainly there were many factors that would have encouraged him to give up the whole belief system altogether--and, even more true, never to have converted to it in the first place.

Was Paul self-aware of the assumptions connected with his interest? Well, first I'd like you to explain what the heck this means. But Paul must have been aware of the assumptions of his interest since he had previously been on the other side of those assumptions. Before Paul converted, he DID believe these claims were false. Remember? He HAD been on the other side disbelieving these reports.

As for the "indespensible schoarly virtues," I'd like a list of them before we proceed. Sounds pretty vague.

I wonder. Do you also accept Michael Grant's analysis that Paul most likely was passing on an established tradition? Remember, Grant believes that Jesus' followers DID experience visions of Jesus. Do you also accept Grant's determination that Jesus's tomb was found empty? Remember, he buys that one as well. Indeed, I find the writings of Grant about the very issue at hand much more persuasive and relevant than I do his discussion of Ceasar.

You've completely failed to even specify what the "double standard" really is, much less that it exists. Truly another pathetic attack on your part against Nomad.

But even more interesting is your inability to recognize the distinctin between the "self-seriving" nature of Ceasar's claims and those you ascribe to Paul. Clearly, Ceasar is attempting to clear his own name about something he has supposedly done wrong. Truly "self-serving." Paul's statements about the 500 is different. It has nothing to do with Paul's own character or appearance. He's quite clear that he's passing along something that was told to him. While this statement might broadly has served Paul's missionary purpose, it is not "self-serving" in the way that Grant discusses Ceasar.

While its nice of you to provide a real-live source, I think you should read some more of Sanders work. Once again you have cited something from an author that is only tangentially related to the Pauline statement at issue, although very oddly you finally cite the relevant quote from Sanders. If I remember correctly, Sanders accepts Paul's statement about the 500 as true. That is, he believes that Paul is passing along an established tradition. He nowhere implies that Paul "made it up." Indeed, as you point out, I Sanders believes that Jesus' followers actually experienced resurrection appearances.

Again, what double standard? As I've pointed out, your statements on this "double standard" are hopelessly vague while also being hopelessly overboard. Not to mention just flat wrong. And, your accusations fail all three of your own tests.

Nothing like poisoning the well. So if Nomad makes any attempt to defend himself he will only be "twisting" things around, eh? This last statements seals the deal. You've definitely made no attempt to be fair or apply any "scholarly virtue" I am aware of.

And if I was Nomad, I wouldn't "deign" to respond to this pile of vaugue, overbroad, erroneous, conclusory, nonsubstantive, pile-on rubbish. I, however, was up late working on a brief and needed a distraction. And for that, I think you for the opportunity.

Family Man

First, Layman, the questions I posted were to demonstrate how historical texts are to evaluated. That you, I, and Nomad have our biases is obvious; it is how well we present our arguments that the fair-minded reader will evaluate us. Why you think your little tirade helps you I don't know, but it was fun to read.

The double standard is very clear, and I thank you for posting and helping me demonstrate it. The double standard is that Nomad accepts pronouncements at face value without any sign of applying any critical thought to the problem. I've already demonstrated that historians view texts critically, and you seem to accept that, so the only question is whether Nomad is uncritical in his presentation of his facts. That can be demonstrated easily.

Of course, it is not necessary for someone to say "we must take the bible at face value" for it to be obvious that that is what he wants us to do. It is how one presents himself, not necessarily his direct words, that demonstrate intent. For example, you correctly point out that Paul was merely passing along tradition when Paul claims that Jesus appeared before 500 eyewitnesses. I agree with you completely. However, reporting a claim that there were 500 eyewitnesses is not the same as there actually was, in fact, 500 eyewitnesses. After all, Paul's obvious bias would tend for him to accept stories that reflect well on his religion (and Paul's sincerity, which I don't dispute, does nothing to mitigate this bias). In other words, Paul's bias and the lack of corroboration for this claim demands that we list this as being questionable.

However, Nomad presents this as being an established fact. For example, from his November 23, 2001 12:23 PM post:

So no, Nomad show no indication that he realizes that Paul is only passing along a tradition; he applies no critical analysis to it at all. Not only does Nomad presents this tradition as a fact, he specifically rejects any attempt to analyze its credibility. In Nomad's mind, it appears that it was written in the bible, therefore it is credible evidence. This is clearly a double standard on Nomad's part. In the future, Layman, I suggest you read what Nomad has to say more carefully, then you won't embarrass yourself so badly.

And, if you yourself were being fair-minded Layman, you should know that I never claimed that Paul "made it up". Along the lines of Sanders, I believe that stories about Jesus got started through dreams and visions, which later gained the status of "fact" in the Christian mind. As an aside, Layman, if my position were as you claim, it would indeed be "unfair". However, as you have clearly either misread or misinterpreted what I said, I see no reason why I show give any credit to your claims that I'm being unfair. After all, I've never hid my distaste for your religion, but I do get my facts straight, and after this post it should be clear that I've been quite accurate in my representation of Nomad's position. Far fairer, in fact, than either of you have been in representing mine.

For example, Layman, when you claim, for example:

you are putting words in my mouth. I agree completely that Paul and the early Christians were reporting events they believed to be true, and that is what I was trying to get across to Nomad. However, if you apply ordinary historical analysis, we have to question the accuracy of those reports. It would be a double standard to do anything else.

As for your analysis of Paul, please but your own bias is showing. Paul was committed to the truth? Or was he committed to Christianity? (No, Layman, the two are not necessarily the same.) Are you telling me that Paul was writing an unbiased history? As I've said, I don't doubt the sincerity of Paul's belief, but surely you're not suggesting that sincerity of belief indicates the truthfulness of it (otherwise, there is a certain Osama bin Laden I'd like to introduce to you). In short, just because Paul is passing along a statement he "received" is it any less self-serving? Of course it isn't. How the two historical figures got their information is different, but the self-serving nature is exactly the same. If anything, at least Caesar can claim to be an eye-witness, something Paul cannot. And since we can't verify that Jesus appeared before 500 eyewitnesses, we have to take the same attitude towards Paul in this instance that Grant takes towards Caesar in the case I mentioned.

Finally, it was Nomad that first accused me of having a double standard. He never really specified what that double standard is, but as I was taking a critical line -- arguing that one can't take the biblical statements at face value -- I presume that he is under the impression that any statement written in an ancient is presumed to be true. As I have shown, and as you appear to concurr with as I've seen no challenge, this is simply wrong. Whether or not Nomad is ill-informed or simply being disingenous is beyond the point: if he isn't willing to submit biblical documents to the same standards as historians hold other documents, it is a double standard.

To summarize, Layman, I believe that if the fair-minded reader evaluates what you, Nomad, and I have to say, he'd have to come to the conclusion that I've been far more careful about representing my opponent's position than you two have been of mine; that I've marshalled and supported my facts far better than you two; and that I'm far more committed to the truth than you. In the future, I suggest you read more carefully what I and Nomad have to say before you open your mouth.

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: DennisM ]

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: DennisM ]</p>

Family Man

Two issues I think belong in another post.

First, I am aware that Grant accepts the empty tomb as being historical. Unfortunately, he doesn't specify why he thinks the evidence is strong enough to come to that conclusion, and I don't think modern historians are exempt from critical analysis.

I reject the historicity of the empty tomb story for the following reasons:

1. It is entirely self-serving. If you're going to claim your hero has been resurrected, an empty tomb is a natural extension of the story.

2. It is unverifiable. The only claims we have for the story are Christian ones, and they have borrowed from each other. (And I hope you're aware of Grant's position is that the gospels are not independent sources, if you're going to depend on him).

3. It appeared very late. Paul, the earliest writer, makes no mention of it. It certainly suggests to me that this story was a later development.

4. The story shows signs of legendization. I mean, with angels, earthquakes, soldiers falling asleep, and so on.

As for poisoning the well, you are right. Personally, I am more than just a little annoyed to have my arguments constantly being twisted into something they are not. I will try not to let my annoyances get the better of me in the future.

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: DennisM ]</p>

MortalWombat

Well here are two instances where Paul admits to lying and deceit:

Rom.3:7
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

2 Cor.12:16
Being crafty, I caught you with guile.

CX

Romans 3:7a is an interesting study in translational redaction. Compare the KJV translation to the NIV translation. Note that in the NIV translation the phrase "Someone might argue...". Usually differences between the KJV and the NIV are due to differences in the Greek manuscripts, but in this case, the Byzantine Manuscripts and the Westcott Hort GNT (based on Alexandrian manuscripts with the "Western" family sprinkled in) this passage differs in only one word and that is an article, though I think the NIV translation gives a better feel for the intent of the passage.

That being said you take the phrase out of context. If we are going to study the NT to use it in argument against believers we should at least understand what it says and not just look for snippets that appear to support our position. Paul is playing devil's advocate here as is evident by the parenthetical statement in verse 5 (which could be an interpolation, but I'm not sure whether scholars conclude this or not). The heart of Paul's argument is the fundamental doctrine that humans are sinful, period. Regardless of what ends are achieved humans are still sinful and in need of salvation. He is clearly not admitting that he has lied to advance his program. That being said Paul takes considerable liberty with his theology and I suspect that Pauline Xianity is not trivially different from the theology preached by Jesus. Unfortunately Jesus appears not to have written anything down and everything in the canonical NT is, not accidentally, Pauline either directly or in flavor.

As to the passage from 2 Corinthians you are again taking it out of context. I hate to see this, because this is what believers do to atheological arguments as well as their own. I suppose it is the nature of people to selectively use material to support their arguments. Still we should try to be a little more objective. The whole point of the 2nd letter to the church Paul established at Corinth is that he is pissed off that people have come into the church in his absence basically saying that he is not an apostle and that his doctrines therefore have no authority. Paul get's very touchy about this in many of his letters which gives evidence that a lot of early Xians did not accept him as an authority (it seems clear that the Jerusalem group led by original followers of Jesus and by his brother James, who is nowhere to be found during Jesus' actual ministry except possibly the place in GMk where Jesus' family comes to get him because they think he's gone over the wall; anyway, it seems clear they did not accept Paul as an apostle and I am incredulous as to the outcome of the first apostolic convention as reported by Paul). So in 2 Cor he's being sarcastic and saying, "Oh yeah! I'm soooooooo crafty. I tricked you and those other guys who say I'm full of it are right about me. As if."

Layman

My point was simple and you have failed to respond to it. Your description of Nomad's "double standard" is vague and overbroad at the same time. As is your claim that he "insists" that everyone take every biblical statement at "face value." I've never seen Nomad claim this. But you claim to be describing Nomad's past (historical) actions on this board. Yet you fail to give us any example of him doing what you claim he is doing. Viewed in light of your three tests, there is no reason to believe you have accurately described Nomad's actions on this board accurately. You are biased and stubborn and committed to your cause with no sense of fairness. You also obviously have a personal grudge against Nomad that further colors your descriptions on this actions.

In other words, according to your own standards, there is no reason to believe you have accurately described Nomad's actions on this board. And, since my experience with him is different, I have every reason to believe you are just being a petty annoyance... again.

Ah yes, the infamous Infidel class, "whatever you say to counter my argument just proves how wrong you are and that my argument is true" tact. Works better than admitting you are wrong or actually responding to specific points I suppose.

Even if this were true I don't see how its a double standard. It might be that he's wrong about this, but not that its a double standard. But more important is the fact that you have--as usual--changed your argument. Before, you claimed that Nomad insisted that everyone accept the Bible's statements at face value. You've offered NO EVIDENCE to back this up. Now you are saying that Nomad takes such statements at face value. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. But I've never seen him insist that the rest of you do so. And, I've seen him use historical methodology again and again to support specific statements in the Bible while admitting that the Bible might be wrong about x, y, or z. I'm not even sure he's an inerrantist.

I doubt it can, since you've devoted a thread to it and have failed to do so yet.

How convenient for you. But you claimed that Nomad insisted that everyone else take the Bible at face value. Now you are claiming that you know what he does, even though he never says that he does. But again, you fail to offer any real evidence that this is so AND you've changed your argument.

Ah. Now it is just questionable. Before it gave you an excuse to just "dismiss it." There are good reasons for believing that Paul was passing on a tradition that reflected some measure of truth.

Classic set up. Nomad has devoted entire threads to these issues and gone into depth why he believes the evidence for the resurrection is early and valud. You, however, take one of tiny quote out of volumes he has written on the issue, and pretend that he's offered no other reasons to believe it is true. Of course, the quote you select clearly contradicts what you have said: that Nomad insists that everyone accept the Bible's statements are true simply because they are the Bible's statements. He simply says that "we have evidence" for the resurrection. He admits it might not be convincing, but states that its "not non-evidenc." And we all know that Nomad has written MUCH more about these issues than you have cited. Again, yours is just another one of your personal grudge-match petty attacks on Nomad.


I didn't say that Paul just believed it to be true. I'm saying that Paul was passing along a pre-existing tradition that he did not create. Big difference.

No. It would be wrong to do anything else. A double-standard is when you do something and claim it is valid while attacking someone else for doing the same thing and claim that their same actions are invalid.

Well, since I'm arguing a point, I hope that my "bias" is showing. As has yours throughout this entire thread.

More of your hidden assumptions, bias, and pettiness on display here. I didn't say they were the same. But certainly one can be committed to both the truth and Christianity.

Umm no. I didn't say that at all.

Well sure I think the sincerity of one's beliefs suggests the truthfulness of it. Not about "spiritual" matters (i.e.-this is wrong because God said it was), but about factual issues. I feel much better about someone's claim to have heard something or seen something if I know they are being sincere. Don't you?

Any less self-serving? I'd say that if Paul is passing along a tradition that existed before he was a Christian that its irrelevant whether its self-serving or not.

You have failed to notice the distinction being made. Ceasar is defending his personal actions. Paul is not. Ceasar can just make up whatever he wants. You've agreed that Paul was passing along an established Christian tradition.

No we don't. It's a completely different situation. MOST of history is not, by definition, "verifiable." That doesn't mean its not realiable. And while Grant does doubt Ceasar he believes in a lot of resurrection appearances for Jesus. But perhaps you only think Grant is write about Ceasar and wrong about the resurrection appearances. THAT would suggest your double-standard more than anything Nomad has done.

Again, this is just your impression of the discussion. I have no reason to believe it is accurate and every reason to believe you are misrepresenting it. Afterall, your statements are completely self-serving and you have admitted your bias.

I agree its wrong to insist that everyone should simply take every statement in the Bible as true because its in the Bible. I've never seen Nomad take that position.

No, as I discussed above, it would mean he is simply wrong. A double-standard is something else. Like your argument that Paul must have been inaccurate because his statement was biased and self-serving, but that you must be right about Nomad although your statements are biased and self-serving. That's a double-standard.

A completly self-serving assesment on your part. And since I'm a first-hand witness to your representation of your opponents' positions, I know you are wrong.

Ha ha. It doesn't get more self-serving than this. But as I indicated, I know you are wrong because I have first-hand experience with what you think passes for marshalling support and history.

I've read your response--and the fact that you completely ignored some of my points and questions--and concluded that I read you just fine and you have distorted Nomad's argument and presented them as a strawman that is easily knockeddown. A truly pathetic showing Dennis. You haven't changed a bit!



[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Layman ] <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

I guess you think he failed to take note of the bais of the sources?

Not really. You could claim it was a spiritual resurrection only. This removes the complication of explaining what the dead body is still doing in the tomb. Besides, this issue has been done to death. Many historians accept the empty tomb even after they take into account the bias of the sources. If we didn't believe every statement in history someone could claim was self-serving we'd have no history.

I'm well aware of Grant's positions. And I certainly side with most historians who believe that John is independent of the other three. And that the synoptics are independent of Paul's letters. And I also think recognize that Matthew and Luke, while relying on Mark, also have independent traditions about Jesus, including about the resurrection.

Of course it is "unverifiable." Almost all history is unverifiable.

Nah. Paul clearly believes that Jesus left behind an empty tomb. Plus, your argument rests on a certain assumption about when the tradition first appeared. Yet you offer no analysis on this issue.

As I remember, the earthquakes and soldiers falling asleep occur only in Matthew, which is no the source for the other empty-tomb references. And I also recall that there are inspections of the empty tomb that do not involve angels at all. Peter and John's for example.

Good.

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: DennisM ]</strong>[/QUOTE]