Family Man

Thanks. Although I consider myself well-educated, I can claim no special expertise in the fields most frequently discussed in these forums; hence, I lurk more than post.

I am, however, a history buff and know more than most about the field. Certainly more than Nomad and Layman. As open as the field is to interpretation, their abuse of it goes beyond the pale. I hope we've seen the last of this kind of ridiculousness, but somehow I doubt it.

BTW: Thanks to everyone for the compliments. They are appreciated.

Nomad

Trust Dennis to use my holiday as an opportunity to attack me personally, building a carefully constructed straw man, then knocking it down with the greatest of ease. Sadly, this is pretty much the best that I can hope for I suppose, unless Dennis wishes to level specific charges then back them up. Better still, he could have asked me about my standards, rather than constructing his own vision of what they might be.

Let’s take a look at what he said:

Dennis.

If you want to know my standards for evaluating historical evidence, you could easily ask me, then I will tell you. Since you have already admitted in your opening statement that you do not know what my standard happens to be, this would appear to be the reasonable thing to do. On the other hand, you insist on pressing on, so let’s continue:

This is simply false. I have never said that Biblical statements must be taken at face value. I have, however, said that they should be treated as evidence. Now, if the evidence is bad, or insufficient, then that is a separate matter, but to declare a priori that evidence is not evidence is utter nonsense.

No, Nomad would tell you that Paul’s statement is evidence for the resurrection, and that he claims that 500 other people are also witnesses to the same event (the Resurrection). He even tells us that many of these people are themselves alive at the time of the writing of his letter (1 Corinthians 15:6). Do you think that none of these people do not exist? If so, what is the basis of your argument?

You have made a gratuitous assertion here. It is an axiom in the study of history that gratuitous assertions may be gratuitously denied. Therefore, IF you are claiming that the 500 witnesses did not exist, back it up. Do better, or admit that you do not know the definition of the word evidence. For the record:

From <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary" target="_blank">Webster’s.com</a>

Main Entry: ev·i·dence
1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

Paul is providing TESTIMONY. So are the 500 witnesses. You appear to believe that Paul is lying even about the existence of these witnesses, but this is simply an assertion, so please back it up or withdraw it.

How? Well, first of all, he does not make an a priori rejection of Paul’s claims, unless his philosophical prejudices refuse to admit even the possibility of what is being claimed. As you do that, you simply make a bad historian. As to how I would evaluate it, more on that below.

Once again, if you had asked me Dennis, you would have found that I have no problem in examining the biases of a witness. That said, we do not reject a person’s testimony just because they are biased. To offer an example, the first witnesses for the Holocaust of 1941-45 were Jews. These people were clearly biased, yet their testimony was accepted as evidence. Please watch your straw men as you build them, then you will commit fewer fallacies in your thinking and arguments.

Paul claims that he and 500 people, plus James, Cephas and the Twelve witnessed an event. Do you deny that these people existed at the time of Paul’s writing? Such a position is absurd on the face of it.
On basis do you claim that Paul was not self aware?
And this statement is merely meaningless. In the case of the Jews who witnessed the Holocaust, did they “exhibit the indispensable scholarly virtues” you seek?

Paul was not claiming to write a “dispassionate history”. For that matter, no ancient ever made such a claim, as they apparently did not suffer from the delusion that such a thing is even possible.

Pause Dennis and breathe. As you have said yourself, Paul is offering testimony. This, by definition, is evidence (refer to the dictionary definition offered above).

You have confused your issues here. Paul offers testimony, which by definition is evidence. That you reject it as being evidence, even as you yourself have called it testimony tells me that you do not know the meaning of the words you use yourself. On the other hand, is this testimony/evidence reliable or credible? That is a separate matter, and one that I would be happy to discuss. First, admit to what constitutes evidence though. Then we can talk.

Actually, all you had to do was quote Grant on what he says constitutes evidence:

”The task (of evaluating the historical evidence of the Gospels) has often been declared impossible on the grounds that our information is too little and too late, and can do no more than create the picture of a picture, and can yield only the whisper of Jesus’ voice. But nowadays more and more scholars appreciate that this conclusion is unduly pessimistic. T.W. Manson, for example, has declared; ‘I am increasingly convinced that in the Gospels we have the materials- reliable materials- for an outline account of the ministry of a whole.’ J. Knox, too, believed us to be ‘left with a very substantial residuum of historically trustworthy facts about Jesus, his teaching and his life.’ And now Geza Vermes expresses ‘guarded optimism concerning a possible discover of the genuine features of Jesus.’
(Michael Grant, Jesus, [London: Orion Books Ltd., 1977] pg. 198)

I have no problem with the statements offered by Grant, Manson, Knox or Vermes here. If you do, then please explain why. Further, if you wish to negatively privilege the Bible, denying it the right to be treated as evidence even before we read it, then please tell us why.

Since I would treat both claims the same way, neither rejecting nor accepting them before we examine them more closely. I would not, as you have done, rule neither as being evidence.

Again, I have no problem with Sanders’ statement here. But rather than claim that Christians like Paul made up everything, I would examine each claim on its own merits. You do not wish to do that. You wish to deny that Paul offers any evidence at all. If the accusation of bias is all that you have, or that Paul’s claims are incredible, that is different. But do not deny that he is offering testimony/evidence.

I still do not have a problem with what Sanders says. I do not privilege the Bible, nor do I think we should rule it out as evidence from the gate. Interestingly, neither does Sanders, though you appear to have missed it. Note that Sanders tells us that we should “study Luke and Paul more carefully”. In other words, examine the evidence with a critical eye. But do not throw it out automattically.

This is cool. Sanders doesn’t know what Paul and the people he talks about experienced. If I could get you to make a similar statement, I would be a happy man.

The true irony here is that you have failed to see your own prejudices and biases Dennis. Before you try to level an accusation, you might wish to check with your target first. Of course, you can continue to paint me as you wish, but do not be surprised if I refuse to live within the boxes you try to construct for me.

Now, since you didn’t ask, I will give you my standards for judging evidence, beginning with the following recognition of the nature of our evidence:

”Granted the nature of ancient history in general and the nature of the Gospels in particular, the criteria of historicity will usually produce judgements that are only more or less probable; certainty is rarely to be had. Indeed, since in the quest for the historical Jesus almost anything is possible, the function of the criteria is to pass from the merely possible to the really probable, to inspect various probabilities, and to decide which candidate is most probable. Ordinarily the criteria cannot do more.”
(John P. Meier, The Marginal Jew, Volume 1, [New York: Doubleday, 1991], pg. 168)

Meier then goes on to list the following criteria:

1. Embarrassment
2. Discontinuity
3. Multiple attestation
4. Coherence
5. Rejection and Execution

I use most of the above criteria, but with an appreciation of the limits of each. If you would like specific examples, then please ask, and I will provide them.

Finally, I will quote from another atheist scholar as to categories of evidence, and I think his point is well made:

”In common historical practice, three sorts of evidence are distinguised: ‘first party,” which is provided by an individual himself; “second party,” which comes from the associates of the first party or alternately, from a cohort who was in some way an oopponent of the first party : involved persons in other words. And “third party” evidence usually comes from someone who is distant emotionally from the first party.”
(Donald Akenson, St. Saul: Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, [Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000] pg. 78).

Needless to say, Akenson lists third party evidence as preferable, then first party (of which Saul/Paul is his classic example), then finally second party (which, in Akenson’s view, constitutes the remainder of the New Testament). I may disagree with him here, and call more of the NT “first party” evidence, but the fact remains that all three categories are evidence.

See how much easier this would have been, had you merely asked me?

Nomad

aikido7

<strong> Dear Nomad:

What prevents you from differentiating between faith statements and historical fact in the New Testament?

And do you agree that it is ethical to clearly state which parts of the New Testament you have determined are elements of Christian belief and which parts you feel are historical evidence? And can you clearly communicate how you determine that difference?

Thanks in advance!

aikido7

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

Nomad

Nothing prevents me from differentiating between faith statements and historical facts. I would be curious to know your definitions for both terms however, as we can have a great deal of misunderstanding before we even begin a discussion.

If I may, why did you think that I do not differentiate between these two things? (Perhaps the answer will be clearer once I understand your definitions of your terms).

Of course it is ethical to do this. And if someone asks me a question, then I will answer it. Now, why do you draw a false dicotomy between Christian belief and historical evidence? Is it not possible to have something be both?

Sure. That was the purpose of my last post. Perhaps you have a specific example you would like to discuss? For myself, I would list the virgin conception of Mary as being a matter of Christian belief, and the historical evidence for it is found in Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2. As for calling it an historical "fact", I think that this would be well beyond the evidence.

I think several examples of what we can safely call historical "facts" found in the New Testament would be the existence of Jesus as a human being in the first third of the 1st Century AD, His crucifixion, and the foundation of the Christian Church after His death and reported Resurrection by His followers. These examples are by no means exhaustive, of course, but gives a good cross section of specific historical facts.

You're welcome.

Nomad

aikido7

Facts often suggest meaning and then become beliefs. Without reverting safely back to such expressions such as "Paul's belief was a fact," I would like to opine that belief goes beyond (or deeply INTO) a fact to then addresses a wider, perhaps more universal meaning "out of" that factual evidence.

It is a historical (probable) fact that Jesus was a human being. It is a belief that he is also the second person of the Trinity.

Let's not draw a "false dichotomy." Let's have a real one: Facts and evidence are material and always will be--if one is willing to accept a sort of "divine consistency" in nature. Belief and ideas are part of another realm of human life. It's the mind/body problem writ large and practical.

Using the terms I have set down, one cannot be the other and something "cannot be both" without a leap from literalism into a deeper understanding which does not automatically assign matters of "evidence" or "fact" to the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke.

The three examples of "safe historical facts" with which you conclude your post are good instances of what fact and evidence mean to me as well.

Belief and meaning around those same facts might be: Jesus not as a human being but as the Son of God at or before creation, his death by the Jews while a well-meaning Pilate stands by helpless, the "Great Commission" which founded the Church (and Constantine, presumably, as well), the capitalisation of the first letter in "his," and perhaps a bit of nitpicking: an italicized reported resurrection (and a small "r" on "resurrection") to emphasize the difference that does indeed exist between faith and facts.

I would appreciate an answer, Nomad....

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

Sauron

Why is it absurd?

1. People have lied before -especially those with agendas and "truths" to prove.

2. The claim of seeing the event is unprovable by nature;

3. The event itself is scientifically impossible and you have not given any plausible mechanism for bringing it about (indeed, all your mechanisms amount to a re-statement of the original fantastic claim);

4. We have zero evidence for the existence of the 500 in the first place;

5. And, of course, the initial claim made by Paul does not count as evidence for the claim's truthfulness - much as that might frost your shorts.

If anything is "absurd" around here, Nomad, it's you. You, and your insistence that:
a. fourth-generation hearsay to a
b. non-testable
c. supernatural event

somehow constitutes reliable testimony.

But, of course, if you think otherwise, then bring forth the evidence that these 500 (a) existed; and (b) saw the event in question.

Me? I'm betting that you'll try to obfuscate by avoiding the question, quibbling about the meaning of "is", or attempting to debate a strawman position that no one here is taking. Let's watch and see if I am right.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

Sauron

Which is about as biased, subjective and inconclusive a list as anyone could concoct. And, I might add, full of sufficient holes that it cannot support the strong and definite claims that you continually make on this board.

Even though I disagree with Meier's criteria, at least he (unlike you) has the intellectual integrity to tread carefully and uncertainly through the evidence. Whereas Nomad, in typical format, stakes out definite positions built on wafer-thin foundations.

For example, notice how (above) you classify the idea that the 500 didn't see said event as "absurd". That kind of language is contra-indicated by the tone that Meier sets. Yet you see no problem bulldozing right ahead through territory that Mssr. Meier would probably tippy-toe through instead. Perhaps that is why your apologetics are sloppy. It is a deft art, and you appear to be a blunt instrument.

Tell me: deLayman never responded to SingleDad's criticism of Meier's so-called 'criteria'. Are you willing to take up the fallen sword here, and give it a try?

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Paul claims that he and 500 people, plus James, Cephas and the Twelve witnessed an event. Do you deny that these people existed at the time of Paul’s writing? Such a position is absurd on the face of it.

This is a misunderstanding of the problem. The point is not whether these individuals existed. The point is whether Paul's account of their alleged actions is the truth.

[on writing dispassionate history] For that matter, no ancient ever made such a claim, as they apparently did not suffer from the delusion that such a thing is even possible.

Hmmm...I think many would disagree with you on Thucydides; in fact he is famous for claiming that he was attempting just this thing you said was delusion: namely; the writing of a dispassionate history. Note that I do not say he succeeded.

Nitpick: The first accounts of the Holocaust reached the west through non-jews like Schulte and Karski.

Michael

Vorkosigan

If anything is "absurd" around here, Nomad, it's you. You, and your insistence that:
a. fourth-generation hearsay to a
b. non-testable
c. supernatural event

somehow constitutes reliable testimony.

Nomad just said that he considers Paul's claim "evidence" and that its reliability as such is a separate issue. Actually, he almost always puts in that disclaimer whenever he discusses what constitutes evidence. I personally don't think Nomad has a double standard toward what constitutes evidence.

BTW, Brian, I meant to email you and tell you how good your last post on the Gospel of Mark over on XTALK was. I got caught up in the move to Taiwan, and forgot. It looked damned professional, crisp and dense enough to sink your teeth into.

Michael

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

Vorkosigan

Tell me: deLayman never responded to SingleDad's criticism of Meier's so-called 'criteria'.

Can we stop it with the "deLayman?" It's beneath you, and undeserved by him.

Michael