Lenardos Debate - Informal Round 14
I'm calling this an "informal" round 14 in my debate with Mr. Lenardos. During the debate, he had set up a discussion forum for the debate. On the forum, he left a short post that I decided I wanted to respond to. Unfortunately, that forum is gone, so the post that I responded to here is no longer available to be read.
Jacobsen - Informal Round 14
I will start out with a quote from Mr. Lenardos' post on the forum:
I will start out with a quote from Mr. Lenardos' post on the forum:
|
You seem to have missed the point of the list. Your position was that only big major events can be shown in historical work. This artifact demonstrated that small events can be shown too.
|
To be honest, you did make a good point here. You did show that small events can occasionally be reasonably validated. I did make the claim that small events can never be validated, and your artifact showed me wrong. I'd still say that as a general rule small events are difficult to validate because small events generally have small evidence. It only seems natural. If we did not happen to get lucky and find the exact grocery list, validating this event would be essentially impossible, do you not agree? Bottom line is, I concede that I was excessively strong in my claim, but it is still true that small events are generally unlikely to have sufficient evidence for validation.
But I'd like to point out something interesting before we go on, and that is this grocery list, although we both agree it is a good artifact, doesn't score well on the Sanders' Method. Why? That is because there is no external evidence. Of course, we don't expect any external evidence. Nobody else at the time would be expected to have taken note of the grocery list. We don't expect to find any other artifact of the time to reference the grocery list. So, even though it is a good artifact, we just don't expect to find external evidence to validate it simply because of the nature of the artifact is such that no external evidence is expected.
The only reason for pointing this out is that we don't blindly follow some procedure for analyzing historical documents and artifacts. We don't say, "the grocery list is bogus because there is no external evidence." Rather, we may apply something like Sanders' Method, but also be mindful that different kinds of supporting evidence are naturally expected for different kinds of artifacts. And my reason for pointing this out is that whenever I would produce some evidence, Lenardos would try to dismiss it as, "not being the kind of evidence historians use". Well, I admit to not being a historian, but I would think that historians generally don't throw away evidence just because it doesn't fit a predefined mold of what kind of evidence should be used.
Next, you missed the point that the list is an artifact, not a history
Oh, come on. *You* offered the artifact as proof that small events in history can be validated. So it seems that the artifact is useful for historical validation when *you* need it to be so for your argument purposes. But, for *my* argument purposes, its just an "artifact". Basically, all you are doing is saying "hey, no fair! That's my artifact and only I can use it!"
And of course if we actually had similar such artifacts related to Jesus, you'd be all hot-and-bothered to use them. Pretend we had something like a to-do list:
To do today:
1. Go grocery shopping
2. Listen to Jesus preach
If we had anything like that, you'd be sure to point it out. But we don't have anything like that. We DON'T have any artifacts related to Christianity during the time of Christ's alleged lifetime.
Now on to Lenardos' next point,
But I'd like to point out something interesting before we go on, and that is this grocery list, although we both agree it is a good artifact, doesn't score well on the Sanders' Method. Why? That is because there is no external evidence. Of course, we don't expect any external evidence. Nobody else at the time would be expected to have taken note of the grocery list. We don't expect to find any other artifact of the time to reference the grocery list. So, even though it is a good artifact, we just don't expect to find external evidence to validate it simply because of the nature of the artifact is such that no external evidence is expected.
The only reason for pointing this out is that we don't blindly follow some procedure for analyzing historical documents and artifacts. We don't say, "the grocery list is bogus because there is no external evidence." Rather, we may apply something like Sanders' Method, but also be mindful that different kinds of supporting evidence are naturally expected for different kinds of artifacts. And my reason for pointing this out is that whenever I would produce some evidence, Lenardos would try to dismiss it as, "not being the kind of evidence historians use". Well, I admit to not being a historian, but I would think that historians generally don't throw away evidence just because it doesn't fit a predefined mold of what kind of evidence should be used.
Next, you missed the point that the list is an artifact, not a history
Oh, come on. *You* offered the artifact as proof that small events in history can be validated. So it seems that the artifact is useful for historical validation when *you* need it to be so for your argument purposes. But, for *my* argument purposes, its just an "artifact". Basically, all you are doing is saying "hey, no fair! That's my artifact and only I can use it!"
And of course if we actually had similar such artifacts related to Jesus, you'd be all hot-and-bothered to use them. Pretend we had something like a to-do list:
To do today:
1. Go grocery shopping
2. Listen to Jesus preach
If we had anything like that, you'd be sure to point it out. But we don't have anything like that. We DON'T have any artifacts related to Christianity during the time of Christ's alleged lifetime.
Now on to Lenardos' next point,
|
To try to use its attributes as a criteria for determining all history is absurd. But, let's try it anyway! Using the artifacts attributes, which ancient history is confirmed as reliable? The short answer is none of them.
|
Of course considering that you were not attempting to write anything but a short note, it is fair that you would just provide a short answer, without evidence. But, this would be the kind of "short answer" you would give in our debate--you would declare it to be true that I'm trying to destroy all history but not support your assertion. Again, I understand that for your short note, it is understandable that you would make claims without supporting them. I'm just saying that is typical of what would happen in the debate. So, let's see if using the artifact's attributes would destroy history as you claim. You said, "let's try it," so indeed, let us try and use the artifact. We should first list some of the attributes of the artifact:
1. Original copy of document.
2. We have 100% of the document.
3. Information in document was current at the time of writing.
(Author was writing what he/she wanted to buy at grocery at that moment.)
4. Information in document is clearly known by the author.
(Author clearly knows what he/she wanted to buy)
5. No known precedent or reason to suspect exaggeration.
(No precedent indicating people wrote erroneous or exaggerated grocery lists is known.)
Now let me reformulate these attributes into questions that we might use for comparing other artifacts:
1. Do we have original document or artifact?
2. Do we have the complete original document?
3. Does the artifact relate events that were current at the time it was written?
4. Is the information known to the author?
5. Is it free of known reasons to suspect lies or exaggeration?
It might be noticed that these attributes map fairly well to the Sander's Method we've often discussed. But I'm getting ahead of myself, this will be discussed more later. Let's get back to the attributes of the artifact. Since you had been all hot on the idea of a baseline, well, here's a baseline. We can call it the "Gold Standard Baseline," or "GSB" just for fun. Now, let us see what happens when we try to use my baseline.
First thing I will do is apply those five questions to the grocery list artifact. And, of course we can answer yes to all questions. Given that it was the artifact itself that was used to formulate the questions, it is of course expected that the artifact would score very high. So, we can say that using the GSB, the artifact has been "validated." But what does it mean to say that the artifact has been "validated"? Can we say that it is 100% proof positive that the artifact is indeed what it appears, documenting what someone was planning to buy at the store? Well, I'd say no, it isn't 100% proof positive, there is always some possibility that the artifact isn't what it appears. We can say we consider this probability to be so small as to be negligible. But there is some small possibility.
Further, we have no way to calculate exactly what the margin of error is. We can more or less assume the margin of error is very very small. But the bottom line is, there just isn't any way to know for certain what the margin of error is. We think the margin of error is small. And it probably is. But there is no formula to calculate it.
Okay, so now lets try to use my GSB to "validate" other artifacts or events in history. Before I continue, remember that it is your claim that using my GSB to validate ancient history would mean that nothing is validated. So let's see if this is true. But I must first ask a question: is there really are NO other events or artifacts in ancient history that would meet all of these attributes? I grant that I'm no expert on historical artifacts, so you tell me, are there really no other artifacts that we could answer "yes" to all the five questions? Surely there must be at least some others, are there not? If there are at least some other artifacts that answer yes to all five questions, then you would have to concede that not quite all of history is destroyed by the GSB, no?
No doubt you would say that even if a few artifacts in history can answer yes to all five questions, it would be very few. Okay, so let's say I have an artifact that meets four of those five attributes. What would that mean? Does it mean this other artifact has "failed validation" or something like that? No, it means that this other artifact still reasonably likely documents what really happened, it just has a higher margin of error than the original artifact.
Here is the main point I'm getting at. You have argued over and over and over and over again that if I pick my baseline too strongly, all of history is destroyed. No, picking a very, very strong baseline, such as the artifact of the grocery list is exactly what you should pick as a baseline! Baselines should always be essentially perfection. For example, when judging an ice skater, very rarely does a judge give out a rating of 10.0. The "baseline" for the ice skating judge is perfection. When an ice skating judge deems that a skater got less than 10.0, that doesn't automatically mean the ice skater did poorly or "not validated." It just means that the ice skater wasn't perfect.
Yes, I know that I'm using another analogy--ice skating is not the same as history. But, I am saying that this is how baselines work--a baseline should be perfection! And since that grocery list is very strong, that means it is indeed a very good baseline!
Now, the next thing you might try to argue is that you might say that almost all of ancient history would probably show a fairly high margin of error on my GSB. Well, duh. I'd say that it is very true that everything we know about events 2,000 years ago is less certain, or has a higher margin of error, than what we know about what happened 50 years ago, is this surprising? Isn't this to be expected?
The next issue is, if my baseline is actually a good baseline as I claim it to be, how do we use it? How do we compare other artifacts in order to decide if these other artifacts are "validated"? You'll likely ask, where's the methodology? And that is the problem with any baseline. There is no exact way to say "artifact X is 93% as good as the baseline." When comparing to a baseline, there is ALWAYS an element of the subjective. I will use the ice skating analogy again. The judge tries to use objective measures. Did the skater ever fall? Did the skater land on both feet at the same time? There is enough objectiveness to the judging to where most judges will give similar scores. But there is also enough subjectiveness to it that the judges scores will generally not be exactly the same. Again, this is a case where there is some objectiveness and some subjectiveness to the equation, and there just isn't any way to separate them.
So now, to put the ice skating analogy behind, and pick back up with comparing artifacts to my GSB, can it be done totally objectively? No, it can't. If we have an artifact that is a second generation copy instead of a first generation copy, how much should this "count off" in scoring or "validating" the artifact? If we have an artifact where the author wasn't a first hand witness to the event, but the author knew lots of people who were first hand witnesses to the event, how much should that "count off" the score? There just isn't an exact formula to say. Again, it is part objective and part subjective and you just can't separate the two.
In your arguments about "validating" history, you have keep wanting to turn it into a Boolean equation: yes/no, black/white, when we are really dealing with shades of gray--probabilities where no exact method to come up with the probability exists. That is the crux of the matter.
Now let me try to compare the NT to my GSB. But before I do so, I have to say up front that I can agree that most historical artifacts will not 100% meet the GSB. Remember, however, that if the NT does not 100% meet the GSB, this would not in and of itself mean the NT is "bad" or "invalidated"--it just means that the farther away from the GSB, the higher the margin of error.
Now, let us ask my five questions of my GSB to the NT. Since I conceded the manuscript counts and I don't want to bring that issue up again, I will simply assume that your manuscripts allow you to answer yes to the first two questions of the GSB. Although you do not actually have the original copies of the documents, we will say the manuscripts you have are enough to say yes.
As to question 3, does the NT document current events, most Christian scholars says that the Gospels were written at least thirty years after Jesus' purported crucifixion. So, we have to say "no" to question 3.
As to question 4, you would say "yes," you would claim that the Gospels were written by first hand witnesses. Well, one of the main points raised in Tobin's articles (which you refused to address) is that the Gospels provide clues that they were NOT actually written by the people to whom they are generally attributed to and were NOT written by eyewitnesses. You might consider Tobin's evidence inconclusive. But given that you have provided absolutely zero counter-evidence to Tobin's articles and have refused to do so, I assume that you have no counter-evidence. Therefore I feel justified in answering "no" to question 4.
Now, to question 5, well, I can give plenty of examples of people exaggerating the powers of their preferred deity. Therefore I believe that I can say that I can answer "no" to question 5.
Therefore, the NT when compared to my GSB, can only answers "yes" to two of the five questions. That does not mean that for certain it is wrong, it just means that compared to the GSB, the NT has a very high margin of error.
Okay, I've spent perhaps an excessive amount of time to show that using the attributes of the artifact as a baseline isn't as unreasonable as Lenardos has tried to make it sound. But, I can almost hear Lenardos saying, "so what, you still don't have an accepted historical methodology and all that talk about your GSB is just you making stuff up. " Okay, so let us once more return to Sanders' Method. Here are some things I'd like to point out. Some of those questions from my GSB actually map well to the Sanders' Method. Sanders' Method includes the question, "is the document written by those 'in the know'" and my GSB included this kind of question as well. My point being, that my GSB is not unreasonable, and is even actually very similar to the Sanders' Method. But let us move on. Sanders' Method does have the question about whether the documents are written by people who were "in the know" and Tobin's articles give good reason to answer no. Therefore, the Resurrection fails Sanders' Method. (Actually, I should not say the Resurrection "fails" Sanders' Method, I should say the Resurrection shows a high margin of error using the Sanders' Method)
And, as I have noted repeatedly, the Sanders' Method, while no doubt useful, has no specific procedure to follow. For each of the questions the Sanders' Method asks, there is no exact procedure to follow to be able to say any specific artifact answers "yes" or "no" to the question. I'll say again, all the questions of the Sander's Method cannot be answered exactly "yes" or "no"! Each question of Sanders' Method can only be answered with a "probably yes" or "probably no" but without any way of calculating what the margin of error is!
Okay, now I will conclude by addressing a few more things Lenardos said:
1. Original copy of document.
2. We have 100% of the document.
3. Information in document was current at the time of writing.
(Author was writing what he/she wanted to buy at grocery at that moment.)
4. Information in document is clearly known by the author.
(Author clearly knows what he/she wanted to buy)
5. No known precedent or reason to suspect exaggeration.
(No precedent indicating people wrote erroneous or exaggerated grocery lists is known.)
Now let me reformulate these attributes into questions that we might use for comparing other artifacts:
1. Do we have original document or artifact?
2. Do we have the complete original document?
3. Does the artifact relate events that were current at the time it was written?
4. Is the information known to the author?
5. Is it free of known reasons to suspect lies or exaggeration?
It might be noticed that these attributes map fairly well to the Sander's Method we've often discussed. But I'm getting ahead of myself, this will be discussed more later. Let's get back to the attributes of the artifact. Since you had been all hot on the idea of a baseline, well, here's a baseline. We can call it the "Gold Standard Baseline," or "GSB" just for fun. Now, let us see what happens when we try to use my baseline.
First thing I will do is apply those five questions to the grocery list artifact. And, of course we can answer yes to all questions. Given that it was the artifact itself that was used to formulate the questions, it is of course expected that the artifact would score very high. So, we can say that using the GSB, the artifact has been "validated." But what does it mean to say that the artifact has been "validated"? Can we say that it is 100% proof positive that the artifact is indeed what it appears, documenting what someone was planning to buy at the store? Well, I'd say no, it isn't 100% proof positive, there is always some possibility that the artifact isn't what it appears. We can say we consider this probability to be so small as to be negligible. But there is some small possibility.
Further, we have no way to calculate exactly what the margin of error is. We can more or less assume the margin of error is very very small. But the bottom line is, there just isn't any way to know for certain what the margin of error is. We think the margin of error is small. And it probably is. But there is no formula to calculate it.
Okay, so now lets try to use my GSB to "validate" other artifacts or events in history. Before I continue, remember that it is your claim that using my GSB to validate ancient history would mean that nothing is validated. So let's see if this is true. But I must first ask a question: is there really are NO other events or artifacts in ancient history that would meet all of these attributes? I grant that I'm no expert on historical artifacts, so you tell me, are there really no other artifacts that we could answer "yes" to all the five questions? Surely there must be at least some others, are there not? If there are at least some other artifacts that answer yes to all five questions, then you would have to concede that not quite all of history is destroyed by the GSB, no?
No doubt you would say that even if a few artifacts in history can answer yes to all five questions, it would be very few. Okay, so let's say I have an artifact that meets four of those five attributes. What would that mean? Does it mean this other artifact has "failed validation" or something like that? No, it means that this other artifact still reasonably likely documents what really happened, it just has a higher margin of error than the original artifact.
Here is the main point I'm getting at. You have argued over and over and over and over again that if I pick my baseline too strongly, all of history is destroyed. No, picking a very, very strong baseline, such as the artifact of the grocery list is exactly what you should pick as a baseline! Baselines should always be essentially perfection. For example, when judging an ice skater, very rarely does a judge give out a rating of 10.0. The "baseline" for the ice skating judge is perfection. When an ice skating judge deems that a skater got less than 10.0, that doesn't automatically mean the ice skater did poorly or "not validated." It just means that the ice skater wasn't perfect.
Yes, I know that I'm using another analogy--ice skating is not the same as history. But, I am saying that this is how baselines work--a baseline should be perfection! And since that grocery list is very strong, that means it is indeed a very good baseline!
Now, the next thing you might try to argue is that you might say that almost all of ancient history would probably show a fairly high margin of error on my GSB. Well, duh. I'd say that it is very true that everything we know about events 2,000 years ago is less certain, or has a higher margin of error, than what we know about what happened 50 years ago, is this surprising? Isn't this to be expected?
The next issue is, if my baseline is actually a good baseline as I claim it to be, how do we use it? How do we compare other artifacts in order to decide if these other artifacts are "validated"? You'll likely ask, where's the methodology? And that is the problem with any baseline. There is no exact way to say "artifact X is 93% as good as the baseline." When comparing to a baseline, there is ALWAYS an element of the subjective. I will use the ice skating analogy again. The judge tries to use objective measures. Did the skater ever fall? Did the skater land on both feet at the same time? There is enough objectiveness to the judging to where most judges will give similar scores. But there is also enough subjectiveness to it that the judges scores will generally not be exactly the same. Again, this is a case where there is some objectiveness and some subjectiveness to the equation, and there just isn't any way to separate them.
So now, to put the ice skating analogy behind, and pick back up with comparing artifacts to my GSB, can it be done totally objectively? No, it can't. If we have an artifact that is a second generation copy instead of a first generation copy, how much should this "count off" in scoring or "validating" the artifact? If we have an artifact where the author wasn't a first hand witness to the event, but the author knew lots of people who were first hand witnesses to the event, how much should that "count off" the score? There just isn't an exact formula to say. Again, it is part objective and part subjective and you just can't separate the two.
In your arguments about "validating" history, you have keep wanting to turn it into a Boolean equation: yes/no, black/white, when we are really dealing with shades of gray--probabilities where no exact method to come up with the probability exists. That is the crux of the matter.
Now let me try to compare the NT to my GSB. But before I do so, I have to say up front that I can agree that most historical artifacts will not 100% meet the GSB. Remember, however, that if the NT does not 100% meet the GSB, this would not in and of itself mean the NT is "bad" or "invalidated"--it just means that the farther away from the GSB, the higher the margin of error.
Now, let us ask my five questions of my GSB to the NT. Since I conceded the manuscript counts and I don't want to bring that issue up again, I will simply assume that your manuscripts allow you to answer yes to the first two questions of the GSB. Although you do not actually have the original copies of the documents, we will say the manuscripts you have are enough to say yes.
As to question 3, does the NT document current events, most Christian scholars says that the Gospels were written at least thirty years after Jesus' purported crucifixion. So, we have to say "no" to question 3.
As to question 4, you would say "yes," you would claim that the Gospels were written by first hand witnesses. Well, one of the main points raised in Tobin's articles (which you refused to address) is that the Gospels provide clues that they were NOT actually written by the people to whom they are generally attributed to and were NOT written by eyewitnesses. You might consider Tobin's evidence inconclusive. But given that you have provided absolutely zero counter-evidence to Tobin's articles and have refused to do so, I assume that you have no counter-evidence. Therefore I feel justified in answering "no" to question 4.
Now, to question 5, well, I can give plenty of examples of people exaggerating the powers of their preferred deity. Therefore I believe that I can say that I can answer "no" to question 5.
Therefore, the NT when compared to my GSB, can only answers "yes" to two of the five questions. That does not mean that for certain it is wrong, it just means that compared to the GSB, the NT has a very high margin of error.
Okay, I've spent perhaps an excessive amount of time to show that using the attributes of the artifact as a baseline isn't as unreasonable as Lenardos has tried to make it sound. But, I can almost hear Lenardos saying, "so what, you still don't have an accepted historical methodology and all that talk about your GSB is just you making stuff up. " Okay, so let us once more return to Sanders' Method. Here are some things I'd like to point out. Some of those questions from my GSB actually map well to the Sanders' Method. Sanders' Method includes the question, "is the document written by those 'in the know'" and my GSB included this kind of question as well. My point being, that my GSB is not unreasonable, and is even actually very similar to the Sanders' Method. But let us move on. Sanders' Method does have the question about whether the documents are written by people who were "in the know" and Tobin's articles give good reason to answer no. Therefore, the Resurrection fails Sanders' Method. (Actually, I should not say the Resurrection "fails" Sanders' Method, I should say the Resurrection shows a high margin of error using the Sanders' Method)
And, as I have noted repeatedly, the Sanders' Method, while no doubt useful, has no specific procedure to follow. For each of the questions the Sanders' Method asks, there is no exact procedure to follow to be able to say any specific artifact answers "yes" or "no" to the question. I'll say again, all the questions of the Sander's Method cannot be answered exactly "yes" or "no"! Each question of Sanders' Method can only be answered with a "probably yes" or "probably no" but without any way of calculating what the margin of error is!
Okay, now I will conclude by addressing a few more things Lenardos said:
|
All histories are written by people that say this or that happened. The question is, is there sufficient reason to accept them.
|
And, the answer is, in the case of the NT, no.
Nothing you said in your last post is any different than your previous.
Well, first I disagree, I thought I made many excellent points in my last round. Second, from my perspective, it is your entries that never said anything different. You kept saying the same erroneous things over and over again. Since you had suggested I contact university professors, and I had suggested likewise, I wonder what some might say. Since I am not a currently enrolled student, I'm not sure how to go about finding some that would be interested in spending any time--I'm not a "paying customer" and their students are. I don't know how to appropriately go banking on professor's doors if I'm not their student. But, hey, I might give it a shot.
Nothing you said in your last post is any different than your previous.
Well, first I disagree, I thought I made many excellent points in my last round. Second, from my perspective, it is your entries that never said anything different. You kept saying the same erroneous things over and over again. Since you had suggested I contact university professors, and I had suggested likewise, I wonder what some might say. Since I am not a currently enrolled student, I'm not sure how to go about finding some that would be interested in spending any time--I'm not a "paying customer" and their students are. I don't know how to appropriately go banking on professor's doors if I'm not their student. But, hey, I might give it a shot.
