Lenardos Debate - Round 3
This is round 3 in the debate between Lenardos and Jacobsen on the topic, "Do Extraordinary Events Require Extraordinary Evidence?"
Lenardos - Round 3
Hi Paul,
You write:
Hi Paul,
You write:
|
"You talk a lot about "methods and criterion", well, I confess ignorance on "methods and criterion" of historical research. Can you give me a reasonably brief rundown on this? Or, a good reference?"
|
I would be happy to give you the rundown. What I am talking about are the methods, means and criterion or tests that historians use to come to conclusions about what really happened in the past. There are different schools of thought on this. So, let me address this. The booklet by F. F. Bruce uses one set of tests to determine the accuracy of the documents. A historian named Sanders developed this methodology. He used it primarily to determine the accuracy of ancient historical military documents. But of course there is no reason it could not be used on other ancient documents too. His criterion is set up in three categories that actually answer five questions:
1) The bibliographical test. This answers the question: Do we have what was originally written?
2) The Internal test. This answers the question: Do the documents themselves claim to be written by those "in the know."
3) The external test.
a. External sources that confirm the authorship. This answers the question: are there confirming sources that the documents were written by these people who claim to be "in the know."
b. The archaeological test. This answers the question: Is there archaeological evidence that confirms the story in the document
c. The confirming history test. This answers the question: Are there other historians that confirm the events in the text.
If the document meets the above criterion and rises to the baseline, then you got an accurate historical document. Any rejection of the document or parts of the document at that point requires sufficient evidence (not philosophical presuppositions) for the rejection. In other words, the burden of proof shifts to the opposition, since the original burden has been met.
Another school deals just with the events themselves. This attacks the subject from a completely different perspective. It also uses different methods. Let me suggest a reading of the following article where William Lane Craig presents the argument:
"Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ"
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html
Lane goes into a little more depth in the following articles:
The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html
The Disciples' Inspection of the Empty Tomb http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb1.html
If you read the above you will quickly see the difference in methodology, but the conclusion is the same. The fact of the matter is that no matter what criterion you use as long as it is objective, there is no special pleading, it has been shown in use in historical investigation to come to good conclusions and it doesn't destroy what we already know to be history, the answer will always be the same. I don't care what criterion you use. They will all come to the same conclusion. The reason is because the evidence for the NT and the resurrection is stronger than for any other document or event of ancient history. One might even say we have an extraordinary amount of extraordinarily good quality evidence for the NT and the resurrection. Well, Paul, I think I will stop there for now. There is a lot to think about and we can get back to the other issues when we have nailed this one down.
Regards,
Brady
1) The bibliographical test. This answers the question: Do we have what was originally written?
2) The Internal test. This answers the question: Do the documents themselves claim to be written by those "in the know."
3) The external test.
a. External sources that confirm the authorship. This answers the question: are there confirming sources that the documents were written by these people who claim to be "in the know."
b. The archaeological test. This answers the question: Is there archaeological evidence that confirms the story in the document
c. The confirming history test. This answers the question: Are there other historians that confirm the events in the text.
If the document meets the above criterion and rises to the baseline, then you got an accurate historical document. Any rejection of the document or parts of the document at that point requires sufficient evidence (not philosophical presuppositions) for the rejection. In other words, the burden of proof shifts to the opposition, since the original burden has been met.
Another school deals just with the events themselves. This attacks the subject from a completely different perspective. It also uses different methods. Let me suggest a reading of the following article where William Lane Craig presents the argument:
"Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ"
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html
Lane goes into a little more depth in the following articles:
The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html
The Disciples' Inspection of the Empty Tomb http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb1.html
If you read the above you will quickly see the difference in methodology, but the conclusion is the same. The fact of the matter is that no matter what criterion you use as long as it is objective, there is no special pleading, it has been shown in use in historical investigation to come to good conclusions and it doesn't destroy what we already know to be history, the answer will always be the same. I don't care what criterion you use. They will all come to the same conclusion. The reason is because the evidence for the NT and the resurrection is stronger than for any other document or event of ancient history. One might even say we have an extraordinary amount of extraordinarily good quality evidence for the NT and the resurrection. Well, Paul, I think I will stop there for now. There is a lot to think about and we can get back to the other issues when we have nailed this one down.
Regards,
Brady
Jacobsen - Round 3
Okay, thanks. You say:
1) The bibliographical test. This answers the > question: Do we have what was originally written?
I'm aware that many people use the vast numbers of copies of the Gospels and other NT books to claim that we do indeed have very close to the original text. But, the earliest we have is but a small scrap of John dated around 125. Nothing else until the end of the second century. And nothing close to complete texts until (I believe) around the 4th century. As it is often the case in religions that the texts receive the greatest revision when they are very new, we really don't have any idea what form the original texts were.
2) The Internal test. This answers the question: Do the documents themselves claim to be written by those “in the know.”
That seems pretty flimsy. Anybody can claim to be "in the know". Further, while Luke starts off saying that he tried to be certain that everything he got down was right, he also says, "things handed down", which doesn't sound like he's talking about first hand accounts, as is often claimed. There are also a number of other places where the text says things like "this is really true" but so what? I'm sure the Koran says, "this is really true and I saw it". I'm sure the Book of Mormon says, "this is really true and I saw it". I think this is very flimsy. Besides, since we don't really have very early texts, it is entirely possible that the text where Luke says he endeavored to get everything right was a later interpolation in order to enhance its "authenticity". Is this a guess, sure its a guess. But if you say "no, that's not true" then you are only guessing too. You don't have any really early copies of the text to prove me wrong.
And, by the way, there is plenty of evidence of interpolation of the text, such as the last verses of Mark are in dispute. So, to claim that interpolation couldn't have happened is without merit.
a. External sources that confirm the authorship. This answers the question: are there confirming sources that the documents were written by these people who claim to be “in the know.”
Well, you ain't got none. The testimony by Josephus is clearly fraudulent. There is not one single first century reference to Jesus outside the Biblical testimony. So, you get a big fat 0 for your external sources.
b. The archaeological test. This answers the question: Is there archaeological evidence that confirms the story in the document.
You've got archaeological evidence of many of the settings of the Gospels going for you. But, so what? People who lived 2000 years ago, knew who was who and what was what then. Do you have any archaeological evidence of any of the supernatural events? Well no. And, you don't have archaeological evidence of some events depicted that you would expect, such as the "slaughter of the innocents". So, you fail here too.
c. The confirming history test. This answers the question: Are there other historians that confirm the events in the text.
The problem here is, if other historians base their judgments on what other historians have said, but the first ones were wrong, then you get a bunch of historians wrong.
Okay, so, based on your own criteria, you've lost.
Okay, thanks. You say:
1) The bibliographical test. This answers the > question: Do we have what was originally written?
I'm aware that many people use the vast numbers of copies of the Gospels and other NT books to claim that we do indeed have very close to the original text. But, the earliest we have is but a small scrap of John dated around 125. Nothing else until the end of the second century. And nothing close to complete texts until (I believe) around the 4th century. As it is often the case in religions that the texts receive the greatest revision when they are very new, we really don't have any idea what form the original texts were.
2) The Internal test. This answers the question: Do the documents themselves claim to be written by those “in the know.”
That seems pretty flimsy. Anybody can claim to be "in the know". Further, while Luke starts off saying that he tried to be certain that everything he got down was right, he also says, "things handed down", which doesn't sound like he's talking about first hand accounts, as is often claimed. There are also a number of other places where the text says things like "this is really true" but so what? I'm sure the Koran says, "this is really true and I saw it". I'm sure the Book of Mormon says, "this is really true and I saw it". I think this is very flimsy. Besides, since we don't really have very early texts, it is entirely possible that the text where Luke says he endeavored to get everything right was a later interpolation in order to enhance its "authenticity". Is this a guess, sure its a guess. But if you say "no, that's not true" then you are only guessing too. You don't have any really early copies of the text to prove me wrong.
And, by the way, there is plenty of evidence of interpolation of the text, such as the last verses of Mark are in dispute. So, to claim that interpolation couldn't have happened is without merit.
a. External sources that confirm the authorship. This answers the question: are there confirming sources that the documents were written by these people who claim to be “in the know.”
Well, you ain't got none. The testimony by Josephus is clearly fraudulent. There is not one single first century reference to Jesus outside the Biblical testimony. So, you get a big fat 0 for your external sources.
b. The archaeological test. This answers the question: Is there archaeological evidence that confirms the story in the document.
You've got archaeological evidence of many of the settings of the Gospels going for you. But, so what? People who lived 2000 years ago, knew who was who and what was what then. Do you have any archaeological evidence of any of the supernatural events? Well no. And, you don't have archaeological evidence of some events depicted that you would expect, such as the "slaughter of the innocents". So, you fail here too.
c. The confirming history test. This answers the question: Are there other historians that confirm the events in the text.
The problem here is, if other historians base their judgments on what other historians have said, but the first ones were wrong, then you get a bunch of historians wrong.
Okay, so, based on your own criteria, you've lost.
Follow the 'Next' link to the next round.
