I fear only lest, able to see and write these things, I should fail of witnessing and myself be, after all, a castaway---no king but a talker; no disciple of Jesus, ready to go with Him to the death, but an arguer about the truth.
C. S. Lewis, in the poem, "The Apologist's Evening Prayer":
Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead
of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,
O Thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Anette Acker, in the blog comments, prior to ever writing anything on apologetics (quoting C. S. Lewis):
"What other answer would suffice? Only words, words; to be led out to battle against other words."
I'm sure that Lewis, as an apologist, saw the futility of words. People will always find the words to defend what they want to believe. Only a personal encounter with God (even if it's not dramatic) brings true faith.Do I agree with that? Well, I certainly agree with George MacDonald and C. S. Lewis, but I'm not sure about that Anette Acker person. (People who use words like "always" are always wrong.)
Apologetics has been very helpful to me in terms of answering the question of whether Christian theism is intellectually defensible, even as I seek out and honestly confront the best counter-arguments. The answer is an unequivocal Yes--more so than I expected when I first started engaging in discussions with atheists.
But I think it has limited value in terms of changing minds in dramatic ways, and this is why: First, we are all governed by will and emotion as well as intellect, and a person's worldview is often a major part of his or her identity. I remember when Norway voted on EC membership back when I was a child. Everybody had bumper stickers that said, "JA" or "NEI." I may not have understood any of the issues, but I knew that all right-thinking people said "JA," and a "NEI" bumper sticker was conclusive proof of feeblemindedness, a character flaw, or both.
Although most adults are a little more sophisticated than that, we are still prone to thinking in terms of in-crowds and out-crowds and banding together against the opposition. So completely changing our minds and, consequently, our identities, is difficult.
Second, those who have never experienced the presence of God in their lives and for whom God feels non-existent will require a much higher burden of proof than someone who has lived the Christian life, studied the Bible in-depth, seen answers to prayer, and experienced spiritual growth. The same evidence may be sufficient for one person and not for another.
On his blog, Atheist Central, Ray Comfort once wrote a couple of posts about a Canadian Christian talk show host who was experiencing a crisis of faith. The main reason for his crisis was that he had never experienced God's presence in his life, so for him God may as well be non-existent. How much would it help him if I said, "Just look at this evidence and these arguments. Can't you see that Christianity is true?" No, he probably wouldn't be able to see it because his own immediate experience would speak to him more powerfully than anything I could say. As hard as it is to change a worldview, it may be easier than maintaining a radical disconnect between experience and belief, at least for some people. He would need prayer more than argument.
I'm going to take an indefinite break from blogging about apologetics. The central reason is that it has become impossible to keep the comments from getting out of control, and it's burning me out. (The post on my daughter's study abroad has 199 comments on numerous subjects, and about half of them are mine.) I have always felt that apologetics blogs can be counter-productive if arguments are made and not defended or questions remain unanswered. Although the truth of Christianity does not depend on the ability of any given Christian to defend it, people still often conclude that there is no answer if they don't see one. Maybe it is my fault that my discussions spiral out control, but I have not discovered any way to avoid it without leaving unanswered objections, questions, and arguments. And that's something I feel irresponsible doing. If there is a solution I have not found it.
I do feel privileged to have had these discussions with you all and have learned a lot. They have been an invaluable gift to me and I appreciate your friendship. But everything tells me that I'm at a point of transition.
So although I will do a post on the power of prayer, as I've said I would, I will not be engaging in debate in the comments.
148 comments:
I am so proud of you. That is a wise and very big step that must have taken a lot of prayer. I stand in agreement although most likely for self serving reasons. Your concise and well thought out blogs are very encouraging and challenging, even for this old man. I love your insights and look forward to reading your posts. Hopefully this will give you more time to share your heart about His word! Thank you.
Thank you for all the time you have put into this blog. I appreciate having talked with you about God and the resurrection.
I smile at some of what you have written in this post because I have completely different conclusions, but that is to be expected. We both agree on the limitations of presenting arguments.
Take care, Anette. Maybe we will talk again someday.
Thank you for your kind words, Pastor Jack.
I haven't completely given up on apologetics, but at this point it's just too time-consuming to reply to the comments, so I'm putting it on hold indefinitely. I may come back to it and do something different in the future.
Lowell,
I have enjoyed talking with you as well, and I appreciate the time you spent reading my blog. I do hope we'll talk again someday.
All the best to you!
Anette Acker,
Discussing these topics with skeptics can get quite hard. And tedious. I hope you enjoy a break, and continue writing on topics interesting to you.
I would like to say, it is to your vast credit (as pointed out by Vinny) that you allowed us skeptics to post at length on your blog (even when we were a bit prickly) and you took our points seriously enough to warrant a response.
I am finding that to be more and more rare.
Anette,
As it takes two to tango, you certainly bear responsibility for the length of these discussions. Whether you were doing the responsible thing by continuing, or the insane thing, I cannot judge. However, you always seemed to honestly want to know what answers skeptics would give to your challenges so I was willing to give them. I hope you find some peace with your decision.
Thank you, DagoodS! I was a bit "prickly" myself. ;)
It's not so much that I find it hard or tedious--I actually enjoy it. There's no way I would have spent the time I did on those discussions if I didn't. But some people enjoy video games and reality TV. Does that mean it's a good use of their time? That's my dilemma. When my learning curve was still fairly steep it was easier to justify, but the more it flattens out the more I'm asking myself hard questions about who else is benefiting.
I know we've talked some about bias versus neutrality, and I've argued that there's no such thing as a neutral jury when it comes to these issues. I think Lowell correctly stated that arguments are of limited value, something he has told me before. However, juries have to care about the evidence and the arguments, and they have to sift through it all impartially even though they know that each side is biased. That's the way they try to get at the truth.
But is it worth it to spend a lot of time and effort on something that ultimately won't make much of a difference anyway? As I've said before, the cost-benefit ratio has been out of whack for me for some time. And I have so many demands on my time that I simply can't justify a time-consuming activity that is just for my own entertainment.
Vinny,
You are right that I want to be challenged, and I'm not blaming anyone for the fact that discussions often go on for too long. After all, if you have a counter-argument to something I've said, why should you not present it? And on a subject as important as the resurrection, I really appreciated the fact that you didn't give up easily.
I like being challenged because it helps me see my own blind spots and presuppositions and weaknesses in my thinking. But it's also important to me to invest in other people, and I'm trying to decide what is the best way of doing that with the limited time I have. And as much as I have enjoyed these discussion, I do have peace with my decision to invest my efforts elsewhere right now.
I want to qualify what I said about arguments being of limited value. I think that debates at college campuses can be highly effective because college students are at an age when many of them are thinking through these issues for themselves for the first time. Also, they are getting both sides at the same time, usually with cross-examination at the end. So I think that comes the closest to the courtroom model, with a neutral jury.
That's not to say that all college students are neutral--sometimes they can be very dogmatic. However, for those who are basically neutral, those debates can be an effective means to help them get at the truth.
Some also argue that multiverse theories are unfalsifiable and therefore inherently unscientific.
We are blessed to be living in a society where various and contrary opinions exists and can be presented on any topic or subject. For those who think the earth is round I can easily find others who sincerely believe it to be flat. Obviously, both opinions cannot be correct; someone has to be wrong here. That is the role of evidence and why we have (or demand) a high standard of proof. Personal opinions and subjective feelings are not verifiable. I have known people in a variety of religions who hear their god whispering to them, hopefully encouraging them to do good deeds. But, again, they can't all be right; all of those different gods can't exist. How is someone who is determined to learn the truth supposed to figure out whose subjective experience is right and whose is wrong?
It's not just a matter of trying to determine if Christianity alone is true. There are millions of other sincere believers of numerous other faiths who think that their religion is true, that their god(s) exist and that an eternal reward or paradise await them when they die. Without some high standards for proof how can we filter out those who are wrong from those who are right, if any one is right? They could all be wrong and no one's god really exists.
The contrary is also possible - that is if we pick the wrong god then eternal punishment await those who make the wrong decision. So from that light it is important that we consider all of our choices with a high standard to insure we are making the right decision. There won't be a second chance to make the right choice.
It is as Carl Sagan reportedly has said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Good luck in your future endevours.
Darkknight56,
How is someone who is determined to learn the truth supposed to figure out whose subjective experience is right and whose is wrong?
I have always emphasized evidence and logic in these discussions because it is a common language between people whose subjective experiences and perspectives are different. When I said that this is of limited value I meant that it has no impact on deep-seated presuppositions, emotions, will, intuition, experience, etc. It aims at the tip of the iceberg of everything that makes us human.
However, formal debates on college campuses are probably the most effective, where members of the audience may be less set in their thinking than the general public and have less in the way of experiences that color their perspectives.
Good luck in your future endevours.
Thank you! And thank you for commenting on my blog. I really enjoyed our discussions.
Anette:
Part of me wants to ask when you will be "available" for debate again, but part of me does not.
I am very sorry about the medical problems in your family. I have no idea what it is like to be in such a situation, and if your faith is an important factor in your ability to emotionally cope, I begin to feel bad about doing anything that might take that away. I sincerely wish you and your family the best of luck weathering it all.
Presuppositions and intuitions can certainly interfere with our ability to evaluate evidence objectively, however, we would still treating illnesses with incantations and bloodletting were it not for man's capacity to overcome those limitations and to find new ways to think about the world around us.
One of the things that I have noticed is that I have very little reason to argue with conservative Christians when it comes to the history of ancient Greece or the historicity of the claims made by Mormons, Scientologists, Muslims, Hindus, or Zoroastrians. Similarly, when it comes to the claims of conservative Christians, I have little cause to quarrel with Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, or Jews. The problems are always most acute when discussing the historical claims of a religion with an adherent of that religion.
What this suggests to me is that the presuppositions that are really a problem are those that a person holds about their own religious beliefs.
Hi Nightvid. It's nice to hear from you again.
I hope I haven't given the impression that this decision has to do with illnesses in my family. We did have a scare when my son was hospitalized, and I took a break then, but he's healthy now. All is well here.
I'm just finding that it's taking more time to engage in these discussions than I can afford to spend. And although I have enjoyed them, I always knew that I would stop when the costs (in terms of the time spent) outweighed the benefits to me or to others. Now is a good time because I am frequently rehashing the same topics and reaching the same impasses.
Vinny,
What this suggests to me is that the presuppositions that are really a problem are those that a person holds about their own religious beliefs.
I think the reason why you reach that conclusion is because you have a presupposition that those who do not hold those religious beliefs are neutral about them. This is not accurate.
Many of those of us who are now conservative Christians have at one time been non-believers who were biased against Christianity. I was baptized into the Norwegian State Church, so I grew up Christian by default, but the leather Bible I received as an infant was still in its pristine, unopened condition when I actually became a Christian at the age of nineteen. So for all practical purposes, I was an unbeliever.
And when I started my search that led to my conversion, I was open to any philosophy or religion except Christianity. I had had no bad experiences with Christianity growing up, so you would think that I'd be either neutral or predisposed to Christianity, but such was not the case. My aunt had given me The Chronicles of Narnia when I was a kid, and although I loved to read, I had never read the series because I knew that C. S. Lewis was a Christian author.
C. S. Lewis describes his own conversion as follows: "That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England."
Self-described agnostic astronomer, Robert Jastrow, writes in God and the Astronomers that a number of scientists were greatly bothered by the discovery that the universe had a beginning. He says the following:
"'This circumstance [of an expanding Universe] irritates me,' and in another letter about the expanding Universe, 'To admit such possibilities seems senseless.'" (Quoting Albert Einstein)
"'I have no axe to grind in this discussion,' but 'the notion of a beginning is repugnant to me . . . I simply do not believe that the present order to things started off with a bang . . . the expanding Universe is preposterous . . . incredible . . . it leaves me cold.'" (Quoting Arthur Eddington)
"I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory; I would like to reject it." (Quoting Philip Morrison of MIT)
"It is such a strange conclusion . . . it cannot really be true." (Quoting Allan Sandage of the Carnegie Observatories)
Jastrow says:
"There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause. Einstein wrote, 'The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation.'
"This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications--in science this is known as 'refusing to speculate'--or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker."
Because of the philosophical implications, Fred Hoyle was staunchly opposed to the Big Bang Theory. He ceased being an atheist because of the fine-tuning of the universe, saying that the idea of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken."
So your point that only people who hold a particular religious view have presuppositions about it is false--unless you agree with Jastrow that "there is a kind of religion in science."
So your point that only people who hold a particular religious view have presuppositions about it is false
That wasn't my point Anette and that isn't what I said.
What is your point then? You seemed to imply in your comment that you (and Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, and Jews) are neutral about Christianity, like we are both neutral about ancient Greece. Is that not what you are saying?
Anette,
I am doubtful that anyone is inherently neutral about anything, but I do believe that we can strive to be neutral and that we can achieve progress in that direction by applying critical methods. Unlike you, I think it is possible for evidence and logic to have an impact on presuppositions, emotions, will, intuition, and experience. We need not start out neutral on a particular question if we can agree on methods.
Vinny,
Unlike you, I think it is possible for evidence and logic to have an impact on presuppositions, emotions, will, intuition, and experience.
Of course it's possible, but it's a choice we have to make for ourselves, and that requires self-awareness about our presuppositions, emotions, will, etc. and the willingness to be rational about them. I have tried to subject all my beliefs to critical scrutiny because I don't want any sacred cows or unquestioned presuppositions. I want to test what I believe in every possible way, so that the false is stripped away and I become more certain of what is true.
However, I find it difficult (if not impossible) to get past some deep-seated presuppositions people hold. For example, if a non-theist firmly believes in the notion of universal causation, to the extent where it's almost a religious belief, the evidence that the universe had a beginning will not sway him. He'll hold out hope that scientists will find a naturalistic cause, or accept that the question has no scientific answer and leave it at that.
And the person with a deep-seated presupposition that Christians have confirmation bias is not likely to take anything I say seriously because in his or her mind it's just mental gymnastics I do to confirm what I want to believe. Evidence that I actually want the truth has no impact on this kind of presupposition.
I've had a lot of discussions with non-theists about presuppositions they have about Christians and each time the evidence (what I actually say and do) had no impact on them. They knew what they knew and there was nothing I could do to challenge this "knowledge." Generally, the only "evidence" they gave was that they were once Christian so they "knew" that Christians have cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, etc.
I could point out that their experiences may not be true of all Christians, and go to a lot time and effort to challenge these presuppositions (and I have), but what it comes down to is that it's often like trying to open up a Pandora's box that they would rather leave alone. They will have to want to be challenged and most people don't.
For example, if a non-theist firmly believes in the notion of universal causation, to the extent where it's almost a religious belief, the evidence that the universe had a beginning will not sway him. He'll hold out hope that scientists will find a naturalistic cause,
We search for a naturalistic cause mainly because everything we know has a naturalistic cause. Tsunamis are not God's punishment but the result of an earthquake out in the ocean.
Despite what Newton thought, the reason that all of the planets are on the same plane is not due to the hand of God but because of how solar systems form from a disc of dust and gas.
We are at a loss to think of anything that was originally thought to have a natural cause only to later find out it had a supernatural cause. However, as shown above we can think of many things that were originally thought to have a supernatural cause but can now be shown to have a natural cause.
If you want to assert that something has a supernatural cause then you have to demonstrate that the supernatural actually adn really exists. THere has to be a good reason to assume the supernatural exists. Other people have said that such-and-such had a supernatural cause only to find out later that there was a perfectly natural and demonstratable cause that had nothing at all to do with the supernatural.
If you want us to believe extraordinary claims like talking snakes and asses, floating axeheads, people being taken up to heaven on a winged horse and fiery chariots then you have to provide extraordinary evidence.
And the person with a deep-seated presupposition that Christians have confirmation bias is not likely to take anything I say seriously because in his or her mind it's just mental gymnastics
We all, theists and non-theists, have confirmation bias. We all want to believe that our country is the best, that our state is the best, our football team is the best, our college is the best. The vast majority of Muslims believe that they were all born into the right religion and the right country. They will go to their graves every bit as confident as you are that their religion is right and everyone else is wrong - and they have the supernatural proof to prove it.
This is why we seek out evidence to support our claim. If we were to assert that the supernatural exists we would rightly be expected to provide positive proof for it, which is more than seeing something, thinking that I can't or won't explain it naturally, therefore it had to have a supernatural reason.
You guys threaten us with eternal torment and punishment if we don't accept what you tell us - some people almost seem anxious to see us roast - but yet you don't have the positive proof to back it up. It's usually "I don't understand how the universe came to be, therefore it must have a supernatural cause."
Anette,
As Darkknight correctly points out, we are all prone to confirmation bias. It is one of those psychological foibles that we have to try to overcome by carefully laying out our arguments and evidence. If we resort to saying things like "it's only your presuppositions that cause you to think that I have confirmation bias," we invite a response like "it's only your presuppositions that cause you to think that it's my presuppositions that cause me to think you have confirmation bias." We might as well abandon any attempt at critical thinking altogether.
I'm glad that you both recognize that we're all prone to confirmation bias, because my point in my last comment was that I've had a number of discussions where people seemed convinced that Christianity requires confirmation bias and they themselves were neutral. I called that a deep-seated presupposition because there was absolutely nothing I could say or do to change their minds. My arguments and evidence simply didn't matter because their processed everything I said within the following conceptual framework:
1. The Bible is not divinely inspired truth, but merely the product of human invention.
2. Anette is arguing that the Bible is consistent with reality.
3. Therefore, Anette has confirmation bias.
The problem is that premise 1 is the question under consideration, so when I come to realize that a non-theist treats it like a fundamental premise (and is unwilling to reconsider it), there is no communication. Everything I say is then considered mental gymnastics and can be dismissed. So why say anything further?
This is the skeptical counterpart to presuppositional apologetics, in which the apologist presupposes that the Bible is divinely inspired truth. I do not practice presuppositional apologetics, because if I treated the matter under consideration as a premise, I would engage in circular reasoning. Although I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired truth, I want that belief to be challenged and tested.
My approach is evidentiary apologetics. This means that I try to look for a point of agreement and use logic and evidence from that point on. However, that only works if the skeptic is willing to agree on the same method. With presuppositional skepticism, there is no possibility of meeting of minds. The point of agreement is always elusive--like trying to hit a moving target.
You are right that we are all prone to this kind of behavior, when we are (perhaps unconsciously) motivated by emotions, will, presuppositions, or biases.
The problems as I see it are two-fold.
One is that while you talk evidence you don't really have any. You find individuals who say what you want to hear but you are not willing to listen to the whole. You quote Sherwin-Williams regarding the growth of a legend but if I were to show you 100 other scholars who say he's wrong you'd just claim I'm commiting the fallacy of arguing from authority.
You have a double-standard regarding the admission or deletion of evidence. You dismiss Islam out of hand, with no further research, but we are to accept parts or all of Christianity just based on the character of the author, Paul for example, of a particular book. If I try to say that the body of Jesus was stolen by unknown followers you respond with responses that have no impact on the possibility of theft. Yet when asked about Mohammad splitting the moon you dismiss it out of hand.
You accept the idea that millions of Israelites were slaves in Egypt for several centuries despite the lack of evidence for it. And this is not for a lack of trying to find any. Christian and Jewish scholars have for several centuries tried to find proof of such a period without any success but when scientists start talking about multiverses and string theory you argument is that it should be ignored for the very same reason - a lack of evidence. Despite all the talk about being evidence-based you accept this with no evidence for it at all.
You accept the idea that the bible was inspired by God despite all of the many errors (sorry, discrepancies) in it. And yet we are expected to accept the bible as truth when He didn't even get the birth and death dates of His Son correct in the book. You say that at least the theological portion is correct but how can we know that for certain if He can't even get the historical, natural world, portion of it straight?
You ask what single explanation ties the resurrection of Jesus with the after-resurrection events with their eventual preaching and martyrdom when such a condition doesn't really apply. You are framing the question so that the only possible answer is a supernatural one. It is like asking what single explanation ties the death of Lincoln's son with Lincoln's assassination with the insanity of Mary Lincoln. Well, I can't think of one except one that has a supernatural cause. Yet, if you were to go outside the bible for a moment and ask what other well-known event in history has a supernatural basis that is agreed upon by almost everyone of every faith to be of a supernatural cause you won't find any. Everything we know has a natural origin or cause or is a supernatural event only in the context of their religion.
I highly doubt you took any time out to talk to Islamic scholars regarding the evidence for Islam. I highly doubt you'd accept the splitting of the moon because of the lack of evidence yet you accept the slavery of the Israelites despite the lack of evidence. You don't take into consideration the characters of those who wrote the Koran even though we are supposed to accept the character of Paul, a man who a day prior to his conversion was going out to kill a mass of people just because he didn't like what they believed; he was out to perform a type of ethnic/religious cleansing.
All of your evidence is of the negative kind - I can't think of a natural explanation for this therefore God did it. No positive proof for the supernatural exists or has ever been presented.
Darkknight56,
The definition of "evidence" is:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
I try to back up everything I say with evidence, and I have also been subjecting my arguments to critique by skeptics. And assuming that they stick to the subject and I'm not bombarded with comments, I make an effort to address all their points. If they make a good point, I concede--I don't just walk away. So there is no way that I can ignore contrary evidence without being cornered in a debate. My blog is evidence of whether or not this is true (nobody quoted 100 Roman scholars who disagreed with Sherwin-White--not even one--so you don't know what I would have done under those hypothetical circumstances).
By the way, I'm getting ready for a trip to Norway, so I probably won't be responding further, but I will write my post, "Grace, Miracles, and the Power of Prayer" sometime in January.
Have a wonderful Christmas!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family.
I don't dispute your definition of evidence - not sure why you even offered it. My point was that you have a lower standard of proof for those things that support your position but a higher standard for those that are contrary to your position.
(nobody quoted 100 Roman scholars who disagreed with Sherwin-White--not even one--so you don't know what I would have done under those hypothetical circumstances).
Actually, both John Loftus and Richard Carrier, both who have extensively studied early first century Christianity both claim that there was sufficient time for such a legend to grow. In addition, they have cited other scholars who make the same claim.
Now since you took Sherwin-white's personal opinion and pretty much elevated it to a statement of fact it seems only fair to apply the same standard to Mssr's Carrier and Loftus. If not then you have to explain why the opinion of a Roman scholar outweighs those of a biblical student and researcher (Loftus was a theological student who studied under William Lane Craig) as well as those biblical scholars he cites in support of his position.
I think in part you take this disagreement on a personal level. I don't view you as deluded or in any way mentally inferior. I really do think you are an intelligent person and I'm impressed with all of the research you've done on the various topics under discussion. This is in stark contrast to those in Ray's group who, when presented evidence for evolution, still clap their hands over their ears and screem over and over again that it does not exist. Just because we disagree about something it doesn't mean I don't view you as smart or intelligent.
Have a good time in Norway seeing the family. I've been to Europe several times, I even lived in West Germany for 2 years, but I never had the opportunity to visit NOrway. I hear it is beautiful, though.
Darkknight56,
Have a good time in Norway seeing the family. I've been to Europe several times, I even lived in West Germany for 2 years, but I never had the opportunity to visit NOrway. I hear it is beautiful, though.
We are having a great time! It is beautiful here, and we’ve been able to see a number of family members. We’re leaving Oslo this morning to catch a train across the mountains to Bergen, where we’ll catch a boat to Tromsø and hopefully see the Northern Lights.
I don't dispute your definition of evidence - not sure why you even offered it. My point was that you have a lower standard of proof for those things that support your position but a higher standard for those that are contrary to your position.
I gave the definition of evidence because you claimed I don’t really have any evidence. Sometimes I’m not entirely sure what you consider evidence, but I try to substantiate all my points by either backing them with evidence or developing them logically or both.
Why do you say that I have a lower standard of proof for those things that support my position but a higher standard for those contrary to my position? Example please?
Now since you took Sherwin-white's personal opinion and pretty much elevated it to a statement of fact it seems only fair to apply the same standard to Mssr's Carrier and Loftus.
First, I didn’t elevate Sherwin-White’s opinion to a statement of fact. I made an argument, based on Sherwin-White’s opinion (however, I did not focus on the rate of development of legend—other apologists did), with the expectation that others would challenge it. I don’t treat any blog post I write as the final word.
Second, Sherwin-White was an Oxford professor who specialized in the Roman Empire (the setting of the trial of Jesus and the Book of Acts) so his opinion on the subject carries far more weight than the opinions of Carrier, Loftus, and Craig, who are apologists for their respective sides and do not specialize in this area.
If Carrier and Loftus cite scholars that disagree with Sherwin-White on the historicity of the NT narratives (the subject of my blog post), you would be better off quoting them (including their reasoning) rather than Carrier and Loftus. As it is, you simply made an assertion that I cannot critically evaluate. (The fact that Loftus studied under Craig tells me nothing about whether he is right or wrong. And are you saying that Craig is more right since he was the teacher and Loftus was the student? Well, I guess that settles it then because Craig agrees with Sherwin-White!)
On most subject (but not Bible interpretation because we all have access to the Bible and are capable of reading comprehension) I rely on the opinions of scholars in that field, but I include their reasoning so it can be evaluated and I don’t consider any of them to have the final word. And I also try to be prepared to discuss the dissenting opinions.
I think in part you take this disagreement on a personal level.
I don’t take any disagreement personally. I do feel some frustration when discussions take up too much of my time or go way off topic, but I recognize that I am the one who allows—or even causes—that to happen.
Maybe you think I take the disagreements personally because I mentioned the discussions in which people have taken for granted that Christians have confirmation bias, but that did not insult me. Instead, it gave me a sense of futility because I got the sense that they treated the falsity of Christian theism as a fundamental premise and sought only to understand why I defend something false, not whether what I say is true or false. That is, they seemed to process the arguments within a conceptual framework that excluded the possibility that Christianity is true.
And when I reflect on how slowly my own conceptual framework has changed over the years, I know that it takes a very long time to make major changes and “think outside of the box” that we have constructed. (I will talk about this some in my next post, in the context of miracles and what the Bible says about how God works in the world.) That’s why I don’t want to seem impatient in trying to get my points across, but I know that I sometimes do.
However, the question remains: How much time and effort should I spend trying to change the minds of the same people? How much time and effort did the apostle Paul spend (Acts 17)? This question is not about me taking anything personally or even being impatient—it’s a rational, practical question.
Anete Acker: Second, Sherwin-White was an Oxford professor who specialized in the Roman Empire (the setting of the trial of Jesus and the Book of Acts) so his opinion on the subject carries far more weight than the opinions of Carrier, Loftus, and Craig, who are apologists for their respective sides and do not specialize in this area.
Actually Dr. Richard Carrier does specialize in the Roman Empire during this period.
DagoodS,
I stand corrected on that point.
However, Carrier is best known as an "Internet infidel," which is how he describes himself on his blog. Like Loftus, he is well-known within the skeptical subculture and is a popular defender of atheism, so he cannot be regarded as a neutral scholar.
Sherwin-White, on the other hand, gives no hint of his religious views, and comes across like he is trying so hard to be balanced that it can at times be hard to make out what he is saying.
But even though I take bias (including the bias of Christians) into consideration in deciding whether to trust someone with specialized knowledge, I prefer to know the rationale so I can judge for myself. Sherwin-White does explain why he thinks the details of the narratives ring true.
Oh, no worries, Anette Acker. *grin* I have every faith in your penchant to dismiss scholars who disagree with your positions under the guise of “no true Scotsman”…er….”scholar.” Just thought I would enjoin you to use a different reason than “do not specialize in this area” when it came to Dr. Carrier, as this excuse makes it look as if you had never read works by him.
First, I didn’t elevate Sherwin-White’s opinion to a statement of fact.
What I said was pretty much elevated it to a statement of fact, just short of making a fact. The point was that he didn't provide any object measure of legend growth or proof that it couldn't have become part of a legend in a short amount of time. It was just an opinion and as such is not proof of anything but yet you rely on it as a device for refuting others like it was a fact.
Why do you say that I have a lower standard of proof for those things that support my position but a higher standard for those contrary to my position? Example please?
I'm surprised by your request for examples considering that when I previously have made such statements I supported them with examples. Rather than repeat the already given examples let me answer your question with one of the most egrigious examples I can think of.
In a post written earlier in 2011 you asked the question, something to the effect of "Do you think Paul would lie?" so since you brought his character into the issue let's examine his character. Just prior to his conversion he was a murderer, consented to the murder of others and stood by as St. Stephen was being murdered (stoned to death) all for the religious cleansing of the area of Christians
You also seem to be a fan of William Lane Craig, someone who has not only posted on his website that he supports genocide and infanticide but thinks that we should feel sympathy for those who actually carried it out.
Yet you think we should ignore people like Richard Carrier and John Loftus, two guys who as far as I am aware of have never even consented to the murder of others much less carried one out, just because they are popular speakers with atheists.
The words of a murder and someone who supports infanticide over atheists who never murdered anyone, interesting...
DagoodS,
Oh, no worries, Anette Acker. *grin* I have every faith in your penchant to dismiss scholars who disagree with your positions under the guise of “no true Scotsman”…er….”scholar.” Just thought I would enjoin you to use a different reason than “do not specialize in this area” when it came to Dr. Carrier, as this excuse makes it look as if you had never read works by him.
Sorry for taking so long to reply--I have had limited Internet access the last few days.
Although I'm not an expert on Richard Carrier (nor have I claimed to have read every author mentioned by someone in the comments on this blog), I actually have read something by Carrier, and I know that he talks about Sherwin-White's discussion of the rate of development of legend in one of his three contributions to The Empty Tomb. But of course, as I said to Darkknight56, I've never focused on that part of S-W's book in any blog post.
I also know that Carrier is a Jesus mythicist, and to point out that a Jesus mythicist rejects the historicity of the NT narratives is sort of like pointing out that a YEC rejects evolution. It's not exactly going to bowl me over.
That does not, however, mean that I "dismiss" Carrier. I said that I take bias into consideration, but it is not determinative. What matters is the actual rationale for the conclusion.
Thank you, Anette Acker. I did not realize Carrier addressed Sherwin-White, so last night I dragged out The Empty Tomb. Carrier has done a thorough job decimating Sherwin-White’s poor methodology, and misguided reliance on Herodotus. I would agree Carrier’s nomenclatures (whether it is “infidel” or “Jesus mythicist”) are irrelevant—what is important are the numerous points, argument and rationale for the conclusion we can disregard Sherwin-White’s position on myth development.
As to Sherwin-White thinking the “narratives ring true”…Darkknight56 is correct that numerous scholars disagree with Sherwin-White. Including Carrier, McGrath, Allison, Ehrman, (and even Sherwin-White does not agree with everything within the New Testament is accurate.)
DagoodS,
Thank you, Anette Acker. I did not realize Carrier addressed Sherwin-White, so last night I dragged out The Empty Tomb. Carrier has done a thorough job decimating Sherwin-White’s poor methodology, and misguided reliance on Herodotus.
Actually, Carrier is extremely biased and/or careless in his treatment of the last eight pages of Sherwin-White's book. He takes things out of context and blatantly misstates what Sherwin-White says. For example:
"Nor does [Sherwin-White] discuss the empty tomb narrative, or any miracle at all--his remarks are confined solely to the trial of Jesus."
Nobody has claimed that S-W addresses the miraculous or the empty tomb, but his remarks are not limited to the trial of Jesus--the book itself also discusses the historicity of Acts, and the last eight pages discusses "the whole topic of historicity [not just the NT, and certainly not just the trial of Jesus] briefly and very generally."
Then Carrier goes on with the following extremely misleading quote mine: "In this context [the trial of Jesus] Sherwin-White talks mainly about about 'myth' (pp. 189, 190, 191, 193), cast sometimes as 'propaganda' (p. 186), 'contradictions' (p.188), 'falsification' (p. 191), the 'didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas' (p. 189) or 'deliberate . . . embroidery' (p. 193), all of which he admits can arise within two generations."
Although I won't go as far as to accuse him of dishonesty, this gives me an extremely dim view of his scholarship because he obviously didn't read the rest of the book and he didn't read the last eight pages very carefully. I have to admit that I'm surprised at your positive reaction. If a Christian did something similar, I would never come to his or her defense.
As to Sherwin-White thinking the “narratives ring true”…Darkknight56 is correct that numerous scholars disagree with Sherwin-White. Including Carrier, McGrath, Allison, Ehrman, (and even Sherwin-White does not agree with everything within the New Testament is accurate.)
In my response to Darkknight56 I said, "(nobody quoted 100 Roman scholars who disagreed with Sherwin-White--not even one--so you don't know what I would have done under those hypothetical circumstances)." (Italics added.) Sherwin-White says in the Preface that he is giving his perspective as a Roman historian--not a Bible scholar. He says that a NT historian has inevitably not been able to "immerse himself in the Roman evidence and the Roman aspect until its understanding becomes second nature." However, Sherwin-White, an Oxford professor who specializes in this area, has.
In fact, he says of Acts, "But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."
The burden is now on you (or Darkknight56) to find Roman historians who disagree, and if you find them, to spell out their rationale.
Anette,
I have never seen an apologist quote Sherwin-White for any other purpose than to argue that stories about Jesus arose too quickly to be legends. I suspect that what Carrier meant was that the only thing Sherwin-White discusses about Jesus is his trials. I'm sure Carrier knows that he also discussed Paul's trials and Paul's citizenship.
I love the way Christians bend over backwards to ignore gross contradictions and inconsistencies in the New Testament, but they will jump all over the slightest perceived misstatement if it comes from a skeptic.
Vinny,
The words and phrases Carrier quotes are used by Sherwin-White in his general discussion about historical sources-- not about the NT specifically--and certainly not about the trial of Jesus. But Carrier gives the clear impression that Sherwin-White uses those words in the context of the trial of Jesus. Anyone who has read Sherwin-White's chapter on the trial knows that he says the opposite. Carrier's series of quotes is not "the slightest perceived misstatement." But I guess the choir will come to his defense with shouts of Amen! regardless.
Anette Acker: Actually, Carrier is extremely biased and/or careless in his treatment of the last eight pages of Sherwin-White's book.
*shrug* Perhaps. I don’t see it that way, but am not interested in wasting the time to go through your errors in that regard unless some lurker is interested. Won’t matter to you, as you will find another reason to add to the pile of “not an expert,” “infidel,” “Jesus mythicist” and now “extremely biased and/or careless” with a dash of “I won’t go as far to call him dishonest…[wink, wink; nudge, nudge]…” to dismiss a person who disagrees with you.
No…I was interested in discussing the actual rationale for the conclusion of Carrier doing a thorough job decimating Sherwin-White’s poor methodology, and misguided reliance on Herodotus.
Something you conveniently ignored, deciding to tangent off into another direction rather than face THAT question head-on.
You are right. The quotes are from Sherwin-White’s general discussion of historical sources. They are not about the New Testament specifically or about the trial of Jesus. However, Carrier’s remarks are in a book about the empty tomb so I’m sorry if I don’t see a gross dereliction of scholarly practice in his pointing out what parts of the Jesus stories Sherwin-White addresses without listing everything that he discusses in the rest of the book. Since you admit that the series of quotes is neither about the trial of Jesus nor about the trials of Paul, then, yes, it seems like a slight misstatement at worst to me. However, since I don’t have Carrier’s book in front of me and I know your penchant for quote mining scholars you don’t like (e.g., Bart Ehrman), it wouldn’t surprise me at all if you have taken him out of context.
Perhaps I could have stated that more clearly:
If Carrier was making a point about the application of Sherwin-White's general comments on historicity to the specific case of Jesus' resurrection or to the supernatural stories about Jesus' life more generally, then it might have been entirely reasonable for him to point out that the only thing that Sherwin-White discusses about Jesus is his trials. The fact that Sherwin-White also discusses Paul's trials would not be germane to the point Carrier is making and mentioning it wouldn't make him any more or less honest.
This is very similar to the error Craig made (and which you defended repeatedly and vigorously even after I pointed it out) when claiming that Ehrman changed his position. The reasons why Ehrman and other scholars question the historicity of the honorable burial and the empty tomb were not germane to the point that Ehrman was trying to get across at that particular point in that particular lecture.
DagoodS,
No…I was interested in discussing the actual rationale for the conclusion of Carrier doing a thorough job decimating Sherwin-White’s poor methodology, and misguided reliance on Herodotus.
Something you conveniently ignored, deciding to tangent off into another direction rather than face THAT question head-on.
I ignored it because I want to conclude this discussion rather than "tangent off into another direction." As I have now repeated numerous times, I have never discussed Sherwin-White's analysis of Herodotus and the tempo of myth-making. This is William Lane Craig's argument, and he elaborates on it well here. I find the rest of the book far more interesting than the last eight pages and that has always been my focus.
I was simply replying to Darkknight56's accusation than I would dismiss 100 scholars who disagree with Sherwin-White. I pointed out the bias and lack of knowledge of the one scholar mentioned who specialized in the Roman Empire at some point. (Shrug it off all you want, but surely you, as a trial lawyer, recognize the significance of an "expert witness" being discredited.)
However, I will briefly say that I disagree with you, and again, I'm surprised that you reacted as positively as you did. Again, Carrier demonstrates that he didn't read the last eight pages very carefully and that he didn't read the rest of the book at all. He says:
"And yet even Herodotus believed without question many obvious legends (as we shall see), a point Sherwin-White curiously neglects to mention, probably because it would have undermined his argument for the historicity of Christ's trial."
Sherwin-White doesn't neglect to mention Herodotus' lack of critical thinking at all. He says:
"All this suggests that, however strong the myth-forming tendency, the falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail even with a writer a writer like Herodotus, who was naturally predisposed in favour of certain political myths, and whose ethical and literary interest were stronger than his critical faculty." (That's the context of the word "falsification," not the trial of Jesus.)
If Carrier cannot be bothered to read and fully understand a work before he critiques it for publication, why should I take seriously the assertions he makes that I can't verify? Thus, I'm spending no more time on this article.
Vinny,
The fact that Sherwin-White also discusses Paul's trials would not be germane to the point Carrier is making and mentioning it wouldn't make him any more or less honest.
The problem is not that Carrier doesn't mention Paul's trials, but that he quotes prejudicial words and phrases out of context and falsely claims that the context is Christ's trial. The context is a general discussion about historicity where he uses secular examples. In the chapter on Christ's trial he simply affirms historical details and says nothing about myth.
Anette,
What you have quoted doesn't show Carrier claiming that the context is the trial of Jesus. Rather, you have inserted the words "the trial of Jesus" into a quote from Carrier in order to have him make that claim.
I am reminded of your manipulation of Vermes. You claimed "Geza Vermes says that the words of Paul are "a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus." When I found the actual quote however, it was "Paul passes along a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus." Vermes didn't claim that it was the words themselves that Paul inherited. I pointed that error out to you on November 15, 2010, and yet you repeated it in a post on January 19, 2011.
Given your past problems with quote mining, especially your willingness to repeat misstatements after they have been pointed out to you, I am afraid that I cannot take your complaints about Carrier seriously without more evidence.
Anette,
What you have quoted doesn't show Carrier claiming that the context is the trial of Jesus. Rather, you have inserted the words "the trial of Jesus" into a quote from Carrier in order to have him make that claim.
I am reminded of your manipulation of Vermes. You claimed "Geza Vermes says that the words of Paul are "a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus." When I found the actual quote however, it was "Paul passes along a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus." Vermes didn't claim that it was the words themselves that Paul inherited. I pointed that error out to you on November 15, 2010, and yet you repeated it in a post on January 19, 2011.
Given your past problems with quote mining, especially your willingness to repeat misstatements after they have been pointed out to you, I am afraid that I cannot take your complaints about Carrier seriously without more evidence.
Vinny,
What you have quoted doesn't show Carrier claiming that the context is the trial of Jesus. Rather, you have inserted the words "the trial of Jesus" into a quote from Carrier in order to have him make that claim.
Vinny, you can't be serious! You've said that you have not even read the book. Don't you think that if I did that it would be the first thing DagoodS would point out?
This is how the quote begins:
"The be exact, Sherwin-White never uses the word 'legend' in the chapter Craig quotes. Nor does he discuss the empty tomb narrative, or any miracle at all--his remarks are confined solely to the trial of Jesus. In this context Sherwin-White talks mainly about 'myth' (p. 189, 190, 191, 193) . . ." (Italics added.)
He is talking about the chapter Craig quotes (the last one) and saying that the trial of Jesus is the context. This is incorrect, as you have agreed.
Given your past problems with quote mining, especially your willingness to repeat misstatements after they have been pointed out to you, I am afraid that I cannot take your complaints about Carrier seriously without more evidence.
I don't quote mine, and you know it. A skeptic would surely call me on it.
To me, and everyone else, the difference between what I said and Vermes' whole quote is insignificant. But I did start using the word "tradition" rather than "creed" (even though DagoodS used the word "creed") because it seemed so important to you, and I don't really care.
Jeffery Jay Lowder and other contributors to The Empty Tomb thank Christian philosophers like William Lane Craig, Lydia McGrew and Stephen Davis in their notes for critiquing their articles prior to publication. If Carrier had done likewise, it may have prevented a lot of his problems.
If you want more evidence about what Carrier says, go read the book!
Sherwin-White wrote a book about New Testament events, including Jesus’ Trials. Sherwin-White responds to scholars’ claims that some, or all, the events within Jesus’ Trials (along with other events) are not historical. They are mythical. Sherwin-White concludes the book with an opinion and example regarding historical accuracy in all ancient texts (including the New Testament [including Jesus’ trial]) giving this oft-utilized phrase regarding mythological development.
As Jesus’ Trials is within historical writing (the Gospels) and Sherwin-White has just dispelled claimed myth development regarding Jesus’ Trials (along with other events)— Sherwin-White’s opinion included myth development in New Testament writings and accounts. I.e. the Gospels. I.e. Jesus’ trials.
Did Sherwin-White include more writings than the canonical Gospels when referring to myth development? Yes. Did Sherwin-White discuss more events than Jesus’ Trials in the gospels? Yes. But Sherwin-White clearly intended to include Jesus’ Trials accounts in the Gospels within the conclusions reached in this final section! (along with other events.)
Christian Apologists utilize Sherwin-White’s opinion; Dr. Craig says, “When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be ‘unbelievable.’ More generations would be needed.”
Dr. Carrier wrote an essay about myth development surrounding the empty tomb story. In the essay, Carrier responds to Craig and Sherwin-White’s assertions on legendary development. The closest RELEVANT portion of Sherwin-White’s book to Carrier’s discussion area is Jesus’ Trial. Carrier is not talking about Paul’s biography, Galilean towns, or Quirinius.
Anette Acker, it is difficult to keep up with your attempts to discredit Carrier. I think your current choice is Carrier’s response to Sherwin-White’s opinion on myth development regarding solely Jesus’ Trials and that Sherwin-White’s opinion is more broadly discussing historicity.
Yet isn’t Jesus’ Trials account within the historicity discussion? Especially considering Sherwin-White had JUST finished debunking claims regarding mythical developments in Jesus’ Trial accounts!?
Really, as Vinny points out, your complaint is Carrier only talks about Sherwin-White’s discussion on Jesus’ Trials, and fails to mention Sherwin-White’s discussion on other events. Events irrelevant to what Carrier is discussing! Based on that:
Anette Acker: Although I won't go as far as to accuse him of dishonesty, this gives me an extremely dim view of his scholarship because he obviously didn't read the rest of the book and he didn't read the last eight pages very carefully. I have to admit that I'm surprised at your positive reaction. If a Christian did something similar, I would never come to his or her defense. [emphasis in original]
One wonders what your position will be on Dr. Craig. Craig claims Sherwin-White was referring to “the Gospels” when discussing legendary development. You state it is actually “…general discussion about historical sources-- not about the NT specifically…” If Carrier limited his discussion with Sherwin-White to Jesus’ Trials (but not other events), shouldn’t you equally take a dim view of Craig’s scholarship for limiting Craig’s discussion to the gospels, but not the other books?
You will find some other excuse to dismiss Carrier and embrace Craig. I am merely pointing out the blatant hypocrisy (or lack of reading comprehension.) If Carrier is dismissed for only talking about what was relevant to Carrier, but included within Sherwin-White’s opinions, then Craig should equally be dismissed for only talking about what was relevant to Craig, but included within Sherwin-White’s opinions.
I think Craig and Carrier understand Sherwin-White far better than you.
Vinny,
I do not think Anette Acker was quote-mining. Dr. Carrier is not particularly clear in this paragraph, but I do think if one reviews the entire chapter, the meaning can be determined. My clarifying words are in brackets:
“…That is why Sherwin-White, whom Craig cites, in the very same book Craig cites, freely admits that, despite Craig’s representation of his [Sherwin-White’s] position, ‘Certainly a deal of distortion can affect a story that is given literary form a generation or two after the event, whether for national glorification or political spite or for the didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas.’
“To be exact, Sherwin-White never used the word ‘legend’ in the chapter [where Sherwin-White discusses historicity in documents and myth development] Craig quotes. Nor does he [Sherwin-White] discuss the empty tomb narrative, or any miracle at all—his [Sherwin-White’s] remarks are confined solely to the trial of Jesus. In this context [the chapter on general historicity and myth development timing*] Sherwin-White talks mainly about ‘myth’ (pp. 189,190, 191, 193), case sometimes as ‘propaganda’ (pg. 186), ‘contradictions’ (p. 188), ‘falsification’ (p191), the ‘didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas’ (p. 189), or ‘deliberate…embroidery’ (p. 193), all of which he [Sherwin-White] admits can arise within two generations. He [Sherwin-White] generally has in mind any false story, of whatever origin, that is later believed to be true. Yet his [Sherwin-White’s] argument from Herodotus rests merely on a single case, and even that contains the full admission that a legend was widely believed true at the time. The only difference is that Herodotus challenges it as he [Herodotus] did many claims. But we have not even a single example of such a method or approach being employed by the Gospel authors; they never challenge or even question anything they report, and unlike Herodotus they never once name a single source, or consciously weigh the evidence for or against any claim.
“Thus the analogy with Herodotus fails. The Gospel writers are much more akin to the people who believed the legends, than they are to a careful crucial historian like Herodotus himself, who often doubts them. And yet even Herodotus believed without question many obvious legends (as we shall see), a point Sherwin-White curiously neglects to mention, probably because it would have undermined his argument for the historicity of Christ’s trial. Worst still, Sherwin-White’s one case study [of Herodotus] is so dissimilar to the empty tomb story that no analogy can be drawn between them, and thus it is inappropriate for Craig to employ it in such a way.” [emphasis in original]
*I should note Anette Acker previously pointed out this is what Carrier meant by “in this context” and I agree.
Carrier then goes on to explain the differences between Herodotus and the Gospels.
I think Carrier is correct in using Sherwin-White’s last chapter to investigate Sherwin-White’s opinion on myth development in Jesus Trials account. For the reasons I stated in my last comment. The same way I think Craig is correct in using Sherwin-White’s last chapter to investigate Sherwin-White’s opinion on myth development in the Gospels. Even though Sherwin-White discussed more than Jesus’ Trials (Carrier) and discussed more than the Gospels (Craig.)
If a person wrote a book on battles, including Gettysburg, Stalingrad, Midway and Trafalgar and finished off with a conclusionary chapter regarding general battle strategies, I believe it would be fair to conclude they meant Gettysburg as being one of the battle strategies they were talking about without having to mention ALL the battles listed in the book. Especially if one was writing on the US Civil war.
DagoodS,
I do not think Anette Acker was quote-mining.
Thank you!
Anette Acker, it is difficult to keep up with your attempts to discredit Carrier.
It shouldn't be at all hard to keep up. All I'm doing is juxtaposing what Carrier said with what Sherwin-White said. (And contrary to what you implied, I never accused Carrier of dishonesty. I know that Sherwin-White can be challenging reading. I simply think Carrier should have tried much harder before submitting his article for publication.)
To recap:
Sherwin-White said at the beginning of his discussion on historicity:
"So much for the detailed study of the Graeco-Roman setting of Acts and Gospels. But it's fitting for a professional Graeco-Roman historian to consider the whole topic of historicity briefly and very generally, and boldly to state a case."
Carrier said:
"The be exact, Sherwin-White never uses the word 'legend' in the chapter Craig quotes. Nor does he discuss the empty tomb narrative, or any miracle at all--his remarks are confined solely to the trial of Jesus. In this context Sherwin-White talks mainly about 'myth' (p. 189, 190, 191, 193) . . ."
Lest there be any confusion about what he meant by "in this context," he helps us out by saying:
"And yet even Herodotus believed without question many obvious legends (as we shall see), a point Sherwin-White curiously neglects to mention, probably because it would have undermined his argument for the historicity of Christ's trial." (Italics added.)
The "in this context" pertains to Christ's trial. Otherwise Carrier wouldn't have accused Sherwin-White of neglecting to mention that Herodotus believed many legends "because it would have undermined his argument for the historicity of Christ's trial." Carrier is saying that Sherwin-White's arguments in the last chapter are made in the context of Christ's trial, not the whole NT and all ancient documents, which you, Vinny, and I recognize to be the case.
The other two passages I juxtaposed are the following:
Carrier said: "And yet even Herodotus believed without question many obvious legends (as we shall see), a point Sherwin-White curiously neglects to mention, probably because it would have undermined his argument for the historicity of Christ's trial."
Sherwin-White said: "All this suggests that, however strong the myth-forming tendency, the falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail even with a writer a writer like Herodotus, who was naturally predisposed in favour of certain political myths, and whose ethical and literary interest were stronger than his critical faculty."
So how would you reconcile these two statements?
“To be exact, Sherwin-White never used the word ‘legend’ in the chapter [where Sherwin-White discusses historicity in documents and myth development] Craig quotes. Nor does he [Sherwin-White] discuss the empty tomb narrative, or any miracle at all—his [Sherwin-White’s] remarks are confined solely to the trial of Jesus. In this context [the chapter on general historicity and myth development timing*]
*I should note Anette Acker previously pointed out this is what Carrier meant by “in this context” and I agree.
I never said that. I said that "in this context" referred back to "the trial of Jesus," which is what Carrier would have meant if he (and his editors) were following the normal rules of English grammar.
I am merely pointing out the . . . lack of reading comprehension.
I admit that I'm nowhere near as adept at creative reading as you are. ;)
I never said I didn’t read the book. I said I didn’t have it in front of me. I borrowed it from the library several years ago.
If I were editing Carrier’s essay knowing your insistence on viewing his statements as uncharitably as you possibly can, I would make the following changes:
To be exact, Sherwin-White never used the word ‘legend’ in the chapter Craig quotes. Nor does he discuss the empty tomb narrative, or any miracle at all—his remarks are confined solely to the trial of Jesus.
would become
To be exact, Sherwin-White never used the word ‘legend’ in the chapter Craig quotes. Nor does he ANYWHERE discuss the empty tomb narrative, or any miracle at all—his remarks ABOUT JESUS are confined solely to the trial of Jesus.
And yet even Herodotus believed without question many obvious legends (as we shall see), a point Sherwin-White curiously neglects to mention, probably because it would have undermined his argument for the historicity of Christ’s trial.
would become
And yet even Herodotus believed without question many obvious legends (as we shall see), a point Sherwin-White curiously neglects to mention, probably because it would have undermined THE argument HE MAKES ELSEWHERE for the historicity of Christ’s trial.
Vinny,
I did not view Carrier's statements as uncharitably as I could--in fact, I did not say a thing about how I regarded his arguments until DagoodS said: "Carrier has done a thorough job decimating Sherwin-White’s poor methodology, and misguided reliance on Herodotus."
Carrier is the one who treated Sherwin-White uncharitably by accusing him of neglecting to mention something he did in fact mention and by imputing motives to him.
As for me being uncharitable, Carrier took prejudicial words, removed them from their immediate context, and falsely said that the context was the trial of Jesus. That looks to me like either sloppy scholarship or dishonesty (if there is a third alternative, please enlighten me), and I figured it would be most charitable to call it sloppy scholarship but to acknowledge that Sherwin-White can be a challenging read.
Go ahead and massage Carrier's words all you want, but his meaning is very clear: He said that Sherwin-White's remarks in the last chapter are "confined solely to the trial of Jesus." Those are not ambiguous words. (And the implication is that Sherwin-White's words cannot be applied to the empty tomb.) That's why he accuses Sherwin-White of neglecting to mention Herodotus' lack of critical thinking because it would undermine his argument for the historicity of Christ's trial. If he didn't mean what he said when he said that the chapter was confined solely to the trial of Jesus, then the chapter on the trial of Jesus would stand on its own and the discussion of Herodotus would have no impact on it.
Carrier is also uncharitable toward Craig by saying, "Craig implies that Sherwin-White did not believe any legendary material had accrued in the Gospels." Craig is actually very clear that Sherwin-White says nothing of the kind.
I'm sorry that I offended you by giving my reaction to this article, because I can tell you're a fan of Carrier, but again, I would have just dropped it if DagoodS had not said that Carrier decimated Sherwin-White's arguments. That is absolutely not true.
I am not offended at all. However, I think it is quite clear that "in this context" means "in the context of Sherwin-White's general comments about historicity" rather than "in the context of Sherwin-White's comments about Jesus' trial." Of course that wouldn't fit your presuppositions about Carrier so I'm sure you would never consider it.
I do like Carrier's work although I don't rate him up there with Ehrman.
What I like about both Ehrman and Carrier is that they are very careful in laying out the evidence upon which they base their conclusions so that I am able to judge for myself whether or not I think their conclusions are warranted.
Over the last few years, I have interacted with a number of Christian bloggers who got their information about A.N. Sherwin-White from Craig or Strobel. Invariably, they are surprised when I tell them what Sherwin-White actually wrote. I have never been similarly surprised when I made an argument based on something I read by Carrier or Ehrman. That's the difference between an apologist and a real scholar.
Invariably, they are surprised when I tell them what Sherwin-White actually wrote. I have never been similarly surprised when I made an argument based on something I read by Carrier or Ehrman. That's the difference between an apologist and a real scholar.
The difference between an apologist and a real scholar is how you react to them? Maybe the reason why you're not "surprised" by revelations about your "real scholars" is because you simply ignore inconvenient evidence (or insert words to make your "real scholar" say what you want him to say). I have included a number of quotes which show that Carrier misstated Sherwin-White and Craig, and you have not addressed most of them.
Anette,
Tell you what. When you finally get around to acknowledging that Craig lied about Ehrman changing his position on the empty tomb, I'll get Carrier's book from the library again and address all your points. But nothing you have cited so far suggests that Carrier's misstatements exist anywhere but in your own imagination.
The difference between an apologist and a scholar is not how I react to them. The difference is that when I read the work of a real scholar (including real Christian scholars), I get a clear picture of the evidence and I am not surprised when I rely on something the scholar said. However, when Christian's rely on something that an apologist wrote, they continue find themselves with egg on their faces when they run into a skeptic who actually knows the facts.
But nothing you have cited so far suggests that Carrier's misstatements exist anywhere but in your own imagination.
Then please reconcile the following two statements:
Carrier said: "And yet even Herodotus believed without question many obvious legends (as we shall see), a point Sherwin-White curiously neglects to mention, probably because it would have undermined his argument for the historicity of Christ's trial."
Sherwin-White said: "All this suggests that, however strong the myth-forming tendency, the falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail even with a writer like Herodotus, who was naturally predisposed in favour of certain political myths, and whose ethical and literary interest were stronger than his critical faculty."
And please reconcile this, "Craig implies that Sherwin-White did not believe any legendary material had accrued in the Gospels," with what Craig says here, especially the second half of the video.
Anette,
I'll take the second one first because the explanation is pretty simple and it demonstrates the ridiculous lengths you will go to discredit Carrier. The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave was published in 2005. The William Lane Craig podcast is dated 2010. I suspect that Carrier was referring to something that Craig had written prior to 2005 rather than something he would say 5 years in the future.
Regarding the first, "political myths" and "obvious legends" are not the same thing.
Vinny,
This is what Craig has always said--before he was forced to elaborate:
"According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts." (Italics added.)
Regarding the first, "political myths" and "obvious legends" are not the same thing.
Seriously, Vinny? And you speak of uncharitable reading?
Well, you go on and believe what you want.
Have a happy New Year!
Anette Acker,
In order to claim Carrier was either incorrect or inept, you appear to be claiming Sherwin-White was aware of counter-examples within Herodotus, where Herodotus DID believe many legends within one or two generations of the event.
Look, your concern with Carrier is the statement, “And yet even Herodotus believed without question many obvious legends (as we shall see), a point Sherwin-White curiously neglects to mention…” when contrasted with Sherwin-White’s statement, “All this suggests that, however strong the myth-forming tendency, the falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail even with a writer like Herodotus, who was naturally predisposed in favour of certain political myths, and whose ethical and literary interest were stronger than his critical faculty”
Are you claiming Sherwin-White was aware of Herodotus’ acceptance of other myths and/or legends within 1 or 2 generations? And Carrier is failed to recognize Sherwin-White was aware?
If so, isn’t this a bit of Forest-Trees? Battle-War? Sure, under this argument Carrier is proven wrong; but worse this reinforces Sherwin-White’s failed methodology!
Remember, Sherwin-White claims, “Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition.”
But if Herodotus ALSO accepted myths within two generations, we could equally say, “Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making and the tests suggest that within two generations the mythical tendency can prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition.”
In other words, we have examples of BOTH with Herodotus—hard historic core despite myth-making and no hard historic core within myth-making. And Sherwin-White, (according to you was aware of both) fails to inform his readers BOTH can be “suggested” by Herodotus’ example.
So…are you claiming Sherwin-White was aware of counter-examples within Herodotus to his claim about two generations are “too short” a span?
Craig was forced to elaborate because earlier he had written “When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be ‘unbelievable.’ More generations would be needed.” Craig dishonestly put “unbelievable” in quotation marks despite the fact that Sherwin-White never used the word. The fact that you can quote mine for statements in which he more accurately quotes Sherwin-White doesn’t change Craig’s more egregious statements.
But that doesn’t change the point that you want me to reconcile Carrier’s description of Craig’s position with something Craig said five years later. By contrast, I showed that Craig misrepresented Ehrman’s position with materials that were available at the time of Craig’s misrepresentation. Moreover, I have run across plenty of Christian bloggers who interpreted Craig’s description of Sherwin-White’s as Carrier did. If it makes you feel better to think that Craig didn’t intend his remarks to be understood that way, that’s fine with me. However, there can be no dispute that Sherwin-White position was in fact misunderstood as a result of Craig’s remarks.
And yes Anette, I do seriously think that “political myths” and “obvious legends” are two different things. Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are “obvious legends.” Americans won the Revolutionary War singlehandedly is a “political myth” because the fact of the matter is that France helped a lot. Moreover, it is precisely this type of political myth that Sherwin-White says Herodotus was predisposed to believe, but about which he was able to discover the truth in the case of the overthrow of the Athenian tyranny.
DagoodS,
Sherwin-White is saying that in spite of Herodotus' inclinations toward "political myths," and his "ethical and literary interests," that were "stronger than his critical faculty," "the material of Herodotus presents no intracticle difficulty to a critical historian."
Then he uses an example of "the more critical Thucydides" doing exactly that.
But since I'm not an expert on Herodotus, or historical reconstruction, I cannot judge whether Sherwin-White is correct. All I know is that Carrier has made enough mistakes in his methodology, in ways that I can verify, that I have no reason to trust the assertions that I cannot verify.
Vinny,
And yes Anette, I do seriously think that “political myths” and “obvious legends” are two different things. Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are “obvious legends.” Americans won the Revolutionary War singlehandedly is a “political myth” because the fact of the matter is that France helped a lot.
So, what "obvious legends" like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster does Carrier think Herodotus believed in? Carrier is the one who used the word "obvious legends," and Sherwin-White used the word "political myths."
Your point is that they're saying something different, so I can't wait to hear all about the Bigfoot-type tales Herodotus told!
Your point is that they're saying something different, so I can't wait to hear all about the Bigfoot-type tales Herodotus told!
Ouch! Your sarcasm is biting!
Unfortunately, I can't give you specifics because I have not read Herodotus myself. However, you could ask William Lane Craig since in that podcast of which you are so fond, he refers to "all sorts of fabulous tales that Herodotus passes on."
However, you could ask William Lane Craig since in that podcast of which you are so fond, he refers to "all sorts of fabulous tales that Herodotus passes on."
But whether they use the words "obvious legends," "fabulous tales," or "political myths," none of them are talking about Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. Wouldn't you agree?
Anette Acker,
If you don’t know whether Sherwin-White was correct about Herodotus, then how can you know whether Carrier was correct about Sherwin-White on Herodotus? If you don’t know…you don’t know.
And if you don’t know whether Carrier was correct about Sherwin-White on Herodotus, how can you know whether or not Carrier decimated Sherwin-White’s poor methodology and misguided reliance on Herodotus?
Anette Acker: So, what "obvious legends" like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster does Carrier think Herodotus believed in?
Ummm…you once questioned whether Vinny read Carrier’s Essay. This question could cause one to wonder the same about you.
You do realize Carrier lists certain legends Herodotus records, right?
I never said either of them were referring to Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. I merely gave those as examples of "obvious legends" as distinct from "political myths."
Based on a little Googling, it appears that Herodotus did pass along stories about griffins, dragons, one-eye men, giants, and giant camel-eating ants. This might be what Carrier and Craig were referencing.
Dagoods,
Maybe it was a trick question designed to show that I never read Carrier's essay.
DagoodS,
Ummm…you once questioned whether Vinny read Carrier’s Essay. This question could cause one to wonder the same about you.
I didn't question whether Vinny read the essay--I told him that if he needed more evidence of what Carrier said he should go read it.
I admit that I stopped reading Carrier's chapter after his misrepresentations of Sherwin-White and Craig. As I said, if a scholar is wrong about what I can verify, why should I take seriously what I can't? I felt no duty to keep reading after Carrier lost me, and didn't even want to get into a discussion about this. (But I do apologize for the sarcasm about the legends, Vinny.)
But the fact that Herodotus included fantastic embellishments doesn't undermine Sherwin-White's argument--it strengthens it--because he says that "even with a writer like Herodotus" "falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail." And, "the material of Herodotus presents no intractable difficulty to a critical historian."
Sherwin-White is not the only one who says this. The summery to the book The Histories says:
"One of the masterpieces of classical literature, the Histories describes how a small and quarrelsome band of Greek city states united to repel the might of the Persian empire. But while this epic struggle forms the core of his work, Herodotus’ natural curiosity frequently gives rise to colourful digressions - a description of the natural wonders of Egypt; an account of European lake-dwellers; and far-fetched accounts of dog-headed men and gold-digging ants. With its kaleidoscopic blend of fact and legend, 'The Histories' offers a compelling Greek view of the world of the fifth century BC."
The implication is that in spite of the fantastic elements, the historic core remains. Sherwin-White is saying that critical historians can basically separate the fact from legend, and other accounts of Herodotus seem to agree.
And since the trial of Jesus is a sober account that contains no miraculous elements, I don't see why Carrier thinks that Herodotus' legendary embellishments undermine its historicity. As I've pointed out before, Sherwin-White doesn't even get into the miraculous aspects of the NT.
Anette,
You wrote “Vinny, you can't be serious! You've said that you have not even read the book.” In what world is that not questioning whether I read it? You seem to have a problem remembering anything that doesn't support your current position even when you wrote it yourself.
Vinny,
You said that you didn't have the book, and I interpreted that to mean that you hadn't read it. Either way, you were out of line in accusing me of quote mining, and that is what I reacted to. If you had the book in front of you and could prove it, that's one thing, but you were just making allegations of dishonesty.
I didn't care whether or not you've read the book--I cared about the fact that you impugned my integrity. You have all the evidence you need to believe that I highly value the truth because I concede points, I admit when I'm wrong, and I subject my arguments to scrutiny. In fact, I just made an admission and apologized to you.
You can call me sarcastic, impatient, etc., and I won't argue, but you can't call me dishonest.
Anette,
I understand why you thought that I hadn't read the book and I did not take offense (although now that you admit that you didn't read the whole article by Carrier, I am even more puzzled). However, the fact of the matter is that yesterday morning you questioned whether I read it and this morning you denied questioning whether I read it. I do not believe you intended anything dishonest, but there is a carelessness in thinking there that I find difficult to fathom.
As far as quote-mining goes, I don't know how else to describe that use of the quote from From Jesus to Constantine. You hadn't listened to the lectures and you were insufficiently familiar with the rest of Ehrman's work to know whether that quote fairly represented his position. In fact, you said that you didn't care what his position was. What is that if not quote-mining? I know that you were originally just following Craig, but the fact that you repeated the error after I pointed it out to you makes it your quote-mining as well as his.
You claim that you don't see the significance of the alterations to the Vermes quote, but that doesn't change the fact that you used it again after I pointed out the error to you. If you truly believe that the difference between creed and tradition is trivial, why not just go with the actual words that Vermes uses rather than doctoring them?
I am sorry that you were offended, but I am not going to apologize for the fact that your past indiscretions in the use of quotes caused me to take your claims about the meaning of Carrier's words with a substantial grain of thought. If it bothers you, then be more careful in your claims about the positions liberal scholars hold when you haven't read their works yourself.
It is true that you apologized for your sarcasm and I appreciate that, but you haven't admitted that you were wrong on any substantive points as far as I can tell.
Anette,
To save us the trouble of going through another round of nitpicking, let me offer an additional clarification. I now realize that my last sentence could be read as saying "you have never admitted that you were wrong on any substantive points as far as I can tell" when I meant "you haven't admitted that you were wrong on any substantive points in this thread as far as I can tell."
Also, I have no idea why I typed "grain of thought" rather than "grain of salt."
Vinny,
I don't want to go through "another round of nitpicking." Let me just say that I have probably written well over a million words on this blog and I have a habit of carefully checking the context of any quote I use. I go to a great deal of trouble to make sure I fully understand what the author is saying. If I can't check the context, I don't use the quote.* To be accused of having a "penchant" for quote mining is disheartening, to say the least.
Yes, I do find the accusation insulting because I consider honesty very important, but mostly I just don't understand how you can see things that way, given how hard I try to be honest in every way. I don't mind you criticizing me, but sometimes it seems like you just see what you want to see. You will insert words into Carrier's quotes to make them accurate and you'll talk about my "past indiscretions" if I don't distinguish properly between "creed" and "tradition," even though DagoodS also used the word "creed."
And I'm fine with you seeing things the way you do. I just don't want to argue about it anymore. That's all.
*From Jesus to Constantine was an exception. I wrote that post a long time ago, using Craig's quote, because I couldn't get access to the source. (Since then I stopped using quotes I can't check.) But when you checked the context it didn't change the meaning at all. We simply disagree on Ehrman's position on the empty tomb. We agree that he is basically agnostic on the subject, but I pointed out that he leaned toward affirming its historicity in From Jesus to Constantine, which he did. He said:
"We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. As so I think we can say that after Jesus’ death, with some (probably with some) certainty, that he was buried, possibly by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and that three days later he appeared not to have been in his tomb."
When I said that I don't care what his position is, my point was simply that you were blowing this disagreement way out of proportion and I just wanted to move past it. I made an offhand comment that was entirely accurate and you wanted to discuss it ad nauseum. I didn't want to talk about it, but neither was I going to back down because I think you're wrong.
Likewise, I don't care whether you haven't read The Empty Tomb or you just don't have it in your possession because it was not the point. The point was the accusation of quote mining. But I'll gladly take your word for it that you've read it.
I go to a great deal of trouble to make sure I fully understand what the author is saying.
Here is what you did in this thread Anette. You made a big stink because Carrier said that Sherwin-White didn’t mention the “obvious legends” that Herotodus reported. You wanted to know what those obvious legends were and how they differed from the “political myths,” to which Sherwin-White said Herotodus was predisposed. It turns out, however, that the information was in the Carrier essay that you were quoting. You didn’t know the context for Carrier’s reference to “obvious legends” because you didn’t bother to read the whole essay. Is it really so baffling to you that I don’t see you as a paragon of meticulousness?
You will insert words into Carrier's quotes to make them accurate and you'll talk about my "past indiscretions" if I don't distinguish properly between "creed" and "tradition," even though DagoodS also used the word "creed."
I love the way that you have to work in a cheap shot right before you claim that you don’t want to argue about it any more. I suggested ways in which I think Carrier could have made what I understand to be his meaning more clear. I was completely upfront and honest about what I was doing. That is nothing like you repeating misstatements after they have been pointed out to you.
Regarding “creed” and “tradition,” Dagoods did use the word creed because it was the appropriate word to convey his meaning. He did not use the words interchangeably as you did (and as you claimed he did).
We agree that he is basically agnostic on the subject, but I pointed out that he leaned toward affirming its historicity in From Jesus to Constantine, which he did.
No he did not. He simply didn’t go into a detailed discussion of the historicity of the honorable burial because that was not germane to the point he was making in that lecture, which was a brief overview of historical Jesus studies. In other lectures and books where he deals with the subject in depth, his position is quite clear. Moreover, unlike my suggested editing of Carrier, which reflects my understanding of what he said, we don’t have to speculate about the question of whether Ehrman was leaning towards affirming the historicity of the honorable burial in that lecture, because he expressly stated that he was not in the debate. If you want to claim that it sounded like he might be, go ahead. But if you are going to continue claiming that he was, don’t expect me to be lauding your honesty any time soon.
I said when we first discussed this that I really didn’t have a problem with Craig’s quote-mining as a debating tactic to get Ehrman onto a rabbit trail. However, when a scholar tells you what he meant or didn’t mean by a particular statement, at some point you have to take him at his word. If someone keeps repeating the claim that Ehrman was affirming the honorable burial in From Jesus to Constantine (or leaning towards it) when he expressly denies that he was, at some point that someone’s behavior has to be described as dishonest. I’m sorry, but I don’t see any other word for attributing to a scholar a position that he expressly denies.
Vinny,
Here is what you did in this thread Anette. You made a big stink because Carrier said that Sherwin-White didn’t mention the “obvious legends” that Herotodus reported.
That was not the point at all. Carrier never distinguished between "obvious legends" and "political myths." But if you think the distinction is significant, then please explain why Sherwin-White's mention of "obvious legends" would have undermined his argument for the historicity of the trials of Jesus, and "political myths" would not.
I love the way that you have to work in a cheap shot right before you claim that you don’t want to argue about it any more. I suggested ways in which I think Carrier could have made what I understand to be his meaning more clear. I was completely upfront and honest about what I was doing.
I know that you were upfront about what you were doing. My point was not that you tried to sneak in those words--my point was that you went to a lot of trouble to make Carrier mean what you wanted him to mean. And that was not the plain meaning of the words. That's why I said that you seem to see what you want to see.
Regarding “creed” and “tradition,” Dagoods did use the word creed because it was the appropriate word to convey his meaning.
I don't even understand this. Could you please comment, DagoodS?
Again, I've already conceded that most scholars use the word "tradition," so I'm willing to use that word. But apparently you felt the need to go digging for something with which to back up your claim of quote-mining and the best you could come up with was the Geza Vermes quote, where I actually use the word "tradition." So I didn't even know that I wasn't following your hair-splitting requirements!
If someone keeps repeating the claim that Ehrman was affirming the honorable burial in From Jesus to Constantine (or leaning towards it) when he expressly denies that he was, at some point that someone’s behavior has to be described as dishonest.
What, then, do Ehrman's words in the above quote mean? They are in plain English and unambiguous.
If I say something, and then I deny saying it because it proves inconvenient, would you be dishonest if you insisted that I said it?
That was not the point at all. Carrier never distinguished between "obvious legends" and "political myths."
How do you know that if you never read the whole article? According to Dagoods, Carrier did identify some of the obvious legends. I don’t remember what they were, but if those legends were the griffins, the dragons, and the giant camel-eating ants, then the distinction would be pretty obvious, wouldn’t it? Please don’t tell me how hard you try to be honest in every way when you are making assertions about what Carrier never said without even bothering to finish the article.
So I didn't even know that I wasn't following your hair-splitting requirements!
Really Anette? Is that the excuse you are going with now? On November 15 2010, I wrote “For example, isn't the full quote from Vermes actually ‘Paul passes along a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus’? Vermes doesn't claim that Paul inherited the words (at least not in that quote). The tradition he is passing along may only be the beliefs themselves, rather than that particular formulation.” Are you saying that you couldn’t understand that my objection was to the claim that Vermes said that Paul inherited the words themselves? Are you saying that my objection was so hair-splittingly confusing that you couldn’t figure that out before you made the exact same claim on January 9, 2011 and May 4, 2011?
They are in plain English and unambiguous.
What are you talking about “it appears to be a historical datum” and “with some (probably with some) certainty” and “possibly by this fellow” and “he appeared not to have been” are not unambiguous. They are the words of a scholar who is hedging. Is that your idea of working so hard to understand what a quote means? You ignore all the equivocations and a scholar's own statements about what he meant.
If I say something, and then I deny saying it because it proves inconvenient, would you be dishonest if you insisted that I said it?
No I wouldn't.
However, Ehrman didn't deny saying anything. He denied that he changed his position and he denied that his statements indicated that he changed his position. To continue to insist that he changed his position (or leaned towards changing it) in the face of his explicit reaffirmation of the position he has always held is dishonest.
Vinny,
I did skim the rest of the article, which is why I admitted that Herodotus did use fantastic embellishments (and I quoted a summary of a book which says the same thing). I just don't understand the significance of this fact (except that I shouldn't have made fun of you when you mentioned Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster). Why is Carrier entitled to criticize Sherwin-White for only mentioning "political myths" and not "obvious legends," and to impute sinister motives? And how would Sherwin-White's mention of the "obvious legends" have undermined his argument for the historicity of the trial of Jesus while the mention of Herodotus' lack of critical thinking and affinity for political myths does not?
Please don’t tell me how hard you try to be honest in every way when you are making assertions about what Carrier never said without even bothering to finish the article.
Where did I assert that Carrier never gave examples of obvious legends? All I said was, "So, what 'obvious legends' like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster does Carrier think Herodotus believed in?" That was a question, not an assertion.
What are you talking about “it appears to be a historical datum” and “with some (probably with some) certainty” and “possibly by this fellow” and “he appeared not to have been” are not unambiguous. They are the words of a scholar who is hedging..
So we agree that Ehrman meant what he said in From Jesus to Constantine? Great! That's all I've been trying to say all along, so I'm glad that's finally settled. My intent has never been to make his words stronger than that.
However, Ehrman didn't deny saying anything. He denied that he changed his position and he denied that his statements indicated that he changed his position.
I long ago conceded that Ehrman did not change his position--I have said that all his statements reflected a basic agnosticism on the empty tomb, but that he leans toward affirming it in the above quote.
Where did I assert that Carrier never gave examples of obvious legends?
Where did I say that you asserted that? What you asserted was that “Carrier never distinguished between ‘obvious legends’ and ‘political myths,’ and that is something that you would have had to read the whole article to know. Of course now you are claiming that you skimmed the article which I must take at face value for argument's sake, but there is no way for me to know whether your skimming justified your claims about Carrier never saying something.
So we agree that Ehrman meant what he said in From Jesus to Constantine? Great! That's all I've been trying to say all along, so I'm glad that's finally settled. My intent has never been to make his words stronger than that.
Oh please Anette. Surely you don’t think I am going to fall for such an obvious trick. What Ehrman meant is the entire subject of our dispute. We disagree dramatically about whether his meaning can be derived from those few sentences or whether a larger context I necessary. You are insisting that those few sentences are unambiguous which is a much stronger characterization than can be defended.
I long ago conceded that Ehrman did not change his position--I have said that all his statements reflected a basic agnosticism on the empty tomb, but that he leans toward affirming it in the above quote.
Another nice try, but leaning toward affirming the empty tomb is not the same position that he has expressed elsewhere. Of course, you would have to have read what else he wrote to know that.
Vinny,
Okay, I looked up your Geza Vermes comment and noticed that I didn't even reply to it directly (I was talking to two other skeptics at the time). There's is a difference between dishonesty and not being 100% on the ball all the time. I can guarantee you that I didn't ignore you and repeat the Vermes quote with malice aforethought.
I would still like you or DagoodS (preferably DagoodS, since you are putting words in his mouth) to explain why "Dagoods did use the word creed because it was the appropriate word to convey his meaning."
"Where did I assert that Carrier never gave examples of obvious legends?"
Where did I say that you asserted that? What you asserted was that “Carrier never distinguished between ‘obvious legends’ and ‘political myths,’ and that is something that you would have had to read the whole article to know.
I misunderstood what you were talking about, and I misspoke when I said that "Carrier never distinguished between ‘obvious legends’ and ‘political myths,’" (I am jet lagged, sleep deprived, and my mind feels like it's full of cotton). I don't know if he did or not. So let me rephrase it as a question, since you are the one who is making so much of the distinction:
Where does Carrier make the distinction, and why is he entitled to criticize Sherwin-White for only mentioning "political myths" and not "obvious legends," and to impute sinister motives? And how would Sherwin-White's mention of the "obvious legends" have undermined his argument for the historicity of the trial of Jesus while the mention of Herodotus' lack of critical thinking and affinity for political myths does not?
All I want is answers to my questions, and then I'm done with this discussion.
Anette,
Actually, you did respond to that specific comment directly because you quoted part of it. You didn't, however, respond specifically to my criticism of your quotation of Vermes.
I have been responding to your comments about Carrier and you are the one who claimed that you go to a great deal of trouble to make sure you understand what an author is saying. So rather than asking me to do your research for you, I would suggest that you withdraw everything you have written about Carrier until you can make your own determination.
Vinny,
I actually said to DagoodS that I didn't want to get into a discussion about Carrier's thoughts on myth development and Sherwin-White. I simply mentioned to him that Carrier talks about it in The Empty Tomb, DagoodS gave his reaction to it, and then you joined the discussion.
But my blog post is about how I plan to stop blogging on apologetics, not about Richard Carrier (and in the comments I'm simply trying to wrap things up). Thus, I do not feel compelled to do more "research" than I've done.
However, when I juxtaposed the quotes by Carrier and Sherwin-White, which I understood as best I could, you made much of the distinction between "political myths" and "obvious legends," so the burden is on you to explain why it matters.
So please answer my question(s) or concede that the distinction is irrelevant.
However, when I juxtaposed the quotes by Carrier and Sherwin-White, which I understood as best I could, you made much of the distinction between "political myths" and "obvious legends," so the burden is on you to explain why it matters.
Nonsense. You juxtaposed the two quotes so the burden is upon you to demonstrate that "political myths" and "obvious legends" are the same thing. That is the whole basis of the juxtaposition. If you can't remember what Carrier meant by "obvious legends," then its not my job to go out and research it for you.
I think it has been shown that you didn't have a valid basis for criticizing Carrier. If you think you can develop one, go ahead and do it, but don't expect me to help you with your research.
I love the way you draw conclusions about Carrier and Ehrman without really knowing what it is they said, and then you decide that its someone else's responsibility to educate you. Then if no one feels like taking on the job, you feel free to maintain the conclusions for which you never had an adequate basis in the first place.
Are you really so surprised that I don't give you credit for being as honest and thorough as you imagine yourself to be?
Vinny,
Nonsense. You juxtaposed the two quotes so the burden is upon you to demonstrate that "political myths" and "obvious legends" are the same thing. That is the whole basis of the juxtaposition. If you can't remember what Carrier meant by "obvious legends," then its not my job to go out and research it for you.
My position is that when Sherwin-White said "political myths" and talked about the weakness of Herodotus' "critical faculty," when Craig said "fabulous tales," and when Carrier said "obvious legends," they were all talking about basically the same thing--that Herodotus was inclined to embellish his stories. The way Craig puts it is that "[Sherwin-White] says that the writings of Herodotus, for example, are just filled with legendary stores, they have all sorts of fabulous tales that Herodotus passes on . . ." (He's not doing the kind of hair-splitting that you insist needs to be done.)
In fact, you brought this to my attention, so obviously you don't even mean it when you say the distinction is significant. So why don't you either admit that or answer my questions?
I think it has been shown that you didn't have a valid basis for criticizing Carrier. If you think you can develop one, go ahead and do it, but don't expect me to help you with your research.
I love the way you draw conclusions about Carrier and Ehrman without really knowing what it is they said, and then you decide that its someone else's responsibility to educate you. Then if no one feels like taking on the job, you feel free to maintain the conclusions for which you never had an adequate basis in the first place.
Are you really so surprised that I don't give you credit for being as honest and thorough as you imagine yourself to be?
Do you talk this much every time you're in checkmate? ;)
“Creed” vs “tradition” re: 1 Cor. 15:3-7.
In short, I follow Paul’s philosophy in 1 Cor. 9:22 by becoming “all things to all men.” I find Christians prefer “creed”—so when I talk to Christians about it, I generally use “creed” although I do think “tradition” is more accurate. (In fact, “creed” is more problematic to Christians, even though they want to embrace it! At times I deliberately use “creed” because I enjoy the wry irony only I understand.) The same way I call Mormons “Christian” even though creedal Christians argue the term. *shrug* What do I care about semantics?
Look…invariably 1 Cor. 15 will come up in resurrection discussions. Inwardly I sigh; I already know how the conversation will go. I already know the 1000’s of words about to be spilt on the subject.
The import of 1 Cor. 15 is demonstrative of myth-making—the fact none of the 1 Cor. 15 appearances are in the subsequent appearance stories. How the earliest appearance stories were ignored and/or abandoned in favor of mythologized tales suited to later author’s intended recipients. The culture allowing such varied stories to develop [within a few generations, might I add!] should cause us to question the historicity of such claims.
But before we get there, I am about to go head-to-head with a Christian apologist who wants to fight me every step of the way. We are about to discuss the difference between Peter and Cephas; that will include Clement of Alexandria, Aramaic, and I must be careful to ALWAYS qualify the inference in Luke 24:24 to a Peterine appearance. (Frankly, we should also discuss whether it was Peter on the road to Emmaus, and Baukham’s discussion on early tales “hiding” true identities.)
We are about to argue over whether “the Twelve” is a title, not a number. That requires discussing “the Eleven” in Matthew and Luke, whether those were numbers or titles. Which also includes realizing there were only ten in Luke. To understand that, one must number the appearances, utilizing John (and the three accounts, first without Thomas, then with) and how many disciples were at those, the appearance at sea of Galilee, and where the Matthean appearance came in. Really, we should also mention those who kill off Judas (Matthew and Luke) use “11” understandably, John (who does not) uses no number, and 1 Cor. 15 (has no knowledge of Judas) uses…12.
Then of course, “the 500,” which the Christian takes as literal, and we talk about how the evidence is “the tradition SAYS 500 saw Christ” not “500 saw Christ.” Not to mention their still being alive at the time of Paul and how the Corinthians (or Paul) could even identify them, let alone question them. Insider vs. Outsider information is relevant to this discussion. (Although I am not persuaded by Carrier’s argument, it is an interesting one regarding the possible confusion with “Pentecost.”) Obviously Acts of Pilate must come up as well.
Then “James”—a whole can of worms as to who “James” is, his conversion, when this appearance happened, inevitably his martyrdom (bringing in THAT discussion with Josephus, 2nd Apocalypse of James and Hegesippus!) Which would also touch on Luke/Acts transfer of disciples & Jesus’ family to Jerusalem.
“All the apostles,” entailing whether this occurred in Acts 1, what is meant by pas, who the 120 were, what is an “apostle”?
Of course dating the tradition will be talked about, requiring us to understand the chronological difficulties between Galatians and Acts (perhaps other chronological difficulties in Acts will be necessary to enforce the point), Paul’s conversion attachment to Damascus, King Aretas IV (including Aretas’ enmity with Herod). We may end up discussing the High Priest’s influence in Damascus, which involves Julius Caesar.
[cont’d]
Mention should be made about “according to the scriptures” and the difficulties presented there—what “scriptures”? If the Christian argues “buried” necessarily implies tomb, we will have to discuss burials with crucifixion, Jewish burial rights, tombs, and pre-70 CE burial vs. post 70 CE burial.
Finally we should discuss the reason Paul included this in a letter addressing problems. Why, if resurrection was such the foundation of Christianity, would Paul have to repeat what he previously said? Further, if Paul was willing to repeat traditions surrounding Christ, why not do so elsewhere when it would bolster his argument, especially regarding Love and commandments? Was Paul providing his own bona fides as being qualified to be an apostle by claiming an appearance? (See 1 Cor. 9:1-2)
And we haven’t begun the discussion regarding whether these appearances were visionary (requiring THAT discussion from Acts!), actual, or mixed.
Or what happened to the women in this tradition? Were they removed for the very reason Apologists claim—because they were not considered worthy testimonies? Or were they added by Mark?
Or dare reference Dr. Robert Price’s position on interpolation.
Anyway…I already know this discussion is coming. And I also know (because it has happened every time) invariably I will either be unclear, or write “5” instead of “6” when citing a verse, or not give the apologist the correct perception, or fail to utterly, totally and fully qualify some statement (like not referring to EVERYTHING an author wrote) or daring to say “Christians” when the apologist demands it should be “many Christians” or….something. Something human.
I know there will be no charity whatsoever granted toward any analogy, argument, claim, statement or word I write. God forbid I should fail to spell check!
At which point the apologist, with profuse indignity will loudly proclaim I am not expert enough, or I am an infidel, or I am not granting enough historicity, or I am biased and then equally loudly proclaim they are entitled…no…mandated to discard every single thing I have ever stated or argued, as clearly nothing I have ever said can be trusted.
[I wish I could say this is hyperbole, but in re-reading it…alas…it is not.]
So when 1 Cor. 15 comes up, I already know how the conversation is going to go—to hell in a hand basket! It may be quickly, it may be later; but it will get there.
Therefore…knowing enough carnage is about to occur…I personally don’t bother differentiating between “creed” and “tradition” even though there is a difference, and I can understand why others would. If I became convinced it is significant enough, I would necessarily discard “creed” and only use “tradition.”
Heck, the conversation is doomed anyway…maybe I should add one more thing to more quickly kill it off and avoid the prolonged misery.
Vinny,
Carrier talks about Herodotus reporting the temple of Delphi magically defending itself with animated armaments, lightning bolts, and collapsing cliffs. Herodotus also records a burned olive tree growing a new shoot an arm’s length in a day, a flood wiping out a Persian contingent after they desecrated Poseidon’s image, a horse giving birth to a rabbit, and a mass resurrection of cooked fish.
Carrier doesn’t stop with Herodotus—he also mentions Josephus’ accounts surrounding the fall of Jerusalem, including the bright light, the cow giving birth to a lamb, a gate opening on its own, and chariots with armies seen marching in the sky. (Carrier does not mention the sword in the sky or the comet Josephus also mentions, by the way.)
Carrier also discussed the Roswell legend about an alien space craft landing in 1947 and the government secretly recovering the ship with alien bodies. (To me, this was a very interesting parallel.)
I was thinking about how to explain Herodotus is problematic for this methodology and a question came to mind. (Frankly, Carrier asked the same question, and I am too stupid or thick-headed not to catch on at the time.) With this question, I realized something—we have been conned. As surely as if we just bought the Brooklyn Bridge of $1.
Quick background. Sherwin-White wrote a book regarding historicity of specific events within the New Testament, as possible within his knowledge of Roman Society and Law. (Hence the title of the book, right!?) At the very end, he makes this generalized statement (“…offset[ting] the extreme skepticism with which the New Testament narratives are treated in some quarters.” Pg. 193) how “…even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition.” Pg. 190
Sherwin-White’s methodology is pervasive throughout the book. He responds to scholars who claim NO historicity, by citing examples. Scholar Lietzmann wants to eliminate the Sanhedrin trial as non-historical; Sherwin-White provides examples countering Lietzmann’s arguments. Scholar Mommsen claims the charges against Paul before Felix are imprecise; Sherwin-White provides an example countering Mommsen.
If you will allow a poor analogy, it is similar to:
Scholar: There are no black cars in Texas.
Sherwin-White: Here is a black car in Oklahoma, right across the border from Texas, and cars travel from Oklahoma to Texas.
Unsurprisingly, Sherwin-White continues this method within his closing remarks, noting the timing of the New Testament accounts is close to the writing and…once again by example (Herodotus)…makes the general unadorned statement two generations is too short a period to completely wipe out the “hard historic core.” Sherwin-White is NOT establishing a formula; he is not defining terms. He is not making a grand Theory of History, soon to become a Law; he is simply asserting a general principle.
Now the con:
Christian Apologist authors have assumed, as style, taking quotes from perceived non-Christians to bolster their argument (presumably to claim lack of bias.) Any skeptic discussing the resurrection is certain to hear the Gerd Ludemann (a known atheist!) quote. Discuss Acts, and Sir William Ramsay will make his appearance. Crack open a creationist book; the quotes come spewing forth.
Poor Sherwin-White receives the same treatment. The rest of his book is discarded, overlooked or forgotten. (How many internet Christian apologists who cite Sherwin-White agree with his assessment on Quirinius? Or that Luke disagrees with Mark on the Sanhedrin and is probably incorrect?) But Sherwin-White is not blatantly writing a Christian apologetic book. He is a (perceived non-Christian) historian. And he writes this one itty-bitty line about timing, myth development and “hard historic core.”
Now the Christian apologist author can do what s/he always does: Take the quote from Sherwin-White, tack on some timing and…voila!—they have an “unbiased source” supporting their claim:
P1: Sherwin-White says two generations is ‘too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core.’
P2: Mark’s Gospel was written within 2 generations:
Conclusion: Jesus walked on water.
or
Conclusion: Jesus fed 5000.
or
Conclusion: Jesus’ Tomb was empty on Sunday.
or
Conclusion: [insert whatever one pleases]
[cont’d]
That’s the con. The conclusion does not follow from the premises because the person is extrapolating far too much from Sherwin-White.
The question that came to me was simply this:
Define “hard historic core.”
Think about it; really contemplate it. It must be something that feasibly (under the Sherwin-White “formula”) will completely and utterly disappear in 3 or more generations. What could it be?
Or look at it another way. Take a myth, like Robin Hood. What is the “hard historic core” of Robin Hood? A brigand? A brigand good with a bow? A brigand, good with a bow who leads men? What requirements are there for the “hard historic core” within Robin Hood? At what point do we differentiate the Robin Hood story from other highwaymen?
Carrier raises this point admirably within the Roswell Alien story. What is the “hard historic core” in that story? Do you know? What was it causing people to believe a saucer crash landed? If there was an actual item from the sky, does that constitute a “hard historical core” not eliminated by years of alien stories?
See…this isn’t how myth-making works! Myths can take actual events and/or people and do one (or more) of three things:
1) Add;
2) Subtract: or
3) Modify.
How can we determine “hard historical core” when one can feasibly argue EVERY myth has a “hard historical core”? (Again, I would point out, under Sherwin-White, it must be something that could disappear in three or more generations, if this is a hard-and-fast formula.) Animals walk in the woods—BAM! Big Foot has a hard historical core. Pontius Pilate really governed in Judea—BAM! The Gospels have a hard historical core.
This is what I thought about Herodotus. What is the “hard historical core” in his fantastical stories? One could argue EVERY story has a historical core. There was Athens, hence the burned Olive tree has historical core. Troy fell, the Trojan horse has historical core.
Do you see what I mean? “Hard historical core” is sophistry giving no real definition and no insight.
Anette Acker, you should have stuck to your guns, and refused to talk about Sherwin-White’s last chapter. (Our fault, we kept dragging you back. *grin*) This small sentence is “full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.” I understand the Dr. Craig’s want to utilize it. We should ignore the con and ask this one question: Define “hard historic core” with specificity so we can see how it would be utterly lost by the third generation.
It is not how myth-making works. Sherwin-White is not to blame; those trying to bolster this sentence into a formula are.
My position is that when Sherwin-White said "political myths" and talked about the weakness of Herodotus' "critical faculty," when Craig said "fabulous tales," and when Carrier said "obvious legends," they were all talking about basically the same thing--that Herodotus was inclined to embellish his stories.
Thank you for clarifying. I had been proceeding on that assumption, but having you say so explicitly is helpful.
The problem is that you took your position without knowing what Carrier was referencing despite the fact that that the information was in the article that you were quoting. I think it fair to say that you did not carefully check the context of the quote and you did not go to a great deal of trouble to make sure you fully understood the meaning. The very reason you failed to do these things is because you had concluded that Carrier had not done the same things with respect to Sherwin-White. You dismissed Carrier as unworthy of further consideration. Talk about irony.
Thanks to Dagoods, we now know what Carrier meant by “obvious legends.” I suspect that Craig was referring to the same stories as “fabulous tales.” Now we can compare these to Sherwin-White’s notion of “political myths.” The only example Sherwin-White gives is the story which he uses to test the tempo of myth-making, i.e., the overthrow of the tyranny in Athens. Let’s look at that more closely.
If I understand the story correctly, in the mid-fifth century B.C., some Athenians gave Harmodius and Aristogeiton primary credit for the establishment of democracy because they had assassinated the tyrant Hipparchus in 514 B.C. In fact, Hipparchus was not the tyrant. His older brother Hippias was, and the tyranny continued for four more years after the death of Hipparchus until Hippias was overthrown by the Spartan king Cleomenes and Cleisthenes, the leader of the Alcmaeonidae clan of Athens. Cleisthenes was instrumental in the establishment of democracy. Herodotus and Thucydides managed to get the story right. According to Thucydides, Harmodius and Aristogiton had originally intended to kill Hippias, but changed targets because they believed he had been warned. Neither Herodotus nor Thucydides specifically address how or when the story about Hipparchus being the last tyrant arose, however, Cleisthenes seems to have contributed to the legend himself by commissioning a statue honoring Harmodius and Aristogeiton as liberators. It is thought that Cleisthenes wanted the overthrow of tyranny to be seen as the work of the Athenian people rather than the product of Sparta's foreign intervention. Despite the fact that the Athenian people embraced the myth—in much the same way Americans like to think that we won the Revolutionary War single handedly—the Alcmaeonidae clan preserved the true story of its role in the establishment of democracy. This is how Herodotus was able to establish the true version of events.
The distinction between Sherwin-White’s example of a “political myth” and Carrier’s example of “obvious legends” is quite dramatic. Nothing that Sherwin-White says would clue his readers into the fact that Herodotus was predisposed to report the kind of fantastic tales that Carrier describes.
Regarding "creed" vs. "tradition."
Many apologists argue that Paul received the specific verbal formulation found in 1 Cor. 15 from James and Peter on his first visit. They attach significance to the fact that the church had created a creed so quickly because a creed represents a fixed doctrinal formulation that would have been accepted by all believers.
On the other hand, a tradition is a much more nebulous concept. A tradition might not have all the elements found in the creedal formulation of 1. Cor. 15. There could have been competing traditions. Different groups of Christians might have preserved different stories about the crucifixion and resurrection. The creed could have been the amalgamation of several traditions from different sources.
Dagoods is correct that in most discussions it doesn't matter whether one refers to 1 Cor. 15:3-8, as "creed" or "tradition" because it is in fact both. Where it matters is when you are talking about how far back it goes. If the creed goes back to a year or two after the resurrection, that suggests a uniformity in the earliest belief and understanding. However, if that specific verbal formulation was only composed a year or two before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and it is only the tradition that goes back, that leaves open the possibility of much greater diversity among the earliest Christians.
This is one of the reasons why it is important to quote carefully and accurately. You might be making a point where it doesn't matter whether whether a particular scholar uses the word "creed" or "tradition." However, there are other issues where the distinction is key to understanding the scholar's position. If a scholar thinks that the very words go back to Peter and James, he may very well have a different take on the diversity in early Christianity than if he thinks that it is merely the tradition that goes back.
Vinny,
Picture a venn diagram of two overlapping circles. In one circle we have the people who have consented to participate in this discussion (the "willing") and in the other one we have the people who have access to the two books we are discussing (the "able"). DagoodS is the only one of the three of us who is willing and able, so we'll place him in the overlapping part of the circles. I am able but not willing and you're willing but not able, so we are at opposite sides of the diagram, in the parts that don't overlap.
But instead of becoming an able participant by going to the library and checking out the two books, you throw out guesses and balk at my request that you substantiate them by telling me you're not going to do my research for me. I have done enough research to substantiate every one of my assertions. You are the one who is failing to do your research, and since you are willingly participating in this discussion, you have an even greater duty to do so than I do.
Although you've shown that you know something about the historical event Sherwin-White mentions, you are completely wrong about his take on it. He doesn't characterize Herodotus as a careful critical historian--he says that "it would have been natural and easy for Herodotus to give the mythical version. He does not do so because he had a particular interest in a greater figure than Harmodius or Aristogeiton, that is, Cleisthenes, the central person in the establishment of the democracy."
In other words, it was Herodotus' bias that led him to set the record straight. And in the next paragraph Sherwin-White talks about Herodotus' inclination toward certain political myths and his shortcomings as a critical thinker.
Furthermore, Carrier doesn't distinguish between myth and legend in the way you are suggesting. He refers to the mythical version of that event as a "legend." And then he later gives examples of "obvious legends" that Herodotus believed and passed on.
He simply misses Sherwin-White's point about Herodotus altogether, and then he accuses him of neglecting to mention Herodotus' belief in obvious legends, "probably because it would have undermined his argument for the historicity of Christ's trial."
If Herodotus' belief in obvious legends would undermine Sherwin-White's argument for the historicity of Christ's trial, why would Craig, the apologist, put it even more strongly than Sherwin-White?
Please note that this is all about Carrier's methodology and his representation of Sherwin-White (and Craig), not about the merits of the Herodotus test. I tend to agree with DagoodS that a few sentences of Sherwin-White's book cannot be bolstered into a formula, but I don't want to get into a substantive discussion about this. I disagree with DagoodS about Carrier decimating Sherwin-White's methodology.
Now getting back to your contributions to this discussion, not only did you express substantive opinions without being able to check them against the books, you accused me of quote-mining without being able to check it first.
And then, when DagoodS said that he didn't think I quote-mined, you didn't apologize--you went looking for something in my blog with which to justify the accusation. The best you could come up with was the Geza Vermes quote. When DagoodS said that the distinction doesn't really matter to him, again you didn't apologize. You just basically agreed with DagoodS and ended with some sagely advice about the importance of quoting accurately--still acting entirely justified in your accusation.
The interesting thing is that when I did a search on "a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus," every source in the first three pages (including two Wikipedia articles) prefaced it with "the words of Paul are," but when I googled "Paul passes along a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus" all I got was your quote on my blog.
So how do you prove that you got it right?
Actually, I don't really care. I certainly would not accuse you of dishonesty. I just think you were out of line to accuse me of dishonesty and having a "penchant" for quote-mining.
In spite of the tone of this comment I'm not upset with you (and I forgive you whether or not you apologize), but I do want to warn you that if you continue to look for ways to justify the accusation and still can't do better than the Vermes quote, all you're doing is establishing my truthfulness and meticulousness. So thank you for that!
You are the one who is failing to do your research, and since you are willingly participating in this discussion, you have an even greater duty to do so than I do.
So your failure to read the entire article is excusable on the grounds that you are commenting under duress?
I never accused you of quote-mining Carrier. I said that you had quote-mined in the past and I stand by that. I said that because of your past quote-mining, I was less inclined to trust the accuracy of your interpretation of Carrier based on the quotes that you had provided. I stand by that as well. I chose to use the word “indiscretion” rather than “dishonesty” because I see it as a milder criticism. I was happy to know that Dagoods didn’t think you were quote-mining Carrier, but his endorsement of your analysis was still less than ringing.
Given how often you have opined on From Jesus to Constantine without ever listening to the lectures yourselves and how completely certain you can be about Ehrman’s meaning based only on the quotes that others have provided, I would think you might be a little embarrassed at criticizing me for discussing a book that I have read, but don’t have in front of me. Unfortunately, I borrowed both The Empty Tomb and Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament through inter-library loan. I cannot simply go over to my local library and pick them up. However, I did scan the last few pages of the latter book so I can confirm any comments concerning Sherwin-White’s discussion of historicity.
Apparently, you think I have a duty to answer any question you care to pose while you are free simply drop any discussion which isn’t going the way you want on the grounds of fatigue. Of course, it is logical that you would want to argue about my duties now since the question of what Carrier meant has been answered by Dagoods and your position that it refers to the same thing as “political myths” is no longer viable.
Although you've shown that you know something about the historical event Sherwin-White mentions, you are completely wrong about his take on it.
I don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about here. I never said that Sherwin-White characterized Herodotus as a careful historian. I said that Thucydides and Herodotus got the story right because the Alcmaeonidae clan preserved the true story, which is what I think Sherwin-White meant when he wrote “The Thucydidean version is a salutary warning that even in a relatively small or closed community for a determined inquirer to establish a remarkably detailed account of a major event, by inquiry within the inner circle of the descendants of those concerned with the event itself.” What do think I am claiming Sherwin-White’s take to be?
If Herodotus' belief in obvious legends would undermine Sherwin-White's argument for the historicity of Christ's trial, why would Craig, the apologist, put it even more strongly than Sherwin-White?
Are you seriously suggesting that we can infer the validity of Sherwin-White’s analysis from the fact that Craig acknowledges that Herodotus passes along fabulous tales? Is that your reason for thinking that Sherwin-White was right? Am I now under a duty to explain Craig’s reasoning to you? What I would note is that Craig the apologist only put it more strongly than Sherwin-White after he had been called on his earlier misrepresentations in a couple of different books.
Vinny,
I said that you had quote-mined in the past and I stand by that.
By the way, the correct words by Geza Vermes (from The Resurrection) are, "He comments only once on the events surrounding the Resurrection of Jesus when he passes on to his flock in Corinth a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus."
They are not, "Paul passes along a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus," as you claimed.
Did you say something about indiscretion?
Anette,
Is that the best you got?
I did say something about indiscretions and this looks like another one by you. As you may recall, when I originally raised the question about Vermes, I wrote this: For example, isn't the full quote from Vermes actually "Paul passes along a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus"? Vermes doesn't claim that Paul inherited the words (at least not in that quote). The tradition he is passing along may only be the beliefs themselves, rather than that particular formulation.
The reason I phrased it that way is because you hadn’t provided a citation for the quote so I didn’t know where it came from. However, I googled the phrase and came across a website that quoted the sentence in the way that I presented it to you. Since I didn’t even know what book the quote came from and I couldn’t verify the version I found, I asked you whether or not I had it right. At that point, I wouldn’t have guessed that you would hold back the fact that I had the quote wrong for more than a year until you needed something to slam me on.
Now let’s compare the two versions:
(1) “he passes on to his flock in Corinth a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus."
(2) “Paul passes along a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus"
It appears that the only substantive difference is that the actual quote identifies the recipients of the tradition but I don’t think that either of us ever had any doubt that we were discussing Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Thank you for letting me know the actual source of the quote and that I had the meaning right even if my source changed “on” to “along” and left out “to his flock in Corinth.”
I know you are closing down this blog after a while so I just wanted to list the problems that I have with accepting Christianity and to show it is not just a case of confirmation bias on my part. I don't expect this to turn into yet another thread of discussion. My problem with Christianity, and all religions, is threefold.
1. No document is self-proofing. Just because a document such as the bible, Koran etc, says that something(s) happened it isn't necessarily so. When historians try to validate whether an event happened or not they look for independent corroborating documentation. The bible is full of many miraculous events for which no corroborating documents exist.
2. It's not consistent on any level (historical or theologically). For a document that is god-inspired it is not unreasonable to expect it to be consistent on some (preferably all) levels. Christians can't even agree whether people go to a lake of fire or are just poofed out of existence. There are about 33,000 different strains of Christianity and for every belief, such as baptism for example, they hold many contrary and opposing views on that subject. Even apologists disagree on various beliefs and how to answer them. Much depends on whether they come from a conservative or liberal background and even his/her culture. It is amazing what mental gymnastics some Christians will go through in order to deny the evidence for evolution and that is documented so much better than anything in the bible.
3. Many people lived in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus and of those who may have known him some loved him, some hated him and the rest were so-so towards him yet no one, friend or foe, wrote anything about him. No one wrote about him until at least 30 years after his death and by people who did not even meet him while he was alive. If he was really God then someone while he was around would have noted it and wrote it down, especially an ardent follower and believer. However, no one alive at the time wrote about such a miracle-working preacher.
While I have other issues (the problem of a good God allowing ten million children each year to slowly starve to death, for example, whereas if I did that to my daughter I'd be considered a monster. Why does god get to play by a different set or morals than the rest of us.) my list of objections is not endless. However, I don't think there are any adequate reasons to think that, based on the above issues, a god exists. A god being the answer only raises further questions.
Good luck with your future endeavors.
Darkknight56,
I understand that you have a lot of issues with Christianity, and if you're open to turning back to the faith, I hope you get your answers. I would recommend the blog Tough Questions Answered. Bill Pratt does an excellent job.
By the way, thank you for the rational debate flow chart you emailed me. I fully agree with all of that!
In spite of the tone of this comment I'm not upset with you (and I forgive you whether or not you apologize), but I do want to warn you that if you continue to look for ways to justify the accusation and still can't do better than the Vermes quote, all you're doing is establishing my truthfulness and meticulousness.
Are you pretending now that I haven't been pointing out your problems with Ehrman?
Anette,
By the way, I do not consider quote-mining to be inherently dishonest. If you really have confidence that William Lane Craig is a scrupulously honest and meticulous scholar, then I don’t think you are being dishonest if you claim that Ehrman’s statement in From Jesus to Constantine represented a change of position. I might think it careless, lazy, and gullible, but not necessarily dishonest. And when I say that I don’t see you trying hard to be honest in every way, that doesn’t mean that I think you are being intentionally dishonest because I don't doubt that you sincerely believe in your own meticulousness. It means I think you are being very sloppy in your thinking. For example, when you question whether I read an article one day and deny questioning whether I read the article the next day, I can’t imagine that you are saying that with the intent to deceive anyone. I think you are simply reacting to the moment without giving due consideration to what you wrote the day before.
Vinny,
My "problems" with Ehrman are all in your imagination, something that is even more clear now that you've admitted that he meant everything he said in From Jesus to Constantine. All I've been doing is quoting that, in context:
"We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. As so I think we can say that after Jesus’ death, with some (probably with some) certainty, that he was buried, possibly by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and that three days later he appeared not to have been in his tomb."
You may think that saying he's basically agnostic but leans toward affirming the empty tomb in that quote is very different from saying he is "hedging," but your penchant for hairsplitting is not my problem. If anyone who reads this cares about my "problems" with Ehrman, they can judge for themselves.
Anette,
I understand that you honestly believe that you can fully understand what Ehrman meant when he called the story of the women finding the empty tomb a "historical datum" and you can fully understand the context of his statements without listening to the rest of the lecture or listening to any of his other lectures or reading anything he wrote, but you can't.
Since I have no doubt of your sincerity, I do not question your honesty. However, when it comes to the quality of the thought and effort that you put into reaching your conclusion, the only adjectives that come to mind are pejorative.
In any case, let’s go back to what you said about Ehrman that I found problematic:
And about 75% (according to the study by Gary Habermas) believe that the tomb was found empty. This includes atheist historian Michael Grant, who said: "[I]f we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty."
Those scholars who deny the empty tomb typically have a bias against Christianity and have published works of anti-apologetics, like Gerd Ludemann. But as we've discussed before, even Bart Ehrman said in From Jesus to Constantine: "We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum."
This means that the McGrews' findings can be compelling to the undecided who are willing to rely on what the majority of critical Bible scholars and historians have to say about these salient facts. However, their findings will be less persuasive to those who prefer to tune in to the oracular wisdom of the skeptical Internet sub-culture.
At a time when (if I understand you correctly) you claim that you had already recognized that he was agnostic on the issue, you are clearly lumping Ehrman in with the supposed majority of scholars who believe that the tomb was empty .
Once again, I do not doubt that you sincerely believed what you wrote at the time and that you sincerely believe what you are writing now. I do however think that you have a remarkable capacity to overlook the inconsistencies in the things you write. Given that you were unable to recall questioning whether I read an article little more than a day later, I wouldn’t have expected you to remember what you wrote about Ehrman last summer.
To help wandering lurkers I should more fully explain Carrier’s decimation of Sherwin-White’s methodology in using Herodotus.
As explained earlier Sherwin-White’s method is arguing by example—he makes an argument, and then finds an example supporting this argument. Of course, the huge error in doing so is that it only takes one (1) counter-example to undermine the argument!
An analogy: “Cars do not rust within two years. Here is a two-year-old Ford with no rust.” This claim is proven incorrect by one (1) car less than two years old with rust. It only takes one counter-example to undermine the argument. (Why it is such a poor method to begin with.)
Conforming to his typical methodology, Sherwin-White claims “even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition” and then provides the example of Herodotus and Hipparchus.
In response, Carrier provides numerous counter-examples. Including examples within Herodotus, examples with the contemporary writer Josephus, and examples with other historical events—Saint Genevieve and Roswell.
“Here’s a rusty one-year-old car; here’s a rusty one-year-old car; here’s a rusty one-year-old car.”
(Craig’s claim Herodotus made numerous other mythical accounts [and Sherwin-White was aware] only hurts Sherwin-White’s method; it doesn’t help it! Being aware of counter-examples is insufficient; one must address the counter-example!
“Sure Herodotus also claimed PLENTY of cars less than two-years-old had rust.”)
It gets worse. Carrier points out, even in the Herodotus example Sherwin-White utilized, there were counter-examples—legends arising surrounding the Hipparchus’ murder—and that Herodotus’ ability to maintain historicity in the face of these myths is the exception. to the legend. What about the very counter-example in the same account?
“Herodotus was able to pick out the two-year-old Ford without rust amongst all the rusty two-year-old cars.”
It gets even worse. Carrier points out the gospels correlate closer to legendary accounts than Herodotus’ historical accounts:
1) Herodotus challenges conventional legend; the gospels make no challenges.
2) Herodotus names sources; gospels do not.
3) Herodotus weighs evidence; gospels do not.
4) Event in Herodotus’ city; Gospel accounts not in author’s city.
5) Inscription regarding the actual history existed; gospels have no such inscription.
6) Herodotus consciously wrote history; Mark’s Gospel is more akin to didactic hagiography.
“The gospels are 1978 Datsuns, and Herodotus picked out a ’78 Ford amongst ’78 Toyota’s. Toyota’s are more similar to Datsuns than Fords.”*
*The late 70’s Japanese cars were notorious for rust issues.
In short, Sherwin-White (as typical) uses argument by example for this point. Carrier demonstrates how Sherwin-White fails to address counter-examples (made even worse by Craig’s emphasizing Sherwin-White knew counter-examples), fails to address the counter-example implicit in the example used, and fails to correlate the example to the documents in question to see if they parallel the example or the counter-example.
Anette Acker, you are free to disagree with Carrier because he is biased or an infidel or a mythicist or hasn’t sufficiently understood Sherwin-White. What I haven’t seen is where you actually address Carrier’s points (I thought were fairly straight-forward) rather than these peripheral attacks.
At least it answers the question what you would do if confronted with counter evidence from a Roman scholar who disagrees with Sherwin-White.
Dagoods,
It sounds like he's using a car driven in Southern California to project the expected rust patterns on a car driven in Buffalo.
...and may you continue to enjoy your rose-colored glasses.
DagoodS,
You said:
Anette Acker, you should have stuck to your guns, and refused to talk about Sherwin-White’s last chapter. (Our fault, we kept dragging you back. *grin*)
And then you said:
Anette Acker, you are free to disagree with Carrier because he is biased or an infidel or a mythicist or hasn’t sufficiently understood Sherwin-White. What I haven’t seen is where you actually address Carrier’s points (I thought were fairly straight-forward) rather than these peripheral attacks.
Please make up your mind about what you want me to do! :)
Actually, I basically did the former, because I did not substantively get into the discussion of the rate of legendary development, which is what I declined to do. My interest in Sherwin-White's book has always been his discussions on the historicity of the NT narratives, something Carrier does not address in this essay.
And Carrier has done nothing to decimate Sherwin-White's methodology, which goes far beyond the mention of the Herodotus test. As you said, and I've already expressed agreement with you on: "Sherwin-White is not to blame; those trying to bolster this sentence into a formula are."
Sherwin-White's methodology involves going through details of the narratives and comparing them to "external confirmations, and the working of the synoptic principle." To that end, he is applying his expertise as a Roman scholar who has been able to "immerse himself in the Roman evidence and the Roman aspect until its understanding becomes second nature."
I did not "attack" Carrier--I did the following:
1. I resisted Carrier's attempts to shoehorn the historicity of the trial of Jesus into the discussion of Herodotus. (This is relevant since my focus is on the historicity of the NT narratives.)
2. I pointed out that simply asserting that a Jesus mythicist (who calls himself an "Internet Infidel") rejects the historicity of the NT narratives is not saying much. (Again, my focus was the historicity of the narratives, not the last chapter.)
3. And I pointed out that Carrier had missed Sherwin-White's central point about Herodotus. Carrier says:
"The Gospel writers are much more akin to the people who believed the legends, than they are to a careful critical historian like Herodotus himself, who often doubts them. And yet even Herodotus believed without question many obvious legends (as we shall see), a point Sherwin-White curiously neglects to mention, probably because it would have undermined his argument for the historicity of Christ's trial."
The only problem is that Sherwin-White does not characterize Herodotus as a "careful critical historian." He says the opposite--he was often like the people who believed the legends. And it would have been natural for him to go with the popular myth, but his bias led him to set the record straight.
So Sherwin-White is talking about checks and balances and "subtle techniques" that have "evolved for the detection and elimination of various types of bias and anachronism." This is the methodology used by historians to reconstruct history, and he says that it works. Herodotus was a biased, often gullible, individual, and yet his material is useful to critical historians.
As I said, I don't find the Herodotus test of the tempo of myth-making, as advanced by apologists, particularly persuasive because I don't think Sherwin-White intended for it to be used as a formula. I think he just used it to illustrate the principle he was trying to communicate. And since Herodotus is, in spite of his flaws, considered the father of history, I think he is an excellent example.
At least it answers the question what you would do if confronted with counter evidence from a Roman scholar who disagrees with Sherwin-White.
No it doesn't because Carrier never gets into the historicity of the NT narratives, which has been the sole subject of my blog posts on Sherwin-White.
It does, however, tell you that I don't advance every argument popular with apologists.
Anette Acker: 1. I resisted Carrier's attempts to shoehorn the historicity of the trial of Jesus into the discussion of Herodotus.
Mmmm…but Sherwin-White directly relates this discussion to the trial of Jesus. Not sure what is so problematic with Carrier following Sherwin-White.
Sherwin-White says, “Another example. The internal synoptic divergences, such as arise in the narrative of the trial of Christ, are very similar to those that Roman historians meet in the study of the tribunate of Gaius Gracchus.
…
“The objection will be raised to this line of argument that the Roman historical writers and the Gospels belong to different kinds of literature. Whatever the defects of our sources, their authors were trying to write history, but the authors of the Gospels had a different aim. Yet however one accepts form-criticism, its principles do not inevitably contradict the notion of the basic historicity of the particular stories of which the Gospel narratives are composed, even if these were not shored up and confirmed by the external guarantee of their fabric and setting. That the degree of confirmation in Graeco-Roman terms is less for the Gospels than for Acts is due, as these lectures have tried to show, to the differences in their regional settings. As soon as Christ enters the Roman orbit at Jerusalem [i.e. the Trial], the confirmation begins. For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is over-whelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” Pg. 188-9 [emphasis added]
[One could certainly argue Sherwin-White talks out of both sides of his mouth in this paragraph!]
Anyhow, the very next item Sherwin White talks about, pages 189-191 is the accounts of Herodotus, including this infamous statement regarding the “tempo of myth-making.”
Immediately after concluding on Herodotus, Sherwin-White says, “The impression of historical tradition is nowhere more strongly felt than in the various accounts of the trial of Christ, analysed in Roman terms in the second lecture. Consider the close interdependence of Mark and Matthew, supplementing each other even in particular phrases, yet each with his particular contribution, then Luke with his more coherent and explicit account of the charges and less clear version of the activity of the Sanhedrin, finally John, who despite many improbabilities and obscurities yet gives a convincingly contemporary vision of the political pressure on Pilate in the age of Tiberius.
“Taking the synoptic writers quite generally as primitive historians, there is a remarkable parallel between their technique and that of Herodotus, the father of history, in their anecdotal conception of a narrative.” Pg. 191-192.
Sherwin-White brackets the discussion on Herodotus -- [Trial of Jesus] Herodotus [Trial of Jesus]--and you claim Carrier is incorrect to say Sherwin-White intended the talk on Herodotus to apply to the trial of Jesus.
Anette Acker: Please make up your mind about what you want me to do! :)
*shrug* You do what you want. I am pointing out to people who do not have access to Sherwin-White and/or The Empty Tomb how your reaction to Carrier plays out when we look at the material.
Anette Acker: No it doesn't because Carrier never gets into the historicity of the NT narratives, which has been the sole subject of my blog posts on Sherwin-White.
Er…I’m guessing you didn’t read the essay by Carrier at all, except the very small portion on Sherwin-White. (Irony, indeed!) His point is to prove certain New Testament accounts legendary. So…uh…yes…he DOES get into the historicity of the Gospel narratives. (Not to mention Carrier’s other essays in the book.)
DagoodS,
"I resisted Carrier's attempts to shoehorn the historicity of the trial of Jesus into the discussion of Herodotus."
Mmmm…but Sherwin-White directly relates this discussion to the trial of Jesus. Not sure what is so problematic with Carrier following Sherwin-White.
Since I've already discussed this numerous times (quoting Carrier), I think you know what I mean, even though I may not have been as clear this time.
My objection is to the fact that Carrier is limiting the scope of the last chapter to the trial of Jesus. And he says, essentially, that if the Herodotus example fails, it would undermine Sherwin-White's argument for the historicity of Christ's trial. Since Sherwin-White goes into historical detail in affirming its historicity in Lecture Two, this is not the case. His analysis of the trial of Jesus stands on its own and lends weight to his argument in the final chapter.
The fact that Sherwin-White refers back to Lecture Two and concludes: "The impression of a historical tradition is nowhere more strongly felt than in the various accounts of the trial of Christ, analysed in Roman terms in the second lecture," does not mean that the scope of the final chapter is limited to the trial. It simply means that his detailed analysis of the trial strengthens his position that the Gospel writers were, generally speaking, primitive historians.
["]For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is over-whelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” Pg. 188-9 [emphasis added]
[One could certainly argue Sherwin-White talks out of both sides of his mouth in this paragraph!]
No, he is not. He is responding to those who dismiss the Gospels as simply propaganda by saying that if that's true of the Gospels it is equally true of Acts, and yet he says, "any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” So he is simply extrapolating from the historical accuracy of Acts (which can be confirmed) to the Gospels (whose historical accuracy--except for the trial of Jesus--cannot be confirmed because of the "regional setting.")
"Anette Acker: No it doesn't because Carrier never gets into the historicity of the NT narratives, which has been the sole subject of my blog posts on Sherwin-White."
Er…I’m guessing you didn’t read the essay by Carrier at all, except the very small portion on Sherwin-White. (Irony, indeed!) His point is to prove certain New Testament accounts legendary. So…uh…yes…he DOES get into the historicity of the Gospel narratives. (Not to mention Carrier’s other essays in the book.)
I have read "The Plausibility of Theft" (pretty much straight counter-apologetics), "The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law" (mostly an analysis of Jewish law), and large chunks of the present chapter, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb," which is very long, and has hundreds of endnotes. (I actually focused mostly on his re-interpretation of "changed" 1 Cor. 15:51 to "exchanged," going against all Bible interpretations to fit his theory, and Paul's seed analogy.)
As far as I can tell, he does no detailed historical analysis of the type Sherwin-White does in the first 185 pages of his book. At the very least, he does not challenge Sherwin-White's detailed historical analysis, which was the focus of my blog posts. Nor does he challenge the following statement by Sherwin-White: "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming."
So he has not gotten into the historicity of the NT narratives in the way Sherwin-White does and in the way I have addressed the issue on my blog.
Since I've already discussed this numerous times (quoting Carrier), I think you know what I mean, even though I may not have been as clear this time.
Bart Ehrman has discussed the historicity of the empty tomb numerous times. I would think that people would know what his position on the issue is even if he may not have been as clear on one particular occasion. Of course with Ehrman you think it’s perfectly legitimate to read his statements in isolation and you see no need to consider more than one time when he mentions an issue.
However, I have in fact read all of your comments in this thread and I don’t think that you have ever made your position clear. I don’t think that you have ever articulated a coherent rationale for interpreting “in this context” as “in the context of Jesus’ trial” rather than “in the context of the general discussion of historicity.”
Let’s look at the Carrier quote again:
To be exact, Sherwin-White never used the word ‘legend’ in the chapter Craig quotes. Nor does he discuss the empty tomb narrative, or any miracle at all—his remarks are confined solely to the trial of Jesus. In this context Sherwin-White talks mainly about ‘myth’ (pp. 189,190, 191, 193), case sometimes as ‘propaganda’ (pg. 186), ‘contradictions’ (p. 188), ‘falsification’ (p191), the ‘didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas’ (p. 189), or ‘deliberate…embroidery’ (p. 193), all of which he [Sherwin-White] admits can arise within two generations.
I think we are agreed that the chapter Craig quotes is a general discussion of historicity. I think we might also be able to agree that Sherwin-White’s remarks about Jesus in that chapter are confined to his trial. So our question is whether “in this context” refers to the general discussion of the chapter or the trial of Jesus. I have to conclude that it is the former because Sherwin-White doesn’t apply the words "myth," "propaganda," "contradictions," or "falsification" in his remarks about the trial of Jesus. He uses those words in his general discussion of historicity. The strongest term he applies to the trial accounts is "mildly divergent." Given the sentence that follows “in this context,” I can’t see how it can rationally be interpreted as referring to the trial rather than the general discussion.
It is unfortunately the case Anette that the more times you discuss an issue, the less clear your position often becomes. I think that’s why these discussions so frequently spin out of control.
Vinny,
"Let’s look at the Carrier quote again:
To be exact, Sherwin-White never used the word ‘legend’ in the chapter Craig quotes. Nor does he discuss the empty tomb narrative, or any miracle at all—his remarks are confined solely to the trial of Jesus. In this context Sherwin-White talks mainly about ‘myth’ (pp. 189,190, 191, 193), case sometimes as ‘propaganda’ (pg. 186), ‘contradictions’ (p. 188), ‘falsification’ (p191), the ‘didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas’ (p. 189), or ‘deliberate…embroidery’ (p. 193), all of which he [Sherwin-White] admits can arise within two generations."
I think we are agreed that the chapter Craig quotes is a general discussion of historicity. I think we might also be able to agree that Sherwin-White’s remarks about Jesus in that chapter are confined to his trial. So our question is whether “in this context” refers to the general discussion of the chapter or the trial of Jesus. I have to conclude that it is the former because Sherwin-White doesn’t apply the words "myth," "propaganda," "contradictions," or "falsification" in his remarks about the trial of Jesus. He uses those words in his general discussion of historicity. The strongest term he applies to the trial accounts is "mildly divergent." Given the sentence that follows “in this context,” I can’t see how it can rationally be interpreted as referring to the trial rather than the general discussion.
In other words, you know, as someone who has the words of Sherwin-White in front of him, that the strongest term he applies to the trial accounts is "mildly divergent." But let's remember that the vast majority of his readers are not in your position, and they will read that, in the context of the trial, Sherwin-White uses the terms, "myth," "propaganda," "contradictions," "falsification," "didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas," and "deliberate . . . embroidery."
Again, I'm not claiming that Carrier is deliberately trying to mislead--Sherwin-White can be very difficult to understand--but, nevertheless, the way he phrases it is very misleading. And he reinforces that misunderstanding by claiming that Sherwin-White neglected to mention Herodotus' belief in obvious legends "probably because it would have undermined his argument for the historicity of Christ's trial."
In other words, you know, as someone who has the words of Sherwin-White in front of him, that the strongest term he applies to the trial accounts is "mildly divergent." But let's remember that the vast majority of his readers are not in your position, and they will read that, in the context of the trial, Sherwin-White uses the terms, "myth," "propaganda," "contradictions," "falsification," "didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas," and "deliberate . . . embroidery."
Frankly Anette, I cannot imagine how anyone with a minimally functional short term memory could possibly read it that way. Simply go back to the first sentence of the paragraph, “To be exact, Sherwin-White never used the word ‘legend’ in the chapter Craig quotes.” Carrier tells the reader that Sherwin-White didn’t use a particular word “in the chapter Craig quotes.” Then, after a single intervening sentence, Carrier discusses the words that Sherwin-White does use. I cannot imagine why anyone would not get the fact that these are the words that Sherwin-White uses “in the chapter Craig quotes”(i.e., the general discussion of historicity) rather than in his remarks about Jesus’ trial.
If that were not obvious enough, Carrier makes it perfectly clear that Sherwin-White took a position in favor of the historicity of Jesus’ trial. That alone would cause me to doubt that Sherwin-White used all those words about Jesus’ trial or that Carrier was saying that he did.
Vinny,
I don’t think that you have ever articulated a coherent rationale for interpreting “in this context” as “in the context of Jesus’ trial” rather than “in the context of the general discussion of historicity.”
My rationale is that, according to the normal rules of English grammar, "in this context" always refers back to what precedes, which is, "his remarks are confined solely to the trial of Jesus." (And he says nothing about the chapter being a general discussion of historicity. If you had the book, you would know this.)
I will give Carrier credit for being a clear writer who is easy to read, so I seriously doubt that he would violate this rule. And, in any event, he reinforces his point when he says, "And yet even Herodotus believed without question many obvious legends (as we shall see), a point Sherwin-White curiously neglects to mention, probably because it would have undermined his argument for the historicity of Christ's trial." (Italics added.)
(And he says nothing about the chapter being a general discussion of historicity. If you had the book, you would know this.)
Are these catty remarks really necessary?
Sherwin-White describes the chapter as "consider[ing] the whole topic of historicity briefly and very generally." Therefore, I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to describe the chapter as a "general discussion of historicity" notwithstanding any description Carrier might have chosen to use.
According to Merriam-Webster, "context" means "the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage that can throw light on its meaning." There is no justification for limiting context to the immediately preceding sentence while ignoring the sentence before which makes the meaning of "in this context" crystal clear.
Vinny,
Are these catty remarks really necessary?
It is not "catty" to point out that you are drawing conclusions about a book that you don't have in front of you. So yes, that remark was quite necessary, unlike some of your remarks about me.
Sherwin-White describes the chapter as "consider[ing] the whole topic of historicity briefly and very generally." Therefore, I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to describe the chapter as a "general discussion of historicity" notwithstanding any description Carrier might have chosen to use.
Since the whole question is whether or not Carrier misstated Sherwin-White's position, you can't deduce anything about what Carrier meant from what Sherwin-White said. That's circular reasoning. You have to focus on what Carrier said, something you can't do without the book.
When I describe the last chapter of Sherwin-White's book as a "general discussion of historicity," I am not drawing any conclusions about what anyone other than Sherwin-White himself thought about that chapter.
My conclusion about what Carrier meant is based on this sentence that Carrier wrote: “To be exact, Sherwin-White never used the word ‘legend’ in the chapter Craig quotes.” That sentence provides the context for Carrier's description of the words Sherwin-White did use.
I am in the process of framing a different reply, but thought to intervene…as I do have the book.
Carrier starts a new paragraph:
“To be exact, Sherwin-White never uses the word “legend” in the chapter Craig quotes. Nor does he discuss the Empty Tomb narrative, or any miracle at all—his remarks are solely confined to the trial of Jesus. In this context, Sherwin White talks mainly about “myth”…”
Does Sherwin-White use the word “legend” in the chapter Craig quotes? No. (upon quick re-read)
Does Sherwin-White discuss the Empty Tomb narrative, or any miracle at all in this chapter? No.
Does Sherwin-White confine his remarks solely to the trial of Christ in this chapter? Yes. Although Sherwin-White makes broad references to “divergences between the synoptic Gospels” (pg188) and “detailed narratives of the actions and sayings of Christ” (pg. 191) the only specific event referred to…twice…is the trial(s) of Christ.
The words “in this context” could—arguably—refer to the immediate words proceeding. Or, it can just as easily be read to mean the context of the entire Chapter. If we are talking about rules of English, the first sentence of a paragraph is intended to be an introductory remark, and applicable to the entire paragraph. Taking that rule, “in this context” would refer to the chapter Craig quotes.
The other reference Carrier makes is “And yet even Herodotus believed without question many obvious legends (as we shall see), a point Sherwin-White curiously neglects to mention, probably because it would undermine his argument for the historicity of Christ’s Trial.” (pg. 169)
Does Sherwin-White use the Herodotus example (even if partially?) to support the historicity of Christ? I think the fact he brackets Herodotus with the two (2) sole mentions of a specific event—the trial of Christ—that is a fair reading. If the Herodotus example is determined inapplicable (as Carrier argues) than that would, at least in part, undermine Sherwin-White’s argument for the Christ Trial’s historicity.
Maybe not completely. Maybe not referring to EVERY argument Sherwin-White makes. But if one argument is utilizing Herodotus, the argument is lessened if one is persuaded by Carrier’s arguments.
Anette Acker, you have a choice. At the least, Carrier is ambiguous (not surprising, considering he is responding to Sherwin-White who is even more ambiguous.) Are you going to grant charity, and read Carrier’s arguments in a way he was NOT misstating Sherwin-White? Or are you going to employ your own bias, and read his quotes ONLY in the way you can dismiss them?
That is your choice.
(And I see Vinny beat me to the same response. Ah well. Wrote it; may as well post it.)
Anette Acker
Having read Sherwin-White cover-to-cover, I would question the statement “detailed historical analysis.” Sherwin-White certainly does add information, regarding Roman society, Roman citizenship, and the Roman legal system. However, he fails to raise, let alone address, many counter-arguments. (And it should be noted, he was responding to certain authors who had written 50+ years earlier, and not necessarily responding to all counter-arguments.)
Taking the trial of Jesus:
1) He utterly fails to address the Synoptic Problem by reviewing what parts (if any) are copied by Luke and Matthew. For example, he brings up the fire at Jesus’ trial, as indicated by Luke, yet fails to mention (realize?) Luke was copying Mark. The fire was not a historical anomaly-- regarding Luke’s timing—it was simple copying. (Perhaps fatigue.)
How does this impact Luke’s historicity if Luke makes deliberate changes from his underlying source? Isn’t Luke saying Mark got it wrong?
2) He fails to provide a method for determining 2nd Century legal practices to the 1st Century. For example, he discusses Pliny the Younger utilizing the “Rule of Three” to ask the accused three times whether they were guilty. But Sherwin-White goes on to note in Matthew and Mark, Pilate does NOT ask Jesus three times, and in Luke, he doesn’t ask at all.
Was Sherwin-White claiming the gospels failed to record accurate history? Was he saying the “Rule of Three” was not in effect at the time? (In which case, how is the 2nd Century relevant?) I think he was saying it was developing the rule of three—if so, how many times was Christ asked? When did “Rule of Three” develop? Were accused not asked if they were guilty in any other legal system? (Hint: they were.)
3) Sherwin-White is completely unclear when he claims the law Jesus was charged with was forum delicti in referencing the transfer to Herod. Why, if the law was committed in Jerusalem, would it support history if the transfer violates forum delicti?
4) Sherwin-White fails to even mention the Tracate Sanhedrin (2nd Century) when reviewing the Jewish trial. If 2nd Century information is applicable to review 1st Century, why miss this?
5) He fails to address Barabbas.
6) He doesn’t address the different day in John.
7) Although he goes to some length to demonstrate Stephen and James (brother of Christ) were anomalies to the mandate Jews did not have capital punishment, he fails to address why Jesus couldn’t have been killed with the same mob mentality.
Look, I think Sherwin-White provides some insights here. I also think he is not very clear on many topics, and I would have loved to ask him for clarification as to what he was saying, let alone how he would have handled counter arguments.
As to Carrier going into historical analysis of the NT narratives the way Sherwin-White has, I suggest you start with Carrier’s Essays at Infidels, before digging into Carrier’s blog. No, Carrier did NOT tangent off in his Essay on the irrelevant topic of Jesus’ trial as covered by Sherwin-White. Has Carrier discussed these events elsewhere? Absolutely.
I would invite you to compare Carrier’s discussion on Quirinius with Sherwin-White and see whether Carrier has gotten into the NT narratives the way Sherwin-White does.
Alas, none of this matters. After playing Goldilocks with experts, you will always manage to find an excuse to dismiss those experts who disagree with you.
(And I see Vinny beat me to the same response. Ah well. Wrote it; may as well post it.)
I'm glad you did. Not having the Carrier book, I was not absolutely sure that he was beginning a new paragraph with “To be exact, Sherwin-White never uses the word 'legend' in the chapter Craig quotes."
Moreover, to be absolutely fair to Anette, the topic sentence of a paragraph is not always the first sentence in the paragraph. However, it usually is.
DagoodS,
Where does Carrier say that the chapter is a general discussion on historicity?
He doesn't. He gives the reader no frame of reference at all until we get to the disputed passage. That's the first time the reader is told anything about what this chapter is about ("his remarks are confined solely to the trial of Jesus"), and Carrier specifically follows that up with, "In this context."
Then he follows that with a list of prejudicial words, removed from their immediate context. What do you expect the reader to conclude from that but that Sherwin-White uses those words in connection with the trial of Christ? Surely the reader has no reason to suspect that, as Vinny put it, "The strongest term he applies to the trial accounts is 'mildly divergent.'" Nor does the reader have any reason to know that Sherwin-White devotes an entire chapter to the trial of Jesus and concludes: "The impression of a historical tradition is nowhere more strongly felt than in the various accounts of the trial of Christ, analysed in Roman terms in the second lecture."
Does Sherwin-White confine his remarks solely to the trial of Christ in this chapter? Yes.
True, but he argues from his analysis of the trial of Jesus in Lecture Two to his general conclusions in the last chapter, using the trial to support his conclusions, including his comparisons to Herodotus.
It doesn't follow that what he says about Herodotus in the final chapter has any impact on the historicity of the trial of Jesus. (The fact that he is arguing from A to B doesn't mean that he is also arguing from B to A.) The chapter on the trial of Jesus stands on its own, and Carrier is incorrect in concluding that anything about Herodotus would undermine Sherwin-White's conclusions about the historicity of Christ's trial.
I'm sorry that you think I'm being uncharitable toward Carrier, but I don't think it's uncharitable to point out when someone is being misleading about something I consider very important. Yes, most of his readers probably already agree with him, but does that mean I shouldn't care about them being misled? Clearly I do care about skeptics, otherwise I wouldn't have spent all this time talking to them.
As for Carrier, as I've said before, I'm fully aware that Sherwin-White is not the best communicator, so I don't think the mistakes were intentional (although they still reflect Carrier's bias). However, I have read enough by Carrier to justifiably conclude that I can't trust him to get his facts straight on points that I cannot verify. I hold Christian apologists to an even higher standard and will stop reading immediately if it becomes clear that their biases are causing them to distort the evidence. And I will say that I highly respect Jeffery Jay Lowder's efforts to be fair and counteract his natural bias. So this is not about me being uncharitable to atheists.
I know that you're reviewing Sherwin-White's book on your blog, and I'm glad you're doing it, because too many people ignore all that in favor of the last eight pages. If I were still engaging in these kinds of discussions, I would have responded. However, I announced two months ago (to the day!) that I'm done, so I'm not going to get into something that will keep me arguing for another two months (or more, judging from our previous discussions on your blog).
So the last word is yours! Take care!
I hold Christian apologists to an even higher standard and will stop reading immediately if it becomes clear that their biases are causing them to distort the evidence.
I do, however, want to clarify that I'm not talking about simply not finding an apologist's argument persuasive (like I said about the rate of legendary development). I think very highly of William Lane Craig and consider him someone who, like Lowder, tries hard to be fair and counteract his natural bias.
Where does Carrier say that the chapter is a general discussion on historicity?
I agree. He doesn’t. So what? Are you even bothering to follow the conversation anymore?
Carrier is writing an Essay on legendary development. He addresses counter-arguments (huh…what an amazing concept) brought up by Dr. Craig who uses Sherwin-White. (Incredibly, Dr. Craig puts “unbelievable” in quotes when referring to Sherwin-White’s tempo of myth-making in gospels. A quote we all agree is false, yet you find Dr. Craig, “tries hard to be fair and counteract his natural bias.” Double-huh)
Dr. Craig says, “Roman Historian A.N. Sherwin-White remarks that in classical historiography the sources are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they narrate, but historians still reconstruct with confidence what happened. In the Gospels, by contrast, the tempo is ‘unbelievable’ for the accrual of legend; more generations are needed. The writings of Herodotus enable us to test the tempo of myth-making, and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historical core of oral tradition.” [italics added. See Below]
Indeed, I could rephrase your question:
Then he [Carrier] follows that with a list of prejudicial words, removed from their immediate context. What do you expect the reader to conclude from that but that Sherwin-White uses those words in connection with the trial of Christ?
Using the italicized portion of Craig and ask:
“What do you expect the reader to conclude from Dr. Craig but that Sherwin-White uses the word ‘unbelievable’ regarding the Gospels for the time-tempo of legend accrual?”
Again, as I pointed out earlier in this blog comment thread…Dr. Craig gets a pass from you, but Dr. Carrier does not. Excuse me, ma’am, but your bias is showing….
Anette Acker: I hold Christian apologists to an even higher standard and will stop reading immediately if it becomes clear that their biases are causing them to distort the evidence.
So you stopped reading Dr. Craig, right?...oh…wait. No, you went looking for a podcast in 2010 (which is a response to claims like Carrier’s, written in 2005) and believe that sufficiently solved the issue. By saying, “Oh, we know those claims are there” but conveniently failing to actually address how that affects the method.
Anette Acker: It doesn't follow that what he [Sherwin-White] says about Herodotus in the final chapter has any impact on the historicity of the trial of Jesus.
Really? Do we need to repeat Sherwin-White? Again?
In this chapter, Sherwin-White mentions one (1) New Testament event—the trial of Jesus. He then discusses myth-making tempo with Herodotus’ example. He then follows with Jesus’ trial again: “The impression of historical tradition is nowhere more strongly felt than in the various accounts of the trial of Christ, analysed in Roman terms in the second lecture. Consider the close interdependence of Mark and Matthew, supplementing each other even in particular phrases, yet each with his particular contribution, then Luke with his more coherent and explicit account of the charges and less clear version of the activity of the Sanhedrin, finally John, who despite many improbabilities and obscurities yet gives a convincingly contemporary vision of the political pressure on Pilate in the age of Tiberius.
“Taking the synoptic writers quite generally as primitive historians, there is a remarkable parallel between their technique and that of Herodotus, the father of history, in their anecdotal conception of a narrative.” Pg. 191-192.
(FYI, Vinny. I put a space where there is a new paragraph.) He parallels the technique just discussed with Herodotus. Oh wait…you only say what comes immediately following MUST refer to the previous words when it is against Carrier. When it is Sherwin-White, we can safely ignore that same idiom. Triple huh.
Look, Sherwin-White uses two sections to support the historicity of Christ’s Trial;
1) Lecture Two
2) Lecture Eight (part B)
Carrier is writing an Essay on legendary development. He responds to Craig’s counter-argument specifically addressing only Lecture Eight of Sherwin-White—the part most relevant to Carrier’s discussion on rate of legendary development! Perhaps Craig address Sherwin-White’s lecture Two elsewhere. Perhaps Carrier does not. Regardless, Sherwin-White is not specifically talking about tempo of myth-making in Lecture Two so Craig (and consequently Carrier) ignore it.
You seem to think Carrier must address, or at least mention Lecture Two (even though Craig doesn’t have to, of course) in an Essay already so long you haven’t bothered to read it all!
Anette Acker: The chapter on the trial of Jesus stands on its own, and Carrier is incorrect in concluding that anything about Herodotus would undermine Sherwin-White's conclusions about the historicity of Christ's trial.
Great! If that is your argument, go through the steps:
1. Point out what Sherwin-White is saying.
2. Point out Carrier’s response.
3. Specifically address how Carrier is incorrect about what Sherwin-White is saying.
Yet you have repeatedly claimed you don’t want to talk about Sherwin-White’s claims on legendary development.
You don’t want to address Carrier’s response to Sherwin-White’s claims regarding myth-making tempo, you want to nit-pick whether Carrier thought Sherwin-White was referring to the trial of Jesus or not. You want to read Carrier’s response only in a certain way, so you don’t have to address the factual allegations, but rather make claims of “misstatement! Misstatement!” and when we point out alternatives, you refuse to even address them.
Instead of actually engaging the argument, you claim Carrier is not an expert, is biased, is a mythicist, is an infidel, is misstating Sherwin-White…you do every thing you can to avoid actually facing the argument.
Once you do finally read Herodotus (and/or Carrier’s Essay), you (completely unsurprisingly) subscribe to Craig’s response, “Oh, we know those wild claims are in Herodotus” without taking the harder step of figuring out how that effects the method.
I get you believe Carrier is incorrect. Fine. But if he was correct, then Sherwin-White’s argument for historicity of Jesus’ Trial being:
1) Lecture Two
2) Lecture Eight (part B)
Would eliminate (or reduce) the second section, and would, by necessity, undermine the argument on the historicity of the Trial. (and the rest of the Gospels, for that matter.)
It is simple. You disagree with Carrier. Fine. Lay out the arguments, we respond…it becomes a 25 comment blog entry. Instead you enter this Goldilockian attempt to find anything wrong with the proposed expert, rather than addressing the arguments head on.
This being the last word…
Glad you traveled safe; you take care, too!
“Pointing out something the skeptic doesn’t mention” must be one of the earliest lectures in Apologetics 101. It doesn’t matter whether there was any reason for the issue to be mentioned as long as the apologist can make it sound like something important was being concealed. This apologist must of course include the following disclaimer: “I’m not saying the skeptic is being dishonest, but . . . .”
Mike Licona is particularly good at this. When considering Carrier’s natural explanation for Paul’s conversion in The Case for the Real Jesus, Licona pointed out that it didn’t explain the appearances to the apostles. Licona’s problem with Carrier’s explanation for the appearances to the apostles was, not surprisingly, that it didn’t explain Paul’s conversion. No matter how good Carrier’s explanation might be for the thing that it purported to explain, Licona could always find some other issue that it didn’t explain. (From what I gather, he does a lot of that in his latest book, too.)
Happily, it turns out that The Empty Tomb is now available on Kindle so I purchased it and read the relevant sections. If I had anything to add to Dagoods last couple comments, I would, but I don’t
"I heard Stenger is dishonest."
"Carrier is dishonest/lying."
"Dawkins is mean."
"Carrier and Loftus are popular among atheists."
And regarding a rabbi in Baltimore that she never met - "He's biased against the cross."
I don't understand the one about being popular. WLC is popular among Christians but that alone does not impune his credibility so I don't understand how it impunes Loftus' or Carrier's.
Anette does not want to examine the evidence against Christianity; she just looks for ways to dismiss it without looking at it, review it or discussing it. She has a pristine view of Christianity and she is not going to entertain in any way anything that upsets that view.
Plausible deniability - if she can ignore arguments and get others to ignore arguemnts against Christianity by claiming that the person is dishonest or lying or has mental or emotional issues then she can go around and say that she hasn't heard any good arguments against Christianity.
She talks about her own integrity so I was really disappointed that she'd impune the integrity of others. Anette, if you are going to accuse someone of lying or being dishonest you should show exactly how and where they are lying. Part of the definition of lying is that not only is the person wrong but that he/she intentionally deceived his readers in this case. Two people can disagree and one of them (or both) can be wrong but that doesn't mean either one is lying or being dishonest.
Darkknight56:
Part of the definition of lying is that not only is the person wrong but that he/she intentionally deceived his readers in this case. Two people can disagree and one of them (or both) can be wrong but that doesn't mean either one is lying or being dishonest.
Where have I said that someone is lying? Please quote me. To say that someone said something misleading is not to say that they were lying because, as you said, lying is to intentionally deceive.
It is not wrong to point out that someone is being misleading because it keeps others from being misled. I would want people to point out if I'm being misleading. It is, however, wrong to impute motives to other people because we don't know what they intended. I stressed several times that Sherwin-White is not the clearest communicator and therefore I don't think Carrier was trying to mislead.
Please, if you have some complaint about me, I don't at all mind you bringing it up, but quote me (in context). What you think I said is not at all what I said, or what I meant. I've never called anyone dishonest, I've certainly never called Dawkins mean (what are you talking about?), and I simply said about the rabbi that he didn't have the final word on our dispute any more than my pastor would. (In fact, I used that example!)
Everyone has a bias, and I fully acknowledge that I'm no exception. My goal is to try to counteract biases--my own and those of others.
My point about Carrier and Loftus was that it's not exactly surprising that they dispute the historicity of the Bible, since they are popular atheists. (It's not exactly surprising that Craig supports the historicity of the Bible since he is a popular apologist.) Is that a controversial statement?
And when I said to quote me, I did not mean to put things in quotes that I didn't say. When you do that, you communicate to readers that those were my words.
Everyone has a bias, and I fully acknowledge that I'm no exception. My goal is to try to counteract biases--my own and those of others.
My point about Carrier and Loftus was that it's not exactly surprising that they dispute the historicity of the Bible, since they are popular atheists. (It's not exactly surprising that Craig supports the historicity of the Bible since he is a popular apologist.) Is that a controversial statement?
It is a pointless statement if you fully acknowledge that everybody has biases.
The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that your goal is to counteract anyone’s biases. If you are looking at the work of a conservative Christian, you may piously acknowledge the possibility of bias, but there is no indication that it carries any weight with you in evaluating his opinion. However, if you are looking at a liberal scholar or a skeptic, you use his bias as a basis to reject his analysis prior to examining the basis for his opinion. You write “he cannot be regarded as a neutral scholar” and “[i]t’s not exactly going to bowl me over.” In fact, you may not even bother reading his whole argument if you have satisfied yourself of his bias.
Of course I don’t want to accuse you of being dishonest about your biases, just careless.
I don't quote mine, and you know it. A skeptic would surely call me on it.
This may be my favorite comment of this entire discussion. I'm a skeptic and I've called Anette on quote mining. Nevertheless, the fact that no skeptic has called her on it is proof that she doesn't do it.
So why don't I qualify as a skeptic who has called her on quote mining? What could the reason be? I suppose it's because I'm biased.
Vinny,
It is a pointless statement if you fully acknowledge that everybody has biases.
It's not a pointless statement since some people are more biased than others and we are biased about different things. I find it particularly telling when someone makes a statement that goes against his or her bias or interests.
The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that your goal is to counteract anyone’s biases.
You have evidence that I try to counteract my own bias by the fact that I invite people to challenge what I say and because you know that I'm willing to make concessions.
If you are looking at the work of a conservative Christian, you may piously acknowledge the possibility of bias, but there is no indication that it carries any weight with you in evaluating his opinion.
I mentioned to you on DagoodS' blog that when I first started reading books on apologetics one conservative Christian spent his chapter on evolution equivocating between metaphysical naturalism and evolution. I stopped reading without finishing the book, because I knew that was inaccurate, and I have not read anything more by that apologist.
I can't prove this, but when I research an issue I dismiss every Christian source that comes across biased. I prefer non-Christian sources, to counteract my bias.
I had other issues with Carrier's essay, mostly pertaining to his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:35-54, which was central to his argument. I felt that he was really reaching with his interpretation of the seed analogy, and he went against every Bible interpretation in substituting "changed" with "exchanged." (Which he needed to do to support his theory.)
So my objections to this essay were not the equivalent of Craig putting the word "unbelievable" in quotes, something that was incorrect but relatively minor. And I've read a lot by Craig and cannot think of another example of him doing something similar.
This may be my favorite comment of this entire discussion. I'm a skeptic and I've called Anette on quote mining. Nevertheless, the fact that no skeptic has called her on it is proof that she doesn't do it.
My point is that if I did, in fact, quote-mine, skeptics would be able to prove it by providing the context. Anyone can make an accusation about anything--the question is whether there is evidence. If I start accusing you of eating babies, that is not the same as calling you on your baby-eating habit.
You are the only one who has accused me of quote-mining, let alone said that I have a "penchant" for quote-mining, which implies a regular practice. And yet you have only supported this accusation with two examples:
1) The Vermes quote, where you turned out to the be one who misquoted him, and
2) the Ehrman quote, to which you originally provided the context, which changed nothing, and which you admitted (in this thread) represented his true position. Then you resorted to saying that I accused Ehrman of changing his position, something I have specifically denied many times.
Each time you were the one who was careless. Now, I don't really care--I have no interest in hanging you with your words, and I would have just dropped it if you had let me. (I don't expect perfection from you or anyone else.)
What I would prefer to do is to thank you for the cordial and constructive discussions we've had in the past and to call it a wrap, as I decided to do two months ago.
However, Carrier is best known as an "Internet infidel," which is how he describes himself on his blog. Like Loftus, he is well-known within the skeptical subculture and is a popular defender of atheism, so he cannot be regarded as a neutral scholar.
I’m trying to find anything in that statement that indicates any appreciation for the arguments Carrier makes, but all I see is a bare allegation of bias. Of course, when you were called on it, you were able to find some substantive pretense to reject Carrier, but your initial statement is quite revealing.
Where have I seen something like this before? Hmmm. Ah yes, I remember, it was when you wrote “I know it may seem easy for me to say this now, but based on my approach to Bible interpretation, there is no way I would have accepted the Steady State Theory regardless of the scientific consensus.” Of course, when I called you on it, you insisted that you would never reject a scientific theory without looking at the evidence.
The Vermes quote, where you turned out to the be one who misquoted him, and
Oh boy. I can tell that I am going to have to respond to this one ad nauseum. Here goes: You didn’t provide a source for the quote so I had to look for it on the internet. You didn’t respond when I asked you whether I had the quote right. The quote I used was substantively identical to what Vermes actually wrote. In fact, but for a set of ellipses and “on” instead of “along,” I got the quote right.
Of course, if you had corrected me when I asked, I wouldn't have repeated even such a trivial mistake unlike you who ignores attempts to call her out on a mistake.
Then you resorted to saying that I accused Ehrman of changing his position, something I have specifically denied many times.
In this thread, I provided you with the very quote in which you placed Ehrman among the scholars who affirm the empty tomb after I had already corrected you on the point. I suppose you can convince yourself that you never wrote it, but I doubt that anyone else will be persuaded.
Vinny,
Ah yes, I remember, it was when you wrote “I know it may seem easy for me to say this now, but based on my approach to Bible interpretation, there is no way I would have accepted the Steady State Theory regardless of the scientific consensus.” Of course, when I called you on it, you insisted that you would never reject a scientific theory without looking at the evidence.
My response was that the observational evidence never supported the Steady State Theory, like it does the Big Bang Theory. So since the Big Bang Theory is backed by evidence and is consistent with Hebrews 11:3, of course I'll accept it over the Steady State Theory.
My point was that I take the truth and the Bible very seriously, and they correspond very nicely.
Anette,
Yes, that was your response. That was what you said you meant. Of course you didn't say that it was a combination of evidence and the Bible that caused you to reject the Steady State theory. What you said was "there is no way I would have accepted the Steady State Theory regardless of the scientific consensus." When it comes to what you meant by something you said, you expect to be granted an endless series of "do overs" to revise your point. You assert that Ehrman affirms the empty tomb when you know or should have known that he didn't, you simply deny having done so and expect everyone to forget it.
Vinny,
Yes, that was your response. That was what you said you meant. Of course you didn't say that it was a combination of evidence and the Bible that caused you to reject the Steady State theory. What you said was "there is no way I would have accepted the Steady State Theory regardless of the scientific consensus."
And then I pointed out that "scientific consensus" and "observational evidence" are two different things. The scientific consensus used to be that the universe was eternal, although this belief was not backed by evidence. If I had lived back then, I would have rejected that in favor of creation ex nihilo. I've never said anything to the contrary.
You assert that Ehrman affirms the empty tomb when you know or should have known that he didn't, you simply deny having done so and expect everyone to forget it.
I have not asserted that Ehrman affirms the empty tomb. This is what I said:
"And about 75% (according to the study by Gary Habermas) believe that the tomb was found empty. This includes atheist historian Michael Grant, who said: "[I]f we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.'"
That paragraph talks about scholars who affirm the empty tomb. Then I move on to a paragraph on those who do not affirm it, which ends with:
"But as we've discussed before, even Bart Ehrman said in From Jesus to Constantine: 'We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum.'"
So I categorize him with those who do not accept it, I acknowledge our previous conversation, and I preface my quote with, "even Bart Ehrman . . ." (Italics added.)
When it comes to what you meant by something you said, you expect to be granted an endless series of "do overs" to revise your point.
I don't want "do overs." Quite the contrary, I would like to end this discussion. I know what I meant when I mentioned Ehrman again--I'm sorry if you felt that I was unclear.
Darkknight56,
I'm sorry that I had to start moderating comments and that I haven't been posting yours. As soon as you start honoring my request to quote me rather than claim that I said such-and-such, I will publish your comments. I deny having called anyone dishonest, but if you think I have, you will have to prove it by quoting me.
Anette,
You do know I read things don’t you? Let’s take another look at that quote with me taking the liberty of reinserting the sentence that somehow managed to elude your copying and pasting skills.
I have not asserted that Ehrman affirms the empty tomb. This is what I said:
"And about 75% (according to the study by Gary Habermas) believe that the tomb was found empty. This includes atheist historian Michael Grant, who said: "[I]f we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.'"
That paragraph talks about scholars who affirm the empty tomb. Then I move on to a paragraph on those who do not affirm it, which ends with:
"Those scholars who deny the empty tomb typically have a bias against Christianity and have published works of anti-apologetics, like Gerd Ludemann. But as we've discussed before, even Bart Ehrman said in From Jesus to Constantine: 'We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum.'"
So I categorize him with those who do not accept it, I acknowledge our previous conversation, and I preface my quote with, "even Bart Ehrman . . ." (Italics added.)
As can clearly be seen when your imaginative deletion is undone, the “but” and the “even” are contrasting Ehrman with the empty-tomb denier Ludemann, not with the empty-tomb affirmers of the previous paragraph.
I wonder why you do these things Anette. What is your thought process? If you really want to get out from under these debates, do you really think that such a lame and obvious trick is the way to go about it?
Vinny,
"Those scholars who deny the empty tomb typically have a bias against Christianity and have published works of anti-apologetics, like Gerd Ludemann.
I omitted that sentence because shortly afterwards I retracted it by saying that Jeffery Jay Lowder is an atheist who affirms the empty tomb but has authored a work of counter-apologetics and Dominic Crossan is a liberal Christian who denies it. And including it added nothing to my point.
But I did categorize Ehrman among those who do not affirm it, and then I said, essentially, "But in From Jesus to Constantine, even Ehrman said . . ." If Ehrman had been part of the group that affirms it, I would have included him in the paragraph with Michael Grant.
You can doubt me all you want, but that is what I meant to communicate. If you want to believe I'm lying, be my guest. This is not worth discussing anymore.
I omitted that sentence because shortly afterwards I retracted it by saying that Jeffery Jay Lowder is an atheist who affirms the empty tomb but has authored a work of counter-apologetics and Dominic Crossan is a liberal Christian who denies it. And including it added nothing to my point.
In other words, 'a do over'.
I really can't tell whether you are lying or not. I'm inclined to think that you have actually convinced yourself that it's perfectly ethical to simply drop a sentence from a quote in order to make it conform to what you now understand your position to have been, even though that sentence constituted the referent for the conjunction that begins the next sentence whose meaning is thereby changed. I have known people before who had a similar capacity to reinterpret the past to meet their present rhetorical needs.
I'm still curious though. Didn't you know that I would call you on it?
Vinny,
Did you check to see if I did indeed make the correction about what Habermas said (where I mentioned Lowder and Crossan)?
I'm still curious though. Didn't you know that I would call you on it?
No, because I omitted it for the reason I gave, so it did not occur to me that you would use it against me the way you did.
I really can't tell whether you are lying or not. I'm inclined to think that you have actually convinced yourself that it's perfectly ethical to simply drop a sentence from a quote in order to make it conform to what you now understand your position to have been, even though that sentence constituted the referent for the conjunction that begins the next sentence whose meaning is thereby changed. I have known people before who had a similar capacity to reinterpret the past to meet their present rhetorical needs.
According to my ethics that's lying. So if that's what you think I did, then you have your answer.
Take care, Vinny!
Anette,
I did see that you made that correction, but it really isn’t relevant to the point that I am making. Regardless of whether or not the omitted sentence would allow one to draw a Venn diagram that accurately represented the intersection of the set labeled “scholars who deny the empty tomb” with the set labeled “scholars who have published works of anti-apologetics,” it was still needed to understand the following sentence which begins with the conjunction “but.”
Let’s go back to another comment you wrote on December 10, 2010: According to Habermas, 25% of this group rejected the historicity of the empty tomb. But, as we discussed before, even opposition scholar Ehrman said in From Jesus to Constantine: "We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum."
Notice the similarity in paragraph structure. You begin with a sentence about scholars who reject the empty tomb and then you contrast Ehrman’s position with theirs. The second sentence is identical to the one you wrote on Dagoods blog eight months later but for a comma and changing “even opposition scholar Ehrman” to “even Bart Ehrman.”
The big difference between the two paragraphs is that the earlier one is not preceded by a paragraph that discusses scholars who affirm the empty tomb. As a result, there can be no doubt that the “but” was intended to contrast Ehrman with the empty tomb deniers thus placing him with the empty tomb affirmers.
What you are telling me now is that when you copied and pasted a virtually identical sentence into a paragraph with a parallel structure, you actually intended it to have exactly the opposite meaning and you expected it to be read with exactly the opposite meaning. I accept that you are able to convince your self of that, but it is quite a stretch for me.
I understand that you don’t think that this is worth discussing, but I cannot help but hope that if you really gave it some thought you might realize why these discussions are always spinning out of control. You might also come to understand why skeptics do not give you the same credit that you give yourself for being careful, meticulous, honest, and willing to admit errors. I also cannot help but think that that your compulsion to answer every criticism is driven by some deep-seated doubts about the validity of your arguments. If you could find a way to make peace with those doubts, perhaps you could let go of these discussions and devote your energies to something that gives you more satisfaction.
Vinny,
What you are telling me now is that when you copied and pasted a virtually identical sentence into a paragraph with a parallel structure, you actually intended it to have exactly the opposite meaning and you expected it to be read with exactly the opposite meaning.
No, I meant it exactly the same way. I categorized Ehrman into the 25%, but pointed out that even he said in From Jesus to Constantine . . . "
I did not cut and paste because my words are different. But each time I organized my thoughts into paragraphs in the same way, and each time I was careful not to say that Ehrman "affirmed" the empty tomb. I knew that was a matter of dispute between us, but it was still a fact that he said what I quoted.
Please notice that I said point blank that Michael Grant believes the tomb was found empty. I also said that Jeffery Jay Lowder "affirms" the empty tomb, which is my impression of his position from reading The Empty Tomb. (But if someone who has read more by Lowder challenges that statement I will phrase it differently in the future.)
I did see that you made that correction, but it really isn’t relevant to the point that I am making.
It is certainly relevant to your accusation that I deliberately removed that sentence to meet my present rhetorical needs. But that's okay--I understand why you would have thought that.
It is also relevant to the underlying point about how I categorized Ehrman. Since I went back and retracted my statement when I remembered that Lowder and Crossan were exceptions, I clearly didn't think of Ehrman as an exception. Unlike Lowder, Ehrman is not a counter-apologist who affirms the empty tomb.
But neither does he deny it. He is agnostic about it, but he still said what he did in From Jesus to Constantine. That's all I've claimed, and I've done so consistently.
I understand that you don’t think that this is worth discussing, but I cannot help but hope that if you really gave it some thought you might realize why these discussions are always spinning out of control.
I do realize why my discussions with you spin out of control: because you're so determined to use my words against me.
I know you are still on a quest to find examples of me denying or ignoring evidence for the sake of my beliefs, but the more you try and fail, the more you prove the opposite.
perhaps you could let go of these discussions and devote your energies to something that gives you more satisfaction.
Thanks! I think I will! :)
According to Habermas, 25% of this group rejected the historicity of the empty tomb. But, as we discussed before, even opposition scholar Ehrman said in From Jesus to Constantine: "We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum."
I'm sorry, but the second sentence doesn't make any sense unless you are claiming that "opposition scholar Ehrman" holds a different position than that held by the 25% of scholars who deny the historicity of the empty tomb. That is the only way that the use of the words "but" and "even" make any sense.
You want me to read the paragraph as if you meant "25% of this group rejected the historicity of the empty tomb. But even opposition scholar Bart Ehrman also denies the historicity of the empty tomb." That's just silly.
Bullhorn2tails,
Unfortunately, I’m no longer accepting comments on this blog, but since I am just now stating that, I will quote and reply to your substantive points.
Hope your recent 'real world' challenges have been overcome: I'm sure your resilience in the face of life's unexpected trials will've seen you through. Funny thing unforgiving reality, it has a way of intruding on our most precious plans, & disrupting everything at a moment's notice.
Thanks! All is well now, but it’s not because of my resilience. One of the great blessings of being a follower of Christ is that God works in all things for our good. This experience was no exception!
Anyway, despite you resolve (?) to give blogging a rest, it seems that Vinny has has got (gotten..?) the better of you :)... Not that I would side with him, just that getting tied up in knots over arcane half-lines in Homer, so to speak, seems an exercise in futility, if your faith is indestructible, as you claim it is.
What? Are you trying to tell me that you didn’t find our discussion about Bart Ehrman’s exact position on the empty tomb, and what exactly I’ve said about it each time it has come up, absolutely fascinating? I thought for sure every lurker watched with rapt attention as I valiantly defended myself against the villainous Vinny, and his vile and unjustified allegation that I have Ehrman problems!
There is a perverse satisfaction in hair-splitting competitions—another reason why I need to break this blogging habit . . .
Take care!
"Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author."
Fascinating.
DagoodS,
It is fascinating that I would go to such drastic measures to follow through on what I said two months ago that I would do, isn’t it?
Since I’m trying to retire my blog, I was not going to publish Bullhorn2tails’ comment (as he knows, he can be a little too effusive toward women sometimes), but I figured I would at least publish the part where he compliments Vinny, and try to infuse some comic relief into this whole thing.
But I should have known you’d find that very suspicious. What was I thinking?
Anyway, as I said to Bullhorn2tails, I will not be publishing any more comments on this blog. If I allow comments, I will never get away.
But I want to thank everyone again for reading my blog and for your contributions to the discussions. I have very much enjoyed them!
In skimming through this thread, I noticed that some of my comments were on the combative side, so I want to apologize for that. (And if perchance Richard Carrier ever stumbles across this, I want to apologize for the sharpness of my criticism of “The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb.”) This is no excuse, but I was jet-lagged, sleep-deprived, I had a cold, and I really wanted to wrap up the discussions--but I could easily have solved that problem by shutting up.
Take care!
Post a Comment