Nearly everyone has a concept of what it means for historical claims to be confirmed by a new discovery. Tablets unearthed at Kültepe in the late 19th century reveal that there was, as the Old Testament had said, a vast Hittite empire in the time of Abraham. An Arabic manuscript turns out to contain the Diatessaron of Tatian, settling once and for all the question of whether that second century harmony of the Gospels actually existed and whether it included the fourth Gospel. Excavations in Jerusalem reveal the pool of Bethesda and its five porches, by the Sheep Gate, just as described in John 5. A clay seal bears the name of Baruch, the disciple and friend of Jeremiah. An ornate first century ossuary bears witness to the prestige of Joseph Caiaphas.
This kind of confirmation, exciting as it is, suffers from several limitations. For one thing, we are largely at the mercy of time and chance for discoveries of this type. Archaeology and paleography are not experimental sciences; at best, one might begin digging in a promising location, but there are no guarantees as to what (if anything) one will find. Tempus edax rerum is one of Ovid’s memorable phrases—Time, devourer of all things. Many priceless treasures are forever lost: papyrus documents that rotted in the rain, scrolls that were burnt by the Bedouins to warm themselves at night, monuments and inscriptions that were gradually eroded away by the sands of time or crushed to powder under the boots of an invading army. And many others are as good as lost, buried in a garbage dump somewhere that we will never think to dig.
For the non-specialist, there is the additional problem of being dependent on those with specialized knowledge for the proper translation of a cuneiform inscription or the recognition of the faint text on a Greek palimpsest. For this sort of evidence, most of us must depend on the specialists. And the specialists themselves must depend in significant measure on good luck.
A second kind of evidence comes from non-Christian texts and monuments that we already have. The Jewish historian Josephus, for example, covers in the later books of his Antiquities some of the same historical ground covered by the Gospels, and we meet in his pages many of the same characters: Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, his second wife Herodias, Pontius Pilate, Antonius Felix, Porcius Festus, John the Baptist, and even Jesus himself and his brother James. Here is a source of evidence that is available in translation to nearly anyone who is interested. The confirmation the Gospels and Acts receive from other documents of antiquity is very significant and extensive.
But this kind of evidence has its practical limitations. A substantial majority of the people who go to church on Sunday morning have in all probability never even heard of Josephus. Most of those who have heard the name do not own a copy of his works, and of those who do, most will not take the time to read hundreds of densely packed pages, sorting out the various Herods, tracking down the allusions, and finding the points of contact with the historical narratives of the New Testament. The pace of modern life closes off the serious exploration of this evidence for more than a dedicated few.
But there is a third kind of evidence that lies within Scripture itself, a kind that requires only attention to one’s own Bible and a willingness to read thoughtfully. This is the evidence of undesigned coincidences.
The term itself, coined over two centuries ago, is perhaps not the best description for modern readers, since we rarely use the word “undesigned” today. But the meaning is not terribly difficult to grasp. Take two texts (for the sake of the argument one need assume nothing about them except that they both purport to recount some historical events) and compare them. Of course, they might have nothing in common; in that case, there is no material for this sort of argument. But they might touch on some of the same characters and events. If so, we may examine them to see whether the manner in which they discuss these things fits together obliquely, in ways not likely to have been deliberately chosen for that effect—undesignedly.
It is an important point to keep in mind that the 66 books of the Bible are, in fact, self-contained works in their own right and exhibit in varying degrees the individuality of their human authors and the independence of their various sources of information. This fact gives us the opportunity to compare them with one another in ways that can provide evidence that they are both telling a true story. The way the two works intersect can show that they are drawing from life.
A single story written by one author would not afford us the same opportunities of cross examination, since someone could always retort that the author had tidied up the parts of the story so that they agreed with one another. And two books that relate the same story in much the same words also would not carry much weight, as it could always be objected (and sometimes very reasonably) that one of them had simply been copied from the other. But in numerous places the various books of the New Testament are manifestly not “tidied up” to square with one another. And that fact allows us to use their interlocking narratives as evidence of truth.
Most importantly, these sorts of coincidences are unlikely to be the work of a forger. Someone who invents a story with the intention of passing it off as historically true will usually take some care that it leaves no puzzling questions in the reader’s mind. On the other hand, someone who knows that he is telling the truth is more apt to state his facts and leave them to their fate. It never occurs to him that he ought to explain certain aspects of his story in order to make it credible or plausible. When, therefore, we find that such questions do arise, and then we find that they can be answered by some fact that crops up incidentally in another historical document, the congruence of the two provides us with evidence that neither is a forgery or a fable.
The sort of case that one can build using these undesigned coincidences does not provide a logical guarantee; such guarantees are not available in historical work. And no single example, taken by itself, may be enough to persuade a reasonable but skeptical person. But the argument is cumulative. If it can be fairly shown that such interlocking exists in case after case, the combined weight of the evidence will, to an unprejudiced mind, be most satisfying and convincing.
Two English authors are principally responsible for developing the argument from undesigned coincidences with respect to the Scriptures. In his Horae Paulinae (1790), William Paley examines the Book of Acts, on the one hand, and the Pauline epistles, on the other, with a view to showing how each might illustrate the other. The correspondences are particularly full with respect to Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians, and it is partly due to the sorts of arguments Paley marshals that these books are conceded by virtually all scholars today to be authentic Pauline works.
In a series of lectures in the early 19th century, John James Blunt picked up Paley’s method of argumentation and extended it first to the Gospels, then to the historical and prophetic books of the Old Testament. Blunt’s lectures were first published in a series of separate monographs, but these were subsequently collected into a single volume called Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings both of the Old and New Testament an Argument of Their Veracity (1847), a work that went through at least eighteen editions.
Both of these works were enormously influential. It is difficult to find an educated Christian of the era who writes on the subject without showing an awareness of one or both of them. Archibald Alexander, Richard Whately, Charles Finney, Thomas Chalmers, Charles Hodge, John Henry Newman, Thomas Cooper, Charles Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, J. B. Lightfoot, B. F. Westcott—the list of notable writers and scholars who show their indebtedness to the work of Paley and Blunt includes an honor roll of nineteenth century Christian thinkers.
In this series, we will examine some of the undesigned coincidences discovered by Paley, Blunt, and others. Not all of them are of equal weight (as both authors stress), so we will choose some of the more interesting and plausible ones for presentation. Readers should keep in mind the cumulative nature of the argument. The full force of this kind of evidence can be appreciated only as we examine multiple instances. But the effect, for those who have the patience to work through those instances, is well worth the effort.
Thank you, Tim, for this series on Undesigned Coincidences.
I’ve read all 6 articles.
I found all your examples convincing and well explained.
The subject matter gives me confidence that Acts and Paul’s letters are authentic.
I have also read and appreciated “Undesigned Coincidences …” by J J Blunt.
I intend to read “Horae Paulinae” by William Paley one day.
Tim
Undesigned coincidences is fallacy the way you promote it. Its based solely on assumptions. Since much of the text was plagiarized from the OT, and or the unknown authors of the communities that wrote Matthew and Lukes text, that copied the unknown author of Marks attributed text. Multiple references are to be expected.
We study a fallacy known as parallel mania, and this is another brand of such. I see you skirting the idea and even mentioning the weakness of your arguments. Such as ” argument is cumulative” but that is simple sidestepping the fact your over attributing certainties blindly with this methodology.
It is a fallacy to even begin to address the communities authorial intent as “honest” without first understanding how each different communities text used their rhetorical prose. In many places we see outright fiction due to their artistic liberties in building authority for themselves to promote their text. Not only that the crux of your failure here lies in that all the authors were very far removed from any actual event and were in the gospels cases, simply compiling and redaction traditions preserving them since their normal method of sharing good news had changed with the fall of the temple, destroying how these people normally shared information all through the Diaspora. These text were written as a pseudohistory to teach the theology so valued by each community.
This method may be “satisfying and convincing” for apologist to reaffirm their faith, but it has no place for modern scholars. You might get Feser to back you on this but its not surprising. [sorry cheap shot] but I often find apologetic philosophers overreaching their line of work in history.
Hello, that’s clearly an interesting articles.
The author is right that many archeological discoveries have proven that parts of the Bible were true after, but he fails to mention the city of Jericho and Ai which were completely uninhabited at the time of their alleged destructions.
He is certainly right that due to the passage of time, absence of evidence is not GENERALLY evidence of absence but it can be the case where we really EXPECT to find something, like the massive exodus of 6 millions individuals.
It is great for Churchgoers to read Josephus but they should also consider the works of the opponents of Christianity, as I pointed it out:
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/the-advice-of-a-former-christian-to-religious-apologists/
The problem is that what he calls “undesigned coincidences” is most often due to chance and ABOVE ELSE the willingness to read your own theology into the text.
This is as ridiculous as a Calvanist reading the letter to Timothy, distorting the meaning “savior of all men” by “savior of all who will be saved” and shouting that this remarkable consistency shows that the Bible is inspired.
As I wrote in the post I gave a link to, I think one should investigate the Bible in exactly the same way one investigates other religious books.
Therefore I constructively challenge everyone here to apply EXACTLY the same methodoly to other ancient texts written over a vast period of time.
If it turns out the Bible has much more amazing coincidences than the others, they would have a point.
Without comparison with other samples of the external world, the whole undertaking smacks of confirmation bias and wishful thinking.
This is not how faith should be defended.
Lovely greetings from France and Germany.
Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com
Very well put Lothar. I have found the more we can get apologist to understand the historical truth, which is difficult to impossible due to their faith interfering with reality. The more value the text actually possesses behind the real unbiased truth.
Archeological discoveries have proven that parts of the Bible were true, but these are small truths in a sea of pseudohistory. Because there is a historical core to the text does not mean the mythology is not mythology.
Archeological discoveries have shown the the first five books of the bible to be pseudohistorical in nature “mythology” with no historical core.
Abraham is a literary creation
Moses and exodus is a literary creation.
Noah is plagiarized Mesopotamian river flood mythology.
There was no conquest as you noted.
And we now know No Israelite existed before 1200 ish BC as that is when for the most part the displaced Canaanite cultures after the bronze age collapse settles the highlands with other displaced Semitic peoples.
Don’t me started on the evolution of monotheism in these cultures LOl 😉
Another one missing the argument through apparently overly casual reading. This is not about amazing coincidences. It’s logical. And it has no theological basis or import.
//Therefore I constructively challenge everyone here to apply EXACTLY the same methodoly to other ancient texts written over a vast period of time. //
Of course.
Looking forward to it, Tim
Victoria
Victoria,
I’m quite sure Blunt didn’t find them all. It is a fascinating exercise to use a good parallel-column harmony like Robertson’s and think about the variations from this point of view.
This is a good introduction. I look forward to seeing future blog posts with a few examples of the so-called “undesigned coincidences”.
(I say “so-called” because, if one holds to a conservative doctrine of inspiration, then on the supernatural level in a sense, all of the Original Text of Scripture was designed, even if, on a human level, some coincidences were not. Either way you look at it, though, examples of these coincidences would not help the skeptic’s position.)
If I tell you I was abducted by UFOs on my trip to Wisconsin, have I materially raised the probability of the existence of UFOs when I show you my motel receipts conclusively demonstrating that I was definitely in Eau Claire at that time?
That is additional evidence that you were in Wisconsin, but not evidence that you were abducted by aliens.
Precisely correct.
Just as correctly stating that Giuliani was mayor on 9/11 does not materially increase the probability of my story that it was a hoax perpetrated by the Bavarian Illuminati. And just as correctly naming the governor of Judea does not materially increase the probability that God so loved the world that he sent his only son to be killed on the cross, only to be resurrected three days later.
Of course it does. If the authors of the gospels couldn’t get historical claims about mundane matters right, why should we trust them to get their claims about the resurrection of Jesus right? So if chronic historical error would decrease their credibility, chronic historical accuracy obviously increases that credibility.
But you’re mixing unlikes. The prior probability that you will be abducted by space aliens who are quietly visiting Earth, and that you survive to tell the story, is orders of magnitude lower than that God will raise from the dead the one foretold by the prophets, who has since then immeasurably transformed this planet for the better, as prophesied by Moses and the prophets.
Here, on the Prior Probability of the Resurrection:
http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2012/03/prior-probability-of-resurrection.html
Here, with Stephen Law, on UFOs and miracles:
http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2012/09/marshall-vs-law-is-resurrection.html
I will leave it to you and Carson to hash it out whether motel receipts count as good evidence for alien abduction.
And yes, I agree that if you simply assume Christian theology is true, this raises your prior probability that some particular claim of Christian theology is true. I also think I know a textbook example of a circular argument when I see one.
Ghost: That’s not my argument, or even the ghost of my argument. Glide on back down the stair case, and try coming up the elevator, this time.
If John Grisham, in his novels provides “….chronic historical accuracy….”, that obviously does not increase the probability that it is credible to propose that the rest of the story he wrote is true.
// If John Grisham, in his novels provides “….chronic historical accuracy….”,//
I doubt this is true, actually. I would expect that there are vast numbers of places where we can check the external historical facts and find that he’s used a poetic licence to fashion the story.
Except that archaeology, as far as it goes, supports the gospel again and again and again.
Which is why something like the census of Quirinius is such a big deal – because it’s seemingly the exception rather than the rule.
First, please refer me to a source or sources that lay out (preferably in summary) what the archeological evidence is for the truth of the Gospels. Well, of course Grisham’s used “poetic license to fashion the story.” My point is that the presence of some historically correct facts which might come from archeological evidence or be supported by common knowledge in our time is not evidence for the truth of the rest of the story in which such facts are used by the author. What someone claimed in another post–that, if a writer habitually and accurately represents historical events, it is evidence that the rest of what they wrote is true–is clearly not the case. It sounds like a hopeful or optimistic statement or one full of faith. But a writer’s historical accuracy with events, persons, places readers would be familiar with could just as well be–and has been–a way to ease readers into a setting they’re familiar with so that they might more likely accept the rest of the story. But even if readers more readily accept the story, it might be an acceptance similar to how much people love novels and films that are set in the area they live in. The people of Ferndale, CA don’t believe the story of the film “Outbreak” just because they can see with their own eyes the places they know. They also saw where the movie-makers took a familiar place–the bank–and put a false facade on it to pretend it was the hospital. Similarly, the VAST majority of Jews could see the way New Testament writers took the Hebrew Scriptures and made out of parts of them what they never were and, in ways, made Judaism and the Law out to be what they never were. If Jesus’ cross and bones were found, that would not be evidence that he died according to God’s plans or that he died for the sins of mankind. There is no autobiography by Mary about her pregnancy and, even if there was, historians cannot rely on an ancient alleged autobiography as stating fact. Many such works are full of exaggerations and even lies. We do not have and cannot have material evidence for the virgin birth, God’s intentions or plan, whether Jesus’ death and resurrection had any salvific efficacy or for whether there ever was a Fall from grace in Eden or for Satan’s presence there or for human immortality or for Hell nor Heaven. Evidence for material events does not support metaphysical or theological or other religious claims.
Ah I love this fantasy. Otherwise intelligent, sensible people come out with that stuff. Are you proposing, with no evidence whatsoever, that the Jews of the 1st century Palestine invented historical fiction as genre? Not just legend teling, but a kind of highly realistic, fact based legend telling? Really? With no historical precedent. No trace of such an activity in the area. No other examples from the time and place or people trying it out. Some blockbuster novel about Judas Maccabeus, say… ?
“the truth of the Gospels”
Is this truth in a historical context? Is that what you mean? Then we need to use historical criteria… criticism of the sources as they are. Tentative conclusions about what might have happened.
“My point is that the presence of some historically correct facts which might come from archeological evidence or be supported by common knowledge in our time is not evidence for the truth of the rest of the story in which such facts are used by the author”
The point is that such common knowledge is common knowledge of SOMEONE WHO LIVED THERE AT THE TIME. Not 200miles away a century later, drawing from written sources or a few months field research.
“But a writer’s historical accuracy with events, persons, places readers would be familiar with could just as well be–and has been–a way to ease readers into a setting they’re familiar with so that they might more likely accept the rest of the story.”
Multiple writers. Accurate to virtually every detail we know about from any source. No anachronistic place names, or people names. household objects… customs… idioms… pick anything big or small and show me any evidence that suggests this was a fictionalised narrative. It’s utterly absurd. Yes, there are contradictions, yes here are displacements of speech from one character to another, or the resetting of an event in a more theologically logical sequence. It comes back to genre. What did the audience expect about the telling to consider it truthful.
“We do not have and cannot have material evidence for the virgin birth, ”
Irrelevant. The virgin birth is not essential to Christianity.
“God’s intentions or plan, whether Jesus’ death and resurrection had any salvific efficacy or for whether there ever was a Fall from grace in Eden or for Satan’s presence there or for human immortality or for Hell nor Heaven. ”
Metaphysical.
“Evidence for material events does not support metaphysical or theological or other religious claims.”
Absolutely correct. The evidence strongly suggests the authenticity of the authors, that’s all.
My post was in response to your unsupported claim that “archaeology, as far as it goes, supports the gospel again and again and again.” My point was that historical, geographic or other facts readers would be familiar with–for which there could, theoretically, later be archeological or other empirically verifiable evidence–are not evidence for the truth of the parts of the story for which there could not be. There are indeed rivers called the Tgris and the Euphrates but no evidence of Eden or a Fall. There are mountains of Ararat but no evidence that God ever spoke to Noah. There is a Sea of Reeds but no evidence that any supernatural force parted the seas. There are walking staffs but no evidence one ever turned into a snake. There is a Mt. Sinai and a Mt. Horeb but no evidence that the Torah was given there by God to Moses. There are highlands in eastern Israel but no evidence so far that Joshua’s armies burned or otherwise destroyed towns there in the 13th or 12th century BCE; in fact, there is a Jericho but the evidence is, so I’ve read, that Jericho was unoccupied at that time. There are stories that read as though they really happened but are obvious mixes of realistic and not so realistic elements. It is easy enough to say that certain things were common knowledge 2,000 years ago. It is a whole other matter to prove that what someone in an ancient writing presents as common knowledge was indeed common knowledge. Maybe it was a common belief but not a fact. And, if you want to go that direction, let’s accept that most Jews had every reason to think that the messiah would be a non-divine figure of power and grandeur who would rid the Jews of their enemies, re-establish the nation Israel, and usher in the Kingdom of God. So, of course most Jews rejected Jesus as messiah when he was crucified. They did not mis-read or mis-understand theor own scriptures. So, one of my lessons in this exchange is that some religious people who might otherwise be intelligent and sensible, come out with at least as much garbage (“stuff”) as other intelligent, sensible people. To wit, your sarcastic re-framing of my efforts shows a dearth of capacity to respond in a calm and sensible manner (at least this time) and plenty of ego. What I’ve done above in this post is to point out that what you fancifully and sarcastically recast as my attempt to show first century writers doing or inventing historical fiction, goes back to the earliest chapters of the Bible and that your attack is a red herring.
Hi Steve,
Well that is a superb reply, and I agree with almost all of it. I completely agree that many of the stories are historically unverifiable.
Where I disagree is with the conflation of the OT (last text circa 400BCE, Hebrew) and the NT ( circa 50CE, Greek)
We are discussing the NT. We have extra-biblical resources in Josephus, Tacitus, the church fathers.
I would never conflate the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. That is something Christians have done to suit their purposes. I do not believe the NT continues or complements the message of Judaism or the Tanakh and, in fact, seriously diverges from them. I of course, was not talking about the NT as I guess you mean you and the others were. I was addressing what you wrote about archeology supporting the truth of the NT, your rejection of my analogy with fiction which also, sometimes, contains some facts, and your poor reading of my post that led you to sarcastically charge that l might be suggesting first century Jewish writers invented historical fiction. Why else would I have hearkened back to Israelite stories that exactly illustrate what I was talking as early as 900 years, perhaps, before the NT down to its last book written in the 2nd century BCE (not 400 BCE & the books that eventually became the NT were composed between about 50 & 100). It is completely unclear to me how this is a conflation of the OT & NT. I have not been “simply stating that someone might have invented the stories.” I’m saying that using verification of certain empirically verifiable facts is not evidence for the truth of claims that cannot be empirically verified. This you apparently admit, saying, “This is true….” Then you add, “however there’s no evidence for this.” Apparently, you think that, somewhere, I’ve claimed that there is evidence that empirically unverifiable claims in the NT are made up and not true. I never said that. That’s like saying all atheists deny God and think there is evidence disproving the existence of God when, in fact, some know quite well that you can’t disprove the existence of God; they are not persuaded by the so-called evidence for God. Then you add, “whereas there is strong evidence for the authenticity of the authors.” You add your “Note” that “no one, including Tim, is saying the evidence proves the stories are “true”. Here, I must admit I am confused. Perhaps being 70 can account for it. I can’t remember how I plopped down in the middle of this discussion. I first commented on a comment, not on what Tim wrote. Most of my posts I placed in comments by clicking “Reply” under your comments, Reuben, not general comments on the while discussion. I did not and do not know what the over-arching theme of the discussion is. If I got the impression that you, Reuben, believe the stories are true and if you do not, I apologize. But you do claim the “authenticity of its authors,” whatever that means. Perhaps what you mean by it is explained in your last paragraph: “What the evidence shows is that the authors were very probably in the
right place at the right time, and (mistaken or otherwise) are
faithfully recording their experience as they understood it. Maybe they
were deluded.” I’ve been studying New Testament scholarship for at least 35 years, both conservative and mainstream, some liberal. I can’t imagine what evidence you are referring to. First we don’t even know who wrote the Gospels much less if they were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life and death (probably not) and resurrection. Second, whether Paul himself can always be trusted to be sincere and honest is, for me, questionable and Acts’ historicity is vigorously debated. Many scholars do not accept more than seven of Paul’s letters as authentic and many do not believe James wrote “his” epistle. Paul says hardly anything about the man Jesus. Mark, the earliest Gospel, seems to not know or care about a virgin birth and its oldest manuscripts contain no post-resurrection stories. So many problems like these move me to ask you to spell out what evidence you have in mind that supports your claim that “the authors were very probably in the
right place at the right time.”
Hi Steve,
Thanks again for your reply.
The series of posts from Tim McGrew is about undesigned coincindences – the term used to describe instances where a fact in one gospel obliquely and in a separate context supports a fact in another gospel.
None of the examples I’m aware of are particularly significant theologically. They’re incidental details, which have no apparent purpose beyond simply following the story.
Such things indicate that the stories in general are relaying true events (as understood by the author).
Secondly; The names of the gospel authors are uncertain. What the texts show though is a high degree of historical specificity such that the sources very probably were there. Evidence through the texts includes;
– use of a wide variety of actually existing but insignificant geographical details (actually it would be good to do a direct comparison with Josephus, although his works are explicitly history so that may be unfair)
– use of personal names – including accurate frequency of distribution (cf ossuary evidence) as well as consistent and plausible disambiguation
– accurate use of botany
– use of common phrases, proverbs, idioms
– depiction of the political conditions (especially the change in attitude of Pilate around the time of Jesus’ trial, boiling unrest in Galilee, antipathy for priesthood, status of the Pharisees, early phases of the Zealots…)
We could go on and on and on.
This is (massive) evidence in support of the historicity of the gospels – the criteria of being close to the events in time and place.
It doesn’t prove they’re true. It makes the author more historically reliable than otherwise.
For me it says – at the very least Jesus was a real person and very probably said a lot of the things attributed to him.
As for the disjunction between OT/NT… I can understand that, but if you read Jesus more sympathetically – and then read the OT the way he uses it, you see there’s a thread running through by the OT from start to finish that points to him.
Best wishes,
In peace
Reub
And thank you for your reply. I’ve (sorry this reads all broken up; I do it in word, then copy & paste)
never come across a discussion of “undesigned coincidences.” I do
know though that some parts of the Gospels that—I wouldn’t say
“obliquely”; I’d have to see what you folks mean by that and I’m too
busy and, frankly not motivated enough to study the discussion—seem to support
some part or parts of another Gospel and are considered by most New Testament
scholars to be a matter of copying, perhaps with some re-working. I’m sure you’re familiar with discussions
among NT scholars about the chronology of the Gospels, who copied from whom,
and the Q document hypothesis. When you’re describing parts of this or that Gospel
as facts, I must assume you only mean words, names, phrases, claims that have
been verified by historians, archeologists, etc.
I’m disappointed that your response
completely ignores whether we can move from having confidence that a writer has
realistically, historically situated his story to having confidence that the
story he so situates is true. To do so would be naïve and premature and
probably motivated by some belief already operating in the person who would
make such a leap.
I do not agree that the “high
degree of historical specificity” indicates…that the sources very probably
were there.” I’m sorry but that’s just ridiculous. Would you say the same
of Josephus, writing in the 90’s material about Jewish antiquities that has
since been verified? Historians consider
some things in Josephus to be huge exaggerations or untrue EVEN WHILE much he
writes seems to them to be true….just my point. Besides, not one Gospel writer ever
writes in the first person.
Not sure if you are referring to the ossuary
inscribed something like “James, brother of Jesus” but that find is
very problematic. I think something from Caiaphas’ family was found. Speaking
of Caiaphas, the timing and the trial of Jesus have been analyzed and criticized
a lot for its historical unlikeliness.
You mean that the koine Greek captures
many “common phrases, proverbs, idioms” that Aramaic-speaking Jews
used?
I hope that, when you refer to “the
change in attitude of Pilate around the time of Jesus’ trial,” you are not
suggesting that his seeming to be more protective of Jesus as the Gospels
progress is historical. The historical evidence that most historians mention is
that he was ruthless and would have had no problem executing for sedition
someone who thought himself or whom was thought by others to be a King of the
Jews.
I don’t think we have any information
on how much antipathy there was generally among Jews toward the priesthood.
Evidence does support growing disapproval and unrest toward foreign control
from the time of the Maccabees on. The Pharisees helped the people interpret
the Torah so that the people could find ways to apply them in their daily lives,
since when it comes to specific circumstances, the law does not spell
everything out. They were, from what we can tell from sources outside the NT,
the sages of the people. Many NT scholars believe that Jesus’ antipathy toward
the Pharisees is not historical but is a sentiment of the early church put in
his mouth. In fact, if Jesus acted and taught like any Jewish party, it would
be the Pharisees.
There are so many such qualifications
that need to be pointed out in your examples of how historically trustworthy
the Gospels are that I just can’t buy your conclusion that “This is
(massive) evidence in support of the historicity of the gospels – the criteria
of being close to the events in time and place.” I’d agree to the claim
that “There is evidence that many of the places, names, customs, and events
portrayed in the Gospels are historically accurate.
You seem to just sort of tack on that
” the criteria of being close to the events in time and place” at the
end of your conclusion. Proximity in time to the events in question is only one
criterion historians use. You say, “It doesn’t prove they’re true. It
makes the author more historically reliable than otherwise.” I would
adjust that to read only that it makes any specific claim of the author more
historically probable.
As I said
in another post, I agree that Jesus was a real person. What the Gospels have
him say and what he really said are two different things and determining which
is which is what occupies many NT scholars.
I do not accept your claim, “if
you read Jesus more sympathetically – and then read the OT the way he uses it,
you see there’s a thread running through by the OT from start to finish that
points to him.” First, I wonder what you mean by “more
sympathetically.” Something to do with believing in him? Believing what he
says is true because he seems to be a cool, loving guy? I don’t work that way.
OT verses only seem to point to him if you read Christian meanings into them,
as NT writers did. Many that are seen as prophecies were not and are not, in
their right, prophecies at all.
This one is long. I’ve attempted to address all your points in turn. Please do me the favour of reading carefully.
“…seem to support some part or parts of another Gospel and are considered by most New Testament
scholars to be a matter of copying, perhaps with some re-working. I’m sure you’re familiar with discussions..”
No, this – undesigned coincidences – is a different thing altogether. A simple example relates to the feeding of the 5000.
Exhibit A) John 1 – Philip is called as a disciple by Jesus. It mentions in v44 that Philip, Andrew and Peter are from Bethsaida.
Exhibit B) John 6v5 – The miracle is loosely described as taking place on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (v1)…. Jesus turns to Philip and asks “Where shall we get bread for everyone to eat…”
Why does he ask Philip? He’s not mentioned much in any of the gospels so it’s unusual that he would be selected here. One would ordinarily assume that the gospel writer just picked Philip at random as someone for Jesus to put the question to… however… ;
Exhibit C) Luke 9v10 – Philip isn’t mentioned at all in Luke’s version – the conversation is with an undifferentianted ‘the disciples’ , but it says the miracle is placed in Bethsaida.
This INADVERTENTLY explains why in John, it was Philip specifically that Jesus turns to.
It’s NOT conceivable that this has another explanation except that this happened essentially how it was described. If copying was involved – John had a copy of Luke and referred to it when writing his story, or otherwise the stories are essentially fictional, then John would far more plausibly have either have mentioned Bethsaida, or not mentioned Philip.
“I’m disappointed that your response
completely ignores whether we can move from having confidence that a writer has realistically, historically situated his story to having confidence that the story he so situates is true. To do so would be naïve and premature and probably motivated by some belief already operating in the person who would make such a leap.”
You’re disappointed I’m not that naive? You seem to be arguing with some other person.
“I do not agree that the “high degree of historical s pecificity” indicates…that the sources very probably were there.” I’m sorry but that’s just ridiculous. Would you say the same of Josephus, writing in the 90’s material about Jewish antiquities that has since been verified? Historians consider some things in Josephus to be huge exaggerations or untrue EVEN WHILE much he writes seems to them to be true….just my point.”
I think that’s a genealised assumption that does not actually address the specifics of the text.
With respect to Josephus; how is it that he’s deemed historic at all?
If his work shows a similar high degree of historical specificity to that of the gospels – that shows that his SOURCES were historically reliable. Where he exaggerates.. that seems to be clear also. I don’t see how that contradicts anything I’ve said.. in fact it seems to support it.
Similarly to the gospels, if there are unverified and unverifiable claims in the text, one concludes the trustworthiness of that based on ones own criteria for plausibility. The best example is the resurrection: from strictly historical criteria, it appears there is good evidence the disciples really BELIEVED they experienced the resurrection of Jesus.
Whether or not that is in fact what happened is up to the person reading the story to judge – history cannot tell you.
“Besides, not one Gospel writer ever writes in the first person.”
That’s anachronistic. Why should a 1st century author use the first person? That’s a convention of modern autobiography.
“Not sure if you are referring to the ossuary inscribed something like “James, brother of Jesus” but that find is very problematic. I think something from Caiaphas’ family was found. Speaking of Caiaphas, the timing and the trial of Jesus have been analyzed and criticized
a lot for its historic al unlikeliness.”
This is a good example of you not considering the actual evidence, or my comments, with appropriate scrutiny. What I said was “- use of personal names – including accurate frequency of distribution (cf ossuary evidence) as well as consistent and plausible disambiguation ”
The link below is a reference which discusses the original source of the data. Ilan analysed 2,500 ossuary inscriptions from around the period and produced a list of the frequency of distribution of names. To a strong degree, the gospels match the statistical distribution of names in Palestine at the period. The frequency of names found in the diaspora cities such as Alexandria, or Antioch, or Rome, would (I assume) be quite different. IF the gospels were fictional, how exactly would the author happen to match not just the correct names, but the correct popularity of
names. So for example we have;
Simon (Peter) – the main disciple
Simon the Zealot – also a disciple, but lesser.
Simon the Leper – pharisee (minor character)
Simon of Cyrene – passerby (incidental character)
Despite sharing the same name, each of these is disambiguated appropriately for the reader. There’s simply no plausible explanation for this except that these were real people.
Does that mean the stories are all true? Of course not. It means the author was very probably really there at the time.
Reference:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ermnjDWMOHEC&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=statistical+frequency+of+names+Ilan&source=bl&ots=64dKRqFwjV&sig=nYxahE3yhiE1RJySiZHZgeBLHyE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF38LGn5vOAhVGG5oKHaGSAUQQ6AEIHTAB#v=onepage&q=statistical%20frequency%20of%20names%20Ilan&f=false
“I hope that, when you refer to “the change in attitude of Pilate around the time of Jesus’ trial,” you are not suggesting that his seeming to be more protective of Jesus as the Gospels
progress is historical. The historical evidence that most historians mention is that he was ruthless and would have had no problem executing for sedition someone who thought himself or whom was thought by others to be a King of the Jews.”
No, that’s not what I’m referring to. Pilate was prefect of Judea from 26AD – 36AD. Initially, he was harsh and ruthless and had no “had no problem executing for sedition someone who thought himself or whom was thought by others to be a King of the Jews”
CRUCIALLY though, the evidence suggests that Pilate was sponsored by Sejanus and was appointed prefect after Tiberius went into early retirement.
When Sejanus overstretched his authority, Tiberius returned, had him arrested and executed, then conducted a purge of his supporters.
THIS meant that by 31AD the tables had turned on Pilate. Tiberius sent out a decree protecting the Jews in 32AD, and Pilate’s attitude during Jesus’ trial reflects a surprising degree of accomodation to the Jews.
This article covers the whole issue well. Note in particular the section on “Amicus Caesaris”.
http://www.xenos.org/essays/sejanus-and-chronology-christs-death
“I don’t think we have any information on how much antipathy there was generally among Jews toward the priesthood.”
I’m sure I could prove this relatively easily, but I don’t have the data at the moment.
In general terms, the high priest by this time was often appointed by the Romans, and then used the office to extort money from the people. He used his social power, in collusion with the Romans, to manage and control the people. It’s not a stretch to see that he was very likely both respected and despised by the people.
But like I say, I can’t prove this currently.
“They were, from what we can tell from sources outside the NT, the sages of the people.”
Yes.
“Many NT scholars believe that Jesus’ antipathy toward the Pharisees is not historical but is a sentiment of the early church put in his mouth”
No. The Pharisees were the Taliban of their day. Ultra righteous & hardline. Respected certainly.
“There are so many such qualifications that need to be pointed out in your examples of how historically trustworthy the Gospels are that I just can’t buy your conclusion that “This is (massive) evidence in support of the historicity of the gospels – the criteria of being close to the events in time and place.” I’d agree to the claim that “There is evidence that many of the places, names, customs, and events
portrayed in the Gospels are historically accurate.”
I don’t see any such qualifications so far in what I’ve said or what you’ve said. The harder you look, the more accurate the gospels are.
“You say, “It doesn’t prove they’re true. It makes the author more historically reliable than otherwise.” I would adjust that to read only that it makes any specific claim of the author more
historically probable.”
Ok. Not quite sure of the difference but if you wish it, fine.
“I do not accept your claim, “if you read Jesus more sympathetically – and then read the OT the way he uses it,
you see there’s a thread running through by the OT from start to finish that points to him.” First, I wonder what you mean by “more
sympathetically.” Something to do with believing in him? Believing what he says is true because he seems to be a cool, loving guy? I don’t work that way.”
No, I do not mean you need to believe in him. Sympathetically just means attempting to see things from his point of view. Read the OT the way he does. He sees himself and his mission in it. He teaches from it continually.
“OT verses only seem to point to him if you read Christian meanings into them, as NT writers did. ”
I think that entirely rests on the assumption that the Christian meaning is NOT what Jesus himself would have taught. I reckon such scholarship is based on a faulty understand of first century Judaism. Some scholars argue this way, others disagree.
I’m reading a book on the subject at the moment and it really powerfully highlights the importance of the historical method in informing theology and vice versa.
“Many that are seen as prophecies were not and are not, in their right, prophecies at all”
Matthew’s use (abuse) of the OT in identifying prophecies of Jesus is completely in line with Jewish rabbinic use of scripture.
It’s a mystical approach in which the author assumes the freedom to take the original text out of context and find alternative, “deeper / hidden” meanings. This is anathema to the modern world, but it’s not really any more than a kind of poetic license.
Note: Christian theology does not depend on such prophecy. If Matthew invented such things to make a theological point in the context of his audience… so what.
That said, when I read Isaiah, or the Psalms, or the story of Abraham and Isaac, or a plethora of stories about David or Solomon or Samson or Joshua or Moses… I can’t help but see Jesus prefigured all through it. Not sure whether that’s prophecy or something more generic.
As I said, I don’t have the time to learn about the theme (undesigned coincidences) that began this discussion. If you’re going to write such a long response, it would at least be nice for it to be concise and efficient and makes it point. I haven’t a clue why your exhibits “INADVERTENTLY explains why in John, it was Philip specifically that Jesus turns to.”
“You’re disappointed I’m not that naive? You seem to be arguing with some other person.” No, I’m disappointed that you ignored the difference. That you ignored the difference shows naivete.
“With respect to Josephus; how is it that he’s deemed historic at all?
If his work shows a similar high degree of historical specificity to that
of the gospels – that shows that his SOURCES were historically reliable.
Where he exaggerates.. that seems to be clear also. I don’t see how
that contradicts anything I’ve said.. in fact it seems to support it.” He deemed historical because much of what he says is confirmed by outside evidence. On the other hand, the Gospels are not considered historical documents by most scholars but as theological works. They contain some historical realities but contain too much that is not even historically verifiable to be considered historical generally. It is not until outside confirmation of Josephus’ claims is established that we can conclude that his sources must have been reliable. But the only other first century Jewish source outside the authors of the New Testament is Josephus and he says almost nothing about Jesus and Christianity. No gentile/pagan author even mentions Jesus’ name within 100 years of Jesus. So where are the outside confirmations?
“the disciples really BELIEVED they experienced the resurrection of Jesus.
Whether or not that is in fact what happened is up to the person reading the story to judge – history cannot tell you.” We have a book that says that the disciples believed this. That’s what we have. History, you are right, cannot tell us if they really did experience him. Neither can readers of the New Testament.
“That’s anachronistic. Why should a 1st century author use the first person? That’s a convention of modern autobiography.” Really? So we know it was never used in the first century because we have all first century writings? Oh wait, what about Acts16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, and 27:1-28:16? They’re all in first person plural.
“IF the gospels were fictional, how exactly would the author happen to
match not just the correct names” We have some outside evidence of their names against which we can match the use of the names in the NT and thereby see that they’re “correct”? No. “….but the correct popularity of
names. So for example we have [samples given]….Despite sharing the same name, each of these is disambiguated appropriately for the reader. There’s simply no plausible explanation for this except that these were real people. “disambiguated appropriately”? This means nothing more than these characters with these typical were given attributes. That doesn’t mean it’s not fiction. I’m saying it is fiction. I’m saying what you just said here is insufficient to show that they are historical.
“The Pharisees were the Taliban of their day.” This after agreeing that they were the sages of the people? “Sage” means respected as wise. At this point, I’m less motivated to keep this going.
“The harder you look, the more accurate the gospels are.” No, not the harder I look. Nor the harder many NT scholars look. And “accurate” compared to what?
Skipping over some stuff, “when I read Isaiah, or the Psalms, or the story of Abraham and Isaac, or
a plethora of stories about David or Solomon or Samson or Joshua or
Moses… I can’t help but see Jesus prefigured all through it. Not sure
whether that’s prophecy or something more generic.” As you said, you believe in him and you believe the New Testament. So, of course you can’t help it.
Goodbye. Nothing constructive here. I have not read some of your earlier posts quite as carefully as I could have, as you pointed out. But for you to point that out and then to see how little you get what I’m saying when, most of the time, it is quite clear, well…. Wasting my time. I would agree with much more of what you say if I were a believer like you but I don’t care to be.
//No, I’m disappointed that you ignored the difference. That you ignored the difference shows naivete.//
I did not ignore the difference. As any historian would agree, history is a reconstruction. History does not tell you what is true. Have your fight about truth with someone else. This dialogue is about history.
//On the other hand, the Gospels are not considered historical documents by most scholars but as theological works//
Not the case.
//They contain some historical realities but contain too much that is not even historically verifiable to be considered historical generally//
That’s a bit arbitrary. “too much”… They’re not “historical”. They don’t claim to be. They’re testimony. It starts with genre.
//We have a book that says that the disciples believed this. That’s what we have. History, you are right, cannot tell us if they really did experience him. Neither can readers of the New Testament.//
We have at least two, more likely three independent sources. Such a cheap misrepresentation of the facts undermines your argument.
//It is not until outside confirmation of Josephus’ claims is established that we can conclude that his sources must have been reliable.//
hmm… Josephus, personally compromised vasal of Vespasian. I suspect his historical credibility isn’t quite what it’s made out to be.
//But the only other first century Jewish source outside the authors of the New Testament is Josephus and he says almost nothing about Jesus and Christianity.//
… Jesus was a peasant carpenter from Gallilee who inspired a tiny flash of a popular movement of perhaps a few thousand people and then was crucified like many, many others. The historical data we do have is surprisingly good considering.
//Really? So we know it was never used in the first century because we have all first century writings? Oh wait, what about Acts16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, and 27:1-28:16? They’re all in first person plural.//
The AUTHOR was personally involved in the events, not relaying from a primary source as elsewhere.
//That doesn’t mean it’s not fiction. I’m saying it is fiction. I’m saying what you just said here is insufficient to show that they are historical.//
err… so you’re conveniently ignoring the bit about the archaeological data and the statistical distribution then…
//”The Pharisees were the Taliban of their day.” This after agreeing that they were the sages of the people? “Sage” means respected as wise. At this point, I’m less motivated to keep this going.//
Err.. your point? Bearing in mind that we’re talking pre-70AD…
//”The harder you look, the more accurate the gospels are.” No, not the harder I look… //
It’s a phrase. I’m not talking about you.
//Nor the harder many NT scholars look. //
I seriously doubt this is true.
//And “accurate” compared to what?//
Accurate as in – verified by external evidence. We’re still talking history.
//Skipping over some stuff, //
err… like the history stuff? Externally verifiable evidence about Tiberius, Sejanus and Pilate. If you’re going to ignore the external evidence, don’t then complain about the lack of external evidence.
//But for you to point that out and then to see how little you get what I’m saying when, most of the time, it is quite clear, well.//
Steve, so far you’ve
– refused to look at the textual evidence that is the point of the whole OP.
– ignored the archaeological evidence about the frequency of people’s names
– ignored the external evidence in support of the gospel’s depiction of Pilate during Jesus’ trial.
– repeatedly tried to make this a discussion about truth rather than history.
– asserted that the gospels are fiction, but provided no evidence.
And you say I’m wasting your time?
I’ve made it clear somewhere above my awareness that history is a matter of probabilities, not of proofs. As such, what did and did not happen, according to the Gospels and Acts, we can only know with some degree of probability, not with certainty. But you seem to interpret my criticisms of what you take to be history and your thinking that leads you there as my search for some meta-historical Truth. That’s a red herring.
Your point about most historians taking the Gospels as historical is well taken. I will correct myself: It is the opinion of a couple of academic NT scholars I’ve read that most NT scholars who teach at conservative or evangelical or fundamentalist seminaries believe the Gospels and Acts are historically and theologically true. Most NT scholars and historians who teach at secular academic departments do not.
“That’s a bit arbitrary. “too much”… They’re not “historical”. They
don’t claim to be. They’re testimony. It starts with genre.” I thought you claimed them to be. I never said they claimed to be; they don’t claim to be the Word of God either or without error or internal contradictions. They are presented as testimonies. That does not mean they present what probably happened.
“We have at least two, more likely three independent sources. Such a
cheap misrepresentation of the facts undermines your argument.” You don’t seem to acknowledge or be aware of the problems with the claims that the independence of the sources is problematic–the arguments that Matthew and Luke in part copied Mark, that both drew from the hypothetical document Q, etc.
“… Jesus was a peasant carpenter from Galilee [sic] who inspired a tiny
flash of a popular movement of perhaps a few thousand people and then
was crucified like many, many others. The historical data we do have is
surprisingly good considering.” Or perhaps just a few hundred or even less. The Greek word “tekton” does not mean carpenter, merely “one who works with his hands.”
“//That doesn’t mean it’s not fiction. I’m saying it is fiction. I’m
saying what you just said here is insufficient to show that they are
historical.//” and you responded, “err… so you’re conveniently ignoring the bit about the archaeological data and the statistical distribution then…” I see I left out “not.” It should read “I am not saying it is fiction.” My point of view is that, whatever parts have been empirically or textually verified do not indicate that the rest of the text is trustworthy. That Jesus was a real Jew who was crucified for sedition has no bearing on whether his suffering was a sacrifice or had any salvific efficacy.
” ‘The Pharisees were the Taliban of their day’. This after agreeing
that they were the sages of the people? “Sage” means respected as wise.
At this point, I’m less motivated to keep this going.” My point is that Jesus’ criticisms of the Pharisees do not align with what else we know of the Pharisees. They interpreted the Torah for the people; it was the Sadducees who who rigid–and some were corrupt.
” ‘The harder you look, the more accurate the gospels are.” No, not the harder I look… // and you respond, “It’s a phrase. I’m not talking about you.” What? What you said, as a phrase, means The harder one looks, the more accurate the Gospels are. And I’m saying I am one and the harder I look the less true they seem. And many, many people have this experience. So your “phrase” as a generalization, is not true.
You end with, “Steve, so far you’ve
– refused to look at the textual evidence that is the point of the whole OP.
– ignored the archaeological evidence about the frequency of people’s names
– ignored the external evidence in support of the gospel’s depiction of Pilate during Jesus’ trial.
– repeatedly tried to make this a discussion about truth rather than history.
– asserted that the gospels are fiction, but provided no evidence.
And you say I’m wasting your time?”
–I understand the internal, textual evidence and some things are verified externally but not the things Jesus is purported to have said that are metaphysical or theological or spiritual. For such, there is no external evidence that he said what the Gospels claim he said or did the miracles they say he performed.
–material evidence (e.g., “the archaeological evidence about the frequency of people’s names”) could be gathered for certain works of fiction too that set their stories in real places, with some real people and events.
–I do not know if his accommodation is historical. Do you?
–I am only separating out what is materially, historically verifiable from what is not.
–Except for when I left out the word “not,” I have made it abundantly clear that I have no quarrel with what can be verified by material evidence. Some of the arguments about how much one part of the NT verifies another and how independent the sources are are very problematic. But two Gospel writers making the same theological or Christological point independently is not evidence that the point is true or historical.
You miss my points again and again so let’s cease.
I am aware of Markan primacy. The independent texts, conservatively, are Mark, John and Q/other sayings source/s.
“That Jesus was a real Jew who was crucified for sedition has no bearing on whether his suffering was a sacrifice or had any salvific efficacy.”
You seem to think I would disagree with this. I don’t know how much more plain i could make it that I agree.
“My point is that Jesus’ criticisms of the Pharisees do not align with what else we know of the Pharisees.
They interpreted the Torah for the people; it was the Sadducees who who rigid–and some were corrupt.”
Such as what?
The dispute on divorce is documented outside the gospels. Jesus is reasonably asked for his opinion and gives it. Similarly on taxes. Sabbath particulars.
“And I’m saying I am one and the harder I look the less true they seem. ”
Again with the truth thing. That’s not a historical approach.
I realised I should explain;
The primary question I am addressing is “Are the gospels AUTHENTIC, or are they late, heavily fictionalised accounts of remote events (or somewhere in the middle, obviously).
I think the question you are asking is “which of these stories can we confidently believe is true?”
I think the question of authenticity needs to come first, before looking at the stories themselves. We should have some understanding on the type of text, where it came from etc…
In answer to my question; my current view is that; we don’t know who wrote the gospels, but they seem to be generally trustworthy as SOURCES
as far as we can tell, leaving aside any supernatural claims as these are clearly unhistorical in nature.
this means that when it comes to their portrait of Jesus, it seems to me;
– there’s little serious reason to doubt most of Jesus’ sayings and parables in general. They are consistent with OT teaching, Jewish idiom (Aramaic sayings) and rabbinical method, though often using a unique emphasis (as with other rabbis) Famously, Jesus’ “love thy neighbour” is also taught by Hillel. The content of Jesus’ teaching wasn’t unique, his style and application was.
When it comes to the miracles, these have little bearing on theology. Other prophets did miracles. Other people in other places did miracles. Often they’re only reported at all to exemplify the teaching.
They matter in general as signs that Jesus was the son of God. But if someone thinks they’re made up, there’s never going to be any evidence that might persuade them otherwise. The gospels are testimony, we have to judge for ourselves.
“But two Gospel writers making the same theological or Christological point independently is not evidence that the point is true or historical.”
I’ve not been discussing any theological points. That’s the fight you’re having with someone else. I’ve been directing my comments at history.
SCG,
Your rhetorical question really isn’t relevant to the kind of argument we are discussing here. The objective of the argument from undesigned coincidences, even in its cumulative effect, is not to demonstrate conclusively that the miraculous events recorded in the gospels took place; it is to show that the writers were well-informed people who were habitually truthful.
That fact, if it can be established, will have some impact on the credibility of the miraculous claims, of course, since it narrows the possible ways to explain them away by making it improbable that the authors were dupes or deceivers. But this is a separate step in the argument.
I didn’t directly address the undesigned coincidences argument because you hadn’t yet presented it in this introductory post. Intellectual honesty, charity and all that.
But your prefatory framing in terms of “historical confirmation” sent up all kinds of red flags. You know jolly well that when the pew potatoes hear their minister say “the bible has been historically confirmed,” they process that in terms of the marquee items like parting seas and corpses coming back to life.
I ask again: if I tell you I was abducted by UFOs on my trip to Wisconsin, have I materially raised the probability of the existence of UFOs when I show you my motel receipts conclusively demonstrating that I was definitely in Eau Claire at that time? After all, it “narrows the possible ways to explain my story away”…
SCG,
I repeat: your example has next to nothing to do with the argument we’ll be pursuing here. And a hypothetical about how people will process things said to them by other people also look like gambits to drag the discussion somewhere else, The evaluation of the New Testament evidence depends very heavily on the details. Made-up scenarios like yours never come close to being real parallels, and they give a strong appearance of being designed by people who are clueless merely in order to ridicule something they haven’t bothered to understand.
As to your Wisconsin example, judging from the scant information you have given, the answer appears to be, “Yes, but very little,” because “SCG is lying through his teeth about having been in Wisconsin” is not one of the primary alternatives to the truth of your account. If, on the other hand, dozens of artless details in your account showed you to be sane and honest, and if the independent reports of other witnesses confirmed some of the elements of the abduction story itself, that would at least raise my eyebrows. But it would all depend on how the details hang together.
If you truly think that such a decontextualized tall tale has any parallel to a group of Second Temple Palestinian Jews changing their day of worship to Sunday and proclaiming the resurrection of a Lord who had been killed by crucifixion, then there is little more I can do for you except to recommend that you read up on the era. I would suggest that you start with N. T. Wright.
Enough with the hypotheticals. By your own admission, you haven’t seen examples of the actual argument. Let’s wait for those.
“I repeat: your example has next to nothing to do with the argument we’ll be pursuing here.”
Have I so misread your intent? It really looks as though you are trying to leverage confirmation in mundane detail into verification of the extraordinary.
“Made-up scenarios like yours never come close to being real parallels, and they give a strong appearance of being designed by people who are clueless merely in order to ridicule something they haven’t bothered to understand.”
“I don’t believe in hypothetical scenarios Mr. Donaghy. That’s like lying to your brain!” — Kenneth
My “made-up scenario” (seriously?) was crafted around two simple elements: 1) reliable verifications of mundane details 2) embedded in a longer narrative containing unverified extraordinary details. The only “ridicule” is directed at the notion that the former can materially increase the probability of the latter. As you appear to agree below.
“As to your Wisconsin example, judging from the scant information you have given, the answer appears to be, “Yes, but very little,” because “SCG is lying through his teeth about having been in Wisconsin” is not one of the primary alternatives to the truth of your account.”
See, that wasn’t so hard.
Strictly speaking, the probability of a conjunction is always increased when the probability of one of its conjuncts is increased. Which is why I was very careful to construct (sorry, “make up”) a scenario where the probability of one extraordinary element was not materially increased by a mundane one. In fact, this is more or less the mathematical definition of the concepts of mundanity and extraordinarity.
It remains to be seen if your forthcoming post presents a case more like an inscription “confirming” there were Jews in Egypt in the 2nd millennium BC, or more like a dig “confirming” tens of thousands of soldiers and chariots crushed under sudden deposition in the middle of the Red Sea.
“Have I so misread your intent? It really looks as though you are trying to leverage confirmation in mundane detail into verification of the extraordinary.”
You have not yet seen how either this argument or the overall strategy looks in any detail, so you’re flailing around in the dark. Be patient.
“I was very careful to construct (sorry, “make up”) a scenario where the probability of one extraordinary element was not materially increased by a mundane one.”
Yes, I noticed. I’m not interested in playing with toy examples that are constructed to yield a pre-specified outcome. Real history is more interesting.
Well, if we were looking back historically, centuries down the road, and noticed that there was an article in the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram by some other person about seeing strange things in the sky that night, along with the fact that you correctly identified the name of the city as Eau Claire, as it had been renamed by that time, etc…. it would lend credibility to your story.
We’d need to weigh in other evidence, such as there being very little chance of alien life, or some report of you having been at a séance the previous night to actually determine what your, now more credible, experience might have actually entailed.