You are the first skeptic to essentially tell me that his mind is closed to what I have to say, and most of the skeptics have also been very friendly, so I always end up giving them the benefit of the doubt and putting time and effort into answering their questions.Link
My initial reaction was to respond (due to the generally negative connotation), “Hey, I’m not close-minded. I’m as open as the next person,” but I started thinking about it.
Am I really?
In point of fact, I am close-minded about a number of topics. And is that really all bad?
Take an extreme example—the heliocentric theory of our solar system. The idea the planets (including Earth) rotate around the sun. Although I’ve never been in a spaceship, I have seen the evidence, including the paths of other planets, the sun, the moon, the shadows all pointing to a heliocentric theory.
Indeed, you could say I am quite close-minded regarding the topic. Perhaps, even in my persistently stubborn state on this subject, it would be possible to persuade me different. So I may qualify as only 99.99% close-minded. (If that does qualify.)
BUT, in order to change my position, one would need to present some very compelling argument; doing so immediately, forcefully and with strong evidence. Merely asking a question, such as, “If the Earth orbits the sun, how come we see the sun move across the sky?” will never be sufficient.
As I pondered the concept of close-mindedness, I realized we spent our first 18 (or more) years being taught this very topic. We were given homework assignments, quizzes, tests—all designed to close our mind regarding possible alternatives. “2+2=4” Not “5;” not “giraffe.” We close our minds to water’s chemical composition being “H2O.” To “You’re” being a contraction of “you” and “are” and not possession. The list, as you can see, goes on and on.
The list goes on and on. Yes, there are occasions when we learn new information, and realize what we thought was so certain (and perhaps had closed our minds), may not be reality. Newtonian physics comes to mind.
And that is the word I hinged upon—“new.” I looked up the definitions, to see what the common usage would be when utilizing these terms. Google god came up with:
Open-minded: “Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.”
Close-minded: “Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.”
In both definitions, the word “new” sprang at me. Is it “close-minded” to be unreceptive to old ideas?
At one point does one study a topic enough to say, “Unless someone presents something new here, I have made my decision”?
The reason I ask—I have studied Christianity. I am very familiar with the fundamentalist Christian position. I know the arguments, the argument style, even the authors, books and sites they will point to.
And I am unconvinced. Must I hear it again to be “open-minded”? How many times must I hear a proposed resolution to a contradiction in the Bible before I come to the conclusion it is a compilation of human documents? How many times must I hear the excuses…er…”apologetics” for the differences between the God of Tanakh and the God of the New Testament?
Are we not entitled to reach a point of saying, “Look. I’ve studied this. I am unconvinced. Unless you present something new--some bold evidence or intensely compelling argument at the onset--I have no need to re-capitulate (for the 100th time) why I was unpersuaded before”?
So I guess, if one wants to call me close-minded because Presentation Number 101 (presenting nothing new) fails to convince, just like Presentations Number 1 – 100 failed to do so…well…I am fine with that.
Fantastic post. I'm all for listening to other points of view but there is absolutely nothing wrong with making up your mind from all available evidence!
ReplyDeleteI would note that when I asked her about someone who rejects a particular scientific theory before examining the evidence based on the teachings of a holy book, she wanted me to consider all the investigations the person had previously done into the validity of that holy book. However, if you should have the temerity to rely on the results of your investigations, your mind is closed.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe after all the research you've done and all the posts you have over your years of that research that if you've made up your mind you could be called closed-minded.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone says that they are surely showing how equally closed-minded they are. They are not really listening to your evidence; they tend to have some pretty pat answers and really just want you to listen to their evidence and make up your mind to believe as they do. They aren't interested in your point of view because they are actually considering it. They are just trying to see if they can come up with a way to refute it.
I believe on that one post you did about how you were pretty much done debating the topic I said something like: You've kicked the proverbial dead mule enough in your mind. At some point isn't it okay to just move on?
If a person weighs the critical evidence for a matter and comes to a conclusion how can that be close-mindedness ? Like you, I know fundamentalist, evangelical front and back. I know it sounds arrogant when I say "what are you going to show me or tell me I haven't looked at before" but that's how I look at the matter.
ReplyDeleteI am agnostic when it comes to the notion of A god but the Christian god? I am an atheist. I have weighed the Christian god in the balance and found him wanting. On this matter my mind is closed.
Yes. The crux of the biscuit is "new". Closed-minded and open-minded are about how a person integrates new information; they're not about whether made some particular decision. If one has already integrated an argument or element of evidence, refusing to re-integrate it (because doing so will have no effect at all on one's decision) is not being closed-minded.
ReplyDeleteWe do not have infinite cognitive resources. If one has integrated a lot of evidence and come to a strong conclusion, considering any single individual new element is so unlikely to change one's mind that it is cognitively inefficient to spend much time considering it. Hence the statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: claims that contradict decisions with a high prior probability require new evidence that could reasonably overcome the high prior probability.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteFor the record, whatever you read into my statement that your mind is closed to what I have to say, it was not intended to be an insult. I meant it exactly the way you spelled it out in this post. You said to me:
"To be brutally honest, (sorry) I find your biblical scholarship and apologetics fairly basic—the type seen so often it bores me. I doubt even lurkers are interested anymore. The only bits I am interested in (how you perceive and empathize with countering positions) I may ask a few questions."
And I responded that this is useful information to me. I said that you are the first skeptic to be so upfront, but as I mentioned in another thread on your blog, a woman who recently deconverted told me that she had made up her mind. I accepted what she said, and I am accepting what you said. I am more than happy to agree to disagree.
Vinny,
I wish you would be as upfront as DagoodS, because I suspect you share his perspective, but you still respond to a lot of my comments. The reason why I didn't reply to your last comment on Tough Questions Answered is that I simply don't see any point to it anymore. If you want to take it as a victory, be my guest!
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteI realize that my last comment may have seemed like I am upset, and since I don’t believe in making people guess at how I’m feeling and why, I’ll explain it to you.
DagoodS made a pretty harsh comment about me on TQA, speaking not only for himself, but also for all the lurkers, and although I was a little surprised, I shrugged it off because I don’t know him very well. And I can’t say I know you very well either, but we’ve had many discussions over the past half year or so, and you’ve never said anything that seems calculated to hurt me and I don’t think you would. You seem a little more emotionally distant than many others, but by itself that doesn’t bother me. I’m looking for mutual respect in my dialogues with skeptics, and I wouldn’t say that you don’t treat me with respect me but just that our discussions are a little more adversarial than what I’m used to in my interactions with atheists and agnostics.
So it was hurtful to me that you knew the context of DagoodS’s quote, and you used this as an opportunity to further criticize me. Andrew Ryan, on the other hand, is a non-theist that I had never talked to before my discussion with him on TQA, and yet he responded to me in a respectful and compassionate way shortly after DagoodS said what he did.
Just to make my position clear: I am looking for constructive dialogue with non-theists, based on mutual respect. I am willing to be fair to them, take their arguments seriously, and address the arguments rather than belittle the person, and I expect the same in return. If I don’t give it, I want it brought to my attention, and if I don’t get it, I move on. My discussions with you on the resurrection were constructive because you know that subject well, and it gave readers an opportunity to see both sides. I also learned a lot from those discussion, so I appreciate that.
But recently we have covered a lot of the same ground, which takes a lot of my time because the discussions with you go on for a long time. And your recent behavior gives me the impression that you view me as an adversary and my feelings matter less than winning an argument (this is my perception, and I apologize if it’s incorrect). As I said before, I’m not looking for adversarial relationships with non-theists, so if you don’t mind, I would like to agree to disagree—at least for now.
Anette,
ReplyDeleteI had not actually gotten the impression that you were upset from your previous comment, but I’ve gotten it now.
I regret that I hurt you; however, I believed that you demonstrated a double standard regarding how you wanted the apparent closed-mindedness of your own statement to be evaluated and how you evaluated the apparent closed-mindedness of Dagoods’ statement and I believed that it was fair to point that out. If I was right about that (and I think I was), I don’t expect you to find my pointing it out pleasant. Upon review, I appreciate that my comments were sharper than they needed to be, but I’m not sure that I could have expressed my opinion in a way that completely precluded hurt feelings given the subject matter.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteI did not find your statements about me being closed-minded insulting at all. In fact, I have had similar discussions about Christians having confirmation bias many times before. It has never bothered me (although I find it kind of boring and would rather actually discuss the issues) because I know that you are simply giving your perspective. I'm not so thin-skinned that you have to choose your words carefully so as not to hurt me.
However, I did sense that DagoodS said what he did with the sole purpose of hurting, and it was something that would have hurt if I had known him better. And I felt that he took a small part of that conversation out of context and made it seem as if I had wronged him. When you then used this post to advance your argument that I am closed-minded it came across unscrupulous to me because you were aware of the context.
Still, I do understand why you would get the impression that this was no big deal because of my response to DagoodS, and that your focus was entirely on the issue of closed-mindedness. So no worries about that.
Again, my point was not to call DagoodS closed-minded, but simply to acknowledge what he has conceded in this blog post, that his mind is closed to what I have to say. A moonie recently tried to convert me, and several times during the discussion he kept saying that he really wanted to give me a copy of Sun Myung Moon's autobiography. I had to keep politely declining because books are not cheap, UPS delivery people are not usually independently wealthy (yes, this conversation took place when I went out to get a box), and the probability that I would accept Moon's words about himself over the allegations of others against him were basically zero. This did not mean that the moonie had nothing worthwhile to say--he did--but that it wasn't worth him giving me a book that would collect dust on my bookshelf.
And I did the exact same calculation when I responded to DagoodS as I did when I declined that book, except this time it was about the use of my time. That's not to say that I don't think DagoodS has anything worthwhile to say--I actually learn something from most people with a different perspective, so my mind is not closed to them. In fact, when I first commented on DagoodS's blog I said that I'm always looking for the best atheist arguments. But so far, most of what I've seen is insults directed at Christians in general and--recently--me in particular. So I don't think further dialogue is going to be constructive. And I always appreciate knowing that upfront.
But I have no problem with you thinking I'm closed-minded, so we'll just leave it at that. I genuinely do not find that insulting at all. It was the context that bothered me.
Exactly. If there's no new evidence, leave me alone!
ReplyDeleteBut whatever your intent was in saying what you did, DagoodS, I don't hold it against you.
ReplyDeleteI wish you all the best!
Anette,
ReplyDeleteI didn't get that vibe from Dagoods' comment at TQA, but my contact with Dagoods has only been in the blogosphere so I cannot claim to know him very well either. I think I can usually tell where he's coming from as we frequently reason and argue in the same way. On the other hand, since I don't think I am always the best judge of how my comments come across, maybe the similarity would make it hard for me to judge how Dagoods is coming across as well.
No worries, Anette Acker. I wasn’t insulted in the least. As indicated, I was initially bothered (Was I being “close-minded?) but after 30 seconds reflection, found myself perfectly satisfied with the reasons our discussion is not illuminating.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it would be instructive to point out the very day, hour, and minute I realized this; of course, more likely you will find this “harsh.”
For brief background, we discussed the old chestnut regarding Jesus claiming to come back during the lifetime of his listeners. After watching you interact with others, it appeared to me there was a lack of communication. So I pointed out the two strongest arguments supporting Jesus making such a claim:
1) Every single recipient reacted as if Jesus said the Son of Man was coming within their lifetimes;
2) Numerous other places, Jesus utilized genea and within those contexts (just like this particular one) we interpret it to mean the people he was talking to, not the “entire race of humans.” The events he discussed both before and after were taking place within their lifetimes.
You responded to the first argument that Jesus “created an atmosphere of expectation and uncertainty.”
So we are saying, “Jesus claimed to be coming back within their lifetime” and you respond, “No, no, Jesus never explicitly said those precise words. He just said words that would deliberately create such an impression in the recipient’s mind when he knew it wasn’t true.” (Note again, in Aramaic, translated to Greek, and recorded by memory some decades later.)
Our claim is that your supposed God is incorrect; you defend it by demonstrating he is a liar. I…see…..
But this wasn’t even the end (as amazing as that may be.) It was your response to the second argument (Jesus uses genea elsewhere, within context, to mean those present) where you implied those OTHER uses did not necessarily mean those present.
It was at that precise moment I realized you had abandoned any objectivity within biblical study. Even the most conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical (when not practicing apologetics) recognize Matt. 11:16 was discussing those present. Not every human has heard John the Baptist. That Matt 12:38-42 was a direct response to those present, indicating an event interpreted to take place within their lifetime. That Matt 23:33-36 was within their lifetimes (are Christians still being “flogged” in synagogue?).
Again in Mark 8:12—a direct response to a question. Luke 17:25 discussing Jesus’ crucifixion occurring in “this generation.”
Yet, in order to respond to the second argument you toss out the implication it was NOT referring to those immediately present. Or—excuse me—when the authors remembered what Jesus said and translated the Aramaic into the Greek, they utilized the Greek word genea to not necessarily mean those present.
This is not objective biblical scholarship. This is terrible hermeneutics and I’m not sure it even qualifies for exegesis. It certainly is not taking the argument seriously.
This is stating something—anything—and believing because it is grammatically in form, and lacks swear words or insulting language, should be taken seriously.
Poppycock.
Curse me out, call me a fool, but at least take biblical study seriously.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteGiven that you referenced your discussion with Anette in which I was involved, I thought I'd add my experience of it. Though you've dealt with this subject matter countless times, I have not. So I found the discussion between the two of you quite instructive. I spent some time studying the matter on my own time following it. I feel like Anette presented the most convincing argument there was to be made for her position, but at this point I still believe the weight of evidence points to Jesus making a failed prophesy, which is not an easy thing for me to write, but it's something I can't seem to get around. There's also the matter of the prophesy he makes about being dead for 3 days and 3 nights before being raised, which most accounts don't have him in the grave for that length of time as well as the statement that the disciples won't finish going to all the towns in Israel preaching the gospel before he returns.
DoOrDoNot,
ReplyDeleteI apologize. If I was a better person, I would have given the arguments supporting my position, provided the counters to what Anette Acker was claiming, and let the lurkers bask in reflection. However, as you point out, not only have I had this particular discussion before; I’ve had interactions with this methodology too many times to count.
What far interests me more, is why we (apologists and skeptics alike) continue to use the same arguments, if they are ineffective. How long has it been since an apologist has convinced a skeptic of…well…almost anything? Why use arguments that wouldn’t work on us?
I am fascinated with two things:
1) Does the apologist even understand what the skeptic is claiming?
2) Does the apologist understand why their own claims are ineffective?
Alas, I haven’t come across an apologist who wants to broach the topic. (I don’t know if you still read Tough Questions Answered—Bill Pratt isn’t even bothering to respond to skeptics anymore.)
Let me give you a real life example of how I am interested in people learning to understand the other’s argument.
I had made an arrangement with a debtor—they would make monthly payments and I would not pursue collection. Of course (as is common) they missed a payment. I garnisheed their wages. Not surprisingly (equally common) I received a call the day they found out about the garnishment:
Debtor: Hi. I just wanted you to know I am putting a payment in the mail today.
Me: Mmmm.
Debtor: Oh, I learned you are garnishing my wages.
Me: Yep.
Me: You didn’t make last month’s payment. I took action.
Debtor: But I’m making the payment now!
Me: O.K. And it will be applied.
Debtor: So you will stop the garnishment?
Me: No. We made an agreement. You breached it.
Debtor: But I am sending the money now!
Me: Sure. After you found out about the garnishment. How do I know you will keep paying, after I stop the garnishment?
Debtor: Because I promise to!
Me: You promised before, and didn’t keep your promise.
Debtor: No, really. I mean it.
Me: You didn’t mean it before?
Debtor: [new tactic] I NEED that money for rent!
Me: Mmmm.
Debtor: So can you stop it?
Me: No.
Debtor: But I will be thrown out! I’ve got to have that money!
Me: Here…let me try this. You get a paycheck every two weeks, right?
Debtor: Right!
Me: And you plan on that; you budget it, right?
Debtor: Right!
Me: And if that paycheck doesn’t come in, you can’t pay bills; you have cash flow problems, right?
Debtor: Right, exactly!
Me: Well… I am the same way. I planned on receiving your money every month. I budget it. If it doesn’t come in, I can’t pay my bills. And I have the same problems you do.
Debtor: I get what you are saying, I really do…
Debtor: So will you stop the garnishment?
Me: [facepalm]
They didn’t understand when the exact same argument was turned against them; they were completely unconvinced by it.
I think that my position is the most reasonable because my arguments are the most convincing. It is possible that my position is right in some absolute sense, but I don’t really think about it in those terms because I doubt that there is any way to demonstrate that. If I am unable to meet the strongest counter arguments, then intellectual integrity requires that I reconsider whether my position is correct.
ReplyDeleteThe apologist thinks that his position is right in an absolute sense because God has revealed that it is so in a magic book. To recognize that any counter argument is in any way convincing is to doubt God’s revelation, which is a sin. If he is unable to meet the strongest counter arguments, that just shows that Satan is very tricky and that God wants him to rely on his faith rather than his own understanding. It doesn’t mean that any of the counter arguments are valid.
If you were a prosecutor, could there be evidence against the defendant so overwhelming that you convince the defense attorney himself to admit his client was guilty? Of course not. You might be able to convince the defense attorney that his client would almost certainly be convicted and would be better off pleading guilty, but absent a (more-or-less) impartial judge and jury, the defense attorney will never admit his client's guilt.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with the defense attorney. It's his job, if the client insists, to argue his client's case, however far-fetched, and argue it with apparent sincerity. A defense attorney is in a sense an advocate by "faith".
Taking the judge and jury out of the picture, and given that absolute certainty is impossible, it's absolutely impossible to convince a defense attorney to admit his client's guilt. The inverse case is similar, but not entirely identical: it's very difficult (but not entirely impossible) without genuinely new evidence* to convince the prosecutor to drop the case. This is not because the prosecutor is committed to the defendant's guilt in the same sense that the defense attorney is committed to the client's innocence**, but rather because the prosecutor has seen all the evidence, anticipated the defense's arguments, and come to a conclusion. It's remotely possible the prosecuting attorney has not reasoned carefully about the evidence, but it seems very unlikely he will not have anticipated all the defense attorney's arguments. The prosecutor is an advocate by reason.
*Perry Mason notwithstanding.
**or "not-guilty-ness"
We're in exactly the same situation. Religious apologists are advocates by faith; atheists advocates by reason. There's nothing wrong per se with either position: I admire defense attorneys as well as prosecutors*. There are, however, a couple of problems with the advocacy model applied to religion.
*At least in theory: I would admire prosecutors a lot more if they didn't spend so much time trying to prove people guilty of acts I don't consider wrong, but that's a discussion for another day.
The first is obviously the lack of an obvious jury. Although we tend to say we're "talking to the lurkers", it's still very frustrating for both advocates when the opposition refuses to admit the force of one's arguments. Atheists have heard all the apologists arguments already; merely hearing them again won't change our minds. Similarly, we atheists cannot prove with absolute certainty that no God exists (He might well be hiding behind the couch), so there's always room for the apologist's faith. There's no jury, either literal or metaphorical (i.e. science's metaphorical jury of experimental results), so no one can ever make the meta-argument, i.e. however sincere you might be, you cannot convince the jury.
But there's another, subtler but perhaps more frustrating problem: the lack of a judge. There's no one "managing" the conversation, keeping lies and obviously fallacious arguments out of the conversation. There's no one to exclude "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions. There's no one saying that an advocate has already made a particular argument. There are no rules of engagement whatsoever.
Not to single anyone out here, but I've become entirely frustrated with the whole discussion precisely because I'm tired of apologists blatantly lying, introducing irrelevant but prejudicial statements, making patently ridiculous claims, and introducing every fallacy known to humanity*. I spend all my time trying to cut through the bullshit, only to find there's nothing but bullshit.
*Indeed arguing apologetics is excellent instruction for philosophy because no group has introduced more fallacies more subtly and with more sophistication than religious apologists.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteHow long has it been since an apologist has convinced a skeptic of…well…almost anything?
On January 24, 2011, an atheist said the following to another atheist on my blog who lumped the supernatural claims of all religions together:
If a does not equal b and c does not equal b it doesn't prove that a equals c.
I am confident that Anette will be able to present a case for the exclusivity of the Resurrection as compared to other religious claims.
I think if we are to use Anette's criteria for judging other non-biblical supernatural claims, they would have to include at least these criterion:
-There are multiple independent eye-witness or one step removed from eye-witness accounts.
-The majority of modern scholars agree on the facts.
-That the event is counter to the expectations of the witnesses.
-That the actions of witnesses, post-event, are drastically changed.
-That all alternate explanations have deficiencies.
I'm not sure that there is another claimed supernatural event that can be scrutinized in the same way.
And on March 12, 2011, another atheist said to me:
You have done a great job presenting key facts supporting the resurrection, but I do believe that there still remains many details in the Bible that are untrue whether they are exaggerations or completely made up.
They are both still atheists with plenty of other questions about theism in general and the Bible in particular, but what you said about apologists not convincing skeptics of “almost anything” is incorrect. The resurrection is central to Christianity and these skeptics appeared to have found some of my arguments convincing even though it will undoubtedly take a lot more for them to change their worldviews so dramatically.
DoOrDoNot,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to tell you what a pleasure it is to come across people like you, who approach questions like this in such an intellectually honest way. You remind of an atheist who reads my blog regularly—like you, he strives only to get at the truth, and he also independently researches these questions and raises thoughtful points.
You are welcome to email me any time or comment on my blog if you have anything you would like to discuss. I’ve been meaning to comment on your blog in response to your post about why faith is necessary, but I’ve not yet had a chance.
As for your point about Matthew 10:23 (“I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”), I think that is the strongest argument against my position. I think there is considerable evidence that “generation” was used more broadly in the past, and I see nothing dishonest about God wanting the early church to live in expectation of Christ’s coming (because we all have a tendency toward complacency), but I don’t know how to explain Matthew 10:23.
However, it doesn’t mean Jesus made a failed prophecy. Matthew is the only one who records Jesus as having said this, so if someone got it wrong, why conclude that it was Jesus and not Matthew? In terms of Jesus being a failed apocalypse prophet, you and DagoodS still haven’t explained His answers to direct questions.
As for Matthew 10:23, I don’t know what the answer is, but it’s possible it means something having to do with the last days after “the times of the Gentiles” are fulfilled (Luke 21:24, Romans 11:25), when the focus is once again on the Jews. But that’s just a guess.
It’s by no means the only Bible difficulty that I can’t explain. However, the reason why I have faith even though I don’t have all the answers is because the Bible makes more and more sense to me the longer I’m a Christian. It is like a puzzle where more pieces fit into place all the time. Even though there are pieces that I can’t find a place for, I can see how so many pieces fit that I am willing to live with the uncertainty.
Or you can think of it in terms of constructing a skeleton. The most important part would be the backbone, and the resurrection is the backbone of Christianity. If Jesus was raised from the dead (and skeptics have never been able to explain the evidence in any kind of plausible way), then God exists and Christianity is true. If Jesus was raised from the dead, then the minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts don’t matter.
ReplyDeleteAnother “backbone” issue is the doctrine of salvation. The Bible starts to explain it symbolically at the beginning of Genesis and continues through the end of Revelation. And the pieces of the puzzle fit together perfectly in spite of the fact that the Bible was written by over forty authors and it spans many centuries and two religions.
And one thing to keep in mind is that it’s not just a question of being a Christian or not, or believing or not—if you’re not a Christian, you hold some other worldview, and the question is how well that worldview fits the evidence. How does a non-Christian worldview explain the resurrection evidence? How does a non-theistic worldview explain why there is something rather than nothing and why the laws and constants of the universe are so finely tuned for the evolution of life?
I think people often think that unless they have 100% certainty that Christianity is true, they should reject it. But why should that be the case, when they’re willing to live with less than 100% certainty that their present worldview is true? In fact, I’ve talked with a lot of non-theists, and they are often willing to fall back on “I don’t know” on very central issues where Christian theism has great explanatory power and atheism does not.
So either way we have to accept uncertainty on a number of issues. I have no difficulty accepting the fact that I can’t explain everything about the Bible because I have noticed a definite pattern of it making more and more sense over time. And the more honestly and critically I study it, the more it makes sense.
I’m planning to sign off on this thread right here, but if at some point you would like to discuss this further, please let me know.
Skeptics have never been able to explain the evidence [for the resurrection] in any kind of plausible way.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what I'm talking about. The only person who could make this statement with a straight face would be a defense attorney completely unconstrained by a judge and jury.
It's such an egregiously stupid statement that I'm really unsure whether intentional lying or mental incapacity is the more charitable interpretation.
Anette Acker: I don’t see how I made use of “possibility arguments” in the previous discussion… Link
ReplyDeleteAnette Acker: As for Matthew 10:23, I don’t know what the answer is, but it’s possible it means something having to do with the last days after “the times of the Gentiles” are fulfilled (Luke 21:24, Romans 11:25), when the focus is once again on the Jews. But that’s just a guess. [emphasis in original]
It’s like I’m freaking psychic…You even emphasized it for me!
Let me help you out. There are two reasons I did not deal with every single argument you raised.
1) We treat the Bible differently.
I see it as a collection of various accounts where the authors provide their own individual theological views. Therefore, any argument made, “Well how do you align Author A with Author B?” requires a simple response: they disagreed with each other.
You see the Bible as a collective whole (albeit with various contributors) where Passage A MUST align with Passage B and find any argument able to do so being quite persuasive. Hence your fondness for Acts 1 being different than Matthew, because you see the difference as being a precise variance.
I see Acts 1 as a different author providing an apologetic to a later generation of Christians as to why Jesus didn’t come back.
Is that convincing to you? No. Do you even see it as a counter-argument? No. So why bother?
Your use of the Tanakh is unfounded. Remember, the very core of this argument (other than your necessary confirmation bias that Jesus can’t be wrong) was that genea had alternative definitions—ONE of which would make Jesus correct. Using Hebrew to support what Jesus said in Aramaic was translated (from memory) to one alternative in Greek seems very far-fetched.
Again, why bother?
2) Because the arguments of context and recipient response so overwhelmingly compel one to understand what Jesus was claiming.
It is as if you are telling the jury, “They haven’t shown why the witness said my client was wearing red shoes, when he was wearing orange” after the prosecution has introduced your client’s confession, the gun with his fingerprints on it, 2 eyewitnesses, and forensics. And a video tape.
Only your client is cheering you on.
It's such an egregiously stupid statement that I'm really unsure whether intentional lying or mental incapacity is the more charitable interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI don't for a minute suspect Anette of intentionally lying. I think she believes by faith that the resurrection is an incontrovertible fact. Because it is an incontrovertible fact, it is inherently impossible for skeptics ever to explain the evidence in a plausible way. Therefore, they never have.
Larry, the Barefoot Bum,
ReplyDeleteI quite agree with your example of judge/jury. Whenever the topic of inerrancy comes up, I point out the method of what would be convincing to a neutral party (jury.) I find it fascinating the inerrantist never wants to use a “neutral”—as if it would be too hard to convince inerrancy to person not already pre-disposed toward it.
And (as you know) I equally agree without a moderator or referee such as a judge, anything goes. Indeed, some apologists brag they are entitled to deceive skeptics because believer and non-believers are at war. And in war, it is moral to lie.
Perhaps my personal hang-up, is that after the trial is over, when the courtroom is clear, and only the two attorneys are talking, we CAN admit what was a good argument and what was not. We do see how our client was guilty, and readily acknowledge it. (In case it was not clear, Larry’s point was that we would never say it in open court. In front of the jury.)
I approach this study the same way.
Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I already conceded that DoOrDoNot’s argument was the strongest one, and that I did not have an answer. Therefore, I was left merely with “possibilities.” I made no such concessions about your arguments, and that is why I responded by saying, “I don’t see how I made use of ‘possibility arguments’ in the previous discussion.”
Second, I specifically approached the question without assuming that all four Gospels are a collective whole. And I used the book of Psalms as evidence that the word “generation” was not always used as narrowly as it is today. As you may recall, I substantiated my argument with a list of examples where “generation” is used broadly, including Shakespeare, where it is used to mean “race,” as in “human race.”
Third, if the word “generation” can easily be interpreted in a way that makes Jesus consistent with Himself in any given Gospel, then if we are to follow the rules of contract interpretation in interpreting the Bible, we should not choose your narrow meaning that would render it absurd.
I want to say that I meant it when I wished you the very best and that I do not bear grudged, so if you ever decide that you want to start over I’m certainly up for that. I’ve come to the conclusion that you are not trying to be harsh, but that you say what you do because you are always mindful of the lurkers, whom you regard as a jury. When you said on TQA that you doubted that the lurkers cared about what I had to say, that sounded cruel and gratuitous to me, but you were sending the lurkers a message. In “Journey’s Beginning,” you said, “Always for the lurker.”
But I want you to remember that right after you said what you did, Andrew Ryan, one from your side, thanked me for taking the time to address his questions with my thoughtful replies. I don’t know whether he was just being nice or whether his timing was deliberate, but I hope that you will take to heart the following good advice from “The Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination” for your next trial and your next discussion with apologists:
“Know the difference between tough and mean, between confidence and arrogance, and between control and dominance. The jury will know the difference if the lawyer does not.”
Anette Acker,
ReplyDeleteO.K….I’ll bite.
Have you ever done a jury trial?
No, but whoever wrote that has.
ReplyDeleteAnette,
ReplyDeleteWhy would we use the rules of contract interpretation? A contract is a single document with the specific purpose of defining the rights and obligations of the parties to a legally enforceable agreement. The New Testament is a collection of ancient writings each of whose purpose is to communicate its author's theological understanding.
The rules of contract interpretation are defined by law and they existed at the time the parties entered the contract. Therefore, the parties knew that the clauses would be used to interpret one another. There is no reason to think that the authors of the gospels expected their writings to be interpreted according to what any other author wrote. Indeed, the prologue in Luke suggests that its author believed that other writers had gotten the story wrong.
In order to enforce a contract, it is necessary to have a method to resolve contradictions and inconsistencies. There is no reason not to let each of the gospel writers have their own viewpoint even if they may be inconsistent with one another. Indeed, they may even be internally inconsistent.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteI don't for a minute suspect Anette of intentionally lying.
Thank you!
The rules of contract interpretation are defined by law and they existed at the time the parties entered the contract.
When I first raised this issue, I pointed out that I was analogizing and that the rules I quoted were simply common sense rules.
There is no reason to think that the authors of the gospels expected their writings to be interpreted according to what any other author wrote.
Correct, which is why I said, "I specifically approached the question without assuming that all four Gospels are a collective whole." I used the examples, given by each author, of Jesus answering direct questions about His coming, to interpret the ambiguous word "generation" in each of the Gospels.
Larry the Barefoot Bum,
ReplyDeleteNot to single anyone out here, but I've become entirely frustrated with the whole discussion precisely because I'm tired of apologists blatantly lying, introducing irrelevant but prejudicial statements, making patently ridiculous claims, and introducing every fallacy known to humanity*. I spend all my time trying to cut through the bullshit, only to find there's nothing but bullshit.
I really appreciate you not singling anyone out, Larry. ;)
As I noted, a writer can be internally inconsistent, too. I recall when we were discussing the consistency of Bart Ehrman’s position on Joseph of Arimathea, I argued that it was necessary to look at what he had written on the subject rather than relying on a single statement in a lecture where he dealt with the topic superficially, but you took that statement in isolation as evidence of flip-flopping. Does your common sense only operate in favor of your theological beliefs?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, rules of contract interpretation or statutory construction are not common sense for other types of writings. Contracts and statutes must be enforced by law. Therefore, even if the draftsman contradicted himself or composed mutually inconsistent clauses, a judge must decide upon a single coherent reading in order to establish legal rights and obligations that are not contradictory. Hence, the need for specific rules of interpretation.
However, when interpreting a document that is not to be given legal effect, there is no reason to pretend that inconsistencies aren’t really inconsistencies. If Matthew has Jesus making contradictory statements, maybe that’s because Matthew didn’t think about the implications that one statement had on the other. There is no reason to reconcile the statements artificially.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you read the original discussion, but there is no contradiction. The word "generation" simply had a broader definition in the past. And all the three synoptics authors have Jesus answering the direct question of when He will return by saying that only the Father knows. All three also have Jesus saying that this generation will not pass away before these things have been accomplished. So since the word "generation" was used broadly in NT Greek and OT Hebrew, as well as the KJV and Shakespeare, there is no reason to insist on the narrow modern definition just prove a contradiction.
Anette,
ReplyDeleteI did read the original discussion and I don't think that there is any contradiction either.
I don't know the hour that I will die, but I'm pretty sure that I won't be around in fifty years. There is nothing inconsistent about knowing the general range without knowing the hour. The problem isn't the contradiction between two different statements. The problem is the contradiction between one of the statements and the fact that Jesus didn't come back within the lifetime of those present.
However, let's suppose that the two statements are contradictory, so what? People make contradictory statements all the time. There is no reason to adopt an artificial reading of one statement just so you can claim that it is consistent with another one. Just give each statement its natural interpretation and accept the fact that the gospel writers weren't entirely consistent theologians.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to reply to this, but I really don't want to continue this discussion because it has already been going on in some form for a long time now. I do not have time to continue discussing this.
I don't know the hour that I will die, but I'm pretty sure that I won't be around in fifty years. There is nothing inconsistent about knowing the general range without knowing the hour.
Of course you can calculate that you will die within fifty years since you know the outer limit to a human life and you know your own age. That is very simple.
However, in order for that comparison to work, you have to start out assuming that Jesus used the word "generation" in the narrow modern sense. In other words, you are using an ambiguous word and interpreting it in a specific way. And if you do that, then you are setting an outer limit to when Jesus was supposed to come again, just like you are setting an outer limit to when you will die.
But there is no good reason for assuming that Jesus used "generation" in that way. There are good reasons for thinking He didn't, and they are:
First, in Mark 13, where Jesus says that this generation will not pass away until all these things take place, He almost immediately adds that only the Father knows when it will happen. If Jesus doesn't know, why would He predict that it would be within the lifetime of those living?
Even if you think Jesus was an entirely fictional character, He would have been a very shrewd fictional character who outsmarted the religious leaders at every turn. He was very careful in His choice of words. There's absolutely no reason to assume that He would say, "I tell you the truth, I will come again within the lifetime of those living," and then in the next breath admit that He doesn't know when. That would be ridiculously stupid.
Second, Acts 1:7 says: "It is not for you to know the times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority" (Italics added). The implication there is that it could be a long time.
Third, all three synoptic authors say that the Gospel must first be preached to all nations, and then the end will come. Acts 1 says "the remotest part of the earth." Again, that implies that it will be a long time.
Anette,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your kinds words. I will continue to visit your blog and will comment when inclined. I read far more than I comment.
I think your question of worldview is an excellent one. No position is going to have all the answers. In the end, we are left with the worldview which we determine fits our life experience best. To me, I currenly experience neither the Christian worldview or the materialistc worldview as providing a satisfactory framework. This is a question I have pondered and will continue to do so.
I was raised and immersed in Christianity and for most of my life thought the Bible was internally consistent and wove the 66 books into a single coherent narrative of Christ's redemption of creation. Now, I look at the Bible through an entirely different perspective. It appears inconsistent, diverse in message and narrative, and errant. It's like buying paint at a store, then getting it home and thinking, "This is what I bought? It looked so much brighter in the store. I'll have to take this back." The same paint, the same eyes, but two very different impressions. Instead of puzzle pieces fitting together, the puzzle pieces are coming apart for me.
In regards to the resurrection, there just doesn't seem to be enough evidence for me to feel fairly certain about it, either way. And if Jesus was resurrected, that's not actually enough to elevate him to God status, as others have been raised to life in scripture. There have to be claims about being God, which I really don't see in Mark, though John clearly describes Jesus this way.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteI only stop by ToughQuestionsAnswered on occasion. It's a shame Bill isn't responding to you, I tend to follow the threads mainly when there's an interesting exchange between opposing viewpoints.
About 50 comments earlier, you stated:
"I am fascinated with two things:
1) Does the apologist even understand what the skeptic is claiming?
2) Does the apologist understand why their own claims are ineffective?"
These types of questions fascinate me too, though I tend to deal with them in another form in the therapy office. Don't you think it comes down to disparate worldviews and difficulty empathizing with and taking the perspective of another who is radically different? Sometimes I think we are so aware of our own emotions and needs and entitlements that we have no room left to consider anyone else, like in your workplace example. When we're emotionally invested in an outcome, it's that much harder to understand where the other is coming from. It would help if people would take the time to clarify their understanding of the other person's reasoning before jumping in with counterarguments, but that's not going to happen often. However, I've seen you do precisely that on occasion.
"If Jesus doesn't know, why would He predict that it would be within the lifetime of those living? "
ReplyDeleteif I say something will happen in the next 10 years but I don't know the hour or the day, I'm not saying that it will happen at any time in the future and could be 200 years from now, I'm saying it will happen within the next 10 years, at some time I do not know right now. If 10 years pass and it doesn't happen, the conclusion should be that I was wrong, not that it will happen "sometime." Jesus was giving a prophecy that was not certain in time but neither was it unlimited. He gave a clear end time: this generation - the generation that is listening, which he has chastized throughout the Gospel as a theme - will not pass until these things (the coming of the Son of Man in glory) have occurred.
However, in order for that comparison to work, you have to start out assuming that Jesus used the word "generation" in the narrow modern sense. In other words, you are using an ambiguous word and interpreting it in a specific way.
ReplyDeleteNo. No. No. Those are two separate questions. One question is whether there is any inconsistency between “I don’t the hour” and “I know it will be before all those present die.” The comparison shows that there is not. The other question is whether “Some of you will still be living when I return” accurately captures the meaning of what Jesus said. The answer to the former question in no way depends on the answer to the latter.
But there is no good reason for assuming that Jesus used "generation" in that way.
This is just plain wrong. There is an excellent reason for thinking Jesus meant within the lifetime of those present. The earliest Christians understood it this way. You may think they were wrong, but it is a more than adequate reason to think that is what he meant.
Let’s go through this step by step: (1) Jesus taught in Aramaic. (2) The early Christians understood Jesus’ teaching to have been that some of them would still be alive when he returned. (3) The synoptic writers used genea (or generation) to render Jesus’ teaching into Greek. (4) Which meaning of genea is it most logical to think that the writers of the synoptics intended: (A) the one that is consistent with what everyone understood Jesus’ Aramaic teaching to have been, or (B) one that was inconsistent?
There's absolutely no reason to assume that He would say, "I tell you the truth, I will come again within the lifetime of those living," and then in the next breath admit that He doesn't know when.
That’s not what he said. What he said is “I tell you the truth, I will come again within the lifetime of those living," and then in the next breath he said “I don’t know the day and hour.” As others and I have established, that is perfectly logical, just as “I will die in the next fifty years, but I don’t know the day and hour,” or “the package will arrive within two weeks, but I don’t know the day or the hour” are perfectly logical.
Moreover, even if Jesus had said “I don’t know when I will return,” that would not decisively point to your interpretation of generation because standing alone, “I don’t know when” is ambiguous. It can mean “I don’t know exactly when" as in “I don’t know when the package will be delivered” or it can mean “I haven’t the foggiest notion when” as in “I don’t know when man will colonize Mars.” Indeed, on might reasonably surmise that Jesus used the “day and hour” formulation precisely so his listeners wouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that there was some inconsistency with what he had said earlier, i.e., the very mistake you are making.
DoOrDoNot,
ReplyDeleteI was raised and immersed in Christianity and for most of my life thought the Bible was internally consistent and wove the 66 books into a single coherent narrative of Christ's redemption of creation. Now, I look at the Bible through an entirely different perspective. It appears inconsistent, diverse in message and narrative, and errant.
I think sometimes it depends on where we start—and I don’t know where you started or what kind of Christian you were, so this may not apply to you at all. But sometimes I think the church really fails to give people the tools they need to deal with the hard questions. There’s a tremendous amount of pressure to just toe the party line and not think too hard about things.
When I first started having dialogue with atheists, it was on Ray Comfort’s blog, Atheist Central. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Ray, but he talks about evolution a lot, calling it “a fairy tale for grownups.” In fact, back when I started commenting, most of the discussion between atheists and Christians was on evolution.
I tried to avoid the subject, but it wasn’t easy because a lot of people were very curious about whether I was a Young Earth Creationist. So when I came out of the closet and said that I accepted theistic evolution, the gasps were almost audible across the blogosphere.
I had long conversations with some of the YECs as they tried to come to terms with this revelation, and although one person harassed me about it for quite some time, most of them were really great about it, and simply dropped the subject of evolution even in their discussions with atheists. In fact, the guy who responded most positively was one of the most active participants in the evolution discussions, and he had a son who was an atheist. I think they came to see that it was not a central issue after all.
I think Exodus 4 is a great illustration of how Christian leaders should approach Bible difficulties. Moses’ staff turns into a snake and Moses runs from it. God tells him to grasp it by its tail, and when he does, it turns back into the staff.
When the staff turned into a snake, Moses ran from it, just like pastors and other Christian leaders often fail to take responsibility for equipping people to deal with these difficulties. But God told Moses to grab it by its tail, and it turned back into a staff. Likewise, often we just have to approach the question from a different angle and the difficulty disappears. And if pastors more often had the courage to deal openly with these issues on behalf of their parishioners, instead of running away, people wouldn’t be left to struggle on their own.
And if Jesus was resurrected, that's not actually enough to elevate him to God status, as others have been raised to life in scripture. There have to be claims about being God, which I really don't see in Mark, though John clearly describes Jesus this way.
ReplyDeleteI addressed this issue in a blog post titled, “What is the Son of a Duck?” and in a recent discussion with Vinny on this blog.
I only stop by ToughQuestionsAnswered on occasion. It's a shame Bill isn't responding to you, I tend to follow the threads mainly when there's an interesting exchange between opposing viewpoints.
I just had a long discussion on TQA and I received a nice email from Bill Pratt. He told me that he was no longer responding much to comments because his time is very limited and he had to choose between writing new posts and engaging in the comments.
I can certainly empathize with him. I do try to engage, reply to objections, and follow the discussion through to the end, but it is time-consuming, and I often ask myself if it’s worth the effort. I think back-and-forth debate is a good format for people trying to decide on an issue, but sometimes it can be prohibitively time-consuming, given the relatively small number of readers of any blog (and the percentage that actually follows discussions). It also means that I end up taking a long time between new blog posts, so I do understand Bill’s dilemma. It is one I struggle with myself, and I haven’t come up with a solution.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteThe last part of my comment to DoOrDoNot was in part a hint to you, in case you didn’t pick up on it. ;)
Keep in mind that, in addition to discussing with you, I have talked with DagoodS, DoOrDoNot, and Andrew Ryan in the past couple of weeks. And it is time-consuming because the discussions always go on for a while. I have no problem with giving you the last word after this, if that’s what you want, but I just need a break from this.
“But there is no good reason for assuming that Jesus used "generation" in that way.”
This is just plain wrong. There is an excellent reason for thinking Jesus meant within the lifetime of those present. The earliest Christians understood it this way. You may think they were wrong, but it is a more than adequate reason to think that is what he meant.
How do you know they reached this conclusion because of the word “generation”? During our discussion about James you complained that I didn’t know for sure that James converted because of the appearance of Jesus, and this is true—I simply went by the best explanation for all the NT evidence, but I did concede that this did not meet a very high burden of proof. There is no direct evidence, so we have to rely on circumstantial evidence.
However, if we examine all the NT evidence for why the early Christians believed that Jesus would come within the lifetime of some of those living, we have direct evidence that they believed it because of John 21:20-23, which says that “this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die.” In other words, their interpretation of the word "generation" is not the best explanation for why many of them expected Christ's return to be imminent.
Indeed, on might reasonably surmise that Jesus used the “day and hour” formulation precisely so his listeners wouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that there was some inconsistency with what he had said earlier, i.e., the very mistake you are making.
But Jesus used the word “epoch” in Acts 1, which implies some time in the far future, and you still have not addressed my point that all three authors tell us that the Gospel has to be preached to all nations first, and then the end will come.
Since you are trying to prove that Jesus was a failed apocalypse preacher or that the authors were inconsistent, the burden of proof is on you. You have to, at the very least, establish that it is the best explanation for all the evidence, something you have failed to do because you are not considering all the evidence. You are cherry-picking whatever seems to support your position.
I am considering all the evidence, including the passage in Matthew about Jesus coming back before they had finished going through the cities of Israel. I have admitted that it’s a difficult one, but it does not meet the criterion of multiple attestation because it is only found in Matthew. The words of Jesus about not knowing when the end will come but that it will be after the Gospel has been preached to all nations, on the other hand, are attested by all three synoptic authors.
However, if we examine all the NT evidence for why the early Christians believed that Jesus would come within the lifetime of some of those living, we have direct evidence that they believed it because of John 21:20-23, which says that “this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die.” In other words, their interpretation of the word "generation" is not the best explanation for why many of them expected Christ's return to be imminent.
ReplyDeleteThe Gospel of John is generally dated around 90 A.D. whereas the belief that Jesus would return within the lifetime of the first Christians is found in 1 Thessalonians which is thought to have been written almost four decades earlier. Therefore John 21:23 cannot be a cause for the earliest Christians' belief. It merely corroborates that belief.
You are correct that the interpretation of the word "generation" is not the best explanation for why early Christians expected Christ’s return within their lifetime, but that is because we don’t actually know that Jesus used that word. Indeed, he probably didn’t because he would have spoken Aramaic. We only know that the synoptic writers used the word genea to render Jesus’ teaching into Greek. It might be a literal translation of an Aramaic word or it might have been used because it best communicated the meaning of an Aramaic word or phrase that could not be translated directly into Greek.
We know that the gospels were written at a time when it was commonly believed that Jesus’ return was imminent. That is the context in which the synoptic writers chose the word genea to render Jesus’ teaching in Greek. These writers knew how their readers would interpret it. Why would they choose that term if they thought that their readers were going to interpret it incorrectly?
I am considering all the evidence, including the passage in Matthew about Jesus coming back before they had finished going through the cities of Israel. I have admitted that it’s a difficult one, but it does not meet the criterion of multiple attestation because it is only found in Matthew. The words of Jesus about not knowing when the end will come but that it will be after the Gospel has been preached to all nations, on the other hand, are attested by all three synoptic authors.
ReplyDeleteAnette,
The criteria of multiple attestation is used by scholars to determine which sayings of Jesus are most likely authentic and which ones are less likely to be authentic. While you might well argue that Matthew 10:23 is not something Jesus really said (although that seems to be somewhat inconsistent with a belief in inerrancy and inspiration), there is no reason to think that it does not accurately reflect the author’s understanding of Jesus’ teachings about the imminence of his return. Thus, it corroborates an interpretation of genea as meaning within the lifetime of those present because it shows what the author who chose to use that word thought.
I would note that Luke 1:7 is also not multiply attested. However, there is another explanation for the fact that earlier writings have Jesus saying that no one knows the “day and hour” and a later writing has him saying that no one knows the “time or epoch”: as more and more time passed without Jesus returning, it became necessary to come up with apologetics to deal with the problem.
As far as reaching all the nations goes, it is easy for us to see how long that took with two thousand years of hindsight, but we cannot read our hindsight back into the text. The synoptic authors had no idea how large the world nor would they have had any idea that the power of Holy Spirit would be insufficient to enable them to reach it within their lifetimes. They wouldn’t have seen anything unreasonable about preaching the gospel to all the nations before Jesus returned during their lifetimes.
Anette,
ReplyDeleteI am not worried about getting the last word. However, it would be nice if you conceded that there is no inconsistency between Jesus saying "Some of you will still be alive when I return" and "I don't know the day and the hour." I am not asking you to concede that Jesus meant that he was coming back that soon, just that he could have meant that and it would have not contradicted his statement that he didn't know the day or hour. I think that point has been established pretty clearly.
Vinny: As far as reaching all the nations goes, it is easy for us to see how long that took with two thousand years of hindsight, but we cannot read our hindsight back into the text.
ReplyDeleteThis is matter of cultural understanding. To a Roman citizen, the Roman Empire WAS “the whole world.” Certainly they recognized there were locales, geography and people not under Roman dominance (hence the border wars to acquire land and people)…but to a Roman, they didn’t matter.
When the 1st Century Christian writers referred to “the whole world” or “all the nations”—they are NOT referring to foreign countries, or non-Roman peoples. (This is a 21st century anachronism in reading 1st Century documents.) They were referring to the gospel being preached throughout the Roman Empire.
By the time Mark was written, certainly by the time the Mark 13 pericope was written, this had already occurred. Demonstrating the apocalyptic theme of this pericope. (Seriously, if “abomination of desolation” didn’t give it away, nothing would.)
In other words, Mark 13:10 was written after the gospel had already been preached to “all the nations” (throughout the Roman Empire.)
Only the simplest and most pedantic apologetic would ever think the concept was to include places like India or China (that existed at the time) or Chicago, Illinois which did not.
Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteI have seen that argument before, but I have some questions. Do we know that the writers of the synoptics or their readers were Roman citizens? Do we know that all the peoples who were subject to Roman rule shared the Romans' chauvinistic view of what constituted "the world"? I don't think that the author of Mark had any idea that the world or the nations extended much beyond the Mediterranean, and he may well have thought that the prophecy had already been fulfilled. On the other hand, I don't see that we have enough information to be sure that he thought of the world as co-extensive with the Roman Empire.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteObviously, we don’t need all the Synoptic writers, considering this was copied by Matthew & Luke—the question comes down to Mark.
Although a bit of a tangent, I am persuaded Mark was Roman. At the least a Hellenized Jew. I would list these reasons:
1) Use of Chiasm;
2) Familiarity with Greek language;
3) Unfamiliar with Galilean and Judean geography;
4) Unfamiliarity with Jewish Religious leaders (Does not depict Pharisees favorably. Doesn’t know who the High Priest was under Pilate.)
Of course, countered with that are:
1) His knowledge of the Tanakh;
2) Use of Aramaic (more than other Synoptics);
3) Jews also used chiasm at times, so the first point above may not be as strong.
All of which is a bit of an aside, because here (Mark 13) he was writing in apocalyptic language, and intended for the listed events through vs 26 to be considered as past events, including the gospel spread through the nations.
Perhaps, for the lurker, I best explain what apocalyptic books (Daniel is such a great example) would do. I’ll use a modern-day analogy.
What one does, is claim they found the “Prophecy of Dumbledore” written way back in 1000 CE. And in that book, Dumbledore has a vision described as “a Great lion spread over the entire Earth. Its paws reaching to the four corners. From its shoulder grew an eagle which fought with the Lion and sprang forth, causing the Lion to shrink.”
“And lo a Great Iron spike arose, and a Bear in the East. The Eagle and the Lion and the Bear worked together, striking at the Iron Spike, tearing it down. After that,” (in this vision) “the bear and eagle fought although neither prevailed, until the Bear became sick and died. Then the eagle grew fat, and stopped flying in search of food.”
“And lo, a Star and a Sword began to mock the eagle and torment it with its failure to provide food for its baby eagles. And the eagle failed to remember its humble beginnings, causing it to be sick with the same sickness as the Bear.”
“And then the vision showed a Man saying, ‘Woe, Woe to the eagle for forgetting how to get food. Low shall the Eagle come unless it remembers its past; for the Star and Sword shall become strong and defeat the Eagle unless it remembers.’”
Do you see what I did there? First I put our “prophecy” way back in time to about 1000 CE. Then I show how it oh-so-accurately predicted America’s rise from England, World War 2, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the current concern over Islam. Of course, punctuated by the doom-and-gloom of what will happen if we don’t fight the terrorist. Which you are amazed at, and tremble, because it was so accurate regarding everything else, we should trust it on this.
Read Mark 13, but start at the beginning of the pericope—Mark 13:1. Jesus “predicts” the fall of Jerusalem, earthquakes, and famines. He “predicts” the disciples will be beaten and arrested by Jewish authorities. He “predicts” the gospel will be preached to all nations. He “predicts” the abomination of desolation (end of temple practice). He “predicts” the Jewish war in Judea.
And then he says, after these things occur, take heart because then the Son of Man will come. So they better stay faithful throughout these issues, ‘cause in the end they will prevail.
Basic apocalyptic structure:
1) Put the “prophecy” in the past (Mark, writing around 70 CE, puts it in Jesus’ mouth around 30 CE);
2) Have it be accurate with events up until the time it was actually written;
3) It gets “gray” when it comes to events occurring after the time it was written.
I just had a long discussion on TQA and I received a nice email from Bill Pratt. He told me that he was no longer responding much to comments because his time is very limited and he had to choose between writing new posts and engaging in the comments.
ReplyDeleteI find this fascinating. Personally, I don't write posts unless I think that I understand the issues well enough to respond to comments. For example, I've never blogged much about homosexuality or intelligent design because I don't feel that I know the arguments well enough to do so. On the other hand, I do occasionally comment on these issues on other blogs in order to test my knowledge.
Perhaps if Bill devoted more time to thinking about possible counter-arguments before he posted, responding to comments wouldn't be so time consuming.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteI am not worried about getting the last word. However, it would be nice if you conceded that there is no inconsistency between Jesus saying "Some of you will still be alive when I return" and "I don't know the day and the hour." I am not asking you to concede that Jesus meant that he was coming back that soon, just that he could have meant that and it would have not contradicted his statement that he didn't know the day or hour. I think that point has been established pretty clearly.
Would it be "nice" because you would be able to drop it then? Or would it be "nice" because you know exactly what you would say next if I made that concession?
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteObviously, we don’t need all the Synoptic writers, considering this was copied by Matthew & Luke—the question comes down to Mark.
If Matthew and Luke copied Mark, why are there minor discrepancies in their accounts? I never understood how skeptics can make bold pronouncements like yours about copying while also making much of the discrepancies. If they copied, it should have been the easiest thing in the world to get their stories to match.
Would it be "nice" because you would be able to drop it then? Or would it be "nice" because you know exactly what you would say next if I made that concession?
ReplyDeleteNeither Anette. Since you said you needed to take a break, I hadn't given any thought to how the conversation might proceed. I merely thought it would be nice if there were one point that did not need to be re-argued in a future discussion.
Oh.
ReplyDeleteWow.
It isn’t skeptics, Anette Acker—it is every biblical scholar of any note who recognizes copying occurred.
I always recommend, for starters regarding the Synoptic problem, people read Dr. Wallace’s Article. It briefly gives a great introduction to the subject. Notice Dr. Wallace is a conservative Christian who teaches at DTS—no fear of “skeptics run amok” there!
For the various solutions proposed Stephen Carlson put together this excellent site. Don’t just read through; start clicking links and learning the various issues.
I personally subscribe to the two-source hypothesis, based on Mark Goodacre’s reasoning.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I asked is because I wasn't sure how much you wanted me to concede, and if this was a repeat of your line of questioning about the closed-minded, Big Bang-hating Hindu. And I am on vacation, so I don't have time to spend on the Internet. (I'm actually kicking myself really hard right now for saying anything at all.)
If Jesus had said "Some of you will still be alive when I return" and "I don't know the day and the hour," then there would be no inconsistency because it would imply that He had a general idea of when He would return.
But of course I don't concede that He said the former. The words "the times and epochs" in Acts indicates that He really had no idea, and as we've discussed before, Acts makes no mention of the Jewish-Roman War and the fall of Jerusalem. It simply ends with Paul in house arrest in Rome. This indicates that Acts was written before these major events occurred.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your links. I am aware of the synoptic problem and the two-source hypothesis. I once did a blog post on it, but I'm sure you know a lot more about it than I do. I do, however, know that it's called the "synoptic problem" because there is no definitive explanation.
This is my point: You said that Luke and Matthew "obviously" copied Mark.
Ehrman said that the Bible is filled with contradictions, and his point was that this is highly problematic.
If you agree with Ehrman, how do you reconcile these two statements? If Matthew and Luke copied Mark, I don't see any reasons for contradictions in the telling of the same events. They may view it from a different angle, use different chronology, or have additional information, but there should not be contradictions.
You can resort to ridicule if you must, but I would prefer an actual explanation.
Anette,
ReplyDeleteThat was the only point I wanted you to concede.
As far as Acts 1:7 goes: (1) Like Matthew 10:23, it is not multiply attested; (2) Didn't we also discuss the fact that the second half of Acts is exclusively a story about Paul's activities? Since Paul was not involved in the fall of Jerusalem or the Jewish-Roman war and Acts doesn't mention any events in which Paul was not involved after the 13th chapter, nothing can be inferred from the fact that Acts doesn't mention those events. (3) Regardless of when you date Acts, time had passed since the gospel of Luke had been written. In that time Christian who had expected the return of Jesus during their lifetimes could have died and the need to temper earlier statements about the imminence of Jesus' return could have become more apparent.
Anette Acker: If they copied, it should have been the easiest thing in the world to get their stories to match.
ReplyDeleteWhere is it written the subsequent authors--utilizing previous authors’ works--had any desire, intention, wish or even thought of making the stories match? Indeed, Luke’s use of “Galilee” at the tomb’s instruction demonstrates his every intention to NOT have the stories of Matthew and Mark “match.” Hence creating a contradiction.
Yet Luke was certainly, demonstrably aware of Mark (and in my conclusion, Matthew) and their use of “Galilee.” Indeed, Luke was forced to use the word “Galilee” to explain to the recipients why they had always heard the word “Galilee” in the other tales about the angel’s instructions at the tomb, yet Luke needed to have disciples stay in Jerusalem, rather than traipsing off to Galilee.
However, to help out any curious lurkers, we can use an example where Matthew copied Mark, and actually intended to “match” the stories. Yet at the same time demonstrated a contradiction.
The death of John the Baptist.
First, we can see the copying. The story in Matthew (Matt. 14:1-12) follows the same tale as in Mark (Mark 6:14-29). How do we know these aren’t two people relating the same thing? Because Matthew demonstrates fatigue.
1) Notice in Mark, Herod protected John the Baptist, and actually enjoyed listening to him. (Mark 6:20). Therefore, when Herodias’ daughter wanted John’s head on a platter, it makes sense, following Mark, that Herod was sorry. (Mark 6:25-26)
But Matthew tells a slightly different account. In Matthew, Herod wanted to execute John. Matt. 14:5. Again, Herodias’ daughter asks for John’s head. And here is where Matthew demonstrates fatigue—Matthew records Herod as being sorry. (Matt. 14:9) Why, if Herod wanted him dead anyway, would he be sorry for having to kill John?
Because Matthew was copying Mark, and faithfully recorded what Mark said about Herod being sorry, not realizing it didn’t fit with his previous statement about wanting John killed.
2) Mark 6:7-13 is Jesus sending out the disciples. Mark then inserts this tale about John the Baptist’s death as a past event. If it were a modern movie, we would have seen wavy lines and, a blurring, and then a date appear on the screen, showing us we just went “back in time.” Immediately following the tale, Mark picks up where he left off in Mark 6:30 with the Disciples reporting back to Jesus. They then go on to feed the Five thousand.
However, in Matthew the author forgets this is a past event. An interruption in the proceedings, if you were, and continues in Matthew 14:13 as if John the Baptist’s death was the reason Jesus want to deserted place, and then fed the Five Thousand.
Now the contradiction:
Mark records Herod as being a King. Mark 6:14. Matthew corrects this to what Herod actually was—a tetrarch. (Matt. 14:1)
Herod was not a king. A contradiction.
Simply put, Anette Acker, they copied the stories, yet deliberately changed some elements. It is how one can both copy and create contradictions. You appear to come at this as if the authors intended to write a unified story. They did not.
You approach biblical studies as if these books were written in the 21st century. They were not.
I’m sorry if you feel ridiculed, but you are frankly arguing so far out of your league (I read your blog regarding Q), it would be better to ask questions, and not act as if you even remotely understand the Synoptic Problem.
Because if you did you would never have said, “how skeptics can make bold pronouncements” since you would have realized it is not skeptics—it is ALL manner of biblical scholars including conservative Christians (or are you arguing Dr. Wallace is incorrect?). And you would have understood why such “bold pronouncements” have been made considering the billions of words expended regarding the Synoptic Gospels copied each other.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteAs you brought up the discussion on apocalyptic literature, I'd like to ask a question I've been wondering about. In determining whether the Mark 13 pericope is apocalyptic, do scholars primarily measure it against the typical apocalyptic structure you described or are there any other factors? Does it boil down to whether a prophesy changes from a detailed fulfilled prediction to vague, unfulfilled prediction? Also, is there always an assumption in biblical scholarship that any prophesy was written after the fact or are there other measures for dating the literature aside from the prophesy itself? I want to evaluate passages without any presumption regarding whether or not it was a genuine prophesy in order to be fair. What measures are taken (if any) in biblical scholarship in this regard?
This is my point: You said that Luke and Matthew "obviously" copied Mark.
ReplyDeleteEhrman said that the Bible is filled with contradictions, and his point was that this is highly problematic.
If you agree with Ehrman, how do you reconcile these two statements?
Anette,
It seems to me that it is very easy to reconcile these two statements: Luke and Matthew copied large portions of Mark verbatim, but they did not copy every single word in Mark verbatim.
I suspect that the reason you find comment threads so time consuming is that you don't take the time to think about the potential responses to your arguments before you post them. If you did, you wouldn't have to spend nearly as much time scrambling to find ways to defend an argument that you needn't have made in the first place.
DoOrDoNot,
ReplyDeleteGood Questions.
Apocalyptic literature is typified by:
1) “The Sky is Falling;”
2) Admonish to the faithful; and
3) Visions.
In looking at Daniel and Mark 13, we do see the use of “predicting” past events, although I don’t think that necessary for literature to fall under the apocalyptic nomenclature.
DoOrDoNot: Also, is there always an assumption in biblical scholarship that any prophesy was written after the fact or are there other measures for dating the literature aside from the prophesy itself?
I would say in any scholarship (biblical or otherwise) we look for natural explanations prior to supernatural explanations. If an undated document made the remarkable prediction America would vote in a Black President in 2008, I think most of us would find it more likely the document was dated to the early 21st Century as compared to the early 20th Century.
Due to our inability to date biblical writing with precision, I am unaware of a method to determine a “genuine” prophecy as compared to a non-genuine prophecy.
DoOrDoNot: I want to evaluate passages without any presumption regarding whether or not it was a genuine prophesy in order to be fair.
The first step would be to determine what date it was written. A difficult endeavor.
Thanks DagoodS for your patience with my questions.
ReplyDeleteBtw, I'm glad you mentioned the warrior dash on d'ma's blog. I showed a video of it to my husband , who got really excited about it and has already found 3 friends at work who said they'd run with him.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry if you feel ridiculed, but you are frankly arguing so far out of your league (I read your blog regarding Q), it would be better to ask questions, and not act as if you even remotely understand the Synoptic Problem.
I did ask a question, and let me specify that my question was not about how scholars like Wallace explain the synoptic problem, but about how you explain your statement that we don't have to worry about Luke and Matthew because they simply copied Mark. Wallace would probably say that the discrepancies exist because Luke and Matthew had additional information, independent memories of the events, or access to eyewitnesses with independent memories, and they also used Mark as a source (and possibly Q). In other words, he probably thinks there were good reasons for the discrepancies, although many of them are unknown to us.
Is your position that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and Q, had no independent knowledge of the events, and simply fatigued, forgot what they had said earlier, or wanted to say something different from what Mark said? While logically possible, this makes no sense. Did they forget to proofread? Did Matthew pull an all-nighter to get this done within the deadline, and therefore he fatigued before he finished his thoughts? If he was so tired, why didn't he just leave it the way Mark put it?
You have given no motives for why they would do this? Do you have reason to think that they simply didn't care about what they were writing? As you may recall, I mentioned to you on my blog that 1 Timothy 5:18, starts with "For the Scriptures say . . ." and it goes on to quote the OT, and then it quotes Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7: "The laborer is worth his wages." At least one of these Gospels appears to have been considered Scripture at the time 1 Timothy was written, so they were certainly taken seriously.
Given how seriously the early Christians took these events, do you really think that the best explanation for the discrepancies is that the authors intentionally made things up, fatigued, or forgot what they had said before?
But I will admit that I simply asked for a logically possible explanation, so I'll give it to you. I do try to make a point of conceding when I'm wrong.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteI would say in any scholarship (biblical or otherwise) we look for natural explanations prior to supernatural explanations. If an undated document made the remarkable prediction America would vote in a Black President in 2008, I think most of us would find it more likely the document was dated to the early 21st Century as compared to the early 20th Century.
Due to our inability to date biblical writing with precision, I am unaware of a method to determine a “genuine” prophecy as compared to a non-genuine prophecy.
So your answer to DoOrDoNot's question is that the Gospels are dated after 70 AD because Jesus describes in detail what happens to Jerusalem?
How do you explain the fact that the book of Acts, written after Luke, mentions nothing about the Jewish-Roman War or the fall of Jerusalem? If it had already happened when Acts was written, wouldn't Luke want to stress it, since he predicted it in the Gospel? Vinny said that the second half of Act was only about Paul, but why would such an important event have had no impact on Paul? Why did Acts end on such an anticlimactic note if the narration ends around 62 AD but it was written much later?
Not to dismiss the able arguments being made in this thread along historical and linguistic lines, but one broader philosophical point that applies to this and analogous cases of biblical interpretation gives the position held by Dagoods et al a strong upper hand in this debate, in my opinion. To wit, we are examining a particular word and attempting to discern its original meaning within the broader context of a narrative that is alleged by one side to have been delivered to us by a process that was guided by an omniscient being in order to secure its inerrancy or at least a significant degree of trustworthiness. Suppose that without either this assumption or its denial we are no more inclined to think that either interpretation of “generation” is correct because they are equally plausible given our competing analyses. The question arises as to why an omniscient being would preserve such ambiguous language that easily lends itself for the modern reader to the interpretation that the Jesus was mistaken, which fits the failed apocalyptic prophet scenario nicely. To have done so is to have placed a stumbling block in the path of salvation by further legitimating a naturalistic account of the gospels. Surely God would be more careful than that! (Note also that interpreting the term in the broad sense does not at all support the supernatural account b/c the predictions have yet to be fulfilled, but merely resolves one apparent difficulty for the Christian.) The point generalizes, I think, for many other Bible difficulties.
ReplyDeleteWhoops! In reviewing the comments, I see I missed an important word. I meant to say, “I don’t personally subscribe to the two-source hypothesis, based on Mark Goodacre’s reasoning.”
ReplyDeleteThat doesn’t change the tenor of our conversation, so we shall press on.
Anette Acker,
Vinny asked me the whether the writers of the Synoptics (I presumed he meant all the Synoptics) were Romans, and whether they (presumably all) shared the Roman concept regarding “all the world.” I was replying that Matthew and Luke copied this particular pericope from Mark, so the only real question was Mark’s position. Hence the reason we don’t have to “worry about Matthew and Luke.”
Anette Acker: Is your position that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and Q, had no independent knowledge of the events, and simply fatigued, forgot what they had said earlier, or wanted to say something different from what Mark said? [emphasis in the original]
This is why I needed to clarify my missed word above, although the essence is the same. My position is that Matthew relied upon Mark; Luke relied upon Matthew and Mark. That in many instances they wanted to change what the previous author said. It is unknown whether they had other sources (although I think it likely there were some oral traditions incorporated.)
And they probably did forget what they said earlier. (Do you know how ancient writing was performed? With a stylus and a wax tablet, so one could re-use the same tablet?)
Of course, this is not just my position, but the position of most (probably the vast predominance) of bible scholars. Only Sunday School teachers and the extremely bias believe otherwise.
As to “fatigue,” I will be kind and presume because you are on vacation, you have not had a chance to review the links (and sub-links) previously provided. Mark Goodacre discusses “fatigue” here.
It has nothing to do with “lack of sleep.” I am sure the lurkers will be interested in reading the many examples, and the arguments therein.
As for the dating of Acts, forgive my using an irritating habit of answering a question with a question. At least I will provide the courtesy of explaining where I am heading to ease the pain.
Anette Acker, what is the author’s reason for writing the Acts of Apostles? Every writing has a reason—the author’s motive—behind the document. A group s/he is writing to, a problem needing resolving, information desired to be shared…what is the author of Acts?
The reason I point that out—if the fall of Jerusalem and the Jewish Wars did not fit within that purpose, why would we expect it to be included?
Why did Acts end on such an anticlimactic note if the narration ends around 62 AD but it was written much later?
ReplyDeleteAnette,
One might just as well ask why Acts would use the past tense to describe the specific period of time that Paul spent in his rented house in Rome if it was written at a time when Paul was still there. Why doesn't Acts 28:30 read "And Paul remained there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him" if it was written in 62 A.D.? The author must have been writing at a later time when he knew that Paul was no longer at that house even if he doesn't tell us where Paul went from there.
Reuben,
ReplyDelete(Note also that interpreting the term in the broad sense does not at all support the supernatural account b/c the predictions have yet to be fulfilled, but merely resolves one apparent difficulty for the Christian.)
You’re right that this passage would be classified as a Bible difficulty, but I think the words of Jesus about the Gospel being preached to all nations is also an example of fulfilled prophecy, especially combined with Revelation 5:9, 7:9, and 14:6. When this was written, Christianity was a small Jewish sect that suffered waves of severe persecution by the Roman Empire, which tried to stamp it out. Christians were killed in horrific ways, which would presumably be a deterrent to others. There are now Christians in every nation in the world, and almost one-third of the world population self-identifies as Christian. Compare that to the roughly 2% who are Jewish. Given the fact that the early Christians were pacifists so they didn’t fight back, the probability that the prediction would be fulfilled is very slim.
The question arises as to why an omniscient being would preserve such ambiguous language that easily lends itself for the modern reader to the interpretation that the Jesus was mistaken, which fits the failed apocalyptic prophet scenario nicely. To have done so is to have placed a stumbling block in the path of salvation by further legitimating a naturalistic account of the gospels. Surely God would be more careful than that!
There’s no question that the Bible is a challenging book on many levels. First, the subject matter—salvation—is a difficult one for human minds because the miracle of redemption is a supernatural event. Therefore, natural minds cannot fully understand it, and you end up with scholars saying that James and Paul contradicted each other, when in fact the book of James warns against antinomianism and Galatians warns against legalism. Both books are necessary, and even so, only the Spirit of God can keep us on “the highway of the Lord” and out of the ditches of antinomianism or legalism. Only by experiencing this struggle, combined with some success by the power of the Holy Spirit, do we begin to understand this.
Second, the Bible has to be set in a particular culture and written in a particular language. This makes it difficult for those of us from a very different culture who speak a different language. There are many details about the cultural and historical setting that we are simply unaware of.
The solution to these problems is the Holy Spirit—the special key that unlocks the Scriptures. In other words, God “opens” our minds, so that we understand what He wants to reveal (Luke 24:45). This doesn’t require any special abilities or education—in fact, in Matthew 11:25, Jesus says: “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.” So there is no advantage to the smart and well educated—God simply reveals Himself through the Bible by opening our minds.
You may respond by saying that Christians disagree so much that the Holy Spirit must be incompetent. However, Christians vary quite a bit in terms of how close we are to the Spirit of God. Some of us are very far removed from the Holy Spirit and are atheists for all practical purposes. Others, who are very close to the Spirit of God, agree to a remarkable degree. Brother Lawrence—Catholic, Ole Hallesby—Lutheran, Andrew Murray—Dutch Reformed, and Richard Foster—Quaker, all say essentially the same thing, down to the significant detail. And yet their teachings have a quality of being both fresh and timeless, which is the hallmark of the Holy Spirit.
So there is no advantage to the smart and well educated—God simply reveals Himself through the Bible by opening our minds.
ReplyDeleteIf this is so Anette, why do you even pretend that any of your conclusions or beliefs are the result of thinking critically about the evidence? If the only people who can truly understand the Bible are those who have a subjective religious encounter with a supernatural force or being, why would you even pretend that your Christian faith is in any way the product of objective evidence?
escuse the weak english but i note annette has no obsession with islam or muhammad .
ReplyDeletemuhammad is the man who convinced the people to throw away judaism, christianity and pagan beliefs.
muhammad's deciples weren't cowards like jesus deciples.
muhammad 's deciples willing went to the battle field for the belief that thier is no god but ALLAH and polythiesm is wrong.
the man must have made a powerful case in order to convince people to give up thier lives for his belief/cause.
in one hadeeth narration, the arab pagans offered muhammad political power only if he throws his belief in ALLAH in the garbage, but muhammad refused.
muhammad does not seem like a coward like jesus, he is also on the battle field fighting along side his deciples. jesus, after his alledged ressurection, hides behind his deciples to convey his new brand of judaism.
cannot one make same christian argument to make a powerful case for islam?
annette, for 13 years muhammad was a pacifist. your god in flesh on the other hand with in the 3 years of his ministry pissed off jewish authourities and went in to the temple and did violent act. i'm sure jewish law would not have allowed such a thing . i'm sure it would have had to take in to consideration the situation of the traders who were in the temple.
ReplyDeleteannetter, you can also study here
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/jesus-loves-his-enemies-and-then-kills-them-all/
why jesus is more violent than muhammad.
note the article is written by a non muslim.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that I have not had a chance to read the links and sub-links, but I will do so when I have time. My question was not really relevant to the present discussion, but it is something I have wondered about.
However, my position on inerrancy may be more relevant because you once asked me a question about theopneustos. The way I see it is that the Bible is 100% divine and 100% human, just like Jesus was. (Jesus is referred to as “the Word” and so is the Bible.)
And one way of looking at it is that the Bible is like a Persian rug that has a definite, beautiful, and intricate pattern on one side, but the other side has knots and loose threads and no clear pattern. The top is the divine message and the bottom is the human side, which includes the way in which the books were written and the reasons why they were written.
I think that for a lot of people, studying the bottom of the rug is a little like learning how sausages are made—a little unsettling. And often they reach the conclusion—like Bart Ehrman did—that the Bible is a very human book.
However, it has never troubled me, and part of the reason for that is because my focus has always been on the top of the Persian rug, and I am very confident that it is flawless. In other words, there are no theological contradictions in the Bible. It all fits together from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation.
For example, in John 4, Jesus meets a Samaritan woman by a well, and he explains the Gospel to her, comparing salvation to “living water.” This encounter is foreshadowed in the OT.
There are only six examples in the OT of two parties meeting at a well, and each one communicates some aspect of salvation:
In Genesis 16, Sarah’s Egyptian maid Hagar has run away because Sarah mistreated her. The angel of the Lord met her by a spring of water in the wilderness (16:7). Hagar went back to Sarah, but in 21:19 Sarah has driven her and her son Ishmael away permanently. The boy is about to die of thirst and Hagar sits weeping. The angel of God meets her again and opens her eyes so she sees a well.
In Genesis 21:30-31, Abraham and King Abimelech make a covenant by a well called Beersheba.
In Genesis 24, Abraham’s servant seeks a wife for Isaac and meets Rebekah at a well. In Genesis 29:9, Jacob meets Rachel at a well. And in Exodus 2:15-17, Moses meets his future wife Zipporah at a well.
So the following elements of the doctrine of salvation are inconspicuously buried in the OT: God seeking the Gentiles (Hagar), a covenant (Abraham and Abimelech), and the union (often compared to a marriage) of Christ and the church (the patriarchs and their wives).
In John 4:12, the Samaritan woman tells Jesus that their father Jacob (Israel) gave them the well and drank from it himself, and Jesus says in 4:22 that salvation is from the Jews. The well/salvation was from Israel/the Jews.
Revelation 22:17 ties together the imagery of living water by stating: “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.”
This is just one example, but there are many others. The top of the “Persian rug” contains a very deliberate, detailed, and unified pattern because it is God-breathed. And for that reason, it doesn’t trouble me greatly if the underside looks rough.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteAnette Acker, what is the author’s reason for writing the Acts of Apostles? Every writing has a reason—the author’s motive—behind the document. A group s/he is writing to, a problem needing resolving, information desired to be shared…what is the author of Acts?
The reason I point that out—if the fall of Jerusalem and the Jewish Wars did not fit within that purpose, why would we expect it to be included?
Although I agree with you that there was probably a reason why the two books were written, the Great Revolt and the fall of Jerusalem were important enough events that they would have been mentioned no matter what that reason was. You could certainly make the argument that the death of James, the brother of Jesus, was not included because the second half is about Paul, but the Great Revolt and the fall of Jerusalem had a major impact on the Jews. Just not mentioning it makes no sense.
As for why Luke-Acts were written, John W. Mauck hypothesizes in Paul on Trial that they were essentially a pre-trial brief addressed to the “most excellent” Theophilus, a Roman official, as Paul awaited trial before Nero on charges of creating an illegal new religion not recognized by the Jews. (Judaism was the only exception to the mandatory state religion.) Luke therefore seeks to show that the events were foretold in the Jewish Scriptures and spoken of by the prophets.
This makes sense because in Acts 28:17-20, Paul defends his Jewishness, and says, “But because the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar—though I had no charge to bring against my nation.”
If this hypothesis (or some variant of it) is correct, then that would explain why a) Luke gives no details about what happened during those last two years—Theophilus would have known, and b) why Acts simply trails off in such a mundane way, and c) why Luke implies that the two years of house arrest are over, but doesn’t mention any subsequent events.
It would also mean that Acts was written around 62 AD, which means that Luke was written before the events Jesus predicted took place.
As for why Luke-Acts were written, John W. Mauck hypothesizes in Paul on Trial that they were essentially a pre-trial brief addressed to the “most excellent” Theophilus, a Roman official, as Paul awaited trial before Nero on charges of creating an illegal new religion not recognized by the Jews.
ReplyDeleteHow does that make any sense in relation to Luke 1:4 where Theophilus is clearly a believing Christian?
Why would Nero care whether the Jews didn't recognize a new religion?
Anette Acker: Although I agree with you that there was probably a reason why the two books were written,…
ReplyDeleteAll writings (except gibberish) have reasons—including Stop Signs, Hallmark cards and Graffiti. No “probably” about it.
Anette Acker: …the Great Revolt and the fall of Jerusalem were important enough events that they would have been mentioned no matter what that reason was.
Wrong. But since you have already made up your mind, without understanding the reasoning behind the writing, there really isn’t much point in discussing it with you, eh? You’ve already made up your mind what the “top of the Persian rug” is, and anything conflicting with your mental picture is discarded as either “skeptical” or (when coming from another Christian) not meeting up to your spiritual standard.
Anette Acker: …but the Great Revolt and the fall of Jerusalem had a major impact on the Jews.
Ahh…but was Acts written TO the Jews? Was it written ABOUT the Jews? Was it written FOR the Jews? Whoops, sorry…for a minute there I started actually looking at the reasoning behind the writing…
And I’ve always loved this apologetic (yes, I’ve heard it many times before) that Acts was a “pre-trial brief” written on behalf of Paul. Are there any other “pre-trial briefs” I could review for comparison?
Anette Acker: …as Paul awaited trial before Nero on charges of creating an illegal new religion not recognized by the Jews.
(I presume that last word should be “Romans.”) What is your source this was the crime Paul was charged with? Careful here…I already know the answer…
Anette Acker: Luke therefore seeks to show that the events were foretold in the Jewish Scriptures and spoken of by the prophets.
So if I am reading this correctly…(although the reasoning doesn’t matter to you) you are indicating Acts was written as a defense that Paul was continuing Judaism (albeit a sect of Judaism) and since Judaism (by its ancient origins) was exempted from incorporating into Roman polytheism, Paul’s new sect should be as well?
One certainly wonders, if this was a “brief” intended to defend Paul regarding charges of creating an “illegal new religion” separate from Judaism, why it goes to such great lengths to point it how the Jews considered it separate from Judaism. Perhaps Paul needs a new lawyer…
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteIf this is so Anette, why do you even pretend that any of your conclusions or beliefs are the result of thinking critically about the evidence? If the only people who can truly understand the Bible are those who have a subjective religious encounter with a supernatural force or being, why would you even pretend that your Christian faith is in any way the product of objective evidence?
Many things that objectively exist can only be understood through a subjective experience. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Christianity is a very pragmatic religion that calls us to be rightly related to God in order to experience the salvation or healing of our souls. If God did not exist or had no intent to save, then this would be impossible. And if we don’t believe God exists and that He will help us in our need, then obviously we will not come to Him and experience His salvation (Hebrews 11:6).
Therefore, apologetics is necessary for those who don’t believe the Christian God exists but would like to believe if it’s true.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response! I think I'm going to have to decline getting into a discussion about Islam because it would take us too far off the subject. But I will take a look at your link when I have a chance.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteAnette Acker: …the Great Revolt and the fall of Jerusalem were important enough events that they would have been mentioned no matter what that reason was.
Wrong. But since you have already made up your mind, without understanding the reasoning behind the writing, there really isn’t much point in discussing it with you, eh?
Even if the book of Acts was a story about a little Jewish girl and her pony it would most likely at least mention the destruction of Jerusalem if it happened at the time of the story.
This is far more likely given the fact that the second half of Acts is about Jews bringing charges against Paul before the Romans. There is constant interaction between Jews, Paul, and Roman officials.
In fact, in Acts 24:2, the high priest’s attorney, Tertullus, says to the governor: “Your Excellency, because of you we have long enjoyed peace, and reforms have been made for this people because of your foresight.” He would hardly have made that statement if the temple had already been destroyed.
And in 24:6, we find that it still stands. Tertullus continues: “[Paul] even tried to profane the temple, so we seized him.”
A few days later, Paul appears before Agrippa, and then he sails off to Rome to appear before Caesar, but we never hear how that goes. He is in house arrest for two years, and then the story simply ends. If the story was written a decade later, it is story without an ending!
Ahh…but was Acts written TO the Jews? Was it written ABOUT the Jews? Was it written FOR the Jews? Whoops, sorry…for a minute there I started actually looking at the reasoning behind the writing…
I’ve already answered this question.
And I’ve always loved this apologetic (yes, I’ve heard it many times before) that Acts was a “pre-trial brief” written on behalf of Paul. Are there any other “pre-trial briefs” I could review for comparison?
I’m glad to hear that you’ve always loved this argument. Do you have an actual counter-argument? And if you’ve heard this argument “many times” you should know that there are many variants of it, and it’s not necessary to know what a Roman “pre-trial brief” looks like. Mauck also hypothesizes that Theophilus was a member of Nero’s consilium who was, in a formal capacity, responsible for gathering information for the trial of Paul.
Anette Acker: …as Paul awaited trial before Nero on charges of creating an illegal new religion not recognized by the Jews.
(I presume that last word should be “Romans.”) What is your source this was the crime Paul was charged with? Careful here…I already know the answer…
Yes. Thank you.
My source that Mauck thinks that this was the crime Paul was charged with is Mauck’s book. So I’m sure you do know the answer—you and everyone else who read what I said before.
However, I’m not sure I agree with Mauck on this. I think Tertullus cites the charges against Paul in Acts 24:5: “We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.”
According to Sherwin-White, in Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament, the words “agitator among the Jews throughout the world” correspond to the wording of an actual law existing at the time.
One certainly wonders, if this was a “brief” intended to defend Paul regarding charges of creating an “illegal new religion” separate from Judaism, why it goes to such great lengths to point it how the Jews considered it separate from Judaism. Perhaps Paul needs a new lawyer…
Actually, a good lawyer anticipates the best counter-arguments and addresses them, and he or she doesn’t ignore bad facts, but will attempt to explain why they don't matter. In Acts, Stephen, Peter, and Paul all explain to the Jews how Christ is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.
However, I think it is most likely that Luke-Acts was simply a compilation of the facts to aid in investigation.
greetings annette
ReplyDeletedoes not the authour of luke add MORE details to the prophecy of jerusalems fall in mark?
rob
Many things that objectively exist can only be understood through a subjective experience. The two are not mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeleteObjective things are “perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.” They are “perceptible by all observers.” Webster's Dictionary If something is only perceptible to someone who has a particular religious experience, then it is not objective.
Anette,
ReplyDelete“You’re right that this passage … prediction would be fulfilled is very slim.”
When I wrote that the predictions have yet to be fulfilled I had in mind dramatic, apocalyptic events (son of man coming in the clouds, stars falling from sky, etc), the occurrence of which would seem to be incontrovertible evidence for prophetic validation. Granted that the gospel has been preached to every nation, I am significantly less impressed with such a “prophecy” for a couple of reasons. First, once Christianity had become the dominant religion of the Romans, I see nothing remarkable about its eventual spread throughout the modern world. Indeed, the prophecy becomes rather self-fulfilling by that point, what with Christendom being engaged over the centuries in the most aggressive and well financed missionary campaign in history at the behest of Jesus himself. Now, prior to their success in Rome, I understand that their outlook was bleak. Very briefly, I note that cult followings are forever amassing and then dissipating, many of which we are aware, many more we are not, particularly in the ancient world. That any particular cult should succeed to the degree that Christianity has is remarkable; that any cult whatsoever should do so is nearly expected. With respect to the peculiarities of Christianity that seemed to doom it to failure (e.g.: pacifism), I merely refer to Richard Carrier’s article “Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?” (especially sections 8 and 18), which provides a plausible naturalistic account of this phenomena. Not the final word, but a nice starting piece to help us move on from invoking supernatural forces when ordinary ones will do well.
“Second, the Bible has to be set … we are simply unaware of.”
Indeed, any scripture must suffer this limitation. I personally take that fact as the basis for a still broader philosophical argument against the notion that God would use such a means to communicate the divine commands/will/plan/whatever to humanity. But I will not defend that position at any length here, so it must remain my unargued intuition.
”There’s no question that the Bible … God simply reveals Himself through the Bible by opening our minds.”
ReplyDeleteI think that we can both agree that the Christian must make recourse some doctrine of the Holy Spirit whenever one difficulty from the multitude of Biblical ambiguities and confusions is presented, though we will not agree on the success of that move. My dissatisfaction has two aspects.
First, the apologetic enterprise, along with textual criticism, is rendered superfluous. God could as easily convict and save sinners via a single stone tablet with a few pictorial inscriptions as the Bible and its innumerable commentaries. In fact, God could simply make everyone immediately aware of everything necessary for salvation via the Holy Spirit without any intermediary signs, written or otherwise. But evidently God did not, for we have the Bible and the endless commentaries. Here is why that is a mistake (or if I had my druthers, a reason to think that the Bible is not the word of God): the textual result is indistinguishable from a *mere* human creation. The apparent errors, inconsistencies, vagaries, irrelevancies, absurdities – all of them may eventually find refuge in the *possible* resolutions of talented scholars, however strained. Yet these tremendous intellectual efforts belie a text that, whatever its profundities, is entirely within the realm of natural accountability. That is to say, its stories and teachings, its recording and transmission, its ultimate compilation(s) - all of these can be explained by means of human thought and efforts without invoking God, so one should not expect us to treat it as anything other than such. As I stated with reference to the controversy surrounding the use of the word “generation,” surely God could do better.
Second, I maintain, as you have anticipated, that Christians do disagree so much that the HS must be, well, very likely non-operative. Your eclectic collection of figures is utterly gratuitous, in my opinion. You state that they are close to the HS and so display remarkable agreement, when in fact the best one can say is that they display remarkable agreement (given their denominational differences) with *you* and so they are close to the HS. Why prefer the details about which that collection of writers happens to agree upon? You find their teachings fresh and timeless – very well, I also find Shakespeare so but do not attribute to him special connections with divine powers on that basis. Take the issue of predestination (I prefer it to the Paul and James spat). My bother is absolutely, bull-headedly convinced that a robust Calvinist reading of the Bible is the only remotely sensible way to approach the topic and has his private collection of writers to which he readily ascribes a close relationship with the HS. As he likes to say, Calvinism is another name for Christianity. I can give him philosophical reasons for thinking that Calvinism is false, but he maintains that they are trumped by “what the Bible says.” He came to this position after listening to a pastor whose sermons are to him unmatched in their power and clarity, and now claims that he was not even a Christian before encountering Calvinism. This pastor is firmly enshrined as anointed by the HS in his mind, among similar writers and speakers. My point is that the “hallmarks” of the HS you identified are identified by every other Christian but attributed to a spectrum of authorities. While everyone converges with some others on some points, many are so radically opposed in teaching that they are unrecognizable as Christian by each other. A saint to one, a heretic to another.
Ah…Anette Acker…I did provide a counter-argument. Perhaps it was too subtle.
ReplyDeleteAnette Acker: …and it’s not necessary to know what a Roman “pre-trial brief” looks like.
Really? So we don’t know what a First Century Roman “pre-trial brief” looks like, we have no other examples, and we don’t even know that they even utilized such a thing (as far as I know.)
But the apologist is free to speculate Acts of the Apostles is the SINGULAR example of a writing genre we don’t even know ever existed (and frankly probably would not for a number of reasons, not the least of which would be unnecessary cost) because this fits the apologist’s pre-determination and bias…and I have to provide a counter-argument?
You all just make stuff up—and I have to provide a counter argument?
Anette Acker, I again reach the point where I find it futile to continue a discussion with you. It doesn’t matter what I say—as I am a skeptic you will disagree with it. Disagree, even when conservative biblical scholars agree with me. When I point it out, you dodge the issue, and claim it was some other nitpicky point where you were disagreeing with me. I’ll let the lurkers make the call.
Further, regardless what I say, you will claim I am only looking at the underneath of the Persian rug, and since you have “obtained higher enlightenment” by being certain (without seeing) what the top of the rug looks like, you are free to disregard me.
I am going on a short vacation where there will be no internet. (or phone or TV. But there will be golf, swimming and relaxing.) So I if I do respond, it will not be until next week. Otherwise, I think we are done here.
For the lurkers, if interested on this topic of Acts…
ReplyDeleteActs was written to provide a continuity between the first-generation Christians (the Disciples) and the third-generation Christians (the gentile Churches throughout the Roman world) by using the second-generation Christian Paul. A means of saying, “Hey, the doctrines we espouse are valid because they came from Jesus --> Disciples --> Paul --> You.”
This was established by the first half utilizing Peter as the strong example, and then changing to Paul. Biblical scholars have long noticed the similarity in speeches between Peter’s in the first half (where Paul is absent) and Paul’s in the second half (where Peter is absent.)
This was writing TO Gentile Christians, FOR Gentile Christians, ABOUT Gentile Christians. The author, in every story except one, makes it evident the Jews were the ones persecuting the hapless Christians, and the Secular Roman authorities were the ones sympathetic to the Christian cause. He even changes Paul’s account regarding secular authorities harassing Paul in Damascus to the Jews harassing Paul in Damascus.
Indeed, Acts is the only source we have for Jewish persecution of Christianity*
*Ironically, Mark 13’s indication the Christians would be persecuted in synagogues would be a secondary source IF Mark 13 was an apocalyptic work, listing events that had already occurred, but claiming there were prophetically proclaimed way back in the future. By insisting the events of Mark 13 MUST be in the future, Anette Acker removes the only possible secondary source for Jewish persecution!
Got it? The underlying theme: “Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side.” There would be no call for writing about the Jewish wars because:
1) They hadn’t happened in the time frame of the story (up to 60 CE, basically);
2) The book is written to Gentiles in the entire Roman empire;
3) The Jewish wars had no impact on Christianity or its spread through the Roman Empire.
Simply put, the Jewish wars are not relevant, nor do they bolster the reasoning behind the writing.
Finally, as to Paul’s death, there are many probable reasons the author did not include Paul’s death. But he did know Paul was dead at the time of the writing. (Acts 20:25-38)
Mark,
ReplyDeletedoes not the authour of luke add MORE details to the prophecy of jerusalems fall in mark?
Yes, he does. That’s an excellent point. But it doesn’t undermine my argument that Luke-Acts would have been written before 70 AD—it undermines DagoodS’s statement that we only need to worry about Mark because Luke and Matthew copied Mark. It may mean that Luke would have had additional accurate information, just as I said.
We still have not resolved the problem of Acts leading up to a climactic trial that never happens, as well as other problems I will detail in my response to DagoodS.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteReally? So we don’t know what a First Century Roman “pre-trial brief” looks like, we have no other examples, and we don’t even know that they even utilized such a thing (as far as I know.)
Mauck did extensive research, including an email consultation with Professor Vasily Rudich of Yale and author of Political Dissidence Under Nero and found that Rome would have had an office of a cognitionibus, pretrial judicial investigation, that was created by Claudius, Nero’s predecessor. And Mauck says that the duties of this office “precisely correspond with the purposes for which Luke-Acts was written.”
Whether or not Mauck is correct in his hypothesis, I was simply answering your question about possible reasons why Luke-Acts was written. Nobody knows that answer for sure, but I see in your comment to the “lurkers” that you think you do. You do not let us in on how exactly you know this. Did you receive “higher enlightenment”?
When I receive my “higher enlightenment,” I usually put it to the test to see if skeptics can take it apart (because I know that I’m highly fallible), so let’s put your “higher enlightenment” about Paul teaching different doctrines than Jesus to the test:
Spiritual Rebirth:
Jesus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).
Paul: “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Galatians 6:15).
Repentance:
Jesus: “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:5).
Paul: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (Romans 6:1-2).
Justification by Faith:
Jesus: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to life up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:10-14, italics added).
Paul: “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God” (Romans 5:1-2).
Good fruit:
Jesus: “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).
Paul: “But I say, walk by the Spirit . . . the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law” (Galatians 5:16, 22-23).
What is the Law?
Jesus: “’You shall love the Lord your God will all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40).
Paul: “For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:14).
Is the Law to be abolished or fulfilled?
Jesus: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).
Paul: “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law” (Romans 3:31).
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteI would like to briefly elaborate on the issue of the dating of Luke-Acts, by pointing out that the following questions have not been answered:
First, why does the second half of Acts detail Paul’s battle but then end after Paul appeals to Caesar but before the trial actually takes place? Why is the climactic ending omitted from the story?
Second, there are numerous references to the temple, but no hint that the author knows that it has been destroyed.
Third, since a recurring theme of Acts is fulfilled (OT) prophecy, why not mention the fall of Jerusalem and point to the alleged prophecies of Jesus? The author included the prophecies in Luke, and Jerusalem was in fact destroyed, so why not make the connection?
Fourth, since as you indicated, a recurring theme of Acts is that the followers of Jesus are law-abiding and the Jews are subversive, why would Luke not include the war of 66 AD, when the Jews did in fact revolt against Rome? If in fact the message is, as you said: “Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side,” the Great Revolt would have been HIGHLY relevant.
I am going on a short vacation where there will be no internet. (or phone or TV. But there will be golf, swimming and relaxing.) So I if I do respond, it will not be until next week. Otherwise, I think we are done here.
Have a great time!
I meant to say Paul's "legal battle," not Paul's "battle."
ReplyDeleteSince Dagoods is out of town, I'll take a stab at it.
ReplyDeleteFirst, why does the second half of Acts detail Paul’s battle but then end after Paul appeals to Caesar but before the trial actually takes place? Why is the climactic ending omitted from the story?
Since it is not part of the story, how do you know there was a climactic ending?
There may have been no trial. Tradition has it that Paul was killed in the persecution that Nero carried out to cover up his role in the burning of Rome. If this is so, then Paul may well have been put to death for arson rather than for any offense related to his faith.
Second, there are numerous references to the temple, but no hint that the author knows that it has been destroyed.
Third, since a recurring theme of Acts is fulfilled (OT) prophecy, why not mention the fall of Jerusalem and point to the alleged prophecies of Jesus? The author included the prophecies in Luke, and Jerusalem was in fact destroyed, so why not make the connection?
Don’t the prophecies in Luke provide some hint that the author knows the temple has been destroyed?
Fourth, since as you indicated, a recurring theme of Acts is that the followers of Jesus are law-abiding and the Jews are subversive, why would Luke not include the war of 66 AD, when the Jews did in fact revolt against Rome? If in fact the message is, as you said: “Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side,” the Great Revolt would have been HIGHLY relevant.
If Acts was written after the destruction of the temple, it was also written after Nero’s persecution. The author might have omitted both incidents simply because he might have viewed it as too risky or too difficult to portray the Romans as the good guys in one case and not the other.
On the other hand, maybe everybody knew about it already. Isn’t that the answer apologists give whenever they are unable to explain a writer’s silence about some topic?
a later writer would deliberately omit major events because he wants to dupe people into thinking that his work contemporary to the deciples. is this not possible? in any of the forged gospels, which were written in deciples name, is there mention of temple destruction?
ReplyDeletecan you do me a favour and juxtapose luke and marks version which prophecies about temple destruction . a comparision will show what luke modified and i would like to know why papias who is assumed to be marks informer missed out what luke included and modified.
roby
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteObjective things are “perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.” They are “perceptible by all observers.” Webster's Dictionary If something is only perceptible to someone who has a particular religious experience, then it is not objective.
Although not a perfect analogy, the closest (and the one used in the Bible) is sight. Objects and colors exist, but the blind or colorblind do not see them. Faith is having our eyes opened to see an objective reality (whether or not that definition of “objective” is broad enough, God either objectively exists or not, so the word will have to do).
In Genesis 21:17, God opens Hagar’s eyes and she sees a well that saves her son Ishmael’s life. That is highly symbolic because the well was there all along and sufficient to save them, but she didn’t see it until God opened her eyes.
Reuben,
ReplyDeleteFirst, the apologetic enterprise, along with textual criticism, is rendered superfluous. God could as easily convict and save sinners via a single stone tablet with a few pictorial inscriptions as the Bible and its innumerable commentaries.
Well, for some people it is very simple. Brother Lawrence saw “a tree stripped of its leaves, and considering that within a little time the leaves would be renewed, and after that the flowers and fruit appear, he received a high view of the providence and power of God, which has never since been effaced from his soul.” That tree was all the apologetics he needed.
That’s not how I am. I have to understand to believe, and I have to keep testing my faith and examining it from every angle to grow spiritually. But ultimately, it has to be practical for all of us, or it’s worthless. You brought up Calvinism, which reminds me of John Wesley’s words when he was accused of heresy by the Calvinists of his time: “how far is love, even with many wrong opinions, to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried into Abraham’s bosom. But if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels!” And the Bible is very clear that this is true. The picture of Judgment Day in Matthew 25:31-46 does not show Jesus with a theological checklist—the ultimate question is how we treated the “least of these.”
Second, I maintain, as you have anticipated, that Christians do disagree so much that the HS must be, well, very likely non-operative. Your eclectic collection of figures is utterly gratuitous, in my opinion. You state that they are close to the HS and so display remarkable agreement, when in fact the best one can say is that they display remarkable agreement (given their denominational differences) with *you* and so they are close to the HS. Why prefer the details about which that collection of writers happens to agree upon?
I did not prefer these authors because they happened to agree with me. In fact, when I first discovered them they really challenged my thinking. But the Bible supported what they had to say. So I was the one who was wrong, and I adjusted my thinking. What they all have in common is that they all focus on the Spirit-led life, so I think it is significant that they all agree given the differences in denominations.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteHow does that make any sense in relation to Luke 1:4 where Theophilus is clearly a believing Christian?
Luke 1:4 only indicates that Theophilus knows something about Christianity, not that he was a believing Christian. The words “most excellent” is the same greeting given Governor Felix in Acts 23:26 and Acts 24:3, and Governor Festus in Acts 26:25. It is only used in reference to Roman officials in the Bible. The letters to fellow believers are warm and effusive and express concern about their spiritual state, and all of that is missing from Luke-Acts, which are more formal.
Since it is not part of the story, how do you know there was a climactic ending?
There may have been no trial. Tradition has it that Paul was killed in the persecution that Nero carried out to cover up his role in the burning of Rome. If this is so, then Paul may well have been put to death for arson rather than for any offense related to his faith.
Whether or not Paul actually had a trial before Nero, the events of the second half of Acts lead up to Paul’s appeal to Nero. If this were a novel, wouldn’t you feel cheated if it ends before you find out how Paul’s legal battle is eventually resolved? As it is, we don’t know what Nero does.
Don’t the prophecies in Luke provide some hint that the author knows the temple has been destroyed?
That is circular reasoning because the whole question is whether Jesus said that before it happened. So the author may have known that Jesus said it but not know whether it will actually happen. He gives no indication in Acts that it has already happened.
If Acts was written after the destruction of the temple, it was also written after Nero’s persecution. The author might have omitted both incidents simply because he might have viewed it as too risky or too difficult to portray the Romans as the good guys in one case and not the other.
What makes you think the Christians would still regard the Romans as the good guys after Nero’s persecution? Since Tacitus said that Christians were “hated for their abominations,” most likely the Christians regarded the Romans as their persecutors at the time of Nero’s persecution and afterwards.
Also, one interesting thing about Acts is that Paul expects to get justice from Nero, someone who turned out to be one of the worst tyrants in history. Would Nero have been portrayed as someone who would be likely to administer justice if Acts had been written by a Christian after 64 AD?
On the other hand, maybe everybody knew about it already. Isn’t that the answer apologists give whenever they are unable to explain a writer’s silence about some topic?
If an author would be reasonably expected to say something and does not, then “everyone already knew it” is a bad explanation, whether by an apologist or a counter-apologist. And in this situation, if the purpose of the author of Acts is, as DagoodS claimed, to say that Jews are bad and Romans are good and Christians are on the Roman side, then it makes no sense to leave out the Great Revolt even if everyone knew about it.
When a major event happens, everybody knows about it, but people also talk about it non-stop, in the news and elsewhere. Everybody has a somewhat different perspective on it that they consider worth sharing.
If DagoodS is right, the perspective of the Christians would have been, “See? We told you that we were on the Roman side and the Jews were not.” Even if DagoodS is not right, it seems most likely that it would have been mentioned or alluded to in some way because it was such a major event.
Roby,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for calling you Mark before. I have no idea why I did that—maybe because you were talking about Mark and Luke. :)
a later writer would deliberately omit major events because he wants to dupe people into thinking that his work contemporary to the deciples. is this not possible? in any of the forged gospels, which were written in deciples name, is there mention of temple destruction?
I think that is highly unlikely because Luke-Acts were anonymous, so they could not have been forged. Also, trying to deceive merely by omitting mention of the temple destruction would have been far too subtle, and there is no hint anywhere that the author wants the reader to think Acts was written at any particular time.
can you do me a favour and juxtapose luke and marks version which prophecies about temple destruction . a comparision will show what luke modified and i would like to know why papias who is assumed to be marks informer missed out what luke included and modified.
Luke says that armies will surround Jerusalem, that Jews will fall by the sword and be led captive into all the nations, and that Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until “the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” These parts are omitted from Mark.
That is circular reasoning because the whole question is whether Jesus said that before it happened. So the author may have known that Jesus said it but not know whether it will actually happen. He gives no indication in Acts that it has already happened.
ReplyDeleteNo. It is not circular reasoning and that’s not the question. I was a addressing your claim that there is "no hint that the author knows that [the temple] has been destroyed." The fact that he has Jesus prophesy about it is more than adequate reason to think that he does know about it. Were it any other holy book than your own, you would have no trouble admitting that. Whether Jesus actually did prophesy it is a different question.
What makes you think the Christians would still regard the Romans as the good guys after Nero’s persecution? Since Tacitus said that Christians were “hated for their abominations,” most likely the Christians regarded the Romans as their persecutors at the time of Nero’s persecution and afterwards.
Also, one interesting thing about Acts is that Paul expects to get justice from Nero, someone who turned out to be one of the worst tyrants in history. Would Nero have been portrayed as someone who would be likely to administer justice if Acts had been written by a Christian after 64 AD?
The powerless often treat their oppressors as if they were their benefactors in the hopes of winning their favor or avoiding even harsher treatment. There are countless examples of this throughout history. Paul taught Christians that they had nothing to fear from the Roman government if they behaved themselves. It makes perfect sense to end Acts before Paul was proven wrong.
Luke 1:4 only indicates that Theophilus knows something about Christianity, not that he was a believing Christian.
Theophilus had been instructed in the faith. That indicates that he was a believer.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteNo. It is not circular reasoning and that’s not the question. I was a addressing your claim that there is "no hint that the author knows that [the temple] has been destroyed." The fact that he has Jesus prophesy about it is more than adequate reason to think that he does know about it. Were it any other holy book than your own, you would have no trouble admitting that. Whether Jesus actually did prophesy it is a different question.
My point was that there is no hint in Acts that the temple has been destroyed.
And yes, the question is whether Jesus actually did prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem, because DoOrDoNot asked DagoodS: “[I]s there always an assumption in biblical scholarship that any prophesy was written after the fact or are there other measures for dating the literature aside from the prophesy itself? I want to evaluate passages without any presumption regarding whether or not it was a genuine prophesy in order to be fair. What measures are taken (if any) in biblical scholarship in this regard?”
DagoodS replied to that, and I said: “So your answer to DoOrDoNot's question is that the Gospels are dated after 70 AD because Jesus describes in detail what happens to Jerusalem?”
And I asked how he explains one of the various questions about Acts we have discussed since then. From my perspective, the entire rest of the discussion has revolved around DoOrDoNot’s question, and in the context of that question, your argument was circular. (Now, you may not have seen my questions to DagoodS in the context of that broader question, so I do understand why you brought up the words of Jesus in Luke.)
The powerless often treat their oppressors as if they were their benefactors in the hopes of winning their favor or avoiding even harsher treatment. There are countless examples of this throughout history. Paul taught Christians that they had nothing to fear from the Roman government if they behaved themselves. It makes perfect sense to end Acts before Paul was proven wrong.
What evidence do you have that Paul taught Christians to have this attitude? Paul displays far less sycophancy of the Romans than the high priest’s attorney does (Acts 24:1-4, 10, 26).
And even if Paul did teach Christians that they had nothing to fear from the Romans if they behaved themselves, why would the author of Acts write this after Paul had been proven wrong?
Theophilus had been instructed in the faith. That indicates that he was a believer.
That is an unsubstantiated assertion. If Acts is correct that Paul appeared before Roman governors and King Agrippa, defending himself against charges by the high priest, then this dispute would have been a major current event that would have interested many people, including Roman officials.
Do you have a response to my point about the words “most excellent” only being used when addressing Roman officials?
What evidence do you have that Paul taught Christians to have this attitude?
ReplyDeleteHow about Romans 13:1-5?
My point was that there is no hint in Acts that the temple has been destroyed.
If you had said that, I wouldn’t have disagreed with you.
And even if Paul did teach Christians that they had nothing to fear from the Romans if they behaved themselves, why would the author of Acts write this after Paul had been proven wrong?
Because he still hoped that Christians would eventually be accepted by the Romans and he hoped that Nero’s tyranny was an isolated incident. He still thought that the Christians would be better off accepting the legitimate authority of the Roman government than they would be if they treated the Romans as enemies of their faith. Since Christians were in no position to oppose the Roman Empire, they had to figure out what gave them the best chance to get along with it. Praising the Romans justice and fairness was the prudent thing to do. Powerless groups have been forced to do that kind of thing all throughout history.
Do you have a response to my point about the words “most excellent” only being used when addressing Roman officials?
Sure. You are wrong. The words are also used in Psalm 45 and 1 Corinthians 12:31. They reflect esteem and respect. You have not provided any reason to think that they could only be applied to Roman officials.
If Acts is correct that Paul appeared before Roman governors and King Agrippa, defending himself against charges by the high priest, then this dispute would have been a major current event that would have interested many people, including Roman officials.
Talk about your unsubstantiated assertions. In any case Theophilus wasn’t just interested. He was instructed.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteHow about Romans 13:1-5?
Aren’t you the guy who keeps stressing that you regard the authors of the books of the Bible as independent, and must be analyzed as such?
Where in Acts do you find evidence that Paul taught Christians that they would not be harmed by the Romans if they behaved themselves? We are talking about the purpose behind Luke-Acts, not Romans.
Because he still hoped that Christians would eventually be accepted by the Romans and he hoped that Nero’s tyranny was an isolated incident. He still thought that the Christians would be better off accepting the legitimate authority of the Roman government than they would be if they treated the Romans as enemies of their faith. Since Christians were in no position to oppose the Roman Empire, they had to figure out what gave them the best chance to get along with it. Praising the Romans justice and fairness was the prudent thing to do. Powerless groups have been forced to do that kind of thing all throughout history.
But does Luke praise the Romans’ justice and fairness? He seems to tell it like it is—for example, by saying that Governor Felix kept sending for Paul to converse with him, because he hoped to receive a bribe. And Felix left Paul imprisoned because he wanted to do the Jews a favor.
Also, although Paul and the other apostles were law-abiding, they didn’t just put their heads down and tried to avoid incurring the wrath of the authorities. They preached the Gospel even though the response from the authorities was often negative (Acts 5:29, 26:24).
Sure. You are wrong. The words are also used in Psalm 45 and 1 Corinthians 12:31. They reflect esteem and respect. You have not provided any reason to think that they could only be applied to Roman officials.
Those are not the same words. In Psalm 45, the Hebrew word “yaphah” is generally translated “fair” or “beautiful.” The word in 1 Corinthians 12:31 is: “hyperbolḗ.” The commentary says: “This very emphatic term means ‘superlatively, beyond, measure’ (Souter).”
The word in Luke 1:3, Acts 23:26, 24:3 and 26:25 is transliterated “kratistos,” which means “most excellent, an official epithet, used in addressing a Roman of high rank, and in the second century one of equestrian (as distinguished from senatorial) rank.”
Talk about your unsubstantiated assertions. In any case Theophilus wasn’t just interested. He was instructed.
And why would the fact that he was instructed necessarily imply that he was a Christian? If Mauck is right that Theophilus was a Roman official who did pretrial judicial investigation, he would have been instructed on the facts.
Anette,
ReplyDeletePlease don’t think that I am going to fall for that crap. You know that “Where does Acts say A?” is a different question from “Where does Paul say A?” If you would think about what you mean before you post your comments rather than afterwards, you would avoid a lot of problems and save both of us a lot of time.
I didn't claim that Paul taught Christians to respect the government in Acts. It would also help if you thought about what my statements mean.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteWhen I say, “What evidence do you have that Paul taught Christians to have this attitude? Paul displays far less sycophancy of the Romans than the high priest’s attorney does (Acts 24:1-4, 10, 26),” I assume that you understand that I’m talking about Acts, especially since our whole discussion has been about the dating and purpose behind Acts. What relevance do Paul’s statements in Romans have to the general discussion if they are not included in Acts? Do I have to specify “the Apostle Paul” each time, too, or you’ll think that I may mean your neighbor/friend/cousin/coworker, Paul? How much precision do you need in every comment? If you paid more attention to the context, it would tell you exactly what I meant.
I didn't claim that Paul taught Christians to respect the government in Acts. It would also help if you thought about what my statements mean.
I do think about what your comments mean before I reply. I knew what you meant, and I knew that what Paul said in Romans wasn't relevant.
I do think about what your comments mean before I reply. I knew what you meant, and I knew that what Paul said in Romans wasn't relevant.
ReplyDeleteAnette,
Nice try, but you are just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
If you knew that I was referring to Romans and you believed that Romans was irrelevant, you would have said that Romans was irrelevant. You wouldn’t have asked me where Paul said it if you knew where he said it.
What is so interesting is that earlier in the same comment you had just modified your claim that the author of Luke-Acts never hinted that he knew about the destruction of the temple to the narrower claim that the book of Acts never hints at the destruction of the temple. I really didn’t think that you would immediately repeat the exact same mistake of referring to a specific person when in fact you meant to refer to a specific book.
What relevance do Paul’s statements in Romans have to the general discussion if they are not included in Acts?
I might just as well ask what relevance Nero’s persecution and the destruction of the temple have to the general discussion since they are not included in Acts either. However, instead I will say that Paul’s statements in Romans are relevant because they tell us what the early Christian church’s attitude towards the Roman government was. This explains why the author of Acts would not be eager to include a story that reflected antagonism between Romans and Christians.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteIf you knew that I was referring to Romans and you believed that Romans was irrelevant, you would have said that Romans was irrelevant. You wouldn’t have asked me where Paul said it if you knew where he said it.
I did not initially know that you were talking about Romans because you did not say that you were talking about any of Paul’s statements outside of Acts. But when you mentioned Romans, then I knew what you meant, and I replied by saying that it was irrelevant.
I’m sorry that you feel that I’m wasting your time, but at least I’ve never done so intentionally, like you admitted to “somewhat intentionally” wasting my time, when DagoodS said in our first discussion: “Anette Acker and Vinny, Thank you for demonstrating (albeit unintentionally, I presume) why I am done with this type of interaction.” I have tried to treat you as fairly and honestly as I can, conceding a point when you ask me to, giving you credit where it is deserved, and apologizing when I feel that I’ve not treated you fairly.
But since none of this has thawed you in the slightest, and you are now giving your hostility toward me free reign, I am left only with the following advice to offer you: Take a deep breath, stop responding to my comments, and go beat the living daylights out of someone at chess.
Or better yet, take a vacation somewhere where there is no Internet, phone service, or TV, but only swimming, golf, and relaxation. Who knows? You may run into DagoodS.
Anette,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the kind advice.
I am afraid, however, that it is hard for me to reconcile your claim to having treated me fairly and honestly with your claim (in the same paragraph) that I "admitted to 'somewhat intentionally' wasting [your] time" since I never admitted anything of the kind.
You are of course free to spend your time combing through previous conversations in the hopes of finding something you can use against me, but if you are going to do so, at least accept the responsibility for wasting your own time rather than blaming me.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteYou replied to DagoodS's statement that I quoted by saying, "Somewhat intentionally." I challenged you on that at the time, and you chose not to explain what you meant. But if you'll explain it now in a way that makes it clear that you were not giving me the runaround, then I will apologize for saying that.
The bottom line is that it's hard for me to understand you, and maybe that's because we see things so differently. But since we've had so many discussions, I would like to understand where you're coming from. During the course of all these discussions, you have seemed to ignore my attempts to be friendly to you, and in this thread you have started openly criticizing me, by saying that I don't think through my arguments and I pull "crap" that you're not going to fall for.
Am I wrong to conclude that those words mask some hostility? Nobody has ever told me that I don't think though my arguments, so I don't think that's a valid criticism. For that reason, it didn't insult me when you said that, but it did make me realize that you are willing to resort to personal attacks.
I don't want to be unfair to you, and you are welcome to tell me if you were reacting to something I've said that offended you, either here or via email, by clicking through to my profile.
You replied to DagoodS's statement that I quoted by saying, "Somewhat intentionally." I challenged you on that at the time, and you chose not to explain what you meant. But if you'll explain it now in a way that makes it clear that you were not giving me the runaround, then I will apologize for saying that.
ReplyDeleteIn his post, Dagoods had written “Arguing with apologists has become tedious. Sure, at one time it was fun, to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of argumentation. Never to convince the apologist, of course. They will staunchly hold to their belief even when their claims have blown up so completely the ashes will have nothing to do with them.”
When Dagoods wrote “Thank you for demonstrating (albeit unintentionally, I presume) why I am done with this type of interaction,” I responded “Somewhat intentionally” because I knew that you and I were engaged in the kind of exchange of which Dagoods had grown tired, i.e., one in which an apologist staunchly held to her beliefs even when her claims had blown up completely. I was intentionally pursuing the type of argument that Dagoods had pursued many time in the past, but which he was planning not to pursue in the future. "Somewhat intentionally" was intended to be humorous.
I don’t know why at that time you interpreted “somewhat intentionally” to be an admission that I was knowingly obscuring the truth. I also don’t know why you now interpret it to be an admission that I was knowingly wasting your time. Neither interpretation strikes me as particularly fair or honest.
As you noted in one of your comments to that post, I try to maintain focus in these discussions. (You attributed it to my affinity for chess which is not that far off.) I did not explain “somewhat intentionally” at that time because your challenge struck me as somewhat snarky and I believed that responding to it would just lead to recriminations that would be irrelevant to the substantive issues under discussion. Focus would have been lost.
Am I wrong to conclude that those words mask some hostility? Nobody has ever told me that I don't think though my arguments, so I don't think that's a valid criticism. For that reason, it didn't insult me when you said that, but it did make me realize that you are willing to resort to personal attacks.
ReplyDeleteWebster’s defines “hostility” as a “deep-seated usually mutual ill will.” I think that is much too strong a word for the frustration I experience during some of our discussions. Most of the time, my feelings towards you are very amiable. I have a couple of conservative Christian chess playing friends whose company I enjoy very much. If we talked politics or religion rather than chess, I suspect the discussions might get heated, but I don’t think that would change my underlying feelings for them.
One of the keys to playing chess well is to assume that your opponent is always going to find the very strongest response to your move. You should never make a move unless you have thought about what your opponent’s best response will be and you have decided that you can handle it. If you don’t think you can handle the best response, you should choose a different move. Of course your opponent will sometimes come up with a move that surprises you, but you will learn much more from that experience if you have put the effort into trying to figure out what his best move would be before you make your own move.
When I say that you don’t think through your arguments it is because it seems to me that you don’t take the time to think about how someone is likely to respond to your comments. For example, I was honestly surprised when you asked me “What evidence do you have that Paul taught Christians to have this attitude?” I don’t think that Romans 13 is an obscure passage. If you had given some thought to how I was likely to answer your question, I think you might not have asked it in the first place. In my defense, I will confess that I initially composed a sarcastic response to your question, but I thought better of it and went with "How about Romans 13:1-5?" It was only your follow up that inspired me to vent.
I expect a certain amount of rough and tumble in these discussions. I think that you also vent your frustration in some of your comments but I can’t think of anything that offended me more than momentarily. Unfortunately, some of those moments may have been the moments in which I composed my responses. While I always try to anticipate your substantive response, I don’t always anticipate your emotional response.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteI don’t know why at that time you interpreted “somewhat intentionally” to be an admission that I was knowingly obscuring the truth. I also don’t know why you now interpret it to be an admission that I was knowingly wasting your time. Neither interpretation strikes me as particularly fair or honest.
Because DagoodS ended his comment by saying: “Thus, continuing to study in endless loops is no longer intriguing. Arguing about it is useless.” In other words, his point seemed to be that we were arguing in endless loops, and we were. We were talking about our James discussion, and how much certainty I had expressed about him converting as a result of Jesus appearing to him. And DagoodS correctly noted that we were arguing in circles about something that really didn’t matter much. When you said, “Somewhat intentionally,” I interpreted that to mean that you were giving me the runaround and were not interested in getting closer to the truth.
But I appreciate getting your perspective, and I understand now that it was a misunderstanding. So I apologize for saying that you admitted to intentionally wasting my time.
While I always try to anticipate your substantive response, I don’t always anticipate your emotional response.
I understand why you would be confused about why I would take insults from some people in stride and react emotionally to minor offenses by others, but the only times I’ve reacted emotionally is when discussions with someone goes on for so long that I’m exhausted and feel like I’ll never be able to get away. I can’t think of a single exception to this.
The people I’ve reacted to with impatience have almost inevitably been very nice, like you, but the underlying reason has always been that I feel exhausted and somewhat trapped. So it is nothing personal—it just has to do with how I feel when I'm in that kind of a situation.
I don’t always mind when discussions go on for a long time, if it’s an important subject and the other person does a good job advancing the dialogue so that readers benefit from it. And that was certainly the case during my discussions with you on the resurrection, as I said in my comment about you being a chess player.
Webster’s defines “hostility” as a “deep-seated usually mutual ill will.” I think that is much too strong a word for the frustration I experience during some of our discussions. Most of the time, my feelings towards you are very amiable. I have a couple of conservative Christian chess playing friends whose company I enjoy very much. If we talked politics or religion rather than chess, I suspect the discussions might get heated, but I don’t think that would change my underlying feelings for them.
ReplyDeleteThank you for explaining this. I have always had a hard time reading you because you reveal very little about yourself (but you did say that you coach chess). What I find even more fascinating than the topics of discussion is trying to understand the people, and usually their comments reveal something about how they feel and what motivates them. It is interesting to form hypotheses about what they are like in real life and see to what extent their continuing comments confirm or disprove those hypotheses.
With you, I’ve had two competing hypotheses. Hypothesis A has been the working hypothesis (and I think you’ve just confirmed it). You approach online discussions in much the same way you approach chess. You’re very focused on the discussion, and this is no time for idle conversation or other distractions. This is why you seem emotionally detached. The lurkers don’t exist for you because you are in the game and you’re in it to win—to the bitter end. You no more want me to just give you the last word than you want someone forfeiting in the middle of a chess game. And if I make an argument and I’m not entirely precise about what I meant, you feel like I’m cheating if I later clarify it in a way that undermines your argument.
If Hypothesis A is correct, then how you come across in these discussions tells me nothing about what you are like in normal social interaction. It just means that I have unwittingly found myself in the middle of a chess game, so if I make jokes or conversation (or challenge you on why you said, “Somewhat intentionally”), of course you have to discourage that because you would lose focus if you replied. And hopefully if you say nothing, I’ll get the hint that people don’t chat during chess. :)
But unfortunately there's also Hypothesis B, which has for the most part remained in the background. You have from time to time expressed contempt for apologists. So according to Hypothesis B, you don’t reply to compliments, apologies, attempts at humor, challenges on why you said, “Somewhat intentionally,” etc. because you secretly feel hostile toward me—an apologist. Now you did once say that I was one of the most pleasant apologists you have talked with, which I appreciate, but it didn’t undermine Hypothesis B because if apologists as a group are at the bottom of the barrel in terms of pleasantness, then I could be one of the most pleasant apologists and still be only at, say, the fifth percentile in the general population. It would be sort of like being one of the most pleasant scumbags you've talked to. :)
As I said, Hypothesis A has been the leading hypothesis, but when you said that you’re not going to fall for my “crap,” etc., Hypothesis B took the lead and I concluded that you were giving free rein to hostility that you’ve felt toward me and other apologists all along.
But now you have disproved Hypothesis B--it is not the reason why you sometimes reply with silence to things I say, and why you reacted the way you did at the end of this discussion. And you've also for the most part confirmed Hypothesis A. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.
When I say that you don’t think through your arguments it is because it seems to me that you don’t take the time to think about how someone is likely to respond to your comments. For example, I was honestly surprised when you asked me “What evidence do you have that Paul taught Christians to have this attitude?” I don’t think that Romans 13 is an obscure passage. If you had given some thought to how I was likely to answer your question, I think you might not have asked it in the first place.
ReplyDeleteRomans 13 did not occur to me because it has nothing to do with the purpose behind Luke-Acts, since there is nothing in Luke-Acts that reinforces that message. And I don’t think Paul was so much making a statement about the Roman government as he was reinforcing the point that Christians should not go looking for persecution. One common theme in his letters is that he tries to keep believers from behaving in ways that bring Christianity into disrepute.
Anyway, I want to point out that you have numerous times not anticipated what I would say. Usually the problem with not anticipating a response is that you’ll lose. Did you anticipate what I would say when you brought up William Vanderburgh or Darrell Bock? What about when I said that there was never any observational evidence for the Steady State Theory, and “scientific consensus” and “evidence” are two different things?
My purpose in debate is not to win, but to get closer to the truth, and I see a good debate as an opportunity to watch the truth unfold. If you approach a debate like you do a chess game, then you may feel that I have no right to clarify an ambiguous statement I’ve made in a way that undermines your position. However, if the goal is the truth, then the issue is not whether I was wrong to express myself in a particular way, but how much my later clarification advances the truth.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteI don’t know how the previous comment came across—if any of it was offensive, it was not my intent. A lot of it was intended to be lighthearted, but it can be hard to communicate the right tone online.
And right now I’m so exhausted from and sick to death of online debates that I don’t know when I will feel like commenting on other blogs again. So let me restate what I’ve said before so I don’t conclude this on a negative note: You are very good at this kind of debate and I think it is because you are a chess player. I know that we see things very differently, but you have still done an excellent job of understanding what I was saying and seeing the best response. (In some discussions I've had with people they have failed to really understand my arguments.) I have learned a lot from the discussions with you.
I don’t think I’m going to change your mind, but that was never really my goal. Those who are still making up their minds need to see both sides, and you are a very good counter-apologist.
Anette,
ReplyDeleteThere is quite a lot in those comments, but I understand that you are exhausted so I won’t try to address everything. I would like to show that I can open up about personal matters on occasion.
I am the youngest of nine children. My father was dean of a business school at a mid-size urban university. Three of my siblings have PhD’s and two are lawyers so I grew up in a family where arguments were probably more rigorous than most. When I was little, I often got the worst of arguments and I would get frustrated and angry. My older brothers and sisters would purposely maintain complete calm in the face of my outbursts which of course only caused me to become more upset. I think that is where I developed the detachment that I usually display and it may be I do a poor job of moderating my rhetoric when I do get angry or frustrated.
Regarding my attitude towards apologists:
I became a born-again Christian late in 1974 when I was 17 years old. One of the first books I read was Evidence that Demands a Verdict. I was profoundly disappointed. I really wanted to believe that there was solid evidence for the faith that I had recently embraced, but I thought that Josh McDowell’s arguments were painfully weak. I was looking for arguments that might convince my friends and family, not arguments that would make them laugh. Moreover, I couldn’t help but think that McDowell was smart enough to know how weak the arguments were. It didn’t cause me to abandon my faith immediately, but I’m sure that it contributed to the fact that I did so after less than two years.
You may be an apologist, but you are not an apologist like Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell. You do not write books in which you claim to have been a hardened skeptic who was so overwhelmed by the objective evidence that you couldn’t help but become a Bible believing Christian. I may feel contempt for people who profit by writing books that seem intended to misinform. I do not feel contempt for people who read them and believe them, because once upon a time, I wanted to believe them, too.
Regarding my reference to “crap,” I think I need to revisit the exchange:
ReplyDeleteAnette: What makes you think the Christians would still regard the Romans as the good guys after Nero’s persecution? Since Tacitus said that Christians were “hated for their abominations,” most likely the Christians regarded the Romans as their persecutors at the time of Nero’s persecution and afterwards.
Also, one interesting thing about Acts is that Paul expects to get justice from Nero, someone who turned out to be one of the worst tyrants in history. Would Nero have been portrayed as someone who would be likely to administer justice if Acts had been written by a Christian after 64 AD?
Vinny: The powerless often treat their oppressors as if they were their benefactors in the hopes of winning their favor or avoiding even harsher treatment. There are countless examples of this throughout history. Paul taught Christians that they had nothing to fear from the Roman government if they behaved themselves. It makes perfect sense to end Acts before Paul was proven wrong.
Anette: What evidence do you have that Paul taught Christians to have this attitude?
Vinny: How about Romans 13:1-5?
Anette: Aren’t you the guy who keeps stressing that you regard the authors of the books of the Bible as independent, and must be analyzed as such?
Where in Acts do you find evidence that Paul taught Christians that they would not be harmed by the Romans if they behaved themselves? We are talking about the purpose behind Luke-Acts, not Romans.
Vinny: Please don’t think that I am going to fall for that crap. You know that “Where does Acts say A?” is a different question from “Where does Paul say A?” If you would think about what you mean before you post your comments rather than afterwards, you would avoid a lot of problems and save both of us a lot of time.
It is true that I regard the authors of the various books as independent, but it doesn’t mean that they didn't share many beliefs. It means that when they do tell the story differently, I think it is important to allow for the possibility that they had different ideas about the events that occurred and their meaning.
It is also true that we had been discussing the purpose of Acts, but your comment raised a question about the prevailing attitude of Christians in general towards the Roman government. It is reasonable to think that the letter that Paul had written to the Romans might have formed part of the background for that attitude. Regarding that attitude, there was no reason to limit consideration to the events recounted in Acts.
So when I answered that Romans 13:1-5 was evidence of the attitude Paul taught, I thought it was directly responsive to the question you asked as well as directly relevant to the point you had earlier raised. When you criticized me for inconsistency in raising something outside Acts, I honestly thought that it was crappy response and I still do. However, the rest of my comment was needlessly nasty and I apologize for that.
The fact that I think you made a crappy argument doesn’t mean that I have contempt for you as a person. I have made plenty of crappy arguments myself. When I realize that I have done so, however, I usually try to drop the matter as quickly and quietly as possible in the hopes that no one will notice. However, I hope you won't assume that every time I drop an argument it is because I have realized that it was crappy. Sometimes I drop an argument because I think it likely to raise a lot of new issues that I am less interested in discussing and I don't want the discussion to lose focus.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteMy older brothers and sisters would purposely maintain complete calm in the face of my outbursts which of course only caused me to become more upset. I think that is where I developed the detachment that I usually display and it may be I do a poor job of moderating my rhetoric when I do get angry or frustrated.
Well, it’s a good thing that I didn’t maintain complete calm in the face of your outburst then! ;)
Actually, I would not say that you have trouble moderating your rhetoric when you get angry, and what you said is really no big deal. For the most part, you do a good job keeping your cool. However, I have noticed what appears to be a somewhat negative attitude toward conservative Christians and apologists. I usually didn’t take it personally, but I have been curious to know what is behind it. Now it makes a lot more sense.
You may be an apologist, but you are not an apologist like Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell. You do not write books in which you claim to have been a hardened skeptic who was so overwhelmed by the objective evidence that you couldn’t help but become a Bible believing Christian. I may feel contempt for people who profit by writing books that seem intended to misinform. I do not feel contempt for people who read them and believe them, because once upon a time, I wanted to believe them, too.
I have not read anything by Strobel or McDowell, so I can’t give an opinion. When I first started commenting on Atheist Central about a year-and-a-half ago, the only book on apologetics I had read was Mere Christianity years ago. I did, however, have a rational faith because I had spent many years trying to make sense of the Bible. And I’ve noticed that many non-theists cite Bible difficulties as the main reason why they reject Christianity.
So for the first half a year or so, I mostly replied to people who asked questions about the Bible or claimed that it had theological inconsistencies. Those questions I felt comfortable that I could answer because I had thought hard about them myself. However, I read nothing about apologetics and simply tried to understand how skeptics think and feel. And I familiarized myself with atheist authors like Dawkins and Hitchens.
Then for the first time I picked up a book on apologetics by Norm Geisler. I was not impressed because Geisler talked about evolution as if it were synonymous with naturalism—a pet peeve of mine—and he did not answer questions directly. So that book quickly started collecting dust on my bookshelf.
For the most part, I learned apologetics by debating skeptics. And I eventually read William Lane Craig, Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Richard Swinburne, and Tim Keller, as well as numerous non-theists like Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, and Paul Davies.
For me it’s not a question of wanting to believe Christianity is true—I do believe it, both intuitively and intellectually. And I believe it even more strongly after spending a year-and-a-half subjecting my beliefs to critical scrutiny by people who disagree with me. All along, my attitude has been that I will abandon what is false and believe what is true, and it has only reinforced my faith.
A. Anette Acker: First, why does the second half of Acts detail Paul’s battle but then end after Paul appeals to Caesar but before the trial actually takes place? Why is the climactic ending omitted from the story?
ReplyDelete1) The purpose of Acts (connection between generational Christians by Paul) was completed once Paul exited Stage Left.
2) Length
3) 1 Clement indicates no knowledge of a “climatic ending”—perhaps there wasn’t one. Only late 2nd Century forgeries indicated any “climatic ending.”
B. Anette Acker: Second, there are numerous references to the temple, but no hint that the author knows that it has been destroyed.
1) The author had already indicated Jerusalem was destroyed in his first Book. (Luke 21:24), so there is not only a “hint”—there is outright proclamation. No need to repeat it in the Second book.
2) Anette Acker: The author included the prophecies in Luke, and Jerusalem was in fact destroyed,….
C. Anette Acker: Third, since a recurring theme of Acts is fulfilled (OT) prophecy, why not mention the fall of Jerusalem and point to the alleged prophecies of Jesus.
1. Because Jesus isn’t on the scene—Peter and Paul are.
2. Because the story doesn’t occur during the fall of Jerusalem—i.e. the story happens between 30 CE and 62 CE, whereas Jerusalem fell in 70 CE. As one person has already noted: Anette Acker: Even if the book of Acts was a story about a little Jewish girl and her pony it would most likely at least mention the destruction of Jerusalem if it happened at the time of the story. [emphasis added]
3. Because the story was written for a different purpose, to a different demographic that the fall of Jerusalem was irrelevant to that demographic.
“Luke writes for a predominantly Gentile Christian Community, for he clearly presupposes the Gentile mission in which freedom from the Law is proclaimed. In addition, for him the displacement of Israel from its favored place in the history of salvation is already a reality. He is aware of his obligation to the tradition of Greco-Roman history of writing, but is not always correct about Palestinian geography, and avoids Semitic concepts and expressions or replaces them with Greek ones. Luke omits Markan pericopes and possibly also texts from the Q source in which Palestinian features dominate and that were obviously no longer of relevance for the Lucan community.” [numerous citations omitted] History and Theology of New Testament Writings pg. 244.
D. Anette Acker: Fourth, since as you indicated, a recurring theme of Acts is that the followers of Jesus are law-abiding and the Jews are subversive, why would Luke not include the war of 66 AD, when the Jews did in fact revolt against Rome?
1) Because the events of the story occurred between 30 – 62 CE which is prior to 66 CE.
2) Because the story is written for the continuity of salvation from the Jews to the Gentiles is through the converted Jew Paul—not the fall of Jerusalem. (See History, pg. 271-274)
3) Because the story is written with the presupposition Judaism is displaced or in disfavor.
4) Because the author had already indicated knowledge of the revolt, when appropriate in his previous work.
5) Because the work is written TO Gentile Christians, FOR Gentile Christians, ABOUT Gentile Christians. The Jewish War was not their concern. (Except, at best, as an apocalyptic event, but as pointed out, Luke is already provided apologia for the delayed parousia.)
No…no, I claim no “higher enlightenment.” I just study the subject and review the arguments.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteIt is also true that we had been discussing the purpose of Acts, but your comment raised a question about the prevailing attitude of Christians in general towards the Roman government. It is reasonable to think that the letter that Paul had written to the Romans might have formed part of the background for that attitude. Regarding that attitude, there was no reason to limit consideration to the events recounted in Acts.
All right, Vinny, I’ll give you what was originally going to be my response, but, “Aren’t you the guy who keeps stressing that you regard the authors of the books of the Bible as independent, and must be analyzed as such?” was shorter. (This reminds me of those times when I've tried to save money on a bargain brand that turns out to be “crappy,” so I end up spending even more money to replace it with what I should have bought in the first place.)
There is no reason to think that the early Christians, and Paul himself, had the attitude that the Romans would never harm them if they did the right thing. In Acts 22:24, Roman soldiers and centurions take Paul to the barracks to be examined by scourging, and he was only released because he announced that he was a Roman citizen. I'm sure that cross-examination by torture would have fallen within Paul's definition of "harm."
Acts 5:41 gives an attitude of the early Christians when it says that Peter and the apostles rejoiced, “that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for [Jesus’] name.” After Paul describes his persecutions in 2 Timothy 3, he says: “Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”
However, without qualification this is a very dangerous teaching, because there are many possible reasons why Christians are persecuted, and when faced with two explanations: A) “I am being rejected for being obnoxious,” and B) “I am being persecuted for the sake of righteousness,” it would be very tempting to conclude, “Hmm . . . I think I’ll pick B!” even if A is closer to the truth.
1 Peter 2:13-14 elaborates on Romans 13, and puts it in the context of persecution, which is the theme of 1 Peter: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of evil men.”
And 1 Peter 3:13 says: “Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed.”
In other words, the message is that those who always try to do the right thing will usually be well liked, respected, and avoid trouble with the authorities. However, this is not always the case, and Paul goes so far as to say that all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (2 Timothy 3:12).
Jesus also talks about persecution for the sake of righteousness by putting it into the proper context first, by stressing that the peacemakers, the pure in heart, the merciful, etc. are “blessed,” and only then does He say: “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecuted you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.” A key word there is “falsely.”
So the New Testament teachings on the subject are two-fold: To encourage Christians who really are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, and to warn that being “trampled under foot by men,” is not necessarily a sign of God’s favor. It could just mean that we are failing to be “salt” and “light” in the world (Matthew 5:13-16).
There is no reason to think that the early Christians, and Paul himself, had the attitude that the Romans would never harm them if they did the right thing. In Acts 22:24, Roman soldiers and centurions take Paul to the barracks to be examined by scourging, and he was only released because he announced that he was a Roman citizen. I'm sure that cross-examination by torture would have fallen within Paul's definition of "harm."
ReplyDeleteI don’t know how Paul could be any clearer than Romans 13:3-4. “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
From what I could find, Romans is supposed to have been written before the incident described in Acts 22 so I cannot see how that incident can shed any light on what Paul meant in the epistle. Maybe the incident caused him to change his mind, but maybe not since he didn’t actually suffer any harm. In either case, I don’t see any reason to think that he really didn’t mean what he wrote in Romans 13. Moreover, it’s impossible to say how widely known that incident was prior to the composition and circulation of Acts.
As you probably know, an awful lot of scholars don’t think that Paul really wrote the Pastoral Epistles. Even a conservative scholar like Dan Wallace, who does hold to Pauline authorship, acknowledges the strength of the arguments for pseudonymity. If in fact the Pastorals were written by someone other than Paul early in the second century, they don’t tell us much about what was in Paul’ head when he wrote the letter to the Romans.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteFrom what I could find, Romans is supposed to have been written before the incident described in Acts 22 so I cannot see how that incident can shed any light on what Paul meant in the epistle. Maybe the incident caused him to change his mind, but maybe not since he didn’t actually suffer any harm. In either case, I don’t see any reason to think that he really didn’t mean what he wrote in Romans 13. Moreover, it’s impossible to say how widely known that incident was prior to the composition and circulation of Acts.
Let’s put this back into context so that we don’t go off on an irrelevant tangent. The overarching question is whether Luke-Acts was written after the fall of Jerusalem, or if Jesus prophesied the event.
I raised the question of why Acts does not mention an important event like the fall of Jerusalem. DagoodS replied by saying that the purpose of Acts determines whether the fall of Jerusalem is relevant. He then said to his lurkers that the message is, “Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side.”
I replied to that by saying, “Fourth, since as you indicated, a recurring theme of Acts is that the followers of Jesus are law-abiding and the Jews are subversive, why would Luke not include the war of 66 AD, when the Jews did in fact revolt against Rome? If in fact the message is, as you said: ‘Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side,’ the Great Revolt would have been HIGHLY relevant.”
You then said, “If Acts was written after the destruction of the temple, it was also written after Nero’s persecution. The author might have omitted both incidents simply because he might have viewed it as too risky or too difficult to portray the Romans as the good guys in one case and not the other.”
I have given several examples in Acts of the Romans not being “good,” including Acts 22, but I will add Acts 16:22-24, where Paul and Silas were beaten with rods and thrown into prison, with their feet fastened in the stocks.
If the author of Acts is trying to convince the post-70 AD Christian reader (who knows all about Nero’s persecution) that the Romans are good, he is doing a terrible job at it. Even if you think that the Gospels were whole cloth fabrications and Jesus never existed, by the time of the writing of Acts, Christians would have been familiar with the story of Jesus being delivered to Pontius Pilate, who had Him scourged and crucified. In fact, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:2: “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” So Paul knew, around the mid-50s AD, when 1 Corinthians and Romans were written, that Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
But even if Paul really believed, when he wrote the letter to the Romans, that Christians would be safe from harm by the Roman government if they did the right thing, there is absolutely no reason to think that the author of Acts believed that, especially if he was writing after 70 AD. And even if he wrote before Nero’s persecution, which is of course my position, he shows the Romans harming Jesus, Paul, and Silas.
So the questions remain unanswered: Why, if Acts was written after 70 AD, does it not mention Nero’s persecution and the fall of Jerusalem, two major events? And why do we not find out what happens after Paul appeals to Caesar? Even if there is no "climatic ending," the reader is led to anticipate some kind of resolution to Paul's legal battle.
DagoodS:
I hope you had a great vacation.
For the most part, you are simply restating your previous arguments, without addressing the points I've made in the interim. Your quote from History and Theology of New Testament Writings is a series of assertions about what Luke "clearly presupposes" and what is "obviously no longer of relevance for the Lucan community.” I disagree with the assertions, there are no new arguments to address, and therefore my responses are what they were before.
But even if Paul really believed, when he wrote the letter to the Romans, that Christians would be safe from harm by the Roman government if they did the right thing, there is absolutely no reason to think that the author of Acts believed that, especially if he was writing after 70 AD. And even if he wrote before Nero’s persecution, which is of course my position, he shows the Romans harming Jesus, Paul, and Silas.
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote above: “The powerless often treat their oppressors as if they were their benefactors in the hopes of winning their favor or avoiding even harsher treatment. There are countless examples of this throughout history.”
After the American Civil War, there was a period known as Reconstruction in which the United States government tried to protect the rights of the recently freed slaves in the south. However, northerners quickly tired of this task and political power in the south was returned to the same upper class whites who had been slaveholders prior to the war. Blacks who had temerity to think that they were entitled to the same rights as white men were liable to be beaten or lynched.
Given their powerless state, some Black leaders thought that the best chance former slaves had to improve their situation was by proving to their oppressors that they could be good and useful citizens. They urged Blacks to accept the oppression and the discrimination with equanimity. Since fighting back was hopeless, they thought that Blacks were better off accepting their fate.
Native Americans also put up with a great deal of shit from white Americans. Over and over again, the United States government broke the treaties it made with the Indian tribes when it decided that it wanted the land that it had promised the tribes forever. Sometimes the Indians fought back but they were inevitably crushed by superior numbers and technology Nevertheless, Indians continued to treat whites as if they could be trusted and continued to rely on their promises for the simple reason that they were powerless to do anything else.
I could go on an on: Jews in Czarist Russian, native peoples in almost many of the colonies of the British or French empires. People try to get along with their oppressors because that’s their best chance to survive.
Christians were a tiny powerless minority in the Roman Empire of the first century. Even after an event as horrific as Nero’s persecution, there would be nothing unusual about their leaders teaching them that things would be alright if they were good citizens who obeyed the laws. The only alternative was to rebel and be destroyed like the Jews in Palestine.
Anette Acker,
ReplyDeleteI would apologize for the reiteration, but if you ask questions you think have already been answered, one would think you should expect some repetition, no?
And, no, I don’t see where you have responded to the issues:
1) Luke knows the fall of Jerusalem in first book. How could his second book be written prior to his first book?
2) Acts covers a time frame of 30 - 62 CE. Why (and where) would Luke mention an event occurring outside this time frame? [Note, we can see the reasoning behind Luke mentioning the Fall of Jerusalem in the Gospel, even though the event occurred outside the 6 -30 CE time frame.]
3) Why would Luke’s intended audience (Gentile Christians) care about the Jewish War, where Jews (not Christians) revolted for Jewish religious (not Christian religious) reasons as well as Jewish (not Christian) political reasons?
You can hand-wave all you want about what your internal feelings are (coming from a 21st Century perspective and displaying an abysmal lack of understanding regarding both biblical study and First Century Mediterranean culture) but you have yet to provide forthright responses to these fairly simple questions.
And yes, I followed the points made in the interim. The Neronian persecution is an even worse argument. Not only does it fall outside the scope of time (the 30 – 62 CE), but Luke is deliberately avoiding any claims of Roman persecution. It makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever for Luke to repeatedly state (and even modify Paul’s account), “Wasn’t the Roman authorities persecuting Christians. Wasn’t the Roman authorities persecuting Christians” and then include the Neronian account.
Additionally, at the time Acts was written (around 100 CE), Nero was long dead. The focus of Christianity would be on what the present Emperor’s position would be, if at all. Reminding Domitian or Trajan that Nero once persecuted Christians would neither help nor harm the Christian cause.
I quoted from Schnelle, more to see the depth of your knowledge in biblical studies. Not surprisingly, what is taken for granted by (I would suspect most) biblical scholars of all theistic positions, you claim are “assertions.” Of course you disagree with these claims—they are well-attested, well-argued, but fly in the face of your internal paradigm.
And I found it particularly amusing; considering you raised the argument Acts was a “pre-trial brief.” An assertion where we have:
1) No other “pre-trial briefs” to compare it to;
2) Indeed, we don’t even have any indication such a genre even existed; that anyone EVER did such a “pre-trial brief.”
Yet on such a bare assertion, you demanded a counter-argument from me. Apparently in your world, well-argued claims against your feelings are “assertions” needing no response, and arguments you favor, with no support, demand a counter-argument.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteChristians were a tiny powerless minority in the Roman Empire of the first century. Even after an event as horrific as Nero’s persecution, there would be nothing unusual about their leaders teaching them that things would be alright if they were good citizens who obeyed the laws. The only alternative was to rebel and be destroyed like the Jews in Palestine.
But you have not established that their leaders did in fact teach them that all would be alright if they obeyed the laws. You relied on a proof text from the mid-50s, which may possibly support your position, but none of the other NT writings do. Acts certainly doesn’t.
Also, although the Christians were a tiny minority in the Roman Empire around the first century, the evidence we have indicates that they did not act like these other groups you mentioned. They obeyed the laws and didn’t revolt, but they did not cave to pressure by the powerful groups. In Acts 5:30 the apostles tell the Jewish Council that they would not stop preaching the Gospel because they had to obey God rather than men. In Acts 7, Stephen spoke truth to power—the same people who had Jesus killed—even when it cost him his life. In the letter by Pliny the Younger in 112 AD, he talks about Christians refusing to renounce their faith even when tortured and threatened with capital punishment, and he says: “For whatever the nature of their creed might be, I could at least feel no doubt that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy deserved chastisement.”
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you don’t actually engage with my arguments, and given our track record in this discussion, forgive me if I’m not entirely convinced that you’re trying. If you look back at what I’ve said before, you’ll know how I’d reply to your assertion that Acts was written “TO Gentile Christians,” and you’d know that one of my questions is why Acts ends in 60-62 AD if it was written several decades later, and that the overarching question in this discussion is whether the author of Luke-Acts had actual knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem or if he merely knew that Jesus prophesied it. And in the context of that question, you are making a circular argument when you say, “Luke knows the fall of Jerusalem in first book. How could his second book be written prior to his first book?”
You can display the depth of your knowledge of biblical studies all you want, and it might even impress some people. But I am often unimpressed with the ability of Bible scholars to reason logically, so waving their words in my face doesn’t convince me of anything. You still have not explained why none of the major events that happened within a decade of the conclusion of Acts—including the outcome of Paul’s appeal to Caesar—would have been irrelevant to Luke. In other words, why end Acts in 60-62 AD?
Anette Acker,
ReplyDeleteYou don’t really understand what a “circular argument is,” do you?
Luke copied Mark. (Remember? We were having that discussion on the Synoptic Problem—a biblical issue scholars are quite resonant in, and you displayed your complete unfamiliarity with.)
Mark was writing in a deliberate apocalyptic motif—central to which is writing of past events as if they were prophesied in the far distance past. Simply put--Mark was written after the fall of Jerusalem. Let alone the Gospel of Luke (copying Mark). Let alone Acts, which was written after the Gospel.
These are all basic facts. Known to biblical scholars. I can understand why you are “unimpressed”—their conclusions do not fit your paradigm, so you dismiss them without consideration.
Oh, yes, I get that those bound to certain Christian beliefs insist Mark 13 really WAS prophetic, and therefore could be written prior to Jewish War. That is special pleading—granting consideration to a work the apologist considers Divine they would NEVER grant to any other work, such as the Qur’an.
If we have an undated writing that “predicts” an event, we start with the presumption the writing was written after the event. Common sense. That may be a rebuttable presumption, but merely crying, “I want it earlier” is insufficient to do so.
Since Mark “predicts” the fall of Jerusalem, and is undated—we consider it to be dated at or after 70 CE.
Annette Acker: If you look back at what I’ve said before, you’ll know how I’d reply to your assertion that Acts was written “TO Gentile Christians,”…
I presume you would ignore the evidence and argument of countless biblical scholars (from conservative Christian to liberal atheist) indicating such, because you are “unimpressed with biblical scholars.” Even those holding to your position of an early date, understand it was written to Gentile Christians. (See Dan Wallace, for example.)
Annette Acker: In other words, why end Acts in 60-62 AD?
Because the author’s intent was complete. He had transitioned the doctrines from the Disciples to the third-generation Christians via Paul. The simple answer is that Paul didn’t do anything beyond 60-62 CE. (Again, remember the author of Acts knows Paul is dead at the time of the writing.)
You presume there was a trial before Nero—yet we have no evidence of any such thing. (Other than, perhaps, the big build-up by the author of Acts.) 1 Clement (dated 60 -120 CE) does not know of any such trial, despite it fitting his theme. Acts of Paul (150 – 200 CE) has Nero summoning Paul, but no knowledge of any “trial” before Nero.
Further, if Paul was executed by the Romans (either after losing a trial, or caught up on a persecution), to then relay that goes against the author’s deliberate avoidance regarding Roman persecution of the Christians.
As I stated earlier, silly to say, “Romans don’t persecute Christians. Romans don’t persecute Christians. Oh…the Romans killed Paul.”
But you have not established that their leaders did in fact teach them that all would be alright if they obeyed the laws. You relied on a proof text from the mid-50s, which may possibly support your position, but none of the other NT writings do. Acts certainly doesn’t.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I like to refer to as “moving the goal posts.”
I was responding to your claim that “even if Paul really believed, when he wrote the letter to the Romans, that Christians would be safe from harm by the Roman government if they did the right thing, there is absolutely no reason to think that the author of Acts believed that, especially if he was writing after 70 AD.” (emphasis added) I was showing you that there is a perfectly logical reason to think that the author of Acts might have constructed his narrative with that idea in mind even if he wasn’t as certain about it as he might have liked to have been, and even if circumstances had change since Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. That reason is that powerless groups have often treated their oppressors as if they were benefactors for a variety of pragmatic reasons, e.g., the desire to avoid harsher treatment, the hope of winning acceptance, and the futility of resistance.
You are correct that I haven’t proved that any specific Christian leader other than Paul (who is quite clear on the point) taught the Romans Christians that they had nothing to fear from the government if they obeyed the law. However, I never claimed that I did or could establish that. On the other hand, you yourself say that “Christians obeyed the laws and didn’t revolt” so I think it perfectly reasonable to think that they were taught to do so.
I find it interesting that you now claim that Acts doesn’t support the idea that Christians were taught that they need not fear the Roman government when you earlier pointed out that Acts portrays Paul as expecting to get justice from the Roman emperor.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteYou don’t really understand what a “circular argument is,” do you?
Yes, I do, but that is always a good rhetorical response when you can’t explain why your argument is not circular.
If we have an undated writing that “predicts” an event, we start with the presumption the writing was written after the event. Common sense. That may be a rebuttable presumption, but merely crying, “I want it earlier” is insufficient to do so.
I am treating it as a rebuttable presumption, which is why I’m asking questions about Acts that you have yet to answer in a non-circular way.
Since Mark “predicts” the fall of Jerusalem, and is undated—we consider it to be dated at or after 70 CE.
So now you are saying that the presumption is not rebuttable?
I presume you would ignore the evidence and argument of countless biblical scholars (from conservative Christian to liberal atheist) indicating such, because you are “unimpressed with biblical scholars.” Even those holding to your position of an early date, understand it was written to Gentile Christians. (See Dan Wallace, for example.)
If you would like to rely on Dan Wallace or other Bible scholars, you will have to tell me exactly how they would respond to my objections. Otherwise, your mention of them is simply an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. If they can give a convincing response to my point that kratistos (“most excellent”) is only used in reference to Roman officials, I will cease to be unimpressed.
By the way, I have a lot of respect for Dan Wallace, and I consider him someone who substantiates what he says. There are others I likewise respect. But when Bible scholars--conservative, moderate, or liberal--simply make assertions and don’t explain why, I remain unconvinced. Majority opinion is only convincing to me if it actually explains the evidence logically.
Because the author’s intent was complete. He had transitioned the doctrines from the Disciples to the third-generation Christians via Paul.
I responded to that by comparing the positions of Jesus and Paul on major doctrines.
(Again, remember the author of Acts knows Paul is dead at the time of the writing.)
All we know is that Luke knows that Paul prophesied his death. To assume from this that Paul was actually dead is to use the same kind of circular reasoning that you used when you said that Luke’s description of the parousia in the Gospel means the fall of Jerusalem had already happened.
You presume there was a trial before Nero—yet we have no evidence of any such thing. (Other than, perhaps, the big build-up by the author of Acts.)
I presume no such thing. I’m simply pointing out that the author of Acts builds up to Paul’s appeal to Nero, and then nothing happens. No explanation, nothing. I have not been given any plausible explanation for why that would be if the events had already happened. Therefore, the most reasonable explanation is that they had not yet happened.
Further, if Paul was executed by the Romans (either after losing a trial, or caught up on a persecution), to then relay that goes against the author’s deliberate avoidance regarding Roman persecution of the Christians.
Wikepedia says: “Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.”
A proposition to be proved in this discussion is whether or not the author’s message in Acts is “Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side.” You assumed that proposition as a premise in your attempt to explain why Paul’s death (and Nero’s persecution) is not included in Acts. Hence, you are employing circular reasoning.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteI was showing you that there is a perfectly logical reason to think that the author of Acts might have constructed his narrative with that idea in mind even if he wasn’t as certain about it as he might have liked to have been, and even if circumstances had change since Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. That reason is that powerless groups have often treated their oppressors as if they were benefactors for a variety of pragmatic reasons, e.g., the desire to avoid harsher treatment, the hope of winning acceptance, and the futility of resistance.
First, let me remind you that you are defending DagoodS’s assertion that the reason why the author of Acts omitted any mention of Nero’s persecution even if he wrote several decades later is because he is portraying the Romans as good, in order to avoid persecution. So the "goal post" has always been simply that you substantiate that assertion.
And although I do appreciate the fact that you are actually trying to so, you seem to be doing it in the exact way DagoodS deemed “unconvincing” in an earlier thread, by focusing on what is logically possible rather than what the evidence supports.
DagoodS said to Sam: “’Logical Possibility’ is a very low threshold. What I am talking about is convincing claims—something presented as plausible enough to overcome the objector’s initial disinclination to be persuaded.”
I couldn’t agree more! (Unless of course this is in response to a claim that something is logically impossible, which I think is what Sam was arguing.) In this case, mere logical possibility is not sufficient because the evidence contradicts your claim. To recap:
1. Acts shows Christians being harmed by Romans acting in their official capacity.
2. Luke shows Jesus being unjustly executed by Pontius Pilate.
3. Acts, as well as early extra-biblical sources, show Christians defying people in power who ask them to disobey God.
4. None of the NT authors, except maybe Paul in Romans, say or imply that Christians will necessarily be free from harm by doing the right thing.
In other words, all the internal evidence of Luke-Acts and most of the external evidence contradicts the assertion that the author omitted mention of Nero’s persecution to portray the Romans as “good,” and that they would not harm Christians if they behaved. And since you have the burden of proof any time you make an assertion, it is not sufficient for you merely to rely on a logically possible explanation and ignore all the evidence against your claim.
I find it interesting that you now claim that Acts doesn’t support the idea that Christians were taught that they need not fear the Roman government when you earlier pointed out that Acts portrays Paul as expecting to get justice from the Roman emperor.
The Romans are neither portrayed in Luke-Acts as "good," nor are they portrayed as monsters who had no concern whatsoever for justice. However, Nero turned out to be a monster on the magnitude of Hitler. But he may not always have been considered a monster. Just like Hitler is especially infamous for the Holocaust, Nero is especially infamous for his persecution of Christians and his involvement in the burning of Rome. So if a writing shows a Christian having some expectation of justice from Nero, and the author makes no commentary to the contrary, and he is addressing Christians, then that indicates that it was written before the persecution.
If it was written afterwards, the Christians would have known about the persecution of Nero, and there is no reason not to mention it if the author is willing to mention Romans scourging and crucifying Jesus as well as beating and imprisoning Paul and Silas.
Anette,
ReplyDeleteActually, I am not even sure that Dagoods made that assertion, and if he did, I wouldn’t try to defend it for him since he is much better read on these issues than I am.
What I have been doing all along is raising objections to your assertion that the author’s failure to mention the Jewish-Roman war and the fall of Jerusalem “indicates that Acts was written before these major events occurred.” That was the assertion that you originally made and which I do not believe you have ever sustained.
Standing alone, the fact that a book doesn’t mention an important event doesn’t prove that it was written before the event occurred. World War I was a very important event, but it isn’t mentioned in Gone with the Wind. That doesn’t give us any reason to doubt that Gone with the Wind was written after World War I, however, because Gone with the Wind is a story about the Civil War and we wouldn’t expect it to mention World War I.
The argument that Acts was written before the Jewish-Roman war and the fall of Jerusalem is an argument from silence, i.e., because the author is silent about these events, we can conclude that they had not yet occurred. In order to sustain the argument from silence, it is necessary to show that it is likely that the author would have mentioned the events if he had known about them. In order to refute the argument from silence all that is necessary is logical reasons why the author might have chosen not to mention them.
The fact that there are logically possible reasons why the author might not have mentioned these events does not by itself give us a positive reason to believe that Acts was written after they occurred. It simply rebuts the argument from silence. However, the description of the fall of the temple in Luke does provide positive reason to think that it was composed after the event, which in turn gives us positive reason to think that Acts was.
You have also raised the possibility that Acts was a pre-trial brief, which would also put its composition prior to the Jewish-Roman war and the fall of Jerusalem. This is not an argument from silence. However, since we don’t seem to have any evidence that pre-trial briefs were even a part of Roman legal practice, this strikes me as pure speculation, if not wishful thinking.
Anette Acker,
ReplyDeleteAs I ran this morning, I started to put together a response in my mind. I realized two things:
1) It would be too long to fit a comment; and
2) I doubt I will have time this weekend to put it together.
Therefore, I beg your patience, as I will try to put something up by the beginning of next week.
(Although I now see Vinny has stated precisely what I was thinking, only more succinctly.)
Vinny,
To clarify, I think there would be multiple reasons why Luke would not mention the Neronian persecution. (Curious 1 Clement doesn’t mention it, despite listing “recent” martyrs. Also curious we know more about it from non-Christian sources than Christian sources. If Nero was so “infamous” for it, Christians other than Luke were quite quiet about it.)
Certainly one reason would be Luke’s penchant to paint Romans more positive toward Christianity than Jews. I recommend anyone actually READ Acts and see how many times the author blames “the Jews, the Jews, the Jews” whereas the Roman-established authorities are demonstrated as receptive to what the Christians were saying.
Anette Acker mentioned Paul and Silas put in jail by Roman-established authorities (they were.) She failed to mention who released them—the same authorities! Also that she had to pick out a singular story from the numerous ones regarding Jews harassing Paul.
Whether Luke’s motivation was to specifically avoid persecution…I don’t know. (For various reasons, I doubt it.) Much like Josephus painted his Flavian patrons in a positive light, it would certainly conform to the evidence Luke was painting Romans in a positive light in deference to his Patron—Theophilus. (The explanation for why Theophilus is called “Most excellent” in Luke, but the honorific is dropped as unnecessary in Acts.)
Luke avoided claiming the Romans persecuted Christians because he wanted Romans to look good—not to avoid possible future persecution.
The fact that there are logically possible reasons why the author might not have mentioned these events does not by itself give us a positive reason to believe that Acts was written after they occurred. It simply rebuts the argument from silence. [emphasis added]
ReplyDeleteI would quibble that logical possibility is too broad here, even to serve as a rebuttal; logical possibility can support almost everything, especially if one adds ad hoc hypotheses. I would say rather that reasonable possibility rebuts the argument from silence: we have evidence to support a reason to believe that the author omitted recounting events he already knew about.
Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteI think my point was mostly that there would be nothing odd about a Christian writing positive things about the Romans even if persecution was an imminent threat or had recently occurred. That's the kind of thing that powerless and oppressed peoples have been forced to do to survive throughout history.
However, the persecution of Christians was on the whole fairly sporadic and scattered. I don't see anything to suggest that Luke was writing for a community where official persecution was prevalent so I wouldn't guess that it played a big part in his thinking either.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteThat's probably a fair quibble, although what is reasonable is going to vary depending on how you assess the likelihood that the author would have remained silent about the matter in question. If there is only a logical possibility that he would have mentioned it had he known, it's going to take less to rebut it.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteActually, I am not even sure that Dagoods made that assertion, and if he did, I wouldn’t try to defend it for him since he is much better read on these issues than I am.
DagoodS made the assertion that the message of Acts was that Jews were bad, Romans were good, and Christians were on the Romans’ side. Then he announced that he was going on a short vacation. I replied by asking four questions, one of which was directly related to his statement about the message of Acts:
“Fourth, since as you indicated, a recurring theme of Acts is that the followers of Jesus are law-abiding and the Jews are subversive, why would Luke not include the war of 66 AD, when the Jews did in fact revolt against Rome? If in fact the message is, as you said: “Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side,” the Great Revolt would have been HIGHLY relevant.”
You then replied by saying, “Since Dagoods is out of town, I'll take a stab at it.” So that is why you defended his assertion, and you did so by saying:
“If Acts was written after the destruction of the temple, it was also written after Nero’s persecution. The author might have omitted both incidents simply because he might have viewed it as too risky or too difficult to portray the Romans as the good guys in one case and not the other.”
DagoodS has recently said: “Whether Luke’s motivation was to specifically avoid persecution…I don’t know. (For various reasons, I doubt it.)” As I’ve indicated in our discussion, I agree with him—although it’s logically possible, it contradicts much of the evidence, and I further agree with DagoodS that Luke seems to be writing at a time when Christians were not experiencing much persecution from the Romans.
However, in the above quote I conceded that “a recurring theme of Acts is that the followers of Jesus are law-abiding and the Jews are subversive,” and since that is the case, I still maintain that the Great Revolt would have been highly relevant. I still have not been given a reasonable answer to the question of why it was omitted, since it fits so well with the theme of Acts.
Standing alone, the fact that a book doesn’t mention an important event doesn’t prove that it was written before the event occurred. World War I was a very important event, but it isn’t mentioned in Gone with the Wind. That doesn’t give us any reason to doubt that Gone with the Wind was written after World War I, however, because Gone with the Wind is a story about the Civil War and we wouldn’t expect it to mention World War I.
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely true, which is why I didn’t even mention Nero’s persecution in my four questions above. Just like World War I is not relevant to Gone with the Wind, Nero’s persecution is not necessarily relevant to the theme of Acts. However, the outcome of Paul’s appeal to Nero is relevant, and so is the Great Revolt, because as DagoodS has argued, and I have conceded, Acts portrays Christians as law-abiding and respectful of the Romans and the Jews as subversive. So why would the author not include the most persuasive evidence for his message?
You have dismissed this as an argument from silence; however, arguments from silence are not always fallacious. Consider the following example, found numerous places on the Internet:
John: Do you know any Spanish?
Jack: Of course. I speak it like a native.
John: That's good, because I need to know the Spanish phrase for "Happy Birthday".
Jack: Sorry, I don't have time for that right now. Maybe tomorrow. Bye.
John can then reasonably conclude, by argument from silence, that Jack does not really know Spanish, or doesn’t know it well. It is the most plausible explanation for why he doesn’t answer the question, especially if he continues to refuse. There are other logically possible explanations, but since it would be quick and easy for Jack to answer the question if he knows Spanish, failure to do so indicates that he doesn’t really speak it like a native.
I have argued above that the most plausible explanation for why the author of Acts does not mention the Great Revolt or the outcome of Paul’s appeal is because those events had not yet happened. However, I have requested other explanations, and the only one I have received is your argument about persecution, which is logically possible but not plausible, given the evidence.
You have also raised the possibility that Acts was a pre-trial brief, which would also put its composition prior to the Jewish-Roman war and the fall of Jerusalem. This is not an argument from silence. However, since we don’t seem to have any evidence that pre-trial briefs were even a part of Roman legal practice, this strikes me as pure speculation, if not wishful thinking.
ReplyDeleteLet’s not get too caught up in the words “pre-trial brief,” because whatever they did in preparation for trial in the Roman Empire is probably only loosely analogous. However, here is a list of some of my earlier arguments, and a few new ones:
1. Theophilus is address with the honorific, “most excellent,” which is used to address Roman officials of high rank.
2. John W. Mauck had an email consultation with Professor Vasily Rudich of Yale and author of Political Dissidence Under Nero, and found that Rome would have had an office of a cognitionibus, pretrial judicial investigation, that was created by Claudius, Nero’s predecessor. Theophilus may well have been the official in charge of this investigation.
3. Luke 1:3 says that he has investigated everything carefully from the beginning.
4. Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White says, in reference to Acts 24:5, where the high priest’s attorney accuses Paul of stirring up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world: “The charge was precisely the one to bring against a Jew during the Principate of Claudius or the early years of Nero. The accusers of Paul were putting themselves on the side of the government. The procurator would know at once what the prosecution meant.” In other words, the legal charge against Paul appears to be insurrection.
5. Sherwin-White also says: “The complication and prolongation of the trial of Paul arose from the fact that the charge was political—hence the procurators were reluctant to dismiss it out of hand—and yet the evidence was theological, hence the procurators were quite unable to understand it.”
The political charge of insurrection would explain why Theophilus took this matter as seriously as he apparently did, even if he was a non-Christian Roman official. The above quote also explains why Luke-Acts is as theological as it is.
6. Luke-Acts uses the word “witnesses” far more often than the other narratives.
7. Luke stresses twice that the man the Jews wanted Pilate to release instead of Jesus was charged with insurrection (Luke 23:19, 23:25). Mark also mentions the insurrection of Barabbas, but not with each mention of his name.
8. Unlike Matthew and Mark, Luke is explicit about the legal charge against Jesus: “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King" (Luke 23:2).
9. In Luke 23:14, Pilate says, “You brought this man to me as one who incites the people to rebellion, and behold, having examined Him before you, I have found no guilt in this man regarding the charges which you make against Him.” This is not repeated in the other accounts.
10. Of all the Gospels, only Luke describes all four legal proceedings leading up to the crucifixion: The hearings before the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, and the final sentencing by Pilate. Luke 23:15 mentions that, like Pilate, Herod found Jesus not guilty.
I could say more in support of this hypothesis, but I will simply state that it is completely consistent with all the evidence, and it explains why Acts ends after Paul appeals to Caesar but without telling us what happens.
And with all that talk about insurrection in Luke-Acts, does it make any sense that the author would omit the Great Revolt if it had actually taken place?
Anette Acker,
ReplyDeleteYour latest statements indicate I may avoid a long blog entry. Two questions about your position:
1) Who did Luke write Acts for? I.e.—who did Luke intend to read Acts? Are you saying it was just Theophilus, or a broader group? And if a broader group—what was the specific demographic of that group?
2) What need was Luke intending to fill by writing Acts? Was he providing history of a certain period? Was he providing a certain argument? What was he trying to tell the group listed in your answer to question 1?
No one is claiming an Argument from Silence is a fallacy. Both Vinny and I have used it, specifically in another area which I dare not mention or we will be off on another tangent.
However, a necessity for the underpinning of an Argument from Silence is to make a specific claim towards the author’s purpose or style.
Now, I know you may feel you have already answered these two questions, but to be honest, I couldn’t, for the life of me, determine what it is. If you are not claiming it is a “pre-trial brief;” let us drop any arguments or discussions for it. If it is, let us focus on those arguments and drop the argument from silence.
DagoodS,
ReplyDelete1) Who did Luke write Acts for? I.e.—who did Luke intend to read Acts? Are you saying it was just Theophilus, or a broader group? And if a broader group—what was the specific demographic of that group?
It was probably a broader group, but for the purposes of this discussion I’m focusing on the ways in which it fits as a part of pretrial investigation.
2) What need was Luke intending to fill by writing Acts? Was he providing history of a certain period? Was he providing a certain argument? What was he trying to tell the group listed in your answer to question 1?
I think he was giving facts about Christianity, detailing previous legal proceedings and their outcomes, and trying to prove that Christians were not insurrectionists.
However, a necessity for the underpinning of an Argument from Silence is to make a specific claim towards the author’s purpose or style.
All that is required for an effective argument from silence is that “mentioning a fact is so natural that its omission is a good reason to assume ignorance” (that's from Wikipedia, but other sites say the same thing less succinctly). For example, giving the Spanish translation of “Happy birthday” when asked would have been expected of someone who knows the language. Likewise, for someone whose theme is “Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side,” it would be almost inconceivable that he not mention the Jewish revolt.
You are the one who made the specific claim toward the author’s purpose, and I simply agreed with part of it and used it as a basis for my argument from silence. So if that is a requirement for an effective argument from silence, you have taken care of that problem for me.
If you are not claiming it is a “pre-trial brief;” let us drop any arguments or discussions for it. If it is, let us focus on those arguments and drop the argument from silence.
I don’t see why I should have to drop one of the arguments—I find both of them persuasive. The argument from silence is persuasive to me because you still haven’t answered my question, and the “pre-trial brief” argument is persuasive to me because, although it is only a hypothesis and I am by no means certain of it, it fits the facts. I was also interested to see the extent to which Sherwin-White’s discussions of the NT trials fit this thesis (although he doesn’t advance it).
But as a practical matter, I will probably drop them both because we’re having a visitor come for a week and I don’t know whether I will have any time. (And if I do, I should probably write a post for my blog that I have ignored for over a month.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the above quote I conceded that “a recurring theme of Acts is that the followers of Jesus are law-abiding and the Jews are subversive,” and since that is the case, I still maintain that the Great Revolt would have been highly relevant. I still have not been given a reasonable answer to the question of why it was omitted, since it fits so well with the theme of Acts.
ReplyDeleteI think the distinction you may be missing is the one between a theme of a story and the theme of a story. A theme of Gone with the Wind is the cruel effect of war on civilians but that does not provide any reason for mentioning World War I because the theme of the story is the response of a particular southern civilian woman to hardship during the Civil War.
In Luke-Acts, the overall purpose of the story is to show how a Jewish Messiah became the savior of the gentiles. A theme within that story (I believe Dagoods used the phrase “underlying theme” and you used the phrase "a recurring theme") is “Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side.” However just as Gone with the Wind doesn’t use wars later than the Civil War (even though the author knows about them) to demonstrate the effect of war on civilians, Luke-Acts doesn’t demonstrate the badness of the Jews with the later Roman-Jewish war (even though he knows about it). The author had already completed his overall purpose of showing how a Jewish Messiah became the gospel of salvation to the gentiles.
The outcome of Paul’s appeal seems like it might be relevant, but there is a problem: we don’t know what that outcome was. If the appeal never took place because Paul was killed in the persecution, it would make sense for Acts to end without telling us that (even if the author knew about it) because (as you have yourself pointed out) “Nero’s persecution is not necessarily relevant to the theme of Acts."
The historical method: The First Rule of Historical Method is: don’t believe everything you read.
ReplyDeleteAnette,
ReplyDeleteI did a little internet (meaning that I do take it with a grain of salt) research on kratistos. It is generally translated “most excellent” and it is used as an epithet used in addressing a Roman of high rank, however the high rank might be either high social class or a high office. So if the author of Luke-Acts was writing for a wealthy Roman patron named Theophilus, it would be perfectly reasonable for him to use the term even though he also has Paul using it when addressing Roman officials.
I also ran across a reference to the first century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria using the term kratistos more than 200 times in Philo’s Favorite Phrase Among the ways in which he used it were “most excellent Moses,” “the most excellent clay” from which Adam was made, and “the most excellent part of natural philosophy” being the mathematical sciences. This indicates that besides being used as a form of address for illustrious Roman citizens, the term could also be used simply to describe a thing or person that the author deemed to be of the highest quality. Therefore, it might also be reasonable for Luke to use it simply because he esteemed Theophilus regardless of his standing in Roman society or government.
Just to be clear, Philo's Favorite Phrase is a web page that describes Philo using kratistos over 200 times in his writings.
ReplyDeleteI've been lurking here for the entire discussion. I haven't had anything to add to it and still probably don't. The only thing I'll say about any argument from silence or otherwise for that matter is that if it isn't an argument from fact, but only an argument from what could possibly be then it really isn't all that convincing for myself. The reason for that is that it cuts both ways. All it really does is put up a potentially plausible explanation, much like in a defense trial.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Christianity is on trial here so to speak. All that's really happening is the defense is putting up plausible explanations so that the prosecution doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't true. It certainly doesn't prove that it is.
All that's really happening is the defense is putting up plausible explanations so that the prosecution doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't true.
ReplyDeleteThe problem, of course (as Dagood has pointed out) is that any proposition*, even mutually contradictory propositions, can be "defended" as impossible to disprove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Thus, this defense does not differentiate between propositions. If we were to define a valid proposition as one that could not be disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then all propositions are equally valid. This would be an odd position given the typical Christian condemnation of epistemic relativism.
*If we define "proposition" as a truth-apt statement that is not inherently self-contradictory.
Even propositions that actually contradict the evidence of our senses can be supported in this manner: if we want to support the statement that things always accelerate away from the center of the Earth when subject to no other forces, we can always invoke illusion, hallucination, a priori bias, or mendacity to "explain" the evidence. And if we add "miracles" to the possible explanation, we can find any proposition valid, perhaps even inherently self-contradictory statements.
For this reason, neither legal reasoning nor scientific skepticism use "beyond a shadow of a doubt", i.e. absolute certainty, as an epistemic standard. We already concede that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty; to point out that we cannot know with absolute certainty that no God exists (or even the nonexistence of the Christian God exactly as literally depicted in the some version of the Bible) is to argue a point already conceded.
Anette has already conceded that she believes on the basis of private revelation. She believes in the same sense that I believe I see a tree in my front yard: no possible argument can convince me I don't see it, because there it is. But so what? The privacy of her belief entails that I cannot contradict that belief, but for the same reason it cannot convince me; if it could, it would not be private.
Fundamentally, the entire discussion is a waste of time, because the crucial point is Anette's private evidence, evidence that cannot be shared, evidence that she must take into account, and evidence that everyone else cannot take into account. Everything else completely changes meaning according to whether the evidence is present or radically absent. Anette does not believe in God because the Bible proves it (and her claims to the contrary are at least naive, perhaps disingenuous, and perhaps mendacious); instead, she must interpret the Bible in light of her prior belief in God, belief for which she claims private evidence. There's no agreement possible because of this radical asymmetry of evidence.
In much the same sense, if you had actually lived in the South during the Civil War, and you yourself had actually met Scarlett O'Hara, Rhett Butler, et al.; if you yourself had seen Tara with your own eyes, none of the evidence for the fictionality of Gone with the Wind could ever persuade you that the work was actually fictional. Similarly, you could never convince me — who did not see Tara with my own eyes — that you were not delusional, insane or lying: All you could do would be to recite details from the book (which I would conclude you got from the book itself) or details that were not in the book and would therefore lack independent corroboration.
It takes a while for it to really sink in that believers and skeptics have radically different metaphysical views about evidence and epistemology. When it finally sunk in for me, I stopped arguing with believers. I cannot convince them that no God exists, because they have (or claim) private knowledge.
"The problem, of course (as Dagood has pointed out) is that any proposition*, even mutually contradictory propositions, can be "defended" as impossible to disprove beyond a shadow of a doubt."
ReplyDeleteExactly. A plausible explanation isn't evidence. It's a defense strategy.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteEven if kratistos was used more broadly than just in addressing Roman officials of high rank, that only weakens my first argument (out of ten), it doesn’t contradict it.
But as I said before, I could say more in support of the hypothesis that Luke-Acts are part of a pretrial investigation, so here are five more arguments:
1. Acts 1 says that Jesus appeared to His disciples over a period of forty days after His resurrection, and one would imagine that they had a few questions. But the only question Luke deems worth repeating is the following: “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”
Now why would that be the one thing a Gentile Christian reader would care about? Why not elaborate on Jesus “speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God,” so the Christians would be spiritually edified by this information?
However, if Christians were accused of insurrection, the answer to that question would be highly relevant to a Roman official investigating the charges. And Jesus answers by saying that nobody knows the “times or epochs,” which implies that it is well into the future and not a cause for concern for the Romans.
2. Luke is the only Gospel that says, “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21), which again underscores that the Romans had nothing to fear from the Christians.
3. In Luke 23:47, a Roman centurion praises God and says of Jesus, “Certainly this man was innocent.” In Matthew and Mark, he says, “Truly this man was the Son of God.”
4. The criminal on the cross likewise says that Jesus was innocent and ask Jesus to remember him when He comes in His kingdom—since the criminal was dying this is clearly not an earthly kingdom that would be a threat to the Romans.
5. According to John W. Mauck, “Acts is a book of trials. Sixteen formal and informal, investigative and quasi-judicial trials occur.”
D’Ma,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts!
Larry said earlier: “The First Rule of Historical Method is: don’t believe everything you read.” This is excellent advice!
But from the very little I know about Larry, I’m guessing that was more than just a public service announcement. He is saying that you should be skeptical of what I say. And I fully agree with that as well. You should make sure that I back up what I say with evidence and that I reply to objections.
However, a message that didn’t come through in Larry’s comments is that you should also be skeptical of what he, Vinny, and DagoodS say.
Larry said: “Anette does not believe in God because the Bible proves it (and her claims to the contrary are at least naive, perhaps disingenuous, and perhaps mendacious); instead, she must interpret the Bible in light of her prior belief in God, belief for which she claims private evidence.”
I have indeed said that I believe for intuitive as well as intellectual reasons, but I can guarantee you that Larry’s unbelief is in part for intuitive reasons. We all have an intuition about God’s existence or non-existence, and that determines how much evidence is needed to persuade someone. Some well-known atheists have essentially said that nothing would persuade them that God exists.
And Larry demonstrates, with his emotionally charged language, that he is an atheist for largely emotional reasons. But even if the real reason why Larry is an atheist is that he was beaten up by a Christian bully when he was thirteen, that doesn’t undermine his arguments one bit. It is simply not relevant.
It is likewise not relevant why I originally became a Christian.
What matters is what evidence we have in support of our respective positions. As I said to DoOrDoNot, it is a comparison of different worldviews. Or in this specific discussion, it’s a comparison of positions. And although they had the burden of proof in the discussion about Jesus being a failed apocalypse prophet, I now have the burden of proof. But it’s not “beyond a reasonable doubt” in discussions like these, it’s “more likely than not,” the standard of proof in most civil cases.
So in order to exercise healthy skepticism, you should ask the following questions of the apologist (me) and the counter-apologists (Vinny, DagoodS, and Larry—they are the equivalent of the opposing attorneys, so you should also critically evaluate what they say, and what strategies they employ):
1. Clearly define the hypotheses we advance.
2. Make sure we give specific evidence in support of that hypothesis.
3. Clearly identify how we respond to the opposing side’s hypothesis.
To make it easier for you, I will answer those questions on my own behalf, and I invite the counter-apologists to do the same.
1. My hypothesis is that Luke-Acts was written as part of pretrial investigation.
2. I gave a long list of arguments/evidence in support of that hypothesis.
3. a) I replied to DagoodS’s argument that the purpose of Acts is to say, “Hey, the doctrines we espouse are valid because they came from Jesus --> Disciples --> Paul --> You,” by comparing how central doctrines of the Christian faith are expressed by Jesus and Paul.
b) I replied to his argument that the underlying theme of Acts is, “Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side,” by asking why the author would not include the Great Revolt, highly persuasive evidence in support of this theme.
c) I replied to his argument that Acts was written, “TO Gentile Christians, FOR Gentile Christians, ABOUT Gentile Christians,” with the list of arguments for my hypothesis. Why focus so much on insurrection and legal proceedings if the purpose was spiritual edification of Christians?
If there are other arguments you or someone else would like me to address, please let me know. Otherwise, I will now let the counter-apologists focus their own hypotheses and responses to my arguments for your critical evaluation.
Exactly. A plausible explanation isn't evidence. It's a defense strategy.
ReplyDeleteWe're not talking about a plausible (alternative) explanation, we're talking about any explanation whatsoever that's not absolutely logically impossible, however farfetched or implausible. These wildly implausible explanations aren't even a defense strategy (and what is a claimant doing using a defense strategy in the first place?) much less evidence.
Also, any explanation is not evidence; it's an interpretation of the evidence or a conclusion drawn from the evidence. Silence is evidence, but the best interpretation of any evidence, including the evidence of silence, requires considerable analysis.
Anette,
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can tell, historians of ancient Rome seem to know quite a bit about the Roman legal system. Nevertheless, as far as I know, we have no evidence that pre-trial briefs were a part of Roman legal practice. To my mind, this is a very good reason to treat your hypothesis as unsupported and unsupportable. To claim that Acts appears to be a pre-trial brief when you have no idea what pre-trial briefs of that era looked like or whether they existed, just strikes me as wishful thinking.
If indeed “Acts is a book of trials,” that would suggest to me that its author had a legal background (rather than being a physician). A man who understood the legal system and the drama of legal proceedings would naturally choose to frame the issues and conflicts within the framework of trials (perhaps in the same sort of way that apologists like Lee Strobel love to use analogies to court cases). This is also speculative, but it is a much simpler explanation than positing a genre of literature for which we have no examples or evidence. Hence, Occam’s Razor would make it a better hypothesis.
Here is another possibility: suppose I wished to compose a biography of a man who died several decades ago and I did not know anyone who had known him personally. The one place where I might hope to find some factual information about him is in the records of court cases in which he was a party. Maybe the author of Acts focuses on trials because his source material included records of those trials. Of course, this is exactly the same kind of speculation in which you are engaged. What I would need to substantiate this hypothesis is evidence that the Roman legal system produced such records and that they contained the kind of information that we find in Acts. Otherwise, I am just guessing.
Anette,
ReplyDeleteThank you for so egregiously lying and misrepresenting my views. You only help substantiate my political position, which is that Christianity and religion in general corrupts even the most basic notions of truth and factual accuracy.
He is saying that you should be skeptical of what I say. ... However, a message that didn’t come through in Larry’s comments is that you should also be skeptical of what he, Vinny, and DagoodS say.
If it didn't come through, how did you get it? Of course you should be skeptical of everything everyone says. If you'd bother to follow the link, you would have seen Dr. Carrier continue, "A believable history has to be constructed from several converging lines of evidence that have been critically and skillfully examined." Of course, you're not going to actually critically and skillfully examine anything; you're just going to latch on to whatever supports your position.
I have indeed said that I believe for intuitive as well as intellectual reasons, but I can guarantee you that Larry’s unbelief is in part for intuitive reasons.
Excuse me? What the fuck is an "intuitive" reason? I didn't say that you believed for intuitive reasons, I said you believed because you had private evidence. These are two completely different concepts... or rather the latter is a concept, the former is just a string of meaningless syllables.
Furthermore, you cannot guarantee fuck all about my reasons for anything unless you are claiming to be telepathic.
And Larry demonstrates, with his emotionally charged language, that he is an atheist for largely emotional reasons.
That is a lie, and an assertion beyond your knowledge. That I make a particular claim (atheism) and that I display emotion is absolutely insufficient evidence that I make a claim for emotional reasons. I was an atheist long before I gave two shits about what any Christian thought. I became emotional only when I realized that Christian thought is supported entirely by liars and fools such as yourself. I became emotional only when I realized the deep connection between religious delusions* and oppression, injustice, cruelty and the gravest of human crimes. I'm not an atheist for "emotional" reasons. I am emotional because I find lying despicable and infuriating. In much the same sense, I can come to a conclusion about whether some person is a murderer on purely intellectual grounds while still feeling very emotional that a human being has been murdered.
*And the more general notion of fanaticism based on private evidence. While religion is not the only purveyor of fanaticism, it is certainly the most entrenched and egregious.
3. a) I replied to DagoodS’s argument that the purpose of Acts is to say, “Hey, the doctrines we espouse are valid because they came from Jesus --> Disciples --> Paul --> You,” by comparing how central doctrines of the Christian faith are expressed by Jesus and Paul.
ReplyDeleteI am confused by this statement. Did your comparison of central doctrines rebut Dagoods’ argument or did it support it? I can’t quite figure it out.
b) I replied to his argument that the underlying theme of Acts is, “Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side,” by asking why the author would not include the Great Revolt, highly persuasive evidence in support of this theme.
Both Dagoods and I have answered this repeatedly and convincingly. Here is part of how I have responded: We don’t know whether there was any resolution of Paul’s appeal. One possibility is that he was killed in a persecution. You concede that Nero’s persecution would not necessarily have been relevant to Luke’s purpose. Therefore we have a reasonable explanation for why Luke might have ended the story where he did even though he knew about later events. “Jews Bad; Romans Good. Christianity on Roman’s side” is a theme of Acts, but it is not the only theme of Acts or the predominant theme of Acts. It is a subsidiary theme. Even if the Roman-Jewish war might have supported this theme, it would be inconsistent with many elements of the story: (1) the event occurred eight years after the logical ending point of the story; (2) the event occurred more than 1300 miles away from the geographical point at which the story ended; (3) the event did not involve any of the characters that the story had been following. The fact that the event might support one particular subsidiary theme in the story wouldn’t warrant its inclusion.
c) I replied to his argument that Acts was written, “TO Gentile Christians, FOR Gentile Christians, ABOUT Gentile Christians,” with the list of arguments for my hypothesis. Why focus so much on insurrection and legal proceedings if the purpose was spiritual edification of Christians?
You have also conceded that Acts probably was written for a broader audience so you effectively accepted Dagoods’ hypothesis while trying to argue for an inconsistent one.
It takes a while for it to really sink in that believers and skeptics have radically different metaphysical views about evidence and epistemology. When it finally sunk in for me, I stopped arguing with believers. I cannot convince them that no God exists, because they have (or claim) private knowledge.
ReplyDeleteApologists love to ask skeptics “What would it take to get you believe in the resurrection?” If the risen Christ made a supernatural appearance for my personal benefit, it would change my supply of private knowledge and it might lead me to change my opinion of the resurrection. I might still conclude that I was suffering from a hallucination, but without experiencing it, I don’t claim to know what my reaction would be. On the other hand, I think I would still recognize that this was private knowledge rather than objective evidence. I would not think that it gave anyone other than me a reason to believe.
I don’t have any hope of convincing anyone that their private knowledge is wrong. However, I am hopeful that some believers may be capable of understanding the difference between private knowledge and objective evidence. If they can understand that, they may be able to understand that public policy decisions should be based on objective evidence that is equally accessible to all observers. I think this understanding could mitigate the negative effects that magical thinking is wont to produce.
Before I blog regarding the argument from silence, let me put this “pre-trial brief” argument to bed. Or my position, at least.
ReplyDeleteEmperor Claudius (a notorious bureaucrat) set up a cognitionibus--an office regarding legal affairs. (The function is not precisely clear, as such offices morphed over time under individual emperors. They could have arranged the order of cases, or kept notes and register of decisions. Or both.)
This office continued under Nero. There is no…none…zero indication this (or any other office) every requested or entertained written trial briefs. Indeed, it would be highly unlikely, considering the numerous petitions, lack of necessity, and given the oral nature of the culture. While the decisions may be written and kept for stare decisis reasons—there would be no need to submit a written petition, as one would need to physically appear anyway.
Further, we already have examples of genre within the Roman 1st century that nicely conform to our writings. Luke follows bios within the Gospel and historical/Greek novella within Acts.
We have nothing to indicate anyone ever wrote a “pre-trial brief” or that such a genre existed. We have no examples of any such “pre-trial brief.” We have other genres that Luke and Acts DO conform to. Not only must one first demonstrate these “briefs” existed at all, they would then need to explain why Acts would be our ONLY example, and why Acts should be removed from a genre that it already conforms to!
Secondly, if one wanted to make such a speculation, Acts does a terrible job! Rome valued stability. This was not a fine-tuned legal mechanism, turning on Perry Mason moments and intricate legal razzle-dazzle. This was rhetoric and power. To write Acts with “Paul was here, and a riot ensued. Paul went there and a riot ensued. Paul causes these people to riot. Paul caused these governments to in-fight” would more likely insure Paul’s quick and immediate execution for being an instigator.
Again, the Romans would not split with precision as to who was responsible—if Paul kept showing up in the mess; Paul was likely to be summarily executed. Thus solving the problem. (Paul had no political power or money where his execution would cause a greater chance of instability.)
[cont’d]
So let’s look at these ten reasons:
ReplyDelete1. Luke calls Theophilus “most excellent” in Luke 1:3.
O.K.. kratistos was an honorific. Very plausibly for a Greek official. So what? In a Patron/Client society, any Greek official would be a patron to some. It is generally accepted Theophilus was Luke’s patron. Notice in Acts 1:1, Luke drops the honorific, indicating it may/may not be used. Nothing about kratistos indicates anything more than Theophilus’ status as a Patron.
2. “Theophilus may well have been the official in charge of this investigation.”
Unadulterated balderdash. Horse manure. Under Claudius a cognitionibus were freedmen—not Equestrian class. Further, it makes no sense for Luke to use the honorific on the unofficial document—the Gospel—and then drop it in the OFFICIAL document—Acts, the “pre-trial brief.” This is 100% ass-backwards.
I find it curious Anette Acker dismisses someone like Udo Schnelle (who has numerous qualifications, and a bibliography reading like a library wish-list) but embraces an attorney (Mauck) who had….wait for it…”an e-mail exchange.”
Wow. With research like that, who would dare question this speculative refuse?
3. Luke says he investigated everything.
Right. Standard format for bios--indeed most apologist embrace this language to put the Gospel IN that particular genre. Apparently, in this backwards argument, the same language takes it OUT of that genre?
4. Legal charge against Paul was insurrection.
Quite possible. Again, writing where Paul was always at the thick of these numerous riots, confrontations and upheavals is not exactly the best defense…no?
5. Charge political, evidence theological.
I would have to read Sherwin-White fully to understand what he is saying. It does occur to me, if the evidence was “theological”—Acts again would not be the wisest move by providing the non-theological evidence needed.
Anette Acker: The political charge of insurrection would explain why Theophilus took this matter as seriously as he apparently did, even if he was a non-Christian Roman official.
I would have to read Sherwin-White to see how he possibly substantiates whether Theophilus considered the matter “seriously” “lightly” or “not at all.” I would have to read Sherwin-White how he possibly substantiates Theophilus as Christian or non-Christian.
6. Luke uses the word “witnesses” far more often than other narratives.
A quick search (Not in Greek) shows the word witness used:
Matthew: 7
Mark: 4
John: 18
Luke: 5
Acts: 20
Taking the book lengths into account, Acts would be first, John would be second, I should think.
Oddly, this conforms with what I already indicated was the purpose of Acts—to maintain the doctrinal consistency from Disciples (first generation) to the recipients (third generation) by emphasizing actual participation.
[cont’d]
7. Luke stresses twice Barabbas was an insurrection; Mark only states it once.
ReplyDeleteThis is (surprising at 7) probably the strongest argument. Luke appears to emphasize the Jews were willing to support insurrection rather than let the (innocent) Jesus go free. Yet again, Luke consistently paints the Jews unfavorably. Why isn’t this just another example of such?
8. Luke is explicit about the charge against Jesus.
Luke, in copying Mark and Matthew, deliberately “cleans up” any particular point he finds problematic. For example, realizing the Sanhedrin would never meet at night (specifically on Passover!), he “moves” the Sanhedrin hearing to the morning. (Luke 22:66) Not surprising, if Luke thought the accusation of “He calls himself the King of the Jews” was insufficient to add the accusation of insurrection and not paying taxes. Luke then lapses back to Markan language.
9: Pilate’s language.
Same answer as above.
10. Luke lists a trial before Herod as well.
Yeah. Again, Luke wants not only the Judean Religious leaders held accountable—he wants to make sure the Galilean political government is as well, so he makes up this story about Herod. No reason to find this historical.
1a. Why would Gentile Christians be concerned about when Jesus was establishing his kingdom?
This one is a bit frustrating. I have answered this so many times; I am baffled how it could possibly still be a question.
Because the parousia (return of Christ) was not happening as fast as Christians thought it would. They were starting to question it. So Luke creates (this account in Acts 1 is completely made up, of course) a solution by indicating Jesus was not precise to his coming. That they may have to wait another 100 years. (or 2000 as it turns out. And 10,000 more until somebody cottons on.)
2a. Luke says “The kingdom of God is within you” so the Romans realized they had nothing to fear from Christians.
Rome didn’t give a rat’s patooey about what a particular sect, religion, group or society claimed--it cared about results. Claiming some internal gnosis was part and parcel of Gnosticism--yet that didn’t mean Rome would say, “Oh, we won’t bother the Gnostics, because they are ‘internal.’’ Give me a break.
3a. The Roman Centurion says “This man was innocent.”
First, Luke completely misses Mark’s irony and biffs the statement. Second, as pointed out above, Luke is highlighting the guilt of the Jews, contrasting the innocence of the Roman officials involved. The poor executioner was only doing his job.
4a. The Romans would appreciate how the criminal on the cross said he would meet Jesus in his Kingdom, and since they were dying, the Romans would have seen the kingdom was not of this world.
This is what I mean by applying a 21st Century mindset to 1st Century culture. Do you really think the Romans were this precise in their theological/legal machinations to make such fine distinctions? Rome cared about RESULTS. Not doctrinal niceties. If you were causing trouble, they charged you, tortured you and executed you. They didn’t sit around with cigars, glasses of brandy, stroking their beards with, “I say, old chap. I think this criminal here must indicate the kingdom is in the after-life, so these insurrections at the heart of every riot should be let free with a ‘hip, hip’ and a ‘cherrie-o.’”
5a. Mauck counts up a bunch of trials and “quasi-judicial trials.”
Mauck is a lawyer. And he finds trials. To a hammer, everything is a nail…
Larry,
ReplyDeleteIf it didn't come through, how did you get it? Of course you should be skeptical of everything everyone says.
If your point was that we should be skeptical of everything, including the arguments of atheists, then I misjudged you and I apologize. I’ve repeatedly made the same point.
Excuse me? What the fuck is an "intuitive" reason?
An intuitive reason is just a general sense about something. We are all governed by intuition as well as reason.
I’m guessing that your intuition tells you that God does not exist and the universe is a brute fact. Science doesn’t tell us either way.
I didn't say that you believed for intuitive reasons, I said you believed because you had private evidence.
Where did I say this?
And even if I did say this, we all have private evidence for what we believe, so the real question is whether I have ever asked a non-Christian to accept something I say simply based on my private evidence. If I’ve done this, please let me know, because that’s something I try not to do.
What I do remember is that I responded to Reuben by saying that we don’t need to understand everything to be saved, but that is a completely different matter. I was answering a specific question.
I also said that I am the type of person who has to understand to believe, and I operate under the assumption that the skeptics I talk with are the same way. I don’t ask them to accept anything I say on faith. In fact, it is helpful to me to have my beliefs challenged, and I have numerous times modified my views based on the arguments of a skeptic.
Furthermore, you cannot guarantee fuck all about my reasons for anything unless you are claiming to be telepathic.
Since humans are governed by reason and intuition, I think that unless you are a Vulcan you are as well. I’m pretty sure you’re not a Vulcan, so I think I can guarantee it.
I'm not an atheist for "emotional" reasons.
I think maybe I chose my words carelessly there. You are emotional about it now, regardless of your original reasons for rejecting religion. However, my point was that your arguments should still be evaluated on their own merits.
Annette Acker,
ReplyDeleteBut it’s not “beyond a reasonable doubt” in discussions like these, it’s “more likely than not,” the standard of proof in most civil cases.
So in order to exercise healthy skepticism, you should ask the following questions of the apologist (me) and the counter-apologists (Vinny, DagoodS, and Larry—they are the equivalent of the opposing attorneys, so you should also critically evaluate what they say, and what strategies they employ)
Alright, I see your point about it being about what is "more likely than not". I still stand by my statement. What you seem to be arguing here is the hypothesis you've gathered from reading a few Biblical scholars on the subject. It's hardly conclusive evidence. It's not even really what's "more likely than not". It simply seems to provide you with a plausible explanation, which again, isn't evidence. It's a hypothesis. It seems "more likely than not" to you because it supports what you already believe.
As for considering what DagoodS, Larry or Vinny say in the same vein as what you say. I'm pretty much skeptical of all of it at this point. I don't accept anything they've said as gospel truth either (pun fully intended). I'm looking at all the concepts and ideas presented here with a skeptical eye. I would like to think since you and I haven't had that much interaction that if you meant that condescendingly, you meant it so toward Larry, Vinny and DagoodS and not because you actually thought I was ignorant to the fact that skepticism should run both ways. As I've said in the past, I'm looking for the truth, not a hypothesis, not a guess, not a plausible explanation. I really don't need an explanation of how to think critically.
My critical assessment is that what is being presented is a lot of conjecture.
D’Ma,
ReplyDeleteI would like to think since you and I haven't had that much interaction that if you meant that condescendingly, you meant it so toward Larry, Vinny and DagoodS and not because you actually thought I was ignorant to the fact that skepticism should run both ways.
It was not intended as condescension toward any of you—I said it because I do think that skepticism and allegations of confirmation bias often just go one way. And some of the smartest and most knowledgeable people I’ve talked to have been guilty of this, so it’s not about condescension. I think it has to do with the fact that non-theists are called “skeptics,” and are therefore presumed to exercise healthy skepticism, and Christians have “faith,” and therefore are presumed not to, even though the Bible tells us repeatedly to test everything, not be naïve, etc. When people have presuppositions about that, it can be hard to think outside of the box. That is why I felt the need to say what I did, but it was not directed at anyone in particular. In fact, I meant to point it out in response to Larry’s original comment about not believing everything we read.
D’Ma,
ReplyDeleteIf you continue to study this area (First Century Christianity and writing), best get used to conjecture. *grin* Best come to terms with “We don’t know” or else you will go crazy!
We are dealing with an extremely different culture/society. Including concepts we can only remotely comprehend—like polytheism, honor/shame, patron/client. They had a different economic system, different governments, different views of everyday occurrences like trade, families, etc.
And we can only catch snapshots—glimpses—of what this world was like by a few documents. Written in languages dead to us. Hebrew. Greek. Aramaic. Latin.
I am not claiming all is lost, but we MUST be careful to understand the caveat on claims that are tempered by our lack of knowledge.
Worse (as you very well know) the interpretation of these documents is tied up in people’s very identities, emotional well-being, and literally every aspect of their life. Causing deep-rooted adherence to preciously-held beliefs, regardless of the lack of evidence.
I never worry whether people will take what I say with a “grain of salt.” I’m sure they do.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteBest come to terms with “We don’t know” or else you will go crazy!
"I don't know" is a a perfectly acceptable answer. "This is my opinion or hypothesis" I can deal with. I do realize so much of what we're talking about here, even if we had boat loads of documentation, is lost to us because we are in a completely different place and time. Our culture and economy is so drastically different it would be near impossible to comprehend how it "really was".
Maybe I oversimplified when I said, "I'm looking for the truth, not a hypothesis, not a guess, not a plausible explanation". Annette Acker reminded me of that when she said it's about what is "most likely". That's a horse of another color entirely. One, as you said, that "...tied up in people’s very identities, emotional well-being, and literally every aspect of their life. Causing deep-rooted adherence to preciously-held beliefs, regardless of the lack of evidence". What seems most likely to one will seem least likely to another.
A lot of that is tied up in presuppositions, I'm aware. At this point I have no presuppositions. I was commenting as a bystander without a horse in the race, so to speak. As best I can tell with the "evidence" that has been presented here to support the hypothesis put forth, we should be singing "Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush" once again.
I was trying to let Annette Acker know that from a completely neutral position it seemed her hypothesis about a pretrial brief lacked sufficient support to be convincing.
D’Ma,
ReplyDeleteThe “more likely that not” has to do with the whole question of the dating of Acts, not the specific hypothesis that Luke-Acts was written as part of pretrial investigation. As I said before, “although it is only a hypothesis and I am by no means certain of it, it fits the facts.” Another fact that I didn’t mention was that the word “witness” is mentioned twenty-six times and the word “witnesses” fourteen times in Acts. Witnesses and legal proceedings are recurring themes throughout.
In spite of this, I did intentionally call it a “hypothesis,” so as to not express more certainty than I think it warrants.
The real question is this: How likely do you think it is that scholars would date Acts after the fall of Jerusalem if Jesus had not predicted it in Luke? Do you think that if it was written several decades later, it’s likely that Acts would have ended a) while Paul was in house arrest in Rome pending appeal, b) without mentioning the death of Paul, c) without mentioning the persecution of Nero, and d) without mentioning the Great Revolt and the fall of Jerusalem?
This is the problem: Biblical criticism is the study of the Bible as a human creation. By itself that is no problem, because the Bible can certainly be studied that way, like any other series of historical documents.
However, this means that everything is presumed to have a natural explanation. In other words, because Jesus “predicted” the fall of Jerusalem, critical Bible scholars have to date the Gospels—and by extension Acts—after 70 AD.
The real problem with this is that if you look to critical Bible scholars to help you decide whether the Bible is the word of God, they will give you only one possible answer: No. Why is that? Because the answer is already assumed in biblical criticism, which is “the treatment of Biblical texts as natural rather than supernatural artifacts” (Wikipedia).
Do you see the circularity in this approach if your question is whether the Bible is the word of God or just a human construct? In biblical criticism the presupposition is that the Bible is an entirely natural text.
So if you're approaching this in a neutral way, then the question is: Apart from the "prediction" of Jesus, what is the most likely explanation for why Acts ends the way it does?
DagoodS's link to Early Christian Writings says: “The ending of Acts is an old problem that has prompted many theories.” It is a strange and not particularly satisfying ending.
People have brought up Gone With the Wind in this thread, but that story ends the way it should. We don’t know if Scarlett will get Rhett back or if she’ll be happy if she does, but that’s really beside the point (although we suspect that the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively). We know that’s she’ll go after him with the same determination that she went after Ashley, and for Scarlett, it’s all about the challenge anyway.
But why did Acts end the way it did? An abstract of a scholarly article in Currents in Biblical Research says:
“This article examines the four most widely discussed proposals for the genre of Acts in contemporary scholarship (biography as proposed by C. Talbert, novel as proposed by R. Pervo, epic as proposed by D. MacDonald, and history as reflected in the consensus of scholarship).”
Is it a biography? Then why don’t find out what happens to Paul, either in terms of his appeal to Caesar or his death?
Is it a novel? Then why does it have such an unsatisfying ending? It builds up to Paul's appeal to Caesar and then it ends.
Is it an epic? Again, why are important events in Paul’s life left out?
Is it a history? If so, why not mention Nero’s persecution and the fall of Jerusalem? Paul is a Jew and most of the story is about his interaction with other Jews and Romans.
The real problem with this is that if you look to critical Bible scholars to help you decide whether the Bible is the word of God, they will give you only one possible answer: No. Why is that? Because the answer is already assumed in biblical criticism, which is “the treatment of Biblical texts as natural rather than supernatural artifacts”
ReplyDeleteAnette,
The real problem is that you are looking at critical scholars to help you decide that question at all. It’s a question of faith and subjective personal experience. It’s what Larry referred to as a question of private knowledge.
Let’s suppose that we allow for the possibility that the Bible really is the work of a supernatural God. Guess what happens to the argument from silence for dating the composition of Acts before the fall of Jerusalem. It goes out the window. The only reason that anything can possibly be inferred from the author’s failure to mention the Roman-Jewish is because we know that human beings cannot see into the future. However, if God is responsible for Acts, he could have described the destruction of temple in minute detail in 62 AD or 62 BC. We can’t infer date of composition from God’s failure to mention something because God is omniscient and always knows everything that happens throughout all eternity. If God doesn’t mention something, all we can infer is that he didn’t wish to mention it.
The real problem is that you want to apply critical methodology whenever it reaches the conclusions you want it to reach. Then you want to throw it out whenever the conclusions are inconvenient. The rest of us want to apply the same methodology consistently whether we are looking at the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or any other text.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteI probably won't be replying to any more comments here, unless D'Ma or someone else who is evaluating these questions would like me to reply to something specific. In that case, I would be happy to do so. Otherwise, I think this has run its course.
The real problem is that you want to apply critical methodology whenever it reaches the conclusions you want it to reach. Then you want to throw it out whenever the conclusions are inconvenient.
I apply critical methodology to questions that it can answer, which includes questions about the facts supporting the putative supernatural event. But since critical methodology cannot directly answer the question of whether the supernatural event took place, what point is there in applying it to that question?
The rest of us want to apply the same methodology consistently whether we are looking at the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or any other text.
You know perfectly well that I applied the methodology consistently to the miraculous claims of other religions when I discussed the resurrection. I discussed Islam, Mormonism, and the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. (Even if you didn't see any difference between the evidence for Angel Moroni and the appearances of Jesus, other non-theists who read my blog did.)
It’s a question of faith and subjective personal experience. It’s what Larry referred to as a question of private knowledge.
That reminds me that you never responded to my request on TQA for an example of me denying or ignoring evidence for the sake of my beliefs. And if what I believe is consistent with the evidence, why do you care about my faith, subjective personal experience, and private knowledge?
Anette,
ReplyDeleteI explained to you why I didn't think it appropriate to hijack a comment thread over at TQA in order to revisit our earlier discussions on other blogs. As I think I said before, if you want to raise the question in a post on your own blog, I will respond.
As far as replying any more here, that is of course entirely up to you. However, you have stated your intent to leave the discussion several times in the past without having done so, so I will believe it when I see it.
I may post on the topic at my blog. You will of course be welcome to reply there.
However, you have stated your intent to leave the discussion several times in the past without having done so, so I will believe it when I see it.
ReplyDeleteO ye of little faith! I am capable of ceasing to talk.
OK, stick a fork in it. It’s done. It appears Anette Acker agrees there is a natural explanation for why Mark is dated to post 70 CE (because of Mark 13’s “prediction” of an event that we know happened) as well as at least a possible natural explanation for Acts’ silence on topics. Once the apologist completely retreats to “you presuppose it is human, and that is why you find it human” they don’t have any arguments left.
ReplyDeleteAnd let me emphasize the point Vinny makes. If we start “presupposing” any book in the Bible is NOT natural (para-natural or pseudo-natural or super-natural or semi-natural, or whatever cute phrase one decides to grab onto) we can throw dating entirely out the window.
Couldn’t an all-knowing God write Mark 100’s of years before the events? Yep. Could the same God retroject quotes from Mark into other works and have it written 100’s of years after the event? Yep. Couldn’t the same God infuse the knowledge (unknowingly) into our brains, and have us believe it was written 2000 years ago when it was only written 10 minutes ago? Yep.
We could date it anywhere, anytime, anyhow. Vinny is quite correct, Anette Acker—you embrace critical biblical scholarship when (and ONLY when) it provides confirmation bias to your own view and dismiss it entirely when it no longer does so.
Anette Acker: That reminds me that you never responded to my request on TQA for an example of me denying or ignoring evidence for the sake of my beliefs.
Seriously? Examples abound, no need for a separate blog entry from me.
1) You ignore the fact the events in Mark 13 are specifically addressed to events occurring to those present. Context. Context. Context.
2) You denied/ignored Jesus using genea elsewhere to mean “those present.”
3) You have yet to demonstrate (other than an “email correspondence”) a “pre-trial brief” genre exists, let alone provide an example of one.
4) Oh, here is a recent example.
You stated, “Luke-Acts uses the word ‘witnesses’ far more often than other narratives.” (emphasis in original)
I pointed out (by my count) the Gospel Luke (Since the Gospel and Acts are two different genres, it is appropriate to break them out) uses the word 5 times, Mark uses it 4, Matthew 7. “5” is NOT “far more often” than “7.” Or even “4” considering the length of Mark. (Note, I have not performed the Synoptic analysis to see if these are multiple attestations.)
Acts uses the word 20 times, John (a shorter book) uses it 18. Again, is 20 (in a longer book) that much more than 18? Again, the word “witness” in Acts conforms to the purpose I previously indicated.
What do you do with this evidence? You ignore it and reiterate the same claim about how many times “witness” or “witnesses” appears in Luke and Acts.
If I bothered to look back, I could probably point out more. Like how Luke does NOT use “most excellent” when referring to Theophilus in Acts—what you claim would be an official “pre-trial brief.”
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteI will only concede that I’ve denied or ignored evidence for ONE of my beliefs: that I’m capable of walking away from a discussion.
It appears Anette Acker agrees there is a natural explanation for why Mark is dated to post 70 CE (because of Mark 13’s “prediction” of an event that we know happened) as well as at least a possible natural explanation for Acts’ silence on topics. Once the apologist completely retreats to “you presuppose it is human, and that is why you find it human” they don’t have any arguments left.
It depends on what the question is. If a group of historians or critical Bible scholars are trying to decide on dating, then yes, they would look to the “prediction” in Mark 13, because they treating the Bible like any other series of historical documents.
However, that is not the present question. The question I’ve have been answering is:
“Also, is there always an assumption in biblical scholarship that any prophesy was written after the fact or are there other measures for dating the literature aside from the prophesy itself? I want to evaluate passages without any presumption regarding whether or not it was a genuine prophesy in order to be fair. What measures are taken (if any) in biblical scholarship in this regard?”
Your answer seems to be, “No measures are taken.” The prophecy is presumed to be false, and that is the end of the story.
Couldn’t an all-knowing God write Mark 100’s of years before the events? Yep. Could the same God retroject quotes from Mark into other works and have it written 100’s of years after the event? Yep. Couldn’t the same God infuse the knowledge (unknowingly) into our brains, and have us believe it was written 2000 years ago when it was only written 10 minutes ago? Yep.
Whether God “could” do that is not at issue, because the Bible doesn’t make the claim that He did. It does, however, claim that the Scriptures contain prophecy and that Jesus was raised from the dead. And we can critically evaluate whether those claims are likely true, in the same way that we can evaluate the claim that the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith.
1) You ignore the fact the events in Mark 13 are specifically addressed to events occurring to those present. Context. Context. Context.
I disagree. Mark 13:5-8 implies that it could be a long time. There are wars and rumors of wars, but that is not yet the end. And it goes on about earthquakes and famines, and says: “These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.”
2) You denied/ignored Jesus using genea elsewhere to mean “those present.”
This is false. I said: “I did not say that Jesus never used the word “generation” to mean those who were presently alive. I just see no reason why we should lean toward that definition in the examples you gave.”
3) You have yet to demonstrate (other than an “email correspondence”) a “pre-trial brief” genre exists, let alone provide an example of one.
ReplyDeleteFailing to produce specific evidence is NOT the same as ignoring or denying evidence.
Also, I never claimed that it was a pre-trial brief. I said that Mauck called it that, in quotes, but I have referred to it as a part of pretrial investigation, or fact gathering, and you essentially agreed with what Professor Vasily Rudich of Yale and author of Political Dissidence Under Nero said about the office of a cognitionibus, so what difference does it make that he said it in an email exchange? Since you have conceded it, it has been established for the purposes of this discussion.
Acts uses the word 20 times, John (a shorter book) uses it 18. Again, is 20 (in a longer book) that much more than 18? Again, the word “witness” in Acts conforms to the purpose I previously indicated.
What do you do with this evidence? You ignore it and reiterate the same claim about how many times “witness” or “witnesses” appears in Luke and Acts.
I said that Acts uses the word 26 times, not 20 times.
And even if your point is that you think this was a weak argument, I have never claimed that I have never made a weak argument.
Also, we’re talking about denying or ignoring evidence in favor of my beliefs, which do not include an interesting hypothesis that fits the facts but that I don’t feel strongly about.
If I bothered to look back, I could probably point out more. Like how Luke does NOT use “most excellent” when referring to Theophilus in Acts—what you claim would be an official “pre-trial brief.”
Where have I claimed that Acts is an official pre-trial brief? I have never called it “official”—I have said that it may have been part of pretrial investigation.
And for the record, I did not reply to any of your arguments in your three-part comment responding to my lists. That was not a concession—I just didn’t think it was worth wading through it all, because much of what you said was vague and unsubstantiated (for example, how did I dismiss Udo Schnelle, and what exactly has he said that you find relevant to this discussion?).
Other times, you resorted to strongly worded language instead of evidence: For example, you said: “Unadulterated balderdash. Horse manure. Under Claudius a cognitionibus were freedmen—not Equestrian class.” If you scroll up to my quote about “kratistos,” I said: “an official epithet, used in addressing a Roman of high rank, and in the second century one of equestrian (as distinguished from senatorial) rank.” Since we’re talking about the first century, I don’t know why you’re accusing me of “balderdash.”
Also, you said: “For example, realizing the Sanhedrin would never meet at night (specifically on Passover!), he “moves” the Sanhedrin hearing to the morning. (Luke 22:66)”
Sherwin-White disagrees. He says: “Mark and Matthew have the time-table right, where Luke is less probable. The Jews, because of the festival, were in a hurry. Hence there was every reason to hold the unusual night session if they were to catch the Procurator at the right moment.” He elaborates, but my point is simply that your strongly-worded “never” is disputed by an eminent Roman historian.
Your answer seems to be, “No measures are taken.” The prophecy is presumed to be false, and that is the end of the story.
ReplyDeleteIt is assumed that people cannot see supernaturally into the future. However some people have keen insight into political and military matters. It would certainly be possible for someone in 33 A.D. to make the prediction that the Jews would eventually stage a revolt that would be ruthlessly crushed by the Romans. I don’t think that any historian would declare that to be categorically impossible.
The question is one of probability. Which is more likely? (A) The author of Luke used his knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem to compose the detailed prophecies that he attributes to Jesus. (B) A Galilean peasant made these detailed predictions about the Roman-Jewish war and these predictions were perfectly preserved in transmission and the author of Luke recognized the importance of including these predictions when he composed his gospel thirty years later.
Just as you assume that people don’t see into the future supernaturally when you date the composition of Acts to 62 A.D., the critical scholar uses the assumption that people don’t see into the future supernaturally when he assesses it as more likely that Luke was written after 70 A.D.
Anette Acker: If you scroll up to my quote about ‘kratistos,’ I said: ‘an official epithet, used in addressing a Roman of high rank, and in the second century one of equestrian (as distinguished from senatorial) rank.’ Since we’re talking about the first century, I don’t know why you’re accusing me of ‘balderdash.’
ReplyDeleteYes, I saw you got that right out of “Strong’s Concordance.” *rolleyes* I said, “Balderdash” because you obviously do not have a clue what you are arguing. What ARE you saying is the relevance of Luke utilizing kratistos when referring to Theophilus in his Gospel? (And I will note…again…you have not addressed the fact Luke does NOT use the honorific in Acts.)
If I understand you correctly, you are claiming:
1) By using kratistos in referring to Theophilus, this means Theophilus was a “Roman official of high rank.” You note in the second century kratistos distinguished equestrian from the senatorial rank.
2) That there was an office of a cognitionibus, established by Claudius for pre-trial judicial investigation, and Theophilus “may well have been the official in charge of this investigation.”
While I do not entirely agree with these propositions--do you understand you have just effectively argued the Gospel of Luke could not have been written until the Second Century? Since this whole time you have been trying to fit Acts (and Gospel of Luke) to before 70 CE, this appears counter-productive.
So the lurkers understand:
1) Under the Roman society there were distinctive social classes, established by property ownership. These classes determined what offices a person could hold, and a variety of rights & privileges. The highest class was Senatorial; immediately below that class was Equestrian. Far below these classes were Freedman—slaves who had been freed.
Now, according to Strong’s, kratistos referred generally to all members of these two upper classes, but by the Second Century, only referred to the Equestrian class. Not the Senatorial.
2) Claudius (Emperor 41-54 CE) established the office of a cognitionibus utilizing Freedmen. Regardless what the office was for—Claudius followed his bureaucratic routine, using Freedmen in the office.
Not Senatorial. Not Equestrian.
It was only under later emperors a cognitionibus became an office of power (more likely because of docketing ability than investigative activity) and Equestrians filled the office.
As far as I can determine, in the First Century, Equestrians were NOT in the office of a conitionibus--not until the Second Century. In the First Century kratistos was broadly used, by the Second it was limited to Equestrians.
In other words, a person who you claim would be entitled to the honorific kratistos could not possibly be a cognitionibus until the Second Century. If you want to argue Theophilus was both kratistos and a congnitionibus--this would place the dating of Luke, the Gospel, to Second Century.
[cont’d]
Anette Acker: Sherwin-White disagrees. He says: “Mark and Matthew have the time-table right, where Luke is less probable. …”
ReplyDeleteAh. So you agree with Sherwin-White that Luke modified Mark and Matthew, and is historically inaccurate as to the timing of the Sanhedrin Trial? Curious how before you couldn’t figure out how it could be that Luke copied Mark and Matthew and there are minor discrepancies in the accounts, and now you are arguing Luke copied Mark and there are minor discrepancies in the account!
This is why I love long discussion with Christian apologists. Inevitably, they end up arguing for the exact opposite proposition of something they stated earlier!
Anette Acker: Also, I never claimed that it was a pre-trial brief. I said that Mauck called it that, in quotes, but I have referred to it as a part of pretrial investigation,…
Yeah, I notice you keep qualifying Mauck, stating you are not certain you agree with his proposition, yet you keep arguing for it! You want your cake and eat it, too. When we demonstrate Mauck to be full of holes, you back away. Coming in again on the next comment with the same Mauck arguments.
If you don’t support it—don’t argue for it. If you do, take it in the teeth when demonstrated to be incorrect.
Anette Acker: …I have never claimed that I have never made a weak argument.
You are a puzzle. You seem genuinely concerned we might accuse you of disregarding or ignoring evidence, but are perfectly content with providing weak, unconvincing arguments—arguments you don’t even necessarily agree with and don’t even convince YOU.
Why you think weak arguments (and inconsistent positions, might I add) is better than disregarding or ignoring evidence I have no idea.
Christian apologists sound like a defense attorney who says, “My client has an alibi—he wasn’t there at the time of the shooting. And if he WAS there—he didn’t pull the trigger. And if he DID pull the trigger—he didn’t mean to shoot the victim. And if he DID mean to shoot the victim--it was out of self-defense!”
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteIn other words, a person who you claim would be entitled to the honorific kratistos could not possibly be a cognitionibus until the Second Century. If you want to argue Theophilus was both kratistos and a congnitionibus--this would place the dating of Luke, the Gospel, to Second Century.
You would have an excellent point there, if it wasn’t for the fact that I have already conceded to Vinny that kratistos could be used more broadly than just referring to a Roman official of Senatorial or Equestrian rank. I was not sure about what you were saying before, but I checked it and you are right that the officials a cognitionibus were freedmen in the first century.
So the honorific kratistos could easily still apply to Theophilus if he was the freedman in charge of a cognitionibus. A history and description of Roman political institutions says: “The officials a cognitionibus were charged with collecting information and preparing opinions for the emperor on judicial questions submitted to him for settlement.” This fits the judicial investigation hypothesis perfectly.
(And I will note…again…you have not addressed the fact Luke does NOT use the honorific in Acts.)
Well, since I’ve never said that Acts was an “official” legal brief, and we agree that officials a cognitionibus were freedmen in the first century, there would be nothing unusual about the author of Luke-Acts becoming more familiar with Theophilus over time.
Ah. So you agree with Sherwin-White that Luke modified Mark and Matthew, and is historically inaccurate as to the timing of the Sanhedrin Trial? Curious how before you couldn’t figure out how it could be that Luke copied Mark and Matthew and there are minor discrepancies in the accounts, and now you are arguing Luke copied Mark and there are minor discrepancies in the account!
First, I am not arguing that Luke copied Mark, and neither is Sherwin-White. Second, I’ve already said that the synoptic problem is not a subject of discussion here—it was an unrelated question that I asked. Third, I have never claimed that no minor factual discrepancies exist between the Gospels.
But getting back to Sherwin-White and the time-table, he says that the meeting of the Sanhedrin was likely held at night because, “The quite unessential detail of the fire, which is common to both Mark and Luke, in the story of Peter’s denial, supports the Marcan version. Why light a fire—an act of some extravagance—if everyone was sleeping through the night?” (And by “everyone,” he seems to mean the members of the Council, because Luke indicates that Jesus was held in custody in the courtyard before the rooster crowed.)
However, Sherwin-White doesn’t say that Luke copied Mark, he says: “If this story is part of the basic tradition, from Peter’s eye-witness, then there was a nocturnal session, and the historicity of the Sanhedrin trial is confirmed.” (This is in response to Lietzmann pouring “a great deal of scorn” on the idea of the trial taking place at night—much like you did.)
Yeah, I notice you keep qualifying Mauck, stating you are not certain you agree with his proposition, yet you keep arguing for it! You want your cake and eat it, too. When we demonstrate Mauck to be full of holes, you back away. Coming in again on the next comment with the same Mauck arguments.
ReplyDeleteI have all along hypothesized that this was part of pretrial judicial investigation, and that we should not get too hung up on the words “pretrial brief.”
You are a puzzle. You seem genuinely concerned we might accuse you of disregarding or ignoring evidence, but are perfectly content with providing weak, unconvincing arguments—arguments you don’t even necessarily agree with and don’t even convince YOU.
BALDERDASH and POPPYCOCK and FIDDLESTICKS! I’m not a puzzle—at least not a very challenging one.
I am genuinely concerned about intellectual honesty—less so about infallibility. And because of my concern for intellectual honesty, I try not to overstate my case. I still maintain that Acts is full of legal proceedings, but I do concede that Acts doesn’t mention the word “witness” significantly more often than John.
See how nicely those pieces fit together?
Speaking of weak arguments, I’m going to go back and check to see if you’ve made any:
2. “Theophilus may well have been the official in charge of this investigation.”
Unadulterated balderdash. Horse manure. Under Claudius a cognitionibus were freedmen—not Equestrian class.
WEAK ARGUMENT because I already made the concession about kratistos to Vinny.
Further, it makes no sense for Luke to use the honorific on the unofficial document—the Gospel—and then drop it in the OFFICIAL document—Acts, the “pre-trial brief.” This is 100% ass-backwards.
WEAK ARGUMENT because I never called Acts an official document, and I’ve repeatedly referred to this as pretrial investigation, something that we have now established the official a cognitionibus did.
I find it curious Anette Acker dismisses someone like Udo Schnelle (who has numerous qualifications, and a bibliography reading like a library wish-list) but embraces an attorney (Mauck) who had….wait for it…”an e-mail exchange.”
WEAK ARGUMENT because nobody has mentioned Udo Schnelle, nor have I dismissed him. Also, you have basically conceded the information in the email from Vasily Rudich.
Wow. With research like that, who would dare question this speculative refuse?
WEAK ARGUMENT because I actually encourage people to question what I say (and what you say) and think for themselves.
All of those weak arguments were made in response to: “Theophilus may well have been the official in charge of this investigation.” So are you going to defend them or demonstrate your own intellectual honesty by conceding that they are weak?
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the reason why Mauck consulted with Vasily Rudich was because of the "paucity of historical records concerning the men who held office under Nero," so he "felt compelled to go beyond the published scholarship."
Rudich concludes the email by saying: "We certainly do not know who was the secretary a cognitionibus under Nero. Various names were proposed but none of his known freedmen seems to fit the slot."
Anette Acker,
ReplyDeleteSo now the claim is kratistos (in the First Century) is an honorific applied to just about anyone—Freedman, Citizen, Equestrian or Senatorial class alike. Therefore, the fact Luke utilized the word in referring to Theophilus is irrelevant; it is not a weak argument—it is no argument at all, as it doesn’t provide any information whatsoever whether Theophilus was/was not a cognitionibus.
Actually, the claim Theophilus was Luke’s patron
a) fits all the evidence;
b) utilizes a relationship we already understand;
c) does not need an “Argument from Silence.”
Alas, the only thing it does not do is provide the apologist with the means to date Acts to pre-70 CE. So the simplest explanation is abandoned for this convoluted, unsupported mess.
(Oh, I realize you have not stated Acts was an “official” document. I presume it is from your lack of understanding regarding the Roman system. If Luke wrote a document intending it to disseminate to the courts, it would be an “official document.” One could excuse Luke’s misunderstanding honorifics would be included in such a document if Luke hadn’t already included it in his Gospel. If you think this was merely a note between Luke and Theophilus then:
a) Again it fits the Patron/Client argument better;
b) There would be no reason to ever argue Theophilus was a cognitionibus; and
c) There is no reason to think this is part of a “pre-trial investigation.”)
Anette Acker: First, I am not arguing that Luke copied Mark, and neither is Sherwin-White.
Ah…so you DO disagree with Dr. Wallace regarding Luke copying Mark. As for Sherwin-White, I presumed he understood biblical texts enough to understand the Synoptic Gospels copied each other. If Sherwin-White does NOT hold to copying, then his credibility regarding historical analysis within the Synoptics is greatly diminished. Indeed, it is almost nil. He may be good Roman historian—just not a biblical scholar in any sense of the word. I don’t know; I haven’t read him.
Anette Acker: Second, I’ve already said that the synoptic problem is not a subject of discussion here…
Excuse me? The fact Luke copied Mark is ALWAYS underlying analysis when reviewing the books, and their historical content. Where do you think Luke obtained his information from? And you avoided entirely the problem this claim relies upon Luke being historically inaccurate. Counter-productive in an argument where one is telling us to rely upon Luke’s historical accuracy.
Finally, I should note, regarding this tangent, this wasn’t only at night—it was on Passover. Again, Sherwin-White may know Roman History, but he doesn’t seem to have a clue regarding Jewish history if he thinks the High Priests could organize a Sanhedrin around 1 p.m. on Passover in Jerusalem. Further, they would not meet at night, because meeting at night smacked of conspiracy—it would have been greatly frowned upon, if not prohibited by the Romans. And what was the rush? A Sanhedrin could just as easily be formed in the morning.
No, this is Mark misunderstanding Jewish customs, and Luke correcting the problem.
As for whether my arguments are weak…I let the lurkers make the call. From what I have seen so far in feedback, I guess I would have to call my arguments, “strong enough” as no one has apparently been convinced by your claims. Why should my arguments have to be any stronger if they are doing the job?
Anette,
ReplyDeleteI actually think you may be the one who is overly concerned with the term "pre-trial brief." I am not suggesting that it is necessary that you or Mauck prove that Rule 5.33 of The Roman Code of Civil Procedure required the presentation of a specific document titled "Pre-trial Brief." I do think that the hypothesis is pure speculation without some evidence that any written documents even remotely similar to Acts were every used in the Roman legal system in any of the various ways that you might imagine Acts to have been used.