tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post7327740102456071319..comments2024-01-25T00:50:10.679-05:00Comments on Thoughts from a Sandwich: Close-Minded MeDagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comBlogger172125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-85546300246487060412011-07-22T14:40:26.629-04:002011-07-22T14:40:26.629-04:00Anette,
I actually think you may be the one who i...Anette,<br /><br />I 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.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-61212673563701484422011-07-22T08:45:02.059-04:002011-07-22T08:45:02.059-04:00Anette Acker,
So now the claim is kratistos (in t...Anette Acker,<br /><br />So now the claim is <i>kratistos</i> (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 <i>a cognitionibus.</i><br /><br />Actually, the claim Theophilus was Luke’s patron<br /><br />a) fits all the evidence;<br />b) utilizes a relationship we already understand;<br />c) does not need an “Argument from Silence.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />(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 <i>if</i> Luke hadn’t already included it in his Gospel. If you think this was merely a note between Luke and Theophilus then:<br /><br />a) Again it fits the Patron/Client argument better;<br />b) There would be no reason to ever argue Theophilus was <i>a cognitionibus</i>; and<br />c) There is no reason to think this is part of a “pre-trial investigation.”)<br /><br /><b>Anette Acker: </b> <i> First, I am not arguing that Luke copied Mark, and neither is Sherwin-White.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Anette Acker: </b> <i> Second, I’ve already said that the synoptic problem is not a subject of discussion here…</i><br /><br />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 <i>in</i>accurate. Counter-productive in an argument where one is telling us to rely upon Luke’s historical accuracy.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />No, this is Mark misunderstanding Jewish customs, and Luke correcting the problem.<br /><br />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?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-5928511178871412462011-07-21T20:24:15.963-04:002011-07-21T20:24:15.963-04:00DagoodS,
By the way, the reason why Mauck consult...DagoodS,<br /><br />By 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."<br /><br />Rudich concludes the email by saying: "We certainly do not know who was the secretary <i>a cognitionibus</i> under Nero. Various names were proposed but none of his known freedmen seems to fit the slot."Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-11739775790195373832011-07-21T16:47:10.926-04:002011-07-21T16:47:10.926-04:00Yeah, I notice you keep qualifying Mauck, stating ...<i> 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.</i><br /><br />I 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.” <br /><br /><i> 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.</i><br /><br />BALDERDASH and POPPYCOCK and FIDDLESTICKS! I’m not a puzzle—at least not a very challenging one. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />See how nicely those pieces fit together? <br /><br />Speaking of weak arguments, I’m going to go back and check to see if you’ve made any:<br /><br /><i>2. “Theophilus may well have been the official in charge of this investigation.”<br /><br />Unadulterated balderdash. Horse manure. Under Claudius a cognitionibus were freedmen—not Equestrian class.</i><br /><br />WEAK ARGUMENT because I already made the concession about <i>kratistos</i> to Vinny.<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />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 <i>a cognitionibus</i> did.<br /><br /><i>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.”</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>Wow. With research like that, who would dare question this speculative refuse?</i><br /><br />WEAK ARGUMENT because I actually <i>encourage</i> people to question what I say (and what you say) and think for themselves.<br /><br />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?Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-12274200000795784182011-07-21T16:44:57.973-04:002011-07-21T16:44:57.973-04:00DagoodS,
In other words, a person who you claim w...DagoodS,<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />You would have an excellent point there, if it wasn’t for the fact that I have <i>already conceded</i> to Vinny that <i>kratistos</i> 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 <i>a cognitionibus</i> were freedmen in the first century. <br /><br />So the honorific <i>kratistos</i> could easily still apply to Theophilus if he was the freedman in charge of <i>a cognitionibus</i>. <i>A history and description of Roman political institutions</i> says: “The officials <i>a cognitionibus</i> 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. <br /><br /><i>(And I will note…again…you have not addressed the fact Luke does NOT use the honorific in Acts.)</i><br /><br />Well, since I’ve never said that Acts was an “official” legal brief, and we agree that officials <i>a cognitionibus</i> were freedmen in the first century, there would be nothing unusual about the author of Luke-Acts becoming more familiar with Theophilus over time. <br /><br /><i> 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!</i><br /><br />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 <i>never</i> claimed that no minor factual discrepancies exist between the Gospels. <br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.)Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-78442798633750036952011-07-21T09:46:42.262-04:002011-07-21T09:46:42.262-04:00Anette Acker: Sherwin-White disagrees. He says: ...<b>Anette Acker: </b> <i> Sherwin-White disagrees. He says: “Mark and Matthew have the time-table right, where Luke is less probable. …”</i><br /><br />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 <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2011/06/close-minded-me.html?showComment=1309529124915#c4728042352204692145" rel="nofollow">before </a> 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 <i> you are arguing Luke copied Mark and there are minor discrepancies in the account!</i><br /><br />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!<br /><br /><b>Anette Acker: </b> <i>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,…</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />If you don’t support it—don’t argue for it. If you do, take it in the teeth when demonstrated to be incorrect.<br /><br /><b>Anette Acker: </b> <i>…I have never claimed that I have never made a weak argument. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Why you think weak arguments (and inconsistent positions, might I add) is better than disregarding or ignoring evidence I have no idea.<br /><br />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!”DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-46334697260392161832011-07-21T09:46:18.642-04:002011-07-21T09:46:18.642-04:00Anette Acker: If you scroll up to my quote about...<b>Anette Acker: </b> <i> 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.’ </i> <br /><br />Yes, 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 <i>kratistos</i> 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.)<br /><br />If I understand you correctly, you are claiming:<br /><br />1) By using <i>kratistos</i> in referring to Theophilus, this means Theophilus was a “Roman official of high rank.” You note in the second century <i>kratistos</i> distinguished equestrian from the senatorial rank.<br /><br />2) That there was an office of <i>a cognitionibus,</i> established by Claudius for pre-trial judicial investigation, and Theophilus “may well have been the official in charge of this investigation.”<br /><br />While I do not entirely agree with these propositions--<i>do you understand you have just effectively argued the Gospel of Luke could not have been written until the Second Century?</i> Since this whole time you have been trying to fit Acts (and Gospel of Luke) to before 70 CE, this appears counter-productive.<br /><br />So the lurkers understand:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Now, according to Strong’s, <i>kratistos</i> referred generally to all members of these two upper classes, but by the Second Century, only referred to the Equestrian class. Not the Senatorial.<br /><br />2) Claudius (Emperor 41-54 CE) established the office of <i>a cognitionibus</i> utilizing Freedmen. Regardless what the office was for—Claudius followed his bureaucratic routine, using Freedmen in the office. <br /><br />Not Senatorial. Not Equestrian.<br /><br />It was only under later emperors <i>a cognitionibus</i> became an office of power (more likely because of docketing ability than investigative activity) and Equestrians filled the office.<br />As far as I can determine, in the First Century, Equestrians were NOT in the office of <i>a conitionibus</i>--not until the Second Century. In the First Century <i>kratistos</i> was broadly used, by the Second it was limited to Equestrians.<br /><br />In other words, a person who you claim would be entitled to the honorific <i>kratistos</i> could not possibly be <i>a cognitionibus</i> until the Second Century. If you want to argue Theophilus was both <i>kratistos</i> and <i>a congnitionibus</i>--this would place the dating of Luke, the Gospel, to Second Century.<br />[cont’d]DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-24484441276902709422011-07-20T15:47:40.205-04:002011-07-20T15:47:40.205-04:00Your answer seems to be, “No measures are taken.” ...<i>Your answer seems to be, “No measures are taken.” The prophecy is presumed to be false, and that is the end of the story.</i><br /><br />It 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-47604087604797031492011-07-20T15:10:04.811-04:002011-07-20T15:10:04.811-04:003) You have yet to demonstrate (other than an “ema...<i> 3) You have yet to demonstrate (other than an “email correspondence”) a “pre-trial brief” genre exists, let alone provide an example of one.</i><br /><br />Failing to produce specific evidence is NOT the same as ignoring or denying evidence.<br /><br />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 <i>Political Dissidence Under Nero</i> said about the office of <i>a cognitionibus,</i> 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. <br /><br /><i> 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.<br /><br />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><br /><br />I said that Acts uses the word 26 times, not 20 times.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Also, we’re talking about denying or ignoring evidence in favor of my <i>beliefs</i>, which do not include an interesting hypothesis that fits the facts but that I don’t feel strongly about. <br /><br /><i> 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.”</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?). <br /><br />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.” <br /><br />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)” <br /><br />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.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-16892930132262985542011-07-20T15:07:46.027-04:002011-07-20T15:07:46.027-04:00DagoodS,
I will only concede that I’ve denied or ...DagoodS,<br /><br />I 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. <br /><br /><i> 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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />However, that is not the present question. The question I’ve have been answering is:<br /><br />“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?”<br /><br />Your answer seems to be, “No measures are taken.” The prophecy is presumed to be false, and that is the end of the story. <br /><br /><i> 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.</i><br /><br />Whether God “could” do that is not at issue, because the Bible doesn’t make the claim that He <i>did</i>. 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. <br /><br /><i> 1) You ignore the fact the events in Mark 13 are specifically addressed to events occurring to those present. Context. Context. Context.</i><br /><br />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.”<br /><br /><i> 2) You denied/ignored Jesus using genea elsewhere to mean “those present.”</i><br /><br />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.”Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-54041176573299313712011-07-20T09:35:51.572-04:002011-07-20T09:35:51.572-04:00OK, stick a fork in it. It’s done. It appears An...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.<br /><br />And 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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Anette Acker: </b> <i>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. </i><br /><br />Seriously? Examples abound, no need for a separate blog entry from me.<br /><br />1) You ignore the fact the events in Mark 13 are specifically addressed to events occurring to those present. Context. Context. Context.<br /><br />2) You denied/ignored <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-large-print-giveth-small-print.html?showComment=1307169946218#c6077104983148089387" rel="nofollow">Jesus using </a> <i>genea</i> elsewhere to mean “those present.”<br /><br />3) You have yet to demonstrate (other than an “email correspondence”) a “pre-trial brief” genre exists, let alone provide an example of one.<br /><br />4) Oh, here is a recent example.<br /><br />You <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2011/06/close-minded-me.html?showComment=1310867184541#c1659217289830437847" rel="nofollow">stated, </a> “Luke-Acts uses the word ‘witnesses’ <i>far</i> more often than other narratives.” (emphasis in original)<br /><br />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 “<i>far</i> 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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />What do you do with this evidence? You ignore it and <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2011/06/close-minded-me.html?showComment=1311102868390#c3362313034618040603" rel="nofollow">reiterate </a> the same claim about how many times “witness” or “witnesses” appears in Luke and Acts.<br /><br />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.”DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-2172566256267659042011-07-20T00:00:46.813-04:002011-07-20T00:00:46.813-04:00However, you have stated your intent to leave the ...<i>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><br /><br />O ye of little faith! I <i>am</i> capable of ceasing to talk.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-80120584823042072072011-07-19T23:42:04.259-04:002011-07-19T23:42:04.259-04:00Anette,
I explained to you why I didn't think...Anette,<br /><br />I 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I may post on the topic at my blog. You will of course be welcome to reply there.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-24261315806383889802011-07-19T22:40:24.855-04:002011-07-19T22:40:24.855-04:00Vinny,
I probably won't be replying to any mo...Vinny,<br /><br />I 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. <br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />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 <i>whether</i> the supernatural event took place, what point is there in applying it to that question? <br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.)<br /><br /><i>It’s a question of faith and subjective personal experience. It’s what Larry referred to as a question of private knowledge.</i><br /><br />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 Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-1491319164823334452011-07-19T17:57:30.225-04:002011-07-19T17:57:30.225-04:00The real problem with this is that if you look to ...<i>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”</i><br /><br />Anette,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-33623130346180406032011-07-19T15:14:28.390-04:002011-07-19T15:14:28.390-04:00D’Ma,
The “more likely that not” has to do with t...D’Ma,<br /><br />The “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.<br /><br />In spite of this, I did intentionally call it a “hypothesis,” so as to not express more certainty than I think it warrants.<br /><br />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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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). <br /><br />Do you see the circularity in this approach if your <i>question</i> is whether the Bible is the word of God or just a human construct? In biblical criticism the <i>presupposition</i> is that the Bible is an entirely natural text. <br /><br />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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />People have brought up <i>Gone With the Wind</i> 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. <br /><br />But why did Acts end the way it did? An abstract of a scholarly article in <i>Currents in Biblical Research</i> says:<br /><br />“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).”<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Is it an epic? Again, why are important events in Paul’s life left out?<br /><br />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.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-58481138873255425152011-07-19T09:54:12.096-04:002011-07-19T09:54:12.096-04:00DagoodS,
Best come to terms with “We don’t know” ...DagoodS,<br /><br /><i>Best come to terms with “We don’t know” or else you will go crazy!</i><br /><br />"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". <br /><br />Maybe I oversimplified when I said, <i>"I'm looking for the truth, not a hypothesis, not a guess, not a plausible explanation"</i>. 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 "...<i>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> What seems most likely to one will seem least likely to another. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17313118060838041133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-46342454912525550312011-07-19T09:23:04.876-04:002011-07-19T09:23:04.876-04:00D’Ma,
If you continue to study this area (First C...D’Ma,<br /><br />If 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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I never worry whether people will take what I say with a “grain of salt.” I’m sure they do.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-79412372901504392992011-07-18T18:25:31.570-04:002011-07-18T18:25:31.570-04:00D’Ma,
I would like to think since you and I have...D’Ma,<br /><br /><i> 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.</i><br /><br />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.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-66531518385948841202011-07-18T17:24:56.986-04:002011-07-18T17:24:56.986-04:00Annette Acker,
But it’s not “beyond a reasonable ...Annette Acker,<br /><br /><i>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.<br /><br />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)</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />My critical assessment is that what is being presented is a lot of conjecture.Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17313118060838041133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-12248997107276384882011-07-18T16:01:45.778-04:002011-07-18T16:01:45.778-04:00Larry,
If it didn't come through, how did yo...Larry,<br /><br /><i> If it didn't come through, how did you get it? Of course you should be skeptical of everything everyone says.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i> Excuse me? What the fuck is an "intuitive" reason?</i><br /><br />An intuitive reason is just a general sense about something. We are all governed by intuition as well as reason. <br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i> I didn't say that you believed for intuitive reasons, I said you believed because you had private evidence.</i><br /><br />Where did I say this? <br /><br />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 <i>my</i> private evidence. If I’ve done this, please let me know, because that’s something I try not to do. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <i>me</i> to have my beliefs challenged, and I have numerous times modified my views based on the arguments of a skeptic. <br /><br /><i> Furthermore, you cannot guarantee fuck all about my reasons for anything unless you are claiming to be telepathic.</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i> I'm not an atheist for "emotional" reasons.</i><br /><br />I think maybe I chose my words carelessly there. You are emotional about it <i>now</i>, regardless of your original reasons for rejecting religion. However, my point was that your arguments should still be evaluated on their own merits.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-52774974282521756572011-07-18T15:52:11.203-04:002011-07-18T15:52:11.203-04:007. Luke stresses twice Barabbas was an insurrecti...7. Luke stresses twice Barabbas was an insurrection; Mark only states it once.<br /><br />This 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?<br /><br />8. Luke is explicit about the charge against Jesus.<br /><br />Luke, in copying Mark and Matthew, deliberately “cleans up” any particular point he finds problematic. For example, realizing the Sanhedrin would <i>never</i> 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.<br /><br />9: Pilate’s language.<br /><br />Same answer as above. <br /><br />10. Luke lists a trial before Herod as well.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br />1a. Why would Gentile Christians be concerned about when Jesus was establishing his kingdom?<br /><br />This one is a bit frustrating. I have answered this so many times; I am baffled how it could possibly still be a question.<br /><br />Because the <i>parousia</i> (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.)<br /><br />2a. Luke says “The kingdom of God is within you” so the Romans realized they had nothing to fear from Christians.<br /><br />Rome didn’t give a rat’s patooey about what a particular sect, religion, group or society <i>claimed</i>--it cared about results. Claiming some internal <i>gnosis</i> was part and parcel of <i>Gnosticism</i>--yet that didn’t mean Rome would say, “Oh, we won’t bother the Gnostics, because they are ‘internal.’’ Give me a break.<br /><br />3a. The Roman Centurion says “This man was innocent.”<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.’”<br /><br />5a. Mauck counts up a bunch of trials and “quasi-judicial trials.”<br /><br />Mauck is a lawyer. And he finds trials. To a hammer, everything is a nail…DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-33328995044409032262011-07-18T15:51:48.586-04:002011-07-18T15:51:48.586-04:00So let’s look at these ten reasons:
1. Luke call...So let’s look at these ten reasons:<br /><br />1. Luke calls Theophilus “most excellent” in Luke 1:3.<br /><br />O.K.. <i>kratistos</i> 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 <i>kratistos</i> indicates anything more than Theophilus’ status as a Patron.<br /><br />2. “Theophilus may well have been the official in charge of this investigation.”<br /><br />Unadulterated balderdash. Horse manure. Under Claudius <i>a cognitionibus</i> 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.<br /><br />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.” <br /><br />Wow. With research like that, who would dare question this speculative refuse?<br /><br />3. Luke says he investigated everything.<br /><br />Right. Standard format for <i>bios</i>--indeed most apologist embrace this language to put the Gospel <b>IN</b> that particular genre. Apparently, in this backwards argument, the same language takes it OUT of that genre?<br /><br />4. Legal charge against Paul was insurrection.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />5. Charge political, evidence theological.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Anette Acker: </b><i>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><br /><br />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.<br /><br />6. Luke uses the word “witnesses” far more often than other narratives.<br /><br />A quick search (Not in Greek) shows the word witness used:<br /><br />Matthew: 7<br />Mark: 4<br />John: 18<br />Luke: 5<br />Acts: 20<br /><br />Taking the book lengths into account, Acts would be first, John would be second, I should think.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />[cont’d]DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-91903115159157511802011-07-18T15:50:49.384-04:002011-07-18T15:50:49.384-04:00Before I blog regarding the argument from silence,...Before I blog regarding the argument from silence, let me put this “pre-trial brief” argument to bed. Or my position, at least.<br /><br />Emperor Claudius (a notorious bureaucrat) set up <i>a cognitionibus</i>--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.) <br /><br />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 <i>stare decisis</i> reasons—there would be no need to submit a written petition, as one would need to physically appear anyway.<br /><br />Further, we already <i>have</i> examples of genre within the Roman 1st century that nicely conform to our writings. Luke follows <i>bios</i> within the Gospel and historical/Greek novella within Acts. <br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />[cont’d]DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-62253305587388315742011-07-18T14:09:42.922-04:002011-07-18T14:09:42.922-04:00It takes a while for it to really sink in that bel...<i>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.</i><br /><br />Apologists 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.<br /><br />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.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.com