Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site qubix.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!cca!decvax!decwrl!qubix!lab From: lab@qubix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: A burden both ways Message-ID: <310@qubix.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-Jun-83 21:25:31 EDT Article-I.D.: qubix.310 Posted: Thu Jun 9 21:25:31 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Jun-83 08:19:30 EDT Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA Lines: 133 (This article deals strictly with the Resurrection. I have posted a separate article to reply to other events of the last couple of weeks. I know the article is long, but it's been a week and a half, and will likely be another week and a half before my next.) Much has been said in the Resurrection discussion about the burden of proof and the desire for "solid" evidence. Perhaps the first thing we need is to pin down the level of evidence desired. In "Therefore, Stand," Wilbur Smith brings out an excellent analogy: "The criteria for determining what Caesar did at Gaul, or how the Goths sacked Rome, or what happened at Waterloo, are the criteria by which we determine what happended on the first Easter Sunday." "Therefore, Stand" is perhaps the most outstanding apologetic written. In his Preface, Smith noted he "considered no trouble too great, no prolonged research too taxing, to suppoort everything that is set forth in this volume with adequate, abundant, and dependable quotations and references...Nowhere in this volume, I hope, have I stooped to second-rate, or third-rate, or tenth-rate stuff...Quotations and footnotes are purposely full and elaborate." Smith deals primarily with the themes covered in Paul's sermon on Mars' Hill (Areopagus) in Athens: creation, resurrection, and coming judgment. The first is before history, the last is prophecy, but the middle strictly belongs to the realm of HISTORY. (End of commercial. The book is a major volume but not expensive.) One contributor quoted at length from a court session regarding evidence and the burden of proof. The evidence of the New Testament has already been given a thorough going over by no less an authority than Simon Greenleaf in "The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice" (reprint Baker Book House, 1965) Case closed. On to the biases: The first and foremost bias is the unwillingness to accept the testimony given. To reject testimony requires a REASON, like counter-testimony. The testimony is not the word of one man, but several, and the implications of the witness of 500 (more on that later). To say you "know" it couldn't be true doesn't stand. If you want to dismiss the testimony, it's YOUR job to prove them wrong. They were there - you weren't. Ken Arnold notes there are many ancient writings that are "provably false." OK, prove these false. Second bias is the "lack of independent historical records," or nothing written by "secular historians." As far as Rome was concerned, Jesus was just another Jewish troublemaker. There were probably thousands of crucifixions in those days - how many of the executees had their names recorded by anyone? And I think we can forgive the Jerusalem Gazette for not knowing how to store their records on microfilm. The third bias is the "vested interest" or "biased witnesses" idea. This loses on several counts: 1) As Greg Gadeholt mentioned some time back, rarely is ANY witness unbiased. Those for the prosecution are usually biased for the prosecution, those for the defense are biased for the defense. 2) What "vested interest" did the apostles have? They saw what happened to James and Stephen - Paul knew VERY well what happened to Stephen, and knew he would suffer a similar fate. By his own words and lifestyle, Paul had no interest in gain in this world. 3) Someone with even half a vested interest would not have written many of the things contained in the New Testament - and a LOT of the things written in the Hebrew Scriptures. The shortcomings and downfalls of many are recorded - hardly expected in the FREEWILL testimony (i.e., not under cross-examination) of a "biased witness." Bias #4 is that the resurrection "is a matter of faith, no more, no less." Dead wrong. If the Resurrection is not a historical event, Christianity is dead. The question is NOT "do I believe it happened" but "DID it happen?" The value of the "faith" is not in the believer but in the OBJECT trusted. Many have taken issue with Paul's claim to 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus. How did Paul know about them? How could they be cross-examined? If one will stop and think, one will realize that Christianity was mainly confined to Jerusalem for FOUR YEARS, until the Great Persecution (led by a rather forceful fellow named Saul). Further, after Saul's conversion, Barnabas personally took him to Jerusalem. In both cases, Paul (= Saul, for those who may not know) had access to all the evidence he needed - the witnesses, the empty tomb, the Roman soldiers, etc. Anyone in Jerusalem, particularly the Jewish rulers, had full access to the tomb. They could have done better than kill Christianity in the cradle; they could have killed it in the womb! The apostles' message was constantly "resurrection" - the learned scribes could have shot them down easily if they could have disproved it. On to some of the attempts to explain the Resurrection away: The hallucination theory is older than most people think. Even the disciples thought they had just seen his ghost! That it cannot stand is obvious when one recalls the apostles' frame of mind. The psychological preconditioning for visions is simply not there. Re-read the appearance at the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-12). The apostles were not expecting to see Jesus - they CONCLUDED that it was him. Further, they weren't expecting a little kitchen (with food!) already set up on shore! Smith (pp. 393-397) and McDowell present very well the impossibility of the simultaneous hallucinations, especially by such as the apostles. The works cited include those of known neurologists and psychiatrists. The swooooooon theory ("playing possum") is also old, apparently started by an English Deist, Peter Annet, in 1768 and repeated in an anonymous work "Ecce Homo" in Edinburgh in 1799. Even some skeptics themselves have repudiated it. "It is impossible that one who had just come forth from the grave half dead, who crept about weak and ill, who stood in need of medical treatment, of bandaging, strengthening, and tender care, and who at last succumbed to suffering, could ever have given to the disciples that impression that He was a conqueror over death and the grave,- that He was the Prince of Life,- which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death,- or at most could have given it an elegaic voice,- but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, or elevated their reverence into worship." [David Strauss (who did NOT believe in the Resurrection of Christ): "The Life of Jesus for the People" Eng. trans. 2nd. ed. 1879.I.412.] Several works have been written on the reality of Christ's death. Perhaps the simplest refutation of the "possum" idea is the small problem of a spear in the side, producing a FLOW of blood and water. A person in good condition can afford to give one pint; Christ was in a lot worse condition and gave a lot more. Regarding Steve Den Beste's epistemological examination: Steve did a very good job of restating the challenge: "6, Are there any other suppositions contradictory to the supposition in question which are nonetheless consistent with the evidence?" That is exactly the question. ARE THERE ANY? It is not that a "person" is presenting the evidence - there are plenty of extant manuscripts from before the 4th century. The question of the person giving evidence would be applied to the writers of the New Testament. Most were eyewitnesses; the rest knew the witnesses. "Ulterior motives" were essentially discussed above under "vested interest." The evidence is not neutral - I am waiting to see any in opposition (if such exists). Whether the Resurrection "suggests any predictions about the world" is irrelevant - the question is not "what does it mean?" but "did it happen?" That which is "considered reliable" will change with time, and is a shaky test. The answers to the midterm: 1) Yes 2) That is "The Excitement of the Unexpected." Still waiting for an unbiased jury and a serious challenge, Larry Bickford {decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab