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