“I think an objective observer would find it hard to avoid suspecting you're starting to play coy here.”
I don’t understand the complaint. I didn’t come in here for a thesis examination; some people seem to be under the curious impression that the point of this thread is to try tof find out what Tim thinks about all sorts of things. While I’m not averse to discussing my views, life is short, I have deadlines to meet, and it isn’t my intention to get dragged into a long discussion of every detail of my views of things I didn’t come in talking about. Who cares? Let’s talk about the evidence and where it points.
“I'm not seeing any specific examples of 1) what constitutes ‘a difference that would matter’, an error ‘of consequence’ etc. or 2) what claims -- qua historian -- you find to be probably true, but even marginally less probable than some other claims.”
Because I don’t want to make this into the kind of discussion described above, I’m going to give you exactly what you ask for here, and then I’m going to move on.
Regarding 1):
If one Gospel author said that Jesus was crucified by the direct order of Herod Antipas, the execution being carried out in Galilee, while another said that he was crucified by the direct order of Pilate, the execution being carried out in Judea, we would have a problem. Someone, clearly, would be making an error of consequence. There is no plausible way that the two accounts could be reconciled.
By contrast, the fact that the Synoptic authors say that the crucifixion took place at “the third hour” (Mark 15:25) and John says it was “about the sixth hour” (John 19:14) is not a big deal. It may be explicable in terms of a difference of methods of reckoning the hour, or the mistaking of Γ (gamma, for three) for Ϛ (episemon, for six), which are very similar in some MSS. I have not made enough of a study of the matter to decide what I think is the most reasonable inference. But if they cannot be explained in some such plausible way, the broad outline of the historical narrative remains unchanged.
Regarding 2):
The Resurrection is one of the best authenticated events in the Gospels, in terms of evidence. The feeding of the 5,000, found in all four Gospels, is extremely well authenticated. The flight into Egypt, found only in Matthew, is rendered historically more credible by the incidental connection between Matthew’s narrative and Josephus’s narrative of the same time period. The story of the resurrection of the saints at the time of Jesus’ resurrection, found only in Matthew, is not confirmed by any other source. For just these reasons, the former are better evidenced and the last, in particular, less well evidenced.
“Re #1 it remains a live possibility to me that you either explicitly or implicitly use the theologian's criterion to determine whether some putative error, discrepancy, absurdity, ambiguity etc. is ‘of doctrinal consequence’ -- whether nothing doctrinal would ‘ride on it’.”
No – see above.
“But qua historian or qua scientist, it sure as heck "makes a difference" whether the world is 6,000 years old or 12 billion, or whether the zombie saints were or weren't, following Licona, simply a poetic expression of apocalyptic imagery!)”
If Jesus rose from the dead, then the question of what Matthew meant about the saints coming out of their tombs is, by every reasonable standard, a secondary issue. We can have a discussion about it, and we can wish we had more evidence about the putative event, but it’s not the headline – theologically or historically.
“Re #2 I'm not interested in litigating any given alleged error (although of course I find your treatment of the examples I gave quite silly) because I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. I brought them up not to challenge you on them, but to prompt you to give some specific example of something, anything in the NT you take (qua historian) to be even ever so slightly less likely to be true than some other thing.”
Okay. It’s not really my concern what you do or don’t find silly. If you’re ever interested in talking about the evidence, let us all know.
“Surely you must think -- qua historian -- that while cleansing the temple is %98 likely to have occurred, the zombie saints business is, maybe, just maybe, only %97 likely to have occurred? And that you can say this because as an historian you have of course taken into account the political and theological agendas of the author, the human tendencies for mistake, fraud etc.?”
Sure. See above. Some claims have more evidence than others.
“[P]erhaps we can ask him whether Tim is correct that the illiterate peasants of the day scrupulously avoided false miracle claims like a collective "C.S.I.C.O.P.: Jerusalem" out of fear of ‘bearing false witness’.”
I didn’t say that: I said that devout Jews in the Second Temple period had a strong motivation to the contrary. The Josephus reference actually doesn’t apply, because the Christians were not “for procuring innovations and changes of the government” – that wasn’t their bag at all. Look at what Josephus says about the Egyptian: he “was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him.” Then look at the kind of lives the first Christians lived.
“But you are the verge of dynamiting your credibility as an historian if you're serious about your average fishmonger walking around like the James Randi of the Middle East.”
Not my view, as I’ve now explained. Personally, I think that we should save phrases like “dynamiting your credibility as an historian” for people who deny that Jesus ever existed and write crazy, over-the-top blog posts on the subject. I also think James Randi is not sufficiently skeptical about a lot of things. But as they say, YMMV.
"There is no warrant for saying that no one else noticed them; in fact, Matthew says they were seen by many."
Beg the question much? So Matthew says there were Zombies shambling about. And Matthew also says a bunch of folks saw them. Does the latter statement by Matthew somehow lend credence to the story? Jesus, you are a creduloid.
"The only inference to be drawn from the silence of the other New Testament writers is that if they were aware of the phenomenon, they chose not to say anything about it."
The only inference? How about the inference that Matthew pulled the story out of his a$$? What is more likely, that Matthew made up a story, or that a Zombie horde invaded Jerusalem and nobody else wrote about it?
Bob: "Were not "ruling it out". We're demonstrating that, after honest examination, the proposition is untenable. Big difference. "Jesus existed" was never the going-in position - it was the conclusion. But your treatment of the possibility of the miraculous is to rule them out by definition from the beginning. Even bigger difference."
You misunderstand my position then. I would gladly grant that miracles (whatever that means) are not impossible. I simply see no reason to invoke them in historical explanations when the mundane so easily covers that territory. And if you want to make a case for miracles in the past, you can knock yourself out, but I admit that I think the tools (historical study) are not up to the job. You see, I am not saying miracles are impossible, just that I don't see historical study as being a profitable way to convince the non-gullible of something like miracles. But I might be wrong, so, as I said, feel free to make your case.
Bob, is it possible that Jesus did not exist? Because if you say yes, then you agree with me and we have no quarrel over the mythicists exploring that argument. If you say no, then you are affirming that you are as close-minded on this topic as you have appeared in the past, and your charges here are little more than psychological projection.
Truly, I don't know what it is you are trying to say.
Tim: "I don’t understand the complaint. I didn’t come in here for a thesis examination; some people seem to be under the curious impression that the point of this thread is to try tof find out what Tim thinks about all sorts of things. While I’m not averse to discussing my views, life is short, I have deadlines to meet, and it isn’t my intention to get dragged into a long discussion of every detail of my views of things I didn’t come in talking about. Who cares? Let’s talk about the evidence and where it points."
What a crock. You have repeatedly tried to assert your authority on things historical here, pointed to your CV, referenced your "substantial paper", etc. And now when it's pointed out that your methods don't actually correspond with accepted historical methods, you try to pretend that you only care about the evidence and try to shift the topic back that-a-way.
Let me guess, we will point out why the evidence is less than reliable, and then you will try to shift back to your supposed expertise as a historian and claim that we are ignorant of some consensus of experts, and when that is shown to be either suspect or incongruent with known historical practices, voila, it's all back to the evidence. Rinse, repeat.
"What a crock. You have repeatedly tried to assert your authority on things historical here, pointed to your CV, referenced your 'substantial paper', etc. And now when it's pointed out that your methods don't actually correspond with accepted historical methods, you try to pretend that you only care about the evidence and try to shift the topic back that-a-way."
Let's take this apart.
1. I pointed you to my CV in response to your question about what I have written. In case you forgot, here's the question that prompted it:
I have to ask -- what History have you studied outside the time of the NT? Because it seems that you are unfamiliar with the concept of reading some historical accounts with a degree of skepticism based on familiarity with predictable biases, motivations, etc.
2. "... referenced your 'substantial paper' ..."
Again, in response to your unargued assertion -- this one:
"[I]t's blindingly obvious that all these are more easily explained through the mundane, as I listed -- confusion, deceit, misperception, superstition, misrepresentation, revisionism, gullibility, et al."
Since I dealt with all of those charges, and since I'm uninterested in recapitulating the argument in a combox, I pointed you to the paper. You don't have to agree with it. You don't even have to understand it. But it's a public articulation of some of the arguments that I find compelling, and it's directly relevant to your unargued claim that the evidence for the resurrection can be brushed off with a few commonplaces. In other words, if you want to continue the discussion, engage with the arguments.
But somehow, you think this means that the whole point of this thread is to discover what Tim thinks about the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27. Huh??
3. "And now when it's pointed out that your methods don't actually correspond with accepted historical methods ..."
Tony, you haven't "pointed that out." "Pointing out" is a success term. You've asserted it. But you've never done anything more to substantiate any of your assertions on this topic than to wave your arms vaguely in the direction of David Hume. (Your comment, May 11, 2012 9:33 AM.) Throughout this entire discussion, you've been grandstanding as if you knew what you are talking about. When that has been repeatedly shown to be false, in detail, as in the case of the Josephus passage, where you either made stuff up out of whole cloth or borrowed something you hadn't bothered to check out, you shift away from the actual evidence and the actual arguments. Stop it. It's transparent.
"... you try to pretend that you only care about the evidence and try to shift the topic back that-a-way." I've been talking about the evidence all along, and before you were: see my comment dated May 01, 2012 5:51 PM.
I realize that the evidence isn't your strong suit, so I can appreciate your motivation to derail the discussion into a matter of my personal beliefs. I've answered every reasonable question (and some unreasonable ones) about this now. If you want the discussion to be over, fine. If not, then let's see some substance.
"Bob, is it possible that Jesus did not exist? Because if you say yes, then you agree with me and we have no quarrel over the mythicists exploring that argument."
Once one has examined the evidence, it is no longer possible for an honest and rational person to hold that His non-existence is a possibility. After a while, one has to accept some conclusions and move on. If a person were to hear about the Holocaust for the very first time in his life, he would be perfectly right in saying, "That's just too fantastic to be true. Show me some proof." But after having seen the evidence, to continue to doubt its historicity would not be a reasonable option for anyone other than an intellectually dishonest person.
"If you say no, then you are affirming that you are close-minded on this topic"
No, I'm doing no such thing. But I am affirming that I have no need to endlessly re-invent the wheel once something has been decisively settled one way or the other. For instance, I don't have to re-convince myself every morning that California is on the West Coast of the U.S. I've been there - I've seen it. I can concentrate on other issues, serene in the knowledge that the continental U.S. ends at the California coast. That doesn't make me "closed-minded" on the subject. It just means I know the answer to the question, "Where the the continental U.S. end?"
So yes. I am indeed "closed-minded" on a lot of issues, such as two plus two equals four, the Holocaust occurred, the Moon is closer to the Earth than the Sun, my sister-in-law is a vegetarian, and Jesus existed.
Tim: "Since I dealt with all of those charges, and since I'm uninterested in recapitulating the argument in a combox, I pointed you to the paper. You don't have to agree with it. You don't even have to understand it. But it's a public articulation of some of the arguments that I find compelling, and it's directly relevant to your unargued claim that the evidence for the resurrection can be brushed off with a few commonplaces. In other words, if you want to continue the discussion, engage with the arguments."
Okay. After a little tidying up, and when I have time I'll start at the beginning of your paper and show you where I think the problems are.
Tim: "...some people seem to be under the curious impression that the point of this thread is to try tof find out what Tim thinks about all sorts of things."
We don't agree with your conclusions. So it's natural to ask what methods you are using (what you think) in order to reach your conclusions. I would imagine that this is why we all seem to find the comment sections of blogs to be so interesting; to find out what others think, and why.
So before moving forward, could you please answer this question: "Which is more likely? That I can convince some people that I once flipped a coin and it landed 30 consecutive times on heads, or that I actually flip a coin and have it land 30 consecutive times on heads?"
Which is more likely? That an individual will win the lottery, or that he will lose the lottery?
Just because it is (far) more likely that one will lose the lottery, there is no reason for a person to not believe that he has won, if he has the winning ticket.
Me: "Writers from the era are prone to attribute supernatural intervention to what we now explain through natural processes. Why should the Gospel writers be excluded from this tendency?” Tim: "Because that tendency is balanced by the danger that Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 15 – vivid to any devout Jew – of bearing false witness against God."
So, to be clear, I don't think this responds to the problem at all. Superstition is not a matter of purposeful deception; it is a matter of attributing an imagined cause to a phenomenon that can be explained naturally, such as attributing evil spirits to what we would not explain through germ theory. So, an admonition to not bear false witness has nothing to do with explaining why we should not assume that those who heard the Christian message in the 1st Century were not prone to superstition.
Secondly, I read I Corinthians 15 as indicating that Paul was having trouble getting people to believe in everything he was selling; why else remind them that failure to hold firmly to what he preached would result in their having believed in vain? In other words, even if I Corinthians 15 addressed my question (if instead it said something like, "Hey everybody, don't be superstitious, test your beliefs, investigate claims, etc."), we'd still be introducing the problem that a) the passage would indicate that superstitious credulity was indeed a problem, and b) proscribing behavior is not an absolute guarantee of prevention. And in order for you to make the transition from probable to fact I think you're required to demonstrate something which gets us waaay closer to that kind of guarantee.
(Just an aside: I can imagine a Christian pointing out that, based on my above, the fact that Paul doesn't say "Don't be so superstitious" should mean that Christians were not superstitious. But reading the NT documents, and those from the 1st Century (and before and after), indicates that superstition ran like air throughout the population and even among those few fortunate enough to be literate.)
So, as I was saying, so many problems that I'm not sure where I'd start there.
"Just because it is (far) more likely that one will lose the lottery, there is no reason for a person to not believe that he has won, if he has the winning ticket."
What are you talking about? No one has said unlikely don't occur. If you have the winning ticket, then you have evidence. What is wrong with you?
Tim,
Calling me a troll does not excuse you from defending your idiotic position.
I just saw a man sprout wings and fly. Also, a thousand people saw the same thing. But guess what? Those thousand other people have chosen not to testify.
Bob: "Just because it is (far) more likely that one will lose the lottery, there is no reason for a person to not believe that he has won, if he has the winning ticket."
Bob, reading your comments is often like having a conversation with the TV. Still, just like the TV sometime, that one brought a smile to my day.
You're just upset 'cause I called you out on your hidden agenda in your leading question. You were hoping for an answer like, "It's more likely that someone just said they tossed the coin in a certain manner", and then rush to the unwarranted conclusion that one shouldn't ever believe a person who claims to have tossed 30 heads in a row - therefore miracles never occur (wonderful example of non sequitur "logic").
You know that's where you were leading, and don't try to deny it!
To Beingitself:
"What are you talking about? No one has said unlikely don't occur. If you have the winning ticket, then you have evidence. What is wrong with you?
Nothing's wrong with me. The Apostles were in possession of the "winning ticket" (eyewitnesses to the Resurrection), and therefore the most unlikely event in all of history did indeed occur.
Bob: "You're just upset 'cause I called you out on your hidden agenda in your leading question. You were hoping for an answer like, "It's more likely that someone just said they tossed the coin in a certain manner", and then rush to the unwarranted conclusion that one shouldn't ever believe a person who claims to have tossed 30 heads in a row - therefore miracles never occur (wonderful example of non sequitur "logic")."
Bob, if you think that it's best for your argument to not answer certain questions, then I leave you to consider the reasons why. But for now, I am going to have to turn the Bob channel off for awhile; I've already frittered away too much time this morning already.
“So, to be clear, I don't think this responds to the problem at all. Superstition is not a matter of purposeful deception; it is a matter of attributing an imagined cause to a phenomenon that can be explained naturally, such as attributing evil spirits to what we would not explain through germ theory. So, an admonition to not bear false witness has nothing to do with explaining why we should not assume that those who heard the Christian message in the 1st Century were not prone to superstition.”
I think I may have misunderstood you the first time around, and this helps. I took it (incorrectly, I now think) that you meant that the first Christians deliberately and knowingly made up stories about supernatural intervention, and the rest of the world swallowed them because they were superstitious. Instead, what I think you’re now saying is that perfectly ordinary events caused Jesus’ first followers to jump to the conclusion that he had been miraculously raised from the dead. But before I follow up on this, tell me whether I’ve (finally) got you right.
“Secondly, I read I Corinthians 15 as indicating that Paul was having trouble getting people to believe in everything he was selling; why else remind them that failure to hold firmly to what he preached would result in their having believed in vain?”
Paul is pointing out an inconsistency: they know full well that Jesus was raised, but they’re ignoring the implications of this fact and clinging to the Sadducean position that there is no physical resurrection of the dead.
“(Just an aside: I can imagine a Christian pointing out that, based on my above, the fact that Paul doesn't say "Don't be so superstitious" should mean that Christians were not superstitious. But reading the NT documents, and those from the 1st Century (and before and after), indicates that superstition ran like air throughout the population and even among those few fortunate enough to be literate.)”
Two points here:
1. Superstitious? In some cases yes, very much, and in some cases no, not so much. It all depends on details. Tell me what you’ve read from the first century and we can discuss it on a case by case basis; then you can tell me why you extend this in particular to the disciples; then you can tell me how that helps you to account for the actual things we find in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection.
2. Literacy: Harris’s verdict (5 to 10% literacy in the Roman world in the 1st century) has come under significant pressure as we’ve begun to appreciate the significance of various archaeological finds, like the Vindolanda tablets, the Oxyrhynchus papyri, and the inscriptions at Pompeii. See Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (2012), ch. 3 and Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (2000).
But take a look at the title of this thread. No one alive witnessed Napoleon either. I'll guess you regard anyone who thinks he existed as "ridiculous".
Moi? But it was you who said I was being ridiculous for taking the word of eyewitnesses to the Resurrection after validating their credibility. You said nothing in that taunt about certain saints being restored to life at Christ's death. Your words: "Neither you or I witnessed the Resurrection ... Your analogy is ridiculous." So who's changing the subject now?
The fact is (as I expressed months ago in a posting that so ate at Tony), the Resurrection is central to any and all discussions about God, the supernatural, miracles, historicity of the New Testament, ethics and morality, soul, consciousness, justice, indeed any subject other than the strictly physical sciences. It is never "changing the subject" to consider it.
And indeed, on this beautiful Sunday morning, still a bit sleepy after last night out with my fellow Howard County amateur astronomers, I can cheerfully greet the dawn with "Khristos Voskres!" Makes life worth living.
Tim, can you answer this question please:S Which is more likely? That I can convince some people that I once flipped a coin and it landed 30 consecutive times on heads, or that I actually flip a coin and have it land 30 consecutive times on heads?
Careful, Tim don't answer Tony's question until he admits to his real reasons for asking it. He thinks he's going to spring a trap on you. He's not really interested in which is more probable. There are layers upon layers of not-so-hidden agendas beneath his oh-so-innocent sounding fake question.
Bob, I love the fact that you think it's setting a trap to ask someone to explain their thinking in reference to an argument they're making. It's not a trap; it's a discussion. The worst thing that can happen is Tim and I will better understand the processes the other is using to reach their conclusions.
But the fact that you appear to so jealously guard your beliefs from a similar examination does not speak well of your conclusions.
The people I most admire in these kinds of discussions are those that remind me that our conclusions are a secondary objective behind adopting the best processes for understanding reality. And I enjoy the participation of even the most vitriolic posters (in contrast to you, whose relatively congenial tone I do appreciate) because I think they display a kind of pathology that highlights the deficiencies we all bear, to some (hopefully lesser) degree, in our cognitive abilities.
Then I'll ask you in the same manner that you asked Tim. What are your motives for asking this question? Tell us what your response will be to either possible answer in advance.
If you are being honest in claiming that you are setting no trap, then you should have no objections to doing so. If you are reticent to do the above, then I see no reasonable alternative to assuming you have a hidden agenda.
Really, though, I think it's telling that you believe any question could ever be a trap. I am one of those who thinks that we have nothing to fear from reality, because we're already living in it.:)
I ask, as they say, in order to find out. I assure you that I have nothing like a trap or rhetorical reply in mind.
Just hitting this with another comment in order to enable e-mail notification. It looks like this one is dead, but if it comes back to life I'll check back in.
Sorry for the delay. Here's my take on your question:
"Which is more likely? That I can convince some people that I once flipped a coin and it landed 30 consecutive times on heads, or that I actually flip a coin and have it land 30 consecutive times on heads?"
I suppose that it depends on a lot of factors. Are you practiced at coin flipping? (I've worked at it a little and can get about a 70% heads rate in a long streak.) Who are you trying to convince? Mathematicians? The hypothetical man-on-the-street? Someone who has a religious or political bias for or against the claim that you can get 30 heads in a row?
The whole point of this exercise in analogy seems to me to depend on ignoring questions like these. If you have a point you'd like to make, I think you'd do better to leave the coin out of it and just state it directly.
Me: "Which is more likely? That I can convince some people that I once flipped a coin and it landed 30 consecutive times on heads, or that I actually flip a coin and have it land 30 consecutive times on heads?" Tim: "I suppose that it depends on a lot of factors. Are you practiced at coin flipping?"
I see now that this question seems like a trap to everyone. Let me try and rephrase what I was getting at.
I was trying to establish whether or not we agree on the fact that people are reliably more credulous than the probability of some events warrant. I think people are (reliably more credulous than the probability of some events), and that this is especially marked where the probability is either very high or very low.
Tim: "Who are you trying to convince? Mathematicians? The hypothetical man-on-the-street? Someone who has a religious or political bias for or against the claim that you can get 30 heads in a row?"
I was imagining a scenario where one should consider which was more likely: that I would be able to convince some people that I had flipped a coin consecutive times and it landed on heads each time, or that I should get to flipping a coin and trying to achieve that result all on my own. I think I had, in my head, an image of me and my twin, one setting out to start convincing some people, and the other flipping away. Who would more probably achieve success first?
Tim: "The whole point of this exercise in analogy seems to me to depend on ignoring questions like these. If you have a point you'd like to make, I think you'd do better to leave the coin out of it and just state it directly."
As I think I said upthread, when we come to different conclusions I think it's interesting and sometimes profitable to examine the different processes or methods we use to reach different conclusions. And I am trying to understand how you approach what is, for me, the biggest problem in your paper: the seeming assumption that a documented account of a highly unlikely event is more likely to correspond to a fact than a case of mistaken credulity.
I also think it's a good idea to go through the exercise of trying to make an argument whose conclusions I don't agree with work for me. I think that the tack you've proposed -- using a series of events to act as a finer filter that no single or lesser combination could distinguish, is either interesting or fatally flawed in this context: I'm just really not sure yet.
As I mentioned earlier, I am going to go through Tim's referenced paper on the Resurrection, and how the existence of some accounts that relate to the Resurrection could be construed to increase the likelihood that the Christian God's existence is probable. I am working with the paper that is here: ( http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrectionarticlesinglefile.pdf )
Tim's Paper: "We shall argue that there is significant positive evidence for R, evidence that cannot be ignored and that must be taken into account in any evaluation of the total evidence for Christianity and for theism."
I like to use analogies to run alongside these arguments because I think it helps me follow along. In this case, appropos of the OP, I am going to analogize your statement above with this:
Me: We shall argue that there is significant positive evidence for THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO (B), evidence that cannot be ignored and that must be taken into account in any evaluation of the total evidence for NAPOLEON.
I think my analogy above (flawed as all analogies are), approximates your line of argument so far. So I'm going to move on.
Tim's Paper: ".... the probability that God exists is higher if there is significant independent evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than if there is no such evidence, and this is true because the probability that the resurrection took place is virtually nil if there is no God and higher if there is."
I think the equivalent to your statement extending my analogy would be:
Me: The probability that Napoleon existed is higher if there is significant independent evidence that THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO (B) occurred than if there is no such evidence, and this is true because the probability that the BATTLE OF WATERLOO took place is virtually nil if NAPOLEON did not exist and higher if there is.
Hmm. Right away I see a problem -- the analogy seems to break down pretty quickly above when we use something like NAPOLEON and the BATTLE OF WATERLOO. It seems that the second part becomes strained -- is a BATTLE OF WATERLOO really virtually impossible without the existence of a NAPOLEON?
So, I would like to move on, but right away there seems a pretty fundamental problem (revealed by the analogy) in your entailing the existence of a thing (God, or in my case Napoleon) with an event (R, or in my case B). I'll ask you to respond to this, but even if I don't hear back I'm going to continue to move on through the rest of the paper, at least as much as I have time for.
Tim's Paper: "Our argument will proceed on the assumption that we have a substantially accurate text of the four gospels, Acts, and several of the undisputed Pauline epistles (most significantly Galatians and I Corinthians)..."
By this I understand you to mean that the original versions of these documents weren't modified subsequently in any way that would affect your argument. I consider this assumption suspect, given the known motives of evangelizers, documents that describe the actions of early Church founders, and the known interpolations and forgeries. Still, we have what we have.
Tim's Paper: "... that the gospels were written, if not by the authors whose names they now bear, at least by disciples of Jesus or people who knew those disciples – people who knew at first hand the details of his life and teaching or people who spoke with those eyewitnesses..."
But there are good reasons to disagree with the above. Names were attributed to the Gospels after they were written. To the extent that we know about Jesus's followers we should infer that they were poor and not literate. The Gospels are written in Greek. Many scholars date the Gospels as being written after the possible lifetimes of the disciples. The Gospels clearly suffer from the Synoptic problem, and are best explained by Q and Markan priority, etc. In other words, it seems like you've basically swept more than half of all NT scholarship for the past 200 years under the rug and declared that there's nothing further to see here.
So, I see no reason to accept your premise above, and the rest of your paper, as it depends on this premise, is of questionable value.
Tim's Paper: "... – and that the narratives, at least where not explicitly asserting the occurrence of a miracle, deserve as much credence as similarly attested documents would be accorded if they reported strictly secular matters."
Well, no, this sweeps under the rug the obvious inference that the Gospels are written by evangelizers. The writers are trying to convince the reader that a God exists -- they are not impartial reporters with no agenda. So, the narratives deserve as much credence about non-miraculous accounts that relate to the writer's agenda as do those of Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, and all other kinds of lesser known and less successful cults.
But I do agree that when accounts do no assert a miracle, and do not relate facts that support the agenda of the author, then by parsimony we should accept that account until we have reason to think otherwise.
Tim's Paper: "Our argument will proceed on the assumption that we have a substantially accurate text of the four gospels, Acts, and several of the undisputed Pauline epistles (most significantly Galatians and I Corinthians)..."
Tony: “I consider this assumption suspect, given the known motives of evangelizers, documents that describe the actions of early Church founders, and the known interpolations and forgeries.”
Then you are at odds with mainstream scholarship.
Tim's Paper: "... that the gospels were written, if not by the authors whose names they now bear, at least by disciples of Jesus or people who knew those disciples – people who knew at first hand the details of his life and teaching or people who spoke with those eyewitnesses..."
Tony: “But there are good reasons to disagree with the above. Names were attributed to the Gospels after they were written.”
There is not one scrap of first or second century evidence for this claim.
Tony: “To the extent that we know about Jesus's followers we should infer that they were poor and not literate.”
If by “not literate” you mean “not trained in rabbinical schools,” then that is fair for everyone but Paul. If you mean “unable to read, speak, or write Greek,” then it is doubtful. All Jewish boys were educated in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science as it existed in that day. Furthermore, recent archaeological evidence is forcing a reevaluation of our conception of ancient literacy. On this issue see Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (2012), chapter 3, as well as Alan Millard’s work.
Tony: “The Gospels are written in Greek. Many scholars date the Gospels as being written after the possible lifetimes of the disciples.”
Actually, most scholars date all of the Gospels, even John, to within the lifetimes of the disciples. And many others date them earlier.
Tony: “The Gospels clearly suffer from the Synoptic problem, and are best explained by Q and Markan priority, etc.”
The Synoptic problem isn’t something from which the Gospels suffer; it’s the puzzle of sorting out the direction and extent of their literary dependencies on one another. There is an increasing revolt in the scholarly world against the idea that Q ever existed as a source independent of Matthew itself; see Marc Goodacre’s work on this issue. But even if the two-source hypothesis were true, this would not be in conflict with anything we have stated in the paper.
Tony: “In other words, it seems like you've basically swept more than half of all NT scholarship for the past 200 years under the rug and declared that there's nothing further to see here.”
No. Although I do think some of it was bunk when it was first proposed, and some of it is now outdated, the argument in the paper proceeds on fairly minimal assumptions that are granted by mainstream scholars of various persuasions.
Tony: “So, I see no reason to accept your premise above, and the rest of your paper, as it depends on this premise, is of questionable value.”
You’re wrong to do so, but it doesn’t bother me, since you have given me no reason to take your criticism seriously.
Tim's Paper: "... – and that the narratives, at least where not explicitly asserting the occurrence of a miracle, deserve as much credence as similarly attested documents would be accorded if they reported strictly secular matters."
Tony: “Well, no, this sweeps under the rug the obvious inference that the Gospels are written by evangelizers. The writers are trying to convince the reader that a God exists -- they are not impartial reporters with no agenda.”
This objection is silly. Stop and think about this claim for a moment. Where, in all the Gospels, are the authors attempting to convince their readers that God exists? Can you quote a single place where they try to do this? A few vague words about “agendas” will not do any work at all. People who survived the Holocast have an “agenda” to tell people about the horrors of the camps—will you disqualify them on the grounds that their narratives are just propaganda?
Tony: “So, the narratives deserve as much credence about non-miraculous accounts that relate to the writer's agenda as do those of Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, and all other kinds of lesser known and less successful cults.”
I see that you are conveniently ignoring the phrase “similarly attested.” Then put your hand on your heart and tell me whether you really believe that the Book of Mormon qualifies for the comparison.
Me: “I consider [that we have a substantially accurate text of the four gospels, Acts, and several of the undisputed Pauline epistles] suspect, given the known motives of evangelizers, documents that describe the actions of early Church founders, and the known interpolations and forgeries.” Tim: "Then you are at odds with mainstream scholarship."
This is an epistemic problem, not one of scholarly analysis. We don't know what we don't know, given the paucity of documentation for the period. I found your assumption too broad in its scope and depth, that's all.
Tim: "There is not one scrap of first or second century evidence for [my claim that do not know who wrote the Gospels]."
I gave my reasons earlier. I am curious how it is you know who wrote the Gospels.
Tim: "All Jewish boys were educated in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science as it existed in that day."
After asking to talk about the evidence upthread, you seem to have nonetheless maintained this method of a) making an assertion, and then...
Tim: "On this issue see Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (2012), chapter 3, as well as Alan Millard’s work."
... b) citing a scholar who you say has conclusively argued this. I think this is not persuasive -- I would like to know why it is that Craig A. Evans has concluded what he has. If you are going to make your case stand on the evidence, as I thought you indicated you would prior, I think you should be wiling to bring forth the evidence (as compared to opinion).
Why is your assertion above not convincing to me? First, Evans work flies in the face of historical scholarship concerning literacy. It would take more than a few words of reference for me to throw this away. Second, it is not a productive method for convincing others. I think discussing the evidence is a productive way to discuss others.
For instance, I don't think it would be productive for me to cite this in response to your above: "According to the growth processes in population and urbanization as mentioned above, it may be surmised that before the beginning of these processes, in the days of the Maccabees and at the end of the 'biblical' period, the literacy rate of the Jewish people was 1.5% if not lower. Nevertheless, if the conclusion seems farfetched, it can be rejected only by cogent arguments."
And reference it here: http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html But then all we've done is restate our positions, and indicated that others agree with our positions. This going back and forth, without discussing the evidence behind the conclusions, doesn't seem like a very productive exercise to me. I think we should be discussing the evidence.
Tony: “I consider [that we have a substantially accurate text of the four gospels, Acts, and several of the undisputed Pauline epistles] suspect, given the known motives of evangelizers, documents that describe the actions of early Church founders, and the known interpolations and forgeries.”
Tim: "Then you are at odds with mainstream scholarship."
Tony: “This is an epistemic problem, not one of scholarly analysis. We don't know what we don't know, given the paucity of documentation for the period. I found your assumption too broad in its scope and depth, that's all.”
We have outstanding documentation for the texts of these works – far better documentation than we have for almost any other texts of comparable antiquity, and more than enough to establish that our texts are substantially accurate. To say this is not to say that the claims made in those texts are true; it is just to say that the claims in the texts as we now possess them are the claims that they made originally.
Perhaps you misunderstood the claim. But if you understood it and disagree, then you just don’t know much about the way that textual criticism works.
Tim: "There is not one scrap of first or second century evidence for [my claim that do not know who wrote the Gospels]."
Tony: “I gave my reasons earlier. I am curious how it is you know who wrote the Gospels.”
I'm sorry; I'm not finding your reasons, just your bare assertion on May 10, 2012 10:53 AM. If you can point me to the place where you articulated your reasons, that would be very helpful.
In my note at May 10, 2012 2:09 PM, I included a link to a video where I've laid out some of my reasons for taking the traditional claims regarding their authorship as well founded. You can find a piece directly on the authorship of the fourth Gospel here.
Tim: "All Jewish boys were educated in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science as it existed in that day."
Tony: “After asking to talk about the evidence upthread, you seem to have nonetheless maintained this method of a) making an assertion, and then...”
Tim: "On this issue see Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (2012), chapter 3, as well as Alan Millard’s work."
Tony: “... b) citing a scholar who you say has conclusively argued this. I think this is not persuasive -- I would like to know why it is that Craig A. Evans has concluded what he has. If you are going to make your case stand on the evidence, as I thought you indicated you would prior, I think you should be wiling to bring forth the evidence (as compared to opinion).
“Why is your assertion above not convincing to me? First, Evans work flies in the face of historical scholarship concerning literacy. It would take more than a few words of reference for me to throw this away. Second, it is not a productive method for convincing others. I think discussing the evidence is a productive way to discuss others.
“For instance, I don't think it would be productive for me to cite this in response to your above: ‘According to the growth processes in population and urbanization as mentioned above, it may be surmised that before the beginning of these processes, in the days of the Maccabees and at the end of the biblical period, the literacy rate of the Jewish people was 1.5% if not lower. Nevertheless, if the conclusion seems farfetched, it can be rejected only by cogent arguments.’
“And reference it here: http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html But then all we've done is restate our positions, and indicated that others agree with our positions. This going back and forth, without discussing the evidence behind the conclusions, doesn't seem like a very productive exercise to me. I think we should be discussing the evidence.
“Do you agree?”
Citation of the work of highly qualified professional scholars who give extensive references and interact with earlier work by scholars who disagree with them is a reasonable way to advance the discussion. However, one must do this competently, citing material that is actually relevant to the topic under discussion.
The citation you give to Mier Bar-Ilan’s 1992 article on his web page refers to the state of the people of Israel in approximately the year 400 BC. By Bar-Ilan’s own admission, the rapid urbanization in Israel under the Romans would have brought with it a concomitant increase in literacy. As he writes:
“[A]ccording to the above social models, it is clear that the Jews under Roman rule not only grew in numbers and urbanized, but improved their literacy rate as well. According to this analysis, one cannot speculate on the size of this literacy rate since this rate depends on various factors such as: the rate of the population growth, the state of the roads, merchandising, the influence of other cultures, and other factors. However, it can be safely assumed from our study that under the Romans the literary rate of Jews increased.”
Therefore, the number you have cited is irrelevant to this discussion except as setting a very distant lower bound.
Tim: "Citation of the work of highly qualified professional scholars who give extensive references and interact with earlier work by scholars who disagree with them is a reasonable way to advance the discussion. However, one must do this competently, citing material that is actually relevant to the topic under discussion."
Sure, but the topic of literacy throughout history is not a new one. It has, for generations, been estimated as very, very low in most ancient (and poor) societies.
Tim: "Therefore, the number you have cited is irrelevant to this discussion except as setting a very distant lower bound."
The one I quoted estimated 1.5%. This is, from my recollection, a common understanding of historians who look at periods like the 1st Century. So, when you say that instead of the standard very low number (~1% to 2%) is actually 100%, then, yikes, I have to say this seems like a rather wild adjustment. And well I would consider that for a variety of reasons ancient Judea might have had a higher literacy rate than what has normally been considered the upper limit, your number of 100% seems like the one that strays wildly from historical norms.
The study of ancient history (and all histories) is an evolving field, and different generations of scholars look at it through the lens of their time. (On my bookshelf I have a college textbook that looks at the socio-economic conditions of 1st Century Palestine in the context of Marxism, for instance.) But wild re-assessments of well-developed understandings are rare, and I approach them (very) conservatively.
Tim: "We have outstanding documentation for these works of these works – far better documentation than we have for almost any other texts of comparable antiquity, and more than enough to establish that our texts are substantially accurate. To say this is not to say that the claims made in those texts are true; it is just to say that the claims in the texts as we now possess them are the claims that they made originally."
The best we have is not the best we could wish for. We do not have any extant copies of the originals. We do not know the identities of the authors of the Gospels. We do not have copies of other works from the period that were destroyed. You simply appear bent on portraying the documentation for the period to be all that we could wish for, when in fact what we have is paltry, and is best only by comparison to other documentation from the period. The work done on rebuilding the NT from what we have is a monumental achievement, but we should not forget how much more we would want to build a truly historical account.
Tim: "I'm sorry; I'm not finding your reasons [for asserting that we do not know who wrote the Gospels], just your bare assertion on May 10, 2012 10:53 AM. If you can point me to the place where you articulated your reasons, that would be very helpful."
I had written: "Names were attributed to the Gospels after they were written. To the extent that we know about Jesus's followers we should infer that they were poor and not literate. The Gospels are written in Greek. Many scholars date the Gospels as being written after the possible lifetimes of the disciples. The Gospels clearly suffer from the Synoptic problem, and are best explained by Q and Markan priority, etc. In other words, it seems like you've basically swept more than half of all NT scholarship for the past 200 years under the rug and declared that there's nothing further to see here."
Tim: "You can find a piece directly on the authorship of the fourth Gospel here."
Thanks for that. Truly, I have never known how it is that the authorship of any of the Gospels is supposed to be known. I haven't studied your entry yet, but I appreciate the articulation.
Anyway, I'm gong to continue moving through the article.
Tim's Paper: "Where the texts do assert something miraculous – for example, Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances – we take it, given the basic assumption of authenticity, that the narrative represents what someone relatively close to the situation claimed."
I think the above needs a very careful examination.
Firstly, I'd ask why we should not consider the assertion of the miraculous to be an invention, exaggeration, or delusion? I consider none of these to be tied to real "situations" but they are common (far more common than miracles by any estimation). Secondly, why should none of these assertions be considered merely mythic -- why can they not be the result of evolving spoken or literary traditions without any clear origin? Again, these are far more common than miracles.
Another way of asking this is, when we read stories about Heracles, do we assume that the narrative represents what someone close to the situation witnessed?
I am sure you have answers to these questions. My problem is that so far the responses I've heard from Christians on this topic have not seemed very persuasive.
The one you quoted wasn't talking about the first century AD, or the first century BC, or the second century BC, or the third century BC. It simply wasn't relevant to this discussion.
Tony: "This is, from my recollection, a common understanding of historians who look at periods like the 1st Century."
1. Your "recollection" does not count. The last time you tried to pass off your recollections as data, you were telling us that Josephus's reference to Jesus in Antiquities 18.3.3 was sandwiched between two reports of "wars, or something."
2. The most pessimistic numbers in common use are 5 to 10% in the Roman Empire as a whole, with perhaps somewhat higher rates among the Jewish people. (Harris, Ancient Literacy (1989)) Since the education among the Jews focused almost exclusively on the boys, this means that a pessimistic to middling range for Jewish men would be in the 10 to 20% range.
Tony: "So, when you say that instead of the standard very low number (~1% to 2%)..."
This is nobody's standard number. You are not entitled to make up your own facts.
Tony: "... is actually 100%, ..."
Which I never said: in addition to making up your own facts, you are now making up my facts for me. Stop that. The Jewish practice was to educate the boys in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science. I suspect that this education "took" about as well as it does in the US, which is to say, some learn well and are literate (in our modern sense of that term) at the end of the process, and some are not.
Tony: "The best we have is not the best we could wish for."
So what? If it's good enough to support reasonable belief, then pining for evidence we don't have is unreasonable.
Tony: "We do not have any extant copies of the originals."
You could have added, "... for any ancient historical work whatsoever." So what?
Tony: "We do not know the identities of the authors of the Gospels."
I've argued against this in some detail. In case you've lost sight of the links, here they are again:
Tony: "[W]hen we read stories about Heracles, do we assume that the narrative represents what someone close to the situation witnessed?"
No. But then again, that's because we have nothing remotely like the level of attestation for the existence and doings of Heracles that we do for the existence and doings of Jesus. You cannot make a comparison like that stick unless the evidence is at least approximately the same. It isn't. It's not even close.
Tim: "The citation you give to Mier Bar-Ilan’s 1992 article on his web page refers to the state of the people of Israel in approximately the year 400 BC."
and
Tim: "The one you quoted wasn't talking about the first century AD, or the first century BC, or the second century BC, or the third century BC. It simply wasn't relevant to this discussion."
False. I quoted in full the portion where it said, "... in the days of the Maccabees and at the end of the biblical period, the literacy rate of the Jewish people was 1.5% if not lower." I understand the days of the Macabees to be the 1st Century BCE.
I explained my reason for using the 1.5% estimate prior, and I linked to the full article so you could read as much of it as you liked -- principally, I was interested in the reasoning in used in order to make any calculation for estimating literacy in the past (I think it made several interesting points). Regarding the relevancy of the article, I'll remind you that it is entitled, "Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first centuries c.e." It goes on to talk about the methods used and the difficulties of estimating literacy in Antiquity, using language like this in its introduction, "Therefore, to speculate on the forces involved in illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first centuries c.e., some processes taking place in contemporary societies, where changes in the illiteracy rate have been investigated, will be analyzed. " It even concludes with this sentence, "Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past."
So, your claim that my citation is about 400 BCE, and that it isn't relevant to the question of estimating literacy for the time of the NT, is clearly bogus. I truly wonder why it is that you would take such a strident position against it.
Me: "So, when you say that instead of the standard very low number (~1% to 2%)..." Tim: "This is nobody's standard number. You are not entitled to make up your own facts."
False. I have cited the study by Meir Bar-Ilan, and referenced his article so you could see on what he based his estimates. Meir Bar-Ilan is not nobody, and his facts were not made up by me. I'll point out some more of what he had to say, and show you some more of his reasoning:
"However, in a traditional society, knowing how to read was not a necessity: neither for economic reasons, nor for intellectual ones. On the contrary. Why should a farmer send his son to learn how to read when it entails a waste of working time (=money)? Why should he himself learn how to read if his culture is based on oral tradition (though with a written Torah)? According to the Torah, there is no need to read or write, except for writing the Mezuza, Tefilin, and the Torah itself. However, for these purposes there was always a scribe, so a Jew in antiquity could fulfill the commandments of the Torah while being illiterate. Not only that, but 3% of the total population seems to be high in comparison with other cultures. In ancient Egypt, a land with a lot of scribes, only half a percent were literate.28 Now, even if it is taken into consideration that training in hieroglyphs takes much more time than script with some 22 symbols, still the conclusion of the extent of literacy in a neighboring country some millennia later with literacy rates that are some six times larger than its predecessor, seems quite plausible."
Me: "So, when you say that instead of the standard very low number [for literacy] (~1% to 2%) is actually 100%, then, yikes, I have to say this seems like a rather wild adjustment."
Tim: "Which I never said: in addition to making up your own facts, you are now making up my facts for me. Stop that. The Jewish practice was to educate the boys in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science."
Previously, you made the claim that "[a]ll Jewish boys were educated in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science as it existed in that day." All means 100% or very close to it to me. If you meant to say that you think 10% to 20% of all Jewish boys in 1st Century Judea could read, I wonder why you would write "[a]ll Jewish boys were educated in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science as it existed in that day." The two seem like very different statements to me, and I wonder how it is that you can mean both.
Me: "We do not know the identities of the authors of the Gospels." Tim: "I've argued against this in some detail. In case you've lost sight of the links, here they are again:"
I am trying to reply to your comments in order. My statement above was in reference to an earlier request for a reference from you, and immediately after I wrote, "Thanks for [the references arguing for how it is that the identity of the Gospel writers can be known]. Truly, I have never known how it is that the authorship of any of the Gospels is supposed to be known. I haven't studied your entry yet, but I appreciate the articulation."
So, at the risk of being repetitive, I chose to reply to your request to a prior reference upthread, explaining that I hadn't had time to review the arguments yet.
Tony: “False. I quoted in full the portion where it said, ‘... in the days of the Maccabees and at the end of the biblical period, the literacy rate of the Jewish people was 1.5% if not lower.’ I understand the days of the Macabees to be the 1st Century BCE.”
Fair tag. The end of the Biblical period is about 400 BC, but I missed the reference to the Macabees, who wrested control of Judea in the middle of the 2nd century BC. However, the reference to the growth both of urbanization and of literacy under the Romans leaves the central point intact: the 1.5% number tells us nothing of interest about the first century AD. Incidentally, you can get a sense of what Bar-Ilan means by this phrase by his reference to “Roman Palestine of the second century” here. So the evidence of his own usage suggests that the 1.5% number is at least 200 years out of date vis a vis the period we are now discussing.
Tony: “Regarding the relevancy of the article, I'll remind you that it is entitled, ‘Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first centuries c.e.’”
But the 1.5% isn’t about that century, and the author himself points out why not.
Tony: “It even concludes with this sentence, ‘Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past.’”
But this inference from rabbinic sources is not supported by the data presented, even granting the rather problematic attempt to derive a rate via a connection to the infant mortality rate, for the author has said, above: “In the examination of Rabbinic sources, on the one hand, and parallel data from different societies on the other, the infant mortality rate among the Jews of the Land of Israel in antiquity may be concluded to be above 30%. In other words, the projection of this figure signifies a literacy rate lower than 10%.”
There’s quite a gap between “lower than 10%” AND “less than 3%.” Even Harris, who is on the pessimistic end of the scholarly spectrum, doesn’t go that low. And I would be interested to know how Bar-Ilan reconciles this number with his own claim that, according to the Talmud, every child in school had his own book (b. Git. 58a).
The growing evidence for widespread literacy in the Roman empire includes the discovery of numerous wooden slats at Vindolanda, where Hadrian’s wall was later erected. The evidence shows that writing was common to people at all levels in the Roman army, from the garrison commander down to infantrymen and slaves. The letter of Claudia Severa to Sulpicia Lepidina inviting the latter to a birthday party is noteworthy. See A.K. Bowman, Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier: Vindolanda and Its People (London: British Museum Press, 1994). The evidence from Vindolanda (scarcely noticed by Harris) is one of the principal reasons that scholars like Millard are now reevaluating first century literacy.
Another item not mentioned by Harris is the painting of Terentius Neo, a baker, and his wife found in Pompeii – she holding a stylus and a wooden tablet, and he holding a scroll. You can view it here.
Even more direct and relevant is the evidence of ostraca at Masada, where the majority of the Jewish holdouts were ordinary people rather than trained scribes; inscriptions (including inscriptions on ossuaries that were obviously not done by a professional hand); the notices in Greek warning Gentiles not to enter the sacred courts of Herod’s Temple (which could have done no good unless the people could read them); the signatures on the legal papyrus from the Bar Kokhba cave (some of which are crudely scratched, while others are written in an easy and flowing script); and the Latin identifications on amphoras from the pantry at Herod’s palace.
On you 100% question: Our best evidence is that all Jewish boys were educated in reading and writing. What proportion of them that education raised them to the level of ability to write is a separate question. I think this fact (and much more, the evidence given above) puts the 20% figure under significant pressure. Certainly there is no reason to doubt that Jesus’ disciples wrote Matthew and John simply because the ability to write was a prerequisite; writing ability wasn’t that uncommon.
252 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 252 of 252Hiero5ant,
“I think an objective observer would find it hard to avoid suspecting you're starting to play coy here.”
I don’t understand the complaint. I didn’t come in here for a thesis examination; some people seem to be under the curious impression that the point of this thread is to try tof find out what Tim thinks about all sorts of things. While I’m not averse to discussing my views, life is short, I have deadlines to meet, and it isn’t my intention to get dragged into a long discussion of every detail of my views of things I didn’t come in talking about. Who cares? Let’s talk about the evidence and where it points.
“I'm not seeing any specific examples of 1) what constitutes ‘a difference that would matter’, an error ‘of consequence’ etc. or 2) what claims -- qua historian -- you find to be probably true, but even marginally less probable than some other claims.”
Because I don’t want to make this into the kind of discussion described above, I’m going to give you exactly what you ask for here, and then I’m going to move on.
Regarding 1):
If one Gospel author said that Jesus was crucified by the direct order of Herod Antipas, the execution being carried out in Galilee, while another said that he was crucified by the direct order of Pilate, the execution being carried out in Judea, we would have a problem. Someone, clearly, would be making an error of consequence. There is no plausible way that the two accounts could be reconciled.
By contrast, the fact that the Synoptic authors say that the crucifixion took place at “the third hour” (Mark 15:25) and John says it was “about the sixth hour” (John 19:14) is not a big deal. It may be explicable in terms of a difference of methods of reckoning the hour, or the mistaking of Γ (gamma, for three) for Ϛ (episemon, for six), which are very similar in some MSS. I have not made enough of a study of the matter to decide what I think is the most reasonable inference. But if they cannot be explained in some such plausible way, the broad outline of the historical narrative remains unchanged.
Regarding 2):
The Resurrection is one of the best authenticated events in the Gospels, in terms of evidence. The feeding of the 5,000, found in all four Gospels, is extremely well authenticated. The flight into Egypt, found only in Matthew, is rendered historically more credible by the incidental connection between Matthew’s narrative and Josephus’s narrative of the same time period. The story of the resurrection of the saints at the time of Jesus’ resurrection, found only in Matthew, is not confirmed by any other source. For just these reasons, the former are better evidenced and the last, in particular, less well evidenced.
“Re #1 it remains a live possibility to me that you either explicitly or implicitly use the theologian's criterion to determine whether some putative error, discrepancy, absurdity, ambiguity etc. is ‘of doctrinal consequence’ -- whether nothing doctrinal would ‘ride on it’.”
No – see above.
“But qua historian or qua scientist, it sure as heck "makes a difference" whether the world is 6,000 years old or 12 billion, or whether the zombie saints were or weren't, following Licona, simply a poetic expression of apocalyptic imagery!)”
If Jesus rose from the dead, then the question of what Matthew meant about the saints coming out of their tombs is, by every reasonable standard, a secondary issue. We can have a discussion about it, and we can wish we had more evidence about the putative event, but it’s not the headline – theologically or historically.
“Re #2 I'm not interested in litigating any given alleged error (although of course I find your treatment of the examples I gave quite silly) because I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. I brought them up not to challenge you on them, but to prompt you to give some specific example of something, anything in the NT you take (qua historian) to be even ever so slightly less likely to be true than some other thing.”
Okay. It’s not really my concern what you do or don’t find silly. If you’re ever interested in talking about the evidence, let us all know.
“Surely you must think -- qua historian -- that while cleansing the temple is %98 likely to have occurred, the zombie saints business is, maybe, just maybe, only %97 likely to have occurred? And that you can say this because as an historian you have of course taken into account the political and theological agendas of the author, the human tendencies for mistake, fraud etc.?”
Sure. See above. Some claims have more evidence than others.
“[P]erhaps we can ask him whether Tim is correct that the illiterate peasants of the day scrupulously avoided false miracle claims like a collective "C.S.I.C.O.P.: Jerusalem" out of fear of ‘bearing false witness’.”
I didn’t say that: I said that devout Jews in the Second Temple period had a strong motivation to the contrary. The Josephus reference actually doesn’t apply, because the Christians were not “for procuring innovations and changes of the government” – that wasn’t their bag at all. Look at what Josephus says about the Egyptian: he “was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him.” Then look at the kind of lives the first Christians lived.
“But you are the verge of dynamiting your credibility as an historian if you're serious about your average fishmonger walking around like the James Randi of the Middle East.”
Not my view, as I’ve now explained. Personally, I think that we should save phrases like “dynamiting your credibility as an historian” for people who deny that Jesus ever existed and write crazy, over-the-top blog posts on the subject. I also think James Randi is not sufficiently skeptical about a lot of things. But as they say, YMMV.
"There is no warrant for saying that no one else noticed them; in fact, Matthew says they were seen by many."
Beg the question much? So Matthew says there were Zombies shambling about. And Matthew also says a bunch of folks saw them. Does the latter statement by Matthew somehow lend credence to the story? Jesus, you are a creduloid.
"The only inference to be drawn from the silence of the other New Testament writers is that if they were aware of the phenomenon, they chose not to say anything about it."
The only inference? How about the inference that Matthew pulled the story out of his a$$? What is more likely, that Matthew made up a story, or that a Zombie horde invaded Jerusalem and nobody else wrote about it?
DFTT.
Bob: "Were not "ruling it out". We're demonstrating that, after honest examination, the proposition is untenable. Big difference. "Jesus existed" was never the going-in position - it was the conclusion. But your treatment of the possibility of the miraculous is to rule them out by definition from the beginning. Even bigger difference."
You misunderstand my position then. I would gladly grant that miracles (whatever that means) are not impossible. I simply see no reason to invoke them in historical explanations when the mundane so easily covers that territory. And if you want to make a case for miracles in the past, you can knock yourself out, but I admit that I think the tools (historical study) are not up to the job. You see, I am not saying miracles are impossible, just that I don't see historical study as being a profitable way to convince the non-gullible of something like miracles. But I might be wrong, so, as I said, feel free to make your case.
Bob, is it possible that Jesus did not exist? Because if you say yes, then you agree with me and we have no quarrel over the mythicists exploring that argument. If you say no, then you are affirming that you are as close-minded on this topic as you have appeared in the past, and your charges here are little more than psychological projection.
Truly, I don't know what it is you are trying to say.
Tim: "I don’t understand the complaint. I didn’t come in here for a thesis examination; some people seem to be under the curious impression that the point of this thread is to try tof find out what Tim thinks about all sorts of things. While I’m not averse to discussing my views, life is short, I have deadlines to meet, and it isn’t my intention to get dragged into a long discussion of every detail of my views of things I didn’t come in talking about. Who cares? Let’s talk about the evidence and where it points."
What a crock. You have repeatedly tried to assert your authority on things historical here, pointed to your CV, referenced your "substantial paper", etc. And now when it's pointed out that your methods don't actually correspond with accepted historical methods, you try to pretend that you only care about the evidence and try to shift the topic back that-a-way.
Let me guess, we will point out why the evidence is less than reliable, and then you will try to shift back to your supposed expertise as a historian and claim that we are ignorant of some consensus of experts, and when that is shown to be either suspect or incongruent with known historical practices, voila, it's all back to the evidence. Rinse, repeat.
Tony,
You write:
"What a crock. You have repeatedly tried to assert your authority on things historical here, pointed to your CV, referenced your 'substantial paper', etc. And now when it's pointed out that your methods don't actually correspond with accepted historical methods, you try to pretend that you only care about the evidence and try to shift the topic back that-a-way."
Let's take this apart.
1. I pointed you to my CV in response to your question about what I have written. In case you forgot, here's the question that prompted it:
I have to ask -- what History have you studied outside the time of the NT? Because it seems that you are unfamiliar with the concept of reading some historical accounts with a degree of skepticism based on familiarity with predictable biases, motivations, etc.
2. "... referenced your 'substantial paper' ..."
Again, in response to your unargued assertion -- this one:
"[I]t's blindingly obvious that all these are more easily explained through the mundane, as I listed -- confusion, deceit, misperception, superstition, misrepresentation, revisionism, gullibility, et al."
Since I dealt with all of those charges, and since I'm uninterested in recapitulating the argument in a combox, I pointed you to the paper. You don't have to agree with it. You don't even have to understand it. But it's a public articulation of some of the arguments that I find compelling, and it's directly relevant to your unargued claim that the evidence for the resurrection can be brushed off with a few commonplaces. In other words, if you want to continue the discussion, engage with the arguments.
But somehow, you think this means that the whole point of this thread is to discover what Tim thinks about the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27. Huh??
3. "And now when it's pointed out that your methods don't actually correspond with accepted historical methods ..."
Tony, you haven't "pointed that out." "Pointing out" is a success term. You've asserted it. But you've never done anything more to substantiate any of your assertions on this topic than to wave your arms vaguely in the direction of David Hume. (Your comment, May 11, 2012 9:33 AM.) Throughout this entire discussion, you've been grandstanding as if you knew what you are talking about. When that has been repeatedly shown to be false, in detail, as in the case of the Josephus passage, where you either made stuff up out of whole cloth or borrowed something you hadn't bothered to check out, you shift away from the actual evidence and the actual arguments. Stop it. It's transparent.
"... you try to pretend that you only care about the evidence and try to shift the topic back that-a-way." I've been talking about the evidence all along, and before you were: see my comment dated May 01, 2012 5:51 PM.
I realize that the evidence isn't your strong suit, so I can appreciate your motivation to derail the discussion into a matter of my personal beliefs. I've answered every reasonable question (and some unreasonable ones) about this now. If you want the discussion to be over, fine. If not, then let's see some substance.
"Bob, is it possible that Jesus did not exist? Because if you say yes, then you agree with me and we have no quarrel over the mythicists exploring that argument."
Once one has examined the evidence, it is no longer possible for an honest and rational person to hold that His non-existence is a possibility. After a while, one has to accept some conclusions and move on. If a person were to hear about the Holocaust for the very first time in his life, he would be perfectly right in saying, "That's just too fantastic to be true. Show me some proof." But after having seen the evidence, to continue to doubt its historicity would not be a reasonable option for anyone other than an intellectually dishonest person.
"If you say no, then you are affirming that you are close-minded on this topic"
No, I'm doing no such thing. But I am affirming that I have no need to endlessly re-invent the wheel once something has been decisively settled one way or the other. For instance, I don't have to re-convince myself every morning that California is on the West Coast of the U.S. I've been there - I've seen it. I can concentrate on other issues, serene in the knowledge that the continental U.S. ends at the California coast. That doesn't make me "closed-minded" on the subject. It just means I know the answer to the question, "Where the the continental U.S. end?"
So yes. I am indeed "closed-minded" on a lot of issues, such as two plus two equals four, the Holocaust occurred, the Moon is closer to the Earth than the Sun, my sister-in-law is a vegetarian, and Jesus existed.
Tim: "Since I dealt with all of those charges, and since I'm uninterested in recapitulating the argument in a combox, I pointed you to the paper. You don't have to agree with it. You don't even have to understand it. But it's a public articulation of some of the arguments that I find compelling, and it's directly relevant to your unargued claim that the evidence for the resurrection can be brushed off with a few commonplaces. In other words, if you want to continue the discussion, engage with the arguments."
Okay. After a little tidying up, and when I have time I'll start at the beginning of your paper and show you where I think the problems are.
Tim: "...some people seem to be under the curious impression that the point of this thread is to try tof find out what Tim thinks about all sorts of things."
We don't agree with your conclusions. So it's natural to ask what methods you are using (what you think) in order to reach your conclusions. I would imagine that this is why we all seem to find the comment sections of blogs to be so interesting; to find out what others think, and why.
So before moving forward, could you please answer this question: "Which is more likely? That I can convince some people that I once flipped a coin and it landed 30 consecutive times on heads, or that I actually flip a coin and have it land 30 consecutive times on heads?"
Depends on what kind of coin you're using.
Which is more likely? That an individual will win the lottery, or that he will lose the lottery?
Just because it is (far) more likely that one will lose the lottery, there is no reason for a person to not believe that he has won, if he has the winning ticket.
Me: "Writers from the era are prone to attribute supernatural intervention to what we now explain through natural processes. Why should the Gospel writers be excluded from this tendency?”
Tim: "Because that tendency is balanced by the danger that Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 15 – vivid to any devout Jew – of bearing false witness against God."
So, to be clear, I don't think this responds to the problem at all. Superstition is not a matter of purposeful deception; it is a matter of attributing an imagined cause to a phenomenon that can be explained naturally, such as attributing evil spirits to what we would not explain through germ theory. So, an admonition to not bear false witness has nothing to do with explaining why we should not assume that those who heard the Christian message in the 1st Century were not prone to superstition.
Secondly, I read I Corinthians 15 as indicating that Paul was having trouble getting people to believe in everything he was selling; why else remind them that failure to hold firmly to what he preached would result in their having believed in vain? In other words, even if I Corinthians 15 addressed my question (if instead it said something like, "Hey everybody, don't be superstitious, test your beliefs, investigate claims, etc."), we'd still be introducing the problem that a) the passage would indicate that superstitious credulity was indeed a problem, and b) proscribing behavior is not an absolute guarantee of prevention. And in order for you to make the transition from probable to fact I think you're required to demonstrate something which gets us waaay closer to that kind of guarantee.
(Just an aside: I can imagine a Christian pointing out that, based on my above, the fact that Paul doesn't say "Don't be so superstitious" should mean that Christians were not superstitious. But reading the NT documents, and those from the 1st Century (and before and after), indicates that superstition ran like air throughout the population and even among those few fortunate enough to be literate.)
So, as I was saying, so many problems that I'm not sure where I'd start there.
"Just because it is (far) more likely that one will lose the lottery, there is no reason for a person to not believe that he has won, if he has the winning ticket."
What are you talking about? No one has said unlikely don't occur. If you have the winning ticket, then you have evidence. What is wrong with you?
Tim,
Calling me a troll does not excuse you from defending your idiotic position.
I just saw a man sprout wings and fly. Also, a thousand people saw the same thing. But guess what? Those thousand other people have chosen not to testify.
Do you believe me? If not, why not?
Tim: "Depends on what kind of coin you're using."
US Standard Mint. Quarter Dollar. George Washington on the head side, Mississippi (The Magnolia State) on the tails.
Bob: "Just because it is (far) more likely that one will lose the lottery, there is no reason for a person to not believe that he has won, if he has the winning ticket."
Bob, reading your comments is often like having a conversation with the TV. Still, just like the TV sometime, that one brought a smile to my day.
Tony,
You're just upset 'cause I called you out on your hidden agenda in your leading question. You were hoping for an answer like, "It's more likely that someone just said they tossed the coin in a certain manner", and then rush to the unwarranted conclusion that one shouldn't ever believe a person who claims to have tossed 30 heads in a row - therefore miracles never occur (wonderful example of non sequitur "logic").
You know that's where you were leading, and don't try to deny it!
To Beingitself:
"What are you talking about? No one has said unlikely don't occur. If you have the winning ticket, then you have evidence. What is wrong with you?
Nothing's wrong with me. The Apostles were in possession of the "winning ticket" (eyewitnesses to the Resurrection), and therefore the most unlikely event in all of history did indeed occur.
Bob: "You're just upset 'cause I called you out on your hidden agenda in your leading question. You were hoping for an answer like, "It's more likely that someone just said they tossed the coin in a certain manner", and then rush to the unwarranted conclusion that one shouldn't ever believe a person who claims to have tossed 30 heads in a row - therefore miracles never occur (wonderful example of non sequitur "logic")."
Bob, if you think that it's best for your argument to not answer certain questions, then I leave you to consider the reasons why. But for now, I am going to have to turn the Bob channel off for awhile; I've already frittered away too much time this morning already.
Cheers.
Tony,
“So, to be clear, I don't think this responds to the problem at all. Superstition is not a matter of purposeful deception; it is a matter of attributing an imagined cause to a phenomenon that can be explained naturally, such as attributing evil spirits to what we would not explain through germ theory. So, an admonition to not bear false witness has nothing to do with explaining why we should not assume that those who heard the Christian message in the 1st Century were not prone to superstition.”
I think I may have misunderstood you the first time around, and this helps. I took it (incorrectly, I now think) that you meant that the first Christians deliberately and knowingly made up stories about supernatural intervention, and the rest of the world swallowed them because they were superstitious. Instead, what I think you’re now saying is that perfectly ordinary events caused Jesus’ first followers to jump to the conclusion that he had been miraculously raised from the dead. But before I follow up on this, tell me whether I’ve (finally) got you right.
“Secondly, I read I Corinthians 15 as indicating that Paul was having trouble getting people to believe in everything he was selling; why else remind them that failure to hold firmly to what he preached would result in their having believed in vain?”
Paul is pointing out an inconsistency: they know full well that Jesus was raised, but they’re ignoring the implications of this fact and clinging to the Sadducean position that there is no physical resurrection of the dead.
“(Just an aside: I can imagine a Christian pointing out that, based on my above, the fact that Paul doesn't say "Don't be so superstitious" should mean that Christians were not superstitious. But reading the NT documents, and those from the 1st Century (and before and after), indicates that superstition ran like air throughout the population and even among those few fortunate enough to be literate.)”
Two points here:
1. Superstitious? In some cases yes, very much, and in some cases no, not so much. It all depends on details. Tell me what you’ve read from the first century and we can discuss it on a case by case basis; then you can tell me why you extend this in particular to the disciples; then you can tell me how that helps you to account for the actual things we find in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection.
2. Literacy: Harris’s verdict (5 to 10% literacy in the Roman world in the 1st century) has come under significant pressure as we’ve begun to appreciate the significance of various archaeological finds, like the Vindolanda tablets, the Oxyrhynchus papyri, and the inscriptions at Pompeii. See Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (2012), ch. 3 and Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (2000).
Bob,
Neither you or I witnessed the Resurrection (unless you are The Wandering Jew).
Your analogy is ridiculous.
"Neither you or I witnessed the Resurrection"
But take a look at the title of this thread. No one alive witnessed Napoleon either. I'll guess you regard anyone who thinks he existed as "ridiculous".
Bob,
Now you are changing the subject! We were talking about the Zombie Saints. Good grief.
Moi? But it was you who said I was being ridiculous for taking the word of eyewitnesses to the Resurrection after validating their credibility. You said nothing in that taunt about certain saints being restored to life at Christ's death. Your words: "Neither you or I witnessed the Resurrection ... Your analogy is ridiculous." So who's changing the subject now?
The fact is (as I expressed months ago in a posting that so ate at Tony), the Resurrection is central to any and all discussions about God, the supernatural, miracles, historicity of the New Testament, ethics and morality, soul, consciousness, justice, indeed any subject other than the strictly physical sciences. It is never "changing the subject" to consider it.
And indeed, on this beautiful Sunday morning, still a bit sleepy after last night out with my fellow Howard County amateur astronomers, I can cheerfully greet the dawn with "Khristos Voskres!" Makes life worth living.
Tim, can you answer this question please:S Which is more likely? That I can convince some people that I once flipped a coin and it landed 30 consecutive times on heads, or that I actually flip a coin and have it land 30 consecutive times on heads?
Careful, Tim don't answer Tony's question until he admits to his real reasons for asking it. He thinks he's going to spring a trap on you. He's not really interested in which is more probable. There are layers upon layers of not-so-hidden agendas beneath his oh-so-innocent sounding fake question.
Bob, I love the fact that you think it's setting a trap to ask someone to explain their thinking in reference to an argument they're making. It's not a trap; it's a discussion. The worst thing that can happen is Tim and I will better understand the processes the other is using to reach their conclusions.
But the fact that you appear to so jealously guard your beliefs from a similar examination does not speak well of your conclusions.
The people I most admire in these kinds of discussions are those that remind me that our conclusions are a secondary objective behind adopting the best processes for understanding reality. And I enjoy the participation of even the most vitriolic posters (in contrast to you, whose relatively congenial tone I do appreciate) because I think they display a kind of pathology that highlights the deficiencies we all bear, to some (hopefully lesser) degree, in our cognitive abilities.
Cheers.
Then I'll ask you in the same manner that you asked Tim. What are your motives for asking this question? Tell us what your response will be to either possible answer in advance.
If you are being honest in claiming that you are setting no trap, then you should have no objections to doing so. If you are reticent to do the above, then I see no reasonable alternative to assuming you have a hidden agenda.
Ha, Bob -- I'm not that clever.
Really, though, I think it's telling that you believe any question could ever be a trap. I am one of those who thinks that we have nothing to fear from reality, because we're already living in it.:)
I ask, as they say, in order to find out. I assure you that I have nothing like a trap or rhetorical reply in mind.
Tony,
I did post an answer to your question here yesterday, but apparently it didn't "take." Here's that answer, again:
Depends on what kind of coin you're using.
Tim, yeah, and I replied to that as well. I am using a standard coin. Still interested in your answer.
Just hitting this with another comment in order to enable e-mail notification. It looks like this one is dead, but if it comes back to life I'll check back in.
Tony,
Sorry for the delay. Here's my take on your question:
"Which is more likely? That I can convince some people that I once flipped a coin and it landed 30 consecutive times on heads, or that I actually flip a coin and have it land 30 consecutive times on heads?"
I suppose that it depends on a lot of factors. Are you practiced at coin flipping? (I've worked at it a little and can get about a 70% heads rate in a long streak.) Who are you trying to convince? Mathematicians? The hypothetical man-on-the-street? Someone who has a religious or political bias for or against the claim that you can get 30 heads in a row?
The whole point of this exercise in analogy seems to me to depend on ignoring questions like these. If you have a point you'd like to make, I think you'd do better to leave the coin out of it and just state it directly.
Me: "Which is more likely? That I can convince some people that I once flipped a coin and it landed 30 consecutive times on heads, or that I actually flip a coin and have it land 30 consecutive times on heads?"
Tim: "I suppose that it depends on a lot of factors. Are you practiced at coin flipping?"
I see now that this question seems like a trap to everyone. Let me try and rephrase what I was getting at.
I was trying to establish whether or not we agree on the fact that people are reliably more credulous than the probability of some events warrant. I think people are (reliably more credulous than the probability of some events), and that this is especially marked where the probability is either very high or very low.
Tim: "Who are you trying to convince? Mathematicians? The hypothetical man-on-the-street? Someone who has a religious or political bias for or against the claim that you can get 30 heads in a row?"
I was imagining a scenario where one should consider which was more likely: that I would be able to convince some people that I had flipped a coin consecutive times and it landed on heads each time, or that I should get to flipping a coin and trying to achieve that result all on my own. I think I had, in my head, an image of me and my twin, one setting out to start convincing some people, and the other flipping away. Who would more probably achieve success first?
Tim: "The whole point of this exercise in analogy seems to me to depend on ignoring questions like these. If you have a point you'd like to make, I think you'd do better to leave the coin out of it and just state it directly."
As I think I said upthread, when we come to different conclusions I think it's interesting and sometimes profitable to examine the different processes or methods we use to reach different conclusions. And I am trying to understand how you approach what is, for me, the biggest problem in your paper: the seeming assumption that a documented account of a highly unlikely event is more likely to correspond to a fact than a case of mistaken credulity.
I also think it's a good idea to go through the exercise of trying to make an argument whose conclusions I don't agree with work for me. I think that the tack you've proposed -- using a series of events to act as a finer filter that no single or lesser combination could distinguish, is either interesting or fatally flawed in this context: I'm just really not sure yet.
As I mentioned earlier, I am going to go through Tim's referenced paper on the Resurrection, and how the existence of some accounts that relate to the Resurrection could be construed to increase the likelihood that the Christian God's existence is probable. I am working with the paper that is here: ( http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrectionarticlesinglefile.pdf )
Tim's Paper: "We shall argue that there is significant positive evidence for R, evidence that cannot be ignored and that must be taken into account in any evaluation of the total evidence for Christianity and for theism."
I like to use analogies to run alongside these arguments because I think it helps me follow along. In this case, appropos of the OP, I am going to analogize your statement above with this:
Me: We shall argue that there is significant positive evidence for THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO (B), evidence that cannot be ignored and that must be taken into account in any evaluation of the total evidence for NAPOLEON.
I think my analogy above (flawed as all analogies are), approximates your line of argument so far. So I'm going to move on.
Tim's Paper: ".... the probability that God exists is higher if there is significant independent evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than if there is no such evidence, and this is true because the probability that the resurrection took place is virtually nil if there is no God and higher if there is."
I think the equivalent to your statement extending my analogy would be:
Me: The probability that Napoleon existed is higher if there is significant independent evidence that THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO (B) occurred than if there is no such evidence, and this is true because the probability that the BATTLE OF WATERLOO took place is virtually nil if NAPOLEON did not exist and higher if there is.
Hmm. Right away I see a problem -- the analogy seems to break down pretty quickly above when we use something like NAPOLEON and the BATTLE OF WATERLOO. It seems that the second part becomes strained -- is a BATTLE OF WATERLOO really virtually impossible without the existence of a NAPOLEON?
So, I would like to move on, but right away there seems a pretty fundamental problem (revealed by the analogy) in your entailing the existence of a thing (God, or in my case Napoleon) with an event (R, or in my case B). I'll ask you to respond to this, but even if I don't hear back I'm going to continue to move on through the rest of the paper, at least as much as I have time for.
Tim's Paper: "Our argument will proceed on the assumption that we have a substantially accurate text of the four gospels, Acts, and several of the undisputed Pauline epistles (most significantly Galatians and I Corinthians)..."
By this I understand you to mean that the original versions of these documents weren't modified subsequently in any way that would affect your argument. I consider this assumption suspect, given the known motives of evangelizers, documents that describe the actions of early Church founders, and the known interpolations and forgeries. Still, we have what we have.
Tim's Paper: "... that the gospels were written, if not by the authors whose names they now bear, at least by disciples of Jesus or people who knew those disciples – people who knew at first hand the details of his life and teaching or people who spoke with those eyewitnesses..."
But there are good reasons to disagree with the above. Names were attributed to the Gospels after they were written. To the extent that we know about Jesus's followers we should infer that they were poor and not literate. The Gospels are written in Greek. Many scholars date the Gospels as being written after the possible lifetimes of the disciples. The Gospels clearly suffer from the Synoptic problem, and are best explained by Q and Markan priority, etc. In other words, it seems like you've basically swept more than half of all NT scholarship for the past 200 years under the rug and declared that there's nothing further to see here.
So, I see no reason to accept your premise above, and the rest of your paper, as it depends on this premise, is of questionable value.
Tim's Paper: "... – and that the narratives, at least where not explicitly asserting the occurrence of a miracle, deserve as much credence as similarly attested documents would be accorded if they reported strictly secular matters."
Well, no, this sweeps under the rug the obvious inference that the Gospels are written by evangelizers. The writers are trying to convince the reader that a God exists -- they are not impartial reporters with no agenda. So, the narratives deserve as much credence about non-miraculous accounts that relate to the writer's agenda as do those of Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, and all other kinds of lesser known and less successful cults.
But I do agree that when accounts do no assert a miracle, and do not relate facts that support the agenda of the author, then by parsimony we should accept that account until we have reason to think otherwise.
Tim's Paper: "Our argument will proceed on the assumption that we have a substantially accurate text of the four gospels, Acts, and several of the undisputed Pauline epistles (most significantly Galatians and I Corinthians)..."
Tony: “I consider this assumption suspect, given the known motives of evangelizers, documents that describe the actions of early Church founders, and the known interpolations and forgeries.”
Then you are at odds with mainstream scholarship.
Tim's Paper: "... that the gospels were written, if not by the authors whose names they now bear, at least by disciples of Jesus or people who knew those disciples – people who knew at first hand the details of his life and teaching or people who spoke with those eyewitnesses..."
Tony: “But there are good reasons to disagree with the above. Names were attributed to the Gospels after they were written.”
There is not one scrap of first or second century evidence for this claim.
Tony: “To the extent that we know about Jesus's followers we should infer that they were poor and not literate.”
If by “not literate” you mean “not trained in rabbinical schools,” then that is fair for everyone but Paul. If you mean “unable to read, speak, or write Greek,” then it is doubtful. All Jewish boys were educated in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science as it existed in that day. Furthermore, recent archaeological evidence is forcing a reevaluation of our conception of ancient literacy. On this issue see Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (2012), chapter 3, as well as Alan Millard’s work.
Tony: “The Gospels are written in Greek. Many scholars date the Gospels as being written after the possible lifetimes of the disciples.”
Actually, most scholars date all of the Gospels, even John, to within the lifetimes of the disciples. And many others date them earlier.
Tony: “The Gospels clearly suffer from the Synoptic problem, and are best explained by Q and Markan priority, etc.”
The Synoptic problem isn’t something from which the Gospels suffer; it’s the puzzle of sorting out the direction and extent of their literary dependencies on one another. There is an increasing revolt in the scholarly world against the idea that Q ever existed as a source independent of Matthew itself; see Marc Goodacre’s work on this issue. But even if the two-source hypothesis were true, this would not be in conflict with anything we have stated in the paper.
Tony: “In other words, it seems like you've basically swept more than half of all NT scholarship for the past 200 years under the rug and declared that there's nothing further to see here.”
No. Although I do think some of it was bunk when it was first proposed, and some of it is now outdated, the argument in the paper proceeds on fairly minimal assumptions that are granted by mainstream scholars of various persuasions.
Tony: “So, I see no reason to accept your premise above, and the rest of your paper, as it depends on this premise, is of questionable value.”
You’re wrong to do so, but it doesn’t bother me, since you have given me no reason to take your criticism seriously.
Tim's Paper: "... – and that the narratives, at least where not explicitly asserting the occurrence of a miracle, deserve as much credence as similarly attested documents would be accorded if they reported strictly secular matters."
Tony: “Well, no, this sweeps under the rug the obvious inference that the Gospels are written by evangelizers. The writers are trying to convince the reader that a God exists -- they are not impartial reporters with no agenda.”
This objection is silly. Stop and think about this claim for a moment. Where, in all the Gospels, are the authors attempting to convince their readers that God exists? Can you quote a single place where they try to do this? A few vague words about “agendas” will not do any work at all. People who survived the Holocast have an “agenda” to tell people about the horrors of the camps—will you disqualify them on the grounds that their narratives are just propaganda?
Tony: “So, the narratives deserve as much credence about non-miraculous accounts that relate to the writer's agenda as do those of Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, and all other kinds of lesser known and less successful cults.”
I see that you are conveniently ignoring the phrase “similarly attested.” Then put your hand on your heart and tell me whether you really believe that the Book of Mormon qualifies for the comparison.
Me: “I consider [that we have a substantially accurate text of the four gospels, Acts, and several of the undisputed Pauline epistles] suspect, given the known motives of evangelizers, documents that describe the actions of early Church founders, and the known interpolations and forgeries.”
Tim: "Then you are at odds with mainstream scholarship."
This is an epistemic problem, not one of scholarly analysis. We don't know what we don't know, given the paucity of documentation for the period. I found your assumption too broad in its scope and depth, that's all.
Tim: "There is not one scrap of first or second century evidence for [my claim that do not know who wrote the Gospels]."
I gave my reasons earlier. I am curious how it is you know who wrote the Gospels.
Tim: "All Jewish boys were educated in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science as it existed in that day."
After asking to talk about the evidence upthread, you seem to have nonetheless maintained this method of a) making an assertion, and then...
Tim: "On this issue see Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (2012), chapter 3, as well as Alan Millard’s work."
... b) citing a scholar who you say has conclusively argued this. I think this is not persuasive -- I would like to know why it is that Craig A. Evans has concluded what he has. If you are going to make your case stand on the evidence, as I thought you indicated you would prior, I think you should be wiling to bring forth the evidence (as compared to opinion).
Why is your assertion above not convincing to me? First, Evans work flies in the face of historical scholarship concerning literacy. It would take more than a few words of reference for me to throw this away. Second, it is not a productive method for convincing others. I think discussing the evidence is a productive way to discuss others.
For instance, I don't think it would be productive for me to cite this in response to your above: "According to the growth processes in population and urbanization as mentioned above, it may be surmised that before the beginning of these processes, in the days of the Maccabees and at the end of the 'biblical' period, the literacy rate of the Jewish people was 1.5% if not lower. Nevertheless, if the conclusion seems farfetched, it can be rejected only by cogent arguments."
And reference it here: http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html But then all we've done is restate our positions, and indicated that others agree with our positions. This going back and forth, without discussing the evidence behind the conclusions, doesn't seem like a very productive exercise to me. I think we should be discussing the evidence.
Do you agree?
Tony: “I consider [that we have a substantially accurate text of the four gospels, Acts, and several of the undisputed Pauline epistles] suspect, given the known motives of evangelizers, documents that describe the actions of early Church founders, and the known interpolations and forgeries.”
Tim: "Then you are at odds with mainstream scholarship."
Tony: “This is an epistemic problem, not one of scholarly analysis. We don't know what we don't know, given the paucity of documentation for the period. I found your assumption too broad in its scope and depth, that's all.”
We have outstanding documentation for the texts of these works – far better documentation than we have for almost any other texts of comparable antiquity, and more than enough to establish that our texts are substantially accurate. To say this is not to say that the claims made in those texts are true; it is just to say that the claims in the texts as we now possess them are the claims that they made originally.
Perhaps you misunderstood the claim. But if you understood it and disagree, then you just don’t know much about the way that textual criticism works.
Tim: "There is not one scrap of first or second century evidence for [my claim that do not know who wrote the Gospels]."
Tony: “I gave my reasons earlier. I am curious how it is you know who wrote the Gospels.”
I'm sorry; I'm not finding your reasons, just your bare assertion on May 10, 2012 10:53 AM. If you can point me to the place where you articulated your reasons, that would be very helpful.
In my note at May 10, 2012 2:09 PM, I included a link to a video where I've laid out some of my reasons for taking the traditional claims regarding their authorship as well founded. You can find a piece directly on the authorship of the fourth Gospel here.
Tim: "All Jewish boys were educated in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science as it existed in that day."
Tony: “After asking to talk about the evidence upthread, you seem to have nonetheless maintained this method of a) making an assertion, and then...”
Tim: "On this issue see Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (2012), chapter 3, as well as Alan Millard’s work."
Tony: “... b) citing a scholar who you say has conclusively argued this. I think this is not persuasive -- I would like to know why it is that Craig A. Evans has concluded what he has. If you are going to make your case stand on the evidence, as I thought you indicated you would prior, I think you should be wiling to bring forth the evidence (as compared to opinion).
“Why is your assertion above not convincing to me? First, Evans work flies in the face of historical scholarship concerning literacy. It would take more than a few words of reference for me to throw this away. Second, it is not a productive method for convincing others. I think discussing the evidence is a productive way to discuss others.
“For instance, I don't think it would be productive for me to cite this in response to your above: ‘According to the growth processes in population and urbanization as mentioned above, it may be surmised that before the beginning of these processes, in the days of the Maccabees and at the end of the biblical period, the literacy rate of the Jewish people was 1.5% if not lower. Nevertheless, if the conclusion seems farfetched, it can be rejected only by cogent arguments.’
“And reference it here: http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html But then all we've done is restate our positions, and indicated that others agree with our positions. This going back and forth, without discussing the evidence behind the conclusions, doesn't seem like a very productive exercise to me. I think we should be discussing the evidence.
“Do you agree?”
Citation of the work of highly qualified professional scholars who give extensive references and interact with earlier work by scholars who disagree with them is a reasonable way to advance the discussion. However, one must do this competently, citing material that is actually relevant to the topic under discussion.
The citation you give to Mier Bar-Ilan’s 1992 article on his web page refers to the state of the people of Israel in approximately the year 400 BC. By Bar-Ilan’s own admission, the rapid urbanization in Israel under the Romans would have brought with it a concomitant increase in literacy. As he writes:
“[A]ccording to the above social models, it is clear that the Jews under Roman rule not only grew in numbers and urbanized, but improved their literacy rate as well. According to this analysis, one cannot speculate on the size of this literacy rate since this rate depends on various factors such as: the rate of the population growth, the state of the roads, merchandising, the influence of other cultures, and other factors. However, it can be safely assumed from our study that under the Romans the literary rate of Jews increased.”
Therefore, the number you have cited is irrelevant to this discussion except as setting a very distant lower bound.
Tim: "Citation of the work of highly qualified professional scholars who give extensive references and interact with earlier work by scholars who disagree with them is a reasonable way to advance the discussion. However, one must do this competently, citing material that is actually relevant to the topic under discussion."
Sure, but the topic of literacy throughout history is not a new one. It has, for generations, been estimated as very, very low in most ancient (and poor) societies.
Tim: "Therefore, the number you have cited is irrelevant to this discussion except as setting a very distant lower bound."
The one I quoted estimated 1.5%. This is, from my recollection, a common understanding of historians who look at periods like the 1st Century. So, when you say that instead of the standard very low number (~1% to 2%) is actually 100%, then, yikes, I have to say this seems like a rather wild adjustment. And well I would consider that for a variety of reasons ancient Judea might have had a higher literacy rate than what has normally been considered the upper limit, your number of 100% seems like the one that strays wildly from historical norms.
The study of ancient history (and all histories) is an evolving field, and different generations of scholars look at it through the lens of their time. (On my bookshelf I have a college textbook that looks at the socio-economic conditions of 1st Century Palestine in the context of Marxism, for instance.) But wild re-assessments of well-developed understandings are rare, and I approach them (very) conservatively.
Tim: "We have outstanding documentation for these works of these works – far better documentation than we have for almost any other texts of comparable antiquity, and more than enough to establish that our texts are substantially accurate. To say this is not to say that the claims made in those texts are true; it is just to say that the claims in the texts as we now possess them are the claims that they made originally."
The best we have is not the best we could wish for. We do not have any extant copies of the originals. We do not know the identities of the authors of the Gospels. We do not have copies of other works from the period that were destroyed. You simply appear bent on portraying the documentation for the period to be all that we could wish for, when in fact what we have is paltry, and is best only by comparison to other documentation from the period. The work done on rebuilding the NT from what we have is a monumental achievement, but we should not forget how much more we would want to build a truly historical account.
Tim: "I'm sorry; I'm not finding your reasons [for asserting that we do not know who wrote the Gospels], just your bare assertion on May 10, 2012 10:53 AM. If you can point me to the place where you articulated your reasons, that would be very helpful."
I had written: "Names were attributed to the Gospels after they were written. To the extent that we know about Jesus's followers we should infer that they were poor and not literate. The Gospels are written in Greek. Many scholars date the Gospels as being written after the possible lifetimes of the disciples. The Gospels clearly suffer from the Synoptic problem, and are best explained by Q and Markan priority, etc. In other words, it seems like you've basically swept more than half of all NT scholarship for the past 200 years under the rug and declared that there's nothing further to see here."
Tim: "You can find a piece directly on the authorship of the fourth Gospel here."
Thanks for that. Truly, I have never known how it is that the authorship of any of the Gospels is supposed to be known. I haven't studied your entry yet, but I appreciate the articulation.
Anyway, I'm gong to continue moving through the article.
Tim's Paper: "Where the texts do assert something miraculous – for example, Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances – we take it, given the basic assumption of authenticity, that the narrative represents what someone relatively close to the situation claimed."
I think the above needs a very careful examination.
Firstly, I'd ask why we should not consider the assertion of the miraculous to be an invention, exaggeration, or delusion? I consider none of these to be tied to real "situations" but they are common (far more common than miracles by any estimation). Secondly, why should none of these assertions be considered merely mythic -- why can they not be the result of evolving spoken or literary traditions without any clear origin? Again, these are far more common than miracles.
Another way of asking this is, when we read stories about Heracles, do we assume that the narrative represents what someone close to the situation witnessed?
I am sure you have answers to these questions. My problem is that so far the responses I've heard from Christians on this topic have not seemed very persuasive.
Tony: "The one I quoted estimated 1.5%."
The one you quoted wasn't talking about the first century AD, or the first century BC, or the second century BC, or the third century BC. It simply wasn't relevant to this discussion.
Tony: "This is, from my recollection, a common understanding of historians who look at periods like the 1st Century."
1. Your "recollection" does not count. The last time you tried to pass off your recollections as data, you were telling us that Josephus's reference to Jesus in Antiquities 18.3.3 was sandwiched between two reports of "wars, or something."
2. The most pessimistic numbers in common use are 5 to 10% in the Roman Empire as a whole, with perhaps somewhat higher rates among the Jewish people. (Harris, Ancient Literacy (1989)) Since the education among the Jews focused almost exclusively on the boys, this means that a pessimistic to middling range for Jewish men would be in the 10 to 20% range.
Tony: "So, when you say that instead of the standard very low number (~1% to 2%)..."
This is nobody's standard number. You are not entitled to make up your own facts.
Tony: "... is actually 100%, ..."
Which I never said: in addition to making up your own facts, you are now making up my facts for me. Stop that. The Jewish practice was to educate the boys in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science. I suspect that this education "took" about as well as it does in the US, which is to say, some learn well and are literate (in our modern sense of that term) at the end of the process, and some are not.
Tony: "The best we have is not the best we could wish for."
So what? If it's good enough to support reasonable belief, then pining for evidence we don't have is unreasonable.
Tony: "We do not have any extant copies of the originals."
You could have added, "... for any ancient historical work whatsoever." So what?
Tony: "We do not know the identities of the authors of the Gospels."
I've argued against this in some detail. In case you've lost sight of the links, here they are again:
Who Wrote the Gospels?
On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel
Tony: "[W]hen we read stories about Heracles, do we assume that the narrative represents what someone close to the situation witnessed?"
No. But then again, that's because we have nothing remotely like the level of attestation for the existence and doings of Heracles that we do for the existence and doings of Jesus. You cannot make a comparison like that stick unless the evidence is at least approximately the same. It isn't. It's not even close.
Tim: "The citation you give to Mier Bar-Ilan’s 1992 article on his web page refers to the state of the people of Israel in approximately the year 400 BC."
and
Tim: "The one you quoted wasn't talking about the first century AD, or the first century BC, or the second century BC, or the third century BC. It simply wasn't relevant to this discussion."
False. I quoted in full the portion where it said, "... in the days of the Maccabees and at the end of the biblical period, the literacy rate of the Jewish people was 1.5% if not lower." I understand the days of the Macabees to be the 1st Century BCE.
I explained my reason for using the 1.5% estimate prior, and I linked to the full article so you could read as much of it as you liked -- principally, I was interested in the reasoning in used in order to make any calculation for estimating literacy in the past (I think it made several interesting points). Regarding the relevancy of the article, I'll remind you that it is entitled, "Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first centuries c.e." It goes on to talk about the methods used and the difficulties of estimating literacy in Antiquity, using language like this in its introduction, "Therefore, to speculate on the forces involved in illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first centuries c.e., some processes taking place in contemporary societies, where changes in the illiteracy rate have been investigated, will be analyzed. " It even concludes with this sentence, "Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past."
So, your claim that my citation is about 400 BCE, and that it isn't relevant to the question of estimating literacy for the time of the NT, is clearly bogus. I truly wonder why it is that you would take such a strident position against it.
Me: "So, when you say that instead of the standard very low number (~1% to 2%)..."
Tim: "This is nobody's standard number. You are not entitled to make up your own facts."
False. I have cited the study by Meir Bar-Ilan, and referenced his article so you could see on what he based his estimates. Meir Bar-Ilan is not nobody, and his facts were not made up by me. I'll point out some more of what he had to say, and show you some more of his reasoning:
"However, in a traditional society, knowing how to read was not a necessity: neither for economic reasons, nor for intellectual ones. On the contrary. Why should a farmer send his son to learn how to read when it entails a waste of working time (=money)? Why should he himself learn how to read if his culture is based on oral tradition (though with a written Torah)? According to the Torah, there is no need to read or write, except for writing the Mezuza, Tefilin, and the Torah itself. However, for these purposes there was always a scribe, so a Jew in antiquity could fulfill the commandments of the Torah while being illiterate. Not only that, but 3% of the total population seems to be high in comparison with other cultures. In ancient Egypt, a land with a lot of scribes, only half a percent were literate.28 Now, even if it is taken into consideration that training in hieroglyphs takes much more time than script with some 22 symbols, still the conclusion of the extent of literacy in a neighboring country some millennia later with literacy rates that are some six times larger than its predecessor, seems quite plausible."
Me: "So, when you say that instead of the standard very low number [for literacy] (~1% to 2%) is actually 100%, then, yikes, I have to say this seems like a rather wild adjustment."
Tim: "Which I never said: in addition to making up your own facts, you are now making up my facts for me. Stop that. The Jewish practice was to educate the boys in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science."
Previously, you made the claim that "[a]ll Jewish boys were educated in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science as it existed in that day." All means 100% or very close to it to me. If you meant to say that you think 10% to 20% of all Jewish boys in 1st Century Judea could read, I wonder why you would write "[a]ll Jewish boys were educated in reading, writing, and the rudiments of natural science as it existed in that day." The two seem like very different statements to me, and I wonder how it is that you can mean both.
Me: "We do not know the identities of the authors of the Gospels."
Tim: "I've argued against this in some detail. In case you've lost sight of the links, here they are again:"
I am trying to reply to your comments in order. My statement above was in reference to an earlier request for a reference from you, and immediately after I wrote, "Thanks for [the references arguing for how it is that the identity of the Gospel writers can be known]. Truly, I have never known how it is that the authorship of any of the Gospels is supposed to be known. I haven't studied your entry yet, but I appreciate the articulation."
So, at the risk of being repetitive, I chose to reply to your request to a prior reference upthread, explaining that I hadn't had time to review the arguments yet.
Tony: “False. I quoted in full the portion where it said, ‘... in the days of the Maccabees and at the end of the biblical period, the literacy rate of the Jewish people was 1.5% if not lower.’ I understand the days of the Macabees to be the 1st Century BCE.”
Fair tag. The end of the Biblical period is about 400 BC, but I missed the reference to the Macabees, who wrested control of Judea in the middle of the 2nd century BC. However, the reference to the growth both of urbanization and of literacy under the Romans leaves the central point intact: the 1.5% number tells us nothing of interest about the first century AD. Incidentally, you can get a sense of what Bar-Ilan means by this phrase by his reference to “Roman Palestine of the second century” here. So the evidence of his own usage suggests that the 1.5% number is at least 200 years out of date vis a vis the period we are now discussing.
Tony: “Regarding the relevancy of the article, I'll remind you that it is entitled, ‘Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first centuries c.e.’”
But the 1.5% isn’t about that century, and the author himself points out why not.
Tony: “It even concludes with this sentence, ‘Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past.’”
But this inference from rabbinic sources is not supported by the data presented, even granting the rather problematic attempt to derive a rate via a connection to the infant mortality rate, for the author has said, above: “In the examination of Rabbinic sources, on the one hand, and parallel data from different societies on the other, the infant mortality rate among the Jews of the Land of Israel in antiquity may be concluded to be above 30%. In other words, the projection of this figure signifies a literacy rate lower than 10%.”
There’s quite a gap between “lower than 10%” AND “less than 3%.” Even Harris, who is on the pessimistic end of the scholarly spectrum, doesn’t go that low. And I would be interested to know how Bar-Ilan reconciles this number with his own claim that, according to the Talmud, every child in school had his own book (b. Git. 58a).
The growing evidence for widespread literacy in the Roman empire includes the discovery of numerous wooden slats at Vindolanda, where Hadrian’s wall was later erected. The evidence shows that writing was common to people at all levels in the Roman army, from the garrison commander down to infantrymen and slaves. The letter of Claudia Severa to Sulpicia Lepidina inviting the latter to a birthday party is noteworthy. See A.K. Bowman, Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier: Vindolanda and Its People (London: British Museum Press, 1994). The evidence from Vindolanda (scarcely noticed by Harris) is one of the principal reasons that scholars like Millard are now reevaluating first century literacy.
Another item not mentioned by Harris is the painting of Terentius Neo, a baker, and his wife found in Pompeii – she holding a stylus and a wooden tablet, and he holding a scroll. You can view it here.
Even more direct and relevant is the evidence of ostraca at Masada, where the majority of the Jewish holdouts were ordinary people rather than trained scribes; inscriptions (including inscriptions on ossuaries that were obviously not done by a professional hand); the notices in Greek warning Gentiles not to enter the sacred courts of Herod’s Temple (which could have done no good unless the people could read them); the signatures on the legal papyrus from the Bar Kokhba cave (some of which are crudely scratched, while others are written in an easy and flowing script); and the Latin identifications on amphoras from the pantry at Herod’s palace.
On you 100% question: Our best evidence is that all Jewish boys were educated in reading and writing. What proportion of them that education raised them to the level of ability to write is a separate question. I think this fact (and much more, the evidence given above) puts the 20% figure under significant pressure. Certainly there is no reason to doubt that Jesus’ disciples wrote Matthew and John simply because the ability to write was a prerequisite; writing ability wasn’t that uncommon.
Post a Comment