Stephen Law: Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Stephen Law: Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Apparently there's a peer-reviewed article arguing for skepticism regarding the historicity of Jesus:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/ ... -2011.html

It appeals to a "contamination principle" by which we cannot simply believe the not-completely-unlikely bits after removing those that are completely unlikely.

I found it mentioned in a video of Richard Carrier's, found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Rick Sumner
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Stephen Law: Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Je

Post by Rick Sumner »

The basic principle is perfectly reasonable: We can't trust bad sources because, well, we know they're bad sources. He could have pressed the argument harder. It's not just contaminated by the miraculous--things that are functionally impossible--even the plausible frequently turns out to be fictitious. There is no miracle behind Barabbas. There is also no history. Unlike his imaginary Ted and Sarah, our sources are not otherwise trustworthy.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

The "fly-speck principle"

Post by spin »

Long ago in a forum far, far away, I proposed something called the "fly-speck principle". I used it with regard to the TF. Invariably when you drop a piece of bread it lands on the buttered side. Now given that there floor is known to have fly specks on it, some people might pick it up and remove those fly specks they can see and then proceed to eat it. However, it is extremely unhealthy to do so, because you cannot know that you have removed all the fly specks. Once you know the bread has fly specks on it, you cannot afford to eat it. Once you know the TF contains such obviously flawed material as "if you can call him a man", "he was a doer of wondrous deeds", etc, you cannot know that what's left is free of such fly specks. You cannot trust it because it is already contaminated. And a day ago in another forum far, far away, I made the stunningly simplistic statement, "But we know that [classical] texts preserved by the christian scribal tradition that deal with specifically christian content are terminally compromised. They simply cannot be trusted." The same logic is applicable to any texts with fly specks, be they christian additions to classical texts or simply the basic christian texts with the basic wonderful deeds. The fly specks are what makes the bread unpalatable.

People didn't seem interested in the basic contamination principle.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
Gorit Maqueda
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:00 am

Re: Stephen Law: Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Je

Post by Gorit Maqueda »

Perhaps the contaminated principle's biggest problem is its own name: it seems to pre-suppose that there is something that was once uncontaminated and real.
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Stephen Law: Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Je

Post by ficino »

Pretty good. Of course, the peer reviewers would seem to have been philosophers of religion, not NT scholars, so, as Wm. Lane Craig pointed out (see comments below Law's article, which refer to Craig), Law has the wrong degree and published in the wrong journal. Heh heh.

Several of the comments say that Law's P2, the contamination principle, is a weak point. It may seem weak because we can imagine scenarios under which someone adds false details to a testimony that otherwise contains true details. But the point is not, what is going on in the mind of the generator of the story. The point of P2 is to highlight the lessened degree of credibility that attaches to the entire story, if some parts of that story are not credible w/o external corroboration. In other words, if the witness tells some incredible stuff, which may be false, how are we justified in believing any of the story simply on that witness' testimony?

On the other hand, Law's doubt that there is good, non-christian ancient testimony is quite well founded, probably better than Law realized when he wrote this.

I am amused to see that Law explicitly names Morison's Who Moved the Stone? as a book that commits the errors he seeks to expose. I was convinced by Morison at first, years ago, when I assumed that the empty tomb and the testimony of the apostles under torture counted as "facts."

edited to add:
Law didn't add that the gospels do not really fall into the same genre as ancient works of history by Thucydides, Polybius and others. Many have commented on the differences, such as much higher proportion of text comprised of speeches, heavy use of scripture to prove fulfillment of prophecy, relative number of miracles. The end of the gospel of John states explicitly that what have been recorded are 'signs,' σημεία (sorry, my font won't type circumflex), that Jesus did. The genre is more hagiography than history or even biography.
Last edited by ficino on Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Stephen Law: Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Je

Post by ficino »

Here's Wm. Lane Craig's criticism of Law's arguments:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/stephen- ... f-nazareth

Many weak points in Craig's rebuttal, including:

1. Scoffing that Law didn't publish in an NT or history journal (cf. similar cavils against Wm. Benjamin Smith a century ago, mentioned on "when was the term christian first used" thread).

2. Craig treats as "facts" stuff like "the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection". Craig doesn't confront the problem that all these are themselves part of the story, the factual nature of which is the matter in question.

3. Craig says, "Legends blend historical claims with non-historical marvels, and the presence of the marvels doesn’t imply that we should reject the historicity of the mundane claims." This is question begging. Law already addressed this sort of objection in his article.

4. Craig accepts the TF, TT, etc. Of the TF, he says "For example, according to Van Voorst “the wording of almost every element” of Josephus’ original text “indicates that Josephus did not draw it, directly or indirectly, from first-century Christian writings.” More question begging. What is at issue is the question, did Josephus write the TF at all. Strong reason to think he did not.
I note that Craig must be aware that Van Voorst begs the question. Is Craig being directly disingenuous?

5. Craig speaks of the NT as collecting five "independent sources" for Jesus' burial and six for the empty tomb. Craig has been describing the several gospels as "independent sources" for years. Law already addressed this notion that each gospel account is an independent source. Even people who do source criticism and try to distinguish Q, Mark, and L have accomplished no more than the researcher who shows that three manuscripts are independent witnesses to a text. In the latter case, the textual critic claims only to try to reconstruct the "archetype," not the author's autograph. Similarly, source criticism of the synoptic gospels cannot show that each postulated source goes back to the direct testimony of a different eyewitness.

6. Craig's attempt to put the evidence for Jesus on a level with the evidence for Alexander the Great is a fail. Craig ignores the contemporary evidence for Alexander, which has no parallel in the case of Jesus.

7. Craig appeals to the criterion of embarrassment w/o addressing Law's attacks on it. For other ones, see Jesus, criteria, and the demise of authenticity / edited by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, London ; New York : T&T Clark, [2012].

8. Craig tries to put archeological evidence for Jesus on a level with that for Alexander. His one example is the Tomb of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The evidence for Jesus' tomb beneath that church boils down to ancient traditions. In a dedicated thread recently I've posted discussion of the supposed evidence for the tomb of Peter beneath the Vatican basilica; that, too, boils down to traditions.
Post Reply