@dga471 wrote:
So you’re stuck on a dilemma:
- Alter did not do any new historical research, other than popularize or summarize the arguments of previous professional historians.
- Alter did do some new historical research (e.g. by taking some claims of previous historians and using that for a new historical case).
If you choose 1), then Alter’s case is not as much of a bombshell as you stated it to be. If you choose 2), then Alter has to persuade people that he can act as an independent, impartial, and trained historian. Which one is it?
Respectfully, you are offering a false dilemma. There exist other possibilities.
There are approximate 800 “favorable” books (in English) written about the resurrection and about 50 texts that challenge that belief. Most of the books repeat the same, tired arguments. Honestly, my text presents to its readership, in a logical and sequential manner 113 issues. These issues contain 120 contradictions and 217 speculations. The information presented represents both sides of the religious aisle. In addition, I present cutting edge information that is often omitted from the vast majority of these texts. Topics include astronomy, geophysics, criminology and the rules of evidence, the social sciences and cognitive psychology. In Volume 2, I will specifically deal with apologetics: the Minimal Facts Approach, Best Evidences, Hearsay evidence, etc. You have my word that this text makes a substantial contribution to the literature. In my opinion, if left to your two exclusive choices, number 2 would be most appropriate.
However, in reference to #2, if you do not mind, I would like to add a caveat. Hopefully, it will be take in a positive spirit:
What are your qualifications?
This is the fallacy of arguing that if someone has not received formal education in a particular topic, he or she is not allowed to present criticisms on that topic of interest. It is essentially an ad hominem attack and a defence of their view by an argument from authority.
This question represents a fallacy because information is legitimate or illegitimate regardless of whether the individual reporting it is an expert or authority. Although an expert likely knows more about a given subject, may be more likely to be correct unfounded assertions, and may be more believable, information itself does not rely on an authority for its legitimacy. Therefore, whether an individual is presenting valid criticisms of an idea depends not on his or her qualifications, but on his or her information and reasoning.
"He has attended no Bible college, taken no home Bible study courses, does not teach a Sunday School class, has not even taken first-year, basic Hebrew or Greek
You wrote:
“Alter has to persuade people that he can act as an independent, impartial, and trained historian.”
RESPONSE: Please read the quote of Taussig, located in my preface (xlvii) and J. Warner Wallace (p. 24).
I have one additional request to make: Please examine my text. And, yes, there are a few errata that I have identified. Fortunately, nothing earth shattering.