You asked about Gish Gallop. Being time constrained, I will defer to several internet articles. I hope that will suffice.
Google had: About 86,600 results (0.29 seconds
You asked about Gish Gallop. Being time constrained, I will defer to several internet articles. I hope that will suffice.
Google had: About 86,600 results (0.29 seconds
Fair enough: Be careful of the word prove. It is not really applicable in science as science is alway tentative. I think the same may go for history as well.
Another point I want to reiterate is if you start from a point of faith in God then the new testate becomes more credible as a historic document. Here is a lecture on the design hypothesis that may ring true to you.
You inquired: 1. What is your historical methodology? Have you rigorously applied this to other events from the same period? Why is this important to us?
In additional, I contacted many, many leading / foremasts Christian apologists [REALLY]. Response: too busy. I even visited several leading EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SEMINARIES and spoke to their instructors [They were instructors of apologetics]. I gave them a free book… They never did the review.
Nonetheless, I would recommended that you please examine three reviews:
Jerry Caine [Conservative Evangelical Christian graduate from Talbot] -https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Critical-MICHAEL-J-ALTER/dp/149905405X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542744486&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Resurrection+A+Critical+Inquiry#customerReviews
John Loftus [five degrees in theology, former Christian, now a leading atheist] - http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2015/06/michael-alters-encyclopedic-book-on.html.
Danelaw [As a scientist, attorney, and Southern Baptist by confirmation] https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Critical-MICHAEL-J-ALTER/product-reviews/149905405X/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews
I think that you misunderstood Joshua, Michael. He knows what a “Gish Gallop” is… rather he was asking about the summary of your conversation found elsewhere (TSZ, maybe, also posted here…) It said:
Professional Engagement, Gish Galloping, Impartiality
Swamidass begins by picking up from his comments from TSZ, claiming that professional scholars such as Tim McGrew had regarded Alter’s case as unworthy of serious engagement.
Swamidass accuses Torley and Alter’s case of being similar to a Gish gallop: a long series of weak arguments which are difficult to refute due to the sheer number of claims, but combined together might seem like a strong case. Later, Torley takes issue with the criticism that the Alter-Torley case is essentially a Gish gallop.
I have purchased your book and hope to get through it in the next couple of weeks. Thanks for the conversation. If you are still around I will post then.
Thank you for the clarification!
It seems that a pertinent issue boils down to what Joshua thinks are my text’s weak arguments. Obviously, not all arguments are equally weighted. However, collectively they can demonstrate a rational reason to question the reality of Jesus’s resurrection, especially if that resurrection is being employed to evangelize or witness.
You wrote: “Swamidass begins by picking up from his comments from TSZ, claiming that professional scholars such as Tim McGrew had regarded Alter’s case as unworthy of serious engagement.”
Response: It would be appreciated if it could be confirmed whether or not Tim has examined my text.
Josh McDowell, in his classic text The Resurrection Factor employs the same approach. And, in reality, most Christian apologists employ the same strategy.
Then, there are those who use C. B. McCullagh’s Best Evidence strategy whereby seven criteria are detailed.
In terms of my text, as I have repeatedly stated, I start with the the arrest of Jesus, and, in general, proceed chronological through the accounts concluding with Jesus’s ascension. In doing so, I present to the reader 217 speculations: a speculation is a speculation. It offers an opportunity to examine the text and further our discussion and understanding. Similarly, I identified 120 potential contradictions. Throughout the text, I present BOTH sides of the aisle. And, a healthy bibliography is presented. In Volume 2, I will further elaborate on several important issues. There was only so much that I could discuss in 912 pages (Volume 1).
So, I guess that I must plead partially guilty, but on grounds of self-defense. Will you [Joshua] permit me the same courtesy and privilege to “gallop along” [bad pun] as do Christian apologists? If not, why? If yes, then they must respond to the points that I raise. Or, am I to commit a metaphorical suicide?
I hope that my comments successfully addressed Joshua’s concerns.
H Michael: You misunderstand what I was saying… I’m explaining to you that Joshua knows what a Gish Gallop is and he was asking you (based upon the TSZ article, which I had merely copied and pasted some of it above for your clarification).
The text originally can be found here:
You have responded above as though I wrote those words. I did not… I was merely attempting to clear up a misunderstanding regarding your response to Joshua, further above, in this post in this same thread.
You may have answered Joshua in your post above, I don’t know. I merely wanted you to understand that you were responding to me as though I was involved in the initial text, but it was actually from TSZ.
I hope that makes sense and sorry for the confusion!
First, thank you for having the intellectual and scholarly integrity to obtain my text, and most import, to examine it.
Second, if you wish, I can point out a few of the errata. Nothing earth shattering. But, one is absolutely ridiculous and I have no idea how it got there.
Third, I appreciate your courtesy and decency.
I definitely cherish and look forward to our continued conversation.
Please note that next week, I will be in Atlanta from November 27 - December 3. My time will be extremely limited to about one hour a day for e-mails [usually 5:00am-6:00 am to write]. Then I need to walk to the library… I hope the weather is good. On Friday-Sunday, I will attend a family gathering. Family comes first…
So, take care and be safe.
PS Yes, it is a slow read, but hopeful it will pay dividends.
Early in the book you make this claim:In contrast, the years and in many instances the exact days listed below of various ancient dates are known with absolute and total clarity.
Alter, Michael J… The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (Kindle Locations 2137-2138). Xlibris US. Kindle Edition.
How do we know those dates with absolute clarity?
BTW: I see you already knew exactly what a burden shift is
Welcome to PS. I have been reading the dialogue in this post with great interest over the last few days. Some of the interesting aspects in this conversation are -
Can you help me understand more about point 1?
What kind of theology do you hold to? I.e what aspects/theological branch of Jewish faith do you belong to ?
Do you believe what OT prophecies about a Messiah?
Since you are speaking from a Jewish POV, can i assume you believe in a God who intervenes in history, sends prophets, does miracles etc?
Since your arguments are addressed to Jews, understanding your perspective and basic beliefs on related subjects are important to have a quality conversation.
Rather than making Michael have to repeat himself, please peruse the wiki post that I made: Guide to Alter and Torley on the Resurrection, specifically “Alter Enters the Conversation”.
I have read this.However, my question was totally different.
Why would the witness of secular historians matter much from a Jewish perspective?
If a case is made that Moses probably did not exist and the exodus did not happen through “expert testimony” from historians, would @MJAlter accept the same?
The way I see it, what should matter from a Jewish perspective is whether a Messiah is predicted?
Could Jesus be said Messiah?
Does Christianity teach a false God (by claiming Jesus is God)?
The way I understand it. The testimony of secular historians on the ressurection would at best be a supplementary argument. The main issue would be the testimony of scripture I(in this case the OT).For example,If @MJAlter is convinced that christianity teaches a false God and not the one revealed to Abraham,Isaac and Jacob, then would any amount of evidence suffice?
I am looking for background to the question. And this is important to understand where we share common ground and what are the important questions.
Wow! What an interesting question.
I am NOT frum.
I employ the Messianic prophecies to demonstrate that Jesus is NOT the Messiah. Christian Missionaries employ (to use a phrase by Joshua) Gish Gallop. Several cites and books list up to 300 supposed prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Just go to Jews For Judaism web cite to see a rebuttal. An about must to read are the books by Gerald Sigal. Toviai Singer’s book, and CD, pod casts are useful.
Since Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the disciples, Paul, were all Jewish; they lived in a Jewish environment, the claimed Messiahship is based on the Hebrew Bible - wouldn’t it make sense to examine Jesus’s life through a Jewish lens? Yes, an outside lens might be fruitful. However, carefully examining the often mistranslated and taken out of context Jewish texts will explain, respectfully, why in my opinion (and others), that Christians are inferior.
I need to head to the gym. Trying to maintain…
Later today I will try to answer question 2.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I dont have access to your book. However i did go through your bio in wordpress.I found it very interesting. I was really intrigued by your series on flexibility!
I haven’t examined the other names given by you. I will try to find out in the coming days.
I noticed an interesting segment in your Bio saying that you are affiliated to Chabad. Can you point to where i can understand further about the beliefs of “Chabad”. Is it a a sect among Jews… ??
Also, i found the following in your Bio.
Alter’s resulting text, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry , was a direct challenge raised by Anthony Buzzard, a prolific Biblical Unitarian. They corresponded over a lengthy period of time. Although they agree that Jesus is not God and that there is no such thing as the Trinity, Buzzard adamantly maintains that Jesus is the Messiah, a theological position that Alter totally rejects. It was during several communications that Alter was challenged by Buzzard to refute Jesus’s physical, bodily resurrection – supposedly the ultimate proof that Jesus is the Messiah (and also God for mainline Christianity). During a decade and more, Alter worked to meet Buzzard’s challenge, that Jesus was not physically, bodily resurrected.
Do you think its possible that your perspective/motivations created an inherent bias in how you approached the evidence? After all, you were trying to win a challenge!
Yes it would. Provided said lens exists today. I am not convinced the Jews of modern times are anything like those who encountered Jesus in the first century.
Though it’s interesting to note that the result seems to be the same in-spite of the differences between the Jews of old and those that exist today. Some are convinced about Jesus and many are not!.
However if you are going to point to historical evidence for the resurrection . Then its important that a unbiased perspective is maintained. i.e neither a christian perspective nor that of a jew.
Perhaps the perspective of an academic would be better here.
Back from the gym:
You wrote: Whether a theological bias exists in NT scholars.
Response: Let’s be 100 percent honest! Probably everyone or virtually everyone has some baggage and bias, unless they are a Martian.
Being, human, I too, have limitations. And, as I have discussed earlier, I was challenged to research the topic. Of course, I wanted the “Jewish” side to win. However, my methodology at first, was to explore virtually exclusively the arguments in support of Jesus’s resurrection. The best “stuff”, at first that I found was by William Lane Craig and Josh McDowell. Afterwards, I explored texts specifically categorized as apologetics [BT1095-1100 Congress Library system] followed by Dogmatics and Systematic Theology [in general BT 65-100]. I also explored commentaries to the Gospels [usually very disappointing] and Introduction to the New Testament… After making my list of pro arguments it was then time to find rebuttals. Very little material exists that is/was written by Jews, REALLY. A healthy amount of material by atheists, agnostics, apostates [X-Christians, etc] exists, but often they repeat the same old and tired rebuttals. About ten years into the project, R. Moshe Shulman provided the suggestion that I go through the Christian Bible chronologically and employ Speculations and Contradictions. I re-wrote, deleted, added, etc material and eventually came out with my text. So, although I am biased, I believe that my research was intellectually honest. And, unlike most, if not all Christian apologists, I try to give them a real voice in my text. Just look at my bibliography. However, Volume 2 will specifically interact with Christian Apologists, at least that is my plan.
The ideal is to examine the topic starting tabula rasa. The comment by E.P Sanders (2000, 39) cited in my Preface (xlv) is an ideal but not always practical. See p. xlv…Also, see the comment of Taussig (2004, 249), my xlvii. In so far as burden of proof, see 14-24. Here, I present both sides of the aisle.
Finally, if you examine my home page, you will see I list a healthy selection of books: PRO and CON, about the topic. Be honest, how many Christian apologists list the best books of their opponents and place it/them on their homepage?
Thanks Daniel but I already responded to Ashwin.
What piece of music are you currently working on? In a few minutes, I will probably be listening to Philip Glass: Glassworks, and then his violin concerto.
Chabad is an Orthodox Jews “sect” - Lubavitch = Chassidus. Its name is an acronym.They have an extensive web site or go to Wikipedia for a good over view. But please be aware that much of their point of view is based on Kabbalah. You will be clueless (about a lot of their commentaries) unless you understand that material. It is not for the feint of heart. Perhaps, the foremost text is Tanya. It requires a teacher to really understand it. I have learned at Chabad for over twenty years, and elsewhere.
I already discussed the topic of bias…
About the lens… One must attempt to analyze and understand a work: WHO wrote the work, WHEN it was written, WHERE is was written, WHO it was written for, the PURPOSE of that work… Yes, Judaism has evolved.
To be a bit controversial [but up front], Christians need to do the same work and ask is the Christianity of today or starting about the year circa 300 reflect the teachings and view points of Jesus and his disciples, or the INPUT of GREEK PAGANISMS. That is the view point of Anthony Buzzard and many Biblical Unitarians. They are not like most Unitarians of today…I am referring to the Unitarians of about 1700 - 1900. [No Trinity, No Jesus being Divine, etc.] They also need to ask do the teachings of Paul conflict / contradict with Jesus? Would Jesus be happy with the ideas originated by Paul? Just do a search on any search engine.
Time to work on my other books.
I support the state of Israel but only for strictly secular reasons. They are there. They are not moving. We have to deal with that fact.
First, I’d like to thank @swamidass for inviting me back to the conversation. I’ll try to respond to your strongest points, but I have a lot of other things I need to do, so I shall keep my remarks brief.
Before I address your specific arguments, I’d like to go back to what I wrote in the very first paragraph of my original post on Michael Alter’s book:
Prior to reading Michael Alter’s book, I believed that a Christian could make a strong case for Jesus’ having been raised from the dead, on purely historical grounds. After reading the book, I would no longer espouse this view.
Please also note that I continue to believe in Jesus’ Resurrection. I just don’t believe in arguing for it, anymore. The arguments, as I see them, are full of holes. I’d like to briefly explain why.
In order to establish a resurrection with a high degree of probability, you need to be able to establish the following facts with a high degree of probability:
(i) that the individual in question existed, and died;
(ii) that the individual’s dead body disappeared from its grave, and could not be found anywhere else;
(iii) that the individual was seen, heard and touched by honest, reliable witnesses whose testimonies independently agreed with one another.
If you can’t establish all three of these facts, then you don’t have a good case for a resurrection. Period.
With reference to Jesus, fact (i) is not seriously disputed by any New Testament historian.
Fact (ii) can only be established if (a) Jesus was buried in a publicly known grave, in a publicly known location, (b) this grave was subsequently found empty, and © no-one else claimed to have found Jesus’ body.
Let’s grant ©. I have argued that an independent historian would query point (a). Some of you (notably @Freakazoid) have pushed back on this point. As far as I can tell, all you’ve shown is that a good case can be made for Jesus’ having been buried in a known grave. Let’s grant that. However, the location of Jesus’ body within this grave is vitally important. If it was a new tomb, there’s no problem, but not all the Gospels say that it was (Mark’s doesn’t), and many eminent Biblical scholars (including Catholic priest Fr. Raymond Brown and also Dr. Jodi Magness, whom @Freakazoid cites and whom I myself cited in my original post) think Jesus was simply buried in a new burial niche in the wall (or loculus) inside Joseph of Arimathea’s family tomb, where there would have been other bodies as well.
This is of vital importance, because as you’re all aware, after the third day, in Jewish practice, bodies were deemed unrecognizable. In first century Palestine, the identifying features of the face of the corpse were held to have deteriorated by the fourth day. This means that the only people who could have identified Jesus’ body as missing from its tomb were those who visited the tomb on the third day (i.e. Easter Sunday).
Now let’s look at (b): Jesus’ grave was found empty. If we look at the Gospels, we find that the only people who are commonly agreed to have visited the tomb on the third day are Mary Magdalene and an unspecified number of women. But if we look at the Resurrection narratives, the only people who are commonly agreed to have seen the risen Jesus are his apostles. (Mark implicitly acknowledges an appearance of Jesus to his apostles in Mark 16:7.)
What that means is that we have no solid assurance that the witnesses to Jesus’ Resurrection personally took the trouble to check for themselves that his tomb was empty. Think about that. To be sure, John’s Gospel says that Peter and John visited the tomb, but that’s just one Gospel out of four, and a late one at that. John’s account may have also been motivated by a desire to rebut skeptics by providing credible witnesses (two men) who could attest to Jesus’ tomb being empty. Be that as it may, we don’t know that the apostles personally verified the empty tomb, on the third day. (They may have gone to the tomb later on, but by then it would have been too late to ascertain that none of the bodies in the tomb was that of Jesus. And in case you’re thinking, “Well, there wouldn’t have been any other newly deceased bodies,” ask yourself: what about the two thieves? Can we be sure that Joseph didn’t put their bodies there temporarily, as well?)
What’s more, none of the Jewish high priests or Roman authorities visited Jesus’ tomb on the third day. The only people who claimed to have found the tomb empty were his friends: specifically, Mary Magdalene and an unspecified number of women.
Now, before we even consider the Resurrection appearances, ask yourself what an independent historian would conclude at this point. Some of the apostles were (in all likelihood) later martyred for their faith in Jesus, thereby proving their sincerity, but none of the women who visited the tomb were martyred. How reliable is their testimony? And assuming that they visited a family tomb (as many historians believe), how certain can we be that they didn’t make a mistake about the exact location of Jesus’ body within the tomb? Only if we can be fairly sure that it was a new tomb can we rule out that kind of mistake.
Now let’s go on to fact (iii): the risen Jesus was seen, heard and touched by honest, reliable witnesses whose testimonies independently agreed with one another. What would an independent historian conclude? Again, the verdict would have to be: we don’t know. Despite the numerous discrepancies between the Gospel narratives, there seems to be a general agreement that Jesus’ disciples believed that they saw and conversed with him. Luke and John add that they touched him and ate with him, but this is uncertain, as Matthew, Mark and St. Paul (in 1 Corinthians 15) fail to corroborate this point. Leaving this point aside, a historian could still poke huge holes in the apologist’s case here.
First, there is no general agreement as to when and where the risen Jesus appeared to his apostles.
Second, there is no general agreement as to what he said, when he did appear to them.
Third, we have no record of the apostles attempting to verify that they all saw and heard the same thing, when Jesus appeared to them.
Fourth, even if they did so, it is still doubtful whether their testimonies agreed independently of one another. For St. Paul (citing an early Christian creed) and Luke both attest to Jesus having appeared to Peter before appearing to the other apostles, and according to Luke, Peter went and told them what he’d seen. If Luke’s account is correct, the apostles’ expectations would have been biased by what Peter saw and heard, creating an expectation on their part as to what Jesus would say and how he would appear, if he were to appear to them. Thus from a historian’s perspective, we cannot be sure that we have eleven independent testimonies from the apostles who saw and heard Jesus.
Taken together, these arguments vastly weaken the force of fact (iii), and I see no way that its probability on purely historical grounds could be assessed at over 50%.
The same goes for fact (ii).
Two of the key facts required to establish Jesus’ Resurrection are open to reasonable doubt, from a historian’s standpoint. The moral of the story? Don’t call on historians to bolster the credibility of the Christian faith. They won’t help you, because they can’t. Besides, it’s not their job to do so. If you want to rekindle your faith, read what the Gospels say about the character of Jesus, and read the story of the early Church. Call the Resurrection credible if you like, but please, don’t call it probable. That’s not an honest reading of the evidence.
Thank you for your response.
Many Young Earth Creationists claim that Ken Ham has trumped mainstream science and think that that explains why most scientists ignore him. No. That silly claim doesn’t help Ham’s credibility. It will be the same if people make bombastic claims about Ehrman.
I’m glad you raised this point. First, Ehrman is a bona fide Biblical scholar with a solid publication record behind him. He may be rather “far-left” in his views on some points (e.g. Jesus’ burial), but he is a scholar, and Ken Ham is not.
Second, evolutionists have taken great pains to refute the view of the creationists by publishing the evidence for evolution online, so that ordinary people can access it. By contrast, very few scholars have challenged Ehrman’s views on Jesus’ burial online. Craig Evans is the only notable exception I can think of, and I respect him for that. The others? Not so much.
And recycled and uninteresting material just doesn’t come up on the radar for most academics, theologians included.
Uninteresting to whom? I imagine that for an evolutionary biologist, the task of rebutting the claims of creationist X for the umpteenth time must be pretty uninteresting, too. Nevertheless, they take the trouble to do it, because they really care about truth, and because they realize that if they don’t defend it publicly, a lot of people aren’t going to believe what scientists say, anymore.
The moral of my story should be obvious. If Ehrman is seriously mistaken in his claims, then it is the task of scholars who care about truth to refute his ideas in a public forum, regardless of whether these ideas be interesting to scholars or not. Souls are at stake.