christian@topaz.UUCP (03/29/87)
Many years ago a man stood upon a grassy slope, speaking to thousands of people. He summarized eternal principles in a brief, eloquent speech that has survived to this day. Of course, no tape recorders were available, but his words were written down and distributed widely. There are, however, variations in the written accounts. How do we determine if the speech is genuine? How do we know this man really lived? The scene was Gettysburg, the year 1863, the man Abraham Lincoln. And yes, there are differences between contemporary published versions of what has come to be known as "The Gettysburg Address." There are differences between Lincoln's original (which we have) and the shorthand copy made by a reporter. In the light of these differences, must we reject the validity of the Gettysburg Address? Must we reject the historicity of Abraham Lincoln? Of course not! What we know of the Gettysburg Address comes to us in the same way as our knowledge of Jesus -- as the testimony of eyewitnesses, preserved in writing. If we are to know anything at all about history, we must depend on the testimony of those who were contemporary with the people and events in question. Of course, there is archaeological evidence, but if you exclude the testimony of written records found in the tells, there is precious little additional knowledge of people and events to be gained. The existence of a given mound may confirm something found in a written record; the arrangement of a city may reveal whether its inhabitants were farmers or traders; but the written word is needed to tell us what they said and what they thought. Both Vasu Murty (ln63wmp@sdcc7.uucp) and Mike Huybensz (mrh@cybvax0.UUCP) seem to have grievous misunderstandings of what we know about Scripture and how we know it. In article <10188@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, Vasu gives one of his reasons for not believing in the Resurrection: > This is not to say the Resurrection never happened...it very well might > have. I don't know; I wasn't there. Both Vasu and I can say the same of the Gettysburg Address (unless he's a lot older than I think. . .)! What do you think the reaction would be if you said: This is not to say the Gettysburg Address never happened . . . it very well might have. I don't know; I wasn't there. Do you think you would get a very sympathetic hearing? Or would people just conclude you were a few bricks short of a full load? Clearly, this isn't the way to analyze the validity of our knowledge of history! We have no choice but to depend upon the testimony of eyewitnesses. In article <10273@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, Mike perpetuates some common misunderstandings about Scripture: | Reorderings, rephrasings, retellings, translations and other | modifications of texts (common before text was written down, and still | common during transcription) are well known possible sources of semantic | change. We know that these have occurred extensively in the Bible. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Will Rogers said, "It ain't the things we don't know that hurt us, so much as the things we do know that ain't so." Dr. Harry Rimmer wrote in the preface to his book, _Voices from the Silent Centuries_: . . . Much of the teaching, in most institutes of higher learning in this land, deliberately seeks to lead the student away from God and all that is connected with the Christian faith. The tragedy of the case lies largely in the fact that these assaults on the credulity of the youth of the land are all based on false premises. Erroneous opinions which Science has discredited for two and three generations are today solemnly paraded as fresh evidence and recent discovery, to the bewilderment of the student. For one hundred years the science of archeology has been busy, quietly digging into the rubbish heaps of antiquity and piling fact upon fact, until today such a mass of evidence has been accumulated that no person who is in touch with this demonstration would dare question the credibility of the Bible. The copyright date of Rimmer's book is 1935! Fifty-two years ago, people were peddling this same kind of misinformation (in many cases, exactly the *same* misinformation!). The credulous bought it then, and they are buying it now. Mike goes on to assert that, "to believe that the original meanings of Jesus' preaching has come to us today requires a miraculous preservation of semantics." If this is so, presumably it would also require a "miraculous preservation of semantics" for us to understand any other ancient work, or even the Gettysburg Address. Hogwash! While in high school, our Latin class read parts of _Caesar's Gaullic Wars_. (This is a description by Julius Caesar of his campaigns in what is now Spain). There was no "semantic miracle" required to understand his writings. He spoke in ordinary language of ordinary events, with which the reader could empathize. Nor is it necessary to invoke "miraculous preservation of semantics" to allow understanding of the Bible -- Old Testament or New. Unlike most other so-called "holy books," the Bible is written in common, everyday language. It speaks of humanity in terms that are universal, crossing all languages and all cultures (e.g., ". . . all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. . ." Romans 3:23 [NIV]). It encourages verification of its claims: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. I Corinthians 15:3-8 [NIV] Paul was saying to his readers, "If you don't believe me, go talk to Peter. Go talk to the other Apostles. Go talk to those among the five hundred that are still alive." This is what we must do today if we wish to know anything at all about history -- we must go to the testimony of eyewitnesses. Mike ends with a quote from Dave Trissel that contains much food for thought. However, if what Dave says is true, the obverse is true as well: Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your antagonism toward religion gives you the high it does. Ask yourself this question: "Is TRUTH important enough for me to give up my pride and prostrate myself in worship at the feet of Jesus Christ, if that is required?" Until you answer "yes" to this, you are not being honest with yourself. Steve Rice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.TV.TEK.COM old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever
christian@topaz.UUCP (04/05/87)
> What we know of the Gettysburg Address comes to us in the same way as > our knowledge of Jesus -- as the testimony of eyewitnesses, preserved in > writing. If we are to know anything at all about history, we must depend > on the testimony of those who were contemporary with the people and > events in question. I agree with much of what Steve says about historical evidence, but there are some problems with his analogy between our knowledge of Lincoln and our knowledge of Jesus. First, as far as I know, no serious scholar contends that we have *any* writings about Jesus by anyone who met him. This is much different from the case of the Gettysburg Address, where we have the notes of someone who was there, and who wrote it down at the time before he could forget what was said. We would *like* to rely on the testimony of eyewitnesses in learning about the life of Jesus, but unfortunately none of the eyewitnesses bothered to write down their observations. This is a serious problem. A good historian will always go back to the contemporary sources, rather than relying on the works of later writers. But when studying Jesus, there *are* no contemporary sources. We can still try to piece together the story of his life, but the results are bound to be somewhat speculative. Second, the analogy between Lincoln giving a speech and Jesus rising from the dead ignores the medical evidence that people do not rise from the dead. Allegedly Jim Jones sometimes gave speaches to his followers. Allegedly he also caused people to return from the dead on occasion. Which claim do you believe? To state the problem generally, any historical analysis has to depend upon assumptions about the way people act, in order to resolve the ambiguities in the historical evidence. One of the apparent constants of human behavior is that once people die, they stay dead. It would take strong evidence, stronger than historical evidence usually is, to show that this general rule did not apply in a particular case. Of course when an alleged miracle occurs today, it is frequently well documented. Eyewitnesses write down what they see, or run off to talk to reporters. Even better, there are people like Uri Geller who demonstrate their miraculous powers live on national TV. Perhaps a case can be made for taking these modern "miracles" at face value. (I don't think so.) But the evidence for the resurrection is not this good. I don't see how any reasonable evaluation of this evidence could lead to the conviction that Jesus rose from the dead. Given the very limited evidence available, we must rely extensively on assumptions about how people behaved back then. If an assumption like the assumption that people don't rise from the dead was violated, we simply cannot discover this because the evidence is not good enough. A point for Christians to ponder is that, according to Christian belief, God must have been able to arrange for better evidence to be preserved but for whatever reason chose not to. I am not hostile towards the Christian faith, although I don't believe in it myself, and I hope that this article is not interpreted as an attack on Christianity. I do object when Christians force historical evidence to correspond to their religious preconceptions. This is really a pro-intellectual postion rather than an anti-Christian position, as is made clear by the fact that many Christians as well as non-Christians object to "scientific" creationism. Kenneth Almquist
christian@topaz.UUCP (04/07/87)
[For those who find it hard to figure out an address such as mc1!larry@elroy.uucp note that I am following RFC822, wherein you send first to the site with the @. I follow the convention of turning the first UUCP hop into @ form, because news seems to be based on @ style addresses. If the ultimate destination is in the UUCP maps I just use user@host.uucp. If not, then I produce an address like the this one. An equivalent UUCP address would be elroy!mc1!larry More and more sites are using domain versions of their names. E.g. this would be larry@mc1.jpl.nasa.gov. Sometime this spring I will start using such names where they are available. If you want to be able to reply to messages you should make sure that your systems staff is implementing support for the domain format of UUCP names. For a UUCP-only site, this involves installing a program called rmail. For an Internet site, it involves using the latest version of sendmail. This software is generally available. If you need help in finding it, please contact me. --clh] In article <10735@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Kenneth Almquist writes >First, as far as I know, no serious scholar contends that we have >*any* writings about Jesus by anyone who met him. As far as I know, many have contended just this thing. What about Matthew, John, James (the half-brother of Jesus), and Peter? All of these men were certainly eyewittnesses of Jesus, his miracles, his teachings, *and his res- surection*. Throughout their writings they appeal to the reader in several ways: 1) "We saw it with our own eyes. We're not making up a bunch of farout stories 2) "You guys saw it yourselves. Are you going to deny that now?" 3) "Many people saw the risen Christ (500). Go ask them what they saw - don't just rely on our testimony alone" These wittnesses *did* bother to write down what they saw. Their writings are considered scripture because 1) They were indeed eyewitnesses 2) They had apostolic authority 3) Jesus said that the apostles would receive a specific gift from the Holy Spirit that would allow them to remember all that they had heard and seen. Whoever or whatever your sources were for this are not looking at all of the facts. >Second, the analogy between Lincoln giving a speech and Jesus rising >from the dead ignores the medical evidence that people do not rise >from the dead. ... It would >take strong evidence, stronger than historical evidence usually is, to >show that this general rule did not apply in a particular case. [The original also mentions modern claims of resurrections, which it is assumed everyone rejects out of hand. --clh] If the claims that Christ made in the NT are true and He is actually God, then for Him to raise Himself from the dead is entirely within His power. He need not conform His actions to the little medical evidence that humans have when his knowledge is infinite. What would consist of "strong" evidence? In a historical case like this, what more can be expected than several eyewitnesses claiming that it is true, turning from scared wimps hiding for safety to bold preachers of the ressurection of Christ even to death? 11 of the 12 disciples were killed for their beliefs, the other was exiled to an island. How successful do you think you would be if you tried to find 11 men who would die brutal deaths (try inverted crucifixtion for one) for something that they *knew* was an outright, deliberate lie that they had made up themselves? Good luck! >I am not hostile towards the Christian faith, although I don't believe >in it myself, and I hope that this article is not interpreted as an >attack on Christianity. I do object when Christians force historical >evidence to correspond to their religious preconceptions. This is >really a pro-intellectual postion rather than an anti-Christian >position, as is made clear by the fact that many Christians as well as >non-Christians object to "scientific" creationism. > Kenneth Almquist Good! But your position is not pro-intellectual because it ignore the basic facts that there *were* eyewitnesses and they *did* write down what they saw. Not only that, but they appealed to all of the people around them, including the hostile witnesses and forces that were still alive when their writings were being widely distributed, and they demonstrated their incredi ble conviction that Jesus did rise again by the radical changes in their lives and behavior! If you want more information I suggest three authors: 1) Frank Morris "Who Moved the Stone", 2) Josh McDowell, "The Ressurection Factor", 3) FF Bruce "The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?". Larry