(Part 1 can be read here.)
- Notice not only what these sources explicitly state, but also what they seem to assume and imply. For example, do they seem to expect their audiences to already be familiar with the information they're conveying? Do they seem to be aware of any rival account they need to interact with?
- Critics of Christianity often aren't nearly as critical of their own beliefs as they are of the Christian beliefs they're opposing. We should apply proper scrutiny in both directions. If the apostle Peter died of natural causes rather than having been martyred, for example, then where's the evidence to that effect? If the alternative scenarios proposed by skeptics occurred, why did they leave so few traces in the historical record? If a skeptic isn't satisfied with one, two, or five sources cited by a Christian, then what should we make of the zero sources cited by that skeptic?
- We shouldn't assume that the early Christians would have concluded that all of their leaders were faithful to Christ or died as martyrs just because they wanted to believe such things. The early Christians frequently attribute faults to their leaders, even the apostles, as we see in the gospels, Acts, and Galatians, for example. If an apostle had been unfaithful like Peter was in Galatians 2, or had gone the way of Judas or Demas, then why should we think the early Christians would have universally ignored that information and have reported a fabricated account that's more positive instead? Most likely, an apostle who went the way of Peter or Judas would also have had a reputation that went the way of Peter's or Judas' reputation. The fact that John was thought to have been martyred by some early sources didn't prevent other ancient Christians from denying that he was martyred. When there's such widespread agreement that somebody like Paul or Peter was martyred, why should we think that everybody involved believed in that martyrdom for no good reason?
- Sometimes critics ask whether the apostles had an opportunity to recant in order to avoid being executed or avoid suffering in some other way. Maybe an apostle was willing to renounce Christianity in order to avoid execution, but he wasn't given the chance. Or maybe the apostles were willing to die for something they knew to be false, because they thought that dying for a lie would achieve a greater good. I won't be addressing those objections much in these posts. I've already discussed them elsewhere. See, for example, Appendix VIII in The Infidel Delusion.
- Some critics suggest that even the testimony of apostles and their contemporaries isn't good enough. A contemporary might have been thirty, forty, or sixty years removed from an event. He didn't directly experience what he's reporting. And even eyewitnesses are sometimes unreliable. But the issue here is what's probable, not what's possible. We don't begin with a default assumption that people are mistaken or lying. Human memory is generally reliable, even though it’s unreliable in some cases. Concerning the general reliability of human memory and eyewitness testimony, see here. Regarding the moral character of the ancient Christians in particular, which is relevant to their general trustworthiness, see here. Do skeptics live consistently with the standards they apply to Christianity? Do they consider their own eyewitness experiences generally dubious? When Richard Dawkins tells them about the results of some scientific research, do they reject his testimony, since they themselves didn't witness the events relevant to the research? Do they even require that Dawkins have been an eyewitness of everything he's reporting? Skeptics of Christianity, like everybody else, often rely on sources who were two, three, or more steps removed from an event. Take World War II, for example. Do skeptics of Christianity reject what their school teachers told them about that war if the teachers weren't eyewitnesses of what they reported? I have a grandfather who served in that war, who's still alive. He sometimes tells me about his experiences during the war, close to seven decades ago. I consider his testimony credible. What about older sources? Skeptics often cite ancient sources against Christianity in a way that's inconsistent with the standards they demand that Christians meet. For example, Josephus and Tacitus will be cited against the census of Luke 2. Were Josephus and Tacitus eyewitnesses of the events? No. They weren't even contemporaries. We need to distinguish between what we prefer and what we need. It's preferable to witness an event ourselves, to have the testimony of an eyewitness rather than somebody further removed, to have an eyewitness' testimony just after the event rather than much later, etc. But those preferable circumstances aren't necessary in order for us to trust what's reported.
- Critics sometimes suggest that the early Christians were writing on a blank slate with wishful thinking. Or they suggest something close to that. Supposedly, the desire that Paul, Peter, or somebody else had died as a martyr was enough to persuade the early Christians to believe that it was so. Or if the desire alone wasn't sufficient to lead them to such a conclusion, then the desire combined with other factors was enough, even though the martyrdoms didn't actually happen. But is that what usually occurs in other contexts in life? If you desire ten million dollars, does that desire by itself convince you that you have that much money? If an atheist thinks highly of, say, a philosopher who lived in ancient times, is his high view of that philosopher enough to convince him that the philosopher must have died as a martyr or to convince him to reach some similarly ridiculous conclusion? Do Christians in the modern world conclude that any pastor, missionary, etc. they think highly of died as a martyr? Obviously, many other examples could be given. And critics who want to apply these objections to the ancient Christians should apply the same reasoning to themselves and other individuals and groups. Are Muslims, atheists, theists, Hindus, agnostics, and other non-Christians also writing on a blank slate with wishful thinking? We don't live in a world that's a blank slate. And most people don't make judgments by wishful thinking alone in most contexts. The slate isn't even close to blank, and wishful thinking isn't even close to being the only factor that affects our judgments. People have consciences. And they have to interact with the world around them. Misjudging that world has negative consequences, which gives people reason to limit the degree to which they reach conclusions based on their desires. There are checks and balances in life. An early Christian who had a desire to believe that the apostle John died as a martyr wouldn't be able to make the rest of the early Christians have the same desire involving all of the same details. He would have to interact with other Christians and non-Christians who had differing motives. Etc.
- We shouldn't think that the early extra-Biblical sources were just repeating what they read in the New Testament. For one thing, they often were in a good position to attain reliable information independent of the New Testament. Secondly, they sometimes include details in their accounts that aren’t mentioned in the New Testament documents. Besides, even if they did repeat what they read in a New Testament document, that repetition could tell us how they interpreted the document, that they considered it credible, that they expected their audience to consider it credible, etc. There would be value in these sources' comments even if they were repeating what they read in the New Testament. But why should we think they were doing so?
- When skeptics raise objections like the ones I've referred to above, we need to keep the bigger picture in view. How often are they proposing such theories in an attempt to dismiss a conclusion that's favorable to Christianity? How does the frequency of their appeal to those theories affect the overall credibility of their position? It's one thing to argue that the sources were wrong about Paul's death. It's something else to argue that they were wrong about Peter and John as well. And it's another matter to add even more names to the list.
- As far as the argument from martyrdom is concerned, keep in mind that martyrdom is just one segment of a larger category. Martyrdom gives us some significant information about an individual's willingness to suffer for a belief, among other things, but it's not the only line of evidence we have. We should also consider the apostles' (and other witnesses') willingness to suffer imprisonment, beatings, disruption of relationships, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment