It will be interesting to me to see if this is just a publication of the material he has already had on hand for many years.
There are more recent developments that I believe should be addressed, especially in a multi-volume work that is going to have a current copyright date. For example, Dale Allison has definitely popularized a modern version of Hume's "trial by proxy"--namely, trying to put the resurrection in the same evidential basket with all sorts of less-well-attested events claimed in other religions.
Bart Ehrman *denies* group appearances. This has not I think always been widely known and should be noted.
And, of course, Tim's and my critique from a philosophical perspective of the minimal facts approach.
These are recent matters that should be noted for readers, but...I fear it won't do that.
He's been hyping this material for years now. I'm afraid that by the time it comes out it'll be outdated! Not to mention the limited interaction, if any, with important works such as Allison's and others'. At this rate, Lydia will probably publish and post more relevant and updated material (tongue-in-cheek, but very possible)!
Not to be snarky, but of course you're right. In a sense, I have done so already. Just discussing explicitly different meanings of the concept of "appearances" and noting philosophical and epistemological issues raised thereby is moving the conversation into new territory. My article in Themelios takes William Lane Craig to task for claiming (incorrectly, I argue) that Paul independently attests to the empty tomb in I Corinthians 15. That's new. Craig has been claiming that for years. Who else is challenging the claim of independcence, using probabilistic work *on* witness independence? My video several months ago on the probabilistic "bottleneck" and the confusion concerning more and more evidence that "Paul taught the same Gospel that the Jerusalem apostles taught" (and how that isn't ipso facto more and more evidence for the resurrection) is entirely fresh, and as far as I can tell, Habermas and his assistant (whom Mike names in the video) are unlikely to take any account of it. My interaction with Bart Ehrman in a combox on his blog, which I've mentioned in several places, where I elicited from Ehrman more specifically what he thinks "group appearances" would have been like if they occurred at all (plus the fact that he does not grant group appearances) is new and relevant, because I suspect a lot of the scholars being included by Habermas as "granting appearances" would agree with Bart on this one.
None of this will, I predict, be taken into account even in a multi-volume work published with a date of, say, 2022 and following. And yet it will be hailed as the latest thing, the most up-to-date and comprehensive work on the subject.
Which is a shame. If M.L. could have absorbed my work in a more scholarly fashion, if he could have at least acknowledged that it was interesting and part of the on-going give-and-take of scholarship on these matters, and that my knowledge of the epistemology of testimony needs to be engaged with, he could even have suggested that Habermas and his assistant/scholar friend take account of it, and they probably would have listened. But that, of course, was never going to happen.
Hi Lydia. I random heard an hour-long interview with Gary on Alissa Childers' podcast (it's on Youtube as well) about one month ago and he talked about this upcoming book. He said, verbatim, that the page count is somewhere near 2,000 pages and it's ALL new material. I had never heard Gary's name until I heard this podcast so I didn't know him from Adam but that's what he said :).
It’s hard to believe a guy writing a 4,000 page Magum Opus has a “Minimal” Facts Argument. :-) Thank you Lydia for your YouTube videos. If u can turn on comments because it helps with discussion. Thank you 🙏
It will be interesting to me to see if this is just a publication of the material he has already had on hand for many years.
ReplyDeleteThere are more recent developments that I believe should be addressed, especially in a multi-volume work that is going to have a current copyright date. For example, Dale Allison has definitely popularized a modern version of Hume's "trial by proxy"--namely, trying to put the resurrection in the same evidential basket with all sorts of less-well-attested events claimed in other religions.
Bart Ehrman *denies* group appearances. This has not I think always been widely known and should be noted.
And, of course, Tim's and my critique from a philosophical perspective of the minimal facts approach.
These are recent matters that should be noted for readers, but...I fear it won't do that.
He's been hyping this material for years now. I'm afraid that by the time it comes out it'll be outdated! Not to mention the limited interaction, if any, with important works such as Allison's and others'.
ReplyDeleteAt this rate, Lydia will probably publish and post more relevant and updated material (tongue-in-cheek, but very possible)!
Not to be snarky, but of course you're right. In a sense, I have done so already. Just discussing explicitly different meanings of the concept of "appearances" and noting philosophical and epistemological issues raised thereby is moving the conversation into new territory. My article in Themelios takes William Lane Craig to task for claiming (incorrectly, I argue) that Paul independently attests to the empty tomb in I Corinthians 15. That's new. Craig has been claiming that for years. Who else is challenging the claim of independcence, using probabilistic work *on* witness independence? My video several months ago on the probabilistic "bottleneck" and the confusion concerning more and more evidence that "Paul taught the same Gospel that the Jerusalem apostles taught" (and how that isn't ipso facto more and more evidence for the resurrection) is entirely fresh, and as far as I can tell, Habermas and his assistant (whom Mike names in the video) are unlikely to take any account of it. My interaction with Bart Ehrman in a combox on his blog, which I've mentioned in several places, where I elicited from Ehrman more specifically what he thinks "group appearances" would have been like if they occurred at all (plus the fact that he does not grant group appearances) is new and relevant, because I suspect a lot of the scholars being included by Habermas as "granting appearances" would agree with Bart on this one.
DeleteNone of this will, I predict, be taken into account even in a multi-volume work published with a date of, say, 2022 and following. And yet it will be hailed as the latest thing, the most up-to-date and comprehensive work on the subject.
Which is a shame. If M.L. could have absorbed my work in a more scholarly fashion, if he could have at least acknowledged that it was interesting and part of the on-going give-and-take of scholarship on these matters, and that my knowledge of the epistemology of testimony needs to be engaged with, he could even have suggested that Habermas and his assistant/scholar friend take account of it, and they probably would have listened. But that, of course, was never going to happen.
Hi Lydia. I random heard an hour-long interview with Gary on Alissa Childers' podcast (it's on Youtube as well) about one month ago and he talked about this upcoming book. He said, verbatim, that the page count is somewhere near 2,000 pages and it's ALL new material. I had never heard Gary's name until I heard this podcast so I didn't know him from Adam but that's what he said :).
DeleteIt’s hard to believe a guy writing a 4,000 page Magum Opus has a “Minimal” Facts Argument. :-)
ReplyDeleteThank you Lydia for your YouTube videos. If u can turn on comments because it helps with discussion. Thank you 🙏