The question is whether it is the extent we are going to allow the risk of executing an innocent person. I think that that is a horrible side effect of our system. While the system is run by human beings, I think it will remain fallible. If there is a death penalty, then you can't eliminate the possibility of it being used on an innocent person.
To really have a death penalty that does for us what most death penalty advocates would get from it, what you have to do is accept a higher risk than we already have of executing innocent people.
That’s a stock objection to the death penalty. An obvious counterexample to his objection is the fact that there are many situations in modern life where we routinely risk the lives of innocent people. Policemen and firemen have dangerous jobs. Roofers have dangerous jobs. Electricians have dangerous jobs. Sharing the same road with cars, bicycles, and motorcycles is hazardous to bikers. The list is long.
Much of modern life involves a comparative risk assessment. You can’t eliminate the possibility that innocent people will be killed. Indeed, that’s inevitable.
The difference is that people freely choose to take those risks in those professions. People do not freely choose to be falsely charged, convicted, and killed by the government.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Reppert.
Although this argument wouldn't be persuasive to Reppert, who isn't submitted to biblical authority, I'd point out that certainly in biblical ethics the standard of infallible knowledge of guilt is not a requirement. And this was in ancient times before the modern science of forensics.
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of evangelicals believe in eternal conscious torment, and a small minority believe in annihilationism. In either case, a person’s eternal fate is sealed at the moment of his or her death. Given that, isn’t capital punishment massively problematic, other than (perhaps) in cases in which the condemned has been “born again” prior to execution? Wouldn’t these evangelicals wish to give each and every person as much a chance for repentance during his or her lifetime as possible? Isn’t it an eternal tragedy to purposefully cut a sinner’s life short, therefore cutting off any later chance for repentance?
ReplyDeleteMost evangelicals justify capital punishment by appealing to the Mosaic Law. But the problem of capital punishment and hell persists.
And two things, tangentially, about the Mosaic Law justification: First, the ancient Hebrews had no concept of eternal conscious torment or annihilationism, so these views did not factor into their moral calculus re: capital punishment. By contrast, evangelicals must factor these views into their moral calculus. Second, such appeals to the Mosaic Law strike me as hypocritical. After all, very few evangelicals that I know of advocate for the stoning of adulterers and rebellious children, two things the Mosaic Law calls for.
"Most evangelicals justify capital punishment by appealing to the Mosaic Law. But the problem of capital punishment and hell persists."
ReplyDeleteSince the Bible teaches both capital punishment and the reality of hell, there is no tension.
"And two things, tangentially, about the Mosaic Law justification."
Of course, the Mosaic Law is not the only biblical justification for capital punishment.
"First, the ancient Hebrews had no concept of eternal conscious torment or annihilationism, so these views did not factor into their moral calculus re: capital punishment."
Even granting your tendentious premise, did *God* have a concept of hell when he wrote Mosaic legislature and sanctions? You're attempting to demonstrate an internal tension within an evangelical understanding of ethics, but you aren't permitting all of the principles within that system to have a voice in your critique.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the biblical ethical standard was a minimum number of witnesses (2...3?) and at the same time an equally strong penalty for false witness.
The metanarrative of the U.S. (The DOI and Constitution) is that the government has to overcome a very high standard in order to restrict or destroy a person's liberties.
I don't see how the biblical ethical standard is in any way diminished by this.
Gsnieder:
ReplyDeleteI was responding to Reppert on his own terms. He was the one who set the epistemological criteria at the level of infallibility. And he holds this standard inconsistently, for I doubt he applies it to other kinds of sanctions.
GSNIEDER SAID:
ReplyDelete"The difference is that people freely choose to take those risks in those professions. People do not freely choose to be falsely charged, convicted, and killed by the government."
i) Bikers don't freely choose to be endangered by cars. That's a forced option.
ii) The socioeconomic system couldn't survive without certain hazardous occupations. So it's not optional in the larger sense.
GSNIEDER SAID:
ReplyDelete"The difference is that people freely choose to take those risks in those professions. People do not freely choose to be falsely charged, convicted, and killed by the government."
But from Reppert's standpoint, is it ethical to allow others to assume a higher risk for your benefit? Isn't that treating people as means rather than ends (contrary to Reppert's deontologism)?
Is a voluntary risk ipso facto ethical? Take the Night Gallery episode ("Eyes") in which the Joan Crawford character pays a chump to donate his eyes so that she can see. Even though his organ donation is voluntary, isn't she exploiting him?
ReplyDeleteOr take a futuristic society in which the ruling class pays mercenaries a lavish income to protect the ruling class. Because their job is so dangerous, the mercenaries have an average lifespan of 25.
ReplyDeleteEven though the mercenaries volunteer, is it ethical for the ruling class to use them this way?
gsnieder said...
ReplyDelete"The metanarrative of the U.S. (The DOI and Constitution) is that the government has to overcome a very high standard in order to restrict or destroy a person's liberties."
Were the rules of evidence in capital cases really that stringent back when the US Constitution was ratified? Wasn't the death penalty pretty common back then? And they didn't have CSI labs in the 18C.
When I said I agree with Reppert I meant I agreed with his conclusion, that we need to accept a higher risk, not how he arrived at those conclusions.
ReplyDeleteThe question I have on the biblical ethical standard (I'm asking) is were the witnesses required to be eye witnesses?
If that be the case (and I think it probably is the case) then the biblical standard is actually much higher than our current standards.
That would necessarily rule out circumstantial evidence of which modern forensic science would be included.
Steve, yes, we could argue forced options versus free choices down a rabbit hole until I'm living in a cave surviving off plants and bugs.
It seems clear to me that the Founders understood the interplay between macro choices and micro choices and necessarily tipped the balance toward micro choices to avoid the tyranny associated with macro choices.
GSNIEDER SAID:
ReplyDelete"The question I have on the biblical ethical standard (I'm asking) is were the witnesses required to be eye witnesses? If that be the case (and I think it probably is the case) then the biblical standard is actually much higher than our current standards. That would necessarily rule out circumstantial evidence of which modern forensic science would be included."
That's equivocal. You're comparing ancient circumstantial evidence with modern circumstantial evidence. But there are many types of circumstantial evidence available to forensics that were unavailable in the 2nd millennium.
When you talk about biblical "standards," you have to distinguish the principle from the historical conditions. Even theonomy has to update biblical law.
If we sidestep for a moment the whole "forced" vs. "free" choice argument, Steve has framed this issue in cost/benefit terms. What, Steve, are the benefits of capital punishment, over and above incarceration?
ReplyDeleteHi Evan,
ReplyDelete"Since the Bible teaches both capital punishment and the reality of hell, there is no tension."
I don't see that the Bible "teaches" capital punishment any more than it "teaches" the stoning of rebellious children. If you're arguing that the Mosaic law establishes the ethical validity (even necessity?) of capital punishment, it seems you must also argue that the Mosaic law establishes the validity (or necessity) of executing rebellious children. Unless you're a reconstructionist (thankfully a very fringe view), it seems you're being inconsistent.
"Of course, the Mosaic Law is not the only biblical justification for capital punishment."
Where are the other justifications? The only examples I can think of are directly informed by the Mosaic law, and are therefore subject to my preceding critique. Romans 13, perhaps? No mention of capital punishment there.
And all that aside, do you really see no tension here? I can hardly believe that.
And BTW, I don't see anything "tendentious" about my description of the ancient Hebrew view of the afterlife. Where is the textual support in the Hebrew scriptures for eternal conscious torment (or even annihilationism)?
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"If we sidestep for a moment the whole 'forced' vs. 'free' choice argument, Steve has framed this issue in cost/benefit terms. What, Steve, are the benefits of capital punishment, over and above incarceration?"
I didn't defend capital punishment on cost/benefit terms. Rather, I'm responding to Reppert on his own grounds. Since he framed the issue in terms of risk factors, that becomes a question of risk assessment (or risk management), which, in turn, invites a cost/benefit analysis.
"Unless you're a reconstructionist (thankfully a very fringe view), it seems you're being inconsistent."
ReplyDeleteSince you are unaware of my view on the application of Mosaic law today, you have no basis to claim that I am inconsistent. My understanding of the law in light of redemptive history would very similar to that of Vern Poythress' in his book The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses.
"Where are the other justifications? The only examples I can think of are directly informed by the Mosaic law, and are therefore subject to my preceding critique."
In Genesis 9:6 God declares capital punishment to be the appropriate sanction for murder, and he roots this principle in the Imago Dei.
"Romans 13, perhaps? No mention of capital punishment there."
So you insist that the state's bearing of the sword to avenge the wrath of God has nothing to do with capital punishment?
"And all that aside, do you really see no tension here? I can hardly believe that."
Let me ask you this: On your view, was it intrinsically wrong for Mosaic legislature to have capital punishment sanctions?
"And BTW, I don't see anything 'tendentious' about my description of the ancient Hebrew view of the afterlife. Where is the textual support in the Hebrew scriptures for eternal conscious torment (or even annihilationism)?"
I haven't claimed that the Hebrew Scriptures explicitly teach "eternal conscious torment" (but see Dan. 12:2).But that does not mean that there was no concept of an afterlife with consequences for the wicked present in the Hebrew mind. See Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting by John Cooper. So my point still holds.
In any case, you didn't answer my question: "Did *God* have a concept of hell when he wrote Mosaic legislature and sanctions?"
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"The vast majority of evangelicals believe in eternal conscious torment, and a small minority believe in annihilationism. In either case, a person’s eternal fate is sealed at the moment of his or her death."
As a Calvinist, I'd say there's a sense in which their eternal fate was sealed before they were born. Whether they die in the womb or outlive Methuselah doesn't affect their eternal fate one way or the other.
"Given that, isn’t capital punishment massively problematic, other than (perhaps) in cases in which the condemned has been 'born again' prior to execution?"
God kills lots of people in one way or another, thereby sealing their fate at the time of death (according to your very own scenario).
"Wouldn’t these evangelicals wish to give each and every person as much a chance for repentance during his or her lifetime as possible? Isn’t it an eternal tragedy to purposefully cut a sinner’s life short, therefore cutting off any later chance for repentance?"
Yes, I think we should lock them up in a padded cell, like the character in Final Destination 2, who checked herself into an asylum to minimize the chance of death by freak accidents.
"Isn’t it an eternal tragedy to purposefully cut a sinner’s life short, therefore cutting off any later chance for repentance?"
Tragic justice.
steve said:
ReplyDelete"When you talk about biblical "standards," you have to distinguish the principle from the historical conditions"
An eye witness is an eye witness whether in ancient times or today. The principle is no convictions based on inferences only in capital cases.
The Casey Anthony case is an example of where the jury was uncomfortable with an inference only case.
No, that's not a principle. Probative evidence is the principle.
ReplyDeleteMy argument is actually somewhat different from what you are describing. As the death penalty is now practiced in America, we take extra precautions with it, in virtue of its irreversibility. As a result, two advantages of the death penalty over life imprisonment are compromised. First, while most people think the state pays less by using the death penalty than it does in life imprisonment, the fact is that when litigation costs are factored in. Second, the deterrent effect is diminished, since not only does the criminal expect to get away with it (otherwise, he wouldn't commit the crime), but also, should someone actually be tried and convicted and sentence to death, death is hardly immanent, because the murderer can expect a long appeals process which is going to delay the execution for many years, assuming the execution occurs at all. This is probably the reason why crime statistics in states without the death penalty are no worse than in states with it. Having the death penalty just means that you might be sentenced to death, and then after 20 years or so, after your appeals run out, you may get executed, unless, of course, they decide not to execute you, which they might very well do.
ReplyDeleteSo, it looks like the only way to make the death penalty do what we hope it will do is to "fast-track" it, eliminate the appeals, and make execution immanent for those convicted of capital crimes.
Of course, the irreversibility of the death penalty is an argument against its very existence. However, where we do practice the death penalty, we seem to concede an important point to its opponents, namely, that there should be a lot more appeals when we execute than when we imprison, because we can release exonerated prisoners, but not people we have executed. The result is that the two benefits of a death penalty seem to be either eliminated or greatly weakened.
So, if we have a death penalty that does what we want it to do, we have to accept the risk of executing innocent people and fast-track the death penalty. We have to not only risk executing innocent people, but we also have to increase that risk by curtailing the appeals process.
To do that, I think we have to abandon the idea that the execution of an innocent person is a more tragic failure of justice than the failure to punish a guilty person. I don't want to go there. But in order for the death penalty to have the advantages over life imprisonment that pro-death-penalty people think it has, it seems as if we have to go there.
As for the biblical argument, I would argue that in biblical times you did not have the facilities to imprison large numbers of people. Going from the biblical context to a contemporary one is just a lot trickier than a lot of people realize.
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"That would necessarily rule out circumstantial evidence of which modern forensic science would be included. . . . An eye witness is an eye witness whether in ancient times or today. The principle is no convictions based on inferences only in capital cases."
Sometimes direct evidence or several eyewitness testimonies don't necessarily establish truth.
What if the victim was framed by the mob? What if our legal system (sans forensics) failed to ferret out inconsistencies and the like?
Or what if the eyewitnesses thought they saw something they didn't? What if their eyes deceived them?
Or what if the eyewitness testimonial evidence conflicts?
What if forensics is necessary to establish the truth of the eyewitness testimonies themselves?
Let's say Jane is found dead at home. She was throwing a dinner party. Let's say it was a fugu or Japanese pufferfish dinner party.
Multiple eyewitnesses were present when Jane died since she had invited many guests. But let's say the eyewitnesses fall into two groups - A and B.
Eyewitnesses in group A report she died due to eating the fugu. This is possible since fugu contains a highly lethal neurotoxin. Let's say they have expert knowledge about fugu and its effects. Their testimony can't be dismissed out of hand.
Eyewitnesses in group B report she was intentionally poisoned. Perhaps they claim to have seen another guest(s) lace Jane's fugu shortly before she ate it. Perhaps this other guest(s) laced it with a different poison than naturally found in fugu or laced it with the same neurotoxin but in a different and significantly higher dose or concentration.
Although the (expert) testimonial evidence conflicts, forensic pathology should (ideally) be able to adjudicate between the multiple eyewitness testimonies and solve the mystery, even though the forensic evidence which resolves the case would be inferential evidence.
Let's say the forensic pathologists determine it was clearly laced with a poison other than the naturally occurring fugu neurotoxin. Does this mean we can't convict for murder?
Since the eyewitnesses in group B would support the forensic pathology but the forensic pathology would be determinant. Or so I gather.
ReplyDeletesteve said:
ReplyDelete"Probative evidence is the principle."
That's too general and bland and gives very little guidance in dealing with specific applications.
You could say the same thing about eyewitness testimony.
ReplyDeleteneurotransmitter-
ReplyDeletere your hypothetical:
Suppose this occurred before the time of forensic science. Would we come to any other conclusion?
It is already well known that fugo can cause death without the science confirming it by the fact that many people have died after eating it.
Since group B witnessed someones tampering with the food and can attest that what was put into the food was poison by common knowledge then the person who did the poisoning would surely be guilty of malice aforethought whether or not the death occurred naturally or by the poison.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"I didn't defend capital punishment on cost/benefit terms. Rather, I'm responding to Reppert on his own grounds. Since he framed the issue in terms of risk factors, that becomes a question of risk assessment (or risk management), which, in turn, invites a cost/benefit analysis."
Okay, then humor me if you will. What are the benefits of capital punishment, over and above incarceration?
"As a Calvinist, I'd say there's a sense in which their eternal fate was sealed before they were born."
Well, perhaps my argument might be more persuasive to Arminians (the majority evangelical position), but I don't see how Calvinists can really wriggle off the hook in this way. It *seems* to me Steve that you're implying that execution is somewhat of a trifling matter, because God has already predestined everyone's eternal fate anyway. Could you, in good conscience, be an executioner? What would you be thinking as you're injecting lethal poison into someone's veins? "You're getting what you deserve buddy, and God wants you in hell anyway."
"God kills lots of people in one way or another."
That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about humans purposefully killing other humans, for strictly punitive reasons.
"Tragic justice."
Tragic justice? Or is it playing God?
steve said:
ReplyDelete"You could say the same thing about eyewitness testimony."
The principle was no inferences only.
Evan said:
ReplyDelete"In any case, you didn't answer my question: "Did *God* have a concept of hell when he wrote Mosaic legislature and sanctions?"
Well Evan, I'm not an evangelical (I'm one of those dreaded "John Spong types of Christians" as Steve puts it), so I don't believe that God "wrote" the Mosaic legislature and sanctions.
"Since you are unaware of my view on the application of Mosaic law today, you have no basis to claim that I am inconsistent. My understanding of the law in light of redemptive history would very similar to that of Vern Poythress' in his book The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses."
Sorry, I wasn't trying to claim that you, specifically, are being inconsistent. I said that it seems to me that non-reconstructionist evangelicals are necessarily being inconsistent here, or at least, very ad hoc. I'm not familiar with Vern Poythress' work and would be happy if you could quickly summarize the relevant points for me.
"In Genesis 9:6 God declares capital punishment to be the appropriate sanction for murder, and he roots this principle in the Imago Dei."
I would argue that this most likely is directly informed by the Mosaic law (Genesis wasn't written and compiled until long after the time of Moses). But in any event, are you saying, then, that capital punishment is an ethical necessity? What of Jesus' words: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
"So you insist that the state's bearing of the sword to avenge the wrath of God has nothing to do with capital punishment?"
Well, I'd say that you are making a huge assumption here. Does "bearing the sword" necessarily entail controlled, punitive executions?
Whoops, missed this one:
ReplyDeleteEvan said:
"Let me ask you this: On your view, was it intrinsically wrong for Mosaic legislature to have capital punishment sanctions?"
Yes. But that doesn't mean that I have to therefore demonize the ancient Hebrews as inhuman savages. I can be sympathetic to the cultural assumptions they were operating under, even as I continue to condemn as immoral the practice of capital punishment.
GSNIEDER SAID:
ReplyDelete"The principle is no convictions based on inferences only in capital cases."
i) You act as if the Mosaic law is contrasting eyewitness testimony with modern forensic evidence. But that's obviously anachronistic.
Rather, the Mosaic law is contrasting eyewitness testimony with other types of evidence available to a judge living in the 2nd millennium BC. That's the historical framework.
ii) Even on your own terms, eyewitness testimony doesn't exclude inference. An eyewitness to a murder doesn't see a murder. He only sees a killing. He sees one person killing another.
But killing is not ipso facto murder. For instance, the Mosaic law has a provision for the avenger of blood. Suppose an eyewitness sees the avenger of blood kill the fugitive. Does he see a murder? No. For that's justified homicide under OT law.
To convict for murder, you have to go beyond eyewitness testimony to draw inferences about criminal intent.
Jeff said...
ReplyDelete"What of Jesus' words: 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'?"
Those aren't Jesus' words. That's a scribal interpolation. Try again.
Jeff said...
ReplyDelete“Okay, then humor me if you will. What are the benefits of capital punishment, over and above incarceration?”
It doesn’t have to be beneficial. Retributive justice is sufficient warrant. Justice is an end, not a means. Good in its own right.
“It *seems* to me Steve that you're implying that execution is somewhat of a trifling matter, because God has already predestined everyone's eternal fate anyway.”
Actually, I’m just responding to you the same way you chose to cast the question.
“Could you, in good conscience, be an executioner? “
Why not?
“What would you be thinking as you're injecting lethal poison into someone's veins? ‘You're getting what you deserve buddy, and God wants you in hell anyway.’”
Sounds fine to me. Indeed, there are crimes we can’t adequately punish in this life, so execution is a way of turning the malefactor over to the divine judge.
“That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about humans purposefully killing other humans, for strictly punitive reasons.”
i) Which, according to Scripture, is morally permissible.
ii) And if you reject divine revelation, then anything goes.
“Or is it playing God?”
Since God has delegated to human beings the authority to kill other human beings under certain circumstances, you’re generating a false dichotomy.
"Well Evan, I'm not an evangelical (I'm one of those dreaded "John Spong types of Christians" as Steve puts it), so I don't believe that God "wrote" the Mosaic legislature and sanctions."
ReplyDeleteFine, but you were trying to demonstrate an internal inconsistency within evangelical ethics. It certainly is a presupposition of this system that the Bible's words are God's words. So, you aren't able to stay true to your argument without importing your own theological assumptions.
"But in any event, are you saying, then, that capital punishment is an ethical necessity?"
Does Genesis 9:6 present it as an ethical necessity?
"Well, I'd say that you are making a huge assumption here. Does 'bearing the sword' necessarily entail controlled, punitive executions?"
Please explain what the text means.
"I can be sympathetic to the cultural assumptions they were operating under, even as I continue to condemn as immoral the practice of capital punishment."
By what ethical standard do you condemn them as immoral?
"Those aren't Jesus' words. That's a scribal interpolation. Try again."
ReplyDeleteClever boy. But are you really sure you want to start going the route of higher criticism? I can't see how that's going to end well for you.
"It doesn’t have to be beneficial. Retributive justice is sufficient warrant. Justice is an end, not a means. Good in its own right."
"Which, according to Scripture, is morally permissible."
So, this really is an issue of retributive justice, rather than some sort of divine mandate? I'm not sure what you're take on determinism is, but it seems to me to be the only coherent option for Calvinists, and retributive justice is absurd within the framework of determinism.
"Indeed, there are crimes we can’t adequately punish in this life, so execution is a way of turning the malefactor over to the divine judge."
Oh ugh! I guess we have radically different perspectives on punishment/forgiveness/justice, so fine, I'll just leave it at that.
"And if you reject divine revelation, then anything goes."
Nope. (As you're so fond of saying, what is presented without argument can be dismissed without argument.)
To Evan:
ReplyDelete"Fine, but you were trying to demonstrate an internal inconsistency within evangelical ethics. It certainly is a presupposition of this system that the Bible's words are God's words. So, you aren't able to stay true to your argument without importing your own theological assumptions."
Well, I thought you were just asking for my own opinion, so I gave it. What do you say to Jesus' words in John 8:7? Steve has gone the route of higher criticism and takes the position that Jesus never said those words. Is that your position as well?
"Does Genesis 9:6 present it as an ethical necessity?"
It seems to me that Jesus' take on the matter would "trump" (for lack of a better word) Genesis 9:6.
"Please explain what the text means."
I think that ball is in your court, since Romans 13 never mentions capital punishment. Again, I can easily imagine the state "bearing the sword" without practicing capital punishment.
"By what ethical standard do you condemn them as immoral?"
I'm not an atheist, so even if that evasion works against the atheist position (I don't think it does, by the way), it doesn't work against my position. This comes down to the issue of ethical epistemology. I would certainly guess that your ethical epistemology depends on inerrancy, and since I reject inerrancy, I have no reason to think your epistemology is any better than my own.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI don't deny that inferences need to be drawn. My point is that a capital case without direct testimony to the actual event is too weak to convict on capital charges.
I gave the example of the Casey Anthony trial. If the prosecutor had charged her with some lessor crime I have no doubt they would have convicted her. As it was, no one came forward and said they saw her kill Kaylee.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete“Clever boy. But are you really sure you want to start going the route of higher criticism?”
Actually, that’s lower criticism, not higher criticism. Clever boys know the difference.
“I can't see how that's going to end well for you.”
Textual criticism works out just fine for me. Thanks for your concern.
“So, this really is an issue of retributive justice, rather than some sort of divine mandate?”
A false dichotomy. God reveals just punishments.
“I'm not sure what you're take on determinism is, but it seems to me to be the only coherent option for Calvinists, and retributive justice is absurd within the framework of determinism.”
Since you haven’t given me a reason to agree with you, your impression can be safely discounted.
And it’s not as if I haven’t dealt with that objection before. Try something new.
“Oh ugh! I guess we have radically different perspectives on punishment/forgiveness/justice, so fine, I'll just leave it at that.”
All your sympathy seems to be diverted to the perpetrator rather than the victim or the surviving family and friends. So, yes, we have radically different perspectives.
“Nope. (As you're so fond of saying, what is presented without argument can be dismissed without argument.)”
Ironic that you’re alluding to Hitchens inasmuch as he has great difficulty grounding morality–as his debates with Doug Wilson and William Lane Craig have abundantly illustrated.
I don’t need to argue the point inasmuch as many atheists have done it for me by admitting that atheism conduces to moral relativism. And I’ve documented their concession extensively.
"What do you say to Jesus' words in John 8:7? Steve has gone the route of higher criticism and takes the position that Jesus never said those words. Is that your position as well?"
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing higher criticism (with its methodological naturalism) and textual criticism. I do reject the pericope adulterae as unoriginal to John's gospel, given the external and internal evidence.
But even granting the authenticity of that account, that hardly overthrows capital punishment. And you haven't argued that it does; you've simply cited the text.
"It seems to me that Jesus' take on the matter would 'trump' (for lack of a better word) Genesis 9:6."
On what basis do you take John 8 as authoritative but not Genesis 9?
"Again, I can easily imagine the state 'bearing the sword' without practicing capital punishment."
The text doesn't merely say that the state bears the sword. It says that it bears the sword *to avenge the wrath of God.*
"This comes down to the issue of ethical epistemology."
Yes, it does, but you haven't answered the question.
"Well, I thought you were just asking for my own opinion, so I gave it."
ReplyDeleteHere is the context in which I originally asked the question (see above):
"Even granting your tendentious premise, did *God* have a concept of hell when he wrote Mosaic legislature and sanctions? You're attempting to demonstrate an internal tension within an evangelical understanding of ethics, but you aren't permitting all of the principles within that system to have a voice in your critique."
GSNIEDER SAID:
ReplyDelete"I don't deny that inferences need to be drawn. My point is that a capital case without direct testimony to the actual event is too weak to convict on capital charges. I gave the example of the Casey Anthony trial. If the prosecutor had charged her with some lessor crime I have no doubt they would have convicted her. As it was, no one came forward and said they saw her kill Kaylee."
You're conflating the issue of whether forensic evidence is objectively probative with whether it's persuasive to stupid jurors. There is no failsafe against stupid jurors.
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"My point is that a capital case without direct testimony to the actual event is too weak to convict on capital charges."
Say a woman named Sally Sparrow has identified a stalker following her around. Say he's been following her around for quite some time.
Say she has filed multiple police reports.
Say Sally even has a restraining order in effect against the stalker.
Say he has told her he wants to kill her because he hates women just like her. Say he was dumped by someone who's her spitting image. Say he left this as a message on her voice mail.
Now say Sally has dialed 911. Say she was able to contact the police department and tell them the stalker has broken into her apartment, is armed with a gun, and is threatening to kill her.
Say the police are immediately dispatched.
Say no one else is around. No one else to serve as an eyewitness.
Say two police officers arrive right as the stalker draws his gun. They hear a gun shot from somewhere very nearby. And they see Sally hit the ground with blood pouring from her head.
But say right before the stalker pulled the trigger, the police officers simultaneously blinked. Maybe the dust in the room as they kicked down the door made them both sneeze at the same time. In any case, they didn't actually see the stalker pull the trigger.
Say they do see the stalker holding a gun and standing over Sally who has obviously been shot and killed.
Say the gun is even smoking since it had been recently fired. It's not merely the proverbial smoking gun but literally so as well.
Say the bullet which pierced Sally's skull also matches the bullets in the gun the stalker is holding. Say the otherwise loaded gun chamber is missing a single bullet.
Say through ballistics we could demonstrate the bullet which killed Sally had to have been fired from where the stalker had been positioned.
Say there are fingerprints and DNA evidence on the gun as well as other parts of the room which perfectly match the stalker's fingerprints and DNA.
But all these are inferences. Circumstantial evidence. At any rate, the case would still lack direct eyewitness testimonial evidence.
Thus, according to you, we can't convict the stalker of murder since your point is "a capital case without direct testimony to the actual event is too weak to convict on capital charges."
neurotransmitter,
ReplyDeleteIn your scenario the cops do give direct testimony to the actual events. They saw the victim, the perp, the smoke, the gun, the noise, the smell... no need for forensic science.
Nowhere have I argued for a woodenly literalistic reading of eyewitness.
I think that ball is in your court, since Romans 13 never mentions capital punishment. Again, I can easily imagine the state "bearing the sword" without practicing capital punishment.
ReplyDeleteJeff, I'm curious how you think this plays out. It reminds me of Greg Koukl's observation, "Do you think they were just using those swords to paddle people on the behind with when they misbehaved?"
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"Nowhere have I argued for a woodenly literalistic reading of eyewitness."
Actually, it seems like you keep adding clarifications onto what you've originally said.
That's fine, and I don't mind clarifications.
But please let's not pretend what you've said prior to this point couldn't also fairly be a "woodenly literalistic reading of eyewitness." I'm just taking you at your own word, man.
steve said:
ReplyDelete"You're conflating the issue of whether forensic evidence is objectively probative with whether it's persuasive to stupid jurors."
No, as the article you posted last night on evidence suggests, there's a lot that goes into determining whether or not some piece of evidence is "objectively probative".
Juries in a capitol case will generally want the highest level of evidence to convict. Testimony to the actual event is the highest form of evidence.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"Actually, that’s lower criticism, not higher criticism. Clever boys know the difference."
Alright, let me clarify. I wouldn't say you were engaging in higher criticism per se, but you're throwing the door wide open for it. We have no original manuscripts to serve as a baseline, so if you're going to excise one portion of the canon, then you're opening the door--at least in principle--to the evisceration of the canon. If you're going to throw out John 7:53-8:11, then what's to stop me from throwing out Romans 13:1-7? That section of Romans seems to me to be jarringly out of tune with rest of Romans, so I see very plausible reason (and there are a number of scholars who take this position) to think that Romans 13:1-7 was a later "scribal interpolation." Even if I were an inerrantist, I wouldn't have sufficient confidence in the authenticity of Romans 13:1-7 to base any of my theology on it. And that's only one example.
"God reveals just punishments."
Honestly, it seems to me that you've significantly undermined any workable construct of inerrancy, so until you clarify or retract your argument about John 8, I don't see how you can claim to know what God has revealed.
About the determinism point, we're going to argue ourselves into oblivion over that, I'm sure, so I'll drop it. I see retributive justice as patently absurd if determinism is true, but moving along...
In any event, if you're going to argue that retributive justice has intrinsic benefits, then you have to weigh those perceived benefits against the diabolical costs of killing innocent people. In fact, I reject such a cost-benefit analysis right off the bat, and unless you're an ethical utilitarian, I would think that you would too.
"All your sympathy seems to be diverted to the perpetrator rather than the victim or the surviving family and friends."
Play fair now. Of course not! I simply don't consider sympathy for the victim/family/friends to entail that we ought to indulge the dark, anti-Christian desire for revenge.
"Ironic that you’re alluding to Hitchens inasmuch as he has great difficulty grounding morality"
I'm using your words, Steve. You're the one who has alluded to Hitchens. Are you trying to imply that I'm an atheist? Or what? I'm not sure what to make of this last point.
GSNIEDER SAID:
ReplyDelete"Testimony to the actual event is the highest form of evidence."
You keep saying that as if repetition makes it plausible.
On the one hand, eyewitnesses can misidentify the suspect. There are many conditions under which that can happen or does happen.
So there's no antecedent reason to think that's inherently superior to the best forensic evidence.
Evan said:
ReplyDelete"But even granting the authenticity of that account, that hardly overthrows capital punishment. And you haven't argued that it does; you've simply cited the text."
Oh goodness. Are you just trying to wear me out? Do you think that account hinges on whether or not the executioners were properly commissioned as such by the Roman authorities? The only reason Jesus stepped in as he did is because the execution was not being carried out in strict accordance with the law? And if it had been, then Jesus would have said, "Right, right, carry on gentlemen"?
"On what basis do you take John 8 as authoritative but not Genesis 9?"
I don't take either as "authoritative" in the sense most evangelicals mean "authoritative." But I would reverse the question and pose it back to you. See my comment to Steve above, about textual criticism.
"The text doesn't merely say that the state bears the sword. It says that it bears the sword *to avenge the wrath of God.*"
Well, you're still relying on a mere assumption (I think, a huge assumption) in order to champion the destruction of human life. And again, about Romans 13:1-7, see my comment to Steve above.
"Yes, it does, but you haven't answered the question."
Two can play that game. I reject inerrancy, and in fact, I consider inerrancy to be be blatantly, demonstrably false. So again, I see no reason to accept your ethical epistemology as preferable to my own, and therefore I see no reason to get sidetracked by this question.
Anyway, gentlemen, I'm off to greener pastures. It's been a pleasure, as always.
Jeff said...
ReplyDelete“Alright, let me clarify. I wouldn't say you were engaging in higher criticism per se, but you're throwing the door wide open for it. We have no original manuscripts to serve as a baseline, so if you're going to excise one portion of the canon, then you're opening the door--at least in principle--to the evisceration of the canon. If you're going to throw out John 7:53-8:11, then what's to stop me from throwing out Romans 13:1-7?”
That’s a highly unintelligent objection. The analogy would only hold in case the state of the evidence was analogous in each instqance–which is clearly not the case.
“That section of Romans seems to me to be jarringly out of tune with rest of Romans, so I see very plausible reason (and there are a number of scholars who take this position) to think that Romans 13:1-7 was a later ‘scribal interpolation.’”
i) There is no textual evidence to sustain that conclusion.
ii) There’s no reason to think Romans ought to have seamless transitions inasmuch as there’s no reason to think Paul dictated Romans at one sitting.
iii) Moreover, Paul is not a single-minded thinker like, say, the author of Hebrews, who sticks doggedly to one idea at a time. Rather, Paul is a fertile thinker whose train of thought veers off in many directions.
You then make some additional statements that piggyback on your silly example. So I’ll pass on that.
“In any event, if you're going to argue that retributive justice has intrinsic benefits, then you have to weigh those perceived benefits against the diabolical costs of killing innocent people. In fact, I reject such a cost-benefit analysis right off the bat, and unless you're an ethical utilitarian, I would think that you would too.”
i) You’re not a very good listener. As I’ve said more than once now, I didn’t originally frame the issue in cost/benefit terms. Rather, that was an implication of Reppert’s setup. I responded to him in kind for the sake of argument.
ii) Having said that, yes, there are also situations where we do have to weigh lives against lives. That often happens in wartime. There are situations where the death of innocents is unavoidable, so it’s only a question of who or how many.
We don’t always get to choose the hand we’re dealt–only how we choose to play it.
“Play fair now. Of course not! I simply don't consider sympathy for the victim/family/friends to entail that we ought to indulge the dark, anti-Christian desire for revenge.”
The fact that you can’t distinguish between justice and revenge disqualifies you from moralizing.
“I'm using your words, Steve. You're the one who has alluded to Hitchens.”
Actually, no.
“Are you trying to imply that I'm an atheist? Or what? I'm not sure what to make of this last point.”
i) You haven’t offered any stable alternative to what you reject.
ii) John Spong denies the existence of an “external” God. Well, a God who is not external to us is just a projection–a la Feuerbach.
iii) In any event, there are two kinds of atheists:
a) Those who deny the existence of God
b) Those who believe in a nonexistent God.
It boils down to the same thing.
steve said:
ReplyDelete"So there's no antecedent reason to think that's inherently superior to the best forensic evidence."
Methinks that since these cases are great morality plays with the highest possible consequences that the evidence should be largely based on moral actors. DNA evidence has no ability to decide how to testify knowing there is a 2% chance that it is wrong.
I mean, God raised the bar for evidence in capital crimes in the OT for some reason, right?
"Well, you're still relying on a mere assumption (I think, a huge assumption)"
ReplyDeleteMy assumption is that an author can convey meaning through human language. Perhaps you do not share this assumption. I think that Paul's intention is clear, and that you're being disingenuous. I think this is much clearer than the implications of the (inauthentic) account in John 8.
"Anyway, gentlemen, I'm off to greener pastures. It's been a pleasure, as always."
Thanks for interacting.
GSNIEDER SAID:
ReplyDelete"Methinks that since these cases are great morality plays with the highest possible consequences that the evidence should be largely based on moral actors. DNA evidence has no ability to decide how to testify knowing there is a 2% chance that it is wrong."
DNA can't lie. Witnesses can.
"I mean, God raised the bar for evidence in capital crimes in the OT for some reason, right?"
He's instructing Jews living in the 2nd millennium BC on legal evidence. He's not instructing folks in the 21C AD on legal evidence. He's not telling *us* in our circumstances what type of evidence to use.
"It seems to me that Jesus' take on the matter would 'trump' (for lack of a better word) Genesis 9:6."
ReplyDeleteJohn 8, even if authentic, no more 'trumps' capital punishment than Sermon on the Mount ethics 'trump' sanctions against theft.
Not trying to re-engage the debate, but just wanted a bit of clarification on one point.
ReplyDeleteSteve said:
"Those aren't Jesus' words. That's a scribal interpolation. Try again."
Do you really think the case is so closed on the historicity of the John 8 account? Even many of the critical scholars who consider it to be a later insertion into John's gospel nevertheless consider it to be a historical account, or at least to have been informed by a historical event. It certainly seems to me to be in keeping with the portrait of Jesus that appears to emerge from the gospels. And honestly, I'm still a bit shocked that you, Steve and Evan, as inerrantists, would so brusquely dismiss this account, because I really do think you're opening pandora's box by doing so. Certainly most evangelicals accept the account.
As for an anti-capital punishment reading of the John 8 account, consider Greg Boyd's take on it.
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"DNA evidence has no ability to decide how to testify knowing there is a 2% chance that it is wrong."
1. Let's say this is an accurate statement. Let's say we were to apply your statement to eyewitnesses: "Eyewitness evidence has no ability to decide how to testify knowing there is a 2% chance that it is wrong." If eyewitnesses might be wrong 2% of the time, and if therefore we should rule out eyewitnesses because they might be wrong 2% of the time, then we'd have to rule out eyewitnesses too. If one could rule out DNA evidence based on "a 2% chance that it is wrong," then one could arguably also rule out eyewitness testimony since eyewitness testimony could be wrong 2% of the time or more.
2. I don't know where you received your "2%" figure from. So it could be a bit misleading, which could work in your favor or against it. What lies behind this figure?
For example, DNA analysis isn't used solely for criminal investigations but there are also other goals such as finding paternity, genetic carrier testing, indirect genetic linkage, simple screens (not tests) for certain diseases, disaster identification, etc.
What's more, criminal investigations aren't necessarily all cut from the same cloth. Sometimes we're analyzing DNA from living suspects. Other times we're analyzing DNA from dead bodies. Sometimes the deceased has been dead for a relatively short period of time. Other times they may have been dead for years. Sometimes we're able to analyze DNA from multiple parts of the deceased's body or organs or multiple places where DNA has been left. Other times we have to work with say the deceased bones alone. Sometimes we're taking DNA from clothing or walls or other things too. And so on and so forth.
Also, DNA analysis could be called upon for different goals. Like there are differences in screening or diagnosis or identification.
There are further differences in distinguishing true positives from false positives and true negatives from false negatives. These feed into positive predictive values and negative predictive values. As some may know, I'm not saying anything out of the ordinary. This is standard statistics.
3. The human genome has approximately 20-25,000 genes and 3 billion base pairs of DNA.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) followed with gel electrophoresis to tease out the relevant molecules is often used in standard DNA analysis. PCR can amplify a tiny amount of DNA and literally turn it into millions if necessary.
PCR is highly sensitive as well as specific. In fact, PCR is so sensitive and specific it is capable of detecting a single DNA molecule. For example, a single gene in a human being is roughly one-millionth of the DNA present. A virus infecting a human being might infect a few cells out of millions. Therefore, it would be difficult to detect the viral DNA in the presence of billions of bases of human DNA. PCRs can be used to overcome this.
4. Of course, I should note there are different types and variants on PCR.
Also, different PCRs can amplify different markers such as simple sequence or tandem repeats (STRs), single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), mitochondrial sequences, Y-chromosomes, etc. STRs are the most common marker used in DNA fingerprinting. By the way, the FBI maintains the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) which incorporates 13 STR regions (which in turn aren't necessarily the same ones used in ancestry or genealogical DNA testing, although if I recall there's some overlap).
And it's unnecessary to analyze the entire human genome in an individual since 99% of the DNA is the same in every person. Better to focus on the sequences which differ.
5. With regard to the science, I realize I'm speaking generally here. But we can get into specifics if necessary.
6. In short, speaking for myself, I think there are probably few tests more reliable than "a 2% chance that it is wrong" if we incorporate all this together. In other words, if we assume all the disparate sources, goals, strengths, weaknesses, and so forth of DNA analysis in your 2% figure, I'd say "a 2% chance that it is wrong" is quite a reasonably reliable figure!
ReplyDelete7. I think one problem a lot of people have these days is an unrealistic and perhaps even absurd standard. It's as if some people expect there to be no casualties or friendly fire in war. Or no unforeseen complications after surgery. Or only the most peaceful and painless death. But life in a fallen world isn't perfect. Try as we might. No matter how well we pre-plan and organize, no matter how well we try to prevent mistakes from occuring, no matter how good the circumstances, etc. The best laid schemes of mice and men go oft askew.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"Do you really think the case is so closed on the historicity of the John 8 account? Even many of the critical scholars who consider it to be a later insertion into John's gospel nevertheless consider it to be a historical account, or at least to have been informed by a historical event. It certainly seems to me to be in keeping with the portrait of Jesus that appears to emerge from the gospels."
i) I don't require textual criticism to yield certainty. Probability will suffice.
ii) Like the other agrapha, its historical core, if any, is hard to evaluate. We're dealing with a free-floating oral tradition that some scribe at some point (who knows when?) incorporated into his copy of the gospel. As a noncanonical tradition, it lacks inspiration to vouch for the accuracy of the tradition. We don't know the source. It has no more going for it than the Gospel of Thomas–or other apocryphal traditions.
"And honestly, I'm still a bit shocked that you, Steve and Evan, as inerrantists, would so brusquely dismiss this account, because I really do think you're opening pandora's box by doing so."
Textual criticism is a standard fixture of inerrancy.
"Certainly most evangelicals accept the account."
What's that supposed to mean, exactly? That most NT scholars accept the authenticity of the account?
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"DNA evidence has no ability to decide how to testify knowing there is a 2% chance that it is wrong."
Let's agree "there is a 2% chance" DNA evidence could be wrong. So? Does this imply we shouldn't consider DNA evidence because "there is a 2% chance that it is wrong"? No, the one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. If a metal detector has a 2% chance of being wrong in detecting metal, it doesn't therefore necessarily mean the metal detector is unreliable or should be discarded.
Also, Steve Hays has pointed out elsewhere: DNA evidence is more consistent than eyewitness testimony. Some eyewitnesses are highly reliable while others are highly unreliable. Some are reliable about the big picture, but unreliable about the details. So you have to do more sifting with testimonial evidence. It's uneven.
At the risk of stating (or restating) the obvious, I'd also note, one more time, that the Mosaic law is adapted to living conditions in the ANE.
ReplyDeleteEven a theonomist, if he's reasonable, has to make allowance for that fact and update the laws accordingly. For instance, you can't do a straightline application from laws assuming an agrarian economy or tribal society to the digital age. Rather, you have to abstract general principles, then recontextualize the application.
The application is:
specific>general>specific
Not:
specific>specific
"We're dealing with a free-floating oral tradition that some scribe at some point (who knows when?) incorporated into his copy of the gospel."
ReplyDeleteThat's what I had thought of this John text as well, but this conversation has forced me to do a bit more digging into its history, and all I can say at this point is that its history is an interesting one indeed. Speculation that John or Luke may have written it, that it was incorporated into the earliest (no-longer-extant) manuscripts of John, excised from later manuscripts (the earliest extant ones) but with scribal notation marks indicating a missing passage, and then finally reinstated later. Early church fathers such as Augustine, Jerome, Eusebius, and Ambrose regarded it as authentic, and certainly it became part of the officially adopted western canon. So if you're going to rely on the judgments of the early church fathers as to canonicity in general, are you biting the hand that feeds you in disregarding their consensus judgment as to the canonicity of the John 8 account in particular?
In any event, all that aside, what is your take on the John 8 account, Steve and Evan? Do you see it as problematic for your pro-death penalty position? I don't mean to speculate as to the specific intentions of the two of you, but I can certainly imagine that someone who favors the death penalty might have strong political/theological reasons for wanting to disregard the John 8 account.
"And honestly, I'm still a bit shocked that you, Steve and Evan, as inerrantists, would so brusquely dismiss this account, because I really do think you're opening pandora's box by doing so."
ReplyDeleteInerrancy has never been opposed to textual criticism. That our far-from-unusual response would be "shocking" to you betrays your ignorance of the position you're opposing.
"Certainly most evangelicals accept the account."
What Bible are you reading? Almost every English Bible published in the Twentieth Century onward notes its spurious nature. Of course, the majority of evangelical New Testament scholars reject it. This is nothing unusual.
"As for an anti-capital punishment reading of the John 8 account, consider Greg Boyd's take on it."
Boyd's conclusion from the text is unintelligible to me: the command execute is just, but it is unjust to obey it?
Boyd says that Jesus affirmed the Torah *in principle* but denied it *in practice.* But to deny it in practice is to deny it in principle, for the Torah demanded a certain practice, even in the context of a sinful nation.
Boyd does not justify his assumption that Jesus has any intention here of overthrowing capital punishment as exercised by legitimate governmental authority. Even granting his understanding of the text, it at most proves that capital punishment is revoked with respect to situations of adultery.
Of course, the discussion is irrelevant since the text is noncanonical.
"That's what I had thought of this John text as well, but this conversation has forced me to do a bit more digging into its history, and all I can say at this point is that its history is an interesting one indeed."
Interesting indeed that Jeff resorts to borrowing arguments from fundamentalist Majority Text proponents to establish his point.
"In any event, all that aside, what is your take on the John 8 account, Steve and Evan?"
I think we've already made our opinion clear.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"That's what I had thought of this John text as well, but this conversation has forced me to do a bit more digging into its history..."
So you begin with your conclusion, then dig around for evidence to backdate your premature conclusion.
"So if you're going to rely on the judgments of the early church fathers as to canonicity in general, are you biting the hand that feeds you in disregarding their consensus judgment as to the canonicity of the John 8 account in particular?"
i) What makes you classify them as "early" church fathers?
ii) There is no patristic consensus on the pericope. And some ante-Nicene church fathers (e.g. Origen, Cyprian) are against it. It's basically a fairly late Western tradition. So your argument doesn't hold water.
iii) There is internal as well as external evidence for the canon, as I discuss in my ebook on the subject.
"...and certainly it became part of the officially adopted western canon."
Official for whom? Tridentine Catholics?
"In any event, all that aside, what is your take on the John 8 account, Steve and Evan? Do you see it as problematic for your pro-death penalty position?"
No, I don't think a spurious account is problematic for my position.
"I don't mean to speculate as to the specific intentions of the two of you, but I can certainly imagine that someone who favors the death penalty might have strong political/theological reasons for wanting to disregard the John 8 account."
And I can certainly imagine that someone like Jeff who opposes the death penalty might have strong political/theological reasons for wanting to prop up the John 8 account.
steve said:
ReplyDelete"He's instructing Jews living in the 2nd millennium BC on legal evidence"
That's it? Just a nice historical anecdote? No lesson to be learned? No principle to be derived?
We've already agreed that "probative evidence" is too generally bland to serve as a principle.
Why would "capital cases require more evidence" be too specific?
Where's the middle ground between theonomy and blandness?
"So you begin with your conclusion, then dig around for evidence to backdate your premature conclusion."
ReplyDeleteOh good grief. And Steve Hays is the model of methodological objectivism, as if such a thing were even possible?
I don't have any particular horse in this race (that is, whether or not the John 8 account is authentic). Just offering some thoughts for your consideration. I'm not presenting myself as any sort of scholar.
neurotransmitter-
ReplyDeleteThanks for the DNA for dummies lesson, man!
""Eyewitness evidence has no ability to decide how to testify knowing there is a 2% chance that it is wrong."
Ah... but Eyewitness testimony does have to decide how to testify knowing there is a possibility that he is wrong because the testifier is human, which is the point I was making.
As I said, these are great morality plays and as such depend on ethical decision making. If evidence is reduced to mere scientific probability where is the ethical decision making?
I suggest we've already traveled too far into the "Brave New World". We've assumed the "Zeroth Law".
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"I don't have any particular horse in this race (that is, whether or not the John 8 account is authentic). Just offering some thoughts for your consideration. I'm not presenting myself as any sort of scholar."
Don't dissemble. You're using Jn 8 as a transparent wedge tactic. Perhaps you found that successful in the past to stump Christian proponents of the death penalty, so you never bothered to research the text-critical issues surrounding that pericope.
Now that Evan and I point out that you've been operating with a false premise, you try to play catch up.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"Don't dissemble. You're using Jn 8 as a transparent wedge tactic. Perhaps you found that successful in the past to stump Christian proponents of the death penalty, so you never bothered to research the text-critical issues surrounding that pericope."
"Now that Evan and I point out that you've been operating with a false premise, you try to play catch up."
Lighten up, dear boy! I never presented myself as an evangelical, and I explicitly stated that even if John 8 is authentic, it wouldn't therefore be "authoritative" for me, in the sense that most evangelicals use the term. I was merely arguing the issue on evangelical terms, and let's face it, the vast majority of evangelicals accept the authenticity of John 8. And I'll say, yet again, that it seems to me that in rejecting it, you've significantly undermined any working construct of inerrancy, and, I think, most evangelicals would agree with me on that point.
Fine, go ahead and drop your usual Hitchens bomb on me for that last point, I don't care to debate it.
And don't feign neutrality about this issue. You want the John 8 account to be inauthentic.
ReplyDeletegsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"Ah... but Eyewitness testimony does have to decide how to testify knowing there is a possibility that he is wrong because the testifier is human, which is the point I was making."
1. You had said DNA evidence had "a 2% chance that it is wrong." My response was since it's arguable eyewitness testimony has "a 2% chance that it is wrong" (if not more) then if we use your criterion eyewitness testimony wouldn't make the cut either.
2. Steve Hays pointed out eyewitness testimonial evidence is less consistent than DNA evidence. Some eyewitnesses are more reliable than others. Some are more truthful than others. Some have better memories about certain details than others. So there's more to sift through with regard to eyewitness testimonies than DNA.
"As I said, these are great morality plays and as such depend on ethical decision making. If evidence is reduced to mere scientific probability where is the ethical decision making?"
1. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure why you see "scientific probability" as in some measure hampering or even detrimental to "ethical decision making"? Sure, it's possible to become overly technical and miss the forest for the trees. At the same time, the other extreme is also possible: people involved in a case could become sloppy and overlook relevant details and mistakenly acquit the guilty or something. But if appropriately applied scientific testing can be a valuable asset in helping to determine the truth of the matter.
2. Say we have a suspect's fingerprints all over the victim's body as well as other samples like his blood and semen. Say without scientific tests like DNA analysis and only eyewitness testimony we could only be 50.0% sure it was the suspect who murdered the victim. Perhaps the testimonies conflict. Perhaps there are conflicting memories in the eyewitness accounts. But say with scientific tests like DNA analysis we could be 99.9% sure of either his innocence or guilt. Wouldn't this be a good thing in determining whether the suspect is innocent or guilty?
3. Besides, it's not the "scientific probability" that's the real problem, I don't think.
a. One problem is how the science is applied and interpreted by people. Here the problem is people's logic, reasoning, critical thinking, analysis, etc. As I see it, there are various sources of evidence (e.g. eyewitness testimonies, fingerprints, DNA, written or audio or video records). Some are more relevant than others depending on various factors such as the circumstances of the case. Some could be relevant in one case but irrelevant in another. People have to know how to sift the wheat from the chaff. When to use an eyewitness testimony. When not to use it. When DNA evidence is relevant or when it's not relevant. And so forth.
b. At least equally if not more problematic is immorality. Judges taking bribes. Eyewitnesses who lie under oath. Greedy lawyers.
"I suggest we've already traveled too far into the 'Brave New World'. We've assumed the 'Zeroth Law'."
Hm, this is a bit vague. Do you mean with regard to our legal and justice system? Or our nation as a whole? Or something else?
Depending on what you mean, I think I could very well agree. It could very well be true.
But it'd be a different, wider, and perhaps deeper discussion than our original one.
"The vast majority of evangelicals accept the authenticity of John 8."
ReplyDeleteWell, Jeff, no matter how many times you assert this, that doesn't make it true.
"And I'll say, yet again, that it seems to me that in rejecting it, you've significantly undermined any working construct of inerrancy"
Any "working construct of inerrancy" will, by definition, account for text-critical issues. It always has.
"and, I think, most evangelicals would agree with me on that point."
What evangelical works on inerrancy have you been reading?
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"let's face it, the vast majority of evangelicals accept the authenticity of John 8."
1. At the risk of stating the obvious, truth isn't decided by consensus. No matter who it is. What do the earliest manuscripts say?
2. The late Donald Guthrie notes: 7:53–8:11 The woman caught in adultery. Most scholars agree that this section does not belong at this point in John. Most early mss either omit it or mark it with asterisks to indicate doubt. A few mss place it at the end of the gospel, and a few others after Lk. 21:38. (Carson, D.A. 1994. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition (4th ed.). Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, Illinois.)
3. The ESV Study Bible notes: John 7:53–8:11 There is considerable doubt that this story is part of John’s original Gospel, for it is absent from all of the oldest manuscripts. But there is nothing in it unworthy of sound doctrine. It seems best to view the story as something that probably happened during Jesus’ ministry but that was not originally part of what John wrote in his Gospel. Therefore it should not be considered as part of Scripture and should not be used as the basis for building any point of doctrine unless confirmed in Scripture.
4. Andreas Kostenberger notes in his Baker exegetical commentary on John: see here; here; here; here; and here.
"And I'll say, yet again, that it seems to me that in rejecting it, you've significantly undermined any working construct of inerrancy, and, I think, most evangelicals would agree with me on that point."
There are plenty of top notch evangelical scholars like Carson, Guthrie, and Kostenberger who agree the Pericope Adulterae doesn't belong in the original text yet who maintain the Bible is inerrant. It's apparently not the problem you seem to think it is.
Also, the NET Bible notes:
ReplyDeleteThis entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë1 places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance.
But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336).
ReplyDeleteInterestingly one important family of mss (Ë13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).
ReplyDeleteThanks Neurotransmitter for the good info.
ReplyDelete"At the risk of stating the obvious, truth isn't decided by consensus."
I agree. But I have been trying to argue on evangelical terms, so the fact that certain evangelical scholars would challenge one of my premises doesn't really undermine the force of my argument as most evangelicals would interact with it.
If you folks at Triablogue want to develop a culture of top-notch textual scholarship/criticism, then I have no argument with that. Next assignment: let's get all nitty-gritty with Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and the 4QDeutj DSS manuscript.
"But I have been trying to argue on evangelical terms, so the fact that certain evangelical scholars would challenge one of my premises doesn't really undermine the force of my argument as most evangelicals would interact with it."
ReplyDeleteSo in other words, you've come here to make assertions that have relevance neither to the author of this thread nor the contributors of this blog. Gotcha. :-)
"Next assignment: let's get all nitty-gritty with Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and the 4QDeutj DSS manuscript."
You've come late to the game. Check our archives. That variant has already been discussed here by Richard Hess.
Evan said:
ReplyDelete"So in other words, you've come here to make assertions that have relevance neither to the author of this thread nor the contributors of this blog. Gotcha. :-)"
I'm not sure that's true. It may be that some who are reading these comments would accept the authenticity of the pericope. And even if you, Evan, do not accept it, you don't have any doubts or misgivings about all of this? You're so sure you're right that you're willing to champion the destruction of human life (even, sometimes, the lives of innocents), and perhaps contribute in some way to the eternal torture of some of your fellow humans?
"You've come late to the game. Check our archives. That variant has already been discussed here by Richard Hess."
Thom Stark has dismantled Hess' handling of 4QDeutj.
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"I agree. But I have been trying to argue on evangelical terms, so the fact that certain evangelical scholars would challenge one of my premises doesn't really undermine the force of my argument as most evangelicals would interact with it."
Hm, I don't see how the force of your argument depends on whether people like evangelicals interact with it. Doesn't the force of your argument depend on, well, your argument?
Your argument, in turn, would depend on your premises. If one of your premises is significant enough to your argument and if this premise is defeated, then indeed it would undermine the force of your argument.
And this could be true even if you're making an internal argument by assuming evangelical premises. Once again depending on the premises, how significant they are to your argument, and so forth.
"Thom Stark has dismantled Hess' handling of 4QDeutj."
Actually, I don't agree Stark "dismantled" Hess.
But in any case, if I recall, the Triabloggers have dismantled Thom Stark.
"It may be that some who are reading these comments would accept the authenticity of the pericope."
1. Let's say (arguendo) your argument is persuasive to evangelicals who maintain the pericope adulterae is part of the inspired and inerrant text. But what sort of an argument would this be? It might be persuasive to them, but it wouldn't matter at all as far as the truth is concerned since your argument would be founded on a false premise - i.e. the pericope adulterae is part of the original text when it's not.
2. And justice should be based on the truth, not popular opinion.
Let's say it's true homeopathic medicine is no more therapeutically effective than a placebo. Let's also say all the best evidence, arguments, etc. validate this fact. But let's say the majority of the population thinks homeopathy is extremely effective. If we have to set public health policy about homeopathy, then I'd think we'd go with the truth, not popular opinion.
3. Also, it's possible evangelicals who believe the pericope adulterae is part of the original text could be disabused of this false notion once they're shown the evidence, which in turn would sink your argument.
"And even if you, Evan, do not accept it, you don't have any doubts or misgivings about all of this? You're so sure you're right that you're willing to champion the destruction of human life (even, sometimes, the lives of innocents), and perhaps contribute in some way to the eternal torture of some of your fellow humans?"
If it's true, why should his feelings or sentiments (e.g. doubts, misgivings) undermine the truth? It sounds like you're appealing to emotion at this point.
NT said:
ReplyDelete"If one of your premises is significant enough to your argument and if this premise is defeated, then indeed it would undermine the force of your argument."
When arguing this issue on evangelical terms, I am assuming, for the sake of argument, a premise that I consider to be patently absurd and demonstrably false: namely, biblical inerrancy. I don't make this argument because I find it to be the most correct or persuasive argument against capital punishment. Rather, I make it because it's the only type of argument that many (most?) evangelicals are even willing to consider. So if I'm forced to accept one false evangelical premise for the sake of argument, I don't see what's so wrong about accepting a second premise that is (perhaps) dubious, but that which most evangelicals would accept.
"Also, it's possible evangelicals who believe the pericope adulterae is part of the original text could be disabused of this false notion once they're shown the evidence, which in turn would sink your argument."
Knock yourself out.
"It sounds like you're appealing to emotion at this point."
What's wrong with that? I reject your reckoning here of "truth." I believe the truth of the matter is that capital punishment is immoral. If appeals to emotion are the only option I have for breaking through the widespread-within-evangelicalism culture of death, then by all means, I will appeal to emotion.
"But in any case, if I recall, the Triabloggers have dismantled Thom Stark."
ReplyDeleteWhere? I would certainly be curious to see this and judge for myself. The two Triablogue entries about Thom's work that Steve has pointed me to were extremely scant, as well as beside the point. Hardly a "dismantling" of someone who has written hundreds of pages of material that's absolutely damning to inerrancy.
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"When arguing this issue on evangelical terms, I am assuming, for the sake of argument, a premise that I consider to be patently absurd and demonstrably false: namely, biblical inerrancy. I don't make this argument because I find it to be the most correct or persuasive argument against capital punishment. Rather, I make it because it's the only type of argument that many (most?) evangelicals are even willing to consider. So if I'm forced to accept one false evangelical premise for the sake of argument, I don't see what's so wrong about accepting a second premise that is (perhaps) dubious, but that which most evangelicals would accept."
I'm not questioning whether it's right or wrong for you to accept whatever premises you happen to want to accept for the sake of argument with evangelicals. Do whatever you like.
Rather I'm simply sticking to the argument as it is. If you accept a premise as true for the sake of argument (even though you don't personally happen to believe it), if someone else overturns this premise (which again to reiterate you happen to think is false), then your argument would still be undermined. It would lose its "force."
This isn't anything crazy. It's just logic 101.
"What's wrong with that? I reject your reckoning here of 'truth.' I believe the truth of the matter is that capital punishment is immoral."
Of course, that's the point of contention. Another person could just as easily "reject your reckoning here of 'truth'" and believe "capital punishment is moral."
"If appeals to emotion are the only option I have for breaking through the widespread-within-evangelicalism culture of death, then by all means, I will appeal to emotion.
Obviously appeals to emotion aren't the only option you have. You also have the option of reasonable and logical argumentation. In fact, that's precisely what Evan May has been trying to do with you i.e. to reason with you. So the fact that you nevertheless chose to appeal to emotion with Evan May in lieu of reasoned argumentation tells us more about you than it does about anyone else. For one thing, it tells us what you're willing to resort to even when there are other options available to you.
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"If appeals to emotion are the only option I have for breaking through the widespread-within-evangelicalism culture of death, then by all means, I will appeal to emotion."
"If appeals to emotion are the only option I have for breaking through the widespread culture of philo-Semitism, then by all means, I will appeal to emotion" - Adolf Hitler.
NT said:
ReplyDelete"Of course, that's the point of contention. Another person could just as easily "reject your reckoning here of 'truth'" and believe "capital punishment is moral."
Tell me this: Are you seriously willing to consider whether inerrancy may be false? If you really think that the Triabloggers have dismantled Thom Stark, then nothing I can say would convince you against inerrancy. Have you read Stark's works?
"Obviously appeals to emotion aren't the only option you have."
Let me restate: My appeal may have had an emotional element to it, but I don't think that's what it was at its core. Rather, I was saying to Evan something along these lines: If you're going to take the lives (perhaps, even, eternal lives) of your fellow humans into your own hands in this manner, then you had better be overwhelmingly sure that your cause is righteous. So NT, Evan, Steve: are you really that sure?
neurotransmitter said:
ReplyDelete"My response was since it's arguable eyewitness testimony has "a 2% chance that it is wrong" (if not more) then if we use your criterion eyewitness testimony wouldn't make the cut either."
Making the cut isn't my concern. You're still framing it in terms of probability. My concern is a conditioning of the populace such that you hear things like, "DNA doesn't lie", giving it a godlike characteristic.
When the populace becomes conditioned in this way they no longer need to make the tough moral decisions but rather just accept an abstraction. Particulars are sacrificed on the altar of abstraction.
This happens in all facets of society.
Instead, allowing people to confront difficult moral decision making, even with the risk involved, builds character. Subcuming to abstraction leads to moral malaise.
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"Where? I would certainly be curious to see this and judge for myself. The two Triablogue entries about Thom's work that Steve has pointed me to were extremely scant, as well as beside the point...Tell me this: Are you seriously willing to consider whether inerrancy may be false? If you really think that the Triabloggers have dismantled Thom Stark, then nothing I can say would convince you against inerrancy. Have you read Stark's works?"
See here.
Or at least check this out.
"Hardly a 'dismantling' of someone who has written hundreds of pages of material that's absolutely damning to inerrancy."
Perhaps Stark makes up in quantity what he lacks in quality.
"Let me restate: My appeal may have had an emotional element to it, but I don't think that's what it was at its core. Rather, I was saying to Evan something along these lines: If you're going to take the lives (perhaps, even, eternal lives) of your fellow humans into your own hands in this manner, then you had better be overwhelmingly sure that your cause is righteous. So NT, Evan, Steve: are you really that sure?"
1. This doesn't improve upon what you've said earlier. There's no substance to your argument. You're just asking if we're "really that sure" we're right. But asking someone how certain he or she is isn't an argument. A proposition isn't somehow less true if people aren't as certain about its truth.
2. Actually, I haven't given my opinion on the matter. I haven't said whether I think capital punishment is moral or immoral.
But it's still quite possible for me to point out how unreasonable and illogical your argument with regard to capital punishment is even if I might favor your position. I can tell a bad argument from a good one even if I happen to agree with your conclusion.
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"Making the cut isn't my concern. You're still framing it in terms of probability."
Actually, with all due respect, you're the one who brought up the "2%" figure.
As I alluded to above, one could frame eyewitness testimonial evidence in terms of probability as well.
"My concern is a conditioning of the populace such that you hear things like, 'DNA doesn't lie', giving it a godlike characteristic."
This wasn't your original objection. Once again, you're just adding "clarifications" to put it euphemistically. Like I said, I don't mind your "clarifications." But it's unfair of you to present it as if that was part and parcel of your original "concern" if that's what you're doing. If you're fair, you would concede where you didn't make the case and then move onto this separate issue. Whether it's true the "populace" is being "condition[ed]" to believe "DNA doesn't lie" is a separate issue to what we've been debating.
No one here has presented the statement "DNA doesn't lie" to anyone.
"When the populace becomes conditioned in this way they no longer need to make the tough moral decisions but rather just accept an abstraction. Particulars are sacrificed on the altar of abstraction."
This is ironic considering your own vague comments and objections.
DNA testing isn't perfect. No one here has claimed otherwise. I certainly haven't.
However, as Steve Hays has pointed out several times now, and as I'm pointing out to you for the umpteenth time as well, eyewitness testimony isn't without its flaws either. Some eyewitnesses are highly reliable. Others eyewitnesses aren't.
If we compare DNA evidence with eyewitness testimonial evidence, DNA evidence is a lot more consistent.
"Instead, allowing people to confront difficult moral decision making, even with the risk involved, builds character. Subcuming to abstraction leads to moral malaise."
No, not necessarily. It doesn't build the character of the eyewitness who is falsely testifying, for example.
Succumbing to abstraction? Once again, ironic given this itself is an abstract, vague statement. I have no idea what you're referring to specifically. Are you referring to the "2% chance" that DNA evidence is "wrong"? If so: well, according to you, DNA evidence is no less risk free. Remember you said it has a 2% chance that it is wrong. So dealing with DNA evidence could likewise allow people "to confront difficult moral decision making." And dealing with DNA evidence isn't equivalent to "subcuming [sic] to abstraction." At least you haven't made a case for why it would be.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete“If you folks at Triablogue want to develop a culture of top-notch textual scholarship/criticism, then I have no argument with that. Next assignment: let's get all nitty-gritty with Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and the 4QDeutj DSS manuscript.”
I do that in a forthcoming book review. Try again.
“Tell me this: Are you seriously willing to consider whether inerrancy may be false?”
There’s nothing to reconsider.
“If you really think that the Triabloggers have dismantled Thom Stark, then nothing I can say would convince you against inerrancy.”
You’re finally catching on. You may be a slow learner, but better late than never.
“Have you read Stark's works?”
You mean, like his book-length screed against Copan? It’s symptomatic of how weak and impressionable you are that you’re bowled by his rehash of liberal clichés. I’ve been responding to stuff like that for years.
And, of course, we could pose the same question in reverse. What moderate to conservative Bible scholars have you read? What commentaries? Monographs? Introductions?
“If you're going to take the lives (perhaps, even, eternal lives) of your fellow humans into your own hands in this manner, then you had better be overwhelmingly sure that your cause is righteous. So NT, Evan, Steve: are you really that sure?”
Asked and answered.
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete“Tell me this: Are you seriously willing to consider whether inerrancy may be false?”
“Tell me this: Are you seriously willing to consider whether inerrancy may be true?”
NT said:
ReplyDelete"This doesn't improve upon what you've said earlier. There's no substance to your argument. You're just asking if we're "really that sure" we're right. But asking someone how certain he or she is isn't an argument. A proposition isn't somehow less true if people aren't as certain about its truth."
But that wasn't my "argument." It was merely a one-last-thing-to-chew-on question. Sort of like how many evangelicals repeat the mantra: "What if you're wrong?"
"Perhaps Stark makes up in quantity what he lacks in quality."
So you haven't read Stark?
Steve said:
“Tell me this: Are you seriously willing to consider whether inerrancy may be true?”
I was raised a staunch inerrantist evangelical, and it was not a position I gave up lightly. So yes, I certainly have considered it.
"You mean, like his book-length screed against Copan? It’s symptomatic of how weak and impressionable you are that you’re bowled by his rehash of liberal clichés. I’ve been responding to stuff like that for years."
You can huff and puff all you like, but I have yet to see an effective, substantive critique of Stark (and it's not really Stark so much as the scholarship his work summarizes), whether from Copan or Hess or anyone else. Certainly not from you.
"There’s nothing to reconsider."
I see we've officially hit a dead-end with this conversation. Bon voyage. Happy killing!
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete"But that wasn't my 'argument.' It was merely a one-last-thing-to-chew-on question. Sort of like how many evangelicals repeat the mantra: 'What if you're wrong?'"
1. And, in turn, my point was you're missing the point. Since people like Steve Hays and Evan May have tried to reason with you, since you've resorted to the fallacy of appealing to emotion rather than responding to their reasoned argumentation with reasoned counter-argumentation, and since as you now admit all you've basically done is repeat the mantra "What if you're wrong?" without so much as justifying the mantra with at least some semblance of logic, then your "What if you're wrong?" mantra carries no weight whatsoever. Say John argues 1 + 1 = 3. Say other people point out if John sums 1 and 1 together he would obtain 2, not 3 (in a base 10 numeral system). Say John flatly retorts, "What if you're wrong?" He doesn't address their response. As such, John's retort carries no weight whatsoever.
2. Is your statement "Sort of like how many evangelicals repeat the mantra: 'What if you're wrong?'" meant to be a cheap shot against "many evangelicals"? That's how it comes across. You don't contextualize or justify your statement.
"So you haven't read Stark?"
1. I've read enough from Stark to know he's not worth my time.
2. I take it your assumption is if one hasn't read someone then one can't legitimately criticize them. But that's not always the case. I don't have to have read Mein Kampf to criticize Adolf Hitler or to say he's not worth my time. I'm familiar enough with Hitler and have read enough of Mein Kampf to know the rest of it isn't worth my time reading.
3. If I want to read works which challenge inerrancy, there are far more astute and sophisticated scholars available. I don't have to read second rate tomes from someone like Stark. A conjurer of cheap tricks. Stark : scholar :: Wizard of Oz : wizard. Similarly, if I want to learn about magic, I'll read Merlin. Or Gandalf. Or at least Harry Potter. Not the Wizard of Oz.
4. Besides, you admit: "(and it's not really Stark so much as the scholarship his work summarizes)..." You admit Stark's work is mainly providing summary. If Stark's work is mainly summarizing outside scholarship, then why bother reading Stark? Why not go straight to the scholars themselves?
5. This implies there's no pressing need to interact with Stark. It'd arguably be better to interact with the "scholarship" Stark relies on instead. That's more crucial.
6. Hence, if one has effectively dealt with the "scholarship" Stark relies on, then one has effectively defeated Stark as well. For example, I notice Stark cites in his bibliography "scholars" like Hector Avalos, Bart Ehrman, and John Loftus. All of whom numerous scholars have critiqued and critiqued effectively. Since these scholars been defeated, where Stark relies on their material Stark has been defeated as well - at least according to you.
7. By the way, this is arguably your best point in this thread. Nice!