Originally posted by kingdanwa
Modern scholarship.
Just a few months ago, the Kennedy Seminar casted different colored stones in an attempt to discover the truth. Some colors represented what certainly happened, but other stones represent what obviously didn't happen.
In a recent book, The Search For the Historical Kennedy, we find out that most of what we thought we knew about Kennedy is nothing but propaganda put forth by a cult of Kenne-deists.
In all seriousness (now that I can see, having wiped tears of laughter
out of my eyes), let's summarize for the class.
Let us make a few observations so that people can appreciate what
you are doing and let us see if your analogy holds. For the sake of
simplicity, let us accept that Jesus, the historical figure, existed (which
I firmly believe to be true).
In the case of both Jesus and Kennedy, we have what we might call
testimonies about the nature in which these people died (or, more
accurately, were assassinated). Interestingly enough, both accounts
have some minor conflicts of fact.
Why do we accept the Kennedy account as largely representative of
the factual history of events, while many question the Jesus account
as largely fictional?
There are several reasons. First, Kennedy made no supernatural
claims: he didn't come back to life, he didn't prophesy his death, he
didn't do healings. I think that, it is fair to say, that we should
approach any claims like these with suspicion.
If I claim that I eat breakfast today, you have good reason to believe
that I did so. If I claim I raised my friend's dead sister back to life,
you would do well to disbelieve that claim. Why? Because one claim
is far more probable than the other. One entails ordinary, simple,
every-day actions, the other extraordinary, complex, miraculous actions.
Because none of us were there for either my breakfast eating or my
raising and thus can neither repeat and test these claims for ourselves
(like we can scientific claims) nor can we contemplate the assumptions
and conclusions drawn from them (as we can with moral claims), we
have to resort to probability. What is the likelihood that I did the
former, as I claimed I did? Because it is ordinary and simple, I'd say
that the claim has a good probability of being true. What are the odds
that my raising took place, as I claimed it did? Because it was
extraordinary and complex, I'd say people would be wise to disbelieve
such a claim.
What about a more 'in-the-middle' kind of claim? What if I said
something like, 'Today I was attacked by a grizzly bear and I
managed to kill it with sheer luck using a tree branch and a rock?'
Such a claim is not utterly far-fetched (like the raising), but certainly
is unlikely. We need a methodology for examining this claim. We
might ask, where do I live (Pittsburgh). Hmm, that is a strike against
me...not many bears in Pittsburgh. We might ask, how big is Nemesio?
Hmm...only 5'7", 120lb? That is a strike against me. We might ask
has Nemesio made unprovable, outlandish claims about his killing of
wild beasts before? Hmm...nope, so that's a plus for me. We might
ask is Nemesio skilled in martial arts? Nope...that counts against me.
And so forth.
Now, tying this back to Kennedy.
The reports for the Kennedy assassination were immediate. That
counts *for* the claim. They were made by many independent
witnesses. That counts *for* the claim. Nothing magical/extraordinary
happened within the context of those observations. That counts *for*
the claim. The people making the claims didn't stand to benefit or
lose by lying. That counts *for* the claim.
The reports for the Jesus Crucifixion were 35-70 years after the event.
That counts *against* the claim. They were made by inter-related
witnesses (Two-Source theory). That counts *against* the claim. The
events after the Crucifixion (i.e., the Resurrection) are magical and
extraordinary. This counts *against* the claim. The people making
the claims standed to profit by their being true, and lose by their being
false. That counts *against* the claim.
We cannot speak about absolute truths in either situation. We can
only speak about probablility. Given the evidence (ignoring film and
photographic evidence, in order to keep the analogy close), we would
do well to believe the Kennedy claim. And, normatively speaking, we
would do well to disbelieve the Jesus claim.
If we were to argue that we should believe the Jesus claim, then I
would propose a counter-claim: If we believe that the various events in
the Christian Scriptures are historically true, then why would we
disbelieve that the events in the Mormon Scriptures or in Greek
Mythology (e.g.) were false? What gives the Bible greater credibility
than Smith or Homer?
Keep in mind that the various redactive techniques which are accepted
without quesiton in the discussion of Greek Mythology are applied to
Biblical Scholarship. If we choose to disbelieve the techniques for
Christian Scripture, then we also must ignore their impact on Greek
Mythology (thus undermining lines of oral and written transmission and
giving 'divine' status to the odes of Homer and the like).
Nemesio