Argument from Historical Proximity

[Kane]

I've been writing about my migivings with Catholicism lately. I've also been semi-debating an aspiring Catholic philosopher. Why the sudden focus on Catholic thought? I'm not sure. However, something occured to me today, and I'd like to share it.

Getting into academic jousting matches with Catholic apologists (and a good many Protestant Evangelicals, too, just to be clear) over differences in doctrine, or even just the sensibility of this-or-that doctrine has highlighted a tactic often used against me. I'd like to call the tactic in question, "The Argument from Historical Proximity."

The argument is as follows: historical figures closer to the time of Jesus have a greater, more precise understanding of the details attending Jesus's life, and the lives of people close to Jesus (e.g., the Apostles, Mary, the first Christians, etc.). So, if I were to argue that recent historical research casts reasonable doubt on the perpetual virginity of Mary, the argument from historical proximity would counter that Mary was most definitely ever-virgin because the writings of the early church fathers state as much. And because the early church fathers lived closer to the time of Mary, they would have more reliable claims on the status of Mary's bedroom activities than today's historians. The assumption is essentially that the less the passage of time, the more accurate the claim, and the less chance of distortions to confuse the claim.

On the surface, the argument seems to carry with it some validity: it seems reasonable to think that people in the second century would have less confusions to work through than people in the twenty-first century concerning church beliefs. But given a moment's thought, the argument breaks down on a crucial point.

If we reason from historical proximity, then we have to be willing to accept opposing claims as valid, too. The Roman historian Tacitus (AD 56 - 117) wrote extremely close to the time of Jesus and the first Christians, and was a contemporary of the early church fathers. Tacitus considered Christianity a "deadly superstition"; i.e., it was a grave error, and a falsehood. Emperor Domitian (AD 51 - 96) claimed that Christians were 'atheists' and slaughtered them. Pliny the Younger (AD 61 - ca. 112) commissioned the murder of Christians because he considered them hedonists and cannibals.

So, if we take claims opposing Christianity on equal footing with Catholic arguments from historical proximity, then we can reasonably say that Christians believed falsehoods, and were orgiastic cannibals who believed in an untrue God.

Clearly, the argument from historical proximity is groundless; just as groundless as it would be to argue for the falsehood of Christianity by claiming Tacitus, Domitian, or Pliny the Younger as truth-measures. Christians, and Catholics especially, need to move on to better methods of truth-seeking than quixotic claims to historical proximity.

[Seasanctuary]

Or, let's go with it and consider the fact that the Jews mostly stayed Jews and didn't become Christians.

[Kane]

Or, let's go with it and consider the fact that the Jews mostly stayed Jews and didn't become Christians.

That does pose a bit of a problem, yes.

[Dr Cranberry]

The best way to look at historical proximity is to look for examples of modern cult propaganda which are difficult to dispel.

It's difficult to find a pedestrian who believes that LHO actually killed JFK, and yet they have very little knowledge to base their belief, except on the writings of propagandists, cult hysteria, and a movie. The story of JFK is an important conspiracy theory to consider, because the story of Jesus is a similar conspiracy theory. If Jesus had been killed by someone throwing a rock at him, and then the anti-Jewish conspiracy caught on, instead, it would be nigh on impossible to convince people otherwise. People who write JFK books can manufacture a diverse array of "facts" that seem plausible, but are all invented. By 1978, even the senate believed that JFK's assassination was a government conspiracy.

Today, there are huge numbers of people who claim to be abducted by UFOs. Historical proximity still gives us no clear answer to whether they are being abducted or not.

Shirley Maclean wrote a book in 1983, where she claimed to have met aliens from Pleiades, and saw a car drive itself, steered by ghosts.

In 1975, Joan Lindsay wrote a book called Picnic at Hanging Rock, which is a story about some girls going missing on a picnic in 1900. The book was prefaced by a faked newspaper clipping of the event. Most people believe it's based on a true story.

John Edward does TV appearances where he talks to the dead. Historical proximity has not helped us definitively have him strung up and flogged. A popular TV series has been base upon Alison Dubios. My mother told me it was real and based on a real person.

[Composer]

Or, let's go with it and consider the fact that the Jews mostly stayed Jews and didn't become Christians.

Precisely and the Jews mostly didn't become christians because they rightly rejected it on what they perceived as legitimate story book biblical grounds -

i.e. The Christian understanding is that the messiah, Jesus, died for the sins of the people. The messiah is supposed to be a human sacrifice that is the blood sacrifice necessary for the forgiveness of sin.

But we are taught in this proven self contradicting bible that no one can die for the sins of another. -

In Deuteronomy 24:16 (KJV) it specifically says this:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 1.)

cf.

Fathers must not be put to death for what their children24 do, nor children for what their fathers do; each must be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16) NET

This was later confirmed by -

Ezekiel 18:20 RSV

"THE SON SHALL NOT SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER. NOR THE FATHER SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Ezekiel 18:20 also "pulls the rug out from under" Christianity's main premise, that all generations of mankind are burdened with sin and death stemming from Adam's act of disobedience. Only Christ's redeeming shed blood can end this never-ending cycle of sin and death. Quite clearly Ezekiel refutes this notion. "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father." (Online Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net/MoabiteBloodMessiah.html)

More so -

Jews correctly also, do not believe in original sin.

IN SHORT... Jews do not believe in the existence of Original Sin. The concept of Original Sin simply states that because Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they brought Death into the world. Every human being dies because Adam and Eve committed a sin, and for their sin, all humans are punished with death. However, the Bible describes something entirely different. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden because if they remained, they could eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, which would make them IMmortal. If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to become IMmortal, then they were created mortal to begin with. They did not bring Death into the world, and we don't die because they sinned. As a matter of Biblical fact, the answer to Question One shows that one person cannot die as the punishment for the sins committed by another. We die because Death is a natural part of existence, and has been since from the moment the first human beings were created. That is why God told the animals, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil, to be fruitful and to multiply, since they needed to replace themselves. God also told the same thing to Adam and Eve before they ate that fruit as well. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 5.)

[Dr Cranberry]

Err, why do I get the feeling that two threads have somehow merged?

As far as I'm aware, this is the "Re: Argument from Historical Proximity" thread.

[seanD]

I've been writing about my migivings with Catholicism lately. I've also been semi-debating an aspiring Catholic philosopher. Why the sudden focus on Catholic thought? I'm not sure. However, something occured to me today, and I'd like to share it.

Getting into academic jousting matches with Catholic apologists (and a good many Protestant Evangelicals, too, just to be clear) over differences in doctrine, or even just the sensibility of this-or-that doctrine has highlighted a tactic often used against me. I'd like to call the tactic in question, "The Argument from Historical Proximity."

The argument is as follows: historical figures closer to the time of Jesus have a greater, more precise understanding of the details attending Jesus's life, and the lives of people close to Jesus (e.g., the Apostles, Mary, the first Christians, etc.). So, if I were to argue that recent historical research casts reasonable doubt on the perpetual virginity of Mary, the argument from historical proximity would counter that Mary was most definitely ever-virgin because the writings of the early church fathers state as much. And because the early church fathers lived closer to the time of Mary, they would have more reliable claims on the status of Mary's bedroom activities than today's historians. The assumption is essentially that the less the passage of time, the more accurate the claim, and the less chance of distortions to confuse the claim.

On the surface, the argument seems to carry with it some validity: it seems reasonable to think that people in the second century would have less confusions to work through than people in the twenty-first century concerning church beliefs. But given a moment's thought, the argument breaks down on a crucial point.

If we reason from historical proximity, then we have to be willing to accept opposing claims as valid, too. The Roman historian Tacitus (AD 56 - 117) wrote extremely close to the time of Jesus and the first Christians, and was a contemporary of the early church fathers. Tacitus considered Christianity a "deadly superstition"; i.e., it was a grave error, and a falsehood. Emperor Domitian (AD 51 - 96) claimed that Christians were 'atheists' and slaughtered them. Pliny the Younger (AD 61 - ca. 112) commissioned the murder of Christians because he considered them hedonists and cannibals.

So, if we take claims opposing Christianity on equal footing with Catholic arguments from historical proximity, then we can reasonably say that Christians believed falsehoods, and were orgiastic cannibals who believed in an untrue God.

Clearly, the argument from historical proximity is groundless; just as groundless as it would be to argue for the falsehood of Christianity by claiming Tacitus, Domitian, or Pliny the Younger as truth-measures. Christians, and Catholics especially, need to move on to better methods of truth-seeking than quixotic claims to historical proximity.

According to Paul, he knew the eyewitnesses, at least Peter, John, and James. According to Papias the author of Mark knew Peter, which is also confirmed in Peter’s first letter. According to the writer of Luke, he got his information from eyewitnesses. According to the writer of the gospel of John, they knew one of the disciples. I prefer to trust the information from secondhand sources who knew the eyewitnesses, than from sources who may have gotten their information from second, third, fourth hand sources. Also, skeptics have a tendency not to have their facts straight, and in many cases distort the facts based on anti-Christian bias, evident by my personal encounters and experiences with the skeptics on this board.

[Hamster]

If we reason from historical proximity, then we have to be willing to accept opposing claims as valid, too. The Roman historian Tacitus (AD 56 - 117) wrote extremely close to the time of Jesus and the first Christians, and was a contemporary of the early church fathers. Tacitus considered Christianity a "deadly superstition"; i.e., it was a grave error, and a falsehood. Emperor Domitian (AD 51 - 96) claimed that Christians were 'atheists' and slaughtered them. Pliny the Younger (AD 61 - ca. 112) commissioned the murder of Christians because he considered them hedonists and cannibals.

Not that I agree with the argument, but you don't see how the people that knew Jesus, Mary, etc. personally are more reliable than anti-Christian romans living hundreds of miles away who couldn't tell you Jesus' height or Mary's eye color with confidence? Also, why would historians know about Mary's bedroom activities better than people who knew her? Have historians located the lost marian Livejournal?

[Dr Cranberry]

According to Paul, he knew the eyewitnesses, at least Peter, John, and James.

Oh, well that settles it, then. No faker would ever make something like that up.

[lilpixieofterror]

Or, let's go with it and consider the fact that the Jews mostly stayed Jews and didn't become Christians.

Hummm... argument by popularity, is that an argument in some circles? Anyway, were most Jews present, during the events at the end of the gospels? Yes or no?

[lilpixieofterror]

I've been writing about my migivings with Catholicism lately. I've also been semi-debating an aspiring Catholic philosopher. Why the sudden focus on Catholic thought? I'm not sure. However, something occured to me today, and I'd like to share it.

Getting into academic jousting matches with Catholic apologists (and a good many Protestant Evangelicals, too, just to be clear) over differences in doctrine, or even just the sensibility of this-or-that doctrine has highlighted a tactic often used against me. I'd like to call the tactic in question, "The Argument from Historical Proximity."

The argument is as follows: historical figures closer to the time of Jesus have a greater, more precise understanding of the details attending Jesus's life, and the lives of people close to Jesus (e.g., the Apostles, Mary, the first Christians, etc.). So, if I were to argue that recent historical research casts reasonable doubt on the perpetual virginity of Mary, the argument from historical proximity would counter that Mary was most definitely ever-virgin because the writings of the early church fathers state as much. And because the early church fathers lived closer to the time of Mary, they would have more reliable claims on the status of Mary's bedroom activities than today's historians. The assumption is essentially that the less the passage of time, the more accurate the claim, and the less chance of distortions to confuse the claim.

On the surface, the argument seems to carry with it some validity: it seems reasonable to think that people in the second century would have less confusions to work through than people in the twenty-first century concerning church beliefs. But given a moment's thought, the argument breaks down on a crucial point.

If we reason from historical proximity, then we have to be willing to accept opposing claims as valid, too. The Roman historian Tacitus (AD 56 - 117) wrote extremely close to the time of Jesus and the first Christians, and was a contemporary of the early church fathers. Tacitus considered Christianity a "deadly superstition"; i.e., it was a grave error, and a falsehood. Emperor Domitian (AD 51 - 96) claimed that Christians were 'atheists' and slaughtered them. Pliny the Younger (AD 61 - ca. 112) commissioned the murder of Christians because he considered them hedonists and cannibals.

So, if we take claims opposing Christianity on equal footing with Catholic arguments from historical proximity, then we can reasonably say that Christians believed falsehoods, and were orgiastic cannibals who believed in an untrue God.

Clearly, the argument from historical proximity is groundless; just as groundless as it would be to argue for the falsehood of Christianity by claiming Tacitus, Domitian, or Pliny the Younger as truth-measures. Christians, and Catholics especially, need to move on to better methods of truth-seeking than quixotic claims to historical proximity.

And fundy atheist need to move to better sources then wiki and better arguments then arguments through popularity, but since I know you are trying to ignore me and will not answer anybody that can show the flaws in your reasoning, let me ask those who are interested in finding the truth these questions...

1. Was Tacitus, Domitian, and Pliny the Younger, present during any of the events of the gospels and if they were not, what does their personal opinion, prove?
2. Could a Christian also use the examples of pagans-turned Christians (such as Justin Martyr or Augustine), as a counter example to refute the claims made above?
3. Could this also be used as an argument against known historical events? There's people, who have a close historical proximity to the JFK assassination or to 9-11, yet how many people believe the conspiracy theories about these two events? Is this evidence that the entire historical nature of these two events should be put into doubt, or is this evidence that doubters will always exist, regardless of the strength of the evidence against their position? It is just as possible for Tacitus, Domitian, and Pliny the Younger to be wrong about their views of Christ, as it is for Justin Martyr or Augustine, to be right about theirs. Throwing up a list of doubters, doesn't prove or disprove a thing, so why does it work here?

You know Chris, perhaps if you spent more time looking at the flaws in your reasoning as you did looking for excuses to doubt, you wouldn't make so many silly logically errors, like this, would you?

[seanD]

Oh, well that settles it, then. No faker would ever make something like that up.

Welcome back Pai.

[shunyadragon]

Not that I agree with the argument, but you don't see how the people that knew Jesus, Mary, etc. personally are more reliable than anti-Christian romans living hundreds of miles away who couldn't tell you Jesus' height or Mary's eye color with confidence? Also, why would historians know about Mary's bedroom activities better than people who knew her? Have historians located the lost marian Livejournal?

We do not have any documented first hand testimonies from people who knew Jesus and Mary.

[Dr Cranberry]

Welcome back Pai.

Nope. I don't come to this forum enough to even remember who Pai is.

There's people, who have a close historical proximity to the JFK assassination or to 9-11, yet how many people believe the conspiracy theories about these two events?

The bulk of the population believes that JFK was shot by a government conspiracy. Which is evidence that the incorrect version can prevail. In fact, since it's difficult to get facts straight, the incorrect version is most likely to prevail, even with the best of intentions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/...ain23166.shtml

There is good evidence that the version that people want to succeed will be the one that does, irrespective of the facts. (History is written by the victors.)

Is this evidence that the entire historical nature of these two events should be put into doubt, or is this evidence that doubters will always exist,

It's evidence that even with cameras taking photos of the event, and first hand evidence still available to us, people can invent fiction and have it believed. How much more lateral is there in an ancient superstitious population, with no culture of science or evidence, no photographic record, proliferating document forgeries, and 350 years separation before canon?

You can say anything you like. The important thing is to make it popular.

[Steve007]

If we reason from historical proximity, then we have to be willing to accept opposing claims as valid, too. The Roman historian Tacitus (AD 56 - 117) wrote extremely close to the time of Jesus and the first Christians, and was a contemporary of the early church fathers. Tacitus considered Christianity a "deadly superstition"; i.e., it was a grave error, and a falsehood. Emperor Domitian (AD 51 - 96) claimed that Christians were 'atheists' and slaughtered them. Pliny the Younger (AD 61 - ca. 112) commissioned the murder of Christians because he considered them hedonists and cannibals.

So, if we take claims opposing Christianity on equal footing with Catholic arguments from historical proximity, then we can reasonably say that Christians believed falsehoods, and were orgiastic cannibals who believed in an untrue God.

I'll make a few comments.

1. I think Christians were called atheists because they refused to do anything for any other gods. If this accusation does anything, it provides more support for Christianity, not less.

2. Of course it would look like a deadly superstition, a grave error and a falsehood to its enemies. The idea of an executed criminal being raised from the dead was nonsense to them.

3. I don't see anything in old Christian writings about Christians being cannibals. I can't help but strongly suspect that Pliny the Younger said those things because he hated Christians enough that he was willing to believe that stuff. This could also have been a reaction to Christians taking the eucharist. More importantly, even if it's true that there were Christains who were hedonists and cannibals, that's perfectly consistent with the events in the New Testament being true. I don't see any reason to think the events were less likely to occur because of that.