Today? Why Physicalism is Wrong About Luke 23:43

[Glenn P]

Hey, Glenn. In Mike's defense, he did attempt to respond to your so-called "argument from experience." I don't share his analysis thereof, and personally find what you've described above as perfectly plausible. But yeah, Mike did recognize alternatives to the grammatical argument.

Yes, but methinks he doesn't understand the term "circular reasoning." It was bizarre that he should even use that term here (I'm happy to explain that if he likes). He gives no identifiable reasons at all (good or bad) against the argument.

While he acknowledges and impatiently dismisses the argument from experience, he does still say that "Physicalists contend that the punctuation ought to be rendered "Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise." " - which is not really true. Only some physicalists do this.

[Chris D]

While he acknowledges and impatiently dismisses the argument from experience, he does still say that "Physicalists contend that the punctuation ought to be rendered "Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise." " - which is not really true. Only some physicalists do this.

That's a fair point. Mike, I understand you probably don't find my responses to your article compelling, but you probably should say "some" in the quote above to indicate that only some physicalists think the comma ought to be placed differently.

[MichaelB]

Also, this is painful ignorance. Sorry, but physicalism is not conditional immortality at all. What's more, monism need not involve physicalism.

It's a red flag right at the start that says, "warning: author doesn't actually know what he's talking about."

Hmm. Point noted, albeit for both content and a lack of grace. Also, your comment hoists a red flag to me, and it says "warning, someone seems to think correction cannot accompany humility."

[Chris D]

Hmm. Point noted, albeit for both content and a lack of grace. Also, your comment hoists a red flag to me, and it says "warning, someone seems to think correction cannot accompany humility."

I agree. However, Mike, keep in mind, per an email I sent you moments ago, humility is a two-way street.

[MichaelB]

I would like to thank both Glenn and Chris for ther critique and comments. Because of the commentary made here, and a day of careful thinking, I have indeed changed my position and have subsequently revised my article. That revision can be viewed here. Chris, thanks again for your attention to detail; this experience has I believed been very beneficial.

[Glenn P]

Michael, yes I was terse. Here's why: I think it's clear that you really ooze confidence on this (and I think the typical reader would agree). You present yourself as an informed apologist who really knows this issue, and who in fact knows enough to authoritatively assure people that this position, which you've carefully looked into, is unbiblical.

And yet, i submit, this confidence has not been earned - as evidenced by the fact that right at the start you were lumping different positions together.

The "red flag" comment is because when I see an article like this that starts out with these sorts of errors, it really does have the effect of raising a red flag, warning me that this person, in spite of their confidence, is simply not well informed on this subject.

Be offended by that if you must, but it actually is painful ignorance. I could describe it as something less, but sometimes it's helpful to actually convey my own impression of what I see, if only for the sake of providing the writer with some perspective on the impression they are giving.

[MichaelB]

Michael, yes I was terse. Here's why: I think it's clear that you really ooze confidence on this (and I think the typical reader would agree). You present yourself as an informed apologist who really knows this issue, and who in fact knows enough to authoritatively assure people that this position, which you've carefully looked into, is unbiblical.

And yet, i submit, this confidence has not been earned - as evidenced by the fact that right at the start you were lumping different positions together.

The "red flag" comment is because when I see an article like this that starts out with these sorts of errors, it really does have the effect of raising a red flag, warning me that this person, in spite of their confidence, is simply not well informed on this subject.

Be offended by that if you must, but it actually is painful ignorance. I could describe it as something less, but sometimes it's helpful to actually convey my own impression of what I see, if only for the sake of providing the writer with some perspective on the impression they are giving.

Well, as I stated before, point noted. If you get the opportunity to read my revision, you'll see that this error has been corrected among others. You will also see what I believe to be a very sound refutation of the grammatical argument. That aside, when someone makes errors by means of poor information, the one correcting ought to distinguish correctability with willfull disregard. I have every intention to convince as many as I can that physicalism is unbiblical (especially in light of your belief that the person of the Logos died in the physicalist sense), but I am only interested in doing so accurately. And so, I thank you for your comments...

[Glenn P]

Well, I can still see the error in the OP, as well as the bizarre reference to "circular reasoning." Are you happy for those things to remain there, Michael?

[Glenn P]

Oh, one more thing Mike:

While many physicalists point to Bullinger's rule, there is an another rule at play in the relevant text. Other than Luke 23:43, there are 71 places in which Jesus uses the phrase "truly, I say to you." Luke 23:43 would be the only time in which the following word did not belong to the following clause if the physicalist were correct. Thus, the probability that σήμερον is included in first clause is a paltry 2.4%.

This is false, and I think you've granted that it's false in the current version of your article. You've granted that Bullinger's rule generally does hold, so you've got to also take that into account int he about calculation. Given that Bullinger's rule generally holds, the probability that semeron belongs to the following verb is also low.

Let A = the fact that the Amen lego soi sayings usually do not include adjectives like semeron (this is the pattern you noted above).

Let B = Bullinger's rule, which you agree generally holds.

Let PV = the fact that semeron modifies the preceding verb (something you deny (unteachably so, in my view), but which I think is plausible)

OK, now you have made the following probability claim (where P = "the probability of"):

P (PV/A) = 2.5% , Therefore P(PV) = 2.5%

In English, you've said that since the probability of PV when only considering A is 2.5%, that's the probability of PV. This is clearly wrong, and in a test on probability it would get a zero mark.

You've got to take into account BOTH A and B when assessing the actual probability of PV. In other words:

P (PV/A and B) = ?

? will not be 2.5%. This is an open an shut factual error, and you'll need to remove this probability claim entirely, or else come up with a way of correcting it.

[MichaelB]

Oh, one more thing Mike:


This is false, and I think you've granted that it's false in the current version of your article. You've granted that Bullinger's rule generally does hold, so you've got to also take that into account int he about calculation. Given that Bullinger's rule generally holds, the probability that semeron belongs to the following verb is also low.

Let A = the fact that the Amen lego soi sayings usually do not include adjectives like semeron (this is the pattern you noted above).

Let B = Bullinger's rule, which you agree generally holds.

Let PV = the fact that semeron modifies the preceding verb (something you deny (unteachably so, in my view), but which I think is plausible)

OK, now you have made the following probability claim (where P = "the probability of"):

P (PV/A) = 2.5% , Therefore P(PV) = 2.5%

In English, you've said that since the probability of PV when only considering A is 2.5%, that's the probability of PV. This is clearly wrong, and in a test on probability it would get a zero mark.

You've got to take into account BOTH A and B when assessing the actual probability of PV. In other words:

P (PV/A and B) = ?

? will not be 2.5%. This is an open an shut factual error, and you'll need to remove this probability claim entirely, or else come up with a way of correcting it.

Glenn you have missed the point. I was identifying the validity of a second rule, and the probability of semeron being included in the first clause by virtue of the merits of that second rule alone. The point was to introduce the validity of both rules and then to demonstrate why Bullinger's rule does not apply. Several individuals have reviewed that passage and understood what i meant without the need for clarification. But, I'll consider clarifying it. BTW, your critique of the revised portions would be appreciated.

[MichaelB]

Well, I can still see the error in the OP, as well as the bizarre reference to "circular reasoning." Are you happy for those things to remain there, Michael?

Glenn, I would hope you'd take the time to examine the revisions made and specifically comment on them.

[Glenn P]

Glenn you have missed the point. I was identifying the validity of a second rule, and the probability of semeron being included in the first clause by virtue of the merits of that second rule alone. The point was to introduce the validity of both rules and then to demonstrate why Bullinger's rule does not apply. Several individuals have reviewed that passage and understood what i meant without the need for clarification. But, I'll consider clarifying it. BTW, your critique of the revised portions would be appreciated.

Well, no, I wasn't missing the point. You stated that the probability was actually 2.5%. If you really meant that "Given this other rule and nothing else, the probability would be 2.5%" then you really need to say that. But then, that claim is rather unimportant if (as you do grant), Bullinger's rule generally holds. It's like saying "given only part of the data, excluding all data to the contrary, we observe this pattern." The answer to that, of course, is "so what?"

Put another way: If you're going to do the above analysis and provide this percentage, then you also need to tally up every instance of semeron, and check how many times it violates Bullinger's rule. The percentage in favour of Bullinger, given that test, would sound equally impressive, and you need to give both percentages, or none. So at best, you've offered an incomplete (one sided) observation. Remember: Nobody is disputing the observation about the clause Amen lego soi.

[MichaelB]

Well, no, I wasn't missing the point. You stated that the probability was actually 2.5%. If you really meant that "Given this other rule and nothing else, the probability would be 2.5%" then you really need to say that. But then, that claim is rather unimportant if (as you do grant), Bullinger's rule generally holds. It's like saying "given only part of the data, excluding all data to the contrary, we observe this pattern." The answer to that, of course, is "so what?"

Put another way: If you're going to do the above analysis and provide this percentage, then you also need to tally up every instance of semeron, and check how many times it violates Bullinger's rule. The percentage in favour of Bullinger, given that test, would sound equally impressive, and you need to give both percentages, or none. So at best, you've offered an incomplete (one sided) observation. Remember: Nobody is disputing the observation about the clause Amen lego soi.

Glenn, I think your objection is one that is predicated on the assumption that when I stated, "another rule is present in the text" I wasn't attempting to demonstrate the viability of another rule on it's own. That said, I think your wrong. Therefore, perhaps we should move on to my contension that Bullinger's rule does not apply to Luke 23:43. I have noted why in the revised article. Also, i would like to run by you some Christological objections that I have to your position. Would you be willing to offer a critique of those?

[Glenn P]

Glenn, I think your objection is one that is predicated on the assumption that when I stated, "another rule is present in the text" I wasn't attempting to demonstrate the viability of another rule on it's own. That said, I think your wrong. Therefore, perhaps we should move on to my contension that Bullinger's rule does not apply to Luke 23:43. I have noted why in the revised article. Also, i would like to run by you some Christological objections that I have to your position. Would you be willing to offer a critique of those?

Well, no. I do not understand how it is fair that a probabilistic claim is made when considering the rule that you favour, but no probabilistic claim is made when considering the rule that you do not favour. This is clearly a one-sided analysis.

In regard to your Christological objections, it may be worth having a listen to Chris's latest podcast episode that came out yesterday. In it he interviewed Joel Green and the Christological concerns were discussed there.

By all means raise them and I may comment on them. But be ready for the fact that if I do, I will be doing so on an exegetical, rather than dogmatic, basis.

[Chris D]

Well, no. I do not understand how it is fair that a probabilistic claim is made when considering the rule that you favour, but no probabilistic claim is made when considering the rule that you do not favour. This is clearly a one-sided analysis.

Hey, Glenn. I think Mike's point, and generally I agree, is that since Bullinger's rule informs us as to the verb semeron modifies within a single clause, to apply Bullinger's rule one must assume that Luke 23:43 is all one clause, but if Luke 23:43 is two clauses--which seems to me to be the case--then semeron may just as easily begin the second clause as end the first without violating Bullinger's rule. Since "Truly I say to you" is so often a first clause separate from the next, that would suggest that it's one clause in Luke 23:43 as well, and I would add that there's a sense in which the second clause is a quote, and if semeron begins that quote it would fall right in line with several other texts in which semeron begins a quote.

At this point, despite how consistent Bullinger's rule seems to me to be (and I've defended it in this thread), I agree with Mike that it doesn't apply here for precisely the reason I don't think it applies in the texts I've commented on in this thread: it begins a second clause. And that's coming from someone with no theological conviction compelling me to argue against your favored placement of the comma, indeed someone who finds the "argument from experience" quite plausible.

That's my 2 cents, for what less than that it's worth :)

In regard to your Christological objections, it may be worth having a listen to Chris's latest podcast episode that came out yesterday. In it he interviewed Joel Green and the Christological concerns were discussed there.

What did you think of Dr. Green's response? As I told Mike privately (he asked me what I thought before he'd had a chance to listen), while it raised as many questions as it answered, and while I'm not 100% ready to accept it, I do think it escapes my alleged dillemma by affirming neither that the Word remained conscious apart from His body, nor that the Word died as deity. His answer, then, while perhaps a little confusing, and perhaps in error (I'm not saying it is, just saying a dualist could argue he's wrong), nevertheless seems to place physicalism--at least his brand of it--within what Mike and I would consider orthodoxy.

Oh, and what did you think of the interview as a whole? Personally I thoroughly enjoyed his appearance.