This exchange took place on atheist anti-theist Bob Seidensticker\u2019s blog, under his article entitled, \u201cChristians weaponizing scholars\u2019 quotes: Sherwin-White, Russell, and Vilenkin\u201d<\/a> (2-14-22). Words of atheist \u201cericc\u201d will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n Seidensticker wrote in the article above: \u201cChristians quoting atheists can be legitimately done. They just need to follow the basic rules of research that one might learn in eight grade: a quote can be used only if it\u2019s accurately quoted, correctly understood, excerpted in its context, and cited accurately. You\u2019re welcome to hold me to these standards, because you know I will be doing that to the Christian apologists.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n One example of an \u201catheist\u201d historian being supposedly misquoted by Christians that he gave was historian A. N. Sherwin-White.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I cited Sherwin-White accurately in a recent article:<\/span><\/p>\n [T]he confirmation of historicity [in Acts] is overwhelming . . . any attempt to reject its historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament<\/em><\/a>, Oxford University Press, 1963, 173)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n See the quotation in context<\/a> at Google Books.<\/span><\/p>\n He also analyzed Luke\u2019s references to 32 countries, 54 cities and nine islands, and couldn\u2019t find a single error.\u00a0<\/span>Assuming, then, that he was an agnostic or atheist, that\u2019s an extraordinary support for not only the accuracy of Luke, but a minute, compelling historical trustworthiness characteristic of the very best ancient historians.<\/span><\/p>\n If I write something that accurately references 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, in which I flap my arms and fly between them, would you believe based on the accuracy of my place references that I flapped my arms and flew between them?<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s possible to separate the two things, just as atheists accept historical accounts written by Herodotus and Josephus: both of whom included many supernatural elements. They only get \u201cconveniently skeptical\u201d when it comes to the Bible. The archaeological evidences and the accuracy are what they are.<\/p>\n I am not understanding how we non-believers are \u2018only conveniently skeptical\u2019 (implied by your message: of the bible. As in, we are treating it more skeptically than we would other texts.)<\/span><\/p>\n We treat Herodotus\u2019 Greek divine actions, and the Koran\u2019s divine actions, and miraculous acts described in the Gandh\u0101ran Buddhist<\/a> texts the same way. As do you.<\/span><\/p>\n So it seems to me you\u2019ve got the situation completely reversed here. First, we non-believers aren\u2019t treating the bible any differently than we are any other texts: in all cases, we act consistently in \u2018separating the two things\u2019 i.e. the mundane details from the extraordinary claims. Second, you theists also separate the two things. But where we are consistent in doing so, you are not. You separate the two things when it comes to everyone else\u2019s beliefs. It is only<\/em>\u00a0in the case of the NT where you would accept the logic that accurate place names is reason to believe in the recorded miracles. In no other case, for no other book, would you accept such logic.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m talking about how atheists routinely assume that the Gospel writers are inaccurate, and (beyond that) deliberate liars. The text and the external evidences provide no compelling reason to believe those things. It\u2019s only atheist pre-existing bias that causes such skepticism. That is my point. I basically agree with the point you make above, but it doesn\u2019t address my central point.<\/span><\/p>\n Sherwin-Wine is a true, objective scholar. He can acknowledge if a source is historically accurate regardless of whether it contains supernatural elements or not, or whether he himself is a Christian or not. He bows to the actual objective evidence<\/em><\/strong>. May his tribe greatly multiply!<\/span><\/p>\n My point regarding miracles is a bit different from how you characterize it. I would say that demonstrated historical accuracy gives us no reason to believe that Luke is deliberately making up miracle-stories for the sake of a nefarious agenda. In other words, the two things together strongly suggest that he sincerely believes that such miracles occurred.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s epistemologically distinct from the basis of believing in the miracles. In a nutshell, the Christian reasoning there would run as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh. We have sufficient reason to know that He made the claims because historically trustworthy amateur historians like Luke and John said so.<\/span><\/p>\n 2. Among His acts performed were miracles, including His own Resurrection. We believe that those things happened based on the accuracy of the writers and in faith (not<\/em><\/strong> with absolute proof) because He claimed to be God and this is what we would expect of God, since God (if He exists) would and indeed does perform miracles, as He sees fit. In other words, it\u2019s plausible from within a dualist, theist, Judaeo-Christian worldview. Jesus talked like we imagine God would talk, based on what we know, and acted likewise.<\/span><\/p>\n 3. I argue as an apologist for the archaeologically verified accuracy of biblical accounts<\/a> because that knocks out a relentless objection from atheists: that the text is inaccurate<\/em>; therefore can\u2019t possibly<\/em> be inspired revelation.<\/span><\/p>\n 4. If the apologist like myself takes out that objection by showing again and again that the documents are accurate and trustworthy, then we show that the nature of the biblical books are consistent<\/em> with the notion of being inspired (thus that it is not impossible<\/em> that they are). That\u2019s not the same<\/em> as proving inspiration. Repeat: That\u2019s not the same<\/em> <\/strong>as proving inspiration. But it is well worth doing, to counter atheist misrepresentation of the nature of the biblical texts; to \u201cdefeat the defeater\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Likewise, when Jonathan MS Pearce invents a fairy tale out of his head, that Matthew completely made up the guards at the tomb story<\/a>, it does not become the case that there is any historical evidence for same, simply because he asserts it. [see also my reply to his \u201creply\u201d<\/a> on this issue).<\/span><\/p>\n But I could convince no atheist (from the looks of it) of this when I made that unarguable point of critique a little while ago. He thinks that simply because it is possible<\/em>\u00a0for something to happen, therefore it did, and should be stated with a straight face as a [choke] \u201cfact.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This is not just John Smith, atheist. He\u2019s one of the most influential online atheists, and an author, etc.<\/span><\/p>\n The reason you can\u2019t convince people is because it\u2019s an utterly inapt comparison. One is an account of the past. the other is a hypothesis explaining why the account says what it says.<\/span><\/p>\n But we can use the JP example as a reductio<\/em> analysis of your logic. JP could easily add tons of accurate references to places and people of 1st century AD to his explanation of what the (author of) Matthew did. Would the accuracy of his other details have any weight in your evaluation of his argument? No it wouldn\u2019t, right?<\/span><\/p>\n You\u2019re still not getting it. I have explained my outlook at length. Jonathan has no historical E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E whatsoever for his story about Matthew making up a story. Thus, it\u2019s epistemologically no better than a fairy-tale. But when I said that, he irrationally took it as a personal attack. Nope. It is an argument about epistemology and how he \u201cknows\u201d what he claims to know.<\/span><\/p>\n No one will touch this critique. All they do is say I was attacking him personally (absolutely untrue), or change the subject.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>, or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit: <\/strong>Image by \u201cMary1826\u201d (January 2017)\u00a0[Pixabay<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0CC0 Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Atheist \u201cskepticism re the Gospels\u201d is an intransigent thing that can\u2019t be overcome, no matter how many \u201cexternal\u201d arguments from archaeology we provide.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" . . . and Christian Epistemology This exchange took place on atheist anti-theist Bob Seidensticker\u2019s blog, under his article entitled, \u201cChristians weaponizing scholars\u2019 quotes: Sherwin-White, Russell, and Vilenkin\u201d (2-14-22). Words of atheist \u201cericc\u201d will be in blue. Seidensticker wrote in the article above: \u201cChristians quoting atheists can be legitimately done. They just need to follow […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":62771,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124],"tags":[13772,13769,13766,13841,15752,1662,170,171,1661,638,6456,15687,15696,6453,1749,535,140,15699,15690,15693,15702,947,15749],"class_list":["post-62768","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","tag-ancient-hebrews","tag-ancient-israelites","tag-ancient-jews","tag-archaeology-the-bible","tag-atheist-skepticism-re-the-gospels","tag-bible-archaeology","tag-bible-history","tag-bible-science","tag-biblical-accuracy","tag-biblical-archaeology","tag-book-of-acts","tag-book-of-acts-archaeology","tag-evangelist-luke","tag-gospel-of-luke","tag-historical-accuracy-of-the-bible","tag-holy-bible","tag-infallibility","tag-luke","tag-luke-archaeology","tag-luke-the-evangelist","tag-lukes-historical-accuracy","tag-new-testament-archaeology","tag-nt-accuracy"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/02\/Debate5.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n