SIDEBAR 6: REASONABLE STANDARDS OF PROOF, PART II
SIDEBAR 6: REASONABLE STANDARDS OF PROOF, PART II
The case for Christianity is usually framed as a debate among scholars. This book began as the very first footnote in a different book that would have explained how ridiculous that is (in the real world, when they need to save their skins, scholars voluntarily pay very hefty fees to hire lawyers to argue the case for them—and the first, best, and most valuable advice they receive is to shut up and stop making things worse). My plan was to discuss how to proceed from start to finish with real standards of evidence and proof, and real arguments for both sides, etc. But the first thing to decide is what is the universe of possible evidence for and against, and the answer to that starts with the authentic eye witness testimony (if any). And that essentially is the Bible (maybe). So I started with a footnote trying to show what meets the standard of proof and what does not. After it had reached a thousand pages, I realized that it had started to become somewhat unwieldy, so I decided to cut the footnote in half and make it into this book instead.
Sorry: but the case would require a thousand attorneys, a million motions, a billion briefs, and no Judge could ever read them all anyway. (I decided not to trademark “If the case for Christianity were realistic, we would all be in Heaven already!” I had the idea of marketing some merchandise to skeptics, and donating the money to build a Church. But once again I was defeated by laziness, so you are free to make your own bumperstickers and tee shirts.) We each have to make our own way through the endless minefield of amateur arguments and dubious analysis. But it is a great thought experiment—if we are honest about it, and not just trying to win.
For example, human nature is always and everywhere to hold things one does not like to an unreasonable and dishonest standard of perfection, as we see with skeptics who doubt the Biblical accounts. For Christians, the Lord warns us against such errors in Matthew 7:3-5 (“thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye”). So we try to look for true comparisons, and strive to avoid judging by a standard of perfection.
For instance, the canon debate is a debate about “where to draw the line.” Genesis and the Psalms are not comparables—they are not on the “edge” of the canon, and comparing the Apocrypha to them is a “straw man” argument. The question is whether Tobit and 2 Maccabees should join Ruth and Nahum and Lamentations and 1 Chronicles and Song of Solomon, etc.—Books that are not alluded to in the Bible, or not frequently cited in the early Church, or disputed among the Jews, or disputed among Christians, or not found on all canon lists, or all of the above.
A similar issue of bias involves seeing bad motivations, unsupported by actual evidence. For example, Gallagher and Meade tell us (p. 5):
Jerome knew that these books were not a part of the Jewish canon, so he thought Christians should not consider them canonical, either. Augustine also knew they were not in the Jewish canon, but he thought their usefulness for Christians granted them authority within the church.
Notice that there is no citation to prove this claim that Augustine thought their ‘usefulness’ mattered in the slightest, and they provide no quote from Augustine that says any such thing. Preachers quote Scripture all day long; scholars cite to articles and sources all day long; so, then, when a Bible Scholar does not cite or quote anything, alarm bells should be going off in our minds. And when someone says “X did so because…” without a quote from X showing X’s reasons, everything after the word “because” is what the author thinks of the world, not necessarily what X thought.
As it is, we know Augustine learned from his mentor, Ambrose, and we can see from a simple search at www.biblindex.org/citation_biblique/search that Ambrose repeatedly cites every single one of the “Apocrypha” as Scripture, Prophecy, Sacred Writings, etc. In fact, total citations were: Tobit 62 times, Judith 54, 1 Maccabees 24, 2 Maccabees 90, Wisdom 183, Sirach 218, Baruch 37, and Susanna 82. That is 750 citations to Apocrypha from the man who converted Augustine to Christianity. For comparison, Ambrose cited to Ezekiel 180 times, Daniel 203, Joshua 105, Jonah 37, Ecclesiastes 174, Ruth 43, and the short form of Esther (i.e., the part canonical to Protestants) 18.
He cited to the Apocrypha even more frequently than the Books they were attached to. He cited Baruch 37 times and the rest of Jeremiah 275 times, even though Baruch is only five chapters and Jeremiah is 52 chapters. He cited to Susanna (Daniel chapter 13) 82 times even though he cited to all 14 chapters of Daniel only 203 times—in fact, a majority of his cites to “Daniel” are actually to the “Apocryphal” parts and not the canonical parts (e.g., an additional 21 cites were to Daniel chapter 14, the “Apocryphal” stories of Bel and the Dragon).
He cites to four historical Apocrypha books (Tobit 62, Judith 54, 1 Maccabees 24, 2 Maccabees 90) – compare to 4 historical canonical Books (Ruth 43, Esther 18, 1 Chronicles 43, 2 Chronicles 25). Compare Wisdom 183 and Sirach 218 to their fellow Poetic book, Ecclesiastes at 174. He even wrote a Bible Commentary on Tobit.
The evidence clearly shows that Augustine was taught that the Apocrypha were Scripture by his mentor and his Church from the very beginning of his conversion. Gallagher and Meade’s claim is backwards: Augustine already accepted the books as true Christian Scripture (knowing full well (and not caring in the slightest) that they were not in the Jewish canon); therefore, he found uses for them, just as any Preacher would with any other Scripture.[1]
The kind of bias that “sees through” those who disagree, without any actual proof, and concludes that they do so out of less-than-pure motives is insurmountable. Matthew 12:24: “when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.”
Lastly, recall the Moslem view of Christianity, discussed above. Qureshi:
… Finally, we turn to the most common Muslim accusation against the Bible: that its text has been changed over time. It should also be clear now why Muslims accuse the Bible of having been altered: because the Quran says it teaches the same thing as the Bible, confirming the Torah and the gospel, yet the teachings of the Bible are clearly different. In the same vein, the Quran teaches that Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible, but there appears to be no such prophecy.
The Moslem has a pre-supposition: the belief that the Bible and the Quran were once identical. Therefore, any difference between the Bible and the Quran can only be alterations made by Christians to the Bible. He cannot prove this but insists that his opponent must prove him wrong.
So far, we have seen that the Jewish Study Bible rejects the claim that the Jewish canon was long-settled and that any changes that Christians made to the Jewish canon can only be later additions or innovations. I believe an honest reading of the Bible raises many serious questions about that claim as well. But let’s move on to discuss all the evidence from the early Church—even though we already know that not a single one of Kruger’s ten witnesses and their canon lists provided evidence for the acceptance of the Jewish Old Testament canon and not the Apocrypha.
[1] See, for example, Augustine’s extensive discussion of the canon in On Christian Doctrine, Book ii, Chapter 8, quoted at www.bible-researcher.com/augustine.html. His focus is entirely on whether the Churches accepted various Books, and he makes no mention at all of their usefulness.
