Jesus Before Constantine. Doug E. Taylor

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ though it were operating in the field of one of the hard sciences. Relevant extant sources may therefore constitute evidence in relation to the research even though the historical element cannot be recreated. Almost as a cautionary statement Hegel said, “What the historian puts into their mouths is no supposititious system of ideas, but an uncorrupted transcript of their intellectual and moral habitudes.”8 The evidential methodology will therefore be grounded in what exists and not travel down a speculative path.

Bart Ehrman suggests historians appeal to evidence, preferring physical evidence, surviving products that “can be traced back with relative certainty back to the person,” and other kinds of evidence that are not from the person but about the person.9 Of importance here is Ehrman’s appeal to a relative certainty and not a requirement for mathematical or absolute certainty. Habermas stated that the focus of historians is on both the event and how that event has been recorded and interpreted.10

      Root Cause Analysis

Through establishing a SPAC it will be possible to introduce a secondary methodological tool also evidential in nature: root cause analysis. Greater detail will be provided later, but here it suffices to state that root cause analysis is a systematic approach that attempts to identify why undesired or unintended events happened as compared to what was anticipated or expected. More specifically, I use the ABS root cause analysis methodology in assessing selected writings that either ran concurrently to or immediately following Paul and deviated from the established SPAC. Because it is anticipated that one will be able to clearly identify what it is that made Christianity the very thing it is, it is also believed that one can identify writings from the period in review that offered a change or variation to the Pauline teaching specifically as it relates to the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. By utilizing a non-theological tool to assess the writings of individuals who opposed Christianity or sought to offer a different version, the specific point(s) of deviation should be objectively identifiable without having to rely on theological presuppositions. Additionally, because using root cause methodology for assessing gaps or failures focuses on evidence rather than speculation and is commonly used by major corporations and government agencies in the United States,11 the objectivity of the system has been well established in the secular community. No known works prior to this have sought to evaluate the differences in Christian teachings during this time span through the use of root cause analysis.

      It is important for now to note that the use of root cause analysis is not merely “a business tool.” Rather it is a method for investigating historical conditions and events related to why virtually any undesired event happened. Speculation may be avoided but is not always completely preventable, and this method does address the inclusion of speculation in the course of an investigation. When speculation enters the investigation, the conclusions become more tentative. Because this research seeks to investigate historical events, ranges of plausibility are to be preferred in assessing offered root causes and interpretation of data rather than mathematical probabilities.

      Equally important is that root cause analysis is designed to determine why a deviation or failure occurred and cannot be used as a tool to affirm why something happened correctly—a positive outcome—according to the established expectation. As such the role of root cause analysis in this research will be to aid in demonstrating not only objectivity with respect to the research, but also to assist in building a cogent argument that increases the plausibility of any offered conclusions.

      Rationale

      This work will employ both inductive and abductive approaches of argumentation, building from specific points of evidence to the best possible inferred conclusion. David Hume expressed concern over the use of the inductive method, and that concern must be addressed if the approach and conclusions are to be considered valid. The two issues associated with the Humean problem of induction in particular are with the concept of generalizing about the properties of a group of objects and presupposing that future events will happen as in the past. This work focuses on establishing a SPAC based on one specific individual rather than a collective and second, because of the definition used in determining what will constitute “evidence,” future events are not admissible for consideration. As a result, the problem of induction is avoided by focusing the research on the evidence.

Evidence is necessary for establishing matters of truth. In American jurisprudence, evidence broadly speaking is understood as testimony, physical objects, and documents materially relevant to the case at hand that are capable of demonstrating a fact without inference or presumption.12 The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines evidence as information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true, while Webster’s considers evidence to be an outward sign or indicator of something that furnishes proof. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy moves a step further by stating that evidence is that which increases or decreases the probability of a proposition.

      Frederick Ferré notes the following regarding the nature of evidence:

Suffice it to say that while the general function of evidence is to count for or against the reasonableness of giving some degree of assent to a possible belief, its specific nature is field-dependent and thus relative to the logical character of the sort of beliefs at issue. Evidence is either logically relevant, that is, or it is not evidence (within that field of thought) at all. In practice, furthermore, what makes some datum or other evidence is not some absolute characteristic inherent in it, but, rather, the considered judgment of those who work and think in the field that it needs to be taken into account in the weighing of their beliefs. Thus evidence becomes evidence, I submit, by a kind of ruling made—often not without debate and never incorrigibly—by those most intimately concerned. Evidence is provisionally granted its evidential status by being acknowledged as properly pertinent to the resolution of the issue at hand; it is ruled in order by those seized of a question; it is admitted into court, as it were, by those most interested in reaching a fair verdict.13

      Thomas Kelly notes the following:

Reflection on examples such as these naturally suggest that evidence consists paradigmatically of physical objects, or perhaps, physical objects arranged in certain ways. For presumably, physical objects are the sort of thing which one might place in a plastic bag, dig up from the ground, send to a laboratory, or discover among the belongings of an individual of historical interest. . . . Empiricists in the vein of Russel think of evidence as sense data. . . . Quine held that evidence consisted of the stimulation of one’s sensory receptors. . . . Evidence is that which makes a difference to what one is justified in believing or what is reasonable to believe. . . . Thus, the skeptic about our knowledge of the external world maintains that one’s evidence does not favor one’s ordinary, commonsense views about one’s surroundings over the various skeptical alternatives. . . . Insofar as one is rational, one is disposed to respond appropriately to one’s evidence: at any given time, one’s views accurately reflect the character of one’s evidence at that time, and one’s views manifest a characteristic sensitivity or responsiveness to change in one’s evidence through time.14

      The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy frames evidence as follows:

Evidence is information bearing on the truth or falsity of a proposition. . . . One has knowledge only when one has a true belief based on very strong evidence. . . . Conclusive evidence is so strong as to rule out all possibility of error. The discussions of skepticism show clearly that we lack conclusive evidence for our beliefs about the external world, about the past, about other minds, and about nearly any other topic. Thus, a person’s perceptual experiences provide only inconclusive evidence for beliefs about the external world since such experiences can be deceptive or hallucinatory. Inconclusive, or prima facie, evidence can always be defeated or overridden by subsequently acquired evidence, as, e.g., when testimonial evidence in favor of a proposition is overridden by the evidence provided by subsequent experiences.15

      From an empiricist viewpoint evidence is presented as being objective in nature and known through one or more of the five senses. The skeptic’s position of our knowledge not favoring one’s ordinary and СКАЧАТЬ