Actually, Greg is not engaged in circular argument, although the argument is weak. What he is saying is this: The Resurrection of Christ is as well- attested as many historical facts that we accept. If we did not automatically discount the miraculous element, we would take it as well- established. Since discounting the miraculous element is unempirical and a priori, we should accept the fact. Since someone who rises from the dead in that manner has demonstrated his bona fides as a representative of God, His statement about the Bible establishes its bona fides as more than an historical document.
Now, there are several weaknesses, but the most glaring is that that the Resurrection is not an ordinary claim, but one which is intrinsically controversial. Even without excluding the miraculous a priori, to accept something with so much baggage given the looseness of historical accounts based on hearsay, and put forward by partisans, with noteworthy differences among the accounts extant, is possible, but not compelling....... |
