Rebuttal to Dr. Timothy McGrew's attack on arguments from silence

Dr. Timothy McGrew is a Christian scholar and apologist, and argues against the validity of the argument from silence.  The full article is not available online, and I've requested it from him directly.

 
 
For now, here's an online intro to McGrew's article:

The Argument from Silence.
Source: Acta Analytica. Jun2014, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p215-228. 14p.
Author(s): McGrew, Timothy
Abstract:     The argument from silence is a pattern of reasoning in which the failure of a known source to mention a particular fact or event is used as the ground of an inference, usually to the conclusion that the supposed fact is untrue or the supposed event did not actually happen. Such arguments are widely used in historical work, but they are also widely contested. This paper surveys some inadequate attempts to model this sort of argument, offers a new analysis using a Bayesian probabilistic framework that isolates the most problematic step in such arguments, illustrates a key problem besetting many uses of the argument, diagnoses the attraction of the argument in terms of a known human cognitive bias affecting the critical step, and suggests a standard that must be met in order for any argument from silence to have more than a very weak influence on historical reasoning.

Source here.

While my critique cannot be full until McGrew releases the full article to me, the reader will be interested to know that American courts of law consider the argument from silence viable for the jury to consider, that is, the courts do not consider the argument from silence to be necessarily or automatically fallacious:

"Impeachment by omission" is a recognized means of challenging a witness's credibility. "A statement from which there has been omitted a material assertion that would normally have been made and which is presently testified to may be considered a prior inconsistent statement." State v. Provet, 133 N.J.Super. 432, 437, 337 A.2d 374 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 68 N.J. 174, 343 A.2d 462 (1975); see also Silva, supra, 131 N.J. at 444-45, 621 A.2d 17; State v. Marks, 201 N.J.Super. 514, 531-32, 493 A.2d 596 (App. Div.1985), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 393, 508 A.2d 253 (1986). This principle is widely accepted. Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 239, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 2129, 65 L.Ed.2d 86, 95 (1980) ("Common law traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted."); Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick on Evidence § 34 (7th 784*784 ed. 2013) ("[I]f the prior statement omits a material fact presently testified to and it would have been natural to mention that fact in the prior statement, the statement is sufficiently inconsistent."); 3A Wigmore on Evidence § 1042 (Chadbourn rev. 1970) ("A failure to assert a fact, when it would have been natural to assert it, amounts in effect to an assertion of the non-existence of the fact.")

 from Manata v. Pereira, 93 A. 3d 774, 783-4- NJ: Appellate Div. 2014

I'll give a sample argument from silence to show that it can be employed to draw skeptical yet reasonable conclusions about the bible.

Most Christian scholars believe Mark is the earliest gospel (Markan priority) and that Matthew borrowed extensively from Mark's text (Two-Source Hypothesis).

Ok...Mark obviously doesn't tell the story of Jesus' virginal conception.  But Matthew does (Matthew 2).

I draw the confident conclusion that Mark omits the virgin conception story either because he knew nothing about it (and since he wrote around 60 a.d., Mark continues to be ignorant of this story more than 25 years after Jesus died, thus creating obvious problems for claims of Matthew's historical reliability, especially if we also assume, as fundies wish, that Matthew wrote early, around 60 a.d.), or Mark omits the story because he knew about it, but deemed it false (which if true, means the NT authors disagreed with each other about which Christ-events were true and which were false, a heavy blow to anything even remotely resembling bible inerrancy).

Is this skeptical argument from silence so utterly compelling that it would render "foolish" anybody who disagreed with it?  No.  I would imagine that nothing in ancient history, that comes us to upon no further basis than the testimony found within books of disputed and likely anonymous authorship, can be settled so strongly as to render "foolish" anybody who would disagree with it.

Must an argument render the gainsayers foolish before it can be considered "reasonable"?  No.

Do you think your beliefs about Bigfoot are reasonable?  Likely yes.  Does that thus imply you are confident you could "blow away" any person who held opposing beliefs on the subject?  No.  Not even you yourself believe that "reasonableness" hinges on obviousness.  Juries can be reasonable to declare a man guilty of a crime, even if technically he was innocent.  Sometimes you cannot blame a person for thinking the false theory was the one that looked the most likely true.

Well then, "reasonableness" doesn't require batting the opposing side's viewpoint all the way out of the ballpark.  Only with asshole idiots like James Patrick Holding and other "apologists" like him, does one get the impression that skeptics can make no legitimate progress whatsoever unless they "completely demolish" every possible scintilla of hope that bible inerrancy might have going for itself.  Such extremist view is just another proof that such "apologists" have the emotional maturity of a teenager.  The secular version of James Patrick Holding would be "If you don't like Slayer, yer a pussy".

In the real world, by contrast, legitimately credentialed and responsible historians and scholars recognize that the reasonableness of an explanatory theory can remain in place even if there's another theory on the horizon with an acceptably arguable basis.

But if that is the case, then this skeptical argument from Mark's silence is not "debunked" or "refuted" merely by trifling that Mark could have found the virgin conception story true and yet have had legitimate reasons for not wishing to include it in his gospel.  That trifle is a legitimate possibility, of course, but mere possibilities do not transform a reasonable position into an unreasonable position.

Upholding this argument from Mark's silence is the following:

• Jesus being Lord by nature would have been, and proved to be, one of the most controversial of all his claims.  We reasonably expect those who wish to convince others to believe controversial claims, to use the very best evidence available to them.  So if Jesus really did go around proclaiming himself Lord, the corroborating testimony from his mother, the only other human being whose input would carry the most evidential weight, would have been both sought and valued in a collectivist honor/shame society.  The idea that she just said nothing about it anyone until after Mark wrote in 60 a.d. is an absurd unlikelihood.  The greater Jesus spoke and acted, the more his mother would be hounded with questions by the masses.  So it is likely that if the virgin birth tale is true, Mary would have divulged this to the apostles before Jesus died.
  
• Peter was within Jesus' inner circle, only he, James and John accompany Jesus at the Mt. of Transfiguration, Mark 9:2). Hence Peter is more likely to know whatever intimate detail Mary would have shared, even if she wouldn't likely share it with the rest of the world.
• So if the virgin birth tale is true, it is likely that Peter knew, before Jesus died, that Jesus was Lord from birth.
• It is without question that if Jesus really did do genuinely supernatural miracles, his immediate followers would be asking him all sorts of pointed nuanced questions about his mother and family.  The polished regal portrait of events we get in the gospels obviously doesn't reflect how actual reality would have played itself out.  They surely did ask him "when did your family discover that you are God?  Before, during or after you were born?", or even "If your mother is blessed to have conceived you, how shall we honor her?"
• So if Peter preached his gospel to the Romans often with Mark tagging along, as the patristic sources allege, Mark would likely have heard Peter tell the story of Jesus' conception.
• Peter would have recognized that a man being a god by nature, would have been difficult for non-Christians to accept unless there was a story about how this god came down in the likeness of men.
• Peter would have known that his allegedly Roman audience would expect to see claims of a god appearing in human form, to be substantiated by tales involving his mother to the same effect, the way they had tales of other gods such as Jupiter/Zeus becoming manifest on earth in physical form via getting some woman pregnant.  So he likely would have told them the story of Jesus' conception, had he known about it and thought it true.
• Indeed, Dr. McGrew unwittingly admits that back in the first century, the pagans expected atmospheric portents to be associated with anybody claiming to be divine.  “Unusually long, portentious eclipses of the sun also take place, as when Caesar the dictator was slain; and in the war against Antony, the sun remained dim for nearly a year.” McGrew, quoting Pliny, Natural History 2.30, here.
• Mark's goal, at least according to patristic sources that fundies are slow to question, was to give the requesting church a written version of apostle Peter's oral preaching. 
• Mark likes the idea of showing how Jesus measures up to pagan expectations about divine men, Mark's Jesus similarly causes "darkness over the whole land" at his death, Mark 15:33.
• Therefore, if Mark was writing to a Roman audience, indeed, if he had accompanied Peter often during the preaching tours as the patristric sources allege, Mark thus was likely aware that the Romans would be just as interested in Jesus' origins no less than they were interested in the origin of their own sons of the gods.
• Therefore, Mark would likely find worthy to include in a gospel (intended for a Roman audience) any story about how Jesus came to earth, as long as he felt the story was true.  Salesman usually don't refrain from using their best evidence to make their case as convincing as possible.
• Therefore it doesn't matter if he could still possibly have valid reasons to exclude it; the first reasonable expectation is not the exception, but the rule, and we are reasonable to insist that, without good evidence otherwise, Mark would have told his Roman audience the story of Jesus' conception IF Mark knew of and accepted that story as true.
• Therefore, because Mark says nothing about the story of Jesus' conception, despite writing to an audience whose Roman nature implies selling them a god is much easier when accompanied by stories of his conception and his mother, it doesn't matter Mark "could have" had valid reasons to avoid using a powerful supporting proof for his claim that Jesus was a son of a god, we are reasonable to say Mark omits the story either because he didn't know about it, or thought it false.
• If Mark omitted it because he didn't know about it, then generally agreeing with the fundies that he wrote around 60 a.d., then Mark's ignorance of the virgin birth "truth" thus persists for more than 25 years.  Yes, it is "possible" that somebody with such constant unfettered access to the apostles as Mark, could somehow miraculously just "never hear" about that story, but it's not likely.
  
• Fundies are naturally slow to question patristic stories of the apostles, and Papias said Mark "omitted nothing" of what he heard, so assuming the reliability Papias/Eusebius, as fundies would have it, Mark wasn't "omitting" anything when leaving out the virgin birth story, anymore than he was "omitting" mention of Hitler.  His gospel reflects ALL that Peter preached, even if only in condensed form.  Dr. Bauckham is wrong to pretend Papias' "omit nothing" phrase is mere literary convention, Papias mentions this trait of Mark in a context mentioning other traits that fundies say are literally true about Mark and his gospel (i.e., that Mark doesn't write about events in proper chronological fashion or "order") so it is likely that "omit nothing" was meant to describe the nature of Mark's writing in reality, and thus isn't Papias' choice to use mere literary convention. Papias doesn't ascribe "omit nothing" to the other gospel author he mentions (Matthew), so "omit nothing" is a real uniqueness of Mark's gospel.
• It hardly needs to be spelled out why Mark's omitting the virgin birth story because he thought it false, would be the equal of running a jumbo jet into the inerrancy house of cards.  One NT author thought the virgin birth story was false?  Not a happy day.

As you can see, it doesn't matter that there continue to exist trifling possibilities that, if proven true, would render this argument from Mark's silence invalid.  The person who wins the history debate shows their theory to be more probable or likely than the theory they disagree with.  They do not win by merely positing possibilities (otherwise, because its possible that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, skeptics win the resurrection debate) or by insisting that their opponent must smack all other possibilities all the way out of the ballpark of conceivable options before the surviving theory can be held with reasonable confidence.

Here's another argument to justify skepticism, again, from Mark's silence:  Mark and Matthew often tell the same story in very similar wording, which raises thorny questions about those instances where they tell the same story with otherwise unexpected omissions or differences.  Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi is a striking case in point:

“Messiah”?  or “Messiah, Son of the living God”?
Mark 8	Matthew 16
27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, "Who do people say that I am?"   28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."     29 And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."  (omitted!)   30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.  31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must  suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes,	13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"  14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."  15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"    16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."  20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. 21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.

Why does Mark leave unexpressed the lengthy and theologically significant answer Jesus gives to Peter, as seen in Matthew's version?  The argument from silence would go like this:

• If Mathew is accurate, then Jesus really did give the answer Matthew portrays.   Since then the option of Matthew's embellishment would then be off the table, Mark really is "omitting" something here, contra Eusebius/Papias who insist Mark "omitted nothing".
• The longer version of Jesus' reply contains theologically significant teaching.  Doesn't matter if an author can consciously choose to omit important teaching, we normally don't expect them to do so without good reasons for believing they intended to so omit.  You could possibly consciously choose to take no food or liquids with you as you race to rescue family members thirsting and starving to death in the desert, but without good explanation otherwise, the more reasonable expectation is that you'd take along food and water.  Remember, Peter did not preach merely to Romans, he also preached to Jews, so the problem of the unlikelihood of Peter "choosing to exclude" evidence that he was specially empowered by Christ to decide disputes, remains.
• We reasonably expect that Peter would have found important the extra words of Jesus reported in Matthew's version, as they seem to bequeath a special, even if not exclusive, power on specifically Peter.
• Peter would not likely "choose to exclude" words of Jesus that give Peter any special type of status or authority.  People don't normally choose to omit mention of accolades from their bosses; for as humans, they desire recognition and respect if they actually hold a position of authority.  Most people display proofs that third-parties have approved of them, we don't normally destroy such things or keep them hidden.
• If the patristic sources are generally accurate in describing Mark as Peter's companion, then we are reasonable to conclude that when Peter preached this incident to unbelievers, Mark was there and heard Peter utter the longer version of Jesus' reply as found in Matthew's version.
• The competing theory is a possibility but yet an absurdity of improbability, namely, that Mark might have had a valid reason for consciously choosing to exclude from his Petrine gospel that part of Jesus' reply to Peter that is critically important to the nature and scope of apostolic authority.  yeah right, and maybe I'll write a book someday entitled "The Sexual Scandals of the Clinton Presidency" and "choose to exclude" any mention of Monica Lewinsky?  FUCK YOU.

 I therefore conclude that the reason the longer version of Jesus' answer is missing from Mark's account is because Jesus never said it.  The long version seen in Matthew originated from nowhere else except Matthew's mind.

Once again, it doesn't matter that other possibilities will always exist.  Historiography was never a science in the first place, but an art, there is plenty of room to be reasonable with this argument from Mark's silence, even if it's accuracy falls short of infallible proof.

How many things do you believe are true, but whose falsity remains at least a possibility?

Bigfoot is a genuine cryptid
Bigfoot is a hoax

Space aliens are real.
Space aliens are fake.

Man is a dichotomy
Man is a trichotomy

Premillenialism is biblical.
Premillenialism is not biblical. 

The zombie resurrection of Matthew 27:52 is real history
The zombie resurrection of Matthew 127:52 is only apocalyptic symbolism

God wants you to take this job.
God doesn't want you to take this job.

God wants you to have kids.
God doesn't want you to have kids.

If the mere "possibility" that your views on these matters could be wrong, doesn't slow you down from holding the beliefs you do with reasonable confidence, how can you seriously say that the mere possibility that Mark could have had valid reasons for knowingly excluding historically valid material , "smashes" the above-argument from Mark's silence?

Can you marshal as much evidence for your theory about Mark's silences, as I have done for my theories about his silences, supra?   It doesn't look like it, since what is either known about Mark, or what fundies believe about Mark, supports my theory of his silence far more than any "he-knew-about-it-and-thought-it-true-but-still-didn't-want-to-mention-it" theory.

In conclusion, there are good reasons to say these skeptical theories of Mark's ommisions are reasonable, the evidence in support of the alternative theories isn't enough to render the skeptical theory unreasonable, and therefore, the reasonableness of the skeptical theory cannot be disturbed on current evidence.

Thus, the existing criteria for the argument from silence are sufficient to make the skeptical position on these matters sufficiently grounded as to remain "reasonable" even in light of fundamentalist Christian attempts to refute them or favor more some alternative explanation for Mark's silences.  The reasonableness cannot be deemed to disappear merely because historiography is an art, and there must always exist metaphysical possibility that testimony can be understood in a different way.