Our response to Point 17 of Carrier's reply to TIF has been some time in coming, as we granted right of first refusal to answer to the author of the point, which was not me (as Carrier apparently failed to notice) but one of our readers, who operates as "Jezz" on TWeb. Jezz has expressed his regrets for not being able to offer a full reply at this time; he has a full time job otherwise, and is pressed for time. However, he did offer us some initial observations that sum up the immense flaw in Carrier's retort:

It's been a while since I skimmed Carrier's article, but one thing that stuck out from his rebuttal was that he was pulling from material that was written to *established* congregations. This makes a difference.

For example, when I first started to learn Physics in year 11 high school, my teacher told me about the law of conservation of energy. But we weren't expected to believe it on blind faith - rather, we were shown some experiments, etc, and convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it was true. By the time I get to final year university, however, I am *expected* to take this for granted. The truth of the law of conservation of energy should have by then proven so blindingly and obviously true that it would be a sign of mental weakness to be doubting it. Any result that I see which appears to contradict it is much more likely to be an error on my part, rather than a disproof of the conservation law. Thus, while as a beginning physics student I am encouraged to test out the law of conservation of energy, by the time I get to final year university, my lecturers would discourage me from I wasting my time thusly.

So it is with the congregations to whom Paul was writing. None of them were new congregations - rather, they were established congregations who (according to Paul) had witnessed miracles among them done in the name of Christ. Whether or not one believes in the historicity of these miracle accounts is irrelevant; what matters is that Paul and his target audience did - and hence, Paul was not > asking them to have faith blindly. These are not newly-evangelised and Paul is not asking them to accept the testimony of Christ's resurrection on blind faith. He is asking them to accept the testimony based on the ongoing witness of miracles. Carrier's focus on these interactions with established congregations is therefore somewhat irrelevant.

Thus, it is primarily the reaction of the newly-evangelised congregations that we are interested in for factor 17. And, quite frankly, we simply don't have that much surviving data on such instances. The book of Acts is really the only place where this sort of activity is recorded. I will grant that there is not a great deal of extant evidence supporting point 17 - though there is some (eg, the passage about the Bereans). However, I strongly reject Carrier's thesis that there is evidence the opposite tack was taken. Carrier is, IMO failing to make this distinction.

Jezz's observation melds, we may note, with what we have said elsewhere about the NT world being a "high context" society. By the time of the majority of Carrier's citations in response, the persons addressed would have already checked things out and done their looking (or relied on a source that had). Otherwise Carrier is reduced to crteating artificial distinctions to evade the evidence, as here:

Holding begins his case with 1 Thessalonians 5:21, which says (in context, i.e. 5:19-22): "Do not extinguish the Spirit, do not scoff at acts of prophesy, but put them to the test, and hold fast to what's good, and push away every kind of knavish thing." Is Paul talking about checking the evidence for the resurrection? Or in fact any empirical claim? No. He is talking about testing ongoing prophesies in the Church, and the test he refers to is not empirical, but moral: believe any prophesy that is morally good, and shun any prophesy that is morally bad. That kind of test is not even relevant to Holding's argument.

Carrier is simply in error, for he fails to recognize Paul's dependence on the prophetic test of Deuteronomy 18:21-22:And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. The test is completely empirical; Carrier is confusing Paul's designation of empirically false prophecy as "knavery" (pushed away, precisely BECAUSE it has not passed an empirical test of the sort Deut. 18 prescribes) with some kind of moral test, which it clearly is not. Carrier wisely says, "no other test (distinguishing true from false prophesy) is ever mentioned in the New Testament" -- if he had said "the Bible" the beam of Deut. 18, which governs ALL perceptions of testing of prophecy in a Jewish context, would have swung from his eye mightily and destroyed an entire suburb (and ignores the braoder emphasis on objective truth in prophecy; see here). The following is no better:

The Gospel of Matthew has Jesus himself describe and promote this "moral" test for prophesy: the sole criterion is whether the prophesy produces good or evil fruit (Matthew 7:15-20). No mention is made of doing empirical research or logical analysis or anything like that. To the contrary, Christians are told that false prophets will come bearing all the same evidence true prophets will (Matthew 24:23-29; Mark 13:21-23), therefore only a moral test will tell them apart.

Begging Carrier's pardon, but it ought to be obvious that a lie (a false prophecy), demonstrated to be a lie, is the most obvious "rotten fruit" to discern from a prophet! Beyond this Carrier is oblivious to the point that if a false prophet predicts "X will happen in 75 years" and puts all of his prophecies beyond empirical reach, Jesus' advice remains just as good -- and need we also remind Carrier, that discerning moral fruit requires empirical gathering of data about a person and their behavior! Or did this Skeptic now decide that mind-reading was possible? And despite Carrier's presumed naturalist snobbery, a contest of miracles as in Acts 13 would be just as much empirical (who has the greater power behind them?). Then there is this nonsense about John:

Indeed, his test is absurdly circular: "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not of God, but is the spirit of the Antichrist" (1 John 4:1-3). As standards of inquiry go, this hits rock bottom.

Begging pardon again, but this is where what Jezz offered makes a big difference: By the time John is writing, empirical demonstration of the resurrection and such is long past, and now John's comment is of this mode, if you Skeptics need an analogy: "Anyone who says evolution does not occur is ignorant." Is that circular? Not as is, from the Skeptic's view: What lies behind it is years of claimed research proving evolution. So much for Carrier's snotty claim that converts (much less prospective ones) were satisfied with far, far less than anything we would call "irrefutable" evidence. Carrier is picking at a person who finished the arguments years before, and now he has the nerve to come in when they are just finishing their closing statement, and call it "circular" because he thinks that was all she wrote. Then we have this Chubby Checker Manuever:

Holding claims that "when fledgling converts heeded this advice" to check the facts, "not only did they remain converts (suggesting that the evidence held up under scrutiny), but the apostles described them as 'noble' for doing so," citing Acts 17:11. But that passage says the opposite of what Holding thinks: it says these "nobler" Christians accepted the gospel "readily" ("with all willingness"), in other words not skeptically. And it says the only test they conducted, the only research they engaged, the only fact-checking they carried out, was "closely examining the scriptures on a daily basis" as to "whether these things were so," and from that alone "many of them therefore believed, and many among the respectable Greek women, too, as well as not a few of the men" (Acts 7:12). That's it. They checked scripture. And that was enough to persuade them to convert--on the spot. Not a single bit of actual research was required, nor was any engaged.

We have noted the error of this argument in another chapter: For these Jewish persons in Acts 17, correspondence of Jesus' life with the OT text was indeed one of their empirical tests (given the earned authority of the OT in their view); and it is presumptive nonsense to claim that this is "the only test" they did -- as if fact-checkers by nature limited themselves to specific areas of a subject! The critical examination of the OT points to persons just as critical otherwise; and if Carrier doubts this, then the freethinking egos at infidels.org have some penance to perform. As for "readily" the clear meaning in context would be that the Bereans were open-minded to the message -- they did not simply reject it out of hand (as would the majority of people) without considerations. Unlike Carrier, Witherington in his Acts commentary rightly sees Luke here stressing an intellectual component of consideration. And we repeat in sum: The point is then that matters such as, "Was Jesus raised from the dead?" were already established beyond a reasonable doubt, and all that remained was matters such as, "Does Jesus cohere with the OT message?" that would be of concern to Jews who accepted the authority of the OT.

And naturally, Carrier abuses John 20:29 in the expected way. In reality, Thomas had more than sufficient evidence -- the testimony of at least 11 men who he had gotten to know intimately over at least the past three years, plus personal experience of the miraculous powers of Jesus, and even an empty tomb. He had no reason at all to distrust his comrades, and having seen Jesus' miraculous powers, especially the raising of Lazarus, no reason to doubt the resurrection. In this light, keep in mind that the vast majority of potential converts in the future would not have as much direct evidence as Thomas did. They would still have sufficient evidence, but if Thomas were allowed to "set an example," then others will complain -- as do so many Skeptics today! -- that if Thomas could only believe on this basis, why can't Jesus appear to everyone personally? Thomas' implicit attitude devolves Jesus to the level of a wish-fulfilling genie who appears on command. A final consideration is the use of the word "blessed," or makarios. This is the same word used in the Beatitudes, "Blessed are...." As Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their social science commentary on Matthew [47; see also John commentary, 281] the best translation for this in context is actually, "How honorable are..." so that the implication is not that those who do not see have some sort of special advantage, but in fact have more honor than one like Thomas who demanded excessive proof. Jesus offers this "affirmation of honor" in other words to persons who are satisfied with what evidence they have, which is sufficient for loyalty (faith). The counter to this is that it is shameful to show a lack of trust in one's patron who has already proven himself. Thus it is false to claim that John 20:29 promotes a "blind faith".

Likewise abused is 1 Corinthians 1:17-31, the core of which, 1:19, Carrier' fails to recognize as a paraphrase of Isaiah 29:14. Now look at Isaiah 29:13-14:

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men. Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Isaiah is referring not to true wisdom, but sarcastically to "pseudo-wisdom", held by people who think they know something but actually don't. This fits in with Paul's message, for as we noted in our response to Earl Doherty, Paul is indeed referring to a sort of "pseudo-wisdom" - he is rebutting those who found preference in Apollos' more sophisticated teaching style:

Bruce Winter's After Paul Left Corinth [32ff]...provides a perfectly reasonable contextual explanation for what actually happened in Corinth. Winter describes the ancient pupil-teacher relationship as practiced in Corinth particularly based on descriptions by Dio Chrysostom to the area between 89-96 AD. Dio noted that public orators there ran schools, and their students were called "disciples." These disciples were expected to imitate their teacher in everything -- manner of speaking, manner of dress, even manner of walk. (This fits in as well with criticisms of Paul's poor oratory skills, which were considered a defect...Paul's own "disciples" would lack something important to imitate!) Parents looked for the best teacher for their son to imitate, and of course such teachers competed for students, and zealous students would hover behind rival teachers doing things like correcting their grammar and also do verbal battle with other teachers' students.

Thus despite Carrier, 1 Cor. 1:17-31 is not a screed against those who use their intellect or against the "forensic standards of the super-educated lawyers, historians, and scientists of the day." Indeed it is absurd to suggest that there is a place for such persons in Paul's message, which is about what was done by the "rulers of the age" who had "pseudo-wisdom" and not the wisdom of lawyers and scientists. The "skilled questioner" here is not an honest forensic investigator, but a rhetoritician who uses debate tricks to trap an opponent.

We leave aside Carrier's vague insults to Paul as one who "could demonstrate any point he wanted by simply articulating a clever proof from scripture, or, failing that, all he had to do was claim a revelation from God" -- Pauline scholarship would have no place for such a childish evaluation of Paul, and neither do we. Carrier's single example from Galatians 1 is of the same error we have noted above: He arrives just as Paul is making out a closing statement, oblivious to that he gave the Galatians all the facts years before! -- then complains that Paul is being "dogmatic" and "circular". (Though we should add as well, that Carrier is oblivious also to what it is that Paul is discussing -- which is indeed, not something like the Resurrection, subject to fact-checking, but to attacks on his own credentials as an apostle, for which, appeal to the evidence of his former life, and to his meeting on the Damascus road, IS the only viable response; no more "logical" or "evidential" a case than Carrier could make for someone who doubted that he really loved his family. Paul is NOT trying to get the Galatians "back in the fold" with the particulars Carrier quotes from Galatians; he is trying to validate his ethos -- as Carrier would know, had he bothered to check any socio-rhetorical commentary on Galatians.)

Then as well Carrier repeats Strauss' error:

After all, his audience were the sort of people who thought God punished Zacharias (by striking him mute) for merely asking for evidence (Luke 1:18-20). That's how hostile the Christian mind was to Holding's dream of "fact-checking." The Christian moral was that Zacharias, and hence all of us, should simply trust a vision--no questions asked, and no facts checked.

Nice try, but as we said otherwise:

A less lucid example is Strauss' declaration that an angelic messenger would not be so "imperious" [97] as to strike John the Baptist's dad Zacharias dumb. Really? Pardon me, but why on earth not? How does Strauss know what limitations are placed on the deeds of angels? If the angel was a messenger of God, then he came with God's authority and direction; does Strauss know that this was not part of the orders given to the messenger? This is a foolish objection, as is the one following, which asks why Zacharias was punished for doubt, whereas Mary was not for what Strauss calls the same question. True, the questions are not exactly the same:

Luke 1:18 Zechariah asked the angel, "How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years."

Luke 1:34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

...but more importantly, let's keep in mind what each person was actually asking. Zach had been told outright that he would have a child, and that was that: He knew God could do it, and should not have asked any questions. Mary's inquiry, however, is not one of doubt of power, but one of the mechanism whereby the conception would occur -- it had not been revealed to her until after this question that the conception wouldn't require any help from a man! Strauss fails to see that the two questions are of a different order, despite their similarity.

In other words, Zachariah was punished not for doubt, but unreasonable doubt. As a Jew, he knew and believed that Sarah and Abraham had been given this very miracle; what were his grounds (within his own belief system, and with an angel in front of him) for disbelieving? This is not rationalism in any sense, but plain stupidity and inconsistency of belief.

Next Carrier abuses passages that call on living by faith; for that, we bring in portions of our item on that subject:

The Greek word behind "faith" in the NT is pistis. As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof. Examples of this usage are found in the works of Aristotle and Quintiallian, and in the NT in Acts 17:31:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

If you are used to thinking of "faith" in terms of our first two examples, this will assuredly come as a surprise. The raising of Christ is spoken of here as a proof that God will judge the world. However, if we think about the missionary preaching of the book of Acts, this makes perfect sense and teaches us a certain lesson. Here is more food for thought: Is there anyplace in the NT where we can find someone giving their "personal testimony"? The answer is yes -- but it is in Phil. 3, where Paul gives his personal testimony about his former life, when writing to fellow Christians. He does not use it in a missionary setting to unbelievers.

Indeed, one will find nowhere in the NT an example of missionaries, or anyone, giving their personal testimony. This is for good reason. The ancients conceived of personality as static; the way you were born is the way you stayed. Personal change was not a focus, because it was thought impossible. This is why the church remained suspicious of Paul even after his conversion, and until Barnabas (who probably knew Paul previously) testified on his behalf.

But note well: The following is not the sort of thing one will find in the NT:

Acts 2:48-52 And Peter arose and said, Men and brethren, I testify to you that whereas I formerly smoked mustard leaves, drank wine, cursed daily, and smelled moreover of fish, when the Lord Jesus Christ entered my heart I became clean. Now I no longer smoke, I no longer drink, my language is no longer filthy, and I bathe daily. Praise the Lord!

On the contrary! Here is what we do find in the missionary preaching of the NT:

Acts 2:22-36 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved...Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear... Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Peter's primary appeal here was threefold: He appealed to the evidence of the wonders and signs performed by Jesus; he appealed to the empty tomb, and he appealed to fulfillment of OT prophecy. In short, his appeals were evidentiary. One of course might wish to dispute the validity of the evidence, but in context this is beside the point. The point is that Peter grounded belief in Christianity on evidence -- or, as the definition of pistis in Acts 17:31 would put it, proofs.

Now before you re-read various passages on "faith" in this light, bear in mind two things. First, this does not necessarily mean abandoning personal testimony as a form of witness. Changed lives may be, and often are, appealed to as proofs of the Christian faith, and in our individualistic society which has lost a sense of history (to the point where many people cannot even name our Vice-President), such appeals may actually be better in some contexts than an apologetic for the empty tomb.

Second, note that in very few cases is this form of pistis, as meaning a proof, in view. The meaning does give us a clue as to the nature of other meanings. It is often used as a noun to refer to the Christian "faith" as a set of convictions. In far many more cases the meaning intended is in the sense of faithfulness, or loyalty as owed to one in whom one is embedded for service (in this case, the body of Christ). This now leads to an expansion of the pistis concept as derived from deSilva. As deSilva shows, the relationship between the believer and God is framed in terms of an ancient client-patron relationship. As God's "clients" to whom he has shown unmerited favor (grace), our response should be, as Malina and Neyrey frame it, a "constant awareness" of prescribed duties toward those in whom we are indebted (God) and the group in which we are embedded (God's kin group, the body of Christ). This "constant awareness" is the expression of our faithfulness of loyalty -- in other words, this is our pistis, or faith. "Faith" is not a feeling, but our pledge to trust, and be reliable servants to, our patron (God), who has provided us with tangible gifts (Christ) and proof thereby of His own reliability...

With a form of pistis used over 240 times in the NT, it will not be possible to examine every instance of it. But it is enough to highlight some of the more obvious examples.

Matthew 8:5-10 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed... When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

We see the definition of "faith" in terms of loyalty to, or trust in, a deserving patron, exhibited quite clearly here. The centurion knew of Jesus' miraculous abilities (v. 8). His faith was not "blind" but based on the evidence of Jesus' past works. He considered Jesus worthy therefore of his trust and came to him for help.

This is the sort of "faith" also exhibited by other people who come to, or are brought to, Jesus for healing. The man with palsy, the woman with the issue of blood, Jairus, the blind man (Matt. 9), the Syrophoenician woman (Matt. 15) -- all came knowing of Jesus' abilities to heal. Their actions were based on evidence and proof. Of course one may argue that their trust was misplaced and that Jesus was a charlatan, but contextually that is beside the point. Our point is that faith is not "blind trust."

Matthew 17:19-20 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

This passage is one of the leading "make hay" passages for charlatans like our Benny Pophagin. Not healed? You needed more faith! But understand instead "faith" as loyalty and "unbelief" as disobedience. So what is the implication? Matthew 17:21 ("Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.") is missing from the best mss. of Matthew. It's parallel, Mark 9:29, shows textual data indicating that only "prayer" was part of the original (see here). Wherein then lies the disciples' disobedience and disloyalty? It is in lack of prayer, and a false perception that the gift of exorcism was something inherent in themselves rather than being conveyed through them by God. (Note that the exorcism is preceded by a note that the scribes were questioning the disciples [Mark 9:14-16] -- most likely challenging them to perform an exorcism. We find a parallel lesson in Luke 10:17-20: "And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." This is a firm caution against pride and focus on self, and a loss of concentration on the real power behind the ability to exorcize demons.)

A similar lesson may be drawn from Matthew 21, in which Jesus states, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." This needs to be combined with our comments elsewhere: No Jew would recognize such statements as giving believers carte blanche to ask to have mountains turned over (see more here). This is simply a way of emphasizing God's commitment, as a patron, to bless and show favor to the believer -- who would be expected not to ask for silly or selfish things in the first place, no more so than any client in the Roman world would be foolish enough to ask his patron to give him a million bucks to blow on video games. A person with pistis does not knowingly ask for that which God would not or does not will, and does not ask for something to happen if it is against God's will. In Jewish thought, God was sovereign. Nothing happened that God did not permit or cause. "Early Jewish teaching did celebrate God's kindness in answering prayer, but rarely promises such universal answers to prayer to all of God's people as the language suggests." [Keener, 245] Only a small number of sages were considered pious enough to ask for and receive whatever they wanted -- and that piety was their key indicates that they weren't going around asking for just anything they wanted (like Hanina ben Dosa, and Honi the Circle-Drawer), but only what they supposed to be in the will of God. "Such a call to believing prayer supposes a heart of piety submitted to God's will..."

Limitations upon what we may receive are clearly set by the context. The Lord's Prayer instructs us to pray for daily needs (Matt. 6:11) -- it does not say, "Give us this day a Rolls Royce." Earthly children ask for bread or fish (7:9-10) which are "basic staples in the Palestinian diet" that were provided to children on a regular basis. We can ask for "good things" (7:11), a term which sometimes referred to prosperity generally, but also "referred to agricultural produce that the righteous would share with others (Test. Iss. 3:7-8)." Neither the Jewish nor the Roman client-patron background would understand the mountain-moving phrase as literal permission to request whatever our selfishness desires -- or to expect something to be given to us contrary to the will and desire of the patron.

Mark 4:39-40 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

By now it should be easy to see that Jesus rebukes the disciples for a lack of trust and loyalty, which by this time he should have justly earned from them, having already shown his miraculous powers and wisdom.

Mark 6:5-6 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

We've seen a lot of skeptics quote this verse lately, saying that it indicates that Jesus was a charlatan who (like our modern "faith healer" Benny) needed people to have "faith" and excused away ability to heal real diseases as a lack of faith. The word "unbelief" here is apistia, meaning a lack of pistis. In light of our better understanding of pistis, the problem is indeed not with Jesus but with the lack of loyalty and trust by those who reject Jesus. Like the ungrateful client in the client-patron relationship, the people rejected Jesus as a patron in spite of his acts of grace, thereby dishonoring him. (Note how this affects the meaning of Mark 6:4: "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.") To reject a gracious act was the height of dishonor. Jesus could not heal these people not because of a lack of power, but because of ingratitude and a rejection of his gracious patronage! A rejected patron could and would never force his gracious gifts upon a client who didn't want them!

Finally we look at this most-often abused use of pistis by skeptics who prefer the Twain definition:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

"There, see! The evidence of things not seen. Blind faith. Case closed." Try again! The list that follows offers examples of people who had been given undeniable proof of God's existence and power. Pistis here is a matter of trust in a God who has demonstrated His ability to be a worthy patron, and the examples are those of clients who, knowing this ability, trust in God's record as a patronal provider. Hebrews 11:1 therefore is telling us that faith (trust in our patron, gained by conviction based on evidence) is the substance (the word here means an assurance, as in a setting under, a concrete essence or an abstract assurance) of things hoped for (this word means expected by trust, which is something earned!), and the evidence of that which is not seen, which in context means we expect, based on past performance, continuing favor from our patron, who has already proven Himself worthy of our trust by example, and this trust is our confidence in the fulfillment of future promises. Blind faith? Not in the least! It is faith grounded in reality.

Update, 10/07: In a response to this section, Carrier manages to give an answer without noting that my source for the information he cites is David deSilva -- a qualified scholar, and certainly one who would never be caught making quack translations of Greek. DeSilva is my source for such things as that "as a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof" and "examples of this usage are found in the works of Aristotle and Quintiallian," and my commentary on Acts 17:31, so if Carrier wants to take up the issue with a real scholar, he can feel feee to do so. That said, Carrier tries to dull the impact of this by the expected forked tongue method:

The word pistis primarily means "belief" or "trust," not "proof" in Holding's intended sense (much less "forensic proof"). As you can see from the relevant entry in the Online LSG the word only means "proof" in specialized contexts, and even then only in the broadest sense of any argument or method of persuasion, whether forensic, empirical, or otherwise. Hence, though in special contexts pistis can refer to any form of assurance (including evidence), to claim from this that "faith" means "evidence" is simply a con.

The "con," in fact, comes from Carrier, who first of all misrepresents my point, for I said clearly that it was a special noun form of pistis that meant "proof," not pistis itself. This confusion by Carrier is made throughout his response. The other half is a con game, but in English: Carrier isn't divorcing the word from evidence: Arguments and even methods of persuasion are evidence -- they may not be good evidence, but that is what they are; they are all in the same conceptual category.

Carrier claims that there were "modes [of persuasion] not accepted within rhetorical science," and that among there were "appeals to Scripture or private revelation or 'confirming miracles,'". Unfortunately he does not manage to quote any rhetorical handbook that says any such thing; he appeals to "modes considered acceptable among the rational elite... described in Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.2.1355b-58a and 1.15.1375a" but does not tell us what these are. When Carrier offers cites but not quotes, you may be quite certain there is larceny afoot, and there is -- here is a quote from the first:

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself.

Why a historical record or what Malina and Neyrey call a "probability" (recorded in Scripture), or a miracle, would not fitt into class 3 above conceptually (not as words, but descriptions of them) is not explained by Carrier, and will never be: There are reasons why he doesn't give quotes. (1375a isn't even about modes; it is about criminals!) Carrier is merely trying to fool the reader with an end-around in which he merely arbitrarily denies such things to the category of "evidence". (Private revelation is another matter; though acceptance of that may relate to factor 1 above, I do not claim anywhere that "private revelation" was part of the defense package for the Resurrection.)

The one valid point Carrier makes is that there are (of course) good and bad types of proof. However, what indeed we have is the very point at issue in other chapters; and the matter of what kind of proof was accepted is answered within this chapter (a section Carrier has also lately updated, and where we will respond).

So despite Carrier, genuine faith means that checking facts is built in. So what of these passages Carrier misuses? Update 10/07 to include responses by Carrier; indicated by a preceding ** in each entry.