Evidences Jesus is ALIVE

My guest on the radio program today was Dr. Tim McGrew, Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University.  He provided five lines of evidence that Jesus is ALIVE:

 A   Appearances to his followers (1 Cor 15, Mt 28, Lk 24, Jn 20-21, Acts 1, Josephus and others)

 L   Low status of women in first century Judaism (criterion of embarrassment; Mt 28, Mk 16, Lk 24, Jn 20)

 I   Immediate proclamation of the resurrection in Jerusalem (Acts 2)

 V   Voluntary sufferings undergone by the first witnesses (Acts, Josephus, Tacitus and others)

 E   Empty tomb (Mt 28, Mk 16, Lk 24, Jn 20, 1 Cor 15, and others)

Click on Radio Program at left after Sunday to hear the show.  As you listen, you will see that we were not begging the question by saying that Jesus rose from the dead merely because the documents say so.  Listen to two previous shows with Dr. McGrew in the archives from July 30, 2011 and August 11, 2011.  There he provides some very insightful details external and internal to the New Testament documents that show beyond any reasonable doubt that those documents are historically reliable.

For more from Dr. McGrew, including downloadable PowerPoint Presentations, go here.

Blessings this resurrection Sunday.  He is risen!

/by

Turek & Cornuke to Lead Footsteps of Paul Cruise, July 2012

Frank Turek and Bob Cornuke (the REAL Indiana Jones) will be leading a “Footsteps of Paul” cruise in July 2012!  Our ship will be Oceania’s beautiful “Regatta.”  We’ll present evidence and insights about the New Testament while we tour the Biblical sites of:

  • Ephesus (Ephesians, Paul’s home for three years, and his confrontation with Diana worshipers in Acts 19)
  • Athens (Paul’s Acts 17 speech)
  • Corinth (1 and 2 Corinthians)
  • Malta (See the site and anchors of Paul’s shipwreck from Acts 27)
  • Rome (Romans, and where Paul was imprisoned and executed)

We’ll also visit other beautiful and interesting sites such as Istanbul, Sicily, Pompeii, Sardinia and Santorini.

Douglas Gresham, stepson of C.S. Lewis, will join us in Malta and give us a special presentation there! 

We hope you can join us! Go here for all the details http://www.livingpassages.org/tours/footstepsofpaul.htm or call 1-888-771-8717. Space is limited so sign up soon!

/by

Does Luke Have The Date Of The Nativity Wrong?

In reading — as one does — the popular atheist material on the Internet with regards New Testament scholarship, I recently came across a very old argument which is often trotted out by people who don’t know any better with regards the dating which the gospels assign to the the nativity and Roman census. Matthew’s gospel tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. Luke recounts the story, with which we are all familiar, of Mary and Joseph travelling to Bethlehem to register as part of the census which was taken. The skeptic typically objects upon reading those accounts and complains that these two things are actually a decade removed from each other. According to Luke, Jesus was born at the time of the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria — a census which was recorded by the Romans as occurring in 6 A.D. But Herod’s death — whom Matthew asserts was alive at the time of Jesus’ birth — occurred in 4 B.C.

According to Luke 2:1-3,

1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

But just how sound is this objection?

The first thing to take notice of is Luke’s remarkable accuracy as an historian in other areas. He gets many titles of rulers correct (in one case he got the title of an Asian leader right which Cicero gets wrong), has cities in the right place, in addition to various other incidental historical details. In light of this, it would be unwise to immediately jump to the conclusion that Luke is historically in error at this point. Before we reach that conclusion, we should first look to see whether there are any plausible alternatives which are not strained or ad hoc.

Second, we know from historical sources that Augustus ordered the census to be taken every twelve years, and we have records of those taking place in 8 B.C. and 6 A.D. If we assume that it probably took two or three years for a census to be completed, then it is not inconceivable that the census Luke has in mind was the one ordered in 8 B.C.. Herod died in 4 B.C., and so Jesus’ birth probably took place in 6 or 5 B.C. or thereabouts.

Third, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicate that Luke 2:2 can be translated, “This census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” In fact, if you turn to this verse in your Bible you will likely see a footnote indicating that this is so.

Fourth, as has been suggested by some, it is possible that Quirinius reigned twice. In 1764, a Latin inscription (the Lapis Tiburtinus) was discovered which recorded the career of a distinguished Roman officer. Unfortunately, the inscription is mutiliated such that the name of the individual concerned is missing. But some have interpreted the surviving details as descriptive of Quirinius. It states that when he became imperial legate of Syria, he entered upon that office “for the second time”. Another view is that this Latin inscription actually refers to Quintillius Varus, who was the governor of Syria at two separate times., reigning from 6 to 4 B.C. and again from 2 B.C. to 1 A.D. Between 4 and 2 B.C. reigned Sentius Saturninus. It is interesting that Tertullian (Against Marcion 4:7), in the third century A.D., notes that the imperial records show the occurrence of censuses in Judea during the reign of Sentius Saturninus. It is also noteworthy that, in the second century A.D., Justin Martyr (Apology 1:34) states that Quirinius was only a procurator of the province. Thus, some have argued, Quirinius was only an assistant to the governor Saturninus

In light of these plausible resolutions to Luke’s account of the census which, on first brush, appears paradoxical, it seems that the evidence would compel us to give Luke the benefit of the doubt on this issue, particularly when considered in the context of his exceptional historical accuracy on other matters.

/by

What’s Wrong With The Zeitgeist Movie?

The Zeitgeist movie has been circulating on the internet since 2007. In the video its director, Peter Joseph, seeks to persuade viewers that the authors of the New Testament essentially plagiarized the concept of the virgin birth, December 25 as Christ’s birth date, the twelve disciples, the miracles, the crucifixion, and the resurrection from astrological sources and pagan mythology.

The focus of this article is to address the allegation that Jesus is a mythological amalgamation of pagan deities invented by various ancient cultures. I will deal primarily with Horus, as he is the first major mythological figure presented as a forerunner of Jesus. I will subsequently deal with the other allegations in brief.

False claims about Horus

The Zeitgeist movie makes the following claims:

Claim: “This is Horus. He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC.”

Response: Horus is not just the sun god. He was also the falcon god whose name means ‘the far-off one’. Ra was the sun god who came to be identified with the mid-day sun. In addition, Horus was also the sky god, whose good or sound eye was the sun, and injured eye the moon.

Claim: “He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun’s movement in the sky.”

Response: This is inaccurate. Horus was not the sun, but came to be identified with the position of the rising sun. Later, he was associated with the sun-god Ra. Atum was the god of the setting sun.

Claim: “From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set was the personification of the darkness or night.”

Response: Seth — Horus’ brother — was Horus’ rival (and usurper of the throne of Egypt). There is debate as to whether the struggle between Horus and Seth was primarily geo-political or symbolic in nature. When the full Osiris complex becomes visible, Seth appears as the murderer of Osiris and would-be killer of the child Horus.

Claim: “And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set — while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that ‘dark vs. light’ or ‘good vs. evil’ is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.”

Response: The movie’s claim is dead wrong. Horus was never sent to the underworld. It was Osiris who was killed and became Lord of the underworld, while Horus was king of the living.

Claim: “Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25…”

Response: This simply isn’t the case. At any rate, neither the Bible nor Christianity claim Jesus was born on December 25, so any parallels with ancient legends are completely inconsequential. The December 25 date only came into prominence under Emperor Aurelian in the third century A.D. But when was the date of Horus? It was during the Egyptian month of Khoiak (which corresponds to November on our calendar).

Claim: “…of the virgin Isis-Meri.”

Response: Again, the claim is simply in error. Horus was born of Isis. And there is absolutely no mention in any Egyptian literature of the trailing name ‘Mary’ as the movie would have us believe. Moreover, Isis was certainly not a virgin, but the widow of Osiris, the father of Horus.

Claim: “His birth was accompanied by a star in the east.”

Response: The video continues to make stuff up as it goes along. There is simply no mention of any stars pertaining to the birth of Horus.

Claim: “…which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born Savior.”

Response: First up, there are no ‘three kings’ mentioned in the birth account of Horus, nor is there a mention there ‘three kings’ in the New Testament account. Rather, it is wise-men, with the number not being specified.

Claim: “At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher.”

Response: Wrong again. Horus was never a child prodigal teacher. In fact, he was kept hidden away by his mother in the papyrus marshes, until he was ready to be ruler of Egypt.

Claim: “…and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry.”

Response: Again, there is no evidence of any such baptism concerning Horus, nor are there any facts which suggest any form of ‘ministry’ of Horus.

Claim: “Horus had 12 disciples he travelled around with.”

Response: Horus did not have 12 disciples he travelled around with. It really is as simple as that.

Claim: “…performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water.”

Response: While it is true that some healing ‘miracles’ are associated with Horus, this is with Horus the Child as opposed to Horus the elder or his adult forms.

Claim: “Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God’s Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others.”

Response: Again, this is simply false. The only forms of the Horus-god are (1) Horus the Child; (2) Horus as son of Isis and Osiris (“pillar of his mother”; “savior of his father”); and (3) Horus as a sun-god (“lord of the sky; “god of the east”; “Horus of the horizon”).

Claim: “After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.”

Response: Wrong again. There exists no accounts of Horus being betrayed, nor a death by crucifixion. There is an incident described in one account whereby Horus is torn to pieces, with Isis requesting that the crocodile god pull him out of the water — not quite crucifixion. Moreover, seeing how the movie puts the account of Horus at around 3000 B.C., this predates the invention and practice of crucifixion by thousands of years!

Other Claims

The Zeitgeist movie continues in the same vein as above with all the other mythological pagan gods. The Zeitgeist movie makes the claim that Hindu’s Krishna was also crucified and resurrected. However, again, the Zeitgeist is in error. Hinduism very clearly teaches that Krishna was killed by a wound inflicted from an arrow shot from a hunter who mistakenly hit him in his heal. Following his death, he ascended to be with Brahman. This can hardly be compared to the Christian concept of Christ’s resurrection.

The Zeitgeist movie claims, for example, that Mithras was born of a virgin. But this is in error. Rather, he emerged from a rock. It is also claimed that Mithras rose from the dead, but there is no textual evidence of his death, so there could be no resurrection. Mithras was not a teacher, and was not followed by twelve disciples, as Zeitgeist claims.

Neither is there any evidence of a bodily resurrection of Attis, the Phrygian god of vegetation, nor the virgin birth of Dionysus or Krishna (the latter of whom was his mother’s eighth son, so a virgin birth is not likely).

Conclusion

Sadly, the Zeitgeist movie has become widely circulated on the Internet, deceiving many people with misinformation. As Peter writes in his first epistle, “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves.”

According to their own testimony, the New Testament writers “did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty,” (2 Peter 1:16). They were testifying not to myths, but to ‘sober truth’ about events that had ‘not been done in a corner’ (Acts 26:25-26).

This article was originally published on AllAboutTruth.org.

 

/by

Did Nazareth Exist During The Life Of Jesus?

Did Nazareth exist during the life of Jesus? How can we know? What does the evidence say? These are questions to which Christians have been asked to give an answer on a more and more frequent basis by those who profess themselves to be “skeptics” in our world today. It is curious that the first-century historicity of Jesus should be the subject of such contention, since this matter was effectively laid to rest long ago.

There are several reasons which are often given for doubting the first-century historicity of Nazareth, which are largely built around arguments from silence. For one thing, Nazareth is never mentioned in the writings of Josephus, nor is it mentioned in any other first-century writings. Critics also contend that the biblical geography is in error, as there is no cliff near the synagogue from which Jesus was allegedly thrown, as recounted in Luke 4:24-30.

Generally speaking, caution should be taken when dealing with arguments from silence. The question must be raised as to just how much one would expect the contemporary writers to mention the town of Nazareth. Nazareth was a small and insignificant village, and Josephus had no real reason to mention it. The town’s insignificance is evident in the first chapter of John’s gospel, when Nathaniel asks, “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Leaving aside the problems with the argument from silence, it should also be noted that the claim is not entirely correct. In AD 70, at the end of the Jewish war with the Romans, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, and this meant that Jewish priests and their families had to be redeployed. An inscription was discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima, which documented that the priests of the order of Elkalir came to live in Nazareth. This has only been confirmed by later discoveries. For example, in 2009, the first Nazarene home to date from Jesus’ era was excavated by archaeologists. The house was a simple structure, consisting of two small rooms and a courtyard.

The claim about the errant geography carries a bit more weight than the argument from silence. The closest cliff from which Jesus might have been thrown is roughly 2.5 miles away from the synagogue, however, and there is no reason why Jesus could not have been taken this far.

In conclusion, the claim that there is no historical evidence for the existence of the town of Nazareth in the first century stands refuted by the archaeological data, and many of the more informed atheist critics, even among those who deny the historicity of Jesus, have advised caution with this argument.

This article was originally published on GotQuestions.org.

/by

Gospel contradictions? Why they don’t exist. A Little Experiment to Teach Skeptics about trying to mindlessly refute the NT

A few years ago on an email list that is populated mainly by liberal Christians and non believers, I was challenged by an Atheist (Charles) to explain why there were so many inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts. His complaint was that for example some gospel accounts talk about Mary Magdalene going to the grave of Jesus, another has Mary M and Mary the mother of James. Another has Salome joining the two Marys. One talks about 1 angel, the other about 2 angels and so on.

Rather than waste too much effort on Charles (knowing he didn’t really care and in fact had just blindly copied and pasted the complaints from an atheist site without doing any research himself); I decided to wait a few months until it had slipped out of their collective memory and then use a indirect teaching method to show why there are actually no problems with the gospel accounts; even though they don’t always seem to match word for word.

Now note that my goal was not to “prove” that the Gospels are accurate (for that I refer you to http://reclaimingthemind.org/product/the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels-audio-download/). My goal was simply to eliminate the silly argument that just because one Gospel report talks about 2 angels while an other only mentions 1 angel and so on, that did not mean they were pure fabrications as Charles maintained. In fact that may actually indicate that they are actual first or second hand reports.

It seems to have done its job; as no one on that email list has ever brought up this feeble excuse since then. Make sure you read through to my “explanation.”

December 2005

Neil writes:

Hi all,

I was just reading the news last night about that tragic accident in Chicago. One thing occurred to me. I don’t think there really was a crash. Because when I read the story from these 5 different sources they all seemed to disagree with each other. Just shows how the liberal media twists things.

AP – Sat Dec 10,

A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 rests in the middle of Central Ave. Saturday, Dec. 10, 2005 in Chicago. The jetliner, trying to land in heavy snow slid off the runway Thursday at Midway Airport, crashed through a boundary fence and slid out into the street, hitting one car and pinning another beneath it. A child in one of the vehicles was killed. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green)

– What we know from this: there were only 2 cars, 1 boundary fence and only 1 child was hurt/killed.

Radio@UPEI December 9, 2005

A snowy runway caused a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 to skid off the runway in Chicago Thursday evening. Nobody on the plane was seriously injured, but a 6-year old boy was killed as the plane skid onto the intersection of 55th Street and Central Avenue, and hit the vehicle he was traveling in.

– This one must be false because it only mentions 1 vehicle being hit (the last one had 2) and nothing about going through any fence, but we know there were fences from the first report.

AFP/Getty Images – Fri Dec 9,

Southwest Airlines jet sits on a roadway after it crashed through a security wall the evening before at Midway Airport in Chicago, Illinois. US authorities launched an investigation after the jet skidded off a Chicago airport runway and into a street where it hit two cars and killed a child (AFP/Getty Images)

– This also must be made up because it says the plane went thru a security wall, not a boundary fence like the last one said it did? If a plane went through a brick wall it would have exploded or at least caught on fire don’t you think? Ah you are thinking a boundary/security wall what’s the difference? Well one is a fence the other a wall.

Reuters – Fri Dec 9,

A Southwest Airlines plane bound from Baltimore, Maryland, sits on a road along Chicago’s Midway Airport December 9, 2005, after crashing through a safety barrier while trying to land during a snowstorm in Chicago on December 8, 2005. (Frank Polich/Reuters)

-This story doesn’t mention that someone was killed in this crash. Which is kinda important don’t you think? It talks about a safety barrier not a wall, it also doesn’t talk about any cars being hit. So were NO cars hit? This story totally contradicts ALL the others. What liars these Reuters guys are.

AP Canadian Press – Fri Dec 9,

A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 rests nose first at the intersection of W.55th Street and Central Ave. in Chicago Friday after it skidded off the runway at Midway Airport Thursday. (AP/Charles Rex Arbogast)

– This is a second AP source that doesn’t agree even with the first source. It doesn’t say anything about any cars (forget about 2 of them), it doesn’t mention a fence of any sort, nor does it mention anybody dying. This whole situation sounds like it was made up from the start.

So folks can you help? Are we being snowed by the media? Did this event really happen? Can we trust that it really happened?

Question 1: Did any cars get hit. Two reports don’t mention it, the others do.

Question 2: How many cars did get hit? One report only says 1 car, some say 2 cars.

Question 3: Did anyone really die? Two reports don’t mention any deaths at all.

Question 4: What did the plane crash through, did it crash through anything? Some reports say it crashed through “a security wall,” another “a boundary fence,” and others “a safety fence.” Some don’t say anything about crashing through any sort of wall or fence.

So my conclusion is:

This story is a lie and made up by the liberal media.

There may be some semblance of truth to it, but on the whole it is inaccurate and should not be given any credence. Probably a superstitious myth.

Each of these news “mediums” are deliberately colluding to create a false story and they can’t even get their lies straight.

Besides we all know that if a plane crashes into a car it will explode in a big fireball, so this whole story is just unacceptable. If this was a true story every story would sound identical to the other story. That’s the ONLY way I’d believe it.

Another example of the lies put out by the liberal media. : ) It’s time we wake up.

Neil

First response to my email:

Neil

You have used the term “liberal media” 3 times as if that were something negative. In my understanding, “liberal” means being open to consider a variety of events, ideas, and opinions (it doesn’t necessarily mean acceptance of them), which any worthwhile news media should do. I certainly want to be liberal in my approach to life and to other people. The best news media are open to reporting a variety of events and ideas which have more than sensational or passing importance, mostly the NY Times and Wash Post. The best international news magazine is The Economist (don’t be misled by its title) which I read every week. Unfortunately, most US radio and TV news (even CBS now) now is just sensational and consists of sound bites without depth (except PBS), so I prefer BBC.

Further, 5 reporters under pressure to report sensational news fast are certainly going to differ in their dispatches. Don’t you think that you and I, suddenly observing something and under pressure to send a dispatch, would emphasize or neglect certain aspects?

Your emphasis on logical deduction here has caused you to deny the essence of what actually occurred.

Carl

Second Response:

Neil why don’t you ask the mother of the boy that died!!

Get a better example!! That seems to be your way!! Jesh!!

John

(looks like this guy John fell hook line and sinker for my little trap)

Third Response:

Neil, We all know that the press always contains inaccuracies, anyone who has had anything about them or their families in a local paper knows that even names come out wrong. I think Carl’s reply put it very succinctly, but I would also add that where you are raging against the so called “liberal” press, I must say that I find the right-wing press is not blame- free of inaccurate reporting, particularly that run by Rupert Murdoch.

I won’t bother listing the inaccuracies and omissions of the right wing press on the Iraq war, but I think we all understand that politicians and the press are not reliable sources, and that its always worth checking as many versions of any news story as you can.

Here in the UK we have a variety of broadcast and written media , and I find BBC radio one of the best sources of news, they had a programme about “rendition” about four months ago.

I was also surprised to discover how little the USA is reporting the kidnap of Norman Kember and Tom Fox

Kat

My Response to Kat:

Kat. So which is it? A total fabrication? One car or two? A dead boy or a dead child or none? Some truths some lies some errors? Or all lies? Or all errors? What is it? A myth? Legend?

Neil

My response to Carl and John:

Wait are you saying that despite the slightly different versions that different people gave, the stories are actually true? But don’t they contradict each other? One has 2 cars, the other only has 1 car, one has a wall the other has barrier, one has a dead boy the other has a dead child? Isn’t this contradictory?

Neil

Kat Responds:

a dead boy is a dead child, a wall is a barrier .

Kat

My response to that:

So you are saying they are telling the truth?

Neil

Another person joins in:

Neil,

I think you overrate contradiction.

Ruann

My response:

Ruann,

Are you saying the stories contradict each other? Is API right and Reuters wrong? Is API US accurate and API Canada a lie? Or are you saying there’s no real contradiction?

Neil

Response from Rebecca who has seen right through it all.

C’mon Neil, just spring that trap and get it over with! The tension is too much!

(Also smiling),

Rebecca

I finally explain:

Hi folks,

OK OK Thank you all (and Rebecca): So to summarize what we have garnered from this exercise:

  1. Multiple eye witnesses and accounts can emphasize different aspects of the story but the story can still be true (thanks Carl).
  2. Some people may say there were two items of something (e.g. two kids or two/three walls/fences), others may talk about one of the items (one kid)– but neither is contradictory unless one was to say there was ONLY one item (i.e. ONLY ONE kid). Again this does not indicate the story is a fabrication but in fact may indicate the validity of the story and the validity that multiple witnesses were at the event each noting a different portion of the entire event. Certain reporters may have come late and only seen the one kid in the stretcher while his brother was already on the way to the hospital.
  3. It is possible that there were multiple of some events sometimes given slightly differing descriptions. E.g. there actually was a wall which was both a security barrier and a noise barrier. There was an additional metal fence that it ALSO crashed through. Some witnesses talked about the metal boundary fence, others saw the bricks or also knew the layout better and talked about the security barrier wall. Again the differing witnesses add to the entirety of the account and do not invalidate the event. Note that there were multiple barriers, security fences, boundary fences, walls. They were ALL there. None of the reports were wrong in any of these details!
  4. If you go back to the actual reports and read the entire news report, some accounts gave estimates e.g. The boy was ABOUT 8 years old (I did not include this in my above snippets but was in some of the reports). Which was correct but not detailed enough. Since the boy was really 6 years old plus a few months. So 8 is “about” there and was based on what they saw. Technically saying the boy was 6 years old would be wrong too, but we realize that 6 means up to 6 years and 11 months and 29/30 days. Again it does not invalidate the account or indicate that it’s made up, but actually indicates more of an authenticity given the intensity of the event.
  5. Later accounts of the same event may add additional information e.g. Joshua had 2 siblings with him who survived, He was singing a carol at the time of impact. He was from Indiana. There were 4 other people in another vehicle who were also injured (not mentioned in these reports as I didn’t want to go on and on). Thus though earlier accounts are sparse and later accounts more full it does not indicate the accounts are false. Similarly, I also saw later accounts that were paraphrases of the earlier accounts so you can ALSO get a later summary that is less detailed but just as true.
  6. Some accounts may call something by a different name depending on their background or inclinations e.g. A wall, a barrier. (Thanks Kat). In each case however this does not mean the account is false but that the vernacular is different. A wall IS a barrier after all.
  7. [Added later] A deeper reading of each of the entire news reports still reflect various facts that were just not included. Someone was arguing that I was only reading the captions. I was not. I read the entire reports and just used these few items as examples. I can only get so much reader attention on an email list. I can’t write three volumes and expect them to follow along. Stay on task buddy.

So we all agree the event really happened. No one was lying and in fact no one was mistaken (i.e. sadly a boy actually died -Thanks John). The facts were all correct. In an event like this it’s natural for differing witnesses to focus on different facts. Had API been the only news service there, ALL the news we read would have been almost identical. The fact that we had multiple sources of the info all slightly different from each other but none contradicting each other both verified that the event probably really happened and that no collusion was taking place (that’s collusion not collision).

Sorry, the rant about the “Liberal Media” was just a red herring; yes this is NOT an example of media bias. I am not that desperate, as there’s plenty of clear examples of bias readily available (read Bernard Goldberg’s book “Bias” for a real example of media bias). As Rebecca said: Let’s spring the trap already…. Of course Bob T and Ruann of course saw right through it. And I want to thank all of you who chimed in to tell me that I was wrong for assuming the story was false thus helping me make the point I want to make now (thanks John, Kat, Chris etc etc and all those who held their tongues but were thinking it : )).

And in case anyone is confused like any rational person I DO believe the story of the SWA accident is true.

I only used it – as Ruann said as a “teaching device”.

Now my point – what was the purpose of my whole “liberal media” silliness?

Well a few months ago Charles (note: Charles is a Missionary Kid who hates the God that his parents dedicated their lives to) had argued the following:

“OK Neil, you have inspired me to search for, and examine some basic truths about the religion into which I was indoctrinated Can you explain the contradictions to the resurrection story, in the Gospels, and why there might be any differences in the telling of the story which forms the BASIS of Christian belief. “

And he gave me a number of what he considered contradictions in the Gospels regarding the resurrection, for instance one angel vs. two angels. Asking how many women went to the tomb etc.

Most of these “apparent contradictions” have been answered by the kind folks on this web site for me indirectly. They aren’t contradictions anymore than the “contradictions” I pretended to make a big stink about on the SWA crash. They were all true.

The above example of multiple witnesses probably answers at least 70% of the questions. Of the remaining, Charles, please pick one or two that isn’t solved by one of the points above and I can deal with those specifically and we can go through the list till we are done. (Neils’ note: Of course Charles never did.)

Meanwhile I’ve included a chronology below that may help: Also please refer to http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm for more details. I’ll attempt to answer or find a new source for any questions that are not answered there.

I should also ask you Charles to read the entire Gospel account because in some places the question you asked indicates you didn’t read the passage. Why do I say that? Because you ask for something in vs. 8 of Mark 16 when it’s answered in the very next verse (vs. 9). So please make sure you read the entire passage instead of blindly copying stuff from anti-theists websites. Do consider doing your OWN research first for crying out loud. Don’t be a blind faith atheist or a mindless fan copying other people’s stuff without doing your own research.

Charles in the past I’ve written you off line, after you made similar statements and I asked you if you were really interested in real solid historical and factual answers, I said I’d be quite happy to go over them one by one with you. But in each case you’ve ignored me. So my suspicion is that you may not really care about answers at this time (either because you are too busy or perhaps indicating that you may be close minded about this despite any evidentiary proof I may provide). Can you validate that for me? But you did say: “Neil, you have inspired me to search for, and examine some basic truths about the religion into which I was indoctrinated.” So based on that with the listing of the accounts side by side from: http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm and let me know if you see any apparent contradictions that are not explained by the “multiple news reporters phenomenon”.

So in conclusion and summary thanks all for helping me.

To emphasize I’ll repeat my points:

  1. Multiple eye witnesses and accounts can emphasize different aspects of the story but the story can still be true.
  2. Some people may say there were 2 items, others may talk about one of the items – but neither is contradictory unless one was to say there was ONLY 1 item. In this case all the reporters got it right. None of them had 100% of the story, as we’d expect from any human agent. Again this does not indicate the story is a fabrication but in fact may indicate the validity of the story and the validity that multiple witnesses were at the event each noting a different portion of the entire event.
  3. It is possible that there were multiple of some events, like the numerous types of barriers. Again the differing witnesses add to the entirety of the account and do not invalidate the event.
  4. Some accounts gave estimates rather than exacts which do not invalidate the account or indicate that it’s made up.
  5. Later accounts of the same event may add additional information. Thus though earlier accounts are sparse and later accounts more full it does not indicate the accounts are false. In fact in some cases later accounts may be paraphrases of parts of the earlier accounts so you can get a later summary that is less detailed. And then the reporter can spend the extra space he/she has describing something they think is more important.
  6. Some accounts may call something by a different name depending on their background or inclinations. In each case however this does not mean the account is false but that the vernacular of that writer/viewer/news reporter is different.

Thanks

Neil

After that one last response came in:

So Neil, let’s grant you that you have very cleverly shown that inconsistent accounts of an event do not necessarily “invalidate the event” itself. And let’s put aside for the moment that we are talking about THE single most important event upon which a religion is based (the accounts of which one could realistically expect not to be riddled with inconsistencies). It seems to me that in your list of conclusions you fail to recognize the possibility that one or more of the writers could simply have got it wrong (e.g. 8 is not 6; one angel is not two angels). If that is a possibility, are we faced with the possibility that the Gospels contain flaws? Are you as content to live with that possibility as you are with the existence of numerous inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts? Or are you not one who believes in the inerrancy of the Gospel accounts?

Bob

Neil’s Response.

Hi Bob,

Actually let me re-repeat my self. In my example there were NO inconsistencies. If you re-read it carefully (and I suggest you do) you’ll see all the stories were correct. Let me say that again. All the facts were correct all the details were correct. Only some emphasized certain parts. For instance some accounts mentioned 2 cars, others only mentioned the car with the 6 year old that died. They said “about 8 years old” which was correct. Some mentioned his brother who was OK, yet others did not mention him. Yet all the accounts were correct. They were not inconsistent since no account says there were no OTHER cars or no brother etc or that he was exactly 8 years old. This is similar in the account of the Gospel. Nobody said there was ONLY 1 angel etc. The overriding facts in the news story were the plane and the child dying. All other events were subsequent to this and thus each witness could choose to mention it or not without any inconsistency. Similarly in the Gospel events on the resurrection for example, the overriding facts are that he died and that he rose. All other events are noted or not, similar to the newspaper accounts when noted they are correct but not necessarily the complete picture. There is no inconsistency nor are there any contradictions – only apparent ones that can be as easily resolved as the SWA flight.

So far the example you gave is not an inconsistency.

Finally let me reiterate. I am NOT I repeat NOT trying to use this to prove the Gospels are accurate. I am only saying that you cannot use that feeble excuse that they don’t match 100% to show that it is a fraud as Charles was claiming. Do not take this blog out of context. I do believe the Gospels are accurate, but I don’t use the contents in this article to prove that.  If you want prove that the Bible is accurate go get and listen to this series: http://reclaimingthemind.org/product/the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels-audio-download/.

Then you can write a rebuttal to it, and if you leave me a comment with the rebuttal, I’d be glad to review it.

I hope that helps.

Neil

I’ve since updated this for clarity and spelling errors etc.

Names have been changed to protect those who would have egg on their faces.

After all that I had yet another blogger still misunderstand my point.

Apparently this reader seemed to keep missing my point in this article. I think that’s because many of skeptics just skim the story without reading it carefully. They may have also gotten confused by the original title of this article. So I renamed the blog to clarify a few things and I thought I’d clarify yet again on the off chance that having 3 clarifications will somehow get noticed by those who are just skimming.

So here is the point again:

  1. My point has NEVER been to show how reporters get things wrong. It has been to show rather how reporters who while getting it RIGHT, may report on a story and either only highlight what they know at the time or what they think is important at the time. In otherwords, partial facts about a story do not prove or invalidate the story or the facts. Nor do they prove that the story was fabricated later. Remember I’m trying to point out how the Gospel writers just wrote what they knew about and what they considered important.
    In this argument it would be silly for me to start accusing reporters of getting the story wrong and use that as the example, because it would imply that the Gospels were wrong too. The Gospels maybe wrong, but the variation on the focus of the report is not a basis for judging accuracy. In fact it helps determine accuracy if all the reports put together never contradict each other, just like the news reports I showed, NONE contradicted each other at all. None! They all merely added and filled out the whole story.
  2. And remember don’t create any strawmen.  I know the Gospels may well have been written 30 years after the events while the news reports were written hours after the events.  But recall, I clearly stated that this argument does NOT attempt to prove the Gospel records are correct. It only shows that you can’t invalidate the Gospels for this issue of alleged contradictions as the atheist Charles was trying to do. Because they are not contradictions but merely a partial but fully correct report of the events. I repeat: I am not trying to prove the Gospels are true. I am only dispensing with that feeble argument that because one Gospel does not mention one detail but the other Gospel does, that does not prove they are wrong. To prove the Gospel is accurate see the links I provided earlier.
  3. Note too that all this DOES indeed reflect what the original complaint was by the Atheist Charles who originally challenged me. His point was that some accounts said that there were 2 angels, some only noted 1, others had the only Mary Magdalene coming to the tomb, vs. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James  vs both Marys and Salome. Note how there were three barriers in the SWA event, but some reports only mentioned 1 of them others mentioned only two of them. All were correct and some of them may have even known about the other barriers but felt them to be inconsequential to the event or perhaps knew that those had already been mentioned.  So John writing perhaps 60 years after the event vs 5-30 for other Gospels may have interviewed Mary Magdalene and knew that Mark and Matthew had already described the other women, so he just focused on Mary Magdalene’s story.

So please remember I’m not using this to prove anything else BUT this point. So stay on task.

And one more time: Remember none of the reports I showed were wrong in any of the reported facts, all the facts were 100% correct, but none were 100% complete (and none will ever be complete because all accounts will be limited in space and reader’s time and interest thus every recorder/reporter/Gospel writer will have to pick and choose with items to report on).

Take a look at the link for a chronology of what probably happened that reconciles most of the issues. The rest we can deal with one by one.

Resurrection Chronology

from http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm

Also see http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/resurrection-chronology specifically.

/by

Is the New Testament Reliable? Even Bart Ehrman Says Yes

UNC Chapel Hill Professor Bart Ehrman has made quite a name for himself as a critic of the New Testament documents.  The conclusions he draws in his popular best-selling book Misquoting Jesus cast doubt on whether we can accurately reconstruct the original New Testament documents. Ehrman appears to be at odds with most New Testament scholars– liberal and conservative– who have long agreed that more than 5,700 Greek manuscripts (many of which you can see here) and over 36,000 quotations from the early church fathers make reconstruction of the original quite certain.  In fact, there are relatively few places of uncertainty in the New Testament text and none of them affect any essential Christian doctrine.

Ehrman only appears to be at odds with this conclusion.  Once you read his academic works and the appendix of the paperback edition of Misquoting Jesus, you’ll get a different story. 

Bart Ehrman was mentored by Bruce Metzger of Princeton University who was the greatest manuscript scholar of the last century.  In 2005, Ehrman helped Metzger update and revise the classic work on the topic– Metzger’s  The Text of the New Testament.

What do Metzger and Ehrman conclude together in that revised work?  Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason writes,

Ehrman and Metzger state in that book that we can have a high degree of confidence that we can reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, the text that is in the Bibles we use, because of the abundance of textual evidence we have to compare.  The variations are largely minor and don’t obscure our ability to construct an accurate text.  The 4th edition of this work was published in 2005 – the same year Ehrman published Misquoting Jesus, which relies on the same body of information and offers no new or different evidence to state the opposite conclusion.

Here’s what Ehrman says in an interview found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.  The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

So why does Ehrman give one impression to the general public and the opposite to the academic world?  Could it be because he can get away with casting doubt on the New Testament to an uninformed public, but not to his academic peers? Does selling books have anything to do with it?  I don’t know.  I just find the contradiction here quite telling– the man who gets all the attention for casting doubt on the text of the Bible, upon further review, doesn’t really doubt it himself.

For those of you that would like a point by point refutation of Misquoting Jesus, click here for a paper by SES Professor Tom Howe.

/by

The Bible: Embarrassing and True (Part 2)

,

Do the New Testament documents tell the truth about what really happened in the first century?  As I wrote in my last column, authors claiming to write history are unlikely to invent embarrassing details about themselves or their heroes.  Since the New Testament documents are filled with embarrassing details, we can be reasonably certain that they are telling the truth.

Notice that the disciples frequently depict themselves as dim wits.  They fail to understand what Jesus is saying several times, and don’t understand what his mission is about until after the resurrection.  Their thick-headedness even earns their leader, Peter, the sternest rebuke from Jesus:  “Get behind me Satan!” (What great press the disciples provided for their leader and first Pope! Contrary to popular opinion, it seems the church really didn’t have editorial control of the scriptures after all.)

After Jesus asks them to stay up and pray with him during his greatest hour of need, the disciples fall asleep on Jesus not once, but twice!  Then, after pledging to be faithful to the end, Peter denies Christ three times, and all but one of them run away.

The scared, scattered, skeptical disciples make no effort to give Jesus a proper burial.  Instead they say a member of the Jewish ruling body that sentenced Jesus to die is the noble one—Joseph of Arimathea buries Jesus in a Jewish tomb (which would have been easy for the Jews to refute if it wasn’t true).  Two days later, while the men are still hiding, the women go down and discover the empty tomb and the risen Jesus.

Who wrote all that down?  Men—some of the men who were characters in the story.  Now if you were part of a group of men trying to pass off a false resurrection story as the truth, would you depict yourselves as dim-witted, bumbling, rebuked, lazy, skeptical sissies, who ran away at the first sign of trouble, while the women were the brave ones who discovered the empty tomb and the risen Jesus?

If men were inventing the resurrection story, it would go more like this:

Jesus came to save the world, and he needed our help.  That’s why we were there for him every step of the way.  When he was in need, we prayed with him.  When he wept, we wept with him (and told him to toughen up!).  When he fell, we carried his cross.  The gates of Hell could not prevent us from seeing his mission through!

So when that turncoat Judas brought the Romans by (we always suspected Judas), and they began to nail Jesus to the cross, we laughed at them.  “He’s God you idiots!  The grave will never keep him! You think you’re solving a problem, but you’re really creating a much bigger one!”

While we assured the women that everything would turn out all right, they couldn’t handle the crucifixion.  Squeamish and afraid, they ran to their homes screaming and hid behind locked doors.

But we men stood steadfast at the foot of the cross, praying for hours until the very end. When Jesus finally took his last breath and the Roman Centurion confessed that Jesus was God, Peter blasted him, “That’s what we told you before you nailed him up there!” (Through this whole thing, the Romans and the Jews just wouldn’t listen!)

Never doubting that Jesus would rise on the third day, Peter announced to the Centurion, “We’ll bury him and be back on Sunday. Now go tell Pilate to put some of your ‘elite’ Roman guards at the tomb to see if you can prevent him from rising from the dead!”  We all laughed and began to dream about Sunday.

That Sunday morning we marched right down to the tomb and tossed those elite Roman guards aside.  Then the stone (that took eleven us to roll into place) rolled away by itself.  A glowing Jesus emerged from tomb, and said, “I knew you’d come! My mission is accomplished.” He praised Peter for his brave leadership and congratulated us on our great faith.  Then we went home and comforted the trembling women.

There are other events in the New Testament documents concerning Jesus that are also unlikely to be made up.  For example, Jesus:

  • Is considered “out of his mind” by his own family who come to seize him to take him home (Mk 3:21,31).
  • Is deserted by many of his followers after he says that followers must eat his flesh and drink his blood. (John 6:66).
  • Is not believed by his own brothers (John 7:5).  (Disbelief turned to belief after the resurrection—ancient historians tell us that Jesus’ brother James died a martyr as the leader of the church in Jerusalem in A.D. 62).
  • Is thought to be a deceiver (John 7:12).
  • Turns off Jewish believers to the point that they want to stone him (John 8:30-59).
  • Is called a “madman” (John 10:20).
  • Is called a “drunkard” (Mt. 11:19).
  • Is called “demon-possessed” (Mk 3:22, Jn 7:20, 8:48).
  • Has his feet wiped with hair of a prostitute which easily could have been seen as a sexual advance (Lk 7:36-39).
  • ·Is crucified despite the fact that “anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse” (Deut 21:23).

If you’re inventing a Messiah to the Jews, you don’t say such things about him.  You also don’t admit that some of you “still doubted” Jesus had really risen from the dead, especially while he’s standing right in front of you giving the great commission (Mt. 28:17-19).

Finally, anyone trying to pass off a false resurrection story as the truth would never say the women were the first witnesses at the tomb.  In the first century, a woman’s testimony was not considered on par with that of a man.  An invented story would say that the men—the brave men—had discovered the empty tomb.  Yet all four gospels say the women were the first witnesses – all this while the sissy-pants men had their doors locked for fear of the Jews.  (After I made this point during a presentation, a lady told me that she knew why Jesus appeared to the women first.  “Why?” I asked.  She said, “Because he wanted to get the story out!”)

In light of these embarrassing details—along with the fact that the New Testament documents contain early, eyewitness testimony for which the writers gave their lives—it takes more faith to believe that the New Testament writers were not telling the truth.

(This column was originally published at www.Townhall.com)

/by

The Bible: Embarrassing and True (Part 1)

,

What are your most embarrassing moments?  You don’t want to admit them. And if you do admit them, you certainly won’t add to your shame by inventing embarrassing moments about yourself to make you look even worse.  Who’s going to lie to make himself look bad?  People will lie to make themselves look good (especially politicians), but no one will lie to make himself look bad.

That’s why when historical accounts contain events embarrassing to the authors (or heroes of the authors) those events are probably true.  Historians call this the principle of embarrassment, and it’s one reason why I think the writers of the Bible are telling the truth.  There are far too many embarrassing details about the supposed heroes of the faith to be invented.

Just take a look at the Old Testament storyline.  There’s little chance the Jews would have invented it.  A story invented by Hebrews would more likely depict the Israelites as a noble and upright people. But the Old Testament writers don’t say this.  Instead they depict their own people as sinful and fickle slaves who, time after time, are miraculously rescued by God, but who abandon him every chance they get.  For example, after witnessing miracle after miracle that frees them from slavery in Egypt, they can’t resist worshiping the Golden Calf when Moses spends a few extra nights on the mountain.  Talk about ungrateful folks with short memories!  (We seem to suffer from this in America too).

The Old Testament writers record a Hebrew history filled with bone-headed disobedience, distrust, and selfishness. Their leaders are all world-class sinners, including Moses (a murderer), Saul (a paranoid egomaniac), David (an adulterer, liar, and murderer), and Solomon (a serial polygamist). These are supposed to be the “chosen people”—the ones through which God brings the Savior of the world?  Yes, and the Old Testament writers admit that the ancestors of this Messiah include deeply sinful characters such as David and Solomon and even a non-Hebrew prostitute named Rahab. This is clearly not an invented storyline!

While the Old Testament tells of one embarrassing gaffe after another, most other ancient historians avoid even mentioning unflattering historical events. For example, there’s been nothing found in the records of Egypt about the Exodus, leading some critics to suggest the event never occurred. But what do the critics expect? Peter Fineman imagines what a press release from Pharaoh might say:

“A spokesman for Rameses the great, Pharaoh of Pharaohs, supreme ruler of Egypt, son of Ra, before whom all tremble in awe blinded by his brilliance, today announced that the man Moses had kicked his royal butt for all the world to see, thus proving that God is Yahweh and the 2,000-year-old-culture of Egypt is a lie. Film at 11:00.”

Of course no press secretary for Pharaoh would admit such an event if he wanted to keep his head!  The Egyptian silence on the Exodus is understandable.

By contrast, when the Egyptians scored a military victory, they went to press and exaggerated greatly. This is apparent from the oldest known reference to Israel outside the Bible. It comes from a granite monument found in the funerary temple of Pharaoh Merneptah in Thebes. The monument boasts about the military victory of the Pharaoh in the highlands of Canaan, claiming that “Israel is laid waste, his seed is not.” Historians date the battle to 1207 B.C., which confirms that Israel was in the land by that time.  We know this account is exaggerated because, as history attests, Israel was not laid waste. Its seed lived on and sprouted into a great empire under David 200 years later.  And its seed lives on to this day more than 3,200 years later.

How does the New Testament measure up to the principle of embarrassment?  While embarrassing testimony is alone not enough to ensure historical reliability—early, eyewitness testimony is also necessary (which the New Testament has)—the principle of embarrassment is even more pronounced in the New Testament.  The people who wrote down much of the New Testament are characters (or friends of characters) in the story, and they often depict themselves an extremely unflattering light.  Their claims are not likely to be invented.

Let’s put it this way: If you and your manly friends were concocting a story that you wanted to pass off as the truth, would you make yourselves look like dim-witted, uncaring, rebuked, doubting cowards who ran away at the first sign of trouble while the women were the brave ones who remained faithful? No way! But that’s exactly what we find in the New Testament.  That’s one reason why I don’t have enough faith to believe that the New Testament tells an invented story.

I’ll highlight some of the New Testament’s more embarrassing details in the next column—even a few details that some could interpret as embarrassing to Jesus.  In the meantime, you can find a cumulative case for God and Christianity in the book from which this column is adapted: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

(This column originally appeared at Townhall.com)

/by
In ancient wall, scholar sees proof for Bible

In ancient wall, scholar sees proof for Bible

,

Back in 1993, archaeologists found an inscription in the Israeli town of Dan bearing the name of the Hebrew King David.  This put to rest the theory that the David of the Bible was just a myth.  Now at least one archaeologist is claiming that Jerusalem was fortified at the time of David lending further credence to the Bible’s account that David was indeed a King. Here is the AP article explaining her findings with the obligatory opinion of someone who disagrees:

 

JERUSALEM – An Israeli archaeologist said Monday that ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon and support the biblical narrative about the era.

If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century B.C.

That’s a key point of dispute among scholars, because it would match the Bible’s account that the Hebrew kings David and Solomon ruled from Jerusalem around that time.

While some Holy Land archaeologists support that version of history — including the archaeologist behind the dig, Eilat Mazar — others posit that David’s monarchy was largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era.

Speaking to reporters at the site Monday, Mazar, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, called her find “the most significant construction we have from First Temple days in Israel.”

“It means that at that time, the 10th century, in Jerusalem there was a regime capable of carrying out such construction,” she said.

Based on what she believes to be the age of the fortifications and their location, she suggested it was built by Solomon, David’s son, and mentioned in the Book of Kings.

The fortifications, including a monumental gatehouse and a 77-yard (70-meter) long section of an ancient wall, are located just outside the present-day walls of Jerusalem’s Old City, next to the holy compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary. According to the Old Testament, it was Solomon who built the first Jewish Temple on the site.

That temple was destroyed by Babylonians, rebuilt, renovated by King Herod 2,000 years ago and then destroyed again by Roman legions in 70 A.D. The compound now houses two important Islamic buildings, the golden-capped Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque.

Archaeologists have excavated the fortifications in the past, first in the 1860s and most recently in the 1980s. But Mazar claimed her dig was the first complete excavation and the first to turn up strong evidence for the wall’s age: a large number of pottery shards, which archaeologists often use to figure out the age of findings.

Aren Maeir, an archaeology professor at Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, said he has yet to see evidence that the fortifications are as old as Mazar claims. There are remains from the 10th century in Jerusalem, he said, but proof of a strong, centralized kingdom at that time remains “tenuous.”

While some see the biblical account of the kingdom of David and Solomon as accurate and others reject it entirely, Maeir said the truth was likely somewhere in the middle.

“There’s a kernel of historicity in the story of the kingdom of David,” he said.

/by