Jesus Archives - Page 7 of 17

Tag Archive for: Jesus

Why It Is A Mistake To Say That All Religions Are The Same

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Every year in America, thousands of crimes occur in which there are no witnesses and very little evidence. Sometimes, the perpetrator leaves behind a fingerprint impression – a latent print -somewhere at the crime scene. In the past, these prints possessed little value in identifying the offender; before a comparison could be conducted, the police would have to already have a known suspect.

Today, law enforcement officers have access to much better technology, in the form of AFIS – the Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Maintained by the FBI, it houses the data for millions of fingerprint impressions, allowing an unknown latent print to be compared to millions of known offenders. In a matter of minutes, the AFIS computer can spit out the top twenty possible matches to the unknown latent print. But this is only the beginning of the analysis because, with only one latent print at the scene, there is but one actual source for the print. A trained analyst must then spend the time examining in fine detail the patterns of each suspect – the whorls and arches and loops, the ridges and furrows – to determine whether an exact match can be made. The top twenty possible matches have much in common, but on further examination, differences will emerge in the ridge pattern and detail until the one actual source can be identified.

So, what does this have to do with the field of apologetics? Just this: living as we are in very pluralistic times, we often encounter people who believe that all religions are basically the same. Examining them superficially, they will see that religions share a number of features; for example, most teach the utility of treating others with respect, of being kind, of helping the poor. So, while acknowledging some differences in doctrines, people who hold this view believe they have arrived at a great truth: there is no one right religion, just people who mistakenly, and sometimes dangerously, think that they have the corner on truth. This leaves them feeling settled, for the moment, as they conclude that no further inquiry is required. Just be kind to others and follow your heart and all will be well. But on closer examination, all they have really done is stopped searching for the truth, for the “source” of the life that has been given to them and the universe that surrounds them.

Like fingerprints, religions can appear on the surface to be identical, or nearly so, when in fact they are not. And to determine where and how they differ requires a rigorous and close inspection. This of course is crucial in a fingerprint analysis because we know that for one print, there can only be one source. No analyst would stop when she narrowed the search to three possible sources because common sense and reason dictate that two of the three – or perhaps all three – must also be excludable on further inquiry. It is the nature of the thing examined.

So too with the knowledge of God. The major world religions make mutually exclusive truth claims about the nature and attributes of God. Do we live and die once, and then face judgment, as Christianity teaches? Or do we undergo a continuous cycle of life, death, and reincarnation? Is there one God consisting of three persons, or are there instead of a single god or a multitude of deities? For one religion to be true, the others cannot be.

It is logically possible, of course, that all religions are false. It is not possible, by contrast, for religions holding contrary positions to all be true. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God who rose from the dead and thereby provides salvation to a fallen world, as Christians claim, or he is not. He cannot be both savior and mere sage at the same time.

Critical and careful analysis of a latent fingerprint can lead to the discovery of the truth as to who left it behind. Making the effort is critical to the pursuit of justice, the importance of which we all intuitively recognize.

But critical and careful analysis can also lead to knowledge of the one God who brought us into existence. When we fail to investigate this question because we mistakenly believe that we already know all we need to know – that is, when we allow ourselves to be misled to believe that all religions are pretty much the same – we may not intuitively realize just how much we are giving up.

After all, what comes next – what awaits each of us at the end of our days here on Earth – is without a doubt the most important question that we must confront. And the sooner we begin that process, the sooner we will find that good and satisfying answers await.

A Reply to Bart Ehrman’s Defense of Jesus, Interrupted on the MythVision Podcast

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Nearly a year ago, I published a series of three articles in which I reviewed sections of Bart Ehrman’s book Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them). If you have not read those articles already, you can find them at the links below:

Why You Should Not Be Intimidated by Bart Ehrman: A Review of Jesus, Interrupted (Part 1)

More Misrepresentations and Distortions by Bart Ehrman: A Review of Jesus, Interrupted (Part 2)

Finding Contradictions Where There Is None: A Review of Jesus, Interrupted (Part 3)

Bart Ehrman was recently interviewed on the atheist MythVision podcast about alleged contradictions in the New Testament. During the course of the discussion, the host Derek Lambert asked Ehrman to comment on my critiques of Jesus, Interrupted (see this time stamp). This is my response to Ehrman’s remarks.

Before I begin my response to Ehrman’s interaction with my comments, I wish to clarify my methodology, since Ehrman misrepresented my views a number of times during the podcast. Indeed, despite confessing to having no prior knowledge of my work, Ehrman apparently felt at liberty to impute to me certain views that I do not in fact hold. In particular, Ehrman insinuated on multiple occasions that I am an inerrantist and a fundamentalist, whereas in reality I am neither an inerrantist, nor a fundamentalist (at least in the sense in which the word is used in popular parlance). I do not believe that it is proper practice to exclude a priori the possibility that the authors of the gospels have made a mistake or that there exists an actual discrepancy between the accounts (see, for instance, this article for a small handful of examples, albeit non-exhaustive, where I think the best explanation is that a gospel author has made a good faith error). Thus, it is not that I think there can be no errors between the gospel accounts. Rather, it is that I do not believe that the vast majority of the examples Ehrman adduces in Jesus, Interrupted are best explained as an actual contradiction, though I remain open to persuasion in principle. With that clarified, I now turn to those examples touched on in Ehrman’s recent interview on the MythVision podcast.

Matthew’s Dual Donkeys

In Jesus, Interrupted, Bart Ehrman makes the popular claim that Matthew has Jesus riding into Jerusalem seated upon two animals. He states on page 50,

In Matthew, Jesus’ disciples procure two animals for him, a donkey and a colt; they spread their garments over the two of them, and Jesus rode into town straddling them both (Matthew 21:7). It’s an odd image, but Matthew made Jesus fulfil the prophecy of Scripture quite literally.

I pointed out in my previous article that this is not the only way to interpret Matthew’s words, and there is in fact a much more charitable interpretation. Here is the text from Matthew 21:7:

They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.

What is the antecedent of “them”? The most plausible antecedent is the cloaks. Matthew is indicating that Jesus sat on the cloaks, not that he sat on both the donkey and the colt.

Bart Ehrman responds by pointing out that the cloaks, according to Matthew, are placed on both animals — that is, both the donkey and the colt. Thus, Ehrman argues, we should understand Jesus to be seated on all of the garments, which are spread across the two animals. However, this is a very uncharitable reading of Matthew. Are we really to think that Matthew envisioned Jesus riding on two animals of different heights like some rodeo showman? If that is really what Matthew meant, surely he would have made himself more explicit, since I doubt that it is the interpretation that Matthew’s original readers would have taken from this verse. It did not even cross my mind until I started reading critical literature on the gospels, despite having read Matthew for years. While the cloaks were placed on the two animals and Jesus is said to have sat on the cloaks, it does not follow that Jesus sat on all of the cloaks. Perhaps there were multiple cloaks on one animal and one cloak on the other.

Furthermore, Ehrman’s interpretation depends on the premise that Matthew misunderstood the Hebrew parallelism, erroneously concluding that Zechariah envisioned two animals instead of just one (Zech 9:9). However, Matthew appears to have been quite conversant in Hebrew. For example, consider this text from Matthew 8:16-17:

16 That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”

Verse 17 quotes from Isaiah 53:4. It is of note that Matthew does not here quote from the Septuagint, which reads, “He himself bore our sins and was pained because of them.” Matthew’s quotation does not even match the Aramaic Targum, which reads, “Then for our sins he will pray and our iniquities will be forgiven because of him.” Instead, Matthew translates the Hebrew quite literally, highlighting how it is fulfilled in Jesus performing miracles of healing. Matthew’s acquaintance with Hebrew thus make it quite unlikely that he would so grossly misunderstand the parallelism in Zechariah.

In my previous article, I had also pointed out that, since the colt never had been ridden, or even sat upon (as stated by Mark and Luke), its dependence upon its mother is very understandable (as implied by Matthew). The host of the podcast, Derek Lambert, represented this remark as asserting that the colt required some kind of “moral support” from its mother (though this phrase was not used by me). Ehrman ridiculed this idea as though it were something ludicrous. But this has in fact been suggested by many scholars who have written on this text. For example, Richard Thomas France, in his commentary on Matthew, writes[1],

Garments serve as improvised saddle-cloths, placed on both animals, but there is no need to understand thereon (literally ‘on top of them’, where ‘them’ could refer as well to the garments as to the donkeys) as meaning that Jesus rode on both animals in turn. The mother was brought to help to control the colt as Jesus rode on it, and both animals were therefore decked appropriately for the festive occasion.

Craig Keener likewise states that “Colts that had not yet been ridden sometimes accompanied their mothers.”[2]

When was the Temple Curtain Torn?

On page 51-52 of Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman discusses the ripping of the temple curtain, which happened as Jesus died. Ehrman writes,

According to Mark’s Gospel, after Jesus breathes his last, the curtain of the Temple is torn in half (15:38)…Luke’s Gospel also indicates that the curtain in the Temple was ripped in half. Oddly enough, it does not rip after Jesus dies but is explicitly said to rip while Jesus is still alive and hanging on the cross (23:45-46).

In my previous review of Ehrman’s arguments, I had pointed out that the Greek conjunction και is temporally non-specific. Although often translated “then” in our English Bibles, a more precise translation would be “and.” It does not necessarily imply that one event happened subsequent to the other.

In response, Ehrman challenged me to produce three examples in Luke’s passion narrative where Luke narrates a sequence of events and uses και but the second event takes place prior to the first. It appears though that Ehrman has misunderstood my argument. I am not saying that Luke intends his readers to understand that the ripping of the temple veil took place after Jesus’ last breath (or that Mark intends his readers to understand that it took place before Jesus’ last breath). Rather, as I noted in my review, the text in both Mark and Luke is consistent with Jesus’ death taking place simultaneously with the ripping of the temple curtain. Could Mark and Luke have been more explicit if that is what they meant? Yes, they could. However, it is quite plausible that Mark and Luke simply did not know the precise sequence of events, knowing only that Jesus had died and that the temple curtain had been observed to have been torn in two, and so they left the precise sequence of events ambiguous.

Jesus’ Miracles in John

The next example Ehrman addresses is my interaction with this alleged discrepancy internal to John’s gospel, which Ehrman discusses on page 8 of Jesus, Interrupted:

Not only are there discrepancies among different books of the Bible, but there are also inconsistencies within some of the books, a problem that historical critics have long ascribed to the fact that Gospel writers used different sources for their accounts, and sometimes these sources, when spliced together, stood at odds with one another. It’s amazing how internal problems like these, if you’re not alerted to them, are so easily passed by when you read the Gospels, but how when someone points them out they seem so obvious. Students often ask me, “Why didn’t I see this before?” For example, in John’s Gospel, Jesus performs his first miracle in chapter 2, when he turns the water into wine (a favorite miracle story on college campuses), and we’re told that “this was the first sign that Jesus did” (John 2:11). Later in that chapter we’re told that Jesus did “many signs” in Jerusalem (John 2:23). And then, in chapter 4, he heals the son of a centurion, and the author says, “This was the second sign that Jesus did” (John 4:54). Huh? One sign, many signs, and then the second sign?

In my previous review of this argument, I pointed out that this objection quickly dissolves upon a closer inspection of the context of these verses. Here are the full verses with the relevant portions highlighted in bold font:

John 2:11– “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee.”
John 2:23– “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing.”
John 4:54– “This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee.”

As can be seen from the above, the first and second signs relate to Jesus’ miracles in Galilee. The many signs between the first and second Galilean signs are performed in Jerusalem.

Ehrman responds by pointing out that whether John contradicts himself depends on how one translates John 4:54. Ehrman proposes that we translate John 4:54 as saying “This is the second sign Jesus did. He did this sign after He came from Cana to Galilee.” Is Ehrman’s proposal a possible interpretation? Yes, it is. But why opt for one possible interpretation over another when the former puts an author into conflict with himself? This is not a charitable way to read literature.

The word ἐλθὼν in John 4:54 is an aorist participle, and I would probably be inclined to translate this verse something along the lines of “Having come from Judea to Galilee, this is the second sign that Jesus did.” However, this translation is quite consistent with my interpretation, namely, that this is the second sign that Jesus performed during his ministry to Galilee. Again, if we have an ambiguous text, the charitable reading is that which comports with what the same author has said elsewhere, not that which puts the author into conflict with his own explicit statements elsewhere.

How Many Women Went to the Tomb?

The next example addressed by Ehrman concerns the identity of the women who visited the tomb on Easter morning. Here is the original quote (p. 48):

Who actually went to the tomb? Was it Mary alone (John 20:1)? Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? Or women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem – possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “other women” (Luke 24:1; see 23:55)?

According to Bart Ehrman, John 20:1 indicates that it was Mary alone who went to the tomb. However, as I pointed out in my earlier article, in verse 2, we read,

So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know (οὐκ οἴδαμεν) where they have laid him.”

The word οἴδαμεν is the first person plural form of οιδα, meaning “to know,” and the word οὐ / οὐκ is an adverb that negates the verb, hence “we do not know.” Thus, Mary’s use of the plural in this verse implies that there were in fact other women who had been present with Mary at the tomb.

Ehrman responds to this observation by noting that my solution does not in fact reconcile the texts, since Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not all say the same thing either. However, Luke indicates explicitly that he has not given us an exhaustive list of the women who were present at the tomb on Easter morning. Luke 24:10 indicates,

Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles.

Given that Luke indicates explicitly that his list is not exhaustive, it is very difficult to see how Ehrman can allege a contradiction in regards to which women were present at the tomb.

Ehrman asks why John does not tell the reader who the other women were? However, it is not at all clear to me why it would have been necessary for John to do so. John spotlights Mary Magdalene because she is the one who ran to inform Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved (very probably the apostle John) about the fact that the body of Jesus was missing. If the fourth gospel is indeed written by John the son of Zebedee (as I maintain), then it would be natural for him to spotlight Mary Magdalene in this role since he was one of the two disciples that Mary Magdalene spoke to following her discovery of the empty tomb.

Ehrman further asks that if one only read through the end of verse 1 of John 20, what would one think had happened so far? Obviously, one would surmise that Mary Magdalene had gone to the tomb. Ehrman’s point here is unclear, however, since John does not stop at verse 1 but includes verse 2 as well. Even if John had not included the subtle allusion to other women in verse 2, it is difficult to see how John contradicts the other gospels since nothing prevents John from spotlighting Mary Magdalene while omitting to mention the other women with her, in particular in view of her role in reporting to Peter and John what she had seen.

Ehrman also argues that an alternative interpretation of the saying “we do not know where they have laid him” is that she had left the tomb and conferred with other people, who likewise did not know where Jesus’ body had been taken. Ehrman objects, “If you want to play that game, you could play it either direction. So, how do we know what one is right?” But this is not how history ought to be done. The reality is that we have not just one biography of Jesus’ life but four biographies, all of which may be shown to be written by individuals who are close up to the facts, well informed, and habitually reliable (see my other articles pertaining to this topic for a detailed discussion of the evidence for this). That being the case, it is legitimate scholarly practice to allow those sources to illuminate and clarify one another, since they are written from multiple perspectives and, although there is evidently a significant level of literary dependence between them (especially the synoptic gospels), there is also information that the authors appear to have independent access to. In the case of interpreting John 20:2, the hypothesis that the others implied in Mary’s statement are the other women at the tomb has a higher prior probability than Ehrman’s proposed interpretation, since we have independent evidence for that scenario, whereas we do not have independent evidence supporting Ehrman’s proposal. Therefore, the interpretation that I offered ought to be the one preferred.

It is also noteworthy that Matthew and Mark appear to be independent of Luke when it comes to the women’s discovery of the empty tomb, as Lydia McGrew has observed.[3] Luke indicates in Luke 8:1-3 that some women followed Jesus from Galilee, including Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager. This detail is confirmed by an undesigned coincidence with Matthew 14:1, since it illuminates how the author of Matthew’s gospel might know what Herod had said to his servants, presumably in the privacy of his palace. The names given in Luke’s list are Mary, Joanna, and Susanna, as well as “many others,” (Lk 8:2-3). Mark, describing the women who were “looking on from a distance” at the crucifixion, lists “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,” (Mk 14:40). These names overlap only partially with those given in Luke 8. There is no mention in Mark of Joanna or Susanna, and Luke does not mention Mary the mother of James or Salome. It does not appear that Luke added the passage in chapter 8 in order to “put” the women in place earlier in Jesus’ ministry and thus fit his narrative together with Matthew and Mark concerning the women at the cross because the names are only partially the same. Luke would have presumably included Mary the mother of James, and Salome, and probably left out Susanna if he had fictionalized the verses in chapter 8 on the basis of Mark’s mention of the women at the cross. Luke himself mentions the women who came from Galilee at the cross and burial (23:49, 55) but does not even name any of them there. Both accounts, therefore, confirm apparently independently that there was a group of women who had begun following Jesus in Galilee and who continued to do so and who helped Jesus in concrete ways (“ministering” or “providing”).

In Luke 24:6-10, the angels tell the women at the empty tomb, “Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee (v. 6).” This makes it clear that these women really were personally with Jesus in Galilee and heard what He said there. When Luke names various women who brought the disciples news of the empty tomb and the message of the angel (24:10), he names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna (and says there were other women as well). Once again, he does not seem to be trying to reproduce his own list from chapter 8, for Mary the mother of James was not in that list, and Susanna isn’t mentioned in 24:10. Nor is he reproducing Mark’s list of women at the cross nor Mark’s list of women who came to the tomb (Mk 16:1), since Salome isn’t included in Luke’s list, and Joanna (who is unique to Luke) is not included in Mark’s list. Luke seems to be listing women whom he really knows were present for the events on Easter morning. Evidently, he is not sure about Susanna’s presence or just does not bother to mention her, and he knows that Mary the mother of James was there on Easter morning even though she is not listed in his chapter 8.

Thus, distant parts of Luke’s own narrative fit together in an apparently casual and non-deliberate way — Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and various other women were with Jesus in Galilee and heard there Jesus’ own prediction concerning His crucifixion and resurrection. They therefore subsequently went with him to Jerusalem and were present for the events of the cross, burial, and empty tomb.

Where was Jesus the Day After His Baptism?

On pages 40 and 41 of Jesus, Interrupted, Bart Ehrman, asks where was Jesus the day after he was baptized? He writes,

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke – the so-called Synoptic Gospels – Jesus, after his baptism, goes off into the wilderness where he will be tempted by the Devil. Mark especially is quite clear about the matter, for he states, after telling of the baptism, that Jesus left “immediately” for the wilderness. What about John? In John there is no account of Jesus being tempted by the Devil in the wilderness. The day after John the Baptist has borne witness to the Spirit descending on Jesus as a dove at baptism (John 1:29-34), he sees Jesus again and declares him to be the Lamb of God (John is explicit, stating that this occurred “the next day”). Jesus then starts gathering his disciples around him (1:35-52) and launches into his public ministry by performing his miracle of turning water into wine. So where was Jesus the next day? It depends on which Gospel you read.

As I pointed out previously, John does not narrate the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist in the Jordan. Rather, John merely says,

And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.

This, then, is not the baptism narrative itself but rather John giving testimony to what had happened on an earlier occasion.

In response to my comments, Ehrman points out that you have to start with John 1:29 where the passage begins. It begins with the phrase “on the next day.” Ehrman notes that the next day is in relationship to the day when John the Baptist was speaking (v. 23). It must therefore be taken to be narrating a sequence of events. There is no disagreement there. However, Ehrman appears to have once again misunderstood the argument. I am not contesting that the “next day” of verse 29 stands in relationship to the day when John the Baptist was speaking. Rather, my point is that it is not at all necessary to take verse 23 as pertaining to the event of Jesus’ baptism itself. Rather, John is alluding to what had taken place on a previous occasion. Thus, there is no need to posit a discrepancy in this text.

Does Acts Contradict Paul Regarding His Visit to Jerusalem?

The next example Ehrman addresses is an alleged discrepancy between Acts and the Pauline corpus. The apostle Paul writes, in Galatians 1:16-20:

I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)

Ehrman writes in Jesus, Interrupted (p. 55),

This emphatic statement that Paul is not lying should give us pause. He is completely clear. He did not consult with others after his conversion, did not see any of the apostles for three years, and even then he did not see any except Cephas (Peter) and Jesus’ brother James. This makes the account found in the book of Acts very interesting indeed. For according to Acts 9, immediately after Paul converted he spent some time in Damascus “with the disciples”, and when he left the city, he headed directly to Jerusalem, where he met with he apostles of Jesus (Acts 9:19-30). On all counts Acts seems to be at odds with Paul. Did he spend time with other Christians immediately (Acts) or not (Paul)? Did he go straight to Jerusalem (Acts) or not (Paul)? Did he meet with the group of apostles (Acts) or just with Peter and James (Paul)?

Here is the key text from Acts 9:23-25:

When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.

How long a period of time is denoted by “…many days…” (literally, “sufficient days” — ἡμέραι ἱκαναί)? I noted in my previous article that in 1 Kings 2:38-39, the expression “many days” in Hebrew is immediately glossed as three years:

38 And Shimei said to the king, “What you say is good; as my lord the king has said, so will your servant do.” So Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days. 39 But it happened at the end of three years that two of Shimei’s servants ran away to Achish, son of Maacah, king of Gath. And when it was told Shimei, “Behold, your servants are in Gath,”

I also noted that, although Luke is silent regarding Paul’s trip to Arabia, this trip may be placed within the “many days” of Acts 9:23. Paul also informs us in Galatians 1:17 that he “returned again to Damascus” — thus, it is not surprising that his subsequent trip to Jerusalem is from Damascus.

Ehrman mistakenly took my argument as having to do with the wording in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (despite the fact that my article had explicitly referred to the wording of the Hebrew text). Ehrman thus objected that the Septuagint is a translation done centuries after the Hebrew text was written, and not written by the author of 1 Kings. Ehrman compared this to translating a verse from the Greek New Testament and then using the translation to prove what the author meant. In fact, the Septuagint text says τρία ἔτη (“three years”), not ἡμέραι ἱκαναί (“many days”), which is what the Hebrew text says (יָמִ֥ים רַבִּֽים). My view is that the expression “many days” was likely an idiomatic expression, meaning a significant period of time of unspecified duration.

The host Derek Lambert noted that Luke uses this same expression when describing Paul’s voyage in Acts 27:7, where he cannot mean a period of three years:

We sailed slowly for a number of days and arrived with difficulty off Cnidus, and as the wind did not allow us to go farther, we sailed under the lee of Crete off Salmone.

However, it is not my position that the expression ἡμέραι ἱκαναί means a period of three years. Rather, the phrase denotes a significant period of time of unspecified duration. It is also an admissible reading of Paul that his sojourn in Arabia was not for three full years but for one complete year and part of two others, and it seems quite difficult to argue strongly that Luke’s use of the expression “many days” cannot denote a period that long.

Could Luke have made himself more explicit? Absolutely, he could. But it is possible that Luke simply did not know precisely how long transpired between Paul arriving in Damascus and his escape from the Jews who plotted to kill him, and so he deliberately chose to utilize a vague expression. Luke may also not have even been aware of Paul’s journey to Arabia, or he may not have considered it of sufficient relevance to include.

Ehrman claims that if three years transpired during those “many days” in Acts 9:23, the chronology of Acts does not work anymore. I would be very interested in hearing Ehrman’s argument for this since I cannot identify any chronological issues that arise on this interpretation.

Ehrman also claims that my approach misses the point of Acts (which says that Paul went to Jerusalem right away to meet with the apostles) and also misses the point of Galatians (which says that Paul did not immediately go to Jerusalem to meet those who were apostles before him). I agree with Ehrman about Paul’s intent in his epistle to the Galatians. I am not convinced by Ehrman’s interpretation of Luke’s intent in Acts, for the reasons stated above.

Does Acts Contradict Paul on the Number of Jerusalem Visits?

According to Jesus, Interrupted, Paul’s own words in Galatians contradicts the book of Acts in regards to the number of visits Paul made to Jerusalem. Ehrman writes on page 57,

According to Paul’s account, [the Jerusalem council] was only the second time he had been to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18; 2:1). According to Acts, it was his third, prolonged trip there (Acts 9, 11, 15). Once again, it appears that the author of Acts has confused some of Paul’s itinerary – possibly intentionally, for his own purposes.

As I noted in my previous article, Galatians does not say that at all. Paul writes in Galatians 1:18-19,

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

That would be Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem following his conversion. In Galatians 2:1, Paul writes,

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.

Where does the text say that this was only Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem? In fact, we learn from Acts 11 that between those two journeys Paul had gone to Jerusalem to bring aid to the saints affected by a famine. There would have been no purpose in Galatians for Paul to have mentioned this trip, as it did not relate to conferring with the apostles about the gospel he was preaching.

Ehrman responds by asserting that, in context, Paul is trying to convey that he did not spend much time in Jerusalem and that he got his gospel from Jesus himself, not the other apostles. Ehrman believes it to be inconceivable that Paul would have gone to Jerusalem and not looked up the apostles. Paul does note in verse 20, referring to the fact that he saw none of the other apostles, except the Lord’s brother James, “In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!” The purpose of Paul’s emphatic statement that he is not lying is probably to underscore the fact that his gospel has not been received second-hand, nor is it subordinate to that of the Jerusalem apostles. The reality, however, is that we simply do not know what interaction, if any, Paul may have had with the Jerusalem apostles in Jerusalem in Acts 11, since Luke does not inform us. To make historical judgments on the basis of what one asserts Paul would have done is to do a priori history. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem seems to have been primarily for the purpose of delivering financial aid to the brothers in Jerusalem, in the wake of the famine that took place during the time of Claudius. For whatever reason, Paul apparently did not think that visit to be worth mentioning in his letter to the Galatians. However, Galatians does not contradict Paul’s letter on this score, and it seems unlikely, given Luke’s track record as a meticulous historian, that he would invent Paul’s journey to Jerusalem to deliver relief to the believers there.

Ehrman also asserts that Paul’s collection was at the end of his life (c.f. Romans 15:25-27), not right at the beginning of his ministry. However, I would argue that there are in fact two instances when Paul delivers financial aid to the saints in Jerusalem. In fact, Acts agrees quite well with the order of travel that we would deduce from the Pauline epistles, on his way to deliver the funds to Jerusalem — even though Acts does not explicitly mention fund-raising as the purpose of Paul’s travels. Indeed, in Acts 19:21, we read, “After all this had happened, Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. ‘After I have been there,’ he said, ‘I must visit Rome also.’” Paul’s intention to visit Rome is also attested to by Paul’s own words in Romans 15:22-28. Furthermore, according to Acts 20:1, Paul left Ephusus, following the riot, and travelled through Macedonia (which coincides with Paul’s traveling through Troas, alluded to in 2 Corinthians 2:12). Acts also indicates that Paul eventually came to Greece, where he resided for three months (Acts 20:3a), and was intending to leave for Syria (Acts 20:3b).

There are independent grounds for thinking that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians towards the end of his Ephesian stay (around Acts 19:22). When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, he was urging the Corinthians to be prepared with their collection (1 Cor 16:1-4). It may also be established that 2 Corinthians was written while Paul was in Macedonia (around Acts 20:1-2). Paul again mentions the collection, which he just picked up from Macedonia, in 2 Corinthians 9:1-5. The epistle to Romans was probably written towards the end of the three months that Paul resided in Greece (Acts 20:3). All of those conclusions about when those letters were written are made on the basis of clues that relate to the collection that Paul was making for the saints in Jerusalem, which is not mentioned by Acts. Acts 20:1-3 also indicates that Paul had to return to Jerusalem overland, following a plot that was made against him (see Acts 20-21 for the details of Paul’s route). Paul eventually arrived in Jerusalem and had a meeting with the Jerusalem elders (Acts 21:17ff). Paul subsequently was taken into Roman custody and imprisoned (Acts 21:27ff). When making his defense before the governor Felix, Paul makes a very indirect reference to the Jerusalem collection: “Now after several years, I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings,” (Acts 24:17). The undesignedness of the allusions to this collection and the itinerary in Acts in fact serves to confirm the account in Acts. William Paley (1743-1805) summarizes the case[4]:

Here therefore, at length, but fetched from three different writings, we have obtained the several circumstances we inquired after, and which the Epistle to the Romans brings together, viz. a contribution in Achaia for the Christians of Jerusalem; a contribution in Macedonia for the same; and an approaching journey of St. Paul to Jerusalem. We have these circumstances—each by some hint in the passage in which it is mentioned, or by the date of the writing in which the passage occurs—fixed to a particular time; and we have that time turning out upon examination, to be in all the same: namely, towards the close of St. Paul’s second visit to the peninsula of Greece. This is an instance of conformity beyond the possibility, I will venture to say, of random writing to produce; I also assert, that it is in the highest degree improbable that it should have been the effect of contrivance and design.

It seems, then, that there were in fact two occasions in which Paul brought a monetary collection to the Jerusalem saints. One of those was a collection received from the disciples in Antioch following the famine during the reign of Claudius and delivered by the hand of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:29-30). The other was received from the churches in Macedonia and Achaia.

The Original Reading of Luke 3:22

Another example Ehrman addresses is my remarks concerning Ehrman’s assertion on pages 39-40 of Jesus, Interrupted that what the voice at Jesus’ baptism said: “depends on which account you read.” Though this was in fact the first example addressed by Ehrman in the podcast, I have saved my response to this one till last, since this one is slightly more technical than the others. In Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman writes,

In Matthew it says, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” The voice appears to be speaking to the people around Jesus, or possibly to John the Baptist, informing them who Jesus is. In Mark, however, the voice says, ‘You are my son, in whom I am well pleased.’ In this case the voice appears to be speaking directly to Jesus, telling him, or confirming to him, who he really is. In Luke, we have something different (this is a bit complicated, because different manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel give the voice different words. I am taking here the original wording of the verse as found in some older manuscripts of the Bible, even though it is not found in most English translations). Here the voice says, “You are my son, today I have begotten you” (3:22), quoting the words of Psalm 2:7).

In my previous article, I noted that the reading “You are my son, today I have begotten you” in Luke, quoting Psalm 2:7, is only found in a single Greek manuscript (although it is also found in several Latin manuscripts and quotations by church fathers). Most textual scholars argue that this is a non-original reading. For instance, Bruce Metzger writes[5],

The Western reading, “This day I have begotten thee,” which was widely current during the first three centuries, appears to be secondary, derived from Ps 2:7.

Ehrman responds by asking me to address his argumentation for favoring this reading in his scholarly book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture[6]. However, it is still problematic that Ehrman fails to inform his readers of Jesus, Interrupted that the reading he gives is very highly contested, and the view that Ehrman takes on this point is fringe. When representing a viewpoint that is considered a fringe position in scholarship to a popular audience, one has a duty, or so I would argue, to disclose to the readers that one is adopting an extremely minority position. Nonetheless, I will offer a brief discussion of Ehrman’s argument here.

Ehrman correctly recognizes that the textual variant in question occurs, in terms of Greek witnesses, only in codex Bezae. Although scholars generally do not take a reading to be original that occurs only in Bezae, in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture Ehrman suggests that “orthodox scribes who could not abide [the text’s] adoptionistic overtones ‘corrected’ it into conformity with the parallel in Mark, ‘You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased’ (Mark 1:11),” (p. 62). Ehrman is of course correct that the reading found in Bezae may have offended later scribes due to its potential adoptionist undertones. However, as Tommy Wasserman notes[7],

…the argument can be turned around: the harmonization to Ps 2:7 in some witnesses may ultimately derive from an apocryphal source (from adoptionistic circles), in which the story was modified to include the full citation of Ps 2:7. As in Matt 3:15, this extra-canonical source affected some corners of the New Testament textual tradition.

In support of his preferred reading, Ehrman notes correctly that attestation can be found in various external sources. Those include Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Methodius, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Ebionites, and the Didascalia. However, the evidential value of those sources in confirming Ehrman’s preferred reading is uncertain, since it is difficult to discern precisely what source(s) these writers were dependent on, and it is plausible that some features of these texts may be derivative from apocryphal sources. For example, the attestation in Justin Martyr may be found in Dialogue with Trypho chapter 88, though that same chapter mentions that, following Jesus’ descent into the water, “a fire was kindled in the Jordan.” Ehrman suggests that there is little doubt that Justin Martyr is alluding to Luke’s account because Justin writes that the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus in the form (εἴδει) of a dove, and this word is unique to Luke (footnote 87; p. 99). Tommy Wasserman, however, argues “that Justin or someone else before him has harmonized several sources to include synoptic as well as apocryphal elements.”[8]

Ehrman’s appeal to Origen as supporting his argument is quite misleading. Here is the relevant text (Orig., Comm. Jo. 1.32):

None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Saviour’s exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” this is spoken to Him by God, with whom all time is to-day, for there is no evening with God, as I consider, and there is no morning, nothing but time that stretches out, along with His unbeginning and unseen life. The day is to-day with Him in which the Son was begotten, and thus the beginning of His birth is not found, as neither is the day of it.

It is not at all obvious that this text is referring to Jesus’ baptism. It could as well be alluding to Hebrews 1:5, which says, “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you?” It could also be alluding to Hebrews 5:5, in which we read, “So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’” It should, however, be admitted that Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Ebionites, and the Didascalia do explicitly connect Psalm 2:7 with Jesus’ baptism.

In regards to transcriptional probabilities, Ehrman notes that both readings can be interpreted as scribal harmonizations — either to Psalm 2:7 or to Mark 1:11 (p. 63). Ehrman suggests that it is more probable that a scribe would harmonize a passage such that it aligns with a parallel gospel account than with an Old Testament text. It is noteworthy, however, that scribal harmonization is a characteristic of Western witnesses, whereas they are found much more infrequently in Alexandrian witnesses. The variant reading under discussion here is primarily attested by Western witnesses. Interestingly, in Acts 13:33, which quotes Psalm 2:7, Bezae expands the quotation to include Psalm 2:8 as well.

Joseph Fitzmyer, in what is perhaps the best academic commentary on the gospel of Luke, notes that[9],

…despite the importance of Codex Bezae, that is not the best-attested reading; moreover, the similarity of wording between the more common reading (sy ei ho huios mou) and the Greek of Ps 2:7 (huios mou ei sy) was more likely the reason why scribes familiar with the Greek Psalter would have substituted this quotation, derived from a psalm often interpreted in the early Christian centuries as “messianic.” If the quotation of Ps 2:7 were authentic, the heavenly voice would be declaring Jesus to be God’s Son, relating him specifically to the royal, Davidic tradition of Israel. This would, indeed, suit Lucan theology in one sense. But it would be the only place in the NT in which Ps 2:7 would be applied to some event in the career of Jesus other than the resurrection. For it is otherwise used only of the risen Christ (see Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5; cf. Rom 1:4).

My own view is that, while Ehrman’s preferred reading does have some plausibility, the balance of probabilities still tends to favor the reading found in the majority of English translations.

I should note at this point that, in their discussion of my remarks concerning this issue in my previous article, the podcast host, Derek Lambert, identified an accidental (but nonetheless important) typographical error in my article. In the quotation from Jesus, Interrupted (reproduced at the beginning of this section), which I had transcribed by hand, I had mistakenly skipped a line. Instead of transcribing Ehrman’s words as “I am taking here the original wording of the verse as found in some older manuscripts of the Bible, even though it is not found in most English translations),” (note the repetition of the word “found”; emphasis mine), my eye had skipped the words between the two “founds”, instead writing “I am taking here the original wording of the verse as found in most English translations).” I regret that I did not catch this while reading through my article before publication and I would like to apologize to Dr. Ehrman for this unfortunate mistake. It has since been corrected. This is in fact a very well documented cause of common scribal errors in ancient manuscripts, known as homeoteleuton (from the Greek, ὁμοιοτέλευτον, meaning “like ending”). Had I read the quotation carefully during proofreading, I would undoubtedly have caught it since it is obvious that Ehrman’s reading is not the one adopted by the majority of English translations. My remarks in the article in which the mistake occurred, however, are based on Ehrman’s original comments, and the typo did not bear on my remarks. I was disappointed with Ehrman’s uncharitable insinuation that this mistake may have been deliberate when it was quite obviously an accidental typographical error.

The Propriety of Harmonization

Although I am not committed to inerrancy as a matter of principle, I am an avid advocate of the practice of harmonization. Sources that have been demonstrated to be substantially reliable constitute evidence for their propositional claims. This is true whether dealing with a religiously significant text or otherwise. Therefore, if one identifies an apparent discrepancy between reliable sources (such as the gospels), the rational course of action is to search for a plausible way in which those texts may be harmonized. Though this practice is typically disavowed in Biblical scholarship, I think the scholarly bias against harmonization is quite unreasonable. I view harmonization as good, responsible scholarly practice, whether one is dealing with religiously significant sources or secular ones. Different sources that intersect in their reportage of a particular event should be allowed to illuminate and clarify one another. I also think that sources that have been otherwise demonstrated to be highly reliable should be given the benefit of the doubt when there is an apparent discrepancy. In my view, in such cases, reasonable harmonizations should be sought for as a first port of call and the author being in error should be concluded only if possible harmonizations are implausible. Lydia McGrew puts this point well[10]:

Harmonization is not an esoteric or religious exercise. Christians studying the Bible should not allow themselves to be bullied by the implication that they are engaging in harmonization only because of their theological commitments and hence are fudging the data for non-scholarly reasons. To the contrary, reliable historical sources can be expected to be harmonizable, and they normally are harmonizable when all the facts are known. Attempting to see how they fit together is an extremely fruitful method to pursue, sometimes even giving rise to connections such as the undesigned coincidences discussed in Hidden in Plain View. This is why I pursue ordinary harmonization between historical sources and why I often conclude that a harmonization is correct.

Readers who are interested in the case for the robust reliability of the gospel accounts are invited to read other articles I have published concerning this topic or listen to this interview.

An important consideration in regards to the assessment of harmonizations, often overlooked, is that the evidential weight of a proposed error or contradiction in Scripture relates not so much to the probability of anyone proposed harmonization but rather to the disjunction of the probabilities associated with each individual candidate harmonization. To take a simplistic example, if one has four harmonizations that each have a 10% probability of being correct, then the evidential weight of the problem is significantly less than if you only had one of those since the disjunction of the relevant probabilities would be 40%. Thus, the text would be only slightly more likely erroneous than not (and inductive arguments for substantial trustworthiness may tip the scales in favor of giving the author the benefit of the doubt). In reality, of course, the math is rather more complicated than this, since one has to consider whether any of the harmonizations are overlapping or would imply one another in such a way that the probabilities cannot be added to each other. Of course, if some of the disjuncts have a very low probability of being correct, then they will not be of much help.

Conclusion

Multiple times throughout the podcast, Ehrman points out that it is possible to make nearly any two contradictory texts harmonize if you try hard enough. This is true, but it is likewise possible to make nearly any two complementary texts contradict if you try hard enough. Ehrman has swung to the extreme that is the polar opposite of the fundamentalist. The great majority of Ehrman’s alleged examples completely disregard the principle of charity and assume the worst when perfectly plausible harmonizations are available. When two ancient sources talk about an event, it is a good scholarly practice to search for plausible harmonizations of points of tension before concluding that the sources in fact conflict with one another (especially when these sources prove to be generally otherwise reliable). For sure, we should not rule out a priori there may be discrepancies in the text. But we also should not assume from the outset that anything that appears at first blush to be in tension with another account must be a discrepancy.

Footnotes

[1] R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 302.

[2] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Mt 21:4–7.

[3] Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 272-282.

[4] William Paley and Edmund Paley, The Works of William Paley, vol. 2 (London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co.; T. Cadell; J. Richardson; Baldwin and Cradock; Hatchard and Son; J. G. & F. Rivington; Whittaker and Co.; Hamilton, Adams & Co.; Simpkin, Marshall, and Co.; Smith, Elder, and Co.; E. Hodgson; B. Fellowes; R. Mackie; J. Templeman; H. Washbourne; Booker and Dolman; J. Parker; J. and J. J. Deighton; G. and J. Robinson, 1838), 323.

[5] Bruce Metzger, A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.). (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 112-113.

[6] Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).

[7] Tommy Wasserman, “Misquoting Manuscripts? The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture Revisited,” in The Making of Christianity — Conflicts, Contacts, and Constructions: Essays in Honor of Bengt Holmberg, ed. Magnus Zetterholm and Samuel Byrskog (Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series 47; Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 2012), pp. 325-50.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I–IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 28, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 485.

[10] Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 53-54.

Resurrection Defense Series: Multiple Source Attestation for the Resurrection of Jesus

CrossExamined

By Brian Chilton

Historians use various methodologies to determine the credibility of a historical story. One criterion is called the “criterion of multiple attestation.”[1] Reginald Fuller calls the criterion the “cross-section method.”[2] The criterion states that a story is authenticated if it is repeated in more than one source. As noted in a previous article, historian Paul Meier indicates that two or three sources render a historical fact “unimpeachable.”[3] Thus, it must be asked, how many early sources mention the resurrection of Jesus? Amazingly, nine early sources speak of the resurrection of Jesus.

Source 1: The Gospel of Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew serves as a source for the resurrection. Critical scholars date the material of the Gospel to AD 70. However, good reasons suggest that the Gospel may have been penned in the 50s. Nonetheless, even if the Gospel was late in its composition, the material undergirding the Gospel was much earlier. According to tradition, the First Gospel was composed by Matthew, the tax collector and disciple of Jesus, in Antioch of Syria. Matthew 28 describes the resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene and her encounter with the angels of God (Matt. 28:1-10), Jesus’s instruction for the disciples to head to Galilee (28:7), the report of the guards to the elders, and their attempt to quiet the soldier’s reports (28:11-15), and the resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee where he commissioned the disciples to the gospel ministry (28:16-28).

Source 2: The Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Mark serves as another early source. While often assigned to the 60s or 70s AD, critical scholars are beginning to ascribe earlier dates to the Second Gospel, some even claiming AD 40 as a possible date for composition.[4] Regardless of the date granted to the Gospel, the sources behind the Gospel are even earlier than the text. Tradition holds that John Mark, the spiritual son of Simon Peter, collected the teachings of Peter concerning Jesus and compiled them into the Second Gospel. Most likely, he published the Gospel in Rome. The 16^th chapter of the Second Gospel has been the center of debate. The earliest manuscripts end the chapter after verse 8. Even still, the first few verses denote Mary Magdalene’s experience, along with a group of female disciples, who approach the tomb of Jesus, find it empty, and are told by the angels of God that Jesus had risen (Mark 16:6). Then, they are told to inform the disciples and Peter that Jesus would meet them in Galilee (16:7). Then, the women are shown fleeing the tomb, astonished and amazed (16:8). Even if the resurrection appearances of Jesus are not described in the first 8 verses, they are certainly assumed. Jesus was proclaimed to have risen and was said to meet the disciples in Galilee. Mark most likely compressed the resurrection story to provide as much information with the limited space available.

Source 3: The Gospel of Luke

The Gospel of Luke serves as a third source. Written most likely in the early 60s, even though some scholars afford it a date in the 70s or even 80s. Despite the date, it must again be remembered that the material behind the Gospel dates earlier than the written text. Tradition states that Luke, an inseparable companion of Paul,[5] wrote the Gospel in Antioch of Syria after carefully examining eyewitness testimonies. Concerning the resurrection of Jesus, Luke describes the women’s encounter with the empty tomb and risen Jesus (Luke 24:1-8), the original disbelief of the disciples (24:9-11), Peter’s run to the tomb, and his amazement with the emptied linen cloths (24:12). Then, Luke reports Jesus’s appearance to Cleopas and another unnamed disciple (perhaps Cleopas’s wife) on the way to Emmaus (24:13-35), Jesus’s appearance to the Twelve (24:36-49), and Jesus’s ascension in the vicinity of Bethany (24:50-53).

Source 4: The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John was the last of the four Gospels to have been written. Conservative scholars argue that the Gospel was written by John the apostle c. AD 85 while he was serving as a pastor to the Church of Ephesus. Ironically, critical scholars are beginning to argue for an earlier date. Regardless of the date, as with the other Gospels, the material behind the Fourth Gospel predates the text itself. The Fourth Gospel is the only Gospel to grant two chapters to the resurrection story. John’s Gospel describes Mary’s trip to the tomb (20:1), her report to Simon Peter and the apostle John (20:2), Peter and John’s trip to the empty tomb and their bewilderment at the emptied linen cloths (20:3-10), Mary’s encounter with the risen Jesus (20:11-18), Jesus’s evening appearance to the Eleven disciples without Thomas (20:19-23), Thomas’s encounter with risen Jesus (20:24-29), John’s report of additional signs that Jesus performed after his resurrection (20:30-31), Jesus’s encounter with the disciples by the Sea of Galilee/Tiberius (21:1-14), the reinstatement of Peter into the ministry (21-15-19), Peter’s question about John’s ministry and Jesus’s rebuke (21:20-23), John’s testimony of authorship (21:24), and John’s testimony of the limitations of the Gospels’ ability to record all the deeds of Jesus (21:25).

Source 5: The Sermon Summaries of Peter

It is agreed by numerous scholars, such as Max Wilcox in his Semitisms of Acts, that the sermon summaries in the book of Acts constitute early material. As the name implies, the messages of the apostles have been summarized and compressed to help with early memorization and transmission. Peter’s summaries are found in Acts 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:5-12; 10:28-47; and 11:4-18. In these powerful messages, Peter boldly proclaimed, “Though he was delivered up according to God’s determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail him to a cross and kill him. God raised him up, ending the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by death” (Acts 2:23-23). Additionally, Peter said, “God has raised this Jesus; we are all witnesses of this” (Acts 2:32). These summaries provide a powerful early source for the resurrection.

Source 6: The Sermon Summaries of Paul

Paul’s sermon summaries also serve as a source even though they are preserved in the same book. Because they originate with a different person, Paul’s messages serve as an additional source. Paul’s sermon summaries are conserved in Acts 13:16-41; 17:22-31; 20:17-35; 22:1-21; 23:1-6; 24:10-21. One of the most compelling of Paul’s sermon summaries is found in Acts 13. Paul proclaims, “When they had carried out all that had been written about him, they took him down from the tree and put him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and he appeared for many days to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people” (Acts 13:29-31). This summary is particularly interesting because it not only describes the resurrection event but also denotes the existence of an empty tomb.

Source 7: The Sermon Summary of Stephen

Stephen was the very first martyr of the Christian Church. He was a man of great wisdom and Spirit (Acts 6:10). Stephen’s message is preserved in Acts 7:1-53 and 7:56. While he does not necessarily mention the resurrection in the larger portion of his message, he confirms the resurrection of Christ before his death as he cries, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:56). For this reason, Stephen’s message can also be used as an early source for the resurrection.

Source 8: The 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 Creed

Scholars hold that the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 dates to no later than two years after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Some even hold that it dates to within months of the resurrection event. The 1 Corinthians 15 creed describes Jesus’s resurrection appearances to Peter, the Twelve, a group of over 500 individuals, James, and Paul. This early creed serves as a powerful source for the resurrection, even affording additional appearances of Jesus not found in the other source material (e.g., the private appearance to Peter, James, and a group of over 500).

Source 9: The Romans 10:9 Confession

Romans 10:9 is believed to be an early confession of the church. It describes the criteria necessary for one to receive salvation. The confession reads, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). The essentials of Christ’s death, deity, and resurrection of preserved in this simple formulation. Romans 10:9 also serves as an additional source for the resurrection event.

Conclusion

Paul Meier holds that two or three sources for an event imply the event is beyond dispute, or unimpeachable. If two or three early sources cause an event to become beyond dispute in antiquity, then what does it say about an event when nine said extant sources denoting the event’s authenticity remain? The sources presented represent early material, in some cases extremely early material, which argues that something mysterious happened to the body of Jesus on the first Easter Sunday. This mysterious resurrection experience transforms every aspect of one’s life when it is accepted as fact. It can bring about a new relationship with God and can provide great comfort when one realizes that death has been defeated. Outside of its miraculous nature—which, quite honestly, is the only reason some people deny its authenticity—there are no good historical reasons for denying the resurrection of the Nazarene. To borrow the phrase from Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, it takes more faith to deny the resurrection of Jesus than to accept its authenticity.

Why Do Some Christians Say “All Sins Are Equally Bad” And “Everyone Is Equally Guilty”?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Wintery Knight

We were having a discussion about whether the Bible teaches that sex before marriage is morally wrong, and someone said “impure thoughts counts as adultery… there isn’t a virgin among us.”

Regarding her point that lust is equal to adultery, and so no one is really a virgin, here’s Ligonier Ministries:

In demonstrating that the seventh commandment was given also to prohibit lust, Jesus is not somehow saying that an unconsummated lustful intent is sinful to the same degree as an actual extramarital affair (though both sins merit punishment). The latter is a more blatant violation of the statute against adultery, and it has greater consequences in the form of divorce and the loss of one’s reputation as a trustworthy person.

Any serious student of the Bible is aware of Jesus’ tendency to exaggerate/use hyperbole.

Also, 1 Corinthians 7 says that wives are not supposed to make a habit of denying their husbands sex. Sex withholding is more of an epidemic today than pornography, and it should also be on the adultery spectrum. It isn’t as bad as adultery, but it definitely breaks the marital covenant.

So why would someone say that lust is the same as adultery and that there is no such thing as a virgin?

Dr. Michael Krueger recently blogged about this “all sins are equal” view.

Krueger says this:

First, to say all sins are the same is to confuse the effect of sin with the heinousness of sin. While all sins are equal in their effect (they separate us from God), they are not all equally heinous.

Second, the Bible differentiates between sins. Some sins are more severe in terms of impact (1 Cor 6:18), in terms of culpability (Rom 1:21-32), and in terms of the judgment warranted (2 Pet 2:17; Mark 9:42; James 3:1).

Krueger explains the motivation behind the slogans:

[S]ome Christians… use this phrase as way to “flatten out” all sins so that they are not distinguishable from each other. Or, to put it another way, this phrase is used to portray all human beings as precisely the same. If all sins are equal, and all people sin, then no one is more holy than anyone else.

In a world fascinated with “equality,” this usage of the phrase is particularly attractive to folks. It allows everyone to be lumped together into a single undifferentiated mass.

Such a move is also useful as a way to prevent particular behaviors from being condemned. If all sins are equal, and everyone is a sinner, then you are not allowed to highlight any particular sin (or sinner).

Needless to say, this usage of the phrase has featured largely in the recent cultural debates over issues like homosexuality. Yes, homosexuality is a sin, some Christians reluctantly concede. But, they argue, all sins are equal in God’s sight and therefore it is no different than anything else. Therefore, Christians ought to stop talking about homosexuality unless they are also willing to talk about impatience, anger, gluttony, and so on.

Krueger also posted this fascinating follow-up post, where he looks at how the phrase is being used by people on Twitter.

Look at these tweets:

All sins are equal. People tend to forget that. There is no bigger or smaller sin. Being gay and lying, very equal.
all sins are equal in God’s eyes. whatever you’re doing, is no better than what someone else is doing.
If you have sex before marriage please don’t come on social media preaching about the wrongs of homosexuality. All sins are equal
Need people to realize that all sins are equal… don’t try to look down on me or question my faith just cuz you sin differently than I do.
Don’t understand why you’re so quick to judge me, when all sins are equal. So much for family..
if you think being gay is a sin, let me ask you something, have you not done anything wrong in your life? all sins are equal. we’re sinners
Nope no difference at all. All sins are equal no matter what you’re running for. The bible says do not judge lest ye be judged
A huge problem I have with religion is the notion that all sins are equal. Like pre-marital sex and murder are the same amount t of bad.
people do bad things because they believe that all sins are equal and ~god~ loves y’all equally so he’s going to forgive you naman ha ha ha
It a sin to condemn another sinner and their actions. All sins are equal. So what makes you better than the person you’re condemning?
I think so b/c having sex before marriage doesn’t make you less of a women then if you waited until marriage.. all sins are equal soo
a friendly reminder, all sins are equal in god’s eyes so you’re not better than I am in any way. please worry about your own sins before mine.
People don’t like when I suggest abortion as an option. This is a free country and all sins are equal so mind your business!!!
What I do is no worse than what you do… all sins are equal no matter what it is… a sin is a sin
to god all sins are equal so you have no right to compare your sins to someone else’s bc in the end it doesn’t matter

The first thing that I noticed is that premarital sex and homosexuality are the most popular sins. I would think that divorce and abortion would be up there in the rankings, as well.

People want to be free to follow their hearts when seeking pleasure, then quote the Bible (badly) afterward, to attack anyone who says that anything they’ve done is morally wrong. They would rather escape the judgment of their peers than admit fault and try to fix the mistake and do better next time. And they would rather tell people who are hurting themselves by breaking the rules that there are no rules. It makes them feel good to “not judge” – they feel as if they are being kind. Their compassion looks good to non-Christians. And they’re promoting moral relativism which, when it becomes widespread, prevents anyone from judging them.

It’s so bad now, that the people who have morals and who make moral judgments are seen as the real bad people. The immoral people are on the offense, and even trying to ban people from being able to disagree with them.

UK Police Arrest 71-Year-Old Pastor For Defining Marriage The Way Jesus Defined Marriage

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

I think it’s important for American Christians to learn lessons about what happens to religious liberty by looking at what happens to Christians in other times and places when Democrats (secular leftists) take power. This time, let’s look at a story from the UK, which has been on a 30-year-run into far-left socialism. They’ve embraced atheism, feminism, and socialism. Here’s the result.

The UK Daily Mail reports:

A Christian pastor who was arrested after he preached from the Bible said yesterday he had been treated ‘shamefully’.

John Sherwood, 71, was led away in handcuffs, questioned in a police station and held overnight after being accused of making homophobic comments outside Uxbridge Station in west London.

The grandfather claimed he was left bruised after police pulled him from a mini-stepladder he was using and cuffed his hands behind his back.

Police said they had received complaints the man had been making ‘allegedly homophobic comments’ and arrested him under the Public Order Act, which can be used under the vague proviso that someone is using ‘abusive or insulting words’ that cause ‘harm’ to someone else.

[…]Mr Sherwood, a pastor for 35 years, said: ‘I wasn’t making any homophobic comments, I was just defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. I was only saying what the Bible says – I wasn’t wanting to hurt anyone or cause offence.

‘I was doing what my job description says, which is to preach the gospel in open air as well as in a church building.

‘When the police approached me, I explained that I was exercising my religious liberty and my conscience. I was forcibly pulled down from the steps and suffered some injury to my wrist and to my elbow. I do believe I was treated shamefully. It should never have happened.’

Mr Sherwood, who preaches at an independent evangelical church in north London, was arrested under the Public Order Act for allegedly causing alarm or distress.

Before we go too far, let’s just settle the question of what Bible-believing Christians should believe about the definition of marriage.

Matthew 19:1-6:

1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.

2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”

4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

To be a Christian, minimally, is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. That means that we accept what Jesus teaches, on whatever he teaches about. We don’t overturn the teachings of Jesus in order to make people who are rebelling against God feel better about their rebellion. It is central to the Christian worldview that Christians care more about what God thinks of them than what non-Christians think of them. In fact, Christians are supposed to be willing to endure suffering rather than side with non-Christians against God’s authority.

Matt Walsh had a fine article about this issue.

He said:

As Christians, our goal is not to avoid being like the big bad “other Christians,” but to strive to be like Christ Himself. This is one of the advantages to having an Incarnate God. He went around acting and speaking and teaching and generally functioning in our realm, thereby giving us a model to follow. This is the model of a loving and merciful man, and also a man of perfect virtue who fought against the forces of evil, condemned sin, defended his Father in Heaven with sometimes violent force, spoke truth, and eventually laid down His life for those He loved (which would be all of us).

[…]This is what it means to believe in Christ. Not just to believe that He existed, but to believe that Christ is Truth itself, and that everything He said and did was totally and absolutely and irreversibly true forever and always. Many Christians today — not only the ones in the video, but millions alongside them — seem to think we can rightly claim to have “faith” in Jesus or a “relationship” with Him while still categorically denying much of His Word. This is a ridiculous proposition. We can’t declare, in one breath, that Christ is Lord, and in the next suggest that maybe God got it wrong on this or that point. Well, we can make that declaration, but we expose our belief as fraudulent and self-serving. We worship a God we either invented in our heads, which is a false idol, or a God who is fallible, which is a false idol.

If you really accept Jesus as God, then you can’t think he is wrong when he explains what marriage is. Period. End of issue. And yet today, so many church-attending Christians are anxious to change the definition of marriage so that non-Christians will like them.

Why are some church-attending Christians so progressive?

So, I have quite a few evangelical Christian acquaintances who think they are Christians because they got married, had kids, and attend church. You know. They’re “Christians” culturally. But instead of thinking about what policies are supported by the Bible, all their policy-deciding is done for them by NPR, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc. That’s because they want to appear “smart” to non-Christians. And having to read books on your own by people like Thomas Sowell (economics), Heather Mac Donald (crime), Douglas Murray (immigration), John Lott (self-defense), Christopher Kaczor (abortion), Ryan T. Anderson (marriage), etc. is just TOO MUCH WORK. Reading is hard. It makes churchy Christians feel bad. Much better to watch Star Wars / Ellen and read fantasy/romance novels and buy video games/handbags.

The point of having political views, they say, is to look smart and good to others. Not to promote policies that are consistent with the Bible, or that allow Christians to act consistently with the Bible. So you get church-attending Christians voting against the small government, free speech, religious liberty, the rule of law, private property, school choice, etc. because forming beliefs by consuming secular left radio and TV is easier than reading.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/dbYqTMe

May 17, 2021/by Guest

Can Jesus’ Story Still Surprise You?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

History shows that prudence and wisdom are rarely on the side of new ways of looking at Scripture. This is especially true of the “progressive” bent toward remaking Jesus in a postmodern image. So, when I first heard about Tom Gilson’s new book, Too Good To Be False, I have to admit I was confused. Gilson is a solid Christian thinker. But the back cover of his book told me that “Christians reading [it] will encounter Jesus in fresh, worshipful new ways.” Had he gone to the dark side? Ten pages in my fears were allayed. It turns out Jesus’ story can still surprise you. Gilson’s book is not a new interpretation of Jesus. It’s a challenge to see ancient words with fresh eyes. And the picture he paints is astonishing.

Would You Hire This Guy?

Imagine receiving a memo from someone you work with. Its purpose is to introduce an individual he wants you to consider for a job opening you have in your office. In the memo, he describes the candidate as someone who never learns from experience, certainly not from his own mistakes. In fact, he’s never admitted to making a mistake. His leadership skills haven’t improved in the least. He shows no sign of character growth. When you ask him questions, he rarely gives you a straight answer. In his view, you can disagree with him, but that would just make you wrong. And he commands those who work with him to do things his way without exception (51-52).

Would you hire him? Or would you ask yourself, “Who does this guy think he is?”

That’s Jesus as you’ve probably never thought of him before.

Fall On Your Face

The insights in Too Good To Be False are not based on rethinking Jesus’ doctrines or deity. Quite the opposite. They are reminders that we are too used to the populist Jesus we’ve all been encouraged to befriend. When you focus on what he actually said and did, there is no temptation to punch Jesus in the shoulder and laugh. Instead, you are overwhelmed with the urge to fall down on your face and worship him. Yet, he invites you into his circle of trust anyway.

The real Jesus is a leader unlike any the world has ever seen. He speaks and acts with authority, confidence, and power. But he never misuses that power. He never even uses it to his own advantage. Instead, he directs that power toward loving others. He commands respect. And he is always the smartest person in the room.

The combination of these character traits describes a man who cannot be of this world. He’s unlike anyone any of us has ever met or even heard about. And while it’s tempting to say that makes him too good to be true, history tells us differently. The facts are more compelling. They make him too good to be false.

A Novel Character

Jesus’ persona is so outrageously superior it demands an explanation. After all, he’s the most memorable character ever created. And that could make it tempting to write him off as the invention of someone’s very fertile imagination. But you don’t have that option. Dismissing the Jesus of the Gospels that way would be tantamount to subscribing to the most outrageous conspiracy theory in human history. A coordinated forgery made by multiple authors all possessed of the same fanciful delusion. But it’s even worse than that.

To hear the skeptics tell it, this Jesus story is some grand version of the Telephone Game. It got invented, embellished, retold, and passed down through multiple storytellers in various locations. Yet, somehow, the legendary character this process created turns out to be exactly the same guy everywhere we look. He lives in all four Gospels (five if you join the ones who invoke ‘Q’). Somehow, this scrambled mess “produced a greater miracle than the resurrection: the greatest story of all time, with the greatest character in all literature, presenting moral teaching that’s changed every civilization it’s touched for the better.” (133)

Quite a miracle indeed.

Confronting The Skeptics

The usual skeptics won’t take this lying down, of course. But Tom Gilson has been engaging them and their ideas on his Thinking Christian blog since 2004. He’s heard all of their arguments hundreds of times. So, when it comes to handling objections to his thesis, he does so with style, grace, and simplicity. They’re all there — Dawkins, Spong, Aslan, Ehrman, Carrier, Price, Armstrong, Hitchens, and others — and Gilson acknowledges their points. But instead of trying to cut down each tree, he focuses on the forest. Jesus of Nazareth is a character no one could make up.

There are ways to respond to the details of the so-called Gospel “contradictions.” But some skeptics just refuse to recognize them as simple differences in point-of-view. It’s tempting to feel compelled to explain why Jesus didn’t talk about today’s hot-button moral and social issues. They don’t care that, throughout history, the solution to every moral dilemma has come through the actions of Jesus’ followers. We’ve heard the bluster about how Jesus “became God” (Ehrman) or how he was simply another rehashed legend (Dawkins, Armstrong). We’ve even been told that he didn’t really exist at all (Carrier). None of these gets to the heart of the problem.

With all the corruption and shenanigans entailed in passing down a made-up legend, how could the Synoptic authors have pulled it off? How could they have each arrived at the same God-man Jesus when the Telephone Game hadn’t had time to invent his deity before they wrote their Gospels?

The Jesus We Take For Granted

Jesus was a media influencer before it was cool. But what made him popular with those who knew him best also made him notorious with the political and religious leaders of his day. Nobody likes a guy who thinks he’s God incarnate. People like that need to be eliminated. But when those same people reappear shortly thereafter, those who tried to eliminate them know they’ve got a real problem on their hands.

It’s only happened once.

Today, the most vehement opponents of Christianity still invoke his name. They do so to try to expose the “hypocrisy” of modern Christians. But when they do, they’re making Tom Gilson’s point. Even they admire the one character in human history who “no author, no poet and no playwright has ever devised … a character of perfect power and perfect love like Jesus” (126).

He is the standard by which every other character is measured. Too loving to be a liar. Too compelling to be a lunatic. He only leaves us one choice. And Too Good To Be False reminds us that it is a choice we have too often taken for granted.

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? A Historian, an Atheist, a Skeptic, a Theologian, and an Ex-Con Weigh In

CrossExamined

By Alisa Childers

It’s that time of year again—the time when Christians come together to celebrate the pinnacle of our faith, the resurrection of Jesus. It’s also the time when news outlets like Time, the Discovery Channel, and Newsweek unleash their skepticism about Christianity, the Bible, and the resurrection. It can be confusing to wade through the various historical evidences, personal beliefs, and opinions floating around in scholarship and the blogosphere. Here are quotes from several sources who all have unique qualifications and an interesting take on the evidence:

1. The Historian

Gary Habermas is an American historian, and the Distinguished Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy at Liberty University. He is considered to be one of the foremost scholars on the resurrection of Jesus. While researching the resurrection, he combed through the works of both secular and Christian scholars. He wrote:

I recently completed an overview of more than 1,400 sources on the resurrection of Jesus published since 1975. I studied and catalogued about 650 of these texts in English, German, and French. Some of the results of this study are certainly intriguing. For example, perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. A critic may claim that what they saw were hallucinations or visions, but he does not deny that they actually experienced something.[1]

There is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus’ resurrection that, subsequent to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his disciples really believed that he appeared to them risen from the dead.[2]

2. The Atheist

Gerd Ludemann is a German New Testament scholar, historian, and atheist. He was once a professing Christian, but walked away from his faith when he became convinced that very little of what is contained in the New Testament is historically reliable. Even so, he wrote:

It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.[3]

3. The Skeptic

Bart Ehrman is the Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is one of the most respected scholars in the field of New Testament studies—and he is agnostic. About the resurrection of Jesus, he wrote:

Historians, of course, have no difficulty speaking about the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, since this is a matter of public record. It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the Apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death. Thus, for the historian, Christianity begins after the death of Jesus, not with the resurrection itself, but with the belief in the resurrection.[4]

In a recent blog post he wrote:

The most important thing to stress is that there are two historical realities that simply cannot be denied. The followers of Jesus did claim that Jesus came back to life. If they had not claimed that, we would not have Christianity. So they did claim it. Moreover, they did claim that they knew he rose precisely because some of them saw him alive again afterward. No one can doubt that.[5]

4. The Theologian

The type of historical evidence above caused leading New Testament scholar, historian, and theologian N.T. Wright to conclude:

As a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.[6]

5. The Ex-con

Charles Colson, who once served as Special Counsel to President Richard Nixon, famously went to prison for his involvement in the Watergate scandal in the early 70’s. He became a Christian in 1973, largely due to the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. One detail regarding Watergate was similar to the resurrection: in both cases, 12 men claimed something that would affect world history. In the case of Watergate, it only took two weeks for them to crack under pressure:

The real cover-up, the lie, could only be held together for two weeks, and then everybody else jumped ship in order to save themselves. Now, the fact is that all that those around the President were facing was embarrassment, maybe prison. Nobody’s life was at stake.

But what about the disciples? Twelve powerless men, peasants really, were facing not just embarrassment or political disgrace, but beatings, stonings, execution. Every single one of the disciples insisted, to their dying breaths, that they had physically seen Jesus bodily raised from the dead. Don’t you think that one of those apostles would have cracked before being beheaded or stoned? That one of them would have made a deal with the authorities? None did.

Jesus is Lord: That’s the thrilling message of Easter. And it’s an historic fact, one convincingly established by the evidence—and one you can bet your life upon. Go ahead researchers—dig up all the old graves you want. You won’t change a thing. He has risen.[7]

Even the atheists and skeptics confirm that Jesus’ disciples claimed and believed that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. History tells us that they were willing to suffer and die for that belief. It’s reasonable to confidently agree with what the church has affirmed over the centuries—”Christ is risen. He is risen indeed!”[8]

References:

[1] Gary R. Habermas & Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2004) p. 60 (Emphasis mine)

[2] Ibid., p. 49

[3] Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) p. 80

[4] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 2004) p. 234 (Emphasis mine)

[5] Bart Ehrman, “Questions on the Resurrection and My Personal Spiritual Experiences: Readers’ Mailbag” www.ehrmanblog.org, March 24, 2017, accessed April 6, 2017

[6] N.T. Wright, “The New Unimproved Jesus,” Christianity Today (September 13, 1993), p. 26 (Cited by William Lane Craig, “The Resurrection of Jesus” www.reasonablefaith.org, accessed April 6, 2017)

[7] Charles Colson, “An Unholy Hoax?” www.epm.org, March 29, 2002, accessed April 6, 2017.

[8] John 11:25-26

Resurrection Defense Series: Early Eyewitness Testimony and the Failure of Hallucinations to Account for Them

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Regardless of whether an event is recent or of antiquity, the researched event holds greater historical probability if it holds a higher number of eyewitnesses. The more eyes on the event, the greater chance the historian has in understanding what transpired. When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, numerous individuals encountered the risen Jesus in a variety of locations and over the course of 40 days (Acts 1:3). The number of witnesses is recorded in an early creed which is accepted by even critical scholars. Even Bart Ehrman, Rudolf Bultmann, and Gerd Ludemann—individuals who are highly skeptical of biblical claims—accept the credibility of the early NT creeds, which includes 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 (Bultmann, NTT, 42; Ehrman, Forged, 92-93; Ludemann, Paulus, 142). The creed of 1 Corinthians 15 represents material that Paul obtained from the early Christian leaders in Jerusalem when he met with them a few years after his conversion. NT scholar Luke Timothy Johnson notes that “the most critical historian can affirm without hesitation. Can anyone doubt, for example … a meeting between Paul and the Jerusalem Church leadership concerning the legitimacy of the gentile mission” (Johnson, Real Jesus, 103)? How many witnesses are listed in the earliest material? Furthermore, is it possible that the groups of individuals listed could have had a hallucination?

The Early Witnesses

Examining the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, the following individuals are listed: Peter, as noted by his Aramaic name Cephas; the twelve disciples; over five hundred believers; James the brother of Jesus; and Paul. Thus far, the number is up to 514. The Gospels note that the women also served as eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus which included Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, and other unnamed women (Luke 24:10). This adds at least 5 witnesses. If Mary the mother of Jesus is not the same as Mary the mother of James, one could assuredly add her to the list. If Jesus appeared to James and the other disciples, he certainly would have appeared to his mother also. Thus, an additional person could be added making 6 people added to the running tally equaling 520. Luke also adds Cleopas and another disciple, perhaps his wife, to the list of witnesses when they met Jesus on the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:18-35). The additional two witnesses increase the total to 522. Matthew and Luke add two other times when numerous witnesses saw the risen Jesus at the same time. Matthew 28 denotes an occasion where the risen Jesus taught a large crowd in Galilee when he provided the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20) While the eleven disciples are mentioned, the text leaves open the possibility that Jesus communicates to a group as he notes that some among them doubted. In Acts, Luke records the ascension of the risen Jesus which was encountered by a large group that witnessed his ascension from the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem. Given that this was a public event, many others may have seen Jesus. While 521 are specifically identified and the addition of Mary the mother of Jesus making the number 522, it is possible that the NT could refer to over a thousand people witnessing the risen Jesus given the possibility that 1) women may not be included in the 500 number in 1 Corinthians 15, and 2) that large groups of an unidentifiable number witnessed Jesus on separate occasions. Given that Jesus had previously ordained 70 to go out two-by-two, most assuredly they would have seen the risen Jesus as well if they were not included in the previous lists.

Impossibility of the Hallucination Theory to Explain

As noted, the NT provides solid reasons for believing that numerous people witnessed Jesus over a span of 40 days. However, the skeptic will counter by saying that the disciples merely had a hallucination which led them to believe that Jesus had risen. The hallucination theory fails on several accounts.

The disciples do not hold the traits of those who hallucinate. Those who hallucinate are either induced by drugs, have a mental illness, or are deprived. However, none of the disciples exhibited these characteristics.
The empty tomb does not permit the hallucination theory as an acceptable alternative. All that would be necessary would be the presentation of the dead body of Jesus, but this never happened. The tomb was still found empty in Jerusalem.
The resurrection appearances occurred in different places and by different means (e.g., some occurred indoors while others occurred outdoors, some occurred while standing while others appeared while seated). The disciples would not be in the proper frame of mind for a mass hallucination.
Hallucinations do not normally stop suddenly. Yet the resurrection appearances stopped after 40 days.
The disciples were not anticipating a resurrection event. Thus, the hallucination would have made no sense to the disciples.
Some of the disciples physically touched Jesus (Luke 24:38-40; John 20:24-25) which debunks the possibility of a hallucination.
Hallucinations are individualized events that occur internally and cannot occur in groups. Illusions can occur in groups, hallucinations cannot.
Hallucinations do not account for the enemies of Jesus (i.e., James and John) becoming disciples. If they were hallucinating, they would not have been transformed by the experience. Additionally, the empty tomb would have further debunked the experience.
Hallucinations are relatively rare. As such, they cannot account for the numerous individuals who had the experiences.
Even with people who have drug-induced hallucinations, the person can normally tell that a hallucination is a falsified event compared to items known to be real.

Conclusion

The numerous eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus cannot be attributed to hallucinations or even the development of legendary material. It is believed that the early creeds, including 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 could date to as early as a few months after the resurrection of Jesus and no later than AD 35. The evidence is so strong that early eyewitnesses encountered something that transformed them that it is included in Gary Habermas’s minimal facts. Habermas’s list of minimal facts is data concerning Jesus that are held to over 90% of scholarship, both progressive and conservative alike. Not only this, Richard Bauckham notes given the early nature of the NT creeds that “The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology” (Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, x). Therefore, neither legendary material nor hallucinations account for these eyewitness encounters. The best interpretation is that Jesus literally rose from the dead and appeared to the numerous individuals who encountered him. These resurrection encounters transformed the witnesses to the point that they were willing to die for what they knew to be true—that Jesus has indeed risen!

Sources

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.

Bultmann, Rudolf. New Testament Theology. Volume One. New York: Charles Sribner’s Sons, 1951.

Ehrman, Bart. Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. New York: Harper One, 2011.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus. San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1996.

Lüdemann, Gerd. Paulus, der Grunder des Christentums. Lüneburg: zu Klampen, 2001.

Christians Must Care Less about Our Cultural Reputation

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

Never have I written an article title that sounds less intuitive. Don’t we need to be concerned about our witness to the world? Isn’t that implied in the Great Commission? Shouldn’t people see us and want to follow Jesus because of our reputation?

Stick with me here, because this requires some nuance and it’s really important.

The idea that Christians need to fix a growing reputation problem in our society is becoming increasingly common in conversations on social media and even in articles by well-known Christian leaders. Comments like “The world is watching…” or “We’re damaging our witness by…” often warn believers to modify what we say or do so culture will think differently about us. The assumption is that we’ve collectively gone wrong in recent months (or years), and now we’ve got to quickly do something about it…before the world thinks even worse of us.

I would agree that Christians (and Christianity in general) are increasingly being seen in a negative light by nonbelievers. But I think we need to be extremely careful in how we assess and respond to that fact.

Our cultural reputation is not necessarily a measure of how faithfully we’re living out our calling as Christians.

If we treat it as such, we’re going to end up fixing the wrong problems.

What Makes a Reputation?

By definition, a reputation is “the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.” This implies that a reputation involves the words and actions of two parties:

What party one says or does
What party two thinks party one says or does, and how they evaluate that

This is where things get tricky. If your reputation is negative in some way with another party, it could:

be deserved (based on what you’ve said or done);
be a mistranslation between what you’ve said or done and what the other party thinks you’ve said or done; or
be a negative evaluation of what you’ve said or done, even when accurately understood.

When we consider the layers involved here, we can better understand why our reputation—what people think of us—is less important than we might assume.

When a Negative Reputation is Deserved

I follow a number of atheist authors and organizations on Facebook to see what’s important to them and how they talk about various issues. One thing I’ve noticed over years of doing this is that they focus more on highlighting the worst examples of Christianity than on anything else. One example that quickly comes to mind is Westboro Baptist Church, known for protests featuring signs proclaiming that “God hates fags.”

This is horrendous.

God loves everyone, even if he hates sin. And to use such derogatory language reveals a misplaced motivation for why they do what they do. Such tactics are rooted in contempt, not in love for bringing people into a saving relationship with Jesus.

If someone pointed out this example as something that gives Christians a bad reputation, I would say, “Yes, it absolutely does.” This isn’t consistent with the Bible at all. It would be extremely unfortunate for anyone to judge the truth and/or goodness of Christianity as a whole based on individual examples like this, but the reality is that they do. While we may think this kind of extrapolation is unfair (“Westboro doesn’t represent Christianity!”), we have to recognize that our culture has a very poor understanding of biblical Christianity and will come to faulty conclusions because of it.

It’s not just extreme examples like Westboro that give Christians a bad reputation, of course. There are plenty of Christians engaging in conversations that could hardly be described as bringing glory to God. The tone we use, the approach we take, and the words we share can do even more damage to the Christian “reputation” than the Westboros of the world because firsthand interactions often leave a more lasting impact.

This aspect of reputation is what we should care deeply about because it’s what we have control over—the integrity of our witness. As Paul says in Philippians 1:27, “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.”

In all we do, we should stay obsessively focused on that question: Is my conduct worthy of the name of the Lord?

When There’s a Mistranslation

In a lengthy Instagram post this week, singer Demi Lovato detailed why gender reveal parties are “transphobic.” Lovato says:

“It’s both insincere and incorrect to pretend that gender reveal parties are not transphobic… Transphobia is not just about prejudice against individual trans people, it’s also a way of thinking that understands non-trans people as more natural/organic and erases everyone else.”

Yes, having a party to announce your baby’s gender now means you’re afraid of people who struggle with gender dysphoria and want to “erase” them.

For Christians, it’s nothing new to be called homophobic or transphobic because of a belief that biblical marriage is between a man and woman or that God created two genders. But to characterize these beliefs as “phobic” (a fear) is a mistranslation; saying that God has a sexual and marital design for humans isn’t to be afraid of anything. It’s to believe that God has revealed his will and purposes for humanity in the Bible and that popular moral consensus on these issues conflicts with that revelation. It simply doesn’t follow that these beliefs imply hatred or fear, yet society continually labels them as such. The result? Christians often have a reputation for being homophobic or transphobic.

No one wants to be known as hateful or fearful, so what do we do with that?

Here’s where the problematic responses come into the picture.

Christians are increasingly on a crusade to save us from this reputation—not by working to correct the misunderstanding that moral disagreement equals hate, but by refusing to speak up or by changing their view to match that of society. I experience this all the time when I post articles about hot cultural topics on my Facebook author page. There are always Christians who comment that it gives others a negative impression of us when we speak out on certain subjects (even when we do so graciously), or who comment that the traditional view is wrong in the first place.

Silence or agreement may improve our cultural reputation with non-believers, but it’s fixing the wrong problem.

In our silence, we fail to be the salt and light we’re called to be.

In our agreement, we fail to be faithful to God’s Word.

In fixing our “reputation,” we break our integrity.

When There’s Accurate Understanding with Negative Evaluation

Russell Moore, President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, has written often in recent months about his concern for the church’s witness, particularly in the area of politics.

In his widely shared article, “The Gospel in a Democracy Under Assault,” Moore wrote that Christians need to be “people of truth.” What does that entail? He explains:

“It will take decades to rebuild from the wreckage in this country. But, as Christians, we can start now—just by not being afraid to say what is objectively the truth. Joe Biden has been elected president. Millions of babies are being aborted. The pandemic is real. So is racial injustice—both personal and systemic. So is the sexual abuse of women and children. If Christians are people of truth, we ought to be the first to acknowledge reality.”

In a backhanded way, Moore is suggesting that Christians are guilty of damaging our witness because we’ve collectively been denying the “realities” on his truth list. The implication is that we need to be known for agreeing with these statements if we have any hope of salvaging our credibility.

But some of these so-called truths we’re all supposed to acknowledge are grossly oversimplified.

For example, I’ve never seen a single person suggest that the pandemic doesn’t exist. Everyone knows it’s real, but Christians have varied views on its relative risk, issues surrounding freedom to worship, and the tradeoff between health risk and economics. If culture accurately understands that many Christians are concerned about the freedom to worship even in a pandemic but evaluates that negatively (an example of the third type of reputation issue), that’s not necessarily something we can or should fix. The world doesn’t like it, but sometimes we have to be just fine with that.

Similarly, Moore says that we all must acknowledge the reality of systemic racism. But systemic racism is a loaded term that has a very specific meaning today—it’s the idea that racism is baked into the very structure of our society, and any disparity in outcomes between people is due to oppressive social structures. There are many Christians who would not agree with Moore that this is a “truth” we should be lining up behind in order to salvage our cultural credibility. Again, if culture evaluates Christians negatively for not buying into the idea that disparate outcomes are necessarily the product of racist social structures, we can’t necessarily fix that reputation “problem.” The world will simply not always think well of us for what we believe or what we don’t.

Ironically, Moore himself is adding to the very reputation issue he is concerned about by suggesting to the watching world that Christians have thought or done wrong to get the reputation we have. Yet at least a couple of those things have more to do with the negative evaluation people have of legitimate Christian concerns than about actual failure to live faithfully.

It is right to be concerned with our witness to the world. We do want people to be attracted to Jesus through us. But that doesn’t mean we should try to manage our reputation, because there’s much involved we can’t control. Remember, Jesus said the world will hate us (John 15:18). We just want to be sure we’re disliked for the right reasons. If the world hates us because of the truth we share, that’s to be expected. If the world hates us because we’re acting like a bunch of ungodly jerks, may we feel the deepest conviction to repent of the ugliness we’ve brought to the name of the Lord.

Resurrection Defense Series: Embarrassing Details

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

We began an investigation into the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. When investigating any claim of history, whether recent or of antiquity, historians use historiographical tools to decipher the probability of the event in question. The criterion of embarrassment is one of the tools used by historians to determine the legitimacy of the claims presented. The logic behind the criterion is that writers will attempt to make their cause look as attractive as possible. If the presented event contains details that are embarrassing to the writer, the earliest leaders, the founder, or the cause; then it could be said that the event is authentic. Craig Evans writes, “This criterion is easily misunderstood. All it means is that material that potentially would have created awkwardness or embarrassment for the early church is not likely something that a Christian invented sometime after Easter. ‘Embarrassing’ sayings and actions are those that are known to reach back to the ministry of Jesus, and therefore, like it or not, they cannot be deleted from the Jesus data bank” (Evans 2006, 49). When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, numerous embarrassing details are discovered. Ten such embarrassing details will be presented in this article.

1. Women were the first eyewitnesses (John 20:11-18).

Seeing that this topic was the focus of the last article, not much will be said. For those who have not read the article, see the first part of this series. As a recap, the testimony of women did not hold the bearing that the testimony of men in the first century. Thus, if one is inventing a story, women would certainly not be used as the first witnesses. Yet all four Gospels note that it was the women, particularly Mary Magdalene, who first witnessed the risen Jesus. For this reason, the testimony of women serves as an embarrassing detail that speaks to the authenticity of the resurrection event.

2. The cowardice of the first disciples (Mark 15:40-41).

The women watched the crucifixion of Jesus from afar. They attended to the needs of Jesus up until the very end. However, the male disciples were nowhere to be found with the sole exception of John of Zebedee who was instructed to care for Mary, the mother of Jesus (John 19:26-27). Peter and the men ran and hid while it was the women who were brave and remained steadfast to Jesus. In the first century where male bravery was held in high esteem, it is unthinkable that this aspect of the Easter story would have been told unless it were, in fact, true.

3. The inability of the disciples to give Jesus a proper burial (John 19:38-42).

Proper burials were important to ancient Jews. Milton Fisher notes that “a society’s burial customs are a reflection of its spiritual views about death and the afterlife” (Fisher, 386). Failing to give a beloved person a proper burial negatively portrayed the value that the person/people placed on the dearly departed. It was Joseph of Arimathea, one of the members of the Sanhedrin, who gave Jesus a proper burial. A member of the very same Sanhedrin gave Jesus the burial that the disciples could not afford. This is incredibly embarrassing especially in an honor/shame culture found in the Middle East and Asian nations.

4. Doubt of the first eyewitnesses (Matt. 28:16-17).

After Jesus’s resurrection, the Evangelists (the Gospel writers) are honest about the doubts that some disciples hold. In the Gospel of John, Thomas is singled out and identified as one of those who doubted (John 20:24-25). Thomas is often ascribed with the title “Doubting Thomas.” This is unfortunate as Thomas demonstrated his faith by most likely giving his life. Good traditions suggest that Thomas was martyred for his faith by being speared in Mylapore, India on July 2, 72 AD. Even still, the Evangelists would not have reported the first witnesses’ doubt if it had not occurred.

5. The crucifixion is considered a curse (Deut. 21:23).

If a Jewish group was going to invent a movement, the last thing they would do is have their hero die on a cross. The book of Deuteronomy holds that any person who is hung from a tree is cursed (Deut. 21:23). An invented hero of Judaism crucified on a tree would not have been viewed as an admirable man, much less for one claimed to be the Messiah. For this reason, even the skeptical John Dominic Crossan states, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Crossan, 145).

6. Ignorance of the first disciples of the Scriptures (Luke 24:45-49).

If the age of social media has shown anything, it is that people do not like to be wrong. Furthermore, if they are wrong, they will most likely not broadcast that fact. However, the Evangelists often describe their need for Jesus to explain the Scriptures to them to explain why the things occurred as they did. The disciples anticipated a military hero like Judas Maccabeus. What they received was far from what was expected—he was even better!

7. James did not believe in Jesus during his earthly ministry (John 7:5).

Serving as one of Gary Habermas’s six minimal facts, James was radically transformed by the resurrection event. James, Jesus’s half-brother, served as the first pastor of the Jerusalem Church and was a notable figure in Judea. However, this early Christian leader was not originally a disciple of Jesus. John records that none of Jesus’s brothers and sisters believed in him during his earthly ministry (John 7:5). Furthermore, his family thought that Jesus was “out of his mind” (Mark 3:21) at one juncture. This is not something that a person would record unless it is grounded in some historical truth.

8. The Jewish leaders invented the story of the disciples stealing the body (Matt. 28:11-15).

The Gospel of Matthew records the fabrication of a story by the Jewish leadership. When the guards reported the events to the Jewish leaders, they told the guards to tell everyone that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. This is tremendously problematic. The Roman guards would have been executed if they had fallen asleep or permitted the disciples to steal Jesus’s body. Furthermore, there is little chance that the disciples could have overtaken a fully armed Roman guard which may have consisted of as many as sixteen soldiers. The recording of the story itself illustrates an embarrassing detail that finds merit in history.

9. Jesus’s anxiety in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:42-44).

Jesus was not presented as a hero heading to the cross with no fear or anxiety. Rather, the picture portrayed by the Evangelists is quite different. Jesus was extremely brave going to the cross as he did. Evidence from the geographical layout suggests that Jesus could have easily escaped the Garden of Gethsemane through the shroud of the night. He would have seen the soldiers coming from Jerusalem at a distance. Even still, the Evangelists report that Jesus was so anxious that he sweated great drops of blood (Luke 22:42-44). Hematidrosis is a rare medical condition in which the capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands burst under extreme fear and stress. Luke notes that the angels of the Lord came to minister to him before heading to trial. This would not have been recorded unless true as this story counters the hero legends of the day.

10. Peter’s denial of Jesus (Luke 22:54-62).

All three Synoptic Gospels record the betrayal of Simon Peter. Simon Peter was considered to be the first major leader of the Christian church after Jesus ascended to heaven. Nevertheless, the one and same Peter is shown to have denied that he even knew Jesus three times in the courtyard outside of where Jesus was tried. This is extremely embarrassing and would not have been documented unless it was grounded in historical truth.

Conclusion

The ten embarrassing details presented here only scratches the surface of what could be mentioned. Nonetheless, the Evangelists’ willingness to document stories that cast the earliest disciples, and sometimes even Jesus himself, in a bad light illustrates the value they placed on recording the biographies of Jesus accurately. Additionally, the resurrection of Jesus is not based on legendary and mythical data. Rather, it is grounded in historical facts, at least what the early disciples and Evangelists believed to be true.

Sources

Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1991.

Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove: IVP, 2006.

Fisher, Milton C. “Burial, Burial Customs.” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988.

Tag Archive for: Jesus

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Matthew’s Dual Donkeys

When was the Temple Curtain Torn?

Jesus’ Miracles in John

Where was Jesus the Day After His Baptism?

Does Acts Contradict Paul Regarding His Visit to Jerusalem?

Does Acts Contradict Paul on the Number of Jerusalem Visits?

The Original Reading of Luke 3:22

The Propriety of Harmonization

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Source 1: The Gospel of Matthew

Source 2: The Gospel of Mark

Source 3: The Gospel of Luke

Source 4: The Gospel of John

Source 5: The Sermon Summaries of Peter

Source 6: The Sermon Summaries of Paul

Source 7: The Sermon Summary of Stephen

Source 8: The 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 Creed

Source 9: The Romans 10:9 Confession

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why are some church-attending Christians so progressive?

Would You Hire This Guy?

Fall On Your Face

A Novel Character

Confronting The Skeptics

The Jesus We Take For Granted

Recommended resources related to the topic:

​1. The Historian

​2. The Atheist

3. The Skeptic

​4. The Theologian

​5. The Ex-con

​​​​​References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Early Witnesses

Impossibility of the Hallucination Theory to Explain

Conclusion

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What Makes a Reputation?

When a Negative Reputation is Deserved

When There’s a Mistranslation

When There’s Accurate Understanding with Negative Evaluation

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Conclusion

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1. The Historian

2. The Atheist

4. The Theologian

5. The Ex-con

References: