Tag Archive for: Jonathan McLatchie

Let’s Help Harvard Understand Intelligent Design

,

Last week, my wife and I spent an afternoon at the Harvard Museum of Natural History, in Cambridge, MA, near where we live. We both were generally impressed by the exhibitions, particularly the dinosaur section, and would recommend the museum to anyone visiting Boston. I was, however, quite disappointed to see this notice at the entrance to the display on evolution:

It was disappointing to see the inaccurate representation of intelligent design (ID), along with the poor scientific epistemology.

A “Super-Natural Explanation”?

First, proponents of ID have long stressed that ID, in its purest sense, does not necessarily postulate a supernatural cause but is consistent with a natural or supernatural intelligence.

Furthermore, I would contend that the natural / supernatural distinction is problematic. What precisely is meant when a phenomenon is described as supernatural, and by what set of criteria is it distinguished from the natural? Often, the word “supernatural” is used to describe the capacity to perform miracles, defined as violations of natural law. I would, however, offer a more nuanced definition of a miracle, which is that a miracle describes an interruption in the way nature normally behaves when left to itself. A miracle does not violate natural law, because natural law only describes what happens when nature is left to itself – not what happens when there is an intervention by an external agent. I am not by any means the first to define a miracle in these terms. Indeed, the atheist philosopher John Mackie in his classic book, The Miracle of Theism, defines a miracle along similar lines.[1] As agents ourselves, we have the capability of interrupting the normal course of nature, determined by natural law. When I consciously choose to catch a ball with my hands, I am interrupting the trajectory it would have otherwise taken if left to itself. Agency itself is not governed by natural law, nor can it be reduced to material constituents. Human free will — my belief in which I take to be strongly justified by direct acquaintance — is, in my view, utterly incompatible with a materialistic reductionist perspective on the mind. Since, in my judgment, the strong burden of proof required to demonstrate that the strong appearance of free agency is merely illusory has not been met, this provides a strong prima facie justification for believing the mind to not be reducible to material components. Few would want to use the term “supernatural” to describe the human mind. A more helpful distinction, then, is between material and non-material causes. But non-material causes — assuming my judgment about the non-reducibility of agency to be correct — are already demonstrably a part of the natural world, since all of us have minds. Thus, the fact that ID postulates a non-material entity cannot be used to exclude ID from the natural sciences. Moreover, if our epistemology arbitrarily excludes one possible answer to an inquiry a priori, there is a real danger of being led to an incorrect conclusion about the natural world.

“Observation”

Second, the invocation of an unobservable entity should not be a demarcating factor that renders ID unscientific, for that would exclude other scientific disciplines, such as particle and nuclear physics, as well. Unobservable entities can often be detected by their effects, even without direct observation. For example, black holes are not directly observable since they do not emit electromagnetic radiation that can be detected with telescopes. Their existence and presence, however, is inferred by the effects that they exert on nearby matter, since gas flowing around a black hole increases in temperature and emits radiation that can be detected (their gravitational effects on surrounding objects, such as nearby stars,  and the bending of light passing by a black hole, can also reveal the presence of a black hole).

“Testing”

Third, ID is testable in the same way that other hypotheses purporting to explain events in the distant past (including evolution by natural selection) are tested — by the historical abductive method of inference to the best explanation.[2] Given that functionally specific information content is, in every other realm of experience, habitually associated with conscious activity and no other category of explanation has been demonstrated to be causally sufficient to account for its origin, ID is the most causally adequate explanation of the relevant data.

“Predictions”

Fourth, a scientific theory can be well justified even if it does not make strong predictions; it just needs to render the evidence significantly more probable than it would have otherwise been. For example, the hypothesis that you were in the vicinity of a nuclear plant does not strongly predict that you will have radioactive poisoning (few such workers suffer this). But if you did have radioactive poisoning, it would be significant evidence that you were in the vicinity of a nuclear plant since that data is more expected (or, less surprising) given the truth of the hypothesis than given its falsehood. Thus, even if ID only weakly predicts the observed data, it can still be strongly justified if the data is extremely unlikely if ID is false. ID, I would argue, also has a reasonably high intrinsic plausibility (what probability theorists call prior probability) given the independent evidence of there being a mind behind the universe who has an interest in creating complex life (that is, the evidence of cosmic fine tuning[3] and prior environmental fitness.[4] It shouldn’t be too surprising, then, if the data also indicate that life was purposely brought about.

An “Inherent Conflict”?

Fifth, ID is not postulated because there is a perceived incompatibility between evolution and religion, but rather because we understand it to be the best interpretation of the scientific evidence. That being said, the “many scientists and religious leaders” who “do not perceive an inherent conflict between religion and the scientific theory of evolution” are correct that God and naturalistic evolution are logically compatible. However, naturalistic evolution, if true, would constitute significant evidence against theism and by extension religion. Why? First, if the conclusion that teleology best explains biological phenomena is evidence for theism, it necessarily follows that the falsehood of this conclusion would be evidence against theism. Second, atheism, and in particular naturalism (which, I would contend, is the most consistent version of atheism), strongly predicts that there be a naturalistic evolutionary account of life’s origins and development on earth. However, this is significantly less well predicted by theism. Therefore, though not by itself sufficient grounds on which to reject theism, unguided evolution — being more surprising given theism than given atheism — would, if true, constitute significant evidence against theism.

It is unfortunate that the administrators of the Harvard Museum of Natural History seem to have failed to do their due diligence to understand the claims of ID, and how its advocates propose to test it, before dismissing it as being outside of the scope of science.

References: 

[1] John L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), kindle.

[2] Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2010).

[3] Geraint F. Lewis & Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).

[4] Michael Denton, The Miracle of Man: The Fine Tuning of Nature for Human Existence (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2022).

Recommended Resources:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

This article was originally published at Evolution News & Science Today (http://bit.ly/45uuqkO).

This version was originally posted at: https://bit.ly/46L71xL

 

/by

The Miracles in Acts, and Their Evidential Value

,

The book of Acts recounts various miracles performed by Paul and the other apostles, as well as the deacons Stephen and Philip. If it can be shown that these miracle reports substantially represent the testimony of these individuals, then this is an important aspect of the testimony that must be accounted for. For reasons I have discussed at length previously, there is strong reason to believe that the apostles sincerely believed what they claimed. As William Paley puts it,

“there is satisfactory evidence that many professing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.”[i]

Since these purported miracles are often not of a type about which one can plausibly be sincerely mistaken, a demonstration that these claimed miracles represent the testimony of those who allegedly performed or witnessed them is of significant evidential force in confirming the truth of Christianity.

The Miracles of Acts

What are the miracles of the apostles and deacons that are alleged by the book of Acts? Below is a comprehensive list:

  • The apostles perform “many wonders and signs” at Pentecost (Acts 2:43).
  • Peter heals a man lame from birth (Acts 3:2-10) — the Jewish authorities recognized that “a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it” (Acts 4:16).
  • Peter strikes Ananias and Sapphira dead on command — as God’s judgment for lying about the price obtained for their land (Acts 5:1-11).
  • The apostles perform various healings and exorcisms (Acts 5:12-16).
  • The apostles are broken out of prison by an angel (Acts 5:18-19).
  • Signs and wonders were performed by Stephen, one of the appointed deacons (Acts 6:8).
  • Various signs, healings and exorcisms were performed by Philip, one of the appointed deacons, in Samaria — including healings of the paralyzed or lame (Acts 8:6-7).
  • Philip is snatched by the Holy Spirit from the road to Gaza and placed in Azotus (Acts 8:39).
  • Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus (discussed in detail here), blindness, and healing after three days at the hands of Ananias — after Ananias has received a vision concerning Paul, and Paul a vision concerning Ananias (Acts 9:1-18; 22:6-13; 26:12-18).
  • Peter heals Aeneas, a paralytic for eight years, in Lydda, leading to the conversion of the residents of Lydda and Sharon (Acts 9:33-35).
  • Peter raises Tabitha/Dorcas from the dead, leading to many conversions (Acts 9:36-42).
  • An angel breaks Peter out of prison (Acts 12:6-11).
  • Paul strikes Bar-Jesus/Elymas (a Jewish false prophet who had opposed Paul and Barnabas and sought to turn the Proconsul, Sergius Paulus, away from the faith) blind on command, a feat so convincing that it results in the conversion of the Proconsul (Acts 13:9-12)
  • Paul and Barnabas perform miraculous signs in Phrygian Iconium (Acts 14:3)
  • Paul heals a man who has been lame from birth (Acts 14:8-10)
  • Paul and Barnabas speak at the Jerusalem council, about “what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles,” (Acts 15:12).
  • Paul exorcises a spirit of divination, meaning that a slave girl’s owners were no longer able to use her for fortune telling — leading to the imprisonment of Paul and Silas in Philippi (Acts 16:15-24).
  • Paul and Silas are freed from prison (where their feet had been fastened in stocks) by an earthquake (Acts 16:26).
  • God does “extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them,” (Acts 19:11-12).
  • Paul raises Eutychus from the dead, after he falls from a third-story window (Acts 20:9-10).
  • Paul survives being bitten by a viper (Acts 28:3-6).
  • Paul heals the father of Publius, who “lay sick with fever and dysentery,” as well as others, on the island of Malta (Acts 28:8-9).

These miracle reports are of varying evidential value. For example, no specific details are supplied regarding the miracles of Stephen. Moreover, there are, at least at the present time, no venomous snakes on the island of Malta, and it was a common ancient belief that all snakes were venomous — thus, I do not repose particularly much weight on Paul’s surviving a viper bite on Malta. Moreover, Paul’s healing of the father of Publius on Malta represents another case where one might postulate that those reporting the healing were sincerely mistaken. For example, It is possible that the father of Publius was already on the path to recovery when Paul prayed over him, leading to a mistaken belief that the healing was miraculous. Fever and dysentery can often resolve on their own. Nonetheless, the significant majority of the miracle reports listed above are extremely difficult to be sincerely mistaken about. I shall now turn to the task of arguing that these miracle reports, delivered to us by Acts, in fact represent the testimony of those who are alleged to have performed or witnessed these instances of special divine action.

The Miracles of Paul

Paul indicates in his letters that he performed miracles in attestation of his apostolic claims. For example, he wrote to the church in Corinth, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works,” (2 Cor 12:12). Note that this appeal is made to an audience who had in their midst individuals who doubted Paul’s apostolic credentials. It was risky to appeal to such miracles if there were no such convincing miracles to speak of that could be brought to the minds of his critics. There is a similar passage, indicating that Paul performed miracles, in his letter to the Romans:

“For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ,” (Rom 15:18-19; emphasis added).

Though Paul does not indicate what those signs purportedly involved, we read in Acts about the sort of miracles that Paul performed (see the list given above).

To what extent can we be confident that these miracle reports are representative of Paul’s own claims? Of course, there is the general case for the author of Acts being a travelling companion of Paul and someone who was in the habit of being scrupulous and one who received reliable information from Paul concerning his itinerary and activities (an argument which I and others have laid out extensively elsewhere). Luke appears to have been present with Paul, beginning in Acts 16:10, though the “we” passages trail off when Paul passes through Philippi (the last use of the “we” pronoun, ἡμῖν, being in Acts 16:16) and commence again when Paul passes back through Philippi some seven or eight years later (Acts 20:6), continuing through the remainder of the book. This suggests that the author remained behind at Philippi, and subsequently rejoined Paul later when Paul again passed through Philippi. Thus, we may infer that Luke’s primary source for the events for which he was not himself present was Paul himself. Moreover, I have argued previously, at some length, that there is more direct evidence that the report of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus (given in Acts 9, 22, and 26) represents Paul’s testimony, since various specific aspects of it are independently confirmed by Paul’s letters. This would presumably have included his three-day blindness and subsequent healing at the hands of Ananias, after Ananias and Paul both experienced a vision concerning each other (this event is mentioned in the account in Acts 9, as well as in Acts 22).

But what about other miracles are associated with Paul?

* Stay Tuned for Part 2 of “Miracles in Acts” by Jonathan McLatchie*

References: 

  1. William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
  2. Strabo, The Geography of Strabo. Literally Translated, with Notes, in Three Volumes., ed. H. C. Hamilton (Medford, MA: George Bell & Sons, 1903), 71–72.
  3. Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 399–400.
  4. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 110.
  5. P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses, ed. Arthur Golding (Medford, MA: W. Seres, 1567).

[i] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), proposition 1 (preface).

Recommended Resources: 

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/443zf3W

/by

Do the Resurrection Narratives Contradict? A Reply to Dan McClellan

,

Dan McClellan is a Biblical scholar who has taken to creating YouTube content. He has a popular channel, with 127,000 subscribers at the time of this writing. He often produces short videos responding to conservative scholars and apologists. Unfortunately, McClellan often comes across as incredibly condescending towards conservative scholars, with a rhetorical tone that is, in my view, unbecoming of scholarly discourse. I know that other conservative scholars feel the same way. McClellan recently published a 17-minute video responding to a TikTok video by my colleague, Dr. Sean McDowell, on discrepancies in the resurrection narratives. In this article, I will address points raised in this video.

 

McDowell begins by observing, correctly, that “even if there were contradictions in the Bible, this wouldn’t prove that Christianity is false.” I agree with McDowell. I do not believe that the truth of Christianity hangs on inerrancy (see my essay on this subject here) and I am persuaded of the existence of a small number of minor good-faith mistakes in the gospels, none of which substantially undermine their overall trustworthiness.[1] More evidentially significant in undermining the reliability of the sources would be examples of the evangelists making assertions that are contrary to what they knew to be true (I do not believe the evangelists ever intentionally altered the facts).

McClellan responds to McDowell,

“[W]hile I’m sure that is the rhetorical goal of many challenges to the dogma of univocality, that’s certainly not the reason that I am challenging that dogma. But I will point out that, if you imagine that every challenge to the dogma of univocality is an attempt to disprove Christianity and you are an apologist for Christianity, that obviously means you’re going to be beginning from a position of dogma and you’re going to have a much harder time actually thinking critically about the data you’re engaging. And I think your use of the subjunctive mood in ‘if there were actually contradictions in the Bible’ is indicative of that dogmatic stance from which you’re engaging the question.”

McClellan appears to misunderstand the nature of our approach. The high reliability of the gospels and Acts is the conclusion of our argument, not the premise. We do not decide ahead of time that the evangelists did not make things up or intentionally alter the facts. Rather, this is the verdict we have arrived at after careful and extensive study of the data.

McDowell asserts that “If you want to prove Christianity is false, you’ve got to reproduce the body of Jesus.” I would not agree that this is the only way by which Christianity could be “proven false” (which I’m taking to mean “rendered improbable”). Generally, a complex proposition is not “disproven” by a single piece of data, but rather by an accumulation of evidences, each of which cuts against its plausibility. My verdict is that the preponderance of evidence very heavily confirms the truth of Christianity, though I can envision various scenarios where it could have been the other way (and, in fact, there are lines of evidence I could list which would sit on the negative side of the balance). In any case, it would be next to impossible to demonstrate that a body was, in fact, that of Jesus of Nazareth (a point McClellan himself makes), so this would not by any means be the cleanest way to refute Christianity.

Resurrecting Hume

McDowell asserts that “we can show Jesus rose from the grave, even if there were contradictions in the Bible.” I agree. McClellan, however, responds,

“No you can’t. That’s a dogma. That is not something that is supported by any data. That is a claim that directly contravenes everything we’ve ever been able to observe about the nature of life in the Universe. So that’s not saying I begin from the position that it’s impossible. It’s saying I begin from the position that that is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence and you have absolutely nothing even remotely approximating extraordinary evidence for this event that would overturn everything that we have consistently observe about the nature of life in the Universe.”

This essentially revives David Hume’s objection to justified belief in miracles. Hume argued that one could never be justified in inferring that a miracle had taken place (even if it did) because a miracle is, by its very nature, the least probable explanation (since it contradicts uniform human testimony) — thus, any naturalistic contender (no matter how intrinsically improbable) is going to be more plausible than the hypothesis that the routine course of nature has been interrupted. However, Hume was adequately addressed by his own contemporaries (e.g. William Paley, George Campbell, and John Douglas) as well as by modern philosophers (e.g. John Earman, himself an agnostic). William Paley, for example, noted,

Now the improbability which arises from the want (for this properly is a want, not a contradiction) of experience, is only equal to the probability there is, that, if the thing were true, we should experience things similar to it, or that such things would be generally experienced. Suppose it then to be true that miracles were wrought on the first promulgation of Christianity, when nothing but miracles could decide its authority, is it certain that such miracles would be repeated so often, and in so many places, as to become objects of general experience? Is it a probability approaching to certainty? Is it a probability of any great strength or force? Is it such as no evidence can encounter? And yet this probability is the exact converse, and therefore the exact measure, of the improbability which arises from the want of experience, and which Mr. Hume represents as invincible by human testimony. It is not like alleging a new law of nature, or a new experiment in natural philosophy; because, when these are related, it is expected that, under the same circumstances, the same effect will follow universally; and in proportion as this expectation is justly entertained, the want of a corresponding experience negatives [sic] the history. But to expect concerning a miracle, that it should succeed upon a repetition, is to expect that which would make it cease to be a miracle, which is contrary to its nature as such, and would totally destroy the use and purpose for which it was wrought. [2]

In other words, the purpose for which miracles are wrought (according to both the Old and New Testament) is to vindicate divine messengers. For them to function in this capacity, and grab our attention, they need to recognizably deviate from the way nature normally behaves when left to itself — otherwise, they would be robbed of their evidential value. Therefore, that miracles do, in fact, deviate from the routine course of nature cannot be taken as a serious rejoinder to the hypothesis under review. We need to look to other considerations to get a handle on the prior probability of God performing a miracle in Jesus’ case in particular (i.e., raising him from the dead).

If Jesus really is the Hebrew Messiah, then we would expect the God of Israel to raise him from the dead (cf. Isa 53:10). Jesus also indicated, on multiple occasions, that his Messianic self-claims would be vindicated by his resurrection from the dead. Therefore, arguments that (independently of the resurrection) bear on Jesus’ Messianic identity are relevant to the prior probability of God raising Jesus in particular from the dead — since they suggest that God plausibly has motivation for doing so. It is not my purpose here to provide a detailed elaboration of these independent arguments, but rather to articulate how this case can be developed.

The Case for Harmonization

Before delving into specific instances of discrepancy that McClellan alleges, it is worthwhile to briefly explain why I firmly believe that harmonization represents good historical methodology, quite aside from any concerns about inspiration or inerrancy. Although I am not myself committed to inerrancy as a matter of principle, I am an avid advocate of the practice of harmonization [see endnote 1]. 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:

”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 [a book authored Lydia McGrew]. This is why I pursue ordinary harmonization between historical sources and why I often conclude that a harmonization is correct.”[3]

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 any one 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.

How Many Angels Were at the Tomb?

McDowell notes that there is a difference between a contradiction and a difference — for example, Matthew and Mark both speak of one angel at the tomb on easter morning, whereas Luke and John mention two. McDowell observes that this is not a contradiction since, if there are two, it is also true to say there was one (no text indicates there was only one). I agree with McDowell. Matthew and Mark simply spotlight the angel who spoke and omit mention of the other, who presumably did not speak. Omission is not the same as denial. Moreover, the scene with Mary Magdalene in John 20 is a separate episode, which occurs later, after Peter and John have already inspected the tomb and left. Though Mark and Luke speak of the angels as “a young man” and “two men” respectively, this is not an unusual way to describe angels in Scripture, since angels often appear as humans (cf. Gen 18:1-2; Heb 13:2). Incidentally, Bart Ehrman errs, in his book Jesus, Interrupted, when he remarks that “none of the three accounts states that the women saw ‘two angels.’”[4] [3] Luke 24:23 does, in fact, identify the “two men” as “angels.” McClellan emphasizes that, in Mark, the angel is said to be “sitting” (Mk 16:5), whereas in Luke the two angels are said to be standing (Lk 24:4). But there is nothing implausible about one or both angels changing their position in the course of the events.

McClellan responds,

“The idea that, if there were two there was one argument adequately resolve the ostensible contradiction in the gospels’ accounts of the resurrection, I think, is symptomatic of one of the critical methodological flaws of apologetics because the main rhetorical goal of apologetics is not to convince people who don’t already agree — it’s not to convince me; it’s not to generate an argument that is valid for critical scholars. The main purpose of apologetics is to perform confidence and competence so that the people who already agree can be made to feel validated in that agreement. And because their worldviews and their self-identities are so entangled with the dogmas they want to be convinced are true, the evidentiary bar is lying on the ground and so they do not require remarkably robust or sophisticated or methodologically valid arguments. They just need to be made to feel that the arguments are valid. And because they generally are not incredibly well informed about critical scholarship you just have to simulate a valid argument; you don’t actually have to produce one. So apologetics is primarily aimed at performing an argument that’s good enough to convince non-specialists who really really want to be convinced that the dogma is justified. That’s the main purpose of apologetics.”

McClellan does not really appear to understand what apologetics is. Apologetics, done properly, is what one engages in after the results of a fair and balanced open-ended inquiry are in and the time has come to articulate your conclusions, and the justification of those conclusions, to the scholarly community and wider public. Every academic paper or book is an exercise in apologetics for one conclusion or another. Good apologists set a high bar for what arguments they are going to use because they do not want to mislead or misinform people by appealing to faulty arguments or incorrect information. There are many arguments for Christianity, or for theism more broadly, which I find to be unconvincing and therefore I do not use. Moreover, when I talk to people about the evidences of Christianity (sometimes Christians with doubts; other times former Christians or non-Christian seekers), I am careful to show my primary sources so that people know where my information comes from (I think anyone who has participated in a meeting with me via TalkAboutDoubts will attest to this). So, to paint all apologists with a broad brush as being either incompetent or dishonest, or both, is, in my opinion, quite disingenuous on McClellan’s part. See my essay here on how apologists can (and should) exemplify a “scout mindset” in their scholarship.

Did the Women Observe the Rolling Back of the Stone?

McClellan claims that the resurrection narratives conflict not just on the number of angels at the tomb, but on “most of the narrative details.” For example, in Mark 16:3-4, the stone is said to have already been rolled back by the time the women arrived at the tomb, whereas in Matthew, we read, “Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it,” (Mt 28:1-2). Curiously, McClellan insists on rendering καὶ ἰδοὺ (kai Idou, see Matt 28:2) as “And suddenly.” But this is an interpretive translation, not the literal meaning. The phrase καὶ ἰδοὺ is a very common New Testament expression, and means “And behold.” Contrary to McClellan, It does not necessarily imply that the women witnessed the earthquake or descent of the angel. A better way of conveying the meaning of “and suddenly” would be the phrase καὶ ἐξαίφνης (kai exaifnēs).

Indeed, the entire passage regarding the angel (verses 2-4) is introduced by the particle γάρ (“For…”). Its purpose is to explain the earthquake and state of affairs as found by the women upon their arrival at the tomb. In describing the descent of the angel, Matthew employs an aorist participle (καταβὰς). which can be rendered “…for an angel of the Lord had descended…” There is no reason, then, to infer from Matthew that the women witnessed the descent of the angel.

Multiple Stations of Angels?

According to McClellan, “in order to reconcile Matthew and Mark, we have to imagine that these women are encountering multiple stations of angels who are going to scare them and tell them not to be scared, first on the outside and then on the inside.” McClellan emphasizes that, in Mark, the angel is explicitly said to be sitting inside the tomb — “And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side…” (Mk 16:5). McClellan believes that Matthew indicates that the women encountered the angel on the outside of the tomb, before entering. But the text of Matthew does not say this — it merely indicates that “the angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.’” There is no indication of where the angel was when the women encountered him or when this was said.

Preparing the Spices

McClellan observes that, in Luke, we read, “But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they [the women] went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared,” (Lk 24:1). McClellan understands Luke to indicates that these spices were prepared before the Sabbath (Lk 23:56). But according to Mark 16:1, the women bought the spices after the Sabbath had passed. How might these texts be harmonized? Luke does not, in fact, say explicitly that the spices were prepared before the Sabbath. Verse 56a merely indicates that the women purchased spices following Jesus’ burial (without specifying whether this took place before or after the Sabbath). Verse 56b clarifies that the women rested on the Sabbath day, in accordance with Jewish law. Plausibly, Luke does not know exactly when the spices were purchased (whether before or after Sabbath) and leaves it ambiguous.

Even if one takes Luke 23:56 to indicate that the spices were prepared before the Sabbath, the texts do not seem particularly difficult to harmonize. One could envision, for example, that Joanna, being better off than the other women, already had spices at her house, which she had time to prepare at home. Perhaps Joanna and one or more other women spent the Sabbath at Joanna’s house and had time to prepare the spices before the Sabbath began, while the two Marys and Salome had to purchase them after the Sabbath at first dawn. Luke 24:10 lists two Marys, Joanna, and an unspecified number of “other women,” who went to the tomb — so we do not know how many women came to the tomb on easter morning. Joanna may have been a primary source behind Luke’s account of the women at the tomb (Luke is the only evangelist who mentions Joanna at all, including the fact that she was the wife of Chuza in Luke 8:1). If this is the case, it is consistent with the conjecture that she was the one who already had spices at home that she could prepare.

Had the Sun Risen, or Was it Still Dark?

McClellan points out that Mary came to the tomb, according to John 20:1, “while it was still dark,” whereas Luke 24:1 indicates that the sun had risen. The expression used by Luke is ὄρθρου βαθέως (opthrou batheōs), literally meaning “deep dawn.” It refers to the very early hours of the morning. This is rendered “early dawn” by the ESV. It is not at all implausible to think that at early dawn it would still be somewhat dark. This is arguably the weakest of McClellan’s examples.

A Different Sequence of Events in John?

McClellan observes that, in John’s account, Mary Magdalene reports to Peter and John that the tomb is empty and she does not know what has happened to Jesus. Peter and John then come and inspect the tomb but find it empty. They then leave Mary alone and she has an encounter with the risen Jesus (but angels never tell Mary anything). McClellan notes that this is an entirely different sequence of events from the synoptic gospels. The episode with Mary at the tomb in John, however, is clearly an episode distinct from the women’s encounter in the synoptic gospels. There is no contradiction here, since these are two separate and independent events. Moreover, I think plausibly Mary left the larger group of women prior to their encounter with the angel and with the risen Jesus. This is even lightly suggested by the words of Mary to Peter and John, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know (οὐκ οἴδαμεν; ouk oidamen) where they have laid him.” Note the use of the plural verb, οἴδαμεν — the use of the plural verb implies that she is speaking on behalf of other women, even though John spotlights Mary Magdalene in particular. This would explain why she did not know what had happened to Jesus even though, according to the synoptic gospels, the group of women encountered an angel and the risen Jesus at the tomb.

Conclusion

McClellan claims that he has never heard anyone attempt to harmonize the resurrection accounts. If this is so, then I would suggest that he needs to read more conservative literature — for example, John Wenham’s book, Easter Enigma, is focused on precisely this subject.[5]I do not believe that any of the harmonizations offered above are unreasonable, or a stretch. Given the very large body of evidence indicating that the authors of the gospels are individuals who are very well informed, close up to the facts, and in the habit of being scrupulous, I believe that we should approach these sources with charity, and allow them to clarify and illuminate one another. This is nothing short of good, responsible, practice when evaluating ancient sources.

References: 

[1] [Editor’s Note: Jonathan McLatchie’s views on inerrancy and “biblical errors” do not necessarily represent the views of Crossexamined.]

[2] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

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

[4] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them).(New York: HarperCollins, 2009), p. 8.

[5] John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are The Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? (Wipf and Stock; Reprint Edition, 2005).

Recommended Resources: 

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)    

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/421kvCL

/by

The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and its Evidential Value, Part 2

[Editor’s Note: In part 1 of this series on the evidential value of Paul’s conversion, Dr. Jonathan McLatchie established that (Proposition 1) The accounts in Acts substantially represent Paul’s own conversion testimony, and (Proposition 2) Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken. In this second installment, McLatchie tackles the remaining two propositions, showing that Saul’s conversion to Apostle Paul is a remarkably value line of evidence for historic Christianity]

 

Proposition 3: Paul was not plausibly intentionally deceptive.

Sufferings, Toils, and Hardships: There exists an abundance of evidence that Paul voluntarily endured significant hardships, dangers, persecutions, toils, labors, imprisonments and ultimately execution for the sake of the gospel. This goes a long way towards establishing his sincerity. For example, Clement of Rome, in his sole surviving letter, addressed to the Corinthian church, writes (1 Clement 5) [1],

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation… Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

This epistle is generally dated to around the year 96 C.E., as the church emerged from the persecution under the emperor Domitian. Clement of Rome had been a companion of Paul, and is likely the individual referred to in Philippians 4:3: “Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life,” (emphasis added]. Paul’s letter to the Philippians was composed during Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome. The second century church father Irenaeus of Lyons writes the following concerning Clement (Adv. Haer. 3.3.3) [2]:

This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.

Clement was thus someone in a position to know about Paul’s sufferings for the sake of the gospel.

Polycarp of Smyrna, in his epistle to the Philippians, also testifies to the persecutions endured by Paul (Poly 9) [3]:

I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.

Irenaeus informs us concerning Polycarp (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4) [4]:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.

Thus, given Polycarp’s acquaintance with the apostles, he was also in a position to know about the sufferings endured by Paul and the other apostles.

In addition to the foregoing, there is a lot of attestation to Paul’s sufferings in Acts and the Pauline corpus. For example, consider Paul’s list of his experiences in 2 Corinthians 11:24-27:

24 Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.

Paul also expresses in 1 Corinthians 4:9-13:

9 For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. 11 To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, 12 and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; 13 when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things.

Paul, moreover, writes to the Thessalonians, “But though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict,” (1 Thess 2:2, emphasis added). This raises the question of how the Thessalonians knew about Paul’s shameful treatment in Philippi. When we compare Paul’s letter to the account in Acts, we learn that the shameful treatment to which he was referring is his imprisonment and public beating, uncondemned, despite being a Roman citizen (Acts 16:16-40). We read in Acts 16:35-40:

35 But when it was day, the magistrates sent the police, saying, “Let those men go.” 36 And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore come out now and go in peace.” 37 But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out.” 38 The police reported these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Roman citizens. 39 So they came and apologized to them. And they took them out and asked them to leave the city. 40 So they went out of the prison and visited Lydia. And when they had seen the brothers, they encouraged them and departed.

According to Acts 17:1, Paul’s very next port of call, after passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia, was Thessalonica. This was in fact on a major Roman highway (the Via Egnatia) and Amphipolis and Apollonia were overnight stops along that highway. One can envision Paul coming from Philippi to Thessalonica, still full of indignation, and reporting about his shameful treatment to the converts in Thessalonica. This undesigned coincidence between Acts and 1 Thessalonians is all the more striking given that the book of Acts does not appear to be dependent upon 1 Thessalonians, nor vice versa. For example, according to 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Paul writes, “For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God…” Notice the emphasis in this text on the conversion of pagans from idolatry. Acts, on the other hand, emphasizes the conversion of Jews and gentile God-fearers (Acts 17:4). If the author of Acts were using 1 Thessalonians as a source, we might expect emphasis to be placed on the conversion of pagans. The accounts are, of course, not mutually exclusive. In fact, there are allusions in the epistle to concepts that would not make much sense to gentiles who lacked acquaintance with Jewish eschatological thought (1 Thess 4:14-17). Paul also distinguishes believers from gentiles, whose ways they ought not copy (1 Thess 4:4-5). It makes sense, therefore, to understand the “you” that turned to God from idols to be an exaggerated statement — referring to one portion of his audience rather than another. Nonetheless, the surface discrepancy between Acts and 1 Thessalonians points to the independence of these sources.

We also read in Acts 17 about the persecution endured by Paul from a mob of Jews who stirred up trouble for him. According to Acts 17:5-9:

5 But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd. 6 And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, 7 and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” 8 And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard these things. 9 And when they had taken money as security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.

Paul thus had to leave in haste to go to Berea (Acts 17:10). We read in Acts 17:13 that “when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds.” Paul thus, again, had to leave in haste to travel to Athens — “Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.” Acts leaves unexplained why Paul left behind Silas and Timothy. This unexplained allusion is itself a hallmark of verisimilitude in the text. It is the texture of testimony — one does not typically leave loose ends like this in a fictitious work. Moreover, Silas and Timothy are instructed to rejoin Paul “as soon as possible.” Presumably, then, they did rejoin Paul in Athens (though the text does not indicate explicitly). Nonetheless, they are next reported to rejoin Paul not in Athens but in Corinth — and they arrived not from Athens but from Macedonia, where the cities of Thessalonica and Berea are (Acts 18:5). What accounts for this gap in the text? An explanation is provided by 1 Thessalonians 3:1-5:

Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, 2 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith, 3 that no one be moved by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this. 4 For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know. 5 For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain.

Thus, Paul indicates, under the circumstances, he had been concerned for the wellbeing of the Christians in Thessalonica, and so he commissioned Timothy to go back from Athens to Thessalonica to check on the believers there. This explains the gap in the account in Acts, and thereby corroborates the account in Acts. This undesigned coincidence is, again, all the more striking given the independence (as I have shown) between Acts and 1 Thessalonians. Connected to this, there is another undesigned coincidence relating to Paul’s time in Corinth (Acts 18:1-5):

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, 3 and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. 5 When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus.

Paul encounters Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth, who had been exiled from Rome at the instigation of the emperor Claudius. The Roman biographer Suetonius also mentions this episode: “He [Claudius] banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus,” (Life of Claudius 25). Our text in Acts indicates that Paul worked with them as a tentmaker to earn his keep during the week, and that he engaged in his evangelistic work on the Sabbath day, when he went into the synagogue and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. However, in response to the arrival of Silas and Timothy from Macedonia, he changed his ministry model such that he devoted himself entirely to the work of the ministry. What prompted this change? Acts does not inform us. However, we read in 2 Corinthians 11:7-9:

7 Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way.

Apparently the brothers who came from Macedonia (whom we learn from Acts included Silas and Timothy) brought financial aid to Paul, which enabled him to devote himself entirely to the ministry. This detail, however, is not supplied by Acts. This is further corroborated by Philippians 4:14-16, in which we read (in a letter addressed to one of the churches in Macedonia),

14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.

This, once again, serves to confirm the account in Acts — which reveals that Paul was willing to work for his keep as a tentmaker. In other words, he was evidently not in ministry for the purpose of extorting people for money. Moreover, the account in Acts continues with a note about another episode of opposition against Paul: “And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, ‘Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles,’” (Acts 18:6). This coincidence is all the more striking given the independence of Acts and 2 Corinthians, as demonstrated earlier in this article.

Another undesigned coincidence bearing on Paul’s sufferings relates to Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 3:10-11:

10 You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me.

The sufferings mentioned here are described in Acts 13:50-51 and 14:1-7, 19-21. Paul seems to imply, in his letter to Timothy, that Timothy had in fact witnessed the persecutions that he had endured in those cities. According to Acts, Paul embarked on a second missionary journey through the same country as the first journey. The purpose of his second missionary trip is given in Acts 15:36: “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.” Thus, we learn, that the purpose of the journey was to check on those who had been converted during the first journey, to see how they were doing. In Acts 16:1-2, we further learn, “Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium.” We are thereby informed that Timothy’s hometown was either Derbe or Lystra. And it is apparent from the text that Timothy had already been converted by this time. Paul himself refers to Timothy as “my true child in the faith” (1 Tim 1:2) and “my beloved child” (2 Tim 1:2). This implies that Timothy was probably Paul’s own convert. It then follows that Timothy was very likely converted during Paul’s preceding missionary journey through these cities, at the very time when Paul had undergone the persecutions referred to in the epistle. This supports both the historicity of Acts, as well as the genuineness of the pastoral epistles (which are among the disputed Pauline letters). For a more detailed discussion of the authenticity of the pastoral epistles, see my essay here.

There is also external evidence that corroborates the accounts in Acts concerning Paul’s suffering for the gospel. For example, Acts 22:25-29 describes Paul being before the Roman tribune:

25 But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” 26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” 27 So the tribune came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” And he said, “Yes.” 28 The tribune answered, “I bought this citizenship for a large sum.” Paul said, “But I am a citizen by birth.” 29 So those who were about to examine him withdrew from him immediately, and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him. [emphasis added]

Note the tribune’s words to Paul, “I bought this citizenship for a large sum.” What is the historical background here? The second century Roman historian Cassius Dio informs us that, during the reign of Claudius it was introduced that one could purchase a Roman citizenship for a great sum. He writes (Historiae Romanae 60.17),

For inasmuch as Romans had the advantage over foreigners in practically all respects, many sought the franchise by personal application to the emperor, and many bought it from Messalina and the imperial freedmen. For this reason, though the privilege was at first sold only for large sums, it later became so cheapened by the facility with which it could be obtained that it came to be a common saying, that a man could become a citizen by giving the right person some bits of broken glass.

Thus, though the privilege of Roman citizenship sold at first for great sums of money, the price progressively came down, until it had become so cheapened that it came to be a common saying that one could become a Roman citizen by bringing the right person some pieces of broken glass. This adds color to the tribune’s words, “I bought this citizenship for a large sum,” insinuating that Paul was able to acquire his citizenship for much less. Paul, in turn, corrects the tribune that he was a citizen by birth. Acts does not explain, for the sake of his readers, this historical background. Cassius Dio, in providing this background, renders the narrative in Acts quite credible.

There is also a wealth of evidence for the authenticity of Paul’s voyage, as a prisoner bound for Rome, that ended in shipwreck (Acts 27). The report of that voyage notes, in verses 3-6, that,

3 The next day we put in at Sidon. And Julius treated Paul kindly and gave him leave to go to his friends and be cared for. 4 And putting out to sea from there we sailed under the lee of Cyprus, because the winds were against us. 5 And when we had sailed across the open sea along the coast of Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra in Lycia. 6 There the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing for Italy and put us on board.

Colin Hemer comments, “Myra, like Patara again, was a principal port for the Alexandrian corn-ships, and precisely the place where Julius would expect to find a ship sailing to Italy in the imperial service. Its official standing here is further illustrated by the Hadrianic granary. Myra was also the first of these ports to be reached by a ship arriving from the east, as Patara had been previously from the reverse direction.”[5] [13]

Verses 13-14 indicate that they “…sailed along Crete, close to the shore. But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land.” In confirmation of Luke’s report, there is indeed a well confirmed wind that rides over Crete from the Northeast, and which is strongest at this exact time near the Day of Atonement in the Fall (Acts 27:9). Acts 27:16 describes how the ship was blown off course towards a small island called Cauda. What is impressive is that the island of Cauda is more than 20 miles west-southwest of where the storm likely struck the travelers in the Bay of Messara. This is precisely where the trajectory of a north-easterly wind should have carried them, and it is not the sort of information someone would have inferred without having been blown there. Ancients found it nearly impossible to properly locate islands this far out. Colin Hemer notes that[6],

As the implications of such details are further explored, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that they could have been derived from any contemporary reference work. In the places where we can compare, Luke fares much better than the encyclopaedist Pliny, who might be regarded as the foremost first-century example of such a source. Pliny places Cauda (Gaudos) opposite Hierapytna, some ninety miles too far east (NH 4.12.61). Even Ptolemy, who offers a reckoning of latitude and longitude, makes a serious dislocation to the northwest, putting Cauda too near the western end of Crete, in a position which would not suit the unstudied narrative of our text (Ptol. Geog. 3.15.8).

There are many other points at which Paul’s voyage and shipwreck may be confirmed. For a much more detailed discussion, I refer readers to James Smith’s book, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. [7]

Paul rejoiced in his own sufferings for the name of Christ. He wrote to the Philippians, “Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. Likewise you also should be glad and rejoice with me,” (Phil 2:17-18).

An additional point that bears mentioning is that Paul not only willingly endured hardships and persecutions himself, but he expected other believers to do the same. Consider the following texts:

  • Philippians 1:29-30: For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.
  • 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5: For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know. For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain. This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering.
  • 2 Thessalonians 1:4: Therefore we ourselves boast about you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions that you are enduring.
  • Romans 3:3-4: Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope.
  • Romans 8:35-36: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,  “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
  • 2 Corinthians 6:4-10: but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.

Sir George Lyttelton notes [8],

But at that time when St. Paul undertook the preaching of the Gospel to persuade any man to be a Christian, was to persuade him to expose himself to all the calumnies human nature could suffer. This St Paul knew; this he not only expected, but warned those he taught to look for it too… How much reason he had to say this, the hatred, the contempt, the torments, the deaths endured by the Christians in that age, and long afterwards, abundantly prove. Whoever professed the Gospel under these circumstances, without an entire conviction of its being a Divine revelation, must have been mad; and if he made others profess it by fraud or deceit, he must have been worse than mad; he must have been the most hardened wretch that ever breathed. Could any man who had in his nature the least spark of humanity, subject his fellow-creatures to so many miseries; or could one that had in his mind the least ray of reason, expose himself to share them with those he deceived, in order to advance a religion which he knew to be false, merely for the sake of its moral doctrines? Such an extravagance is too absurd to be supposed; and I dwell too long on a notion that upon a little reflection confutes itself.

Short of being, as Lyttelton put it, the most hardened wretch that ever breathed, how could Paul expect his fellow believers to voluntarily undertake tremendous hardships and sufferings, even martyrdom, unless he had a sincere conviction of the gospel’s truth?

Was Paul in it for the Money? In view of the voluntary sufferings of Paul, evinced above, it appears to be highly improbable that he was engaging in deliberate deception. And what motive could he have for had such a deception? Paul does not appear to have been in it for the money, as already seen from the reference to 1 Corinthians 4:11-13, and the foregoing discussion of Paul’s time in Corinth in Acts 18. We also read in 1 Corinthians 9:14-18:

14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. 15 But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. … 18 What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

Similarly, Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 12:14: “Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you. For children are not obligated to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.”

Paul also appeals to the Thessalonians’ memory of how Paul was among them: “For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you,” (2 Thess 3:7-8).

In Paul’s address before the Ephesian elders, Paul likewise states, “I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive,’” (Acts 20:33-35). The unity in style and mannerism between the account of Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:17-38 and Paul’s letters supports the substantial authenticity of this speech (particularly given the demonstrable independence between Acts and the Pauline corpus). Lydia McGrew comments [9].

The speech breathes the personality of the author of the epistles, including both his genuine love and warm-heartedness and what one might less charitably be inclined to call his emotional manipulativeness and self-dramatization. The same Paul who brings the elders of Miletus to tears with his references to his own trials and tears (Acts 20:19) and his prediction of never seeing them again (Acts 20:25, 36-38) is the Paul who attempts, probably successfully, to induce Philemon to free the slave Onesimus by telling him that he ‘owes him his own life’ (Philem vss 17-19). He is the same Paul who says so much about his own trials and distresses in 1 Corinthians and reminds his readers that he is their spiritual father (1 Cor 4:8-14). The same Paul who launches, at this intimate moment of farewell to his dear friends, into a spirited defense of his own blamelessness in financial matters (Acts 20:33-35) is the Paul who harps on this theme repeatedly in the epistles and who is almost painfully defensive about his apostleship in 2 Corinthians 11-12. The same Paul who urges the Corinthians to be imitators of himself (1 Cor 4:16), who says that the “care of all the churches comes upon him daily (2 Cor 11:28), and who earnestly uses his apostolic authority, his love, and the sheer force of his personality to dissuade the Galatians from yielding to the demand of circumcision (Gal 4:16-20) is the Apostle Paul who tells the elders in Acts 20:29-32 that after his departure they will be assailed by false teachers and should resist, remembering how he himself ‘admonished them with tears’ during his ministry.

We also see evidence of Paul’s integrity in regards to finances in Acts 20:1-4:

After the uproar ceased, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them, he said farewell and departed for Macedonia. 2 When he had gone through those regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece. 3 There he spent three months, and when a plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. 4 Sopater the Berean, son of Pyrrhus, accompanied him; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and the Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus.

This text provides the longest list in the book of Acts of companions of Paul all travelling somewhere at the same time. Moreover, their respective locations are very carefully noted together with their names. Timothy is related to Lystra and Derbe, even though this information was already supplied in Acts 16:1, and there is no apparent reason why this should be repeated here. It is, however, quite plausible that these various individuals are intended as representatives of the various gentile churches who were contributing to the collection that Paul was gathering at this time for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem. We see throughout Paul’s letters that he desires that everyone know that he is blameless about money and has no agenda of extorting people. This is a major theme in the Corinthian epistles in particular. In 1 Corinthians 16:3-4, Paul writes concerning the gathered collection, “And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.” In other words, Paul suggests that someone else, rather than himself, accompany the Corinthians’ contribution to Jerusalem — he will go only if it seems appropriate. It seems likely, therefore, that Paul was accompanied from Greece to Jerusalem by this large group to demonstrate that he had not absconded with any of the collection and to provide more security as he made the journey. Acts never mentions the collection at all, except in Paul’s cryptic allusion to bringing alms to his nation in his speech before Felix in Acts 24:17.

Was Paul in it for the Power? It does not appear that Paul was in pursuit of power either. In 1 Corinthians 15:9, he describes himself as “the least of the apostles.” There is no indication that he felt himself in competition for power with the other apostles. This is further expressed in 1 Corinthians 3:4-9:

4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? 5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.

In fact, Paul went up to Jerusalem to those who had been apostles before him to confirm that the gospel he had been proclaiming to the gentiles was the same as theirs, “in order,” he writes, “to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain,” (Gal 2:2).

Even when Paul was in prison in Rome, and others were seeking to take advantage of Paul’s circumstances for their own gain, Paul wrote to the Philippians (1:15-18),

15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

Paul cared more about the advance of the gospel than his own reputation or influence.

Paul wrote to the Thessalonian Christians and appealed to their own experience of his conduct among them (1 Thess 2:3-12):

3 For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, 4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. 5 For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness. 6 Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ. 7 But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. 8 So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us. 9 For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. 10 You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers. 11 For you know how, like a father with his children, 12 we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.

Another text that argues against Paul’s motivation being power is Acts 14:11-15, in which we read about an episode that transpired while Paul and Barnabas were at Lystra:

11 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, 15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.

This text is historically credible. First, note that the crowds are said to have spoken in Lycaonian. Jefferson White explains,

“Concerning the crowd’s Lycaonian dialect, historical evidence reveals that the lower classes of the interior of Asia Minor still spoke in their native tongues as late as the first century. This was in contrast to the more heavily populated areas along the Mediterranean coast, where native languages had largely disappeared in favor of Greek. Thus Luke’s reference to a native dialect in this inland city is accurate.” [10]

Archaeological evidence also indicates that Zeus and Hermes were the local cult deities of Lystra — various inscriptions reveal dedications to these two deities, which were linked in common worship. Evidence also indicates that it was commonly thought in the ancient world that, when there was a visitation of two deities, the lesser deity was the spokesman — this explains why Barnabas was called Zeus, even though Zeus was the more prominent of the two deities.

Take note of Paul’s and Barnabas’ reaction to their being hailed as deities — this is not the reaction of a narcissist who is hell-bent on his pursuit of power.

For the reasons surveyed above, I think it can be safely said that Paul was sincere in his belief that he had had an encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus — he was not setting out to intentionally deceive people. As Sir George Lyttelton concludes [11],

St. Paul could have no rational motive to become a Disciple of Christ, unless he sincerely believed in him, this observation: that whereas it may be objected to the other Apostles, by those who are resolved not to credit their testimony, that having been deeply engaged with Jesus during his life, they were obliged to continue the same professions after his death, for the support of their own credit, and from having gone too far to go back, this can by no means be said of St Paul. On the contrary, whatever force there may be in that way of reasoning, it all tends to convince us that St Paul must naturally have continued a Jew, and an enemy of Christ Jesus: if they were engaged on one side, he was as strongly engaged on the other. If shame withheld them from changing sides, much more ought it to have stopped him, who, being of a higher education and rank in life a great deal than they, had more credit to lose, and must be supposed to have been vastly more sensible to that sort of shame. The only difference was, that they, by quitting their Master after his death, might have preserved themselves; whereas he, by quitting the Jews, and taking up the cross of Christ, certainly brought on his own destruction.

Conclusion

I began this essay by making the case that the accounts in Acts 9, 22, and 26 substantially represent the claimed testimony of the apostle Paul himself. I then proceeded to show that, given this premise, it is incredibly implausible either that Paul was sincerely mistaken in his belief that he had encountered the risen Christ or that he gave false testimony with an intent to deceive. The best explanation of the evidence, therefore, is that Paul did indeed encounter Christ on the Damascus road, and was appointed to the office of apostle by Christ himself. Since Jesus identified as the one whom Paul was persecuting (Acts 9:5, 22:8, 26:15), it stands as an endorsement of the core beliefs of the group that Paul was persecuting — chief among which was the belief that Jesus had been physically raised from the dead. The evidence surveyed in the foregoing, therefore, provides an independent line of confirmation of the resurrection of Jesus.

I will conclude this essay with a final quote from Sir George Lyttelton, who wrote the following at the conclusion of his book on Paul’s conversion [12]:

Some difficulties occur in that Revelation, which human reason can hardly clear; but as the truth of it stands upon evidence so strong and convincing, that it cannot be denied without much greater difficulties than those that attend the belief of it, as I have before endeavored to prove, we ought not to reject it upon such objections, however mortifying they may be to our pride. That indeed would have all things made plain to us; but God has thought proper to proportion our knowledge to our wants, not our pride. All that concerns our duty is clear; and as to other points either of natural or revealed religion, if he has left some obscurities in them, is that any reasonable cause of complaint? Not to rejoice in the benefit of what he has allowed us to know, from a presumptuous disgust at our incapacity of knowing more, is as absurd as it would be to refuse to walk, because we cannot fly.

References: 

[1] Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 6.

[2] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 416.

[3] Polycarp of Smryna, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 35.

[4] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 416.

[5] Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 134.

[6] Ibid., 331.

[7] James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, ed. Walter E. Smith, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880).

[8] George Lyttelton, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul (The Institute Trust, 1747), 36-39.

[9] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017), 157.

[10] Jefferson White, Evidence and Paul’s Journeys: An Historical Investigation into the Travels of the Apostle Paul (Independently Published, 2001/2019), 14.

[11] Lyttelton 1747, 39-40.

[12] Ibid., 119-120.

Recommended Resources:

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3DEJ7rr

/by

The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and its Evidential Value, Part 1

An argument for Christianity that seldom receives adequate attention is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (also known as Paul) on the road to Damascus. There exist three accounts of Paul’s conversion in the book of Acts — in chapters 9, 22, and 26. The argument from Paul’s conversion has been laid out in most detail by Sir George Lyttelton (1709-1773), in his book Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul. The book is now in the public domain, and a free PDF copy can be obtained at this link. So strong and convincing is the argument from Paul’s conversion that Lyttelton wrote at the beginning of his book, addressing his friend Gilbert West [1],

 

In a late conversation we had together upon the subject of the Christian religion, I told you, that besides all the proofs of it which may be drawn from the prophecies of the Old Testament, from the necessary connection it has with the whole system of the Jewish religion, from the miracles of Christ, and from the evidence given of his resurrection by all the other Apostles; I thought the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a Divine Revelation.

In this essay, I shall lay out in detail why Paul’s Damascus road conversion constitutes powerful evidence of the truth of Christianity.

When evaluating any set of testimonial claims, there exist three broad explanatory categories that might account for why the claim was made — that is, the claimant(s) was / were either lying, sincerely mistaken, or truthful in their testimony. These options are mutually exhaustive. In order, to evaluate those explanations, however, we must first establish what the original claimant(s) alleged. Thus, the argument of this essay will take the following structure:

  • Proposition 1: The accounts in Acts substantially represent Paul’s own conversion testimony.
  • Proposition 2: Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken.
  • Proposition 3: Paul was not plausibly intentionally deceptive.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, the best explanation of the evidence is that Paul did indeed encounter Christ on the Damascus road.

I shall now proceed to lay out the evidence for each of these propositions.

Proposition 1: The Accounts in Acts substantially represent Paul’s own conversion testimony.

For economy of space, the present article will take it for granted that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. I and others have laid out this case in detail elsewhere. For those not familiar with the substantive evidence for this contention, I would suggest the following resources [see endnote 2].[2]

Given that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul — someone who spent a great deal of time with him — he would have been in a strong position to know what Paul’s testimony was. Paul also appears to have repeated his testimony on multiple occasions — it is given three times in the book of Acts, twice being attributed to Paul’s own words — before a Jewish crowd in Jerusalem, to whom he spoke from the steps of the barracks (Acts 22), and later to the governor Festus and King Agrippa (Acts 26). When we consider the evidence for Luke’s meticulousness as an historian and attention to detail (laid out in the aforementioned resources), together with the fact that he was laying his own neck on the line for the gospel (as evidenced by the fact that he was present with Paul during many of Paul’s own sufferings for the sake of the gospel — including his imprisonment in Caesarea Maritima (for at least two years according to Acts 24:27) and later in Rome, as well as Paul’s hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23) and formal trials before governors Felix and Festus in Caesarea. Taken together, this provides a substantial reason to think that Luke very probably provided an accurate representation of Paul’s own testimony.

Paul also implies in his letters that his audiences were familiar with his background and conversion testimony — and, thus, that his testimony was widely known among the churches. Jason Engwer explains the implications of this:

[T]he account [Paul] gave of what he experienced with the risen Christ surely was widely disseminated and often reinforced by the time he died. It would be difficult to get even a large percentage of Christians to accept a change in Paul’s account. It would be even harder to do it with every or almost every Christian. And the larger the change involved, the more difficult it would be to successfully carry out the change.

For example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9:1, “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” These are rhetorical questions. He does not take time to explain the circumstances under which he encountered Jesus — it is taken for granted that the Corinthians know the circumstances of which he writes. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9, he writes, “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he [Christ] appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” It again seems implicit that his readers know something of the background. He writes to the Philippians, “If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless,” (Phil 3:4-6). Again, it seems implicit that Paul’s audience in Philippi were acquainted, at least to some extent, with the background to which he alludes — particularly in his relation to his having been a former persecutor and Pharisee.

The most striking example is in Galatians 1:11-17, in which Paul writes,

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, 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.

Take note of Paul’s words in verse 13 — “For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.” Paul’s readers had already heard about Paul’s background as a church persecutor and religious Jew. It is thus quite likely that they knew more about Paul’s conversion that transformed him into Christianity’s most ardent advocate. Observe too Paul’s words in verse 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.” Paul does not take the time to explain to his readers why Damascus was the place to which he returned from Arabia. It is taken for granted that they already know the connection to Damascus — this is where he went immediately upon his conversion (Acts 9:8). William Paley remarks [3],

In this quotation from the epistle, I desire it to be remarked how incidentally it appears, that the affair passed at Damascus. In what may be called the direct part of the account, no mention is made of the place of his conversion at all: a casual expression at the end, and an expression brought in for a different purpose, alone fixes it to have been at Damascus; “I returned again to Damascus.” Nothing can be more like simplicity and undesignedness than this is. It also draws the agreement between the two quotations somewhat closer, to observe, that they both state St. Paul to have preached the gospel immediately upon his call: “And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.’ Acts, chap. 9:20. ‘When it pleased God to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.” Gal. chap. 1:15.

This casual connection between Galatians and Acts is all the more striking when we consider that these two sources appear to be independent of one another — that is, the author of Acts did not use Galatians as a source, nor vice versa. As Paley observes [4],

Beside the difference observable in the terms and general complexion of these two accounts, “the journey into Arabia,” mentioned in the epistle, and omitted in the history, affords full proof that there existed no correspondence between these writers. If the narrative in the Acts had been made up from the Epistle, it is impossible that this journey should have been passed over in silence; if the Epistle had been composed out of what the author had read of St. Paul’s history in the Acts, it is unaccountable that it should have been inserted.

Indeed, the omission in Acts concerning the journey into Arabia for three years is quite surprising if the author of Acts was using Paul’s letter as a source. The accounts, though, are not mutually exclusive. The phrase “many days”, used by Luke in Acts 9:23 is most probably an idiomatic expression denoting an indefinite period of time. The equivalent phrase in Hebrew is used in 1 Kings 2:38, but the next verse indicates that those “many days” encompassed a three year period. It is also not particularly implausible that Luke simply was not aware of the journey into Arabia, or for some other reason chose not to write about it. Nonetheless, the apparent discrepancy between Acts and Galatians provides internal evidence of independence between the two sources. Paley offers another piece of evidence indicating independence [5]:

The journey to Jerusalem related in the second chapter of the Epistle (“then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem”) supplies another example of the same kind. Either this was the journey described in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, when Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, to consult the apostles and elders upon the question of the Gentile converts; or it was some journey of which the history does not take notice. If the first opinion be followed, the discrepancy in the two accounts is so considerable, that it is not without difficulty they can be adapted to the same transaction: so that, upon this supposition, there is no place for suspecting that the writers were guided or assisted by each other. If the latter opinion be preferred, we have then a journey to Jerusalem, and a conference with the principal members of the church there, circumstantially related in the Epistle, and entirely omitted in the Acts; and we are at liberty to repeat the observation, which we before made, that the omission of so material a fact in the history is inexplicable, if the historian had read the Epistle; and that the insertion of it in the Epistle, if the writer derived his information from the history, is not less so.

The internal evidence of independence between Acts and Galatians, together with the convergence of details relating to Paul’s conversion (particularly the reference to returning to Damascus) suggest that the accounts in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion are in alignment with Paul’s own testimony.

An additional reason for thinking that Acts and Galatians are independent is that Acts 9:27 indicates that, in Jerusalem, “Barnabas took him [Paul] and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.” Compare this to Galatians 1:18-19: “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother,” (emphasis added). On the surface, this appears to be a discrepancy. Of course, “the apostles” could be taken to refer to Peter and James (most scholars, including myself, are of the opinion that Galatians 1:19 identifies James the Lord’s brother as an apostle). We could also take it that Paul uses ‘saw’ to mean ‘conversed with’ or ‘met with,’ not that he did not even see any of the other apostles in a meeting, etc. We sometimes use ‘saw’ in this sense ourselves. One could imagine that perhaps Barnabas and Peter decided that they did not want to set Paul down in front of them like a tribunal and question him, so during that time he stayed, let us suppose, in someone’s home, met with James and Peter, and otherwise for those two weeks he was out rabble rousing, as it were, talking and debating with Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 9:28-29), and eventually was rushed away due to a plot to kill him. In any case, the surface tension between these texts adds additional support for the thesis of independence.

It is also of note that, in Galatians 1:18-19, Paul indicates that his visit to Jerusalem was quite brief. One wonders why Paul’s visit to Jerusalem was cut short such that he only remained there fifteen days and reportedly saw none of the other apostles besides Cephas (Simon Peter) and James the Lord’s brother. Acts 9:29 indicates that there was an assassination plot against Paul by the Hellenists such that he needed to leave Jerusalem in haste. This explains the account in Galatians in an undesigned way, such that it serves to corroborate the historicity of both accounts. This further supports that the testimony in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion and the events shortly thereafter reflect Paul’s own testimony. We also read in Acts 22:17 Paul’s statement that “When I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’” Paley remarks, “Here we have the general terms of one text so explained by a distant text in the same book, as to bring an indeterminate expression into a close conformity with a specification delivered in another book: a species of consistency not, I think, usually found in fabulous relations.” [6]

A further point, relating to our text in Galatians 1:18-19, is that Paul some verses later indicates that “afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,” (Gal 1:21). The account in Acts 9 indicates that, when the brothers learned of the plot against Paul’s life, “they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus,” (v. 30). Paley observes that, “if he took his journey by land, it would carry him through Syria into Cilicia; and he would come, after his visit at Jerusalem, ‘into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,’ in the very order in which he mentions them in the epistle.” Caesarea, of course, was a major port city, and so it is plausible that he made at least part of the journey by sea, before perhaps continuing on land. It is also of note that Paul indicates immediately following this statement in Galatians that “I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, ‘He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy,” (Galatians 1:22-23). Paley  observes, “Upon which passage I observe, first, that what is here said of the churches of Judea, is spoken in connection with his journey into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Secondly, that the passage itself has little significancy, and that the connection is inexplicable, unless St. Paul went through Judea (though probably by a hasty journey) at the time that he came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Suppose him to have passed by land from Cæsarea to Tarsus, all this, as hath been observed, would be precisely true.” [7]

Finally, it may be noted that Paul’s own account of the plot against his life in Damascus, in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33, dovetails with the account in Acts 9:23-25. Paul writes, “At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.” Compare this with the account in 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.” Notice that the account in Acts emphasizes the involvement of the Jews, whereas Paul, in 2 Corinthians, emphasizes the involvement of Aretas IV, the king of the Nabateans (who reigned from 9 B.C. to 40 C.E.). These are not mutually exclusive (presumably, there was a conspiracy involving both parties). Nonetheless, the discrepancy between Acts and 2 Corinthians points to independence, which renders the points of convergence of significant evidential value. Why might Aretas IV be involved in the conspiracy against Paul in Damascus? Aretas IV had significant political influence and authority in the region. Around the time of Paul’s conversion, Aretas IV was ruling Damascus, likely through a governor or ethnarch who was in charge of the Jewish community there. This authority over Damascus was granted to Aretas by the emperor Gaius Caligula. The event in Acts probably occurred around 37 C.E., based on evidence of Nabatean rule in Damascus commencing that year.

There are also additional reasons to believe that Acts and 2 Corinthians are independent of one another. For example, Titus is mentioned throughout 2 Corinthians (2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18), but is nowhere mentioned in Acts. Moreover, the list of Paul’s sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29 cannot be readily correlated with Acts (though it is by no means mutually exclusive). For example, 2 Corinthians 11:25 indicates that Paul endured three shipwrecks prior to the beginning of Acts 20 (when he wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia). Acts does not record any of those shipwrecks, but instead narrates an entirely different one in chapter 27. Furthermore, a major theme in the Corinthian letters, as well as Romans, is the collection being prepared for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem. Though Acts agrees with the implied order of travel, there is no explicit mention in Acts of fundraising as a purpose of Paul’s travels (though there is a cryptic allusion to it in Paul’s speech before Felix, in Acts 24:17: “Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings”). Taken cumulatively, it seems near certain that Luke did not use 2 Corinthians as a source for the composition of Acts. As Paley notes, “Now if we be satisfied in general concerning these two ancient writings, that the one was not known to the writer of the other, or not consulted by him; then the accordances which may be pointed out between them will admit of no solution so probable, as the attributing of them to truth and reality, as to their common foundation.” [8]

As can be seen from the evidence provided above, several undesigned coincidences relate specifically to the account of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9. This further supports that the narrative concerning Paul’s Damascus road experience accurately represent Paul’s own testimony. When considered in conjunction with the other lines of evidence already considered (that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul and was thus in a position to know Paul’s testimony; Paul repeated his testimony multiple times and implies in his letters that his testimony was already widely known; Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness as an historian; and the fact that Luke was putting his own neck on the line), the evidence may be considered very convincing indeed.

Proposition 2: Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken.

Having established that the accounts in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion substantially represent what Paul himself testified to, we are now in a position to evaluate whether the specific set of claims recorded in Acts are the sort about which one might plausibly be sincerely mistaken.

Multisensory Experiences: Paul’s experience is alleged to have been multisensory — involving both a visual and auditory component (Acts 9:3-6, 22:6-10, 26:13-18; 1 Cor 9:1, 15:8). Moreover, it was intersubjective — affecting not only Paul, but also his travelling companions who were purportedly thrown to the ground, having heard the voice though seeing no one (Acts 9:7,  22:9; 26:14). Acts 22:9 indicates that Paul’s travelling companions nonetheless saw the light. Moreover, Paul was blinded by the experience for three days (Acts 9:8-9; 22:11) and later healed by Ananias who received a vision concerning Paul, and Paul a vision concerning Ananias (Acts 9:10-19; 22:12-16).

Miraculous Signs: Furthermore, Paul claims to have performed miracles. In 2 Corinthians 12:12, he writes, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.” Note that this appeal is made to an audience who had in their midst individuals who doubted Paul’s apostolic credentials. It was risky to appeal to such miracles if there were no such convincing miracles to speak of that could be brought to the minds of his critics. There is a similar passage, indicating that Paul performed miracles, in Romans 15:18-19: “For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ,” (emphasis added). Though Paul does not indicate what those signs purportedly involved, we read in Acts about the sort of miracles that Paul performed. For example, describing a curse that Paul placed on the magician Elymas (who had opposed Paul and Barnabas, seeking to turn the Proconsul away from the faith), Luke writes in Acts 13:9-12,

9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand. 12 Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord.

Among Paul’s other miraculous signs, he healed a man who had been crippled since birth (Acts 14:8-10), healed many sick (Acts 19:11-12), raised Eutychus from the dead after his fall from the third story of a building (Acts 20:9-12), and healed the father of Publius, who lay sick with fever and dysentery, on Malta (Acts 28:7-9). As I and others have demonstrated at length elsewhere (see the resource list at the beginning of this article), Luke was an incredibly scrupulous historian who had a high regard for historical accuracy. He also valued eyewitness testimony (e.g. Luke 1:2). The most probable source for the alleged miracles in Acts (besides those that he might have witnessed himself) is Paul.

When we consider the content of Paul’s testimony concerning his conversion experience on the Damascus road, together with his purported miracles, it seems to be difficult to account for on the supposition that he was sincerely mistaken — in particular given that he was not already predisposed to expect an appearance from the raised Christ. Paul was a persecutor of the church and a zealous Pharisee. What could have prompted him to so drastically change his mind, and reverse course 180 degrees? Sir George Lyttelton notes that “[Paul’s] mind, far from being disposed to a credulous faith, or a too easy reception of any miracle worked in proof of the Christian religion, appears to have been barred against it by the most obstinate prejudices, as much as any man’s could possibly be; and from hence we may fairly conclude, that nothing less than the irresistible evidence of his own senses, clear from all possibility of doubt, could have overcome his unbelief.” [9]

Though some have attempted to explain Paul’s experience by appeal to temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), such a hypothesis is hardly credible. For one thing, TLE blindness is incredibly short — typically thirty seconds to ten minutes. Paul’s blindness, by contrast, lasted for three days and was healed on command by Ananias. It is also typical to quickly forget what happened during the seizure. Moreover, the fact that Paul’s companions also purportedly heard a voice and perceived a light and were thrown to the ground is surprising on the TLE hypothesis. The fact that something like scales fell from Paul’s eyes (Acts 9:18) also does not comport well with this explanation.

Internal Discrepancies? Before moving on, a word must be said about a couple of alleged discrepancies between the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts. It has been observed that, according to Acts 9:7, “The men who were travelling with him stood speechless, hearing [ἀκούοντες] the voice but seeing no one,” whereas Acts 22:9 indicates that the travelling companions “saw the light but did not hear [οὐκ ἤκουσαν] the voice of the one who was speaking to [Paul].” Though οὐκ ἤκουσαν can be rendered “did not hear,” another legitimate translation is “did not understand” (indeed, it is rendered this way by the ESV, NIV, NASB, and NET, though the KJV translates it “did not hear”). In Luke 6:27-28, Jesus says, “But I say to you who hear [ἀκούουσιν], Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” Clearly, here, the meaning of Ἀλλὰ ὑμῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν  is “But I say to you who understand…” Likewise, in Mark 4:33, we read, “With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear [ἀκούειν] it.” Clearly, in context, the verb ακουω means to understand. Acts 26:14 indicates that the voice spoke in the Hebrew language. If Paul’s companions were Greek speakers, this could plausibly account for why they were unable to understand the voice.

Another alleged discrepancy is that, according to Acts 9:7, Paul’s companions “stood speechless,” whereas Acts 26:14 indicates that they were thrown to the ground. Most probably the phrase “stood speechless” is simply an idiomatic expression that means they were stopped dead, without insinuating that they were standing up the whole time.

Having established that Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken, only two options remain — either he was intentionally deceptive, or he really did have an encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus. It is to the hypothesis of deception that I now turn. . .

Stay tuned for Part 2. 

References: 

[1] George Lyttelton, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul (The Institute Trust, 1747), 5.

[2] Three of the [following] books listed are in the public domain — namely, those by William Paley, James Smith, and William Ramsay. For those, I have linked to a free PDF copy. The PDF that I have linked to for Paley contains both his A View of the Evidences of Christianity, as well as his Horae Paulinae, or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced. Both are very much worth reading, but the most relevant of those to our discussion here is the latter volume.

[3] William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. II [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838]), 382.

[4] Ibid., 380.

[5] Ibid., 380-381.

[6] Ibid., 293.

[7] Ibid., 383.

[8] Ibid., 359.

[9] George Lyttelton, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul (The Institute Trust, 1747), 85-86.

Recommended Resources:

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3DEJ7rr

/by

The Formation of Our Digits Points to a Process with Foresight

Have you ever wondered how our fingers and toes form during embryonic development? Our digits are, in fact, sculpted from a paddle-like structure in the embryo through the process of apoptosis — that is, programmed cell death. During early development, the hands and feet begin as solid, webbed structures. Through carefully controlled apoptosis, the tissue between them is eliminated, facilitating the separation of the digits. As one paper put it, “the role of apoptosis can be compared with the work of a stone sculptor who shapes stone by progressively chipping off small fragments of material from a crude block, eventually creating a form.”[1] Apoptosis, of course, serves other important biological functions as well — such as eliminating old, damaged, or infected cells.

When cells die as a consequence of acute injury, they tend to swell and burst, releasing their contents into the surrounding tissue. This is known as necrosis, and it can result in an inflammatory response that can be damaging to the cells around them. Death by apoptosis, by contrast, is much cleaner. During apoptosis, the cytoskeleton breaks down and the nuclear envelope disassembles, and the genetic material is broken down into smaller fragments. The surface of the cell is modified such that it attracts macrophages that phagocytose (engulf) the cell before its contents can spill out into the environment and cause damage.

The process of apoptosis is tightly regulated by genetic and biochemical signals, ensuring that the correct number of cells die in the right areas. But how could such a developmental process involving programmed cell death evolve in a gradual, incremental fashion without any awareness of where the target is? This presents a significant obstacle to unguided evolutionary mechanisms. Here, I will give a brief overview of how this remarkable process is regulated and controlled.

Initiation of Apoptosis

The zones of undifferentiated cells between what will become the digits are called interdigital mesenchyme. It is here that apoptosis is initiated by signaling molecules. For example, bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) are secreted signaling molecules that are critical for inducing apoptosis in the cells of the interdigital spaces.[2] Indeed, knocking out BMP molecules has been shown to result in webbed feet in chickens.[3] BMPs are upregulated in the regions between the forming digits, resulting in cellular death and tissue regression.

These BMPs bind to receptors on the surface of target cells in the developing limb bud.[4] This, in turn, activates intracellular SMAD proteins, which translocate to the nucleus and regulate the expression of pro-apoptotic and anti-apoptotic genes.[5] For instance, pro-apoptotic genes such as Bax and Bak (discussed later) are upregulated. Anti-apoptotic genes, such as Bcl-2, are also downregulated. This facilitates cell death in areas where tissue needs to be removed.

The activity of BMPs is regulated by antagonists, such as Noggin, which binds directly to BMPs, forming a complex that inhibits them from interacting with their receptors. This ensures that apoptosis only occurs in the interdigital spaces, while preserving the cells that will form the digits.[6]

Executioner Caspases

A family of proteases called caspases comprise the molecular machinery responsible for apoptosis.[7]  These proteases are initially produced as inactive precursors known as procaspases. In response to apoptosis-inducing signals, they are activated. Executioner caspases are responsible for dismantling essential cellular proteins — these are themselves cleaved (and thereby activated) by initiator caspases. One executioner caspase targets for destruction the lamin proteins that comprise the nuclear lamina, resulting in its disintegration.[8] This facilitates the entry of the nucleases into the nucleus where they degrade the cell’s DNA. Other targets of executioner caspases include the cytoskeleton and other critical cellular proteins.[9]

Execution of the Death Program: The Intrinsic Pathway

There are two ways in which the cell’s death program can be initiated — the extrinsic and intrinsic pathways. The extrinsic pathway is initiated by external signals through the binding of ligands to death receptors on the cell surface. The intrinsic pathway is triggered by signals from within the cell itself. Since the intrinsic pathway is associated with digit formation, it will be my focus here.

In nucleated animal cells, inactive procaspases roam, waiting for a signal to activate the death program and kill the cell. Unsurprisingly, then, the activity of caspases must be very carefully controlled. This presents another conundrum for their origins — how could they arise without a mechanism in hand for holding them in check until required?

The Bcl2 family of proteins is responsible for regulating caspase activation.[10] Some of these proteins promote activation of caspases and apoptosis, while others negatively regulate these processes. Two essential proteins for promoting cell death are Bax and Bak.[11] These proteins trigger the release of cytochrome c from the mitochondria. Other Bcl2-family proteins sequester apoptosis by inhibiting Bax and Bak from releasing cytochrome c.[12] Critical to a cell’s survival is the balance between the activities of the pro-apoptosis and anti-apoptosis Bcl2-family members.

Image credit: David Goodsell, CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Upon release of cytochrome c from the mitochondria, the cytochrome c molecules bind to Apaf-1 (apoptotic protease activating factor 1).[13] Apaf-1 has a specific region called the WD40 repeat domain that interacts with cytochrome c.[14] This binding induces a conformational change in Apaf-1, which allows it to oligomerize. The Apaf-1 monomers thus assemble into a large heptameric complex called the apoptosome (shown in the figure above). This wheel-like structure serves as a scaffold for further recruitment of procaspase-9 molecules.[15] Within the apoptosome, the proximity of multiple procaspase-9 molecules results in their autocleavage and activation.[16] This induces a caspase cascade (involving the activation of downstream effector caspases, such as caspase-3 and caspase-7), ultimately resulting in programmed cell death.[17]

The Need for Foresight

We began by comparing the role of apoptosis in digit formation to a stone sculptor, chipping off tiny fragments from a block with a view towards ultimately creating a form. Of course, an actual stone sculptor has a vision of the final form — the ability to visualize a distant outcome. Conversely, a feature of natural selection is that it lacks foresight, or any awareness of complex end goals. How can a mindless cause select for a process of carefully regulated programmed cell death during development, without knowledge of the target? It would seem that any process capable of producing this mechanism would have to possess intelligence and foresight — characteristics uniquely associated with a conscious mind.

This article was originally published at Evolution News & Science Today, on September 13 2024.

References: 

[1] Suzanne M, Steller H. Shaping organisms with apoptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2013 May;20(5):669-75.

[2] Storm EE, Kingsley DM. GDF5 coordinates bone and joint formation during digit development. Dev Biol. 1999 May 1;209(1):11-27.

[3] Zou H, Niswander L. Requirement for BMP signaling in interdigital apoptosis and scale formation. Science. 1996 May 3;272(5262):738-41.

[4] Ovchinnikov DA, Selever J, Wang Y, Chen YT, Mishina Y, Martin JF, Behringer RR. BMP receptor type IA in limb bud mesenchyme regulates distal outgrowth and patterning. Dev Biol. 2006 Jul 1;295(1):103-15.

[5] Gomez-Puerto MC, Iyengar PV, García de Vinuesa A, Ten Dijke P, Sanchez-Duffhues G. Bone morphogenetic protein receptor signal transduction in human disease. J Pathol. 2019 Jan;247(1):9-20.

[6] Guha U, Gomes WA, Kobayashi T, Pestell RG, Kessler JA. In vivo evidence that BMP signaling is necessary for apoptosis in the mouse limb. Dev Biol. 2002 Sep 1;249(1):108-20.

[7] McIlwain DR, Berger T, Mak TW. Caspase functions in cell death and disease. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2013 Apr 1;5(4):a008656. Erratum in: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2015 Apr 01;7(4):a026716.; Cohen GM. Caspases: the executioners of apoptosis. Biochem J. 1997 Aug 15;326 ( Pt 1)(Pt 1):1-16.

[8] Gheyas R, Menko AS. The involvement of caspases in the process of nuclear removal during lens fiber cell differentiation. Cell Death Discov. 2023 Oct 21;9(1):386.

[9] Vakifahmetoglu-Norberg H, Norberg E, Perdomo AB, Olsson M, Ciccosanti F, Orrenius S, Fimia GM, Piacentini M, Zhivotovsky B. Caspase-2 promotes cytoskeleton protein degradation during apoptotic cell death. Cell Death Dis. 2013 Dec 5;4(12):e940.

[10] Kale J, Osterlund EJ, Andrews DW. BCL-2 family proteins: changing partners in the dance towards death. Cell Death Differ.2018 Jan;25(1):65-80.

[11] Westphal D, Kluck RM, Dewson G. Building blocks of the apoptotic pore: how Bax and Bak are activated and oligomerize during apoptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2014 Feb;21(2):196-205.

[12] Dlugosz PJ, Billen LP, Annis MG, Zhu W, Zhang Z, Lin J, Leber B, Andrews DW. Bcl-2 changes conformation to inhibit Bax oligomerization. EMBO J. 2006 Jun 7;25(11):2287-96.

[13] Kim HE, Du F, Fang M, Wang X. Formation of apoptosome is initiated by cytochrome c-induced dATP hydrolysis and subsequent nucleotide exchange on Apaf-1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Dec 6;102(49):17545-50.

[14] Hu Y, Ding L, Spencer DM, Núñez G. WD-40 repeat region regulates Apaf-1 self-association and procaspase-9 activation. J Biol Chem. 1998 Dec 11;273(50):33489-94.; Shalaeva DN, Dibrova DV, Galperin MY, Mulkidjanian AY. Modeling of interaction between cytochrome c and the WD domains of Apaf-1: bifurcated salt bridges underlying apoptosome assembly. Biol Direct. 2015 May 27;10:29.

[15] Yuan S, Yu X, Topf M, Ludtke SJ, Wang X, Akey CW. Structure of an apoptosome-procaspase-9 CARD complex. Structure. 2010 May 12;18(5):571-83.

[16] Li Y, Zhou M, Hu Q, Bai XC, Huang W, Scheres SH, Shi Y. Mechanistic insights into caspase-9 activation by the structure of the apoptosome holoenzyme. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Feb 14;114(7):1542-1547.

[17] Li P, Nijhawan D, Budihardjo I, Srinivasula SM, Ahmad M, Alnemri ES, Wang X. Cytochrome c and dATP-dependent formation of Apaf-1/caspase-9 complex initiates an apoptotic protease cascade. Cell. 1997 Nov 14;91(4):479-89.

Recommended Resources:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally posted here:  https://bit.ly/3WmCxME

/by

What Really Happened at the Council of Nicea?

For many years, the Council of Nicaea has been the subject of much confusion among laypeople. The misapprehensions which have come to be associated with the council of Nicaea have, in part, been fueled by popular fictional novels such as Dan Brown’s notorious The Da Vinci Code. No matter what group you are dealing with in your apologetic exploits (including atheists, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Unitarians), you are almost guaranteed to encounter some of these misconceptions. For this reason, it is important for Christians to study and learn church history, so that they might correct common myths and falsehoods.

Did Constantine Invent the Bible and the Deity of Christ?

The Council of Nicaea was famously convened on May 20, 325 AD, at the request of Emperor Constantine (pictured above). What did the council of bishops meet to discuss? Contrary to common misconception (popularized particularly in Muslim circles) that has been widely circulated via the internet, the Council of Nicaea did not meet to discuss the canon of Scripture — that is, the decision about which books should make up the New Testament. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that the canon of Scripture was even brought up at Nicaea. Another misconception is that the council of Nicaea, at the encouragement of Constantine, “invented” the deity of Christ or, at the very least, that the bishops in attendance at Nicaea were significantly divided on the issue, the matter being decided with a vote. This too, however, is completely inaccurate. In 325 AD, when the bishops convened at Nicaea, the deity of Christ had been affirmed almost unanimously by the Christian movement for close to three hundred years!

The bishops who met at Nicaea had just come out of an extremely challenging time of intense persecution by the Romans, having lived through the cruelty of the Emperors Diocletian (ruling 284-305) and Maximian (ruling 286-305). One of the bishops present at Nicaea, Paphnutius, had even lost his right eye and been given a limp in his left leg as a consequence of his profession of faith. According to one ancient writer, Theodoret (393-457),

“Paul, bishop of Neo-Cæsarea, a fortress situated on the banks of the Euphrates, had suffered from the frantic rage of Licinius. He had been deprived of the use of both hands by the application of a red-hot iron, by which the nerves which give motion to the muscles had been contracted and rendered dead. Some had had the right eye dug out, others had lost the right arm. Among these was Paphnutius of Egypt. In short, the Council looked like an assembled army of martyrs.” [Ecclesiastical History, 1.7.5]

It strikes me as odd, therefore, that one would suppose that the early Christian movement, having come out of such difficult times as those, would capitulate so easily to the emperor Constantine’s demands with respect to defining the very fundamentals of their faith!

It Was About the Aryan Heresy

The story of the Nicaean council begins in Alexandria in northwest Egypt. The archbishop of Alexandria was a man by the name of Alexander. A member of his senior clergy, called Arius, took issue with Alexander’s view of Jesus’s divine nature, insisting that the Son is, in fact, himself a created being. In similar fashion to modern Jehovah’s Witnesses, Arius maintained that Jesus was like the Father inasmuch as they both existed before creation, played a role in creation and were exalted above it. But the Son, according to the theology of Arius, was the first of God’s creations and was commissioned by the Father to create the world.

On this point, Alexander strongly disagreed, and publicly challenged Arius’s heretical teachings. In 318 AD, Alexander called together a hundred or so bishops to talk over the matter and to defrock Arius. Arius, however, went to Nicomedia in Asia Minor and rallied his supporters, including Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a relative by marriage to Constantine the emperor, and a theologian in the imperial court. Eusebius and Arius wrote to many bishops who had not been involved in the defrocking of Arius. The effect was the creation of divisions among the bishops. Embarrassed by such bickering, the emperor Constantine convened the ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325.

Constantine’s primary concern was imperial unity rather than theological accuracy, and he desired a decision that would be supported by the greatest number of bishops, regardless of what conclusion was reached. His theological advisor, Hosius, served to get the emperor up to speed before the arrival of the bishops. Since Arius was not a bishop, he was not invited to sit on the council. However, his supporter Eusebius of Nicomedia acted on Arius’s behalf and presented his point of view.

Arius’s position regarding the finite nature of the Son was not popular with the bishops. It became clear, however, that a formal statement concerning the nature of the Son and his relationship to the Father was needed. The real issue at the Council of Nicaea was thus how, and not if, Jesus was divine.

The Deity of Christ was Never In Question
A formal statement was eventually put together and signed by the bishops. Those who declined to sign the statement were stripped of their rank of bishop. The few who supported Arius insisted that only language found in Scripture should feature in the statement, whereas Arius’s critics insisted that only non-Biblical language was adequate to fully unpack the implications of the language found in the Bible. It was Constantine who eventually suggested that the Father and Son be said to be of the “same substance” (homoousios in Greek). Although Constantine hoped that this statement would keep all parties happy (implying the complete deity of Jesus without going much further), the supporters of Arius insisted that this language suggested that the Father and Son were equal but didn’t explain how this was compatible with the central tenet of monotheism (i.e. the belief in only one deity).

Nonetheless, the Nicaean creed did indeed incorporate this language. It stated,

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead; And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, ‘There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change — these the Catholic Church anathematizes.”

Aryanism Denounced by not Defeated

With just two exceptions (Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarcia), the creed was signed by all the bishops, numbering more than 300. Arius’s supporters had been overwhelmingly defeated.

Arius’s supporters, however, managed to find some wiggle room. A single letter “i” (iota), changes the meaning of homo (“same”) to “like” (homoi). The latter could be exploited by Arius and his followers to describe a created Christ. Moreover, it was argued, the creed could be interpreted as supporting Sabellianism, an ancient heresy which fails to discriminate between persons of the godhead. It was this in-house squabbling between bishops that ultimately led to the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Unity, But at What Cost?

A company of bishops started to campaign for the formal re-instatement of Arius as a presbyter in Alexandria. Constantine yielded to their petition and, in 332, re-instated Arius as a presbyter. Athenasius, who had recently succeeded his mentor Alexander as bishop of Alexandria, was instructed to accept Arius into the church once again. Needless to say, Athenasius did not comply with this order. The consequence was exile. Constantine had little interest in the precision of his theology — rather, it was the struggle for imperial unity that was his motivation.

In conclusion, although popular misconceptions about the Council of Nicaea are rampant, the idea that the Council of Nicaea determined which books comprised the New Testament or that it invented the deity of Christ to comply with the demands of Constantine are myths. Indeed, correct theology was of little concern to Constantine, who cared much more about imperial unity. Christians must make a serious effort to study and learn church history, so that when we encounter such claims in the media and in our personal evangelism, we may know how to present an accurate account of our history.

Recommended Resources:

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4isqk2b

/by

The DNA Replisome: A Paradigm of Design

The DNA replisome is one of the most remarkable molecular machines, involving a complex of different proteins, each of which is very specifically crafted to fulfill its role in the process of replicating the genome in preparation for cell division. The rate of DNA replication has been measured at a whopping 749 nucleotides per second[1] and the error rate for accurate polymerases is believed to be in the range of 10-7 and 10-7, based on studies of E. coli and bacteriophage DNA replication.[2]

One of the best animations of this incredible process is this one by Australian animator Drew Berry. It is difficult to look at an animation such as this (which is drastically over-simplified) and not come away with the strong intuition that such an intricately choreographed machine is the product of masterful engineering. Stable and functional protein structures are astronomically rare in combinatorial sequence space, and DNA replication requires many of them. But not just any old stably folding proteins will do. These proteins have to be crafted very particularly in order to perform their respective jobs. Indeed, when one focuses on specific proteins, it takes the design intuition to new heights. For example, see these beautiful animations of topoisomerase, helicase, and DNA polymerase. One paper summarizes the engineering prowess of DNA replication thus [3]:

Synthesis of all genomic DNA involves the highly coordinated action of multiple polypeptides. These proteins assemble two new DNA chains at a remarkable pace, approaching 1000 nucleotides (nt) per second in E. coli. If the DNA duplex were 1 m in diameter, then the following statements would roughly describe E. coli replication. The fork would move at approximately 600km/hr (375 mph), and the replication machinery would be about the size of a FedEx delivery truck. Replicating the E. coli genome would be a 40 min, 400 km (250 mile) trip for two such machines, which would, on average make an error only once every 170 km (106 miles). The mechanical prowess of this complex is even more impressive given that it synthesizes two chains simultaneously as it moves. Although one strand is synthesized in the same direction as the fork is moving, the other chain (the lagging strand) is synthesized in a piecemeal fashion (as Okazaki fragments) and in the opposite direction of overall fork movement. As a result, about once a second one delivery person (i.e. polymerase active site) associated with the truck must take a detour, coming off and then rejoining its template DNA strand, to synthesize the 0.2km (0.13 mile) fragments.[3]

Irreducible Complexity on Steroids

DNA replication is an example of what we might call “irreducible complexity on steroids.” Genome duplication is a prerequisite of differential survival, which is necessary for the process of natural selection to even work. Thus, one can hardly appeal to natural selection to account for the origins of DNA replication without assuming the existence of the very thing one is attempting to explain. It is difficult to envision a viable replication system that is simpler than the DNA replisome shown in the animation above. Though the RNA world scenario (which maintains that RNA-based life predates life based on DNA and proteins) is a popular hypothesis, problems abound for this scenario, as has been discussed many times in various other publications (e.g., Meyer, Signature in the Cell, Ch. 14). For example, one of the foremost challenges is the inherent instability of RNA (being single-stranded, and possessing an additional 2’ OH group, rendering it prone to hydrolysis). RNA polymers are therefore extremely unlikely to have survived in the early earth environment for long enough to be of much value. Second, when RNA forms complementary base pairs to fold back on itself, part of the molecule no longer presents an exposed strand that can serve as a template for copying. Thus, there is a physical limitation on the capability of RNA to self-replicate.

A further reason why the DNA replication machinery exhibits irreducible complexity on steroids is that, by being so primitive, it is far more difficult to envision any kind of co-optation scenario than it would be for a system that arose much later, such as bacterial flagella. With the flagellum, one can at least point to alternative functions that might be performed by a number of the flagellar components (such as the Type-III Secretion System). However, with DNA replication, it is unclear what other systems any of the components might be co-opted from – since any other system would need to have arisen after the origins of DNA replication.

An even more striking enigma is that, across the three domains of life, the key enzymes (in particular, the replicative polymerases) are not homologous, which has led to the suggestion that DNA replication may have arisen more than once independently.[4] This observation sits more comfortably on a design paradigm than on one committed to naturalism.

Which Components Are Essential for DNA Replication?

What protein components that are involved in DNA replication are indispensable for function? First, there is the DNA polymerase that actually performs the copying of each strand. Without it, no replication would take place at all. But, the DNA polymerase is unable to begin replication without the presence of a free 3’ OH (hydroxyl) group. Thus, another enzyme — a form of RNA polymerase called a primase — creates a short RNA fragment (called a primer) from which the DNA polymerase can extend (unlike DNA polymerase, the primase does not require the presence of a free 3’ OH group). Thus, in the absence of the primase enzyme, no RNA primers would be laid down on either the leading or lagging strand, and DNA replication would be unable to commence. Furthermore, the DNA polymerase itself has to be attached to the DNA by a ring-shaped protein known as a sliding clamp (which prevents it from falling off the DNA template strand). But, the sliding clamp cannot directly attach to the DNA on its own. Instead, a protein complex called the clamp loader mediates the loading of the sliding clamp onto the DNA at the replication fork, utilizing the energy from ATP hydrolysis to open the sliding clamp ring and load it onto the DNA. In the absence of the sliding clamp or clamp loader, the DNA polymerase would frequently fall off the DNA template, rendering it extremely inefficient.

Of course, the replication process cannot begin unless the DNA double helix is unzipped, and this is accomplished by the enzyme helicase, which breaks the hydrogen bonds along the DNA molecule, thereby opening up and exposing the two strands for replication by the polymerase. In its absence, the DNA polymerase will stall, unable to separate the strands that lie ahead.

Even with the helicase enzyme separating the two strands, the strands are likely to reanneal during the copying process. Enter the single-stranded binding proteins which bind to the exposed DNA strands, preventing them from re-annealing during copying. Without them, the DNA strands would bind together again before they were able to be copied.

The topoisomerase enzymes are necessary for removing supercoils that are induced by the torsional stress. They do so by cutting one strand, passing the other strand through the gap, and then resealing the break. In the absence of the topoisomerase enzymes, the DNA would eventually break, thereby hindering the DNA replication process.

Because of the anti-parallel nature of DNA (and the fact that the DNA polymerase can only replicate in a 5’ to 3’ direction), one strand, the lagging strand, has to be replicated backwards (in order for the replication fork to move in a single direction). This is done discontinuously in small sections. RNA primers are laid down by primase, and from those are synthesized short fragments of DNA known as Okazaki fragments. The RNA primers are then removed and replaced with DNA, and the Okazaki fragments are stitched together by the enzyme ligase. We have already discussed the necessity of the primase enzyme for synthesizing RNA primers. It may be added that, in the absence of the RNA excision enzymes (which remove the RNA primers), the RNA fragments would remain covalently attached to the newly replicated fragments of DNA. Moreover, in the absence of ligase (which links the Okazaki fragments together), the newly replicated strands would remain as fragments.

If the removal of any of the aforementioned components would render the DNA replication machinery non-functional, how could such a system come about through an undirected Darwinian step-wise pathway, preserving selective utility at every step along the way? Whatever process produced the DNA replisome had to know where the target was. Such a cause would have to be teleological in nature.

A Paradigm of Design

The DNA replication machinery represents one of the most extraordinary examples of nanotechnology found in the cell. In any other realm of experience, such a complex and delicate arrangement of parts would be immediately recognized as reflecting conscious intent — that is, as being the product of a mind. Why should such an inference be disallowed when examining biological systems? For more detail on this fascinating molecular machine, see my interview on it from last summer on ID the Future. I also published an earlier series (more than a decade ago) exploring the various protein components in more detail. You can find these here:

If you enjoyed the animation by Drew Berry linked at the beginning of this article, here is a more detailed animation, produced by Oxford University Press. Here is a second animation which reveals how the DNA polymerases are coupled so that they can move in the same direction.

References: 

[1] McCarthy D, Minner C, Bernstein H, Bernstein C. DNA elongation rates and growing point distributions of wild-type phage T4 and a DNA-delay amber mutant. J Mol Biol. 1976 Oct 5;106(4):963-81.

[2] Schaaper RM. Base selection, proofreading, and mismatch repair during DNA replication in Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem.1993 Nov 15;268(32):23762-5.

[3] Baker TA, Bell SP. Polymerases and the replisome: machines within machines. Cell. 1998 Feb 6;92(3):295-305.

[4] Leipe DD, Aravind L, Koonin EV. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Res. 1999 Sep 1;27(17):3389-401; and Brown JR, Doolittle WF. Archaea and the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1997 Dec;61(4):456-502.

Recommended Resources:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

This article was originally published on March 21st, 2024, at Evolution News & Science Today.

And republished at: https://bit.ly/4f6pp5q

/by

Are Proponents of ID Religiously Motivated, and Does It Matter?

Recently, someone asked me to comment on an article, published in 2017, by John Danaher, a lecturer in the Law School at the University of Galway, Ireland. He is widely published on legal and moral philosophy, as well as philosophy of religion. In his article, Danaher alleges that proponents of intelligent design (ID) are religiously motivated. He also asserts that the argument for ID from irreducible complexity has conceptual problems, and that systems that we deem to be irreducibly complex can be adequately explained by co-optation of components performing other roles in the cell. In two articles, I will address his concerns about our supposed religious motives, and then tackle his specific objections to irreducible complexity.

Do We Have Religious Motives?

Danaher opens his essay by reminiscing about his days as a student when he first encountered ID.

When I was a student, well over a decade ago now, intelligent design was all the rage. It was the latest religiously-inspired threat to Darwinism (though it tried to hide its religious origins). It argued that Darwinism could never account for certain forms of adaptation that we see in the natural world.

What made intelligent design different from its forebears was its seeming scientific sophistication. Proponents of intelligent design were often well-qualified scientists and mathematicians, and they dressed up their arguments with the latest findings from microbiology and abstruse applications of probability theory. My sense is that the fad for intelligent design has faded in the intervening years, though I have no doubt that it still has its proponents.

These paragraphs betray the fact that the author is quite out of touch with the literature on ID.

Stronger than Ever

First, ID has come a long way since the early 2000s. Far from having faded, it is now stronger than ever, having more academic proponents (and many more peer-reviewed publications) than at any time in its history. Its arguments are far more developed and sophisticated than in the early 2000s and this trend is likely to continue.

Second, it is unclear in what sense Danaher refers to the “religious origins” of ID. It is certainly true that having a religious perspective, predisposing one towards theism, creates a plausibility structure that opens one’s mind to the possibility of there being measurable evidence of design in the universe, including in living organisms. Thus, being independently persuaded of the truth of a theistic religion (in my case, Christianity) is positively relevant to one’s assessment of the prior probability (or, intrinsic plausibility) of ID. However, even if one is not persuaded of theistic religion, the evidence of design in the natural world is, in my opinion, sufficient to overwhelm even a very low prior. Indeed, the cosmological evidence that our universe has a finite history; the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of our universe; the prior environmental fitness of nature for complex life; the optimization of the universe for scientific discovery and technology; and the biological evidence of design all point univocally and convergently in the direction of a cosmic creator. Thus, ID has attracted support from scholars who are not themselves adherents of any religion, including Michael Denton, David Berlinski, and Steve Fuller. Paleontologist and frequent Evolution News contributor Günter Bechly, though a Christian believer now, was not sympathetic to Christianity when he first came to be persuaded of ID.

Misguided on Many Levels

Later in the essay, Danaher further remarks,

The claim is not that God must have created the bacterial flagellum but, rather, that an intelligent designer did. For tactical reasons, proponents of intelligent design liked to hide their religious motivations, trying to claim that their theory was scientific, not religious in nature. This was largely done in order to get around certain legal prohibitions on the teaching of religion under US constitutional law. I’m not too interested in that here though. I view the intelligent design movement as a religious one, and hence the arguments they proffer as on a par with pretty much all design arguments.

These comments are misguided on many levels.

First, the claim that we ID proponents are not clear about our personal religious persuasions is patently false. Speaking for myself, I have been very clear that I am a Christian theist, though my grounds for being persuaded of that conclusion are wholly independent of the science of ID. And I am by no means unusual. Virtually every leading ID proponent — from Michael Behe to William Dembski to Stephen Meyer to Phillip Johnson to David Klinghoffer to Casey Luskin to Brian Miller to Ann Gauger and many others — has been totally open about his or her personal religious beliefs. In the world of intelligent design, no one is hiding anything about religious beliefs, including those who lack religious beliefs.

Second, ID is a scientific argument, and when evaluating a scientific argument, the motives of its proponents are irrelevant. As Casey Luskin writes,

[I]n science, the motives or personal religious beliefs of scientists don’t matter; only the evidence matters. For example, the great scientists Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton were inspired to their scientific work by their religious convictions that God would create an orderly, rational universe with comprehensible physical laws that governed the motion of the planets. They turned out to be right — not because of their religious beliefs — but because the scientific evidence validated their hypotheses. (At least, Newton was thought to be right until Einstein came along.) Their personal religious beliefs, motives, or affiliations did nothing to change the fact that their scientific theories had inestimable scientific merit that helped form the foundation for modern science.

To attack an idea because of the alleged religious motives of its proponents is to commit the genetic fallacy, and that is exactly what Danaher has done here.

Third, ID is not a religious argument. Though ID provides strong evidence for a broadly theistic perspective, the argument itself is grounded in the scientific method. ID does not aid in evaluating the merits of one particular religious tradition over another. ID does not even technically commit one to theism, though I would contend that God is the best candidate for the identity of the designer (as Stephen Meyer argues in his recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis). Thus, ID rightly attracts people of all religious persuasions and none (including Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and agnostics). This is important because it shows that ID is not about supporting one particular religion. We, therefore, strive to be honest about the limitations of ID while being careful not to overstate what the scientific evidence alone can tell us.

What About Evolution?

Finally, if Danaher wants to scrutinize the religious motives of ID proponents, we have to consider what such a line of attack would do to evolution. Casey Luskin has documented (see here or here) the extensive anti-religious beliefs, motives, and affiliations of many leading evolution-advocates. While I (and Luskin) would maintain that evolution is science, one must ask what would happen to evolution if the religious (or anti-religious) beliefs of its proponents suddenly became relevant to assessing its merits.

“Teach the Controversy”

Danaher’s statement that the claim that ID is scientific and not religious “was largely done in order to get around certain legal prohibitions on the teaching of religion under US constitutional law” is historically incorrect. Discovery Institute (the leading organization funding research into, and promoting the public understanding of, ID) does not support attempts to legally protect the teaching of ID in public schools. In fact, since Discovery Institute’s earliest involvement in major public education debates in the U.S. (in Ohio in 2002), it has not supported mandating the teaching of ID in public schools. This is not because we feel that ID is unconstitutional. ID, much like the Big Bang in cosmology, may be friendly to a broadly theistic perspective. However, this does not make the idea itself a religious one, just as the Big Bang theory is not a religious idea. Thus, there is nothing intrinsic to ID that would render it unconstitutional under the First Amendment (see here or here for legal discussions). However, attempts to legislatively protect the teaching of ID tend to politicize the theory, and we believe that the merits of ID ought to be debated in the scientific journals, not in the courtroom. Rather, Discovery Institute advocates a “teach the controversy” model, where the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories (including evolution) are presented and discussed. All of this is stated clearly and openly on our Science Education Policy page:

As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to require teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.       


Instead of recommending teaching about intelligent design in public K-12 schools, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in curriculum. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned.

Thus, Danaher is ill-informed about Discovery Institute’s long-standing education policy. In a second article, I shall address his specific concerns regarding the argument from irreducible complexity.

Recommended Resources:

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally published here: https://bit.ly/3zZJM4R

/by

Does the Bible Support Sexual Slavery? An Analysis of Numbers 31:15-18

,

More than two years ago, I participated in a debate in Oxford, England, with atheist YouTuber Alex O’Connor (who goes by the online alias Cosmic Skeptic). The subject was “Why I Am / Am Not a Christian,” which was quite broad. Given the short time constraints of the debate and the breadth of the topic, we were regrettably unable to pursue an explication of our differences with the depth that I would prefer. Nonetheless, I very much appreciated my interaction that evening with O’Connor, including the dinner we enjoyed together before the event. I have long viewed O’Connor as one of the more philosophically nuanced atheist thinkers, and I have valued our ongoing private discussions subsequent to our initial public dialogue. My positive argument in the debate concerned the evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, while O’Connor focused on moral critiques of the Bible. In his portion of the cross-examination, O’Connor chose to focus on the issue of slavery in the Old Testament. The last of the texts we discussed was Numbers 31:15-18, which was interpreted by O’Connor to endorse sexual slavery. At the time, this was not an issue that I had researched with great depth, though I recognized it as a difficult text. My preparation for the debate had largely been on the evidences for New Testament reliability, and its epistemic relevance to developing a robust case for the resurrection. I therefore acknowledged it as a difficult text without offering any detailed response. Earlier this week, Alex O’Connor uploaded the clip from our debate, in which this text was discussed, to his Cosmic Clips spin-off channel. I therefore thought it an appropriate time to publish an article offering my current perspective on this difficult text.

What Does the Text Actually Say?  

Here is the passage under discussion:

“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he [Moses] asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man” (Numbers 31:15-18; NIV).

The first thing to note about this text is that it is not technically God who gives the instructions. Thus, on the worst case scenario, one may interpret this text as being descriptive of Moses’s command, rather than it being an act endorsed by God. Nonetheless, even supposing (as I think is more likely) that Moses’s instruction carries with it God’s approval, I do not believe it to be as problematic as it might appear on first impression. O’Connor believes that this text gives permission to the Hebrew soldiers to rape Midianite war captives. Such an interpretation, however, would fly in the face of every piece of clear moral legislation on sexual relations that we have in the Hebrew Bible. For example, in Deuteronomy 22:23-27:

“If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her” (Deuteronomy 22:23-27; emphasis added).

According to this text, the crime of rape is so serious that it is punishable by death. If the woman failed to scream for help when she was in the city and could be heard, the Jewish law viewed the situation as consensual sex rather than rape, since the woman could have cried out for someone to rescue her but didn’t. Thus, both parties were guilty. If the sexual assault took place in a rural area, however, where the woman had no chance of being heard, the Jewish law gave the woman the benefit of the doubt and she was not to be considered culpable.

What about P.O.W’s?

One might object here that women captured in war were not afforded the same rights as women belonging to the people of Israel, and thus this consideration offers little help with regards to the text of our study. However, the previous chapter in Deuteronomy concerns the rights of women who are captured in war (Deut 21:10-14):

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her” (Deuteronomy 21:10-14; emphasis added).

Therefore, while the Hebrew soldiers were permitted to marry female war captives, they were not permitted to rape them or treat them as slaves. The woman was also to have a month to mourn the loss of her kin prior to getting married. Daniel Block notes, “This monthlong quarantine expresses respect for the woman’s ties to her family of origin and her own psychological and emotional health, providing a cushion from the shock of being torn from her own family.[i]

Indeed, as John Wenham comments, “In a world where there are wars, and therefore prisoners of war, such regulations in fact set a high standard of conduct.”[ii] Furthermore, by becoming part of the people of Israel (and possessing full status as a wife), the women would be delivered from pagan idolatry and exposed instead to Israelite religion concerning the true God, thereby having opportunity to attain salvation.

War Context

The historical context of the war against the Midianites is also important to bear in mind as we evaluate our text. Numbers 31:16 indicates that the Midianite women “were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people.” This is an allusion to Numbers 25:1-9, in which we read of an occasion where the Midianites devised a plot to entice Israel into pagan worship involving making sacrifices to Baal and ritual sex. According to Moses, the Midianite women were among those who “enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord” (Num 31:16). Thus, the women who were permitted to live and marry into Israel (that is, those who had not known man by lying with him) were presumably those who had not been involved in enticing the men of Israel into sexual impurity.

What the Text Doesn’t Say

Another consideration, often overlooked in discussions of our text, is that we are not informed what happened to young woman who were brought into the Israelite camp but who did not wish to marry the men who had just slaughtered their kin. We can hypothesize that they were forced into it anyway, but we can equally hypothesize that they were allowed to make themselves useful as virgins until such a time as someone more suitable presented himself. This is simply not stated or even intimated in the text. Thus, if there were women who were averse to being married to an interested Israelite soldier, we just do not know what happened. Moreover, even if on occasion something bad happened — and there is no reason to deny that sometimes it may have — it is not something we are told was done by command of God.

In conclusion, though Numbers 31:13-18 is undoubtedly a difficult text, especially from the vantage point of our twenty-first century western culture, the text becomes, upon closer inspection, significantly less problematic than it appears at first impression. The Pentateuch outlined the rights of female war captives, and they were not allowed to be treated as a slave or sex object. The Pentateuch also takes a very negative view of rape. Most likely, the women who were spared were not involved in enticing Israel into sexual impurity during the incident at Peor. Finally, we are not informed by the text what the arrangements were for women who did not wish to marry an interested Israelite soldier, and so any suggestion of what may have happened is mere conjecture.

Footnotes:

[i] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 496.

[ii] John W. Wenham, The Goodness of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1974), 96.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek Mp3 and Mp4

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally published at: https://bit.ly/3wutuzg

 

 

 

/by