Tag Archive for: Jonathan McLatchie

The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to the Case for the Resurrection

The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to the Case for the Resurrection

,

A popular argument that is wielded by Christian apologists, at both the scholarly and popular level, is based on 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, taken by many contemporary scholars to represent an ancient creedal tradition that goes back to within only a couple of years of Jesus’ death. Indeed, Michael Licona states that “In nearly every historical investigation of the resurrection of Jesus, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 weighs heavily and is perhaps the most important and valuable passage for use by historians when discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.”[1] The text reads as follows:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

In this article, I want to offer a critical appraisal of this argument, with a view towards evaluating the evidence for this text being a creed as well as the data that bears on its dating. I will conclude by offering an appraisal of the evidential value of this text in relation to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 a creed?

Several lines of evidence are commonly adduced in support of this text being derived from an oral creedal tradition. The first of those is the use of the words “delivered” (Παρέδωκα) and “received” (παρέλαβον). Craig Keener notes that this “is the language of what scholars call ‘traditioning’: Jewish teachers would pass on their teachings to their students, who would in turn pass them on to their own students. The students could take notes, but they delighted especially in oral memorization and became quite skilled at it; memorization was a central feature of ancient education.”[2] Richard Bauckham notes that “these Greek words were used for formal transmission of tradition in the Hellenistic schools and so would have been familiar in this sense to Paul’s Gentile readers. They also appeared in Jewish Greek usage (Josephus, Ant. 13.297; C. Αρ. 1.60; Mark 7:4, 13; Acts 6:14), corresponding to what we find in Hebrew in later rabbinic literature (e.g., m. ‘Avot 1.1).”[3] Indeed, the Mishnaic tractate of Avot says “Moses received the Torah at Sinai and delivered it to Joshua,” (m. ‘Avot 1.1).

This view of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as being derivative of pre-Pauline tradition seems to command the consensus opinion of the scholarly guild, and is accepted even by skeptics including German New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann[4] and UNC Chapel Hill New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman[5]. In agreement with the scholars cited above, Ehrman notes that “the terms [Paul] uses here of ‘delivering to you’ and ‘having received’ are code language in ancient Jewish circles for traditions that are passed down from a teacher to his students: during his studies the teacher ‘receives’ a tradition and then in his teaching he ‘delivers’ it to his own followers.  That’s how traditions get circulated among teachers and students.  Paul, good Jew that he is, is simply referring to information that has been given to him by others before he passes it along himself.”[6]

I think this view of the text is most likely the best interpretation of Paul’s introductory formula, Παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον. This is all the more plausible given that Paul belonged to the Pharisaical sect of Judaism, which Mark and Josephus both inform us were zealous for tradition (Mk 7:3,5; Jos. Ant 13.10.6; 13.16.2). There are also various Pauline texts that indicate the importance of tradition to Paul (1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1, 2, 3; Gal 1:14; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6; 1 Thes 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thes 2:15; 3:6).

The question remains, however, whether the expression should be taken to simply indicate that the information Paul is passing on is derivative from pre-Pauline tradition, or whether the text of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 itself represents a verbatim transcript of an earlier oral creedal tradition. Advocates of the latter view have tended to emphasize aspects of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 that appear to be non-Pauline. Michael Licona observes that “with a lone exception in Galatians 1:4, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν (‘for our sins’) is absent elsewhere in Paul (and the rest of the New Testament), who prefers the singular: ‘sin.’ The phrase ‘according to the Scriptures’ is absent elsewhere in the Pauline corpus and the New Testament, where we read γέγραπται (‘it is written’). Instead of the typical aorist, the perfect passive ‘he has been raised’ is found only in 1 Corinthians 15:12–14, 16, 20 and in 2 Timothy 2:8, which is also a confessional formula believed to be pre-Pauline. ‘On the third day’ is only here in Paul. In Paul, the term ὤφθη (‘appeared to’ or ‘was seen’) is found only in 1 Corinthians 15:5–8 and 1 Timothy 3:16. ‘The Twelve’ is only here in Paul. Elsewhere he uses ‘the apostles.’”[7] This observation, in my opinion, contributes only weak evidence to the case for the pre-Pauline origins of the text itself (as opposed to the facts that the text expresses). Every New Testament author utilizes expressions that he does not customarily use, so caution is warranted before drawing firm conclusions about authorship from word choice, especially when the relevant text is as short as this.

A second argument that this text is of pre-Pauline origin is that “we can see parallelism in the text: the first and third lines are longer, have the same construction (verb, closer modification, proved by the Scriptures) and are followed by a short sentence introduced by ὅτι.”[8] It is possible that Paul constructed the parallelism of this text himself, since it is only here, out of all of Paul’s epistles, that he offers a summary of the key elements of the gospel, presumably with the intent that his readers commit them to memory. Indeed, Paul himself at times constructs his own parallelisms (e.g. Rom 1:26-27; 1 Thes 2:3,5,10). Thus, it is not entirely implausible that he would create this parallelism for ease of memorization, though one may say in response that the parallelism is somewhat less predicted on the hypothesis of Pauline origin than on the hypothesis that this text represents a pre-Pauline creed. The text, with its parallelisms and rhythmic style, does indeed sound like a creed up until verse 8, wherein we read, “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” This verse, I would argue constitute some evidence against the text being of creedal origin, though this is not by any means decisive since Paul could plausibly have transitioned from something more formal into the informal addition of himself to the end of the list. Paul also adds in verse 6 concerning the five hundred, “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.” This too does not comport well with the claimed creed-like structure of these verses, though it may be Paul’s own editorial insertion into the text of the creed. Thus, the parallelist structure of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 may, again, be taken only as weak evidence in favour of the text being of pre-Pauline origin.

The German New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann has argued that “within the report of the first appearance of Christ to Cephas in verse 5, the clause ‘he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve’ can be detached as an independent unit from the tradition handed down by Paul during his founding visit. This is suggested not only by the parallel to Luke 24:34 (‘the Lord was really raised and appeared to Simon’), but by Mark 16:7 (‘tell his disciples and Peter’).”[9] Concerning the parallelism of “he appeared” in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7, Lüdemann suggests that this “could be explained in two ways: either Paul was modeling his language in verse 7 on verse 5, which employed a tradition about an appearance to James and to al the apostles, or Paul was reproducing two independent traditions. In the latter case either the one formula had already been modeled earlier on the basis of the other or the two formulae have a common origin. In either case, it is clear that verses 5 and 7 both derive from earlier tradition.”[10] Thus, establishing the actual historical origins of this text is more complex than often made out, and more than one plausible scenario exists.

Some scholars have observed a correspondence between 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 and Paul’s words in Acts 13-28-31 that may support the text of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 being derivative of an earlier creedal tradition.[11] Acts 13:28-31 indicates that,

28 And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29 And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him from the dead, 31 and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.

Bart Ehrman even notes that “Possibly this is the tradition that lies behind 1 Corinthian 15:4 as well: ‘and he was buried.’”[12] If this is so, then 1 Corinthians 15:4 may indeed indicate that Jesus buried in a tomb (as opposed to a common grave), a point that is often contested.[13]

Another line of evidence is Paul’s use of κήρυγμᾶκηρύσσω to describe the tradition.[14] Paul writes that he is going to remind them of τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην, ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε (“the gospel I preached to you, which you received”). He also uses, when describing this gospel, the phrase τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν (“the word I preached to you”). When referring back to the content of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, Paul uses οὕτως κηρύσσομεν (“we preach in this way”) (1 Cor 15:11; c.f. 1 Cor 15:12, 14). Licona states that “Κήρυγμα/κηρύσσω is a more formal term than εὐαγγέλιον͂εὐαγγελίζω and can refer to an ‘official or public announcement,’ though this need not be the case. It is interesting, therefore, to see that after citing the tradition, Paul changes his description of his message and the activity of imparting it from εὐαγγέλιον͂εὐαγγελίζω το κήρυγμᾶκηρύσσω.”[15] Licona is correct that the noun Κήρυγμα and its related verb κηρύσσω can refer to an official or public announcement (e.g. LXX 2 Ch 30:5; EsdA 9:3; Pr 9:3; Jon 3:2), though it need not necessarily. However, even if this is the intended meaning in the context of 1 Corinthians 15, I do not think this at all implies the verbatim proclamation of a prescribed text, such as a creedal statement. It could simply be that the content of the gospel message (which is summarized by 1 Cor 15:3-7) was publicly proclaimed. In fact, Paul uses both of those words frequently in his letters to refer to the preaching of the gospel (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 1:21, 23, 2:4, 9:27; 2 Co 1:19, 4:5, 11:4; Gal 2:2, 5:11; Phil 1:15; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9, 3:16, 4:2; 1 Tim 3:16, 4:2; 2 Tim 4:17; Tit 2:3; 1 Pet 3:19; Rev 5:2). Thus, his use the term in 1 Corinthians 15 is not at all surprising, and I do not judge that I can even call this weak evidence supporting 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being a pre-Pauline creedal tradition.

Probably the weakest argument I have encountered for the pre-Pauline origins of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is the use of the Aramaic name Κηφᾶς (transliterated into Greek) for Peter.[16] Since Κηφᾶς is the transliteration of an Aramaic name into Greek, so the argument goes, this is suggestive of an early origin. However, of the ten times in his letters that Paul mentions Peter, five of those he uses the name Κηφᾶς (1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, Gal 2:9). In fact, the Nestle-Aland text also uses Κηφᾶς in an additional two of those texts (Gal 1:18, 2:11). Of the four times Peter is mentioned in 1 Corinthians, every single one of them uses the name Κηφᾶς. Thus, this argument too I can not even consider to contribute weak evidence to the case for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being a pre-Pauline creedal tradition.

Of the arguments summarized above, the strongest in my opinion are the use of “delivered” and “received” (1 Cor 15:3) combined with the rhythmic structure and parallelisms of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Given that these features seem at least somewhat more probable on the hypothesis that this text represents a creedal tradition than on its falsehood (and the absence of stronger disconfirming evidence), these data are, in my opinion sufficient to make the pre-Pauline origins of this text somewhat more probable than not, though this conclusion is by no means as certain as it is often implied. What does seem to be secure, however, is that Paul received information from the Jerusalem apostles, which is summarized in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. The only question that is still uncertain is whether Paul is summarizing that information in his own words or whether he is quoting from an earlier formalized creedal tradition that preceded his own writing.

One objection that is sometimes raised is that Paul indicates elsewhere that “I did not receive [the gospel] from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ,” (Gal 1:12).[17] If Paul received the gospel through a revelation of Jesus Christ, so the argument goes, then how can Paul be passing on tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 which he had previously received from the other apostles? However, even though Paul received the gospel by the revelation of Christ Jesus, it does not follow that he did not receive a creed tradition containing that gospel from the Jerusalem apostles. Moreover, if Paul had not known from other people that Jesus had been raised from the dead, then he would not have known who spoke to him on the road to Damascus, or for that matter what was meant by “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5). The appearances that Paul lists in 1 Cor 15:3-7 (to Peter, the Twelve, the five hundred, James, and all the apostles) were almost certainly learned about from his conversations with other people.

The Date of the Creed

Having given my assessment of the evidence for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 representing a pre-Pauline credal tradition, let us inquire as to when this tradition may have been received by Paul. I would agree with Michael Licona and others that “There are good reasons for concluding that this tradition probably came from Jerusalem”[18] since that is where the original church leaders were headquartered. As for when exactly Paul received this tradition, a few possibilities have been proposed. One option is that Paul received this tradition while in Damascus, perhaps from Ananias or other Christians who were present there, which would likely place it within one to three years of Jesus’ death.[19]

Another option is that Paul received the tradition in Jerusalem upon his visit three years following his conversion, where he stayed with Peter for fifteen days (Gal 1:18). During this visit, Paul also saw James (Gal 1:19).[20] Licona notes that “Of interest is the term Paul uses to describe what he did while with Peter: ἱστορῆσαι (‘visit’), from which derives our English term history. The term may mean ‘to get information from,’ ‘to inquire into a thing, to learn by inquiry.’ What was it to which Paul inquired? He could have been attempting to get to know Peter, the leading Jerusalem apostle at the time. But from his letters Paul does not appear to be the type of person who would want to take just over two weeks simply to develop a friendship with a colleague for the sake of having another friend.”[21] Licona is correct that this word can mean “to inquire into” or “to visit and get information.” That Paul received this tradition on this visit to Jerusalem is plausible, though not certain. There are also two other journeys that Paul made to Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30; 15:1-9; Gal 2:1-10).

These are also both possibilities for when he received this tradition. There are still other possibilities. For example, Paul may have received some or all of the tradition from Barnabas or from James during his first visit to Jerusalem following his conversion (Acts 9:26-29; Gal 1:19). Paul also tells us of a visit by Peter to Antioch (Gal 2:11). He may even have received the tradition from Barnabas during the considerable time they spent together (Acts 11:25-30; 12:25-15:40). Silas also accompanied Paul during his next missionary journey (Acts 15:40-17:14; 18:5-11). This would put Paul and Silas together between 49 and 51 A.D., shortly before he wrote 1 Corinthians. Paul thus may have received it from him during that time as well. The reality is that any attempt to specify precisely when Paul received the oral tradition from the Jerusalem apostles is intelligent guesswork and conjecture. The bottom line is that we just cannot say with confidence when precisely Paul received the tradition.

The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

With so much lack of certainty about whether 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 represents a pre-Pauline creedal tradition and the precise dating of such a tradition, is this text of any evidential value to the case for the resurrection? I would argue that the answer is ‘yes’. Regardless of whether this text is pre-Pauline or Paul’s own literary construction, what is well supported is that those verses summarize information that Paul had received from the Jerusalem church leaders. The text thus gives one a window of insight into what was being proclaimed by the Jerusalem apostles, in particular Peter and James, whom we know Paul was personally acquainted with. This is further supported by Paul’s words in verses 8-11:

8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Note what Paul says in verse 11: “Whether then it was I or they [i.e. the Jerusalem apostles], so we preach and so you believed.” Paul thus seems to assume that the Corinthian Christians, to whom he was writing, understand his summary of the gospel to be consistent with what had already been preached by the Jerusalem apostles. We also know independently that the Corinthian church were acquainted with Peter’s preaching (1 Cor 1:12). Thus, it is probable that the message Paul communicates in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is consistent with what was being preached by Peter, James and the Twelve. Michael Licona agrees. He notes, “even if Paul received the tradition embedded in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 from someone outside of the Jerusalem leadership, his constant interaction with these leaders in and outside of Jerusalem coupled with his high regard for tradition virtually guarantees that the details of the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 are precisely in line with what the Jerusalem leadership was preaching (1 Cor 15:11). We have what amounts to a certifiably official teaching of the disciples on the resurrection of Jesus.”[22] Thus, irrespective of the question of whether Paul is passing on an oral creedal tradition, and when and from whom he may have received it, this text does provide sufficient reason to conclude that the apostles before Paul were claiming that Jesus had been raised from the dead and had appeared to them. The text is also of evidential value since Paul provides his own eyewitness testimony to have encountered the risen Lord (1 Cor 15:8).

One important caveat I wish to make here is that we ought not be overly-reliant on 1 Corinthians 15 to build our case for the resurrection, since it is difficult to make a robust case, as I have done elsewhere[23], for the rationality of the apostles’ belief to have witnessed the risen Christ unless we are able to determine what the resurrection appearances were like. The report in 1 Corinthians 15 is consistent with a floating, non-speaking Jesus, or with a Jesus who appears only once, briefly, and speaks only a few words. The case for the resurrection therefore cannot and should not be divorced from a robust case for the substantial trustworthiness of the gospels and Acts and their grounding in credible eyewitness testimony.

Furthermore, a popular criticism of using 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 in arguments for the resurrection is that Paul makes no qualitative distinction between his own experience of the risen Jesus and those of the other apostles, using the Greek word ὤφθη to describe both.[24] Acts 9:1-9 indicates that Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus, which took place after the ascension, did not involve the sort of physical interactions we read of the apostles having with Jesus following His death in the gospel accounts. On what basis, then, can we be confident that Paul understands the apostles to have had the sort of experiences with Jesus following His resurrection that we read of in the gospels? Again, if we are not able to determine the nature of the claimed experiences of the risen Jesus, it is very difficult to evaluate the rationality of the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. I am not optimistic that this case can be robustly made from the Pauline corpus alone, though the Pauline evidence certainly inclines that way, in particular Paul’s statement, ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί (“and last of all as to one untimely born he was seen also by me”). This, it may be argued, draws a separation between his experience from that of those who were apostles before him. Kirk MacGregor notes, “This observation rules out the possibility that Paul is here attempting to convey that he experienced Christ in a manner qualitatively identical to those listed in the creed. But Paul moves one step further. By placing ὤφθη κἀμοί (‘he was seen also by me’) after ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι, Paul explicitly shows ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι to be a qualifying phrase which modifies ὤφθη κἀμοί rather than a temporal indicator. Hence Paul uses ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι to explain how the character of his appearance was qualitatively distinct from those recounted in the primitive tradition. While the previous disciples ‘saw’ Jesus in the normal fashion, Paul admits to have ‘as to one untimely born seen’ Jesus—namely, to have seen him in an abnormal fashion.”[25] This evidence is surely suggestive but it does not seem to me to be conclusive. Paul may simply be indicating that he had an encounter with the risen Lord despite the fact that Paul had not known Jesus during his earthly ministry.

How, then, can this case be made robustly? It is undeniable that Luke represents the post-resurrection encounters as involving multiple sensory modes. Jesus appears to multiple individuals at once, and those encounters are not merely visual but are also auditory. Jesus engages the disciples in group conversation. The encounters are close-up and involve physical contact. Moreover, Acts indicates that the appearances were spread out over a forty-day time period – thus, the resurrection encounters were not one brief and confusing episode. If, then, it can be shown that Luke was indeed a travelling companion of Paul, it would be quite surprising if his understanding of the apostolic claim concerning the resurrection differed essentially from that of Paul. Thus, the case from 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 should be complemented with a robust case for the author of Luke-Acts being a travelling companion of Paul. I have articulated this argument in detail elsewhere.[26]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the balance of evidence is in favor of the text in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 being derivative from a pre-Pauline credal tradition, though it is not nearly as conclusive as it is often portrayed as being. While it is plausible that Paul received this tradition upon his visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, this is by no means certain, and any attempt to pin down the precise date is traipsing into highly speculative territory. Nonetheless, the text is of evidential value given that it allows us to establish, in harmony with other independent lines of evidence, that the resurrection claim goes back to the apostolic eyewitnesses themselves. Having thus eliminated the scenario that the claim of encounters with the risen Jesus arose much later and did not originate with the original apostolic eyewitnesses, we can move towards examining whether the claim originated as a result of deliberate deception on the part of the apostles, their being honestly mistaken, or because Jesus really was raised bodily from the dead, a topic that I have discussed in detail elsewhere.[27]

Footnotes

[1] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 223.

[2] Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Ilinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993).

[3] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd edition (Michigan: Wiliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), 264-265.

[4] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), Kindle.

[5] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014), Kindle. Also see Bart Ehrman, “The Core of Paul’s Gospel,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, June 2, 2016 https://ehrmanblog.org/the-core-of-pauls-gospel/

[6] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014), Kindle. Also see Bart Ehrman, “The Core of Paul’s Gospel,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, June 2, 2016 https://ehrmanblog.org/the-core-of-pauls-gospel/

[7] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 224-225.

[8] Ibid., 226.

[9] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), Kindle.

[10] Ibid.

[11] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado: David C. Cook, 2010).

[12] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014), Kindle.

[13] John W. Loftus, “The Resurrection of Jesus Never Took Place,” in The Case Against Miracles, ed. John Loftus (Hypatia Press, 2019), 336.

[14] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 226.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Gary Habermas and Michael L. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2004), 221.

[17] John W. Loftus, “The Resurrection of Jesus Never Took Place,” in The Case Against Miracles, ed. John Loftus (Hypatia Press, 2019), 335.

[18] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 226.

[19] Ibid., 229.

[20] Ibid., 230.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 232.

[23] Jonathan McLatchie, “The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts”, Jonathan McLatchie Website, October 5, 2020, https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-evidential-contribution-of-luke-acts/

[24] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), 43-44.

[25] Kirk R. MacGregor, “1 Corinthians 15:3B-6A, 7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (June 2006):225-234.

[26] Jonathan McLatchie, “The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts”, Jonathan McLatchie Website, October 5, 2020, https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-evidential-contribution-of-luke-acts/

[27] Ibid.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) 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.

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

 

/by

Grappling with Divine Hiddenness: Why Does God Not Make His Existence More Obvious?

,

One of the most challenging objections to the existence of God is the problem of divine hiddenness. Closely related to the problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddenness asks “Where is God?”; “Why doesn’t God make His existence more obvious?”; “Why does God leave any room for doubt?” Surely God, if He existed, would not need apologists to make the case for His existence — couldn’t He have made it more immediately apparent? Related to these concerns is the problem of unanswered prayer. Why do so many peoples’ prayers go unanswered, often despite years of persistent prayer? The problem is even connected to the problem of evil, since one may ask why God apparently fails to show up to put an end to evil and unjust suffering in our world. These are indeed difficult questions that deserve to be taken seriously and thoughtfully considered. 

The Biblical authors also recognized and grappled with divine hiddenness. For example, the Psalmist asked “Why, O LORD, do you stand far away? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?” (Ps 10:1). Another Psalm likewise says “Awake! Why are you sleeping, O Lord? Rouse yourself! Do not reject us forever! Why do you hide your face? Why do you forget our affliction and oppression? For our soul is bowed down to the dust; our belly clings to the ground. Rise up; come to our help! Redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love!” (Ps 44:23-26). One could continue in a similar vein for some time. The problem of divine hiddenness is, in my judgment, one of the best arguments against the existence of God. It has its most articulate and erudite defense, to my knowledge, in the work of Canadian philosopher John L. Schellenberg (see his book The Hiddenness Argument — Philosophy’s New Challenge to Belief in God).[1]

The problem is particularly difficult on an emotional level. Schellenberg draws the analogy of a friend describing his parents: “Wow, are they ever great — I wish everyone could have parents like mine, who are so wonderfully loving! Granted, they don’t want anything to do with me. They’ve never been around. Sometimes I find myself looking for them — once, I have to admit, I even called out for them when I was sick — but to no avail. Apparently they aren’t open to being in a relationship with me — at least not yet. But it’s so good that they love me as much and as beautifully as they do!”[2] This analogy should give a sense of the impact of this argument, rhetorically and emotionally.

While it may be admitted that the argument from divine hiddenness is one of the most perplexing issues for the theist to come to terms with, especially emotionally, the real question that needs to be addressed is that of whether it offers sufficient ground to overhaul the powerful cumulative positive reasons to believe that God exists and that He has revealed Himself through Jesus Christ. I will argue in this article that the answer is ‘no’.

A Lack of Obviousness Does Not Mean Poor Evidential Support

Why does God not make His existence more obvious? The first point I will make in response to this question is that God’s existence not being obvious does not entail that it is not well evidentially supported. We know from physics, for example, that a physical object like a table or a chair is comprised of mostly empty space. This is not at all obvious (in fact it would seem to be almost obvious that it is not the case) and yet we have good evidential support that it is so. One may reply that whereas we know scientifically that the chair is mostly comprised of empty space, we nonetheless still live our lives as if though it is not — our day-to-day choices and beliefs are not based on how we scientifically understand things to be, but how we experience them in our daily lives. However, I can think of counter-examples where we do act against what we feel in accord with the available evidence, even when we are putting our lives on the line. For example, despite being a frequent flyer, I get anxious about being on an airplane. Even though I know rationally that flying is the safest way to travel (statistically, your odds of being involved in a fatal plane crash are less than 1 in 12 million), flying – especially in turbulent conditions – just doesn’t feel like it is safe to me. Nevertheless, I frequently overcome my fear of flying by stepping onto an airplane, often for very long distances. In that case, I am literally committing my life to what my rational faculties tell me, and disregarding what my emotions and feelings tell me, because I know that generally my rational faculties are a more reliable gauge of what is actually true than my feelings.

Someone recently asked me why God cannot be more like the force of gravity, which we experience directly. However, while we do have direct experience of the effects of gravity, it is not immediately obvious what causes things to gravitate towards the ground. The law of gravity was not articulated before Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Indeed, in attempting to explain why unsupported bodies fall to the ground, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle put forward the idea that objects simply moved towards their ‘natural place’, the center of the earth (which in Aristotle’s cosmology was the center of the Universe), and that objects fall at a speed proportional to their weight. So perhaps gravity is less ‘obvious’ than one might think (though something which nonetheless enjoys strong evidential support). I would argue that the evidence of God is all around us, so we do in a sense experience God in a similar way to how we experience gravity. Just as we observe the effects that gravity has all around us but do not see the gravitational force that actually causes those effects, we also see the many things that God has made all around us, even though we do not see the being who actually caused those things to exist.

One may still object here that it should not take us a lot of work to discover that Christianity is true. Rather, the truth of the gospel, granting what is at stake, should be readily apparent. I shall return to this objection in due course. However, I will note here that I do not think God requires more than it is reasonable for a serious enquirer to give to an issue of this much importance. Some enquirers are better placed than others, and God looks for us to exert ourselves according to the light we have been given. I have heard, for instance, many stories of Jesus revealing Himself to people in dreams and visions in Muslim-majority countries, presumably since those are parts of the world where it is harder for people to otherwise hear the gospel. In the west, we have ample access to the gospel and to the tools needed to do our due diligence in investigating its claims.

I think we have to trust the goodness of God, since presumably God, in his omniscience, knows what every person would have done had they had more evidence — i.e. whether they would have chosen to enter into a relationship with God or to reject Him. We know from plenty of Biblical examples that not everyone who is presented with conclusive evidence for God (whether by miracles, predictive prophecies, or direct manifestations) submits to Him. If God knows that a given individual is not going to enter into a good, lasting relationship with Him, then why would God ensure the person believes? Furthermore, Scripture also indicates that people are judged in accordance with the amount of light they have rejected (e.g. Mt 11:21-22; Jn 12:47-48). Even many contemporary public atheists have essentially said that no amount of evidence could change their mind. For example, Richard Dawkins was asked in a conversation with Peter Boghossian what it would take for him to believe in God. Dawkins said that not even the second coming would be enough evidence. When Boghossian asked him whether any amount of evidence could change his mind. He replied, “Well, I’m starting to think nothing would, which, in a way, goes against the grain, because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming.” It could, therefore, be seen as an act of mercy for God to withhold from them more evidence if they were going to reject it anyway and thereby bring upon themselves greater judgment. This adds yet further plausible motivation for God not to ensure that everyone had greater access to evidence for His existence, which would thereby render them more culpable. This point has been independently made by Travis Dumsday in a paper in the journal Religious Studies.[3]

This last point may be challenged by the skeptic by pointing to the existence of non-resistant non-believers. As Schellenberg puts it, “If there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.”[4] However, I would contest that there is such a thing as long-term non-resistant nonbelief. My own view is that the evidence for Christianity is such that anyone who is fully informed and takes it upon himself to impartially examine it — with a heart open toward accepting God as Lord — will, in the long term, come to find Christianity to be true and well supported. In any case, human psychology, particularly at the subconscious level, is so complex that I doubt that it is demonstrable that any nonbeliever is completely nonresistant.

Couldn’t God Have Given Us Stronger Evidence?

A related objection is that it is possible for the evidence for Christianity to have been stronger than it in fact is. Surely, if God existed, He would have given us the strongest possible evidence. However, I do not think that we need expect something that goes beyond perfectly adequate evidence for the serious inquirer. Many atheists are under the mistaken impression that God wants people to believe in Him no matter what they are going to go on and do with that knowledge. It is never contended anywhere in Scripture that it is a commendable thing to believe in God yet reject a relationship with Him. In the Old Testament, the Jews had no doubt that God existed – they had seen many miracles performed before their eyes – and yet they went off time and again into idolatry. Even those who saw Jesus’ miracles before their very eyes didn’t believe in Him (e.g. John 12:37) and wanted to put Him to death – e.g. see the reaction of many after Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:45-53). The eighteenth century lawyer and Christian thinker Joseph Butler (1692-1752), in his Analogy of Religion, put forward the idea that our time on earth is a period of probation.[5] For some people in particular the form that that probation may take is a form of testing whether they are willing to engage in the intellectual inquiry that is necessary to give themselves a fair examination of the evidence.

An objection I sometimes encounter is that, if God exists, then there should not be any reasonable arguments against His existence at all. However, this complaint, it seems to me, boils down essentially to the dubious claim that, if Christianity is true, there cannot be any puzzles that require mental effort to work out. Another point to bear in mind is that many people are not even presented with these as puzzles that seriously compromise the evidence that they already have. For some people, working through the problem of evil is part of their probation here in this life. And if they are diligent, they will work through it. Even if they cannot find adequate and satisfying answers to why there exists so much suffering in the world, they can learn to trust in the goodness of God, and find in the problem of evil insufficient ground to overturn the positive confirmatory case for Biblical theism. Either they will find adequate answers, or they will find enough positive evidence to make the fact of their inability to find those answers not, in the end, sufficient to undermine their faith.

Why Does God Require of Us So Much Work?

I often hear the objection that in order to really be compelled by the evidence for Christianity, one has to take a very deep dive into esoteric scholarship. Surely, if God were real, the truth of the gospel should be a lot more self-evident. Indeed, this is actually also an objection to my epistemology that I frequently encounter from some Christians as well – namely, that my hard line evidentialism implies that Christians cannot be rational in believing the gospel unless they become an academic and invest hundreds of hours in the study of the evidences for Christianity. Since not everyone has the aptitude and access to resources necessary to undertake such deep study, so the objection goes, this cannot be God’s normative way of imparting rational confidence to believers that the gospel they have entrusted is indeed true.

However, I want to be careful here to draw a distinction between what I call an explicit rational warrant and what can be called an implicit, or tacit, rational warrant for Christian faith. Every Christian, I would argue, can have at least an implicit rational warrant for believing that God exists and that He has revealed Himself in the Bible. Romans 1:20 teaches that God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” The Greek word translated “without excuse” in this verse is ἀναπολογήτους (literally, “without an apologetic”). Furthermore, the Psalmist wrote that “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork,” (Ps 19:1). I do not think the Scriptures are envisaging people having to do PhDs in astrophysics or molecular biology, or master probability theory, in order to see the hand of God revealed in nature. Every time we step outdoors and behold the things that God has made – especially living organisms – we intuit that things have been made for a purpose, even if we couldn’t explicitly express why that is the case. Indeed, throughout history, the vast majority of people who have lived have been theists.

This implicit or inarticulate sense of the case for theism explains, I think, why some people come to believe that there must be a God when they hold their newborn child in their arms for the first time – they see the incredible design and elegance that is inherent in the process of development from a fertilized egg to a new born infant. They recognize, even if only implicitly and intuitively, that this is a process that required a high level of foresight to bring about – since it involved a high-level objective – which points to the involvement of a conscious mind in the programming of developmental pathways.

Those with an implicit rational warrant for belief in God may not be able to hold their own in a debate with a learned atheist scholar. This is why we hear so many ill-formulated attempted arguments for God that are along the right lines but not sufficiently nuanced to pass for sound argumentation. But I would argue that they nonetheless have sufficient rational warrant for their belief that God exists. Over time, as a believer matures, I would argue that the rational warrant for belief that was in the first place implicit should become more and more explicit and articulate.

In fact, even a biologist as staunchly atheistic as Francis Crick (co-discoverer with James Watson of the double-helical structure of DNA) said that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved,”[6] Richard Dawkins similarly said at the beginning of The Blind Watchmaker that “Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose,”[7] Dawkins then spends the remainder of the book trying to argue, in my opinion unsuccessfully, that this design is not real but only apparent.

People also have a moral compass and have an implicit sense that there are objective moral norms and duties in the world – something which makes much better sense if theism is true than if atheism were true. Besides general revelation (i.e. what may be known about God from the created Universe), this sense of objective moral norms and duties also provides people with an additional witness, even if only implicit, to the existence of God.

People can have a similarly implicit rational warrant for believing that God has revealed Himself in the Bible. This is not something that you need a PhD in Biblical Studies to discover. I think for many believers they read through the Bible and encounter the cumulative force of various prophetic passages like Isaiah 53, recognizing Jesus in them. They might not be able to express the argument explicitly enough to debate a learned Rabbi. But they nonetheless, I would argue, have an implicit rational warrant. Likewise, they might read through the New Testament accounts and perceive implicitly some of the hallmarks of verisimilitude, such as the criterion of embarrassment, or unexplained allusions, or undesigned coincidences. They might begin to recognize the evidential value of the testimonial evidence we have in the New Testament in regard to events such as the resurrection. Many of those categories of evidence are actually not at all hard to grasp and may be perceived through common sense.

This is what, I suspect, many Christians in fact are talking about when they say that they just know that Christianity is true. I think often-times Christians can confuse an implicit rational warrant for belief in Scripture (which is based on evidence) with some sort of mystical inner-witness that Christianity is true. For example, one may have an inarticulate sense of the power of the whole case for Christianity without realizing that it is, in fact, a rational response to a cumulative case argument.

So, where am I going with this? I would argue that discovering evidence for God is not actually that hard. Rather, it has been made artificially hard by bad scholarship and poor standards that insist that the simplest answer cannot actually be the correct answer. This is true in science as well as Biblical scholarship. A lot of the ink spilled on these issues, therefore, is ink spent answering really bad arguments that should never have gotten traction to begin with but, because they provided an excuse for unbelief, they have become widely accepted and highly esteemed, even among academics who should know better.

Where is God?

A common objection to God’s existence is that, if the God of Scripture exists, then He would be reasonably expected to still be working in the world today. The skeptic reasons, then, that the failure to observe God working in a tangible and detectable way in the world today should be taken as not merely evidence against Christianity but, more than that, as a defeater of any evidence that may be offered from ancient documents. I wonder though what sort of evidence the skeptic would accept as sufficient reason to think that God is still working in the world in a tangible way. Would it need to be a direct personal experience, or would he or she accept reliable testimony from others that they had the sort of direct personal encounter that he or she is seeking for?

Testimony, popular atheist protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, is a valid form of evidence. When any person makes a claim to have witnessed an event, there are three – and only three – categories of explanation for that claim. Those are (a) they deliberately set out to deceive; (b) they were honestly mistaken; and (c) their claim was actually correct. I think those broad categories of explanation are mutually exhaustive (though I can imagine some situations in which they might be at work in combination). As either one of the two former claims becomes less plausible as a result of the evidence one adduces, this leads to a necessary redistribution of the probabilities, leading to option (c) becoming more probable than it was previously. This, then, provides evidence confirming scenario (c). The greater the extent to which options (a) and (b), in any given case, are disconfirmed by the evidence, the greater support is enjoyed by option (c). This method can be applied to modern claims just as well as it can be applied to ancient ones. An individual’s track record of habitual trustworthiness and reliability can count as evidence against the hypothesis that they were deliberately setting out to deceive. The plausibility of the hypothesis that they are honestly mistaken will depend on the particulars of the case.

I am not talking here about testimonies of healing that are easy to explain by some kind of sensory illusion or sleight of hand, or that plausibly would have gotten better anyway. I am talking about cases that seem to defy naturalistic explanation. Dr. Craig Keener has compiled a two volume set on claims of such miraculous occurrences.[8] To take one example, he discusses a friend of his, Leo Bawa, the former director of research at Capro, a prominent Nigerian missions movement. One intriguing miracle (of several) that he told Dr. Keener about is that “among some tribes in Adamawa and Taraba State, I had instances where no interpreter was available and the Lord gave me understanding and ability to speak the people’s languages, a feat I never performed before or since after that incident.”[9] Keener notes that “Other accounts of this phenomenon exist, though many of these are secondhand”[10]. In a footnote, Dr. Keener elaborates[11],

“I have direct accounts in which others recognized the languages from Dr. Derek Morphew (Nov. 12, 2007); Pastor David Workman (Nov. 12, 2007); Pastor David Workman (April 30, 2008); Dr. Medine Moussounga Keener (Aug. 12, 2009, secondhand about Pastor Daniel Ndoundou); my student Leah Macinskas-Le (April 25, 2010, regarding her Jewish mother becoming a believer in Jesus because she understood the Hebrew prayer of an uneducated pastor’s prayer in tongues); Del Tarr, personal correspondence, Sept. 30, 2010 (noting three cases he has witnessed, including a recent one involving Korean; cf. also Oct. 5, 6, 2010).”

I have heard about this sort of phenomenon from others as well, and it does not seem to be the type of thing that could be explained naturalistically. I trust Dr. Keener and I presume that he trusts his sources since these are personal contacts of his (the fact that the phenomenon is multiply attested helps as well). So, it seems unlikely in these cases that Keener’s sources are all lying to him, and these also seem to be phenomena about which it would be quite hard to be honestly wrong.

Now, one might object at this point that in this case the testimony is coming from someone whom they do not know personally. With public figures such as Dr. Craig Keener, though, one can, to a certain degree, evaluate whether this is someone who is likely to make stuff up. This is true especially of high-profile scholars such as Dr. Keener since one can get a sense, through careful reading of their academic work, whether they are careful and reliable in their reportage of information. Dr. Michael Brown (another public figure and Biblical scholar) has also told me (on public record) about similar events to those described above, both that he was a witness to and testimonies of friends of his (including one individual, who was a cessationist and therefore not predisposed already to believe in miraculous events, who reported the incident to Dr. Brown in shock). The fact that this sort of occurrence is multiply attested by different credible sources leads me to think that something miraculous is indeed going on here. I chose this particular category of miracle claim as an illustrative example since this is one type of phenomenon that seems to defy naturalistic explanation and also seems to be something that it would be very difficult to be honestly wrong about having witnessed.

There are also accounts from sober-minded people whom I trust of radical experiences of the presence of God (e.g. see this one from Paul Washer).

My question, then, to the skeptic is, as I said above, is the only type of evidence that may be admitted for God acting in the world today a direct personal encounter, or would one be prepared to accept testimonial evidence from other people? If one is only prepared to accept a direct personal encounter but not testimonial evidence, I would argue that that is not a rational approach. On the other hand, if one is willing to accept testimonial evidence that such encounters do indeed exist, then I would ask what the qualitative difference is between the testimonial evidence that is available in the present day and that which is present in the 2000 year old documents we know as the New Testament. Presumably the same principles of evaluation would pertain to those.

What About Unanswered Prayer?

As for unanswered prayer, this is a recurring thing that comes up in my conversations with ex-Christians – that is, that answered prayers do not seem to be distinguishable from chance and the act of prayer often feels like talking to the wall or the ceiling. This feeling during prayer is something I can relate to myself experientially, so it is not simply a theoretical issue for me. If Christianity is true, however, this entails that prayer is legit. Our belief in prayer should not be predicated on our evaluation of our feelings while praying or on our later examination of the result of prayer. To do this is not to evaluate prayer in a manner consistent with what Scripture teaches us concerning prayer. Nowhere in Scripture are we promised that prayer will be accompanied by an internal sense of being heard. Rather, prayer is supposed to be accompanied by a conviction that our prayers are heard in Christ, since it is through Him that we have access to God.

We are also not in a position to determine whether something is providentially caused by God or not. The Biblical view is not to look around for obviously miraculous causes and give God credit for those only, while presuming non-miraculous events would have happened anyway. Rather, we should view God as sovereign and credit Him with providential control over all things. So greatly has a twenty-first century naturalistic bias permeated our thinking that we in fact often fail to give God sufficient credit for His daily providence.

Prayer, then, should not be evaluated on the basis of a mystical sensation of being heard, or our impression of miraculous divine action in response to prayer. To do so is to judge prayer by a criterion which we were never given by God. How, then, should we evaluate the validity of prayer? We should evaluate it by the validity of the work of Christ and our faith in Him. If we are trusting in Christ then we have true and valid prayer. There is more that can be said, of course, about limiting our appreciation of prayer to when God says “yes” to a request, but my point here is simply that evaluating prayer by these standards is a problem from the start. Our belief in prayer stems from our beliefs in Christ and the two should never be separated. If we believe in Christ because of the evidence for His resurrection, then we are being inconsistent to fail to believe in prayer.

Another thing I will say about prayer is that there is, I think, what I would call an epistemic asymmetry when it comes to prayer. An epistemic asymmetry is where making an observation might be strong confirmatory evidence for your hypothesis but not making that observation is only weak, or even negligible, evidence against it. To take an illustration, imagine I see a spider crawling along my desk as I sit here and type this article. That would be excellent evidence for the hypothesis that, somewhere in my apartment, there is a spider. But suppose I do not see a spider in front of me. That is only very weak, even negligible evidence, that there is no spider in my apartment (since there are many other places where a spider might be). That is an example of what I call epistemic asymmetry.

So, how does this relate to prayer? I would argue that specific answers to prayer are relatively strong confirmatory evidence but apparently unanswered prayer is only comparatively weak disconfirmatory evidence. The reason for this is that there could be many explanations for why your prayer went unanswered. Perhaps God, in his omniscience, said ‘no’ because He knows (better than you do) that what you asked for is not good for you. Or perhaps there is unconfessed sin in your life. Both the Old and New Testaments teach that sin can hinder our prayer life. For example, Proverbs 28:9 says, “If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.” 1 Peter 3:7 says, “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” There could thus be any number of reasons why your prayer was not answered and it is not necessarily particularly improbable that, if Christianity is true, many of your prayers will not be answered in the way that you desired. We have plenty of Biblical examples of prayers going unanswered. David’s prayer for the life of his illegitimate child by Bathsheba was unanswered (or answered negatively, depending on how you prefer to classify it). The same is true of Jesus’ prayer that the cup might pass from him in the Garden of Gethsemane. In the latter example, Jesus’ prayer included the qualifier “If it is possible…” And the answer was, “No, that can’t happen.” It would probably be classified as the most spectacular unanswered prayer of all time by the atheists, except for what happens afterward with Jesus being raised from the dead.

The answered prayers, on the other hand, depending on their level of specificity, can in principle be relatively strong confirmatory evidence for Christianity. Even if you cannot point to specific examples in your own life, there are writings by other people that would potentially document such examples (presuming them to be accurately reported). For example, George Müller (1805-1898) was a Christian evangelist and the director of the Ashley Down orphanage in Bristol, England. There was a time when the orphanage at Bristol had run out of bread and milk.[12] Müller was on his knees praying for food when a baker knocked on the door to say that he had been unable to sleep that night, and somehow knew that Müller would need bread that morning. Shortly after, a truck carrying milk broke down, directly in front of the orphanage door. There was no refrigeration. The driver begged Müller to take the milk, which would go bad if it were not consumed. It was just enough for the 300 children in the orphanage.

Conclusion

To conclude, while the problem of divine hiddenness is, on first inspection, a thorny issue, further analysis reveals it to be not as weighty a concern as it first appeared. Given the existence of plausible explanations of divine hiddenness (e.g. God’s knowledge, in His omniscience, of how different individuals will respond to the evidence of His existence), I would argue that the problem of divine hiddenness, though a complete answer eludes us, is not sufficient to overturn the extensive and varied positive confirmatory evidences of Christianity.

Footnotes

[1] John L. Schellenberg, The Hiddenness Argument (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).

[2] Ibid., 41-42.

[3] Travis Dumsday, “Divine hiddenness as divine mercy”, Religious Studies 48, no. 2 (2012): 183-198.

[4] John L. Schellenberg, The Hiddenness Argument (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 53.

[5] Joseph Butler, The Analogy of Religion: Natural and Revealed to the Constitution and Course of Nature (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1897).

[6] Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basic Books, 1990), 138.

[7] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), 4.

[8] Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, Volume 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011).

[9] Ibid., 328.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., 1769.

[12] Roger Steer, George Müller: Delighted in God (Rosshire: Christian Focus, 1997), 131.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, 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.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/qke1w0u

/by

Did Jesus Exist? A Critical Appraisal of Richard Carrier’s Interpretation of the Pauline Corpus

,

By Jonathan McLatchie

Richard Carrier is an ancient historian who has risen to prominence as the lead advocate of Jesus Mythicism, a school of thought that entertains the idea that Jesus of Nazareth may never have existed at all. While Mythicism occupies only the fringes of the scholarly guild, it has gained much better traction on the internet, where poor scholarship can be widely disseminated unchecked. In 2014, Richard Carrier published the first academic defense of Mythicism through Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd., an academic publisher.[1] Since this volume represents the first scholarly peer-reviewed publication supporting the Mythicist position and is written by an author with a doctoral degree in ancient history, the contents of Carrier’s thesis are deserving of attention.

Carrier examines the extrabiblical evidence of Jesus’ historicity, as well as the sources we find in the New Testament – the gospels, Acts, and epistles. While there is much that could be discussed in regards to Carrier’s handling of these sources, for the purpose of the present paper I will focus primarily on Carrier’s interaction with the Pauline corpus, though – for reasons that will become clear – I will also remark on the book of Acts insofar as it helps to illuminate the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters.

Having rejected the gospels and Acts as reliable documents, Carrier maintains that the letters of Paul are the best sources that bear on the question of the historicity of Jesus. He, however, contends that the letters of Paul fail to unequivocally refer to Jesus as an historical person who walked on earth. Instead, argues Carrier, Paul viewed Jesus as a celestial being, inhabiting a spiritual realm in outer space, in which He was crucified by demons and subsequently resurrected. Carrier’s thesis is in fact not a new idea, but one which was originally proposed by Earl Doherty, to whom Carrier owes much of his material.[2]

I cannot help but point out an irony in Carrier’s advocacy of scholarship that to call fringe would be an understatement. In one of Carrier’s other books, Why I Am Not a Christian, Carrier writes concerning biological evolution, “The evidence that all present life evolved by a process of natural selection is strong and extensive. I won’t repeat the case here, for it is enough to point out that the scientific consensus on this is vast and certain, so if you deny it you’re only kicking against the goad of your own ignorance.”[3] One wonders whether this quote has any relevance to the debate over Mythicism. I could forego interaction with Carrier’s argumentation by noting that “the evidence that Jesus existed is strong and extensive. I won’t repeat the case here, for it is enough to point out that the scholarly consensus on this is vast and certain, so if you deny it you’re only kicking against the goad of your own ignorance.” Presumably, Carrier would – quite rightly – object that I need to interact with his arguments rather than simply make an appeal to scholarly consensus. This is somewhat of an inconsistency on Carrier’s part.

In this paper, I will be primarily interacting with Carrier’s book, On the Historicity of Jesus. However, I may on occasion also draw from other publications by Carrier, including his blog posts, which might serve to illuminate his views or where he may have anticipated some of the objections I raise here.

An Analysis of Carrier’s Exegesis of the Undisputed Pauline Corpus

If Carrier’s position is to withstand scrutiny, Carrier must plausibly interpret those texts in the Pauline corpus that appear to situate Jesus on earth. There are in fact quite a number of details provided by the seven undisputed letters of Paul that give the strong appearance of representing Jesus as having lived on earth. Paul tells us that Jesus was born of the seed of David (Rom 1:3); that He was born of a woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4); that He delivered teachings about divorce (1 Cor 7:10); that He was betrayed (1 Cor 11:23); that He had a last supper (1 Cor 11:23-26); that He had brothers (Gal 1:19; 1 Cor 9:5); that He had twelve disciples (1 Cor 15:5); that He was crucified by the rulers of this age (1 Cor 2:8); and that He was killed by the Jews (1 Thes 2:13-16), and that He was buried. In this section, I will interact with Carrier’s exegesis of several of those texts listed above. I will not discuss Paul’s reference to “Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,” (1 Tim 6:13), since the authorship of the Pastorals is in scholarly dispute (and space does not permit me to do justice to the relevant literature), though I think a formidable case can be made for Pauline authorship of the Pastoral letters and indeed for all thirteen of Paul’s letters. I agree with Carrier, though for different reasons, that “There is a great deal wrong with how a ‘consensus’ has been reached on the dates and authorship of all these Christian materials, and the conclusions usually cited as established tend to be far more questionable than most scholars let on…I think there is a lot of work here that needs to be properly redone in NT studies, and I’m not alone in thinking that.”[4] I will also not discuss Paul’s reference to Jesus’ teachings on divorce or to the twelve, since I believe those can be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with Carrier’s thesis. The other texts listed above, however, are significant challenges to Carrier’s thesis, and it is to those that I now turn my attention.

Christ of the Seed of David (Rom 1:3): In the prologue of his letter to the Romans, Paul writes, “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born (γενομένου) of the seed (σπέρματος) of David according to the flesh,” (Rom 1:1-3). Carrier observes that, although the verb Paul uses here, γίνομαι, is used of birth by other authors, it is not the word that Paul customarily uses for birth, which is γεννάω (c.f. Rom 9:11; Gal 4:23,29).[5] Carrier argues that γίνομαι is used of God’s manufacture of Adam’s body from clay, and God’s manufacture of our glorified bodies in heaven. Thus, Carrier argues, this is a very odd word for Paul to use if he means to indicate that Jesus was born. Carrier’s proposed interpretation of Romans 1:3 is that God manufactured Jesus out of sperm that was obtained from David’s belly, an event that Carrier suggests took place in outer space.

Carrier has in mind here the Septuagint translation of Genesis 2:7, in which the word ἐγένετο (the aorist indicative form of γίνομαι) appears, describing the man as becoming a living creature. However, the word that is used here to describe the moment of divine manufacture is not ἐγένετο, but rather ἔπλασεν (the third person aorist indicative of the verb πλάσσω). The word ἐγένετο, rather, is used in this context to describe the change of state from non-living to living. Thus, it is not precisely correct to say that ἐγένετο refers to divine manufacture. Paul himself in fact alludes to this text (1 Cor 15:45). While Carrier asserts that Paul does not use γίνομαι to refer to a human birth, this only begs the question, since he must assume that Romans 1:3 and also Galatians 4:4 (which says that Jesus was born – γενόμενον – of a woman and born under the law) are not using the verb in this sense, which is the very question he is attempting to address. Furthermore, according to Liddell and Scott’s Intermediate Greek Lexicon, the verb γίνομαι, in the context of persons, means “to be born.”[6] We can independently verify this to be the case by analysing instances where this verb is used in the Septuagint, in order to discern how the word is used in relation to persons. Genesis 21:3 says, “Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore him, Isaac.” In the Greek Septuagint, the Hebrew word נּֽוֹלַד־ (“was born”) is translated γενομένου. Another example is Genesis 46:27: “And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two.” Again, the Greek Septuagint renders this as γενομένου. Finally, consider Genesis 48:5: “And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are.” Here once again, the Greek Septuagint uses the word γενομένου.

Carrier points out that Paul also uses another verb, γεννάω, to refer to being born. One instance is Romans 9:11: “though they were not yet born (γεννηθέντων) and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls.” The other instance is Galatians 4:23,29: “But the son of the slave was born (γεγέννηται) according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise… But just as at that time he who was born (γεννηθεὶς) according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.” While it may be granted that Paul uses the verb γεννάω to refer to being born, this entails nothing more than that Paul was willing to use synonyms for a word.

Another relevant question is how Paul himself uses the word σπέρματος (usually translated as “seed” or “offspring”) elsewhere. Paul writes, “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant (σπέρματος) of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin,” (Rom 11:1). Here, Paul uses the exact same word for descendant as he used in Romans 1:3 to describe Jesus as being a descendent of David. If Paul – as he presumably did – believed that his descendance from Abraham entailed that he himself existed on earth, then it stands to reason that he also believed that Jesus existed on earth by virtue of His descendance from David.

To wrap up my analysis of this text, I will note that it is very clear from the dead sea scrolls that there was an expectation of a Davidic Messiah, and, moreover, this is likewise very evident from the Hebrew Bible as well. Therefore, the interpretation that Paul intends to express that Christ was born of the line of David is much more plausible than Carrier’s thesis that it refers to divine manufacture.

Born of a Woman (Gal 4:4): In Galatians 4:4, Paul writes, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born (γενόμενον) of woman, born under the law.” Carrier connects this verse to Galatians 4:24, where Paul writes, “Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.” Thus, Carrier wants to say that Galatians 4:4 is really only saying that Jesus was born of a covenant, not of a literal woman. This, however, is a very odd interpretation, since Paul only introduces the allegory in Galatians 4:21 — 17 verses after Galatians 4:4. In Galatians 4:24, Paul is only indicating that he is about to show an allegorical understanding of the narrative he has just alluded to in Genesis, concerning the births of Ishmael and Isaac. Indeed, the whole point of the allegorical interpretation of the two women is to show the true significance of Jesus’ birth given that Jesus traces his lineage back to Isaac, the child born through trust in God’s promise, and who who was born of the free woman Sarah (Gal 4:23).

But there is an even more damning objection to Carrier’s thesis here. That is, if Carrier’s theory about Galatians 4:4 is correct, then the allegorical interpretation makes sense only if we translate γενόμενον as “born” rather than “manufactured”. Therefore, if Carrier is correct here in his interpretation, he has himself refuted his own response to Romans 1:3, discussed above, that γενόμενον should not be used to refer to being born.

James the brother of the Lord (Gal 1:19): Paul claims personal acquaintance with an individual he refers to as “James the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19). Bart Ehrman cites this text as a persuasive piece of evidence for the historicity of Jesus.[7] Carrier observes that “Paul can use the phrase ‘brother of the Lord’ to mean Christian, since all Christians were brothers of the Lord.”[8] An example of this is Paul’s description of Jesus as “the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom 8:29). In response to this, Ehrman has pointed out that the phrase “the Lord’s brother” is used in Galatians 1:19 to distinguish James from Peter, who was not the brother of Jesus.[9] However, Carrier addresses this by pointing out that “the only two times [Paul] uses the full phrase ‘brother of the Lord’ (instead of its periphrasis ‘brother’), he needs to draw a distinction between apostolic and non-apostolic Christians.”[10] Thus, Carrier argues that James was not himself an apostle, and Paul uses the expression “the Lord’s brother” so as to distinguish him as a non-apostolic Christian, in contradistinction to Peter. However, this argument is problematic since it seems unlikely that Paul is implying – as would be required on Carrier’s interpretation – that he saw no other Christian, or even no-one of importance, in Jerusalem besides Peter and James. Ernest De Witt Burton concludes that “the phrase must probably be taken as stating an exception to the whole of the preceding assertion, and as implying that James was an apostle.”[11] Moreover, if Paul simply meant spiritual brother, one might expect him to instead write, ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν (“I saw none of the other apostles, except James our brother”). Indeed, Peter refers to ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος (“our brother Paul”) (2 Pet 3:15), so this would be a natural way of speaking of spiritual brotherhood.

Interestingly, Carrier also maintains that “only apostles ‘saw the Lord’, as that is what it was to be an apostle: to be one whom the Lord chose to reveal himself.”[12] But this statement appears to conflict with Carrier’s thesis that James was not an apostle, since Paul indicates that Jesus “appeared to James” (1 Cor 15:7). That this text is referring to the same James who is described in Galatians 1:19 is very likely, especially if, as suggested by many scholars, Paul received this creedal tradition upon his visit to Jerusalem some three years after his conversion, where he met with Peter and James (the very individuals specifically named in the creed) (Gal 1:18-19). Acts indicates that Peter and James were both prominent leaders in the Jerusalem church, and so they are natural for Paul to mention specifically by name. For Carrier to suggest that the individuals named James in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 15:7 are different persons is special pleading involving pure speculation to save his theory. The clustering of the names Cephas and James in those two texts also suggests that the same two individuals are in view.

Paul also refers to “the brothers of the Lord” in the context of asking, “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (1 Cor 9:5). Carrier insists that these are no more than cultic brothers of the Lord, as are all baptized Christians (c.f. Rom 8:29). A more natural way for Paul to say this, however, would be, instead of οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς, to write Κηφᾶς καὶ άλλοι ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου (“Cephas and the other brothers of the Lord”, since Cephas would be a brother of the Lord also, albeit an apostolic one).

The way it is worded in 1 Corinthians 9:5 suggests that the expression “the brothers of the Lord” refers to specific individuals who have taken for themselves a believing wife, just as the name Cephas refers to a certain individual.

The fact that there exists independent evidence that Jesus had a brother called James also raises the prior probability that the allusion to “James the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19) is a reference to biological kinship. Mark reports people in a synagogue in Nazareth saying, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” (Mk 6:3; c.f. Mt 13:55). Mark also reports that one of the women who visited Jesus’ tomb on the first day of the week was “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses,” (Mk 15:40). That this was Jesus’ mother is supported by the fact that Mark 6:3 reports that Jesus had brothers called James and Joses, likely mentioned in Mark 15:40 for their prominence in the early church. Matthew also indicates that Jesus had a brother called Joseph (Mt 13:55) – who presumably had inherited his father’s name – and Matthew’s account of the visit to the tomb of Jesus indicates that one of the women was “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Mt 27:56). Thus, if Paul was identifying some other prominent Christian as “the brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), he would probably have taken pains to distinguish Him from this other James, the Lord’s biological brother. Though Carrier might reply that the gospel authors used Paul’s letters as a source and misunderstood his meaning in Galatians 1:19, this is unlikely, since the gospel authors appear to be well informed regarding the presence and identity of those women at the tomb on Easter morning, for reasons that I have documented elsewhere.[13]

The Rulers of This Age (1 Cor 2:7-8): Another text that Carrier must deal with is 1 Corinthians 2:7-8: “But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” At face value, this text certainly appears to indicate that Jesus was crucified on earth by the rulers and authorities of His day. Carrier argues that the “rulers” (ἀρχόντων – the genitive plural form of ἄρχων) here are demonic and spiritual forces rather than human authorities. In support of this, he argues, following Earl Doherty, that 1 Corinthians 2:8 “looks like a direct paraphrase of an early version of the Ascension of Isaiah, wherein Jesus is also the ‘Lord of Glory’, his descent and divine plan is also ‘hidden’ and the ‘rulers of this world’ are indeed the ones who crucify him, in ignorance of that hidden plan (see the Ascension of Isaiah 9.15; 9.32; 10.12,15). It even has an angel predict his resurrection on the third day (9.16), and the Latin/Slavonic contains a verse (in 11.34) that Paul actually cites as scripture, in the very same place (1 Cor. 2.9).”[14] However, that Paul is textually dependent upon the Ascension of Isaiah seems very unlikely, given that scholarly estimates of the date of the Ascension of Isaiah generally place it in the early second century (though estimates range between the late first century and the early third century). If there is any dependence, it is more likely that the Ascension is dependent on Paul, not the other way round. 

Carrier claims that “The earliest version in fact was probably composed around the very same time as the earliest canonical Gospels were being written.”[15] However, Carrier offers no argument in support of this contention. Furthermore, no version of the Ascension of Isaiah indicates that Jesus was crucified by demons in the firmament. Maurice Casey, responding to Earl Doherty (from whom Carrier derives this argument) notes that “the devil is held responsible for an evil event. Crucifixions, however, took place on earth, as everyone knew, and there is nothing positive in this (or any other!) text to justify moving the crucifixion of Jesus up there. The subject of ‘will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree (9.14) is obviously people who were there at the time, the conventional story, which had been well known for centuries when this document was being compiled. There is no excuse for Doherty to invent the idea that this was really ‘Satan and his evil angels’ crucifying Jesus up there in the heavens.”[16] Indeed, the Latin 2 version and the Slavonic version state that Jesus was on earth in human form. Starting when Jesus reaches the fifth heaven, Jesus takes the form of the inhabitants of each realm to which he descends. Since Jesus becomes like Isaiah’s form, it is entailed that Jesus takes on a human form and thus he descended down to the earth. Indeed, the Latin 2 and Slavonic versions explicitly state, “And I saw one like a son of man, and he dwelt with men in the world, and they did not recognize him” (11:1). Thus, the Ascension of Isaiah teaches that Jesus did come to earth. Moreover, that Jesus was not crucified by spiritual legions is further supported by the fact that Jesus does not even give a password to the “angels of the air,” because they were “plundering and doing violence to one another,” (Ascension of Isaiah 10:31).

Returning to 1 Corinthians 2:7-8, is Carrier’s interpretation of the rulers of this age plausible? The same word, ἄρχοντες (the nominative plural form), is used in Romans 13:3 to refer to human rulers, so the word ἄρχοντες certainly can refer to human rulers. It is therefore appropriate to evaluate from the context of 1 Corinthians 2:7-8 whether the word there refers to spiritual forces or human authorities, a question that I will take up momentarily. 

What about the word αἰών, translated “age” in 1 Corinthians 2:8? Can that word be used in a plain and temporal sense? Absolutely, it can. Indeed, Paul uses the word that way himself in the preceding chapter: “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?” (1 Cor 1:20). He also writes in the proceeding chapter, “Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise,” (1 Cor 3:18).

Now, what does the context of 1 Corinthians 2:7-8 reveal about the proper identification of the rulers of this age? Carrier correctly observes that there are parallel texts where the rulers are identified as the ones in heaven (Eph 3:9; 6:12). The point here, however, as we shall see, is the difference in context between the texts in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians. Paul, moreover, always uses specific modifying words when he is speaking about spiritual forces.

In any case, let us return to the specific context of 1 Corinthians 2. Paul writes, “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor 1:20). The one who is wise, the scribe, and the debater are clearly human individuals. Paul, moreover, refers to human strength (1:25); “a human perspective,” and things that are “foolish” and “weak” (1:27), “despised in the world” and insignificant (1:28), and to “human wisdom” (2:13). He furthermore adds that his desire is that the Corinthian faith “not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (2:5), and that, though he imparted wisdom, it was “not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away,” (2:6). It is in this context that we arrive at 2:8: “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” The text continues, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him” (v. 9). Paul goes on to write, “For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God,” (v. 11) Paul’s primary referent appears to be humans the whole way through, not demonic forces. What Paul writes next supports this case yet further: “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ‘For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ” (vv. 12-16, emphasis added).

Thus, while Carrier’s reading of this text is not entirely impossible, by far the more plausible interpretation of this text, it seems to me, is that the rulers being spoken of here are indeed primarily human rulers, not demonic or spiritual forces. However, even if it be conceded that the referent in this text is spiritual forces, this does not support Carrier’s thesis since apocalyptic Jews believed that demons acted through human agency. For example, in the book of Daniel, Gabriel tells Daniel, “The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia,” (Daniel 10:13).

On the Night He was Betrayed (1 Cor 11:23-26): Carrier notes, rightly, that the verb παραδίδωμι, often translated in 1 Corinthians 11:23 as “to betray”, can also mean “to hand over.” Indeed, this same verb is even used of Jesus “giving up” His spirit at the time of his death (Jn 19:30). While “to betray” is certainly within this verb’s semantical range, Carrier is correct that this is an interpretive translation, based on the gospel accounts, and that “on the night He was handed over” – a reading that is consistent with Carrier’s thesis – would be an equally permissible translation. It is, however, more likely than not that betrayal is what Paul had in mind. All three of the synoptic gospels use this same verb in reporting Judas’ betrayal of Jesus and in those texts the “handing over” has connotations of betrayal (Mt 10:4; Mk 14:11; Lk 24:7).

Of further relevance here is Paul’s statement, also in this same chapter, that Jesus “took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me,’” (1 Cor 11:23-25). Carrier maintains that the meal being spoken of here is not an actual event that took place on earth, but something entirely hallucinated by Paul.[17] In support of this, he points to Paul’s words that “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you,” (1 Cor 11:23). Thus, Carrier argues, this is information He has received directly from Jesus, and not from the apostles. However, Alfred Plummer and Archibald Robertson note, “why assume a supernatural communication when a natural one was ready at hand? It would be easy for St Paul to learn everything from some of the Twelve. But what is important is, not the mode of the communication, but the source. In some way or other St Paul received this from Christ, and its authenticity cannot be gainsaid; but his adding ἀπὸ ταῦ Κυρίου is no guide as to the way in which he received it.”[18]

The Jews who killed the Lord Jesus (1 Thes 2:15): Paul writes, “For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!” (1 Thes 2:14-16). Carrier argues that this text is an interpolation, and was not originally part of Paul’s letter. However, not a single sufficiently complete manuscript lacks this text, so the arguments for supposing this text to be an interpolation rest entirely on considerations besides textual critical ones. The reason why some scholars have viewed this text as a scribal interpolation is because, though the epistle was written around 51 A.D., the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.) appears to be in view, especially in verse 16b. However, David J. Williams points out that “there is nothing that compels us to identify this passage and, in particular, the second half of verse 16 with that disaster. An alternative suggestion (always assuming that the reference is to something past and not future) contends that Paul had in mind the series of disasters in A.D. 49 involving Jews, including a massacre in the temple (Josephus, War 2.224–227; Ant. 20.105–112) and their expulsion from Rome (Suetonuis, Claudius 25.4; cf. Acts 18:2 and see further, Williams, Acts, pp. 319f.). But in the context of this letter and in the light of 1:10 especially, it may be best to understand the reference as eschatological—the wrath is yet to come upon them. In this case, the aorist (past) tense would be functioning in the prophetic manner to express what is future.”[19] The grounds for presuming this text to be an interpolation, therefore, seem to be quite weak.

Christ was Buried (1 Cor 15:4): The final text I will deal with from the undisputed Pauline corpus is Paul’s reference to Jesus’ burial (1 Cor 15:4). Carrier maintains that the “same popular cosmology, the heavens, including the firmament, were not empty expanses but filled with all manner of things, including palaces and gardens, and it was possible to be buried there.”[20] He notes that “In this worldview, everything on earth was thought to be a mere imperfect copy of their truer forms in heaven, which were not abstract Platonic forms but actual physical objects in outer space.”[21] In support of his contention that in the ancient cosmology it was possible to be buried in the firmament, Carrier claims that “the Revelation of Moses says Adam was buried in Paradise, literally up in outer space, in the third heaven, complete with celestial linen and oils. Thus human corpses could be buried in the heavens.”[22] In a footnote, Carrier cites Revelation of Moses 32-41 (esp. 32.4, 37-40). However, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is drawing a comparison between what happened to Jesus and what will happen to other people in the day of the Lord. Jesus is described as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep,” (1 Cor 15:20). Indeed, Paul spills much ink in his letters defending the coming general resurrection of the dead in Christ. Paul points to Jesus as an example. In this text, Paul is saying that Jesus is the first of the faithful to die physically and to be resurrected in a transformed spiritual body. Since Jesus is the firstfruits of those who will be resurrected on earth, it seems most probable that, just like all of the other human bodies that were buried on earth, Paul is envisioning Jesus as having been buried on earth. Carrier thus has to engage in special pleading to make an exception in Jesus’ case. Paul’s argument here makes not one lick of sense unless he believed that Jesus had a real flesh and blood body that lived physically on earth.

The Relevance of the Book of Acts to Pauline Interpretation

If Luke-Acts represents the composition of an individual who was a travelling companion of the apostle Paul, then it would be quite odd if Luke and Paul were to have such strikingly different views of who Jesus was. Luke clearly perceived Jesus to have been a man who walked on earth. On Carrier’s thesis, this is particularly surprising given that Paul does not mention or differentiate himself from any alternative school which maintained that Jesus walked on earth. A demonstration of the personal acquaintance of Luke with Paul, therefore, provides confirmatory evidence that the traditional interpretation of Pauline Christology is essentially correct. There exist numerous lines of evidence for Luke being a travelling companion of Paul. Notably, there are the famous “we” passages, beginning in Acts 16, which are best understood as indicating the author’s presence in the scenes he narrates. Craig Keener observes that the “we” pronouns trail off when Paul travels through Philippi, only to reappear in Acts 20 when Paul passes once again through Philippi.[23] This is suggestive that the author had remained behind in Philippi and subsequently re-joined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi. 

Luke demonstrates very specific and detailed local knowledge that points to his close familiarity with Paul’s travels. These are all items of information that would not have been general knowledge or easily accessible. I will provide a few examples here to give a flavour of the sort of evidence we are talking about, though other authors, such as Colin Hemer, have documented many more.[24] I will list a handful of instances of the titles of local officials that Luke so effortlessly gets right. Luke gets right the precise designation for the magistrates of the colony at Philippi as στρατηγοὶ (Acts 16:22), following the general term ἄρχοντας in verse 19. Luke also uses the correct term πολιτάρχας of the magistrates in Thessalonica (17:6). He also gets right the term Ἀρεοπαγίτης as the appropriate title for the member of the court in Areopagus (Acts 17:34). He also correctly identifies Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth (18:12), an allusion that allows us to date the events to the period of summer of 51 A.D. to the spring of 52 A.D., since that is when Gallio served as proconsul of Achaia. Luke, moreover, uses the correct title, γραμματεὺς, for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus (19:35), found in inscriptions there. Furthermore, when Luke tells us of the riot in Ephesus, he indicates that the city clerk told the crowd that “There are proconsuls” (Acts 19:38). A proconsul is a Roman authority to whom one might take a complaint. Normally, there was only one. So, why does Luke so casually use the plural term (ἀνθύπατοί) here? It turns out that, just at that particular time, there was in fact two as a result of the assassination by poisoning, in the fall of 54 A.D., of the previous proconsul, Silanus (Tacitus’ Annals 13.1). This, again, is something that would be rather difficult to get right by fluke. Luke even uses the correct Athenian slang word that the Athenians use of Paul in 17:18, σπερμολόγος (literally, “seed picker”), as well as the term used of the court in 17:19 — Ἄρειον Πάγον, meaning “the hill of Ares”. Luke also gets right numerous points of geography, sea routes, and landmarks. For example, he is correct about a natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5). He names the proper port, Perga, for a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13). He names the proper port, Attalia, that returning travelers would use (14:25). Luke also correctly names the place of a sailor’s landmark, Samothrace (16:11). He also correctly implies that sea travel was the most convenient means of traveling from Berea to Athens (17:14-15). Furthermore, Colin Hemer notes that “Paul’s staying behind at Troas and travelling overland to rejoin the ship’s company at Assos is appropriate to local circumstances, where the ship had to negotiate an exposed coast and double Cape Lectum before reaching Assos,” (Acts 20:13-14).[25]

Luke even gets the implied location of the island of Cauda correct in Acts 27, despite Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder getting it wrong.[26] And so it goes on and on. Furthermore, numerous passages of Acts artlessly dovetail with Paul’s letters in a way that supports both the truth of Acts as well as the authenticity of the letters.[27] For example, the cause of Barnabas’ strong desire for Mark to accompany him and Paul (eventually leading to them splitting ways) (Acts 15:36-41) is illuminated by a casual reference by Paul to the fact that Barnabas and Mark were cousins (Col 4:10), a detail not supplied by Acts.

Carrier dedicates a chapter of his book to discussing the book of Acts[28], though his arguments in that chapter are extremely disappointing – possibly even more so than his handling of the Pauline corpus. Moreover, Carrier adopts an extremist and indefensible position, namely, that the narrative of the book of Acts is “certainly not what happened, even in outline.”[29] Space does not permit me to discuss all of this chapter’s many problems in detail, but I will offer a few examples.

Carrier complains that “In Acts’ history of the movement, from the moment the flock first goes public, in the very city of Jerusalem itself, at no point in the story (anywhere in all subsequent 27 chapters spanning three decades of history) do either the Romans or the Jews ever show any knowledge of there being a missing body. Nor do they ever take any action to investigate what could only be to them a crime of tomb robbery and desecration of the dead (both severe death penalty offenses), or worse.”[30] However, this is an argument from silence, which is an extremely weak form of argument in historical inquiry.[31] Just because a source makes no mention of an event, even when he might be expected to, it does not provide strong evidence disconfirming the event in question. For example, the first-century Jewish writers Josephus and Philo both fail to mention the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius, though it is mentioned by the Roman historian Suetonius in the second century (Claudius 25.4). There is only one brief mention of the event in any first-century source (Acts 18:2). Despite the silence of these authors, it is widely recognized by historians that this event took place.

A second complaint that Carrier has about Acts is the fact that “all the people associated with a historical Jesus…disappear from the historical record entirely.”[32] As examples, Carrier points out that Pontius Pilate, Joseph of Arimathea, Simon of Cyrene, and his sons, Martha, Lazarus, Nicodemus, and Mary Magdalene are not mentioned at all in the book of Acts. However, this is an argument from silence of the very weakest sort. The silence of the book of Acts on the fate of characters who are significant in the gospels does in no way impugn the historicity of Acts. The book of Acts is about the spread of early Christianity and about certain key apostles, particularly Peter and Paul. There is absolutely no reason whatever to expect Acts to mention every character with a role in the gospels.

Carrier also claims that Luke contradicts Paul’s letters. He writes, “For example, we know Paul ‘was unknown by face to the churches of Judea’ until many years after his conversion (as he explains in Gal. 1.22-23), and after his conversion, he went away to Arabia before returning to Damascus, and he didn’t go to Jerusalem for at least three years (as he explains in Gal. 1.15-18), whereas Acts 7-9 has him known to and interacting with the Jerusalem church continuously from the beginning, even before his conversion, and instead of going to Arabia immediately after his conversion, in Acts he goes immediately to Damascus and then back to Jerusalem just a few weeks later, and never spends a moment in Arabia. And yet we have the truth from Paul himself.”[33] However, a closer inspection of those texts reveals no contradiction at all. Luke tells us that “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,” (Acts 9:23-25). How long a period of time is denoted by “…many days…”? In 1 Kings 2:38-39, the phrase “many days” in Hebrew is immediately glossed as three years. But what about the trip to Arabia? Luke is silent on it, but does Luke contradict Paul’s claim that he went to Arabia? I would place Paul’s trip to Arabia within the “many days” of Acts 9:23. Paul also informs us that he “returned again to Damascus (Gal 1:17), so it is not surprising that his subsequent trip to Jerusalem is from Damascus. As for Paul being “still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ” during his travels through Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:22), this does not seem to me to be a great difficulty at all. Acts 8:1-3 indicates that Paul had been involved in persecuting the church in Jerusalem, to be distinguished from the whole region of Judea. Acts 8:1 in fact indicates that the believers in Jerusalem “were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.” They no doubt would have told other believers with whom they came into contact of the persecution they had experienced under Saul of Tarsus, but it does not follow that the churches in Judea would generally have known him by sight, although they would doubtless have known him by reputation.

Carrier also claims various textual parallels that he argues “are too numerous to be believable history, and reflect the deliberate intentions of the author to create a narrative that served his purpose.”[34] However, even if textual parallels are close enough (and sufficiently improbable by coincidence) to be indicative of authorial intent, it is possible for an author to draw a parallel between real history and some other narrative, and deliberately word his account with the intent of drawing the reader’s mind to that text. The parallels Carrier draws, however, are generally unconvincing. For example, Carrier claims that “Luke makes Paul’s story parallel Christ’s.”[35] The parallels he draws attention to include that “both undertake peripatetic preaching journeys, culminating in a last long journey to Jerusalem, where each is arrested in connection with a disturbance in the temple’, then ‘each is acquitted by a Herodian monarch, as well as by Roman procurators’. Both are also plotted against by the Jews, and both are innocent of the charges brought against them. Both are interrogated by ‘the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin’ (Acts 22.30; Lk. 22.66; cf. Mk 14.55; 15.1), and both know their death is foreordained and make predictions about what will happen afterward, shortly before their end (Lk. 21.5-28; Acts 20.2-38; cf. also 21.4).”[36] These coincidences are not at all sufficiently improbable to indicate authorial intent, in particular since Jesus and Paul both occupied the same socio-political setting. 

Furthermore, Carrier subsequently goes on to note that “Paul does almost everything bigger than Jesus: his journeys encompass a much larger region of the world (practically the whole northeastern Mediterranean); he travels on and around a much larger sea (the Mediterranean rather than the Sea of Galilee); and though, like Jesus, on one of these journeys at sea he faces the peril of a storm yet is saved by faith, Paul’s occasion of peril actually results in the destruction of a ship. Likewise, Paul’s trial spans years instead of a single night, and unlike Jesus, veritable armies plot to assassinate Paul, and actual armies come to rescue him (Acts 23.20-24). While Jesus stirs up violence against himself by reading scripture in one synagogue (Lk. 4.16-30), Paul stirs up violence against himself by reading scripture in two synagogues (Acts 13.14-52 and 17.1-5). However, whereas Christ’s story ends with his gruesome death (which had a grand salvific purpose, which could not be claimed for Paul’s ultimate death, and which to end well had to be followed by a once-and-final resurrection, something that could also not be claimed for Paul), Paul’s story ends on a conspicuously opposite note: ‘and he abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling, and received all that went to him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none forbidding him’, something even Jesus could not accomplish when he was in Roman custody (Acts 28.30-31). Thus Paul out-does Jesus even in that.” It appears here that, according to Carrier’s historical methodology, similarities between Jesus’ and Paul’s life are to be taken as evidence against Acts’ historicity, and differences between Jesus’ and Paul’s life are also to be taken as evidence against Acts’ historicity. This is a classic ‘heads I win; tails you lose’ argument.

Carrier also argues for a late date of Acts, following Richard Pervo who dates Acts to the second century A.D.[37] The primary motivation for such a late date is the argument that Luke was dependent upon Josephus’ Antiquities (~93 or 94 A.D.). Craig Keener notes in response to this suggestion that “It would be difficult, however, for Luke to have made direct use of Josephus; Josephus’s Antiquities probably was issued about 93/94, and the copies of its twenty books would have been quite expensive and not readily available soon after their publication to nonelite persons.”[38] Furthermore, he adds, “In the final analysis, it is highly unlikely that Luke depends on Josephus. The strongest argument for dependence is Luke’s citation of Theudas and Judas. Yet it seems unlikely that Luke would have read Jos. Ant. 18–20, used barely any of it, and then gotten wrong the one point most likely drawn from it, if he was dependent at all. The other matters that he could have taken from Josephus were widely known. Josephus did not compose his reports of Theudas or Judas from thin air, and oral or written reports about these leaders would have been available to Luke as well as to Josephus. Josephus completed his Antiquities no earlier than 93 C.E., but Luke’s sometimes positive portrayal of Roman administrators probably would make less sense in the later years of Domitian’s reign.”[39]

Finally, Carrier claims that whereas “everywhere else, the speeches and sermons in Acts are conspicuously historicist; but when Paul is on trial, where in fact historicist details are even more relevant and would even more certainly come up, they are suddenly completely absent. That is very strange; which means, very improbable. The best explanation of this oddity is that Paul’s trial accounts were not wholesale Lukan fabrications but came from a different source than the speeches and sermons Luke added in elsewhere – a source that did not know about a historical Jesus.”[40] However, Paul’s allusion to “the name of Jesus of Nazareth” in His defense before Agrippa implies that Nazareth was Jesus’ hometown (Acts 26:9). The Greek is τὸ ὄνομα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου (literally, “the name of Jesus the Nazarene”). Carrier might respond to this by claiming that the Nazarenes may have been a cultic sect, and that it is not referring to the town of Nazareth in Galilee.[41] However, it is worthy of attention that the servant girl in Matthew 26:71 likewise uses the exact same expression, speaking of Peter: Οὗτος ἦν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου (“this man was with Jesus the Nazarene”). But Matthew clearly believed that Jesus was raised in the town of Nazareth in Galilee (Mt 2:23; 21:11). Since the idea that Jesus was born in the town of Nazareth is found in all four gospels, including the independent birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, it is likely that this tradition goes back extremely early.

To summarize this section, there are good reasons to believe the author of Acts to have been a travelling companion of Paul, and Carrier fails to offer comparably good reasons for thinking he was not. If Paul was indeed a travelling companion of Paul, then it is quite surprising on Carrier’s thesis that Luke and Paul believed such starkly different things about Jesus – especially something as fundamental as whether Jesus lived on earth or was a celestial being who never actually walked the earth. Thus, the evidence for Luke being a travelling companion of Paul suggests that the traditional interpretation of Pauline Christology is the correct hermeneutical framework for understanding those texts previously discussed.

Conclusion

To conclude, the evidence from the Pauline corpus strongly indicates that the apostle Paul believed that Jesus was a real person who lived physically on earth. Paul was an apocalyptic Jew, and thus the beliefs of apocalyptic Jews must be taken as the interpretive framework for understanding Paul’s letters. Since Paul was personally acquainted with multiple first-hand eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life (including Jesus’ closest disciple Peter, and Jesus’ biological brother James), Paul’s testimony provides good reason to conclude that Jesus existed.

Footnotes

[1] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014).

[2] Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man – The Case for a Mythical Jesus (Ottawa: Age of Reason Publications, 2009).

[3] Richard Carrier, Why I Am Not a Christian – Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith (California: Philosophy Press, 2009), 60.

[4] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 304.

[5] Ibid., 658. See also Richard Carrier, “The Cosmic Seed of David”, Richard Carrier Blogs, October 18, 2017. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13387.

[6] Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Calerondon Press, 2019).

[7] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (California: HarperOne, 2012), 145-148.

[8] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 669.

[9] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (California: HarperOne, 2012), 145-148. See also Bart Ehrman, “Carrier and James the Brother of Jesus”, The Bart Ehrman Blog – The History and Literature of Early Christianity, November 5, 2016. https://ehrmanblog.org/carrier-and-james-the-brother-of-jesus/

[10] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 588-590. See also Richard Carrier, “Ehrman and James the Brother of the Lord”, Richard Carrier Blogs, November 6, 2016. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516.

[11] Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1920), 60.

[12] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 137.

[13] Jonathan McLatchie, “The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts”, Jonathan McLatchie website, October 5, 2020, https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-evidential-contribution-of-luke-acts/

[14] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 64.

[15] Ibid., 53.

[16] Maurice Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicst Myths? (Biblical Studies) (London: T&T Clark, 2014), 262.

[17] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 642. See also Richard Carrier, “Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus”, Richard Carrier Blogs, April 25, 2018. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13812.

[18] Alfred A. Plummer and Archibald T. Robertson, A critical and exegetical commentary on the First epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (New York: T&T Clark, 1911), 242–243).

[19] David J. Williams, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Michigan: Baker Books), 48–49.

[20] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 217.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., 220.

[23] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431.

[24] Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990).

[25] Ibid., 125.

[26] Ibid., 330-331. See also 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, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880).

[27] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Ohio: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017). See also William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. 2 [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838].

[28] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), chapter 9.

[29] Ibid., 424.

[30] Ibid., 429.

[31] Timothy McGrew, “The Argument from Silence”, Acta Analytica 29, 215-228 (October 2013).

[32] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 431.

[33] Ibid., 423.

[34] Ibid., 424.

[35] Ibid., 425.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 308; Richard Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologist (California: Polebridge, 2006).

[38] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 394.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 437.

[41] Ibid., 562.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)

Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (MP3) and (DVD)

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)

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.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/1hbDO3h

/by

Should Christians Use the Argument from Martyrdom? A Reply to Bart Ehrman

,

In a recent post on his blog, UNC-Chapel Hill professor Bart Ehrman re-posted a 2012 article of his on the argument, popular among many apologists, that the willingness of the apostles to die as martyrs is evidence of their sincerity in claiming that Jesus had been raised from the dead and appeared to them. Since the apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus, so the argument goes, the demonstration of their sincerity makes the resurrection more probable than it otherwise would have been, and therefore contributes some evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. Ehrman characterizes this argument in his article as follows: “the disciples would not have died for what they knew was a lie; therefore, it must have happened.” This is hardly a fair representation of the argument. The argument is not that the willingness of the apostles to die as martyrs for their testimony entails that, therefore, it must have happened. Rather, the argument is that the willingness of the apostles to die as martyrs is evidence (not proof) of the apostles’ sincerity in proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead, by virtue of the fact that the willingness of the apostles to die as martyrs is more probable given that they were sincere than given that they were not. It is not by any means the only evidence bearing on their sincerity (see this previous article for a discussion of some of the other evidences).

Ehrman notes that,

“Several other people have responded to this question on the blog by saying that we have lots of records of lots of people who have died for something that they knew, literally, not to be true. I am not in a position to argue that particular point. But I can say something about all the disciples dying for believing in the resurrection.” 

Again, however, the argument is not that the willingness of the apostles to die as martyrs guarantees that they were sincere. Rather, we are making the more modest claim that it is evidence that they were sincere. It hardly seems contestable that somebody’s willingness to die for a claim is more probable if they are sincere in making that claim than if they are insincere. Moreover, more people being willing to die for a claim constitutes stronger evidence for that claim than merely one person being willing to die.

Ehrman objects that, 

“The big problem with this argument is that it assumes precisely what we don’t know.   We don’t know how most of the disciples died.   People always *say* that the apostles were all martyred.  But next time someone tells you that, ask them how they know.  Or better yet, ask them which ancient source they are referring to that says so.”

We have, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to conclude that at least two of Jesus’ original twelve apostles died as martyrs (Simon Peter and James the son of Zebedee), in addition to James, Jesus’ brother (who, according to 1 Corinthians 15:7, met the risen Jesus), and the apostle Paul (who had an encounter with the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus as recounted in Acts 9 and alluded to in Paul’s letters, e.g., 1 Cor 15:8). 

There are two first-century sources that attest to Simon Peter’s martyrdom. One of those is John 21:18-19, where Jesus says to Simon Peter, “‘Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.’ (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this, he said to him, ‘Follow me.’” This text indicates that Jesus predicted that Peter would die as a martyr, presumably by crucifixion. This gospel was almost certainly written after Peter died (most scholars date the gospel of John to 90-95 AD). Leaving aside the question of whether Jesus actually spoke those words, it is therefore very unlikely that the author of the fourth gospel would have attributed this prophecy to Jesus had it not taken place in the prescribed way.

A further piece of first-century evidence concerning Peter’s death is the letter of Clement of Rome, addressed to the Corinthian church (dated by most scholars to around 96 A.D.). In 1 Clement 5, Clement notes that “Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement, being one of the apostolic fathers, was personally acquainted with the apostles (as indicated by Irenaeus — Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 3). Thus, he was in a position to know about Peter’s fate, and it was probably known to the Corinthian Christians to whom Clement addressed his epistle, especially since the church in Corinth had previously been acquainted with Peter’s preaching (1 Cor 1:12; 15:11). 1 Clement 5 also mentions the martyrdom of Paul (and his sufferings for the gospel are discussed at length in the writings of Paul himself — e.g., 2 Cor 11:16-33; 2 Tim 3:10-11). Ehrman does acknowledge in his article that the evidence indicates that Peter and Paul died as martyrs.

The martyrdom of James, the son of Zebedee, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I, is supported by one first-century source (Acts 12:2). The martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus is also supported by a first-century source, namely the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who informs us that James the brother of Jesus was stoned to death (Antiquities 20.9.1).

That all said, we do have to be careful that the significance of this evidence is not over-stated. Even in those cases for which we do have sufficient evidence to conclude the apostles died as martyrs, the exact circumstances under which they died is less than clear. It is not obvious for those cases discussed above whether they had the opportunity to recant of their claim or not. One may also object that it is not clear whether they were dying specifically for the resurrection claim, though a Christian may respond to this by noting that the resurrection was so integral to the early Christian belief that to die for Christ was to die for the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. A skeptic may, however, fairly point out that Peter and Paul likely died as a result of Nero’s persecution against Christians in the 60’s A.D., which the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus tells us ensued after the fire of Rome in 64 A.D. when the emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the conflagrations in order to direct the blame away from himself (Annals 15.44). Peter and Paul (and perhaps other apostles of Jesus) may have simply gotten caught up in that event, which had little to do with their Christian belief per se and more to do with Nero’s attempt to steer the blame of the populace for causing the fire of Rome away from himself. If that is the case, there is no reason to think that recanting their Christian beliefs would have saved their life. In regards to the death of James, also, Josephus only reports that he was stoned on the basis of an accusation of breaking the Jewish law, so it is also not entirely clear in his case that his death was directly linked to his Christian testimony, though it very plausibly was.

What we can say, however, is that persecution against Christians seems to go back quite early, since the earliest church endured persecution by the Jews first, according to the book of Acts as well as Paul’s own testimony. Paul testifies that he himself persecuted the early Christians, imprisoning them and putting them to death (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:23; Phil 3:6). Paul also gives us his own eyewitness testimony of persecution by Jews against himself following his conversion (2 Cor 11:16-33; 2 Tim 3:10-11). The book of Acts itself speaks of the intense persecution endured by the early Christians, including the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2), the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:3-5), the beating of Peter and John (Acts 5:40), and the many sufferings of the apostle Paul for the name of Christ. What we can therefore say with confidence is that, as William Paley puts it so eloquently, the “apostles 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.” [1] Since this fact is more probable on the hypothesis that the apostles were sincere than on the falsehood of that hypothesis, it may be taken as evidence confirming the sincerity of the apostles in their proclamation to have encountered the risen Christ.

It is a common misstep made by many atheists to think that if a particular piece of the evidence fails to logically entail a conclusion, then that same piece of evidence also fails to support the said conclusion. However, this is a poor epistemology. A piece of evidence may be confirmatory of a conclusion without establishing it. This is the case, I would suggest, with the evidence of the apostles’ persecution and martyrdom. With those nuances and caveats in mind, therefore, the Christian apologist may appeal to the persecution and martyrdom of the apostles as one aspect of the broader cumulative argument that the apostles were sincere in believing Jesus to have appeared to them alive following His death. This naturally leads to the question of how the apostles came to sincerely believe that, a question that I have addressed elsewhere.

Notes

[1] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 15.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth 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 worldwide 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.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/7g7svAM

/by

Hard Evidence the Book of Acts Was Written by an Eyewitness? A Reply to Bart Ehrman

By Jonathan Mclatchie

Last week, New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman published an article at his blog, in which he responded to a reader who had asked him his opinion on a popular approach to arguing for the reliability of the book of Acts. The questioner specifically cites popular apologist Dr. Frank Turek and Acts scholar Dr. Colin Hemer, who have pointed to specific and detailed knowledge demonstrated in the book of Acts that reveal its author to be close up to the facts, well informed and habitually reliable. The questioner noted that “Many of these are insignificant, but others seem to be things ‘only an eyewitness could know,’ like the location of a sailor’s landmark or sea approach to a city.”

Readers who are interested in a presentation of examples of this sort of detailed and specific knowledge shown by Acts may wish to check out this webinar I did with philosopher Dr. Timothy McGrew (which also contains a solid discussion of some of Ehrman’s objections to Acts). This webinar I did with Acts scholar Dr. Craig Keener is also worth checking out. For those more inclined to read written material, I highly recommend Colin Hemer’s book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, which covers many examples of this. I will also provide a few examples here to give a flavor of the sort of evidence we are talking about. I will list a handful of instances of the titles of local officials that Luke so effortlessly gets right.

Luke gets right the precise designation for the magistrates of the colony at Philippi as στρατηγοὶ (Acts 16:22), following the general term ἄρχοντας in verse 19. Luke also uses the correct term πολιτάρχας of the magistrates in Thessalonica (17:6). He also gets right the term Ἀρεοπαγίτης as the appropriate title for the member of the court in Areopagus (Acts 17:34). He also correctly identifies Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth (18:12), an allusion that allows us to date the events to the period of summer of 51 A.D. to the spring of 52 A.D., since that is when Gallio served as proconsul of Achaia. Luke also uses the correct title, γραμματεὺς, for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus (19:35), found in inscriptions there. Furthermore, when Luke tells us of the riot in Ephesus, he indicates that the city clerk told the crowd that “There are proconsuls” (Acts 19:38). A proconsul is a Roman authority to whom one might take a complaint. Normally, there was only one. So, why does Luke so casually use the plural term (ἀνθύπατοί) here? It turns out that, just at that particular time, there was in fact two as a result of the assassination by poisoning, in the fall of 54 A.D., of the previous proconsul, Silanus (see Tacitus’ Annals 13.1). This, again, is something that would be rather difficult to get right by fluke.

Luke even uses the correct Athenian slang word that the Athenians use of Paul in 17:18, σπερμολόγος (literally, “seed picker”), as well as the term used of the court in 17:19 — Ἄρειον Πάγον, meaning “the hill of Ares”.

Luke also gets right numerous points of geography, sea routes and landmarks. For example, he gets right a natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5). He names the proper port, Perga, for a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13). He names the proper port, Attalia, that returning travelers would use (14:25). Luke also correctly names the place of a sailor’s landmark, Samothrace (16:11). He also correctly implies that sea travel was the most convenient means of travelling from Berea to Athens (17:14-15). As I documented in a previous article, Luke even gets the implied location of the island of Cauda correct in Acts 27, despite Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder getting it wrong. And so it goes on and on. 

How does Ehrman reply to this argument? He writes,

…I do NOT appreciate Frank Turkey [sic] or Colin Hemer for making the argument, since surely they know better.  If they do know better, shame on them for trying to dupe others.  If they don’t know better, would someone please tell them to start thinking more clearly?

Unfortunately, in this case as we shall see, it is Bart Ehrman, not Turek or Hemer, who needs to start thinking more clearly. Ehrman asks how we know Acts to be historical reportage rather than legend. He writes,

The traditional answer is that Acts was written by an eyewitness, a person who accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys.  The presumption is that if it was written by an eyewitness, then the accounts almost certainly must be historically accurate.  I won’t be going into that issue here (of whether eyewitness = accurate), but if you have ever known an eyewitness to an event who got it completely wrong (and if you’re a sentient human being, I bet you have known at least one!) you can immediately see at least one aspect of the problem.

The argument here is actually not that Luke is reliable because he was an eyewitness. Rather, we infer him to be an eyewitness because of, among other things, his demonstrated reliability on so many matters. Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness and detailed accuracy as an historian reveals him to be someone who is close up to the facts, well informed, and habitually reliable. This is best explained by his being an eyewitness. And Luke’s track record of accurate reportage gives us some reason to trust him on matters on which he cannot be directly cross-checked. I discuss some of the reasons why we think Luke was an eyewitness in a previous article, so I will not repeat myself here.

Ehrman notes that,

The reason for thinking Acts was written by an eyewitness is that in four passages in these chapters, the author moves from talking about what “they” (Paul and his companions) were doing to about what “we” were doing.  It sounds like he’s including himself in a number of the events as one who was there.  The natural conclusion: he was an eyewitness.

This is a simplistic representation of the argument, since there is a lot more to it than that. For a scholarly discussion of why the use of the plural pronoun indicates that the author was an eyewitness, readers may refer to Craig Keener’s commentary on Acts, which covers this in detail. I mentioned in my previous article, for instance, that the “we” pronouns trail off when Paul travels through Philippi, only to reappear in Acts 20 when Paul passes once again through Philippi.  This is suggestive that the author had remained behind in Philippi and subsequently re-joined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi.

Returning to the detailed knowledge shown by Acts, Ehrman thinks he has found a flaw in this argument. He writes,

If you can show that the account knows where certain places actually were, and knows details about what were in those places, and landmarks, and so on: doesn’t that show the author must have been with Paul on his journeys? Uh, why would it show *that*??  Wouldn’t it just show that he knew about these locations and what was in them?  Wouldn’t you get precisely the same kind of narrative if this was someone who had traveled a good bit himself, or knew others who had, and pieced it all together?

To illustrate this point, Ehrman offers an analogy. He writes,

Suppose in 2000 years someone uncovers a story that describes an event that happened to Professor Bart Ehrman in March 2016.  Professor Ehrman taught at the University of North Carolina which was located in a college town named Chapel Hill.  That semester he was teaching his course on the New Testament in a large lecture classroom in a building called Hamilton Hall.   On the afternoon of March 14, Professor was just leaving his office in Carolina Hall to take the three-minute walk to his classroom, when he heard a massive explosion, and going out of his building he saw that Hamilton Hall had been destroyed in an explosion, killing 172 people.  Later investigators discovered that it had been caused by a gas leak. 

Now, this future researcher who has uncovered the story decides to look into the archaeological record to see if the account is accurate.  He learns that way back then there really was a state called North Carolina, and sees that archaeologists had indeed uncovered a town called Chapel Hill, where there really was a university.  More than that, they had excavated the university and had found Carolina Hall and – mirabile dictu – there was an actual map of the campus in the ruins.  It turns out one of the major lecture rooms for large classes was a short distance away, within eyesight, in Hamilton Hall.  Just as in the story!!  Moreover, the records of all the professors from the early 21st century were discovered, and there was a fellow named Bart Ehrman who did indeed teach courses on something called the New Testament, and was teaching one such course in Spring semester, 2016. 

BINGO!  This story MUST have been written by someone who was a companion of Bart Ehrman who was there to see all these things!  How else would he have had all this information about NC, Chapel Hill, the university, Hamilton Hall, Carolina Hall, Bart Ehrman, and a class on the NT that particular semester?  And that means Hamilton Hall really was destroyed by an explosion caused by a gas leak, right?

Uh, well, no.  Millions of people know about NC, and the existence of Chapel Hill, and that there is a university there.  Hundreds of thousands know about both Carolina Hall and Hamilton Hall, and have a general sense of their proximity, and that some fellow named Bart Ehrman teaches NT there.  Why would the account of the gas leak-explosion have to be written by someone who was there at the time?  Or even someone who knew me?  Or someone who observed the event?

Ehrman speaks here as if, in the first century world, the geographical, political, terminological, and other subtle facts that the book of Acts gets right would have been widely and easily known or accessible. However, this is absolutely absurd. The argument for Acts being based on eyewitness testimony is that the book of Acts gets hard things right. Ehrman’s illustration about the University of North Carolina implies a situation where one can easily look up these facts, using modern resources like Google or Wikipedia, and include them in a fictional story. However, in the case of the book of Acts, which was written in a world without the ease of access to information that we enjoy today, Ehrman’s proposed scenario would imply that the author would have had to travel around all of those same places (or at the very least interview people who had been there) and include those very specific facts in an account of historical fiction, a genre that did not even exist at the time. Ehrman’s scenario here is very ad hoc and anachronistic.

A further issue with Ehrman’s statement is his use of the word “must.” None of us are arguing that the evidence proves that Luke was an eyewitness and traveling companion of Paul. We are talking about probabilities, and what best explains the relevant data. It is also not the case that Julius Caesar must have crossed the Rubicon, or that Abraham Lincoln must have emancipated the slaves, though the evidence for those things is very strong.

In Ehrman’s final paragraph, he writes,

I’m not saying that because of this Acts is unreliable historically.  I’m saying that if someone wants to argue it is, they need to come up with good arguments instead of completely irrelevant ones.  I do understand that if the author had gotten all the geographical information wrong it could be relevant to whether the account was accurate or not; my argument is that getting that kind of information right is not.  If Christian apologists don’t see the difference – then I’m afraid I can’t help them. 

Now, if all Ehrman meant here is that the correctness of the specific details in Acts doesn’t logically entail the historical truth of the narrative, then I would have to agree (though I do not know anyone who has ever argued that it does). However, Ehrman is here saying something that is much stronger. Here, he is asserting that the arguments in question are “completely irrelevant.” This statement is totally indefensible and is logically impossible, since it cannot simultaneously be relevant if the information is incorrect but completely irrelevant if the information is in fact correct.

We can be charitable here, however, and take him to be speaking colloquially, to mean that the relevance of accurate details in Acts is negligible or not worth speaking of. However, this too is problematic. What is the argument for this? One might conjecture that Ehrman takes it to be part of the background information that Acts is highly realistic fiction, a conclusion he has come to on independent grounds. But how does he arrive independently at this conclusion? In fact, the sort of arguments that Ehrman wields against Acts (such as alleged discrepancies with Paul’s letters) would suggest that it isn’t highly realistic fiction, since on Ehrman’s view Acts is contradicting primary sources for the life of Paul. If the author of Acts went to the trouble of visiting all of the places that he claims Paul travelled to, gathering highly specific information in order to incorporate them into his realistic fictional account of Paul’s travels, why would he also contradict the Pauline epistles, which would have been in wide circulation and therefore much more easily accessible? Ehrman’s standards in regards to those alleged discrepancies are entirely wrong. All of the contradictions Ehrman alleges between Acts and Paul’s letters, as I have documented elsewhere (e.g. see my ongoing series of reviews on this site of Ehrman’s book Jesus, Interrupted) are the result of over-readings, tendentious interpretations, and arguments from silence. The forcefulness that Ehrman ascribes to those, combined with his dismissal of the difficult details Luke gets right concerning geography and other matters as “completely irrelevant” is astounding, and really reveals his unscholarly bias against the New Testament.

To conclude, I do NOT appreciate Bart Ehrman for making the argument, since surely he knows better. If he does know better, shame on him for trying to dupe others.  If he doesn’t know better, would someone please tell him to start thinking more clearly? This post by Ehrman represents yet another example of why Ehrman should no longer be taken seriously as a scholarly critic of Christianity, despite his popularity in atheistic and Muslim circles. It is time that Ehrman is called out for his poor scholarship, bad standards, and faulty epistemology. For more on that, I refer you to my ongoing series of reviews at this site of Jesus, Interrupted (part 1, part 2, part 3)

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (MP3) and (DVD)

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 (DVD)

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Master’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.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Sgp9ucH

/by
Messianic Convergence in the Gospels

Messianic Convergence in the Gospels: A New Way to Frame the Argument from Old Testament Fulfilment

,

Anyone who has spent considerable time studying the gospels can tell that they are literally saturated with Old Testament fulfilment and allusions. Indeed, the early church used two primary lines of argument to establish the Messianic credentials of Jesus of Nazareth — the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and Messianic prophecy. How useful is fulfilment of the Messianic prophecy in the person of Jesus to the purposes of contemporary, twenty-first-century apologists? In this article, I explore a way to frame the argument in a robust and objective way. First, I will summarise my argument, and then I will dig into the details.

A Summary of the Basic Argument

When it comes to the origins of the gospel narratives, there are three contending hypotheses for explaining their origin. These are:

(1) The gospel authors deliberately fabricated the events that they narrate.

(2) The gospel authors were honestly mistaken in their reporting of the events that they narrate.

(3) The gospel authors faithfully recorded actual events.

Of course, those options could in principle, be correct either individually or in combination with one another. When we discover striking correlations between the gospel narratives and the Old Testament texts (on a level that is unlikely by mere coincidence), then we have evidence against the hypothesis that the gospel authors were honestly mistaken — that is to say, we have positive evidence for design, either on the part of the human authors manipulating the story to impose conformity to the Hebrew Scriptures or on the part of God supernaturally orchestrating the history. The question then becomes, what is the locus of the design?

The first of the above hypotheses — that is, that the gospel authors deliberately fabricated the events that they narrate is significantly undermined when we discover points of historical confirmation of the gospels (a subject that I have written, lectured and debated extensively about elsewhere). I have contended publicly elsewhere that numerous historical points in the gospels can be historically verified and confirmed (e.g., here). This gives rise to an inductive argument for treating the gospel documents as a whole as trustworthy. The numerous points of historical confirmation in the book of Acts, moreover, build us a picture of the pedigree of its author Luke (who also happens to be the author of the third gospel), and thus offers us additional reason to trust what he writes in his gospel. I (and others) have developed that case extensively in various venues, and to argue this is not the primary purpose of the present article.

Having shown the first two of the three options to be improbable, therefore, it is possible to provide evidential support for the third contending hypothesis, namely, that the gospel authors faithfully recorded actual events, and the locus of the design is supernatural divine orchestration of the events to result in convergence between events in Jesus the Messiah’s life and foreshadows written of in the Hebrew Bible. In syllogistic form, this argument can be presented as follows:

Premise 1: The correlation between events recorded in the gospels and Hebrew Scripture is either the product of human design or divine design.

Premise 2: It is not the product of human design.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is the product of divine design.

One can, of course, make the inductive argument I just described for taking the gospels as a whole to be highly reliable. The case, however, is lent even greater force when we can point to specific instances of details in the gospels that are subject to historical confirmation, which also correlates with the Hebrew Bible in some way. We can model this argument probabilistically using Bayesian analysis.

Probabilistic Modelling

The equation given below represents the odds form of Bayes theorem, which is used in developing cumulative cases. Translated, it states that the posterior probability of your hypothesis (H) given the available evidence (E) is equal to the prior probability (given the background information) of the hypothesis being true (expressed as a ratio) multiplied by the ratio of the evidence given the hypothesis against the probability of the evidence given the antithesis.

Imagen1jonathan

Dividing the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis by the probability of the evidence given the antithesis gives you what is referred to in probability theory as the Bayes Factor. The Bayes Factor is a measure of the strength of the evidence and indicates how many times more likely it is that you will observe this evidence given that your hypothesis is true than if it were false. For instance, a Bayes Factor of one hundred indicates that your evidence is one hundred times more likely if your hypothesis is true than if it were false.

This form of reasoning is used routinely in the discipline of forensic science. For instance, the presence of a defendant’s fingerprints on the murder weapon may be taken as evidence for the hypothesis of guilt over the hypothesis of non-guilt because the probability of the defendant’s fingerprints being on the murder weapon is much higher on the hypothesis that the defendant is guilty than on the hypothesis that he is not guilty. This is the very same mode of reasoning that I use when evaluating the evidence for the existence of God and for the truth of the Christian gospel. As we examine the data, I will be using to construct this argument; we will assign each a plausible Bayes factor as a way of modeling our cumulative case. We will then be able to more readily see the strength of the argument as a whole. Please note that there is a degree of subjectivity in these assignments, but I have tried as best as I can to err on the side of caution, and I do not think my estimates are unreasonable. In any case, the reader is invited to plug in his or her own numbers and conduct their own analysis. My goal here is to show how an argument of this sort can be mounted.

The Data

I will now consider several instances where we have specific historical confirmations of details in the gospel that, given the Old Testament backdrop, seems to be a bit too striking to be coincidental.

Example #1: Jesus’ Death at Passover

One historical detail that can scarcely be denied is that Jesus died at the time of Passover. This is a detail attested by all four gospels and implied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:7. This is not a detail that the gospel authors (or their sources) plausibly misremembered. So many details in the gospels are connected to Jesus’ death being at the time of Passover (e.g., see John 18:28). It is also supported by the next example we will discuss shortly. I will not here get into the discussion of whether John and the synoptic gospels contradict each other on the precise day on which Jesus is crucified (I have already addressed that here). It is clear that the New Testament authors unanimously considered Jesus to be the ultimate fulfilment of the Passover lamb (see John 1:29; John 1:36; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 7:14; and Revelation 12:11). The correspondence, therefore, seems too neat to be the result of coincidence. Christ’s execution by the Romans at the time of Passover is a remarkable ‘coincidence’ that would have been difficult for an impostor to engineer.

One caveat to consider is that there are also other days throughout the year, such as the day of atonement, to which we might attach some special significance if Jesus’ death had landed on those days. I will, therefore, assign a conservative Bayes factor of 50 for this correspondence. Remember, this means that the correlation is 50 times more probable on the hypothesis of design than on the hypothesis of coincidence.

Example #2: Selection of the Passover Lamb

There is an additional interesting connection, not wholly independent of the one just discussed but nonetheless certainly worthy of attention. This has to do with Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem five days before the Passover on which He died. Consider John 12:1-2,12-13:

Six days before the Passover, Jesus, therefore, came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at the table…12 The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!”

John here has given us a very specific extraneous detail (which none of the other gospels gives us): Jesus arrived at Bethany six days before the Passover, and the following day rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey (which would have been five days before the Passover).

Can we confirm John’s accuracy on this? Yes, we can.

Turn over to Mark 11:1-11, which parallels the arrival at Bethany (although Mark does not give us the time-stamp that John provides):

Now when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it…7 And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. 8 And many spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. 9 And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father, David! Hosanna in the highest!” 11 And he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.

Mark does not tell us that Jesus approached Bethany six days before the Passover, nor that it was the following day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem. However, it appears implicit that they fetched the colt early in the morning — since the disciples fetch the colt, there is the triumphal entry and Jesus and the disciples entered the temple and “looked around at everything” (which was presumably a whole day’s activities). If then, we assume that Jesus entered Jerusalem five days before Passover, then we can begin counting off the days narrated in Mark’s gospel, to see if the narrative synchronizes with that of John.

Verses 12-14 narrate the cursing of the fig tree, which according to verse 12, happened “the following day” (i.e., four days before the Passover, assuming John’s chronology to be correct). Jesus then cleansed the temple, and according to verse 19, “when evening came, they went out of the city.” In verse 20, we read, “As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.” We are now, therefore at three days before the Passover. In Mark 13, we read of the Olivet discourse on the Mount of Olives. This we can assume took place in the evening, since the Mount of Olives was mid-way between the temple in Jerusalem and Bethany where Jesus and the disciples were staying. This, then, marks the end of three days before the Passover. When we turn over to Mark 14, we read in verse 1, “It was now two days before the Passover.” Mark and John thus calibrate perfectly, thereby corroborating the time-stamp given to us by John.

Having confirmed that Jesus really did enter Jerusalem five days before the Passover, let us now look to the Old Testament to see if we have any point of striking correlation. Passover itself falls on the fifteenth day of the month of Nisan. That means that five days before the Passover falls on the 10th day of Nisan. Now let us turn over to Exodus 12, where God gives instructions to the people of Israel concerning the first Passover. In verse 3, God says to Moses and Aaron,

Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month [i.e., Nisan] every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household.

Thus, the Passover lamb was to be selected and taken into the household of the men of Israel on the tenth day of the month of Nisan. Given the oft-repeated New Testament imagery of Jesus being the Passover lamb (e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:7), it is thus quite striking that Jesus’ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem and reception by the people happens to fall on the 10th of Nisan, five days before Passover.

How probable is this correlation on the hypothesis that the connection is coincidental? It must be borne in mind that this coincidence is not wholly independent of the previous one since Jesus coming into Jerusalem on Nisan 10 would not matter at all if it weren’t for the fact that he then died subsequently at least around that time. If we take his entry into Jerusalem on Nisan 10 to be significant, we must be assuming that he died right around that time, which means that that one entails the other. The question we can ask, however, is how much additional evidence it provides that Jesus also entered Jerusalem on Nisan 10. Another factor for us to consider is that Passover is a particularly likely time for a Jew to enter Jerusalem and also a time when he could count on ministering to a large crowd of people who had made their pilgrimage to Judea for the feast.

One may object here that a possible explanation of this coincidence is that Jesus Himself, seeing Himself as the fulfilment of the Passover lamb, deliberately entered Jerusalem on Nisan 10th. However, to this, I offer two responses. First, if Jesus saw falsely Himself as Messianic it is far more likely that he would have perceived Himself to be a military leader like Simon Bar Giora, who would lead a revolt against the Roman occupiers, not suffer a humiliating death by crucifixion. Second, the appropriate issue to concern ourselves with is the striking coincidence that it was precisely on the year on which Jesus entered Jerusalem five days before Passover that His death by crucifixion coincidentally took place on the day of Passover.

To be conservative, therefore, I will only assign a Bayes factor of 2 to this fact. Thus far, our cumulative Bayes factor from the two examples we have considered is 50 x 2 = 100.

Example #3: Jesus the First Fruits

In 1 Corinthians 15:20, Paul says of Christ that he is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.”

What is being alluded to here? For the answer, we turn to Leviticus 23:9-14, in which we read of the feast of first fruits.

9 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you come into the land that I give you and reap its harvest, you shall bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest, 11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, so that you may be accepted. On the day after the Sabbath, the priest shall wave it. 12 And on the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the Lord. 13 And the grain offering with it shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, a food offering to the Lord with a pleasing aroma, and the drink offering with it shall be of wine, a fourth of a hin. 14 And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

The feast of firstfruits is the next Jewish feast following the feasts of Passover and unleavened bread and had to do with the barley harvest, which preceded the slightly later wheat harvest (the former arrived in March / April; the latter around May, according to our calendars). The latter of those was associated with the feast of Weeks (Pentecost). God, therefore, instructed the people of Israel that prior to reaping the barley harvest they were to wave before the Lord a sheaf of the first grain. This would symbolize that the sheaf was representative of the whole crop. It represented their trust that the God who had given them the firstfruits would also bless the rest of the harvest.

How, then, does Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:20, link Jesus to the feast of first fruits? Christ was the first fruits of the resurrection, having been raised prior to the general resurrection at the end of time. Although previous people (e.g., Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter) had been raised from death, those individuals were not raised to glory and immortality. Eventually, they would die again. Jesus, by contrast, was the first person in all of history to be raised to glory and immortality, with a body transformed such that it was no longer subject to decay or death. Thus, he is the ‘sheaf’ that is waved before the Lord, the first fruits of the harvest.

Now, what is particularly striking is the day on which the feast of first fruits was to take place. According to Leviticus 23:11b, it was to happen “the day after the Sabbath” following Passover. That would be Sunday! It can thus hardly be a coincidence that Christ was raised on the Sunday following the Passover. When we consider the day that Jesus was claimed to be raised as first fruit from among the dead (the Sunday following Passover), we have yet another striking coincidence.

It is largely taken for granted among scholars that the disciples had experiences following Jesus’ death, which they interpreted to be the raised Christ — scholars are largely in agreement that the disciples did not deliberately lie about having seen Jesus raised from the dead. We also have strong evidence that the claim was that Jesus rose from the dead on the Sunday following His crucifixion — not only is it reported in all four gospels (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1), but there is also the widespread switch from observing the Sabbath to observance of the Lord’s day (Sunday) in the first century. One might object that the gospels only report the discovery of the empty tomb and the appearances taking place on the Sunday but do not tell us when exactly Jesus was raised. However, Jesus repeatedly states that His resurrection will take place “on the third day,” which would have to be the Sunday since His death was on a Friday. Further evidence that the earliest apostolic proclamation was that Jesus had been raised on the Sunday following His death is the allusion in 1 Corinthians 15:4 to Jesus being “raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” Indeed, Paul’s allusion in verse 20 of the same chapter to Christ being the firstfruits from among the dead may indicate what Paul means by Christ’s resurrection on the third day being “in accordance with the Scriptures.”

It must be stated at this point that the exact interpretation of Leviticus 23:11b was disputed by first-century Jewish interpreters. Most Pharisees took this day to be the day after the annual Sabbath, rather than the weekly Sabbath — that is, the day after the 15th of Nisan, on which fell the feast of unleavened bread (the Jews were not permitted to work on this day according to Leviticus 23:7). They would thus observe the firstfruits offering on the 16th of Nisan, irrespective of the day of the week. Here is what the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tells us [Antiquities 3:10:5-6]:

But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of the month, they first partake of the fruits of the earth, for before that day, they do not touch them.

A minority of Pharisees, and the Sadducees, however, maintained that the offering of first-fruits was to take place the day after the weekly Sabbath which falls during the feast of unleavened bread. According to this view, the firstfruits offering always took place on a Sunday. This view makes more sense to me Biblically because Leviticus 23:15-16 gives the following instruction about when the feast of firstfruits is to be observed:

15 “You shall count seven full weeks from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering. 16 You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath. Then you shall present a grain offering of new grain to the Lord.

For the day after the seventh Sabbath to equal exactly 50 days, one has to begin counting from the day after the weekly Sabbath.

Furthermore, according to the gospels, the day following Jesus’ death was itself a weekly Sabbath. For example, in John 19:31, we are told,

Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.

Likewise, Mark 15:42-43 tells us,

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

The festival of first fruits, therefore, would have to have been celebrated the day following the Sabbath (given the Jewish regulations about what could or could not be performed on the Sabbath). This entails that the Sunday on which Jesus was raised is indeed the feast of first fruits.

Moreover, as long as the second temple stood (i.e., prior to A.D. 70) and the Sadducees were in charge, their interpretation prevailed, and the feast of firstfruits was recognized the day following the first weekly Sabbath after Passover.

Further evidence that the gospel authors understood Jesus to be fulfilling the first fruits comes from Acts 2, where we read that the Holy Spirit comes upon the disciples at the time of Pentecost, which fulfils further symbolism relating to the feast of Pentecost that is outlined in Leviticus 23 (which I will not dwell upon here).

What Bayes factor might we assign to this piece of evidence? Of course, this piece of evidence is not wholly independent of the fact that Jesus’ death takes place at the time of Passover. There are also only seven days in the week. For these reasons, I assign a conservative Bayes factor of 5. So far, our cumulative Bayes factor is 50 x 2 x 5 = 500.

Example #4: The Crucifixion

Psalm 22 contains a remarkable text which, centuries before crucifixion was even invented, contains a description of the Messiah’s sufferings that strikingly resemble a crucifixion scene. Consider this excerpt from verses 12-18:

12 Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; 13, they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; 15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet— 17 I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me; 18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.

Dislocation of bones, heart failure, lack of strength, dehydration, and the piercing of the hands and feet are all apt descriptions of a crucifixion scene, not to mention the dividing of his garments and the casting of lots — crucifixion victims would be stripped naked as part of their humiliation. This execution also appears to be public since people stare and gloat over him. For a much more detailed description of the evidence for the Messianic nature of this text, I refer interested readers to Mike Winger’s video on the subject of Psalm 22, or this discussion between Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown on the topic. The Messianic interpretation of Psalm 22 is also not a Christian invention but can be found in early Jewish sources (for documentation, see this article).

For this fact, I think it is fair to assign a conservative Bayes factor of 1000 (for justification of this Bayes factor, see McGrew, L. (2013) Probabilistic Issues Concerning Jesus of Nazareth and Messianic Death Prophecies. Philosophia Christi 15:311-328.

Thus far, our cumulative Bayes factor is 50 x 2 x 5 x 1000 = 500,000

Example #5: The Name Jesus

The name Jesus is itself very significant. The reason for calling him Jesus is given in Matthew 1:21:

…you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

Fittingly, Jesus’ name (the same name as Joshua) means “Yahweh is salvation.” Already, this is a striking coincidence.

A second reason why the name Jesus is significant is that a certain Joshua in the Old Testament replaces Moses in leading God’s people into the promised land. Moses represents the embodiment of the law. The law (embodied by Moses) was unable to lead God’s people into the promised land and so was replaced by Joshua.

A third correspondence is to another Joshua in the book of Zechariah and chapter 6. In Zechariah 6:9-13, we read,

9 And the word of the Lord came to me: 10 “Take from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon, and go the same day to the house of Josiah, the son of Zephaniah. 11 Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 And say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. 13 It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’

This individual is described as “the man whose name is the Branch,” which is a Messianic title used elsewhere (e.g., Zechariah 3:8; Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15). He is also given the office of both priest and king, a dual office which the Messiah is also said to fulfil (e.g., Psalm 110:4) whereas others were not permitted to occupy both offices.

In a study of 2625 male Jewish names from first-century Palestine (from documentary sources and ossuaries), 99 are reported to bear the name Jesus/Joshua (it being the sixth most popular name). That is approximately 3.77% of the Jewish male population. I will conservatively assign a Bayes factor to this piece of evidence of 2, taking our cumulative Bayes factor to 50 x 2 x 5 x 1000 x 2 = 1000,000.

Example 6

Yet another striking coincidence is the fact that Christianity became the dominant international world religion that it became. Until 313 A.D., the Christian church was the persecuted minority, and powerful rulers and officials attempted to stamp out the Christian religion, destroy its Scriptures and its people. There was a high price to pay for being a follower of Jesus, and your fate could include being nailed to a cross, burned alive, or fed to wild animals. The probability that Christianity would become a dominant global religion was, therefore, vanishingly small. However, this is exactly what was predicted in various passages throughout the Old Testament, namely, that the Messiah would bring representatives of all nations to a recognition and worship of the God of Israel.

As an example, consider Isaiah 49:6:

He says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

Therefore, on the hypothesis that a given individual is the promised Messiah, the probability that they would bring representatives of all nations of the world to worship the God of Israel is approximately equal to one, whereas on the hypothesis that Jesus is not the Messiah, the probability is vanishingly small. In all history, only Jesus has accomplished this fete. I will assign a conservative Bayes factor of 1000.

At this point, our cumulative Bayes factor is 50 x 2 x 5 x 1000 x 2 x 1000 = 1000,000,000

Conclusion

Various other examples could be given, but I will stop the present analysis at this point. The point of this article was simply to show how a cumulative case can be constructed for the truth of Christianity based upon these striking instances of convergence between the life of Jesus and Old Testament texts in a manner that seems to point towards the conclusion of design rather than coincidence. Since the examples given above enjoy strong historical corroboration, we can safely rule out the human design as being responsible for these correspondences. We, therefore, have good evidence for divine design, and therefore the truth of Christianity.

Of course, it is necessary when doing a Bayesian analysis to give an estimate of the prior probability. Prior probability relates to the intrinsic plausibility of a proposition before the evidence is considered. Normally the prior probability will be somewhere between zero and one. A prior probability of one means that the conclusion is certain. For instance, the fact that two added to two is equal to four has a prior probability of one. It is true by definition. A prior probability of zero, conversely, means that the hypothesis entails some sort of logical contradiction (such as the concept of a married bachelor) and thus cannot be overcome by any amount of evidence. Priors can be established on the basis of past information. For example, suppose we want to know the odds that a particular individual won last week’s Mega Millions jackpot in the United States. The prior probability would be set at 1 in 302.6 million since those are the odds that any individual lottery participant, chosen at random, would win the Mega Millions jackpot. That is a low prior probability, but it could be overcome if the supposed winner were to subsequently quit his job and start routinely investing in private jets, sports cars, and expensive vacations. Perhaps he could even show us his bank statement or the documentary evidence of his winnings. Those different pieces of evidence, taken together, would stack up to provide powerful confirmatory evidence sufficient to overcome a very small prior probability to yield a high posterior probability that the individual did indeed win the Mega Millions jackpot. In other situations, setting an objective prior is more tricky, and in those cases, priors may be determined by a more subjective assessment.

If we suppose for argument’s sake that the prior probability of God sovereignly orchestrating the history is as low as 1 in 10,000,000, this leads us to a posterior probability of 0.99 of the hypothesis being true. Of course, this figure will be highly dependent on the Bayes Factors we have assigned to each piece of evidence. This is, of course, only a mathematical tool for modelling how a cumulative case can provide powerful evidence for our hypothesis, and we haven’t even considered all of the relevant data. I invite readers to plug in their own numbers and see what conclusion they arrive at.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Jesus of the Old Testament in the Gospel of John mp3 by Thomas Howe

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)

World Religions: What Makes Jesus Unique? mp3 by Ron Carlson

The Bodily Nature of Jesus’ Resurrection CD by Gary Habermas 

Historical Evidences for the Resurrection (Mp3) by Gary Habermas

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Master’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.

/by

The Trinity in the Old Testament

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

It is often assumed that the doctrine of the Trinity – the idea that there is one being of God that is comprised of three eternal and co-equal divine persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) – is something that is revealed only in the New Testament. While it is certainly true that the expression of the Trinity reaches its climax in the New Testament, few people (Christians and non-believers alike) are aware that one can find evidence of divine plurality – and even of there being three divine persons – throughout the Old Testament as well. Listen to this fascinating episode with our guest Jonathan McLatchie and pay attention to how he reveals the Trinity in the Old Testament.

Keep Frank busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

/by
Pablo Islam Jerusalén

¿Por qué la relación de Pablo con la iglesia de Jerusalén presenta un problema para el Islam?

En un artículo anterior, ofrecí una simple razón por la cual el Corán no puede ser la palabra de Dios, ya que la proposición de que el Corán es la palabra de Dios implica una necesaria contradicción. Aquí, voy a presentar una razón igualmente convincente para rechazar el Corán como la palabra de Dios.

Pablo Islam Jerusalén

Como he aludido en mi post anterior, el Corán sostiene que los discípulos de Jesús eran musulmanes. Según la Sura 3:52,

“…cuando Isa [Jesús] sintió incredulidad en ellos, dijo: “Quiénes son mis ayudantes en el camino de Allah?” Los discípulos dijeron: “Nosotros somos ayudantes de Allah. Creemos en Alá; así que sea nuestro testigo de que somos musulmanes.”

De acuerdo con el Corán, no hay duda de que los apóstoles eran musulmanes, bajo Jesús. Pero, qué pasaría si pudiéramos establecer que la enseñanza de los apóstoles difiere radicalmente de las enseñanzas de Mahoma y el Corán? Aquí hay un argumento para reflexionar:

Premisa 1: Si los discípulos originales de Jesús rechazaron las principales enseñanzas islámicas, el Islam es falso.

Premisa 2: Los discípulos originales de Jesús rechazaron las principales enseñanzas islámicas.

Conclusión: Por lo tanto, el Islam es falso.

Para que un musulmán escape de la conclusión, él o ella tiene que rechazar una de estas dos premisas. ¿Qué posibles rutas de escape podrían estar disponibles? Una ruta de escape podría ser decir que los discípulos de Jesús fueron engañados o [que estaban] de alguna manera equivocados —o tal vez corrompieron el verdadero mensaje de Jesús en algún momento después de esto. O tal vez incluso los 12 discípulos de Jesús ni siquiera están en mente aquí. Esta ruta de escape, sin embargo, es bloqueada por la Sura 61:14,

Oh, vosotros que creéis, sois partidarios de (la religión de) Alá, así como Isa, hijo de María, dijo a los Discípulos: “¿Quiénes son mis partidarios de Allah?” Los Discípulos dijeron: “Somos partidarios de (la religión de) Allah”. Así creyó un grupo de los hijos de Isra’il, y otro grupo no creyó. Entonces apoyamos a los que creyeron en contra de su enemigo, y se convirtieron en vencedores.

Por lo tanto, tal especulación se ejecuta en el siguiente problema: los apóstoles de Jesús fueron los vencedores que subieron al dominio debido al apoyo de Alá para ellos, indicando que su mensaje fue aprobado por Alá. Esto queda claro también cuando leemos en la Sura 3:55:

Cuando Allah dijo: “Oh Isa, yo te tomaré en tu totalidad y te elevaré hacia Mí, y para limpiarte de los incrédulos, y para colocar a los que te siguen por encima de los que no creen hasta el Día de la Resurrección.

En forma silogística, el argumento puede resumirse de la siguiente manera:

Premisa 1: Hubo vencedores que subieron al dominio quienes Alá apoyó (Sura 3:55, Sura 61:14).

Premisa 2: O los vencedores fueron los apóstoles de Jesús o no fueron los apóstoles de Jesús.

Premisa 3: Si no fueron los apóstoles de Jesús, entonces veríamos los registros de estos vencedores no apóstoles.

Premisa 4: No vemos tales registros.

Premisa 5: Por lo tanto, es falso que los vencedores no fueron apóstoles.

Conclusión: Por lo tanto, los vencedores fueron los apóstoles de Jesús.

Por lo tanto, cuando leemos la Sura 3:52, podemos estar seguros de que se está refiriendo a los discípulos. Allah bendijo a estas personas. Fueron los apóstoles los que Alá trajo al dominio y vindicó.

Pero ahora un musulmán podría preguntar: “¿Cómo sabes que los apóstoles rechazaron las enseñanzas islámicas básicas?”

Es a esta pregunta que ahora vuelvo mi atención.

Considere a Pablo, el apóstol.

Ahora bien, entiendo que el apóstol Pablo no fue uno de los discípulos originales de Jesús, sino que se convirtió al cristianismo siguiendo una visión de Jesús en el camino a Damasco en Hechos 9. Pero voy a argumentar que Pablo fue aprobado por los discípulos originales de Jesús. Esto sugiere fuertemente que su visión acerca de la naturaleza de Dios e identidad y misión de Cristo coincidió con la de los discípulos. En cualquier caso, aun en ausencia de la evidencia que estoy a punto de presentar, si tomamos en serio la Sura 3:55 y la Sura 61:14, entonces la enseñanza de Pablo debe haber sido consistente con los discípulos, porque el cristianismo que prevalecía es lo que los musulmanes polemistas consideran que es el cristianismo paulino —y el Corán nos dice que los verdaderos seguidores de Jesús fueron los que lograron el dominio y se convirtieron en los vencedores.

¿Estoy presentando una idea absurda con esta disputa? No; de hecho, estoy en buena compañía. Considere las siguientes citas de respetados comentaristas coránicos:

El renombrado comentarista del siglo XIII, Al-Qurtubi, dice de Sura 61:14:

“Se dijo que este versículo fue revelado acerca de los apóstoles de Jesús, que la paz y la bendición sean con él. Ibn Ishaq declaró que de los apóstoles y discípulos que Jesús envió (para predicar) se encontraban Pedro y Pablo que fueron a Roma; Andrés y Mateo que fueron a la tierra de los caníbales; Tomás que fue a Babel en las tierras orientales; Felipe que fue a África; Juan fue a Dacsos, que es la tribu a la que pertenecían los durmientes de la cueva; Jacobo fue a Jerusalén; Bartolomé fue a las tierras de Arabia, específicamente Al-Hijaz; Simón que fue a los bárbaros; Judas y Barthas que fueron a Alejandría y sus regiones circundantes”.

Allah los apoyó (a los apóstoles) con evidencia para que prevalecieran (thahirin) lo que significa que se convirtieron en el grupo al mando. Tal como se dice, “Un objeto apareció en la pared” lo que significa que es claramente visible (alu-wat) en la pared. Alá, que es glorificado y exaltado, conoce mejor la verdad y para Él es el regreso y la retirada.

El Sirat Rasul Allah de Ibn Ishaq (traducción al español, página 653), la biografía más antigua de Muhammad, dice lo siguiente:

“Aquellos a quienes Jesús hijo de María envió, los discípulos y los que vinieron después de ellos, en la tierra fueron: Pedro el discípulo y Pablo con él, (Pablo pertenecía a los seguidores y no era un discípulo) a Roma. Andrés y Mateo a la tierra de los caníbales; Tomás a la tierra de Babel, que está en la tierra del oriente; Felipe a Cartago y África; Juan a Éfeso, la ciudad de los jóvenes de la cueva; Santiago a Jerusalén, que es Aelia la ciudad del santuario; Bartolomé a Arabia, que es la tierra de Hijaz; Simón a la tierra de los bereberes; Judá, que no era uno de los discípulos, fue puesto en lugar de Judas”.

O considere la Historia de Al Tabari (Volumen IV, página 123):

“Entre los apóstoles, y los seguidores que vinieron después de ellos, fueron el apóstol Pedro y Pablo que era un seguidor y no un apóstol; fueron a Roma. Andrés y Mateo fueron enviados al país cuyo pueblo es caníbal, una tierra de negros, pensamos; Tomás fue enviado a Babilonia en el este, Felipe a Qayrawan (y) Cartago, es decir, África del Norte. Juan fue a Éfeso, la ciudad de los jóvenes de la cueva, y Santiago a Jerusalén, es decir Aelia. Bartolomé fue enviado a Arabia, a saber, el Hijaz; Simeón a la tierra de los bereberes en África. Judas no era entonces un apóstol, así que su lugar fue tomado por Ariobo. Él ocupó el lugar de Judas Iscariote después de que este último había perpetrado su hecho”.

Así, Al-Qurturbi, Al Tabari e Ibn Ishaq todos son llevados a alabar al apóstol Pablo como una consecuencia directa de estos versículos.

Hay varias razones historiográficas independientes para pensar que la enseñanza de Pablo fue aprobada por los discípulos originales de Jesús. Entre ellos se encuentran los siguientes:

Razón 1: Los individuos en la iglesia primitiva, quienes son comúnmente asociados con los apóstoles (Policarpo, Clemente e Ignacio) hablan aprobando sus cartas.

Razón 2: La iglesia primitiva nunca muestra el conocimiento de una disensión fundamental entre Pablo y Pedro sobre asuntos pertinentes a la cristología y la naturaleza de Dios, a pesar de que a menudo lo mencionan junto al apóstol Pedro.

Razón 3: Pablo nos dice en Gálatas 2 que subió a Jerusalén con Bernabé para confirmar que el evangelio que estaba predicando a los gentiles era el mismo que el suyo. Es improbable que haya inventado esta historia para apoyar su propia autoridad apostólica, porque en el mismo capítulo también menciona la disputa que ocurrió entre Pablo y Pedro en cuanto a la circuncisión cuando Pedro vino a Antioquía.

Razón 4: Pablo hace un comentario desinteresado sobre el Apóstol Santiago en Gálatas 1: 18-19:

Después de tres años subí a Jerusalén para visitar a Cefas y permanecí con él quince días, pero no vi a ninguno de los otros apóstoles, excepto a Santiago, hermano del Señor.

Mire el comentario desinteresado de Pablo sobre Santiago. Si Pablo era un verdadero Apóstol inventando historias, no esperaríamos que él mencionara a Santiagp de pasada sin hacer un punto. El hecho de que Pablo simplemente menciona a Santiago en esta manera de hablar, persuade a los historiadores de que Pablo estaba recordando los hechos reales acerca de su asociación con la iglesia primitiva y los Apóstoles.

Razón 5: Pablo escribe en 1 Corintios 15: 9-11,

“Porque yo soy el menor de los apóstoles, indigno de ser llamado apóstol, porque perseguí a la iglesia de Dios, pero por la gracia de Dios soy lo que soy, y su gracia para mí no fue en vano. He trabajado más duro que cualquiera de ellos, aunque no fue por mí, sino por la gracia de Dios que está conmigo. Y si yo o ellos, así predicamos y creíamos”.

Así Pablo parece endosar a los otros apóstoles e incluso llega a decir que se considera menos que el más pequeño de ellos. Pablo parece asumir que los cristianos corintios también creyeron que su mensaje era consistente con los otros apóstoles. Esto sugiere fuertemente que Pablo y los otros apóstoles generalmente acordaron los temas centrales de la fe.

La teología de Pablo estaba radicalmente en desacuerdo con la enseñanza central islámica, ya que Pablo afirmó no sólo la deidad de Cristo, sino también la crucifixión y la resurrección (todas ellas expresamente rechazadas por el Islam).

Para los propósitos de la discusión, apelaré solamente a las obras incontestadas de Pablo, las obras que todos los historiadores cristianos y no cristianos conceden por unanimidad fueron escritas por él.

En Filipenses 2: 5-11, Pablo cita lo que es probablemente un himno cristiano temprano:

“Haya, pues, en vosotros este sentir que hubo también en Cristo Jesús,  el cual, siendo en forma de Dios, no estimó el ser igual a Dios como cosa a que aferrarse, sino que se despojó a sí mismo, tomando forma de siervo, hecho semejante a los hombres; y estando en la condición de hombre, se humilló a sí mismo, haciéndose obediente hasta la muerte, y muerte de cruz. Por lo cual Dios también le exaltó hasta lo sumo, y le dio un nombre que es sobre todo nombre, para que en el nombre de Jesús se doble toda rodilla de los que están en los cielos, y en la tierra, y debajo de la tierra;  y toda lengua confiese que Jesucristo es el Señor, para gloria de Dios Padre”.

La crucifixión de Jesús ya está en desacuerdo con la teología islámica (ver Sura 4: 157-158). Además, existen al menos tres razones por las que este texto enseña la deidad de Cristo:

Razón 1: Se dice que Cristo estaba “en la forma de Dios” y luego “tomó la forma de un siervo” —él está poniendo a los dos en la misma categoría, ya que utiliza la palabra griega morphé (que significa “forma”), En ambas cláusulas.

Razón 2: El contexto del pasaje nos instruye a emular la humildad de Cristo. Pero no es un acto de humildad por parte de una criatura el no buscar ser como Dios.

Razón 3: Los versículos 10 y 11 se enlazan con Isaías 45:23: “Ante mí [es decir, Yahweh] toda rodilla se doblará, toda lengua jurará lealtad.”

Para dar otro ejemplo, Pablo parece expandirse sobre el shema (de Deuteronomio 6: 4) en 1 Corintios 8: 6, identificando a Jesucristo como el Señor del shema:

Pero para nosotros hay un solo Dios, el Padre, de quien son todas las cosas y por quien nosotros somos, y un solo Señor, Jesucristo, por medio del cual son todas las cosas y por el cual somos.

Esto sugiere, por extensión, que los discípulos de Jesús también afirmaron la deidad de Cristo. También parece improbable que hubieran llegado a una conclusión tan radical si Jesús mismo no se hubiera identificado de esta manera, especialmente dadas (1) las expectativas mesiánicas judías; (2) el concepto judío de Dios; y (3) las connotaciones de crucifixión a un judío.

Para concluir, no hay razón para pensar que los discípulos de Jesús eran musulmanes como el Corán sostiene y en cambio tenemos todas las razones para pensar lo contrario. Esto presenta otro desafío formidable a la religión islámica y da una orden aún más racional para su rechazo.

 

Traducido por Jairo Izquierdo.

/by
The Speeches in Acts: Are They Authentic?

The Speeches in Acts: Are They Authentic?

Much of the book of Acts — about 50% — is comprised of speeches, discourses and letters. Among them, a total of eight speeches are given by Peter; a total of nine speeches delivered by Paul; there is Stephen’s famous address before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:2-53); a brief address at the Jerusalem Council by James (Acts 15:13-21); the advice given to Paul by James and the Jerusalem elders (Acts 21:20-25); in addition to the letter to the Gentile churches from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:23-29) and the letter to Governor Felix from Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:27-30).

An interesting question that we can investigate pertains to whether these speeches and other addresses are historically authentic, or whether they instead represent the invention of Luke, the author of Acts. It is this question with which this essay is concerned.

We have an indication that Luke himself accompanied Paul for a significant portion of his trip. This is implied by Luke’s use of the pronoun “we”, beginning in Acts 16. This means that Luke was present during Paul’s speech in Athens (Acts 17), his address to the elders of Ephesus (Acts 20), his speech in Jerusalem (Acts 22), and his defense before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa (Acts 24-25). Since Luke was a close companion of Paul, it is entirely plausible that Paul gave Luke the wording of his other sermons. He may have even given Luke information pertaining to Stephen’s address to the Sanhedrin, at which Paul was present (Acts 7:58). Luke likely received material from Peter regarding his speeches. James may also have provided material regarding the Jerusalem Council.

Now, it is clear that these speeches are presented by Luke only in summary form (see Acts 2:40). But the question that concerns us here is whether these speeches are truthfully represented by Luke or whether he falsely attributes those words to the speakers. For the sake of brevity, this article will focus on the speeches of Stephen, Peter, and Paul.

Stephen’s speech, given in Acts 7:2-53, makes extensive allusion to the Old Testament Scriptures, drawing out the history of the Jews from Abrahamic times to the time of Solomon’s temple. In all, the book of Acts quotes the Old Testament a total of 40 times. 15 of those quotations appear in Stephen’s speech. This repeated quotation of the Old Testament does not resemble Luke’s literary style but instead suggests that its origin lies with a theologian of Stephen’s caliber. Moreover, there are at least 23 words that are never to be found in the book of Acts (or for that matter throughout the rest of the New Testament) apart from Stephen’s speech. Stephen’s particular way of talking about the temple and Moses is also not found anywhere except in this speech of Stephen. Further, the words affliction and promise take on a special significance in this particular discourse that does not reflect the way in which these words are used throughout the rest of Acts.

Peter’s speeches in Acts utilize similar word choice and ideas to his epistles. For example, consider the following striking parallels (in terms of both word choice and concepts) between the speeches of Peter in Acts and Peter’s first epistle:

“…by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge…” (Acts 2:23) //  “…chosen according to the foreknowledge of God…” (1 Peter 1:2)

  • “Silver or gold I do not have…” (Acts 3:6) // “…it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed…” (1 Peter 1:18)
  • “…the faith that comes through him…” (Acts 3:16) // “Through him you believe in God…” (1 Peter 1:21)
  • “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.” (Acts 3:19-21) // “Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.” (1 Peter 3:11-12)
  • “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism…” (Acts 10:34) // “Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially…” (1 Peter 1:17)
  • “…whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead…” (Acts 10:42) // “But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.” (1 Peter 4:5)

When taken as a cumulative case, the evidence points uniformly to the Petrian origin of the sermons attributed to him in Acts.

As for the sermons of Paul, there is also a clear connection between the speeches and epistles of Paul. For example, in Acts 13:39, when preaching in the synagogue in Antioch, Paul states, “Through him, everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.” This doctrine of justification is a common and characteristic theme throughout Paul’s epistles. In Paul’s sermon in Athens, he declares, “In the past, God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,” (Acts 17:30). This sentence bears resemblance to the statement in Romans 3:5: “He did this to demonstrate his righteousness because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.” Also in common with Paul’s Acts 17 sermon in Athens, Paul’s letter to the Romans indicates that God has revealed Himself through creation (Romans 1:19-21) and that there will come a “day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ,” (Acts 2:16).

Furthermore, consider the following parallels between Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders  and his epistles:

  • “I served the Lord with great humility…”  (Acts 20:19) // “Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.” (Romans 12:11) // “…with great humility…” (Ephesians 4:2)
  • “I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race…” (Acts 20:24a) // “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” (2 Timothy 4:7)
  • …and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me…” (Acts 20:24b) // “See to it that you complete the ministry you have received in the Lord.” (Colossians 4:17)

In conclusion, although the speeches in Acts are presented in summary form, there is a good reason to think that the sermons recorded by Luke do not, in fact, originate with the pen of Luke but are indeed authentic sermons presented by the individuals to whom they are attributed. If this is so, then we have source material underlying the Acts of the Apostles that dates back exceedingly early and provides us with a unique insight into the primitive beliefs of the early Christian movement.

/by
The Argument From Cosmic Fine Tuning

The Argument From Cosmic Fine Tuning

,

The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a ‘razor’s edge’ for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that indeed there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Fundamental Constants

The ripples in the universe left over from the original ‘Big Bang’ singularity (often referred to as CMB, or cosmic background radiation) are detectable at one part in 10^5 (100,000). If this factor were even slightly smaller, the cosmos would exist exclusively as a collection of gas — stars, planets, and galaxies would not exist. Conversely, if this factor were increased slightly, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Either way, the universe would be uninhabitable.

Another finely tuned value is the strong nuclear force that holds atoms — and therefore matter — together. The sun derives its ‘fuel’ from fusing hydrogen atoms together. When two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen atoms is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller — say, 0.6% instead of 0.7% — a proton would not be able to bond to a neutron and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. Without the presence of heavy elements, planets would not form and hence no life would be possible. Conversely, if the amount of matter converted were increased to 0.8% instead of 0.7%, fusion would occur so rapidly that no hydrogen would remain. Again, the result would be no planets, no solar systems and hence no life.

The ratio of electrons to protons must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 10^37. If this fundamental constant were to be any larger or smaller than this, the electromagnetism would dominate gravity — preventing the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets. Again, life would not be possible.

The ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 10^40. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our Sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements.

The rate at which the universe expands must be finely tuned to one part in 10^55. If the universe expanded too fast, the matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets, and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse — before the formation of stars.

The mass density of the universe is finely balanced to permit life to a degree of one part in 10^59. If the universe were slightly more massive, an overabundance of deuterium from the big bang would cause stars to burn too rapidly for the formation of complex life. If the universe were slightly less massive, an insufficiency of helium would result in a shortage of the heavy elements — again, resulting in no life.

Mass of the Cosmos

The density of protons and neutrons in the cosmos relates to the cosmic mass density. That density determines just how much hydrogen fuses into heavier elements during the first few moments after the origin of the universe. In turn, the amount of heavier elements determines how much additional heavy-element production occurs later in the nuclear furnaces of stars.

What would be the consequence if the respective density of neutrons and protons were significantly lower? Firstly, nuclear fusion would occur with less efficiency. Consequently, the heavier elements such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, sodium and potassium — all of which are essential for the emergence of physical life — would not be formed. Moreover, assuming no additional cosmic density factors such as dark energy, a cosmos which possesses less mass density would prohibit the formation of stars and planets. Why? The expansion rate would be so big that matter would expand too quickly for gravity to pull together the gas and dust to allow their formation. If that were not enough, with only a little extra mass, the cosmos would expand so slowly that all stars in the cosmos would quickly turn into black holes and neutron stars. The density near the surface of such bodies would be so enormous that molecules would be impossible. Therefore, life would not be possible. The radiation from the formed black holes and neutron stars would also render physical life an impossibility at any point in a universe with such a high density.

Conversely, what would be the effect if the density of protons and neutrons in the cosmos were to be significantly higher? Nuclear fusion would be too productive, meaning that all the hydrogen in the universe would rapidly fuse into elements heavier than iron. The ultimate result is the same — the life-essential elements would not exist. Moreover, if the cosmic mass density were to be greater, gas and dust would condense so effectively under gravity’s influence that all stars would be much more massive than the Sun. Thus, planets would not be life-permitting because of the intensity of the radiation of their respective star, and additionally because of the rapid changes in the stars’ temperature and radiation.

The mass of the universe exhibits cosmic fine-tuning to simultaneously permit two features which are essential for permitting life: (1) the correct diversity and quantity of elements; and (2) the appropriate rate of cosmic expansion required to allow life. Such cosmic fine-tuning bespeaks foresight and planning — indicators of intelligent design.

Our Place in the Universe

There exist many physical factors that must be precisely set for any planet to be hospitable to life. Life must be in the right type of galaxy. There are three types of galaxies (elliptical, irregular and spiral). Elliptical galaxies lack the heavy elements needed to support life. Irregular galaxies have too many supernova explosions. Only spiral galaxies can foster life. The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy.

Life must also be in the right location in the galaxy. We are situated in the right place in the Milky Way. If we were too close to the center of the galaxy (closer to the black hole), harmful radiation would make life impossible. Conversely, if our planet was too far out in the periphery, not enough heavy elements would be available for the construction of habitable planets.

Life must also have the right type of star. Stars act as energy sources for life. Most stars are too large, too bright or too unstable to support life. The size and age of the sun enhance the earth’s hospitality. If the earth were moved 1% closer to the sun, bodies of water would vaporize, and life would not be possible. If the earth were as much as 2% farther from the sun, its waters would freeze. Earth has a nearly circular orbit, which ensures a nearly constant distance from the sun — ensuring that seasonal changes are not too severe.

The other planets in our solar system contribute greatly to the earth’s habitability. For example, the massive gas giant Jupiter acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, protecting the earth from incoming comets. Likewise, Mars protects the earth from incoming asteroids.

If the earth did not have a moon of the right shape and size, our planet would not be able to sustain life. The moon stabilizes the earth’s tilt, in turn preventing extreme temperatures and creating a stable, bio-friendly environment.

There are many other factors which influence the habitability of the earth. The few examples here detailed unequivocally demonstrate that indeed the earth is a privileged planet, another indicator of intelligent design.

Is the Universe Designed for Discovery?

In 2004, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards published their groundbreaking book, “The Privileged Planet”, in which they argued that the conditions most suited for life also provided the best overall setting for making scientific discoveries. In other words, our planet is not merely fine-tuned for life, but it is also finely-tuned for discovery.

One example is the phenomenon known as solar eclipses. People have witnessed solar eclipses for millennia, but only recently have we begun to notice a remarkable correlation: The only place in our solar system where a perfect solar eclipse can be observed happens to be the only place where there are observers. There are hundreds of moons in our solar system, but most moons cannot entirely eclipse the sun. Of all the places in our solar system, only on earth do the sun and moon appear the same size to observers. This is because the sun is approximately 400 times larger than the moon and roughly 400 times farther away. Solar eclipses have played a significant role in scientific discovery, having helped physicists to confirm Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

The Milky Way, as a spiral galaxy — in addition to being the only biofriendly kind of galaxy — is relatively flat. Consequently, it has less gas and dust than others, and fewer stars impede our view of the rest of the universe.

Earth is located not only in the galactic habitable zone but also in the right place where minimal light pollution and other visual obstructions might impede the view of our surroundings. Moreover, earth’s atmosphere — which is the only one we know of which can support life — is also the only one clear enough to allow us to observe the universe.

Such findings place naturalists (who see us and our place in the cosmos as nothing more than accidents) in an uncomfortable position. But it makes a lot of sense to theists, who see us and our place in the cosmos as fully intended by an intelligent creator.

Conclusion

To believe that the facts and figures here detailed amount to no more than happy coincidence, without doubt, constitutes a greater exercise of faith than that of the Christian who affirms the theistic design of the universe. Such scientific insights over the last several decades have led the late Robert Jastrow — a self-proclaimed agnostic — to write: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

This blog post was adapted from a previous article published on AllAboutScience.org.

/by