Another Reason Paul Doesn’t Mention The Empty Tomb

 Paul’s audience in Corinth wasn’t doubting Jesus’ resurrection; rather, they were doubting their future resurrections (1 Cor. 15:12-13, 29, etc.). The empty tomb wouldn’t be evidence for the general resurrection that Paul’s audience was doubting. Indeed, an empty tomb is just a by-product of the general resurrection, since it is a bodily event. 

Andrew Loke's New Youtube Series

 Christian philosopher and theologian Andrew Loke is starting a series on YouTube called "What's wrong with the skeptics' arguments." Andrew Loke is one of the best apologists out right now, so his channel is well worth checking out. 

Bibliography For Exploring Reality's Resurrection Stream

 A few months ago, some of the staff here at ThinkChristianTheism participated in a live stream presenting a case for the resurrection of Jesus. There have been a lot of technical issues that involve posting some of the sources we cited. Given that, I thought I would just post them here. Some of the titles mentioned below are papers, so if you don't have access to them and would like to, don't hesitate to comment or email me. I also may have missed some material, so feel free to ask about that as well! 

• Richard Swinburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate 
• NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God
• Caleb Jackson, Undead
• Dale Allison, Resurrecting Jesus
• __. The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History 
• Craig Keener, Christobiography 
• Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach 
• Andrew Loke, Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A Transdisciplinary Approach
• JD Atkins, The Doubt of the Apostles and the Resurrection Faith of the Early Church
• Christopher Bryan, The Resurrection of the Messiah 
• Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus 
• All of the sources discussed for the burial (and some for the appearances) section of the stream are linked on my previous post. 

Recent Trends in Scholarship Favorable to Christianity

 This post will cover various topics. Some will be broad, some will be more specific. As the title of this post suggests, I'll be linking to some material in contemporary scholarship that I think is important for the apologist to have in their arsenal. 

• Recent commentaries on Isaiah 53 agree that the servant in question is a single person. Of course, not all commentators will agree that it is Jesus, but how many candidates fulfill the passage in such a way as Jesus does? 
• The argument that Paul didn't know of or believe in an empty tomb is now untenable thanks to the work of James P. Ware and John Granger Cook. See also my quote and additional commentary from Dale Allison's recent book on the resurrection. 
• The burial of Jesus has been convincingly argued for by scholars such as Byron McCane, Craig Evans, Jodi Magness and John Granger Cook. 
• The debate about Christology, of course, rages on, but here are some papers that are rarely discussed, at least in online circles. Jason Combs on Mark 6:49-50, Brian McPhee's paper on Jesus walking on the water, and Thomas Keiser's paper on the divine plural in the Old Testament.

If I linked a paper that you can't access, send me an email - which is available on my blogger profile. 

Bertuzzi's Bizarre Rebuttal

Cameron Bertuzzi from Capturing Christianity recently posted a counter to Jerry Walls' argument against the papacy. I'd like to comment on it. Here is the post:

"One of, in not the, strongest arguments against the papacy comes from history. Dr. Jerry Walls has argued that four key historical sources (Ignatius of Antioch, Hermas, Clement of Rome, and Justin Martyr) don't mention a monarchical bishop residing in Rome.

Some Catholic Apologists respond to this objection by claiming that it amounts to an argument from silence--a kind of fallacious way of reasoning about history. Just because a historical source doesn't mention a particular event doesn't mean the event didn't happen. The problem with this response is that there are some conditions under which arguments from silence are perfectly acceptable. Namely, when we'd expect the authors in question to mention the data. And that seems precisely to be the case in the case of the previously mentioned sources. So the argument from silence response won't do.

Interestingly, a young PhD candidate, Joseph Blado, has argued that the proper response to the Wallsian argument is "skeptical papalism." He summarizes this view as follows: "I don’t think we are in the epistemic position to know from a historical standpoint if there was a special bishop in Rome who possessed such an ontological Papal status, and if early Church writers would write about it." In support of this thesis he argues, "The significance of being ‘the successor of Peter’ is completely obscure to the first century individual." In other words, the doctrine of the papacy is actually a pretty complex doctrine that we wouldn't expect to find explicitly explicated by any early source. He further argues that there are many potential historical documents, beyond the four that Walls draws on, that might point in the opposite direction. We're not in a position to know with much confidence that the documents we do have are representative of the documents there are. In the end, Blado concludes that, "One should conclude that it’s epistemically inscrutable to know from a historical standpoint if any individual in the first century Rome possessed such an authority, and if any individuals would be inclined to record anything about such a person. Hence, one should look to other sources to infer the truth value of the Papal doctrine."

What are your thoughts on this "skeptical papalism" approach to the historical argument against the papacy?"

Well, Cameron, I think it fails. It shows a few misunderstandings.

The problem here is the importance of the papacy to Catholicism. Indeed, it is central to the catholic faith. It appears Blado - and Cameron, by proxy - misunderstand the argument from silence. An argument from silence is valid when we would expect a topic to appear somewhere and it doesn't. I will use the assumption of Mary, another catholic doctrine, as a foil to highlight what I mean. The assumptions of Elijah, Enoch and Moses are discussed in early Christian literature (cf. 1 Clem. 9:3; Against Heresies 5:5, for example). Why not Mary? These sections of the writings would be the perfect opportunity to bring up the assumption of Mary, instead, we find silence on the matter. 

Blado's comment that being a successor to Peter would be "obscure to a first century reader," is, in my estimation, absurd. It would have not been obscure to a first-century Christian, given the fact that the papacy is the central doctrine of their faith! Also, it would be important to keep in mind that we are talking about "the rock" (Matthew 16:17-19) that Christ builds his church upon! Lest anyone be confused, I don't think that this verse implies anything like a papacy, I am responding to Catholics on their own grounds. 

Michael Huemer On God

 Michael Huemer is one of the best philosophers publishing today. His interests range from epistemology to political philosophy. He recently published an article detailing why he is not religious. Given his influence and philosophical acumen, his article is worthy of a response. Note that I have skipped a few sections. That's because there was some repetition in Huemer's article, and I don't want the article to be longer than it has to. 

Huemer states, 

"I think the main reason is that the contents of specific religious beliefs, especially things you find in texts such as the Bible or the Koran, sound to me a lot more like the sort of things that primitive tribes of humans from the past would make up than the sort of things that a supreme being would say."

1) What concerns does Huemer have in mind here? That's not to say I completely disagree, however, it is easier to work with specifics as opposed to ambiguities. 

2) What does Huemer make of Christ's teachings of loving your fellow man (Matthew 5:44; 22:39; John 13:34, etc.)? What about Jesus associating with the most shameful in ancient society, e.g. tax collectors, prostitutes, disabled, on and on the list goes?

Of course, one could concede that Jesus was just a nice man, but that fails to comprehend the honor/shame context the writers of scripture we're living in. 

3) As John Walton and Michael Heiser routinely state, the Bible was written for us, not to us. Of course we would expect to see scripture reflect a large part of the society it was written in! 

Huemer goes on,

"He created this universe 14 billion years before any human being ever existed. He may have existed for infinite time before that. After causing the Big Bang, he watched the birth of ten thousand, million, million, million stars that coalesced out of the gases produced by the big bang over millions to billions of years. After waiting one hundred million human lifetimes for the Earth to form, he then watched the lives and deaths of millions of entire species on this planet alone, before ever the first human walked the Earth."

1) I, like most Christian thinkers of the past, hold to divine timelessness. Given that, God isn't just "sitting there", he isn't confined to the present. Here, Paul Helm helpfully writes,

"Thus, when we say that God existed before the universe, the ‘before’ is not temporal but hierarchical in meaning…the universe might not have existed, and depends for its existence upon God…" The Providence of God (IVP Academic, 1994) p. 71

2) Those initial conditions are fine-tuned (cf. Luke Barnes and Gerraint Lewis "A fortunate Universe" [Cambridge University Press, 2016]), thereby raising the probability of theism (cf. Robin Collins' essay in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology)

I'll get into the fine-tuning argument at a later date; for now, I am just pointing out some of the literature for people to consult in the mean time. 

Huemer goes on,

"This is the being that, I’m supposed to believe, is going about choosing favorite human tribes."

1) Limited atonement doesn't rule out God's love for the reprobate. God loves the reprobate in virtue of them being his creation. God's universal love is not the same as his redemptive love. 

2) God's choosing of Israel is a part of his overall plan to redeem humans and give his justice.

Continuing, 

"Getting jealous of fictitious other gods? Becoming enraged when people fail to worship and obey him?"

1) This language of God feeling emotion is to accommodate himself to human incapacity and weakness. To illustrate this, John Calvin writes,

"What, therefore, does the word “repentance“ mean? Surely its meaning is like that of all other modes of speaking that describe God for us in human terms. For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the description of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us.” Institutes 1.17.13

2) The onus is on Huemer to show these other "gods" don't exist. Of course, I am a trinitarian monotheist, I use "gods" to stand in for other, lower, divine beings such as demons.

Back to Huemer,

"This being is obsessively preoccupied with which humans are having sex, in what ways, with which other humans?"

As if hook-up culture is a positive? What is wrong with saving yourself for one person? 

For such a good philosopher, Huemer's objections to the faith sure do sound like a disgruntled teenager's objections. 

"And about maintaining human traditions and power structures?"

What exactly does Huemer mean here? 

Continuing,

"It’s what the primitive human imagines he would be like if he had ultimate power. “I’d make everyone worship me! If anyone didn’t want to, I’d torture him. Forever. I’d make my tribe defeat our enemies. And I’d kill the gays, because–gross!”

1) How does Huemer deal with the fact that in contemporary philosophy of religion, philosophers such as Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Alex Pruss, Robert Koons, James Anderson, Greg Welty and Andrew Loke are still defending Biblical theism?

2) That's a rather naïve understanding of hell. Interpreting the doctrine of hell through the lens of Dante's Inferno is a sure way to misunderstand hell.

2a) There is a distinction between torture and punishment. If a child gets put in time out for breaking a valuable object, is the kid being tortured? 

2b) One isn't punished merely for not having believed. If someone isn't saved, they aren't saved from any of their sins. Not merely unbelief.

Huemer then remarks, 

"And I’d kill the gays, because–gross!”

Huemer needs to learn some more covenant theology. He should also learn about Old Testament law.

What's also not mentioned in this article are the secular arguments for traditional marriage put forth by people such as Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Gergis.

Back to Huemer,

"Imagine looking down at two ant colonies fighting in the dirt. You would not pick a favored colony and then start stomping on the other colony, unless you’re a child. You would not become super-concerned about exactly how the ants are doing things in their colony, whether they’re reproducing in the right way, whether the ants believe you exist, or whether they are showing respect for you.

If there is a god, we are to God as the ants are to us."

1) Huemer needs to ask if God knows ethical truths.

2) Huemer needs to ask if ants and humans are analogous. Obviously not, given that scripture claims humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27.)

3) See my point earlier about God's choosing of Israel.

Huemer writes, 

"But God must have known all those things, and everything else that we have discovered, long before the Bible was written. He knows everything that we’ll discover for the next ten thousand years too. So if I read a book written by God, I would expect that same experience to happen, but in a much greater degree – I would expect to find deep insights, to feel my mind expanding, and to sense an enormous intellect (like when you read Isaac Newton, but more so)."

This is a classic internet atheist trope.

1) Why would God need to write a math or science textbook? The Bible is there for moral instruction and formation through the history of God's people, culminating in Jesus - the Messiah.

2) What would an ancient Israelite do with the quadratic formula? What would an Israelite do with Einstein's equations?

3) With respect to 2), why would the everyday person need these high-level academic ideas? Why would an accountant ever need to know about these types of equations? Not every person is talented in these fields. Huemer's objection is fundamentally self-centered. 

In short, Huemer is a talented philosopher, but falls very short regarding philosophy of religion and theology. Almost all of his objections are answered in good apologetics books, standard scholarly monographs and biblical commentaries. 

Pursuing More Avenues

 Arguing for the resurrection and NT reliability is very important. So, this post is in no way to down play those areas, indeed, we've spent a lot of time on this blog discussing those topics. However, when too much of our attention is devoted here, we lose track of other lines of evidence for the faith. Some of these evidences include prophecy fulfillment, visions of Jesus, modern healings, aesthetic arguments, exorcisms and providence.  

Suppose we could say the resurrection is 50-50; we can't be confident one way or another. Could we still make a strong case for Christianity? Given the aforementioned lines of inquiry, the answer is yes. Notice, too, that by giving more attention to these areas, several popular skeptical arguments are addressed. Arguments such as "why doesn't God do miracles today? If he existed, surely God would still be active!" 

Again, none of this is downplay apologetics for the resurrection and NT, rather, I am suggesting a path forward. Supplement these arguments with newer pieces of evidence. Spare some time to research the less-popular arguments. 

The Explanatory Value of Disembodied Agents

 Supernatural phenomena such as poltergeists, clairvoyance, etc. are strong-if not decisive-evidence against naturalism (so long as we are defining naturalism as physicalism plus causal closure.) In his landmark book, "The Existence of God" (2nd ed.), Richard Swinburne has useful thoughts about how disembodied agents can provide a good, and simple, explanation of various supernatural events, like the ones mentioned above.

"It is possible that we might find certain otherwise inexplicable phenomena that could be explained by the action of a non-embodied agent, such as a ghost or a poltergeist. The phenomena to be explained may be that books, chairs, inkwells, etc. start flying about my room. We postulate a poltergeist P with certain intentions, beliefs, and powers to be responsible. Clearly we have to suppose P to be very unlike other rational agents known to us both in his powers and in his ways of acquiring beliefs…But we can suppose P to have beliefs influenced as are ours by how things are, and to have intentions of the kind that we have— for example, intentions of a kind typical of human beings with certain characters and histories. For example, we can suppose P to have previously been a certain embodied person who had been greatly injured by X and who had greatly loved Y, X and Y both being still alive. Then we suppose P to be like many of us if we suppose him with such a history to have the intention to harm X and to save Y from harm, and to communicate with Y.” pp. 63-64

 “If we suppose P to be in these ways similar to us, the supposition that P exists fits in to some extent with our background knowledge, al- though, in postulating a non-embodied person, clearly to a large extent it does not. The supposition is more probable in so far as it is simple—that is, postulates few constant intentions, simple ways of acquiring beliefs, and unchanging powers. Above all, the supposition will be rendered probable if it has high explanatory power.” p. 64

MerionWest's Bad Article On Jesus

 I don't prefer spending my time on Jesus mythicism, but when media decides to take on religious subjects with misleading information, I can revise my policy. Last week, Peter Clarke of MerionWest (and of "Jokes Review") published an article arguing that mythicism is about to go mainstream. This article calls for correction on several points

To start off: 

"according to a Church of England poll, only 60% of the English hold that view [that Jesus existed]."

This is quite concerning. I believe this reflects the tendency of our modern world to not research topics that matter and have eternal consequences. Instead video games, sports and partying take up all of the free time.

Continuing:

"It stands to reason that as the United States becomes less Christian, it will become less tied to the historicity of Jesus."

Perhaps, but there is, as far as I am aware, no data to suggest this, other than perhaps the secularization of America.

Continuing:

"While Christians need Jesus to be historical, non-Christians do not have any particular reason to care either way."

For the sake of seeking truth alone, they should care. They should also care about researching the individual responsible for undergirding western culture as we know it today.

Back to the Clarke:

"Notably, for people who have not had much exposure to Christian history, Jesus seems like a fictional character. For example, I have a friend who has never once gone to church and more or less lives her life entirely oblivious to the existence of any world religion. I told her recently that I am starting to come around to the idea that Jesus was entirely fictional. “No kidding!” she responded. “I could have told you that!”

Um, so what? Unfortunately, your friend's intuitions aren't proper historical analysis. I hope this is Clarke merely giving us an anecdote--and not giving it as an argument!

Back to Clarke,

"Meanwhile, his story (we often hear) parallels those of other mythical figures who offer salvation after dying and coming back, such as Osiris, Adonis, Romulus, and Inanna."

For someone that is seeking to probe scholarly consensus, Clarke sure is out of touch. To quote T.N.D Mettinger:

“There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religion.” The Riddle of Resurrection, p. 221

Continuing:

"This point is important because more and more people are growing up like my friend, with next-to-no exposure to the Jesus story beyond the mythical bits. To these people, the mythicist view will be the default view."

According to Clarke's one off experience with a friend.

Clarke then says,

"Then, he rose up into the sky and conveniently never came back down."

I would be curious to see Clarke interact with this argument.

Continuing:

"Over the past few years, a number of in-depth, well-researched books have come out arguing for mythicism. These include: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard Carrier, Jesus: Mything in Action by David Fitzgerald, and The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems by Robert M. Price."

Since time doesn't permit me to review 3 books at the moment, I'll just link some of what the scholars have to say about Carrier. See here, here and here. As for the Fitzgerald and Price books, I strongly encourage the reader to (1) look at the publishers and (2) look at the "scholarly" endorsements. Not all too good for them.

Clarke then states,

"The list of legitimate scholars who openly doubt the historicity of Jesus has grown rapidly during the past decade."

Given the comments of the scholars I linked up above, this seems quite unlikely. It's not as if the mythical position hasn't been given a fair hearing amongst scholars.

Back to Clarke: 

"Here is Richard Carrier’s case for mythicism, as he presented it in three simple points on a recent episode of the MythVision Podcast"

Anyone else seeing a pattern? Over-reliance on Richard Carrier and a lack of any original research on the scholarship from Clarke himself.

Now, let's take discuss Clar...I mean Carrier's 3 points that suggest mythicism.

1: Paul doesn't place Jesus on earth.

- Paul knew Jesus was born and raised as a Jew (Gal. 4:4) and that he descended from Abraham and David (Gal. 3:16; Rom. 1:3). Paul was in contact with Jesus' brother, James (Gal. 1:19). He knew Jesus' disciples, and even knew that the apostle Peter was married (1 Cor. 9:5)! I could go on and on, but I'll stop here.

2: Jesus only appears as a real person in texts that are highly mythological, i.e., the Gospels.

-Except the genre of the Gospels is that of Ancient biography. Ancient biographers investigated events, examined witnesses, and travelled to various sites in question. For citations and more in-depth study, see Craig Keener, Christobiography. 

2a: This basically means we only have one book that talks about Jesus as a real person, which is the book of Mark. The other gospels were written after Mark by authors who embellished the story while clearly lifting significant portions directly from Mark. And Mark is written by an unknown author who cites no sources for his information.

I've done several posts discussing these objections. See here and here. 

2b: Notably, a lot of ancient mythical characters were also given elaborate biographies that placed them in history with parents, siblings, birth-places, etc. This includes characters like Moses, Romulus, and Dionysus. In contrast, figures in history who are known to be real people either did not begin as revelatory beings, or we have clear evidence of their historicity.

Yes, there are plenty of fictional biographies in the Greco-Roman world. However, this isn't the type of biography the Gospels are, rather, they are closer to those written about real, historical figures when much information about the figures were available. Again, see Keener's Christobiography, as he states “…My interest is primarily in information-based biographies” p. 33.

3: "Attempts to get around these two points do not hold up. For example, there is an argument that Jesus must have really come from Nazareth because there is no other reason to attribute such an unlikely origin to him (Christopher Hitchens, for instance, finds this argument convincing). But the premise of this argument is false because there are many good reasons why that specific town would have been contrived for a mythical messiah. Also, many mythical figures were given obscure towns as their origin. For example, Romulus and Remus, the mythical founders of Rome, were given the birthplace of Alba Longa, an ancient city in Central Italy."

Can Clarke cite anything for me to work with here? All I have is assertion. As for Nazareth, I'd invite Clarke to consult John 1:46. Hardly mythmakers trying to make their subject seem like a mighty ruler. 

Returning to Clarke: 

Slate, for instance, provides five reasons for questioning the historicity of Jesus.

Slate is not a reputable academic institution, unfortunately. Also, take a look at who authored it. Valerie Tarico of the Center for Inquiry. You'll notice her PhD is not in a field remotely relevant to the academic Biblical studies.

Clarke goes on to cite Carrier's book, but see the links I provided earlier, wherein scholars discuss Carrier's work.

Returning to Clarke:

"As mythicist author Earl Doherty shows in a survey, historians rely on the consensus view to brush aside the mythicist theory rather than to examine it."

I think this happens with several topics in Biblical studies, such as authorship of the Gospels (although that certainly has more adherents than mythicism in contemporary New Testament studies.), so, fair enough.

Continuing:

"Carrier has also observed that most scholars who study Jesus are biased against the mythicist view because they are essentially trained to presuppose that Jesus existed as a real person."

Could this not just be to due to the fact that scholars are aware of the evidence and find mythicism wanting? Furthermore, if scholars found the evidence for mythicism compelling, who's to say that they wouldn't just begin treating the New Testament as a classicist does with, say, The Odyssey or The Iliad?

Clarke then cites a talk by Carrier:

"In a 2017 talk, Carrier explained, “Even secular experts in this field have been trained with a body of Christian faith assumptions that are this lens through which you look at this evidence and select which evidence to look at.”

This is just patently untrue. It's not as if public universities have faith commitments. Isn't the story of the Christian going off to college and returning an atheist all too common? Relevant here, again, is my response to the previous point by Carrier.

He goes on to discuss a quote by Ehrman, but that is an in-house debate for the anti-apologists and Ehrmanites. I'll let them hash that out so I can refute whatever final product they come out with.

Continuing:

"When Carrier recently debated Dennis R. MacDonald on the question of mythicism, no one in the comments section was laughing at Carrier (as Ehrman might have worried). Rather, I am seeing highly engaged comments that lean skeptically against historicity."

Given that the channel is mythvision, and the channel hosts many prominent mythicist that have a following, it's not at all surprising that you would find a large number of mythicists there.

Back to Clarke:

"It only makes sense that Jesus mythicism would find a growing audience online: The Internet loves a good contrarian view! And unlike many contrarian views that are potentially harmful to society (such as anti-vax conspiracies), I do not see any practical harm from speculating about whether or not a character from the first century was a real person or not."

1: This, however, cuts both ways. Internet access also gives people an opportunity to see how strong the evidence for Jesus is. People can access primary sources, academic books and responses to their favorite mythicists.

2: There are potential spiritual consequences, though. For Christians, Jesus is the foundation of their faith and for atheists, if Christ is indeed who the Gospels say he is, wouldn't you want to know? I can't see why self-proclaimed truth seekers wouldn't want to know.

Continuing:

"For the rest of us, Jesus mythicism is a harmless YouTube rabbit hole to venture down."

Notice a theme? For Clarke (and many of his fellow online atheists) this isn't a process of reading primary sources, scholarship and thinking through the data, it's mere leisure time on Youtube.

Continuing:

"This point is validated by the fact that many outlets discussing Jesus mythicism—such as the MythVision Podcast and the David C. Smalley Podcast—are responsible channels that do not feed off conspiracy theory hype."

I appreciate Clarke validating a former point of mine before my response was even written! 

To anticipate an objection (already given to me by Clarke on Twitter); yes, I know the primary goal of his article was to demonstrate that mythicism can gain more adherents as time goes on. However, in doing so, he has presented a lot of misleading information, which unfamiliar readers of his column can fall prey to. 

Dale Allison And The Maximal Facts vs. Minimal Facts Debate

 I am finally getting around to reading Dale Allison's recent book on the resurrection (The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History). In his discussion of the empty tomb, Allison makes a valuable point about defending the Gospels as it relates to the empty tomb. Before I provide the quote, it should be noted that Allison doesn't fall into either the minimal facts or maximal data camp. He thinks that several naturalistic theories can explain the minimal facts. As for the Gospels, he states, “Although the Gospels contain mythical elements, they are not on the whole mythological constructs” (p. 21). Of course, this doesn't mean that Allison doesn't believe we can learn a lot about the historical Jesus from the Gospels, but it's not the type of confidence that could get you to a maximal data approach. With that aside, here is the relevant quote:

“As a footnote, I should observe that the immediately preceding paragraphs assume, for the sake of argument, what so many modern scholars take for granted, namely, that those whose names are now attached to the canonical Gospels did not write them. If, however, as some still hold, that John Mark known from Acts… Who is named as a coworker of Paul in Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; and Phlm. 24, wrote the second gospel, and/or if the Luke mentioned in Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; and Phlm. 24 composed Luke-Acts, everything changes. If Paul’s close associates included the author of Mk. 16:1-8 or of Lk. 24:1-12 or both men, the odds that the apostle was unacquainted with a story about an empty tomb approach zero.” p. 145

A lot of skeptics tout the argument that Paul didn't believe in an empty tomb because it isn't mentioned in 1 Cor. 15. Of course, the minimal facts crowd can point out (correctly) that Paul's usage of "egeiro" in 1 Cor. 15 necessitates that Paul would have believed in an empty tomb (see here for more on "egeiro" and 1 Cor. 15). However, this does not mean that Paul was familiar with the same empty tomb narratives in the Gospels. Although, yes, this is still inferential when defending the Gospels, it makes Paul's knowledge of the empty tomb traditions in the Gospels much more likely.

For more on the maximal data approach, see this playlist put together here, by Lydia McGrew. This playlist includes multiple videos from Lydia herself and Erik Manning of Testify.

 

Forthcoming Commentaries

 Here’s a fantastic site that lists all the commentaries due to come out soon or being worked on:

https://www.bestcommentaries.com/forthcoming/

Martin Hengel & The Gospel Titles

 “Almost all books which were duplicated by copying, disseminated in the book trade and collected in libraries, also had a title which had similarly been structured by the model of the inclusion of the book…works without the titles easily got double or multiple titles when names were given to them in different libraries… this is also evident from individual pseudepigrapha of the old and New Testament‘s, for example... The strange uniformity and early attestation of the titles of the Gospels excludes the possibility that for a long time they had been circulating anonymously in the communities...Works without titles no longer had a chance of establishing themselves in the mainstream church. At best they reached esoteric circles as in the case of the Nag Hammadi texts. Where the name of the author was removed, as in the case of Hebrews and the letter to Diognetus, at least the name of those to whom it was addressed (whether fictitious or authentic) was preserved. By their striking consistency in the manuscript tradition for Matthew to the book of revelation, in particular the writings which later formed the “New Testament” generally show that from the beginning, i.e. from the time they were produced or disseminated and circulated, they were associated with their original titles. In practice, therefore, these could no longer be changed. The few exceptions prove the rule. In contrast to this, both the titles and the textual traditions of the “apocryphal“ writings of the second century are often unstable. Essentially greater arbitrariness is predominate here. If the titles of the Gospels, the letters of the apocalypses have been changed or expanded, this would have left a record in the textual tradition, which is uniquely well tested for antiquity…Where there were uncertainties, for example with the letter to the Ephesians, discrepancies in the textual attestation indicate the fact. most of the inspired “holy Scriptures“ of the prophets of the Old Testament already bore the names of their authors from Moses to Malachi and were sometimes also coded with these names. In the New Testament, Moses is mentioned 79 times, Isaiah 22 times Jeremiah three times; Daniel once; Hosea once; Amos three times; Joel once; psalms (of David) or David as Psalmist around 10 times.” Hengel (2000:48, 54, 105, 125n. 502)

References

Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels And The One Gospel of Jesus Christ. Trinity Press International 2000.

Proselytize or Apostatize Resurrection Debate Review

My friend Caleb Jackson and Aaron Aquinas did a debate on the resurrection against village atheists David Johnson & Matthew Taylor. Caleb has a good, accessible book defending the resurrection you can purchase here. 

Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KllcQ77QgE&t=2170s

1: Caleb defends an NT Wright style of argumentation which I am sympathetic to. I wish he had time to defend the Gospels, but time constraints made that impossible. He gave a good, albeit brief over view of the concept of resurrection and afterlife in Antiquity. 

2: He (Caleb) mentioned independent traditions in the empty tomb narratives. To bolster his case here, I'll quote some material from Jake O'Connell (2016:130f). "Matthew included the information about the guards at the tomb (28:8-10). Luke changes the list of women at the tomb even though he would have no conceivable reason to do this and he also includes the fact that Peter ran to the tomb (24:12), another event not found in Mark. John has Peter and the beloved disciple running to the tomb (20:4) and an appearance to Mary Magdalene by the tomb (20:11-18), both events which are not found in Mark. Thus, since the Gospel writers had independent information about the empty tomb, they do not all drive their account from Mark, and so we have four independent sources."

3: Caleb rightly points out that they would have had the language to describe a mere ascension or exaltation into heaven, drawing on Acts 12.

4: Caleb points out David Johnson can't make the elementary distinction between a resurrection and resuscitation. If Johnson bothered to do the bare minimum amount of research, he'd see there isn't a dearth of material on just this subject. Take Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003).

5: Aaron is sharp, but spends too much time getting unnecessary preliminaries out of the way. A lot of those are already known and agreed on

6: Johnson brings up the virgin birth for some odd reason. Every non Christian scholar denies the virgin birth, but still believe quite a number of episodes in the Gospels are historical. Nothing but weasel words.

7: Johnson channels Chris Hallquist in bringing up alien abductions. He neglected to mention old hag syndrome as an explanation.

a) Let's assume alien abductions happen. That does nothing with the resurrection evidence. One giant red herring.

8:He says we have more evidence for alien abductions than the resurrection, but never puts his money where his mouth is. His assertions are only as good as their supporting arguments.

9: He brings up reputational martyrdom for aliens, but has no clue how this line of argument works. The whole point is that the apostles sincerely believed what they saw and preached.

10: He says "We most certainly have evidence for the resurrection, but it pales in comparison to the evidence for alien abductions". He has yet to back this up in anyway. He cites 0 sources.

11: He brings up Trump and his supporters saying that he actually won. Well, maybe because there is evidence of voter fraud, or, at the very least, they suggest there is evidence of voter fraud?

(I will not give my opinions on that matter here.) 

12: You don't get to compare 1c Christians with 21c Christians. This is laughable at best. To boot, there are non-Christian Trump supporters. Ironically, it is David Johnson who can not parse the facts. 

13: Taylor brings up the fact that his grandfather had lied to him about his birth. Notice, he fact checked him, in the same way the early Christians could have verified the claims going around. 

a) Not all testimony is the same, we must take it on a case by case basis. 

14: Taylor needs to give some examples of ancient historians making things up. No doubt they did, but examples would be useful, so that we could compare them with the Gospels. 

15: Sure, we should put the Gospels up to the test! Happy to oblige.

16: He brings up the ending of Mark. Does he not realize that works against him? We are able to distinguish between out right fabrications and historical memory. 

17: He brings up progressions of Jesus in each Gospel account. This is beyond an exercise in misdirection. Matthew and Luke include a virgin birth, whereas the earliest and latest Gospel do not. Does John contain exorcisms? Compare the number of miracle accounts in the Gospels. See if John has the most in comparison with the earlier accounts. 

18: Mark doesn't narrate the resurrection, but it is anticipated (8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:28).

19: The Gospels are remarkably accurate when compared to non-biblical sources. There are standard books and commentaries on this, which Taylor & Johnson obviously haven't bothered to consult. They want their opposition to do all the leg work. 

Ehrman vs. McGrew: Round 1 Review

 I was recently re-watching Tim McGrew's debate with Bart Ehrman on Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley. I wasn't planning on blogging today, but when I heard Ehrman's misleading arguments, I had to write down some replies. 

(You can listen to it here)

1: Ehrman claims the first mention of Gospel authorship is by Irenaeus c. 180. This is such a simplistic reading, & is only true of Luke. Here is a list of when, and who, mention the Gospels by name: 

Mark- Papias (100), Justin Martyr (155), Irenaeus (175), Clement of Alexandria (195), Muratorian Fragment (late second century) Matthew- Papias (100), Gospel of Thomas 13 (140-180), Apollinaris (175), Irenaeus (175), Clement of Alexandria (195), Muratorian Fragment (late second century) John- Papias (100), Ptolemy (150-175), Heracleon (150-175), Acts of John (150-200), Irenaeus (175), Hegesippus (175), Theophilus of Antioch (180), Polycrates (190), Clement of Alexandria (195), Muratorian Fragment (late second century), Act of Peter and the Twelve (200)

(I am thankful to my friend Chris for the above) 

2: Ehrman claims Justin Martyr doesn't quote John. This is questionable. He neglects to mention C.E. Hill's study on the topic, which you can read here. To my knowledge, Hill isn't some fringe scholar, he is mainstream. I wonder why Ehrman doesn't mention this? Maybe because he teaches at a seminary?

3: Ehrman goes on to say that the Gospels are quoted anonymously by all of our earliest writings. Dr. McGrew goes on to point out (rightly) that the same is done with Paul's letters. But, lets crank up McGrew's argument up a notch. Notice those same sources Ehrman goes to, do the same exact type of citation with the Old Testament! Some examples include: 

1 Clement 4:1- "For so it is written, And it came to pass after certain days that
Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice unto God, and
Abel he also brought of the firstlings of the sheep and of their
fatness." (Italics mine)

1 Clement 4:6- "And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go over unto the plain.
And it came to pass, while they Were in the plain, that Cain rose up
against Abel his brother and slew him." (Italics mine)

1 Clement 8:4-5- "and He added also a merciful judgment: Repent ye, O house of
Israel, of your iniquity; say unto the sons of My people, Though
your sins reach from the earth even unto the heaven, and though
they be redder than scarlet and blacker than sackcloth, and ye turn
unto Me with your whole heart and say Father, I will give ear unto
you as unto a holy people. And in another place He saith on this wise, Wash, be ye clean. Put away your iniquities from your souls out of My sight. Cease from your iniquities; learn to do good; seek out judgment; defend him that is wronged: give judgment for the orphan, and execute righteousness for the widow; and come and let us reason together, saith He; and though your sins be as crimson, I will make them white as snow; and though they be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool. And if ye be willing and will hearken unto Me, ye shall eat the good things of the earth; but if ye be not willing, neither hearken unto Me, a sword shall devour you; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken these things." (Italics original)

Ehrman is simply misleading the audience here. You can look at the rest of the 1st century corpus here. 

4: Ehrman claims McGrew is appealing to authority when bringing up Martin Hengel. However, some how, Ehrman fails to realize that all McGrew is doing here is stating where he originally got the argument from. 

5: Ehrman simply resorts to weasel words when pressed on the Gospels being formally anonymous. He was very clearly using it as an argument against traditional authorship. However, I will make a few points.

a) No doubt some Greco-Roman (GR) historians/biographers identify themselves in the text, but the Gospels aren't modeled on these texts. They imitate the Old Testament history books in this regard (though not only in this way.)

b) The Old Testament history books are also formally anonymous!

c) With respect to a), lets assume the Gospel authors are trying to do the exact same thing as the elite GR historian, Xenophon does writes about himself in 3rd person, even though he is a direct eyewitness! 

Xenophon, Anabasis 3.1- “There was in the army a certain Xenophon, an Athenian, who accompanied the army neither as a general nor as a captain nor as a private soldier; but Proxenos, an old acquaintance, had sent for him.” 

Simon Gathercole, in his 2018 paper The Alleged Anonymity Of The Canonical Gospels (p. 11 fn. 37 & 38) cites 4 Roman historians, Sallust, Livy, Tacitus & Florus. According to Gathercole, none of them identify themselves in their texts. 

5: Ehrman claims that McGrew is simply assuming the Christian tradition is correct. Well, prof. McGrew, looks like all those Friday nights you spent in the library as a teenager were just a waste! Pack it up!

On a serious note, secularism isn't objectivity. If anything, he is more biased in his research, given he is on record as saying a miracle is the least probable explanation, he needs to throw out quite a number of events from antiquity!

6: Ehrman claims that the early Christians had strong theological reasons for attributing the Gospels to their respective author, but what is the theological reason for naming Mark and Luke the authors of their respective Gospels? This alone cuts against Ehrman's assertion. 

7: McGrew calls out Ehrman's bluff on his repetitious appeal to 'critical scholars'. On a side note, does Ehrman not count the likes of Bauckham, Hengel, Keener, Gathercole, et al as serious scholars? Like McGrew said "...critical scholars as in the ones that agree with you?"

8: Ehrman acts as if McGrew does not know anything about NT scholarship.

a) McGrew has access to the same books & articles Ehrman does. 

b) McGrew is associated with several erudite scholars that are in the apologetics field as well. 

9: Ehrman rambles about harmonization, yet never provides an argument against its legitimacy. 

The rest of the debate goes on to issues of alleged contradictions in the narratives, but that is old fare, and Ehrman's examples have been addressed numerous times. Two recent posts by Jonathan McLatchie come to mind, here & here.