Assume Jesus Existed; Now What?

Larry, a/k/a The Barefoot Bum asked a fascinating question in a comment:

Let us hypothesize (for the sake of argument) that some specific account of Jesus, resurrection, miracles and all, were actually historically true. Assuming (for whatever reason) that only so few people were willing and able to write about the event that only four survive to this day.

What sorts of things would we expect to see?

This is compounded by my mulling over Vinny’s recent blog entry: Can Evidence Ever Prove a Miracle?

Let’s see if this illuminates areas for study. What WOULD we expect?

My first thought was to frame the account of Jesus: What are the basic facts we utilize in our hypothetical as accurate? I put together these:

1. He was a traveling philosopher/rabbi/teacher during Pontius Pilate’s prefect (26-36 CE) in Palestine (Galilee, Samaria & Judea.)
2. He gathered followers, both core and peripheral.
3. He performed miracles such as healing, feeding large crowds and raising people from the dead.
4. He talked to crowds regarding his particular philosophy.
5. He became accused of a crime.
6. He was crucified.
7. He was buried.
8. He miraculously resurrected from the dead.
9. He appeared post-resurrection to numerous individuals over a period of time.
10. He then ascended into heaven.

And already…I have a problem with number 3.

In putting together this conjecture we would agree Jesus did miracles—but how many? To what extent? Put yourself in First Century Palestine. First of all, other than the upper class, you are sustenance living—generating enough grain or food to provide for your family, your livestock and to plant for the coming year. You are being taxed to within an inch of starvation.

One bad season, one famine and you are wiped out. Only the hardiest will live.

Second, death is a firm reality. Infant mortality is large. There are no hospitals, sewage flowed freely in most cities. A flu or broken arm most likely meant death.

Now imagine you introduce an individual who can cure all disease in this society. All wounds. Who can literally bring people back to life. Further, this individual can turn a few loaves and fishes into a meal for 1,000’s.

Jesus would be inundated from dusk to dawn by crowds clamoring to be healed and fed. His reputation would be impossible to suppress. We see people today flocking to fake healers; what would happen if crippled legs really did straighten and grew strength? Amputees regrew body parts? Dead people came back to life?

Larry has (cruelly) limited us to four sources, yet wouldn’t such a person be in every source? Even the emperor would be interested in such a person. Imagine not having to carry food for the army, and being able to heal your wounded soldiers. Tiberius would be invincible!

I am unable to visualize a balance, in our made-up account, of how to have Jesus perform some miracles, but not enough to attract attention. Be that as it may, assume he did.

Given our 10 facts, what would we expect next in historical accounts?

However, first an admonition—is historical method the adequate means to determine what should or would possibly happen given certain factors? The study of history looks to events that have happened. It makes no judgment whether these events “should” or “should not” (I’m not talking about studying motivations, or bad judgments.)

Virtually ever historian agrees it was bad tactics on Hitler’s part to start a two-front war with Russia in 1941. We may use the vernacular, “He shouldn’t have done it,” but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. We do not discount a historical event simply because it seems improbable.

On September 10, 2001, if asked, most people would say the possibility the Twin Towers would be completely destroyed the following day was extremely unlikely. Yet 24 hours later, we all faced such a reality. Even looking at the course of human events, expecting humans to act as they have in the past, we see historical variances—unexpected happenings—where history would tell us not to expect it to happen in the future. Yet it does.

So we can project, based upon past expectations, yet understand something can veer and cause a completely different, unintended result, putting history on a completely new course.

A good example is the genre of fictional alternative history, like Turtledove’s Guns of the South where the South obtain machine guns during the US Civil War. Given that fact, we could reasonably project, they would utilize the weapons and (assuming adequate supplies) repel the North.

But would the South then attack the North, or would it be content to leave a border, forming a new country? Would it feasibly attack Mexico? What if it engaged in trade, utilizing the guns for material, and thus introducing the guns to other nations, such as England? Assuming they received the guns in the Winter of 1865, we can project what would happen in the next few months. What would the world look like in 1870? 1890? In 1900--only 35 years after the introduction of the machine gun--is it possible to even conjecture what would happen?

In the same way, we are dealing with writings made at least 35 years after the events. It would be difficult to develop a method of what these writings would probably look like, given the variables involved.

The only model I can utilize would be to view the historical development of other religions.

1. People would expect a continuation of consistency. The reason they were drawn to Jesus in the first place was what he did and/or what he said. They would expect the same message to continue, and more importantly, expect the continuation of miracles.

Of course, this raised the question—in our account are we going to say the apostles can do miracles? I see three choices: 1) they could not, or 2) they could but to a lesser extent, or 3) they could the same as Jesus. If it was either (1) or (2), then we would expect some reason must be given as to why they could not perform the same amount.

In these four accounts, I would anticipate claims of what Jesus said and did, followed by claims of his disciples following that philosophy.

2. We would expect a veneration of Jesus’ activity, especially if fewer miracles were performed by the apostles. (People may not care if they are still getting fed and healed.) Where he was born, what house he grew up in. More importantly, where this or that miracle occurred. Certainly where the greatest miracle of all occurred—the tomb.

Included would be veneration of his statements. This creates instability in our method, in that people tend to make stuff up, especially about leaders. How many beds did George Washington sleep in? Did he chop down a cherry tree? Without an early system of verification, people could claim Jesus said anything, as long as it was within the general frame of the expected philosophy, and no one could (or would) question it.

We would expect descriptions of his miracles. Especially the Resurrection. Words and doctrines of Jesus, specifically words and events that conformed to the intended recipient’s beliefs.

3. There would be a succession of leadership. And typically an issue. What would qualify a person to be Jesus’ successor in leading this religion? Typically, that, too, is an issue. Would it be bloodline? Appointment by Jesus? Who saw him post-resurrection?

We would expect a disagreement over method of determining leadership. If Peter claimed to be the first to see Jesus post-resurrection, he would claim the method used is: “whoever sees Jesus post-resurrection.” If Paul claimed to receive direct revelation from God the Father, he would claim the method it is who God says is the leader.

Do you see the problem we now enter? Peter claims one way (which coincidently makes him leader); James claims another method (by sheer chance making James the leader); and Paul claims yet another way that….well…you get the idea.

At this point we would expect to see competing claims to leadership; disagreements over methods as to who is rightfully appointed.

4. Finally, we would anticipate the later the writings, the more they would mold to the changing requirements of the religion. If some new issue was introduced, we would anticipate the writings to include statements of Jesus added to address those issues.

Included in the mythology development would be injection of statements relevant to the present troubles.

Understanding this as a mind-experiment, I did draw conclusions—some unexpected:

a) I am a bit surprised how similar the writing we have would be, regardless whether Jesus actually did miracles or not. This may be my inherent utilization of what humans typically do, in reviewing other religions such as Judaism, Mormonism or Islam; the thought that whether Jesus really did these things or not, people are people and at some point will act on their humanity.

b) The silence of Paul becomes deafening. It makes little sense the first writings following Jesus’ existence do not refer to his miracles, do not refer to his sermons, do not refer to his doctrine, do not refer to any happenings in his life. Nothing about his baptism, interaction with Jewish leaders, or interaction with disciples.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. How can we have a leader of a religion be so prominent as proclaimed in our account, yet so under-utilized in the first accounts referring to him? The recipients of Paul’s letters, written 15-25 years after Jesus lived, would want to know what Jesus said about their problem. What Jesus did. Not Paul’s particular problem with marriage.

c) Why is the Resurrection an afterthought? If this is the lynchpin of Christianity, as Paul proclaims, it seems odd the four accounts have better record-keeping on feeding people than on its occurrence. While Luke and John give greater length and detail—they are later accounts. Paul simply lists appearances with no time, place or historical background. The earliest account, Mark, doesn’t think it important enough to even list one appearance. Matthew barely mentions two.

I would think, given the account above, and the records we have, we would need to reassess the import of the Resurrection on these writers. They didn’t seem to find it terribly factually interesting.

d) I am not certain how one gets around some veneration. Would Mary be pressed to give anecdotes about Jesus’ childhood? Would his childhood home become revered, or places he walked become pilgrimage destinations? Certainly the empty tomb, simply by its connection to the Resurrection, would become a place to visit.

Yet we see nothing of that.

Any thoughts? What do you think we would see, given the 10 facts I listed above? Am I too rigidly following the pattern of other religions? Why would this one be different?

What would you expect to see written about Jesus, if this actually happened, in the first 35 years following his death?

Independent Witness in Gospel of John – Part 2

How does the Gospel of John differ from the other three canonical Gospels?

The simple fact: these accounts contradict each other. They contain different details (including different statements, additional items, and fewer items), as well as a general demonstration of increased mythology. Now…Christian apologists and inerrantists have proposed resolutions for these contradictions; whether those resolutions are satisfactory depend on one’s standard of proof for determining contradictions. If one uses the least possible standard—“any logical possibility, no matter how inane”—then these resolutions may be satisfactory. If one uses even the slightly higher standard we normally use—“which is more likely: a contradiction or not”—then many of these remain contradictions.

However, a word of caution. A contradiction does NOT render the entire account non-historical; dissimilarities in accounts happen all the time. Did we arrive at the party at 7:00 p.m. or 7:15 p.m.? Two people giving different times would never cause us to dismiss any arrival at all—we understand such disagreements happen all the time.

These contradictions are instructive on four points:

1) Question accounts as to credibility. Sometimes people read the word “credibility” and assume it to be an affront on one’s character. How many times have we heard the dichotomy, “The disciples were either complete fabricators or completely 100% accurate”?

“Credibility” is not only deliberate falsehood, but includes one’s ability to observe, remember and recall the events. A witness 10 feet from an occurrence is more credible than a witness 1000 feet away, due to ability to observe. Both can be earnestly honest; yet the closer witness is considered more credible. Writing down accounts even 1 year after an event can be inaccurate, because of memory lapses, or external influences. Now imagine if the account was 5 years later. Or 10. Or 30.

2) Question accounts as to reliability. Stronger than the first point—if the contradiction is on a key element where the witness benefits from the contradiction, we inherently consider that less reliable.

Imagine if a person was accused of a crime that occurred at 7:05 p.m.; an unbiased witness indicates the accused arrived at the party at 7:00 p.m. The perpetrator’s claim, “I arrived at 7:15 p.m.” is considered unreliable (absent any confirming evidence), because they are very likely saying it to exonerate themselves.

The more important the issue, the greater we scrutinize the motive behind the contradiction.

3) Demonstrate distrust in source. Here we have an interesting situation where Matthew and Luke utilize Mark as a written source. To the extent they disagree with their source and write something contrary, the more one wonders whether historicity or doctrine has become the motive.

Why are they disagreeing with their source? Did they hear something different? Are they supplementing or supplanting the previous sources?

4) Finally, I believe these contradictions demonstrate how John used other sources—specifically Matthew and Luke—in compiling his gospel account of the passion and resurrection. For that, we need to dig a little deeper…

Let’s look at some examples.

The Placard

Mark 15:26 records the statement above Jesus was, “The King of the Judeans.”
Matthew 27:37 adds, “This is Jesus, the King of the Judeans.”
Luke 23:38 reduces it back to “This is the King of the Judeans.” (In Greek, Latin and Hebrew!)
John 19:19 expands it to “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans.”

Of course, the inerrantist could claim the sign said, “This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Judeans” and each author only chose to include some; no author included it all:

Mark: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Judeans.
Matthew: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Judeans.
Luke: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Judeans.
John: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Judeans.

But is likely? Or is it far more likely Matthew added a portion on, Luke took out what he deemed unnecessary—“Jesus”—but added even more by listing other languages, and John, aware of both Matthew and Luke, combined both to give the most complete coverage? Remember, if one is going to say John is “independent,” this entails having to explain why Mark, Matthew and Luke all chose to ignore part of the sign.

Which brings us to a brief digression—what do we mean by “independent?” It is not enough for it to merely mean “another.” By this word—“independent”—we mean the author developed the material from a source different than the other authors. It is not independent if John used Matthew. Or John used the same source as Matthew. Or John heard about Matthew and included it. It must be John, without any interjection from Matthew or Matthew’s sources, (or Mark or Luke). It is John recounting on his own.

This needs highlighting because often the apologist will get so caught up arguing for John’s independence through differences, that they fail to realize this undercuts the historicity of the other accounts. If John, independently remembered the sign with the full saying, then Mark, Matthew or Luke either didn’t know about it (meaning they lose credibility) or knew about it and deliberately reduced what they knew (meaning they lose reliability.) Either way, these contradictions may support independence (somewhat) but begin to tear at historicity.

Joseph of Arimathea

Mark 15:43 states Joseph of Arimathea was a council member, waiting for the kingdom of God.
Matthew 27:57 demotes Joseph out of the council, making him a “rich man;” but elevates him to a disciple of Jesus.
Luke 23:50-51 places Joseph back on the council, but continues with Mark’s “waiting for the kingdom of god.”
John 19:38 doesn’t speak to Joseph’s income, nor being a council member, but John does go back to Matthew’s position Joseph was a disciple.

What we start to see is a pattern where Matthew tends to disagree with Mark. Luke attempts to combine combination of Mark and Matthew. John appears to pick and choose from Matthew and Luke (or both).

John’s use of Joseph is a strong indication this story was (at least in part) dependent on another source. Primarily because Joseph is a fictional character created by Mark. If John truly was independent from the Gospels, he may have utilized Nicodemus, but he never would have known to use Joseph. He never would have heard of him! The ONLY way for John to even know about Joseph is through the Synoptics.

The Tomb

Mark 15:46 says Joseph laid Jesus in a tomb.
Matt. 27:60 says it was Joseph’s new tomb.
Luke 23:53 agrees it was new (no one had ever been in it) but retracts from saying it was Joseph’s.
John 19:41 follows Luke, saying it was a new tomb, no mention of it being Joseph’s.

Again, we have the authors either not completely stating the facts, OR disagreeing with each other. Again, the inerrantist could claim it was “Joseph’s new tomb” but only Matthew provides the full description. Mark (our earliest source) left out the fact it was new and Joseph’s, Luke and John both leave out the fact it was Joseph’s.

Time and time and time again, we see discrepancies in these accounts. One, two or a few may cause us to scratch our heads. But when it becomes almost every single detail, we question the accuracy for the reasons state above: lack of credibility and reliability.

Resurrection Appearances

The meat of the problem. When reviewing from a chronological standpoint, we see the myth development, and how John conveniently falls into place following Luke, thus establishing both its late writing and its use of (at least) Luke as a source.

Mark, as well known, has no resurrection appearances. Although he implies them. The women see an angel in the tomb (I know it says, “young man;” it is probable Mark was implying this to be a heavenly apparition) who says, “Go tell the disciples that He (Jesus) is going before you into Galilee and there you will see Him as He said to you.” (Mark 16:7) This intones two facts:

1) Jesus is going to Galilee; and
2) The woman will see him.

And Mark ends it there.

Matthew, after reading Mark, does have Resurrection appearances. Matthew (following Mark) has women seeing the angel, who says (like Mark) “Go and tell the disciples that He is risen from the dead, is going before you into Galilee and there you will see him.” (Matt. 28:7)

On their way, Matthew recounts the women see Jesus (just like Mark implied) and the women then tell the disciples. The disciples go to Galilee, and Matthew recounts the appearance as follows:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. (Matt 28:16-17 NKJV)

Jesus gives the Great commission, and the Gospel ends.

I don’t think people realize how limited our earliest accounts are regarding resurrection appearances. Ask most Christians about these events, and they talk about the Road to Emmaus, Jesus appearing in the room, Doubting Thomas, Jesus at the Lake…yet all these events happen in later accounts.

Again (because this is important):

Mark has no appearances.
Matthew has two (2) appearances: One to the women to relay a message to the Disciples and one to the 11 disciples (minus Judas, of course) in Galilee. The astute reader will note that some of the 11 doubted!

[This may be a good time to discuss 1 Cor. 15:3-8, where Paul states Jesus appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, then to 500 at once, then to James, then to all the apostles and finally to Paul. There is no time, place or detail. When did these occur? Where? What was said or done? Was it a vision or a physical appearance? Worse, this order contradicts every Gospel account. For our search on the independence of John, the passage provides no illumination.]

Our next chronological account is Luke.

Luke has a problem. Luke intends to convey that the Church initially began in Jerusalem. (Acts 1:12-14). But Mark implies Jesus wanted the disciples to go home to Galilee, and Matthew outright states Jesus saw them in Galilee. How does Luke get them back to Jerusalem?

Simple--he never has them go to Galilee in the first place. Notice how Luke modifies the story, beginning with what the Angel at the tomb says:

“Remember what Jesus said in Galilee about being raised again?” (Luke 24:6-7) You can almost hear Luke say, “No, no, no. Mark and Matthew got it all wrong. The Angel didn’t say, ‘Go to Galilee.’ Oh, my, no! The Angel said, ‘Remember what was said in Galilee.”

Here’s the odd bit. What is the import of Jesus making such a statement in Galilee? In fact, Luke records Jesus stating it in Galilee (Luke 9:22) but also records Jesus stating this in either Samaria or Judea! (Luke 18:33) (It is unclear whether Jesus had reached Judea yet, but he was coming from Samaria.)

The ONLY reason Luke feels the need to include the word “Galilee” (since the place the statement was made is irrelevant) is to explain away the problem people associated the angel stating something about Galilee at the tomb.

Now the Luke has removed the pesky problem regarding “Go to Galilee” found in both Mark and Matthew, we continue with Luke’s story. Luke has the women go tell the Disciples (but includes nothing about Jesus appearing to the women because that would entail having to address the Galilean problem again. Remember, in Matthew the women were told by Jesus, “Get the boys up to Galilee.”).

Luke includes a scene where Jesus appears to two people on the Road to Emmaus. Once these two miraculously realize it is Jesus, they tromp off to the eleven Disciples who say, “We know—Jesus appeared to Peter!” (Luke 24:33-34) Oddly, Luke hasn’t recorded any appearance to Peter. Nor has Mark or Matthew.

At this moment Jesus teleports into the room. They think he is a spirit—so Jesus says, “Look at my hands and feet.” (Luke 24:39-40) [Is this Luke attempting to counter Matthew’s claim that “some doubted”?] He has a bit to eat, tells them to stay in Jerusalem, takes them out to Bethany, and floats into the sky. (In Luke’s next book, he provides the additional information that 40 days pass from the resurrection to the ascension, but no such time frame is provided for or even implied here. One wonders why Luke felt the need to add more time.)

At this point we can see why inerrantists spin circles attempting to align the accounts. Given a chronological mythical development, the Synoptic Gospels fall neatly into place. Attempting to claim historicity amongst them has the Jesus and angels telling the disciples to go this way and that, and the disciples traipsing up to Galilee and back to Jerusalem in one day, tying to figure out where Jesus is going to appear next.

Now on to John. Initially, we see a different start to the day. Instead of numerous women, we only have one—Mary Magdalene. She doesn’t see any angels, or hear any proclamations; she discovers an empty tomb. Tells the disciples resulting in Peter and the other disciple coming to the tomb. A story aligned with Matthew, with the embellishment of enhancing the “other disciple” as being equal with Peter.

The men leave and Mary Magdalene is crying. She sees two angels, and then Jesus. The Gospel of John is the only account of Mary’s individual meet-up with Jesus.

Independent? Well…not exactly. See, in every other Gospel, Mary Magdalene makes her appearance at Jesus’ death. (Luke does include her in a list of women who traveled with Jesus, but that’s it. (Luke 8:2)) Mark and Matthew give us no information about her—we wouldn’t even know she existed until the crucifixion. Luke’s information—Jesus kicked 7 demons out of her—is give as an aside, and nothing more is provided.

But come resurrection Sunday, Mary Magdalene is definitely included in all accounts regarding the tomb. Including John. How is it that John tells us nothing about this deep relationship with Jesus, yet (just like the other gospels) she makes her appearance here? This is the Gospel where Jesus cries over Lazarus’ death, Jesus washes disciple’s feet, Jesus engages in philosophical content with Nicodemus, numerous interpersonal relationships…but nothing about Mary Magdalene? The woman who was the first to see the empty tomb, and the only one who hung around the tomb crying?

John is aware of the Mary Magdalene inclusion in this part of the story from another source.

After this the Gospel of John follows Luke. Jesus appearing suddenly in locked room. Instead of showing “hands and feet” like Luke, John has Jesus saying “touch hands and side.” John is the only Gospel that includes the account regarding a Roman spear in the side of Jesus, so it makes sense John, unlike Luke, has Jesus say, “touch my side.”

Doubting Thomas is not present, at the first meeting (again, trying to clear up Matthew’s statement, “some doubted”?), but at the second meeting is convinced.

And the Gospel ends there.

John 21 is a separate account about the Disciples going back to Galilee, to their lives as fisherman, not recognizing Jesus, and the Jesus cooks them breakfast. John 21 is definitely independent—it doesn’t align with anyone. However, (more discussion in the next blog entry), John 21 causes difficulties with historicity.

It is a simple question—where does it chronologically fit in the other accounts? Anywhere you put it, it will contradict something else and either knock out another account’s historicity, or else lose its own.

A quick summary:

Mark: No appearances, “Look for me in Galilee.”
Matthew: Two brief appearances, follows Mark’s Galilean theme.
Luke: Dismantles Galilean statement to move appearances in upper room at Jerusalem. Jesus shows scars.
John: Appearances in upper room. Jesus shows scars.

There is a constant tension among these works. The closer in similarity the story, the less likely the stories are independent. The less similarity, the less likely the stories are historical.

1) What is the Gospel of John?
2) How does John differ from the Synoptics?
3) Does John support the apologetic claims?

Independent Witness in Gospel of John – Part 1

In debates regarding the Resurrection, Christian apologists will mention (in part) a historical method including “multiple independent sources” as having a higher likelihood of historicity. The “independent sources” often cited regarding the post-Resurrection appearances are Paul (1 Cor. 15:3-8), and the four gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

We understand Markan priority—that Matthew and Luke utilized Mark in writing their Gospels. This raises the question of their “independence.” (Although Mark lists no post-Resurrection appearances, so to some extent, Matthew and Luke would still need to be addressed regarding any homogeny.) I was recently asked regarding the Gospel of John.

We recognize the differences and conflicts between the Synoptic Gospels and John—indeed we draw upon those dissimilarities to point out contradictions: Jesus clearing the temple at the end of his ministry in the Synoptics, (Mark 11:15-19; Matt. 21:12-13; Luke 19:45-46) but at the beginning in John. (John 2:13-17). Or the discrepancies in the names and calling of the twelve disciples. Or the three year ministry of John compared to the one-year ministry in the Synoptics.

Yet as we point out how John is unlike Mark, Matthew and Luke--are we providing greater weight to its independence? Are we furnishing sustenance to the apologists’ claim that John is an “independent source”?

The short answer is (as with all biblical issues!): “Yes. And No.” John borrows from a variety of sources, as well as interjecting stories for doctrinal purposes, rather than historicity. Making it not just “one independent source” but a “multiple independent source” within itself. However, since “multiple independent sources” is only one part of this historical method, when we look to whether it is an eyewitness account, and how “independent” it is, John does not help the Resurrection apologists on many fronts.

This will take three blog entries to unpack:

1) What is the Gospel of John?
2) How does John differ from the Synoptics?
3) Does John support the apologetic claims?

Date John Written

Traditionally dated 90 – 110 CE; making it later and most likely after the other three canonical Gospels. Some reasons cited include the higher Christology (the indication Jesus proclaimed himself equal to God), no Sadducees (who were eliminated in 70 CE), and the lack of immediacy in eschatology.

A strong argument (in my opinion) are the verses indicating Christians would be kicked out of the synagogues. John 9:22, 12:42, 16:2. Although specifics are not easily determined, it would appear sometime around 90 CE in some locales, Jewish Christians were forbidden from entering or participating in synagogues. If so, these verses demonstrate knowledge regarding the eviction, and thus were written after.

The papyrus scrap P52 that contains a portion of John on a codex has been dated 125 – 150 CE; thus the range for the Gospel being 90 – 110 CE.

In contrast, Papias (writing from 110 – 140 CE), a disciple of John, indicates knowledge of three Gospels—Mark, Matthew and Gospel of the Hebrews, but does not mention a Gospel written by John.*

*Papias wrote five (5) books, and we only have a few paragraphs from his writing. It is possible he discussed a Gospel of John in writing we do not have, but no author up to the time of Eusebius associates Papias with a Gospel of John.

As always in biblical discussions, there are scholars who disagree. Evan Powell in The Unfinished Gospel argues John was first among the gospels, and at an earlier date.


However…

Literary Integrity

The dating works only if the Gospel is a cohesive whole; if an amalgamation of other works, (which I think it is), then at best we can only date portions, and stab at when it was edited together. There are three reasons to see a combination of different works:

1) The Signs Gospel. Scholars have long noted miracles in the first 11 chapters that have no parallel in the Synoptics:

a) Water into Wine,
b) Healing Capernaum nobleman’s son,
c) Heal paralytic at Bethesda Pool
d) Heal blind man with mud and washing in pool
e) Lazarus raised from the dead
f) Voice from heaven not at Baptism or Transfiguration.

This has caused scholars to reasonably speculate John utilized some source listing these signs. (As I have previously discussed, Mark indicates Jesus saying he won’t give any sign, [Mark 8:12], Matthew & Luke indicate only one (1) sign [Matt. 16:4; Luke 11:29] whereas John’s incorporation of the Signs Gospel gives numerous signs.)

And John 5:2, part of the Signs Gospel, uses the verb, “There is by the Sheep Gate a pool…” with a present tense. Thus it was written prior to the sacking of Jerusalem, in the 60’s CE, but later incorporated in this book referring to events in the 90’s CE.

2) Anomalies in the writing.

There are scholarly discussions whether the order has been transposed in numerous chapters. Some argue it has; others give explanations for why it has not. I will give one example. In John 6:1, it states “Jesus went over the Sea of Galilee” and then in John 6:3, going up a mountain. The problem is this: John 5 ends with Jesus in Jerusalem (far to the south and on the same side of Galilee as the mountains! Why would Jesus cross over to get to the same side? This would indicate the introductory statement was left in a later-added passage. (On occasion, the Gospel writers demonstrate fatigue in copying, giving details in the original work that do not make sense in their copy.)

Another fascinating item is found in the last phrase of John 14:31, when Jesus states, “Get up, let us go from here.” This passage in context is in the middle of a long discourse. (You will see pages of red if your Bible is a red-letter edition.) In Chapter 14, Jesus has been talking about love, keeping commandments and the coming of the Holy Spirit, and in Chapter 15, he continues to talk about being the vine, love and keeping commandments.

Why, in the middle of it, would he make the statement about leaving? Read chapters 14 & 15—there is no reason for this statement. The editor is combining two (2) sources, one of which ended at 14:31.

This also demonstrates the editor is utilizing written sources. Think about it; imagine a person writing down this speech 5 or 10 or 20 years later. The powerful images of keeping God’s commandments, of loving each other, of the vine and the Holy Spirit could be remembered. But would the writer remember and include this non-sequitur phrase, “Get up, let us go from here”? Or would it more likely be forgotten amongst the common themes?

The only reason to include it was it’s being in a document being copied.

3) The third question of literary integrity, going to the heart of our resurrection discussion, is John 21. It is a chapter, added after the original conclusion of chapter 20.

In Chapter 19, we complete the death of Jesus, moving to Chapter 20 for the appearances. First Mary Magdalene sees the empty tomb, informs Peter and the “other disciple,” who all go running to the tomb. The men leave; Mary stays weeping and is rewarded with an angelic appearance, and Jesus himself.

That night Jesus appears to the disciples (minus Thomas) in a shut room, shows them his hands and side, and breathes the Holy Spirit into them. (No Pentecost here!) Eight days later, Jesus again appears in the shut room, this time tells Thomas to touch his wounds, and then the chapter finishes as follows:

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31 NKJV)

This has all the hallmarks of wrapping up a book.

Chapter 21 starts off with some disciples returning to their occupations as fisherman! In direct contrast to Matthew’s Great Commission, or Acts’ having them hang around Jerusalem, this divergent story discusses the disciples return to Galilee. It acts as if Chapter 20 never happened; Peter doesn’t even recognize Jesus.

There are additional thematic differences—the “sons of Zebedee” are not mentioned before, indeed the author has not been identified until 21:24. At least part acknowledges being a different writer than other parts. Peter is treated generally negatively throughout the rest of John; here is treated extremely positively. And there is a hint the writer knows that claiming John as the author would be a problem, as John is dead. See John 21:23.

For these reasons, the general consensus among scholars is that Chapter 21 is an add-on.

In the next blog entry, I will address John’s independence (and some dependence) regarding the Synoptics, but I believe I have demonstrated John has internal multiple sources. How independent they are may depend on one’s theological point-of-view.

One final note before we leave John…

Doctrine

As much as we debate who wrote the Gospels, it is more enlightening to contemplate who the gospels were written to. Who was the intended audience, and what was the author intending to demonstrate to them? Why did the author think this particular point was necessary to be emphasized?

In looking at the Johannine corpus, it would appear one issue being addressed was docetism--the belief Jesus did not have flesh. He appeared like a person--a really, really good hologram, worthy of Star Trek--but his feet did not leave prints in the sand. Not having flesh means he couldn’t technically die, nor obviously be resurrected. See 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 7 for direct statements intended to refute this belief.

I will leave it at that, and pick up the discussion in a later entry. (Unless you are thinking ahead. About the only Gospel referring to scars and touching scars was John. Because you can’t scar spirit; only flesh scars…)

Epic Hubris

By now, I assume most are familiar with the Moveon.org volunteer who was stepped on by Paul Rand supports. H/T Cynical-C. The man who stomped on her head, Tim Profitt has now come forward regarding an apology.

He wants one from the woman whose head he stomped on.

It is her fault he stepped forward and while she was being held to the ground by two (2) other individuals, he takes the voluntary action to smash his foot on her head.

And people are already buying into this thinking…

How will this end? - A discussion with an Asst. Professor

Dr. Clay Jones is an Assistant Professor at Biola University. (A school that boasts faculty members Dr. William Craig, Dr. J.P. Moreland and Dr. Gary Habermas.) Dr. Jones holds a Doctorate in Ministry from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He teaches post-graduate level courses on Apologetics Research and Defense of the Resurrection. And he has a personal blog.

I happened to notice he wrote an entry, giving a defense of the Resurrection in 200 words or less. This is a fellow who teaches on apologetics and the Resurrection (arguably the lynchpin of Christianity) at a post-graduate level. This is no internet hack! (like me.)

And he is going to summarize his defense in just 200 words. One would think it to be a powerful punch; a veritable knock-out delivery of condensed apologetic argument. And he goes with……..”Not willing to die for a lie.”

Really? Well…O.K. As both of my regular readers will know, I have done a bit of study and dialoguing on this particular claim. So I join in and somehow we end up on the subject of Peter’s death. I point out how Peter was condemned to die because he pissed off the local constabulary by convincing their wives and concubines to abstain from sex.

At this point, Dr. Jones asks what my best evidence is for this claim.

I’ll admit some concern over this question. Look, I don’t expect the average layperson to know Second Century Christian writings…but Dr. Jones holds a doctorate. Dr. Jones teaches on two (2) primary topics: Apologetic Research and Defense of the Resurrection. I believe I am somewhat justified in expecting him to know some of the various sects of Christianity during this time—particularly those holding to ascetic lifestyles, decrying sex.

This is prevalent through a number of works.

More importantly, if his defense of the Resurrection--THE defense to use when one is limited to 200 words--involves the death of alleged eyewitnesses…I would be justified in believing he knew the source of those claims. Not to mention, this is a pretty big name; I’m not asking for the source of Thaddeus’ death.

This is Peter. Arguably the biggest name of them all.

And Dr. Jones doesn’t know Acts of Peter?

Perhaps you can understand my consternation.

But I press on, quoting the relevant passage from Acts of Peter.

At this point Dr. Jones asks, why should we rely upon the Gnostic Acts of Peter as compared to “other works.” Having looked, I am uncertain as to what “other works” he could mean; more importantly, what earlier works he could mean.

I want to point out triumphantly, in Perry Mason style, “Precisely, Sir! Why would we trust this claim about Peter being martyred upside down? The defense rests.” Harumph.

This is why the entire field of Christian apologetics is suspect to me. The very teachers themselves, teaching at post-graduate level, appear unfamiliar with the counter-arguments to their own position. Why would a lay person ever know any better?

Must Read

A father speaks about his son coming out as gay.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay

In my last blog entry, we discovered Simon Greenleaf was not converted from atheism to Christianity despite the numerous claims by Christian apologist after apologist. In fact, if you search “Simon Greenleaf atheist” in Google, you will find reams of pages, all with Christians gleefully stating this. All wrong.

Another claimed conversion is that of Sir William Mitchell Ramsay. While I was at, I decided to confirm this claim, and guess what I found out? Another untruth! I would argue in some situations, a downright lie. Again, google-whack “William Ramsay atheist” and you will again see Christian apologetic sites braying how he was converted from atheism to Christianity by his scholarly attempt to debunk it. A typical example from Lee Strobel:

That’s why I was especially fascinated by the story of Sir William Ramsay of Oxford University in England, one of history’s greatest archaeologists. He was an atheist. He spent 25 years doing archaeological digs to try to disprove the book of Acts which was written by the historian Luke…Instead of discrediting Luke’s account, Ramsay’s work kept supporting it. Finally he concluded that Luke was one of the most accurate historians who had ever written. Influenced by the archaeological evidence, Ramsay became a Christian.

The Case for Christ

Or Josh McDowell:

”He had spent years deliberately preparing himself for the announced task of heading an exploration expedition into Asia Minor and Palestine, the home of the Bible, where he would ‘dig up the evidence’ that the Book was the product of ambitious monks, and not the Book from heaven it claimed to be. He regarded the weakest spot in the whole New Testament to be the story of Paul’s travels. These had never been thoroughly investigated by one on the spot. Equipped as no other man had been, he went to the home of the Bible. Here he spent fifteen years literally ‘digging for the evidence.’ Then in 1896 he published a large volume, Saint Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen.

“The book caused a furor of dismay among the skeptics of the world. Its attitude was utterly unexpected because it was contrary to the announced intention of the author years before…. for twenty years more, book after book from the same author came from the press, each filled with additional evidence of the exact, minute truthfulness of the whole New Testament as tested by the spade on the spot. The evidence was so overwhelming that many infidels announced their repudiation of their former unbelief and accepted Christianity. And these books have stood the test of time, not one having been refuted, nor have I found even any attempt to refute them.”

Evidence that Demands a Verdict. (I don’t have a copy of ETDAV, but this quote is also listed at Conservapedia. If someone can demonstrate this is inaccurate in any way, I will modify it.)

[Edited to add: Although Josh McDowell apparently has removed this quote from later editions of ETDAV. See Comments Below.]

Untrue. Wrong. False.

A brief background on Sir William Ramsay: (Not to be confused with Sir William Ramsay the Nobel Prize winning Chemist as this website does with the wrong picture!)

He was a British archaeologist, born on the 15th of March 1851, with his primary works around the turn of the century (1900.) . Educated at the universities of Aberdeen, Oxford and Göttingen, and a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford (1882; honorary fellow 1898), and Lincoln College (1885; honorary 1899). In 1885 he was elected professor of classical art at Oxford, and in the next year professor of humanity at Aberdeen. From 1880 onwards he travelled widely in Asia Minor and rapidly became the recognized authority on all matters relating to the districts associated with St Paul's missionary journeys and on Christianity in the early Roman Empire. His numerous publications include: The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (1890); The Church in the Roman Empire (1893); The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (2 vols., 1895, 1897); and St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (1895; Germ. trans., 1898).

This was taken from his entry in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. [Warning: HUGE pdf] (But See also this entry that quotes the Encyclopedia ) Nothing about his religious beliefs. Nothing about them changing. Nothing about causing a huge scandal, or others being converted due to his writings.

I couldn’t find a single writing of his where he indicated he was an atheist at any time. Nothing about his conversion to Christianity…for any reason, let alone a specific study. More importantly, in all the writings I could find, he listed reasons for his archaeological studies, but never, ever mentions attempting to prove Christianity incorrect.

For example, in his Preface to the First Edition of St. Paul, Sir Ramsay indicates the reason he studied this issue was at the instigation of fellow scholars. Nothing about his wanting to prove Christianity, or Luke or anything whatsoever incorrect!

So where did this idea come from? The closest I could come to the root of this allegation was within I Don’t have enough Faith to be an atheist where Geisler and Turek state:

Classical Scholar and archaeologist William M. Ramsay began his investigation into Acts with great skepticism, but his discoveries helped change his mind. He wrote:

“I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts]…. It did not lie, then, in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself more often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.”

The problem with this quote is that it is a lie. Notice the inserted “[Acts]” followed by the ellipses. Do you wonder why “Acts” was added? Do you wonder why words were omitted? Upon reading the WHOLE quote, you will see why. And the reason I call this a lie. Unfortunately, I have to give you a little background.

At this time (late 19th Century), in biblical studies, there was a growing debate as to who Paul was writing to, when writing the Epistle of Galatians. (Gal. 1:2). See, Galatia was not a city, unlike the Epistle of Romans written to Rome, or Corinthians written to Corinth; Galatia was a region. Paul was writing to a number of Churches. The debate and division was between the “North Galatia” theory as compared to the “South Galatia” theory. (See this site for a description of the issue.) Was Paul writing to north Galatia, south Galatia or both?

Bishop Lightfoot had written a treatise on Galatians, wherein he argued for the North Galatia theory. William Ramsay disagreed—he held to a South Galatia theory. In his book, The Church in the Roman Empire Before 170 AD (published 1890) Ramsay says, “I regret to be compelled, in these earlier chapters, to disagree so much with Lightfoot’s views as stated in his edition of Galatians; perhaps therefore I may be allowed to say that the study of that work, sixteen years ago, marks an epoch in my thoughts and the beginning of my admiration for St. Paul and for him.” (page 6)

Ramsay goes on to explain he will be arguing for the South Galatia theory against Lightfoot. For another example of Ramsay’s position, you can read the Expositor article of 1894 where Ramsay again argues the “south Galatia” view is more harmonious with Acts than the “north Galatia” view.

Simple, right? Yet one more (amongst millions) of scholarly disagreements over some biblical topic—Ramsay purported South Galatia, others held to North Galatia.

Having this understanding, let’s look at the Geisler & Turek quote again:

“I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts]…. It did not lie, then, in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself more often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.”

But contrast this with the entire quote:

I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had, at one time, quite convinced me. It did not lie, then, in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself more often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with the fixed idea that the work was a second-century composition and never relying upon its evidence as trustworthy for first-century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations. But there remained still one serious objection to accepting it as a first-century work. According to the almost universally accepted view, this history led Paul along a path and through surroundings which seemed to me historically and topographically self-contradictory. It was not possible to bring Paul’s work in Asia Minor into accordance with the facts of history on the supposition that an important part of the work that was devoted to the northern part of the peninsula of Galatia. [emphasis added]

St. Paul, The Traveler and the Roman Citizen, pg 19

Do you see? The “it” that William Ramsay referred to in the second sentence was most certainly NOT Acts, as claimed by Geisler & Turek, if we read the preceding sentence (conveniently left out by Geisler & Turek) we see that “it” is conclusion he will be attempting to justify to the reader. To remove that first sentence (and the first clause in the second) and then insert the word “Acts” when the author is clearly not talking about Acts is a lie.

We might as well claim Nixon said, “I am…[a thief and] a crook.”

Secondly, we would question what the Tubingen theory was, if Ramsay was abandoning it. The Tubingen Theory was that Acts was a second century document, intended to reconcile the differing positions of the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul. Again, this is a biblical scholarly debate which Ramsay abandoned a former biblical position—not an abandonment of atheism.

But most importantly, we see the crucial reason Ramsay could not subscribe to the North Galatia theory, was the conflicts it created with Acts. In other words, he held Acts in such high regard, it caused him to disagree with his friend, Lightfoot--because Ramsay felt he must stay true to Acts.

Ramsay, in this paragraph, is indicating why he fell on one particular side in a biblical squabble. NOT that he was against Acts’ historicity (far from it) and in fact, primarily became convinced to the South Galatia theory because of his adherence to Acts’ historicity.


Yet another “atheist turned Christian” story debunked.

Perhaps the most regrettably notion within is the blatant mistruth offered by Geisler & Turek (and [at the least] the complete lack of study by Strobel and McDowell) You would think that would bother some Christians…




Edited to Add:

I have found a kernel of truth to this claim of a “changed skeptic.” According to Ramsay in his The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915) he initially subscribed to the theory that Acts was compiled in the later 2nd Century, and addressed the doctrinal issues of that time. For that reason, Ramsay did not utilize Acts as reference material for what happened in the First Century.

However, he came to realize Acts did accurately reflect the geography. This article (pdf) explains:

In his search for information bearing on the geography and history of Asia Minor he at first paid slight attention to the early Christian authorities. He had gained the impression in his studies that these were quite unworthy of consideration for a historian; anything having to do with religion belonged to the realm of the theologians, not that of the historians. When he spent time copying Christian inscriptions in his earliest years of travel, he felt the time to be wasted―even though a sense of duty compelled hint to make copies of them. Finally, in a desperate search for any information of a geographical and antiquarian nature, he began to study the journeys of Paul in this region of the world as described in the Book of Acts. He hardly expected to find any information of value regarding the condition of Asia Minor in the time of Paul; rather, he thought he would find material bearing upon the second half of the second century of the Christian era, i.e. the age (he thought) in which the author of Acts lived.

Ramsay was not trying to disprove Acts. Why would he? He didn’t think it applicable to this period. He simply felt it would not be relevant. Upon discovering one accuracy, he began to rely upon Acts as being historically accurate to the First Century.

This is still very far from Ramsay, the hardened atheist skeptic going out to battle on behalf of his cheering heathen colleagues, all expecting to prove the entire New Testament to be completely false, only to discover the very sandals of Jesus, and subsequently becoming a Christian.

I added this in fairness of complete disclosure.

Simon Greenleaf

In attempts to confirm apologetic claims, I can get caught up in lengthy rabbit trails. Since this is one sure to resurface in the future, I figured I may as well blog the journey.

Simon Greenleaf was a luminary in legal jurisprudence during the early 19th Century. He became a lawyer in 1806, and advanced to become the reporter for the Maine Supreme Court. In 1833 he became a professor at Harvard Law School, retaining the position through the late 40’s. He is famous for writing two (2) works:

1) His Treatise on Evidence, written in 1844-46; and
2) Testimony of the Evangelists in 1847

The second work makes Christian apologists salivate. No less than Drs. Geisler & Turek’s book I don’t have enough Faith to be an Atheist makes the claim:

Simon Greenleaf, the Harvard Law professor who wrote the standard study on what constitutes legal evidence, credited his own conversion to Christianity as having come from his careful examination of the Gospel witnesses.

This is repeated and regurgitated on numerous internet sites:

Dr. Greenleaf is considered by many to have been one of the greatest legal minds we have had in the U.S. He was formerly an outspoken skeptic of Christianity and who set out to disprove the deity of Christ. In the end he concluded that the Resurrection was true “beyond any reasonable doubt.” Greenleaf became a Christian after studying the evidence for himself.

see here

Of course the story grows to his being instigated by a student’s challenge. See Snopes for the common theme of student challenging professor.

Do a google search on Greenleaf being an atheist and you will hit literally 1000’s of sites (including the infamous Wikipedia.) And, this morning in my perusal of blogs, I saw this platitude repeated once more when Wintery Knight indicated, “[S]imon Greenleaf…assessed the evidence as [an] atheist and became [a] Christian.”

Having seen this so many times, I decided to verify.

Was Simon Greenleaf an atheist? Did he attempt to disprove the resurrection and become convinced by the evidence?

Ahh…in short…no. Some apologist seems to have leaped to this conclusion, and the next copied him/her, and the next copied him/her and so on, until each is copying the other, never attempting to verify it in any way. If 40,000 Google hits say its true—it must be, right?

First we should note Mr. Greenleaf’s own words about the subject. There are none. Nowhere that he claims to be an atheist (quite the opposite as we shall see in a minute), nowhere where he claims this started off as an attempt to disprove the Resurrection. Nothing. The testimonials and foreword in the 1874 version, edited by Tischendorf make no mention of Greenleaf’s desire to disprove the Resurrection, nor his theistic belief being changed by the study.

Nothing contemporary indicates he ever was an atheist, or even a theist who disbelieved the resurrection. All the evidence we have demonstrates Simon Greenleaf was a lifelong Episcopalian! He is reached the position of being on the Standing Committee for the Episcopalian diocese of Maine as of 1927. He was at the Maine Episcopalian Convention of 1831 And at the Maine Episcopalian Convention of 1832

Remember, this was all before he became a professor, let alone write his treatise on evidence.

But the nail in the coffin is this Christian who has reviewed Mr. Greenleaf’s writings and agrees this is nothing but a myth.

Simon Greenleaf was an early 19th Century lawyer who wrote a good book on Evidence. We don’t use it anymore. He used information which is now outdated to substantiate his own belief. He wasn’t an atheist; he wasn’t convinced by the evidence. He already believed and looked for support.

Time to let Simon Greenleaf rest in peace.

Do Apologists Just Not Care?

My uncle worked in a profession resulting in his testimony being taken on occasion. He didn’t enjoy it, and tended to make it as difficult for the attorneys as possible. Once he was instructed by an attorney to answer a question and ONLY the question being asked, to which he replied, “I cannot.” When asked why, he said, “Because I swore to tell the whole truth, and by just answering that question, it isn’t the whole truth.”

When do we expect full disclosure? When do we expect a person to provide not only the positives, but the weaknesses of their position? When do we rely upon someone entirely and when do we realize we must do some study ourselves?

Imagine the following three situations:

1) A lawyer arguing their position in a court.

We expect this (due to the American adversarial position) to be one-sided. To be biased toward the attorney’s position. No one is shocked, when the opposing counsel has its chance, to discover not ALL the facts were presented by the Plaintiff. Attorneys expect the other side to do their research and present a conflicting argument.

2) A doctor prescribing a treatment.

Here we tend to expect full disclosure. If the doctor is receiving monetary contributions from the company providing the treatment, this would cause us concern. Especially if we discovered 9 out of 10 doctors (who do not receive such compensation) would recommend an alternative treatment.

Would we accept the doctor’s excuse of, “Well, you should have researched this on your own”?

3) A friend who suspects your significant other is having an affair.

Again, we would expect the friend to tell us their suspicions. The friendship would be in jeopardy if they later said, “I only told you what supported the position they were not having an affair. It was up to you to research the rest on your own.”

I have been contemplating the question—to what extent do we expect full disclosure from a theistic apologist? Do we expect it to be one-sided? Or should we expect them to recognize the weaknesses in the claim?

This blog entry about Jericho over at Parchment & Pen is one in a series on archeological discoveries that “support” the biblical accounts. I put “support” in quotations, because this particular discovery causes consternation regarding the Exodus account—namely when it must have occurred.

Originally, the Jericho destruction was dated to 1400 BCE (fitting nicely with the Tanakh), but subsequent work demonstrated the date was actually 1550 BCE (which does not fit so well.) The blog entry author gives some treatment to this controversy, and then relies upon the 1400 BCE date (of course) without much comment.

Causing me to wonder—did the author have a duty to fully disclose both positions? Or do we expect our apologists to act as litigants and only provide their best arguments; leaving it to the opposing position to present any conflicting evidence?

I would submit there are two (2) factors impacting our expectation of full disclosure—importance of the information and intimacy of the relationship.

Think back to our doctor example. If this was medication for a cold—would we be that upset for not receiving full disclosure? Generally not, a cold will resolve with a variety of methods, and one is probably not much different than another. However, if this was chemotherapy, we would be extremely concerned over the doctor’s one-sided presentation. Cancer treatment is more important than cold treatment.

Likewise, if our friend was not completely honest with us when she brought a ringer to play soccer against us with a “Oh, she’s not very good” and they turn out to be fantastic—we again are not as bent out of shape. Soccer is less important than a spouse’s affair.

And, of course, we do not expect the same complete truthfulness from a person who is an enemy, as compared to an acquaintance, as compared to a friend. One is far more hurt if a close friend fails to be fully honest as compared to a co-worker.

Assuming I am correct (and feel free to disagree, providing your own factors)—that it hinges on intimacy and import—why is it apologists so rarely give full disclosure? In the blog entry above, why was the 1400 BCE date assumed, with little attention given to the dating problem?

First, because the facts are not that important to the apologist; conformity in belief is. All the evidence in the world against a global flood is not important to most Christians who hold to it—belief that it occurred is.

How many times have we seen the following conversation:

Apologist: Do you believe the global flood occurred?
Christian: Yes.
Apologist: Great, here are some facts that support it. [ignoring the mountain of evidence that does not.]
Christian: Great. Confirmed my belief.

Apologia is a defense—it has come down to finding something—anything—that can possibly support one’s position, and as long as that bare fact exists (regardless of any other), then one can hold their position. The moon is moving away from the earth? Bam—the world must be young. Ignore any other dating methods, or any problem with Young Earth Creationism—cling to any fact in support of one’s position and believe.

Getting the right belief (regardless of how one gets there) is what is important. Not the support of the position.

Apologists do not give full disclosure, because the important consideration—what one believes—is already firmly in place. Any facts supporting it are merely props—icing on the cake, as it were.

Second, it would appear there is either not a close relationship expected between apologist and reader OR the import of similar belief is so overriding that such intimacy is not a factor. Again, there are situations where we don’t expect full disclosure even from our closest friends.

This one surprised me a bit. Christians, as a general rule, expect themselves to be better. Closer. More friendly. A cohesiveness stronger than heathens. Yes, they still sin amongst themselves, but you are supposed to be able to trust a Christian with your purse—even if you just met them 10 minutes ago.

There is a greater level of intimacy, supposedly, because you both have fish stickers on your car. For me, personally, one of the greatest shocks in deconversion was NOT all the evidence against my Christianity—it was the fact this evidence was either entirely ignored or spectacularly mishandled by those I trusted the most. If all this stuff was out there—why hadn’t I heard it before I was in my late 30’s? More importantly—why hadn’t I heard it presented with full disclosure as to the other person’s position, not strawpeople?

Part of the reason I continue to talk to people going through a faith crisis, or even a deconversion is not to convince to “my side.” I am walking proof that deconversions are personal experiences—you don’t “argue” people into them, nor out of them. The reason I do, is to let them know there are other arguments—there are things they haven’t heard that are good, strong and robust arguments against the classical Christianity they’ve been taught.

If they reject the arguments—fine. At least they have had an opportunity for full and complete disclosure and a chance to make up their own minds on all the available arguments.

Why do apologists not feel the same obligation? Why are they so afraid of acknowledging the real and heady barriers to their own position?

Do they not care?

Fear Not

I enjoy glancing through the comment boxes on news stories. We can see some…interesting (to be polite)…responses. In reading through comments regarding Dr. Hawking and God I noticed a number of Christians using Pascal’s Wager as their proof for God.

The problem with effectively arguing against Pascal’s Wager using reason, is that the Wager itself is not based on reason. It is based on fear. In fact, if you look at the premise, as proposed by Pascal, it explicitly states we cannot use reason to determine whether there is or is not a God, and it comes down to a coin toss. A wager. A bet as to which is the better choice to make in light of the unknown.

Have you ever tried to use reason, logic and observation with fear? How well does that work? Anyone with a child has faced (at least once) the “monster under the bed” or the “monster in the closet.” There is a reason Pixar utilized this fear as a theme in a movie—we are all familiar with it.

And, as a parent, we inevitably first try logic and reason. “See, honey? There is no monster under the bed. The toys you left there [that we told you to pick up!] are in the same position. The dust bunnies haven’t been disturbed. No tracks, no smells, no noises—nothing to demonstrate a monster.”

Of course, a short time later, we hear the screaming again. The Monster has returned. Our logic and reason completely failed. Eventually the exhausted parents give in to the belief, and create an alternative belief to counter the fear. A special stuffed animal that keeps away the monsters. Or a ritual to protect the monsters from coming in.

Yeah, yeah—not the most intellectual responses. We crave sleep; we cave in.

We cannot remove fear by arguing a person out of it; conversely we cannot create fear by arguing a person in to it. While the parent cannot convince the child no such monster exists; likewise the child cannot convince the parent they really should be afraid.

This continues into adulthood. Some people parachute for the thrill; others are terrified. And even though one can be convinced to parachute—the fear will still be there. Those that parachute cannot be convinced to begin fearing it.

Some fear public speaking; others fear never getting married. The list is inexhaustible. And all of those fears, one cannot simply reason them away, or reason oneself into. Your heart still pounds faster when confronted by them, or your heart does not.

Of course, one of the greatest fears is the unknown. Anyone diagnosed with a medical condition of “We don’t know what this is” understands.

And what happens after we die is the greatest unknown of them all.

In books and plays and movies, there are two predominate themes for claims of life after death:

1) There are degrees of pain/pleasure in the after life;
2) What you do in this life will determine what happens in this afterlife.

We don’t want pain; we want pleasure. We want to do the thing that creates the least pain and the most pleasure in life; one would certainly want to do it for the greater pain/pleasure promised in the after life! The problem (and the Achilles Heel of Pascal’s Wager) is that we don’t know what that is.

Is there no afterlife, in which case pain/pleasure is limited to what we do? Is the afterlife dependant on works, so we perform certain acts and refrain from other acts to increase pleasure later? Is it dependent on the correct belief, or ritual or statement?

Some individuals have grasped on to a certain belief to alleviate this unknown. It reduces (but never quite eliminates) the fear. It is their magic bunny, keeping away the monster under the bed.

We cannot argue against Pascal’s Wager—they are convinced of the fear. Nor (and Christians should realize this) can they use this to convince use—we have no such fear.

How Old were Jesus’ Disciples?

Life expectancy in the Roman Empire was 35 years of age. According to an author of the time, a person at age 10, expected to live another 35 years.*

Mentally, we tended to think the disciples were roughly the same age as Jesus. 30 years +/- 5 years. (Most Sunday School pictures depict them in that age range.) According to this Chart on Roman Life Expectancy, they would most likely be dead by 53 CE. [If they were younger, say 25 years old, their life expectancy was even less—to 51 CE!]

An alternative Chart indicates if they were 25, their life expectancy would be 57 CE, or at 30, would be 59 CE.

Simply put, by the time Paul started writing his letters, we would expect many of them to be dead. By the time of the Jewish wars, we would expect all of them to be dead.

We don’t often think about life expectancy—we have a terrible tendency to “project” our own life expectancy of 70 years on people of the time.

Yet simply put, even if the Gospels were written in 65 CE—most of the eyewitnesses would be dead by then. A fact of living in that time.

*Edited, thanks to Vinny.

Why Courtrooms are unkind to claims

In discussing the Walker decision on Proposition 8, I found this quote by Jason Rosenhouse.

It also occurred to me that there are a lot of similarities between this decision and the decision in the Dover evolution case. Hard-core right-wingers live in a fantasy world of their own creation. It is a world in which creationism and ID are legitimate science and evolution is not. It is also a world in which gay couples pose some sort of threat to heterosexual marriage, or are too morally suspect to raise children. When thundered from a stage or a pulpit to a generally supportive audience, such notions play very well. But put them in a forum with rules of evidence and a sober, nonemotional tone, and they crumble. Judge Walker in this case was absolutely scathing towards the defense, just as Judge Jones was in the Dover case. When forced to defend their ideas rationally, the right-wingers always come off looking like fools.

New Atheism

A term bantered about. Over at the Parchment and Pen Blog a writer (utilizing Dr. Mohler) gave seven (7) points that differentiate the “New Atheist” from the “run-of-mill atheist” (her words):

1. Celebration of Atheism – no sense of mourning as seen in the “Victorian Loss of Faith”.

2. Changed and clear direction of attention – No longer the philosophical rejection of God but a rejection of the God of Christianity specifically. (*I question this one however, as it would seem there are objections to Islam and Judaism as well as polytheistic systems. But I do concede they are the most vocal against Christian Theism.)

3. Explicitly based in scientific argumentation - *Lack of philosophical discussion surrounding the existence of God. Also I would suggest that while a naturalistic framework (i.e a point of view that excludes the supernatural) is assumed they are not stating their’s as a philosophical position.

4. Attack upon moderate and liberal Protestantism - These theological movements are seen as “enablers” of theistic belief . *Which although not stated in the lecture, I have to think it is due to these movements denying foundational truths of Christianity in respects to not only orthodoxy (right belief) but orthopraxy (right practice). This in turn makes Christianity a less bitter pill to swallow to those searching for truth.

5. Belief in God is not to be tolerated – It is no longer a matter of objecting to the persecution of the skeptic or free-thinker or atheist (vying for a voice in the culture only to be persecuted by the Theist) but it is thought that those who do believe in God should not be tolerated in our society – essentially a move away from religious freedom.

6. Theism is seen as harmful to children – teaching a child theistic beliefs is tantamount to child abuse and on the same level as (if not worse than) physical abuse.

and finally…

7. Theism should be eliminated because of all the harm it has brought to humanity. *Theism simply should not be tolerated in any civilized culture. The Crusades, the Inquisition and even modern day terrorism indicate Theism is bad for humanity. It has done more harm than good as we see from history and we’d be better off ridding it from our society altogether. No longer is a “tenant” of Atheism that of merely objecting to theistic systems but rather there is a pressing need to pro-actively eradicate these systems from our culture in toto.

Now, before I deal with each of these seven points, my first broad thought can be brilliantly summed up in two words. “So what?”

Let’s assume—for the moment—there is this “New Atheism” that is somehow different from previous atheisms. Does “New” necessarily mean “incorrect”? The impression given is that atheism (like Christianity) must adhere to some sort of orthodoxy, and therefore the “older” atheism is somehow more correct. Better.

Why? Imagine I told you I obtained a new cell phone. Wouldn’t we want the “newest” available? Would you be impressed if I extolled orthodoxy and bought a bag phone? (And if you even know what a bag phone is—you just dated yourself!)

Or imagine we are presented with new information. Or a new situation. Should I have continued to live like a bachelor after begin married? Was there something inherently bad about the seven (or more) points differentiating “Old run-of-the-mill single me” to “New Married Me”? Of course not!

We live in a changing world. With new ideas, new concepts, new societal impacts, new words…all of which should collide with our previous thinking and perhaps cause us to modify it.

I want “New Atheism” because we know more than last year’s atheists. And next year I want even “Newer Atheism.” If some day we come across some proof or evidence…who knows?...maybe the Newest and Last Atheism would be theism!

Now looking at the points.

1. Celebration of Atheism. Yeah us! How terrible that we dare not be the miserable, hedonistic wretches the theists think we should be. How dare we be…happy. How DARE we be…moral! How dare we…actually admit to being an atheist without a sigh, a tear, a cry for help…

2. A changing and clear direction toward atheism as to Christianity. While I could argue most of that has to do with perspective and locale (and the author notes it is not limited to Christianity)…again…I am left with “so what?” This comes across as Christians whining about “Why are you picking on us?” Because we are atheistic to your God! Does it really matter if we pick one God as compared to another?

3. Explicitly based on scientific argumentation. Again, I could argue this point. Again, I find myself saying, “So what?” What sacred script, what orthodoxy requires atheists to argue from philosophy? Or science? Or _____? Or all aspects? Or none at all? Please, oh please, will someone tell me what I—the atheist—MUST use to make my point in order to qualify as a “run-of-the-mill” atheist?

4. Attack on moderate and liberal Protestantism. Bwahahahahaha…seriously? You were being serious there? Read that again without falling down on the floor. I dare you! This comes from a conservative (Dr. Mohler) who regularly (Oh, I listened to your show, sir) attacked and battled and stabbed and assailed in every way shape and form anything remotely “moderate” or “liberal” within Christianity. And he’s unhappy atheists…er…excuse me…”New Atheists”…are doing it?

What, are we stealing your thunder?

5. Theism is not to be tolerated. Well, this one depends on your definition of “tolerance.” I suspect Christians want more than the New Atheists are giving. Look, we think theism is wrong. As wrong as a geocentric solar system. As wrong as a 6000-year-old, flat earth, global-flood, demon-possessing, Mary-in-a-Grilled-Cheese, geocentric solar system.

Which, like people wearing tin-foil hats to protect themselves from government rays, we would normally laugh off and let live their lives in peace. But Christians don’t stop there. They take these beliefs and discriminate against homosexuals, and attempt to push prayers on those who don’t believe as they do, and demand money (oh the money) and privileges to maintain these beliefs.

At that point I say, “No.” And they cry, “Intolerance.”

6. Theism is seen as harmful to children. Er…yes. Again, we think theism is wrong. Teaching children incorrect things, I believe is harmful. Shouldn’t we teach children correct truths? Of course, I am not mentioning the fear of hell, the shame of sex, the stigma of sexual orientation, the scientific falsehoods….

7. Theism should be eliminated because of all the harm it has brought to humanity. Has this sunk in yet? We think theism is wrong. As in “not true.” Basing actions on incorrect truths has an inherent tendency to do harm. Yes, we can live a happy life on a lie. Even do “less harm” by believing that lie. Most atheists I read hope humanity can actually improve itself without the need of believing something incorrect. Call us foolish optimists.

In the end, I think the biggest problem they have with New Atheism is how vocal it has become. The old atheists (like the token house servant) kept their mouth shut and knew their place. These New Atheists have the audacity to write best-sellers and speak their mind and proudly proclaim “I am an atheist!”

And for that, even though I may not qualify as a “New Atheist,” I am thankful and supportive. They make it easier, even (dare I say?) legitimate, for some of us to also say, “I, too, am an atheist.” Maybe a run-of-the-mill; maybe not. But an atheist all the same.

You MUST be just like Me

You can tell quite a bit about a person with how they relate to others. And how they treat perceived enemies.

When encountering others, in order to obtain a baseline, we initially presume they share similar tastes and interest as we do. We do this to move from the unknown to the known. If I was asking you to meet at a restaurant, I would initially propose restaurants I like. “Do you want to eat at Buffalo Wild Wings?” I would not propose Wendy’s (for example) because I don’t particularly care for their food.

Simply by listening to what restaurants I propose—you would learn what restaurants I like. Obviously, our interaction would provide me information about the other person (“No, I don’t like spicy food”) narrowing our choices and giving me more data.

Or if I was attempting to motivate you, I might first offer money (demonstrating I find money to be a powerful motivating factor) or sex (demonstrating I find sex to be a powerful motivating factor), etc. I often find, in divorce matters, those who accuse others, without any evidence, of infidelity are either contemplating it or engaging in it already. What they accuse others is demonstrative of what they are thinking themselves. “If I want to have an affair,” they are thinking, “presumably the only reason my spouse wants out of the marriage is that they want to have an affair.”

You may be aware the US Supreme Court ruled a Law School can withhold official status to a Christian student organization because the organization discriminated against others based upon religious beliefs and/or sexual orientation. The Christian organization required its members to sign a statement of faith and refrain from sexual activity, specifically homosexual activity. The Law School allowed the group to meet (and even provided facilities) but would not grant it official status due to its exclusivity policy. The Student Organization sued. And lost.

Mike Adams wrote an article in Townhall (H/T toCamels with Hammers) with an intriguing response:

I can’t stand atheists. And I plan to do something about them. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has given me a powerful tool to use in my war against the godless. Earlier this week, the Court ruled that a public university may require all student organizations to admit any student as a voting member or officer. The decision applies even to a student who is openly hostile to the group's fundamental beliefs.

So, when I get back to the secular university in August, I plan to round up the students I know who are most hostile to atheism. Then I’m going to get them to help me find atheist-haters willing to join atheist student groups across the South. I plan to use my young fundamentalist Christian warriors to undermine the mission of every group that disagrees with me on the existence of God.

I agree with the general reaction that most Secular groups would welcome Christians joining and would dramatically enjoy the interaction. But that wasn’t what struck me about this article.

It was the presumption that this would be hated by secular groups. That secular groups would fall in disarray, or be traumatized or forced to close up shop due to the “infiltration” of Christians. This says a great deal more about Mr. Adams and Christian organizations than it does about secular.

Apparently he believes if non-theists were allowed to join Christian gatherings, it would be so horrifying the Christian group would eventually fail. That non-theists absolutely, positively must be prevented from entering Christian sacred groups, because even a whiff of such theistic abstinence would cause the entire assemblage to crumble like a house of cards.

Therefore—because he is so terrified of allowing an atheist dare attend or [gasp!] join his Christian group—the secular group must equally be terrified.

One of the scariest—and pitiful—quotes from Mr. Adams: “I do not seek robust debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident.” How does one communicate with such a person? It amazed me at the time of my deconversion; it continues to amaze me. How many Christians are simply not interested in hearing alternative positions. They don’t want to know about possible contradictions in the New Testament texts. They don’t want to know scientific studies demonstrating evolution. They don’t want to hear any information, data, evidence, argument, point or iota about anything that in any way contradicts their preciously held belief.

They vehemently do not seek robust debate. They desire one thing only—the elimination of the non-theist. Either through conversion to their belief, OR destruction by judgment. There is no ground to allow the non-theist. (Humorously, they presume the non-theist feels the same way about them, and therefore presume there really is an Evil Atheist Conspiracy bringing all of its resources to bear to prevent them from receiving a tax deduction for their weekly $5 tithe.)

Now it is possible (I don’t know Mike Adams) this was written as satire. The point remains the same, he is still claiming this is his perception of secular groups, based upon his own underpinnings of fear.

Here is the point: There is no gain in discussing with the Mike Adams of the world. And there are a lot of them. We can be aware there are lurkers, wondering what our response would be, and reply appropriately, but for the vast majority they have no desire to have their beliefs pushed or prodded in any way.

And the easiest way to do that is bar the pushers and prodders at the door.

Happy Anniversary!

I am sure all are celebrating by bringing out your favorite cassettes and foam headphones. Grabbing a set of new batteries and jogging around the block.

Right?

For as we all know, it has been exactly 31 years since Sony introduced the iconic Walkman. Hail, hail to the mobile player that binds them all.

31 years. It amazes how much has changed in such a short period. In this one corner of consumerism, we watched an evolution from cassettes to CD’s to Mp3 players. (With a side-branch of personal DVD players.) The ubiquitous term “Walkman” (as in “Did you bring a Walkman?” meaning any personal cassette player or CD player) has transformed to “iPod.” Cassettes briefly battled CDs, that only reigned a short time before entering their own battle with digital downloads.

31 years. Teaching us change is inevitable, the only question being how we role with that change. We can expect it. No one (that I know) is proclaiming the benefits of ancient technology as being better; no one is claiming we need to “get back” to Sony’s intentions with its original Walkman. Bring back re-usable batteries and gangly headphones.

We progress, and adapt with the progression. Celebrate it—it is the defining reason our evolved species has made it this far.

As you probably know, vandals painted the words ”Under God with an arrow” on a Billboard in North Carolina that said, “One Nation, Indivisible.” A number of comments under the Yahoo news cite whined about non-theists who wanted to “change” the Pledge.

Didn’t they know the Pledge has been modified a number of times since the original writing in 1891? Short history on the Pledge to the American Flag.

Change happens. It was changed in the 1950’s to add “under God”—we desire to change it back. What is so surprising about that?

I find it fascinating many of the same people who extol what they claim America’s Founders did in establishing American, and how it should never, EVER be changed…are the some ones who fully embrace and adulate the change in the Pledge from the original author. Which is it—do they like change or not?

Claims in History

We often see the claim, ”If the New Testament is not reliable history that we can trust, then no ancient history can be trusted.” Understand when the apologist makes the claim, it is a dichotomous hyperbole where either every single fact within the New Testament (including the miracles) must be accepted as fully historical OR not a single fact is true, and therefore all histories of any sort must likewise be false.

There is no consideration for the possible alternative that some facts are historical (Pilate, Herod, even a traveling Rabbi named Jesus) and some are mythological (walking on water, clearing the temple, Slaughter of the Innocents).

There is a simple response to this claim.

Remember this joke?

A man walks up to a beautiful woman and asks, “Would you have sex with me for One million dollars?”
“Yes!” she exclaims.
“How about for $5?” the man replies.
“No way! What kind of woman do you think I am?”
“Ma’am, we’ve already established that. All we’re doing now is negotiating price.”

I feel the same way with this claim. The Christian apologist equally agrees certain documents are not historical regarding Jesus’ sayings and life—all we really are doing is haggling over method.

The Infancy Gospel of James claims Mary, Mother of Jesus, was born out of Immaculate Conception. (No male involved.) Was this historical?

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas records an incident when Jesus, as a child, was bumped by another child. Jesus, of course, miraculously struck the child dead. The parents, understandably vexed, complained to Joseph, whereupon Jesus blinded them. Is this historical?

Josephus records a star in the shape of a sword over Jerusalem before it fell. A comet that lasted a whole year. Mysterious light, a cow giving birth to a lamb, doors opening on their own, strange voices and earthquakes. Were these historical?

Joseph Smith saw Jesus; the Gospel of Philip implies Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ paramour. Historical?

See, at some point every historian—every person—reaches a point of exclaiming, “That is not true. Didn’t happen.” Like the joke…we’ve established some stories (including stories about Jesus) are not historical. All we’re doing now is haggling over method—over how to determine which stories are historical and which are myth.

Good Evidence?

The more one studies the New Testament documents and early church history, it seems the less precise statements we can make; the less certainty we have. I like to put up blog entries in manageable sizes, while giving credence to various countering positions. Yet many times I find if I gave voice to every possible position, my footnotes would have footnotes! I would be forced to write, “but consider this…but consider that…but consider this other thing as well.”

For one minor example: my entry on Peter’s death mentioned 1 Clement being written in 95 C.E. I let it go at that…yet if I was more precise I would note the date is uncertain. We utilize 95 C.E. because the book starts off referring to certain calamities happening in Rome, and some scholars presume this refers to the Domitian (Roman Emperor from 81 – 96 CE) persecution of Christians.

However, there are problems with this dating. First, 1 Clement does not indicate what the calamities are, let alone a persecution initiated by the Emperor. Second, we have no contemporary evidence regarding any such persecution by Domitian; primarily relying up Eusebius 200 years later. Third, even Eusebius’ account does not necessarily indicate a persecution against Christianity.

Now (here is where one’s footnotes get footnotes) it should be mentioned Tertullian (writing around 200 CE, or about 100 years later) also refers to a persecution by Domitian, yet indicates it was brief, and the Emperor restored those he had banished. In order to get 1 Clement written during the appropriate time, we would need to place it within this short, undetermined period.

BUT…(see where one gets footnotes on footnotes on footnotes?) Tertullian also mentions that Peter ordained 1 Clement, meaning we would need to determine the date when this occurred to accurately date both Peter’s death and when 1 Clement could have been written.

Unfortunately, it is unclear whether Clement is the second or third Bishop of Rome, after Peter, let alone what date he could have been ordained by Peter, leaving us in yet another debate over when this occurred. (And, might I add, completely destroying the original idea that Peter died under Nero’s reign in 62 – 62 CE!)

Oh, did I mention 1 Clement doesn’t self-identify its own authorship? This is all presuming Clement wrote this book, and now we would need to go off on yet another rabbit trail, explaining when this book traditionally was attributed to Clement! (And dare I mention the Greek word for whether Peter was martyred or not is also in contention? Gasp—another rabbit trail.)

All that (and more) to merely support one line in one blog entry. Dr. Carrier admirably goes through a much longer and similar exercise on the minor issue regarding the last possible date Matthew’s Gospel was written. I recommend the read to demonstrate how broad the possibilities are on even the trivial details.

If you begin any study—be it authorship, or dating, or contents—within this field, you will quickly discover books and books and articles supporting about any position possible. Matthew the disciple was the author of the Gospel. We don’t know who the author was. It was another disciple. It was a Christian. A Jewish Christian. A Hellenized Christian. A Greek. A forgery. It was the first gospel written, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth. It was written in Greek. No Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Written as early as the 30’s CE. As late as the 300’s. Yes, I realize some theories are less probable than others—yet the claims are out there to be explored!

I bring this all out to demonstrate how malleable and indistinct the evidence we have for what events transpired in First Century Palestine. As non-Christians we are often asked, “Well what evidence would you need to believe Jesus was raised from the dead?” (Often in a dismissive tone as if we have placed a standard so high we would only accept it if recorded in video. High-Definition Video. With Danish subtitles.)

The answer is simple: Better evidence than what we have now.

Why must every claim be permeated with possibilities? Even Christians argue amongst themselves as to who wrote what when. As to what the ending of Mark should/could/would be. As to whether this section, paragraph or word was in the original writing. As to what is historical and what is legendary.

How about Matthew starting off, “A Gospel of Matthew, Disciple of Jesus, written in the second year of Nero’s reign”? See how simple that would be to eliminate confusion? How about Paul dating his letters? Or identifying when he was using a secretary?

Yes, I am sure there may still be problems. But at least some could be reduced! Or having the early church fathers indicate when they are quoting from a Gospel. (And the gospels indicate when they are copying from each other.)

What I often see occur, in these discussions, is the Christian apologist having a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support that conclusion. Want 1 Clement to be written in 95 C.E.? Indicate Eusebius and Tertullian wrote on a Domitian persecution, claim 1 Clement is referring to this event and voila—you have a 95 CE date. But if you look at the evidence first--without a pre-ordained conclusion--such dating disintegrates into a range of possibilities.

This is why the exchange breaks down. The Christian apologist thinks the evidence is clear 1 Clement was written 95 C.E. and only a dunderhead could think otherwise; the skeptic reviews all the evidence and remains unconvinced.

What would have been the problem with including authors & dates in these documents? Why is asking what would be normal and standard in any other historical document too much to ask in the supposed greatest historical documents of them all? What is so surprising we skeptics question the viability when we would do so in any other documents with the same lack of precision?

At what point does it become obvious this is a botched human creation?