Gary describes himself
as a former “devout
orthodox (fundamentalist) Christian,” who has rejected the Christian faith and appears
to be on a quest to discredit the Christian religion. He recently entered my tiny
speck of the blogosphere, insisting that I read his review of his former
pastor’s defense of the Lord’s resurrection. He claims that belief in the
resurrection lacks any good evidence and is “based on nothing more than assumptions, second century hearsay,
superstition, and giant leaps of faith.” I read his review <Link>. Here is my response.
Evaluating the Evidence
Gary maintains that “the overwhelming majority” of skeptics accept the testimonies of
early Christians as valid evidence, although the evidence must be scrutinized “with the caveat that there may well be bias
present in their statements.” I agree with this approach and with Gary’s
observation that “both sides have a bias,
but biases do NOT necessarily invalidate the evidence.”1
Gary then affirms that he and most other
skeptics “view the Bible as a mixture of truths and
fiction. The key to understanding the Bible is examining each biblical claim to
determine which category it belongs to, and not assuming every claim is true or
every claim is false.” The problem here is that no one approaches the biblical record
with a completely blank tablet, and one’s deep-seated presuppositions
inevitably affect how the scriptures are evaluated. The pendulum swings in both directions. If one has little or no respect
for the Bible or has a predisposition against it and examines the text merely
to find fault, then the final assessment will almost certainly be negative.2
Would Gary deny this about most, some, or any skeptics?
It is commendable that he argues for an
unbiased, objective analysis of the biblical evidence (I concur!), yet his
own approach seems very one-sided. He repeatedly makes the very broad, anecdotal
appeal to “the overwhelming majority”
of skeptics and biblical scholars, but the only one he actually names is
agnostic professor Bart Ehrman. How many scholarly critics are there (past and
present), and where does each fit on the liberal-conservative theological spectrum, and who determines the percentage of the ones espousing
a particular view? While I don’t know how many of these alleged experts Gary
has read or listened to (presumably not all of them), it is apparent that his primary
focus is pretty much limited to those who already agree with him. A clear example of this is his contention that “the Epistle of Second Peter is a known work of fraud! No scholar that I
know of believes that Peter or any other eyewitness wrote that epistle.” There are numerous scholars that Gary
evidently doesn’t “know of” who would
disagree (e.g.
D. A. Carson, E. M. B. Green, D. Guthrie, D. J. Moo, B. Reicke, etc.). Irrespective of which
position one embraces, plethoric “scholars” can be cited for support.
The Biblical Evidence
The main thrust of Gary’s argument is an
attempt to discredit the veracity of the biblical record in general, and eyewitness testimony
in particular. “But all we have,” Gary assures his
readers, “are four accounts written
decades later, two of which and maybe three borrow heavily (plagiarize) from
the first, by anonymous persons writing in far away lands, whom most
scholars do NOT believe were eyewitnesses. Yes, dear Reader, you read that correctly: the majority of New
Testament scholars living today do NOT believe that eyewitnesses wrote the four
Gospels and the Book of Acts.”
First of
all, the four Gospel accounts are not “all
we have.” Secondly, the assertion that “maybe
three” of them plagiarize from the first is an allegation that no
reputable scholar, to my knowledge, has ever made. That two of the Gospels
borrowed from the first is a popular theory among non-conservatives,
but this is not universally conceded nor is it proven. In fact, the striking
differences among the synoptic accounts argue more readily for literary
independence.3 Thirdly, the charge that most scholars deny “that eyewitnesses wrote the four Gospels and
the Book of Acts” is not the earthshattering revelation that Gary seems to
think it is. No one who is aware of the facts, even among extreme
fundamentalists, believes that Luke-Acts and the Gospel of Mark were penned by
eyewitnesses. The real issue is whether these two authors were acquainted with
eyewitnesses and based their respective reports on eyewitness testimony, and whether
the other two Gospel writers themselves were eyewitnesses (see Authorship of the NT Gospels, and Biblical Authorship Part 1).
Gary has
boarded the trendy anti-conservative bandwagon and asserts that the Gospel of
Luke “wasn’t written until the 80s at the earliest, so the Book of Acts was probably not written until
the last decades of the first century, if not the early second century!” Gary is trying to argue that it’s “quite possible that NO ONE was alive at the time of the writing and subsequent distribution of the Book of Acts who had witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus!” However, by
taking the internal textual evidence at face value rather than relying on
subjective literary theory and philosophical presuppositions, Luke’s Gospel
would appear to have been completed as early as 59. Attention to the “we”
sections in Acts reveals that the author arrived in Jerusalem with Paul in late
spring 57 (Acts 20:6, 16; 21:17) and faded out of the picture for a couple of
years until autumn 59 when he and Paul departed from Caesarea on the voyage to
Rome (Acts 27:1-9). An extended period in Jerusalem would have afforded him the
ideal opportunity to gather the necessary information for his “orderly account”
(Luke 1:1-4). The historical record of Acts concludes at the end of Paul’s
two-year Roman imprisonment, i.e., spring of 62. The most obvious explanation
for the abrupt ending is that the historical account had actually reached this
point.4 The textual/historical evidence does not support Gary’s unfounded
assumption.
Eyewitness Testimony
Gary reduces the eyewitness testimony to “Paul and a few Galilean peasants,” who
allegedly believed a couple of appearance stories “based solely on vivid dreams, trances, and visions.” Is this a fair
representation of the facts? Gary provides NO historical evidence for his
explanation.
Despite the popularity of the Markan priority theory, the Gospels of Mark and John are clearly independent of one another, while Matthew and Luke differ enough from Mark to establish them as independent sources. The book of Acts is replete with recorded testimonies (Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:18-20; 5:30-32; 10:39-40). Luke’s Gospel and the Hebrews epistle explicitly claim eyewitness corroboration (Luke 1:1-4; Heb. 2:3-4), while there are first-hand statements in the writings of John (John 19:33-35; 1 John 1:1-3) and the Petrine documents (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:16). And then there’s Paul.
In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 (an undisputed Pauline document by the way), the apostle mentions over 500 eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, most of whom were still alive at the time, and no less than fourteen of the names were known (with additional names in the other accounts) and could be verified. It’s as though he’s challenging his readers to check him out (cf. Acts 26:26). Remember that the New Testament is not merely a single record; it is the compilation of twenty-seven separate documents spanning multiple geographical locations and time periods, representing numerous independent sources that remarkably harmonize.
Despite the popularity of the Markan priority theory, the Gospels of Mark and John are clearly independent of one another, while Matthew and Luke differ enough from Mark to establish them as independent sources. The book of Acts is replete with recorded testimonies (Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:18-20; 5:30-32; 10:39-40). Luke’s Gospel and the Hebrews epistle explicitly claim eyewitness corroboration (Luke 1:1-4; Heb. 2:3-4), while there are first-hand statements in the writings of John (John 19:33-35; 1 John 1:1-3) and the Petrine documents (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:16). And then there’s Paul.
In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 (an undisputed Pauline document by the way), the apostle mentions over 500 eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, most of whom were still alive at the time, and no less than fourteen of the names were known (with additional names in the other accounts) and could be verified. It’s as though he’s challenging his readers to check him out (cf. Acts 26:26). Remember that the New Testament is not merely a single record; it is the compilation of twenty-seven separate documents spanning multiple geographical locations and time periods, representing numerous independent sources that remarkably harmonize.
While an individual might have “vivid dreams, trances, and visions,”
we’re talking about hundreds of people on dozens of occasions over an extended period of
time! Jesus was not only seen alive after his crucifixion, he was also communicated
with and touched. And then there’s the empty tomb. If the ardent claims of
these professed eyewitnesses are false, why didn’t the Roman or Jewish
authorities produce the corpse to dispel the crazy rumors and stop the
Christian movement in its tracks?
Gary asks, “Did Paul claim that
there was an Empty Tomb?” and concludes that the empty tomb is “a fact NEVER mentioned in any of the
writings of Paul! …. Paul never mentions this detail ONCE!” Gary is right
if we’re limiting our discussion to these specific words. However, the apostle makes numerous implicit references to the empty tomb
with his repeated and adamant allusions to the resurrected Lord (Rom. 1:4;
4:24-25; 6:4-9; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:1-8, 12-21; 2 Cor. 4:14;
5:15; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:20; Phil. 3:10; Col. 2:12; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:14; 2 Tim. 2:8;
cf. Acts 13:30, 33, 34, 37; 17:3, 18, 31, 32; 24:21; 25:19).
How Much Evidence is
Needed?
Gary says that “if scholars
could point to the confirmed testimony of even ONE of the original eleven
disciples, most skeptics would consider this fantastic, very relevant evidence. But
unfortunately we do not have such evidence.” He also cynically
requests: “Please provide ONE verified
statement by just ONE eyewitness who claims to have seen and touched the
walking/talking dead body of Jesus.”
The problem with these demands is that no amount of evidence, especially
from the Bible, is going to satisfy those who are predisposed to dismissing biblical
(supernatural) claims. If secular authors were held to the same critical scrutiny as
biblical authors, no one could be certain that anyone in particular wrote or said or did anything. If the historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection, including abundant
eyewitness corroboration, is not enough to convince someone, how can he/she be
sure about any historical event?
The bottom line is this: what is one’s standard of proof, and what presuppositions influence the evaluative process?
If a person is limited to a strictly naturalistic worldview, then the possibility of God and supernatural occurrences is automatically ruled out from the start. But what if the evidence points
beyond the natural world?
Here are the indisputable facts:
o
Jesus of Nazareth was a real person in history.
o
He died in 1st-century Palestine by crucifixion.
o
Numerous individuals and groups adamantly believed that he appeared to them alive.
o
The tomb was
empty.
o
The movement quickly spread, and thousands of these early
Christians suffered brutal persecution, even tortuous deaths, for their testimony and unrelenting faith.
o
Paul of Tarsus, a
violent persecutor of the Jesus followers, became a steadfast believer and
proclaimer of the resurrected Jesus.
The Bible consistently makes
historical claims about real people and events in actual places and times,
presenting its case for either confirmation or falsification. If Jesus didn’t walk out of the tomb, the biblical record is a lie and “we are of all men
the most pitiable” (1 Cor. 15:19). If, however, he did conquer death, it is the
most significant event in all of human history and it would be foolish to ignore it. The life,
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has radically shaped the course of
history and countless lives and is as certain as any fact of history can be.
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
2 See The Bible in Perspective.
3 See
The Synoptic Problem & Markan Priority Part 1,
and Part 2.
4
See The Dating of Luke-Acts and Why It Matters; also The Authorship of Luke-Acts. Among the ancients (from Herodotus 420 BC to Marcellinus AD 395), eyewitness testimony was regarded as the most reliable historical source (D. E. Aune, NT Literary Environment 81).
*Update: While Gary responded to my response, it's interesting that among the plethoric critical articles he has posted before and since, his original article to which I responded is no longer posted.
Addendum:
While Paul is not providing an exhaustive list in 1 Corinthian 15:3-8, most critical scholars believe he is reiterating an early creedal formula that goes back to the original disciples. Paul specifically mentions fourteen eyewitnesses plus over 500 more. The Gospels-Acts reveal at least seven additional eyewitnesses (unless Nathanael = Bartholomew). Twenty of these are named in the biblical record: eleven of the original apostles, James the Lord’s brother, Paul, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome, Joanna, Nathanael (?), Joseph Barsabas Justus, and Matthias. Of the 500+ eyewitnesses, Paul affirms that most of them were still alive at the time and their testimony could therefore be verified (cf. Acts 26:26). Moreover, the first documented eyewitnesses were women (Mark 16:1-8), which is inconceivable if the story were invented, seeing that a woman's testimony in the first-century Greco-Roman world was not legally admissible. If the bodily resurrection of Jesus could so easily be discredited, why was it the central doctrine of the Christian faith and how did it spawn a worldwide movement?
Addendum #2:
Which is the most likely explanation of the New Testament’s consistent claim of Christ’s resurrection? (1) Conspiracy theories (e.g. the body was stolen) do not reasonably explain the unrelenting faith of the post-resurrection disciples. (2) Hallucination theories do not account for the empty tomb or for the numerous claims of eyewitness sightings at different times and places. (3) Swoon theories (Jesus didn’t really die on the cross) are contrary to any known historical account of Roman crucifixion – no known survivors! (4) Myth theories do not reasonably account for any of the evidence. (5) Jesus having risen from the dead accounts for all the evidence: he was confirmed dead, the tomb in which his corpse was buried was later found empty, and numerous eyewitnesses were convinced they saw and interacted with Jesus afterwards, willing to suffer and die for their testimony.
Addendum #3:
Hallucinations, as projections of a person's mind, do not explain why multiple persons on multiple occasions initially failed to recognize Jesus (Luke 24:13-32; John 20:11-18; 21:4-12), a fact that does not bolster the story if it were not true. In each account Jesus is eventually recognized through personal interaction.
Related Posts: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions Part 1, Authorship of 2 Peter, Chronology of Christ's Death & Resurrection
Related articles: Lee Strobel's How Easter Killed My Faith in Atheism, The Babylon Bee's Millions Worldwide Cling to Faith, J. W. Wallace's Review of Explanations, Donnie DeBord's Non-Negotiable, Dean Meadow's Did the Resurrection Happen?
You've deleted my comments? Why? Is your faith that shaky that it cannot withstand my inspection and criticism?
ReplyDeleteGary, you are mistaken on two counts. I have not deleted any of your comments (yet), and my faith is unaffected by your inspection and criticism. You actually submitted your previous comments on my 26 June 2016 post entitled “Chronology of Paul’s Writings,” to which I’ve responded. The mistake is yours, not mine. Furthermore, I’ve been out of town with my family, and I don’t sit behind my computer 24/7 to immediately approve and respond to every comment received. This is a hobby, so I get to it as time permits. Finally, as I’ve already warned, if you can’t be more reasonable and civil, I have no intention of providing you a platform for your antagonistic and belittling rhetoric. It is my prayer that you open up to the teachings and influence of Jesus Christ and your attitude and tone (and life and destiny) are thereby transformed. To God be the glory.
DeleteDear Kevin,
ReplyDeleteThe majority of NT scholars, including NT Wright, now say that the Gospels were most likely NOT written by eyewitnesses:
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/
Gary, your extremely one-sided, heavily biased agenda is propped up by cherry-picked sources in an attempt to make your case seem sturdier than it really is. From where have your cherry-picked sources gotten their information? It's all anecdotal -- "majority," "mainstream," "consensus"?? Can we be more specific? Where are the documented surveys or statistics or criteria upon which these assertions are based? Has someone collated all the views of all biblical scholars (past and present) and published the results somewhere that can be verified? Do "majority" and "mainstream" essentially refer to whoever agrees with the views of agnostics and theological liberals? Even though these assertions are unsubstantiated, what do they prove any way? If the majority of biblical scholars in the past affirmed a position contrary to yours, was it right or wrong? If the majority of biblical scholars in the future were to affirm a position contrary to yours, would it be right or wrong? What does an alleged majority opinion actually prove? N.T. Wright says he doesn't know who wrote the Gospels but concedes the possibility that eyewitnesses were involved. Nevertheless, the affirmation you're making is nonsensical. Even though I've mentioned this in a previous response, I'll repeat it here. No one (even among conservatives) believes the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written by eyewitness, so what you're claiming is not the earth-shattering revelation you seem to think it is. Despite N.T. Wright's uncertainties, he still believes that eyewitness accounts stand behind all the Gospel records. But even if he believed otherwise, so what? I could cite a plethora of reputable biblical scholars who disagree with you and the sources you've cherry picked. Would this be enough to convince you? The biblical and historical evidence speaks for itself. My admonition to you is to be more open minded. Be skeptical of your skepticism. Stop limiting your research to left-wing theologians who help justify your unbelief. Give a fair hearing to the other side of the discussion. You've got everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Delete