Not to be the dog across the street who won’t stop barking all night, but…. Here is another post on committed Christian apologists who insist they are doing serious history.
To ward off a misunderstanding: It is absolutely possible for a Bible-believing conservative evangelical to be a university-level, academically-gifted, peer-review-publishing, respected-in-the-field geologist. BUT, it is not possible
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Fundamentalists don’t believe in God & JC directly. Their relationship to Them is:
Person > Bible > God & JC
Catholics tend to be more like:
Person > Priesthood > God & JC
Congregationalists tend to rely on the congregational consensus:
Person > Congregation > God & JC
Individualists have a more direct relationship with nothing between themselves and God & JC:
Person > God & JC
We have four different relational setups working here:
Person > Bible > God & JC
Person > Priesthood > God & JC
Person > Congregation > God & JC
Person > God & JC
All four of these setups can be right, and all four can be wrong. They can also all be right together and wrong together as well.
It seems like the best we can do is put the truth first and seek it diligently. Seek the truth whether we win, lose, or break even. Either way, we will win, because we will have the truth.
I can’t believe that God and the Truth are two separate things, even if some ideas from the bible, the priesthood, the congregation, or individuals are wrong or just misplaced.
Ms Young: excellent points!
As later Shanghainese friend said their bible the Recovery Version was essentially Darby’s and we worshiped those verses and its footnotes together as the Gospel truth. The other Bible version accepted was the KJV despite the fact that it is not 1611.
30 years ago, thrown out Berkeley Elder introduced me to New Life by Andrew Murray & essentially that told me how to live life [overcomer], NOT every other X-ian says just open the Bible & read what it says.
Also he proclaimed GOD is the same in SF as China. Wrong, I had better Godly life there as society is directed there. & here right to speech over civility. NOT”Love thy neighbor”
10 years ago, I realized SAfrican, Italian, German, French, English or even USA writers could not dictate, how an ABC then in China was supposed to live an overcomer- though a distant guide!
Thanks!
No matter how I tried to be a Christian 20+ years ago, without St Paul, that was impossible.
& even if God’s day is a thousand years, the world is less than a week old & Jesus here less than a blink of an eye!
So I pitched a few names to you; Doc Ehrms and the Ehrmeister. I’ve decided to go with The Ehrmanator, because you absolutely slay in your field of study.
Joking aside, this is actually a perfect post to ask this question. This is less theological/scholarly and more your personal thoughts.
I have deep Christian convictions, and your work informs my faith tremendously. I’m more of the liberal/progressive variety, obviously. Does it strike you as interesting that your studies have taken you from Christian to agnostic, but help others like myself to go the other way? How do you feel about your work shaping and informing other people’s faith in a Christ-centered direction, albeit a more historically grounded one?
You help people. How do you feel about that?
Hey, I like that (the name). And I’m all for my work helping people think through their views and taking on new (or revised) perspectives that they think are more reasonable and helpful to others.
Surely the most important issue, and difference between the two of you, is whether the process of history can confirm that a miracle could have taken place.
In all of your debates with him, I have never seen this come to an agreed conclusion, In fact, you once said that it is OK for both sides to lay out their position so that the reader/listener can decide for themselves.
But how can that be the case? Did genuine historians not come to a definitive decision on this fundamental question decades ago?
Yes. But he insists that his view is genuinely historical nonetheless. What can I say?
“What can I say?”
You use the same approach as you do with 90% of what you write about, when challenged, i.e. that it is mainstream scholarship NOT your personal opinions.
Do critical scholars agree that miracles and the supernatural are outside the purview of the historical process?
If so, can you present the evidence to that effect?
Is this what is taught in post grad history schools outside evangelical institutions?
In other words, demonstrate the Licona is not following the historical process.
Sorry to be a pain, but I’m just trying to figure out how history works, here.
Do critical scholars agree that miracles and the supernatural are outside the purview of the historical process?
If so, can you present the evidence to that effect?
Is this what is taught in post grad history schools outside evangelical institutions?
It doesn’t take much evidence. Read any historical account of, say, WWII, the Civil War, the French Revolution; the presidency of George Washington, JFK, Obama; the voyages of Christopher Columbus, the Industrial Revolution, the rise of Capitalism; the … pick any historical topic. In every case there were peole who said prayers of relevance to whatever is involved with the topic; some at the end concluded that God must have been on their side. You will not find a single historical study of any of these things that was written by and widely received by serious historian. E.g., NO historian would claim that the Allies defeated the Nazis BECAUSE God intervened (i.e. that it was a literal miracle). God had nothing to do with it, from a *historical* point of view.disabledupes{d835899e49f2d98d2e31bf3d4b32e760}disabledupes
Many thanks for getting into the weeds with this, I appreciate it. It does seem to be important and appears to be a sticking point in debates which never gets bottomed out especially with Mike Licona but also other apologists as well.
“God had nothing to do with it, from a *historical* point of view.”
Is that a general principle that ALL critical scholars of history operate from and follow? Or is it because there is no good evidence to support the claim that God did things in the real world?
In other words, is that something that is taught in university history departments to students?
Is that what you used to teach you students at Chapel Hill, i.e. the presence or otherwise of miracles and the supernatural cannot influence the conclusions of historians?
If so, is it written down anywhere formally? Where could I look to find out whether I could use evidence to conclude a supernatural event, or not when doing history?
Historians do not say “God had nothing to do with it.” They simply don’t talk about what God did or didn’t do because it is not part of historical discourse, just as a carpenter would not say what God contributed to the building of a set of cabinets. This is not taught in the universities because it is simply not an issue. Geologists don’t talk about God’s role in creating the earth and historians don’t talk about God’s role in human history.
You’ve debated Mike a handleful of times and you gave him a pasting each time. But I’m wondering what there is to be gained debating him? He strikes me as so sure of himself and completely unwilling to possibly change his mind on any matter. He’s one the most painful apologists to listen to. His unwillingness to budge on even small issues is amazing. I suppose this applies to all apologists to be fair….
I very much wonder the same thing.
I think you still do a useful service. For those that may normally only listen to his views and people like him, when they see the debate it at least shows the other views and that others aren’t just “God haters”. At my age I am no longer amazed at people that never really think about why they have their views and if they make any sense. At least you provide some opportunity for those that may just need a spark to get them started looking into their beliefs.
Well said, Bart.
I understand history as an attempt to reconstruct what most likely happened from the evidence that happens to survive—probably less than one percent of the actual past. The central difficulty is how to evaluate that evidence, particularly when conflicting sources appear similarly plausible. If one were quantitatively or clearly logically superior, the decision would be straightforward. However, in practice, historians often have to compare pieces of evidence of roughly equal weight. Usually, historians’ conclusions emerge from countless small judgments shaped by their methodology.
It is virtually impossible to examine every detail of this process, especially assumptions operating subconsciously. Historians working from an apologetic perspective may therefore follow such a thought process without realizing it. This is also related to Husserl’s concept of intentionality.
A similar pattern appears in perceptions of energy risk: although some comparisons show hydroelectric power as having a higher historical death rate than nuclear power, people often perceive nuclear energy as more dangerous. Ultimately, I believe that history and faith are not fully compatible and require some mental compartmentalization. That is the conclusion I have reached through honest self-reflection.
Great, but you mean the bewildering quantum physics phenomenon of “entanglement,” not “entrapment.”
ARG…. Thanks. I’ll fix it. Good grief.
Relying on the idea that the Bible is infalable is so problematic, as this blog points out so well. Believers necessarily must rationalize conflicting or sensational verses in defense of their faith, clinging to illogical explanations. They rely too much on the Book. In my opinion, the Bible is a distraction that prevents people from focusing on the person and personality of God and developing a relationship with him/her. People want or need certainty in their faith, but I don’t think that is possible. What can substitute for certainty? Trust that God’s love and grace is all that is needed to walk peacefully through life. What we do and say are not that important because we’re human and can’t be perfect – or even “good”. It doesn’t matter. God loves and accepts us just as we are and nothing can change that. I don’t think a book or a savior or a fellowship are needed – universal, complete acceptance (or “salvation”) is already in place for everyone. That’s the Good News!
Relying on an outdated, antiquated, archaic writing is problematic.
Understanding and acknowledging the above sentence relies upon transformation.
Neuroscience has literally, proven every single word is a learned symbol. What this implies is that absolutely nothing is anything until it has been defined. In other words, the mind/brain/subconscious doesn’t know right from wrong or upside from downside until it has been given meaning. I write in English and you understand English but if you had been only taught Mandarin then whatever is written in English would be interpreted differently.
Similarly, if you understood how your own body works from a biological, neurological, physiological and psychological perspective you wouldn’t need an external invisible entity to define your personal identity. The words grace and love are ambiguous.
Regarding teaching the Gospels by reciting them until the listener has memorized them: I read a story where the convert (A) taught her servant (B) in just that manner: A would recite a passage until B could recite it back in the exact words. A would then teach B the next passage, etc.
However, when it came time for B to teach C (and D, and E, and F), B taught a quick summary.
That seems a lot closer to real life, to me.
Hi Bart.
I think you refer to “quantum entanglement”, which is very weird indeed.
Arg. My bad. Fixed.
As an addendum to my comment on Sept 7, 2026 at 12:58 p.m., I’m saying that even in a novel, after the first transmission things get very loose!
I don’t think that absolute memorization is possible.
Have fundamentalists ever argued the six thousand year old earth using the scientific method as opposed to the bible? Sounds like it is six thousand years old regardless of how old it is!
Yes, I’ve heard fundamentalist geologists try to argue it. (And some arguing that God created the fossils to see if people would have faith; or that Satan did to distract them from the truth!)
I have the strong sense that somewhere Dorothy L. Sayers discussed the way an author gives a “backstory” to a character in a novel, referring in passing to events that happened outside the timeframe of the novel, to the childhood of the main character, and so forth, never developing those hints but using them to give the impression of a whole rich life history for a character (Lord Peter Wimsey, in her case) who really only came into literary existence as a full-grown adult. She used this as an analogy for the idea that God *could* have provided the world/universe with a “backstory,” strewing about hints of vast geological age, extinct species, etc., even if the world had only been brought into existence 6000 years ago; the point was that the world would have been crafted to plausibly *look as though* it had a long history, just as she crafted Lord Peter to *look as though* he’d had a childhood, attended Oxford, served in WWI, etc.
I can’t remember where she wrote this, though. It’s not *The Mind of the Maker.* Possibly it’s in her letters — or it could be someone else and I’m misremembering.
Whoa. Is it your sense that she seriously believe in a young earth, or just that she thought it was conceivable? (On those terms, what isn’t?)
I wish I could remember where I read it and what the context was. It was a long time ago, but my memory (such as it is) is that she was *not* indicating that she herself seriously believed in a young earth. Rather, I think this was sort of a thought experiment, to raise the question of what geological evidence would or would not mean if one posited an ex nihilo creation. I mean, a god creating ex nihilo COULD create a world with geological strata, fossils, carbon 14 dating, and so on, and how would we ever know that those things were “planted” at the moment of creation rather than being genuine records of actual processes?
Ah, right. That was a view promoted at Moody Bible Institute: God could and did do that, or that God allowed Satan to put in the stata, fossils, etc to test our faith. I obviously failed the test.
I think one could argue Christianity was God’s test for misleading: Deuteronomy 13:1-3 “If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.”
Maybe not what Jesus was actually about, but in what he became.
Suppose someone submits a paper arguing earth’s six-thousand-years-old. It should be evaluated on geological evidence/methods. Religious motives dont rescue bad arguments. but neither do motives disprove a conclusion. The origin of a belief isnt the same as its justification. The question isnt ‘Why does someone want to believe?’ but, ‘What reasons are there for believing?’
On the resurrection, it isnt whether science can identify a repeatable biological mechanism for dead bodies returning to life. It cant. The question is whether something extraordinary happened in history and what best explains the evidence.
Imagine an astronaut aboard a space-station when it explodes. Later, multiple people encounter him on Earth. He claims God miraculously delivered/transported him. Science may be unable to explain the mechanism, but it wouldn’t follow we dismiss the evidence. If the evidence were strong, we wouldnt insist on an unknown natural explanation because supernatural isnt allowed.
This doesnt mean every unexplained event=God did it. The stronger approach is examine positive evidence and compare competing explanations.
The resurrection isnt proposed as a scientific law. Paul doesn’t “trump the laws of physics.” The claim is that God acted in a particular historical circumstance to bring what nature, left to itself, wouldnt.
My hesitation about Matthew 27 isn’t that God couldn’t raise those saints. If God could raise Jesus, He could raise others. My uncertainty is more basic: I genuinely don’t know what Matthew intends to communicate. literal history? Apocalyptic imagery? Is it symbolic/theological? I don’t know. Do you?
Someone can reshape an account without lying/deceiving.
Take comedian Dave Chappelle’s retelling of Trump-Clinton debate. He quotes details verbatim, but adds the obviously fictional image of Trump rolling up an Illuminati membership card, snorting cocaine, and walking back behind the curtain. No one thinks he’s deceiving (we can watch the debate) yet his retelling is historically meaningful. He’s communicating why Trump appealed: voters saw him as an “honest elitist” from behind the curtain revealing whats really happening.
Similarly, Matthew (though later) preserves straightforward history: Jesus was sending disciples out, and there was precedent for leaders, especially in a Levitical context, to forsake property and depend on support from those they served.
Mark, however, seems concerned to portray Jesus/disciples as shepherds of lost Israel in contrast to failed leaders. Including staff serves his larger narrative purpose.
The difference isnt between truth/deceit, but between what Jesus said and what he was up to.
Can you say more about this: “analyzing patristic evidence (= quotations of church fathers) for establishing the original form of the New Testament text.”
I don’t know much about that and I’m intrigued. Did you do a podcast about the subject?
Thanks!
It’s a very long story. If you do a word search for Didymus you will find several posts explaining. The very SHORT explanation is that we have church fathers who quote the New Testament. They learned these quotations from the manuscripts available to them. We know when and where they were living. We can examine their quotations to reconstruct in part what their manuscripts must have looked like — that is, what wording of the verses they quote would have been found in those particular manuscripts from that particular time and place. That’s of value because often the church fathers were living in times and places for which we do not have manuscripts of the NT.