This now is the second of three posts by Mike Licona, Associate Professor of Theology at Houston Baptist University. Mike has a PhD in New Testament studies and is a committed evangelical apologist, who has written a recent book, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels (Oxford University Press, 2016). He does indeed admit there are differences in the Gospels, which some people would claim are actually contradictions; but he continues to believe the Bible is “inerrant.” What does he mean then? In this clear and lucid post, he explains his views.
NOTE: Mike’s first post generated lots of comments, and it was a bit overwhelming. He will be willing to answer questions/comments over the next four days, but not afterward. That in itself is amazingly generous. Please don’t ask tons of questions in one comment — that (I can say from experience) is hard to deal with! Moreover, he and I both know that many people on the blog have a different perspective from his. But please be respectful and courteous, even in your disagreements.
–
Mike Licona is also the author of The Resurrection of Jesus and Evidence for God.
*****************************************************************************
Is the Bible Inerrant?
Just as the term “divine inspiration” needs clarification, so does the term “inerrant.” “Inerrant” means without error. So, a simple way of explaining what it means to say the Bible is inerrant is to assert that it contains no errors of any kind. One can imagine a preacher holding up his Bible during his Sunday morning sermon and saying, “This is God’s inerrant Word. Every word in it’s true!” For that, the argument is given, “If the Bible is divinely inspired, it must be inerrant, since God cannot err.” However, as I noted in my previous post, that argument only works if either (a) God dictated the words to the biblical writers who acted merely as scribes or (b) God, in a manner unknown to us, used their personalities and various writing styles to pen every word as He desired. As we observed, neither are likely, given the Bible that we have.
If by divine inspiration we mean that God actuated circumstances whereby the authors of the biblical literature wrote what they did using their own words, arguments, and logic, and that God ultimately approved what they wrote, despite the presence of human imperfections, then the doctrine of biblical inerrancy may be understood in a number of ways.
For example, Vatican II views inerrancy as follows: “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation [emphasis mine]” (Dei Verbum 11). In other words, the Bible is inerrant in everything it teaches pertaining to salvation.
Perhaps the definition most commonly accepted by evangelicals around the world is …
This is an intriguing post with a view that will strike many of you as unusual. If you want to read the rest, you will need to belong to the blog. So why not join? It doesn’t cost much, and every nickel goes to those in need.
Thanks again for taking the time to write on the blog! No questions today, but I have to say I can’t agree with #1 enough. Insisting that a set of documents that nobody actually has are 100% error free has always seemed to me to be an odd hill to die on. I guess it buys you a higher starting point before the errors could start to accumulate, but your approach seems simpler & more straightforward.
Thanks, lobe.
Mike Licona is a good man. His belief system (conservative Christianity) is not. It is an evil, repressive belief system that has caused massive suffering ever since it became the dominate belief system of the western world. Crusades, pogroms, witch burnings, the Inquistion, Manifest Destiny, and the relentless undermining and demeaning of science to name just a few of its crimes. Even today, women in Christian dominated countries all over the world are denied or restricted from access to birth control and abortion services. Gays and lesbians in many Christian dominated countries are harrassed, discriminated against, and even imprisoned for no crime other than loving someone of the same sex. Conservative Christianity is a dangerous, deadly superstition. It must be vigorously opposed. We should not grant this evil belief system respect. Yes, we should respect the human rights of individuals who hold these views, but we should never show respect or deference to evil.
Christianity is evil? You cite history and brand everyone for evils done by others – and I’m supposed to see this as justice or reasonable?
My take is that Matthew was written by Jesus’ disciples first, as Papias testified. Even Jerome read the Hebrew Matthew, but promoted the altered account foisted later. 40 CE opposed to 85 CE.
Mark, Luke and John all testify to varying degrees against the Matthew account. I, for one, see no “harmony of the gospels”, but do see a paganization of the Jewish Jesus as each account advanced in time.
One can’t read the Hebrew Matthew and conclude Jesus taught his blood was a sacrifice to cover the sins of the enemies of God as taught by Paul and today’s Christian churches.
Maybe it’s time we realized we’ve been lied to by our “rabbi’s and scribes”? Have we inherited lies from our fathers, as Jeremiah 16 says? Sure looks to be fact from my perspective.
No matter what, we need to know man did not become a reprobate because he was born after the “Fall”.
God declared to Cain that he was capable and responsible to overcome his own sin that it not rule over him.
Jesus taught the same thing – living a just and reasonable life that others can observe to be in accord to the Teachings and promises of God – the everlasting covenant.
From the Christian website, “LogosTalk”, June, 2015, regarding Dr. Michael Licona:
As the apologetics coordinator for the Southern Baptist Convention’s mission board, Mike [Licona] gained the reputation of a stalwart defender of Christianity. …But as he continued his doctoral studies, Mike felt a familiar presence lurking near the edges of his consciousness. The unsettling specter he thought he had banished had returned. His wife Debbie could sense it too. Mike describes the moment they acknowledged its unwelcome reappearance. “One night I’m lying in bed and I figured my wife was asleep. We probably hadn’t said anything for half an hour. And then I just heard her voice pierce into the darkness. ‘You’re doubting again, aren’t you?’”
He could avoid it no longer. Doubt had made a dramatic re-entry into the apologist’s life. But this time was different. This time he would face it head on.
That night, Mike shared his doubts with Debbie. Although he felt confident in the existence of God, he couldn’t seem to shake misgivings about other core Christian beliefs—even the Resurrection of Jesus, the very doctrine upon which he had based his academic career.
…Mike would often take long walks at night, praying through these issues. “I was out one evening praying and said, ‘God I believe Christianity is true, I believe Jesus was raised from the dead. But you know I’m plagued by doubts. If Christianity is wrong, now is a really good time to show me because I am more open than ever. I’m open to looking at the data and following it . . . wherever it leads me.”
Gary: Dr. Licona has asserted in comments under this post that his belief that the spirit of Jesus dwells somewhere in his body and communicates with him in a vague, non-audible fashion does not affect his scholarship. He tells us that he is able to put aside this bias. Really? How many professional historians talk to spirits during late night walks about their doubts regarding the historical veracity of Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon or Alexander’s sacking of Tyre? Dr. Licona needs to be honest. He needs to admit that his perception that a ghost lives inside his body, communicating secret wisdom and insight to him, has played a HUGE role in his scholarship, his belief in the resurrection of Jesus, and his belief in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Christian holy book, the Bible.
Let me start by saying that I’m an atheist, and I disagree with a lot of Dr. Licona’s conclusions. That said, I don’t think your comparisons to the Rubicon or Tyre are fair, because those are items not charged with religious significance. Everyone has biases. The best we can do is acknowledge them and try our best to work in a methodical manner that doesn’t allow those biases to unduly influence our conclusions. It’s only natural that one’s worldview will affect one’s thinking. Far from not acknowledging it, this is something Dr. Licona emphasizes repeatedly in his writings. I don’t disagree that that Dr. Licona’s experiences have probably colored his thinking, but if believing that spirits and deities are real disqualifies one from scholarship then we will have to throw out the work of a great deal of the world’s best scholars.
Dr. Licona believes that a first century corpse came back to life and is currently the Lord and Master of the universe. He has stated in the comments under his first post that the atheist readers of this blog will suffer eternal torment in Hell for their non-belief in this “resurrected” corpse. The fact that he consults the spirit of this dead man during late night walks, seriously calls into question the objectivity of his scholarship on this issue, in my humble opinion.
The very question at hand is whether that 1st century corpse was brought back to life. You’ve essentially said that “Anyone who disagrees with me cannot be a scholar”, or equivalently, “Only scholars who come to the conclusion I prefer should be considered”. That’s a pretty biased view, from where I’m standing.
Lobe: You are incorrect, my friend. I have the highest respect for many Christian scholars, in particular the scholarship of Roman Catholic scholar, Raymond Brown, because his work demonstrates that he was not afraid to question the historicity of core beliefs of his Church when the evidence indicated it. Brown very much believed in the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus. But unlike Dr. Licona, Brown could admit that many of his beliefs were based on his faith in the wisdom and judgment of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. For Brown, the doctrines of the supernatural “mysteries” of the Incarnation and the Resurrection are true because the Church says they are true not because of historical evidence.
Evangelical Protestants such as Mike Licona would never say that they believe a core teaching of Christianity is true simply because the authorities of the Church say so. Their highest authority is the Bible—their individual interpretation of the Bible—AND the “testimony of the Holy Spirit” in their hearts. Raymond Brown would never say that his faith was based even in part on his perception of a non-audible, communicating (in some fashion) ghost living inside his body.
That is the difference. That is why I do not trust the scholarship of most EVANGELICAL Christians. Their beliefs are based on THEIR interpretation of the Bible and THEIR subjective perceptions and feelings. Historical evidence is simply a “tool”, as Dr. Licona says above. It is not the primary reason for their belief.
I think you’re being hard on Mike. Every scholar has bias, no matter what their faith background may be.
We all have biases, but not all of us believe that we communicate daily with the spirit of the man whose alleged resurrection is in question. Unlike most other Christians, evangelical Christians believe that the spirit of Jesus not only “dwells” in their bodies but he communicates, in some fashion, secret insight and wisdom. Evangelical Christians claim that they have a “personal relationship” with this spirit.
How can they possibly investigate the historical claims regarding a man who died more than 20 centuries ago if they believe that this man’s ghost lives inside their bodies and is their “best friend”??
Belief before reality does strange things to the psyche. That is a tough observation to pass forth to the indoctrinated.
Believing that the spirit of a man who has been dead for 2,000 years is your “best friend” is irrational and delusional thinking, regardless of how intelligent and educated one happens to be. Yet millions of evangelical Christians all over the world believe this delusion. Here is a video of a massive evangelical rally where they work themselves up into physical and emotional hysteria regarding their “best friend”, the ghost of a first century peasant. Can anyone working under this delusion objectively evaluate the evidence regarding this first century man??:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGvxdDsRNUc
I don’t think believing that the Holy Spirit dwells within their bodies is much different than the transubstantiation during Communion. What about someone who believes God is listening to and answering their prayers or the belief that guardian angels are guiding their lives? I don’t think that any of those things discredit their scholarship. I wouldn’t say that believing in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is limited to evangelicals either.
Another excellent method with which to engage evangelical Christians, such as Dr. Licona, is to use Street Epistemology. This is a very non-confrontational method to help Christians see exactly why they are Christian. Is it because of historical evidence? Is it because of prophecy? Is it because of inerrant texts? Is it because of the “testimony of the Holy Spirit” (feelings and perceptions)?
Invariably, the final answer is: feelings and perceptions about Jesus “in their heart”.
Here is a fascinating video involving a conversation between a skeptic and a Christian youth pastor in which the skeptic uses Street Epistemology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A33Y8r_6THE&feature=youtu.be
“Without error in all it teaches”. The Earth was created in 7 days: Wrong. Original sin (Two creation stories that contradict each other and adapted (stolen) from the Mesopotamians) Wrong. Some tribes are “Chosen”: Wrong. The 4 arguments within the texts for why evil exists: wrong. Almost everything Paul taught: Wrong [Crossan: “Paul was as wrong as he was convincing”]. Apocalyptic Theology is correct: Wrong. Slavery is acceptable: Wrong. Women should be quiet, uneducated, and pregnant: Wrong. QUESTION: You believe that “what it teaches is without errors”?
Nichrob: Genre is important. By far, the majority of Christian theologians today do not understand the 7 days of creation to be 7-24 hour periods. And this view is not new. In the 4th century, Augustine said many interpreted the days of creation as geological epochs of time. And that was 1,500 years prior to Darwin. Even today, many theologians regard Genesis 1-11 as myths-history and not intended to be understood as historical in its entirety. All of the other assertions you made are simply that: assertions. And there are responses for each.
I have taken the time to read all the questions posed to you along with your thoughtful and kind responses. You deserve a Klondike Bar.. Thank you for the time you have put into this discussion. We are a tough crowd, but you knew that. Many of us are “Alumni”. Former fundamentalist. But you knew that too…. Now I want to get back to my point and your response. In my journey, I have moved towards a John Dominic Crossan understanding of the Bible. As Crossan puts it, the Bible is parabolic from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation’s final chapter and verse. You appear to be saying “the creation story is parabolic”. I and I presume Crossan would agree with you. The creation stories are “parabolic” and it’s great and refreshing to see fundamentalists finally coming along…. (side note: the fundamentalism I grew up with would disagree with you….). But you pick and choose “this is fact” vs, oh “that is parabolic” (and then throw in a Tertullian or Augustine reference to back up the statement). Well, what if I believe as Crossan does, that the resurrection is a “parabolic” story. You made it clear that you believe it was an actual historical event. I’m past trying to convert you. You are past trying to convert me. But: Stop kidding yourself dear man…..! You pick and choose what is “true” and you pick and choose “what is parabolic”. If the verse condemns women it “genre” or “assertion”. Demeaning women is not “genre” It’s disgusting and wrong….! Your the one who said the Bible is Truthful, not me….. You can’t have it both ways. Is it “God’s” book or not? We’ve all read the book. It’s full of contradictions, it’s filled with hate, false statements, tribal divisions, and it’s a bad read…. But other then that, it’s a great book. And if I haven’t been clear enough, you may want to re-read the “assertion” that the Jews are the children of the devil…… Now there’s a loving Christian thought…. Or was that “genre”, “Roman rhetoric”, etc, etc, etc, etc…. NO, it’s hateful falsehoods….! Period…
Thanks, nichrob. I wouldn’t say Genesis 1-11 is “parabolic.” Admittedly, the matter of how to interpret that text is outside of my lane. So, I want to tread very lightly when referring to it. That said, if a significant number of OT theologians are correct that Gen 1-11 is mytho-history for genre, they don’t usually think that of Genesis 12-forward. Literature can contain different genres. For example, the Gospels contain biography, parables, and teachings, some with apocalyptic flavoring. It’s crystal clear to me that Paul believed Jesus had been raised from the dead and that this was an event in a historical sense. I disagree with Crossan on that matter. If interested, Crossan and I had a debate in Oct 2018 you may view at https://youtu.be/p_7bQlh8uWc. In it, I provide reasons why I think Crossan is mistaken.
Belief doesnt make anything true….if you think a talking snake or donkey is real then I disagree the Bible is the innerant word of god. Keep it simple.
Speaking of “parables”. Here’s a Challenge Parable that sums up my post: Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? “Yes”. Why? “A guy heard from a guy who heard from a guy, who heard from another guy, that Jesus rose from the grave AND, Paul sad he did….!!.” Did Paul know Jesus? “No, Paul didn’t get his message from man, he got his message directly from Jesus in visions”…..!! Do you believe Trump asked a foreign government to investigate a US citizen? “No….!!!!!!!!“ “That is hearsay….!!!!” (Anger added…!!!!!!!!). “You can’t believe Trump committed bribery because that information was told to this guy, who told another guy, who told it to another guy….!!” “He is a man of God….!!!!”
Thanks Michael for posting on Bart’s Blog. I do not lose sight that, you, Bart and Dom are great, loving, wonderful men. I’ve watched your videos. I’ve watched your debates with Crossan. (He’s a terrible debater, but he’s a great writer….!!). I love this blog, and we all know that the money goes to help the needy. And on that note, we are all in this together…!! Cheers…!!!
Even the understanding of the 7-days as epochs is problematic. What was the source of light in terms of which night and day was distinguished before the creation of the sun on the fourth day? The biggest problem however is that Jesus is said to have died because of Adam’s sin and that the whole Christian salvation message is based on mythology.
Mike’s position is proof that even doctors in theology will come up with all sorts of fanciful arguments for convincing themselves of their version of what is true, rather than go wherever rational thinking and the evidence may lead in discovering what is actually true.
Genre is important. Most scholars believe that the genre of the Gospels is “Greco-Roman biographies”. In this genre, what is important is the core story and character traits of the central character (Dr. Licona has confirmed this in one of his excellent books, which I have read.) However, embellishments in the details were perfectly acceptable and even expected.
Therefore, the following is entirely possible: Jesus was crucified. Jesus was buried. Jesus’ tomb was found empty. Speculation arose as to the cause of the empty tomb. This speculation led some to despair (“someone took the body of our Lord”) but it led others to experience cognitive dissonance: they so desperately wanted Jesus to be the messiah; to overthrow the Romans; to establish the New Kingdom—that they experienced vivid dreams, false sightings, illusions, and maybe hallucinations. These experiences led to the resurrection belief. This is the core story we find in the Early Creed of First Corinthians 15.
Then decades later, four authors decided to write Greco-Roman biographies about this man, Jesus. They retained all the core elements of the story, but INVENTED fantastical details, as was common for writers in that time period:
They invented sightings of Jesus on the Emmaus Road; sightings of Jesus in an Upper Room where disciples could touch Jesus and watch him eat broiled fish; sightings of Jesus by women; sightings of Jesus lifting off the ground to levitate into the clouds. This would have been perfectly acceptable in this ancient genre of literature. The early readers of these books would have understood these elements to be fictional. They would not have accused the Evangelists of lying or of deception. Unfortunately, later generations of Christians, who did not understand genre, came to believe that all these invented, embellished details were HISTORICAL FACTS. But they were not. These details simply made the Jesus Story much more interesting to read and hear (and much more dramatic as tools of evangelism).
Why can conservative Christians see fiction in the Creation Story through the lens of genre, but they cannot do the same when it comes to the Appearance Stories in the Gospels??
If there is an all powerful god, why wouldn’t his sacred text be perfect? (inerrant, interesting to read, clear for all to understand universally) For me personally, the fact that the Bible isn’t perfect is just another bit of evidence against the existence of god.
Tuskenp: Your comment seems to assume a certain product as Scripture. I see no reason compelling to suggest it had to be that way. Moreover, there are some things even an all-powerful God cannot do. For example, He cannot draw a square circle. He cannot create a rock bigger than He can lift. Logical impossibilities are exempt as a requirement for omnipotence. As Alvin Plantinga suggested in the 1970s, it may very well be that it’s logically impossible for God to create a world of free beings, all of whom do the right thing all of the time. In a similar way, it may be the case that, apart from divine dictation, God could not have created a Bible that’s perfect and clearly understood in every way.
If Jesus really was god, why couldn’t he have written down the important things he wanted us to know?
“it may very well be that it’s logically impossible for God to create a world of free beings, all of whom do the right thing all of the time.”
So in Heaven, which we presumably occupy for all eternity, we are either not free beings, or we will not do the right thing all of the time. Which do you think it is?
A great answer to this question was once provided by Alan Watts, as to whether God would intend for the bible to be a perfectly reliable guide with one consistent, internally coherent frame of reference. “He would do nothing of the sort, for it would rot our brain,” he said. Perhaps, whatever intelligence might be behind the bible and every other religion’s written or unwritten attempt to connect to the divine, there is very important reason why we should question it (not to reject it, but simply accept it as part of an ongoing search, whether or not the reader finds in it something of personal value)
Dr. Licona: Which takes precedence in your worldview: historical evidence or the testimony of the Holy Spirit in your heart?
That’s a fair question, Gary. If I could clearly identify the testimony of the Holy Spirit ion my heart, that would take precedence. Because I cannot, historical evidence plays a very large part in my assessments about the past.
Fair answer. However, can you see why many skeptics doubt your ability to be objective, Dr. Licona, when you give at least some credence to a “still, small voice” inside your head regarding universal truth claims, including historical claims such as the alleged bodily resurrection of Jesus? If I were to debate you on the historicity of Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, we both would debate historical evidence alone. Neither one of us would appeal to an inner voice as additional evidence for our belief (at least I hope not). So how can you claim to have objectively evaluated the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and the inspiration of the Bible when your belief on these issues is, at least in part, based on an inner voice?
If you were to discover that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is weak, would you still believe in its historicity based on the perceived presence of Jesus inside you? In other words, is the perceived testimony of the Holy Spirit within you sufficient evidence to believe in the resurrected Jesus?
Gary: I think you’re projecting stereotypes onto me. I did not speak of a small voice inside. The fact that I’m willing to trust my historical inquiry above a small voice should suggest to you that I’m trying to manage my biases while conducting my inquiries. If you read my book “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographic Approach,” you’ll see what steps I took to place my biases in check during my investigation.
Every one of us has biases, whether we recognize them or not. And we are influenced by many things. Blaise Pascal wrote, “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” Our desire to discover and follow truth wherever it leads is something many claim but few actually live out. Those who know me well are aware of the extent to which I wrestled with my own objectivity or lack of it going into my investigation. And they are aware of how I dealt with it throughout my investigation.
I certainly agree that we all have biases, but most skeptics do not believe that the spirit of a dead person lives inside their body, communicating with them regarding universal truth claims.
“The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.” –Romans 8:16
Dr. Licona; Do you believe that the spirit of Jesus testifies (communicates) with you (your spirit)?
Yes. But it’s not a voice. And I don’t place such a feeling above what I think the historical data suggests.
Ok, so unlike evangelical scholar Craig Keener, who hears Jesus address him as “my child”, you do not hear the audible voice of Jesus, but you do perceive, in some fashion, the spirit of Jesus dwelling within you, correct, Dr. Licona? You can, as the Apostle Paul said, boldly proclaim: “I know that Jesus lives in my heart/soul.”
“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” –Galatians 2:20
Do you believe this passage of Christian Scripture to be literally true, Dr. Licona? If this passage is literally true, the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth “lives” inside of you. So how can you possibly give precedence to historical evidence related to this first century man when you believe he “lives” inside your body? If I believed that Elvis Presley “lives” inside of me and communicates in some non-verbal fashion with me, how objective do you believe I will be when examining the evidence for Elvis Presley sightings?
Dear Dr. Licona:
—You believe the Bible is (in a vague, general fashion) inerrant because you believe it to be the inspired Word of God.
—You believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God because you believe there is good evidence for the historical claim that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead in the first century.
—You believe that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead in the first century, in part, because you believe that his spirit lives inside your body, “testifying” in some non-audible fashion, that you are his child.
Is that rational thinking, Dr. Licona?
With all due respect for your obvious intelligence and your reputation as a kind and generous human being, why should anyone take your research related to Jesus of Nazareth seriously?
Gary: I really find it difficult to communicate with you sometimes because you not once but often read things into what I say that aren’t there. In fact, I think you are the only one on this blog interacting with me who is doing this. It is not true that I believe Jesus was raised from the dead in part because I believe his Spirit lives inside my body “testifying” in some non-audile fashion, that I’m his child.
Respectfully, I think you have a tendency to project your stereotypes of Christians onto me.
Do you or do you not perceive or sense the presence of Jesus within you?
“The Holy Spirit’s work is essential in order for a person to come to Christ. Who you are and your personal testimony are also very important. Evidence is a tool in your pocket. If you are sharing your faith actively, you will find yourself reaching for it frequently.” —Michael Licona, on his Facebook page, October 12, 2018
Interesting. Why are you proud to talk about the spirit of Jesus “working” within you when talking to a Christian audience but you complain of stereotyping here with skeptics? I alleged that you believe that the spirit of Jesus lives inside your body and communicates with you (I did not specify how). Your statement above confirms my allegation. So why are you refusing to answer the question??
The truth is that you believe that a spirit (ghost) lives within your body and it is the “work” of this ghost that is “essential” for one to believe in the reality of the resurrected Jesus. That is what you say above. The fact that you are hemming and hawing on this issue with us skeptics demonstrates my point: Evangelical Christian apologists use historical evidence “as a tool in their pockets”, but their belief is primarily based on the “work” of their (holy) ghost: the perception that a “superhero” ghost lives within them and communicates with them in some fashion.
My dear fellow skeptics: I believe that the above discussion is a demonstration of the best method we skeptics should use to counter the clever, often contorted, often sophisticated-sounding arguments of Christian apologists trying to convince you of the reality of their supernatural superstitions. Don’t waste your time debating them regarding historical evidence. You must address their core belief: that a 2,000 year old ghost lives inside of them. Once you do this, and refuse to let them dodge the issue as Dr. Licona is so desperately attempting to do here, you expose their belief system for what it is: a silly, EMBARRASSING, irrational, ancient superstition. Conservative Christians engage in scholarship and historical discussion to provide a respectable cover for their superstitions. Don’t buy into their game. Go for the jugular: Expose their belief in human body-inhabitating ghosts.
Gary: I’m sorry that you feel and think that way. In doing so, you set yourself apart from almost everyone else commenting in this thread. You continue incorrectly to project on me your thoughts of what you assume I believe. So, I’m going to leave you to yourself. You are welcome, of course, to continue to comment. And I will approve the posting of your comments. But going forward I will not be replying to you.
How do you know that any of the books of the NT are the inspired, inerrant, Word of God? Some of these books, such as II Peter, were not accepted into the canon until several hundreds years after Jesus’ death. Even if you were to believe that every book in the canon was accepted in the first century by all the churches established by Paul and the Twelve what authority does that give to these books as the “inspired, inerrant Word of God”. Jesus did not certify any of these books. What divine authority do churches have? None, if you are a Protestant. How do we know that the apostle Paul was truly speaking for God and not for himself? Maybe he was mentally unstable. You have zero evidence that Paul was speaking for God or thay his epistles are the Word of God other than appealing to II Peter, which again, was a disputed book. The evidence for the canon of the New Testament as the inspired, inerrant Word of God is extremely weak. It is a matter of faith (wishful thinking).
Gary: I see two issues here: inerrancy and canonicity. They are related to a degree but not entirely, of course. Catholics have a different canon than Protestants. And even the Orthodox have a different canon. I do not base by case for inerrancy on 2 Peter 1:20-21 or 2 Timothy 3:16, although one can certainly use those texts to show at minimum what some first century Christians believed.
Why should we accept any of the books of the NT as the inspired, inerrant (however one wants to define that term) Word of God when we have no authority, other than early churches, attesting to the authority of these books? The truth is that you have no good evidence for the inspiration and truthfulness (inerrancy) of the books of the New Testament other than your assumption that the early churches (fallible human beings) selected the correct texts; your disputed assumption that some of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life; and your assumption that Paul of Tarsus was speaking for God, and not for himself in some state of mental illness.
That is pretty weak evidence for any modern, educated person to believe a never heard of before or since claim that a first century brain-dead corpse came back to life with a super-hero body, levitated into the clouds, and currently reigns as Lord and Master of the universe from a golden throne. Isn’t your belief primarily based on the “testimony of the Holy Spirit” in your heart, Dr. Licona?
One of the problems I have with terms like “reliable” is that the Bible has spawned many denominations, even sects within those denominations, who have different understandings of matters pertaining to salvation, baptism being an obvious one. Use of instrumental music being forbidden in the church being less common, but just as crucial for those who hold to that view. So, either God doesn’t care about these many differences and we’ll all be saved in the end, or there really is one correct way to understand the Bible, and you better get it right, in which case God did a poor job of transmitting His will to us errant fallible people through the Bible. Or, the Bible is purely human-inspired and written, and does not reflect God’s will in any reliable manner. I lean toward the last possibility.
fishcian: I’d say science is reliable. But science can be done poorly. And scientists can interpret the results in an erroneous manner. Virtually all, if not all, of the differences between denominations, and even between Catholicism, Orthodox, and Protestantism do not involve essential doctrines.
I have talked to people in these various branches who would vehemently disagree that the differences do not involve essential doctrines!
Hello, Dr. Licona,
Thanks again for continuing to unpack your understanding. Agree or not, I find it intriguing and worth reflecting on. I do have a question from this reading. You say that if Jesus was risen from the dead then Christianity must be true – to this I wonder – what aspects of Christianity? Allow me to focus that question to something more answerable.
Do you think the world was created in 6 days or would you lean more towards an evolution perspective (presumably guided or driven by divine will)? (What I’m thinking is that your answer may give more insight onto how flexibly you may take things from Christianity. Such as Genesis as divine mythology (a myth but created by-serving God’s will for understanding) or whether such things are literal and that science must be understood in such perimeters. A more applicable case of how you interpret the truth of Christianity onto understanding the world.
Thanks!
Thanks, AndrewB. I suppose we’d have to take a look at each on an individual basis. Regarding creation, I wrote the following in my reply to another: “Genre is important. By far, the majority of Christian theologians today do not understand the 7 days of creation to be 7-24 hour periods. And this view is not new. In the 4th century, Augustine said many interpreted the days of creation as geological epochs of time. And that was 1,500 years prior to Darwin. Even today, many theologians regard Genesis 1-11 as myths-history and not intended to be understood as historical in its entirety.” That said, lets assume for the moment that Genesis 1-11 is in error, regardless of how one may interpret it. If Jesus rose, what he taught is very likely to be true. Of course, one would need to argue that the New Testament preserve the essence of Jesus’s teachings. But you can see how I’d progress in my thinking.
Dr. Licona,
Having watched many of your debates and talks before, I think it would be useful to address a specific example frequently given for why the Bible cannot be described as “inerrant” even in the loose sense that you describe here. Most people familiar with literature of any kind probably agree that the number of times a rooster crowed is inconsequential. What of something much more material, such as whether the women who discovered the empty tomb told anyone or not? Really, you could pick any of the standard “Easter challenge” points. I’m pretty sure I know how you’ll respond, but it will be good to show how the reasoning you lay out in your post actually applies in a practical sense.
jbskq5: Yes, I’ll be happy to. In fact, I address the particular difference you mention in my book “Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography” (New York: OUP, 2017). Mark says “they said nothing to no one” (16:9). We find an almost identical grammatical construction in Greek earlier in Mark 1:44 where Jesus heals a leper and instructs him to “say nothing to no one” but show himself to the priest and make an offering. I take Mark as reporting Jesus telling the man to go straight to the priest and not to stop along the way to tell others about your healing. Moreover, Jesus predicts his death and resurrection several times in Mark (e.g., 8:31-33; 9:30-32; 14:28). So, he already mentions a forthcoming resurrection appearance. Scholars disagree on when Mark was written. But most think it was no later than AD 70. Paul and the other apostles were proclaiming Jesus’s resurrection and appearances to them long before Mark was written, even prior to Paul’s letters. So, Mark would have known of appearances prior to writing his Gospel. Finally, if we interpret the statement “and they said nothing to no one” as meaning they did not tell anyone about what they saw, then how did Mark know about it? In my opinion, everything points to interpreting 16:9 in a manner similar to 1:44 as I’ve suggested above.
“it’s terribly ad hoc. We should look for another solution instead of subjecting the Gospel texts to hermeneutical waterboarding until they tell us what we want to hear! ”
I see your response as an ad hoc solution in order to force the text to say something it doesn’t, as I suspect you suspected.
What would constitute a meaningful difference in order to persuade you that the Bible is not inerrant? Is your starting point inerrancy, or is it a dispassionate reading of the text in its literary and historical context? I ask because to me (and to the majority of critical scholars) the passage I mentioned reads as literary artifice for dramatic effect from an author who was concerned with telling a story, not presenting historical facts. So; if you agree with that assessment, then how can you say the bible is inerrant? And if you disagree, then what would constitute a meaningful enough difference to persuade you otherwise?
jbskq5: Well, I provided reasons why I don’t think Mark is engaged in artistry in 16:8. I’m not sure the majority of critical scholars think that it is. They provide many proposals for what Mark is doing here. Most of them are mutually exclusive.
A difference meaningful enough for me to jettison a belief in inerrancy as I have defined it would be (this is something quick off the top of my head): John’s Gospel claiming in contrast to the Synoptics that Pilate handed over Jesus to the Jewish leadership and gave them permission to execute Jesus in the manner they desired. Henceforth, Jesus was led outside the city and stoned. That would be an error even by my definition.
” Paul and the other apostles were proclaiming Jesus’s resurrection and appearances to them long before Mark was written, even prior to Paul’s letters. So, Mark would have known of appearances prior to writing his Gospel.”
Just because the evidence indicates that Paul and the author of Mark believed that Jesus had “appeared” to some people does not mean that Paul and the author of Mark believed that a body that could be touched appeared to people and ate food in front of them. These details are only found in the later gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John. So it is entirely possible that the original “appearances” of Jesus were based on sightings of Jesus in vivid dreams, illusions of nature (groups of people can see the same illusion), false sightings, etc..
Conservative Christians assume that the appearances mentioned by Paul and the author of Mark involve sightings of a walking, talking, fish eating body but they have no evidence of anyone making such a claim until the appearance of the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John in the late first century.
It is entirely possible that every alleged person or group of persons mentioned in the Early Creed originally claimed to see a non-touchable Jesus in dreams and illusions. The Appearance Stories in the Gospels are later literary embellishments.
Mike,
I think your supernatural worldview (hence Jesus’ resurrection, hence biblical inerrancy) is the pink elephant in the room that you need to more rigorously investigate.
Consider your use of anthropologist Bruce Grindal’s report of seeing a dead corpse rise from the dead and play drums in a highly excited and primitive religious environment in Ghana in the 1960s (first three minutes of your video at https://youtu.be/WRYIr2aBkLk; Grindal’s report at https://www.jstor.org/stable/3629816?seq=1). You give the unmistakable impression in your video that Grindal himself (professional anthropologist and atheist before this event = credibility) *agrees* with you that a real bodily resurrection occurred. However, this is false. Grindal considered his experience an “altered state of consciousness” (pg. 67 and first sentence of article) and writes, “Had I chosen…to set up some objective recording device, such as a camera or tape recorder, the event simply would *not* have happened” (pg.76). Grindal clearly thinks his experience “real” (pg.77) only in some kind of spiritual or consciousness sense. You even innuendoed that Grindal’s rejection of atheism entailed his acceptance of supernatural events, but it might only entail his openness to a God/gods or some kind of spirit world. Grindal’s obituary only refers to a typically secular “celebration of life” ceremony and his dedication to “humanism” and “rational thinking” (https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/tallahassee-fl/bruce-grindal-5054920). More importantly, Grindal provides no firsthand reports in his article of what the others with him saw, nor does he even report asking them what they saw; they all just laugh after the event (top of pg.69) and “no words were said” (pg.77). Given this evidence, the others with Grindal may not have seen the same thing as Grindal, or saw nothing unusual at all. Why do you conclude Grindal saw a real resurrection here instead of concluding Grindal (and possibly others) hallucinated?
Our human tendency to fool ourselves is why we need the scientific method. The most rigorous prayer study on health outcomes to date shows nil results (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-04-05/), but your community could conduct a probably much cheaper, easier, and larger test of Craig Keener’s claim, “the stopping of storms after prayer is not uncommon” (Miracles, pg. 737). Similarly, decades of monetary rewards for demonstrating a supernatural event remain unclaimed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal), but your community could invite serious researchers to paranormal events that you are “invited…to witness” ahead of time (Keener, pg.1). Why doesn’t your community pursue these opportunities?
Thanks, Jon1. After that debate (of which the video link you provided), someone challenged me about how I had interpreted Grindal’s account. So, I reread the journal article he had written and discovered I had accidentally conflated details from one of his accounts with another he had mentioned in the same article. My bad. I don’t recall all the details at this moment. Nevertheless, the main point I was making with that example is that Grindal’s experience was so real that he jettisoned his atheist worldview. He did not become a Christian or even a theist. But he was certain at that point that a supernatural dimension of reality exists and went to his grave with that view. I learned these things from one of his former students and from his widow.
Regarding prayer studies, you have referred to one. There are others published in peer reviewed journals with opposite findings. Moreover, the few studies that suggest no difference in the results of prayer almost always do not distinguish between those of mainline denominations and evangelicals/pentecostals, whereas the others do.
I don’t know of circumstances by which one might invite scientists to observe a miracle. God is not a sort of circus animal that can be goaded into acting.
Thanks for your comments. They are quite off topic from my post on inerrancy. So, I’d rather keep to that subject, so that I can guard my time.
Mike,
I don’t think my two questions were off topic given that Jesus’ resurrection is one of your reasons for inerrancy, and I think you too lightly brush off your mishandling of Grindal’s report (of which you provided the link in the comments of your first post).
Your accidental conflation of details from two of Grindal’s accounts is totally understandable and inconsequential (e.g., it was Tumukuoro’s drummer, not Ali). That’s why I didn’t bring those details up. What I brought up was your unmistakable impression (first three minutes of your video at https://youtu.be/WRYIr2aBkLk) that Grindal himself (professional anthropologist and atheist before this event = credibility) *agrees* with you that a real bodily resurrection occurred. That’s dead wrong. You don’t seem to want to own up to this. Even on what you consider your main point – that Grindal jettisoned his atheist worldview – you leave the listener to assume this means Grindal believes the laws of physics are sometimes violated. Nothing suggests this, and as you note Grindal didn’t even become a theist. I’m guessing Grindal came to believe in some kind of supernatural spirit world, which I can understand for a 27 year-old living for a year in a highly superstitious village exposed to all the things he mentions in his report. You might consider making a correction on the two points above in the comments section of your video so that those who watch it (and have watched it) are not misled. But the biggest point of all is the question I posed that you did not answer: Why do you personally conclude Grindal saw a real resurrection here instead of concluding Grindal (and possibly others) hallucinated?
I believe the prayer study on health outcomes showing nil results I referred to (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-04-05/) is widely considered the most rigorous to date, but good point that evangelicals/pentecostals might produce different results. Can you please cite the study you think best represents your views? My guess is that it has already identified methodological flaws and shows an effect much smaller than anticipated. That is why I suggested your community conduct a probably much cheaper, easier, and larger test of Craig Keener’s claim, “the stopping of storms after prayer is not uncommon” (Miracles, pg. 737). You said you “don’t know of circumstances by which one might invite scientists to observe a miracle.” What about the events Keener was “invited…to witness” ahead of time (Keener, pg.1)? Again, why doesn’t your community pursue these opportunities?
Respectfully.
Thanks, Jon1. I only hesitate to admit error on my part with regards to Grindal’s claim of resurrection because I’d have to revisit the article and check details, which I haven’t done. If I’m wrong, I’m fine admitting it. I’m by no means perfect. My wife can prove it, too! 🙂
Regarding other prayer studies, I’d have to go back and do some research to give you a good answer. Unfortunately, I don’t want to take to the time to do that at this point. I don’t mean to sound disrespectful to you, because I certainly don’t feel that way. I just want to prioritize my time. I do recall at the moment the title of one of those studies. The title was something like “A wing and a prayer.” The physician’s name was Byrd. And it was published in the “Southern Medical Journal.” There are a few others. But that’s one that comes to mind.
Mike,
No problem reviewing the details of Grindal’s report, and no problem making a mistake. My wife and many others prove me capable of mistakes all the time too.
Where can one expect to see your corrections if upon further review you agree that you significantly mischaracterized Grindal (i.e., he does *not* agree with you that a real bodily resurrection occurred, and there is no evidence that Grindal adopted your view of supernatural intervention into the laws of physics)? Also, where can one expect to see you answer my question: Why do you personally conclude Grindal saw a real resurrection instead of concluding Grindal (and possibly others) hallucinated? If you were mistaken here too, perhaps in your correction you can give another example where you believe the laws of physics were violated. Please choose carefully, because these claims take hours to look at closely, and there always seems available a naturalistic explanation or unanswerable questions about the evidence (basically Keener’s entire compilation of miracles).
The link I provided for the 2006 most rigorous prayer study to date on health outcomes showing nil results (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-04-05/) mentions the two decades earlier study (1988) by Dr. Byrd that you prefer (available at https://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.pdf) and says:
“This study [the 2006 study] is particularly significant because Herbert Benson [the physician who ran the 2006 study] has long been sympathetic to the possibility that intercessory prayer can positively influence the health of patients. His team’s rigorous methodologies overcame the numerous flaws that called into question previously published studies. The most commonly cited study in support of the connection between prayer and healing is: Randolph C. Byrd, “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population,” Southern Medical Journal 81 (1998 [should be 1988]): 826–829.”
I am sorry to press this so hard, but why doesn’t your community conduct a probably much cheaper, easier, larger, and more valid test of prayer using Craig Keener’s claim, “the stopping of storms after prayer is not uncommon” (Miracles, pg. 737), and why doesn’t your community invite scientists to observe those events that Keener is “invited…to witness” ahead of time but which Keener can’t because, “my academic schedule and other factors have so far precluded my plan to do so” (Keener, pg.1)? Frankly, it looks like you folks are hiding behind the apologetics associated with historical events instead of subjecting your claims to real scrutiny.
Thanks, Jon1. After I take some time to reassess what Grindal wrote, I may say something in a future publication in which I mention him.
Re: Byrd study, I would have to collect a number of prayer studies, compare them, and make my final assessment. Given my present research interests, this is not a priority for me at the moment. However, it’s something I need to do in the not-to-distant future.
Re: Supernatural, many of us have experienced what we consider to be phenomena of a supernatural nature (yes, “supernatural nature” is redundant). I have had a number of experiences I interpret as “demonic.” I have a friend who is not a Christian, not a theist, has a genius IQ, and is thoroughly convinced he has had multiple experiences of “spirits,” “ghosts,” “apparitions” or whatever one may wish to call them. My friend Dale Allison has experienced an apparition of a dead loved one who imparted accurate information to him he could not have known. My friend Pat Ferguson whom I’ve known for years experienced an apparition of a friend she had not seen for several years that awakened her in the middle of the night at a time she later learned was the moment she had died miles away. Unfortunately, these things often don’t occur in a controlled environment. And many who experience them don’t feel inclined to publish the experience for fear of being thought weird. What I can say is folks like myself, Keener, and many others are not in some sense hiding. For myself and Keener, we simply have moved on and have other interests to which we are attending.
Mike,
How is your reference to spirits, ghosts, and apparitions (and NDEs for that matter) relevant to whether or not a supernatural entity ever intervenes in the *laws of physics* (e.g., causes water to flow against gravity, causes cancer to heal, causes a dead man to resurrect)? I actually think spirits, ghosts, apparitions, and NDEs are interesting fields of study and am open to some kind of existence beyond bodily death, but as you say these phenomena are difficult to study and nail down beyond anecdotal stories. In contrast, your camp’s claims about prayer (“the stopping of storms after prayer is not uncommon”, Keener, Miracles, pg. 737) and claimed supernatural events that you are “invited…to witness” ahead of time (Keener, pg. 1) most definitely involve supernatural intervention in the *laws of physics* and, more importantly, they involve *predictions* that can most certainly be tested. The problem for your camp is that these predictions have already been extensively tested and the results are null. I think you will agree with me (and almost everyone else it seems) when you read all of the prayer studies and see that the 2006 Benson et al. prayer study is the most rigorous to date (summary of multiple prayer studies at http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-04-05/) and that decades of monetary payouts for demonstrating a paranormal event have gone unclaimed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal). That’s why it looks to me like your camp is in some sense hiding from this line of inquiry. Your camp should be deeply disturbed by these results and be leaping at the opportunity to pursue a probably much cheaper, easier, larger, and more valid study of the effects of prayer on things like weather (Keener’s claim) and be falling all over themselves to invite scientists to seriously record and study paranormal events that Keener is “invited…to witness” ahead of time. Instead, Keener’s academic schedule has no time for such things and you all stay mired in historical arguments and anecdotal stories. Why do you think your camp is not pursuing these promising and reliable ways of confirming your supernatural worldview?
“The Holy Spirit’s work is essential in order for a person to come to Christ. Who you are and your personal testimony are also very important. Evidence is a tool in your pocket. If you are sharing your faith actively, you will find yourself reaching for it frequently.” —MICHAEL LICONA, on his Facebook page, October 12, 2018
Dr. Licona: Why when addressing a Christian audience regarding issues related to Jesus of Nazareth do you emphasize the work of spirits but when talking to us, a group of skeptics, you emphasize historical evidence? In your statement above, the alleged work of the spirit of Jesus is given precedence (it is “essential”) over (historical) evidence (simply “a” tool), but in a previous statement in this comment section, you denied this. Why the contradiction?
“The Bible is true, trustworthy, and without error in all that it teaches and to the extent that God intended.” How can this be a justifiable definition, since it creates an rule for post hoc evaluation of what God intended — whatever is verified as accurate is placed in the bin “God intends this” and whatever is verified as false is placed in a bin “God did not intend this”” It seems to fail ever to properly test a) whether God could intend something that turns out to be false or b) whether something could turn out to be true which God did not intend.
sashko123: I agree. To me, inerrancy is not an essential doctrine. At most, it’s of tertiary importance. As I say in the article, once I came to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead after extensive research, I knew that Christianity is true and that some errors in the Bible wouldn’t change that fact. And, if Christianity is true, I have reason to think God would ensure that everything I need to know about salvation and how to please God has been been preserved in Scripture.
Thank you, Dr. Licona, for your response!
The obvious thing to me is: if Jesus is as claimed and God really cares about the message, Jesus could have written “the word” and God made sure it couldn’t be changed. The fact that it relies on human writers, scribes, translators, historians, etc. would prove that if there is a God he really doesn’t care about it much. Assuming a God has the power to communicate directly, why get the message distorted through human filters? Of course many do claim to get direct communication, but people obeying voices in their head often do things condemned by others, like killing people. Well the Bible does say God ordered that kind of thing, so maybe he does still!
flcombs: Of course, God could have delivered His message via divine dictation. That’s not what we have, of course. The question of primary importance to me is “Did Jesus rise from the dead?” If he did, then God simply chose a different way to communicate his message. Perhaps he could not communicate it in the manner we would prefer.
” Perhaps he could not communicate it in the manner we would prefer.”
If god has limits like that, I doubt he has the power to raise someone from the dead and it should be strong cause for skepticism. It would indicate that the stories of the OT and god’s powers to personally appear, communicate and work miracles are false too. There can’t really be an omnipotent god if something is limiting his abilities to do today what Christians claim he can and has done in the past. There are daily opportunities for Christians or god to show clear miracles if they really had the power and if it really mattered. The bible is full of stories where god does those things to get his message and desires across to humans. Otherwise any of us can make the same claims of miracle abilities: If I told you that I had the power of god and can work miracles but “I’m not going to do it right now because that’s not how it works” would you believe in and follow me?
It’s not really a matter of preference: It’s only if there is a god that really cares about you and wants you to get his message would he insure that you got it clearly and untampered. Of course an illiterate Jesus would explain why he didn’t leave any writings for the true word of god. It is really evident even to Christians that there is a great debate over “proof” of Jesus’ resurrection and events of 2000 years ago and with so many different Christian groups, they can’t even agree on the meaning and “commands” of what is claimed to be god’s word. There is no proof or debate needed that there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding and ignorance about “god’s word” and 2000 year old events. So the burden of proof should be on those claiming all that is any proof of a omnipotent, omniscient and caring god and what he really wants!
Even the “Jesus rose from the dead” claim doesn’t prove anything, since even if true, it could just as easily have been Satan trying to deceive and guide people away from his true path, Judaism. But since based on unverifiable 2000 year old stories it could just as easily have been he wasn’t actually dead or other explanations.
flcombs: You wrote, “Even the ‘Jesus rose from the dead’ claim doesn’t prove anything, since even if true, it could just as easily have been Satan trying to deceive and guide people away from his true path, Judaism.” That’s true. But I think it’s logic chopping at this point. If Jesus claims to be divine and risen from the dead, I’m reasonable to trust what he says. Perhaps you would remain unconvinced. Each of us must chose for ourselves.
If the Bible is to be believed as presented today, surely the god of Exodus has the power to ensure his word and desires are known without question. I shouldn’t have to make guesses about events 2000 years before my time, in passed down stories by people I don’t know in languages I don’t understand and bombarded by a myriad of different interpretations about all of it. It shouldn’t be a matter of “faith” but “do or do not” (as Yoda says…)! ???? Most apologist arguments about these things appear to justify reasons for limits on the god they then claim is omnipotent! If true then he isn’t!
Christianity’s argument for god and his nature conflicts with the evidence (maybe is one but not like the claim): he can’t do today miracles and direct communication, appearance, etc. like he used to do to prove his word and desires, resulting in having to argue over ancient stories and documents and confusion. Any omnipotent, omniscient and loving god would certainly want there to be every opportunity for everyone to be “saved” (if really needed from his OWN creation) as is claimed and would want no doubt what he wants and what to do. He has not done that. And prisons are full of people that have listened to “voices in their heads”, so I wouldn’t push that as evidence of what god wants.
Claim is the key: the founders of most religions have claims to some form of divinity or having divinely received the true word of god, yet Christians demand proof. I basically just go by the same skepticism used with them that I learned as a Christian consistently on Christianity as well. But even arguments of one claim being “better” than another doesn’t put any of them at an acceptable level of proof since there is no requirement to have to pick any of them as true or the best one. The arguments used to justify assuming questionable facts as “true” as proof of the resurrection also put me in a position of having to accept other religions as true, which can’t be possible.
BTW, I’m open minded and willing to be convinced with facts, but go with what I’ve seen and debated so far of course. I know it’s not you, but a few years ago I got into an extensive debate for several weeks about the resurrection and other claims about the bible, etc. with (I believe) your son-in-law until the site “crashed” for a couple of months (he asked me to come over from a debate we were having with a letter he wrote to a local newspaper). It was an apologist site and me against many. But the arguments were basically you had to agree to a set of assumptions in order to get to the “proof”. Well if you do that, then you have to also give credence to similar assumptions in other religions and then they also have “proof” and so in the end it doesn’t really matter because they are all true. I haven’t seen anything in other debates and writings otherwise.
flcombs: My son-in-law Nick is a good guy. I’m not aware of the discussion you mention. But I hope it was a pleasant one for you.
It was several years ago (still have a lot of what I wrote before posting but would have to look), but for me I always put these things as discussion and learning and don’t take them personally anyway. I’m an analyst by backgroud so often challenge group-think in religion and politics for the sake of people understanding the other guy. It was probably more like you here where you are mainly the minority view! It was a site compatabile with his views, so a lot of piling on, which I don’t care but seemed like most of them weren’t actually along the lines of the actual discussion and just jumping in and I couldn’t answer them all! I will say that the last posting or two I was taking issue with Nick over some of his “supporting” arguments. He was quoting studies of others to back up some claims (like how various type societies work). It didn’t look that way from what I saw and I actually was able to contact some of them by email and verify that he was misquoting or taking them out of context. Ironically, he had quoted Dr Ehrman as supporing one thing and I showed that was not the case from one of his books and it’s actually what lead me to this blog and many other of his books! Nick was mentioned as criticisim source for the blog item “An Irritating Criticism: My View of Paul’s View of Christ” and someone gave him a gift subcription to participate abd was actually on this blog briefly in 2015.
Hi Dr. Lacona, Was Jesus able to reed and write? If so, why didn’t he write a book of his teaching? The “Book Of Jesus” would have been a better way to understand his teachings. If I had a plan for salvation, I think I would want to write that in a book and not let others do it for me. Thanks Jim
pianoman: I would also want to do it in the manner you suggested. But neither of us created the universe or sustain it. There may be many factors of which you and I are unaware that would prohibit doing things as we think we would. But if Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true and we don’t have to know the details of why God did things as he did.
Hello, Mike, and thank you for the thoughtful post. Many questions come to mind, but the one I would ask you to address concerns a point made by the late Christopher Hitchens regarding the resurrection of Jesus. To paraphrase Hitch, even if one concedes that Jesus rose from the dead (which he did not), how in any way does that confirm Christianity? Jesus is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Further, the concept of a dead/risen/sins forgiven Messiah is never discussed among the Old Testament’s many pages. Only the fertile imaginings of proof texting Christian apologists have been able to connect Jesus to those ancient Jewish writings. For Christianity to have made any sense to its earliest target audience (Palestinian Jews), you would think the good Lord would have spelled out the importance of Jesus and the truth of Christianity a bit more clearly. Your thoughts? Thank you.
I am very quick to admit that I don’t know for certain where I stand on many issues I grew up with as an evangelical Christian. However, God seems to have no problem in working through imperfect people and circumstances, and I feel it only stands to reason that the Bible likewise does not need to be perfect in order for it to be useful and for God to speak through it.
Dr Licona –
Hope you and yours enjoyed a nice Thanksgiving holiday.
Thank you for another thoughtful and nuanced post. I (and many others) greatly appreciate you taking the time to share your views and engagement with us.
With regards to your point about terminology, I think you will find a lot of agreement – the lightning rod seems to be the term ‘inerrant’ itself, because of its connotation of “no errors”. Not the way you define it, but the term’s everyday meaning.
Definition: “The Bible is true, trustworthy, and without error in all that it teaches and to the extent that God intended.”
Question: To understand the extension of this definition, would it be the case that, where there is error or discrepancy, then (by definition) those points at issue would not be have been important within God’s intention?
I ask because of the implications of the following differential in small vs. large matters of discrepancy:
(a) Small Matters: Something like the exact order of operations for the raising of Jairus’s daughter seemingly has little substantive import for one’s ultimate faith. That she were raised would be the crux, the rest is seemingly detail – details which could easily (and justifiably) fall outside God’s intention.
(b) Large Matters: However, something on the order of the fact that the gospels outright disagree on Jesus’s final words (and all attempts at reconciliations thereof are sadly ad hoc), that seems like a much larger issue. Jesus’s state of mind or message that frames the meaning of crucifixion, that isn’t a small matter.
By stipulating the dividing line as to what is allowably errant as that which falls outside God’s intention, it would seem to define as out-group topics/points many articles that the faithful would find very important. And given the many disagreements, it also (empirically) effectively reverse-defines ‘God’s intention’ as that which a theologian is sufficiently clever to reconcile in the face of discrepancy (or error or omission, etc.).
Thank you in advance for taking up the question.
Hngerhman: Thanks for your kind remarks. I’m happy to engage with you all, although today it has taken up several hours. You ask, “would it be the case that, where there is error or discrepancy, then (by definition) those points at issue would not be have been important within God’s intention?” Yes, that seems to be true of my position.
You provided 2 examples:
Small Matters: Differences in the story of Jesus raising Jairus’s daughter. The main difference pertains to whether the girl was still alive (Mark, Luke) or dead (Matthew) when Jairus approached Jesus. I see the difference as Matthew simplifying his account and getting to the bottom line, the gist, of what occurred. He does this several other times in his Gospel. So, I do not view this as an error even in a strict sense.
Large Matters: Differences in how Jesus’s final words are reported. As with Jairus, I treat this in detail in my book “Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography” (New York: OUP, 2017). In short, I think Luke and especially John have redacted Jesus’s words. All Johannine specialists agree that John has adapted Jesus’ words. Of course, they’ll disagree on the extent of adaptation. Even the conservative biblical scholar F. F. Bruce wrote decades ago in his commentary on the Gospel and Epistles of John that John’s version of Jesus’s teachings is an expanded paraphrase, a translation of the freest kind, and a transposition into a different key. The Johannine specialists with right leanings will say John has preserved the voice of Jesus (ipsissima vox) while often abandoning the words he used (ipsissima verba).
Dr Licona –
Thanks so much for the generous time. Your reply was as thoughtful and gracious as ever. And I will indeed pick up your book.
With respect to Jairus’s daughter, I’m somewhat loathe to tarry on it, because we both agree, for different reasons, it is an issue of small import. But there is a point of logic in your argument that I am not grasping.
Per your suggestion, let’s stipulate that Matthew’s intent was one of conscious and goodhearted simplification. It nevertheless remains the case that account A says person D was alive at time T, and account B says person D was dead at time T. On this statement of purported empirical fact, the accounts are logically mutually exclusive.
Stipulating (again) Matthew’s good intent, I would agree that “error” may not be the best label. But, whatever label we ultimately agree to, it is the case that the two accounts are biologically/physically/logically inconsistent on the specific point of what state of the world obtained at time T. If a person (for the best of possible motives) changes a proposition P to proposition not-P, their intent does not thereby obviate the fact of the matter that P and not-P are mutually exclusive with respect to logical truth value.
On Jesus’s final words – funnily enough, I think we’re here also grappling with the same species (or at least genus) of logical issue. Accounts A and B say person J said statement 1 at time T. Account C statement 2, and account D statement 3. The three proposed statements (of empirical fact) are not the same. Granting that Luke and John redacted, potentially transposing statement 1 into different registers and keys, it still remains the case that the statements 2 and 3 are composed of alternative notes with further differing melodic structures. Statement 1 is different than statement 2, and both in turn differ from statement 3. The intent of the composers does not change the fact of the matter that these are not the same melodies.
Thank you for taking the time. I look forward to understanding where my logic has gone awry. Also, I very much look forward to reading your book. I know I am taking head-on these topics you have treated at much further length elsewhere. I just cannot presently see a way around the logic at issue.
Many thanks!
Thanks, hngerhman! As I wrote to another who commented in this thread, the differences can be troubling if one comes to the texts expecting reports to be of the same nature as transcripts of a legal deposition. However, if one comes to the text expecting reports to reflect how events were normally reported in antiquity, indeed, how many of us describe events today in our ordinary communications, one will not be so troubled. Words are paraphrased to communicate the gist of what was said. We compress, conflate, abbreviate, simplify among other techniques. In doing so, we’re not attempting to deceive. Nor do we think we are being sloppy.
Here’s a way I often speak of it in my lectures. Most of us who are married understand that guys often tell stories differently than girls. Girls like details – and lots of them! Guys are more inclined to get to the bottom line. So, we’ll often abbreviate and/or alter minor details in order to avoid having to provide details we regard as being insignificant and for which the guy to whom we’re telling the story could not care less. If you want, take 2 mins and 40 secs and view where I explain this at https://youtu.be/rLwnjx6-5dc?t=483.
Dr Licona –
Thanks for the gracious reply, as well as the YouTube link (I’ve seen several of your talks, but not this one specifically).
If I am interpreting you correctly, it would appear that we agree about the underlying logic, but disagree about standards.
Jairus’s daughter:
– Agree on logic: Jairus’s daughter couldn’t have been both alive and dead when Jairus approached Jesus. That singular detail is inaccurate in at least one account
– Disagree on standards: you – Literary conventions were more lax historically, so a strict logical inconsistency is fine given the then-lower standard; me – The strict logical inconsistency is not fine, but it’s also not at all an important detail
For Jairus’s daughter, the standards issue isn’t particularly acute, as we seemingly agree it’s not an issue of major import (though for different reasons).
The standards issue, however, is seemingly much more amplified with Jesus’s final words. If, because of then-extant literary conventions, it’s judged ”fine” to not correctly portray Jesus’s final words, I think many would argue that the current-day adjudicator’s evaluative standards are set very low. At that level of standard, it’s hard to see how any two propositions, no matter how inconsistent, could be considered irreconcilable.
One final question: Given the work that literary convention can do to smooth over logical inconsistencies, what are the distinguishing features of the (admittedly impromptu) counterfactual of John saying Jesus was stoned outside the city such that it would not pass muster, or the actual fact about the time of Quirinius could be a potential error, but Jesus saying different things at his end would pass the test? Standards set at a level that let literary conventions permit John/Luke to change Jesus’s (quite important) final words, it would seem, would also admit for Luke riffing on time of story or John playing around with mode of death.
You’ve been more than kind to engage at this level (with me and others), so I’m loathe to press the point further. Thank you for all your thoughtfulness and generosity for participating on the blog!
hngerhman: That’s a fair question. I haven’t done enough study to ascertain where the limits were for the use of certain compositional devices. Polybius would allow much less than Sallust would. Luke may have felt more constrained than John. Craig Keener pursues this sort of matter in his new book “Christobiography.” It’s excellent and written by a top shelf scholar!
Why I would consider John saying Jesus was stoned outside the city to be different than the time of Augustus’s census is there is so much in the passion narratives and Paul’s letters that’s connected to the crucifixion, not to mention Jesus’s predictions in the Gospels that he would be crucified. If John had instead narrated a stoning outside the city, that would be a huge difference. In contrast, if Luke’s timing of the census were definitely mistaken, it’s a relatively minor mistake.
Pertaining to Jesus’s final words on the cross, I note these and some possible explanations I regard as plausible in my book “Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn From Ancient Biography” (New York: OUP, 2017).
Dr Licona –
Thanks so much. This has been a true pleasure.
Your books (also picked up the Resurrection book…) are next in my Kindle queue, and I’m very much looking forward to digging in.
All the best!
You’re quite welcome, Hngerhman! Enjoy!
NB – Just bought the Kindle edition.
hngerhman: I hope you’ll enjoy it!
Thanks, I’m certain I will!
I see it this way…God influenced, or moved, particular men to write about what they knew. Some of what they knew could be actual eyewitness accounts, some second-hand accounts, some of it oral tradition passed down. Different observers of the events could have seen things differently, or in the process of oral transmission, some details could have changed, or in the writing, details may have had different emphasis from other writers. Nevertheless, the men wrote what they knew. So if there were factual errors in their knowledge, these would have been made it into the text. But these are not significant because the authors were not concerned about precise accuracy of detail. They were making a statement and were supporting it by relating life events. How many times the rooster crowed was not significant to the story, just that Jesus knew beforehand Peter would deny him.
I had always heard the Bible “does not just contain the word of God, it IS the word of God” meaning the exact words came from God, but there was never any real attempt to explain the differences in the Gospels, for example. I came to realize we place too much emphasis on precise wording and detail when I saw the NT frequently quoted from the Septuagint, a translation that sometimes deviates from the Hebrew text. If the NT writers quoted from the LXX, that made it a legitimate source, sanctioning the variation.
I also look at the fact that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus or the Father instruct anyone to write things down to keep it straight for posterity. The accounts were finally written down for human reasons—the return of Christ was delayed, the apostles were dying out, deviant teachings were taking hold, sending a written document was easier than sending a person, etc. So I see these as human projects where God prompted the people of his choosing to carry it out with what they had. That’s the inspiration I see.
michael51: I think you and I are very close in our view.
Dr. Licona, I’m reposting something I put in your previous topic but too late to get your response. I’d really like to see your answer…
Regarding divorce or separation, in 1 Cor. 7:10-11, Paul passes on a command he explicitly states he received from Christ (which matches what Jesus said in the Gospels), but immediately following in vs. 12-13, he writes something he just as explicitly states is his own advice (not the Lord’s command). Here he has clearly made a statement based on his own wisdom (even though he feels it is divinely approved). My question is this…couldn’t there be other places in the Bible where the writer is speaking from his own personal wisdom and understanding of things, and not necessarily conveying something from God? The writer may feel he is speaking God’s word, or maybe he knows he has no clear direction from God and is just giving his personal opinion or advice which he feels is sound and appropriate for the situation at hand. For example, later in 1 Cor. 11:13-16, Paul makes a statement regarding length of hair. Paul says, “Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.” Really? It looks to me that Paul is appealing to tradition and cultural norms to support his position. Sure, I can see that in the ancient world, short hair was best for men because of their roles as hunters and warriors, and if a woman had long-enough hair, how it would considered a covering. He can’t be referring to nature because, for example, with the lion, the male is the one with the mane. He says “we have no other practice.” Well, maybe that’s because nobody dared to break with convention. So I’m thinking sometimes the writers just gave their best idea in their temproal-cultural context, but not necessarily what God would say for those outside of that.
michael51: I would certainly consider what you suggest as a reasonable possibility.
Dear Dr. Licona,
I appreciate your willingness to once again walk eyes open into the lions’ den! And let me add that I agree that an error in one part of the Bible (the creation myths, for example) does not necessarily invalidate the whole.
I see at least two problems with your argument. First is that it appears to be circular reasoning: You identify those parts of the Bible that deal with salvation as being inerrant because God is responsible for them, but the only evidence we have for the existence and nature of God (Christian version) comes from the Bible. In effect, you claim the Bible as its own authority.
Second, your argument depends on Jesus’s resurrection being unique. But we know of other stories from that time and earlier of resurrections, some bodily. Aristeas of Proconnesus in particular comes to mind. Although the Greek philosophers dismissed the idea of his bodily resurrection, Celsus evidently thought it possible (Against Celsus, iii.26-31) and Tertullian was aware of it.
Regards,
Dan
Thanks, dankoh. I do not think I argued in a circle. I begin with the resurrection of Jesus. If he truly rose, his claims are worth careful attention. Through historical analyses, we can learn much of what Jesus taught. This includes his view of God and Scripture. Thus, I don’t have to hold to an inerrant or divinely inspired Bible to get these.
Although there are a few accounts of bodily resurrection in pagan accounts that predate the first century, they don’t have anything close to the quality or quantity of testimony we have for the resurrection of Jesus. I address parallels in pagan accounts in this lecture: https://youtu.be/GOCHludb7X4
Having de-converted from Christianity over the course of the last two years mainly due to my view over the lack of control a good god should have over his creation. I asked myself, “does God even exist?” I went on a journey and explored outside the realm of theology and blind faith. Having read books on Old Testament archeology and most of Bart Ehrman’s books I knew trading faith for reason was the only logical conclusion in order. Although at times I feel as though I turned my back on an old friend, I also feel that I was duped into believing something that did not exist. I have not changed my views or feelings on life or the actions I take in life. I no longer struggle with the guilt of believing I’m a natural sinner. I now realize I’m a product of human nature with natural feelings and thoughts.
I know that religion/Christianity brings comfort to many people and I support those that believe and need it. I’m not bothered that the currency in my wallet says, “In God We Trust” on it or a nativity scene is placed on the lawn of a public library. All I can say is that from what I have learned lately is that someone (I won’t name names) did not supervise the creation the New Testament very well.
Thanks for your comment, Barfo. However, when all is considered, I don’t at all view embracing the Christian faith as trading reason for faith. When all is considered, in my opinion, the Christian faith makes far more sense than does atheism.
Thank you for your thoughts, Dr. Licona.
1. On this of yours: “The Bible is true, trustworthy, and without error in all that it teaches and to the extent that God intended.”
Your qualifiers following “without error” render your definition of “inerrant” vacuous. For some proposition or precept in the Bible, we need to know in advance what it is and whether it is true or binding. If a passage asserts P, and P is pretty clearly false, and the apologist counters, “well, it’s not really asserting P so it’s not false,” then we wonder whether your thesis is unfalsifiable in principle. Even worse with “God intended.” We don’t know in advance what God intended; we don’t have external information about whether in some passage, God intended P to be taught. But why is the unfalsifiable credible?
2. On this of yours: “if Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true, period.”
Doesn’t follow without auxiliary premises. For example, I was raised in a Hinduistic group that held that Jesus rose from the dead using his yogic powers. The group taught a system of thought diametrically opposed to that of Christianity on many fronts.
You might say, well, Jesus and the biblical writers teach a different system from your boyhood Hinduistic group. But you don’t have a principled basis for rebutting the Hindu who replies, as my teachers did, “those passages in fact aren’t asserting what you think, and God doesn’t intend your teachings to be taught, but rather, other ones:” Back to 1.) above.
Your conception of inerrancy is fatally open to the objection that it’s an “easy to vary” explanation. When any defeater P can be dismissed on the grounds that “the passage doesn’t assert P” or “God doesn’t intend P”, when P is the literal sense, then you’ve inoculated the Bible against disconfirmation but have rendered its claims impossible in principle to evaluate rationally. You may not be able to refute me if I claim that changes in climate are caused by Demeter, in line with changes in Demeter’s emotions, but there won’t be a basis of credibility beneath my “easy to vary” explanation.
Ficino: re: 1, Inerrancy is a doctrine taken by faith. Although I think one can argue for its plausibility. re: 2, I would argue that the Gospels and Paul’s letters are far more likely to preserve Jesus’s teachings than Hindu Scriptures. And one would have to perform hermeneutic gymnastics to make them conform more closely to Hindu teachings than Christian ones.
I’m glad that you are articulating your views on here and that you describe the doctrine of inerrancy as taken by faith. It seems to me pretty clear, though, that what we might call the “genre argument” winds up in special pleading (my 1.), and that appeals to the resurrection accounts as evidence for the truth of the religious teachings threaten to be circular because, as I suggested, those appeals require auxiliary premises which themselves depend on the religious teachings understood in a certain way (my 2. and your response to it).
Dr Licona,
I’m not sure I understand your view correctly. As far as I understand, you say that inerrancy only applies to essential teaching of the Bible. But still there are contradictions and problems in non-essential stories (for example: it’s said that Samuel won’t see Saul again in 1 Sm 15:35, and he sees him again in 1 Sm 19:24 – that’s a clear contradiction!) or even in prophecies (famous prophecy against Tyre in Ezek 26:21 claims the city won’t ever be found, but we all know the ruins were found and are explored by archeologists).
Would you say those kinds of errors matter for your understanding of inerrancy or not? If not, then could you quote any verses in the Bible, that, if they were demonstrated to be in factual error, would cause you to reject inerrancy?
I don’t mean to start an argument, I’m just really curious about your view.
mjoniak: I’d have to spend some time consulting some commentaries to give you an informed answer. What I can offer at present is that some English translations render 1 Sam 15:35 to mean that Saul did not go to see Samuel again until the day he died. Ezek 26:21 is much more difficult. I’d have to give it much thought. It certainly appears to be a failed prophecy, unless it’s some sort of hyperbolic language being used and which we find in apocalyptic language.
If the 1 Samuel passage was an error, it would not matter for my understanding of inerrancy. I think my understanding could also accommodate the Ezekiel text if it were an error. But I would feel somewhat uncomfortable with it being an error.
Dr. Licona – can u explain more fully how u can embrace inerrancy even though u admit there are some errors? Thanks
Kunalians23: I think my post speaks for itself.
Sorry, I might be slow and dense bc I don’t quite understand ur position ( I only read ur big resurrection book but I just finished keener’s christobiography book). Are u saying that ur view of inerrancy can accommodate errors bc those errors are in accordance with the ancient standards of getting the gist but not the details right or some kind of “compositional device”? Thanks for ur patiences
Thanks for the clarification, kunalians23. I’m impressed that you read my large resurrection book and have already finished Keener’s “Christobiography,” which is also a long read.
When an ancient author altered minor details via a compositional device, I don’t consider that to be an error. For example, when Matthew changes the account of Jesus raising Jairus’s daughter in Mark by narrating Jairus to say she was already dead when he approached Jesus with his request and Matthew also omitted the servants from Jairus’s house that later inform him that his daughter has died, I regard that as a streamlining of the story by Matthew rather than an error. We regularly do similar things in our ordinary conversations and don’t consider ourselves to be lying, deceiving, or misleading others. I hope this provides some clarity pertaining to my view. Thanks for YOUR patience!
Thank you for your answer. I have another question: are there any specific passages that you could not accomodate if they were in error? I’m trying to understand what exactly are the limits of inerrancy as you define it.
mjoniak: I would have to look at each on a case-by-case basis. An example of what I consider to be a reasonable candidate for an error in the Gospels is Augustus’s census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Another example is the manner in which Judas died in Matthew. If they are indeed errors, they would negate a strict view of inerrancy. But they wouldn’t necessarily negate my more flexible view. Now, if John reported that Jesus was didn’t die but was rescued by God and healed (similar to what the Quran teaches), then that would certainly be an error in a sense that would negate my view of inerrancy.
So, what are the limits? I don’t know. I’d have to go through a lot of instances in order to determine a limit. And it would be a somewhat of a subjective answer. This is why “inerrancy” may not be the best term.
Ok, I think I understand your position now: what actually matters is the basic tenets of the faith. The rest of the Bible may contain some mistakes e.g. in historical details, or even some contradictions.
That’s a more nuanced view, but I think we can agree that it’s not what Evangelical believers usually mean by “inerrancy” – at least not those that I’ve met! On the other hand, your view seems quite similar to the Catholic teaching, which also admits some errors in the Bible, but not in the most important truths of faith.
I think that if I was still a Christian, I would believe something along those lines too. This seems like the only logical option if you want to honestly admit the problems in the Bible, but don’t want to give up on faith entirely. On the other hand, if you reject the strict view of inerrancy, you become a heretic in the eyes of many Evangelicals, even if you don’t actually reject the faith.
Thank you for the discussion, it was pretty enlightening for me.
mjoniak: Correct. Most evangelicals who embrace the term “inerrancy” don’t think of it in the same sense that I do, although I think there are more that think that way than is recognized. And you’re correct that many evangelicals who embrace inerrancy think someone like myself is going off the deep end into liberalism. However, I’d like to add that, in October, I had a debate on how to understand inerrancy properly at a conference sponsored by Southern Evangelical Seminary, which was started by the late Norman Geisler. You may already know that Geisler had me in his cross hairs for several years and was relentless in his criticisms. Two friends who attended that debate told me afterward that they asked several others there what they thought. Almost all of them answered that they came to the debate regarding me as having abandoned conservatism but now agreed with my view of inerrancy. It’s those like Geisler who promote a rigid view of inerrancy and demonize those in disagreement. But when they actually hear what I regard as a more reasonable view, they change their view. If you’re interested in viewing that debate, it’s at https://youtu.be/rLwnjx6-5dc.
However, my view of inerrancy goes further than the Catholic view, which, in my understanding, only applies to matters related to salvation.
“Hermeneutical waterboarding” – I have to admit, that’s the first time I’ve seen those two words strung together – lol! Did you pick this term up from somewhere, or is it your own creation? Either way, very inventive! 🙂
In my opinion, this whole issue of inerrancy is built on a very shaky foundation – i.e. that the Bible is in some way, shape or form the Word of God. If one doesn’t accept the premise, the entire edifice crumbles. It also betrays our (very modern) penchant for seeing things in dualistic terms – yes or no, black or white, right or wrong.
I do, however, tend toward a more generous approach to the issue. I accept that the Bible, or parts thereof, can contain inspired thoughts and words in the same way that a poet, writer, or musician can receive inspiration from her “muses”. Whether this source exists deep in our brain, psyche or soul, or exists outside of our individual selves (or perhaps both), I think we can indeed occasionally tap into this deep wellspring of wisdom and creativity, and produce something truly extraordinary. If we want to call this source God, then yes, I think we can indeed call portions of the Bible the word of God. However, making the leap to then saying the entire Bible is the inerrant (however we want to define that) word of God seems to me too generous a concession to make.
Apocryphile: “Hermeneutical waterboarding.” 🙂 I’m glad you liked the term. In Dale Allison’s wonderful book “Resurrection Jesus,” he mentions how “if we want, we can torture the data until they confess what we want to hear” (343). I thought that was a great statement. When I read that book years ago, it was when the discussion on the ethics of waterboarding was front and center. I was teaching some military chaplains in South Korea in 2011 when the thought came to mind. I used it. The chaplains all laughed. And I have since used it often!
Dr. Licona, your view is well presented but I still fail to see how mistakes are accounted as inerrant. You mention two statements; The Lausanne Covenant and The Chicago Statement on Biblical Errancy. I have not read the former, but the latter, I have in front of me as I respond to your post. When reading the preface, it sounds like a warning to believers in professing faith and obedience. I have no problem with that. The last paragraph, of preface, invites further response from any who see reason to amend. It seems like admission to errors. After the preface, is a ‘ A Short Statement’. Paragraph 2 & 4 are striking. Number 2 ) starts off with,” Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit…..4 ) states; ” Being wholly and verbally God – given, Scripture is without error or fault in all it’s teaching”….. That does not sound like God allowed men to write Scripture with all it’s errors. God’s own word, wholly and verbally God-given? Furthermore, assuming I go along with your explanations, when I read in Mark and Luke, the crucifixion story and want to know how Jesus went to the cross, which one do I believe? Was he quiet, feeble and almost sounding scared as in Mark or was He talking and affirmative knowing what was about to happen He foreseen? I get a mixed view of Him, yet it is God’s Son. Does God get it wrong or doesn’t want us to know? The statements you speak of, come from believing people who collaborate in a general consensus and nothing more. It does not make the Bible inerrant because they said so. Prof. Ehrman and others have shown there are plenty of mistakes, as well as you have said, so it is a play on words ( philosophy) to articulate it well enough for those who raise the question. Churches, to your defense, do not explain it like you have presented here. I would suggest corroborating with them so you are unified in your thesis. Thanks for your post.
Thanks, veritas. You’re correct about the Chicago Statement. The way they see it, the originals are inerrant because God directed every word to be exactly as it is. Errors have crept in during the transmission process. But most can be identified and the remainder are minor. But, as you saw, I have reservations with the Chicago Statement.
You write, “Furthermore, assuming I go along with your explanations, when I read in Mark and Luke, the crucifixion story and want to know how Jesus went to the cross, which one do I believe? Was he quiet, feeble and almost sounding scared as in Mark or was He talking and affirmative knowing what was about to happen He foreseen? I get a mixed view of Him, yet it is God’s Son. Does God get it wrong or doesn’t want us to know?”
It’s an oversimplification to say that each Gospel author had different aspects of Jesus they wished to emphasize. But that’s the main idea behind some of the differences and may very well be what you’re observing in Jesus going to the cross in Mark and Luke.
As I read some of your responses, I appreciate your candid responses to all the posts. You seem to apply personal and professional scholarship research in a balanced approach while keeping your beliefs and still admitting that some answers are difficult/ knowable to answer. On a side note, I would like to know your view on how old the earth is? Most conservative apologist/evangelicals claim it is less than 10,000 years old. Thanks !
Thanks much, veritas! My view on the age of the earth is that it’s probably 4.5 billion years old while the universe is around 13.5 billion years old. Things have changed among Christian apologists in the past several decades. Today, I’d say a very large majority do not hold a young earth view of creation. In fact, I’d guess that only a few hold that view.
Just wanted to chime in on the Vatican II Dei Verbum line about inerrancy. What’s extremely frustrating about that line is that it footnotes a reference to another Catholic document Providentissimus Deus, which takes a much more strict stance on inerrancy. Some Catholics will point to that footnote, saying the view on inerrancy hasn’t changed since the earlier document. Others will take a position closer to your stance. As an anecdotal personal story, when I was having trouble with OT genocide, NT discrepencies, and inerrancy in seminary I expressed this stuff to a friend there. He ended up writing his MA thesis on it, claiming the Catholic church believes in plenary inerrancy. At the thesis defense it was fascinating to see different faculty members question which view the Catholic church did in fact hold. Granted this was a seminary (not a research institution or a council), but it just goes to show the range of opinions even within one church.
mtavares: That’s pretty interesting. On the matter of canonicity, I have received different answers from prominent Catholic scholars on how the Catholic Church views the OT Apocrypha.
Thanks for taking the time to set out your views!
In Point 2, you mention “We know that our present Biblecontains some errors. Yet, we do not despair over trusting it, because theerrors are trivial and we trust that God in His sovereignty has ensured thatour present Bible is sufficiently accurate to accomplish all that He intends. ifwe allow for errors in the autographs, we would take the same approach withthem as we take with our present Bible.” Could you explain this a bit more? Do you say in short we trust God in this matter?
In Point 5 you mention “if Jesus rose from the dead Christianity is true, period”. Could you explain this as well? Because for me there are still questions if that may be true. Because what with all the other miracles whom be claimed to be divine with the same(or more) amount of evidence? But related to this topic, how do you come to the conclusion that if Jesus rose from the dead, that the Bible is true as well?(most important question)
D-men: In short, yes. The longer argument: If Jesus rose, we have a good reason for listening to him. Through historical inquiry, we can ascertain quite a lot of what Jesus taught. Because he rose from the dead, I believe his claims about himself and his teachings. And I would anticipate that he who claimed to proclaim the kingdom of God would see to it that his message would be preserved. Some of his teachings pertain to God’s character. Based on this, I trust that God ensured that we have what we need in Scripture to please him and do his will. Of course, this is by no means an air-tight argument. But it’s why I have chosen to believe what I do about Scripture.
Mike Thanks again for your time dedicated to this forum.
I am really interested in your opinion about the following:
So how can we really know if a text was written by divine inspiration? Earlier you answered that YES we may sometimes have a confirmation bias of our “beliefs.” So since only one of the two parties involved in the writing is the one that tells us that a text is inspired by God, since the other part (GOD) has not directly confirmed that what was written He inspired it, I can think that “divine inspiration is nothing more than a biased belief. In this way I can say (and believe) that other (very recent) texts are also inspired by God, such as” A Course in Miracles “and” Conversations with God “?
Thanks, cristianp. In my opinion, there are historical truths and theological truths. The former can be established via historical investigation. The latter cannot. The case for the divine inspiration of Scripture falls in the latter category. All I can attempt to do is explain my reasons for thinking Scripture is divinely inspired. Faith is absolutely involved. But I think it’s reasonable to believe Scripture is divinely inspired, given the reasons I provided in my first post, if Jesus rose from the dead.
“Hermeneutical waterboarding” — that killed me 😀
You emphasize, as many believers do, the resurrection of Jesus as the foundation upon which the truth of the remainder of the gospel assertions stand. If I am reading you right (from this post but also from your speeches and debates), the events and actions accidental to the crucifixion and resurrection that differ from gospel to gospel don’t matter in themselves, but they betray a central truth that Jesus was crucified and was then raised from the dead.
So assuming the above is mostly right (please tell me if it’s not), I have a couple questions: 1) Do you differ the long-distance recounting of the gospels in your mind from the voluminous similar stories from antiquity regarding popular figures who died and were later seen alive in some fashion? 2) What in the gospels themselves speaks with greater authority than these other tales, such that the gospel accounts of the resurrection can hold the weight of all of Christian theology?
Thanks Mike! Great post as always.
Thanks much, tskorick. If one reads the four Gospel accounts of Jesus’s crucifixion, one will note a number of differences. These differences can be troubling if one comes to the text expecting reports to be of the same nature as transcripts of a legal deposition. However, if one comes to the text having read the reports of other major events, such as Caesar’s assassination in Appian, Cicero, Dio, Livy, Nicholaus, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Velleius, one will not be so troubled, because the sort of variations in details in the reports of Caesar’s assassination are even greater than what we observe in the multiple reports of Jesus’s crucifixion.
Regarding parallels to Jesus in pagan literature, here’s a lecture I did 2 or 3 years ago in which I provide some answers to the question you ask: https://youtu.be/GOCHludb7X4
Dr. Licona, your focus on the Resurrection as the linchpin of faith does a good job of shifting the focus from insignificant details about crowing roosters to much larger issues such as the content of the resurrection narratives. But there, too, I think there are significant problems for biblical inerrancy.
A while back there was a discussion here on the blog about whether the disciples returned to Galilee to meet the risen Christ. Mark explicitly tells us they were instructed to do so; but because of the abrupt ending of that gospel, we aren’t told whether they actually did or not. Matthew’s account tells us that they did indeed go to Galilee as instructed, and that they did see Jesus there as promised, so he and Mark do not significantly disagree on this point. So far, so good.
But Luke stands all this on its head. Despite his claims to deep historical research, and his obvious dependence on Mark for a lot of his material, he never mentions either the instruction to go to Galilee or any appearance of Jesus there; on the contrary, he depicts the risen Christ as telling the disciples not to leave Jerusalem at all until the coming of the Holy Spirit, which did not take place until after the Ascension. And then of course there are the resurrection narratives in the gospel of John, which have problems of their own.
It seems impossible to construct a reasonable chronology that reconciles all these different accounts, which would seem to cast serious doubt on the accuracy and integrity of at least some of them.
So my question is: Given the apparently irreconcilable differences among the gospel authors on something as basic and essential as the location, content, and sequencing of the resurrection narratives, how can one still claim any kind of “inerrancy” for these highly important stories?
jrblack: Good question. With most critical NT scholars, I understand Luke to be compressing his resurrection narrative, intentionally narrating Jesus’s resurrection, all of the appearances, and his ascension to have occurred on Easter Sunday. However, Luke is aware these events occurred over a longer period of time. For in Acts 1:3, he says Jesus appeared to them over a period of 40 days after his resurrection. Compression is a compositional device commonly employed by ancient historians. In fact, we often employ it even today in our ordinary conversations. Since Luke is compressing events in his narrative, he will have to alter some details. So, if you’re trying to reconcile every detail in a wooden sense and without literary sensitivity, you’re not going to be able to do so. But I don’t regard such a practice – a practice in which even many Christians engage – to be legitimate.
Notwithstanding, the matter of whether Jesus first appeared to the group of his male disciples in Galilee (a la Matthew and implied in Mark) or Jerusalem (Luke, John) still remains. Bracketing Luke, this is a very difficult difference for which I don’t know the answer. I’m inclined to think it occurred in Jerusalem and that Mark, followed by Matthew, deliberately relocated it in Galilee for some reason that eludes me. I discuss at length the differences in the resurrection narratives in my recent book “Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn From Ancient Biography” (New York: OUP, 2017). Virtually all of them are quite easily explained by the use of compositional devices. These will be discussed in my third post here.
With regard to the relocation of the resurrection appearances, I think it makes more sense that Luke is the one who has done the relocating, while Mark and Matthew have preserved the original tradition. Jesus was clearly a Galilean, as were most if not all of his closest disciples; and according to the oldest layers of the tradition he seems to have conducted most of his public ministry in or near there as well. It is only after his Transfiguration on a Galilean mountain (most likely Hermon, the highest and most sacred peak in the region) that he decides to go to Jerusalem, probably for the first time. Given all that, it is only natural that he would have instructed his disciples to return to their native Galilee after the coming ordeal in Jerusalem, and to meet him on that same holy mountain–known for centuries as the gateway to heaven–to receive their final commission before his ascension.
The problem from Luke’s perspective would have been that Galilee was notoriously infested with Gentiles and heretics, and so got little respect from religious Jews, whereas Jerusalem was the ancient center of Jewish religion and an internationally renowned “holy city”. Hence there would have been a natural tendency over time for the early tradition to be reworked to situate more and more of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem, whether it actually occurred there or not. (According to Luke, even Jesus himself–responding to a warning about Herod’s murderous intentions–says “it cannot be that a prophet should perish apart from Jerusalem”.) If important religious events were to occur, they were supposed to happen in the holy city itself, not in some Galilean backwater.
So if any of the gospel writers were likely to re-situate the resurrection narratives away from their actual location, it would not be to move them from Jerusalem to Galilee, but rather to move them from Galilee to Jerusalem–which is precisely what Luke does.
jrblack: You make a good case. What keeps me from going there is John’s account. John is not compressing the resurrection narratives. He narrates appearances in Jerusalem and in Galilee. Moreover, if the majority of Johannine specialists are correct, John’s author uses the eyewitness testimony of one of Jesus’s apostles, i.e., the Beloved Disciple. Whether that was John the son of Zebedee or one of Jesus’s minor disciples also named John is irrelevant here. It’s still eyewitness testimony. Now, I think the same regarding Mark basing his Gospel largely on the eyewitness testimony of Peter. But I prefer John’s chronology because he provide more details and more appearances. That said, the matter of the location of the first appearance to the group of male disciples is a perplexing one! I do not hold a firm opinion on where I presently lean.
The fact that John places at least one appearance in Galilee suggests that Matthew and Mark weren’t blowing hot air when they pointed in that same direction, so we can’t just ignore their testimony on this point.
I think the only way out is to accept that all the canonical narratives have some basis in reality, but also that the authors (or editors) have overemphasized some aspects and downplayed or eliminated others. If we do this, we get a surprisingly consistent sequence of events: (1) The disciples are hiding in Jerusalem when the women return with a message from the risen Christ–which the disciples disbelieve. (2) Jesus appears, proves his identity, etc.–at which point we would expect him to repeat his instruction to go to Galilee. (3) The disciples go to Galilee, where Jesus appears again. (It takes about a week to walk from Jerusalem to Galilee–hence John’s “after eight days”. Most people assume this appearance happened in Jerusalem, but it could just as easily have been at Peter’s house in Capernaum.)
Now we’re in Galilee, where John’s third resurrection story takes place. And after that? At least part of the motivation for returning to Galilee must have been to gather the Galilean believers for the Great Commission and Ascension. (Note that the angels who appear at this point address the disciples as “men of Galilee”, which could refer to a much larger group than just the Eleven.)
Next we turn to Acts, where Jesus tells the disciples to stay in the City until the coming of the Spirit. In order to stay there, they have to be there–and so we get a week-long trek back to Judea, presumably with a bunch of Galilean believers in tow–hence the claim in Acts that “the company of persons was about 120”.
This approach is consistent with almost everything in all the resurrection narratives, without requiring anything that is intrinsically improbable. The only real problem is that Acts explicitly says that after the Ascension they “returned from the mountain called Olivet”. But given how Luke entirely edited out the command to go to Galilee, I don’t think we can give him absolute credence on this point. And in any case, the textual tradition for the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts is so muddled that it’s impossible now to know exactly what Luke actually wrote, much less what he intended.
jrblack: You wrote, “I think the only way out is to accept that all the canonical narratives have some basis in reality, but also that the authors (or editors) have overemphasized some aspects and downplayed or eliminated others.” I agree entirely.
Hello Dr. Licona. Thanks for doing this blog series. Great to hear you have built up a cordial friendship with Bart (unlike some of Bart’s debate opponents), and learned to agree to disagree on your respective diametrical religious worldviews. I would like to pick your thoughts on some points made in this and previous post.
“why think the Bible is divinely inspired?…I’ll provide 3 key reasons. #1 Jesus rose from the dead.”
Surely, it is not Jesus’ purported resurrection per se which confers authority on his teachings, but the theological claim – if true – that he ascended to the right hand of God to be judge over all? (In words of Paul, “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name”). Lazarus and the saints referred in Gospel of Matthew, were also raised from the dead. This tells us nothing about the veracity of what they believed. According to Christian theology, everybody – believers and non-believers alike – will eventually be physically raised from the dead by God. Yet this says nothing about the veracity of their beliefs or authority. Even if we grant that the actuality of resurrection is amenable to historical evaluation, the claim that Jesus rose to the right hand of God is surely beyond historical or empirical investigation of any sort. Hence the historicity of the resurrection seems to have at best peripheral relevance to the doctrine of biblical inspiration.
“a growing number of historians hold that Jesus claimed to be divine in some sense”
In Bart’s “How Jesus became God”, he argued that the NT authors including the gospel evangelists believed Jesus to be “divine in some sense” and that the Greco-Roman world entertained different degrees of divinity. However, neither Bart nor Larry Hurtado (whose early high christology thesis is largely accepted by Bart) hold that Jesus himself claimed to be divine in any sense. Surely it remains a marginal position in critical scholarship that Jesus himself claimed to be divine?
“Paul believed he had received authority from Jesus to teach…And his essential teachings were confirmed by the apostolic leadership…if Jesus is divine, his teachings are authoritative and we would expect for him to have commissioned his disciples to pass them along…That commissioning would bestow authority on them.”
This line of argument seems highly attenuated – multiple leaps of arguments are required. You had a debate with Dale Martin in 2012, when he sharply rebutted that Paul was just one ancient writer out of many, and he did not receive universal recognition in the early church. Even if we grant Paul’s writings were authoritative on grounds of apostolic leadership, it is hard to see how this argument can be extended to anonymous works like the Epistle to the Hebrews, which according to evangelical doctrine of biblical inspiration is equally authoritative and inspired as Paul’s works.
Does your conception of biblical inerrancy allow for the possibility that GJohn as a whole is not meant to be a straightforward historical account of the life and ministry of Jesus? I think in North America, a lot of evangelicals in the pews and many evangelical scholars, would think such a conception does not deserve the label of biblical inerrancy at all. Your relatively “liberal” version of inerrancy would be vigorously contested by authors like G.K. Beale 2008 (“The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority”).
It would be interesting to know which view presented in “Five views on biblical inerrancy (Zondervan, 2013)” is closest to yours. Albert Mohler, presenting the “classic” doctrine of inerrancy would clearly be on your theological Right, while Peter Enns holding that “inerrancy however defined does not describe what the Bible does” would be on your theological Left. Perhaps Kevin Vanhoozer’s view framed as “Augustinian inerrancy” is close to your view.
I look forward to reading your third post.
Hon Wai: John’s Gospel is a perplexing matter. N T Wright once said, “I think about John like I think about my wife: I love her very much but don’t claim to understand her.” 🙂 All Johannine scholars acknowledge Johannine adaptation of the Jesus tradition.
you’re correct that GK Beale would disagree with my view. I align myself closer to Mike Bird’s view in the 5 views book.
Thanks for the post! You are one of my favourites to watch when Dr. Ehrman debates scholars who are Christian. Early Christians disagreed about so much (was Jesus fully human or partly God when he was on Earth, the trinity, gnosticism, the exact definition of Jesus’s divinity, for examples), just as Jews at that time disagreed amongst themselves, and later Christians have done since forever. There were arguments about which books should be in the cannon, and even when that was decided, splits emerged. The OT and NT also seem to have few issues with slavery, or the domination of women. Which is to say, when you look at church history and records, it looks very human. And the NT even has forged letters that contradict genuine writings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus. While I’m amazed at how much truth and wisdom is in the Bible, I don’t understand how anyone could argue that it is in any sense inerrant when the seams become more visible as we study it closer.
Thanks, Darren. You’re correct that the early Christians disagreed on whether Jesus was divine. However, it seems to me that the apostles were all in agreement that he is. Paul certainly believed Jesus is divine. And he said the Jerusalem leadership (i.e., Peter, James, John) had certified his gospel message to be aligned with their own. Certainly, something as fundamental as Jesus’s divinity would have been part of that message. So, although some early Christians disagreed and did not view Jesus as fully divine, it’s what the apostles thought that matters most.
Mike, as a Roman Catholic, I think you are one of the best in the field these days. You are an amazingly talented scholar. Keep up the great work you do
Dr. Licona, this is going to be the hardest question you have been asked here! As my screen name (piano man) suggest, I play the piano (and organ) professionally. I also tune and repair instruments. I hear you have a college degree in Saxophone? Next time you debate Dr. Ehrman, why don’t you end the debate by playing a hymn or something on your Saxophone? I think we would all enjoy hearing you play!
pianoman: Ha! Yes, I have a BA in Applied Music (saxophone performance). However, my horn has been laying around for years. Although I enjoyed playing, I don’t want to take time away from my research in order to practice. So, as a professional yourself, I don’t think you’d “enjoy” hearing me play these days! 🙂
[Must resist snarky attitude]. Professor Ehrman, this question is for you since Mr. Licona’s argument is not logical, professional or historical oriented. [/Not..resisting..well]. Everything is backwards. Licona sets a condition that you have to start the argument by being officially neutral regarding impossible claims. This is like trying to predict who will win the World Series but having an assumption that pitching doesn’t count. Licona then tries to use the possible to prove an Impossible conclusion (resurrection). But he started with the assumption of being officially neutral regarding all impossible claims.
The Apologetics is trying to claim that because the possible claims are (supposedly) historical this is evidence that the impossible claims are historical. In the real world though the relationship would be the opposite. Impossible claims are evidence that the possible claims are not historical. Interestingly, as this argument is backwards, if you just have to accept the possibility of Divine Creatures, this would be better evidence of The Other Guy since the only thing everyone agrees on is The Other Guy is famously Backwards.
So, the one possible question for you here. Would you agree that no amount of possible claims in the Christian Bible is going to make the resurrection historical since resurrections are impossible (or, to borrow your phrase, “almost certainly” not historical because as the King said in Braveheart when editing his reward conditions for William Wallace, “Alive, or dead. Just as good.” “Impossible or almost certainly impossible”. Just as good).
http://skepticaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
Hi Dr. Licona,
You wrote: “Many years ago I came to the understanding that, if Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true, period.”
Doesn’t this reasoning depend on the assumption that Jesus affirmed the truth of Christianity in his public career, prior to being crucified? (For if, hypothetically, he actually affirmed something subtly different from standard Christian doctrines, and Christians have misunderstood him all this time, then the resurrection would at best confirm the truth of the doctrines he actually asserted, and *not* Christianity.)
Omar6741: Although there are many different doctrinal beliefs in Christianity, most agree on the fundamental doctrines. And these are fairly well attested in the NT. So, while I agree with your statement that “the resurrection would at best confirm the truth of the doctrines he actually asserted, and *not* Christianity,” I’m inclined to think the most important doctrines can be established as things Jesus taught.
Thank you for that clear, balanced answer!
As a follow up question, I am now very curious as to whether you think the most important doctrines of Christianity include these (a) the virginal conception of Jesus;
(b) Christ’s descent into Hell, just before the Resurrection, to rescue souls being punished there;
I mentioned (a) because it doesn’t seem that Jesus taught it about himself; it now occurs to me that this is a good test case for understanding your notion of biblical inerrancy: does your inerrancy belief imply that the virginal conception of Jesus is true? If so, what would it imply about the other details in the canonical infancy narratives?
Warm Regards,
Omar
Omar6741: There is disagreement among theologians pertaining to the non-negotiable essentials of the Christian Faith. That said, I think most would agree on the incarnation, deity, atoning death, and resurrection of Jesus.
I believe Jesus was born of a virgin. However, if it turns out that his incarnation occurred otherwise and that the virgin birth turned out being false, I have no problems thinking Christianity would still be true. Jesus’s virgin birth does not appear in any of what we might call “gospel formulas” in the epistles.
Dr. Licona,
I just want to make sure I have understood your definition of inerrancy. Let me share a hypothetical example.
Imagine that, by December 2020, all archaeologists with any interest in Israel have reached a firm, unanimous agreement that Bethlehem, and the immediately surrounding area, were completely uninhabited between 30BCE and 30CE. All of them agree with the detailed arguments for this conclusion, and not one of them sees the conclusion as in any way doubtful.
With such an impressive consensus of experts, one would have to believe that Jesus was *not* born in Bethlehem . And then how could one affirm that the Bible is true and trustworthy in everything it teaches, as inerrancy requires?
But there is one final clause in your inerrancy definition, and I am not sure how to understand it; this clause says “to the extent God intended”. My problem is that this seems otiose: can’t one see the extent to which God intended the Bible to be true just by noticing what He actually put in it? If so, why add anything about His intentions? If not, then this is a clause that will allow the Christian to dismiss just about anything that might show the Bible to be incorrect in what it teaches, by allowing him to conclude “Oh, obviously this error was not part o f the ‘extent’ to which god wanted the Bible to be true and reliable.”
Romans 5 ties explains why we need the crucifixion of Jesus, and that explanation assumes the J-Source creation story. So while a Christian can dodge the 6-day creation of a 6 thousand year old Earth in the P-source creation story, the error of the J-source creation story defeats Christianity at it’s foundation. An inheritor of Adam’s sin needs the resurrection; a chimpanzee’s cousin does not. So what is Jesus’s resurrection worth if the first 11 chapters of Genesis aren’t real?
If Genesis 1-11 is mytho-history as many theologians contend, I don’t see how that would negate the truth of Christianity, given Jesus’s resurrection.
…for the reason explained in my original post.
[M. L.] “If Genesis 1-11 is mytho-history as many theologians contend, I don’t see how that would deny the truth of Christianity, given Jesus’s resurrection”.
———————————
Very simple, Mr. Licona. If Genesis 1-11 is a myth, a legend, Adam and Eve are also a myth (which, by the way, is true with 99,99% of probability, according to empirical studies and mathematical modeling of modern science of population genetics) . The original Sin and the consequent Fall (with capital S and F, as the Lutherans and Calvinists like to write it) of humanity, is a legend, a literary fantasy. If the Fall of man is a myth, it was a completely unnecessary cruelty for God the Father to send Jesus his Son to be fiercely slaughtered and killed by humans to forgive a Sin of disobedience that never existed, which is only mythological. And therefore, being God infinitely just and merciful, he could not do such a cosmic evil. Therefore, it is logical that God the Father never sent his poor son Jesus to the Earth to be tortured without cause. The death of Jesus and his resurrection, the Atonement that is a fundamental belief for Christianity to be true, was unnecessary and therefore, never happened.
Consequently, Christianity, as defined orthodoxly, is false.
Or God the father is a moral monster, a celestial dictator capable of sacrificing his son because a mythological narrative.
A little help for you Mr. Licona to keep your faith in Christianity more or less afloat: even if the real existence of Adam and Eve and their Sin of disobedience is pure mythology, it may be thought that God knowing that in the future all humans (as Paul says in Romans) we would sin, he decided to anticipate to the facts and choose a time in the history of humanity (without explaining why that moment of history and no other) and proceed to the sacrifice of his son, to the Atonement so he, the God, could forgive as many sins as humanity would commit.
I agree with your points, particularly point five. Thank you.
Dear Dr. Licona, I won’t take up any more of your time with provocative questions, most of which have already been asked and answered in any event. I do want to compliment you on your cogent and well-expressed arguments. I appreciate and value well-constructed and intelligent arguments, even (especially) when I disagree with the assertions being made. It causes me to honestly reevaluate my own beliefs and worldviews. It encourages me to reflect on my biases and less than rational conclusions. Thanks for taking the time to contribute. As a writer, I know the time involved, followed by more time thoughtfully addressing all these questions. BTW, I especially love, “We should look for another solution instead of subjecting the Gospel texts to hermeneutical waterboarding until they tell us what we want to hear! Such a solution I will offer in my next post.” Beautifully said—and I can’t wait to read what’s next.
Thanks so much for your gracious reply johnmaxx. I have enjoyed the interactions with you all. By far, most of you have been very kind and gracious to me. And I am thankful. The questions and pushback I have received have been thoughtful. It’s a good testing ground for my views! I don’t expect that all of my views are correct. And I’m certainly open to changing those that are not. So, thanks for your kindness.
Hello Mike, isn’t the absence of the longer or shorter ending of Mark’s Gospel an error on someone’s part? Is that longer ending, for example, fully inspired? Thanks!
Hi, rivercrowman. I’d say the inclusion of the longer and shorter endings of Mark were errors. Mark ended at 16:8, unless the ending was either lost or Mark was unable to complete it.
Dr Licona
Excellent post and thanks again for wading into our little Lion’s Den.
Your first post interested me and I think you might have affected me a little with this one. I have always argued that the term “atheist” means so many different things as to make it meaningless, and evangelicals should just give up on criticizing it. I’m ashamed to say I never took that same approach to the term “inerrant” and am now going to give up criticizing it, and will replace it with a term such as “reliable”.
So thanks for helping realize a bit more fairness in my outlook.
Glad to have helped, rburos. But be aware that “reliable” can also be a difficult term to define! Bart and I define it differently.
Several times you compare evidence for the resurrection of Jesus to evidence in the pagan world or in other religions for similar events, and you find the evidence for the Christian resurrection myth superior to the evidence offered for other resurrection myths or supernatural events in other traditions. So I wonder how you would evaluate evidence in favor of various Marian apparitions and miracles, particularly Lourdes and Fatima. These were recent events (relatively), the accounts of these events were in modern languages and circumstances, and they were rather thoroughly investigated by people who were determined to discredit these events. The question goes to quality of evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus vs evidence for supernatural events that you, I suspect, would reject out of hand. You are an evangelical, a Protestant, and I rather suspect that you would bring this bias to the table in ANY discussion of any evidence for a supernatural event in ANY context. Hence, a lack of objectivity.
That’s a fair question, RICHWEN90. While I am an evangelical Protestant and don’t think Marian apparitions were actually Mary, I am open to it. In some instances of Marian apparitions, I’m persuaded that something supernatural may be going on. But I reserve judgement on what it is because of my theological convictions. However, as I said, I’m open to some of them being Mary. There is no way to verify much about the claims of the 14 year old Bernadette to have seen Mary 18 times at Lourdes. It’s one child making a claim with no one else present. The testimonies of three children at Fatima to have seen Mary appear to them on six occasions is likewise suspect. But the testimonies of many to have witnessed the sun dance when they were with the children on one of the six occasions place it in a slightly superior position to Bernadette’s testimony. But it still doesn’t come close to what we have for Jesus’s resurrection. Similar to normal historical events in which the evidence is superior for some than it is for others, we have the same thing for supernatural events.
In a reply you stated: Blaise Pascal wrote, “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”
Please cite that reference for me. That looks like what I think—that faith is very much based on feeling. Positive or negative emotions—felings of joy, fulfillment, abandonment, dissapointments—seem to be the primary determinant. Then, being in a culture that prides itself on intellect and reason, we use “facts” to justify what we choose to ourselves and others. It works both ways.
michael51: The reference is “De l’Art de persuader” [“On the Art of Persuasion”] written 1658 and published posthumously.
Remember that Pascal was a Christian and argued that the evidence that Christianity is true is much better than the evidence suggesting it is not. However, he went on to argue that one should be a Christian even if the evidence supporting Christianity was just equal to the evidence suggesting it is not. Therefore, the conclusion you drew from Pascal’s initial statement, specifically that “faith is very much based on feeling” is mistaken.
Got it. We’re dealing with both a difference in time and translation from French to English, so maybe the word “attractive” has a different meaning. As humans, we have an extremely complex mix of emotions, some of which we are aware, many of which we are not. I see our choices are based on the interplay of these emotions, combined with how our individual brains are wired and what role experience and education has played. Apologetics and discussion of information is fine as far as it goes, but the real question to ask is “WHY do we believe/not believe?” Why do you and Dr. Ehrman, both in possession of the same information, come to different conclusions? There’s not enough data and too many possibilities, so we fill in the gaps of knowledge based on what we feel. (And maybe here’s where we can bring in the human spirit-soul.) Thanks for the reference. I’ll look it up. I’m somewhat familiar with Pascal’s work, but I hadn’t read that before.
Mike:
Thanks so much for the thoughtful comments. I have a serious question I would like to see how you feel about. This is somewhat an inflammatory example, but Mark 16:17-18, the snake handling passage. I guess (maybe wrongly) that you agree with most this was added after Mark was written by scribes. You can understand from your education and study that this isn’t consistent with the main message of the Bible. But what about an Alvin York type that lives in the Tennessee Hills and all he has to go on is a Bible and a preacher who hasn’t read anything but the Bible. How are they supposed to come to the realization this is not a passage to be followed. Thanks so much!
That’s a fair question, dwcriswell. Yes, I agree that Mark 16:9-20 did not belong to Mark’s original Gospel. But that doesn’t challenge my view of divine inspiration or inerrancy. That said, it’s unfortunate that the Alvin York type continues to appeal to those verses to justify allowing themselves to be bitten by poisonous snakes. That especially stupid today when there are so many ways to learn that 9-20 are spurious.
Dr. Licona,
I want to thank you for so far an interesting set of posts. They have been informative of how the idea of inerrancy has changed over the years (In my opinion, at least from my upbringing). I want to ask a broad question that might possibly lead into smaller detailed questions….
You mention and I’m paraphrasing here that if Jesus rose from the dead, and what he taught is “true”, then Christianity is most probably right and true. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this above. My main question here is what would it matter? And how can one dismiss the many other religions that others believe are right and have just as much truthfulness as Christianity does. Christians believe the Muslims are wrong in their teachings, yet a Muslim believes that Christians are not fully informed.
Let us take Apollonius of Tyana. Who has similar characteristics as Jesus does as described in the NT. Why can’t we say his teachings are correct? His understanding of the gods, morality, general wisdom, etc could just as much be the truth as any other. Or all the many truths and religions of the ancient works before Christianity and Judaism? These have many truths and errors to them, just like the Hebrew Bible and the NT.
I’m honestly not understanding the notion you suggest that if Jesus rose from the dead, then Christianity is probably true. I still ask the question so what if he did? How many others have done the same in antiquity/written about? I’m not convinced anymore that there is enough evidence that Jesus did, or fulfilled “prophecies”, or name your claim. Even one of the writers of the NT admits that belief/faith is the evidence of thingsnot seen, but hoped for (paraphrasing here). So to go out and try to prove “historically” that Jesus rose from the dead to me seems one has defeated the purpose and intention of faith/belief (according to a NT writer).
I’m not trying to bash or argue, just throwing out my thoughts and questions.
fedcarroll77: In answer to your question, I’d say that if Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true. I think most would agree that conclusion is probably true. Now I suppose one could object that Jesus may have been deceiving us. And while that’s a possibility, it seems more like logic chopping to me.
But what about other religions? For example, Islam. I don’t mean to be unkind or disrespectful but I think that, second only to Mormonism, Islam is the most easily refuted religion in the world. Regarding Apollonius of Tyana, to my knowledge, we have only one extant source that mentions his post death appearance. Philostratus wrote c. AD 225, more than a century after Apollonius’s death. He describes a single post-death appearance. It occurred at an unnamed time. It was to a single disciple who was sleeping at the time. No one else saw him. That’s not even close to the sort of evidence we have supporting Jesus’s resurrection. So, when it comes to other figures in antiquity who are said to rise from the dead in some sense, I’d say we should subject those claims to the same sort of critical historical inquiry we give to Jesus’s resurrection. Those I have looked at don’t fair well at all.
The author of Hebrews defines faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen” (11:1). Everyone of us has faith, regardless of the worldview we embrace, because none of them can be established with absolute certainty. And even if I was an eyewitness to seeing Jesus’s corpse return to life and walk out of the tomb, I would still need to exercise faith to follow him, because I could not know with certainty that he was not an alien attempting to play a cosmic joke on humanity. Faith is more than intellectual assent. It involves an act as well. And it comes in degrees. Jesus told a man to believe that he could heal his son. The man said, “Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24). In Acts, the apostles appealed to the miracles Jesus had performed in their presence (i.e., those in the crowd) as reason for believing what they were saying about Jesus. They added that Jesus had been raised from the dead and that they were eyewitnesses to that fact. If evidence negates faith, then the apostles were in trouble.
Dr. Licona,
Could I ask you to share, just briefly in each case, your three most decisive refutations of Islam?
Thanks!
Omar
Omar6741: Rather than list them, I’ll direct you to a debate I had a few years ago with Muslim apologist Yusuf Ismail at North-West University in Potchstroom, South Africa. My opening statement will provide the data you seek: https://youtu.be/R4A8IyQDMjc?t=233
Dr. Licona,
Thank you so much for sharing this with us. Your positions are very thoughtful. I have a question relating to canonicity, because to determine if the Bible is reliable, inspired, and inerrant, one must know what one means by “the Bible”. Some books are unambiguous, so if you conclude that the Bible is inerrant, Matthew and Galatians are certainly included. But some early churches omitted 2nd Peter, Hebrews, 3rd John, and/or the Revelation. Some included 1st Clement, the Didache, the Shepherd, and/or the Epistle of Barnabas. Martin Luther famously did not consider the Epistle of James to be inspired and inerrant in the same way that he saw Paul’s letters. Catholic churches include Tobit, some Ethiopian churches include the Book of Enoch, etc.
How does one determine which of these books are reliable, inspired, and inerrant, and which are not? Does one simply use one’s own (fallible) judgment and hope for the best? Does one appeal to tradition, and if so, which tradition? If a Christian claims 2nd Timothy is not inspired or true in its teachings, but the Gospel of Thomas is, on what basis could a fellow Christian say this is incorrect?
Thanks for any clarification you can offer,
Michael
Thanks, quadell, and great question! For me, I’m fairly comfortable with some unanswered questions and with answers that lack something approaching certainty. People within any discipline have unanswered questions and answers lacking the certainty they desire.
Canonicity is a somewhat fuzzy matter. Some Christians contend that the literature eventually approved for the canon is what God wanted. It’s somewhat similar to my view of how Scripture is divinely inspired. However, I don’t prefer that view of the canon. I have far less confidence pertaining to whether 2 Peter should be in the canon than I have for Matthew and Galatians, as you’ve mentioned above. Some speak of “the canon within the canon.” So, I’d place the undisputed literature within that canon. And I’d add Colossians and 2 Thessalonians to it. I give the canon within the canon more weight than I do the canonical literature outside it.
Fascinating, thank you for the thoughtful answer! It seems like there’s room for a lot of diversity of opinion, even among those who hold to the inerrancy of scripture.
Even if every aspect of the NT could be confirmed as historically true EXCEPT the resurrection of Jesus (and all that ensues) would you be in a better position with your view about the text or a worse one? Honestly asking what you think. Thanks for ‘running the gauntlet’, sir!
My pleasure, tadmania. “[I]f every aspect of the NT could be confirmed as historically true EXCEPT the resurrection of Jesus (and all that ensues),” my argument for divine inspiration and inerrancy would be on weaker ground. But you may also want to exempt Jesus’s nature miracles such as walking on water and calming storms, since, if true, they would provide reasons for trusting what Jesus taught.
We could also distinguish between not having enough evidence to confirm Jesus rose and knowing that Jesus’s resurrection has been disconfirmed. I could maintain my faith as a Christian with the former. But I couldn’t if I was convinced the latter were true.
And so… would you say that your judgment regarding the factual accuracy and validity of the NT is the reason you structure your arguments as you do, or do you prioritize your criticism on the basis of whether one item or another would undermine your chosen theology? After all, you cannot ‘know’ that Jesus was raised from the dead. You can only argue that a book makes the claim and that your faith hinges upon the prospect.
Where lays the border of integrity here?
tadmania: I don’t think the Quran is in any sense divinely inspired. However, I can still learn much about early Islam from the Quran via historical inquiry. For example, Jesus is represented as making a statement about himself and God in sura 5:72. I don’t believe he ever made that statement. However, it tells me what Muhammad was probably teaching about Jesus not being deity in contrast to Christian belief. In a similar manner, scholars use the Gospels and conclude things about Jesus all the time, even when they don’t trust much reported of him in the Gospels. In my work on Jesus’s resurrection, I take a purely historical approach. While it is true that I cannot know with absolute historical certainty that Jesus was raised, I’m persuaded that proper historical inquiry reveals that it’s very probably that he did.
Thanks for the clarification. I had another question. Do u know how prevalent ur views are among evangelical New Testament scholars. It appears that keener/Strauss agree with u but Peter Williams and Blomberg seems to be critically of ur view?
Kunalians23: Peter Williams and Craig Blomberg are good friends of mine. They are also more conservative than me in some of their views. Craig Keener, Mark Strauss, Craig Evans, Darrell Bock (to a slightly lesser degree) are pretty much where I’m at in many matters. I think William Lane Craig is fairly close, too. I think there’s definitely some move away among some evangelical NT scholars from the more rigid positions of Williams and Blomberg.
Dear Dr. Licona –
I’ve been reading over some the questions and responses – and let me say that, like Bart, I admire the time and effort you have devoted to answering questions!
That being so, let me pose another question, slightly tangential to your main point. You argue, as I understand it, that your reading of the Biblical materials convinced you that Jesus rose from the dead, and that therefore Christianity must be true. Assuming these points arguendo, what then is your position regarding those who (like most of us here) do not accept that Christianity is true. Do you posit that, while Christianity is true, it is not the only truth? Or must Christianity be the ONLY truth (sorry, italics don’t work here) and everyone who does not admit that is doomed to hell?
Thanks, dank. Yes, this is taking more time than I anticipated. Yours will be my final reply for today. Yesterday and today I have 4 hours each day interacting with you all. It has been fun and challenging! But I have to place some limits, of course.
It wasn’t specifically my reading of the biblical literature that convinced me that Jesus rose from the dead. It was the application of strictly controlled historical method. If interested, I go into great depth on matters pertaining to what is history, how we learn about the past, and apply these to the question of Jesus’s resurrection in my book “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach” (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010).
My understanding of what Jesus taught and what his disciples subsequently taught is that following Jesus is now the only route to eternal life. Things get more complicated pertaining to those who have never heard. And I’ve wrestled with that matter elsewhere (https://youtu.be/5m3w0gtKYo8?t=1333). So, I do think that those who reject Jesus will not experience eternal life. I don’t like that thought and I hope I’m wrong. But if Jesus actually taught that and actually rose from the dead, I’m in no position to say he’s mistaken or should change his mind.
If you don’t have time to reply to this, I understand. You’ve been very gracious. At any rate I wonder about the issue of credulity. We might accuse followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh and their ilk of having an excess of credulity. But if Jesus said, in effect, do not question me, do not evaluate what I say, simply accept what I tell you, submit, be passive, believe– is he not demanding from his followers the sort of credence/credulity that tends to get people in deep trouble? In what respect does Jesus differ from the used car salesman who tells me that some vehicle on his lot was owned by a little old lady who only drove it on alternate Tuesdays? It isn’t so much criticism of the message, but of what is asked of those who are receiving the message. Normally, one would be cautious and carefully evaluate an extraordinary claim (I am the SON OF GOD!), but Jesus seems to demand uncritical acceptance.
RICHWEN90: I don’t see Jesus doing that in the Gospels. In fact, the Gospels portray Jesus’s disciples doubting at times. On one occasion we see Peter rebuking Jesus for telling them of his impending death and resurrection. Jesus did not make it easy for his disciples. He promised them persecution, beatings, imprisonment, and martyrdom. He told a rich man to sell everything he had and give all the proceeds to the poor if he wanted to follow him. He told others that if they followed him they would have no consistent place to sleep, they’d have to leave their families and be willing to take up their crosses and follow him. Then we have data that informs us his disciples and two skeptics (Paul and James) had experiences in which they were sincerely convinced Jesus had been raised from the dead and had appeared to them. These reinvigorated his disciples and compelled Paul and James to become followers of Jesus. They faced persecution, imprisonment, and several were martyred (Peter, Paul, James at the very minimum). One must adequately explain what led them (i.e., disciples, Paul, James) to have such as strong belief that Jesus had been raised. We don’t see this with the followers of cult leaders such as Jim Jones and David Koresh. Many of their followers were killed by their leaders, and probably against their will.
“We don’t see this with the followers of cult leaders such as Jim Jones and David Koresh.”
There is a very simple explanation for why the Resurrection belief developed about Jesus and not for other “messiah pretenders”:
—Jesus was the only messiah pretender with an unexplained empty tomb!!!
Of course, there are many natural explanations for empty tombs, but apologists don’t believe that they are more probable than a divine reanimation of a corpse, for some odd reason. The empty tomb of Jesus triggered speculation, which triggered false sightings, illusions, vivid dreams, and maybe even an hallucination or two. And the resurrection belief was born!
Dr. Licona,
I’ve been trying to learn more about evangelical theology. One perspective I’ve encountered is that the Bible is God’s written Word and that Jesus is God’s living Word; they are two forms of one revelation. Does this accurately reflect most evangelical’s understanding of Christ and the scriptures? I am having some trouble grasping this concept.
Secondly, would you agree that we put our trust in the Holy Spirit to guide our interpretation of scripture? That is to say, the Bible does not speak for itself, but rather, it is a tool through which the Spirit speaks. This is something Dale Martin talks about in his latest book.
Thanks for taking time to reply to all of these comments and write these posts. You’ve been quite generous.
Hi, joncopeland. Many have made the comparison you’ve articulated: the Bible = God’s written Word; Jesus = God’s living Word. But one may rightly ask what is meant by the term “Word.” In my first of three articles, I explained what I mean by saying the Bible is “divinely inspired.” I don’t think that would apply to Jesus, however. That said, although theological matters are important to me, it’s historical matter that captivate my attention. So, unfortunately, I don’t have any more to say in answer to your question.
Mike, thank you for your thoughtful post. I grew up in a denomination that referred to itself as “conservative evangelical”, that being intended to differentiate it from “fundamentalist”. My brother and my father-in-law both have degrees from Asbury Theological Seminary, where Ben Witherington teaches. I obtained a PhD in physics and taught physics, astronomy, and other subjects at one of their colleges. As time went along my thinking moved farther and farther from that position, and I moved to one of the more “liberal” denominations. That is background; here are my comments: I think the whole discussion about “inerrancy” is pointless. The Bible is a document produced by humans; I view it as one source among others to guide us on our spiritual paths/journeys. I am just finishing reading Dever’s “Beyond the Texts”, which makes clear that much of the OT consists of legends, theological arguments, and some history. Why argue over whether it is inerrant, when it obviously is not? Why not consider it just like other ancient literature?
Thanks, Seahawk41. I’m going to refrain from discussing the OT, since that’s not my lane. Dever is a leading OT scholar. But he’s not the only one and there are many who do not share his views.
The Muslim percieves reality one way. The athiest perhaps another way. Should they not be allowed in heaven based on the way they perceive reality if it causes them to deny Christ? One can conclude that the resurrection is plausible based on their interpretation of the evidence but it is not with absolute surity; as other views of Christ ex. as an apocalyptic prophet but not God, are completely plausible as well.
Dr. Licona, doesn’t your acceptance of Biblical Inerrancy commit you to affirming that the census figures in Numbers 1 are historically accurate when most scholars would consider them implausible? If you do think the figures are accurate, can you direct me to resources which defend that view?
Hi Mike
Did we ever have “autographs”?
Dominic
dominchowles: There were certainly original documents. Perhaps there were drafts, finals, and second editions in some cases.
Hi Mike
I think it goes without saying that there were original documents but you seem to be impliying that the authors were Mathew ,Mark ,Luke and John ,not necessarily in that order.It matters who wrote the Gospels for obvious reasons. You also state ,much earlier than Bart , a timeline of 20-70 years ( in your reply to sjhicks21) for the Gospels to be written while Bart goes with 50 years at the earliest. If Paul is writing about AD50 why does he not mention the earliest Gospels by name as opposed to saying “Scriptures” . As a Christian I can see why you would do this but as a Historian I can’t.
Dominic
Dominic: Oh, I didn’t realize you were referring to the authorship. I think I recall Bart saying that Mark was written c. AD 70, Matthew and Luke in the 80s, and John in c. AD 95. If he’s correct, that’s 40-65 years after Jesus, if we assume Jesus died in AD 30 (though many think AD 33).
Although the traditional authorship of the Gospels is seriously questioned by many scholars today, I think they’re being too skeptical. I’m not aware of a single classicist who questions whether Plutarch wrote the “Lives.” The evidence we have for the traditional authorship of all four Gospels is superior to what we have for the authorship of Plutarch’s “Lives.” Is the evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels as good as we would like? No. But it’s still decent when compared with what we have for some of the other ancient literature the authorship of which is not questioned.
For more on authorship, see my article at https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/3/148/htm#fn015-religions-10-00148. Scroll to my second point “The Author Chose Sources Judiciously.”
Thanks for the reply Mike .It’s interesting you keep going back to Plutarch although I am not sure how appropriate it is really.Plutarch may or may not have written works attributed to him or Homer the Iliad but it is the stories themselves that have survived that are important. This is very different re the Resurrection as it fundamental to Christianity that the narrative is true /accurate ,hence the emphasise on eye witness accounts . If the eye witness accounts are not reliable then Christianity has a problem.
Dominic
Dominic: Every specialist on Plutarch thinks he wrote the Lives. Do you have reason to say “Plutarch may or may not have written” them?
I agree with you that the question of the resurrection of Jesus is more important than most of Plutarch reports in the Lives. However, my point is that I’m on decent ground for thinking the attributions of the Gospels to their traditional authors are correct. And since their authors, traditional or not, wrote fairly close to the events they purport to describe, it’s reasonable to believe that much of the tradition is rooted in eyewitness testimony. Moreover, in my historical case for Jesus’s resurrection, I rarely appeal to the Gospels. So, it’s a moot point anyway.
Mike,
It looks like you left our other discussion at a dead end. If it’s okay, I’d like to ask you three other somewhat off-topic but I think brief questions that will not result in extended discussion:
1) Do you think Jesus’ resurrection is the *only* plausible explanation for the three minimal facts outlined in your book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, or is it only your view that Jesus’ resurrection is the *most* plausible explanation for your three minimal facts?
2) Do you now draw on Gospel reliability to make your historical case for Jesus’ resurrection, or do you still rely *only* on your three minimal facts to make your historical case for Jesus’ resurrection?
3) Why don’t people in your camp make yourselves more available for questions like Bart does? His model of donating the money to charity while giving an hour or so of his time each day is incredible. Your camp could all follow suit and people could seriously question and much more thoroughly consider your views.
Jon1: In reference to my abrupt ceasing of sustained engagement related to my first article, I was at the annual SBL meeting with a non-stop schedule. So, I had to bow out from engaging further. I have more time this week and next. In answer to your questions:
1) When the various hypotheses posited to explain the data are subjected to strictly controlled historical method, it’s my contention that the Resurrection Hypothesis accounts for the data (agreed upon by virtually every scholar in the relevant fields who have studied the subject) in a manner that’s far superior to the ability of competing hypotheses to account for the same data.
2) I do not now draw on Gospel reliability to make a historical case for Jesus’s resurrection. Sometimes I will now include some second order facts (those for which I think the supporting data are strong yet do not enjoy a virtual unanimous consensus of scholarly agreement) in the hopes of being challenged on them.
3) I cannot speak for others. For myself, I don’t have the intellectual bandwidth possessed by Bart and many others. Bart impresses me by how much he is able to produce. I don’t know how he stays active with his blog and continue with his research and writing. But he does! Admirable. Craig Keener is a beast in what he produces. It’s beyond my comprehension. I just don’t possess those capabilities. As inspector Harry Callahan once said, “A man’s gotta know his limitations.” 🙂 I know mine. So, I make no efforts to keep up with others, because I know I cannot and what I can do would suffer. My goal is to engage in quality research, produce quality literature, love my family, and walk humbly before God. Even then, I often fail.
Mike,
Your abrupt ceasing of engagement was in the first page comments of this, your second article (not your first article), but no worries. Basically, I just asked there how your reference to spirits, ghosts, apparitions, and NDEs are relevant to whether or not a supernatural entity ever intervenes in the *laws of physics* (e.g., causes water to flow against gravity, causes cancer to heal, causes a dead man to resurrect)? Spirits, ghosts, apparitions, and NDEs seem distinctly different from claims that leave traces in the *physical* world, especially claims that can be *measured*, like Keener’s claim that “the stopping of storms after prayer is not uncommon” (Miracles, pg. 737) and paranormal events Keener is “invited…to witness” ahead of time (Keener, pg. 1). I’m truly puzzled why your camp isn’t more interested in measuring these things. Keener’s academic schedule has no time for such things and you all seem to stay mired in historical arguments and anecdotal stories. Why do you think that is, and do you think it is a mistake? (Seems like an easy question.)
Regarding your statement that the Resurrection Hypothesis is “far superior” to competing hypotheses, do you now reject your 2004 statement, “Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the *only* plausible explanation for the known facts” (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, pg. 128)? Again, no problem if you’ve changed your mind; I’m just wondering what exactly your position is now.
Something occurred to me after our discussion of Bruce Grindal’s report. In your video (first three minutes at https://youtu.be/WRYIr2aBkLk), you essentially handed on to your constituents of first importance what you in turn had received from Grindal (cf. 1 Cor 15:3), and you accidentally distorted it in favor of your biases. Do you see anything implausible about the possibility that *Paul* is the one who constructed the formal creed recorded in 1 Cor 15:3-7 out of less formal reports that he received during his visit with Peter and James and that there might have been some distortion?
Jon1: I apologize that it appeared that I abruptly ceased the engagement. I didn’t mean to come across in that manner. Unfortunately, I am spending more time engaging with others on this blog than I had planned. Monday: 4 hours; Tuesday: 4 hours; Wednesday: 2 hours. I’m not complaining. I’m receiving many thoughtful questions and pushback. And I appreciate that. In the post this week, Bart gave some preliminary thoughts. One was not to load up with questions. I have replied to several of your questions and pushbacks. I suppose I just chose not to reply to some you mentioned earlier.
Yes, NDEs, apparitions, etc. differ from a nature miracle such as the stilling of a storm. However, the point I was making with mentioning them is that they point to a spiritual dimension of reality. Such is at home with resurrection and is a huge challenge to atheism. And it was during a debate with an atheist philosophy professor that I raised the matters.
I explained why I haven’t spent much of an effort attempting to document some miracles. I can’t speak for the others.
I have not changed my mind since 2004. I think the resurrection hypothesis is the only plausible explanation for the data agreed upon by virtually all critical scholars who study the matter.
It’s unlikely that Paul constructed the formal creed in 1 Cor. 15:3-8. Not only are there non-Pauline terms, he introduces it by saying, “I delivered to you of first importance what I also received.” This suggests the imparting of oral tradition. Moreover, in Gal 2:1-10, Paul said he went to Jerusalem and ran the gospel message he had been preaching by the pillars of the Jerusalem church: Peter, James, and John. Paul says, in essence, that they certified his message to be in alignment with their own. I think we have good reasons for thinking 1 Cor. 15:3-7 reflects what the Jerusalem apostles were preaching.
Mike,
Good point about the non-Pauline terms in 1 Cor 15:3-7 suggesting the creed was formed as we have it before Paul, and thanks for the extensive time you have put into answering my questions.
I think I have suggested enough times already that you folks test for the effects of prayer and subject paranormal events known about ahead of time to serious study. The current studies on both suggest there is nothing there, that we are fooling ourselves in some way (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-04-05/; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal). I hope your camp takes this suggestion up at some point.
Since Jesus’ resurrection is central to your argument for biblical inerrancy, I’d really be curious what you make of the Jesus’ Seminar’s conclusion (and Ulrich Wilckens years earlier) that the appearances to “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” in 1 Cor 15:3-7 were not intended to be *testimonies* to the resurrection but confirmations of apostolic authority. I believe Bart has said he thinks only a few of Jesus’ followers had a brief hallucination of Jesus, so maybe things like scripture and the hope of participating in bodily immortality at Jesus’ return are things that won converts to Christianity and the details of appearances were not in the initial decades of much interest or, if anyone asked about the appearances, perhaps in time many would have been able to say they briefly saw Jesus, or had a powerful religious experience of his presence, or had a dream, and that was a good enough answer. Do you consider this a “plausible” explanation for the these two group appearance claims and, if not, why not?
Jon1: You wrote, “I’d really be curious what you make of the Jesus’ Seminar’s conclusion (and Ulrich Wilckens years earlier) that the appearances to ‘the Twelve’ and “all the apostles” in 1 Cor 15:3-7 were not intended to be *testimonies* to the resurrection but confirmations of apostolic authority.”
I’m glad you mentioned that. This matter came up in my 2010 debate with Jesus Seminar fellow Stephen Patterson who offered it. If interested, here’s an mp3 of that debate: https://bit.ly/33PTZLb. I challenged Patterson to give me one clear example of the Christian church doing this within the first 150 years of its existence. He could not. Now, that’s not to say that the mention of an appearance of the risen Jesus to a person was never used to suggest the person had authority. I think it is used in that sense on some occasions; e.g., Paul in 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8-10. But what the Jesus Seminar and some others suggest is that an appearance was invented in order to confer authority on the percipient. There’s simply no early evidence for that being the case. Moreover, we don’t know of an authoritative group of 500+ (1 Cor. 15:6). Nor would it seem that the women at the tomb carried positions of authority. And what about the appearance to the Emmaus disciples? We don’t hear of Cleopas having a position of authority in the early Church. And what about the other disciple who is left unnamed? It would be strange to invent an appearance to confer authority on the percipient then neglect to name who it is! The claim that the appearances were invented to confer authority on the percipients seems to me nothing more than an ad hoc conjecture, entirely without any factual support.
I believe you’re correct that Bart appeals to hallucinations for some of them. But I find that problematic for a number of reasons. Resurrection appearances are multiply attested in Matthew/Luke, John, and Paul where Jesus is reported to have appeared to all of the disciples and there were group appearances. Multiple studies conducted over more than a century have shown that, while hallucinations are fairly common among those who have lost a loved one, only around 7 percent experience a visual hallucination. (Visual is only one type of hallucination. There are auditory, gustatory, olfactory, tactile, kinesthetic hallucinations. By far, the most common hallucination experienced by those grieving the loss of a loved one is sensing their presence in the room, yet not with any of one’s natural senses.) Why is it that the disciples would all experience a visual hallucination rather than one in a different mode? Moreover, hallucinations are false sensory perceptions of something that isn’t really there. They’re like dreams. So, group hallucinations would seem to be just as impossible as a group dream. If not, they are certainly extremely rare. Yet, are we to suppose that nearly 100 percent of Jesus’s disciples experienced a visual hallucination and sometimes did so in group settings with the visual hallucination being so similar that they all thought they saw the same thing. That seems quite implausible to me and a stretch of unreasonable proportions. And then there’s Paul. Paul had believed Jesus was a false prophet and failed messiah and that he was serving God by persecuting the Christian movement, seeking to destroy it. He was certainly not grieving Jesus’s death. In fact, Jesus would have been the last person in the universe Paul would have wanted to see or expected to see. Still, he had an experience he sincerely believed was the risen Jesus appearing to him. And it radically changed his life to be one of Christianity’s most proactive proponent. Moreover, hallucinations don’t lead people to think a person was raised physically from the dead.
Mike,
I would love to discuss the appearance to the 500 (which could be a later legend added to the creed by Paul), the appearance to Paul, whether or not the multiple attestations of appearances in the Gospels are truly independent of each other, the cause of the resurrection belief, etc. with you, but let’s just focus on the appearances to “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” (1 Cor 15:5&7) assuming the resurrection belief was already in place. As Bart says, only a few people briefly hallucinated Jesus, more probably sensed his presence, some probably heard a word or short sentence from Jesus, maybe some had dreams and ecstatic spiritual experiences. That’s all we got initially at Christian origins, along with the sincere belief that Jesus is an atoning resurrected messiah who will return from heaven very soon bring in the final redemption.
Given this, I don’t see the force of your point that we have no clear examples in the first 150 years (why not pick 2000 years?) of Christians conferring authority on someone (or groups of people) by assigning an appearance to them. We have 1 Cor 15:5-7 a few years after Jesus’ death, and then *nothing* for several decades. Obviously, by the time the Gospels came about authority designation was no longer an interest. Maybe this is because by the time the Gospels were written all of the authority figures had already been identified, or some other motivation was more important, like proving that the Jesus was not a ghost. Why do you use the motivations of the Gospel traditions to determine what the motivations were decades earlier at the very beginning of the church?
For sure, it is pure speculation that the appearances to the Twelve and all the apostles were to confer authority on them with little interest in the technical details of the appearances, but aren’t you speculating just as much to assume the emphasis of the early church was the same as the decades later Gospels?
Jon1: You wrote, “As Bart says, only a few people briefly hallucinated Jesus, more probably sensed his presence, some probably heard a word or short sentence from Jesus, maybe some had dreams and ecstatic spiritual experiences. That’s all we got initially at Christian origins, along with the sincere belief that Jesus is an atoning resurrected messiah who will return from heaven very soon bring in the final redemption.” Those suggestions do not comport with the extant reports. What we have are multiple reports of “appearances” to groups and to individuals. The appearance to Peter is reported by Luke and Paul. The appearance to the 12 is reported by Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, and is implied by Mark. The appearance to the women is reported by Matthew/Luke and John. Nothing suggests a dream or ecstatic spiritual experiences. Those come later. Nowhere is ecstatic experiences such as speaking in tongues or prophecy regarded as an appearance of the risen Jesus.
What I said is there are no clear examples within the first 150 years of an appearance being invented in order to confer authority on the percipient. You wrote, “We have 1 Cor 15:5-7 a few years after Jesus’ death, and then *nothing* for several decades.” Well, we have the claims articulated in the tradition being around probably immediately after Jesus’s death. Paul tells the Corinthians that he had delivered to them c. AD 51 what he had previously received. We don’t know when that was. But it was sometime during those 20 years. And that means others had it even earlier. So, the content, i.e., Jesus’s death, burial, resurrection, appearance, which Paul says are of primary importance, are being reported very soon after Jesus’s death. Paul was persecuting the Christians because he thought they were teaching heresy. If the content of the creed in 1 Cor. 15:3-7 were items of primary importance, one could assume the apostles were proclaiming these things even prior to Paul’s conversion. So, these things are being proclaimed very early and probably prior to Paul’s conversion. They’re being proclaimed immediately after Paul’s conversion. Paul is proclaiming them for years. Around AD 49, he runs them past the Jerusalem apostles who give him a thumbs up. He’s proclaiming it in the early 50s to the Corinthians. Mark (lets call it AD 60s) mentions the resurrection and alludes to an appearance in Galilee (14:28; 16:7). So, the appearances of Jesus are consistently proclaimed from shortly after Jesus’s death through the penning of Mark. That’s not “nothing for decades.”
You present a scenario and acknowledge that it’s “pure speculation.” But that’s my point. There’s not a clear example of an appearance being invented in order to confer authority on a percipient within the first 150 years and perhaps longer. Remember, you asked me what I thought of the claims of several Jesus Seminar members to the contrary.
You suggest that I, too, may be speculating that the appearances were not invented to confer authority not the percipients. Here’s why I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. Paul discusses the appearances in 15:3-8 then goes on to say that if Christ was not raised, we will not be raised. And if we will not be raised, the Christian life is not worth living (why suffer persecution for a lie? Instead, eat and drink for tomorrow we die). But, Christ was raised. Therefore, we will be raised. Therefore, the Christian life is worth living. His reasoning makes no sense unless he was teaching that Jesus was truly raised from the dead. Moreover, remember that Paul converted when he had an experience that he believed was the Risen Jesus appearing to him. The Gospels have Jesus predicting his death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. I’ve contended elsewhere that Jesus did predict these things.
In summary, in answer to your question pertaining to what I think about the claims of some Jesus Seminar members that the appearances were invented to confer authority on the percipients, I’d say we have good reasons, historical reasons based on actual evidence, for thinking the apostles were proclaiming Jesus’s appearances to them and that they actually believed he had. In contrast, it’s pure speculation to assert that the appearances were invented to confer authority.
Mike,
I think you’re misunderstanding some things. I accept the creed existed a few years after Jesus’ death, so no need to argue that (although I think the 500 could have been added later by Paul). We can get to Paul’s vision later, but it’s of course worth noting that it might only have entailed some brief light and voice. Jesus’ predictions are widely considered legends, so why bring those up?
Bart proposes a few brief visual hallucinations led to the resurrection belief. I’m not so sure, but assuming the resurrection belief already in place, the speculative Jesus Seminar hypothesis as I understand it is that the appearances to “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” were confirmations of apostolic authority to teach and preach, i.e., leaders, listen to them. The few visual hallucinations and other related phenomena in a highly excited religious environment (sense of presence, auditory, dreams, ecstatic experiences) were the background for these appearance claims, and probably helped recruit some people (with scriptural appeal and impending doom being other recruiting arguments), but the primarily purpose was to *identify leaders* who could teach and preach. The creed has no *details* about the appearances and there are no details forthcoming until decades later in the Gospels (i.e., “nothing for decades”), at which time the interests and apologetic motivations might be different (like trying to prove Jesus was not a ghost, plus all of the leaders were by that point known), so your references to MMLJ seem pointless, unless you are assuming their historical reliability or speculating the same interests and apologetic motivations for them as decades earlier.
I agree there’s no clear example of an appearance being invented to confer authority in the first centuries of the church. As far as I know, the Jesus Seminar has never claimed that either. They have just speculated what might *plausibly* explain the claim that Jesus appeared to “the Twelve” and “all the apostles”. Since there is no detail in the creed, nor for decades after, and the interests and apologetic motivations of the Gospels might be different, why is that implausible or more ad hoc than you assuming an *accurate* report of visual appearances of Jesus to everyone in these groups? You say your position is not speculation because Paul and those before him were teaching that Jesus was truly raised from the dead, but my hypothesis assumes a sincerely held resurrection belief too.
Mike,
My best summary:
In the first few years after Jesus’ death, before the creed, in the highly charged environment of belief in a resurrected messiah returning soon to bring in the final redemption, a few people had brief visual hallucinations of Jesus (maybe a half dozen in addition to Peter/James), a few others had brief auditory experiences (maybe another half dozen), more felt Jesus’ presence (maybe a dozen), others had dreams of Jesus (another dozen). Sometimes these experiences occurred in group ecstatic/spiritual gatherings. Now the creed gets formed. The appearances to “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” *primarily* designated those who could teach and preach, but it was also true that Jesus *visually* appeared to some of them, and most (maybe all) had experienced one of the other phenomena of Jesus’ presence (auditory, sensed presence, dreams). I think this is what Patterson was trying to say in the last five minutes of your debate (https://bit.ly/33PTZLb).
The technical inaccuracy in these appearance traditions was inconsequential to insiders who already believed Jesus resurrected and knew that many/all the leaders experienced Jesus’ presence in some way. Skeptics who probed the appearances probably quit/never joined the movement. Christian leaders probably knew outsiders would think Jesus appeared visually to everyone listed, but I think it plausible they accepted this distortion, especially since it would help recruit others. Consider the signed Book of Mormon testimony of Martin Harris (and possibly the eight witnesses) implying the gold plates were seen with *actual eyeballs*. It took eight years before Harris, under extreme questioning, admitted that he (and the eight) saw the plates only in vision or imagination, and yet Harris still “knew” the BoM “was true” (https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letterbook-2/69). This shows that even clear deception does not preclude sincere belief, and what seems like a major deception to us is often viewed as a minor/inconsequential deception by those doing the deceiving. Modern political examples might be the 2003 nukes in Iraq, that a video caused the Benghazi attack, and claims of no quid pro quo (Trump or Biden, your choice).
Since there are no details about the appearances in the creed, nor for decades later, and the interests and apologetic motivations of the Gospels might be different than when the creed was formed (e.g., showing Jesus was not a ghost; leaders already known), why is the above scenario implausible or more ad hoc than you assuming an *accurate* report of visual appearances of Jesus to everyone in these groups?
Dr. Licona
I am very impressed with your effort in responding to the many questions of folks on this blog. In fact it seems incredible, the degree of patience and composure you have shown. One question I have concerns your view of ancient sources. In her book SPQR, Mary Beard discuses at length the problems with accepting ancient sources about the Romans and about Cicero and even proposes an alternate theory of Cicero’s role in the late stages of the Roman Republic noting that the winner’s and later writers often wrote history to suit their purposes. This is also clearly true in any reading of Josephus’ Works which show that he had clear biases and was probably altering history somewhat to please his Roman overlords. Given that the writers who have come down to us about most historical figures, even Herodotus and Thucydides, are suspect and the obvious superiority of their education and writing ability over the Gospel writers, do you assume that the Gospel writers were any better at getting the history right. They were not experts at examining witness accounts and they obviously did not have detailed carefully prepared witness accounts, but rather stories with accounts embedded in them and written much later clearly designed for one purpose – to convince their readers that Jesus was in fact the Messiah (Christ). Also it is clear from ancient historical manuscripts that most of the writers felt free much of the time to make up what the historical figure said based on what they thought he would have said. Also, it is clear from any study of ancient historians, including Biblical writers of the Old Testament and other non canonical writings, that they regularly invented stories to support what they wanted reader’s to believe had happened and which served as justification for belief in God and his power. All of this seems to provide a much better, simpler, understandable and rational explanations for why the Bible says what it does rather than that miracles and resurrections actually happened which defy reason and especially the laws of physics, which obviously weren’t very well understood at the time allowing ancient writers to be far more credulous than those of today. Thanks for any response. I understand the difficulties involved in responding to all of us.
Thanks, sjhicks21! You raise an excellent challenge! It’s true that ancient historians/biographers did not have the same commitment to accuracy we require in modern historical writing. There’s only one author of that period who wrote closely to how modern historians do: Asconius Pedianus (wrote mid-1st cent. AD). Most have never heard of him. That’s because he wasn’t regarded nearly as highly as other historians of his day. At that time, readers wanted to know about the past. But they also wanted it cast as good literature. And that literature was to tell a good story for any number of reasons, such as ethics.
So, ancient historians and biographers were allowed some degree of flexibility. But as Keener demonstrates in his new book “Christobiography,” they were not allowed to invent stories entirely. They were permitted to invent speeches as long as they conveyed what that person would likely have said on that occasion or was known to have communicated at a different time. In other words, their words mould have to be consistent with the views they were known to have had. Granted, some authors would on occasion go outside the bounds of what was allowed. But those were the exceptions.
The Gospel authors were not highly polished authors such as we see with Thucydides, Polybius, Sallust, Plutarch, and Tacitus. They wrote klein literature. Nevertheless, when we can assess how Matthew and Luke stick to Mark, and perhaps to the Q material, we observe that the degree to which they vary from their source material is less than what we observe taken by the finest historians of their time. Moreover, all of the Gospel authors are writing closer to the event they report than many of the events reported by the other prominent historians. I’ve spent significant time with Plutarch. His Lives of nine figures who played roles that would lead to the transition of the Roman Republic to Empire are priceless to modern historians. Yet, Plutarch is writing around 140-190 years after those events. Suetonius’s finest Lives of the Divine Caesars are his “Julius” and “Augustus.” Yet, he is writing at least a century after the death of Augustus. In contrast, all four canonical Gospels were written within 20-70 years of Jesus. And there are good reasons for thinking Mark and Luke, at minimum, had direct access to at least one eyewitness while they were still alive. I could go on. My point is that the Gospels, though not written by the elite of that day, were still written by those in a position to obtain accurate information about Jesus. And they take fewer liberties with the data where we can test them than most of the other elite historians of that era.
Dr. Licona
The point of my post was that the probability is much greater that non skilled historians (such as the Gospel writers – how many other histories did they write and what was their scholarly background), even by ancient standards having created something that was pretty much non historical versus the very, very low probability that a miracle or resurrection actually was historical seems pretty obvious and therefore most rational. The Gospel writers would not have known how to challenge witness testimony or doubt claims of miracles since they obviously believed they were possible and did not have the rhetorical or analytical skills (or knowledge of physics) to challenge eyewitness testimony. There are no comparison of different versions and discussion of differences in experience to give context to the claims or to show that they even thought about these issues in a sophisticated way. Thus it is far more rational to conclude that they were writing faith justification documents with stories and sayings based on highly filtered and interpolated history rather than actual verifiable facts. Given the unlikelihood of miracles and resurrections it is far more rational to assume that those parts of the history are myths accredited to the history to honor and amplify the felt sense of the importance of the man who impressed them beyond measure in life and whose death seemed so unjustified and cruel. So much so that they ended up calling him Jesus Christ and felt he was not only the messiah but amazingly the Son of God because some were so overwrought that they had visions of him after his death.
Hello Mike,
I am a Christian with a non-literalist and non-inerrant take on the Bible. I am very impressed with your openness and graciousness on this thread. While we may not agree on many ideas, I have gained a lot of respect for your faith and character. Thank you for engaging in this conversation.
You’re welcome, mwbaugh. And thanks!
I believe we have such an example. Was Jesus crucified the day before the Passover meal or on Passover itself? As you know the synoptics state that Jesus was crucified on the day of Passover after the meal, whereas John records that he was crucified on the day of preparation of the meal before Passover.
This contradiction is akin to the one you mention here. Your example is of the mode of his death where the actual contradiction is of the timing of his death. Why would one be more problematic than the other? If you state that it is because the crucifixion is central to the faith, I would contend that the mode of his death is immaterial to the fact of his suffering and death.
The stone the builders rejected could suffer by stoning, but we know he didn’t. If all we had was John, we’d mistakenly believe that the Lamb of God was sacrificed at the very moment the lambs in Jerusalem were sacrificed, but we know that is not the case. Thus a very meaningful difference by your definition.
Thank you for this brilliant work. I know I am late and I really do not expect an answer, but I will state my question anyway, maybe some of the other readers wil contribute. If you were punctuating the Gospel of Luke 23: 43, which side of ‘today’ would you put the coma?
Thanks, timcfix. I would place the comma prior to “today,” since there would be no reason for Jesus to use it otherwise. After all, they are both on crosses. So, there is no tomorrow! 🙂
[First part]
Very interesting and sincere comment, Mr. Licona. Thank you very much.
With your permission, I will try to improve it and clarify it a bit here and there.
1st The inerrant term has a simple and unambiguous definition: “without any error.” If someone claims that the Bible is inerrant, it means that from its first to its last word it contains no error.
Since it is a documented and proven fact beyond all possible doubt that the Bible is plagued with errors, most apologists without irreversible atrophy of critical thinking and common sense, perhaps for fear of being pointed with the finger by their colleagues as heretics, they still cling to the inerrant term, although with a multitude of qualifications and caveats. It is as if they said that the inerrancy of the Bible is not total, but only partial and full of light and shadow.
In that sense, the doctrine of total inerrancy of the Bible, an almost exclusive question of American Protestantism (see as an example The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1986), is perhaps the most serious mistake made by evangelicals called conservatives — it would be better call them “Bible idolaters” — by exposing their Holy Scriptures to the incongruity of forcing Christians to believe that they are the Word of their omniscient God and, therefore, free from all errors, when manifestly, the errors of all kinds and in almost all the matters of which the Bible deals, are counted by hundreds. It is, in popular terms, a shot below the flotation line of the credibility of the Bible as the Book of Revelation of an omnipotent God. And saying it even more simply and bluntly, an insult to the intelligence of believers.
2º That the hypothesis — tremendously easy to prove that it is false — applies only to the original manuscripts, is a pure wishful thinking and even a gross fallacy since it leaves the burden of proof on missing objects and without any hope that they are found one day, and you can thus rule out a priori all the errors of the texts that have come to us for not being the originals. It can be said without any risk to be mistaken that the originals had almost as many errors — some of them are clearly added to the originals — as the Bibles circulating among Christians today, whatever the translation may be.
[To be continue]
Fernando: Hospital ORs are said to be “sterile.” But they are not 100% sterile. Tropicana claims that its Pure Premium is “100% Orange Juice and that’s it.” But we know that it’s not technically 100%.
Many American evangelicals appeal to the Chicago Statement as you’ve observed. But Catholics instead have a different statement having a rather different definition. You don’t have to like a definition. I have reservations with the Chicago Statement. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Chicago Statement’s position that inerrancy only applies to the originals is “wishful thinking.” Those who contend for inerrant originals use philosophical and theological arguments to get there. I don’t think they’re successful. But I wouldn’t say that their conclusion derives from “wishful thinking.”
[Continuation]
3rd And then … from a point of view of the Lutheranweltanschauung, of Sola scriptura, the total inerrancy of the Bible is the only solid rock to which Protestants can cling to not see their faith wreck.
We must not give many explanations to understand this, because once it is admitted that the Bible contains errors, many of them of great importance, who decides and by what criteria are these errors? Well, in the Protestant churches, everyone has the power to interpret the Holy Scriptures to their liking and convenience.
In that sense, the Catholic Church had an ingenious occurrence: the Bible is inerrant in matters of salvation. But it has never been defined what salvation is nor is there a list of vital matters for such salvation. Those who decide what salvation means and what are the subjects of the Bible that affect that salvation are the high hierarchies of the Catholic Church. In particular, the Ecumenical Councils chaired by the Pope and the Supreme Pontiff himself in his Encyclicals, when he speaks “ex cathedra”.
This ruse must be recognized that it had some success, although it could not prevent the schisms of the East and that of the Protestant Reformation. But it has worked better than this latest variant of Christianity, i.e., Protestantism, which has produced more than 25,000 “denominations,” a euphemism for speaking of Protestant schismatic churches.
Among evangelical apologists who accept that the Bible is not inerrant, as Mr. Licona seems to be, attempts have been made to save the Christianity of this shipwreck by resorting to various tricks and traps. For example, what we can call the “epistemology of the Holy Spirit” promoted by Messrs. Plantinga and Lane Craig, which among other arbitrariness and entelechies is based on what they call “internal testimony of the Holy Spirit” or sensus deitatis (“sense of deity” “) or semen religionis.
As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends th not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God ”, is irrelevant, since it is a circular argument, since the supposed authority of the Sacred Scripture as the Word of God is based exclusively on that is how the Bible itself proclaims itself.
Fernando: You wrote, “from a point of view of the Lutheranweltanschauung, of Sola scriptura, the total inerrancy of the Bible is the only solid rock to which Protestants can cling to not see their faith wreck.”
From my point of view and also the point of view of many Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, Christianity is true because Jesus rose from the dead. So, even if the Bible has errors, Christianity is still true.
Carl F. H. Henry was a prominent evangelical NT scholar. He also had a strong commitment to biblical inerrancy. Yet, he could still write, “”The New Testament supplies no basis for elevating scriptural inerrancy to kerygmatic superprominence. The apostolic core-message does not inject inerrancy into every proclamation of Christ’s incarnation and resurrection, and into the Bible’s proffered alternatives of repentance or judgment. Still less reason exists to revise the Apostles’ Creed by inserting inerrancy as its first article. The mark of New Testament authenticity is first and foremost proclamation of the crucified and risen Jesus as the indispensable and irreplaceable heart of the Christian message.” Carl F. H. Henry, “God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 4” (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 365.
[End]
4º Likewise, there are apologists who try to save themselves from the possible wreck of their faith, resorting to the idea of a “web of beliefs”, in whose center would be what they call core beliefs and on their periphery other beliefs that could be false, such as inerrancy , without affecting his deep Christian faith.
But this is a self-deception. Without the inerrancy of the Bible, no one can be sure that true and basic beliefs can be separated from the others that can be wrong. There is no human way to confirm that these basic beliefs are true since it is impossible to verify that they correspond to reality. Of course, there are apologists like Richard Howe who resort to extremely ridiculous criteria of correspondance with reality with all the passages in the Bible (Howe’s list of criteria is as follows: 1.-Literally, 2.- Allegorically, 3.- Metaphorically, 4.- Similarly, 5.- Analogically, 6.- Symbolically, 7.- Hyperbolically, 8.- Phenomenologically, 9.- Informally, 10.- Synecdochically, and 11.-Metonymically. (I think one is missing: 12. – “Because I, Richard G. Howe declare it that way.”).
5º It is strange to read that “if Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true, period”, especially considering the more than 10 episodes of resurrections that appear in the Bible. Why is Jesus’ special? It will be argued that Jesus, as the second person of the Holy Trinity, was resurrected by himself, while the others were resurrected by God the Father or by Jesus himself. But that is not what the Bible says: Jesus was resurrected by the Father (Acts 2:24) or by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11 and 1 Peter 3:18).
Regarding the data that Mr. Licona argues in favor of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus as a result of his investigations, unfortunately for him it is obvious that they are much less relevant, documented and convincing than the data that exist that make it highly unlikely that the resurrection, post-mortem appearances and ascension to the heavens (to the third heaven? to which?) of Jesus are historical facts, real facts.
Fernando: You think there’s a better explanation for the widely agreed upon data than the resurrection hypothesis? It’s one thing to make an assertion to that effect. It’s an entirely other thing to demonstrate it. I’ve assessed the leading ones offered by critical scholars in my book “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach” by subjecting them to strictly controlled historical method. They all come out on the short end.
Everyone: Thank you for your challenging comments and questions this week! It has been fun! And I appreciate the collegiality as I’ve stepped into your lion’s den. As agreed beforehand with Bart, I’m only engaging for the first four days of the post. I hope to see many of you next week to discuss my third and final article. Have a great weekend!
Thank you, Dr. Licona, for braving the lion’s den. Yes, some of us have been tough on you, however, I don’t think any of us have anything against you personally. It is your belief system that deeply disturbs us.
You have expressed in discussions on Christian websites that you having frequently experienced serious doubts about your conservative Christian beliefs. That is a good sign! That is a sign of just how intelligent you are! Questioning is good. Please explore those doubts more. Read more books by skeptics. I would especially encourage you to read the recently published book entitled, “The Case Against Miracles”. It is a devastating rebuttal to the Christian belief in miracles, and therefore, a devastating rebuttal to the belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
Peace and happiness to you and your family.
The Bible is said to be unique among all ancient writings. It is inspired, inerrant, authoritatively transmitting God’s revelation. No other ancient collection of writings is so.
But what if there seems to be something erroneous in the Bible?
When there is an alleged “error” or “contradiction” or what have you in the Bible, it is explained away by appeal to the passage’s LIKENESS to writing of other ancient authors.
But when there is a doctrine or precept that Biblical supporters believe is authoritative, the Bible passages alleged to express it are appealed to as inspired and inerrant, UNLIKE writings of other ancient authors.
When the Bible is embarrassing, the embarrassment is explained away by appeal to how the human writers were like other ancient human writers – so their embarrassing writings really aren’t embarrassing. When the Bible supports a teaching valued by a Christian group, on the other hand, then it’s appealed to as unlike other ancient writings, as uniquely transmitting truth from God.
This doesn’t compute. It’s moving the goalposts to say that embarrassing passage X is LIKE other ancient writings, and therefore not really asserting the embarrassing thing, and to say that valued passage Y – or even X read on another register – is UNLIKE other ancient writings, inspired and inerrant and therefore incumbent upon our consciences, as no other ancient writing is.
Hi Mike
Many thanks for the reply. I am not for moment denying that Plutarch wrote “Lives” although there is debate about some of his other work. What is interesting about him is that he is a historian of that time and it gives us an insight into what people of that time thought of certain events or people . He may not be always historically accurate but that dosen’t matter. For the Resurrection on the other hand it does matter.
I think Bart Ehrman would dispute that you are on good ground re “thinking the attributions of the Gospels to their traditional authors are correct.” Also the validity of eye witness testimony is not uncontested ,as Bart has explored in his work.Are they writng close to the event ? if I write about events that happened in 1979 just from stories that have been handed down I wonder how accurate they would be.
If you are going beyond the Gospels then I would like Paul to say more about Jesus’s ministry and be clearer about what “Scriputres” mean ,Gospel writings or Old Testament?
Having seen all your debates with Bart that are online I don’t feel you have made the Historical case for the Resurrection but look forward to when you do. I think what happened in the first 30 years after Jesus died is hughly important and it’s a shame that we don’t have more evidence for sects like the Ebionites for example. Are we just left with Paul’s version of Christianity ?
Dominic
I’d like to sum up the history and etiology of Christianity with one Carl Sagan quote:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
Who is “Gary” and why does he get to post a seemingly endless number of times per day but I am limited to 3?
Dr. Licona I think this is a great perspective and I wish you well as you defend it against anti-theists and Christians alike.
I imagine some people seeing God after they die and and somehow coming to know that Jesus did these miracles and accurately taught us how we should live etc. But then they ask God “Do rabbits chew the cud?” And God says “no they don’t the old testament author got that wrong” with a slight shrug. And then the outrage comes and they refuse to accept God!
Of course, I suppose they imagine me seeing God. And when we see God our innermost beliefs are seen to us both. God knows I believed in Jesus message of love and am sorry when I fell short of living up to it. And then suddenly it becomes clear that I somehow didn’t quite believe the mustard seed was the smallest seed. And then the trap door under my feet is triggered!
You would think the Nicene creed would be at least 66 books long if every word had to be believed. The more I think about these positions the more bizarre they seem.
I get asked frequently how I know what the authors of scripture intended. And my answer is: context. Context is how we know what modern authors intend and there is no easy 3 step formula to know what was intended even today. But when we look at the intent of ancient authors when we may not even know who they were other than they lived in a very different world than today, then yes it can be hard to know for sure what was intended. John and Luke help with context by explaining why they are writing. But, of course, it can be difficult to know for sure what the intent of the author was in every passage of the old and new testament. And there is no reason we should think it has to be obvious to every person of every age.
I’m not sure! I’ll look into it. I thought we had an automatic mechanism that stopped a commenter at three….
I have been limited to three comments per day as well. But I have used my “limit” every day since the post was published. I will do the same on Dr. Licona’s third post until he answers my question:
“Is it true that since you were ten years old, you have believed that the spirit (ghost) of an executed first century peasant lives inside your body and communicates with you in some fashion that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an historical fact?”
He has dodged this question over and over again.
Maybe if you ask him just this one question, and say it’s the only question you’ll ask, he’d be more likely to respond? Not sure!
I’ll try it. I will only post this one question under his third and final post—-under one condition: If he refuses to answer the question or gives an evasive answer, will you challenge him to explain why he doesn’t want to answer it? 🙂
Dr. Licona has repeatedly responded to my question by saying: “We all have biases”. That is dodging the question.
Wouldn’t you agree, Dr. Ehrman, that if someone believes that the spirit (ghost) of the man whose resurrection is in question lives and communicates with him inside his body, it is impossible for this person, however intelligent, to set aside such a bias?
I highly suspect that Dr Ehrman allows you to comment on his blog not because you can add anything to his scholarship (you can’t) but because your disciples might follow you here and Dr Ehrman will make more money for his causes. That’s fine. I support Dr. Ehrman’s good works. Here’s my problem with your comments. You (and other innerrancy believers) dance and dance around the hot coals of truth so as not to burn your toes. Dr. Ehrman doesn’t have to do any gymnastics to make his point. You need 5000 words just to end with “well this is so because I want it to be so”. I just re-listened to a 2018 debate you had with Dr. Erhman “Are the Gospels Historically Reliable”. Once your thesis is shattered you revert to childish dodges and refusal to directly answer questions. Maybe you could write a post on how your views have changed since you started having these debates with Dr. Ehrman?
Actually, that hadn’t entered my mind at all! I need to learn to be more crafty!
Amen, brother! Michael Licona does NOT want to talk about the “testimony of the Holy Spirit in his heart…here…with skeptics. He knows it makes him look foolish. But on Christian websites he preaches that the work of the Holy Spirit is the “essential” evidence that brings a sinner to belief in the resurrected Jesus, and, that historical evidence is simply a “tool” in the defense of that belief.
Mike is a nice guy but he has been very disingenuous with us. He wants us to believe that he can set aside his bias that a communicating spirit (ghost) lives inside him whispering secret wisdom and insight—but his scholarship is based solely on historical evidence. Baloney.
I am shocked that some skeptics on this site want to treat Dr. Licona with kid gloves as if he were presenting a lecture on climate change. This man’s belief system is responsible for the ongoing repression of women, gays, lesbians, and the imposition of Bronze Age morality upon people all over the world. We must vigorously, but politely, oppose him, not engage in flowery platitudes about his scholarship.
I do agree with you. I always wonder whether anti-psychotic meds would have an impact on those whisperings of the holy spirit. And I’m not accusing Mike Licona of being psychotic. It’s just that the experiment would be interesting. Whatever mechanism might be responsible for these vivid interior voices, it ought to respond to a particular class of psychotropic drug. If it didn’t, that would be interesting too, and perhaps point to some other kind of neural activity. If some supernatural entity really existed and it could communicate with us in the form of an interior voice, could it do so in a way that did not involve any material medium, any brain structure responsible for cognition or speech? It’s the old problem of dualism. Of the angel riding a bicycle.
I just want to add that, Mike Licona, you are a gentleman and a scholar. I appreciate tremendously your contribution to this blog. It may seem a lions den, but I myself feel enlightened by reading differing perspectives. I’ve loved this blog for a few years now, and it’s tremendously valuable when it challenges us with alternative ways of thinking. Many thanks to you and Dr. Ehrman for displaying great sportsmanship. May the the debates rage on!
This is a question for both Mike and Bart, it might be off topic but not by much, I’m going on another book splurge and while looking at what books about the Bible to get I came across the eth Cepher, it includes all books of the Bible but also Enoch, jubilees and Jasher (Jasher I thought was lost but OK) have either of you heard and/or read this book, it got mostly positive reviews.
I’m new to Textual criticism, history and archeology are my main, I recently purchased : The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, Aland’s The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (Text-Critical Studies) and Epp’s Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS).
I was going to purchase : The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
7th Edition, Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire and The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents) in addition to the eth cepher but wanted your opinion on this or any title I’ve mentioned.
I don’t believe the Cepher is a work of scholarship. If you are interested in textual criticism you will also want to read Bruce Metzger’s book The Text of the New Testament; it is the standard introduction to the field. If you’re not familiar with the field at all, one eye-opener is David Parker’s Living Text of the Gospels.
Good how about parkers most recent work “Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament”
I find it more problematic, not as accessible. But he’s a massively learned scholar.
Is there any interest in scholarly circles with the Ethiopian Canon, I read your post on Enoch but how about jubilees, kebra nagast, or other books of their Canon?
Mainly among scholars of Ethiopic Christianity. Jubilees of course is a major work of Jewish antiquity, much studied.