(14 votes, average: 4.07 out of 5)
Loading...This particular post is free and open to the public. If you belonged to the blog, you would get five posts a week, for about what it costs to send a letter. And every penny goes to charity! So why not join?
Mike Licona has burst on the scene as one of the leading spokespersons for evangelical Christianity and its theological claims, especially that Jesus was physically raised from the dead, that purely historical research can actually demonstrate that it happened, and that the Bible is literally inspired by God himself and to be accepted as inerrant.
As many of you know, I have had three public debates with Mike (on the question of whether historians can proved that Jesus was raised from the dead; the debates were not about whether Jesus was raised from the dead – they were about whether this kind of claim can be proved by historians using historical methods, or, instead, is a theological claim that cannot be demonstrated historically); and recently we shared a stage at an evangelical Christian “apologetics” conference that focused on whether there are contradictions in the Gospels, and if so, how/if they affect whether we can consider the Gospels historically reliable.
Mike and I take different positions on these and many other issues. A few weeks ago I on the blog I summarized his views about contradictions and the inspiration of the Bible – he agrees that there are some passages that in fact can *not* be reconciled with others but at the same time he affirms that the Bible is “inerrant.” I wasn’t sure I was summarizing his views accurately, and so I asked him if he would be willing to write some blog posts for us explaining what he actually thinks. He has graciously done so, and here is his first of three posts. (Please note — it took me a minute to realize this — his argument below is cumulative. That is, he is not making three separate arguments that the Bible is inspired [if you look at it this way, the first two arguments may seem to be non-sequiturs]; instead, the third argument is premised on the truth/validity of the first two argument; if they are true, then the third has probative force).
Feel free to ask him questions or to make some observations!
–
Mike Licona is the author of The Resurrection of Jesus, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels and Evidence for God.
********************************************
The Case for the Divine Inspiration of the Bible
I would like to thank my friend Bart for inviting me to contribute three posts to his blog. Yes, we are friends, despite our disagreements. Strangely, we became friends through public debates. Those interested in learning how that happened, I describe it in this article: https://bit.ly/32LkMaY. Now, onto my three posts.
Historians do not possess the tools to verify theological claims. Take, for example, the statement “Jesus died for our sins.” While historians can verify that Jesus died, they cannot verify that his death has atoning qualities. As a historian, I do not possess the tools to verify the theological claim that the Bible is divinely inspired. However, I do think it’s rational for a Christian to believe that it is. And I’m going to provide reasons that ground my belief.
To begin, it’s important to ask what it means to say the Bible is divinely inspired. The answer may seem intuitive: To say the Bible is divinely inspired would appear to suggest that it’s the product of divine dictation. However, it’s actually not so simple. In fact, Christians disagree on the matter. And it’s rare to find a Christian who holds this view if she has even a smidge of theological sophistication.
I reject divine dictation as the method of inscripturation, because the human element in Scripture is clear. The human element goes far beyond recognizing the biblical authors’ different personalities, writing styles, vocabularies, and education levels. The human element also includes Mark’s poor grammar that Matthew and Luke often improve. Surely, we are not to imagine God reviewing Mark later and thinking, “I can do better than that. Let’s say it this way in Matthew.” The human element also includes a couple instances of Luke’s editorial fatigue when using sources. Surely, we are not to imagine God catching this at a later time and thinking, “How in heaven did I miss those?” Then there’s Paul’s memory lapse in 1 Corinthians 1:16 pertaining to whether he had baptized anyone outside the household of Stephanus. Surely, we are not to imagine God prompting Paul to take a writing break while he checked heaven’s records! These observations clearly reveal a human element in Scripture; an element that includes imperfections and rules out divine dictation. Accordingly, although the process of divine inspiration is not described in the Bible, our interpretation of what it means to say the Bible is “divinely inspired” must allow for human imperfections in Scripture.
Twenty years ago, Christian philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig argued, in essence, that God, knowing all circumstances that could possibly occur, generated those whereby the biblical authors would write what they did at an appropriate time. In that sense, the biblical literature is divinely inspired, because God approved it. For example, in Paul’s letter to the church in Rome, the words are Paul’s. The logic and arguments belong to Paul. If God were to dictate the letter, he may have said things differently. But he approved the letter. (The article was originally published in Philosophia Christi, 1.1, 1999, 45-82 and may now be viewed at https://bit.ly/32u8Rya). Although the scenario Craig posits cannot be confirmed, I think it’s perhaps the best way for understanding what it means to say the Bible is divinely inspired, since it takes into serious consideration what the Bible says about itself as well as the character of Scripture. You can see that this view has implications pertaining to how the doctrine of biblical inerrancy can and perhaps should be understood. This will be the topic of my next post.
So, why think the Bible is divinely inspired? In what follows, I’ll provide 3 key reasons.
#1 Jesus rose from the dead.
I’m fully aware that most readers of this blog do not think Jesus rose from the dead. However, I’m sharing my reasons for thinking the Bible is divinely inspired. Although I cannot devote any space to the topic here, I have argued in great depth elsewhere that there are good historical reasons for thinking the resurrection of Jesus actually occurred. And a historian can arrive at this conclusion apart from any belief that the Bible is divinely inspired. Those interested may consult my book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010).
If Jesus rose from the dead, we would have a good reason for giving our serious consideration to his teachings. Of course, one could reply that Jesus could have been an alien from another planet with powers beyond our comprehension and who decided to deceive us. Although such a scenario cannot be disproved, it’s terribly ad hoc. Every worldview, including atheism, requires a bit of faith. Given Jesus’s resurrection, Christians’ believing Jesus’s teachings about himself would require faith. But it would be a reasonable faith.
#2 The New Testament preserves significant information pertaining to Jesus’s claims.
Historians of Jesus do not have the luxury of assuming the divine inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible. Historians acting responsibly will consider the data apart from such assumptions and seek to conclude what the data suggest. Using common-sense criteria, such as multiple independent sources, embarrassing sources, unsympathetic sources, and eyewitness sources, we can render a number of conclusions possessing various degrees of confidence. For example, it’s granted by nearly every historian of Jesus, regardless of their theological and philosophical persuasion, that Jesus believed he had a special relationship with God who had chosen him to usher in his kingdom and that he performed numerous deeds that astonished crowds and that he and others claimed were divine miracles and exorcisms. Moreover, a growing number of historians hold that Jesus claimed to be divine in some sense and that he predicted his imminent death and subsequent resurrection. If Jesus rose from the dead, it becomes quite probable that he actually had a special relationship with God, that his astonishing deeds were actually divine in their nature, and that his claims of divinity were correct.
#3 Jesus believed the Scriptures are divinely inspired.
Jesus’s belief that the Old Testament is authoritative is a clear motif throughout all four Gospels. Jesus appealed to the Scriptures to settle theological disputes. He saw his ministry as fulfilling prophecy. Then there are statements where Jesus says, “David himself said in the Holy Spirit . . .” (Mark 12:36) and “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35); “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail” (Luke 16:17). But why are the Scriptures authoritative? It’s because their authority comes from God. Thus, to disobey Scripture is to disobey God. This was also the understanding of the Jewish leaders who confronted Jesus when he healed on the Sabbath, which they claimed was to break God’s law (see Mark 2:24; 3:1-6; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6; John 5:2-16; 9:1-38).
What about the New Testament? If Jesus was the Son of God in a divine sense, his teachings are authoritative. Although it’s unlikely that the Gospels preserve precise transcripts of Jesus’s teachings – and it’s clear that they often redact them, I’m persuaded by a number of reasons that the Gospels preserve the gist of what Jesus taught. And some occasions may be close to the actual words. Word limitations prohibit my elaborating further.
Outside the Gospels, Paul believed he had received authority from Jesus to teach (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:17; 14:37; 2 Cor. 13:10). And his essential teachings were confirmed by the apostolic leadership (Gal. 2:1-10; cf. Pol. Phil. 3:2). John taught that those who are not from God do not listen to apostolic teaching (1 John 4:6).
Of course, merely claiming to have received authority from God to teach does not give one that authority. However, if Jesus is divine, his teachings are authoritative and we would expect for him to have commissioned his disciples to pass them along. And this he does (Matt. 28:19; John 14:26; 15:25-16:3). That commissioning would bestow authority on them. Accordingly, to the extent that the apostolic teachings are preserved in the New Testament literature, we may say that literature is not only authoritative but also divinely inspired as defined above.
Of course, only a little can be said in such a small space. In my next post, I will discuss the matter of biblical inerrancy.
Dr. Licona, Thanks for discussing these issues. I look forward to the inerrancy post. Are you headed toward saying that the “human element” means that there are human errors in the Bible, but the Bible is inerrant when it comes to explaining what is required for salvation because clearly the presence of human errors means that the Bible is not inerrant? Maybe God’s contribution is inerrant, but how do we figure out what part comes from God and what part comes from humans? Obviously, step #1 in the above discussion is a HUGE and crucial one. It would be helpful to have a concise explanation of that argument. My experience with decades of experience attending conservative churches is that all of them start immediately quoting scripture with the assumption that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and the only thing that needs to be consulted in making important decisions. I have become more and more convinced that this “assumption” needs to be carefully and thoroughly examined and it is an important enough assumption that it merits such examination. Anyway, for you to post on a website such as this one shows considerable courage on your part and I respect that a lot. Carry on and I hope the responses you receive are helpful and civil.
Thanks, Ronald. I’ll be articulating my view on inerrancy in the second post.
Hello Dr. Licona, Was Jesus able to reed and write? If yes, why did he not write a book to us explaining his teachings? The “Book Of Jesus” would have been very helpful in understanding Christianity. Thanks Jim
When you discuss “inerrancy”, Dr. Licona, would you kindly address your view of a literal Hell? You have stated further down in the comments that you do not know where Hell is located. I find this odd since you seem so certain of its existence and so certain that we non-believers are going to be sent to this place of torment and punishment. Many Bible authors infer that Hell is “down”. Here is the author of Ephesians:
But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it is said,
“When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive;
he gave gifts to his people.”
9 (When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended[a] into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) –Ephesians 4: 8-9
Gary: The author of Ephesians, a book which I am sure you believe to be an inspired, inerrant book of the NT, the Word of God, clearly believed that Jesus the Christ descended “into the lower parts of the earth”. The “underworld”. Most Christians believe that this refers to Jesus descending to Hell/Paradise immediately upon his death to liberate the righteous and take them to heaven.
With such a clear description of the location of Hell, why are you hesitant, Dr. Licona, to state that you believe that Hell, a massive dungeon full of billions of sinners, is located somewhere in the “lower parts” of the earth??
Imagine this: A guy from Africa visits your town and tells everyone that Elvis Presley has risen from the dead. When asked for proof, the man says that Elvis has appeared to the twelve members of his (Presley’s) band and entourage, to the best friend of Elvis, to the brother of Elvis, to five hundred members of the Elvis Presley Fan Club at one time and place, and finally to him.
When asked how many of these alleged eyewitnesses to an Elvis Presley sighting (besides himself) he has met personally, the man says, “two”. But he adds that if you don’t believe him, most of these eyewitnesses are still alive. “If you don’t believe me, you can fly to Burundi, in Africa, to interview them and confirm the story.”
Would you believe that Elvis Presley is back from the dead and appearing to people in Africa based on this evidence?
I doubt it.
So why would you believe a similar tale, with the same evidence, for someone who lived two thousand years ago and for which there are NO living (alleged) eyewitnesses to interview?
The Bible is not a divinely inspired “word of an invisible deity”. It is a collection of ancient, scientifically ignorant, supernatural tales.
Disputed eyewitness testimony from 2,000 years ago is not sufficient evidence to overturn the massive, cumulative scientific data that brain dead corpses never come back to life. I suggest we reject and ignore this claim until, and if, better evidence is presented.
Thanks for a thoughtful and well-written contribution. My take on your three points:
1)Assuming Jesus did rise from the dead, how do we know (as many apparently pointed out at the time) that he wasn’t sent by the opposition? I don’t believe that for one moment, but if one makes supernatural claims, one has to recognize the possibility that supernatural forces are not necessarily benevolent, as most humans (including Christians) have believed for a very long time. A miracle in itself doesn’t prove anything regarding the veracity of scripture.
2)There are also accounts of Simon Magus performing astonishing feats, like flying through the air in a demon chariot–before he became a Christian (according to Acts and no other source). There are innumerable accounts of magicians, sorcerors, wonder rabbis, and many others doing astonishing things from this general time period. I would say what distinguishes the accounts of Jesus’ miracles is that they all seem to signify more than magical powers–they are illustrative of his beliefs about how people with no special powers should behave toward others, and about how faith can overcome death itself. But literal miracles still would have no bearing on whether the gospels are divinely inspired, since you don’t need divine inspiration to write down what people witnessed in material reality. I mean, you don’t think the New York Times is divinely inspired, do you?
3)This is the strongest argument–but it posits already believing Jesus is not merely holy but divine, which he doesn’t seem to have ever claimed. As an exceptionally devout Jew, he revered the OT. He probably did believe he had been tasked by God with helping to fulfill scriptural prophecy. He seems to have had a special passion for the Book of Jonah–which has rarely been taken literally by educated Jews and Christians–it’s a teaching story, and God didn’t have a huge fish swallow a reluctant prophet to teach him a lesson.
Finally, I don’t think we can employ such a circular argument. To wit–“We know Jewish scripture is divinely inspired because Jesus said it was, and we know Jesus is divine because Christian scripture (written mainly by converts after Jesus’ death) says he was.”
It’s not faith I have an issue with. At all. I’m something of an apologist myself. But without portfolio, which gives me a bit more room to maneuver. 😉
I think Dr Licona’s 1st and 2nd points are reasonable. In fact, these are the basis for Christianity. I’m more reticent on support of the 3rd point, given my understanding of the vast amounts of discrepancies and primitive views I find in the Hebrew texts, as well as my take on Jesus’ view of scripture if we concede that his words are filtered through writers that upheld traditional Judaism. For example, look at the “You have heard…but I say” contrasts Jesus makes in Matthew chapter 5 – How can one call Exodus 21:22-25 Divine Law in light of Jesus’ statement in Matt 5:38-42? Furthermore, if Jesus’ reference to Hebrew texts qualified those texts as Divinely inspired, then why isn’t The Book of Enoch in our Old Testament, given the fact that Jesus was clearly referring to it when he told the Sadducees that they didn’t understand scripture because the resurrected would be like the angels in heaven, neither marrying or being given in marriage?
I found this very interesting . Thanks for sharing . Jan
You seem to be starting from the premise that Jesus was divine. You seem to base that premise on a belief that he rose from the dead. We might wonder what it means to be “divine”. Apart from that, on the face of it, it actually seems more reasonable to suppose that he WAS an alien being supported by advanced technology. We don’t have, in that case, to suppose the existence of anything that is supernatural. “Divinity” and transcendent supernatural things are far more conceptually difficult than advanced technologies. But even more likely than such advanced technologies and aliens intervening in our affairs is the simple idea that Jesus was a mere mortal who was crucified and allowed to rot away in some sort of trash heap. Legends grew around his life, just as legends grew around the life of Buddha, and other ancient figures. It’s easier and more probable to suppose that Christianity began as a sort of cult. I don’t see any compelling reason to suppose that Jesus was divine or that the Bible is the product of anything other than human endeavor– as inspired as “War and Peace” or any other literary creation. If you take the Jesus Divinity route, you have to deal with the naive cosmology in the Bible, all of the implausible and even counter-factual mythology in the Bible, and the weirdness of his “resurrected” body. Like, what was it made of? What happened to the fish he supposedly ate? What about those wounds? What if he’d been decapitated? Would he have carried his head around like a valise? In what sense was this body physical? The implication is that heaven is a substantial place, over our heads, up in the sky. The nonsense accumulates exponentially as more and more questions are asked. It just doesn’t fly.
mr licona, first thank you for your time.As a non believer it is very difficult to understand how many people devoutly believe in god(s) given the tremendous amount of info available today(easily understand why previous generations and ancients believed, not having any understanding of science and world-universe order) I believe it is a physcological need and fear of death primarily, but back to subject of bible, I agree it is a good collection of stories and messaging, but being able to prove it untrue today in so many ways it seems to me that an all knowing all powerful god could have crafted a much better book, and possibly even have PRESERVED it(original), since we do have so many other ancient stories(epic of Gilgamesh) or the law of Hammurabi, or the Egyptian hieroglyphics. I realize that most Christians today have only a passing knowledge of the bible(and only focus on the good parts) but as more and more knowledge becomes more available I believe the future of Christianity in particular and religion in general will be phasing out within this century, perhaps a double edged sword, good in many ways, losing things in others. and I am particularly baffled by womens acceptance since it was(is) such a sexist manuscript(your thoughts?)
Thanks for your comment, Roy. I think you have to be careful of committing the genetic fallacy, whereby one rejects a conclusion held by someone because they arrived at that conclusion in a manner you find unconvincing. People can arrive at conclusions for the wrong reason. But the conclusions can still be correct. For example, I put my faith in Christ at the age of 10 because it made sense to me. Of course, my epistemological processes were quite immature at that age. But I remain a Christian today because I’m convinced by the evidence for Jesus’s resurrection. So, I could admit that I arrived at the conclusion at age 10 in a manner that would not be sufficient for me today. But that doesn’t mean I was wrong then.
Perhaps I can put it differently. Lets say there are only 10 possible worldview. Of course, there are more. But lets just keep it at 10 to make this easier. And lets say everyone alive embraces one of the 10 worldviews. And lets say they embrace them only because it’s the way they were raised. And lets say only one of the 10 worldviews are correct. Those believing the correct worldview may have done so for a reason we consider flawed. But this says nothing about the truth of their worldview.
Someone may believe that God exists because s/he has a fear of death. But that doesn’t mean that belief is mistaken. I think there are good reasons for thinking God exists and that Jesus rose from the dead. I don’t agree with you that science has disproved God. Many top scientists believe God exists, that He acts in our world, and are Christians. For example, it has been said of George Ellis of the University of Cape Town that he knows more about cosmology than anyone, including his late friend Steven Hawking. Francisco Ayala is one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world. Francis Collins was head of the Human Genome Project. Allen Sandage is perhaps today’s leading astronomer. William Phillips is a Nobel Prize winner in physics. All of these leading scientists and many more are Christians and see no tension between science and their Christian beliefs. Of course, there are tensions between certain interpretations of science and Christian beliefs.
Dr. Licona believed in Jesus as his Lord and Savior at age 10. I prayed to Jesus to forgive me of all my sins and to be my Lord and Savior at age 9. As an adult, Dr. Licona investigated the evidence for the central claim of Christianity, the historicity of bodily resurrection of Jesus, and found the evidence sufficient to validate his childhood decision. As an adult, I investigated the evidence for the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus and found it woefully insufficient to validate my childhood decision. I deconverted. How often do modern, educated people investigate the historical evidence for the historicity of Ceasar’s crossing of the Rubicon or Alexander’s sacking of Tyre and decide that the evidence is woefully insufficient? Yet today, thousands and thousands of educated Christians are deconverting from Christianity for this very reason: the evidence for this alleged event is so woefully poor. Yes, a few “atheists” do convert to Christianity, but the statisticians tell us that it is Christianity that is bleeding members not atheists. This is why apologetics is currently the big rage in conservative Christianity: the need to defend this ancient supernatural tale is dire!
Let’s look at what we are talking about: the belief that a three-day-dead first century corpse came back to life, exited its sealed mausoleum, hung out with its friends for 40 days, and later levitated into space in front of a crowd of people. Yet there are ZERO contemporary, non-Christian reports of this event! Zero! The greatest event to ever occur in human history, but no one bothered to write about this story until several decades later. And the few that did write about this event, decades later, were all members of a minority religious sect whose entire worldview DEPENDS on the historicity of this alleged event.
Dr. Licona is a very intelligent, very educated, very good, kind man. Any one who has seen him debate or has seen his recent comments on the deconversions of two big name Christians can see this. But Dr. Licona believed in the reality of dead corpse reanimations when he was TEN years old! How is this any different from the Muslim who believed in the reality of flying horses as taught by his religion as a child…and THEN…as an adult set out to confirm his childhood belief? Bottom line: Even if the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses (most experts say they were not), ask yourself this question: Would you believe in a modern day dead corpse reanimation (resurrection) based on the eyewitness testimony of a group of mostly uneducated (“unlearned”) peasants from a third world country? I don’t think so.
Why are you censoring some of my comments, Dr. Licona? You are not required to respond to my comments, but in fairness, I think you should post them. Dr. Ehrman has never once blocked one of my comments. Although you might not like some of my comments and may feel that I unfairly summarize your position, I don’t think you can accuse my comments of being abusive. Please post all non-abusive comments. That is the standard on this blog.
I haven’t blocked any of your comments, Gary. Not any. That said, I’m not a blogger and this is the first time I’ve done something like this. So, I’m bound to make some mistakes. If I have made any, they’re unintentional.
That said, I think I’ve been more than generous with my time with you. So, consider this my final reply to you.
I apologize for assuming that you were blocking some of my comments. I posted the following (and an additional) comment on the 17th and it has not been posted even though you are responding to posts from today, the 23rd. My error.
Here was my comment on the 17th:
Dr. Licona is a very intelligent, very educated, very good, very kind man. Any one who has seen him debate or has seen his recent comments on the deconversions of two big name Christians can see this. But Dr. Licona believed in the reality of dead corpse reanimations when he was TEN years old! How is this any different from the Muslim who believed in the reality of flying horses as taught by his religion as a child…and THEN…as an adult set out to confirm his childhood belief? Bottom line: Even if the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses (most experts say they were not), ask yourself this question: Would you believe in a modern day dead corpse reanimation (resurrection) based on the eyewitness testimony of a group of mostly uneducated (“unlearned”) peasants from a third world country? I don’t think so. So why believe such a fantastical claim from 20 centuries ago?
Dr. Licona tells us that he believes in the truth claims of Christianity, most importantly the bodily resurrection of Jesus, based on “evidence, reason, and faith”. But what he fails to mention is that he has believed—since he was TEN years old—that the spirit of this dead man lives somewhere in his body giving me secret wisdom and insight. How can we believe that it is possible for Dr. Licona to objectively evaluate evidence regarding the divine inspiration of the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus when his primary reason for belief is the voice he hears in his head?
It is certainly your right not to respond to any more of my comments, Dr. Licona, but I hope you will be so kind as to continue posting them. Thank you.
thank you for your reply, and did not mean to imply science has proved the nonexistence of god (the bible yes) I do not believe the existence or non-existence of god can be proven or disproven, but I believe much more in logic and reason than in faith only, and if there was a god he is a horrid, horrible entity. the horrors of the old testament, man’s inhumanity to fellow man,children born with deformities, disease, abuse,starvation, the atrocities committed on animals, yes, he certainly works in mysterious ways, which amazes me all the more that people continue to believe so strongly
roy: None of us can get into a time machine, return to the past, and verify our worldview. So, regardless of the worldview one chooses, there is no escaping the fact that faith is involved. I’m all for reason. So, my choice ends up being based on reason, evidence, and faith. I happen to think my choice involves the least amount of faith when all is considered.
Regarding the items you mentioned pertaining to God, it’s beyond the scope of the articles Bart has asked me to post. So, I’d like to refer you to a book written by my friends Paul Copan and Matthew Flanagan: “Did God Really Command Genocide?” https://amzn.to/37frn0X
Thanks for writing on the blog, Dr. Licona! I’ve greatly enjoyed your debates with Dr. Ehrman and though I disagree with you on a LOT of things I respect your intellectual honesty.
Question for you: Do you think that belief in the supernatural a prerequisite for believing in the Resurrection? In other words, if you approached the evidence without any prior belief of the supernatural, would the evidence of the Resurrection be sufficient for you to conclude that Jesus supernaturally rose from the dead? I recall from one of your debates with Bart that you spent some time talking about events you’ve experienced that you perceived as supernatural, but I don’t remember if that was because you felt it necessary for your case.
Thanks, lobe. Fair question. I think the responsible historian should approach Jesus’s resurrection neither presupposing the supernatural nor a priori excluding it. Instead, s/he should approach it with openness to the supernatural and let the results of assessing the data speak for themselves. Otherwise, I place myself in a position where it’s my worldview rather than the data that leads to my conclusion. The danger in that is manifest: Bad philosophy corrupts good history!
I see the danger of letting your worldview dictate the results (confirmation bias is a real problem for us all, skeptic and believer alike!) But doesn’t that run the risk of giving the supernatural a too generous prior? Like if you were to examine the evidence for an alien abduction, one could argue that you should give aliens a 50/50 shot, because you want to “approach the problem with openness”. It seems like the magnitude of the claim warrants a prior that’s at least a *little* bit lower than 0.5.
(Sorry for the Bayesian speak…I’m an engineer, I like numbers lol)
lobe: I think you’re fine to use Bayes. The challenge with BT is what one allow when assessing the Prior. I would include things such as well evidenced Near Death Experiences, veridical apparitions, radically answered prayer, and strongly evidenced paranormal phenomena. Each of these provide a strong blow to metaphysical naturalism. In my opinion, when combined, they render naturalism so improbable as to be beyond reason. Although there are many examples, I have an 11-minute video in which I provide one example for each: https://youtu.be/WRYIr2aBkLk
Thanks Dr. Licona, I’ll check it out!
I don’t think we should assume the philosophy is bad. But I do agree we shouldn’t claim our philosophical analysis is historical analysis.
If someone says they think it is impossible for Jesus to have rose from the dead, because they think it is impossible that anyone rose from the dead, that is fine. So such a person rejects that it happened as a historical fact *even if* the historical criteria/analysis supports it. I have no issue with that.
But such a person should acknowledge that the historical evidence may support the resurrection even though more important philosophical considerations make him or her reject the claim that Jesus in fact rose from the dead. That leads to clarity of thinking and we can properly examine the philosophical underpinnings of the belief that a resurrection is impossible.
To some extent as a Christian I do likewise with some other religion’s claims of miracles. I look at the historical evidence of miracles occurring in support of Christianity. And if they are on the whole greater than the historical evidence of miracles occurring for some other religion then we may have a religious reason to reject the other religions miracle claims.
For example if someone were to provide historical evidence that Muhamed miraculously split the moon. I may agree with them on the weight the historical evidence should be given. It is just that other considerations (philosophical or religious) may lead me to be ultimately unconvinced. Some may disagree, but it seems to me that the God that would give Jesus Miracles would not also give Muhammad miracles. They seem to have messages that are too dissimilar. The historical evidence of the resurrection would weigh against the competing religions miracles. A similar point could be made for various miracles claimed by pagan Gods. There is nothing wrong with having other considerations besides historical criteria just don’t claim those other considerations are historical analysis.
So yes make sure you keep your historical analysis separate from your philosophical or religious reasoning. That is just a matter of being honest with yourself and clear about your reasoning. But there can be good philosophical or religious reasons to reject a historical claim.
Well said, Joe! I agree with everything you wrote!
Thank you Dr. Licona. I have listened and learned from some of your debates just as I have from Dr. Ehrman. It is definitely encouraging to hear that my views are shared by someone who has clearly spent time considering these issues.
Thanks, Joe! I’m glad you have found some of my work helpful.
There are many areas that could be discussed but one really stands out: isn’t this mainly circular reasoning? We are using quotes of the Bible to prove that we should believe the Bible and its authority. Naturally we could expect writers of the NT to claim they had authority, so claiming they have it based on their own writings is hardly”proof”. After all, we have the word of Mohammed and the Qur’an that prove their authority and to speak the TRUE word of God. What about Joseph Smith? Doesn’t he also claim authority and “isn’t it written?”. Things like this only apparently really work by having a starting faith in one religious claim so you can ignore similar claims by other religions.
Claims of Jesus’ support of scriptural authority naturally don’t apply to the NT since it didn’t exist. And exactly what books or writings did Jesus actually refer to? What we think of the whole OT or just part, i.e. was he saying the “Song of Solomon” is the word if God, and where? For the NT, as mentioned, we just have its own writers assuring us that THEY are naturally the ones with true authority. Hardly unique or persuasive, and certainly not the same level of proof that Christians demand from other religious groups.
flcombs: I can see where you think there’s circular reasoning by using what the Bible says about itself. I was limited to 1,400 words. But I could have been more clear. The texts in the Gospels I used pertaining to Jesus’s view of the Old Testament was to show a pattern of his thought. In recent years, historians of Jesus have looked at identifying a motif that’s multiply attested. My point is that it’s multiply attested that Jesus believed the OT was divinely inspired (the motif).
The only thing Jesus thought was authoritative in the old testament was what was written about the messiah; Luke 24:44
But he believes the OT contained man made laws; Matthew 19:8
“The human element also includes Mark’s poor grammar that Matthew and Luke often improve”
Doesn’t this go against the expectation that bad writers copy from good ones?
I do not doubt the sincerity of Mike Licona’s scholarship nor the tremendous amount of work and effort he puts into it. What I do question is how useful it is here. Most Blog readers have moved on beyond debating whether or not the Bible is inerrant. As for the resurrection, belief in it ultimately rests on whether one believes witnesses to it had visions or hallucinations. Since the individual experiences are not repeatable they are not scientifically capable of being proven or rejected. Historians can verify that people believed they saw something. They cannot verify whether they actually did or not. Thus, I think discussions on biblical inerrancy and proof of the resurrection are not particularly helpful.
The kind of questions I would like to see discussed here are more along the lines of the following:
1. Did the Q source actually exist?
2. Is the Gospel of Thomas gnostic or not? When was it written?
3. Did Luke’s travel diary in Acts actually exist or is this just some sort of literary effort intended to strengthen legitimacy for the story?
4. Can any case be made for the historicity of either Moses or the Exodus?
5. Could Abraham be a composite figure somewhat similar to the claim sometimes made for Homer?
6. Could either Mary Magdalene or Judas be mythical figures, as some have claimed?
7. What sort of burial did Jesus have, a tomb or food for the dogs or something else?
8. Who was John the Seer of Revelation?
And of course there are many more, but hopefully this is enough to indicate the kind of debates I think are useful. I realize some of these topics have been discussed in the Blog. But it is always possible to take another look.
Stylites: To be open with you, the divine inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture are not topics to which I give a lot of thought. I love matters pertaining to the philosophy of history and historical investigation. Bart asked me to write on the topics covered in these three posts.
Stylites,
Terrific post. Thanks. I agree with all of your suggested topics. But I part ways at the suggestion that we who frequent this blog no longer have any longer in a subject like the debate over inerrancy (or not) of the Christian Scriptures. I think the overwhelming number of responses confirms this. I for one hope to see more of the same and though I am a Christian, I long ago abandoned inerrancy, viewing as a category error. As Rob Bell put it, to say that something of the nature of the Bible is inerrant is like saying a beautiful sunset is inerrant. And as Kenton Sparks lays it out, the Bible is like creation. Both are broken to a degree due to the impact of existing in time & history but both remain, as they are, God’s Word and God’s World.
First, I want to say how much I respect you, Dr. Licona, I have read several of your books. As I read them I detect in your writing a sincere, honest attempt to discover the truth. We all have our biases, but you appear to try very hard to overcome yours.
You said this above: “I’m persuaded by a number of reasons that the Gospels preserve the gist of what Jesus taught. And some occasions may be close to the actual words.”
Wow. This is a striking admission for any evangelical, but even more for an evangelical NT scholar (I am a former evangelical). If we today can only trust the Gospels to provide us “the gist” of what Jesus SAID, how can we possibly trust the historicity of the fantastical DEEDS and EVENTS that allegedly occurred involving Jesus? How historically reliable can these ancient texts be if someone like you, an expert, only trusts their “gist”? And most importantly, how can we possibly believe the fantastical claim that the corpse of a first century preacher came back to life, was endowed with supernatural powers, and later ascended into the clouds, from texts which most scholars do not believe were written by eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses, and you yourself believe can only be trusted to provide us the “gist” of what this man said?
How can we possibly have a rational discussion regarding the divine inspiration of the Bible when you have admitted that the text you believe to be Word of the Creator can only be trusted in its “gist”?
Thanks for your kind remark, Gary. Yes, I do try to manage my biases while engaged in historical investigation. I can’t say that I’m always entirely successful. But I do make sincere efforts, because I don’t think there’s anything to fear with truth. If the Bible turns out to be different than I have believed, I may be disappointed. But there’s nothing for me to fear. Truth is truth.
The term “gist” can have a wide range of possibilities, although it includes the main and essential parts of what occurred. You’ll get a better idea of what I mean by it in my third post.
Regarding the texts not being written by eyewitnesses, see my other comment to fishician about authorship and eyewitness testimony in the Gospels.
The Science of False Memory (Oxford Psychology Series)
by C. J. Brainerd and V. F. Reyna | May 5, 2005
Dr Licona –
Thank you very much for the guest post. I (and many others here) have enjoyed your debate events with Dr Ehrman.
In terms of the argument you are making, how do you intend to avoid the circularity of:
– Jesus was resurrected (derived from the Bible, which derivation presumes that the Bible is factually correct in one of the ex ante *least* probability items it narrates)
– The establishment of the fact of Jesus’s resurrection itself (indirectly) confers inerrancy (sufficient factuality around highly improbable claims) onto the Bible’s narrative
To get to Jesus being resurrected, one has already entirely helped oneself to the very assumption that the arguments are, ostensibly, setting out to conclude. It’s question begging already embedded in the beginning of the argumentation, unless there’s a subtlety in the argument that has not yet been made clear.
I look forward to the future posts, and thank you in advance for addressing my question here.
Cheers!
Hi, Nathan. I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the debates Bart and I have had. I have and I think Bart has, too. Having viewed them, you already know that I do not presuppose the divine inspiration or inerrancy of the biblical literature to argue for the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection. In fact, in my first debate with Bart, and perhaps the second (I don’t recall), I used only those facts on which Bart also agreed. We both arrive at these “facts” by historical investigation. So, I don’t see a circularity in my argument when it comes to the divine inspiration of Scripture.
Dr Licona, thanks so much for your reply. Much like in your debates (and your books), you’re sincere, clear and direct, and above all, charitable of thought and manner.
I agree completely that you have not explicitly argued from either inspiration or inerrancy to the historicity/factuality of Jesus’s resurrection. My concern is that the circularity arises from an implicit assumption that lies behind the mental algorithm that chooses between alternative explanations. Namely, to get from (a) the Biblical account of the resurrection, on the one hand, to (b) a statement that this account is a sufficiently accurate description of what transpired in history, on the other hand, seems to help itself to the assumption of the specialness of the text. Why do I think that?
Assume text T makes extraordinary claim EC. Further assume EC is extravagantly ex ante improbable. The only way to establish that the truth of EC is probable is to demonstrate that substantially all alternative explanations that carry higher ex ante probability (vs. EC) are (highly likely) false. When there are a veritable myriad of explanations that would account for the data that are both (a) higher ex ante probability than EC and (b) unable to be ruled out by the historical evidence at hand, EC (by definition) cannot be the most probable explanation of the data. Seemingly the only reason left for still siding with EC, vs the multitude of other explanations, is the implicit assumption of the specialness of the text T.
Assume we read a claim of a historical datum: Bill experienced a flying elephant. Extraordinary claim: An elephant was actually flying. Normal explanation (one of many; ex ante probable): Bill had a mental experience that, while real to him, didn’t actually track with the reality of the external world. Because we have no further access to Bill, there is no basis on which to rule out the normal explanation. Why choose the extraordinary claim?
I look forward to your upcoming posts, and to understanding where the above reasoning misfires.
According to Christian theology the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is the most important sequence of events in human history. Yet God, in his divine wisdom, did not allow even a single eyewitness to record his or her experience (the Gospels give no evidence of being written by eyewitnesses, hence the need for later Christians to make the attributions). Paul is the closest we come, but he admits his encounter was a vision after the fact. Per the Gospels even Jesus’ disciples had a hard time understanding who Jesus was and what he taught (particularly in Mark, Galatians shows differences in Peter’s and Paul’s understandings), yet God expects later generations reading sketchy and inconsistent reports of Jesus to come to a saving faith in him. And all these issues don’t even get to the root problem of why a loving God demands blood sacrifice before he will forgive. Good grief, if a neighbor asks my forgiveness for some offense I’m not going to demand he sacrifice his dog, much less his son! Thank goodness I’ve learned to read and think for myself.
fishician: We will have to disagree on the matter of whether the Gospels contain eyewitness testimony. I’m persuaded that they do. This is not the place to discuss the matter. I have discussed the authorship of Mark in an article I published earlier this year: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/3/148/htm. In it, I provide reasons for thinking Mark is basing his report on what he heard from Peter, Jesus’ lead apostle. This is not a fringe position. I have a graduate student at HBU whose MA thesis I’m supervising. His research is virtually complete. He has consulted literature written by 204 critical scholars from 1965-Present on who wrote Mark, was it based primarily on Peter’s testimony, and when it was written. I can tell you at this point that the majority of critical scholars are saying that Mark’s primary source was Peter.
Moreover, Craig Keener’s massive work on John’s Gospel informs us that the majority of critical scholars today, although rejecting the traditional authorship of John the son of Zebedee, think John’s Gospel was either written by a minor disciple of Jesus or was more likely written by someone who used one of Jesus’s disciples, perhaps John the son of Zebedee, as his primary source.
Dr. Licona: “I have discussed the authorship of Mark in an article I published earlier this year: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/3/148/htm. In it, I provide reasons for thinking Mark is basing his report on what he heard from Peter, Jesus’ lead apostle. This is not a fringe position.”
That contradicts statements by Richard Bauckham, whom many evangelicals consider one of the best conservative NT scholars: “The argument of this book [Jesus and the Eyewitnesses]–that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus–runs counter to almost all recent scholarship. As we have indicated from time to time, the prevalent view is that a long period of oral transmission in the churches intervened between whatever the eyewitnesses said and the Jesus traditions as they reached the Evangelists [the authors of the Gospels]. No doubt the eyewitnesses started the process of oral tradition, but it passed through many retellings, reformulations, and expansions before the Evangelists themselves did their own editorial work on it.” p.
240
According to Richard Bauckham, your position runs counter to “almost all recent scholarship”. “Almost all” sounds like a consensus. If a position contradicts a consensus, by definition, it is fringe.
And it isn’t just Richard Bauckham who believes that the overwhelming majority of modern NT scholars reject or question the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels. NT Wright has been quoted as saying, “I do not know who wrote the Gospels, nor does anyone else.” The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, not exactly a liberal, anti-supernaturalist organization, states on its website that it is highly unlikely that John Mark, the associate of Peter, wrote the Gospel of Mark or that any eyewitness or associate of eyewitness wrote ANY of the Gospels.
I currently am conducting a survey of prominent conservative Protestant and evangelical scholars and theologians on this exact issue. Gary Habermas has responded to my survey. Dr. Habermas agrees with Richard Bauckham’s statement above that a significant majority of NT scholars do NOT believe that the Gospels were written by anyone who had direct contact with an eyewitness. I’m not sure where your assistant is getting his information but it contradicts the statements of Bauckham, Wright, Habermas, and the United States Catholic bishops.
From the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading “According to Mark” in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother’s house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled (Acts 12:12). This Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10) and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:3; 15:36–39). He appears in Pauline letters (2 Tm 4:11; Phlm 24) and with Peter (1 Pt 5:13). Papias (ca. A.D. 135) described Mark as Peter’s “interpreter,” a view found in other patristic writers. Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources—miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion—so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark’s own day.
Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence Mk 7:3–4, 11). The book aimed to equip such Christians to stand faithful in the face of persecution (Mk 13:9–13), while going on with the proclamation of the gospel begun in Galilee (Mk 13:10; 14:9). Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.
Gary: This statement by the bishops of the Catholic Church directly contradicts your claim, Dr. Licona, above where you say:
“I have a graduate student at HBU whose MA thesis I’m supervising. His research is virtually complete. He has consulted literature written by 204 critical scholars from 1965-Present on who wrote Mark, was it based primarily on Peter’s testimony, and when it was written. I can tell you at this point that the majority of critical scholars are saying that Mark’s primary source was Peter.”
Gary: So who should we believe: the scholars of the Catholic Church or your assistant?
Gary: Regardless, my student has done the actual work of what a full-range of critical scholars from 1965-Present are saying. Others can say what they want. But have they actually conducted a serious survey of the academic literature?
Catholic Church:
“Papias (ca. A.D. 135) described Mark as Peter’s “interpreter,” a view found in other patristic writers. Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources—miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion—so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark’s own day.”
Dr. Licona:
“I have a graduate student at HBU whose MA thesis I’m supervising. His research is virtually complete. He has consulted literature written by 204 critical scholars from 1965-Present on who wrote Mark, was it based primarily on Peter’s testimony, and when it was written. I can tell you at this point that the majority of critical scholars are saying that Mark’s primary source was Peter.”
I don’t really see a contradiction here. Everyone seems to agree there is evidence that Mark had a connection with Peter. The Catholic position is that it was not his only source. Dr. Licona says Peter was Marks primary source not his only source.
“That contradicts statements by Richard Bauckham, whom many evangelicals consider one of the best conservative NT scholars: “The argument of this book [Jesus and the Eyewitnesses]–that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus–runs counter to almost all recent scholarship. As we have indicated from time to time, the prevalent view is that a long period of oral transmission in the churches intervened between whatever the eyewitnesses said and the Jesus traditions as they reached the Evangelists [the authors of the Gospels]. No doubt the eyewitnesses started the process of oral tradition, but it passed through many retellings, reformulations, and expansions before the Evangelists themselves did their own editorial work on it.” p.
240”
It would be good to have his reasoning for this view of recent scholars.
Gary: Yes, it does run counter to Bauckham’s recent claim. But I will have the numbers and names to back it up with Mark. Keener has done the work with John and Luke/Acts. So, we are not going merely with hunches based on those colleagues with whom we affiliate.
BTW, I replied to your survey yesterday. You should be receiving it within the next few days.
“He has consulted literature written by 204 critical scholars from 1965-Present on who wrote Mark, was it based primarily on Peter’s testimony, and when it was written. I can tell you at this point that the majority of critical scholars are saying that Mark’s primary source was Peter.”
I look forward to reading your assistant’s survey. I hope he will publish the names of the scholars he surveys so that we can confirm that the survey provides a true representation of all modern NT scholarship and not just that of evangelicals and conservative Protestants.
Gary: I’m encouraging him to publish it. However, much will depend on whether he ends up going on to do a PhD and using it in a chapter of his dissertation.
I can assure you that his 204 critical scholars fit everywhere along the theological spectrum!
“Gary: I’m encouraging him to publish it. However, much will depend on whether he ends up going on to do a PhD and using it in a chapter of his dissertation.”
Dear Dr. Licona: Approximately eight years ago, another evangelical scholar/theologian made another bold, bombshell claim in a debate with Dr. Ehrman. He claimed that a first century fragment of Mark had recently been discovered and promised the audience that very shortly we would all see the evidence. Eight years later, we found out that the “evidence” was not only poor but incorrect! Aren’t you doing the same thing here? You are making a bold “bombshell” announcement that overturns the current perceived consensus position of the majority scholars on the authorship of the Gospels, but then not releasing any evidence to back it up; only promising that such evidence “might” be coming years in the future.
I have collected statements from numerous scholars and other authorities on the New Testament which contradict the research results of your graduate student. You can read them here:
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/
Yes. Dan Wallace made such a claim and did so on a short video I made of him. Dan had minimal data on which to go at that time. And he has apologized for his premature statement. However, it was based on the premature conclusion of an expert. In the case of Mark, I have personally supervised this student’s research. So, to be clear, he has combed the literature from 1965-Present written by critical NT scholars, literature that provides reasons for their views, the pros and cons. It’s not simply sending out a survey with a handful of Yes and No questions such as the one I received from you. And once I answered your first question, the survey was complete. You also asked some who are not NT critics. I’m not at all saying this to negate your conclusions. However, I’m satisfied with my student’s research. I’ve seen what he has done. And it’s quite good.
My survey does not purport to be statistically representative of anything. It is simply a survey of the OPINIONS of 30 prominent evangelical and conservative Protestant scholars and theologians on the issue of the authorship of the Gospels. And at the same time that I release the results, I will release all the data. That is the proper, standard, professional manner of conducting a survey, performing research, or performing a literature search.
Imagine the following: A prominent, highly respected scientist makes a public announcement that a literature search performed by himself and his research assistant (a graduate student) has found that the majority of scientists from 1965 to the present believe that climate change is fake news. It is a lie. Climate change does not exist.
When asked for the data, the prominent scientist states that unfortunately he cannot release the data to confirm his bold claim. His research assistant has the last word on its release, as he plans to use the data for his doctoral thesis. So if the data is released at all, it will be years in the future. The scientific community and the public would be outraged. The scientist would be heckled and laughed out of every future scientific conference he attends.
What you are doing is shameful and beneath you, Dr. Licona. Release the data or retract your claim.
Gary: You’re over-reacting here, friend. I offered the comment about my student’s research because the matter of authorship was brought up in the dialogue. What I offered was not at all unprofessional.
Dear Dr. Licona, I again want to emphasize how much I have always respected the honesty and integrity of your work and the respectful manner in which you interact with those with whom you disagree. But your statement above does serious damage to your reputation as an honest investigator of the truth.
Every conservative evangelical Christian apologist on the planet will latch on to your above statement regarding the scholarly consensus on the authorship of the Gospel of Mark and will launch attacks on skeptics for refusing to accept “eyewitness testimony”. They will do this based simply on the word of ONE expert: Mike Licona. They will do this without having any data to support this claim. Christians and skeptics should honestly debate the evidence. Relying on ONE expert’s word on such an important issue is not appropriate. Please see our point of view: We see your belief system (conservative Christianity) as an evil. (That does not mean that we see all conservative Christians as evil!) We see what evangelical Christians have done to our country with their overwhelming support of Donald Trump, probably the most immoral, dishonest president in our history. We skeptics believe that we are fighting for the scientific method, rational thinking, and equality for all and against superstitions and religion-based bigotry.
Truth and facts matter.
We need more details about your student’s research. Is his literature search based solely on scholars who have written on the topic of the authorship of Mark? What if the majority of scholars who have written on the authorship of Mark are evangelical and conservative Protestant scholars for whom the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels is CRITICAL to the believability of their core belief: the resurrection of Jesus? That is what we need to know. Does his/your literature search reflect the position of the Academy as a whole or only those scholars who were sufficiently interested in Mark’s authorship to write about it? Just because most scholars who have written about the authorship of Mark believe in the traditional authorship of the Gospels does not necessarily mean that most of the Academy believes that the Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark, the traveling companion of Peter. Do you see why more information about your data is necessary?
Please release your data or retract your claim, Dr. Licona.
Thanks, Gary. My student’s research will come out in due time. The sooner the better, of course.
This comment seems to be irresponsible in it’s untimeliness. No such claim should be made unless the related and relied upon data is disclosed otherwise those reading it may quote the claim as if it is a scholasticly held view. Until the claimed facts it relies upon are released, the true and sincere scholar would be patient and bide his tongue. Sorry Dr Licona, but I find these types of unsubstantiated claims to be common, albeit expected, among apologists, but to be avoided by sincere scholars. I also find your adhoc claim about the dead African corpse to be desperate in relying as evidence because the claim was that of an atheist. I’m sure David Copperfield truly appreciates the endorsement however.
b.dub3: You are correct about the untimeliness of my comment pertaining to Mark. It is true that a have a grad student who’s working on this. But I need to ensure that the final result of his research bears out what he said prior to announcing it. I should have learned from the premature announcement of the so-called 1st century Mark fragment that turned out being 2nd-3rd c. I withdraw the claim.
Nothing in your response contradicts my assertion that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses (perhaps I didn’t make that assertion clear enough?). In fact, you seem to affirm the fact that they were at best, most optimistically, second hand accounts. And since we don’t have any writings by Peter or John it’s hard to say how accurate the records are!
Can we trust evangelical Christian scholars and theologians, such as Dr. Licona and Dr. Craig Keener, to be objective in their research related to Jesus of Nazareth when they believe that the spirit of this dead first century prophet lives somewhere inside of them, communicating with them, giving them life direction on all matters, from which person to marry to which job offer to accept??
Read this about Pentecostal theologian, apologist, and author, Dr. Craig Keener:
“Keener admits that he did not have the time or resources to vet more than a small number of the miraculous claims in his book (“Miracles”). But his enthusiasm apparently got the best of him, hence his choice of quantity over quality. Such enthusiasm even extends to Craig Keener’s ability to HEAR God’s voice, as recorded in the dual autobiography he wrote with his second wife, Medine. The words from God that Craig hears often begin with the phrase “My child,” and consist of God reminding him how much he is loved, or, when Craig feels down, God reminds him how much his sufferings resemble those of Jesus, Elijah, and Hosea, or other Bible characters who suffered. For instance, when Craig found out that his first wife had been unfaithful, God emphasized that He also suffered due to the Israelites being unfaithful to Him.” —“The Case Against Miracles”, edited by John Loftus
What??
Keener hears a spirit inside his body say audible words?? That is looney-ville, folks!
And we are supposed to believe that the research of these men is objective?? I don’t think so.
Mike, I read a lot of apologetics in my teens and twenties because they helped to strengthen my faith. I never doubted the existence of the Christian god or the truth of the Christian narrative. But I constantly struggled with never feeling God’s presence or any kind of response to prayer. I can’t count the number of times in my life I have been sobbing on my knees begging God to show up in some way, in any way. I have yearned for his comfort and his love. I have sought him with all my heart. I have knocked and knocked and the door was never opened. I have experienced so much anxiety and fear as a result of this absent God. I desperately used the bible to reassure myself God would keep me. But ultimately the only experience of God I’ve ever had has been resounding silence. I agonised for such a long time that God didn’t want me, that I wasn’t elect. But if this is the case then there isn’t a single thing I can do about it and apologetics can’t help me here! Thankfully my mental health has improved significantly since I’ve largely been able to stop obsessing about such fears. I’m not commenting to be convinced that somehow, against all the evidence, God loves me, but to highlight that apologetics can only take one so far.
ksgm34: I see that your struggle is real. I have one very close to me who struggles with mental health. It’s a matter with which very few can understand. As I read your comments, I saw there was more to things than faith and evidence. I’m glad that your “mental health has improved significantly.” I agree with you that apologetics can only take one so far. One must have a bit of faith, regardless of the worldview one chooses.
Thank you for expressing your sympathy. I want to be clear that most of my mental health struggles stem from fear of the Christian god and the fact that, looking back, I felt completely rejected by him. I never ever doubted that he existed, though.
When a child experiences continued rejection from their parent, it’s like a shock to the system. It can’t be processed by the psyche, it’s just too much. This is the nature of trauma. I’ve come to understand that I was essentially traumatised by Christianity, because being rejected by God was like an ultimate rejection.
Even if somebody could unequivocally prove that the resurrection happened, this can have no impact on my life unless God actually shows up.
Thanks, ksgm34. I’m not a mental health professional. But from what you have written here and in your previous comment, I’d guess there’s more going on behind your struggles than having a fear of the Christian God.
Right, because there is no way his experience and diagnosis and what is behind it can possibly be explained as the accurate causation! Thank you for minimizing his explanation and thus his experience..
Dr. Licona,
While I’m an agnostic-to-atheist (depending on definitions), I come from a conservative confessional Lutheran family with no shortage of pastors. Thus I know how intelligent, sincere, and kind believers can be (much to the surprise and disbelief of so many liberals and atheists I know).
I appreciate your approach to debates and discussions. Your knowledge and generosity of spirit shine through. (The same, it should be said, applies to Dr. Ehrman.) While I’m sure there’s an occasional mind changed through mockery, condescension, or animosity, I suspect far more come about through friendly (and probably slow) discourse … with the benefit of a more congenial atmosphere even in the absence of conversion.
Thanks for your work.
Thanks much, lutherh!
Excuse me for writing Mr. Erhman. Mr. Licona, do you think the Ebionites are pursuing the Jewish Law? Circumcision and other Jewish religious rules. There are claims that the Ebionites are true Christians. Do you think that these claims have historical basis?
Ersay: Bart is much more familiar with the Ebionites than I am. He would be a good one to answer.
Dr. Licona, thank you for this fascinating presentation; I can see why Dr. Ehrman enjoys debating with you! Let me just make a couple of observations: First, we have no idea what was going on and what arguments were being made in the 20 years or so between the crucifixion and the first surviving document of the Jesus Movement, 1 Thessalonians.This makes it perhaps impossible to know when and why the early leaders settled on the gospel version of events (though it is possible they considered and rejected docetism, at least). Second, the gospel portraits of Pilate are completely at odds with what we know about him from Philo and Josephus and the general power and behavior of Roman governors. To take just one example, Pilate knew nothing and cared less about Jewish sensitivities, so he would not have wasted any time debating the nature of kingship as John claims he did. Also, the gospels increasingly shift blame for the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews, an indication more of rising discomfort with the Jews’ lack of interest in Jesus than of historical reporting.
Another consideration is the miracles as reported; miracle workers were common in that period and Jesus was in effect competing with them. I note, for example, that the Pharisees were not astonished by nor angered by Jesus’s miracles, only that he was doing them on the Sabbath.
I don’t have space to flesh out this argument, but I think it is clear that much of Scripture (OT) is questionable history (not all of it), and that the Jesus Movement’s claims that Scripture predicted Jesus are noncredible reinterpretations that rely on taking words out of context.
These are some of the reasons why I cannot accept the argument that the NT (or the OT) shows evidence of divine inspiration.
Respectfully,
Dan
Thanks, dankoh! You wrote, “we have no idea what was going on and what arguments were being made in the 20 years or so between the crucifixion and the first surviving document of the Jesus Movement, 1 Thessalonians.” I think we have a pretty good idea of what was going on. After Jesus’ death, his disciples did not go off on a permanent religious retreat, never to be heard from again. According to Paul’s undisputed letters and the book of Acts, Jesus’ disciples continued to spread his message for at least the next 2 decades. And that brings us to the very doorstep of when the first Gospel was written. Moreover, it assumes the Gospel authors lacked the desire and sense to sift through traditions about Jesus, filtering those with questionable origin, and retaining those known to have been rooted in eyewitness testimony. Furthermore, I think we’re on good grounds for accepting the traditional authorship of Mark and Luke and that John is based on eyewitness testimony. Finally, Paul’s undisputed letters provide a window into some of the activities going on during those 20 years (e.g., the conflicts, what led him and Barnabas to visit Jerusalem in the late 40s where he met with Peter, James, and John to run the message he had been preaching past them). Although we don’t have direct access to those 20 years, I don’t think our knowledge of what occurred during that time is as insecure as some think.
What I meant by saying we don’t know what happened then is that we don’t know what were the arguments and disagreements among the Jesus followers before most of them settled on the idea that he was the messiah who “died for our sins.” Even in the NT we see a tendency not just to dismiss but to erase any argument that challenges this theme – not unreasonably so from their perspective since they had decided that a wrong or mistaken belief could send one to hell. Even so, Paul’s letters and later epistles make it clear that they were not all in agreement even back then.
I also cannot accept Acts as eyewitness or close to eyewitness testimony, as it was written late in the first century, and also claims actions contrary to fact, such as the mass baptism of close to half the population of Jerusalem over 2 days, an event that would have not gone unnoticed by more contemporaneous sources had it actually occurred. (It also conflicts with Paul.)
You write, “it assumes the Gospel authors lacked the desire and sense to sift through traditions about Jesus, filtering those with questionable origin, and retaining those known to have been rooted in eyewitness testimony.” But the gospels all record the story of Barabbas, which is not only of questionable origin but contradicts known historical facts: the Jews never had such a custom (though the Greeks did); Pilate had absolute power in Judaea and could simply have released Jesus if he felt like it; there were two other condemned lestai besides Barabbas but Pilate never offers them to the crowd; Pilate had nothing but contempt for crowds, as documented by Josephus; the priests had Jesus arrested at night because they feared the crowd favored him, but between midnight and the next morning they had somehow convinced the crowd to oppose him instead. The point of this and other stories, especially in John, was not to report eyewitness testimony but to transfer blame for the crucifixion from Pilate to the Jews.
Thanks, dankoh. I don’t see the motif of Jesus dying for our sins as a later development. Of course, it’s in Paul’s undisputed letters. And Paul tells us he had presented the gospel message he was preaching to the Jerusalem apostles and that they had certified he was on message (Gal. 2:1-10). The earliest Gospel has Jesus saying he came to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).
Regarding half of Jerusalem being baptized in Acts, hyperbolic language was common. E.g., Matt. 3:5-6 is certainly hyperbolic.
I don’t view the story of Barabbas as contradicting historical facts. Other ancient literature reports of four Roman rulers and a Herodian prince who freed prisoners in order to appease the demos. For example, Josephus reports of Albinus, the Roman procurator of Judea, who in AD 64 (I think that’s the correct date, though I’m pulling this from memory) executed the worst criminals and freed all of the rest in order to please the Jews. Moreover, the story of Barabbas is attested in multiple independent sources (e.g., Mark, John). And that’s pretty good, if both are rooted in eyewitness testimony as I believe they are. If multiple attestation accounts for anything, the story of Barabbas should not be quickly dismissed.
Thank you for your reply. But I think you have still missed the point of my concern. We do know that, from about 50 CE on, the Jesus Movement was in general (though not universal) agreement that Jesus died on the cross “for our sin.” But we do not know, and perhaps never will know, how they arrived at that position in the years from 33 to 50, in part because of the pattern already seen in the NT of eliminating all contrary views (such as Docetism, though we do know it existed even so). Again, I discount Acts because it was written after the position had been decided on and was not going to report any contrary views or actions.
My objections to the story of Barabbas have to do with the details – Pilate in fear of the crowds (who only a few hours earlier had been so in favor of Jesus that the priests were afraid of them), the gospels’ claim that this was a Jewish custom when it was not, etc. The fact that each gospel has the same story suggests to me that the later ones found it useful and repeated it, not that they are reporting eyewitness testimony. The dissimilarity test only works if the story is credible in the first place, and there are too many problems and contradictions (I haven’t listed all of them) for me to find it credible.
I do find, however, that it was useful to help explain to the Greek world why the Jews, the people of Jesus, had shown no interest in the message of Jesus, a conundrum that to this day continues to bother many Christians.
dankoh: None of us can get into a time machine, return to the past and verify our conclusions. We have to go with the evidence and assess what we think is most probable. Given my previous reply in which I provided reasons from Paul’s ties to the Jerusalem apostolic leadership and multiple attestation, I think I’m on solid ground when concluding the earliest accepted apostolic message is that Jesus saw himself as an atonement for sin. Given the extant data supporting that conclusion, those who think otherwise bear a strong burden of proof.
Of course, Acts was written after the fact. It could not have been written prior. All history is written after the fact.
Re: the story of Barabbas, our accounts are not exhaustive. The same can be said of all historical accounts. If John is rooted in eyewitness testimony, as most Johannine scholars hold, then we have multiple independent sources attesting to the story of Barabbas (i.e., Mark, John), though John is reporting it later. It makes little difference that Pilate’s practice was not reported otherwise. In Acts, it’s reported that Claudius had recently expelled the Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2). If not for a single sentence in Suetonius’ Life of Claudius (25), there would be no other report of such an event. Not even Josephus reports it, though it had occurred in his own lifetime!
Jesus dying for sins was a fulfillment of Isaiah 53. There had to be an explanation of WHY God would allow his son to be put to death. Do you see it that way?
Forgive me, but I feel the need to respond once more. We know what the apostolic position was once Paul started writing, but we don’t know how the Jesus Movement arrived at that position, how long it took them to arrive at it, and what other possible positions they may have considered before settling on this one. That is what I mean by the absence of information from 33 to 50 CE.
You write, “It makes little difference that Pilate’s practice was not reported otherwise.” Again, that is not my point. My point is that Pilate’s actions regarding Barabbas (and his other actions in the gospels) are contradicted by what his contemporary Philo did report about him. (Also Josephus, though he is contemporary with the gospels.) It is also contrary to how Roman governors behaved in general.
Dr Licona, how set in stone is the canon for you? Let’s say that we discover a text of one of Paul’s lost letters and that it clarifies some things scholars discuss. All (or nearly all, since some scholars will disagree with anything) scholars agree that this was actually written by Paul. Should this letter be incorporated into the Bible?
AstaKask: Great question! And it’s one I always pose to my students and even in some of my public lectures. I’d love it if one of Paul’s lost letters was discovered! And I’d be open to discussing whether it should be added to the canon.
Dr Licona
I think you got off to bad start when you said it’s rational for a Christian to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired as opposed to saying that Christians can use a certian rationale to get to the belief that the Bible is devine , as it were. I wonder what Bart Ehrman would say about your biases that you may or may not have in your reasoning?
Dominic
Hi Mike
Blimey,is my comment the only one that didn’t get a reply? I thought I was being polite . In a debate with Bart Ehrman, William Lane Craig attempted to use Bayesian Analysis to prove the existance of God or the Resurection ( I don’t remember which ) and pretty much gave the debate to Ehrman at that point. WLC is not someone who brings authority to a point and I think it unwise to use him as such.
Cognative biases do affect one’s abiltity to be rational and I need more from you to show that you are guarding against yours.
Dominic
Hi, Dominic. In his debate with Bart, William Lane Craig did not use Bayesian analysis to prove the resurrection of Jesus. He was answering Bart’s claim that the resurrection of Jesus was the least probable explanation, if my memory serves me correctly. Craig replied that the only way to calculate probability in that instance would be to use Bayes Theorem and cited Richard Swinburne’s book “The Resurrection of God Incarnate” in which Swinburne employs Bayes Theorem to assess the statistical probability of Jesus’s resurrection to be at 97%. Craig then went on to say such an enterprise could not be done. (Again, I’m trying to recall this correctly. It was 2007!) Therefore, the statistical probability of Jesus rising from the dead is inscrutable. I’m not aware of any Christian philosopher, NT scholar, or apologist who uses Swinburne’s argument. I, for one, never found it persuasive, although I wanted to when I read Swinburne’s book.
Baysian analysis has its limitations. Very few historians (I’m only aware of two) think it’s a legitimate method for use in historical investigations. One reason why is the Prior is virtually impossible to determine. For example, what’s the Prior that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Japan in WWII? That’s impossible to determine. What’s the Prior for Black Holes? That’s likewise impossible to determine, since Black Holes are theoretical entities posited to explain observable phenomena. Historical hypotheses are similar to theoretical entities in science, in so far as they are posited to explain data.
Whether or not you agree with Craig, he is an authority. He has two earned doctorates: PhD in Philosophy, which he earned at the University of Birmingham under the supervision of John Hick and a DTheol in Theology, which he earned at the University of Munich under the supervision of Wolfhart Pannenberg. He is also widely published by prestigious publishers and journals.
You are correct that cognitive biases “affect one’s ability to be rational.” I have cognitive biases. You have them. Everyone has them. One deceives himself to think otherwise.
Thanks for the reply ,I know you must be busy . I agree re biases and they are something we need to be aware of as they weaken our reasoning.
I went back to check the video of Ehrman and Craig and did have a chuckle when the latter reeled out his Probability Calculus which I found problematic, not Bayesian as my faulty eye witness memory thought. I found Bart Ehrman to be very much the Historian in that debate and WLC the Evangelist but I suppose we will have to agree to differ.
Greetings, Dr. Licona,
I don’t know if your three posts will encapsulate this so I’m putting it out there now. I understand that you view the bible as inspired and that the book as scripture is a form of inerrancy (as you noted, human influence is present). From this, I wonder if you put the following categories into human influence or divine inspiration and on what grounds would you categorize them as one or another (or a different category)?
1. Paul’s views on homosexuality
2. Paul’s view that slaves should accept their condition and not seek freedom (only taking it if opportunity arises)
3. Deutero-Pauline negative views on women
4. Gospel of John’s hostility towards Jews who do not believe (children not of Abraham)
Basically, I’m very curious to hear what your rationale and evidence are on the more difficult (to me) passages of the bible whenever the term ‘inerrancy’ is defended.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
That’s a fair question, Andrew. I’d have to give it some serious thought before answering.
I’m not sure if you can see my original question when you reply, but do you think your upcoming posts will answer perhaps in part how you might evaluate these different parts of the bible? (Paul’s stance on homosexuality = inerrancy or human influence; his stance on slavery – don’t seek freedom = inerrancy or human influence, etc.). Or outside the scope of this 3-post engagement? Regardless, thanks for your consideration on the topic.
Andrew: I did see your original question. I admit that I am limited in the amount of time I can devote to interacting on this blog (although I am enjoying my time with you all!). I did acknowledge that these are touchy matters you have raised that would require serious and deeper thought on my part. I’m not hopeful that I’ll have the time this week or next to do that. I hope you understand. Thanks!
Hello, Dr. Licona,
My apologies: I hadn’t meant to imply you hadn’t seen my earlier question. I notice in some of Dr. Ehrman’s responses to people that he may not be able to see the comment thread and will ask about info that’s there for us to see. In my response I was concerned my previous question may not be visible to you, hence my phrasing.
Anyway, your response covered it – that it’s not in the scope of what you’re currently addressing (that’s fine). I appreciate the consideration regardless, and I look forward to reading your upcoming posts.
seems to me that Christians can be separated into two, very different camps. In one camp are folks like my Grandmother who “believed”. She spent her entire life following Jesus’ example. She loved and gave with every ounce of herself.
In the other camp there seem to be Christians who exude, “I believe, therefore I am right!” (And YOU are going to burn in Hell for all eternity if you don’t.)
What is amazing to me seems to be the “god” given ability to be able to see past all the smoke and mirrors. To see most of it as nothing more and nothing less than the story of what it means to be human. To just sit back and marvel rather than be enmeshed with the conflict.
Thanks for the post Mike. It’s a great reminder.
Dr Licona,
Thank-you so much for agreeing to these posts. Like Dr Ehrman going into a church for a debate, you are now walking into our own little lion’s den, and that intellectual courage speaks highly to your character. There are, however, many of us “churched” in here in order to receive a true expert’s insights into our faith. It speaks equally highly of Dr Ehrman’s character that he maintains friendships with people like you and Dr Dale Martin and Dr Joel Marcus.
I would like to ask from your second argument about Christ predicting his own death. Wouldn’t it be fair to maintain that it doesn’t take divine connections or even a particularly high intellect to know that if you go into Jerusalem on that particular holiday and ridicule Pilate with the entrance into the town on a donkey, as well as making some commotion inside the temple, that the Romans would in fact want to put you down?
Thanks much, rburos. Most of you have made me feel quite welcome. And for that, I’m thankful.
You are quite correct that, had Jesus planned to do something like ridiculing Pilate and making a commotion in the temple during Passover, he would not have required divinely predictive powers to know the Romans were going to execute him. To my knowledge, I don’t recall anywhere in which I have argued that Jesus predicted his death from divine foreknowledge. However, I have contended that the historical evidence suggest Jesus predicted his imminent death and subsequent resurrection. However, I’ll add that he probably had divine predictive powers if he knew he was going to rise from the dead then proceeded to do so.
Agreed. Looking forward to reading all your responses and your following posts. Home run again Dr Ehrman!
Mike, thank you for your post – and robustly engaging Bart’s community. I have a strange comment, bear with me, I mean no disrespect. I feel like the Bible, especially the New Testament., is a large trick on all of us for one main reason: the writers of the books of the Bible were not trying to write TO ME, or to any of us here in our point in history. They clearly, respectively, had particular audiences in particular timeframes.
If I found a letter in a cave tonight in my city, clearly written from a fisherman to a doctor, noting metaphysical experiences and observations on human nature, oh and it was dated from 80 A.D., why would I come to a conclusion that it was meant to be empirical knowledge for *my life here in November 2019?* Obviously, I am being rhetorical; I hope you can see my point. I feel like there is no such thing as The Bible. The joke is on us. We are a meaning-making species, and this curious set of books fills a void for meaning. Religion makes a container for our lives to fit into (and it is not all bad). But is it possible we humans have made a strange turn with all of this “Bible” stuff? Any response welcome.
Thanks littlegeo. I don’t think your argument leads to the conclusion that the Bible “is a large trick on all of us.” Granted, the matter of the canon came to be accepted as we have it today is by no means a clear one, especially when one takes into consideration that some churches have a slightly different canon.
Of course, these are matters of non-essential importance. For me, much comes down to the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus rose, game-set-match: Christianity is true!
Thanks for writing for the blog in this way, I have found your debates with Bart Ehrmann (and other similar debates) very useful and instructive in helping me make sense of christianity and the Bible.
Your argument could be summarised (hopefully accurately) as:
-You believe (for extra biblical reasons as well) that Jesus wrote from the dead. Therefore what he says must be authoritative.
-he believed the Old Testament to be inspired
– we therefore can assume that the same applied to the New Testament – “his teachings are authoritative and we would expect for him to have commissioned his disciples to pass them along.” (a quote from what you wrote here)
The two massive problems I see here are:
1- It is speculative. Jesus actually says nothing about any New Testament. If the NT was to be so important, ‘we would expect for him’ to have mentioned it….
2- It is non specific. There is no indication whether 1, 2 or even 3 Corinthians (which I believe exists?) should be in, whether Matthew and Luke but not Thomas should be in the Gospels, whether 1 Clement should be out, but James and Revelation in….all areas of canonical debate and uncertainty, as far as I understand.
Phil: I admit that the matter of canonicity was not nearly as clean as many have been previously taught in seminary. It’s a somewhat fuzzy matter. In my article, I do not claim to have an airtight argument for the divine inspiration of the Bible. However, I provide some reasons for why I think the Bible is divinely inspired and what it means to say it’s “divinely inspired.”
Dr Licona
Thank you for this. You obviously had a predisposition towards religious belief without, as you say, any evidence at the age of 10 when you were first aware of your Christian faith. Had you been born and raised in, say, Pakistan, would you now be a devout Muslim; or in Thailand, a Therevada Buddhist?
That’s a fair question, Boltonian. I suppose I will never know the answer to that. What I can say is that I was predisposed toward Christian belief. However, in my 40s, I made a sustained effort of 5 years to examine the data and assess it with as open a mind as was possible for me. My wife and a handful of my closest friends know how much I truly wrestled with my own biases and my willingness to go where there evidence pointed. In my thinking, I could have left my Christian faith behind and would have, if I thought the evidence pointed against it. Had I been raised as a Muslim or Buddhist, would I have embarked on a similar journey? Heaven knows! (Literally!)
For everyone, regardless of any mitigating experiences or biases, there are only two available sources of evidence subject to examination vis-a-vis Christianity: the written texts and the events in history preceding, during, and pursuant to those texts. As to the texts themselves, one can argue for the integrity of their content (which is where all the commentary that has ever existed comes from), but not whether the characters and events described are historical. It may be arguable that the NT is comprised of reliable testimonies of direct witnesses, but not that the stories are true. Yes, Paul and the other writers do seem to believe in the same things you do, Dr Licona, but concurrence does not suffice for evidence. This is especially true in ancient writings that describe supernatural characters or events. All the education and belief in the world cannot change that fact.
tadmania: If what you wrote is true, you cannot conclude that Jesus died by crucifixion, since you think “concurrence does not suffice for evidence.”
There are innumerable crucifixions described in history, and it is a wholly physical act, so crucifixion is already light years ahead of any miracle. That said, I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to support the existence of a human Jesus, let alone one who was crucified according to the NT.
At your convenience and pleasure, sir, try again.
tadmania: You wrote, “I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to support the existence of a human Jesus, let alone one who was crucified according to the NT.” I suggest that you read Bart’s book on the topic: “Did Jesus Exist?” If that doesn’t change your mind, I’m not going to try.
Dr Ehrman relies heavily on the writings of Paul, who in turn claims knowledge via revelation. Thus, I am unconvinced. Using his research is a bit disingenuous on your part, is it not? No need to respond, of course,. I understand your dilemma. Peace and love, sir. Thanks for entering the viper pit!
It’s good to hear a different argument – thank you for contributing to the blog Dr. Licona! While I myself don’t believe that Jesus was divine (or no more divine than any of the rest of us), it is hard to read his parables and sermons and not acknowledge that he was at the very least extremely wise for his age (30-ish?) So, if there is a (good) God, it’s hard not to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was very close to this source. For me, the problem comes in with the Christian need to believe that Jesus *was* God and that he was raised from the dead.
Apparently, just living a life in accordance with Jesus’ teachings isn’t enough for salvation(?) If your view is something along these lines – that’s it’s vitally important to believe in Jesus’ divinity/resurrection – then I think your argument is destined for oblivion among thinking persons in our diverse and pluralistic 21st century world.
Thanks, Apocryphile. However, as long as the world remains diverse and pluralistic, I think the apostolic claim that one must hold to Jesus’s deity and resurrection in order to belong to him will likewise remain among thinking persons. There are certainly enough serious scientists and scholars today who hold it.
I can see how these two articles of the Christian faith are perhaps necessary to maintain its status as a distinct religion, but is it necessary to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus first in order to live according to his words and example? For some (most?) Christians, apparently so.
Apocryphile: In answer to your question, I don’t think one must believe Jesus is divine and that he rose from the dead “in order to live according to his words and example.” However, it’s another matter if one wants to follow him and have eternal life.
You write: “However, it’s another matter if one wants to follow him and have eternal life.” I have never understood how this can be reconciled with Jesus’s parable of the sheep and the goats, according to which the only requirement for an eternal reward is to do good to your fellow human beings.
I also wonder what is your position regarding the fate who never had an opportunity to hear Jesus’s message. It seems to me that this creates an insoluble theological difficulty.
(I realize this is getting away from the original point of this thread, but your response to Apocryphile caught my eye.)
Thanks, dankoh. I think we have to take the entirety of Jesus’ teachings rather than only what he said on one occasion. Regarding the fate of those who never heard, I wrestle with that question in this video that I cued to the relevant spot: https://youtu.be/5m3w0gtKYo8?t=1350
Great responses to my post! Thanks all. I sometimes wonder how it would affect (or not) the world’s religions if we ever received a confirmation of a signal from an extraterrestrial civilization. The interstellar distances involved are perhaps indicative of the probabilities against such contact, but who knows? We’ve only been actively “listening” for about the past 50 years, and we’re not even sure what form such a signal might take. Regardless, I think the main point is that the Christian religion, along with every other religion on earth, is constantly evolving and changing, however slowly. Like everything else on earth, if it isn’t changing, it’s dead. If some version or interpretation of Christianity still claims exclusive (or preferential) access to God, Jesus, or a pleasant afterlife, I don’t give it much hope of surviving in an increasingly educated and urbane 21st century. If we’re operating in the modern world, but still have a 1st century worldview, that creates more than a few problems, not the least of which is inevitable conflict with other cultures and religions.
I will, however, also say that I perhaps have a more “generous” viewpoint on the apparent “post-resurrection” appearances than Bart does. Where Bart I think would chalk them up to hallucinations, I like to keep an open mind toward them. There are many anecdotal stories of such phenomena that happen the world over. There is still far more in the universe that we can’t explain than what we can. However, the claim that Jesus was himself God cannot be borne out through employing historical research methods (nor, indeed, can the resurrection itself be).
For what it is worth about half of Christians are Catholic and the Second Vatican council framed biblical innerrancy this way:
“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.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
This definition I believe correctly limits the innerrancy to the aim of the church and scripture. In other words God is not concerned with correcting whether the mustard seed is the smallest seed.
Of course there are Catholics who disagree with my view of this passage. Some would say the inerrancy goes further and would say the truth goes beyond that which is for the sake of salvation.
Hi Mike,
I applaud your efforts as a defender of the Christian faith. I’ve followed you for a long time and read your book on the resurrection, along with many other apologetic books such as those of J Warner Wallace, Gary Habermas, Gregory Boyd (Loved his “Letters from a Skeptic” book), and all the way back to Josh McDowell’s books. I’ve had a thousand doubts over the years and for many years, books like yours and other apologists sustained me. But after 20 years of trying to hammer the pieces together to make them fit, I finally stumbled upon Bart’s work. I hate to say it but for the first time in my life, every piece fit… (no hammering needed). I don’t feel like that’s because Bart is so persuasive (although he is). I think it’s because what he says is simply true. I would now consider myself a non-Christian and wonder what your thoughts are on people like me and our eternal destiny. Isn’t this supposed to be so easy that a child can understand it? It would be the shock of my life if I died and woke up in hell and found out the whole Jesus thing was real, but for argument’s sake, if I end up being wrong, do you think God’s judgment will be even more severe for me, since I *supposedly* knew the truth? How can God judge me when I’ve tried SOOO hard to save my faith over the years? Why couldn’t he make the pieces fit just a little better?
Thanks for your comments, Chris. I don’t know about your statement that faith in what Scripture says is supposed to be so easy that a child can understand. 2 Peter 3:16 mentions some things in Paul’s letters being difficult to understand. Moreover, even the Jerusalem apostles and Paul had some matters on which there was disagreement and had to be fleshed out in a council.
I love Bart and I appreciate his invitation for me to contribute 3 articles. So, I’m not wanting to offer criticisms here. But you can see in our debates, including the written one, that he and I have some sharp disagreements. Therefore, I wouldn’t agree with you that his approach makes every piece fit. Although there are many questions I have that remain, I think what is knowable with reasonable certainty is quite sufficient.
So, do I think if you were to die today that you would wake up in hell? Whew! That’s putting me on the spot! In short, my answer is yes. It’s not at all that I want for it to be that way, because I certainly don’t. There are things Jesus said that trouble me, such as being willing to die a brutal death as one of his followers and that salvation is found only through him. From the perspective of being a follower of Jesus, I think there are some things in Scripture for which I will be surprised in heaven to discover I was mistaken. And I am certain there are some things I presently believe that are wrong. That said, if Christianity is true, I don’t have the luxury of choosing to believe what I find appealing while rejecting what I don’t. I have to go with how I interpret Jesus as best as I can. And from where I’m sitting, you have acknowledged that you have abandoned faith in Christ. From what I read in the New Testament, you have walked away from God’s gift of eternal life. Now I also believe you can return to Him (Luke 15:4-24).
I really appreciate that, Mike. I’m just saying it shouldn’t be this hard. I’ve spent years and hundreds of hours reading books and listening to podcasts (My favorite is Cold Case Christianity) trying to put the pieces together. Maybe it’s a predestination thing. I mean, someone who tries THIS hard to work out his faith should have found it. I guess I’m just a vessel created for destruction. Too bad for me.
I find it hard to believe that a good God would sentence someone to eternal torture for not believing that a person rose from the dead 2000 years ago.
aar8818: There are numerous Christian views on the actual nature of hell. The Dante sort of literal fire is not embraced by most Christian theologians today. This is not because they reject the biblical teaching. It’s because they seek to understand it within its cultural milieu. Conservative biblical scholars such as F F Bruce and John Stott held to annihilation. Here are two excellent books on the topic: https://smile.amazon.com/Four-Views-Hell-Counterpoints-Theology-ebook/dp/B010R9L4BC/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=views+on+hell&qid=1574262001&smid=AVQNC09JOZHDS&sr=8-1
https://smile.amazon.com/Whats-Truth-About-Heaven-Hell/dp/0736951725/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Douglas+jacoby&qid=1574262061&sr=8-2
Are you saying that you are an annihilationist, Dr. Licona? Is this a new position for you? Most Christian “annihilationists” do not believe that sinners are immediately annihilated upon their death, but rather they are sent to Hell to suffer some form of “unspeakable” torment until the Second Coming and Judgment Day, the date of which has been revised multiple times over the last 2,000 years. In other words, non-believers may very well suffer in Hell for many, many years before they are finally terminated (annihilated). That is certainly much better than suffering “eternally”, but it is a small comfort. Do you understand how this concept can be very fear-provoking, Dr. Licona?
Yet, conservative Christian leaders such as yourself preach/teach the reality of this place of torment not only to adults but also to children…ten year old children…who do not have the maturity and knowledge base to make a rational decision as to its reality? Is it moral for you to be using fear to motivate conversions to your belief system, in particular, conversions of young children, if you don’t even know where this place called Hell is located?
I am not an annihiationist. However, I hope annihiationism is true and I’m open to it. I’m just not convinced at this time. The concept of hell is “fear-provoking” as you say. It’s meant to be. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that, if it keeps you from sinning, it’s better to take such drastic actions such as plucking out your right eye or cutting off your right hand than it is to be thrown into hell. Of course, that’s rhetoric similar to what Seneca used. But Jesus’ message is clear: You want to avoid hell at all costs.
Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. –Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 7
Gary: Experts estimate that 100 billion humans have existed since the first human to the present time. If we subtract the number of humans alive today, which is approximately 8 billion, we arrive at the number of humans who have died throughout history: 92 billion. That is: 92,000,000,000 If Jesus was correct, very few of these 92 billion people have made it to heaven. But how many is “few”. Let’s be generous. Let’s say that 10% of the human population has made it to heaven. That means that 82.8 billion human beings have not made it to heaven and are, at this very moment, writhing in agony in Hell. Here is my question: How large of a dungeon would you need to hold 83 billion people? Is it really possible, Dr. Licona, that 83 billion people are imprisoned in a dark dungeon at the center of our earth, as Christians for two thousand years have believed? Is there any scientific evidence that supports the idea that there is a massive cavity or cavern at the center of our planet that could hold so many people? I don’t think so.
So where is Hell, Dr. Licona?? If like some clever, modern day apologists, you tell us that Hell is in another dimension, please provide the book, chapter, and verse from the Bible which suggests this to be the case. You can’t, at least not without twisting the words of Jesus into a pretzel to do so.
The truth is, I don’t think you have any idea where Hell is, Dr. Licona. And if you don’t have any idea where this place is, why are you scaring little children and gullible adults with this ancient tall tale? Isn’t it immoral to scare children with tales about a place for which you have zero good evidence for its existence? Please present good evidence for the existence of this horrible place or please stop using this ancient tale to scare people into converting to your supernatural belief system (religion).
Gary: You’re correct. I don’t have any idea of where hell is. I can’t even tell you the nature of hell. That says nothing pertaining to whether hell exists. You can’t tell me how the universe in which you live came into existence. But you believe it exists.
I am not asking you to tell me HOW Hell came into existence, Dr. Licona. I am asking you to tell me WHERE Hell is.
It is true that I have no idea how the universe came into existence. However, unlike you and Hell, I have excellent evidence for the existence and location of the universe.
You have no idea where Hell is yet you believe it exists. Why? What evidence do you have to believe that this horrible place exists?
Where is Hell, Dr. Licona?
Until Dr. Licona tells us where Hell is and provides good evidence in support, we should consider his threats of eternal torture in his invisible deity’s dungeon of doom just another ignorant, ancient superstition. Modern, educated people should not believe this silliness.
Shame on Dr. Licona for frightening innocent little children and gullible adults with this ancient horror story when he has ZERO good evidence of its veracity. The truth is, Dr. Licona believes this Dungeon of Doom exists because he believes that the spirit of a dead man lives inside his body, whispering secret truths in his ear. How can we trust this (good) man’s objectivity on any issue related to the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth??
If you don’t consider every word of the Bible “divinely dictated,” and you further specify that the Bible is essentially “gist-inspired,” (my quotes) then what is your mechanism, or method, for determining which words get put together to form the gist of each book’s God-approved messages, and which words are superfluous or worse?
To give an example of what I am driving at: if two dozen of my friends write 66 books about my beliefs and about advice I have given to people throughout my lifetime, I’m probably not going to agree with every single word, but I might agree with the gist of the books; however, unless I give to the world an algorithm to decipher what I would have exactly said, or I provide an accompanying commentary on each book explaining what I agree/disagree with and what I would have said, then there doesn’t seem to be any rational justification for any reader’s belief of which gists I agree with and which I don’t. One needs a method and a legend, so to speak.
And on a tangent, why can’t Christianity take the stance that the Bible is totally human, but Jesus was still resurrected?
Hi, Michael. I suppose if, in your example, you are seeking the precise wording, you’re not going to get it, although you can know the gist of what was said. Although I’d like to know the exact wording, in most cases, it’s not necessary. I can still get a pretty good idea of what occurred. And, of course, there is a wide range of what one can mean by “the gist.” Scholars sometimes mention the ipsissima verba (the very words) and the ipsissima vox (the very voice). I think in many cases we are getting the very voice of Jesus. That’s an example of “the gist.” Of course, there are plenty more examples.
Dr. Licona, I appreciate the quick reply. I apologize for not being specific in what I was mainly driving at, which is, how does one know that God approved the “gist” of scripture if there isn’t something written/dictated exactly by God outside of scripture that states approval of certain “gists” that are contained in scripture?
You stated that you disagree with divine dictation, i.e. word for word dictated by God. But then you cite William Lane Craig’s argument of God generating the exact circumstances for the biblical authors to write their own words, yet God approved them. If I set up a logical deductive argument that necessarily leads to the conclusion that I approve of, didn’t I essentially dictate the exact outcome?
Michael: You wrote, “If I set up a logical deductive argument that necessarily leads to the conclusion that I approve of, didn’t I essentially dictate the exact outcome?” Not necessarily. It would be saying one is satisfied with what was written. Lets say you manage Employee A. You complete an annual evaluation of that employee. He may not have produced perfect results. But you are satisfied with them enough to allow him to continue as an employee.
But your citation of William Lane Craig’s circumstance-generating argument as a good idea of what you agree is meant by “divine inspiration” of scripture in your blog post is what I am refuting.
You using the example of me managing “Employee A” is not, I believe, an accurate (not even rough) analogy of WLC’s argument. The strictest analogy would be that, the manager, knowing all logically possible circumstances, generates the exact circumstances of Employee A’s results that the manager goes over in employee A’s annual evaluation. If he or she didn’t produce “perfect results,” (note, by our and your WLC analogy, are the exact results the manager generated) then the manager should be not completely satisfied with his/her own output, which is a paradox if you substitute God for the manager.
Remember, in WLC’s argument, God generated the exact circumstances, down to the word, of which the biblical authors wrote; God could have either A) logically chosen the circumstances whereas the biblical authors wrote exactly what God would have said, or B) not. A1) would be God didn’t choose to have them write what he would say, or A2) he did have them say it. You seem to be claiming A1 or B for your definition of divine inspiration.
However, you still aren’t addressing the matter of by what method you are using to derive the God-approved portions or gists of scripture. Or, to put in the Employee A analogy:
1) if all I have to use in order to find out which results the manager approves of in Employee A’s annual evaluation is 66 books written by Employee A, and none by the manager, then I have no way of knowing what the manager actually approves of. I would need some sort of known, verified statement from the manager that lists or codifies what they approve of.
2) you mention no consistent method to infer from employee A’s books that clearly shows that what is written is generally approved of by the manager; even if you had one, it seems that nobody would be justified in claiming they knew what the manager approves of since 1) above.
I don’t see it that way, because I’m not a determinist. So, I think free will exists. If it does, God may not be capable of having every word as preferred, aside from dictation, which is obviously not the course He took.
Craig does not contend that things came out to the very word. Here’s what he says,
“God’s causally determining Paul to write his Epistle to the Romans is incompatible with Paul’s freely writing that epistle, on any plausible account of freedom. . . . Paul’s full range of emotions, his memory lapses (I Cor. 1.14-16), his personal asides (Gal. 6.11) are all authentic products of human consciousness. God knew what Paul would freely write in the various circumstances in which he found himself and weakly actualized the writing of the Pauline corpus. Perhaps some features of Paul’s letters are a matter of indifference to God: maybe it would not have mattered to God whether Paul greeted Phlegon or not; perhaps God would have been just as pleased had Paul worded some things differently; perhaps the Scripture need not have been just as it is to accomplish God’s purposes. We cannot know. But we can confess that Scripture as it does stand is Godbreathed and therefore authoritative. The Bible says what God wanted to say and communicates His message of salvation to mankind.”
Dr. Licona, I really do appreciate your responses and I thank you for your time.
I stand corrected on WLC’s argument. You are right.
I just truthfully cannot communicate it well enough to you of what I am trying to get at so I will try one last time. I understand that this conversation is not just between you and me so If you reply, great, if not, I understand!:
My last shot:
I am trying to get approval from a specific book critic that I admire. Therefore, I write a book in the hopes that this book critic will give me the stamp of approval. I decide to write the book about the book critic himself and I claim in the book that the book was breathed out by the critic himself. Separate from my book, the critic never puts out a critique or commentary of his own, or even a newspaper clipping that states his approval of my book (or at least none have been found).
Fast forward 2,000 years. Someone finds my book.
How can this someone be justified in claiming that the book critic actually approved my book?
Thanks, Michael. I may be the problem. My time is limited and I admit to reading comments somewhat rapidly. So, I may simply be missing your point.
Your analogy is interesting! However, I’m not seeing where it fits. Wouldn’t the analogy require that the biblical authors were writing to elicit God’s approval of their writing? If so, I don’t think that’s what they were doing. With the exception of some Old Testament literature, I don’t have any strong reasons to think that most of the biblical authors were writing with a sense that their literature would later be regarded as Scripture. Please forgive me, Michael, if I’m still not understanding you correctly.
You first define “divinely inspired,” which I think a fair characterization of what you define it as is, generally speaking, scripture is human produced but God approved. Is that fair?
My point is that I don’t see how you can rationally justify your actual definition of “divinely inspired,” which would be necessary before you could provide reasons why the Bible is divinely inspired. You wouldn’t allow me, nor should you, to claim that I can be rational for calling myself a husband if I preface my claim with my definition of husband as “a married bachelor.”
If I offered you a multivitamin and claim it is FDA approved, you would have some reservations. But, after research, you consulted with the FDA and found that they did approve it, then your reservations could be eliminated.
Or, through exhaustive research you can’t find evidence of FDA approval. You ask what my evidence for approval is, and I show you marketing material that talks about how the benefits outweigh the risks, and letters from the CEO and CFO claiming its benefits outweigh the risks as well as their support for the FDA and the FDA’s beneficial effects on society.
You pause…and say,”But that is all stuff from the company and not from the FDA. My friend, your definition of ‘FDA Approved’ is nonsense. You can’t claim FDA approval from your own evidence. You would need to show evidence separate from the company itself, namely something from the actual FDA, that states approval.”
Well then I provide you from the vitamin company, multiple historical accounts of someone who supported the FDA, took the multivitamin, and was supernaturally transformed by taking it, and the best explanation from many experts, out of all known explanations is that he was transformed. Would you say that I was justified in stating the multivitamin is FDA approved?
So to tie it all in, defining “divinely inspired,” as human produced yet God approved, implies that the words of the scriptures are the authors’ words, not God’s, but He approves them. But, under that definition, you would need to show something else, outside of scriptures, that God authors himself and that states that he approves the words of scripture.
Thanks much for the back and forth. This helps when scholars are willing to discuss these things with the little guys!
Mike,
I’m a little surprised (but not completely) that you don’t appeal to an “inner witness” of the Holy Spirit, for belief in the authority of the Bible. Do you have one? Or perhaps does your “inner witness” testify to only Jesus’ promised spiritual relationship with mankind, and not claims of authority of scripture?
Christopher: I have found that most evangelical Christian apologists go out of their way to avoid discussing the ” inner witness of the Holy Spirit” when they are in a discussion with skeptics. They know that using an “inner voice” as evidence for their beliefs comes off as “looney” to skeptics. Yet if you look at their websites or their sermons, when talking among themselves, their perceived communications with the spirit of an executed first century prophet are the PRIMARY evidence for their supernatural beliefs. Dr. Licona is working very hard to avoid discussing this subject even though you, I, and others have repeatedly raised this issue.
Hello Dr.Licona, I really appreciate your courage in posting a blog on “Ehrman’s Lake of Fire”.One thing that lunged out at me,you answered all the posts.A dinner with Bart may teach you discernment.I have recently joined this blog and quickly realized how bright and learned these bloggers are.They have incredible knowledge an array of resources at their disposal. They are teaching me quite a bit and the reason for this site is for an even better cause.Nonetheless,I have recently become an agnostic,as some other bloggers have done as well, mainly due to some of the clarity and understanding of Scriptures through Prof.Ehrman’s books I have read.For me,saying I don’t know,has become easier to live with than saying, I know the Gospel is true.I still maintain that the Bible has given a lot of people,including Bart,a sort of guiding principle to live by.It is ,by far,the greatest story and event ever told and that in itself stands for something.Matthew 5;39 is often mentioned as a teaching to not react or retaliate.A wise man once said in reference to that parable,”If we all turned to him the other(cheek) also,there would be no one left to hit”.I think that a universal dialogue would be sufficient to have,I say this hesitantly,peace in a world very much needed.The theological Jesus teachings may very well be the best we have.It may take a miracle to implement though.As I hear positions from both sides of the fence,we are left to decide and take a stance.Think about the recent attack on Iraq.Was there weapons of mass destruction or not?Why did America invade?And most importantly,how many people died?None of these answers surfaced to give us a satisfying closure on this recent major event.Someone said,this is with 21st century written and video records and millions of living witnesses.How then,a story of nearly 2000 years ago ever come to a conclusion?.One thing for sure,whoever wrote this Bible has caused a constant and relentless pursuit of answers and debates.My point,I don’t discredit anyone who spends the time to research and come up with plausible explanations without claiming absolute truth.This is philosophy of men/women and that’s all.Mike and Bart,you have both done a wealth of good to many people,and I personally thank the two of you for enriching my understanding.
Thanks, veritas. There are a ton of questions all of us have about a lot of matters. I have no ambition of answering them all when it comes to Jesus and religious matters. Once I did the research and concluded Jesus actually rose from the dead, it was a small step to conclude Christianity is true and I can have peace with God. Although I have many other questions, I can live with them.
The fact remains, however, Dr. Licona that you first believed in dead body reanimations (resurrections) at the age of 10. How much evidence did you research before you came to this belief at the age of 10? Did you research the evidence from both sides; from Christian sources and from skeptic sources? I doubt it. I will bet that you did not do ANY research prior to believing this fantastical tale.
The truth seems to be that you believed a fantastical, laws-of-science-defying supernatural claim at the tender age of 10 and only years later did you search for evidence to support your belief. Is that rational thinking, Dr. Licona?
Above you told one of my atheist colleagues that you believe that when he dies he will go to Hell (and suffer eternal torment, according to your holy book). What evidence do you have for the existence of this eternal torture chamber—or is this yet another supernatural tale which you accepted as fact at the age of 10?
Gary: Of course, I was not thinking about whether my decision was rational when I was 10. But that’s irrelevant to whether my more recent assessment was made using reason.
The resurrection of Jesus is not a “laws-of-science-defying” event. The laws of science describe what goes on in our universe when left to itself. If God exists and raised Jesus, the universe was not left to itself. And if God exists and wanted to raise Jesus, he could do so.
I am a physician. I can assure you that the reanimation of a brain-dead body defies the laws of science.
But you are correct, Dr. Licona, if a being with unlimited supernatural powers exists, then supernatural events such as dead body reanimations, flying horses, and talking water buffalo are all possible, just as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism claim. However, just because a being with unlimited supernatural powers exists, does not necessarily mean that this supernatural being has ordained that the supernatural can operate within OUR universe. There is no good evidence that the supernatural has ever intervened in human history—other than anecdotal claims by highly superstitious, often poorly educated, non-scientists. Just because a lot of mostly under-educated people believe something fantastical has occurred, does not mean it did. I know that Christians, such as Dr. Keener, can give long lists of anecdotal claims of “miracles” but anecdotal claims are not sufficient to overrule the apparent inviolability of the laws of science.
Back to your conversion: You believed in dead body reanimations at age 10. You also state that you believe that the majority of humanity (including the atheists in this discussion) will writhe in agony in an eternal torture chamber for all eternity—but I will bet that you cannot tell us where this massive dungeon is. You say that you investigated your beliefs years later after your conversion, when you were an adult. But I have a question for you: At age 10 did you start believing that a back-from-the-dead first century person named Jesus started to communicate with you in some fashion? At age 10, did you believe that you had a “personal relationship” with this back-from-the-dead person? If so, how objective can one really be in investigating the reality of the reanimation (resurrection) of this first century corpse if you believe that he communicates with you each and every day??
Gary: The laws of science inform us what occurs in our universe when left to itself. If God raises someone from the dead, the laws of science are not infringed upon in any way, since the universe would not have been left to itself.
You wrote: “There is no good evidence that the supernatural has ever intervened in human history—other than anecdotal claims by highly superstitious, often poorly educated, non-scientists.” That’s a demonstrably false statement. You’re a physician. Here’s a physician who testifies of his own miraculous healing. I’ve met this guy. https://youtu.be/ztHa5h12ZsU. This is one of many. Moreover, Keener can hardly be said to be “poorly educated”! Nor is he superstitious. Thus, to say only poor plebs speak of miracles is incorrect.
The keyword in my statement is “often”.
If you read Dr. Keener’s two volume work, “Miracles”, as I have, you will see that the overwhelming majority of fantastical miracles claims in this work come from Pentecostal Christians in the Third World. Some of the claims in Dr. Keener’s books are so preposterous it is embarrassing that such a kind, intelligent man as Dr. Keener allowed them to be included in his work. An example: A woman without a uterus, prays to Jesus for a baby, and nine months later gives birth to a child! Outrageous. Educated Christians should be ashamed of promoting such silliness. Dr. Keener admits in the forward of his book that he spent not one DIME in researching these claims.
Yes, some very intelligent, very educated people do believe in miracles. There are many very intelligent Muslim doctors and lawyers who sincerely believe that their prophet flew on a winged horse. There are many very educated, very intelligent Buddhist doctors and lawyers who believe that the Buddha caused a cow to speak in a human language. Intelligent, educated people certainly can and do believe some pretty fantastical, supernatural claims. However, when it comes to the really fantastical healing miracles such as the one listed above, they typically involve the under-educated, very often in a Third World country. In addition, almost all “miracle” claims involve conditions for which a natural recovery is possible. Jesus never seems capable of reattaching severed arms or legs, bringing back to life someone blown to bits by a bomb, or reattaching the head of someone who has been beheaded. No, Jesus only seems to do the easy stuff—the stuff that can, maybe if only rarely, recover by natural causes.
Please comment on the fact that (in your mind) you were already in a “personal relationship” with the spirit of an executed first century man when you began “investigating” the truth claims of Christianity. I think Dr. Erhman’s skeptic/atheist audience would find your answer very interesting…and telling…about your ability to be objective on this issue.
You wrote, “Jesus never seems capable of reattaching severed arms or legs, bringing back to life someone blown to bits by a bomb, or reattaching the head of someone who has been beheaded. No, Jesus only semi to do the easy stuff–the stuff that can, maybe if only rarely recover by natural causes.”
If John is correct, not all of what Jesus did is reported. I may not have a report of him reattaching a severed arm. However, I do have reports of his rising from the dead, walking on water, etc.
Yes, I was already a Christian believer when engaged in my investigation. Now, if you want to move away from committing the ad hominem fallacy and deal with the data, I think you’ll get much further with your own investigation.
That said, I have enjoyed our exchange, Gary. But I’m moving on given my limited time.
Imagine if I were to claim that at age ten I came to believe that Elvis Presley had been raised from the dead. Imagine that from the age of ten, until this very day, I believe that Elvis Presley communicates with me on a daily basis. Would you trust my objectivity in evaluating the evidence for the claim that Elvis Presley had been raised from the dead? I don’t think you would, Dr. Licona. Do you see why many of us are skeptical of your ability to objectively evaluate the evidence for the alleged resurrection of Jesus and the alleged divine inspiration of the Bible?
If you do not believe that the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth communicates with you, then I apologize for making an ad hominem statement. But if you *do* believe that the spirit of this first century dead man communicates with you, then my statement was not an ad hominem, and I think you should answer the question.
Dr licona. the reason why the jews believe that jesus is of the devil is because they say that thousands heard yhwh speak and he told them not to worship him as celestial body, human, animal and idol. if the jewish interpretation of deuteronomy is correct, then the jewish god has greater public testimony than jesus’ private appearances. the jews are told to STONE to death miracle workers who CONTRADICT the public unphysical appearance of yhwh at sinai. do you agree then that testimony of public appearance of yhwh and his jewish laws and rituals (you dont like reading yhwhs righteous laws) means jesus is of the devil ?
While [Craig] Keener [the evangelical Christian author of “Miracles”] acknowledges that a non-supernatural explanation can account for many contemporary “miracle” claims, he also freely admits that he has a vested interest in demonstrating the authenticity of the New Testament. Of course, establishing that miracles are still reported today proves very little other than the fact that miracles are still reported, but so are ghost sightings, hauntings, and witch doctor healings just like they were in the ancient world.
…[Keener] never once conducted a thorough fact-finding investigation to corroborate modern miracle reports. His catalogue of miracles is often tantamount to accepting the word of his friends and acquaintances without any follow-up, though he admits that true believers routinely embellish or concoct self-validating miracle stories. Accepting people’s claims simply because they are otherwise good, honest, and sincere people ultimately borders on pure naivete.
–Darren Slade, The Case Against Miracles, pp. 144-145
Dr. Licona.
First, let me say that it is very inspiring that Christian and atheists can be friends and recognize each other merits. It is a good sign and one of the reasons I admire Bart (and now you). but, with all respect, I don’t believe what you say. The argument is flawed in a lot of places but let’s talk only about premise 1. I think Bart has shown that it can’t be demonstrated historically the resurrection of Jesus, but for the sake of the argument, let’s suppose it is the truth that Jesus rose from the dead.
The problem is that in premise 1 there is no reason to assume that someone who rises from the dead is divine or his teachings are to be considered worthy. A person who rises from the death can say lies, by rising from the death he only shows that he can rise from the dead, not that he is wise. You chose alien as a possible alternative but there are a lot of other possibilities you left out, He could be a magician, a time traveler, an immortal man, a devil, a twin brother, a reincarnation, a new species of man, maybe he didn’t die really, maybe Romans were just acting that killed him. Some other god like Zeus could have risen Jesus somehow and still be a normal person (and the authority of his teachings would be unaffected). All those could explain Seem ad hoc? well, as ad hoc as the possibility of being divine. Once you accept the supernatural you can’t close the door to those possibilities without criteria to do it. And still, his teaching can’t just be trustworthy only for coming from a person who rose from the dead. The other steps have huge problems but premise 1 seems to be the base for everything.
Thank you for the time to post in the forum, I believe that you are one of the most reasonable apologists I have heard and although I disagree with your argument I have learned a lot by listening to your talks.
Thanks for your kind comments, Mike.
You write, “The problem is that in premise 1 there is no reason to assume that someone who rises from the dead is divine or his teachings are to be considered worthy. A person who rises from the death can say lies, by rising from the death he only shows that he can rise from the dead, not that he is wise. You chose alien as a possible alternative but there are a lot of other possibilities you left out, He could be a magician, a time traveler, an immortal man, a devil, a twin brother, a reincarnation, a new species of man, maybe he didn’t die really, maybe Romans were just acting that killed him. Some other god like Zeus could have risen Jesus somehow and still be a normal person (and the authority of his teachings would be unaffected). All those could explain Seem ad hoc?”
Some of the options you provided are naturalistic explanations (e.g., magician, twin brother, apparent death, Romans faked his death). For these hypotheses, one simply subjects them to the same scrutiny as any other hypothesis by applying the criteria of inference to the best explanation. They all come out wanting.
But lets consider some of the other options you mentioned, e.g., Zeus deceived humans by raising Jesus. Of course, this does not dispute whether Jesus rose. It disputes the cause of his resurrection. Nevertheless, you are still correct that it doesn’t prove Jesus is divine. But notice what I wrote in my post: “Every worldview, including atheism, requires a bit of faith. Given Jesus’s resurrection, Christians’ believing Jesus’s teachings about himself would require faith. But it would be a reasonable faith.” I doubt you would dispute that.
All of us make judgments based on reasoning that’s less than certain. The prominent atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse at Florida State University has said that atheism requires a metaphysical commitment and an act of faith. I happen to think that Christianity requires the shortest leap!
Thank you for your clear and kind response. It is amazing to talk to people of your intelectual size and learn from you.
But, I still disagree in many points you brought in your response. Let’s talk about the last claim where you say ” I happen to think that Christianity requires the shortest leap!”. I don’t know how do you measure the size of the leap of faith, one way is with the quantity and size of the claims you have to believe in the leap. I think the leap of faith in Christianity is huge since you have to believe not only that the supernatural exists but that the specifics of the supernatural claims of christianity are true (which are a lot), that the millions of supernatural claims of other religions are false (christianity is an exclusive religion). All of those are intestable, and probably will never be tested. I don’t identify myself as an atheist and agree there is to be a leap of faith to say “there is no god” but by now It seem shorter than christianity. Even deísm (the idea of a creator god but not intervening) is a much shorter leap of faith. I don’t use labels but suspect that truth is somewhere between atheism and deísm. Maybe something like Stuart Kauffman (a theorical biology researcher) proposes in his book “Reinventing the sacred” which I recommend you.
Again, thank you for your response, openess and I’ll be expecting your next posts.
Thanks, Mike Z. In a small nutshell, for which this is not the place to unpack, here’s why I think Christianity requires a smaller leap, in fact, a much smaller one:
1. I look at the same data scientists observe. Even atheist scientists admit the existence of a significant amount of data from cosmology and molecular biology that suggest there was a Designer of the universe and intelligent life. Now, non believing scientists explain that data in other terms. However, many, e.g., Francis Crick, and others, acknowledge the canny appearance of these being the product of a Designer.
2. I look at the data supporting a finite universe. It had a beginning. Yet, if the universe is all there is, at least materially speaking, how did it get here if it had a beginning? It couldn’t bring itself into existence, since that would presuppose its existence. If it was not created, then it would have had to come into being out of nothing. That takes an enormous amount of faith to believe! I think it requires far less faith to posit an eternal cause that brought the universe into being. Given my first point, this would mean an eternal being who is immensely intelligent.
3. I look at the data supporting a supernatural dimension of reality, such as well-evidenced NDEs, veridical apparitions, extreme answered prayer, and paranormal phenomena. These so strongly point to the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality that I don’t think a genuine realist can look at the data seriously and walk away as a naturalist. For a very small sampling of what I’m referring to, see this 10-minute video: https://youtu.be/WRYIr2aBkLk. So, I do believe the supernatural exists. But I don’t think it requires any faith to arrive at that conclusion. On the contrary, I think one must ignore the data to reject its existence.
4. I look at the data supporting Jesus’s radical claims about himself and for his resurrection from the dead. I’m persuaded that, among other things, Jesus claimed to be divine in some sense and that he rose from the dead. I’ve written extensively on Jesus’ resurrection. I lay out my robust historical case for it in my book: https://amzn.to/34eSaZ6.
In my opinion, these four reasons strongly suggest Christianity is true. Now lets consider atheism, which you do not avow.
1. Atheism must account for each of the four points above in a manner that’s superior to the conclusion that Christianity is true.
2. Atheism must account for human consciousness. To date, it cannot. In fact, prominent atheist philosophers such as Colin McGinn and Thomas Nagel have both said the problem of human consciousness is insoluble given a naturalistic universe.
3. If atheism is true, there are no moral absolutes. Given atheism, all morals are merely for an aid in survival or for quality of life. That’s fine. But one could not say that what Hitler did to the Jews, et al. was intrinsically evil. Rather it would merely be a different ethic, a way in which some creatures of nature treat another. In his book “River Out of Heaven: A Darwinian View of Life,” Richard Dawkins writes, “if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes . . . [it] would be neither evil nor good in intention. . . . The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. . . . DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music” (132-33). Of course, this does nothing to prove that morals are objective rather than subjective. However, deep down I think we all know that things such as rape, torturing babies, and slavery are intrinsically evil. They would be evil, even if a large majority of the world’s population thought otherwise. However, if atheism is true, Dawkins is correct that there is neither evil nor good.
4. Then there are emotional reasons why I hope Christianity is true and atheism is false.
a. If atheism is true, injustices ultimately go unpunished. I think of the black man who was framed for a crime he did not commit and spent his entire adult life in prison so that the perpetrator who framed him could enjoy his life. If atheism is true, there’s no one to hear his cries. The same is true of the women and children who are abducted and sold into a life of sex slavery.
b. If atheism is true, goodness goes unrewarded. Living a life of sacrifice for the benefits of others is a matter of personal choice. Although laudable, if God does not exist, why spend one’s only life in sacrifice instead of enjoying it to its fullest?
c. If atheism is true, death is final. We will never see our loved ones again. They lived, died, and are forgotten.
However, if Christianity is true, injustices will be answered. Goodness will be rewarded. And death is not final. These do not at all make Christianity true and atheism false. But if Christianity is true, it is a very good thing. And since, in my opinion, the reasons I have mentioned above strongly suggest that Christianity is true, I can rejoice in that fact, because injustices will be answered, goodness will be rewarded, and death is not final.
That said, I’m sure you have things you will want to say in reply. Of course, feel very free to say them. But please understand that the time I have to interact on this blog is limited. So, I will be able to reply to only a very few comments you may offer.
Thanks for your posts and responses. I think the biggest issue today across so many areas is the lack of friendly discourse on controversial issues. It’s the best way to learn and get along. Somehow “assume good will and intentions” has disappeared.
(ref your first numbered items)
1. I see a lot showing ways life could happen without divine intervention, so that argument isn’t strong. No one was there, so obviously it can’t be “proven”. But then again, so many explanations as to who wrote this or that bible book or answering a contradiction aren’t “proven” solutions either but speculation that conservative Christians heartily endorse.
2. The universe is still argued whether it is eternal: could have existed before the “big bang” in a different form, etc. But your argument falls back to the “who created God then?” problem. Saying there is an eternal creator god is a self-definition. It is just as valid to say god had to have been created too, since nothing that complex, etc. can exist without being created. If a god could have existed without being created, then so could the universe.
3. Would have to go though each one, but for example NDEs. A lot of that is wishful since a “medical” determination of death isn’t necessarily really dead (of course it’s only NEAR death experience!). For example, recent studies point out they are rarely probing the inside of the brain for activity in those cases and there is a lot even today not known about the brain. NDEs are very self culture based. When a non-Christian has a religious NDE and its another god or not Christian, which god is the true one? Many supernatural things have likely explanations: infrasound effects, etc. Not being able to explain something doesn’t prove it is supernatural, although humans have always believed so. After all, people used to think the Sun was a god.
Must cut short, but as to morality: Through history religious and atheist believers have done horrible things. Many were killed in the name of one or another god, even Jesus. The Bible god even ordered atrocities, including executing women and children (unborn too – pregnant women!). The Christian moral argument is weak, at least if the Bible is to be believed.
Thanks, flcombs. In reply to your specific points . . .
1. To date, no one has come up with a plausible scenario whereby life formed by natural causes.
2. Cosmology is not my field. So, I may be mistaken here but I’m not aware of those who say our universe is eternal. The universe began with the Big Bang, prior to which was nothing at all.
3. Although a number of NDEs can certainly be explained by natural phenomena, I’m interested in those where a person has an out of body experience during which s/he obtains accurate information they could not have otherwise known. There are a number of these. And they suggest the existence of a soul.
4. I agree with you that religious people and atheists alike have done horrible things. However, we shouldn’t judge a philosophy or religion by its abuse. Jesus would certainly not condone much of the atrocities done to others by those who claim to do it in his name. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said there will be many on the final day who say to him, “Lord! Lord! Did we not prophecy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?” Jesus says, “And I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me you who practice lawlessness!'” Regarding God ordering atrocities in the Old Testament, Paul Copan and Matthew Flanagan have written an excellent book addressing that topic: https://amzn.to/2KF75V2
3.
There is no reason to believe that matter and energy in some form have not always existed. Once you posit that something can “always have existed”, you are free to decide what that something is. Much simpler to suppose that it was the universe, in some form, and dispense with the need for a creator. Given quantum mechanics, that
strict Scholastic logic is much less convincing.
Thank you for your response Dr Licona and for your kindness of interacting in this blog.
1. I think data don’t suggest anything, people create theories to explain data. The data that could demonstrate a designer is showing the designer itself. We have millions of cases of physical designers and none of an immaterial, invisible one, that is a big problem. In the past, many phenomena were attributed to spiritual causes and now have naturalistic explanations. Atheists just need to believe that the unexplained will be explained in the future as has happened in the past.
2. The current theory for origins says that universe had a beginning but time also started there. If that is true there was no a time when the universe didn’t existed so it didn’t jumped to existence from non existence. check it.
3. In the video, all the cases depend on testimony of few people in private places with no physical evidence like video or can’t repeat the cases to find a regular pattern of how apparitions work or prayers are answered. That weakens a lot the argument. I don’t reject the data, I think there are better explanations for them. I prefer to say “I don’t know”. I hope you don’t consider me as a non-genuine realist. I really tried.
4. Jesus would take more than 410 words, so let’s move.
The alternative to your emotional reasons is not so bad. If there is no justice, we need to create it, It is very difficult to agree on how to do it, we have failed a lot, but we have achieved a lot also. I think morals are tested by trial and error and are selected by the number of individuals that accept them by choice more based in results (i.e. peace, prosperity) than “good” or “evil”. Maybe we will find a moral system that can give the best results to the larger number of humans and that can be accepted by the larger number of humans as possible. We would not know if it is “good” of “evil”, but could work. Game theory science studies this. I know I will die before it happens. However, the best I can do is contribute (although little) to find it. About death, if it is final, we have to love now and sacrificing for others is occasionally one of the biggest joys. that could work.
Thank you for your time and kind responses.
Mr Licona,
1: There is plenty of information already on the internet under “abiogenesis” with plausible explanations and processes that do not require a god to intervene for life to happen.
2: There are also claims of “we just don’t know what was there before the big bang” (can’t “see” past a singularity), or due to multiple universes, etc. Point is that we can’t just assume there was nothing before as proof of god. If we can just assume that there is a god and declare him “eternal”, we can easier declare the universe eternal, and no god needed. The simplest answer is just the universe being eternal instead of having to create a god to answer (and which one anyway?).
3: Could debate about the NDEs and causes but would think people seeing different gods would mean Christianity shouldn’t be accepted as valid if NDEs are valid experiences. Plus many of those experiences are counter to what I hear claimed in church about death and so on. But I’m not sure why even the existence of a soul would be any proof of a god. For example, why couldn’t that just be a part of life existence on another plane or dimension? Not trying to make anything up, but since physics and cosmology has many current theories with more than 4 dimensions, then obviously life could likely exist on more than 4. Even if true, it could just be another unknown part of life.
4: Yes I have the book. The bible clearly says on many occasions that God ordered what we consider to be atrocities. The book just tries to justify, but so do ISIS and the Nazis. Claims of “exaggerations” just counter conservative claims of literally believing the Bible and the bible is just a typical ancient book. PLUS it means the “bad” people weren’t as bad due to exaggerating their “evil” and shouldn’t be exterminated.
General: I’m fine with “we just don’t know for certain” in some of these areas now, but reject the assumption that only the existence of a god can explain them. I can’t accept assuming that things we don’t currently understand somehow prove a god. Humans have a long history of doing that and being wrong, including worshiping the sun and other things they didn’t understand, so what’s new?
William Lane Craig, a fellow evangelical, once said: “The simplest Christian, who is oblivious to any historical evidence, can know that Jesus was resurrected from the dead (the core belief of Christianity) by the testimony of the Holy Spirit in his heart.”
Isn’t it true that the PRIMARY reason that you believe in the truth claims of Christianity, Dr. Licona, is that you believe that the spirit of this dead man lives in your body and has been secretly communicating with you since you were TEN years old?
No. That’s not true, Gary.
Really, Dr. Licona? So you do *not* believe that the spirit of Jesus lives within you and has been communicating with you in a “still, small voice” since you were born again at age 10?
Why would divinely inspired mean God sets up a horrible event in which I’m raped or you’re mauled so somebody can write about it? Wouldn’t it be more honest to say the Bible like ALL holy work is divinely inspired because it is man searching for the divine and the sacred in life not just in the natural world of creation but in how we treat each other, what is the best way for us to live together what is the ideal even if we cannot achieve it.
I’m a Christian Anarchist so Tolstoy is important to me most importantly the idea that all religions are true because all religions are searching for the same thing it is just in his and my opinion Jesus fulfills a definition of love beyond others and the crucifixion offers freedom not by Jesus dying for us but by us willing to die for others and for our ideals. People ask why do we always kill the Good people like Jesus, Gandhi & MLK but the truth is to be good people like them we have to lay down our lives and be free from the fear of even death itself. Divine isn’t God setting me up to be mauled, divine is me choosing to be mauled or raped for an ideal of what humanity could be.
Thanks for your comment, Shona. All religions cannot be true, because they contradict one another in numerous fundamental areas. Check out this new 5-minute video I just viewed this morning. At one point it mentions differences between Islam and Buddhism: https://youtu.be/RRyq6RwzlEM
All religions can be true, they may not be incorporated into one religion is what you mean but they can be and are all true reflection of humanity’s relationship with the divine as they are. Otherwise in your words you have a Jesus that b elieves God kills children to test their parents’ faith – not only have you Got a God I will not worship whether he’s true or real you now create a Jesus I can only despise whether or not he’s real or true. PS I know the differences between Islam and Buddhism My son was fast tracked through Higher and advanced higher RMPS. I never suggesting adding the 5 pillars of Islam to the eightfold path though I doubt you know much about Islam or Buddhism yourself.
Also ask if your reply was inspired by the divine or my genitals before telling me other religions can’t be divinely inspired as much and at times if not more than the Bible?
Will ask one last time was the arrogant and demeaning reply, divine inspiration or based on my gender? Or do you presume everybody is completely ignorant and doesn’t know what they’re talking about except you. Given your comment and how you seem unable to connect to divine inspiration do you think you are in a place to judge whether the writers of other Holy works can’t be divinely inspired because they’re not the same religion as you. Because your religion doesn’t appear to be helping your divine inspiration.
Are you capable of behaving ethically? It was deeply immoral to imply I did not know the differences between eightfold path of Buddhism and the five pillars of Islam, it was a downright lie to claim that because you can’t create one massive religion that all religions are not true. 1. They are all inspired by divine, they are all a search for how we should treat each other, they are all about us reaching our highest potential as humans which includes behaving ethically. 2. They are all capable of bringing people to the divine in their lives and they are all worthwhile for all their practitioners 3. They are all true and lead people to try and be more ethical, more compassionate and more respectful of what it is to be human something you could take a lesson from!.
Dr. Licona, it’s remarkably gracious of you to take the time and effort to respond to all these questions. My comment is going to be different. I went on a quest similar to yours. Having been in the church from youth, there came a time when I had to come to grips with the “problems” in/with the Bible. I refused to ignore them, and set out to find where truth would lead. The struggle took years, and for me, apologetics did not provide the answer, but it finally resolved on the same side of the issue with you. I relate to a lot of what you say and why you say it and why you have accepted this challenge. I think you would agree with me that enduring the struggles of intellectual challenges to faith produces a special patience, strength, and depth of understanding. As I will say to people, I have an “eyes-wide-open faith.” I’ve enjoyed Dr. Ehrman’s books for quite some time and just recently joined here, and I’m always interested in what skeptics and critics have to say. I feel the issues and objections are reasonable and should be acknowledged and respectfully addressed as you have done.
A couple of brief comments in response to posts…(1) If there really is a God of the Bible, science is only going to find out about him what he allows. (2) Trauma and tragedy also occurred in and around the lives of people who wrote down the Bible books and it didn’t deter them.
Keep up the good work. I think I’ll have something to write when you get to inspiration and inerrancy.
[not for posting, a message to Dr Licona: Dr Licona, I just wanted to make sure you saw my posting from the other day in reply to your response. I know you are super busy and thus have to pick and choose where to apply your time. Please feel more than welcome to not respond to it, I just wanted to make sure that wasn’t because it got lost in the shuffle. Your work on its own and in the context of your tangling with Dr Ehrman is important stuff for many – not matter where on the belief/unbelief spectrum they fall, because it is wrestling with the hard questions wherein one finds truth. Thanks again for participating here on the blog. Both for the intellectual interchange as well as helping to raise awareness for the charities supported by the blog. I look forward to your future posts.]
Nathan: Thanks for reposting. I did not see your original comment. And thanks for your kind remarks!
Dear Dr Licona.
Please may I ask where you stand with respect to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy? Have you ever during your faith journey subscribed to this? I have read (risenjesus.com) that you now favour the Lausanne Covenant. Are you able to identify for me the key differences re Inerrancy between this and CSBI, please, and indicate where you feel this Covenant best fits your definition of Inerrancy?
Reading through the comments, I was struck by a commenters question on how one can truly be unbiased if they believed in the resurrection of Jesus from age ten. I was raised Jewish and I can state that no matter how hard I tried to believe in Jesus when I was in my seeking phase, I could accept that God would raise a righteous man to life but the threshold I couldn’t cross was man as God. At ten, I was a firm believer in my Judaism…as much as a ten year old can be and man is not God and God is never man. It was a bias that I still hold today even though I no longer believe in God. There are certain beliefs we can accept and cannot due to our childhood indoctrination. I realize some DO overcome it and convert (both directions) but for most, it’s a bridge they can’t cross. You, of course, could accept a man/God resurrected for our sins at 40yo as the idea had long been implanted.
I do thank you for your posting here! I find you and your arguments fascinating and intelligent. I also find it fascinating how strongly you believe that you have found a truth that you feel confident in. I feel the same about mine, as well, even though it’s the opposite of yours! May we still live together in peace.
Pattylt: Thanks for your comments. Yes, I definitely think we can disagree and live together in peace. And I agree with you that one can believe something since childhood and change that belief later on. Bart did because he went with where he believed the evidence pointed. I was willing to abandon my Christian faith but did not because I went with where I believed the evidence pointed.
Still do not you think it is possible that sometimes we make a confirmation bias of our “beliefs” and do not give up on the arguments?
Of course.
Mr. Licona I am very grateful that you have consented to provide your arguments on this blog. I have listened to many of your podcasts, read many works by conservative theologians and read extensively in the Bible. Also I have been very impressed with the sincerity, thoughtfulness and apparently deep self reflection you bring to your task of examining the case for the resurrected Jesus.
Your basic argument seems to rest on your conclusions concerning the historicity of the resurrection. Thus, if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead then all of his claims about himself, the role of the apostles in informing the Gospels and the validity of the theological arguments in Paul’s letters are thrown into question. it seems to me that it is reasonable for me given my intellectual capabilities and above average effort that my conclusion that the resurrection did not occur is justified for me. It also seems to me that these conclusions are justified based on just the simple fact that we are human and regardless of the unknowable truth (from a historical perspective) of the matter they used their abilities to the best they could and yet came up with a different conclusion from yours.
Based on this basic nature of us as humans and the sincere self perceived openness of mind with which we have approached the task, which your god should understand, it seems impossible to me that a god who is as loving and compassionate and forgiving as you/Paul claim, could condemn people who conclude there was no resurrection of Jesus nor the theological and scriptural conclusions that follow to eternal damnation in any significant way different from Christians. There reward its seems should be the knowledge that they got it right. In addition yours/Paul’s complicated, dense reasoning for concluding that a God would do such a thing is also extremely difficult to comprehend based on the reasoning and observational powers you claim he has given us. Thus it seems to me completely rational and not at all unforgivable, condemnable, etc. based on a non acceptance of the resurrection as historical, to conclude that the god you worship can’t exist, Jesus was not divine and that scripture is not in fact inerrant or even divinely inspired.
Thanks for your kind remarks, sjhicks21. I think of Matthew 19:16-24. A rich man comes to Jesus and asks what is necessary to be saved. Jesus tells him to sell everything he has, give the proceeds to the poor, then come follow him. The man walked away grieving because he owned much. The man apparently believed but was unwilling to commit to following Jesus and his demands. Thus, salvation is not a matter of merely believing ABC. It’s following Jesus who is not merely looking for people to believe the right things. He’s looking for disciples. That’s what changes the world.
I do not understand how your response answers my discussion. My discussion was that reason can reasonably lead to non belief, because it is reasonable to conclude that the resurrection could not have happened. If reason lead me to conclude the resurrection happened then I would have no problem giving up my wealth in order to follow Christ. In fact even though I don’t follow Christ I don’t think that having wealth is that big a deal. Giving it up for something that agrees with my conclusion about Christ would not trouble me at all. Not sure why the rich man in the parable was so troubled. Sounds to me like someone who thought having a lot of wealth was important made up the story.
Thank you Dr Licona I know you are a great apologist. I’m glad Dr Ehrman had you on here. I am familiar with the idea of annihilation. I could also say I find it hard to believe that God would not allow people into heaven because they did not believe someone rose from the dead 2000 years ago. ( I used to be a hardcore evangelical -in faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone, soli deo gloria. I do find it beautiful) I see the world as certainly plausible an act of God, though not enough proof in the present that Christ is the way. Too left up to debate to deny someone access to heaven. Left up to analyzing history. I think Barts conclusions that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was thought to have been raised by Peter, Paul and Mary, are just as valid as the apologists. Maybe it happened, maybe not. Not concrete enough to keep out all the muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and athiest who say probably not.
Thanks, aar8188. So that there’s no confusion, I wouldn’t say someone is going to hell on the grounds that they didn’t believe ABC. It’s more than that. I think there are going to be those who believe ABC who won’t be in heaven. Jesus is looking for disciples. So, it’s believing ABC and following him.
What about those who continue to follow the teachings of Christ, but find conclusions like Bart’s regarding the resurrection to be equally as plausible ? I’m thinking you’d probably refer to the biblical teaching that works accompany true faith, but at the same time it doesn’t seem logical to me that a person would be kept from heaven for thinking a certain argument is quite plausible; when we dont know for a fact which one is surely true.
Almighty God sent books / scripture that inspired many prophets and messengers, of them :
Abraham
David
Mosses
Jesus
Now, that’s inspiration / revelation to chosen messengers of God Almighty.
The Bible is one of those books, and it was not composed of the New and Old Testament. It was not preserved.
The book we see today is not That Bible. The Bible we see today is a compilation of written letters / copies of copies of manuscripts by unknown authors for the most part and the remaining known authors were not prophets nor messenger. It is their word not the word of Almighty God. If anything these letters and writings reflected their understanding of their belief and can call it what they want, not what God The Almighty said nor His inspiration.
It is ones’ prerogative to accept or not accept the Bible we see today as their book of worship, but, it is not OUR Creators words and we should not ascribe it to Him.
Teaching or preaching today’s Bible like you mentioned is nothing more than your best understanding of what might be the most probable or what most probably happened…. Not the inspired word of God nor Inspired by God.
Almighty God, The Creator, The Lord of Abraham, David, Moses and Jesus and all creation is not Probable … Nor is His Word and message probable. It is for sure with all certainty.
Dr. Licona,
How literally do you take the ascension story? If we had videotape, what do you believe we would have seen? Did Jesus fly high enough out of view and then vanish into another dimension, or did he fly up to a certain location?
That’s a fair question, Lopaka. I have not studied the historicity of the ascension story. So, I must refrain from stating an opinion.
Dr. Licona,
One of the things fundamentalists are fond of saying is “The Bible doesn’t CONTAIN the word of God, it IS the word of God.” Before you finish your series here, would you give your position specifically on that statement? Thank you.
michael51: I think the Bible IS the word of God. Then one must define what one means by the “word of God.” For my definition, see my post.
Dr. Licona, I read what you wrote about the human element. I asked my question because I want to take it a step further…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, it would help to cover the breast area. 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, but not necessarily what God would say.
Dear Mike, thank you very much for contributing with your knowledge in the field. I have some questions and observations, but first I need to understand that it is for you “dictated by God” and “divine inspiration.”
I’m not clear what your question is, cristianp. If you are asking what I mean by “dictated by God” and “divine inspiration,” I explain the latter in my article. By “dictated by God,” I mean that God superseded the biblical authors’ free will to cause them to write the precise words He chose. Of course, I reject divine dictation as the means by how we came to have the biblical literature.
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 “?
Dr Licona –
A meta-question about method, which might be interesting for the blog community. It appears to lie behind many of the substantive disagreements seen thus far in the comment section.
For issues that are not corner cases (not issues like the existence of something rather than nothing or the hard problem of consciousness): Do you think miraculous explanations are ex ante less likely than naturalistic ones? If no, why not. If yes, then how does one justify/quantify/determine the probabilistic cross-over point?
One could frame the question either philosophically or empirically/historically, but it’s a topic that seems to be the wedge between those accepting of miracles as narrated in the texts and those who are not.
Many thanks again for your thoughts and generous time!
Dear Dr Licona,
I wrote a query several days ago but note that it is ‘still awaiting moderation’ despite the fact that you have answered questions posted after my comment. I wonder, therefore, if you missed my post or whether you, in some way, have found it unacceptable.
In the hope that it is the former I have taken the liberty of reposting:
“Dear Dr Licona.
Please may I ask where you stand with respect to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy? Have you ever during your faith journey subscribed to this? I have read (risenjesus.com) that you now favour the Lausanne Covenant. Are you able to identify for me the key differences re Inerrancy between this and CSBI, please, and indicate where you feel this Covenant best fits your definition of Inerrancy?”
This is a great article, Dr. Licona! Thanks for writing it and sharing it with us.
I like what you said about divine Biblical inspiration, but I have a question. You said you agree with the idea “that God, knowing all circumstances that could possibly occur, generated those whereby the biblical authors would write what they did at an appropriate time. In that sense, the biblical literature is divinely inspired, because God approved it.” But couldn’t the same be said for all writings?
For example, God must have known under what conditions Charlotte Bronte would write Jane Eyre. He could have set things up whereby she would never choose to write novels, or would simply choose to write about something else. He generated the conditions whereby Bronte would write Jane Eyre. How is Philemon “divinely inspired” in a way that Jane Eyre isn’t?
Mike,
Instead of focusing on *past* events that might entail supernatural intervention (e.g., lymphoma rapidly cured after prayer and chemo) in order to support another *past* event (Jesus’ resurrection), why don’t folks in your camp get more serious about making the case for supernatural interventions in the world by bringing in the scientific method? For example, Craig Keener’s statement that “the stopping of storms after prayer is not uncommon” (Miracles, pg. 737), is a *testable* claim. So why not test it? I’m sure you could get funding somewhere, and you could let the test run for many years or decades to strengthen the results over time. I’ll bet even Bill Nye the science guy would sign up for this. Another example would be to connect serious skeptical researchers of the paranormal with those who, according to Keener, can *predict* ahead of time that a supernatural event will occur: “Some circles whose reports I was exploring *invited me to witness* their experiences firsthand; while this deeper investigation would have been ideal, my academic schedule and other factors have so far precluded my plan to do so” (Miracles, pg. 1). Why don’t folks in your camp pursue these kinds of invitations with a trained team of skeptics and appropriate recording equipment?
One other question. Do you still believe that Jesus’ resurrection is the *only* plausible explanation for the three minimal facts outlined in your 2010 book (The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach), or do you now draw somewhat on Gospel reliability to make your historical case for Jesus’ resurrection?
Let me add there are lots and lots of “scientific” tests on thinks like the efficacy of prayer. They regularly show that prayer has no effect whatsoever on natural disasters and the like.
Bart,
If able, can you please provide references to the rigorous prayer studies related to natural disasters that you refer to? I am aware of none that are scientifically rigorous. The only scientifically rigorous prayer studies I am aware of are those on *health* outcomes, with the most rigorous to date showing nil results (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-04-05/). However, health outcome prayer studies are very expensive and I assume Mike’s opinion is that the sample size or something about the method was inadequate, so that just punts everything down the road until someone can marshal tens of millions of dollars for a better test of the prayer hypothesis on health outcomes. However, testing the effect of prayer on *storms* should entail a fraction of the cost, the experiment could be run for a very long period of time (years or decades, or just leave it running continuously so every generation can see the results), could amass an indisputably large sample size, and the methodology and ways of measuring outcomes would seem easier than in a medical outcome study. That was my reason for asking Mike why his community does not test for the effect of prayer on *storms*, which matches up perfectly with the testable claim of his colleague Craig Keener: “the stopping of storms after prayer is not uncommon” (Miracles, pg. 737). Testing for the effect of prayer on storms seems like a fantastic opportunity for Mike and his community to show that “naturalism [is] so improbable as to be beyond reason” (https://ehrmanblog.org/is-the-bible-inspired-by-god-guest-post-by-evangelical-apologist-mike-licona/#comments). Why hide behind events that have all happened in the past when there is clearly an opportunity to subject this hypothesis to the scientific method that we all learned in middle school?
I’ve read them, but I haven’t made any bibliographical notations, so no, I can’t give references. You can probably find plenty on line.
If you want anecdotal evidence, get a hundred of your friends to pray about a drought that is happening somewhere in the world today, and see how that goes!
Dr. Michael Licona is a professing evangelical Christian. By definition, evangelical Christians believe that at the moment of their conversion (being “born again”), the spirit of Jesus comes to “dwell” within them and instructs them in wisdom and truth. As a former evangelical myself, I know as a fact that evangelical Christians pray to this inner spirit, living inside their bodies, for practically everything! “Jesus, bless our food.” “Jesus, help me in my job interview today.” “Jesus, help me to select the right wife (husband).” Evangelical Christians believe that they have a personal RELATIONSHIP with this spirit living inside their bodies; a spirit that communicates with them “in a still, small voice”. Is Dr. Licona, in his statement above, disavowing the core evangelical Christian belief that the spirit of Jesus lives inside of him giving him secret wisdom and insight?? Wow! Isn’t there a Blble passage where Jesus says, “If you deny me before men, I will deny YOU…”?
The bottom line: Dr. Michael Licona’s beliefs in the divine inspiration of the Bible and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus are NOT based primarily on evidence and reason. Anyone who believes he has a ghost/spirit whispering secret wisdom in his head CANNOT objectively examine the evidence on matters related to this spirit when it was human. Dr. Licona’s views on these issues should not be taken seriously until Dr. Licona publicly and emphatically disavows any belief that the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth lives inside his body giving him secret wisdom and insight on matters related to the person and alleged historical events involving this ancient first century peasant!
“God, knowing all circumstances that could possibly occur, generated those whereby the biblical authors would write what they did at an appropriate time. In that sense, the biblical literature is divinely inspired, because God approved it.”
In that sense, it would follow that every work of extant literature was divinely inspired.
Evangelical Christian apologists such as Dr. Licona, Dr. Craig Keener, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig believe that the spirit of a man who lived 20 centuries ago lives inside their bodies and communicates with them. They even believe that sometimes this dead man speaks to them in an AUDIBLE voice! Here is an excerpt from Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) on this shocking evangelical Christian belief.
How does God speak to us? There are many ways.
1. He may speak in an audible voice.
When John baptized Jesus, a voice spoke from heaven and said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). There are other instances in the Bible where God’s voice was heard, and He still speaks today.
I know many people who have heard the audible voice of God. A woman who was going through a painful divorce heard Him say, “I am with you. Everything will be all right.”
When I asked how she knew the voice belonged to God, she said, “I just knew.”
Hearing the audible voice of God is not a common occurrence. But it does happen, and when it does, it’s not to be taken lightly.
2. He may speak in a still, small voice.
I love this passage from 1 Kings 19:11–13:
The Lord said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.”
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.
The most frequent way God speaks to me, and, I believe, to most Christians, is through that still, small voice. He spoke the universe into existence, but He also whispers quiet messages into the hearts of men. Did He really give you a specific message to deliver to that person over there? Or is your imagination just running away with you? The only way you can find out is by listening to God, more with your ears than with your heart, and learning to recognize His still, small voice.
Source: https://www1.cbn.com/questions/how-does-god-speak-to-us
“The most frequent way God speaks to me, and, I believe, to most Christians, is through that still, small voice.”
There is no possible way that Mike Licona, Craig Keener, Gary Habermas, and William Lane Craig can objectively investigate alleged supernatural events involving a dead first century prophet when they believe the spirit/ghost of this dead man lives inside their bodies, communicating with them in “a still, small voice”…or worse yet…in a voice they claim they can audibly hear!
This is irrational, biased thinking, folks. These people are sincere, good people but they are operating under a MASSIVE delusion. Don’t let the “Dr.” in front of their names bamboozle you. These gentlemen are peddling snake oil—they may not realize it—but that is what it is: snake oil. Telling children and gullible adults that a first century human sacrifice is going to give them life after death in a mansion of gold on a gold paved street in outer space is snake oil!
Dr. Licona,
Having watched much of your content online, I, as a Jew, realize you have never considered the question, “Why don’t Jews believe the claims of Christianity?” You only seem to focus on the NT, without putting it in the context of Jewish beliefs and texts. You must measure the claims of the NT/Christianity, against the classic Jewish understanding of the Hebrew Bible BEFORE you can determine if the claims of Christianity are true. With all do respect, it’s hard for me to regard you as a scholar/historian since you really haven’t done your homework with regard to classical Judaism. I encourage you do this before posting any more content in any way or speaking to any churches about your belief that the resurrection happened or any other defense of Christianity.
To make a long story short, for Christians, it is about FAITH. Believing despite the ABSENCE of strong proof/evidence. As a former born-again Christian who used to believe that every single letter,comma & period of the the Bible is the word of God, I have now come to realize the foolishness of this type of thinking. If there is a “God”, the fact that he placed our mind/brain on the topmost portion of the body shows that he must be a rational entity who has a “scientific” mind as can be seen in the laws of nature & the “order” found in the universe.
..He shall come with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils. And these things also have been foretold as yet to be, we will prove.
–Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 52
In this discussion with skeptics, evangelical scholar and apologist Michael Licona said this above:
“There are numerous Christian views on the actual nature of hell. The Dante sort of literal fire is not embraced by most Christian theologians today. This is not because they reject the biblical teaching. It’s because they seek to understand it within its cultural milieu.”
Notice that Dr. Licona does not clearly express his position on the issue of literal hell fire but he certainly insinuates that the traditional view of Hell is outdated and even ignorant. Many other conservative Christian apologists with whom I have engaged in discussion also hesitate to confirm or they outright deny the existence of literal hell fire and literal eternal punishment in hell fire for unbelievers. Why do they do this? I believe it is for one simple reason: They see how horribly unjust such a punishment is! How could their loving and just god do such a terrible thing? What crime deserves being burned alive forever and ever??
So to make their ancient supernatural tale more palatable to modern, civilized people, Christian apologists desperately attempt to hide this ugly facet of their belief, claiming that Jesus and the earliest Christians did not believe that the fires of hell were literal. So why did Justin Martyr think they were?? Conservative Christians trust Justin Martyr regarding everything else he says, so why reject his statements on this issue? Answer: to avoid an inconvenient truth. The early Christians believed that non-believers would suffer horrific eternal punishment in literal fire! And who did they get this from: Jesus of Nazareth!