Loading...This Jimmy Akin debate is a first. I never debated a Roman Catholic apologist before. In fact, I didn’t know there *were* Roman Catholic Apologists! I did know there used to be lots of them who were intent on defending the Catholic tradition against Protestants. And as it turns out, there are still some of them around. There is an interesting organization in San Diego that sponsors their work, called “Catholic Answers.”
Jimmy Akin Debate: A Catholic Apologist
I was invited to go out there to debate one of their speakers, Jimmy Akin — not about the superiority of Catholicism over Protestantism (about which I don’t have much of an opinion, as someone who is neither) but about the reliability of the NT Gospels.
The reliability of the Gospels? Isn’t this a Protestant evangelical passion? Yup, and of some Catholics too apparently (though before this I had never met one for whom it was). At least for Jimmy Akin.
So we had a debate. I decided to take a slightly different tone in this one and soften the polemical edge a bit. I’m not sure if that was a good idea or not, but Jimmy (whom I didn’t know before) is a nice guy. And oh boy do we disagree on the issues. But I didn’t see much point in going for the jugular and he’s not the kind of guy who would go for mine.
As I did when I was an evangelical, Jimmy has an argument for everything. So, the best thing is, simply to look/listen at both views and judge for yourself. Here’s the video of the debate:
Bart, thanks for sharing your thoughts (and content) on this historic debate.
Its sad how Jimmy tries to explain contradictions
Roman Catholic here who is mid deconversion. I didn’t quite understand Jimmy’s approach, from what I recall. It seemed on one hand he was intent on saying those contradictions weren’t actually so. But on the other hand he seemed to defend the point of, “Well, if the Gospels get a good chunk of the small, middle, and big points right, we can call that reliable.” That latter point is confusing to me… most people are concerned with asking should I base my whole life or not on these texts, not if they are a historically reliable text from an abstract perspective. My two cents at least.
Adam
It seems you want to insist on more reliability because of the importance of the issue. I am sympathetic to your desire but I don’t think the human condition is such that we can make those demands.
For me the question is not whether every single recorded miracle is true. The question is whether *even one* of the miracles is true. And it doesn’t even have to be a big one like the resurrection. It could just be healing someone’s hand or something. Even if the Gospel authors were mistaken about all the miracles except one then we would have a situation where God gave us a miraculous sign that we should follow Christ’s teaching.
Would you say like Russel “not enough evidence God” One miraculous sign is not enough! I needed at least 3 miraculous signs before I would follow Christ’s teaching! So in the meantime how are you going to live? Do you think the evidence is better that Muhammad or various miracle claims of other religious people are stronger than the Christian ones? Are you just going to do whatever suits you at the time?
If you don’t mind my interjecting, but not one of the recorded miracles has been proven true. Not a single one. All we have is a collection of religious documents (not historical ones) that makes these claims –as does Greek mythology. You can’t confirm a story in a religious document with the same religious document as evidence of it being true historical fact. It is circular reasoning.
Ever see magicians at work? Just because the audience doesn’t know how it was done does not mean it was really magic or miraculous.
As a former student of the Gregorian University in Rome, I would just point out that there was a class called Fundamental Theology that was very similar to apologetics in that it presented Theological and Biblical beliefs as something you could support with rational arguments; although it did not present these as arguments meant for convincing others/evangelization. It was more about convincing the Theology student that matters of faith were also reasonable.
There are definitely some points where I agree with your opponent, and by the criteria of a formal debate I think you might have lost this one, sorry.
On the implausibility of sending people to their ancestral homes for the census, given that the text doesn’t exactly say that, I think it risks coming across as slightly duplicitous, and that a stronger case against the historicity of that event can be made by emphasising other points.
By the definition of reliability that the average audience member is likely to have in mind, I agree with Jimmy that e.g. Matthew’s device of arranging events and sayings by theme has no bearing on reliability. As a scholar, your definition of reliability is _not_ that of the average audience member, and bridging that gap is a challenge you might have handled better.
Mark’s portrayal of Jesus quoting Psalm 22 from the cross is a nuanced matter, and I feel you dropped the ball a little there too, though arguably so did Jimmy. A thing worth emphasising is that it’s only an issue for reconciling Mark’s Jesus with Luke’s, not for Christian theology as such.
I haven’t watched the audience questions yet.
Luke 2 says Joseph went to Bethlehem for the census “because he was of the house and family line of David.” This understanding is the scholarly consensus. There is no duplicity here.
(In reply to firebrain) I’m not interested in arguing about that, but it’s a question of what you can put across to an audience. If you don’t have time to make the case that alternative readings don’t work, then audience members who find those alternative readings perfectly reasonable and obvious are going to feel that your focus on the most pedantic and literal reading is uncharitable and duplicitous. It will seem to them that you are performing a cheap trick by ignoring the sensible explanation in favour of the reading that is easiest to debunk.
Excellent debate! How does it feel when you are deeply embedded into Akin’s prepared powerpoint rebuttal? As the debate topic was a bit broad, I sensed that this became more a debate on the definitions of ‘reliable’ and ‘historical’ to deflect some of the specific arguments. I appreciated the overall tone and politeness.
I thought it was a bit weird for him to think he could mention places that I think the Gospels are accurate and therefore conclude that I think the Gospels are accurate. Of course they are accurate in places. So is my friend who gives my wrong directions 40% of the time. But it doesn’t mean I’m going to trust him as a rule….
I enjoyed that debate. Although I agree with everything you said, I liked Jimmy’s approach, even though I didn’t agree with a lot of what he said – he seems to be a reasonable and nice guy. I have to say that out of all your debates that I’ve seen, I thought your demeanor during this one did you the most credit. You seemed more soft spoken and laid back than I’ve seen in the past. I don’t expect my impression to matter much to you, but since I am a big fan of yours, I like to give feedback if it in any way may help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPNZrHrDfc4
question about census
did the christians who authoured Protevangelium realise that luke blundered ?
Smid (Protevangelium, 118) suggests that the worldwide census of Luke 2:1 had proven so difficult for Christian interpreters that by the second half of the second century the census was already being restricted by various authors to Bethlehem or Judaea.
We can’t know what the author was actually thinking of course, but most Christians did and do think the account is describing what actually happened. More educated readers have to explain it away.
do scholars use non-canonical writings to try to see what disagreements non-canonical writers had with the gospels?
Yes, scholars use every source available — independently of whether it made it into the canon.
Would love to hear a debate with an Eastern Orthodox apologist! I imagine a good bit of it would focus on the reliability/unreliability of oral tradition.
You frequently take part in debates such as this one with Jimmy Akin and you also join in with various people’s podcasts and the like.
Do such undertakings form part of your wider university teaching role (ie bringing your knowledge to the wider masses) or do you have to find scope for them in your personal time? Also, does your wife participate in this type of debate in her own area of scholarship?
1. These are not official university events, no; but they are part of having a public outreach, something universities promote; 2. No Sarah hates debates adn thinks they are for the most part pointless. And she may well be right!
Debates are not at all pointless, unless perhaps you regard the main purpose as being adjudication of who is right and who is wrong. The format is great because it is engaging and entertaining. That helps the audience to pay attention and remember the subject matter better than if they were just listening to a one-sided lecture.
I think Sarah is right. I started off watching YT debates with great enthusiasm, but I’ve become a little jaded lately and have gone off them somewhat (not just debates on religion, but various topics). There’s no movement, just points made in parallel. You make a point, the other guy makes a point etc. Viewers argue who “wiped the floor” with who, but nothing really changes. I can’t think of one occasion when a viewer who took one position at the start of the debate switches at the end, or sometime thereafter. I guess you could say that watching such debates gives you a peek into the mindset , values, arguments etc. of the “opposition”, but once you’ve watched a few, the arguments are very similar, so the learning dries up very quickly.
Sounds like you’ve got yourself a good’un Bart, and further proof, if any was needed, that lady folk are smarter than us, and appear to spend their time more productively then we do. Go girls !
FYI, I haven’t watched this debate, nor the recent one with Mike Licona.
Have you or any other critical NT Scholar and of early Christianity ever, in print, made a general assessment of how much of Nicene Christianity is based on the NT “as written”. I’m not asking to what degree Nicene Christianity is based on the historical Jesus?
There may be so many inconsistencies in the NT to start with that a basis for Nicene Christianity can be found somewhere in the NT.
Is there perhaps a trajectory from the oldest to the newest NT books that points toward something like Nicene Christianity?
Or maybe this would be so controversial among the various Christian denominations that it would be kind of hopeless to attempt it?
It’s a difficult question to answer, since the Fathers who constructed the creed claimed that every bit is “based on” Scripture. But yes, some of the theological statements in the creed — e.g., about Christ (God of God, light of light…) are more plausibly based on, say, the Gospel of John than the Gospel of Mark. There are LOTS of books on the Nicene Creed, but the ones I know best are pretty hard-hitting (E.g., Lewis Ayres)
Joseph had two houses, wow!
Good move pulling out Father Brown on him.
Ever considered a cowboy hat? Of course you’ll have to get the boots and big ole belt buckle too!
Yup, it’s all or nothing.
The apologists at Catholic Answers often declare that “the Catholic Church” gave us the Bible. Hence, the Bible is a text that essentially belongs to the Catholic Church, and can only be properly understood in light of exegesis by the Catholic Church.
At this point, I presume pretty much everyone knows how these debates will go and most of the material that is going to be (all too lightly) touched upon — certainly the participants should, which is why Aiken was as ready as he was likely to be. Dr. Ehrman’s years of being a teacher show in his presentation, which was well organized and proceeded in a logical fashion; he was there to educate, or at least introduce some ideas that a few in the audience may not have heard before. Akin was there to debate, by which I mean he was there to try to survive the 2 hours without inflicting a serious wound on his own preferred arguments. The first part of the proceedings was really a disagreement about the term “reliable.” Dr. Ehrman perhaps pushed points that were too esoteric for most to grasp, while Akin used the tried-and-true position of Dan Wallace that the gospels are “reliable enough.” There were really no winners here, although Aiken certainly promoted his website. During the questions, did Ehrman concede the idea that Jesus actually performed miracles, or was that just a point that he did not wish to prolong?
I also must admit that the idea of a parallel line for the genealogies was somewhat clever, if not actually very convincing. (A patriarchal line is a patriarchal line, and a strained claim to make for a virgin birth in any case.) The idea that Joseph was something of a “snowbird,” with houses in Bethlehem as well as Nazareth was novel, although it would run counter to Luke’s claim that there was no room for them.
Ehrman did not concede the point!
Jimmy is a good debater. His main source of expert testimony, however, was from Bart. He considers Bart reliable when it came to major facts, yet he had to deny Bart’s reliabilty when it came to contradictions. So Bart isreliable only when he agrees with Jimmy. How convenient!
Like a fundamentalist, Jimmy is in denial that contradictions exist. Various versions are all purportedly true. In other words, Jimmy wants a fifth gospel incorporating parts of the first four.
Good debate. A thought: Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani. By the criterion of embrassment, Jesus almost certainly said this and probably meant it! – he was a human being and not to experience doubt, disillusionment and abandonment by God, given his plight, would be strange indeed. However, Jesus knew the Davidic psalms and would have known he was quoting Psalm 22, which ends with Hebrew “Asa” – it is done! Somewhat reminiscent of Gk Tetelesti (John 19:30)! In the very same verse, he *voluntarily* gives up his spirit “paradidomee” Mat 27:50: “afeeaymee” – again voluntarily giving up his spirit. “I thirst” (John 19:28). My strength is dried up like a potsherd (Psa 22:15). The assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet (Psa 22:16). They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture (Psa 22:18). Jesus would have known all these verses and I sometimes wonder whether he recited the whole Psalm on the cross, but only the first and last verses were heard, because, as it says in the gospels, he shouted these! Jesus also knew Isaiah 53!
You mention other Greco-roman bios writers, the only one i am even moderately familiar with is Philo and his life of Moses. By our modern enlightenment standards, we would no doubt indict people like Philo as conjuring information and purely speculating on many things. With regard to historical accuracy, how do the canonical gospel writers compare with other “historians” of the day in your opinion?
A related question in evaluating early writers: Did the zealots really kill each other at Masada? Josephus sure thinks so. Archaeologists say there aint no … bones … about it HA! (maybe my the greatest pun in my life, if i do say so myself). In the absence of any other written accounts, wouldn’t any attempt we made to reconstruct a better history of that siege be speculation, only from a much later vantage?
They did find the lots taken during the suicide pact, so it appears they were killed there. The site was occupied later in teh Byzantine period, so there may be reasons there aren’t bones lying around.
Genuinely, Jimmy Akin seems like one of the sweetest apologists there is. His story is one of tragedy, as he lost his wife, and shows a lot more humanity in his approach on Catholic Answers from what I’ve seen than others may.
Akin repeats the beliefs that the gospels were written early, saying even that one’s source was an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry.
Would you summarize why most NT scholars reject that view?
BTW, I think you would look good in a hat.
That’s the topic of my book Jesus Before the Gospels. The Gospel accounts are almost certainly 40-65 years after Jesus’ life and the only one that mentions an eyewitness source is John — preciselythe Gospel that almost all critical scholars maintain is the *least* historical!
I enjoyed the debate too. Jimmy was very respectful.
I would like to see you debate an apologist from the Eastern Orthodox tradition one day Bart.
Bart, as a believer in Catholicism, I feel a *little bit* weirded out that you would suggest that Catholic apologists are an odd phenomenon.
Catholics have led Christian apologetics in almost every century.
Oh yes, that part I know. I just have never heard of any active today — at least apologists defending the infallibility of the Bible.
I hope Bart would someday write a book about Roman Catholicism. It would be fascinating to see the evolution of this church into what it is today – a fusion of Christianity, paganism, and superstitions.
A really interesting debate Bart; thanks for sharing it.
It does appear that apologetics is a very different intellectual discipline from critical scholarship; as for instance the confusion occasioned in the audience by your reference to the scholarship of Raymond Brown. An apologist should not be striving to defend indefensible propositions, but rather should be clear-sighted in acknowledging which propositions are indefensible – e.g. literal inerrancy in the texts, and absolute consistency across scriptural witnesses – while still maintaining that, on the big issues, the texts can be claimed as reliable and consistent.
I was intrigued, though, by the suggestion from Jimmy Akin, that Joseph’s family might have maintained households in both Bethlehem and Nazareth. Since the four Gospels (and Acts) are otherwise all absolute in presenting Jesus and his family as Galilean, and not Judean, this would appear a pretty desperate argument to avoid a particular textual contradiction.
But it did set me thinking that nowhere in the New Testament – outside the Gospels and Acts – is Jesus specified to have been Galilean. Which, of course. may not have mattered to Christians in Corinth or Rome; but still.
Yeah, I wasn’t sure what to make of the vacation home idea at first. 🙂 And yes, I wouldn’t expect the other writings of the NT to say anything about Jesus place of origin since they say so little about him at all (including about his parents, unusual birth, etc.)
A vacation home??? Jesus’ family were not elites by any stretch.
Yeah, that was my immediate thought as well. It’s completely implausible.
From the audience questions, the only topic I want to add anything to is that of memory and oral cultures.
Firstly, contra Jimmy I have never seen a child in a game of Telephone intentionally change the message for a laugh. I have only ever seen adults do that, in mixed adult/child groups. I have also seen children be rude to other children who unintentionally changed the message.
Bart, some time ago in a comment on another post, I pointed you to Lynne Kelly’s work on memory in oral cultures, and you indicated that you “should” have a look. We know that oral cultures can indeed pass down information with an impressive degree of accuracy, but they don’t do it by telling stories around a campfire. The important information is kept secret, and only passed down (via ceremony) to elders of the tribe who are entrusted with preserving it. Techniques such as memory palaces, first described in writing by the Greeks, have in fact been used for 10,000+ years on every inhabited continent. For details and rock solid scholarly sources, see Kelly.
All of which obviously has no relevance whatsoever for the New Testament gospels!
Yup, I”m familiar with ancient mnemonic devices by Greeks. But we have literally no way of establishing that these techniques were used 10,000 years ago; Simonides is the first major figure credited with it. And the difficulty with saying that this secret information was kept accuracy involves verification. The fact that peo[le *claim* a tradition is exactly the same as 100 years ago, or 10, or 1, etc doesn’t mean it actually is. Without means of verification these are just claims. That’s why it’s important to see what anthropologists (I cite a lot of them in my book) have come to understand about oral cultures.
As I said, see Kelly. Plenty of anthropology cited. These are _not_ just claims.
The scholarly work is _Knowledge and Power in Prehistoric Societies: orality, memory and the transmission of culture_ (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
(It would of course be going too far to say anything is _exactly_ the same.)
Ap, can you give us the Cliff’s Notes version?
I too am quite curious as to how we could know ANYthing about ‘memory techniques’ in use 5,000 years before writing was invented.
Hawksj, I don’t want to be responsible for summarising other people’s academic work (I cannot do so well and would feel bad for doing so misleadingly). But strikingly similar techniques are deeply embedded in oral cultures around the world, from native Americans to Australian Aborigines, and certainly go back long before European contact. How far back can’t be demonstrated directly, but given what we DO know it is far less extraordinary to say they are very ancient indeed than to suppose that cultures around the world independently came up with them comparatively recently. Such invention would constitute a dramatic structural change in the relevant cultures, which is not in evidence. Memory techniques have a survival advantage, e.g. if a culture can pass down knowledge about how to survive a severe drought that only happens once every five generations. We know that cave paintings are used as memory aids, so comparisons with prehistoric cave paintings are a piece of the puzzle. There are even tantalising hints that the ghost of the memory of landscape-changing events like sea level changes and meteorite impacts are preserved in various myths.
My summary is superficial. Please don’t lose sight of that.
Hawksj, I’ve given my own crude summary (comment above), but resources are out there if you want to investigate further. Lynne Kelly has a website, her books on Amazon have a “look inside” preview, there are podcast interviews, etc.
For a scholar like Bart I wouldn’t recommend anything less than going straight to the academic source, but for most blog readers Lynne’s 2019 TEDX talk is a good place to start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9kpJtHI8jQ
I find it very curious that Bart cites some of the same foundational texts that Lynne does (Walter Ong et al) yet takes away very different messages. Something is amiss, and I’m serious about recommending Lynne’s work to Bart because then we might get to the bottom of what that is. Could it be that Bart’s research was so heavily driven by questions raised by religious claims that he neglected another side of the story, rather like citing the unreliability of the gospels and concluding that we should all be mythicists? The truth about Jesus is found neither in mythicism nor fundamentalism but somewhere in between, and the truth about oral cultures is similarly nuanced. But cultures go to considerable trouble to transmit knowledge as accurately as they can.
I don’t think if your read Jack Goodie, Jan Vansina, or … well most any of the others who work on this, going back to Albert Lord himself, you would come away ith the summary of the validity of oral tradition that you gave. Just read them. These people had no interest i in religious quesitons at all. (At least for their anthropological work)
Bart cites Jack Goody (not Goodie), Jan Vansina, and Albert Lord. I approached Lynne for comment.
“Goody did a lot of terrific work in the field. I quote him a lot – his _Myth of the Barge_, in particular, really supports my way of thinking. He is dated now, but also changed his tune a bit in later years, especially his 2010 book, _Myth, ritual and the oral_.”
“Jan Vansina is a wonderful researcher whose work I used a lot […] BUT […] Vansina is interested in oral history – and writes superbly about that. Many indigenous cultures do not value chronological history in the way that Western cultures do. […] My work focuses on the pragmatic, and the things that we can confirm using science: the knowledge of animals, plants, weather, resources, land management, geology, genealogies, laws, ethics, navigation … why would you record history when you’ve got to keep all that stuff in memory?”
Lord [here I paraphrase] studied illiterate groups of people _within_ literate cultures (i.e. cultures in which the elite are literate), and no serious modern anthropologist would conflate _that_ research with the study of cultures that lack writing altogether (as you might know from reading Goody).
From second Vatican counsel: “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.”
Nothing is mentioned above about the Bible being historically reliable. As a very long time but now former Catholic, I don’t ever recall being taught the Bible is historically reliable. Some priests even said some of the OT was ancient bedtime stories to teach life lessons, when I was in grade school.
I don’t understand why historical reliability would be important to a Catholic, especially to have a debate over it. The faith is so much more than the Bible.
I watched the debate, Akin’s approach felt like a patronizing infomercial. During Q&A some of his positions were outrageous!
I think you and Akin were charitable in this debate. I often read your blog and think like Akin. It is like he is saying “a mile is a short distance” and you say “no a mile is not a short distance” Whether you want to say a text is “reliable” or “unreliable” we still agree on quite a bit of substance. Although not everything.
https://youtu.be/Zn7lmu0pek0?t=4561
Does Luke say Jesus appeared “only” in Jerusalem? If so what verse? In Jesus Interrupted, you say according to Mark Jesus is silent the entire time during his crucifixion until the Psalm 22 quote. But I don’t see where Mark ever said Jesus was silent that entire time. You might infer these things from the text (maybe because Mark doesn’t record what Jesus said during that time? or Luke only mentions those appearances?) but that is very different than the text actually saying “he was silent this whole time” or that these were the “only appearances Jesus made”.
Most of my substantive disagreements with you are because I think the inferences you make are sometimes questionable.
Yes, I believe Luke says that. He doesn’t *state* it, but since he gives a precise time-line from Jesus’ death to his ascension, he “says” it. Look at Luke 24 and notice how each paragraph begins with temporal statements (“on that same day” etc.) and then Acts 1. They see Jesus *ONLY* in Jerusalem. They never leave until after the ascension.
Catholics in my personal experience are a lot less dickish than evangelicals and I do appreciate interacting with them a lot more. Praise Almighty God who ostracized evangelicals in the space of 2 decades and has them mired in trial after trial they gain no benefit from. America is better off with more pleasant voices at the forefront. The worst years of our nation were when these people were in charge.
Thanks Dr Ehrman, a fascinating debate and well done. My sound quality wasn’t brilliant all the time, so I’m not sure if Jimmy said anything about the Gospel passages which Catholics don’t like e.g. the references to Jesus’ brothers and Mary thinking her son had gone mad despite the earlier angelic visitation making it clear just who Jesus was?
BTW, I emphasised with you at the end of the debate. I have attended a Catholic church for over 30 years but remain an Anglican and am often self conscious about not crossing myself when everybody else does 🙄.
I would like to know more about some other inferences you make.
It seems possible that Luke and Matthew had other other sources such as Q L and M. Why do you always assume they were oral sources and thus use the telephone game analogy? If they had earlier *written* sources like Q M and L the telephone game is not relevant. Why continue to insist the telephone game analogy applies?
https://youtu.be/Zn7lmu0pek0?t=1411
Above you try to use Q, L, and M as other sources that never talk about Jesus’s divinity as John does. But you have no idea if they do. We only know what Matthew and Luke may have copied or were told from them. We have no access to these full sources (written or oral) that Matthew and Luke used. So it is still only Matthew Mark and Luke that do not express his divinity as John does. Do you assume Matthew and Luke (and Mark) included everything from every source they had?
Ah, I don’t assume they were oral sources. I regularly say that M and L might be oral sources, written sources, a combination of written adn oral sources, a single written source …. we just don’t know.
Good questions joemccarron.
My presupposition is that we might infer how Matthew and Luke handled their sources, from how they both handle Mark – similarities and differences.
In respect of which, I have a question for Bart;
I have read that we can be reasonably confident, from the use that Matthew and Luke make of Mark:
– that the texts of Mark used by Matthew and Luke did not differ significantly, and;
– that this text of Mark did not differ greatly from the text found in our earliest witnesses (e.g. it didn’t have *our* final section of Mark 16, but nor did it have any other text after 16:8), and;
– Matthew used almost all of *his* Mark; editing incidental detail.
Are these inferences reasonable in your view, Bart?
Turning to joemccarron’s question, if Q (or Qs) did contain material in which Jesus claimed divinity in terms similar to those contained in John, then it would be strange if both Matthew and Luke – apparently independently – both chose to omit exactly that material, while (again independently) John chose to include those Q claims, but apparently nothing else that Matthew and Luke report as Jesus’s sayings from this source, or sources.
I’d say they are fairly reasonable, yes. I’d also saythat many of the “minor agreements” of Matthew and Luke against Mark may well be due to them using copies of Mark that agreed in places that our current critical text does not agree with.
Thank you, Bart.
I think your final observation was the substance of the article; that the ‘minor’ agreements are so few as to assure a reasonable confidence that the earliest witnesses we have are not far different in content from the text of Mark that Mathew and Luke read.
Which in turn gives a degree of confidence for our assumption that the multiple stages of copying have not added (or subtracted) much that we would not be aware of from analysis of surviving witnesses in Mark.
Thank you, Bart.
I think your final observation was the substance of the article; that the ‘minor’ agreements are so few as to assure a reasonable confidence that the earliest witnesses we have are not far different in content from the text of Mark that Mathew and Luke read.
Which in turn gives a degree of confidence for our assumption that the multiple stages of copying have not added (or subtracted) much that we would not be aware of from analysis of surviving witnesses in Mark.
Yeah, the minor agreements really are pretty minor. My sense is that we have a pretty good idea of what was in each of the Gospels, even though we can’t know and there are plenty of tantalizing and significant places where we all disagree….
I always thought the telephone game primarily demonstrated speech and hearing mistakes, whereas the issue with oral tradition is modification of the content through paraphrasing, misunderstanding, forgetting, exaggeration, intentional modifications, etc. Consequently, Jimmy seems to think that his simplistic oral transmission test, modeled on the telephone game, will demonstrate the accuracy of oral tradition. Another weakness of the telephone game model (or is is merely an analogy?) is that it represents a simple, single chain of communication, while actual oral tradition (unless highly controlled) has profuse branching chains. As in the “evolutionary bush,” mutations, selection, and new creations are inevitable.
I’ll be the outlier and say I did not see Jimmy as a nice guy. When he gave you high fives and big compliments and so on, I saw those as power moves, camouflaged as magnanimity, designed to make him look like the alpha. And when we saw his rebuttal statement had been prepared before you even gave your opening statement, I had to wonder if we should see that as good faith.
Yeah, I can see how it would look that way. I too was a bit surprised by the lack of an actual rebuttal.
I have watched numerous debates now between you, Bart, and sundry apologists. My takeaway is always the same – believers start from a position of faith and belief in a supernatural with historical accuracy a poor second (as this guy made clear – “gist” – is good enough for him).
You, smartly, follow the common sense logic that we live in a natural world ruled by natural law and there is no supernatural, no God, and no driving force guiding history. What we can know about the past is gleaned by following the historical methods you so clearly delineate.
Christians debate by expanding the rules, broadening the definitions (or inventing them), and asserting there are, in fact, supernatural forces at play. They are not scientists, ethnographers, nor historians.
My question is a bit crass, sorry – do you bother with these people to further your public profile or do you really think you will bring any of them down to earth? Follow-up. I am glad historians don’t pretend to be theologists. Why do apologists pretend to be historians?
I *definitely* do not debate these people to further my profile. And I never think that I’ll convince my *opponent*. Or my opponents steadfast followers. I do hope that peopel sitting on the fence will see the flaws in traditional views and that I can put a chink in the armor of some hard-core fundamentalists to impell them to use their intelligence rather than simply accept bad arguments becuase they happen to support their views. Apologists *have* to pretent to be historicans because they have an Englightenment understanding of objectivity and therefore think that if something is TRUE it has to be able to be PROVED to be true — and only history can demonstrate the historical truthclaims of a religion (e.g., Jesus really WAS raised from the dead)
Bart, I was disappointed that the audience didn’t vote at the end for a winner. Even though the audience could be considered biased, I wanted to know if they were convinced by your presentation.
Nah, most of them were definitely not. People believe what they want to believe, or at least what they’ve always believed, with few exceptions. But over time some peole think about it more and more, and eventually come to change their mindes.
Great debate!
I was intrigued to see if any differences in the baptism account so I reread the description of Jesus’ baptism by John in the four gospels chronologically after the debate.
Mark- John simply baptizes Jesus.
Luke & Matthew- John baptizes Jesus but the emphasis is added that Jesus should be baptizing John (Matthew 3:14)
John- baptism account doesn’t appear.
I’d assume Jimmie would argue that the “gist” is there in 3 of 4 but they are definitely different and totally omitted in John. Seems as though Jesus’ divinity grows and John’s influence lessens chronologically with each gospel.
Bart,
What was your impression of the idea that Joseph had property in Bethlehem? Do you share my bewilderment that if that was the case then it’s very surprising that he couldn’t stay at either his own property or at the property of a friend or family member with his pregnant wife who was about to give birth?
I was a bit amazed by it. Never heard *that* one before. And with good reason…. (And yes, that is a bit of a problem. No room in the inn? Who needs an inn when you have a vacation property there?)
When I listen to debates with apologists, I am amused by a central irony. They are arguing for the idea that God performed miracles in history, such as the Resurrection, yet, God didn’t intervene to create a perfect historical record that circumvents the need for debate. In other words, why did God communicate the most important message in human history—a message with eternal consequences for every individual—using imperfect, probability-based historical evidence? Why don’t we have an immaculate, original document written by Jesus himself (preferably in ancient and modern languages)? More importantly, why is Christianity dependent on history at all? The truth of Christianity should be as current and self-evident as gravity.
I have always wondered what the holy family did with the gifts of the Magi. Perhaps that is the reason for why they could afford two properties?
Ha!!