This is Mike’s third and final guest post. In the earlier post he explained his views about whether the Bible is inspired by God and is inerrant. He thinks the answers to both are “yes,” though his actual views are not what most people would probably expect. Here now is the third, and critical post, based on the research he did for his 2017 Oxford University Press book, with the same title: Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?
I agree with a lot of what Mike writes here. In reading it, I’d suggest you bear in mind his earlier two posts, that he sees the Gospels as inspired and inerrant.
Mike has graciously agreed to answer questions you have for him, but only for the next four days! Otherwise this would go on forever. And please, in your questions, do your best to keep them concise and direct, without asking multiple questions at once. Pick the most pressing. And I scarcely need to remind you of that verse in the Ehrman Revised Standard Version: “The rude and snarky shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Many thanks to Mike for taking these posts on. I really appreciate it.
–
Mike Licona is the author of The Resurrection of Jesus, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels and Evidence for God.
*****************************************************************************
In June 2017, two convicts in the state of Georgia killed two corrections officers who were transporting them, took their guns and fled. One morning, my wife told me the two had been captured in Tennessee by a guy who saw them trying to steal his car and held them at gunpoint until the police arrived. A few moments later, we saw a reporter on television saying the two convicts were captured after their stolen car had crashed during a high-speed police chase. I looked at Debbie and said, “What? But you said . . .” to which she replied, “Just wait and hear the entire story.”
Both accounts are true. The convicts had stolen a car. The police tracked them and were in a high-speed pursuit when the convicts crashed their stolen car and fled on foot through the woods. They were trying to steal another car when the home owner confronted them, held them at gunpoint, and called the police. Here were two stories that seemed irreconcilable to me at first but were easily harmonized.
Harmonizing Gospel differences is a legitimate approach. However, as demonstrated in my previous post, it can quickly go awry. Similarly, skeptical approaches can go too far in the opposite direction, being too quick to conclude that an error is present and assert that the differences prohibit us from trusting anything the Gospels claim. Those applying this standard would have to reject the reports in virtually all ancient literature!
I think there’s a better approach. It’s not a middle ground. It’s actually ground that’s fairly new in Gospels research but …
The rest of this post is for blog members only. If you want to hear what Mike has to say, join the blog! It costs pennies a day, and every one of those pennies goes to charity. And for the content you get — it’s unbelievable value!
Aside from these kind of literary simplifications, do you agree with Dr. Ehrman that there’s reason to think some of the Gospel writers altered the narrative to make theological points? For example, I’m sure you’re familiar with his take on the conflict regarding the day Jesus was crucified, with John having moved the day to Passover so that a clearer parallel could be drawn between the sacrificial lambs & Jesus (whom John believed was the Lamb of God).
Thanks again for taking time to talk to us laymen, we (well, at least most of us, cough cough) are grateful to get a different perspective!
lobe: I was unaware that was Bart’s position. That’s what I think John did. He moved the day and time on which Jesus was crucified. I’m also inclined to think he moved the time of the temple cleansing to the beginning of Jesus’s ministry and the day on which Mary anointed Jesus from 2 days before Passover to 6. However, recently I have had less confidence with the latter. I also think Matthew moved the day on which Jesus cleansed the temple from Monday (per Mark) to Sunday and conflates it with Jesus’s first visit during which he merely looks around (per Mark).
I could swear Bart has said that in a few places (his Great Course on the Gospels comes to mind) but now I’m beginning to doubt myself…Hopefully I didn’t inadvertently put words in his mouth! If so, I pray he doesn’t smite me too hard. 🙂
Ha ha! It could be that you heard me offer that interpretation during one of my debates with Bart.
Well there you go….inerrant right? No errors whatsoever? Glad that position is solid……
Dr. Licona: In your view, is the Septuagint equally reliable as the Biblia Hebraica?
e’s not answering now, but he would say no.
Think about this:
If Paul could see a bright light and believe he had “seen” the resurrected Jesus, why couldn’t the same have happened with Peter, James, the Twelve, and the “500”? The Resurrection Belief can be very easily explained: Some very religious people, on several different occasions, saw a very bright light and believed that the bright light was the appearance of a divine being, in this case, the resurrected “Christ”. If we look at the earliest account of appearance claims, the Early Creed, there is no mention of anyone claiming to have seen a *body*.
Bright lights, folks. The origin of the Christian religion may very well be: Bright lights!
I’m not sure if you were replying to me or Dr. Licona…but I’m an atheist so you don’t need to convince me that the Christian claims of resurrection probably don’t reflect reality. That said, I don’t think it’s necessary to hypothesize what Peter may or may not have seen. Since he didn’t leave us any writings (probably because he couldn’t, well, write) it would necessarily be speculation. I think it’s enough to say that they claimed to have had experiences which persuaded them that Jesus had risen from the dead and leave it at that.
Mike,
It looks like you ran out of time before answering my question in your post #2, so I’ll try again. It’s related to Jesus’ resurrection, a cornerstone of your inerrancy argument.
Basically I’m asking how you conclude as a historian that *all* of the twelve and the apostles mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5&7 had a *visual* experience of Jesus. I know that’s what the passage plainly suggests, but how would a historian differentiate between that happening and a scenario where (with bodily resurrection belief already in place) only a *few* of the twelve and the apostles had a *visual* experience of Jesus (like Bart suggests) but the rest (or nearly the rest) experienced *non-visual* phenomena of Jesus’ presence in the highly excited religious environment of belief in Jesus’ resurrection (auditory, sensed presence, dreams, by themselves and/or in groups), and then the word “appeared” was chosen for the creed simply because it was the best word to *succinctly* capture all of the experiences of the leaders that they wanted to designate as teachers, preachers, and defenders of the Christian message (i.e., Jesus Seminar’s idea that these are confirmations of apostolic authority).
The appearance traditions in 1 Cor 15:5&7 are *in-group community tradition*, so the technical inaccuracy of using the word “appeared” to capture all of the experiences would seem inconsequential if most or all Christians at the time knew that some of these leaders really had experienced Jesus visually and many or all of the others had experienced Jesus’ presence in some other way (auditory, sensed, presence, dreams, solo or in groups).
The lack of a clear example of an appearance ever being invented in order to confer authority on the percipient (your main objection) seems an empty argument because we have *zero* details about any appearances of Jesus until decades after Jesus’ death, and by then all Christian leaders were well-known and the interests and apologetic motivations might be different than when the creed was formed, such as showing that Jesus was not a ghost (e.g., Lk 24:36-43).
I agree that the Jesus Seminar’s theory that 1 Cor 15:5&7 are confirmations of apostolic authority is purely speculative, but how is your theory that 1 Cor 15:5&7 are *accurate* reports of visual experiences of Jesus to *everyone* listed any less speculative? How would a historian ever know which scenario actually happened given the paucity of reliable evidence?
Jon1: I think it’s important for us to remind ourselves of the following: We cannot get into a time machine, return to the past and verify our conclusions. What we can do is present various historical descriptions and why we opt for a particular description over others.
While the scenario you present is “possible,” so is the interpretation of “appear” to be referring to visual experiences. I prefer the latter because (1) Paul thinks of Jesus’s resurrection as something that happened to his corpse and there are very good reasons for thinking Paul was proclaiming what the Jerusalem apostles were; (2) The manner in which all four canonical Gospels describe Jesus’s resurrection is an event that happened to his corpse (e.g., empty tome, women touch him [Matt], he invites his disciple to touch him [Luke, John], he eats food his disciples prepared [Luke], he makes breakfast for his disciples, which they eat [John], he converses at length with them [Matt, Luke, John]). Because I find the data compelling that Mark has largely based his Gospel on the testimony Peter and that John is at the minimum largely rooted in the testimony of a disciple of Jesus, I also think the traditions they preserve reflect what the eyewitnesses were reporting. Accordingly, one has to read the texts in a manner contrary to what they actually say to get the hypothetical scenario you present.
Mike,
Again, I agree that Paul and the earliest Christians before him thought Jesus’ *corpse* was resurrected, and the gospels of course all reflect this. What caused this *belief* is a great question, but does not answer the nature of the appearance traditions to the twelve and “all the apostles” which were undoubtedly formed *after* the resurrection belief came about (it takes some time for a creed to form). You’re welcome to think a corporeal Jesus appeared to these people, but my question is: As a historian, without assuming the historical reliability of the gospels (which is your claim), how do you know that *all* of the people in these groups had a *visual* experience of Jesus and not just a *few* of them (like Bart suggests), with the others (or most of them) having *non-visual* experiences of Jesus’ presence (auditory, sensed presence, dreams, solo and/or in groups), and then the word “appeared” was used in the creed simply because it was the most *succinct* way to capture all of the experiences of the leaders that the early community *wanted to designate as teachers, preachers, and defenders of the Christian message* (Jesus Seminar apostolic confirmation theory). Without drawing on the historical reliability of the gospels, why should the historian conclude it is more plausible that “all” of the twelve and the apostles had a visual experience of Jesus like you want to conclude instead of just a *few* like Bart and the Jesus Seminar want to conclude?
Jon1: You wrote, “What caused this *belief* [i.e., Jesus’s corpse had been resurrected] is a great question.” You’re correct! In fact, Dale Allison has called this question “the prize puzzle of New Testament research.” Gary Habermas is the leading authority on the subject. He has amassed a bibliography of some 3,500 academic sources written on the matter between 1975-Present in French, German, and English. That’s roughly 80 academic journal articles, essays, and books written on Jesus’s resurrection every year!
I’m not sure what I missed in your question. If, at minimum, Mark and John are rooted in the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’s disciples, they are proclaiming bodily resurrection, and John is describing several resurrection appearances in specific terms (e.g., he appeared to his disciples in no less than three group settings in which he communicated with them, invited them to touch him, and fixed breakfast for them which they ate). All four Gospels likewise speak of an empty tomb.
I cannot disprove that only a few had visual experiences while others had experiences of a different sort. What I can say is the reports that we have (bracketing Paul whose experience is alleged to have occurred after Jesus’s ascension) only speak of one sort: visual experiences of a bodily raised Jesus. These are multiply-attested. Positing that the disciples’ experiences were of a different nature lack evidence and is entirely ad hoc.
Mike,
I’m completely puzzled why you appeal to Mark/John having eyewitness testimony if your historical argument for Jesus’ resurrection does not depend on gospel reliability. I’m also confused why, if you’re going with the minimal facts approach, you don’t argue just *one* fact that historians need to explain: the resurrection belief. The reason I say this is because the appearance traditions seem wide open to ad hoc speculative explanations given that we have *zero* details about them for decades and the gospels could all be later legends. Consider too your treatment of Paul’s appearance of Jesus.
How do you conclude Paul’s statement “last of all” in 1 Cor 15:8 means Paul thought his conversion experience *differed* from a vision of Jesus? More specifically, how do you know “last of all” does not mean for Paul that he considered himself the last to be *chosen* to receive an appearance of Jesus for purposes of leadership commissioning? Unless one assumes the historical reliability of Acts, the external elements of light and voice that others experience at Paul’s conversion in Acts could just be *legends* meant to bring some objectivity to Paul’s conversion experience, and Luke’s ascension tradition would explain why Luke can’t give Paul a full blown corporeal appearance of Jesus even if he wanted to (Jesus bid his final farewell three years earlier). Why can’t a historian plausibly explain Paul’s conversion and believed appearance by Jesus is the result of a hallucination of Jesus driven by some hidden attraction to Christianity or simply a subconscious desire to be a big fish in a small pond instead of a little fish in a big pond? We have no pre-conversion records from Paul and no ability to psychoanalyze him on a couch, so how can we ever know what Paul’s motivations were for converting to Christianity or what may have caused him to have a visual experience of Jesus? So basically my question is this: Why is a hallucination by Paul any more speculative than your conclusion that Paul had a real visit by Jesus or that Paul thought his conversion experience differed from a vision of Jesus? (Please provide an answer that does not appeal to the historical reliability of the gospels or Acts.)
Jon1: Okay, I think I see where you’re coming from now. My bad! You’re correct that the appearance traditions in Paul do not tell us much about the nature of those appearances. Yet, from those traditions alone, we have appearances to individuals and groups, friend and foe. Since Paul imagines that our resurrection will be similar in nature to Jesus’s resurrection, and he imagines our resurrection as physical, he thinks of Jesus’s resurrection as physical.
So, you ask, “Why can’t a historian plausibly explain Paul’s conversion and believed appearance by Jesus is the result of a hallucination of Jesus driven by some hidden attraction to Christianity or simply a subconscious desire to be a big fish in a small pond instead of a little fish in a big pond?” A historian can do that. However, it’s entirely ad hoc, pure speculation, psychohistory. Most people can distinguish a hallucination from reality. But lets assume that Paul was uncertain whether he had actually seen the Risen Jesus rather than having experienced a hallucination. Remember that he was persecuting the Christians. He wanted to destroy the new sect because he thought it was heretical. So, even if he had uncertainty pertaining to the nature of his experience, you’d think he’d not jump ship immediately and become a Christian.
By his own testimony in 1 Cor. 15:30-32; 2 Cor. 11:22-28; Phil. 3:3-11, Paul experienced great persecution for proclaiming the gospel. Hardly an attractive benefits package to become a big fish in a small pond! Why not be a nice sized fish, though not the largest, in a big pond and enjoy a relatively comfortable life?
While a historian can certainly entertain the scenario you have posited, a historian should choose to hypothesis that explains the most number of facts, does so without forcing any of them to fit, do so with the least amount of speculation, and fit without our background knowledge. I think the resurrection hypothesis wins here. What you have posited is very close to what Gerd Ludemann posits in his 2004 book “The Resurrection of Christ.” I address his view at length in chapter 5 of my large book on Jesus’s resurrection.
Mike,
Regarding the proposal by many scholars (including Bart I believe) that Paul’s conversion entailed a hallucination of Jesus you wrote, “if he [Paul] had uncertainty pertaining to the nature of his experience [i.e. his hallucination of Jesus], you’d think he’d not jump ship immediately and become a Christian.” I think you’re creating a problem here where there is none.
As others have often pointed out, in addition to becoming a big fish in a small pond and possibly other attractions to Christianity before his conversion, Paul may have started to believe Christians right about Jesus and about Jesus’ later return to clean house. Thinking his own *salvation* at stake (i.e., overrides desire for remaining in comfortable prior life as you suggested), Paul may have had an emotional upheaval and conversion to Christianity that included a hallucination of Jesus. The visual image of Jesus may have been brief and said/did nothing, maybe part of a bright light (like hallucinations sometimes have). We can only guess what Paul’s experience was (because we have no evidence), but the idea is that it was the *underlying attractions to Christianity* that were primarily responsible for Paul’s conversion, not the *characteristics* of the hallucination.
You say the above proposal is “entirely ad hoc, pure speculation”, which I completely agree with, but how is your hypothesis that Paul was really visited by Jesus or that Paul thought his conversion experience differed from a vision any less ad hoc and speculative (without assuming the historical reliability of the gospels/Acts)? What am I missing?
Dr. Licona: I purchased John Loftus’ new book, “The Case Against Miracles”, and sent it to you as a holiday gift.
Amazon notified me that you received it yesterday. I sincerely hope you read it. It completely dismantles every single argument you have presented here.
Your history of repeatedly doubting the veracity of Christianity is for good reason, my friend. The evidence for your supernatural belief system is very weak. Please, please read the book. There are many former evangelicals who are members of Dr. Ehrman’s blog. We know what you are going through. We know how painful it is to recognize that your entire Christian worldview is a house of cards. We know and understand your struggles with doubt. We will be here for you when you finally leave your evangelical Christian superstitions behind.
“While a historian can certainly entertain the scenario you have posited, a historian should choose t[he] hypothesis that explains the most number of facts, does so without forcing any of them to fit, do so with the least amount of speculation, and fit without [fits with?] our background knowledge. I think the resurrection hypothesis wins here.”
Prof. Licona, thank you again for continuing your series of posts on here. I take liberty to chime in with Jon1 that the resurrection hypothesis is much weaker than you have represented it as being.
1. the “facts” with which we start are assertions in documents from at least a generation after the purported event. The “facts” aren’t events described in those documents, since their facticity is precisely what is in question, to various degrees. The empty tomb is not an established fact. The later story or account of the empty tomb is the fact. And so on. I know you’re aware that the facticity is a property of what’s in the text, not of the purported events qua events – which MIGHT be factual.
2. to appeal to the four gospels as though they are mutually independent sources isn’t valid, for obvious reasons if Markan priority is accepted. Again, of course you know this, but when you say things like “all four gospels speak of an empty tomb” you elide the significance of Matthew’s and Luke’s using Mark.
3. you rightly urge that we avoid speculation and that we formulate an hypothesis that fits with our background knowledge. But you gloss over the HUGE gorilla in the room, that as far as we know, bodies cannot rise from the dead after a day and a half from natural causes. A supernatural cause has to be posited, as WLC makes free to acknowledge. But posit that and you are already deep into metaphysical speculation and far from what can be established as background knowledge by the methodologies proper to history or science.
Ficino: Thanks for your comments. I think you have missed an important step. What I consider to be “facts” are the conclusions based on the assertions of several reports. It’s not that I’m merely taking the reports at face value. There is room for misunderstanding here, since I lack the time to go into great depth. What I will say here is that virtually all relevant scholars who study the subject agree with just about all of the “facts” I present in a historical case for Jesus’s resurrection. The only one where there is not a virtual 100% consensus is that some of the experiences of Jesus’s disciples they interpreted as appearances of the risen Jesus to them had occurred to groups. According to Gary Habermas, around 80% grant it. That’s still really good!
I don’t appeal to all four Gospels as though they are independent sources. I’m with Bart, thinking Mark wrote first, that Matthew and Luke use Mark extensively while supplementing it with Q material and material unique to themselves (i.e., M, L). I also regard John as providing an independent source.
Yes, a supernatural cause would be required for a corpse to return to life after a day and a half. However, I don’t agree that such requires deep metaphysical speculation. There is much in science and philosophy that suggest the existence of a Creator. That, of course, can be disputed and is. But the converse that God does not exist requires metaphysical discussion. The prominent atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse (FSU) has said that a non-designed universe “requires a metaphysical commitment and an act of faith.” So, when I approach the matter of Jesus’s resurrection as a historian, I come to it neither presupposing God’s existence nor a priori excluding it (i.e., methodological naturalism). Instead, historians should approach the issue with openness and let the facts speak for themself. Otherwise, historians place themselves in a dangerous position where their metaphysics guides their historical investigation rather than facts. The danger in this is manifest: Bad philosophy corrupts good history!
Mike,
I guess we’re done with our exchange (you didn’t answer my last question noted above). In a nutshell, once the resurrection belief came about, and assuming the gospels/Acts unreliable, all of the early appearance traditions in 1 Cor 15:5-8 seem to me to have plausible naturalistic explanations (regardless of one’s metaphysical worldview). These explanations are of course all ad hoc (because we have no evidence for what lies behind the early appearance traditions), but without drawing on the historical reliability of the gospels/Acts, your explanation that Jesus really appeared to these people, or even that Paul considered his conversion experience different from a vision, also seems entirely ad hoc. I honestly don’t see how you get around this, concluding that yours is the best explanation for the appearance traditions. That’s why I said it looks to me like you really have a *one fact* argument for Jesus’ resurrection that historians need to explain: what *caused* the resurrection belief in the first place. I can’t think of any better way to explain how I view your historical argument for Jesus’ resurrection. If you see some way to clarify your position or indicate what I’m missing, I’d love to hear it (I’ve already read your 2010 book on the resurrection). If you have no further comments, thanks for the exchange. I think trying to move the ball forward for future generations on which worldview is correct – one where the laws of physics are constant and impersonal, or one where a personal entity occasionally intervenes in the laws of physics on our behalf and leaves us with divinely inspired texts – is important. As I said in some previous comments, I think the real frontier for your camp is to overturn those studies which currently show no violation of the laws of physics even when your camp says there should be (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-04-05/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal; ref Keener’s *testable* claim that prayers effect storms and his inability to follow up on paranormal events he was “invited…to witness” ahead of time (Miracles, pg. 737 and pg. 1)). I think the historical method is a much less accurate way to tell us which worldview is correct and is a maze of conflicting honest arguments and apologetics.
Jon1: The way I see things is like this: Virtually all acknowledge that a number of Jesus’s disciples and a persecutor of the church named Paul had experiences they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them. A large majority also agree that several of these experiences occurred in group settings. Most scholars, including Bart I think, grant that they “believed” it was a physical/bodily resurrection. Perhaps you reject some of these. But I content that Jesus’s bodily resurrection is the best historical explanation to account for these facts. Your scenario requires that one read the accounts in a manner contrary to what they say. And I’m referring not only to 1 Cor. 15:3-8 but also all Paul says elsewhere that inform us of his belief that resurrection involved the corpse. Thus, the scenario you propose lacks explanatory power, since, given the truth of your hypothesis, what we have (i.e., sincere belief in the physical/bodily resurrection of Jesus) is not what we would expect.
The laws of physics inform us how our universe typically works when left to itself. A miracle does not require a violation or setting aside of the laws of physics. It’s simply a time in which the hand of God enters our world and the universe is not left to itself.
Yes, I, too, have enjoyed our interactions. All the best, Jon1!
I would have to agree with Mike on his statement: “one has to read the texts in a manner contrary to what they actually say to get the hypothetical scenario you present”. The texts are for the most part “theological” documents with strong motivation to promote the “we are all on the same page” motif. The theological approach involves a higher probability/credence assignment to presuppositions than say your rational approach that might assign lower credence to presuppositions. But hey, just my opinion … and I did appreciate your arguments.
A common thing in ancient biographies was making up speeches for people – speeches that contained the kind of things you would expect a person to say in that situation. Obviously Herodotos does not know exactly what the Persians discussed before invading Greece, but he writes down the kind of discussions that would be had under those circumstances. Do you think there are situations like that in the Gospels?
AstaKask: That’s a good question. But the answer is perhaps difficult to know. Where the Gospels differ significantly from most other ancient biographies is that, as a traveling itinerate teacher, Jesus would no doubt have said the same things on many occasions. In contrast, speeches like the one given by Catiline to embolden his soldiers prior to facing the legions of Rome that would crush him were invented, since there were few if any survivors. But, like you said, the speech would be invented to convey content that would reflect what the person said. However, it seems that invention of that degree was permissible only when no testimony had survived. I don’t see that as being the case with the Gospels. That said, the Gospel authors could and did rearrange material. For example, Matthew takes various teachings of Jesus and weaves them together in Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. Jesus probably did not offer everything attributed to him in Matthew’s version. However, I think Jesus probably did teach what Matthew attributes to him in that Sermon.
I suspect that John is doing something similar on occasion, but with even greater flexibility, such as Jesus’s lengthy discourses in John 13-17.
Seems like huge portions of the Gospel of John would be in this category.
Mike, I know it’s off topic but in a guest post on WLC’s blog you deny Erhman’s assertion that mass hallucinations can occur. Leaving supernatural explanations aside do you admit that mass illusions are possible leading to mass delusion?
The Fatima miracle was most likely a mass optical illusion of the sun. See here for modern video evidence: https://youtu.be/njP-9LC4Hu0
How can we be certain the 500 didn’t experience something similar that quickly evolved into “we all saw Jesus”?
Daniel L. Everett tells an interesting story in this regard:
“Look! There he is, Xigagaí, the spirit.” “Yes, I can see him. He is threatening us.” “Everybody, come see Xigagaí. Quickly! He is on the beach!”
I was rubbing the sleep from my eyes. I turned to Kóhoi, my principal language teacher, and asked, “What’s up?” “Don’t you see him over there?” he asked impatiently. “Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, is standing on the beach yelling at us, telling us he will kill us if we go to the jungle.” “Where?” I asked. “I don’t see him.” “Right there!” Kóhoi snapped, looking intently toward the middle of the apparently empty beach. “In the jungle behind the beach?” “No! There on the beach. Look!” he replied with exasperation. In the jungle with the Pirahãs I regularly failed to see wildlife they saw. My inexperienced eyes just weren’t able to see as theirs did. But this was different. Even I could tell that there was nothing on that white, sandy beach no more than one hundred yards away. And yet as certain as I was about this, the Pirahãs were equally certain that there was something there. Maybe there had been something there that I just missed seeing, but they insisted that what they were seeing, Xigagaí, was still there. Everyone continued to look toward the beach. I heard Kristene, my six-year-old daughter, at my side. “What are they looking at, Daddy?” “I don’t know. I can’t see anything.” Kris stood on her toes and peered across the river. Then at me. Then at the Pirahãs. She was as puzzled as I was. Over more than two decades I have tried to come to grips with the significance of how two cultures, my European-based culture and the Pirahãs’ culture, could see reality so differently. I could never have proved to the Pirahãs that the beach was empty. Nor could they have convinced me that there was anything, much less a spirit, on it.
VaulDogWarrior: Mass illusions are certainly possible. When a family is riding in a car on a sunny day and all see what appears to be water on the road ahead of them, that’s a mass illusion. A delusion is when one persists in having a false belief despite having conclusive evidence to the contrary. I think mass illusions leading to a mass group delusion is certainly possible. Although not involving a mass delusion, in the 1990s, Marshall Applewhite led followers in his Heaven’s Gate cult to commit suicide by telling them the dot behind the Hale-Bopp comet was a spaceship that would rescue them from the Earth’s destruction if they followed him in suicide. Astronomers were saying the dot was Mars and not a spaceship. It was a mass delusion.
The phenomenon of a dancing sun at Fatima could have been an illusion. It was a separate matter from the Marian apparition to the children that was simultaneously occurring. Although it’s not the same, I get your point.
I don’t think the appearances to Jesus were mass illusions leading to a mass delusion. Matthew, Luke, and John are consistent in describing Jesus’s appearances as physical in nature, communicating to groups. He invites them to touch him. He fixes them breakfast. And he eats food. And his tomb is empty.
Hi Vaul,
I think you are on to something. I would suggest this scenario:
The four Evangelists were non-eyewitness; they weren’t even the associates of eyewitnesses. The stories about Jesus came to them many decades after the death of Jesus, after passing through many retellings (This is the prevailing view of modern scholarship). So the Jesus Story probably already had embellishments mixed with historical facts. But the Evangelists were not writing modern biographies. They were writing GRECO-ROMAN biographies, a genre, which even Dr. Licona agrees, allowed embellishments in the details—as long as the core facts were not altered.
So the Evangelists added their own embellishments, and one of those embellishments were the detailed appearance stories of people seeing a walking, talking, fish eating resurrected body. The original appearance stories involved visions of Jesus in vivid dreams, false sightings of Jesus, and illusions of nature (lights, shadows, cloud formations) to groups of people. If the author of Acts is correct, all Paul saw was a bright light and he believed that it was an appearance of the resurrected Jesus. So why couldn’t groups of people see a bright light and believe that it was an appearance of the resurrected Jesus?
I’ve enjoyed reading your posts, Mike. You’ve provided food for thought. In a nutshell: can you sum up what it is that convinces you that Jesus really rose from the dead.
Thanks, stokerslodge. In a nutshell: Virtually every scholar in the relevant fields who have studied the subject agree on the following: (1) Jesus died by crucifixion; (2) Shortly thereafter, a number of Jesus’s disciples had experiences they were convinced were of the risen Jesus appearing to them; (2*) although not a universal consensus, around 80% agree that that some of these experiences occurred in group settings; (3) a persecutor of the Church named Paul had an experience he interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to him and he became one of Christianity’s most aggressive advocates.
Historians take the facts and posit hypotheses that attempt to explain these facts. Hypotheses should be able to account for all of the known facts (explanatory scope), account for them without forcing them to fit (explanatory power) [another way of describing explanatory power is to say – Given the truth of a hypothesis, we would expect certain things. To the extent that we have these things, a hypothesis may be said to have explanatory power.], account for the facts with the least amount of improvisation, i.e., non-evidenced assumptions (less ad hoc), and be compatible with our background knowledge (plausibility). The hypothesis that best fulfills these criteria is regarded as what probably occurred. In my book “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” I assess the major hypotheses offered by modern scholars pertaining to what happened to Jesus and demonstrate that the Resurrection hypothesis far exceeds competing hypotheses in its ability to account for the widely agreed upon facts.
after reading keener latest book…I was reminded that historical reconstruction is never absolute but based on probabilities. As I recall that in one of ur debates with Dr Ehrman …he mentioned that since the probability of a bodily resurrection is extremely low then any other explanation would be more probable for the 3 points you mentioned above. As I remember I don’t think u answered his point directly. So my question is how would u respond to Dr Ehrman’s point. (Btw I consider myself an evangelical). Thanks
Kunalians23: I seem to recall that I did answer Bart. Nevertheless, there are a number of things I could answer his claim that a miracle, by its very definition, is the least probable explanation. Here’s one. In reference to what is it the “least probable explanation”? If God exists and wanted to raise Jesus, then Jesus’s resurrection is the “most probable” explanation of the evidence. Perhaps you’ll reply that we can’t know for certain whether God exists or, even if He does, whether He would want to raise Jesus. In that case, the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is inscrutable. So, in what sense is Jesus’s resurrection the “least probable explanation”? In reference to natural causes? I’d certainly agree that a resurrection should be the least probable explanation by natural causes. But then it wouldn’t be a “miracle” claim, right?
The manner in which probability is assessed in historical inquiry is via arguments of inference to the best explanation. When one approaches the question in this manner, Jesus’s resurrection is the best explanation, i.e., the most probable explanation of what occurred. One may still reject Jesus’s resurrection on philosophical or theological assumptions. But, in my opinion, it’s the best historical explanation.
Just speaking anecdotally, even if someone believes in God (say myself and all my Christian friends) our experience indicates that resurrection is of low probability that is none of us have experienced a dead people coming back to life in such dramatic fashion even though some have experience smaller “miracles (people declared “medically dead “coming back to life). So couldn’t the resurrection still be of extremely low probability even in reference of a real God who does miracles since no one has really experienced such a dramatic resurrection
Kunalians23: The approach you are suggesting is determining probability based on the frequency of the occurrence of something. Wouldn’t this a priori rule out unique events? We would have to rule out the Big Bang, since it has only occurred once. You might reply, “But we have evidence that it occurred!” Yes, but now you have transitioned to a different argument, one not based on an event only occurring once and not being witnessed to an argument based on evidence.
Hi Mike
I find this answer unsatisfactory . (Re. Stokerslodge)
1. Re cruxifiction it costs historians nothing to go with it as a cause of death as the evidence from the time suggests this is common practice .The historian’s job is to see what is most probable but it is not 100% the case that Jesus didn’t die by other means . I am not saying he wasn’t cruxified but we are not talking 100% certainty here.
2. We just don’t have anywhere near good evidence for what these visions or group experiences were to attach much weight to them .
3. Paul can say what wants about his road to Damascus experience but we are really none the wiser as it is only his source . He also has a vested interest as he isn’t one of the disciples but this gives him some legitmacy .
4.Historians look at evidence ( you use the term Facts which I think a bit presumptious and appears to suggest bias) and then formulate ideas about what probably happened.
5. How would you account for the fact that Bart Ehrman is less confident about the identity of the Gospel authors then you are and we may not be dealing eye witness accounts.The said eye witness accounts are not unproblematic as Mark was written around 70 AD ,some 40 years after the cruxifiction.
6. In some of your replies it would appear that you think Mark wrote Mark but Bart Ehrman would be less confident that this is the case . How do you account for the difference of opinion?
Dominic
Dominic: You wrote,
“1. Re cruxifiction it costs historians nothing to go with it as a cause of death as the evidence from the time suggests this is common practice .The historian’s job is to see what is most probable but it is not 100% the case that Jesus didn’t die by other means . I am not saying he wasn’t cruxified but we are not talking 100% certainty here.”
Agreed. But historians aren’t looking for 100% certainty. They seek the most likely explanation.
“2. We just don’t have anywhere near good evidence for what these visions or group experiences were to attach much weight to them .”
I disagree.
“3. Paul can say what wants about his road to Damascus experience but we are really none the wiser as it is only his source . He also has a vested interest as he isn’t one of the disciples but this gives him some legitmacy .”
The fact that he trades a life of relative success for one of extreme persecution after having an experience of seeing someone he would have no reason to think he would see suggests he did not invent an appearance to himself for purposes of legitimacy.
“4.Historians look at evidence ( you use the term Facts which I think a bit presumptious and appears to suggest bias) and then formulate ideas about what probably happened.”
“Facts” become “evidence” when used to support a hypothesis. It has nothing to do with bias.
“5. How would you account for the fact that Bart Ehrman is less confident about the identity of the Gospel authors then you are and we may not be dealing eye witness accounts.The said eye witness accounts are not unproblematic as Mark was written around 70 AD ,some 40 years after the cruxifiction.”
Historians can legitimately look at the same data and arrive at different conclusions. That’s not unique to matters related to Jesus. Eyewitness accounts “are not unproblematic” as you say. However, to the extent that you undermine the value of eyewitness testimony, you also undermine all of history as well as the legal process. If Mark wrote 40 years after Jesus’s crucifixion, that’s still adequately early. Even today, WWII vets are being interviewed on their experiences in a war that ended 74 years ago (or a decade further removed than was John from the life of Jesus).
6. In some of your replies it would appear that you think Mark wrote Mark but Bart Ehrman would be less confident that this is the case . How do you account for the difference of opinion?
Hi Mike
Thanks for the reply,I can see you have a lot of questions to deal with. re the questions I asked.
2 .I am sure you would like a wider source base than we have for the visions (non christian roman soldiers diaries would be great for example)
3. Paul may claim he persecuted Christians but what external evidence do we have for this / A letter from a Roman Governor would help, would you agree.
4.Facts have an implication of being true and evidence can be anything used to support an assertion . The stronger the evidence ( the more probably it is to be true ) the better .We have evidence that Jesus appeared to people not facts.
5. We don’t have strong evidence for who wrote Mark all we can hope for is that the narrative didn’t change much from 30AD to 70AD.
Dominic
Dominic: A letter from the Roman governor or high priest pertaining to Paul’s persecutory activities and his conversion would be very nice. What we have are (1) Paul’s own testimony in two of his undisputed letters that he persecuted the Christians before becoming one. That’s huge! (2) We have Luke reporting it in Acts. (3) We have what may be remnants of an oral tradition in Gal. 1:22-24 where Paul says, “And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, ‘He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.’ And they glorified God because of me.” I once heard the prominent historian of Jesus John Meier say that doing history is somewhat like playing cards. We wish the cards in our hand were better. We wish we had more cards. But we’ve got to play with the hand we’ve been dealt. This applies not only to historical Jesus research but also to every historical investigation. I think the hand we’ve been dealt when it comes to Paul’s conversion is exceptionally good, although there’s always more we could want.
I think we have good evidence that the traditional authorship of Mark is correct. Take a look at this article I wrote; point 2 specifically: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/3/148/htm
Thank you. I’ll put your book on my reading list.
I’ll concede your example of the centurion. Likewise the not-cited example of Jairus’s daughter. Can you take on a more problematic example; what transpired in Bethlehem after Jesus’ birth. 40 days then back to Nazareth or a two year hiatus to Egypt?
Thank you,
tcasto: The infancy narratives and the death of Judas are perhaps the two toughest differences. I really don’t know how to think of either. I don’t think the compositional devices I identify Plutarch using are helpful for them.
Great answer Dr. Licona! It’s sincerely refreshing to hear.
Please consider reading them in sequence. First Luke deals with Jesus is first few weeks and months in temporary housing quarters. Then he fast forwards and skips ahead.
Meanwhile, Matthew continues, the story of Jesus’ first few years, in a more permanent house, then including the “unpleasantness” with a Roman Client King, which Luke may not want to emphasize
Luke is not wrong? He is just for some reason not drawing attention to and perhaps drawing attention away from the unpleasantness of Herod
You can easily fit. The periscopes of one gospel into the gaps of the other and vice a versa?
Jesus told parables; If any good came of them that is wonderful.
The Bible (that is the many people who wrote it) tells parables; If any good comes of them that is wonderful.
Many, many tales are told with a purpose in mind, some entirely mythical, some based on fact. That’s fine as long as people don’t try to wrongly influence people, as long as they don’t use them against other people (as in wars, subjugation or persecution) and as long as they don’t try to make unnecessary profit out of them.
The Bible should be (honestly without fear or favour) judged accordingly.
Dr. Licona,
Thank you for posting.
It seems like in private moments people who argue for some religious faith will say that the core reason people don’t believe isn’t about the evidence or history, but that they don’t believe because they want to sin. I heard Tim Keller tell me this in a private aside, and he seemed to assume it was mostly about sexual sin. Recently someone here posted about WL Craig saying something similar (minus the sexual part.) C.S. Lewis says something similar in Mere Christianity, “I wonder how many of them would turn out to have been reasoned out of it by honest argument? Do not most people simply drift away?”
In my experience, most of my former church-going friends don’t believe anymore, and the reason is that we just don’t find it believable. It’s about honest argument.
Do you think all these people are stubborn and sinful, or that they honestly just don’t agree with believers?
Lopaka: I agree with you that many skeptics are not convinced by the evidence and some believers do walk away because they were reasoned out of belief. I also think that many walk away or do not embrace Christ because they don’t agree with His program. I think both occur. I have no idea which occurs more.
Hi Mike, thank you for your interesting and thoughtful articles. I’ve arrived at a place in my beliefs that pretty much excludes me from Paul’s version of Christianity, but since I think the point was Jesus’s life and teachings rather than a supernatural death narrative, I’m not sure that’s altogether a bad thing. However, I would like to know your take on this. There is nothing I find in the gospels that indicates the disciples or any gospel writers actually saw Jesus being put in the tomb. In fact, there is no way of knowing if Jesus was actually dead when he was taken off the cross – after a period of six hours, when I understand the average length was 3 days. Josephus himself reports an incident in which three men he knew were crucified and he appealed to the centurion to take them down, and he did. One of the men survived and the other two died. I connect that to the fact that a spirit does not eat or drink, has no need to. In other words, if the physical Jesus was seen, and I think he was, then he wasn’t dead in the first place. His friend Joseph of Aramathea was granted the body and took him away – for how many days, and to do what but tend to him, I’m not sure anyone knows. Jesus himself seems to have set up the crucifixion for it to take place on Passover, which would mean that he could not be left there. He certainly knows what Judas is about to do, and seems to have encouraged him to do it. I don’t believe Judas knew what the result of his going to the Pharisees would be, considering his despair at what happened and his suicide. That’s it – as I see it. Jesus wasn’t dead when taken from the cross, was ministered to and revived, and then went to see his disciples where he ate and drank with them and then left. Paul doesn’t say he “Saw” Jesus, but that he heard a voice. I have no problem with that, as Jesus was quite likely dead by then and as a powerful spirit, could speak. Your thoughts?
Maglaw: You asked for my thoughts. You’d have a difficult time convincing others of your view. In fact, literally only a handful of scholars within the past century, most of whom have no historical training, embrace the view that Jesus survived crucifixion. Barbara Thiering is the only NT scholar of which I’m aware who thinks Jesus survived his crucifixion. And there are a number of reasons why the “apparent death” view is not popular.
(1) The assertion that Jesus died by crucifixion is attested in multiple independent sources, unsympathetic sources (e.g., Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara bar Serapion), early sources (e.g., Paul and the early oral formulas he quotes, Mark), rooted in eyewitness testimony (e.g., Mark, Paul), embarrassing elements (e.g., notice elements in the passion narratives compared to Jewish and even early Christian martyrdom accounts). All of these so strongly suggest Jesus’s death by crucifixion that those contending he did not bear an extraordinary burden of proof.
(2) The chances of surviving crucifixion were extremely small. You mentioned Josephus’s account of seeing 3 of his friends who had been crucified. It’s the only account in antiquity of a person surviving crucifixion. And the person was deliberately removed from his cross and medically assisted. Josphus appealed to his friend the Roman commander Titus who ordered that the 3 be removed immediately and provided the finest medical care available. In spite of this, 2 or the 3 still died. So, even if Jesus had been removed prematurely and medically assisted, his chances of survival were not good. Even here, there’s a big problem: We have no reports, no hints whatsoever, that Jesus was deliberately removed from his cross with an attempt to save him and that he survived crucifixion.
(3) Even if Jesus had survived scourging and crucifixion, what would he have looked like? It’s certain that he would not have convinced his disciples that he was the rise Lord of life! Alive? Yes. Risen? Not a chance.
A stumbling block for me: per the Bible, God proved His existence to Abraham, and Moses, and Jacob, and many others throughout the Old Testament period. Then Jesus proved who He was to the disciples (and others), and even to Paul as one “untimely born.” Yet since that time He expects billions of people to come to faith in Him based on ancient stories written by anonymous authors, which contain incredible miracle claims, without outside corroboration, and which are sketchy (what was Jesus doing for 30 years?, what were his views on slavery, or homosexuality, etc?) and not entirely consistent (who saw the resurrected Jesus, where and when?). When you look at the minority of people today who have faith in Jesus as their savior (a rather small number, in fact, according to evangelical doctrine), you would think God might step up His efforts a bit.
fishician: I wish we had more evidence. However, I think the evidence we have is sufficient.
I think the common assertion that the Gospels were written by anonymous authors is overblown. While it’s true that the original manuscripts probably did not contain the author’s name, that does not by any means suggest the authors were unknown. If one takes the absent of an author’s name from the manuscript to cast serious doubt authorship, one must seriously question the authorship of Plutarch’s “Lives,” Livy’s “History of Rome,” Sallust’s “War with Caitline” and his “War with Jugurtha,” and Caesar’s “Commentaries on the Civil War.” One would be hard pressed to find a classicist who seriously questions the authorship of any of these, because the external evidence for their traditional authorship is good. Well, the external evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels is also good in comparison. In fact, in some cases, it’s better. If the NT literature made no claims pertaining to the supernatural, I doubt there would be much question pertaining to their essential content.
None of the works you cite make any claims on my life or my soul, and I don’t believe they describe extraordinary miracles (I could be wrong), so the level of evidence is not nearly so critical. I know you’ve heard it said that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and I think that is true, and I don’t think the New Testament rises to the level of extraordinary evidence.
fishician: Fine. But you’ve now changed your objection from “We don’t know who wrote the Gospels” to Plutarch doesn’t make demands on my life.” (Yes, Plutarch, Suetonius, and many other biographers/historians of that era report supernatural phenomena.)
I think the objection that the evidence is insufficient for me to embrace a worldview that makes unattractive demands on my life is a reasonable one. In fact, as a result of my own research, it’s the only one that appears reasonable to me. Sometimes I imagine the following: I suppose the evidence that Islam is true is as good as we have that Christianity is true. Would I become a Muslim? Truthfully, I don’t know. I don’t like Islam and don’t want for it to be true. However, if eternity may be on the line, I would want to take the matter seriously and not reject Islam because I don’t like it.
Dear Dr. Licona. I’m sorry I have irritated you with my many questions and statements. I promise that I will only ask you ONE question on this post if you will give me a straight answer (yes or no) to this ONE question:
—Is it true that since you were ten years old (the age of your conversion to Christianity), you have believed that the spirit (ghost) of an executed first century man (Jesus of Nazareth) lives inside your body and communicates with you in some fashion, “testifying” to you that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an historical fact?”—
Gary: I will answer your “ONE question on this post.” I think I’ve been clear in past posts. But so there is no doubt to be had, here is my “straight answer (yes or no) to this ONE question”: No.
Wow. I’m shocked. I grew up evangelical. I didn’t know that today’s evangelicals deny the presence and testimony of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. Thank you, Dr. Licona. I’ve learned something today.
“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. —The Gospel of John 16:13-14
why are you shocked?
If you asked me that same question, I too would have answered “No”.
Look at what you asked: “…believed that the spirit (ghost) of an executed first century man (Jesus of Nazareth) lives inside your body….”
I’m a Christian, yet, I don’t believe that the “spirit (ghost) of an EXECUTED FIRST CENTURY MAN” lives inside me.
I believe that the Spirit of the Living God – which was also the same spirit in Jesus – not “an executed man”, but, a RESURRECTED man – lives inside me.
I don’t think there is any Christian that believes that the spirit of ANY man that was simply “executed” lives inside them. They believe that the spirit of a RESURRECTED man – which is also the spirit of God Himself – lives inside them.
So, what’s the point of your question? Are you just trying to show off the fact that you have ZERO theological understanding?
Thanks, ftbond. Here is something “shocking.” A friend who is employed by a rather large ministry just emailed me saying Gary had contacted him with the remarks that follow and requested that he post them on their web site, since I had been a guest on his radio program:
“Wow! Evangelical scholar Michael Licona just denied the presence and testimony of the Holy Spirit in his heart in a discussion on Bart Ehrman’s blog today:
“Dear Dr. Licona: Is it true that since you were ten years old (the age of your conversion to Christianity), you have believed that the spirit (ghost) of an executed first century man (Jesus of Nazareth) lives inside your body and communicates with you in some fashion, “testifying” to you that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an historical fact?
“Michael Licona: No.
“Yet on his Facebook page, Licona says that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is “essential” for someone to believe in Jesus as his resurrected Savior! Why the discrepancy???
“‘But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.’
—Gospel of Matthew 10:33”
I’m going to guess that my friend is not the only one Gary has now emailed. This is stooping to a new low for Gary. His consistent mischaracterization of my view in Bart’s blog led me last week to tell him I would no longer interact with him.
Today Gary apologized saying, “I’m sorry I have irritated you with my many questions and statements.” He then asked me to answer one final question with a yes or no. I did. To be clear, it wasn’t his “many questions and statements” that irritated me. It was his pattern of mischaracterizing my answers. And this is not a new thing for Gary. After Bart and I debated on the historical reliability of the Gospels in February 2018, Gary posted an article on his blog making the claim that I had said the majority of New Testament scholars accept the traditional authorship of the Gospels. That surprised me! I certainty don’t believe that. Was it a slip of the tongue during the debate? I went back and found what I said. It was crystal clear I had not said that. Gary had emailed me notifying me of his article. So, I commented on his blog that he had misunderstood what I had said and provided a link to the video of the debate and where I had said it. I never heard back from him. Neither was my comment posted. Months later, his article was still unchanged.
Gary does not strike me as one who is genuinely interested in truth. Rather, he wishes to sensationalize by mischaracterizing. Why he does it, I do not know. But I wanted you all to be aware of him and his tactics. I’m thankful that he is the lone exception to this sort of thing on this blog. Almost all of you have been a joy with whom to interact!
Word games. This is why many skeptics see Christian apologists as so disingenuous.
Dr. Licona: Do you or do you not believe that a (holy) spirit “dwells” within you, “testifying with your spirit” regarding the veracity of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?
I’m sorry I did not make it simpler for you, but there it is. Yes or no, please.
Dr. Licona said, “After Bart and I debated on the historical reliability of the Gospels in February 2018, Gary posted an article on his blog making the claim that I had said the majority of New Testament scholars accept the traditional authorship of the Gospels.”
Please give me the date of the post on my blog and I will be happy to make a correction if I misstated your position. I do not moderate comments on my blog so if I had received a comment by the infamous scholar Michael Licona, I would remember that. I do not. If I have incorrectly stated your position, I will post a public apology on my blog and here on Dr. Ehrman’s blog.
You said under your first post here on Dr. Ehrman’s blog that you believe that the majority of scholars believe in the traditional authorship of the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark; that it was written by John Mark correct? But now you are saying that you have never said that “the majority of New Testament scholars accept the traditional authorship of the Gospels.” Would you clarify, please?
Micheal Licona, Baptist Press, Sept. 15, 2009:
For some time, critical scholars have debated whether the traditional authorship of the New Testament Gospels is accurate and many, like Ehrman, have opted to reject it. However, many hold to it. For example, more scholars than not hold to the traditional authorship of both Mark and Luke. A number of critical scholars hold to the traditional authorship of John, although today’s majority contends that a minor disciple who was not one of the Twelve but who had traveled with Jesus and was an eyewitness to His ministry is the source behind John’s Gospel and that one or two of His pupils wrote what they had heard from Him, perhaps even under His close guidance. Even if this is the case, we still would have eyewitness testimony from one of Jesus’ disciples who had traveled with Him. The authorship of Matthew is the most heavily contested of the four Gospels. Yet there are a number of impressive scholars who maintain its traditional authorship.
Gary: So it certainly sounds as if Dr. Licona, at least in 2009, was arguing that the majority of scholars accept the traditional authorship of Mark and Luke. This is patently false! Not even the scholars and bishops of the Catholic Church, not exactly a liberal organization, asserts that John Mark and a traveling companion of Paul wrote the Gospels of Mark and Luke.
If I claimed somewhere that Dr. Licona has stated that most scholars believe that ALL traditional authors are correct, then I was wrong. Show me where I said it, please.
Randall Rauser (Christian apologist) told me that my question to you was incorrectly worded. Here is what he said:
“The Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit is not the view that “the spirit (ghost) of an executed first century man (Jesus of Nazareth) lives inside your body and communicates with you”. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, the Paraclete that Jesus promised would come in his *absence*. If Licona was actually asked that bizarre question, he was surely right to say no.”
So may I rephrase my question, Dr. Licona?
Is it true that you believe that a spirit, called the Holy Spirit, lives inside your body and that this spirit communicates with you in some fashion, “testifying to your spirit” that the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is an historical fact?
Mike, thank you for your contributions to this blog. Even though, as a non-believer, I generally disagree with you, I appreciate you. Your approach is refreshing. I think you model what Christianity is supposed to be about.
I also apologize for Gary. I’m not sure what his behavior models, but it’s nothing I wish to be associated with.
Thanks again and best wishes for a happy holiday season to you and your family.
Thanks much, HawksJ! Please know that I do not associate Gary’s behavior with that of nonbelievers. My interactions with the large majority of subscribers of Bart’s blog have been both thought provoking and collegial.
Last night, I provided a heads-up to those who follow me on my Public Figure Facebook page. Several have told me that Gary sent a similar email to their web sites. Still others said his behavior yesterday was not a one-time thing but that they have seen him act in similar ways on other Christian web sites. So, I’m only one of several people he does this to over the years.
So that it’s clear what he does, I’ll recast it as follows: Lets suppose a Christian is engaged with some atheists on social media. He persists in his attempts to “catch them” in their comments, manipulates their words despite their multiple attempts to be forthright. And when he gets something he thinks he may be able to use after his manipulation (for example, “Tommy Atheist just said he thinks atheism may be wrong!” when Tommy Atheist had answered “no” to the loaded question, “Can you prove beyond a doubt that atheism is true?”), the Christian sends emails to a slew of atheist web sites announcing his shocking new discovery, “Tommy Atheist just said he thinks atheism may be wrong!” We would think that Christian lacked the maturity of a typical adult. That’s what Gary is doing in the reverse. Again, I don’t regard his behavior as typical of non-believers. And I’m sure there have been Christians who have acted in a similar manner. However, we should expect more from Gary.
Best wishes to you HawksJ for a happy holiday season!
I concur with hawksj, also being unbeliever, but believe in much more civility. long winded gary needs to find something better to do with his time. thanks again for yours, you have been more than gracious with it by even appearing here—roy
Thanks, roy! Much appreciated!
This is slander.
You attack my character with allegations such as “they have seen him act in similar ways on other Christian web sites. So, I’m only one of several people he does this to over the years. So that it’s clear what he does, I’ll recast it as follows: Lets suppose…” and continue alleging that I make gratuitous, false allegations. PROVE IT. Give us a concrete example and a source.
And who gave you permission to divulge my full name, details of my business, and my geographical location here on this website? Did you get permission from Bart Ehrman? Why would you do that? Is it a “dog whistle” to every fundamentalist religious nut job in the United States to come hunt me down at my place of business to assault me or worse? You may have the right to do that on your Facebook page (which you have) but you do not have the right to divulge my private information here on Dr. Ehrman’s blog.
Do you feel you are justified in putting my life and possibly that of my wife and children in danger to get even with me for copying and pasting your statements about the “testimony of the Holy Spirit” on Christian websites?? Are those two actions really equivalent?? You are behaving like the cult member you are, sir! You got caught in a corner regarding your belief that a ghost communicates with you about the historicity of Jesus’ alleged resurrection; refused to honestly answer the question; and then went after your critic. Shame on you. Your belief system is disgusting and evil.
You owe me a public apology.
HawksJ: If you want to sit around and play patty cakes with a purveyor of fear-based superstitions, misogyny, and discrimination against the gay community, be my guest. I for one am going to call out Mike Licona’s BS. And when he repeatedly lies and prevaricates, i will keep after him for an honest answer. I’m sorry you find that inappropriate.
I am asking for a straight-forward answer from Mike Licona that I believe is critical to understanding the scholarship of evangelical scholars. Why won’t Licona *honestly* answer it? We know he believes in the “testimony of the Holy Spirit” because he says so on his facebook page.
Question: Does Michael Licona, as an evangelical Christian, believe that the resurrected Jesus sent a spirit, the Holy Spirit, to “dwell” within him, “testifying” truths to him, including the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus?
Attention Readers: Dr. Licona did not apologize for divulging my full name, details about my business, and my geographical location, but he has now (finally) deleted this information at the instruction of Bart Ehrman. What does tis tell you about the”spirit of Christ” that supposedly “dwells” within Mike Licona??
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2019/12/13/apologist-michael-licona-outs-atheist-skeptic/
Dr Licona –
Thanks again for engaging with the blog community – your sincerity and graciousness is laudable.
Do you believe Jesus is the only person to date to have experienced resurrection?
And on the subject of our last interchange, literary conventions: If, as per above, you believe John has indeed changed salient details of stories (stipulating for sake of argument that it’s not at the macro level of gist, but it is at the level of details that are intended to make theological-adjacent points, such as which day the crucifixion took place), why should one give credence to the specific details of his narrated resurrection appearances?
Many thanks!
Thanks, Hngerhman. My answer to your first question is theological in natural, rather than historical. Yes, I think Jesus is the only person to have been resurrected. By “resurrection,” I mean raised in a transformed body that’s now immortal. Others, such as Lazarus, Jairus’s daughter, and the widow’s son were all raised in the same sort of body, only to die again. Paul taught that the resurrection of believers will occur when Christ returns (1 Thess 4:13-17). In the meantime upon death, they exist with Christ in a disembodied state (1 Cor. 4:16-5:8).
As to your second question, one would have to consider each on a case-by-case basis. Is there a theological or a point one or more of the Gospel authors have in mind when changing the initial appearance to the group of male disciples from Galilee to Jerusalem or vice versa? I don’t know, although I think the change was intentional. After coming to understand that this is how ancient biographers wrote, I don’t get hung up on differences among non-essential details. Although I wish the Gospel authors wrote with modern literary conventions, I also recognize that they didn’t form a committee to discuss how they could mislead future historians.
Thank you for the quick and crisp response. It sparks a follow-on query:
For Jesus, out of all the possible miraculous phenomena, why then choose the designation of resurrection vs. a more run of the mill revivification miracle?
I’m trying to understand the contours of the epistemological standards at play.
One cannot determine resurrection on the description from our earliest source and only undisputed firsthand witness, Paul. His brief description of his experience is rather vague, with amorphous verb choice that suggests (but doesn’t necessitate) visualization. He clearly believed he had experienced Jesus, but we know next to nothing about the nature of that experience. That his worldview allowed him to fit his experience into a resurrection-shaped box does little work for us as to historicity.
If it is from the non-Markan gospels, they are later, only one is even reputed to be a first-hand experience, all take some-to-considerable license with the details of their stories, and the reputed first-hander seems to take the most liberties. So accounts of wall-passing et al must, on the above articulated literary convention grounds alone, be taken with considerable salt as to the accuracy of their details. The gist may be preserved – followers had appearance experiences – but purchase on the reliability of the precise details is scant.
I would agree with your statement that resurrection is a theological determination. I’m trying to understand, if resurrection is the historical bedrock atop which the case for scriptural reliability is built, how one distinguishes (historically) that particular miracle from the multitude of others it could have been, given the sparse data at hand.
Many thanks!
You ask, “Why choose resurrection rather than revivification?” The difference in wording is in English, since the same Greek terms are used for both (i.e., anastasis, egeiro). Where Jesus differs from revivification is Paul says we will be raised as Christ was raised (1 Cor. 15:20, 23; Rom. 8:11). And we will be raised in an immortal body that he describes in 1 Cor. 15:42-54. This involves the transformation of our present body. Therefore, this is how Paul thinks of Jesus’s resurrection. Of course, this does not verify the appearances in the Gospels. However, Paul’s understanding of Jesus’s resurrection is entirely consistent with the resurrection narratives. And I think it’s quite easy to get to the Jerusalem apostles having the same understanding of Jesus’s resurrection that Paul had.
Dr Licona –
Thank you for another sincere and thoughtful reply.
If I understand your answer correctly, you are implicitly saying that it is Paul’s interpretation of his experience as to why one (we) should choose resurrection vs. revivification (in English, and in concept).
To make sure we’re not slipping past one another:
Question: What is it about Paul’s description of his experience itself – the data he presents – that makes you think he’s justified in making the interpretive distinction between resurrection vs. revivification?
There is nothing in the data he offers that gives any reason to think his interpretation is accurate. There’s simply not sufficient evidence. So on what grounds can we assess him as justifiably correct?
Tying it back to the Jerusalem apostles doesn’t seem to solve the problem. We know next to nothing about their experiences either, given the second-hand, later and literarily-licensed nature of the accounts. There’s (again) not enough to get an assessment of a justified epistemic claim to resurrection off the ground, even granting that someone miraculously came back from the dead. We’re lacking the data to justifiably say they are correct.
In addition to a negative argument from insufficient data to make a justifiable determination (argument from epistemological skepticism), there is also an embedded probability issue here. On the very, very best odds one can grant, the background base rate is one in 100 billion probability (10^-11) that a given person resurrected – only one person in the 100 billion or so that have lived. Stipulating for sake of argument that all biblically narrated revivifications are true, it is at least 10-20 times more likely that, if a someone sees/experiences the miracle of a person coming back from the dead, the newly alive person was just revived (rather than transformed from sarx to pneuma). That means ex ante, if revivification and resurrection are the only two options, revivification is 91%-95% probability. Without very compelling evidence to the contrary, picking resurrection is the low (5%-9%) probability choice. The descriptions in the gospels are lacking this compelling evidence – so why pick resurrection?
Thank you for wrestling this issue with me. I look forward to understanding better your view, and to seeing where my logic is off kilter.
Hngerhman: You ask, “Question: What is it about Paul’s description of his experience itself – the data he presents – that makes you think he’s justified in making the interpretive distinction between resurrection vs. revivification? There is nothing in the data he offers that gives any reason to think his interpretation is accurate. There’s simply not sufficient evidence. So on what grounds can we assess him as justifiably correct?”
I provided 1 Cor. 15:42-44 as reason to think Paul has in mind a resurrection body rather than a revivification/resuscitation (a la Lazarus). What evidence do we have that he was correct if we take Paul only? As I say in my book “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” I believe the historian can conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. However, they cannot prove anything else other than his post death body was physical in nature. (Of course, I’m using the term “prove” here in the sense of having the caveat “with reasonable certainty.”)
Dr Licona –
Thank you for the insightful and candid reply. The indistinguishability to the historian, even if one grants the existence of miraculous occurrences, between two flavors of re-alivement miracle is a refreshingly epistemologically honest position to stake out, and it is a credit to your approach.
Your engagement on the blog has been generous and is greatly appreciated – I can only hope you’ve enjoyed it even half as much as I.
Have a wonderful holiday season, and here’s hoping to see you around the blog again!
Hngerhman: Thanks for your gracious reply! Yes, I have much enjoyed the thoughtful and warm interactions with you and many many others on this blog.
A happy holiday season to you as well!
Ok so I follow that you have applied your research on Plutarch to the Gospels and found similarities. No issue there…but above you say “From the differences he observed, he inferred that Plutarch employed a variety of compositional devices, such as compression, conflation, displacement, transferal, the creation of some details, and the fabrication of a context to include historical items, which had occurred in a context unknown to the author.”
And
“I wondered if reading the Gospels in view of these compositional devices might shed some light on how the differences came to be. I discovered that it does.”
So doesn’t that make the Gospels fiction and not inerrant and divinely inspired?
rjackson: The “Lives” of Plutarch I considered are not “fiction.” Given how I explained “divine inspiration” in my first article, I see no reason why the Gospels authors could not write using the literary conventions in play at the time of writing.
“The “Lives” of Plutarch I considered are not “fiction.””
This has interesting connections to the notion of a canonized corpus.
We have a corpus of writings known as the NT (leaving the OT out for simplicity’s sake). Each piece of writing, and all in it, is said to be inerrant in a way that is convertible with its placement in the canonized collection – whatever “inerrant” means.
Many utterances couched as assertoric speech acts in the NT are considered erroneous when literally construed – sometimes simply because they entail contradictions with other NT utterances. But because they are in canonized pieces of writing, they are interpreted under the Genre Argument as not intending to assert the propositions that seem to be false, but rather, to assert some different propositions.
One of the pieces of evidence invoked to support the above strategy is the likeness of the gospels to ancient biography. Plutarch is a writer, in similarity to whom the evangelists are held not to “err” but rather, to employ rhetorical and other strategies found also in biography.
But let’s compare Plutarch with Plutarch. How much of his life of Theseus or Lycurgus, or Romulus or Numa Pompilius, shall we consider “historical”? Greek and Roman historians consider most of our stories about those men as legend. The first books of Livy are considered legend not history. We can be confident that many things asserted in those biographies are false from the historical POV, however much moral edification and political solidarity they may engender in readers.
But if we look at Plutarch as conservative Christians look at the NT, we’d be forced to hold that it’s all somehow “inerrant,” just by inclusion in the corpus. We’d have to say that stories about Romulus and Theseus are “inerrant” somehow because they are in the collection, not because as historians we’ve applied a methodology that works for those biographies as it does for biographies of Caesar or Cicero, for which Plutarch’s sources were superior, as sources, to his sources for the earliest periods.
If you’re going to be rigorous in applying the principle that “if it’s biography, then what’s false as history isn’t really an error,” you’ll have to admit a lot of mythical stuff as being both false as history AND not an error. I think this strategy renders the qualifier, “inerrant,” heuristically vacuous.
Ficino: You wrote, “because they are in canonized pieces of writing, they are interpreted under the Genre Argument as not intending to assert the propositions that seem to be false, but rather, to assert some different propositions.”
I only suggest that one must approach ancient texts with literary sensitivity, the same sort we would give to Plutarch’s Lives, Suetonius’s Lives of the Divine Caesars, etc. That Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are included in a canon regarded as authoritative by Christians has nothing to do with the matter of genre.
You wrote, “But let’s compare Plutarch with Plutarch. How much of his life of Theseus or Lycurgus, or Romulus or Numa Pompilius, shall we consider “historical”? Greek and Roman historians consider most of our stories about those men as legend. The first books of Livy are considered legend not history.”
Correct. However, even Plutarch alerts us to the difference between his Lives of Theseus and Romulus with his Lives of those living in more recent times (i.e., those of the late Republic; Plut. Theseus 1). The former are based on the writings of poets and fabulists, which Plutarch says he has reworked to make it sound more like true history, whereas the latter are based on good sources. All four canonical Gospels were written closer to the time of Jesus than the reliable Lives to which Plutarch refers.
Why not take the view that just Jesus was inerrant and the NT is the work of fallible eye-witnesses?
Jesus never said the OT was inerrant – only that what was written about him must be fulfilled.
brenmcg: You may find my first two articles helpful in light of the third.
From the first article, the first two reasons for believing the bible to be divinely inspired are consistent with just Jesus being inerrant and not the NT/OT
#1 Jesus rose from the dead.
#2 The New Testament preserves significant information pertaining to Jesus’s claims.
and the third reason isn’t true
#3 Jesus believed the Scriptures are divinely inspired.
Mark 12:36 Jesus qualifies the quote and says in that particular instance David is speaking by the holy spirit, not always (ie what is written about him must be fulfilled)
John 10:35 says “if” scripture cant be broken – ie if they believe the OT they must surely believe the one whom God sent
Luke 16:17 – an understanding that this is saying the OT is inerrant is contradicted by the very next verse – Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (The OT teachings must be wrong)
Jesus contradicts the OT teachings multiple times – nothing you eat can defile a person; Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of hearts but it wasnt this way from the beginning; Oaths are from the evil one; You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ but I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
brenmcg: In the context of my first article, I provide only a few specific references. The motif, however, is abundant and undeniable.
I don’t understand Jesus as negating the Law in his Sermon on the Mount. Instead, he is going deeper than the letter of the Law. The Law says, “Don’t commit adultery. But I say that you shouldn’t even look at a woman and entertain lustful thoughts.” The Law is a guide. Jesus says God wants purity on the inside (i.e., holiness). If you’re pure on the inside, you won’t do the external acts.
Regarding your specific example of divorce, Jesus says that Moses allowed for it because their hearts were hardened. Regarding “eye for an eye, but I say to you not to resist an evil person,” the eye for an eye was for judges to exact. But people were taking that as a means of personal revenge. Jesus says that’s wrong.
That said, divine inspiration and inerrancy were discussed in previous weeks. We’ve now moved on to a different topic: Gospel differences.
Ok thanks – although I’d find it very deniable that that’s a motif.
Regarding inerrancy, when Matthew has Jesus tell his disciples to take nothing for the journey not even a staff nor sandals; and Mark has Jesus tell his disciples to take a staff and wear sandals; isn’t this best understood as Mark being a fallible editor and incorrectly understanding Matthew’s theological point that Jesus/Holy Spirit will provide for everything as being some sort of practical advice (bring a staff – wear sandals)?
brenmcg: I take it as Matthew redacting Mark to make the point that Jesus’s disciples are to trust God for everything.
But trusting god for everything is clearly the original version. Matthew 10:19-20 “But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.”
Luke 9:30 has the same version as Matthew.
Mark is the one doing the redacting and he has misunderstood the original.
There are some scholars who think Matthew wrote first. However, they are as rare as hen’s teeth. By far, most scholars think Mark wrote first, and for good reasons. If interested, I did two podcasts on the matter:
re: Matthew Priority: https://youtu.be/AT00Uolpvag
re: Markan Priority: https://youtu.be/8YUQObDsnAo
Thanks Mike – I’ve listened to the podcasts before, but I think Matthean priority will eventually win out!
And thanks overall for your blog series and willingness to engage.
You’re welcome, brenmcg!
Dr. Licona,
A decent amount of what I believed to be clear and straight forward contradictions can certainly be explained and even reconciled when taken within the context you’ve laid out. Great work, I must say. Not all, though. Perhaps not enough for some. You’ve obviously done extensive research and quality work on the subject.
This leads to my question: Is a compilation of books (The Bible) that is read by a massive group of people (an overwhelming majority of who are not scholars, nor historians, nor probably educated) as if it were written to contain God’s word for humanity supposed to be this difficult to reconcile seemingly apparent discrepancies in an attempt to preserve its presupposed trustworthiness, particularly if its writing was guided and directed by God Himself to the “masses”?? After all, Christ came to the uneducated and humble, not the knowledgeable and wise.
It’s been a pleasure reading your work – Thank you!
Thanks, vienna1791! In my view, the problem emerges when we read the Bible with certain preconceived ideas of what divinely inspired Scripture must look like. Here’s a principle I encourage my students to follow: If we truly want to have a view of Scripture that honors God, we must accept it as He has given it to us rather than insist that it conform to a model shaped by how we think He should have. If we shrink from this, we may claim to have a high view of Scripture when we actually have a high view of our view of Scripture.
But as a Christian , trying to be fair to nonbelievers…I wish the quality of the evidences would be higher to better attest to this one time event ( I believe that it’s likely that the gospels were based on eyewitnesses and written during a short period after Jesus life on earth). If we determine probability based on the reasonable principle that “extraordinary claim should require extraordinary evidence” then in that sense the resurrection is of low probability. Thoughts?
This being my last comment …thanks so much for taking the time to reply to all the comments. God bless u and have a merry Christmas!
You’re welcome, Kunalians23. You wrote, “If we determine probability based on the reasonable principle that ‘extraordinary claim should require extraordinary evidence’ then in that sense the resurrection is of low probability. Thoughts?”
I don’t see a necessary connection between (a) probability and (b) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To me, they appear to be different approaches. So, what about (b)? Landing on the moon in July 1969 was an extraordinary event. Yet, it did not take extraordinary evidence to justify belief that it had occurred. Seeing it on television (and I viewed it very closely!) was an ordinary event. And I observed it on a medium that’s known to be biased and often unreliable.
Lets take another scenario, a hypothetical one. Lets say my wife walks in our house after going grocery shopping and she’s beside herself. “Mike! I just saw an alien at the grocery store! It was terrifying!” Now, lets assume that, having been married to her for 32 years, I can tell she truly believes that she saw an alien. She has made an extraordinary claim. But does it require extraordinary evidence? And what is meant by “extraordinary”? Does it have to glow? I’m not persuaded that intelligent alien life capable of visiting Earth exists. Yet, knowing my wife to be a rational and intelligent person not easily deceived, I don’t a priori dismiss her testimony. Now lets say that, as I’m cataloguing her report in my mind, our next door neighbor barges in our home panicked and claiming he just returned from the same grocery store in which he saw an alien and became terrified. And lets say that, as far as I can tell, he’s not joking. My wife then turns on the tv and we see on every channel reports of alien sighting from all over the world. There are even a few videos. I then hear a strange loud noise outside and go out and see a strange looking aircraft flying overhead. Now I’m going to have to consider updating my background knowledge. Yet, none of the evidence I’ve cited is “extraordinary;” at least as most think of the term. An extraordinary claim may require additional evidence that challenges me to update my background knowledge. But I wouldn’t say it requires extraordinary evidence; at least how we typically understand the term “extraordinary” in this context.
But what if your wife says she’s found a book that was written 2000 years ago , well before any concept of scientific proof , and within a time when multiple gods were assumed to be intervening in daily life, and that book said some aliens had landed in 30 AD ? Maybe it even said a few people saw the aliens.
My first reaction would be that by todays standards you have an unreliable source, and based on human experience, research and knowledge it is highly unlikely.
Having said that, thank you for your posts. If I was still trying to hold to historical reliability of the gospels I’d use you as my reference 🙂
crt112: I think it’s important to observe the step you’ve taken here. Your objection was “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I replied that such does not follow and provided reasons. You then shifted your objection to the reliability of the Gospel sources. Of course, you’re free to do that. However, I just want to point out that you have changed your objection.
Re: your hypothetical example of a book written 2k year ago reporting some aliens landing in 30AD. Lets say the Gospels, Asconius, and a Chinese source all report what appears to have been a flying saucer land and aliens emerging in Jerusalem, Rome, and China. And lets assume that their reports provide descriptions of the flying saucer and aliens that are strikingly similar. For me, I would have to reassess my present view that aliens of this sort do not exist. How about you?
Dr. Licona- what I meant about extraordinary evidence was just better or a higher quality of evidence (something u demonstrated with ur alien example by having living witnesses). I think it’s easy to imagine what better evidences for resurrection would look like (mass living eyewitness, independent (stakeholder-less) confirmation , control repetition , etc). We could debate the theological benefits of having a higher quality of evidence but I think from a history inquiry perspective it would enhance our ability to judge its probability. Also, it seems reasonable to judge extraordinary claims as low probability until we have a higher quality of evidences suggesting otherwise especially ones that affects everyone’s destiny.
In my line of work as a cpa, I don’t think I could sign off on the resurrection bc of the uniqueness of the event and the quality of the evidence (lack of reperformance and lack of living or stakeholder-less confirmation…etc) thus I couldn’t confirm the probability of the occurrence. U could then say that would make me agnostic on most historical inquiries. In a sense u would be right but I would also say that most historical questions are not dealing with someone raising from the dead.
So in the end, I can completely understand a nonbeliever claiming that the resurrection is of low probability bc of the quality of evidence and the extraordinary claims.
Kunalians23: Thanks for your comments. I think the quality of evidence for Jesus’s resurrection is very good. At least one eyewitness (Paul), who was hostile before seeing Jesus (Paul), two more sources that are at minimum basing their report on direct eyewitness testimony (Mark, John). The resurrection hypothesis account for the known data far better than competing hypotheses.
Hi Dr. Licona, thanks for contributing your view in this unknowable subject. In your last post I noticed, you generated four pages of responses. Wow, that’s impressive. It made for some good reading. On aside note. I recently heard one of your debates with Dr. Ehrman. You made a reference to the Pac 10, in your closing argument, as a nickname, having more teams than ten teams. I think you were responding to Bart’s comment of the twelve disciples but only being eleven as to his point. The Pac 10, now Pac 12, ( Colorado and Utah are the two newest members) just like the Big 10 and other conferences, do involve other teams as well. But only those member colleges can play for the championship of that specific conference. So let’s say UNLV went 12-0, they would not qualify for the Pac 12 championship even though they went undefeated and had the best record. Yes, the Pac 12 plays with other teams outside that conference , but those other teams do not belong to the Pac 12 conference. I got the impression when you made the comment, you implied more than 12 teams are in the conference, which are not. Pac 12 is only 12 member colleges, just like the Big 10 is only 10 member colleges, no more/ less. The same as the ACC and SEC conferences. Accept my apologies if I misunderstood. Thanks. ( 2009 debate Charlotte, N.C. Can Jesus resurrection be proven historically? )
Thanks for the correction, veritas! Looks like I need a better illustration.
Well, I presume it would be universally agreed that in his appearances after crucifiction, Jesus did not say to Paul or any of the other disciples “Recite!”.
The Gospels are stories about Jesus. Why do they have to be ineffable?. It is a standard that
only leads to doubt in the fundamental message.
As Mike Licona implies, witness testimony is not necessarily reliable, and is often tainted by bias.
The Johannines believed that Jesus was the word of God made flesh. Paul’s followers implied that “Sola fide” is sufficient. The writers of ‘Matthew’ were trying to emphasise Jesus’ lineage to David, and the significance of him as a ‘suffering messiah’. Mark has a lot of ‘Mea Culpa’ in it, suggesting it is based on the reminiscences of Peter.
Your point is well made that inerrancy for the ancients may have been different than what us moderns initially view it as. I think that’s why some of us are confused when someone says the bible is inerrant while granting differences in the accounts or incidental historical blunders. My questions is, why hang onto the word inerrant in particular when describing the historical reliability of the bible? Why not a different word or phrase that most modern people would understand out of the gate? Thanks, Matt
mtavares: I agree with you that there are better words to describe the Bible than “inerrant.”
Dr Licona- do u think if u just stop using the word “inerrancy” it would eliminate a lot confusing and maybe the “Geisler/mcgrew” group wouldn’t be so sharp in their criticism. ( I feel like people use the word “inerrancy” has a tribal word that indicates if u are a “good” or “bad” guy).
Also will u respond to mcgrew last new book?
Kunalians23: I don’t think “inerrancy” is the best term to describe the Bible. However, I’ve chosen to use it for now with qualifications, as others also do.
The Geisler/McGrew group contains sincere people. Geisler was and McGrew is sincere and good people. But they are uber critical in their very nature. I can’t change that about them and I’m not going to allow their lives to affect where I want to go. I will probably offer a response to McGrew’s new book sometime in the future. However, I don’t think it will be a long one.
Dr Licona,
Discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible are are far too many to count.
Lets just take the ones that deal with the Doctrine. ( Crucifixion / Resurrection / Deity – Trinity ).
Each of these have huge discrepancies and contradictions between the 4 Gospels.
— Crucifixion : Debates / confusion / assumptions till this day about what truly happened.( before, during and after )
— Resurrection : Debates / confusion / assumptions till this day about what happened. ( who was there? who went to the tomb? who said what? Was Jesus there?)
— Deity of Jesus – Trinity : Debates / confusion / assumptions till this day . ( Son of God, Son of Man, Prophet, God, Messiah…. )
I want to be a Christian. Where did Jesus say, I am God, bow to me- prostrate to me- pray to me- worship me….?
John is the only Gospel that mentions it. The trinity verse was omitted in certain Bible versions by High Church authorities. ( confusion )
You mentioned that Mathew and Luke borrowed or are similar to Mark who used earlier sources Q and others. No where does it mention that Jesus said He was God. Or better yet, why was that left out if he did actually say that? Pretty important to the average lay man.
Even though the 4 Gospels are at odds with each other, the first three seem to have a common theme.
Excluding John, the other Gospels talk of Jesus advising / teaching his followers of what to do to prepare for the Kingdom. Not claiming he was God as in John and concentrating on his nature.
Lots of Gospels were left out of the Canon / Lots of Gospels were lost. If we removed the Gospel according to John, what would be the consistent message from Jesus?
Scholars today quote and reference using precise notable books with legitimate proven authorship. Yet we quote and reference the New Testament knowing well that authorship is anonymous and certainly not witnesses to any of the three Doctrines mentioned above.
Dr Licona, God can’t be vague nor confusing or else He can’t hold us accountable. When Jesus said ‘ I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’, what did he mean by ” to My God ” ?
Zak1010: I see that you did not heed Bart’s request to limit to one question for the moment. I don’t view them as “huge discrepancies and contradictions.” I think you suffer from literary sensitivity.
Jesus never said the words, “I am God.” However, he did the things that only God does. Here’s a lecture I gave on the topic a few years ago: https://youtu.be/gT2TN6kA5kY
Unknown authors, Many decades after Jesus died, claimed Jesus did things that only God can do. These claims are likely fictional meant to excite people who want to believe and be moved emotionally much like claims made at a MAGA rally.
Tempo1936: Since you wish to continue parading that the anonymity of the Gospels suggests their authors are unknown, I suppose you think the same of Plutarch, Livy, Sallust, Plato, Galen, Porphry, and others. Why not also call their authorship into question? I’ll make it easy for you. Plutarch is regarded as the finest biographer in antiquity. Look at the evidence we have that Plutarch wrote the parallel “Lives.”Then compare that evidence with the evicence we have for the authorship of the Gospels.
Dr. Licona please see Matthew Ferguson’s response to your point about Plutarch here in footnote #35.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/matthew_ferguson/gospel-authors.html
Dr Licona, in your previous blog post response to jbskq5 from December 2, you write,: “A difference meaningful enough for me to jettison a belief in inerrancy as I have defined it would be (this is something quick off the top of my head): John’s Gospel claiming in contrast to the Synoptics that Pilate handed over Jesus to the Jewish leadership and gave them permission to execute Jesus in the manner they desired. Henceforth, Jesus was led outside the city and stoned. That would be an error even by my definition.”
I believe we have such an error. Was Jesus crucified the day before the Passover meal or on Passover itself? As you know the synoptics state that Jesus was crucified on the day of Passover after the lamb sacrifice and meal. John records that he was crucified on the day of preparation of the meal before Passover.
This contradiction is akin to the one you mention regarding stoning. Your hypothetical contradiction is of the mode of his death. whereas the actual contradiction is of the timing of his death. Why would one be more problematic than the other? If you state that it is because the crucifixion was predicted by Christ, has historical attestation, and because of Paul’s emphasis on it, I would contend that Jesus actually did predict the time before and during the supper, and the mode of his death is not what is ultimately essential to Paul, but rather the suffering/death/atonement, is essential. Outside of the Eucharist, only one short verse in the synoptics alludes to sacrifice as Jesus’s life being a ransom for many. Paul, however, seems to give emphasis to John’s account as Jesus being the Paschal lamb (I Cor 5:7) and numerous atoning sacrifice verses (II Cor 5:21, etc).
The *stone the builders rejected* could suffer death and atone for sin by stoning, but we know that didn’t happen. If all we had was the Gospel of John, and maybe Paul, history and we would mistakenly believe that the *Lamb of God* was sacrificed at the very moment the lambs in Jerusalem were sacrificed prior to the Paschal celebration (giving significant theological weight to the belief of the atoning nature of his death) but we know that John’s timing is not the case if we accept the timing recorded in the synoptics. Thus a very meaningful difference by your own definition and reason to reject any notion of inerrancy.
b.dub3: If John had described the manner of Jesus’s crucifixion as being stoned whereas the Synoptics described the manner as crucifixion, I would regard that as a contradiction that would negate “inerrancy” as I define it. However, for John to change the day and time slightly to make theological points already known decades before by Paul would not negate “inerrancy” as I define it.
Why? I fail to see your rationale. It seems to be a distinction without a difference.
Slightly?
b.dub3: Yes. I think John changed the day by one and the time by three hours. I consider that slightly given the flexibility allowed ancient biographers. Plutarch changes the time when Caesar wept when thinking of Alexander, locating it 8 years later when Caesar was praetor in Spain instead of quaestor in Spain. Pelling suggests Plutarch does this in order to link it with another event in which Caesar responds to some of his men mocking a village chief by saying he’d rather be chief in a village than second man in Rome. He does this so that readers get an insight into the character that motivates Caesar to respond as he does going forward, which leads to a civil war. This is important because, as Plutarch states in chapter 1 of his Live of Alexander, the objective of biography is to illuminate who the person is more than it is the punctilious reporting of events with precision. In other words, it’s the literary portrait that should be correct. That was the objective. And one can play a little with the details but to a limit to accomplish it.
Who determines the limit? God? The author? Me? You? If John wanted to use such a technique as you liken to Plutarch’s on an equivalency to God’s inspired Word by drawing a link to the Stone the builders rejected in depicting his death by stoning would be no different under your previously mentioned standard, unless of course you are the determinant of the “limit.’
From a historical perspective Plutarch’s account would be in error, no matter the allowable limits of the day. It may be intentional error to highlight what the author wishes to convey, but it is still an historical error. This is compounded by the fact that evangelicals believe this is God’s Word, not the lone word of a man such as Plutarch. The distinction is important and should not be so wholly absent as you seem to make it. It seems you wish to distance yourself from inerrancy while embracing it at the same time which is what an Apologist would do, not a dispassionate scholar.
Mike, thank you for sharing your insights with us.
A question about a point you made about the centurion story. I want to address this not in terms of the Gospels contradicting each other–I find your insights on this subject to be fascinating, actually–but in terms of the editorial motive you assign to Matthew, namely, that he wished to “eliminate characters and simplify the narrative”.
The characters that Matthew is eliminating are the Jewish elders. Luke’s story portrays Jewish elders who are not antagonistic to Jesus. To the contrary, the centurion is comfortable asking the Jewish elders to approach Jesus on his behalf, and they are comfortable obliging. There is no hint of tension there.
By eliminating the Jewish elders from the story, is Matthew engaging in “simplifying his narrative”, or is more than that at work here?
Here is another case. Mark (12:28-34) records the exchange between Jesus and a Jewish sage about the greatest commandment. When Jesus responds by citing the two great commandments, the sage agrees with Jesus, and Jesus in turn praises the sage.
When Matthew (22:34-40) copies the account, the entire second half disappears: gone is the Jewish sage agreeing with Jesus, and gone is Jesus’s enthusiastic praise of the Pharisee sage.
Perhaps, you would claim, Matthew is once again simply “simplifying his narrative”. But then he writes something that appears in no other Gospel, namely, the scene (Matthew 27:25) where the Jews say that “his blood is on us and on our children”. Here, for some reason, Matthew ‘complicates’ his narrative by introducing new characters and new material.
Two questions:
1. Is there a pattern here other than ‘simplifying his account’? Perhaps, say, Matthew’s desire to omit positive references to Jews and Jewish leaders and invent highly negative ones?
2. Does editorial bias, such as what I just described, impact your basic thesis about contradictions in the Gospels?
Finally, thank you for ‘walking into the lion’s den’ and posting your belief on Bart’s blog.
uziteaches: You ask two good questions. There could be more behind Matthew’s redaction than mere simplification. But recall that Matthew also simplifies Mark’s account of Jesus raising Jairus’s daughter by having her already dead when Jairus arrives (she’s about to die in Mark and Luke). Moreover, Matthew omits the messengers in Mark/Luke who later inform Jairus that his daughter has just died. Of course, there’s no need in Matthew because she was already dead when Jairus approached Jesus. So, I’d say simplification is certainly present. Was there anything else behind Matthew’s simplification elsewhere? Perhaps. My interest in my research and resulting book “Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?” was to see if the compositional devices that were commonly employed by other biographers of that era are likewise responsible for many of the differences between the Gospels? It turns out the they are.
Re: your second question, yes, editorial bias can result in some differences.
“And I scarcely need to remind you of that verse in the Ehrman Revised Standard Version: “The rude and snarky shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.”
You didn’t use to be this funny before I got here (and remember, I can still give you the bill from El Meson). Regarding Mr. Licona, again everything is backwards. This isn’t the way you do history or evaluate witness testimony. You evaluate witness testimony based on the CREDIBILITY of the source and not verse-vice. Also, Plutarch’s Lives is nothing like the Gospels which are not just dependent on an original narrative, GMark, but use it as a base, consist primarily of the impossible and are written in a language that is different for its setting. GMark itself parallels better to Greek Tragedy than Greco-Roman biography.
So, once again my question is for Professor Ehrman, why am I the one who has to say this?
http://skepticaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
JoeWallack: The credibility of sources is certainly important. Yet, even the testimony of unreliable children can be trusted when enough factors are in place, such as multiple independent sources and unsympathetic sources.
I don’t think you’ve studied these things deeply. You mentioned Plutarch. But Plutarch’s “Lives are often based largely on another source. About 80% of his Coriolanus is based on what was written by Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Several of his Lives involving characters of the late Roman Republic rely very heavily on Pollio.
Few scholars think Mark is closer to Greek Tragedy and Greco-Roman bioi.
“JoeWallack: The credibility of sources is certainly important. Yet, even the testimony of unreliable children can be trusted when enough factors are in place, such as multiple independent sources and unsympathetic sources.”
Again. posturing an exception to try and avoid a rule. The best parallel would be our legal system and not what biased sources wrote, edited, censored, selected, deselected 2,000 years ago. The following individual factors would prevent the Gospels from being evidence all by themselves:
1) Age
2) Hearsay
3) Claims of the impossible
4) Contradictions
5) Biased custodians
The standards for evidence never change. They are not reduced as a function of age.
“I don’t think you’ve studied these things deeply. You mentioned Plutarch. But Plutarch’s “Lives are often based largely on another source. About 80% of his Coriolanus is based on what was written by Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Several of his Lives involving characters of the late Roman Republic rely very heavily on Pollio.
Few scholars think Mark is closer to Greek Tragedy and Greco-Roman bioi.”
Well this reminds me of the classic scene from Annie Hall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE
Instead of Mcluhan I’d be bringing Jesus to tell you about Historical Methodology. I critiqued Burridge’s God-awful book here:
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0802809715/ref=acr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar
Have a go. His biggest fault is he does a one way attempting matching of the Gospels in TOTAL to Greco-Roman biography. GMark was written as a stand alone and probably the original Gospel narrative. I have faith that even you would agree that GMark parallels better to Greek Tragedy than the other Gospels. It has most of the key elements of Greek Tragedy identified by Aristotle in Poetics, the hero with no beginning credentials, the reversal in the middle and hero identity revealed, the hero unable to overcome his fate/destiny, tragedy and catharsis. Bilezikian has written the book on it.
I have the following related Thread at the brave and truthful Biblical Criticism & History Forum:
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=936&p=19617&hilit=Wrestling#p19617
You are welcome to comment.
http://skepticaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
JoeWallack: You wrote, “posturing an exception to try and avoid a rule. The best parallel would be our legal system and not what biased sources wrote, edited, censored, selected, deselected 2,000 years ago. The following individual factors would prevent the Gospels from being evidence all by themselves:
1) Age
2) Hearsay
3) Claims of the impossible
4) Contradictions
5) Biased custodians
The standards for evidence never change. They are not reduced as a function of age.”
No, I’m speaking as a historian pertaining to how historians work. They do not use the same rules as those in our legal system. Moreover, miracles are only “impossible” if a natural cause is in mind. And, of course, it wouldn’t be a miracle then. A miracle is not at all impossible if God exists and wants to act.
You call Burridge’s book “God-awful” and refer me to a review on Amazon. Seriously? You may disagree with Burridge’s conclusions. But he won a prestigious academic reward for his book “What Are The Gospels?”, a book that has changed the scholarly landscape as only a few books have done. “God-awful” is a bit over the top for someone in disagreement to describe it!
Dennis McDonald’s hypothesis that Mark is Greek Tragedy has received very little scholarly support.
Can a resurrected corpse walk around Jerusalem 40 days w/o authorities taking action? (Acts 1:3). This is just a extreme example of how the writer of Acts was embellishing The story to make it more appealing to an illiterate audience. Were Not myths commonly accepted by the masses during the 1st century? Do you really believe this event As historically w/o any independent verification?
These types of over the top claims/stories are through out the Bible and therefore the Bible can’t be w/o error based on a rational historical basis. Most of the Bible are just Great fire side stories told to be entertaining and motivational but not historical facts.
Not as simple as you portray it to be, Tempo1936. If you’re interested in seeing a detailed historical case for Jesus’s resurrection, see my book “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.”
Dr Licona –
re your post beginning with “Thanks, ftbond. Here is something “shocking.”
Gary has also posted that same stuff on his own blog.
While a “no” answer to his question about the “spirit of an executed first-century man” is totally appropriate, Gary seems to think of it as a “gotcha” moment.
He does that kind of thing quite often. Gary twists words, puts words in other people’s mouths, mis-characterizes, and is known for his ad-hominem attacks… (and I could tell you all the bad stuff about him, too)
You say “This is stooping to a new low for Gary.”
No, Dr Licona — I’m so sorry to disagree. This is run-of-the-mill stuff for Gary.
BTW – I’ve watched some of your debates and video presentations, and have really enjoyed them…
ftbond: Thanks! Unfortunately, I have had a number of people since last night tell me the same thing you have about Gary Matson, Jr. I think the best thing to do is to ignore Gary and those like him. There are some fellow Christians I ignore as well. One has to determine how to use wisely the little time we have.
I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the videos!
Says the guy who has been banned from my blog for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks about the intelligence of other commenters and using vulgar language.
Yes, I have attacked Dr. Licona’s positions and accused him of lying about his belief in the “testimony of the Holy Spirit”, but I have never referred to him as “stupid”, “ignorant”, as you have done so often on my blog.
Do you believe both nativity narratives are basically correct? They seem pretty divergent, with both aiming to explain how a man with a Galilean accent could have been born in Bethlehem. The least reconcilable element, it seems to me, is Matthew’s Joseph making a decision on the way back from Egypt to settle in Nazareth, where Luke’s Matthew already had a home. Can you reconcile this?
karlpov: The chronological difference in the infancy narratives is, along with the manner of Judas’s death, the toughest of all Gospel differences to reconcile. I could posit a scenario but it would be pure speculation. And I don’t like to go there. I’m willing to settle with the position that I have no idea what’s going on with that difference.
“However, since the Gospels share much in common with the genre of ancient biography, we should not be surprised if their authors employed the same literary conventions used by their contemporaries. In fact, we should be surprised if they did not.”
Is that the case though?
Have read any of Matthew Ferguson’s work?
https://celsus.blog/2014/07/08/are-the-gospels-ancient-biographies-part-1-the-spectrum-of-ancient-%ce%b2%ce%af%ce%bf%ce%b9/
John: I’ve met Matthew Ferguson once. Seems to be a nice guy. I haven’t read the article you mention. What I can say that today’s NT scholarship is largely in agreement that, at minimum, the Gospels share much in common with Greco-Roman biography. And my research leads me to agree with them.
Thanks for responding Mike.
Have NT scholars studied these genres in coming to that conclusion or is it like the empty tomb where they take it for granted because other scholars say it is. Now I know that is not your position because you have looked at this in detail and come to your conclusion. Matthew F has done the same and arrived at a different result.
I am not sure that the consensus is telling us anything useful in this case.
John: That’s an EXCELLENT question! I have a graduate student who just last week turned in the first draft of a thesis I’m supervising. The topic is on where modern NT scholars are pertaining to the dating of Mark. He has to offer several figures because the matter you raise applies there, too. For years, I’ve said that the majority of NT scholars date Mark c. AD 65-70. Why did I say that? Because that’s what I had read in many books that it’s the majority position. So, I was merely repeating what I had read others say. However, in reality, my voice should have counted for nothing because I had not given serious consideration to the matter until recently. So, what truly matters in my student’s research is to count only those scholars who weigh in with reasons for holding the date that they do for Mark’s composition! But those are far fewer in number than those who comment on the matter!
That said, in answer to your question, especially Richard Burridge, but also David Aune, Craig Keener, and a few others have made significant contributions in suggesting that the Gospels belong to Greco-Roman biography (i.e., bioi, which is Greek for “Lives”). Many who have read their work, especially Burridge’s, have been persuaded. A number of NT scholars don’t take a strict a view but agree that the Gospels share much in common with bioi and are closer to bioi than they are to other genres. Many provide detailed explanations for how they have come to their conclusions (e.g., see Adela Yarbro-Collins’s commentary on Mark in the Hermeneia series).
Some have argued that the Gospels are ancient novels. But as Keener has observed, ancient novels are typically romances in which two lovers overcome obstacles. Ancient novels almost always involve fictitious characters situated in the distant past. On the rare occasion that they involve a historical character, none had lived as recent as a century of when the novel was written. Of course, the Gospels do not look like ancient novels. There’s no romance. Several historical characters are included (e.g., Augustus, Tiberius, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod, Jesus, James, etc.) and they all lived within a century of when the Gospels were written. One might appeal to certain elements in the Gospels that likewise appear in ancient novels. However, they haven’t shown these are important, since they likewise appear in bioi.
Thanks again Mike.
“A number of NT scholars don’t take a strict a view but agree that the Gospels share much in common with bioi and are closer to bioi than they are to other genres.”
How about the genre of theology? They seem pretty close to that.
It’s been great seeing you and your work here. Looking forward to a revisit on a different subject, soon.
Best
John
John: The Gospels certainly contain theology. But that doesn’t negate their historical elements. In his Life of Augustus, Suetonius provides an infancy story of Apollo impregnating Atia resulting in the birth of Octavian (later known as Augustus). Of course, that doesn’t change the genre from biography.
Comment to get notifications
“John: The Gospels certainly contain theology.”
I would expect a book written in the genre of theology to contain details of the subjects life.
Dear Dr Licona
I think that in the answers that you have given to questions during the course of your three posts you have twice mentioned perceived difficulties with the Nativity story (the timing of the Flight into Egypt and also the Herod/Quirinius dilemma). As a consequence do you see that many of the elements of the Christmas story are largely embellishments designed to create a ‘prequel’ to the life of a great figure (Jesus lived a wonderful life and had a glorious resurrection, therefore he must have had a marvellous birth.)? Is this often noted in ancient biographies? If such is the case, do you think there was a virgin birth?
Silver: That’s a tough question! Yes, the differences in the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke are among the two toughest in the Gospels, the other being the manner in which Judas died.
Yes, there are stories of phenomenal birth narratives in other accounts of great historical figures. Alexander the Great (Plutarch) and Augustus (Suetonius) immediately come to mind.
Is it possible that Matthew and Luke are doing something similar with the virgin birth? Anything is possible. To be honest, my theological convictions rather than my historical investigation lead me to doubt it in this case. If Jesus truly rose from the dead, a virgin birth would be child’s play for God (pun intended)! That said, I have not spent any time investigating the matter.
Dear Mike,
I really appreciate your fraternal and appreciative relationship with Bart and the positive way in which you are both exploring the meaning of the Gospel from different faith points of view.
I am an agricultural engineer currently working in Bangladesh, also engaged with my (deprived) community in an English village, on issues of social justice, peace and climate change. For me a fundamental meaning of the Gospel is in Pope Benedict’s message ‘Deus caritas est, Of Christian Love’ and I am trying (in the words of the Book of Common Prayer) to help to ‘show forth thy praise, not only with our lips, but in our lives’.
I am posting this message because I know that the discussion has been about ‘inerrancy’ etc. but I nevertheless feel very drawn to what I feel to be the fundamental meaning of the Gospel and would like it to be mentioned.
I hope you find this helpful; yours very sincerely, Andrew.
AndrewJenkins: Thanks, brother. I agree with you. “Inerrancy” is, at best, an issue of tertiary importance. Living out the love of Christ is far more important.
Many thanks for the encouragement! Your brother in Christ, Andrew.
In at least a couple of your posts, you alluded to a personal journey where you attempted to objectively investigate your beliefs to see if they were sustainable (at least that’s how I understood it). Have you detailed that process anywhere I could read about it? I did that same thing and I’m interested how you went about it, what you experienced, how you coped, and what changed as a result. You and I have very much the same attitude, perspective, and opinions and that may come from going through the same process.
Thanks, michael51. I describe it in the Introduction and in chapter one of my book “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.”
Mike,
Your concept of Inerrancy includes the notion that getting the gist or overall message right is what the gospels do and that since they are human they sometimes get the details wrong like other ancient historians did. But it seems to me that there is a good argument for saying that they got the gist or basic message wrong. My understanding of Mark is that Jesus’ basic message was summarized in MK 1:14. “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the gospel.” This also appears to be the idea behind Paul’s emphasis on faith as the path to salvation. Both of them believed as is clear from Mark that the arrival of God’s Kingdom was to be immediate or at least within a reasonable lifetime, yet it is clear that this did not happen. So this seems to indicate that they did not even get the big messages right. Only the fact that God’s Kingdom did not arrive immediately or even near term caused subsequent Christians to begin arguing about what was needed to bring about God’s Kingdom and search for other meanings in his gospel. However, the main question is how can you defend the historical reliability of Mark or any of the Gospels as well as Paul, when they so obviously get the most important part of the message wrong – that is the imminence of the arrival of the Kingdom of God.
Another question. I read your paper on historical reliability. It seems to me that Papias is not claiming that Mark wrote the Gospel with his name. He is merely commenting that some things that Mark has written can be viewed as reliable due to his relationship with Peter. It would seem that he would have mentioned the Gospel more clearly if in fact he knew Mark to be its author and also if he had, then Christian scribes would have been more likely to preserve what he said about it. The fact that the only comment of his that comes down to us is the ambiguous reference is highly suspicious and probably is more damaging to Mark’s authorship than supportive of it.
sjhicks21: I present my own take on Jesus’s prophecy to return in this 3-minute video: https://youtu.be/PyTQtilS-D0
I don’t take Papias’s claim about Mark/Peter as you do. Eusebius certainly interprets Papias to be referring to Mark’s Gospel. Moreover, Papias says he received this information from an associate of the apostle John (referring either to the son of Zebedee or a different John who was an apostle) while that apostle was still preaching. Therefore, he received it from a pretty good source in the first century. This is better than what we have for a lot of ancient literature. So, if you don’t like Papias on Mark, you’re going to cast significant doubt on a ton of ancient literature as well.
Mike,
Thanks for responding. The 3 answers you provide are all possible, but your preference of course is for the only one that supports your argument about inerrancy. My take is that you don’t see the error of his prophecy to return soon as a problem. It seems to me that would be a very controversial position in the conservative Christian community. My problem with that is that it seems to me that the whole reason for Christianity’s initial spread was that the coming of the Kingdom of God was imminent. Without that belief, it seems to me that it would have been very difficult to convince so many to believe. It was the urgent need for salvation that drove people to both not be concerned with their own martyrdom and to try convert so many others in the process. I’m sure that if they thought that after 2000 years we would still be waiting for Kingdom’s uncertain arrival that there would have been a very different reaction. Also your 3rd option that we don’t get it sounds very much like the typical Christian apologist’s claim that the Bible is inerrant and the only way we can understand it is through Holy inspiration and having enough faith which is certainly not a normal historian’s criteria.
Not sure why you consider the fact that Papias mentions John the elder bears on my comment. Also, Eusebius was writing in the 300’s and thus was a bit removed from Papias and it is my understanding he didn’t even like Papias. So it is very possible he was only picking and choosing what he took from Papias that supported his own beliefs. I am not aware that he provided a defense of his belief that Papias was talking about the actual author of the Gospel labelled Mark outside of Papias’ comment. It seems to me the main focus has been on the evidence that Mark’s writing’s were reliable not on whether or not the Papias’ comment is claiming Mark’s authorship of the Gospel that bears his name. I also see no relationship between other historians and Mark. We have a lot of their works, we only have one of Mark’s. And the name of the author is not as critical for most historians, except to give them credit, as it is for Christians.
skhicks21: You wrote, “it seems to me that the whole reason for Christianity’s initial spread was that the coming of the Kingdom of God was imminent. Without that belief, it seems to me that it would have been very difficult to convince so many to believe. It was the urgent need for salvation that drove people to both not be concerned with their own martyrdom and to try convert so many others in the process.”
That may be for those who became believers within the first four decades. However, after Christians were bitterly persecuted by Nero and the Jerusalem temple was utterly destroyed, there’s nothing to think the scenario you suggest obtains. Yet, the Christian movement continues to grow exponentially.
I freely admit that the matter of Jesus’s predictions pertaining to his seemingly imminent return are difficult. I happen to think my third option is more plausible than the first two for historical reasons rather than to maintain a view of inerrancy. For me, a strict form of inerrancy is not an important matter. If the Gospel authors thought Jesus was mistaken because the time had past, I don’t think they would have reported what they would have perceived as a false prophecy. And there are multiple ways to understand Jesus’ prophecy. But these are involved theological discussions.
You’re correct that Eusebius did not like Papias. It was because Papias’s eschatological views differed from his own. Yet, he preserves the tradition from Papias, which was extant in the early fourth century when Eusebius wrote. Irenaeus (c. AD 174-189) likewise mentions Papias; i.e., less than a century after Papias had received the information from an associate of one of Jesus’s apostles while that apostle was still teaching, and within only a few decades of when Papias wrote.
Dr. Licona
I very much appreciate your posts. It has given me a much better understanding of where you are coming from and at the same time has made me very aware of the yawning gap between the research you have done and that of my own. I think you have done an excellent job of identifying the weaknesses in what you call out as the ad hoc (non text based) arguments of most historians that assume, as I do, that the non naturalist explanations of things found in the Bible cannot be viewed as credible, regardless of how many intricate, well researched and well reasoned the the explanations are. The problem remains however, that there is simply not enough, evidence of sufficient quality to warrant the leap of credibility required to believe that the miracles and resurrections occurred. Even today if we had much more evidence than the Bible provides, most non Christian people would doubt the miracles and the resurrection unless an extraordinary amount of video and independent objective and testimonial evidence from a variety of scientific perspectives could be shown to concur that the event did in fact have no known causes among the physical laws of science. Just think of how difficult it has been to demonstrate that various recent magicians, such as Houdini and others were not in fact defying those laws. Those of us who have lived long lives and experienced how many times we got it wrong and the number of times we deluded ourselves even to the point of self annihilation and seen the same in others know that as the fallible and unobservant humans we often are we can never know completely why we and others’ come to make stuff up and exaggerate its nature to include the incredible but we do.
Note I enjoy this discussion because it has intrigued me since I was a child and, the first time I realized that my parents held me to standards that they couldn’t meet. It has taken me quite a while but I now realize that all authority can be questioned and that in the end I have to assess its judgement regardless of its source with a committed skeptics eye for myself.
Again, thanks so much for your time. You are a great scholar and a credit to your calling.
sjhicks21: You are very kind and generous in your comments. Thanks!
If I’m reading you correctly, I think you have put your finger on the main point of objection, although it’s rarely admitted: a skeptical eye toward the supernatural. And I truthfully think I understand that with some empathy. I can only share things from my perspective in that regard. I think our secular culture is quite influential in how we think about things. I’ve been to Israel twice. On both occasions, I was in Jerusalem during a Sabbath. The culture in Jerusalem is far more religious than the one in Tel Aviv, which is quite secular. On a Friday in Jerusalem, there is an excitement, an anticipation about the Sabbath, which begins at sunset. It’s similar to Christmas Eve in the U.S., in fact, closer to how Christmas Eve used to be in the U.S. People were excited about Christmas. They were kinder toward one another. Warmth was in the air. Good will toward others. In Jerusalem, the excitement and anticipation over the Sabbath is like a current that’s easy to get caught up in. When I visited the wall that evening prior to having a Sabbath meal, the current is strongest. One is proud of having religious belief in that culture. The areligious would feel out of place, though not ostracized. But it’s the opposite in Western culture, which is now overwhelmingly secular. The current in this culture flows strongly in the opposite direction so that it is the Christian who feels out of place. And it’s within that current that I fear we can miss some of the signs of a spiritual dimension because we’re not open to it. Please know I’m not suggesting that is you. I’m just sharing my perspective of culture in general.
Now to be more specific. Many of us believe we have experienced the supernatural. I could tell you stories of how I experienced what I interpret as the demonic that were so real to me that they haunt me (pun intended) to this day more than 30 years later. Elsewhere, I provide four lines of what I understand as evidence for a supernatural dimension of reality: https://youtu.be/IW9w6c2RWmA?t=420. It’s queued up to the 07:00 mark. View through 17:47.
If these are actual experiences of the supernatural, then miracles and resurrections are not as improbable as some may think. Of course, I understand how these may not persuade those who have not had this sort of an experience. Once you have, however, atheism will never again be on your table as a worldview option.
Thank YOU for the collegial dialogues during these weeks, sjhicks21!
I am a Christian who senses that Jesus is alive to me in a meaningful way. I don’t care (nor will I ever know) what his contemporaries saw and experienced after he was crucified. Sometimes they did not recognize him, he could walk through doors, and appear and disappear. Whatever was resurrected seems unlike Jesus’ pre-death body. What matters to me now is that his teachings are a positive force in my life; he is alive to me.
Mike Licona: Stop prevaricating (lying). You, like every other evangelical Christian on the planet believe in the “testimony of the Holy Spirit”: that the resurrected Jesus “dwells” within you and that he “testifies” (communicates in some fashion) universal truths to you, including the veracity of his bodily resurrection.
I know you believe this because you say so on your Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/michael.r.licona/photos/a.739508399515640/1382582708541536/?type=3
Stop trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the reading public! Your scholarship is primarily based on secret communications with the spirit of the man you are researching. Historical evidence is simply window dressing for your belief in this ghost. You desperately avoid admitting the truth because you know this belief makes you look looney to non-Christians. I will continue to post your denial of the presence of Jesus within you on every evangelical blog and website on the planet until you come clean here on Dr. Ehrman’s blog. And you can continue to trash me on your Facebook page all you want. I am proud to be fighting for reason, science, and non-superstitious thinking. —Gary Matson, Jr.
Dr. Ehrman, I am quite disappointed that have allowed this nut job to antagonize your invited guest, who has graciously donated hours upon hours to your blog.
FYI: Dr. Ehrman is not reading these comments. He told me.
If Mike Licona would answer my question regarding the Testimony of the Holy Spirit truthfully and stop prevaricating, I would not need to persist in my questioning.
Dr. Licona
Reconciling two differing accounts is understandable to me. As an attorney I am accustomed to having one witness say the light was green an another saying the light was red and a third not knowing the color of the light…BUT all will agree that an automobile accident occurred. Why do you believe that Matthew and Luke have the story of the virgin birth (even though they differ in parts) but neither Paul nor Mark (nor John for that matter) bothered to mention that particular accident. Did they simply forget, did they think it wasn’t relevant, were virgin births a dime a dozen at the time and therefor not particularly worthy of being mentioned…odd that a virgin birth has not occurred since than. What say you?
Thanks, Manuel. I’m not suggesting the virgin birth did not occur. While I understand how authors are select in what they report and forget other details, the differences in the chronology between Matthew and Luke are quite difficult to reconcile. I don’t know what’s going on there.
Isn’t the simplest explanation that there would have been a lot of these nativity stories floating about and we just happen have the two that were preserved in print?
I’m not aware of “a lot of these nativity stories [about Jesus] floating about” during the time of Jesus. It’s possible, however.
How do you feel about the miracle stories not coming under the same historical methods as the rest of the NT? Do you think that leaving the miracles out introduces bias from the start or is it the most appropriate way to approach the texts?
Pattycake1974: You ask a great question and one that’s a live discussion among philosophers of history. The majority approach at present is that historians are not capable of investigating miracle claims. Therefore, methodological naturalism is required. However, I and a few philosophers of history have been calling that approach into question. I have three journal articles and a nearly-dissertation-sized chapter in “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach” that details why I think the approach is wrong headed. Historians can investigate miracle claims.
Hello Prof. Licona, the ‘reply’ button doesn’t appear in each combox reply, so I reply here to your last – for which I thank you.
I’m not an NT scholar, though I have published one article in JBL. So I can’t challenge Gary Habermas’ roster of scholars who agree on a set of facts! I have read several pieces in which Bart does not accept the Empty Tomb story – and necessarily, elements of it (e.g. the activity and perhaps even the existence of Joseph of Arimathea, etc.).
As to what I referred to as “metaphysical speculation”:
I’m using that as a term of art. Even people like Thomists, who regard the existence of the God of classical theism as a demonstrable truth known with certainty, would say that their enterprise is “speculation” – because metaphysics is by definition a speculative ‘science’ – and is of course, by definition, metaphysical!
What’s relevant really to the discussion about the claim that the gospels are inerrant in some way is, as I see it anyway, the use that some make of the resurrection accounts. People like Richard Swinburne appeal to what he thinks is the historical solidity of the resurrection accounts as evidence for God’s existence. You may not endorse that sort of argument, though I think I remember you used something like it in other discussions. That sort of argument is circular, as far as I can tell, because you need a premise about supernatural causation in order to get over the hump of the virtually zero probability of a corpse’s resurrection by natural causes. I don’t think the approach, “we just look at the facts without preconceptions and then we reason to the best explanation – a supernatural resurrection!” escapes circularity. I think it’s fatally naive. But we could go on at length about that, I think.
FWIW I think the Genre Argument defends scripture at the cost of rendering its declarative sentences unfalsifiable. And then, if assertions in the Bible can’t be tested for truth on a reasonable construal of “sensus litteralis,” on which the passage has in principle some real-world reference, it escapes me why we are under obligation to accept that the given passage asserts some OTHER true proposition under some non-literal sense, when this other proposition in principle isn’t testable against real-world data. You have your allegory and precept, but I have mine, so to speak.
Ficino: Thanks for your comments. You wrote, “I don’t think the approach, ‘we just look at the facts without preconceptions and then we reason to the best explanation – a supernatural resurrection!’ escapes circularity. I think it’s fatally naive. But we could go on at length about that, I think.”
It’s unavoidable to look at facts without preconceptions. However, as responsible historians, we must remain open to having our preconceptions challenged to the point of change. If not, our historical investigation is not so much historical as it is metaphysical. As I stated previously bad philosophy corrupts good history. So, if the data point strongly to Jesus’s resurrection but one’s worldview doesn’t allow it, it may be time to abandon that worldview.
As you have stated, what science and human experience tell us is corpses don’t return to life by natural causes. It’s important to give attention to “by natural causes.” But if God exists and wanted to raise Jesus, all bets are off. Although I’m persuaded by arguments for God’s existence and others think the arguments for atheism are more persuasive, at the end of the day, one still exhibits faith in their worldview, whatever that worldview is. That’s why I think it’s important to bracket the matter of God and supernatural and let the facts based on historical data speak for themselves.
Genre is important, vitally important. If I assert that it rained cats and dogs in Atlanta today and one interprets it in a literal sense, it is the interpreter who is mistaken and I should not be accused of making an erroneous statement. Ancient literature should likewise be interpreted with genre in mind. That doesn’t mean that we will understand everything accurately. After all, a bit of “historical noise” makes the historian’s work increasingly difficult the further removed we are in time from the events and the degree in which our culture differs from that in which we are inquiring. So, we can expect that we will be wrong on occasion. Appealing to genre does not give the historian unlimited freedom to pull out ad hoc constructions of what s/he thinks is going on. Interpretations and historical descriptions must be based on sound reasoning and well-established background knowledge. Responsible historians will then get it right more often than not.
Hi Mike
I can’t really see how 2 letters from Paul are huge as they are essentially just one source . Are you double accounting by then saying Gal. 1:22-24 refers to an oral source or is this one of the 2 letters? Acts has the problem of authorship that the Gospels do and can’t be read soley as history.
If you play cards a bad hand is only a problem if you are focused on a outcome ,winning the game/rubber whatever . You do have the option of folding or bluffing otherwise . A historian would say let us see where the cards take us, the better the hand the better , a worse hand would limit the validity of any assertion put forward.
In a video debate a while back you put forward the idea of male and female story telling ,female would be more elaberate and male being more fact based and more direct. I find this problematic ,do you still hold to this or hopefully have you discarded this line of reasoning?
Dominic
I found it in a debate with Bart Ehrman where you talk about the guy version and girl version of the story . I just don’t get how this is the argument of an academic.
Also , the fact that we have non biblical evidence for Omri is “Huge” even though he is barely mentioned in the OT ,whilst David we have next to noting non biblical.
Dominic: I’m not understanding your objection to my citing of the difference between men and women generally tell stories. When I lecture on the genre of ancient biography and the Gospels, I often meeting this difference. It’s fun to see the expression of the faces of married couples when I do. They smile or one looks at the other. Sometimes a wife will elbow her husband. They immediately relate. And it helps them understand when I say ancient biographers often give us a sort of “guy version” of the story.
Although we have little on David outside the Bible, I wouldn’t use that to suggest Paul (or Luke) was lying when Paul told the crowd that they knew the location of David’s tomb. Acts was written close enough to the life of Paul that its readers could have ascertained whether the location of David’s tomb was known.
Hi Mike
Thank you for your time and replies. I am happy to say that Acts was written close enough to Paul to accuratly say that he was proclaiming where David was buried . That being said it does nothing to show that Paul was right re David’s resting place who is claimed to have lived 1000 years earlier, but it tells you about the sort of things Paul said.
You cite Craig Keener and have cited W.C.L. in some of your replies which I find surprising as I have found both poor in debates and discussions that I have seen on line. If you want to talk to non Christians I think you need to appeal different authorities .
Getting into gender narrative, friends of mine who lecture in Ethnomethodology ( encompassing thought process /behaviour ,et al) at Oxford have told me that gender is a very difficult aspect to assess ,but I will leave that with you to reflect on.
The bottom line is I believe in God but reject the Bible ,althought there are some good things in it ,Good Samaritan for example. Richard Feynman said bad science happens when people do experiments just to prove their theories instead of doing experiments and being open to what ever transpires .The discovery of Penicillin is a prime example of this.
Just because ancient historians have different standards to what we would like today it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop scrutinizing the Bible . Now we know more about the Hittities and Omri it shows us there are still clues in the Bible for us to investigate.
Dominic
Dominic: You may not agree with some of Keener’s conclusions, but if you take a look at his books you’ll see that he’s meticulous in his research and works in the highest level of NT scholarship.
WLC is likewise a great top shelf scholar who has two earned doctorates from top shelf universities and has many articles and books by top shelf academic publishers.
Although you think they’ve done terribly in debates and discussions is a subjective judgement that’s often rooted in one’s biases.
Dominic: There are instances in which we only know what someone wrote because another source has quoted him. The histories written by Pollio are no longer extant and are known only from Plutarch and Appian who sometimes rely heavily on him. Papias’s 5 volumes of Jesus’s discourses is no longer extant and are known only from fragments preserved by a number of early Christian writers. I think Gal. 1:23 may well contain the presence of oral history. Acts may be anonymous in a technical sense. But so is Livy’s “Roman History,” Plutarch’s “Lives,” Sallust’s “War with Catiline” and “War with Jugurtha.” And there are others. Keener has argued in his fairly recent commentary on Acts that we are on good grounds for thinking Luke wrote Acts and that, even if he did not, the author was very likely a traveling companion of Paul during a chunk of his ministry. So, I think the hand of cards we have is much better than you would acknowledge.
What I said in the debate when speaking of the difference between how men and women often relay stories is that, generally speaking, women like lots of details and want to get everything correct whereas men will abbreviate, conflate, compress, transfer, and just relate the details with greater liberties than women because they are often more concerned with relating the gist of what occurred. Most married couples relate to this.
Dr. Licona, thank you for your posts. I feel I have learned a great deal about your perspective. My question is: Jesus refers to the creation story (Luke 11:50-51) and the flood (Luke 17:27) and Moses and the exodus (Luke 20:37). Yet an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence indicates these events did not happen as described based on genetics, geology, anthropology, zoology, archaeology, and many more.
1. Do you think the gospel authors accurately reflected Jesus’ belief in the accuracy of the Old Testament?
2. Regardless of your answer to #1, Could Jesus still be who you view him to be if he had a wrong understanding about the creation of man, the flood, and the exodus?
Truncated: I do think the Gospels accurately reflect Jesus’s belief in the divine inspiration of the OT, because there seems to be a clear motif of this that’s peppered throughout all of the Gospels. Whether he uttered statements using each example cited is a different matter requiring a separate discussion. If we understand Genesis 1-11 as mytho-history, as many theologians do, then Jesus’s statements about Adam and Noah aren’t at all problematic. I want to be clear that I’m not an OT guy. So, my understanding of what is meant by “mytho-history” may not be entirely accurate. My understanding of it is that there are historical kernels included in proto-historical accounts of the primeval world. Thus, there was a historical Adam, although that may not have been his actual name. There’s more to it than that. But I’m hesitant to go further because I’m certain to get it wrong.
The exodus is another matter. Kenneth Kitchen and James Hoffmeier have devoted their academic careers to Old Testament history and have written on the history of the exodus. In a nutshell, they argue there are numerous items that are entirely consistent with an exodus and absolutely good reasons for understanding why solid direct evidence does not exist. For the latter, for example, we have reports that when Alexander entered India, he built 12 alters, each of which were 75 feet tall (4th century BC). Not a scrap of them remain. In order to defeat Spartacus, it’s reported that Crassus built a wall to hem him in. Plutarch says the wall was approximately 40 miles long. That’s likely an exaggeration. However, it was probably VERY long! (1st century BC). Caesar defeated Pompey at Pharsalus. It’s reported that tens of thousands were killed. (1st century BC). Even today historians don’t know the exact location of that battlefield. Now if the exodus occurred, it was either in the 15th or 13th century BC. Given that leather tents and canteens don’t tend to leave their mark in the archaeological record and the Egyptians had a practice of omitting and/or scratching the names of their enemies out of contempt (perhaps this reminds you of Cecil B. deMills movie “The Ten Commandments”: “Let the name of Moses be stricken from . . .”!), we shouldn’t be surprised not to find solid evidence of an exodus, especially since we don’t have it for large historical events that occurred a millennium or longer after the exodus.
You ask, assuming Jesus was wrong about Adam and Noah, could I still view him in the same way that I do? That’s a good question. I don’t have an answer for you. Theologians differ on whether the incarnated Jesus could have made a mistake on a matter. I don’t know the answer to that question.
I know this discussion is about the Gospels, but I’m curious as to your take on Genesis, which contains many stories that have their ultimate origins in mythology, and/or have been heavily influenced by earlier cultures (a classic example is the biblical Flood story, which ultimately can be traced back to a Mesopotamian tale recounting and embellishing dimly-remembered deluge events caused by the end of the last ice age). If we are claiming the Bible to be inerrant and its authors inspired by God, don’t we also need to extend this same courtesy to the earlier non-biblical clay tablet texts and their authors?
Good question, Apocryphile. I think the matter of genre is critical here. Many theologians, even many evangelical ones, regard Genesis 1-11 to belong to the genre of mytho-history. Even the stalwart evangelical theologian J. I. Packer (now 93 years old!) has long contended that the creation story in Genesis is a quasi-liturgical celebration of the fact of creation and is not meant to describe what we would have seen have we been hovering above the chaos of creation. Packer says he doesn’t know if the Tree of Life and Tree of the knowledge of good and evil were meant to be understood as literal trees, since trees were often used in a poetic sense. And he doesn’t know if the story of Eve’s conversation with a serpent is meant to be understood in a literal sense. Although Packer is uncommitted in having a view of creation, he’s very comfortable with theistic evolution.
Augustine (4th century) said in his commentary on Genesis that many in his day interpreted the 6 days of creation as the unfolding of geological epochs of time. This was 1,500 years prior to Darwin. So, those holding other than literal interpretations of the first few chapters in Genesis aren’t necessarily doing so as a means of retreat given the findings of modern science.
That said, because I’m not a NT guy, I truly can’t speak to Genesis but will leave that to those in that discipline.
Apologist Randall Rauser is doing the same “dance” (prevarication) about his belief regarding the evangelical teaching of the “testimony of the Holy Spirit”: that a spirit (the Holy Spirit) “dwells” within him, “testifying” to the truth of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Why are evangelical scholars and apologists so afraid to admit what they believe on this issue?? Answer: It seriously undermines their claim that their research/scholarship related to the resurrection of Jesus is evidence-based and objective.
https://randalrauser.com/2017/11/in-search-of-salvation/#comment-4719731741
Evangelical Christian William Lane Craig can admit he believes in the testimony of the Holy Spirit as evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus, why can’t evangelical Christian, Mike Licona??
“We can know that Jesus rose from the dead wholly apart from a consideration of the historical evidence. The simplest Christian, who has neither the opportunity nor wherewithal to conduct a historical investigation of Jesus’ resurrection, can know with assurance that Jesus is risen because God’s Spirit bears unmistakable witness to him that it is so.”
—William Lane Craig, The Son Rises, p. 8
Thank you for your posts. This post must set an Ehrman blog record for number of comments. Anyway, trying to compare the writing of the Gospels to the way that biographies were usually written in ancient times seems like an important approach. I have often wondered, for example, whether writers of the time often quoted whole passages from other authors like the authors of Matthew and Luke apparently quoted Mark or would that have been considered plagiarism?
You’re very welcome, RonaldTaska! There were compositional textbooks in that era that taught young men and occasionally women in their mid-teens how to write well. Theon (Greek) and Quintilian (Latin) are our earliest extant sources (c. 1st century AD). But they are simply using exercises already in existence. Several of these exercises, called “progymnasmata,” taught the student how to paraphrase. We find ancient authors doing this, too, when writing biographies and histories. Plutarch provides us with the most fruitful resource because in his 48 extant Lives, he often tells the same story in more than one Life because several of his Lives involved the same characters (e.g., Caesar, Cicero, Pompey, Antony, Brutus). So, we can compare how P. tells the same story. When we do, we see that he very often paraphrases, although he’s using the same sources. Other scholars have compared how Josephus tells the same stories in his Antiquities, Jewish War, and autobiography. As I and others have observed, where Matthew and Luke use Mark and to a lesser extent the Q material, they tend to stick closer to Mark and the Q source than Plutarch and Josephus stick to their sources. Although this would not have been considered plagiarism in that era, one is curious why they did. Was it because the Gospels are literature not written by elites? Was it because Matthew and Luke had such respect for Mark because it’s primary source was Peter? One can only guess. Notwithstanding, since Matthew and Luke stick very closely to their source where we can test them, they should get the benefit of the doubt where we can’t. And this can suggest that we should rule out wholesale invention by either.
You’ve provided a lot of interesting discussion Mike. I see that you do this with a good heart to see people saved. You are obviously well trained in such scholarship. I do believe a bit differently. I dont find it far fetched to think that a miracle is not the best explanation for the historical evidence that we have. At any rate thanks for your posts and God bless. Your labor will not be in vain.
(First part)
My question to Mr. Licona.
I believe that the problem of inerrancy and the divine inspiration of the Bible is a minor matter compared to irresolvable problems that affect the hard core of Crietianism (by the way, why did the Holy Spirit change criteria by inspiring the various existing biblical canons : Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant? Shouldn’t it be: a single God, his only Word, only one Truth and, therefore, only one Canon?).
There are several questions, but the one I ask now is whether or not there was original Sin, Fall of Man and the subsequent Atonement (with capitals S and F, as Lutherans and Calvinists like to write them)
1º The modern population genetics science, with its increasingly wide and precise observations and the mathematical models that result from these population facts, make it highly unlikely, if not impossible, that Adam and Eve were historical and real persons, not a myth. In fact, there is ample evidence that the smallest bottleneck in the human population in more than 100,000 years of evolution was never less than 2,000 individuals.
Therefore, it is very highly probable that there was no such original Sin of disobedience and therefore, the human incarnation of one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity lacked all sense and reason. and the Atonment, unless God the Father had believed the legend of Adam and Eve and had sent his only begotten son to Earth so that humans would marty and kill him with cruelty and contempt for a Sin that never existed
2nd Admitting the implausible, that is, the narrative of the Genesis of the Sin of Adam and Eve, we face a true injustice of a God who is supposed to be infinitely just. For Adam and Eve could not be responsible in any way for their disobedience, because they totally ignored the science of good and evil, because they had not yet eaten the fruit of the tree that gave that knowledge. Morally they were as innocent as a newborn.
(to be continued)
(End)
3rd For the Jews, God punished Adam and Eve at the time of their sin (to Eve: “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe”; to Adam: “through painful toil you will eat food from it”) He threw them out of the Garden of Eden not as punishment, but out of jealousy, for fear that they would make the competition to God himself: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. ”
Where is the righteous wrath of God that would demand the sacrifice of Jesus to placate it?
4º According to the Hebrew Bible, God does not lay the guilt and punishment for the sin of some parents beyond the third or fourth generation of descendants. On the other hand, the concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Irenaeus did not use the Scriptures at all for his definition; Origin reinterpreted the Genesis account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory and saw without deriving solely from free will; and Tertullian’s version was borrowed from Stoic philosophy. As you can see, the doctrine of original sin and the consequent Atonement is due to the enormous influence of Hellenism in Christianity from it very origins when interpreting the Holy Scriptures.
I will thank you very much, Mr. Licona, for showing me where I am wrong, if I were, for I do not believe in my inerrancy or in having divine inspiration.
Nor do I think that I’m in possession of the truth. I only borrow it until someone like you, for example, convinces me that it is not such a truth and without any problem, I get rid of it.
Fernando: This week’s post is about Gospel differences. If you want to discuss them, feel free to chime in. Otherwise, I’m not inclined to be engaged all over the map in theological discussions.
Dr Licona –
I hadn’t intended on writing again, but I fell ill and while home from work today I read several chapters of your resurrection book (including the historian’s access to miracles chapter three times). I’ve very much enjoyed the book thus far, and I’ll be finishing it and rereading it (as well as the gospel differences book).
Imagine the following hypothetical:
– rural area in developing country 200 years ago
– religious group called Fusionarians, who can trace the roots of their religion back several millennia
– tradition is that in the last days before the end-times, certain practitioners of their religion will be granted the ability by their creator deity to perform feats of miraculous energy creation, which by its description we in a scientific society would call cold fusion
– a moment of great distress befalls the community
– in a bout of deep and emotionally draining meditation, one of the leaders of the community experiences a bright light coming from in between his outstretched hands, which his background beliefs lead him to interpret as what we would call cold fusion occurred; he writes down the episode
– later, the leader and ten other co-leaders are engaged in deep, hours-long group meditation when they each experience a collective bright light in the room; they write down the episode
– later, group assembly where approximately 475 people are gathered; after a full day, intense affair, many report seeing light emitting from the hands several leaders; several of the congregants wrote down the episode
– a staunch anti-Fusionarian opponent, after a particularly emotional fight with a group of Fusionarians, has an sudden-onset experience of cold fusion; he converts to Fusionarianism and writes down the experience
– these accounts of cold fusion are handed down
– a modern historian picks up these accounts
Based on the standards as laid out in the chapter, (a) any claim of cold fusion would squarely count as a claim of miraculous occurrence (extremely low likelihood of occurring naturally), and (b) being from within a religiously charged situation, the claims have a higher purchase on veracity. Based on how I understand your argument for the historian’s access to judge miracle claims and your positive argument for Jesus’s resurrection, these claims for cold fusion would also have to pass muster as historical. Under a rubric of steel-manning and charity, why would the historian not accept these accounts as historical, and more likely historical than a resurrection claim?
Many many thanks! And have a wonderful holiday season!
Hngerhman: I’m sorry to learn you’re feeling under the weather today. Wow! You’re a very fast reader!
I’m not familiar with cold fusion. So, I’m at a bit of a disadvantage and at risk of misunderstanding your hypothetical. Of course, you could adjust that hypothetical to any number of scenarios. For example, you could say this hypothetical community of 200 years ago claimed to have been visited by purple polka-dotted geese from Pluto or the flying spaghetti monster.
What I see as a germane difference between those and the evidence for Jesus’s resurrection is that I do not have to posit a fictional community making making hypothetical claims. I have an actual community consisting of several historical people who made actual claims to have experienced the presence of a historical individual who made historical claims to have a special relationship with God and had come on a special mission and they believed they had seen him alive after his execution. Moreover, alternative hypotheses to his resurrection don’t account for the data as well as the resurrection hypothesis. Finally, many intelligent people are persuaded by a number of philosophical and scientific arguments appealing to the existence of a Designer of the universe and intelligent life. And if these arguments are truly successful, they demonstrate that the resurrection is not as far fetched as many who reject the supernatural hold. Given these, there is a significant difference between Jesus’s resurrection and the hypothetical example you have provided. 🙂
Dr Licona –
Ha. I guess when suitably motivated, yes, I can get through material. It also helps that you write clearly and get to your point quickly, and make very interesting arguments. I cannot say that for many theologians or philosophers…
I agree that there are differences between actual and counterfactual claims (actuality being the main one). That said, a law professor (or my old philosophy professors) would chide an L1 or L2 for “fighting against the hypothetical“. But, in the spirit of all the generosity and graciousness you’ve shown Ehrman blog members (including me), one cannot really begrudge it. I’ll only say in closing that each counterfactual point was chosen because head-to-head it would have conferred at least as good if not higher ex ante individual and cumulative probability (were they real accounts) than the respective resurrection analog.
Your sincerity, thoughtfulness and graciousness are multitudinous. Thanks for being such a good sport and gentleman with the blog community, especially those of us who happen to see things at right angles to your positions. It speaks volumes.
Have a very Merry Christmas!
Hngerhman: Well, thanks again for your very gracious comments. As a final follow-up for which I would like your thoughts, couldn’t we form a hypothetical, even boost the one you presented, to make it even more evidence rich so that it would be superior to some mundane events we hold with little doubt to be historical? Would we then say, “Since we accept mundane event X to be historical, why wouldn’t we grant our hypothetical cold fusion scenario, given the evidence for it?”
Dr Licona –
Entirely fair question – and one I think that cuts the the heart of where our paths may be divergent. Yes, we could further invest my hypothetical case with greater amounts of evidence, such as that later-day scientists (repeatedly) finding in the purported locations of the events some exposed radioactive plates or other quantum mechanical traces that appear to look like what one would expect from a small-scale fusion reaction.
And so, the circumstantial evidence in favor of cold fusion would appear to be superior on a claim-neutral basis to some mundane event X (say that Caesar was murdered). There are many angles to come at the issue, but a salient one would be: what is the (or a relevant) base rate probability for the phenomenon in question? Because, in the absence of a deity or other near-to-actual supernatural influence intervening, cold fusion would be so unlikely to occur 200 years ago in the absence of knowledge and equipment that the superior evidence would still not merit granting that cold fusion occurred (but that we might still grant that Caesar was murdered). Cold fusion, if possible (which is a hotly debated marginalia topic in physics), has occurred zero times that we’re aware of. Rulers murdered is MUCH higher frequency occurrence.
Which gets to one area where I know you have qualms – a frequentist interpretation of probability. I do not think Craig’s position (quoted in your book) with respect to base rates is correct (said a little more accurately, I think his argument is fatally flawed). That said, I will grant that there could be other, better arguments against a frequentist interpretation of probability. I just haven’t seen you posit your positive view here – so I don’t know how exactly you are conceptualizing probability if not frequentist.
Another way to come at it would be witness credibility/qualification. Another would be stakes involved (the Sagan rule, which I know we already disagree on). Another would be levels of epistemic indistinguishability. Another would be the proposed rule that religious context raises the probability, not of veracity but of false positives. Another would be the qualifications of the historian – is he really qualified to make a positive judgment on the claim given he may not be adequately educated on the (physics or neuroscience) of the naturalistic explanations. Another would be that the baby with the bath water objection isn’t actually a well-formed objection.
[To be continued in follow-on comment]…
[continuing]
But following all those strands to their conclusion could take us to and through Christmas – which, masochistically, would be fun for me, but I wouldn’t want to assume the same for you (or anyone else for that matter). Ha.
The reason I set the hypothetical the way I did is that at each step and in the aggregate, the ex ante probability of cold fusion would be de minimis but still higher than resurrection (or plain spontaneous revivification after that length of time), but that we likely both would be disinclined to grant religiously-claimed spontaneous cold fusion. Claim-neutral equivalent-to-superior evidence and data transmission mechanisms, with higher ex ante probability of occurrence (by definition), but still extraordinarily low likelihood under a naturalistic lens (and the equivalently high probability under a supernatural-friendly one). Counterfactual, but purposefully tuned for the occasion.
I hope I answered your question above adequately, because I want to be responsive, and especially so because you’ve been more than gracious to answer so many of mine. But if I failed to do so, please fire again.
Thanks for the engagement and openness – it’s a testament to your integrity.
Hngerhman: Regarding a frequentist approach to probability, WLC has been often mistaken for saying he likes a Bayesian approach to assessing historical hypotheses because, in his 2007? debate with Bart Ehrman, he mentioned Richard Swinburne’s use of it. But Craig was not saying he agreed with Swinburne on that matter. In fact, I know that he doesn’t. What he was saying is that a Bayesian approach would be the only means of calculating a probability in a mathematical sense. Craig went on to say such would be inscrutable. I agree with Craig in that regard.
For myself, when it comes to weighing historical descriptions, arguments of inference to the best explanation is the best way to do it. The hypothesis that best explains the data should be regarded as what “probably” occurred. And, as you are seeing in my book, there are various degrees of confidence we may have.
While we may disagree on the matter of the role the supernatural plays when assessing hypotheses, thank you once again for the collegial interaction. YOU are a great example of how engaging conversations should occur with others with whom there is disagreement.
Okay, everyone. I’m signing off from this blog. In leaving, I want to thank you all for three weeks of dialoguing with you. You provided intelligent, challenging, and collegial questions and replies. You are a credit to how discussions involving disagreement should occur. I leave you all with warm feelings and warm wishes. If you should ever see me at an event, airport, or wherever, please introduce yourself. May your holiday season be, well, blessed! 🙂 – Your Friend, Mike
Dr Licona,
I am an Agnostic Christian, I believe in the message of saved by grace through faith, but when I read the Bible carefully my faith starts to crumble and start straddling Nonbelief (while still holding it o a form of Judaism or Deism).
This happens because I am still reading the Bible through a lens of a definition of inerrancy that requires I must believe that there are no errors in the word of God.
But I wanted your opinion, on this. Why not just believe that the authors of the books we have in our canon of scripture were just writing as truthfully as they seen it ( just as any Christian today or in the past that we consider to be ‘spirit filled’? Or just as the Constitution was written by men yet we can still use it as an authoritative document.
Maybe some miracles in the Bible weren’t meant to be literal but had a deeper meaning to them, for example the incident of Jesus sending out demonic spirits into the Pigs, thus not requiring each gospel writer to be totally acurrate with regard to geographical details and other theological difficulties this brings up. If this story is meant to be literal then Jesus was a sinner because he violated Old Testament law of destroying others property without repayment.
But I know within conservative evangelical circles, taking a view that allows for mistakes in the Bible is almost definite career suicide, similar to the incident where you lost you job a decade ago for the noble effort to challenge the literal view of Matthew 27.
So bottom line, why not drop the ultra high view of inerrancy which, in using hermanuetical gymnastics in an attempt to clear up contradictions and inaccuracies that muddies the water even more than just accepting that there are mistakes in the Bible?
Thanks
Kurt: That’s a fair question. In my opinion, the correct view of Scripture (whatever that might be) is the highest view of Scripture. In fact, here’s a principle that I frequently encourage my students to follow: If we want to have a view of Scripture that truly honors God, then we must embrace Scripture as He has given it to us rather than insisting that it conform to a model that’s shaped by how we think He should have. If we shrink from this, we may think we have a high view of Scripture when we actually have a high view of our view of Scripture.
In this sense, if Scripture contains errors, then holding that it does is the highest view of Scripture. My view of inerrancy is by no means the sort of strict view many evangelicals have. I cannot hold the more strict view because I don’t think it comports with what we observe in Scripture.
You stated that you hold to an agnostic Christianity because you like Jesus’s teachings but “I am still reading the Bible through a lens of a definition of inerrancy that requires I must believe that there are no errors in the word of God.” I’ve heard this from many others and have come to think that a strict form of inerrancy is actually dangerous to authentic faith because it sets up a straw man that’s not supported by Scripture. In the NT literature, salvation is available because of the person of Jesus as God’s divine Son who offers us forgiveness through his atoning death and resurrection. Nowhere is belief in the inerrancy of the Bible ever stated as a condition for Christianity being true. If you take anything away from this interaction, I hope it will be this: Since Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true . . . period! And it’s true even if there are errors in the Bible. And it’s true even if the genocide stories in the Old Testament were nothing more than political propaganda meant to justify the acts of brutal Israelite kings. And it’s true if [you can fill in the blank with most objections]. American evangelicals have placed far too much weight on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. I hope this is helpful to you. Now, I want to encourage you to view a recent debate I had with Christian philosopher Richard Howe on inerrancy. Richard is a good guy. And this is the only time I’ve had a debate with a brother in Christ. But I think it’s an important one. And, honestly, I agreed to debate Richard on this topic to help those like yourself. Have a Merry Christmas, Kurt! Here’s the link to the debate: https://youtu.be/rLwnjx6-5dc
The next time a Mormon missionary comes to your house, ask him if he believes that God lives on the planet Kolob. He won’t be happy. He will do everything he can to dodge answering the question. He will desperately attempt to change the topic of conversation.. If you persist, he will likely get angry and accuse you of being rude.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/02/mormons-dont-get-planet-once-they-die-say-mormons/358669/
And the next time an Evangelical comes to your house, ask him if he believes that a ghost (spirit) lives inside his body, communicating in a “still, small voice” universal truths, including the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. He won’t be happy. He will do everything he can to dodge answering the question. He will desperately attempt to change the topic of conversation.. If you persist, he will likely get angry and accuse you of being rude.
But don’t stop. Keep asking. That is how you debunk a silly (and deadly) superstition.
The Resurrection argument only works if these people actually saw Jesus alive again (with their eyes) after his death since that is the only way to verify that an actual resurrection had taken place. If the “appearances” of Jesus were not veridical then the Resurrection argument fails. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the Resurrection proponent to demonstrate that the “appearances” of the Risen Christ were veridical.
Paul is the earliest and only source written firsthand who says _”Jesus appeared to me”_ and the appearance to him was some sort of “revelation” from heaven – Gal. 1:16 which he does not distinguish from the other appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8. So the *only example* of a “resurrection appearance” that we have in the earliest source is some sort of subjective spiritual experience from heaven and not a physical encounter with a revived corpse. It therefore necessarily follows that personal/subjective “visions” “revelations” or “experiences from heaven” (experiences that don’t necessarily have anything to do with reality) were accepted as “resurrection appearances.”
In 1 Cor 15:5-8 the word for “appeared” is ὤφθη (ōphthē) which is the aorist passive form of ὁράω (horáō). Note how this word doesn’t necessarily mean to see with the eyes.
ὁράω
1. to see with the eyes
2. *to see with the mind, to perceive, know*
3. to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g3708
horáō – properly, see, *often with metaphorical meaning: “to see with the mind” (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).”*
https://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm
So without reading in the stories from the later gospels and Acts, what argument can be given that the resurrection appearances were originally understood to be visually confirmed physical encounters with the Resurrected body of Jesus? Since the Greek word can mean physical *or* spiritual seeing and the fact that these people claimed to “see” things in visions and dreams quite regularly https://www.openbible.info/topics/dreams_and_visions then any claim that they “saw” Jesus is simply a non-starter.
Note: Any appeal to the later gospels and Acts is a tacit admission that Paul (the earliest and only firsthand source) gives no clear evidence for the physical/veridical type of seeing. What Paul says in 1 Cor 15:5-8 is consistent with *all* of the appearances coming from heaven like his did. He gives no evidence of any physical touching or a witnessed ascension. All of that stuff develops later in the gospels which are not firsthand sources.
I think you might be pressing “see with the mind” a bit too far. In almost every instance — I can’t think of an exception off hand, but maybe you can name one? — the word means simply to “see” something physically, just as “see” means in English. We also can say “Oh yeah, I see what you mean,” which does not mean “see with your eyes.” But there is always a contextual indicator that the word is meant metaphorically. If there’s no such indicator, it means “see” with your eyes. Paul is discussing physical occurrences: died, buried, raised, seen. He almost certainly means it literally. Second point: does the aorist passive ever get used in the metaphorical sense in the New Testament? It usually simply means “appeared.”
Dr. Ehrman, the point is Jesus was believed to be *located in heaven* when he “appeared” to Paul. Since he makes no distinction in the “eyewitness” list then it is consistent with *all* the appearances coming from heaven. How do you physically “see” into heaven with your eyes? I believe that these ancient people wouldn’t have necessarily made a distinction between “seeing with the mind” and “seeing with the eye,” they believed they “really saw” Jesus. But, the point is that the burden of proof is on the one who wants to claim these people had veridical experiences. Since the verb can be used for subjective/internal experiences (that don’t necessarily have anything to do with reality) then we have good reason to reject the veracity of such claimed experiences.
I don’t think the idea was that he was in heaven, but that he came down and appeared to Paul, just as angels are doing throughout the narrativres of the Old Testament.
Dr. Ehrman, that may be the case as the description in Galatians is a little ambiguous. What is your interpretation of Acts 26:19 when it says “heavenly vision” or “vision from heaven”?
The word “heaven” in teh Greek there is an adjective, so it literally means “heavenly vision.” But the grammar does not determine the relationshoip of the adjective to the noun. It could be a vision “of” heaven or “in” heaven” or “from” heaven or “about” heaven or…. lots of other things. So the Greek of this particular verse won’t help on teh issue you’re interested in.
Many Roman Catholics believe that they have “seen” the Virgin Mary, when in fact all they saw was a bright light or cloud formation (see below). So just because Paul says “have I not SEEN the Christ” does not necessarily mean he saw a (resurrected) body. Probability says that the early Christians “saw” what modern Christians “see”: bright lights, cloud formations, shadows, ect..
It is entirely possible and very probable that every eyewitness listed in the Early Creed really did see something: a bright light, shadow, cloud formation, etc.. They all saw, individually or in groups, illusions of nature that they perceived as appearances of their risen Savior.
Hundreds of modern Christians “see” the Virgin Mary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ipD1QbVaDA
I just want to say thank you to Mike and Bart for his series of blogs, it’s been very interesting.
Bart,
I don’t think I’ve ever seen you explain how the tradition of appearance(s) by Jesus to “the twelve” (1 Cor 15:5) came to be circulated in a creed that most scholars date to within six years of Jesus’ death (Paul “received” it, 1 Cor 15:3) and that the twelve themselves presumably used. Same with the appearance to “all the apostles”. How do you explain the rise of these two appearance traditions? If collective hallucination, what do you think they all “saw” given your definition of ὤφθη (ōphthē) above.
I’ve talked about it a bit, mainly to say I have no idea how someone can possibly come up with the view that this was circulating six years after Jesus death. What are the grounds for that??? It’s really an apologetic claim more than anything else. All we know is that this was a creed that Paul preached to the Corinthians at some point. In any event, there is zero evidence that the Twelve used this creed. As to my view of teh appearances, that’s the topic of a main part of my book How Jesus Became God.
Bart,
Your conclusion that 1 Cor 15:3-5 (or 3-7) is not a very early creed dated to within six years of Jesus’ death seems an outlier position based on what I’ve read. Is there any chance you could do a post dedicated to why an early dating of this is unfounded, or perhaps point to someone who has done so? I think the six years comes from three years max for Paul’s conversion then three years in Arabia, then Paul meets with Peter and James, the same two guys mentioned in the creed (Gal 1:15-19). Also, even if the creed was formulated later, why in your view wouldn’t the twelve be using it if it was a church creed?
Depends who you read; if it’s conservative evangelical apologists, yes, it will sound like that is the mainline view. But what is the evidence? Among scholars I personally know, except for evangelicals, I don’t now anyone who thinks this at all. And for a good reason: Paul never says he got this creed from Peter and James three years after his conversion. Doesn’t even suggest it. People just make this stuff up! Also, ahere *weren’t* “church creeds” back then. Every church had it’s own ways of thinking, believing, and saying things — nothing at all like a uniform liturgy until centuries later when Christianity became a unified world-wide movement. People like William Lane Craig may say this kind of thing. But you need to think carefully about the logic, especially in light of waht we do konw about the massive diversity of the earliest Christian churches. (BTW: if Peter and James came up with this creed, why would it be the “twelve” instead of the “eleven”? That’s not a MAJOR point, but it’s worth thinking about. Even of Paul didn’t know about Judas, they certainly would have)
Bart,
In your book HJBG pg. 137-138, you refer to 1 Cor 15:3-5 (or 3-7) as “a standard Christian confession, or creed…believed far and wide among New Testament specialists…[as] already widespread in the Christian church.” If so, and whatever the date of the creed’s formulation before Paul penned it, wouldn’t the twelve have *known* that the creed said Jesus appeared to them?
I know the dating of the creed is controversial, but as an aside, and while acknowledging a substantial minority disagreed, the Jesus Seminar reports, “Most Fellows think the components of the [1 Cor 15:5-7 appearance] list reported there were formed *prior to Paul’s conversion*” (Acts of Jesus, pg. 454). My guess would be a substantially larger majority would have agreed that the appearances in *just 1 Cor 15:5* were formed *prior to Paul’s conversion*. Additionally, in 1 Cor 15:11 Paul says, “Whether then it was I or *they*, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe.” Wouldn’t the “they” most likely refer to those just named in the creed (i.e., the twelve)? Lastly, if Paul did not “receive” (1 Cor 15:3) the creed from Peter or any of the twelve (or James), then who else is left that he could have received it from that he considered an authority, unless you are proposing Paul circulated creeds that just popped up from anywhere? In short, a lot of stuff seems to point to the twelve *knowing* that an in-group community creed said Jesus appeared to them…don’t you think? And then the next question is: how does one explain the rise of this tradition? What am I missing?
I think you’re assuming that beliefs held widely in Paul’s communities in places like Macedonia and Achaea were held as well by Christians everywhere. The early testimonies are pretty clear that the Jerusalem church was in many ways at odds with Paul and his churches and that they disapproved a lot of what they had heard, and hadn’t heard nearly everything. In a world where there is not any mass communication it was, well, very, very different from what we can imagine. Paul receive *most* of his understanding of the Christain faith from people *other* than the Twelve. He didn’t even meet them until years after he was persecuting Christains (and therefore hearing what they had to say) and even years after he had converted and started his mission.
Bart,
Good point about the diversity of beliefs, widespread geography, and uncertain dating of the traditions in 1 Cor 15:3-7 that Paul received. However, regardless of the date or source of 1 Cor 15:3-7, can you please explain what is going on in 1 Cor 15:11: “Whether then it was I or *they*, so *we* proclaim and so you have come to believe.” Wouldn’t the “they” (and *we*) refer to all or some of those just named in 1 Cor 15:3-7? In other words, isn’t Paul saying that the twelve were *themselves* proclaiming that Jesus appeared to them? Paul could be lying or honestly thought this even though not true, but Paul is saying that the twelve were *themselves* proclaiming that Jesus appeared to them…right?
Yes, my sense is that Paul believed that the twelve also believed that Jesus had died and been raised from the dead, and that they had seen him.
Bart,
When Paul says, “Whether then it was I or they, so we *proclaim* and so you have come to believe” (1 Cor 15:11), it seems to mean more than Paul believing the twelve believed Jesus appeared to them. Doesn’t it also mean that Paul believed the twelve *proclaimed* that Jesus appeared to them? And wouldn’t be rather odd for Paul to say this if he did not know it was in fact true that the twelve were proclaiming Jesus appeared to them? And if it was in fact true that the twelve were proclaiming that Jesus appeared to them (along with the other basic beliefs in the creed), how do you account for this proclamation by the twelve (regardless of when the traditions in 1 Cor 15:3-7 are dated)?
Yes, of course Paul believed that Jesus’ disciples proclaimed that Jesus had appeared to (some of) them after his death. Whatever they did proclaim (we don’t have any records from them), they proclaimed it because htey believed it.
Have you read my book How Jesus Became God? If not, you’d be interested in it, because I devote a long discussion to this very point, trying to consider all the important ins and outs.
Bart,
Yes, I’ve read your entire book HJBG, some sections several times. I don’t think you cover the detail about the appearances to the twelve and to all the apostles that I am asking you about, but I think I better understand your position now after your last response. If I understand you correctly, you think the claim that Jesus appeared (ὤφθη) to *all* of the twelve and to *all* of the apostles (1 Cor 15:5&7) is a *legend* that the twelve and the apostles were never themselves proclaiming but Paul incorrectly *believes* they were proclaiming, and Paul’s misunderstanding was never corrected during his few points of contact with Peter, James, and others associated with the Jerusalem community. Do I got that right?
No, I”m no saying that. I’m saying we don’t know what they were proclaiming. There is simply no reliable evidence.
Bart,
I’ve been thinking about your above answer for several weeks now and have a question for you. I understand that we don’t know what the disciples were proclaiming with respect to appearances by Jesus because we have no firsthand reports from them, but if the disciples were not themselves proclaiming that Jesus appeared to all of them (“appeared to…the twelve”, 1 Cor 15:5), can you please lay out any plausible scenario that would explain how Paul could believe or state that the disciples were proclaiming that Jesus appeared to all of them when in fact they were not proclaiming this? (This is not covered in your book HJBG.)
Sure. He didn’t know all of them (he himself says this in Galatians, e.g., with respect to his first visit to Jerusalem.0 He only heard stories bout most of them.
Bart,
I am trying my best to understand your explanation of Paul writing that Jesus “appeared to…the twelve” (1 Cor 15:5). If I understand you correctly, you think the claim that Jesus appeared to the twelve is a story (i.e., a legend) that was circulating that Paul is repeating but the twelve themselves never proclaimed. Do I got that right? If I got this right, do you think Paul *believes* Jesus appeared to all of the twelve?
Not quite. I don’t know whether they proclaimed it or not. We simply don’t have any evidence about it. E.g., what do we know about what Andrew or Bartholomew thought or proclaimed? Zero, I’m afraid. I wish it were otherwise. But yes, I absolutely think Paul believed Jesus appeared to the twelve. That’s why he says it, and I don’t think he is intentionally spreading a falsehood.
Bart,
So if Paul absolutely believed that the 12 were all proclaiming that Jesus appeared to them when in fact the 12 weren’t proclaiming this, then part of your reconstruction of events would have to include that Paul did not discuss this detail of the appearances with leaders from the 12 when he met with them….right?
I don’t believe he ever did meet with them (am I forgetting something? it’s in Acts, but not in Paul’s descriptions of his time in jerusalem, is it?)
Bart,
Gal 1:18-2:10 has Paul meeting church leaders three years after his conversion and again 14 years later. How do you conclude otherwise??? Doesn’t your reconstruction require that Paul and these leaders never discussed Paul’s *belief* that the twelve were all proclaiming that Jesus appeared to them (1 Cor 15:5)?
Read the passage carefully. Whom does he say he actually met?
Bart,
I’m stumped why you would ask that question. In Gal 1:18-19 Paul says he met Cephas and James three years after his conversion and again 14 years later in Gal 2:9. Isn’t that enough people such that in your reconstruction Paul and these leaders must never have discussed Paul’s *belief* that all of the twelve were proclaiming that Jesus appeared to them (1 Cor 15:5)?
I don’t see hwo there’s any way to know. What I myself would want to talk to Cephas and James about would be nothing at all what Paul would want to talk about; all he indicates is that they talked about the nature of his mission to the gentiles, not about what they knew about Jesus. I’d be all over the latter, myself. Was he? Doesn’t say. Just becuase we would be doesn’t mean he was. (Remember: he hardly says anythign at all about the historical Jesus: odd if this is what he got from them)
Bart,
In your view did Peter visit Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12 and 1 Cor 9:5)?
Yes. Assuming that he is Cephas.
Bart,
How do you reconcile these three views of yours?: 1) Peter visited Corinth, 2) Paul told the Corinthians (at its founding and again a few years later) that Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve (which included Peter), and 3) Peter never claimed that Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve. It seems like the Corinthians would have known or easily found out that Paul’s claim of a collective appearance to the twelve was false. What kind of scenario are you imagining where all three of your views above can be true?
1. He did; 2. He did 3. I’ve never said that.
Bart,
So just to clarify, do you think Peter claimed that Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve (which included himself)?
As I’ve repeatedly said, I don’t know, since we don’t have any record of what Peter said except in the book of Acts, which I do not think is reliable.
Ok Bart, I get that we ultimately do not know if Peter claimed that Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve (which included himself), but can you please lay out any scenario you can think of where Paul could tell the Corinthians (at its founding and again a few years later) that Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve (1 Cor 15:5) and also during that time Peter visited Corinth (1 Cor 1:12 and 1 Cor 9:5) and yet Peter was never himself claiming that Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve? It seems like Paul’s error would have been corrected unless you propose that nobody in Corinth asked Peter about the collective appearance to the twelve (which seems implausible).
Somebody told him.
Bart,
Ok, as you just said, somebody could have simply told Paul that Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve even though Peter was never claiming that. Paul then tells the Corinthians at their founding and again a few years later that Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve. Meanwhile, Peter visits Corinth and is almost certainly asked by someone about the collective appearance to the twelve and Peter tells them it is not true. This would mean the Corinthians *knew* Paul was telling a falsehood in 1 Cor 15:5. Is that what you are suggesting and, if not, how in your view could the Corinthians not have found out through Peter that there was no collective appearance to the twelve?
I didn’t say it was a falsehood. You asked how Paul may have heard of it. Look, I know you think it’s possible to argue that it must have happened. Others will think that you are pushing the evidence way too hard by coming up with scenarios that seem to make the best sense to you. These others can easily come up with dozens of other scenarios, that are also possible. I just don’t think we can do history by saying what must have happened or else this would have happened, which means this other thing would have happened, and that final thing just ain’t plausible. THere are just way too many speculations in there. Some things we just can’t know.
Bart,
I’m most certainly *not* arguing that Jesus really appeared to the twelve (if that is what you meant by, “I know you think it’s possible to argue that it must have happened”). I am simply interested in the historical options here (and it seems you should be too). If one proposes that Paul picked up during his travels the tradition that Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve but Peter never made such a claim, then the historian should be interested in explaining how Paul could proclaim this at least twice at Corinth while Peter himself visited Corinth and must have spilled the beans that no such thing happened. I was simply asking for your explanation of this and am still interested in your answer if you have one (you said that one can “easily come up with dozens of other scenarios”).
The other historical alternative is that Peter really did claim that Jesus appeared collectively (or individually) to the twelve, and I think there are some options there, but I am most interested in your scenario above where Paul is claiming Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve but Peter knows of no such thing. Your scenario is currently incomplete.
Dr Ehrman –
re: “Also, ahere *weren’t* “church creeds” back then. Every church had it’s own ways of thinking, believing, and saying things — nothing at all like a uniform liturgy ”
Of course there was nothing like a “uniform liturgy” back then. And, I’d even agree there weren’t “church creeds” back then. But Paul certainly never calls that passage a “church creed”. That’s almost assuredly the nomenclature someone assigned to it many centuries later.
To me, it appears that Paul is simply passing on what he received, and, it is something that looks very much like a “mnemonic device” – a statement put in a fashion that would be more easily remembered. And the fact that Paul is doing so indicates clearly that (at least) the church at Corinth needed to learn it. And, maybe that’s all Paul was trying to do: get everyone on the same page.
You say “But you need to think carefully about the logic, especially in light of waht we do konw about the massive diversity of the earliest Christian churches.”
Right. And Paul, passing on this “statement” (which I doubt that *he* thought of as a “church creed”) to a church that apparently didn’t know it makes it quite obvious that Paul was aware that everyone needed to get on the same page (so to speak) – and *that’s* why he quotes it. He was trying to reduce some of that “diversity”.
So, the fact that there wasn’t a liturgy, and that not every church had the same ideas hardly seems like any reason to conclude that this “statement” (clearly used as a mnemonic) was therefore *not* from “very early on” (ie, from within a few years of Jesus’ crucifixion).
BUT – maybe I’m misunderstanding, and if so, could you explain why the non-existence of a liturgy, or the use of a mnemonic somehow indicates anything at all about the date of origin of this particular (later-called) “creed”?
(I guess I’m just not understanding what it is you’re trying to say here. I’m confused But, I’m old…)
All I’m saying is that if someone wants to make a specific argument — e.g. that this is a confession that originated six years after Jesus death — they have to have *evidence* of it. I don’t know of any. So the person who *uses* this “fact” in order to establish another point has a problem.
roger that. And, thanks!
An interesting anecdote regarding Mike’s position on the resurrection. If you follow one of his links it takes you to a video he made explaining 4 factors that make him beleive supernatural events are possible.
One factor is the paranormal. Mike tells a story of someone he knows who was using an ouigi board 25 years ago and a rubbish bin lid flew off a bin for no apparent reason. This struck me for several reasons :
1. In order to finds a story with sufficient impact Mike had to refer to someone he knew, who had a story from 25 years ago. This suggests the paranormal is not very active in our world. And as it’s hearsay and 25 years old it’s not very convincing.
2. Imagine if there was a paranormal aspect to our world. Why is it that paranormal forces seem to get involved with trivialities like moving a rubbish bin or a glass or a pen ? Why do they appear when a group of teenagers gather after drak ? Why dont they appear in a group setting ? Why don t they impact our world in an unambiguous way ?
Great questions!
https://infidels.org/library/modern/j_c_jackson/galilee-or-jerusalem.html