Goodbye

This will be my final post for this blog. As the blog has progressed, it has become abundantly clear to me that the forum has been one of expressing ideas, but not a place to hear or to attempt to understand ideas (this is not intended to be a criticism, as I have admitted that I fall into this category as well); accordingly, I think it has become little more than a perceived obligation and source of frustration for me and likely for many of you. There are two key points that I was unfortunately ignorant to as I began this venture:

1. Only my own household would respond to the arguments.

2. A blog is simply no place for a discussion.

I’m not greatly bothered by the obligation to respond to arguments myself, except that I know I haven’t the time to do so given the nature of the blog. The second point, however, cannot be ignored. Regardless of which side of the coin you find yourself on, it’s clear that the vast majority of discussions have been little more than one monologue followed by another. I had thought that the discussions would be more succinct and less combative. What I found, though, is that the Comments section morphed into a debate-style back-and-forth, where the goal was not to listen, but to win. If you’ve attended a debate before, you know that virtually no one leaves the debate feeling differently than when he/she entered. As with a debate, rhetoric has seemed to be of paramount importance; as such, week after week has proven to be fruitless for all parties involved. The only reason I can think of to continue the blog is pride (really, that’s why it has gone this far); instead, I think I’ll simply concede to the fact that it has been a failure.

I’m always open to discussing different points of view and I appreciate all of the thoughts and ideas that were brought to the table. I relish the opportunity to explore some of the many topics this blog has brought to light. It is clear, though, that such discussions should take place in person (or perhaps in a less structured environment). I hope you’ll accept my apologies for cutting off at the midway point. I really think, though, that it’s best for all parties involved.

Design Part II (Week 26)

Intelligent Design is a fun one. If you're one who doesn't ordinarily read the Comments section, I would encourage you to do so over the next few weeks. Because ID generally is viewed as creationism or anti-evolutionary theory, it has been written about and discussed by some brilliant folks on both sides of the coin. I have already decided to break the Design posts into a minimum of three weeks; yet, I'll only be scratching the surface. I have little doubt that a multitude of arguments will be presented in the Comments section (probably more so next week than this), and I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

EVOLUTION

I suppose that I should have been a bit clearer when discussing evolution. As I have (hopefully) made clear, I am a theist. So, obviously I don’t believe that the universe has progressed solely by naturalistic means. Accordingly, the belief that life came into existence without God is one that I don’t share. That being said, I don’t think it is relevant to present arguments for or against descent with modification when discussing the idea of the first life, except perhaps to illustrate why evolutionary theorists tend to believe in the materialistic creation of first life. I’ll again recall a notion from Coyne here when he said, “…we have only a foggy window into the earliest and most interesting developments in evolution, and none at all into the origin of life.” So, I don’t wish for the discussion to focus on whether modern creatures descended from earlier creatures; rather, I wish to focus on whether first life could arise by event causation. You’re free to presume that once first life came into being, speciation followed. I may discuss descent with modification at a later date.

That Aint Science

I think too often that the scientific community tries to deflect arguments for intelligent design by defining science to be a study of event causation then dismissing ID as “not science.” As Greg Koukl put it, “…when somebody says, ‘that aint science,’ or ‘That’s not scientific,’ to the general population, it doesn’t mean Oh, I see… we are shifting now from one way of knowing about the world – the scientific method – to other ways of gaining legitimate knowledge about the world….” Rather, generally, this statement is tantamount to saying, “that’s not true.” ID, in essence, is a theory that posits an agent cause rather than an event cause. The facts are the same. The method is the same. It’s really the conclusions that differ.

To draw a parallel (again, I’ll borrow from Mr. Koukl here), “We realize that if you come upon a dead man who’s got 15 holes in his chest, his head has been lopped off, and he’s got a knife in his back, he probably did not die of natural causes.” His allusion, of course, is to the forensic sciences, where scientists look to physical evidence for clues and draw conclusions based solely on the evidence. If you presumed in the above example that the deceased became that way via event causation, you could certainly assume that he ducked under the circular saw to grab his shotgun…. Still, no reasonable forensic scientist would assume that no agent was involved. When we study ID, the concept is much the same. The evidence is there for anyone to study, and ID theorists believe that the evidence points to intelligence.

Science of the Gaps

There is an ideology that naturalists present which is utterly infuriating… regardless of who advocates the materialist position, it seems that each presumes that science will “figure it out” sometime in the future. For instance, paleontologists presumed that the fossil record should include a winged, feathered dinosaur-like creature somewhere between where dinosaurs are found and where birds first emerge. Scientists found such a creature. In fact, scientists are often vindicated with evidential support of their theories. So, the conclusion seems to be that, if a scientist assumes that life came about by natural processes, science will be right because science has been oh-so-right in the past. Of course, science has been incredibly wrong in the past as well (a point that is oft forgotten), but the tendency is to blame the religious folk for those errors.

The problem here is not that we haven’t “figured it out” yet; rather, it seems that we have figured it out… that we understand the random chemical bonding processes inherent in the materials of life. Yet, those processes lead to the conclusion that the likely way to naturalistically form life is by sheer chance. This notion of the chance formation of life is not just disconcerting to theists. Evolutionary theorists understand, too, that the odds against life forming by chance are problematic (again, using the well-founded interactions of the chemicals therein); as such, a number of materialists have posited theories to remove or reduce this chance element. I’ll focus more on this next week.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0130_030130_originslife.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016141405.htm

The Layman’s Argument for ID

One simple way of viewing ID theory is simply by asking what, in our own experience, via our own observations produces information? Information is needed to build proteins, to form into cells then tissues then organs. Information is the key to life. We do know of a cause that is capable of producing information: Intelligence. The standard method of reasoning used in evolution or any other scientific endeavor is to infer an explanation by identifying a cause that is uniquely known to produce the type of event in question. Likewise, ID theorists note that the only known source of information is indeed intelligence.

“DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created.” -- Bill Gates

In 1953, Watson and Crick discovered the structure of the DNA molecule (A, C, G, T). The arrangement of the chemicals bears instructions on developing the organism. What we have since come to know since the human genome project and subsequent work in 2007 is that the living cell functions much in the same manner as a computer program. The information contained in DNA guides the development of the organism. As we continue to study DNA, more and more becomes apparent. Many books were published in the last decade that used the idea of “junk DNA” to argue against intelligent design. After all, if DNA was created by a mind, there would be no “junk” to deal with. Recent research, though, has shown that this so-called “junk” actually operates somewhat like an operating system… that DNA is infinitely more complex and information-rich than we once suspected. As Rick Weiss states:

“The first concerted effort to understand all the inner workings of the DNA molecule is overturning a host of long-held assumptions about the nature of genes and their role in human health and evolution. ... The findings, from a project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today, confirm growing suspicions that the stretches of "junk DNA" flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all. But the study goes further, indicating for the first time that the vast majority of the 3 billion "letters" of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks.”

("Intricate Toiling Found In Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle," Washington Post, June 14, 2007)

In any other realm of experience, we would immediately assume that we have an artifact of mind.

Information = Intelligence (Exemplified)

The idea behind the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program, which uses the Allen Telescope Array to search and filter various radio signals, is to seek life by searching for signals that could not occur naturally (this concept was made popular by the movie Contact). Of course, the array picks up a constant barrage of signals, so how do SETI scientists propose to look for intelligence? They look for information. Information, to the SETI scientists, is sufficient grounds to suppose intelligence. SETI recognizes that certain patterns simply do not occur naturally.

Shaped tools and hieroglyphics point archeologists to man’s influence.

Cryptographers sort through randomness to find coherence, and, hence, intelligence.

The point here is not necessarily that ID is equivalent to these other sciences, but that our experience tells us information is a likely indication of intelligence. When one theorizes, then, that another information source should be investigated for an intelligent causer, is such a venture as outlandish as some might have you believe? Next week, I’ll explore some of the calculations previously referenced by Dembski and others to better explain why ID theorists (and many evolutionary theorists) view abiogenesis as something that many believe simply cannot be explained by chance.

(A Quick Note: The materialist readers shouldn’t salivate too terribly much at the idea of reviewing Dembski’s calculations. I don’t intend to simply retread his arguments.)

Design (Week 25)

I would like to take a momentary break from the Bible and historical evidence. I want to revisit the idea of design, because I think my treatment of this fundamental argument was too brief… we were flying through the arguments early on, but intelligent design (if true) is the characteristic that separates the theistic universe from the deistic (causer would be involved at the inception only) or materialistic (no intelligence necessary) universe models. The arguments I gave previously focused more on cosmological probabilities in sticking with the prior theme, but I’d like to delve into the arena of the theories for first life and the data contained within each life form. Evolutionary theory does not offer an explanation for first life that is accepted by an abundance of scientists. As Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True noted, “…we have only a foggy window into the earliest and most interesting developments in evolution, and none at all into the origin of life.”

Intelligent design has a huge hurdle to overcome before the race even begins: the term “Intelligent Design” speaks to the conclusion of the theory and not to the science behind it; as such, it’s easy for someone who is not an ID proponent to scoff at the notion before even seeing the evidence (reactions just from my own audience included “Bwahahahaha!” and “…the entire premise of ID is that there is nothing to study – God did it….”). Evolutionary theory has met similar resistance in religious communities primarily because it is viewed as a sort of no-need-for-God theory. I think the attitudes on both sides (not to say that the theories are necessarily at odds… I get to that momentarily) lead to a sort of intellectual dishonesty. Certainly, many Christians are guilty of dismissing evolutionary theory without knowing the scientific discoveries that have had a profound impact over the past several decades. I would argue, too, that many evolutionary theorists consider ID as being a sort of capitulation by theists who can’t explain certain phenomena and thereby just insert God into the equation. Both parties, I think, are missing out on the opportunity for a good scientific discussion. Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin, and ID has made huge strides since Paley. There is evidence for both theories, and I think that the scientific approach for both theories is very similar. This is the notion I want to explore over the next few weeks.

There is an understandable predilection for scientists to look for materialistic causes. After all, the explanation “God did it” seems to many tantamount to throwing up one’s hands and giving up on the problem. ID, however, is not necessarily an enterprise that seeks to justify one’s religious convictions; rather, it is a natural extrapolation from the evidence at hand. Evidence for ID has religious implications, but it is not necessary to presume God in order to look for intelligence. Similarly, it is not necessary to posit a materialist universe in order to form the theory of evolution.

Like evolutionary theory, ID seeks to draw on what we know and to extrapolate this to the fundamental properties of earthly beings. In its simplest form, ID theory says simply that the data contained within a living being is indicative of a designer. Often, ID proponents will say something like, “If you look at the Grand Canyon, you will see a beautiful landscape that appears to have been created by the natural forces of wind and water; on the other hand, if you look at Mount Rushmore, you can note clear elements of design. This evidence, to any unbiased onlooker, obviously points to an intelligent sculptor, or designer.” This is a nice notion and one that I have used in the past (maybe even in a previous blog… I don’t recall), but it is not sufficient to a scientist to simply say, “Look at this thing. It sure looks designed to me.” The clearest evidence of design, I think, is not formation, but information.

One thing that I want to make clear is that I don’t believe evolution to be the anti-God argument that some have made it out to be. I do think that, as Richard Dawkins made clear, it enables atheists to have a scientific backing of their own beliefs – that if evolution is indeed a wholly natural process, there is no need for theistic explanations; however, I don’t believe that – even if the general premise of inter-species changes over time is true – this somehow negates God. Even the most devout evolutionist would likely acknowledge that there are holes in our knowledge of how these changes take place in a relatively short amount of time. So, my focus will not be in attacking evolutionary theory; rather, I would prefer to focus on the issue at hand: do we have evidence to indicate that organisms were designed?

If evolutionary theorists like Coyne cannot offer a sufficient explanation for first life, should the scientific community really look upon ID with such disdain? Who is throwing up their hands? It seems to me that by making an assumption that first life could have occurred via natural processes without first formulating a reasonable explanation, scientists are essentially yielding to the notion “…that there is nothing to study.” I personally find it a tad unusual that a group could be so militantly opposed to a theory when attempts to formulate materialistic theories have fallen woefully short of substantive proof. Instead, I propose simply that we take a look at the evidence behind ID, and view the data thoughtfully and with detachment. As Darwin put it, “A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.” One doesn’t have to presume intelligence to find it, and one shouldn’t disregard intelligence if the evidence is plain. Chance simply does not provide a sufficient explanation for the formation of life, and the idea that natural selection preceded life is incongruous.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be delving a bit deeper into the principles behind ID theory, but I’ll also be equating the scientific methods to those utilized by proponents of evolutionary theory. I would like to give a special thanks to Skyhook for providing me with materials for comparison. This will give us a good grounding for discussion.

Minimal Facts (Week 24)

There are five principle Biblical facts that are agreed upon by a strong majority of secular and Christian scholars, four of which are granted by an overwhelming majority (the fifth – that Jesus’ tomb was empty – is granted by about 75% of scholars, and will be excluded from our analysis). This week, I want to focus not on my own justifications, but on the scholarship of those best suited for understanding the significance of the evidence at hand. I will then present several of the most common “miracles-not-necessary” explanations for Biblical events (most of which have been employed in the Comments section of this blog) and see how they stack up against the “four.”

Quick Lesson: The Conversions of Paul and James (short version)

I’ll discuss both Paul and James in subsequent blogs; however, I think it is important to give a brief synopsis of their respective conversions since we have not yet discussed either of their stories. James was the son of Mary and Joseph (commonly called Jesus’ “half brother”). The Bible records clearly that James did not believe Jesus to be the messiah, but that he came to believe purportedly after Jesus’ appearance to him. Paul was a persecutor of Christians. The Bible recounts specifically that Paul was present during Stephen’s martyrdom. But both Luke and Paul record that a sudden transformation occurred when Paul encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Following this encounter, Paul devoted his life to spreading the gospel and was eventually martyred for these beliefs.

Minimal Facts

As an aside, my normal approach to this blog is to formulate my own ideas and arguments and to reference source material for additional support when I am unable to answer my own challenges. I confess, however, that I thoroughly enjoy the historical studies surrounding early Christianity and have read avidly on this subject. I turned 30 a couple of weeks ago, and one of my gifts was a book on the historicity of the resurrection (thanks, Hon). Included in this book were the “minimal facts” we’ll be examining this week. The book’s material coincided wonderfully with where we are in the blog, so I thought, Why reinvent the wheel?

The criteria for the four minimal facts are as follows. They must:

A. Be remarkably well-attested on many grounds which may comprise authenticity criteria including:
• Multiple, independent sources
• Attestation by neutral sources or enemies
• Details of embarrassment (i.e. details that would serve to weaken one’s position in the eyes of one’s audience)
• Eyewitness testimony (over second- and third-hand sources)
• Early testimony.

B. Be granted by virtually all scholars including scholars whose conclusions differ from Christian scholars.

The four minimal facts we’ll be looking at are as follows:

• Jesus died by crucifixion.
• Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.
• The church persecutor Paul converted to Christianity from a strong anti-Christian position.
• Jesus’ skeptic brother, James, underwent a sudden and dramatic transformation.

I have focused in past weeks upon offering evidence for two of these facts (belief more so than crucifixion), and will in future weeks provide arguments for the conversions of Paul and James.

To reiterate, I have devoted a lot of my blog material on giving evidence for the historicity of the Biblical texts, and will continue to do so in subsequent weeks. This week I want to focus on the possible explanations for the minimal facts and any shortfalls we might encounter with various explanations. So, let’s press on with the premise that the four minimal facts are true. If you take umbrage with any of the four, know that you are among a very small minority. Being in the minority doesn’t necessarily make you wrong, but it is probably worthwhile to reinvestigate the supporting evidence if you find yourself in a lonely place.

Hypothesis # 1: They made it all up

It isn’t so much that this theory doesn’t offer conclusions consistent with the four minimal facts. This directly contradicts two of the minimal facts and provides no explanation for the sudden conversions of Paul or James.

Hypothesis # 2: They made some of it up

Again, we see that this idea is in direct conflict with one of the minimal facts. We don’t even need to delve into why it doesn’t explain the conversions of Paul and James.

Hypothesis #3: Visions and Delusions

This is sort of the “old-time revival” theory. People gather together in a little church and all of the sudden one becomes possessed by the Holy Spirit. Before too long, they’re all possessed by the Spirit, writhing on the floor in a collective blissful state as the Spirit overwhelms them. Sometimes the preacher does things from a compulsion “by the Spirit” that are incredibly un-Christ-like. So, I think it’s fair to conclude that – certainly in some of these scenarios – they experienced a state induced by their own emotions and not one induced by the Spirit. Following logically, we can conclude that masses of people can be coerced by the actions and beliefs of others into feeling things that aren’t really there.

Generally, when this is equated to the disciples, it’s assumed that in their grief-stricken state, one or more began to reflect on Jesus’ prediction and began to see Jesus in visions or hallucinations brought about by mental trauma. The trouble here is three-fold. First, while masses of people may be duped by illusions or may be incited to feel as though they have been possessed by spirits, it’s quite a leap from either of these recorded instances to interacting and eating with a risen messiah. That type of delusion is simply unequaled. Second, though you could make the argument that James was grief-stricken, he did not believe Jesus to be the messiah and would not, therefore, have been in the same boat as the disciples. Last, it’s a wild stretch to presume that Saul of Tarsus was so affected. That would be a far-reaching case of mass delusion… I think we’re one step removed from assuming that a hallucination-inducing cloud (a la Star Trek) was sweeping across the hills causing people to see Jesus.

Hypothesis #4: The Bias of the Disciples

There are a number of problems with this theory. First and foremost, if Jesus was not a miracle-working messiah, what in the world did the disciples have to be biased toward? I gave a fuller argument to this notion in another blog post, so I won’t rehash the entire thing here, but sufficed to say this notion is circular. Secondly, if anything, Paul and James both had a bias against Jesus. Paul was merrily hunting Christians in the name of God and James thought his dear brother was a few sandwiches short of a picnic. The bias theory does nothing to account for the conversion of either Paul or James since neither of them believed in Jesus’ divinity until after His death; rather, both purport to have witnessed the risen Christ and to have turned to Christ following this interaction.

Hypothesis #5: The Stuff of Legends

The principle fallacy with this theory is that Paul’s accounts and the gospel accounts are dated to within a very short time of Jesus’ death. Paul makes it clear that he and the disciples met only a few years after Jesus’ death. Both Paul and Luke make clear allusions to pre-existing oral accounts that bear the same message. To go, in a few short years, from nice guy to messiah in the minds of so many witnesses is just unfathomable. Legend just doesn’t develop this way.

Further, this theory necessitates that the disciples indeed did not preach Jesus’ resurrection after His death. It also fails to explain the conversions of Paul and James. Both of them were around to hear the story when Jesus was alive and didn’t buy it. It also doesn’t make sense that Paul would attest to his role in the death of one of Jesus’ followers (before his conversion) because Stephen was sharing the story of a nice guy who wasn’t the messiah or who didn’t rise from the dead. Nor would it make sense that Paul and the other Christians were persecuted so vigorously unless they were already attesting to the risen Christ.

Hypothesis #6: Just another Dying and Rising God

This particular theory can be rather infuriating because it’s simply incoherent at all levels. Somehow or another, a popular author or internet blogger latched onto this one and it spread like wildfire. The only truth here is that it acknowledges that Jesus did indeed die. The similarities between the resurrection story and stories like those of Osiris and Adonis have been woefully embellished. And the kicker? The ones most often referenced occurred after Jesus. Who’s borrowing from whom?

Hypothesis #7: The Stolen Body of Jesus

The disciples attested to seeing the risen Christ, not to assuming the risen Christ. This theory offers absolutely no evidence for the conversions of Paul and James. It’s really just another explanation for the empty tomb, which I excluded from the minimal facts.

Hypothesis #8: Jesus Did Not Really Die

If He didn’t die, He certainly didn’t die by crucifixion, and without death, resurrection makes no sense. So, this claim directly counters two of the minimal facts. The lack of evidence for the conversions is secondary.

Conclusion

The evidence for the minimal facts is almost universally recognized as true, and the structure of these facts is such that any attempt to explain away one of these extraordinary events falls woefully short of explaining another. I’m not trying simply to dismiss explanations with no grounds. It feels as though the only reason to dismiss the gospel claims is an a priori assumption that they cannot be true.

Belief (Week 23)

Last week, we focused on the idea of eyewitness testimony and two key objections surfaced as a result of this discussion:

1. Any individual testimony is generally insufficient in the eyes of the law and should be seen as insufficient in relation to the gospels as well.
2. Even if we presume the testimony is true, it only serves to illustrate that the early witnesses believed. Similar beliefs have been documented throughout history and the beliefs should, therefore, be taken with a grain of salt.

The first point is certainly valid to the nature of eyewitnesses in general; however, I would say that select eyewitnesses are certainly more estimable than others, and I doubt this statement would be hotly contested. In court rooms today, witnesses remain an integral piece of the puzzle. Are some untrustworthy? Absolutely! It’s up to the advocates on either side to ask the appropriate questions in order to ascertain the validity of witness testimony. Certain strategies discussed last week can be employed to discredit witnesses; however, each testimony should be reviewed upon its own merits. There are cases where each of us could sit on a jury and render a verdict based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. As I outlined last week, I think there is little reason to believe that the disciples did not truly deem their discourses to be true. As such, I think it less crucial to try to denigrate the validity of the witnesses and much more important to view the claims of the witnesses.

2. Even if we presume the testimony is true, it only serves to illustrate that the early witnesses believed. Similar beliefs have been documented throughout history and the beliefs should, therefore, be taken with a grain of salt.

Certainly Christians did not invent martyrdom; nor did they invent the idea of deism. Christianity remains one religion among many that claims to know the truth. In recent years, martyrdom is more closely associated with Islam than with Christianity. Mormons are more closely associated with evangelism. Yet, in many cases the teachings of each of these religions are diametrically opposed to one another. It’s abundantly clear, therefore, that mere belief does not amount to truth. Furthermore, even in modern times we can see millions of people who are willing to follow “miracle workers” – some of whom have been thoroughly discredited. These people are willing to share this “truth” with others resulting in the massive and rapid expansion of a new faith that can easily be shown to be false. The issue, then, is whether something exists to set Christianity apart.

I’ll single out Islam and Mormonism because they have two undeniable commonalities with Christianity: a rapid expanse and devout followers. As with the Christian martyrs, there can be little doubt that those Muslims who sacrifice themselves for their beliefs truly carry that belief. It doesn’t take a long discussion with a Mormon evangelist to realize that he truly believes the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.

Both Islam and Mormonism claim millions of devotees and both cannot be true as they teach contradictory ideas (issues of whether God would honor “sincere” belief aside). So, it follows logically that at least one must be false and that therefore millions and millions of people have been duped into believing unfounded claims. If millions of people possess a want to follow, it seems that mere promises and/or attested truths are adequate to sway hoards of people. In fact, I would argue that the populous of each major world religion is undeniable proof that the VAST majority of people do not root their beliefs in facts; rather, the beliefs are founded in desire, tradition, or self-interest. Christianity is no exception to this rule, and that fact alone is enough to cause many to group religions together as one basic belief in a higher power.

How, then, can we possibly say that any number of witnesses or martyrs are sufficient to demonstrate the truth of Christianity when it seems that the same arguments could be made to “prove” Islam and Mormonism to be true? Though this is generally how the question is presented to me, I think the question itself is misleading. Islam and Mormonism both promote certain “truths.” The “truths” themselves, however, are not based on acts or even a revelation to many; rather, they are based on the written testimony of a single person. In both cases, the witness claims no supernatural abilities (aside from the ability to consort supernaturally with God) and hence needs only to convince others of his own revelation.

Central to Islam and to Mormonism are the claims of a single prophet who, in both instances, went to meditate in a secluded are and was granted the Word of God via interaction with an angel (Joseph Smith through Moroni and Muhammad through Gabriel). This knowledge was shared with others along with promises of heaven for those who accepted the ideas. Many of the claims of Mormonism have been directly refuted with verifiable data. Islam is largely based on the refutation of the resurrection of Jesus about 600 years after the fact. In no other historical cases do we accept data submitted 600 years after an event over primary source documentation of witnesses. Mormonism is especially difficult to contest directly because it makes the claim that truth stems from an ambiguous and unfalsifiable “burning in the bosom” one receives when reading the Book of Mormon. In both of these cases, it is necessary to presuppose God’s existence then to appeal to God for substantiation of the believer’s beliefs. After all, the revelation was granted only to one man. As you might imagine, it is often the case that God grants substantiation in the mind of the believer.

The question should not focus on whether the adherents truly believe. After all, each religion claims numerous devotees who believe in a plethora of ideas and history has shown that people will believe any number of self-serving ideas and promises, both religious and non-religious. The question, rather, should focus on what the adherents truly believe. The most notable difference between Christianity and other religions is simply the scope of the claims. As an illustration, I would like to use an antagonistic comment from a few weeks ago. The comment was simply that the circumstances regarding Abraham Lincoln’s assassination are rarely disputed because the claim itself pales in comparison to the claim, for instance, that Lincoln invented a perpetual motion machine. The latter claim would require a great deal more evidence. I agree wholeheartedly and I would imagine that the majority of people would also agree to such a statement.

There is a tendency to write off Christianity as one of many myths perpetuated throughout antiquity. The truth of the matter, though, is that the treatment of the early Christians is proof positive that Christianity was not simply another religion to add to the pile. The early Christians made incredible claims… incredible not only to us, but to those who lived in the first century as well. Resurrections weren’t regular events. People did not regularly walk on water, perform miraculous healings, or grant supernatural powers to others. The claims were… well… unbelievable (obviously, I don’t mean this in the literal sense). To believe Jesus to be the messiah, to have performed great miracles, and to have raised Himself from the dead would have required extraordinary evidence, and the collective gospel accounts are the record of this evidence. The only “evidence” necessary in the other two examples would be the convincing nature of the preacher.

The other undeniable difference is the number of early witnesses. Muhammad and Joseph Smith were individuals who managed to sway the minds of thousands. The disciples, on the other hand, spread the same gospel throughout the Roman Empire under constant threat. To presume that all of Jesus’ disciples shared the same profusion of delusions would be silly. To presume that each misremembered the same life-altering events in the same way would be ludicrous. To presume that the group could be duped into seeing Jesus and interacting with Him for 40 days postmortem (on top of the many miracles already purported) would be completely unfounded. To presume that each chose to perpetuate a lie under the threat of death that would bring them absolutely no personal gain flies in the face of our own human experience. The simple truth is that there is no easy way to refute the gospel claims.

Next week, I’ll discuss the historical evidence in greater detail, focusing on those items that are in general consensus among scholars.

Running out of Alternatives (Week 22)

Recalling the idea of “Jesus on Trial,” we should note that the law does not allow a verdict to be presumed (hence, the methods in place for jury selection, jury sequestering, etc). The law dictates that the evidence should lead to the verdict. Throughout history, the witness has been the chief source of evidence, and such is the case with regards to the life of Jesus.

When witnesses are called, there are five basic tactics employed to impugn testimony:

1. Show evidence that the witness is not consistent in his/her testimony.
2. Show that the witness is biased.
3. Show that the witness is untrustworthy or deficient in character.
4. Show that the witness is/was under duress, under the influence of disease or drugs, or under the influence of some other agent.
5. Provide an alternative witness/explanation to counter the testimony.

Consistency

What we find in the synoptic gospels is a remarkable consistency with regards to the basic tenants of Jesus’ divinity. Some have called into question whether the gospel authors have been consistent on relatively minor details; however, it would require a willing blindness to dismiss the author’s claims of Jesus’ divinity. There is no doubt that Matthew, Mark, and Luke regard Jesus as a miracle worker, that they confirm Him as the messiah, and that they attest to the resurrection. Each is consistent internally and with one another.

Bias

I have heard the case before that the disciples and/or the authors were biased with regards to Jesus, and I don’t find the case to be particularly compelling. First, as I stated in an earlier post, unless the disciples believe Jesus to be the messiah, there is no eternal reward to be had. Second, if the disciples in fact did not witness the divine nature of Jesus, their “bias” would be based on a want to preserve the divine character of Jesus (who they would know to be a mere mortal) over their want to preserve themselves. In essence, they would have to willingly die for a lie… martyrdom with no eternal reward does not have the ring of truth.

The evidence, in fact, suggests that the disciples gave testimony in the face of mortal danger. The only way bias even enters the equation is if the disciples believe their claims to be true. Then, they would be “biased” to the truth.

Character

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that the disciples lacked character. They claim to have spent their lives trying to uphold the moral teachings of God Himself. I have yet to hear of a serious attack on the disciples’ character.

Mental Faculties

The gospel writings are clear and seemingly lucid accounts that do not serve to impugn the mental adeptness of the authors. There was ample reason for them to recant under tremendous pressure in the other direction, but not evidence that they were testifying under duress. The only real question here is whether the accounts were the child of faulty memory recall.

If we incorporate a little common sense, we know that a graduate assistant is a better source of information than a student who is new to the curriculum. As the professor draws on his assistant for help in developing the curriculum, grading papers, occasionally instructing a class, etc, the assistant develops a fuller comprehension of the materials. If the assistant then goes on to lecture himself and answers questions and critics along the way, the likelihood of forgetting the core of his studies continually decreases. This is what we see with the disciples.


"To teach is to learn twice." -Joseph Joubert


Further, there is a common misconception, it seems, that the disciples sat with Jesus for a few years then decided some 30-40 years later to put pen to paper or to dictate their experiences for posterity. The Bible teaches, however, that the disciples spent their lives preaching what Jesus taught them and meeting with one another to share knowledge and experiences. Consistent with what our common sense tells us, Elizabeth Loftus notes that repeated events will be remembered with greater accuracy and detail than one-time events. Our case study (the disciples) spent their lives retelling Jesus’ teachings over and over again.

The tendency is to extrapolate from the idea that memory recall is imperfect in order to question the historicity of the testimony in the New Testament. One example given was that perhaps the disciples’ inaccurate memory coupled with a strong willingness to believe in the divinity of Jesus led to confusing the empty tomb with a resurrected messiah. In essence, the disciples allowed themselves to be fooled into believing things they wished desperately were true. They allowed a legend of Jesus to creep into their minds and eventually believed the legend to be true. It is this legend that was recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The theory is interesting, but I think it falls well short of explaining what the disciples preached as truth. The disciples didn’t just speak to an empty tomb and a resurrection. The gospels recount 40 days that the disciples spent with Jesus following his resurrection. That means there were 40 days of false memories that crept into the collective psyche of Jesus’ followers. Perhaps if the disciples were held in some kind of internment camp and fed false memories for a few years we might be witnessing the effects of some (really, really strange) psychological experiment. What is the evidence, though, that any oddity on the scope of what must have happened to the disciples ever occurred?

In the book of Acts (chapter 3), Peter performs a miracle of healing. By chapter 5, a couple who “lied [not] to men but to God” is stricken dead at the very words of Peter. Roger Clemens recently made popular the word “misremembered,” but what mis-remembrances account for Peter’s supernatural gifts? The claims of the New Testament are quite simply too extraordinary to have been the product of false memories. For one disciple to misremember the resurrection and the 40 days that followed would be astonishing. As we add more disciples and numerous additional miracles performed by Jesus and by the disciples themselves (it’s very important that this fact does not get lost), it is simply unfathomable that so very many people “oopsied” their way into Christianity.

As Marcus Stone notes, “A robbery or a theft is unlikely to mellow in the fullness of time into a donation of property. A rape will not be transformed into a romance. A vicious assault will probably not be converted into an accidental collision on the street.” Likewise, it is inconceivable that numerous devotees would recall Jesus’ ascension up a flight of stairs as ascension into the clouds or that the time he hung off the branch of His favorite tree as the crucifixion.

Over the course of a lifetime, you will almost certainly never make a claim on the scale of Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Any reasonable person should be skeptical and any reasonable person would reject the prima facie claims of the divinity of another without further evidence. But, when we surmise the evidence in the gospels, we find that there is extraordinary evidence that the disciples believed, that they were not the victims of faulty memories, and that testifying to the divinity of Jesus cannot have been in their own self interests.

Alternatives

When we read the few non-Biblical accounts written around the same time as the gospels, what we get is a picture of Jesus as a miracle-worker, though not necessarily a messiah. Seemingly all of the accounts written in the first couple of centuries acknowledge that there was something special about Jesus. To my knowledge, there are no reputable refutations of the gospels.

Conclusion

Any dismissal of the gospels demands a supposition that is incredibly difficult to reconcile. Did they misremember the most significant details of their lives? Were they duped into believing they could perform miracles? Did they die for a lie? None of these explanations seem plausible in a naturalistic worldview. Rather, it seems clear that the disciples believed their message (evidenced by their willingness to die), that the events they preached to were too remarkable to have been the product of faulty memory or trickery, and that they were able to provide evidence so convincing that thousands upon thousands of people willingly sacrificed their own lives rather than renounce Jesus. Perhaps a flippant dismissal of the gospels is tantamount to ignoring the evidence and instead presuming the verdict.

Extraordinary Evidence (Week 21)

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
- Marcello Truzzi

The Gospel of John represents quite a departure from the synoptic gospels, so prior to shifting gears, I want to examine the statement above which is often cited as justification for rejecting the gospels. Truzzi’s claim appears to be quite reasonable and I don’t think that many of us would bother to debate its merits. If you claim something extraordinary or peculiar, you should expect the claim to be challenged, and you should expect your challenger to require an overabundance of evidence as support. The difficulty with Truzzi’s statement, however, is that “extraordinary” is inherently subjective.

We have discussed mathematical probabilities in several of the previous posts; however, sometimes mathematical probabilities are not the only things that should be taken into account. If we were to encounter historical documentation that told of the whereabouts of Abraham Lincoln when he was shot, a reasonable person would not question the historicity of the account based on the mathematical probability. Let’s assume that the balcony was about 10 square yards. If there are 3,097,600 square yards in a square mile and approximately 30% of the Earth’s surface is land, the prima facie odds that Lincoln was in the balcony at a particular instance in history would be about a 1 in 5 X 10^-14. Still, how many of us doubt Lincoln’s whereabouts? If you were to examine a historical claim, you could cast immeasurable doubt on the claim via mathematical probability. Yet, we know that historical claims can and do supersede probabilities.

BACK TO SQUARE ONE

I tried to make it clear in my first several posts that to believe in things that are not of this universe is quite reasonable. You must look no further than the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy to know that natural law prohibits the manufacture of the elements of the universe (i.e. nothing that is confined to the laws of the universe could have caused the universe). Further, unless you have severe doubts regarding the merits of the scientific community, it is also exceedingly probable that the universe is not static (i.e. it had a beginning). From these two notions, you must conclude that some event or entity which is not confined to the laws of the universe resulted in the universe. Though several have questioned what this “catalyst” might be, there has been little debate as to the necessary existence of this catalyst.

I don’t plan to rehash these posts; rather, I want to include this paragraph as a reminder of where my definition of “supernatural” stems.

Supernatural: That which is not confined to the laws of the universe.

I’ll be discussing the evidentiary requirements for supernatural phenomena this week, so I want to ensure that we’re all on the same page when we discuss this topic and to remind each of you that by acknowledging the validity of the Big Bang, we are, in essence, acknowledging the existence of the supernatural.

RECAP

I. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy governs those things that exist within the universe.
II. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.
III. The Big Bang Theory coupled with the Theory of General Relativity (strongly supported by observable evidence) shows that the universe had a beginning.
IV. (From III) As matter and energy are elements of the universe, matter and energy had a beginning.

Because III/IV eliminates the possibility that matter and energy have always existed, the only reasonable explanation that remains is this:

There must exist (or there must have existed) something that is/was not governed by the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy which resulted in the existence of the universe. This thing would (by my definition above) be supernatural.

THE SUPERNATURAL EVENT?

The supernatural is real. The universe is proof. Still, for some there exists the notion that a natural explanation is always the most reasonable… no matter how unreasonable the naturalistic explanation might be. If you concede that supernatural is true (again, as evidenced by the truth of the existence of the universe), why would you make the assumption that it is likely there was only one supernatural event? If historical evidence points to a supernatural event, is it reasonable to dismiss the event solely because of its supernatural nature? Is it sufficient to simply manufacture a natural explanation that could explain a so-called supernatural phenomenon?

DUPED

As I outlined in the Matthew post, there is zero benefit for the gospel authors to write the gospels unless they believed them to be true. As such, this week I want to begin with the assumption that the synoptic gospel authors were truthful in their accounts, but that they were themselves duped by Jesus and/or the apostles. I will work to incorporate the most plausible explanations that do not require any supernatural explanation. Some blanket assumptions that are necessary if we assume no supernatural events:

1. God does not exist.
2. Jesus is not the Son of God.
3. Neither Jesus nor His disciples possessed the power to heal or any other supernatural abilities.
4. Jesus is dead and did not “conquer death.”

I have already spoken to the truth of Jesus’ existence, so I will begin here with the idea of Jesus the Deceiver. Whether Jesus truly believed Himself to be the Son of God, He was able to perform apparent miracles that were so great He succeeded in convincing 12 men (with the possible exception of Judas) to follow Him for a number of years and to believe that He was the Son of God. His numerous healings can of course be explained using one of two possibilities:

People in His employ feigned illness then feigned miraculous recovery from these illnesses. OR
He was able to convince unsuspecting folks that He did indeed heal people using cleverness and guile (perhaps he “healed” them then called attention elsewhere while the “healed” were ushered away a la Chevy Chase in Fletch).

The rest of His miracles must have simply been later fabrications from the disciples. In any case, his ruse was so convincing that the 12 believed Him to be the messiah… that is until he was killed. Following His death and unceremonious burial, a distraught Judas killed himself. The others decided that they would save face by telling everyone around them that they saw Him raised from the dead. The group of disciples traveled the countryside regaling crowds with stories of how they too could heal people and could even cause people to drop dead. They knew that if they could convince enough simpletons of these acts, the masses would tell others of what they swore they had seen with their own eyes. Their tales were so convincing that they even led Saul of Tarsus – a leading Christian-hunter – to believe that he had learned the entirety of the scriptures via a direct revelation from the risen Christ (Saul/Paul must have obviously read the accounts before, but his belief was so real that he remained convinced of the divine revelation). Paul was then responsible for a series of letters that served to give further credence to the words of the disciples.

Here’s where it gets tricky…

The disciples found themselves in a conundrum. Saul was not the only one who had been sent to round up the Christians. People were being killed and imprisoned and they were at the top of the list. The disciples were responsible for a multitude of deaths and theirs would be right around the corner. There was only one way out:
Admit to their collective lie and move somewhere else.
Sneak away under false identities and let those who believed them fend for themselves.
Continue to lie and make a pact with each other that each would not be the one to squeal.

This wasn’t an easy decision of course. After all, if a disciple was Jewish prior to Jesus coming to fetch him, he would have little doubt he was now destined for hell. The Gentiles of the group had a little easier time… until they were caught and sentenced to death. Each went about his business watching fellow “Christians” die horrible, painful deaths. So, naturally, the horribly sadistic disciples decided to continue to preach and to recruit more Christians. After all, what did it matter at this point?

In Week 17, I recapped several of the attestations of the disciples via the gospels:

1. They attested to knowing Jesus first-hand.
2. They attested to witnessing and performing first-hand miracles.
3. They attested to seeing Jesus die.
4. They attested to seeing Jesus alive three days later.

We can effectively throw out #1. After all, if He wasn’t really a miracle-working messiah, the disciples didn’t know Jesus at all. Obviously, they were deluding themselves when it comes to #2. Tales of walking on water and resurrections were flat-out lies and, in retrospect, none of the healings could have been real (Gosh, I thought I saw the same guy get healed for blindness, leprosy, and gout in three different places… I really should have put two and two together then). The only one that was really truthful was #3.

The truly amazing part is that the disciples managed to confound the masses so thoroughly without ever producing a true miracle that thousands upon thousands were willing to give their lives… martyrdom soon became a fun little pastime for the early Christians and they were even allowed to be center stage in the Colosseum. Sure, there were plenty of other religions that promoted orgies and drinking, but how often does one get to be eaten, gored, or trampled in front of thousands of people by really cool wild animals?! Though no one they knew had ever really seen the disciples do anything beyond heal a headache or put some aloe on a sunburn, soon the masses were lining up to profess their collective faith, give up those despicable activities, and await their eminent deaths.

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS

If we don’t dismiss the supernatural straight away, there is simply no reason to contest the claims made in the gospels. The claim that supernatural events are rare and thus wholly unlikely is one that stems from not having directly experienced the supernatural. It’s almost like we’re caught in a loop:

We can’t believe in the supernatural because it is so very rare; yet, there are a plethora of supernatural events recorded in the Bible and tons more reported by people from all over the globe. Still, each event is so unlikely because the supernatural is so rare…

Further, if the events were ordinary, we would simply say that God was not needed to perform them. If, for instance, people were resurrected daily, a resurrection would simply be considered a regular, natural phenomenon. Doubt, in this case, often stems from doubt.

If we look at the New Testament as we would any other historical document, there is little doubt that each of the principle players believed in the divinity of Jesus. So, what is it that sets Christianity apart? Let’s revisit the core premises discussed over the last few weeks:

Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection
(Add to this the fact that the disciples themselves were responsible for performing miracles after Jesus’ death.)

The claims made in the gospel writings are indeed extraordinary. To believe these claims, the early eyewitnesses would have almost certainly required extraordinary evidence. Modern Christianity relies upon documentary evidence written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses of Christ… those who were the very founders of the early church. The membership of the early church is extraordinary. The sheer number of authors and the recreation of their accounts are extraordinary. The historical accuracy of the accounts is extraordinary. In fact, there is very little that can be called ordinary with regards to the church of the first century.

The actions of the disciples, too, are extraordinary. It is extraordinarily difficult to believe that one man could be so obstinate as to die for a lie… much less the plethora of Christian martyrs who were killed shortly after the death of Christ. Jesus and the disciples were visible. Their claims were verifiable. It is more likely that the early Christians were so very devoted because they had seen the evidence with their own eyes or because they were very close to others who witnessed the events directly.

It is perhaps even more difficult to believe that the disciples could literally believe that they had the ability to perform miracles if this was not the case. Certainly such a delusion would not beget the massive early Christian church. If the disciples merely believed they had supernatural powers, this wouldn’t translate to the masses.

A Physics professor I once had used to implore us to ask a simple question after we answered a problem: Does this make sense? For instance, if the question asked for the height of a building and your answer was given in light years, it would behoove you to check your work (probably didn’t need to divide by Planck’s constant). Does it make sense that the disciples died (sometimes torturous deaths) for a lie? Does it make sense that the disciples had no real power, but were able to convince thousands upon thousands to turn away from comfortable lives as citizens of the Roman Empire and give their lives to Christ? The realities of our universe necessitate the probability of the supernatural. The probability of the supernatural necessitates the possibility of God. The possibility of God helps us to understand the stories of the New Testament. If you don’t blind yourself to that which you already know (there is something beyond our universe), the supernatural ceases to be a weak explanation by the ignorant faithful and becomes a valid explanation from the early eyewitnesses.

Luke (Week 20)

Sometimes life happens. A sort of “perfect storm” of energy-sapping events struck me in June and the idea of “free time” has been completely foreign to me for the last month or so. I do intend, however, to redouble my efforts, so I hope you’re ready for the 52 Blogs lighting round as I have no intention of turning this into a year-and-a-half-long venture. I apologize to everyone who has been on pins and needles awaiting my next post (mom?). In all seriousness, though, I could never have anticipated that writing this blog would be as demanding as it has turned out to be. Leaving it to “free time” is a disservice to my readership and I am truly sorry that my level of commitment has not been what it should be. With that, I’m ready to jump to Gospel #3. I hope you’re equally ready to question every nuance in the Comments section. I would be disappointed otherwise.

As a student of history, I have a certain partiality to Luke. His writing style and level of detail makes his gospel (as well as the book of Acts) a rarity. Unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke gives us some insight on his reasons for documenting the life of Christ:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

From the introduction, it would seem that Luke has been commissioned to investigate the stories found in Mark and elsewhere and to piece together his own account of Jesus’ life and death.

In the Book of Acts, Luke mentions specifically being a companion of Paul and James and interacts with the “elders” on more than one occasion. He also mentions in his prologue that he interviewed those who “from the first were eyewitnesses.” So, it is reasonable to believe that Luke’s works would accord with the stories of his interviewees, who were themselves followers of Christ. Luke should be viewed, I think, as a biographer. He is the first to cite his sources (though indirectly) and only adds to the claims of Mark and Matthew.

DATE

As with the other gospels, there is no original manuscript of the gospel of Luke; still, the gospel can be dated to within the first century and the reported accounts must have taken place during the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. Because Luke authored both his gospel and Acts, it is easier to assign a date to Luke. Luke speaks in the first person and provides great detail throughout both books. In Acts 21, we need only note that he was accompanied by both Paul and James; thus, the events he witnessed and the eyewitnesses he knew must have been encountered prior to the martyrdom of Paul or James (c. 62 CE).

When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

As support of the notion that Luke authored the accounts before 62 CE, it should be noted that Luke ends not with Paul’s martyrdom, but with his imprisonment. He certainly thought it noteworthy to detail many events in Paul’s life, but neglected to mention his death. A reasonable conclusion would be that Luke finished his work before Paul’s demise. Regardless of when the book was penned, however, Luke was certainly in the company of one eyewitness (James) and likely several others (as we know that Paul met with Peter, John, and others while Luke kept his company and Luke references the “elders”). So, he interacted directly with Jesus’ disciples only twenty-something years after Jesus’ death. As far as sources from antiquity go, Luke is easily among the most credentialed.

ADHERENCE

It should not be surprising that Matthew, Mark, and Luke report similar stories and truths about Jesus. In the early church, the disciples would benefit greatly by preaching a congruent message. What this tells us about the synoptic gospels is that each almost certainly had access to the earliest writings of the church and that each was able to consult with the church founders (i.e. the disciples). It tells us, too, that it was important to the church leaders that the accounts remain steadfast. Each of the synoptic gospels emphasizes different elements of Jesus’ teachings, but each of the three corroborates the key elements of Jesus’ life (though, again, the focus of Mark is limited in comparison):

Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection

Where Mark gave the least detail (likely a result of being the earliest work), Luke is very explicit in his descriptions and delves more into Jesus’ messages of sacrifice and inclusion. He also makes note of times, places, and events in such a way that his descriptions are largely verifiable through archeological and historical means. The meticulous manner in which Luke documents so many details lends even further credence to his work.

DIFFICULTIES

If we look upon the gospel authors as men making an earnest attempt to accurately record history, there is little reason to doubt the validity of each author’s story. What we see with the first three gospels is that each gives an account for a specific audience. Details recorded by one may be left out by another, but nowhere in the gospels do we find contradictions regarding the “key elements” noted above. Debates centering around whether Jesus stood or sat during the Sermon on the Mount only serve to explicate the harmonious nature of the gospels (i.e. the arguments focus on the minutiae).

For this blog, I’m making no claim that the gospel works are divinely inspired. It’s simply too easy to lose oneself in an argument that really does not matter in the grand scheme. If the authors are telling the truth, but are found to have erred when reporting on the color of Jesus’ tunic, the accounts do not suffer. That being said, there must certainly be a threshold for errors associated with “minor details” that should cause pause. Since I’m uncertain as to what this threshold is, I plan to continue to address difficulties presented in the New Testament. I hope that in the end, though, you don’t attempt to “throw the baby out with the bath water” (i.e. toss aside the entirety of the Bible because you’re uncertain whether the soldiers who accompanied Saul on the road to Damascus could “hear” God). On with the fun stuff…

GENEALOGY

Matthew and Luke give different genealogies in reference to Jesus.

Luke’s first reference in the lineage of Jesus tells us that Joseph was the son of Heli. Some have referenced the Talmud to illustrate that the text provides evidence that Mary is indeed the daughter of Heli, and thus Luke was speaking about Heli’s son-in-law Joseph to begin his own version of Jesus’ lineage. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is referencing the lineage of Mary whereas Matthew references the lineage of Joseph. It seems such a trivial matter for Luke to be able to confirm the identity of Jesus’ grandfather that I doubt sincerely that he blundered right out of the gate. The explanation of Luke tracing Jesus’ genealogy through Mary seems to be the most plausible.

CENSUS

Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius. There is a historical record of Quirinius reign beginning around 6CE, so Luke must have been off by a decade or more.

Luke maintains a splendid record of historical rulers. He tracks the dates of antiquity by referencing those in power, since there was no universal western calendar. Because of this, it is relatively easy to verify/dispute Luke’s claims using extra-Biblical texts. One such classic example of a supposed error can be found in Luke 3:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

Skeptics claimed that Luke was horribly mistaken in his dating as Lysanias was known to have been executed by order of Marc Antony 50-60 years before. A later archeological finding, however, vindicated Luke when an inscription was discovered on a temple from the time of Tiberius that explicitly named Lysanias in exactly the timeframe described by Luke. Luke’s descriptions of people, places, and titles have been verified with remarkable accuracy.

As a matter of reference in regards to the census, there existed two bronze plaques outside of the mausoleum of Augustus Caesar that list the “Acts of Augustus” – the emperor’s own list of his 35 greatest achievements. Among these, Caesar lauds his three empire-wide censuses, one of which was begun in 8 B.C. As you can imagine, such censuses took some time to complete (and it is likely that Bethlehem was not priority one), so we find that Jesus’ date of birth would almost certainly fit into the timeframe of the census. So, history supports the notion that Jesus was born whilst a census was being conducted.

Assuming that Luke was simply mistaken with regards to the census when his dates and accounts are otherwise meticulous and accurate is likely incorrect. There are three very valid explanations for this oft-referenced “discrepancy”:

1. Quirinius was a respected military leader during the time of the census. He headed a campaign in the region against the Hemonadensians while Syria was being ruled by an incompetent governor (Varus). Caesar entrusted the task of a census to Quirinius rather than to Varus, thus superseding Varus’ authority.

2. There exists an inscription that was discovered in Trivoli in 1764 which says that the governor of Syria had twice been the governor. The inscription does not name the governor, but some scholars have proposed that Quirinius may well have been appointed as a secondary governor during his campaign against the Hemonadensians.

3. The simplest explanation is simply that the Greek word “prote” can be translated in one of two ways, yielding the alternative translation: “This census was before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”

Oh, and – as noted above – Luke knew Jesus’ brother. There is an ever-so-slight possibility that James could have corrected him were he truly off by over a decade. It seems that the greater likelihood is that Luke was right, but limited sources have left him as-of-yet uncorroborated.

BIRTH STORIES

Luke leaves out the details regarding the family’s flight to Egypt and the events prompting the exodus.

I read a few possible explanations for this, but the only thing that truly matters is this: A lack of detail is simply not a contradiction. The exodus to Egypt strikes a parallel to the Old Testament story that chronicles the enslavement of the Israelites. Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, went out of his way to draw parallels between the Old Testament and the New. The parallel here should not be surprising. Luke may have simply omitted the story. The chronology, however, remains intact.

JESUS’ LAST MOMENTS ON THE CROSS

Matthew says that “Jesus cried out.” Luke cites Jesus as having said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit.” John tells us that Jesus said simply, “It is finished.”

Each of the gospel authors gives writes a different description of what is often called “Jesus’ last words.” Each of these descriptions, however, accord well with one another, even if they are not verbatim. During this period of history, quotations simply did not exist. Jesus’ words may well serve the literary function of bringing the crucifixion story to a close or they may simply be alternative ways of bringing the same message: Jesus spoke His last. In either case, there is no contradictory message. Jesus spoke/cried a message of finality then He died.

THE TOMB

Matthew
Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” visit the tomb.
There is an earthquake that causes the guards great fear.
One angel appears atop the stone and instructs the women to tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Jesus appears to the women after they have left the tomb and tells them that He will visit the disciples in Galilee.
Jesus visits the disciples in Galilee.

Mark
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome visit the tomb.
The stone “had been rolled away.”
One angel (who they see as they enter the tomb) instructs the women to tell the disciples of the resurrection.

Luke
“The women” visited the tomb.
They found the stone rolled away.
Two angels tell them of Jesus’ resurrection.
Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and “others” tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Peter verifies that Jesus is not there.
Jesus visits two men then vanishes after they recognize Him.
Jesus visits the disciples (Luke does not name the location).

Details following the resurrection vary in descriptiveness.

Hopefully, since none of the stories mention the number of women who visited the tomb, the names of the women will not be too terribly appalling to anyone. Each refers to the Mary’s. Luke makes it clear that several others were with the twosome and Mark and Luke each refers to one additional participant by name. A likely explanation is that each chose to name the women with whom they were familiar.

Matthew specifically mentions the guards, whereas the others do not. The others may have simply written under the assumption that their audience would know that the guards were present or simply would not care about a detail that is certainly rendered minor in comparison to the resurrection. In either case, such a detail does not a contradiction make.

Where the stories seem to diverge is in the descriptions of the angel/angels. Part of what I enjoy when reading the gospels is the fact that each has access to very similar sources, but each reports the stories with different details. For example, though Luke almost certainly had access to Mark and reiterated Mark’s descriptions throughout, he reports as fact that two angels were present at the tomb whereas Mark reports only one. Why? The most plausible explanation is that Luke heard and believed reports that two angels were present. Hence, we can conclude that he was earnest in his attempts to relay the story of Jesus. It would be much easier to simply copy Mark’s account.

Is one account wrong? Adherents to the idea of a divinely-inspired scripture would likely point out that Matthew and Mark wrote of one angel who spoke, but did not say that only one was present. Others have hypothesized that the visitors to the tomb may have come at different times. For our purposes, it’s easier to acknowledge the possibility of discrepancies in the texts, since such discrepancies simply would not detract from the story. Certainly the presence of one or two angels is a minor detail in comparison to the major detail of the resurrection.

In the end, the possible discrepancies are so minor and so few that the three synoptic gospels yield a very clear picture of Jesus. Luke is explicit that his sources are second only to Christ Himself and Matthew and Mark corroborate fully Luke’s description of Jesus. The variances in style and details are such that collusion is unlikely. Yes, Matthew and Luke incorporate a large bit of Mark’s gospel into their own works, but each adds a great deal to his own gospel that cannot be attributed to Mark. We’re left with three different sources that tell the same story.

FINAL THOUGHT

I want to reiterate the point that the gospel authors had absolutely nothing to gain by concocting a story of the Christ. Further, the gospels were written years after the death of Christ. The church had already begun. The leaders were already established. From the preservation and spread of the gospels themselves, we can surmise that the early church supported the teachings documented by the synoptic gospel authors. This support should not be taken lightly. If indeed there were multitudinous eyewitnesses as the New Testament describes (and the population of the early church seems to corroborate), written accounts contrary to the actual teachings of the disciples would almost certainly die out as quickly as they were composed. The works that were circulated and mass-produced into the second and third centuries were evidently widely considered to be truthful accounts of Christ. One can still debate whether the ignorant hoards were corrupted by the “false teachings” of the disciples, but I think it is fair to say that the synoptic gospels paint a very clear picture of what the early Christians truly believed.

Mark (Week 19)

Dates

Mark is almost unanimously considered to be the earliest recorded gospel. There are some dissenting theories that place Matthew first; however, it is widely accepted that Mark pre-dates Matthew, Luke, and John. Matthew and Luke, in particular, incorporate much of Mark’s material into their own writings (though each significantly expounds upon Mark’s work), and, as I’ll discuss below, the writing style of Mark is consistent with a transitional piece of literature that seems to rely heavily on oral tradition as a supplement. The vast majority of scholars date Mark to within 30 years post-crucifixion.

Authorship

Again, with Mark, there is a heavy reliance on the tradition of the early church when it comes to authorship. While there is a tendency for some to dismiss Mark based on a lack of “concrete” evidence for authorship, it is important to note that the church in this case is actually quite a reliable and unbiased resource (remember: we’re talking authorship here). Later works speak of Mark as having been an associate of Peter; in fact, references to Mark himself are few and his prominence stems almost solely from his associations. “Major” apostles (e.g. Peter, Paul, and Barnabus), on the other hand, are well-known for their acts. The only recorded “acts” of Mark, on the other hand, are his greetings. (According to church tradition, Mark is the disciple known as John Mark in the Bible – Acts 12:12, 12:25, 15:37-40, Col 4:10, 2 Tim 4:11, 1 Pet 5:13).

Attributing authorship to Mark is historically tantamount to calling it an “anonymous” gospel; it is his sole act of historical importance. There is simply no reason for the early church to invent an author when there were 11+ ready-made authors to whom the gospel could have been ascribed.

Whether you subscribe to the primacy of Mark or Matthew, there is certainly a strong relationship between the two gospels and Luke. If we assume (and most do) that Mark came first, the use of Mark’s text in Matthew and Luke gives further credence to Mark as a legitimate source. Paul, too, cross-references the gospels. Such an interconnectedness and unity in message makes it difficult to simply dismiss any single gospel without dismissing the New Testament as a whole.

Because there is an interrelatedness easily seen when reading the gospels (especially Matthew, Mark, and Luke), I will not focus as heavily here in describing Mark’s beliefs about Jesus. In short, we find that Mark does not refute the core premises as Matthew:

Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection

That being said, there are items on the above list that Mark either omits or downplays. This week, I want to focus on specific notable differences between Matthew and Mark as well as any difficulties associated with Mark, including Mark’s omissions and his seemingly different priorities. This is the approach I will continue to take over the next two weeks.

Omissions

The Book of Mark contains no birth stories and no record of the appearances following the resurrection.

Mark seems to have an utter disregard for Jesus’ place in history. He makes vague geographical and chronological references, whereas Matthew and Luke are much more astute in their attempts to document these details.

He does not document any of Jesus’ long discourses, which can be found in each of the other gospels.

He rarely speaks of Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.

Reasoning

I think the reason for Mark’s omissions and/or lack of detail is two-fold:

1. Mark is widely considered to be the earliest gospel and thus exists in a time when oral transmission of Jesus’ story was still very strong.

2. Mark was addressed to a specific audience.

Oral Tradition

Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) speaks of Mark’s association with Peter. What is often missed, however, is that Papias is not attempting to credit Mark via his associations; rather, he indicts the gospels, considering them to be secondary to oral tradition. Oral tradition, quite simply, was the way of the time. Some, like Papias, felt that written accounts did not provide enough flavor, or did not appropriately encompass the teachings of Jesus. Learning Jesus’ message via oral tradition, on the other hand, required that lessons apply to individual lives and situations. So, there was a sense of practicality lost in written accounts. The very fact that people of the time would debate whether to write things down is a clear indication of just how rich the oral tradition really was.

If we assume that Mark is indeed the earliest of the gospels (as is generally accepted), it’s logical to think of Mark as a transition from the oral tradition to the written word. The oral tradition was obviously serving its function as indicated by the church’s rapid early growth, so it makes sense then that as the number of first-hand sources began to dwindle, the value of written accounts would become more apparent. It is likely that many of Mark’s audience knew of Jesus. Mark was not necessarily attempting to teach the full story of Christ in his writings; rather, he was providing a written supplement to ensure that the core pieces of the story were not lost. Using such logic, it is reasonable to assume that later gospel writings should become more detailed. Matthew, Luke, and John, having written later, would have a better understanding of Mark’s limitations and would have a clearer picture of the ways in which Jesus’ teachings could be misunderstood; as such, they would have more incentive for certifying the details of Christ’s life and teachings.

The Audience

Whereas Matthew was most certainly written for the benefit of the Jews, Mark is written for the Romans. Matthew would be remiss had he not attended to details and Jewish traditions, but Mark’s audience would not be familiar with these elements. In Mark’s position, there is almost an all-or-nothing approach that must be taken: either you compile a synopsis of the Old Testament to accompany your work, or you simply teach about the life and times of Jesus.

The virgin birth, for instance, is of huge importance to the Jews (as it pertains to OT prophecy), but means little to the Gentiles. On the other hand, miracles, general life principles, and the story of the passion are paramount to understanding who Christ was, regardless of your background. I think this is something that can still be seen today. I’ve attended church regularly for years, and it is extremely rare to hear a sermon series on Jesus that ventures beyond his New Testament teachings.

Difficulties (in order of complexity, not chronologically)

Mark 16:8 - And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

As opposed to Matthew:

So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

There are a number of ways to reconcile these verses. It should be noted first that Matthew speaks of their intention, while Mark speaks of their action. Second, while the women ran in fear, it may be that Mark was attempting to convey their intention to avoid speaking on the way to the disciples. Third, perhaps they “told” without ever “speaking.” Certainly, there is nothing here to lead to the conclusion that the two are contradictory.

Mark 16:9-20

These eleven verses are omitted from some Bibles, as they are not present in the earliest manuscripts of Mark. If you own a newer Bible and it contains these verses, it likely mentions the omission somewhere in the text or the notes. I will not use these verses as support.

Mark 6:5 – Apparent Lack of Power

And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.

Taken out of context, it is very easy to view this verse and say, “Aha! Right here in the Bible, you can see that Jesus is limited.” It is important to note the surrounding verses, however, to establish the proper context for this verse. The story is set in Jesus’ home town:

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household." And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief.

Mark tells us that Jesus could indeed heal the sick, and did. So, making the assumption that Jesus quite literally could not perform certain miracles doesn’t seem valid under the circumstances. He was certainly able to heal those who had faith in Him. I think it important to read this verse as an indication of Jesus’ moral objection to performing spectacular miracles. A modern example would be something like:

The governor was known for his stance against the death penalty and had pardoned all walk of criminal during his term; still, he could not pardon the vicious serial killer whose hands and feet were being bound to the table.

I think it is a much greater stretch (especially given the plethora of miracles Mark describes elsewhere) to assume that Jesus literally could not perform great miracles in certain geographical locations, when Mark supplements his statement with the justification for Jesus’ decision.

That being said…

Jesus the Man (Warning: Theory, Metaphysics, and Conjecture Contained Below)

Mark 13:32 does certainly describe limitations of Jesus with the foretelling of Jesus’ second coming:

But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Christians describe God as a Trinity. This concept is extraordinarily difficult to grasp, and I won’t make the claim that I know the perfect answer; however, I will give you my interpretation of the Trinity as it pertains to the Father and the Son (and I beg you to pardon my three-paragraph synopsis of a subject that is not fully comprehended by great Biblical scholars):

God is Jesus and yet the two are separate. Jesus, having a full understanding of God, can fully comprehend purity and divinity. As such, the decisions that Jesus makes while on Earth are right, as God is the standard of right. Still, Jesus cannot possess the qualities of the Father and still be a man. He cannot, for instance, be omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient; else, He would not be human. The New Testament makes it clear, though, that Jesus can openly communicate with God, and so He always has access to perfection. The miracles performed by Jesus, then, are performed via faith and the understanding that when God (the Son) makes claims, God (the Father) sees to it that the claims are honored.

Jesus’ humanity and separate knowledge are displayed in rather strong fashion in Matthew 26:39: "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me….” This plea stems from Jesus’ ignorance. He does not possess the full knowledge of the Father, but does possess the knowledge of His impending death. It should not come as a surprise that one who is physiologically limited in knowledge capacity is also ignorant in some regards.

Lastly, I come back to a point made a few months ago: God (if He exists) cannot be of the universe and therefore cannot be constrained by universal properties such as time. So, although Jesus is separate from the Father, He is never truly separated from the Father, as the Father is not subject to time. In other words, no time passes in eternity while the two are separate, so they are both together and separate at the same “time”. This, I believe, is why God refers to Himself in the Bible as “I am.” Again, this is just me trying to wrap my head around the impossible-to-fully-comprehend concept of eternity, so take it for what it’s worth. I would imagine that other Biblical scholars could provide a different take.

Ideas and verses like those referenced above speak to a sense of honesty in the delivery of the New Testament. Judging from the Jewish tradition of the time, one would not expect a messiah like the one described in the New Testament. So far was the departure from the expected messiah-king, even those who witnessed the miracles first-hand found themselves doubting Jesus’ divinity after the crucifixion. In some ways, the difficulties contained in the New Testament can lead to doubt and questions; in the greater scope, though, it is precisely the inclusion of these difficulties that allows me to fully appreciate the integrity of the New Testament authors.