Dagood's deadwood

“I see a sad tendency (on both sides of the fence, but primarily on the Christian) to “toss out” any conceivable rejoinder to an issue, followed by a sense of satisfaction that the argument was rebutted, succeeded by surprise that the opponent didn’t ‘bite.’”

No surprise that Dagood didn’t respond. He, Loftus, Morgan, and the ex-exbeliever have a history of picking a fight with Christians, then leaving the table before the game is over as they see their pile of chips melting away while they play one losing hand after another.

“Frankly, if the Bible is the sole divine revelation, from the sole source of Truth, I am disappointed that Christians would be willing to reduce the standard of its viability down to ‘any possibility’ rather than what is more likely.”

This is a straw man argument. Neither Jason nor I have argued for any outside chance over what’s more likely.

But I’m not disappointed by Dagood’s straw man argument. He never fails to rise to my low expectations.

“Imagine coming home and seeing your son, baseball bat in hand, a broken window, and a ball rolling around the living room floor. An obvious portrayal of the previous moments comes quickly to mind.”

Imagine concocting a fictitious, self-serving illustration as a substitute for a real argument.

“The clearest example of this is in the debate on inerrancy. An inerrantist will hold to any possible resolution of any contradiction, as if this would satisfy inerrancy. Resolutions that are bent, twisted and contorted to fit that particular moment, and just as quickly discarded in the next discussion.”

The clearest example of this is in the debate on errancy. An errantist will hold to any possible irresolution of any alleged contradiction, as if this would satisfy errancy. Irresolutions that are bent, twisted and contorted to fit that particular moment, and just as quickly discarded in the next discussion.

“Honestly? No body except other inerrantists are buying it. We understand their natural bias to manufacture a resolution.”

Honestly? Nobody except other errantists are buying it. We understand their natural bias to manufacture an irresolution.

“We see the double standard. What is ridiculed in the Qur’an is revered in the Bible.”

What double standard would that be? Muhammad sends his doubters to the Jews and the Christians to verify or falsify his prophetic claims.

So we take him at his word. We judge him by his very own standard.

How is that a double standard?

“A great example of this is David’s Census.”

Ah, yes, the musty chestnut of David’s Census.

“Oh, good. A copyist error. Then can anyone show me the copies that had a ‘3’ rather than a ‘7?’ What? There AREN’T ANY? Then how can I possibly say this is a ‘copyist’ error? And which one (2 Sam. Or 1 Chron.) was the ‘copyist error?’ I wonder if apologists ever get tired of trying to explain these situations for God.”

“If this is a copyist error, and I claim that John 3:16 is a copyist error, how can you possibly argue against it?”

Dagood is such an ignoramus. He knows nothing about OT textual criticism generally or the text-critical status of Chronicles in particular.

He also doesn’t know the difference between NT textual criticism and OT textual criticism. The two are not interchangeable.

i) To begin with, the technical term for this exercise is conjectural emendation. This is not a conservative apologetic ploy. No one is freer when it comes to emending the text of the OT than the liberal scholars.

Not only is Dagood clueless about conservative scholarship, he is equally clueless about liberal scholarship.

ii) Conjectural emendation is a standard feature of OT textual criticism. As the world’s leading OT textual critic explains in the standard work on the lower criticism of the OT:

***QUOTE***

Scholars are aware of the fact that conjectural emendations are hypothetical…Justification for conjectural emendation comes, first and foremost, from the recognition of the imperfections of the available textual evidence. Only a very small part of all the readings that were created and copied throughout the many generations of the transmission of the text are known to us. Many readings have been lost, among which were necessarily readings that were contained in the first copies. Since the evidence that has been preserved is arbitrary from a textual point of view, it is permissible to attempt to arrive at the ancient texts by way of reconstruction.

The extent to which the evidence is random can be illustrated from the Qumran discoveries. Various emendations, made in the manner described above, before these texts were discovered, have now been found actually to exist in the Qumran texts, as shown in Table 1 below. If the Qumran scrolls had not been discovered, these proposed emendations would have remained mere conjectures. The fact that they have been attested in the Qumran texts removes them from the area of conjectural emendation and confers on them the status of variants readings similar to that of all other readings. If more ancient texts like the Qumran texts are discovered, the circle of witnesses for the understanding of the biblical text will be wider and the need for suggesting new emendations will diminish.

E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Fortress 1992), 353.

***END-QUOTE***

Beyond the general evidence is the evidence particular to Chronicles. As one archeologist explains:

***QUOTE***

Recent studies have shown that the Chronicler did not modify his sources at will. Rather, some of his sources arose from a different Hebrew tradition from that of the MT. In addition to the Massoretic tradition preserved in the MT, there also existed a “Palestinian” tradition of the texts of the Pentateuch and Samuel-Kings. It is now clear from comparison of Chronicles with the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Greek translations of the Pentateuch that the text Chronicles used was more like these texts than the MT. Similarly, comparison of Chronicles with parallel passages in Samuel-Kings from 4QSam(a) and 4QSam(b) and 4QSam(c) and the LXX show that the Chronicles text is more like these than the MT versions of Samuel-Kings. The Palestinian text tradition can be identified in the Lucianic LXX, Chronicles, the DDS fragments, and the Jewish writer Josephus. In short, the Chronicler faithfully used the sources he had.

1,2 Chronicles (Broadman (1994), 23.

***END-QUOTE***

Continuing with Dagood’s obscurantist doodlings:

***QUOTE***

And how can we “round” these numbers to get to these two figures (1.3 Million vs 1.57 Million)? Look:

2 Sam. 1 Chron.
Israel – 800,000 1.1 Million
Judah – 470,000 500,000

***END-QUOTE***

But as another scholar explains:

***QUOTE***

According to v9, the figures in Israel and Judah are 8000,000 and 500,000 respectively, while in 1 Chron 21:5 they re 1,100,000 and 470,000 (or, in the LXX, 480,000; cf. BHS) respectively. To complicate matters further, “both Josephus and the Lucianic texts of Samuel show 900,000 for Israel and 400,000 for Judah in Samuel.”

R. Youngblood, EBC 3:1098.

***END-QUOTE***

In other words, there are several variant readings in play. So we have specific textual evidence that the numerical transcription is unreliable in our extant MSS.

Continuing with Dagood:

“Further, one should address the capabilities of a nation in 1000 BC with a possible army of 1.3 Million men. To say they would be a world-power is underestimating the capabilities.”

Except that the Hebrew word (‘elep) has more than one meaning, so which sense we assign in any given occurrence is context-dependent.

As both Baldwin and Youngblood point out, the word in v9 probably means a “military unit” or “contingent.” Cf. 1 Sam 4:2.

As to 1 Chron 27:24, Thompson explains:

***QUOTE***

If one were to read these verses in isolation, they would imply that Joab was to blame for the census and that David was innocent. But this is an allusion to the account in chap. 21 where Joab acted under David’s orders (21:2).

Ibid. 187.

***END-QUOTE***

Regarding the different pronominal forms, Ornan “is a regular variant for” Araunah. Cf. Thompson, 162.

Moving along:

“There was a legend about a census during Kind David’s reign that resulted in a punishment on the people. At various times, and various places the legend modified, based upon who was telling it. Three different authors wrote it down. Being human, and hearing the legends from humans, they wrote different accounts.”

This is another textbook example of Dagood’s inexhaustible ignorance.

If you had three independent accounts, each retelling the same “legend,” then there would be the possibility of mutual contradiction inasmuch as each writer didn’t know what the others wrote.

Like suspects separately interrogated, they never had a chance to get their stories straight.

But this disregards the literary dependence of Chronicles on Samuel. As Thomson explains:

“It seems clear, and it is generally agreed, that the Chronicler’s primary source was the books of Samuel-Kings in the Palestinian tradition,” ibid. 23.

The Chronicler already knows the account in Samuel. What is more, his audience knows the account in Samuel.

So some of the differences are deliberate editorial differences rather than inadvertent mistakes.

There is more theological complexity to the Chronicler’s account because he is heir to a literary tradition, taking Samuel-Kings as his point of departure, and also because he is writing from a post-exilic perspective. So his is a more subtextured account, having, as it does, the additional layering of the Exile to furnish retrospective insight in the history of the Davidic monarchy.

For instance, the Chronicler introduces Satan as an intermediary. This does nothing to bring the earlier account into conflict with the later, but merely augments the earlier account with an ulterior dynamic. Cofactors are complementary, not contradictory.

“If it weren’t in the Bible, every person would agree it was ‘human error’ every time. That is why simply coughing out some words that would align one part of one clause of one story, while disregarding the more likely probability of human error is not persuasive.”

If the Bible is like any other book, then the Bible should be treated like any other book. Dagood’s inference is only probable because he begs the question in favor of unbelief by assuming all along that the Bible is just like any other book.

His contention is only persuasive if you accept his prejudicial assumption.

Suppose we back up and begin with a different operating assumption. Is it possible that there is a God? If so, is it possible that such a God would reveal his will to man?

Suppose God revealed himself in a book written some two to three thousand years ago.

If such a thing had happened, would a modern reader never be at a loss for an easy explanation?

Of course not!

An author always assumes more than he says. He assumes a shared background of common knowledge.

We, in reading the Bible many centuries after the fact, lack that cultural preunderstanding. There will be gaps in our understanding of how certain things go together.

It’s the same if you’re reading Dante or Shakespeare. Heck, it’s even the same if you’re reading a modern author like Wittgenstein.

I could run through some of Dagood’s other examples, but it’s not my job to do his research for him. His whole case is based on culpable ignorance of the standard exegetical and text-critical literature.

Upcoming Movie About Mary And Jesus' Birth

BK of the CADRE Comments blog has linked to this story about an upcoming movie on Mary and Jesus' birth.

The Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic vs. The Foreign-Eschatological Hermeneutic

Bobby Grow Says:
May 17th, 2006 at 1:22 am

Interesting discussion! Although I find it highly problematic, for the Covenant/Amil side to argue for a “normative” NT hermeneutic, as it appears, Evan, you’re endorsing/forwarding. In other words it seems that the Covenant exegete assumes that he/she has been able to discern a uniformed hermeneutic merely by observing the “way” NT author’s “used” the OT. How is this possible when the NT authors in fact used many different interpretive principles, i.e. midrash, atomization, spiritualization, allegory; and further they used different “text-types”, i.e. LXX and Hebrew Text, in a seemingly “ad hoc” kind of way (albeit under the inspiration and authority of the Holy Spirit–which of course we aren’t privy to). If this is true how do you Evan, make the arguement that you do, of approaching the OT through the NT lens in a normative way?

1. The Pendulum swings both ways. The Covenantal hermeneutic interprets the Old Testament in light of the New testament. The Dispensational hermeneutic interprets the New in light of the Old. Both camps must defend their hermeneutical methods. We don’t simply assume a Dispensational hermeneutic until we find something better.

2. The nature of the hermeneutic lies in the nature of the Testaments of the Covenants: the New Covenant is new, better, more clear. And the revelation of the New Covenant (the New Testament) more clearly presents Biblical truth. Which Testament more clearly presents the doctrine of the Trinity: the Old or the New? Which Testament more clearly presents the deity and person of Christ: the Old or the New? Which Testament more clearly presents justification by faith: the Old or the New? The resurrection of the saints? The second coming of Christ? This isn’t to state that the Old Testament is deficient in these categories (the more we dive into the Old Testament, the more we note its richness in presenting doctrinal treasures). Rather, this is simply to recognize a Biblical fact: the New Covenant Testimony brought clear revelation in categories where the Old Testament gave but a glimpse.

3. Much of the Covenantal hermeneutic isn’t so much “the way NT authors used the OT,” but simply being fair to a text in its own context. Dispensationalists habitually rip OT prophecies from their redemptive-historical context and force them into a foreign eschatological context. It’s almost as if Dispensationalists believe that the prophets couldn’t find a topic to speak about: one moment they’re talking about restoration from the exile; the next moment they’re talking about folks disappearing out of their clothes on an airplane.

4. When Jesus claims that all of the Scriptures speak of him, he means it.

5. But, it must be noted that the Covenantal hermeneutic is not some knee-jerk, arbitrary dogma of “spiritualize any Old Testament prophecy whatsoever.” Rather, we deal with texts on their own merit. We want to be fair to what the text itself states, and we exegete them on a case-by-case basis (and for this reason, I am glad that Bobby posed a text rather than simply speaking generically).

As an aside, often the Dispensational interpretation of certain passages is hardly “literal,” but “literalistic.” That is, the application of the text is something terribly foreign to the historical context. Take Daniel 9, for instance. Daniel, in searching the Scriptures, realizes that the 70 years Jeremiah predicted were about to come to a close (9:2). And while he prays in response to this (his prayer, by the way, is permeated with covenantal references to God. Keep that in mind when you read that one whom Dispensationalists believe to be the antichrist will “confirm a covenant with many,” 9:27), Gabriel appears to him in a vision (9:21), and he tells him that “seventy sevens” and “sixty-two sevens” (references to sabbatical weeks, Lev 35:1-4) are decreed to follow (9:25). That is, a total of 490 years (an ultimate Jubilee, Lev 24:8), the messianic age. But the Dispensational interpretation of this text (the supposedly “literal” interpretation) forces an at least 2000 year break (or “an indeterminate gap of time”) between the end of the sixty-ninth and seventieth week, a disjunction which the text no where posits. This is directly contrary to the Dispensationalist’s professed “literal” hermeneutic! And this forcing of something into the text which is not present (something that used to be called “eisegesis”) has terrible consequences: confusing Christ with the antichrist!

For example how does the Amil/Cov deal with a passage like this:

“And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, who shall stand as a banner to the people; for the Gentiles shall seek Him, and His resting place shall be glorious. 11. It shall come to pass in that day that the LORD shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Assyria and Egypt, from Pathros and Cush, from Elam and Shinar, from Hamath and the islands of the sea. 12. He will set up a banner for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” –Isaiah 11:10-12 NKJV

How does the amillennialist interpret this to correspond to the “church”? The passage clearly makes a distinction between ethnic Israelies and Gentiles (the church—just like Rom. 9—11 does). This seems to, indeed, be a crux-interpretum (“difficult interpretive passage”) for the amillennial interpreter. In other words there are “two” returns spoken of in this passage. They are both post-exilic, i.e. the first one referencing the return in Ezra-Nehemiah–but what of the “second” return? This seems to be speaking yet proleptically to a “future” time in the “last days”. If you say the “second” gathering is referencing the “church” this seems precarious given the reference to the “gentiles” in vs. 10, and not only that, but its primary referent (i.e. the people of the second gathering) and elucidation is made clear vs. 12b. Again making a distinction between the “Nations” and the “nation” of Israel (i.e. the remnant).

I would argue that this second gathering indeed finds correlation, yet future, at the time that Christ sets up the “physical” side of the Davidic Kingdom (I’m Prog. Disp.), thus initiating the Messianic Age and His thousand yr reign (Rev. 20).

Anyway, I’d be interested in hearing your response . . .

1. Just as a quick note: there is nothing “millennial” about this text. Even if an Amillennial interpretation fails, that does not justify the assumption that this passage is connected with Revelation 20. There are so many components in this text that are absent in Revelation 20, and vice versa.

2. If Bobby will permit, I’d like us to instead look at a parallel promise. This prophecy shares the same language of the Isaiah 11 text, and, no doubt, Bobby would connect this text as well to Rev 20, but this text has something which the Isaiah 11 text does not have: a New Testament interpretation. Here we go:

Amos 9:11-12 In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name,” declares the LORD who does this.

How did the Apostle James interpret this passage when he needed to address an issue relevant to the Church?

Acts 15:13-20 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’ Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

James viewed this prophecy as being fulfilled in Christ’s resurrection and in the reconstitution of his disciples as the new Isreal. Notice that both Jews and Gentiles are present, which should not only answer Bobby’s question, but prove that the prophecy had been fulfilled.

When James applied this text to the Church, was he “spiritualizing” the Old Testament text? Was it some knee-jerk, “read it figuratively!” mentality that drove James to this interpretation, or was he rightly reading it though a Christocentric lens?

“After this” tells us that the prophecy referred to what God would do for Israel after the exile. Dispensationalists assert that “after this” refers to “after the age of the church.” But this is foreign to the Acts 15 context. Paul and Barnabas were seeking guidance on a matter that was immediate to them: must Gentile converts be circumcised? And James, in addressing this topic, was not pointing to a distant future millennial age. Rather, his interpretation of the text led to an application to their very present concerns.

The Dispensational interpretation of this text is hardly the “plain meaning.” It completely ignores the context of Acts 15 and puts a subject into the mouth of James for which he had no concern when he spoke these words.

Evan May.

Another strike out

Dagood tries to shore up a sagging argument from a previous post:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-was-paul-taking-road-trip.html

“The first thing to note is that Paul himself never refers to receiving any letter or authority from the high priest, in his description of his own testimony. (Gal. 1:17; 2 Cor. 11:32)”

Given the difference in genre between a letter and a historical narrative, we wouldn’t expect the same detail in a letter.

“In fact, if one studies what Paul said in his letters compared to what the Gospel writers wrote, or what Acts records, it is amazing the different contrast. According to Acts, after Damascus Paul went to Jerusalem within a short period of time. (Acts 9:27) According to Paul, Barnabas did not introduce him until 17 years later!”

No, that’s not what Paul says. In Galatians he records two separate trips to Jerusalem (1:16-2:1).

Dagood is such a fuzz-brain.

“What was Paul, a Pharisee, doing in cohorts with the high priest, a Sadducee?”

The question answers itself. He was in cohorts with a Sadducee because the Sadducee was the high priest.

The high priesthood was a divine institution, whoever the incumbent.

Also, the Pharisees and Sadducees needed each other: the Pharisees needed their opponent’s power while the Sadducees needed their opponent’s popularity. You work with the people in power.

“Would a Pharisee align themselves with a Sadducee? Not likely. Possible? Yes. Probable? Not hardly.”

They were using each other. Quite likely.

“Strike one.”

Yes, strike one against Dagood.

“Now look at the political climate. Damascus was not part of the Roman Empire.”

How does Dagood know that?

He summarizes a story from Josephus. But Josephus never says Damascus was exempt from Roman control.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that Luke and Josephus disagree. All that would prove is a conflict between two 1C historians. It wouldn’t prove who was right and who was wrong.

The notion that Damascus was no longer under Roman rule is sometimes inferred from the absence of Roman coins from Damascus between AD 34-62.

But as one scholar observes, “Roman coins are extremely rare even under Augustus, Tiberius, and Nero,” M. J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Eerdmans 2005), 822.

So this is an argument from silence, and an especially weak version of the argument from silence.

According to Josephus, Syria had been a Roman province since 64 BC. Because Damascus included a Nabatean colony, they had an ethnarch or leader of the ethnic community to represent their parochial interests, but that alone would by no means remove it from Roman control.

Cf. Harris, ibid. 822; Longenecker, EBC 9:369-70.

Actually, the fact that Acts 9:24-25 and 2 Cor 11:32-33 both have Paul escaping arrest by the same ingenious means is exactly the sort of independent coincidence that you would expect of two historical records.

“Strike Two.”

Against Dagood.

Dagood then elaborates on his original argument, with heavy helpings of colorful hyperbole.

But rhetoric is no substitute for evidence, and I’ve already dealt with this objection, both above and in my earlier post.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/05/bodily-resurrection-of-christ.html

“Strike Three.”

Against Dagood.

“Who, exactly, was it that wanted Paul killed after his conversion? The answers seem to be all over the board.”

“An obvious reading of Acts 9:23 is that the “Jews” conspired to kill him. But Paul says in 2 Cor. 11:32 that it was the governor of Damascus that wanted to arrest him. Nothing about any Jews.”

This is such a simple-minded objection. Any extradition will require at least two parties to execute the transaction. There’s the party seeking the extradition of the fugitive, as well as the local authority which must cooperate in granting or facilitating his apprehension.

Dagood is so clueless.

“A further oddity is that the author of Acts records Ananias (the healer of Paul’s blindness) as being a Disciple. (Acts 9:10) Yet the author records Paul saying that Ananias was a devout observer of the Law and respected by all the Jews. (Acts 22:12) Which was he? Could one be a Christian AND respected by the Jews? Then would the Jews have persecuted Christians? Or Paul?”

This fails to distinguish between the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem and the Diaspora Jews in Damascus.

“Strike Four.”

Agreed. Dagood struck out—as usual.

***QUOTE***

In order to maintain historicity in Acts one would have to maintain that a Pharisee aligned with a Sadducee (unlikely) to write a letter (dangerous, fatal and unnecessary) to perform an act that was either not occurring at all, or occurring regularly anyway.

In conclusion—Acts is not history. It does not conform to what Paul wrote. It does not conform to what we see in history. If a person is going to accept any explanation, no matter how contrived and contorted, to make it fit, I can do nothing about it. And what I see is a bias toward a proposition, and an insistence on maintaining it regardless of the probabilities.

That’s O.K, but I do not see a neutral jury buying it.

***END-QUOTE***

Having rebutted his specific allegations, once again, what about his court room analogy?

The defense team calls an expert witness on 1C Greco-Roman history (Luke). Their witness is a 1C Greco-Roman historian who lived in very the time and place he is reporting on. He also has a wide circle of informants.

The prosecution team also calls an “expert” witness on 1C Greco-Roman history (Dagood). Their witness is a 21C lawyer living in the U.S.

Whose testimony would a neutral jury give greater weight to?

The bodily resurrection of Christ

Dagood tries to reinterpret 1 Cor 15 along visionary lines.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/05/paul-and-visions.html

He begins by arguing that Paul was a visionary. But this is arguing for something which was never in dispute.

Moving along:

“First we need to look at Paul’s own writings. This was a man who thought people (arguably himself) could either in-body or out-of-body “project” to the Third Heaven and could hear things not permissible to tell. (2 Cor. 12:1-5). If someone said that today, would it be thought of as a physical event, or a spiritual vision?”

Here, context is key.

“Paul stated he had so many exceedingly great revelations, he could even become conceited. (2 Cor. 12:7) If someone said that today, would it be a physical revelation, or a spiritual vision?”

Once again, context is key.

“Paul believed that Jesus spoke directly to him in actual words. (2 Cor. 12:9; 1 Cor. 11:23; 1 Cor. 7:12. Acts 18:9).”

i) This is probably true with reference to 2 Cor 12:9.

ii) But 1 Cor 7:12 and 11:23 have reference to dominical tradition. See Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 525,866-67.

iii) Also, 1 Cor 7:12 doesn’t say Jesus spoke to him. It says the very the opposite. Perhaps Dagood is mistaking v12 for v10. Pity a lawyer who can’t read the fine print!

iv) The divine speaker in Acts 18:9 is not identified, although it could be Jesus. Since, however, Dagood regards Acts as a historically worthless account written by someone who was not a traveling companion to Paul, how is this probative?

v) This poses a dilemma for Dagood:

a) If Acts is unreliable, he can’t use it to interpret Paul and thereby support the hallucinatory hypothesis.

b) But if Acts is reliable, then Dagood should be a Christian.

“He did not receive a Gospel from men, but from revelation from Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11) If someone told you that Jesus actually spoke to them in English words, would you think it actual, or a vision?”

Revelation and visionary revelation are not interchangeable.

“When did Paul get all this information from Jesus? Certainly not prior to his conversion. Apparently not at his conversion. Paul speaks of growing information, and learned experiences throughout the progression of his books. Paul was continually getting revelation, and quotes from Jesus. Now, is the Christian maintaining that Jesus physically re-appeared and discussed these things with Paul? Popping in and out on various occasions?”

This is simplistic. Paul got his gospel from several sources. There was his inspired reading of the OT. There was his divine commission. But he also received some elements of dominical tradition from his contact with the church of Jerusalem. Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 88-9; R. Longenecker, Galatians, 24; M. Silva, Explorations in Exegetical Method (Baker 1996), 157-58;

“Why would we, when Paul himself admits in belief of possible “out-of-body” experiences in which a person can enter Paradise, and hear inexplicable things? Paul admits that his comings and goings are dictated by these revelations. (Gal 2:1) Was that a physical appearance?”

i) I guess he means 2:2. Another sloppy citation.

ii) Once again, revelation and visionary revelation are not interchangeable.

“If someone said that today, would we think the new information, the new revelations were spiritual visions, or Jesus physically appearing?”

Depends on the actual wording and context.

“What does Paul say about his own conversion? Not much. He says he was persecuting the church of God, and then God revealed His son “in me.” (Gal 1:16) What little study I have done, indicates the Greek word apokalupto is an internal revelation, not external. In means exactly that—“in” as within the limits of space. Paul does not claim, here, that Jesus was externally revealed to him, but internally revealed in him. In fact, Christians today would use this same language, without even thinking of the implications of a physical appearance.”

Actually, as Silva explains, Paul probably chose this verb for its eschatological overtones. Ibid. 172-73.

“And (with one exception) that is it on what Paul writes about seeing Jesus. Now let’s look at what the author of Acts records.”

Okay.

“[Side note: Why I doubt Acts as being historical. Acts. 9:1 has Paul asking the high priest for letters to the synagogues in Damascus to take prisoners back to Rome. A Pharisee, asking a Sadducee for a letter of authority in a city in which the high priest had no authority whatsoever. In fact, if found with the letter, it is very likely the high priest would be killed for trying to exert power outside his domain by the Romans. An unlikely request for an unnecessary letter that is only trouble.]”

i) To begin with, 9:1-2 (once again, Dagood’s citation is imprecise) does not specify a formal right of extradition.

But it would only be natural for Paul to have an official letter of reference.

In addition, patronage and favoritism were the social glue of the ancient world.

ii) Beyond this, there is evidence that Roman conferred the right of extradition on the Jewish state (1 Macc 15:21), and such a right was reaffirmed with special reference to the high priesthood by Julius Caesar (Josephus, Anti. 14:192-95).

If Dagood were not such a slob, he could find the documentation in Bruce’s commentary on the Greek texts of Acts (233).

“Does Paul see Jesus? Nope. He sees a light and hears a voice. (Acts 9:3) It should be noted that Paul did not recognize the voice; let alone any claim to recognize a face that wasn’t seen. The people with him did not see anyone.”

If he doesn’t see Jesus, then how is this an argument for the hallucinatory theory of the Easter appearances? Dagood’s contention is self-defeating.

“God himself now says that Paul has a vision. (Acts. 9:12) A straight reading of the text would be that Paul saw a light, and later saw a vision of some sort.”

The vision in 9:12 is not the Damascus Road encounter. And it says nothing about a flash of light followed by a vision. So this is by no means a straightforward reading of the text.

Dagood is conflating two different events.

“But perhaps the author of Acts is adding their own bend to the story.”

Why does Dagood use a plural pronoun (“their”) with a singular noun (“author”)? Does Dagood suffer from double vision?

Maybe he doesn’t have a real copy of the book of Acts before him. Perhaps it’s just a visionary copy.

“ Let’s see how the author records what Paul says happened. Nope, again we have a bright light and a voice. (Acts 22:6-7) No mention of Jesus.”

No mention of Jesus in 6-7 because Jesus is mentioned in v8. Either Dagood needs a new pair of glasses or else his visionary copy of Acts lacks v8.

“Think on this for a moment. This is a fellow that has so many revelations; he has a problem with pride. He talks regularly of Jesus teaching him directly.”

This, as we’ve seen, overplays the actual state of the evidence.

“Yet the one thing he does NOT say is ‘Jesus appeared to me on the road.’”

i) All three conversion accounts single out Jesus as the divine speaker (Acts 9:5; 22:8; 26:15). Dagood is such a buffoon.

ii) Anyway, even if, ex hypothesi, Jesus did not appear to Paul in a vision, then how, again, is this pertinent to the hallucinatory theory/

“According to Acts, immediately after recounting his tale of seeing this light and hearing this voice Paul DOES refer to a later instance in which Jesus appeared to him. In a trance. (Acts. 22:18) If Paul deliberately and particularly refrains from stating he saw Jesus at this event, how can the Christian claim to know more than Paul? “

Which event? The Damascus Road encounter? As I just said, Jesus is specifically identified as the object of the sighting.

“When Paul tells the tale to King Agrippa (same thing. Lights. Voice. No Jesus) he refers to it as a vision. (Acts. 26:19)”

i) Obviously wrong. See 26:15.

ii) Yes, a vision. Subjective or objective?

“If someone said this today, would you believe that Jesus actually physically appeared, or that this was a spiritual vision?”

If the vision affected other eyewitnesses, as did the Damascus road encounter, then it would be a physical event.

“Taking all of this into account, if there was nothing more, we would be done. Paul speaks as if these were visions; Acts speaks as if these were visions.”

Note the persistent equivocation of terms. Objective vision or subjective vision?

“So now we come to the lone applicant for a physical appearance—1 Cor. 15:8 Paul says Jesus appeared to Peter first (the Gospels say some women) and after that to Peter (the gospels have two unknown followers) then the Twelve (the Gospels only have eleven.) Paul records Jesus then appeared to over 500 (not in the Gospels) and then to James (not in the Gospels) and then to all the apostles (possibly in Matthew. You know—where some of them doubted.) Then, finally to Paul.”

We’ll pass on this tendentious summary.

“When? When did Jesus make this appearance to Paul? Before Paul’s conversion? This is extremely problematic, because it would mean that Paul saw Jesus post-mortem, and was not convinced.”

A non-issue.

“At Paul’s conversion?”

Yes!

“This is contrary to both what Paul says in Galatians, and what Acts records as having happened.”

No!

“Yes, I know the Sunday School stories all have Jesus appearing in the flash of light. Just not what the authors record, even though the author immediately records events of Jesus appearing at a later time.”

Actually, Dagood’s grasp of the Bible has not advanced over Sunday School. If anything, it’s regressed.

“The only possible remaining time, is some period after the conversion event.”

Name two or three Pauline scholars who takes this position. What are their arguments?

“Which starts to create problems.”

Yes, bad interpretations have that effect.

“If Acts is going to be considered History, Paul records having visions of Jesus while in a trance.”

“Visions of Jesus in a trance.” I thought Dagood only gave one example of that. Where did the plural sneak in?

“When Paul uses the word ‘appear’ in 1 Cor. 15, he could easily be meaning that as in ‘appear in a vision.’”

If you turn a blind eye to the context.

“Remember, this is the fellow that believes people can have auditory visions in the Third Heaven; it is not out of the realm of possibility, that he can hold to visual visions in this world.”

Actually, that’s quite a leap for exegetical purposes.

“We are always informed that ‘Scripture must interpret Scripture.’”

This is a slogan. A more correct formulation would be to interpret a writer according to his own usage as well as the given context.

“ If every other verse points in one direction, and one points in another, we are to look at the anomaly and see how it fits to all of the other instances.”

Except that every other verse does not point in one direction. This is an exaggeration, based on slipshod exegesis—if you can even call it exegesis.

“Every other verse points to Paul believing he had spiritual visions in Jesus. Spiritual Revelations. Spiritual conversations. Some while in a trance.”

Repeating an overstatement and retailing equivocations doesn’t make the claim any truer than before.

“If, in 1 Cor. he says Jesus ‘appeared to him’ and elsewhere these appearances are visions, the most natural conclusion is that Paul is talking about visions.”

Nothing like a valid conclusion from a false premise!

“In fact, in order to get the results desired, the Christian must abandon the normal claim of Scripture interpreting Scripture!”

Abandoning a popular slogan. Hardly the same thing as grammatico-historical exegesis.

“If the Christian is claiming Paul is stating a physical appearance, when did it occur, and why was it not recorded?”

Several confusion at work:

i) Paul never wrote a gospel. The epistolary genre is quite different from the narrative-historical genre.

ii) The case for the bodily resurrection of Christ has never been predicated on Paul’s conversion experience. That’s a red herring. Even if it were a subjective vision, this would be wholly indifferent to Luke 24 or Jn 20-21.

iii) Dagood is assuming, without benefit of argument, that Paul would use his conversion experience as an interpretive grid for the nature of the resurrection. That’s a non sequitur.

Paul never turns his conversion experience into a hermeneutical paradigm for the nature of the resurrection.

If we want to know what Paul thought of the resurrection, you don’t try to infer this from his experience as a seer, or the use of a verb in his account of the Damascus Road encounter.

Rather, you study his explicit and extended teaching on the subject in the totality of 1 Cor 15.

“I have compared these visions to Virgin Mary appearances, and wondered why Christians hold Paul’s visions as actual, but not the Virgin Mary’s. I have been informed they are nothing alike. Let’s see.”

What Dagood then proceeds to do is to studiously ignore all of my detailed argumentation, and, instead, appeal to his new-fangled argument for the commonality between Marian apparitions and Pauline visions.

I have now responded both to Dagood’s old argument as well as his new argument.

He, by contrast, has not even replied to my original rejoinder.

But that’s fine. His silence is an admission of defeat, which is why he tried to mount a new argument—one that is, unfortunately for him, not more successful than the last.

Who Broke the Covenant?

Daniel Morgan has been arguing in my comment section that God has failed to keep his covenant promises with Israel. This is an audacious claim indeed, for all over the Bible God is praised for his “covenant faithfulness.” Daniel argues that Israel kept its end of the deal, but God failed to keep his end.

I responded with a quick comment giving the overview of Covenant Theology: how all of the Old Testament covenants pointed to and were fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. Now Daniel states:

It appears we are talking past each other. I never said I noticed something no one else had. What I pointed out is indeed plain and obvious: that the promises, PLURAL, of the OT covenant were in fact failed promises. I’m specifying the words, “If X, then Y”, where the people in the covenant keep X and God doesn’t keep Y. It’s pretty simple.

You’re doing the same thing that the followers of Jesus did in post-72AD, reading into these promises as only about Christ, when, of course, the covenant had been established via circumcision and laws and was holistic and self-containing. God promises all these people if they do X then God will do Y, and in looking back, since Y isn’t done, the blame automatically goes to the people, that they somehow didn’t keep the covenant, although right up until the time of Titus’ invasion, the Temple was still functioning, and Jews were still orthodox–some promise to “establish them”. How were they supposed to interpret the plain words of the OT as “an obscure figure will arise and you need to forget all the plain meanings of the prophecies and read them symbolically”?

It’s like a lot of things in theology–easily accessed 2000 years later upon hours of scholarly study of a NT canonized around these very issues (like natural selection–the pieces that don’t fit are excluded).

Address the “If X, then Y” portions, Aaron. Nowhere in the laws and regulations of the OT was there an “X” which lines up with “believe in Jesus and repent of your sins and etc.” Why else does modern-day Judaism continue unabated? The plain words of their own books give them no indicator…it’s all these obscure prophecies, but no “X” conditionals.

1. When it comes to the covenants, there are two hermeneutical camps: the dispensational school and the covenantal school. The dispensational school sees a future, literal fulfillment of these covenants: in the future, God will restore the nation of Israel under David’s throne and fulfill physically his covenant promises.

But what matters is not what we think was in God’s mind when he made these covenants, but what God actually had in mind when he made them. What were his intentions? And dispensationalism, sadly, misses the point. It turns texts that are so obviously pointing forward to Christ on their heads (Daniel 9). To transform a text that speaks of the Messiah into a text that speaks of the Antichrist is no small error!

And, by the way, the covenantal hermeneutic isn’t some arbitrary rule of “whenever there is a literal promise, interpret it symbolically.” Rather, Covenant Theology is based upon consistent and contextual exegesis of the relevant passages. There really is no point in you and I arguing back and forth in generalizations. Let’s go to the text of Scripture, shall we? And let’s exegete those promises which you think God failed to keep.

2. You’re assuming the inspiration of the Old Testament, but not the inspiration of the New Testament. You are not fully embracing the internal critique of the Christian worldview. From my perspective, God inspired both testaments, so the Apostles’ explanations in the New Testament are God’s explanations.

3. On a side note, you assume that X was fulfilled. You state, “right up until the time of Titus’ invasion, the Temple was still functioning, and Jews were still orthodox.” But does that mean they fulfilled their side of the covenant? Re-read texts like Matthew 23 again, and the major and minor prophets.

Joel 2:13 Rend your heart, and not your garments.

Hosea 8:13 They offer sacrifices given to me, and they eat meat, but the Lord is not pleased with them.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings. Like Adam, they have broken the covenant–they were unfaithful to me there.

Furthermore, the theme of books like Jeremiah and Ezekiel is plain: Israel has broken the covenant, therefore God, in his mercy, promises a New Covenant, a covenant which they will not break:

Ezekiel 36:25-27 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

This isn’t something that the New Testament authors made up. This came straight from the Old Testament. Re-read the book of Hebrews, and notice the texts the author uses to prove his case. What does the author of Hebrews state concerning this Jeremiah text?

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

4. Daniel states, “It’s like a lot of things in theology–easily accessed 2000 years later upon hours of scholarly study of a NT canonized around these very issues (like natural selection–the pieces that don’t fit are excluded).” Oh please, do you really expect me to take you seriously when you embrace the Dan Brown hermeneutic when it comes to the canon? I suggest that you reconsider your premature assertion that God failed to keep his promises while Israel was perfectly faithful if you cannot even get your historical facts straight when it comes to the New Testament canon.

5. Daniel raises an objection that is at least 2000 years Old. This isn’t something that is “easily accessed 2000 years later” alone. This is an objection that the Apostle Paul himself addressed:

Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel

6. Everything in the Old Testament, including the Old Covenant, points to Christ:

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me

Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Hebrews 9:10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of the new order.

1 Peter 2:6 For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.

Daniel assumes the negation of this fact in his arguments, and thus he abandons the internal critique. But, again, I suggest that we cease arguing in generalities and look at the actual texts. It is one thing for Daniel to assert that these promises necessitate a literal and physical fulfillment; it is another thing for him to defend his assertions exegetically.

Evan May.

The Muslim conundrum

In the early days of his “prophetic” career, Muhammad made claims like these (in three different translations):

005.046
YUSUFALI: And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
PICKTHAL: And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
SHAKIR: And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).

005.047
YUSUFALI: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
PICKTHAL: Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.
SHAKIR: And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.

005.065
YUSUFALI: If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, We should indeed have blotted out their iniquities and admitted them to gardens of bliss.
PICKTHAL: If only the People of the Scripture would believe and ward off (evil), surely We should remit their sins from them and surely We should bring them into Gardens of Delight.
SHAKIR: And if the followers of the Book had believed and guarded (against evil) We would certainly have covered their evil deeds and We would certainly have made them enter gardens of bliss

005.066
YUSUFALI: If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil.
PICKTHAL: If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.
SHAKIR: And if they had kept up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet there is a party of them keeping to the moderate course, and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do

010.094
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
SHAKIR: But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

010.095
YUSUFALI: Nor be of those who reject the signs of Allah, or thou shalt be of those who perish.
PICKTHAL: And be not thou of those who deny the revelations of Allah, for then wert thou of the losers.
SHAKIR: And you should not be of those who reject the communications of Allah, (for) then you should be one of the losers.

029.046
YUSUFALI: And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."
PICKTHAL: And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our Allah and your Allah is One, and unto Him we surrender.
SHAKIR: And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

There’s a certain artless charm in Muhammad’s naïveté. In his ignorance of the Bible, the church, and the synagogue, he appeared to believe, in all sincerity, that what he was preaching was the very same message you could find in the Bible.

And in his incautious innocence, he made the Jews and Christians—the People of the Book—his judges.

If you had any doubts about his prophetic vocation, go to the Jews and Christians for confirmation.

As time went by he became aware of his mistake. This accounts for the discrepancy between the earlier Meccan surahs and the later Medinan surahs.

Now, this presents the Muslim with a conundrum. On the one hand, there’s no positive evidence that Muhammad is a true prophet of God.

On the other hand, there is also positive evidence that he was a false prophet.

This presents the Muslim apologist with an acute difficulty. If what Muhammad said was false, then he’s a false prophet; but if what he said was true, then he was also a false prophet.

For if he truly said the Bible was the standard of comparison, then he’s convicted by his very own yardstick.

How can a Muslim apologist get around this?

i) To the extent that the Muslim world is a closed society, the issue never comes up. Ignorance is the best defense.

ii) And where ignorance is an insufficient disincentive, the law of apostasy will take up the rear. Beheading for conversion is a wonderful deterrent.

But there are times, such as Muslims living in an open society like the United States, when ignorance and coercion are not a readily available.

In this case, the only move a Muslim can made is to deny the identity between the Bible that Muhammad was talking about and the Bible we have today. And this can be done either by attacking the (a) text of Scripture or else attacking the (b) canon of Scripture.

But both moves raise more problems than they solve.

Regarding textual criticism:

i) There is, at this point, a fundamental asymmetry between Islam and Christianity. For the text of the Koran could be word perfect, yet that would not suffice to either prove Islam or disprove Christianity.

On the other hand, the text of the Bible must thoroughly corrupt for Islam to be even possibly true.

So the Muslim apologist is already beginning at a distinct disadvantage.

ii) Then there’s the question of when the Bible was corrupted. Where’s the window of opportunity? Where’s the evidence?

In principle, a Muslim could say this occurred before Muhammad came on the scene. Recently, Muslims have seized upon the writings of Bart Ehrman, a renegade Christian, to advance their claim. But there are two problems with this appeal:

a) Ehrman’s argument has come under sustained and mounting criticism:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/05/heterodox-corruption-of-bart-ehrman.html

b) In addition, it’s self-defeating for a Muslim apologist to say the Bible was hopelessly corrupted before Muhammad was born, for if it were irremediably corrupt in his own time, then he’d hardly be sending doubters to Jews and Christians to vouch for his prophetic credentials.

iii) And it will hardly suffice to say the NT was hopelessly corrupted after he died, for he died in the 7C AD. By then you had copies of the Bible all over the known world. There would be no way to recall all these copies, destroy them, replace them with doctored copies, and reissue them. Not only would that be impossible to do, but even if it were possible, it would be impossible to cover up.

iii) And let’s keep in mind the degree of corruption that is necessary to reconcile to Koran with the Bible.

Among other things, the Koran denies the divinity of Christ, as well as the crucifixion, and therefore denies the Resurrection.

Actually, the Koran seems to be inconsistent on the death and resurrection of Christ, but surah 4:157 has been privileged as the paradigmatic passage, against which opposing surahs are harmonized.

So, in order to square the Koran with the Bible by appealing to textual corruption, one must suppose that the original text of Scripture never taught the divinity of Christ, the crucifixion, or the Resurrection.

And yet the deity of Christ, the crucifixion, and the Resurrection are pervasive themes in all our copies of the NT. Was all this interpolated after the 7C AD?

iv) Yet another problem confronting the Muslim apologist is that, to my knowledge, the Koran never accuses Christians of corrupting the NT.

A most, it accuses the Jews (or Medinan Jews, in particular) of corrupting the OT.

And even in that respect, the charge seems to be, not that they tampered with the text, but that they misquoted or misrepresented the content.

v) Yet another problem with this appeal is that textual criticism is a doubled-edged sword. For the text of the Koran is also a matter of acute and ongoing dispute:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/index.html

On this score, Muslims have a habit of quoting conservative Muslim scholars on the textual history of the Koran while quoting liberal scholars on the textual history of the Bible. Note the double standard.

Regarding the canon, they have a parallel problem.

i) The 7C Hijaz was surrounded by Christian cultures in Syria, Egypt, and Palestine, representing the eastern Roman Empire, along with Ethiopia and her colonies (e.g. Yemen) at the other end.

Study any standard monograph on the NT canonics (e.g. B. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament; F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture).

Was there ever any 7C canon of the Eastern Church in which you had no witness to the deity of Christ, or his crucifixion and resurrection?

ii) And it will hardly sufficient to say that Christians of the 7C Hafiz represented some heretical sect, for, if so, Muhammad would scarcely refer doubters to a heretical sect of Christendom to confirm his message.

iii) There is also a tension between the appeal to a variant text and a variant canon.

Appeal to textual corruption assumes that we’re dealing with the same canon, so that the only way of harmonizing the Bible with the Koran is to allege textual corruption.

But if we’re not dealing with the same canon, then there’s no need to allege textual corruption in order to harmonize the Bible with the Koran. Not, at least, if the canon in use by 7C Christians of the Hijaz is so idiosyncratic as to omit any reference to the deity of Christ, or his crucifixion and resurrection.

So the appeal to either a variant text or a variant canon or both is a purely opportunistic exercise on the part of a desperate Muslim apologist.

iv) There is, in fact, something of an internal relationship between canonics and lower criticism.

On the basis of textual criticism alone, David Trobisch takes the position that the NT canon was standardized by the mid-2C.

He has done this on the basis of certain standardized features in the MSS tradition, such as the number and order of the NT books, titles, nomina sacra, and the use of codices.

To quote a few of his arguments:

“It does not matter when or where the MS was written, whether it is a majuscule or a miniscule, whether the text was written on papyrus or on parchment; and it does not matter whether the text is taken from the Gospels, the letters of Paul, or the Revelation of John. Any MS of the NT will contain a number of contracted terms that have to be decoded by the reader: the so-called nomina sacra, sacred names,” The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford 2000), 11.

“Aside from the characteristic notation of nomina sacra there is another fascinating observation concerning the canonical edition: from the very beginning, NT MSS were codices and not scrolls,” ibid. 19.

“The arrangement and the number of NT writings in the oldest extant MSS of the Christian Bible provide the most important evidence for describing the history of the canon. Methodologically, varied sequences of the writings in the MSS demonstrate that the writings circulated separately at first and were combined to form different collections later. This statement may also be reversed: if the same number of Gospels, letters of Paul, general letters, &c., are presented in the MSS in the same order, it follows that these MSS are based on an established collection,” ibid. 21.

“The four oldest extant MSS [Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, & Ephraemi Rescriptus], which at the time of the production presented a complete edition of the NT, were produced during the 4-5C,” ibid. 24.

It seems that none of the four MSS served as a master copy for any of the others and that they were produced independently. Furthermore, each of these four MSS constitutes a compete edition of the Christian Bible. They all contain the writings of the OT followed by the NT,” ibid. 25.

“By comparing the sequence of the writings in the four oldest extant editions of the NT, the four collection units of the MS tradition are easily identified: The four-Gospel Book, the Praxapostolos [i.e. Acts], the Letters of Paul, and the Revelation of John.”

“Because most of these MSS were produced after the 5C, at a time when the number of the 27 canonical writings had been firmly established, the division of the NT into collection units does not attest to different stages of the canon. The reason for such a division is probably a purely practical one. Smaller books were easier to bind, transport, and read. In case of loss or destruction, only the affected volume had to be replaced. Moreover, readers were not equally interested in each of the four units; some were clearly more popular than others,” ibid. 26.

“Examining the titles of the NT writings, one of the first observations is that they are transmitted with few variants. They are structure the canonical edition in this way: Gospels, Praxapostolos [i.e. Acts], letters of Paul, and Revelation of John,” ibid. 38.

“The titles serve to group the individual writings into collection units. The organizing function is clear for those letters that are numbered: the letters to the Corinthians, Thessalonians, and Timothy, and the letters of Peter and John.”

“Three additional groups are easily discerned: the four Gospels, the seven general letters, and the letters of Paul. The titles of the remaining two writings, Acts and Revelation, contain a genre designation in their first part, just like the titles of the three groups do,” ibid. 41.

“The archetype of the collection most probably was entitled he kaine diatheke, ‘The New Testament.’ Due to their fragmentary character, the oldest MSS do not preserve the title page. The uniform evidence of the extant tradition, however, strongly suggests that this was the title of the archetype,” ibid. 43-44.

Trobisch attributes subsequent debate, not to an effort to arrive at a consensus regarding the canon, but to a retrospective argument over the preexisting canon, as codified by standard editions of the entire NT then in circulation. Cf. Ibid. 34-35.

Talking out of turn

After the affable and adaptable Patrick Chan, of the world renown http://merbc.invigorated.org/, did on post on Dr. White's recent debate with a Muslim apologist, another Muslim apologist (two, in fact), paid a visit to his combox.

Here, for what it's worth, is my own take on some of what "Rambo" had to say.

"However, I suppose that if a text is known to be textually uncertain,
whatever the percentage, then we would naturally have to study all of
its statements more carefully in order to ensure as best we can that
the text in question is "original" and not the product of adaptation
by a later scribe before we decide whether or not the claims are
historically plausible."

This is misleading. Transcriptional errors are not that randomized.
Rather, they follow a certain pattern in terms of the types of
inadvertent mistakes which a scribe is apt to make.

"Not a problem. According to Muslims, Muhammad was illiterate, he
could not read and write, and so he had scribes to whom he dictated
the surahs and they wrote them in his presence and then recited them
back to him for verification. Muhammad had over 30 or 40 scribes
(sorry I can't remember the exact figures right now), who were
basically his followers and companions. Thus Muslims believe that the
Quran is the verbatim word of God, revealed to Muhammad though the
angel Gibrael, which Muhammad then recited to the scribes for
transcription. If you are interested to pursue this topic in-depth, I
would suggest you take a look at the following book: M. M. Azami, The
History Of The Qur'anic Text From Revelation To Compilation: A
Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, 2003, UK Islamic
Academy."

"Nonetheless, having said this, I will state that my confidence in the
general Quranic outline of Jesus and his mission was immensely raised
after I read a couple of books on the subject of the historical Jesus
by NON-MUSLIM scholars, books by scholars such as E. P. Sanders, Paula
Fredriksen, Geza Vermes, C. M. Tuckett and many other scholars."

"The following is a list of some of the leading scholars whose
writings I have read or am still reading: Bart D. Ehrman, David C.
Parker, Michael W. Holmes, William L. Petersen, Helmut Koester, Kim
Haines-Eitzen, James D. Miller, John J. Brogan, Eldon J. Epp, Harry Y.
Gamble."

Notice an emerging pattern. Rambo quotes conservative Muslim scholars
on Koranic textual criticism, but he generally quotes liberal
Christian or Jewish scholars on NT textual criticism and early church
history.

"You also enquire how do we know that the stories about Jesus within
the Quran are "authoritative"? I suppose you are trying to ask how do
we establish if the stories about Jesus within the Quran are
HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. Well, that's a different matter altogether. For
me personally, I cannot "prove" that the virgin birth is an historical
event even though I accept it as a real actual event. This acceptance
is based on my faith and belief in the Quran as God's word. Basically,
we cannot "prove" scientifically, historically or archaeologically
that miracles such as the virgin birth of Jesus did take place. It
takes faith to accept these stories."

It takes a lot more faith for a Muslim the absence of certain lines of
evidence available to the Christian with respect to the Bible, viz.
archeological confirmation, the argument from prophecy, the argument
from miracles.

"Correct me if I am wrong, but the last time I checked Christians were
in quite a disagreement over the issue whether or not the New
Testament is divinely revealed."

Yes, I'm more than happy to correct him. He is failing, no doubt
deliberately, to distinguish between the self-witness of the NT and
whether liberals are prepared to believe the self-witness.

"According to most Christians, the plenary verbal view of inspiration
is not a valid model. Hardly any Christian would be willing to state
that the New Testament was "revealed". Most Christians adopt a model
of inspiration according to which the New Testament are documents
composed by human authors, not "revealed" documents, but that somehow
the Holy Spirit "guided" these authors."

This is muddled. To speak precisely, all of Scripture (=the Bible) is
inspired, but not all of Scripture is revealed. Revelation is a
subcategory of inspiration. Revelation would involve direct
information from God, bypassing ordinary sources of information. There
are many examples of revelation in Scripture. However, God, by
inspiration, and can also make use of ordinary sources of information.
Apart from the author of Revelation, no author of the New Testament
claims to be writing "inspired" documents.

i)What we have in the NT are certain programmatic passages (e.g.  Jn
14; 16; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21), as well as certain authoritarian
claims (e.g. Paul) which are applicable to the NT generally.

ii) Let's also remember that the NT takes the OT as its model of
inspiration and revelation. The NT didn't come out of the blue. It is
building on a prior foundation, as an extension of that inspired
cornerstone.

"Moreover, once we compare these writings, we note that the authors
occasionally make grammatical mistakes, spelling mistakes, sometimes
write in confused Greek as well. So, the documents do not appear to be
"special" on a prima facia level."

i) This trades on an equivocation of terms. Grammar and spelling have
no truth-value. They make no truth-claims. A misspelling or
grammatical error is neither true nor false. It is not a true or false
statement about something.

ii) Rambo is also assuming that there was a standardized form of
spelling in the Koine era.

iii) Grammar is a social convention, and it varies according to your
social class.

iv) Rambo has fallen into a trap. In order for him to assert that the
NT writers make these mistakes, he would have to admit that our extant
MSS give us access to the autographa. But if our MSS are as corrupt as
he would have it, then grammatical errors or misspellings in our
extant MSS are not directly traceable to the autographa.

"Why then should I start off with the presupposition that they are
"inspired" or "revealed" writings, especially when none of the authors
- apart from 1 - claimed to have been "inspired"? "

i) Because the Koran, in the Meccan surahs, commits Rambo to the
revelatory status of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures (e.g.
5:45-46,65-66; 10:94; 29:46).

ii) And if Rambo tries to weasel out of this dilemma by claiming that
the Meccan surahs are only applicable to Jews and Christians in the 7C
Hijaz, then he cannot turn around and appeal to the Medinan surahs to
prove that the corruption of the OT and NT extended beyond the
confines of the 7C Hijaz. So he has a choice between one dilemma and
another.

iii) It also won't do for him to suppose that the Christians of the 7C
Hijaz had a different canon of the Bible, for even if that were so,
the discrepancies between the NT and the Koran involve such doctrines
as the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Are we to suppose that
the NT canon of Christians from the 7C Hijaz had no books recording or
alluding to the crucifixion or resurrection of Christ? Think about
that for a moment.

"To me you seem to be giving the impression as if I "made up" or
"invented" the claim or idea of New Testament textual corruption. On
what basis would I claim that the New Testament documents underwent
corruptions during the course of their transmission? Well, the same
basis which has convinced all textual critics - the Greek manuscripts
of the New Testament, particularly the earliest ones. We look at
manuscripts, compare them and so know how texts were adapted at
times."

Do all textual critics say the earliest MSS are the most corrupt?
Rambo is obviously attempting to insinuate radical primitive error in
the course of transmission.

"No, I was arguing that, as you also stated, Muhammad, who lived
centuries and centuries after the composition of the New Testament and
Old Testament writings, who could not speak a word of Greek either,
and who was basically illiterate, could have been in no position to
conduct painstaking studies to know that the previous writings had
underwent corruption during the course of their transmission. Yet,
despite all these hurdles, his claim turns out to be rock solid…so,
this is just one indication for me personally that he was being
inspired by God. Of course, this isn't the only reason why I accept
him as a Prophet, but it does make me wonder how he could have gotten
so many facts right."

i) To my knowledge, Muhammad, in the Koran, never accuses the
Christians of corrupting the text of the NT. At must, he accuses the
(or some) Medinan Jews of corrupting the text of the OT.

ii) There is also an obvious tension between the view of the Bible in
the Meccan surahs and the view of the Bible in the Medinan surahs.

"As for the Jewish Bible, I would recommend the following reference by
one of the leading scholars on the Qumran scrolls: Eugene Ulrich, The
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Studies in the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Related Literature), 1999, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company."

This is a little off the beaten track. Isn't Emanuel Tov the leading
OT textual critic?

"Metzger is without a doubt the "daddy" of textual criticism, second
to none, but, of course, some scholars would differ with some of his
views. Nonetheless, I would also recommend you the LATEST edition of
Metzger's book, particularly because it is co-authored with none other
than Prof. Bart Ehrman."

To call Ehrman a coauthor is an overstatement. This is the fourth
edition. Metzger is now a ninety-something, so he can't do it all
himself anymore. But this is a revision of his standard monograph. It
doesn't rewrite the whole thing. The main difference is that Ehrman
has interpolated some stuff into the third edition from his Orthodox
Corruption of Scripture.

"Again, Metzger agrees in the latest edition that there are many
variants in the New Testament mss tradition which are of immense
theological and historical significance, over which the entire meaning
of passages hinders, so that they cannot just be conveniently ignored.
Moreover, he has an interesting section on the "original text" as
well, together with information on the transmission of the New
Testament in the earliest period - when most of the corruptions
emerged."

i) We need to distinguish the sections penned by Metzger from the
stuff by Ehrman.

ii) In addition, certain variants do concern Christological verses. In
that sense they are more substantive that misspellings. Due, however,
to the redundancy of NT teaching, a high Christology doesn't depend on
any disputed verse.

iii) Moreover, the examples of intentional "corruption" to further a
high Christology come from later MSS in the Alexandrian tradition. But
we can still make our case, with plenty to spare, from earlier MSS.

The Hallucination Theory And Non-Pauline Sources

A lot has been said in recent articles here about the hallucination theory as it relates to the evidence we have from the writings of Paul. In this post, I want to focus more on non-Pauline sources.

In recent articles responding to material posted here, Matthew Green and Dawson Bethrick have raised objections to the resurrection accounts we have in the gospels and Acts. Green has suggested that Luke's gospel, for example, contains unhistorical details written in response to Docetism. Bethrick has gone even further, quoting Earl Doherty and suggesting that the Jesus of the gospels might be radically different from the Jesus Paul believed in.

Why is dismissing the data in non-Pauline sources so important for proponents of the hallucination theory? Because while some of the data from Paul is inconsistent with a hallucination theory, the data in non-Pauline sources is even more so. The non-Pauline accounts describe an empty tomb, the touching of Jesus' resurrection body, etc.

To get an idea of how significant a problem this non-Pauline data is for advocates of the hallucination theory, think about the number of people involved. The gospels and Acts were composed by four different authors, and one of those authors claims to have relied on multiple sources (Luke 1:1-3). When documents like Hebrews and 1 Peter appeal to apostolic authority, we're seeing, in part, an appeal to eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ. We know that eyewitnessing the resurrected Jesus was necessary for apostleship (Acts 1:22, 1 Corinthians 9:1). Documents like Hebrews and 1 Peter reflect a widespread early concern for apostolic authority and, thus, eyewitnesses to the resurrection. And the evidence we have regarding what the early Jewish opponents of Christianity were arguing about the resurrection (Matthew 28:15, etc.) would be representative of many people in Judaism, not just one person. A lot of people were involved in producing the historical data we have related to Jesus' resurrection. Any theory that proposes some sort of deception or change in belief will have to account for widespread deception or widespread change of belief.

Paul wasn't the only early source concerned about the details of the resurrection. It's unlikely that we would see such a widespread acceptance of a physical view of the resurrection and the evidence for it in these non-Pauline sources if Paul and his contemporaries believed in a non-physical resurrection or believed in a physical resurrection without much concern for evidence supporting it. Those who suggest some sort of radical change from the time of Paul to the time of the writing of the rest of the New Testament are suggesting something highly unlikely.

We know, from 1 Corinthians 15 and other evidence, that the earliest Christians were concerned about eyewitness testimony and preserving information about Jesus' resurrection appearances. It would make sense in such a context for accounts like the ones we see in the gospels and Acts to be preserved. But since those accounts present so many problems for the hallucination theory, proponents of that theory will often suggest that these resurrection accounts were either entirely fabricated or altered around the time when the documents in question were composed. Thus, Luke or his sources, for example, either made up the resurrection accounts in Luke and Acts or took historical accounts and added unhistorical elements to them. What we're to conclude, then, is that the early Christians either didn't preserve any of the eyewitness accounts in documents like the gospels and Acts or preserved them in an altered form.

Given the value the early Christians placed on eyewitness testimony, and specifically on eyewitness testimony to the resurrection, it's unlikely that they would fail to preserve any detailed resurrection accounts. And given the fact that eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus and the apostles were still alive when documents like the gospels and Acts were composed, theories like what's described in the paragraph above are unlikely to be true. The more radical an alteration of the historical accounts, the less likely those alterations are to gain widespread acceptance. Even on matters less significant than a resurrection, disciples of a teacher would tend to be more careful in preserving tradition than critics often suggest:

"The burden of proof thus rests with New Testament scholars who betray an unduly skeptical bias toward the Gospel accounts (on the question of the burden of proof, cf. Goetz and Blomberg 1981: 39-63); such scholars must imply that disciples who considered Jesus Lord were far more careless with his words in the earliest generations of Christianity than first- and second-generation students of most other ancient teachers were (see Davies 1966a: 115-16; Benoit 1973/1974: 1:33). Especially given how much of Jesus’ teaching was disseminated in public during his lifetime, the sort of ‘radical amnesia’ this skepticism requires of Jesus’ first followers (Witherington 1990: 14) is certainly not typical of schools of other early sages." (Craig Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], p. 29)

The issue here isn't whether any mistakes could be made. Rather, the issue is whether it's likely that so many people could be misled into accepting such radically unhistorical accounts as we supposedly have in sources like the gospels and Acts. If two or three details in the resurrection narratives are unhistorical, that's one thing. But if critics want to suggest that every gospel is radically unhistorical in its resurrection accounts, and that Acts is radically unhistorical, and that the early enemies of Christianity who acknowledged the empty tomb were wrong about such a tomb even existing, and that the sort of early post-apostolic resurrection traditions we see in Ignatius of Antioch, for example, are highly inaccurate, then that's a different matter. Saying that people sometimes hallucinate or sometimes forget things doesn't justify a conclusion that widespread hallucinations, memory losses, apathy, etc. occurred every time skeptics need it in order to maintain their naturalistic theories.

In an article posted here last month, I discussed some of the evidence we have for the credibility and traditional authorship attributions of the gospels. We know that the early Christians wanted evidence for the authorship attributions of the books of the New Testament. Disputes occurred over books like Hebrews and 2 Peter, and the early Christians acknowledged the existence of those disputes. Yet, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were universally accepted, and John's gospel was almost universally accepted. (A small group opposed it on doctrinal grounds, but they had no significant historical case against Johannine authorship.) We have good reason to accept the traditional authorship attributions of all four gospels. And the early claim that Mark relied on Peter as his primary source is credible, for reasons such as the ones discussed here. Thus, the gospels can be said to represent the testimony of Matthew, Peter, and John, who would have been eyewitnesses of the resurrection events. Luke wasn't an eyewitness of those events, but he was an eyewitness of Paul, and he was in contact with James (Acts 21:18), so his testimony is significant, especially with regard to Paul.

Proponents of the hallucination theory therefore have a motive to look for reasons to dismiss what the early Christians reported about the origins of all four gospels and the book of Acts. If these documents were written by two eyewitnesses and two disciples of other eyewitnesses, then the claim that every one of these documents is radically unhistorical in its resurrection accounts becomes even more unlikely. But even if the early Christians were correct about the identity of just one of these four authors, there would be significant problems for the hallucination theory. Thus, the proponent of such a theory is put in the absurd position of either trying to dismiss every one of the authorship attributions of the gospels and Acts or suggesting that sources so close to the truth were somehow mistaken.

Think about what the gospels and Acts tell us. We know that expectations play a major role in hallucinations. And all four authors tell us that the resurrection witnesses weren't expecting to see Jesus resurrected (Matthew 28:1-6, Mark 9:10, 16:1-3, Luke 24:11, John 20:25, Acts 9:1, etc.). We also know that while there can be general similarities among the hallucinations of different people, higher levels of detail are unlikely to be shared. Hallucinations occur within the mind of the individual. Yet, all four gospel authors report that the resurrection witnesses shared detailed experiences at the same time (Matthew 28:1-7, 28:16-20, Mark 16:5-8, Luke 24:13-31, John 21:20-23, Acts 1:3-11, etc.). Hallucinations don't interact with the physical world, yet all four gospel authors refer to physical evidence produced by the resurrection (Matthew 28:9, Mark 16:4-6, Luke 24:42-43, John 21:9-13, etc.). Similarly, the early Jewish opponents of Christianity acknowledged the empty tomb, and Ignatius of Antioch reports a possible extra-Biblical tradition involving the disciples' touching Jesus resurrected body (Letter To The Smyrnaeans, 3).

Since the popular Jewish view of resurrection involved transformation of the physical body that died, and since the early Christians were claiming a physical resurrection, we would expect people who thought they saw a resurrected person to look for physical evidence. The physical evidence mentioned in the gospels and other early sources therefore makes sense in a Jewish and Christian context, so there's no need to speculate that the early Christians were fabricating physical evidence in response to Docetism. A concern for physical evidence would have existed all along. There wouldn't have been belief in a physical resurrection without it.

The problem for advocates of the hallucination theory isn't just that it's difficult to dismiss the traditional authorship attributions of the gospels and Acts. Even if we were to grant their dismissal of the traditional authorship attributions, why should we think that the gospels and Acts give us accounts radically different from what the eyewitnesses reported?

There are many details within the resurrection narratives that suggest historicity. See here, for example. Critics will often make much of something like the alleged contradictions in the accounts of Paul's conversion in the book of Acts. But if the author was Paul's companion Luke or anybody else who had early and reliable information on Paul, which seems probable, then how likely is it that the accounts of Paul's conversion would be wrong in every detail? Perhaps the element of Paul's conversion that critics most desire to dismiss is the report that Paul's companions shared Paul's experience in some manner. Such a shared experience is problematic for any hallucination theory. Yet, all three accounts in Acts mention the fact that Paul's companions shared in the experience (9:7, 22:9, 26:14). The three accounts can be reconciled, but even if we were to grant the claim that they're contradictory, why should we think that a first century author (apparently somebody who knew Paul) would three times refer to an element of Paul's experience that didn't actually occur? The author of Acts apparently was with Paul when he spoke about his conversion (Acts 26:12-27:2). The same author also reports that Paul's conversion was coordinated with a supernatural experience Ananias had, and the author claims to have seen Paul perform miracles. Did Ananias and Paul just happen to have independent hallucinations that brought them together? Was Luke (or some other author of Acts) mistaken about every one of the miracles he thought he saw?

The typical answer in some circles is to say that every one of these early Christian sources might have been mistaken, so it's reasonable to conclude that they were mistaken. That sort of failure to distinguish between the possible and the probable is a hallmark of modern skepticism.

Any hallucination theory that's proposed needs to account for non-Pauline data like what I've discussed in this article, and making a vague dismissal of the gospels and Acts isn't sufficient. Paul died in the 60s. Eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus and the apostles lived as late as the second century. To say that a document like Mark or Luke postdates Paul is not equivalent to proving that it was written at a time when people could make up whatever they wanted to make up and gain widespread acceptance for their fabrications. The human faculty of memory didn't die with Paul.

It also won't do to just assume naturalism from the outset:

"The problem here can best be understood, I think, as a disagreement over what sort of explanations constitute live options for a best explanation of the facts. According to the pattern of inductive reasoning known as inference to the best explanation, in explaining a body of data, we first assemble a pool of live options and then pick from the pool, on the basis of certain criteria, that explanation which, if true, would best explain the data. The problem at hand is that scientific naturalists will not permit supernatural explanations even to be in the pool of live options. By contrast, I am open to scientific naturalistic explanations in the sense that I include naturalistic explanations in the pool of live options, for I assess such a explanations using the standard criteria for being a best explanation rather than dismiss such hypotheses out of hand. But [atheistic scholar Gerd] Lüdemann is so sure that supernatural explanations are wrong that he thinks himself justified in no longer being open to them: they cannot even be permitted into the pool of live options. But, of course, if only naturalistic explanations are permitted into the pool of live options, then the claim or proof that the Hallucination Hypothesis is the best explanation is hollow. For I could happily admit that of all the naturalistic explanations on tap, the best naturalistic explanation is the Hallucination Hypothesis. But, of course, the question is not whether the Hallucination Hypothesis is the best naturalistic explanation, but whether it is true. After all, we are interested in veracity, not orthodoxy (whether naturalistic or supernaturalistic). So in order to be sure that he is not excluding the true theory from even being considered, Lüdemann had better have pretty good reasons for limiting the pool of live options to naturalistic explanations. So what justification does Dr. Lüdemann give for this crucial presupposition of the inadmissibility of miracles? All he offers is a couple of one–sentence allusions to Hume and Kant….Now Lüdemann's procedure here of merely dropping names of famous philosophers is sadly all too typical of theologians….Hume’s argument against miracles was already refuted in the 18th century by Paley, Less, and Campbell, and most contemporary philosophers also reject it as fallacious, including such prominent philosophers of science as Richard Swinburne and John Earman and analytic philosophers such as George Mavrodes and William Alston. Even the atheist philosopher Antony Flew, himself a Hume scholar, admits that Hume’s argument is defective as it stands. As for philosophical realism, this is in fact the dominant view among philosophers today, at least in the analytic tradition. So if Lüdemann wants to reject the historicity of miracles on the basis of Hume and Kant, then he’s got a lot of explaining to do. Otherwise, his rejection of the resurrection hypothesis is based on a groundless presupposition. Reject that presupposition, and it’s pretty hard to deny that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the facts." (William Craig)

Bethrick's Blunders: Or, Up Dawson's Creek Without A Paddle

Steve Hays asks, "who is Dawson, anyway?" Well, Steve is not up to date on his pop culture. Dawson Bethrick is the man (who thinks with his own mind) who the WB based an entire series on. Dawson resembles his television doppelganger, except our Dawson is about a foot (or so) shorter than James Vanderbeek.

Growing up in Capeside was hard for poor Dawson. Trying to be the "good guy" never got him anywhere and so, out of subjective and selfish desires, he questioned meaning in life, this led him to reject God (Dawson claims to have been a Christian in his formative years). Dawson's buddy, Bob Reynolds (named "Pace" on the show), eventually taught Dawson about the world's greatest philosopher - Ayn Rand. Since then Dawson has found all of the answers to life by simply repeating a little mantra in times of need - "Existence exists!" Dawson also found stability back in the 90's by finding out that he does not need to prove or justify any of his beliefs as long as he calls them "axioms." Existence is axiomatic, the reliability of the senses is axiomatic, concepts are axiomatic, and, axioms are axiomatic.

These axioms, coupled with carrying around "The Fountainhead" wherever he goes, has led to some amazing philosophical advancements. For example, when Dawson wrote a post on one of the anonymous' comments we learned some pretty heavy-duty philosophical insights. Dawson writes,

If the question is as simple as “Where did life come from?” I have a simple and incontrovertible answer: life came from existence. Anyone who wants to claim that life came from non-existence, is free to present his case any time.

And don't you dare ask where "existence" came from, for "Existence Exists!" A problem here, though, is that "existence" doesn't "exist" on a materialist and nominalist understanding of the world. "Existence" is a universal that can be said to be exemplified by exisTENTS. Thus I can kick a rock, I can't kick "existence." Thus I can blow up a house, I can't blow up "existence." Therefore, "existence" doesn't "exist" on a materialist and nominalist understanding of the world (I've asked Bethrick to send me a picture of "existence" and not an "existent." His answer was, "I don't have a digital camera, or else I would." Needless to say, hardee har har). So, it looks as if, on Dawson's own terms, life came from something that does not exist, since "existence" does not exist (again, on materialist and nominalist understandings). To be technically correct, Dawson's position, then, is that life came from an existENT, or many existents. So, boiled down, Dawson's claim is that "life came from things:" "Hey' Dr. Smith, where did life come from?" "Well, don't you know, life came from stuff." "Oh, you're such a brilliant professor Dr. Smith. Why didn't I think of that?" "Well, maybe you would have if you were a man and you thought with your own mind." Now that is sophisticated.

Recently, Dawson has
written a post arguing against Steve Hays' and Jason Engwer's arguments against the hallucination theory of the resurrection. Dawson writes:

... there is an even larger concern here. While we are told that coincidental mass hallucination "seems unlikely," this is stated in the context of a defense of a belief system which tells us that "all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26), that the universe was created by an act of consciousness, that dead people rose from their graves (cf. Mt. 27:52-53), that serpents and donkeys and burning bushes speak in human languages, that water was turned into wine by a wish, etc. To assess the likelihood of some event or occurrence under consideration, a thinker, whether he realizes it or not, is making reference to fundamental premises that he holds about the world in general. As some apologists might say, he is "invoking his worldview presuppositions." Greg Bahnsen explains:
presuppositions have the greatest authority in one's thinking, being treated as your least negotiable belief and being granted the highest immunity to revision.(5)

What 'seems likely' to me is that the apologist is not mindfully conscious of his own worldview's basic premises and their implications as they concern the issues on which he makes such pronouncements. He is torn between the premises of the position he wants to defend, and premises he employs in that position's defense: on the one hand, the Christian's position affirms a fanciful, cartoon-like view of the universe where anything the ruling consciousness wishes is not only possible, but the very standard of reality as such; while on the other hand he seeks to dismiss alternatives to his paradigm on the basis that certain elements of those alternatives "seem unlikely." There's a fundamental inconsistency here, one that usually runs along undetected by the believer as he insists on a fantasy while illicitly borrowing from a reality-based worldview. On the basis of my worldview's fundamentals, I can consistently suppose that it is "highly unlikely" that a group of individuals will have the same hallucination, complete with shared uniform details, and for reasons not unlike those which Jason himself has mentioned. For instance, an hallucination is not only an individual and private experience, its distortion of what one perceives is most likely to be influenced by such an enormous number of imperceptible factors that it would be essentially unrepeatable. But if I held to the view that the universe is run by a magic spirit who choreographs all events in human history according to a divine "plan," on what grounds could I confidently say that uniform hallucinatory experiences shared by even enormous numbers of human beings is either "unlikely" or impossible? Blank out.

If one follows the above type of reasoning, one will usually wind up lost. I call this phenomena: Up Dawson's Creek Without A Paddle. Let's look at some of the problems:

1) Dawson's verse he uses to show that "anything can happen, willy-nilly" in a Christian theistic universe, is specifically talking about salvation.

2) Does that verse really mean that anything can happen, that anything is possible?

a) If so, Dawson's should provide an argument for it. He needs to because his case rests on this.

b) Just because it uses a word that is universal, does not mean that is how it is being used in this passage. There is such a thing, which philosophers of language recognize, as restricted quantification. Philosopher of language William Lycan, speaking on restricted quantification, writes that, "What logicians call the domains over which quantifiers range need not be universal, but are often particular cases roughly presupposed in context" (Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction, p.24).

c) Is there more to the story? That is, should we assume that this is not to be taken universally because of other basic presuppositions? Well, the Bible tells us that, indeed, not everything is possible. For example, God cannot lie or deny Himself (Titus 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:13). Also, it was "impossible" that death should hold Jesus (Acts 2:24).

d) Therefore, Dawson's foundational premise has been refuted.

3) Since that premise has been cut off at the knees, Dawson's other points are nothing but hasty generalizations. God creating the world, talking animals and the like, does not imply that we should suspend belief on, say, the resurrection because since those things happened, maybe hallucinations happened. Maybe they did, but you're not going to get there from where Dawson starts.

4) Dawson mentions that the things we believe show our fundamental beliefs about the world as a whole. I agree with him on this. The problem, though, is that Dawson only gives half the Christian story. God is the determiner of what is possible and impossible. On the basis of God's revelation, I believe it was "impossible" that death should hold Jesus. Furthermore, the Bible reports these things as true. It reports the sightings as true sightings of the risen Jesus, not hallucinations. So, taking in to account the rest of the story, I have every right to believe that these things happened, and that they were not hallucinations. The Bible proclaims that these people witnessed the resurrected Lord, it proclaims this as fact. So, holding to my fundamental presuppositions, I do rule out the hallucination story (this is not to go against what Engwer has argued, but is a presuppositional approach to the matter). Thus, Dawson asks the believer to take only part of his story, while neglecting other crucial aspects. Christianity comes as a unit.

5) The mere fact that God could have deceived people, does not imply that He did. This is a modal fallacy.

6) Dawson makes reference to what the believer is "torn" over. As I illustrated above, the believer is only "torn" if he leaves out other parts of his worldview. Thus Dawson's critique looks like thus: RESTATED: "If the Christian only believes some parts of the Christian worldview, then he'll have problems believing other parts." Sorry, but this is not intellectually convincing, in the least. Thus Dawson's attempts at an internal critique is a completely abortive one.

7) Dawson makes mention of a cartoon universe. Well, if ours is a cartoon universe, his is a fairy-tale one: "Once upon a time (read: "billions and billions of years ago"), a frog turned in to a prince (read: "one species turned in to another species"). It's also an alchemists worldview. The alchemists tried to get qualities to turn in to their opposites, such as making gold from led. Well, in Dawson's fairy-tale universe we have: scales turning in to feathers, the non-flying acquiring flight, the non-moral becoming moral, the non-rational becoming rational, etc.

8) Dawson says we're inconsistent because we have fantasy intertwined with reality. Well, if all you need to do to win is label someone's view false, then Dawson has a problem, "one that usually runs along undetected by the believer as he insists on [fairy-tales and alchemy] while illicitly borrowing from a reality-based worldview."

9) An, last but not least, we find ourselves up Dawson's creek without a paddle. Dawson writes,

On the basis of my worldview's fundamentals, I can consistently suppose that it is "highly unlikely" that a group of individuals will have the same hallucination, complete with shared uniform details, and for reasons not unlike those which Jason himself has mentioned. For instance, an hallucination is not only an individual and private experience, its distortion of what one perceives is most likely to be influenced by such an enormous number of imperceptible factors that it would be essentially unrepeatable.

Therefore we see that if Dawson is to be consistent with his "worldview's fundamentals" then he should believe in the resurrection and deny that it was hallucination (note that the hallucination approach does not have more explanatory scope in that it fails to address the empty tomb)! Dawson's "worldview fundamentals" lead him to affirm fundamentals of a "cartoon universe!"

At the end of the day, though, no argument of this sort is going to convince a man who loves his sin. We are told that even in the presence of the resurrected Lord, "some doubted" (Matt. 28:17).

Engwer points out:

Here we see another example of how Dawson Bethrick doesn't understand the issues he's discussing. Christians don't argue that hallucinations would be supernaturally impossible. What Christian ever denied that God could produce mass hallucinations? That's not the issue. Rather, the issue is the unlikelihood of these hallucinations occurring naturalistically. If Bethrick wants to argue that God made these people hallucinate, then we can interact with that argument. Until then, our focus will be on naturalistic theories, since Bethrick and other critics aren't arguing for supernatural theories.

But Dawson's got bigger problems than showing how the resurrection could happen naturally. Dawson needs to show now naturalism can do anything. Taking naturalistic presuppositions, why trust our reasoning (cf. Reppert's "C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea;" Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism," etc). Why trust our senses? Dawson will tell us that those things are axiomatic, but he must admit that the senses do, sometimes, deceive us. How does he tell when they do and when they don't? Why trust the chemical reactions in your grey matter? Why assume a real order to the universe? You see, at the end of the day, on Dawson's "reality based worldview" everything is a miracle.

The Heterodox Corruption of Bart Ehrman

Muslims have been seizing upon Bart Ehrman’s work to justify their case against the textual integrity of the NT.

But Ehrman’s work has come in for sustained criticism. Here are just a few of the many mounting examples:

The Gospel According to Bart

Misquoting Jesus and Misinforming Readers

Misinformation About ‘Misquoting’ the Bible

Denver Journal review of Misquoting Jesus

The Bible, the Qur’an, Bart Ehrman, and the Words of God

Review by Michael Kruger

Misanalyzing Text Criticism–Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’

Review by Roger Pearse

Reinventing Jesus