Brief Note: My apologies for the length (3500 words). I was debating whether or not to split it up into two posts, but in this case, I think one large post is better. Enjoy…
On April Fool’s Day this year, God’s Not Dead 2 hit the theaters. Reactions to the movie were as predictable as the movie itself. There were scores of positive comments and reviews by conservative Evangelicals who saw the movie as a light that put a spotlight on the secularization of our culture and mounting persecution of Christians. Then there was everyone else, who excoriated it as a paranoid, shallow example of Christian propaganda, a movie that “preaches ham-fistedly to its paranoid conservative choir,” and “plays into the Evangelical persecution narrative.”
So, I’m sure you are thinking, “So what’s your opinion, Joel?” Well, welcome to my post…
Well, let me first say that when it came to production value, and the quality of the acting, it was, for what it was, well done. After all, the movie actually had real actors in it—Robin Givens, Melissa Joan Hart, that guy from John Tucker Must Die, Fred Thompson, and even Ernie Hudson (yes, one of the original Ghostbusters).
The Problem
To get right to the point, though, the main problem with God’s Not Dead 2 is that it is a fiction. The reality that the movie portrays about Christianity in America is, plain and simple, a false reality. That is not to say that there have been instances where people who are hostile to Christianity have tried to push it out of the public square. I just wrote 22 posts on Richard Dawkins, the militant atheist who actually argues that religious faith is a form of child abuse worse than molestation.
And while we’re at it, let’s highlight a few real instances that have caused Christians concern:
- The Christian couple in Oregon who didn’t want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, and who ended up getting fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.
- The Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns who take care of the sick and elderly, being threatened by the government for not wanting to have anything in their health care coverage that provided contraception or birth control (mind you, these are nuns)!
- In some public schools there has been pressure to not allow prayers being said over the loud speakers at football games.
- Back in 2014, Annise Parker, the openly gay mayor of Houston, had her administration issue subpoenas to collect the sermons of five local pastors.
Fair enough. For what it’s worth, here are my views on these four instances. First, it’s a cake—the gay couple could have simply gone to another baker in town. Not everything needs to go to court. Second, they’re nuns. A case involving contraception in the health care coverage of nuns has had to go all the way to the Supreme Court? Really? Third, I don’t see a big deal with prayers before football games. But I’d like to ask Evangelicals who think it is persecution to say you can’t do that at public schools, would you object if your school opened each football game with a Muslim prayer to Allah? I’m guessing you would. And fourth, you know what happened in Houston? Ms. Parker rescinded those subpoenas, and, when people flooded her office with Bibles, she distributed the Bibles through the police force. And for what it’s worth, if you have a problem with this (and you should), are you concerned when certain presidential candidates advocate for government surveillance of mosques? If subpoenas of sermons is wrong, then how is government surveillance of mosques right?
So yes, there will always be people in society who hate Christianity, and there will always be stupid and outrageous and offense things done. But that doesn’t mean Christians are being persecuted in America. To perpetuate that narrative, as this movie does, is to perpetuate something that is not true. I’m not going to say “perpetuate a lie,” though, because I’m convinced that those who made the movie, and the many Evangelicals who love it, really do believe Christians are being persecuted in America. They aren’t “lying.” They are just horribly wrong.
If you don’t believe me, let me put it to you this way. How do you think an Iraqi Christian who has seen ISIS systematically destroy 2,000 years of Christianity in the Middle East, slaughter thousands of Christians and rape their daughters, react to this movie? How might Orthodox Christians who were slaughtered for 70 years under Communist Russia? Or Christians in Communist China? Even if the story-line in the movie was true (which it isn’t), what would their reactions be? Let me venture a guess:
“Let’s see, a teacher might lose her job for mentioning Jesus in a public school. She has recourse through the court system where, if she can convince a jury of her peers that she was just making reference to the historical figure of Jesus, and not preaching, she could be vindicated, retain her job, and go on with her life. Mmmm…so she lives in a country where, even if some bad people try to get her fired over her faith, there’s a system in place to protect her rights.”
No, sorry, that’s not persecution. That’s living in the real world where sometimes bad things happen to you. That’s living in the United States where, when bad things happen to you, you have a shot at rectifying the situation. Persecution is beheadings, rapings, fleeing for your life, and the Gulag. So please, Christians in America, even when bad things happen to you…don’t call it persecution. That’s an insult to your brothers and sisters in Christ who have witnessed family members slaughtered.
Can Public School Teachers Get Fired for Even Mentioning Jesus?
In any case, let’s look at a few specifics points from the movie. First, is it true that in public schools that the mere mention of Jesus is “against State and Federal policy”? Is it true that teachers can lose their job and have their teaching certificates revoked for saying something like, “Gandhi and MLK’s use of non-violence was inspired by Jesus?”
The answer to that is, “No.” That’s not true.
In the movie, in the course of trial, the impression was that the very faith of Grace Wesley was offensive to the principal, the teacher union representative, virtually everyone associated with the public school. Gasps could be heard in the courtroom when it was revealed that Ms. Wesley had collected donations in her class for a faith-based charity, had invited her principal to church, and had told Brooke that she was a Christian.
Let me tell you why I found that characterization to be offensive. My father worked in public schools for 30 years, both as a teacher and as a principal; my mother worked in public schools for 20 years; I went to public schools for all but four years of my youth; I worked at my dad’s school as a janitor and befriended many public school teachers; I know a whole lot of teachers, both in private and public schools. And I can tell you beyond a shadow of doubt that this movie’s depiction of the public schools as being the hotbed of hatred against Christian teachers is utterly false. I can guarantee you that the Christian teachers I know who work in public schools are probably either wholly embarrassed or wholly outraged at how this movie depicts the schools at which they work.
My favorite teacher from the Christian high school I attended eventually left that school and has been a teacher in a public school for the past 20 years. He told me that he has experienced a tremendously more amount of freedom to talk about his views on religion and faith at his public school than he ever had at the Christian school. The sad fact is that often times suppression of honest discussion about religion and faith takes place at Christian schools.
The way this movie depicts “life for Christians in public schools” not only false, but it does indeed foster paranoia within Evangelical circles. Of course, public schools have their problems—but actively persecuting Christian teachers isn’t one of them. In the real world, if a teacher mentioned Jesus in class, the way Ms. Wesley did, nothing would happen. In fact, there are teachers all across this country today who have probably mentioned Jesus, and nothing has happened. Imagine that.
The Historicity of Jesus
Another huge problem with the movie was the defense of Ms. Wesley. She and her lawyer argued for the historicity of Jesus as a way to say that Ms. Wesley was just simply talking about a historical figure. They brought in Lee Strobel, the author of The Case for Christ, as well as another author (whose name I missed) to testify that Jesus really existed.
The problem is that it gives the impression that “secular people” don’t believe Jesus existed. The fact is, this is not an issue. Yes, there are some really radical nuts who deny Jesus’ existence, but they are fringe at best. (Ironically, this exercise in reality denial is fostered by the likes of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins—another reason why the New Atheist Movement is devoid of credibility). But my point is simple: virtually nobody disbelieves Jesus existed. Yes, there are plenty of people who doubt the resurrection, but his historical existence is not disputed by 98% of the public. Therefore what the defense is “trying to prove” doesn’t need to be proven, because it’s already accepted.
Incidentally, in one hostile review of the movie, the reviewer ended by criticizing the movie in the following manner: “A reading of scripture grounded in facts and figures, rather, is a deeply petty one, unworthy of the transience offered by religious belief. Historical veracity is antithetical to the very premise of faith, powerful precisely because it needn’t be true to be real.”
Let me say, that sentiment is rather stupid. The Christian faith, at its core, is testimony to things that happened in history. This reviewer simply has no idea what he/she is talking about. That is why I, for one, will openly admit that I think The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is a good book. (I’m not a big fan of his other ones, but this one was good). The reason why it is good is because he interviews actual biblical scholars and you learn about how the New Testament writings were preserved and why they are historically reliable—and they are, pure and simple. You might not believe the claims of Jesus’ resurrection, but you can’t be intellectually honest and deny that that was precisely what Jesus’ earliest followers were claiming.
What Does “Bearing Witness to the Resurrection” Mean?
The problem I found with the movie, and sadly with many Evangelicals understanding of the faith, is that it reduces the Christian faith to this mentality of “If I can just convince a non-believer of certain facts, then he’ll repent and become a Christian.” Let me ask you, how many people do you know who have been “logically reasoned into the faith”?
That’s not to say logic and reason and history aren’t important—as a biblical scholar myself, I can talk to you all day concerning why I believe Jesus was resurrected, why the New Testament is historically reliable, and why most of the events in the Old Testament really happened. But the reality is, I’m not going to convince you to accept Christ because of my great scholarly arguments that Jesus really was resurrected. Here’s why…
The Gospels are testimony to the resurrection of Christ. They claim it really happened in history. More than that, though, the Church itself is supposed to bear witness to the resurrection as well. This doesn’t simply mean we have to go out and convince non-believers of a historical fact. It means we are to bear witness to the resurrection of Christ by living out that resurrection life every day. And that means truly living out Christ’s life, being Christ-like, caring for the poor and needy, reaching out to the hurting and helpless, bearing up under injustice when we are wronged, and identifying with the unlovely and despised.
If Christians, both individually and as the Church, do not live out those things, then those Christians are not bearing witness to the resurrection of Christ. If instead, Christians spend their time (1) aligning themselves more with political parties, (2) endorsing candidates who advocate killing of family members of terrorists, and not just terrorists, (3) routinely calling the poor “lazy parasites,” or (4) spewing forth hate-filled rants condemning anyone they deem to be “sinners,” then I’ve got news for you—non-believers are never going to be convinced by any argument regarding the historical fact of the resurrection. They will have been convinced that God is dead and Jesus never rose from the dead because they will have not seen the resurrection in the actions and speech of people claiming to follow Christ.
If you want non-believers to be convinced that Christ is alive, they need to see it in your life, not your argument. If Christ’s life cannot be seen in your life, then why would anyone think Christ rose from the dead?
The One Part of the Movie that Did Make Me Tear Up
There were a number of minor things about the movie that I could be nit-picky about, but I’m not going to mention them. Instead, I want to finish this somewhat long post by sharing three thoughts.
First of all, the scene where Ms. Wesley’s students show up at her house at night to show their support and love for her by singing “How Great Thou Art” got to me. I know, some will find it cheesy, but it choked me up a bit. Here was a teacher being attacked by the higher-ups of her own school, in danger of losing her job, and depicted as a religious zealot, all because she simply was engaging her students in a discussion that certain people didn’t want talked about. In that kind of situation, support and encouragement is like a drink of water in the desert.
I know exactly how that feels like, because it happened to me, twice. The only difference is that I wasn’t taken down by “godless secular administrators” who objected to talk about Jesus. I was taken down by supposedly Christian administrators who objected to the fact that I didn’t subscribe to young earth creationism, and that I let my students discuss the differing points of view on topics like the creation/evolution debate and Genesis 1-11. Ms. Wesley was labeled a “religious zealot.” I was called a “liberal,” and a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who undermined biblical authority, threatened students’ view of Scripture, and spoke with the voice of the serpent.
I’m telling you, that wounds deeply. It’s just that such instances don’t happen in public schools—they actually happen in Christian schools. I can’t help but think Paul’s condemnation of his fellow Jews in Romans 2 who, although they often condemned “those godless Gentiles,” often were guilty of doing those very same things. Something to think about…
What’s Going to Happen to Kids in Christian Schools Who Go Off to State Universities?
Here’s another thing to think about. When students who grow up going to Evangelical schools that push the kind of persecution complex God’s Not Dead 2 displays, then go off to the University of Alabama, or Auburn, or North Alabama, or any state university, what are they going to realize? I can tell you, because I’ve had a whole lot of former students tell me: they realize that what they’ve been told is not true. Non-Christians aren’t “out to get” Christians; there aren’t professors who verbally attack Christian students in class; there isn’t a nation-wide persecution of Christians going on.
And when they realize that the narrative of movies like God’s Not Dead 2 is a fiction, they often have a crisis of faith. What do they do when they realize so much of what they’ve been told growing up isn’t true? Many students can work through those things and grow in their Christian faith. But other students end up walking away entirely from the faith. Why? Because contrary to what the Evangelical persecution narrative says, the fact is it is often easier to be open and honest with non-Christians than with Christians, and that much more condemnation and judgment comes from pharisaical Christians than non-Christians. That is often the sad state of affairs.
Don’t get me wrong. There really are people out there who mock, ridicule and would love to destroy Christianity. And when issues like removing crèches from government buildings over Christmas come up, we live in a democracy, and Christians have every right to make their case. But let’s ask that question Evangelicals love to ask, “What would Jesus do?” Would he fight those battles in court? Would he and his disciples worry and fret, “Oh it’s just government pressure today, but it will be persecution tomorrow! We need to stand up for our rights!” Really?
Did Jesus call Christians to “stand up for their rights” and make movies that display their fear of non-existent persecution, or did he call them to lay down their lives for the sake of the least of these, and not worry about possible hostility and persecution? That’s another thing to think about…
The Spirit of the Age
Finally, here is one more thing. In the movie, when the pastors are told the government wants copies of their sermons, Pastor Hill says, “We’re in a war, just like what’s in Ephesians 6: ‘For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.’”
Well, he’s right—as Paul himself said, Christians are “at war” with the cosmic powers of this present darkness. The problem with God’s Not Dead 2 is that it wrongly identifies the “cosmic powers” and “spirit forces of evil” with…public schools, the government, or the ACLU. When Evangelicals make those sorts of connections, they end up seeing all the evil as “out there in the world,” and they are blinded to the fact that such “spiritual forces of evil” are at work within as well as without.
To put it plainly, the “spiritual forces of evil” that Paul is talking about are those that get Richard Dawkins to write a paranoid rant of a book that labels “all religion as evil” and refuses to admit the evil that has been done in the name of atheism. They are the spiritual forces that get Ken Ham to base an entire organization that publishes paranoid rants that say “evolution is evil,” “the secular world is persecuting Christians,” and “Christians who aren’t young earth creationists are compromisers,” and yet refuses to admit that he himself encourages Christian schools and churches to attack Christians who don’t think like him.
Simply put, the “spiritual war” Paul is talking about is on a deeper level than the shallow depictions of “the other” that can be seen in this movie, or in propaganda of both the New Atheist Movement and Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis…or in the political demonization that both political parties regularly engage in. Such forces foster a spirit of division and paranoia—and such division and paranoia is on full display on the Left and Right, within secular circles and Evangelical circles.
And I’ve come to see that, at least in many Evangelical circles, those who foster such paranoia are more concerned with keeping their followers afraid so they continue to follow and listen to them…and not so much Jesus Christ.
I’m convinced that such “spiritual forces” work in this very way. They tilt the balance just a bit too far in one direction in order to provoke an over-reaction that rushes completely in the other direction, which in turn evokes a more violent and paranoid response in the other direction, and so on. And what was once a largely balanced society able to take on the inevitable challenges of life becomes torn apart by people letting their paranoia about the “other extreme” take them headlong to the opposite extreme.
The sad fact, though, is this movie is perpetuating a false persecution narrative that give some very extreme people a platform to further their extreme and dangerous views. This is what we are seeing in our society, in both the political and cultural spheres: people, driven by their own paranoia, rushing to opposite extremes. This is the effects of the “spiritual war” Paul talks about.
Don’t let yourself get roped into it. And specifically, to my fellow Christians, don’t buy into the false narrative in God’s Not Dead 2, as well-intentioned as it may be. It is perpetuating fear, paranoia, and a false narrative of persecution. I can’t ridicule the movie. I’m not going to deny that Christians face challenges in what has to be considered our post-Christian culture. But I can say that, no, God’s Not Dead 2 is not the direction Christians should go. It’s not true. Walk away from the edge of that abyss.
“If you want non-believers to be convinced that Christ is alive, they need to see it in your life, not your argument. If Christ’s life cannot be seen in your life, then why would anyone think Christ rose from the dead?”
This is the takeaway! Great blog, awesome quote!
In the entire post, that was the most important thing I wrote.
I understand your point about nuns not needing birth control, but there are some cases where it is prescribed for medical reasons rather than being used as contraception. For instance, some women who have irregular, very heavy or excruciatingly painful periods (we’re talking debilitating) are prescribed oral contraceptives to fix these issues.
In this case, the problem wasn’t that a Catholic organization refused coverage for birth control; it’s that the nuns refused to *document* that the organization was refusing coverage, because doing so would start the process of the government (rather than the employer) offering contraception access to employees who wanted it. So the questions were “Do these employees have a right to have contraception provided by their employer, despite the employer’s religious convictions?” versus “Does this employer have the right to block employees’ access to contraception from outside sources?”
The nuns took the position that officially refusing to cover contraception was the moral equivalent of providing the coverage because it would allow their employees to access birth control through the government.
Wow. I am impressed with your ability to look at this issue objectively. Great post, Joel.
One comment. You said, “I think The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is a good book. (I’m not a big fan of his other ones, but this one was good). The reason why it is good is because he interviews actual biblical scholars and you learn about how the New Testament writings were preserved and why they are historically reliable”
I read the book too. The problem with the book is this: If you are going to interview experts on a topic it is best to interview experts from all major perspectives. Strobel never once interviews any scholar who is not an evangelical Christian or a very conservative (fundamentalist?) Protestant. iI he had, he would have seen that many scholars, dare I say a significant majority, do NOT believe that the Gospels are primary source documents as Strobel claims. If I were the opposing attorney in Strobel’s hypothetical court case, I would call scholar NT Wright to the stand:
Dr. Wright: Who wrote these documents which Mr. Strobel is asking to have admitted as eyewitness testimony to the court?
Dr. Wright: “I don’t know who wrote the Gospels, nor does anyone else.” (You can find a Youtube clip with this exact statement._
The judge would throw these documents out of court as…hearsay.
Evidence is evidence. The facts about manuscripts, numbers, age, etc.–pretty much accepted by scholars. As for authorship, we do know that by the early 2nd century or so, the four Gospels were attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We also know that none of the Gospels actually claim the name of any author. That’s why we can’t say for sure.
But I’ve found that Fundamentalists–be they Christian Fundamentalists (and no, the scholars Strobel interviewed aren’t Fundies), or atheist former Fundamentalists, they really are obsessed over the idea of EYEWITNESS testimony. But the fact is, even if you accept the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, two of the four WEREN’T eyewitnesses: Mark and Luke. Who cares? The fact is Matthew, Mark and Luke at least are believed to have been written and compiled from earlier source material. In other words, what we read in MML reflects the teaching, beliefs and testimony of the first generation believers. That’s what matters. And again, by ancient standards, having documents about a historical person that can be dated to within a few decades of that person is really impressive.
And so, to sum up:
1. Yes, No Gospel has the name of its author within the text
2. The names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are attached to the Gospels by the early 2nd century
3. No one disputes that MML were written around 70 AD and John around 90 AD
So: Were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John the actual authors? Maybe…we can’t know for certain. But again, who cares?
In a court of law it would matter.
Strobel’s entire “Case for Christ” is built on the claim that Christians can trust the historical reliability of the Gospels because they were written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) or the close associates of eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke). Per Strobel, this kind of primary source testimony would win a court case involving the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. The majority of scholars say this is false.
The majority of scholars believe that:
–the authors of the Gospels were at least one or more generations removed from the alleged events they describe.
–they authors of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses or even associates of eyewitnesses.
–they were writing in lands far away.
Now, this does not mean that everything they wrote was false, fictional material. On the contrary. But what it does mean is that these documents cannot be referred to as “primary source” documents in the sense that Lee Strobel refers to them.
In a court of law they would be considered hearsay. That is my point: There may be historically accurate information in the Gospels, but they cannot be viewed as historically reliable texts in the sense that a modern history text book or even a modern biography is expected to be historically reliable.
Strobel’s “case for Christ” would be dismissed as hearsay in a modern court of law.
If you subjected the historical reliability of ancient documents to a modern day court of law, you would have to conclude that we can know nothing of history because we have no “primary sources” for anything. “In a court of law today,” as you say, ALL documents we have would be considered “hearsay.”
Simply put, if we applied the rules you want to apply to the NT text to all other ancient historical documents, then we would have to conclude hardly anything about history is knowable or reliable. But you wouldn’t do that, because you know better.
I am simply pointing out the inaccuracy of STROBEL’S claim that the Gospels could be used in a modern court of law as “primary sources”. I am not suggesting that ANY ancient texts, including the Gospels, should be subjected to that type of scrutiny.
I believe that we should appreciate the beauty of the Gospels for what they are: ancient religious propaganda in the literary genre of Greco-Roman biography. We should not be fundamentalist in any sense when reading these texts; We should not assume that all stories are fiction but neither should we assume that all stories are historical. Let’s enjoy the Gospels as literature, not as the source for the ultimate meaning of life and the universe.
Question, Joel: Several times now you have referred to me as an “atheist fundamentalist” yet I am not a mythicist. I even believe in the historicity of Jesus’ empty tomb. This infuriates many of my atheist friends who feel that my position on this issue gives undue credibility to the supernatural claims of Christianity.
I have been banned from mythicist atheist websites because I persist in asking these mythicist atheists this question: “Why do you accept majority expert opinion in most areas of your life but reject it when it comes to the historicity of Jesus? Aren’t you being inconsistent? Aren’t you behaving just like many conservative/fundamentalist Christians whom you condemn for their “biased” positions?” This very much upsets them and they either ask me to leave or they ban me for “enabling the Christian worldview”.
So would you kindly give an example of what a non-fundamentalist atheist would look like?
Or do you believe that all atheists are “fundamentalists” simply because, by definition, all atheists deny the existence of your god?
I never said you were a mythicist. Mythicism is to history what flat-Eartherism is to science.
It has to do with the basic way you read the Scriptures. You, like Bart Ehrman, Dan Barker, and a lot of former Fundies-turned-atheists, still approach the Bible with the same mindset and fundamentalist assumptions regarding a wide range of things.
And juat for the record, mythicists like Carrier have just taken many of Ehrman’s claims to their logical conclusions.
Gary, I just listened to this clip. What Wright says is that it is “perfectly possible” that one or more of the gospels may be written by eyewitnesses however in his opinion, trying to pin down precise authorship and precise dates is irrelevant because, in Wright’s opinion:
“what’s far more important, clearly because it makes sense as the history of a person in the late 20s-early 30s AD has its own authenticity, whether or not they were eyewitnesses, so the search for were they or weren’t they eyewitnesses . . . is not strictly the most important thing in assessing them.”
So Wright is arguing that *strictly speaking,* who wrote the gospels isn’t as important as that their testimony is authentic and accurate. I would agree with him.
I’m not so certain Strobel’s hypothetical judge would throw them out simply because we can’t state with 100% certainty who wrote them.Because the NT contains the oldest historical references to the person named Jesus of Nazareth. Paul in particular, writing a mere 15-20 years after the crucifixion of Jesus is our earliest written witness, thus the gospels *cannot* be thrown out before you even begin.
As for Strobel, he’s writing Christian apologetic, so the fact that he interviewed conservative scholars to help make his point shouldn’t really be all that shocking.
But turn your logic around. Would you expect Richard Dawkins to cite NT Wright or Craig Evans in *The God Delusion* on the historical reliability of the gospels? If not, why not?
If Strobel should cite his opponents so should Dawkins, right?
Pax.
Lee.
“It has to do with the basic way you read the Scriptures.”
I read the Gospels as first century works of Greco-Roman biography. I neither accept all stories within those books as statements of historical fact nor do I reject all stories as fiction. I accept the majority consensus of scholars regarding what is and what is not historical. How is that fundamentalist?
As I’ve said before with your comments on Brown and Wright–you take what they say and contort them to fit with your conclusions. They would not agree with your conclusions concerning the Scriptures because they were never Fundamentalists. As you say on your blog, you grew up a Fundie, you consider yourself having “escaped Fundamentalism.” I’m just telling you that your basic approach to all this is still determined by that very thing. It still is the lens through which you view things. Example: Richard Dawkins is clearly an atheist, but one of his big beefs with the Bible/Christianity is that Genesis 1-11 contradicts science. That assumption: that Genesis 1-11 is even trying to do science/history–is largely a Fundamentalist presupposition. His jumping off point in his critique is that of a very Fundie way of viewing things. I submit you do that too. You can’t help it–you grew up in all that. It simply affects the way you view things, even now, when you have rejected the Christian faith as a whole.
And so, when you keep saying that you simply accept the majority consensus of scholars–sorry, you really don’t. The conclusions you come to are not the majority consensus. They are the consensus of a certain segment of scholars. Anyway, no need to go round in circles on this.
I don’t think you can give even ONE example where I have contorted Wright or Brown’s statements. I never said that either one of them doubts that the Gospels contain at least some eyewitness information. I never said that either one of them doubts that there is sufficient historical evidence to believe in the resurrection.
What I said is that Wright does not believe that anyone knows who wrote the Gospels. Simply stated: He does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to state as an historical fact that Matthew, John Mark, Luke, and John the Apostle wrote the Gospels. Therefore, to believe in the traditional authorship of the Gospels if even conservative scholars like NT Wright reject it is fundamentalist thinking.
I never said that Wright does not believe that the eyewitnesses including Paul listed in the Early Creed did not see a body. I simply stated that Wright believes that this conclusion cannot be based solely on the meaning of the Greek word “opthe” used in First Corinthians 15.
Regarding Brown, I never said that he doubted the historicity of the bodily resurrection either. However, I did provide quotes in which he states that he does not believe that the Gospel authors were eyewitnesses or even associates of eyewitnesses. He believes that they were individuals one or more generations removed from the alleged events they describe. He also believes that there is a good deal of embellishment (non-historical, fictional) narrative in the Appearance Stories.
I suggest that you are using the term “fundamentalist” as a foil; as a strawman. I will bet that you label all skeptics and atheists as fundamentalists. Is it possible that you do this in an attempt to convince naive Christians, in particular, younger Christians, reading your blog to shut their ears to anything that any skeptic has to say. Is the evidence for your position so tenuous, Joel, that you must destroy the critic to protect it??
If your position is as strong as you believe it to be, there is no need to demonize skeptics. Let the evidence speak for itself.
Apparently, you do want to go in circles.
You quote Wright about the authorship of the Gospels–he says we don’t know for sure, but he also acknowledges that M,M,L,J were named such by the early 2nd century. There is nothing that says they couldn’t have been actually written by MMLJ; there is nothing other than the testimony of early 2nd century Christians like Papias that says they were definitively written by MMLJ. You take that and then proceed to suggest that the Gospels WEREN’T written by MMLJ. And you use that to then say, “Ha! Not eyewitnesses! Ha! The resurrection accounts were later embellishments to what was originally just visions and dreams!” No evidence for any of that, and you are going far beyond what the evidence actually says.
Brown and Wright acknowledge that the Gospels are ancient historical biographies, not modern biographies. They weren’t trying to do straight chronology; they had artistic freedom to shape their biographies in the form of a story. You then take that as if they are saying, “Oh, some parts are historical, but some parts are fiction.” And then, since you are now an atheist and obviously reject any suggestion of healings and supernatural events on the basis of your presupposition that there is no God or anything “supernatural” to begin with–you proceed to go through the Gospels and suggest you know which parts are “fiction” (i.e. the healings/supernatural stuff) and which parts are “history.” Wright and Brown would never take things that far, and yet you are appealing to them in an attempt to justify your own conclusions.
That’s what I’m saying. I’m not demonizing you–I’m simply pointing out what you are doing.
…And I’m sure you’re looking for material for another post on your blog. Have at it. 😉
Gary, you’re zeroing in on only one passage, I Cor. 15:3-7, correctly arguing that NT Wright asserts that this one passage by itself cannot be used to prove that Paul and the 500 witnesses saw a real human body when he saw Jesus but ignoring a mountain of other evidence that Wright does put forward to argue that what Paul et. al. saw was exactly that–a human body, resurrected.
There’s way more evidence to support the literal bodily post-resurrection appearances but you’re stuck on this one passage.
As I said last wk you’re missing a whole forest because of one tree here.
Pax.
Lee.
What are your criteria for deciding which stories/episodes/sayings, etc. in the gospels you’ll accept as historical? How do *you*, Gary, make those decisions?
Pax.
Lee.
You are Stawmanning again.
“There is nothing that says they couldn’t have been actually written by MMLJ”
I never said that the Gospels could not have been written by MMLJ. Experts, even the majority of experts, can be wrong. I simply stated that most scholars do not believe that MMLJ were written by eyewitnesses nor associates of eyewitnesses, and therefore doubt the traditional authorship of the Gospels.
“there is nothing other than the testimony of early 2nd century Christians like Papias that says they were definitively written by MMLJ. You take that and then proceed to suggest that the Gospels WEREN’T written by MMLJ.”
Strawman. Show me ONE quote where I said that the Gospels were NOT written by MMLJ. I never said any such thing. I simply quoted the majority scholar opinion on the authorship of the Gospels. I suggest you are intentionally distorting my views in order to discredit me, thereby allowing you to avoid dealing with my criticisms of your beliefs.
“And you use that to then say, “Ha! Not eyewitnesses! Ha! The resurrection accounts were later embellishments to what was originally just visions and dreams!” No evidence for any of that, and you are going far beyond what the evidence actually says.”
Again, you are mischaracterizing my statements. What I am suggesting is that since the authors of these books were not eyewitnesses or even associates of eyewitnesses, according to the majority expert opinion, the question should be asked: what parts of these Appearance Stories come from the mouths of eyewitnesses and what parts are embellishments? If even conservative Christian scholars like Mike Licona and Raymond Brown admit that there are non-historical narratives in the Appearance Stories, how can we know what is fact and what is non-fact? How do we know then if the original appearance stories involved sightings of a literal walking, talking body or simply the sightings of a body in dreams, visions, trances, false sightings, or illusions? That is a far cry from “The resurrection accounts were later embellishments to what was originally just visions and dreams!” That is a statement of fact. I made no such claim. I simply suggested a possibility.
“you proceed to go through the Gospels and suggest you know which parts are “fiction” (i.e. the healings/supernatural stuff) and which parts are “history.” Wright and Brown would never take things that far, and yet you are appealing to them in an attempt to justify your own conclusions.”
Where did I ever make such a categorical statement of fact??? It has always been my stated position that it is IMPOSSIBLE to disprove the existence of the supernatural. Why do you do this, Joel? Is your position that weak?
“And I’m sure you’re looking for material for another post on your blog. Have at it. 😉”
You are correct, my Christian friend. My new post involves a very common phenomenon that we ex-Christians run into in our online conversations with conservative Christians. It is the use of the Strawman Fallacy by many Christian apologists. We see it as an attempt to discredit the skeptic in order to avoid examining the actual evidence for the Christian’s worldview.
https://wordpress.com/post/lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/19989
Lol…yep. You have an argument you want to push, so you go out fishing for things to fit in to the conclusion you already have in mind. But like I said, this is just going to keep going around in circles.
And the fact that you refer to me as an “apologist” is quite laughable.
Debate responsibly, my friends. Truth is at stake.
As for who authored the gospels, the best evidence for the traditional authorship remains the testimony of Papias and Polycarp, as well as the fact that no other names were ever put forward.
In his book *Misquoting Scripture: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus,* Dr. Timothy Paul Jones writes that if the authorship of the gospels really was unknown:
“Most likely, each church would’ve connected a different author with each Gospel. Churches in Asia Minor might have ascribed a Gospel to the Apostle Andrew, for example, while churches in Judea might have connected the same Gospel with Thaddeus or James or Jude.
“But what would be the likelihood that every group of Christians in the Roman Empire would come up with Mark’s name to describe the shortest Gospel or that everyone would name Matthew as the author of the Gospel that begins with a genealogy? And what’s the probability of every church in the Roman Empire choosing Luke as the writer of the Gospel that bears his name or selecting John’s name for the last of the New Testament Gospels? In mathematical terms, the answer would be pretty close to zero. In practical terms, the answer is, it ain’t gonna happen, baby.” (Jones, pp. 101-102)
Pax.
Lee.
How do you know that Papias had correct information, Lee?
“But what would be the likelihood that every group of Christians in the Roman Empire would come up with Mark’s name to describe the shortest Gospel or that everyone would name Matthew as the author of the Gospel that begins with a genealogy?”
The canon of the New Testament did not fall from the sky. The books of the canon were selected from numerous “gospels” and “epistles” floating around the Roman empire. MEN put together the Christian holy book. You have zero good evidence that your God had anything to do with it other than assumptions and conjecture.
For writing so much, it amazes me how little you say. You just deflect and waltz around the point or issue or question presented to you.
Gary, the early church didn’t pick gospels at random (“eenie, meenie, minie, moe, pick a gospel by the toe”), nor based upon which ones they liked better than others. They actually had criteria they used. Now this criteria isn’t explicitly stated in any one ancient text however it is apparent from a careful reading of the earliest church fathers that to be considered canonical
1. A text had to have been written by an apostle (for example Matthew or John) or the disciple of an apostle (for example Mark, a disciple of Peter, or Luke, a disciple of Paul)
2. A text had to date from the first century AD
3. A text had to be widely read and recognized throughout the whole church.
4. A text had to teach the faith the church had always proclaimed orally.
As the Muratorian Canon Fragment of ca. 175-200 AD demonstrates, just because a text was wildly popular didn’t mean it would make the cut. The Shepherd of Hermas was a hugely popular Christian text that, as the Muratorian Canon Fragment says, was rejected because it didn’t meet two of the criteria of canonicity:
“But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [bishop’s] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time.”
So if, as many skeptics and critics claim, the early church simply chose the gospels and letters it liked or agreed with for inclusion in the canon, and tossed out those it didn’t, Hermas and other popular texts like the Didache (ca. 90-100 AD) and the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 90-100 AD) would’ve been included in the canon. But they weren’t, because they didn’t meet the requirements necessary to be included.
Texts like the so-called “Gnostic gospels” were rejected because they weren’t written by apostles (whoever wrote these phony gospels ascribed the names of various apostles to them to lend them weight and authority), but were all written in the mid-2nd century AD at the earliest, and taught a weird pagan Greek gospel which mixed Platonism, mysticism and secret knowledge with Jesus, not a Jewish/Christian one of the One God setting the world to rights and rescuing people via the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. In Gnosticism Jesus’ resurrection could be nothing but a dream or vision (because he wasn’t a real flesh-and-blood human being) but not orthodox Christianity.
So when you compare the canonical NT texts with, say texts like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Gnostic Gospel of Philip, the difference is like night and day.
As for Paul’s letters, there is good evidence that by the end of the first century AD, collections of Paul’s letters were in circulation. Certainly by the beginning of the 3rd century, a corpus of 13 Pauline letters existed and was considered canonical.
II Peter 3:16 says:
“So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” (NRSV)
Concerning this text from II Peter Drs. Andreas J. Kostenberger and Michael J. Kruger, write:
“Most notably, this passage does not refer to just one letter of Paul, but to a collection of Paul’s letters (how many is unclear) that had already begun to circulate throughout the churches—so much so that Peter could refer to “all his [Paul’s] letters” and expect that his audience would understand that to which he was referring. . . . Peter’s reference to the letters of Paul as “Scripture” is made quite casually, as if he expected his readers would have already known about Paul’s writings and would agree that they are Scripture . . . Peter does not give any idea that Paul would have objected to the idea that his letters would be considered “Scripture.” Moreover, Peter himself does not seem to think it is odd that a letter from an apostle would be considered authoritative Scripture by the communities that received it. . . . “(Kostenberger and Kruger *The Heresy of Orthodoxy,* pp. 127-128)
The traditional dating of II Peter dates it to the mid-60s AD. Yet even if, as some scholars believe, II Peter itself is an anonymous text written by one of Peter’s unnamed apostles dating to ca. 100-125 AD, it is still evidence for the fact that certain letters of Paul were regarded as canonical at a very early date—100-125 AD
Pax.
Lee.
Here are the facts about the naming of the four canonical Gospels:
We have ZERO evidence of anyone referring to “The Gospel of Mark/Matthew/Luke/John” until the second half of the second century (Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment). Yes, some early Church Fathers quote from passages found in those gospels, but they never saying anything like, “As is stated in the Gospel of John, The Word became Flesh…:. Never. Therefore, it is entirely possible that these books remained anonymous until someone in the second half of the second century put them into one book (the Muratorian Fragment) and gave them their names. Why did this person/persons give these four books these four names? We don’t know. But there is zero evidence that any local church was referring to these books by their traditional authorship until after Ireneaus in the late second century.
Papias states that he received his information from disciples of the disciples of the disciples. (third or fourth hand information). Papias quotes these “reliable sources” as stating that Judas Iscariot swelled to such enormous proportions that he could not pass down a city street between the walls of the houses on each side! And yet we are to trust him on the authorship of the Gospels? Although Polycarp referred to a “John the Elder” he never, ever calls this elder the son of Zebedee or John, one of the Twelve. In fact, I have yet to see a statement by Polycarp in which he quotes a passage from the Gospel of John! He quotes passages found in other Gospels but not from John. Are we really to believe that Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, the author of the Gospel of John, but Polycarp never quotes this author’s Gospel???
Gary, I think your memory’s playing you false here. Papias doesn’t say that he got his information “from disciples of the disciples of the disciples.” He says he got it from “the Presbyter” (the apostle John). What Papias actually says is this:
“The Presbyter [John] used to say this also: Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter wrote down accurately, but not in order, all that he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, a follower of Peter. Peter used to teach as the occasion demanded, without giving systematic arrangement to the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark did not err in writing down some things just as he recalled them. For he had one overriding purpose: to omit nothing that he had heard and to make no false statements in his account.” (Eusebius, Bk 3.39, Maier trans. pp. 129-130)
Papias was a disciple of the apostle John. So who would be in a better position to talk about gospel authorship than Papias?
As for Poiycarp, his sole surviving work is *Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians,* so no, it doesn’t surprise me at all that there aren’t more scripture citations from the gospels. If we had more of his work there’d likely be much more references from the gospels.
Pax.
Lee.
“Papias was a disciple of the apostle John. So who would be in a better position to talk about gospel authorship than Papias?”
Wow! Papias was a “disciple” of the Apostle John?? No respected NT scholar I know makes such a claim! Please give a source.
Both Ireneaus (AH 5:33) and Eusebius (EH 3:39) say that Papias was a “hearer of John” and was a friend of Polycarp. He was born around 70AD, was the Bishop of Hieropolis, which was near Ephesus. Given the fact that scholars agree that John ended up in Ephesus, the idea that Papias is entirely historically probable.
In any case, his knowledge of the authorship of the gospels would not be 3rd-4th hand.
Here is a list of the books of the canon from which Polycarp quoted, and how many times he quoted from those books. Note: You don’t see the Gospel of John anywhere on this list!! How odd that Polycarp, the alleged disciple of John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, never quoted from his “master’s gospel, the most quoted Gospel in the history of Christianity:
Matthew (4 times)
Mark (once)
Luke (once)
Acts (twice)
Romans (once)
1st Corinthians (4 times)
2nd Corinthians (4 times)
Galatians (3 times)
Ephesians (4 times)
Philippians (3 times)
1st Thessalonians (once)
2nd Thessalonians (once)
1st Timothy (3 times)
2nd Timothy (3 times)
Hebrews (twice)
1st Peter (9 times)
1st John (once)
3rd John (once)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FszDfiERnhk
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RqrPQUiNrUQ&t=33s
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G2xCP5odvNQ
Gary we have ONE surviving letter by Polycarp. You can’t reasonably expect him to cite from every NT text in his one surviving letter. Its very probable that he cited John in some of his other works which are now lost.
Skeptics routinely make this argument with regards to Paul, that because he doesn’t cite much material by/about Jesus that this means he didn’t know anything much by/about Jesus. But when you actually read Paul’s letters carefully you’ll find a lot of Jesus’ teachings in them if you look carefully.
And with Paul, since most of his letters are trouble-shooting specific doctrinal/moral problems in these various churches and not evangelization tracts, there’s no need for him to reference basic, foundational theoigical teachings by/about Jesus, as he expects these churches to already know them because he taught many of them himself.
Regardless, both with Paul and Polycarp, simply because they don’t cite material from Jesus and John doesn’t prove they didn’t know that material.
Pax.
Lee.
“Its very probable that he cited John in some of his other works which are now lost.”
Conjecture.
“Regardless, both with Paul and Polycarp, simply because they don’t cite material from Jesus and John doesn’t prove they didn’t know that material.”
The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but the silence in these cases is deafening, nevertheless. The central claims of conservative Christianity are built on conjecture, assumptions, and fringe minority expert opinion.
And yet you choose to dismiss what Papias says about the authorship of the Gospels, even though he and Polycarp were contemporaries, and even though both Irenaeus and Eusebias state that both men knew John the apostle.
Irenaeus, yes. Eusebius, no.
–Irenaeus, around the year 180 CE, claimed that Papias was a companion of the disciple of Jesus, John the Son of Zebedee. But Eusebius, who actually read Papias’s book, claims that this is incorrect. Based on what Papias himself said, Eusebius points out that Papias was not a follower of any of the apostles. He got his information from others. In other words, Irenaeus was trying to make Papias out to be more of an authority than he was. That is very much the tendency in the early Christian tradition (and among conservative Christian scholars today), to claim direct connections with eyewitnesses where there weren’t any.
–Eusebius himself is skeptical of much of what Papias says: he speaks of the “bizarre parables” that he claims Jesus spoke and of the “legendary accounts” found in his writings. So not even Eusebius thought that Papias could be trusted to convey the truth about Jesus’ life and teachings, despite Papias’s claim to have connections with eyewitnesses.
–The quotation of Papias himself makes it clear what these connections were, that is, what his sources of information for the teachings of Jesus and his disciples were: he interviewed people who came into town who knew the “elders” who knew the apostles who knew Jesus. He heard from these people what the elders were saying that the apostles had said. And so in Papias we don’t have a first-hand report of Jesus’ teachings. We have a fourth-hand report. At best.
–When Papias indicates that he knew what the disciples taught, then, it was not because he knew them, or knew those who knew them. He met those who knew those who said they knew them.
–New Testament scholar, Bart Erhman
Not even very conservative, evangelical scholar Richard Bauckham believes that Papias was the disciple of the Apostle John, son of Zebedee”
“This chapter will argue that the author [of the Gospel of John] was the disciple of Jesus whom Papias calls John the Elder, and that some second century writers who refer to the matter were aware that this man was not John the son of Zebedee.”
—Richard Bauckham, “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”, page 416
Bauckham believes that the author of the Gospel of John and the Elder of Ephesus named John were one and the same—but this John was NOT the apostle, the son of Zebedee, according to Bauckham. Evangelicals can’t even agree on the identity of the author of the Gospel of John nor the identity of “John the Elder of Ephesus”! Just how good can the evidence for the eyewitness authorship of the Gospel of John be if evangelicals can’t even agree on the identity of the author!
But the whole gist of Bauckham’s book is that the NT gospels were written by *eyewitnesses.*
You can’t have your cake and eat it too with the scholars you keep citing.
Pax.
Lee.
No amount of evidence or logic you put forth is going to get Gary to budge from his talking points. And Quoting Ehrman isn’t really convincing…at all.
Gary asks for evidence, you give him that evidence, then he (A) quote mines from books that argue that the Gospels were from eyewitness accounts to make it sound like the author DOESN’T believe the Gospels were based on eyewitness accounts, and (B) quotes a former fundamentalist-turned-agnostic scholar whose fundamentalist past still colors the way he approaches the texts–all in an effort to get around the clear and persuasive thrust of the evidence we have. Not convincing at all.
“But the whole gist of Bauckham’s book is that the NT gospels were written by *eyewitnesses. You can’t have your cake and eat it too with the scholars you keep citing.’
Good grief. Can two people look at the same evidence and come up with two different conclusions? Yes! It happens all the time. I NEVER suggested that Bauckham does not believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels (Bauckham believes only ONE of the Gospels was written by an eyewitness, not two) only that he doesn’t believe that author of the Gospel of John was the Apostle John, as Joel stated.
Let’s just try to think independently, Gary. How many Christians do you think were in the Ephesus/Colossae region in the late 1st century?
Scholars generally agree that the Apostle John ended up in Ephesus by then. Papias and Polycarp were born around 70 AD, both were bishops in Hieropolis and Smyrna respectively. So if they lived in the area and ended up being bishops in the area, don’t you think it isnt too much of a stretch to think they had contact with John? That doesnt seem that outlandish to me.
“Scholars generally agree that the Apostle John ended up in Ephesus by then.”
Source?
Virtually every NT history book
Encyclopedia Britannica:
John’s [son of Zebedee] subsequent history is obscure and passes into the uncertain mists of legend. At the end of the 2nd century, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, claims that John’s tomb is at Ephesus, identifies him with the beloved disciple, and adds that he “was a priest, wearing the sacerdotal plate, both martyr and teacher.” That John died in Ephesus is also stated by St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon c. 180 CE, who says John wrote his Gospel and letters at Ephesus and Revelation at Pátmos. During the 3rd century two rival sites at Ephesus claimed the honour of being the apostle’s grave. One eventually achieved official recognition, becoming a shrine in the 4th century. In the 6th century the healing power of dust from John’s tomb was famous (it is mentioned by the Frankish historian St. Gregory of Tours). At this time also, the church of Ephesus claimed to possess the autograph of the Fourth Gospel.
Legend was also active in the West, being especially stimulated by the passage in Mark 10:39, with its hints of John’s martyrdom. Tertullian, the 2nd-century North African theologian, reports that John was plunged into boiling oil from which he miraculously escaped unscathed. During the 7th century this scene was portrayed in the Lateran basilica and located in Rome by the Latin Gate, and the miracle is still celebrated in some traditions. In the original form of the apocryphal Acts of John (second half of the 2nd century) the apostle dies, but in later traditions he is assumed to have ascended to heaven like Enoch and Elijah. The work was condemned as a gnostic heresy in 787 CE. Another popular tradition, known to St. Augustine, declared that the earth over John’s grave heaved as if the apostle were still breathing.
Gary: So who do we believe? Polycrates? Irenaeus? St. Gregory? Tertullian? St. Augustine?
Let’s put them all together: John the son of Zebedee, was a Jewish priest in the Temple AND a Galilean fisherman; he was boiled in oil…but escaped unscathed; he died in Ephesus where his dust healed the sick. To this day, his grave “heaves” as if he is still breathing!
My, my, my…
C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C tradition! No more believable than that the church in Alexandria had the bones of John Mark (later stolen by the merchants of Venice) or that multiple churches throughout Europe possess splinters from the very cross of Jesus. This is not history! This is propaganda for the relic trade!
I’ve had enough. It amazes me that you ask for evidence. Evidence is provided–No one doubts Papias/Polycarp were born around 70 AD; no one doubts they were bishops of Hieropolis and Smyrna; Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp, says they knew John the Apostle. There is nothing “miraculous” about these claims. Irenaeus’ testimony fits with other aspects of early Church testimony. But you just go to every possible other thing, you go to APOCRYPHAL works, look for the most unbelievable nuggets of the furthest things out there, and then you circle back to the most basic, most unmiraculous claims that fit within the accepted historical framework we know of the early church, and you say, “Who you gonna believe? We can’t know ANYTHING!”
I’ve said it before, you are not serious. You have a specific agenda, and there isn’t one piece of evidence from history that isn’t too hard for you to explain away. Please stop commenting on my blog.
Doc Anderson is right, Gary. You’re exhibiting a level of hyper-skepticism that is unwarranted. If we were talking about any other historical or pseudo-historical figure you wouldn’t be this hyper-skeptical. But since its John, an author of the NT, then the standard of evidence ratchets up.
Pax.
Lee.