I’ve been running this blog for 11 years. It presents my carefully researched arguments for the truth of the historic Christian faith.
This week I reached quite a cool milestone – I published my 300th post. It’s wonderful to see how many thousands of people have visited the site over the years.
I’m thankful for the opportunity to engage with them all. Including my merry and sarcastic band of haters.
Check out the archives if you want to know more. I have plans to revamp the site to make this easier in the future.
For now – I’m looking forward to the future. I’ll be engaging with more ideas and arguments and responding to them. And my aim – is to present a careful argument for the truth of Christianity. And to respond to dumb counter arguments with gentleness and respect.
If Jesus of Nazareth really rose from the dead, why doesn’t the earliest written Gospel (Mark) have an account of the resurrection in it? Did the writer even know about the resurrection, or was it a later addition to the “story?”
Who Was the Author of Mark’s Gospel?
The 2nd century church fathers Irenaeus and Papias record the author as Mark. Mark was the Apostle Peter’s interpreter in Rome. Scholar Peter J Williams notes this is thought to be the John Mark mentioned in Acts. His mother had a house in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12).
John Mark was probably not an eyewitness of the Jesus events himself. Tho Papias notes he was recording the Apostle Peter’s first hand account.
Dating Mark:
NT scholar James Crossley has dated Mark’s authorship to the 40ADs. Bart Ehrman prefers 70AD.
It seems important to point out that when attempting to date Mark, it reflects a general understanding of the environment and the people living in and around Jerusalem before the Romans destroyed it in 70AD. That’s the case for all four gospels. Consequently, we can argue that the gospels were all probably researched and possibly written before or around the Roman destruction of the temple, written by individuals who knew what it was like to live there at that time. They were certainly researched and probably written within the lifetime of the eye witnesses of Jesus. They are not therefore later fabrications.
Problem with Ending of Mark’s Gospel:
Unlike the other Gospel’s, Mark ends abruptly. The original ending (v8) has the women fleeing from Jesus’ tomb scared and saying nothing to anyone. No empty tomb account, no appearances of Jesus.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’” 8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
Mark 16:6-8
There are various theories for this abrupt ending.
First – remember the autograph and original copies were produced pre-codex using Israel’s scroll technology. It’s possible that the copy of Mark that led to all subsequent copies had lost the final few inches. Apparently that sometimes happened to well used Jewish Hebrew Torah scrolls. Perhaps it also happened to this Greek Mark scroll? It would have been read regularly to the gathered 1st century church. Perhaps the original ending to Mark has simply been accidentally lost?
Second – Mark intended the ending to be abrupt. He was writing for a community well familiar with the events surrounding Jesus death and resurrection. He wished to make a point by ending in this way, perhaps about the important role the women played in launching the Christian church. They were the apostles before the male apostles, as Thomas Aquinas points out.
Did Mark Know About the Resurrection Accounts?
Is it possible that Mark did not actually know about Jesus’ resurrection? Was he writing to a community that had not invented such a fantastical and non-Jewish idea yet?
Evidence that Mark Did Know About the Resurrection Account
Even tho his conclusion does not mention them, I think we see evidence that Mark absolutely did know about the un-Jewish resurrection account, the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus. How do we know that? Because he makes references to them earlier in his gospel.
27 “You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written:
“‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’[d]
28 But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”
Mark 14:27 – 28
Jesus predicts his resurrection and his subsequent appearances in Galilee. Appearances and empty tomb are implied here.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”
Mark 16:7
The messenger who frightened the women at the tomb informs them that must tell the disciples and Peter to meet the resurrected Jesus in Galilee as he told them to do. Implication again.
There are no surviving copies of Mark that do not have these verses in them. There is no evidence therefore that they were later additions to Mark’s gospel. They are original.
Consequently, we can say Mark absolutely DID know of the accounts of the risen Jesus and his appearances in Galilee when he was writing his gospel. These events were not later additions to Mark’s version of the events.
How Did Mark Know of the Resurrection Account?
Given how early Mark was written, it is striking that he knows of this resurrection tradition. One reasonable explanation for this fact is that the resurrection was well known amongst the early Christians and the enemies of the church at the time. Is there any evidence of this knowledge?
Yes. The Apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthian church in the early to mid 50s. In that letter he quotes a Christian creed that is believed by many scholars to be the earliest Christian statement on the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus:
“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
Paul wrote this letter in the 50s, but this creedal statement is presented by him as a tradition that the church was well aware of. He’s writing about 20 years after the events he describes, and various scholars including Gary Habermas date the creed he quotes to within a few months of the events. The first Christians shared it orally in the early days of Christianity. Paul wrote it down for the Corinthians around 20 years later.
The creed suggests Jesus appeared physically, though he was confirmed dead by crucifixion a few days before. Additional accounts support the physical nature of the resurrection. For example, Thomas checking his wounds (John 20:24-27), and sharing a meal of fish with his friends (John 21:9).
So. How did Mark know about the resurrection tradition when he was writing? There is literary evidence that many many people knew of this tradition at the time, and we see this in Paul’s record of the creed. Consequently, it is unsurprising then for Mark to be aware of the resurrection.
Resurrection is Not a Later Invention:
Notice what these details lead us to conclude. Jesus resurrection wasn’t a later invention to somehow elevate his importance after his death. It was an event that friends and enemies were aware of from the earliest days of the Christian church.
While the ending of Mark’s gospel is curious and we don’t fully understand why it is as it is, this does not count against the knowledge of the resurrection amongst the earliest Christian believers.
I am wondering whether David Gordon Green and Peter Sattler understood the subject matter before sitting down to write “The Exorcist: Believer.”
They clearly have a great understanding of the original William Friedkin movie. It’s referred to powerfully from their first to their final frame. They have story elements that resonate for those who remember the original. Green, who directs the picture, executes familiar moments of dread early on that were quite effective on the audience. People freaked out a few times. Green even has at least one actor from the original movie in it. This film is a well-made horror film, even though it sometimes seems a bit ponderous.
On a positive note, I appreciated some ways they raised the subject of unexpected evil and suffering. They mention these in a careful way that will relate to people. They also attempt to give a perspective on evil and suffering that (while it is inadequate – more in a moment) at least is thoughtful and seems well intentioned. This has distant echoes of William Peter Blatty, writer of 1973’s “The Exorcist” and devout Catholic. I also like the fact that Christianity is represented in this film. Now – I would argue the church is shown to be wholly inadequate, impotent, and lacking in any agency here. But at least it is there, and Christian people are active and part of the resolution to the crisis that unfolds.
There is also encouraging evidence that Green and Sattler researched demonic possession. At least one element in this story has been lifted straight from accounts I’ve read from experienced medical doctor, and psychologist Richard Gallagher.[1]
But here’s where I come to a fundamental and serious misunderstanding at the centre of “The Exorcist: Believer.”
I worry that it could potentially have dangerous implications for the audience were they to take its dumb message seriously. On the one hand, Green and Sattler want us to know that the demonic realm is a real one. Demons exist whether or not we believe in them, and they hate people. I think Green and Sattler are right to say that. But on the other hand, their stated solution to the problem of demonic possession seems to be – the love of a parent for their child. This is a big problem for me. Why?
1 – In the original movie, part of the dread and the horror related to Chris MacNeil’s powerlessness to help her daughter Regan in their shared situation. Chris loved Regan, but this made no difference to the demon, or to her daughter’s plight. A parent unable to help a suffering child is a terrible thing to see. Green and Sattler’s tale lacks this central dilemma.
2 – If demons exist (I think they do based on scripture + contemporary professional accounts) and if demons hate people (I think they do based on the same evidence) then why would they be defeated by a parent’s love for their child? Human love isn’t a weapon against the demonic. Rather, it’s one weapon the demons use against us. They hate us, and so they use everything at their disposal to make us suffer. We see this in the New Testament, in Richard Gallagher’s work, and even in Blatty’s original “The Exorcist”. Because Green and Sattler’s demon is vulnerable to human love, it is clearly the dumbest demon on the block. But I don’t think real demons are dumb. They have existed for thousands of years, and they know just were to get us and how. This movie paints a real threat as an idiot. That’s unwise.
3 – But there is worse to come. Green and Sattler have unwittingly set up possible conditions that could lead to demonic influence in gullible people’s lives. At best, that’s irresponsible. How have they done this? They’ve told us that our love for the living and the dead is powerful, and solves all problems. This would be dangerous if it led unwise audience members to attempt to contact dead loved ones who they love. Why dangerous?
The evidence would suggest that demons are real – and they don’t give a hoot what we think and feel about anyone. In the past, people turned to spiritualism and Ouija boards as a way to make contact with dead relatives. They did that because they loved these people and missed them. There was a resurgence of this practice during the First World War, and it has been on the rise again more recently. Reportedly, there’s sometimes an initial sense of connection to the deceased. Yet this is followed by destructive and harmful events in the life of the grieving and budding spiritualist. I would argue that this suggests if we go looking to speak to the dead, we will only encounter demons who pose as our loved ones, and want to mislead and harm us. Green and Sattler’s message – human love conquers all – is like sending you into battle without any defence or weapon at all. On the one hand – demons are real – on the other, we can take ’em guys! I’m wondering why they would send such unwise and mixed messages in this movie?
Finally, while I found parts of the movie’s climax touching, I also found it deeply unsatisfying. Green and Sattler want us to believe that human love conquers all, and all God can expect of us is to do our best to keep going in our lives and keep loving people. That’s all God can expect of us when it comes to us being good enough for heaven after we die. Right? Loving people is good, but the God bit here is exactly wrong.
Blatty was closer to the truth of the matter in the original “The Exorcist”. Demons want us to think we’re not good enough to receive God’s love. That’s why he said the child was possessed – to make us think we are animals. But the demon is wrong. God loves all people, we are precious, made in his image. He wants us to know him. Life is not about being good enough for God. It’s not human love that conquers all. Rather, it’s Jesus Christ’s love that defeats the power of man’s freely chosen rebellion against God. For those who decide to put their trust and belief in Christ, a future in heaven is assured. Human love is not the solution, it’s an important signpost towards the powerful love that God has for people. That’s where the true eternal hope lies. “The Exorcist: Believer” mistakes the signpost for the true thing. And it underestimates the threat of the demonic in people’s lives. I would argue – William Peter Blatty made neither of these mistakes.
“There is more than enough room in my father’s home. If this were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you…I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the father except through me.”
John 14:2, 6, NLT
“You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.”
James 2:19, NLT
[1] Richard Gallagher, Demonic Foes: My Twenty Five Years as a Psychiatrist Investigating Posessions, Diabolic Attacks, and the Paranormal, (2020).
Former evangelical Charles Taze Russell founded the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1880, and his successor Joseph Rutherford later adopted the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” for its members. Robert Bowman opines Russell’s anti-Trinitarian ideas originated from his Adventist influences in the 1870s.[1]
JW Anti-Trinitarianism
In Should You Believe in the Trinity, JWs describe the Trinity doctrine as denoting one God in three persons, each eternally existing, each equally almighty. They claim this is contrary to reason; three persons cannot represent one God.[2] Further, were one to read the Bible without preconceived trinitarian notions, one would not locate trinitarian doctrine in it.[3]
Biblical Examples of Trinitarian Doctrine
The Bible is God’s inspired revelation. Despite JW claims, trinitarian doctrine is threaded throughout scripture. William G. T. Shedd identifies two ways it presents the Trinity. First, texts exist where all three members of the Godhead, Father, Son and Spirit, are mentioned directly. Second, some texts teach the deity of individual Godhead members.[4]
An example of type one is Jesus’ baptism. As Jesus emerged from the water, Matthew reports the Spirit descended like a dove and a voice identified Jesus as God’s dearly loved Son.[5] This implies the one speaking is the Father. Second, Jesus commission of his disciples has a trinitarian form, commanding the baptism of Christian converts in the individual names of the Father, Son, and Spirit.[6] Third, the Apostle Paul commonly sent trinitarian greetings to the church. To the Corinthians, he blessed them with the grace of Jesus, the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.[7]
We find instances of Shedd’s second type of trinitarian text, the deity of individual Godhead members, in the Old Testament. First, Shedd observes a trinitarian three-ness evident in the early priestly blessing the Lord gives to Moses; blessing, grace, and peace.[8] Second, Isaiah declares that God the Father is the only God,[9] yet also states that a Son is given to us called Mighty God and Everlasting Father.[10] While Genesis reports the Spirit of God hovered over the deep,[11] Shedd observes the Gospels assume the first century Jewish audience understood God’s Spirit to be a person from Hebrew scripture.[12] In Matthew, John the Baptist tells the Jewish Pharisees one is coming to baptise in the Holy Spirit, without needing to identify that Spirit.[13]
JW Rebuttals
JWs say the New Testament (NT) views Jesus as a creature, not a divine being. Because Jesus is not God, the Trinity is necessarily false.[14] I will explore three JW arguments opposing Jesus’ divinity.
First, Jesus was created in heaven prior to visiting earth,[15] in Colossians 1:15 he is “first-born of all creation,”[16]and the one who Revelation 3:14 identifies as the beginning of God’s creation.[17] Michael Licona poses two challenges to JW interpretation. First, the Greek for “first-born” is “prototokos.” It is used in the Greek Septuagint in two ways. It denotes a chronological relationship, identifying Canaan’s oldest son,[18] and it also identifies a person’s position. When David is described as the first-born, mightiest king,[19] this cannot denote a chronological position as Saul was Israel’s first king.[20] Rather, “prototokos” is a title designating David’s position.[21] Similarly, “prototokos” in Colossians 1:15 can also be interpreted positionally. Verse 16 identifies this interpretation as the correct one. Rather than stating God made everything after he created Jesus, Paul says he made things through Jesus, implying his divinity.[22] Licona’s second challenge relates to Revelation 3:14. The Greek for “beginning” is “arche.” This word is either expressed passively or actively. If passive, the subject is being created, otherwise the subject is doing the creating. Revelation can read either way. Yet Licona urges interpretation of the verse alongside other instances of “arche.” For example, Colossians 1:18 describes him as the “beginning, supreme over all,” and Colossians 1:15-16 says he was the one who began everything. Consequently, Revelation 3:14 should be interpreted similarly; Jesus as creator, not creature. The word “arche” also denotes political rule, and this is appropriate for Jesus.[23]
The second JW argument notes Jesus is described as the only-begotten Son of God.[24] The writer to the Hebrews uses the same Greek word, “monogenes,” when describing the relationship between Abraham and his son Isaac.[25]Usually, begetting relates to procreation. JWs claim the relationship between Father and Son is therefore similar to the relationship between Abraham and Isaac. Yet while “monogenes” can refer to a single, naturally born son,[26] Licona identifies another meaning. Abraham did not only have one son, he also had a second son named Ishmael. Hebrews therefore cannot correctly identify Isaac as Abraham’s only naturally born son. So, “monogenes” must mean something else in Hebrews, and also in John 1:18, and 3:16. It means special and exalted. Jesus is the exalted Son of God, like Isaac is the exalted son of Abraham.[27]
Third, JWs deny that people ascribed deity to Jesus in the first century.[28] He was the Son of God, not God. Yet this misunderstands the meaning of Jesus’ title and is at odds with the text. For example, monotheistic Jews knew worship was due to God alone.[29] Yet the disciples worshipped Christ,[30] and the author of Hebrews states the angels also worship him.[31] Further, Jesus himself took authority over the sabbath that God instituted,[32] and he claimed divine authority to forgive sin.[33] Further, the Jewish Sanhedrin demonstrated their understanding of the divine office of Messiah. Prior to his crucifixion, when Jesus agreed he was the Messiah, the high priest accused him of blasphemy.[34]First century Jews clearly did understand Jesus’ claim to deity.
Conclusion
The JW claim that scripture fails to teach trinitarian doctrine is unsustainable. Their rejection of the Trinity may stem in part from confusion; they miss the distinction between essence and person. Shedd notes the divine essence subsists paternally in the first, filially in the second, and is spirated in the third person, simultaneously and eternally.[35]While there are three persons, there is only one divine essence, and they are each the whole of it.
[1] Robert M Bowman, Jr., Jehovah’s Witnesses, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 12.
[21] Michael Licona, Behold I Stand at the Door and Knock What to say to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses when they knock on your door, (Alpharetta: TruthQuest Publishers, 1998), 34.
The term Near Death Experience (NDE) was first proposed by Dr. Raymond Moody in Life After Life. It relates to an event occurring in three categories of people: first, people resuscitated after having been pronounced clinically dead, second those close to death, and third those describing what happened as they died.[1] These subjects often report similar experiences, containing some or all of the following: one hears oneself pronounced dead while simultaneously navigating a tunnel, landing outside the physical body (OOB) while remaining in one’s original physical environment. The subject observes their resuscitation from above. Other beings come to help the individual, including deceased family. A loving light is encountered, a review of life experiences, and eventually a barrier is reached. Rather than cross it, survivors decide, or are instructed to return to their physical body. On recovery, they find their ineffable experience hard to communicate.[2]
While NDEs were not well studied before Moody, they do appear in history. George Ritchie’s NDE was published in 1955,[3] Anna Atherton’s was published in 1680,[4] and around 300 BC Plato recorded a Greek soldier’s NDE in The Republic.[5]
Moody’s research was followed by Bruce Greyson who constructed a scale permitting the differentiation of true NDEs from other clinical diagnoses.[6] Michael Sabom studied seventy NDE cases, discovering autoscopic NDEs where the patient observes specific details of their resuscitation that could not have been naturally sensed by them.[7] These evidential NDEs suggest the NDE experiencer (NDEer) had an OOB where they perceived events later confirmed by third parties. Kenneth Ring studied NDEs in the blind and eighty percent reported visual impressions. Their observations were corroborated in two cases.[8]
Responding to Secular Skepticism
Michael Shermer claims all NDEs are in Moody’s category two because no physical death occurred. He opines that if a heart stops for ten minutes, this does not make one clinically dead. Successful resuscitation indicates the patient’s low-level bodily processes had not yet ceased. Consequently, the NDEer remained potentially alive even though they had flat electroencephalogram (EEG) output.[9]
I will make four responses to Shermer. First, the clinical definition of death involves absence of clinically detectable vital signs. Moody notes people in this state have been correctly declared dead for centuries, including category one NDEers.[10] The clinical death diagnosis does not preclude the possibility of resuscitation. Second, Shermer seems unwilling to allow OOB experiences. Because the mind is a product of the brain, and Shermer believes science definitively demonstrates that minds cannot exist apart from brains, OOBs are impossible.[11] Yet Moody’s evidential NDE studies support OOBs. Rather than producing mind, perhaps Shermer could consider the possibility that brains receive immaterial minds like radios receive radio waves.
Third, Shermer’s medical diagnosis seems misaligned to the reported heightening of consciousness during NDEs. Jeffrey Long observes surviving cardiac arrest patients generally experience confusion following resuscitation.[12]Shermer’s idea that brain produces mind supports this discovery; a low functioning brain would impede one’s consciousness. Yet Long also reveals a second group of cardiac NDEers who recall a heightened level of awareness during their resuscitation.[13] Shermer’s physicalism fails to account for both the second group, and the contrast between patient confusion in one group and recall of heightened awareness in another. Understanding the brain as a receiver rather than a producer may help explain this difference. Steve Miller opines we can assume an oxygen deprived brain undermines the mind’s activity. However, if the NDEer’s mind has become freed from their dysfunctional brain, this could present conditions that explain their heightened level of awareness.[14]
Fourth, Shermer’s naturalism means NDEs cannot be evidence for minds separate from brains. Yet science is not as definitive as he claims it to be on the relationship between mind and brain. Perhaps Shermer must assess all the evidence before reaching his conclusions.
Responding to Christian Skepticism
Norman Geisler rejects NDEs, observing a Biblical definition of death involves leaving the body and not returning without God’s intervention. Cases of final death include Jacob’s wife Rachel dying in childbirth,[15] and the Apostle Paul preferring to be away from his earthly body to be at home with Jesus.[16] Cases of divinely initiated return include Jesus’ raising of Lazarus,[17] and Jesus’ own resurrection.[18] Geisler opines only God can raise the dead.[19] This may be the case. Yet NDEers are resuscitated, not resurrected. Their physical body sustains life once medical intervention has restored it. Second, the possibility exists that God was involved in the resuscitation. NDEer’s commonly encounter a loving being of light. This seems somewhat consistent with Daniel’s vision of God’s blazing throne,[20] and the God who lovingly knits people together in the womb.[21]
Geisler also observes that non-Christians experience NDEs, asking why God would miraculously allow people to resume their unbelieving lives.[22] Perhaps God grants unbelievers the NDE to draw them towards himself? Jesus knew the hearts of those he spoke to; the rich young ruler loved his money,[23] and the hearts of the Pharisees were far from God.[24] It is plausible Jesus also therefore knows the state of every NDEer’s heart, recognizing the importance of a supernatural experience of his love before their ultimate demise. Moody describes changes in NDEers after their recovery; increased moral sensitivity,[25] and spiritual seeking is common.[26] These are often characteristics of those who eventually bow the knee to Christ.
Finally, because scripture teaches people only die once,[27] Geisler thinks the NDE is unbiblical.[28] Yet category one NDEs describe someone who dies but is resuscitated to live in the body a while longer. Their final death still awaits them. The NDE phenomena is therefore compatible with the Biblical observation that people only finally die once.
Importance of NDEs for Apologetics
NDEs evidentially support Jesus’ teaching that the human soul and body are distinct.[29] Gary Habermas explores this by discussing evidential NDEs that involve the patient’s unexpected conscious awareness during resuscitation, and NDEs in the blind. These NDEs contain veridical testimony pertaining to this world that remains unexplained naturalistically.[30] They therefore establish an evidential case supporting Jesus’ teaching about the nature of human beings.
[1] Raymond A. Moody, Life After Life, (London: Ebury Press, 2016), 8.
[6] Bruce Greyson, “The Near-Death Experience Scale Construction, Reliability, and Validity,” The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 171, no. 6: 369 – 375.
[7] Michael B. Sabom MD, Recollections of Death, (London: Corgi Books, 1981).
[8] Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper, “Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind: A Study of Apparent Eyeless Vision,” in Journal of Near-Death Studies, 16, no. 2, (Winter 1997): 101 – 147.
[9] Michael Shermer, Heavens on Earth: The Scientific Search for the Afterlife, Immortality, and Utopia, (London: Robinson, 2018), 90.
[12] Jeffrey Long, “Near-Death Experiences Evidence for their Reality,” in The Science of Near-Death Experiences, ed. John C Hagan III, (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2017), 65.
[14] J Steve Miller, Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven: A Brief Introduction in Plain Language, (Georgia: Wisdom Creek Press, 2012), 27.
[30] Gary R Habermas, “Evidential Near-Death Experiences,” in Minding the Brain: Models of the Mind, Information, and Empirical Science, eds. Angus J. Menuge, Brian R. Krouse, and Robert J. Marks, (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2023), 651 – 673, summarised.
Are you interested in what happens to us after our bodies die? If so, then this book is a great resource.
We’re going to bring many assumptions to this subject. Maybe we are involved with one of the world’s religions, or perhaps our background is completely secular. I think this book will be relevant for everyone, whichever worldview we are personally starting from. (1)
We’re all coming with different assumptions, yet we’re all going to die one day. So, it is very helpful to read Miller’s careful assessment of the data gathered from people in two main groups. First, those who have not yet reached their final death, but apparently have had a sneak peek into what comes next (NDE). Second, those who had surprising encounters as their final death approached them (DBE). Various professional studies have been done on these phenomena. In this book, Dr Miller focuses on the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF) database and assesses the experiences recorded there. He balances the data entered by medical professionals with reports from the general public, and assesses both in an even handed way.
Dr Miller has two strengths that he brings to this book. First, his rigorous and curious approach to the world. He’s not trying to confirm what he thinks he already knows. He’s genuinely looking at all the data he can find that seems to relate to what happens for ordinary people as they approach death. Second, he is incredibly generous in his scholarship. I can see that generosity in the extensive reference list he provides. But I can also see it in the way he forms his arguments. His rigor is matched by kindness, tentativeness, and accessibility. It’s a joy to read, and I never felt railroaded as I assessed his arguments in the book. But I did leave wanting to know more.
He covers a lot of ground, and so inevitably, Dr Miller cannot go into depth on every area he explores. For example, his treatment of the problem of evil in chapter 17 is very brief indeed. There is much more that can be said here, and some readers may feel their own issues with evil and suffering are not addressed. Yet perhaps a comprehensive treatment of this area is not really Miller’s goal. There are other resources that he points to that do that job. I think in this book, he helpfully faces the common complaint that life sometimes just does not make sense to us. He illustrates this problem by referring to the death of his first wife when she was very young. He then sketches out an argument to suggest that NDE’s point to a divine love and justice that will only be fully known and understood by us after our final death. I think this is helpful in two ways. Dr Miller might be breaking some new ground with this argument, and he is also laying helpful groundwork for future scholars to run with. Generosity again.
Are you skeptical about NDEs and DBEs based on your religious or secular commitments? Why not read Dr Miller’s book, and then come to your own opinion based on both the data and the inferences that he draws from it.
Consciousness is hard to understand. I’m conscious as I write this, and you are conscious as you read. But it is very hard for scientists to understand just what our “consciousness” amounts to. The resources in philosophy help. Some philosophers only allow an explanation of consciousness to be formed in materialistic and reductionist terms. For example, Daniel Dennett thinks that consciousness is matter.[1] Others think that brain matter itself, while correlating with our experience of consciousness, cannot be the cause of conscious experience. In other words, we are not our brains. Rather, we have brains.
A theory is emerging called the non-locality of consciousness. It comes from the field of Quantum Physics, and the observed phenomenon of quantum entanglement (QE). QE describes the behaviour of two sub-atomic particles that once entangled, remain mysteriously connected over long distances with no apparent physical connection existing between them. Pim van Lommel, cardiologist and Near-Death Experience (NDE) researcher for over 30 years describes a theory of nonlocal consciousness:
Our endless or nonlocal consciousness with declarative memories finds its origin and is stored in a nonlocal realm as wave-fields of information, and the brain only serves as a relay station for parts of these wave-fields of consciousness to be received into or as our waking consciousness. The function of the brain … [is as a] transceiver.[2]
In this blog, I want to give three examples of phenomena that seem to support the hypothesis of nonlocality of consciousness. All three relate to the practice of medicine:
1 – neuroplasticity
2 – terminal lucidity
3 – consciousness during a period of brain malfunction
1 – Neuroplasticity
Mindfulness studies show the ability of the human mind to shape the physical composition of the brain. Van Lommel observes that both neural networks and electromagnetic activity are shaped by one’s mind. He asks, how can we explain this scientifically if the conscious mind is merely a side-effect of a functioning brain, or if consciousness is just an illusion?[3]
He cites an example of a three-year-old girl whose left-brain hemisphere was removed surgically to alleviate symptoms of epilepsy. This procedure would be disastrous on adults. However, young children appear to have a high degree of adaptability, or plasticity, in their brain function. The number and location of neuron connections is highly adaptable. A year after her operation, she showed virtually no symptoms and could see and think clearly. She proceeded to develop normally, did better at school than others with a whole brain, even though she only physically possessed half a brain.[4]
Clearly, for this outcome to have been achieved, the girl must have been able to form new neural connections that allowed all function to be taken over by the remaining half of the brain. She re-programmed her brain because she had the conscious will, and the ability to do so. Her conscious mind changed the construction of her brain.
For this to be possible, that means brain and mind cannot be the same thing, though they are closely related things. If the mind is the product of the brain, we would expect her mind to suffer the massive loss of brain matter. Yet this was evidently not the case over the long term. She was able to overcome the loss of brain tissue and carry on after a period of recovery. If the mind is an illusion, we would not expect it to have the ability to rewire the functioning of the brain. And yet this is evidently what it did.
2. Terminal Lucidity
Sometimes, in the last week or day of a terminal patient’s life, they regain capabilities that are not easily explainable by normal neurological processes. David was dying of lung cancer. His head was stuffed full of tumors, and on his final scan, he had virtually no brain tissue left. All he had were haphazardly growing grey masses. He was non-responsive, his body kept alive on machines.
On his final evening, the consultant checked on him and noticed his breathing indicated that death was imminent. He did not expect David to survive the night. The next morning, the room had been cleaned, and the bed made up following David’s death. However – the nurse that had cared for David as he died stopped the doctor in the corridor to talk.
He woke up, you know, doctor – just after you left – and said goodbye to them all. Like I’m talkin’ to you right here. Like a miracle. He talked to them and patted them and smiled for about five minutes. Then he went out again, and he passed in the hour.[5]
This was a wonderful opportunity for David’s heartbroken family to say goodbye. But notice this. It couldn’t have been David’s brain that woke him up. He didn’t have any brain tissue, only metastases. This strongly suggests that David’s mind was able to push through the physical impairment for a short time prior to death. This is hard to explain on a materialistic understanding of brain but makes sense on the non-locality of consciousness hypothesis.
3 – Conscious During Brain Malfunction
On patients under general anaesthetic, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and registration of electrical activity of the brain (EEG) show functional loss of all major brain tissue. Connections are temporary severed while under anaesthetic, making information flow between neural centres impossible. In this state, conscious experiences should not be possible on a materialistic understanding of consciousness (where mind = brain). Van Lommel gives the following report from an anaesthetised patient that challenges materialism:
I suddenly became aware of hovering over the foot of the operating table and watching the activity…soon it dawned on me that this was my own body. So I … heard everything that was said: ‘Hurry up, you bloody bastard,’ was one thing I remember them shouting … I could also read the minds of everybody in the room…I later learned … it took four and a half minutes to get my heart … going again. As a rule, oxygen deprivation causes brain damage after three or three and a half minutes. I also heard the doctor say that he thought I was dead. Later he confirmed saying this, and he was astonished to learn that I’d heard it. I also told them that they should mind their language during surgery.[6]
A common response to this phenomenon is to suppose that the person’s hearing remained active during the procedure, and they imagined a visual scene based on prior experience of medical procedures seen in their lives, perhaps on TV or films. If so, their memory is not an example of the non-locality of consciousness.
However, this materialistic explanation has been well studied by Dr Penny Sartori. She shows convincingly that the recall of patients who claimed an out-of-body (OBE) experience is much more accurate compared to patient recall based who did not claim an OBE and were working on their limited background knowledge.[7]We therefore have good reasons to believe van Lommel’s patient when she claims to have seen and heard her operation while physically unconscious and unable to do so in a natural sense.
4 – Conclusion
The clinical examples quoted in this blog are not easily explained on a materialistic account of consciousness. They are, however, compatible with the non-locality of consciousness. When taken together with the evidence of NDE, this forms a robust argument for the non-locality of consciousness and refutes the physical argument for consciousness.
[1] Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained, (1991), mentioned in Pim van Lommel, The Continuity of Consciousness A Concept Based on Scientific Research on Near-Death Experiences During Cardiac Arrest, Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies, https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/index.php/essay-contest/.
I’ve been reading about Vipassana Meditation this week.[1] This is a practical approach to finding peace and freedom from suffering in life. Given the fears many people carry around with them today (will I have enough to live on, will there be a war here, will my family be okay), I can see why a strategy for peace and freedom is attractive.
The Buddhism on which Vipassana is based is one of the world’s oldest religions, starting somewhere around the fifth century BCE, although it is hard to be precise on those dates.
Vipassana seems to be built upon some core Buddhist doctrines. Oxford University Buddhist Scholar Sarah Shaw says that while there are many different schools of Buddhism, they tend to share these core tenants of the Buddhist dharma, or law:[2]
Impermanence (anicca). Huston Smith describes this as an ontology where nothing in nature is identical with what it was a moment before.[3] John Dickson suggests this means there is no Buddhist thinker, just thoughts.[4]
Suffering (dukkha). This is the first of the Siddhartha Gautama’s (the Buddha’s) Noble Truths. Everything is impermanent and imperfect, and it leads to suffering in our lives.
Egoless-ness (anatta). This is about an absence of self, or the illusion of self. The Dali Lama says this means people possess no immutable essence,[5] and Zen scholar Masao Abe notes that there is therefore no Hindu atman or eternal self, just anatman.[6]
The Buddhist dharma teaches that while there is no self, we are composed of five parts or skandas: matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness that appear together like grains of sand in a pile.[7] Our goal is enlightenment, and one way that many Buddhists work towards that is by following the eightfold path, which is moral instruction.
In this blog, I will assess the metaphysical problems that result from this ontology. I will argue these problems seriously undermine the rationality of Buddhism as a world view. Consequently, while it is right to seek peace and freedom in life, we need instead to find these important things in something which is solid and real.
The Problem of Buddhist Ego-lessness
There is a metaphysical commitment that seems to be held by almost everyone, including Buddhists. J P Moreland describes this as the absolute view of personal identity. A person moves through time and exists fully at each moment of his life, even though his physical attributes (e.g. height and weight) and mental attributes (e.g. understanding) change throughout the whole of life.[8] The Buddhist talks about achieving peace and freedom in life, and ultimately attaining enlightenment. So, the Buddhist makes the metaphysical commitment of “sameness through change.”
Yet there is a problem. On Buddhism, we are under the illusion that there is actually a self. There is no eternal self. Rather, there is a pile of parts. I am therefore defined by what my parts are now. I do not have a simple core essence, or soul, that defines me. If the Buddhist is right that I am an assembly of parts, then as one part changes, I therefore must necessarily become a different person. Why? Because I am defined by my parts. Once a part is different, so am I. Imagine swiping through a sequence of photographs of different people on your phone. That’s what change actually must accomplish on the Buddhist view of self.
The Buddhist talks about “my freedom,” and ”my enlightenment.” They apparently assume that the same person exists through all the changes that lead towards eventual enlightenment. So, they are committed to “sameness through change.” But their view of self does not allow for it. The idea that we are a collection of parts, and the idea we are a simple core self, are mutually contradictory. And “sameness through change” is only possible on the latter. This is a metaphysical problem for Buddhism.
Joe cannot become enlightened on the Buddhist view of the self. As Joe’s skandas change, his identity alters in metaphysical terms. Joe is no longer Joe anymore, his changes have made him into someone else. If Joe is Siddhartha Gautama, then Buddhism has a problem because Siddhartha can never attain enlightenment on his own doctrine of personhood.
So – there is a big problem with the doctrine of ego-less-ness. It makes the Buddhist aim at freedom and enlightenment impossible. But here’s a second problem.
Why Be Good on Buddhism?
There appears to be no absolute good or evil on Buddhism. After all, “all things … abstract concepts … are devoid of objective, independent existence.”[9] Abe notes that good and evil are co-dependent, they arise together, and the “distinction between [them] is not only relativised but the two values are reversed.”[10] If Buddhism recognises no objective moral categories, perhaps good and evil are just human conventions?
Yet at the same time, Abe requires the Buddhist to “seek good and avoid evil.”[11] And the Dali Lama agrees, seeing personal values as, “the basic, innate capacity for compassion in all human beings … [all people have] an equal potential for goodness.”[12] So – on the one hand, moral knowledge is available to Abe and Lama and moral statements are factual and have objective meaning. Yet on the other hand, they say moral categories do not exist in an absolute sense. If everything is impermanent, there are no absolutes, so it is not clear how Abe and Lama can legitimately require us to seek the good. Worse, if Abe is right that the meaning of good and evil is reversed on Buddhism, then we cannot objectively assess the rightness of anything. Including Buddhism!
However, in the real world, the problem of evil exists. We intuitively know the good we should do but tend not to do. And human beings recognise evil actions when they see them and rail against them, demanding justice to be done and for the evil to cease. We might disagree on what constitutes “evil,” but people don’t tend to doubt the existence of “evil” actions themselves. Buddhism therefore seems to be at odds with the intuitive understanding of people. Could this be a strength of Buddhism?
Perhaps not. Abe says the solution to the problem of evil is to recognise that we need to overcome good-evil duality. We must be freed from all desires and ethical demands. The Buddhist solution to the problem of evil is found in the realization of absolute nothingness; the awakening to sunyata.[13] But if he is right about that, why it is right for good actions to be prioritised on Buddhism anyway? Why should anyone want to be good on Buddhism? The answer seems to be that we must get past good and evil and achieve personal freedom from suffering. It is not about developing moral virtue. In that case the danger for the Buddhist seems to be moral indifference. If the Buddhist’s aim is to overcome thinking about good and evil actions, then this means Buddhism lacks the resources to justify ethical behaviour. They can ask us to follow the eightfold path and be good, but in the end, there’s no ethical reason for it.
This has an impact on how we view human atrocities on Buddhism. Think of the attempted genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. If there is no good or evil, there really is no difference between the perpetrators and the victims. If perpetrators are no different from victims, why should we do anything to stop the genocide? Why should we have a justice system that holds people accountable for crimes? This view is at odds with our deepest moral insights.
Why should we be good on Buddhism? There doesn’t seem to be a good reason. Abe admits that Buddhist doctrine cannot ground or motivate compassionate, moral behaviour without Christianity. “Buddhism [needs] … a serious encounter with Christianity which is ethical as well as religious.”[14] Maybe this is required because Christianity is a closer account of reality than Buddhism.
Conclusion
Vipassana calls us to cultivate freedom and peace in our lives. This is also an important call in the New Testament. People who welcome Jesus to lead their lives can grow in the fruit of the Spirit. This includes love, joy and peace.[15] Both Buddhism and Christianity point us to these virtues, yet the core doctrines of Buddhism prevent a person from developing them as a Buddhist.
Also, there seems to be no reason to prioritise these as good things on Buddhism. I suggest the Buddhist’s goal is right, but their means of getting there is not. Like Masao Abe, it seems like the Buddhist needs a genuine encounter with true Christianity and the person of Jesus Christ to effect real positive change in their life. Christianity is rooted in the historical resurrection of Christ, it offers an understanding of personhood consistent with the life change that it offers, and it also offers to solve the problem of evil rather than to claim the problem is of no ultimate importance.
[3] Huston Smith, The World’s Religions, (HarperOne, 1991), 117.
[4] John Dickson, A Doubters Guide to World Religions, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2022), 76.
[5] His Holiness the Dalai Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom How Science and Spirituality Can Serve Our World, (London: Little Brown, 2005), 49.
[6] Masao Abe, “The Problem of Evil in Christianity and Buddhism”, in Buddhist-Christian Dialogue Mutual Renewal and Transformation, ed. Paul O. Ingram and Frederick J. Streng, (University of Hawaii Press, 1986), 145.
The Acts of the Apostles (Acts) is a New Testament book that helps us to understand early Christian beliefs and practices. But when was it written? Was it produced during the lifetime of the witnesses who engaged with Jesus of Nazareth and the Apostles? Or was it composed much later by an individual or individuals unconnected with the events? If it can be argued that Acts is an early text, then its closeness to the events and its eyewitness testimony both give credibility to the miracles that it documents.
Also, did the Apostle Paul’s companion Luke write it? If so, that places its author within the circle of those who participated in the events being reported. Further, if Acts is early, then by extension the Gospel of Luke should also be dated within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses and given the same credibility as Acts. The gospel was composed first.
Historian Colin J. Hermer lists various reasons for accepting the traditional composition date for Acts.[1] This date is around AD 62, only 30 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. This publication date would place the extensive research and writing of Acts well within the lifetime of many eyewitnesses of Jesus and the events in the early church and Paul’s missionary journeys.
In this blog I will focus mainly on the nine arguments themselves, tho I do mention one skeptical response.
The nine arguments supporting the early authorship of Acts are:
Omission of the fall of Jerusalem in Acts
No Mention of the Jewish-Roman War in Acts
No Mention of the Deteriorating Relations between Emperor Nero and the Christian church in Acts
No Mention of the Martyrdom of James in Acts
Lack of knowledge about Paul’s Letters in Acts
The Abrupt Ending of Acts
Sense of immediacy in Later Chapters of Acts
Undesigned Coincidences Between Acts and Paul’s Letters
Author’s Specialised Knowledge is Evident in Acts
Some of these arguments for the early dating of Acts rely on arguments from silence. I will assess this approach of argumentation next.
Assessing the Historical Argument from Silence
The argument from silence is a probabilistic type of argument and is used as a ground for inferring a conclusion. There is disagreement over the effectiveness of the argumentum ex silentio for assessing historical arguments. For example, while one historian describes this as “nothing more or less valid than the universally valid method of historical investigation,”[2] another claims the argument is weak at best.[3] It is important when using this approach to form a strong argument, as weak arguments of this type are common.
Tim McGrew observes three steps that must be present for a strong version of the historical argument from silence:[4]
the event in question would almost certainly have come to the notice of the author in question.
the author would have recorded or given evidence of the fact had they been aware of the event in question.
the works in which this was recorded would have survived to the present era and come to the notice of contemporary scholars.
He gives the example of Bergen in Norway. Archaeological digs have uncovered evidence of a major fire there between 1225 and 1230 AD. Various Annals document the history of this region, but do not mention any fires between 1198 and 1248. Which evidence – the archaeology or the documentation – should take precedence? Archaeologists and historians working together agreed that the archaeological evidence takes precedence. Clearly, the writers of the Annals did not record the fire that has left physical evidence of its occurrence. This suggests the writers did not have “recording fires” as a goal in their writing. So, in our list of three steps above, step 1 is probably satisfied, but step 2 was probably not satisfied because it was not important for the writer to record the fire.
This example from Bergen shows us that we must be very careful before drawing an argument from silence, and we must take all the data into consideration before making an inference. An argument can fall down on any of the three steps above. It seems that in the Bergen case, the argument from silence fails at step 2.
Next, we will discuss the arguments supporting a dating of Acts to around AD62.
Omission of the Fall of Jerusalem in Acts
In AD 70, the Roman army besieged the city of Jerusalem, centre of Jewish resistance in the Roman province of Judea. After a brutal five month siege, the Romans destroyed the city and the Jewish Temple. This was a major turning point in Jewish history because the Temple was central to 1st century Jewish and early Christian culture and life. Historian Josephus records the horror of the fall of Jerusalem.
As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamour, such as so mighty an affliction required; and ran together to prevent it. And now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it.[5]
Flavius Josephus, Of the War – Book VI
The stated purpose and content of Acts is that it is a work of history. Acts 1:1 continues the intentions of Luke’s Gospel to “draw up an account of the things fulfilled among us … handed down … by eyewitnesses.”[6]Authors in the late first century who know this area would have been painfully aware of the events Josephus describes.
It is interesting to note that many other significant events in the life of the fledgling church are recorded in Acts. For example:
the Jewish authorities and their persecution of the Apostles Peter and John (Acts 4-5)
persecution of the church by Saul (Acts 8)
scattering of some people from the church in Jerusalem (Acts 8)
Given the effect the fall of Jerusalem would have had on the lives of the Jewish and Christian population there, it is hard to think of a reason why the author of Acts would not have mentioned this highly significant and unique event – the destruction of the Temple. Consequently, this is a very unlikely omission by the author. This would suggest the fall of Jerusalem had not happened while the book was being written.
Interestingly, Luke’s gospel does appear to refer to the fall of Jerusalem. During a discussion about the beauty of the Temple, Jesus says:
“As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”[7]
Some skeptical scholars do not believe that Jesus could supernaturally know about the destruction of the temple. Consequently, they use this verse as evidence that Luke’s gospel was written after AD 70. However, if miracles do occur, there is no need to date Luke after AD 70.
So – do miracles occur? While skeptics will quickly oppose the notion of the occurrence of miracles, I have yet to hear a convincing argument disproving the possibility of the supernatural. These arguments tend to cut the ground from under their own feet.
For example, David Hume’s attempt is mired in circular argumentation. He assumes miracles cannot happen to argue that they do not. Unfortunately, there are volumes of documented miracles from Hume’s time, as well as earlier and later in history. Further, Anthony Flew’s argument that one-off miracles are not permitted also disallows some important events that are recognised by believing and unbelieving scientists. For example, the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth. Further, if one-off events (miracles) must always be overturned by the normal flow of events, no new scientific discoveries could ever be made. For these and many other reasons, the skeptical argument against miracles cannot disallow the occurrence of miracles. Skeptics therefore cannot reasonably require that Luke 21:6 points to a date of composition for Luke’s gospel beyond AD 70.
No Mention of the Jewish-Roman War in Acts
Tensions between the Jews and Romans were the precursor to the fall of Jerusalem. These tensions are dated to AD 66, and we would expect this to be mentioned in Acts if it had already occurred because again, it was significant and relevant to the church and the local community and would have been important to the author of Luke-Acts.
No Mention of Deterioration in Relations between Emperor Nero and the Christian Community in Acts
There are many facets to this highly significant period in the life of the early Christian Church. In his Annals, Roman historian Tacitus records Nero’s persecution of the Christians in various brutal ways. And he pinned the cause of the fire in Rome on the Christians.[8] This is dated to the mid to late AD 60s. It is not mentioned in Acts, suggesting it is yet to occur while Acts is being written.
If the author of Acts recorded earlier persecution by the Jewish authorities, and persecution by the Roman authorities, why not this Roman persecution that was happening close to home? Again, given the significance of these events, it is hard to see why the author of Acts would not have mentioned Nero’s persecution if it had already occurred. This suggests it had not yet occurred while Acts was being written.
No Mention of the Martyrdom of James in Acts
In his Antiquities, Josephus records the Sanhedrin’s killing of the Apostle James around AD 62. This would be an important event in the history of the Christian church as it involved the death of one of their first leaders. The omission of this event suggests it had not happened yet while the author was researching and writing.
The Author of Acts Does Not Appear to Know About the Apostle Paul’s Letters
If Acts was written later in the 1st century, surely the author’s research would have included reading the Apostle Paul’s letters and informing his account with the details recorded in there. However, there is no evidence this was the case from the Acts text.
Now, it is possible that the author simply didn’t have access to these letters. The 1st century was not an information-rich age like ours is today. Yet at a time when these documents were being copied and distributed amongst the earliest churches, it seems reasonable to assume he would have known about the existence of the letters from the people he was interviewing as part of his research. If Luke is the author, and he is a companion of Paul, you would think he would know about some of Paul’s letters.
This is a weaker argument from silence compared to the previous two. But silence on the letters may suggest an early date for the research and writing of Acts, perhaps prior to the wide distribution of some of Paul’s letters. The fact he doesn’t mention them suggests the author’s research happened around the time Paul was writing his epistles.
The Abrupt Ending of Acts
There is a suddenness about the conclusion to Acts. The Apostle Paul makes his final journey to Rome and arrives after surviving a shipwreck. Paul is awaiting the outcome to his appeal to the Roman emperor. Through other writers of the time (1 Clement 5, Eusebius) it is recorded that Paul is released in AD 62 only to be reimprisoned and executed a few years later.[9] Acts reports none of this important detail. It seems the author writes up to his understanding of contemporary events, without knowing what the outcome for Paul would be.
Also, scholars have noted the parallels the writer of Luke-Acts seems to draw between the lives of Jesus and Paul. If the author had been aware of Paul’s martyrdom, they would have reported it in Acts to draw the parallel even closer.[10] Its omission suggests it had not happened yet, and the author recorded as much as he could based on prior known events.
A Sense of Immediacy in the Later Chapters of Acts
The early chapters report events in an indirect way, while the later chapters (e.g. Acts 27 – 28) report things more immediately. This suggests that the author relied on eyewitnesses testimony for the early parts of the book, and switched to his own memories for the events he was personally involved in.
Undesigned Coincidences Between Acts and Paul’s Letters
While Acts does not seem to use Paul’s letters as a source, nevertheless it reports events that are consistent with those letters. For example, Paul’s ministry in Macedonia is reported in Acts 16 and 19, and also in Romans 15 and 2 Corinthians 8 and 11. Multiple documents separately attesting to the same event is an undesigned coincidence and a mark of historicity.
Specialised Knowledge is Evident in Acts
The author comes across as someone who is well acquainted with the region. For example:
topography of Jerusalem is shown (Acts 1:12, 19 and 3:2,11)
knowledge of the Roman military guard and other Roman terms are clearly shown (Acts 12:4)
Cyprus is correctly described as a proconsular province
The part played by Troas in communication is acknowledged
Acts 13 – 28 show an intimate knowledge of local circumstances. There are many “we” passages in the later chapters of Acts
Implications of the Dating of Acts on Luke’s Gospel
These arguments for the early research and composition of Acts also by implication support an early date for Luke’s Gospel since the style of writing demonstrates the same author wrote both works.
Placing both of these works at an early period in the first century, around AD 62, means the author researched and wrote within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. This, therefore, gives further support to the original Christian belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection, as these are prominent in both works. This was not a later idea imposed on 1st-century events.
Authorship of Luke-Acts
The church fathers Papias and Irenaeus lived at a time near the events reported in Luke-Acts. Given that Luke’s Gospel was essentially distributed anonymously, as it didn’t have the author reported on the front of the scroll, its authorship would have been part of the oral testimony that accompanied copies of the document.
The traditional authorship of Luke, Mark, and Matthew’s gospels are affirmed by Papias and Irenaeus. Matthew was written by the disciple of that name, Mark was written by John Mark as a memoir of Peter, and Luke was a close companion of the apostle Paul. We do not know for certain that this traditional authorship is correct, but this tradition has a definite ring of truth about it; “Why would Christians as early as the second century ascribe these otherwise anonymous Gospels to three such unlikely candidates if they did not, in fact, write them?”[11]
Conclusion
I have presented nine arguments for the early authorship of Luke-Acts. Five of these are arguments from silence. How well do these arguments meet McGrew’s three steps? I would argue that it is highly likely that arguments 1 to 4 easily meet step 1. Argument 5 is less certain. Although I think it is likely Paul’s letters would have come to Luke’s attention. I would suggest all five arguments meet step 2 because the importance of the events, and the relevance of Paul’s letters, mean Luke would have very likely referred to them during his research and writing. Finally, all five arguments easily meet McGrew’s step 3. Acts is an important early work. At the time of writing, the earliest copy of Acts is found in P45. The Chester Beatty Papyri are dated to the third century and preserve much of the four gospels, and Acts itself.[12]
I have shown how nine arguments together argue for the early authorship of Acts at around AD 62. I think together these meet the criteria laid down by McGrew for a strong argument. Some of these events have a very major significance to everyone living in this 1st-century Jewish/Christian community. To suggest that the author would not record them because they were not relevant, seems unlikely. Given that there is an incremental quality to these arguments, taken together, this forms a strong argument suggesting research and authorship of Acts prior to the important events that are not mentioned, at around AD 62.
[1] Normal L. Geisler, The Big Book of Christian Apologetics, (Baker Books, 2012), 10-12.
[2] Reference 2 in The Argument from Silence, Timothy McGrew, DOI 10.1007/s12136-013-0205-5.
[9] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs, (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 14.
[11] Craig Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?”, mentioned in Kenneth Richard Samples, God Among Sages Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader, (Baker Books, 2017), 61.
“Isn’t it time to stop thinking that we are somehow the reason why this universe was made? That our culture is somehow better than other cultures? Its time to learn how the universe really is, even if that deflates our conceits, and forces us to admit we do not have all the answers. You must confront these fundamental questions.”[2]
The idea that people are arrogant for observing humanity’s privileged place in the universe seems odd to me. It’s odd because first, this push-back seems unaware of the scientific data that shows humanity has a privileged place in the cosmos. The data suggests our place is very privileged indeed. It is also odd because second, data is just data. To claim data as “arrogant” is simply mistaken. If the data did not support the conclusion that our position in the universe was privileged, then maybe you could make a case that this claim could be arrogant.
So – how does the scientific data support the claim that we are in a privileged spot in the universe? It does so in at least two ways.
1. We are Positioned for Scientific Discovery
The scientific revolution started in the 16th century, and has relied on some very specific sets of circumstances that most individuals have probably just accepted as a given. And yet, the fact of their existence is striking. The Copernican Principle has often been understood as the point when mankind and our cosmic home was found to be mundane. This was not the point Copernicus was originally making. And the more we learn about the universe, this mundane interpretation of the Copernican Principle is harder and harder to sustain.
Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and Philosopher of Science Jay W Richards have amassed a surprising body of evidence that shows that the fact that humanity is here now at this place and time, and we are physically capable of making scientific discoveries, is the result of an optimal balance of competing conditions (just like any humanly designed system). We are equipped with mental and physical capacities, and we are unusually well positioned to decipher details about the cosmos. We are therefore exceptional in our existence and in our ability to do science, and we sit at the optimum location to do that in cosmic terms. Surely this requires an explanation?[3]
What do they mean by an optimum location?
We inhabit a planet with a moon that stabilizes our orbit and climate. The relative sizes are perfect for allowing us to see solar eclipses. The moon is travelling away from us, and this capacity will be lost in an estimated 250 million years’ time. Yet we are here now to take advantage of our conditions to do science.
The earth’s surface is a data recorder. Ice cores store ancient data about CO2 and methane levels and allow us to correlate nitrate spikes to past cosmological events in the universe.
Planetary earthquakes and plate tectonics allow us to map the planets interior, and also maintain a planetary crust that sustains the carbon cycle and a life permitting ecosystem on the planet.
Earth’s magnetosphere shields and protects the atmosphere from solar wind.
If our gravity force was weaker, our atmosphere would leak away.
If our atmosphere was thicker, it would be harder for us to see through it to do astronomy.
Jupiter and Saturn are our solar-system’s vacuum cleaners, protecting Earth from asteroid impacts, and also acting as a source of material for us to study dating back to the formation of the solar system.
Our sun is at a particular size right now making it stable. It is unusual and contributes to the earth’s habitability and our ability to do scientific analysis.
Our position in the Milky Way galaxy is higher significant for us. We are actually sitting at the best lab bench in the galaxy. If we were any closer to the centre, our night sky would be so bright it would obscure light from distant stars.
We are also at the right time in planetary history for astronomical discovery. This will not always be the case during the Earth’s history. Big Bang cosmology predicts accelerating expansion of space, causing distant objects to fade from view from Earth. But at this very particular place and time in cosmic history, we are here to observe them.
Of course, you could reply that we are just lucky and we just happen to exist at this time and place. This seems to me to be the wrong way to interpret the scientific data. Why?
Well, consider the activity and development of the sciences. These are only possible because of these and many many more highly specific parameters that have very particular settings. Are we going to accept this rich prime location to perform scientific study, while at the same time passing our position off as the result of blind chance? We do not leave any part of scientific analysis to chance. So why is it fitting to leave the precise conditions allowing us to do our science to blind chance? We are sitting at the best lab bench in the galaxy, and surely that demands an explanation.
The naturalist may dismiss these notions. Not because he disagrees with the data, but because the interpretation of the data does not fit within his limited, naturalistic box. And – probably because he doesn’t like to think about the possible implications of the conclusion that we were put here to allow us to use of minds to study nature.
If the universe did exist for a divine purpose, how could we tell? Surely the answer is – look for the existence of some incredible coincidences within nature. Perhaps, the optimum balance of competing conditions just like the ones Gonzales and Richards point to.
2. We Live Within a Finely Tuned Universe
Physicists have discovered that the incredible coincidences just keep on coming as we look closer and closer into the fabric of the universe.
It turns out that for our universe to exist at all requires a highly precise setting of many initial conditions that are themselves independent. Each of these initial conditions is sometimes described as being like a very precise dial that can take different values. If even one of those dials was to be set slightly differently, our universe would cease to support the existence of life.
The incredible thing is that the laws of physics as we know them depend on the initial conditions of the universe being set correctly. But the initial conditions are not set by the laws of physics. In fact, physics relies on dial settings that are fundamentally mysterious. We don’t know why they are set as they are, but life couldn’t exist in our universe if they were not correct.
Luke Barnes and Geraint Lewis give some examples:[4]
Turn off gravity and there’s nothing to drive matter to gather into galaxies
Turn of electromagnetism and there is no chemistry as there’s nothing to keep electrons bound to their nuclei
Turn of the nuclear strong force and there are no atomic nuclei in the first place
These ideas are explored by theoretical physicists. But surely, they are also relevant to the claim being made by the “Dear Believer” video. Do we occupy a privileged place? Absolutely we do, the whole universe is the result of incredible and precise fine-tuning.
The late great Douglas Adams once mused that, “imaging a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly…staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it.”[5] Could it be that our universe works the same way? If the hole weren’t there, the puddle wouldn’t be there. If the universe wasn’t here, neither would we.
Except Adams’s puddle analogy fails to describe the fine-tuning of the universe. The water in a hole will always take on the shape of its hole. If the hole had been different, the water will adjust to match it. Any hole will do for a puddle. However, not just any universe will do for life. It is more likely that a universe would pop into existence for 1 second before collapsing again. Or, the universe would last longer but contained so few particles that no two would ever interact during the history of that universe.[6]
Fred Hoyle, who discovered the incredibly unlikely carbon atom production process within stars, once exclaimed:
“A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”[7]
3. Attempting An Anthropic Escape
The common response to the religious implications of the physical fine-tuning of the universe goes something like this:
“We exist. So – what else should we expect from a universe that contains us? We expect precisely these facts you lay out. Namely, that the universe can support us. If the universe wasn’t finely tuned this way, we would not be here to discuss it. So – don’t worry about all this.”
The reply tries to undercut the impact of the incredible coincidences that lead to our existence on this planet. But this anthropic response fails to undercut the impact of the scientific data and its implications. Why?
Well – lets write the anthropic escape response this way:
If (physical_observers)
then
an observer permitting universe
The problem is, this little conditional statement does not answer the question – “why observers in the first place?” After all, this statement as it is written is true whether there are physical observers in our universe, or whether there are no such observers! So, we have not touched the crucial question – why are there observers anyway?
The anthropic response is good at explaining why we do not have a life prohibiting universe. But it doesn’t explain why a life permitting universe exists. In fact, it doesn’t even try to approach that problem. Surely this question deserves some thought and consideration?
4. Summary
As the Dear Believer video states, it is time to understand how the universe really is and to accept this even if it challenges our philosophical presuppositions. Humanity’s privileged place in the universe will deflate the conceits of naturalistic philosophy, and the non-believer will try to resist its implications. And yet if we are committed to truth rather than just supporting our own pet theories, we must honestly face the implications. We have been put here for a purpose.
[3] Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2004).
[4] Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2016), 91.
[5] Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt: Hitching the Galaxy One Last Time.
[6] Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, The Trouble with “Puddle Thinking”: A User’s Guide to the Anthropic Principle, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.03381.pdf.
[7] Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November 1981. Pp. 8-12, quoted in Fred Hoyle, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle.
RESPOND 