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.
Keith Goode / Ken Thackery (KG) sets out to prove Christianity is based on a resurrection that never happened, and the Gospels record well-meaning but fictional details about a Gospel-Jesus who is a misleading representation of a Historical-Jesus. He thinks this secular narrative is much superior to the traditional orthodox Christian version of history.
KG is not convinced by Jesus mythicists. Jesus lived and was crucified. However, KG complains that no evidence for the resurrection exists beyond the New Testament (NT). He says the consensus of experts agree the Gospels were all written after the death of eyewitnesses. Because there is no proof the resurrection happened, the Christian apologist must therefore rely on the martyrdom of Peter to prove the resurrection. But to KG, you cannot prove Peter’s martyrdom either. The resurrection is therefore unprovable.
KG observes how influential the Pharisee Saul was, and how he moved from persecutor to Christian evangelist as the Apostle Paul. KG decides this can only be explained by the existence of temporal lobe epilepsy. Further, neural science has shown KG that neural wiring is the cause of religious experiences.
Where did Paul’s idea of a resurrected Jesus come from? Unlike the other Pharisees in Jerusalem, KG asserts that Paul was somehow ignorant of the original Christian message, even though he was also personally active in persecuting them. He had to ask the Apostle Peter to help him understand Christianity properly. Because he felt threatened by Paul, Peter lied to him, saying Jesus had been resurrected. It’s not clear whether KG thinks only Peter claimed to see the resurrection, but KG says the lie was perpetrated as a power play by Peter over Paul.
When it comes to the NT, KG asserts the documemts were written many years after the fact. To say otherwise is just a convenience by Christian apologists. KG says the gospels were written after the death of all the eyewitnesses by nameless authors of fiction. KG also claims that the Christian message delivered by Paul was different to the Apostolic message. Over time, KG claims the apostles faded away apart from a few notable people like Peter.
Positive Feedback
Writing a book is hard graft, and so all authors need encouragement for that. Well done to KG for writing a book.
KG has clearly learned a number of things about Church history that he brings to bear when constructing his arguments and his alternative narrative. I can see this in his chapters on the Arian controversy in particular, leading to the Council of Nicea and that creed.
KG presents a fascinating chapter where he describes neurotheology. This subfield of neuroscience explores the relationship between regions of the brain, and subjective religious experience in the patient. Epileptics experience God, and when regions of the brain are stimulated electrically, subjective spiritual experiences occur.
Christianity is an important topic for KG to consider, particularly from the perspective of the first century. Agnostic historian Tom Holland observes that in today’s culture wars, our underlying assumptions about the existence of values, the value of human persons, and the ethical air we breathe is actually uniquely Christian. In every way, Tom recognises he is Christian.[1] If our culture is not Greek or Roman but Christian as Holland says, then it would be valuable to explore just what originally caused that.
Negative Feedback
Unfortunately, KG has come to his project with a predetermined outcome. He has decided there is no God, and so there must be a Godless explanation for Christianity. He doesn’t justify his atheistic position, he just assumes it to be the case. Given the logical problems with this from the off, KG unpacks his secular narrative which he thinks is superior to the orthodox Christian explanation for the birth of Christianity.
If KG had shown willingness to examine the evidence in a balanced way, and then honestly conclude there was no supernatural cause of Christianity, then I would value his process and his decision. Instead – he seems to have tried his hardest to come up with reasons why he was right in the first place that there is no God. He seems desperate to disprove Christianity which he really seems not to like. And he also does not like any claim that Christianity is what it claims to be. He singles out one individual in particular over this behavior. His book seems emotionally driven to me for that reason.
Let me make some commentary on a few of his arguments:
1 – We Don’t Need No Citation
On the one hand, KG is doing a work of history here. Like Holland, he is seeking to understand the past. Unlike Holland, he seems unable to cite scholars to justify his core positions.
First, the non-existence of God. He gives no support but assumes this position. Wouldn’t it help to at least give some reasons here? Second, he asserts the experts all know the gospels were written after the death of eyewitnesses. But who are these experts, and how do we know KG has correctly communicated their consensus position? No supporting evidence is given, so we must simply trust KG is correct. This means we cannot assess his claim as being true or false. He just expects us to go along with it. This seems unfair to his readers. I know many conservative scholars who date the gospels as early. I summarise some of those arguments below in “The Gospels as Fiction.” I also give an atheist NT scholar’s argument for early dating. But my main concern here is the way KG seems to pose as someone with the position, knowledge, and authority to declare a scholarly consensus. And his lack of citations show this is what he is doing. I think he just states a position that helps his case and hopes no one checks up on it. Third, KG assumes the NT documents should never be trusted to tell the truth about the events relating to the origins of Christianity, especially the resurrection. Who thinks this apart from KG? I have no idea based on his lack of citations. And I know plenty of NT scholars, James Crossley and Bart Ehrman among them, who would challenge his blanket assumptions here.
2 – Prove It
KG thinks the job of Christian apologists is one of proof. They must prove to him without a doubt that the resurrection happened if they are going to have any credibility. However, because KG says you cannot prove the resurrection, apologists have no credibility to him. I think this is a basic error in his thinking that I have pointed out to KG on many occasions. The historian does not attempt to prove anything. They gather data and pose arguments. We then assess the quality of those arguments and choose which one seems more likely on the balance of evidence and argument. In fact, KG tries to do this later with some of his own arguments when he tries to interpret Paul’s Galatians text. He even makes reference to some Christian arguments later too.
So – on the one hand KG requires cast iron proof to show apologist credibility, but then on the other hand he is happy to work with historical arguments. This shows profound confusion on the part of the author. It sounds like a straw man view of Christian apologetics. Frankly – I could respond to KG, prove to me there IS no God. Then I might take your book more seriously. But I know that is an irrational requirement in metaphysics and also history.
Interestingly, toward the end of the book, theologian and apologist Gary Habermas is suddenly named out of nowhere as being untrustworthy. I think KG’s anti-apologist axe grinding becomes very clear here…if it wasn’t blindingly obvious beforehand.
3 – Contrasting the Historical and the Gospel Jesus is Outmoded NT Scholarship
KG is stuck in the past on his view of Jesus – the first quest for the historical Jesus.
The ideas of the first quest for the historical Jesus were influential between the 1700s and around 1953. Gotthold Lessing had initiated this quest by claiming a ditch separated the two, and Rudolph Butmann widened that ditch further. David Strauss said the gospels were mythical. Yet NT scholars like Robert H Stein and Paul Copan have shown there is an approach we can take to cross Lessing’s ditch. The Criteria of Authenticity is applied to specific problems that present themselves when interpreting literature and understanding history. This involves detection of multiple attestation.[2] When multiple independent sources refer to a past event, this gives the historian grounds to think that this event happened. We do this between literary sources inside and outside the NT. The resulting arguments challenge KG’s distinction between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith. Although – if KG already knows there is no God (how?!), it’s hard to know how to discuss these challenges with him. This is the problem with KG’s type of work – it shuts down discussion rather than opening it up.
4 – Martyrdom Obsession
KG is obsessed with Peter’s supposed martyrdom in Rome. He seems to think if he can disprove this, he can disprove the resurrection. This is a profoundly odd idea to me. No Christian I have ever met thinks this way. It is only KG that seems to think the truth of Christianity hinges on Peter’s martyrdom.
I think KG is confusing primary sources, the NT, with secondary sources. The account of martyrdom of the apostles is not an essential part of the Christian message. It is merely a supportive argument. When you notice how willing the apostles and the first Christians were to face persecution and die for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus (reported inside + outside the Bible), this is merely a supportive argument for the truth of the resurrection. The apostles were witnesses of these things. Why would they be willing to die for something they knew was a lie perpetrated by Peter…or anyone else? The primary data is the text of the NT alone, and KG is simply wrong to think otherwise.
5 – A Low Opinion of the Ancients
KG has a low opinion of significant figures in Christian history. The Apostle Peter is portrayed as a pathological liar. The Apostle Paul is without a doubt the dumbest, and the worst Pharisee in all Jerusalem. Everyone else was well aware of the Christian preaching about the resurrection of Jesus in the days and weeks following the events. This is recorded throughout the first ten chapters of Acts and suggested by the extra Biblical evidence too. But Paul? He knows nothing of any of this. How odd that this idiot Apostle Paul would go on to write words that shaped the civilization that we live in today. Paul was a brilliant debater on Mars Hill, right? No – KG wants us to believe he was Peter’s gullible stooge.
6 – Self Refuting Ideas of Christian Conversion Thru Epilepsy and Brain Wiring
The idea that someone’s religious conversion could be attributed to epilepsy is profoundly disturbing to me. I know many adults who have become Christians later in life, yet they are very physically healthy.[3] I also know epileptics who are committed to a particular religious outlook for very different reasons that predate their epilepsy. I think someone who attempts to pin Christian conversion solely on epilepsy, a legitimate and distressing disease, shows desperation and hard heartedness towards epileptics and Christian believers.
But there are deeper problems with KG’s claim here. It is profoundly self-refuting. He cites neurological studies on religion and in a burst of insight, he declares that religious persuasion is down to neurological wiring alone. A person’s religiosity is down to brain cortex wiring. Well – this means that atheism is also down to wiring, just as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhist persuasions are. Atheism is a religious position in the same way theism is. But if religious persuasion is down to physical wiring, then the issue of truthfulness in religious matters becomes irrelevant. There is no truth or falsehood. Just wiring. That the author writes an entire book arguing AGAINST a Christian religious belief system shows that he DOES think there are matters of truth and falsehood to consider here. So his neural wiring arguments become completely self-refuting for him. If they are true, his book project is a complete waste of time and he is speaking into the wind.
7 – Confusing the Original Christian Message
The Christian Kergyma is the original preaching of the Christian church. We see this reflected in Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, for example. From the start, they preached Jesus is Lord. They observed Jesus was raised supernaturally from the dead, and the was God’s demonstrated of the truth of Jesus Lordship. The first sermons explained this and called everyone to worship Jesus. (e.g. Acts 2, Acts 10) To KG, however, this must be false because the idea of Jesus resurrection came much later. The resurrection was not the miracle that launched the church. It was a lie perpetrated by Peter, the head of the Christian church, when Paul came to visit him some years later.
I have problems with this idea.
First, if the resurrection was a lie, what was it that the early Church preached about that got them into so much trouble and earned converts and notoriety early on? Why were they persecuted, as recorded in both the Biblical and extra-Biblical historical accounts? The Jews believed in a final resurrection at the end of time. The resurrection of Jesus made the church a threat to the Jewish establishment, and to the Roman authorities who described them as atheists for not worshipping all the Roman gods. Josephus and other sources record the pitiless persecution of 1st century Christians. Why all this trouble if there originally was no resurrection of Jesus? Without a resurrection, Christianity is just one of many 1st century cults that come and go. If the resurrection was a later idea added to Christianity, what was the original Kergyma? What did it contain? The NT is clear the resurrection was front and center from the very beginning. Even skeptical scholars concede the resurrection tradition was early.[4] KG disagrees with them all. The resurrection was a later invention by the church. But KG fails to suggest an alternative original Kergyma that would have been of sufficient importance to warrant Jewish 1st century persecution. We therefore only have a fraction of an idea here. We need to understand the full picture for it to make any sense of the historical data.
Second, why would a 1st century Jew fabricate a resurrection? This is bizarre in the extreme in that culture at that time. Third, why would Peter suggest such a subversive lie that he knew would get him into so much trouble in Roman society? It makes no sense for anyone to do that to themselves. Did Peter lack such a grip on reality, that he welcomed eventual persecution by Emperor Nero (as documented by Josephus) for a mere lie? He had followed Jesus for years and he knew that implications of such a claim. Fourth, if Peter was this much of a masochist, why didn’t the other Apostles (whatever church they served in) all band together to shut him up? After all, they were all implicated in this thing together. If Peter was telling dangerous lies, why didn’t his colleagues shut him down to save their own skin? Why would they go along with Peter’s craziness and collude with such a meaningless but politically dangerous conspiracy?
KG also asserts that the Apostles and the Apostle Paul have a different understanding of Christianity. He thinks the Christian message was different depending on who you listened to. Yet the NT indicates differently. The Kergyma I described earlier is what the consistent message was in the Christian church. We see this reflected in the earliest oral testimony, which is probably located in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.
I suggest KG confuses the Apostles, who were spreading Christianity far and wide (e.g. Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10), with the Judiazers who thought Christians had to be circumcised and follow Levitical law like orthodox Jews. When Paul challenged this idea, he was writing to the church in Galatia (chapters 4 and 5) who had apparently been influenced by such teachers Paul does not name or identify. Whatever the relationship between Paul and the other Apostles, there is no evidence presented by KG that shows convincingly that Peter and the other Apostles were Judaizers. He simply asserts that the Apostles only preached to Jews (this is contradicted by Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence), and so they must have also preached law observance. The extant evidence of Apostolic preaching in Acts and elsewhere shows otherwise. And the teaching of Jesus that the Apostles were exposed to for three years also says otherwise. Why would they divert from this so quickly? KG doesn’t even notice this as a problem.
8 – The Hanging Sword of Confirmation Bias Cuts Two Ways
In most if not all chapters of KG’s book, he says we engage in confirmation bias if we disagree with his assertions and arguments. The irony here is as follows. Confirmation bias is about getting railroaded in our thinking. It happens if we only stick to what we think, and don’t spend time honestly considering what other people’s contrary opinions are and what they might mean and how we might respond to them. But KGs book reads as someone who sticks to what he thinks and does not consider contrary positions and how to respond to them to show his ideas work better. He simply asserts things. This book is in itself a work of confirmation bias. If he had engaged with other ideas, and assessed counter arguments showing how and why his ideas are better, he would not have engaged in confirmation bias. His book would have been improved considerably if he had engaged with other thinkers and other ideas.
9 – He Corrects History When He Wants To
KG corrects the historical record whenever it does not fit with his supposedly superior secular narrative. For example, in chapter 10 he talks about the meeting with Peter and Paul where the resurrection lie is supposedly shared (mentioned in Galatians 1). KG is obsessed with James, the brother of Jesus, and a leader in the church at that point. KG does not allow James to be present at this meeting, presumably because this makes the telling of the lie unlikely. So even though the Galatians 1 verse states Paul met Peter and James, KG corrects this verse. James wasn’t there after all, and its incorrect to reach this conclusion even tho the text says so. KG’s ideas are shown here to be an exercise in fictionalism and wish fulfilment rather than a valuable interpretation of historical events.
It’s worse for KG however. In chapter 13, KG is forced to agree with Galatians 2 that many of the apostles were present at Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem. What has happened in the in between years? Why do those additional apostles stick with the Peter that got them all into hot water by lying about Jesus being resurrected? And why has the fictional claim of the resurrection taken hold amongst the early church anyway? Why haven’t saner minds shut the fiction down? All it would have taken was someone to get Jesus’ corpse out of the tomb to show it to be a lie. Rather, if the resurrection is on the lips of the earliest eyewitnesses, as the NT says, then subsequent believers would be led by those who actually saw and interacted with him. When persecution came, from the Jewish establishment and Nero, the Apostles were holding something they knew first hand to be true. KG’s secular narrative sounds utterly absurd to me here.
10 – Ignorance of Apostolic Tradition
To KG, most of the Apostles just faded away and didn’t do much of note later in their lives. Honestly – it is like KG has decided not to permit the data from the second century to figure into his thinking. He’s edited it all out. There’s a rich tradition of the spread of Christianity by the Apostles in the first century. You can read about that tradition in The Fate of the Apostles.[5]
11 -Gospels as Fiction
KG claims the gospels were written by nameless writers as works of fiction. He gives no solid argument for this claim. His problem is the arguments for early authorship of the gospels are numerous but he recognizes and responds to none of them. For example, the 2nd century church fathers attest to the gospel authors’ identity, and their statements align with traditional authorship. Are they written very late? Probably not. Historians like Eusebius refer to them in the early 2nd century, the Didache from 100AD, quotes them, Clement quotes them in 90AD, the destruction of the temple in 70AD is not mentioned, the martyrdom of James in 61AD is not mentioned. None of the gospels mention significant events you would expect to hear about beyond 61AD. Further, Paul was still alive at the end of Luke-Acts, and Paul quotes Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:17 – 18, written around 64AD. So the material had to already be in circulation by then. Even atheist scholars like James G. Crossley think the Gospels are early. He dates Mark’s gospel to the AD40s based on its reference to dietary laws.[6] I pose many other arguments for the early authorship on Luke-Acts in my blog here. These and many more arguments point toward early Gospel authorship during the lifetime of eyewitnesses, affirming the reliability of those accounts in the form of ancient biography.
I think to KG, if he can convince us we are stupid to think the Gospels are early, that that helps his position. But it doesn’t. Even if the Gospels WERE late additions (I don’t think they were) the earliest reported material about the birth of Christianity is not even found in the Gospels. It is located in the NT creeds.
KG dismisses the gospels in chapter 15 as just containing ideas that were around in the first century. Yet he doesn’t realise this is an argument for the reliability of the gospels. He seems unaware of the possibility that this might just be exactly what would have been the case in the first century, the gathering of oral testimony prior to the penning of the Gospels. The Apostle Paul quotes some common and very early creedal statements that summarized Christian belief in the weeks and months following Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. For example, 1 Cor 15, Romans 4:24-25, 1 Thess 4:14, 1 Peter 3:18. These sound like pre-Pauline oral creeds in circulation in the church very early on. These give you a sense of what the church’s oral testimony was.
When the gospels were ready to be written, they were presented in an internationally recognised Koine Greek language, understood by Jews and other nationalities, and then shared amongst the churches along with apostolic authority. By the way – THAT is why they are written in Greek. KG says it’s a mystery on Orthodox tradition. It’s never been a mystery and is not that hard to work out that a missionary movement would write the new post-Jesus “law” in an international language.
In summary, KG describes the period where information is gathered prior to the Gospels but does not consider the possibility that this fact poses a counter argument for him to address. This sounds like another result of his own confirmation bias to me.
12 – Neurotheology
KG is summarising the evidence gathered by some neuroscientists in his book. His conclusion from this is, that “adult religiosity is more or less determined by the biological wiring in the temporal lobe region of our brains.”[1] Also, epileptics become hyper religious.
The assumption here is that mind and brain are the same thing. Our beliefs in a religious sense are physically predetermined by our brains. And if someone like Saul of Tarsus has an epileptically compromised brain, this fact is enough to explain his religious conversion.
I think the following:
12.1 – Many people have religious conversions in life, including epileptics and non-epileptics. To treat this subject in a balanced way, we have to compare the number of epileptics to non-epileptics who have had sudden religious conversions. KG does not do this, preferring rather to present only part of the data – the epileptics only. He then concludes that this must have been what Saul experienced to turn him into Paul. This is a weak argument because he makes no attempt to give us the full picture here.
12.2 – KG doesn’t consider the possibility that even if Saul was an epileptic (he has little evidence to go on that he was), that he could have had a genuine encounter with the external reality of Jesus on the road to Damascus.
12.3 – Let’s say KG is right that religiosity is wired into some peoples brains. Is it wired into all brains or just some? How could we know who is hard wired and who isn’t? And if KG is wired for atheism, does this undermine his ability to even tell the difference between someone wired and someone not wired for religion? Maybe he is wired for atheism while other people have no wiring at all and can understand reality truthfully?
12.4 – Everyone has a spiritual dimension to their lives, even if it involves actively rejecting the reality of it or seeking to ignore it. KG’s dimension seems to be reflecting on how he can explain it away. This dimension involves things that we know. Either I know there is a God, or I know God does not exist.
The problem with the brain wiring argument is that it removes our ability to know objective reality. If I am wired to be an atheist, for example, then if there is a God I could never know it. And vice versa. So, this idea poses the idea of a real handicap in human beings. Worse, if religious belief is wired, then perhaps other important beliefs are also wired like moral beliefs, beliefs about the structure of the universe and how it supports scientific analysis, and so on. Prejudice? It is not morally wrong, because it’s just how I’m wired to think and believe. If I am predetermined by my brain wiring, then I might think I am free to find the truth and believe it, but I am not.
This is a huge problem for KG’s whole thesis. If he is right that people like Saul are wired to belief, then the matters of truth or falsehood are irrelevant. All we have are bundles of physical wires in our brains. KG wants to convince us of the truth and value of his ideas. But on his neurotheological argument, there is no truth or falsehood. So, he has refuted his own argument. If it is true, it is of no value whatsoever because there is no truth or falsehood in spiritual beliefs, and probably other beliefs as well.
12.5 – The implication of KG’s chapter is that religion is physical. God is the result of brain chemistry, not external and immaterial reality. Yet this is not a belief that is held be all neoroscientists. Wilder Penfield was a pioneer of physical brain stimulation experiments. What he found was that on stimulating brain regions, causing responses in his patients, the patients described their responses as being drawn out of them by Penfield’s stimulation. They knew the difference between what their own decisions were in their minds, and what their bodies were caused to do by the experiment. This is evidence that mind and brain are separate but correlated things in human beings. Penfield concludes, “There is no place in the cerebral cortex where electrical stimulation will cause a patient . . . to decide”[2] Neuroscientist John Eccles reached similar conclusions.
Actually, I think human beings are born with belief in the separation of mind and brain. Children assume they are not their bodies, but they have bodies. It takes other people to convince them of materialism.
12.6 – I think the mistake being made in KG’s argument is to conflate correlation between two events, and identity of two events.
Here’s what I mean. It does not follow that because two events are correlated that they are identical. We cannot say that because a brain is stimulated and religious events occur, that therefore all subjective religious events are physical. For example, when I eat something and get a sore stomach, I do not identify the eating of the food with an upset stomach. Rather, the eating of the food is linked, or correlated, with the occurrence of the upset stomach. They are two separate things. Similarly with the brain. Human responses are correlated with many regions of the brain. But just because these two things are correlated, this gives no reason to think they are the same thing. KG brings that presumption to his argument without justifying his presumption.
So – while the neurotheology discussion is interesting, I think KG’s approach actually begs the question. It plays a role in his argument only because he has already decided there’s no God, brains and minds, and so religiosity is wired. It doesn’t help explain Saul’s religious conversion in a secular way. It actually refutes the thesis of his book!
Summary
I do not like self-refuting arguments built on shaky premises. These sorts of arguments help no-one, and so I will strongly point out what is wrong with the argument. I have tried to do that in this review. Further, I have come away from this book suspecting this author believes he knows better than:
The original authors of the NT. Paul didn’t really witness the risen Christ, he was sick in the brain. His statements in the NT are simply false. The Apostles didn’t really witness the risen Christ, they were lying / lied to / mistaken. None of the first Christians ever saw the risen Christ despite what the earliest oral testimony was. The Christian message wasn’t what Acts 1 – 10 says it was. KG knows better than all that.
The Jewish establishment who challenged the Christian church and made reference to Jesus miraculous deeds later in the Talmud.
The Roman authorities who thought the Christians believed in Jesus as their resurrected God and so were atheists relating to all the other Roman pantheon.
The early fathers of the Christian church, some of whom know the Apostles, and had close proximity to the events in the first century.
The NT scholars of the past one hundred years. KG has such a handle on this subject, he doesn’t have to cite any of them when making his assertions. But this makes his assertions about NT scholarly consensus to be unsustainable.
His readers. He knows so much better than us that we are downright illogical to disagree with him.
All Christians who have lived throughout human history and professed faith in Jesus Christ and his resurrection and his transformative impact on their lives.
Evangelistic preachers and Christian Apologists. Especially Gary Habermas. Ken knows so much better than all of them. Especially Gary.
I’ve got to conclude I don’t think KG is trying to get to the truth. He already thinks he knows the truth, and no one else can see it. I’ve pointed out some of the glaring problems with KG’s “truth” in this review. I think he needs to refrain from plucking ideas out of thin air. He needs to ground his statements with proper citations. He needs to engage with legitimate counter arguments. Maybe then – he’s more likely to draw legitimate conclusions and spark constructive discussion about how Christianity began.
[2] Robert H Stein, Criteria for the Gospel’s Authenticity in Contending with Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists & Other Objectors and Robert H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem (Grand Rapids: 1987).
[4] Dale Allison, Resurrecting Jesus (2005) and R W Funk, The Resurrection of Jesus: Reports and Stories as reported my Michael Licona in The Resurrection of Jesus a New Historiographical Approach, (IVP Academic), 234.
[5] Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles, (Routeledge).
[6] James G. Crossley The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (2004).
[1] K G Thackery, Why We Cannot Trust the Gospels, 51.
In my previous blog, I challenged the claim that Moses was a fictional character, a combination of various different characters from fictional mythology. The Usefulcharts YouTube channel claimed in their video that the archaeological evidence did not support the Biblical report of Israelites leaving Egypt, travelling around the desert for decades, till they eventually reached Canaan. I challenged that statement and I pointed out that a few relevant archaeological finds do exist. In this blog, I will list some more artefacts that support aspects of the Old Testament Exodus account.
Why do people claim the Old Testament as fiction? In the 1800’s, the school of higher criticism began to claim that the Old and New Testaments recorded fairy tales. The science of archaeology had not begun at this point, so there was no physical evidence yet to pose a counter argument supporting the Bible. Today – that situation has changed. Archaeological digs are uncovering artefacts supporting many Biblical accounts. Titus Kennedy is a professional field archaeologist and adjunct professor at Biola University. He comments that:
“the degree of historical corroboration between the Bible and the artifacts that have been discovered over the last 150 years is startling, surpassing previous expectations and estimates, and continuing to astonish.”[1]
Titus Kennedy
Higher criticism has entered popular culture today. The Old Testament is viewed by people as fictional and mythological, right? Yet – archaeological digs are uncovering many artefacts from the Ancient Near East which confirm claims made in the Bible. This directly challenges the notion of a mythological Bible. The argument from silence that was made by the higher critics is being shown to be unsustainable. For example, to date the reality of 70 individuals mentioned in the Old Testament have been confirmed thru artifacts discovered by field archaeologists.[2]
Here are four discoveries that are relevant to the Moses account in the Bible:
First – the Papyrus Brooklyn is dated 17th century BC. It contains the names of domestic servants, and some of the names are Hebrew. This supports the idea that Israelites lived in Egypt prior to the Exodus under Moses.[3]
Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah. (Exodus 1:15)
Second – Egyptian records show that the Egyptians used Semitic slaves to make bricks. The Louvre Leather Roll records the brick making quotas and potential penalties imposed on the slaves. The Leningrad Papyrus 1116A and a wall painting found in the Valley of the Nobles in Egypt show compulsory labor on public building projects.[4]
You are no longer to give the people straw to make brick as previously; let them go and gather straw for themselves. But the quota of bricks which they were making previously, you shall impose on them. (Exodus 5:7-8)
Third – the Dream Stele. An inscription was found between the paws of the Great Sphynx in Egypt. This text was from Pharaoh Thutmose IV, son if Pharoah Amenhotep II. Thutmose IV was not the natural heir to the throne due to the death of his brother, Amenhotep II’s first born son. The cause of death is not recorded in Egyptian documents. But Thutmose IV fabricates a divine promise to solidify his legitimacy as Pharaoh.[5]
If Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh during the Exodus, his eldest son would have died during the final plague on Egypt.
[Yahweh] struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon. (Exodus 12:29)
Four – the Nomads of YHWH. In Sudan, two Egyptian temples contain reference to the “lands of the nomads of YHWH.” They are the earliest known references to Yahweh, the name of God in the Old Testament. They describe nomadic people living in the wilderness east of Egypt who were enemies of Egypt. They lived in tents. Surely, they nomads must have been living like that for a considerable period for the Egyptians to record their existence? The inscriptions are dated to Late Bronze Age, 1300 BC.[6]
The only ancients known to worship Yahweh were the Israelites, so it follows that these nomads were the Israelites prior to their settlement in Canaan after their Exodus from Egypt. The inscriptions show the Egyptians knew about them.
[Yahweh’s] anger burned against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years. (Numbers 32:13)
Conclusion
Sure. It is easy to claim the Old Testament is fiction, but it’s becoming harder to justify that claim. If we think that, then we are ignoring an increasing amount of physical evidence that continues to be found today suggesting otherwise. While it is hard to line up an exact timeline, and difficult to match Egyptian and Israelite texts, the physical artefacts suggest a connection exists between them. They record the same events and peoples. Artefacts cannot by dismissed as mythology or propaganda. These and many more artefacts support the historicity of Old Testament accounts like the Exodus from Egypt.
[1] Titus Kennedy, Unearthing the Bible 101 Archaeological Discoveries that Bring the Bible to Life, (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2020), 239.
A friend pointed me to a video produced by the Usefulcharts YouTube channel this week – Did Moses Exist? Applying the Historical Method. I enjoyed it – it’s well produced, and the communication style is really easy to follow. He makes great use of pictures and…well…charts in his communication. His channel is well named – this is a useful way to communicate complex ideas.
I also appreciated the way he summarises a scholarly approach to history – “The Historical Method.” He refers to the importance of matching texts to archaeology, of seeking multiple sources, recognising genre, and taking notice of the passage of time. He also mentions the need to ask whether a source is “biased.”
Can we know whether something is true? Or are we left to just choose the interpretation we like best to explain an event or a writing from history? The video says – truth is accessible to us. We can know something about the past when we use historical methods. YES! I think he’s 100% on the money here.
For the rest of the video, the author applies these methods to the question, “did Moses actually exist?” In this blog I am going to make a few comments about his application of the Historical Method to the Moses question.
Responding to the Usefulcharts Argument about Moses:
First – he omits consideration of the cultural context of the ancient text. This is an important consideration. Which culture produced these writings, what were they like, and what was the purpose in writing. He does refer to the idea of “literary tropes” which were common at the time the text was originally written. We will come back to that. I think context is crucial in understanding any text. And if you are trying to answer the question, “did Moses exist?” we should include context in the discussion.
Second – his stated aim at the top of the video is to assess whether Moses existed in real life.[1] He says that he will take a historical perspective, and so this means he must restrict the historical data to reports that are only found outside of religious tradition – the Bible, or the Jewish written Torah. He isn’t using the Bible as a source of historical information in this video.
I think this is a misapplication of his historical method. Why would a historian arbitrarily set aside a rich source of information about a culture and the figure under consideration in the video – Moses? Particularly when this source is incredibly ancient, and so dates back to the times when these events occurred? A better approach would be to INCLUDE the Biblical texts, but assess the data we find in there. Perhaps he decided to set scripture aside because – he thinks it is somehow “biased.” I think this is an important misstep – and I will come back to it in a moment.
Also – I think his use of other Ancient Near Eastern writings to make his arguments shows a double standard. He seems happy to refer to the Babylonian record of Sargon of Assad as “an important part of the historical record,” and so is worthy of quoting directly as history.[2] If that is the case, on what grounds can he discount the writings of neighbouring Israel? Why are they not worthy of consideration as part of the historical record?
Third – he points to various competing Moses stories that he says come from the Hellinistic period, spanning the time between the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC and the birth of the Roman Empire around 31 BC. He seems to assume these competing Moses accounts are as potentially truthful as the Bible’s account of Moses. But they all describe a very different man.
What the video does not admit, however, is that these competing Moses stories are much much later than the Torah accounts. There is evidence that the Torah is much older than these Greek stories. For example, an inscription from the book of Numbers in the Torah has been discovered on metal amulets in Jerusalem that date back to 700 BC, and the Torah writings would have to have been around much longer before that time.[3] So – why does it make sense to treat the later Greek descriptions of Moses on an equal footing with the Torah? Clearly, the Greek accounts were written many hundreds of years after the Torah and the events it describes, in a different culture at a different time and for a different purpose. It is more reasonable to assume the earlier Israelite record is more likely to report who Moses actually was.
Fourth – he spends a lot of time making the argument that, because elements of the story of Moses are found elsewhere in other writings, this means that it is likely that Moses life in the Torah was a fictional account. He has a few examples of this. First, the Babylonian Sargon of Akkad, whose mother put him in a basket of reeds and placed him in the river.[4] He also points to common story tropes of the prince who finds out how hard life is outside the palace, or the hero who runs away and has to come back. He also observes that writings of this time viewed crossings of bodies of water as a metaphor of leaving behind an old life and starting a new one.[5] He likens this to the crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus.
There are major problems with this line of reasoning. First, it commits the post hoc fallacy, which says that since Y followed X, this necessarily means X caused Y. Unless there are very good reasons to conclude that X caused Y, it is just not rational to suppose that it must have been so. There appear to be no good reasons to suppose this in the case of Moses. Second – most of the “tropes” the video identifies are very general themes that do crop up in many true historical accounts throughout human history. So – why must we assume the Moses account is fictional if the others are not?
Fifth – there is an assumption that religious sources are biased sources, and so should not be treated as reliable source of history. First – the Israelite nation recorded their religious history as a record of important events in their history. The Torah recorded of the nation’s covenant with Yahweh. This is the context in which the texts were produced. Second – to discount any text as biased (Biblical or otherwise) is to fail to realise that ALL communication from people carries bias. In fact, every person has a biased perspective in life. So – if we follow the video and reject biased accounts, then that means we also have to reject the video! Because he himself also carries bias when he wrote it.
The video’s tacit assumption is that a biased person is not capable of recording historical events. It turns out – the issue is not bias at all. The question is – can biased people (everyone is biased) tell the truth? I think the clear answer to that is – yes. For example, the most important accounts of the Nazi holocaust are from Jewish sources. Does that render them inaccurate? Quite the opposite. The people most interested in an event are likely the most meticulous in recording them.[6] Just because we all carry biases of different kinds does not mean we are unable to be objective. We can be objective. When it is important to us that we record what happened for the next generation to know and understand, we are likely to get details correct. Even though the ancient Israelite approach to historical record is less linear than our modern historical approach, this does not mean it must contain fiction. Israel’s record is likely to reflect what happened within the frame of their approach to history.
Sixth – he claims there is no archaeological evidence of Moses and an exodus from Egypt. But why would we expect to have evidence of the journey of a nomadic people who lived in tents as they travelled? It would seem more likely that we should find archaeological evidence of Israel from Egypt (where they started from) and the Canaanite areas (where they ended up). The video gives the impression that there is no archaeological evidence – but this is clearly false. Evidence exists in both locations. For example, the Merneptah Stele was discovered in 1896. It is an Egyptian record mentioning Israel which is dated at around 1200 BC. There may be other earlier references to Israel in Egyptian archaeology.[7] Archaeologists have also found evidence supporting the Bible’s claim that Israel conquered Canaan around this time period.[8]
Also – just because we have not found archaeological evidence of Moses today does not mean the evidence does not exist. It just means it has not been found. Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. There are many examples of Biblical accounts which were thought to be fictional, and yet archaeological evidence supporting the Bible’s account has eventually been found. One example of this is the archaeological evidence for King David in the Bible.[9]
Conclusion:
The video is an interesting discussion around whether Moses and the exodus occurred. He concludes that Moses must have been a composite fictional figure designed as a literary work explaining the origins of Israel.[10]
The idea that a story which forms an important part of a nation’s identity must necessarily contain invention – does not make sense to my mind. It assumes a very base level understanding of the idea of “myth.” But myth’s can be so much more than fictional tales. They can also be stories of actual events that shaped a people’s lives and their culture that take on incredible significance. I think – if you accurately assess the whole historical record for Moses – including Israel’s record – you can arrive at a strong argument proposing that the Torah contains historical accounts of a man called Moses.
[1] Usefulcharts Youtube Channel, Did Moses Exist Applying the Historical Method, youtube, uploaded Feb 19th 2021, accessed May 23rd 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptYz-Vu0dxY, 0:17.
Sometimes when I am discussing Christianity with internet atheists, the time will come when they kind of throw their hands up in frustration at me. “Oh – you are just blinded by your confirmation bias. I’ve done my best with you.” So – what is “confirmation bias”? Well – it involves cherry picking the best bits for ourselves. It’s about wanting something to be true, and so being unable to see any alternative viewpoint that could call your belief into question. Psychology Today defines it like this:
Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea or concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking.[1]
Now – whenever someone accuses me of confirmation bias, I want to scratch my chin in a skeptical way and say, “Hmmm!” Why do I want to do that?
It’s not because I think I am immune from confirmation bias. I know very well that I am not. The reason I become dubious at this point is because the other person has suddenly started talking like THEY are personally immune from the very thing they are accusing me of – confirmation bias!
Here is the thing – EVERYONE is vulnerable to confirmation bias. Whatever view we take, whether we believe God exists or are convinced he does not. The challenge for people when approaching problems and seeking solutions to them is – to minimize the effect of confirmation bias. And – I have worked hard to do this in my own life. I have not done this perfectly, but I want to do this, and I will continue to work at it.
Here are three good ways to reduce the risk of confirmation bias in life:
First – study multiple sides of an issue. This takes time and effort, but it is invaluable. I have spent the last five years studying for two Masters Degrees and – let me tell you – you don’t get far unless you are willing to listen to other people and be willing to respond to their claims. This builds an important skill, and crucially it helps us to reduce the risk that we will fall into confirmation bias again.
Second – think in terms of arguments. I don’t mean stand up rows with people. Rather, by an argument I mean form your position based on logical premises and conclusions that follow from the premises. I’m not saying you can deduce the truth of Christianity this way. But you can form many many cogent inductive arguments that support Christianity’s claims by appealing to every facet of life. From nature, history, science, etc. You can also form many arguments that call Christianity into question, and when you do that, you can form responses to them. This is what I try to do in my writing. Dr. Heshmat from Psychology Today thinks this is a very healthy way to live, because it develops, “the ability to look at the world without looking for instances that please your ego.”[2]
Third – be willing to have your mind changedon an issue. So, someone might say I simply want the Bible to be true, and so I look for things that confirm that desire in an intellectually plausible way. Well – I do think that so far in my life, my work in exploring the evidence for and against the truth of Christianity – makes my decision to BE a Christian the sensible one. I find excellent evidence across the disciplines to support it, and the arguments against the truth of Christianity tend to be much weaker to my mind, relying on a commitment to naturalistic thinking that is not itself justifiable.
So – yes, I stake my life on the truth of Christianity. BUT – I could change my mind on that if there were excellent reasons to do so. If better evidence came to light, for example, against the historical grounding of Christianity. I could overturn my thinking then. That would be the most honest thing to do. But – it would take VERY strong evidence to get me there, better than the evidence from antiquity we currently have. I am not someone who says, “You could never convince me otherwise.” Hey – I’m just little old me. I don’t know everything. I could be mistaken.
To the atheist, I ask the same. The average atheist I encounter is committed to the non-truth of Christianity and will look for anything to bolster their position, however weak the argument is revealed to be on further scrutiny. I would ask of the atheist the same thing I ask of myself. That some circumstance would exist where they could change their mind on the God issue.
Conclusion
In my blog and my podcast I work hard to present arguments rather than just asserting statements. For example, I am not interested in something like, “God exists. Change my mind.” Ok – it’s a popular meme. But its entirely unhelpful. Why? Because it’s about one person with confirmation bias – asking another person to unconvinced them!! This is not a helpful approach to discussing anything. We need to deal in the currency of arguments. And the stronger the argument, the healthier the opinion and the better the discussion. Good, cogent arguments are healthy, and when we think in this way, we resist the temptation of confirmation bias.
Back to internet atheists. The irony is that everyone of these people I have ever spoken to wants to convince me that Christian belief is wrong and God does not exist, or at least there’s not enough evidence to claim that he does. And so anyone who says he does (me) is automatically suspect. Well – my response to this is – enough with assertions. I have read enough internet atheist assertions (like – ‘there is not enough evidence that gods exist,’ or, ‘there’s no evidence the events in the gospels occurred.’) These are bare assertions. Let’s see your argument and let’s be willing together to examine the assumptions of your argument, weigh those assumptions, and have your claims challenged in a rational and respectful way. And when we do – lets recognize together that what we are doing is very good and healthy. Because it challenges the tendency toward confirmation bias in us both.
In part 1, I looked at the skeptical position against miracle claims. This often says:
1 – Miracles violate the laws of nature, and our experience tells us these natural laws are fixed. Dead people stay dead.
2 – No testimony can establish a miracle happened unless the falsehood of that testimony would be more miraculous than the miracle claim.
3 – Only primitive people entertain the idea that miracles could ever occur.
I talked about how the skeptic erects a knowledge barrier against the idea of particular events because they don’t like the implications of them. But there are two more problems with the skeptical rejection of miracles.
2 – It is Mistaken to Think that Miracles Violate the Laws of Nature
Why is it mistaken? After all, we know people don’t come back from the dead after a few days like the Bible claims of Jesus.[1] What’s more, people can’t turn water into wine as Jesus is reported to have done. We’ve never seen anything like that before in a lab, never mind at a wedding. Surely that’s enough for us to say – miracles like these are impossible?
I can see three problems here:
2.1 Natural Laws are DESCRIPTIVE not PRESCRIPTIVE
The law of gravity, for example, is an approximate description of a natural phenomenon. It describes what we usually perceive, all things being equal. Apples fall from trees, and what goes up usually comes down again. But natural law does not demand or prescribe what MUST happen. Law is not a straight-jacket to nature. It is simply a description of our current understanding of nature. Humans did not create nature, we simply work to understand it and express our tentative understanding using laws. For example, if a rocket is designed to produce enough kinetic energy, it can break the gravitational pull of the earth and send its passengers into orbit around the planet.
If natural law prescribed what must always occur, then rockets can’t break gravitational pull, and certain types of miracle would also be impossible because they both would violate natural laws. But that’s NOT what natural law is. Natural law is not a straight-jacket. It is simply a description of what people usually observe.
But unlike the rocket, a miracle (like turning water into wine) is an unusual or unique event which does not occur by natural but by supernatural means. This does not violate natural law. God created matter in the universe and established the chemical properties of both water and wine. Were he to switch the chemical composition from one to the other on one occasion, then this would extend our understanding of what is possible when a divine agent is involved.
It seems to me there are at least two ways God could intervene in nature:
God could simply use natural law to achieve his purposes in the world. But it would be the timing of the natural event that would make it miraculous, not the conditions of the event.
God could reach into the natural world and redirect events so that something out of the ordinary happened. This would not break natural law, because law is descriptive of what usually occurs. In this situation, something different happens which we describe as miraculous because it is surprising and out of the ordinary.
C S Lewis said it this way. Imagine on two consecutive nights I place two British 5 pound notes in my bedside drawer. The laws of arithmetic tell me that by the second night, my drawer contains a total of 20 pounds. Now, if I wake up the next day and open the drawer and only find 5 pounds there, I do not conclude that the laws of arithmetic have been broken. Rather, I know that someone has come along and pinched my money. It would be ludicrous to suggest the laws of arithmetic prevent the existence or activity of thieves![2] In other words, agents act and laws exist. One does not contradict the other. Rather, the existence of the law of arithmetic reveals the activity of the thief. Miracles work like that when it comes to God.
2.2 It’s a mistake to judge the likelihood of a miracle by considering normal experience
A skeptic may claim that they have never seen a miracle.[3] But that’s irrelevant to whether or not other people have witnessed miracles, or whether miracles occur. The point is that miracles are unusual events, so their existence is out of the ordinary. It is pointless to judge miracle claims by our own personal experience.
People do not usually come back from the dead by way of normal natural causes. Yet Christians do not claim that Jesus somehow spontaneously came back from the dead by natural means. Rather, God chose to raise Jesus from the dead. And this was a unique event in history. And if God exists, he would be able to suspend the laws he himself created without contradicting them.
All of this is can be true whether or not our own personal experiences involve miracles or not.
2.3 We argue in a circle when we deny miracles based on what usually occurs
The skeptic says because natural laws are uniform and predictable, miracles cannot and do not occur. But they have a problem. Our experience of nature is only uniform and predictable if we already know that all reports of miracles are actually false.
The skeptic is saying:
“Miracles never occur, so miracles are impossible.”
They are therefore presupposing what they are attempting to prove, and circular arguments like these are logically fallacious. But its worse than that. There are many contemporary, well evidenced and credible miracle claims reported by both believers in God and skeptics alike. It is simply mistaken to suppose that no miracles have occurred, because this claim flies in the face of the documentary evidence.
3 – Primitive People Did Not First Believe the Miracle of Jesus’ Resurrection
It’s true that primitive people have attributed natural phenomena to the work of their gods. But Ancient Judaism was quite different, it was a sophisticated, humane and learned culture. Children were taught the Torah from a young age, and many could read and write. The Apostles were not primitives. Sure, they were ignorant of the modern scientific methods and discoveries we have today. But it’s wrong to accuse them of ignorance for that reason because that knowledge wasn’t available to them. They knew very well that dead people stay dead. To notice an event as miraculous, you have to have a solid appreciation for how the world works. And this is exactly what helped them realise Jesus had been raised from the dead.
They also understood the risks facing them for challenging the authorities and preaching the risen Christ in Jerusalem. And yet the risk was clearly worth it for them, and Christianity has been the result.
Conclusion
In this brief blog series, I’ve responded to the common claim is that miracles can’t happen, and we cannot know whether they can happen. What we’ve seen is that this amounts to nothing much more than a bare prejudice against the idea that God exists and he intervenes within the natural universe he created. Miracles don’t violate the laws of nature, they would extend them. We don’t need extraordinary evidence of miracles, just sufficient evidence. And while primitives may have attributed natural phenomena to the gods, the Bible’s view of miracles is a highly sophisticated one.
When you consider the many cumulative logical arguments for God existence (e.g. cosmological, moral, fine tuning, biological information, etc), the possibility that God exists becomes strong, and so the idea he would intervene in nature through miraculous means becomes highly likely.
[1] I know medical Doctors who HAVE witnessed this on a smaller scale, people returning to life a few hours later. And there are many documented examples of this sort of thing in Craig Keener’s book.
[2] C S Lewis, Miracles A Preliminary Study, (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1947).
[3] For a vast archive of contemporary miracle claims, see Craig Keener, Miracles The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011).
Forty years ago, Carl Sagan introduced the idea that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and this aphorism entered into public consciousness. But Sagan’s idea dates back much further. In the 18th century, Scottish philosopher David Hume helped lay a skeptical groundwork against the Bible’s claims that supernatural historical events have occurred. Speaking about the claimed resurrection of Jesus, Hume said:[1]
1 – Miracles violate the laws of nature, and our experience tells us these natural laws are fixed. Dead people stay dead.
2 – No testimony can establish a miracle happened unless the falsehood of that testimony would be more miraculous than the miracle claim.
3 – Only primitive people entertain the idea that miracles could ever occur.
Here’s how people tend to use these ideas today. When a Christian makes a case for Jesus’ resurrection, the skeptic will often respond with:
“Ha! Jesus’ resurrection is an extraordinary claim, so where’s your extraordinary evidence? All you’ve got is a bunch of old books!” When the Christian presses further, they will probably find that the skeptic has no idea what could actually qualify as extraordinary evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. But whatever the Christian can present as evidence, the skeptic replies, “Not extraordinary enough. Try again.” So – the skeptic remains justified in his position. Miracles don’t happen.
What is happening here? The skeptic is strongly committed to the non-existence of miracles like Jesus resurrection, so they have raised an unscalable epistemic wall. No-one can scale it and convince them that Jesus rose from the dead. This is just fine for them because they feel that means they don’t need to worry about God’s existence.
Now – personally, I think it is very wise to be initially skeptical about any miraculous claim we hear. But it sounds dangerous to me that the skeptic would refuse to accept something based on what they WANT to be true. It seems much safer to follow the evidence where it leads in these matters.
I’m going to point to three serious problems with the skeptic’s position.
1 – We Don’t Erect Knowledge Barriers Against Other Unique Events
Unique and surprising stuff happens in life all the time. But so what?
1.1 Surprising Events Happen
For example, in 1954, Roger Bannister achieved something that people thought impossible. He ran a mile in under four minutes. A small crowd was there to witness the achievement, but the reports spread quickly. How extraordinary! Yet the newspaper reporting on its occurrence was pretty mundane. Here’s another one. In 1969, the first humans stepped onto the surface of the moon, and all people had to witness this were expert commentary, news reports and grainy, poor quality video. Even though a tiny minority of people would later claim these moon landings were faked, this did not reflect the international outpouring of excitement and acceptance of this unique event at the time. Extraordinary! But all the evidence we had that it happened was very normal indeed.
And someone replies, “Hang on. Neither of these events are miraculous. They are natural events.” Yes. They are unique natural events at the time, never having happened before. If you want an example of a non-natural unique event that we treat in exactly the same way, think about the beginning of the universe. Cosmologists generally accept the Big Bang theory, but point to naturally observable evidence for this supernatural event. For example, the cosmic background radiation level, and the red-shift of receding galaxies.
My point is this. For these and countless other events, we do not have extraordinary evidence supporting them. Instead, we have SUFFICIENT evidence, and this is enough for us.
1.2 Sufficient Evidence Rules Out Other Explanations
What is sufficient evidence, and what does it do? The evidence must be sufficient to make the alternative explanations for these extraordinary events to be unreasonable. In other words, given the evidence we have that these extraordinary events occurred what’s the likelihood that the event did not actually occur? It’s highly unlikely the event did not occur. For example, skeptical theories about the US moon landings are incredibly outlandish and bizarre when compared with the very normal evidence supporting the events themselves.
I think we look for sufficient evidence and are satisfied by it all the time. Here’s another example. What happens more often? People being married, or political leaders being assassinated? Clearly, more people have been married than have been assassinated. Now, consider the case of the assassination of US President Abraham Lincon. It was a unique event that is reported to have occurred on 15th April, 1865. Are we more skeptical about this event compared to, say, a Royal wedding? No we aren’t. And the reason is that, even though the assassination of Lincon is a unique event in history, we have sufficient evidence that it happened. But more importantly, the evidence rules out the alternative possibilities. Namely, he was not assassinated that day, or he died of natural causes that day, or something else.
My point is that when unique events occur, we don’t seek some extraordinary level of evidence that is beyond reach. Not at all. We are satisfied with sufficient evidence that rules out other explanations.
When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, the documentary evidence is sufficient for many reasonable people because this evidence rules out alternative explanations of that historical event. The evidence of the empty tomb, the eyewitness appearances and the first century birth of the Christian church can only adequately be explained by the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth died and was raised from the dead unexpectedly and significantly. However extraordinary the claim, we don’t treat this event any differently from other unique events in history.
But – should we? After all, miracles like the resurrection Of Jesus are not natural occurrences. In the next part of this blog, I’ll talk about miracles and whether the laws of nature prevent them from happening in the real world.
Well – I used to do a sales job. I would travel around Europe with a colleague, and we would visit corporate customers in the hope that they would buy our (excellent) software products. I enjoy travel, and I enjoy talking to people. It was – in so many ways – a perfect job.
But there was a lot of downtime in that job. Airports to wait in, restaurants to eat in, hotels to use. When we weren’t towing our employer’s party line…there was lots of time to talk about other things. Usually, the subject of Christianity came up. Why? Because I’m a Christian and I like discussing the reasons why that makes sense.
The podcast – RESPOND – is inspired by those sorts of conversations that happened on my sales trips. Its all about a discussion for why Christianity makes sense! You can find it on Spotify and Apple podcasts…
Someone might ask – “Why do we need another podcast dedicated to the subject of Christian Apologetics?” Well – why do we need a new podcast about anything? If a topic is worth talking about – then it seems to me its worth sharing opinions on.
BUT – I think there are four particular reasons why this blog is important, and why another Apologetics podcast is useful. Here they are:
FIRST – Because the Bible Commands It
Now – I don’t mean that they predicted blogging or podcasting in the first century. Of course not. But what I DO mean…is that they encouraged Christians to put forward the claims of Christianity clearly, and be willing to discuss these claims with the unconvinced. Where does it say that?
Here are three examples:
“…I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.” (Jude 3)
In the first century, they might have contended in the Synagogue, or the marketplace. Today we might contend in the comments section underneath the blog or the podcast. Is it really that different…?
“Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” (Colossians 4:5-6)
How we talk about these matters…matters! Robust conversation and the challenging of bad ideas is important, but its got to be done in a respectful way. And when the other person replies with rude comments? Hey – it teaches you a sense of humour.
“In your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15)
There’s a sense that – Christianity always demands a defence, like in a court of law. People seem hardwired to attack the claims Christianity makes. And so – a response is required. This is what this blog, and the podcast is all about. But – again – notice that the heart behind this response is respectful. I’m sure I won’t always achieve that, and I may need to apologise if I get it wrong, but respect is my aim.
Here’s the bigger point tho. If Christians aren’t making a case for the truth of Christianity, they are disobeying the teaching of the Bible! So – it’s important that these blogs and podcasts exist. They make the case, and they help other Christians to make the case themselves. Which sounds like a win-win to me.
The second reason for another apologetics podcast? Because culture demands it
It seems to me that Western culture is steeped in three toxic ideologies.
Relativism, the idea that there is no absolute truth. The cry of the relativist is, “Who are you to enforce your morality on me?”
Pluralism, the idea there’s no exclusive truth. “So, how can Jesus be the only way?”
Naturalism, the idea that there’s no supernatural truth. “Hasn’t science proven that miracles are impossible?”
Christianity challenges culture on all three of these points. And frankly – our culture needs to be challenged this way. Christian apologetics is one route to doing so.
Third – the Christian Church needs it
The church is only a generation away from extinction. So, how do we help the next generation from drifting away? Well – an important way of doing that is through Christian apologetics. Showing the truth of Christianity in a clear and compelling way.
Fourth – the Results Confirm It
Many people have become Christians as a result of these sorts of discussions about the rational grounding to the Christian faith. One of the most famous Christians of the 20th century, C S Lewis, was a formidable intellect, earning multiple highest honours degrees from Oxford University. He lost his childhood Christian faith, but it was Christian apologetics which led him back to Christianity. Discussing these matters with his Christian friends, one of whom was J. R. R. Tolkien.
So – do we need another Christian apologetics podcast? Yep – we do. Give it a listen please, and give me some feedback. I’d love to hear what you have to say.
Is it possible that the event which launched Christianity in the first century, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, was actually an elaborate lie staged by one man? A lie that influenced countless people down through the centuries? After Jesus’ crucifixion, did the disciple Peter simply invent a story about seeing the risen Christ? And did this lie result in the fabricated reports of the resurrection that appeared in the writings of Paul (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15) and the later gospels?
That’s the foundational claim of the book “The Christianity Myth,” which seeks to reframe first century Christian history in the light of a simple but highly influential fabrication. The author, Ken Thackery, assumes a fundamental difference exists between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. Historically, Ken says Jesus existed, but the Christ preached by the church has always been a fabrication. Ken says “obviously this historical Jesus wasn’t resurrected in Jerusalem after his crucifixion,” and “…the New Testament evidence is therefore based entirely on Peter’s uncorroborated & unverified claims, the veracity of which has never been independently established.”[1]
This idea cuts to the heart of the matter for the Christian apologist. Often, when someone seeks to prove Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, one of the main lines of evidence are the New Testament writings themselves. Yet Ken says we must throw them all out, because they are clearly infected by this fabricated idea – the resurrection of Jesus.
1 – Some Questions
Clearly, Ken’s ideas raise lots of questions. For example, if the early Christian experiences reported in the New Testament are based on fabrications, why would people believe a lie that Peter allegedly told about Jesus’ resurrection in the first place? Particularly since this resurrection idea would have been alien to ancient Judaism, so why would it have been compelling to Jewish people if there was no evidence for it? Also, why were these lies about Jesus’ supposed resurrection so carefully documented anyway?
Here’s a bigger question.
If Jesus was not raised from the dead, why would Peter put himself in danger by claiming that he was? Jerusalem was not a safe place for the friends of Jesus after his crucifixion. If the authorities had executed their leader, they would pursue any Jesus follower who decided to continue Jesus’ mission. We actually have evidence from the historian Josephus that this happened to other Jewish Messiah candidates. How interesting though, that in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, the executed Messiah’s mission continued and spread despite the danger facing anyone who publicly proclaimed Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. But if Ken is right that Christianity is built on a lie, why would anyone want to put themselves in harm’s way by doing that?
Of course Ken’s answer is, they didn’t. This is all just a story, fabricated to give later Christian converts a plausible grounding for their Christian faith. He says, “converts would eventually want to know more about Jesus’ life before his crucifixion, and it was this growing need to know more about Jesus, that eventually triggered the appearance of many gospels. These gospels, all appearing after the death of all concerned were just local attempts to provide Jesus’ missing biographical details for the benefit of their pagan converts.”[2] Perhaps Ken would go on to say no one in first century Jerusalem believed in Jesus’ resurrection, it was all made up many years later for an eager audience of later Christian believers?
Well – if that is the case, then I would ask, what do we do with the first and second century evidence that supports the claim that the disciple Peter did not just put himself in harm’s way after Jesus’ crucifixion, he was willing to suffer and die for his first-hand personal witness of the physically risen Jesus? And – what do we make of the evidence that he was actually martyred in Rome for doing so?
What I’m saying is this. You could understand other people giving their lives for something they only thought was true. But Ken says Peter knew Jesus resurrection was false. If Peter was the only one who genuinely knew that Jesus’ resurrection was a lie, then why would he personally put himself through danger, suffering, and death for his own lie?
Now – Ken doesn’t seem to think Peter was martyred. He says, “The actual facts of the apostles is unknown and Peter’s alleged death in Rome is not backed up by reliable evidence.”[3] If Peter wasn’t martyred, then we can’t point to his willingness to die as confirmation that Jesus was raised from the dead.
But hang on. Is Ken right? Let’s test his claim that we cannot know with certainty that Peter was martyred for his Christian beliefs.
2 – Evidence for the Martyrdom of the Apostle Peter
The traditional understanding of Peter’s fate is that he was martyred in Rome under Nero’s reign in AD 64 – 67. How strong is the evidence for this traditional understanding? It turns out that there are many sources that support this idea from the first and second century. This is important because these sources were written “in living memory” of Peter.
In his doctoral dissertation, Sean McDowell examines the literary evidence from antiquity that supports the martyrdom of Peter.[4]
First – the New Testament itself. In John 21:18-19, Jesus cryptically predicts Peter’s execution, though no details are given. 2 Peter 1:12-15 records Peter writing from Rome in the knowledge that his death is imminent.
Second – 1 Clement 5:1-4. Written in the first century, this is believed to come from the church leader in Rome and written to the church in Corinth. Clement assumes Peter’s martyrdom in Rome around AD60 as common knowledge. “This is Peter, who … bore up under hardships not just once or twice, but many times; and having thus borne his witness he went to the place of glory that he deserved.”[5] Skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman says, “By the end of the first century and into the second it was widely known among Christians that Peter had suffered a martyr’s death. The tradition is alluded to in the book of 1 Clement.”[6] McDowell says, “at the very least, this passage provides evidence that Peter and Paul were considered examples of faithful endurance for the Gospel, even in the midst of suffering, until their deaths.”[7]
Third – the writings of Ignatius, a Christian leader from the second century who was also martyred. Two writings are important:
Letter to the Romans 4:3 – Ignatius faces his impending martyrdom, and he seems to assume both Peter and the apostle Paul were also martyred before him.
Letter to the Smyrneans 3:1-2 – this letter presupposes the martyrdom of many of the apostles, including Peter.
Fourth – The Apocalypse of Peter. This is a work attributed to Peter, but the real author is unknown (it is a pseudepigraphal work). Yet it is dated to the first half of the second century and is thought to be built around a historical core of data, providing “early attestation for the martyrdom of Peter in Rome under Nero.”[8]
Fifth – The Ascension of Isaiah. Like the Apocalypse of Peter, this is a pseudepigraphal work dated early in the second century. It refers to an apostle who fell into Nero’s hands and, since it was written in living memory of Peter, the readers would know who was being referred to here. While it doesn’t explicitly state Peter was martyred, it implies it happened in Rome.
Sixth – The Acts of Peter. Dated toward the end of the second century, this work contains legendary material, a historical novel. Yet scholars note that the authors did not just make material up. Rather, they were bound by received tradition and memory of events, including the martyrdom of Peter.
Seventh – The Apocryphon of James. This pseudonymous text is dated to before AD314, and it shows that “by the end of the second century at the earliest, the crucifixion of Peter was assumed by both Orthodox and Gnostic circles alike.” [9]
Eighth – Dionysius of Corinth. This was a pastoral letter written around AD170 to encourage the Corinthian church. He mentions the martyrdoms of both Peter and Paul, and the historian Eusebius uses Dionysius’ work as confirmation that both apostles died under the reign of Nero.
Ninth – Irenaeus, Against Heresies. Written at the end of the second century to challenge Gnosticism, he references the deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome. The tradition of their martyrdoms was strong, and so in this text, a reference is clearly being made to it.
Tenth – Tertullian, Scorpiace 15, written in AD208 (early third century). He is confident in Peter’s martyrdom in Rome, and encourages the reader to check the archives of the empire if they doubt this fact.
On top of the surviving texts attesting to Peter’s martyrdom, crucially there is no competing narrative from antiquity that presents a different explanation for Peter’s fate.
3 – Conclusion
There is therefore firm historical support for the Christian martyrdom of the apostle Peter from many different sources. And this makes Peter’s martyrdom as firm an event as any from antiquity. Unless we are to believe that not only is the New Testament fabricated, but all of this historical record as well. But this strains incredulity, I think.
So – the question remains. If Ken is right and Christianity is built on a lie, why would Peter choose to die for his own lie?
Here’s another possible interpretation of the historical record.
Jesus’ resurrection is not a lie. It is an event from history. God did raise Jesus supernaturally from the dead, and this event contributed to the changing of Peter and the other apostles from frightened defeated followers into brave and confident proclaimers of the resurrected Christ. This put them on a direct collision course with the same authorities who executed Jesus. Yet they were willing to put their lives on the line in spite of this danger. They were willing to “suffer and die for their first-hand witness of the risen Jesus – this is of foremost importance. The evidence shows that some really died as martyrs, and that none recanted.”[10]
RESPOND 