Christian Research Institute: Gary, You Obviously Have Not Read Enough Books

Christian Research Institute: Dear Gary,

Greetings in the precious name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and thank you for contacting the Christian Research Institute! I doubt the NT Wright video really says what you are trying to say. (The same uncertainty to the blogger too.) What do you think of the discussion from Resurrection of the Son of God? You said nothing about that.

What in Richard Baukham have you found to be problematic? You never really read the book did you? What is so compelling about the point that most modern scholars doubt the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses? This is not a popularity contest. 

Cognitive dissonance? How would you respond to NT Wright’s comments on the issue of cognitive dissonance in Resurrection of the Son of God? Please also read the portions of cognitive dissonance in The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael R. Licona. Let me know your comments and criticisms.

What do the apparitions of Mary and the like offer? Do not the apparitions presuppose an exalted view of the Virgin to begin with? How do they really answer the question why first century Jews would change their views on key social structures for their believe in a resurrected Messiah? While there were messianic expectations among Jews of the first century, where is the evidence that there would be a dying and rising messiah? 

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always!

In Christ,

Warren N.
Research Consultant
Christian Research Institute

Gary:

Good evening, Warren! I hope you had a very nice day.

NT Wright’s words speak for themselves, my friend. He clearly states he has no idea who wrote the Gospels.

That does NOT mean that NT Wright rejects everything in the Gospels as legend and hearsay. Absolutely not, however, if you read, “The Resurrection of the Son of God”, cover to cover as I have, you will see that Wright trusts the historical reliability of the Gospels not because they were written by eyewitnesses but because he believes that neither first century Jews nor first century Greeks/Romans would make up a resurrection story of one single individual.

In “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”, Bauckham bases his conclusion that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses on the assumption that first century Jews would never allow fictional embellishments into their oral stories. He also appeals to the fact that one study demonstrated that the Jewish first names of individuals used in the Gospels are similar to the first names used in other historical records of Jewish first names used in Palestine in the first century. That was his best evidence, in my opinion. Are you aware that Bauckham states in his book that he does not believe that the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew found in our Bibles? Are you also aware that Bauckham does not believe that John, son of Zebedee, wrote the Gospel of John?

“What is so compelling about the point that most modern scholars doubt the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses? This is not a popularity contest.”

You are absolutely correct, but in our culture, most educated people trust majority expert opinion on all subjects about which they personally are not experts. Neither you nor I are textual critics of first century Near East literature. Therefore, the prudent course of action is to accept majority expert opinion on the subject of the authorship and dating of these five (the four Gospels and Acts) ancient texts. You and I both may have spent a lot of time studying these issues, but that does not make us ancient Near East textual critics.

“Please also read the portions of cognitive dissonance in The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael R. Licona. Let me know your comments and criticisms.”

Yes, I have read this book. I find it interesting that you appeal to the research of Michael Licona. Do you agree with Dr. Licona that “Matthew’s” story of dead saints shaken alive out their graves by an earthquake is theological allegory, not literal history? If Licona is correct, doesn’t that open Pandora’s box? What other stories in the Gospels are “allegory”? Jesus walking on water? Jesus turning water into wine? Jesus appearing to his disciples in a “heavenly” body at a fish fry on a seashore?

“How do they really answer the question why first century Jews would change their views on key social structures for their believe in a resurrected Messiah? While there were messianic expectations among Jews of the first century, where is the evidence that there would be a dying and rising messiah?”

I believe I have satisfactorily and fully answered these questions in our previous discussions. Obviously you do not believe that I have, so let me suggest something: Take your questions and ask 10 Muslims, 10 Hindus, and 10 Shinto which scenario is more likely to be the cause of a small group of first century Jews radically changing their beliefs: a bodily resurrection or illusions/vivid dreams/hallucinations/and or false sightings/cases of mistaken identity. I will bet you $100 bucks these 30 people, people who have no bias against the supernatural, will agree that my scenario is MUCH more probable than a bodily resurrection.

Bottom line, Warren. Disputed eyewitness testimony is not strong evidence. You and other conservative Christian apologists can claim that the majority of scholars is biased on the authorship of the Gospels, but isn’t it equally possible that it is you and your experts who are biased? Regardless, without any strong evidence, there is no good reason why any modern, educated person should believe this ancient Christian supernatural tale.

I look forward to hearing from you again,
Gary

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Advertisement