March 24, 2022

March 24, 2022 By

Bart Ehrman is one of the most well-known and influential critics of traditional Christianity and the inspired Bible (“anti-theists”) writing today. Formerly, in his own words, he was “a fundamentalist for maybe 6 years; a conservative evangelical but not extreme right wing for maybe 5 years more; and a fairly mainstream liberal Christian for about 25.” The primary reason he gives for having lost his faith is the problem of evil (a very serious topic I have dealt with many times). He stated on 3-18-22 in a comment on his blog: “I could no longer explain how there could be a God active in this world given all the pain and misery in it.” I don’t question his sincerity, good intentions, intellectual honesty, or his past status as a Christian; only various opinions which Christians must (in consistency) regard as erroneous.

Dr. Ehrman “received his PhD and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.” He has written 30 books, which have sold over two million copies and have been translated into 27 languages.

Ehrman explains that the purpose of his blog is “to disseminate scholarly knowledge of the New Testament and the earliest periods of the Christian church to a non-scholarly audience, . . . Every post is rooted in scholarship – not just my own but that of thousands of scholars who have worked for centuries on understanding the historical Jesus, the New Testament, and the origins of Christianity.” Well, the conclusions of scholars are only as good as the solidity and truthfulness of the premises by which they are operating.

This is one of a series of reply-papers, in which I will address many of his materials from the perspective of archaeology, history, and exegesis.

*****

I am responding to a portion of his article, Internal Discrepancies in the Gospel of John (6-26-18). His words will be in blue.

In John 5:1, Jesus goes to Jerusalem, where he spends the entire chapter healing and teaching. The author’s comment after this discourse, however, is somewhat puzzling: “After this, Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee” (6:1). How could he go to the other side of the sea if he is not already on one of its sides? In fact, he is nowhere near the Sea of Galilee; he is in Jerusalem of Judea.

This might seem strange to us but it wouldn’t at all to Galilean Jews in the first century who lived on the west side of the Sea of Galilee (Capernaum, where Peter’s house was and where Jesus stayed for a time). The east side was known by them as the “other side” because it was a different culture: a Gentile one. I can think of at least two American examples that are analogous to this usage.

The Grand Canyon in Arizona has, of course, two sides, or rims: the south rim and the north rim. The south rim is vastly more popular and gets ten times as many visitors. I had visited the south rim three times (hiking to the bottom on my second visit), and then in 2019 finally visited the north rim. If I were talking to anyone who had been to the Grand Canyon, I could have said, “we went to the other side of the Grand Canyon this year” and they would know exactly what I was talking about.

Secondly, as a Michigander, if I were to say that “we’re gonna visit the other side of Lake Huron / Michigan / Superior / Erie” (i.e., the Great Lakes), it would be immediately understood by anyone from Michigan that it’s the west side of Lake Michigan (in Illinois and Wisconsin), the east side of Lake Huron and north side of Lake Superior (in Ontario, Canada), and the south side of Lake Erie (in Ohio). And I have visited all those places. It has to do with the side that one is more familiar with (the Michigan side!) and/or where one lives. In that context, “the other side” is immediately understood. This analogy is almost a perfect one.

And that’s exactly what we have with regard to “the other side” of the Sea of Galilee. It was understood by Galileans that the west side was far more familiar and that referring to “the other side” was clearly the eastern Gentile side of the lake. There is still very little on the immediate shores on the east side to this day (I visited the area in 2014). Accordingly, not just the Gospel of John, but the other three Gospels all use this standard title in referring to the east side of the Sea of Galilee: which is precisely how it could be referred to as a destination from any part of the country (in this instance, from Jerusalem):

Matthew (four times): Matthew 8:18, 28; 14:22; 16:5.

Mark (five times): Mark 4:35; 5:1, 21; 6:45; 8:13.

Luke (one time): Luke 8:22.

John (three times): John 6:1, 22, 25.

The title was understood to such an extent that in all but two of fifteen instances of the phrase “other side” occurring in the New Testament, it refers to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (Luke 10:30-31 being a generic, “non-title” usage). They didn’t even bother to say “east side” or “Gentile side” of the lake or whatever the region was called then (Gerasa or Gergesa, etc.) because everyone knew what “the other side” referred to. The Evangelists could have used the phrase “east side” had they chosen to (it appears 33 times in the Old Testament, though not in the new, and “east” appears eight times in the NT). But none of them chose to do that.

In any event, this objection is really “scraping the bottom of the barrel” in terms of alleged biblical “contradictions”: and I’m familiar with hundreds, having replied to a great number of them. Once we understand the reasoning and rationale above, I believe that it vanishes (alongside countless other “faux / pseudo- / alleged ‘contradictions’ “).

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Zachi Evenor (2-5-14) Sea of Galilee: panorama of the southern end [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Summary: Agnostic Bible critic Bart Ehrman tries to make out that it’s “contradictory” to refer to the “other side” of the Sea of Galilee without being on the opposite side.

 

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022 By

Bart Ehrman is one of the most well-known and influential critics of traditional Christianity and the inspired Bible (“anti-theists”) writing today. Formerly, in his own words, he was “a fundamentalist for maybe 6 years; a conservative evangelical but not extreme right wing for maybe 5 years more; and a fairly mainstream liberal Christian for about 25.” The primary reason he gives for having lost his faith is the problem of evil (a very serious topic I have dealt with many times). He stated on 3-18-22 in a comment on his blog: “I could no longer explain how there could be a God active in this world given all the pain and misery in it.” I don’t question his sincerity, good intentions, intellectual honesty, or his past status as a Christian; only various opinions which Christians must (in consistency) regard as erroneous.

Dr. Ehrman “received his PhD and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.” He has written 30 books, which have sold over two million copies and have been translated into 27 languages.

Ehrman explains that the purpose of his blog is “to disseminate scholarly knowledge of the New Testament and the earliest periods of the Christian church to a non-scholarly audience, . . . Every post is rooted in scholarship – not just my own but that of thousands of scholars who have worked for centuries on understanding the historical Jesus, the New Testament, and the origins of Christianity.” Well, the conclusions of scholars are only as good as the solidity and truthfulness of the premises by which they are operating.

This is one of a series of reply-papers, in which I will address many of his materials from the perspective of archaeology, history, and exegesis.

*****

I am responding to his article, Israel’s Conquest of the Promised Land: Did Any of That Happen? (8-25-21). His words will be in blue.

I want to address a question lots of people typically have about these stories of the Conquest of Canaan in the book of Joshua.   Did any of this happen?

Here’s how I discuss the matter in my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Oxford University Press), a book you should consider getting if you’re interested in knowing both what’s in the Bible and what scholars say about it from historical and literary perspectives. . . . 

[T]he narratives of Joshua . . . are clearly molded according to theological assumptions and perspectives.  There is almost nothing in the accounts that suggest that the author is trying to be purely descriptive of things that really happened.  He is writing an account that is guided by his religious agenda, not by pure historical interests.  That is why, when read closely, one finds so many problems with the narratives. . . . 

  • In the archaeological record there is no support for the kind of violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua.  Think for a second: if one were to look for archaeological evidence, or other external verification, to support the historical narratives of Joshua, what would one look for?
    • References to the invasion and conquest in other written sources.
    • Evidence that there were indeed walled cities and towns in Canaan at the time.
    • Archaeological evidence that the cities and towns mentioned actually were destroyed at the time (Jericho, Ai, Heshbon, etc.).  . . . 

And what kind of verification do we actually get for the narratives of Joshua?  None of the above.  There are no references in any other ancient source to a massive destruction of the cities of Canaan.  There were few walled towns at the time.  Many of the specific cities cited as places of conquest did not even exist as cities at the time. 

I addressed Hazor in my previous article. Remember, Ehrman claimed there was “no support . . . none” for “violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua”: as I detail below the actual, specific archaeological evidence that he thinks is nonexistent. It’s easy (and very foolish) to make  “universal negative” statements. And it’s easy as pie to shoot them down. Even a single counter-example already logically demolishes such sweeping and “triumphalistic” claims. But I will produce many counter-examples.

This includes, most notably, Jericho, which was not inhabited in the late 13th century BCE, as archaeologists have decisively shown (see box). 

Jericho is a special case, due to the rapid level of erosion caused by the arid climate and the closeness of the Dead Sea: one of the saltiest bodies of water in the world. I explained this in my paper, Joshua’s Conquest & Archaeology.

The same thing applies to Ai and Heshbon.  These cities were neither occupied, nor conquered, nor re-inhabited in the days of Joshua.

The data from Ai is inconclusive and does not thus far appear to positively support the biblical account. Archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen stated that there was a new settlement “at about 1220/1200 or soon after” (1): which is still Joshua’s era. Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson state:

The Iron Age I village at et-Tell was probably biblical Ai. The “men of Ai” whom Joshua defeated in the wadi north of the site (Josh. 8:1-29) were probably the first inhabitants of the Iron Age I site. (p. 23)

But Kitchen states that “Ai is enigmatic” (3). The evidence is even much less impressive for Heshbon. Christians need not be embarrassed by the occasional lack of confirmation of Scripture or scanty evidence in archaeology. There are many many more instances where the data confirms the Bible: often rather dramatically. So “score two” for Ehrman. He chose his examples wisely. But his sweeping, grandiose claims regarding the “conquest” do not hold up, as I will now show.

Lachish

Joshua 10:31-32 And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it: [32] and the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah.

Archaeological Level VII of Lachish has been dated to the 13th century BC, and its destruction determined to be the middle or latter part of the 12th century BC. According to Israeli archaeologist David Ussishkin, “the biblical description (in Josh. 10:31-32) fits the archaeological data: a large Canaanite city destroyed by fire; . . . and complete desertion of the razed city explained by the annihilation of the populace.” As with Hazor, a small Iron Age settlements appeared not long afterwards. (4)

Bethel

Judges 1:22-25 The house of Joseph also went up against Bethel; and the LORD was with them. [23] And the house of Joseph sent to spy out Bethel. (Now the name of the city was formerly Luz.) [24] And the spies saw a man coming out of the city, and they said to him, “Pray, show us the way into the city, and we will deal kindly with you.” [25] And he showed them the way into the city; and they smote the city with the edge of the sword, but they let the man and all his family go.

The destruction of the Late Bronze Age town was by fire, and dated by William Albright to around 1240-1235 BC. This was followed by a relatively poor and different Israelite Iron Age I settlement. This was what happened according to archaeologists Amihai Mazar and Israel Finkelstein. Negev and Gibson (5) added that “The last Late Bronze Age stratum is covered by a very thick layer of ashes and charred and fallen bricks.”

Bruce Waltke notes Canaanite cities that underwent “catastrophic destructions”:

Hazor (Tell el-Qedah), Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim), Succoth (Tell Deir Alla), Bethel (Beitin), Beth Shemesh (Tell er-Remeileh), Ashdod (Esdud), Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir), Eglon (Tell el-esi), and Debir or Kiriath-Sepher (Tell Beit Mirsim or Khirbet Rabud). . . .

On the other hand, he differentiated cities mentioned in the Bible that show no sign of destruction, in line with the biblical accounts:

Gibeon (el-Jib) (Joshua 9), Taanach (Tell Taaannak) (Judg 1:27), Shechem (Tell Balatah) (Josh 24), Jerusalem (el-Quds) (Josh 15:63; 2 Sam 5:6-9), Beth-shean (Tell el-husn) (Judg 1:27-28), and Gezer (Tell Jezer) (Josh 10:33). (6)

Dr. Kitchen assessed the overall evidence and harmony with the scriptural accounts and concluded “eighteen or nineteen” sites out of twenty “were in being in Late Bronze (II)”, according to what we have determined by archaeology. He stated that Makkedah was an exception to the rule because “most of that site is not accessible, hence is not decisive.” (7)

He concluded from the research: “This review shows up the far greater deficiencies in some critiques of the Joshua narratives and list that are now already out-of-date and distinctly misleading.” (8)

Azekah

Joshua 10:10 And the LORD threw them into a panic before Israel, who slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them by the way of the ascent of Beth-hor’on, and smote them as far as Aze’kah and Makke’dah. (cf. 10:11; 15:35).

Azekah was occupied right through the early, Middle, and Late Bronze periods, as well as through the Iron Age . . . (9).

Libnah

Joshua 10:29-30 Then Joshua . . . fought against Libnah; [30] and the LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it; . . .

Libnah . . . can be plausibly identified with Tell Bornat (Tel Burna), which was inhabited in the Late Bronze Age, in agreement with the probable date of Joshua’s raids. (10)

. . . settled in the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I-II (11).

Eglon

Joshua 10:34-35 And Joshua passed on with all Israel from Lachish to Eglon; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it; [35] and they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, . . .

Eglon . . . is in all likelihood to be sited at present-day Tell ‘Aitun (Tell ‘Eton), occupied in the Late Bronze II period . . . (12).

Debir

Joshua 10:38-39 Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it, [39] and he took it with its king and all its towns; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left none remaining; . . .

Debir . . . is more securely located at Khirbet Rabud . . . this site was inhabited in the fourteenth/thirteenth centuries, in the Late Bronze II period, and was reoccupied directly in Early Iron I (twelfth century). (13).

Gaza

Joshua 10:41 And Joshua defeated them from Ka’desh-bar’nea to Gaza . . . (cf. 14:6-7; 15:3).

Archaeological soundings . . . in 1922 . . . uncovered a series of walls, the earliest of which was associated with Late Bronze Age pottery . . . Egyptian texts dating to the reign of Thutmosis II [r. 1493-1479 BC] refer to Gazat “a prize city of the governor,” indicating at least a 15th century BC date for the occupation of the site. Gaza is also mentioned in the El Amarna [c. 1350 BC] and Taanach tablets [also c. 1350 BC] as an Egyptian administrative center . . . (14)

Shift in cultural patterns: that is, evidence of new people taking over from other peoples of a different culture (as you get in the Americas when Europeans came over bringing with them their own culture, different from that of the native Americans).

Ehrman claimed that there was no evidence for this, which is false. Junkkaala summarized his in-depth study of these cities that are mentioned in the Bible in conjunction with Joshua and the Israeli conquest and subsequent settlement:

This study has included 29 sites, which have been divided into two main categories: the “conquered cities” and the “unconquered cities”. The first category has been subdivided into three groups: excavated cities, surveyed cities and others. In all of the “unconquered cities” excavations have been carried out.
*
Two questions were asked concerning each of the sites: were they inhabited in the periods in question (Late Bronze Age II, Iron Age I and II), and can we know something about the cultural backgrounds of the inhabitants. In most cases it could be determined that the culture was influenced either by the Coastal Plain culture (C) or the Hill Country culture (H). The third possibility was the Sea People culture (mostly Philistines, P). . . .
*
The list of the “conquered cities” contains 19 sites. 12 of them have been excavated, 5 have been surveyed and 2 neither have been carried out. In 10 of the 12 excavated cities C-culture dominated in the Late Bronze Age II and in 3 of them (Ai, Arad and Makkedah) there was no identifiable settlement in that period. The cultural change between the Late Bronze Age II and Iron Age I can be seen in all of the sites, although in some it is not very obvious. This change does not happen simultaneously, in Ai the H-culture begins in Iron Age I as in almost all the other cities in this group, but Arad and Makkedah have no settlement until Iron Age II.
*
In 8 of the 12 excavated sites the new settlers seem to represent H culture. . . .
*
The list of the “unconquered cities” contains 10 sites, all of which have been excavated. C-culture dominated in all the sites in Late Bronze Age II. In the Iron Age I the same culture (C) has been found in at least 4 of them and P-culture or its variations in 5 of them (Gezer, Jarmuth, Dor, Aphek, and Achsaph). . . .
*
The conspicuous difference between the archaeology of the “conquered” and the “unconquered” cities is that in the former ones the H-culture begins during Iron Age I (although not commencing simultaneously), and in the latter it only starts in Iron Age II. (15)
This is strong archaeological confirmation of the biblical descriptions of the conquest. Waltke (backed up by others) (16) made a similar observation:
The sudden emergence of hundreds of new sites by pastoral nomads in Iron I contrasts sharply with the reduced number of sites in LB in comparison with MB. Kochavi (17) wrote: “During the Late Bronze Age, and especially towards its end, new small unfortified settlements are known. However, with the beginning of the Iron Age, they suddenly appear by the hundreds.” I. Finkelstein (18) elaborates:

Altogether only 25-30 sites were occupied in the Late Bronze II (c. 1400-1200 BC) between the Jezreel and Beer-Sheva valleys. Human activity was confined mainly to the large central tells…. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that many additional Late Bronze sites will be discovered in the future, because it is difficult to overlook such major settlements. Other regions were also practically deserted during the Late Bronze period…. In Iron I there was a dramatic swing back in the population of the hill country. About 240 sites of the period are known in the area between the Jezreel and Beer-Sheva valleys; 96 in Manasseh, 122 in Ephraim… and 22 in Benjamin and Judah. In addition, 68 sites have been identified in Galilee, 18 in the Jordan Valley and dozens of others on the Transjordanian plateau.

As I noted in my previous article, Ehrman likes Israel Finkelstein a lot. He thinks his 2002 book, The Bible Unearthed, is “absolutely terrific . . . Really great, in every way”, and that Finkelstein and co-author Neil Asher Silberman are “highly established and incredibly learned scholars who seem to know everything relevant to the Hebrew Bible . . . far more qualified than I to say anything about the history of ancient Israel” (“Did David Exist? And When Did I Know I Lost My Faith?”, 4-15-17).

Archaeology is often a speculative and inexact science. But I submit that there is more than enough verification in the above information to establish that the Bible was (yet again) substantially accurate in its claims regarding the “conquest” of Canaan begun by Joshua, and certainly enough to counter Ehrman’s grotesquely exaggerated claims that there is no evidence or archaeological verification of the historical accounts in Joshua.

Footnotes

(1) Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 188.

(2) Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson, Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (New York: Continuum, revised edition of 2001).

(3) Kitchen, ibid., 188.

(4) Eero Junkkaala, Three Conquests of Canaan: A Comparative Study of Two Egyptian Military Campaigns and Joshua 10-12 in the Light of Recent Archaeological Evidence (Finland: Abo Akademie University Press, 2006), 235-236, 238.

(5) Negev & Gibson, ibid., 221.

(6) Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Conquest” (Westminster Theological Journal 52.2 [Fall 1990]: 181-200); citation from pages 197-198.

(7) Kitchen, ibid., 186.

(8) Kitchen, ibid., 189.

(9) Kitchen, ibid., 183.

(10) Kitchen, ibid., 183.

(11) Negev and Gibson, ibid., 299.

(12) Kitchen, ibid., 184.

(13) Kitchen, ibid., 184.

(14) Negev and Gibson, ibid., “Gaza”, 191.

(15) Junkkaala, ibid., 299-300.

(16) Waltke, ibid., 197-198.

(17) M. Kochavi, “The Israelite Settlement in Canaan in the light of Archaeological Surveys,” Biblical Archaeology Today (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 55.

(18) Israel Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society 1988), 39.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen’s landmark book on Old Testament archaeology [Amazon book page image]

***

Summary: I produce much evidence regarding Joshua’s conquest & science, but agnostic Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman contends that there is little or no such archaeological evidence.

 

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022 By

Including Possible Archaeological Evidence for the Battle of Deborah in Judges 4

Bart Ehrman is one of the most well-known and influential critics of traditional Christianity and the inspired Bible (“anti-theists”) writing today. Formerly, in his own words, he was “a fundamentalist for maybe 6 years; a conservative evangelical but not extreme right wing for maybe 5 years more; and a fairly mainstream liberal Christian for about 25.” The primary reason he gives for having lost his faith is the problem of evil (a very serious topic I have dealt with many times). He stated on 3-18-22 in a comment on his blog: “I could no longer explain how there could be a God active in this world given all the pain and misery in it.” I don’t question his sincerity, good intentions, intellectual honesty, or his past status as a Christian; only various opinions which Christians must (in consistency) regard as erroneous.

Dr. Ehrman “received his PhD and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.” He has written 30 books, which have sold over two million copies and have been translated into 27 languages.

Ehrman explains that the purpose of his blog is “to disseminate scholarly knowledge of the New Testament and the earliest periods of the Christian church to a non-scholarly audience, . . . Every post is rooted in scholarship – not just my own but that of thousands of scholars who have worked for centuries on understanding the historical Jesus, the New Testament, and the origins of Christianity.” Well, the conclusions of scholars are only as good as the solidity and truthfulness of the premises by which they are operating.

This is one of a series of reply-papers, in which I will address many of his materials from the perspective of archaeology, history, and exegesis.

*****

I am responding to his article, Israel’s Conquest of the Promised Land: Did Any of That Happen? (8-25-21). His words will be in blue.

I want to address a question lots of people typically have about these stories of the Conquest of Canaan in the book of Joshua.   Did any of this happen?

Here’s how I discuss the matter in my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Oxford University Press), a book you should consider getting if you’re interested in knowing both what’s in the Bible and what scholars say about it from historical and literary perspectives. . . . 

[T]he narratives of Joshua . . . are clearly molded according to theological assumptions and perspectives.  There is almost nothing in the accounts that suggest that the author is trying to be purely descriptive of things that really happened.  He is writing an account that is guided by his religious agenda, not by pure historical interests.  That is why, when read closely, one finds so many problems with the narratives. . . . 

Joshua 11:10-13 (RSV) And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote its king with the sword; for Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms. [11] And they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed, and he burned Hazor with fire. [12] And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took, and smote them with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. [13] But none of the cities that stood on mounds did Israel burn, except Hazor only; that Joshua burned. (“Jabin king of Hazor” was referred to in 11:1)

Ehrman makes the patently, demonstrably false statement:

  • In the archaeological record there is no support for the kind of violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua.  Think for a second: if one were to look for archaeological evidence, or other external verification, to support the historical narratives of Joshua, what would one look for?
    • References to the invasion and conquest in other written sources.
    • Evidence that there were indeed walled cities and towns in Canaan at the time.
    • Archaeological evidence that the cities and towns mentioned actually were destroyed at the time (Jericho, Ai, Heshbon, etc.). . . .

And what kind of verification do we actually get for the narratives of Joshua?  None of the above.  There are no references in any other ancient source to a massive destruction of the cities of Canaan.   There were few walled towns at the time.   Many of the specific cities cited as places of conquest did not even exist as cities at the time. 

At the moment, I am dealing with only Hazor. I’ll get to many other cities in due course (I have the time, since I am a full-time apologist). Remember, Ehrman claimed there was “no support . . . none” for “violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua”: as I detail the actual, specific archaeological evidence that he thinks is nonexistent. It’s easy (and very foolish) to make  “universal negative” statements. And it’s easy as pie to shoot them down. Even a single counter-example already logically demolishes such sweeping and “triumphalistic” claims. But I will produce many counter-examples in this and other similar articles to come.

Hazor, according to archaeology (1), was “destroyed along with a massive conflagration in the thirteenth century, probably toward its end” (exactly the time period of Joshua).

In 1996 rather sensational charred remains of a late Bronze Age palace were discovered in excavations led by Amnon Ben Tor. That this was the work of the Israelites was suggested by the “deliberate decapitation and mutilation of statues of deities, in keeping with the charge of Moses to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 7:5”. “The emerging picture, . . . is consistent with the description of the sack of Hazor in Joshua 11.” (2)

Eero Junkkaala wrote at length specifically about this general topic and noted that four Israeli archaeologists (Yadin, Aharoni, Ben-Tor, and Frankel) agreed and concluded that the city was destroyed militarily by the Israelites. Frankel wrote about it: “the archaeological finds ostensibly correlate with the biblical description: a Canaanite city was totally destroyed and a small Iron I village was built upon its ruins.” (3).

In stratum XIII, the last of the Bronze Age strata, the building [“probably a palace”] was destroyed by fire. (4)

Rafael Frankel [see his book], also maintained that “in the case of the conquest of Hazor too, the archaeological finds ostensibly correlate with the biblical description: a Canaanite city was totally destroyed and a small Iron I village was built upon its ruins.”

Footnotes:

(1) Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 185.

(2) James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 35.

(3) Eero Junkkaala, Three Conquests of Canaan: A Comparative Study of Two Egyptian Military Campaigns and Joshua 10-12 in the Light of Recent Archaeological Evidence (Finland: Abo Akademie University Press, 2006); citations from pages 230-231, 233-234.

(4) Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson, Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (New York: Continuum, revised edition of 2001), 78.

Even Ehrman concedes in his article that Hazor was “wiped out at about the right time,” which of course contradicts his earlier statement that there was “no support . . . none“ [my italics] for the “violent destruction of the cities of Canaan”. Which is it? Perhaps Ehrman can explain to us this discrepancy in his argument. In any event, the evidence for the burning destruction of Hazor in Joshua’s time is clear and incontrovertible.

Now we can deal with the topic of Judges 4, which Ehrman takes to be a biblical contradiction. He writes:

In ch. 11 [of Joshua], for example, the Israelite forces completely annihilate the city of Hazor: . . . If that were true, why is it that in the next book, Judges, the Canaanites still very much live in and control Hazor, under their king Jabin, whose powerful army afflicted and oppressed the Israelites (Judges 4)?

The battle is described in Judges 4:1-24 (the entire chapter), complete with references to “Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor” (4:2), “Jabin the king of Hazor” (4:17), “Jabin the king of Canaan” (twice in 4:23-24), and “Jabin king of Canaan” (4:24). There is no mention, by the way, in this second incident, of Hazor being burned or destroyed; only that Jabin was “destroyed.” This corresponds with the archaeology that likewise doesn’t show a second destruction at this time.

So of course, the skeptics and atheists have had a grand time mocking this, since the city was burned in Joshua 11, and here it is again, with the same king? How hilarious, huh? The only problem is that there is a long time gap involved, which Ehrman neglects (he acts as if the two events were close in time). In fact,  Judges 3:11 states that “the land had rest forty years” and notes that the first Judge Othniel died.  Judges 3:30 then informs us that “the land had rest for eighty years.” By my math that is at least 120 years that had passed since Joshua’s destruction of Hazor, and this second battle led by Deborah, who is brought up five verses later.

The first battle was around 1230-1200 BC, according to archaeologist and Egyptologist Kitchen, and several other prominent archaeologists. But when is the time period of Deborah? It so happens that recently, archaeologists believe they may have found evidence of the town Haro’sheth-ha-goiim, where Deborah’s nemesis Sisera dwelt (Jud 4:2). El Ahwat is now believed to possibly be the location (as reported in The Jerusalem Post on 11-27-19). A chariot linchpin was found on the site, as Wikipedia reports. 900 chariots were involved in this battle (Jud 4:7, 15-16).

Wikipedia also noted that the well-known Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein dated the site at around 1060-1050 BC [Finkelstein, I. and Piasetzky, E. 2007. Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat. Ägypten und Levante: Internationale Zeitschrift für ägyptische archäologie und deren nachbargebeite Vol. 17.]. Wikipedia (“Deborah”) states that “Traditional Jewish chronology places Deborah’s 40 years of judging Israel (Judges 5:31) from 1107 BC until her death in 1067 BC” [see further source].

As one can see, the dates almost line up with Finkelstein’s scholarly archaeological opinion. A. D. H. Mayes, in his article, “The Historical Context of the Battle against Sisera”, Vetus Testamentum. 19 (3) [1969]: 353–360 [download a PDF copy at an article site] also believes that the most likely period for this battle was somewhere between 1050-1000 BC.

So how do such judgments correspond with the biblical data? They do quite strikingly. The Bible notes at least a 120-year gap between Joshua and Deborah and this second battle. The late estimate for the first battle (1200 BC)  is 140 or 150 years earlier than Finkelstein’s estimate, and 150-200 years earlier from that of Mayes. Given the inexact nature of much archaeological speculation, that is very good correspondence indeed; there may very well be more unmentioned years passed, according to the Bible, and so it is seen that the Bible is (for the zillionth time) historically accurate and (conversely) not definitely in error.

Ehrman (as I would have suspected) is rather fond of Israel Finkelstein. He thinks his 2002 book, The Bible Unearthed, is “absolutely terrific . . . Really great, in every way”, and that Finkelstein and co-author Neil Asher Silberman are “highly established and incredibly learned scholars who seem to know everything relevant to the Hebrew Bible . . . far more qualified than I to say anything about the history of ancient Israel” (“Did David Exist? And When Did I Know I Lost My Faith?”, 4-15-17).

All this being the case, Ehrman’s objection basically vanishes to nothing. It’s not unthinkable at all for a town to rebuild itself in a period of 140-200 years. Archaeologist Rafael Frankel stated about Hazor, that “a small Iron I village was built upon its ruins.” That’s all we need to know. It was in existence (again) at the time of Deborah’s battle.

The only remaining problem is the multiple mention of king Jabin. It appears, in light of all of the above, that there simply were two people with this same name. This is not unusual at all, when we look at the history of kings all over the world. A list of Assyrian kings, for example, shows many examples of multiple king names (indicated by “II”, “III”, “IV”, or “V” after the names): most of them closer in time to each other than the 120-year minimum spread between the two Jabins. Scottish kings show the same tendency; as do Egyptian pharaohs and no doubt many other (if not all other) such lists. The most famous multiple names perhaps come from the French monarchs, with 19 kings named Louis and ten named Charles. So that is a non-issue.

With that settled, Ehrman’s entire objection — at least in my humble opinion — vanishes, in light of what we know from secular archaeological science and history (not simply biased Christian apologetics or internal Christian arguments from the Bible).

***

See the related paper, Pearce’s Potshots #41: 13th c. BC Canaanite Iron Chariots [7-16-21]

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Qasinka (2-9-13). Ruins of Hazor [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Agnostic Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman makes several objections regarding Hazor and the “conquest” of Canaan by the Israelites. I provide strong counter-arguments.

 

March 22, 2022

March 22, 2022 By

Bart Ehrman is one of the most well-known and influential critics of traditional Christianity and the inspired Bible (“anti-theists”) writing today. Formerly, in his own words, he was “a fundamentalist for maybe 6 years; a conservative evangelical but not extreme right wing for maybe 5 years more; and a fairly mainstream liberal Christian for about 25.” The primary reason he gives for having lost his faith is the problem of evil (a very serious topic I have dealt with many times). He stated on 3-18-22 in a comment on his blog: “I could no longer explain how there could be a God active in this world given all the pain and misery in it.” I don’t question his sincerity, good intentions, intellectual honesty, or his past status as a Christian; only various opinions which Christians must (in consistency) regard as erroneous.

Dr. Ehrman “received his PhD and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.” He has written 30 books, which have sold over two million copies and have been translated into 27 languages.

Ehrman explains that the purpose of his blog is “to disseminate scholarly knowledge of the New Testament and the earliest periods of the Christian church to a non-scholarly audience, . . . Every post is rooted in scholarship – not just my own but that of thousands of scholars who have worked for centuries on understanding the historical Jesus, the New Testament, and the origins of Christianity.” Well, the conclusions of scholars are only as good as the solidity and truthfulness of the premises by which they are operating.

This is one of a series of reply-papers, in which I will address many of his materials from the perspective of archaeology, history, and exegesis.

*****

I am responding to his articles, But Why Doesn’t Paul Say More About the Historical Jesus? (12/9/2021) and Why Doesn’t Paul Say More about the Historical Jesus? Other Options. (12-11-21). His words will be in blue.

To this point I have enumerated everything that Paul explicitly says about what Jesus said, did, and experienced during his earthly life.  The driving question is the one that I turn to now and in the next post.  Why didn’t Paul tell us more?

The short (and I think, obvious) answer is that we have the four Gospels that already do so. How many times are necessary? Now, I could see that if there were no Gospels, and Paul was all we had, that it would become altogether necessary, to present the whole picture. But with them present, the equation changes. Paul is basically writing systematic theology: how the atoning death of Christ brings salvation.

He is dealing with the theological implications; doing theology; whereas the Gospels (much more in the style of the Old Testament), are “doing” the life of Christ; telling the story of His ministry and mission. The Old Testament had very little systematic theology per se. Paul was offering something new and exciting: in effect being more “Greek” than “Jewish” in his approach and intention.

I suppose Ehrman could come back with “the Gospels weren’t written yet when Paul wrote his letters.” Whether they were or not, there were certainly very strong oral traditions out and about, by this time, some twenty or more years after the crucifixion. All are agreed on that. Paul assumes that his readers already have this knowledge:

Ephesians 4:20-21 (RSV) You did not so learn Christ! — [21] assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus.

Colossians 1:4-5 because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love which you have for all the saints, [5] because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. [Lk 12:39]

He demonstrates almost exact familiarity with either a Gospel or a tradition that was behind the story of the Gospels:

Acts 13:24-25 Before his coming John had preached a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. [Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3] [25] And as John was finishing his course, he said, `What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. [Jn 1:21] No, but after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’ [Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Jn 1:15, 30] (cf. Acts 19:4)

Romans 2:1 . . . when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. [Mt 7:1-2; Lk 6:37]

Romans 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. [Mt 5:44]

Romans 13:7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. [Mt 22:21; Mk 12:17; Lk 20:25]

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, [24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” [Lk 22:19-20]

1 Corinthians 15:36 . . . What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. [Jn 12:24]

Ephesians 5:8 for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light [Jn 12:35-36] (cf. Lk 16:8; 1 Thess 5:4-5)

1 Thessalonians 1:7 and to grant rest with us to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, [Mt 25:31] (cf. 1 Thess 4:16-17)

He cites a tradition about Jesus that is not in the Gospels (but arguably is, by logical extension, in thought):

Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.'”

He cites something else that isn’t found in the Bible:

1 Corinthians 9:10 Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop.

Moreover, Luke (who many think wrote the Gospel bearing his name) was Paul’s companion and doctor (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 1:24). And he was writing an account of many major events in Paul’s own life, in the book of Acts (see 1:1-5; cf. Lk 1:1-4). One can imagine Paul and Luke talking about how Luke had written or was to write the Gospel of Luke, and Paul saying, “you do the life of Jesus, and I’ll do the theology of Jesus.  The Spirit apportions to each one individually as he wills [1 Cor 12:11].”

Moreover, Mark (if he is regarded as the author of the Gospel of Mark) also traveled with Paul (Acts 12:25; 15:37; Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 1:24). One can easily imagine Paul having the same sorts of discussions with him, about who was writing what, as he may very well have had with Luke. In other words, he knew they had written or were to write the Gospels, and/or that they were well familiar with the oral traditions concerning Jesus; therefore, he need not do the same thing. Division of labor . . .

Paul was determined to do exactly what God had called him to do, such as, for example, his specific mission to the Gentiles, not the Jews (Acts 13:46; 18:6; Rom 11:13; 15:15-16; Gal 1:16). I contend, then, that (following the idea of his very specific, particular mission) Paul deliberately sought to write about Christology and the theology of Jesus, rather than specifically about His life (biography, or the story of salvation).

Paul of course has a lot to say about the importance of Jesus, especially the importance of his death and resurrection and his imminent return from heaven.

Exactly! And that’s because he was writing “the theology of Jesus” and not “the life of Jesus.”

We hear nothing here of the details of Jesus’ birth or parents or early life, nothing of his baptism or temptation in the wilderness, nothing of his teaching about the coming Kingdom of God; we have no indication that he ever told a parable, that he ever healed anyone, cast out a demon, or raised the dead; we learn nothing of his transfiguration or triumphal entry, nothing of his cleansing of the Temple, nothing of his interrogation by the Sanhedrin or trial before Pilate, nothing of his being rejected in favor of Barabbas, of his being mocked, of his being flogged, etc. etc. etc.

This perfectly illustrates my argument. All of those things mentioned just happen to be (by the merest of coincidences!) in the four Gospels. That’s why Ehrman knew about them in the first place. Yet Ehrman finds it odd that Paul deliberately chooses not to do the same thing a fifth time (!). I’ve always thought this was a very odd skeptical / atheist objection.

But he does at least stumble into the most feasible explanation in his sentence before the above paragraph: “Imagine what we wouldn’t know about Jesus if these letters were our only sources of information.” That’s right. I agree! But since that’s not the case, it’s rather a moot point, isn’t it? Why bother with this at all? Why does the question even come up?

The historian who wants to know about the traditions concerning Jesus — or indeed, about the historical Jesus himself — will not be much helped by the surviving letters of Paul.

That’s correct, but it’s not a problem. The Christian and the theologian or historian interested in the history of theology and/or ideas or the sociologist of religion will find Paul’s letters crucial and immensely helpful; indispensable, because this was Paul’s purpose.

But what are we to make of this?

Nothing. It’s a non sequitur.

Why does Paul not remind his congregations of what Jesus said and did?

Because there was no need to.

Does he think that these things are unimportant?

No.

Does he think that they are irrelevant?

No.

Does he assume that his readers already know them?

Yes. Or if they didn’t already, they would soon, once the Gospels were all in their final forms, in writing, for posterity.

Does he know them?

Yes, just like all the other Christians.

How could he not know? 

Exactly!

Ehrman mulls over an “option one” in trying to understand this state of affairs: “we might conclude that Paul never mentioned these traditions in his letters because he knew that his converts already knew them.”

Yep. This is the answer, but Ehrman (who knows why?) finds it unsatisfactory.

[O]n occasion — relatively rare occasions, to be sure — Paul does use one of the traditions about Jesus in order to convince his converts of a necessary course of action. . . . If Paul was demonstrably inclined to use the traditions about Jesus in this way, why does he not do so more often? 

Because it was an exception to the “rule” of his methodology and purpose. Arguing by the “what ifs” and “why didn’t x say / do y?” is not a compelling or persuasive method at all. It carries very little force. We can do this all day, about anyone (including God), but what would it accomplish? Exactly nothing.

It might be a fun, stimulating exercise in imagination, thought experiment, and hypothetical speculation, but it has nothing to do with Paul’s purpose at hand. And this is habitually the problem with the analyses of skeptics like Ehrman. They are mostly subjective mush and have about as much force as an argument that vanilla ice cream is superior to chocolate (to which I reply, “well, it is on pie . . .”).

The problem with this first option is that Paul had lots of occasions to mention traditions about Jesus to buttress his views, but scarcely ever took the opportunity.

If you don’t need to do something that’s already been done, you don’t need to. A=a. The question to ask first is, “was it necessary or required?”, not, “why didn’t he do it, when he had every chance to do so?!”

Option Two: Paul knew more of the traditions of Jesus, but considered them irrelevant to his mission.

They weren’t irrelevant to his overall mission (he assumes them as a package of understood premises or presuppositions that he is now building upon); only to what he chose to write about.

Why would he choose not to?

Because it was already done and known.

If this in fact was Paul’s view, then he didn’t cite the words and deeds of Jesus simply because he didn’t think that they were important.

That doesn’t follow. One need not repeat things ad infinitum. There is a point where it simply isn’t necessary. Ehrman’s agonized, bewildered ponderings as to why this is would only make sense, I respectfully submit, if there were no Gospels or no oral “Gospel tradition” at the time Paul wrote his letters.

Option Three: Paul didn’t mention more about Jesus’ words and deeds because he didn’t know very much more.

This is where atheists and skeptics typically engage in wild flights of fancy and fantasy and fairy tales. We need not concern ourselves with this at all because it is completely subjective reasoning, that can’t even be rationally, objectively discussed.

He never inquired further into the things Jesus said and did, and possibly never even thought about inquiring further, because he simply wasn’t interested.

Right. Simply ludicrous . . .

I’m afraid that I must leave this dilemma for you to resolve.

I gave it my best shot! As always, I have great trust and confidence in my readers, to be able to critically discern which of the stated views make the most rational sense and which is the most plausible.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: The Preaching of St. Paul at Ephesus (1649), by Eustache Le Sueur (1616-1655) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Agnostic anti-theist writer Bart Ehrman wonders aloud about Paul’s “neglect” of the life of Jesus. I make the obvious point that the Gospels (and the oral tradition prior to their writing) already did this four times.

March 22, 2022

March 22, 2022 By

Bart Ehrman is one of the most well-known and influential critics of traditional Christianity and the inspired Bible (“anti-theists”) writing today. Formerly, in his own words, he was “a fundamentalist for maybe 6 years; a conservative evangelical but not extreme right wing for maybe 5 years more; and a fairly mainstream liberal Christian for about 25.” The primary reason he gives for having lost his faith is the problem of evil (a very serious topic I have dealt with many times). He stated on 3-18-22 in a comment on his blog: “I could no longer explain how there could be a God active in this world given all the pain and misery in it.” I don’t question his sincerity, good intentions, intellectual honesty, or his past status as a Christian; only various opinions which Christians must (in consistency) regard as erroneous.

Dr. Ehrman “received his PhD and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.” He has written 30 books, which have sold over two million copies and have been translated into 27 languages.

Ehrman explains that the purpose of his blog is “to disseminate scholarly knowledge of the New Testament and the earliest periods of the Christian church to a non-scholarly audience, . . . Every post is rooted in scholarship – not just my own but that of thousands of scholars who have worked for centuries on understanding the historical Jesus, the New Testament, and the origins of Christianity.” Well, the conclusions of scholars are only as good as the solidity and truthfulness of the premises by which they are operating.

This is one of a series of reply-papers, in which I will address many of his materials from the perspective of archaeology, history, and exegesis.

*****

I am responding to his article, “Jesus and Paul: Are They on the Same Page?” (2-17-22). His words will be in blue.

I spent several posts explicating Paul’s understanding of his gospel, that by Christ’s death and resurrection a person is put into a restored relationship with God. He had several ways of explaining how it worked (the “judicial” model; the “participationist” model; and the other models I described). But in all of these ways, it was Jesus’ death and resurrection that mattered. It was not keeping the Jewish law. It was not knowing or following Jesus’ teaching. It was not Jesus’ miracles. It was not … anything else. It was Jesus’ death and resurrection. . . . 

Paul says something completely different.   Paul does not tell the person to follow the Law of God.  He tells him to “believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus and be baptized.”

Ehrman is here arguing as if he were a Protestant who believes in “faith alone”: a non-biblical and extra biblical tradition of men, and not the biblical teaching. He makes Paul out to be a “faith alone” zealot: as if he were no longer Jewish at all, and Jesus to be so “Jewish” in outlook that He scarcely offers any new developments in soteriology. Neither thing is true, of course, and they are quite consistent with each other: Jesus also teaches about faith (in Him) and Paul also teaches about observant faith and good works.

So the false dichotomy Ehrman tries to create in this regard is exactly that: false. It’s not “either/or” within Paul’s or Jesus’ teaching on salvation, and it’s not a dichotomy between them. Both teach about faith as a prerequisite of salvation and both teach about the necessity of good works for salvation. God’s grace is behind all of it.

First, here are no less than eighteen of Paul’s statements about salvation, which never mention Christ’s death and resurrection (which is indeed very important in his view and that of Jesus), and stress good works in the attainment of final salvation:

Romans 1:5 (RSV) through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith . . .

Romans 1:17 . . . as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”

Romans 2:6-10, 13 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. . . . [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Romans 6:17, 19 . . . you . . . have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, . . . [19] . . . For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; . . .

Romans 13:13-14 let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. [14] But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Romans 16:26 . . . according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith 

1 Corinthians 9:24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

Galatians 5:6-7 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Colossians 3:23-25 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.

2 Timothy 2:15, 21-22 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. . . . If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed. (cf. 3:8, 14)

I then summarized in my previous post, the teaching of Jesus himself, about the coming Son of Man and the need to prepare by keeping the Law of God, as revealed in the Torah, as summarized in the commandments to love God above all else and to love one’s neighbor as oneself.

Do these represent the same religion? . . . 

I am asking if the gospel that Paul preached is essentially the same or different from the message of Jesus. A very good case can be made, of course, that they are fundamentally different. . . . 

[A]t the end of the day, it sure seems to me that they had different understandings of “salvation.”   Jesus had an urgent message to deliver about the coming kingdom of God to be brought by the Son of Man for those who were obedient to God; and Paul had an urgent message to deliver about the return of Jesus for the “saved” – those who believed in Christ’s death and resurrection.

In a comment for this post (2–20-22), Ehrman claims that Jesus would have found Paul’s letters “completely bizarre.”

Ehrman is presenting only one side of Paul’s soteriological views and one side of Jesus’ views. That hardly gives us the whole picture. He has failed in not presenting the legal notion of “the whole truth.” Jesus surely does teach the importance of works. I myself have highlighted this, in my efforts to refute the false doctrine of salvation by faith alone. See:

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

Jesus vs. “Faith Alone” (Rich Young Ruler) [10-12-15]

But Jesus did not refrain from also highlighting (just as Paul did) that salvation came from belief in Him, and His death and resurrection on behalf of all mankind:

Matthew 10:22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 16:25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Mark 10:29-30 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. (cf. Mt 19:29; Lk 18:30)

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.

Luke 24:25-27 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:27-29 “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal. Then said they to him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’ ”

John 6:35-36, 40, 47 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. [36] But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. . . . [40] For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” [47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

John 7:38 He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, `Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.'”

John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he.

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

John 12:32 and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

John 12:46-47 I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. [47] If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

So yeah, the two sets of teachings do indeed represent “the same religion.” There is no clash or contradiction whatsoever.

It is important to notice what Jesus’ response is to how to have eternal life.  You have to keep the laws God laid out in the Torah.  And if you want to have treasures in heaven, you are to do even more than that – you are to give love totally to your (poor) neighbor.   That’s how one earns salvation.

It’s not true that it is a universal requirement (according to Jesus) for everyone to give all their money to the poor in order to be saved. That’s what was required of the rich young ruler, because he had made riches his idol. But nowhere is this made a prerequisite for anyone or everyone else. Ehrman simply reads the universality into a very particular situation. The point that Jesus made to His disciples after this encounter, was not that all had to give up everything, but that, rather, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” and “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mk 10:23, 25).

***

Ehrman responded in his combox (3-23-22):

I’m not talking about Jesus as presented in the Gospel of John, but the historical Jesus — who never speaks about believing in his death and resurrection for salvation. And Paul certainly does not think that keeping the law will contribute to earning salvation — otherwise, as he says, “Christ died in vain.”

This is what Bible skeptics constantly do, and it is completely arbitrary and irrational. If they don’t personally care for a passage or group of related passages (if it doesn’t fit into their preconceived notions), they simply claim that they were made up and have no relation to actual history. He believes what he wants to believe (the will rather than the mind at that point). There is no way to rationally argue with this sort of utterly subjective fairy tale method of “exegesis.” Nothing objective exists in such a methodology. The only way we can object to it is to expose the methodology itself, as I just did.

If Ehrman agrees with a given biblical passage, he certainly has no objection to highlighting it as evidence for his overall disbelieving worldview. But if he doesn’t agree with it, he plays some variation of the game that we see above: it wasn’t really in the Bible or was modified by the nefarious orthodox Christians for their own ends. It’s conspiratorialism and mythmaking. This “enables” him or “justifies” him in thinking that he can dismiss with the wave of a hand all of the scriptural data that I brought to bear.

I continue to maintain that we have to analyze the Bible on its own terms. It is what it is (agree or disagree). The only way to determine if a biblical book is historically trustworthy (from a secular scientific perspective) is to examine it using secular and scientific criteria (archaeology and historiography). I have done this with the book of John. See: Gospel of John & Archaeology & History (17 Extrabiblical Verifications of the Gospel of John’s Historical Accuracy). Because of this demonstrated, tested accuracy, we can trust John to accurately report Jesus’ words (agree or disagree with those words).

It remains to be seen if Ehrman will seriously interact with my critiques, with an entire article, not just soundbites in combox replies. I’ve done six so far. Time will tell. He does seem like a nice and courteous man, as far as that goes. And that’s crucial these days, in seeking to engage in true, constructive dialogue.

 

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Christ in Gethsemane (1886), by Heinrich Hofmann (1824-1911) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Agnostic & anti-theist Bart Ehrman attempts to draw a false dichotomy: Jesus vs. Paul on Salvation. He does so by only presenting one side of the teachings of each.

 

March 19, 2022

March 19, 2022 By

With Emphasis on the Term “Son of God” Applied to Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and Its Implications

Bart Ehrman is one of the most well-known and influential critics of traditional Christianity and the inspired Bible (“anti-theists”) writing today. Formerly, in his own words, he was “a fundamentalist for maybe 6 years; a conservative evangelical but not extreme right wing for maybe 5 years more; and a fairly mainstream liberal Christian for about 25.” The primary reason he gives for having lost his faith is the problem of evil (a very serious topic I have dealt with many times). He stated on 3-18-22 in a comment on his blog: “I could no longer explain how there could be a God active in this world given all the pain and misery in it.” I don’t question his sincerity, good intentions, intellectual honesty, or his past status as a Christian; only various opinions which Christians must (in consistency) regard as erroneous.

Dr. Ehrman “received his PhD and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.” He has written 30 books, which have sold over two million copies and have been translated into 27 languages.

Ehrman explains that the purpose of his blog is “to disseminate scholarly knowledge of the New Testament and the earliest periods of the Christian church to a non-scholarly audience, . . . Every post is rooted in scholarship – not just my own but that of thousands of scholars who have worked for centuries on understanding the historical Jesus, the New Testament, and the origins of Christianity.” Well, the conclusions of scholars are only as good as the solidity and truthfulness of the premises by which they are operating.

This is one of a series of reply-papers, in which I will address many of his materials from the perspective of archaeology, history, and exegesis.

*****

I am responding to his article, “In What SENSE is Jesus “God” in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? My Change of Mind” (2-28-21). His words will be in blue.

There is nothing like these self-declarations of Jesus [in John] in the Synoptic Gospels. He does not go around talking about his divine character and pre-existent origin. In the older, traditional, terminology, the Synoptics present a “lower” Christology then the “high” Christology of John. And so, for many years, I argued that they did not see Jesus as God.

It still think it is true that the Synoptic Gospels do not portray Jesus as a pre-existent being who has become incarnate and is and always has been “equal” with God the way John does. They do not have an incarnational Christology lurking somewhere behind them. What they do have, however, is an exaltation Christology, in which either (a) Jesus was understood to have been exalted to a divine status at his baptism, as in Mark

Mark teaches no such thing. Here is the passage:

Mark 1:9-11 (RSV) In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. [10] And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; [11] and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”

God the Father simply stated (publicly) that Jesus was His Son; not that He became His Son (or divine). The latter elements are simply read into the text by skeptics; i.e., it is eisegesis, which means reading into a biblical text (from preconceived notions) what isn’t there. If it were actually in the passage, it would read something like, “Thou art now my beloved Son” or “Thou hast now become my beloved Son”. That’s what it would look like, if this heretical notion were actually taught in the passage.

and the original form of Luke (which began with ch. 3, before chs. 1-2 were tacked on in a second edition);

This is the same erroneous eisegesis applied to Luke. And of course, Ehrman has no actual evidence to suggest that Luke used to begin with its present chapter 3. As with virtually all of the speculation about why the Gospel writers wrote what they did; their motivations and methodologies, it’s all sheer speculation and mere purely subjective fairy tales devised in skeptical and atheist brains, with no evidence whatsoever able to be set forth as the reason for why they think as they do.

They want to believe in these mythical goings-on, and so they do. It’s as simple as that. It’s not a rational process. It’s a mythical, fairy-tale process, borne in existing skepticism and cynicism. Simply because they spout these myths about the Evangelists is no evidence or reason for anyone else to believe in their fairy-tales and conspiratorial fantasies.

or (b) Jesus came into existence as the Son of God because God was the one who made his mother pregnant, as in the second edition of Luke that started with chs. 1-2 and probably in the Gospel of Matthew.

It stands to reason that if God the Father is uniquely your Father, that you are the Son of God. This is biblical teaching. But “Son of God” in the Jewish mind at the time also meant “making yourself God” (Jn 10:33).” “Son of God” (referring to Jesus) appears 16 times in the Synoptic Gospels.  It’s applied to Jesus even by the devil (Mt 4:3, 6; Lk 4:3, 9), demons (Mt 8:29; Mk 3:11; Lk 4:41), (rhetorically and provocatively) by the high priest (Mt 26:63), and by mockers when He was dying (Mt 27:40, 43).

Followers worshiped Jesus and said “Truly you are the Son of God” (Mt 14:33; cf. Jn 1:49-50; 11:27) and He didn’t reject this at all (as He certainly would have if He didn’t believe Himself to be that). The high priest said, “tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Mt 26:63; cf. Jn 11:27; 20:31), which proves that the Jews connected “Son of God” with the Messiah (“Christ” being Greek for “Messiah”). Luke 4:41 also notes that demons “knew that he was the Christ.”

It’s true that John elaborates further about “Son of God”, but the same essential elements are already present in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Jesus expressly refers the term to Himself in John 5:25; 10:36; 11:4. But He had already accepted the title as addressed to Him (Mt 14:33), which is logically the same thing. In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus, under direct questioning of the high priest, claims to be the Son of God, the Messiah, and the Son of man, all-in-one:

Mark 14:61-62 . . . Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” [62] And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (“I am” in the parallel passages is rendered as “You have said so”: Mt 26:64, and “You say that I am”: Lk 22:70; meaning, basically, “yes: you have stated it correctly”; also, Jesus said, along the same lines, “If I tell you, you will not believe”: Lk 22:67)

The reaction of the high priest and the Pharisees, Sanhedrin, etc., after Jesus asserted that He was the Son of God  / Son of man, and the Messiah was “He has uttered blasphemy” (Mt 26:65), “He deserves death” (Mt 26:66), “‘You have heard his blasphemy. . . .’ And they all condemned him as deserving death” (Mk 14:64). All of this proves, of course, that He made the claims and that the hostile hearers knew exactly what He meant: that He was God in the flesh. They disbelieved it, so they immediately regarded it as the blasphemy of a liar and pretender. This was already the same dynamic that we also observe in John:

John 5:18 This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.

John 10:30-36 I and the Father are one.” [31] The Jews took up stones again to stone him. [32] Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” [33] The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.” [34] Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? [35] If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), [36] do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

So it is more explicitly presented in John, but all the essential elements are in the other three Gospels, too. Therefore, Ehrman is dead wrong to assert that they aren’t in the other three Gospels. And I’ve only just begun laying out all the evidence.

Being adopted or born as the Son of God was a different way of being divine from being a pre-existent divine being made flesh. But it was still a highly exalted state of existence, above the human. And Jesus is that in the Synoptics.

Nonsense; He is presented as fully God in the Synoptics. I have already proven this by what is seen above, but I have much more evidence left to show.

For years I had difficulty explaining features of the Synoptics that could be taken to point to his divinity in some sense. I certainly had explanations, but I was never completely satisfied with them.

What Ehrman accepted then and now is Arian heretical slop: not the Jesus of the New Testament. I can see how this would provide much dissatisfaction, because it isn’t what the biblical texts exhibit.

In these Gospels, for example, Jesus has the power to forgive sins, and he receives “worship.” These *can* be explained without thinking of Jesus as in any way divine, but it’s a little bit tricky, and at the end of the day, I think it’s easier to simply to say that these things are said of Jesus because the authors do think of him as in some sense and exalted divine being.

Only God can be worshiped in the fullest sense (adoration), and this is how Jesus is presented in the Synoptics; therefore, He is God; period. Forgiving sins in His own name, with His own power, is also something only God can do. More on this below.

this exaltation of Jesus at the end of his life came to be read back into his life, so that stories were told about him in which he appeared to be divine in some sense already before he died.

This is the subjective, fairy-tale game I noted above. There is no actual historical evidence for any of this (if there were, you can be sure that Ehrman et al would certainly point to it). Ehrman and those like him want to believe it, since they deny the divinity / Godhood of Jesus and the Holy Trinity, so they pretend that it was added later and fantasize that it was supposedly not in the Synoptic Gospels at first. There is no way to prove when whatever was supposedly “added later.” All we have are the texts as they are now, passed down in extremely numerous, early, reliable, and consistent manuscripts.

Now (having cited Ehrman and having given him his “say” on my own blog) I shall present the full evidence of the Godhood / deity / divinity of Jesus as the third Person of the Holy Trinity, in the Synoptic Gospels.

Direct Statements of Jesus’ Equality with God the Father

Matthew 4:7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” [the devil was tempting Jesus: 4:3, 5-6]

Matthew 13:15 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them. (cf. Mt 13:13-14 and Is 6:9-10) [Jesus is citing an Old Testament passage about God and applying it to Himself]

Judge of Mankind

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man… will repay every man for what he has done. (cf. Rev 22:12; Ps 62:12; Is 40:10)

Matthew 25:32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, (cf. Ezek 34:17)

The Old Testament plainly taught that God was the judge of men:

1 Samuel 2:10 …The LORD will judge the ends of the earth… (cf. Gen 18:25; 1 Chr 16:33; Ps 7:11; 9:8; 96:10; Is 2:4; 33:22)

Psalm 50:6 The heavens declare his righteousness, for God himself is judge! (cf. 58:11; 67:4; 82:8; 94:2; Jer 11:20)

Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil. (cf. 3:17; Ezek 18:30; 33:20; Joel 3:12)]

Zephaniah 1:14-15 The great day of the LORD is near, near and hastening fast; the sound of the day of the LORD is bitter, the mighty man cries aloud there. [15] A day of wrath is that day, a day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

Psalm 2:9 You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

Psalm 110:5-6 The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. [6] He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth.

Divine “I” 

Jesus teaches in His own authority (“I say to you”) in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:18-34, etc.), and many other passages. The prophets, in contrast, spoke as God’s messengers in the second person (“The Lord says…”). He often talks in a way in which only God could speak, and distinguishes Himself from the prophets (Mt 13:17). Perhaps the most striking example of this occurs in Matthew 23:

Matthew 23:34, 37 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes… [37] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (cf. Jud 6:8; 2 Ki 17:13; 2 Chr 24:19; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; Hag 1:12; Zech 7:12)

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (cf. Mt 23:37; Dt 32:11-12; Ruth 2:12; Ps 36:7; 57:1; 63:7; 91:4)

Acceptance of Worship (Reserved for God Only)

Matthew 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (cf. 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20)

Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. (cf. 28:17)

Mark 5:6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him;

Mark 5:22 Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja’irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet,

Mark 7:25 But immediately a woman, whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell down at his feet.

Mark 10:17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

God alone is to be worshiped (as Jesus Himself noted):

Exodus 34:14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), (cf. 20:3)

Deuteronomy 8:19 And if you forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you this day that you shall surely perish. (cf. 11:16; 17:3; 29:26; 30:17; 1 Ki 9:6-9; Jer 16:11; 22:9; 25:6; Dan 3:28)

Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’” (cf. Mt 4:10)

Omniscient (All -Knowing)

Omniscience is implied (though not proven) in many passages that describe Jesus’ extraordinary knowledge; these are consistent with omniscience (Mt 9:4; 12:25; Mk 2:8; 14:13-15; Lk 5:22; 6:8; 9:47; 22:10-13).

Additionally, there are many other verses illustrating that Jesus knew the future perfectly, which is also consistent with, and suggestive of omniscience, though not a proof (Mt 12:40; 13:1; 16:21; 17:9, 11-12, 22-23; 20:18-19; 21:39; 24:2; 26:2, 12, 21, 31-34, 54; Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34; 14:9, 18, 27-30, 42, 49; Lk 9:22, 44; 11:30; 12:50; 17:25; 18:31-33; 22:15, 21-22, 32, 34, 37).

The Old Testament taught that God alone is omniscient:

1 Chronicles 28:9 …the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every plan and thought.… (cf. 1 Ki 8:39; 2 Chr 6:30; Ps 44:21; Is 66:18; Ezek 11:5; Mt 6:8; Lk 16:15)

Psalm 147:5 Great is our LORD, and abundant in power;  his understanding is beyond measure. (cf. Job 36:4; 37:16; Is 40:28; 46:10; 48:3)

Omnipresent (Present Everywhere)

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Matthew 28:20 “. . . I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

God alone is omnipresent:

1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee…. (cf. 2 Chr 2:6)

Psalm 139:7-8 Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? [8] If I ascend to heaven, thou art there! If I make my bed in Sheol, thou art there!

Jeremiah 23:24 Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the LORD.

Forgives Sins in His Own Name

Mark 2:5, 10 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”… [10] …the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins… (cf. Mt 9:2-6; Lk 5:20-24)

Luke 7:47-48 “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” [48] And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

God alone can forgive sins in His own name:

Exodus 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,… (cf. 2 Sam 12:13; 1 Ki 8:34; Dan 9:9; Mic 7:18)

Psalm 25:11 For thy name’s sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great. (cf. 25:7, 18; 32:1-2, 5)

Psalm 51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. (cf. 65:3; 79:9; 85:2; 99:8; Is 1:18; 6:6; 44:22)

Psalm 103:12 as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us. (cf. 130:4)

Isaiah 43:25 I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. (cf. 55:7)

Jeremiah 33:8 I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me. (cf. 31:34; Ezek 33:15-16)

Luke 5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, “Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?” (cf. Mk 2:7)

Jesus Taught that the Messiah (“Christ”) — Which He Claimed to Be — is Lord (Kurios) and God

Matthew 22:43-45 He said to them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, [44] ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet’? [45] If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (cf. Mk 12:36-37; Lk 20:42-44)

Every time the New Testament refers to Jesus as Christ (including Jesus’ own declarations), it is declaring that He is the Messiah, since Christ is the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah:

Matthew 16:16-17, 20 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”… [20] Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (cf. Mk 8:27-30; 9:41; Lk 4:41; 9:18-21; Jn 4:25-26)

See also Mt 1:16-18; 5:17; 11:2, 10; 21:42; 24:5, 23-24; 26:56, 68; 27:17, 22; Mk 3:11; 5:7; 13:21-22, 26; Lk 1:31-33; 2:11, 26; 4:20-21; 22:37; 23:2, 35, 39; 24:44.

Son of Man When Jesus calls Himself “the Son of Man” (e.g., Mt 10:23, 32-33; 19:28; 23:37 ff.; 24:47; Mk 2:19-20; 3:28-29; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 31; 10:33, 38; 14:21, 41; Lk 11:30; 12:8, 49-50; 17:24; 18:6, 8; 21:36; 22:27, 48), He is claiming to be the Messiah, since He is referring (especially in Mk 13:26; 14:62) to a well-known messianic passage:

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. [14] And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

In Mark 14:61-62, Jesus assumes that the Christ (Messiah) and the Son of Man are one and the same (Himself). Matthew 16:16-17 establishes the fact that the Messiah and “the Son of God” are identical as well.

Source of Eternal Words

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Compare to the Old Testament, referring to God:

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.

Angels of Whom?

Matthew 13:41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, (cf. 16:27; 24:31; Lk 15:10; Gen 28:12; 32:1; Lk 12:8-9)

Second Coming

Matthew 24:30 then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; (Mt 16:27; 26:64; Mk 14:62)

The Old Testament presents God coming in judgment in an identical way:

Isaiah 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD comes with might, and his arm rules for him; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him. (cf. 40:5; Ps 96:13; 98:9)

Isaiah 66:15-16 For behold, the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the stormwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. [16] For by fire will the LORD execute judgment, and by his sword, upon all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many. (cf. 59:20; Joel 2:11; Zech 2:10)

Zechariah 9:14 Then the LORD will appear over them, and his arrow go forth like lightning; the Lord GOD will sound the trumpet, and march forth in the whirlwinds of the south.

Zechariah 12:10 …when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.

Zechariah 14:3-5 Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. [4] On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives which lies before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley;… [5]…. Then the LORD your God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

Isaiah 11:4 …he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

Savior

Matthew 1:21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

Luke 2:11 for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Luke 19:10 [Jesus] For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost. (cf. Jn 10:9; 12:47

Only God can be the savior of mankind:

Isaiah 43:11 I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. (cf. 43:3; 45:15, 21; 49:26; 60:16, 63:8; Hos 13:4)

Luke 1:47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

***

The evidence is overwhelming. See also my related paper: Deity of Jesus: Called Lord/Kurios & God/Theos [10-24-11]

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Christ Crowned with Thorns (c. 1633-1639), by Matthias Stom (fl. 1615-1649) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I prove through copious examples from Mark, Matthew, and Luke, that Jesus is God in the Synoptics, over against Bart Ehrman, who denies it on inadequate grounds.

 

March 18, 2022

March 18, 2022 By

Bart Ehrman is one of the most well-known and influential critics of traditional Christianity and the inspired Bible (“anti-theists”) writing today. Formerly, in his own words, he was “a fundamentalist for maybe 6 years; a conservative evangelical but not extreme right wing for maybe 5 years more; and a fairly mainstream liberal Christian for about 25.” The primary reason he gives for having lost his faith is the problem of evil (a very serious topic I have dealt with many times). He stated on 3-18-22 in a comment on his blog: “I could no longer explain how there could be a God active in this world given all the pain and misery in it.” I don’t question his sincerity, good intentions, intellectual honesty, or his past status as a Christian; only various opinions which Christians must (in consistency) regard as erroneous.

Dr. Ehrman “received his PhD and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.” He has written 30 books, which have sold over two million copies and have been translated into 27 languages.

Ehrman explains that the purpose of his blog is “to disseminate scholarly knowledge of the New Testament and the earliest periods of the Christian church to a non-scholarly audience, . . . Every post is rooted in scholarship – not just my own but that of thousands of scholars who have worked for centuries on understanding the historical Jesus, the New Testament, and the origins of Christianity.” Well, the conclusions of scholars are only as good as the solidity and truthfulness of the premises by which they are operating.

This is one of a series of reply-papers, in which I will address many of his materials from the perspective of archaeology, history, and exegesis.

*****

I am responding to his article, “Biblical Anachronisms: The Philistines and Beersheba” (6-30-16). His words will be in blue.

[T]he historical Moses (if there was one) (which I doubt) could not have written parts of the Pentateuch (I don’t think he wrote any of the parts) (OK, since, among other things, I don’t think he existed) because of the mention of the people the “Philistines” and the city of Beersheba, neither of which existed in the thirteenth century BCE, when he must have lived, if he lived. 

Here is a case in which he is making two negative claims. In the case of the Philistines prior to c. 1200 BC, it’s a matter of them being known by a different name, but still in existence. In the case of Beersheba, Ehrman is right that it didn’t exist as a town or city in Moses’ time, but wrong about the Bible supposedly claiming that it did.

As so often with anti-theists (and I have interacted with many of the prominent ones online): they seem to be unfamiliar with the Christian (and often also archaeological / historiographical) replies to their claims, and simply parrot the prevailing supposedly certain “dogmas” of skeptical and theologically liberal academia. Both of these supposed “anachronisms” are rather easily answered.

Genesis 10:14 (RSV) Pathru’sim, Caslu’him (whence came the Philistines), and Caph’torim.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges comments on this passage:

The parenthetical clause within the brackets seems to be out of place. According to Deuteronomy 2:23, Jeremiah 47:4, Amos 9:7 the Philistines came out of Caphtor. Accordingly, we may conjecture the clause originally stood after the word “Caphtorim,” and has been accidentally transposed. On the other hand, this explanation seems so obvious, that some scholars consider that the clause “whence … the Philistines” is in its right place, but that the words “and Caphtorim” are only a gloss on the mention of “the Philistines.”

Deuteronomy 2:23 As for the Avvim, who lived in villages as far as Gaza, the Caph’torim, who came from Caphtor, destroyed them and settled in their stead.) [see more info. on the Avvim]

Jeremiah 47:4 . . . the LORD is destroying the Philistines, the remnant of the coastland of Caphtor.

Amos 9:7 . . . [God]: “Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir?

Josephus‘ Antiquities of the Jews i.vi.2, . . . placed them explicitly in Egypt . . . using extra-Biblical accounts [he] provides context for the migration from Caphtor to Philistia. He records that the Caphtorites were one of the Egyptian peoples whose cities were destroyed during the Ethiopic War. (Wikipedia, “Caphtor”)

Here is the passage in question:

Now all the children of Mesraim, being eight in number, possessed the country from Gaza to Egypt, though it retained the name of one only, the Philistim; for the Greeks call part of that country Palestine. As for the rest, Ludicim, and Enemim, and Labim, who alone inhabited in Libya, and called the country from himself, Nedim, and Phethrosim, and Chesloim, and Cephthorim, we know nothing of them besides their names; for the Ethiopic war, [*Antiq. b. ii. chap. x.] which we shall describe hereafter, was the cause that those cities were overthrown.

What Josephus calls the “Ethiopic War” occurred during the reign of Pharaoh Thutmose II (1493-1479 BC).

A location called Kaptar is mentioned in several texts of the Mari Tablets and is understood to be reference to Caphtor. An inscription dating to c. 1780-1760 BCE mentions a man from Caphtor (a-na Kap-ta-ra-i-im) who received tin from Mari [Syria]. Another Mari text from the same period mentions a Caphtorite weapon (kakku Kap-ta-ru-ú). Another records a Caphtorite object (ka-ta-pu-um Kap-ta-ru-ú) which had been sent by king Zimrilim of the same period [r. 1775-1761 BC], to king Shariya of Razama. A text in connection with Hammurabi [r. c. 1792-1750 BC] mentions Caphtorite (k[a-a]p-ta-ri-tum) fabric that was sent to Mesopotamia via Mari. An inventory thought to be from the same era as the previous texts mentions a Caphtorite vessel (GAL kap-ta-ri-tum) (probably a large jug or jar). (Wikipedia, ibid.)

Trude Dothan (d. 2016) received the coveted Israel Prize for archaeology in 1998, in recognition for her many years of excavating (at Deir el-Balah, Hazor and Qasile) and teaching (at Hebrew University, Princeton, New York University, Brown University and the University of California at Berkeley). One of the world’s leading authorities on the Philistines, Dothan is the author of The Philistines and Their Material Culture (Israel Exploration Society, 1982) and, with her husband, Moshe, of People of the Sea (Macmillan, 1992).”

She explains the well-accepted theory that the Philistines came originally from Crete, and thus reflected that background and the larger historical and cultural influence of the Mycenaean civilization of Greece (1600-1100 BC):

The homeland of the Philistines, Caphtor (Amos 9:7), is generally recognized by scholars as Crete, (although some believe Caphtor to be located in Cilicia in Asia Minor.)

In other Biblical references, the Philistines are synonymous with the Cherethites; that is Cretans (see Zephaniah 2:5 and Ezekiel 25:16). Various Biblical traditions suggest that the Caphtorim (or at least some of them) are to be identified with the Cherethites. Thus the Biblical sources seem to link the Philistines with a previous home in Crete. . . .

The detailed Biblical account of Goliath’s armor and weaponry is a vivid description of a Philistine warrior in full battle dress:

“And he had a helmet of brass upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail. … And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders. And the staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron; and one bearing a shield went before him.” (1 Samuel 17:5–7)

Goliath’s dress and armour (bronze helmet, coat of mail, bronze greaves [leg guards], and javelin) as well as the duel between champions are all well-known features of Aegean arms and warfare. They clearly indicate Aegean traditions carried on by the Philistines. The 12th century Warriors’ Vase from Mycenae shows Mycenaean warriors very similarly equipped. . . .

The shapes and decorative motifs of Philistine pottery were a blend of four distinct ceramic styles: Mycenaean, Cypriot, Egyptian, and local Canaanite. The dominant traits in shape and almost all the decorative elements were derived from the Mycenaean repertoire, and, as we have said, point to the Aegean background of Philistine pottery Philistine shapes of Mycenaean origin include bell-shaped bowls, large kraters with elaborate decoration, stirrup jars for oils and unguents, and strainer-spout beer jugs; the latter no doubt served as centerpieces at many a Philistine party. A few of the many decorative motifs are stylized birds, spiral loops, concentric half-circles, and scale patterns. Although Philistine vessels were richly decorated with motifs taken from the Mycenaean repertoire, these motifs were rearranged and integrated with other influences to create the distinctive “signature” known as Philistine. . . .

Female pottery figurines also reflect Philistine cult origins and beliefs. The “Ashdoda” is the only complete example of a well-defined type that was common from the 12th to the eighth century B.C. The Ashdoda figure is probably a schematic representation of a female deity and throne. It is clearly related to a grouping known throughout the Greek mainland, Rhodes and Cyprus—a Mycenaean female figurine seated on a throne, sometimes holding a child. These Mycenaean figurines are thought to represent a mother goddess. . . .

Burial customs are generally a sensitive indicator of cultural affinities, and Philistine burial customs reflect the same fusion of Aegean background with Egyptian and local Canaanite elements that distinguishes every other aspect of their culture. (“What We Know About the Philistines”, Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 1982)

Genesis 26:1 Now there was a famine in the land, besides the former famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went to Gerar, to Abim’elech king of the Philistines.

I believe that Moses lived from c. 1340 or 1330 BC to c. 1220 or 1210 BC (Late Bronze Age IIA and IIB, for the Near East), and that Abraham was born around 1880-1860 BC  (Middle Bronze Age I) at the latest: based on the conclusions of Egyptologist and archaeologist Kenneth A. Kitchen. This period was during the . In 1956, the eminent Israeli archaeologist  Yohanan Aharoni identified the Tel Haror site as the biblical Gerar. It’s located in the western Negev Desert of Israel, between Gaza and Beersheba, some 14 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. This is the ancient territory of the Philistines. Could it have been visited by Isaac, as the Bible states? Yes!

Israeli archaeologist Avner Raban (1937-2004) wrote a very educational article in 1991, entitled, “Minoan and Canaanite Harbours.” Aegaeum 7: 129-46. It has many tie-ins to our subject matter, and supports a notion that commerce may have been what brought the Philistines from Crete to Canaan (and to Egypt):

Cretan artifacts were found in [Egyptian] 12th dynasty [1991-1802 BC] sites in many places along the Nile Valley (such as Karun, Gahob, Abydos and even in the oasis of Harageh). Egyptian artifacts of that period were found at Cretan Middle Minoan [2100-1600 BC] context . . . Similar Middle Minoan II [1800-1700 BC] artifacts were found in Levantine trade centres such as Byblos [Lebanon], Ugarit [Syria] and even the inland Qatna [Syria] . . .

Sargon I [20th-19th c. BC] of Akkad (Agade) mentioned Crete (. . . the biblical Kaphtor) together with sources of metal ores from over the Mediterranean, already in the 24th century B.C.E. and a broken Akkadian cuneiform  inscription of around 1800 B.C.E. was found on the island of Kythera [island between the Greek mainland and Crete]. An early Babylonian cylinder seal of about the same period in Tholos B in Platanos, in the Messara Valley in Crete. (p. 144) [my bracketed material and links]

Australian archaeologist Robert Merrillees reports in his 2003 article, “The First Appearances of Kamares Ware in the Levant.” Egypt and the Levant 13: 127-42, on the discovery of a portion of a Minoan cup from around 1800 BC, that was found in Ashkelon, part of ancient Philistia, on the coast.

At Tel Kabri in present-day northwest Israel on the coast, are archaeological remains “containing one of the largest Middle Bronze Age (2,100–1,550 BCE) Canaanite palaces in Israel” (Wikipedia). The article continues:

Among the discoveries at the site by the two full-scale archaeological expeditions, two have attracted particular attention from the archaeological community. The first finding to come to international attention was the discovery of Minoan-style frescoes in the palace at Kabri. As of 2015, these are the only Minoan paintings ever discovered in Israel.

Sources:

Cline, E. H.; Yasur-Landau, A.; Goshen, N. (2011). “New Fragments of Aegean-Style Painted Plaster from Tel Kabri, Israel”(PDF). American Journal of Archaeology. 15 (2). 

Science Daily (7 December 2009). “Remains Of Minoan-Style Painting Discovered During Excavations Of Canaanite Palace”.

These have been dated by Cline et al to the 17th century BC (p. 245; Abstract).

No one needs to hold that these earlier Philistines from Crete were a great nation prior to the 12th century BC, when everyone believes they quickly became so. But archaeology suggests that there were enough of them present in the region, to be mentioned as such in the early Bible passages.

Nature (7-4-19) reports:

The Philistines appear repeatedly in the Bible, but their origins have long been mysterious. Now genetic evidence suggests that this ancient people trace some of their ancestry west all the way to Europe.

Choongwon Jeong and Johannes Krause at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany, and their colleagues analysed the DNA of ten ancient people whose bones were found in Ashkelon, a Philistine city located in modern-day Israel. The DNA suggests an influx of people of European heritage into Ashkelon in the twelfth century BC. The individuals’ DNA shows similarities to that of ancient Cretans, but the team warns that it is impossible to specify the immigrants’ homeland because of the limited number of ancient genomes available for study.

The closest DNA match was Crete: about 43%. So once again, we see that archaeology has supported biblical accuracy. The Philistines (according to genetics) likely originated in Crete, just as the Bible stated in Genesis, Jeremiah, and Amos. And significant numbers of them were present in Egypt and Canaan before 1200 BC: again, precisely as the Bible states. See another more recent article about the genetic background of the Philistines: “The Philistines were Likely of Greek Origin, According to DNA” (Philip Chrysopoulos, Greek Reporter, July 31, 2021).

Note also that when the Bible mentions Isaac’s visit to the Philistine king Abim’elech ( Kitchen thinks he was born around 1850-1820 BC), no mention is made of the five famous cities of Philistia: Gaza, Ashdod, Ash’kelon, Gath, and Ekron (Joshua 13:3). They were much more important later. All that was mentioned was Gerar, which I have shown from archaeology was flourishing at that time. But if the Bible were so anachronistic, as charged, it seems like it would have mentioned them. Instead, it’s historically accurate.

***

The case of Beersheba is different, as briefly noted above. John J. Bimson, in his chapter, “Archaeological Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs”, in A.R. Millard & D.J. Wiseman, editors, Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Leicester: IVP, 1980. pp.59-92, provides a response to the skeptical argument:

Beersheba Tel Beersheba (Tell es-Seba’) completely lacks pre-Iron Age remains. It does not therefore bear on the question of whether the patriarchal narratives relate better to MB [Middle Bronze Age] I [2100-2000 BC] or MB II [2000-1550 BC]. . . .

[T]he references to Beersheba in the patriarchal narratives do not actually require a settlement on the site at the time in question. Sarna has argued thus in reply to Van Seters: ‘The biblical passages refer only to a well and a cultic site…. No king or ruler is mentioned, and no patriarch ever has dealings with the inhabitants of Beersheba. The only description of Beersheba as a “city” in the patriarchal narratives is a late editorial note (Gn. 26:33) which clearly has nothing to do with the narrative context, and which views the material through the eyes of a later age.'[109] In 1967, Aharoni held the view that the absence of early archaeological evidence does not contradict the patriarchal narratives, which, he then suggested, have only the area of Beersheba in mind, not a town.[110] . . . (pp. 75-76)

SOURCES

[109] N. M. Sarna, Biblical Archaeology Review 3/4, 1977, p.9.

[110] Yohanan Aharoni in Winton Thomas, (ed.), Archaeology and Old Testament Study (Clarendon, Oxford, 1967), p.389.

The biblical data appears perfectly consistent with this scenario (it was a nomadic encampment). Beersheba is mentioned eleven times in Genesis (RSV). None of the passages require the interpretation of even a town, let alone a city. The very first mention, in Abraham’s time (Gen 21:14) refers to “the wilderness of Beer-sheba.” As for Genesis 26:33 being a “late editorial note”, Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (which was written in 1905; thus it is no polemics against “undesired” archaeological results) observed:

There was no city at this time at Beer-sheba, but one is mentioned at the conquest of Canaan by Joshua (Joshua 15:28). This note, as is the case generally with those which speak of a thing existing “unto this day,” was added by Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue, after the return from Babylon (comp. Genesis 22:14); and its meaning is that, whereas Abraham’s name had been forgotten while the place lay desolate, this remarkable coincidence of the water being again found, just when the covenant had been confirmed by the customary sevenfold sacrifice, so impressed the minds of the people that the title of Beer-sheba never again passed into oblivion.

The Oxford Biblical Studies Online site (“Beersheba”) — drawing from The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology — verifies that no city existed at the site of Beersheba in Abraham’s time:
According to radiocarbon dating, the Chalcolithic settlement in Beersheba City dates to about 4200–4000 B.C.E. After its abandonment, human occupation returned to Beersheba City and Tel Shebaʾ only in the Iron Age.
The Iron Age in the Near East is the period of 1200-550 BC. Therefore, no city or even town or village was there during his lifetime, and as a result of that archaeologically determined information, the supposed “anachronism” vanishes. The biblical narrative during the time of Abraham doesn’t indicate a town or city of Beersheba in the first place; to the contrary, it describes it as a “wilderness”.
*
The terminology of “to this day”: implying a later addition to the text, is common in the Old Testament (86 appearances in RSV: most in this same sense). For example:
Genesis 35:20 and Jacob set up a pillar upon her grave; it is the pillar of Rachel’s tomb, which is there to this day.
*
Deuteronomy 34:6 and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-pe’or; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day.
*
Joshua 8:28 So Joshua burned Ai, and made it for ever a heap of ruins, as it is to this day.
*
2 Samuel 18:18 Now Ab’salom in his lifetime had taken and set up for himself the pillar which is in the King’s Valley, for he said, “I have no son to keep my name in remembrance”; he called the pillar after his own name, and it is called Ab’salom’s monument to this day.

This notion of the scribe Ezra (5th c. BC) making slight additions to the Bible is not an “after the fact” rationalization of alleged anachronisms, either, since, for example, Charles Buck’s Theological Dictionary, published in 1802 referred to it (“Bible”):

Ezra made additions in several parts of the Bible, where any thing appeared necessary for illustrating, connecting, or completing the work; in which he appears to have been assisted by the same Spirit in which they were first written. Among such additions are to be reckoned the last chapter of Deuteronomy, wherein Moses seems to give an account of his own death and burial, and the succession of Joshua after him. To the same cause our learned author thinks are to be attributed many other interpolations in the Bible, . . .

See also the Jewish article, “Verses Added to the Torah at a Later Date: The Phenomenon and Its Ramifications (3)” by Rav Amnon Bazak (9-21-14), and “The Book That Changed: Narratives of Ezran Authorship as Late Antique Biblical Criticism”, by Rebecca Scharbach Wollenberg; Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 138, No. 1 (2019).

This dynamic of later editors would likely apply to references to the Philistines in the Pentateuch as well. By Ezra’s time, the Philistines were known by that name, whereas further back, during Moses and Abraham, they were known as Caphtorim.  Same people, same background, but with a different name at one point: which is not at all uncommon in history.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: David Giving Thanks to God After the Death of Goliath [the most famous Philistine], attributed to Charles Errard the Younger (1606-1689) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Influential Bible critic & anti-theist Bart Ehrman claims that the biblical text is anachronistic regarding Philistines, Beersheba, & much more. I refute these notions.

January 25, 2022

January 25, 2022 By

Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He added in June 2017 in a combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.”

For over three years, we have had (shall we say) rather difficult relations, with mutual bannings (while I have replied to his posts 76 times: all as of yet unanswered), but when Bob moved to his new location online at the OnlySky super-site, he (surprisingly to me) decided to allow me to comment. As a conciliatory gesture in return, I removed his ban on my blog.  He even stated on 1-21-22 in the same combox thread, replying to me: “There are a few new posts here. (Or, if you haven’t been to my blog for a while, lots of new posts here.) Have at ’em. Let me know what you think.”

Delighted to oblige his wishes . . . Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

I am responding to Bob’s post entitled, “Problem of Evil: the Free Will defense” (1-24-22).

Why would God want to create robots, who have no free will and no free choice? It makes no sense. If indeed He exists and is a loving God and wants what is best for us (as Christians believe, and as the Bible teaches), He would want us to enjoy freedom and determining our own destinies: not just parroting His at every turn (because we must). It’s just common sense on a very basic level, I would say. If God exists, He clearly allows human free will; or else He doesn’t exist. To me, those are the only two viable choices.

Secondly, I always get a chuckle how human beings want to blame God for what they clearly are responsible for doing. Why is that? It’s particularly amusing when atheists go on and on and appear to be “angry” at a God they don’t even believe exists. If you don’t believe in Him, just go merrily on your way and let us Christians and other theists live our lives. But instead you offer us endless polemics.

Usually the Holocaust is brought up in these contexts. I commend you for not doing so! You bring up instead, COVID and 9/11. In all three cases, it is clearly the follies or evil of men that brought them about:

1. The Holocaust could easily have been entirely prevented by simply disallowing the German military build-up. Winston Churchill warned throughout much of the 1930s about this very thing, and was mocked and ignored. We allowed this mega-tragedy to happen; it’s our fault for allowing the Nazis to build up their arsenal, and theirs for taking the evil course they chose. Yet we somehow want to blame God for it. It’s absurd and outrageous in equal parts.

2. COVID, more and more evidence clearly shows, originated (I’m not saying by choice, in a conspiratorial way) in the Wuhan lab in China (which was actually funded and encouraged in its research by Dr. Fauci and other Americans). They were doing research on viruses — literally trying to create new ones — and as a result COVID came about, escaped the lab, and has devastated the world for now two years. How is that God’s fault? One could argue that these scientists were “playing God” and messing around with things at a biological level that they never should have done.

3. 9/11 also could have been prevented had President Bill Clinton killed Osama Bin-Laden when he had a golden opportunity to do so (the same thing that President Obama later did). He chose not to. And choices (like ideas) have consequences. Over 3,000 people died as a result. How is this God’s fault? Please explain that to me. Some Muslims decide to become extreme, fanatical, and evil, going against even their own religion, correctly understood, and that is God’s fault?

I have refuted the “God hardening hearts” bit long since.

“Free will” appears in the Bible exactly zero times. Not even the Bible supports the idea that free will is a big deal.

Really? To the contrary, the very phrase is present:

2 Corinthians 8:1-3 (RSV) We want you to know, brethren, about the grace of God which has been shown in the churches of Macedo’nia, [2] for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of liberality on their part. [3] For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will,

Philemon 1:14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will.

There is also the word “freely”: obviously used to convey the notion of free will / free action / choice:

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;

Deuteronomy 15:10 You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him; . . .

1 Chronicles 29:1, 17 Then the people rejoiced because these had given willingly, for with a whole heart they had offered freely to the LORD; David the king also rejoiced greatly. . . . [17] I know, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness; in the uprightness of my heart I have freely offered all these things, and now I have seen thy people, who are present here, offering freely and joyously to thee.

Ezra 7:15 . . . silver and gold which the king and his counselors have freely offered to the God of Israel . . . (cf. 7:13; 1:6)

Someone else in the thread noted that “free will” wasn’t present in the KJV. It’s correct that the phrase is not in the 1611 KJV. Instead, at 2 Corinthians 8:3 it has “willing of themselves”: the same notion in different words, and at Philemon 1:14 it renders the concept as “that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly” (also, the same idea as “free will”).

Should anyone think that RSV is a rare translation, there are at least ten others that have the same for 2 Corinthians 8:3. But other renderings clearly express the same idea: “of their own accord”; “voluntarily”; “they wanted to”; “freely willing”; “willing to”; “willingness”, etc. [source one / source two]. Sixteen Bible translations have “free will” at Philemon 1:14, too [source].

The concept clearly and unarguably appears dozens of times in other ways in the Bible, as I have proven, above and below. You will get in trouble when you try to assert universal negatives (especially about the Bible, when with someone familiar with it). Here’s much more in the Bible, expressing the concept of free will, free choice, personal autonomy, voluntarism:

Deuteronomy 13:19 . . . I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,

Joshua 24:15 . . . choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

Job 34:4 Let us choose what is right; let us determine among ourselves what is good.

Proverbs 1:29 Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD,

Proverbs 3:31 Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways;

Isaiah 7:15-16 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. [16] For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

Isaiah 56:4 . . . the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant,

Psalm 86:5 For thou, O Lord, art good and forgiving, abounding in steadfast love to all who call on thee.

Isaiah 55:1 Ho, every one who thirsts, come to the waters; . . . (cf. 45:22; Joel 2:32)

Acts 2:21 And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (cf. Rom 10:13)

1 Timothy 2:3-4 . . . God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

There are also the “if . . . then . . . ” conditional prophecies / warnings, which presuppose the free will of human beings to choose to obey God’s commands or to disobey them. It’s their choice.

Leviticus 26:3-4 “If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them, [4] then I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. [followed by more predicted blessings in 26:5-13]

Leviticus 26:14-16 “But if you will not hearken to me, and will not do all these commandments, [15] if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant, [16] I will do this to you: I will appoint over you sudden terror, consumption, and fever that waste the eyes and cause life to pine away. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it; [followed by more “curses” or calamities in 26:17-39]

Deuteronomy 11:27-28 the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day, [28] and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods which you have not known.

Deuteronomy 28:15 But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. [cf. Deut 13:17-18; 28:2, 9]

A few others in the thread cluelessly argued that the Bible supposedly portrays God as punishing folks for the sins of others; not their own. I answered that with one Bible passage:

Ezekiel 18:19-24 “Yet you say, `Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. [20] The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. [21] “But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. [22] None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. [23] Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? [24] But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.

Bob hasn’t yet replied. If he does, assuredly I will add it to this post and counter-respond. If you see nothing further here from him, then that means that he chose not to reply. I receive notice if someone responds to my posts on his blog, so I won’t miss it if he does.

***

2. Who cares whether covid was tweaked in a lab? Smallpox wasn’t. The Black Death wasn’t. God’s fault.

3. Yes, 9/11 was caused by people, but apparently that was insignificant when a 9/11’s worth of deaths happen daily due to covid, and anti-vaxxers aren’t moved by the comparison enough to get vaxxed. And natural disasters give plenty of examples where God did it.

[I replied by posting relevant sections of my article, “Problem of Evil: Treatise on the Most Serious Objection“: which was removed. See my Addendum below]

ADDENDUM: As of late Tuesday, 1-26-22, I am unable to comment on either Bob’s or Jonathan Pearce’s blogs (the two atheists I regularly interact with). I contacted the OnlySky people and am awaiting word, after about 14 hours of this frustration. My only guess is that the cause was one of my posts that was flagged. All that I can figure was “objectionable” to them about it, was that it had two links: to material that was a direct reply to a query (prior to that I had posted single links without a problem). So perhaps I am — irrationally — considered a “spammer” or troll and have to endure some sort of temporary (?) ban.

I’m not assuming nefarious or censorious motivations; only either an incompetent new system or one with the usual glitches and bugs (OnlySky commenced just in the last week). So it’s “wait and see” right now.

Just as I was writing this, Bob put up a snarky comment:

Let me know if Dave gets out of line (or more out of line, anyway). I’m trying to figure out how to see all the comments. So far, just those comments in reply to me come as email.

I signed up for email notification for Dave’s posts, and the first one was “Seidensticker’s Folly # a billion” and cancelled.

“Oh, yeah …” has sprung to mind several times in reading his comments.

Of course, the “Seidensticker Folly” series is in reply to his relentless anti-theist articles: something he requested me to do back in 2018 (and reiterated five days ago by writing to me on his blog, “lots of new posts here. Have at ’em. Let me know what you think.” I have now made 77 replies, with not a single peep in counter-reply back from him. I was hoping for better, since he let me comment on his site again. Apparently, it is the height of arrogance and insult to refer to his endless atheist shots at Christianity and the Bible as “folly.” I won’t even get into all the rank insults he regularly sends our way (and God’s way). But the harmless, tweaking word “folly” is the ultimate insult and proof that I am Attila the Hun!

Thus (most disappointingly), there continues to be not the slightest hint of an actual attempted dialogue from Bob. Hope springs eternal, though.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: revzack (2-14-21) [public domain / Openclipart]

***

Summary: Influential atheist & anti-theist Bob Seidensticker claimed that “free will” wasn’t in the Bible. Not only is the phrase there, but also the concept, as I proved.

October 21, 2021

October 21, 2021 By

Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog, A Tippling Philosopher. His “About” page states: “Pearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.” His words will be in blue; words of fellow atheist John Loftus in green, and those of eric in purple.

*****

Presently, I am responding to his article, “God Is Unfair – An Accident of History and Geography Syllogism” (10-21-21).

[I]f you were an Arab born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1996, you are incredibly unlikely to be a Hindu; indeed, it is almost certain that you will grow up being a Muslim. Likewise, you are unlikely to grow up with primal-indigenous beliefs of the Amazon growing up in a Lutheran community in Bible Belt USA. Parents, families, communities and societies so often define who we become and what we believe.

There are, and this is an indisputable fact, distinct concentrations of religions around the world. Christians may be concentrated in Europe, South and North America, and other pockets of colonial history. Islam prevails in the Middle East, North Africa, subcontinental India, and the islands of the Indian Ocean. Shintos primarily exist in Japan, Hindus in India and thereabouts.

The challenge for religionists is that most religions have it wrong. That is, religions are mutually exclusive. If I am a Muslim, I believe that the Muslim religion and revelation are correct, and a more accurate representation of reality than that which Jain believes (almost certainly) in India. And if access to heaven or hell, or nirvana, or whatever afterlife it is, or if access to God (whichever god this is), or if access to the fruits of belief in the correct god, depends upon believing in the correct god, then there is a lot on the line.

However, given the serious implications of belief, it seems rather bizarre that OmniGod would design, create and arrange the world (or allow the world to develop) in such a way that most people don’t rationally survey the smorgasbord of religious offerings and then, using logic and reason, assent to the correct one. Instead, they are overwhelmingly born into any given religion.

The belonging to a particular religion depends on where and when they were born.

And that might well be the component of their existence that informs the verdict of whether or not they access the good stuff or get condemned to the bad stuff. Perhaps for eternity.

…

It gets worse when you consider the vagaries of history. Imagine being born into Egyptian or Aboriginal Australian culture in 5,000 BCE, before the events of the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Bible (i.e., Old and New Testaments). Now imagine that Christianity is the one true religion. How is it fair, when one has no control over when and where one is born, that one is born into one of those contexts? The person would have absolutely no chance of being able to access the correct divine revelation upon which rests the reward of heaven or the punishment of hell.

Okay, now back to me again. (As opposed to me.)

What I meant to know is if this syllogism works, or could be improved. It’s informal, language-wise:

But with most versions of God as we understand them, and given religious exclusivity, the scenario presented in this argument is as follows:

(1) Our beliefs will define whether we get the good stuff or don’t (heaven, hell, loving union with God, etc.).

(2) Our beliefs (globally) are overwhelmingly defined by when and where we are born.

(3) From (1) and (2), whether we get the good stuff or not is overwhelmingly defined by when and where we are to be born.

(4) We have no control over when and where we are to be born.

(5) Most people are born into the “wrong” places, where beliefs prevail that preclude them from getting the good stuff.

(6) From (3) – (5), most people, overwhelmingly, have no control over whether they get the good stuff (reward) or not (punishment).

(7) It is unfair to be punished or rewarded for things over which we have no control.

(8) God, being ultimately powerful and responsible, has control over everything – when and where we are to be born, the entire world into which we are to be born, who is to be rewarded and punished, and how, etc.

(9) God designs and creates a world in which it knowingly allows most people to overwhelmingly have no control over the good stuff or not.

(10) From (5), (8) and (9), God designs and creates a world in which most people are punished and, overwhelmingly, have control over their punishment.

(11) From (7) – (10), therefore, God is unfair.

***

[the material below comes from combox exchanges]

Joe DeCaro [Christian of some sort]: Although being born into a particular religion may depend on where one is born, staying in that faith, or finding another is up to the individual, not his birthplace, or even his family. * So how can someone in an Amazon rainforest realistically do this? Don’t look at things from your projected Christocentric point of view. Remember, your system might be wrong and Shintoism might hold, instead. * By learning to read and at length think critically, by means of education, becoming familiar with the options of what one can believe, and making his or her own choice, rather than just automatically being what is surrounding him and her.****

The belonging to a particular religion depends on where and when they were born.

If we apply this analysis to you and I, we see that it fits far more in your case: with your atheist worldview. England is one of the most secularized and post-Christian societies in the world, with a population of atheists at or around 50% or so (what a wonderful place: my ancestral homeland!). Some 2% of Christians there go to church regularly (I’ve heard that more Catholics do so than Anglicans now).

So you have simply adopted the prevailing view around you (more atheists and agnostics than anything else), just as someone in the jungles in a primitive tribe grows up animist, or someone in lower western Michigan (my state) tends to be a Calvinist, or the New Englander tends to be very theologically liberal (lots of, e.g., Unitarians) or agnostic. We are what we eat.

In my case, on the other hand, I started out with what might be said to be the prevailing religious view in America: a nominal, vague Protestantism (in my family’s case, Methodist): not talked about much and merely a private, subjective affair (very typically sociologically “Methodist”). I stopped going to church regularly at ten years old and did not again do so till I was 22. That was not the norm at all in the US in the late 60s and 70s. Then I converted to evangelical Protestantism in 1977, which was indeed a sociological trend at that time, but still by no means the majority of the population.

Then I became a Catholic at age 32. That’s in no way the norm in the US, which is about 25% Catholic. Then if you break down Catholics to those (like myself) who attend Mass every week and believe all that the Church teaches (including all the dreaded sexual stuff), it’s probably 10-15% of Catholics and so 2.5-4% of the entire population.

That makes me quite the nonconformist, as I always have been in my life after age 10. I have the belief of between 1 out of 40 people and 1 in 25 folks in the US. If I am walking down the street in the downtown of a large city, I’d have to work very hard to find someone with my same general observant, “orthodox” Catholic beliefs. But I could easily find a religious nominalist or even agnostic within the first three or four people I talked to.

Therefore, it comes down to the individual: to education, ability to think critically and compare the relative plausibility and rationality of competing belief-systems and acting accordingly. We have both become educated, made those choices, and written in defense of our views. In that way we are alike,. But if we do your present analysis and look to see who is more similar to what surrounds him, it’s you, far and away.

It follows that your present analysis (the recycled “outsider test of faith”) casts your own choice of belief in question far more than it does in my case. How ironic, huh?

***

This [argument in the OP] is nothing new. You’re simply recycling (as you must know) Jittery John Loftus’ “Outsider Test of Faith” argument. I’ve refuted that twice (of course with no counter-reply from him, as usual; not even the volcanic explosion for which he is infamous): * Reply to Atheist John Loftus’ “Outsider Test of Faith” Series [9-30-07] * Loftus Atheist Error #4: The Outsider Test for Faith [9-5-19]*So what does the self-respecting atheist do when a Christian refutes their argument (or — to be more neutral, puts up something clearly plausible as a possible counter-explanation)? He or she ignores it, with or without the put-downs and insults, waits a few months, and repeats the same argument again, as if repetition is an indicator of the strength of an argument. * This is not the outsider test for faith, as far as I can tell.That argument is something like “looked at from an external perspective, Christianity makes little sense”This argument is more classically theological, and is better summarized as a version of “it is unfair to send people to hell for not believing in Jesus, when they had no practical way to believe in Jesus.” * Yeah, I’m taking what Loftus’ book discusses in the beginning in order to take it’s off into a problem of evil argument. Loftus, on the other hand, uses this same basis to express his otf [outsider test of faith] from there. But that is an epistemological argument. I’m glad you recognise this even if David didn’t… * It’s simply a variant. The original argument is obviously construed as reflecting on God and His alleged abominable “unfairness.” All you do is make that more explicit (Loftus eventually gets to blaming God, too, just like all good atheists do). It’s nothing new. Atheists see the problem of evil behind every rock and do all they can to ignore their own far more thorny “problem of good.” * Of course he blames god. Who else do you think has ultimate control of the universe and designed and created it knowingly?[responding to eric]

You need not take my word for it. Listen to John Loftus himself, from his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages):

His chapter 3 is entitled, “The Outsider Test for Faith” (pp. 64-78). Loftus summarizes this argument of his as follows:

(1) Rational people in distinct geographical locations around the globe overwhelmingly adopt and defend a wide diversity of religious faiths due to their upbringing and shared cultural heritage.

(2) [T]o an overwhelming degree, one’s religious faith is causally dependent upon cultural conditions.

From (1) and (2) it follows that:

(3) It is highly likely that any given adopted religious faith is false.

Given these odds we need a test, or an objective standard, to help us determine if our inherited religious faith is true, so I propose that:

4) The best and probably the only way to test one’s adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism one uses to evaluate other religious faiths.

. . . I’m not arguing that religious faiths are completely culturally relative and therefore all false because of religious diversity. I’m merely arguing that believers should be very skeptical of their faith because of these cultural factors. . . . (p. 65)

If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be a Sunni Muslim right now. . . . If you were born in the first century BCE in Israel, you’d adhere to the Jewish faith, and if you were born in Europe in 1200 CE, you’d be a Roman Catholic.. . . In short, we are overwhelmingly products of our times. (p. 66)

At the very minimum, believers should be willing to subject their faith to rigorous scrutiny by reading many of the best-recognized critiques of it. For instance, Christians should be willing to read this book of mine and others I’ve published. (p. 68)

[T]hey can no longer start out by believing that the Bible is true . . . nor can they trust their own anecdotal religious experiences, since such experiences are had by people of all religious faiths who differ about the cognitive content learned as the result of these experiences. (pp. 68-69)

If after you have investigated your religious faith with the presumption of skepticism, you find that it passes intellectual muster, you can have your religious faith. It’s that simple. If not, abandon it. (p. 71)

I proceed to refute this in my two papers linked above. In my longer reply to Jonathan [in the combox; seen above], one can see (basically) how it is done. It applies just as much to atheists as it does to anyone else, and so the argument essentially reduces to a “wash.”

You literally don’t get it. My argument above is not an epistemological argument in that same way. * In the past, when you actually still argued point-by-point with me, you yourself asserted that saying God is “unfair” in your analyses, is essentially the same as saying that He doesn’t exist. You summarized your viewpoint twice, as follows:

(1) God is OmniGod (classical theism: -potent, -scient, -benevolent).

(2) Part of OmniGod’s necessary characteristics would be fairness.

(3) God desires humanity to believe in him and to enter into a loving relationship with him.

(4) Belief isn’t just blind faith and requires some basis in evidence for what is to be believed (e.g., the Bible, being able to touch Jesus, personal revelation etc.).

(5) This evidence is unevenly distributed amongst the population over time and place (i.e., from 0% to 99.9% – e.g., perhaps Thomas).

(6) Unfair distribution of evidence (over which God has sovereign control) is unfair and favours certain people.

(7) Therefore God is either unfair (not OmniGod) or does not exist.

And a more compact version:

1. God is fair (as part of OmniGod theism).
2. We live in a world where humans appear to not have “equality of access to God” (EOAG).
3. If God was to be fair, he would give every human identical EOAG.
4. To give every human identical EOAG, God would have to create some sort of homogenous world.
5. Homogenous worlds are in some sense less perfect/good/desirable than the sort of world we live in.
6. Therefore, there is some good reason (skeptical theism) – a greater good – that God has created a world where humans appear to not have EOAG.
7. (Or god does not exist or is not OmniGod.)

From: “It Turns out the Whole Unfairness of Evidence Apportioning Boils down to “Free Will” “ (3-21-21). I have dealt with this “unfairness” business at least six times in the last seven months:

Debate w Atheists: Doubting Thomas & an “Unfair” God [3-17-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #17: Doubting Thomas & an “Unfair” God [3-17-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #18: Doubting Thomas & Evidence [3-18-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #19: Doubting Thomas & a “Mean God” [3-19-21]

Debate w Atheists on the Allegedly “Unfair” & “Hidden” God [3-21-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #20: Unfair Meanie God & Unfree Will [5-7-21]

Saying god is [not] fair is saying the OmniGod doesn’t exist.

Exactly my point. You end by asserting “God is unfair” (one of your favorite mantras). Of course, you don’t believe God exists, so in effect you are saying, “this unfairness that results from the way things are is proof that God doesn’t exist in the first place, because by definition He is supposedly ‘fair’ and benevolent.” You don’t think there is an “unfair” God up there somewhere. You think God is nonexistent, and you provide as one evidence of that, the supposed massive unfairness of the way things are.

As usual, I go right to your presuppositions, like a good socratic.

I was grappling with philosopher Ted Drange, using a variant of the same argument, in 2003. He wrote a good capsule summary of his position:

It is not that atheism is obviously true, but that ANB [argument from non-belief] (which very few people know about) is obviously sound. The concept is so very simple: If God were to exist then he would want people to be aware of the gospel message (what his son did for them) and could cause them to be aware of it. But most people on our planet do not even believe the gospel message. Hence, God does not exist.

See:

Atheist Argument From Non-Belief (vs. Dr. Ted Drange) [2-26-03]

Debate: Argument from Non-Belief (ANB) (vs. Steve Conifer) [2-26-03]

As usual you are already employing your increasingly frequent tactic of completely dismissing what I say without even grappling with it at all. In other words, you’re becoming more and more like Loftus, Seidensticker, and Madison every day. At least in the “old days” you would put up some kind of fight and counter-reply.

But to do so puts you in hot water with 90% of the commenters here and (I get it from the human perspective) you just don’t have the energy and will power to resist all that social pressure. It’s much easier to join in on the fun and play the game of “Armstrong [and by extension all Christian nonconformists posting here] is a clueless ignoramus who need not detain us even for five minutes.”

The argument in the OP is one big whopper. God judges based on what people know and what they do with that knowledge (see Romans 2 and other similar passages): not based on what they don’t know; supposedly punishing them for ignorance that they can’t help. This is simply atheist mythology. It plays well to the choir, but unfortunately for the argument it’s not Christian teaching. The only ones you could pin such a teaching on is the Calvinists, who are a tiny minority of Christianity now and always in the past (after they sprang into existence 1500 years after Christ).

***

All these arguments along these lines amount to the same thing: “God is an unfair meanie in fact; the Bible presents a fair, benevolent God; therefore the biblical God is a fairy tale, like leprechauns and unicorns.” In a broader sense, it’s merely an application of the good ol’ Problem of Evil (atheism’s favorite argument by far).

I think I show how the argument fails. I engaged in three long dialogues with Jonathan on this in the past. In charity, I’ll assume that’s why he isn’t engaging me now. But he generally doesn’t engage me at length anymore. I continue to engage his arguments.

I would say that reason and evidence (if only folks come across them and are willing to look for them) do clearly point to one true religion: Christianity. I’m not denying that at all. Atheists and radical secularists, Marxists, etc. do their best to suppress any such evidence by mocking and ignoring (processes that are literally constant on this forum and others like it) and even legally suppressing it, so it’s more difficult to get it out.

The difficulty (I agree it is one) is to account for large portions of the world who are not Christians and who have never heard the Christian saving Gospel of God becoming man and dying on our behalf, to make a way to go to heaven.

The biblical solution was for Christians to communicate the Gospel far and wide (the missionary impulse). We have miserably failed in that task and very few Christians are interested in doing that. Of course, God knew this would happen (that had been “Plan A” so to speak), and so He has a way (“Plan B”) that those who haven’t heard can also possibly be saved (therefore, He is “fair”).

Those who never heard the Gospel or learned of true Christianity (not the many counterfeit versions) are judged by what they truly know and how they act upon it. So, for example, if a person grasps and accepts the ethical precept of the Golden Rule, and consistently acts upon it, that counts for a great deal in God’s eyes, and He will respond accordingly and be merciful on Judgment Day.

On the other hand, Christians who know that and much more, and fail to act upon what they know; fail to love others, are — we have strong reason to believe, right from Jesus — in distinct danger of damnation. Just calling themselves Christian doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. In the Bible, the goal is always not just correct belief (orthodoxy) but also correct action based on those beliefs (orthopraxy).

Jonathan made it clear, by saying “Saying god is on fair is saying the OmniGod doesn’t exist” [I take it he meant “unfair” or “not fair” there].

Atheist arguments in the end always seek to disprove God’s existence; not to prove that He does exist, but is a terrible moron and a Beast (which would be the position of something like Satanism). Seeking to show He is “unfair” is simply a reductio ad absurdum technique, in order to seek to force the Christian to admit the alleged dilemma and give up belief in the benevolent God of Christian, biblical theism.

***

The outsider test for faith is not the problem of evil.

It’s asking whether a true outsider would derive Christianity from the evidence they see around them. Or would they derive Hinduism, or some
other religion. Do the facts of the world support the existence of souls that go on to heaven? Do they support the existence of souls that
reincarnate into other animals? Or do the facts not really support any soul hypothesis at all? Or do they support some other hypothesis?
That’s the outsider test.

It would be entirely possible for the world to be such a way that everyone, even aliens and other radical notions of ‘outsider’, agrees there is some entity behind it. In that case, entity-belief would pass the outsider test. And it wouldn’t matter how much evil or suffering there would be in the world, because they are two entirely different arguments.

And Loftus arguing both on different occasions doesn’t make them the same argument, any more than your argument for a localized flood is “simply a variant” on your argument that the Christmas star was Jupiter. Same person, different aspects but the same theology, two different arguments.

What you describe was indeed the first part of Jonathan’s argument in the OP.

The arguments differ in some secondary characteristics, but the bottom line (and that’s what I always focus on, as a socratic) is that God is unfair (itself a version of the Problem of Evil), which for the atheist is “evidence” that He doesn’t exist, just as Jonathan stated twice in one reply to me:

(7) Therefore God is either unfair (not OmniGod) or does not exist. . . .

7. (Or god does not exist or is not OmniGod.)

***

[replying to Joe DeCaro above] Atheists believe that:

1) God doesn’t exist, but that nevertheless,

2) they (at least the online anti-theist types like Jonathan) must be obsessed with Him 24-7 and become angry at how mean and terrible this non-entity supposedly is; how unjust the world with God, er, without God, is: so unfair and tyrannical.

Don’t try to make rational sense of it. It’s impossible. Their thoroughly inconsistent behavior gives them away every time.

***

As I said, the two [arguments: “outsider test of faith” and Jonathan’s current one] are not absolutely  identical. Much ado about nothing. They’re identical in the first part [which is what I was initially referring to] and then go off in different directions, like intersecting circles. Nearly all atheist arguments, however, have the goal of showing or at least heavily implying that God doesn’t exist. That’s my main focus: challenging the atheist as to the route they take to reach such a conclusion.

***

Photo credit: Darrenjsmith (1-30-11). Monks outside the temple at the Tibetan Buddhist monastery, Rato Dratsang, in India [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Summary: Atheist JMS Pearce regurgitates his “Unfair God” argument, which is a variant of the “outsider test of belief” & “argument from non-belief” (failed) atheist arguments.

July 10, 2021

July 10, 2021 By

Matthew 5:11-12 (RSV) Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. [12] Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Luke 6:26 Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

John 15:18-20 If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. [19] If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. [20] Remember the word that I said to you, `A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.

Jonathan MS Pearce’s blog, A Tippling Philosopher has no ostensible rules of conduct, so virtually anything goes, and it is open season on Christians. To be fair, Jonathan has at least feebly opined that he would like more civil discussion to occur in his environs (though he appears not to ever enforce such a notion). On 5-19-21 he wrote the post, “Another Comment Appeal” which included the following:

The comment threads here . . . could be more productive and civil.

I would like polite and civil discourse. . . .

Please please simply deal with the ideas and do no[t] attack the person. . . . we should be convincing people to our frame of mind. If they are not ready, attacking their personality forcefully and without civility will not work in our favour. . . .

[L]et’s ALL think about the way we interact, who we are appealing to, who we think our audience is, and why we say what we say in the way we say it.

I already responded to this on 5-20-21. I had documented a “feeding frenzy” against me on his blog in a post dated 3-18-21; also a wholesale massive attack that took place on fellow anti-theist atheist Bob Seidensticker’s blog, in August 2018.

Pearce has written several recent posts wholly in response to me, or predominantly so. This has brought out (as always) the long fangs and the slanderers in his comboxes. I would like to document just a small sampling of these (no more than 10%, if that) of some of the worst from three comment threads, underneath the articles Chiasms, Multiple Sources, Armstrong, and Chasms in Rationality (7-7-21), Debunking the Genesis Flood I (7-4-21): below the ten asterisks; also a few more (bonus) from Ruddy Flood Thing Again. And Armstrong. (7-3-21): underneath the ten plus signs.

Still wanna be an apologist, and particularly to atheists? This is what it’s like. In-between this constant avalanche of worthless insults, a good conversation here or there can be had. But any anti-theist atheist forum (at least any I have ever seen, and that is 24 years of constant interaction online as an apologist) will end up like this if you dare to disagree as a Christian, and especially if you dare to forbid such slander on your own blog, as I do, and (horror of horrors!) ban foul-mouthed, acidic folks. Then you will be lied about and attacked like you never have been in your life.

***

AtticusOSullivan you pathetic excuse for a human being.

no one gives enough of a s#@t about you to despise you, Dave.

Neko what Dave is saying is not Catholicism.

Can’t take the fundie out [of] the convert.

3lemenope you openly profess believing things as ridiculous as young earth creationism [never have in my life]

Nobody owes you anything but a snort and a laugh of derision.

Lark62 You are a disgusting, dishonest, contemptable [sic] flaming a%$&@#e.

. . . flaming hypocrite, given your consistent record of misrepresenting the words of others.

Beau Quilter Armstrong’s . . . perfectly happy to engage in all other prejudices.

John Grove You are a bigot, Dave.

Omnicrom You are really good at running away Dave . . . You make obnoxious, hypocritical tone arguments like nobody’s business.

JMallett Damn dude, seek professional help.

Freethinker your ignorance is bottomless, Dave

**********

HairyEyedBombThrower More sleazy click farming, Dave? . . . You’re shameless.

. . . sniveling wretch who imputes to others your own worst qualities, a la Goebbels [a high-level Nazi]

You suppress anybody who disagrees with you [I suppress anyone on my blog, rather, who can’t bring themselves to be civil and non-insulting. Thus, dozens of anti-theist-type atheists have been banned on my blog. Not my problem]

WCB . . . dishonesty and unwillingness to debate fairly.

You won’t try to have a reasoned discussion with knowledgeable atheists because you lose those debates [see for yourself how well I fared in hundreds of such encounters]

We cannot expect reason, and rational, critical thinking from you.

Ignorant Amos You’re a liar.

You’re lying you shameless scumbag.

Neko You censor people who tell you the truth about yourself.

Beau Quilter We already knew you don’t “believe” in science. That much is obvious.

Omnicrom He’s been breaking the commandment against false witness for 25 years now.

++++++++++

BensNewlogin I think you are not very sincere . . . you’re calling your god a liar.

Clearly, Dave believes in astrology. And magic.

Omnicrom You lie all the time.

Neko he’s a vainglorious windbag, so to hell with him.

***

I said that I had left Jonathan’s forum and “moved on” in May, but alas, I got drawn in when he wrote several posts that I responded to, and he counter-responded to. At first I would simply post notice of my reply. But people would start responding, and I’d get drawn in again. It’s clear now, however, that the only wise and prudent course is to totally ignore these atheist forum cesspools of fanatical hatred against any and all Christians who dare to dissent and make arguments disbelieved by the Faithful Believer-Atheists.

The few who are capable of sustaining a rational, civil, non-insulting discussion (and there are some, however few; every rule has its exceptions) can always come to my blog, where we engage in normal discourse.

I had been even more definite about leaving a month before, on Jonathan’s page, writing:

You claimed that you were actually happy I commented here, so that it wouldn’t be an “echo chamber.” But after being the target of 9,614,376 insults (which don’t faze me at all and only embarrass those who make them), and becoming sick and tired of the endless verbal diarrhea and mud pie fights, I decided at length that I am through with this stinking cesspool of a “forum.”
*
Serious discussion across differing viewpoints (with only very rare exceptions) does not occur in the toxic environment that is present here and in every atheist forum I have ever seen in 24 years of active online participation.
*
Here and there, one can accidentally stumble across pockets of rationality and cordiality even in this noxious manure-laden mud field, but it’s so rare that it ain’t worth the trouble anymore: so I have decided. My patience with it (even though it is often a source of high comedy or comic relief) is now exhausted.
*
Things will proceed as they always have. . . . I’m through here.

Jonathan specifically asked a month after that for “polite and civil discourse” and urged his minions of rabid followers to “simply deal with the ideas and do not attack the person.” They do so, anyway, and (here’s the thing) he does nothing about it.

This time I need to go cold turkey and never visit these pathetic places again. I will likely keep critiquing Jonathan’s posts, (and potentially any public atheist post, if it is a topic worth devoting time to), but I won’t visit the toxic, noxious comboxes there anymore: not even to notify Jonathan — in courtesy — of a reply. Even then (if I merely do that) I get accused by several clowns of cynically, unethically “using” Jonathan to get more clicks on my blog (as we saw in at least one attack above).
*
This is a ridiculous assertion that I have dealt with before. Apart from the pitiful remuneration I get from pageviews, people on my blog don’t care all that much about atheism and its never-ending attacks on Christianity and Christians, and writing about it has never drawn big numbers to my page (or many at all). In other words, I have no self-interest in going to atheist forums and trying to rationally interact, and I get a ton of misery from the nattering nabobs who are nearly ubiquitous there. I go because I am trying to reach even the hardest and most hardened cases of non-believers (and silent observers who are everywhere as well).
*
In the end, there are other relevant Bible passages that would guide such a decision (after we gave it a shot):
Matthew 10:14 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. [14] And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.
*
2 Timothy 2:23 Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.
*
Titus 3:9 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile.
As always, anyone is welcome to visit my blog and comment, provided they are civil and charitable and interested in dialogue, not merely preaching or condemning. I continue to meet the rare atheist or agnostic who is willing and able to do this, and when it happens, we have great discussions, such as my recent lengthy and thoroughly enjoyable exchange with “axelbeingcivil” on the problem of evil and “problem of good” [see part I and part II].
*
***
*
Photo credit: Jan Tik [Flickr / CC by 2.0 license]
*
***
*
Summary:  I expose the “manure-comments” that regularly occur on atheist Jonathan Pearce’s blog comboxes at my expense. He has denounced them, but the offenders never stop shoveling the . . .
Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
The real ghouls? The Evangelical Voter
Anxious Bench
2
When Paul Met Jesus: 3 Versions...
In Christ
3
What Role Do God and Jesus...
Inside Our Gooey Minds
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Love Your Neighbor During Election Season
The Scapegoating Phenomenon
Megan Basham's "Shepherds for Sale" with Bethel McGrew
Broken Windows and Empty Hallways
"Two hundred years from now" - Writing for...
I'm back! (For the moment, anyway.)
view all Family blogs