By Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

Important decisions in life, like whom to marry, are best made in the context of multiple independent confirmations along with efforts to improve their reliability. When all possible confirming efforts say she or he is the right one, one can be confident that the right decision has been made.

The same principle applies in scientific research. Scientists strive to test their hypotheses by developing as many independent experiments and observations as possible of the phenomenon under investigation. Given an adequate number of independent tests, if every possible experimental and observational method produces results consistent with a particular hypothesis, then scientists can be reasonably assured that the hypothesis is correct.

For many years now the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP)—a team comprised of seventy astronomers working in institutions in eleven different nations—has been striving to improve one of the observational linchpins of the big bang creation model. This linchpin is the observation of Type Ia supernova eruptions in galaxies across a wide range of distances as a tool to measure the cosmic expansion rate throughout cosmic history. The theological importance of such a measurement is that for thousands of years the Bible stood alone in predicting that the universe continuously expands under constant laws of physics from an actual beginning of all matter, energy, space, and time.¹

Each Type Ia supernovae possesses the same mass at the time of its eruption, namely about 1.4 times the mass of the Sun. Possessing the identical mass means that, except for some minor adjustments for variations in their metal abundances, all Type Ia supernovae manifest the same luminosity or brightness. Consequently, they are standard candles. Thus, accurate distances to extremely faraway supernovae can be determined by comparing their measured brightnesses with those of nearby supernovae, which astronomers already have determined precise distances by independent means of measurement.

In order to determine the cosmic expansion rate throughout the universe’s history researchers need, besides accurate distances, precise measures of the rates at which the respective supernovae are moving away from Earth. Astronomers gain these data by assessing the redshifts in the spectra of the supernovae. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, the faster an object moves away from an observer the closer to the red end of the spectrum the spectral lines in the object’s spectrum shift.

The SCP has updated their cosmic expansion results by assembling measurements of 414 different Type Ia supernovae from several supernovae survey catalogs.² This update includes nearly double the number of supernovae used in their previous work though 107 of these 414 had to be eliminated because of doubtful measurements.

With their analysis of the additional measurements, the SCP published improved constraints on a number of important cosmological parameters. They determined a value for the quantity of dark energy, namely that it comprises 71.3 ± 2.8 percent of all the stuff of the universe. This compares very favorably with the best WMAP measurement, which placed the quantity of dark energy at 71.2 percent. The SCP also produced the best constraint to date on possible variation over time of the dark energy parameter. While not proving that the dark energy parameter is strictly constant over the history of the universe, the SCP’s results were consistent with that parameter being constant.

Improved precision of the SCP’s results and their consistency with the best WMAP measurement of the cosmic microwave background radiation means that scientists now have reasons for even greater confidence in the big bang creation model. Thus, the cosmic creation model most consistent with the Bible remains even more securely established.

1. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 23-29.
2. M. Kowalski et al., “Improved Cosmological Constraints from New, Old, and Combined Supernova Data Sets,” Astrophysical Journal 686 (October 20, 2008): 749-778.

Posted at reasons.org

By Paul Copan

In the book The Da Vinci Code the author Dan Brown poses a question and suggests an answer, in a discussion between the characters of Teabing and Sophie, that could, if it holds true, mean the total collapse and refutation of orthodox Christianity.

‘At this gathering,’ Teabing said, ‘many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon…the administration of the sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus.’
‘I don’t follow. His divinity?’
‘My dear,’ Teabing declared, ‘until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet… a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal.’
‘Not the Son of God?’
‘Right,’ Teabing said. ‘Jesus establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.’
‘Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?’
‘A relatively close one at that,’ Teabing added.

Dan Brown isn’t the only one who takes this view. Thomas Sheehan, Loyola philosophy professor and author of The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God became Christianity, also maintains that, ‘Jesus did not think he was divine, nor did he assert any of the messianic claims that the New Testament attributes to him.’  

So why does the Bible seem to tell a different story? Is the Biblical Jesus, who claims to be God, really an exaggerated and embellished victim of well meaning but corrupt early journalists? Did the church or disciples really change things? This is a good question. Most Christians tend to assume that this didn’t happen. But is this a reasonable view to take? Does it make any sense? And what might a thoughtful person say in response? 

Firstly, the Christian can offer good reasons for taking the Gospels to be historically reliable. This may provide a platform for speaking about the claims and deeds of Christ.

Secondly, the claim that the early Christian communities read back into Jesus’ teachings their own concerns and controversies won’t withstand scrutiny. For a few different reasons:  

1. Many of the controversial issues in the Epistles aren’t even mentioned in the Gospels (circumcision, speaking in tongues, eating meat offered to idols, etc.). 
2. Matthew, Mark, and Luke offer a portrait of Jesus within one generation of his death. Note the case of Acts, which was likely written before Paul’s death (A.D. 64), which means that Luke’s gospel was written earlier than this and that Mark, which Luke follows, was written even earlier. 
3. First-century Palestinian Jews were concerned about accurately preserving tradition, and this concern is reflected in the epistles – for example, themes from the Sermon on the Mount are reflected in James and the tradition of the last supper is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11. 
4. The gospels do not reflect a fabrication. There is a simplicity to them, making fabrications unlikely. (Note the women as witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection despite their lower societal status, or the ‘embarrassing’ points that would probably be deleted if the Gospel stories or sayings were fabricated – Jesus’ baptism by John, his ignorance of the time of his own return, his not doing miracles in some places). 
5. Why invent so many miracle stories, when most Jews expected a political deliverer as Messiah, not a wonder-worker? 

Thirdly, the gospels – primarily Mark, Matthew, and Luke – offer a portrait of Jesus within one generation of his death, which tends to ensure the accurate transmission of the Jesus-tradition.

Fourthly, the simple unsophisticated nature of the Gospels attests to their reliability rather than to their being fabrications.

In summary, to say that someone writes with evangelistic or apologetical purpose doesn’t mean that what is written is unreliable. Passion or zeal – as with the Holocaust survivors – need not entail distortion of data. And you can point out places where the Gospels show themselves to be reliable historically and archeologically. This lends credibility to what cannot be directly verified – Jesus’ claims and deeds

Posted at bethinking.org

By Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

One of the cornerstone doctrines of the Christian faith is that humans alone among all life-forms on Earth are created in the image of God. Part of this image entails that humans are spiritual beings uniquely endowed with the physical apparatus to engage in spiritual activity. According to the Bible, this image of God did not evolve within the human species. It appeared fully established and fully functional when God created the first human male and female.

Given how extensively and specifically the Bible describes humanity’s image of God (for example, Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6; James 3:9), it should not be difficult to develop scientific tests to confirm or refute the doctrine. However, little research effort has been devoted to putting the image of God to any kind of scientific test because much of the biological research community has been entrenched in Darwinism. That view holds that humans have evolved naturally from ape-like ancestors and that humanity’s mental capabilities differ from the animals’ only by degree and not by kind.

A team of European and American anthropologists unwittingly provided dramatic evidence for the Bible’s image of God doctrine. The evidence arose out of a comparative study they performed on the mental capabilities of adult orangutans and chimpanzees with human children aged just 2.5 years.¹ In selecting children aged 2.5 years the team eliminated any possible benefit from education or literacy from the human test subjects.

The researchers discovered that the human toddlers manifested no significant advantage over the adult apes in their ability to learn from their physical environment. However, their capacity to share and gain knowledge, understanding, and comprehension from their social interactions was far superior to anything manifested by either adult chimpanzees or adult orangutans. As the researchers put it, “Humans are not just social but ‘ultra-social.’”²

Without an extraordinary capability of interacting, communicating, and learning from social interactions no spiritual activity would be possible. The fact that even the most intelligent non-human animals lack the social interaction capability necessary to support spiritual activity while even toddler humans do provides evidence for the biblical doctrine that humans alone among all life on Earth are spiritual creatures.

The lead authors of the research team work for the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and in the title of their paper they state, “Humans Have Evolved Specialized Skills of Social Cognition.” However, nowhere in their paper do they provide any evidence that present-day humans manifest a higher social interaction capability than do the earliest humans. Nor do they show that the hominids that preceded human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) demonstrated a level of social interaction capability adequate to support spiritual activity.

In fact, archeological evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the first humans were just as capable of practicing spiritual activity as are humans today. Thus, the biblical doctrine that the first humans possessed a fully functional capacity to engage in spiritual activity has gained scientific support.

1. Esther Herrmann et al., “Humans Have Evolved Specialized Skills of Social Cognition: The Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis,” Science 317 (September 7, 2007): 1360-66.
2. Herrmann et al., 1360.

Posted at reasons.org

PART ONE 

By Daniel Dyke, M.Th., and Hugh Henry, Ph.D.

One point of contention among those who believe in creation is the issue of death and decay in the original created order. The question, simply stated, is whether or not death, decay, disease, harsh conditions, etc., exists as a part of the world before the fall of Adam.

When God proclaimed creation “very good,” (tob meod) was the world blissful, like the popular concept of Nirvana—or did it function under harsh conditions?¹ Was it “perfect,” with self-sustaining agriculture and lions that literally ate straw? Or was it a world full of potential, in need of taming and management? Did fruit trees need pruning and did lions “lie in wait in a thicket” to “hunt the prey”?

Many old-earth creationists (OEC) hold that death and subsequent decay did occur in the original created order, but just not for man in his closed environment called “the Garden of Eden.” Young-earth creationists, on the other hand, often have a more restrictive interpretation. For example, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati writes, “A straightforward interpretation of Genesis shows that death of humans and vertebrate animals (Hebrew nephesh chayyah, “living creature”) is the result of Adam’s fall.”² Is this as clear as Dr. Sarfati asserts—or does the Bible suggest another interpretation?

The answer to this question may be found in the words kabash and radah (rendered “subdue” and “rule,” respectively, in most English translations) as used in Genesis 1:28. God instructs Adam to,

“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over … every living thing” (emphasis added).

Popular interpretation of the pre-fall world as a “blissful Nirvana” has become the de facto position and, for some, a test of orthodoxy. Before the fall man is believed to have lived in a paradise in harmony with nature. Thus, God’s command to “subdue” and “rule” is viewed as a nebulous, benign stewardship. Animatronic figures of children and dinosaurs playing together on display at the Creation Museum in Kentucky illustrate this in the extreme. It seems that, according to this interpretation, man’s only task was not to mess it up by eating forbidden fruit.

However, this unspoiled paradise scenario is not consistent with the meanings of kabash and radah. A Hebrew lexicon defines kabash as “subdue, bring into bondage;”³ and it defines radah as “have dominion, rule, dominate.”⁴ These words imply an aggressive, forceful stewardship, and suggest that the “blissful Nirvana” interpretation is wrong. Instead, the Bible teaches that the pre-fall world required humanity to tame and manage it. Land needed cultivation, fruit trees required pruning, and lions probably laid in wait to hunt prey.

Click here for the full article.

By David Klinghofer

Most of us find it annoying to be forced into a false dilemma. In a false dilemma, alternatives and gradations of belief are arbitrarily excluded as a technique of manipulation. Accept my version of orthodoxy or you’re a heretic!

Jews and Christians employ this argumentative strategy, not least when conversation turns to emotionally charged subjects - like Darwinian evolution. And not least when it is those on Darwin’s side who are talking.

But in explaining how life developed, aren’t there just two alternatives? That’s what we’re always told in the media. Either life accumulated complex features through a purely Darwinian process of natural selection, or the universe was created in six literal, 24-hour days, less than six thousand years ago.

Actually, there are gradations between the extremes of Darwinism and creationism. That fact often gets lost.

Consider Rabbi Shlomo Brody who writes the Jerusalem Post’s interesting “Ask the Rabbi” column. In a recent article (Intelligent Design? October 31), a reader queried him: “Why don’t more Orthodox Jews support the intelligent design movement against evolution?”

Rabbi Brody, rejecting intelligent design as “pseudo-science,” proceeded to state the case not against intelligent design at all, but against the very different doctrine of biblical literalist creationism.

He seemed unaware that intelligent design theory (ID) is a gradation of thought that may be identified neither with creationism nor with Darwinism. A scientific critique of Darwinian evolution, supported by the think tank I’m associated with, the Discovery Institute, ID finds positive evidence of a designer’s purpose in the fossil record, in the nanotechnology at work in the living cell, in the origins of life itself. It entirely accepts paleontology’s evidence that life changed and developed, with most animal body plans or phyla having appeared some 530 million years ago in the Cambrian Explosion. However, ID rejects Darwinism’s insistence that evolution may be explained as unguided, purposeless, meaningless churning.

Yet, from Jewish Darwinists, you’ll often hear the claim that, in the evolution debate, we must choose between enlightened science, which is no threat to Judaism, and scriptural literalism, which Judaism historically rejected anyway. “Judaism has never rejected science,” we are frequently assured. This is wildly simplistic.

INEVITABLY, MAIMONIDES is brought forward as an authority. In the Guide for the Perplexed (II:25), he wrote that when a surface-level reading of the Bible is convincingly refuted by science or logic, then “the gates of interpretation remain open.”

But Jewish Darwinists often forget to read to the end of that chapter. In Maimonides’s day, Aristotelians argued that the universe had no beginning, that it existed eternally. Maimonides responded that he rejected the Aristotelian thesis for two reasons. First, because it “has not been demonstrated.” And second, because it made nonsense of Judaism: “If the philosophers would succeed in demonstrating eternity as Aristotle understands it, the Torah as a whole would become void, and a shift to other opinions would take place. I have thus explained to you that everything is bound up with this problem.”

Maimonides was not saying that any scientific theory can be reconciled with theistic belief, that our liberty to interpret has no limit, and certainly not when the science itself is wrong or unproven.

Another favorite authority of Jewish Darwinists is the 19th-century German rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. Again, Hirsch is presented simplistically as a supporter of evolution. Jewish Darwinists always forget to mention his explicit comment on “Darwinism” in the context of the idol, Baal Peor, worshipped in the most grotesquely animalistic fashion. To illustrate: “the kind of Darwinism that revels in the conception of man sinking to the level of beast and stripping itself of its divine nobility, learns to consider itself just a ‘higher’ class of animal” (Numbers 25:3).

ON EVOLUTION, Rabbi Brody is right in perceiving “widespread fear and ignorance.” It can be observed in the Christian world as well. When Jews and Christians alike aren’t being forced into false dilemmas, we are given alternatives to Darwinian theory that can be imagined as reconciling science and theology only if the whole subject is kept cloudy and confused.
Thus the two most recent popes have appeared to speak of the Church’s comfort with “evolution” but without defining the term. Does it mean an unguided process or a guided one? One that gives scientific evidence of a Designer’s purpose, or not?

The ambiguity and hedging probably comes from a fear of putting their Church on the losing side of a historic controversy, and an unfamiliarity with the scientific details.

Last month, Pope Benedict spoke to a conference on cosmic and biological evolution held by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. His words were beautiful but gaseous, taking no clear position. The invited scientists at the conference included cosmologist Stephen Hawking, whose work denies that the universe had a beginning as Aristotle’s did, undercutting basic theistic belief. Scientists who perceive evidence of design in nature were excluded from the conference. No wonder Catholics are confused about what their Church believes.

Click here for the full article.

By Fazale Rana, Ph.D.

When I was growing up I enjoyed watching reruns of the television series Flipper. As a little kid, I was quite fond of this unusually intelligent dolphin. According to new research, Neanderthals were fond of dolphins as well.* But instead of delighting in watching them perform, these hominids liked to eat them.

Neanderthals appear in the fossil record between 250,000 and 150,000 years ago and go extinct about 30,000 years ago. They lived in western Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Popular views about human origins position Neanderthals as immediate predecessors to modern humans. Other more sophisticated treatments of human evolution, like multiregionalism, argue that these hominids gave rise only to European people groups.

Because of their potentially prominent role in human evolution, anthropologists are interested in Neanderthal biology and behavior. This interest motivated an international team of paleoanthropologists and archeologists to analyze the fossil and archeological remains from two coastal caves located in Gibraltar. These caves held several kinds of artifacts that included Neanderthal-made products located at specific levels and layers within the cave, and also artifacts attributed to modern humans found at different sites within the cave. Associated with these finds were fossilized animal bones interpreted as the food stuff leftover from hunting and gathering expeditions.

Cataloging the species that comprise the animal remains provided researchers some insight into the behavior of Neanderthals and some of the first modern humans. For both the Neanderthal and the modern human locales, researchers documented mollusk shells and the remains of red deer, ibex, wild boar, bear, birds, tortoises, and fish, as well as dolphins and seals. Additionally, the scientists discovered rhinoceros remains associated with the artifacts left behind by modern humans.

The researchers interpreted these results as evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans had similar hunting and gathering practices, and, therefore, had identical cognitive capabilities. They were particularly impressed with the ability of Neanderthals to make use of dolphins and seals as a food source. They argue that to effectively do so means that Neanderthals had some sense of the seasonal activities of these animals. Dolphins are known to beach themselves at certain times of the year. It appears as if Neanderthals and modern humans took advantage of beached animals. Seals come ashore during mating season. Presumably, Neanderthals and modern humans clubbed these animals to death during mating season. Interestingly, only juvenile seal remains were recovered from the Neanderthal sites, indicating that they likely went after easier targets.

Based on this new insight, some anthropologists conclude that Neanderthals had skills that compared to modern humans alive at that time, since they seemed to have exploited the same range of resources as modern humans, and likely used similar tactics to hunt and gather. If so, does this mean that Neanderthals are no different than modern humans? What does this discovery mean for the RTB model of human origins?

Click here for the full article.

By Lee Strobel
This video lasts 8:17

By Kenneth R. Samples, M.Th.

What factors go into making a powerful and persuasive apologetic witness to the truth of Christianity?

Biblically speaking, the ultimate reason that a person comes to faith in Jesus Christ is the efficacious work of God’s Spirit in that individual’s mind and soul (Ephesians 2:4-5; Titus 3:5). God uses the Gospel message (the “good news” concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection) to call and enable a person to repent of their sin and to accept Christ as Lord and Savior (Romans 10:17; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Historic Christianity affirms grace (the unmerited favor and love of God) as the basis of salvation, whereas, faith (confident trust in Christ) is the instrument by which a person receives it. The Protestant Reformers proclaimed that salvation comes by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Yet God uses the limited and imperfect apologetic and evangelistic efforts of his church to bring people to this glorious new life of salvation. Apologetics is an important enterprise that helps both believer and non-believer to see the basic reasonableness and truthfulness of Christianity.

In this article I will discuss three factors that apologetically impact people in terms of persuasion concerning the truth of historic Christianity.

Christian Apologetic Logos, Ethos, and Pathos

The great Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) wrote about the enterprise known as rhetoric, the art of persuasion. He introduced the modes of persuasion as including logos, ethos, and pathos. Let’s examine these dynamics of persuasion in light of Christian apologetics.

1. Logos: This Greek term, meaning word, is used in the New Testament itself (John 1:1) and has come to refer to the appeal to the rational and intellectual sphere of life. In fact, the English word logic is derived from this word. When Christian apologists appeal to reason, logic, and rationality to support the truth-claims of their faith, they are engaged in the persuasive use of logos (persuading through the use of reason). The New Testament word (apologia) from which we get the word apologetics refers to “a reasoned defense of the faith” (1 Peter 3:15). The logos aspect of persuasion focuses on the clarity, consistency, and cogency of the message being delivered up for consideration.

In applying directly to an individual’s reason, the Christian apologist shows respect for a person’s inherent rational abilities. While some contemporary Christian groups seem to devalue the place of reason in the Christian life, the clear apologetic consensus throughout church history is that the faith involves knowledge and is compatible with reason. Non-believers need to know that the Christian worldview holds together logically and makes sense of the world and life. And apologists need to be skilled in their use of reason and logic.

2. Ethos: This Greek term appeals to the sphere of moral credibility. The English word ethics is derived from ethos. People tend to believe and thus become persuaded by those whom they respect and trust, those who possess moral credibility.

The Christian apologist can sincerely convey the impression of trustworthiness when his life matches his words. A person’s character and reputation go along way in impacting believability. Peter exhorts apologists within the early church to carry on the defense of the faith with “gentleness and respect” and “keeping a clear conscience” (1 Peter 3:15-16). In terms of persuasion, the demeanor and attitude of apologists may carry as much weight as their arguments.

3. Pathos: This Greek term gave rise to the English words sympathy and empathy. This mode of persuasion appeals to emotion. When people are “touched,” or have their emotions “evoked,” they tend to relate to an issue in a personal way. When people can identify with a cause, their commitment level often runs deep.

The Gospel message of God’s love for sinners and Christ’s sacrifice on the cross tends to grip people at the core of their being. It is critical for apologists to tie the defense of the faith closely to Christian theology. People tend to love a good story and the Gospel is the greatest story ever told.

Christian apologists are in the business of persuasion, and Aristotle’s rhetorical modes of persuasion can be used as effective tools in the trade.

For more on building the skills of persuasion in the area of apologetics, see my book A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

By Matt Slick 

Adoptionism is an error concerning Christ that first appeared in the second century. Those who held it denied the preexistence of Christ and, therefore, His deity. Adoptionists taught that Jesus was tested by God and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son.  As a reward for His great accomplishments and perfect character Jesus was raised from the dead and adopted into the Godhead.

This error arose out of an attempt by people to understand the two natures of Jesus. The scriptures tell us that Jesus is both God and man: “for Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form,” (Colossians 2:9).  This is known as the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union where in the one person of Christ, there are two natures:  God and man.

Theodotus of Byzantium was the most prominent adherent to this error. Adoptionism was condemned as a heresy by Pope Victor (A.D. 190-198).

8th Century revision

Adoptionism was later revived in the 8th Century in Spain by Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo, and Felix, bishop of Urgel.  This was a variation of the first error but it held that Christ was the Son of God in respect to his divine nature, but that as a man, he was only adopted as the first born of God.

In 798 Pope Leo III held a council at Rome that condemned adoptionism as a heresy.

Posted at CARM.org

By Justin Taylor 

The following is an interview I conducted with Craig Blomberg, Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary.

Can you tell us a bit about your own personal experience in coming to embrace the historical reliability of the gospels? Was there a period of time in your life when you seriously doubted the historical integrity of the gospel accounts?

I was raised in a fairly liberal branch of the old Lutheran Church in America, before the merger that created today’s ELCA. I vividly remember being very puzzled in confirmation class when I was taught/shown how the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper contradicted each other as an illustration of how our doctrine of Scripture should focus on the main points and basic thoughts of the text but allow for contradictions in the details. Even in junior high, it seemed to me that there were plausible ways of combining the texts into a harmonious whole and seeing each as a partial excerpt of a larger narrative, but our pastor didn’t countenance that option.

In college, at an LCA school, all five of our religion department professors were ordained Lutheran ministers but not one of them believed that Jesus said or did more than a significant minority of the things attributed to him in the canonical gospels. Our Campus Crusade for Christ director on campus, however, pointed us to a lot of good literature that presented credible scholarly alternatives to the skeptical views on numerous subjects that the religion department promoted. Our college library also included quite a large volume of more conservative religious scholarship from a slightly older era because, until the 1960s it had housed a seminary as well as an undergraduate college, and the real move toward liberalism didn’t hit the Lutherans until the 1960s, just one decade before I was in college. So I realized that things weren’t nearly as cut and dried as I was being taught in class.

I also discovered that a disproportionate number of the more evangelical works of the 1970s, at least among those written in America, came from profs at Trinity in Deerfield, which is one of the main reasons I went there for seminary. That was a wonderful time as I encountered so many more credible responses to skeptical approaches that I had been interacting with in junior high, senior high, and college. And credible evangelical scholarship has only blossomed in pretty amazing quantities ever since.

One can easily find blogs and websites claiming that Jesus never existed. Even if we didn’t have the New Testament, what would we know about Jesus from non-Christian sources?

The best source here for a book-length answer is Robert van Voorst’s Jesus Outside the New Testament (Eerdmans, 2000). Here is my composite summary:

Jesus was a first-third of the first-century Jew, who lived in Israel, was born out of wedlock, whose ministry intersected with that of John the Baptist, who became a popular teacher and wonder-worker, who gathered particularly close disciples to himself, five of whom are named (though some of the names are a bit garbled), who consistently taught perspectives on the Law that ran afoul of the religious authorities’ interpretations, who was believed to be the Messiah, who was eventually crucified under Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator in Judea (which enables us to narrow the date for that event to somewhere between A.D. 26 and 36), and who was allegedly seen by many of his followers as bodily resurrected from the dead. Instead of dying out, the movement of his followers continued to grow with each passing decade and within a short period of time people were singing hymns to him as if he were a god.

What are some of the major categories of alleged gospel contradictions?

Theological distinctives, numerical discrepancies, similar events that may actually reflect separate episodes or teachings in his life, partial excerptings from longer events, approximations that would not have been seen as inaccurate by the standards of the day, occasional tensions with extra-biblical data, and the like.

Could you give us a couple of examples of alleged contradictions that have plausible solutions? Did the centurion come to Jesus right off the bat and ask him for his servant to be healed, as in Matthew 8, or did he first send some Jewish elders as an embassy to ask on his behalf , as in Luke 7?

Probably, the latter, since to act on behalf of another person could have been reported as acting oneself. We have the same convention when the media report that “the President today announced. . .” when in fact it was his press secretary.

Did the Sanhedrin condemn Jesus to be sent on to Pilate for execution during a nighttime trial (as in Luke) or first thing after dawn in the morning (as in Matthew and Mark). Probably both. It was illegal to come to a capital verdict at night, but in the flurry of events and eagerness of the authorities to do away with Jesus, it is hard to imagine them not beginning to interrogate him during the night and come to provisional conclusions. But to create the aura of legality, a quick rubber-stamp formal hearing involving the legal essentials, first thing in the morning, is equally likely.

Let me ask about one in particular, because it has been highlighted by Bart Ehrman as being decisive in his journey from evangelical to agnostic. It began, he says, after writing a graduate paper attempting to harmonize the fact that Mark 2:26 has Jesus saying that David entered the temple to eat the bread of the Presence in the days of Abiathar the high priest—but in point of fact, 1 Samuel 21 clearly says that Ahimelech was the high priest during this episode. How would you respond? Was Jesus mistaken?

The Greek here is very unusual. The construction is a two word prepositional phrase, epi Abiathar, which literally means “upon Abiathar.” Obviously, some kind of idiom is being used. One possibility is “in the days of A.” But in Mark 12:26, Mark uses the same construction, epi tou batou (literally, “upon the bush”) where most translations render it something like “in the account of the bush” or “in the passage about the bush”. This makes very good sense of Mark 2:26 as well. Jesus could very well have been saying, “in the account/passage about Abiathar.”

The next question, then, is what Jews in Jesus’ day would have considered an “account” or “passage.” We tend to think today in terms of fairly small chunks of text, but ancient Jews read all of the Torah annually straight through in weekly synagogue readings and the rest of the Old Testament in a triennial cycle of readings. To do so required multiple chapters to be read during worship each week. Each of these multiple-chapter accounts had names to help identify them, sometimes as short as one word. Often the names were the names of a key character in the text. Unfortunately no list of all the names used for the passages has survived. The only ones we know of are those that are mentioned sporadically in the rabbinic literature in the context of some other kind of discussion. But it is hardly implausible to imagine that Abiathar might have been the name given to a multiple-chapter segment of 1 Samuel that included chapter 21 and the details about Ahimelech, since Abiathar appears in the very next chapter of 1 Samuel and became the better remembered of the two figures in Jewish history. I might add that John Wenham set all of this out in a brief article in the Journal of Theological Studies way back in 1950.

Ehrman, in his introduction to Misquoting Jesus, tells the story of writing a paper at Princeton in which he defended a resolution to this problem, though he doesn’t tell us what it was. It wouldn’t surprise me if it was something along these lines, since the article would already have been well known when he was a student. Ehrman goes on to describe how it was his professor’s response (asking him why he did not just say that Mark made a mistake) that revolutionized his attitude toward Scripture. And it was all down hill for him from there.

There are a lot of things I would like to say in response to Ehrman’s autobiographical reflections. But I’ll limit myself here to saying two things. First, if one was prepared to abandon all pretense of Christian faith on the basis of one apparent error in Scripture, one’s faith must not have amounted to much in the first place. I have no problem with accepting as Christian the approach that allows for minor historical mistakes in the Bible but still acknowledges the main story line. That’s not the approach that I take, but I know far too many solid believers who do opt for such an approach to dismiss it as not an option for a genuine Christian. But second, I wonder what else made Ehrman reject his original paper and/or an approach like Wenham’s. I have yet to hear anyone give me a good reason why it is improbable

Click here for the full article.