I thought I’d share this quote from Craig A. Evans as he assess Bart D. Ehrman’s approach to the Christian Scripture that eventually led to him forsaking his faith:
The truth of the Christian message hinges not on the inerrancy of Scripture or on our ability to harmonize the four Gospels but on the resurrection of Jesus. And the historical reliability of the Gospels does not hinge on the inerrancy of Scripture or on proof that no mistake of any kind can be detected in them. Ehrman’s struggle with faith–and I feel for him–grows out of mistaken expectations of the nature and function of Scripture, mistaken expectations that he was taught as a young, impressionable fundamentalist Christian.
Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006. 31.
the archives near Emmaus 
Note that this Evan’s quote is composed of two parts:
1) A confused claim
2) An emotional ad hominum attack
The confused claim
If the truth of the Christian message hinges on the resurrection of Jesus, and the only story we have about the supposed resurrection of Jesus come from certain documents (“scriptures”), doesn’t the reliability of those stories hinge somewhat on the type of mistakes and biases in those documents.
So you can see that this first statement is not a logical refutation though it is in the deceptive form of one.
The ad hominum attack
Next, the last half of this quote is probably the most persuasive to the readers of this blog who probably read with a large confirmation bias. That is, Evan than basically says,
“Ehrman should be pitied for his bad up bringing. We all know this is not the sort of person we can trust, but we should pity him”
Such an attack gets sympathetic readers shaking their heads and shallow the first half, though vacuous, completely whole and unquestioned.
OK, maybe that was melodramatic, but I felt I needed it to counter the quote.
Smile
Such rhetorical technique should not be held up as a high standard.
(1) Those who have done historical Jesus research do have as much right as any historian to reconstruct the possibility of the resurrection using the gospels as well as other factors such as the spread of Christianity, statements made by critics over the first couple centuries, et cetra. Evans is a respectable scholar and he can make a legitimate statement of this kind.
For instance, we do not believer Cicero was inspired but we trust we can learn a bit about the Roman era from him. Evans does not have to believe in inspiration/inerrancy to reach the conclusions he reaches.
(2) Evans response is to Ehrman’s own “testimony” in works such as ‘Misquoting Jesus’. If you use your ‘testimony’ as an argument you are open to people second guessing that. For example, I believe I was healed from asthma and you think it was something else and therefore it should not serve as personal evidence of the work of God. You are only critiquing my own testimony, not my person.
Hey Brian,
I don’t think you heard me. I would think you should agree in part, at least, with what I am saying, but since you aren’t, I see your stance as just reflexively defensive.
Even if the key to Christianity is the resurrection, the story comes from scriptures — we’ve got no other sources. If the scriptures has the right kinds of mistakes and patterns, then the resurrection story itself is very vulnerable to doubt. The more inaccurate the source, the less trustworthy what the source is claiming. We use this principle in our court systems. I would think you would totally agree. The two are totally linked. The debate is over the quality of the mistakes and the interpretation of style and intent.
My point was that since the first part of his argument had this logical mistake, tagging on the other part was a red herring — simple and clear.
Yet the point stands that inerrancy does not need to be affirmed for one to believe in the resurrection. While I believe those passages are inerrant, one can believe that the Scriptures are not inerrant yet the historical circumstances that surround even a flawed testimony in those writings point to a historical event that so changed the lives of the people who make the claims that something must have happened–and that something would have been the resurrection.
It is possible that some of the text is wrong and other parts are right. This would not align with the doctrine of inerrancy since this doctrine claims all of the Holy Writ is inerrant. It is possible to see Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn as historical testimonies and not Spirit inspired text.
Furthermore, the church fathers continue to speak of the resurrection. So even if it is a late testimony it is possible to argue that there is good reason why this teaching was central to them, namely that it actually occurred and that is why the movement that they are part of has spread as far as it has.
(1) Yes, a historical text can have lots of errors but still get the important things right. This is common sense. So if that is your point, it still stands. But you actually claim much more. See below.
(2) Changed lives does NOT justify assuming claimed supernatural event is true. We see changed lives in many religions and many claimed miracle. I am familiar with that in Hindu and Buddhist circles. I am sure this is true in Mormon circles too. The logic that because people had remarkable behavior for their group certainly can not be counted for evidence of a supernatural event. One would want much better evidence than that since we know that happens for non-supernatural events. Unless you believe in all the miraculous claims of all religions. I don’t think you want that tool in your religion kit.
(3) Church fathers speak of the same miracles you do because they read the same stories — or perhaps the most early ones heard the same stories. Testimony. Again, this happens in Mormonism and I imagine you don’t want the revelation method testified to there to be accurate. It happens in miracle stories in Zen Buddhism where miracles of the Masters have been passed on for centuries.
(4) “That is why the movement that they are part of has spread as far as it has.” You don’t want geographical distance or number of believers to be your measure of truth. That would mean you need to respect Taoism and Islam. You want popularity to decide truth? Again, not a logic tool I suggest you keep — it will hurt you eventually.
Again, my conclusion, if the text is unreliable in the right way so as to point at intentional construction and includes miracles to get effects, then we are welcome to doubt it miracle stories just like we’d doubt the miracles of all the miracle claiming religions out there.
(1) While I affirm the dual doctrine of inspiration/inerrancy I do not affirm that one must hold to this understanding of Scripture to be a Christian. I do think that the early church was unanimous on the question of whether or not one had to believe in the resurrection. Therefore, Evans is correct that the issue is not inspiration/inerrancy but resurrection.
(2) I agree that changed lives do not prove a religious claim. It should be noted that changed lives do enhance the claim. If we talk about the resurrection of Jesus but we do not see people who believe in this claim being different before and after we may wander to ourselves whether or not this claim is true. Equally, we ought to expect there to be some events that are not easily explained occurring in correspondence to a claim such as the resurrection.
So no, “signs and wonders” do not prove anything. I do think that signs and wonders do enhance claims to truth though.
(3) Some of the church father knew the Apostles or were second generation to those who did. Yes, these sources are the same in some sense. Many of the people who wrote the Scriptures were the same people who were respected in the early church and may have claimed to be witnesses. But this does not mean that you MUST affirm their writings are inspired and/or inerrant to believe that they testified truthfully to the resurrection.
As an example, you may believe Paul to be wrong on several issues and therefore his writings cannot be claimed as inerrant/inspired. But you may equally be taken by his own testimony that he once killed Christians, he was faithful to Judaism as a Pharisee, and yet he believes that he saw the resurrected Jesus and that changed everything for him. Again, the story of the resurrection does not rise or fall on inspiration/inerrancy.
(4) Unlike Islam or Taoism Christianity spread not as a popular philosophy or a militant religion. In fact, as Rodney Stark has shown in some of his works Christianity spread in a sense that is contrary to conventional wisdom, making claims that were contrary to popular culture, in areas that were often hostile. No, the claim is not proven to be true because it was widely accepted, BUT it does show that those who began making the claims really, really believed it to be true which is odd since most of the founders of the movement–save Paul–were well aware of crucifixion when it happened and yet they suddenly did a 180 and began proclaiming Jesus alive.
Sure, as the later Rabbis claimed they may have had some “incantation”, or as Borg and Crossan like to suggest some warm feeling in their hearts, but for James, Jude, and Paul there is no reason to believe that they would have been hoping for a resurrected Jesus.
(2) as you said, signs and wonders help both Hindus, Buddhists and Christians — strong beliefs — true or false, do change people.
But studies have not shown Christians to be more moral. So lack of change should show us something too. In fact, since it is supposedly the God Drug working on lives, the change should be easily detectable — and it ain’t.
(3) Buddhist stories exist also of enemies of the Buddhas teachings then convert with great vigor — this is a common phenomena. Conversion stories in my days were the pride of the converted — “I did drugs”, “I stole” “I sold my body” — you name it. These stories in all faiths are a dime a dozen.
(4) Buddhism did not spread by the sword like Christianity and it went all over Asia and now in the USA and Europe.
Comparative religion puts a huge damper on your claims. It does not negate them, but with clear inspection, it makes your claims no more likely than thousands of others. But of course, both Christians and Buddhists want to think their claims are clearly more valid.
In response:
Statement (2): While it is true that there ought to be moral change after someone converts to Christianity there are two flaws with your observation. (1) Christianity is first and foremost a religion of “grace”. If you would read 1 & 2 Corinthians you will find something very surprising. This group of Christians is as immoral as any religious group can be yet the Apostle calls them “holy ones” (saints). So yes, there should be change but the heart of Christianity is reliance on the grace of God by faith in Christ. (2) It is nearly impossible to measure in any quantitative way whether or not an individual is becoming more moral over time then beforehand. One may not appear more moral but we do not know what is going on internally. One may appear to be becoming more moral yet it is all fake. So while Christianity does expect outward behavioral changes we also realize that to assume we know where a person is in relation to God by observing their outward actions is only half sufficient.
Statement (3): I have stated a couple times now that certain sociological factors are not the final proof to the truth of a religion claim. I only stated that it enhances that claim. Therefore, I can agree that if someone converts to Buddhism and there is a sudden, positive change on outlook and behavior that this is something that enhances the truth claim of Buddism. I do not disagree with you that it does not settle the matter.
Statement (4): Buddhism did not spread by the sword, that is fine. This only gives it a more positive history that should be taken seriously. It doesn’t take away from the history of Christianity.
@ Brian:
If your question is, “Christianity is the Only Truth”
then you can’t count (a) changed a person (b) lots of folks do it (c) followers passed on confirmed miracles.
Because lots of religions do that. And (a) and (b) can happen without religion.
If your question is, “Christianity helps people”
Well, we do have ways to test that and to use controls.
Are you familiar with controlled studies?
The controlled studies account from many of your objections of why this study would be hard. And studies to date do not confirm this claim.
You have to admit, preachers on the radio and behind the pulpit promise potential converts that Jesus will change your life and solve your problems. These are empirical claims. I find the problem with apologists is that they love making the empirical claims on Sunday but when debating, retreat to subtle spiritual influence that can’t be measured. I find this very disingenuous and all too common.
I make claims regarding Christianity based not on (1) changed persons, (2) the amount of conversions, nor (3) miracles. I claim Christianity to be what it is because of (1) the person of Jesus Christ and (2) his resurrection from the dead. It is those two points that separate Christianity from the rest of the world’s religions in my mind.
Sure, there is doctrines of resurrection here and there, but it is not central to the religion and it does not have the same eschatological implications as it does in Christianity. Furthermore, the person who was raised from the dead is Jesus himself. I find him incomparable.
I do admit that TV/radio preachers promise a lot of things that Jesus himself nor his earliest followers did not promise. That does not mean Christianity is true. It just means there is a bit of bait-and-switch occurring in many American pulpits.
Jesus told his followers to “pick up your cross and follow me”. As Bonhoeffer noted grace is not cheap. Grace is grace, it is free, but the only guarantee that comes with discipleship is that it could get rough. For those of us who are Christians here in America we do not feel to full force of Jesus’ statements, but our brothers and sisters elsewhere do. These are maybe our best example of Christians who are being changed by the work of the Holy Spirit.
But it is still true that moral change is difficult to measure. Again, I point to the church of Corinth. Paul calls them “saints” but they were anything but saintly.
hello,helps to understand biblical texts better…amen!!
http://samzlogic.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/the-biblical-canon/