TF - Chapter 3 part 2

The last half of this chapter is a rehashing of things I have covered before on my blog. Instead of posting about them again I will just link to what I wrote before.

The first of these last two sections is on Textual Criticism. Colson is not theologian nor is he a biblical scholar. I would think it is a safe bet that he cannot read ancient Greek nor can he read ancient Hebrew. Colson has a law degree. Yet, in this section, Colson makes no references to any outside materials. The one end note in this section just talks about the date of P52, which is a small fragment of the Gospel of John. Even then he is dishonest with it, not mentioning that it is only a fragment of a few verses. He also doesn't seem to know about textual and higher criticism, which are two separate things. Instead he treats them as if they are the same thing.

The first claim he makes is:

Beyond the archeological discoveries, the truth claims of the Bible are supported by the uncanny coherence and unity of the Bible itself. It consists of sixty-six books, or seventy-three, as in the Catholic tradition, written over 1,500 years by forty people in three different languages, and yet there's a remarkable harmony and consistency in the overarching story. The ancient manuscripts possess an astounding consistency and integrity.

I have heard this claim before and it is ridiculous from the premise. First off it is not really that hard to add to a series that you have read. Fanfic exists for a reason. Also, has Colson or anyone who makes this claim ever looked in the Fantasy/Science Fiction section of a bookstore? In the Star Wars section alone there are several authors who have read the previous work (or at least glanced at it) and created a "coherent" arching story line through it all. Does this mean Star Wars is true now? I can hear the objections already, well that doesn't go over 1,000 of years and different languages (actually it does go over different languages) and the original author is still alive. So let's use the example of the Vedas. They were compiled from 1500 BCE to 500 BCE. That is 1000 years which is close to 1500. They were of oral tradition before that, much like the Tanakh. The original authors are unknown but the Vedas claim to be directly from Brahma. It is highly likely that there were several authors involved in the creation of the Vedas. So why should I take the Bible as truth and not the Vedas?

Next, does the Bible contain an "uncanny coherence and unity"? Let's refer to the skeptic's annotated Bible. They have a list of 442 contradictions found in the Bible (that is not counting the near 1500 absurdities they have listed also). That doesn't seem very coherent or unified to me. Also what is the overarching story in the Bible? I see the claim that the overarching story is the same throughout but no one bothers to say what that story is? Is it Good Vs. Evil in God's triumph over Satan and sin, or is it how God wants to have a personal relationship with everyone, or is it about the prophecies of the end of the world, or maybe something else? What is it? Each of these things I listed are in the Bible and they are each very different stories.

Colson never talks about his claims or present evidence, he just makes the claim and expects to be believed. I am sorry that is not enough for me, especially from someone who has been convicted of obstruction of justice for his actions in the Watergate scandal. That was before Colson was "born again" so surely he has changed now. He would not make any hypocritical responses or show no reason to not be trusted today, would he? If Colson expects to convince anyone of what he is saying, he needs more than words, he needs facts and evidence. This is the problem for most fundamentalist evangelicals, facts and evidence. I am expected to take their word on everything they say because they are speaking for God. Well there are a lot of people speaking for God what makes you so different than the others? I want facts and evidence. If you don't bring those you might as well leave.

For his next claim, Colson compares apples with oranges. He goes on about how there are so many copies of the Bible and not the Iliad or other random works of fiction that are not considered the word of God today. I have covered this before here and here.

He ends his section on textual criticism with the claim:

Why are the manuscript copies of Scripture so accurate? Jewish tradition provides one answer. According to Hebrew practice, only eyewitness testimony was accepted; and when copying documents, the Jews would copy one letter at a time - not word by word, not phrase by phrase, not sentence by sentence.

Again no notes on where he got this information. Is it really that hard to document your sources? I can't find a source for this anywhere. What I have found are talks about how Jewish copyists did things during the Middle Ages and brief overview of Textual Criticism in the Jewish study Bible. If anyone can find where Colson got this information from let me know.

The next part of the chapter is about how the Bible has changed lives. This is suppose to mean that the Bible is true. Ignore all the stories from every other religion in the world of people whose lives were changed by them (here, here, here, here, etc). This line of reasoning makes every religion true and atheism true, which is just not possible. So what does Colson do to show that this is true only for Christianity? Absolutely nothing, instead he goes off on Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris:

The latest wave of atheist literature of the Dawkins-Hitchens-Harris genre ignores the centuries of careful scholarship and evidence; taking verses and sections out of context, these authors argue that the Bible is a dreadful book filled with violence and war, and reflects a mean-spirited God who represses people - a "celestial dictatorship," in Hitchens's words. (The principles of interpretation these authors employ have been scorned even by secular peers.)

The article that Colson is quoting is "An Atheist Responds" from the Washington Post July 14, 2007 (Colson actually cited this source). Here is the quote:

It's uncommonly generous of Michael Gerson[" What Atheists Can't Answer," op-ed, July 13] to refer to me as "intellectually courageous and unfailingly kind," since (a) this might be taken as proof that he hardly knows me and (b) it was he who was so kind when I once rang him to check a scurrilous peacenik rumor that he was a secret convert from Judaism to Christian fundamentalism.

However, it is his own supposedly kindly religion that prevents him from seeing how insulting is the latent suggestion of his position: the appalling insinuation that I would not know right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship, which could read and condemn my thoughts and which could also consign me to eternal worshipful bliss (a somewhat hellish idea) or to an actual hell.

Hitchens is calling God's rule a celestial dictatorship, because that is what it is. A dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state. How is that not describing God's rule?

Also point out where they are quote-mining. Show don't tell. Give examples, because I can point to several places in the Bible where what they say is absolutely right (the Book of Judges and Daniel 4:24-26 come to mind).

I also love the appeal to unnamed secular sources at the end. Again I ask how hard is it to list sources or even just names of some of these "critics"?

He follows that up with a list of questions:

I would ask Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, and company, if this book is so evil, how has it survived all of these years?

I don't really fall into any of those categories but I can give answers. By force. It survived long enough to become the state religion of the Roman Empire. Then it was mandated to the people. After the fall of the Roman Empire, we have the Middle Ages, where Christianity ruled supreme. The inquisition, the crusades and colonization of the world forced people to accept Christianity or die. After that, most people accepted it as the truth because they never questioned it or looked into it very deeply. Low educational standards helped to keep people from looking into it also. The more educated a country the less religious they are, with the US being the only real exception to that rule and religiousness in America is falling.

Edit: This is not the only way Christianity flourished. I would also say a cult of personality helped it at many times (much like most mega-churches today, that struggle when the pastor leaves or dies), plus many other sociological reasons. It is not a simple answer to give.

Why has it been the bedrock of forming the most humane civilization in history?

I have no idea of what civilization you are talking about. The only civilization ever formed on the Bible was Europe in the Middle Ages, I doubt you would call that humane. If you speak of America, I wouldn't call us the most humane (death penalties, high crime rates, health care for only the elect few, etc) and it would be extreme revisionist history to claim the US was founded on the Bible. Just point to where the Bible or Jesus is mentioned in the US Constitution or even the Declaration of Independence (God and Creator are mentioned in the Declaration but Jefferson's God and Creator was not the Christian God, but it does not specify which God or Creator).

How does it continue, if it is mean-spirited, to spread love around the world and turn hard-hearted criminals into gentle lambs?

Psychological reasons of the human mind. Christians cherry-pick what they read in it and into it. The same reason some Muslims can find peace and love for all things in the Koran and others find justification for killing infidels. The Crusades were a Christian undertaking. The killing of abortion doctors has been a Christian undertaking.

How could reading it have resulted in such people as Augustine and St. Francis?

How could reading the Koran resulted in such people as Benazir Bhutto, André Carson, or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. This is a retarded question and can support any religion or just about anything.

Why would the Chinese, in the midst of atheistic madness, turn to it as their refuge?

Don't try and load the question or anything there Colson. Define atheistic madness. Mao was power hungry and it had little to do with atheism, except that Mao disliked religion (Christianity was never outlawed in China). Most people didn't turn to Christianity. So how did those people survive?

Finally Colson says that because people have predicted the death of Christianity and it hasn't happened yet, then it must be divine influence keeping it around. Non sequitur much? So by that logic, since people have predicted the death of atheism, then it must be divinely inspired also (possibly even more so since atheism is on the rise)...

That is it, that is all his evidence for the Bible being true and infallible.

More On The New Testament

This is a lecture from Bart Ehrman on the New Testament.

Apologetics 315 cont.

Picking back up where I left off yesterday.

Do We Have the Same Gospels?
It is clear that presently we have four Gospels that were considered authoritative for the Christian Church since the time of their writing.

It is clear? When was that proven? We don't even know exactly when the writing of the Gospels were. There are some good ideas based on what they write about but an exact date is not known.

Trustworthy sources attest to the genuine authorship of these documents, and their style and literary genre indicate historical accounts of actual people and events.

Reasserting unproven things that were asserted earlier with no evidence does not make them true.

Yet, the question arises: how sure can one be that the Bible one reads today reflects what was originally written? Were the Gospels preserved and copied reliably? This is the question of reliability of transmission.

These are valid questions. This is also where Textual Criticism comes into play. The definition of Textual criticism from Wikipedia: Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand. Given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history. The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the original.

For all ancient writings, the question of reliability of transmission hinges on the quality, quantity, and dating of the documents themselves.

I believe the blogger is trying to describe eclecticism approach to textual criticism. This has been the most common way in the past to determine the New Testament but different techniques can provide a better assessment.

There is still a lingering question. What is meant by quality? This question is never answered and quality is never discussed. Quantity is fairly straight forward, but there is a problem with having too much. The sheer number of New Testament copies makes stemmatics impossible and thus eliminates one type of textual criticism. A really good book on the problems of textual criticism and the New Testament is Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. I highly recommend this book.

I could easily continue on about textual criticism but the Wikipedia article covers it well enough and there is more to cover in this blog post.

It was the practice of the early Church to meet together for worship, fellowship, celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and for the reading and teaching of scripture. The scripture of the early Church was the Old Testament. Bruce elaborates:

At the beginning of its existence, then, the Christian church found itself equipped with a book, a collection of sacred scriptures which it inherited. It was not based on the book: it was based on a person, Jesus Christ . . . acknowledged by his followers as Lord of all. But the book bore witness to him; in this role they found it indispensable. At the same time they found the record of his life and teaching, his suffering and triumph, indispensable to their understanding of the book.11

Where did Bruce get this from? What evidence does he have for any of this? You can read about the early church on the Wikipedia page on Early Christianity. So much happened during that time period to Christianity that Bruce's couple of sentences just doesn't begin to cover. The main thing is that the Gospels were at best written around 65CE. That would be 30 years after the crucifixion. That is 30 years without any writings on the life of Jesus. There was no book. When proselytism started it was the leaders of the church going to communities and sharing their beliefs. Later they would write/dictate letters back to these churches. There was no Bible and no standard as to what Christians believed, that is how the early Heresies started.

Clearly the early Church’s reliance upon the testimony of the Gospels was central to the faith, and in the light of the Gospels, the fulfillment of the Old Testament writings became clear.

How? For most of the early church period they didn't have the writings. John wasn't written until at the earliest 90 CE. The apostolic period ended in 130 CE. How can a book that isn't even around for most of the period be central?

As for fulfillment of the Old Testament, these were Jewish men talking about Jewish prophecies. They could make the stories fit the prophecies.

Bruce adds: “…the perpetuation of the words and deeds of Jesus could not be entrusted indefinitely to oral tradition…”12 The early Church valued the Gospel writings as authoritative, and was particularly concerned with the transmission and preservation of the writings.

Of course oral tradition is worse than written. This is common sense. In grade school we used to play the gossip game. It would start with a single phrase whispered into one person's ear and then passed around the room by whispering in ears. The last person in line would say the phrase they were told, it was never anything like what started. Now imagine that happening for 30+ years. Including the originators refining their own story, because that is what we do as humans. Then finally writing down the stories after 30+ years. The only problem is that people considered literate then, would not be in our own time. Ehrman often uses the example of a famous scribe in Egypt, Petaus. Petaus was asked to judge the literacy of another scribe, Ischyrion. Petaus said that Ischyrion was literate because he could write his name. These were two men hired and trained by the government and it seems they could not read. Now a bunch of lower class farmers and fishermen are expected to suddenly learn how to read and write and copy perfectly?

Not all of the early members were of lower class, there were exceptions such as Paul of Tarsus. The majority though were lower class citizens that felt abandoned by the Jewish religion of the time.

Because of this, the Gospel texts began to be copied and circulated widely among the early Church. To quote Barnett, “Clearly it was that Christian ‘habit’ of assembling on a ‘fixed day’ to hear the Scriptures read that explains both the multiplicity and the survival of New Testament texts.”13

That would make the assumption that most of the copies we have are from this period of time. That would be a bad assumption. If you scroll down a little ways on the Wikipedia Biblical Manuscript page, you will see a list of all the major sources for the New Testament and when they are dated. Granting a little leeway, the number of sources from the period being discussed is 8. That is it, 8 sources. Yet Apologetics 315 is telling us that they were copied and circulated widely. Those 8 sources are also fragments. None of them are a complete book. If you are truly interested in why there were not a lot of copies made, read the Biblical Manuscript page I just linked. The basics are, the church had to hire scribes to copy and this was very expensive.

The majority of scholars date the Gospels between 30 and 70 years after the death of Jesus.14 Scholarly opinion varies on the dating, but the fact of the circulation of the Gospels is not disputed. As Barnett observes, “Although no one can say exactly when the Gospels were written, we can say with certainty the dates by which they were in circulation.”15 The early circulation and authorship make the Gospel documents the earliest historical manuscripts available for events of their period.

No one can say exactly when the Gospels were written, that is true. They have narrowed it down to within a few years. Mark was written first around 65 to 70 CE. Luke and Matthew were next around 70 to 100 CE. John was written around 90 to 110 CE. They were in wide circulation by the mid 2nd century, so around 150 CE. Not sure how this helps their case.

That last sentence is just false. Josephus' two major works were written around 75 CE and 90 CE. Tacitus wrote his works around the late 90's and early 100's.

The time gap between the originals and the first surviving copies is around 25 years.16

There is a fragment of John, dated between 125 and 160 CE. That is the only thing that even comes close to this claim. Although the Apologetics 315 makes it sound like it is a complete copy of all the Gospels. It is not. Papyrus 52 is the name of the fragment. It contains 5 partial verses from John 18. That is all. The 25 years is if you claim John written around 100 CE and the papyrus around 125 CE.

Geisler and Turek state that the New Testament documents “have more manuscripts, earlier manuscripts, and more abundantly supported manuscripts than the best ten pieces of classical literature combined.”17

Logical fallacy alert! This is a False Analogy or sometimes called Comparing Apples and Oranges. There is a reason for the religious preserve religious writings, not so much for classical literature enthusiasts. Instead they should compare the Hindu Vedas or the Koran.

Due to the extensive copying and propagation of the Gospel writings, scholars now have over 5,700 manuscripts that contain some portion of the New Testament. Roberts points out that “Among these manuscripts, a couple thousand contain all or portions of the biblical Gospels.”18 This abundance of manuscripts is astounding when compared to the available manuscripts for other ancient writings of the same period. “The number of Gospel manuscripts in existence is about 20 times larger than the average number of extant manuscripts of comparable writings.”19

Didn't we just go over all this? That most of those copies are from much later. That comparing religious texts to non-religious text is comparing apples to oranges.

Princeton textual critic Bruce Metzger and New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman elaborate on the wealth of New Testament manuscript evidence:

Besides textual evidence derived from the New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early Church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.20

I know I have read more of this quote from Ehrman about discrepancies between what the church fathers wrote, but I cannot find it. It is true we can recreate the new testament from the writings of the early leaders. Some even from the late 2nd and early 3rd Century.

The abundance of manuscripts is a key element in testing the reliability of the Gospels. Not all manuscripts are exactly the same. Some manuscripts are complete, while others only contain fragments. Among these manuscripts, some contain variant readings of the texts. These variants, however, rarely affect the meaning of the text.

This last sentence is just a lie. There are quite a few variants that completely change the meaning of text, that was the whole purpose of the variant. Earlier he used Marcion to confirm Luke as the author of Luke. The book Marcion called Luke looked nothing like the book we call Luke today. That is because Marcion was anti-Semitic and a gnostic.

As Roberts points out:

“If you were to take two different teams of text critics and ask them to work independently on a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, they would agree more than 99 percent of the time…having many manuscripts actually increases the likelihood of our getting back to the original text.”21

Wow, yet another lie. This has actually been done. Kurt and Barbara Alund in their book The Text Of The New Testament compared the 7 major Greek versions of the new testament. They came up with this graph from Wikipedia. You will notice that over the entire New Testament the seven copies agreed 62.9%, that is actually quite impressive. Notice though that the main areas of disagreement were the Gospels and Revelations. Mark being disagreed upon the most with 10.3 major variations per page. This completely refutes Roberts hypothetical.

It is the great quantity of manuscripts that allows for the crosschecking of the manuscripts with one another, filtering out errant readings. According to text critic Daniel Wallace, only about 1% of the textual variants make any substantive difference, with Roberts noting that “few, if any, of these have any bearing on theologically important matters.”22 In other words, the number of manuscripts for the Gospels reveals that any variant readings make no difference in the meaning of the text. The Gospels stand up to the scrutiny of textual criticism.

Go back and read what I just wrote. Apologetics 315 is just making stuff up now.

Were There Other Gospels?
Recent popular fiction and conspiracy documentaries seem to have raised awareness of “alternative Gospels” among the general public. Although it is true that there are other documents that can be called “gospels,” it should be noted that these so-called “gospels” bear little resemblance to the biblical Gospels.

I guess that is why they were taken seriously when voted on to make up the Bible. Most were considered heretical and thus why there was a vote for what was canon. Here go to Wikipedia and read about the heresies and canonization. There is just so much wrong here that I cannot possibly cover it all.

These gospels are referred to as the apocryphal gospels, meaning hidden writings. These would include such writings as The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Thomas, and a number of others. A cursory examination of the apocryphal gospels tends to strengthen the case for the reliability of the biblical Gospels.

Actually apocryphal means of dubious authenticity, not hidden writings. Those are a list of some of the New Testament Apocrypha.

How they strengthen, I have not a clue, as they show that there were a lot of writings about Jesus that were simply made up or not in line with what the church leaders said in 325 CE.

First, the apocryphal gospels are dated much later than the biblical Gospels. They came much later – most scholars agreeing on dates in the second or third century. Unlike the biblical Gospels, the apocryphal writings were self-titled – obviously in an attempt to gain credibility, as their writing postdates the death of their purported authors. Roberts tells us “Almost no scholar believes that the extrabiblical Gospels were actually written by their purported authors.”23

Yes, much later, like the second century as opposed to late first century early second century. Something like 30 to 70 years after the others. This sounds familiar...

Yes, self titled by other people because they didn't know who wrote them and wanted to give them authority. I am getting a strong sense of déjà vu here.

None were probably written by the claimed authors. Damn still can't shake that feeling of familiarity...

Second, the other gospels were not historical narratives like the biblical Gospels. The Gnostics were a contemporaneous sect of mystics professing themselves to be keepers of “special knowledge,” and many of the alternative gospels were clearly written from a Gnostic point of view. With their mystical tone, emphasis on secret sayings, and esoteric nature, the Gnostic writings show no substance of historical narrative. In this regard, they do not match the style and content of the biblical Gospels. What narrative does occur includes stories of Jesus’ mystical boyhood miracles and his secret conversations with the apostles after his resurrection. They rely on the biblical Gospels for their context, often filling in the “untold” stories of Jesus’ life. Whereas the miracles of the biblical Gospels are presented plainly, the apocryphal gospels contain embellished accounts of miracles without any particular purpose.

Yes, none were narratives. Well I mean The Gospel of Thomas, a gnostic text, just give a list of quotes from Jesus. The book that never claimed to be written by Judas called the Gospel of Judas was another gnostic text. It tells a story of Jesus through Judas but that is nothing like the canon Gospels.

There are so many Apocrypha that this claim is just ridiculous. Several were very similar to the canon Gospels. History is written by winners.

Finally, the apocryphal gospels failed to edify the church. In the history of the canon of the New Testament, the second-century Christian writer and theologian Tatian authored his Diatessaron. In writing the Diatessaron (from a musical term meaning harmony of four), Tatian’s goal was to combine the four Gospels into one complete whole. As Metzger puts it, “The Diatessaron supplies proof that all four Gospels were regarded as authoritative, otherwise it is unlikely that Tatian would have dared to combine them into one Gospel account.”24 Although Tatian’s Diatessaron was eventually rejected in favor of the original and authoritative four, it should be noted that he didn’t choose among the apocrypha. Metzger continues: “…it is certainly significant that Tatian selected just these four…”25 The four biblical Gospels were accepted immediately; the apocryphal gospels came much later and were considered more heretical than beneficial.

No, they didn't reflect the beliefs of the majority of the group in control at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Where they voted on things like the trinity and whether Jesus was merely a human or all God (that debate was settled with a compromise). There were sects during the period of the early church that didn't even believe Jesus had been human at all (Docetism).

The whole Tation thing is a red herring (another logical fallacy). It has nothing to do with the claim that the apocrypha did not edify the church.

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, published a list of authoritative writings that contained all of the books of the New Testament. In A.D. 367 he wrote concerning the apocryphal gospels and their shortcomings:

[N]or is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.26

In summary, the other gospels did not prove to be genuine in the eyes of their first audiences. Those closest to the Gospel message and the apostles, the early Church fathers, rejected their authorship and denounced their teachings. These false gospels failed the test of antiquity due to their late authorship. They were not copied due to their lack of impact with Christian believers, and they had no seal of apostolic authority. When compared with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the other gospels pale in comparison. In short, the apocryphal gospels failed to be reliable historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

A guy several hundred years after says that the apocrypha don't agree with what he voted on as canon for Christianity. Color me impressed.

Obviously they did appeal to a large mass of people or they wouldn't have been written and distributed. They also wouldn't have been written about by Paul as being heretical.

Conclusion
We see that the Gospels we have today were written very early by trusted sources. Their readers received them as the authoritative account of the life of Jesus Christ. Because of this, they were copied and preserved more than any other ancient writing. The abundance of manuscripts show that there is virtually no difference between what was originally written and what we have today. Other false gospels were rejected because they failed to show themselves to be genuine historical accounts. In conclusion, the New Testament Gospels can be trusted as reliable historical records of Jesus.

Yeah, uh huh.

1 Mark D. Roberts, Can We Trust the Gospels (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), pp. 84-86.
2 Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), p. 240.
3 Ibid., pp. 91-92.
4 Paul W. Barnett, Is The New Testament Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 15.
5 F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 132.
6 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978-1980).
7 Roberts, p. 43.
8 Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), p. 136.
9 Roberts, pp. 48-49.
10 Ibid., p. 49.
11 Bruce, p. 55.
12 Ibid., p. 118.
13 Barnett, p. 45.
14 Ibid., p. 58.
15 Ibid., p. 39.
16 Normal Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), p. 225.
17 Ibid.
18 Roberts, p. 31.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., p. 32., citing Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 126.
21 Roberts, p. 33.
22 Ibid., p. 34., citing Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006), p. 56.
23 Ibid., p. 40.
24 Metzger, p. 115.
25 Ibid.
26 Roberts, p. 179., citing Athanasius, Festal Letter for Easter 367 A.D., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978-1979).

Apologetics 315

I promised Da Bomb I would check this site out, so that is what I am doing. This is about the blog known as Apologetics 315 and specifically their post entitled A Case for Gospel Reliability.

The four New Testament Gospels represent perhaps the most significant historical accounts in all of antiquity: the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospels are a primary source of Christian faith and tradition. The truth or falsity of these ancient narratives carries significant and far-reaching implications. If the Gospel records are false, Christianity crumbles (1 Cor. 15:16-17). However, if the Gospel records are true, the authority of Jesus Christ is confirmed. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to show that the Gospels we have today are trustworthy historical accounts, and represent an accurate rendering of the original writings. In short, this paper will make a brief case for the reliability of the Gospels.

Okay so far so good. I agree, if the Gospel records are false then Christianity falls apart. No need to invoke the Bible for evidence of that, especially since that is what you are trying to prove.

What Are the Gospels?
The Gospels are written documents that contain historical, biographical, and theological elements. Many scholars find it difficult to classify the Gospels into any particular literary genre, as they do not fit with any specific modern style.

Well of course. They are not modern works. No person with any training would try to fit a 2000 year old book into a modern category.

However, according to the standards of their day, the Gospels most closely resemble Hellenistic biographies, which were essentially partial biographies that emphasized key parts of the subject’s life.

Hellenistic means the period of greatest influence for the Greeks. This is roughly about 323 BCE to anywhere from 146 BCE to 30 BCE. The only place I am finding any mention of Hellenistic biographies is on Christian apologetic sites. If we look at Ancient Greek Literature on Wikipedia there is no mention of biographies. Not that Wikipedia is the end all be all of information, far from it. I am just not finding anything that talks about Hellenistic biographies or compares the Gospels to any style of writing anywhere, except at apologetic sites.

As a literary category, Hellenistic biographies were considered historical narratives with the intention of teaching, exhorting, and improving their readers.1

The one means this is from Mark D. Roberts' book "Can We Trust the Gospels?" Roberts has a PhD in religious study from Harvard. I have been looking through the program to determine where textual criticism would apply in his degree. Everything about his degree can be found on Harvard's School of Arts and Science page.

New Testament Professor Craig Blomberg points out that “The Gospels may well differ from every other piece of literature in the history of writing but that does not permit one to treat them as unhistorical accounts of the events and people they choose to describe.”2

So now they aren't like Hellenistic biographies and actually not like any other type of story? So how does this help support what the writer was saying earlier or what he will say next? The quote is right, how they wrote says nothing about what they wrote about.

Understanding the literary genre of the Gospels is key if one is to rightly judge their accuracy and reliability. Dr. Mark D. Roberts explains the importance of understanding the nature of the Gospels:

The Gospel writers functioned in the mode of the biography and history writers of their day. This means they were permitted greater freedom in certain matters than would be granted to modern biographers and historians. Paraphrasing or rephrasing statements and speeches was acceptable, as was arranging events in thematic rather than chronological order. When we evaluate the New Testament Gospels in their own literary and cultural context, we can understand how reliable they are and the ways in which they are reliable.3

Quoting Mark Roberts again. This time about how the style of the Gospels was like biographies of the time. This is immediately after quoting Blomberg saying that the Gsopels are like no writing style. These two statements contradict each other.

Ignoring the contradiction, Roberts is saying here that the author could and often did fudge what was actually said into something that is more fitting. That is what paraphrasing and rephrasing means. How this helps prove the truth of the Bible is beyond me. This states they rearranged the truth to a more fitting story at times. People today call that lying or a fish story. So at this point Mark Roberts has proven my point, that it is possible that there was a prophet named Jesus but the stories about him are not true.

The Gospels should also be understood as their authors intended them. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each had their own perspective, audience, and purpose in writing their accounts. If today’s reader were to apply modern biographical standards to the writing, he would be committing the error of anachronism: attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong.

Yet we are constantly told they apply today. I think fundamentalists make the mistake of non-context far more often than atheists.

New Testament historian Dr. Paul Barnett explains, “…it would be unreasonable to measure [the Gospels] by modern canons of history writing. They are good products of their age and take their place with the best historical writing of that era, in particular the works of Luke in his Gospel and book of Acts.”4

So what does that mean? Does that mean they are completely accurate? Does that mean you can trust what they say? I can't find much about Paul Barnett. Just that he is the Anglican Bishop of North Sydney. He does have PhD in theology and has written on a historical Jesus.

Speaking of historical writings of the era, Tacitus comments on some spooky sounds coming from an island and makes no mention of Jesus or his miracles. The lack of any corroborating sources is the most damaging thing to the Gospels. So damaging that phrases were added by scribes in later years to contemporaries of the Gospels, such as Tacitus and Josephus.

The first-century audience reading the Gospels had no difficulty understanding their literal nature, their historical claims, and the fact that they had a theological message to convey. They did not regard the narratives as myth or legend, as the events that were being reported were recent, with eyewitnesses of the events still alive to vouch for the truth of the accounts. The reader of the Gospels took them as direct historical accounts of real people, places, and events. Because of this, the Gospels were accepted at face value and were highly regarded by their audiences, becoming authoritative documents for the early church.

This is all just assertion. He is not backing any of this up with evidence. Why is there not more eye witness recordings of the events then? There was no Bible during the early church. People relied on stories being told to them and in some cases letters of these stories. These letters were what were to become the Bible. In other words the gospels were tracts to be read to convert people. If there were really a bunch of eye witnesses to the claims of the Bible then we would expect there to be a bunch of testimonies not just a handful.

Distinguished Biblical scholar F.F. Bruce explains, “The Gospel collection was authoritative because it preserved the words of Jesus, than whom the church knew no higher authority.”5

The church of course still claims Jesus is the highest authority but that does not stand to reason that they remembered exactly what he said some 30+ years after he said it. Nothing was written down until 65 CE at best. I went to TAM7 a month ago and I can maybe paraphrase some things, but there is no way I would even come close to remembering all the details of the weekend or of even all things discussed between ORAC and I at the Penn & Teller show (we sat next to each other). Yet the idea is that these supposed eye witnesses remembered whole sermons 30 to 70 years after. We are not talking some weekend either but of a couple of years of travel to be remembered. I am barely over 30 now, so there are no memories I can really go back far enough to try and remember. I remember bits and pieces out of grade school but nothing anyone said specifically. I remember the names of a few kids I hung around with, but I doubt I could make an accurate retelling of my grade school experiences. I don't even remember all my teachers' names. If somebody told me something specific that happened in grade school, I couldn't argue with it because I wouldn't actually know if it happened or not even being an eyewitness.

Who Wrote the Gospels?

There is only one correct answer to this and that is "we don't know".

The authors of the Gospels originally wrote their accounts anonymously; the authors did not title their works with, “The Gospel according to…”

Off to a good start here.

However, church tradition strongly affirms an early unanimity on the authorship of the Gospels. Around A.D. 130 the Church father Papias refers to Mark as the author of a Gospel.

Yes, because a church leader says it is Mark, 60 years after it was written, then it must be Mark. So now how did Papias know this? Well he gave an unnamed source only referring to it as the Presbyters. To quote Papias:

I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.

It seems he didn't even trust what was being written down at the time...

Marcion mentions Luke’s authorship as early as A.D. 130. Around A.D. 180 the Church father Irenaeus refers to Matthew as the author of the Gospel that now bears his name.

Again, someone comes along 60 years later and says they were written by these men. That makes it trustworthy. Marcion was kicked out of the church and labeled a heretic. He was one of the first gnostics. Irenaeus made his claim in opposition to Marcion. Marcion used a version of Luke that is nothing like what we have today and claimed it was the only true Gospel. Irenaeus was countering this claim by saying the 4 books of the Gospel were canonical. It seems to me it would be unreasonable to quote these men out of the context of their time (this sounds like something that was said earlier...).

If Matthew wrote Matthew, he wrote it entirely in third person. Never once does he say I when talking about himself. Nor does he say anything like "Jesus and I".

Internal evidence from the Gospel of John makes a strong case for his authorship.

No, it makes a strong case that the same person wrote John, 1st John, 2nd John and 3rd John. It makes zero case that the person was John the disciple. If it was John the disciple he would have been around 90 years old at best when he wrote it. My grandfather is a sharp man at 90 years old, but if he started to tell me specifics about what people said during WWII I would want some corroborating evidence.

Friendly reminder, the education level of educated people was far lower than what we consider educated today. Most of the disciples were not educated.

Next he quotes Irenaeus, which I have already covered.

According to Roberts, “ancient tradition is almost unanimous in attributing the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.”7 The early Church fathers had direct contact with the apostles, and this strongly supports the reliably of their testimony. The early Church father Origen affirmed that “…the Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ‘are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven.’”8

What Roberts is doing is a logical fallacy. Specifically Ad Populum or Appeal to Popularity. He is also somewhat combining it with Appeal to Tradition. Just because they are traditionally believed by the majority does not make them right. Special creation was traditionally believed by almost every scientist to be how life on earth was started, that means special creation is right. No it does not.

The next claim is that early christian fathers had direct contact with the apostles so they must be right. Considering that Paul never physically met Jesus and pretty much took over Christianity, to the point of telling Peter that Peter was wrong about what Jesus was teaching. It seems that someone could easily add whatever they wanted to Christianity. There was no governing body over the early church. The best example is Marcion, mentioned earlier. He created the Gnostic church and claimed that only the Book of Luke and the letters of Paul were right. Marcion had many followers, these same people that are being claimed to have known the apostles and known the truth. Marcion is one of only many sects of Christianity during the years of the early church. Bart Ehrman goes over these sects in his book Lost Christianities. This was the whole point of the First Council of Niceae, to vote on a uniform doctrine of Christianity. It is naive to think that there was only one form of Christianity in the early church, yet that is what this article is claiming.

As for Origen, he was born in 185 CE well after anyone living during the time of Jesus had passed away.

It is highly unlikely that the authorship of the Gospels would be falsified.

Why? Authorship gives it authority, especially if it is a supposed eyewitness or someone writing for an eyewitness. Which is the claim of the two non-eyewitness testimonies.

Some would suggest that the authorship was attributed later simply in an attempt to add authority to the writings.

Yes it would. Do you believe someone posting anonymously or someone posting with a recognizable name. Even if they aren't an eyewitness but just know the eyewitnesses. Isn't this what the author is trying to prove, that the gospels have the authority of eyewitnesses?

However, Roberts shows that this theory falls short:

Two of the biblical Gospels were named after relatively inconsequential characters who did not actually know Jesus in the flesh. If you were some second-century Christian wanting to make up an author for a Gospel, you would never choose Mark, even if he was believed to have been a companion of Peter. And you would never choose Luke because he had no direct connection to Jesus at all… If second-century Christians were fabricating traditional authorship for the canonical Gospels, surely they could have done a better job.9

Although Mark and Luke did not directly know Jesus, they had access to those who did.

Well except for the fact that Luke claims to not be an eyewitness, that kind of would throw a monkey wrench in claiming it to be written by an eyewitness. There is also the fact that most of the disciples were illiterate. This is all conjecture and proves nothing in the end.

This still makes me laugh. The blogger is trying to refute the idea that the names were given to the gospels to give them authority and at the same time trying to claim the authority of gospels through the authors. You can't have it both ways.

In addition, it is likely that Matthew and John were actual eyewitnesses of the events they record and knew Jesus personally. Yet, Roberts rightly concludes: “…the reliability of the Gospels does not depend upon who wrote them so much as on the nature and purpose of the writings themselves.”10

Just a bald assertion, no evidence to back up this claim that Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. I will ask again why did Matthew write completely in third person. The problems with John the disciple as an author are similar to Matthew. You can read about them on the Wikipedia page on the Gospel of John.

If the authorship does not matter then why write so much about it? The truth is the authorship does matter as it lends authority. If the manuscripts are just anonymous then there is no way to know anything about Jesus or his life. The manuscripts are anonymous.

I am going to stop here for this post and cover the rest later, probably tomorrow.

Here is the references numbered from above:

1 Mark D. Roberts, Can We Trust the Gospels (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), pp. 84-86.
2 Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), p. 240.
3 Ibid., pp. 91-92.
4 Paul W. Barnett, Is The New Testament Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 15.
5 F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 132.
6 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978-1980).
7 Roberts, p. 43.
8 Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), p. 136.
9 Roberts, pp. 48-49.
10 Ibid., p. 49.

The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Da Bomb from Pilgrimage Blog asked me to review these videos of the truthfulness of the New Testament. They are composed by Josh McDowell, who is selling a book. These videos are supposed to be a small part of the book.

First the man on the street thing is not an accurate representation of what is being done in Textual Criticism. It is not even an accurate view of what most people think, just of the people they interviewed and used in the video.

The first video, he really says nothing. He makes a claim about what young people say but that is still not evidence.

The second video. It starts out talking about papyrus and its fragile nature. This is true. It is a plant and without the proper treatment, which they didn't have at the time of its use, it will rot and decay. He then references a story about an archeologist finding a book of the Bible and holding it to the light where it is destroyed. Well who is the archeologist? It is a neat story but what kind of archeologist is stupid enough to not take care of papyrus when they find it. That is very amateurish.

He keeps using the phrase bibliographic test, I tried looking this up and it only comes up on Christian websites. What he describes are part of the process used in textual criticism but not all of it.

Comparing classical literature to religious documents is comparing apples to oranges. Religious documents are more important to the followers than other forms of literature. Also he claims that we have copies from 50-60CE, but he does not cite what they are. Instead he cites documents from 125CE and later. Codex Sinaiticus is known to be written in the 4th Century or in the 300CE. Notice he didn't mention when it was written. The same goes with Codex Vaticanus, again 4th century. Here is a list on Wiki of each source and when it is dated. Notice there is very little in the early years, it is not until the 9th century and later do the large numbers show up.

He also seems to be making the claim the original documents were written during Jesus' time. I have never heard anyone say that. Again the beginning of Luke it admits that is a story handed down to the writer. Plus how many of the Disciples could read and write? At best one, more than likely zero.

Josh is talking about the number of documents. All the copies have errors, every single one of them. He makes the claim that we know we have the originals because we have a bunch of copies with errors. Well that is just false. The Wiki list, I cited earlier, also notes that we have between 200,000 to 300,000 variations of the New Testament alone. We can't know that we have it exactly like the original. A good example is that scholars believed the story of the adulterous woman and Jesus in the book of John was part of the original for a long time. In recent years some older texts were found, some around 200CE, that showed the story was not in John originally. Yet it is still placed in most Bibles. So without having originals we can't know for certain we have good copies. Instead all we know is we have the majority consensus on what was taught at the time of the last big group of copies.

He goes back to comparing apples and oranges. People put a greater emphasis on the Bible because of its claims. If Caesar had claimed he was the son of Jupiter and he died and came back to life, then yes there would be a lot more scrutiny as to its truthfulness. Caesar does not make this claim. Plus we have archeological evidence that Rome conquered Europe. I have walked down streets built by the Romans in England, and have touched the pavement stones they used in the streets. There is more to it than just the one book about Caesar and the Gallic War.

He is still comparing apples and oranges, there is more to it than just manuscripts and how close they are to the source. Also the claims of each are far different than the Bible.

Video 3: He talks of the early church fathers about copying of scriptures. This is true. Those also contradict with some of the copies we have found. Also the writings of the early church fathers are considered as part of the source for the New Testament. Notice also those early church fathers were before the Council of Nicaea in 325CE where it was voted on what the church should teach. The first official Bible was pieced together from the various writings circulating in 382CE.

Josh again makes the claim that what we have is what was written down originally. He does not know that, nor can he know that.

He skips over that the earliest copy of a Gospel we have is 200CE and that is a single fragmentary copy of John. Most of them the oldest we have is around 250CE.

He is now claiming the Truthfulness of the Gospel. At least he is not claiming Luke is an eyewitness, but he is claiming that the others are. He is claiming Theophilus hired Luke. notice he does not cover who Theophilus is. Theophilus is a title, it just means friend of God, it in no way tells us if it was an eyewitness or not. Luke, like Matthew, copies a lot from Mark. Luke was also written around 60CE, this is known because Luke did not write about the death of James in 62CE or the fall of the temple in 70CE.

Josh starts to just making assertions without evidence. He is claiming that the early church people knew Jesus, so that any story that came out that was not true would be called out on. Where does he get this idea? Matthew makes the claim that people rose from the grave when Jesus died and that these people were seen by many. Where is this recorded anywhere else? Where are Jesus' miracles recorded anywhere else? If something like that happened, it wouldn't be in just one book. It would be something talked about by everyone, yet it seems confined to one book, and really only one book of the Bible.

He admits that Mark is not an eyewitness. First off, we don't know who wrote Mark. The name was given to it, because people thought it was Mark the evangelist that wrote it. Now there is some evidence that it was a disciple of Peter that wrote Mark. It is still unknown. Josh is making the comment that it was written by someone scribing for Peter. If that is true, then Peter would have signed off on it and it would be known as Peter. Letters written by Paul were transcribed, but Paul signed them and sent them to the churches. Most of the oldest manuscripts from the Bible are Paulian letters. We attribute these writings to Paul not the scribe.

Next he talks of an attorney that wrote a book, and claimed that Mark would be considered an eye witness. Without reading her book, I can only make guesses as to what her standard of evidence was on who wrote Mark. I would venture the guess that she makes the claim as Josh does here that he was a scribe for Peter. There is no evidence for this. At best the writer of Mark may have been a disciple of Peter.

Josh proceeds to quote 1 John to verify the truth of the Bible. Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible, I believe that is circular reasoning. 1 John is traditionally attributed to John and it seems to be the same writer as the Gospel of John, 2 John and 3 John. It was written around 100-110CE. If it was written by John he would have been very old. Again we actually do not know who wrote it.

Again he uses the Bible to prove the Bible in referencing 2 Peter. Really, Peter denies that they made up stories, shocking. I am sure Mohammad denied making up stories also. I know Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon religion, claimed he did not make anything up.

Josh knows it was the truth because the disciples died for it. Do of Heaven's Gate cult died for the story he made up. Joseph Smith of the Mormons was also martyred for his beliefs. Just because they died for it, does not make it true.

I love his theatrics, like he is trying to recall the verse off the top of his head instead of this all being scripted. He now quotes John 20:30-31, where it talks of the many other signs. These signs are never recorded by anyone, other than in the Bible. Why would no one else write about these things? That just does not make sense. Technically these other signs aren't even recorded in the Bible. John just states they existed.

Video 4. This starts off with another man on the street style interviews about whether religion could be proven in a court of law. Even though I agree with the people, are any of them lawyers? Are any of them textual critics? I am going to guess possibly to the first. No to the second question. This proves or disproves nothing.

The first thing Josh says is that all the evidence for the Bible can be found in the Bible. Corroborating evidence is what most people rely on. Josh still claims that the Gospels are eyewitnesses. Notice he lays no proof out for this, just makes the claim. He has said nothing about Matthew or John. In fact all he has done is pointed out that Luke and Mark are not eyewitnesses. He then proceeds to quote the writer of Luke, who also wrote Acts, in Acts about how the disciples saw Jesus for 40 days after he had arisen. That Jesus performed miracles for them. Yeah, that would fly in court, that is not hearsay at all. Josh again claims that Luke recorded an eyewitness account. That cannot ever be confirmed. Luke even says he just looked at the reports from eyewitnesses, not that he even talked to eyewitnesses. Let's go back and actually look at Luke 1:1-4

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

First note the [a]. This is the NIV translation. The word fulfilled could easily be translated as 'been surely believed'. So he starts out saying, 'Hey, this is what we believe' not 'what happened'.

Next he says as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. What he is saying is these are stories passed down mainly orally to them. It does not say he is getting these directly from eye witnesses.

Then it says he is writing them for Theophilus, not scribing them like Josh claims, but writing them down so that he will have an account. There is nothing in here that allows you to claim Luke was scribing for an eyewitness.

Now Josh is claiming that they presented this before people that knew Jesus personally. I don't know where he is getting that from. There is no evidence for this. In fact these stories were not written to be part of the same book. Instead they were written to help spread the faith, so that others could learn of Jesus. These were the equivalent of gospel tracks today.

Acts 2 is the story of the Day of Pentecost and the first anointing of the Holy Spirit, according to the Bible. This says nothing to validity of what is written. There is no evidence that the person that wrote Luke even talked to eye witnesses. Josh is just stating this is all facts because they are eye witnesses yet he has done nothing to prove they are. So his whole premise, is that it is an eye witness and because of that then it must be true. Since it is true, then people must have known of the miracles, although no one else wrote of miracles. He is being semi-logical based on his premise, but his premise is wrong. He has not shown sufficient evidence that Luke/Acts is an eye witness account and not just a story that was passed down.

Video 5: Again using Acts 26, he is still not proving his premise that Acts is an eye witness.

Josh states that he believes what is written in the Bible is what Jesus said and did. Awesome, you can believe whatever you want, that does not make true. Nor does really wishing and hoping make it true. He is claiming the community was there for these miracles, but were they? There is no evidence of that. Josh keeps making this claim and does not back it up with anything. This is really starting to annoy me. If he could prove that these are the same people that supposedly followed Jesus, now some 30 to 80 years after his death then he has something. Just stating it over and over again does not make it true.

He now references Paul statement that Christ appeared to over 500 people after his death and that the majority of them were alive during Paul's time. Okay, who were they? Paul gives no names or where to find any of them. Paul just makes this assertion and goes on. This is not evidence. I can claim over 1,000,000 people witnessed my friend Steve walk on water. That makes it true. Wait, no it doesn't, you would want the names of these people and where it happened to see if I am telling the truth. Apparently, Josh thinks we should just take Paul's word on it.

Now he is claiming dieing as a martyr makes what you said true. I hope that Josh will convert to the cult of Heaven's Gate, David Koresh's cult, the People's Temple or in the very least the Mormon church. As all their leaders were martyred or killed themselves for their beliefs. This is why the martyr card doesn't work.

He just used an appeal to authority, citing Robert Greenleaf a philosopher, saying that the apostles suffered the most painful death without denying their stance. I am not even going to look up whether Greenleaf said it or not, because it doesn't matter. Greenleaf is not an expert on religious history or torture history. His opinions are just that his opinions, what Greenleaf and Josh need to do is prove the statement. But even then it is not proof that the apostles were telling the truth.

Josh uses another false analogy, when comparing Watergate and the idea the disciples made everything up. With Watergate, what was being covered up was nasty and the lies to cover up hurt a lot of people. Christianity on the other hand makes most people feel good about themselves. People are less inclined to question something they agree with and feel good about than they are something that does not. Plus the changes in technology between Watergate and the writing of the Bible are more than just significantly different.

Wait, he is now pointing out that a lot of people have died for a lie. He is saying that those people that died for a lie thought it was the truth. Well no shit, you can say the same about the disciples. You can convince yourself of your own lies. Again I will point to Do, David Koresh, Jim Jones and Joseph Smith. All these men died for lies they themselves made up.

More man on the street interviews, these serve no purpose.

Video 6. Josh is just making a straw man. Jews do not believe the messiah will die, that is one of the many reasons they reject Jesus. Now he is claiming that the leaders declared Israel itself was the messiah, again that holds no water, because there is a very specific check list for the messiah. Jesus, at best, fulfilled the line of David requirement and that is it. You can question that as the two differing lines are both from Joseph (Yes, I know the claim is one is from Mary, but where is the evidence for that? Plus the two stories were not written to be side by side, they were stories for new churches and fliers for new believers.) Rabbi Shraga Simmons points out all this on his About page, Ask the Rabbi. Covered in that is what Josh is trying to explain, the suffering servant.

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.
Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.
From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."

Josh is still beating away on his strawman. Claiming that Jews believe they as whole took the sins of the world on them, utter bullshit. If that was true there would be no need for atonement of sins as the Jews still practice (Teshuvah).

Cool, this video turns into a smut film with some scenes of Jesus death.

Josh is still quoting the New Testament like it was truth, then using that to prove it is true.

Sorry Da Bomb, I am still not convinced, because I don't stand by his premise that the Gospels are eye witnesses and perfect eye witness accounts at that. Which is what everything he said hinges on. He does nothing to prove the premise. I am not paying to get proof of the "Truth". If my soul is truly in peril and he has the answer he should be giving it away not making money off of it. This sounds similar to selling animals for offerings in the temple. I believe that was frowned upon in the stories contained in his "Truth"