10 not-so-tough questions to atheists: My answers to J. Warner Wallace

 Bob Seidensticker posted 10 "tough" questions for atheists over at patheos.com

Here is my point-by-point answer:

No one can demand a proof that God does (or doesn’t) exist, 

 That's not biblical.  Nothing could be more obvious than the fact that story characters in the bible were given plenty of "proof" for God's existence, such as the parting of the Red Sea,

  22 The sons of Israel went through the midst of the sea on the dry land, and the waters were like a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. (Exod. 14:22 NAU)

 Elijah's bout with the prophets at Mt. Carmel:

   37 "Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that You, O LORD, are God, and that You have turned their heart back again."
 38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. (1 Ki. 18:37-38 NAU)

  Isaiah inviting King Ahaz to demand a sign from God:

 10 Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
 11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven."
 (Isa. 7:10-11 NAU)

 ------------------------

but where does the evidence point? Following the evidence without bias is the best we can hope to do.

Without trying to sound pretentious, being without bias is an impossible state of mind.  The best we can hope to do is suppress our biases to the point that they do not taint our evaluation of the evidence.  But at the same time, some biases are good.  Your bias against the possibility of levitation by mental power alone will serve you well when you need to decide whether to believe such a report from a stranger on a bus. 

A number of apologists defend Christianity with the thinking of a courtroom lawyer or detective.

 Which is not a good idea since the canonical gospel manuscripts we still have, come from unknown provenance, and thus fail element # 3 of the admissibility test of the "ancient documents rule"

 One of these is J. Warner Wallace. In his essay “The Christian Worldview is the Best Explanation”* he gives ten tough questions to which he claims Christianity has the better answer. Let’s take a look.
1. How Did the Universe Come Into Being?
Our universe had a beginning, but what caused it? Why is there something instead of nothing?

  Then apparently he doesn't approach Christian defense like a courtroom lawyer, since what he said justifies the hearer to respond "Objection, compound question", and "Objection, states facts not in evidence."
Wallace is blindly presuming the universe had a beginning and touts the Big Bang.  I am one of those atheists who believe the universe is infinite in size and scope, and the process of starts beginning and ending stretches back into the infinite past.  The Big Bang is easily falsifiable on its merits.  It has the Andromeda Galaxy during a full u-turn, and the BB needs the utterly ad hoc and unproven "dark matter" to keep it alive.

 2. Why Does There Appear to Be Design (Fine Tuning) in the Universe?
The constants that govern our universe appear to be remarkably fine-tuned to allow life. What explains that if not a supernatural intelligence?

 I disagree that fine-tuning exists.  It's no coincidence that we only find oxygen-based life forms living where there's oxygen.  Damp attics were not "fine-tuned" for mold, mold is just the natural result, given the physical conditions, if an attic in normal conditions remains damp for several days.

 If someone is closed minded to the evidence, I agree that that’s a problem. However, I’m happy to follow the evidence where it leads. 

 Christians are forbidden by the bible to do anything with oppositions of science "falsely so-called", beyond "avoiding" them.  1st Timothy 6:20 destroys millions of tons of Christian works in the last 2,000 years that attempted to deal with such oppositions of science.  All creationists who busy themselves "refuting evolution" are violating their own bible.

 3. How Did Life Originate?

  Since God is infinitely complex, Occam's Razor would require that any naturalistic explanation is going to be infinitely more likely true than "god-did-it".  That entails that supernatural explanations for origin of life must be demonstrated to be infinitely better than naturalistic explanations, before they can rationally obligate the hearer. 

Argument # 1 against the apostles being "mightily" transformed by the resurrected Jesus: Their rejection of the Great Commission

Assuming the gospels are historically accurate, the resurrected Jesus specified that the apostles themselves were to preach the gospel to the Gentiles:

 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt. 28:18-20 NAU)

Jesus reminded them later of this same Commission:

 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." (Acts 1:8 NAU)

But there is evidence in the NT that these original apostles were never told any such thing.

In Acts 10:24 ff, Peter has table fellowship with Gentile believer Cornelius.

In Acts 11, the "apostles and brethren" who were circumcized (i.e., the Jewish ones) are agitated with Peter for having done this:

 1 Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him,
 3 saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them." (Acts 11:1-3 NAU)

After Peter explains his infamously bizarre vision of a sheet let down from heaven by four corners, full of wild beasts (11:4-17), these apostles and brethren then "quiet down" (so their agitation with Peter's Gentile-association was inflamed to a high degree) and they then speak about Gentile salvation as if it was some unexpected shocking theological development that, without special divine revelation, they would never have guessed was part of the gospel:

 18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." (Acts 11:18 NAU)

This anti-Gentile sentiment among the apostles was so strong that even after this point, Acts goes on to say that while a few "men of Cyprus and Cyrene" began to preach to Gentiles, most of the apostles and brethren chose to speak the Word to nobody except Jews:

 19 So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone.
 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus.
 (Acts 11:19-20 NAU)

Worse, some years later, Paul specifies that Peter James and John chose to limit their ministry to Jews alone, and allocate the entire Gentile mission-field to Paul alone:

  9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (Gal. 2:9 NAU)  

How can you agree with popular apologists like McDowell, Geisler, Habermas, Craig, Licona, etc, that the original apostles were "mightily transformed" by their experience of the resurrected Christ, when the book of Acts makes plain that they carried on as if they never had a clue, before Peter's bizarre vision, that Gentiles could get saved?

As far as I can tell, either Jesus preached an exclusively Jewish gospel and never intended Gentile salvation to be any significant mission-field, and he only looks Gentile-friendly in the gospels because of textual corruptions motivated by those who agreed with Paul...

or, 

Jesus really did intend the original apostles to preach to Gentiles, and therefore, their disobedient attitude in shoving off this personal commission completely onto Paul's shoulders (Galatians 2:9), justifies suspicion toward the apologetics claim that they experienced a resurrected Jesus.

If you think "they just didn't get it" is supposed to resolve all these problems, remember that the slower they were to "get" the things Jesus taught, the less credibility they have as resurrection witnesses.

Divine Atrocities of the Old Testament: God takes "joy" in watching men rape women

The more common ground two people have on a matter, the greater the chances they will resolve their differences on it.  While most conservative Christians are sufficiently brainwashed that they don’t really care any more about bible verses that say God creates evil, I would hope that the female Christian reader agrees with me that “rape” is immoral without exception.  If then it could be shown that God doesn’t just “cause” rape, but “delights” to watch it happen, no amount of theological sophistry will likely convince such females to just shove this under the rug of “god’s mysterious ways”, and they will hopefully express a concern about the depraved nature of Mose or whoever the author of Deuteronomy was.

Deuteronomy 28:1-15 is a cheerful passage about all the good that the Israelites can expect God to do for them if they obey him.

But Deuteronomy 28:15-63 details numerous shocking unspeakable atrocities that God will inflict on Israel if they do not obey him.

In 28:30, one of those curses God will inflict is the rape of Israelite women.

  28 "The LORD will smite you with madness and with blindness and with bewilderment of heart;

 29 and you will grope at noon, as the blind man gropes in darkness, and you will not prosper in your ways; but you shall only be oppressed and robbed continually, with none to save you.

 30 "You shall betroth a wife, but another man will violate her; you shall build a house, but you will not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but you will not use its fruit.

 (Deut. 28:28-30 NAU)

 “Violate” in the Hebrew is shagel, and it means rape or ravish.  This is why other English bibles use equal terms:

ESV  ravish her.

NET  rape her.

In 28:63, this depressing litany of horrors is summed up by declaring that God will take just as much “delight” in causing these horrors to disobedient people, as he takes in prospering those who obey:

NAU

63 "It shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you will be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it. (Deut. 28:63)

NIV

63 Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess.

The lexicons tell us what the above-cited NAU/NIV comparison hints at, that the Hebrew word for delight (sus, or sis, Greek: euphraino in the Lxx) can be properly defined by the synonyms for delight, such as rejoice, please, joy, rejoicing, happiness, glee, bliss, gladness, exhilaration, exult, jubilation, etc., 

The same word (whether MT Hebrew or Greek Lxx) is used in Deuteronomy 20:6 to assert that a man would "enjoy" planting a garden and eating from it.  Here are a few lexical entries: 

Strong's
7797 שׂוּשׂ [suws, siys /soos/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 2246; GK 8464; 27 occurrences; AV translates as “rejoice” 20 times, “glad” four times, “greatly” once, “joy” once, and “mirth” once. 1 to exult, rejoice. 1a (Qal) to exult, display joy.---------Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (H7797). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon

[Fri] εὐφραίνω impf. pass. εὐφραινόμην; 1aor. pass. ηὐφράνθην; (1) active make glad, cheer up someone (2C 2.2); (2) passive, of social and festive enjoyment be merry, enjoy oneself (LU 16.19); of religious and spiritual jubilation rejoice, celebrate, be jubilant (AC 2.26)

εὐφράνθη VIAP--3S εὐφραίνω

εὐφραίνω    impf. pass. εὐφραινόμην; 1aor. pass. ηὐφράνθην; (1) active make glad, cheer up someone (2C 2.2); (2) passive, of social and festive enjoyment be merry, enjoy oneself (LU 16.19); of religious and spiritual jubilation rejoice, celebrate, be jubilant (AC 2.26)

Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament.
Baker's Greek New Testament library (Page 181). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

The Harper Bible Commentary doesn't shrink back from the grizzly horror depicted here:

The most terrible thought of all may be v. 63, which describes God as taking grim pleasure in Israel’s destruction…

Mays, J. L., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1996, c1988).
Harper's Bible commentary (Dt 28:1). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Where exactly does the skeptic go wrong in saying Deuteronomy 28 teaches that God is capable of taking the same "delight" in watching the rape of Israelite women who disobeyed Mosaic law, that he takes in prospering those who obey Him?

Even if the "delight" is solely with reference to "justice", can you honestly tell yourself that the infinite creator of the universe was incapable of coming up with a less barbaric response to said disobedient women?  If God had appeared personally to the Israelites and physically interacted with them and prevented them from sinning much like a parent prevents a child from running out in the street, you are sure that such a theophany would have had no more beneficial effect on them?

Matthew as resurrection witness: Can skepticism of canonical Greek Matthew be justified?

The early patristic statements on Matthew’s authorship all claim not just that he authored a gospel, but that he wrote it in Hebrew letters.  At the end of the following list, notice that Jerome said Matthew was translated into Greek in his (Jerome’s) day, but by an unknown hand: 

Papias (120 a.d.)

But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”  (Eusebius, Church History, 3:39)

Hippolytus [a.d. 170–236.]

7. And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia. (On The Twelve Apostles, Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.)

Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202]

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,… (Against Heresies, 3:1:1, Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Origen [a.d. 185–254]

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism.  (Commentary on Matthew, Book 1),

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Eusebius (a.d. 320) quoting Irenaeus

 “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.  (Church History, Book 5, ch. 8)

Pantaenus.

Pantaenus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time. (Church History, Book 5, ch. 10).  Guthrie says “The veracity of this story must be doubted…” New Testament Introduction, Matthew, Authorship, op. cit.).

Epiphanius (a.d. 367):

Matthew himself wrote and issued the Gospel in the Hebrew alphabet, and did not begin at the beginning, but traced Christ’s pedigree from Abraham.  (“Against Quartodecimans.1 Number 30, but 50 of the series “ in  “Panarion, Book 2”, from “The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis

Books II and III. De Fide, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies”, Vol. 79,  transl. Frank Williams, Brill © 2013.

Epiphanius

3.7 They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, "According to the Hebrews," and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet 16 in the New

Testament.” (Panarion, Book 1, “Against Ebionites, Number ten, but thirty of the series”, Brill, Id.

Epiphanius

9.4 They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. " For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet. But I do not know whether they have also excised the genealogies from Abraham till Christ. ((Panarion, Book 1, “Against Nazoraeans.  Number nine, but twenty-nine of the series”, Section II, Brill, Id).

Jerome (a.d. 492):

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew31 for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain.

------Footnote 31:  Gospel …in Hebrew. Jerome seems to regard the Gospel according to the Hebrews mentioned by him above as the original Hebrew Text of Matthew. cf. Lightfoot, Ignatius v. 2. p. 295.--endfootnote.--------

The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library. at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes32 of Beroea,33 a city of Syria,who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” and “for he shall be called a Nazarene.”

(Lives of Illustrious Men, ch. 3, Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. III. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historial Writings, etc. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

 So the patristic witness of the first 4 centuries is

a)      Matthew authored a gospel in Hebrew letters/language.

b)      The Greek version of Matthew is never mentioned until Jerome asserts in the 4^th century that it is a translation made in his day by an unknown person.

Conservative Christian textual scholar Daniel Wallace makes his own translation of Papias’s words, and inserts therein a positive denial that Matthew had written in Greek:

2. External Evidence

The earliest statement that Matthew wrote something is by Papias: “Instead [of writing in Greek], Matthew arranged the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each man interpreted them as he was able.”

---Footnote # 3:  “Fragments of Papias 2:16 (my translation).”

Another problem is that Jerome says Hebrew Matthew was “translated” into Greek.  However, most scholars agree that canonical Greek Matthew does not look to them like it translation Greek.   

Says Wallace:

(1) Papias probably was not referring to the Gospel, since we have no trace of it in Hebrew or Aramaic until the medieval ages (all of which are clearly translations of the Greek, at least as far as most scholars are concerned). This view, therefore, is shipwrecked on early textual evidence. Further, Matthew does not show strong evidence of being translation Greek. (2) Some have suggested therefore (as an expedient to salvage the first view) that Papias was referring to Matthew’s literary method, rather than linguistics, but such is by no means a natural interpretation of διαλέκτος

In summary, Matthew's writing a gospel for Jews in Judea would appear to corroborate the other universal testimony that he wrote it in Hebrew.  Getting Matthew to author a Greek version doesn't work here.

The fact that most of the early fathers are willing to assert the language Matthew wrote his gospel in, while not asserting he ever wrote anything in Greek, rationally supports the notion that there was no Greek gospel authored by Matthew that these fathers ever heard of.  Getting Matthew to author a Greek version doesn't work here.

The fact that nobody mentions a Greek Matthew gospel until Jerome does in the 4th century, supports the above-cited premise that a Greek version of Matthew did not appear in history until the 4th century, which would thus exclude Matthew, who died in the first century, from having anything to do with it's production or composition. Getting Matthew to author a Greek version doesn't work here.

The fact that Jerome says the Greek version of Matthew was "translated" from the Hebrew version requires skeptics to decide whether he is correct, or most modern scholars are correct to say that canonical Greek Matthew doesn't look like translation-Greek. Getting Matthew to author a Greek version doesn't work here.

Apologists will say at least this settles the fact that Matthew did author a gospel, even if other details remain obscure.  But not even this can be granted:  Since the earliest mention is that Matthew wrote the logia in Hebrew (see Papias, supra), it could very well be that all the later fathers who testify similarly, are standing on the authority of Papias, in which case their statements are not independent corroborations, all they are doing is repeating prior tradition (exactly what  in which case Papias in the solitary witness, making it far less certain that Matthew wrote a gospel.  Furthermore, Christian conservative textual scholar Wallace says Papias wasn’t asserting that Matthewwrote a gospel:

Although it is quite impossible to decide conclusively what Papias meant since we are wholly dependent on Eusebius for any excerpts from this early second century writer, some general considerations are in order: (1) Papias probably was not referring to the Gospel, since we have no trace of it in Hebrew or Aramaic until the medieval ages (all of which are clearly translations of the Greek, at least as far as most scholars are concerned). This view, therefore, is shipwrecked on early textual evidence.

Furthermore, in light of the patristic testimony, establishing the Matthew wrote a gospel, without more, would not suffice for apologetics purposes, because the question is who is the source for the resurrection testimony in Matthew 28?  Are skeptics being a bit too skeptical when they say the source or sources for chapter 28 are too obscure to nail down with any confidence?

Skepticism of the apostolicity of canonical Greek Matthew is therefore rationally warranted.  Therefore, canonical Greek Matthew's resurrection testimony can be dismissed from the list of resurrection eyewitnesses.

Matthew as resurrection witness: Can Irenaeus' general credibility be impeached due to his acceptance of non-canonical stories?

 2nd century church father Irenaeus accepts, unquestioningly, a bizarre non-canonical story, allegedly from Papias, where Jesus is teaching that one day, grapes will talk to human beings:

The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth: as the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say:  The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give twenty-five metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, “I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.”   In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds (quinque bilibres) of clear, pure, fine flour; and that all other fruit-bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce in similar proportions (secundum congruentiam iis consequentem); and that all animals feeding [only] on the productions of the earth, should [in those days] become peaceful and harmonious among each other, and be in perfect subjection to man.  4. And these things are bone witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him. And he says in addition, “Now these things are credible to believers.” And he says that, “when the traitor Judas did not give credit to them, and put the question, ‘How then can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the Lord?’ the Lord declared, ‘They who shall come to these [times] shall see.’”  

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, ch. 33  Schaff, P. (2000). 

The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

That was book 5, but earlier in book 3, Irenaeus admits accepting the 4 completed canonical gospels:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, ch. 1

 Given that Irenaeus had already admitted acceptance of the 4 completed canonical gospels, and assuming as you do that the text of those gospels told Ireaneus nothing more or less than what the English of those gospels tells you today, to what degree was his general credibility impeached, if at all, by his willingness to accept stories about Jesus that not only are absent from the canonical NT, but stories that no Christian scholars today think Jesus really taught?

Matthew as resurrection witness: did Irenaeus quote, or corroborate, Papias?

Generally, the less independent corroboration, the weaker the case for traditional authorship of Matthew, but the more independent corroboration, the stronger such a case would be (barring discussion of the credibility of the sources for the independent corroboration).

2nd century church Father Irenaeus asserts that Matthew authored a gospel. 
 

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies,Book 3, ch. 1

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Irenaeus elsewhere admits that he also got things not just from Papias, but specifically from the same Papias-authored 5-volume “Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord” that Eusebius depended on for crediting Papias with the earliest post-apostolic statement of Matthew’s authorship.  See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, ch. 33.

Therefore, it remains a possibility that Irenaeus’ statement about Matthew authoring a gospel constitutes nothing more than him simply repeating what Papias said.   If that is the case, Irenaeus wouldn't qualify as an independent corroboration, for the same reason that witness B is not independently corroborating the testimony of witness A, if all witness B is doing is depending on witness A's statement and giving it her own interpretation.

For obvious reasons, the more conservative or fundamentalist the Christian, the more they will view the evidence in the light most favorable to Matthew's authorship, since they are already low on resurrection eyewitness testimony, they cannot afford for any of their alleged witnesses to call in sick the day of trial.

Scholar Donald Guthrie, whose "NT Introduction" is "widely acclaimed" and "a benchmark evangelical work", says Irenaeus here was depending on Papias to assert Matthew authored a gospel:

This testimony is clearly identical with Papias’ statement only if λογία is interpreted as the gospel. Since Irenaeus was acquainted with Papias’ work it may reasonably be assumed that he is here giving his own interpretation of Papias’ statement…

Guthrie, D. (1996, c1990). “Matthew, Authorship”, New Testament introduction.

Series taken from jacket. (4th rev. ed.).

[The master reference collection]. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

The question to be answered in this blog is;  Is Irenaeus corroborating, or merely repeating, what Papias said?

If he was merely repeating, then he does not qualify as independent corroboration of Papias' statement, and as such, the case for Matthew's authorship is a bit weaker than it might have been.

An attack on the "God is always good" presupposition

On what basis is God "good"?  Does he conform to a standard of good outside of himself?  No.  Christians say God is himself the highest logically possible standard.

But if that is the case, then the statement "God is always good" means nothing more than "God always conforms to his own standard of morality."  How useful is it to point out that an intelligent person always acts in conformity to their unique personal moral code?  Isn't that the actual case with most intelligent beings anyway?


If the phrase "Martha conforms to her own standard of goodness" does not establish her goodness, then

The phrase   "   God  conforms to his own standard of goodness"  by logical necessity cannot establish God's goodness either, as both statements are logically equal.

 Are you ready for the kill-shot?

God himself regrets his own prior choice to create man, over in Genesis 6:6-7, a choice which he himself earlier had said was "good" (Gen. 1:31), and nothing in the grammar, immediate context, larger context, chapter or genre of Genesis 6 will support the "anthropomorphism" interpretation.  That means the more likely true interpretation is that God really did literally regret his prior act of creating mankind.  That will remain supported by the context, whether or not that interpretation would cause the passage to contradict something else in the bible.  And since bible inerrancy has nowhere near the universal acclaim that other interpretation-tools like "grammar" and "context" have, non-Christians are fully rationally justified to refuse to exalt bible inerrancy in their minds to the status of governing hermeneutic.  So if it be true that the literal interpretation of Genesis 6:6-7 makes it contradict something else in the bible, it could still enjoy support from the grammar, context and genre nonetheless.

If it be true that God can start out thinking his creation of man is 'good' (1:31), then later regret that very act (6:6-7), then it is the bible's own witness that prevents us from saying anything and everything god does is always good.

You can avoid this logic by saying God was wrong to regret his prior creation of man, but if God was wrong to so regret, then he not only can, but did misconstrue the moral goodness of his own prior creative act, and that kind of thinking would bobsled you faster toward my conclusion than my own argument would have.

I conclude that a) God being the ultimate standard of good renders the statement "God is good" utterly redundant and meaningless, leaving no rational reason for Christians to convey such a thing to an unbeliever, and b) because the "anthropomorphism" interpretation of God's regret over his own prior acts in Genesis 6 cannot be sustained on the basis of any universally recognized hermeneutic such as grammar, context or genre, the bible is teaching there that God actually did change his mind on whether his prior creative act was good, and God changing his mind about whether an act was morally good, spells disaster for the fundamentalist Christian who insists that God's goodness is without exception.

If God's goodness isn't absolute, you then err by constantly talking of God's goodness as if it was some foregone conclusion utterly immune to criticism.

Is Genesis 3 just a fable?

Alisa Childers correctly points out how disastrous it would be to Christianity, if Genesis 3 was mere fable.

So let's start with the obvious:

When I was a kid, and read about ancient tales in other cultures that made reference to talking animals, I automatically assumed that because we never see animals talking that this today, these tales are surely mere fictions.

Was I unreasonable to draw such a conclusion upon such basis?

Answering Alisa Childers on the Muratorian Fragment

Sometimes, Christians forget that consequences have actions.

For example, all conservative Christians love to date the Muratorian Fragment ("MF") to the early 2nd century, since that means its list of canonical works, mostly matching the modern Protestant canon, is so early that it can be said to have apostolic roots.

I don't know if Alisa Childers "forgot" any such thing as she blogged in support of an early date for the MF, perhaps not, but most Christians don't realize that before the MF author moves from John to Acts, he gives a version of how John's gospel was composed, a version that most conservatives would rather see struck from history. Here it is, in context, from Metzger's translation:

. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. [1] (2) The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. (3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, (4-5) when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, [2] (6) composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. [3] Yet he himself had not (7) seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, (8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. (9) The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. (10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], (11) he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what (12) will be revealed to each one (13) let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, (15-16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various (17) elements [3a] may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, (18) nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith (19) of believers, since by the one sovereign [3b] Spirit all things (20) have been declared in all [the Gospels]:

Notice what else you are early-dating when you early-date the MF:

1. you are early-dating the tradition that apostle John wanted his gospel to be the result of him and the other apostles discussing visions they'd have after fasting for three days.
2. you are early dating the tradition that before John's gospel was published, it was "reviewed" by the other apostles.

The consequences that follow from both of these traditions make it more difficult for today's conservative apologists to argue that the material in John's gospel is simple authentic eyewitness recollection:

Under tradition # 1, the fact that John first thought his gospel should be the result of him and the apostles discussing visions with each other, raises problematic questions about John's intent in writing a gospel:  He was willing to present visionary material as if it was simply eyewitness testimony in written form (and given this, it may very well be that this is exactly what happened, see John's exclusive statement in 16:7, 14 about how further information about Jesus will be disclosed by the Holy Spirit after Jesus goes away).  So if theory # 2 is true, and John wrote it, well, the guy who wrote it was the kind of guy who saw no problems in characterizing vision-based information as eyewitness-based information.  How's that for a solid boost in apologetic potential?

Under tradition # 2, the fact that the apostles "reviewed" it would not make sense unless they were given the right to modify or correct it.  But this raises several concerns:  Why would any of the apostles believe God wanted them to modify John's composition, assuming as true the conservative view that these apostles would have thought John to have written inerrantly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Or maybe the historical facts given here in the MF falsify the modern conservative notion that John was incapable of error while he was composing his gospel?  What fool "reviews" a composition that is already guaranteed to be without error?  Maybe the apostles were reviewing in the sense of their learning from John, things about Jesus which they never previously knew?  How can "review" make coherent sense here without doing violence to the doctrine of inerrancy?

Donald Guthrie's "New Testament introduction" is standard fare in conservative seminaries and bible colleges, yet notice his pessimism toward getting any useful results from analyzing 2nd-century sources speaking to authorship of John's gospel:

The problem of the authorship of this gospel has been so widely and so thoroughly discussed that it is not easy to express with any conciseness all the ramifications of the different hypotheses which have been proposed.

…It is always difficult to assess the evidence of the second-century Church Fathers on the New Testament books, for a critic’s estimate will be invariably influenced by his general presuppositions. Thus some will place more emphasis than others on negative evidence, rather than positive, and others will be inclined to give credence only to the first of a sequence of witnesses, dismissing the rest as mere echoes of the first and therefore weakening the whole cumulative testimony. Although a completely unprejudiced approach is probably not possible, an attempt will be made here to give a brief survey of the facts.3

Guthrie, D. (1996, c1990). New Testament introduction.

Series taken from jacket. (4th rev. ed.). [The master reference collection].

Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

Guthrie's NT Introduction does not discuss the MF's testimony to John's gospel.

The Word Biblical Commentary draws a conclusion from the MF that makes reasonably confident assessment of the eyewitness value of John's gospel impossible:

John’s Gospel is thus represented as a joint production of a number of the apostles, with John as their spokesman.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary :

John. Word Biblical Commentary (Page lxvii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

If the content of the gospel of John draws from more apostles than John, then how are we to figure out which sections of John drew from which apostles, so that we can do proper historiography and evaluate the credibility of the individual contributors?  As most Christians know, most of the original apostles are disregarded by the NT after the time Jesus is alleged to have risen from the dead.  Therefore, if the MF is correct and, say, Bartholomew contributed in any way when "reviewing" John's gospel, what part did he review, how do we know, and what historical evidence about Bartholomew would assist us in ascertaining his ability or willingness to stick to just the facts?

Or could it be argued that because the MF says John wanted his gospel to be based on visions, this esoteric attitude was likely shared by the other apostles, so that when they "review", they are just as willing to make additions on the basis of divine revelation, as they are on the basis of their own eyewitness memories?  How does this historical possibility change the "reliable gospels" calculus?

The Word Biblical Commentary asserts that this part of the MF is legendary:

The Muratorian Canon has reproduced sheer legend in suggesting that a group of the original Apostles, with Andrew in particular, shared with the apostle John in the writing of the Fourth Gospel; the motive for this is clearly to reinforce the authority of the Gospel by adducing joint apostolic production of it—an early example of the tendency to confuse apostolic authority with apostolic authorship.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary: John.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page lxvii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

I find the "reinforce the authority of the gospel by adducing joint apostolic production of it" excuse to be unpersuasive, since the early patristic testimony to Matthew and Mark does no such thing.  Then again, nobody said that the early church could only err in a uniformly consistent way.

Consequences flow from the conservatives who say the MF's story of John's origin is legendary.  Inerrantists often forbid the bible to have even a single error because they think if they admit one genuine error, the floodgates will open and they will have to admit they can't be sure there aren't other errors too.  If that reasoning is valid, then why doesn't the legendary "how it happened" stuff in the MF justify suspicion toward the allegedly factual "list of canonical books" stuff?  If there's one error, then all is lost, amen?

Could it be that the MF author got the canonical list right, but not the history of the canonical books?  Yes, technically that could be the case, but how does that benefit us more than 1500 years after the fact, who are limited to just the MF and our historical methods, and our need to judge credibility by known acts and statements?

The WBC rehabilitates this "legend" by offering the following as a possibly correct explanation for the "we" in John 21:24:

 (iii) The writer and others closely linked to him. So, e.g., Schlatter: “The speaker stands in this ‘we’ in the first place, but he knows that he is not alone, but sees himself in a greater circle of such as share his knowledge with him” (376). This accords with the famous passage in the Muratorian Canon, which states that John wrote the Fourth Gospel at the entreaties of his fellow disciples and bishops, but not until he had asked them to pray with him concerning the matter; then “it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name with the recognition of all.”

For kicks, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John's gospel says John dictated and Papias wrote.
Eusebius said Papias did not live early enough to be a contemporary of the apostles:

" But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends^."

Did Eusebius say this merely because he didn't like Papias' chiliasm?  If so, how many other early church fathers likewise allowed their theological prejudices to cause them to make false statements about Christian history?  Was Eusebius' prejudice here typical, or exceptional?
 
In my opinion, the attempt of conservatives to harvest wheat from the MF while rejecting the chaff, is fraught with peril on every side,. and the more objective procedure would be to leave the MF alone as nothing more than a historical curiosity.  

But the consequence of avoiding the use the MF is, one less ancient historical source in favor of apostolic authorship of John's gospel.

Luke 2:52, either Jesus isn't God, or God can increase in wisdom

Luke 2:52 makes a controversial statement about Jesus, which I say logically forbids the possibility that he could have been both human and God at the same time.

46 Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.

 47 And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers.

 48 When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You."

 49 And He said to them, "Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father's house?"

 50 But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.

 51 And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.

 52 And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. (Lk. 2:46-52 NAU)

How could Jesus, who IS God (supposedly), "increase" in wisdom?


Apologists will say v. 52 is only referring to Jesus' human nature, not his divine nature.

But "nature" is what a thing really is, it's essential properties, as opposed to what it merely appears to be.  From the Oxford dictionary:

The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.

So if Jesus had two natures, BOTH of them would have to be implicated in anything the bible asserts him to have been, said or done.  There is no logical possibility for a person to act in a way that doesn't implicate their nature.

So the only way to rescue Luke from denying Jesus' divinity here is to insist, contrary to all reason, that Luke ascribed to the erroneous belief that Jesus could do things contrary to one of his natures (like acting in his earlier years in a way that involved less wisdom than he'd have acted with in his later years, when his nature as God during his early years would require that he always spoke/acted during said early years with the fullest amount of wisdom logically possible for God.)

Yes, the bible elsewhere teaches that Jesus is God, but using a teaching in one part of the bible to dictate what interpretative options are and aren't available for some other bible verse, presupposes the truth of the doctrine of full biblical inerrancy.  But since bible inerrancy has nowhere near the universal acclaim that other interpretation-tools such as "grammar" and "context" have (inerrancy is denied by most Christian scholars too, not just skeptics), I have reasonable justification to refuse to exalt inerrancy in my mind to the status of "interpretation-tool".

Since I have reasonable justification to reject inerrancy as a governing heremeneutic, I have reasonable justification to not be worried about my interpretation of Luke 2:52 causing it to contradict something else in the bible.  Something more than this must be shown before I will be morally or intellectually obligated to renounce my interpretation.  If such is not shown, then the fact that my interpretation contradicts something else in the bible, will only be interesting to inerrantist-Christians, thus showing the subjective nature of such a rebuttal.

For all these reasons, Luke's statement that Jesus increased in wisdom can only mean either a) Jesus wasn't God since God cannot increase in wisdom, or b) the divine nature of Jesus increased in wisdom. 

However, Christians who interpret Genesis 6:6-7 literally (i.e, God really does sometimes regret one of his own decisions), can safely assert that Jesus, as God, can increase in wisdom.  Their interpretation of Genesis 6 is probably correct, there is no grammatical or contextual justification for the "anthropomorphic" interpretation, only a worry that it needs to be rendered non-literal so it won't contradict other bible verses asserting God being all-knowing.  Take a look at Exodus 32:9-14  for another example of God being imperfect and needing the wisdom of humans.

Matthew as Resurrection Witness: Can skepticism of Papias' testimony be justified?

The question for you is at the end of this post :)

Among the bits of external evidence for Matthew's authorship of the gospel now attributed to him, are the comment of 2nd century Bishop Papias, that Matthew authored a gospel.  Papias made that comment in a work entitled "Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord", now lost to us except as bits of it are quoted in surviving works by later church fathers.  One father who quoted Papias was Eusebius of Caesarea, 4th century author of the monumental "Church History", that is required reading in all seminaries and bible colleges.


The following quote from Papias draws from "Church History" and the immediate context is included:

15 “This also the presbyter said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.  

Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, chapter 39

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series

Vol. I. Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

Inerrantist Christian scholar Craig Blomberg admits in the inerrantist-driven "New American Commentary" that most scholars dismiss Papias' remarks:

Largely because canonical Matthew does not betray very much evidence of having been translated literally from a Semitic tongue, most modern scholarship is inclined to discount the value of Papias’s testimony however it is interpreted.

“Matthew, Sources”, Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 40).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

So while the majority opinion of scholars doesn't automatically make said opinion true, the fact that a majority of scholars hold the opinion makes it very difficult to accuse those who hold said opinion of being irrational or unreasonable.

The "Word Biblical Commentary" admits the tantalizingly brief nature of the Papias-quotation has caused scholars no end of disagreement about what exactly Papias meant:

The tantalizing statement of Papias from the first quarter of the second century (Körtner and Schoedel accept a date of 110; Yarbrough even earlier) is at once the earliest, most important, and most bewildering piece of early information we have concerning the origin of material associated with the name of the Apostle Matthew.

Hagner, D. A. (2002). “The Papias Tradition concerning Matthew”,

Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page xliii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated

"The text of Papias is open to many questions."

"Matthew", Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1968];

Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). 

The Jerome Biblical commentary (electronic ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Finally, Clifton Black, Otto A. Piper Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton, says

...Papias's testimony is undeniably one of the most important.  It is also one of the most problematic and tantalizing.  if not exasperating.  As we shall see. Eusebius' quotations from Papias are obscure extracts, almost every aspect of which is enveloped in an interpretive controversy that may ultimately prove beyond the capacity of scholars to resolve.  In the period from 1960 to 1981 alone, some three thousand five hundred monographs and two hundred scholarly articles were devoted, partially and sometimes wholly, to Papias, and the torrent of research shows no signs of abating.  For all of that, as noted by a respected patristic scholar who has contributed to this research, "the fragments of Papias still continue to be looked at for more than they can possibly give."

C.C Black,  “Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter”, page 82

Although scholars debate everything about this Papias-quote, the purpose of this blog post is limited to getting your reply to the simple question:  Do you believe Eusebius' quotation of Papias on Matthew's authorship, combined with the immediate context Eusebius surrounds the quote with, provide enough information there to enable us to determine, to any degree of reasonable certainty, what exactly Papias meant with his comments about Matthew?

I say no, and therefore, the theory that the author of Matthew was an eyewitness of Jesus' resurrection, takes a direct hit.

 Conservative Christian textual scholar Daniel Wallace agrees that gaining conclusive certainty on what Papias meant is impossible, and further holds that, regardless, Papias likely wasn't referring to a gospel:

Although it is quite impossible to decide conclusively what Papias meant since we are wholly dependent on Eusebius for any excerpts from this early second century writer, some general considerations are in order: (1) Papias probably was not referring to the Gospel, since we have no trace of it in Hebrew or Aramaic until the medieval ages (all of which are clearly translations of the Greek, at least as far as most scholars are concerned). This view, therefore, is shipwrecked on early textual evidence.

If you conservative Christians who are spiritually alive cannot even agree on what Papias meant, nor even whether it is possible to confidently determine what he meant, aren't you being a just a bit unreasonable in expecting spiritually dead people (who have even less ability to discern truth) to figure out which Christian view on Papias is correct?

I therefore conclude that atheists have plenty of rational warrant to dismiss Papias' comments about Matthew as creating more questions than answers.  Nothing about Papias' input can be pushed so far as to morally or intellectually obligate the non-Christian to think Papias constitutes reliable evidence.

Under what circumstances did you first conclude that Jesus rose from the dead?

There are two basic types of Christians in the world today:

a) the former atheist who didn't stop mocking Christians with intellectual arguments until they reluctantly had to admit the resurrection hypothesis better explained the data than any skeptical theory, and so by this were finally brought kicking and screaming over the line into faith, or

b) they went to church, heard the pastor rail against sin and how they were in serious trouble with god, accepted Jesus as their savior during an "altar call" sometime thereafter, and have been reading apologetics books on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection through those rose-colored glasses ever since.

Which one are you?

If you try to sound like "a", you sound reasonable and rational to modern audiences who prioritize evidence above all else, but you open yourself up to the possible attack that the basis for your faith was more secular than biblical.

If you try to sound like "b", then the way you came into faith certainly sounds "biblical", but then you open yourself up to the possible attack that says it was something other than evidence upon which you decided to believe the gospel, and therefore, your promotion of historical arguments for Jesus' resurrection is hiding the actual subjective basis that is the real reason you ever came to faith.