My Resurrection Challenge to Apologist Evan Minton

Here is my challenge to Apologist Evan Minton.  It was posted to his blog, but since I don't know whether he will delete it, the text is pasted below:

----beginquote

Mr. Minton,

I find it reasonable to accept the Christian scholarly majority view which says Mark 3:21, 6:3-4 and John 7:5 are teaching that Jesus' own family rejected his claims before Jesus was crucified.

I also find it reasonable to deny that Galatians 1:19 and anything else in the NT expresses or implies that James the Lord's brother ever converted to the faith.

I also find it reasonable to say that among the various extra-biblical accounts about James the Lord's brother, the one we get from Josephus, ie., the one that attributes no specifically Christian faith to this James, to be the most historically reliable version.

I also find it reasonable to say that the other similar accounts about this James as supplied by Hegesippus, Eusebius and Jerome, which sometimes make it seem James was a Christian, are less historically reliable, so that not even the extra-biblical information about James which seems to impart Christian faith to him, is sufficiently historically reliable as to compel an objective person to accept it...leaving me with no good reason to think this skeptical brother of Jesus EVER converted to the faith...implying that he found nothing too compelling in the reports of his contemporary Christian friends about Jesus rising from the dead.

I also find that because the Christian scholarly majority translation/interpretation of Mark 3:21, 6:3-4 and John 7:5 give skeptics a certain bit of ammo, these passages are thus "embarrassing" and thus pass a criteria of embarrassment which other NT texts, which say Jesus did real miracles, don't pass...so that it is reasonable to say these particular passages have greater claim to historical truth than those which say Jesus did real miracles. That is, the NT stories which say Jesus did miracles, are trumped by these three passages.

I have considered the various ways Christian apologists might try to "reconcile" or “harmonize” the biblical truth that James was skeptical of his brother Jesus, with the other biblical truth that Jesus surely did rise from the dead (i.e., maybe James was always out of town when Jesus did a magic show, or maybe James was always drunk, stupid, looking the other way, etc, etc), and I find all such attempts to be purely speculative, far more lacking in historical support than my own theory that says James was skeptical because Jesus' miracles really were fake.

I therefore conclude, reasonably, even if not infallibly, that Jesus was nothing more than the first-century equivalent of Benny Hinn, i.e., long on whipping people up into a religious frenzy, but short on actually delivering the miraculous goods).

It's a very small conjectural leap from "the miracles Jesus did were fake" to "God likely would not premise his Second Covenant on the words and works of a deluded deceiver (i.e., the God of the OT likely wouldn't raise a deluded trickster from the dead for the purpose of ratifying or promoting the Second Covenant)."

My main contention is that if a person can be reasonable to "accept Christ" and thus conclude the bible is the word of God, at a time in their life before they know how to refute the skeptical arguments of bible critics, then fairness and consistency dicatate that you extend that courtesy to skeptics, and acknowledge that they likewise can also possibly be reasonable to conclude that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, at a time in their life before they know how to refute the arguments set forth by Christian apologists. Reasonable requires neither confirmed accuracy nor exhaustive comprehensiveness.

If you would be willing to challenge the thesis that says the skepticism toward Jesus by his brother James reasonably justifies denying that Jesus rose from the dead, I'd be willing to dialogue with you about it, either by private email, or by responding through whatever blog or website you wish.

Sincerely,

Barry Jones
barryjoneswhat@gmail.com

----endquote

 screenshot:

 

===============================

 Update: November 27, 2018.

Evan responded and I now reply in point by point fashion.  Since I didn't want to be falsely accused of "flaming" merely because I reply in comprehensive fashion, my full reply is here, and I only posted a short summary reply at Evan's blog.

----------beginquote

 I find this position you take on James to be strange.

I'll take that as a compliment.  Indeed, my argument from James' lifetime skepticism of Jesus is not exactly easy to find addressed in apologetic literature. And as the merits of my argument show, this isn't beause the argument is specious.

You say "I also find it reasonable to deny that Galatians 1:19 and anything else in the NT expresses or implies that James the Lord's brother ever converted to the faith." -- but Galatians 1:9 says "I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the LORD's brother." The meaning of this verse is obvious, The Lord's brother James was an apostle.

You say the meaning of Galatians 1:19 is obvious, that James the Lord’s brother was an apostle.  First, this is not the case, as in 1975 bible scholars were admitting that a large number of other scholars don’t think Paul is calling James an apostle here.  See L. Paul Trudinger, Ἕτερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον, ει μη ιακωβον: A Note on Galatians I 19, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 17, (Jul., 1975), p. 200, fn. 3.

Furthermore, not much has changed since 1975, apparently, as even Christian scholars who adopt inerrancy (i.e., scholars who have the most motive of all Christian scholars to interpret ambiguous biblical data in a pro-Christian way) admit 20 years later that the meaning of Galatians 1:19 in the Greek cannot be definitively resolved:

1:19 Paul claimed that he saw none of the other apostles except James, the brother of Jesus. The expression is ambiguous in Greek, so we cannot be sure whether Paul meant to include James among the other apostles. Did he mean: “The only other apostle I saw was James,” or “I saw no other apostle, although I did see James”? Probably he meant something like this: “During my sojourn with Peter, I saw none of the other apostles, unless you count James, the Lord’s brother.”

George, T. (2001, c1994). Vol. 30: Galatians (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;

The New American Commentary (Page 74). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

T. George said this in 1994, about 100 years after J.B. Lightfoot dogmatized about how clearly this passage said James was an apostle…and it is furiously unlikely that George would be unaware of the conservative scholarly attempts to justify the view you take.  That should be quite enough to refute your contention that the meaning of that verse is "obvious".  But if it isn't obvious, then you run the risk of discovering that Galatians 1:19 doesn't imply James' specifically Christian faith as much as you think, and therefore, that verse really isn't a substantive defeater of my hypothesis that this particular James maintained skepticism toward Jesus even after others began to say Jesus rose from the dead.

Second, Peter’s criteria for apostleship was that the candidate had to have followed Jesus since the time Jesus was baptized by John up until He ascended (Acts 1:20-21), and while Jesus’ “brothers” are present in this context (Acts 1:14), it is interesting that neither James nor any other brother of Jesus is one of the two men the church put forward as possible replacements for apostle # 12.   

This would confirm, at least for inerrantist, that yes, James the Lord's brother indeed remained skeptical of Jesus' claims for the entire duration of Jesus' public ministry.

Thus Peter's conditions for apostleship were criteria that Paul obviously disagrees with, since he considers himself an apostle (1^st Cor. 9:1) despite the fact that he failed Peter's condition that an apostle be somebody who was a follower of Jesus from the beginning of the earthly public ministry.  The point is that since Paul’s ideas of apostleship are radically different than those held by Peter, it is not reasonable to pretend that Paul’s assertion that James was an "apostle", has an obvious meaning. 

Third, generically, “apostle” doesn’t mean “faith in Christ”, but “sent one”.  Whether an apostle has faith in Christ is no more ridiculous than asking whether a church pastor has faith in Christ.  We might expect the man in that office to have such faith, but in fact there are so many cases where the answer is "no" (i.e., prosperity gospel preachers whose heresy is so bad it makes them appear more as intentional deceivers than as innocently mislead leaders).  

Even assuming James was placed into leadership over the Jerusalem faction of the church, are you quite sure the only reasonable implication is that they must have thought James converted to the Christian faith?  Not so.  For example, assuming Paul is calling James an apostle in Gal. 1:19, and assuming the James of Galatians 2 is the same guy, notice that Paul flippantly dismisses the authority of James that others viewed him as having (2:6).  Since this flies directly in face of the fact that Jesus gave earthly authority to the apostles (Matthew 10:1, Luke 10:16, John 20:22-23, i.e., Jesus wanted others to recognize that these original apostles carried special authority on earth), it is reasonable, even if contrary to conservative Christian sentiment, to classify Paul as the kind of guy who would call another Christian leader an “apostle” while not intending to say anything good about their level of faith or authority.  Hence, even if Paul was calling James “apostle” in Galatians 1:19, it can be reasonable to say that this falls far short of implying Paul thought James converted to the faith. 

Fourth, I can also mount a persuasive case that even if James told others he had a Christian faith, he was lying, and likely only said such things for the sake of keeping peace.

I am reasonable therefore to insist that you are wrong for saying the meaning of Galatians 1:19 is “obvious”.    If you would “refute” my contention that there is no good historical evidence that James the Lord’s brother converted to Christian faith, you cannot do so by simply pointing to Galatians 1:19…unless you provide specific grammatical argument that the scholars who disagree with you on the meaning of that verse, are unreasonable.  Until that day, I can hardly be considered unreasonable to view Galatians 1:19 as too ambiguous to draw definitive conclusions from.

Now, since you conceded "the Christian scholarly majority view which says Mark 3:21, 6:3-4 and John 7:5 are teaching that Jesus' own family rejected his claims before Jesus was crucified." on what grounds do you say that we "no good reason to think this skeptical brother of Jesus EVER converted to the faith"?

As I said, any NT statements to that effect either don't exist are sufficiently ambiguous as to allow my skeptical interpretation to be equally as reasonable as the conservative Christian view.   This, and the fact that Josephus' account on James is more historically reliable than the accounts of Eusebius Hegesippus and Jerome, leaves you without a reasonable historical basis for alleging that this James converted to the faith.

If Galatians 1:9 says James was an apostle and Mark 3 and John 7 say that he was an unbeliever in his brother during his brother's lifetime, then it entails that James went from unbeliever to believer at some point for some reason.

 That's good logic, but the entailment cannot be borne out by the available evidence.  yes, I contend that Christians who think the NT says James converted to the faith, have made an unjustifiable leap that they cannot provide NT support for.  And I say that after having reviewed several apologists contentions otherwise, such as Licona in Historiographical Approach (2010).

The only way to deny this conclusion is to say that Mark and John independently fabricated the embarrassing detail of James' skepticism or say that Paul has a completely different James in mind in Galatians 1; a proposal I have not heard from either Christian or non-Christian scholars. Or you could say that James was lying about his conversion, but his martyrdom at the hands of the sanhedrin make this option untenable.

What historical evidence says James the Lord's brother was "martyred". Nothing in the NT and the accounts from  Eusebius, Hegesippus and Jerome concerning James' execution are not as reliable as Josephus' version, the version that suspiciously doesn't ever express or imply that this James was a Christian.  And I say that after having reviewed Licona's attempt to deduce from the "law-breaker" term common to Acts and Josephus that Josephus was saying James was killed for being a Christian.  Licona is wrong.

You said that the historical attestation for James' martyrdom is less reliable in Hegessipus and Clement. Fine. You still find Josephus a reliable source, right? Okay, so perhaps if you're right, Jame's martyordom isn't multply attested.

 Well, I wasn't trying to justify skepticism on the basis of singular attestation.  

But it is still, even by your reckoning, found in a source very close to the execution (i.e Josephus) which makes it pass the criterion of early attestation. Why not just trust what Josephus has to say?

I do.  He says nothing that expresses or implies that James had a Christian faith.  The fact that the more scrupulous of the non-Christian Jews opposed this execution and appealed to higher authority is not consistent with the assumption YOU must make (i.e., that as a Christian, James had been telling all the Jews that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh). Apparently, whatever James was preaching to them, it wasn't the same thing Jesus did.

Moreover, what exactly is the issue with saying "maybe James was always out of town when Jesus did a magic show, or maybe James was always drunk, stupid, looking the other way, etc, etc"? From my reading of the gospels, I get the impression that while Jesus was doing a lot of traveling, his family for the most part stayed at home.

 Then read John 2.  Jesus' mother is present for his first miracle of changing water into wine (v. 1-2), then afteward his disciples and his brother join him in his travels for a while (v. 12).   Sorry, but you cannot reasonably pretend that James was somehow just "never there" when Jesus did a magic show, in order to "explain" how James could remain skeptical of Jesus' claims for so long.

James probably didn't witness a good majority of the miracles, but only heard reports of them.

 If you heard reports that your brother was raising the dead and curing incurable diseases, wouldn't you put forth an effort to check out these claims for yourself?  Yes, and yet you say that as a western individualist.  But James and Jesus lived in a collectivist honor/shame society, where criticism of a person didn't end with them but was viewed as criticism of the family as well.  So in that society, the safer presumption is that the more Jesus was crticized by the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders, the more effort his family would put toward investigating his claims for themselves in first-hand fashion.  Again, I'm sorry, but you will only die a quick intellectual death if you try to pretend that James just didn't happen to be around that much whenever Jesus did a magic show.  My hypothesis that the whole family would have put forth an effort to witness Jesus in action for themselves to decide whether the rumors were true, is far more reasonable and accords more smoothly with the foregone conclusion that these things happened in an honor/shame society.

In fact, the text even says that most of Jesus' miracles weren't done in his home town (see Mark 6).

...because the people of his hometown refused to believe in him, to the extent that Jesus "wondered" at their unbelief (Mark 6:6).  Those people of his hometown knew of reports that he had done miracles (v. 3), so if they still persist in unbelief, and are even "offended" at him (Id) to the point that nobody in his hometown, including his own relatives wish to honor him (6:4), you might be open to the possibility that the only way Jesus could do miracles is if the people viewing him first "believed" that he could.  After all, Mark admits that it was their unbelief that prevented Jesus from doing as many miracles there was he would have wished (6:5).  That "could not" was indeed a low-Christology that means what I think it means, is clear from the fact that Matthew was motivated to change it in just the right way (from "could not" to "did not")  so that the reference to Jesus inability was deleted (Matthew 13:58).  Inerrantist scholars admit Matthew here was "toning down" Mark's wording

Mark 6:5 This statement about Jesus’ inability to do something is one of the most striking instances of Mark’s boldness and candor. It is omitted by Luke 4:16–30 and toned down by Matt 13:58.

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 100).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Matthew would hardly be motivated to "tone down" Mark's wording if Matthew saw nothing objectionable therein. 

In any case, you should take into account ALL of the minimal facts; Jesus' death by crucifixion,

 Irrelevant, I agree he was crucified.

His empty tomb,

Legendary embellishment.  I agree with the conservative Christian scholarly consensus that Mark was the earliest gospel, and that Mark originally ended at 16:8 n9i.e., the earliest form of the gospel did not say anybody actually saw the risen Christ).  Since I deny apostle Paul's credibility, for many good reasons, I find the original ending of Mark to be an earlier form of the gospel than the "creed" of 1st Corinthians 15:3-8.  And I am quite aware of the efforts of Snapp, Lund, N.T. Wright and others to avoid admitting 16:8 was where Mark stopped writing.  Mark did not end on a sour note, the women's "fear" was reverential awe, and they are rushing to tell the others the good news that Jesus has risen from the dead.  So there's no "sour ending" and thus nothing in the endinig rendering it sufficiently unlikely as to justify trying to make it sound better.

His postmortem appearances to the disciples and Paul.

 Sorry, but many Christian scholars take the 40-days of resurrection appearances of Acts 1:3 literally, which implies an awful lot of instruction from the risen Christ during that period on the Kingdom of God...yet Matthew, allegedly one of the 11 present for those 40 days, thinks the reader worthy of not more of such teaching than a snippet that could be spoken in less than 15 seconds.  I'm sorry, but it just rings hollow to say Matthew might have good reasons for wish to telescope down 40-days worth of risen Christ teachings into 15 seconds.  Amazingly transformed, Matthew was not.  My skepticism on this basis will always be at least as justifiable as any what-if scenario that apologists can conjure up.  Which means you cannot deduce my skepticism unreasonable merely because you can drum up a logically possible scenario that can also account for the data.  Your religion doesn't just say we are wrong, it says we are "foolish", so because my skepticism of Jesus' resurrection isn't foolish, your religion takes a direct hit.  That epithet might be true if the atheist you are dealing with just runs away from the evidence, but that isn't the case here.

Even if you were skeptical of the appearance to James, these would still be historical facts in need of an explanation. And I have found no naturalistic explanation that satisfactorily explain even just those 4.

 Then apparently you've never dialogued with me before.  I have naturalistic explanations that DO sufficiently account for each "minimal fact". What I've relayed so far isn't even the tip of the ice-box.  But whether you ever hear my full arguments depends on how long you are willing to discuss the issues. 

As further reason to believe that "skepticism toward Jesus by his brother James [[does not]] reasonably justiy denying that Jesus rose from the dead" consider the fact that there have been times that I haven't even mentioned this minimal fact, mostly due to time constraints in dialogue, instead opting to mention the empty tomb and appearances to The Twelve and Paul. Take away the appearance to James if you want. The case only loses one line of evidence.

 Technically correct, but that's not the only line of minimal-fact evidence that gets lost when you consider my arguments.

I look forward to further dialogue.
-------------

Evan replied:

Evan MintonNovember 29, 2018 at 8:50 AM

First, which scholars are you referring to. Of all of the scholars I've read, Christian and non-Christian, I haven't found one who doesn't think Galatians 1:19 isn't referring to the same James mentioned in John 7. Moreover, who do you think Galatians 1:19 is about if not James? What do you think is meant by "James, the LORD's brother."? Or do you even think that's what the verse is supposed to say? If it isn't meant to refer to "James, The LORD's Brother", then who is it about? I asked this question before, but you didn't answer it.

Secondly, John 2 gives no indication that Jesus' family traveled with him as he walked all over preaching, performing miracles, etc. John 2 only says Jesus's family went with him to the wedding held at Cana. To extrapolate from this that therefore Jesus' family frequently went where He went is an unjustified assumption. It's quite a leap to go from "Jesus' family went with him to Cana" to "Jesus' family went with him on most of his journey". The burden of proof is on you to prove the latter.

And if Jesus' family did accompany him on most of his journey's, why are they never mentioned? You get the impression that it was only he and his disciples that were there.

Jesus performed one miracle at the wedding at Cana; the turning of water into wine. This is, perhaps, Jesus' most subtle miracle. All he does is command servants to pour the water into jars and take them to the guests. The guests taste it and declare it to be the best tasting wine. We have no idea if James even knew his mother had run out of wine, or whether he was in the room when Mary made the request of Jesus. If you want to say that he was, again the burden is on you to back that up.

You wrote \\"And there is good NT precedent for saying that calling somebody insane meant they were demon possessed, so that the Christian scholarly majority translation and interpretation of Mark 3:21 has Jesus’ family and thus James committing the unpardonable blasphemy of the Holy Spirit."\\ -- but there isn't a universal consensus on what the unpardonable sin is. The majority of Christian preachers, theologians, and scholars think that the blasphemy of The Holy Spirit is resisting The Holy Spirit until death. James didn't deny Christ or The Holy Spirit until the day he died. Neither did Paul, whom we have much better evidence for his conversion from an anti-Christian mindset than we do with even James.

Finally, as I said before, In any case, you should take into account ALL of the minimal facts; Jesus' death by crucifixion, His empty tomb, His postmortem appearances to the disciples and Paul. You don't like the 5th minimal fact. Fine, let's throw it out. How do you account for Jesus' empty tomb, and the experiences of the 12 disciples and Paul that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead? If these historical facts aren't best explained by a miraculous resurrection, what would you suppose we put in its place?

--------------------------

I replied:

barryNovember 29, 2018 at 3:44 PM

Evan,

I can answer all of your concerns, but experience tells me that point-by-point replies often become so large so quickly that it becomes nearly impossible to continuing to answer everything. Therefore, while I plan to answer all of your concerns, I think the goal of scholarly objectivity would be best achieved if I limit my replies to singular issues.

The first issue I'll limit myself to was that Christian scholar whom I said admitted Galatians 1:19 was fatally ambiguous. You asked who he was, but I quoted him in the link I provided at the end of my prior post, George, T. (2001, c1994). New American Commentary, Vol. 30: Galatians. On p. 74 he says:

1:19 Paul claimed that he saw none of the other apostles except James, the brother of Jesus. The expression is ambiguous in Greek, so we cannot be sure whether Paul meant to include James among the other apostles. Did he mean: “The only other apostle I saw was James,” or “I saw no other apostle, although I did see James”? Probably he meant something like this: “During my sojourn with Peter, I saw none of the other apostles, unless you count James, the Lord’s brother.”

You said the meaning of that verse was "obvious", so I think I am reasonable to focus attention exclusively on the following question: "If an inerrantist Christian scholar can be reasonable to claim Galatians 1:19 to be problematically ambiguous, and do this without giving the reader a monograph addressing contrary arguments provided by other scholars, can an atheist bible critic be reasonable to accept what this Christian scholar says as true, without examining the contrary arguments offered by other bible scholars?"

Of course, I'm aware of the other arguments, but I claim that because even Christians can feel reasonable to draw conclusions before considering what the other side has to say (i.e., they routinely accept Jesus before they know about the arguments atheists can throw at them), then you are going to have to admit that an atheist bible critic can possibly be reasonable to accept the findings of a conservative Christian bible scholar, and refuse to pursue the matter further.

That is, reasonableness doesn't require comprehensive knowledge, perfect accuracy, or a mind-set that automatically shifts into neutral on an opinion every time contrary evidence shows up.

-----------------------

Evan replied:

Evan MintonNovember 30, 2018 at 6:55 AM

Okay, so what you're saying is that multiple interpretations are available for Galatians 1:19. Those interpretations are

1: “The only other apostle I saw was James,”
2: “I saw no other apostle, although I did see James”
3: “During my sojourn with Peter, I saw none of the other apostles, unless you count James, the Lord’s brother.”

Each one of these says that Paul saw James, Jesus' brother. So what would be the issue with saying any one of these is correct? No matter which translation you take, you end up saying that Paul met with James, so what is supposed to be the problem?

And again, I still think you're missing the forest for the trees by focusing on the legitimacy of one minimal fact in The Minimal Facts case. As I said before, if you don't think we can establish the postmortem appearance to James with historical certainty, fine. Throw it out. Let's look at the other minimal facts and how to account for them.

---------My response:

Well first, you started out saying that the meaning of Galatians 1:19 was 'obvious'.   But having discovered the negative comments admitted by T. George, can you agree with me that the meaning of that verse is something less than "obvious"?

Second, not sure why you are asking me what would be wrong with the truth that emerges from all of the possible interpretations, i.e., that Paul went to see a brother of Jesus whose name was James.   I see nothing wrong with that truth.  My argument doesn't say James wasn't an apostle or wasn't a brother to Jesus, only that there is no good historical evidence that James the brother of Jesus ever came to Christian faith.

My "problem" is that Galatians 1:19 cannot be reasonably considered a good rebuttal to me if the only part that might imply he had a Christian faith (i.e., the part that says he was an apostle) is considered ambiguous by even conservative inerrantist Christian scholars, who otherwise have every motive to view the biblical evidence in light most favorable to their conservative Christian belief that James came to believe Jesus rose from the dead.

You say I'm missing the forest for the trees by focusing so much on the legitimacy of one minimal fact.  There are two problems with this:

1 - I've refuted ALL of Habermas' "minimal facts", you just haven't seen these arguments of mine yet.   

2 - The statements supporting James' skepticism toward Jesus (Mark 3:21, 6:4, John 7:5) are more historically likely than other biblical statements that Jesus did real miracles, because these three passages fulfill a historical criterion that the others don't; the criterion of embarrassment.  That is, James probably REALLY WAS skeptical of Jesus' claims at all points between the start of Jesus' public ministry and the crucifixion...because this is not the type of claim that a forger would likely invent...while the claim that Jesus did miracles clearly IS something a forger would find useful to invent. 

I maintain that the contention that Jesus' family saw nothing supernatural about Jesus' miracles, will always have at least a bit more historical plausibility than any excuse apologists can come up with to reconcile their belief that Jesus' miracles were real, with the undeniable NT fact that his own family found nothing about his miracle-ministry very convincing.

Please clarify:

Can an atheist bible critic's belief that Galatians 1:19 is fatally ambiguous about James' apostolic status, be rendered reasonable in light of conservative inerrantist Christian scholars who admit the meaning of this verse cannot be determined with any degree of confidence?  If so, then kindly move away from that verse and give me another piece of historical information that you think reasonably shows that the specific James known as "the Lord's brother" ever came to adopt the Christian faith at any time in his life.

How *DO* you explain the undeniable NT fact that Jesus' own family maintained skepticism toward him throughout the duration of his earthly miracle ministry?  You don't want to say they caught him deluding gullible crowds with purely naturalistic tricks...so your options are quite limited, choose wisely:

"Jesus' family was skeptical of him throughout the duration of his miracle-ministry because whenever Jesus was doing miracles..."

-they were out of town
-they were always looking the other way
-they were always drunk
-they were mentally disabled
-they were too jealous of Jesus' popularity to reason correctly
-Mark 3:21, 6:4 and John 7:5 are textual corruptions
-the majority Christian scholarly translation/interpretation of Mark 3:21, 6:4 and John 7:5 is incorrect, the NT never says anybody in Jesus' family were ever skeptical toward him
-something else?

I will be happy to comment on any other "minimal fact" you think is a powerful support for Jesus' resurrection, but I maintain that the James-problem I've brought to your attention cannot be reasonably resolved by apologists in way that will harmonize with their trusting acceptance of everything in the bible as historically reliable.

You mention the empty tomb, but the majority scholarly opinion is that Mark was the earliest gospel, and the resurrection appearance stories in ch. 16 are a late corruption, so that the earliest gospel did not assert anybody actually saw the risen Christ.  Because the traditions in Mark reach back earlier than the date of composition, those traditions, which lack resurrection-appearance stories, are just as likely to go all the way back to 37 a.d., as you think the resurrection-appearance "creed" in 1st Cor. 15 does.  Hence, there exists even at the earliest historical point the sources will allow, a tradition conspicuously lacking resurrection appearance stories, a lacunae that is unexpected if in fact those appearances really happened.
 -----------------

 Evan replies:

        Evan MintonDecember 1, 2018 at 10:24 AM

        So you concede the following historical statements

        1: James' brother was a hardened skeptic of His brother during His ministry.

        2: James had Christian faith after the crucifixion of Jesus.

        You concede that both of these historical facts? Am I correct?

        Also, whether a **person** is reasonable to adopt a certain proposition or hypothesis is irrelevant. I'm more concerned about whether the evidence favors more strongly a given hypothesis than another, and what is more reasonable in light of that evidence.

        You want other evidence that James was a Christian? He's called one of the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church. This is mentioned in both the book of Acts (21:17-20) as well as by Paul in his letter to the Galatians (2:9). Paul and Luke are independently reporting this. Thus, we know this on the principle of multiple attestations.

        From the criterion of embarrassment, as you yourself said, we saw that he was a skeptic prior to the death of Jesus. Yet from the independent attestation of Acts and Galatians that James converted after the death of Jesus. This prompts the question: WHAT HAPPENED to James to cause him to go from thinking Jesus was an insane con to the risen Lord of Lords? I would argue that what happened was that he saw His brother alive after His death. Now, we can debate the nature of this postmortem appearance experience if you want to. We can debate whether it really was a miraculous resurrection or whether it was a hallucination, a dream, a Twin of Jesus, or whatever. But that James had an experience which he at least believed was the resurrection of his brother is the best explanation for why he went from skeptic (Mark 3, John 7) to pastor of the Jerusalem church (Galatians 2, Acts 21).

        Also, notice that I made this argument tossing Galatians 1:19 completely to the side. That's the beauty of the minimal facts method. I can concede so much and yet still make my point.

        "How *DO* you explain the undeniable NT fact that Jesus' own family maintained skepticism toward him throughout the duration of his earthly miracle ministry?"

        Simple: Jesus traveled. His family didn't. James had better things to do than follow his brother around like a lost puppy. He had a job. He had bills to pay. And we're explicitly told that Jesus didn't do miracles in his home town (see Mark 6). You seem to be under the impression that Jesus did all of his miraculous feats in his own backyard. But if Jesus were in other towns and villages (and he was) and James and his family stayed at home (which is never explicitly said in the text but is a likely inference), then the reason they would be skeptical is that they simply didn't witness the miracles firsthand. Why? Because they weren't even in the same town.

        If you want to contest this, you need to produce some good evidence that James and his brothers did accompany Him on all, most, or many of his travels. You cited John 2 as one example, but as I said, that miracle was so subtle that it could have easily been missed. It was perhaps the most quiet miracle Jesus ever performed.

 ------------------

 I respond:

 You raise too many points to justify trying to answer them all, so let's just focus for now on your belief that the Christian faith of James the brother of Jesus is proven from the fact that you think this is the specific James who is being called a "pillar" in Galatians 2:9.

Since you admit you can still prove your case even by forgetting about Galatians 1:19, ok...but even assuming James the brother of the Lord is the pillar-James Gal. 2:9 is talking about (a possible but by no means necessary inference), you are still inferring "Christian faith" from "pillar".  I don't think that is necessarily inconsistent or wrong, but because Josephus says the more scrupulous Jews objected to the execution of this James, this tells me that the kind of "faith" James went around preaching, did not offend the more scrupulous Jews at all...which is a shocking departure from Jesus and Paul, whose preaching was highly offensive to the more scrupulous Jews. 

And I have good reasons to be suspicious of Paul's credibility, so I wouldn't find it very compelling if indeed Paul meant to say James the Lord's brother was an apostle with true Christian faith.  That's just Paul saying something, hardly the end of the debate, and this would justify an inquiry into his general credibility, since such a statement cannot be independently corroborated and thus it's truth turns exclusively on Paul's credibility.

Notice:  Paul curses the Judaizers in Gal. 1:8.  Then he calls Peter a pillar in 2:9, then he gloats that this pillar and two others gave him the right hand of fellowship (2:9), then he describes Peter as a hypocritical Judaizer in 2:14.  The issue then is how smart it is to suppose that Paul's choice of description of other people is sufficient to establish historical likelihood where his assertions are without independent corroboration.  As you probably know, conservative 19th century Christian scholar J. B. Lightfoot famously remarked that the beginning few verses of Gal. 2 are a "shipwreck of grammar"

So my theory about Paul's confusing of concepts could indeed be correct; that is, when Paul says somebody is an "x", it is legitimately debatable whether he would agree to all the implications of his chosen wording that a reader might normally draw.

        Evan MintonDecember 3, 2018 at 5:17 PM

        So how could you be a "pillar" of the Jerusalem church, (alongside which Paul mentions Cephas/Peter and John) without being in the Christian faith. Let's look at what the verse actually says

        "James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. "

        And look at the entire context. What did Paul go to James, Cephas, and John to talk about? Whether or not he and they were preaching the same gospel (see Galatians 2:1-2). Paul wanted to make sure he and the other apostles were preaching the same message. What was the result of such an inquiry? Paul says "They added nothing to me." (verse 6). Now, this seems very indicative that James was a believer in Christ. Not only the does the context seem to demand this, but if James wasn't preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ whereas Paul clearly was, he couldn't say that he and James were on the same page.

        "And I have good reasons to be suspicious of Paul's credibility" -- Why would you? Don't you think a man who endured as much hardship for preaching as he did (as his multiply attested by himself and Luke in the book of Acts) would make sure he got his info correctly? I know that if I went through as much turmoil as Paul did, I would want to make darn sure my credibility didn't suffer in the course of my preaching.

        As for Paul calling Peter a hypocritical Judaizer, I'm looking at the passage right now on BibleStudyTools.com and I don't see that anywhere even hinted at the text. Rather, what I see (and this is the interpretation I've heard the majority of the commentators that I have read make) is that Peter trying to compromising with the Judaisers to get on their good side, not that Peter was a Judaiser himself. Paul says Peter ate with the Gentiles, but when the Judaizers came, he stopped.

        "For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. " (2:12-13).

    

 barry
December 4, 2018 at 5:02 PM

    Are you going to answer my prior question? Was I reasonable to use an inerrantist Christian scholar’s admission that Galatians 1:19 is fatally ambiguous, to justify disagreeing with your belief that the meaning of that verse was ‘obvious’?

    Also, the debate we’re having might need to take a different turn, since you are assuming the truth of various Pauline statements, while I don’t find Paul very credible. Of course, I’ve done a massive amount of research on that single topic, and I cannot give you all the reasons here and then go back to discussing the issue of James.

    When I said my theory of Jesus not rising from the dead because James’ lifetime skepticism cannot be more reasonably accounted for by any other theory, I did not express or imply that I could reconcile my theory with every statement made by anybody in the NT. All I committed to was the premise that I can show that my theory to explain the biblical data has stronger epistemic warrant, than any Christian theory.

    Would you like me to justify my contention that it is reasonable for a modern day person to be suspicious of Paul’s uncorroborated assertions? That's a whole 'nother discussion.

    For now, Acts 15 and 21 do not show James the brother of Jesus to be a pillar, only that a “James” was, and once again, there were two fully qualifying “Jameses” among the original 12 apostles, who were not the brother of Jesus. Things are NOT as simple and straightforward as your bible-believing faith makes it seem.

    You puzzle over how James could be a “pillar” in the church if in fact he didn’t have Christian. But the early church’s beliefs and the degree to which they cared about Jesus are plagued with mystery. For example, the gospels all attest that Jesus had just as big of a ministry to Gentiles as he had to Jews, which would make it reasonable to infer that the post-resurrection church was quite aware of the reality of Gentile salvation.

    And that would be a reasonable deduction if the NT contained nothing beyond the 4 gospels. But in Acts 11, they only learn such truth from Peter and his “vision”, and in v. 18 they respond as if Gentile salvation was some new shocking unexpected theological development they’d never have guessed was true unless Peter reported that vision.

    One apologist has tried to get around this rather unexpected bit of ignorance in the early church by trifling that the church was only marveling that Gentile salvation was a one-step process instead of a two-step process, but that’s foolish. The words of the church in 11:18 are “God has granted to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life”. They are marveling that God has granted REPENTANCE to Gentiles, i.e., they marvel that God has enabled the Gentiles to take that very first step toward salvation, thus implying they never previously believed God had ever done this. They would hardly marvel about the “repentance” being granted, if they believed Gentile repentance was made possible by God previously. If that early church was so unexpectedly ignorant of something the gospels present as almost a daily reality (Gentile salvation), the door opens to the possibility that the early church's "pillars" were less compliant with the gospels that one might otherwise expect.

    In other words, we engage in unreasonable error if we simply read common Christian presuppositions back into the early post-resurrection church.