Demolishing Triablogue: Jason Engwer fails to show that Jesus' brother James ever became a Christian in the first place

 This is my reply to Jason Engwer's attempt to bolster the notion Jesus' brother James believed Jesus rose from the dead. 

The Gospels' Agreement About James And Corroboration Of Other Sources In a post yesterday, I discussed agreements among the early sources regarding the apostles. Some evidence that's often neglected in that context is what the gospels tell us about Jesus' brother James. I've discussed their material on him elsewhere. Something I don't believe I've discussed here before, though, and it's something that doesn't seem to get much attention in general, is James' position in the lists of Jesus' siblings in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Notice that the two lists are different, and there are some differences in the surrounding context, so it's not just a matter of Matthew's copying Mark, Mark's copying Matthew, or both's copying some other source. What I want to focus on here, though is how they list the names of Jesus' brothers in a different order, yet agree in putting James first. As I've mentioned before, the order in which names appear in a list can be determined by a wide variety of factors. James could be listed first because he was the oldest brother of Jesus. Or it could be because he was the most prominent for whatever other reasons. Or it could be both. Maybe James was the most prominent, which was partly because he was the oldest and partly because of one or more other factors. Whatever the cause of his being listed first in both documents, that's consistent with his prominence elsewhere.

"consistent with"?  Gee, what lawyer can't show that his lying client's testimony is "consistent with" other facts?  You need to show that your theory has greater probability than the theory you disagree with.   

He's prominent in Acts, much more prominent than the other siblings listed with him in Matthew 13 and Mark 6.

No, the only "James" who is "prominent" in Acts is the James of Acts 15 and Acts 21, neither of which express or imply he is the brother of Jesus...while two of the original 12 disciples of Jesus were named "James" and thus make better candidates.  Especially given that you can't even show that Jesus' brother James ever even became a Christian in the first place.  Inerrantist Christian scholar T. George is far less impressed with Galatians 1:19 than you are:

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.”

Engwer continues:

He's the only sibling of Jesus mentioned by name in the resurrection appearances discussed in 1 Corinthians 15.

What makes you think the unqualified "James" in 1st Corinthians 15 is specifically the brother of Jesus, when in fact there were two different Jameses among the original 12 apostles, who would be better candidates, especially given that you cannot even show James ever became a Christian to begin with? 

He's the only brother of Jesus mentioned in Galatians 1-2

No, the James of 1:19 is not clearly equated with the apostles, as inerrantist Christian scholars admit, supra, and the "James" of Galatians 2 is unqualified in context, and the mere fact that the brother James was mentioned in the prior chapter by no means "requires" that the unqualified James mentioned in ch. 2 is the same person. 

and the only one named anywhere in Paul's letters. Jude identifies himself in connection with James (Jude 1),

Brother to which James?  He doesn't say, and the most we can reasonably infer is that he was probably talking about a James who was some type of church leader.  And the two Jameses among the original 12 apostles certainly qualify for that position far more than Jesus' brother of the same name.

but James sees no need to appeal to a relationship with any of his brothers in his letter.

And you don't know which James wrote that letter, so your theories and why he doesn't state any biological relation to Jesus are nothing that could possibly threaten the reasonableness of the skeptical position that says the James who wrote that book is too obscure to justify dogmatic pronouncements about his identity. 

This sort of greater prominence James had, in comparison to his brothers, is corroborated by the passages in Matthew 13 and Mark 6.

No, they merely mention James first, and you admitted that could just as easily be due to his being older, but now, you shove all that aside and blindly insist his being mentioned first can only imply he was a Christian leader. 

Several years ago, I wrote an article addressing why the gospels don't include any reference to the resurrection appearance to James. I said that the best explanation for their not including the appearance to James is a desire to be consistent with their previous focus on Jesus' earliest followers and a desire to honor those earliest disciples.

A better theory for that silence is that Jesus' brother James never saw a risen Christ, a theory you could prove wrong from the bible or Josephus, which means the theory must remain reasonable. 

You can read the article just linked for a further discussion of that subject and others that are related. I want to note here, though, that since one of the gospels that doesn't include the appearance to James is Luke, there's an implication that Luke wanted to honor Jesus' earliest disciples above individuals like James in the manner I just described. That's significant in light of the fact that some people deny that Luke viewed James as an unbeliever during Jesus' public ministry. I've argued that Luke 8:19-21 probably alludes to his unbelieving status.

I prefer, as do most conservative apologists, John 7:5 and Mark 3:21 to document Jesus' brother James thinking Jesus' miracles were fake. And let's not forget the bizarre Mark 6, where the people of his own hometown are angry for his doing a miracle, and he admits even those of his own household were his "enemies".  Your 'explanation' for why his family members didn't believe in him before the crucifixion, is utterly laughable...they were too blinded by their hope in a military messiah to appreciate the obvious ramifications of Jesus' miracles! LOL. 

But even if we didn't have that passage, or even if my view of it is wrong, I think the absence of any reference to the resurrection appearance to him is best explained if he was an unbeliever in the relevant timeframe.

Agreed.  Now you need to explain what's so unreasonable about the skeptical theory that says the reason James was an unbeliever during Jesus' pre-cross ministry, is because he didn't think Jesus' miracles were genuinely supernatural.  That theory is obviously reasonable, and similarly explains why lots of Christians stop following "faith-healers".  It's not like you know enough about this brother of Jesus to "prove" that he held any "military messiah" hope, or that if he did, held it so strongly that he blinded himself to obvious reality.

And if he did blind himself to obvious reality, that constitutes a legitimate impeachment of his general credibility, which cannot be erased merely by screaming that he became a believer.  Peter was stupid during his time with Jesus and even afterward, apparently.

Even if I'm wrong about both of these matters, the meaning of the Luke 8 passage and the absence of the appearance to James, there has to be some reason why all of the gospels don't mention that appearance. And that's further common ground they have about James.

In light of inerrantist Christian scholar's unlikely admissions about the ambiguity of Galatians 1:19, I say Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 not only tell us THAT this James was an unbeliever during Jesus' public ministry, but they support the inference that he probably didn't find Jesus' miracles' to be genuinely supernatural.

Why Triablogue's endlessly trifling bullshit cannot possibly matter

Triablogue's Jason Engwer puts a shitload of effort into trying to prove that the Enfield Poltergeist was real.

He does this so that he can then prove atheism wrong.

But as I've noted before, my skepticism of Jesus' resurrection renders the alleged wrongness of atheism irrelevant.

Even supposing atheism is wrong, that doesn't mean "atheist is in trouble with the Christian god".

All it means is that a god exists.

Since 

a) the apostle Paul said Jesus' failure to rise from the dead would turn Christians into false witnesses who are still in their sins (1st Cor. 15:15), and

b) I continue beating down the way Engwer, Hays, Licona, Habermas and W.L. Craig interpret the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, 

it really doesn't matter if a god exists, the fact that I am reasonable to deduce this god is not the Christian god creates the stark possibility that the Christians are in just as much trouble with this god for misrepresenting him, as they think atheists are for denying his basic existence.

Before you can leap from "you are wrong" to "you are unreasonable", you have to show that the being wrong is more likely to lead to some type of disaster.  But if the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is as unpersuasive and weak as I claim, the best the apologists could possibly be left with is that there is some "god" out there, so that atheists remain wrong even if it be reasonable to deny Jesus rose from the dead.

At that point, whether that god even cares whether anybody misrepresents him or denies him, would be forever open to blind speculation, except for trifling Christians who would automatically default to the OT god upon discovery that the NT is bullshit.

But according to Deut. 13, even when the prophet does a real miracle, he STILL might be leading people into error, and therefore, such miracle-worker would STILL suffer the wrath of this god.  

That is, according to the OT principle, Jesus' miracle of rising from the dead does NOT end the discussion of whether the OT god approves of him.  But I have yet to see any Christian argument that the OT YHWH approves of Jesus, they rather think his resurrection miracle is the end of the debate.

They also blindly insist that because Jesus uses the divine title, he IS YHWH, a contention that has kept the church divided since even before the Council of Nicaea.

Therefore, the Christians are getting precisely nowhere by wasting such enormous amounts of time trying to prove atheism wrong, or that a spiritual dimension exists, or that physicalism is false.  Atheists don't start becoming unreasonable unless their being in the wrong can be proven to have likely disastrous consequences.  Sure, I might be wrong to say Japan is located in Australia, but unless you could show that this wrongness will likely lead to harmful effects on myself, you are never going to "prove" that I "should" care about being wrong.  

I'm pretty sure that Bigfoot is a hoax and was never anything more than a fairy tale and a man in a monkey suit...but why should I care if that is wrong and the creature is a genuine cryptid?    Does Bigfoot denial have a history of causing skeptics to get the flu more often than the average person?

Because the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is poor, and because the NT doctrine of eternal conscious torment in the afterworld contradicts the OT concept of god's justice, the atheist has no reason to 'worry' about atheism being 'wrong', at worst they will experience nothing more than permanent extinction of consciousness, a fate they already accept.  Pissing off god is about as fearful as pissing off a puppy.

Therefore, trying to prove atheism is wrong is a fruitlessly and purely academic waste of time (i.e., has no serious application to anybody's actual life beyond mere idle intellectual curiosity, and is equal to trying to prove somebody else wrong about whether the Trojan War ever happened).

There's a possibility that angry space aliens will zap you...but how much effort should an atheist put into protecting herself from such disaster?  Maybe always wear a radar-deflecting hat?

There's a possibility that a wild animal will kill the atheist after they walk in the front door of their house, but how much effort should the atheist put into protecting herself from such possible disaster?  Maybe peek in every window before going in the house, or installing motion detectors?  FUCK YOU.

There's a possibility some "god" will roast atheists alive in hell forever, but how much effort should the atheist put into protecting herself from such disaster?  Maybe spend the next 50 years trying to figure out which view of God is correct so they don't end up joining the wrong cult and end up making things worse for themselves by adding the sin of heresy to their existing sin of unbelief?  FUCK YOU.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  in light of god's hiddenness on the one hand, and the Christian apologist's mouthiness on the other, it appears Christian apologists love atheists more than their own god does.  Irony never sucked quite as much as that.

James Patrick Holding disqualified by the bible from the office of Christian "teacher"

James Patrick Holding, formerly Robert Turkel, is known for little else on the internet than aggressively defending the bible as god's inerrant word.  www.tektonics.org.



And yet he has made statements that would get him kicked out of any conservative or fundamentalist church.  In 2008 I debated him at theologyweb.com, and I remarked that I caught Holding somewhere else talking like an atheist about the bible, and that therefore he would need to employ his tried-and-true "I-was-just-being-sarcastic" excuse to "explain" it to his buddies.

Holding, surprisingly, confirmed that he wasn't being sarcastic, but genuine.  That is, Holding confirmed that he really doesn't care whether the bible is the word of God or not.  Here's the relevant part of the exchange:

-----me: I just found out that you made a statement several years ago that you personally don't care if the bible is the inspired word of God or not, so that your gargantuan efforts to "defend biblical inerrancy" were all in the name of finding a way to beat up other people and had nothing to do with your personal convictions whatsoever. Better break out that "I-was-just-being-saracastic" excuse again, you're gonna need it to back out of that blooper.
-----Holding, I wasn't being sarcastic. Each of the 20 times I have said something like that, it was genuine. Which one did you have in mind? 

Naturally, the owner of theologyweb (who is also Holding's buddy), got rid of this embarrassing blooper, but thankfully it is still preserved by the wayback machine, which is thus an example that a godless secular machine has more concern for actual historical truth than Mr. Holding himself.  Check out the link.

So ask yourself: Where does the bible allow Christian teachers (which office Holding wants his paying admirers to believe he legitimately holds) to have such apathetic (uncaring) attitude toward the divine inspiration of the scriptures?

 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NAU)

I can buy that Jesus allowed for mere "salvation" of those who didn't take any position on the inspiration of the scriptures.  What I cannot buy is that Jesus or Paul would have this liberal attitude toward Christian teachers. What are the odds that Paul would have approved of so-called Christian teachers in his churches who didn't care whether the scriptures were inspired by God?

Holding has been publicly endorsed in the past by genuinely qualified Christian scholars like Craig Blomberg, Gay Habermas, and Daniel Wallace.  One wonders what these conservatives would think if they knew Holding took such a shit attitude toward the divine inspiration of the bible?  They might muse that the only reason Holding makes such a big deal out of bible inerrancy is because it gives him something to bitch about, nothing more.

Email Holding sometime and ask him where the bible approves or allows for Christian teachers, as he supposes himself to be, to have such apathetic attitude toward the divine origin of the Scriptures.

His email address is: jphold@att.net
His residence address is: 2609 Greywall Ave, Ocoee, FL 34761

The fact that Holding is a closet-homosexual and that the bible scholars he quoted for years to justify his insulting demeanor toward critics, say he gives Christianity a bad name and have twice disowned him professionally and morally in no uncertain terms, provides sufficient probable cause to believe that Holding is no more a genuine Christian than Robert Tilton or Benny Hinn. 

In the real world we label such conflicted clowns with cognitive dissonance (willingness to hold two mutually contradictory positions on a matter despite knowing they contradict each other).

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.

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.

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.