Matthew Flannagan's exaggeration hypothesis fails to account for Deuteronomy 28:15-63

My debate with Flannagan is hard to find over at his own blog unless you happen to have the direct link, (see also here) so just in case he decides to ban me, I've decided to make a copy of that debate over here.

Dr. Flannagan is a Christian philosopher/apologist who just loves to spend time defending propositions like:

Tooley, Plantinga and the Deontological Argument from Evil Part II

He also co-authored the most recent book that is conservative Christanity's most comprehensive attempt to make the bible god appear more politically correct to modern ears, than as most Christian scholars in the last 20 centuries have believed, "

Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God

Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan, Baker Books (November 18, 2014)

My first challenge to Flannagan:

barry Jones
barryjoneswhat@gmail.com
Sep 23, 2017 at 10:49 am
 I have to wonder whether the reason Christian philosophers bother with such involved reasoning is because it is harder to defend Christianity if they simply stick to what’s alleged in their ultimate authority, the bible.
 Deuteronomy 28:15 is the bible’s most depressing list of atrocities and horrors God threatens to inflict on anybody who disobeys him, and these often cross the line into threats to cause rape (v. 30), and parental cannibalism (v. 53).
 The kick in the pants is that this section concludes with a description of God that justifies calling him a sadistic lunatic. He doesn’t just cause rapes and cannibalism, he “delights” to cause them no less than he “delights” to give prosperity to those who obey him:
 15 “But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
30 “You shall betroth a wife, but another man will violate her; you shall build a house, but you will not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but you will not use its fruit.
53 “Then you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters whom the LORD your God has given you, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy will oppress you.
63 “It shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you will be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it.
(Deut. 28:15-63 NAU)
 All conservative commentaries agree when speaking about passages like Psalm 137:9 that the pagans did the same brutal acts to the Hebrews and others, for example:
 The barbarous practice referred to in v 9 was a feature of ancient Near Eastern warfare.
Allen, L. C. (2002). Vol. 21: Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 101-150 (Revised). Word Biblical Commentary (Page 309). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
 So when we assume correctly that the originally intended hearers of Deuteronomy 28 believed the threatened curses were often a reality for themselves and other people, it is rather difficult to believe the predictable thesis of Copan/Flannagan that Deut. 28:63 is mere exaggeration.
 Therefore, if God really did inspire Moses to assert these things as all inerrantists believe God did, then the threats were real, and therefore, God’s “delight” to cause rape to disobedient Israelites justifies the conclusion that the god of Moses was every bit a sadistic lunatic. The only people who would resist this conclusion are liberals who simply deny whatever biblical teaching they don’t personally like, or inerrantists, who think God’s goodness is an untouchable foregone conclusion of absolute truth, when in fact their inability to sustain an anthropomorphic interpretation of Genesis 6:6 makes it clear that the bible-god sometimes regrets his own decisions, and is thus far from the perfect being Christians ceaselessly assume he is…and therefore easily amenable to bouts of unjustified anger or other examples of imperfection.

Matt replied once:

Oct 5, 2017 at 2:31 pm
 Barry Jones, note what you did there: You essentially ignored the entire post and changed the subject and then suggested the post was to avoid the subject you raised.
 Sorry, thats pretty paper thin example of evasion.

and again:

Matt
Oct 6, 2017 at 9:57 am
 So when we assume correctly that the originally intended hearers of Deuteronomy 28 believed the threatened curses were often a reality for themselves and other people, it is rather difficult to believe the predictable thesis of Copan/Flannagan that Deut. 28:63 is mere exaggeration.
 Interesting, Barry, I note however that when you argued that original hearers would take this language literally this you only mention three curse laid down in Deuteronomy 28 and didn’t look at the whole text Why is that?
Lets look: in v 21, for example, it has the picture of pestilence clinging to them till they are completely destroyed.
 But then in v22 it states they won’t die of pestilence they’ll die of consumption and fever, but they will also die of the sword and also of mildew.
 But then in v 25says they will be defeated in battle and flee in retreat, so they survive
 However, v 26 has them not fleeing in battle but there carcasses lying dead on the battlefield. So apparently the didn’t flee on mass but were all killed on the battlefield.
 But then v 27 says they will be alive, but suffering from “madness and with blindness and with the bewilderment of heart” its clear they are alive because it describes them as groping unable to see and so being subject to robbers and exploitation for the rest of their days. So they aren’t all dead from pestilence, or mildew or killed in battle or escaped by fleeing they continue to live with no eyesight.
 But then in v 31 they aren’t blind or dead because they “see their sons and daughters being deported and there animals are slaughtered before they eyes. Moreover, they are said to yearn continually for them, which suggests they remain alive living in the land after it happens to see this.
 Then v 33-36 suggests they stay alive in the land and see other people occupy it, these other people enjoy and eat the crops they have planted they aren’t blind because they see this and they aren’t dead because it talks of them being continually oppressed. Due to the fact they will have boils from head to foot. Boils are obviously awful but its not mildew or pestilence killing you is it?
 But then in v 38, apparently other people don’t eat the crops because the crops belong to them, the problem is locusts have eaten them and stripped them, it says they cultivate them, so it is their crops and vineyard but its locusts that are the problem.
 Then in v 43, they are alive in the land but in debt to foreigners.
 In v 41 it says they shall “have sons and daughters but they will not be yours, for they will go into captivity.
But as you pointed out v 55, it says their children are all dead and they will eat the last of their surviving children, so presumably, they don’t go into captivity.
But then v 59 states they will have descendants, it’s just that the 10 plaques of Egypt will fall on them. So their descendant’s aren’t eaten but live on in the land under the 10 plaques.
 Of course, v 64 has them and their descendants alive and not in the land but spread all over the world, and they have failing eyesight, they don’t appear to be blind covered in boils. Dead carcasses.
 V 68 doesn’t have them in the land or all over the world but all travelling back to Egypt where they sell themselves back into slavery to the Egyptians.
 Of course that’s not all in v 23, they are told they won’t survive, nor will they be carcasses in battle or killed by pestilence or disease, or eaten alive or exiled, rather what will kill all them is that the sky will turn to bronze and the land will be turned into iron and dust will fall from the sky and kill them all.
 So, your welcome to state that, in context, these passages are intended to be literally if you like. But some of us who have read the context, and haven’t omitted all the passages you have in your citation, suspect the rhetorical situation is obviously a little bit different to what you suggest. It seems pretty clear to me that the reader and writer don’t intend a lot of that rhetoric to be taken literally.

Here is my response

barry Jones
Oct 21, 2017 at 11:22 am Dr. Flannagan,
 I’ve reviewed the way you answer other critics, so the reason I answer you in a comprehensive fashion here is because I want the reader to know that the most predictable escape routes inerrantists scholars are known for attempting to take, do not help them. I cannot know when or whether you will ban me, so I cannot assume I’ll get another chance to justify my presuppositions after you attack them.
 First, for the record, you argue like a jailhouse lawyer, that is, you seem to think that if I didn’t mention something, I’m “ignoring” and “evading” and that if I bring up something not directly related to the post, then I’m “changing the subject”.
 I could just as easily charge you with evasion for not applying your exaggeration-hypothesis to the blessings in Deut. 28:1-14, but I’ll more courteously assume you didn’t because you felt doing so was not called for. I will not characterize things you might have done, but didn’t, in language that implies fright on your part. Can you extend me the same courtesy?
 Let’s get more specific on single individual threats from God in Deut. 28, because I think that’s precisely where your “exaggeration-hypothesis” breaks down.
 One of God’s threatened curses upon a disobedient Israel is the rape of Hebrew woman (Deut. 28:30) and the parental cannibalism of children (v. 53-57).
 Please explain HOW and TO WHAT DEGREE these particular threats were exaggeration, and how and to what extent they were serious promises of literal atrocities (because the more you characterize the threats as “exaggeration”, the closer you make them to what we call “empty” threats, and if those being threatened already know the threats are empty, the threats cannot successfully motivate them to obey). While on the other hand, the notion that the threats were promises of real atrocities really being literally inflicted for disobedience, would accomplish the most that mere language could accomplish toward coercing compliance with the Law, and compliance with the Law appears to be Moses’ motive in enunciating such curses.
 If you are a bible inerrantist, then you are forced to ensure your interpretation of this harmonizes with other truths about God expressed elsewhere in the bible, such as God taking credit as the one responsible for causing pagans to commit rape in Isaiah 13:16. See context, God is the one who will cause the pagans to do this, v. 13 and v. 17. If the mob boss who paid the punk to murder a man cannot escape guilt by pointing out that secondary causes separate him from the act (i.e., that he wasn’t the person who actually pulled the trigger), then I fail to see how any argument about God working through secondary causes would insulate God from moral culpability here. Would we have listened to Hitler had he lived and asserted at the Nuremburg trials that he cannot be guilty because he only worked through the secondary causes of his Nazi army?
 And since God can successfully motivate even pagans to do his good will (Ezra 1:1), then when you ask whether God can have morally sufficient reasons for facilitating atrocities on children, the answer is “no”, especially given that your god accepts correction from sinners, a thing that demonstrates he is far from the infinitely wise god you presuppose him to be, see Exodus 32:9-14. I would insist there is no basis in the grammar, immediate context, larger context, or genre of Exodus for you to label god’s reaction in v. 14 as “anthropomorphism”, as you must if you are to avoid the conclusion that your god accepts correction from sinners. I cannot find any inerrantist evangelical scholars who say Exodus 32:1-8 is other than literal history, nor any who say 15-19 are other than literal history, so God’s changing of his mind upon discussion with Moses (v. 14) is sitting in a context of “literal” events. And if God never intended to kill the Israelites as that story says he did (v. 10), but only pretended to merely to give Moses a lesson, then God didn’t “really” change his mind, as asserted in v. 14. What do suppose would happen to Christanity if Christians began believing that God doesn’t always mean what he says?
 As far as your own exegesis of Deut. 28, the literal interpretation which accords evil to God (i.e., causing women to be raped v. 30, causing kids to be eaten by their parents, v. 53, etc) is not limited to the interpretation which asserts that God threatens to kill everybody with one type of atrocity, then in the next threat promises to kill those same now-dead people again with another atrocity (!?).
 The literal interpretation only requires that Moses is giving an overview of the various ways God will respond to Israel’s future possible disobedience at various times. Therefore, you are incorrect that the literal interpretation is so stupid that only your “exaggeration” hypothesis, which you think absolves god of the charge of evil, can make sense of this portion of the bible.
 Other evangelical inerrantist scholars do not say that the presence of hyperbole in the chapter thus rids the threatened actions of their horrific and serious reality:

“28:53–57 Though the prediction was no doubt laced with hyperbole, the desperation of those under siege for years could not have fallen very much short of the measures taken here.”
Merrill, E. H. (2001, c1994). Vol. 4: Deuteronomy (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 367). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. 

God had commanded two Hebrew kings to commit agricultural devastation of King Mesha’s Moabite lands, 2nd Kings 3:19, which obviously was intended to cause Moabites and thus their children, to starve slowly to death, which apparently did actually cause such desperation that Mesha sacrificed his son, otherwise heir to the Moabite throne, to his idol, 3:27 Other Evangelical inerrantist commentators assert that this type of literal attempt to starve a people, as commanded by Elish’s divinely inspired commands, is a mirror image of the horrific realities the Assyrians inflicted on their enemies: 

“Elisha receives his word from the Lord while listening to a harpist play music…Their war against Moab will be successful to the point that they will devastate the land. This victory will be due to God’s grace…”
House, P. R. (2001, c1995). Vol. 8: 1, 2 Kings (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 263). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
 “Agricultural devastation and deforestation were typical tactics of invading armies seeking to punish those they conquered and as an attempt to hasten their surrender. The Assyrian records and reliefs especially detail punitive measures that include felling trees, devastating meadowlands and destroying canal systems used for irrigation.”
Matthews, V. H., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary : Old Testament (electronic ed.) (2 Ki 3:25). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 

And 2nd Kings is one of the “historical” books of the bible :) So that will stand in your way if you try to assert that the story of 2nd Kings 3 is mostly hyperbole, or midrash, or whatever.
 So when God in Deut. 28:53-57 threatens Israel with causing such starvation that Hebrew parents will eat their own kids, it is perfectly consistent with bible inerrancy to say Israel knew such things were actual realities for themselves and others, and therefore, would more than likely have believed, while Moses was speaking the threats to them, that the threats were real despite a bit of hyperbole.
 I’d like to have a formal written debate with you on what I perceive to be the Achilles Heel of the Genocide book you co-authored with Copan. Namely, that your “dispossession” hypothesis makes God look like a greater moral monster than the traditional “kill’em all” hypothesis you were trying to refute.
 barryjoneswhat@gmail.com

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

Cold Case Christianity: Why Is It So Important for Young Christians to Be Able to Defend Christianity?

This is my reply to a video by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Why Is It So Important for Young Christians to Be Able to Defend Christianity? (Video) Posted: 17 Oct 2017 01:47 AM PDT

Wendy Griffith interviews J. Warner Wallace on the 700 Club and asks why it’s so important for the current generation of Christian believers to be prepared to give the reason for the hope they have in Jesus. More young people are walking away from the Church than ever before.

Gee, that couldn't have any relation to the fact that Christian apologetics arguments are unpersuasive, could it?  If Wallace is so sure his apologetics arguments are solid and convincing, why is he so deathly afraid of engaging in a real-time debate with informed atheist bible critics?  Is he aware, as an expert in marketing, that the less you subject your sales pitch to the criticisms of the other side, the more chance you have of the typical average person purchasing your product?

Gee, that couldn't possibly be it, could it?

What can we do, as older believers, to address the problem?

Maybe quit acting like God is just a higher Corporate executive who orders you to solve problems but never himself gets involved?  Maybe act in a way that shows you often step out of the way and let God do God's part?  Because from the looks of it, your claim that God does his part appears to be utterly gratuitous, the ONLY basis upon which a kid in the church grows up, makes less immature decisions, and memorizes more bible and apologetics arguments, is straight purely naturalistic learning.  What you call "spiritual growth" appears to be nothing more than the naturalistic learning and aging, with the attendant effects of such, of the person alleged to be growing spiritually.

Would you say the 50 year old atheist, who naturally doesn't wish to commit fornicatio as much as he did back in his 20's, has "grown spiritually"?  Then how can you be so sure that when young people grow up in the church, their similar pattern of growth is rooted in the invisible world?

If you think the Christian solution to the problem need involve anything more than quoting the bible and limiting your spiritual studies to just the bible, I'm afraid you'll just look like you are using Christianity to sell your absurdly unconvincing apologetics materials.  Gee, how did God sufficiently guide the church in matters of apologetics for 20 centuries when nobody could purchase your forensic faith crap?

All believers must recognize their duty and train themselves to develop a more reasonable, evidential faith, as described in the book, Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith.

That's what I thought, you dishonest greedy salesman.  Christianity just couldn't survive unless people purchased your products, amen?

Take some advice from a spiritually dead atheist whom you believe willfully rebels against the truth:

The bible is sufficient for faith and practice.  Now go google the dictionary definition of "sufficient".

Under your reasoning, saying the bible is sufficient for faith and practice is like saying water is "sufficient" nutrition for a baby.  Perhaps you should be honest, and just come right on out and bluntly admit that if people never purchase your forensic faith materials and instead rely on the bible alone as their source of Christian instruction, they won't be growing spiritually as efficiently as they might.

Why can't you just admit what logically follows from your marketing gimmicks?

Warner at video time code 0:40 ff says the resurrection of Jesus in the first century "stands up against all evidential scrutiny".  It doesn't matter if that is his sincere opinion, he would have been more aligned with "truth" and more objective to say that he disagrees with the Christian scholars who view the resurrection of Jesus differently from him (i.e., they deny the bodily nature of the resurrection, or they think it is something that cannot be proven, etc),  Clearly, Wallace is more interested in one-sided marketing here than he is in telling the view about the reality of the situation.

Wallace absolutely refuses to have any serious scholarly online or live debates with informed skeptics.  So do Benny Hinn, James Patrick Holding and many other "Christians" who do a lot of yammering and not a lot of actual interaction with skeptics themselves.

Gee, what are the odds that Wallace runs away from those atheist debate challenges because he is afraid he'll win?

I don't think so.

Wallace at time code 0:50 ff says "young people are leaving the church in record numbers".

Maybe he should consider a) that's not a problem because those who leave the Church aren't true Christians in the first place, or b) true Christians leave because i) eternal security is not true and ii) modern Christian apologetics arguments simply aren't convincing to those who give every appearance of being authentically born again, or maybe even iii) eternal security is true, and the reason so many true Christians leave the church is because the "church" of America is cursed with consumerism and materialism.

J. Warner Wallace would be a good example of a church leader who cares more about marketing his products, than much else.  In his opinion, God could not think of any way to sufficiently induce the spiritual growth of Christians for 20 centuries, then breathed a hurricane sigh of relief when Wallace started up this "God's Crime Scene" marketing gimmickry.

CrossExamined.org: Why did a "Good" God Create Hell? (and other loaded questions)

This is my reply to an article at CrossExamined.org by Al Serrato entitled

Why did a "Good" God Create Hell?

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Many people today accuse God of unfairness.

Like me.  It is unfair for God to cause a man to rape a woman.  Deuteronomy 28:15, 30.  It's even more unfair for God to take "delight" in causing a man to rape a woman.  See v. 63.

 Since God can foresee the future, they ask, why didn’t He simply never create all those he knows to be destined to spend eternity in Hell?

If his foreknowledge of our future acts was infallible, then those acts were logically incapable of failing, so anything in God's infallible foreknowledge must come to pass.  But this is all esoteric crystal ball bullshit.

  One skeptic I know put the question like this:

God supposedly knows everything that will happen before you are ever born, so if all your choices are set beforehand, how can they possibly matter? Furthermore, if God knows you will “choose” Hell before he creates you, why does he simply not create you? Personally, I would much prefer nonexistence to eternal torment. Is God deliberately creating people knowing they will end up in Hell? Then I would call him evil. Is he compelled to create people regardless of what he sees in their future? Then he doesn’t have free will, which would certainly be an interesting interpretation, but one I doubt many people share. Is there some other explanation? If so, I can’t think of it. 

This challenge has a bit of intuitive appeal.  It seems to put God in a box, as it were, trapped between being “evil” for choosing to create rebellious creatures or lacking free will, by being unable to do otherwise.  Let’s take a closer look at the two horns of this apparent dilemma.
Good God Hell
To the Christian, “evil” is the label we give to words, thoughts or actions that deviate from God’s perfect will.

First, many bible passages forbid the distinction between the perfect/permissive will of God, which appears to be a distinction that was conjured up by Christian philosophers for no other reason than enable them to believe the bible statements on God's will are all in harmony.

Second, if there is nothing evil in God, there's no reason to create the perfect/permission distinction in god's will in the first place, all of God's acts would be good regardless of how they are categorized.  God allowing child-rape would be no less good than god positively decreeing that some atheist should be given a free bible.

 If we were created robots, there would be no evil in the world; we would operate exactly in accordance with God’s desires.

That's exactly what is taught by the metaphor of God putting a hook into your jaws and forcing you to sin, then punishing you for doing what he forced you to do, as seen in Ezekiel 38-39:

Ezekiel 38:1 And the word of the LORD came to me saying,
 2 "Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him
 3 and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal.
 4 "I will turn you about and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them splendidly attired, a great company with buckler and shield, all of them wielding swords;
 5 Persia, Ethiopia and Put with them, all of them with shield and helmet;
... 16 and you will come up against My people Israel like a cloud to cover the land. It shall come about in the last days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me when I am sanctified through you before their eyes, O Gog."
 17 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Are you the one of whom I spoke in former days through My servants the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days for many years that I would bring you against them?
 18 "It will come about on that day, when Gog comes against the land of Israel," declares the Lord GOD, "that My fury will mount up in My anger.
 ...21 "I will call for a sword against him on all My mountains," declares the Lord GOD. "Every man's sword will be against his brother. 

Ezekiel 39:1 "And you, son of man, prophesy against Gog and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal;
 2 and I will turn you around, drive you on, take you up from the remotest parts of the north and bring you against the mountains of Israel.
 3 "I will strike your bow from your left hand and dash down your arrows from your right hand.

Serrato continues:

 But in creating man, God did something quite different. He gave us “free will,” the capacity to rebel against him in our thoughts, words and actions.

In other words, you think the atheist reading this has a moral obligation to spend the next 25 years investigating Christian theology to see whether your statement on freewill is actually "biblical" and why plenty of other Christian advocates of bible inerrancy disagree with you.  No thanks.  But Ezekiel 38-39, supra, justify viewing God as evil for forcing people to sin, even if your view of freewill were the "biblical" one.

And rebel we did.  God “foresaw” this development, but only in a manner of speaking – a manner focused upon the way we think.  This is because God is not bound by time.

Not being bound by time constitutes an incoherent notion, as do other words preferred by apologists like god living "outside of nature" or "above nature".  Worse, every one of the bible's descriptions of activity in heaven, describe the acts as occurring in temporal progression no less than do events down here on earth:

19 Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.
 20 "The LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that.
 21 "Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
 22 "The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'
 23 "Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you." (1 Ki. 22:19-23 NAU)

Job 1 contains the famous dialogue of God and Satan up in heaven.  Read any description of heaven in Revelation, the same applies.  Sorry, but your premise that God isn't bound by time, is biblically false.

For him, there is no future to “foresee.”  There is only an eternal present.

You haven't the slightest fucking clue whether god experiences reality like that or not.

 All times – whether past, present or future – are accessible to him in this eternal present. Thus, at the moment of creation, God was aware that man would rebel, that he was rebelling, and that he had rebelled. He was aware of the acts and the consequences, the motivations and the ultimate end, of everyone.  

Wrong, Jeremiah says the idolatry of the Jews was a sin that had never entered God's mind:

Jer. 7:31  "They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.
 Jer. 19:5  and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind;

Serrato continues:

Consistent with his nature for perfect fairness,

What fool thinks it fair for God to cause a woman to be raped (Deuteronomy 28:15, 30, 63)?  Christian apologists who think intellectual sophistry is more important that spiritual maturity, that's who.

he created a means by which man – though in rebellion and deserving punishment – could nonetheless find reunification with him.

Which was a waste of his time and makes him rather forgetful of his own abilities.  God doesn't need to create a means, he can get rid of your sin with a wave of his magic wand, not Yom Kippur or altar in sight:

 11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."   (2 Sam. 12:11-14 NAU) 

The highlighted part doesn't stop saying what it says merely because you point out that God caused David's baby to die.

 But in implementing this scheme, he did not force this choice upon us.

Then he was stupid and mean, because true love sometimes forces the loved one to prevent them from suffering the consequences of their own stupidity.  Mother doesn't just stand there presenting choices to her child in the street as the drunk driver speeds toward him.  And yet when compared with God, we are like "children".

He gives us the means to salvation, but remains content in allowing us to choose which path we will follow.

Like the father who remains content that his son has disobeyed the rule about playing with chainsaws.  When the parent is brought up on charges of criminal neglect after the boy cuts his hand off, perhaps the man will have a Christian apologist as a lawyer, who will thus argue that because the man made clear his prohibition on playing with chainsaws, nobody else is responsible for the calamity except the child.

Those who use their free will to turn toward him – more precisely, to accept his free gift of salvation – will find a welcoming father, ready to do the work needed to restore us.

No they will find a lying asshole who tells them the more they sin, the less reason they have to believe they are saved.  We call it legalistic grace.  

Those who use their free will to turn away from God – to reject his gift – will find that this choice too is honored.

Some would argue that true love will put forth serious effort to convince the rebellious loved one to obey.  Creating thousands of conflicting Christian denominations for the atheist to choose from in the gamble to pick the one that just happens to be the right religion, does not constitute "serious effort" by God.

 Expecting God not to create those in this latter category would have two significant effects: it would show that God’s provision of free will is really a fiction, since only those who choose to do his will are actually created,

You cannot reconcile freewill of man with God forcing people to sin in Ezekiel 38-39, so there's not much harm in saying freewill is a fiction.

and two, it would mean that Hell is a place of evil.  But Hell is a place – or perhaps more precisely a condition – which was created by God to serve a purpose.

An atheist would have to decide how much time to spend researching Christian fundies and liberals on the nature of hell, and since there are fatal problems with God's existence and the bible being the word of God, it is rational to turn away from this tempting opportunity to impress my girlfriend.

Since God does not create evil – i.e. he does not act against his own nature

Fuck you, God not only causes women to be raped (Deut. 28:15, 30), but will take "delight" to cause that curse no less than he takes delight in prospering those who obey (v. 63).  Gee, you never knew that rape was morally good until just now, eh?

– then Hell cannot be a place of evil. Like a human prison, it may be inhabited by those bent on doing evil, but the place itself – and the confinement it effectuates – is actually a good, just as separating hardened criminals from society is a net positive for both the evil-doer and the society that is victimized.

Sorry, but it does not seem the least bit feasible that the horrific realities of hell would fail to convince those there to repent in sincereity.  And if there comes a time when God no longer responds to sincere repentance, then you just found a limitation in one of God's "eternal" attributes.  And if God hardens those who are in hell so they don't wish to repent, he is not too different from the parent who withholds the Ritlan from the disobedient child, knowing the child will just rebel more and more as a result.

Some will be tempted to argue that God should have forced this choice upon us anyway. Isn’t it better to be forced to love God then to spend eternity in Hell? Only, I suppose, if one believes it is better to be a robot than a thinking, self-aware and self-directed being.

Ask the people now in hell, they'll kindly disagree and tell you being a robot forced to love god would have been better.  Your opinion is nowhere near controlling or persuasive.

 There is no middle ground. Either free will is something real – with consequences attendant to the choices we make – or it’s a fiction.  One cannot have it both ways.

It's a fiction, Ezekiel 38:4.

To recap: God is not trapped in an either/or dilemma. God is not “evil” for having created, because in the end he treats his creation fairly, giving each what he or she deserves.

Then you must agree with Deut. 28:15, 30 that circumstances can arise which would make a woman "deserving" of being raped.  You must also agree that when God causes pagans to beat Hebrew children to death (Hosea 13:15-16), those children "deserved" it.  Is this the part where we email Dr. Copan and ask him if its possible that God had morally sufficient reasons for causing pagan armies to beat children to death?

 Since he values free will enough to have given it to us, he apparently intends to make that gift real by allowing some to reject him.

Like the mother who allows her three year old to stay in the street according to his will, despite her knowledge that if not forced out of the street, he will be run over.  Apparently any who would call that woman unloving, never took Apologetics 101.

Likewise, God is not lacking in free will, because he is not “compelled” to create against his will.

That's also bullshit.  If God infallibly knows that he will cause a hurricane tomorrow, well, "infallible" means "incapable of failing", in which case God would not have the ability to deviate from this infallibly predicted event.  But again, infallible foreknowledge, living outside of time, maybe it can be loving to beat a child to death, etc, etc. is nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Since Hell is not a place for eternal torture,

Then apparently you don't know your bible well enough to justify your commentary on it:

 23 "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment (Greek: basanos, torture), and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. (Lk. 16:23 NAU).

 46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matt. 25:46 NAU)

 11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (Rev. 14:11 NAU)

Some would argue that being on fire and yet unable to extinguish it, is "torture".

but an appropriate destination for all rebellious human beings, God does not violate his own nature – does not engage in “evil” – when he separates himself from some of his creation.

You have already settled in your mind that God is synonymous with good.  That's precisely why you'd never call God evil no matter what horrific atrocity you believed God caused.  Your assurances that God doesn't do evil are about as stupid and ill-informed as any Nazi who says Hitler wasn't able to do evil, who then proceeds to hem and haw and "explain" that massacring the Jews in WW2 was actually a "good" thing in the long term.  Fuck you.

What this challenge brings into focus is not some internal inconsistency in our conception of God. No, what it highlights is just how different our thinking is as compared to God’s.

Giving us justification to wonder whether you got jack shit right anywhere in this article.

For like the skeptic, many would view the decision to create nothing all – neither good nor bad people – to be a better – a more noble – alternative.  Yet God sees things quite a bit differently, it seems.

Not according to the Christian liberal theologians who deny all of your bullshit and assert everybody will be saved.  How long do you recommend atheists spend invenstigating why Christian fundies disagree with Christian liberals?  And why should we feel the least bit compelled to do so?  My atheism justifies me to not worry about the truth of Christian hell, just like your Christianity justifies you to not worry about Muslim hell.

In the end, that he views things differently should not really surprise us. Our judgment as to right and wrong, good and evil, has been corrupted by our rebellion.

Yeah, if only we'd become spiritually alive and born again by accepting Jesus into our hearts, we'd then recognize that sometimes women "deserve" to be raped (Deut. 28:15, 30) and that children "deserve" to be beaten to death (Hosea 13:15-16, Isaiah 13:15-16.

Since we all share this fallen nature,  we should realize that we are not in the best position to render judgment as to the way eternal things “ought to be.”

A criticism that applies with equal force to the theology written down by the sinful imperfect biblical authors.

We wouldn’t ask a group of incarcerated rapists for guidance on issues of sexual mores;

But you'd certainly ask your raping-god for guidance on issues of sexual mores!

nor would we consult death row inmates for advice on how best to treat one another.

But you certainly consult a god who allows non-fatal beatings (Exodus 21:20-21), on how best to treat one another.

Perhaps, in the same way, God has little need to consult with us to determine what ultimate “fairness” demands.

That's a possibility, but not likely, since even God has to sometimes accept correction from his creatures.  Exodus 32:9-14, a story that you always thought was literally true history until you discovered that taking it as literally true history would produce a conflict in biblical theology.  Anthropomorphisms, to the rescue!

No, the Creator of the universe may occupy a slightly better position to judge matters eternal. We might be wise to heed him, rather than try to ensnare him in a “logical” trap.

We also might be wise to do whatever we're asked by powerful space aliens, but that hardly argues that they are good.

Answering Dan Wallace's question on historical reliability of the New Testament

Daniel Wallace allows customer to purchase a "course" that will help them answer certain questions:



Perhaps my input will help Dr. Wallace ensure his paying customers obtain more bang for their buck:

Can we trust the NT documents?

Can we "trust" the Apocrypha?  Depends on what you mean.  Yes, they are generally historically reliable, but that's a far cry from saying every last little detail they mention is historical truth.

Whether a historical source can be "trusted" often cannot be answered simply "yes" or "no", because all sources are imperfect.  Here are some justifications for remaining skeptical of the accuracy or honesty of some of the NT writers:

1 - Apostle Paul admitted his willingness to give his audience a false impression of his true beliefs, if he thought doing so would increase the number of his followers:

 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.
 19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more.
 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law;
 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law.
 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.
 23 And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
 (1 Cor. 9:18-23 NAS)

I've been asking fundies for years how Paul could believe himself free from the law, yet present himself to orthodox Jews as if he believed himself under the law, and do all this without giving a false impression of his true theological convictions.  Apparently, if Paul was honest, he would have made sure when he took a Jewish vow with others in Acts 21:18-26, that Jews who took the vow with him correctly understood that he believed these laws were waxing old, and ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13).  What are the odds, though, that Paul clearly specified this particular nuanced form of his beliefs to them?  One has to wonder: when Paul had Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews" (Acts 16:3), was he telling those Jews, during the surgery, that Paul regards everything distinctly Jewish in his pre-Christian life as feces (Philippians 3:4-8, v. 8 "rubbish", Greek: skubalon, feces, waste)?

Sort of makes you wonder whether the "all things to all men" hypocrisy also affected his epistles.  Does Paul tell Christians to obey secular authorities (Romans 13:1-3) because he seriously believes this, or solely because he happens to be imprisoned at Rome, and recognizes that telling his followers to obey secular authority will make Rome look a bit more favorably on him?

2 - Clement of Alexandria's beliefs about gospel origins justify suspicion toward gospel accuracy:

Quoted by Eusebius in Church History, Book 6, ch. 14

Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Marks had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly for- bade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.
Schaff, P. (2000). The Post-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). electronic ed. Garland, TX: Galaxie Software

Clement's statement that the gospels with the genealogies were written first, (Matthew and Luke) is held false by the majority of Christian bible scholars, who hold that Mark was the first gospel written.

Clement's statement that Peter didn't discourage Mark's gospel writing but also didn't encourage it, raises an eyebrow or three:  If Peter believed, like modern-day conservative Evangelicals do, that Mark's literary effort was the inerrant word of God, would Peter have been so apathetic toward the inerrant word of God?
(Peter's apathy itself raises problematic questions itself:  How could Peter possibly refuse to encourage the writing down of his preaching?  Was there an early apostolic belief that Jesus would come back within the lifetimes of the apostles, no need to publish written works?   Did Peter believe written gospels lacked the presence of the Holy Spirit that presumably was present in oral preaching?  If Clement is wrong in this information, doesn't Eusebius' uncritical quotation indicate that incorrect views about the apostles were capable of successfully duping even the earliest church fathers?)

Clement's statement that John wrote his gospel in a "spiritual" way that was distinct from the "external facts" type reporting done by the Synoptic authors, necessarily requires that in this context, "spiritual" meant some type of literary endeavor that had John doing more in his gospel than reporting the "external facts".  If Clement is telling the truth, then it is a strong argument that the reason most of the high Christological sayings of Jesus in John's gospel aren't paralleled in the Synoptics, is because John's materials are the "spiritual" parts John was adding to his gospel, which were different in nature than the "external facts" (i.e., different than sayings the historical/biological human Jesus actually mouthed).

Indeed, if Matthew had heard Jesus utter the high-Chistological sayings now confined to John's gospel, is it likely Matthew would have knowingly "chose to exclude" such strong supporting material?  If you can believe that, maybe you can believe the author of a book entitled "Sexual Scandals of the Bill Clinton Presidency" would knowingly "choose to exclude" all mention of the Monica Lewinsky affair (!?).  Yes, anything is always possible, but the person who wins the history debate is the person who shows her view to have more probability of being true than the other theories.

3 - If the Christian scholarly consensus be true that Mark was the earliest published gospel, well, Mark doesn't mention the virgin birth story.  You will say Mark didn't think it necessary to repeat what his intended audience already believed, but that obviously speculative answer has the following faults

   a) that assumes without evidence that Mark's intended audience surely did believe Jesus was born of a virgin, something you cannot establish,
   b) saying Mark didn't wish to repeat, contradicts the testimony of Clement, supra, which is generally the same from other church fathers, namely, that Mark's specific purpose in writing down the preaching of Peter, was to exactly "repeat" for the requesting church the gospel material Peter had previously preached to them...gee, maybe Peter didn't preach the virgin birth?  A doctrine that would support Mark's theme "Jesus is Son of God" more powerfully than most of Mark's currently canonical material?
   c) your motive for trivializing Mark's silence on the virgin birth is nothing other than your presupposition that bible inerrancy (and thus agreement of bible-authors on all doctrines) is an untouchable icon of cherished truth.

4 - Luke, by saying in his preface that he obtained his info from eyewitnesses, leaves the false impression that eyewitnesses were his primary source material. But if the consensus of Christian scholarship is correct in saying Luke borrowed much text from Mark's earlier gospel, then Luke's primary source was not eyewitnesses, but only hearsay, because Mark is not an eyewitness (and it is  rather convoluted and trifling to say Mark's dependence on Peter means Mark's account should be viewed as the record of an eyewitness).  That is a justifiable reason to be suspicious that Luke was willing to give a false impression, and like any good historian, he would know a lie would have better chance of being successfully deceptive if he spins it in just the right subtle way and cloaks it with other historically valid references.

5 - Another blow to Luke's general credibility is his account of the debate between Judaizers and Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).  How does Luke represent the apostles?  99% of the chapter is devoted to the arguments of the apostles and their actions afterward.  How does Luke represent the Judaizers?  He quotes a short summary sentence of their basic position (15:1), then repeats it once (v. 5), that's it.  Suppose you surfed to an atheist blog where the atheist author described a debate between a Christian and some other atheist, not otherwise recorded.  The atheist blogger only quotes two sentences from the Christian in that debate, but devotes about 40 paragraphs exclusively to what his fellow atheist said in the debate, and what that man did after leaving.  If you would accuse this atheist-blogger of a level of bias that rises above what objectivity would allow, you must say the same about Luke, because he did the same thing.

6 - Peter makes clear in Acts chapter 1 that only those who were direct disciples of Jesus before he died, could possibly qualify as apostles, and further asserts that because Judas fell, there is a "need" to increase the number of apostles back to 12:

 21 "It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--
 22 beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us-- one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection."
 23 And they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.
 24 And they prayed, and said, "Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two Thou hast chosen
 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."
 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:21-26 NAS)

Several problems:  Peter appears to believe the number of legitimate apostles cannot be more or less than 12, which means Paul, the 13th apostle, is false.  The author of Revelation specifies "12 names" of the "12 apostles" in the "12 foundation stones" of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14), which mathematically excludes Apostle # 13, Paul.  Sure, the language is figurative, but the constant repetition of 12 likely draws from the Revelator's belief that those who set the foundation for the new city do not number more than 12. (Some apologists trifle and say Peter was wrong to replace Matthias, but the praying and casting of lots and other things, including no sign of divine disapproval, make clear that the allegedly inspired author of Acts 1 didn't think replacing Judas with Matthias was error).

7 - Many of Paul's initial followers eventually stopped thinking he was a true apostle.  Paul started the Galatian churches, yet remarks with cursing that they apostatized from the true gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).  Despite the fact that Barnabas was personally chosen by the Holy Spirit to be Paul's ministry helper (Acts 13:2), "even Barnabas" was persuaded by the Judaizers that Paul's views about table fellowship were incorrect (Gal. 2:13).  Paul says nobody stood with him at his first defense but that he was delivered from the lion's mouth anyway (2 Tim. 4:16-17), meaning the defense in question was one he made before secular authorities who had authority to execute him, which thus must have occurred well into his Christian career.  How's that for proving that the 1st century Christians were mightily transformed by the resurrection of Jesus into fearless preachers who would stand by each other to the death?  

Paul also complains of other Christians abandoning him with "You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. (2 Tim. 1:15 NAS).  So it is likely when Luke says Paul was forbbiden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia (Acts 16:6), what really happened is that Paul knew by naturalistic means he would never get any followers in Asia, others agreed, and blindly assumed this must surely mean the "Holy Spirit" is "forbidding" them to go there.  Sort of like the scared man who runs away from a fist fight, then later says he did so because God "forbade" him to fight.  Wrong.

8 - Conservative Christian commentators have stumbled long and hard over Galatians 2:2:

 1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
 2 And it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
 (Gal. 2:1-2 NAS)

Why reason does Paul say he chose to speak only in private with those of repute?  "for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain."

What potential discovery of running in vain was Paul speaking about?  The answer is not difficult:  Paul was genuinely fearful, before arriving in Jerusalem on this trip, that the original apostles of Jesus might actually disagree in a public way with his version of the gospel.  If they did, that would effectively prove his gospel efforts (running) had been in vain.  So apparently Paul sought to guard against this real possible outcome by meeting with them only in private.  Then, if they disagreed with his version of the gospel, the private nature of the bad news would help mitigate it from spreading and discrediting his ministry.  Commentators say this interpretation is contrary to Paul's stark confidence in the truth of his own beliefs elsewhere, but Paul's desire to meet the higher apostles in private is a powerful textual clue that, at least at this point in time, Paul wasn't the loudmouth confident fire-preaching fanatic he was at other times.

However, the answer is difficult for those who espouse inerrancy, since they cannot plausibly argue for any interpretation of "fear" and "vain" that will harmonize with the context while also harmonizing with the rest of the bible.  Indeed, if we must presume Paul never doubted the truth of his version of the gospel, then why would he be motivated to speak only in private with the higher apostles when presenting his gospel to the Jerusalem church?

Finally, most Christian scholars admit that Matthew took Mark's "Jesus COULD not do many miracles because of their unbelief", and "tones it down" to say "Jesus DID not do many miracles..."

Mark 6:5-6

Matthew 13:58

1 And He went out from there, and He came into His home town; and His disciples followed Him.  2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying,  "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?      3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.     4 And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household."  5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands upon a few sick people and healed them.  6 And He wondered at their unbelief. And He was going around the villages teaching. (Mk. 6:1-6 NAS)

53 And it came about that when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there.  54 And coming to His home town He began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they became astonished, and said,  "Where did this man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers?  55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?  56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household."  58 And He did not do many miracles there  because of their unbelief. (Matt. 13:53-58 NAS)

Two problems are created here: If most scholars are correct that Mark is the earliest gospel, and are also correct in their consensus that Matthew borrowed extensively from Mark, then apparently, Matthew did not believe Mark's text constituted the "inerrant" word of God, or he wouldn't have felt compelled to make this change any more than Daniel Wallace feels compelled to replace "word" with "Jesus" in John 1:1.  So the gospel authors changing and modifying the text they drew from allegedly "inerrant" sources is a kick to the inerrantist apologist's teeth.

Second, Matthew's motive for the change is a serious problem, since it is perfectly evident that by changing "could not" to "did not", Matthew hides the fact that the original form of this story spoke against Jesus' level of power.  If you have gospel authors who change each other's texts so as to erase evidence that they disagreed with each other on matters involving Jesus, let's just say you won't be bowling over atheists with the power of the gospel anytime soon...not even if you pray about it first.

How do we know that the NT we have now
is the one the apostles actually wrote down?

Matthew is a case of fatal problems of authorship and text:

1 - Papias said Matthew wrote down the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew dialect or style, and all other early fathers commenting on the same issue are unanimous that Matthew wrote in Hebrew "letters".  The English translation of Matthew in your bible does not arise from any Hebrew manuscript, but from manuscripts written in Greek.  Despite the church fathers clearly being interested in which language Matthew wrote in, they never mention him writing a second original in Greek, despite the fact that they make their comments in the 2nd-4th centuries, when any alleged Greek edition by Matthew would have enjoyed no less circulation in the church than the Hebrew version did.  Jerome in "Lives of Ilustrious Men" says Matthew was written in Hebrew, and was translated into Greek in his day by an unknown person.  He would hardly talk like that had a Greek version of Matthew been circulating since the first century. Worse, Wallace himself doesn't think canonical Greek Matthew reads like "translation-Greek", so Wallace kills even the alternative option that canonical Greek Matthew might be a translation from Matthew's Hebrew.  Thus there is good historical reason to say an unknown person exercised a completely unknown degree of influence on the content of Matthew's gospel before you ever read a bible, and as such, Matthew is disqualfied as a resurrection eyewitness because we cannot decide with any reasonable degree of confidence to what extent the material in Matthew 28 goes back to Matthew himself.

2 - Read a book by Bart Ehrman called "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: the effect of early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament".

Have errors crept into the text over the centuries?

 Yes, as Wallace admits the "long ending" of Mark 16, present in many manuscripts, actually isn't original.  Wallace may say such textual variant is not historically or doctrinally significant, but it surely is:  Most Christian scholars, including Wallace, believe Mark was the earliest published gospel.  If that is correct, and if the majority + Wallace are also correct that the long ending of Mark was not written by Mark, then the earliest published gospel lacked stories of a resurrected Jesus appearing to others.

This creates reasonable justification to believe that the only reason the other three later gospels contain resurrection appearance stories is because of legendary embellishment.  If you feel your own theory to explain this data has greater explanatory scope and power than the embellishment theory, by all means, post a reply.

If most scholars are correct that Luke borrowed much text from Mark's gospel, then when Luke acknowledges the presence of other written gospels, and says he himself thus chose to write to ensure Theophilus would know the "exact truth" about the Jesus issues, Luke 1:1-3, one of the prior written accounts Luke is likely admitting to correcting, would be Mark's, and now we have not just Matthew but Luke correcting the inerrant word of God.

How do you answer someone who says there are 

thousands of textual variants, so the NT can't be trusted? 

By correctly informing them that Barry Jones's above-cited arguments, justifying skepticism of the NT, are a far bigger problem for apologists than noting the number of textual variations there are in the NT manuscripts :)

My reply to Apologist Dr. Robert Bowman on Gospel of John's historical reliability

The following is the reply I made to Dr. Bowman over at his blog.  My comments did not immediately appear, so I presume Bowman wishes to review replies to him before allowing them to actually post.

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

Dr. Bowman,

I find that many conservative scholars have no difficulties with the Muratorian Fragment's listing of canonical NT books, and no problems with its testimony to the traditional authorship of the gospels, but when the MF specifies that John's first idea for gospel authorship was that the disciples first starve themselves for three days, then jot down what would be "revealed" to each disciples, then suddenly, conservatives are quite sure that this part of the MF is a later interpolation or an otherwise distorted view of how John reacted to the prospect of writing a gospel.  And suddenly, they aren't so sure that the MF really goes back to the 2nd century.

What would be wrong with an atheist saying the MF is truthful when it paints John as believing he should get his gospel material via more esoteric means than simply jotting down his eyewitness memories? 

Indeed, John 16:14 and the book of Revelation (if the author of those two books is the same guy), combined with Clement of Alexandria's explicit denial that John desired to write "external facts" about Jesus as the prior Synoptic authors had already done, would justify the historical conclusion that John was open to getting the truth about Jesus in more ways than just what he or others remembered Jesus saying, the method that most conservative Protestant scholars insist was the case.  Which then means that for any saying of Christ now exclusive to John's gospel, we cannot reach a reasonable degree of certainty on whether or to what extent these words of Jesus correctly represent in Greek the same information Jesus' hearers got when he spoke to them in Aramaic.

If such a case can be historically justified, then I don't see how the skeptic who makes such argument would be unreasonable to use it to further argue that the gospel of John contains an unknown mixture of historical truth and historical falsehood or theologizing which cannot be disentangled, and as such, he is disqualified from the list of independent witnesses of Jesus' resurrection.

So my questions to you would be:  If John is the only person saying Thomas' infamous doubting was cured by his touching of the risen Christ's crucifixion wounds (John 20), what makes you so sure this is based purely on eyewitness recall?  Shouldn't you remain open to what Clement said, and allow that John's unique material about the risen Christ was written for a "spiritual" reason that is not the same as writing out the "external facts"?

For what reason do you think skeptics are unreasonable to assert that the esoteric nature of the uniquely Johannine gospel material disqualifies it from the possibility of answering questions about literal history, such as whether Jesus rose from the dead?

Update: October 16, 2017

Dr. Bowman responded as follows:

robbowman says:
October 16, 2017 at 11:22 am
Barry,
 WordPress mistakenly treated your comment as spam, but happily I found it and was able to approve it.
 I tend to privilege internal evidence from the text itself as well as evidence from roughly contemporaneous sources over evidence from much later secondary sources. Both the Muratorian Fragment and Clement of Alexandria are much later than John’s Gospel and so their statements need to be assessed in the light of the more directly relevant evidence. Where those later secondary sources appear to confirm conclusions based on the text itself or secondary sources closer to the time of the Gospel’s composition, naturally I will agree with them.
 I don’t see anything in John 16:14 or the Book of Revelation that would support the claim that the Gospel of John is not providing biographical material about Jesus.
Reply

----------------------------
I replied as follows:

Dr. Bowman, thanks for rescuing me from the spam heap. 

So I guess I got "saved"...?

If a case can be made that some sayings of Jesus in the canonical gospels did not exist until after Jesus died, then it would seem it is hopeless to try and disentangle these sayings of late esoteric origin from those which the historical/biological Jesus actually mouthed...which might provide rational academic justification to the unbeliever to simply throw up their hands and say the gospel of John is disqualified by reason of ambiguity from being viewed as the written recollections of eyewitnesses who heard the historical Jesus talk.

The reason I say John 16:14 indicates some of the Johannine material on Jesus isn't biographical or historical, is because the author makes it clear that Jesus would continue giving "sayings" to the church beyond the grave, by means of the Paraclete.

 12 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

 13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

 14 "He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you.

 15 "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said, that He takes of Mine, and will disclose it to you.   (Jn. 16:12-15 NAS)

Notes:

a - The things the disciples cannot now (i.e., 30 a.d.) bear, are things Jesus has to "say".

b - So when v. 13 asserts the Spirit, who will be speaking later won't speak on his own but rather convey only what he "hears", the author clearly intends the reader to believe that the Spirit will, sometime after Jesus dies, continue to convey what Jesus has to literally "say" to the church, this cannot be watered down to mere "guidance".  Inerrantist scholars appear to agree:

"This spiritual guide’s task then is pointedly summarized as receiving that which comes directly from Jesus and passing it on or messaging it (cf. vv. 13–15 for a communication triad) directly to the disciples. This type of passing on of significant information reminds me of the rabbinic concept of the passing on of tradition and assuming that such tradition has been unaltered in the process."

Borchert, G. L. (2002). Vol. 25B: John 12-21. The new American commentary, New International Version (Page 170). Nashville: Broadman & Holman.

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

c - "things to come" (v. 13), ok, so when the gospels have Jesus describing future events or "things to come" (i.e., Matthew 24), this statement in John would justify the view that Jesus' eschatological statements were provided to the church by the Paraclete after he died, despite the fact that they present them in the gospels as if they were things he said before the crucifixion.  These sayings of Jesus conveyed by the Spirit are a case of him taking them FROM Jesus (v. 14-15), reinforcing the above-cited conclusion that the Spirit is not merely "guiding" the church but conveying what Jesus actually has to "say" beyond the grave (v. 12).

The point is that when you apologists assert the gospel of John constitutes eyewitness testimony obtained by typical memory or "recollection" of what the historically Jesus said and did before he died, you are giving the impression to the unbeliever that the person who wrote that gospel drew upon nothing other than his own and possibly other's eyewitness memories, the same way that anybody normally does when writing down a description of an event years after it took place.

That impression conflicts with John's own testimony that Jesus would continue giving his sayings to the church from beyond the grave, naturally raising the question as to whether some of the Christ-sayings in John were things the apostles never heard Jesus say until after he died.

This then raises the problem as to which Johannine sayings of Christ were those that the biological/historical Jesus actually mouthed, and which sayings of Christ were those that the church never knew until the Spirit conveyed them to the post-crucifixion church.

Without a convincing alternative interpretation of John 16, and without coming up with a miracle to help us disentangle in John the pre-crucifixion sayings of Christ from the sayings he gave from beyond the grave, it would seem unbelievers have here a reasonable academic justification to consider the question of JOhn's eyewitness nature to be hopelessly confused and to thus disqualify John's gospel from the list of resurrection witnesses apologists typically depend on.

And all this is to say nothing of the equally significant objection that if Matthew, Mark or Luke or their sources (Peter?) had remembered Jesus talking in the high-Christological way he does in John's gospel, they would not likely have "chosen to omit" such powerful theological teachings anymore than a modern day author of a book entitled "Sexual Scandals of the Clinton Presidency" would be likely to "chose to omit" all mention of the Monica Lewinsky affair.  So the Synoptic failure to echo Christ-sayings now exclusively limited to John's gospel, is a rational reason to suspect that John's Christ-sayings originated in circumstances far more complex/esoteric than simply what somebody remembered the biological/historical Jesus actually mouthing before he died.

Update: October 24, 2017:  Dr. Bowman has indicated he would like to have the last word on the matters I raised, and that my messages will not be allowed until I more directly address his main post:

robbowman says:

October 16, 2017 at 5:52 pm
Barry,

Your argument from John 16:14 fails to support the crucial aspect of your claim, namely, that what the Holy Spirit would tell the apostles after he came would then be written in the Gospels as though they were pre-Crucifixion sayings of Jesus. There is no reason not to take John 16:14 to mean that the apostles were going to receive revelation from the Holy Spirit that would be presented as such. It does not present Jesus as saying that he will continue to give “sayings” through the Holy Spirit that were then to be reported as though they were given before the Holy Spirit came.
I’ve allowed the discussion up to this point, but any further comments will need to address one or more of the arguments presented in the blog piece.

Update November 2, 2017:  Bowman allow me one more post, as follows:

Barry Jones says:
October 24, 2017 at 8:06 pm
Dr. Bowman,
 Not sure why you are implying with your last sentence that I wasn’t addressing “one or more of the arguments presented in the blog piece”
 You say in your blog piece “In short, we ought to be somewhat skeptical when we are told that the “Johannine” Jesus speaks about himself in ways radically different from the Jesus of the Synoptics. The burden of proof should be assigned to those who make this claim in order to depreciate the historical reliability of Jesus’ speech in the Gospel of John.”
 Thus you argued that skeptics should be required to give argument why they deprecate the historical reliability of John’s gospel. Were my first two posts here not directly relevant to the task of deprecating the historical reliability of Jesus’ speech in the gospel of John”, even if you thought my arguments unpersuasive thereto?
 First, my comments about the Muratorian Fragment directly speak to what kind of person John was and whether his ideas about gospel history are similar to those held by modern conservative Christians. John was prone to obtaining his gospel material from visions induced by starvation. That surely is relevant to your first argument “#1: The Gospel of John has historical value as an ancient biography of Jesus”, unless you now clarify that when you say “eyewitness”, you also mean those people who get their material by vision?
 For example, my question to you from my first post: “What would be wrong with an atheist saying the MF is truthful when it paints John as believing he should get his gospel material via more esoteric means than simply jotting down his eyewitness memories?” Isn’t answering that question relevant to the proposition “The Gospel of John has historical value as an ancient biography of Jesus”?
 If the MF is telling the truth about how John desired to obtain his gospel material, then the more you paint him as an eyewitness, the more he becomes an eyewitness who wishes to mix material obtained by vision with material from his own eyewitness memories, to obtain gospel material…a point that surely is relevant to your attempt to paint John as an “eyewitness” and that “#1: The Gospel of John has historical value as an ancient biography of Jesus.”
 Second, if you wish me to rebut with new argument, well, one of your premises was
“#2: The Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness.”, but you didn’t make any specific arguments thereto, instead, you simply a) cited the chapter and verses references in John which you believe show eyewitness authorship, then b) assured the reader that rebuttals to skeptical attempts to explain away this claim could be found in the works of Andreas Köstenberger, and that Richard Bauckham “offers a variety of independent lines of evidence in support.”
 Did you intend to make argument to support the premise?
 Of critical importance is your allowing as possibly true the view of Bauckman that the author of John’s gospel was a “John the Elder”, when you say:
 “Note that the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the author was an eyewitness even if there remains some uncertainty about who he was. Bauckham, for example, does not think the author was John the son of Zebedee but another disciple called John the Elder.”
 How do you propose a modern person can make an assessment of John the Elder’s general credibility, when in fact conservative Christian scholars disagree on whether he even existed? For example Dr. Monte Shanks argues in “Papias and the New Testament” (Wipf & Stock Pub, July 8, 2013) that it is only from Eusebius’ chiliast-biased “misunderstanding” of Papias, that such a figure as John the elder arises. Jerome in De Viris Illustribus admits the confusion problem in the church and denies that the Elder and Apostle are the same man.

Bowman replied, making even more clear his desire that the discussion be concluded:

robbowman says:
October 24, 2017 at 10:20 pm
Barry,
 You wrote: 

Not sure why you are implying with your last sentence that I wasn’t addressing “one or more of the arguments presented in the blog piece[.]” You say in your blog piece “In short, we ought to be somewhat skeptical when we are told that the “Johannine” Jesus speaks about himself in ways radically different from the Jesus of the Synoptics. The burden of proof should be assigned to those who make this claim in order to depreciate the historical reliability of Jesus’ speech in the Gospel of John.” Thus you argued that skeptics should be required to give argument why they deprecate the historical reliability of John’s gospel. Were my first two posts here not directly relevant to the task of deprecating the historical reliability of Jesus’ speech in the gospel of John”, even if you thought my arguments unpersuasive thereto? 

Your quotation from my post came from the conclusion of my fifth point, which was that Jesus sometimes speaks in the Synoptics in ways that are usually considered “Johannine.” Yet you did not address this point. Nor did you address any of the arguments presented in any of the other nine points of my article.
 You wrote: 

John was prone to obtaining his gospel material from visions induced by starvation. That surely is relevant to your first argument “#1: The Gospel of John has historical value as an ancient biography of Jesus”, unless you now clarify that when you say “eyewitness”, you also mean those people who get their material by vision?

 I gave three arguments in defense of that point. The Muratorian Fragment was not relevant to any of those three arguments.
 Your assertion in any case distorts what the Fragment states. It claims that Andrew, John, and others fasted for three days (not that they “starved themselves”; a three-day fast was not at all unusual in their culture) while they sought divine guidance as to which of them should write, and that Andrew — not John — received a revelation that John should write the whole text while the others reviewed it. Here is what the Fragment says:
 The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, ‘Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.’ In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it.
 Do you see it? The Fragment says absolutely nothing whatsoever about John receiving any sort of revelation through the three-day fast. Only Andrew is said to have had a revelation. And it was a revelation concerning how they should proceed with producing a new Gospel text, not “visions” that supplied the actual content of the new Gospel.
 As to why I didn’t offer a detailed defense of my second point, which was that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness, there are two obvious reasons. First, it’s a blog, not a periodical article or a monograph. Second, this blog post addresses the issue of the historicity of the “I am” sayings in the context of evangelical scholarship on the Gospels (note the opening paragraphs). You might just as irrelevantly ask why I didn’t defend the existence of Jesus as why I didn’t defend in detail the view that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness. So I referred to some good work on the subject that most evangelical scholars would acknowledge as at least important and relevant work on the subject.
 Finally, whether the author was John the apostle, son of Zebedee, or another man named John the Elder, ultimately has no bearing on the cogency of the internal evidence that the author (whoever he was) was an eyewitness.

robbowman says:
October 24, 2017 at 10:22 pm
Barry, please be advised that we will not be engaging in any protracted discussion here. As far as I am concerned, this exchange should be considered to have come to a conclusion.
Reply

I wrote one more reply as follows, but for right now it sits waiting to be approved:

Dr. Bowman,
Are you willing to defend your theory of John's historical reliability, in a formal or informal written debate (or series of formal or informal written debates) online, at any location of your choosing, where I set forth the full panoply of reasons, one at a time, to justify viewing John's gospel as historically unreliable?  I am quite aware of, and have studied, conservative Christianity's best defenses on the matter from "An Introduction To the New Testament", D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, Leon Morris, Zondervan Publishing House, © 1992, as well as those of Guthrie in his Introduction, and various online defenses by other evangelical Christians. 

The only reason I don't attempt to justify my use of the MF evidence is because you have now requested, immediately after accusing me of distorting the MF, that the matter be considered closed.  You clearly do not wish to allow me to defend my interpretation of the MF testimony HERE, so since that is your idea of scholarship, I'll comply.  But I provide point by point rebuttal to your latest over at my own blog, since apparently you and I don't agree on what constitutes serious academic discussion.  No, your blog wasn't a monograph, but then again, exactly how much a blogger will allow discussion of his controversial ideas at his own blog, is a very subjective thing.  That's why I offer you the challenge, supra.  If "blog" is the hangup, then pick whatever other internet forum you wish so we can launch all out war on this matter.

Surely you have to admit, there's at least one belief John had that I've disproven.  John 3:20.    

If the Jehovah Witnesses would be abusing John 3:20 in applying it to you, because of your willingness to debate their denials of Christ's deity, then under the same logic, you'd be abusing John 3:20 the same way in applying it to me, because of my willingness to debate your views about John's historical reliability.  Yet if you admit I'm free from the condemnation described in that verse, you part ways with pretty much all over theologically conservative evangelicals.