My reply to Alisa Childer's interview of J. Warner Wallace

At Childers' blog I posted the following:

To my knowledge, Wallace, for all of his promotion of the idea that we can discover truth in the gospels if we guide our investigation into them with the same evidentiary rules American courts use, never explains how the gospels would pass the provenance-authentication requirement in the ancient documents test (Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(8)(B), i.e., the documents were located in a place where, if authentic, [they] would likely be.)  

Our earliest copies of the gospels have unknown provenance outside general remarks about how they were found in some monastery or obtained from a chain of mostly unknown persons or otherwise procured through illegal antiquities sales. 

If Wallace knows what everybody else knows, that the provenance of the gospels is utterly unknown and even conservative Christian scholars disagree about where they originated, then he must either concede that the gospels can never pass muster in a court of law because they would be deemed inadmissible (which would invalidate his attempts to use other rules of evidence in investigating the gospels)...or...he should argue that there are aspects of the American courts' evidentiary rules that he thinks do more to hide the truth than enable its discovery. 

I explain why the gospels fail the ancient documents rule at my blog which has plenty of posts refuting articles Wallace has posted within the last year....https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/10/are-gospels-all-just-hearsay-yes-thanks.html 

Wallace also knows about my blog, but has shown no interest in interacting with my many well-founded criticisms of his arguments, his populist sensationalizing and his ceaseless relentless promotion of his imperfect commentaries on biblical matters (a sin Frank Turek and many other modern apologists are equally guilty of).

Cold-Case Christianity: Rebuttal to Wallace's 5 reasons for trusting the Nativity stories

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Five Reasons You Can Trust the Story of Christmas Is True 

Posted: 18 Dec 2017 01:53 AM PST

Story of Christmas Is True.  Detectives create lists. As a cold-case detective, I’m no different. When investigating an event in the distant past (in my case, an unsolved murder), I collect evidence, make lists and do my best to reach the most reasonable inference.

And if the theory of the suspects innocence required you to believe some alibi premised on a miracle (i.e., he was in two places at once), you'd become an anti-supernaturalist real quick.  So apparently, skepticism toward miracles really does deserve to be the default position.  Not even Christians will acknowledge miracles where they are alleged to occur outside their own religion.

When I began to investigate Christianity at the age of thirty-five, I approached the gospels the same way I approached my cold-case files. Lists were an important part of the process. One New Testament claim was particularly interesting to me: the conception and birth of Jesus. When I first read through the gospels, the birth narratives seemed incredible and unreasonable. I’m not the only person to express such a concern. In an article posted in the Herald Scotland, Reverend Andrew Frater called the Nativity story a “fanciful, fairy tale” and called on Christians to “disentangle the truth from the tinsel”. Frater is a minister and a believer, and even he doesn’t believe in the virgin conception of Jesus. As an atheist, I was even more skeptical. I rejected supernatural claims altogether, and the first Biblical claim about Jesus was a supernatural one.

But as I collected the evidence and formed my lists, I found there were many good reasons to trust the story of Christmas.

Which means you disagree with most Christian scholars since they reject the nativity stories.  No, it is not only fundamentalist evangelicals who qualify as Christian scholars.

I’ve assembled them here with links to longer treatments of each topic:
 Reason 1:
The Supernatural Nature of the Virgin Conception Shouldn’t Disqualify It
When I began to investigate the virgin conception, I was actually investigating my own philosophical naturalism. I was, in essence, asking the following questions: “Is the natural world all that exists?” “Is there anything beyond the physical, material world we measure with our five senses?” “Are supernatural events possible or even reasonable?” In asking these questions, I was putting naturalism to the test. It would have been unfair, therefore, to begin by presupposing nothing supernatural could ever exist or occur.

Not if you had first tested supernaturalism and found it less epistemically justified than naturalism, as I have.

If we want to be fair about assessing the virgin conception or any other supernatural aspect of the nativity story, we cannot exclude the very possibility of the supernatural in the first place.

We can if we already possess powerful arguments justifying a general rejection of supernaturalism.  But you were writing for Christians who already agree with your views here, so I understand the lack of rigor.

Our presupposition against the supernatural would unfairly taint our examination of the claim.

And your presupposition that God doesn't teleport people between New York and Los Angeles at the speed of light would likewise unfairly taint your examination of a criminal's alibi, where such miracle was being claimed as the basis for innocence of a crime.  You know perfectly well that miracles don't happen, that's why you conduct your criminal investigations under the exact degree of anti-supernaturalism that you condemn atheists for using.  If somebody's alibi asserted levitation as the reason they are not guilty of a crime, you wouldn't care if it was corroborated by 12 of his best friends, you'd just say that increases the number of liars from 1 to 13.  God never does miracles, and you know it perfectly well, at least, whenever your religious defense mechanisms aren't on red-alert.

Reason 2:
The Claim of the Virgin Conception Appears Incredibly Early in Christian History
It’s always easier to tell a lie once everyone who was alive to know the difference has already died.

It's also easier to avoid having the corpse of Jesus used to falsify your claims that he rose from the dead if you wait 40 days after his death before you claim such a thing.  Read Acts chapter 1.

But if you’re going to make a claim early in an area where people are still available to debunk your claim, be prepared to have a difficult time getting away with misrepresentations.

In other words, if those who believe Benny Hinn does real miracles, are going to make a claim early in an area where people are still available to debunk the claim, they need to be prepared to have a difficult time getting away with misrepresentations.  Atheists and even many Christian scholars and the secular media have been debunking Hinn's claims for decades, yet Hinn's popularity did nothing but grow that whole time.

The virgin conception of Jesus is one of the earliest claims in Christian history.

No, if the consensus of Christian scholars is correct in saying Mark was the earliest gospel, then the earliest form of the gospel did not have a virgin birth story to tell.

Again, if the consensus of Christian scholars is correct in saying Paul was proclaiming the gospel in 40 a.d. at least a decade before the 4 canonical written versions were published,  then the earliest form of the gospel did not have a virgin birth story to tell.

Again, aside from Matthew and Luke, none of the NT authors mentions the nativity stories or shows the least bit of knowledge about them, so it is reasonable to thus conclude that the earliest form of the gospel did not have a virgin birth story to tell, and therefore, Matthew and Luke represent a late embellishment of the originally more simple version of the story.

The students of the gospel authors cited the virgin conception as a true claim about Jesus.

No they didn't. Mark was the earliest student of the gospel preacher called Peter, if the patristic traditions can generally be trusted.  Mark says nothing about a virgin birth.

Ignatius, the student of John (an Apostle who chose not to write about the birth of Jesus in his own gospel), included it in his early writings to local churches. Other Church leaders repeated the claim through the earliest years of the Church, and the doctrine also appears in the most ancient Church creeds. Even early non-canonical documents include the virgin conception of Jesus.

All your evidence dates after 70 a.d., when Matthew and Luke had already embellished Mark's earlier and more simple form of the story.

Reason 3:
The Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew Are Not Late Additions
Critics, in an effort to argue the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew are not reliable, point to stylistic differences and “content shifting” within the gospels. Critics claim that the Greek language used in the birth narrative section of Luke’s gospel is far more Semitic than other sections. But the fact that this section of the gospel is stylistically or linguistically different than other sections does not mean it was a late addition.

When investigating history, you don't discard some explanatory theory to account for the data, merely because the theory is not a "knock-down".

Luke told us he compiled the information for his gospel from a number of divergent sources (Luke 1:1-4).

Which means you must be writing solely for the trusting Christian audiences you ceaselessly peddle your marketing gimmicks to, since an ancient historian's claims about sources doesn't tell you whether he is being truthful or dishonest.  You don't have the first fucking clue who Luke' originally intended audience was beyond a ferverishly unidentfiable "Theophilus", yet knowing who that audience was is critical to ascertaining how honest Luke was in what he had to say.

As a result, we should expect stylistic and linguistic differences within the gospel of Luke.

Yes, Luke's use of various sources is a possible explanation for the stylistic differences found within his gospel.  It's not the only explanation, yet here you fallacious leap from "possible" to "probable" with no reason given why your favored theory is better than the others.

In addition, any claim related to the late addition of the birth narratives defies all the manuscript evidence available to us; there is absolutely no evidence that the gospel of Matthew and Luke ever existed without the birth narratives.

But in the case of Mark as the earliest gospel, we are forced to conclude that the earliest form of the gospel said nothing about a virgin birth.

All manuscripts, translations, early Church documents and references to the gospels, along with every historic, reliable witness testifies to the fact that the birth narratives are ancient and part of the original record.

And likewise there are no manuscripts of Mark or patristic statements saying that gospel had once included the nativity story.  So Mark's silence on that story is likely something original to Mark and not the result of Markan material being lost or edited out.

Reason 4:
The Virgin Conception Was Not An Invention of Early Christians
Some critics of the virgin conception argue that the earliest Christian authors inserted it in an effort to give Jesus a “heroic” birth consistent with other Old Testament heroes.But, not every Jewish hero from the Old Testament had an unusual birth story.

That is irrelevant.  This skeptical argument doesn't require every OT hero to have an unusual birth.  The fact that SOME did is plenty to justify early Christians in thinking that conjuring up an unusual birth story about Jesus would raise him to the level of some OT heroes.

Joshua, King David and King Solomon are just three of the more obvious examples of powerful Old Testament heroes whose birth stories were less than surprising or unusual. In addition, there is no other character from the Old Testament who was born of a virgin through the miraculous conception of the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately for you, the closer parallel to Jesus is Moses, since Jesus took the place of Moses in modifying and explaining Mosaic law, and Moses' birth was dramatic.  Nothing says the forger's copy must imitate the original in all its particulars, or even most, to justify saying imitation was indeed attempted.

This characteristic of Jesus’ conception is unique to Jesus and follows no pre-existing Old Testament pattern.

Ever hear of putting new twists on old themes?  Who says the twist has to imitate the original exactly before it can be legitimately called a plagiarism?  If I wrote a book entitled "Cold-Case Atheism: A Homicide Detective Refutes the Claims of the Gospels", would you deny I was imitating your own stuff merely because the imitation wasn't exact?   Well then, stop pretending as if the failure of the nativity stories to match pre-Christian stories in particular details, must mean the Christians responsible for such stories were not borrowing older ideas and putting new twists on them.

Reason 5:
The Virgin Conception Wasn’t Borrowed from Another Source
Skeptics also attempt to discredit the virgin conception of Jesus by claiming it was borrowed from prior pagan mythologies such as those of Mithras or Horus.

Count me out.  As a skeptic I agree with Celsus that the virgin birth story was borrowed from the earliest version of the story about how Zeus got Danae pregnant while he was in the form of a golden mist (i.e., pregnancy achieved without breaking the hymen).  See Pindar's Pythian Ode # 12, securely dated several hundred years before the 1st century, which says in part:

Perseus, the son of Danae, who they say was conceived in a spontaneous shower of gold. But when the virgin goddess had released that beloved man from those labors, she created the many-voiced song of flutes [20] so that she could imitate with musical instruments the shrill cry that reached her ears from the fast-moving jaws of Euryale.

Notice that she is called a virgin goddess who releases Perseus by labor (giving birth).  Pindar apparently thinks she continues to be rightfully classified as a virgin even during her pregnancy.  Yes, Pindar's poetry constitutes nothing but fiction, of course, but your problem is that the idea of a women continuing to be a virgin even after a god got her pregnant, is certainly found in pagan pre-Christian writings, therefore, you cannot pretend that the copycat savior hypothesis is impossible, and you cannot pretend that the virgin-birth of Jesus was an original concept.  You will have to up your game and argue that despite virgin births existing in pre-Christian literature, Matthew and Luke were not influenced by them.  Good luck and thank Christ you don't intend to convince anybody of your bullshit except other fundamentalist evangelicals who already agree with everything you have to say.

But any fair examination of pagan mythological birth narratives revels the dramatic differences between the virgin conception of Jesus and stories about the supernatural emergence of mythological gods.

My Chevy pickup has many differences from a Model-T too, so apparently under your logic, the idea for the Chevy model came about wholly independent of any notion of the Model-T.  Only a desperate apologists would insist that in the case of my Chevy and the Model-T, "the differences outweigh the similarities".

While “borrowing” may have occurred between belief systems, the weak resemblances between the Biblical account and pagan mythologies are far more likely the result of the Judeo-Christian influence rather than contamination from a pagan source.

Not in the case of Pindar's Pythian Ode # 12, which is securely dated to at least 400 b.c., so the direction of borrowing is clear and Christianity is thus the party clearly guilty of doing the borrowing.

It’s irrational to believe the early Jewish readers of the gospels would embrace any part of paganism in the story of Jesus’ conception as continuous with the Jewish narrative from the Old Testament.

We don't know exactly how "orthodox" were the alleged Jews that Matthew and Luke allegedly wrote for.  But with Jews like Philo on the scene in the first-century, don't be too sure that Jews would oppose mixing bits of their beliefs with bits of pagan superstition.

In addition, early Christian converts were repeatedly called to a new life in Christ, told they were merely travelers passing through this mortal (and pagan) world, called to live a life that was free of worldly influences, and told to reject the foolish philosophies and stories of men.

And the church fathers like Justin Martyr explain that the reason we find virgin births in pre-Christian paganism is because the devils foreknew the truth about Christ, and sought to retroactively imitate it, so that when the real thing later came along in actual life, men would errantly count it is just another story instead of the truth.

Justin, First Apology, Chapter LIV.—Origin of Heathen Mythology.
But those who hand down the myths which the poets have made, adduce no proof to the youths who learn them; and we proceed to demonstrate that they have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets. And these things were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in; but that in hearing what was said by the prophets they did not accurately understand it, but imitated what was said of our Christ, like men who are in error, we will make plain. The prophet Moses, then, was, as we have already said, older than all writers; and by him, as we have also said before, it was thus predicted: “There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the Gentiles, binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the grape.”115 The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine116 [or, the ass] among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven. And because in the prophecy of Moses it had not been expressly intimated whether He who was to come was the Son of God, and whether He would, riding on the foal, remain on earth or ascend into heaven, and because the name of “foal” could mean either the foal of an ass or the foal of a horse, they, not knowing whether He who was foretold would bring the foal of an ass or of a horse as the sign of His coming, nor whether He was the Son of God, as we said above, or of man, gave out that Bellerophon, a man born of man, himself ascended to heaven on his horse Pegasus. And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin, and by His own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of. And when they knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, “Strong as a giant to run his course,”117 they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth. And when, again, they learned that it had been foretold that He should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Aesculapius.

Chapter 21  Analogies To The History Of Christ
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honorable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire. 

Chapter 22  Analogies To The Sonship Of Christ
Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior - or rather have already proved Him to be so - for the superior is revealed by His actions. And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.  ---------Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Chapter LXIX.--The devil, since he emulates the truth, has invented fables about Bacchus, Hercules, and AEsculapius.

Chapter LXIV.—Further Misrepresentations of the Truth.
From what has been already said, you can understand how the devils, in imitation of what was said by Moses, asserted that Proserpine was the daughter of Jupiter, and instigated the people to set up an image of her under the name of Kore [Cora, i.e., the maiden or daughter] at the spring-heads.

Wallace continues:

This group, in particular, would be the last to turn to pre-existing pagan stories and superstitions.

Correct, that group wanted their followers to believe some superstitions were gospel-truth.

If there exists a supernatural Being capable of bringing all space, time and matter into existence from nothing,

If a baby could lift 4 billion tons using nothing but his own unaided muscular strength, while also being in two places at the same time...

such a Being could certainly accomplish the virgin conception of Jesus, the Resurrection of Christ, or any of the other “lesser” miracles described on the pages of the New Testament.

The issue is not whether God could.  The issue is whose theory on the nativity stories accords better with normative principles of historiography.  That would be mine.  You lose.

In addition, there is no historically, textually or philosophically necessary reason to reject the claims of the New Testament authors.

And so you typically end your case with preaching to the choir.  I think you forgot to add that moody music that makes people feel so much better at the close of the service.  The Holy Spirit needs every psychological bell and whistle you can come up with.  If you ask, I'll give you Frank Turek's phone number.  He can show you how modern video animations and expensive apologetics vacation seminars wherein you do little more than make yourself the center of attention, can help the Holy Spirit do a better job than He ever did in the first 1900 years, to convict people of sin.

Or maybe you could read something by Clement of Alexandria and discover for the first time in your life that you and 90% of today's Christians are an absurd departure from the oldest post-apostolic definition of a morally good Christian.

If you’re a Christian this Christmas season, celebrate the birth of Jesus with confidence and certainty. The virgin conception is not a fanciful, fairy tale. It is a true story. In fact, there are five good reasons to trust the story of Christmas is factual, reliable and true.

And all five have been refuted on the merits.  I suggest you dedicate your life to defending Mark as a secondary gospel, otherwise, his more simple form of the gospel is going to look like the earliest form and accordingly make Matthew's and Luke's later versions more likely to be the one's whose differences from Mark constitute later fictional embellishments.

My rebuttal to Kalam, posted to NAMB Apologetics

Here's what I posted over at NAMB's Apologetics Blog:
--------------

Dr. Craig states the Kalam's first premise as follows:
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." 

There is no evidence that anything has ever "began to exist", except in the sense of rearranging pre-existing atoms.
Rearranging pre-existing atoms is seen every day, cars, babies, books, etc.  These all 'come into existence' only in the sense that they make use of pre-existing matter.   

But that is not the sense Craig and most apologists intend in Kalam's first premise.  Otherwise they'd merely be saying rearrangements of pre-existing atoms requires a cause, which is hardly controversial and proves nothing. 

The sense they intend is "the beginning of the existence of new matter must have a cause".
THAT sense is not confirmed by any scientific evidence.  We have no evidence that matter itself was ever created, or ever once didn't exist; we only have evidence that matter, already existing, rearranges itself into new configurations.  

Therefore, the first premise of Kalam appears certainly false, and as such, the whole of the argument topples, and as such, Kalam does not require a beginning to the universe.  Our intuitions about things needing a beginning never arise from observed instances of creation of new matter, but only arise from observed instances of pre-existing matter being continuously reconfigured.  Hence, our intuitions do NOT tell us that matter *itself* ever had to "come from" anywhere.

My challenge to Sye Ten Bruggencate

Sye Ten Bruggencate is a 5-Point Calvinist whose claim to fame is his promotion of Calvinist apologetics or "presuppositionalism" (i.e., that god's existence is properly basic and not up for discussion, hence, Christians should base apologetics arguments upon the presuppositon of God's existence, and not allow God's existence to be itself debated...a stupid philosophy that arises from the equally stupid first point of Calvinism (unbelievers have "total inability" to believe the gospel).

Here is the challenge I posted to Sye's contact page:

Do you believe it objectively immoral for an adult man to have sex with an adult woman against her will (rape)?
Do you believe that sex between a 25 year old man and his 6 year old wife (i.e., sex within the confines of adult-child marriage) is objectively immoral, yes or no?
Would you be willing to have a discussion about how the bible answers these questions?
barryjoneswhat@gmail.com

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

Sye shouldn't have a problem with this challenge, as it is not asking to debate God's existence, but only challenging Sye with a subject he's been willing to debate before: that some human acts are objectively good or objectively bad.

Apologist Youtube channels I am unable to post to

One channel called "1GodOnlyOne" has apparently been up for at least a couple of years, but when I tried to post a reply, all I got was "unknown error":



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

My challenge to Lee Strobel: Isaiah 13:13-18, God causes rape

Here's my challenge to Lee Strobel at one of his Youtube videos:

Barry Jones1 second ago

Dear Mr. Strobel, Read Isaiah 13:13-18. 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger. 14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land. 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword. 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished. 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold. 18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children. (Isa. 13:13-18 NAU) Has God ever caused men to rape women, yes or no? In the context, who is responsible for causing men to rape women? Is it not the "fury of the Lord" (v. 13)? Is it not God's having "stirred up" the pagans to commit this atrocity (v. 16-17)? Does blaming God for these men raping Hebrew women, violate anything in the grammar or immediate context? Can you think of a convincing reason why you don't feel comfortable limiting yourself to the exact wording of the OT prophets, when you comment about God's relation to evil? If Isaiah 13 is better than anything a sinner like you could possibly say about God's sovereignty, why do you feel compelled to "explain" God's perfect choice of words with your own sinful commentary, especially given that you don't claim to be inspired by God to anywhere near the extent you think OT prophets were? Could it be that the reason you refuse to speak as simply and plainly as the biblical prophets did on such matters, is because you care more about making the bible-god attractive to modern western audiences, and care somewhat less about honoring your alleged belief that God's word, without your commentary, is **sufficient** for faith and practice?

  

Wallace's exercise in futility: An answer to J. Warner Wallace on resurrection contradictions

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

How Many Women Visited the Tomb of Jesus?

Posted: 11 Dec 2017 01:05 AM PST

How Many Women Visited the Tomb? 

Many of my articles here at ColdCaseChristianity.com investigate issues and passages commonly offered as examples of “contradictions” between Gospel accounts. One such alleged contradiction seems to exist in the description of the women who discovered the empty tomb of Jesus. How many women visited the tomb? One? Two? Three? It seems to depend on which Gospel you read.

And if you do what a responsible historian would do, and read the gospels as isolated accounts as they were intended to be by their original authors, then a single account gives the impression that this really is how it really was, no exceptions.  John 20, in painting Mary and the other women coming from the tomb as ignorant of what happened to Jesus body, absolutely contradicts the other three gospels which make it clear that before the women left the tomb, they were supernaturally and fearfully educated on what happened to the body:

 7 saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."
 8 And they remembered His words,
 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. (Lk. 24:2-9 NAU)

 5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.
 6 "He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.
 7 "Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."
 8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. (Matt. 28:5-8 NAU)

Therefore, when John paints Mary and the other women as talking as if they think the body was stolen and they don't know where the movers put the body:

1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.
 2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." (Jn. 20:1-2 NAU)

That accusation that John's Mary is contradicting the Synoptic-Mary is more plausible than any reconciliation scenario you can pretend.  Archer "explained" Mary's ignorance as her failing to have taken in the "full import" of what the angel told her (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 348-349), a solution not all apologists agree with, but regardless, if you read Matthew and no other gospel, the way Matthew's originally intended audience of Aramaic-speaking Jews would have, then Matthew's specifying Mary Magdalene was part of the group that received the angelic explanation AND quickly left in great joy to tell the disciples (Matthew 28:1, 5-8) does not permit the reader to infer that this specific Mary perhaps left the tomb before the angels appeared.  The only way that loophole is opened is by the mere fact that it is required to be opened by inerrantists who desire to combine Matthew's account with the other 3 gospels, as if the correctness of viewing all 4 together was in assured accord with the gospel author's intentions.

Are the Gospel authors confused about this issue or fabricating the story altogether?

They are fabricating altogether.

I don’t think so, but before we investigate the narratives, let’s review the description of the women in each account:
 Matthew 28:1-10
Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.” And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”
 Mark 16:1-10
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping.

Sorry, Wallace, but you know perfectly well that the quotation you gave which I emphasized above, is not part of Mark's original.  Most Christian scholars say Mark intended to end the story at the place we now designated as "16:8".

 Luke 23:27
And following Him [on the way to the crucifixion] was a large crowd of the people, and of women who were mourning and lamenting Him. But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.”
 Luke 23:48-49
And all the crowds who came together for this spectacle, when they observed what had happened, began to return, beating their breasts. And all His acquaintances and the women who accompanied Him from Galilee were standing at a distance, seeing these things.
 Luke 23:55-56
Now the women who had come with Him out of Galilee followed, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes.
 Luke 24:1-10
But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing; and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has [a]risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” And they remembered His words, and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.
 John 20:1-3
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb.
 In a very brief reading of these passages, a contradiction seems to emerge. Matthew mentions two women by name.

And if you were limited to just Matthew's version as his originally intended audience likely was, you wouldn't leave the door open for other details from other accounts, you'd have drawn the conclusion that there were not any other women that went to the tomb, except those whom Matthew mentioned.  The idea that Matthew knew about more women going to the tomb than those he mentioned, but "chose to exclude" mention of the others anybody, is total bullshit.

Mark mentions three by name.

And if you were limited to just Mark's version as his originally intended audience likely was, you wouldn't leave the door open for other details from other accounts, you'd have drawn the conclusion that no less than three went to the tomb.

Luke mentions at least three by name but describes more. John only identifies Mary Magdalene. You can see why some skeptics point to these passages in an effort to discredit the narratives. How many women were actually involved at the tomb of Jesus, and why are there variations in these accounts? Before we examine the passages in a more detailed way, let me revisit some of the principles I use to evaluate reliable eyewitness testimony.

And let's remember that there is no indication that the alleged gospel authors accompanied the women to the tomb, so that the gospels do not constitute the ancient equivilent of  eyewitness affidavits, and it is more historically responsible to apply rules for evaluating hearsay first.

Or maybe it would be be more historically responsible to remind you that as you apply modern day American rules of judicial evidence, the fact that these accounts are hearsay means they get excluded and the burden of proof is on you to show that some exception applies.  Given that the gospels fail miserably the ancient documents rule, you are washed up.

Why don't you just consign yourself to a life of creating defamatory cartoons telling the world the intelligence level of the people that follow you, the way James Patrick Holding does?

As I described in prior posts (and in my first book, Cold-Case Christianity), even though I accept and affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, inerrancy is not required of reliable eyewitnesses.

That's right, but you don't get eyewitness testimony out of hearsay either, genius.

In fact, I’ve never had a completely inerrant eyewitness in all my years as a homicide detective. In addition, I’ve never had a case where two witnesses have ever agreed completely on the details of the crime. Eyewitness reliability isn’t dependent upon perfection, but is instead established on the basis of a four part template I’ve described repeatedly in my book and on my website. But beyond these generalities, much can be said specifically about the variations between descriptions of the women at Jesus’ tomb. Let me revisit some of the same principles we used to evaluate the varying accounts related to the sign over Jesus’ cross:
 Identify the Common Details
When interviewing multiple eyewitnesses,

You don't "interview" ancient documents, fool.

I listen carefully for common features in their testimony. In every witness observation, some details are more important than others; some aspects of the event stick out in the mind of the observers more than others. In this case, every author is clear about one thing: women (plural) were the first to find the empty tomb.

And the apologetic argument that says this is likely historically true because women weren't given a say in legal proceedings is total bullshit.  It was women who normally anointed and prepared the body for burial, so women would be the natural choice of a forger trying to conjure up a plausible story.

The women who attended to Jesus during his ministry loved Him enough to attend to his body after the crucifixion.

Despite the fact that if Jesus was indeed crucified as a revolutionary by Pilate doing a favor for Jews, Pilate likely wouldn't have given anybody permission to take the body off the cross for several days, and would have done as normal and required the body be left there as a deterrent, then the body thrown in a common pit to be devoured by wild animals.

According to Mark, they went to the tomb for a purpose: to anoint Jesus with spices. It’s not surprising the women disciples of Jesus would be thoughtful and caring enough to want to do this.

But it's never very consistent with the later gospel legends about guards being posted at the tomb to prevent anybody from handling the body.  And the idea that the women would set out to do this while believing the sealing rock hadn't been rolled away, is stupid.  It would be like a family member today going to place flowers in the coffin of a buried loved one, not knowing who many come along and dig up the buried coffin so they can open it.  Total bullshit.

Every gospel author agrees; the women came to the tomb and were the first to discover it empty. Many Christian Case Makers have noted the importance of this claim. After all, in a culture hesitant to accept the testimony of women in civil and criminal hearings, the authors of the Gospels offered women as the first witnesses of the empty tomb. If this is a late fictional account, one might wonder why the authors didn’t insert Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathia in this role. They would certainly have made the account more credible to the first hearers. Instead, the authors describe women as the first eyewitnesses. This agreement makes the account all the more credible. Women weren’t described here to make the narrative more convincing (they actually hurt the account), but were instead described because they happen to be the true first witnesses.

But women were the only gender that typically prepared bodies for burial like this, so again, a forger would find it quite reasonable to think having women discover the tomb first would sound most plausible.

Recognize the Perspective of Each Eyewitness
Every witness offers a view of the event from his or her unique perspective. I’m not just talking about geographic or locational perspectives here, but I am also talking about the personal worldview, history and experience every witness brings to the crime. All witness testimony is colored by the personal interests, biases, aspirations, concerns and idiosyncrasies of the eyewitnesses. In this particular case the most glaring exception in the description of the women is from John’s account. John mentions only Mary Magdalene by name. He does, however, tell us this Mary was not alone. When describing her visit to the tomb, Mary later tells Peter, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” So even John’s account acknowledges the presence of additional women. The issue here is not that each author describes a different number of women, but that each author chooses to identify different women by name.

But according to John, they have left the tomb and remain ignorant of what happened to the body, while in the other 3 gospels they leave the tomb having been told in supernatural and fear-inducing way what exactly happened to that body.  No attempt by an apologist to suggest several tomb visits or credulity of the women can overcome this glaring contradiction.

Why is this the case? Once again, it all comes down to the purpose and individuality of each reporter, and as investigators, we may never know precisely why variations of this nature occurred.

But it is highly unlikely that the authors would have "chosen to exclude" the events you think they did, had they believed all events reported in the canonical gospels to be true history.

But John’s Gospel does seem to give us a clue. John appears to be focused on the first male eyewitnesses of the empty tomb. Unlike other authors, John spends much more time and gives much more detail about how he and Peter discovered the empty tomb. As a result, the women are in a secondary role in John’s narrative. Mary Magdalene is mentioned by name simply because she happened to be the woman who first contacted Peter about the tomb. Even though John acknowledges there were other women involved (as seen in Mary’s use of the plural pronoun, “we”), he doesn’t take the time to describe them. John seems to place higher value in his own eyewitness status than in the eyewitness status of the women. He later reinforces his own pedigree by saying “This [John] is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24).

No, that was written by the "we", not John.  John does not testify for himself that he wrote those things, you only get that by hearsay, to say nothing of the agreement of most scholars that canonical John is a patchwork of different traditions anonymously authored.

Differentiate Between Complimentary and Conflicting Accounts
When comparing two eyewitness accounts, I am more concerned about unresolvable contradictions than complimentary details. In fact, I have come to expect some degree of resolvable variation in true, reliable eyewitness accounts. When examining the number of women present at the tomb of Jesus, the four accounts could all be seen as accurate representations of what really happened if the group of women included the following people: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the Mother of James (and Joseph), Salome, and Joanna. This group would account for the women mentioned by all four authors. All the authors speak of a group and some authors identify specific members of this group based on their personal perspective, purposes and audience.

But you still cannot show that your explanation for a Mary remaining ignorant  about what happened to Jesus body (John 20:1-3) despite having been earlier informed by angels on exactly what happened to that body (Mark 16:7-8) is more plausible than the theory that these accounts contradict each other. You are locked in a historical debate, you don't win or save face by merely carping that something is "possible", you need to show that your theory is more "probable" than the contradiction theory.

Assess the Opportunity for Collusion
Whenever I am called to a crime scene as a detective, the first request I make of the dispatcher is to separate the eyewitnesses before I get there.

Something you'll never do in the case of the 4 gospels, especially the Synoptic 3 which are in literary interdependence on each other to some degree.

I request this so the witnesses won’t have the opportunity to talk to one another about what they’ve seen. Witnesses will sometimes try to resolve any variations before I get there. I don’t want them to do this; that’s my job, not theirs.

That opportunity was lost to you 2000 years ago.

Instead, I want the messy, sometimes confusing, apparently contradictory accounts offered by every group of witnesses in such a situation. There have been times, however, when witnesses have the opportunity to consult with one another for several hours before I arrive on scene. When this is the case, and their individual accounts still vary from one another, I usually have even more confidence in the reliability of these accounts. When people have the opportunity to align their statements, yet still refuse to do so, I know I am getting the nuanced observations I need to properly investigate the case. The Gospel authors (and the early Church) certainly had the opportunity to change the descriptions of the women to make sure they matched, but they refused to do so. As a result, we can have even more confidence in the reliability of these accounts. They display the level of variation I would expect to see if they were true, reliable eyewitness descriptions.

There is at least a 30 year gap between the events in 33 a.d and the 63 a.d early date you give all the gospels.  Then there is more than 200 years between this alleged date of original composition and our earliest surviving copies.  Sorry, but I don't have as much faith in darkness as you do.  The textual problems with 4 different endings of Mark ought to have warned you that scribes had no scruples in fabricating history to fix problems.  And Matthew's and Luke's modifying Mark's wording ought to have told you that the gospel authors themselves were not above changing the witness of history to suit their theological agendas.

In my experience as a cold case detective, no two eyewitness accounts ever agree on every detail or every emphasis.This doesn’t shake me as an investigator and it’s never inhibited an investigation. It’s just the nature of eyewitness testimony. Related to the number and identity of the women at the tomb of Jesus, the four gospel accounts demonstrate the same variation I’ve seen in my professional work. How many women were at the tomb? Five, most likely. The Gospels are not contradictory in their description of these five women for the reasons I’ve cited. You can trust the reliability of the New Testament eyewitness Gospels.

You are a fucking fool to draw such a bold sweeping conclusion about the reliability of the NT eyewitness gospels, merely upon the supposition that you cannot detect any lies or contradictions respecting the number of women who went to the tomb.

No wonder you include so many bells and whistles with your dogshit arguments, you market your crap to idiots who are primed and ready to draw equally hasty generalizations.  Apparently the Holy Spirit needs your help, mere preaching the word wouldn't suffice.  One wonders how God got along before you were born.

Don't worry, I launch the same criticisms at Benny Hinn.

My questions to Dr. Craig Keener concerning atheist investigations of miracles

Over at Keener's contact page at Asbury Theological Seminary, I sent him the following questions
-----------------
Dr.  Keener,

I'd like to get your comments on a couple of issues related to miracles:

1 - Which modern day miracle claim do you believe is most difficult to explain on naturalistic grounds?  Amateur Christian apologists who support you abound on the internet, yet I cannot find any who are willing to direct atheists to any specific modern-day miracle mentioned in your books.  They mostly choose to just sit on the sidelines and carp about the fallacies of of naturalism.

2 - What is your advice to atheists who say that the only reasonable miracle investigation is the one that takes apologist J. Warner Wallace's advice and guides the process by the rules of evidence used in American courts of law (i.e. documents must be authenticated by witnesses, hearsay excluded in most cases, eyewitnesses subjecting themselves to cross-examination,  etc, etc.)?

3 - At what point in the miracle investigation has the atheist done enough research to justify drawing ultimate conclusions about the event?  Does that point come after he has downloaded all supporting materials the miracle-claimant made available on the internet (if so, that's difficult to believe, you don't authenticate documents by simply downloading them from the internet)?  Does that point come sometime after a certain amount of exchange between investigator and miracle-claimant via email?   Does that point come only when he has personally interviewed the alleged eyewitnesses?

4 - Does the plethora of confirmed false miracle claims in the world and in history justify the atheist to insist on using only the highest standards of investigation when analyzing miracle claims (i.e., the standard of evidence used in American courts of law)?    Does the seriousness of the spiritual issues at stake allow any room to say that a less intensive investigation is acceptable?

5 - What is your opinion of the atheist who gets so worried about going to hell, that he divorces his wife, quits his job, never sees his wife or kids again, and does little more in life than sleep, eat at a bum shelter and spend all day at his local library using the internet and library services to examine and investigate Christian miracle claims?   Does the bible allow you to say that an atheist "should" decide where in the day to stop worrying about God and transfer his attentions to his family?  Isn't it true that spiritual concerns are infinitely more important than the concerns of this life?  Didn't Jesus encourage parents to give up houses and kids with a promise that such parents would receive salvation and more (Matthew 19:29)?

6 - Some atheists say refusal to investigate miracles is reasonable, because full comprehensive investigation of them requires a quantity of time, money and resources that the average atheist simply doesn't have.   What is your response to such excuse?   Is there anything irrational about the atheist's desire to investigate miracle claims equally as thoroughly as a criminal investigator, so as to avoid the possibility of being deceived by fraud or mistake?  If you get rid of the cost-problem by suggesting a less stringent investigation, the possibility of successful deception increases.  If you agree the highest standards of investigation are reasonable, you agree that atheists have an excuse, since they simply don't have the time, money and resources to do such comprehensive inquiry.   I don't see any way to balance these concerns in a way that allows for objective investigation within the limits of the average family man's income.

7 - What is your advice to atheists who say that because even spiritually alive Christians cannot agree on the biblical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, nor on whether and to what extent miracles happen today (charismatics v.  cessationists), it is most certain that spiritually dead atheists are only going to fare worse should they join the fray?   If conservative NT scholars like James White, Norman Geisler and Mike Licona cannot agree on how best to argue the miracles of Jesus' resurrection and biblical inerrancy, doesn't it make sense to say that those with even less connection to God are only going to fumble the ball worse if they dare try to run with it?

Thank you,

Barry Jones
barryjoneswhat@gmail.com

Demolishing Triablogue: the stupdity of miracle investigation, a reply to Steve Hays

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled

An embarrassment of riches

(Here is my earlier reply to Hays' earlier criticism of one of my earlier posts on the same subject)

To some degree, Keener's case-studies are game-changer.

Maybe that's why he has disabled comments for the YouTube videos wherein he discusses miracles and skepticism.

A traditional objection to miracles is that reported miracles come to us from the distant past, filtered through the accounts (allegedly) written by anonymous authors who may have no firsthand knowledge of the incident or witnesses. This also plays into the famous analogy argument, popularized by Troeltsch (although it has antecedents in other thinkers like Bradley), that miracles reported in the past lack credibility because there's no counterpart in the present. In a sense, Keener can grant that standard of comparison, but call the bluff by appealing to well-documented modern miracles. 

Pick the one modern-day miracle claim you think is best explained by God, and provide your reasons for all such.  I'll respond.  You can hardly complain that I'm willing to examine your best case.  Put up or shut up.

That requires unbelievers to adjust the traditional strategy, because it backfired.

Not at all, fool:  atheists have realized for more than 50 years that miracle reports are a dime-a-dozen throughout the world.

Now they find themselves confronted by an abundance of reported miracles from eyewitnesses. And this is an ongoing event, at present. Indeed, Keener himself is continually updating his file of case studies. And he's not alone. 

Maybe he should do something more godly, like pick the one reported miracle he thinks is best explained by "God" and provide his reasons for all such.  Anything less is nothing but the pure trifling sophistry you are already known to prioritize.  You know that when you stick with mere trifles of methodology, you can never get smacked down with hurricane force.   You also know that were you to pick a modern-day miracle claim you think is best explained by "God", you dramatically increase the odds that you'll get squashed flat.  Put up or shut up.

So let's run back through the retooled objections:

No matter how many independent attestations of feeding miracles there may be, the use of multiple attestation of sources only shows the popularity of miracle stories (including "nature" miracles) in certain contexts... 

That's all that multiple-attestation shows? Suppose there was a reported sighting of a rabbit at a local park. Then additional reports of rabbits at the park began to pour in. Would that only show the popularity of rabbit stories? Or would independent reports of rabbit-sightings indicate the presence of rabbits at the park? 

Suppose there was a reported sighting of Mary at a local park. Then additional reports of Mary at the park began to pour in. Would that only show the popularity of Mary stories? Or would independent reports of Mary-sightings indicate the presence of Mary at the park?

Or perhaps Keener's examples tell us more about social anthropology, social psychology, and the sociology of knowledge than about what can actually happen.

Would multiple examples of rabbit-sightings tell us more about social anthropology, social psychology, and the sociology of knowledge than about the actual existence of rabbits?

Would multiple examples of Mary-sightings tell us more about social anthropology, social psychology, and the sociology of knowledge than about the actual presence of Mary?

What is needed is not the piling up of further examples, but a closer analysis of a selection of the better-documented ones to see what they do in fact establish...

Which is PRECISELY what you never do.

i) Although there's a sense in which the quality of the reportage is more important than the quantity of the reportage, isn't there a tipping-point where the sheer volume of independent reports creates a strong presumption that the reported phenomenon is real?

Unless you require a larger number than 35,000 as the tipping point, your logic compels you to believe Mary really did appear or manifest her presence somehow at Fatima and Lourdes.

If we had lots of reports of rabbit-sightings at the park, we'd be justified in believing that rabbits frequent the park.

So under your logic, "If we had lots of reports of Mary-sightings at Fatima, we'd be justified in believing that Mary frequents the Fatima".

We wouldn't be duty-bound to interview witnesses, conduct background checks to establish their credibility. 

Then by the same logic, no Catholic is duty-bound to interview witnesses or conduct background checks to establish their credibility either.  But you are rather brick stupid here, since it is only by interviewing witnesses and conducting background checks that you can get closer to the actual truth of the sightings, than if you just stay on the sidelines counting sheer numbers.  If your logic were good and practical, courts of law should pronounce a criminal suspect guilty solely because there were multiple eyewitnesses to his alleged crime, no need for jury trial to decide whether the eyewitnesses are telling the truth.

Hiding behind the demand for intensified scrutiny is the prejudicial viewpoint that there's a strong standing presumption against miracles, which only rigorously vetted witnesses can overcome.

You must be seriously delusional to think that the person who demands intensified scrutiny of alleged miracle claims is trying to "hide".  It is precisely "intensified scrutiny" that gets a person closer to the actual truth, than the less comprehensive method you propose:  counting the number of witnesses.

Again, you are a clown because you apparently think trifling about this philosophical bullshit is more important than putting your money where your mouth is and telling us which miracle claim of the modern world you think is best explained by "god".

This assumes that we already know what kind of world we inhabit, a world in which miracles are highly implausible.

We also engage a presumption against miracles when we investigate crimes and suspects' alibis, automatically discounting any testimony to miracles.  Perhaps you'd be interested in changing the judicial system so that the jury would be required to seriously discuss any "devil made me do it" and other alibi stories where supernatural means were required for the excuses to work?  If a suspect said he was present at the scene, but an angel of the Lord committed the killings, well gee, maybe you'd require the jury to become experts on to what extent God does or doesn't continue his OT ways in the NT era, so they can decide whether there's even any plausibility to claiming that an angel of the Lord does today the same things he did in OT times?

Yet that benchmark is circular. Our belief about what the world is like is largely dependent on testimonial evidence.

It's also dependent on our own empirical experience of how the world works.  I wouldn't want you on a jury where the suspect was claiming some miracle as his alibi, you'd deadlock the damn thing because of how presumptuous and fallacious it is to deny miracles, and you'd have nothing more to say after that because you think attempting intensified scrutiny constitutes "hiding". Fuck you.

If miracles are widely reported, then that should figure in our background understanding of the kind of world we inhabit. 

If the falsity of miracles is also widely reported, then that should figure in our background understanding of the kind of world we inhabit too.  We live in a world drowning in miracle claims, and many of them are proven frauds.  Only stupid people like you insist that when facing such a world, "intensified scrutiny" of specific miracle claims constitutes "hiding".

ii) The skeptical bias involves the view that our world is regulated by natural laws, which miracles, if they ever occur, must "violate". But even if we accept a natural law framework, which is contentious in itself, it only means that a natural law can't be contravened by a natural event. It creates no presumption against, much less impossibility of, a supernatural event overriding a natural law. And whether there are such exceptions falls within the purview of human observation. 

So when the criminal suspect says the devil made him do the crime, the objective jury would have to seriously consider this instead of automatically rejecting it.  Fuck you.

iii) I'm also struck by the studied passivity of the critic. If he thinks what is needed is a closer analysis of the better-documented examples, why doesn't he take that upon himself?

Because he doesn't have the time, money or resources to investigate in such a properly thorough way, that fraud and mistake are guarded against as much as possible, genius.  In that case, it wouldn't matter if the miracles at issue were truly performed by the Christian god, you'd first have to say that the atheist was irrational to think his job, kids, spouse, mortgage and local family concerns where he lives, deserve his attention more than a miracle claim originating 500 miles away from where he lives.

 So, how fanatical are you, Steve?  Is the prima facie case for Christianity so real, and the angry god such a dangerous threat to atheists, that they are irrational to spend most of their time, money and resources on job, family, paying bills and ignoring miracle claims?

Really now, do you encourage atheists to make all the changes in their life necessary so that they can devote the vast majority of their time, money and resources investigating miracle claims?  What's more important, sex with the spouse, or investigating miracle claims?  Getting the kids ready for school, or investigating miracle claims?  Keeping a steady job, or investigating miracle claims?  Paying the bills so the family maintains food and shelter for themselves, or investigating miracle claims?

What would you think of the atheist who took your bullshit so seriously, he gave up custody of his kids, divorced his wife, quit his job and thereafter did nothing more than eat, sleep, and investigate modern-day miracle claims for as long as his life-savings held out?

What is more important, Steve?  That man paying money to his wife for child support?  Or that man purchasing materials to aid him in the study of modern-day miracle claims?

What is your advice to atheists who work at low paying jobs full time and personally think devoting time to the family after work is more important than investigating miracle claims?

Are you sufficiently liberal that you'll say it is reasonable for an atheist to devote a limited amount of time per week to study of miracle claims?  But Jesus is the creator of the universe, he's certainly worth more study time than that, isn't he?  So you don't have that option.

Or are you a stupid fanatic who promises prosperity to those who give up their kids so they can have more time to practice your religion (Matthew 19:29)?

Investigators like Keener have already done the preliminary spadework. Why does the critic act like it's someone else's job to follow up on those reports?
Few things could be more significant. If supernatural agents exist, is it not important that we nail that down?

Not under Deism.  if a god exists, the evil in the world more strongly suggests that god has turned away from the world.  And since Keener has already done the preliminary spadework, why are you finding it so difficult to pick the one case he reports, that you feel is best explained by "God did it", and challenging atheists with it?

Wouldn't that dramatically decrease the risk of atheists wasting time money and resources chasing down what turn out to be false miracle claims?

For their existence will impact our lives.

Not under Deism.  You started having a bad day when you discovered that natural theology, if it supports any god-belief at all, supports Deism, in which case you lose just as hard as the atheist.  That makes more overall sense of the evil in the world, than does "God's mysterious ways".

But you are a Calvinist, you believe God predestined every child rapist to do what they do, so that they couldn't have avoided doing it, making your contribution to the problem of evil rather short and useless.

Indeed, their existence may impact the afterlife–for better or worse.

So maybe atheists should devote their lives to studying everything that can be known about all religions.  And since it is possible God decided to take his true religion from the earth at some point in the past, atheists cannot limit themselves to just the top 20 religions in the world today, they must examine all available possibilities including comprehensive analysis of ancient documents testifying to religions that have since disappeared from earth.

So, no job, no kids, no spouse, no marriage, no house, no life, just sitting in a library 12 hours per day making sure that everybody's else's claims about God's fearful torments upon non-members are false.  Fuck you.  If you can justify avoiding comprehensive study of all religions on the grounds you've already found the actual truth, atheists can justify avoiding comprehensive study of Christianity on the grounds that they've already found the actual truth.

So why does he shrug his shoulders in the face of the prima facie evidence, as if settling that question has no relevance or urgency?

because a) he doesn't have the time, money or resources to do a seriously comprehensive job, and he judges no investigation is better than a half-assed investigation, and b) you don't have a prima facie case merely because you can find millions of people making miracle claims.   That's like saying there's a prima facie case for Hinduism because of how many millions claim it to be true.

if miracles are really so commonplace, perhaps they're not so miraculous after all.

The defining element of a miracle is not rarity but a supernatural source. An event that defies the ordinary course of nature, pointing to supernatural agency.

I'd never make such a stupid argument as that miracles aren't really miracles if they occur routinely.   If God exists, he could choose to do miracles routinely.  Miracles are defined as acts of God, not as uncommon events.

All Keener's work can ultimately do is to get us to the level of belief in miracles being present.

If we received numerous reports of rabbit-sightings in a park, would that only get us to the level of belief in rabbits being presence? Wouldn't that count as evidence for the presence of rabbits?

If we received numerous reports of Mary-sightings in a park, would that only get us to the level of belief in Mary's being present? Wouldn't that count as evidence for the presence of Mary?

Of course not.  You probably haven't felt compelled to go see the alleged miracles in Fatima and Lourdes yourself despite the prima facie case, so apparently, you believe it possible to justify denial of miracle claims without ever checking them out personally.  That's what I do with modern-day miracle claims.  Welcome to the club.

Yes, they believe what they saw, but the point is what forms the basis of their belief. It's not sheer belief, but belief grounded in observation. What underlies their belief in rabbits is the spectacle of rabbits in their field of vision.

What underlies their belief in Mary is the spectacle of Mary in their field of vision.

There are two elements to these reports: the reported experience and the reported interpretation. It's not, in the first instance, belief in a miracle, but the observation of an event. It's then a question of how to properly characterize the nature of the event.

A leap of faith is still required to confirm that there is a supernatural agent behind such purported miracles and this cannot be proven by a historian.

"It could have been something else" is just as valid or invalid, just as speculative, and has obvious limitations for the historian. The only firm evidence the historian has is that people claim miracles happen"
i) It's true that there's a distinction between the event and the construal. However, inferring a supernatural agent isn't a leap of faith. Rather, that involves an understanding with regard to the limitations of what a natural process can yield. And that's not a uniquely Christian understanding. Indeed, atheists discount reported miracles because they typically subscribe to physicalism and causal closure.

Yeah, that's also the exact same basis upon which you know, as a juror, that the criminal suspect's alibi "the devil must have fabricated my fingerprints at the scene" is false.  But under your present logic, we shouldn't be excluding the miraculous from the courtroom.  Unfortunately, if we allowed jurors to consider miracle-testimony, jury verdicts would be less objective than they already often are.  If a majority of jurors thought the miracle alibi excuse was true, the guilty suspect would go free, the number of criminals claiming some miracle alibi would grow impossibly large, and states would probable secede from the union because of how sharply America would be divided over this stupid bullshit.

Miracles imply a larger reality. If, therefore, a well-attested event is inconsistent with natural law (in that sense), then, in principle, an atheist must infer outside agency that transcends what is naturally possible.

Only where that agency is defined in coherent terms.  So this automatically excludes the Christian god, which means whatever god some miracle 'proves', the Christian loses just as hard as the atheist.

"It could have been something else" is not just as valid or invalid on secular grounds no less than Christian grounds. For an atheist, the only viable explanations consistent with naturalism are naturalistic explanations. If an event is naturally inexplicable, then the logic of naturalism requires a supernatural explanation.

Agreed.  When you come up with any miracle claims for which you think the God hypothesis is a better explanation than a naturalistic hypothesis, let me know.   Stupid people who enjoy trying to commit suicide would respond "Jesus' resurrection!".

Then again, you simply aren't interested in putting your money where your mouth is, are you Steve.  You cannot get your ass handed to you quite as fiercely in a debate about the evils of naturalistic methodology, as you could if you claimed some specific modern-day miracle claim was truly performed by the "god".  Hence you never put your money where your mouth is, you content yourself to dazzle your readers by pointing out how atheist belief is self-contradictory.  It's pretty clear who's doing the hiding, and it's not me.

ii) The critic tries to insulate his position by artificially compartmentalizing the task of the "historian". But reality isn't compartmentalized. Historians seek causes. Historians appeal to personal agency all the time. Historians draw inferences like everyone else.

And historians and everybody else are often justifiably suspicious of a person's claim even where that claim is later proven true.

If the ultimate explanation points to a source behind the empirical phenomenology of the event that can't be explained by physical causes alone, then an intellectually honest historian must follow the logical trail back to the point of origin. And he isn't switching explanatory principles. It still comes down to personal agency.  

It also comes down to "all incoherent concepts are excluded, the god of Christianity is an incoherent concept, hence, he is excluded from all miracle claims".

Demolishing Triablogue: The Rin Tin Tin of theism

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled

Goldilocks atheism

Suppose we only had a few reported miracles. Wouldn't atheists exclaim that the paucity of independent corroboration is reason to discount the reports? It's easier to dismiss a few random cases as luck. Odds are, coincidental events are bound to happen. 

I would still ask about the merits of any miracle-claim you pick.

But now they turn around and say, in the face of a veritable avalanche of well-documented, contemporaneous reports, that the very abundance of the testimony is a problem. That just means miracle stories are popular. 

But I also agree to look into whatever specific miracle a Christian apologist thinks is the best documented.

I deny your contention that any miracle is "well-documented", unless you meant it in the useless sense of "a lot of people talked about it".

And "well-documented" doesn't count for shit anyway, unless you suddenly discovered Catholicism was true all because the appearances of Mary and other miracles at Fatima and Lourds are "well-documented".

From their viewpoint, there's either too little evidence or too much evidence.

For stupid atheists, yes.  For atheists like me, no, I still ask about and investigate the merits, I don't just make general comments about how there's too much or too little evidence.

There can never be just enough.

That's true because you apologists refuse to put your money where your mouth is and tell us which modern-day miracle you think is better explained by God than by some naturalistic hypothesis.  I'll start worrying about God and Christianity the day you get your fat ass off the sidelines, put your money where your mouth is, and reveal which alleged miracle claim originating between 1900 and today is best explained with "God did it".  

These are clearly people who don't want to believe in God, miracles, or Christianity.

Given what a confusing dogshit mess Christianity is in these days and always has been, it would be rational to reject these three things even if they were all true. Some people are so busy with spouse, kids and work that they cannot hope to investigate these things more than maybe a half hour per day, which is hardly sufficient in light of the fact that Christian scholars themselves disagree on what's what.  You only look like a deluded fanatic if you dare say the atheist has a moral or intellectual obligation to reduce the amount of time they spend on family and job matters just so they can research Christianity's ceaselessly trifling bullshit.

If you point to lots of evidence, they say that's too much. If you pointed to less, they'd say that's not enough. They've arranged things so that you can never strike the right balance. 

Fuck you, take the one modern-day miracle claim you think is best explained by God and provide your reasons for such.  Put up or shut up.  I'm ready to examine any miracle claim you put forth on the merits, so stop giving the fallacious representation that all atheists are equally quick to employ trifling excuses to get away from your nasty invisible Santa Claus.