Excursus D REPLIES TO COMMON FUNDAMENTALIST APOLOGETICS

There comes a time for every skeptic, when he or she gets posed with rhetorical questions that are commonly seen in books by fundamentalist apologists such as Why We Believe the Bible by George DeHoff, Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. For those who may not be acquainted with the evidence, these questions, or challenges to skeptics as they are sometimes called, can seem quite impressive. In reality, however, the questions posed are normally quite light-weight and are easily answered. This section answers the most common rhetorical questions posed by fundamentalists and evangelicals.

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS ON THE SPECIAL STATUS OF THE BIBLE

Q1. Doesnt the fact that the Bible shows such an impressive uniformity, although the period of composition spans many centuries, point to the idea that it had a single (divine) author? The idea of uniformity is very vague. On the one hand, this claim is trivially true. One would expect some kind of uniformity in the Bible just on the basis of three contingent facts:

1. The Old Testament is a collection of books from one specific people in the
Middle East. Thus, we would expect cultural continuity (such as the same language [Hebrew or its derivative, Aramaic], the same adherence to holy books, i.e. The Torah etc) to be contained within the books since most cultures persist for some time through history. 2. Similarly, the New Testament is a collection of books taken from a group (although not homogeneous as we have seen above) of people who lived in the first and second centuries CE who believed that Jesus coming is a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Finding some continuity in its message with the Old Testament is therefore not surprising.

3. Finally, and this must not be forgotten, the books of the Bible were collected
at specific moments in history. The Old Testament for instance was collected by the inventors of Rabbinic Judaism during the years following the Jewish revolt in 70 CE. Books that did not correspond to the theological views of the rabbis were explicitly excluded from the canon of the Old Testament. Thus, much of this uniformity is not something which occurs naturally but arose out of an active selection process by Jewish Rabbis within a given period in history. Similarly many books were excluded from the New Testament because they did not conform to the
115

views of the church fathers that eventually won control over nascent Christianity.1 On the other hand, this claim of uniformity is wrong. When we look at the details, we do not find a uniformity of theologies within the covers of the Bible. There are actually many differing (in some cases diametrically opposite) theologies which can be found in the Bible. Some examples:

In the Old Testament, for instance we find diametrically opposite views on life in Proverbs and in Ecclesiastes.2 The racial tolerance preached by the book of Ruth explicitly contradicts the racist teachings of Ezra-Nehemiah. In the book of Ruth we find the nonJewish (Moabite) heroine telling her Hebrew mother-in-law that Your people will be my people and your God will be my God (Ruth 1:16). The story ends with her marrying the Jew, Boaz (Ruth 4:13). In the book of Nehemiah, we are told that Nehemiah argued from the Torah that a Moabite should not enter into the assembly of God forever (Nehemiah 13:1). In Ezra, the eponymous priest tells the returning exiles that they have married foreign women, to increase the guilt of Israel (Ezra 10: 10) and that they are to cast off their wives and children (Ezra 10:11, 44).3 Similarly, in the New Testament we find completely opposing views on the value of good works between the epistles of James and Paul. 4 What can be more opposite than these two verses in their positions of the importance of works compared to faith: Romans 3:28 [Paul] [A] man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. James 2:24 [RSV] [A] man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Recently, biblical scholar Randel Helms published a book, The Bible Against Itself: Why the Bible Seems to Contradict Itself (Millennium 2006), that illustrates in detail just how not uniform the Bible is. The claim that the Bible has an impressive uniformity is in one sense trivial and in another sense wrong. Q2. Doesnt the fact that there are more than 5,000 extant manuscripts of the New Testament (more manuscripts than any other works in history) guarantee the truth of the New Testament message?
1 2 3 4

See chapter 6. We showed this in chapter 1 in the section on Books of Poetry and Ethics. Helms, The Bible Against Itself: p1-13 Although I do not have space to explore this in this book, the interested reader can refer to my website for a comparison between the differing theologies in the epistles of Paul and the epistle of James (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesepistle.html)
116

The logic behind this question is badly flawed. At most, a high preponderance of manuscripts guarantees the textual integrity of the document but it does not provide any support whatsoever for the factual veracity of its contents. In other words, the preponderance of manuscripts enables us to know what the authors actually wrote in the original autographs. It does not follow from this that we have proven that what they have written is therefore true. 5 Q3. Arent there verses in the Bible that prove the scientific accuracy of the Bible? The presence of a few vague verses that, when interpreted loosely, seem to show some foreknowledge of modern science must be contrasted with the preponderance of contradictions, mathematical errors and scientific guffaws found within the pages of the Bible. On the contrary there are many more verses in the Bible that show that the biblical authors held essentially pre-scientific and grossly inaccurate views of the world around them. There are numerous errors in the physical sciences, the biological sciences and mathematics in the Bible. Also apart from these scientific and mathematical errors, we must remember that the Bible contains internal contradictions, numerical contradictions and failed prophecies. These facts constitute further evidence for the human, as opposed to divine, origins of the book.6 Q4. Isnt it true that archaeology has never contradicted the biblical accounts and that new discoveries are being made all the time, further confirming biblical accounts? Modern archaeology has shown that many of the myths in Genesis - the stories of Creation, Adam and Eve and Noahs Ark - were all derived, or copied, from earlier Babylonian myths.7 Furthermore, modern archaeological discoveries have put into doubt the accounts of the Patriarchal Narratives, the Exodus and the Conquest. Even the existence of an extensive kingdom under David and Solomon has recently been called into question. 8 Thus far from archaeology proving the Bible true, there is now so much contrary evidence against the historical accuracy of the Bible that the term biblical archaeology has been discarded in professional archaeology! The preferred term is now Syro-Palestinian archaeology.9 The whole paradigm of archaeology in the Near East has shifted away from thinking of the Bible as a reliable archaeological field guide to that of a collection of ancient fairy tales and legends.

5 6 7 8 9

See Chapter 6, specifically the section entitled Overwhelming Manuscript Evidence? See Chapter 2. See Chapter 3. See Chapter 4. Davis, Shifting Sands: p145
117

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS ON JESUS CHRIST

Q5. Wasnt the coming of Jesus so clearly foretold in the Old Testament such that it is highly improbable that the prophecies would have been referring to someone else? Numbers have been quoted to support the supposed extreme improbabilities of someone else being the prophesied messiah. Lee Strobel claimed, in his book The Case for Christ, that the probability of someone else fulfilling the prophecies about Jesus is about one in 1 X 10156 - or 1 followed by 156 zeros!10 However, a detailed examination of these so-called prophecies in the Old Testament shows that such claims are hollow. Indeed in many cases, modern fundamentalists and evangelicals have gotten their facts upside down. It was not that the prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled by Jesus life but that these passages [considered as messianic prophecies by the authors of the gospels] were used by them to concoct details about the life of Jesus - since they did not have much information about the life of Jesus.11 Other prophecies such as the prophecies of the virgin birth and of the crucifixion were based on mistakes in translations. Still others are based on what modern evangelicals and fundamentalists read into the passages.12 Q6. Wasnt the manner of Jesus birth proof of his divine nature? The whole edifice of the story of the virgin birth is historically unreliable. In the two extant accounts in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, we find inconsistencies in the genealogies of Jesus, in the stories relating to Jesus birth in Bethlehem and in the reason why Mary and Joseph settled in Nazareth. Furthermore, we find that the historical details of two events correlated with the nativity, the death of Herod and the census of Quirinius, cannot be reconciled - for Herod died a full ten years before the census of Quirinius. The story of Herods slaughter of the innocents is uncorroborated by other historical documents and evidence, and is a fictional creation of Matthew. Other details of the Nativity have also been shown to be unhistorical. And of course, as we have seen above, the prophecy of the virgin birth is based on a mistranslation of Isaiah. We also note that many of the details of the nativity were concocted from Old Testament passages. In some cases, Old Testament passages were twisted out of their original context to make them fit the storyline. The virgin birth is myth, not history; fiction, not fact.13

10 11

12 13

Strobel, The Case for Christ: p247 For the answer to the fundamentalist stock reply that the apostles would not have made up such stories about Jesus and would not have died for what they know to be a lie, see Q9 to Q11 below. See Excursus C See Chapter 11.
118

Q7. Wasnt the character of Jesus, as presented in the gospels, such that it is high above all human greatness? It is hard for fundamentalists and evangelicals to see how anyone could view Jesus with anything but the utmost awe and respect. However it is also true that most skeptics, myself included, do not see Jesus as that extraordinary in terms of his teachings or his behavior - as reported in the gospels. The Jesus portrayed in the gospels is a racist: he referred to non-Jews as dogs and affirmed that his teachings were meant for Jews only. The ethical lessons attributed to him were unimpressive and unoriginal. His personality was probably not much different from other peasant preachers of his era; preaching love at one moment and cursing his enemies the next. There are even passages that would make one ask questions about his intellectual prowess.14 Q8. Isnt it historically true that the resurrection happened - surely the existence of the empty tomb attests to that? While most skeptics do not doubt that Jesus earliest disciples had some kind of resurrection experience, they do doubt that the stories of the resurrection, as told in the Gospels and Acts, are historical. For instance there are difficulties and contradictions with the burial accounts given in the gospels. Matthews unique story about the guards placed at the tomb completely contradicts the details given in the other gospels. The whole idea of Jesus body being placed in a new and unused tomb is historically unreliable. Furthermore, there are contradictions among the gospel accounts in almost every detail in the story discovery of the empty tomb. The balance of evidence seems to show that there was no empty tomb; that the empty tomb itself was a later development or addition to the legend of Jesus resurrection. Similar to the empty tomb accounts above, the other gospels (and Pauls first epistle to the Corinthians) couldnt agree on many details of the resurrection appearances. The oldest documents, such as Pauls epistles, seem to indicate nothing more than a hallucinatory experience. The initial appearances of Jesus were very likely hallucinatory and fleeting in nature. There are some convincing psychological explanations as to why the resurrection appearances happened to Peter and Paul. We also note that the resurrections of gods are a very common theme in GrecoRoman paganism. Just like the case of the virgin birth, it is very likely that the details of the story of the resurrection are the result of this cultural cross breeding of myths.15

14 15

See Chapter 13. See Chapter 13 specifically section on The Empty Tomb
119

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS ON THE WITNESS OF THE APOSTLES

Q9. Arent the accounts in the gospels, written by the apostles (Matthew and John) or their close associates (Mark and Luke), historically reliable reports of the miracles and the life of Jesus? There is widespread agreement among critical-historical scholars that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These names first appeared as the purported authors of the gospels only in the second century and were guesses made by the early church fathers. Internal evidence of the gospels themselves point to the conclusion that the gospel of Mark was not written by Mark, companion of Peter, the gospel of Matthew was not written by the apostle of that name, the author of Luke-Acts could not have been the companion of Paul of that name and finally the gospel attributed to John was not written by John, the son of Zebedee. All four gospels were written after 70 CE, at least four decades after the death of Jesus, with the latest, Luke and John, written almost a century after the crucifixion. Attempts by fundamentalists to argue for early dates of gospel composition have met with failure. At no point do we have in the gospels the account of an eyewitness or even the friend of an eyewitness. 16 Q10. Werent the apostles around to ensure the accuracy of the reports regarding the life of Jesus in the gospels? This is based on a very superficial understanding of oral tradition. Indeed we found that even in cases where the witnesses are still alive, stories tend to take a life of their own in an unskeptical oral culture. Furthermore, as we have seen above, all the gospels were written after the calamity of the Jewish War in 70 CE. This upheaval would have killed many of the eyewitnesses, dislocated many others and dislodged the memories of most of the rest of the survivors. There are strong reasons to believe that the apostles were either no longer around or no longer in a position to counter the falsehoods in the gospels, when the documents started circulating.17 Q11. All the apostles died for their beliefs. Why would they give up their lives for something they know to be a lie? There are three assumptions embedded in this question:

1. 2. 3.
16 17

We know all the apostles died martyrs deaths. What the apostles believed about Jesus is the same essentially as what modern fundamentalists and evangelicals believe. People will not die for false beliefs.
See Chapter nine. See Chapter 10, section on The Oral Tradition
120

All three suppositions are demonstrably false.

1.

We simply do not know how most of the apostles died.

With the exception of the death of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2) and Judas (Matthew 27:9, Acts 1:18), no other apostolic death is recounted in the New Testament.18 The traditional material relating to the life of the apostles is simply unreliable. Apart from the (probably) historical tradition that Peter died in Rome, we do not know how the rest of the apostles met their end -whether it was through martyrdom, disease, accident or old age.19

2.

What the original apostles believed was very likely not the same as that of todays conservative Christians.

It must be remembered that since the stories in the gospels were not written by the apostles or any of their close associates [see Q9 above] - it is unlikely that what is described therein as the teaching of Jesus actually was what the Jewish preacher taught. We do know that the theology in the New Testament tend to (although not always!) be in line with what was taught by the self-proclaimed apostle Paul. Yet we have strong evidence that Pauls teachings were opposed by the apostles who knew Jesus, that he had a falling out with them at Antioch and that his last trip to Jerusalem to reconcile himself with them very probably ended in failure.20 Thus even if it can be shown that some of the apostles died martyrs deaths, it does not necessarily follow that they died for the same beliefs or dogmas of modern fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity.

3.

People do die for false beliefs

All religions have their martyrs. Even some non-religious political systems such as communism - have found people willing to die for them. The last couple of decades have given us plenty of examples. David Koresh led his Branch Davidians to fiery deaths in their final apocalyptic battle with the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Luc Jouret and his followers of the Solar Temple group committed suicide in Switzerland and Canada in 1994. Marshall Herff Applewhite and his followers, members of the Heavens Gate community,
18

19 20

There are two other deaths with which there is some historical support are the deaths of Paul and James, the brother of Jesus. Paul was not one of the twelve apostles, so his death probably in the same general persecution that Peter died in is of no interest. James the brother of Jesus was very probably not one of the original twelve apostles. James death, of which probably the most reliable version is in the Antiquities of the Jews 20:9:1, was due to some internal Jewish political intrigue (he was accused of having broken the law) which have nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus or his faith. We know from other historical sources that James was a strong adherent of the Torah and the charge was a concocted one. Chapter 12, section on The Twelve Apostles Refer to my website for a more detailed look at how Paul was opposed by the apostles who knew Jesus (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulorigin.html#paulvsjeru)
121

willingly committed suicide; believing that they were to be picked up by aliens. The current trend of suicide bombing among Islamic militants is just another sad example of people only too willing to end their lives for their [unexamined] beliefs. In other words being willing to die for ones beliefs has always been the hallmark of fanatics and true believers. The willingness of these believers to die martyrs deaths provides no assurance whatsoever that what they believe is true. A corollary to this is the general belief, as evidenced by the various apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, that the apostles who were martyred were first given a chance to recant their beliefs. This was probably based on the experiences of Christians in the early second century. We find such evidence in the exchange of letter between Pliny the Younger (63 CE- c113 CE). In a letter to emperor Trajan (c52 CE - 117 CE) dated around 112, Pliny explained that he first gave the accused a few chances to deny they were Christians before executing them.21 However when we look at the two apostolic martyrdoms in which there is some historical evidence that of Peter and James son of Zebedee it is unlikely in the extreme that they were given such a chance to witness to their beliefs. There is a strong early tradition that Peter died in the Neronian persecution in Rome in 64-67 CE. However the Christians were executed not for their beliefs per se but for the concocted charges of being responsible for the great fire of Rome. In order to deflect accusation of being responsible for the fire, Nero used the Christian community in Rome as the scapegoat. Thus Neros men would not have been interested whether the Christians they executed recanted their beliefs or not. A modern analogy would be the Jewish Holocaust. The Nazis executed even those Jews who had converted to Christianity. It did not matter to them whether these people recanted their beliefs or not. Thus if Peter did die in this general persecution, he probably would not have been given the chance to recant his beliefs. Therefore his execution could not have been taken as someone whose death is a witness to the steadfastness of his belief. As for James the son of Zebedee, again the situation is more closely related to Neronian persecution than the one of Trajan. Acts 12:2 merely mentioned that James was executed as part of Herod Agrippas (10 BCE 44 CE) persecution of Christians. It does not follow that he would have even been given the chance to recant his beliefs. Finally even if they did go to their executions with their faiths intact, it does not follow that they were in a position to know whether their beliefs were true or false. Their faith, after all, was in the form of a theology based on eschatological expectations. They would not know the world would not end since this is what they were waiting for! Even if this statement is re-casted as the belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, the problem remains. The apostles certainly had Jesus sightings but this could be explained by modern psychology. 22 Yet such beliefs could be so deeply embedded especially since
21 22

Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels: p94-95 See Chapter 13, section on The Nature of the Appearances.
122

it gave their lives meaning and prestige - that they would not have questioned the reality their experience of this even in the face of death. Such resolute convictions based on visions or hallucinations are not unique. Joan of Arc (1412-1431), the Catholic Saint, experienced celestial visions which called on her to help expel the English from France. She went to her execution fully convinced of the truth of her visions. Yet few today would accept that God would take sides in the politics of medieval Europe. 23 Muhammad was another prominent historical figure who was prone to visions and held on to the belief in their reality throughout his life. So even if Peter and James did die holding on to their resurrection experience as real, it does not prove therefore that there actually was a physical tangible Jesus that rose from the dead.

23

Some Catholic apologists have argued that, based on historical reports of Joan of Arcs intelligence, she was not mentally ill and that this rules out the explanation that her visions were hallucinations. Yet, as we have seen in our analysis of the resurrection experiences of Peter and Paul, mental illness is not a precondition for such visions. According to Dr. Barry Beyerstein (PhD in Biological Psychology) intense transcendent experiences such as visions, which could lead to life changing conversions, are not uncommon in ordinary, healthy individuals, many of whom imbue their experience with supernatural or religious meaning. (http://home.comcast.net/~dchapman2146/pf_v3n3/NeuroWeird.htm accessed on August 13, 2006)
123