THE THREE-HEADED MONSTER AND THE EVANGELICAL BETRAYAL OF THE BIBLE: Exposing the Major Weapons Levied Against the Trustworthiness of the Bible
© 2015, by John Tors. All Rights Reserved.
NOTE: This is a companion article to our article “CREATION MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL AND THE THREE-HEADED MONSTER: Why the Monster Wins”
The Rise of the Three-Headed Monster
The historical era misnamed The Enlightenment, which began in the seventeenth century, was characterized by the exaltation of human reason as the only valid means to determine truth, with the concomitant denigration of the concept of divine revelation. In particular, the credibility of the Bible came under sustained attack by Enlightenment scholars and philosophers. Under the patina of scientific objectivity, these men actually began with the presupposition that the supernatural was impossible, which meant that the Bible could not be the word of God; instead, it was recast as nothing more than the product of mere human thinking from ancient cultures.
This sustained attack on the Bible flowered in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and utilized three main weapons:
- Historical Criticism – the study of who wrote the Bible and when and how
- Textual Criticism – the comparison of the extant manuscripts of the Bible to determine the text of the original autographs
- Darwinism – the theory that all life on earth descended from an original simple ancestor through natural selection acting on random variation
DARWINISM is a theory that was designed to account for the origin and existence of life purely by random natural processes, thus dispensing completely with the need for God; even the absentee creator of Deism was no longer required. Inasmuch as Darwinism flatly contradicts the Genesis account of creation, it is an open attack on the credibility of the Bible.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong in principle with HISTORICAL CRITICISM. Valuable information can be gleaned by carefully studying the available historical evidence pertinent to the question of the origins of the Gospel books and the other books of the Bible. However, that is not what these Enlightenment scholars did. What they did was to begin with the presupposition that anything supernatural was impossible, and so the actual evidence was ignored as these scholars sought to explain how the Bible originated and attained their current form through purely human actions.
Claims that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead naturally had to be dismissed out of hand – which meant that it was essential to deny that the Gospel books were eyewitness testimony and instead to spin alternate and completely naturalistic explanations for the NT accounts of Jesus. In time, elaborate theories were concocted, based on numerous postulates that were presented as “the assured results of critical scholarship.”
For example, since according to liberal scholarship Jesus was only a man and not God incarnate, he could not have claimed deity or performed miracles, nor would his earliest believers teach such things. Therefore, they reasoned, it must have taken a very long time for high Christology to develop and for miracles to be attributed to Jesus. This required that the Gospel books be anonymous (and certainly not written by eyewitnesses), and temporally removed from the actual events by many decades. (Of course, such claims were spun almost completely out of whole cloth, and were not based on actual evidence. On the contrary, they necessitated ignoring the actual pertinent evidence.)
This “late dating of the Gospel books” was one of the unproven (and untenable) axioms that became part of scholarly orthodoxy. Other axioms designed to work together to discredit the Gospel books were the extreme late dating of Gospel According to John, which was pushed into the 80s or 90s; the claim that the Synoptic Gospel writers copied one from another instead of simply writing their own eyewitness testimony (“literary dependence”); the claim that the Gospel According to Mark was the earliest of the Gospel books written (“Markan priority”); the claim that Matthew and Luke based their Gospel books on the Gospel According to Mark and on other, earlier sources (the “two-source hypothesis,” which was later expanded into the “four-source hypothesis”); and the claim that the most important of these other sources was a “sayings source” dubbed Q, which had no miracles or resurrection account (“the Q hypothesis”). It is worth noting that all of the actual evidence weighs against every one of these presuppositions.
Regarding the Dates of Composition of the Gospel Books
John A.T. Robinson, a well known liberal scholar who had accepted late dating without any hesitation, wrote a landmark book in 1976, in which he examined the evidence pertaining to the dating of the Gospel books and found that Matthew may date as early as AD 40, Mark as early as AD 45, and Luke as early as AD 57. He placed the Gospel According to John in the AD 40-65 range. Evangelical scholar John Wenham also examined the evidence for the synoptic Gospel books minutely, and concluded that Matthew dates to c. AD 40, Mark to c. AD 45, and Luke to c. AD 54. Eusebius in his Chronicon tells us that Matthew was written in the third year of Caligula (AD 39-40) and Mark in the third year of Claudius (AD 43-44). Furthermore, ancient colophons found in about 150 f35 NT manuscripts record that the Gospel According to Matthew was written eight years after the Ascension of Christ, Mark ten years after the Ascension, Luke fifteen, and John thirty-two, which yields dates of AD 40-41 for Matthew, AD 42-43 for Mark, AD 47-48 for Luke, and AD 64-65 for John.
In light of these various lines of evidence, these are the dates that should be accepted for the Gospel books. This means they are very early, and that Matthew and Mark certainly, and Luke almost certainly, predate even the earliest letter of Paul and are our earliest sources of information about Jesus and His resurrection.
Regarding Literary Dependence
The unanimous testimony of the early Church Fathers was that the Gospel books were each written independently by the authors, with no “copying.” Although the synoptic Gospel books share a great similarity in wording in many places, this was not seen as problematic; as Charles Dyer rightly said, this was due to the “supernatural work of the Holy Spirit which would enable the disciples to recall all of Christ’s words.” Similarly, as Geisler and Roach affirm, the Gospel authors were “eyewitnesses … of Christ, who promised them supernaturally activated memories (John 14:26) to recall his words.”
This approach, naturally, will not do for liberal scholars. To explain the verbal similarities, theories that the Synoptic Gospel authors depended on shared “oral tradition” in composing their books were floated as early as the 1790s by Johann Gottfried von Herder, followed in the early 1800s by Johann Carl Ludwig Gieseler. To view the Gospel books as being based on a chain of “broken-telephone” oral tradition across decades was far more palatable to them than to see the Gospel books as the direct eyewitness testimony of the apostles Matthew, John, and Peter (as recorded by his co-worker Mark), as well as testimony straight from eyewitnesses to Luke (Luke 1:2).
But they could do still better. Theories or shared “oral tradition” were supplanted in the 20th century by theories of literary dependence (i.e. that one Gospel writer copied the work of another), which are dominant today. Such theories naturally dispense with the need for divine inspiration, and so they are tailor-made for liberal scholars. Henry Alford pointedly observed that
I do not see how any theory of mutual interdependence will leave to our three Evangelists their credit as able or trustworthy writers, or even as honest men.
This, of course, occasions no difficulty for liberal scholars, but rather is welcomed by them. The fact that the verbal differences among the synoptic Gospel books (some 5,000 between Mark and Luke in their common material, and some 8,000 between Matthew and Mark in their common material) puts paid to any legitimacy to theories of literary dependence bothers them not one whit.
Regarding Markan Priority
The idea that the Gospel According to Mark was the first Gospel book written is now so widespread that one might think this was a well known fact from the beginning. On the contrary; the patristic evidence for Matthean priority is so overwhelming that for a long time not even the most radical liberal scholar challenged it. But this eventually – and suddenly – changed:
During the latter half of the nineteenth century, however, a new hypothesis took center stage. Renewed textual examinations … reached the conclusion of Marcan priority … text-critical arguments…establish that Matthew has secondary readings and Mark has original readings.
And what exactly were these “renewed textual examinations”? Two ancient New Testament manuscripts came to light that were missing the last twelve verses of the Gospel According to Mark. Liberal scholars smelled the opportunity to debunk the resurrection entirely, but that required Mark’s Gospel book to be the earliest one. Instantly, the claim that the Gospel According to Mark was the first one written became widely advanced and soon became scholarly orthodoxy. The fact that the actual evidence overwhelmingly showed that the Gospel According to Matthew was undeniably the first one written was simply ignored.
Regarding the Q Hypothesis
Once literary dependence and Markan priority had been declared to be facts, the next obvious step was to proclaim that Matthew and Luke had both used the Gospel According to Mark as a “source” (i.e. they had copied from his book) for their own Gospel books. But there is some material that is found in both Matthew’s book and Luke’s book but not in Mark’s book; from where did that come? Liberal scholars conjured up a second source that was alleged used by Matthew and Luke as the source of their common but non-Markan material, a source they dubbed “Q” (the first letter of the German word Quelle, which means “source”).
The fact that, while 5,795 manuscripts of the NT have been found but not one of Q; the fact that there are over 86,000 quotations from the NT in the Patristic writings but not one from Q; the fact that the Church Fathers discuss the origins of the Gospel books at length but never mention a supposed Q gospel; and the fact that the church fathers were unanimous that the Gospel writers were recording direct eyewitness testimony was as nothing compared to the fiat pronouncements of liberal scholars, and so Q was magically produced. The fact that there was no actual Q was actually advantageous to liberal scholars, as their imaginary friend could be anything they wanted it to be – including, naturally, the earliest Gospel book and one that had no miracle or resurrection accounts, since, according to these scholars, the earliest Christians didn’t believe such things and weren’t interested in such things.
Acceptance of Markan priority and the Q hypothesis seamlessly led to the “two-source” hypothesis, according to which the Gospel According to Matthew and the Gospel According to Luke were based on the Gospel According to Mark and the Q gospel. This was expanded into the “four-source hypothesis,” with added two more sources, “M” (from which Matthew obtained the material unique to his Gospel book, and “L” (from which Luke obtained the material unique to his Gospel book).
In sum, then, the liberal paradigm assumptions of Historical Criticism of the New Testament include the late dating of the Gospel books, extreme late dating of Gospel According to John, literary dependence, Markan priority, and the Q hypothesis (the latter three of which have been melded into the Four-Source hypothesis). They are all designed to undermine the credibility of the Gospel books and to spin a naturalistic explanation for them, and they can all be maintained only through a determined refusal to consider fairly the actual evidence that bears upon these claims.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM, meanwhile, is supposed to be the art and science of recovering the original text of the New Testament. The New Testament was written about fourteen centuries before the printing press was invented in the West, and so for all that time it could only be reproduced through copying by hand. No scribe is perfect, and so every handwritten manuscript contains its own errors, or “variants.” Textual critics, then, compare the variants in the different manuscripts in order to ascertain which was the original reading in each case, and thus to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament.
This is actually not difficult to do, in light of the large number of extant manuscripts. A simple application of statistical analysis should yield the original text. However, that is not what liberal scholars actually wanted to do. As with historical criticism, their goal was to discredit the Bible, so instead of using actual scientific tools to reconstruct the original text, they created by fiat a set of rules (“the canons of textual criticism”) to adjudicate between variants, rules that were designed to ensure that variants that introduce errors into the text would be selected as the “original” reading in as many cases as possible. In doing so, the concept of inerrancy would be forever destroyed.
So while evangelicals think that textual criticism is “The science of determining, as far as possible, the original text of the New Testament, and attempting to understand the reasons for changes,” what it is in reality is “The practice of using the variants in the NT manuscripts as a pretext for inserting as many errors as possible into the ‘original text’ of the New Testament, and persuading evangelical scholars to accept and champion an ‘original text’ that can no longer be considered inerrant” – which also leads to the touting of the very worst NT manuscripts as “the most reliable.” The fact that every one of the canons of textual criticism was either immediately obviously wrong or shown to be wrong by subsequent studies is serenely ignored by liberal scholars.
FOR MORE DETAILS, SEE OUR ARTICLE “A PRIMER ON NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM (IN MANAGEABLE, BITE-SIZED CHUNKS)“.
The Three-Headed Monster in Action
The three heads of the monster do not operate in vacuums. In particular, the first two heads, historical criticism and textual criticism, are frequently used together to undermine the case for Christianity. And with these liberal paradigm assumptions in place, it becomes very easy to do that. For if these assumptions are accepted as true, then it follows that
- The earliest Gospel book, Q, written around AD 40-50, does not have a resurrection of Jesus.
- The next earliest Gospel book, Mark’s, written around AD 66-70, also does not have a resurrection of Jesus.
- Not until the 80s, a half century or more after the death of Jesus, do claims appear that Jesus rose from the dead. Clearly these are late additions.
- If there is no resurrection, then Jesus was not the Son of God who can save us from our sins, and Christianity collapses (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).
This is diagrammed below:
This is the conclusion for which liberal scholarship has long been angling, and it is now the party line of such scholars, widely disseminated to an unwary general public.
One example of an opponent of Christianity who uses these liberal paradigm assumptions very skillfully to undermine the Gospel is Muslim scholar and debater Dr. Shabir Ally, president of the Islamic Information & Dawah Centre International in Toronto. In his presentations, he begins with the liberal paradigm assumption of late dating of the Gospel books, dating Mark’s to AD 75, Matthew’s to AD 85, and Luke’s and Acts to AD 90, and John’s later still.
Next, in accordance with the liberal paradigm assumption of Markan priority and the four-source hypothesis, he posits that Matthew copied the chronology and events of Jesus’ ministry from Mark (while adding sayings from Q). However, Matthew didn’t simply copy Mark slavishly; he freely altered Mark’s material, specifically to elevate the portrait of Jesus to a higher Christology. He details eight ways in which Matthew changed what he found in Mark’s Gospel book in order to raise the status of Jesus. Luke’s Christology is then similar to Matthew’s, and John’s, which is the latest, is higher still. (This was done because of the influence of the letters of Paul, the real inventor of Christianity, whose non-historical view of Jesus came to dominate after AD 70, when Jesus’ original followers were killed in the Jewish war with the Romans.)
So the picture of Jesus in the Gospel books, says Ally, is like a “snowball” that keeps getting larger as it rolls on. It is possible to trace the trajectory of this elevation in Christology from the Gospel According to Mark in AD 75 to that in John in the late 90s, and then one can extrapolate back to the original Jesus in AD 33 and find a picture, lower than the one in Mark’s Gospel, a picture that matches the Jesus of the Qur’an.
One can see how difficult it would be to contradict the claims of people such as Shabir Ally if one accepts the same liberal paradigm assumptions. And that brings us to the next section.
The Evangelical Betrayal of the Bible
Liberal scholarship developed in Europe, most notably in Germany, England, and France, spearheaded by such men as Benedict (Baruch) de Spinoza (1632-1677), Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860), K.H. Graf (1815-69), David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874), and Ernest Renan (1823-1892), who with ever increasing success destroyed trust in the Bible.
This “higher criticism” of the Bible reached North America in the nineteenth century, but for a time it was restricted to scholarly discussions in academic journals. It did not explode into public consciousness until 1891, when one Charles Augustus Briggs was appointed first professor of Biblical Theology at Union Theological Seminary. Briggs, who had studied in Germany and had been won over to an acceptance of historical criticism, announced in his inaugural address such indelicacies that the Bible is filled with errors, that the doctrine of inerrancy was nothing more than a bogey man to frighten children, and that theology should be rebuilt by rationalism.
Belatedly, Bible-believing evangelicals joined the fray, fighting a rearguard action against the rapid spread of historical criticism (though textual criticism found far fewer opponents). This led to the publication of The Fundamentals between 1910 and 1915, a set of twelve volumes designed to defend Biblical Christianity, and leading to what came to be called “the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy,” as the Bible believers sought to prevent the takeover of the institutions of higher learning (especially the seminaries) by liberal scholars. With the fall of Princeton Seminary to the liberals in 1929, the battle was over, and the majority of Fundamentalists simply withdrew from academia, leaving the field to liberals for decades.
This began to change in 1948, with the rise of the so-called “New Evangelical” movement. Fundamentalists were eager to rejoin the academic discussion:
Many young fundamentalist scholars became resentful of the fact that they were not viewed with respect by fellow scholars in their special disciplines. Because they were fundamentalists, they were viewed as deficient intellectually, and their work was not recognized by the scholarly world as a whole.
The price for reentering academia was, of course, to accept the liberal paradigm assumptions; academia was now controlled by liberal scholars, and it was very much “their house, their rules.” Added to this was the fact that many who began as fundamentalists had already accepted these presuppositions:
Many young fundamentalist scholars in the 1940s, 1950, and 1960s enrolled in liberal institutions in this country and abroad in order to pursue graduate education … they were greatly influenced in the many of their positions by the unbelievers under whom they studied.
And, of course, this became a juggernaut. Even if one studied under believers, those believers had also accepted the liberal paradigm assumptions because they themselves had studied under unbelievers, or under other believers who had studied under unbelievers, or under believers who had studied under believers who had studied under unbelievers. Like rats following the Pied Piper, evangelical scholars en masse came to accept the liberal paradigm assumptions that undermine the Bible, in most cases not even realizing that they were following the liberal lead at all! But that is exactly what they were doing.
Nor was it only the liberal paradigm assumptions of historical criticism that were accepted. New Evangelicalism proclaimed “a friendly attitude toward secular science” and embraced a variety of ways to reconcile the Bible with an old (i.e. billions of year old) earth and Darwinism. And when it came to Griesbachian textual criticism, there was a nearly total capitulation, save for a few brave souls such as Dean John Burgon, Edward Miller, Edward F. Hills, and, much later, Zane Hodges, Wilbur Pickering, and Maurice Robinson.
In sum, then, the three-headed monster was ushered into the church by sometimes well meaning but unaware evangelicals; there it now sits, all three heads devouring the credibility of the Bible in the eyes of not only the world but of Christians themselves. This is obvious, as we shall see when we consider how things currently stand in the world of evangelical scholarship.
Regarding Late Dating of the Gospel Books
Virtually all evangelicals accept the late dating of the Gospel books, putting the first one to the mid-50s at the earliest, and putting the last synoptic Gospel as late as AD 80. When reasons are offered, they are mainly a rehashing of liberal talking points. John Wenham is one evangelical scholar who reasons carefully and independently in arriving at much earlier dates.
Extreme Late Dating of the Gospel According to John
There seems to be an all but universal agreement among evangelicals that this Gospel book should be dated to the AD 80s or 90s, which is much too late. Now, the Gospel According to John is the one Gospel book that was specifically written as an evangelistic tome for unbelievers (John 20:30-31) and so contains the most fully orbed account of who Jesus actually is, the Son of God incarnate; naturally, therefore, this was the Gospel book most attacked by liberal scholars and rationalists, who pushed the date as late as possible. It is tragic that so many evangelicals go along with this false claim. (John MacArthur, for example, glibly asserts that “John wrote his gospel ca. A.D, 80-90, about 50 years after he witnessed Jesus’ earthly ministry.”)
Regarding Literary Dependence (Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis)
The view that creation of the Synoptic Gospel books came about by the two later writers copying from the earliest has now been overwhelmingly accepted by evangelical scholars.
Regarding Markan Priority
The claim that the Gospel According to Mark was the first one written, although the evidence for Matthean priority is overwhelming and Markan priority was concocted only to discredit the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, is accepted almost universally by evangelical scholars. As Howard in his “Introduction to the Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible: Gospel and Acts” says:
Each of our authors holds to Markan priority, the theory that says the Gospel of Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke both made extensive use of Mark’s text when composing their own accounts. Evidence for Markan priority is briefly discussed in the introductions to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but mostly our authors assume rather than argue for Markan priority. In this they stand with the clear and longstanding consensus in Gospels scholarship.
Just so; the claims of “clear and longstanding consensus” are “assumed” and are not carefully examined. The result is that liberal paradigm assumptions become integral to evangelical scholarship.
Regarding the Q Hypothesis
Both elements of the Q hypothesis, that it was used along with the Gospel According to Mark by Matthew and Luke, and that it is a “sayings” source with no miracle or resurrection account, are widely accepted by evangelical scholars, though not as universally as the other liberal paradigm assumptions. Bock, for example, allows that Q may have been “a group of traditions that in some cases are oral … it is best to understand Q to be a fluid pool of traditions from which both Luke and Matthew drew” – which does not change the fact that Matthew and Luke are not recording direct eyewitness testimony but copying and editing “traditions” long after the fact.
Of the three heads of the monster, Darwinism is the clearest challenge to the truth of Bible, and there were Christians who opposed it from the beginning. But as the 20th century wore on, most Christian scholars came to accept an old earth and some sort of accommodation with the theory of evolution. This accelerated with the rise of the New Evangelical movement, spearheaded by the American Scientific Affiliation and the popular apologist Bernard Ramm, who obviously found it acceptable to denigrate the fact of six-day young earth creationism and the flood of Noah’s time, which are clearly taught in the Bible and were affirmed by Jesus Himself.
In 1961, by which time virtually all Christians had abandoned six-day young earth creationism and “flood geology,” John Whitcomb and Henry Morris published The Genesis Flood, which defended young-earth creationism and flood geology from a Biblical and scientific perspective. Although it was savaged by New Evangelical critics, it launched the start of the modern creation science movement. Today there are a number of evangelical ministries, including the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, and Answers in Genesis, that are doing excellent work in defending the Biblical view of creation.
Nevertheless, there are many professing evangelical individuals and organizations (such as Biologos and Hugh Ross’s “Reasons to Believe”) who continue to attempt to reconcile the Bible with theories of evolution. (Generally it seems that the more academic training in theology one has, without a commensurate understanding of science, the more he eschews Biblical creationism.) It is probable that the majority – and, in fact, the large majority – of evangelical scholars reject six-day young-earth creationism.
Of the three heads of the monster, the most subtle is textual criticism – and, for two reasons, it is perhaps the most dangerous. First, evangelicals have been lulled into believing that this field is purely a scientific endeavour, with no room for theological biases (though why this should be the case, when Griesbach’s rules were clearly designed by fiat to place errors into what is to be considered the original text of the Bible, is passing strange). This means they are completely off their guard and capitulate fully as the inerrant Bible becomes infected with errors. Not surprisingly, virtually all evangelicals have accepted and use without question the current iteration of the Griesbachian/Westcott-Hort text, which is the joint text of Nestle-Aland (the 28th edition has recently been released) and the United Bible Societies (the 5th edition has recently been released). Every major modern Bible translation in English, except for the New King James Version, is based on these Greek texts.
Second, historical criticism and Darwinism both claim that what the Bible says is wrong – and these claims can be accepted or rejected. On the other hand, textual criticism alters the very text itself, so it is no longer a matter of accepting or rejecting external claims that the Bible is wrong, for the errors are embedded in what is supposed to be the original “God-breathed” text itself. (Wilbur Pickering discusses some of these errors in The Identity of the New Testament Text II). Some evangelical scholars may create imaginative gambits to try to explain some of these obvious errors, but the cumulative weight of them can lead only to the erosion of belief in inerrancy.
The Effect of the Three-Headed Monster
It is not surprising that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible has fallen on hard times among evangelical scholars. Many, perhaps most, evangelical scholars have abandoned the belief or redefined it so that “inerrant” no longer means “without error.” They have not trumpeted this fact openly, and many of them are sincerely motivated, trying to hold on to belief in the Bible in spite of the errors they have been led to believe are within its pages – but for so many of them, what they hold to cannot fairly be described as any doctrine of inerrancy.
The advice given by evangelical scholars became this:
We should treat the Bible like any other book in order to show it’s not like any other book.
This is problematic for two reasons.
First, logically it is lunacy, for if treating the Bible like any other book leads to the conclusion that it’s not like any other book, that means the initial working presupposition that it is like any other book is wrong and inapplicable and therefore invalidates any conclusion reached when using that presupposition.
Second, and more important, evangelical scholars did not “treat the Bible like any other book in order to show it’s not like any other book”; they treated the Bible like any other book – period. Apologetics became a matter of scholarly opinions, with pronouncements about supposed cultural context, about human memory, ancient practices, and probabilities in being the focus, while the fact that the Bible is “God-breathed” was out of bounds for academic discussion. They “answered fools according to their folly, and became like them.” (Proverbs 26:4).
A few examples:
According to Dr. Darrell Bock, research professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, who likens the Gospel books to the historical works of such ancient pagan writers as Thucydides,
[T]he Greek standard of reporting speeches required a concern for accuracy in reporting the gist of what has been said, even if the exact words were not remembered or recorded. The ancients also recognized an author’s right to summarize and bring out the contemporary force of a speaker’s remarks … This tradition became a standard for Greco-Roman history … This procedure sounds much like that cited by Luke in 1:1-4. The Evangelists were able to search out what Jesus said and did because they had access to people and communities who had been exposed to Jesus or his intimate followers.
F. David Farnell summarizes it thus:
For Bock, “The Gospels give us the true gist of his teaching and central thrust of his message” because they are patterned after such ancient historiography.”
Here, indeed, we see the Bible being treated “like any other book.” Ancient historians were not able to get the exact words of their subjects, so we should not expect the Gospel writers to do so either. The Gospel books are to be measured by the standards of “Greco-Roman history”; the fact that they are “God-breathed” doesn’t seem to enter into the picture at all. Why would we adopt this approach – unless, of course, we believe there are errors in the Bible?
Farnell rightly objects, saying about “the similarities among the Synoptic Gospels” that
the sources were eyewitnesses who, in many cases, reproduced the exact wording of dialogues with and sermons by Jesus. Of ultimate importance in this connection is that their memories received stimulation through the Holy Spirit’s guidance in accord with Jesus’ promises to the disciples: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” and “But when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.” (John 14:26; 16:13 NASB). The factuality and accuracy of the Gospels stem from their uniqueness as divinely inspired documents–as God-breathed as well as God-guided documents No other documents in ancient historiography share this characteristic, making the Synoptics qualitatively different from any other document. They thus enjoy an exclusive position. The divine factor so overshadowed the human factor that the accuracy of the Gospels is ensured … Attempts to draw parallels to the Gospels from other ancient historiography are tenuous and ignore the unique position of the Gospels as divinely inspired.
Farnell is completely correct about this, and it is refreshing to see at least one evangelical scholar who openly champions the role of divine inspiration in accounting for Biblical inerrancy. However, his view is held by a vanishingly small minority of evangelical scholars. Many will pay lip service to the concept of divine inspiration, but it is conspicuously absent when they get down to the actual study of the Gospel books. Appealing to divine inspiration in academic study would be just so unscholarly and gauche, it seems.
Farnell rightly takes Bock to task, pointing out the obvious fact that
Bock’s position, citing Thucydides as a pattern for the Gospels, is precarious. The Gospel writers claim Spirit-energized memories; Thucydides did not. Although Thucydides may have forgotten and was summarizing, the Gospel writers were supernaturally assisted in a way different from anyone else. Their writings are thus in a qualitatively different class … in a pattern different from any other in the ancient world.
This should be axiomatic for evangelicals, yet the idiotic practice of pretending that the Gospel books are just like other ancient writings and using that as a gambit to excuse away putative errors is stock in trade for most evangelical scholars. The most frequent way in which this is done seems to be to suggest that it is unreasonable to hold the Bible to modern standards of accuracy (as if we moderns were more accurate than God!) but only to the standards of non-inspired writings of ancient days. In other words, we are asked to believe that it’s not an error if everyone else in those days was making the same sort of error!
For example, Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, in a display of word usage and logic that is reminiscent of President Clinton’s infamous, “It all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” asserts that
What complicates matters is not the meaning of inerrancy but the debate over what constitutes an error … we frequently impose modern standards of accuracy on ancient texts in hopelessly anachronistic fashion.
Allow me to help the professor out:
- If a writer says that something happened that didn’t actually happen, that’s an error.
- If a writer says something happened in a certain way when it didn’t, that’s an error.
- If a writer says someone said something when in fact he didn’t say it, that’s an error.
- If other people make the same error, it doesn’t cease to be an error; it’s still an error.
Even a child can understand this; it seems to take a postgraduate education to lose the ability to understand something so straightforward.
Yet Blomberg tells us that
Genesis 1 can be and has been interpreted by inerrantists as referring to a young earth, an old earth, progressive creation, theistic evolution, a literary framework for asserting God as the creator of all things irrespective of his methods, and a series of days when God took up residence in his cosmic temple for the sake of newly created humanity in his image.
With all due respective, however, this makes a hash of the word “inerrantist.” There is absolutely no question but that the Bible clearly teaches that God created the world, and the animals according to their kind, across six 24-hour days, and adding up the chronogenealogies in Genesis yields a maximum possible age for the earth of 7,680 years.
There is, in fact, nothing in the Bible to lend any aid or comfort to acolytes of an old earth, progressive creation, theistic evolution, or any other of Blomberg’s alternatives to six-day young earth creationism. There doesn’t seem to be anything other than a mistaken belief that there is irrefutable scientific evidence that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and that evolution happened that could induce anyone to try to hybridize such theories with the Bible, and each hybrid contradicts the plain testimony of Scripture – which means that if any such view were true, the Bible would be in error. So, pace Blomberg, those who hold to such views are not “inerrantists,” as long as that word has any real meaning.
Blomberg goes on to claim that a belief in inerrancy does not mean one has to believe that Adam and Eve actually existed! Yet on the same page, Blomberg, who has no discernible training in any field of science, says that
the question that remains for all interpreters, except for those who deny almost the entire fossil record that suggests humanlike creatures have existed for millions of years, is how Homo sapiens got to be this way.
By this mindset, the Bible need not be treated as inerrant, but the pronouncements of secular evolutionists should be treated as such! Even a little bit of research will surface how profoundly idiotic this statement of Blomberg’s is.
Blomberg then avers, inter alia, that Job may not have been historical (to Blomberg, “it almost defies imagination that one person should suffer such extreme loss”)’; that, while we should accept that Jonah existed, we do not have to accept the “seemingly outlandish, grotesque, and perhaps unnecessary miracle” about Jonah being swallowed by a great fish and that there is “a sane middle ground between viewing the book as pure history and claiming it to be pure fiction.”
Now, we must not miss the fact that if, as Blomberg says, there is a “middle ground between viewing the book as pure history and claiming it to be pure fiction” and that this “middle ground” is “sane,” this strongly implies that viewing it as “pure history” is insane. Yet Jesus clearly viewed the book as pure history, including the part about the “seemingly outlandish, grotesque, and perhaps unnecessary miracle” about Jonah being swallowed by a great fish (Matthew 12:39-41; Luke 11:29-32). By the standards Blomberg is advocating, then, Jesus must be considered insane. This is what evangelical scholarship has come to, folks. No doubt not one of them would say (or think) that Jesus was insane, but somehow they cannot seem to connect the dots between their approach to the Bible and what it does to the case for Christianity.
Blomberg goes on to assert that parts of the Gospel According to Matthew that seem to be straightforward historical narrative are “unhistorical elaboration that Matthew added.” Blomberg tries to square the latter with inerrancy by claiming that Matthew’s original readers would have known that these were unhistorical elaborations – as if an error is not an error as long as the original reader knew it was an error!
It should be noted that this idea was previously floated by Dr. Robert Gundry, who surmised that Matthew’s original readers would already have been familiar with the story of Jesus in the Gospel According to Mark and in Q, and so would have recognized Matthew’s additions as non-historical.
Really? Are we to assume that anything Matthew included that is not in Mark and in Q is necessarily non-historical? Are we to assume that the apostle Matthew had no historical facts to add to what Mark included in his Gospel book? That does not seem to be a reasonable assumption. But if Matthew did add historical facts, how did his readers distinguish between his historical additions and his putative non-historical additions? Clearly, Gundry’s suggestion that they could know material was non-historical if it was not in the Gospel According to Mark or in Q does not work. For that matter, if Matthew did add historical facts, how did his readers know that any of it was non-historical?
We must also ask why an apostle, who presumably wanted people to believe the Gospel, would add non-historical material that could have been debunked and thus discredited the apostolic preaching. Did he do it just for fun? And, most importantly, did the Spirit of truth, who “will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) breath non-historical material – which looks historical – into the Gospel According to Matthew? To ask that is to answer it, for any genuine evangelical.
We should also not overlook the fact that this whole mess is, as can be seen, a product of that witch’s brew of Markan priority, the Q hypothesis, and literary dependence, along with a redefinition of “inerrancy.” This, folks, is “evangelical scholarship” today.
We see the same sort of nonsense from Dr. Michael R. Licona, Associate Professor in Theology at Houston Baptist Seminary and author of popular apologetics books such as The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, co-authored with Gary Habermas. In The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, Licona asserts that fact is mixed with fiction in the Gospel According to Matthew. According to Matthew 27:52-53,
Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
According to Licona, however, this is “poetic” or “legend,” and so, apparently, are the angel(s) at the tomb. Licona also questions the account of the troops and officers falling to the ground when Jesus said “I Am,” as recorded in John 18:1-6. In fact, as Geisler notes, Licona
undermines the general reliability of the historicity of the Gospels by claiming that “there is somewhat of a consensus among contemporary scholars that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios).” Then he goes on to say that “Bioi offered the ancient biographers great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches,…and they often included legend. Because bios was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins” (34, emphasis added).
Yet Licona’s ideas are defended by other evangelical scholars who see such bleat as consistent with “inerrancy.”
Dr. Daniel Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, also has an outré view of inerrancy, as he explains when interviewed by Lee Strobel:
“Now, finish this sentence,” I said. “When Christians say the Bible is inerrant, they mean …”“
They mean a number of things. For some, it’s almost a magic-wand approach, where the Bible is treated like a modern scientific and historical textbook that’s letter perfect. Some Christians would say, for example, that the words of Jesus are in red letters because that’s exactly what he said.”
It is typical of this sort of evangelical scholar to mock the view of inerrancy that takes it mean “having no errors,” but whether Wallace likes it or not, that is what inerrancy means. So this is not a “magic-wand approach”; it is the only approach consistent with the actual meaning of inerrancy.
“Well, if you compare the same incident in different Gospels, you’ll notice some differences in wording. That’s fine as long as we’re not thinking in terms of quotations being nailed exactly, like a tape recorder. They didn’t even have quotation marks in Greek. In ancient historiography, they were concerned with correctly getting the gist of what was said.”
We have already seen Farnell’s devastating response to this approach. The Bible is not like other works of ancient historiography, because it is “God breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16).
“The other view of inerrancy, on the other end of the spectrum, is to say the Bible is true in what it teaches. So we can’t treat it like a scientific book or a twenty-first-century historical document.”
According to this view, the Bible can contain errors in matters of science and history – which means that this is not “the other view of inerrancy” at all; it is the view of “errancy.” We are supposed to believe, however, that the Bible is infallible on matters of faith and practice. This is a remarkably stupid view, for, if we cannot trust the Bible on those things we can verify, why would we trust it on those things we can’t verify?
“My definition of infallibility is the Bible is true in what it teaches. My definition of inerrancy is that the Bible is true in what it touches. So infallibility is a more foundational doctrine, which says the Bible is true with reference to faith and practice. Inerrancy is built on that doctrine and it says that the Bible is also true when it comes to dealing with historical issues, but we still have to look at it in light of first-century historical practices.”
Wallace has it completely backwards; inerrancy is the more foundational doctrine, for, as we’ve said, if the Bible is not trustworthy on historical issues, it cannot be trusted “with reference to faith and practice.” So infallibility is built on inerrancy, not vice versa. Nor should we “look at [the Gospel books] in light of first-century historical practices” that allow for errors, inasmuch as the Bible is God-breathed, which is not a standard “first-century historical practice.”
“I don’t start by saying, ‘If the Bible has a few mistakes, I have to throw it all out.’ That’s not a logical position. We don’t take that attitude toward Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, or any other ancient historian’s writings. For instance, does the first-century Jewish historian Josephus need to be inerrant before we can affirm that he got anything right?”
Of course not. But Josephus, Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, and “any other ancient historian” were not divinely enabled by the Holy Spirit. The Bible was, however, so it is in a completely different category from “any other ancient historian’s writings.” In contrast, it seems very clear that Wallace is treating the Bible like simply any other book. Period.
“You obviously have a high view of scripture,” I observed. “Why?”
“Because Jesus did,” he said matter-of-factly.
“How do you know?” I asked.
“One criterion that scholars use for determining authenticity is called ‘dissimilarity.’ If Jesus said or did something that’s dissimilar to the Jews of his day or earlier, then it’s considered authentic,” he said. “And he’s constantly ripping on the Pharisees for adding tradition to scripture and not treating it as ultimately and finally authoritative. When he says that scripture cannot be broken, he’s making a statement about the truth and reliability of scripture.”
Wow. Just … wow. Could Wallace make it any plainer that the truth of what the Bible asserts is not determined by the fact that it is “God-breathed,” but that scholars sit in judgment over its assertions, proclaiming what is or is not authentic in it based on how it conforms to standards invented by liberal scholars? Let’s go over this point by point.
“You obviously have a high view of scripture,” I observed. “Why?”
“Because Jesus did,” he said matter-of-factly.
Yet unlike evangelical scholars Jesus treated everything in the Bible as accurate because it is the words of God. He did not allow for historical or scientific errors in it. The view that treats the Bible like “any other ancient historian’s writings” and suggests it may err in matters of history and science is not a “high view of scripture” nor does it accord with Jesus’ view.
“You obviously have a high view of scripture,” I observed. “Why?”
“Because Jesus did,” he said matter-of-factly.
“How do you know?” I asked.
“One criterion that scholars use for determining authenticity is called ‘dissimilarity.’”
How does the ridiculous criterion of “dissimilarity” show that Jesus had a high view of Scripture? Oh, that’s right; it doesn’t. This is a non sequitur. Wallace did not answer Strobel’s question but simply jumped to another topic.
“One criterion that scholars use for determining authenticity is called ‘dissimilarity.’ If Jesus said or did something that’s dissimilar to the Jews of his day or earlier, then it’s considered authentic,” he said.
So according to these scholars, if a 1st-century Jew says something that sounds like what we’d expect a 1st-century Jew to say, that indicates it’s not authentic, and if the founder of Christianity said things that Christians believe, then that indicates it’s not authentic. Authenticity is determined by dissimilarity! Only a madman or a Biblical scholar could assert such arrant nonsense as this with a straight face, for it is more than obvious that Christians, as followers of Jesus, would base their beliefs on what He said, so of course it would sound similar, and that 1st-century Jews said things that sounded like what 1st-century Jews said – because they were 1st-century Jews.
Not surprisingly, the criterion of “dissimilarity” was invented by liberal scholars to remove unquestionably authentic content from the Gospel books. That any evangelical scholar could take the criterion of “dissimilarity” seriously is stunning.
“And he’s constantly ripping on the Pharisees for adding tradition to scripture and not treating it as ultimately and finally authoritative.”
No, He criticized them for following their tradition instead of following Scripture. Even the Pharisees did not dare add to the Scripture, though some evangelical scholars seem to have no difficulty averring that the Gospel writers themselves did that very thing – adding their own non-historical “traditions” to the Gospel books, and even putting them into the mouth of Jesus Himself.
One should also think carefully about the fact that if Jesus was “constantly ripping on the Pharisees for adding tradition to scripture and not treating it as ultimately and finally authoritative,” how will He treat liberal scholars for overruling Scripture with their liberal paradigm assumptions and not treating Scripture “as ultimately and finally authoritative”? How will He treat those evangelicals who blithely follow the liberal lead in these matters?
“The Gospels contain a summary of what he said. And if it’s a summary, maybe Matthew used some of his own words to condense it.”
See? Just “like any other book.” Period.
“That doesn’t trouble me in the slightest. It’s still trustworthy.”
Actually, if the writers are making stuff up and mixing the historical with the non-historical, then it is not trustworthy, as there’s no way to know what in the Bible is true and what isn’t. As we have seen, Gundry’s suggestion that non-historical additions in the Gospel According to Matthew would not be a problem because his readers would know what was historical from the Gospel According to Mark and from Q is patently a non-starter. Furthermore, if Matthew could add non-historical material, so could Mark have done, so that Matthew’s readers (and we) could not assume that everything in the Gospel According to Mark was historical. In fact, how could they assume that any of it was historical?
And, of course, Q is a figment of liberal imagination. But even if it were not, how could the readers of Q know whether any of it was historical? If Matthew and Mark could make up non-historical material, why could not the writer of Q? I have not yet found even one evangelical scholar who can answer this question.
“When he says that scripture cannot be broken, he’s making a statement about the truth and reliability of scripture.”
In the context of that assertion in John 10:35, Jesus is saying that everything in Scripture, even passages that seem very difficult to accept, are nevertheless still true and must be accepted. That disallows non-historical additions.
“Do you think this idea of inerrancy has been elevated out of proportion to its genuine importance?” I asked.
“At times … Belief in inerrancy shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to engage seriously with history …”
Is this meant to imply that “engage[ing] seriously with history” will necessarily lead to the conclusion that there are errors in the Bible? In fact, inerrantists certainly do “engage seriously with history,” but they use already established facts as part of their analysis – much like, once it has been established that the Earth is round, that fact is used in all further geographic analysis. Now, since the Gospel writers were empowered by the Holy Spirit to remember Jesus’ words, and inasmuch as Scripture is God breathed, the historical information in the Bible is superior to that in any other source and stands in judgment of it.
All too often, what passes for “engag[ing] seriously with history” by evangelical scholars is the opposite; whenever a secular source makes a claim that disagrees with a claim in the Bible, it is assumed by default that the Bible is wrong, and therefore efforts have to be made to massage the Biblical testimony to fit – or we are simply to accept that the Bible is wrong.
“As one British scholar said, ‘We should treat the Bible like any other book in order to show it’s not like any other book.’”
We have already seen why this approach is inappropriate.
“That’s better than the opposite position that has become an evangelical mantra: ‘Hands off the Bible — we don’t want people to find any mistakes in it, because we hold to inerrancy.’”
The implication seems to be that inerrantists do not want to examine the Bible too carefully, because, as these wise evangelical scholars know, there are indeed errors, and so inerrantists want to ignore facts in order to hold to their doctrine of inerrancy. This is a ridiculous implication.
In sum, then, it seems clear that whatever Wallace offers as “inerrancy” it is not the belief that there are absolutely no errors in the Bible, that the Bible is completely free of mistakes of any kind. On the contrary, he dismisses the idea of treating the Bible “like a modern scientific and historical textbook that’s letter perfect,” deriding this as being “almost a magic-wand approach.” So he certainly seems not to believe that the Bible is “letter perfect” and so seems to be leaving room for errors in matters of science and history.
Finally, let us consider James Patrick Holding, founder and president of the on-line Tekton Education and Apologetic Ministries. He is of interest because he is a frequent “go-to guy” for both Creation Ministries International and Christian Research Institute, which means he is reaching a sizeable audience. Holding has taken it upon himself to challenge Norman Geisler’s defence of inerrancy, and not only online; he and co-author Nick Peters self-published an e-book, Defining Inerrancy: Affirming a Defensible Faith for a New Generation, in which he and Peters attack Geisler’s Defending Inerrancy. In this e-book the authors aver that
the perception of “inerrancy” offered by the old guard is dangerous, misleading, and obscurantist in that it will result in a view of the Bible that is not defensible or respectable.
Do note that “the perception of ‘inerrancy’ offered by the old guard” is that it means “no errors” i.e. the Bible is completely free of all errors, including historical and scientific errors. This is the “perception” that Holding and Peters consider “dangerous, misleading, and obscurantist“ and “not defensible or respectable.”
As we examine Holding’s pontifications about Geisler’s defence of inerrancy, however, we see that they are frankly ludicrous. He takes exception to Geisler’s attack on Gundry’s claim that portions of the Gospel According to Matthew are non-historical additions, describing Geisler’s arguments at various points as “exceptionally outlandish,” “patently obscurantist,” “rational argumentation … sorely lacking,” “‘absurd’ … there are frankly no better words for such a nonsensical argument,” and other such comments. Occasionally, Holding crosses into outright hypocrisy. For example, he writes,
In the 1981 volume Inerrancy, of which Geisler was the editor, Walter Kaiser issued a strong warning against the notion that Biblical words might take on new and different meanings unknown to the language as it was used in the first century. Kaiser’s warning is a well founded one; yet Geisler’s special plea for a potential “new genre” contains an opposing sentiment … While one may be talking about genre and the other about language, the principle remains the same, and it is hard to see how Geisler’s special plea does not open the door Kaiser warns against.
Yet in the very next paragraph, Holding writes,
To make matters worse, [Defending Inerrancy] goes on to confuse the issue by giving as an alleged analogy the way liberal scholars have denied Paul the Pastoral epistles based on “style and vocabulary.” What this is supposed to have to do with matters of genre is not explained … Genre and vocabulary/writing style are two entirely different discussions, and it is exemplary of Geisler’s lack of serious scholarship in this area that he thinks he has made an appropriate analogy.
So when it suits Holding’s purposes, using an analogy between genre and words is appropriate as “the principle remains the same,” but when Geisler draws the same sort of analogy [Note to Holding: “vocabulary” is the set of “words” used], then it is inappropriate and “exemplary” of a “lack of serious scholarship.” Does Holding not realize how completely he has thus stultified himself?
And, speaking of “serious scholarship,” Holding complains about what he styles “some closing words of condescension from Geisler offered as advice to scholars,” and says,
The absurdity of Geisler presuming to offer such advice is manifest. Geisler is not qualified to assess serious exegetical, interpretive or historical scholarship; neither his training nor his experience gives him any place to address those with better and greater knowledge in these areas.
Fascinating. We are to believe that Geisler, who holds a B.A. from Wheaton College, an M.A. in theology from Wheaton Graduate School, a Th.B. from William Tyndale College, and a Ph.D in philosophy from Loyola University and who has authored or edited 91 books on Biblical topics is “not qualified to assess serious exegetical, interpretive or historical scholarship,” but James Patrick Holding, who describes his qualifications thus – “I have a Masters’ Degree in Library Science. What the [sic] runs down to is, I’m trained in looking things up and answering questions” – is supposedly “qualified to assess serious exegetical, interpretive or historical scholarship”! Again, does Holding not realize how fatuous he is here?
Responding to the question “Where did you, Holding, and Max all receive your NT degrees from?” Holding retorted,
Ask instead, where did my sources get their degrees from.Then pick up your self-esteem and try again.
Unfortunately for Holding, this answer doesn’t work. He claims that Geisler is “not qualified to assess serious exegetical, interpretive or historical scholarship,” though Geisler’s training is certainly adequate to equip him to do that, whereas Holding, by his own admission, is “trained in looking things up and answering questions” – but has no stated training in assessing what he looks up. There is no reason to think he has a tithe of the ability Geisler has to assess the claims of Biblical scholarship. In fact, there is no reason to think Holding has any better ability to assess what his “sources” say about Biblical subjects than had the rats to assess the structure and theory of the music being played by the Pied Piper – which is probably why he so easily falls prey to the nonsense being peddled by Licona.
Holding and his co-author Nick Peters also both pile onto Dr. Paige Patterson, president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who agrees with Geisler about Licona’s teachings. Holding tells us that Patterson is “as oblivious as [Geisler] is as to what Mike Licona was up to” and “obviously has no idea what Licona actually argued about Matthew 27.” Holding objects to Patterson’s “Neanderthalish views on women.” To link this to the current debate, Holding opines that “there can be little doubt that Patterson never read Licona’s book or even the relevant pages (and I have serious doubts, given his reckless scholarship on the role of women, that he would even understand any of it, either),” and then for good measure adds that
given Patterson’s uncritical evaluation of the situation, if they do erect a bronze statue of him … it appears that they won’t have to cast his head.
Holding’s co-author, Nick Peters, who, interestingly, is married to Mike Licona’s daughter, also piles on, but he, too, clearly stultifies himself. He details Patterson’s qualifications, including the following – “A graduate of Hardin-Simmons University, Patterson also completed Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees in theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary” – but then asserts that
While these accomplishments can be all well and good, there is a striking omission from it. There is absolutely nothing here about being trained in NT scholarship and exegesis. Being a competent and even skilled theologian and/or philosopher does not make one an expert on NT scholarship and/or biblical exegesis.
One wonders whether Peters has any idea about the sort of courses one takes in Master’s and Doctoral programs in seminary; in case he doesn’t, he should find out that it certainly includes courses in “NT scholarship and exegesis.” It seems rather strange that Peters suggests that Patterson’s training is inadequate, when Peters himself holds only a Bachelor’s of Science in Preaching and Bible from Johnson Bible College, and is currently working on a Master’s degree – in philosophy.
Academic qualifications, of course, do not determine how well one can understand the Bible or apologetics, but it is Holding and Peters who choose to focus on that, claiming that Geisler and Patterson are not qualified to assess Licona’s teachings. It seems clear, however, that on that basis Geisler and Patterson are individually each better qualified to assess NT scholarship than Holding and Peters put together.
Now, let us move on to the substance of Licona’s claims, and assess whether they are compatible with any meaningful definition of inerrancy. They are not at all difficult to understand. In sum:
The Gospel books are of the same genre as Greco-Roman bios.
The genre of bios was flexible, mixing truth and legendary material.
In Greco-Roman bios, the death of important men was often described as being accompanied by such things as darkness, earthquakes, opened tombs, and resurrected bodies. Such things described in these bios didn’t actually happen; the descriptions of them are merely poetic devices to emphasize the importance of the man who died.
The description of the resurrection of OT saints in Matthew 27:51-53 is an example of such poetic language associated with the death of the great man Jesus.
The readers of the Gospel According to Matthew would no doubt have understood that the events of Matthew 27:51-53 never actually happened, but were simply poetic devices.
That is Licona’s case; it is not difficult to understand, and there is no reason to lend any credence to Holding’s repeatedly made charge that Geisler fails to grasp it. If anyone shows a lack of comprehension of the issue, it is Holding, who asserts that Geisler “himself failed to grasp the very simple point that you can’t dehistoricize a text not meant to be taken as historical.” Holding seems to miss the fact that the very point under debate is whether, in fact, Matthew intended 27:52-53 to be taken as historical or not. One cannot simply assume that this is true in order to confute Geisler.
Now, in regard to Licona’s case, the fact is that every one of his points is problematic or plainly wrong.
First, he asserts that the Gospel books are of the same genre as Greco-Roman bios. Now, many scholars have indeed argued this, adducing a number of characteristics shared by the Gospel books and Greco-Roman bios:
- Opening with a prologue by the author or directly with the subject’s name or ancestry
- The central focus being the chronological sequence of the subject’s life
- The imbalance between the description of the early years and the final days
- Being written as a continuous prose narrative
- The combination of stories and sayings
- Displaying the subject’s character through what he says and does, rather than through plain statements by the author
“Discussion of Methodology and Sources: Ancient historical works at their beginning (or somewhere else within the body of the narrative) are often prefaced with statements from the author about the period they will be investigating, the methodology they will be using, and the types of sources they will be discussing. None of the Gospels, with the exception of a very brief statement at the beginning of Luke, even come close to following this convention.”
“Internally Addressed and Analyzed Contradictions among Traditions”
“Authorial Presence in the Narrative:” In Greco-Roman bios, authors often “have active roles in the narrative as historians who are interjecting to discuss their sources and relation to events … Even among ancient historical works in which the author does not specifically give his name in the narrative, historians very frequently discuss the relation they have to the events they are analyzing.”
“Education Level of the Audience: … As scholar Pheme Perkins (Oxford Annotated Bible, pg. 1743) explains, ‘Greco-Roman biographies were addressed to a social and literary elite, which may explain why the Gospels, addressed to a much broader audience, do not match them very closely.’“
“Hagiography versus Biography: Rather than read as the unmitigated praise of a saint who can do no wrong, ancient historical works and historical biographies were far more critical of their subjects, whom they analyzed less one-dimensionally and more as complete persons.”
“Signposts about Authorial Speculation:” The authors of Greco-Roman bios often had to speculate about the “exact words spoken by individuals in famous speeches or the exact order in which things had taken place in past events. In order to provide elegant rhetorical prose, however, creative liberties had to be taken on the part of the author to retell these dialogues as they plausibly could have taken place” and when the authors of Greco-Roman bios were speculating, they indicated that they were doing so.
“Independence versus Interdependence: One thing that amazes me as a Classicist is just how interdependent the Gospels are upon each other. Matthew borrows from much as 80% of Mark’s material, and Luke borrows from 65% of the material of the earliest gospel … The same is not true for ancient historical works. Consider just the four most extensive sources that we have for the life of the emperor Tiberius: Paterculus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio. All four authors obtain their material from a broad range of sources rather than simply copy from each other, they write in a far more diverse range of styles, and yet they independently corroborate each other’s claims.”
“Miracles at the Fringe versus the Core of the Narrative”
“Important Characters and Events Do Not Disappear from the Narrative:” Ferguson cites the case of the Roman prefect Sejanus, who allegedly plotted against Tiberius, supposedly with “many allies in the Roman senate,” and was executed in AD 31. Ferguson suggests that it would have been illogical if “there was no aftermath or followup and the narrative merely moved on to another subject … Instead, both Tacitus (book 6) and Dio (book 58) spend a considerable amount of narrative space discussing the senators who were accused and condemned for being co-conspirators with Sejanus.” He then cavils that “in the Gospels earth-shaking events take place that then receive no followup and strangely disappear once they have played their symbolic [sic] role in the narrative.”
These include the rising of the saints in Matthew 27:52-53, about which Ferguson complains that “there is no followup in the Gospels or Acts of how the city was affected by this,” and the charge that the disciples stole the body of Jesus (Matthew 28:11-15), about which Ferguson complains that “there is no followup prosecution of the disciples for this charge, even when they are brought to court on other issues.”
Ferguson also complains that there is no mention of Joseph of Arimathea being questioned about the empty tomb, and that there is no mention of any investigation into the matter by Pontius Pilate, who, says Ferguson, “is so worried that Jesus’ tomb will be found empty, lest people believe a miracle had occurred (as if all of the saints’ resurrections weren’t convincing enough), that he has guards stationed at the tomb … Pilate had gone to great lengths to ensure that Jesus’ body did not go missing”.
Now, this is all very interesting, because Licona’s case rests fundamentally on the claim that the Gospel books are of the Greco-Roman bios genre. If that is not so, Licona’s case collapses. Holding and Peters obviously accept the claim without any question, but even a little bit of actual investigation shows that the claim is unsustainable. There is, as we have seen, good countervailing evidence against it. In fact, if anything, the case against the Gospels being a form of Greco-Roman bios is stronger than the case for it.
In light of this, it is not even necessary to go through all of the points underlying Licona’s case. However, we do want to highlight the worthlessness of Licona’s insistence that, even though Matthew 27:52-53 is a non-historical addition, the account of the resurrection of Jesus is historical. He himself claims that
Because bios was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins
(indeed, Licona thinks that history may end and legend begin at John 18:3 – but only until John 18:7, when the narrative reverts to history, so then how exactly can we know that the account of the resurrection of Jesus is history and not legend?
Oh, well, there are ways to know, Licona tells us; we can know that Matthew 27:52-53 is legend, not history, because these verses employ “phenomenological language [that is] used in a symbolic manner in both Jewish and Roman literature related to a major event such as death of an emperor.” And just what is this defining “phenomenological language”?
In 2011, Licona “clarified” his view on this issue, stating that Matthew’s language in 27:52 was “apocalyptic,” not “poetic.” He is not the only scholar to claim that, and
these scholars argue that Matthew uses four common apocalyptic symbols including (1) darkness, (2) earthquakes, (3) opening of tombs, and (4) resurrected bodies.
Unfortunately for Licona, as James Rochford helpfully points out,
all of these supposed apocalyptic signifiers are also associated with Jesus’ death and resurrection. For instance, (1) darkness accompanied Jesus’ death (Mt. 27:45), (2) an earthquake accompanied his resurrection (Mt. 28:2), (3) angels opened Jesus’ tomb (Mt. 27:60, 28:8), and (4) Jesus rose physically from the dead (Mt. 28:7). If we take the resurrection of the OT saints as non-historical events, then the same hermeneutical case could be made for denying Jesus’ resurrection as historical.
(Rochford also draws attention to the fact that Matthew 27:52-53 is only one sentence in the original Greek, and suggests that the idea that Matthew changed genre from historical to apocalyptic for one sentence and then reverted to historical is absurd.)
Licona is checkmated here. If he insists that the “phenomenological language” in Matthew 27:52-53 indicates that the events described therein are non-historical (it is immaterial whether they are “poetic” or “apocalyptic,” for these are equally non-historical), then he cannot insist that the account of the resurrection of Jesus, which uses the same phenomenological language, is historical. Of course, Licona could assert that this language is “used in a symbolic manner” in Matthew 27:52-53 but literally in Matthew 28, but what objective reason could he give to support this? He would no doubt go to other evidences for the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but in that case – if Matthew uses this “apocalyptic language” to describe an actual, historical resurrection in the case of Jesus – Licona would only prove that Matthew does use this sort of language literally to describe actual events, which would mean that there is no reason to take the resurrection of the OT saints in Matthew 27:52-53 as non-historical. It seems that the desire to “treat the Bible like any other book” has overridden logic and common sense.
Now, according to Garwood Anderson,
It is noteworthy that, in writing this book, Licona seems to be trying to put forth a case that can engage liberal scholars, so he includes only “what could count as historical ‘bedrock,’ a datum which is at once beyond serious dispute and for which any serious historical hypothesis must account … ‘bedrock’ is established by two criteria – strong historical evidence and a nearly universal acceptance among contemporary scholarship“
For this reason, it should be noted, Licona devotes only “one paragraph, though with numerous mentions” to the fact that at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, the majority of five hundred eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus were still alive (1 Corinthians 15:6). Inasmuch as this is one of the weightiest evidences for the fact of Jesus’ resurrection, one would think that it would feature prominently in a book defending the resurrection. That is not the case, however, since
the last thing Licona wants to do is to reprise an argument which inspires the choir to sing while leaving skeptics amused by its naiveté. He repeatedly invites critics onto a single playing field of methodological neutrality to adjudicate the same evidence where there is no home court advantage.
This approach highlights one of the most pernicious causes of the problem: the desire to be taken seriously by liberal scholars. It may be well-intentioned, as a way to convince such scholars of the truth of the Gospel, but it is a fool’s errand. It may gain one admission to the cool academic theological societies and publication in the cool academic journals and invitations to the cool parties, but I have yet to hear of even one liberal scholar who came to Christ through this attenuated apologetic.
Liberal scholars as a group know all of the evidence but are nevertheless committed to their naturalistic reinterpretations of the Gospel accounts; that’s their story and they’re sticking to it. Accordingly, they will only allow such “bedrock” facts as do not require an admission that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, Licona and those who claim his view is compatible with inerrancy – including Craig Blomberg, William Lane Craig, Gary R. Habermas, Craig S. Keener, Douglas J. Moo, J. P. Moreland, Daniel B. Wallace, and Edwin M. Yamauchi – seem to unable to think two moves ahead, and so become mice in the paws of the liberal cats.
Unsurprisingly, liberal scholars are quite happy to discuss these matters with Licona et al. as long as the liberals are the gatekeepers of what is allowed in the discussion and what is off limits – which is what Licona’s approach sets the stage for – and smile in their faces while waiting for this new view of “errant inerrancy” to become widespread among evangelical scholars.
No doubt they are confident this view will spread, and why wouldn’t they be? They have already seen the late dating of the Gospel books, Markan priority, literary dependence, the Q hypothesis, acceptance of the Griesbachian/Westcott-Hort text as the original text of the NT, and the denunciation of Mark 16:9-20 as inauthentic become, against all of the actual evidence, the dominant views among evangelical scholars. So why not the view that the Gospel books may have “legendary” material that is difficult to tell apart from actual historical material?
What will happen then? Based on the liberal paradigm assumptions that evangelical scholars have swallowed so far, liberal scholars paint a picture wherein
- The earliest Gospel book, Q, has no resurrection
- Neither does the next Gospel book, the Gospel According to Mark, which dates to somewhere around AD 55-75, and ends at 16:8.
- Matthew and Luke, written later, in the 70s or 80s, used Mark and Q as their sources.
But since neither Mark nor Q has a resurrection account, where did Matthew and Luke get such an account? Inquiring liberal minds wanted to know. Now they have the answer: Matthew wasn’t really including a resurrection account at all; it was just apocalyptic language meant to show how significant the death of the great man Jesus was. Just look at the apocalyptic imagery associated with the resurrection account of Jesus – darkness, an earthquake, an opened tomb, a bodily resurrection – and it becomes obvious. So it’s all a matter of genre analysis, you see; Matthew never intended you to think that the resurrection of Jesus was historical! You really should spot the clues in the apocalyptic language, you know. After all, they are the same clues that Licona uses to argue that the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:52-53 is non-historical.
In fact, even Licona himself admits that
If some or all of the phenomena reported at Jesus’ death are poetic devices, we may rightly ask whether Jesus’ resurrection is not more of the same.
And the defence he gives for historicity is exceedingly weak, viz. that neither the early Christians nor their opponents treated the claim of Jesus’ resurrection as being anything other than the claim that Jesus rose bodily from the dead as an actual historical event.
Now, even if that were a valid argument (and it is not, as we shall see), it would necessarily mean that the New Testament is not sufficient by itself for our faith and practice (since we cannot know which parts of it are meant to be taken as actual history if we do not have a knowledge of ancient history and conventions). More to the point, it is not a valid argument. On the contrary, it is worthless.
What comes next is crucial, folks.
- Licona tells us that the apocalyptic language in Matthew 27:52-53 means that that passage is not historical but simply poetic.
- The same sort of apocalyptic language is used by Matthew in his resurrection account, so the only logical conclusion is that, by Licona’s standards, we must also accept that the resurrection account of Jesus is not historical but simply poetic.
- The only argument Licona can give for avoiding this obvious conclusion is the fact that the early Christians and their opponents viewed the claim that Jesus had risen as being a claim about an actual historical event.
And here is where Licona’s case blows up in his face: the early Christians and their opponents also viewed the claim in Matthew 27:52-53 that the OT saints had risen as being a claim about an actual historical event. Ignatius, writing about AD 107, stated the following:
By those in heaven I mean such as are possessed of incorporeal natures; by those on earth, the Jews and Romans, and such persons as were present at that time when the Lord was crucified; and by those under the earth, the multitude that arose along with the Lord. For says the Scripture, “Many bodies of the saints that slept arose,” their graves being opened. He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude. (Epistle to the Trallians 9)
Irenaeus, around AD 180, wrote,
He suffered who can lead those souls aloft that follow His ascension. This event was also an indication of the fact, that when the holy soul of Christ descended [to Hades], many souls ascended and were seen in their bodies. (Fragments 28)
Clement of Alexandria in the late 2nd or early 3rd century wrote,
the Gospel says, that many bodies of those that slept arose — plainly as having been translated to a better state. There took place, then, a universal movement and translation through the economy of the Saviour. (Stromata 6.6)
These and other early Christian writers affirmed the historicity of the resurrection of the OT saints in Matthew 27:52-53, though they were undoubtedly far more familiar with Greco-Roman bios than is Licona. There is an overweening arrogance in a 21st-century scholar who thinks he knows better about such matters than these early Christians.
Be that as it may, the main issue is that Licona claims on the basis of supposed apocalyptic language that the resurrection of the OT saints in Matthew 27:52-53 is non-historical – even though the early Christians never viewed it as anything other than historical. This means that Licona cannot out of the other side of his mouth claim that we can see the account of the resurrection of Jesus, with the same sort of apocalyptic language, as historical because early Christians never viewed it as anything else.
Again, if the early Christians’ view cannot trump the apocalyptic language in Matthew 27:52-53 to prove that it is historical, then neither can it be used to trump the apocalyptic language in the resurrection account of Jesus to prove that it is historical. Licona has cut himself off at the knees – while destroying the historicity of the resurrection account in Matthew. Congratulations, Licona.
So evangelical scholarship falls deeper into the snare set by liberal scholars – and primed by evangelicals. Liberal scholars have long argued that Jesus’ original Jewish followers taught a very different view of Jesus from Paul’s Hellenized “god-man.” They contended that Jesus was only a human being who was accepted by His followers as the Messiah, until Paul came along and on the basis of nothing more than his own visions invented the divine Jesus, resurrection and all. This led to a power struggle that was eventually won by Paul’s followers after Jesus’ original Jewish followers were largely wiped out during the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
This picture, as you recall, was supported by the claim that the two earliest sources about the life of Jesus had no resurrection account:
Now, if Licona’s views are accepted, the resurrection account in the Gospel According to Matthew can easily be written off as mere poetry, and since there is no resurrection account in the Gospel According to Mark or Q, liberal scholars will insist that not one of the three earliest sources we have about the life of Jesus claim that He rose from the dead. In fact, the first one that has it is the Gospel According to Luke, a late source written by a Hellenistic Greek writer, not a Jew at all.
What do evangelicals have to say? The following, by Creation Ministries International’s golden child Lita Cosner, is typical:
The accounts in the Gospels are neither the only nor the earliest evidence we have of Christian writing about the Resurrection. That honor goes to 1 Thessalonians; one of the earliest of Paul’s letters … which was written around AD 50. So we have evidence that about two decades after Christ’s death, there was a group of people who insisted He was raised from the dead, and had built a decent portion of their theology around that fact, which doesn’t happen overnight. But the Gospel accounts … [were] penned decades after the events they describe
So the picture we are given here is that the earliest evidence we have for the resurrection of Jesus is that a group of people who were not eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus, living in a city in the Hellenic world “about two decades after Christ’s death,” believed (sorry, “insisted”) that Jesus was raised from the dead, because they had been told that by another man who was himself not an eyewitness of the risen Jesus. The Gospel books, meanwhile, came later. This view, of course, plays exactly into the liberal reconstruction that posits Paul as the real inventor of Christianity.
So Licona’s ill-conceived pontifications about Matthew 27:52-53 actually provide the final argument liberal scholars need to complete the discrediting of the resurrection of Jesus, and without the resurrection of Jesus that there is no Christianity (1 Corinthians 15:14-19). Game, set, and match to the liberal skeptics, thanks to Licona and his peanut gallery of evangelical scholar supporters.
That is, if Licona is right. As we have seen, he is not.
If we look again at Licona’s argument, we see that it is quintessentially predicated upon his claim that the Gospel books are of the same literary genre as Greco-Roman bios. As we have already seen, this claim is unsustainable, and so Licona’s entire argument collapses. However, there are also other problems.
Even in the case of Greco-Roman bios, Licona tells us that sometimes they included these sorts of strange, supernatural events – but not always; sometimes they were straight history. So even if the Gospel books were of the same genre as Greco-Roman bios, why should we not take them as examples of straight historical ones? Licona reasonably believes that supernatural events in Greco-Roman bios are necessarily non-historical, but, given that he certainly acknowledges historical miracles in the Gospel books, why do any of them need to be seen as non-historical? Is the God of the Bible unable to perform such miracles as supernatural darkness, earthquakes on demand, the opening of tombs, and the raising of bodies? If so, why should such events as are chronicled in Matthew 27:52-53 be seen as non-historical?
Licona does show familiarity with at least some of the Patristic testimony. He admits that there is very early testimony by Ignatius that “even the prophets, who were his disciples in the Spirit … He for whom they rightly waited raised them from the dead when He came,” which is further evidence of the historicity of the resurrection of the OT saints. He admits that
the darkness reported in all three Synoptics is also apparently reported by the secular historian Thallus (ca. A.D. 52).
He also admits that
destructive earthquakes were common in the region and can explain four of the six phenomena (tearing of the temple veil, earthquake, rocks splitting, tombs opened).
Yet for some reason that is truly unfathomable Licona tries to downplay this evidence; clearly to Licona all actual evidence is trumped by “the presence of phenomenological language used in a symbolic manner in both Jewish and Roman literature related to a major event such as the death of an emperor or the end of a reigning king or even a kingdom.” Licona writes off Ignatius’ testimony due to “ambiguity” – he seems to overlook the fact that there is much more Patristic evidence than just Ignatius’ – and then he carps that
so very little can be known about Thallus’ comment on the darkness (including whether he was even referring to the darkness at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion or, if so, if he was merely speculating pertaining to a natural cause of the darkness claimed by the early Christians).
Clearly, all evidence and logic must bow to Licona’s view of the “phenomenological language” in the passage, and he blithely informs us tha
it seems to me that an understanding of the language in Matthew 27:52-53 as “special effects” with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible.
Why, in light of all that we have seen, it should be considered “most plausible” is neither explained nor explicable.
Furthermore, even if it is true that phenomenological language is used symbolically in Jewish and Roman literature that is not God-breathed, why should Matthew 27:52-53, which is God-breathed be taken as an example of such symbolic usage, instead of as straightforward history? And we must also ask, if Matthew had meant to write about these events as actually having happened, how would he have phrased it differently? To ask that is to answer it; there is no other way he could have worded it but in the simple, straightforward way he did, and there is nothing about it therefore that offers any sort of clue that it is meant to be taken as non-historical.
Licona nevertheless tries to buttress his case by asserting that there may be other examples in the Gospel books of non-historical embellishments that are mistakenly understood to be historical events. It is hard to believe that he can be serious here. Does he really think that he can support the idea that Matthew 27:52-53 is non-historical by simply saying that it may not be the only non-historical passage? Does he really not understand that this could only be an argument if he actually shows that there are other passages that are non-historical, rather than merely suggesting that there may be some such?
Finally, we must ask, if the bios genre was so flexible that “it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins,” then how can we know that Matthew’s account of Jesus’ resurrection was the former, not the latter? Given that the same sort of “apocalyptic” imagery is used in both this account and the allegedly non-historical resurrection of the OT saints, we cannot know, despite Licona’s insistence to the contrary.
Licona’s entire case, then, is an unmitigated disaster. Why anyone would take it seriously is exceedingly difficult to see. Why the peanut gallery of evangelical scholars leaps to defend Licona in this matter is more puzzling still. The fraternity of liberal scholars and skeptics must be laughing themselves to pieces.
If Not Bios, Then What?
Inasmuch as the attempt to classify the Gospel books as being of the genre of Greco-Roman bios is a signal failure, one may now ask of what genre are they. Geisler argues that
Making up-front genre decisions is a question-begging procedure. It is based on questionable, predetermined classification from other literature that is then applied to biblical literature. For all the genre categories are made from the study of extrabiblical sources. These categories are then applied to the piece of biblical literature in question to see which one it fits into. The method as such does not allow for the possibility that the Bible may offer a new genre of its own that does not fit any of these categories, for example, redemptive history or (in the New Testament) Gospel history. But once these biblical genre categories are tacitly rejected (by taking the possible genre categories from nonbiblical genre sources), then it begs the question to insist that biblical (redemptive) history must be forced into one of these nonbiblical genres.
Holding derides this suggestion, opining that
Words like “absurd” one might suppose to not be appropriate when addressing someone like Geisler, but there are frankly no better words for such a nonsensical argument … In a nutshell, genres like “redemptive history” or “history” are simply manufactured categories Geisler invents to save his views. They, and his suggestion of some new and unknown category, and [sic] merely contrivances, and have no basis in fact whatsoever.
In this, Holding has surfaced the crux of this issue: Are the Gospels God-breathed books written by authors carried along by the Holy Spirit and supernaturally empowered by Him to remember the words of Jesus to them (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; John 14:26), or they just ancient historical writings like those of Thucydides, Tacitus, Suetonius, or Josephus? If they are the latter, then we can indeed treat them like any other book, analyzing them according to the same genres that are found in those other books.
But if the former, if the Gospel books are indeed God-breathed, then they are necessarily and certainly qualitatively different from all other books, whether ancient histories or not. They are absolutely unique, sui generis, and need to be treated as such – though it is not necessary to create a new genre to categorize them; “God-breathed” is quite adequate. Geisler, therefore, is completely correct here, and it is Holding who is “absurd” and whose arguments are “nonsensical.”
The Crux of the Battle
We have reached the central issue, and the battle lines are clear. The Bible claims to be the very word of God Himself. It is “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16-17); it is right (Psalm 33:4); it is the word of truth (John 17:17; 2 Corinthians 6:7; Ephesians 1:13; 2 Timothy 2:15); and these descriptors apply to all of it:
“The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalm 119:160a)
Even if the meaning of a passage is difficult or unpleasant, “the Scripture cannot be broken” according to Jesus Himself (John 10:35).
If we believe these things, then we cannot ignore them in our analysis of Scripture. Scripture is not limited by human imperfection, nor does it have errors. But to proclaim this is not considered academically respectable or scholarly, and the very concept seems to have all but disappeared from evangelical scholarship. Even those who profess a belief in meaningful inerrancy seem to park that belief at the door before venturing into the halls of academic analysis. If anything, the Bible is treated with less respect than other ancient historical writings. And so the liberal paradigm assumptions are accepted wholesale, and the trustworthiness of the Bible is continually eroded. We have reached the point now where liberal scholars do not need to do anything more to undermine the Bible; they can just sit back and let the evangelical scholars do it for them.
A House Divided
Imagine that you and your family are in a house that is under attack by three monsters. Dracula is at the front door, trying to get in so that he can kill you and your family. At the window to the left of the front door is a werewolf, also trying to enter in order to kill you all. And at the window to the right is Frankenstein’s monster, seeking entry for the purpose of killing all of you. Fortunately, you have appropriate weapons against each of them. So what do you do?
There are two good options. The first is to move back and forth from window to door to window, selecting the appropriate weapon at each to battle the monster there and deny him entry, thus keeping your family safe. The second is to recognize that, inasmuch as you are an expert with only one weapon, you battle only that one monster, and let those other family members who are experts with the other weapons safeguard the other points of entry by battling those monsters. This approach, too, will keep you and your family safe.
There is a third and a fourth option, which are both awful and ultimately futile. The third option is simply to open one or more of the entry points and usher the monsters into your house, but dress like them and act like them and talk like them in the hope that they will then respect you and your family and not kill you all. You might even be hoping that you can eventually convince the monsters not to be monsters any longer, but of course that does not happen and your family is being killed off meanwhile.
The fourth option is to select a point of entry that is attacked by the monster you are well equipped to battle, being an expert with the appropriate weapon, and battle only that one, explaining that it is the most dangerous monster, while unwittingly opening the other points of entry and allowing or even helping those monsters to come in. (Alternatively, perhaps you do not even realize that what is at those other windows are indeed monsters that want to kill you and your family.) Some of your family members, being more familiar with those monsters than you are, try to warn you of the danger and ask you not to help those other monsters to enter, but you ignore them, focusing on what a good fight you are putting up against your chosen monster. Meanwhile, your family is being picked off one by one by the monsters you have helped. The fact that your family members are dying you take as proof that your chosen monster is the most dangerous foe and you continue battling him while patting yourself on the back about what a good job you are doing. Eventually, though, your family members are no longer interested in how well you defend against your chosen monster – because they’re dead.
This whimsical picture is analogical to the ways in which evangelical scholars have responded to the three-headed monster of historical criticism, textual criticism, and Darwinism. The only effective responses against the predations of these threats are the first two options, yet few if any evangelical scholars adopt either approach. The large majority, as we have seen, seem to adopt the third approach, accepting many or all of the liberal paradigm assumptions of historical criticism and especially textual criticism, and accommodating Darwinism in various ways.
Yet the most frustrating is the matter of those who adopt the fourth option. These are evangelical scholars and popular-level apologists who do believe in inerrancy and are sincerely trying to defend it, but whose expertise is limited to only one of the “heads.” They recognize the infiltrations of liberalism in that one area and battle it, often very effectively.
However, they have not applied the same sort of critical analysis to the other heads as to their own area of expertise, and so without even realizing it they have “received” and now “pass on” the same liberal paradigm assumptions in these other areas, and so contribute to the undermining of the Bible. (Indeed, because their followers see them as trustworthy in their area of expertise, they tend to assume that their pontifications in other matters are equally trustworthy, which is a dangerous assumption indeed). At the end of the day, it does no good to stop Dracula’s attacks if the werewolf or Frankenstein’s monster has meanwhile destroyed your family.
We follow with a few representative examples of how evangelical scholars and apologists are doing with respect to the three-headed monster.
As we have seen, Norman Geisler is a strong proponent and defender of Biblical inerrancy. He clearly believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God Himself and in addition to his books exposing the erosion of inerrancy among evangelical scholars, he has written books defending the trustworthiness of the Bible.
How does Geisler fare regarding the three-headed monster? Regarding historical criticism, he clearly opposes its dangers. However, as to the dates of the Gospel books, he is familiar with the work of John A.T. Robinson, who “came to believe some of the Gospels could have been written as early as AD 40,” yet he opts for dating the earliest Gospel books, those of Matthew and Mark “to sometime in the mid-50s,” which is too late; it is not clear why he opts for such dates. Furthermore, he embraces the extreme late dating of the Gospel According to John, placing the date of composition of this book to AD 81-96.
On the other hand, Geisler rejects Markan priority and at least raises questions about the Q hypothesis. In addition, in the matter of literary dependence, Geisler outlines the various theories to account for the similarities among the synoptic Gospel books and, though he does not clearly identify which of these he accepts, he does seem to lean towards the Independent Eyewitness Records Theory (which Farnell calls the “Independence view of Gospel origins”).
So Geisler’s views on historical critical issues are a mixed bag, and he is not immune to glaring inconsistencies. He opines that “It is inconceivable that Q does not have a Passion and a resurrection narrative! This is the heart of the gospel,” yet he thinks it most likely that the Gospel According to Mark ended at 16:8 – so that it has no resurrection account. Why Geisler thinks it “inconceivable” that a non-canonical writing should have no resurrection narrative yet thinks it eminently “conceivable” that a canonical Gospel book has no such narrative is difficult to understand. Nevertheless, inasmuch as he rejects Markan priority and leans against literary dependence among the Gospel books, his views on historical critical matters are far better than those of most other evangelical scholars and apologists.
Regarding textual criticism, however, Geisler has clearly swallowed the Griesbachian/Westcott-Hort approach hook, line, and sinker. He touts Griesbach’s canons without any apparent critical examination of them or their origins. He passes on the trope that scribes took it upon themselves deliberately to alter what they believed was the word of God to correct mistakes and contradictions in the original text. This is simply not true; not only has every actual study shown that scribes very rarely (if ever) deliberately altered the text and that the most common scribal error by far was accidental omission, but it is a fact that early Christian leaders were vehemently opposed to any alteration of the word of God.
Unfortunately, Geisler does not seem to have bothered to examine critically these issues and so apparently accepts without any question the canons proclaimed by fiat by a German Rationalist liberal scholar in the 18th century – canons which were designed to introduce and maximize the number of errors in the “original” NT text. It is indeed surprising to see this staunch inerrantist accept and teach that scribes worked hard to fix all of the errors and contradictions and disharmonizations in the original text – one would think an inerrantist would find problematic the working assumption that the autographs were rife with errors, contradictions, and disharmonizations. Yet this is what this approach assumes, whether Geisler realizes it or not. And, predictably, Geisler rejects the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, with all of the disastrous consequences for which that omission sets the stage, and also rejects the authenticity of the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11).
Geisler dramatically underestimates the scale of the differences among the Greek texts, citing various estimations and surmises as to this scale:
The New Testament has some 99-plus percent accuracy of content. Westcott and Hort estimate that only about one-sixtieth of these variations rise above “trivialities” and can be called “substantial variations.” They estimate it is 98.33 percent pure. Ezra Abbott said about nineteen-twentieths (95 percent) of the readings are “various” rather than “rival” readings, and about nineteen-twentieths (95 percent) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. Thus Abbott sees the text as 99.75 percent pure. A.T. Robertson said the real concern is with about “a thousandth part of the entire text.” So the reconstructed text of the New Testament is 99.9 percent free from real concern.
Now, even if this were true, it would mean that there are 138 words in the NT about which there is “real concern,” which is problematic given that Jesus said,
“’Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God.’” (Luke 4:4)
Furthermore, it is not true; neither Geisler nor any of his “go-to” sources tell us how those estimates were derived. Were they calculated rigorously or are they just guesses? And does the portion of which they are certain include the errors that have been inserted by the Griesbachian method? The answers are: (1) They are just guesses. (2) It includes the errors. They are certain that these erroneous readings are part of the “pure” original text.
In fact, according to Daniel Wallace, there are 6,577 differences between the NA text and the Majority Text. If the average difference involves only two words, that is already a difference of 9.5%, not 0.1%. (If it involves three words, the difference is 14.3%.) I should think that an inerrantist would be concerned at the prospect that about 10-15% of God’s words may have been replaced by the words of men.
Finally, Geisler is tragically wrong in his repeated assertions that no “basic doctrine of the Christian faith” is affected by textual differences. Inasmuch as the Griesbachian/ Westcott-Hort approach to textual criticism, “which is now received by (virtually) all evangelical scholars,” was designed to insert errors into the original text, there is most certainly one doctrine (and I assume that Geisler would consider it “basic”) that is affected by “textual differences”: the doctrine of inerrancy. This doctrine is dead in the water as long as whatever is the current incarnation of the Griesbachian/Westcott-Hort text is accepted as the most accurate NT text. It may be that nothing else has so effectively destroyed belief in the doctrine of inerrancy as the fact that pastors and scholars can see the errors embedded in the text, errors that are in fact not part of the original text but have been put there by liberal scholars (with the acquiescence and, indeed, cooperation, of countless evangelicals) and are told that these errors are the original readings.
Regarding Darwinism, Geisler rejects the theory of evolution but he believes in an “old earth,” which is a necessary but not sufficient requisite for Darwinism, and in the Big Bang Theory. Despite his protestations, these views are absolutely incompatible with Biblical inerrancy.
FOR MORE DETAILS, see our article “Is a 4.6-Billion Year-Old Earth Compatible with Biblical Inerrancy? A Response to Norman Geisler” at https://www.truthinmydays.com/is-a-4-6-billion-year-old-earth-compatible-with-biblical-inerrancy-a-response-to-norman-geisler/
In sum, then, how does Geisler fare? He is obviously a sincere believer in Biblical inerrancy and does attempt to defend it. Regarding the first head of the monster, historical criticism, he is well above average in comparison to most evangelical scholars, though there are some problematic areas. Regarding the third head, Geisler is a mixed bag, rightly rejecting the theory of evolution but wrongly teaching an old earth, which is not compatible with Biblical inerrancy. And regarding the second head, textual criticism, he uncritically accepts in toto the Griesbachian/Westcott-Hort approach that has done so much harm to belief in inerrancy. At best we could give him a score of 1.25 out of 3, and regrettably such a score puts him near the top as far as evangelical scholars go.
Associates for Biblical Research (ABR)
Associates for Biblical Research is (ABR) “a Christian apologetics ministry dedicated to demonstrating the historical reliability of the Bible through archaeological and Biblical research.” They are clearly committed to Biblical inerrancy, avowing in their Statement of Faith that they “believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the verbally inspired Word of God, and inerrant in the original writings.” In fact, they trace their founding to a time when “an idea began to grow that a team of evangelical scholars, proceeding on the premise that the Bible is inerrant, could help in breaking the liberal establishment’s stranglehold on Old Testament scholarship while producing some refreshing new insights on the Bible. The result is that we have now formed a non-profit corporation called the ‘Associates for Biblical Research.’” Such an attitude is refreshing and is all too rare among evangelical scholars and apologists.
ABR’s core focus and competency is Biblical archaeology as it pertains to the historicity of the Bible. The large majority of their material is on the Old Testament, and not only do they publish, they do actual field excavations. Their material is usually excellent and this ministry is highly recommended.
How do they fare regarding the three-headed monster? Since they focus on the OT, the issue of origins naturally comes up frequently, and ABR is solidly against Darwinism in any form. As ABR staff member Rick Lanser writes,
We must diligently cultivate the mindset that when the plain sense of the Word of God conflicts with our understanding of science, the Bible wins the battle. We must subject our wills to His revelation instead of seeking creative ways to reinterpret it … Scripture may clash with science’s currently favored interpretations, but so what? Our mindset should be to question the way science understands the data, rather than reinterpreting the straightforward sense of Scripture. Our first allegiance, after all, is to the Lord, not scientific authorities. We have an obligation as Christians to accept the plain sense of Scripture even when it’s tough to reconcile with certain scientific ideas.
This is a very commendable attitude, and one from which most evangelical scholars and apologists can learn.
ABR also rejects any attempt to date the earth to billions of years old. Interestingly, in their article “101 Reasons the Earth is Young,” there is very little original content; the main feature is a link to a Creation Ministries International article by Don Batten titled “Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe.” This is a sterling example of implementing Option 2; since scientific creationism is not ABR’s area of expertise, they defer to another ministry that is qualified to deal with it.
Regarding historical criticism, since their main focus is on the OT, they rarely touch on NT historical criticism. If they have a stand on such things as the dates of the Gospel books, literary dependence, Markan priority, and Q, it is certainly not immediately clear. On the rare occasions when they do touch upon it, however, there are problems. For example, in a review of Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, ABR staff member Brian Janeway begins by affirming the three authors’ “endeavor to build a positive case for the trustworthiness of the biblical text using an historical approach, asserting that ‘We treat the Bible like any other book to show that it is not like any other book.’” As we have already seen, that is never good, and we know what is coming, for we have already seen Wallace’s utterly inadequate view of inerrancy.
Janeway cites with approval the claim of Markan priority, stating that
Most scholars hold that the first Gospel published was Mark, sometime prior to the early 60s AD.
He also embraces the late dating of the Gospel books which, he says, were “written decades after the life and times of Jesus … This several decade delay begs the question as to why the writers waited so long … nearly three decades had passed since the resurrection.”
He shrugs off potential unease caused by this putative long delay by insisting that “There was undoubtedly a period of oral proclamation that followed Jesus’ death and resurrection” – and this he does despite the fact that, as we have seen, Luke explicitly tells us that he got the information for his Gospel book directly from eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2); Matthew and John were direct eyewitnesses; and Mark was writing Peter’s direct eyewitness testimony.
It is illustrative – and dismaying – to follow the chain of illogic proffered by Komoszewski et al. that supposedly supports this historical reconstruction, a chain that is accepted by Janeway with no apparent hesitation. For the case offered by Komoszewski et al. well shows that liberal paradigm assumptions have become so entrenched in the minds of evangelical scholars that they override the actual evidence.
According to Janeway’s summary of the case made by Komoszewski et al,
There was undoubtedly a period of oral proclamation that followed Jesus’ death and resurrection. As indicated by numerous passages (Acts 2:47; 6:7; 19:20; James 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1, etc), the church was growing and the gospel message was spreading rapidly. During this formative period, the emphasis was on the preached word of eyewitnesses … Only when the Apostles began to die off and the return of the Lord did not transpire as expected was the need perceived for a written account.
Right away, we should note that there are three problems with these assertions: (1) They are unsupported by any evidence; (2) They do not even make sense; and (3) They are contradicted by the actual evidence. That is not a good combination, and it makes it difficult to understand why so many evangelicals accept them so readily.
Regarding (1), there is no doubt that the apostles and other Christians were preaching the Gospel from the earliest days, but that says nothing about whether it was also written down or not. Interestingly, not one of the “numerous passages” adduced by Janeway actually speaks of oral preaching, and the last two are salutations to written documents! There is not even one shred of evidence to support the claim that the church confined itself to oral preaching until “the apostles began to die off.”
Regarding (2), Paul did not confine himself to oral preaching but wrote letters that he expected to be passed around from church to church (Colossians 4:16), and that is not surprising, since Paul could only be in one place at one time. There were only so many eyewitnesses to preach the Gospel, whereas written documents could be copied and reach a far wider audience. So why would they not write it down at an early time?
Regarding (3), we have already seen that the testimony of the church Fathers and the colophons in the f35 manuscripts all indicate that the Gospel books were very early, beginning with Matthew’s in AD 40-41. Add to this the fact that Paul quotes Luke 10:17 and refers to is as “Scripture” in 1 Timothy 5:18. We see, then, that the actual evidence favours the early writing of the Gospel books, contrary to the claims of Komoszewski et al.
It gets worse. Janeway now tells us that
The authors correctly highlight the critical role played by Jewish oral culture of that day. Long before the printed word, the centrality of memory in community cannot be overstated. In such an environment, the events and words of Jesus were replayed and recalled hundreds and thousands of times by those who were present with him, beginning during Jesus’ lifetime and continuing for decades through countless retellings.
It has also been noted that Jesus’ instructions were often uttered in rhythmic fashion, making them easier to recall later and memorize … It seems quite likely that the collective memory of the early community of followers faithfully and accurately preserved an oral tradition of the activity and teachings of Jesus. The consequence of these cultural and historical factors leads to the only reasonable conclusion—that the written record forms an authentic eyewitness account of the life and times of the founder of the Christian faith.
What we see here is what we saw earlier in the contention between Farnell and Bock: Are the Gospel books God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)? Do they record the exact words given by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised in John 14:26, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you”? Or are they simply the product of fallible human memory? If the latter, the doctrine of inerrancy may be jettisoned now, for, contra Komoszewski et al., it is most certainly possible to overstate “the centrality of memory in community”; no ancient historian believed or claimed he was writing the ipsissima verba of his subject, for memory is not good enough to do that in any culture.
As Farnell asks, were the writers and/or sources of the Gospel books “eyewitnesses who, in many cases, reproduced the exact wording of dialogues with and sermons by Jesus,” who were able to do so because “their memories received stimulation through the Holy Spirit’s guidance in accord with Jesus’ promises to the disciples” in John 14:26 and John 16:13? Does “the factuality and accuracy of the Gospels stem from their uniqueness as divinely inspired documents–as God-breathed as well as God-guided documents” – which, of course, makes them qualitatively different from any other books so that they cannot be “treated like any other book”? Or are the sources nothing more than “the collective memory of the early community of followers [that] faithfully and accurately preserved an oral tradition of the activity and teachings of Jesus”?
If the latter, then they may (or may not) give us “an authentic eyewitness account of the life and times of the founder of the Christian faith,” but they cannot give us inerrancy. There was a time when every evangelical knew that the answer to this question was the former, but under the baleful influence of the three-headed monster, evangelical scholars blithely opt for the latter. It is indeed passing strange.
It gets worse still. Komoszewski et al. turn their attention to NT textual criticism, and it is evident that they accept the liberal paradigm assumptions of the Griesbachian/Westcott-Hort approach, including the calumny that
Even if the authors were faithful in recording what they saw and understood, later editorial activity may have changed or embellished the original accounts.
While this is idea is quintessential to the Griesbachian/Westcott-Hort approach, we have already seen that the evidence shows that scribes did not take it upon themselves to “change or embellish the original accounts.”
Janeway next tells us that
Using this methodology over the last two centuries, scholars have been successful in isolating what are known as textual variants.
That is incorrect; textual variants are there for everyone to see and do not need to be isolated. The purpose of the Griesbachian methodology was not to isolate the variants but supposedly to adjudicate among them to select the original reading – though in fact the actual agenda of the method was to insert errors into the NT text.
The claim is then advanced that “only about 1 percent of all documented variants are actually considered viable and meaningful,” although we have seen that the actual number is much higher. More importantly, the 99% of the text about which textual critics proclaim themselves to be “certain” include a number of errors, thus destroying inerrancy.
Then the charge is received and passed on that for the Gospel According to Mark
the best and earliest manuscripts end after verse 16:8 … it makes for an abrupt conclusion to the book.
As we have already seen, only in a bizarro world can two manuscripts that were copies so carelessly that they contradict each other more than 3,000 times in the Gospel books alone be considered “the best.” And their testimony as the “earliest” (fourth century AD) to the supposed omission of Mark 16:9-20 is useless in light of the fact that Irenaeus explicitly quotes Mark 16:19 and identifies it as being from near the end of the Gospel According to Mark – and he does this in the second century AD. And the suggestion that “Perhaps the additional twelve verses reflect the original version” is naive; textual critics have closed ranks around the party line that Mark intentionally ended his Gospel book at 16:8.
Janeway thinks that Komoszewski et al have effectively countered other charges, too. Regarding the idea that Jesus was only proclaimed to be divine at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, we are told that this idea “overlooks indisputable evidence from nearly fifty pre-4th century documents that correspond on all counts in their portrayal of Jesus as God”; that Paul teaches the deity of Christ in various passages that “may well reflect the first discernible doctrinal statements of the early church”; and that testimony from secular writers and Church Fathers in the 2nd century AD agree that Christians worshipped Jesus as God.
Yet none of this will disprove the claims of the liberal skeptics. As we have seen, if we accept late dating of the Gospels, Markan priority, literary dependence, the omission of the last twelve verses of the Gospel According to Mark, and the Q hypothesis – as Komoszewski et al. apparently do – the liberal skeptic case, as we have seen, is that the two earliest Gospel books, the Gospel According to Mark and Q, do not have a resurrection (and, thanks to Licona’s pontifications, that can now be expanded to the three earliest, including the Gospel According to Matthew), so the idea that Jesus rose from the dead must have come about some time in the 80s or 90s; Paul, not an eyewitness, invented the idea of the deity of Jesus; the evolution of reverence towards Jesus can be traced from the Gospel According to Mark, the earliest and the one with the lowest Christology, to the Gospel According to John, the latest and the one with the highest Christology (and this evolution was probably influenced by Paul’s teachings); and if this trajectory is traced back to the time of the original Jesus, we get the only-human Jesus of liberal theology. We see Jesus as divine today only because Paul’s faction won the power struggle with Jesus’ original followers after most of the latter were killed off during the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
There is nothing in the proof Janeway here touts that obviates any of this. Second-century evidence that Christians viewed Jesus as God cannot disprove the claim that this idea evolved in the first century, and the avowal that Paul’s writings are the earliest testimonies to the deity of Jesus dovetails perfectly with the idea that Paul is the actual inventor of this idea.
In reality, when they are preaching to the choir, the case advanced by Komoszewski et al. may sound impressive, but it is completely impotent before clever skeptics. Arch-skeptic Dr. Robert M. Price, of the infamous Jesus Seminar, for example, makes a strong case against the book. On the other hand, an informed apologist who has rejected the liberal paradigm assumptions that have been brought into historical criticism and textual criticism can easily refute the claims of Price.
In sum, then, Associates for Biblical Research is a very valuable ministry. Their view of Biblical inerrancy is top-notch, and the material they produce in regard to their core focus is excellent. They properly reject Darwinism in all its forms as well as the idea of that the earth is billions of years old. Their one glaring weakness is in the area of NT historical and textual criticism; fortunately, to date they have dabbled very little in these areas.
It must be said that ABR’s idea to “to grow that a team of evangelical scholars, proceeding on the premise that the Bible is inerrant, [that] could help in breaking the liberal establishment’s stranglehold on Old Testament scholarship while producing some refreshing new insights on the Bible” is exactly the sort of thing that is very much needed. But the same must be done for New Testament scholarship, and for that to happen, we must have no truck with the liberal presuppositions that ABR endorsed. It does no good to defend the Old Testament if the New Testament is undercut.
Creation Ministries International (CMI)
Creation Ministries International (CMI) is a well known evangelical apologetics organization that focuses on the creation/evolution debate. They reject Darwinism in all its forms and hold to a young earth of approximately 6,000 years old. They describe their mission thus:
To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.
They hold to Biblical inerrancy, maintaining that
The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs.
CMI’s core competency is scientific creationism, i.e. refuting the putative arguments from science for the theory of evolution and for a 4.6-billion year-old earth, as well as providing positive scientific evidence to support the fact that the world was designed and that it is of a young age. The majority of CMI’s staff have academic credentials in various fields of science, and most of their material on scientific creationism is excellent.
When it comes to the other heads of the three-headed monster, however, it is another matter entirely. They address topics related to historical criticism and textual criticism not infrequently, and when they do, far too often their material is toxic.
Although CMI has no official stance on historical critical matters, they repeatedly endorse the late dating of the Gospel books and the extreme late dating of the Gospel According to John. Similarly, while they have no official stance on matters of textual criticism, CMI’s teachings on textual criticism are also toxic. They have clearly swallowed the Griesbachian/Westcott-Hort model in toto and endorse the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies Greek NT text as the best. Not surprisingly, CMI denies the authenticity of both Mark 16:9-20 and the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11).
This is particularly curious, inasmuch as CMI sees their mission as “calling the church back to the authority of the Word of God beginning from the very first verse“. They unambiguously assert that
The Bible is God’s word to us—every single word inspired by God.
every word (in the original autographs) is the exact word that God wanted there for all people for all time.
Isn’t it ironic, then, that CMI embraces a text-critical methodology that guarantees that one can never know “every single word inspired by God”? Isn’t it ironic that they actually affirm that “every word (in the original autographs) is the exact word that God wanted there for all people for all time,” while conceding that God has failed to keep every word that He wanted for all people for all time, that some of those words are no longer available to us?
That is certain if the Nestle-Aland Greek NT text is correct, and CMI certainly champions this text which Lita Cosner admits is only “the closest possible match to the original text,” and not the “exact” words. And it is no wonder that she admits this; the Nestle-Aland editors readily tell us that
The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: (in the sense of the century-long Nestle tradition): it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament.
Why CMI doesn’t realize that the idea that “every word (in the original autographs) is the exact word that God wanted there for all people for all time” is utterly incompatible with the textual theory they endorse is difficult to understand.
Finally, CMI rightly insists that inasmuch as the Bible is the inerrant word of God, all of its assertions are factually true, and they apply that standard rigidly to all matters related to creationism – but it is not quite as rigid in other matters. Regarding historical critical and text critical matters, some of their claims are not consistent with their high view of inerrancy. And they openly promote some teachers (especially James Patrick Holding) whose views of inerrancy are very different from CMI’s own standard.
In sum, then, Creation Ministries International is a valuable ministry that produces excellent material in the area of scientific creationism, their core focus and core competency. They understand that there is a great deal of erroneous teaching among evangelical scholars about Darwinism and so they do not simply follow evangelical party lines but think critically and research carefully in this area. Alas, when it comes to historical criticism and textual criticism, there does not seem to be anything remotely approaching the same level of care, as they accept and pass on liberal paradigm assumptions readily. Lamentably, CMI is to historical criticism and textual criticism what Dr. Hugh Ross is to creationism. Their defence of inerrancy is accordingly severely compromised.
FOR AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF CMI’S TEACHINGS IN THESE MATTERS AND THE PROBLEMS THEREWITH, see our companion article, “CREATION MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL AND THE THREE-HEADED MONSTER: WHY THE MONSTER WINS“
The Current Situation: Dire and Getting Worse
“Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of the Lord and God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:28-30)
It is likely that most evangelicals in North America attend a church with a strong and clear affirmation of the inerrancy of Scripture. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention Statement of Faith says that the Bible “has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.” Centre Street Church in Calgary, one of Canada’s largest evangelical churches, affirms that the Bible “is the authoritative written Word of God and contains no error in all that it teaches.” Such statements are typical, and lay evangelicals take them at face value, understanding that “no error” is a very plain and obvious concept.
Most lay evangelicals are unaware that things have changed dramatically at the level of academic scholarship. They are unaware that among evangelical scholars, those who hold to the plain meaning of inerrancy (which is that the Bible contains no errors, so that what it says happened did happen the way the Bible says) have become a small minority. As Peter Enns points out,
Inerrancy was once the unquestioned foundation for the evangelical tradition. In recent generations, however, it has become within evangelicalism a theological problem needing to be addressed. Many evangelical thinkers over the last several generations have raised their voices to say that we can no longer marginalize or explain away broadly agreed upon developments in theological, philosophical, and biblical studies that happen to rest uncomfortably with inerrancy …
But now, many younger evangelicals are saying openly that inerrancy does not have the explanatory power that its defenders once claimed for it. New paradigms, they say, are needed and have been for some time … The inerrantist paradigm is being called into question because the paradigm does not have explanatory power and new ones are needed.
Inasmuch as these “broadly agreed upon developments in theological, philosophical, and biblical studies” are fundamentally built on liberal paradigm assumptions, it is not at all surprising that
they rest uncomfortably with inerrancy.
What is surprising is how readily professing evangelicals, faced with choosing between the word of God and the touted “developments” in academic fields, opt for the latter without any apparent serious thought. There are a great many examples of this that could be shown, but we will give just one excellent one here: the putative “mistake” Luke made in claiming that Jesus was born “when Quirinius was governing Syria,” when it is known fact of history that Quirinius did not begin to govern Syria until ca. AD 7.
All of our brilliant evangelical scholars agree that this is an intractable problem; in fact, Daniel Wallace insists that it “casts serious doubt on Luke’s accuracy” and that
it cannot be resolved with certainty … “Only the discovery of new historical evidence can lead to a solution of the problem.” This is where we must leave the matter.
It never seems to occur to these brilliant evangelical scholars to question the factoid that Quirinius did not begin to govern Syria until AD 7. None of them thinks to ask how we know that. If they did so and did a little bit of research, they would find that the only evidence is some questionable testimony from Josephus, so in fact this is not a case of Luke contradicting known history at all, but of Josephus contradicting Luke. And since Luke is a far more accurate historian than Josephus and much closer in time to the events than is Josephus (and, oh, yes, Luke’s writings are God-breathed!) this most intractable problem is not a problem at all! Yet evangelical luminary Wallace tells us that this “casts serious doubts on Luke’s accuracy”!
For those who are willing and able to think and unwilling to jettison the inerrancy of the God-breathed Scriptures so readily, inerrancy is not a “theological problem.” It has all the explanatory power needed and so we do not have to look for another paradigm. This is the case for those who are willing and able to think. For those who would rather accept whatever liberal paradigm assumptions are presented to them as long as they have the imprimatur of evangelical scholarship, it is another story.
Tragically, this will only get worse with the next generation. As Enns tells us,
Over the last several decades, evangelicals have seen a recurring pattern, where promising evangelical thinkers leave their evangelical seminaries to pursue further study in biblical studies, theology, and philosophy in secular research universities. In time, they begin to see that an inerrantist paradigm does not account well for certain pressing biblical and historical issues (such as the authorship of biblical books and the historicity of many biblical narratives).
In response, this younger generation wants to name the problem for what it is and have a constructive dialogue to propose better intellectual models of Scripture … This scenario is common to anyone participating in evangelical academic culture
Let’s go through this. According to Enns, there is a “recurring pattern” in which
promising evangelical thinkers leave their evangelical seminaries to pursue further study in biblical studies, theology, and philosophy in secular research universities.
Now, if these evangelicals are actually thinkers, why in God’s name would they pursue further studies “in secular research universities”? Did these “evangelical thinkers” have such little regard of the word of God that they felt they could safely ignore its teachings that the world is implacably at enmity with God? Did they really think that people who do not know God would somehow be able to tell the facts about the Bible better than believers? Did they really think that people who reject the deity of Christ and the possibility of miracles could actually analyze the Biblical accounts correctly? Did they really think that God was kidding when He said, “Do not be deceived: ‘Evil company corrupts good habits’”? Or was that shiny piece of paper that says “Ph.D” on it just too tempting to resist?
And of course under the baleful influence of liberal professors, it is inevitable that
In time, they begin to see that an inerrantist paradigm does not account well for certain pressing biblical and historical issues (such as the authorship of biblical books and the historicity of many biblical narratives).
What they “see,” though, is an illusion. The “pressing” problems are such as the supposed contradiction between Luke 2:2 and the date of Quirinius’ governorship. All of these “pressing” problems have reasonable solutions, if one is willing to do some careful thinking about them.
But how many of these students are willing (or able) to do that when they are sitting under the teaching of professors with doctorates who are telling them that these problems “cast serious doubts” on the accuracy of the Bible, that they “cannot be resolved with certainty,” or that “only the discovery of new historical evidence can lead to a solution of the problem. This is where we must leave the matter”?
How many are willing (or able) to do that – or even have an impetus to do it – when trusted evangelical defenders of inerrancy such as Norman Geisler tell them that the world is billions of years old when the Bible makes it undeniably clear that it is no more than 7,680 years old at most?
How many are willing (or able) to do that – or even have an impetus to do it – when evangelical scholars tell them that, never mind that the Bible explicitly says that OT saints rose when Jesus died, that never happened; or that Jonah was never really swallowed by a great fish, despite the fact that the Bible says he was and Jesus Himself affirmed it (and, indeed, scholars hint that it is insane to believe that Jonah was swallowed); or when evangelical librarians tell us that Judas never hanged himself, although Matthew explicitly tells us he did?
Most of all, how many are willing (or able) to do that – or even have an impetus to do it – when trusted evangelical scholars and apologists who affirm inerrancy also affirm that when reconstituting the original text of the NT, the readings that introduce errors into the text are the readings that came from the pens of the original authors? When even ministries such as CMI that affirm their belief in inerrancy proclaim such nonsense? Why defend inerrancy if the reconstructed NT text that these scholars and apologists tell us is “the closest possible match to the original text” includes undeniable errors? There may indeed be ministries who are willing to embrace such cognitive dissonance, but why would “promising evangelical thinkers” want to do so?
Enns comes down solidly on the side of these “promising evangelical thinkers,” which is not surprising since he himself has rejected “the inerrantist paradigm.” He claims that inerrantists caricature these “promising evangelical thinkers as either enamored of the thought of academic fame and fortune 。。。 or they are simply judged as being incompetent to address the issues at hand, proceeding unaware of the subtleties contained in various tomes written by guiding lights of centuries past.”
Yet those are not the only two possibilities (though it is quixotic to assume that neither of them ever comes into play). The main reason is that these liberal paradigm assumptions have become so ingrained in evangelical scholarship that even the bare possibility that they might be wrong does not occur to these “promising evangelical thinkers”; they simply absorb them and pass them. Enns may opine that this “is not some spiritual, moral, or intellectual failure on the part of younger evangelicals,” but it most certainly is.
And so the erosion of Biblical inerrancy continues apace. The attempt to discard this doctrine, it must be said, has spawned some tactics that can only be described as ludicrous. Evangelical scholar Michael F. Bird, for example, says,
My complaint has always been that many inerrantists preach the inerrancy of the text but practice the inerrancy of their interpretation. In other words, inerrancy is not just about scripture, but about setting up fence posts against certain interpretations of scripture.
He tells us that
Interestingly enough, D.A. Carson’s plenary paper said much the same thing. Carson said that inerrancy cannot be used as a “scalpel” to determine which interpretations are out of bounds!
Bird and Carson would be correct – if we were living in Alice’s Wonderland, where, as Humpty Dumpty puts it, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” But here in the real world, inerrancy means “no errors.” Period. It means that all of the assertions of Scripture are true. Any assertion in an historical narrative is factually true – not poetically “true,” not apocalyptically “true,” not although-it’s-an-error-it’s-not-an-error-because-people-in-those-days-all-made-that-sort-of-error-so-it’s-not-an-error “true,” and not yes-it’s-a-contradiction-but-that’s-not-an-error-because-it-was-intentionally-done-to-make-the-narrative-more-interesting “true.” Contra Bird and Carson, it is not “the inerrancy of interpretation” that is a scalpel that determines which interpretations are out of bounds; it is the definition of inerrancy itself, which rules out any interpretation that redefines an assertion in an historical narrative as anything other than historical.
If Bird is correct, then, that “there is no single doctrine of inerrancy dominant within the ETS. It is better to speak of inerrancies in the plural,” it does not change the fact that there is only one valid definition of inerrancy (“no errors”); the other inerrancies are “falsely so called.” The attempt to obfuscate matters with a putative “inerrancy of interpretation” gambit is nothing more than a red herring.
Stan Gundry’s plea is also a red herring. He insisted that
Important as it is, though, the discussion of inerrancy should not be allowed to become the preoccupation of evangelical theology. Theology is more than prolegomena. Our theological task is to move beyond and build on that theological foundation … It is important that a building have a foundation; but what value is a foundation with no adequate structure atop it.
Yet every builder knows that a firm foundation must be established before any structure should be built on it. Only disaster follows from building on top of a shaky foundation, and these new definitions of inerrancy are shaky indeed. And the key point is that what is happening is not simply moving on from an established foundation to building on it; it is the destruction of that foundation. Indeed,
If the foundations are destroyed,
What can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)
One example is of this is l’affair Licona. We have looked at this in detail already. In sum, the resurrection of the OT saints (Matthew 27:52-53) is stated as part of a continuous narrative of Jesus’s death, entombment, and subsequent resurrection. It was accompanied in Matthew’s historical account by the same sort of historical phenomena as the resurrection of Christ Himself. There is no reason in the flow of the narrative to assume that Matthew was making this up rather than reporting actual history as he did before that sentence and after that sentence. Licona, however, proclaimed that the resurrection of the OT saints did not actually happen. In times past, this alone would have been enough to get him laughed out of the church. But it gets worse.
The problem was not only that Licona denied the historicity of the resurrection of the OT saints; it was his reason for so doing. Licona appealed to the fact that unregenerate pagans, acolytes of false gods – who couldn’t remember all the historical facts about anything since they were not divinely enabled to do so – inserted made-up stories into their bios of real people, to show that they are great men.
Therefore, Licona insists, we should accept that followers of the true God, the God of truth, about Whom we are told that “the entirety of Your word is truth,” who were divinely empowered to remember all of the facts about Jesus’ words and deed (John 14:26) – and who were writing God-breathed Scripture – just decided to imitate the pagans and make up stuff to put into their Gospel books, you know, to show that Jesus was a great man. As if the actual facts about Jesus – His fulfillment of ancient prophecies, His miracles, and His resurrection from the dead weren’t enough. No, Matthew just had be “like the nations” and put in non-historical stuff. The fact that this imperils the credibility of the resurrection itself is not lost on Licona (and, as we have seen, his attempt to get around this problem is a non-starter); nevertheless he insists that the resurrection of the OT saints didn’t happen; it was just poetic or apocalyptic language.
This is lunacy, and the idea that this could be considered compatible with inerrancy is lunacy. Such ideas ought to be laughed to scorn. But they are not. Perhaps the most dismaying thing is how many evangelicals come out of the woodwork to defend this lunacy. For example, we have already seen that CMI’s favourite librarian, James Patrick Holding, not only defends this lunacy but viciously attacks Norman Geisler for opposing it.
There’s also Michael F. Bird, who agrees with Licona’s view on Matthew 27:52-53 and who also tries the failed gambit of accusing Licona’s critics of “preach[ing] the inerrancy of the text, but practic[ing] the inerrancy of their interpretation.” According to Bird,
Licona is one of the best evangelical apologists on the North American scene right now and some folks want to keelhaul him over his footnotes. We need some sober and measured perspective on this!
Footnotes? Proclaiming that part of the historical narrative of the Bible is not historical and thus undercutting the credibility of the resurrection itself cannot be considered to be “footnotes.” It is Bird who “need[s]s some sober and measured perspective on this.”
And Bird is entitled to think that “Licona is one of the best evangelical apologists on the North American scene right now,” but I think that writing long books that play by liberal rules and destroy inerrancy – and, as far as we can see – have not converted even one of those liberals, does not qualify as “one of the best” or even a good apologist. His approach is exactly the opposite of what is needed.
Then there is C. Michael Patton, President and Instructor of Credo House Ministries, which he founded. Credo House Ministries has created and is selling DVD “Credo Courses” on “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels” by Craig Blomberg and “Textual Criticism” by Daniel Wallace – which tells you all you need to know about Credo House Ministries if you are serious about inerrancy.
Patton presents us with a fulsome panegyric to Licona in which he tells us, inter alia, that Licona makes him proud to be an evangelical. He recounts an incident in which, when he heard two people discussing Licona in Credo House, he was “longing for the conversation to dignify truth, justice, and the evangelical way” (which he seems to equate with supporting Licona) but when he heard one of the men mention Geisler’s view of this matter, Patton’s “countenance turned red-nosed in anger” and he “told the guy to stop.” What a hero!
Patton entertains us with a witty – well, halfwit-y – likening of Licona to Luther and Geisler and Mohler to Luther’s Roman Catholic inquisitors. Then Patton objects to the shocking –shocking!– statement by Mohler that
Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon.
Yet as we have seen this is exactly what Licona has done, and the only shocking thing is that Patton doesn’t see something so obvious.
Then Patton trots out the red herring that we’ve seen before, insisting that
this is an issue of interpretation, not inerrancy.
If he had not gone off the rails before, he certainly does now. He asserts that
I believe in inerrancy, but I also believe that we have to separate inerrancy from particular interpretations. Just about anything could be tied to inerrancy when disagreement about interpretation is at issue … even if one completely thinks someone else has lost their interpretive marbles when they spiritualize some passage through appeals to apocalyptic, symbolic, or, even, allegorical interpretation, the issue is one of hermeneutics, not inerrancy. In other words, you cannot tie inerrancy to a particular interpretation … When someone professes inerrancy, our interpretation and hermeneutic cannot be the judge as to whether they really believe in it or not.
But then he describes as “the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection of the God-man, Jesus Christ.” On this Patton is correct (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:13-19). Now, suppose someone who professes to believe in inerrancy denies the bodily resurrection of Christ and spiritualizes the resurrection accounts “through appeals to apocalyptic, symbolic, or, even, allegorical interpretation.”
Would Patton see this as an issue “of hermeneutics, not inerrancy”? Would he allow that one could believe in inerrancy and yet deny the bodily resurrection of Christ? If so, then he would allow that the “central doctrine of the Christian faith” is an optional belief and thus would make a hash not only of inerrancy but of Christianity itself.
If not, if he insists that the bodily resurrection of Christ must be accepted as an historical fact, then he has destroyed his entire position that what must be seen as factual truth in the Bible is only a matter of interpretation – and this does not depend on the importance of the fact. Lo and behold, we are back to the fact that inerrancy is not modelling clay that evangelical scholars can shape however they wish; inerrancy necessarily means that what the Bible asserts happened did actually happen. It is difficult to understand how Patton missed something so obvious.
Licona’s position, then, on Matthew 27:52-53 is not compatible with inerrancy – nor, for that matter, is Geisler’s acceptance of a 4.6-billion year-old-earth – and there is no way to make it so. It is indeed a wrongheaded stance that has most assuredly “handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon” that will be used by scholars far more clever than Patton to undermine the case for Christ. Patton’s attempted defence of Licona’s position, then, is ill-considered nonsense.
And then there is Randal Rauser, “a systematic and analytic theologian of evangelical persuasion” and a seminary professor. Rauser has published a paper in which he denied that God commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites, arguing that, regardless of what the Biblical testimony says, God did not issue such a command because Rauser knows that it would be wrong for God to command such a thing. With such a casual disregard for inerrancy, it is not surprising that Rauser also leaps to the defence of Licona.
Rauser offers an imaginary courtroom scenario intended to show how inept Licona’s critics are. Rauser’s scenario is as follows:
Imagine a defense attorney that is trying to defend his client’s innocence against the charge of murder. To his initial delight the defense attorney comes across an eyewitness who is emphatic that the attorney’s client did not commit the murder. The reason? The eyewitness says he saw another man commit the crime. Do you think the attorney would be delighted at this discovery? Do you think he would welcome the testimony? Of course. Any minimally capable defense attorney would do precisely that.
But then imagine if the defense attorney expressed reservations about the value of the eyewitness. The reason? “My client says the murderer was wearing a red shirt but the eyewitness says he was wearing a blue shirt.” Yeah, so? I mean are you kidding? Mr. Attorney, how about some perspective here? The main point you want to defend is not that your client provided an accurate description of the attire of the murderer. Those are mere details. The real point is to establish that your client was not guilty.
The attorney responds: “But what if people learn that the eyewitness disagrees with my client on the color of the shirt? That could call my client’s entire testimony into question. I mean, if he got the detail of the shirt color wrong, what else did he get wrong?”
Can you imagine a defense attorney that inept?
But that is not a true analogy to the Licona case. A more apt one would be as follows:
A defence attorney is trying to defend his client against a charge of murder. To his delight, he receives an affidavit from an eyewitness to the actual murder. The witness tells how he saw the killer following the victim, yelling at him, stabbing him in the chest, and then turning and fleeing. The witness got a good look at the killer’s face when he turned, and it was not the face of the client. Furthermore the killer was a large, stocky man who ran with a limp, unlike the client.
Delighted, the attorney makes plans to present the affidavit at the trial and he eagerly tells his law clerk, “This is great evidence.” And then he adds, “Of course, we’ll tell the jury that the part about seeing the face of the killer didn’t really happen.”
“What!” exclaims the clerk, stunned. “Why?”
“Well,” says the attorney, “Many witnesses in many trials claim to have seen the face of the killer, but sometimes they’re making it up to enhance their testimony. It’s just their way of saying, ‘Now, this really happened to a really important guy.’ Our witness is probably just imitating their style.”
“But the witness described seeing the face in exactly the same way as he described everything else in the rest of his testimony!” objects the clerk.
“Well,” replies the attorney, “I suppose he could have actually seen the face, but all things considered I think it’s better to see this claim as simply his symbolic way of saying this really did happen to an important guy.”
At the trial, the prosecuting attorney naturally asks the jury, “If the witness said he saw the face of the killer and he didn’t, why should we believe the rest of his testimony?”
All the defence attorney can sputter is that no one ever claimed the rest of the witness’s testimony wasn’t true, to which the prosecutor retorts, “No one ever said the claim about seeing the face wasn’t true, either – until you claimed that!”
Is it a surprise that in the end an innocent man is convicted?
Face-in-palm, Rauser. Face-in-palm.
Despite Rauser’s best efforts, there is no reasonable way to suggest that by asserting that part of Matthew’s account of the death of Jesus and its aftermath consists of made-up events, Licona is not dealing a mortal blow to the Gospel testimony about Jesus’ resurrection. There is no reasonable way, as we have seen, that Licona can assert that Part A is fictional but Part B, written in the same way and including the same putatively apocalyptic elements, is not fictional. Nor will any skeptic fail to take full advantage of this. It is dismaying that so many evangelical scholars are so unaware that they do not see this.
Nor does it help to wax eloquent, as Licona’s peanut gallery does, about what a wonderful apologist he is and what a wonderful book he has written. According to Bird,
Licona is one of the best evangelical apologists on the North American scene right now.
Rauser describes Licona’s book as “magisterial … a monumental accomplishment of history and apologetics” and lauds “Licona’s magisterial treatment of the historical resurrection.”
Michael Patton, meanwhile, is positively cloying in his praise of Licona’s book:
Mike Licona has just written what both men recognize is a (if not the) premiere defense of the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection of the God-man, Jesus Christ … His work on the subject is surpassed by none, even the great N.T. Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God. It is fine that these two men had concerns with Licona’s interpretation of Matthew 27 … But their concerns should have been drowned out by the commendation that they gave Licona for his monumental work. Geisler, an apologist of the “old school,” should have written twenty open letters of commendation and praise before he ever even thought of writing his first open letter of criticism.
It is not surprising that Licona’s cheerleaders swoon over this book. After all, it is long, it has many footnotes, it has a lengthy bibliography, and it uses the language of scholarship. The emperor himself couldn’t have a nicer set of new clothes. But let us not forget that this book was written, as reviewer Garwood Anderson describes it, to “engage liberal scholars,” that it includes only data that has “a near universal acceptance among contemporary scholarship,” and that this is supposed to represent “methodological neutrality” – as if the standards whereby liberal scholars accept data is methodologically neutral!
We have already seen the outcome of this approach: not only does Licona deny the historicity of the resurrection of the OT saints in Matthew 27:51-52, he relegates to a mere one paragraph Paul’s testimony that the majority of more than five hundred eyewitnesses were still alive at the time 1 Corinthians was written!
Regardless of the swooning of Licona’s cheerleaders, a book on the resurrection that denies the historicity of part of the narrative and devotes only one paragraph (out some 700 pages) to the five hundred eyewitnesses mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6 cannot and should not be considered “a (if not the) premiere defense of the central doctrine of the Christian faith.” It should be obvious that a defence of the resurrection that all but ignores one of the very best lines of evidence for its historicity because liberal scholars do not accept it is not nearly as wonderful as Licona’s cheerleaders think.
As for the attempt to downplay the danger of Licona’s denial of the resurrection of the OT saints by pointing out that it comprises a very small part of the book, mere “footnotes,” I wonder what people like Bird and Rauser and Patton would think of a primat of Dom Pérignon Œnothèque Rosé, 912.87 ounces of what is supposed to be one of the very finest champagnes – if it were mixed with a mere one ounce of puffer fish toxin? The champagne would still be 99.9% pure – but it could kill 30,000 people. No matter how good the rest of Licona’s book may be, his “footnotes” denying the historicity of what is clearly portrayed as historical are toxic. In sum, then, Licona has certainly handed a crucial weapon to the enemies of the cause of Christ that they will undoubtedly exploit fully to undercut the credibility of the resurrection.
Perhaps the hebetation of evangelical scholarship as evident in l’affair Licona is best shown by another of Rauser’s attempted witticisms:
Screwtape must surely have a letter devoted to this somewhere:
My Dearest Wormwood,
Whenever you find an expert defense of the enemy’s resurrection marshall the forces of the fundamentalists to marginalize it by ceaseless debates over ”inerrancy“ in minor, inconsequential details.
So there you have it folks: according to such people, fundamentalists who defend the actual inerrancy of the word of God (the kind that actually means “no errors”) are doing the devil’s work. This is the depths to which evangelical scholarship has sunk.
Attacks on the trustworthiness of God’s word go back almost to the beginning of human existence, when the serpent said to Eve in the Garden of Eden,
“Has God indeed said …?” (Genesis 3:1b)
It is unlikely that such attacks ever really stopped, but certainly they accelerated with the coming of the so-called Enlightenment.
For a long time, liberal scholars have used historical criticism and textual criticism as weapons against the credibility of the Bible. They began with naturalistic presuppositions, ignored the actual hard evidence in favour of imaginary scenarios, and engaged in special pleading to apply a historiographical double standard to the Gospel books. The goal of all this was to deny the deity, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus, and to recast Him as nothing more than a Jewish wise man, rebel, or failed prophet.
The Griesbachian approach to textual criticism was created and promoted in order to introduce errors and contradictions into the Bible, thus destroying inerrancy and undermining Biblical credibility in general. With the help of Westcott and Hort, this approach ruled supreme.
And then in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the third head of the monster appeared, Darwinism, with the publication of The Origin of the Species in 1859. With the credibility of the Bible now sufficiently weakened to allow for its acceptance, Darwinism became another potent weapon against the Bible.
All of this was done with the verisimilitude of objective scientific analysis and scholarship (and copious application of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” tactic). With this false cachet, these views became scholarly orthodoxy and in time dominated the universities and seminaries. As we have seen, evangelicals awoke to the threat too late, and their reaction, which led to the so-called fundamentalist-modernist controversy, ended in failure.
That was followed by the rise of the neo-evangelical movement around the middle of the 20th century, when
Many young fundamentalist scholars became resentful of the fact that they were not viewed with respect by fellow scholars in their special disciplines. Because they were fundamentalists, they were viewed as deficient intellectually, and their work was not recognized by the scholarly world as a whole.
These evangelicals reentered the world of academia, and the price for this was to accept the liberal paradigm assumptions of historical and textual criticism, often without even realizing that they were doing that very thing but simply trusting without question in what the professors said. And of course they were required to adopt “a friendly attitude toward secular science” and embraced a variety of ways to reconcile the Bible with an old (i.e. billions of year old) earth and Darwinism.
Even a little leaven leavens the whole lump, and with this amount of liberal leaven injected into the Biblical scholarship that was being swallowed by young evangelical tabulae rasae entering academia, the betrayal of the Bible by the denial or redefinition of inerrancy became inevitable.
In many, and perhaps in most, cases it was not intentional. Many evangelical scholars continued to hold to a genuine belief in inerrancy (that is, the kind that means there are no errors in the Bible) and strove mightily to find explanations for the errors they had allowed liberal scholars to insinuate into the Bible.
That is a mug’s game, however, and more and more evangelical scholars became very comfortable with the idea that the Bible does contain genuine errors, after all, and they either discarded the idea of inerrancy entirely or, like Humpty Dumpty, redefined inerrancy to allow for errors. They went seamlessly from “treating the Bible like any other book to show that it’s not like any other book” to “treating the Bible like any other book. Period.” and finally to “treating the Bible like any other book because it is like any other book,” a product of the limits and errors of the culture of the day, like, for example, Grec-Roman bios. If divine inspiration was still mentioned, it seemed more of a perfunctory label than anything that actually affected how scholars now looked at the production of the Bible itself.
There was a time when we could tell the players without a scorecard. Liberal scholars used to say, “I do not believe the Bible is the word of God. I do not believe the Bible is inerrant. The Bible is full of errors,” and evangelical scholars used to say, “I believe the Bible is the word of God. I believe the Bible is inerrant. The Bible has no errors whatsoever.” Now liberal scholars still say, “I do not believe the Bible is the word of God. I do not believe the Bible is inerrant. The Bible is full of errors,” but now evangelical scholars say, “I believe the Bible is the word of God. I believe the Bible is inerrant. The Bible is full of errors.” They don’t usually say it too loudly, though, when they are where the rubes in the pews might hear.
This is what seminarians are indoctrinated into now. They come out of seminaries having been taught liberal paradigm assumptions, and it does affect how they view the authority of the Bible. Is it any wonder that so many churches now major on emotionalism, psychologies, and social works rather than on the doctrine of the word? Is it any wonder that so much of evangelical church in the western world may be a mile wide but only a micron deep? If you wonder why the church has been so marginalized and lost society, look no further than the gloating three-head monster rending the church.
The number one enemy of the church is no longer liberal scholars, the John Dominic Crossans and Marcus Borgs and Gerd Lüdemanns of the world. It is not the so-called New Atheists, the Richard Dawkinses and Cristopher Hitchenses and the Daniel Dennetts. It is not even Darwinism or deep time.
The number one enemy of the church now is evangelical scholarship.
 Note that a presupposition is something that is simply taken to be true from the outset, with no attempt at proof or the provision of supporting evidence.
 Nevertheless, under the mistaken belief that Darwinism was a scientific fact, many pastors and church leaders accepted it and tried to reconcile the Genesis account with this theory.
 Remember that miracles were presupposed to be impossible.
 Initially, liberal scholars dated the earliest Gospel book exactly and conveniently one hundred years after the assumed date of Jesus’ death. The subsequent discovery of a papyrus fragment from the Gospel According to John that dated to the early 2nd century forced them to concede that all of the Gospel books were written in the 1st century, but they still pushed them as late as possible, “decades after” Jesus’ time.
 See Linnemann, Eta. Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical. Translated by Robert W. Yarbrough. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990, for an excellent overview of how liberal scholarship operates. Note particularly pp. 130-134, a summary of Külling’s On the Dating of the ‘P’ Source in Genesis. See also Lüdemann, Gerd. What Jesus Didn’t Say. Salem, Oregon: Polebridge Press, 2011, p. x, for a frank admission from a leading liberal scholar that his analysis of the Gospel books is based on “presuppositions.”
 The Gospel According to Matthew, the Gospel According to Mark, and the Gospel According to Luke, because they are very similar to one another in terms of the events they cover and the way these events are described, are referred to as the “synoptic” (roughly translated as “with the same eye”) Gospel books.
 Robinson, John A.T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976.
 Wenham, John. Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
 Pickering, Wilbur N. The Greek New Testament According to Family 35. Lexington, KY, 2014, p. 56
 Leaders of the church in the first few centuries whose writings have come down to us
 Farnell, F. David. “The Case for the Independence View of Gospel Origins,” Chapter 3 in Thomas, Robert L. ed. Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2002, pp. 226-309
 Dyer, Charles H. “Do the Synoptics Depend on Each Other?” Bib.Sac. 138 (1981), pp. 242-243
 Geisler, Norman L. and William C. Roach. Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011, p. 211
 Neville, David J. Mark’s Gospel – Prior or Posterior? A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order. London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002, p. 18
 Wenham, op.cit., pp. 2-4
 Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. 7th edition. Cambridge: Deighton Bell (1874), 1.6. Cited in ibid., p. 3
 Wenham, op.cit., pp. 19, 88
 See, for example, Farnell, David F. “The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church: The Testimony to the Priority of Matthew’s Gospel.” TMSJ 10:1 (Spring 1999), pp. 53-86
 Williams, Matthew C. Two Gospels From One: A Comprehensive Text-Critical Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications (2006), pp. 23, 215
 Of or having to do with the Church Fathers
 See Linnemann, Eta. “Is There a Gospel of Q?” Bible Review 11:4 (August 1995); Goodacre, Mark. The Case Against Q. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002.
 Liberal scholars may object that Matthew and Luke didn’t simply copy; they also “redacted” the material. This means that they copied the material but then freely edited it and altered it as their imagination pleased – which makes things worse, not better, for the credibility of the Gospel books.
 Textual criticism can be applied to any writing, but for our purposes we are considering the New Testament.
 McKnight, Scott. Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988, p. 47.
 This holds even if one boldly dates the Gospel According to Mark to the mid 50s.
 Appealing to Paul’s letters, which in this scheme predate the Gospel books, does not good since Paul was not an original eyewitness.
 It does no good to protest, as some evangelical scholars do when faced with this, that eyewitnesses were still alive in the 80s. There were far more eyewitnesses available in the 40s and 50s when there was no resurrection account; why was it not in the earliest material, at the time of far more eyewitnesses, if it was historically true?
 Posted on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQbwdhwQmmc is a lecture in which Shabir Ally presents his case. A summary is posted at https://yearningforislam.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/christianity-explained-a-lecture-by-shabir-ally/.
 For historical details on these events, see Cairns, Alan. Apostles of Error: An examination of Liberalism, Neo-Orthodoxy, and particularly New Evangelicalism, with special reference to their attitude to Scripture. Greenville, SC: Faith Free Presbyterian Church, 1989; and Pickering, Ernest D. The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1994.
 Pickering, Ernest, pp. 8-9 (Bolding added.)
 ibid., p.9
 ibid., p.14
 See Craig Blomberg interview in Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998, p. 34; Dr. Craig Evans interview in Ankerberg, John & Dillon Burroughs. What’s the Big Deal About Jesus, Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2007, p. 30); Bock, Darrell, in Howard, Jeremy Royal. ed. The Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible: The Gospels and Acts. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2013, p. 323; Carson, D.A., Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, pp. 79, 99, 116; MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Study Bible. Nashville, London, Vancouver, and Melbourne: Word Publishing, 1997, pp. 1452, 1504; McDowell, Josh. Evidence for Christianity: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2006, p. 79
 Wenham, op.cit.
 See Andreas Köstenberger in Howard, op.cit., p. 501; Carson et al, op.cit., p. 167, MacArthur, op.cit., p. 1569, McDowell, op.cit., p. 79
 Robinson, John A.T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976, pp. 256-284
 The Gospel According to Luke, on the other hand, was written to a believer (Luke 1:3-4), and the other two Synoptic Gospel books, because of their similarity to Luke’s, were presumably also written for believers. Certainly in the case of the Gospel According to Mark, this is supported by Patristic testimony (Clement of Alexandria, HE 6.14.6-7; Eusebius HE 2.15.1-2)
 The influential F.C. Baur (1792-1860) of the Tübingen School of Theology asserted without any genuine evidence in 1844 that the Gospel According to John could not have been written earlier than AD 160, but probably closer to AD 170. This “assured result of critical scholarship” reigned until the publication in 1936 of a study of an ancient papyrus fragment, P52, that was from the Gospel According to John, and could not be dated later than AD 125.
 To be sure, they have been led to believe that there is evidence for such late dating, viz. the Patristic testimony. But they have not checked carefully. While there is abundant Patristic testimony that John lived to an old age, there is very little saying that he wrote his Gospel book at an old age. As John A.T. Robinson points out, the earliest such claim is from Epiphanius (AD 315-403), who garbled all of his chronological facts, apparently believing that John died during the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54). There is not another such claim until the one by Georgius Hamartolus – in the 9th century! (See Robinson, op.cit., p. 257.)
 MacArthur, op.cit., p. 1569 (Bolding added.)
 e.g. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Revised Edition. Leicester, England: Apollos and Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990, pp. 1043-1044; Carson et al, op.cit., pp. 26-38; Matthew Wilkins, Craig Evans, Darrell Bock, and Andreas Köstenberger in Howard, op.cit., p. 2, Craig Blomberg interview in Strobel, Christ, p. 27; Wallace, J. Warner. Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2013, p. 166. John MacArthur is an exception (See MacArthur, op.cit., pp. 1453-1454.)
 e.g. Carson et al, op.cit., pp. 32-34; Craig Blomberg interview in Strobel, Christ, p. 31, 33; LaHaye, Tim. Why Believe in Jesus? Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004, p. 45
 Howard, op.cit., p. 2 (Bolding and underlining added.)
 Carson et al, op.cit., pp. 34-36; Craig Blomberg interview in Strobel, Christ, p. 32; LaHaye, op.cit., p. 51; Darrell Bock in Howard, op.cit., p. 325
 Bock, ibid.
 Hartt, Rollin Lynde. “Down With Evolution!” World’s Work (October 1923), pp. 605-614
 For details on this era (written from an unsympathetic perspective), see Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.
 e.g. Mark 10:6, Matthew 24:37-38/Luke 17:26-27
 Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications. Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1961
 See, inter alia, UpChurch, John. “The Danger of BioLogos: Blurring the Line Between Creation and Evolution.” Posted on October 1, 2011. At https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/the-danger-of-biologos/.
 See, inter alia, Faulkner, Danny. “The Dubious Apologetics of Hugh Ross.” Journal of Creation 13:2 (November 1999), pp. 52-60
 Again, there is nothing wrong with textual criticism per se. We are speaking of textual criticism as currently constituted, along the lines set forth by German rationalists, especially Griesbach, and their intellectual offspring Westcott and Hort.
 Indeed, in my experience evangelical scholars seem to take a strange pleasure in showing off their cleverness in explaining to laymen how later scribes changed the original errors.
 Pickering, Dr. Wilbur N. The Identity of the New Testament Text II. Third Edition. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003, pp. 170-179
 See Thomas, Robert L. and F. David Farnell. The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998; Geisler and Roach, op.cit.; Geisler, Norman L & F. David Farnell. eds. The Jesus Quest: The Danger From Within. Xulon Press, 2014; Beale, G.K. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008.
 Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus. A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks on the Identity of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007, p. 80
 Cited by F. David Farnell in Farnell, op.cit., p. 293. (Bolding added.)
 ibid., p. 292. (Bolding added.) Surely Farnell meant that the Gospel books are unique, not just the Synoptics. So too is Acts and all of the book of the Bible, which are all “God-breathed.” It is unfortunate, though, that Farnell is quoting from the NASB; as alert as he is about the errors of historical criticism, it seems he is unaware of the dangers posed by the errors of Griesbachian textual criticism.
 ibid., p. 293. (Bolding added.)
 Blomberg, Craig L. Can We Still Believe the Bible? An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2014, p. 126. (Bolding added.)
 ibid., p. 126. (Bolding and underlining added.)
 See, e.g., “Professors: A day means a day!” Creation 16:3 (June 1994), p.44; Sarfati, Jonathan. “Theologian: Genesis means what it says!” Creation 32:3 (July 2010), pp. 16-19
 Hardy, Chris and Robert Carter. “The biblical minimum and maximum age of the earth.” Journal of Creation 28:2 (2014), pp. 89-96
 See our companion article, Tors, John. “Is a 4-6 Billion Year-Old Earth Compatible with Biblical Inerrancy? A Response to Norman Geisler” at https://www.truthinmydays.com/is-a-4-6-billion-year-old-earth-compatible-with-biblical-inerrancy-a-response-to-norman-geisler/
 Blomberg, op.cit., p.152
 Start with Line, Peter. “Fossil evidence for alleged apemen – Part 1: The genus homo” and “Part 2: non-Homo hominids” Journal of Creation 19:1 (April 2005), pp. 22-42 and go from there.
 ibid., pp. 155-156. Quote from p. 155
 ibid., p. 158
 ibid., p. 159
 ibid., pp. 156-168. Quote from p. 166
 ibid., p. 166
 For the sake of exposing the nonsense of this argument, we are here accepting the presumptions of Markan priority and the Q hypothesis. In reality, both are false.
 Let us not overlook the fact that by Gundry’s “logic,” the readers who were familiar with Q should have considered anything in the Gospel According to Mark that was not in Q to be non-historical additions – after all, they were already familiar with Q.
 Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010.
 ibid., pp. 185-186. See “(Letter #1) An Open Letter to Mike Licona on his View of the Resurrected Saints in Matthew 27:52-53*” at http://www.veritasseminary.com/Previous%20letters.pdf
 Licona, ibid., p. 306
 Geisler, Norman L. “A Response to Christianity Today’s Article in Defense of Mike Licona.” Posted on November 8, 2011. At http://normangeisler.com/a-response-to-christianity-todays-article-in-defense-of-mike-licona/
 The following is taken from Strobel, Real Jesus, pp. 74-80 (Bolding added.) Quotations from the book are indented to distinguish them from my comments. Strobel’s quoted questions are in italics to distinguish them from Wallace’s quoted responses.
 We shall see an example of this when we examine the evangelical response to the putative error about Quirinius in Luke 2:2.
 Here ends the annotated excerpts of the Wallace interview from Strobel, Real Jesus, pp. 74-80.
 In Strobel, Real Jesus, p. 74
 The following discussion is based on Holding’s article series in response to Geisler’s book, posted online at http://tektonticker.blogspot.ca/search/label/Norman%20Geisler%3B%20inerrancy%3B%20Defending%20Inerrancy. All quotations are taken from this series. (Bolding, italics, and underlining added unless otherwise noted.)
 Peters, Nick. “Paige Patterson is on the wrong page.” Posted on January 10, 2012. At https://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/paige-patterson-is-on-the-wrong-page/
 Holding does not tell us exactly what he finds “reckless” or “Neanderthalish” about Patterson’s views on women’s roles. However, given that Patterson openly teaches the Biblical truths of male headship in the church and home (See, e.g., Tomin, Gregory. “Patterson: Women are treasured by God, have high calling.” Baptist Press. Posted on October 25, 2004. At http://www.bpnews.net/19402), it is likely that it is those truths Holding finds objectionable. If so, it simply provides another reason that he should not be taken seriously as a Christian teacher. (See Tors, John. “Women and Church Leadership: An Inquiry and a Response to Pastor Keith A. Smith’s “Can Christian Women be Pastors and Preachers?” at https://truthinmydays.com/women-and-church-leadership-an-inquiry-and-a-response-to-pastor-keith-a-smiths-can-christian-women-be-pastors-and-preachers/)
 “Nick Peters and his Princess” at http://www.perissosonline.org/services/portraits-of-god/nick-peters-and-his-princess/.
 Peters, “Paige Patterson is on the wrong page,” op.cit.
 “Nick Peters and his Princess,” op.cit.
 The following list and quotes are taken from Jones, Ron. “The NT Gospels As Biographies.” Posted at http://jesusevidences.com/ntgospelsbiographies.php. “Jesusevidences.com is a ministry of Rev. Ron Jones and the Titus Institute.”
 “I am a Ph.D. graduate student in Classics at the University of California, Irvine. My research interests include ancient biography, Greek and Latin historiography, the New Testament, early Christianity, and the early Roman Empire … I completed my M.A. in Classics (emphasis in “Ancient History”) at the University of Arizona with a master’s thesis studying the use of ring composition in Suetonius’ De Vita Caesarum.” (“About Me.” Posted at https://celsus.blog/about/)
 Ferguson, Matthew. “Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament.” Posted on August 18, 2013. At https://celsus.blog/2013/08/18/ancient-historical-writing-compared-to-the-gospels-of-the-new-testament/. The quotes in the following list are from this source. (Bolding added.)
 It should be noted that Ferguson gives only one example, that of Thucydides.
 Actually, ancient historians do not always “independently corroborate each other’s claims.” See, for example, Campbell, Duncan B. “Alexander’s great cavalry battle: What really happened at the River Granicus?” Ancient Warfare 7:2 (2013)
 Ferguson really ought to read the Bible more carefully. Pontius Pilate had no fear whatsoever that “Jesus’ tomb will be found empty” nor did he for this reason have “guards stationed at the tomb” nor did he go “to great lengths to ensure that Jesus’ body did not go missing.” Pilate actually gave away the body of Jesus to the first man who asked for it, and he left the tomb unguarded. It was the Jewish authorities who some time later asked for a guard and Pilate then gave it to them to allay their concerns, not his own. Pilate understood that messianic pretenders, once they are dead, attract no more followers (Acts 5:35-38), and no one, not even Jesus’ closest followers, expected Him to rise from the dead – although this is what happened.
 Patton, C. Michael. “Press Release: Michael Licona Response to Norm Geisler.” Posted on September 8, 2011. At https://credohouse.org/blog/press-release-michael-licona-response-to-norm-geisler. Herein he also allowed that “at present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative of the raised saints in Matthew 27 as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol. It may also be a report of a real event described partially in apocalyptic terms.”
 Rochford, James M. “Is Matthew 27:51-53 historical?” Posted at http://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/is-matthew-2751-53-historical/
 ibid. (Bolding and underlining added.)
 Anderson, Garwood P. “Review Essay: Bedrock Evidence Resurrected.” The Living Church (February 26, 2012), pp. 13-14. Available at http://www.academia.edu/3684318/Michael_Licona_The_Resurrection_of_Jesus_A_New_Historiographical_Approach_TLC_ (Bolding and underlining added.)
 ibid., p. 14 (Bolding added.)
 ibid. (Bolding and underlining added.) One hopes that Anderson is clumsily portraying liberal responses here, and does not himself think that the evidence of more than 250 living eyewitnesses at the time 1 Corinthians was written is a naïve argument.
 As we have already seen, “Many young fundamentalist scholars became resentful of the fact that they were not viewed with respect by fellow scholars in their special disciplines. Because they were fundamentalists, they were viewed as deficient intellectually, and their work was not recognized by the scholarly world as a whole.” (Pickering, Earnest, pp. 8-9)
 They all signed an affirmation of Licona’s 2011 press release, saying “Though most of us do not hold Licona’s proposal, we are in firm agreement that it is compatible with biblical inerrancy, despite objections to the contrary.” (Bolding added.)
 Licona, op.cit., p. 553
 See Wilson, Barrie. How Jesus Became Christian. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008, for one packaging of this view.
 Cosner, Lita. “The Resurrection and Genesis.” First posted on April 10, 2009, last updated April 5, 2015. At http://creation.com/the-resurrection-and-genesis. (Bolding and underlining added.) For good measure, Miss Cosner perpetuates the nonsense that the Gospel books “go back to early oral tradition.”
 None of this is true, of course. The Gospel According to Matthew, as we’ve seen, was eyewitness testimony published a mere eight years after the ascension of Jesus, the Gospel According to Mark two years after that, and the Gospel According to Luke five years after that. Contra Miss Cosner, then, it is these Gospel books that are the earliest evidence we have for the resurrection of Jesus, and not the “insistence” of a group of non-eyewitnesses that dates to at least two years after the publication of the last of these three Gospel books.
 Licona’s case is stated in Licona, op.cit., pp. 548-553
 Epistle to the Magnesians 9:2, written ca. AD 107-110
 Licona, op.cit., p. 551
 ibid. Does Licona think the Bible is more believable if we can find naturalistic explanations for events that certainly seem to be described as miraculous?
 ibid., p. 552 (Bolding added.)
 ibid. Actually, Thallus’ comment, which is preserved for us by Julius Africanus, seems rather clear: “On the whole world there pressed a fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of histories, without reason it seems to me.”
 Geisler and Roach, op.cit., p.147
 Holding probably meant “are” here.
 As we have said, so many of them redefine inerrancy so that it does not actually mean “inerrant; being free of all mistakes of any sort.”
 We shall see this when we discuss the putative error in Luke 2:2.
 Geisler and Roach, op.cit.; Geisler and Farnell, op.cit.
 e.g. Geisler, Norman L. & Ronald M. Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. Revised and Updated. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013; Geisler, Norman L. and Patty Tunnicliffe. Reasons for Belief: Easy-to-Understand Answers to 10 Essential Questions. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2013.
 Geisler and Tunnifcliffe, ibid., p. 96
 ibid., p. 97
 ibid., pp. 94-95. Geisler’s basis for this late date is careless. He writes “John wrote well after AD 70, since he doesn’t refer to this important date at all.” That could just as easily mean he was writing before AD 70, when nothing had as yet happened and so there was no reason to “refer to this important date at all.”
 Geisler, Norman L. A Popular Survey of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007, p. 61
 ibid., pp. 37-39. He repeatedly points out that “Q is a purely hypothetical source” and that this is a problem, but he does not flatly deny that there was a Q.
 Geisler, Survey, pp. 36-40
 ibid., p. 40
 ibid., p. 37. It should be noted that this is a statement about the contents of Q, not its existence.
 Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Revised and Expanded. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986, p. 488
 See Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Revised and Expanded. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986, pp. 452-489
 ibid., pp. 477-478
 ibid., p. 477. Geisler is careful to avoid the word “error” here, speaking instead of such things as “a scribal tendency to harmonize divergent accounts of a given event recorded in Scripture.” However, since what is proclaimed to be the original in such accounts does sometimes create contradictions, it is difficult to see how we can avoid admitting that these would be actual errors.
 See Tors, John. “A Primer on New Testament Textual Criticism (in Manageable, Bite-sized Chunks)” at https://truthinmydays.com/a-primer-on-new-testament-textual-criticism-in-manageable-bite-sized-chunks/ for details and a list of studies. At most, we are told that deliberate scribal alterations were rare, but it is difficult to be sure than even any of these were, in fact, intentional.
 See Kruger, Michael J. “Early Christian Attitudes toward the Reproduction of Texts” in Hill, Charles E. & Michael J. Kruger. The Early Text of the New Testament. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 63-80. Kruger is confused by the seeming contradiction between this opposition to alteration and the many differences in the early NT papyri. His confusion would be cleared up if he realized that these early NT papyri were – literally – garbage. (See Tors, John. “GIGO: Unearthing a Decisive New Tipping Point for Textual Criticism” at https://truthinmydays.com/gigo-unearthing-a-decisive-new-tipping-point-for-textual-criticism/.)
 Regarding the authenticity of this passage, see Tors, John. “A Call for Serious Evangelical Apologetics: The Authenticity of John 7:53-8:11 as a Case Study” at https://truthinmydays.com/a-call-for-serious-evangelical-apologetics-the-authenticity-of-john-753-811-as-a-case-study/ and the companion article Tors, John. “Examining the Claim that the Words and Expressions of John 7:53-8:11 are More Lukan than Johannine” at https://truthinmydays.com/examining-the-claim-that-the-words-and-expressions-of-john-753-811-are-more-lukan-than-johannine/.
 For convenience, I use here this abbreviation that is used in the NKJV to designate the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies Greek texts, which in their latest editions are identical, which are the current “best” heirs of Westcott and Hort, and which are used for the NT translation of every major modern English Bible except the NKJV.
 Wallace, Daniel. “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text.” Bib.Sac. 146 (July-September 1989), pp. 277. His count is based on the 3rd edition of the UBS NT Greek text (which is identical to the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland text) and the 1st edition of the Hodges-Farstad Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text.
 In fact, we need not worry about this if we reject the NA text in favour of the Majority Text which is the original text. (See Tors, “A Primer on New Testament Textual Criticism,” op.cit.) Wilbur Pickering makes a case that the text found in the Family 35 manuscripts is the original text (See Pickering, The Greek New Testament According to Family 35, op.cit.); this text is very close to the Majority Text.
 Geisler & Nix, op.cit., p. 489. Cf. Geisler & Brooks, op.cit., p. 102; Geisler and Tunnicliffe, op.cit., p. 102
 For example, in some 1,700 manuscripts of the Gospel According to Mark, Mark 1:2 reads, “As it is written in the prophets, ‘Behold I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’” Fourteen manuscripts read, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, ‘‘Behold I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’” Three of Griesbach’s four main canons actually favour “in the prophets,” but the reading “in Isaiah the prophet” introduces an error, since the following quote is from Malachi 3:1 and is most certainly not “written in Isaiah the prophet,” so that is the reading that is chosen according to the Griesbachian/Westcott-Hort methodology. This is just one example of the errors that are found in the “inerrant” Bible used by Geisler.
 Geisler & Brooks, op.cit., pp. 227-244
 Young and old are relative terms. In this discussion, “young earth” indicates that the Earth is in the order of thousands of years old, whereas “old earth” indicates that the Earth is in the order of billions of years old.
 ibid., pp. 230-231; Geisler and Tunnicliffe, op.cit., pp. 50-51; Geisler, Norman L. Creation and the Courts: Eighty Years of Conflict in the Classroom and the Courtroom. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007, p. 257 (cited in Henry, Jonathan F. “Christian apologists should abandon the big bang.” Journal of Creation 23:3 (2009), p. 103.)
 A proper analysis of this issue is lengthy and would distract from the focus of this article, so we have prepared such an analysis, including a detailed examination of Geisler’s arguments, as a separate article. See Tors, John. “Is a 4.6-Billion Year-Old Earth Compatible with Biblical Inerrancy?” op.cit.
 Smith, jr., Henry B. “Affirming Inerrancy.” Posted on September 11, 2013. At http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/09/11/Affirming-Inerrancy.aspx#Article
 Witmer, Daryl. “Can a person believe in both God and Evolution?” Posted on August 29, 2008. At http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/08/29/Can-a-Person-Believe-in-Both-God-and-Evolution.aspx#Article; Beall, Todd. “Christians in the Public Square: How Far Should Evangelicals Go in the Creation-Evolution Debate?” Posted on August 30, 2009. At http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/08/30/Christians-in-the-Public-Square-How-Far-Should-Evangelicals-Go-in-the-Creation-Evolution-Debate.aspx#Article
 Lanser, Rick. “Science and the Bible: Friends or Foes?” Posted on March 23, 2015. At http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2015/03/23/Science-and-the-Bible-Friends-or-Foes.aspx
 Smith, jr. Henry B. “101 Reasons the Earth is Young.” Posted on January 4, 2010. At http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/01/04/101-Reasons-the-Earth-is-Young.aspx#Article
 Janeway, Brian. “‘Reinventing Jesus’: Book Review.” Posted on May 10, 2013. At http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/05/10/Reinventing-Jesus-Book-Review.aspx#Article. Subsequent quotes are from this article until and unless otherwise noted. (Bolding added.)
 This is clear from his opinion that the fact that the authors “succeed in their task is made abundantly clear in 262 well-written pages” and insists that “Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace have rendered exemplary service to the household of faith and have made an compelling defense of the word of truth (1 Pet 3:15),” while not challenging any of their assertions.
 “Most scholars do not believe that the Gospel According to Mark was written “sometime prior to the early 60s AD.” The majority date it to about AD 70.
 That should be “raises the question,” not “begs the question,” and is certainly does raise that question.
 Farnell, op.cit., p. 292
 Komoszewski et al. allow that “We also cannot discount the probability that the disciples took down notes to record significant events or lessons,” which is the only thing they get correct. In particular Matthew, a tax collector who would have had to know shorthand, may have jotted down the logia of Jesus as they were being spoken, and he and the other Gospel writers may have subsequently used these notes. That does not change the fact that it is the inspiration of God that makes the Gospel books inerrant.
 Janeway says that “The field of textual criticism attempts to recover the original wording of the books of the Bible,” but in fact the Griesbachian/Westcott-Hort acolytes are quite clear in their declaration that it is impossible to recover the original wording of the Bible; they are only trying to come as close as possible.
 See Tors, “A Primer on New Testament Textual Criticism,” op.cit., for details.
 Available at http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/reinventing_jesus.htm. Price’s critique only holds water against apologetics that is heavily tainted by liberal paradigm assumptions.
 Smith, jr., Henry B. “Affirming Inerrancy.” Posted on September 11, 2013. At http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/09/11/Affirming-Inerrancy.aspx#Article
 “What We Believe.” Posted at https://creation.com/what-we-believe. See also Sarfati, Jonathan. “The authority of Scripture.” Posted at http://creation.com/the-authority-of-scripture; and Kulikovsky, Andrew S. “The Bible and hermeneutics.” Journal of Creation 19:3 (December 2005), pp.14-20. Posted at https://creation.com/the-bible-and-hermeneutics
 As we shall see, they state this explicitly in some articles. Also, while in times past, their writers seemed to quote from their Bible translation of choice, all quotes are now from the ESV. Unofficially, at least, they have chosen to ally themselves with this translation that is based on the Griesbachian/Westcott-Hort model.
 Mortenson, Terry. “But from the beginning of … the institution of marriage?” Posted on November 1, 2004. At http://creation.com/but-from-the-beginning-of-the-institution-of-marriage
 Weinberger, Lael (interviewer). “Creation and Redemption: A Conversation with Albert Mohler.” Creation 33:1 (January 2011). Posted at http://creation.com/albert-mohler-interview (Bolding and underlining added.)
 Cosner, Lita. “The ‘gender neutral’ Bible: Emasculating Scripture for political correctness.” Posted on September 10, 2009. At http://creation.com/gender-neutral-bible-translations (Bolding and underlining added.)
 Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament. 27th edition. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994, p.2
 “Our Statement of Faith.” Posted at https://www.cschurch.ca/central/about/statement-of-faith/
 Enns, Peter. “Inerrancy and Younger Evangelicals.” Posted on March 11, 2012. At http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/03/inerrancy-and-younger-evangelicals/
 Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996, p. 304 (Bolding and underlining added.)
 ibid., pp. 304-305
 For example, Bott, Michael and Jonathan Sarfati. “What’s Wrong With Bishop Spong? Laymen Rethink the Scholarship of John Shelby Spong.” Last updated on February 7, 2007. At http://creation.com/whats-wrong-with-bishop-spong#r55
 Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp. 304-305
 For details about this issue, see Tors, John. “Why There is an Error in Mark 1:2 in Your Bible: Another Example of the Evangelical Betrayal of the Bible,” at https://truthinmydays.com/why-there-is-an-error-in-mark-12-in-your-bible-another-example-of-the-evangelical-betrayal-of-the-bible/ which also looks at the questions surrounding Luke 2:2.
 Enns, op.cit. (Bolding and underlining added.)
 Holding, James Patrick. “The Death of Judas Iscariot.” Posted at http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.php. This is discussed in detail in our companion article, Tors. John. “Creation Ministries International and the Three-Headed Monster: Why the Monster Wins” at https://truthinmydays.com/creation-ministries-international-and-the-three-headed-monster-why-the-monster-wins/.
 Bird, Michael F. “Reflections on ETS and the Conference Theme of Inerrancy.” Posted on November 29, 2013. At http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2013/11/reflections-on-ets-and-the-conference-theme-of-inerrancy/
 ibid. The plenary paper mentioned was delivered at an Evangelical Theological Society conference in 2013.
 From Stan Gundry’s 1978 ETS presidential address, quoted in ibid.
 Of course there are still evangelical scholars who oppose this lunacy, including Geisler, R. Albert Mohler, and James White.
 Bird, Michael F. “More on the Michael Licona and Resurrection Dust Up.” Posted on December 2, 2011. At http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2011/12/more-on-the-michael-licona-and-resurrection-dust-up/
 Moring, Mark. “Michael Patton Brews a Potent Theology.” Posted on March 28, 2012. At http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/march/next-michael-patton.html
 Patton, C. Michael. “Mike Licona, Norman Geisler, Albert Mohler, and the Evangelical Circus.” Posted on December 2, 2011. At https://credohouse.org/blog/mike-licona-norman-geisler-albert-mohler-and-the-evangelical-circus
 Rauser, Randal. “‘Let Nothing that Breathes Remain Alive’: On the Problem of Divinely Commanded Genocide.” Philosophia Christi 11:1 (2009), pp. 27-41
 Rauser, Randal. “Al Mohler says the devil is in the details. Ironically enough, he’s right.” Posted on September 22, 2011. At http://randalrauser.com/2011/09/al-mohler-says-the-devil-is-in-the-details-ironically-enough-hes-right/
 Bird, Michael F. “More on the Michael Licona and Resurrection Dust Up,” op.cit.
 Rauser, op.cit. (Bolding added.)
 Patton, op.cit. (Bolding added.) “Both men” refers to Geisler and Mohler. “Old school,” I suspect, means (perhaps unintentionally) the approach to apologetics that understood “inerrant” actually to mean that there were no errors in the Bible, unlike today’s evangelical “new school.”
 Anderson, Garwood P., op.cit.
 Interestingly, Licona tells us that what most persuaded liberal scholar and Jesus Seminar member John Dominic Crossan “to go with a metaphorical understanding of resurrection is the harrowing (or robbing) of hell theology found in a hymn (Odes of Solomon), images (found in two ancient churches), a narrative (Gospel of Peter), two texts in 1 Peter (1 Pet 3:18-19; 4:6), and a ‘weird residual fragment’ in Matthew (Mt 27:52-53).” (Licona, op.cit., p. 527). The last of these is the only one in the purview of Licona’s book, and one wonders about a possible influence of Crossan’s faith-breaking objection to it. Perhaps Licona has been hobnobbing with liberal scholars too long; as the saying goes, “If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.”
 “Though with numerous mentions,” points out Anderson (Anderson, op.cit.)
 Rauser, op.cit. This is enthusiastically passed on by Patton (in Patton, op.cit.)
 There was not one original idea in Darwin’s books. Every one of his ideas had previous been advanced by earlier writers such as Charles De Secondat Montesquieu (1689-1755), Comte de Buffon (1707-1788), Denis Diderot (1713-1784), and Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802). The ideas had previously been rejected for lack of evidence and a viable mechanism. Darwin offered no genuine evidence and no mechanism, but now the same baseless ideas were widely accepted. It is hard to argue that the reason is that the influence of historical criticism and textual criticism had finally made society ready to discard God. As Pulitizer Prize winning historian Professor Edward J. Larson says, “During the Enlightenment, during, say, the 1700’s, notions of evolution began creeping back in, that, is, creation by natural law. If a people are intent in pushing out God, or rejecting divine causation, really the only alternative is where species, well, they could be eternal, as Aristotle said, or they had to come from other species. Where else could they come from?” (Larson, Professor Edward J. “The Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy” Lecture 1: “Before Darwin.” The Great Courses, CD version. (Bolding and italics added.))
 Pickering, Ernest, pp. 8-9
 ibid., p. 14
 This is not anti-intellectualism. Genuine scholarship, the kind that carefully sifts through all of the evidence to learn more about the origins of the Bible is welcome. But that is very different from unthinking acceptance of liberal paradigm assumptions that discredit the Bible, which is what so much of evangelical scholarship is today.