Thomas Arnold on the Evidence for the Resurrection

“I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”

—Thomas Arnold, Professor of History Oxford

Author of the three-volume History of Rome

Christian Life, Its Hopes, Its Fears, and Its Close, 6th ed. (London: T. Fellowes, 1859), pp. 15-16.

Apologist Interview: Dr. Jefrey Breshears

Today’s interview is with Dr. Jefrey Breshears, Christian historian, apologist,  the president of "The Areopagus” and author of An Introduction to Bibliology. He talks about his background and interest in history and apologetics, the problem of anti-intellectualism in the church (and what can be done about it), the systematic study of the bible (bibliology), an overview of An Introduction to Bibliology, bad arguments for the Bible, good arguments for the Bible, defending the inspiration of scripture, how we got the books that are in the Bible (the canon), the transmission of the Biblical texts, the significance of textual variants, answering skeptics regarding apparent contradictions, the most misunderstood issues about the Bible, and more.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (37 min)

Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

R. T. France on the Historicity of the Gospels

"At the level of their literary and historical character we have good reason to treat the gospels seriously as a source of information on the life and teaching of Jesus, and thus on the historical origins of Christianity. Ancient historians have sometimes commented that the degree of scepticism with which New Testament scholars approach their sources is far greater than would be thought justified in any other branch of ancient history. Indeed many ancient historians would count themselves fortunate to have four such responsible accounts, written within a generation or two of the events, and preserved in such a wealth of early manuscript evidence. . . . Beyond that point, the decision as to how far a scholar is willing to accept the record they offer is likely to be influenced more by his openness to a ‘supernaturalist’ world-view than by strictly historical considerations."

—R. T. France
“The Gospels as Historical Sources for Jesus, the Founder of Christianity,” Truth 1 (1985): 86. (link)

Book Review: Four Views on the Historical Adam

Editors Matthew Barrett and Ardel B. Caneday offer yet another installment in Zondervan’s Counterpoints series.  This one is on the historicity of Adam with essays by Denis O. Lamoureux, John Walton, C. John Collins, and William D. Barrick.

Lamoureux kicks off the discussion with his evolutionary creation view and the rejection of a historical Adam.  He sums up his beliefs saying, “the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the universe and life, including humans, through an ordained, sustained, and intelligent design-reflecting natural process” (37). The author dismisses scientific concordism, that is, the assumption that the facts of science align with the Bible.  He asserts that statements in Scripture about nature are from an ancient phenomenological perspective and that “Holy Scripture makes statements about how God created living organisms that never in fact happened” (46).  Does this mean that God lied?  No, he says.  It means that “the Holy Spirit used the biology-of-the-day as an incidental vessel to reveal inerrant spiritual truths” (57).

Review: Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation

Adler and Van Doren said, “Many books are hardly worth even skimming; some should be read quickly; and a few should be read at a rate, usually quite slow, that allows for complete comprehension.”[1] Upon first reading this book, I wrote a review. After writing it, I thought, “I really should read this book again to understand it better.” So I did. And then I wrote a second review. It was ten pages long. Then I thought, “This book deserves one more reading.” So I gave Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation a third and wrote this review.

This book deserves a thorough reading because of the rarity of its inclusive nature among evangelical works on the topic. Unfortunately, scholars who disagree about the interpretation of Gen 1–2 often spend more time talking about each other instead of talking to each other. This book brings together five distinct perspectives on these chapters from scholars who all hold to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. The chapters derive from papers presented at a symposium at Bryan College in late 2011. The papers have been updated to include more recent discussions among evangelicals and each of the other contributors have been allowed to write a brief response appended to the end of the five main chapters. It also includes two chapters concerning the teaching of Gen 1–2 and unresolved chapters in these passages by two professors from Bryan College and a fine introduction by prominent Old Testament scholar Victor Hamilton.[2] The structure promotes dialogue but might have been improved by the addition of a brief final response by the chapter’s author.

Book Review: Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism

Reading this book review will be challenging–and possibly frustrating for some–because it addresses topics rarely addressed in evangelical circles. Although it does not appear as such, this is a work of apologetics. It aims to defend the results of historical criticism against evangelicals who fear its conclusions.

The book aims to challenge evangelical students, pastors and scholars to consider the implications of historical criticism for their faith. Throughout the volume, the various authors address major issues such as the historicity of Adam & Eve, the historical reliability of the Exodus tradition, pseudopigraphy in the Bible, revised prophecies and the historical Jesus. The chapters seek to address how best to engage and accept the outcomes of critical scholarship, and whether to actively pursue critical scholarship as evangelicals.

Book Review: The Philosophy of History: Naturalism and Religion by James Stroud

With a title like The Philosophy of History: Naturalism and Religion, it is not surprising to find that the theses James Stroud defends in this book pertain to historiography and the impact of historical method on the assessment of religious claims. But what is surprising about a book with this title and focus is its similarity to the myriad introductory works of apologetics available today, which present an accessible treatment of common apologetic issues, ranging from the origins of the universe and the grounding of morality to the historical Jesus.

Stroud has two central theses in The Philosophy of History, one of which gets more attention than the other. His primary thesis is the claim that naturalism should not be assumed a priori in historical and scientific studies; an “open” methodology which allows for both natural and supernatural explanations should be employed instead of the currently popular “closed” methodology wherein only naturalistic explanations are tolerated. Stroud also defends a secondary thesis, which claims that there is a greater overlap or unity between science and history than is often recognized. In particular, he argues that certain “past singularities” (one-time historical events) such as the origin of the universe, of life, and of humanity, are, though often classified as matters of ‘origins science’, equally at home under the umbrella of history. Stroud repeatedly makes statements like “Origins science is really ‘history’ (or history as a weak science[1]…)”[2] and “…the historian is more capable of addressing questions of origin science with philosophy as an aid than the operation scientist.”[3] “Moreover,” he says, “weaker sciences such as anthropology and sociology as well as linguistics all fall under the much larger umbrella of ‘history.’”[4] This second thesis receives the most attention in the fourth chapter, “What about History?” Though interesting, this point apparently lacks methodological import, for as Stroud ventures into historical and scientific issues later in the book, they are treated in pretty much exactly the same way that they have typically been treated in recent discussion, even to the point of employing unaltered or mostly unaltered versions of arguments used by William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Gary Habermas, and others.

Book Review: Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?

Do historical matters matter to faith?  Editors James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary answer yes with a collection of 22 essays by respected scholars in the fields of Old and New Testament studies, archaeology, theology and church history.  They state that their goal with their book is to “help address some of the questions raised about the historicity, accuracy, and inerrancy of the Bible” (22).  Postmodern literary approaches treat Biblical narratives as fiction (19).   This has led to a minimalist-maximalist historiography debate and a skeptical mood toward much of the history of the Bible (19). The writers offer evidence to support the reliability of that history in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?

Given the size of the tome (560 pages), this review will only highlight a few of the essays in each of its four sections, beginning with Graham Cole’s The Peril of a ‘Historyless’ Systematic Theology.  As the author puts it, “God is no mere organizing idea to help us find our way about” (68).  Rather, he is a God who stepped into this world and, therefore, into its history in the person of Jesus.  Theology is connected to a real Christ who performed a real deed (62).  Therefore, theology cannot be separated from history.

Book Review: The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael Licona

The resurrection of Jesus is a favorite topic for many Christian apologists and a popular subject of contention among New Testament scholars. With over 3,400 academic books and articles published on the fate of Jesus in the last 35 years alone, one might doubt that anything new could be said on the subject. However, early in his own investigation of the resurrection, Mike Licona observed that the vast literature on the fate of Jesus largely failed to consider issues of historical method and hermeneutics. While this deficiency has been addressed to some extent in recent work by N. T. Wright, James D. G. Dunn, and Dale Allison, Licona contends that something is still missing. “Almost without exception,” he notes, “the literature pertaining to Jesus’ resurrection has been written by biblical scholars and philosophers,”[1] and so far the outcome has been a remarkably wide variety of conclusions on the matter. Licona wonders if part of the problem is a failure to apply the methodology of historians who lie outside the community of biblical scholars. It is precisely this methodology that Licona seeks to identify and employ in his monumental 700-page tome The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.

Book Review: Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament by John D. Currid

Some of Christianity’s detractors accuse it of being a copycat religion that drew from the mythology and legends of its predecessors. It is true that there are similarities between the Old Testament (O.T.) accounts of creation, the flood and the life of Moses, for example, and the stories of other Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) religions. But there are also notable differences – differences that people have far too often overlooked.

John Currid, professor of Old Testament at the Reformed Theological Seminary, explores the relationship between the O. T. and the literature of other ANE nations in his Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament. His thesis is straightforward: Yes, O.T. accounts reflect other religions, but their authors purposely use them to denounce the false gods of Babylon, Egypt, Canaan, etc. In other words, they use them polemically.

Bart Ehrman on the Historicity of Jesus

"With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. [...] the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground."

—Bart Ehrman
Excerpt from this article.
Bart Ehrman is an agnostic scholar whose writings frequently attack Christianity and its truth claims. For resources answering Ehrman's claims, click here.

Book Review: The Bible Among the Myths by John Oswalt

Visit any forum where atheists and Christians are engaged in discussion and you will find non-believers claiming that Christianity is a myth and that Jesus is no more real than Zeus or Osiris. They will then offer a number of supposed similarities as evidence. However, as John N. Oswalt, distinguished professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, Kentucky, states in his The Bible Among the Myths, such a comparison stems from a lack of understanding about what constitutes a myth. While some people think it is simply a story that is false, Oswalt explains that it is a worldview with specific characteristics that stand in opposition to what the Bible tells us.

There was a time when the majority of people accepted God’s Word as true in what it related about people and events. Oswalt says the Ancient Near Eastern data hasn’t changed, but the way we explain and understand it has. In a society where naturalism reigns, people’s view of reality no longer includes the supernatural.  The Bible’s miracles cause it to be relegated to the category of myth.

H.G. Wells on the Historicity of Jesus

"I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history."

—H.G. Wells

John Dickson Interview Transcript

The following transcript is from an Apologetics 315 interview with John Dickson. Original audio here. Transcript index here. If you enjoy transcripts, please consider supporting, which makes this possible.

---

BA: Hello, this is Brian Auten of Apologetics 315. Today, I’m speaking with John Dickson, director of the Centre for Public Christianity in Australia. He is also Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Ancient History in Macquarie University and Senior Minister at Saint Andrews, Roseville.

John is also author of a number of books including The Christ Files: How Historians Know What They Know About Jesus. That was also made into a major television documentary. In this interview I'll be asking John questions about historical Jesus Studies as well about his work with the Centre for Public Christianity and his advice for Christian apologists.

Alright well thanks for joining me from Australia today, John.

JD: Fantastic to be with you!

Author Interview: Johnny V. Miller

Today's interview is with Johnny V. Miller, professor emeritus at Columbia International University and co-author with John M. Soden of the book In the Beginning... We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context. He talks about the goal and motive behind the book, the most important question to ask when approaching any passage of scripture, the concordist view and possible troublesome approaches to scripture, the original readers of Genesis 1 and their cultural context, the cosmogony of the Egyptians, similarities and differences between creation stories, the goal of the Biblical creation account, the historicity of Genesis, objections to the thesis, his own journey on issues of the age of the earth debate, apologetics implications, and more.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (xx min)

Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

Michael Licona Interview Transcript (2)

The following transcript is from an Apologetics 315 interview with Michael Licona (the second of two). Original audio here. Transcript index here. If you enjoy transcripts, please consider supporting, which makes this possible.

---

BA: Hello, this is Brian Auten from Apologetics 315. Today, I interview Mike Licona. [At the time of this interview] He is the Apologetics Coordinator at the North American Mission Board and Research Professor of New Testament at Southern Evangelical Seminary. I had the privilege of interviewing Mike in the past on Apologetics 315 and we talked about his book on the Resurrection with Gary Habermas, and we also touched on his goals in his new book that we’ll be talking about specifically today, which is The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.

So Mike, welcome back and thanks for being with me.

ML: Thanks Brian. Appreciate you having me on and thanks for the great work you’re doing.

BA: Well, Mike, when I received your most recent book and had a look at it, I knew I wanted to talk to you about it some more. It’s entitled The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach and in it you’re applying the historical method to assessing the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Now, this is a big book, 718 pages, this is no small afternoon read! But I should note though, it’s dense but you know, the reading isn’t a plow! It’s organised and it’s clear. I have to admit I haven’t read every page just yet but I was, like, wow, this really flows well and it’s really laid out well so my first impression would be that, although it’s a big book, it’s not going to kill the average reader but - we’ll get into the content in a few minutes - but this represents a lot of your work for the last...I don’t want to ask you how many years this has taken you to create this work and tell me what this book, as a project, represents for you.

John Elder on Archaeology and the Bible

“It is not too much to say that it was the rise of the science of archeology that broke the deadlock between historians and the orthodox Christian. Little by little, one city after another, one civilization after another, one culture after another, whose memories were enshrined only in the Bible, were restored to their proper places in ancient history by the studies of archeologists…. Contemporary records of biblical events have been unearthed and the uniqueness of biblical revelation has been emphasized by contrast and comparison to newly discovered religions of ancient peoples. Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history.”

—Archaeologist John Elder
Prophets, Idols and Diggers: Scientific Proof of Bible History, p. 16.

Historian Paul L. Maier Interview Transcript

The following transcript is from an Apologetics 315 interview with Paul L. Maier. Original audio here. If you enjoy transcripts, please consider supporting, which makes this possible.

---

BA: Hello, this is Brian Auten of Apologetics 315. Today I interview Historian Paul Maier. Dr. Maier is the Russell H. Seibert professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, and much published author of both scholarly and popular works. His historical studies are in Ancient Near East, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Christianity and the Roman Empire, and the Reformation era. His scholarly works include Josephus, The Essential Works, that’s a new translation and commentary on writings of the 1^st century Jewish historian, and Eusebius: The Church History. And that’s a similar book on the first Christian historian. He has also authored a number of books on Christmas and Easter including, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian looks at Christmas, Easter and the Early Church, The Very First Christmas, and The Very First Easter.

I'm interested in speaking with Dr. Maier today about the historicity of Jesus and the first Christmas. Well, thanks for speaking with me today Dr. Maier. 

PLM: Glad to be on with you Brian.

BA: Now, before we get started talking about historical issues could you tell me a little bit more about your background as a historian?

Things Which Ought To Be Better Known About The Resurrection of Jesus—Video by Peter J. Williams

This lecture by Peter J. Williams was given at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston, TX on April 7th 2012 titled: Things Which Ought To Be Better Known About The Resurrection Of Jesus. More by Peter J. Wiliams here. Enjoy.

Tony Lane on Understanding History

"We need to read about the past in order to understand the present. People without a grasp of history are like a person without a memory. Many of the current beliefs in our society are properly grasped only when we see how they have emerged. A knowledge of history will help us to understand better both ourselves and those with whom we might disagree."

—Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 1.

[HT: Ken Samples]