Jesus, Interrupted

A couple of summers ago, I read a book by the much-revered Dr. Bart Ehrman entitled, Jesus, Interrupted.  If his name sounds familiar, that's because he is the author of Misquoting Jesus, a book that attempts to prove that the Gospels are fabricated.  Well, the basic premise of Jesus, Interrupted is no different.  Indeed, a quick look through his list of published works makes it clear that Ehrman has made a career out of attempting to prove that the Bible, rather than being the inerrant Word of God, is a very human book filled with contradictions and mistakes.  On page after page of Jesus, Interrupted, Dr. Ehrman hits his readers with one (supposed) contradiction after another.  This makes it a difficult book to review for two reasons.

First, Dr. Ehrman has a Ph.D. in theology, and is a leading expert on Biblical studies and the New Testament, and yet he makes so many errors in his analysis that he almost seems like an idiot.  He is obviously not, as he has multiple degrees and has immersed himself in this subject for several decades.  In spite of these credentials, however, many of his ideas and theories are simply untrue.  I don't mean that I disagree with him theologically (although of course, I do), but I mean to say that many of his statements are, historically, culturally and linguistically untrue - he misquotes and misrepresents both what the Bible says, as well as known history.

If I had to estimate, I would guess that about half of his claims are simply false.  He says, for example, that John and Mark give different days for the crucifixion.  This is blatantly inaccurate, as we'll see in a moment.  The Gospels of John and Mark do not differ when it comes to the timing of the crucifixion:  Jesus was arrested on Thursday night and then tried and executed on Friday; all four Gospels attest to this.

The rest of his "issues" fall into the category of apparent contradictions, but with varying levels of explainability.  To be fair, three-quarters of those do seem to be discrepancies within the Bible, but upon a little bit of digging, turn out not to be discrepancies at all.  The remaining issues, however, can be explained, but the explanations require a bit more interpretation than the text actually grants.  I freely admit that the handful of these incidents may be contradictions, but they are not, by any means, the all-out inconsistencies that Dr. Ehrman makes them out to be.  In other words, while they may be contradictions, there is no reason to definitively claim that they are contradictions.  Indeed, while explaining them does require a certain amount of interpretation, the fact that they can be explained nullifies his brazen statement that they are irreconcilable.
 
The second difficulty in analyzing this manuscript is the sheer scope of his book.  Since almost every page of his 300-page book features a "contradiction," I cannot hope to address every issue one at a time.  What I'm going to do, then, is speak on several examples from this wide range of explainability, and then take a look at his overall strategy and way of thinking and see where, on a fundamental level, his thinking is deeply, deeply flawed.


When Did Jesus Die?

This is a section to which he devotes several pages, but it is an excellent example of why all of us (Christians, atheists, agnostics, or anyone who reads his book) must be skeptical of the "facts" that Dr. Ehrman presents.  I'm going to sum up (with appropriate quotations) Dr. Ehrman's argument, and then present what the Bible actually says (also with appropriate quotations). 

There is a certain amount of background information needed to understand this issue.  Way back in Exodus, the Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians, and God - after some 400 years - announced that He was going to free His people.  In order to display His glory, God sent a series of plagues on the Egyptians, the last of which led to the death of every firstborn son in the nation.  God, however, enacted a system of mercy for the Hebrews in which they were to paint their doorposts with lamb's blood so that the Angel of Death could then pass over the houses of the Hebrews, sparing the children.  The next day, Pharaoh - whose own son was killed - sent the Hebrews away, granting their freedom.  God then required the Hebrews to commemorate that evening every year with a holiday known - appropriately - as "Passover."  When we get to the last night Jesus spent with His disciples before His crucifixion, we find the thirteen of them sharing the Passover meal.  In that year, the Passover took place on Thursday evening at sundown.

Now, there is another piece of information you need to know, and this regards the Jewish system of measuring time.  The Jews back then - and today, to some degree - measured the start of their day at sundown the day before, rather than midnight as we do.  So for us, today, Thursday begins in the middle of the night at midnight, and runs through sunup, noon, the afternoon, sundown, and on until midnight, where Friday begins.  For the Hebrews, Thursday would have started at sundown on Wednesday night, run through sunup, noon, the afternoon, and then ended when the sun went down Thursday night, at which point Friday would begin.  So for us, Jesus and His disciples had their Passover meal on Thursday night, but for them, it would have taken place at the beginning of Friday, since Friday started at sundown on Thursday evening.

Now, one last piece of information.  Every Jewish Friday (sundown on Thursday to sundown on Friday) was known as the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath; the Jewish Sabbath took place on Saturday (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday).  There were other Days of Preparation, however, which preceded every major holy day, including Passover.  So the year that Jesus died, the "Day of Preparation for the Passover" would have taken place from Wednesday night to Thursday afternoon, with Passover beginning Thursday night.  The Gospels, then, tell us that Jesus and His disciples ate the Passover meal on Thursday night, Jesus was arrested in the garden a few hours later, stood trial before the Sanhedrin, Pilate, and Herod, and was sentenced and executed during the day on Friday.

According to Dr. Ehrman, however, John does not say this.  Here's what Dr. Ehrman writes:

In Mark's Gospel, Jesus lived through [the Day of Preparation], had his disciples prepare the Passover meal, and ate it with them before being arrested, taken to jail for the night, tried the next morning, and executed at nine o'clock A.M. on the Passover day.  But not in John.  In John, Jesus dies a day earlier, on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon (26).

According to Dr. Ehrman, John tells us that Jesus died, not on Friday, but on Thursday, before the Passover Meal.  This is completely untrue, as John emphatically declares that Jesus died on Friday.  In John 19:31, John tells us, immediately following the death of Jesus in verse 30, that "it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath."  In other words, Jesus died the day before the Sabbath.  Since the Sabbath is on Saturday, Jesus must have died on Friday.  This is abundantly clear.  In fact, the rest of the verse clarifies the timing, and reads:  "Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down" (emphasis mine).  John is clear:  Jesus died on Friday.

So why, then, does Dr. Ehrman insist that John's version has Jesus dying on Thursday?  As proof, he quotes John 19:14, in which Jesus is sentenced to death:  "It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon."  Hmm.  Jesus is sentenced on the Day of Preparation?  That would mean He died Thursday, during the day, right?  That does seem tricky, doesn't it?  But not if you understand how Passover worked.

In Exodus 12:1-20, God gives very specific instructions on how the Israelites are to commemorate the Passover.  It is to start with the Passover meal:  a slaughtered lamb whose blood is brushed around the door frame of the house, and whose roasted flesh is to be eaten "in haste [for] it is the LORD's Passover" (12:11).  Then what follows the next day is called The Feast of Unleavened Bread, a special holiday lasting for a week, in which no yeast is eaten at all, commemorating the speed with which they had to depart.  In Leviticus 23:4-8, we are told that The Passover takes place at sundown on the fourteenth of the month, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread takes place on the fifteenth of the month.  However, while these two feasts were separate feasts, they were also considered one and the same celebration because they both commemorated the night that God broke Pharaoh's resolve, and the Israelites were able to leave.  In Exodus 12, where God institutes the feast, they are both simply referred to, collectively, as the Passover.  In Luke 22:1, Luke even writes, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching."   

What does this mean for the context of the crucifixion?  In Jesus' day, the meal took place on Thursday night (the start of the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath), and the Feast of Unleavened Bread would have started the next day, or Friday night - the beginning of the Sabbath.  John even mentions in 19:31 that the Sabbath was to be a "special Sabbath."  Why?  Because it was the continuation of the Passover holiday, the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  So when we read that Jesus was sentenced on "the Day of Preparation for the Passover" in John 19:14, it's referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread "called the Passover" (Luke 22:1).  When it says that Jesus was sentenced on the Day of Preparation for the Passover in John, it's referring to the Friday Passover, not the Thursday Passover.


Despite Dr. Ehrman's claim that "the contradiction stands" and that "this is a difference that can[not] be reconciled," there is, in fact, no contradiction.  John (as well as Luke, Matthew and Mark) claims that Jesus died on the Friday after the Passover meal.  So the first question we need to ask is whether or not Dr. Ehrman knows what he's talking about.  Is he, as it appears, unaware of the Passover regulations and the fact that it was, for practical purposes, divided into two different parts?  Does he not know that the Day of Preparation for the Passover can refer to both the Passover meal (the slaughtered lamb) and the Feast of Unleavened Bread?  Is he completely unaware of John 19:31, which clearly states that Jesus died on Friday, the day before the "special Sabbath"?  Possibly, but I hesitate to call him ignorant and stupid.  After all, he received his doctorate from Princeton University.  One does not simply walk in off the street and receive a doctorate from Princeton; you must both be accepted, and you must work hard to be awarded that degree.  He has also been a foremost Biblical scholar and educator for the last thirty years.  One does not simply study a topic for thirty years and know nothing about it.  So Dr. Ehrman may be ignorant, but I doubt it. 

This leaves us with one unsettling alternative:  he's being intentionally deceptive.  He knows what John says, he knows about the customs, but he chooses to ignore the evidence in favor of pushing his opinion that the Bible is no more divinely inspired than the Yellow Pages.  In other words, he's lying.  I am not a fan of calling someone I've never met, and whose motivations I do not honestly know, a liar, but these are the only alternatives.  This is the difficulty I mentioned early on in the post, because I do not know his heart.  Nonetheless, the choice stands:  he either does not know what he's talking about, or he's lying.

What I do know, however, is that he has made several claims that are simply false, and this is only the first.  The second claim I want to address, also tied to this issue, is the time at which Jesus was executed.  Dr. Ehrman tells us that Mark's Gospel reports that Jesus was crucified at nine o'clock in the morning.  He then attempts to prove that the Bible is contradictory by telling us that John claims that Jesus was crucified "about noon."  What Dr. Ehrman is doing here is twofold:  first, he's taking some liberty at translating the time of day (the New Testament translations are his own).  Mark does not actually say that Jesus was crucified at 9 A.M., and John does not tell us that Jesus was crucified at noon.  Mark uses the phrase "the third hour" (Mark 15:25), and John uses the phrase "the sixth hour" (John 19:14).

Now, aren't those still different times?  Yes, they are, but there are two pieces of information that Dr. Ehrman is leaving out, whether consciously or not.  The first is that Mark and John are not both referring to the crucifixion.  Mark states that "It was the third hour when they crucified him"; crystal clear, no issues.  John is equally as clear, though, in that "the sixth hour" is not when Jesus is crucified, but when Jesus is sentenced:  ""Pilate . . . brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement . . . It was about the sixth hour" (John 19:13;14).  In other words, Mark and John give two different times because they're describing two different events.  Dr. Ehrman, through very selective language, would have us believe that they are describing the same event, which is untrue.

But wait:  isn't the sixth hour later than the third hour?  So how could Jesus be sentenced three hours after He was nailed to the cross?  This is the other piece of information that Dr. Ehrman does not share with his readers.  Both the Roman and Jewish cultures had their own method for reckoning daylight.  The Romans - like us - began measuring the day at midnight.  So for them, the third hour was 3 A.M., the sixth hour was 6 A.M., and so forth.  The Hebrews measured their daylight separately from their day, so while their day began at sundown the night before, they measured daylight beginning at 6 A.M.  So in the Jewish reckoning, the third hour would have been 9 A.M., the sixth hour would have been Noon, and so forth.

To be fair, neither Mark nor John tell us which system they were using.  If they were both using the same system, then I agree it's a problem, because Jesus would have been crucified three hours before He was sentenced.  If, on the other hand, Mark is using the Hebrew reckoning, while John uses the Roman reckoning, then the conflict disappears.  In fact, the entire sequence of events makes perfect sense:

Pilate sentenced Jesus at 6 A.M. (sixth hour, Roman time, as John states), and Jesus is nailed to the cross at 9 A.M. (third hour, Jewish time, as Mark states).  Then what happened during the intervening hours?  Matthew and Mark both tell us that Jesus was flogged, beaten, and mocked by the Romans before being forced to take up His own cross and carry it outside of the city.  If Roman execution was anything like Death Row today, it is, frankly, astonishing that it only took three hours between His sentencing and execution.  While Dr. Ehrman would lead us to believe that there is no way whatsoever to reconcile when Jesus died in the two Gospel accounts, as we have seen, there is no contradiction.  Jesus was sentenced at 6 A.M. on Friday morning, nailed to the cross at 9 A.M. the same day, and was dead by 3 P.M. (see Luke 23:44-46).  Dr. Ehrman neglects to mention the two systems of reckoning time, but, more deceptively than that, neglects to mention that the Gospels give two different times because they are describing two different events.  While I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on some things, this one is hard to chalk up to ignorance:  the verses are clearly describing two different events, and Dr. Ehrman clearly glosses over that fact.  He would like us to believe that the Bible is untrustworthy on this point, but it simply isn't and, rather, he reveals himself to be the untrustworthy one.

The Historical-Critical Approach
Now, at this point, what I don't want to happen is for you all to think that I'm simply here to offer a rebuttal of his claims.  What I want, rather, is for us to look, critically, at his overall arguments, most of which revolve around what he calls the Historical-Critical Approach to Biblical Scholarship (4-5; 176-179).  I submit that we must apply the same method to his own claims.  When we do that - that is, when we approach his book with an eye to find the truth, not just blind belief in everything he writes - we see massive inconsistencies and inaccuracies.  So I want to spend a few moments examining some of his overall approaches to studying the Scriptures, and how that impacts his interpretation.  

So what is the Historical-Critical Method?  What it involves, at least according to him, is reading the Scriptures side-by-side so as to compare what they have to say on certain subjects.  What most of us tend to do, he asserts, is start, say, in Matthew, read it through to the end, and then go on to Mark.  We read Mark, then we read Luke, and so on.  While this is an acceptable method, Dr. Ehrman feels that his approach is far more scholarly, because it allows us to find discrepancies much more easily (6, 16).  What I'm going to do here is examine some of his claims about aspects of the Bible, and compare them to other claims he makes in regards to the same topic.  In other words, I'm using his approach to his own book. 



Who Wrote the New Testament?
This is a sticky subject, even for believers, because many of the books are anonymous; they have been attributed to certain authors, but they were not actually signed by those authors.  This does not, however, exempt Dr. Ehrman from historical accuracy, as he seems to feel that it does. Not surprisingly, he claims that most of the New Testament - particularly the Gospels - was written "many centuries later" by "authors who probably did not write them" [that is, Matthew didn't write The Gospel of Matthew, Mark didn't write Mark, etc.] (48; 102; see also pages 111, 135-136, 143-144).  Here's where it gets interesting:  first, he only gives one real reason as to how he knows they were written centuries later (and, as we'll see in a minute, that reason is unfounded).  Though he repeatedly claims, however, that there is "good reason" for believing this, he only expounds on one very shaky line of reasoning.  This is okay by me, however, since he then tells us that . . .

. . . there are reasons for thinking Mark was written first, so maybe he wrote around the time of the war with Rome, 70 CE . . . Matthew and Luke . . . say, ten or fifteen years later, in 80 to 85 CE.  John seems to be the most theologically developed Gospel, and so it was probably written later still, nearer the end of the first century, around 90 to 95 CE.  These are rough guesses, but most scholars agree on them (145). 

So which is it?  "Centuries later," or within the first century (and therefore within the lifetime of the apostles whom we believe actually did write them)?  Using his own critical method, we can see a massive contradiction in Dr. Ehrman's own philosophy, one which he makes no attempt to reconcile.  They were written, according to "most scholars," within the first century.  But we also know, according to most scholars, that they were written "many centuries later."   Once more, he is either ignorant of his own subject, and does not know what he wrote in his own book, or he is being intentionally deceptive.

So why doesn't he believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels?  He creates a compelling argument, until one gets past the misdirection and conveniently-ignored historical facts.  I'll let him explain in his own words:

From the Gospels we learn that the disciples of Jesus, like him, were lower-class peasants from rural Galilee.  Most of them - certainly Simon Peter, Andrew, James, and John - were day laborers (fishermen and the like); Matthew is said to be a tax collector, but it is not clear how high up he was in the tax collecting organization, whether he was a kind of general contractor who worked directly with the ruling authorities to secure tax revenues, or possibly more likely, the kind of person who came banging on your door to make you pay up.  If the latter, there is nothing to suggest that he would have required much of an education.

The same can certainly be said of the others.  We have some information about what it meant to be a lower-class peasant in rural areas of Palestine in the first century.  One thing it meant is that you were almost certainly illiterate.  Jesus himself was highly exceptional, in that he could evidently read (Luke 4:16-20), but there is nothing to indicate that he could write [this is not true, as John 8:6 tells us that Jesus wrote in the sand] . . . As Galilean Jews, Jesus' followers, like Jesus himself, would have been speakers of Aramaic.  As rural folk they probably would not have any knowledge of Greek; if they did, it would have been extremely rough (105-106).

He then goes on to tell us that the authors of the Gospels were clearly fluent in Greek, but since Jesus' followers could not have been fluent in Greek, his followers could not have written the Gospels.  Therefore, he argues, the "authors were . . . unusually gifted Christians of a later generation" (106), who most likely came, as I noted "many centuries later."

Once more, Dr. Ehrman's seemingly-deceptive language would mislead, as he claims that none of Jesus' disciples spoke Greek, therefore none of the Gospels could have been written by His disciples.  Here's the problem:  two of the Gospels - Mark and Luke - weren't written by Jesus' twelve disciples, and the Church has never claimed them to have been.  He appears to be intentionally leaving this fact out when he claims that none of the Gospels could have been written by Jesus' disciples.  But this begs a bigger question:  were Mark and Luke able to write Greek?  Let's begin with Mark.

We know very little about Mark.  Most of what we know comes from the Book of Acts:  he was also called John (Acts 12:12,25 and 15:37), his mother's house became a secret church (Acts 12:12); he was the cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10); Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas (13:5), and he and Paul had a major disagreement that strained their relationship (Acts 13:13; 15:36-39); Paul eventually forgave Mark (2 Timothy 4:11).  The only other piece of information we have on Mark comes from the church tradition (not the Bible, mind you) that he was a companion of Peter, and that his Gospel was actually a shaping and compilation of Peter's teachings on Jesus.

So what does this mean for our understanding of whether or not Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark?  It means he could have, since we have no idea whether or not he was educated - we don't even know what his occupation was.  While I agree that the ability to write in Greek was not a typical skill for blue-collar workers in that time period, Dr. Ehrman's implication is that, since Peter, Andrew, James and John were low-class fisherman, Mark didn't know Greek.  This conclusion is intellectually irresponsible.  That would be like saying that since my neighbor doesn't speak German, I don't either.  I do (sort of), and even if I didn't, it would be completely disconnected from his inability to speak that language.  So while Mark certainly might have been "unlettered," the fact is that we simply don't know, and can't conclude one way or the other.  To dismiss Mark as an author is unfounded.  At best, he did write the Gospel attributed to him, at worst, we simply can't be certain.

What about Luke?  Was he, too, an unlettered member of the Jewish lower-class? Not at all.  In fact, based on the content of his Gospel (and second volume, Acts), Luke appears to have been a Gentile . . . a Greek-speaking Gentile.  We know from Colossians 4:14 that Luke was a physician - so he was also an educated, Greek-speaking Gentile.  This means that Luke would have spoken, read, and written Greek, since Greek was the common written language of the Roman Empire.

Remember that the Roman Empire spread across three continents and consisted of hundreds of different territories.  Each territory was allowed to keep its own regional dialect (hence, Jesus and His disciples spoke Aramaic), but the Empire needed a common language to help keep it unified and running smoothly:  that language was Greek.  As a Gentile ("Greek") doctor, Luke would have been fluent in Greek.  Therefore, the claim that Luke's Gospel was written by someone of a "later generation" because Luke wouldn't have been able to write in Greek simply holds no water.  There is no reason, whatsoever, to believe that Luke wasn't written by Luke.

Yes, but doesn't that mean that Mark and Luke were second-hand accounts, and, therefore, unreliable?  Not at all.  While they were second-hand accounts, they weren't disconnected from the events.  Mark (who may have been a follower of Jesus, if the "young man" in Mark 14:51 is actually the author of that Gospel), was, as I mentioned, believed to have been a companion of Peter, as well as a companion of other disciples.  If this is true, then Mark wasn't just repeating hearsay, but he was repeating the accounts he received directly from their sources, sources who spent three years walking and talking with Jesus.  Luke, on the other hand, accompanied Paul and some of the other apostles, and Paul, while himself not an original disciple of Jesus, spent a great deal of time with "the brothers" in Jerusalem after becoming a follower of Jesus.  This is not, then, a word-of-mouth transmission of information subject to what I call "Telephone Mythology" (as Dr. Ehrman implies it would be on pages 146-147), but is transmission of information connected to the sources themselves.

I am not my wife (obviously), but after nine years of marriage, I know my wife well.  I know how she feels about various subjects, I know how she would respond in various situations, and I remember a lot of what we have been through together.  Now let's just suppose you invited me to see the new Star Wars movie.  I agree, and you ask if I want to bring her, too.  I'd tell you that she has no interest in seeing it.

Here's the question:  do you doubt my assessment of her because you're hearing it second-hand?  Of course not, because you would understand that I know my wife;  I know how she would react in this situation.  The gospels of Mark and Luke are no different.  Even though they (probably) weren't present with Jesus, we can trust their accounts because they knew the disciples.  So, once more, Dr. Ehrman's claim that Mark and Luke could not have been written by Mark and Luke - and that, even if they were, they cannot be trusted - has no basis in reality.

Now, what about the other two, Matthew and John?  Matthew, a tax-collector, and John, a fisherman, could not have written Greek, Dr. Ehrman claims, because they were lower-class peasants.  This claim brings us to the second part of the Historical-Critical approach, which is his insistence that we look past the text of the Bible and look to history, instead.  So we will look past the text of Dr. Ehrman's book, and look to history, instead.  In his own words:  Matthew is said to be a tax collector, but it is not clear how high up he was in the tax collecting organization, whether he was a kind of general contractor who worked directly with the ruling authorities to secure tax revenues or, and possibly more likely, the kind of person who came banging on your door to make you pay up.  If the latter, there is nothing to suggest that he would have required much of an education (105). 

This is untrue.  Matthew 9:9, Mark 2:14, and Luke 5:27 all tell us that Matthew (also called Levi) was situated in a "tax collector's booth" outside of Capernaum.  What does that mean?  It means that Matthew was in charge of collecting tariffs on goods coming into and leaving the city, a city that lay on the international trade route running from Damascus to the Mediterranean Sea.  Matthew, therefore, was not only responsible for collecting taxes from Jews, but was also responsible for collecting taxes from anyone who passed that way coming from various parts of the Roman Empire - citizens of Rome who would have spoken Greek as they traveled about internationally.  Mark also would have received orders from Rome (and sent trade receipts back to Rome, as well).  Therefore his job would have required him to be able to communicate in both Aramaic and Greek - including written language.  Matthew wasn't a low-class peasant who knocked on doors and dragged women and children into the street, forcing them to pay up, but a wealthy employee of Rome who dealt with clients both foreign and domestic.  This is not "possibly more likely"; it is a historical reality.

This leaves us with John.  John, as we know from the Scriptures, was a fisherman.  Dr. Ehrman is correct, in that John most likely couldn't read or write Greek (although he could have spoken it, since young children are more than capable of being bilingual, long before they are capable of reading and writing).  It's entirely possible, of course, that in the sixty years between the resurrection and the time he wrote his account, John learned to write fluent Greek, but I agree with Dr. Ehrman that "it hardly seems . . . likely" (107).  What Dr. Ehrman is neglecting to mention, however, is the regular use of scribes and translators.  For example, Romans, which begins with a greeting from Paul (indicating that the letter contains his thoughts), ends with the sentence:  "I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord" (16:22).  Tertius was a scribe to whom Paul was most likely dictating his letter.  There are other examples within the Pauline letters.  In 2 Thessalonians 3:18, Colossians 4:18, Galatians 6:11 and 1 Corinthians 16:21, Paul attests that he wrote the closing of the letters "in [his] own hand."  The implication there is that sometimes Paul didn't write the letters in his own hand, but had them written on his behalf by someone else - especially when viewed in light of the insertion made by Tertius at the end of Romans.

Now if Paul, who was educated and able to write in Greek, still used a scribe, could John not also have used one?  Could that scribe not have translated John's Aramaic into Greek, for the purpose of sending the letters to a wider audience?  I realize that I am speculating, but that is the point:  so is Dr. Ehrman.  His assertion is that, since John couldn't write in Greek, he could not have written the Gospel that bears his name.  This makes two great assumptions:  1) that John couldn't write in Greek, and 2) that for him to write the Gospel, it had to be in his own handwriting.  While I agree in the likelihood of #1 (though that, too, is still an assumption), there is no reason to assume that #2 must be true.  The use of scribes and translators - especially in a multilingual society - was common, and there is no reason to dismiss the Gospel of John (or the rest of John's books) as forgeries. 

The Resurrection
There is one last "scholarly" technique that Dr. Ehrman uses when determining whether or not the miracles attributed to Jesus - particularly the resurrection - actually occurred.  Once more, I'll let him describe his approach in his own words:

Historians more or less rank past events on the basis of the relative probability that they occurred.  All that historians can do is show what probably happened in the past.

That is the problem inherent in miracles.  Miracles, by our very definition of the term, are virtually impossible events.  Some people would say they are literally impossible, as violations of natural law:  a person can't walk on water any more than an iron bar can float on it. . . . We would call a miracle an event that violates the way nature always, or almost always, works so as to make the event virtually, if not actually, impossible.  The chances of a miracle occurring are infinitesimal. . . .

By now I hope you can see the unavoidable problem historians have with miracles.  Historians can establish only what probably happened in the past, but miracles, by their very nature, are always the least probable explanation for what happened.  This is true whether you are a believer or not.  Of the six billion people in the world, not one of them can walk on top of lukewarm water filling a swimming pool.  What would be the chances of any one person being able to do that?  Less than one in six billion.  Much less. . . .

But what about the resurrection?  I'm not saying it didn't happen.  Some people believe it did, some people believe it didn't. . . . There can be no historical evidence for the resurrection because of the nature of historical evidence. . . . The resurrection is not least likely because of any anti-Christian bias.  It is the least likely because people do not come back to life, never to die again, after they are well and truly dead.  But what if Jesus did?  If he did, it's a miracle, and it's beyond historical demonstration (175-176).

At first glance, this sounds reasonable.  After all, six billion people can't resurrect, so the chances of one person resurrecting is . . . less than 1/6,000,000,000.  That's basic math, right?   I freely admit that on my first read through the book, I got what he is saying.  Since something has never happened before - or since - it's unlikely, from a statistical point of view.

But the logic is convoluted, and, once more, ignores some key facts.  Probability of any historical event is never determined by whether or not it has ever happened before, or whether or not it has happened since, but by the circumstances and evidence surrounding that particular event.  Think about his logic for a moment.

Using Dr. Ehrman's assertion, the probability of an emperor named Augustus reigning over the Roman Empire is virtually zero.  Why?  Because, prior to Augustus, there was never an emperor named Augustus, and there hasn't been one since.  Since that simply doesn't happen on an everyday basis, it can't have happened then, either. 

On the other hand, we know that Queen Elizabeth sits on the throne of England because, prior to her, there have been six different English monarchs bearing the name of Elizabeth, ruling either as Queen or as the spouse of a king.  So we believe that Elizabeth II is Queen of England, not because of her televised coronation, the speeches she has given, the countries she has visited, the films and photographs that have been published and released, the interviews given, or even the fact that her image is engraved on the currency, but, rather, because history has demonstrated that sometimes queens are named "Elizabeth."  Using Dr. Ehrman's own argument, Queen Elizabeth exists because there is a historical precedence for Queens named Elizabeth.

Sounds silly when it's put like that, doesn't it?

We know, in fact, that Elizabeth is Queen of England, not because of any historical precedence, but because the evidence surrounding her rule is overwhelming.  We know that Augustus reigned as Roman Emperor because of similar evidence (coins engraved with his image, his own writings, writings referring to him, decrees, statues, and the like), in spite of any lack of historical precedence.  I want to be clear:  Dr. Ehrman does discuss the role of historical evidence:  "Historians work with all kinds of evidence in order to show what probably happened in the past" (174), but very quickly (and subtly) redefines "evidence" as "historical precedence."

So what, then, is the probability of the resurrection?  The first evidence, of course, is the empty tomb.  And yet, while the tomb is empty, there are several possible explanations.  The first is that Jesus never actually died on the cross, that He survived the crucifixion and, once buried, managed to break free from the tomb.  The chances of this are slim to none, as the crucifixion process was designed to make death slow, but inevitable.

The position of the body on the cross would allow the prisoner to inhale, but not exhale.  In order to accomplish exhalation, he would have to lift up his body, pressing against the nails that were driven through his flesh, causing excruciating pain and muscle cramping.  However, the process was also aimed at maximizing blood loss, making the prisoner weaker as time progressed, until eventually the prisoner would become too weak to lift himself up, and would die of either cardiac arrest or asphyxiation. This process often took an entire day - sometimes even several days.  To speed things along, the Roman guards who oversaw the entire process would break the legs of the prisoners, preventing them from pushing up to breathe.

When it came time to break Jesus' legs, the guards realized he was already dead.  Now, these were Roman soldiers whose daily jobs involved confirming the deaths of their prisoners.  They felt Jesus was sufficiently dead, dead enough that it was unnecessary to break his legs.  Instead, just to be safe, they drove a spear up into his side, piercing his heart and the sac of water around the heart known as the pericardium.  So after three hours of blood loss and carbon dioxide build-up in the body, after being confirmed dead by the Roman soldiers whose jobs were to confirm death, and after having his heart run through with a spear (John 19:31-35), the argument that He never really died holds no water.

Let's suppose, though, that Jesus did survive the crucifixion.  Would He have been able to stand up, unwrap the burial clothes that had been - in effect - shellaced onto His body, roll away the massive stone that sealed the grave (Matthew 27:60, Mark 15:46, Luke 24:2, John 20:1), overpowered the Roman contingent guarding the tomb (we'll return to them in a moment), and convince His followers that He had risen from the dead, healthy and alive?

Like I said,  the argument that He never really died holds no water, so the probability of the resurrection has just increased slightly.

But this does leave us with the possibility that His disciples stole His body, which brings us back to the Roman guard that Pilate assigned to the tomb (Matthew 27:62-66).  The typical Roman guard was made up of sixteen men (though in some cases, only four), each of them highly trained and heavily armed.  Their job was to keep watch, in shifts, for twenty-four hours, making it virtually impossible for anyone to approach the tomb, roll away the stone, and steal the body.  Once more, then, the evidence in support of the resurrection mounts.

The last reasonable explanation for the empty tomb is that Jesus' body was never placed there to begin with.  Had that been the case, then the Emperor would have sealed and placed a guard in front of an empty tomb, which is highly unlikely.  Someone along the chain of command would have made a massive mistake, costing one (or many people along that chain) their lives.  The Romans weren't in the habit of screwing up a military command.  Plus, once news of the resurrection began to spread, the Romans would have done everything in their power to save face after such a colossal blunder; the easiest solution would have been to produce the body.

They didn't.

Add to this the fact that the ruling Jewish Council - who viewed Jesus' claim to be the Messiah as a massive heresy - would have done anything to squelch these rumors.  They also didn't produce the body.  Why not?  Because there appears to have been no body to produce.  The "natural" explanations for the empty tomb hold little to no water.  Therefore, for the time being, the most likely scenario is a resurrection.

But what if the empty tomb were made up?  What if it were a story written into the Bible "many centuries later," and there was never even an incident in Jerusalem?  The first argument, of course, is that, had there never been an incident, there would never have been Christianity.  What changed the lives of the disciples - so much so that they were all executed for their belief - was the resurrection.  If there had been no resurrection, and if the disciples had never believed there was a resurrection, their lives would not have been changed.  After all, Jesus taught a revolutionary message,  but He was not the first to spark a revolution.  Jesus performed miracles, but so did Elijah.  Yet when Elijah - and his successor, Elisha - left this earth, no one worshiped them.  Jesus' miracles were astonishing, but they were more astonishing because they were capped by Jesus' astonishing power to raise Himself from the dead.  If that had not occurred, Jesus would have unanimously been relegated to the list of "Amazing Prophets of God," not declared to be God Himself.  Without the resurrection, there would have been no Christianity.

The second argument is actually a piece of extra-Biblical evidence.  In 1878, a marble slab was shipped "from Nazareth" - no one is sure precisely where it was acquired - which reads, in part:  "By the decree of Caesar:  It is my will that graves and tombs remain undisturbed . . . however, if it is charged that another has . . . extracted the buried . . . or has displaced the sealing or other stones . . . it is my pleasure that the violator be sentenced to death."  The chiseling techniques and language indicate that the decree was carved sometime in the first century A.D.

This begs the question:  why would the emperor of Rome issue a decree prohibiting, on pain of death, the removal of a body from a tomb?  What kind of event in Israel during the first century could have caught the attention of Caesar?  Obviously the spread of the Christian faith.  While the decree of Caesar doesn't prove the resurrection itself, it does prove that the resurrection story wasn't written into the Bible several centuries later.

So let's take a moment and re-cap:  The probability that Jesus survived the crucifixion is virtually zero.  The probability that His disciples stole the body is virtually zero.  The probability that the resurrection was completely fabricated (either during that time or centuries later) is virtually zero.  If the arguments against the resurrection are virtually zero, then the probability of the resurrection has just increased dramatically.  This is how probability is determined in historical events; historic precedence has nothing to do with it.

I know I sound a bit like a broken-record here, but there are two possibilities as to why Dr. Ehrman makes the arguments that he does.  The first is that he truly does not know how historical analysis works.  In other words, he truly believes that historians determine the probability of an event by determining historical precedence, an argument that, I hope, I demonstrated is foolish.  The second, of course, is that he is being deceptive.

Swimming with the Current
Dr. Bart Ehrman is not alone.  For centuries, people have questioned supposed contradictions in the Bible.  Some of them are naturally curious and willing to learn.  Some are angry at God, and simply seeking to prove to themselves that He doesn't exist.  Some truly believe the contradictions cannot be reconciled, some truly believe they can.  Some don't care.

I say this because I want us to understand that Dr. Ehrman is not the dissenting voice.  Many of these arguments have been regurgitated over and over, and, truthfully, this isn't what bothers me.  What bothers me is his apparent unwillingness to reconcile the differences.  We've already looked at a few of them and seen that, with minimal reading, the "problems" simply disappear.  Yet rather than actually solve the problem, he simply parrots back what he was taught in seminary (sadly, this is a technique that I'm afraid, most of us as Christians do, too, but that's a different topic).

So this last part will deal with some of the other "problems" and contradictions that Dr. Ehrman brings to light.  Rather than simply regurgitate platitudes - or shrug my shoulders and say, "who cares?" - I am going to use the Bible, science, history, and logic to help us out.


The Genealogy of Jesus
Dr. Ehrman is right on this one:  Jesus' genealogy in Matthew is different from the genealogy found in Luke (35-39).  It just is.

Now, Luke works backwards, moving from Joseph all the way back through King David, through Abraham, to God.  Matthew works forward, starting with Abraham, down through David, to Joseph.  Once you manage to get one of them worked around in the same direction as the other, you'll notice something very peculiar.  From Abraham down to David, everything is perfectly fine and in-sync; no issues.  But after David, things get weird.  Matthew lists Solomon next, while Luke lists Nathan next.  From that point on, they are out of sync (for the most part) until they get to Joseph, at which point both of them remind us that he was not actually Jesus' father.

So what gives?  Why does Matthew list out David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, and so on, while Luke lists out David, Nathan, Mattatha, Menna, Melea, and so on?  Isn't that, you know, wrong?  Well, familiarity with the Kings of early Israel helps, because Matthew is following the royal lineage.  That is, Solomon was the successor to the throne after David, Rehoboam was Solomon's son and successor, etc.  Luke, on the other hand, appears to be following bloodline, as Nathan was one of David's sons, but he never took the throne.  Mattatha, Nathan's son, also never took the throne.  It appears, then, as if Luke is following the actual ancestors of Jesus, while Matthew is following the Davidic promise that the Messiah would be one of the kings of Israel and a son of David.

Now this is where I admit that it seems odd, because the reconciliation is weird, and, honestly, hard to brush aside.  We must admit, if we're honest, that even though there is an answer, it's not a very strong answer.   However, as I noted earlier, it is still an answer, and that is where Dr. Ehrman is mistaken once again.  His claim is that the difference is completely irreconcilable, but that claim isn't true.  There is an answer to the issue, no matter how much of a stretch it may seem.  So I will concede that this represents a difference in the Scriptures, but it is not, by any means, the trump card that disproves the inerrant nature of the Bible.    


Animals on the Ark
Since I have a vested interest in discussing Noah's Flood, I thought I'd address this.  Dr. Ehrman states on page 10 of his book that Genesis 7:2 contradicts Genesis 7:9-10.  The first verse, he tells us, informs the readers that Noah is to take seven pairs of every "clean" animal on the ark.  Verses 9 and 10, he informs us, indicate that Noah only took two pairs of every clean animal on the ark.

Verses 9-10 state no such thing.  Here's what they read in the New International Version, starting in verse 8:  "Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.  And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth."  Nowhere does this state that only two pairs of clean animals came onto the ark.  The word used is pairs.  As in, plural, or more than one.  While it doesn't say two pairs, the point, of course, is that verses 8-10 are simply telling us that the pairs of clean and unclean animals that were supposed to be on the ark were there.  It doesn't need to state how many pairs of each, since it did that in verse 2.

After all, using Dr. Ehrman's logic, we could just as easily assume that verses 8-10 imply that seven pairs of unclean animals came, instead of just the one pair.  Or maybe it meant one hundred pairs.  Or three thousand.  Why, I wonder, does Dr. Ehrman feel the need for verses 8-10 to give us a number, yet again?  I'm not sure, but I have a guess:  I believe that what he is doing is attempting to create an issue where none exists.  He is deliberately creating a contradiction out of thin air.  Of course, this leads once more to the question:  is it ignorance, or dishonesty?


Thessalonica:  Jews or Gentiles?
This is another example of Dr. Ehrman 1) creating a problem that doesn't exist and 2) ignoring Scripture that contradicts his theory.

His issue derives from the fact that, in Acts, Luke tells us that Paul, according to his custom, went to the synagogue first, converted some of the Jewish patrons there, and then went out into the city and brought the Gospel to the gentiles.  In 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Paul writes, "They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God. . . ."  Dr. Ehrman's issue here is that if the church at Thessalonica used to worship idols, they must have all been gentile pagans, and could not, therefore, have been Jewish converts.  He asserts that the church could not have been comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, and that Acts is, therefore, unreliable.

The answer, of course, lies in the text of Acts itself.  Paul was a missionary to the Gentiles, Paul's primary focus was Gentiles, but he started in the Jewish synagogues first.  How does Luke phrase it in Acts?  "According to his custom."  So even though Paul preached to the gentiles most often, he also preached to Jews.  So why, then, is Paul addressing Thessalonians to Gentiles?

While Paul did go to the synagogues first (Acts 17:2), Paul's first converts were not only Jews, but also "many God-fearing Greeks" (Acts 17:4) - these would have been former pagans who had converted to Judaism, and now recognized Jesus as the Messiah.  Paul's description in Thessalonians, then, still fits the situation:  many of them did turn from idols when they converted to Judaism.  But there is another reason Paul would have singled out former pagans:  some time had passed, and the church was now primarily made up of Gentiles.

How do we know some time had passed?  1 Thessalonians tells us.  Notice how Paul uses the past tense to describe their conversions:  "you welcomed the message," "you became a model," "the Lord's message rang out from you" (1: 6,7,8).  The church, in other words, had time to grow, become an example to neighboring churches, and had begun to spread the Gospel on its own.  Dr. Ehrman leaves those verses out of his analysis, however.

Secondly, we also know that Paul's emissaries, sent to the church, had returned and reported back "what kind of reception you gave us [the emissaries]" (1:9).  Travel in those days wasn't quick, and this group of people had managed to go from Corinth (where Paul was) to Thessalonica, stay with them for an appropriate amount of time, and then return back to Corinth.  Not only had the church been around long enough that Paul was able - felt it appropriate - to send a group of people to check on the health of the church and give them the encouragement needed to keep growing, but there had also been enough time for those men to return in order to give their assessment.  Most scholars put the entire time frame between Paul's visit to Thessalonica and the writing of 1 Thessalonians at about a year, and the Biblical text supports that.

So here, according to the Bible, is a timeline:  Paul arrives in Thessalonica, converts Jews and Jewish converts, takes the Gospel to the gentiles in the city, plants a church, and moves on.  A year later, from Corinth, he sends a group of people to check up on the Thessalonian church, they return to Paul, and he writes a letter in which he commends their rapid growth, their shining example, and their missionary efforts.

Why, then, is it strange that he would address his letter, primarily, to Gentiles?   Once more, by ignoring certain passages and verses in the Bible, Dr. Ehrman is creating a problem that doesn't exist.  And, once more, is it ignorance, or dishonesty?

The "Q" Document
Dr. Ehrman spends a great deal of time discussing what is referred to as the "Q" document.  This document is believed to have been a prototype Gospel, which served as the inspiration for Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  While I could spend a great deal of time discussing the merits (and flaws) of this argument, I really only have time to make one point:  there is no Q.  It is all theory, 100% idea, with nothing substantial to prove it.

So when Dr. Ehrman - and many other scholars - say things like, "Mark and Q are our earliest sources" (153), or "Jesus is associated with John the Baptist at the beginning of Mark, at the beginning of Q . . . and at the beginning of John" (153-154), we must bear in mind that scholars do not have a Q document to which they can refer.  They cannot translate it, they cannot study it, they cannot date it, because no such document has ever been uncovered.  Has it ever existed?  I don't know, but it certainly doesn't now.  Such misleading language would have us believe that Mark, Matthew, and Luke did not originate with the people whom we believe wrote them, and it would have us believe that scholars can prove that the Biblical canon was no more inspired than the complete set of Encyclopedia Britannica.  Yet to claim that "Mark and Q are our earliest sources," but neglect to mention that "Q" doesn't exist . . . it's difficult not to assume dishonesty.   


What's the Point of This?
The issues discussed here are far from exhaustive.  As I stated earlier, Dr. Ehrman brings to light many of the "contradictions" he and other scholars have uncovered over the years, but, as I hope I have demonstrated, most of them rely on a mixture of speculation (rather than fact), arbitrary dismissal of texts, and - at times - deception.  I hope that, in reading this and other expert opinions, you will be able to think critically in regards to their arguments.

This book advertises itself as an "intelligent" attempt to discredit the Bible.  Jesus, Interrupted is nothing short of a relentless attack on the very foundations of Christianity, despite the author's claims to the contrary (59; 63).  But what happens when those who discredit the Bible are themselves discredited?

The prophet Isaiah once wrote, "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever" (Isaiah 40:8).  The foundations of Christianity depend on the accuracy of the Bible, because they depend on four important facts:

1) God is holy
2) We have offended God
3) God loves us anyway
4) He proved it and fixed it through Jesus

The Bible reveals all four of these, and Jesus, Interrupted attacked all of them.  Yet its attacks have remained, for the most part, ludicrous attempts at the impossible.  On the contrary, what is happened is the revelation that these "scholars" are oftentimes simply wrong.  Their assertions are founded on little to no evidence; their claims are, at best, ignorant and at worst, outright lies.  Once more, then the Bible endures.  So the questions for you, reader, are this:  do you believe the Bible, or do you still dismiss it?  Do you believe that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, or do you disbelieve?  And if you disbelieve, why?  It is certainly not from an intellectual standpoint, but, like Dr. Ehrman, must stem from either ignorance or dishonesty: you either don't know what the Bible says, or you tell yourself lies in order to continue to worship something other than the Creator.

Ultimately, what I pray I have done here is provide you, the skeptic, with the tools you need to start thinking critically about your own beliefs.  I also pray that I've given you sufficient reason to explore the Bible - not from a standpoint of derision - but of actual learning.  I pray that I have given you the tools to actually study the Bible for what it is:  the Word of God.  Stop lying to yourself, stop pursuing ignorance, and turn to Jesus.  And Dr. Ehrman, on the incredibly small chance that you read this, I would say the same to you, because as long as you're alive, it's not too late.

The Believing Brain

Editor's Note:  This was originally published in August 2013.

July's book for The Debunking Christianity Challenge was Michael Shermer's The Believing Brain:  From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies - How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.  Shermer's relaxed and easygoing style, as well as his knack for making difficult subjects (e.g., neuroscience) accessible to the layman, makes this an enjoyable and entertaining read.   There were several laugh-out-loud moments, and, to be frank, I never thought I'd find fMRI's so interesting.  Now, having said that, Shermer engages in several logical stumbles.

I want to be clear:  Michael Shermer is not an idiot.  He is clearly an intelligent man with a gift for processing information at a level much deeper than most of us could ever dream of achieving, but intelligent men are still men and they are still prone to the same flaws and broken minds with which the rest of us are prone.  Shermer hides behind his science - which we'll address in a moment - in order to cover those flaws, but they are there, nonetheless.

The basic premise, which he states no less than a dozen times, is that we form beliefs first, and then seek out reasons for those beliefs.  He attributes most beliefs, whether they involve religion, aliens, politics, or conspiracy theories, to an emotional response.  He uses, as an example, the idea of a hominid determining whether a rustle in the grass is a predator, or the wind.   This proto-human must decide - quickly - whether to flee or to stay, and in order to do so, must look for patterns that can clue him in to whether or not there is danger.  Shermer calls this technique - looking for patterns - patternicity.  Because it was vital to our survival as we were evolving, he argues, we have retained it in our modern lives, even when it is no longer vital.

And to a degree, he's right.  We do have a natural tendency to try and find patterns:  shapes in clouds, traffic during our commutes to and from work, what foods we feed our toddlers and how that translates into a diaper, stock market behavior . . . in fact, many of our nation's economic advisors rest their theories on trends and patterns.  What he assumes from this, however, is that we always form our beliefs first, and then find patterns to support those beliefs, and this is not always the case.  He is, in fact, overlooking a key component to much of our decision making:  observation.

C.S. Lewis did not emotionally decide to become a Christian one day.  He took years of observing, discussing, reading, and thinking, and even then he very slowly moved from atheism to agnosticism, from agnosticism to a believer in God, and from a believer in God to a follower of Christ.  For Lewis, the decision was not an emotional one until after the fact.

When my wife and I refinanced our home, I did not decide to do it emotionally.  I read the terms, I asked lots of questions, and then, once I had begun to sway to one side, I did more research.  The belief that it was the right thing to do was not formed first, but rather came later.

So it was with my discipleship.  I did not have an emotional moment where I fell to my knees, and have then spent the last decade trying to convince myself that my response was valid.  Rather, I had a season of deep study and reflection.  I had a season of examining what the Bible had to say regarding humanity (it's sinful), and seeing that this, indeed, played out in my life and in the lives of everyone I knew.  I had a season of examining the evidence for and against the Gospels.  I had a season of researching other faiths (not joining them, just learning about them), and of seeing where they fell short.  And it was then, and only then, that I formed my belief that Christ was who he claimed he was, that he did die for my sins, and that he rose again.  It was also then, and only then, that the emotional experience happened.

Yet according to Shermer, this is precisely what is wrong with religion.  A decision based on emotion, rather than rationale and logic, is often times "weird" - and therefore religions are "weird."  What is interesting about this, though, is that this is the same process used by Shermer to ultimately reject Christianity.

He tells a story of how his college girlfriend was in a terrible car accident that left her paralyzed from the waist down.  He spent that night praying to a God in which he only halfway believed, asking Him to heal her.  His response to God's apparent inactivity is interesting:  

A just and loving God who had the power to heal would surely heal Maureen.  He didn't.  He didn't, I now believe, not because "God works in mysterious ways" or "He has a special plan for Maureen" - the nauseatingly banal comforts believers sometimes offer in such trying and ultimately futile times - but because there is no God (44-45). 

There are two logical stumbles in this revealing text.  The first is that he practices the very same patternicity with which he criticizes all religion.  If faith in God is "weird" because it is based on an emotional response, then wouldn't that make his faith in no God equally as weird?  He formed his belief, after all, because of his hurt, because God didn't do what Michael Shermer asked Him to do.

Which is the second problem.  Shermer ultimately rejects God because God doesn't bend to his will.  Shermer defines God, rather than letting God define Himself.  Shermer decides what God ought to do, rather than allowing God to do what He will.  Shermer defines justice, when it is God Who is justice.


Francis Chan once commented:

"'I wouldn't believe in a God who would' . . . 'Who would,' what?  Do something that you wouldn't do, or think in a way that's different from the way you think?  Do you ever even consider the possibility that maybe the Creator's sense of justice is actually more developed than yours, and that maybe His love and His mercy are perfect, and that you could be the one that is flawed?  See, when we make statements like, 'Well God wouldn't do this, would He?' do you understand that at that moment you're actually putting God's actions in submission to your reasoning?  You're in essence saying, 'Well God wouldn't think that way or act that way because I wouldn't act that way or think that way.'"  

I do not say this to make light of the situation.  I do not say this because I believe that Maureen was a terrible person who got what she had coming to her.  But I do believe that we are all - including Maureen - sinners, and that God owes us nothing.  He gave us a planet.  He gave us trees that bear fruit, He gave us animals which provide meat, He gave us life, and, most importantly, He gave us His Spirit, which is the greatest need of all.  God owes us nothing, but He gives us everything.  He gave Michael Shermer a "sweet, loving, smart, responsible, devoted, caring spirit" (44) in the person of Maureen.  He did not owe Shermer this, but He gave it.  What Shermer has done, in essence then, is thrown an adult temper tantrum.  "But I WANT HER HEALED!"  And now he has spent the rest of his life pouting.

How does Shermer defend his patternicity?  Science.  And yet, to reject something because it doesn't do what you think it should is bad science, which is, ultimately, where Shermer stumbles the most.  Michael Shermer believes with everything in his body that science is the key to figuring out when our patternicities are right, and when they are wrong (2).  For example, near-death-experiences (NDE's) aren't real, because science has proven that the components (a feeling of floating, bright lights, tunnels, etc.) are caused when the brain is deprived of oxygen and begins to shut down (152-153), and therefore, he argues, there is no afterlife.

Shermer believes science has proven there is no afterlife, yet this is not a logical step.  Science has proven that NDE's are not a transition into the afterlife, perhaps.  I can agree with that, because the evidence is fairly clear, but that does not prove (or disprove) the afterlife at all.  In fact, science can't prove (or disprove) the afterlife, because we would have to go into the afterlife to see whether or not it exists.  The afterlife happens . . . after life.  NDE's happen . . . near death, not after death.  NDE's are, therefore, not the same thing as the afterlife.  They simply aren't.  To disprove a near-death-experience does nothing for the other.

"Supernatural" beings can't exist, Shermer argues, because the brain, when under duress, produces vivid hallucinations.  Mountain climbers often experience a strange "presence" hanging about, and science has determined that it has to do with the climate, altitude, and deep fatigue.  Shermer makes the assumption, then, that science has "proven" there is no supernatural.  Yet again, this is not a logical step.  A climber, in the subzero, high-altitude terrain of the Himalayas is likely to hallucinate.  But does that mean that all such encounters are matters of the brain?  What of the encounters with lucid individuals who are not climbing the Himalayas, biking cross-country in six days, or waking up at two in the morning, still halfway asleep?  What of a shepherd who stumbles upon a bush that speaks?  Moses wasn't under great mental strain, nor was he in an extreme climate or an oxygen-deprived altitude.  So what, then, caused him to "hallucinate," and become so convinced that he would go on to face one of the most powerful men in the world?  How does science, I wonder, explain that?

Yet for Michael Shermer, science is the key to understanding life.  He describes science in this way:

"It is time to step out of our evolutionary heritage and our historical traditions and embrace science as the best tool ever devised for explaining how the world works . . . science and the secular Enlightenment values expressed in Western democracies are our best hope for survival" (186-187). 

In other words, science can solve our problems and answer most (if not all) of our questions.  In other words, this self-proclaimed skeptic (someone who is an agnostic in theory but an atheist in practice) actually does believe in a god, he just calls his god "Science."  He admits it's "flawed" (187), but it still remains our "best hope."

I'm not certain a flawed god whom I can control is a god I'd like.  I've caused three car accidents in ten years, Mexican food causes me issues, and my pancreas doesn't work . . . do I really need to be in charge of God?  More than that, how can I trust a god who is, admittedly, flawed, as Shermer's god is?

There are several other illogical assumptions and leaps that Shermer makes throughout the book, but I've highlighted the big ones.  As I said at the beginning, it's an entertaining book, and he is certainly not an intellectual slouch.  The fact remains, however, that his basic premise is certainly true sometimes, but not always.  And hope for humanity can't come from within, because broken things can't fix themselves.


  

"I Hate Christianity"

I've spent some time perusing atheist and anti-Christian boards, because sometimes that's the easiest way to see where we've failed as a Church.  And to be honest, it doesn't take long to see where we've failed.  Over and over, time and time again, I watch "Christians" attack athiests for their beliefs.  Here are just a few things I've seen so-called Christians say when atheists express their disdain for us:

"I believe in free speech, but this is too far!  How dare you blaspheme my god!" [yes, it was a lowercase "g"].

"Hollywood has a Satanic agenda to brainwash our kids!  As Christians, we have to say enough!" [I'm assuming this person meant "we have to say 'enough is enough'"].

And my personal favorite:

"REPENT OR BURNWHICHIS WAHT U DSERVVE!!" [Love the spelling on that one . . . real classy].

So when I hear atheists say that Christians are morons, I can see why they would say that.  When they call Christians judgmental, I can see why they would say that.  When they call Christians hypocritical, I can see why they would say that.

What we as Christians seem to be doing is holding sinners to a higher standard than we hold ourselves.  We worship the idol of money, and criticize them for not worshiping anything.  We ask them to tone down the sexuality on television, but we keep our lusts and emotional adulteries in the back of our minds, just within easy reach.  We expect them not to blaspheme a God in Whom they don't even believe.  Well, from their perspective, they're not blaspheming - you can't insult something you don't think is there.

The justification we use, of course, is that they attack us all the time.  And that's true.  Full-out persecution of the Church still goes on in much of the world - and I mean executions of Christians.  There are people out there on message boards who quite literally want all Christians wiped off the face of the planet.  I read that, though, and rather than get angry at them, I just get sad.  I get sad because it means they've been mistreated by the Church at some point in time.  I get sad because it means they've never had an example of an actual disciple of Christ - all they've ever known are nominal Christians.  I get sad because they themselves have been attacked by people who should be filled with compassion.

Why has this happened?  How have we become so un-Christlike?  I think it happens because we forget who the enemy is.  Our enemy is not the atheist who lives next door.  Our enemy is not the sinner at our job.  Our enemy is not Hollywood.  Our enemy is Satan, and - pay attention! - we are not supposed to fight him.  Satan loses in the end, and we have nothing to do with it.  Christ defeated sin and death . . . and He will defeat Satan.

Our job is a rescue operation, not an offensive.  Our job is to show the POW's the way out, not shoot them in the head.  And while - sadly - many of them have developed a "spiritual Stockholm's syndrome" and refuse to be rescued, our job is still not to attack.  Our job is to point to Christ, rather than morals; the Cross, rather than the Law.

People will attack us - Christ made that very clear.  But maybe we should stop giving them extra reasons.       

The Lost World

"Everyone knows something's gone wrong in the universe. This is not a debatable statement. The most hardened, atheistic, agnostic, maybe hyper-spiritual but not dialed-in person will freely admit something's broken with us. Alright? The whole reason Oprah Winfrey has a channel is because she's able to go, 'Hey, something's wrong. Let me tell you how to fix it.'"
-Matt Chandler


To me, the above statement seems obvious, but there are actually many people who simply believe that humanity isn't really that bad.  Maybe you're one of them.  If that's the case, then please don't take offense at what I'm about to say, because it isn't done maliciously; it's meant as a loving reproach, okay?

You're wrong.

Let me lay out a couple of numbers for you.  These come from the Bureau of Justice, the National Drug Rehabilitation Center, The Census Bureau, Alcoholics Anonymous, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.


-At the end of 2011, there were almost 7 million people incarcerated for various crimes.
Mind you, these are only the people who have been caught and convicted.

-From 2010-2011, there were more than 7.1 million violent crimes (including armed and unarmed violence, as well as sexual assault). 
That would, in fact, be more violent crimes than we have criminals in jail.

-In 2009, an estimated 21.8 million people were using some form of illegal (or illegally obtained) drug, with more than 250,000 using heroin, and more than 241,000 using either form of cocaine.
While cocaine use has gone down, heroin use has gone up. 

-In 2011, states had, on average, more than 400,000 moving-violation-related offenses.
These include running red lights, speeding, following too closely, etc.  That is, give or take, 2,000,000 moving violations in 2011. 

-In 2011, more than 32,000 people died in alcohol-related car accidents.
That's just the number of people who died, not the total number of people who drove impaired.

-To date, there are more than 2,000,000 members in Alcoholics Anonymous
Those are just the ones who have admitted to having a problem.

-In 2009, the national divorce rate was almost 52%.
This one is a little tricky, because not all divorces are bad; sometimes a divorce is necessary just to save a life. However, whether the divorce itself is good or bad, it occurs because one or both parties in the marriage are broken.

Now, keep in mind that all of these numbers are for the U.S. alone, and don't include statistics from anywhere else. 

Seven million people incarcerated, but three times as many addicted to drugs. 

Seven million people incarcerated, but we could more than double that number if we added everyone who committed a violent crime during 2010 alone. 

More than half of marriages fail, and there appears to be a severe drinking problem in our society.

And no one seems to think that the driving rules apply to them.

Something is radically wrong in our society.  Especially when we add in the small-scale problems that people cause.  The jerk at work who threw you under the bus so he could get the promotion you deserved?  The neighbor that constantly steals your Sunday paper? 

And we haven't even mentioned telemarketers yet (Ouch!  Sorry!). 

People are broken.  We can paint a rose-colored picture about the indomitable spirit of humanity.  We can talk about the evolutionary theory that states we are constantly improving.  We can gloss over the fact that the two most horrific wars in human history happened in the last 100 years. 

But it's a lie.  We aren't getting better.  Some even believe we're getting worse.

Think about it this way:  there are two (basic) views to the history of mankind.  Some believe we've only been on the earth for about six thousand year, while others believe we have been on the earth for roughly 200,000 years (in our modern anatomical form, but it's longer if you count the evolution from single-celled organisms up to today).  Six thousand years is a long time to work on getting it right.  Two-hundred thousand is even longer. 

So what's the solution?  Well, a car can't fix itself; it needs someone who can think around its problems and reach in there and make necessary repairs. 

Computers can't fix themselves, but need someone to go in and fix the problem.  Even when a computer runs a self-diagnostic test, it can only go as far as its programming will allow.

Homes don't repair themselves, but need carpenters, plumbers, and electricians to go in and provide the solutions.  

Every problem requires someone who is outside - and greater than - the system.  Every problem requires someone who knows the system better than it knows itself, and who knows and can see the big picture.

Including us.

But what do we do?  We trust in a government to fix our problems - a government made up of broken people like ourselves.  We go to better schools, get more degrees - from professors and instructors who are broken people like ourselves.  These are not what we need, because they're inside this broken system, too.  We need someone outside of us, someone greater than us, someone smarter than us, and someone who can see the bigger picture.

We need Jesus.

This isn't, as it may seem, a matter of religion or faith; it's just common sense.  We trust the repair of every other system in life to someone outside of it.  But somehow we - we who are broken - think that we can find the answers within ourselves.  The author Frank Peretti once put it this way:  "If you're searching for answers, don't search within yourself; you're the one who's confused!"  We don't pull over on the side of the road and ask ourselves for directions when we're lost. 

So let's stop asking ourselves for directions.  Let's stop this game of thinking we can fix our own hang-ups, that we can solve our own issues, and that we can somehow better ourselves enough to transcend societal problems.  Let's turn to the Mechanic who knows us better than we know ourselves.