Peter Kirby

I am looking for any and all comments on this review. Thanks for reading, and thank you even more for replying!

Gary R. Habermas has written _The Historical Jesus : Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ_ (College Press: Joplin, MI 1996). Review written by Peter Kirby, May 2002.

A review by Dennis Ingolfsland can be found here:

<a href="http://www.jesusarchive.com/books_reviews_Habermas.html" target="_blank">http://www.jesusarchive.com/books_reviews_Habermas.html</a>

A review by the internet writer named the Venerable Bede can be found here:

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/books,biblical.htm#4" target="_blank">http://www.bede.org.uk/books,biblical.htm#4</a>

Amazon.com reader reviews can be found here:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0899007325" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0899007325</a>

THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK AND THE REVIEW

From the title of the book, one might expect to find a book-length refutation of the Christ Myth hypothesis and an exposition of the evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, one which does not necessarily conclude that Jesus performed miracles, rose from the dead, was divine, etc.

Here is the words of Habermas himself on the purpose of the book (pp. 9-10): "Earlier volumes have dealt with the failure of naturalistic theories to provide an alternative account of the resurrection data, an initial work on the sources for the life of the historical Jesus, an apologetic from the resurrection to Christian theism as a whole, a public debate on this subject, and two books on the enigmatic Shroud of Turin. A forthcoming text maintains that this event [the Resurrection] is the center of both Christian theology and practice. The present volume is another puzzle piece in the overall topic, but a piece that can stand alone in producing a crucially significant element in the total case for the resurrection."

It is clear that Habermas is not content in arguing merely that there was some historical Jesus, although Habermas does mount such an argument in some portions of the book. The mere acceptence of the historicity of Jesus is not sufficient, as Habermas seeks to convince the reader of the resurrection of Jesus and, ultimately, of the truth of Christian faith. It is the intent of this review to show that Habermas fails to meet this objective.

THE MODERN QUEST OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS

The first chapter is a fair account of the quest for the historical Jesus. The outline given be Habermas is similar to the one that I have read in other books, and about it I have no quibble.

DID JESUS EVER LIVE?

In the second chapter, there is a discussion of the views of G. A. Wells and Michael Martin on the historicity of Jesus. Although I am not in full agreement with either Wells or Martin on this point, I did find some material in this chapter on which I would like to comment.

On p. 30, Habermas writes, "This confession [in 1 Cor 15] links the historical life of Jesus, and the central Christian message of the gospel, in particular (vv. 3-4), with those eyewitnesses who testified to his resurrection appearances, beginning on the third day after his death (vv. 5-7)." However, Wells does not dispute that these appearances happened and were recent Christian history. Wells disputes that the appearances were believed to had begun on the third day after the death of Jesus. Habermas simply assumes that it is correct to think that Paul links the appearances with the 'third day'.

Habermas notes only two points in Paul that count against the interpretation of Wells: the reference to "the brother of the Lord" in Galatians and the supposed temporal sequence in the First Corinthians creed. Habermas says (p. 32): "For reasons such as these, New Testament scholars, with virtually no exceptions, recognize the clear meaning of the texts that indicate that Jesus was a contemporary of Paul and the other apostles, having lived recently." But with only these two arguments, is the evidence really so clear as Habermas would make it out to be?

On the matter of Gal 1:19, Habermas writes (p. 32): "Further, all four Gospel writers did not hesitate to speak of Jesus' brothers in the clear context of his physical family. Whether these four volumes were written later or not, they all agree against Wells' position. Additionally, the ancient historian Josephus calls James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.' This is certainly not a reference to any Jerusalem faction of believers (see discussion below)! Lastly, there is no ancient evidence at all that supports Wells' position, not to mention the sense one gets of special pleading."

Wells regards the reference in Ant. 20.200 as interpolated, and Habermas does not refute that position here. Noteworthy, however, is the fact that there is a little ancient evidence to support the reading of Paul made by Wells. Origen writes: "Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine." (Contra Celsum 1.47) While Origen certainly believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, this does show that an ancient Christian could understand the "brother of the Lord" reference in a different way.

Habermas writes (p. 33): "Paul's use of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. reveals that the proclamation of Jesus' death and resurrection was both early and dependent on the reports of _eyewitness_ testimony." But how do we know that the creed is not a foundation myth, as has been proposed by Burton Mack?

Habermas claims (p. 34): "Even more persuasively, there is no known case of a mythical deity in the mystery religions where we have both clear and early evidence that a resurrection was taught prior to the late second century AD, obviously much later than the Christian message. Whether or not the mystery religions borrowed this aspect from Christianity is not the issue. Rather, it would appear fruitless to charge that the earliest believers were inspired by such later teachings." I don't know whether or not this claim has any truth to it. Perhaps one of the readers of this review could tell me?

On p. 35, Habermas writes: "A fourth major problem in Wells' thesis is his late-dating of the Gospels, in conjunction with his belief that no New Testament source prior to AD 90 links the death of Jesus with Pilate. Such dates for the Gospels may have been popular in the nineteenth century, but are abandoned today by the vast majority of critical scholars, and for good reason." Unfortunately, Habermas never explains what that "good reason" is, as Habermas is content to commit the argumentum ad novitatem and argumentum ad populum fallacies. Habermas even admits that it is a fallacy to appeal to the majority but does it anyway. He says (pp. 35-36): "Of course, the issue here is not a battle of how many scholars hold these positions, but the reason behind their views. Still, if the majority of contemporary scholars is correct over against Wells' position on the dating of the Gospels, then Wells' assertion that the New Testament does not link Jesus to Pilate prior to AD 90 is also in error."

Habermas writes (p. 36): "Here we must ask why would the Gospels all agree in this choice of names, even if Pilate did fit the description? Would Herod not be an even better choice?" On this, it should be noted that the Gospels were not all written independently and should not be taken as four different witnesses; some depended on others. Interestingly, Price writes (_Deconstructing Jesus_, p. 249): "Even greater doubt is thrown on the matter by the parallel tradition [to crucifixion by Pilate], still extant but just barely, that Jesus was executed under Herod Antipas! The Gospel of Peter has Herod consult with Pilate but see to the execution itself. And, as Alfred Loisy pointed out long ago, Luke seems to have had access to a version of the Passion in which it was Herod who had Jesus killed, not Pilate. This becomes evident when one examines Luke's cumbersome and improbable sequence involving Jesus being tried before Pilate, then Herod Antipas, then Pilate again. No one has ever come up with a plausible reason for Pilate remanding Jesus to Antipas, as Luke has him do. Once Jesus gets to HErod's court, it is Herod's troops who mock him, not Pilate's as in the other gospels, implying that Luke was trying to harmonize the Markan Pilate-Passion with another set in Herod's court and had to choose between mockings. The most flagrant mark of indelicate editing is Herod's acquittal of Jesus - then sending him back to Pilate! It is clear Luke must have had one Passion story in front of him, Mark's, in which Pilate ordered Jesus' execution, and another, like that in the Gospel of Peter, in which it was Herod Antipas who condemned him." Price concludes: "If either Herod or Pilate had recently executed him, how could any belief about the involvement of the other have come about? But, on the other hand, if both were merely educated guesses as to who killed Jesus, we can easily see how the confusion arose."

Habermas writes (p. 40): "Taking these declarations fairly and in a straightforward manner, there are several indications that Paul unquestionably thought of a direct chain from Jesus to the present." Again, however, Habermas has only indicated two: the supposed temporal sequence in the First Corinthians creed and the reference to James in Galatians.

On p. 41, Habermas claims that "the testimony of all four Gospel writers" is against reading the "brother of the Lord" reference in Gal 1:19 in the way that Wells does. In fact, however, the Gospel of John never so much as mentions the name James.

Habermas places an awful lot of weight on just one reference. Habermas writes (p. 41): "One gets the distinct impression in reading the dubious interpretations of Wells and Martin that the point is not to fairly explain Paul's meaning, but to say anything in order to avoid the clear meaning of the texts. The reason in this instance is plain. If James is the actual brother of Jesus, then this defeats the supposition that Jesus could have lived much earlier and still be believed by early Christians to have appeared in the first century. But the sense of special pleading here is strong."

Habermas writes (p. 42): "He [Martin] declares that 'Mark was not mentioned by other authors until the middle of the second century.' Yet he does not discuss the important mention by Papias, usually placed about 25 years earlier, linking this gospel to the apostle Peter." On the other hand, Papias may be dated approximately 130 CE, which would be the beginning of the middle of the second century, just as Martin says.

On p. 43, Habermas writes: "However, citations of the sayings of Jesus found in all three synoptic Gospels are found in Clement, while Ignatius cites a text on the resurrection appearance of Jesus found in Luke." On the matter of First Clement, the document itself asks the reader to "remember" the words of Jesus and gives the impression that this is remembrance of oral tradition. And Edouard Massaux argues that Ignatius is not dependent on Luke in _The influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian literature before Saint Irenaeus_. Habermas also says that Martin's dating of Polycarp to 120-135 is "much later than most others would place him" without citing any authorities or specifying how much later is "much later."

I will note again that I am not advocating for a Christ Myth hypothesis in this review. Rather, I have simply found the reply of Habermas to Wells and Martin to be less than satisfactory on some points.

LIMITATIONS AND REINTERPRETATIONS

Chapter 3 is titled "Limitations on the Historical Jesus," and chapter 4 is titled "Reinterpretations of the Historical Jesus."

The third chapter starts (p. 37), "While few scholars doubt that Jesus ever lived, several approaches have been popular over the years that propose to limit what we can know about the historical Jesus."

Phrased that way, I wonder what the controversy is about. We certainly must limit statements on what we know about the historical Jesus. For example, we do not know what he looked like, for there are no descriptions of his appearance in any early gospel. What I think that Habermas objects to is one of two theses: (1) We can know almost nothing about the historical Jesus, or (2) We can't accept everything in the four gospels as true.

If Habermas takes exception to (2), he would be quite uncritical to do so. There is no historical approach that would require that we accept every word in an ancient document as being absolutely true. So for the moment I will give Habermas the benefit of the doubt and say that Habermas does not intend to dispute the historical-critical and common-sense notion that we can't assume everything in the gospels to be true.

So the objection by Habermas should be to (1) and not (2). However, if (2) is true, then to know anything about the historical Jesus, we will need to develop a method or methods by which we can isolate historical material in partially errant documents. So I would expect Habermas to tackle the position that we can't know anything about the historical Jesus by presenting the criteria by which we can determine some things to be true about the historical Jesus.

However, on p. 59, Habermas objects to "picking and choosing" parts of the gospel narrative as true, and on p. 83, Habermas says flatly that "there are no grounds of distinction between Jesus and the Gospels." So it appears that Habermas does not think that we can determine that only parts of the gospels are demonstrably historical; for Habermas, it is all or nothing. And because Habermas obviously does not agree with those who think that nothing can be known about Jesus, it seems that I can no longer give the benefit of the doubt to Habermas and that I must recognize that Habermas is arguing for the complete, total, and absolute inerrancy of the four canonical gospels.

Typically, I do not involve myself in errancy disputes, as the level of evidence that is required by the inerrantist for the demonstration of an error or contradiction is higher than would be required by any normal canon of inquiry; in other words, inerrantists are impervious to evidence. So I will simply point out that Habermas appears to be defending the position of inerrancy and proceed with my review.

Habermas objects to the position of Bultmann, at least in his early years, that little can be known about Jesus. The first objection raised by Habermas is purely theological: without a historical grounding, there is little to persuade and retain people of the Christian faith. It would appear that Habermas claims that there is a historical grounding for the Christian faith at least in part for the reason that such a claim might help make or keep Christians.

Habermas also objects to the position of Bultmann on the resurrection because, according to Habermas, Bultmann is committed to an "a priori" rejection of the miraculous. I think that the reasons of Bultmann for regarding the resurrection as an event that is not objective-historical involve more than that. Bultmann is a fideist, and Bultmann regards the use of a historical apologetic for the resurrection a grave error, as it would make the Christian faith subject to the vicissitudes of historical criticism. Habermas writes (p. 51): "This is a crucial critique, because it just might be the case that the historical facts are enough to demonstrate the resurrection, but that Bultmann simply ignores what could provide an excellent basis for the Christian faith." Bultmann is far-sighted in that he realizes that, although a historical apologetic could be mounted for the resurrection, faith then becomes contingent on the decisions of historians. And if someone decides that the historical facts do not conform to the apologist's claims, that faith is destroyed. Indeed, Bultmann might say it was already destroyed when historical evidence was substituted for actual faith. Of course, like the previous objection of Habermas, this is a theological and not a historical argument.

Habermas finally comes to a historical objection in his third point, that using form criticism to argue that nothing can be known about the historical Jesus is faulty historiography. Of course, I find it a little odd for someone who holds to an all-or-nothing approach to the four gospels to be giving lessons in historiography. In any case, I agree with Habermas that form criticism alone does not preclude us from having any knowledge of a historical Jesus. Form criticism might determine a setting-in-life for a saying, but that does not prove that the saying did not have existence before that setting-in-life; and even so, there are many sayings that have a plausible setting in the life of a historical Jesus. Of course, since Habermas has not revealed his methodology (other than 'if it is in the gospels, believe it'), we cannot conclude that we can know a significant amount about the historical Jesus. It is simply not decided at this point.

The last of four objections by Habermas to those who think we know little about Jesus is the textual attestation for the New Testament. This is just a red herring; nobody involved in this argument said that the text of the New Testament was in great doubt.

Habermas claims (p. 57): "Many other criticisms could be added to the list, contrary to efforts that minimize the historical facts in the life of Jesus." One wonders how sound the criticisms are that weren't seen, based on the quality of the four criticisms that were published by Habermas.

Habermas goes on to reveal that he relishes in writing the phrase "a priori." I count it five times in just two pages (pp. 58-59). However, Habermas does not reveal that he knows what the phrase means in the philosophical sense. An argument is termed "a priori" if it proceeds by deduction from premises that do not requre appeal to sense data. An "a priori" argument is not necessarily bad; after all, mathematics is entirely "a priori" in nature. Arguments that specific miracle-claims are improbable are not "a priori." Such arguments are "a posteriori" because they reason from particular facts about the world. In particular, such arguments make use of the inductive method, on which all thinking people rely. The reader may be interested in reading what I have written on "Naturalist Inquiry" available here:

<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/philo/natural.html" target="_blank">http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/philo/natural.html</a>

Habermas writes (p. 59): "Then if miracles cannot be rejected without an investigation, on what grounds can we accept part of the Gospel record and reject part of it? Such picking and choosing seems arbitrary unless there is some objective criterion for determining such a practice."

There is an objective criterion. Claims that appear to contravene natural regularities should not be accepted on the basis of hearsay evidence. Since the authors of the gospels are not known, the gospels are to be classed as hearsay evidence, and nothing recorded in them should suffice to establish a claim that is contrary to our own personal and collective experiences. Not only is this an objective practice, it is also common sense that we shouldn't believe every fantastic claim that we may hear or read about.

On p. 66, Habermas claims that Jesus may not have been newsworthy to contemporary writers. I suggest that Jesus would have been newsworthy if his death were accompanied by a global darkness, resurrection of saints, and other occurences claimed to have happened in the canonical gospels.

In chapter four, titled "Reinterpretations of the Historical Jesus," Habermas seems to focus on those reinterpretations of the historical Jesus that are easy to shoot down. So Habermas discusses the swoon theory, the theory that Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness, and the theory that Jesus spent his 'lost years' in Japan. The present author does not have any more sympathy for these theories than Gary Habermas does. But one wonders whether Habermas focused on these theories so that he can attempt to portray interpretations of the historical Jesus other than the 'Gospel Jesus' to be outlandish and hopelessly speculative. Habermas could certainly have given a better sense of scholarly opposition to the 'the historical Jesus is the Gospel Jesus' theory.

Nevertheless, Habermas still manages to make some less than cogent observations in the refutation of these fringe theories. For example, Habermas writes, "The gospel writer probably never understood the medical significance of what he recorded, for which eyewitness testimony is claimed (John 19:34-35)." But what about the theological significance? The NAB note says, "In the blood and water there may also be a symbolic reference to the Eucharist and baptism." And what do we find in the First Epistle of John? "This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood." So there was an obvious symbolism to the water and the blood to the Johannine community. For this reason, the account should be regarded with suspicion, even if it is medically possible.

On p. 79, Habermas writes: "According to Josephus, the Essenes taught the immortality of the soul, in contrast to the Christian teaching of the resurrection of the body." On the other hand, according to parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes did indeed believe in the resurrection of the body. Perhaps Josephus has hellenized the Essenes in his description of their beliefs.

Habermas argues (p. 85): "By these means, then, Paul does teach the deity of Jesus. This is not a doctrine added by unscrupulous Christians from Rome, but a teaching of Jesus himself and of Paul." There is apparently a mistake here. At the most, Habermas has shown that Paul taught the deity of Jesus, not that Jesus himself had such a teaching.

Habermas writes (p. 88): "Paul also agreed with Jesus as to the nature of the gospel. Both taught that men are sinners (Mark 3:38; Rom 3:23; 6:23) and that Jesus died, with his shed blood providng atonement for that sin (Matt. 26:28; Mark 10:45; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 5:8)." Habermas continues like this for several points, but he is apparently oblivious to the possibility that Paul influenced the writers of the gospels.

Habermas writes (p. 88): "Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13-14). Jesus also taught the disciples to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Matt. 28:19-20; Luke 24:27; John 10:16; Acts 1:8) and that non-Jews would be found in the Kingdom of God (Matt. 8:11-12; John 17:20). These teachings are actually the fulfillment of Old Testament promises (Gen. 12:3; Isa. 19:18-25), not a new doctrine."

Here are the Old Testament passages in question. I will let the reader decide whether or not they have been properly represented.

Gen. 12:3. "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." (Darby)

Isaiah 19 (Darby)
18 In that day shall there be five cities in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan, and swearing by Jehovah of hosts: one shall be called, The city of Heres.
19 In that day shall there be an altar to Jehovah in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to Jehovah:
20 and it shall be for a sign and for a witness to Jehovah of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they shall cry unto Jehovah because of the oppressors, and he will send them a saviour and defender, who shall deliver them.
21 And Jehovah shall be known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians shall know Jehovah in that day, and shall serve with sacrifice and oblation; and they shall vow a vow unto Jehovah, and perform it.
22 And Jehovah will smite Egypt; he will smite and heal: and they shall return to Jehovah, and he will be entreated of them, and will heal them.
23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria; and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria; and Egypt shall serve with Assyria.
24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth;
25 whom Jehovah of hosts will bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance!

Habermas states (p. 88): "Paul's epistles were accepted as Scripture immediately after being written (2 Pet. 3:15-16; Clement of Rome; Ignatius and Polycarp)." Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp do not explicitly refer to the letters of Paul as being "scripture," although they do refer to the letters of Paul. The claim that Paul's epistles were taken to be scriptures immediately after being written could only be sustained if Second Peter were authentic. This is widely discredited; consequently, Habermas' claim cannot stand.

Habermas declares (p. 92): "First, in our earlier discussions we determined that the New Testament, and the Gospels in particular, are authentic and trustworthy documents for the life and teachings of Jesus." On the contrary, we have determined nothing of the sort.

THE NEW GNOSTICISM

"The New Gnosticism" is the title Habermas gives to the fifth chapter. The implication is that some people are attempting to revive the Gnosticism of old. This is true, as some people are. However, not every scholar who writes on the subject of Gnosticism should be regarded as some kind of neo-Gnostic. It is possible to consider Gnosticism to be an early and important part of Christianity without holding it to be true. Indeed, part of the emphasis in Gnostic studies has been the deconstruction of the patristic concept that earlier means apostolic and that apostolic means true. To someone that still thinks in terms of orthodoxy as the original faith and heresy as a deviation, it is an easy mistake to think of someone who writes on the importance of Gnosticism in early Christianity as someone who advocates for a revival of Gnosticism. But it is still a mistake.

Habermas writes (p. 106): "While the earliest Gnostic Gospels are perhaps dated from about AD 140-200 (see the comments below on the Gospel of Thomas), the canonical Gospels may be dated from AD 65-100, a difference of 75-100 years earlier on the average." No argument whatsoever is offered for this dating of the canonical Gospels, even though Habermas views this dating as a critical part of his case. Neither is any discussion made of non-canonical gospels other than the Gospel of Thomas. Habermas continues (p. 106): "Even though these Gnostic texts possibly include earlier material, the Gospels certainly include traditions that predate their writing." What is it about the canonical Gospels that makes it certain that they contain pre-existing traditions that is absent in the Gnostic texts?

Habermas claims (p. 107): "The very fact that the canonical Gospels were written decades earlier is at least a preliminary indication that they could possibly also be more authoritative." When Habermas uses the word "authoritative," I get the impression that he is not restricting himself to matters of history but is extending it to the authority of the text in the matters of faith and morals. But why should an earlier text be considered more authoritative in this sense?

Habermas quotes J. A. Fitzmyer as saying that there was "a good century of Christian existence in which those 'Gnostic Christians' were simply not around." What is the basis for this claim? None is offered for the reader of Habermas's book.

On p. 108, Habermas summarizes A. M. Hunter as follows (_Bible and Gospels_, pp. 32-37):

----
(1) The earliest Christians were meticulous in preserving the tradition of Jesus' word and life.
(2) The Gospel writers were close to the eyewitnesses and pursued the facts about Jesus.
(3) There are indications that these authors were honest reporters.
(4) The overall composite of Jesus as presented in the four Gospels is essentially the same.
----

Unfortunately, I do not have access to Hunter's book, and so I am not able to evaluate the evidence that Hunter adduces for his claims. I would have preferred if Habermas expanded on this evidence in his own book, as the question of the reliability of the four Gospels is no minor point in his presentation.

Habermas writes (p. 110): "In 1 Timothy 5:18 two statements are termed 'Scripture.' The first is ound in Deuteronomy 25:4, one of the Jews' most sacred Old Testament books. The second teaching is found in Luke 10:7 (compare Matt. 10:10), and recites the words of Jesus. By placing a text in Deuteronomy alongside a statement by Jesus, and referring to both of them as Scripture, we have an indication of the early realization that Jesus' teachings were to be viewed in some sense as being authoritative or canonical."

Habermas continues (p. 110): "A major question here concerns whether citations such as the one in 1 Timothy 5:18 (as well as many others in the early church) make reference to the remembered _oral_ teachings of Jesus (perhaps in early written form) or to the Gospels themselves. We will return to this issue later. We will just note here that at least we are presented with the possibility that it was the Gospel text of Luke itself which was being cited. If so, such could be an implicit recognition of the principle that texts which authoritatively recount the life of Jesus could at least potentially be viewed as Scripture. But even if this is not the case, we will endeavor to indicate that Jesus' oral teachings had already attained a similarly authoritative status."

It is possible that the author of 1 Timothy quoted from the words of the Gospel of Luke as 'scripture'. But it is also possible that the author of 1 Timothy had another text in mind, perhaps the Gospel of Matthew or the hypothetical Q. It is possible that the author of 1 Timothy was referring to a free-floating saying of Jesus, but in this case it is odd for the author to have introduced it was the scriptural formula 'it is written'. It is possible that the author of 1 Timothy only quoted from Deuteronomy as scripture and added the second part, not as an additional quotation from scripture, but rather as his own words, perhaps taken from tradition, as there are no quotation marks or punctuation in ancient Greek. This is a possibility that Habermas does not recognize in the discussion in his book.

Habermas notes that 2 Peter refers to the epistles of Paul, but Habermas neglects to discuss the date of Paul. It is noteworthy that the earliest writers to mention 2 Peter in their extant writings are Clement of Alexandria and Origen, writing in the early third century.

Habermas goes on to mention 1 Clement (p. 111). But the author of 1 Clement refers to the words of Jesus, not to quotes from written gospels. This is therefore useless in determining when the New Testament canon took shape.

Habermas writes (p. 111): "Ignatius, writing seven epistles around AD 110-115 on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom, quoted the statement found in Luke 24:39 as the words of Jesus (Smyrnaeans 3)." On the other hand, although Massaux seems to prefer to find actual literary contacts, Massaux does not see fit to argue for a use of Luke by Ignatius of Antioch (_The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint irenaeus_, pp. 98-9):

----
Looking into literary contacts between Ignatius of Antioch and Lk., Smyrn. 3:2 holds a special place: "For, when He came to those who were with Peter (/pros tous peri petron/), He said to them (/efh autois/): "Take hold on me and handle me (xhlafhsate me/) and see (/cai idete/) that I am not a spirit without a body (/daimonion aswmaton/).' And, as soon as they touched Him and felt His flesh and pulse, they believed." A striking parallel to this narrative is found in Lk. 24:39; "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see (/xhlafhsate me cai idete/); for a spirit has not flesh and bones (/oti pneuma sarca cai ostea ouc ecei/), as you see that I have."

At first reading, a literary influence from the Lukan text can hardly be
excluded. Indeed, in Ignatius as in Lk., it is an apparition of Christ to
the apostles that is reported: (Smyr. /tous peri petron/ and Lk. 24:36
/autwn lalountwn/). Christ's invitation is similar, and both authors use
the same expression /xhlafhsate me cai idete/. Let me add that this twist
in the gospel story is peculiar to Luke.

Yet, the hypothesis of a literary contact raises serious objections.
Eusebius says that he does not know from what source Ignatius has drawn.
St. Jerome states that this passage is drawn from the gospel "quad
appellatur secundum Hebraeos," which he translated into Greek, then into
Latin, and which he was inclined at the time to consider as the original
Mt., although he later speaks less assuredly on this point. In his
commentary on Isaiah, he states again that "incorporale daemonium"
(/daimonion aswmaton/) comes from this source. Finally, Origin, who, just
like Eusebius, knew the gospel in question, relates these words to another
apocrypha, the Doctrina Petri.

Agreement is, therefore, far from unanimous among the ancient authors.
Lightfoot explains this divergence by assuming that Jerome had in his
possession a poor copy of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, while
Eusebius and Origin had the authentic text. However, the nonliteral manner
in which Ignatius uses the texts to which he refers might, perhaps, explain
Eusebius' doubts. All the same, the parallelism between the text of
Ignatius and that of Lk. is striking. Let me note, however, that Ignatius's
typical expression, /daimonion aswmaton/, is absent from Lk. and that the
bishop of Antioch, contrary to his modus operandi, cits a saying of Christ
in direct style. These different remarks make a literary dependency very
doubtful.
----

So it is very doubtful whether Ignatius knew Luke.

Habermas writes (p. 111): "Polycarp also cites sayings found in all of the synoptic Gospels and, again, identifies them as the words of the Lord (2, 7)." Again, however, this does not necessarily attest to the acceptance of the canonical gospels as scripture at the time of Polycarp.

Habermas claims (p. 111): "One interesting note is that several words form the Book of Acts are quoted in the Didache (4; cf. Acts 4:32) . . . such would not be accounted for by any collection of Jesus' sayings. The most likely source is Acts itself."

Here are the relevant parts of Didache and of Acts.

Didache 4.8. Thou shalt not turn away the needy, but shalt share everything with thy brother, *and shalt not say that it is thine own*, for if you are sharers in the imperishable, how much more in the things which perish? (Kirsopp Lake)

Acts 4.32. And the heart and soul of the multitude of those that had believed were one, *and not one said that anything of what he possessed was his own*, but all things were common to them; (Darby)

Didache 4.8. ouk apostrafhsh ton endeomenon, sugkoinwnhseiV de panta tw adelfw sou *kai ouk ereiV idia einai*. ei gar en tw aqanatw koinwnoi este, posw mallon en toiV qnhtoiV;

Acts 4.32. tou de plhqouV twn pisteusantwn hn h kardia kai h yuch mia *kai oud eiV ti twn uparcontwn autw elegen idion einai* all hn autoiV apanta koina

It is readily apparent that a literary connection is not necessary in order to explain the similarity in these two sayings, which could easily have come down to both Didache and Acts through oral tradition.

Habermas writes (p. 111): "The epistle of Barnabas, perhaps dated about AD 135, refers to Jesus' saying in Matthew 22:14 as 'scripture' (4)." This is correct, although the epistle of Barnabas does not say that it is Jesus' saying or that it is found in 'Matthew'. While it is possible that the author thought of Matthew as scripture, it is also possible that the author has in mind another writing with the phrase "many called but few chosen," now lost.

Habermas continues (p. 112): "This is followed by a reference to Jesus' 'Gospel' and a quotation of His words which is found in the synoptics (5)." Here is the reference in Barnabas 5:9: "But when he chose out his own Apostles, who were about to preach his gospel, they were men unrighteous beyond all sin, that he might show that he came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; then made he himself manifest that he was the Son of God." (Hoole) Habermas may lead the reader to think that the reference to the "Gospel" is to a written document, while this is actually a reference to the oral gospel. And the quotation is merely a repetition of the phrase found in the synoptics, not an explicit quote.

Habermas writes (p. 112): "While anything which Papias may have said concerning the Gospels of Luke and John is not extant, a later manuscript summarizes Papias' testimony that John composed his Gospel while he was an elderly man (XIX)." Unfortunately, Habermas does not provide a quote for this, and it is not found in the Roberts-Donaldson collection of Papias' words.

Habermas says (p. 112): "The Didache excerpt from Acts (4) also does not identify the source, yet it is unlikely that it comes from any sayings source both because of its nature and in that it lacks those characteristics." The argument here is vague to the point of non-existence. Habermas does not explain the "nature" of the Didache's words or indicate what "those characteristics" are.

Habermas says that allusions to John can be found in Clement, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr (besides the reference from Papias). In each case, however, it is argued by scholars such as H. Koester that these allusions do not demand a knowledge of the canonical Gospel of John.

Habermas writes (p. 113): "But, additionally, even if most of the citations of Jesus' words are from a sayings source, the earliest post-apostolic authors clearly refer to these statements as inspired and authoritative, on a par with that of the Old Testament." But do these authors really say that the words of Jesus are on a par with the Hebrew Scriptures? The author of 1 Clement, for example, refers to remembering the words of Jesus twice, but this does not imply that the author of 1 Clement thought that these words were on a par with the Hebrew Scriptures.

Habermas states (p. 113): "Besides being called Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16, verses from Paul's epistles are referred to, often as inspired, in Clement's Corinthians (47), Ignatius' Ephesians (10) and To Polycarp (1, 5), as well as in Polycarp's Philippians (1, 3-4, 6, 12). In a few of these passages, Paul's letters as a whole are both discussed and referred to as Scripture." Let us look at the passages in question.

47:1 Take into your hands the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul.
47:2 What did he first write unto you in the beginning of his gospel?
47:3 Of a truth, he warned you spiritually, in a letter, concerning himself, and concerning Cephas and Apollos, because even then there were factions among you;
47:4 but the faction of that time brought less sin upon you; for ye inclined unto Apostles of good repute, and unto a man approved among them.
47:5 But now consider who they are that have perverted you, and have diminished the glory of your famous brotherly love.
47:6 Disgraceful, brethren, yea, very disgraceful is it, and unworthy of the conduct which is in Christ, that it should be reported that the most firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians hath, on account of one or two persons, made sedition against its presbyters.
47:7 And this report came not only unto us, but also unto the Gentiles, who go not with us. So that ye heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord through your folly, and withal cause danger to yourselves. (Hoole)

In this passage, there is no reference to the letters of Paul as being Scripture.

There is no reference to Paul in chapter 10 Ignatius' epistle to the Ephesians, so I suppose that this is meant to be a reference to chapter 12. Here is chapter 12.

12:1 I know who I am and to whom I write. I am a
convict, ye have received mercy: I am in peril, ye are
established.
12:2 Ye are the high-road of those that are on their
way to die unto God. Ye are associates in the
mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained
a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation; in
whose foot-steps I would fain be found treading, when
I shall attain unto God; who in every letter maketh
mention of you in Christ Jesus. (Lightfoot)

Even in this passage, though, there is no reference to the letters of Paul as being Scripture.

Here are chapters 1 and 5 of the epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp.

1:1 Welcoming thy godly mind which is grounded as it
were on an immovable rock, I give exceeding glory that
it hath been vouchsafed me to see thy blameless face,
whereof I would fain have joy in God.
1:2 I exhort thee in the grace wherewith thou art
clothed to press forward in thy course and to exhort
all men that they may be saved. Vindicate thine office
in all diligence of flesh and of spirit. Have a care
for union, than which there is nothing better. Bear
all men, as the Lord also beareth thee. Suffer all men
in love, as also thou doest.
1:3 Give thyself to unceasing prayers. Ask for
larger wisdom than thou hast. Be watchful, and keep
thy spirit from slumbering. Speak to each man
severally after the manner of God. Bear the maladies
of all, as a perfect athlete. Where there is more
toil, there is much gain.

5:1 Flee evil arts, or rather hold thou discourse
about these. Tell my sisters to love the Lord and to
be content with their husbands in flesh and in spirit.
In like manner also charge my brothers in the name of
Jesus Christ to love their wives, as the Lord loved
the Church.
5:2 If any one is able to abide in chastity to the
honour of the flesh of the Lord, let him so abide
without boasting. If he boast, he is lost; and if it be
known beyond the bishop, he is polluted. It becometh
men and women too, when they marry, to unite themselves
with the consent of the bishop, that the marriage may
be after the Lord and not after concupiscence. Let all
things be done to the honour of God. (Lightfoot)

Again, there is no reference to the letters of Paul as being Scripture.

Here are the chapters of Polycarp's Philippians.

Polycarp 1:1
I rejoiced with you greatly in our Lord Jesus Christ, for that ye
received the followers of the true Love and escorted them on their
way, as befitted you--those men encircled in saintly bonds which are
the diadems of them that be truly chosen of God and our Lord;
Polycarp 1:2
and that the steadfast root of your faith which was famed from
primitive times abideth until now and beareth fruit unto our Lord
Jesus Christ, who endured to face even death for our sins, whom God
raised, having loosed the pangs of Hades; on whom,
Polycarp 1:3
though ye saw Him not, ye believe with joy unutterable and full of
glory; unto which joy many desire to enter in; forasmuch as ye know
that it is by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of
God through Jesus Christ.

Polycarp 3:1
These things, brethren, I write unto you concerning righteousness,
not because I laid this charge upon myself, but because ye invited
me.
Polycarp 3:2
For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the
wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you
taught face to face with the men of that day the word which
concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent,
wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye
shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you,
Polycarp 3:3
which is the mother of us all, while hope followeth after and love
goeth before--love toward God and Christ and toward our neighbor. For
if any man be occupied with these, he hath fulfilled the commandment
of righteousness; for he that hath love is far from all sin.

Polycarp 4:1
But the love of money is the beginning of all troubles. Knowing
therefore that we brought nothing into the world neither can we
carry anything out, let us arm ourselves with the armor of
righteousness, and let us teach ourselves first to walk in the
commandment of the Lord;
Polycarp 4:2
and then our wives also, to walk in the faith that hath been given
unto them and in love and purity, cherishing their own husbands in
all truth and loving all men equally in all chastity, and to train
their children in the training of the fear of God.
Polycarp 4:3
Our widows must be sober-minded as touching the faith of the Lord,
making intercession without ceasing for all men, abstaining from all
calumny, evil speaking, false witness, love of money, and every evil
thing, knowing that they are God's altar, and that all sacrifices are
carefully inspected, and nothing escapeth Him either of their
thoughts or intents or any of the secret things of the heart.

Polycarp 6:1
And the presbyters also must be compassionate, merciful towards all
men, turning back the sheep that are gone astray, visiting all the
infirm, not neglecting a widow or an orphan or a poor man: but
providing always for that which is honorable in the sight of God
and of men, abstaining from all anger, respect of persons,
unrighteous judgment, being far from all love of money, not quick to
believe anything against any man, not hasty in judgment, knowing that
we all are debtors of sin.
Polycarp 6:2
If then we entreat the Lord that He would forgive us, we also ought
to forgive: for we are before the eyes of our Lord and God, and we
must all stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, and each man must
give an account of himself.
Polycarp 6:3
Let us therefore so serve Him with fear and all reverence, as He
himself gave commandment and the Apostles who preached the Gospel to
us and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of our Lord;
being zealous as touching that which is good, abstaining from
offenses and from the false brethren and from them that bear the name
of the Lord in hypocrisy, who lead foolish men astray.

Polycarp 12:1
For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in the sacred writings,
and nothing is hidden from you. But to myself this is not granted.
Only, as it is said in these scriptures, Be ye angry and sin not,
and Let not the sun set on your wrath. Blessed is he that
remembereth this; and I trust that this is in you.
Polycarp 12:2
Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal
High-priest Himself the [Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in
faith and truth, and in all gentleness and in all avoidance of wrath
and in forbearance and long suffering and in patient endurance and in
purity; and may He grant unto you a lot and portion among His saints,
and to us with you, and to all that are under heaven, who shall
believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father that
raised him from the dead.
Polycarp 12:3
Pray for all the saints. Pray also for kings and powers and
princes and for them that persecute and hate you and for the
enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest among all
men, that ye may be perfect in Him. (Lightfoot)

Although the author of Philippians thought of Paul as holy and his letters as useful, once again there is no reference to the letters of Paul as being Scripture.

In none of these passages, therefore, are Paul's letters discussed or referred to as Scripture. Habermas is incorrect.

Habermas goes on to mention two writings of the mid second century or later, the Gospel of Truth and the Gospel of Philip. Although I do not know about the Gospel of Philip, I do understand that the Gospel of Truth alludes to most of the writings of the New Testament. It is noteworthy, however, that there are no allusions to the pastoral epistles. If we were to rely on the Gospel of Truth for determining the shape of the canon, therefore, we would have to leave out the pastorals.

On the point that Q and Thomas do not emphasize the death and resurrection of Jesus, Habermas writes (p. 115): "Both of these texts are sayings documents and by far the primary purpose is ot list the purported teachings of Jesus, not his actions or events in his life." But why would a list of sayings be adequate for a Christian document if the death and resurrection were essential to the faith?

Habermas goes on to quote Farmer in order to cast doubt on the existence of Q and to refer to scholars such as Blomberg and Evans in order to argue that Thomas depends on the canonical gospels. It would have been much more satisfactory for Habermas to make his own discussion of these issues than to refer to others on matters that are so controversial. Habermas goes on to quote Fuller in saying that Q presupposes the resurrection "all the way through." An astounding claim, and one for which Habermas presents not a scintilla of evidence. Habermas also says that Paul knew of traditions of the death and resurrection of Jesus. But was Paul's view the only view? That is not shown by Habermas.

THE JESUS SEMINAR AND THE HISTORICAL JESUS

I am not generally a defender of the Jesus Seminar, nor do I agree with everything said by the Fellows, although I do commend them for their attempt to make the fruits of scholarship available to the public. Even though I have no intention of making an apology for the Jesus Seminar, I do have some comments on this chapter of Habermas' book.

On p. 124, Habermas reiterates his objections to an "a priori" rejection of miracles. I refer the reader to my discussion of this point above.

On p. 125, Habermas claims that the Seminar commits the "genetic fallacy," saying the following: "if it is thought that merely attributing a Gospel report to the author's style, or to other ancient parallels, or to a pre-modern mindset thereby explains it away, this is a logical mistake." On the other hand, it should be realized that congeniality to an author for a motif is sufficient for suspicion of the account as other than the unvarnished truth. For while a person's opinion is not wrong once it has been explained how the person came to that opinion, a person's testimony is discredited if the basis of the testimony may likely have been something other than knowledge of the fact.

On p. 126, Habermas writes: "However helpful it may be to report the conclusions of other scholars, neither does this solve the issue unless one also provides reasons why their views are correct. . . . There is no substitute for a careful investigation of the possibilities." The reader of this review will be aware of a few places in which Habermas reports the conclusions of other scholars without providing reasons why their views are correct.

Habermas challenges Crossan's view that Jesus did not receive a tomb burial in pages 127 through 129. Many of the issues raised by Habermas are discussed in my essay "The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated," available here:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/index.shtml</a>

Habermas writes (p. 127): "All four Gospels agree on the basic burial scenario, which potentially provides even further confirmation if these texts are otherwise corroborated." But Habermas should be aware that Crossan argues in an essay from _The Passion in Mark_, ed. Kelber, that all four Gospels depend on the Gospel of Mark for the tomb burial story. If this is so, we are not faced with four independent witnesses but with just one original account.

Habermas writes (p. 127): "On the other hand, no early document dispute these reports." But we should not expect Christians to receive unfavorably the idea that their master received a proper burial. So we should not expect to find an early Christian document that disputes the tomb burial. And we do not find any early non-Christian document at all that discusses the fate of the body of Jesus.

Habermas writes (p. 128): "Also, are we to believe that the Jewish leaders, who had tried for so long to get rid of Jesus, would have paid no attention to his burial?" But, then, Crossan does not believe that the Gospels are correct in saying that the Jewish leaders had plotted for a long time to get rid of Jesus.

Habermas writes (p. 128): "Moreover, Crossan's suggestion that the soldiers would merely have forgotten the location where they buried the body just a few days before is preposterous. They should have remembered where they buried anyone." But, then, Crossan does not believe that people were claiming that Jesus rose from the dead just a few days later. Crossan allows that "Easter" may have taken up to three years after the crucifixion to happen. Habermas writes (p. 128): "After all, might they not be called upon later to evidence the death and burial of this famous insurrectionist?" What an odd assumption that is! Were the soldiers supposed to know that there would be a dispute as to whether a person died? Habermas nearly assumes that the soldiers knew about the resurrection story before it happened.

Habermas writes (p. 128): "Another major factor in favor of Jesus' burial and the empty tomb is that both are actually admitted by the Jewish polemic against the Christian message." But it was common polemical practice to accept the premise of an opponent (the empty tomb) and dispute the conclusion (the resurrection). Part of the reason behind this polemical routine is that ancients generally acknowledged that stories could not be proven to have happened as it is told and thus have to be taken at face value if at all, and most ancients had stories that they wanted to take at face value. To avoid hypocrisy, it was common to allow that the myths of other people had a basis in fact.

Habermas writes (p. 128): "Of course, some may think that the Jewish report of the empty tomb is simply an invention of the early Christians. But such an assertion is question begging; it merely assumes what has not been proven." Apparently, Habermas has forgotten what it means to beg the question, or he has forgotten that the question is whether the empty tomb story is true. It does not beg the question to speculate that the "Jewish report" was made up, because such speculation does not presuppose that there was no empty tomb. It is possible that the "Jewish report" is an invention yet that there was actually an empty tomb of Jesus.

Habermas writes (p. 128): "From a very early date, the pre-Markan passion account points to an empty tomb." Habermas footnotes Craig, but Craig has failed to demonstrate that there was an early pre-Markan passion narrative that contained the story of the empty tomb.

Habermas makes the commonplace observation that women could not give testimony in law courts (in rabbinic law) and thus would be an unlikely choice as the initial witnesses. There are three ways to answer this argument. These involve rejection of the premises that the male disciples could easily have been used by Mark, that a woman's testimony was worthless to Mark's audience, and that the story about the burial and empty tomb serves as an apologetic with the women as witnesses.

In _The Structure of Resurrection Belief_, Peter Carnley argues that the male disciples may not have been available to Mark for use in the burial and empty tomb narrative. On this view, the author of Mark was constrained by the strong tradition that the male disciples came to believe in the resurrection solely on the basis of the appearances (which were in Galilee). Thus, while the male disciples could not be used to discover the empty tomb, there may also have been a tradition that women stayed nearby Jesus during the crucifixion. The detail that the women observed the tomb burial goes hand in hand with the detail that the women found the tomb empty. In this explanation, the author of Mark could not use the men to find an empty tomb because they believed in the resurrection on another basis entirely, but the author of Mark could take the women who watched the crucifixion and have them also watch the burial so that they can find the empty tomb. The women were the best that were available in the traditions that the author of Mark reworked.

Farrell Till has pointed out that Mark's audience may be understood as consisting of Hellenistic Jews and converted Gentiles. For this reason, Till believes that the emphasis on the worthlessness of female testimony, which is usually supported on appeal to rabbinic statements, may be misplaced. Till believes that the Mark's Hellenized audience may not have been as unilaterally dismissive of female testimony. To the end of showing that Hellenistic society did not have a simple negative view of women, Till produces several examples of goddesses and heroines revered in Greek culture including Hera, Athena, Artemis, and Aphrodite. Moreover, Till argues that the first century Hellenistic Jews who wrote the Sibylline Oracles could not have been Jews who placed no credence in the testimony of women because the sibyls were, after all, female. According to Till, it would be presumptuous to assume that the rabbinic opinion of women applies to the first century Hellenistic Jews in Mark's audience.

I would point out that the assumption behind this argument is that the narrative of the burial and the discovery of the empty tomb has an apologetic purpose in the Gospel of Mark, that it is intended to convince people of the resurrection on the basis of the witnesses, namely the women. Certainly, some critics such as Bultmann have suggested as much. However, it is not necessary to see the story as apologetic or persuasive in purpose. Indeed, I would suggest that ending of Mark at 16:8, in which the women tell nobody, stands against such an interpretation. Regardless of whether we would see the silence as temporary or permanent, this does not accord with the view that the author of Mark is appealing to the testimony of the women. Unless it is demonstrated that the author of Mark is writing with an apologetic purpose to convince or assure people of the resurrection on the basis of the women's testimony, this argument fails.

Habermas writes (p. 129): "Further, Jesus' burial is supported by confessional statements in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 and Acts 12:39." I do not believe that a tomb burial is presupposed by Paul's comments, and the Acts is not independent of the four gospels, being written by the author of the third.

Habermas writes (p. 129): "Lastly, the apostles' early proclamation of the resurrection message in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus died, was in direct opposition to the will of the Jewish leaders." Again, however, Crossan allows for a period of a couple years to pass between the death of Jesus and the proclamation of the resurrection in Jerusalem. And we only can conjecture that Jewish leaders were opposed to these preachers if we take all of Acts at face value.

Habermas writes (p. 135): "Anyone can make claims. The real question is whether they can be demonstrated. I have argued elsewhere that such non-Christian claims are poorly evidenced. If this is the case, they merely number among the myriads of unproven religious assertions." But Habermas is not willing to apply the same logic to Christian claims.

CREEDS AND FACTS

Habermas writes (p. 146): "Although these early creeds are interested in theological elements of Christology, to be sure, they are also early reports of events in the life of Jesus. We are told (1) that Jesus was really born in human flesh (Phil. 2:6; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 4:2) (2) of the lineage and family of David (Rom. 1:3-4; 2 Tim. 2:8). We find (3) an implication of his baptism (Rom. 10:9) and (4) that his word was preached, (5) resulting in persons believing his message (1 Tim. 3:16)." But the only element that would be an event in the life of Jesus is (3), the baptism of Jesus. Yet reading Rom. 10:9, there is no clear implication of baptism: "that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from among [the] dead, thou shalt be saved." (Darby)

Habermas writes (p. 147): "It is widely held that this ancient tradition [in 1 Cor 11:23-26] presents actual historical events which occurred on the evening of the so-called 'last supper.'" But Habermas provides no argument for this belief. It is also held by scholars such as Crossan and Mack that the text in Paul is an etiological myth for the ritual meal of the Christ cult.

On p. 149, Habermas quotes Drane as writing: "Scholars have discovered that the language used in speaking about Jesus in these early speeches in Acts is quite different from that used at the time when the book was compiled in its final form." Unfortunately, we are not told what these differences are.

Habermas refers to Acts several times on pp. 151-152 as a source for recovering very early ideas about Jesus. But Habermas never argues against the possibility that the author of Acts could have included some of his own ideas in these speeches.

Habermas writes (pp. 155-156): "A Jerusalem location would date Paul's reception of the creed at about five to seven years after the crucifixion. But we can actually proceed back two stages earlier. Since the tradition would actually have been formulated before Paul first heard it, the creed itself would be dated even earlier. Additionally, the independent beliefs themselves, which later composed the formalized creed, would then date back to the actual historical events. Therefore, we are dealing with material that proceeds _directly_ from the events in question and this creed is thus crucial in our discussion of the death and resurrection of Jesus." (emphasis original) However, Habermas has not shown that the material proceeds directly from actual events because the material could still have been formed at least a couple of years after the events.

Habermas writes (p. 157): "The belief that the same Jesus who was dead and buried was raised again (1 Cor. 15:3-4) also strongly implies the empty tomb, especially in the context of Jewish thought." However, the text actually does not even imply a tomb burial, let alone an empty tomb.

Habermas writes (p. 157): "The importance of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. can hardly be overestimated." Surely this is an exaggeration. Wouldn't it be overestimated on the possibility that it is interpolated? Robert Price has argued as much.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html</a>

Habermas proceeds to present his 'twelve facts' apologetic for the resurrection. This is his list (p. 158):

----
(1) Jesus died by crucifixion and (2) was buried. (3) Jesus' death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope, believing that his life was ended. (4) Although not as widely accepted, many scholars hold that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.

Critical scholars further agree that (5) the disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. Because of these experiences, (6) the disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection. (7) This message was the center of preaching in the early church and (8) was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus died and was buried shortly before.

As a result of this preaching, (9) the church was born and grew, (10) with Sunday as the primary day of worship. (11) James, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he also believed that he saw the resurrected Jesus. (12) A few years later, Paul was converted by an experience which he, likewise, believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus.
----

Despite the characterization of these items as "known historical facts" by Habermas, most of these items have been disputed by one or another participant in the debate over the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

Although I hold no candle for the swoon hypothesis, there are those who do not believe that Jesus died by crucifixion; indeed, millions of Muslims think that Jesus didn't die on the cross. Habermas does address the swoon hypothesis earlier in his book, but nonetheless this is a point on which many people would not agree.

An honorable tomb burial for Jesus is disputed by Crossan and others, including this writer. It is possible that Jesus was thrown into a pit, or it is possible that Jesus was left on the cross for carion.

Since we don't have first-hand accounts on the psychological state of the disciples after the crucifixion, any statement on that state can only be speculation based on what we think might have been the case. But this should not be confused with a "known historical facts."

Habermas acknowledges that some scholars do not agree, yet Habermas includes the discovery of an empty tomb as part of his "known historical facts" anyway.

Burton Mack thinks that the appearance stories in Paul were part of a myth of origins for the Hellenistic congregations of the Christ. Robert Price thinks that the list of appearances in First Corinthians was part of an interpolation. Not all scholars agree that the disciples of Jesus experienced appearances of Jesus.

The sixth point depends again on assuming a psychological state for people from whom we have no first-hand accounts. And it may be a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. In any case, it does not qualify as a "known historical fact."

The seventh point is disputed by Burton Mack, who believes that there were several "Jesus movements" for whom a message about the death and resurrection of Jesus was not central.

The eighth point may equivocate on the meaning of "shortly before." Unless "shortly before" can refer to a period of two or three years, there are several scholars including Crossan who doubt that the resurrection was preached in Jerusalem shortly after the death of Jesus.

The ninth statement is nearly tautological and adds no significant information.

The tenth statement can find some evidence from Paul and Pliny, but it would not be appropriate to assume that all Christians or followers of Jesus held Sunday to be a day of worship.

The eleventh statement is disputed by some who believe that James was always a compatriot to his brother and that the depiction of the family of Jesus in the Gospels is inaccurately polemical.

The last statement depends on the assumption that an appearance was the cause for Paul's conversion, and this is not found explicitly in the letters of Paul as opposed to Acts.

We see, then, that most of the statements made by Habermas are controverted by some and cannot be assumed as known historical facts without some actual argumentation for their reliability.

Until these are each individually shown to be facts, the claim made by Habermas that no naturalistic hypothesis can account for them is irrelevant. Even if it were relevant, however, in this book Habermas does nothing to establish this claim other than saying that nineteenth century authors discredited the individual hypotheses and that twentieth century scholars rejected them all. This is not an argument. And it is not the complete truth, either, for there are certainly scholars today who think that non-supernatural processes can account for the birth of Christianity.

Habermas says that there are four "core" facts that can be made into an apologetic consisting of (1), (5), (6), and (12). In order to establish these "core" facts, Habermas refers the reader to "a sampling of critical theologians who accept these core facts" (p. 162). But is it legitimate to quote only Christian theologians for support? Habermas apparently didn't think to consider the ideas of Jews, Muslims, and atheists. Non-Christians are not obliged to accept the words of Christian theologians as establishing facts about the origins of the Christian religion.

Habermas quotes Braaten as saying (p. 164): "Even the more sceptical historians agree that for primitive Christianity . . . the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was a real event in history, the very foundation of faith, and not a mythical idea arising out of the creative imagination of believers." I suppose that Braatan also followed the method of considering only Christian theologians in forming an idea of what "sceptical" historians think. Non-Christians quite obviously do not believe that the resurrection was a real event in history.

Habermas includes among the knowledge that we learn about Jesus form these early creeds is that "he died for the sins of others" (p. 168). Habermas goes on to say, "Most of these facts are reported in early Christian creeds" (p. 169). Is even the idea that Jesus died for the sins of others now a "fact" to Habermas?

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCES

On Luke's census, Habermas writes (p. 172): "It has been established that the taking of a census was quite common at about the time of Christ." But surely this is irrelevant if the first census in Palestine was in 6 CE as Josephus implies. Habermas claims that there was an empire-wide census every fourteen years instituted by Augustus, that Quirinius was governor of Syria two times, and that Luke can be translated as saying that the census took place before Quirinius entered office. All of these claims are considered and refuted in this essay by Richard Carrier titled "The Date of the Nativity in Luke":

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html</a>

On the discovery of the bones of Yohanan, Habermas writes (p. 175): "The crucifixion process recorded in the Gospels has been at least partially corroborated by this discovery, with the extent of confirmation depending on the correct view of the data. Archaeology provides us with at least some facts that have a bearing on the death of Jesus. (1) Victims were often nailed to crosses through the feet or heels and through the wrist or lower arm area. Whether or not the latter was the case with Yohanan, it is the normal way of Roman crucifixion. (2) The vast majority of medical researchers agree that the positioning of the body required the victim to move upward and downward in order to alternatively breathe and rest. (3) Smashing the leg bones was used in cases where a hasty death was desired." But any person in the first century could easily have verified these facts. And the first two points are not explicitly stated in the Gospels in any case, so this cannot be taken as corroboration of the "crucifixion process recorded in the Gospels."

Habermas writes (p. 176): "In 1878 a marble slab measuring approximately fifteen by twenty-four inches was discovered at Nazareth, describing itself as an 'ordinance of Caesar.'" However, Richard Carrier writes in "The Nazareth Inscription":

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/nazarethlaw.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/nazarethlaw.html</a>
----
The Location: the inscription's origin is not clearly known. It was found in the collection of a man named Fröhner when it was donated to the Paris National Library in 1925. His notes on the item state nothing more than "Dalle de marbre envoyée de Nazareth en 1878." That's it. This translates as "Slab of marble sent from Nazareth in 1878." Zulueta observes that this does not say "found" in Nazareth (découverte à), but sent from there, and it has been shown that Fröhner's "notes on the provenance of his treasures are very exact," thus he can be counted on to have chosen his words carefully.

In the late 19th century there were only two major market centers for all antiquities recovered in Palestine: Jerusalem and Nazareth. Thus, Zulueta makes the plausible conjecture that the slab was recovered either in Samaria or Decapolis and either purchased in or shipped out of the nearest possible place, which would be Nazareth. Indeed, Zulueta also observes that the text uses the plural form "gods" which would have been offensive to Jews, making the most likely origin the Hellenized district of Decapolis. In line with this is the constant emphasis in the decree of the cult of the dead, even as being on par with the religious worship of gods, a choice of words and phrases that would not have been much approved by Jews, no matter how much it might have been true, but would have made perfect sense in a community of Greeks. On the other hand, there is an historical event in Samaria that could have served as a cause of this decree: in 8 A.D. some Samaritans entered the Temple after midnight and tossed around corpses they had presumably illegally exumed elsewhere, possibly provoking the recall of the governor Coponius [7]. Even so, Zulueta leans in favor of Decapolis, since this edict seems to be unconnected with a Temple violation, and to be aimed more at Greeks than Jews.

To this it can be added that a tiny village of no more than a few hundred inhabitants, none of whom are even remotely likely to have been literate (or even speakers of Greek[8]), is not where such an inscription would be set up. Jerusalem would have been a candidate, but not Nazareth, where the inscription would be useless and a pointless expense. Though the poor quality of the inscription demonstrates that it was put up by a private person, who either was or who hired a scribe who was somewhat incompetent in Greek (but who apparently knew Latin), even this sort of person would not go to all this trouble and expense to put up a slab like this where no one would read it--though even if he did, its location would have nothing to do with the interests of the emperor or governor [9]. All of the above evidence decides fairly strongly against a Nazarene provenance, and in favor of an Augustan date.
----

Habermas writes (p. 176): "Scholars generally agree that it was issued by Claudius between AD 41-54." However, Richard Carrier writes:

----
The Date: Zulueta concludes that the most extreme possible dates of the inscription, based on the style of lettering, are 50 B.C. to A.D. 50. He thinks it most likely in the middle, thus around the turn of the era, long before the death of Jesus. Cumont agrees, believing the edict to be of Augustus, although it may even be of Julius Caesar from the time of the Alexandrine War. Both arrive at this conclusion because the edict states simply "Caesar" and does not qualify with the specific successor's name, as is almost always the case. Thus, the claim that it dates to the reign of Tiberius or Claudius is not only unsupported by any evidence, but is all but contradicted by the evidence. A Claudian date was conjectured by Dr. De Sanctis only because Galilee (where Nazareth is located) was not under the empire until the time of Claudius, but this is not very decisive for two reasons: first, allied states often voluntarily appealed to Julius Caesar or Augustus for a ruling in some issue (especially in time of war, when the power of Rome was the only effective law enforcer around); second, it is very doubtful that the inscription is actually from Nazareth.
----

On the assumption that the ordinance is by Claudius, Habermas speculates that the Claudius may have investigated the beliefs of Christians because of the riots in Rome that caused the emperor to expel Jews from the city. Habermas says (p. 177): "Suetonius remarks that the troubles were instigated by Christ." But Suetonius actually reports the name "Chrestus," which is an actual Greek name. While it is possible that Suetonius has garbled the name Chrestus with Christ, Habermas gives the reader no indication of the actual words of Suetonius here.

Habermas writes (p. 177): "Upon examination, Claudius could well have discovered the Christian teaching that Jesus had risen from the dead and may also have heard the Jewish report that the disciples stole the body." On the other hand, Carrier argues:

----
Note the details here that require explanation: (1) the law is prefaced by a reference to the importance of family burial cult, and thus the motivation for the law seems to have been a grievance against those who were depriving people of the right to pay cult to their dead ancestors, a circumstance that has little connection with the supposed case of the missing body of Jesus; (2) the first thing it aims at preventing is not the taking of bodies, but the moving of entire tombs and graves, which makes no sense as a concern that would arise from the mere theft of a body; (3) the second thing it prohibits is the destroying of tombs, which again makes no sense in the case of the empty tomb story; (4) the edict goes out of its way to mention a worry that body-snatchers are stealing bodies to do injury to them, which again makes no sense as a concern that would arise from the empty tomb account; (5) the law goes out of its way to prohibit stealing a doorstone, yet none of the empty tomb accounts mention the stone being carried off, and it is not clear what this would even have to do with that case; (6) then the law prohibits switching stones, which likely refers not only to doorstones but to all stones, since the actual word for doorstone is used in the previous section while the generic "stone" is used here, and this is very likely a law against taking a stone from a tomb's walls or alcoves, in order to use it elsewhere, and perhaps putting in its place an inferior stone, a worry that has no link at all with the story of Jesus' tomb, and thus begs for an explanation.

So there are six details in this edict that make no sense at all if it was inspired by the reported theft of Jesus' body, but which do make sense if something much more widespread and quite different was going on that called for such an edict, with so many specific crimes involved, and a central focus on preserving the observation of the proper burial cult for their ancestral tombs, and, in connection with this, preventing tombs from being relocated, and their stones from being stolen. Only in the midst of all this is the theft or abuse of bodies mentioned, and this is obviously connected with the general issue evident throughout the decree, and thus not with a specific theft event such as that of Jesus.
----

For the reasons of date, provenance, and content, the attempt made by Habermas to connect this inscription to early Christianity can be judged a failure.

Habermas goes on to mention that archaeology helps to establish the existence of Pilate and pools at Bethesda. I have no argument with his statement that "this does not prove anything specifically concerning Jesus" (p. 184). But I do have some comments to make on the attempt made by Habermas to use the Turin Shroud as archaeological evidence.

THE TURIN SHROUD

On pp. 177-184, Habermas appeals to the Shroud of Turin as evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Habermas states (p. 177): "Historically proclaimed to be the actual burial garment of Jesus, the linen contains a double, head-to-head image of a crucified man reposed in death, that reveals both the obverse and reverse of the body."

In fact, however, the first historically certain refernce to the Shroud does not proclaim it to be the actual burial garment of Jesus. In the "D'Arcis Memorandum" of 1389, the bishop Pierre D'Arcis said that Henry of Poitiers had undertaken an investigation and had "discovered the fraud and how the cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested to by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."

Habermas writes (pp. 177-178): "With a known history stretching back to at least the fourteenth century, there are a number of important factors that indicate that the shroud is much more ancient, including a number of historical references that extend back several centuries. In the definitive work on the possible history of the shroud, Ian Wilson postulates that the cloth left Palestine about AD 30 and proceeded to the ancient kingdom of Edessa, to Constantinople, to France, to Switzerland, and finally to Italy."

If the Shroud indeed went back to the first Christian century, it was perhaps the best kept secret in relics. From the time of the New Testament to the sixth century, there is no mention of a shroud that was supposed to be the burial cloth of Jesus. There are mentions of shrouds between the sixth and twelfth centuries, but in no case is there a mention of a miraculous image on the shroud. Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince write (_Turin Shroud_, p. 30): "In other words, alleged shrouds of Jesus may have been relatively thick on the ground, but in almost all cases they were blank pieces of cloth. Clearly this was because the exhibitors did not konw they were supposed to fake an _image_, and because the story was completely unknown."

Ian Wilson has been followed by many in attempting to connect the Shroud of Turin with the Holy Mandylion of Edessa, which has a history going back to the second half of the sixth century in a mention by the chronicler Evagrius. Picknett and Prince write (_Turin Shroud_, p. 34): "Evagrius said that the Mandylion was used to repel the Persians in 544, but he was writing fifty years after the event. And another chronicler, Procopius, writing just five or six years after the event, makes no mention of it at all. Even more significant is the fact that Evagrius based his account on that of Procopius. Presumably Evagrius invented the story to give Edessa's holy relic more eminence than those of rival cities, and therefore there is no proof that the Mandylion existed in 544."

Wilson maintains that the Shroud had been folded four times so that only the face was visible and so was mistaken for the facecloth of Jesus as the Mandylion. Picknett and Prince state (_Turin Shroud_, p. 35): "Philip McNair, a professor of Italian with an interest in the Shroud, has objected to the Mandylion theory. He suggests that if it had been the Shroud with just the head section on display, then the cloth would have yellowed and the image on it faded, and the difference would be noticeable today. In fact, although the background of the cloth is evenly coloured, the head image itself is actually darker than the rest."

Picknett and Prince also write (p. 35): "Another episode in the Mandylion's career indicates that it was a simple painted image. It was pawned in the eighth century by the Edessan rulers to pay taxes to one Athanasius, a member of a rival Christian sect, the Mnophysites. But when it was redeemed he gave them a copy he had had painted and gave the original to his Monophysite baptistry. The Edessans were completely fooled by his trick: so was the original just such a painting? Significantly, the best modern artists have failed to reproduce a convincing Shroud image, and a painted copy would be very obvious immediately."

So it seems that we can be confident that Wilson's Mandylion theory is improbable or, at the very least, unproven.

Gary Habermas writes (p. 178): "Samples of pollen discovered on the cloth point to an origin in Palestine possibly as far back as the first century, while analyses of the cloth and weave discovered that the shroud is compatible with first century cloth."

On the matter of the cloth and weave, I have read two posts by an individual named James, who claims to have accompanied Dr. Shimon Gibson as a student at the time of a unique discovery, that of an actual first century burial shroud preserved in the environs of Jerusalem.

<a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=aae1j7%24u3i%241%40slb6.atl.mindspring .net" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=aae1j7%24u3i%241%40slb6.atl.mindspring .net</a>
<a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=aaklvu%243s%241%40slb4.atl.mindspring. net" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=aaklvu%243s%241%40slb4.atl.mindspring. net</a>

James writes: "The shroud itself is a one-to-one plain weave. There is no flatness to the fibers as in flax but is more like wool.not conclusively, but the fibers match the characteristics of wool more than anything else. This is another indication of wealth. Woolen garments are associated with the aristocratic high priesthood of the 1st century plus the tomb is next to that of Annas the high priest. All of the shroud pieces are from the same cloth. The wool is delicate with no faults in weaving. The textile is in good condition; there are no holes or mending. Other 1st century shroud cloths that have survived in Israel are from arid areas consisting of a plain weave also but the wool of this shroud was spun in the opposite direction indicating that this textile came from Greece or Italy because this kind of spin is not found in Israel. This is another indication of affluence because such material was expensive to import.

"Now when this shroud is compared along side the Turin shroud differences become immediately apparent. The Turin shroud is linen, while this one is more like wool. While linen is not so unusual the Turin shroud shows a very complicated twill (herringbone) technique. This shroud is a very simple weave. A twill weave is not found anywhere in the Levant in the 1st century. On this basis alone it is very hard to accept that the shroud of Turin comes
from 1st century Palestine."

James later qualifies his statements with this: "As far the Shroud of Turin, I said earlier that no twill technique has been found in the Levant from the first century. This statement needs to clarified. I should have said that no Jewish burial shroud that we know of from the first century demonstrates this kind of weave. Now, it must be said that Roman fabrics from the first century do have this kind of weave but they are tunics, cloaks, blankets, and garments of mixed cloth and the are more commonly found at sites in Europe than in the Roman provinces of the Middle East. It may very well be that the Turin shroud is first century and that it is ligitmate considering practices of trade and the overlap of culture, but in light of the narrow levitical strictures governing Jewish culture at the time, even as to the types and manufacture of textiles the argument still bends away from this position. Anything is possible though, absolutely."

While anything is possible, not everything is probable. As far as the matter of the cloth and weave of the Turin Shroud, the evidence does not point to the idea that it originated in first century Palestine. While this is not conclusive evidence against authenticity, Habermas is incorrect to claim that it is evidence for authenticity.

On the matter of the pollen study of Max Frei, Picknett and Prince write (pp. 35-36):

"Accounts of Frei's work give the impression that he took his samples from the Shroud and identified the plants from which they came by comparing them to catalogued pollen from around the world. Then, it is believed, he compared the identified samples to their known geographical distribution, and independently arrived at the same conclusion as Wilson. Not so.

"Before Frei's work there had been virtually no systematic collection and classification of pollen, so he himself had to build up the database with which to compare his own samples. One of the most important criterion [sic] of scientific investigation is that results should be verifiable by others; in this case it was impossible to do so."

Picknett and Prince continue (pp. 37-38):

"True, Frei did match pollen found on the Shroud to plants unique to the three locations suggested by Ian Wilson, but then he _only looked in those three places_. The Mandylion theory demands that the Shroud had been in those three places - and those three only. If, for example, there was evidence that it had been in Toledo, the entire theory would be invalidated. Yet for all we know there is Australian pollen on the Shroud: Frei did not look for it. Both Wilson and Rolfe, however, must have been pleased with his work, which justified the gamble of Rolfe's funding of Frei's trip, and one could easily conclude that the latter may have regarded it as a loan repaid. Perhaps his sponsors would not have been so keen to enlist his help if they had known that he was, in the years to come, to authenticate the 'Hitler diaries'.

"Frei's work has been criticized by other experts as being too selective. [Joe Nickell (_Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_) quotes micropaleontologist Steven Schafersman ('I find Max Frei's conclusions incredible') and cites Richard Eyde, botanist at the Smithsonian Institute.] And it received scant support from STURP - they found 'little pollen' on the samples that they took. [Schwalbe and Rogers, op. cit.]"

Gary Habermas writes (p. 178): "Some researchers have asserted that sophisticated methods such as photographic enhancement and computer analysis are able to identify one of the coins placed over the eyes of the man in the shroud as a lepton of Pontius Pilate, minted between AD 29-32."

On this, Picknett and Prince write (_Turin Shroud_, p. 19): "The VP-8 Image Analyzer work caused great excitement when John Jackson claimed that the 3-D images showed what appeared to be small coins over the eyes. Soon, an enthusiastic researcher, Francis Filas (a Jesuit theologian from Chicago) claimed to be able to read part of an inscription around the edge of a coin - just four letters, UCAI, which could be the middle of a Greek version of 'Tiberius Caesar' (_Tiberiou Caisaros_). He was the emperor in Jesus' day, and this was an inscription known from leptons in use during Pilate's governorship. However, most other researchers ascribed this to Filas' imagination, and when STURP made a special search for the coins, they could not find them."

Habermas says (p. 178): "Wrapping a body lengthwise and positioning it as shown on the shroud is corroborated by both recently discovered Qumran burial practices and by the Code of Jewish Law ('Laws of Mourning')."

I have read the translation of _Semahot_ (Regulations relating to death, burial, and mourning) as translated by Dov Zlotnick (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), and I do not remember any reference to wrapping a body lengthwise. It is unfortunate that Habermas does not provide any chapter or verse. In any case, it should be noted that the image on the Shroud of Turin appears to have been formed when the shroud was flattened, not wrapped around a body, which would have produced noticeable distortions.

Habermas claims (p. 178): "The use of several strips of linen in John is also confirmed on the shroud, since pieces of linen were apparently used there, as well." I don't quite understand what Habermas is claiming, for does not the shroud consist of one large piece of linen and not the several strips as described by the author of John?

Gary Habermas writes (p. 179): "In particular, it was determined [by STURP] that the bloodstains were real blood and that the shroud was probably not a fake."

Picknett and Prince write (_Turin Shroud_, p. 16): "But is it blood? Real blood dries brown, not red - in fact, tests by STURP concluded that it was not blood. However, when Italian scientists claimed to have proved that it was, and had also isolated the blood group (AB), STURP changed their minds and agreed that it was blood after all. The current consensus is that the stains are, or at least contain, human blood, although there is still room for doubt - and no one can tell how old it is."

Habermas says (p. 179): "Additional characeristics of the image, such as its three-dimensional, superficial and non-directional nature, have become quite an enigma to the scientists."

The "3-D information" supposedly discovered by Jackson and Jumper has been called into question by Picknett and Prince with the help of Andy Haveland-Robinson. The contour map of the Shroud is displayed among the pictures in _Turin Shroud_ and show "an almost complete absence of the much-vaunted 3-D information." Picknett and Prince write (p. 142): "There was a slight three-dimensionality, but no more than one would expect from an evenly-lit photograph. Most striking was the fact that there was no appreciable difference between the brightness of the nose and the brows, making it impossible for the image analysis software to distinguish them in terms of height. The images, using several different scales to exaggerate any slight difference in intensity, always showed the same result: a flat face, with nose and brows the same height." Picknett and Prince also write (p. 145): "The basis of the VP-8 work is that the brighter any area of the image is, the higher it stands out on the computer-generated picture. What are the brightest parts of the Shroud face? A glance at the photographs shows clearly that they are the moustache and beard. Yet in the VP-8 pictures of the face these are _lower_ than the tip of the nose, which is not as bright! More 'iterative modification' of the image, one wonders?"

Habermas writes (pp. 179-180):

"The description of the man who was apparently buried in the shroud has also been enlightening. The scientific team pathologist and other medical doctors determined that the man was crucified and was dead, with his body in a state of rigor mortis. The man's injuries were the same as the Gospel reports of Jesus' crucifixion. The most interesting facet of this study is that many unnatural things were done to Jesus and these same types of things appeared on the shroud.

"Both men suffered a series of punctures throughout the scalp from many sharp objects, a seriously bruised face, a horrible whipping (over 100 wounds from this beating have been counted on the shroud), abrasions on both shoulders from a rough, heavy object, and contusions on both knees. Both men had the normal wounds associated with crucifixion; namely, punctured feet and wrists. Strangely, both men escaped having their ankles broken, as was normal, but both had post-morten chest wounds instead, from which blood and watery fluid flowed. Both men were buried hastily in fine linen and were buried individually."

There is a monumental fallacy underlying this entire discussion by Habermas. Would the maker of the Shroud not refer to the biblical accounts of Jesus in order to create his piece? This discussion by Habermas would only be relevant if it could be shown that the Shroud came from first century Palestine and if it could be shown that the biblical details were correct. But these are the very things that Habermas wishes to prove!

Habermas writes (p. 180): "The scientists reported that they were unable to discover any known natural causes that could account for the shroud's image. In scientific terms, the image is a 'mystery.'"

Of course, scientists confronted with a "mystery" do not conclude "miracle" but rather continue to imagine possible explanations. One such explanation is the primitive photograph theory, as developed by Nicholas P. L. Allen as well as Picknett and Prince. The work of Picknett and Prince can be found in their book _Turin Shroud_, while the independent work of Allen is described at this web page:

<a href="http://www.unisa.ac.za/dept/press/dearte/51/dearturn.html" target="_blank">http://www.unisa.ac.za/dept/press/dearte/51/dearturn.html</a>

Habermas does not even consider the primitive photograph theory, perhaps because it was not known to him at the time of writing. I do not intend to defend it as probable in this review, but I do suggest that it is a possibility that Habermas overlooked.

Habermas writes (p. 181): "Perhaps even more amazing, the shroud contains no bodily decomposition, indicating that the body exited the cloth after a comparatively short interment."

Other explanations include that the person was alive or, what I would suggest, that the image is of a sculpture or cast.

Habermas objects to the 1988 carbon dating tests. He writes (p. 182): "For example, various cloth samples with known dates were pretested by a number of major laboratories, but achieved incorrect dates of up to many centuries!"

Habermas provides no details. In fact, the greatest variation was of three hundred years in the five measurements made by Arizona (but not the other two labs) on the two thousand year old Egyptian linen. Obviously, this is no basis on which to claim that all three laboratories could have gotten results that were a mere third as old as the actual date of the Shroud. There remains a 95% confidence that the material was manufactured between 1262 and 1388 CE.

Habermas writes (p. 182): "With regard to the shroud sampling itself, the amterial was not taken from three different locations, but came from the same portion of the material, known as 'Raes Corner.' Although this is the most contaminated section of the famous cloth, there was an absence of controlled recognition and removal of contaminants."

This last statement is false, as the cloth underwent a standard treatment to remove contaminants in preparation for the carbon dating tests. Even so, the amount of bacteria that would have to be included with the cloth is 60% of the total mass for the test to show the material to be as young as it is. The test could only be faulted if this section of the Turin Shroud had been added at a later date than the rest; but if there was any such addition to the shroud, it is entirely invisible.

Habermas writes (p. 182): "Further, the lack of peer review before the testing began bothered some researchers."

Habermas writes (p. 182): "But perhaps most damaging of all to the carbon dating tests, a secret dating of the shroud fibers in 1982 differed from the 1988 tests by centuries, and even suggested a date that could, with the plus-minus factor, date the cloth to the first century AD!"

Is it not odd that Habermas can in one breath fault the 1988 test for failing to undergo peer review before testing and then attempt to controvert the results with those of some "secret dating of the shroud fibers in 1982"? For such a startling claim, one would hope that there would be a footnote of some kind so that the diligent reader could find out more on this "secret dating." But none is provided, and we have only the say-so of Habermas that this "secret dating" ever took place.

Habermas writes (p. 181): "Even more interesting is the possibility that the image was caused by some sort of light or heat scorch that emanated from a dead body in the state of rigor mortis."

Habermas writes (p. 182): "Last, a few scientists have even remarked that if the shroud iamge was caused by Jesus' resurrection, the sort of molecular change that results from scorch could actually have made the cloth appear younger, due to neutron flux."

On this theory, I will quote from Picknett and Prince at length (pp. 46-48):

----
One of the favourite theories of scientific Shroudies is that the image is not in itself a miracle, but that it was the by-product of one - the Resurrection. This is the 'nuclear flash' theory, promoted by STURP co-founder John Jackson (a physicist with the USAF) and taken up enthusiastically by many others. They suggest that, as the image resembles a scorch-mark, it was caused by a split-second burst of high-energy radiation emanating from Jesus' body as it regenerated. Since the carbon dating, believers have hastily capitalized on this theory: they claim that if the Shroud had been subjected to a blast of radiation, the amount of radioactive carbon-14 would have increased and the Shroud would appear to be much younger than it really is.

We have heard variations on that theory from virtually every Shroudie we have talked to - and it seems crazy. We think it is astonishing that such a theory could have been seriously advanced by a trained physicist, and supported by other scientists, since it should be obvious to anyone with even the most elementary understanding of the nature of radiation that this hypothesis violates the very laws of physics that it invokes.

For the 'nuclear flash' theory to be valid, the energy relaeased would have been so great that it would have destroyed not only the cloth itself, but also a large part of Jerusalem. But even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the phenomenon was somehow controlled by Divine will, there are still fundamental objections to be considered.

Such a process could never have imprinted the kind of image we see on the Turin Shroud. All radiation - nuclear, thermal or electromagnetic (which includes light) - spreads out from its source in all directions, and therefore would have scorched al parts of the cloth equally. Even if the linen were in close contact with the body, the best that could be expected is a scorched silhouette of a human form, featureless and of equal intensity - certainly not the detailed and recongizable Schroud image. If the cloth were draped over a body, we should be able to see the sides and the top of the head. As it is, they are not there.

It is like holding a sheet of photographic film a few inches away from a light bulb and expecting to see a picture of the bulb itself when the film is developed: all that would be seen is a fog where the light had uniformly hit the film. Light shining from any source is known as incoherent, with the rays spreading out equally from the point of origin. Without some mechanism for turning it into coherent light - where the rays are made to travel in the same direction, towards a specific point - no image can be captured. We can see the light bulb because the eye has such a mechanism: the pupil. A camera has its lens. These laws hold good for any kind of radiation.

To produce the Shroud image, the radiation would have had to travel directly up, perpendicular with the body, and also directly down to produce the back image, and in no other direction. This breaks the laws of physics. Even if the radiation behaved in this way, it could never have reproduced such fine detail of the man on the Shroud. Radiation can only make a picture by being blocked by something, thus creating a shadow. Different kinds of radiation are blocked by different materials; visible light will not pass through a human body, whereas x-rays will pass through the skin and internal organs but not through bone. If the 'nuclear flash' theory were correct, we ought to see the same effect as an x-ray - a skeleton - not the detailed outer body. Proponents of this view have pointed out that the fingers do appear to be skeletal, but in that case why is the rest of the body natural in appearance? It can be argued that the hands have that look due to 'degloving' - the draining of the blood from the hands during the process of crucifixion.

Some books on the Shroud reproduce pictures of images produced by the aftermath of the atom bomb at Hiroshima - for example, the 'shadow' of the wheel of a hand valv etched onto the wall of a nearby gas tank - and they attempt to draw a parallel with the Shroud image. In fact, there is no such thing. These images are literally shadows - the wheel was between the source of the radiation and the wall, blocking or altering its passage. In the case of the Shroud the theory is that the source of radiation was within the body. We are seriously asked to believe that it was blocked only by the skin and hair, which it then faithfully reproduced.

The only way in which a recognizable image can result from a three-dimensional body, using any form of radiation, is if the radiation is reflected from its surface, not shining through it. The source would have to be outside the body. Take this example: imagine making a glass model of a human head with a bright light bulb in its centre. Turn the light on and what do you see? Only the shining shape of the head: the features would not be distinguishable. Now imagine a solid bust lit from an external source, reflecting the light. Everything about it would be clearly visible. Even so, we can only make it out because our eyes focus the rays of light; a cloth soaked in light-sensitive chemicals and suspended in front of the bust would never capture the image.

Finally - as pointed out by BSTS member Peter Freeland - the process would have burned away, or at least carmelized, any blood on the cloth.

So, the much-quoted 'nuclear flash' theory is the least tenable of all, and would deserve less attention even than the thoughtograph hypothesis of Cesar Tort, were it not for the fact that it continues to be taken seriously in Shroud circles: in fact, a paper was given on the subject at the 1993 Rome Symposium. Many unscientific Shroudies accept it as the most likely explanation, or at least as a serious contender. But the scientific Shroudies also tend to cling to this theory, which surely says more about their desperation to believe than their faith in the laws of science. The theory is as full of holes as the Shroud would have been, had it been exposed to such a process.
----

Habermas goes on to muse (p. 183): "Since there is strong evidence against the shroud being a fake, even if it wrapped the body of another victim of crucifixion, it can still provide important and reliable details concerning Jesus' demise. As such, several facts can be learned, most of which, it should be carefully noted, do not depend on the identification of the man buried in the shroud."

However, Habermas has failed to produce "strong evidence against the shroud being a fake." If the shroud was made in medieval times, the shroud is evidence for the understanding of crucifixion and the understanding of the details of Jesus' death in the mind of the artist who created the Shroud of Turin. It cannot be taken as direct evidence for anything that happened in the first century.

The reader will notice the abundance of references to the work of Picknett and Prince in this section of the review. This is no coincidence, as I purchased their book for the sole purpose of researching the review. It is the only book-length treatment of the Turin Shroud that I have read at the time of writing this review. I realize that Gary Habermas is the co-author of two complete books on the Turin Shroud, titled _Verdict on the Shroud_ and _The Shroud and the Controversy_. I have not read these books because my main interest in writing the review was not to rebut the views on the Shroud of Turin, and in fact I considered leaving the Shroud out of the review altogether. My dependence on Picknett and Prince should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their full theory on the Shroud, about which I have reservations. I am aware of theories other than the photograph theory, such as the painting theory of McCrone. It is neither in the scope of the review nor the depth of my research to make a final pronouncement on the origins of the Turin Shroud. I am content simply to point out some of the fallacies and inaccuracies that occur in the short treatment by Gary R. Habermas in _The Historical Jesus_.

ANCIENT NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Habermas first discusses Tacitus. Habermas writes (p. 189): "As F.F. Bruce has noted, Tacitus had to receive his information from some source and this may have been an official record. It may even have been contained in one of Pilate's reports to the emperor, to which Tacitus would probably have had access because of his standing with the government." However, is the mere possibility of this scenario sufficient for Habermas to make his point? It seems that Habermas must argue that Tacitus's source was in fact a report from Pilate, not merely that this is possible. Even so, such an idea has improbable aspects. As meticulous as they were, did the Romans keep record of all the crucifixions in all the provinces going back ninety years? Such a thing seems impractical, even if we assume that Pilate sent a report to Rome mentioning the execution of Jesus.

On p. 190, Habermas says: "the possibility remains that Tacitus may have indirectly referred to the Christians' belief in Jesus' resurrection." Again we have the problem of mere possibility. In any case, this only would point to Tacitus's knowledge of a conviction in Christians, not of the actual resurrection of Jesus.

Habermas says (p. 190): "Not only is this [crucifixion] the method used with Jesus, but tradition reports that Nero was responsible for crucifying Peter as well, but upside down." It should be kept in mind that this is tradition only. The author of 1 Clement, who talks about the ends that came to Peter and Paul, mentions nowhere that Peter was crucified upside down. For that tradition, we have only sources no earlier than the third century.

Habermas writes about Suetonius (p. 191): "The translator notes that 'Chrestus' is a variant spelling of 'Christ,' as noted by other commentators as well, and is virtually the same os Tacitus' Latin spelling." This is incorrect, because Chrestus is a correctly spelled Greek name. The conjecture that Christ is meant can only be a conjecture. In any case, unless Christ was in Rome in the 40s, this is only a testimony to the existence of Christians, not Christ. The same is true for the mention of Christians in connection with the fire at Rome.

On the subject of Josephus, Habermas makes note of the reference to Jesus in _Jewish Antiquities_ 20.9.1, but Habermas presents no discussion of the critical debate over its authenticity. This is an obvious shortcoming in his discussion.

On the Testimonium Flavianum, Habermas writes (p. 193): "There are good indications that the majority of the text is genuine. There is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for this statement about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore." But the manuscript evidence is for the whole of the Testimonium including the obvious interpolations, and thus the manuscript evidence cannot be used as an argument for partial authenticity. Besides, the earliest manuscript of Josephus dates to the ninth century.

Habermas writes (p. 193): "Additionally, leading scholars on the works of Josephus have testified that this portion is written in the style of this Jewish historian." For this claim, which may be correct, Habermas footnotes Anderson and Bruce, who are certainly not leading scholars _on the works of Josephus_. It would have been a nice touch if Habermas had shown direct familiarity with the work of actual Josephan scholars.

Habermas follows Charlesworth and Pines in thinking that the quote in Arabic by Agapius in the tenth century preserves the original form of the Testimonium. Yet this is apparently a quote from memory, and so Agapius may have left out or modified the parts that seemed improbable in the mouth of Josephus. The quote from Agapius seems to bear evidence of the disputes between Christians and Muslims in the emphasis on the point that Jesus actually died due to crucifixion.

Habermas writes (p. 197): "If this brief statement by Thallus refers to Jesus' crucifixion we can ascertain that the Christian gospel, or at least an account of the crucifixion, was known in the Mediterranean region by the middle of the first century AD." However, that is a tendentious "if" clause. For a balanced treatment of the evidence for Thallus, I refer the reader to this essay by Richard Carrier:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html</a>

Habermas writes on the reference from Pliny (p. 199): "Jesus' ethical teachings are reflected in the oath taken by Christians never to be guilty of a number of sins mentioned in the letter. We find probable reference to Christ's institution of communion and the Christian celebration of the 'love feast' in Pliny's remark about their regathering to partake of ordinary food." Yet Pliny does not connect the ethical statements with the teaching of Jesus or the meal with an institution by Christ. Such an assumption can only be made if we already know that Jesus taught certain things and instituted the communion.

Habermas writes (p. 201): "While persecution was certainly an issue and many Christians died without committing any actual crimes, it is interesting that, contrary to popular opinion, the first century was not the worst period of persecution for believers. Trajan's restrictions on Pliny at least indicate that it was not a wholesale slaughter. Nonetheless, the persecution was real and many died for their faith." Of course, this tells us nothing about Jesus.

Habermas writes (p. 202): "From Hadrian's letter we again ascertain: (1) that Christians were frequently reported as lawbreakers in Asia and were punished in various ways. (2) Like Trajan, Hadrian also encouraged a certain amount of temperance, and ordered that Christians not be harassed. (3) If Christians were indeed guilty, as indicated by careful examination, punishments could well be in order. (4) However, no undocumented charges were to be brought against believers and those engaged in such were to be punished themselves." Again, we learn nothing about Jesus here.

Habermas next appeals to the Talmud, specifically the reference to Jesus in Sanhedrin 43a. Yet it is apparent that this story is most likely a polemical inversion of Christian claims and does not necessarily derive from Jewish witnesses. In the Christian Gospels, Jesus was given a hasty and illegal trial in which false witnesses testified on the night before he was crucified. The Jewish response to this story states that Jesus was given a full forty period for witnesses to come forward before he was executed. The Jewish response is incompatible with the Christian story, in which Jesus had only entered Jerusalem a few days before he was arrested. In any case, Habermas has not justified his use of this passage from the Talmud as independent confirmation of the historical Jesus.

Habermas writes about the fifth century Toledoth Jesu (pp. 205-206): "In other words, even if the Toledoth Jesu itself is too late or untrustworthy a source, in spite of its early material, the idea that the tomb was empty because the body was moved or stolen was common in early church history, as witnessed by other sources." These other sources are Justin Martyr and Tertullian. It would have been better if Habermas dealt with the evidence of Jewish polemics from Justin and Tertuallian than to bring up a fifth century document. In any case, I have no doubt that there were Jewish polemics about the empty tomb being circulated in the second century. Even this is too late and untrustworthy to be used as evidence.

On pp. 206-207, Habermas discusses Lucian of Samosata as evidence for Jesus. After enumerating sixteen points, Habermas writes: "From Lucian, then, we learn a number of important facts about Jesus and early Christian beliefs." But are all the statements in a satire supposed to be taken as facts?

On the letter of Mara bar Serapion, Habermas allows that it may be as late as the third century yet he still relies upon it as a witness to the historical Jesus. On top of that, Habermas admits inaccuracies but claims that the letter by Mara adds to the extra-New Testament data because it conforms in part to the New Testament story. Such a procedure is fraught with fallacy.

Habermas goes on to write about the Gnostics (p. 209): "However, it must be admitted that this group of writers was still more influenced by the New Testament writings than the others in this chapter. Yet, although many of the ideas in these four books are Christian, Gnosticism in many of its forms and teachings was pronounced heretical and viewed as such by the church. Hence we are discussing such material in this chapter [on non-Christian sources]." But heretical is not synonymous with non-Christian. The sources in this section such as the Gospel of Truth may do little more than repeat Christian claims of the second century. And it is odd that Habermas uses these materials even as he condemns Gnostic sources in an earlier chapter as uniformly late and unreliable.

Habermas writes in a section on 'Other Lost Works': "In particular, there are no known fragments of the Acts of Pilate or any evidence that it was specifically quoted by another writer. Additionally, it is entirely possible that what Justin thought original was actually a concurrent apocryphal gospel. At any rate, we cannot be positive as to this purported imperial document. Like the Gnostic sources, we therefore are cautious in our use of this source." So why bother with it?

Just as the Acts of Pilate is questionable, neither can we rely on patristic statements about Phlegon. We do not know what Phlegon himself had to say.

Habermas writes (p. 219, n. 90): "Sources that have raised various kinds of doubt are the Toledoth Jesu, the four Gnostic works and the Acts of Pilate, which make up approximately one-third of the total number of documents studied in this chapter." But in actuality there are kinds of doubt about other sources in the chapter as well.

ANCIENT CHRISTIAN SOURCES (NON-NEW TESTAMENT)

Habermas writes (pp. 230-231): "This certification of a chain of authority from god to Jesus to the apostles to the early Christian elders is interesting not only in that it was the basis for early doctrinal proclamation and church organization." But equally logical is the idea that authority figures came first and the myth of the source of their authority, apostolic succession, came later.

Habermas writes (p. 233): "As in other references, Ignatius attemtps to place such events firmly in the realm of history. His purpose, at least partially, is to provide an answer to the threat of Gnosticism, which often denied physical interpretations of some of these events." But can Ignatius be trusted when his purpose was polemical?

Among the things that Habermas says we learn from Quadratus, Habermas says: "Many of those healed or raised were still alive when Jesus 'left the earth' and some were reportedly still alive in Quadratus' own time." Does the idea that some were still alive discredit Quadratus?

Habermas accepts a date for the Epistle of Barnabas as 130-138 CE. Does a date for this document of 100 years later cast doubt on its reliability as to facts in the life of Jesus?

Habermas goes on to discuss Justin Martyr. But Justin obviously knew of the gospels and is not an extra-New Testament witness. By his own reckoning, Justin wrote 150 years after the birth of Jesus.

To his credit, Habermas does make note of the problem that Justin at least is not independent of the New Testament (p. 242): "However, the point is that if they rely on the New Testament, then they are not totally extra-New Testament, and the object of this work is to ascertain what evidence of this latter kind is available."

Even so, Habermas concludes the chapter by saying (p. 242): "Thus we continue to witness the ancient corroboration of Jesus' story. As we have said, he is actually one of the most-mentioned figures in the ancient world." Of course, it is no surprise that Christian sources mention Christ.

ODDS AND ENDS

On p. 251, Habermas says: "While some believe that we know almost nothing about Jesus from ancient, non-New Testament sources, this is plainly not the case. Not only are there many such sources, but Jesus is one of the persons of ancient history concerning whom we have a significant amount of quality data. His is one of the most mentioned and most substantiated lives in ancient times." However, the most detailed sources such as Justin Martyr depend in some way on the New Testament. In non-Christian sources in the century after his death, the words about Jesus could be fit easily on a page.

Habermas says (p. 251): "The deity of Jesus was widely reported in the ancient writings that we investigated. Of our 45 sources, 30 record this teaching, which surprisingly includes seven of the 17 secular sources." On the contrary, the seven "secular" sources do not report the deity of Jesus. Treatise on Resurrection, Gospel of Truth, and Gospel of Thomas are not secular. Pliny says that the Christians sang hymns 'Christo quasi deo', which may only imply that the singing of hymns resembled pagan hymns to pagan gods. Lucian says merely that Christians worship the crucified sage. Josephus says that Jesus was "called the Christ," if the phrase is authentic, which we also learn from Tacitus. And the reference to Jesus being "king" in Mara bar Serapion does not imply divinity.

Habermas says the following in his apologetic outline (p. 278): "1 Tim. 5:18 quotes Luke 10:7 and refers to it as 'Scripture.'" However, earlier Habermas had allowed that this was not a reference to Luke but may be a reference to the teaching of Jesus without a reference to Luke.

Habermas writes (p. 279): "The Didache . . . refers to the 'Gospels' twice and quotes portions found in all three synoptic Gospels each time." In fact, the Didache refers not to Gospels but to a singular "Gospel" of Jesus.

CONCLUSION

On the back cover, we find the following review by fellow apologist J. P. Moreland: "The Historical Jesus is a careful, accessible analysis and critique of the various approaches to the historical Jesus. Habermas defends the historical veracity of the orthodox view of Jesus with a detailed set of convincing arguments. I don't know how someone could read this book without concluding that Jesus Christ was who the New Testament proclaimed Him to be."

For my own part, I do not know how anyone could read this book critically or objectively and come away with the impression that Moreland has. This book by Habermas is riddled with errors and fallacies. The arguments attempted for the resurrection of Jesus are determined to be failures. If the book is judged by the stated purpose of providing a convincing apologetic for the resurrection, this book is a failure. When this general failure is joined with the fact of the many inaccuracies, there is little of redeeming value in this book.

best,
Peter Kirby

TheDiddleyMan

Wow, Peter! I'm assuming that review was written by you? It's sounds great. I'm not the most knowledgeable person, but I was impressed with your review.


Kevin

Peter Kirby

Yes, I wrote the review. I am especially interested in knowing about any weak points, fallacies, misinterpretations, etc. that I may have made in my review.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Thanks Peter, for giving me something to sink my teeth into tonight after a bitching day of nine hours of classes.

In your critique of the third chapter, it seems that Habermas must provide grounds for simultaneous acceptance the 4C gospels and rejection of non-canonical gospels. Does he in fact do so? And why is, or is not that criteria viable for use against the 4Cs? it seems that any criteria used against the NonC would also be employable against the 4C.

I'll comment more later.

Vorkosigan

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Peter Kirby

The only argument that Habermas appears to make is that the four canonical Gospels were written in the first century, while the non-canonical Gospels were written in the second century (specifically 140 or later). As I point out in my review, Habermas offers no argument for his datings other than a claimed consensus, and Habermas does not explain why a document written at an earlier time would be more accurate in matters of faith and morals. Obviously, I am not defending Habermas here.

best,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr

Habermas thinks that dates in the 90s for the Gospels have been largely abandoned.

This is not so.

If I remember rightly Wells dating of the Gospels is pretty orthodox. Mark about 80, Luke Matthew about 90, John about 95

(Didn't the early Christians put John's Gospel at the end of his life - about 95 AD?)

Steven Carr

'Habermas makes the commonplace observation that women could not give testimony in law courts (in rabbinic law) and thus would be an unlikely choice as the initial witnesses.'

Pure nonsense. Even John 4 reports that women's testimony was considered credible.

Besides, Mark has the disciples being too cowardly and stupid to understand what was happening, so he could hardly have them as witnesses.

Indeed, considering the lack of evidence in Paul of the original 11 preaching, the embarrassed silence of Acts about the activities of most of the disciples, and Matthews 28:17 reporting that the disciples still doubted, it appeared that many of them packed it in.

In which case , Mark's women as witnesses is simply an attempt to get around the unpalatable facts. If he had disciples witness the resurrection, people would then wonder why they gave up their beliefs.

Vinnie

"""Mark about 80, Luke Matthew about 90, John about 95 """

I've read that there is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written in the late 60s or just after seventy AD. I've read that most scholars think a date later than 75 for Mark seems unlikely. Matt and Luke drew off of Mark so they obviously came later. Matthew seems likely to have been written between 80 to 90 but the arguments are not precise so we must concede +/- 10 years either way. Some significant writers argue for a pre-70 dating of Matthew but that seems unlikely to me. A small minority place Luke in the 2nd century (some as late as 150 ad) but that view does not find wide agreement. I would say Luke was somewhere between 75-95 AD. John, I'm not sure on. 95 is a general date I've seen but don't some scholars give two dates (e.g. 90 and 100) because it was redacted?

"""Indeed, considering the lack of evidence in Paul of the original 11 preaching,"""

Aren't negative arguments from silence about what Paul did not write highly speculative? Failure to write does not mean failure to know. Plus, what were the nature and purpose of Paul's letters? Doesn't the assumed knowledge of intended audiences have to be taken into account as well?

""""the embarrassed silence of Acts about the activities of most of the disciples"""""

Why would a silence about that be embarrassing? And what type of silence do you mean? Acts does mention the apostles as doing things in general. Are you saying a failure to write explicit actions and things said by each is suggestive that they packed it in? Don't verses like 5:12 imply otherwise? Am I understanding you correctly?

"""reporting that the disciples still doubted,"""

That is true but does it say they all continued to doubt?

"""it appeared that many of them packed it in.""""

Some of Jesus' followers probably did pack it in. I don't think "many" has been justified, however.

Vinnie

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]</p>

ex-preacher

Good article.

"Habermas notes that 2 Peter refers to the epistles of Paul, but Habermas neglects to discuss the date of Paul."

I think you meant to say "the date of 2 Peter."


I didn't read it in detail, but I didn't see mention of the fact that Paul's account of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15 contains some disagreements with the gospels.

1. From the wording in v. 5, Paul apparently thought Peter was not part of the Twelve.

2. From v. 5, Paul was not aware of the death of Judas. He refers to Jesus appearing the "Twelve" when, acc. to the gospels, they had become the "Eleven."

3. Comparing v. 5 and v. 7, Paul apparently saw the Twelve as distinct from the apostles.

They are some other discrepancies (such as Jesus appearing to James and appearing to 500), they do not necessarily contradict the gospels.

Vinnie

Hi ex-preacher, I think you are misunderstanding Paul's words.

""""1. From the wording in v. 5, Paul apparently thought Peter was not part of the Twelve.""""

Jesus appeared to Peter. Then later, he appeared to the Twelve (probably including Peter). I think that understanding is consistent with Paul's statement. Paul appears to be first mentioning a stand alone appearance to Peter. The appearance to Peter may be the one mentioned in Luke 24:34 while the other appearance to the "twelve" may have taken place that evening (Luke 24:36-42; Jn 20:19-23).

"""""2. From v. 5, Paul was not aware of the death of Judas. He refers to Jesus appearing the "Twelve" when, acc. to the gospels, they had become the "Eleven.""""""

Yes there weren't exactly 12 according to Matthew 28:16 at that time because of Judas. The Matthew passage speaks of 11 disciple but the Twelve is symbolic of the Twelve Tribes of Israel and the number of the original disciples in the accounts doesn't usually add up to precisely 12 anyways. The number is highly symbolic and should not be mechanically applied. I tend to glean from the Corinthians passage that Paul still lists the symbolic number despite the fact that Judas was no longer a disciple. Its significance would have been clear to almost anyone back then.

""""3. Comparing v. 5 and v. 7, Paul apparently saw the Twelve as distinct from the apostles.""""

Paul saw himself as an apostle. An apostle is usually defined as one specially commissioned by God. I don't think there is an error or discrepancy there.

"""They are some other discrepancies (such as Jesus appearing to James and appearing to 500), they do not necessarily contradict the gospels. """

James is probably not James son of Zebedee or James son of Alphaeus.Most likely it is James the brother of Jesus (Mt 13:55) who later joined the apostic band (Acts 1:14). Some trace the appearance of the 500 back to the account in Matthew 28 in Galilee but this is not conclusive by any means.