The many sins of Newsweek’s expose on the Bible (COMMENTARY) – Justin Taylor

Justin Taylor, writing for the Religion News Service, adds his critique of Newsweek’s recent article on the Bible to others about which I’ve posted.  He closes with this:

If Eichenwald wants to engage his subject matter with the true intellectual curiosity it deserves, he may discover that he has a far more interesting story to report next Christmas.

(3 min read; 827 words)

The many sins of Newsweek’s expose on the Bible (COMMENTARY) – The Washington Post.

A Christmas Gift from the Mainstream Media: Newsweek Takes a Desperate Swipe at the Integrity of the Bible (Part 2) | Canon Fodder

Here’s how Michael Kruger begins “Part Two” of his critique of Newsweek’s “hit piece” on the Bible.

On Christmas Eve, I wrote part one of my review of Kurt Eichenwald’s piece, and highlighted not only the substantive and inexcusable litany of historical mistakes, but also the overly pejorative and one-sided portrait of Bible-believing Christians…I appreciate that even Kurt Eichenwald joined the discussion in the comments section.

But the problems in the original Newsweek article were so extensive that I could not cover them in a single post. So, now I offer a second (and hopefully final) installment.

(11 min read; 2,794 words)

A Christmas Gift from the Mainstream Media: Newsweek Takes a Desperate Swipe at the Integrity of the Bible (Part 2) | Canon Fodder.

Predictable Christmas fare: Newsweek’s Tirade against the Bible | Daniel B. Wallace

Yesterday I drew attention to Michael Kruger’s scathing criticism of Newsweek’s recent major misrepresentation of the Bible.  Another New Testament scholar, Daniel Wallace was similarly incensed.

Dan Wallace concludes his critique with this:

I applaud Kurt Eichenwald for stirring up Christians to think about what he has written and to reexamine their beliefs and attitudes. But his numerous factual errors and misleading statements, his lack of concern for any semblance of objectivity, his apparent disdain for and lack of interaction with genuine evangelical scholarship, and his über-confidence about more than a few suspect viewpoints, makes me wonder. I wonder why he really wrote this essay, and I wonder what he hoped to accomplish. The article reads like it was written by a political pundit who thought he might try something clever: If he could just link conservative Christianity with conservative politics, and show that Christians’ smugness about being Bible-based believers was both incorrect exegetically and had a poor, self-contradictory foundation (since the Bible is full of errors and contradictions), he could thereby deal a deathblow to both conservative Christianity and conservative politics. I do not wish to defend conservative politics, but simply point out that evangelicals do not fit lock, stock, and barrel under just one ideological tent. Eichenwald’s grasp of conservative Christianity in America as well as his grasp of genuine biblical scholarship are, at best, subpar. And this article is an embarrassment to Newsweek—or should be!

(16 min read; 3,913 words)

Predictable Christmas fare: Newsweek’s Tirade against the Bible | Daniel B. Wallace.

Michael Kruger Addresses Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek

On December 23, 2014, Newsweek published a 9,000-word cover-story by Kurt Eichenwald titled “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin.”  Professor Michael J. Kruger of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte gives it its due this first installment of a response.

My own response to this Newsweek “hit” piece can be seen in the following two comments I made to it on the Newsweek site:

I once held a view practically identical to the author of this article. Then I decided to read and study the New Testament for myself. It didn’t take me long to realize that the New Testament documents made more sense than the view I had held of it.

And later:

How does this writer claim to be dealing with the Bible when he fails to deal at all with the central claim of the Bible? That is, the New Testament repeatedly and emphatically declares that Jesus of Nazareth has been made Lord of heaven and earth by virtue of His resurrection from the dead according to the promises of God in the Old Testament. Do you wonder at all why the journalist devotes himself to majoring on minors?

While Dr. Kruger deals with Eichenwald’s errors of commission, I dealt with what I felt was far graver: his error of omitting discussion of the Bible’s central claim.

This Newsweek essay reminds me of how hostile modern culture has become to Jesus Christ.  It also reminds me that half-truths are more pernicious than outright lies.  Anyone who trusts Newsweek’s opinion of the Bible has put themselves in demonstrably unreliable hands.  Do today’s journalists not realize that they have made “journalistic integrity” an oxymoron?

I only recommend that you read Kruger’s critique.  Reading Eichenwald’s article is a punishment no one deserves.

(8 min read; 2,050 words)

A Christmas Present from the Mainstream Media: Newsweek Takes a Desperate Swipe at the Integrity of the Bible (Part 1) | Canon Fodder.

“Jesus of Testimony” – New Documentary Testifies to the Historicity of Jesus Christ

First below, I’ve posted the trailer (3:34) for this new documentary, and then the documentary (2:14:34) itself.

Jesus Of Testimony Trailer from Nesch Bros on Vimeo.

Jesus Of Testimony from Nesch Bros on Vimeo.

With Easter approaching, this is the time of year when public television and other networks provide documentaries and similar programming about Jesus of Nazareth.  Only problem is that these documentaries usually invitge unbelieving biblical scholars to be the experts.  Such liberal scholars usually have impressive degrees from schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.  While they might not come right out and say that they don’t believe in Jesus, that’s their obvious view – otherwise public television would never have considered them experts, right?

The good news is that the Nesch brothers (whom I otherwise don’t know) have pulled together an impressive set of believing Bible scholars and the result is this documentary:  Jesus of Testimony.  It’s a welcome antidote to the usual fare I’ve been describing, and I enthusiastically endorse it.

I do love this documentary and recommend it highly.  That said, I do have some caveats:

  1. This documentary may seem long and tedious for anyone not intensely interested in the subject matter.  Maybe you should break it up and watch one segment at a time.  Each section is certainly meaty enough.
  2. This documentary might be scratching where you’re not itching; if so, it may seem extra tedious.  This documentary will be most appreciated by 1) people who wonder if there is any scholarly support for the history we see recorded in the New Testament, and 2) people who long to hear from biblical scholars who aren’t hostile to the biblical text and biblical ideas.  If you don’t fall into either of these two categories, there’s no need to watch this film.
  3. I had difficulty with the video streaming.  Perhaps it was just my connection.  I eventually got to the end, but you may want to pay $5.99 for the download to avoid the hassle if it bothers you too much.
  4. This could be a great documentary to recommend to others who might be curious about historical scholarship about Jesus, but first be sure the warnings above don’t apply.  If someone has somehow been unaware of liberal bibical scholarship, why trouble them by bringing them into the argument?

The important point to remember is that this documentary is the other half of the scholarly polemic about Jesus.  Liberal scholars are about all the general public ever sees on broadcast television.  Therefore, if you wonder why these scholars phrase things and frame things the way they do, recognize that they have to coexist with their antagonistic academic colleagues.  Being a believer and a biblical scholar is almost as difficult a professional life as being a believer and a scientist.

The following breakdown of the documentary is taken from the film’s website.  Because the film lasts 2:14:34, I have inserted the starting point and duration time for each section so that you can go directly to a particular section that interests you more.  I also add some short commentary where I thought it might be helpful.  The film begins with a minute-and-a-half segment in which scholar Richard Bauckham lays out the false dichotomy which the film will dispel: that “the Christ of faith” is somehow different from “the Jesus of history.”  Bauckham seeks to replace both with the term “the Jesus of Testimony” – hence the name of the film.  From the film’s website:

A feature length film exploring the evidence for Jesus’ existence and the reliability of the New Testament gospels.

In Part 1: Lord or Legend [starts at 0:01:30; lasts 0:17:50], the historicity of Jesus Christ is demonstrated by the important non-Christian historical sources that are available to us today.  [The documentary starts not with the Bible, but with the evidence outside the Bible.  This makes a great beginning to the historical case.]

Part 2: Are the Gospels Reliable? [starts at 0:19:20; lasts 0:41:00] examines the historical reliability of the Gospels as eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus.  [This is the longest section, but the length is very appropriate and everything here is meaty.  You could actually divide this segment into two sections: the history of the Gospels through oral tradition and the history of the Gospel texts.  Both sections are worthy of the time they are given.  The focus on oral transmission of the life and teachings of Jesus lasts until 0:42:57, which is 23:37 into the segment – the remaining 17:23  is given over to the discussion about written transmission of that information.  The reasons for believing what the Gospels tell us – rooted in both a strong oral culture of the 1st Century and an exceedingly abundant chain of textual evidence since then – are quite strong.  To the point of the film, the testimony of Jesus is substantial; there is no valid reason to see a conflict between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith.]

Part 3: Miracles [starts at 1:00:20; lasts 0:18:18] provides strong evidence that miracles happen today and happened in history.  [This segment could have been longer considering the fact that Craig Keener has published extensive research on miracles both ancient and modern.]

In Part 4: The Testimony of Prophecy [starts at 1:18:38; last 0:14:56], many of the Old Testament messianic prophecies are quoted along with their New Testament fulfillments which establish a solid confirmation of Jesus’ credentials as the Messiah.  [There were good graphics of the relevant Scriptures in this segment – that is, Old Testament prophecies matched with New Testament fulfillments.  However, they are not matched to the audio and so it’s hard to follow what’s written and what’s spoken at the same time.  Michael Brown – a Jewish believer and scholar – is used very effectively in this segment.]

In Part 5: The Resurrection – Fact or Fiction? [starts at 1:33:34; lasts 27:29] the case is presented for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.  [The scholars talk a lot about crucifixion as well as resurrection; problems because of the Quran which says Jesus never really died.  Gary Habermas and Mike Licona have devoted practically their entire careers to establishing the evidence for Christ’s resurrection, so they make this segment particularly strong.]

Finally, Part 6: The Good News [starts at 2:01:03; lasts 0:11:57] concludes that the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels, dependent on eyewitness testimony, is more plausible than the alternative hypotheses of its modern detractors and presents the Jesus’ message of the Gospel.  [Some of the scholars speak quite personally in this short section.  The music is helpful, and the effect is appropriately uplifting.]

Credits [start at 2:13:00; lasts 00:01:34]

As I’ve said, if you don’t enjoy listening to scholars talk, you could find the film quite tedious.  That said, the 11 scholars participating in the project bring great content to the screen.  I have read most of them in the past and recommend their work.  Moreover, the directors add useful narration and helpful graphics at key points.  Here are the scholars interviewed:

Richard Bauckham – New Testament scholar, author, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

Craig Blomberg – New Testament scholar, author, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels

Greg Boyd – pastor of Woodland Hills Church, author, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition [co-author with Paul Eddy, listed below]

Michael Brown – PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, author, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus : Volume 3: Messianic Prophecy Objections [This is but one of five books in a series on Jewish objections; Brown is a Jew]

Paul Eddy – PhD from Marquette University, author, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition [co-author with Greg Boyd, listed above]

Steve Gregg – Bible teacher, radio talk show host, The Narrow Path

Gary Habermas – PhD in History and Philosophy of Religion, author, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

Craig Keener – PhD in New Testament and Christian Origins, author, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts

Michael Licona – PhD in New Testament Studies, author, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

Dan Wallace – PhD in New Testament Studies, Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

Ben Witherington – PhD from University of Durham, England, author, The Jesus Quest

More detail on each of these scholars can be found on the About page of the documentary’s website.

The Jesus of Testimony website (which includes the full documentary, available for online viewing without cost)

The Jesus of Testimony FaceBook page

ht: The Poached Egg (Ratio Christi)

Dying for Belief: An analysis of a confused objection to one of the evidences for the resurrection by J.W. Wartick

Excerpts:

There is an objection to one of the evidences for the resurrection which is, frankly, terribly confused. I most recently ran into it on the discussion page for the radio show Unbelievable? Essentially, the objection goes like this: Christians say the fact that the disciples died for what they believe is evidence for its truth, but all kinds of religious people die for what they believe; are they all true?

The objector then often proceeds to note that some Muslims will die in suicide bombings due to their beliefs; they will note events like Thich Quang Duc burning himself to protest persecution; they will note other events in which religious people die for their beliefs. The implication, it is alleged, is that this cannot count for evidence for the truth of what they belief. People die for false things all the time; it doesn’t make what they believe true.

via Dying for Belief: An analysis of a confused objection to one of the evidences for the resurrection | J.W. Wartick -“Always Have a Reason”.

Christianity Is Based In Fact Not Mere”Beliefs” by Al Serato

Excerpt:

Consideration of examples like these leads to the working definition that most scholars employ regarding the subject: a “fact” is a properly grounded belief. It is a belief that corresponds to reality.Mistaken beliefs are not facts; but all known facts are the subject properly held belief.

This then leads to the question of how one determines the accuracy – the factual nature – of historical events. Unlike conducting scientific experiments to test a hypothesis, the historian must employ a different method. He cannnot perform a repeatable experiment. By the challenger’s definition, however, we must therefore concede that all historical events are mere “beliefs” at the point that no one is around to be “cross-examined” about their statements. By this reasoning, we would have to call the assassination of Lincoln a “belief” because there are no eyewitnesses who can be cross-examined. Every historical murder conviction would move from a “fact” to a mere belief as soon as enough witnesses died, or enough evidence was lost, that it could no longer be tried in court. That’s simply not how history is done.

Christianity has withstood this challenge from its earliest days. Indeed, as Paul wrote, if the Resurrection did not occur, we are to be pitied as fools. Paul staked Christianity’a future, and its credibility, on the truth of this core claim. For two thousand years, it has withstood that test for a very good reason – it is based in fact, not fiction.

via Please Convince Me.

(h/t ‏@ThePoachedEgg)

The Sweet Words of an Enemy

This short article is by Mike Licona.  He begins:

If your mother claims that you are an honest person, we may trust you that you will do what you say. Yet some reservation is understandable on our part, since your mother loves you and is looking out for your best interests. Therefore, she is considered a biased source. This does not mean that she is wrong or that her words about you are without merit. However, if someone who hates you tells us that he wants to see you fall, but your honesty is keeping that from happening, then we can be even more comfortable that you are an honest person.

The full article via bethinking.org – Bible + Jesus – The Sweet Words of an Enemy.