Ben Witherington critiques Bart Ehrman

This is probably the best critique of Erhman in a blog post that I have ever come across!  Thanks Dr. Witherington!!!

Review of _Putting Jesus in His Place_

Putting Jesus in His Place: the Case for the Deity of Christ.
By Robert Bowman, Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski. Kregel, 2007: 392 pages.

“But who do you say that I am” (Matt. 16:15)? Arguably the most important question one must face, Jesus forces his hearers to contemplate his divine identity. That Jesus is “begotten of the Father as only begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God” (Nicene Creed) is absolutely central to the Christian faith. It is, however, a widely rejected belief. For example, John Dominic Crossan, former co-chair of the infamous Jesus Seminar, defines references to Jesus as the “Lamb of God” as “symbolic…figurative…metaphorical.” Similar denials may be found in John Hick’s The Myth of God Incarnate.
In response, Robert Bowman Jr., manager of Apologetics and Interfaith Evangelism for the North American Mission Board, and J. Ed Komoszewski, founder of Christus Nexus and Director of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, have written the clearest, most comprehensive and convincing case for the deity of Christ available. Though concerned to demonstrate Christ’s divinity from the New Testament, the authors are equally concerned to equip their readers to remember the material. They thus employ their innovative HANDS acronym (as they say, Jesus shares the HANDS of God), organizing the biblical teachings into five corresponding categories.

Thomas Madden responds to “Jesus Tomb” documentary

See it here (Fox 2 News, St Louis (Mar. 5, 2007).

Richard Hayes vs. Bart Ehrman on the Da Vinci Code (25 April 2006)

Listen to the debate here.

An abundance of bachelors!…and then came Jesus?

The first character in Luke’s Christmas account to be mentioned is not Mary, Joseph, a shepherd, or even wise men for that matter. It was Caesar Augustus. But why? Scholars see this as typical of Lukan writing since he often attempted to anchor down his material with the secular history of his day.

Why don’t you guys ever post non-technical stuff?

If only I had a dollar for every time… Well, the short answer is that we’re all students and/or professors at our respective graduate schools, which has the unfortunate side effects of (1) leaving us very little spare time to take on projects unrelated to school [most of what appears on the blog is condensed versions of school work] and (2) keeping us occupied mentally with said school work.

Review of ‘Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide To Sources and Methods’

Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide To Sources and Methods
Darrell L. Bock. Baker Academic, 2002; 230 pages.

Darrell Bock, Research Professor in New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, has distinguished himself as a preeminent scholar in his field, especially with his two-volume commentary on Luke (BECNT, 1994-96). His Studying the Historical Jesus is a primer for the beginning student of the Gospels and Historical Jesus studies in general.

William Craig/Bart Ehrman Debate Jesus’ Resurrection

Here is the transcript of the debate. This material will probably remain unpublished, so if you missed the debate this is your only access. Enjoy and be blessed!

Darrell Bock Da Vinci Debate Tonight

For those of you interested, Darrell Bock, research professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary will be having a debate on the Da Vinci code tonight that will be broadcast live via the web at 7:00pm Eastern Standard Time. Simply click here.

Are Women Reliable?

When we come to Luke 24 we find an interesting bit of insight into the historical veracity of the empty tomb account. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and some other women present told the apostles of the things which they had just seen (i.e. the vacant tomb, the absent body, the two men, etc.). However, the apostles did not accept what they had to say concerning these things. But why not? Well, it seems that it is because the testimony of women was not held in high regard in their culture. Are there any extra-biblical sources that attest to this?

Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women. (Talmud, Sotah 19a)

The world cannot exist without males and without females-happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females. (Talmud, Kiddushin 82b)

But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. (Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.15)

Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is the equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman. (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)

So Clint, what is the big point? Well, I am glad you asked! If the disciples were trying to create a resurrection account why would they use women as the primary witnesses? After all, women are the primary witnesses in all four gospels as opposed to men in only two gospels. Further, if legend creeps in over time, why was the text not redacted to show that men, a more reliable source, were in fact the first and primary witnesses to the empty tomb? Why even include the women at all? The scholar Gary Habermas found that about 75% of all critical and skeptical scholars accept the fact of the empty tomb (see The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus). However, there are those who refuse to let the evidence convince them. Their reasons? William Wand, former Oxford Church Historian addresses this matter in a concise manner stating that “all the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”