McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 14

I have finished looking at some simple ways of reconstructing McDowell's reasonsing concerning Jesus' claim to forgive sins. The last reconstruction we examined went as follows:

2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4b. Jesus claimed to be God.

A counterexample showed not only that this argument was deductively invalid, but also that it falls short of providing a good reason for its conclusion:

(CE2) Jesus made it plain to other people around him that he did not believe that only God could forgive sins.

A counterexample to the validity of a deductive argument can be completely imaginary, unrealistic, and far-fetched. So long as the counterexample is logically possible, the deductive argument is proven to be invalid. But this counterexample is more than a mere logical possibility; it is at least somewhat probable (it has at least one chance in ten of being true).

Furthermore, (CE2) points to a whole category of circumstances under which the inference would fail. In short, (CE2) points to a necessary condition for the application of the concept of "claiming to be X". More specifically, since the argument here is not that Jesus is directly and explicitly claiming to be God, the relevant concept at work is "making an implied claim to be X." But making an implied claim requires that Jesus publically advocate or accept other beliefs that are part of the logic of the implication, specifically the belief that only God could forgive sins. So, (CE2) points out a need to understand the conditions or criteria involved in the concept of making an implied claim.

Given the failure of the simpler reconstructions of McDowell's reasoning, I will return to the more complex proposal for re-constructing (fixing) McDowell's reasoning concerning Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sins, and this will involve further analysis of the concept of "making an implied claim", or more specifically, the concept of "making a claim that carries the implication that such-and-such is the case":

5. Jesus made the claim that he could forgive sins, and he did so in a context of type X.
6. The claim that one can forgive sins, when made in a context of type X, carries the implication that one is God.
Therefore,
7. Jesus asserted a claim that in the particular context carried the implication that Jesus was God.
Therefore,
4b. Jesus claimed to be God.

The trick here is to define what is meant by "a context of type X" in such a way that the conceptual claim in (6) is true or plausible, while at the same time there is adequate historical evidence available to support (5), given the clarification.

In order to specify the appropriate context, we need to have a clear understanding of what is required "to make a claim that carries the implication" that such-and-such is the case. This concept turns out to be more complex than one might initially expect. A similar concept will help to illustrate the complexity involved here: "telling an inside joke".

In a paradigm case of "telling an inside joke" the joke teller and the person who gets the inside joke share some information that puts them both on the inside of the joke, while others who are listening are not aware of the information and thus fail to get or understand the joke. If the joke teller (JT) is speaking to two people, and one of the two (person A) has the inside information, while the other listener (person B) does not, then (JT) and (A) both have the key information putting them on the inside of the joke, and person (B) does not have the key information, putting (B) on the outside of the joke.

However, more is required, at least for a paradigm case of "telling an inside joke" than just that the joke teller and the person(s) on the inside both have the information that is key to getting the joke. The person telling the joke must understand or believe that some people have the key information, while others do not. Furthermore, the person telling the joke also understands that the people who have the inside information know or can infer that the joke teller has that information and knows that some people listening to the joke have that information while others don't.

If I am telling you an inside joke and you are on the inside of the joke, then it is not merely the case that I know the inside information, or that I know that you know the inside information, but it is also the case that I know that you know that I know that you know the inside information.

"Telling an inside joke" might be somewhat more complex than "making a claim that carries the implication that such-and-such is the case", but both speech acts have a greater complexity than one might initially suspect.

If I make the claim "The butler did it.", I am making a claim that "A woman that worked for the victim is the murderer." only in a context where certain conditions apply. I must believe that the butler is a woman, and I must believe that the people listening to me are aware that I have this belief, and even that is not sufficient. There needs to be a mutual or shared awareness that I have this belief about the butler: I know that they know that I know that they know that I believe that the butler was a woman.

If "Making a claim that carries the implication that such-and-such is the case" is similar to "Telling an inside joke" in requiring a context where the speaker and people who are listening have a shared or mutual awareness about some belief of the speaker, then the former concept has a complexity that approaches that of the latter.

If Jesus made the claim "I have the authority to forgive sins" and if that claim carried the implication that he was God, then Jesus knew that his listeners knew that Jesus knew that they knew that Jesus believed that Only God could forgive sins.

Obviously, we cannot observe the minds and thoughts of Jesus and his listeners in a particular situation that occurred two thousand years ago. However, we could reasonably infer that this complex shared awareness existed if Jesus had pronounced that "Only God could forgive sins" at the time and place when he was also claiming that he, Jesus, could forgive sins.

But there is no mention of Jesus making such a pronouncement, so we have no reason to believe that the circumstances involved the complex shared awareness about Jesus holding this belief. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that in claiming to be able to forgive sins, Jesus was "making a claim that carried the implication that" he was God.

The obvious reply to this objection is that it was a commonly held belief among first century Jews that "Only God could forgive sins." Thus the people listening to Jesus would presume that Jesus held this belief, unless he had specifically rejected or questioned this widely held Jewish belief.

I will respond to this reply in the next post on McDowell's Trilemma Argument.

To be continued...

McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 13

In post #11 on McDowell's Trilemma, I suggested a somewhat complex and less-than-obvious way to bridge the logical gap between the following two claims:

2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.

4b. Jesus claimed to be God.

Before continuing the discussion of my more complex proposal, I will finish looking at a simpler reconstruction of McDowell's thinking:

2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4b. Jesus claimed to be God.

Although one could raise doubts about the truth or probability of premises (2b) and (3a), the logic of the argument appears to be flawed. This argument is subject to a counterexample that is similar to the one I used against my more complex reconstruction of McDowell's thinking:

(CE2) Jesus made it plain to other people around him that he did not believe that only God could forgive sins.

In this case, Jesus might well believe himself to be God, but he would fail to make a public claim to be God, because the beliefs that he professed would not carry the implication that he was God.

Strictly speaking, a counterexample to the logic of an argument only shows that the argument is not a valid deductive argument. But the previous non-hybrid arguments were not taken to be deductive arguments anyway. They were viewed as providing a good reason to believe their conclusions, if the premises were true. So, the bottom-line question here is, does the hybrid argument provide a good reason to believe the conclusion, assuming the premises to be true?

A counterexample to the validity of a deductive argument can be completely imaginary, unrealistic, and far-fetched. So long as the counterexample is logically possible, the deductive argument is proven to be invalid. But when we are not dealing with a deductive argument, a counterexample needs to be stronger than this. It should be not only logically possible, but be realistic or somewhat probable.

(CE2) might not be true, but it is more than a mere logical possibility; it is at least somewhat probable (e.g. have one chance in ten of being true). So, (CE2) also works against the above argument, even though we conceive of the argument as non-deductive. (CE2) casts doubt on the claim that the combination of (2b) and (3a) provide a good reason to accept the conclusion.

Furthermore, (CE2) points to a whole category of circumstances under which the inference would fail. In short, (CE2) points to a necessary condition for the application of the concept of "claiming to be X". More specifically, since the argument here is not that Jesus is directly and explicitly claiming to be God, the relevant concept at work is "making an implied claim to be X."

The implication involves a logical inference, and in the situation described by (CE2), Jesus has publically rejected or denied a key premise required in the logical inference. Therefore, he cannot be taken as publically advocating or suggesting the relevant inference.

Let me restate this point in different words. If Jesus publically rejected the view that "Only God could forgive sins", then (unless he proclaimed the opposite view at some other time), we cannot take his claim to be able to forgive sins as a subtle way of claiming to be God.

Let's consider a less controversial example of this. Suppose I am a detective who is investigating a murder. After a careful investigation of the crime scene, and interogation of serveral suspects, I announce my conclusion: "The butler did it." Suppose that the victim had one, and only one, butler, and that contrary to my own assumption, this butler happens to be a woman. Have I therefore made the claim that "The murderer is a woman who worked for the victim." ?

I certainly did not make such a claim directly and explicitly, but it is also the case that I have not made an implied claim that the murderer is a woman. I simply have not made a claim about the murder being a woman. This is because I believe (mistakenly) that the butler is a man, and I have no intention to try to get people to think otherwise.

So, a necessary condition of making an implied claim is that one must publically accept (or at least not publically reject) the premises involved in the logic of the alleged implication. In the case of Jesus claiming the power to forgive sins, this carries the implication of Jesus' deity only if Jesus publically accepts the additional premise that "Only God could forgive sins". (CE2) thus points to a general category of possibilities or circumstances in which the claim to be able to forgive sins would fail to imply the deity of the person making the claim.

In the next installment I will return to the more complex proposal for re-constructing (fixing) McDowell's reasoning concerning Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sins, and this will involve further analysis of the concept of "making an implied claim".

McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 12

Since McDowell does specifically talk about Jesus claiming to be able to forgive sins, this would probably be a better initial premise:

2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.

The conclusion, in order to provide relevant support to the Trilemma, must also be about what Jesus claimed:

4b. Jesus claimed to be God.

The question is, how do we bridge the logical gap between (2b) and (4b)?

In the previous post, I suggested a somewhat complex and less-than-obvious way to bridge the logical gap. Before continuing the discussion of this proposal, let me back up a bit, and consider a simpler and more obvious reconstruction of McDowell's thinking:

2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.
3b. Jesus claimed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4b. Jesus claimed to be God.

This simple reconstruction of the argument shares important features with the previously considered argument that focused on what Jesus believed:

2a. Jesus believed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4a. Jesus believed that he was God.

Both arguments are invalid as deductive arguments; the conclusions can be false even if the premises are true. But it is also the case that both arguments provide a good reason for believing their conclusions (if the premises are true).

Premise (2b) is supported by Gospel accounts of some incidents where Jesus declared that some person's sins were forgiven. One could challenge this claim by pointing to problems with the historical reliability and accuracy of the Gospels, but a more grevious problem with this argument is that there is no evidence from the Gospels for premise (3b). Jesus makes no such claim in the Gospels. So, this simple way of bridging the logical gap between (2b) and (4b) will not work.

Perhaps a hybrid of the above two arguments would work:

2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4b. Jesus claimed to be God.

I have previously objected that McDowell failed to provide relevant evidence to support premise (3a), and that it is unclear whether this premise is true.

Furthermore, this hybrid argument is subject to a counterexample that is similar to the one I used against my more complex reconstruction of McDowell's thinking:

Jesus made it plain to other people around him that he did not believe that only God could forgive sins.

In this case, Jesus might well believe himself to be God, but he would fail to make a public claim to be God, because the beliefs that he professed would not carry the implication that he was God.

This counterexample would, of course, require Jesus to be dishonest. It requires that Jesus clearly implies that he rejects a belief which he in fact accepts. So, it is open to a defender of Christianity to object that Jesus was an honest person, a person of great moral integrity, and thus that Jesus would not deceive others about his theological beliefs.

However, the assumption that Jesus was an honest person and a person of great integrity cannot be built into the logic of the Trilemma argument, because one of the three logical possibilities is that Jesus is a liar (i.e. he claimed to be God even though he did not believe himself to be God). So, Christian apologists need to argue for a premise to the effect that Jesus was an honest person and a person of great integrity, and that is basically how the "Liar" alternative is challenged and potentially eliminated.

We are talking now about how the basic factual premise (i.e. Jesus claimed to be God) of the Trilemma is established. The three alternatives (Lord, Liar, or Lunatic) are derived from the basic factual premise, and then considered, and Christian apologists aim to eliminate two of the alternatives. So, it would beg the question to assume Jesus to be honest and a person of great integrity in order to establish the basic factual premise.

In establishing what Jesus claimed or did not claim concerning his alleged divinity, one must not lean on the assumption (even a well-justified asssumption) that Jesus was an honest person and a person of great moral integrity. That assumption needs to be argued for later in the argument, after the basic factual assumption has been established.

Strictly speaking, a counterexample to the logic of an argument only shows that the argument is not a valid deductive argument. But the previous non-hybrid arguments were not taken to be deductive arguments anyway. They were viewed as providing a good reason to believe their conclusions, if the premises were true. So, the bottom-line question here is, does the hybrid argument provide a good reason to believe the conclusion, assuming the premises to be true?

McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 11

Here is my first attempt at revising an argument given by McDowell in support of the premise that Jesus claimed to be God:

2a. Jesus believed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4a. Jesus believed that he was God.

I have objected that McDowell failed to provide relevant evidence to support premise (3a), and it is unclear whether this premise is true.

Another problem is that this argument is about what Jesus believed, but the premise of the Trilemma that needs support is about what Jesus claimed. So, I will make another attempt at reconstructing McDowell's reasoning.

Since McDowell does specifically talk about Jesus claiming to be able to forgive sins, that would probably be a better initial premise:

2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.

The conclusion, in order to provide relevant support to the Trilemma, must also be about what Jesus claimed:

4b. Jesus claimed to be God.

The question is, how do we bridge the logical gap between (2b) and (4b)?

I think a couple of generic premises about the context of (2b) will work, at least as logical place holders:

2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.
5. Jesus made the claim that he could forgive sins, and he did so in a context of type X.
6. The claim that one can forgive sins, when made in a context of type X, carries the implication that one is God.
Therefore,
7. Jesus asserted a claim that in the particular context carried the implication that Jesus was God.
Therefore,
4b. Jesus claimed to be God.

Since premise (5) presupposes the truth of premise (2b), we can drop (2b) without impacting the logic of the argument.

This reconstruction of McDowell's thinking appears to avoid the problems of the previous arguments. Premise (5) is an empirical and historical claim (at least it will be if we can properly fill in the blank to define "a context of type X").

Premise (6) might not be an empirical claim, but it is a claim about the meaning or use of the expression "I have the power to forgive sins" (and similar expressions). This is a conceptual claim and there are commonly accepted ways of evaluating such claims--no need to appeal to divine revelation or mystical experience to settle this question. Finally, the conclusion is one of the premises of the Trilemma, so there is no question about the relevance of this argument to the Trilemma.

The trick here is to define what is meant by "a context of type X" in such a way that the conceptual claim in (6) is true or plausible, while at the same time there is adequate historical evidence available to support (5), given the clarification.

The possibilities and permutations that one could think up to fill in the blank here are too numerous to ever allow for a complete refutation of the general form of the argument above. So, I will have to content myself with looking at just a few possibilities for defining "a context of type X".

One possibility comes to mind. What if the people who were listening to Jesus when he made the claim to be able to forgive sins were people who believed that only God could forgive sins? In such a context, making the claim to be able to forgive sins might carry additional significance, especially if we contrast this context with one in which the people listening held the contrary belief that all (or many) human beings had the power to forgive sins.

Definition 1: Some person P makes a claim C in a context of type X if and only if P makes a claim C to a group of people who believe that only God can forgive sins.

Does the above argument work if we fill in the blank using Definition 1 (hereafter: D1)?

On (D1) claim (6) is subject to the following counterexample:

Jesus did not believe that only God can forgive sins, and he made it plain to other people around him that he did not believe this.

In this situation, even though people around him might take the content of Jesus' claim to logically imply that Jesus was God (i.e. they would believe that "If Jesus truly can forgive sins, then Jesus must be God."), those people would not attribute such a belief or inference to Jesus, and thus they would not interpret Jesus as intending to assert or imply that he was God. They would understand that from Jesus' point of view, the ability to forgive sins is no big deal, that from Jesus' point of view this does not carry the implication that Jesus was divine.

Another problem, a problem that might well plague all attempts to fill in the blank, is that we don't have solid historical evidence about the beliefs of the people that were gathered around Jesus at the time he (allegedly) made the claim to be able to forgive sins. Thus, once we use (D1) to clarify the empirical premise (5), we would not be able to determine whether (5) was true or not. It might be true, but it might not be.

Certainly some of the people around Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins, at least according to the Gospel account. But did all of the people around Jesus believe this? If only a few people believed this, and others disbelieved it, then how could the claim be reasonably interpreted to carry the implication that Jesus was God?

To be continued...

McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 10

In More than a Carpenter, McDowell makes four key points based on passages from the synoptic Gospels in support of his Trilemma argument. I am now focusing on the first point:


...Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins. (MTC, p.18)


I have considered and rejected one argument that McDowell presents relating to this point:


1. Jesus forgave sins.
Therefore,
2. Jesus can forgive sins.
3. Only God can forgive sins.
Therefore,
4. Jesus is God.


This will not work as an apologetic argument, because the two main premises (1) and (3) are controversial theological claims that are not subject to empirical or historical evaluation.


I have suggested a modification of this argument to try to get around the objection concerning the use of controversial theological claims as premises in an apologetic argument:


2a. Jesus believed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4a. Jesus believed that he was God.


Premises (2a) and (3a) are not controversial theological claims, and they are both subject to empirical and historical evaluation. What Jesus believed or did not believe is an empirical question. It might be difficult to arrive at a firm conclusion on this matter, but there is relevant historical data that can be examined and that might either support or disconfirm specific claims about what Jesus taught and/or believed.


It should be noted that the inference from (2a) and (3a) to (4a) is not a valid deductive inference. It is logically possible for (2a) and (3a) to be true, and yet for (4a) to be false. However, the combination of (2a) and (3a) do constitute a good reason for accepting the conclusion (4a). They make the conclusion probably true.


It is a very simple and obvious inference to go from "I can forgive sins" and "Only God can forgive sins" to "I am God". So, if we assume that Jesus held the first two beliefs, it would be reasonable to conclude that he put two and two together and drew the obvious inference that he was God. So, although this modified argument is not a valid deductive argument, the reasoning is good enough to make the conclusion probable, given the truth of the premises.


The passage McDowell cites from the Gospel of Mark certainly provides some evidence in support of premise (2a). How strong this evidence is will require both a general evaluation of the historical reliability of the Gospel of Mark and also a more specific historical evaluation of the passage in question.


Premise (3a), however, is not supported by appropriate evidence, and it is not at all clear whether this claim is true. McDowell briefly argues for the belief that "Only God could forgive sins":


By Jewish law this was something only God could do; Isaiah 43:25 restricts this perogative to God alone. (MTC, p. 18)


But here McDowell is trying to defend a controversial theological belief. What is at issue is not whether this belief is true, but whether Jesus had this belief. The latter issue is one that is subject to empirical and historical investigation. Quotations from Isaiah or from the Old Testament do not provide strong evidence for what Jesus believed, particularly on such a fine point of theology. Instead, McDowell needs to present some Gospel evidence about the words and teachings of Jesus. That is how one supports a claim about what the historical Jesus did or did not believe.

Perhaps McDowell was thinking along these lines:

5. Jesus believed each and every theological claim taught by the Old Testament.
6. The Old Testament teaches the theological claim that "Only God could forgive sins".
Therefore,
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.

Although premise (6) could be challenged, the main problem here is premise (5). Why should we assume that Jesus would believe each and every theological claim taught by the OT?

McDowell, and other Evangelical Christians believe that Jesus is God, and that the OT was inspired by God, so it would make sense from that point of view to assume that Jesus was familiar with each and every theological claim made by the OT. But such clearly Christian assumptions beg the question in the context of an apologetic argument, which is an attempt to rationally persuade a skeptic of some basic Christian belief. Such assumptions are legitimate for in-house discussions between Christian believers and theologians, but they have no place in an apologetic argument.

McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 9

In More than a Carpenter, McDowell makes four key points based on passages from the synoptic Gospels:

1. "...Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins." (MTC, p.18)
2. "...Jesus received worship as God." (MTC, p.12)
3. "Jesus responded to Peter's confession...by acknowledging its validity..." (MTC, p.12)
4. Jesus "confessed his divinity" at the trial before the high priest. (MTC, p.23)

Let's take a closer look at the first point. McDowell quotes an argument from Systematic Theology by Lewis Sperry Chafer:

"Since none but God can forgive sins, it is conclusively demonstrated that Christ, since he forgave sins, is God."
(MTC, p. 19)

Here is the argument in standard format:

1. Jesus forgave sins.
Therefore,
2. Jesus can forgive sins.
3. Only God can forgive sins.
Therefore,
4. Jesus is God.

The logic is good. This is a valid deductive argument. Although the logic is good, this is a lousy argument, and I think understanding why this argument fails will help to clarify our thinking on this issue.

The inference from (1) to (2) is valid, because if Jesus did in fact forgive somebody's sins, that proves that he can forgive sins. We might want to add temporal qualifications here, since that fact that "A did X at time T1" does not imply that "A can do X at time T2". The fact that I did 100 sit ups in less than two minutes when I was in high school does not prove that I can do that now (some thrity years later). Thus, if it were a fact that Jesus forgave sins of one person two thousand years ago, this would only show that Jesus had that power/ability two thousand years ago, not that he has that power/ability today.

But if we interpret (2) narrowly, as only implying that Jesus at one point had the power/ability to forgive sins, the logic of the argument still works. If God is the only being who ever at anytime had (or will have) the power/ability to forgive sins, then the fact that Jesus had this power/ability at one point in time is sufficient to show that Jesus is God.

The problem with this argument is that both of the basic premises are theological claims, claims that cannot be empirically verified or falsified in any straightforward way. A logical positivist would say that both basic premises were cognitively meaningless, because they are not subject to verification by empirical observation:

1. Jesus forgave sins.

3. Only God can forgive sins.

The alleged activities and powers of God are not subject to empirical verification or falsification. God is supposed to be invisible and intangible and bodiless, so we cannot watch God, see God in a telescope, find God on radar, capture his activity on video, etc. Premise (3) is a controversial theological claim that is inappropriate for use in an apologetic argument aimed at rationally persuading a skeptic.

Jesus, of course, had the power to utter sentences like "I forgive you." and "I forgive your sins." and "Your sins are forgiven." But simply saying these words does not mean that the intended change has been accomplished. Anybody who can talk, can utter those sentences, but that does not mean that anybody can forgive sins.

To actually establish that the intended change happened requires that one must first observe that there is some sort of emnity or separation between a particular person and God, and after the uttering of the words of forgiveness (e.g. "Your sins are forgiven."), one would have to then observe that the previous emnity or separation between that person and God had gone away. Finally, some additional evidence would be needed to confirm that the association between these events was more than just a coincidence. One would need some additional reason to believe that the first event caused or brought about the second event.

None of this is something that is a matter of straightforward emprical observation. One cannot literally see a "gap" between some particular person and God. One cannot literally see God at all, since God has no body, and thus God does not reflect or absorb visible light. Any conclusion that a particular person currently is spiritually separated from God must be grounded either in some sort of "spiritual" experience (unacceptable as evidence to a skeptic) or else grounded in more ordinary experience but interpreted in terms of some specific theological theory or system that allows for translation between ordinary observations and theological conclusions (also unacceptable as evidence to a skeptic). Thus, premise (1) is not subject to empirical or historical evaluation.

The argument from Lewis Sperry Chafer will not work as an apologetic argument. It must be modified so that the premises are subject to empirical and historical evaluation. Here is my first attempt at such a modification of this argument:

2a. Jesus believed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4a. Jesus believed that he was God.

I think this is much closer to the argument that McDowell had in mind. In the next installment, I will examine and evaluate this modified argument.

McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 8

Josh McDowell's Trilemma includes the following key premise:

Jesus claimed to be God. (EDV, p.104).

McDowell's Trilemma argument is weak because it depends heavily on quotations of Jesus from the Gospel of John and on the following assumption:

(ROJ) The Fourth Gospel is a reliable source of the words and teachings of Jesus.

In previous posts, I have shown that this assumption has been rejected by most of the leading Jesus scholars in our time. For this reason, we can safely ignore about 90% of the evidence presented by McDowell in support of a key premise of the Trilemma.

However, McDowell recognizes that there are objections to his use of the gospel of John as a source of the words and teachings of Jesus, so he also presents some evidence from the synoptic gospels:

When I was lecturing in a literature class at the University of West Virginia, a professor interrupted me and said that the only Gospel in which Jesus claimed to be God was John's Gospel and it was the latest one written. He then asserted that Mark, the earliest Gospel, never once mentioned Jesus' claiming to be God. It was obvious this man hadn't read Mark--or hadn't paid much attention to what he read. (MTC, p.18)

So, McDowell's argument cannot be dismissed until we examine the evidence he points out from the synoptics.


In More than a Carpenter, McDowell makes four key points based on passages from the synoptic Gospels:

1. "...Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins." (MTC, p.18)
2. "...Jesus received worship as God." (MTC, p.12)
3. "Jesus responded to Peter's confession...by acknowledging its validity..." (MTC, p.12)
4. Jesus "confessed his divinity" at the trial before the high priest. (MTC, p.23)

Questions that a critical thinker needs to consider about each of these points:

Q1. Are there reasonable doubts about whether the general event in the synoptic passage is an historical event?
Q2. Are there reasonable doubts about whether key details in the synoptic passage are historical?
Q3. Are there reasonable alternative interpretations of the synoptic passage or event that do not involve Jesus viewing himself as being God?

Future Topics

It is difficult to find the time to think about and write about all of the interesting topics related to the questions "Is Christianity true?" and "Is the Christian worldview reasonable and defensible?" So, in order to make some progress on these very large and important questions, I'm going to try to constrain myself to focus on just three key topics for the rest of this year:

The Trilemma Argument for the Divinity of Jesus
The Resurrection Argument for the Divinity of Jesus
Moral Objections to Belief in the Divinity of Jesus

At some point this year, or early next year, I expect to finish up my discussion of the Trilemma, and move on to examine the argument from fulfilled prophecy for the divinity of Jesus. When I have exhausted my ideas on (or interest in) moral objections to belief in the divinity of Jesus, I will start working on factual errors in the Bible, as an objection to belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Either God or a Bad Man

Was Thomas Jefferson a good man? Was he basically a good person who, like most of us human beings, was morally flawed in some respects? If we look carefully and honestly into the words and actions of Jefferson, we are bound to find a mixture of good and evil, a number of wise and admirable aspects, but also a number of unwise and ignoble aspects. One thing we can say with great confidence: Jefferson was not a morally perfect person.

What about Jesus? Was Jesus a good man? Was he basically a good person, who like most of us, was morally flawed in some respects? If we look carefully and honestly into the words and actions of Jesus, will we find a mixture of good and evil, a number of unwise and ignoble aspects as well as a number of wise and admirable aspects? One thing we can say with great confidence: If Jesus was a morally flawed person, as are most humans, then he was not God incarnate, and Christianity is a delusion.

But moral critique does not have the sort of objectivity that can occur in scientific investigations. There are various alternative philosophies, worldviews, and systems of ethics that one could use in constructing a moral critique of Jesus:

Secular Humanism
Buddhism
Liberalism
Judaism
Marxism
Existentialism
Feminism
Aristotelian Ethics
Humean Ethics
Utilitarian Ethics
Kantian Ethics
Social Contract Theory

Just as one could use a Christian viewpoint in a moral critique of Jefferson, one could also use a Christian viewpoint in a moral critique of Jesus. In fact there are multiple Christian points of view that one might use:

Liberal Protestantism
Conservative Protestantism
-Calvinism
-Lutheranism
-Baptist tradition
Liberal Catholicism
Conservative Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy

One might suspect that Jesus would come out looking better from a conservative Protestant point of view than from a Marxist or Secular Humanist point of view, but there is no way to know in advance of doing a careful investigation of Jesus' words and actions and in advance of doing a good deal of honest thinking about those words and actions from a particular point of view, what the outcome of that investigation, analysis, and evaluation will be. Many political liberals believe that Jesus is on their side, and that political conservatives have distorted and corrupted the teachings of Jesus to support conservative ideas that Jesus would most likely reject and even actively oppose.

Prior to doing the necessary intellectual work, one must leave open the possibility that Jesus would be judged a very good person from a Marxist point of view, and not so good a person from a conservative Protestant viewpoint. Apart from doing the fact gathering and hard thinking required, we cannot know whether Jesus would turn out to be good, bad, or indifferent from a Christian point of view.

From a Secular Humanist point of view, there are a number of aspects of Jesus life that are ignoble and that arguably amount to moral flaws. Jesus taught people to believe in God, and to believe in divine intervention, including faith healing and miraculous answers to prayer. Jesus also taught people to devote themselves fully to obedience to God and to an intensely religious form of life that is occupied largely with faith, prayer, worship, preaching, study of scripture, evangelism, etc.

Jesus taught people to believe that there would be life after death, but that such a life would be good and happy only for those who lived their lives in full obedience to God. From a Secular Humanist point of view, Jesus taught superstitious falsehoods, false hope of immortality, and false fear of eternal punishment. Jesus taught people to live lives focused on a fantasy of "Pie in the sky by and by" instead of living in a way that focuses on how to make our lives better here and now in the real world.

In short, Jesus promoted superstitious and delusional otherworldly beliefs that have helped to keep humankind in darkness and bondage for the past two thousand years. So, Jesus does not appear to be an especially good person from a Secular Humanist point of view.

One might argue that Jesus was just a man of his time and culture. His belief in God, and miracles, the resurrection of the dead, and in the divine inspiration of the Old Testament were simply inherited from the Jewish culture that he was raised in. That certainly is a mitigating factor, but because he made himself out to be a prophet and a religious leader, he must face a higher standard than the average person.

If Jesus had been more honest and objective in his thinking and conversations, he would have been more skeptical and less dogmatic in his teachings about God, miracles, the Bible, and the afterlife. At any rate, the general absence of skepticism, honest doubt, and intellectual humility in the words and actions of Jesus point to a significant moral flaw, from a Secular Humanist point of view.

But doing a moral critique of Jesus from a Secular Humanist point of view is not going to be very persuasive to Christian believers. Secular Humanism assumes that there is no God, at least no God who intervenes in the physical world with divine healings and miracles. Secular Humanism assumes that the Bible and other supposed sacred writings are the products of human minds and not messages from the creator of the universe. Secular Humanism assumes that Christianity is a delusion, so a moral critique of Jesus from a Secular Humanist viewpoint will not do as the basis for an objection to Christianity. Such reasoning appears to beg the question:

1. Secular Humanism is true.
Therefore
2. Jesus was morally flawed.
Therefore
3. Jesus was not God incarnate.
Therefore
4. Christianity is a delusion.

One could simply cut out the intermediate inferences here:

1. Secular Humanism is true.
Therefore
4. Christianity is a delusion.

The conclusion follows from the premise, but the premise is highly controversial, especially in the context of a disagreement between a Secular Humanist (like me) and Christian believers. I cannot simply assume that my worldview is correct and that any other worldview that conflicts with mine is mistaken. There is a whole lot of argumentation and debate that needs to occur in relation to premise (1), before it can be used in an argument against Christianity. And if I manage to persuade someone that (1) is true, they have already ceased to be a Christian believer, making the argument useless.

The Resurrection Factor - Part 3

McDowell puts forward the following bit of reasoning in Chapter 1 of TRF:

Christianity is not a religion. Religion may be defined as humans trying to work their way to God through good works. Christianity, on the other hand, is God coming to men and women through Jesus Christ, offering them a relationship with Himself. (TRF, p.5)

Here is McDowell's reasoning in standard argument format:

1. Christianity is God coming to humans through Jesus Christ, offering them a relationship with Himself.
Thus,
2. Christianity is NOT humans trying to work their way to God through good works.
3. Something is a religion if and only if it is humans trying to work their way to God through good works.
Therefore:
4. Christianity is not a religion.

On the next page (p.6), McDowell mentions his attempt "to refute Christianity". This implies that Christianity is a belief or set of beliefs. Claims and beliefs are the kinds of things that can be refuted. In fact, McDowell specifies (p.6) some of the beliefs that Christianity involves:

- Jesus Christ is God's Son.
- Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind.
- Jesus arose [from the dead] three days later.

So, Christianity is the sort of thing that one can attempt "to refute" because Christianity is a belief or set of beliefs (or if it includes a set of beliefs).

Premise (1) involves an obvious category mistake. If Christianity "is God coming to men and women through Jesus Christ..." then Christianity can neither be proven nor refuted. God "coming to men and women" is an event, and events cannot be true or false; events cannot be proven or refuted. Beliefs about events, however, can be true or false, and can be proven or refuted.

Premise 1 can be reconciled to McDowell's comments on the next page (p.6) by making it clear that it is a belief that is under discussion:

1a. Christianity includes the belief that God comes to humans through Jesus Christ, offering them a relationship with Himself.

This makes perfect sense. But if we clarify premise (1) this way, to reconcile it with McDowell's other comments about Christianity, then we need to make similar clarifications to the other premises, so that the reasoning in McDowell's argument is logical:

1a. Christianity includes the belief that God comes to humans through Jesus Christ, offering them a relationship with Himself.
Thus,
2a. Christianity does not include the belief that humans must work their way to God through good works.
3a. Something is a religion if and only if it includes the belief that humans must work their way to God through good works.
Therefore:
4. Christianity is not a religion.

To be continued...

McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 7

Josh McDowell's Trilemma includes the following key claim:

Jesus claimed to be God.
(the first sentence of section 2A, on page 104 of EDV).

Most of the evidence McDowell gives in support of this claim comes from the Gospel of John. Therefore, the strength of McDowell's argument depends on whether the following assumption is correct:

(ROJ) The Fourth Gospel is a reliable source of the words and teachings of Jesus.

I have previously shown that most of the leading Jesus scholars of the New Quest and also of the Third Quest reject this assumption.

Other leading Jesus scholars, besides those previously mentioned, also reject ROJ, including:

Reginald Fuller
Raymond Brown
Jurgen Becker
John Riches
Christopher Tuckett
Dale Allison
Graham Stanton
James Charlesworth

=====================================
The evangelists, in their use of sources and oral traditions, shaped them according to their theological interests; this editorial work is known as redaction. Thus, the synoptic Gospels contain material that developed in three stages: authentic words and memories of Jesus himself (stage I), materials shaped and transmitted in oral tradition (stage II), and the evangelists' redaction (stage III), the gospel of John, however, is very different. It contains some stage I and stage II materials independent of the synoptics that can be used sometimes to confirm or supplement the synoptic evidence in reconstructing the career and teaching of Jesus. But the Fourth Gospel contains much more material belonging to stage III. ( "Jesus Christ" by Reginald Fuller, from The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, Oxford University Press: New York, New York, 1993, p. 356)

Jesus does not claim overtly to be Son of God in any unique sense. Passages in which he appears to do so belong to stage II or III of the tradition. ("Jesus Christ" by Reginald Fuller, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 360)

==================================

To what extent can we attribute such clear Son-of-God christology [in the Fourth Gospel] to the ministry of Jesus? ... although the words of the Johannine Jesus may be rooted in the words of Jesus of the ministry, they are suffused with the glory of the risen Jesus. Morover, ... John's christology gained clarity through hindsight as the Johannine community was challenged by the synagogue. Therefore use of John to determine scientifically how Jesus spoke of himself during his lifetime is very difficult. (An Introduction to New Testament Christology by Raymond Brown, Paulist Press: New York, New York, 1994, p.88).

========================================

The Fourth Gospel also occupies a special position. While it offers some help with a few biographical-historical questions, because of its christological stance it contributes nothing to an understanding of the message of Jesus. The image of a Jesus who claims to be sent by the Father differs in type and content so much from the Synoptics that we are forced to choose between presenting Jesus in synoptic terms or offereing a Johannine Jesus. Faced with that alternative we must go with the Synoptics, for the Johannine christology, which leaves its mark on every detail of the Fourth Gospel, most certainly represents a late form of Primitive Christian theology. All of which is to say that our Christian sources, for all practical purposes, are limited to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
(Jesus of Nazareth by Jurgen Becker, English translation by James Crouch, Walter de Gruyter & Co., New York, New York, 1998, p.9)
=================================

While there are sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of John and in the noncanonical gospels, as well as possible echoes of such sayings in the Pauline correspondence, it is clear that the main source of authentic sayings of Jesus is the Synoptic tradition which underlies the Synoptic Gospels. Little of the extracanonical material is likely to go back to Jesus, and where it does, it is frequently dependent on the Synoptic Gospels; the utterances of Jesus in the Gospel of John are so different from those of the Synoptic Gospels, both as to form and content, that they must be adjusted to be, largely the work of the early Church. ("The Actual Words of Jesus" by John Riches, from The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, New York: Doubleday, 1997, 1992.)

=====================================

It is widely believed today that John's Gospel is primarily a testimony to the beliefs and experiences of that Gospel's author (or his community) and provides at best a very indirect witness to the historical Jesus. For the most part this seems a justified conclusion. The reasons for such a view are manifold and certainly one cannot easily accept the historical reliability of both John and the Synoptics together. ("Sources and Methods" by Christopher Tuckett in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, edited by Markus Bockmuehl, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.125-126)

For the most part, John's Gospel offers us a profound reflection on the Jesus tradition from a particular author in a particular context. Nevertheless, the historical reliability of the gospel (in the sense of providing reliable information about the historical Jesus) may be rather limited. ("Sources and Methods" by Christopher Tuckett in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, p.127)

===========================================

What is the correct interpretation of Crossan's result? Seemingly implicit in his method is the presumption that most of the traditions attested singly may have been created by the particular community that handed them on, and so they were not widely known. Perhaps this presumption is correct. Who among us would assign to Jesus sayings singly attested in sources as late as John or the Dialogue of the Savior? We assume they were created by the author of John or of the Dialogue or by their communities or by those communities' special tradition. (Jesus of Nazareth by Dale Allison, Fortress Press 1998, p.25-26)

Since most of the words and teachings attributed to Jesus and nearly all of the extraordinary self-assertion claims attributed to Jesus by the Gospel of John are only found in that Gospel, this skeptical remark implies that John is an unreliable source for the words and teachings of Jesus.

=========================

Today it is generally agreed that neither Matthew nor John was written by an apostle. And Mark and Luke may not have been associates of the apostles. (The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, Oxford University Press, 1989, p.135)

Historical study, however, underlined the gap between the way Jesus spoke about himself in the fourth gospel and in the synoptic gospels. In the fourth gospel Jesus speaks regularly and in exalted language about himself and his relationship to God. In the synoptic gospels he does so rarely and then often rather reluctantly. (The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, p.220)

In this chapter we have seen just how difficult it is to separate the claims Jesus made about himself from their later development in the early church. Jesus spoke about his own role reluctantly. (The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, p.233)

Since the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as constantly making claims about himself in exalted language and speaking about his own role, Stanton is clearly assuming that the Gospel of John provides a distorted and unreliable account of the words and teachings of Jesus.

I suggest the following as a 'working hypothesis'. Once we have taken account of four factors, we may accept that the traditions of the actions and teachings of Jesus preserved in the synoptic gospels are authentic. These are the four important provisos: (i) the evangelists have introduced modifications to the traditions; (ii) and they are largely responsible for their present contexts; (iii) some traditions can be shown to stem from the post-Easter period rather than the lifetime of Jesus; (iv) since certainty nearly always eludes us, we have to concede that some traditions are more probably authentic than others. (The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, p.163)

Notice that Stanton's proposed method for determining the authentic actions and teachings of Jesus focuses on study of the synoptic gospels and ignores the Gospel of John. This also assumes that the Fourth Gospel is an unreliable source of information about the historical Jesus.

=================================

Two insights have now become apparent. First, the Evangelists sometimes significantly and deliberately edited Jesus' sayings. Second, we have learned that it is imperative to distinguish between the Evangelists' theology and Jesus' thought. (The Historical Jesus by James Charlesworth, Abingdon Press, 2008, p.15)

...the Evangelists certainly did take incredible liberties in shaping the Jesus tradition; and that means we need to be ever cognizant of the best scientific method for separating what the Evangelists received and what they added. (The Historical Jesus by James Charlesworth, p.20)

We [New Testament experts] do not know who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. (The Historical Jesus by James Charlesworth, p.39)

In Chapter 3, Charlesworth asks a key question:

Was Jesus' teaching defined by the Rule of God (Mark; Matt.; Luke) that was offered in challenging parables or by "I am" proclamations (John)? (The Historical Jesus by James Charlesworth, p.41)

It is clear from other passages that Charlesworth accepts the view of Jesus' teachings put forward in the Synoptic Gospels and doubts or rejects the view of Jesus' teachings in the Fourth Gospel.

Does that mean that the Synoptics (Matt.; Mark; Luke) present somewhat accurately Jesus' fundamental message? The answer, as we shall see (chap. 8), is probably yes. (The Historical Jesus by James Charlesworth, p.42)

It has become clear to the leading scholars that Jesus thought his primary mission was to declare the coming Kingdom of God or, better, God's Rule. (The Historical Jesus by James Charlesworth, p.97)

Jesus' proclamation that God's Rule was imminent is characteristically expressed in parables. (The Historical Jesus by James Charlesworth, p.101)

In Parables as Poetic Fictions, C.W. Hedrick accurately summarizes the state of present research: "New Testament scholarship has, in the main, been quite positive about two aspects of the Jesus tradition: it affirms that the proclamation of the kingdom of God is an essential feature of the message of Jesus and that Jesus announced his message in parabolic stories" (p.7) (The Historical Jesus by James Charlesworth, p.103)

What questions are peculiarly shrouded in the mists of history? Here are some: Jesus was probably intimate with Mary Magdalene; but we cannot define what intimacy means in this instance, and we possess no data that allows us to decide if he had been married to her. We may also catch only a glimpse of what Jesus thought about himself; that is true for two reasons: his followers--especially the Fourth Evangelist--often shaped the passages in which we might discern such self-understanding. Likewise, Jesus was more interested in speaking about God and God's Rule than about proclaiming who he was. (The Historical Jesus by James Charlesworth, p.xviii)

======================================

McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 6

Josh McDowell's Trilemma includes the following key claim:

Jesus claimed to be God.
(the first sentence of section 2A, on p. 104 of EDV).

Most of the evidence McDowell gives in support of this claim comes from the Gospel of John. Therefore, the strength of McDowell's argument depends on whether the following assumption is correct:

(ROJ) The Fourth Gospel is a reliable source of the words and teachings of Jesus.

In previous posts, we have seen that the leading scholars of the New Quest for the historical Jesus rejected ROJ: Gunther Bornkamm, Joachim Jeremias, James Robinson, and Norman Perrin.


We have also seen that some of the leading scholars of the Third Quest for the historical Jesus also reject ROJ: E.P Sanders, Geza Vermes, Ben Meyer, and Marcus Borg. I know of at least three other prominent Third Quest Jesus scholars who reject ROJ: John Meier, Gerd Theissen, and James Dunn.

In the first volume of John Meier's magisterial series of books on the historical Jesus, he states that,

...the rewriting of narratives for symbolic purposes and the reformulation of sayings for theological programs reach their high point in John. (A Marginal Jew, Volume 1, p. 45)

In a footnote, Meier focuses specifically on the words of Jesus in John:

[The sayings tradition of the Fourth Gospel]...has undergone massive reformulation from the Johannine perspective. (A Marginal Jew, Volume 1, p.53, footnote 22).

If the sayings of Jesus in John have "undergone massive reformulation" and if this reformulation was done "for theological programs", then it is clear that the Fourth Gospel is not a reliable source for the words and teachings of Jesus. So, Meier would reject ROJ.

In The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Gerd Theissen states his views on John:

The Gospel of John clearly presents the Jesus of the Gospels who is most stylized on the basis of theological premises. ... Nevertheless, the Gospel of John, which is independent of the Synoptics, is not worthless. (p.36)

Theissen goes on to list five examples where John diverges from the Synoptics and yet "hands down data...[that] can go back to old traditions." None of the examples relates to words or teachings of Jesus. They are all about events or circumstances: (1) first disciples of Jesus were former disciples of John the Baptist, (2) Peter, Andrew, Philip were from Bethsaida, (3) plausible political motivations for Jesus' execution, (4) a hearing of the Sanhedrin is reported, rather than a Jewish trial of Jesus, (5) Jesus dies before Passover.

In a Chapter on The Evaluation of Sources, Theissen has a section entitled, "The unhistorical Johannine picture of Christ". In that section he argues that, "The historical value of the Synoptics is clearly to be rated higher than that of the Gospel of John." (The Historical Jesus, p.97). Theissen allows two qualifications to the claim that John gives an unhistorical picture of Jesus:

The Gospel of John also has a series of sayings of Jesus with a Synoptic stamp. (The Historical Jesus, p.97)

The Gospel of John could have preserved historically accurate information in its narrative sections, where the specifically Johannine stylization of the picture of Jesus has not been at work. (The Historical Jesus, p.97)

These qualifications are not enough to raise the Fouth Gospel to the point of being a reliable source of the words and teachings of Jesus.

The fact that John has a few sayings that line up with the Synoptic gospels says nothing about the reliability of the long theological discourses attributed to Jesus in John, and certainly does not provide support for the historicity of the "I am" statements in John. The fact that a few narrative elements in John "could have preserved historically accurate information" is irrelevant to the issue of the reliability of John concerning the words and teachings of Jesus.

Given Theissen's view that John is "the most stylized on the basis of theological premises" and his view that John generally presents an "unhistorical picture" of Jesus, and given that Theissen does not make a qualification to his skepticism in relation to the long theological discourses of Jesus found in John, it seems fairly clear that Theissen would reject ROJ.

In his scholarly tome, Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, Volume 1), James Dunn shows a strong preference towards the Synoptics over John for determining the truth about the historical Jesus:

...few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus' life and ministry in any degree comparable to the Synoptics. (p.165-166)

Among other factors, Dunn relates his skepticism about the Gospel of John to how it portrays the teachings of Jesus:

Probably most important of all, in the Synoptics Jesus' principal theme is the kingdom of God and he rarely speaks of himself, whereas in John the kingdom hardly features and the discourses are largeley vehicles for expressing Jesus' self-consciousness and self-proclamation. Had the striking 'I am' self-assertions of John been remembered as spoken by Jesus, how could any Evangelist have ignored them so completely as the Synoptics do? On the whole then, the position is unchanged: John's Gospel cannot be regarded as a source for the life and teaching of Jesus of the same order as the Synoptics. (Jesus Remembered, p.166)

In other words, the strong self-assertion claims of Jesus in John are themselves evidence that lead to skepticism about the reliability of John.

Dunn, unlike the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, is a conservative Jesus scholar, and yet his rejection of ROJ can be seen in his own response to the Trilemma:

...scholars have almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John's Gospel reflects much more the early churches' understanding of Jesus than of Jesus own self-understanding. ... Again evangelical or apologetic assertions regarding the claims of Christ will often quote the claims made by Jesus himself (in the Gospel of John) with the alternatives posed 'Mad, bad or God,' without allowing that there may be a further alternative (viz. Christian claims about Jesus rather than Jesus' claims about himself). (The Evidence for Jesus,1985, p.31-32)

Dunn rejects the Trilemma argument because he rejects the assumption upon which it is based. Since the Gospel of John is an unreliable source for the words and teachings of Jesus, we cannot build a solid argument on the basis of words that are attributed to Jesus only by the Fourth Gospel.

Many leading Jesus scholars of the 20th Century have rejected ROJ:

• Gunther Bornkamm
• Joachim Jeremias
• James Robinson
• Norman Perrin.
• E.P. Sanders
• Geza Vermes
• Ben Meyer
• Marcus Borg
• John Meier
• Gerd Theissen
• James Dunn.

Thus, as I stated earlier, the skepticism of Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar concerning the Gospel of John is in keeping with mainstream Jesus scholarship. If anyone is out of step with mainstream Jesus scholarship, it is Evangelical Christian apologists who put forward the Trilemma argument and make heavy use of the Gospel of John in support of the premise that Jesus claimed to be God.

There are a couple of replies to my objection that I will consider in future posts:

(1) McDowell and others provide evidence from the Synoptic Gospels, and not just from John.
(2) In recent decades, N.T. scholars have been taking a more positive view of the historical reliability of the Gospel of John.

McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 5

Josh McDowell's use of evidence from the Gospel of John is based on an assumption about the reliability of John:

(ROJ) The Fourth Gospel is a reliable source of the words and teachings of Jesus.

If ROJ is incorrect, then most of McDowell's evidence for the main premise of the Trilemma is worthless, and the main premise would be left with very little support.

In my previous post on this topic, we saw that Gunther Bornkamm and Joachim Jeremias, two leading Jesus scholars in the new quest for the historical Jesus, both reject ROJ. James Robinson and Norman Perrin are two more prominent Jesus scholars who were part of the new quest, and they too reject ROJ.

In an introduction to the New Testament, Norman Perrin makes this comment when comparing the Synoptics to John:

Outside of the synoptic gospels the New Testament offers little resource for arriving at historical knowledge of Jesus. The gospel of John is so much the end product of intensive meditation and reflection, and so absorbed with the interpretation of Christ as the descending-ascending redeemer, that no way has yet been found of deriving historical information about Jesus from it. (The New Testament, an Introduction: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History by Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling, 2nd ed., 1982, p. 410)

James Robinson also views the Fourth Gospel as being historically unreliable:

Indeed, the Gospel of John is the latest of the four, from the last decade of the first century, and reflects more of the church's gospel about Jesus than it does the gospel of Jesus himself. It is the most important gospel for the history of theology, but the least important for the quest of the historical Jesus.
(The Gospel of Jesus by James M. Robinson, 2005, p.4)

So, four key scholars of the new quest for the historical Jesus agree that ROJ is wrong.

What about the scholars of the more recent third quest for the historical Jesus? We have already seen that E.P. Sanders, a leading Jesus scholar of the third quest, rejects ROJ, but do other prominent third-quest scholars agree with him?

Geza Vermes, Ben Meyer, Marcus Borg, and John Meier are all prominent Jesus scholars who are part of the third quest movement, and each of these scholars rejects ROJ, as we shall see. Vermes asserts the unreliability of the Fourth Gospel in his book The Changing Faces of Jesus (American edition published by Viking Compass, 2001):

...the so-called Gospel of John is something special and reflects not the authentic message of Jesus or even the thinking about him of his immediate followers but the highly evolved theology of a Christian writer who lived three generations after Jesus and completed his Gospel in the opening years of the second century A.D. (p.8)

Next there are the texts [in the Fourth Gospel], a mass of them, in which the evangelist makes Jesus speak of himself. The words which Jesus utters are mostly of John's own creation. The difference between the ideas of John's Jesus and the Jesus of the first three Gospels is particularly striking; they are indeed irreconcilable. (p.26)

Vermes asserts that the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John do not come from the historical Jesus.

The article on "Jesus Christ" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, one of the best Bible reference works in the English language, was written by the third-quest Jesus scholar Ben Meyer. In this article, Meyer gives his view of the reliability of Gospel of John:

Moreover, though the Johannine gospel tells the story of Jesus in distinctive fashion and affirms this story to be charged with historic truth, the key to the discourses of Jesus, to individual narrative units, and to the total sequence of events is not memory but sustained religious reflection of a high order. What the gospel affirms is not so much the actuality of remembered words and acts as it is the historic truth of Johannine theological themes. When applied to a work of this character, the standard indices to historicity turn out to yield relatively little.
(The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, New York: Doubleday, 1997, 1992.)

Clearly, Meyer views John as an unreliable source of the words of the historical Jesus, so he would reject ROJ. Meyer's skepticism about John appears to be more qualified than that of Norma Perrin (new quest scholar) and Geza Vermes (third quest scholar), because he allows that there are historical facts that can be discovered from study of the Fourth Gospel:

Nevertheless, on numerous matters ... the Fourth Gospel clearly seems to have retained significant historical data unavailable in the Synoptic tradition.

But the ability of scholars to find bits and pieces of historical truth in John does not make this Gospel a reliable source of the words and teachings of Jesus.

Marcus Borg is another leading Jesus scholar who is part of the third quest for the historical Jesus. Borg contrasts John with Mark (and the other Synoptic Gospels) in an essay he contributed to the book Jesus at 2000:

One of the greatest differences [between John and the Synoptic Gospels] is Jesus' self-proclamation. In John, Jesus speaks frequently of his own extraordinary status. In the great "I am" statements (found only in John), Jesus speaks of himself in the most exalted language. These include:

"I am the light of the world" (8.12, 9.5).
"I am the bread of life" (6.35).
"I am the resurrection and the life" (11.25).
"I am the way, the truth and the life" (14.6).

Also in John, Jesus speaks of himself as one with God and as the revelation of God: "I and the Father are one" (10.30), "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (14.9), and "No one comes to God except through me" (14.6).

In Mark, there is none of this. Jesus never refers to himself with any of these exalted images and phrases.
(Jesus at 2000 edited by Marcus Borg, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997, page 131.)

In the same essay, Marcus defends his view that the Gospel of John is unreliable in much the same way as E.P. Sanders does:

That is, Jesus' exalted status is not part of Jesus' public teaching in Mark. It is not part of his message. The contrast to John is stark, where Jesus regularly proclaims his identity.

There are other sharp differences between the synoptics (as represented by Mark) and John. In the synoptics, Jesus performs many exorcisms; in John, none. In the synoptics, Jesus most commonly teaches by using short sayings (called aphorisms by scholars) and memorable short stories (the parables); in John, Jesus often teaches in long, complex discourses. In Mark, Jesus drives the money changers out of the temple in Jerusalem in the final week of his life (indeed, it is the cause of his arrest); in John, Jesus does so at the very beginning of his public activity (at the end of Chapter 2). In John, Jesus' message is to a large extent about himself; in Mark, Jesus' message is not about himself but about the Kingdom of God.

Cumulatively, these differences have persuaded scholars that a foundational choice must be made: The historical Jesus was either more like the Jesus of the synoptics or more like the Jesus of John. The differences are so great that the synoptic and Johannine portraits of Jesus cannot be harmonized into a single whole. For mainline scholars, the choice is the synoptics. (Jesus at 2000, p. 132)

Like Sanders, the contrasts between John and the Synoptic Gospels are focused mainly on the form and content of the teachings of Jesus. Thus, Borg like Sanders would clearly reject ROJ.

There is an article specifically on "The Teaching of Jesus Christ" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, and that article was authored by Marcus Borg. He is more to the point in his comments on John in that article:

First, within the NT the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are the primary sources. John’s gospel is not seen as a historical account of Jesus’ message. Rather, John portrays what Jesus had become in the lives of post-Easter Christians; Jesus as a figure of history did not speak as he does in John’s gospel.

In the next post on this topic, I will cover the views of some more prominent Jesus scholars (John Meier, Raymond Brown, and James Dunn).

McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 4

In Chapter 6 of Evidence that Demands a Verdict (EDV), Josh McDowell quotes or refers to thirty-two different passages from the Gospel of John in an effort to support the basic premise of his trilemma: Jesus claimed to be God.

In my last post on this topic, I set aside seven passages from John because they contained no words of Jesus. Of the remaining twenty-five passages, sixteen were set aside because the words attributed to Jesus in those passages clearly don't amount to a claim to be God. That leaves us with just nine passages that deserve a closer look:

(17) John 5:19-27: Jesus repeatedly refers to "the Son" in relation to "the Father".
(18) John 8:19: "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."
(19) John 8:58: "...before Abraham was, I am."
(20) John 9:35-39: Jesus said to him, "...the one speaking with you is he [the Son of Man]." He [a man who had been healed of blindness by Jesus] said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshipped him.
(21) John 10:30-33: "The Father and I are one."
(22) John 10:33-38: "... can you say that the one whom the Father has... sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, 'I am God's Son'?"
(23) John 14:9: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
(24) John 17:1&5: "... Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed."
(25) John 20:27-29: Thomas answered him [Jesus], "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe."

These passages are the best evidence that Josh McDowell has provided, at least in terms of relevance. Out of the dozens of passages where Jesus speaks in the four Gospels, it is in these nine passages from the Gospel of John, that Jesus comes closest to claiming to be God.

It is important to note, however, that no where in the Gospels do we hear Jesus say the clear and simple words, "I am God." Furthermore, in no Gospel passage does Jesus state, "I am the creator of the universe." We also don't find any place where Jesus straightforwardly asserts, "I am the supreme being." or "I am the deity." Nor does any Gospel have Jesus utter the words, "I am the one and only all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good person." We don't read Jesus saying, "I am the infinite and eternal source of all being." The Gospels never have Jesus state, "I am the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." If Jesus had said all of these things, there would be no doubt that he had claimed to be God. If Jesus had said just one of these things, that would have made it fairly clear that he was claiming to be God. But the Gospels do not attribute any such clear and definite claims to Jesus.

Before we start trying to figure out whether any of the above nine passages from John contain an implied claim to deity by Jesus, there is a more fundamental problem to consider: Did Jesus actually say the words that the Gospel of John attributes to him? McDowell's evidence from the Gospel of John is based on an assumption about the reliability of John:

(ROJ) The Fourth Gospel is a reliable source of the words and teachings of Jesus.

If ROJ is incorrect, then most of McDowell's evidence for the main premise of the Trilemma is worthless, and the main premise would be left with very little support.

Is ROJ correct? It is completely false, according to the fellows of the Jesus Seminar, a group of New Testament scholars who have been working together for many years to separate truth from fiction about the historical Jesus:

The first step is to understand the diminished role the Gospel of John plays in the search for the Jesus of history. ... The fellows of the Seminar were unable to find a single saying [attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John] they could with certainty trace back to the historical Jesus. ... The words attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are the creation of the evangelist for the most part... (The Five Gosepels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, by Robert Funk, Roy Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, HaperCollins Paperback, 1997, p.10)

The Jesus Seminar gives ROJ, two big thumbs down. But Evangelical Christians have been told to be wary of the Jesus Seminar, and many would dismiss the Seminar as being composed of very liberal and overly skeptical scholars who have an axe to grind against traditional Christianity. The Jesus Seminar is thought to be out-of-step with solid mainstream scholarship about Jesus.

I won't try to assess the general credibility of the Jesus Seminar here, but it is clear to me that on this particular point, it is Evangelical Christian thinkers and apologists who are out of step with solid mainstream scholarship about Jesus. The Seminar's views on the Gospel of John are very close to the views of many leading Jesus scholars, as I will now show.

Let's take a step back for a moment and consider the brief but helpful summary of modern Jesus scholarship given in the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

...the so-called Quest for the Historical Jesus, an ongoing scholarly movement that has unfolded in three distinct phases.

The first phase, commonly referred to as the "old quest," began in the late eighteenth century with the German deist H.S. Reimarus and ran until 1906, the year in which A. Schweitzer published a magisterial summary and critique of the movement. After a hiatus of almost half a century, a "new quest" took its impetus from a programmatic lecture delivered in 1953 by E. Kasemaan. Three years later G. Bornkamm's Jesus of Nazareth provided the basis of a consensus that would hold sway until 1985. In that year E.P. Sanders' Jesus and Judaism offered the sort of retrospective critique that Schweitzer had provided for the "old quest," and the same year saw the organization of a group known as the Jesus Seminar under the leadership of R. Funk and J.D. Crossan. A "third quest" has emerged in which such figures as J.P. Meier, N.T. Wright, and M. Borg play a prominent role. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, Volume 7, "Jesus Christ (In Theology)", subsection on "The Historical Jesus" by William Loewe, p. 837, Published by Gale, San Francisco, California, copyright 2003 by The Catholic University of America).

In the twentieth century we have seen the new quest from 1953 to 1985, which was represented by the Jesus scholar Gunther Bornkamm. From 1985 to the present day, the third quest has dominated, led by E.P. Sanders, and carried out by a number of other Jesus scholars (Meier, Wright, Borg, and others). How did the scholars of the new quest view the Gospel of John? How do the scholars of the third quest view the Gospel of John? Do these scholars accept ROJ?

I have checked into the thinking of the leading scholars in both the new quest and the third quest and have not found any leading Jesus scholar who would accept ROJ. Most are fairly clear that the Gospel of John is an unreliable source of information, especially concerning the words and teachings of Jesus.

A good place to start when looking for the views of leading experts in a field is with the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In this case, you can find out the views of both Bornkamm (a prominent representative of the new quest) and Sanders (a leader of the third quest) by consulting Britannica, depending on the year the encyclopedia was published.

I have an older set of Britannica encyclopedias (from1988) and the article on Jesus in it is by Gunther Bornkamm. Here is what he has to say about the Gospel of John:

The most important sources for the life of Jesus are the Synoptic (parallel view of sources) Gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The Gospel according to John, the Fourth Gospel, assumes a special position.... Because a theological conception has been incorporated in the account to such an extent, this Gospel cannot be directly used as a historical source.
(The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 22, 15th Edition, 1988, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, Ill., "Jesus: The Christ and Christology" by Gunther Bornkamm)

In more recent editions of Britannica, the article on Jesus is authored by E.P. Sanders. Sanders also views the Gospel of John as an unreliable source, especially concerning the words and teachings of Jesus:

... the Gospels...are not of equal value in reconstructing his [Jesus'] life and teaching. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree so closely with one another that they can be studied together in parallel columns in a work called a synopsis and are hence called the Synoptic Gospels. John, however, is so different that it cannot be reconciled with the Synoptics except in very general ways.... In all four Gospels, Jesus performs miracles, especially healings, but, while excorcisms are prevalent in the Synoptics, there are none in John. The greatest differences, though, appear in the methods and content of Jesus' teaching. In the Synoptic Gospels, he speaks about the kingdom of God in short aphorisms and parables, making use of similes and figures of speech, many drawn from agricultural and village life. He seldom refers to himself, and when asked for a "sign" to prove his authority, he refuses (Mark 8:11-12). In John, on the other hand, Jesus employs long metaphorical discourses, in which he himself is the main subject. His miracles are described as "signs" that support the authenticity of his claims.

Scholars have unanimously chosen the Synoptic Gospels' version of Jesus' teaching. (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2007 Deluxe Edition, "Jesus Christ" by E.P. Sanders)

So Bornkamm, a prominent Jesus scholar in the new quest movement, and Sanders, the leading Jesus scholar of the third quest movement, both agree that the Gospel of John is an unreliable source of information about the words and teachings of Jesus. Both Bornkamm and Sanders would clearly reject ROJ.

Another leading Jesus scholar who was part of the new quest (1953-1985) is Joachim Jeremias. We find Jeremias' view of the Gospel of John in the opening pages of his book New Testament Theology:

...not only have we to reckon with the fact that sayings of Jesus were altered in the period before they were written down, but in addition we have to consider the possibility that new sayings came into being. The seven letters of Christ to the seven churches in Asia Minor (Rev. 2-3) and other sayings of the exalted Lord handed down in the first person (e.g. Rev. 1.17-20;16.15; 22:12 ff) allow the conclusion that early Christian prophets addressed congregations in words of encouragement, admonition, censure and promise, using the name of Christ in the first person. Prophetic sayings of this kind found their way into the tradition about Jesus and became fused with the words that he had spoken during his lifetime. The discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John provide an example of this development; to a considerable degree they are homilies on sayings of Jesus composed in the first person. (New Testament Theology, by Joachim Jeremias, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, New York, 1971, p. 1 &2).

In the first century, the words and teachings of Christian prophets and preachers (who were believed by fellow Christians to be inspired by God) were treated as being the words and teachings of Jesus and became mixed up with the words and teachings of the historical Jesus. The discourses attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John were probably derived from sermons about Jesus by early Christian prophets and preachers. The Jesus scholar Jeremias would definitely reject ROJ.

In the next installment of this series, I will show that a number of leading third-quest Jesus scholars agree with Sanders about the unreliability of the Gospel of John.

McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 3

Josh McDowell's Trilemma argument is presented in Chapter 7 of Evidence that Demands a Verdict (EDV). McDowell's argument is based on the following premise:

Jesus claimed to be God.

(the first sentence of section 2A, on p. 104 of EDV).

This premise is supported in Chapter 6 of EDV. McDowell quotes or references many passages from the New Testament, especially from the four Gospels, to support this claim. But most of the passages come from a single source: the Gospel of John. McDowell quotes or refers to at least thirty-two different passages from this Gospel (in Chapter 6 of EDV).

McDowell uses a "shotgun" approach, demonstrating a clear preference for quantity of evidence over quality of evidence. But we can quickly narrow down the evidence from the Fourth Gospel to a much smaller number of significant passages. Seven of the thirty-two passages include no words from Jesus, so those passages cannot be used as direct evidence about what "Jesus claimed" :

John 1:3, 3:35, 4:42, 12:34, 12:41, 19:7, and 20:30-31.

Only about one-third of the remaining 25 passages from the Gospel of John are worthy of serious consideration as evidence for the premise that Jesus claimed to be God. Here are the passages that fail the sniff test:

(1) John 4:26: Jesus claims to be the messiah. "Messiah" does not mean "God". McDowell is reaching for straws here.
(2) John 5:17-18: Jesus refers to God as "My Father". Jesus also refers to God as "your Father" without implying that his disciples are God (Matthew 5:16, Mark 11:25, Luke 6:36, John 20:17). Try again, McDowell.
(3) John 5:21: "the Son gives life to whomever he wishes" i.e. "raises the dead" on judgment day. Assuming that Jesus is referring to himself here as "the Son," this does seem a bit egotistical, but nothing prevents an all-powerful God from giving an ordinary human being such power and authority. Another one bites the dust.
(4) John 5:23-24: We are to "honor the Son," as we "honor the Father". But "honor" does not mean "worship". If God granted an ordinary human a high position of power and authority in heaven, then one might well want to give honor to that person, just as we would give honor to a powerful earthly ruler. There is a biblical command to "Honor your father and mother", so does that mean my mom is God? No sale here.
(5) John 5:27: "the Son" has been given "authority to execute judgment". See responses to passages (3) and (4). Evidence that demands nothing.
(6) John 6:26-27: Jesus can provide "eternal life". Yes, by giving his disciples teachings that contain divine wisdom revealed by God to Jesus. This is just a claim to be an inspired prophet, not a claim to be God himself. Keep moving: nothing to see here.
(7) John 6:35: "I am the Bread of Life." This is a metaphor pointing to the same idea stated more clearly in passages (3) and (6). Re-statement in different words does not make this passage any less irrelevant than the others.
(8) John 8:12: "I am the light of the world." All prophets claim to bring us divine wisdom and enlightenment. Duh.
(9) John 8:24-28: Jesus says "you will die in your sins unless you believe I am he." [in the Greek: "I am"]. The specific title Jesus mentions in this passage is "the Son of Man" (verse 28). "The Son of Man" basically means "the messiah" in this context. So, the requirement for salvation appears to be that we must believe Jesus to be the messiah. See my comments on passage (1). McDowell points to the use of the phrase "I am" here, as a reference to God's use of that phase in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14), but another passage (John 8:58) has a clearer reference to this Old Testament phrase. So this less clear passage can be set aside.
(10) John 10:9: "I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved...." Another unclear metaphor. The basic idea appears to be that Jesus can provide eternal life to his followers. See my comments on passages (3) and (6).
(11) John 10:11: "I am the Good Shepherd". Yet another unclear metaphor. This one seems to be pointing to the idea that Jesus is an inspired prophet and can provide us with truth and guidance leading to eternal life. Nothing new here.
(12) John 11:25: "I am the resurrection and the life." See my comments on passages (3) and (6). Yawn.
(13) John 14:1: "Believe in God, believe also in me." This is just plain vague. What specifically is this belief in Jesus supposed to involve? He does not say that we must believe him to be the second person of the holy trinity. The belief intended here might well be belief in Jesus as an inspired prophet or a religious teacher who can show us the path to eternal life. Unbelievable.
(14) John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life." An unclear re-statement of ideas stated more straightforwardly in passages (3) and (6). Are we there yet?
(15) John 14:13: "... so that the Father may be glorified in the Son." I will deal with the language "the Father" and "the Son" later (in relation to passages from John chapter 5). The idea of God being glorified in Jesus or by Jesus' life does not imply that Jesus is himself God. Christian believers are to glorify God in their bodies and by their lives (1 Cor. 6:20 & 2 Cor. 9:13).
(16) John 15:4-8: "I am the vine, you are the branches." Another lousy metaphor, open to reasonable interpretation along the lines of passages (3) and (6). The last sniff-test failure (Thank you, Jesus!).

In the next installment, I will start examining the nine passages from the Gospel of John that pass the sniff test, the passages that are worthy of closer examination.