Transcription
Our guest today has studied the historical case for the resurrection arguably more than anybody else alive, more than anyone else alive, really. I emailed you and I said, "How much time do you think you've put into this project?" "This is my 14th year on this project, and I've been working 70 hours a week." Okay, that might be the most. That's dedication. No hobbies for a lot of people. A very nasty hobby. Um, all my life I've gone snake hunting. I've caught hundreds of snakes, and I've been bitten hundreds of times. Sounds dangerous. So, because I'm snake hunting, I stepped on a lot of nails. I think you said about 32,000. You don't keep your foot on that nail very long, like less than a second. Yikes. I hope Gary had his tetanus shots.
[Music]
Welcome to Poia, where a former Christian takes a look at the claims of Christians. Well, I finally have Volume One of Gary Habermas's magnum opus on the resurrection of Jesus in my hands. It's a big brute, at over a thousand pages, thousands and thousands of pages. It's not a cheap book, but it is worth it, and some, for sure. If it cost $400,000, it cost $400,000, they're right. I don't object.
As of when I'm recording this, I'm about a third of the way in, and I want to read it all at least once through before I start critiquing the book itself. But Gary was recently on Sean McDowell's channel to promote the book, and in that two-hour discussion, Sean was kind enough to ask some questions related directly to my resurrection theory turned resurrection enterprise. Five years ago, almost to the day, I first floated my personal naturalistic explanation for Gary's minimal facts in a video called "How Christianity Probably Began: No Resurrection Required." I've nuanced my thoughts more since then, and have even had them critiqued by world-renowned Bible scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman. "Do you think you could give me a letter grade of how well I did?" "I think you did extremely well. I mean, this kind of historical insight is rare." And the Christian author of what is probably the most highly regarded modern resurrection book out there, Dr. Dale Allison, does it pass or fail as a historical hypothesis? Well, it depends on what you're doing with the secondary literature. So, if you know the secondary literature and you're citing it and interacting with it, yeah, you get an A.
I've begun calling it the minimal witnesses hypothesis, or minimal witnesses theory, or minimal witnesses argument, something with minimal witnesses to mirror Gary's minimal facts. You can watch one of the aforementioned videos to get the full scenario, but the points that are important for today are these: After Jesus died, most of his disciples disappeared completely from reliable history. Maybe they went back to fishing, maybe they found a new teacher to follow. We don't know because history didn't preserve that information. Peter, and Peter alone, had an experience he thought was the Risen Jesus, perhaps a relatively common post-death grief hallucination, perhaps something else non-literal. Peter then convinced fellow disciple John and James, the brother of Jesus, to join him on his new mission based on his Jesus vision. What John and James believed specifically is also unrecorded by history, but nevertheless, they joined Peter in wanting to continue the legacy of Jesus. Several years later, a Pharisee named Paul was actively persecuting Christians when he had an experience with Jesus. He himself labels a vision. It might have been a PTSD guilt hallucination or something else entirely, but Jesus's body was long gone from the earth by then. So whatever it was, it was not a physical encounter with a resurrected body. Some years after that, Paul met Peter, James, and John in Jerusalem. After decades later, after stories of Jesus were circulating and growing in legend and in evangelical effectiveness, long after Peter, Paul, and James were dead, some Greek writers who never knew Jesus compiled written gospels, weaving together oral legends about the man, pulling from existing written sources, including each other, Old Testament interpretations with a dash of Greek literary tropes well known in the day, yada yada yada. Modern Christianity. There's more to it, and each of these would be their own chapter in a book. But the takeaway here is that Gary's facts, so Jesus died by crucifixion, minimal fact. Second, the apostles had experiences they believed were of the Risen Jesus. The third minimal fact is that proclamation of the resurrection appearances took place very soon. The disciples are willing to die for their faith. That means the disciples are transformed. And then the last two are James and Paul can be fully explained with highly plausible, entirely mundane events that need only two men, Peter and Paul, to have had some kind of hallucination, and those years apart in circumstances where hallucinations are well known to happen. So let's take a look at each of these. My objections to Gary, and Gary's objections back to me. I'm going to use the exact phrasing from Gary's new book. His first fact: Jesus died due to the effects of Roman crucifixion. I'm just granting that for the sake of discussion. Numbers two and three together: The disciples afterward reported experiences that they thought were actually appearances by risen Jesus, and these experiences accounted for the disciples' lives becoming thoroughly transformed, even to the point of being willing to die for their belief. This is the heart of our disagreement. You see, Gary plays fast and loose with the word "disciples." A scholar can agree with these two propositions. In fact, I could agree with these two propositions thinking that there's evidence for maybe one or two disciples who reported experiences, and then Gary presents it to the public like scholars are granting him all 12. If I get scholars to agree with me on the statement that Americans fought in World War II, and then build some hypothesis on the notion that scholars agree that every single American alive fought in World War II, that would be disingenuous and fallacious. It is not in evidence that all 12 reported experiences of risen Jesus. As a matter of fact, we have no firsthand accounts from any of them on this front. We have one secondhand report of vague gospel agreement from Peter, and we can generously assume that that's synonymous with risen Jesus. But beyond that, for him or anyone else, it's just stories of stories of stories. And it is not in evidence that all 12 were transformed or willing to die for this belief. Again, there's some evidence for Peter, but not the rest. Thankfully, Sean will ask this question. Here's where some debate comes in. That we have the testimony of Paul in First Corinthians 15, one of the accepted letters. Three accounts in Acts. Strong historical case can be made for this. Few people question Paul. Few people question Peter. We have multiple accounts of Peter singled and named out. But when it comes to the other 12, now they're just mentioned as a group, not mentioned as individuals. So how much confidence can we have in say, James the son of Zebedee, or Matthew, or Thaddaeus, who's not specifically mentioned, and we don't have his direct eyewitness claim that he saw the risen Jesus? I say two things. Number one, the way I will, the way I will, um, nuance that claim of disciples' transformations, I will say, as far as we know, in all the literature we have, okay, it's positive. But here's the more important one. There are four big names in the early research. You've named everybody but one. And our talking here: Peter, James the brother of Jesus, Paul, and John. They're the four most influential Christians, probably of all time. Gary admits he really has only four names: Peter, James the brother of Jesus, Paul, and John. But remember, Paul and James each have their own separate facts, number five and number six on Gary's list. So the only two names he can attach to having experiences and being willing to die are Peter and John. Facts number two and three should actually read: Peter and John afterward reported these experiences that they thought were actually experiences by the Risen Jesus, and these experiences accounted for Peter and John's lives becoming thoroughly transformed, even to the point of being willing to die for their belief. But that's not as powerful, is it? And when Paul goes to Jerusalem to talk to the eyewitnesses, is my number one reason? Remember, he sees Peter and James. And Paul, three of the four are there. And when he comes back in Galatians 2, John is there. Okay, if they're the big four, Peter, Paul, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John, they're the more influential ones. We have first-century martyrdom reports on three of the four. And I know you reject the second-century one for John, but a lot of people think John's the only one that, you know, nothing ever happened to him. But we have a second-century report. You can do what you're wrong with that. But we have Peter, James, James the brother of Jesus, and Paul. Note that the minimal witnesses scenario already accounts for Peter and John and Paul and James. So if that's all you have, you're not refuting my theory. So I say those guys, you go, "What about the rest of them?" I say, "It's irrelevant to me. There are four here we can track." To be clear, Gary is on the record as saying that anything beyond these four is irrelevant to him. So any hypothesis, say the minimal witness scenario, need explain only these four. I don't have to explain any member of the 12 other than Peter and John. But I make a big deal of Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and Paul. If you want to use John, if you don't want to use John, we have, they're the four that are in, uh, Galatians 1 and 2. Only the first three are in Galatians 1. And not notice why that's why those guys are in the minimal facts. Once again, for everyone in the back, Gary's minimal facts number two and number three include Peter and John only, no one else, just Peter and John. All anyone has to explain is Peter and John. None of the other 12 for Gary, they are window dressing without consideration. We have Paul saying, "I don't know if he means all 12." He didn't say all 12. "I'm not going to die for that." But he did say the disciples, more than just three, were running around preaching the resurrection. And here's the important point, Gary: If you're going to admit Paul could mean fewer than 12, what makes you say he means more than three? That's just pulling numbers out of the air without substantiation. Again, you agreed you have evidence for two, so just be consistent and stick with two.
So, what's interesting when it comes to the other apostles, another potential angle here is when you look at the beginning of Acts. Uh, they lay out the names specifically. In Acts chapter 1, it says Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James, Simon, Judas the son of James. They're specifically mentioned by name. And then Peter stands up and he's going to lead and speak on behalf of the apostles. Sean, Sean, Sean, what do we do when something is mentioned only in the book of Acts? I probably would assess James the son of Zebedee one notch down, and that's because we have one good source for James in the book of Acts, but I probably put that a little higher than it should be, given one source. That's right. When all we have is the book of Acts, we lower our confidence in the claim, or we call it, "For the Bible tells me so." I, what if somebody fell away later? What if they didn't? Well, what if they did? What if they didn't? This argument's going nowhere. That's right. The argument is going nowhere because you can't sufficiently support your positive claim that all 12 had these experiences or that all 12 were putting their lives in harm's way. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, which is you, Gary. But we don't have any data. As you say, I'll quote Sean McDowell, as you say, "We have no evidence of recanting either in the New Testament or in the early reliable sources." Nothing. That's an argument from silence. A lack of record saying something didn't happen doesn't demonstrate that it did. Don't do what Donnie does. Don't. They could have made this clear. Neither Gary nor Sean can demonstrate that any of the 12 were given a chance to recant and then held strong. Without that, this is a giant nothing burger. But I still, I concentrate on Paul, Peter, and James, for which we have outstanding data. Cool. Paul and James have their own facts later. So for facts number two and number three, you're saying the single and only person you have outstanding data for is Peter. And that's the exact scenario that the minimal witnesses theory explains and fully addresses: just Peter. And why does this matter? Because the only defense against Peter having a hallucination is the evangelical notion that there were group appearances. Group appearances are really rough on hallucinations. But if we open up book to his full list of his extended 12 quasi facts: Jesus died, Jesus was buried, disciples were sad, empty tomb, reported experiences, early reports, transformed lives, starts in Jerusalem, met on Sunday, central resurrection message, James converted, and Paul converted. None of these, even watered down facts, to be explained. Claim group experiences per Gary. Group experiences are not a fact to be explained. And so group experiences are not something that Gary's camp can use to try to dismiss Peter having a hallucination. The minimal facts, and even Gary's larger extended facts, absolutely fail on this front. A grief hallucination by Peter covers facts number two and number three with maybe some arm-twisting or social contagion by John, if you include him. If you want to use John, if you don't want to use John.
All right, let's get through the rest of Gary's facts here quickly. Number four: The proclamation of Jesus's resurrection and appearances took place very early, soon after the experiences themselves. Sure, Peter's experience could have happened that first weekend. Nothing new for me to explain here. Number five: James, the brother of Jesus, and a skeptic before his conversion, most likely believed after he also thought that he saw the Risen Jesus. Now, hold on there, Gary. What's this "most likely" business? On a fact that James converted, is the fact that you pitched before, not why he converted. There's no consensus there. One of the objections is that we have James, who we don't really know it was the appearance of Jesus that converted him. Now, you cited earlier that we have the account in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, and then we have kind of what's called the Gospel of Hebrews, I think is the title, mid-2nd century, that has kind of an appearance to James. And this is there. Yes, so it's multiply attested. I know Crossan goes for a third source, and maybe the Gospel of Thomas 12, but I'm not convinced by that. I don't think you are either. No, I know Gospel of Thomas 12 makes no sense to me at all as that as backing that. If it backs it up, it backs it up, but I don't see it. I don't care if Thomas backs it up, it's fine with me, but I don't see it in saying 12. I agree. I'd like to be convinced by that, but I just didn't see, see that it was there. How do we know it was the resurrection appearance that converted James, or if it's not what converted him? Does that really ultimately matter for the strength of his conversion? No. I don't know that the appearance did. We do have the Gospel of the Hebrews, uh, but it looks like by far the best argument. I'm going to let Christian scholar William Lane Craig take this one for me. But I was really surprised to hear Gary appeal to the Gospel of the Hebrews as vindication of this appearance claim, um, as he says, it is a very early, um, apocryphal gospel. It is quoted, uh, by Jerome and has a fairly lengthy paragraph in which the resurrection appearance of the Lord to James is described, and this is dated in the early 2nd century. But I don't think anybody thinks that this is a historically accurate account of the appearance to James. I mean, quite the contrary. By then, people were well aware of the name in Paul's list of eyewitnesses in 1 Corinthians 15: "Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles." And so this apocryphal story is probably a fanciful legend of the appearance to James, built upon this single reference that Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 15. Now, maybe Gary knows something about this that I don't, but I'm not aware of anybody who would think that this is a historically credible account of the appearance to James. Ouch.
Your thoughts, Gary? However, I really, I really don't care. The pain point is, is James one of those who sees the Risen Jesus? Is his life changed? That's right. We can generously concede that James, the brother of Jesus, was a believer. And by both Sean's question and your own admission, you don't seem to have enough evidence to say why he was a believer. If you don't know why James was a believer, then the minimal witnesses theory is still on track. And Gary's last fact, number six: Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus, Paul, also became a Christian believer due to an experience that he also concluded was an appearance of the Risen Jesus to him. Boom. Yep. We agree. My minimal witnesses are Peter and Paul. All six of Gary's facts are more than covered by the minimal witnesses theory. Sadly, I don't think that I have the credentials or the traction to have Gary include minimal witnesses theory in his second volume. Gotcha. So, Volume Two is on natural evidences, natural objections, and all their objections. And sadly, comments are turned off on all of Gary's videos, so we can't petition him here. So I've missed the boat, and Gary will retire having never directly addressed minimal witnesses theory. But Gary has inspired me to begin my own magnum opus on the resurrection, my own book that may or may not come out someday before I die, laying out the entire minimal witnesses argument from start to finish in full scholarly treatment. Sadly, as a full-time YouTuber, in order to feed my family, I'm not in the position Gary was in. I emailed, I said, "How much time do you think you've put into this project?" Volume One, I think you said about 32,000 hours into this. I actually, I actually had a pretty good figure on that because I us, I've worked 70 hours a week. Now, not all on this, so I had to take a percentage off, maybe 50%. I've worked 70 hours a week for about, for this is my 14th year on this project, and I've been working 70 hours a week, as my wife or my research assistant can tell you. So I simply divided 70 times the number of weeks and then took about 50% of it off because I do other things like email and everything else. But I work 70 hours a week of work. So that, that figure is probably fairly accurate. I can't give it 35 hours a week for the next 14 years and still produce this channel, not to mention my lack of research assistance. Gary mentions one here, probably Dr. Ben Shaw, whom the book says has been working with Gary for at least 10 years on this. But the book also credits five other research assistants. That's a pretty massive staff. I have no research assistance. Gary's interview gives us a hint at a publisher's estimated budget for the project. "What do I, what's the status of your, your four-volume thing right now?" "I said, I haven't found a publisher. I haven't really been looking." He goes, "Why not?" I said, "Well, first of all, I just haven't looked. But secondly, these guys want me to raise $400,000. Lexham was a little lower, but they were still very high." So, yeah, I have no money and no staff and just a few hours a week. But I've started, and at my current pace, I should be set to publish in 20 years or so. Maybe I can try to match Gary's 14 years. I'm very passionate about it, so I am actively looking for ideas and ways to compress that timeline. So if anyone has thoughts or means to help, I'm all ears. In the meantime, I'd love to have a chance for a friendly conversation with Gary about my minimal witnesses argument and for him to give me his honest, forthright critique, just like Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Allison have provided. Gary's friend, Dr. Lona, has even been here answering questions on it. Gary, if you hear this, let's talk.
If you want to hear more of my critiques of Jesus's resurrection claims, tap on the playlist on screen now, and I'll see you over there. Until next time.
[Music]
Later.