Seeing Through a Glass Darkly-1Cor 13:12

 I follow the podcast "Unbelievable" which is produced out of the UK. The show usually presents debates pairing a Christian believer with an unbeliever. They're held in a spirit of understanding rather than a desire to score points which makes them worth listening to.

Recently an episode pitted Bart Ehrman, a world-famous Bible scholar and agnostic against Justin Bass a believer and author of a book on the resurrection of Jesus. The Christian fellow was new to me, but I was very familiar with Bart Ehrman. In addition to being a prolific author, Ehrman shows up in most public forums where the Bible is discussed, particularly where the program host would prefers that the expert is an unbeliever such as NPR's Fresh Air. I found him many years ago through one of his lecture series in the Great Courses series.  I currently follow his podcast "Misquoting Jesus" which is excellent. He knows his stuff and isn’t trying to shake the faith of his listeners (I doubt he'd still be teaching at North Carolina at Chapel Hill if he did).

The topic was "Did Jesus Raise from the Dead", a very British way of saying it. The program grabbed my attention when Ehrman used Latter Day Saint truth claims as his primary evidence in the debate and also for what the debate had to say about our cognitive models and how those relate to the development of religious faith.

We start at the beginning of the transcript and with only a few minor edits let it run until the debate is essentially over. No worries, it doesn’t take long. For the record, while I disagree with Ehrman's stance on the resurrection of Jesus, something I have a deep faith in, I do agree with his conclusion that his Christian opponent did not understand the difference between doing secular history and building a case for faith in Christ.  As we begin the transcript, note that the moderator Justin Brierly is JB (bold type), JBS is Justin Bass the Christian and BE is Bart Ehrman:

JB: Today we are discussing the central claim of Christian faith: Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead? The rise of Christianity, of course, has shaped the modern world but are its historical origins best explained by naturalistic means or is the explanation the first followers gave, that Jesus had risen from the dead, still a plausible option for people today?

Well, Bart Ehrman is a well-known New Testament historian whose books include, ‘Misquoting Jesus’, ‘The Triumph of Christianity’, and ‘Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife’.  Bart is an agnostic. He doesn’t believe in the miraculous claims of the bible, including the resurrection of Jesus. But he’s always happy to discuss it with those who do. One of those is Justin Bass, a New Testament scholar who’s taught at various institutions including in Jordan in the Middle East. Justin is a Christian and in his book, ‘The Bedrock of Christianity’, he argues there are a number of bedrock facts concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars. And today he’s going to be explaining why he believes the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the best explanation of both Scripture and history. 

JBS: Yes, and thanks again for having me on. Thanks for doing it again with me, Bart, this is really great. As Bart well knows, New Testament scholars today and over the last 250 years of biblical scholarship disagree on tens of thousands of things. But what they agree on I think is fascinating and I think, you know, we should focus on those things.

And so, the goal of my book is to capture where that agreement is among scholars and to put it simply on these issues, It’s Paul. So Paul, being a bedrock eye witness, that he believed he saw the risen Jesus, this has not been denied across the board throughout history. When it comes to his sources, when it comes to Paul’s early letters, when it comes to traditions that he is quoting within the letters, it’s agreed upon that he wrote those letters. It’s agreed upon that he’s getting these traditions from early on, probably when he hung out with Peter for two weeks, with James the Lord’s brother. 

And then we get bedrock facts that I focus on concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection that come forth from those bedrock sources. And those are namely these: Jesus’s crucifixion, then we have the claim, the actual claim of Jesus’ resurrection – I think that alone is just an innovative, unparalleled, unique idea that had not been known. Nobody was expecting a resurrected Messiah, let alone a crucified Messiah in the middle of history. The third is the appearances, which largely are catalogued in 1 Corinthians 15, one of these early traditions. And then the fourth would be – I could use the title from Bart’s book, ‘The Triumph of Christianity’ – so the fourth is basically how the early Christians, starting in Jerusalem, the very place that Jesus was crucified, went on, launched from there and went on to transform the Roman Empire, went on to transform many nations, laid the foundations of Western civilization and ultimately still today is the largest religion on the planet. And, all the peer research shows, throughout the 21st century it’s going to continue to be. We have a religious future, a religious landscape of the world in our future. So that’s some bare facts and sources to lay out.

JB: It’s a helpful one. Now, we’re not going to cover in depth all of those facts on this conversation and I thought we might specifically focus in on maybe the last two that you mentioned, particularly the appearances and the rise of Christianity.  Let’s just briefly touch at least on those others; the fact that Jesus died and the claim of the resurrection. Now, presumably, you don’t contest that both of those things happened – Jesus’s death on the cross, Bart, and indeed people claimed that a Messiah had been resurrected in history? Do you want to add any thoughts?

BE: Well, I might. I mean, the problem with saying that every historian agrees on something is problematic because, of course, there are people who deny that Jesus existed. The strange thing is some of the people who think that Jesus didn’t exist do think that he was crucified. That’s an oddity! So I think just about every historian whose really worth their weight would say yes, absolutely. They would say more things about Jesus that they would agree on. But they certainly agree that he was crucified, and they certainly agree that afterward the disciples claim he was raised from the dead, absolutely.

JB: Ok, great. Well, we’ve got a measure of agreement to start with. And I suppose what we want to know is ultimately how do we put these facts together? And I think that means probably just sketching out a little bit more about… well, why don’t we start with the appearances, Justin? So, tell us about these appearances, let’s find out where Bart agrees or disagrees with you concerning the nature of them and what was reported and then we’ll go from there.

JBS: Thanks Justin. Here’s a way to think about the appearances; I love Acts 17, when Paul goes to Athens and he’s preaching on the Areopagus. But before that it says that Paul was interacting daily with those who happened to be there in the marketplace and on the streets. And so here Paul is a street preacher and I love the idea of him engaging with pagans and I like to imagine, how did Paul engage with them? What was the content? We’re not told the content of those conversations. And so, I like to think, that the appearances probably would have been one of the things that he would have presented to a pagan as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. He probably would have said something like, “Hey, Jesus appeared to me and I hated him! I believed he was cursed of God on the cross. I believed his movement needed to be wiped out. I was on my way to arrest Christians and ultimately, he appeared to me and he loved me and he forgave me and he can forgive you.”

And then maybe the pagan was kind of like a Bart Ehrman sceptic and said something like, “why should I believe you, Paul”? And Paul would say, “Well, what about Peter? Peter was his chief disciple and Jesus appeared to him, I can introduce you to him. And what about James, his brother? And what about a group of disciples that ultimately were with Jesus for three years that he appeared to them multiple times and also 500 people even Jesus appeared to at one time. And hundreds of them – I’ve met many of them – hundreds of them are still alive and you can go and investigate and talk to them about what it was like to see Jesus.” I like to just imagine that it was something like that. But, you know, I find that compelling. And I think that, you know, that kind of layout is what Luke means in the beginning of Acts when he refers to the convincing proofs. He says there were these convincing proofs, tekmerion, this great Greek word that was used for irrefutable statements in rhetorical Greek documents. And these convincing proofs were probably the appearances and I think that really has been what’s convincing to Christians throughout the last 2,000 years. 

JB: And your contention is that most New Testament historians, be they Christian or not, agree that these claims happened; that people said that they had seen the risen Jesus or had met the risen Jesus at some point?

JBS: Yea, let me get specific because I get specific in the book. So, there’s actually, by my count, thirteen appearances of Jesus; four individual appearances to individuals and nine to groups. But four of those – the four individuals that’s one to probably discuss here – the four individuals are the ones that are pretty much bedrock. Virtually all will accept that Peter believed that Jesus appeared to him, James the brother of Jesus believed he appeared to him, Paul obviously believed he appeared to him and then we can bring in Mary Magdalene as I’m pretty sure Bart – he can correct me if I’m wrong – believes Mary Magdalene also had that experience. She’s accounted for in all four gospels being the first to actually witness the risen Jesus. So those four would be kind of the bedrock eyewitnesses.

JB: Well what if we stick with those specific ones and get your take on that, Bart. To what degree do you agree that at least people claimed to have seen the risen Jesus?

BE: I think it’s probably right. Paul certainly, Paul tells us that he did. The problem with these others, of course, is that they don’t tell us that. So we don’t have… Peter didn’t leave us writing where he said, I saw Jesus. James didn’t leave us writings. We don’t know who the 500 were. So what historians tend to do, of course, is to examine their sources of information. And the most important thing is to know what the sources are, to determine whether they are reliable or not, and to see what they say. So we infer… I think that Peter probably did say that he saw Jesus and I think James probably did. I don’t know about the 500, they come out of nowhere in 1 Corinthians 15.

JBS: Mary Magdalene?

BE: Well, we don’t have anything from her either, obviously.

JBS: But do you believe she had an experience?

BE: Yes, I do. And I believe that in a lot of religious traditions you get reports like that. And so my issue with this kind of bedrock thing is whether it’s appropriate to consider these kinds of claims outside of other claims for other religious figures. Do we treat them equally, or do we provide a kind of a… do we say it’s more likely true if it’s in the bible and less likely true if it’s in the Mormon tradition? Or if it’s in the Muslim tradition? Or it’s in Ancient Greek and Roman mythology, or not just mythology, Ancient Greek and Roman history? And so do you give equal weight to everything and, if so, why is it that you prefer these witnesses to the others?

JBS: That’s a great question. What is the evidence? So my question would be, what is the evidence? You brought up Islam, you brought up Mormonism. Well, in Islam, the only supernatural claim is to Muhammed. It’s one eyewitness. And I agree with Deuteronomy, we shouldn’t trust anything unless it’s at least two or three witnesses. So we have four that you agree with in Christianity. When it comes to Mormonism, again, Joseph Smith is the only person to say that Moroni appeared to him, and he sent Jesus and God the Father and a lot of other strange things. But only one person, only one eyewitness in both those cases, both those religions you brought up. I’d like to hear the evidence for the Greek and Roman…

BE: I don’t know if you’ve studied Mormonism very much… there are eleven eye witnesses. 

JBS: To the golden plates

BE: Yes.

JBS: So we’re going to compare the golden plates to the resurrection of Jesus?

BE: No, I’m just saying if you’re a historian and what you’re doing is you’re saying we’re going to trust eyewitnesses…

JBS: Ok, I’m fine with them seeing golden plates but what does that tell us?

BE: Four of them say they saw Moroni give them to him. Four saw him. Who actually signed affidavits.

JBS: Half of them left the faith.

BE: They left, no, they left Joseph Smith, but when they abandoned Joseph Smith, they continued to say that they saw Moroni. So, do you credit those?

JBS: Ok, well that would only be three. But to abandon Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith is the foundational prophet.

BE: It’s four plus Joseph Smith, that’s five. I’m just saying are you being impartial? Are you saying it’s more likely because these are biblical witnesses? In those cases, by the way, we actually have their testimony and it’s within 100 years. So with the New Testament you don’t have Peter’s testimony or James’s testimony or the 500… so you don’t have four. You’ve got Paul.

JBS: But what we have is good enough to convince you. For the New Testament eyewitnesses, you’ve already agreed that Jesus appeared to them.

BE: I believe they claimed it. But that isn’t proof that it happened. 

JBS: Who else has Moroni appeared to, other than those people, in history?

BE: We’re talking about a particular event; was Jesus raised from the dead?

JBS: But other things can support another event, right? So, if Jesus is appearing to people, for example, all throughout history…

BE: That’s a separate argument. I think we have to take one argument at a time because if you start piling arguments, we have to consider each of those arguments in turn.

JBS: Ok, well I’m just giving you my reasoning why Moroni is not convincing.

BE: I understand but I don’t think you’ve listened to my case here. You are basing everything you said…

JBS: I’m not basing everything. We are starting with appearances. This isn’t my only argument.

BE: You said the bedrock is Paul because Paul gives us the information about Cephas and James, correct?

JBS: I said Paul is the bedrock in the sense that the vast majority of scholars agree when it comes to Paul. That’s what I mean by bedrock. 

BE: How many ancient Christian writings do we have by somebody who says in those writings that he saw Jesus?

JBS: Directly, Paul. 

BE: Thank you.

JBS: We have Peter. I would say Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter and in 2 Peter, Peter says he saw the transfiguration.

BE: That’s not the resurrection.

JBS: John saw the risen Jesus, at least in heaven, in Revelation.

BE: Are you counting that as a historical source?

JBS: Of seeing Jesus again? That would contribute to the argument. Again, that’s the point, these things go back to the original miraculous claim.

BE: Ok, let me try again, because I want us to be clear of what we’re talking about. 

JBS: You have nothing beyond those three witnesses with Moroni, nothing.

BE: Let me finish. You’re saying that Paul gives us the evidence for himself, he saw Jesus. But none of the others, you think Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter and…ok. But that would be two. I’m saying that in the case of Moroni giving Joseph Smith the plates we have four. So if the idea is that you trust eye witnesses who swear to what they saw and that were doing this impartially as historians, in other words we’re not trying to back up our faith, we’re not trying to prove we’re right about something. Historians don’t do that. Historians try to figure out what happened in the past. And they evaluate their sources.

So, what I’m saying is if you’re going to take the sources that agree with you and you’re saying that they’re probably right, not because they agree with you but because they are reliable sources, because you’ve got Paul and you’ve got Peter, say. Ok, well I’ve got four people for Moroni giving the plates and these people are highly religious people whose religiosity was never questioned. I am not saying that I think that it happened. I don’t think it happened. On the way you’re mounting an argument for Paul and Peter I don’t see how you can exclude the argument for Moroni.

JB: So, let’s hear from Justin. So essentially, Justin, is the question here is there better evidence that the resurrection claims of the first followers of Jesus are better evidence than other claims from other religious traditions like Mormonism and so on where they also claim to have been eyewitnesses to something miraculous?

JBS: Exactly. And what I was saying with… when it comes to the four eyewitnesses, one of them is Joseph Smith. 

BE: No, no, no. There’s four in addition to Joseph Smith who claim they saw him. So, there is five. 

JB: Ok, well, regardless, I guess I want to hear if you do regard them as different in some way to the Mormon claim?

JBS: Because they’re claiming a supernatural being named Moroni appeared to them. And so who else then has this Moroni figure appeared to? Because there’s been other people that have claimed supernatural things have happened but see one of the things that I would say, well, who else have they appeared to? And who else has Moroni appeared to other than those four?

BE: So now I just want you to agree that’s a separate argument now?

JBS: I build a case with multiple arguments, it’s not just one.

BE: So when it comes to corroborative evidence of later witnesses what about the mother Mary? Now, Mary appears regularly to people, it’s completely well documented. Thousands of people claim this happens and I’m going to assume that since you’re not Catholic you don’t think these appearances happened?

JBS: I’m open to the evidence and I do think some of the stories may be compelling. 

BE: So you think she does appear to people?

JBS: I don’t know. 

BE: You just said the evidence was compelling. 

JBS: I said it’s something to look into. I’m saying it’s enough to look into.

BE: Why don’t you look into it?

JBS: I have looked into it. But let me answer; I think it lacks the unexpectedness. So… and it normally happens in Catholic contexts… 

BE: No, no this is completely wrong.
(End of transcript)

Ehrman just continues chasing the Christian around the same pole, so we'll stop here.

To summarize the Christian's argument: 1) the testimony of New Testament witnesses are compelling historical evidence with Paul's account being at the top of the list,  2) the idea of a crucified Messiah ran against Jewish expectations for a politically triumphant Savior and therefore not something likely to be fabricated,  3) the related  idea that the Jews were not expecting a resurrected man as the Messiah and 4) the growth of Christianity, that is, if large numbers of people believe then it is much more likely to be true.

As an aside, the reader may have noticed that these arguments were delivered with plenty of hyperbole using adjectives such as "innovative, unparalleled, unique and "bedrock" which made me wonder if the Christian felt his arguments needed a little extra zing.

I expected that Ehrman would respond by pointing to the ocean of time since these events occurred, that they happened in a very different culture and that we have no original documentation or even copies of originals that are dated less than a few hundred years from the events. 

Rather, Ehrman accuses the Christian of arguing a historical position without the tools or rigor employed by a professional historian. He makes the point by accusing the Christian of bias, specifically that the only witnesses he is willing to accept (or worse even consider) are those from his faith tradition. This gives the Christians argument a whiff of circularity, that he is already convinced of the premise before he has made his argument.  

At the same time, Ehrman points out the weakness of the Christian's claims, that there is only one first person account (Paul) and that all of the witness claims are only claims with no other supporting physical evidence.  He then summarizes thus: “And I believe that in a lot of religious traditions you get reports like that (of miraculous sightings). And so, my issue with this kind of bedrock thing is whether it’s appropriate to consider these kinds of claims outside of other claims for other religious figures. Do we treat them equally, or do we provide a kind of a… do we say it’s more likely true if it’s in the bible and less likely true if it’s in the Mormon tradition? Or if it’s in the Muslim tradition…”?

To put a finer point on it, Ehrman asks why these ancient witnesses, with no original documentation should be privileged over 12 devout people from the modern era who claimed to see the plates, a number of who claimed an angel had shown the plates.  None ever recanted and several signed affidavits. 

The question which Ehrman has put on the table is “what kind of evidence is compelling to establish a claimed historical event as fact or at least most likely"? the question is complicated by the fact that the event in question, is a miracle, something which can't be explained by current science alone. While Ehrman isn't saying physical or "scientific" evidence can't be considered, he is saying that as a matter of historical fact, historians throw witness testimony in the hopper with other physical data and then draw conclusions which don't include an appeal to the miraculous. That leap requires evidence not in the toolkit of the secular historian. 

Ehrman said it best in his closing statement, "I think the big issue in Christian apologetics is that apologists are doing theology claiming to do history. And I’ve no trouble with people doing theology. I have no problem with people believing that Jesus was raised from the dead. History is actually two things and I think apologists tend to get it confused, I think that’s what’s going on here".

I’m with Ehrman on this one. While “all things denote there is a God” (Alma 30:44), physical evidence alone is not enough to convince someone to become a follower of Christ. Believers know their faith requires study of the "scripture" in question coupled with sincere prayer which is followed by a witness from the Holy Spirit and if no witness is received, the conclusion that it is not as advertised. It's important to note that faith is a virtuous cycle where witness regarding scripture is reinforced by the happiness that results from living by the values taught.  

But that is a topic for another day.

Rather today the question is why the Christian interlocutor wouldn’t make the effort to investigate other witness claims outside his tradition, particularly ones that could add additional and perhaps compelling evidence for his position. This would be particularly true of the Book of Mormon which records a visit of the resurrected Jesus Christ to another people outside the Holy Land.

The culprit here isn't bad faith but the way we all form our world views, best explained by the coherence theory of truth.

The theory posits that we create worldviews from facts (or data considered to be facts) that are not necessarily true, but which are logically coherent. There are different views on why we are wired this way such as cultural upbringing and even genetics which both may play a role, but I feel it best explained by the idea that we are primarily driven by passion and desire which tends to overpower the weak reed of human reason. Given this, we apply a lot less scrutiny to ideas that cohere with our worldview than ideas that don’t cohere, independent of the evidence for those ideas.

This theory is the only way to explain how intelligent people can have such different views of the same world and why some even seem willing to accept conspiracy theories. Worldviews can and do breakdown if they come under enough stress, but they’re remarkably resilient in the face of conflicting data. This theory is also consistent with a postmodern view of the world where there are no absolute truths and where concepts are true if they “work” and false if they don’t.

This also explains why the Christian would be so ill informed about other potential witnesses such as those for the Book of Mormon or sightings of the Virgin Mary. For him, these witnesses are simply not possible since they don’t cohere with his evangelical worldview. Since they're not possible, the only reason to investigate them would be to understand why they are false which is why non-believers (and those tending that way) will get their information on claims they aren't disposed to believe in from negative sources. Bart Ehrman is no different. By his own admission a very devoted evangelical who lost his faith, he is aware of the LDS truth claims regarding the Book of Mormon at a surface level, but he also dismisses them because they are not possible given the agnostic lens he views the world through.

This debate is a cautionary tale for all of us who are sincere seekers of truth and a reminder that we all “see through a glass darkly” (1Cor 13:12).  Taking that on board breeds the humility to consider what lies outside our own worldviews. As we do, vistas will open to additional truths and evidence of the reality of God’s existence and the resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ. Indeed, we should be willing to learn from all who are trying to worship the one true God. We will also gain empathy for why those views are held.

This humility should also give us charity for how others see the world whether it be in the realm of religion, politics or on any other topic. Better relationships will then be fostered and opportunities to collaborate may appear as we realize that we have more in common than we realized. A spirit of judgement is replaced by a desire to understand.

A closing and related thought on the Book of Mormon in this context. The Latter-Day Saint tradition teaches that the Book of Mormon is an additional witness to the Bible for the resurrection of Jesus Christ and God's covenants with his children. Its witness is unique in that the history of it’s coming forth does not allow for “scientific” deconstruction of the text as we see Ehrman and others doing when they refer to inconsistencies between copies of documents, questions of authorship, etc. as their way of presenting alternate theories of its accuracy, authorship, etc. Ehrman is an excellent example of the industry of academics who make a living studying the Bible while having no interest in its spiritual value.

Given this, the debate reviewed here could not have occurred on the question of the Book of Mormon and its origin story. It's miraculous coming forth forces those who come to it to use only the tools required to develop religious faith i.e., deep study and prayer. This approach allows one to determine if its teachings resonate and generate a witness confirmed by the Holy Spirit. The question to be answered is whether the teachings encourage us to be our better selves rather than trying to determine which of the many possible origin stories is most likely (the purview of the historian). To this foundation of faith can be added evidence of the miraculous, and for the Book of Mormon there is plenty.

My personal experience is that those who come to the book as honest seekers who use these tools come away with a witness of its divinity as they determine if it "does the work that scripture does" by inspiring and teaching spiritual truths.  The other option is to dismiss it out of hand which is certainly what the secular world has and will continue to do. And as they do the Book of Mormon will continue to beckon to the honest seeker.