The Lydia McGrew Podcast

Here's a new undesigned coincidence that also incorporates some external evidence from Josephus. In Luke 13, why is it a little odd that the Pharisees "warn" Jesus that he needs to get out of there, or Herod Antipas will kill him? Watch to find out what's odd about that, and what the explanation is!  Originally uploaded Sept 26 2021

Here I'm once again going to show how those of us who think the Gospels are reliable can take the "forward" position and go on the offensive rather than letting the skeptic or liberal scholars set the agenda. It is so common to characterize any response to an alleged Gospel problem as "artificial harmonization," but in many cases this is the purest projection on the part of the critic. The critic creates an artificial problem where no problem exists *at all* and then impatiently and arrogantly dismisses a completely reasonable attempt to point out that there is no problem by calling that response an "artificial harmonization." I will be using a recent video discussion between liberal New Testament scholar Dale Allison and skeptical Youtube host Derek Lambert, on the topic of the donkeys at the triumphal entry, to illustrate this sort of artificial objection, followed by projection of artificiality onto the defender of the Gospels.  That video is here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ9y3k9Nq6s For Ebrard's "recipe" that rightly lampoons David Strauss (which I mention in today's video), see here. Search on the page for "receipt," and you'll find Ebrard's actual text. Ebrard notes, rightly for his own time, that the supernatural is the ultimate target of Strauss's skepticism. Unfortunately in our own time there are those who don't reject the supernatural who nonetheless make the same ridiculous moves that Strauss makes.   https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/scanned/strauss.htm #gospelreliability #harmonization Be sure to like and subscribe! Originally uploaded 10.12.21

Alternative titles:  The Synoptic Problem is No Problem Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Synoptic Problem?  I like both of those, but I decided to go with What I Think About...because it makes it easy to point to this video as a corrective to misunderstandings about what I (or "the McGrews") do and don't think about the Synoptic Problem. I prefer to call it "the Synoptic puzzle," because that shows that it's really nothing more than a somewhat interesting and esoteric scholarly puzzle, but rightly understood even the now-popular "two-source hypothesis" does not undermine reliability at all. Why not? Watch the video to find out!   For more details, see The Mirror or the Mask:  https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=mirror+or+the+mask&qid=1600272214&sr=8-1 Don't forget to like and subscribe!  Thanks to David Yuen for help with synchronizing audio and video.   Orig. uploaded 9.19.21

This is a slightly techy video that I nonetheless try to make fun. It concerns what it might mean to set aside the prior probability of the resurrection of Jesus (or the prior improbability) when discussing the specifics of the case from testimony.   In our article back in 2009 on the resurrection, Tim and I didn't give a specific prior or posterior for the resurrection, but we did "back-solve" for a low prior that, we argued, the evidence we gave could overcome. Here is a link to a free version of that older article, archived with publisher permission:  http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrectionarticlesinglefile.pdf Orig. uploaded 9-12-21

Is it really true that we have virtually nothing in the Synoptics that sounds like the Jesus of John? In this video I read a sample passage from The Eye of the Beholder that gives you a taste of the evidence refuting that claim.  You can purchase The Eye of the Beholder here. Keep your eyes and ears peeled for an announcement at the end of the video!  https://www.amazon.com/Eye-Beholder-Gospel-Historical-Reportage/dp/1947929151/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2P5N15K1P8TIJ&dchild=1&keywords=the+eye+of+the+beholder+lydia+mcgrew&qid=1617757441&s=books&sprefix=the+eye+of+the+beholder%2Cstripbooks%2C185&sr=1-1 Originally uploaded to YouTube Sep 5 2021

Here I continue reading sample passages. This time the section is from The Mirror or the Mask, aka TMOM.  I explain how blocking the "third option" (that the Gospel authors were sincere non-deceivers but nonetheless changed facts) forces us to confront squarely their claims to being scrupulously factual. They would have had to be *really* deep deceivers to exploit their hearers' expectations of literal truthfulness while deliberately changing what happened to "teach" theological truths. Because in reality fiction doesn't provide, by itself, epistemological grounding for believing theological truths.  In the book section I also talk about parables. I didn't read that section here. Jesus does use openly fictional parables to teach. But where does the epistemological force come from in that case? From the authority of the teacher (Jesus), which must be confirmed in some other way (e.g., by his miracles or resurrection). Moreover, Jesus never tries to make anyone think that his parables really happened. He uses a definite tag, such as, "A certain man had two sons," much like "once upon a time," and it's clear from the surrounding context that his disciples and the people understood that he was telling fictional stories. So the parables of Jesus are not a counterexample to "fake points don't make points."  Consider picking up a copy of TMOM today!  https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary-ebook/dp/B0896W473Q/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1600272214&sr=8-1 Originally uploaded to YouTube Aug 29 2021

Here I'm beginning a series of videos featuring short readings from my recent books. This one is from The Eye of the Beholder and is about how Jesus suffers mentally from his knowledge that his closest friends will fail him. This is a unified aspect of Jesus' personality across all four Gospels, including John, and across very different passages. We can see from this that the so-called "Jesus of John" is actually the same man as the "Jesus of the Synoptics." Reflection on Jesus' desire for personal friendship and loyalty has devotional value as well.  (For some reason the audio on this video is a little quieter than usual, so turn your sound up. I thought it turned out very well in other respects. The audio may be quieter because I am standing rather than sitting, so I'm a little further from the microphone. Also, I was having a little trouble with my voice.)  Hopefully this reading from The Eye of the Beholder will whet your appetite for more!  https://www.amazon.com/Eye-Beholder-Gospel-Historical-Reportage/dp/1947929151/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2P5N15K1P8TIJ&dchild=1&keywords=the+eye+of+the+beholder+lydia+mcgrew&qid=1617757441&s=books&sprefix=the+eye+of+the+beholder%2Cstripbooks%2C185&sr=1-1 Video originally uploaded to YouTube Aug 22 2021

Here I finally get to answering that question: Why I am not an inerrantist. I give several relevant examples (not a comprehensive list!) and a bit of history. I also discuss how this can be seen as related to the Problem of Evil.   One of my goals is to show how a very conservative position is possible that is not inerrantist but also not averse at all to harmonization of alleged contradictions.  Here is the blog post on the Old Testament slaughters mentioned in the video:  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2014/08/no-magic-bullet-copans-insufficient.html Here is a two-part cordial discussion between me and traditional inerrantist Phil Fernandes:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GMfDeOY-4M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrek9fQnx1w  Uploaded to YouTube Aug 8 2021

Here I'm setting up the discussion of some of my reasons for not being an inerrantist by making a four-part taxonomy of kinds of traditional inerrancy.  This episode also contains a little bit of autobiography about the types of inerrancy I held when I was an inerrantist.  This taxonomy of kinds of inerrancy should be useful to everyone, and there is one type that I have never seen anyone else talk about explicitly. Be sure to like and subscribe!  Originally uploaded to YouTube Aug 8 2021

In which I discuss the centurion incident recorded in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 and the discrepancy between them. Was the centurion there or not? I distinguish between "transferral" in a non-fact-changing sense (as if you said, "John is building a house" when John is hiring contractors) and in a fact-changing sense (as if you described John as personally building the house when you knew that he didn't do so).  I discuss a couple of attempts to harmonize these two accounts using a non-fact-changing, unintentionally ambiguous reference to the centurion's conversation with Jesus and ultimately conclude that that is not plausible. It appears that Matthew is portraying the centurion as personally present. But why should we assume that he knew that the centurion wasn't present? Perhaps he misunderstood the story as it was told to him by someone else, if he didn't witness it himself. I show how this could plausibly have happened. Such a conclusion is incompatible with traditional inerrancy, but it is far less corrosive to Matthew's reliability than the conclusion that Matthew deliberately tried to make it look like someone was present when he knew that person wasn't there at all.  I recommend a harmonization you should use if you want to retain traditional inerrancy, while admitting openly that I don't find it convincing. I also explain how, if you do this, you can avoid leaving yourself or your audience open to the idea of fact-changing on the part of the evangelists. It's important as well to admit that this is a difficult harmonization and being able to recognize the specific difficulties (such as the singular words in the Greek of Matt. 8:13) so that you harmonize with open eyes and don't grasp at a vague reference to "compositional devices of the time" to paper over the problems.  We have no evidence that Matthew's readers expected him to portray people as present who weren't present, nor that this was a known "device of the time"!   Be sure to like, subscribe, and share! Orig. uploaded to YouTube Aug 1 2021