The Lydia McGrew Podcast

In which I explain how what I call the "reportage model" of the Gospels intersects with the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. In fact, if you hold to inerrancy, you probably already believe the reportage model!  I also talk about how the attempt to make the compositional device views compatible with inerrancy creates confusion. What is the point in saying that a book that looks historical to all appearances is "inerrant" while holding a view that entails that it isn't literally reliable?  This is why so many traditional inerrantists, including J. W. Montgomery, J. P. Moreland, Randy Leedy, Thomas Schreiner, Douglas Bookman, and more have endorsed my work on the Gospels.  Here is some further friendly discussion (in two parts) of these concepts between me and traditional inerrantist Phil Fernandes:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLn75s6Wriw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8FKBaXrHqQ  Originally uploaded to YouTube Jul 18 21

Here I continue with my response to a video that was drawn to my attention that was posted on Inspiring Philosophy. In that video Michael Jones did some quite ordinary harmonization of the resurrection accounts but strongly implied that this was made possible chiefly by reliance on special, expert knowledge gained from Dr. Licona's work on ancient "compositional devices." In the previous video I discussed how this relates to "spotlighting." Here I discuss the concept of paraphrase and the way that Dr. Licona and others use that word in multiple senses.  Ordinary, moderate, historically recognizable paraphrase (which easily explains many differences in wording in the Gospels) is not a literary device nor anything that we need to learn about from special knowledge of ancient culture. Memory is naturally paraphrastic. Whether a Gospel author was writing partly from his memory of another written document (such as Mark) or whether different witnesses were telling about how they remembered a scene, there will be a natural and casual (not highly deliberate nor specially motivated) type of paraphrase that takes place. But if you had been present in the scene, you would have been able to recognize the accounts by witnessing what happened.  Sometimes the authors, by using different sources, include additional details along with such trivial paraphrase. For example, Luke includes the additional fact that the angel at the tomb reminded the women that Jesus, while in Galilee, predicted his death and resurrection. Here is a discussion of the way that all of the Gospels fit together concerning the women from Galilee:  http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2018/01/new_undesigned_coincidence_the.html   But Dr. Licona, Dr. Craig Evans, and others use the word "paraphrase" also in a far more problematic way to talk about what is really inventing things that did not historically occur.   One of the most striking of these is Dr. Licona's claim that John's report that Jesus said "I thirst" from the cross is a "paraphrase" of the (obviously) entirely different saying, "My God, why have you forsaken me," reported in the Synoptics. Calling this "paraphrase" is highly misleading. See this recent discussion starting around minute 19 in which Licona uses the word in this strange and far more controversial way.  https://youtu.be/-6Unz9iMAHg?t=1166  In case you are wondering, there is *no* good argument that John made this theological invention nor anything close. I examine the supposed arguments for it in both The Mirror or the Mask and The Eye of the Beholder. But it certainly should not be called a paraphrase, as that simply causes people not to notice what is really being said--that John invented the saying and then wrote as if it happened historically.   Here again is my video from last summer on paraphrase:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oldgDKH_xKY&list=PLe1tMOs8ARn0S9CsFG47bKjcYxsnHujhg&index=5&t=328s   And here is a blog post on it:  https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-paraphrase-exercise.html  Here is my debate with Dr. Evans from three years ago:  https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Is-John-s-Gospel-historically-accurate-Lydia-McGrew-Craig-Evans-debate   Video Originally uploaded to YouTube 7-11-21

Here I talk about a probabilistic "bottleneck" and argue that piling on more and more evidence that the disciples believed that Jesus was risen physically, without further details of their reasons and without a defense of the non-embellished nature of the Gospel accounts, is no substitute for a more robust approach.  Here is the blog post that I mentioned in the video. The cordial exchange with Justin in the combox is what I was talking about.  http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2021/01/an_irony_of_minimalism_in_defe.html Originally uploaded to YouTube 5-18-21

In this episode, I discuss the Maximal Data approach to the resurrection and contrast it with a modified or enhanced version of the Minimal Facts approach. This version attempts (like the ordinary MFA) to avoid defending the reliability of the Gospels but tries to make up for this refusal by arguing indirectly that the disciples must have had physical-type experiences of the risen Jesus, thereby defending the physical resurrection.  In the course of critiquing this approach I debunk some misunderstandings of the Maximal Data approach and suggest ways of setting aside (bracketing) one issue while making an argument one wishes to focus on, without conceding anything in the process.   Here is the discussion I did on the White Horse Inn of the alleged discrepancies in the resurrection accounts. https://whitehorseinn.org/resource-library/shows/reconciling-accounts-of-the-resurrection/ I also discuss many of these in The Mirror or the Mask, which I mention several times in this episode:  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 Originally uploaded May 7 2021

In this first new channel episode since the trailer for The Eye of the Beholder I discuss a 2018 book called Theology and History in the Fourth Gospel by mainstream New Testament scholar Jörg Frey. Frey accuses more conservative scholars of following "aprioristic" methods, but the shoe is on the other foot. It is Frey himself who so strongly assumes that John is at least partially ahistorical, and who is so captivated by hyper-complex literary theories, that he is closed to strong, commonsense evidence for John's historicity. Even Jesus' saying, "Get up, let's go!" in different scenes is taken by Frey to be evidence of John's "adapting" the Gospel of Mark. I don't know: Have you ever said, "C'mon, get up, let's go" on more than one occasion? Maybe even in the same evening? I bet you have.  For more on John's Gospel, see The Eye of the Beholder, currently in stock at Barnes & Noble. (Amazon is waiting for more stock.)  https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-eye-of-the-beholder-lydia-mcgrew/1138856063?ean=9781947929159  To see the table of contents and free samples, follow the links under the book cover image here: http://lydiamcgrew.com/  #gospelofJohn #gospelreliability #lydiamcgrew  Here is the trailer for The Eye of the Beholder:  https://youtu.be/Z0SmeHZjaH0 Originally uploaded 3-17-21

The Eye of the Beholder is now available for purchase! In this video I go through the table of contents at a rather leisurely pace describing the contents of the book and explaining why it is unique.  Here is the link at Amazon.  https://www.amazon.com/dp/1947929151/?fbclid=IwAR38tRMeIYMYH7X03nFUg-KvOZ-T0PZMq4YYb5XIOgZfOp9dzOM_XaG7Ml8  Here is the link at Barnes & Noble:  https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-eye-of-the-beholder-lydia-mcgrew/1138856063?ean=9781947929159  Here is the link at DeWard:  https://deward.com/shop/books/jesus/the-eye-of-the-beholder-the-gospel-of-john-as-historical-reportage/  Here are samples. Table of Contents:  http://lydiamcgrew.com/EOBTableofContents  Chapter I:  http://lydiamcgrew.com/EOBChapter1.pdf  Conclusion:  http://lydiamcgrew.com/EOBConclusion.pdf  Here is the article by D. A. Carson that I mention in the video.  Carson discusses the impact of C. H. Dodd's famous book on John and how we can, and should, go farther than Dodd did in arguing for the historicity of the Fourth Gospel.  Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?  https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gp/gp2_tradition_carson.pdf  If you are a seminary or college professor teaching a course for which The Eye of the Beholder is plausibly relevant, you can contact info@deward.com to request either a free PDF virtual desk copy or, in the continental United States, a 50% discount on a physical desk copy. Please understand that any such virtual desk copy is not for general distribution.   Originally uplooaded to YouTube Mar 1 2021. Eye of the Beholder was released on Mar. 1, 2021.

Here I discuss a rather surprising scholarly theory that John narrates "theologically" by inventing the incident in which Jesus breathes on his disciples and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." I point out that, aside from questioning the resurrection appearance itself, there is no special reason to doubt this particular sub-incident. So why do scholars do so? Why do they talk about a "Johannine Pentecost" when the two events are so obviously different? You'll be able to see the weakness of the claims and the reasoning behind them in this discussion.  Here is an older blog post in which I discuss this issue. Please note that at the time that it was written, Dr. Craig Keener had not yet clarified that he does affirm the historicity of the event in John 20 where Jesus breathes on his disciples. I am by no means the only scholar to be previously confused about his views on this topic; as I mention in the video, some who apparently thought they were agreeing with Keener on this point have taken the position that the incident is not historical. You'll be able to see the quotations from his earlier works on the subject. The blog post remains useful as a discussion of the perils of theologizing our historical investigation rather than asking ourselves about the probable historicity of the plainly narrated events and building our theology subsequently.    http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2018/06/does_john_narrate_theologicall.html  

We're getting closer to the release of my new book, The Eye of the Beholder, all about the Gospel of John! Here I discuss what I call three "false facts" about John. A false fact is something that is taken to be a fact (though it really isn't) that all theories must take into account. It often goes unquestioned and thus distorts theories. The three false facts I discuss here all concern the way that Jesus speaks in John's Gospel and the way that John represents Jesus' speech. This is a theme that has caused a lot of confusion in approaching the historicity of John--the idea that Jesus sounds soooo different in John as opposed to the Synoptics, supposedly calling into question the robust historicity of John. Enjoy! Originally uploaded to YouTube Feb 1 2021

This is another methodological discussion. What do I mean by the "passage-by-passage" approach to Gospel historicity, why is it a bad idea, and how do you know if someone is using that approach? What are "the criteria of authenticity" in studying Jesus and history? If you say that a passage is likely historical because it would be embarrassing to the Christians to include it, does that mean that you're using the passage-by-passage approach? Where does authorship come into this discussion?  I advocate a holistic approach to Gospel reliability. We should try to see if the evidence favors our trusting authors and the whole documents that they created. It is possible to do this in a reasonable, inductive, historically sound way. This is especially relevant to the Gospel of John, since a number of the stories, sayings, and discourses in that Gospel are not told in the other Gospels, so they are what is known as singly attested. And yet it is possible to obtain strong evidence for John's reliability nonetheless. When we have a good case that a whole document is reliable, we should not hesitate to use that case to support other passages and details in the Gospel, even if we have no special reason for believing that particular detail individually.  Video originally uploaded to YouTube Jan 25 2021

Today I pivot to starting to talk about the Gospel of John as we ramp up to the release of my new book, The Eye of the Beholder, in March 2021. I argue that the account of the healing of the man born blind in John has marks of realism that contribute to its own credibility. One involves a small mark of consistency in the narrative. One involves an undesigned coincidence with the Synoptic Gospels. And the most striking--the personality of the healed man himself.   Be sure to follow and get notifications from my author page on Facebook. You don't have to be my Facebook "friend" to follow either my author page or the public content on my regular page.  https://www.facebook.com/lydiamcgrewauthor  https://www.facebook.com/lydia.mcgrew.5/   Video originally uploaded to YouTube Jan 18 2021