The Lydia McGrew Podcast

Some skeptics have claimed that even if we take Acts at face value as a history of the earliest Christian movement, it doesn't support the claim that the original disciples of Jesus risked death for the claim that they had seen Jesus risen. This video examines what Acts actually says in the first two chapters. It emphasizes the identities of the eleven disciples who remained after Judas's death, it emphasizes the fact that they viewed themselves as witnesses of Jesus' resurrection, and it emphasizes the fact that they elected a twelfth person who met these same criteria to be a witness with them. The report of Peter's Pentecost sermon is emphatic that this was a very public event and that the other eleven disciples (who have already been named) were publicly and overtly endorsing what he said. (So much for Bart Ehrman's claim that they weren't "out on street corners" claiming that Jesus was risen.)

This week I'm starting a series about this question: Does Acts support the idea that at least twelve specific, named individuals were willing to risk their lives for the claim that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead? Some skeptics have claimed that *even if we take Acts at face value* in its account of the early days of Christianity, it still doesn't support this claim. They may downplay the seriousness of the risk. They may imply that only Peter and John among the original twelve disciples actually stood up and took a risk or that the others stopped taking a risk after the religious leaders first told them to stop preaching. In the coming weeks I'll be addressing these claims from Acts itself. Here I am setting up the question. Remember, this is addressing what we can learn from Acts itself if we take the narrative at face value about who was proclaiming the resurrection and what they were risking.

I wrap up the series on development theories of the Gospels with a discussion of John's use of the phrase "the Jews." Some of these uses are undeniably "negative," in the sense that the phrase is used to refer to a group of people that is negatively portrayed in the story. Does this mean that John is portraying the Jewish people as a whole negatively? Does this mean that he is advocating hatred of his own people? I argue that it does not mean this, based upon the variety of different kinds of uses to which John puts the phrase. The most important use of the phrase may be its use by Jesus in John 4:22, where he is speaking to the woman at the well.

In an attempt to make John's Gospel sound like the pinnacle of so-called "anti-semitic" portrayals of Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death, Bart Ehrman makes the false statement that the chief priests carry out the crucifixion in John. Here is the audio in which he discusses his development theory, beginning around minute 17: https://www.premier.plus/unbelievable/podcasts/episodes/ehrman-vs-mcgrew-round-2-do-undesigned-coincidences-confirm-the-gospels

Bart Ehrman claims that the Gospels' crucifixion stories become increasingly anti-semitic. According to Ehrman, Pilate becomes more innocent in Jesus' death and the Jews more guilty as we go through the Gospels chronology. Here I argue that this is all bunk, focusing on the three Synoptic Gospels. Ehrman misrepresents Mark, points to one verse in Matthew, and then switches to a completely different measure of Pilate's supposed increasing innocence in Luke. Here is the link to the discussion between Tim McGrew and Bart Ehrman. Around minute 17 and following Ehrman gives his development theory. https://www.premier.plus/unbelievable/podcasts/episodes/ehrman-vs-mcgrew-round-2-do-undesigned-coincidences-confirm-the-gospels (In passing, notice that Ehrman is bringing up this development theory to try to answer undesigned coincidences between John and Luke concerning Pilate. This is merely a change of subject. Claiming that "the Jews become more responsible" for Jesus' crucifixion as the Gospels go on is not even relevant to the jigsaw-puzzle fitting of Luke and John concerning the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate and Pilate and the crowds.)

In this methodological episode I lay out some basics about even getting started with a development claim for the Gospels. The idea here is supposed to be that "finding" these developments provides evidence in itself that the Gospels are not, or at least not fully, historical. What would it take for such an argument even to get off the ground? What are some things that skeptics and critical scholars don't seem to understand about methodology?

Do the resurrection stories get gradually more "developed" as we go from earlier Gospels to later Gospels? Nope. You can choose one definition of "development" to argue that they do, but if you choose a different and equally legitimate (or illegitimate) definition of "development," they don't. Which just goes to show, once again, that development theories of the Gospels are all bunk. Video on the so-called "Johannine Pentecost": https://youtu.be/KlVwOode2gs Blog post on the raising of the saints passage in Matthew (referred to in the video): http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2019/02/on_that_infamous_saints_rising.html

Development theories about the resurrection stories usually start with the observation that, if the longer ending of Mark is non-canonical, Mark "doesn't have" any appearance stories. This assumes, further, that Mark originally ended after verse 8 (which I'd say is probably false). But it also treats the alleged absence of appearance stories as if Mark was *denying* appearances. Not only is this the worst kind of argument from silence, it also runs contrary to other indications right in the undeniably canonical text of Mark itself.

Is there development in the Passion narratives because Simon of Cyrene isn't mentioned? What about Jesus giving the sop to Judas Iscariot? Did Jesus really say, "I thirst"? Here I discuss the strained "evidence" brought to support the claim of development in the Gospels in Jesus' Passion. I also show how contrary evidence is dealt with in an ad hoc way. Be sure to invite others to like and subscribe to a channel that is making common sense rigorous.

New Testament scholarship is full of development theories of the Gospels, based on an evolutionary model. Mark is supposedly the most primitive, and from Mark onwards there is supposedly development through Matthew and Luke to John. This supposedly concerns things like Christology (getting gradually higher and higher, culminating in John), alleged anti-Semitism (supposedly greatest in John), and the topic of today's episode--Jesus' alleged "control" of his own death. According to Bart Ehrman, Jesus in Mark is a mere tragic victim. He doesn't know why he has to die. Mark's account is supposedly the most "stark." Jesus suffers greatly, then dies. He is allegedly much nobler and in control of his own death in Luke, with a through line to John in which "everything is part of the plan" and Jesus' death on the cross isn't even agonizing for him. Here is Testify's discussion of why this is wrong: https://isjesusalive.com/death-of-jesus-mark-luke/ Here is Jonathan McLatchie's debunking: https://jonathanmclatchie.com/more-misrepresentations-and-distortions-by-bart-ehrman-a-review-of-jesus-interrupted-part-2/ Next week I'll talk about the way that this alleged "development" in the passion narratives has become a doctrine and has sparked implausible attempts to find other examples of how Jesus is "more in control of his own death" as the Gospels go on and to explain away obvious contrary evidence, like "I thirst" in John.