The Lydia McGrew Podcast

How does an evaluation of source reliability avoid a naive acceptance of anything found in the source? How does induction contribute to source reliability? What difference is made by different subject matter? What does it mean to take a document as a "source in itself"? Is it reasonable to require that everything in history be multiply attested? Recently it's been alleged that someone who rejects the passage-by-passage approach, which I've discussed (and rejected) in other videos is advocating the claim that a source must be "100% reliable or 100% unreliable." This is simply not true. It's also been claimed that real historians don't think in terms of holistic document reliability, which is also untrue. Indeed, historical inquiry would be impossible without considering whether or not a source is reliable. Jonathan McLatchie and Erik Manning (Testify) have done an excellent job rebutting this misrepresentation of holistic reliability. See their discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoSL9_7-VZY&t=1088s Last week on Facebook I re-shared a video I did some time ago in which I anticipated this false claim about "real historians" or classicists not using the concept of source reliability but focusing only on individual events. Here that link is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXj4KtFLuno I've decided to contribute some probability-theoretic geekery to this discussion.

If you missed the last two readings that were published during Easter week, 2023, look back and find them. This is the fourth and last reading of the series this Easter in answer to this question: What is the advantage of Jesus' literal, physical resurrection? In his book Miracles, C.S. Lewis talks about the unique quality of Nature as we know it. Though Nature is now fallen, subject to futility ("vanity," in the King James translation), as St. Paul says, it will be restored. As Lewis emphasizes, that restoration will bring back a real, recognizable, physical nature and through our acquaintance with it now, we will recognize it then. And that will be a merry meeting! Happy Easter. I'll be taking a couple of weeks off now from producing new content as I try to do some writing.

This is the third reading in my Easter 2023 series on the importance of the resurrection of the body. Several of these readings emphasize the connection to the restoration of all physical nature. Jesus' bodily resurrection is an affirmation of the goodness of literal, physical creation, which (Christianity teaches) God will restore and redeem. What advantage is there in a resurrection of Jesus so literal that it included atoms and bodily organs? Much every way.

Updike's poem might have been written explicitly for those who ask what advantage there is in a literal, bodily resurrection. This is the second in a series of four Easter readings on that topic.

For Easter this year I am doing four readings of Bible passages, poetry, and books on the importance of Jesus' bodily resurrection. Those who follow my work know that I've often emphasized the importance of affirming Jesus' literal, bodily resurrection in a body that could be touched, photographed, etc., just as Christianity has always affirmed. I've pointed out that this has been definitional of Christianity from Day 1 when it was preached by the apostles at Pentecost. Not just a vision (no, not even just an objective vision) but a bodily presence with whom they talked and ate. By this important definition, someone like theologian Dale Allison is not a Christian, because he will not affirm and even seems to scoff at this idea. He says, dismissively, "What is the advantage of an interpretation of the resurrection so literal that it forces the conclusion that the risen Jesus retained his kidneys and genitals, had a body full of carbon and oxygen atoms, and sported a material costume?" (The Resurrection of Jesus, 2021, p. 261), a comment that smacks of Gnostic contempt for the value of the body, especially Jesus' resurrection body. To my surprise, some commenters on social media, though (I assume) Christians themselves, have contended that we should not be so-called "gatekeepers" on this matter. One even went so far as to imply that if we say that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is creedally definitional, we are risking leaving ourselves with a Christianity that has only two members, because such a requirement is so stringent. But Christianity has always been a creedal religion. While it is more than creedal, it is certainly not less. And Jesus' bodily resurrection is at its heart. These readings are meant to address, if only partially, the question, "What is the advantage of affirming the bodily resurrection of Jesus?" The bodily resurrection of Jesus' is tied up intimately with all of the significance of Jesus' death and the promise of our own bodily resurrection and (crucially) the resurrection of physical Nature, which Scripture promises. I hope that you enjoy these readings. There will be two more of them released *during the week* this coming week (notice that this is different than usual), one on Tuesday and one on Friday, and then the last on the first Sunday after Easter.

It might seem that Acts 1:7-8 is just an ad hoc attempt by the early Christians to avoid the embarrassing fact that Jesus didn't set up an earthly kingdom. But these verses are part of a larger pattern of Jesus' personality, both before and after his resurrection, drawn from all four Gospels. Jesus is often cryptic, unwilling to answer questions in the way his listeners would prefer, and even sharp in his speech. The disconcerting resurrection Jesus is the same person as the disconcerting Jesus of the earlier ministry. Yet at the same time, Jesus loves his followers and uses different approaches for their benefit, to teach and to comfort.

Sometimes you will hear the sweeping statement that we can get the content of the disciples' preaching from the writings of the Apostle Paul. While I have no doubt that the writings of Paul are indeed consistent with the preaching of the other Apostles, I would raise a caution about trying to "do it all with Paul" without including the evidence of the Gospels and Acts. Acts provides crucial information about the dating of Paul's letters, the specifics of Paul's conversion experience, and the history of his interactions with the Jerusalem church. What happens if we "concede for the sake of the argument" that the author of Acts felt free at times to change the facts? Or consider Pauline theology on crucial matters like the Holy Spirit or the deity of Christ. Paul's independent spirit and his insistence that he has received information by direct revelation from Jesus, both amply attested in his letters, trigger an entirely legitimate desire to double check his theology on these matters from the teachings of the historical Jesus. Fortunately, the Gospels provide us with just such an independent check. Let's not be reckless in setting aside evidence due to a desire to "do it all with Paul" because, in critical scholarly circles, Paul is "in" while the Gospels are "out." Once again, be careful what you grant!

How is traditional authorship connected to Gospel reliability? Can we grant for the sake of the argument that we have no idea who wrote the Gospels and still have a strong case for their reliability? How can we accurately discuss different lines of support for reliability and keep them distinct without making damaging concessions? Here is my earlier video on the minimal facts argument on being careful what we grant: https://youtu.be/N2Sdf-3urmI

Certain opponents of intelligent design in the area of biology insist that God works in obvious ways (as opposed to working through what appear to be merely natural events) only during periods of "salvation history" involving particular religious contexts.  Here I explain how such a dogmatic view would create a problem with getting a religious context off the ground. How could anyone be justified in the first place in believing that God was performing a miracle, if the immediate past events appeared to be ordinary? If Moses accepted this view, how could he be justified in believing that the burning bush was real? After all, just before he saw the burning bush, everything seemed to be going along naturally, and he had little or no independent reason to believe that he, personally, was going to be a central figure in "salvation history."   The article by Meredith that I mention in the video is here:  https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/02/looking-for-god-in-all-the-wrong-places

Can we be justified in believing that God is "behind" some event when we're not even sure that it was a miracle? What would that mean? Why are obvious miracles important epistemologically?   Here is the testimony of Andrew Klavan that I refer to in the video:  https://youtu.be/KgT43ppxpzY Thumbnail is a picture of baseball player Gary Carter from Wikipedia.