The Lydia McGrew Podcast

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.

If an author or a person tells a story in which details are mentioned casually, and if some of these details appear to be true, does that confirm the truthfulness of the story? Should we instead think that the author was just counting on common knowledge (or common belief) for some of his details, therefore using them casually without explanation, while making up the rest of the story?   Here I discuss this type of attempted response to some undesigned coincidences and some external confirmations. "Oh, well," says the debunker, "The author was casual about that part because he could count on his readers and hearers to make the connection to this other thing just in virtue of common knowledge. It has nothing to do with artless truthfulness. He could have been deviously making some subtle connection to something he knew they'd get all on their own, even if he didn't mention it."  How can we tell when this is not a good response?  I use a dialogue I had in e-mail about the feeding of the five thousand as a springboard for discussing this topic. See others under the "casualness and independence" playlist. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe1tMOs8ARn0NbWCs84HuF86v7ZnnUna5

My new book, Testimonies to the Truth: Why You Can Trust the Gospels, is now available!  Purchase here on Amazon:  https://www.amazon.com/Testimonies-Truth-Why-Trust-Gospels/dp/1947929232/?fbclid=IwAR3OkHnlE00mi-y7oGAonghJRnWF-0uP_R2ikaUg7zU2jOUo2Oo58ZIr-vA Purchase here on Barnes & Noble:  https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/testimonies-to-the-truth-lydia-mcgrew/1142990976?ean=9781947929234  This video provides a short summary answering questions like  --How is Testimonies different from my earlier books on the Gospels? --Who has endorsed Testimonies? --How is Testimonies different from other books out there about Gospel reliability?   To see all endorsements, read here:  http://lydiamcgrew.com/TestimoniesEndorsements The Table of Contents is here:  http://lydiamcgrew.com/TestimoniesContents

Here I apply the analysis I have been giving in this series to a specific external confirmation--Why did the hearing of Archelaus ruling in Herod's stead cause Matthew to move to Galilee in Matthew 2? How does apparent casualness support the factual independence of the reports in Matthew and Josephus and thus show that the co-incidence of their details is (in all probability) undesigned?

Casualness, independence, and undesigned coincidences: A Gospel example

Today we continue a series on how probability theory intersects with New Testament. How does casualness work in undesigned coincidences? Since we're looking for factual independence, how does casualness confirm this. Find out here!

Independence is very tricky! Different accounts of the same event that are independent in the relevant sense can make a powerful cumulative case. But what is the relevant kind of independence? Biblical scholars have a tendency to throw around the term without defining carefully what they mean and how it works. There is an extensive literature in analytic philosophy, especially in probability theory, about testimonial independence and its proper analysis. I've contributed to this literature myself.   In this discussion I give a short breakdown of several ways that source evidence might be, or might not be, independent, and I discuss why this is important for biblical studies, especially studies of the Gospels.  Here is a document containing the diagrams, in case you want to look at them without watching the video:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vk_utlHOibgSPwRaz2iCgskeF-95Fnvp/edit?fbclid=IwAR1hyBKUMAu3lpqL2vAmF0V4MSqEcLFWzPm36V9PhYMgkVvy-WHwUBlhBrg  Here is my published paper in Themelios on some of these issues. (Free.)  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/finessing-independent-attestation-interdisciplinary-biblical-criticism/  Here is an article (free) I have published in the journal Ergo on varied evidence and why it is helpful (having to do with independence):  https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ergo/12405314.0003.010/--evidential-diversity-and-the-negation-of-h-a-probabilistic?rgn=main;view=fulltext  Here is my preprint version of an article in the journal Erkenntnis on undesigned coincidences and their proper probabilistic analysis:  http://lydiamcgrew.com/UndesignedCoincidencesErkenntnis.pdf  Here is the reference for the published version of that article:  https://philpapers.org/rec/MCGUCA

Here I deal with the last puzzle of Luke's central section--the apparent loop-de-loop formed by 9:51 (Jesus leaves Galilee with his face set to Jerusalem to be "received up"), 10:38ff (Jesus is at the house of Martha and Mary, which we know from John's Gospel was in Bethany, near Jerusalem, and 17:11ff (Jesus is 'way back up along the border between Galilee and Samaria, in the Jezreel valley). What's up with that?  I point out how achronological narration means that Luke may very well not have been trying to indicate that Jesus healed the lepers in 17:11ff chronologically after he was in the home of Mary and Martha in Chapter 10. In fact, there's a rather perfect place right in Luke where the incident of the ten lepers fits quite well. Watch to find out where.  (At just after the 8-minute mark I mention an undesigned coincidence, discussed in an earlier video, with John 7. By a slip of the tongue I say Luke 7.)  Check out the playlist on Luke's central section for earlier episodes, here:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe1tMOs8ARn2Xx6b4aHMJr-C2KqdvBSo1

I'm continuing to discuss Luke's central section and some of the puzzles that it raises. If Luke records a saying of Jesus in this central section, where Luke 9:51 says that the time was approaching for Jesus to be received up, should we take that to mean that Luke is "placing" that saying in a "different context" from Matthew and Mark, since they tie it closely to the Galilean ministry earlier? Here I argue for a "no" answer. Luke is recording much sayings material in these chapters for which he gives no context at all--either geographical or chronological. Sometimes he organizes these sayings topically; sometimes he does not even do that but merely moves abruptly from one saying to another. This central section of Luke is filled with notably indefinite indicators of time or place. This is relevant to the claim that Luke was trying to move Jesus' saying about little ones and millstones (Luke 17:2) to a "different context" but suffered "editorial fatigue" when he tried to do so.  If you're interested in this context, be sure to watch two other videos about Luke's central section and how it relates to the other Gospels:  https://youtu.be/aGC7vKMIBug https://youtu.be/2AGfi81iCq0

The previous videos have addressed the question of whether Gospel harmonization is an appropriate historical tool. We've seen that Strauss's critical scholarly methods lead to implausible disharmonization. At this point I would like to illustrate the way that the use of reasonable historical conjecture applies to a difficult passage--the central section of Luke's Gospel.   Luke 9:51 says that Jesus set his face to go to Jerusalem, but in the chapters that follow he seems to take an inordinate amount of time to get there What's it all about? Here we'll look at a very fruitful conjecture--that Luke 9:51 corresponds to John 7:2-10, when Jesus travels to Jerusalem about six months before his death for the feast of Tabernacles.   This conjecture leads us to note an undesigned coincidence. Why were the Samaritans so annoyed with Jesus in Luke 9:52-53, unwilling to allow him to stay overnight?  See also the previous video on Luke 13 and Jesus' Perean ministry:   https://youtu.be/aGC7vKMIBug

Here I continue on the theme that Tim McGrew addressed: Did D. F. Strauss put an end forever to the reasonableness of harmonization?   I will be reading a quotation from Dale Allison accusing harmonizers of "trying to erase knowledge" and being motivated only by an outworn theory of inspiration that was "pulverized by the deists."  On the contrary, the satire by Johannes Ebrard, written within ten years of Strauss's Life of Jesus, "pulverized" Strauss by pointing out how faulty Strauss's methodology really was. In this "war of the quotations," I will be reading and commenting on Allison, Strauss, and Ebrard. Be sure to like and subscribe!  Find the text of Ebrard's satire embedded in this article, here, beginning with the title "Receipt for Writing..."  https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/scanned/strauss.htm 

Did David Friedrich Strauss refute forever the method of harmonizing Gospel accounts, as Dale Allison has claimed? Not at all. In fact, Strauss's own theories about the way that Gospel narratives were supposedly invented are enormously complex and improbable, showing that his judgement about the factuality of the Gospels is far off-base.  We welcome Tim McGrew giving a reading from William Lindsay Alexander on the Straussian approach to the Gospels, with reference to the birth of John the Baptist.  

This new coincidence connects Jesus' words about Herod Antipas in Luke 13, the Perean ministry described in the other three Gospels, and Josephus. Did Luke make a mistake about Herod or make up an event? Nope.  Here is my older post on the chronology of Luke's central section and Jesus' seemingly endless "journey to Jerusalem."  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/a-possible-solution-to-long-standing.html

Here I give you an undesigned coincidence between Paul's letters and Acts 20:4-5. This was part of a section that had to be cut in an article I'm currently writing.  The earlier video and audio concerning Acts and the epistles is here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq7EDxPC3Fw&t=1123s https://anchor.fm/lydiamcgrew/episodes/Just-HOW-WRONG-can-Bart-Ehrman-be-about-Acts-and-Pauls-epistles-e1m8eop

In this last video about evidentialism and reformed epistemology, I tackle some analogies that have been made, such as knowing that you are innocent of a crime when the forensic evidence is against you. I point out important disanalogies between the alleged defeater-defeating witness of the Holy Spirit and these cases. RE folks cannot simultaneously say that the IWHS is self-authenticating and defeater-defeating while also claiming that it's epistemologically similar to more ordinary types of events.  Here is the transcript of the talk by Dr. Craig that I read from: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/lectures/epistemic-justification-of-christian-faith-for-talbot-school-of-theology

Here I answer a potential objection to the discussion in Part 3. The potential objection, based on Hebrews 6:4-6, is that reconversion after apostasy is impossible. Therefore (the objection would go), if God is going to be faithful and provide what man needs to be saved, he is going to have to provide a Christian in an evidence-poor situation with some other powerful defeater-defeater before that person deconverts, because otherwise it will be too late.   I've never heard anyone make this precise argument for the defeater-defeating internal witness of the Holy Spirit for believers, but it seems like a reasonable thing to try. Here I suggest four alternative interpretations of that passage which would retain the possibility of reconversion.

Continuing my series on evidentialism and its contrasts with reformed epistemology, here I tackle the question: Is rational deconversion possible? My answer is, yes, but...

This is the second part of my attempt to answer misconceptions of evidentialism. Here I discuss the evidentialist's proper attitude toward objections. No good evidentialist should be telling someone that he should deconvert if he can't answer all objections to Christianity, in order to show that he is open to evidence. That is a caricature which both friends and foes of evidentialism sometimes adopt.

There are plenty of misconceptions going around about evidentialism as opposed to Reformed Epistemology or presuppositionalism. Here I start a series intended to lay some of those confusions to rest.  Here is my former video on this topic:  https://youtu.be/k2Tv90y2G58 Here is a post I wrote on this topic some years back:  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/what-evidentialism-is-not.html

This is the second part of my discussion of the statement, "We have to use ancient standards of reliability to interpret and evaluate the Gospels." Last time we saw that this is false both because it is internally inconsistent and because it conflates seeking information with being pressed into evaluating a practice in one particular way. Saying, "The ancients accepted this," even if it were true (and it often isn't) shouldn't automatically mean, "You have to think it's no big deal."  In this part I discuss uncontroversial things like simple figures of speech, achronological narration, and rounding and explain why even for these we shouldn't refer to "ancient standards of reliability." Paradoxically, the use of such phrases leads to our being less well-informed.  If you want to know more about achronological narration, see this video which is part of my series on the Temple cleansing, or see Chapter II of The Mirror or the Mask or Chapter II of The Eye of the Beholder.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4TzGiFCeLE&t=6s

"We have to use ancient standards of reliability when studying the Gospels" is the kind of thing you'll hear pretty frequently. At first it sounds obviously true, even profound. The initial instinct is to agree with this statement, because to disagree sounds like endorsing ignorance and unfairness.  In this first of (probably) two videos, I examine the inherent contradiction in this claim. If the alleged "standards of reliability" are so different that we have to make a big effort to know and apply them, then why is the modern English term "reliability" the right word? I discuss how the application of the phrase "ancient standards of reliability" to fact-changing literary device confuses *information* with *evaluation* and amounts to a kind of illicit pressure to say that something is unimportant even when it is entirely legitimate to think that it's important.  Part of what I bring to New Testament that is fresh and different is an analytic philosopher's willing to ask, "What do you mean?" and "If that's what you mean, is that really true?"

We're wrapping up our series on how Jesus sounds in John's Gospel and we've seen how argument after argument fails to support the claim that John embellishes, elaborates, invents, or puts his own interpretations into Jesus' mouth.   Today we're getting into the nitty gritty of some specific Greek aspects of what is called Johannine idiom. All too often, the fact that an argument concerns an ancient language is used to make laymen--or indeed anyone who doesn't fluently read that language--feel that they are not entitled to an opinion. The impression given is that having a credential of formal study in an ancient language is akin to being inducted into an ancient mystery religion, and that only those who have received this secret initiation rite have a right to draw any conclusion whatsoever concerning any argument that involves that language.   Here I illustrate the fact that even the understanding of such relatively technical matters of the contrastive use of a Greek conjunction can indeed be understood by those who don't fluently read the language. More importantly, once the data are out there and the alleged arguments, anyone is entitled to hear and evaluate that argument.  What we find is that such extremely trivial matters as whether Jesus used one Greek conjunction or another to expressive the contrastive meaning "but," or whether or not John translated his words in Aramaic differently from the way that Luke would have translated them (but didn't, since these passages aren't in the Synoptics), cannot possibly provide support to the proposition that John embellished or elaborated Jesus' words. Nor even to the claim that he engaged in an especially loose or free paraphrase, since either conjunction expresses the relevant meaning quite clearly in the context.  And in fact, as it turns out, the use of the contrastive "and" (kai) has an especially Semitic sound and may be an especially good representation of Jesus' words, whether he was speaking in Greek or Aramaic originally.  All this and more you'll find in this final segment. Which leaves us with a question: Why doubt John?   For more, be sure to see The Eye of the Beholder:  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

Did John systematically replace "Kingdom of God" in reporting Jesus' words with "eternal life" to emphasize Johannine themes? Probably not. Here we see how the attempt to create a statistical contradiction results in a strained scholarly theory.

Here I introduce explicitly what I call the "two-step argument" that John elaborated Jesus' teaching in John. It consists of arguing that Jesus sounds suspiciously like the narrator of John and the author of I John, then *rejecting* the explanation that John was influenced by Jesus and talked like Jesus, on the grounds that Jesus sounds too different in the Synoptics.  I emphasize the exaggerated nature of the claim about differences between Jesus' speech in John and the Synoptics--implying that it is as though Jesus is using highly distinctive idiomatic phrases from one region and time in the Synoptics and inconsistently using highly distinctive idiomatic phrases from another region and time in John. (As if one set of Gospels portrayed him as saying, "Jolly good, old chap," "In for a penny, in for a pound," and other distinctively British expressions while John portrayed him as saying, "Boy oh boy, that's great," "I'll take a rain check" and other distinctively American idioms.)   I also stress the fact that themes are not style. I coin the phrase "statistical contradiction argument" and bring out the unstated assumption that the different Gospels are trying to give a representative sample of how often Jesus used certain words. This would mean that if he uses "witness" or "truth" more often in John than in the Synoptics, there is a problem. But none of them claims to be giving a representative sample of how often he addressed certain topics or used certain words. This statistical assumption also underlies the attempt to place some significance on the absence of story parables in John--a truly poor argument against the robust historical accuracy of John. Obviously a verse like Matt. 13:34 doesn't mean that Jesus literally never taught without telling a story parable!  Be sure to check out the rest of the series!

Here I tackle the claim that Jesus gives longer discourses in John than in the Synoptic Gospels and that this raises a reasonable suspicion that John is elaborating Jesus' teachings, knowingly putting words into his mouth.  The article by Bauckham mentioned in the video appears to be no longer available in full freely on the Internet. (I acquired a copy of it when it was on his website in full-text form.) Here is the reference for "Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of John."  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/historiographical-characteristics-of-the-gospel-of-john/DFA624C81A28838FB3E3002AC4219240

Here I tackle the claim that Jesus sounds in certain discourses in John so oddly literary, his words uncannily similar (for many verses) to an "I am" way of speaking supposedly characteristic of Lady Wisdom of the Old Testament and extra-canonical Wisdom literature, that it raises the suspicion that these passages are in a different genre and are not intended to be historical. Short version: Nope.  Watch the whole video for a thorough debunking of these claims.  Want more about the robust, literal historicity of John?  Get The Eye of the Beholder! https://www.amazon.com/Eye-Beholder-Gospel-Historical-Reportage-ebook/dp/B09HWV6PZ7/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=the+eye+of+the+beholder&qid=1660750477&sr=8-3  Here again is post with many quotations from Craig Evans in 2012:  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcript-craig-a.html  Here was my debate on the historicity of John in 2018 with Evans on Unbelievable:  https://www.premierunbelievable.com/unbelievable/unbelievable-is-johns-gospel-historically-accurate-lydia-mcgrew-and-craig-evans-debate/11554.article  Here is the video of Evans's two debates with Bart Ehrman in 2012 from which the above transcript of quotes was taken:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueRIdrlZsvs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvCVnlHoFow 

Today we examine another "false fact"--the claim that there are seven, or even about seven, discourses in John that combine the properties of being about an "I am" saying and being fairly lengthy. Sometimes scholars will add the (also false) claim that each of the "I am" sayings with a predicate is combined with both a miracle and a discourse. Of course, nothing would follow either deductively or non-deductively even if this were true, to call into question the fully recognizable historicity of such sermons and sayings. But the premise isn't even true. As I stress in the video, people can pass on these claims while not intending to use them against historicity, but it can also be used as if it puts a question mark on historicity for those passages.   Here is my post with many quotations from Craig Evans in 2012:  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcript-craig-a.html  Here was my debate on the historicity of John in 2018 with Evans on Unbelievable:  https://www.premierunbelievable.com/unbelievable/unbelievable-is-johns-gospel-historically-accurate-lydia-mcgrew-and-craig-evans-debate/11554.article  Here is the video of Evans's two debates with Bart Ehrman in 2012 from which the above transcript of quotes was taken:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueRIdrlZsvs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvCVnlHoFow 

Charles Darwin said that a false fact is an injurious thing. One of the false facts that gets repeated in New Testament studies, without checking, is the claim that we're often unable to tell in John's Gospel who is speaking--Jesus or the narrator. This alleged fact is then used to support the conclusion that John thinks he's licensed to put his own interpretations and elaborations into Jesus' mouth, as though Jesus said them historically, when John knows that he didn't.  In fact, there is only *one* place in John where it is hard to tell where Jesus stops speaking--in the conversation with Nicodemus, in John 3:10-21.  But in multiple places John scrupulously distinguishes his own explanations from what Jesus historically said. Why would he do that if he thought it was okay to put his own interpretations into Jesus' mouth?  The three discussed in the video are John 2:18-22, John 7:37-39, and John 13:10-11. (By the way, it is in fact a plural "you" in John 13:10, something I did not check before making the video. It still seems possible that Jesus meant that the disciples corporately were clean, but that even those other than Judas needed some further purification. The force of the aside--showing that John distinguishes his own interpretations from Jesus' words--remains regardless, since Jesus does not *at this point* in the chapter relate his comments to Judas, but the narrator does.)   The other two explanatory asides after Jesus' words are found in John 18:8-9 and 21:22-23. Further evidence that John recognizes a distinction between Jesus' historical teachings and John's own teachings, led by the Holy Spirit, is found in John 16:12-13 and John 14:26.   The article by D.A. Carson quoted in the video is here:  https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gp/gp2_tradition_carson.pdf  Originally published to YouTube Aug 7, 2022

John 8:58 and John 10:30 contain quite clear references to Jesus' deity. The fact that these don't appear in the Synoptic Gospels is used as an argument that John invents material. Sometimes the argument is a pure argument from silence. Sometimes an added argument will be that Jesus "wouldn't have" spoken this explicitly about his own deity since, in the Synoptics, he sometimes told people not to tell others that he was the Messiah. If he was secretive about being the Messiah, you'll hear, he wouldn't have spoken explicitly about being God, as he apparently does in John. So John must be inventing those incidents. (Though sometimes the misleading term "paraphrase" will be used to hide what the claim really is.)   I suggest what I believe is the best way of replying to these arguments. And surprise! The best way isn't arguing for high Christology in the Synoptics.  Learn a better way here.   And don't forget to get The Eye of the Beholder for much 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 Originally published to YouTube Jul 31, 2022

I'm starting a series this week on the claim that Jesus in John sounds soooo different from Jesus in the Synoptics. This is used to argue both for the lesser historicity of the sayings and discourses of Jesus in John's Gospel and for the generally looser grip on history in the Gospel of John.  In this first part in the series, I challenge straight-up the claim that there is virtually nothing (except the famous "Johannine thunderbolt" in Matthew 11:27) in the Synoptic that sound like Jesus in John. This is just a portion of the evidence that Jesus actually says a lot of things that sound similar in John and the Synoptics.   Here is the article at the journal Conspectus that I mentioned (it's 100% free):   https://journals.co.za/doi/10.54725/conspectus.2021.2.2  Here is a free chapter of The Eye of the Beholder:  http://lydiamcgrew.com/EOBChapter1.pdf  Here are the endorsements of The Eye of the Beholder:  http://lydiamcgrew.com/EOBEndorsements.pdf  Here is an earlier video where I discuss the "heads John loses, tails John loses" fallacy and the problem with trying to "defend" John by saying that he moved a Synoptic saying:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGBI9KalFRw Originally published to YouTube Jul 24, 2022

The reference to a revolutionary named Theudas in Gamaliel's brief speech recorded in Acts 5 is a famous "crux," a place where some critics allege that Luke at least partially made up a speech and in doing so created a historical impossibility. If Gamaliel is referring to the same Theudas mentioned in Josephus, they can't both be right. In fact, that Theudas hadn't even carried out his attempted revolution (according to Josephus) at the time of the story in Acts 5.  Did Josephus make a mistake? Did Luke make an honest mistake? Did Luke's informant make a mistake? Or was Luke just throwing in a couple of representative revolutionaries' names in his partly made-up speech, not caring if they were historically possible for that speech or not?   Spoiler: I think the best explanation of all the data is that there were two revolutionaries who were sometimes known as Theudas. Is this just a desperate, ad hoc theory to save Luke's bacon? Nope. (And by the way, it also saves Josephus from the charge of mistake.) Listen to learn why this is such a plausible solution and why it has lots of explanatory power. Originally published to YouTube Jul 17, 2022

Paul's goodbye speech to the elders of the Ephesian church at Miletus is recorded in Acts 20:18-35. It shows numerous indications of the accuracy of Luke's record, to the point that it seems likely that at least to some extent, in this case, Luke is recording Paul's exact words. It's striking how clearly we hear the authentic voice of Paul himself, recognizable from his letters. And yet there are also many reasons to think that Luke was not basing his history on the letters. (Among other things, the alleged contradictions that skeptics themselves bring up provide such reasons.)   Here is Testify's video on some overlapping material:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkjdqvlLEZw&t=197s  Here is my earlier discussion of the amazing undesigned coincidences connecting Acts 19-20 with I Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Romans.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq7EDxPC3Fw Originally published to YouTube Jul 10, 2022

Here's some evidence you probably never heard of that Luke didn't make up speeches.   Check out the whole book The Evidential Value of the Acts of the Apostles, by J.S. Howson.  It's totally free!  https://books.google.com/books?id=qnsXAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false  For more info. on ancient speeches and history, check out Chapter VII of The Mirror or the Mask. It's not absolutely free (alas), but pretty inexpensive in Kindle.  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 published to YouTube Jul 3, 2022

If you're into minimalist or minimal-ish arguments for Jesus' resurrection you may be tempted to include the empty tomb as one of your "core facts" because you've heard that it's granted by 75% of New Testament scholars. That isn't a high enough percentage for the minimal facts method as practiced by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, but you might think, "Hey, that's still pretty good, and it will make the argument stronger, so I'll include it."  If you follow my work you know that I don't allow scholarly consensus to influence me in this way, either positively or negatively. But looking at the claim on its own terms, what does that 75% you might hear really amount to?  I don't think anybody is trying to hide the statistical facts here. In fact, I sincerely commend Dr. Licona for making some further information on this available in his 2010 book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. But I think it needs to be made more widely known. It turns out that gauging scholarly consensus by a literature survey whose results are interpreted and reported by one person alone is a pretty messy business. If you're inclined to "beef up" your minimal-ish approach by including the empty tomb on the basis of that alleged 75% consensus, maybe you should think again.  Originally published Jun 26, 2022

But you have to listen to hear it.. (Hint: It comes at about minute 22. But don't mess up my organization. Listen to the whole thing!)   Bart Ehrman claims that in Acts Paul agrees with Peter and James about EVERYTHING of theological or practical importance. Out of this he creates a so-called contradiction with Galatians, which records a conflict between Paul and Peter concerning eating with Gentiles.  But there isn't any real contradiction at all  As is so often the case, Bart is leaning on a weak argument from silence and cherry picking his data. The wider evidential set shows important agreements on the state off the early church concerning these very issues--the relationship of Jews and Gentile in Christianity. Originally published to YouTube Jun 19, 2022

Last time I gave a series of undesigned coincidences that confirm the reliability of Acts, using three of what are known as the undisputed Pauline epistles--I and 2 Corinthians and Romans.  But what good are undesigned coincidences in arguing for the reliability of Acts if they come from epistles that skeptical scholars dispute the authorship of, like 2 Timothy? Is it necessary to first get strong separate evidence that an epistle was written by Paul before it can provide any evidence for the reliability of Acts, even by an undesigned coincidence?  Nope. An undesigned coincidence provides simultaneous evidence for the authenticity of a document (that is, it's authorship by the person it claims to be written by) and for the authenticity and reliability of an historical document like Acts that it intersects with. How is that possible? Isn't that circular? Nope. Watch to find out why.   Go here for a useful graphic:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sFIBs6gc_mrRmlji-gSyfCJV29RwB_wl/view?usp=sharing  Here is an earlier presentation I did on mutual support that makes a similar point.  https://youtu.be/SqkNJ497VJo Originally published to YouTube on Jun 12, 2022

Bart Ehrman claims that the author of Acts wasn’t a companion of Paul, though (says Ehrman) he wants his readers to think that he was. But Ehrman also questions whether the author of Acts read Paul’s letters, though he dates Acts as late as A.D. 85. If the author of Acts didn’t have access either personally to Paul or to Paul’s letters, how do we account for the many astonishing, detailed, but casual agreements between Acts and Paul’s letters? I actually agree that the author of Acts wasn’t basing his work on Paul’s letters. He didn’t need to. He was a personal companion of Paul.  Here I examine in detail just some of the detailed correspondences between Paul’s letters of I and II Corinthians and Romans, on the one hand, and Acts 19-20, on the other hand. The author of Acts knows where Paul was planning to travel at a highly specific moment in his life and where he did travel after that—in meticulous detail. But he doesn’t seem to be copying this information from Paul’s letters.   How is that possible if he’s a fiction-writing bumbler with little concern for truth, as Ehrman claims?  Here are the points I make in outline, with references:  --Paul was in Ephesus. I Cor. 16:8-9, Acts 19 --He was with Aquila and Priscilla. I Cor. 16:19, Acts 18:19, 24-26 --He had already sent Timothy to Greece (Achaia). I Cor. 4:17, Acts 19:22, 20:4 --By way of Macedonia. I Cor. 16:10, Acts 19:22--After staying in Ephesus for a little while (I Cor. 16:8-9, Acts 19:22), Paul was going to go to Greece himself following the same route through Macedonia. I Cor. 16:5-7, Acts 19:21. --Paul did follow this route from Ephesus through Troas to Macedonia and so into Greece. II Cor. 2:12-13, II Cor. 9:2-4, Romans 16:1-2, Acts 20:1-2. --After that, Paul intended to travel to Jerusalem. (I Cor. 16:3) Romans 15:25-26, Acts 19:21. (According to Acts he actually did so.) --After going to Jerusalem, Paul intended to travel to Rome. Romans 15:23 & 28, Acts 19:21. (According to Acts in the end he went to Rome as a prisoner, which probably wasn’t what he had in mind.)  Massive thanks to David Yuen of Digital Pizzazz for his help with the subtitling, the map, and the editing on this video. Couldn't have done it without him!    Check out some recent videos at Testify in answer to Bart Ehrman’s claims of contradiction and for more evidence for Acts:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLc0GBMN1lA&t=43s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8rY6gI__XE  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xf-I82FBl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-7ehjwMLr0&t=1s  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWktSrNbad0 And check out my book Hidden in Plain View:   https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Plain-View-Undesigned-Coincidences/dp/1936341905/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8  And don’t forget the amazing book by William Paley on this topic, the Horae Paulinae. It’s free!  https://books.google.com/books?id=i5cHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Map image used by permission from DeWard Publishing. Originally published to YouTube June 5 2022

This is a continuation of my discussion of the Synoptic problem here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4v_tisDAj8&t=255s  My big point in both videos is to urge you *not* to accept this false dilemma: Either the Synoptic Gospels are totally independent from each other or else, wherever the story is found in Mark and Matthew or Luke has similar wording, Mark is the *only* factual source.  While verbal difference is *one* way of indicating factual independence, it is not absolutely necessary. We find repeatedly that Matthew and Luke have details not found in Mark even in passages that are quite similar to Mark in wording. Sometimes these extra details are confirmed by undesigned coincidences. I talked about several of these in the earlier discussion of the Synoptic problem.  Here I give another example: Luke's mention of Bethsaida as the location of the feeding of the five thousand. Despite striking similarities of wording in portions of the narrative to Mark's wording, Luke alone mentions Bethsaida in this connection.  Don't let references to the Synoptic problem, the two-source hypothesis, and Markan priority be used to bludgeon you into erasing Luke and Matthew as independent sources of information. No, not even when there is similar wording to Mark. Originally published on YouTube May 29, 2022

Here I talk about an alleged literary device (not a fact-changing one) that NT scholar Richard Bauckham thinks we find in the Gospels to indicate their eyewitness sources. I applaud Bauckham's emphasis on eyewitness testimony in the Gospels, but I just don't think this device is really there. In fact, I question whether such a device even existed. (Bauckham doesn't claim that he has any source that explicitly talks about it.) Here I carefully go through arguments that it is found in Mark, Luke, and John and show that they just are insufficient to bear the weight put on them.  Even when an argument supports our own conclusions, it may not be a cogent argument. We should be especially cautious about embracing extremely subtle devices that authors supposedly deliberately put into their documents "under the surface" in order to make a point. The Gospels show plenty of other evidence of eyewitness testimony and sometimes even explicitly claim it. But I don't think we should use the "inclusio" claim. I especially urge that you not refer to it using successful language like, "We have found a device called the inclusion of eyewitness testimony in the Gospels." This can give the false impression that ancient authors actually talked about using such a device, that the case is clear that such a device existed, and that there is a very strong case that this "thing" is in the Gospels.   Here is a two-part review of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses that I wrote some years ago. There's plenty of good stuff in Bauckham's book. I just don't agree with this particular claim:  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/jesus-and-eyewitnesses-blog-review-part.html https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/jesus-and-eyewitnesses-blog-review-part_18.html  And here is a video on "explaining away" that I refer to:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnz6-WR21H0  Originally uploaded May 22, 2022

What if someone asks questions about Jesus' resurrection body that you don't know how to answer? Does that mean that you don't really know what you're talking about? Does that mean that the bodily resurrection should be considered a secondary issue? The answer is a resounding "no." You may have heard the attempted arguments here against the bodily resurrection. Now you'll have a better idea how to answer them.  Here is the dialogue between Dale Allison and Justin Bass mentioned in the video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o5htZtDBfE Originally uploaded to YouTube May 8, 2022

Following up on the discussion last time, this video argues that apparent casualness has epistemological force. But if we are going to take that force seriously, as we do in the argument from undesigned coincidences and the argument from incidental external confirmations, we have to take apparent casualness seriously in other contexts. Imposing a completely unstated, conjectured theological or symbolic meaning or allusion to an Old Testament passage upon the apparently casual narrative details of a story is treating the authors as highly subtle and cryptic, placing easily-missed 'Easter eggs" into their narratives when they appear to be narrating artlessly.  This is not the image of the authors supported by the argument from undesigned coincidences.   Here is the earlier video on Explaining Away:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnz6-WR21H0 Originally uploaded to YouTube May 8, 2022

Here I'm using the undesigned coincidence concerning the green grass (Mark 6) and the time of Passover (John 6) for the feeding of the five thousand as an illustration of the weakness of theological invention theories.   In the course of it I "help out" the theological theorists by presenting three suggested symbolic allusions to Old Testament passages for the pillow on which Jesus was sleeping in Mark 4:38. This is intended to show that our ability to think up a clever-sounding connection between some apparently factual, casually narrated Gospel detail and an Old Testament passage is of no epistemic value. It's much, much too easy.   I'm taking the occasion from Dale Allison's recent discussion of this on Mythvision, where he said that it is "just as good" an explanation of the green grass in Mark that this is an allusion to Psalm 23 rather than evidence of eyewitness testimony.   Here is the exchange on mythvision (cued up):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohvL5FoCgHA  Here is an older article by Allison where he makes this same suggestion:  https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/irish-biblical-studies/05-3_132.pdf Originally uploaded to YouTube May 1, 2022

I've been talking for some time about the importance of giving a maximal data case for the resurrection rather than a case that relies only on what is granted (supposedly) by a majority of scholars. I've sometimes been asked what that would look like in practice, especially if one were delivering it in the time frame of about half an hour. I already have a video where I give some shorter versions of this.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyqF_9qPiG4&list=PLe1tMOs8ARn0sWTtdaXPg8oMRqmYnhU6M&index=3 As I've always said, everyone who makes a presentation (even of a minimal facts case) will have things that can be fleshed out more elsewhere and debated at more length elsewhere. Recently a skeptic and a Christian did a seven-hour (!) debate, even though the Christian scholar in question does not use a maximal data case in debates. So evidently there is nothing intrinsically "short" about a more minimalist type of case.  By the same token, there is nothing particularly "long" about a maximal data case that makes it unsuited for a context where you have to state your case in an opening statement and then debate the premises and/or the inference as the debate goes on.  Here is a video where I dispel several misconceptions about the maximal data argument:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIr4iG6RBY8&list=PLe1tMOs8ARn0sWTtdaXPg8oMRqmYnhU6M&index=10&t=70s  In the presentation for Areopagus I give an opening statement length and type.   My thanks to Areopagus 2022 and Women in Apologetics, the organizers of the conference, for inviting me and for permission to share this video, which was originally recorded on Good Friday, 2022. Originally uploaded to YouTube Apr 24, 2022 

This is an Easter episode! I'm drawing attention here to the details of physical motion in the meeting between Mary Magdalene and Jesus in John 20--one of the most beautiful scenes in the Bible.   For more information on the "Goldilocks zone" and Gospel details, see this video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW1Z_pFPr7c&t=364s  For a discussion of the other women at the tomb and "I told you so" Jesus, see here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZeV7VPUM1U  Originally uploaded to YouTube Apr 17, 2022

For Palm Sunday, I'm talking about one of the most common objections urged against John's literal historicity--the claim that he contradicts the Synoptics about the day of Jesus' crucifixion. Therefore, so goes the theory, John moved the day of the crucifixion to make Jesus appear more like the Passover lamb.  In this video I thoroughly discuss the three prooftexts used to allege this change by John and show that there's no there there. I'm relying heavily on the work of Craig Blomberg and Brant Pitre in my discussion here.  Originally uploaded to YouTube Apr 10, 2022

Arguments from silence are widespread in biblical studies. What makes the difference between a strong argument from silence and a weak one?  Here is the abstract for Tim McGrew's paper on this question:  https://philpapers.org/rec/MCGTAF-2 Originally uploaded to YouTube Apr 3, 2022

Be careful about trying to use multiple attestation to support propositions, especially if your overall methodology tends to undermine the individual access to the facts and individual literal truthfulness.   Here is my Themelios article on multiple attestation:  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/finessing-independent-attestation-interdisciplinary-biblical-criticism/  Here is the written debate with Bart Ehrman mentioned in the video. (Search "midrash" on the page to find the relevant portion.)  https://tinyurl.com/LiconavsEhrman  Here is the recent discussion of Jesus' appearances that I discuss in the video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTXZb3IPaFw&t=2673s Originally uploaded to YouTube Mar 27, 2022

When you encounter a theory about unstated authorial intentions in a narrative work, how can you evaluate it correctly? Too often, scholars give epistemic value to their own ingenuity, counting a highly complex theory of hidden authorial meaning as plausible merely because someone thought it up and because other scholars take it seriously. This approach means that interpreters are coming to the document with the unargued assumption that the author is creating a literary work rather than a more straightforward work of narrative history. These literary theories, then, aren't subject to sufficiently rigorous scrutiny or made to carry the due burden of proof.  I suggest what I call "breaking it down" in order to evaluate a theory about some subtle authorial intention in the Gospels, using the theory that John moved the Temple cleansing as an example. For more on the Temple cleansing, see the playlist, here:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe1tMOs8ARn0QhpT_JgxzoxmUolEg9d3K Originally uploaded to YouTube Mar 20, 2022

Three weeks ago I discussed Dale Allison's attempt to parallel the claims of the "rainbow body" phenomenon with the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. There I said that unless someone could show me reason to think that Allison overlooked some important type of evidence for rainbow bodies, I did not need to read another book other than Allison's chapter on the topic to see that the case looks extremely weak. When I encountered pushback on this, I issued a challenge to tell me in what way Allison was underselling his case or what important evidence he had failed to represent. This challenge was declined.  I have since then gotten hold of Francis Tiso's book on the topic containing his allegedly rigorous, skeptical, outsider's investigations of the rainbow body phenomenon and found them to be...underwhelming. Allison certainly did not undersell the case. If anything, he oversold it.  This is a common thing I have run into: "You have criticisms of this book? Well, you have to read this other book instead! No, I'm not going to tell you why, I'm just going to insist that you read this other book or else you're not investigating responsibly! Oh, now you've read the other book? Well, now you need to read another-other book! Otherwise, nope, nope, you haven't done a real investigation. Doesn't count. That's it."   Cue the Allison fans telling me that now I have to read another-other book in 3...2...1.   So if you're interested, watch here to see my review of Tiso's evidence for rainbow bodies.  https://www.amazon.com/Rainbow-Body-Resurrection-Attainment-Dissolution/dp/1583947957/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1XW14P1ON90C1&keywords=francis+tiso&qid=1646256629&sprefix=francis+tiso%2Caps%2C112&sr=8-1 Originally uploaded to YouTube Mar 6, 2022

This channel is all about Gospel reliability. But you might be surprised to find out how many different ways the term "reliability" can be used. Here I discuss four different possible uses of the term and distinguish them, and I explain why I'm going to try to avoid the phrase "general reliability" in the future myself, due to ambiguity.    Here is the link to the recent volume of The Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, which I mention at the end of the video. I've just had two articles (free to read) published in this volume. The topics there are slightly different, but I want to make people aware of these recent peer-reviewed publications in New Testament studies:  http://www.jgrchj.net/volume17/?page=volume17&fbclid=IwAR1wtvZs7l-V0VgWpt7WPXvjem7P3ZzCBba1WklDUXXRsOl9euKJeRLyTjc Uploaded to YouTube Feb 27, 2022

In this longer video I discuss a chapter of the book _The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History_ by theologian and New Testament scholar Dale Allison.  https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-Apologetics-Polemics-History/dp/0567697568/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1XL4S3AYS9I0F&keywords=allison+resurrection+Polemic&qid=1644510654&sprefix=horae+evangelicae%2Caps%2C93&sr=8-1  The chapter I am discussing concerns the alleged phenomenon of "rainbow bodies" in which eastern sages' dead bodies supposedly dissolve into light after their deaths. Allison strongly implies that Christians should be "ill at ease" with these reports if they wish to affirm the resurrection of Jesus evidentially while dismissing the rainbow body claims. Here I analyze Allison's argument for epistemological parallels between the claims and find it wanting.  This discussion strongly illustrates the importance of taking a "maximal data" approach to arguing for the resurrection, since this makes plain the asymmetry between the evidence for "rainbow bodies" and the evidence for Jesus' resurrection.  Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe! Originally uploaded to YouTube 2/13/2022

Is it really true that harmonization of reports is a desperate conservative Christian ploy to ward off the threat of biblical contradictions? In this reading from 19th-century theologian Johannes Ebrard, we learn of what I call The Case of the Swiss Messenger, in which various accounts of a non-biblical event turn out to be quite compatible with one another, though a skeptic could make them appear discrepant.   A reading by Tim McGrew.   Here is the book from which the reading is taken:  https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Gospel_History.html?id=IAMpl0PhPVwC Originally uploaded to YouTube 2/20/22

The more things change, the more they stay the same! Here is the 18th-century clergyman George Horne on how skeptics raise the same objections after they have been repeatedly, carefully answered. "Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer." Originally uploaded Feb 6 2022

This week we have a fun discussion of agnosticism, probability, and the existence of God. (And the existence of Tim McGrew!)   Is agnosticism the "safe" epistemic position? Is it always reasonable to withhold belief from the position that affirms more?   Suppose that I told you that the logically stronger, more committal proposition always has a lower probability (on the same evidence) than the proposition that affirms less. Would that mean that agnosticism is more reasonable than Christianity? The answer is no. Watch to find out why! Originally uploaded to YouTube 1/30/22 

This week Tim McGrew reads from 19th-century clergyman Richard Cecil on what to do when you are confronted with an objection to your faith. Originally uploaded to YouTube 1.23.22

Here I discuss how the argument from prophecy intersects with Gospel reliability. If we already have a good argument for Christianity and have good evidence for Gospel reliability, can the argument from prophecy add any force to the case? Is there a problem with independence if one uses both the evidence of the resurrection and the argument that Jesus fulfilled prophecy?   Check out my virgin birth series if you're interested in more information on Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe1tMOs8ARn3za22QzE28xKqhTq5KvCB2  Check out this post by Jonathan McLatchie that discusses other arguments and the prior probability of the resurrection:  https://jonathanmclatchie.com/extraordinary-claims-and-evidence-a-review-of-jonathan-pearces-book-on-the-resurrection-part-1/ Originally uploaded to YouTube 1.16.21 

Recently Dr. Licona has stated that classicists use the passage-by-passage approach and that they don't even talk about the reliability of whole documents. (This is an approach I've criticized in an earlier video, linked below.) While he does not draw the conclusion that this means we should not talk about the reliability of whole documents, we need to examine this claim. Is it true? Would it matter if it were true?  If classicists, even all the classicists in the world, were really so incredibly unreasonable as not even to talk about whole-document reliability, that would be so crazy that we should ignore them. (Hence, the title of the video.) But the statement itself is definitely an exaggeration. Even recent classicists, even those somewhat sympathetic to the "sexy" claim that ancient authors had a somewhat loose view of truth, do talk about the reliability of authors in general and hence of their documents, not just the truth of individual stories. Moreover, the excellent Colin Hemer, whose magisterial book on the reliability of the book of Acts is entirely about the reliability of a whole document (Acts), has some top-notch comments about the need to investigate the reliability of the Gospel of Luke.   Here is the video with the claim about what classicists supposedly don't talk about:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DLW3bkZQGM&t=596s  Here is my earlier video on the pitfalls of passage-by-passage.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrXVbvGGmZQ  Here is a post with more quotations from Hemer about genre:  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2017/06/colin-hemer-on-genre-of-lukes-writings.html  Books mentioned in the video. Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World  https://www.amazon.com/Lies-Fiction-Ancient-World-Christopher/dp/0292727674  Colin Hemer's excellent The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History:  https://www.amazon.com/Book-Acts-Setting-Hellenistic-History/dp/1575063964/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3IKI4L0Z77H2G&keywords=book+of+acts+Hemer&qid=1641479761&s=books&sprefix=book+of+acts+hemer%2Cstripbooks%2C87&sr=1-1 Originally uploaded to YouTube 1.9.21

Today I'll be talking about evidence for the reliability of the Gospels that also has devotional and pastoral value--the unity of Jesus' personality. I'll be focusing on one aspect of that evidence: Jesus' tendency to predict, to talk about his own predictions, and to say, "I told you so!" This video will provide a sneak preview of some of the content in the new, popular-level book I'm drafting, Testimonies to the Truth: Why You Can Trust the Gospels. A new aspect of "I told you so" Jesus just recently occurred to me, and it is encouraging.  If you use my work in something you write or in a sermon, please be sure to cite me!  The last chapter of The Eye of the Beholder contains a lot more information on the unified personality of Jesus.  You can buy The Eye of the Beholder (EoB for short) in physical or Kindle form.   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  Tom Gilson's book, mentioned in the video:  https://www.amazon.com/Too-Good-False-Incomparable-Character/dp/1947929097/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=too+good+to+be+false&qid=1636213692&qsid=136-4038130-8833003&sr=8-1&sres=1947929097%2CB07NKP5TQK%2C0736976159%2C0446310786%2C0310111277%2C0736982876%2CB083W53PBD%2CB08M8Y5G36%2CB00T0C9XRK%2C0310362016%2CB00HLJL3OU%2C1786090074%2C0062990691%2CB08HGBVY9N%2CB004BCXAM8%2CB005GX5218  Here is my author page on Facebook. Even if you're not on Facebook you can read my posts there. I've put up two posts this past week there that are a bit "blog like." One of them is on the Temple cleansing, and one of them is on the entanglement of positive evidence for Gospel reliability and "negative" arguments against the literary device views.  https://www.facebook.com/lydiamcgrewauthor  Originally uploaded to YouTube 11.6.21

Here in a fairly short video I clear up three misconceptions about the differences between the minimal facts (or core facts) and maximal data approaches to arguing for the resurrection of Jesus. If you are inclined to say, "Well, you start with minimal facts, because that has a fast presentation, and then you add more later" or "We have to start with minimal facts because we have to start with common ground with the skeptic" or "I use minimal facts because I don't have time to prepare a maximal data case," this video is for you.  If you have a better idea for a descriptive phrase, feel free to let me know on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/lydiamcgrewauthor   @Testify  has been doing a great series on the minimal facts case recently.  Check out his videos that are out so far here.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY8NnBSAqbM&t=2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOL2p9tstOo   Here are some of my longer treatments of the topic:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUt3r3dXBr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H54Tjh1tkRU #minimalfacts #maximaldata #resurrection Originally uploaded to YouTube Oct 28 2021

It's easy to wonder where the plain proclamation of the gospel, without the presentation of an evidential case (at least, at that time) fits into the mindset of a person who is an evidentialist in apologetics. If we think that you need to defend the Gospels in order to have a sufficiently strong case for the resurrection of Jesus, does this mean that you should be opposed to "bare" proclamation of the Good News? Or should you change your mind about what constitutes a good case in order to be consistent with your evidentialism? Should you tell someone to wait to get right with God (if he shows a strong desire to do so) until he's been given a lengthy course in apologetics?  These are fascinating questions that I've been thinking about for quite a few years. See the relevant blog posts I link below, especially "What Evidentialism Is Not."  The upshot is that the evangelist and the evidentialist should be friends. We can understand why evidentialism is not in conflict with plain gospel proclamation when we understand two very different meanings of the word "justified."   http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/what-evidentialism-is-not.html  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/why-christian-parents-get-nervous-about.html  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-not-to-tell-young-inquirer-about.html    Originally uploaded to YouTube Oct 21 2021

How can the word "hosanna" show that the Gospel authors knew their stuff? Watch here to find out!   Originally uploaded to YouTube 10.14.21

In the previous video on definitions of "inerrancy" and the reportage model, I explained that if you are a traditional inerrantist, you already believe the reportage model of the Gospels. I also argued that any "inerrancy" that there is any point in believing is incompatible with the compositional device views, according to which the evangelists felt themselves free to change various facts.  But I also left space within the reportage model for those who aren't inerrantists, like myself. What if someone then said that there is nothing to choose between my own viewes and those of the compositional device theorists, claiming that both undermine reliability to an equal extent? I address that criticism in this video.   If you're interested in more on the topic of Gospel reliability and the compositional device theories in video form, see "The Device Dilemma":  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJBiyXtlRAs&t=557s   If you want to dive deeper into the arguments for and against, get The Mirror or the Mask, available in paperback or Kindle:  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  #gospelreliability #mikelicona #lydiamcgrew Originally uploaded Jul 18 2021

Here we're talking about the story of the raising of Jairus's daughter, mostly, and a bit about the woman who was healed when she touched Jesus' robe. This video is about what I think is a wrong approach to variations in the stories among the Synoptic Gospels--Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This redactive-critical approach overinterprets trivial differences, creates contradictions where none are present, and attributes any additional information in Matthew and Luke to invention when it isn't in Mark, rather than realizing that Matthew and Luke could add information to a story even if they were also using Mark. Don't let anyone tell you that you have to accept this approach because most scholars accept "Markan priority."  It's okay to use more commonsense explanations of Gospel differences, and at this channel we're trying to make common sense rigorous.   I use this article as a foil for the discussion:  https://www.academia.edu/40139908/The_Rhetoric_of_Redaction_A_Rhetorical_Analysis_of_Redaction_in_Luke Here are some other places where I've discussed the use of "the exercise books" in a way that functionally undermines Gospel reliability:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLb6rsnNycc&list=PLe1tMOs8ARn0S9CsFG47bKjcYxsnHujhg&index=2 https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-on-greco-roman.html http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2018/04/going_chreiazy.html  And, of course, 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 #mirrororthemask #gospelreliability #lydiamcgrew Originally uploaded Jun 18 2021

In this video I talk about "spotlighting." This is a name that Dr. Michael Licona has given to a standard harmonization move: Just because one account mentions two while another account mentions one, that doesn't mean that they are in contradiction. One author might just have been focusing on one. There is nothing wrong with this move or with giving it a new name. The problem arises when we think that this is something we are "learning" from "Greco-Roman compositional devices" and thus come to think that we need to endorse the literary device views more broadly in order to use "spotlighting" as a harmonization. I give as an illustration the fact that elsewhere Dr. Licona (and Dr. Keener) suggest that perhaps Matthew made up an extra demoniac! This is justified (by Dr. Keener) on the basis of a non-existent "device of inflection," which simply represents a blunder in interpreting a simple Greek grammar exercise. Dr. Licona suggests both "spotlighting" and Matthew's making up an extra demoniac in a "menu" of possible solutions to that alleged contradiction.  Here is the video on Inspiring Philosophy to which I'm responding.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaXHOO14i5c I talk a bit about "spotlighting" in this video from last summer.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSexrkVMGuk&list=PLe1tMOs8ARn0S9CsFG47bKjcYxsnHujhg&index=4&t=313s  Here is a blog post to go with that:  https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-equivocation-plutarch.html See also pp. 38-39 in 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  Here is a blog post from last summer where I discuss the "exercise books" more and specifically the blunder concerning inflection, which I mention in this video.:  https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-paraphrase-exercise.html  Here is the video I did last summer on the "exercise books." There is much, much more in The Mirror or the Mask (TMOM):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oldgDKH_xKY&list=PLe1tMOs8ARn0S9CsFG47bKjcYxsnHujhg&index=4&t=328s  One more point to add: If someone means by "spotlighting" that an author was *trying* portray only one (angel, demoniac, man, etc.) as present in his narrative when the author *knew* that two or more were present, then this would of course be a factual change. But by that same token, it would not be the simple, uncontroversial claim that most people take Dr. Licona to be referring to. And it would require a lot more evidence to show that an author was trying to do this. It would also be quite confusing to readers for an author to do such a thing in an apparently historical document. So *if* Dr. Licona is conflating the harmonizing kind of "spotlighting" discussed in the video with fact-changing spotlighting, that is another distinction that needs to be made. I really hope that he is not doing this. But in the case of alleged discrepancies about time, there is often equivocation going on (between achronological and dyschronological "telescoping" and "displacement," as I've discussed elsewhere), so I bring up this possibility for the sake of completeness. Originally uploaded June 29 2021

Who was Quintilian, and does he have something to tell us about the genre of the Gospels? Here I read passages from Quintilian and talk about the vast difference between his cynical advice for Roman orators and the Gospels' sober, restrained narrative.  For more information on the genre of the Gospels, read The Mirror or the Mask:  https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary-ebook/dp/B0896W473Q/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1600272214&sr=8-1 Here's another video where I discuss how the Gospels sound and contrast them with modern fiction:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW1Z_pFPr7c&t=1s Originally uploaded to YouTube Jun 11, 2021

Today I talk about how to use the conversion of Paul in a cumulative case for the resurrection. We should distinguish Paul's experience of seeing Jesus from the experiences of the disciples while Jesus was on earth. Paul's experience did not have the same physical aspects that their experiences had, directly verifying the physicality of Jesus' resurrection. How can we acknowledge the legitimate force of Paul's conversion as an argument for the resurrection while acknowledging that his experience was different from that of the other apostles? Originally uploaded June 4 2021

Why should we be cautious about adopting symbolic explanations of details in a biblical narrative? After all, the details could be both literal and symbolic, couldn't they? Here I discuss the probabilistic phenomenon of "explaining away." Two explanatory theories can compete for the force of evidence even if those theories are, strictly speaking, logically compatible. That's why you would be a bit offended if you were just telling about what happened and your friend or spouse started theorizing all sorts of symbolic reasons for the details of your story. The idea of a theological meaning for an apparently literal detail is an extra hypothesis, which means that we need extra evidence before we accept it. Originally uploaded to YouTube 5/29/21

Here I make a new argument for the reliability of the Gospels from the pacing and inconsistency of their use of specific, vivid details. I read a passage of modern fiction and contrast it with the feeding of the five thousand (in Mark) and the foot washing (in John) to show the difference between the "camera rolling" in fiction and the way that the Gospels drop in details in their narratives.  (By the way, in my view of the video it looked like the Pargeter book cover was showing backwards, but actually it showed correctly!)  Be sure to like and subscribe to this channel and hit the bell to get notifications!  Don't forget to get a copy of The Eye of the Beholder if you don't have one already.  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 5/21/21

Today's session discusses how the minimal facts approach to the resurrection involves trying to help oneself to a "consensus of scholarship" by describing what scholars grant in a "fuzzy focus" (that there were "appearances" to the disciples) while not recognizing from the beginning that many of the scholars in question actually believe that the appearance experiences were such as to indicate that Jesus was probably *not* risen from the dead. This involves treating something as evidence for the resurrection which (if the scholars' opinions are to be taken as authoritative) would actually be evidence against.  A better approach is not to use scholarly opinion all by itself as evidence but rather to look at the underlying evidence on which scholars are relying and then to describe it clearly and evaluate what it really supports or does not support.  Here was my earlier webinar on the minimal facts approach to the resurrection.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUt3r3dXBr4 Originally uploaded May 1 2021

Here I discuss what it might mean to defend the story of the raising of the saints in Matthew 27. We can legitimately use the other evidence for Jesus' resurrection to raise the probability that this event actually occurred. And we can answer a priori objections to this event, rather than dismissing it out of hand, without concluding that it happened aside from our evidence that Jesus himself arose.  See my earlier video on mutual support and miracles for more on this concept:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqkNJ497VJo  See my post on the question of "apocalyptic literature" and Matthew's account:  https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/on-that-infamous-saints-rising-passage.html Originally uploaded to YouTube April 24 2021

Here I discuss Dale Allison's views on the nature of Jesus' resurrection and contrast these with the traditional, orthodox view that Jesus rose bodily. I counter the implication that we do not have a clear, coherent concept of Jesus' bodily resurrection if we have unanswered questions, such as whether Jesus after his resurrection walked to Galilee, whether he needed to eat, and where he lived "in between" the times when he was with his disciples.   There are two places in the video where I briefly mis-speak but decided not to re-record, given the video length: At one point I refer to Doubting Thomas as being embarrassed because he didn't recognize Jesus, though I immediately affirm that he did recognize Jesus! My meaning was that he was embarrassed because he didn't (previously) believe the other disciples. At another point I refer to Paul's Damascus Road experience as occurring after the resurrection, which is true as far as it goes, but what I meant to say in the context was that it occurred after the Ascension.  Clearing away foggy definitions and concepts is part of making common sense rigorous. Originally uploaded Apr 17 2021

In this video I discuss a mainstream criticism of the historicity of John. According to this criticism, John or the "Johannine community" made up the part of John 9 where it says that the Jewish leaders would throw anyone out of the synagogue who confessed that Jesus was the Messiah. Supposedly that was an anachronistic allusion to the "life situation" of the readers of the Gospel, a situation that didn't arise until late in the 1st century. Should we take this criticism seriously? Originally uploaded to YouTube Mar 23 2021

In this meaty video I discuss and rebut the theory that John dyschronologically moved Jesus' references to his "hour," Jesus' expression of distress about his forthcoming crucifixion, and Jesus' reference to dying to live from different scenes in an earlier "Synoptic tradition" and constructed non-historical places for them within his own Gospel in an entirely different setting in John 12.  I talk once again about mainstream scholar Jörg Frey, who thinks that this is exactly what John did. Frey rightly sees that such a theory seriously undermines the historicity of John, if it is true. Of course he's wrong to think that the theory is true!  I then read an extensive segment of conservative scholar Craig Keener's commentary on John, showing that he is advocating a theory much like Frey's but trying to draw a more optimistic conclusion from it--at least John had sources and didn't make up things that Jesus said entirely out of whole cloth! But the "source" is apparently supposed to be some tradition (perhaps a document or perhaps an oral version of what is found in the Synoptics) of Jesus' anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane and his teaching in other Synoptic contexts (e.g., where Jesus talks about dying to live in Mark 8:35), not knowledge of a completely separate, historically recognizable occasion when Jesus spoke in this way.   What we're seeing here is a "glass ceiling for John"--he can be this historical, but no more. We need to be willing to go beyond the invisible ceiling and see John as never inventing anything. This entirely historically plausible theory is supported by the evidence, far more than elaborate theories of theological adaptation.  Don't forget our drawing. If you're a new subscriber (since Holy Saturday), be sure to *get in touch with me* to enter the drawing for a free book! See the previous video for details.  And don't forget to get a copy of The Eye of the Beholder:   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 April 9 2021

This is a reading from "The Evidence and Authority of the Christian Revelation" by the great Scottish divine Thomas Chalmers. Chalmers is here laying out the nature of the evidential case for Christianity.  https://books.google.com/books?id=-qAPAAAAIAAJ In a recent blog post I noted an historical misstatement by William Lane Craig in Reasonable Faith. Craig states there that in the 19th century it would be difficult to find an influential thinker defending the Paley-style approach to arguing for Christianity. Chalmers is a counterexample to this historical claim. http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2021/11/on-minimal-facts-case-for-resurrection_29.html Originally uploaded 1.2.22

What does it mean to say, "I believe that as a Christian"? How does that sentence interact with evidence? Is it possible to "believe that as a Christian" and be thoroughly rational about it?   All of this, surprisingly, is related to the issues of miracles, the Virgin Birth, and even intelligent design in science. Watch here to find out why! Originally uploaded 12.26.21

Here I connect the question of the truth of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke with the question of whether they were trying to bring their Gospels into conformity with the conventions of Greco-Roman biography. Would they have required that motive for including birth narratives? If they thought that these remarkable stories were true, wouldn't that have been enough to motivate them to include them?  For more on the Gospels' genre and on the genre of Greco-Roman biography, 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 For last year's series on the Virgin Birth, see here:   https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe1tMOs8ARn3za22QzE28xKqhTq5KvCB2  For some sensible reflections by classicist and NT scholar Colin Hemer on Luke's genre, see here:  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2017/06/colin-hemer-on-genre-of-lukes-writings.html While rewatching this after uploading it, I realized that I make what is going to look like an overstatement concerning whether or not Luke alludes to prophecy about Jesus' birth. What I had in mind was the narrator's alluding to prophecy and saying that a particular thing happened to fulfill Old Testament prophecy, as Matthew does at times. Of course the words of the angel to Mary, the Magnificat, and the song of Zechariah do allude to OT prophecy.   Merry Christmas to all my subscribers! Originally uploaded 12.19.21

Today we have another reading from an historical apologist, the historian George Rawlinson. Our special guest Tim McGrew returns!  See here for a different passage by Rawlinson on the accuracy of the Gospels in factual matters:  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-annotated-rawlinson.html Remember all of this when anyone suggests to you that the negative connotation of fabrication is modern and that any of the Gospel authors were more interested in spiritual truth than in historical truth. Originally uploaded 12.12.21

We have a special guest this week! Tim McGrew, aka Esteemed Husband, provides us with a reading from the Library of Historical Apologetics. This is taken from the writings of Richard Whately, Anglican Archbishop of Dublin. He is talking about how we do need to use our minds to investigate the truth, but we should not think that we are obligated to answer every objection. Rather, we need to get a sense of the relative strength of the objections on both sides of the argument.  This is a reading from the work Introductory Lessons on Morals and Christian Evidences, available here:  https://www.google.com/books/edition/Introductory_Lessons_on_Morals_and_Chris/mxcSAAAAYAAJ Entry on Whately here:  https://historicalapologetics.org/whately-richard/ Browse other great works on:  https://historicalapologetics.org/  Orig. uploaded 12/5/21

This is my second video on the phenomenon I've called artificial disharmonization in the previous video and that I call utterly unforced error in The Mirror or the Mask.   Here I discuss three more examples where a scholar questions the historicity of an event or saying for (in effect) no reason at all, creating a problem or an issue out of nowhere and then applying the heavy-handed tools of literary conjecture to explain something that didn't need any special explanation in the first place. The three I discuss here are...  Did John the Baptist call himself the voice of one crying in the wilderness? Did Jesus say, "I thirst" on the cross? Did Jesus breathe on his disciples and say, "Receive the Holy Spirit"?  Hey, while I have your attention: Christmas is coming up!  Consider putting Hidden in Plain View, The Mirror or the Mask, or The Eye of the Beholder into someone's stocking.  Or maybe all three!  https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Plain-View-Undesigned-Coincidences/dp/1936341905/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 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 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 11/28/21

This is a very different video from my usual. In it I discuss a recent serious (and possibly permanent) health condition I have developed and how this intersects with my Christianity and my defense of Christian evidences. The existential problem of evil is going to hit all of us in one way or another at some time in our lives. It behoves us to gather evidence on the ultimate questions when we have the opportunity. Thank God that the evidence is there for Christianity!  Here is the link to the video by  @Joni and Friends  on finding peace in pain, which I mention in this video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FheUIFQ6pI Here is a link to a Facebook post where I talk about my condition:  https://www.facebook.com/lydia.mcgrew.5/posts/10165489537245640 My thanks again to the ever-patient David Yuen of Digital Pizzazz who helped with the sound on this video. Originally uploaded 10/10/21

Here I continue discussing Luke's central section, sometimes called the "travel" section. I bring out some really interesting connections with John's Gospel and with Josephus and make some chronological suggestions. This is an illustration on the use of reasonable conjecture and imagination in dealing with apparent discrepancies in the Gospels.  Here is my older post on the topic:  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/a-possible-solution-to-long-standing.html  Here is a map showing the Jezreel valley:  https://leejagers.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/jezreel-valley-place-of-victory-and-slaughter/ Here is a video on the concept of achronological narration:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4TzGiFCeLE&list=PLe1tMOs8ARn0QhpT_JgxzoxmUolEg9d3K&index=1&t=6s  Originally uploaded Oct 3 2021

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

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

In this "nerdy" addition to our podcast collection, I discuss how the issue of mutual support relates to the issue of circular reasoning and how both of those relate to miracle reports. How can we acknowledge that the deity of Jesus supports the claim that he performed a miracle and that a report of a miracle supports the deity of Jesus without reasoning in a circle?  Here is the JSTOR link for the Erkenntnis article that discusses this more technically.  It is (I'm afraid) available only if you have institutional access to JSTOR, but some readers will. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40267466?seq=1 Here is an accompanying blog post with the diagram and more discussion.  https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2021/01/miracle-reports-independence-and-mutual.html  Here is my new author page on Facebook, which I mention in the episode:  https://www.facebook.com/lydiamcgrewauthor  For a closeup of the graphic, see here:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iX9z2EEZFNdPXJCoTR52WLMasGSDwr62/view?usp=sharing  Next up: A discussion of the account of the man born blind in the Gospel of John.  Originally uploaded Jan 11 2021

In this final episode of my Virgin Birth series I treat the viewer to a reading of various interesting quotations from, unfortunately, evangelical scholars expressing...well, you can decide for yourself what they are expressing. Something about the infancy narratives in the Gospels. Something about how defensible they are or are not, historically.  What's the point? When you hear doubts raised by anyone, even an evangelical Christian, about the historicity or defensibility of some portion of the Gospels, you should never assume that these references to profound problems are based on some especially cogent evidence, merely because the person speaking is himself a Christian. An anti-supernatural bias is not the only route to some *highly* misguided conclusions. Fortunately there are not really deep, serious problems with the historicity of the birth narratives. In fact, they fare well historically, and therefore so does the Virgin Birth, even under severe historical scrutiny.   In the course of the episode I refer to Robert Gundry's commentary on Matthew. Here in order are links to an exchange in the 1980s between Gundry and Douglas Moo on Gundry's dehistoricizing claims about Matthew:  https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/26/26-1/26-1-pp031-039_JETS.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1vxCAgQUkG5vO4V_GFgPBVo6MUhRRyRKC0BrFBg1f8KhL_o6mccZRK-7k  https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/26/26-1/26-1-pp041-056_JETS.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2NsxbGeEsJ87MzAMguweoCS3dw_rFMVkuv22xs18YyvWVq5n_XHfJclFY  https://static1.squarespace.com/static/537a4700e4b0cc86709d564c/t/538e0b36e4b08cd19602c159/1401817910720/MatthewandMidrashRejoinder.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0SeqUSvwHutbUUZ6Psc-h6Tvurkdmiu--4d0BbZWEdCrM3BLLuYqqnZAQ  https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/26/26-1/26-1-pp071-086_JETS.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2sQhD9MGaT8wdmSPQkL3oo4xkA3F-xP7chCMaXraALy0-cN_Ilj0LijO4  Here is D. A. Carson's critique of Gundry's commentary:  https://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/1982_Gundry_on_Matt.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1vxCAgQUkG5vO4V_GFgPBVo6MUhRRyRKC0BrFBg1f8KhL_o6mccZRK-7k   Here is my Themelios article on probability theory and the misuse of the concept of independent attestation to try to bolster the historicity of some minimal "core" of facts even after we have refused to defend robust reliability. I use as one example Michael Licona's mistaken statements about what (he says) would be the case even if Matthew and Luke invented the non-overlapping portions of their birth stories:  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/finessing-independent-attestation-interdisciplinary-biblical-criticism/  Be sure to watch the rest of the series if you haven't already! Like, subscribe, and hit the bell for notifications.   Orig. uploated to YouTube Jan 4 2021

Here I discuss the last two objections I plan to cover to the accounts of the infancy and Virgin Birth of Jesus. These are 1) the claim that Luke contradicts Matthew about when Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth and 2) the claim that Luke's genealogy of Jesus contradicts Matthew's. Note that the second of these strictly speaking goes outside Luke's birth and infancy story, since he gives the genealogy of Jesus when he tells about his baptism.  I discuss responses to these that would be incompatible with the doctrine of inerrancy but that I consider plausible.  These theories involve understandable, good-faith errors (as it happens in both cases on the part of Luke) resulting from his not having additional information found in Matthew. I also say what approach I would suggest that inerrantists take--that is to say, what responses consistent with inerrancy I consider to be the best options.   Given the nature of these errors (if they are errors), there is no serious "hit" to Luke's very high reliability as an histo3rian even if those theories are true, and no reason whatsoever to think that anything (such as the story of the flight to Egypt) has been deliberately invented by anyone or that any fact has been deliberately changed.  I also discuss how bad arguments from silence are when used as skeptics use them for evaluating historical statements and why we should be extremely reluctant to consider a story in Source A invented merely because we don't find it in Source B and "surely" so-and-so would have mentioned it if it were true. In this case, that argument is relevant to the claim that "surely" if Mary (or a document based on Mary's memories) were Luke's source, she would have told him about the flight to Egypt. Enjoy!   Orig. uploaded to YouTube Dec 31 2020

Here I counter the objection that, if the name "Jesus" were not connected with both accounts, you'd never suspect that the infancy stories in Luke and Matthew were about the same person. They are just sooo different!  If interested, you can see more along the same lines in a couple of old blog posts that I wrote in 2016, including one called "The extreme probability of one's own life," a phrase borrowed from C.S. Lewis's essay "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism."   http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2016/06/the_extreme_improbability_of_o.html   And more here:  http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2016/06/new_post_on_genre_in_the_gospe.html   Originally uploaded to YouTube Dec 26 2020

When we start to talk about objections to the birth stories about Jesus in the Gospels, the supposed problem of the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2 has pride of place. Luke seems to be saying that Jesus was born at the time of a census ordered by Caesar Augustus for the whole world, and that this "first" census has something to do with a Roman governor named Quirinius. But the only census of Judea that we know about under Quirinius as governor was much too late--in A.D. 6. What's up with that?  The literature on the census is vast, and I can't begin to cover it all. But in this episode I show that it's extremely improbable that Luke is actually saying that Jesus was born that much later. We can tell from other verses in Luke that he knows quite well that Jesus was born in the time of Herod the Great. I respond to several skeptical objections that are fundamentally misguided and lay out several plausible explanations of Luke's reference to the "first" census and to Quirinius.   Here's another point I didn't mention in the podcast: What needs to be probable is that one *or* the other of these is true--what probability theorists call the disjunction. So I am not merely saying that if something is possible it's probable. I'm saying that each of these is reasonably plausible in itself and therefore that it's quite probable that one or the other of them is true, meaning that Luke is accurate here. This is an important point to keep in mind.   It's also extremely *improbable* for other reasons that Luke was just making up the claim that a census occurred at the time of Jesus' birth or was saying that Jesus was born in what we would call A.D. 6.   Here is the accompanying blog post for some more information:  https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/12/some-more-notes-on-census-in-luke.html  Here is the article by John Thorley that I mention in the video:  https://www.jstor.org/stable/642500?seq=1  Here is my recent debate on the Nativity with atheist Jonathan Pearce:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PloRcUHBMU   Originally uploaded to YouTube Dec 20 2020

In this episode I discuss the realistic picture that we get in Matthew and Luke in which both Nazareth and Bethlehem play a role in the lives of Joseph and Mary at the time of Jesus' birth. I suggest that Mary was from Nazareth and that Joseph was from Bethlehem as his home town, though he may have been living for a time in Nazareth. Mary had family down in the Judean hill country as well. If the couple was planning to settle in Bethlehem, as they apparently did after Jesus' birth for a while until the flight to Egypt, this would also explain why Mary traveled with Joseph to Bethlehem at the census.   Here again are some good resources on Christmas and the nativity narratives from Triablogue.  http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/11/christmas-resources-2020.html  Here is an interesting scholarly article by Stephen Carlson. (Hat tip to Jason Engwer for alerting me to it.) Carlson argues that Joseph was from Bethlehem personally. I don't endorse all of Carlson's speculations--in particular, the idea that the marriage of Mary and Joseph took place in Bethlehem seems incorrect to me. But the article is useful nonetheless.  http://www.hypotyposeis.org/papers/Carlson%202010%20NTS.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0oBuus-5Cw9q8thfl5oKSzwk5muEjo6NcWxDwq7JU8NWGRvlzp_mQgiUQ   Originally uploaded to YouTube Dec 12 2020

Here I talk about the importance of not conceding that the birth narratives of Jesus are late additions coming from who-knows-where. Not only is there no evidence that the Gospel authors felt free to make up stories, and not only is there evidence for their care and veracity otherwise, there are signs of truth in the birth stories themselves. Here I emphasize their Jewish character. The stories appear early, even seeming to encourage messianic expectations of an immediate earthly reign. They aren't at all the kind of thing you would make up as late inventions to try to commend Christianity. I also talk about how the narrative in Luke, in particular, is steeped in the Jewish sacrificial context of pre-70, before the fall of Jerusalem. We shouldn't think of the infancy narratives as having the phony "independence" that results when different authors freely invent based upon a common core of tradition. Rather, they look like they are independently telling authentic stories coming from people who were "in the know."   Here is the article in Themelios on incorrect claims of independent attestation that I mention in the episode.  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/finessing-independent-attestation-interdisciplinary-biblical-criticism/  Check out this roundup of Christmas apologetics resources from Jason Engwer and the Triabloguers. Lots of good stuff here:  http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/11/christmas-resources-2020.html#more  Originally uploaded to YouTube Dec 8 2020

This episode begins what will probably be a five-part series on the Virgin Birth in the larger series on Gospel reliability and miracle reports. Here I focus on what it would mean for the evidence for the Virgin Birth if Mary herself was Luke's witness and told him (or affirmed to him in some other way--e.g., by presenting him with a document or notes) the material that we find in Luke's accounts of Jesus' infancy, the birth of John the Baptist, etc. I examine Mary's motives and the implausibility of her lending credence to such a massive lie about the conception of Jesus. This in turn draws attention to the importance of the reliability of the Gospels, and Luke in particular, in the evaluation of the evidence for the Virgin Birth.  (Side note: I make a verbal slip at one point in the episode as deoes occasionally happen. Since I'm trying to do these in one "take," I did not re-record. I am listing aspects of the birth narratives that would have been accessible to people other than Mary and list Joseph's dream. In the verbal context I appear to be saying that Joseph's dream is found in Luke. Of course it is found in Matthew.)   Here is the lecture on the reliability of Acts that I mention. "Acts Gets Hard Things Right"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sdLTyM7Sks&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR02fIwnuM8jDtMRmycFMxoJvkBmUSWQrNuwT9b90c61vXSFyLFlYg-cRtI   Originally uploaded to YouTube Dec 4 2020

This wraps up my series on the feeding of the five thousand with two more undesigned coincidences, several more indications of independence and individual veracity, and a discussion of the intersection of the miraculous and the non-miraculous aspects of the accounts. Originally uploaded to YouTube Nov 30 2020

Here I turn to the positive evidence contributed to the case for Gospel reliability by the stories of the feeding of the five thousand. I discuss four undesigned coincidences that confirm details of the feeding--two about place and two about time. Originally uploaded to YouTube Nov 27 2020

Here I continue explaining apparent discrepancies between accounts of the feeding of the five thousand. These apparent discrepancies help us to see that the accounts are not dependent on a common source. And they are the kinds of things that could easily arise from different accounts that come from separate witnesses of the events. Originally uploaded to YouTube Nov 23 2020

This episode begins a sub-series on the feeding of the five thousand. The feeding accounts in the Gospels make an important contribution of their own to the case for Gospel reliability. But what about alleged discrepancies between them? Here I point out how the appearance of discrepancy between accounts contributes to the case that they do not come from a common source--a type of independence. This is especially valuable if the apparent discrepancies can be well explained by causes that we expect to arise when we have different accounts that go back to separate people with knowledge of the events. Here I address the first alleged discrepancy between accounts of the feeding: The question of where Jesus was when he first saw the large crowd. Originally uploaded to YouTube Nov 20 2020

This is the second, shorter, section of my discussion of the miracle accounts of Jesus raising Jairus' daughter and healing the woman with the issue of blood. Here I discuss potential naturalistic competitors for a miraculous explanation and how well they hold up if the externally observable facts occurred as told in the Gospels. Note that I'm asking how much these accounts themselves support a miraculous explanation without bringing in other evidence we have about Jesus' ability to work miracles. I conclude that in the case of the woman with the issue of blood we do need to rely somewhat more on our other evidence that Jesus was able to work miracles, though this is a rational and historical way of proceeding. The reason that we need to do so is that, even granting the externally observable facts, we don't have follow-up information showing that she was truly relieved of her symptoms for a significant period of time. However, there is an interesting confirmation in Jesus' claim that someone touched him for healing and the woman's admission that she did so. In the case of Jairus's daughter, the chief naturalistic competitor would be the theory that the girl was not really dead. In this case the naturalistic explanation does not seem to explain the facts well, however. Even if all brain activity had not ceased, one wouldn't expect her to wake up immediately, when she had previously (one presumes) had no pulse or visible breathing, and be able to walk just when Jesus took her by the hand and spoke to her in a simple fashion.  This sort of evaluation shows how we can try to evaluate miracle accounts while separating out the various strands of our evidence and being neither credulous nor hyper-skeptical.   Originally uploaded to YouTube Nov 16 2020

In this continuation of my series on Gospel reliability and miracles, I evaluate the stories of Jesus' healing the woman with the issue of blood and raising Jairus's daughter. These stories are told in intertwined accounts. We find them in all three Synoptic Gospels--Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Here I discuss issues of independence between the accounts and of the credibility of the accounts and conclude that, between the other evidence we have for reliability and the credibility of these accounts, we have a good case that the external events recounted in these stories took place and were observed by the disciples. These stories provide a good test case for the methodology I have been advocating for historical evaluation, here looking at accounts that are briefer and less varied than the accounts of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.  Check out a recent video I did for Ratio Christi at Western Michigan University on how we know that the Gospels are reliable.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM6IomPKB2w&feature=youtu.be   Originally uploaded to YouTube Nov 11 2020

In this podcast, I take the methods that I talked about in the previous episode on methodology and Miracles and show how they apply to the central miracle of Christianity--Jesus' resurrection. I outline a "Paley-style" argument for the resurrection and give both a super-brief version of it and a somewhat expanded version. I show how Gospel reliability fits into the argument to bolster the claim that the evidence we have is highly improbable if the witnesses were just mistaken in thinking that Jesus rose from the dead. This type of an approach is an alternative to the more common "minimal facts" argument, which I don't think is as strong as its proponents believe it to be or as strong as what is needed to support Christianity. (See link below.) The Paley-style argument has never been rendered obsolete. It has merely fallen out of fashion, probably due to an unjustified deference to more skeptical "critical scholarship" concerning the Gospels and a desire to avoid having to go unequivocally against that tide--something I think we should consider a privilege.   Here again is my webinar on "Minimal Facts vs. Maximal Data"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUt3r3dXBr4  Here is the blog post that I mention in the episode, "Independence, Conspiracy, and the Resurrection"  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/independence-conspiracy-and-resurrection.html   Originally uploaded to YouTube Nov 5 2020

This is the introductory episode in a new series on historical methodology, Gospel reliability, and miracle reports. How can we avoid being either too skeptical or too credulous about miracle stories in the Gospels? How can we take proper account of evidence for high Gospel reliability while recognizing that miracles are unusual and exercising due care in evaluating miracle stories? Suppose that we end up relying on our independent evidence that Jesus was God in order to conclude that he really performed a certain miracle. Does that mean that we're "believing as a Christian" rather than using historical reasoning? In this preliminary episode I try to sort out some of these questions. We'll learn more about how this works in the series as a whole when I discuss particular examples. Originally uploaded to YouTube Oct 30 2020

Suppose that you're inclined to accept the existence of fact-changing "compositional devices" in the Gospels, without carefully investigating the arguments against them, because you believe that this will simplify your apologetic task. Now, thank goodness, you don't have to "get into the weeds," "get off-track" discussing alleged discrepancies and harmonizations. What a relief!  But this comes with a heavy cost, as I discuss in this video. Examine these theories carefully, and the arguments on both sides, before you adopt them!   You may also be interested in my discussion with Mike Winger on his show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiE-J6U3kCY&feature=youtu.be   Also, see my discussion here of minimal facts vs. maximal data approaches to the resurrection:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUt3r3dXBr4  And here is my book, 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=1603580557&sr=8-1 Originally uploaded to YouTube Oct 26, 2020

In this final episode of my series on the Temple cleansing, I point out the subjectivity and implausibility of the theological motives attributed to John. If it's too easy to come up with imaginative ideas about what theological or literary symbolism John might have intended by such a factual change, isn't that a clue that none of those various theories are well supported? And how would John's audience have known what symbolic lesson they were supposed to learn?    Scholarly ingenuity is a poor guide to historical probability. This episode was originally uploaded to YouTube Oct 19, 2020.

In this episode I discuss a specific reference to the year of the Temple cleansing in John's Gospel--46 years. How does this time reference confirm the historicity of an early Temple cleansing as record.  This episode was originally uploaded to YouTube Oct 16, 2020.

In this episode I talk about how the Jerusalem religious leaders try to "spin" Jesus' early miracles by saying that he is casting out demons by the prince of the demons. This is after some of them have witnessed Jesus healing a paralytic man while claiming to be able to forgive sins. Following New Testament scholar Alan Chapple, I argue that the fact that these scribes and teachers of the law, apparently representing the Jerusalem leadership, traveled all the way to Galilee from Jerusalem and were so hostile to Jesus so early in his ministry is well explained by the early Temple cleansing recorded only in John. Yet these instances of their visiting Galilee and their early hostility are recorded only in the Synoptics. This episode was originally uploaded to YouTube Oct 12, 2020.

Here I continue the series on the Temple cleansing, defending the conclusion that John reports historically rather than changing the facts. This episode discusses an undesigned coincidence between some dialogue in John's account of the Temple cleansing and the testimony of some hostile witnesses in Jesus' trial. This casual connection provides evidence both that John and the Synoptic authors are reporting accurately and that John's account describes (as he says it does) an event that occurred early in Jesus' ministry. This episode was originally uploaded to YouTube Oct 6, 2020.

In the second part of my series on the Temple cleansing, I discuss what one sometimes hears vaguely referred to as "other" reasons why many scholars reject two Temple cleansings. These reasons consist of the insistence that Jesus would not have been allowed to cleanse the Temple twice or would not have been allowed to continue to live and carry out a ministry for several years as described in the Gospel of John if he really cleansed the Temple early as John reports. I show that this is completely unfounded speculation. The Gospel of John presents a coherent and believable account in itself in which Jesus does just that--cleanses the Temple early and continues his ministry thereafter. The Synoptics all by themselves show that it is false to think of the Temple cleansing, all by itself, as a sufficient cause to determine that Jesus would die within a short time thereafter.   This episode was originally uploaded to YouTube Oct 1, 2020.

In this first episode on the Temple cleansing, I discuss the objection to two Temple cleansings that says that the two accounts in John and the Synoptics are just too similar to describe different events and that therefore such a harmonization is strained and artificial. I point out various differences that make it entirely open and not implausible that these were indeed two different events, just as the evangelists' reporting would normally lead us to believe. This episode was originally uploaded to YouTube Sep 28, 2020.

Today I begin a new series of short episodes on New Testament reliability. These episodes will highlight a concept or issue in this area. This first episode discusses the reporting of time order or chronology. I distinguish four different ways that one might report time. 1) You state or imply a time and get it right. 2) You state or imply a time and get it wrong by honest error. 3) You state or imply a time that you know is contrary to fact. (I call this dyschronological narration.) 4) You don't really intend to state or imply a time, though someone might misunderstand and think you are doing so. (I call this achronological narration.)   I'll be doing a short series on the Temple cleansing in John and in the Synoptics. This discussion of time is intended to be helpful in general and also as a prelude to that. Did John "move" the Temple cleansing, as many scholars say he did? And what would that mean?   This episode was originally uploaded to YouTube Sep 25, 2020. My book, The Mirror or the Mask, goes into these issues in more detail. You can buy it on Amazon either in Kindle or paperback. 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

In my recent book, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices, I argue that the Gospels are historical reportage. This argument involves both positive evidence for literal accuracy and arguments against the views of Michael Licona, Craig Evans, and others that the evangelists felt free to make historical changes due to the literary conventions of their time. Dr. Licona has recently released a video series in which he claims to refute my work in The Mirror or the Mask. In this series, I respond. If you are interested in more information, please see the fuller discussions of these issues in The Mirror or the Mask and in the accompanying blog posts.  In this final episode of the series I discuss what is at stake in this debate. How do these issues have the potential to affect the work of pastors, Christian counselors, and the individual devotional lives of laymen?  My deepest thanks to Immanuel Fellowship Church for their studio facilities and hard work in helping me to put together this video series. This episode was originally published on Jul 27, 2020 on YouTube. Associated blog post: https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-conclusion-whats-at.html  Bonus blog post on Matthew's use of the Old Testament: https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-matthews-use-of-old.html  The Mirror or the Mask: https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070  Lydia McGrew on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lydia.mcgrew.5   Michael Licona's book Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?   https://www.amazon.com/Why-Are-There-Differences-Gospels-ebook-dp-B01MQFWQHD/dp/B01MQFWQHD/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1596112501  Michael Licona's video series on my work: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpPGCP1zKznR06Jxb5RaQYrNIiH7xR7ZR

In my recent book, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices, I argue that the Gospels are historical reportage. This argument involves both positive evidence for literal accuracy and arguments against the views of Michael Licona, Craig Evans, and others that the evangelists felt free to make historical changes due to the literary conventions of their time. Dr. Licona has recently released a video series in which he claims to refute my work in The Mirror or the Mask. In this series, I respond. If you're interested in more information on these issues, please see the accompanying blog posts and, most importantly, The Mirror or the Mask itself.  In this episode, I discuss the way that the reportage model--which is just the view that the Gospel authors were trying to report with literal historical truthfulness and were highly successful--deals with some specific Gospel differences. I also discuss how that differs from the way that the compositional device model deals with them.  My deepest thanks to Immanuel Fellowship Church for their studio facilities and hard work in helping me to put together this video series. This episode was originally published on Jul 24, 2020 on YouTube. Associated blog post: https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-gospel-differences.html  The Mirror or the Mask: https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070  Michael Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? https://www.amazon.com/Why-Are-There-Differences-Gospels/dp/0190264268  Lydia McGrew on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lydia.mcgrew.5    Mike Licona's video series on my work: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpPGCP1zKznR06Jxb5RaQYrNIiH7xR7ZR

In my recent book, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices, I argue that the Gospels are historical reportage. This argument involves both positive evidence for literal accuracy and arguments against the views of Michael Licona, Craig Evans, and others that the evangelists felt free to make historical changes due to the literary conventions of their time. Dr. Licona has recently released a video series in which he claims to refute my work in The Mirror or the Mask. In this series, I respond.  If you're interested in more information on these issues, please see the accompanying blog posts and, most importantly, The Mirror or the Mask itself.  In this episode I discuss ways in which the reportage model is supported by undesigned coincidences and other confirmed details in the Gospels and how this means that the compositional device model is disconfirmed by that same evidence.  My deepest thanks to Immanuel Fellowship Church for their studio facilities and hard work in helping me to put together this video series.  This episode was originally published on Jul 20, 2020 on YouTube.  There are two associated blog posts.   https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-methodological.html   https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-does-origen-support.html  The Mirror or the Mask: https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070  Michael Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? https://www.amazon.com/Why-Are-There-Differences-Gospels/dp/0190264268  Lydia McGrew on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lydia.mcgrew.5    Mike Licona's video series on my work: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpPGCP1zKznR06Jxb5RaQYrNIiH7xR7ZR

In my recent book, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices, I argue that the Gospels are historical reportage. This argument involves both positive evidence for literal accuracy and arguments against the views of Michael Licona, Craig Evans, and others that the evangelists felt free to make historical changes due to the literary conventions of their time. Dr. Licona has recently released a video series in which he claims to refute my work in The Mirror or the Mask. In this series, I respond. If you're interested in more information on these issues, please see the accompanying blog posts and, most importantly, The Mirror or the Mask itself.  In this episode, I discuss how equivocation on terms creates confusion in this discussion. I also give examples of how the literary device model is even a misguided way to approach secular historical works like the writings of Plutarch.  My deepest thanks to Immanuel Fellowship Church for their studio facilities and hard work in helping me to put together this video series.   This episode was originally published on Jul 17, 2020 on YouTube. Associated blog post:  https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-equivocation-plutarch.html  The Mirror or the Mask: https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070  Michael Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? https://www.amazon.com/Why-Are-There-Differences-Gospels/dp/0190264268  Lydia McGrew on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lydia.mcgrew.5    Mike Licona's video series on my work: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpPGCP1zKznR06Jxb5RaQYrNIiH7xR7ZR

In my recent book, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices, I argue that the Gospels are historical reportage. This argument involves both positive evidence for literal accuracy and arguments against the views of Michael Licona, Craig Evans, and others that the evangelists felt free to make historical changes due to the literary conventions of their time. Dr. Licona has recently released a video series in which he claims to refute my work in The Mirror or the Mask. In this series, I respond. If you're interested in more information on these issues, please see the accompanying blog posts and, most importantly, The Mirror or the Mask itself.  In this episode, I discuss what paraphrase is. I also explain why, contra some recent scholars, ancient Greek exercise books do not support the theory that the Gospel authors felt free to make changes to historical facts in their writings.  My deepest thanks to Immanuel Fellowship Church for their studio facilities and hard work in helping me to put together this video series. This episode was originally published on Jul 13, 2020 on YouTube. Blog post accompanying this video: https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-paraphrase-exercise.html  Extra blog post for more on "Black and White Thinking": https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-black-and-white.html  The Mirror or the Mask: https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070  Michael Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? https://www.amazon.com/Why-Are-There-Differences-Gospels/dp/0190264268  Lydia McGrew on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lydia.mcgrew.5    Mike Licona's video series on my work: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpPGCP1zKznR06Jxb5RaQYrNIiH7xR7ZR

In my recent book, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices, I argue that the Gospels are historical reportage. This argument involves both positive evidence for literal accuracy and arguments against the views of Michael Licona, Craig Evans, and others that the evangelists felt free to make historical changes due to the literary conventions of their time. Dr. Licona has recently released a video series in which he claims to refute my work in The Mirror or the Mask. In this series, I respond. If you're interested in more information on these issues, please see the accompanying blog posts and, most importantly, The Mirror or the Mask itself.  In this episode, I discuss the genre of the Gospels. What do scholars mean when they say that the Gospels are or "have much in common with" Greco-Roman biography, and is it true? My deepest thanks to Immanuel Fellowship Church for their studio facilities and hard work in helping me to put together this video series. This recording was originally published Jul 10, 2020 on YouTube. Blog post accompanying this video: https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-on-greco-roman.html The Mirror or the Mask: https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070  Michael Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? https://www.amazon.com/Why-Are-There-Differences-Gospels/dp/0190264268 Mike Licona's video series on my work: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpPGCP1zKznR06Jxb5RaQYrNIiH7xR7ZR

In my recent book, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices, I argue that the Gospels are historical reportage. This argument involves both positive evidence for literal accuracy and arguments against the views of Michael Licona, Craig Evans, and others that the evangelists felt free to make historical changes due to the literary conventions of their time. Dr. Licona has recently released a video series in which he claims to refute my work in The Mirror or the Mask. In this series, I respond. If you're interested in more information on these issues, please see the accompanying blog posts and, most importantly, The Mirror or the Mask itself.  This episode kicks off the series by discussing the concept that I've dubbed a "fictionalizing literary device" or "fact-changing literary device." What is it? Why do I use those phrases for what some scholars claim are in the Gospels? Are those accurate descriptions? Understanding this matter can help us to see what is at stake in this debate.  My deepest thanks to Immanuel Fellowship Church for their studio facilities and hard work in helping me to put together this video series. This recording was originally published Jul 6, 2020 on YouTube.  Blog post accompanying this video: http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/07/new-licona-series-fictionalizing.html    The Mirror or the Mask: https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070  Michael Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? https://www.amazon.com/Why-Are-There-Differences-Gospels/dp/0190264268 Mike Licona's video series on my work: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpPGCP1zKznR06Jxb5RaQYrNIiH7xR7ZR