Among the epistles traditionally attributed to the apostle Paul, none has been subjected to as much controversy concerning their authorship as the Pastoral epistles. There is a near-consensus among critical scholars that the Pastoral letters are pseudepigraphal.
Who Wrote the Pastoral Epistles? The Case for Traditional Authorship Read More »
Paul had, at the time of his writing, never visited the Roman church in person (Rom 1:13; 15:22-29). He thus expands his salutation so as to include a creedal summary of the gospel and his apostolic calling. Presumably Paul’s intent here was to establish credibility with the recipients of his letter, whom he had not yet met with in person.
A Commentary on Romans — The Prologue (1:1-7) Read More »
The text is of evidential value given that it allows us to establish, in harmony with other independent lines of evidence, that the resurrection claim goes back to the apostolic eyewitnesses themselves.
The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to the Case for the Resurrection Read More »
It is a common misstep made by many atheists to think that if a particular piece of evidence fails to logically entail a conclusion, then that same piece of evidence also fails to support the said conclusion. However, this is poor epistemology. A piece of evidence may be confirmatory of a conclusion without establishing it.
Should Christians Use the Argument from Martyrdom? A Reply to Bart Ehrman Read More »
Richard Carrier is an ancient historian who has risen to prominence as the lead advocate of Jesus Mythicism, a school of thought that entertains the idea that Jesus of Nazareth may never have existed at all.
All of the contradictions Ehrman alleges between Acts and Paul’s letters are the result of over-readings, tendentious interpretations, and arguments from silence. The forcefulness that Ehrman ascribes to those, combined with his dismissal of the difficult details Luke gets right concerning geography and other matters as “completely irrelevant” is astounding, and really reveals his unscholarly bias against the New Testament.
Hard Evidence the Book of Acts Was Written by an Eyewitness? A Reply to Bart Ehrman Read More »
Any discussion of the evidence for the resurrection must first ascertain what the original apostolic witnesses claimed and whether those claims are best explained by the resurrection, or by some alternative hypothesis.
The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts Read More »
Since it is a fair assumption that Ehrman has chosen his best and, to his mind, most convincing examples of alleged contradictions in the gospels and Acts, the abject failure of Ehrman’s proposed contradictions should give us renewed confidence in the substantial trustworthiness of the Biblical accounts.
Finding Contradictions Where There Is None: A Review of Jesus, Interrupted (Part 3) Read More »
With Bart Ehrman I regrettably have learned never to trust him to accurately represent his sources since, from past experience, I know him to be misquoting or misrepresenting his sources far more often than he accurately represents them.
The next time a scholar who holds a PhD and a professorship position at a major University, like Bart Ehrman, attempts to challenge your confidence in the reliability of Scripture, do not be intimidated. Instead tell him that you would like to read his sources for yourself.