Lesson 14.2 (Argument to the Best Explanation)

Over the past two weeks we have achieved a deeper understanding of the method of "Argument to the Best Explanation".  In short, this is the logical process we all perform throughout everyday without even realizing it.  Formally, it is the process used by scientists and historians to explain the causes of given effects.  This is a critically important concept to our study as we are performing our historical study, namely the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection.

We could simply approach this by faith alone, and that would be sufficient.  But we are interested to understand the historical case that can be made for the event.  That case depends on the method of "Multiply Competing Hypotheses", also known as "Argument to the Best Explanation".

Last Thursday night we took a look at an overall "diagram" of our study.  (Here's a link to a PDF of the slides and diagram.)  The rest of our study will need to broken into sections, beginning with the missing component of "Transmission".  We will return to this in a few weeks and understand the nature of oral tradition and it's support for the reliable transmission of the text of the New Testament.

In the meantime, we are going to spend a week or two looking at how historians use mathematical probability to help assess their confidence in the truth of historical claims.

Blessings!

Ricky
worldviewstudy@gmail.com

Lesson 14.1 (Justifying Historical Descriptions)

Wow!

If you had told me a year ago I would make a statement like "We are trying to understand the historical justification for belief in the resurrection of Jesus through the use of abductive reasoning, Argument to the Best Explanation and probability calculus.", I would have said you were crazy!  And yet, here we are!  And it's fun!  (The link to the handout is included above.)

Last week began to get into the mind of the historian as he looks to justify the validity of historical truth claims.  Obviously, we will look to apply our new-found knowledge and understanding to the overall historical reliability of the gospels; but our main goal is the central event of our faith; namely, the resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus.  And yet, as we continue to love God with all our MIND, we must admit to ourselves that this endeavor, just like our study in science, will only carry us so far.  Once we reach the end of our historical research, there will still be a step of faith required to trust in what God has done in time and space through Jesus and the resurrection.  The difference...that step will be much, much smaller; and your ability to tell others why you trust in God can be more engaging.

This Thursday we will continue our study in Argument to the Best Explanation.  We will cover the criteria for the method of thought and argumentation in more detail.  In addition, we will do some in-class exercises giving you the ability to apply your skills.  I believe this will be a great class!  Don't miss it!

Blessings,
Ricky
worldviewstudy@gmail.com

Lesson 13 - Introduction to Historical (Higher) Criticism

PPT Handout Link

Hello, everyone!

Last Thursday night we began our introduction to Historical Criticism.  During the class I asked you to imagine yourself as one of your children or grandchildren who had just arrived at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for class.  I also asked you to imagine you had chosen to take an elective course called "Introduction to the New Testament" taught by Professor Bart D. Ehrman. (a professing agnostic, if not atheist)

Using the first chapter of Ehrman's book "Jesus, Interrupted", I proceeded to give an opening lecture on the importance and impact of Higher Criticism on the generally naive views of the text of not only the New Testament, but the Bible overall.  As an average, unaware Christian student, I would fully expect you to be taken by surprise by many, if not most, of the content presented.  I think it would be safe to assume that most college students who profess Christianity would be taken by surprise and shocked by the content of the lecture.  Thus, we find ourselves appropriately situated for the study ahead.

Our children and grandchildren, not to mention ourselves, are generally unprepared intellectually to encounter  the strong opposition to the Christian faith that is so readily presented in the university setting.  And just like what we have done through our study of Science and Lower Criticism, we will look deep into the objective evidences available in Higher Criticism which will serve to further solidify our Christian worldview and intellectual case for faith (justified trust) in God.

Next Class

Please make sure you bring your Bible's with you.  We are going to begin studying the parallel passages given in the various gospel accounts.  We will spend time looking at the similarities and differences between them.  We will also take time to make note of any questions or concerns you may have with their respective accounts.  I think it will be a very informative study; one which will better prepare us to understand the defend "...against the arguments set up against the knowledge of God."

I look forward to our time together!

Blessings!

Ricky
worldviewstudy@gmail.com

Lesson 9 - Lower Historical Criticism (Textual Criticism) Wrap-Up

Lesson 9 PPT

On Thursday night we did a wrap-up of our study over the last 5 to 6 months.  And I must say that I was very impressed with your ability to recall and recite the content of our study.

I have included a link (on the left under "Key Documents") to the PPT we used on Thursday night.  For those of you who do not have Microsoft PowerPoint you can download a free office suite suite which will give you the ability to view it.  It is a trustworthy organization.  You should not have any fear with downloading and using the software. (Click the link HERE.)

In short, our conclusion, based on our past 5 months of research, is that there is no rational reason to discard  the text (very words) of the writings which compose the New Testament.  In fact, even the most well-known and vocal textual critic of the New Testament (Bart Ehrman) concedes that we do have, in all essentials, the words written by authors.  He also concedes that no key doctrine of Christianity is undermined by any textual variant when taken in context of all gospel accounts.  Instead, we determined that, according to his own words, the ultimate reason for abandoning his Christian faith is his inability to reconcile God's existence with the presence of pain and suffering in the world.  That is a valid concern which we will pick up at a later time.

As we discussed on Thursday we will now transition to "Higher Criticism" and ask the question, "Are the accounts given in the New Testament historically trustworthy?"  This will be a long and difficult study, but I commend you all on your dedication to this endeavor.  I am seeing incredible fruit being developed as we continue to ask and not shy away from the hard questions of our faith.

See you all Thursday night!

Blessings,
Ricky
worldviewstudy@gmail.com

Lesson 8 – New Testament Textual Criticism

Hello, everyone!

After listening to Bart Ehrman's speech at Harvard University on the manuscript evidence for the New Testament, we spent two of the last three lessons walking through virtually every variant in the book of Matthew. As I expected, it was obvious a number of you became extremely bored with the content; not because the subject is necessarily boring, but because the textual variants for the book of Matthew do not, as Ehrman stated, affect anything of consequence.

As we discussed last week, in order to save you the pain of such detail in the future, I will continue to study the variants for the remaining Gospels, taking special note of those which can/do affect meaning and interpretation. I will continue using Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, the notes section included in the NET Bible, and A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants as the primary sources for my research. You can view my progress by downloading a copy of the Manuscript Variants Excel spreadsheet included on the left side of the blog.

In the meantime, we will begin an argument by argument analysis of the debate between Daniel Wallace (William Wallace!) And Bart Ehrman. It will take us a few weeks to get through it, but it reveals a lot of insight into the reasons for Ehrman's irrational skepticism. Please attend if at all possible. I think you will be blessed. This debate should also put the capstone on our study of Lower Textual Criticism, allowing us to finally begin our target study of the historical person, Jesus Christ.

See you all Thursday night!

Blessings!
Ricky
worldviewstudy@Gmail.com

Lesson 7 - Textual Criticism (PPT)

Hello, everyone!

Thursday night we did two things.

1. We did a recap of the video's we watched over the previous two weeks.  (Here are the links to the video's on YouTube. Daniel Wallace 1, Daniel Wallace 2, Daniel Wallace and Darrel Bock on John Ankerberg Show
2. I explained my direction for the next part of our study in New Testament Textual variants.

So you are aware, I have added a link to my Excel spreadsheet containing a list of all the significant textual variants from the Gospels.  It is contained under the "Key Documents" section on the left side of the blog page.  We reviewed that spreadsheet Thursday night.  Please keep in mind I will be populating the spreadsheet as I complete this part of the study.  I encourage you to download a copy of it for your own use.

Suggested Study Instructions:

1. Download a copy of the spreadsheet.
2. Open the NET Study Bible environment. (NET Study Environment)
3. Open a copy of your favorite translation for comparison purposes. Since the NET translation is relatively new, I encourage you to compare it to the translation you normally use and trust.  There are many resources online if you choose to do so.  Here's one good site. There are many others. Bible Gateway
4. Open the Variants sheet in the Excel workbook.
5. Starting with the first variant, Matthew 1:7, find the verse in the NET.  Look for any superscript numbers or letters within the verse.  If you find one, double-click it.  The pane on the right should scroll to the reference.
6. Make sure you've selected the NOTES tab at the top of the right-side pain.  In the right-side pane, look for any entries beginning with "tc".  These are text-critical notes.  They contain an explanation of the textual variant and the reasoning used by the translation committee for the selected reading.
7. You can record your notes in the spreadsheet.
8. Ultimately, you want to make a determination of whether or not any of the variants undermine any core Christian doctrines.

Please Note: Don't expect there to be a 1 to 1 comparison between my spreadsheet and the NET environment.  If you don't find a corresponding entry, simply move on to the next one.  We are in discovery mode together.  Everything is not always cut-and-dry.  This is going to take a lot of work and time.

Have fun with this!  I expect the results to be EXTREMELY encouraging.

Blessings!

Ricky

worldviewstudy@gmail.com

Lesson 6 - Period of Criticism and Revision (Lower Textual Criticism)

I'm writing this after a long couple of days.  Please understand if it isn't very coherent.

Here is the PowerPoint from class. Lesson 6 (Lower Textual Criticism)

Last Thursday night we did a couple of things.  We;

1. Discussed the logical arguments presented by Dr. Ehrman in his Stanford lecture on his book Misquoting Jesus.
2. Read through just some of the things Dr. Ehrmas says he does believe based on the accounts given in the New Testament.
3. Began a cursory consideration of the purpose of Inspiration.
4. Did a high-level run through of the quantity, types and significance of the manuscript variances.

In short, we saw that;

1. Dr. Ehrman's conclusion that we can not know if God exists based on the failure of the New Testament to meet his imposed definition of inspiration is fallacious.
2. Dr. Ehrman's abandonment of the trustworthiness of the accounts in the New Testament is limited.  He does trust at least some of the historical accounts given, and speaks very confidently about them.  We have yet to determine the source of his agnosticism.
3. Inspiration might not be defined so narrowly by God as to require the preservation of the autographs, nor prevent human hands from influencing its transmission. (I.e. Was God able to communicate his Revelation successfully while allowing human interaction in the process?)
4. The number of variants is great.  However, so is the amount of textual sources.  (I.e. More manuscripts = more variants)  This is not necessarily a bad thing, as we should see in the coming weeks.

This Thursday night we we review some of what was presented last Thursday night in preparation for more in-depth study.

Over the next two weeks we will watch a series of video's over the content thus far.  Here are the links. Daniel Wallace 1, Daniel Wallace 2, Daniel Wallace and Darrel Bock on John Ankerberg Show

God bless you all!

Ricky Chapman
worldviewstudy@gmail.com

Lesson 5 - Period of Criticism and Revision (Textual Criticism)

Last night we watched the complete lecture given by Dr. Bart Ehrman at Stanford University in 2007.  It was a consolidated presentation of the essential content of his book "Misquoting Jesus".  Here is a link to the lecture and transcript for those who were unable to attend.

Lecture Link: Ehrman Lecture: Misquoting Jesus
Transcript Link: Bart Ehrman - Stanford University Lecture (Misquoting Jesus) (Special thank you to Sarah and Ronna for all the hours you put into completing the transcript!)

Before we listened to his lecture I instructed the class to make every attempt to extract his primary thesis and supporting evidences.

Thesis:

The Bible can not be inspired by the God because 1.) we do not have the New Testament autographs (original writings), and 2.) there are too many variants among the extant (existing) manuscripts to determine the original words.  Therefore, faith in Jesus is misplaced and irrational.

If we were to place this thesis in the form of a logical argument it would read something like this.

1. If the Bible is the inspired word of the God, then 1.) God will ensure the preservation of the original autographs (writings) throughout time, 2.) there will be no variants in the copies of the autographs, and 3.) there will be no apparent or actual discrepancies between their historical accounts.
2. He did not preserve the original autographs.
3. There are between 400,000 and 500,000 textual variants among the existing manuscripts.
4. There are discrepancies in the historical accounts.
5. Therefore, the Bible is not the inspired word of the God.

Evidences:

1. We do not have a copy of any of the original autographs.
2. There are between 400,00 and 500,000 textual variants in the existing manuscripts.
3. The variants can be divided into spelling and grammatical errors, as well as unintentional and intentional changes.  Spelling and grammatical variants are exactly that, misspelled words and errors in grammar.  Among other things, unintentional changes include such things as accidentally skipping words, lines and pages.  Intentional changes include changes by scribes in order to support personal theologies.

As a side note, his next logical argument is thus;

1. If the Bible is not the inspired word of the God, then we can not know if God exists.
2. The Bible is not the inspired word of the God.
3. Therefore, we can not know if God exists.

I trust all of you will be able to see the flaws in the logic for the second argument as we spent all of last year studying this very topic.

What is interesting is that Dr. Ehrman, in making his case against the inspiration of the Bible, must, by necessity, demonstrate that the gospel narratives are not historically reliability.  For example, he pointed out the apparent discrepancies between the resurrection accounts of the four gospels.  Therefore, one additional logical argument being subtly communicated (and logically heard by the uncritical listener) is as follows.

1. If the gospel accounts are historically trustworthy, then we can know that Jesus was resurrected.
2. The gospel accounts are not historically trustworthy.
3. Therefore, we can not know if Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected.

The logical conclusion, then, is that faith in Jesus as savior is misplaced and irrational.

While we, at this time, are not concerned with the topic of inspiration, we are interested in the topic of historical reliability.  Initially, we are interested in questions such as;

• Exactly what are the types of variants?
• Do the textual variants prevent historians, as well as us, from determining the words of the original letters?
• What affect do any of the variants have on essential doctrines of Christianity?

These, among others, are the questions we will be exploring over the weeks to come.  Beginning next week I will begin breaking down the variants into digestible pieces so we can understand not just their number, but their impact on content.

P.S. - I will also present some of the things Dr. Ehrman says he DOES believe based on the historical accounts given in the New Testament.  It's not as bleak a picture as he paints in his Stanford lecture.

Until then, Blessings!

Ricky

worldviewstudy@gmail.com

Lesson 4: Period of Criticism and Revision (Part 2)

Lesson 4 Part 2 Slides

Last night we concluded our investigation around the nature the four gospels. (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)   What we discovered is that these four writings are THE sources unanimously referenced and used by the early church prior to the councils of AD 325 or 397.  In fact, we read the source material which clearly delineated these four, which have their origin within the 1st century (and most likely before AD 70), as the sources to be used for the study of Christ's life and ministry.  That is not to say other New Testament writings were not unanimously accepted by the early church.  There were many others, all of which we have in our modern translations.  However, we did see that a few of the New Testament writings endured a period where they were "disputed" as to their being God-given.  That is a question we will need to explore at a later time.

Here are the conclusions we reached based on the content of our study together.

1. Our objective at this time is not to determine “Revelation” or “Inspiration” of the gospel accounts, but to determine historical trustworthiness by applying the same tests of historical reliability applied to all historical documents.
2. Authors from the period before Constantine identified the gospels as authoritative and universally accepted.
3. The fact that the gospels were being read and before AD 100 by those who were contemporaries of the Apostles and disciples proves they were written during their era.
4. Other of our New Testament writings were considered authoritative and universally accepted, but some were considered "disputed" for a time.
5. The universal acceptance of the four gospels was established WELL BEFORE Constantine, the Council of Nicaea (AD325) or the Council of Carthage (AD397).

All of these conclusions stand in direct contrast to the arguments given, and generally accepted, by those who have not done their own homework.

Our next endeavor is to understand why we believe we have the original wording of the gospels.  This will be difficult.  At some point we will have to place faith in those who know the material.  But we will do our best to fully understand the arguments and evidence given on both sides of the discussion.

Blessings!

Ricky

worldviewstudy@gmail.com

Lesson 4: Period of Criticism and Revision (Part 1)

New Testament Canon

During the next phase of our study we will turn to the Canon of the New Testament.  More specifically, we are concerned with the 4 gospels.  As part of our historical study we want to know if these four writings are the appropriate source material for the remainder of our study.

As such, we are not concerned, AT THIS POINT, with the concepts of Revelation, Inspiration.  Neither are we concerned with determining whether or not these four writing are "Inerrant."  This is not to say they are not critically important.  They are to the Christian, but not the non-Christian.  Therefore, those Christian doctrines do not pertain to our endeavor at this time.  Instead, we are merely concerned with determining the historical veracity of what they report; namely, Jesus' life, death, burial and resurrection.  Are they, or are they not, historically accurate.

As we look to determine if we have the correct source material we cannot escape the topic of Canonicity.  However, we will stop short of delving into the doctrines listed above.

During our last class we read a number of quotations from the resource "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" by the late C. Dennis McKinsey. (Side note: I spoke with you about the fact that McKinsey was a self-proclaimed Stalinist/Communist.  I did so, not to say whether his worldview was true or false, but to point out that what we are studying does matter.  McKinsey had a faith-based worldview and dedicated his life to evangelizing others according to what he believed to be true.  As a result, any number of people, many of whom were college-age children, under his charge have been influenced by him.  Have we yet realized the importance of incorporating the same devotion into our Christian apologetic that would allow us to lovingly do the same?)

Using McKinsey's book we saw some of the common arguments given against the New Testament Canon.

• The NT Canon wasn't determined until after AD 400.
• The gospels were not written by contemporaries of Jesus or the apostles; nor were they written by anyone during that era.
• The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses to Jesus' life.
• The NT Canon was decided by political power exerted within the church.
• The NT Canon was decided by Committee.
• Vital writings of the time were eliminated and hidden through political influence.

The implications and unspoken assumptions of these assertions include;

• The gospels are not trustworthy historical documents.
• The NT canon was determined by man instead of God.
• Had the church councils voted differently, then our beliefs and doctrines would be different.
• There was no criteria employed by the church councils in determining the NT canon except for political influence and power.
• The writings of our modern NT played no significant or unique role in the early church. (AD 100-400)
• The writings of our NT are no different in influence than writings of the second century and beyond.
• Consequently, Christianity is a completely blind faith.  There is no objective historical evidence upon which to base Christian faith and doctrine.

Given the above arguments, we then began to look at original source material written before and during the 2nd century that indicates whether or not the 4 gospels had any special appeal and influence on the people of the early church.  As we continue we will read directly from the following historians and writings prior to AD 300.

• The Didache
• Marcion
• Papias
• Justin Martyr
• Tatian
• Irenaeus
• The Muratorian Fragment
• Tertullian
• Clement of Alexandria
• Origen
• Eusebius

It is important to note that all of the above writers and writings occur well before AD 325; which stands in direct contrast to the common arguments disseminated in our modern culture.

We will pick up Thursday night with a review of our last class and then take a careful look at the remaining material.

See you Thursday.

Blessings!
Ricky

Lesson 3 - Period of Crystallization

Lesson 3 - Period of Crystallization Lesson Slides

Last night we covered the copying and translation process of the Bible from Jerome's Latin Vulgate of AD 410 up to the printing and publishing of the revision of the King James Bible of 1611.  We discovered that each translation was essentially built upon another, drawing on the translation content of the one(s) before.  We also saw a branching apart from the authorized translations of the Roman Catholic Church a number of protestant translations and editions from the time of the Protestant Reformation.

Since our purpose was to simply make ourselves aware of the progression and relationship of Bible translations throughout the centuries, we did not take the time to understand the differences between them.  What is the reason for all the different translations?  What changes have been made throughout the centuries, whether intentional or unintentional?  What significance do those changes have on Christian doctrine?  Do those changes remove any possibility of establishing the text of the original autographs, or do they help in doing so?  These are all logical questions that we must explore and understand; and ones we will cover as we get into the 2nd phase of our study of Lower (Textual) Criticism.

One important point we saw last night was that regardless of origin, whether Catholic or Protestant, virtually all modern translations, versions and editions are drawing from a common source, namely the vast amount of partial and complete manuscripts discovered from 1627 to today. (To date Biblical scholars have in excess of 24,000 manuscripts and manuscript pieces to draw from as they reconstruct the text of both the Old and New covenants.  The New Testament at last count is drawn from over 5,800 manuscripts.)

Next week we will begin unpacking the topic of Textual Criticism and lay our course for the weeks and months to come.

God bless you all!  It's an honor to be doing this study with you.

Ricky
worldviewstudy@gmail.com

Lesson 2 - Period of Standardization (AD 325 - 1400)

Last night we took a look at the period of time in the development of Textual Criticism called "The Period of Standardization". (AD 325 - 1400)  Here are the highlights from the study.

• AD 311 - Roman Emperor Constantine issued an edict targeted toward Christians that;
• ensured their release from persecution
• restored material goods taken previously
• encouraged the production and distribution of the current "Sacred Writings"
• encouraged the construction of church buildings across the empire
• Having just emerged from heavy persecution from Emperor's Dicius and Diocletian, the Christians experienced an unknown amount of freedom across the known world.
• For the remainder of this period, the process for copying and distributing the Christian text's was primarily performed by monks within the monasteries across the empire. (This is not to say that laymen didn't continue to do so, but it was obviously to a much lesser degree.)
• As a result of their new freedom and the encouragement of the new Roman Emperor, there was an explosion in manuscript production.
• We also did a precursory comparison of New Testament writings of the period against other Greco-Roman historical documents.  Based on that comparison we see the New Testament has exponentially more and earlier dated copies by which to research the history they contain.

The next phase of our study will be on the events from AD 1500 to 1648. (The Period of Crystallization)  For those interested in doing some early study, I encourage you to determine the effects the printing press had on manuscript production and distribution.

Blessings!

Ricky
worldviewstudy@gmail.com

Lesson 1: Period of Duplication (AD 50-325)

• Lesson 1: Period of Duplication (AD 50-325)
• Manuscripts (AD 50-325)

Tonight we covered the period of history known as the "Period of Duplication" (AD 50-325).  It was the time shortly after the original New Testament documents were penned by the authors.  Here are the highlights from our lesson.

1. Christianity was growing in the Roman empire.
2. As a result of the persecution imposed on the new Christian generation by their Roman rulers, the copying process was increased to preserve accepted documents.
3. There was a need for copies of the "gospels" and letters of the apostles.
4. The original autographs were copied, copied, and copied some more.  The copying was performed by professional scribes and laymen alike.
5. None of the original autographs, or original documents penned by the authors, are extant. (We don't have any of the originals. They either no longer exist or have not been found.)
6. What exists for this period of time are;
• manuscript fragments, the earliest of which has been dated to the early 2nd century (approx. 117 to 125 AD)
• "patristic writings", or writings of the "Church Fathers".  In those writings they quote from our current 27 books so much that it is possible to reconstruct our modern New Testament from their writings alone, save for 11 verses.
7. The presence of manuscript pieces from this period attest to the fact of an autograph, or original writing.  Those same manuscript pieces attest to the writings of almost all our accepted New Testament books.

The next period we will discuss is the "Period of Standardization". (AD 325 to 1500)  In preparation for the study I encourage you to research this question.

• Explain the impact Emperor Constantine had on New Testament manuscript production and dispersion.

For those who wish to dig deeper, I encourage you to do the following.  Explain the following as it pertains to New Testament manuscripts.

• The state of Christianity
• Cultural influences
• Political influences
• Copying and distribution practices

Blessings!

See you next week.

Ricky

worldviewstudy@gmail.com

rickc@calvaryphx.com