Yesterday, I watched a debate between Christian apologist James White and skeptic Robert Price.
The debate was over the question, “Is the Bible true?” In this post, I
will not get into all of the points and counter-points, but I will list
my favorite parts.
1. Robert Price’s opening speech was fantastic. A lot of times,
Christian apologists argue that we can trust what the New Testament says
about Jesus because eyewitnesses to Jesus were around to correct any
misconceptions. These eyewitnesses were supposed to be like the Snopes
of the day, Price said. But Price disputed this argument by pointing to
times in the New Testament when eyewitnesses, and even Jesus himself,
were not able to control what was said about Jesus. Jesus told people
he healed not to tell anyone about the healing, but they went out and
did so anyway. Jesus asked his disciples who people were saying that he
was, and the disciples listed all sorts of ideas that were circulating
(and, as Price said, contra C.S. Lewis, not one of those ideas was that
Jesus was God). There were Judaizers who claimed that Jesus wanted
Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the Torah to be saved, whereas Paul
had a different viewpoint. Price also asked how eyewitnesses could even
refute that Jesus said something. It’s not as if any of the
eyewitnesses heard every single thing that Jesus said!
James White in his opening speech encouraged the audience
to read Price’s books and to compare them with other books. Ironically, one of the
books that White recommended was Reinventing Jesus, which actually makes the eyewitness argument that Price was trying to refute. (See my review of Reinventing Jesus here.)
Overall, I get joy when skeptics appeal to the Bible to refute
Christian apologetics. It shows that the Bible does not always fit into
the predictable, air-tight mold into which Christian apologists try to
consign it. Price’s wit was also enjoyable to listen to. In my
opinion, Price did a better job in his debate with James White than he
did in his debate with William Lane Craig.
2. A lot of times, I hear Christian apologists argue that the
resurrection of Jesus is as historically supportable as other events in
history. They may note that skeptics who dismiss the resurrection of
Jesus have no problems accepting other events in history as historical,
even though acceptance of those other events may be based on sources
that were written long after the events that they purport to describe
(longer than the time between Jesus and the Gospels).
That argument has long bothered me. I am impressed when William Lane
Craig uses the criteria of historicity that the Jesus Seminar uses as
he supports his thesis that Jesus rose from the dead. But I question
whether something so contingent as history can give us guidance as to
the absolute will of God.
In one of his speeches, Robert Price was saying that historians rely
on probability, and that, the further one goes back in history, the
harder it is to say what actually happened. Sure, historians try to
accurately conceptualize the past, but what they say is far from
absolute, and it can even be revised in light of new evidence.
Consequently, when Christian apologists say people should become
Christian because Jesus’ resurrection is as supported as any other event
in history, I question that logic. Why should anyone base his
or her religious beliefs on something so tentative as conclusions about
what happened in history? Does that mean that I am a total skeptic
about the past? No, but I realize that what historians say is not
necessarily absolute: that they are trying to make sense of what
evidence they have, and they may not even have all of the data.
I think back to a time when I referred to one of N.T. Wright’s
arguments for Jesus’ resurrection in a paper that I wrote. Wright
argued, as I understand his argument, that people in Jesus’ historical
context did not believe that individuals bodily rose from the dead
before the end times, and so something had to give rise to the early
Christian belief that Jesus rose from the dead; for Wright, and many
Christian apologists and preachers who appeal to Wright, that something
was Jesus’ actual resurrection. But my professor was not convinced by
that argument. He said that we may some day find evidence that others
believed one could rise from the dead before the end times. Wright’s
argument may make a degree of sense, but should one build one’s beliefs
about religion on a historical argument like that, especially when we do
not know if later evidence may undercut it?
3. Robert Price holds many views that are not broadly accepted
within scholarship. He knows that. In debates with Christians, when
Christians say “most scholars say,” he regards that as an argument from
authority, and he asks that they deal with the substance of his
arguments rather than simply dismissing them with “most scholars say.” I
can understand his point-of-view on that. At the same time, I would
caution people that there may be good reasons that “most scholars say”
something.
In any case, I loved that James White in his opening speech
acknowledged that Price does not care for arguments from authority, and
White said that he would try his best to deal with the substance of
Price’s arguments rather than dismissing them with “most scholars say.”
My opinion of James White went up some notches when I heard him say
that!
4. The debate was moderated by Hank Hanegraaff, who
hosts the radio program, “The Bible Answer Man.” I used to listen to
that program. I really liked it. I even called into it one time. Hank
has a soothing radio voice.