“Stick to the issues, debate them forcefully and charitably, and let the conversions fall where they may.” Victor Reppert (Christian philosopher)

Victor Reppert: Let the conversions and deconversions fall where they may.

Edʼs Response: We know where the conversions fall, statistically speaking, which tells us that the continuance of Evangelical Christianity depends heavily on adolescents who “accept Christ” before they reach the age of 18. And adolescents do not know much about the Bible, history, science, psychology or religion; they are far from having peaked in their acquisition of worldly wisdom; and they are not known for their emotional maturity. Therefore, we have reason to doubt that such “decisions for Christ” are well informed. Yet Evangelical Christianity relies heavily on such decisions in order to continue at all.

Below is the statistical data, shared from articles that appeared in Christianity Today:

“85 percent of all people who accept Christ do so before the age of 18.”

“…through surveys, personal interviews, and statistical analysis, I compared the faith experiences of more than 3,000 believers from 31 states and a dozen denominations.”

“84.5 percent of evangelicals accept Christ before the age of 18. However, the statistic only holds true if they were raised in a home where both parents were [Evangelical] Christians with either a high or moderate level of spiritual activity. If, however, they were raised without that benefit, the percentage drops by two-thirds.

“My final discovery was that, of those Christians with an unchurched background, most (56 percent) report coming to faith in the midst of a significant transition or crisis. Most often itʼs family-related—either transitioning into parenthood or coping with a marriage crisis. But other times the crisis may relate to addiction, illness, death, finances, even world catastrophes. The transition may be into a new relationship, a new community, or a new career.”

How Outsiders Find Faith: What I discovered was different from what I had always been told. By Mike Fleischmann (Christianity Todayʼs website)

---

“In the late 1800s, Edwin Starbuck conducted ground-breaking studies on conversion to Christianity. Ever since then, scholars, attempting either to verify or disprove his findings, have repeatedly demonstrated them to be accurate. Most observers agree that what Starbuck observed is to a large extent still valid. From these studies we learn two significant things: the age at which conversion to Christianity most often occurs, and the motivational factors involved in conversion. Starbuck noted that the average age of a person experiencing a religious conversion was 15.6 years. Other studies have produced similar results; as recently as 1979, Virgil Gillespie wrote that the average age of conversion in America is 16 years.

Starbuck listed “Eight Primary Motivating Factors”:

1. fears
2. other self-regarding motives,
3. altruistic motives,
4. following out a moral ideal,
5. remorse for and conviction of sin,
6. response to teaching,
7. example and imitation, and
8. urging and social pressure.

“Recent studies reveal that people still become Christians mainly for these same reasons.

“What conclusions can be drawn from this information? First, the average age of conversion is quite young. Postadolescent persons do not seem to find Christianity as attractive as do persons in their teens. Indeed, for every year the non-Christian grows older than 25, the odds increase exponentially against his or her ever becoming a Christian.

“Second, the reasons people become Christians appear to have at least as much to do with sociological factors as with purely ‘religious’ factors (for example, conviction of sin).”

The Adult Gospel: The average convert to Islam is 31 years old. Why does Christianity attract mostly teens? By Larry Poston (Christianity Todayʼs Website)

The Golden Rule & Christian Apologetics (C. S. Lewis, William Barclay, Peter May, Bob Passantino, J. P. Holding & Steve Hays)

“The Golden Rule was original to Christ and is unprecedented and unparalleled in the history of ethics.”
—Peter May, Testing the Golden Rule

“Almighty God and Christianity and the Bible professes ‘DO unto others,’ not, ‘do NOT do unto others.’”
—An Evangelical Christian explaining why he thinks Christianity alone is positive while all other teachings appear negative

Not a few evangelical Christian apologists argue that their religion is superior because Jesus preached the Golden Rule, “All things therefore that you want people to DO to you, DO thus to them” (Matthew 7:12), while other ancient teachers merely taught the negative version of that rule: “Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT like done to yourself.” Christian apologists C.S. Lewis and William Barclay even cited numerous quotations of the negative Golden Rule from ancient sources to make the contrast appear more stark between what Christianity taught and what the rest of the world taught:

“Do not impose on others what you do not desire others to impose upon you.” (Confucius, The Analects. Roughly 500 BCE.

Hindu sacred literature: “Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself.” (Mahabharata, bk. 5, ch. 49, v. 57)

“Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful.” (Udana-Varga, 5.18)

Zoroastrian sacred literature: “Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.” (Dadistan-I-Dinik, 94:5; in Muller, chapter 94, vol. 18, p. 269)

Buddhist sacred literature: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” (Udanavargu, 5:18, Tibetan Dhammapada, 1983)

The Greek historian Herodotus: “If I choose I may rule over you. But what I condemn in another I will, if I may, avoid myself.”
(Herodotus, The Histories, bk. III, ch. 142. Roughly 430 BCE.)

Isocrates, the Greek orator: “What things make you angry when you suffer them at the hands of others, do not you do to other people.”

Christian apologists add that it is not (in their opinion) difficult to honor a negative Golden Rule, but it is “exceedingly” difficult to live by the positive Golden Rule Jesus taught. Such apologists seem to forget that a lot of Judeo-Christian morality is based on the “Ten Commandments,” which are almost all negative rules, “Thou shalt NOT…“ etc. Such apologists even forget that Jesus and Saint Paul are said to have struggled hard to resist temptation and resist sinning, i.e., to NOT do things they were tempted to do, again a negative task. The whole story of Job is about a man tempted to “curse God,” but he resists. So, for Jesus, Paul, Job and other Biblical heroes, there appears to be just as much “difficulty” involved in avoiding sinful behaviors as practicing positive ones, (perhaps even greater “difficulty”) regardless of what the apologists state.

Indeed, the so-called “negative” Golden Rule is itself a part of Christianity. It is found in pre-Christian Jewish writings as well as in the Catholic Bible and in a textual variant in the Book of Acts, see these examples:

Philo, a Jewish philosopher in Alexandria, wrote, “What you hate to suffer, do not do to anyone else.”

Hillel, a Jewish rabbi who lived just before Jesusʼ day, taught, “What is hateful to thee, do not to another. That is the whole law and all else is explanation.” (b Shabbatt 31a; cf. Avot de R. Natan ii.26)

Even earlier than the saying by rabbi Hillel, the negative Golden Rule is found in Tobit, an apocryphal book that is included in the Catholic Bible: “What you hate, do not do to anyone.” (Tobit 4: 14-15. 2nd century BCE.)

The negative golden rule is also found in the Book of Acts: “Textual variants in Acts 15 :20,29 & 21:25 are quite involved… various Western texts add the Negative Golden Rule, ‘Do not do unto others…’ which is attributed to the first century Jewish rabbi Hillel and also quoted in The Didache (a second century Christian text believed to consist of teachings of the earliest Christian Fathers and used to teach new converts) i.2.” [from Tim Hegg and Beit Hallelʼs online article, “Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council: Did They Conclude the Torah was Not For Gentiles?” copyright 2001 www.torahresource.com]

But what about the claim made by Christian apologists, such as William Barclay, who argued, “The very essence of Christian conduct is that it does not consist in not doing bad things, but in actively doing good things.” Was Barclay unaware of the fact that teachings that advocate “actively doing good things” are found in other ancient literature besides the New Testament?

Ancient Babylonian sacred teaching from two thousand years before Jesus was born: “Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.” (Akkadian Councils of Wisdom, as cited in Pritchardʼs Ancient Near Eastern Texts)

Buddhist holy teaching: “Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth.” (written centuries before Jesus was born)

Buddhist holy teaching: “In this world hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate. This is the law, ancient and inexhaustible.“ (The Dhammapada)

Taoist holy teaching: “Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end in goodness? Therefore the sage holds to the left hand of an agreement but does not expect what the other holder ought to do. Regard your neighborʼs gain as your own and your neighborʼs loss as your own loss. Whoever is self-centered cannot have the love of others.” (written centuries before Jesus was born)

The Greek poet Homer: “I will be as careful for you as I should be for myself in the same need.” (Calypso, to Odysseus, in Homer, The Odyssey, bk. 5, vv. 184-91. Roughly late 8th century BCE.).

Excerpts from a paganʼs prayer: “May I be the friend of that which is eternal and abides…May I love, seek, and attain only that which is good. May I wish for all menʼs happiness…May I reconcile friends who are wroth with one another. May I, to the extent of my power, give all needful help to all who are in want. May I never fail a friend in danger…May I know good men and follow in their footsteps.” (“The Prayer of Eusebius,” written by a 1st-century pagan, as quoted in Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion. Interesting Note: A few Christians on the internet have incorrectly attributed this prayer to a 3rd-century Christian also named Eusebius. They should read Murrayʼs book instead of assuming that everything positive has to be “Christian.”)

Islamic holy teaching: “That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.” (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad, 63)

The Positive Golden Rule is also found in Jewish literature (Mishneh Torah ii: Hilekot Abel xiv.I)

Lastly, there appears to be a flaw in the Golden Rule itself. If you simply try to “do unto other as you would like them to do unto you” then you could wind up doing things to others they might not enjoy as much as you do! For instance, think of all the things you like and think what would happen if you started “doing them” to others without first considering whether or not those others like all of the same things you do. People have different “likes” in clothing, food, music, books, and religion, and so doing to others what YOU like might not be something THEY like. (One hypothetical worst case scenario of attempting to “do unto others what YOU would like done unto yourself,” might be if someone LIKES heaven but fears they will be sent to eternal hell for doubting a particular religious belief, so they might hypothetically agree that they LIKE the idea of having others coerce them to “correct” their beliefs to avoid hell and get to heaven. In that hypothetical case the Golden Rule would imply that other people would be equally appreciative of being “corrected”—even via coercion—rather than “risk eternal hellfire.”) So perhaps we need both the Golden Rule and also the “negative” Golden Rule, working together, to avoid imposing our LIKES on others who do not share them.

An even more finely tuned rule might be what some call “The Platinum Rule,” namely, “Do Unto Others as THEY Would Have You Do Unto Them.” In other words, take time to learn about your neighborʼs tastes, their mood, their nature, and their temperament, before you start “doing” things “unto them.” Treat others the way THEY want to be treated.

In all three cases — the Golden Rule, the negative Golden Rule (also nicknamed the “Silver Rule”), and the “Platinum Rule” — our shared biological and social/psychological structure ensures that we share similar desires and fears. And such similarities are what allow each of us a window into each othersʼ inner self. Very few people enjoy being lied to, called names, stolen from, injured, or otherwise provoked. While almost every last one of us loves having friends, sharing experiences, good health, good meals, etc. Those are part of who we all are. Hence, “you” have an inner window on what other people would like done to them. Just keep in mind that the exact “scene” that is displayed most prominently inside each personʼs “inner window” may differ from person to person, and should be taken into account before you “do unto them” as “they” would like.

---

Addenda

For some Christian online apologists, following the “Golden Rule” applies to how one ought to conduct oneʼs self in discussion with others, even when contending for the faith with atheists and people of other religions. See for instance, The Golden Rule Apologetic by Bob Passantino.

But other Christian online apologists such as J.P. Holding at Theology Web, and Steve Hays at Triablogue, revel in name-calling and mockery when contending for the faith with atheists, Catholics (and each other, as one can see in a debate that took place between Holding and Hays on predestination). Holding finds precedent for his "riposte" style in the Scriptures themselves, in the manner in which OT prophets, as well as Jesus and Paul in the NT, spoke against those with other beliefs.

So what does the Bible really teach concerning the Golden Rule and Christian practice in debate? Whose interpretation is correct? Passantinoʼs or Holdingʼs?

Timothy J. McGrew versus Edward T. Babinski on the reliability of the New Testament / the Resurrection

Dr. Timothy McGrew is Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University. He also is directing the development of an online Library of Historical Apologetics, and has a number of Christian apologetic publications to his credit including a recent article titled The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, composed with Lydia McGrew that appeared in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, 2009.

Like Vic Reppert, who initiated this discussion, all three of us happen to be past and/or present chess enthusiasts. One note, Vic titled this as a “versus” match of sorts, and Iʼve copied Vicʼs title (lengthening it a bit), but Iʼd sooner think of this simply as a discussion and seek to avoid heat in favor of light.

Vic published my original blog comments followed by Tim McGrewʼs replies, and now I am replying in turn to TMʼs first few lines, nothing more at present. Though I suspect the discussion may involve both of us pointing out each otherʼs assumptions behind our replies/rationalizations, back and forth, such that neither of us convinces the other of much except how many questions remain concerning “the otherʼs” assumptions/rationalization — though such a discussion might help demonstrate the lack of convincing proof concerning this topic, a topic that philosophers, theologians, and members of different religions have debated for centuries. If only “many saints” were raised from graves on different occasions throughout history, and each case witnessed to the truth only of Christianity, or, Jesus showed himself in some undeniable form to all, then maybe McGrew could strike some solid blows for dogmas and doctrines that he believe sum up whatʼs behind the metaphysical curtain. But for myself, more questions remain than answers, and the metaphysical curtain remains opaque, or the evidence for what lay behind it (NDEʼs, visions, miracles) points in diverse directions.

Anyway, here is a reply to Tim McGrewʼs first few lines as they appeared this evening at Vicʼs blog:

EB: 1 Cor. is the earliest and also the most sparse example. All it tells us is that “Jesus appeared.”

TM: … to Peter, and to the twelve, and to five hundred people at once, and to James — all of which means just what it sounds like it means.

EB [Further Reply]: What does the word “appeared” mean exactly? I read in Carnelyʼs book on the resurrection that the term can apply to something less than physical.

As for appearing to Peter first of all, thatʼs not in the Gospels. Neither is a lone appearance to James. (Neither is an appearance to over 500. But more on that below.)

Letʼs say that Jesusʼ core group of initial followers returned to Galilee, mourning the loss of their leader, and Peter had a post-mortum appearance-experience (not unheard of), and the rest of the apostles WENT ALONG with it, saying, “Oh yes, the Lord appeared to Peter and the rest of us also.” And perhaps by saying such a thing they originally only meant that THEY BELIEVED that the Lord had appeared to Peter and he was their leader? And suppose other followers of Jesus tended to view James as a leader at least equal to Peter, and they saw how the notion of an “appearance” to Peter rallied the Jesus movement round him, and so a story arose that James saw the Lord too—“and then the apostles,” just as in the case of Peter, making them equal. In other words Iʼm suggesting that an early story grew, prompted by questions of leadership. As for the idea of miracle stories growing, an examination of the NT itself provides prima facie evidence of the addition, growth and change of miracle stories over time. If TM wishes to disavow my case and instead conduct his own based on harmonizing tales, thatʼs his prerogative. But Iʼd say from my perspective that the prima facie evidence and each question raised by such evidence, comes first.

And what I meant by sparse evidence in the beginning is that no description is given of WHERE such appearances took place, nor WHEN, nor any particulars beyond saying they saw “Jesus,” nor any description of anything being SAID by the alleged appearances of Jesus. Speaking of sparse, neither Paul nor Josephus mention an “empty tomb.” So all we have are some very non-descript stories concerning “appearances” in 1 Cor. Thatʼs our earliest chronological starting point:

• to Cephas,

• then [he appeared] to the Twelve,

• then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,

• most of whom are still alive,

• though some have fallen asleep,

• then he appeared to James,

• then [he appeared] to all the apostles.

Dr. Robert M. Price also notes that a host of questions have been raised by theologians concerning the above passage in 1 Cor.

Price states:

Since the focus of the tradition seems to be on notable leaders of the community [Peter, James, the Twelve], the mention of the 500 anonymous brethren seems to be an intrusion [sandwiched as it is between appearances to Peter & James, as if Jesus would have shown himself to five hundred anonymous brethren before appearing to James--ETB]. Beyond this, though, the reference to the 500, most still available for questioning, raises another question: what was the intended function of the list? Was it, as Bultmann holds, a piece of apologetics trying to prove the resurrection? Or is Wilckens right, in which case the list is a list of credentials? One who claimed an apostolate had better have seen the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1). These had. The reference to the 500 unnamed witnesses certainly implies, as Sider argues, that the list is an apologetical device, especially with the note of most of the crowd still being available for corroboration. But the focus on community leaders seems to me to demand Wilckensʼs view. It is therefore not unlikely that the list began as a list of credentials for Cephas, the Twelve, James, and the other apostles, but that subsequently someone, reading the list as evidence for the resurrection, inserted the reference to the 500 brethren.

Price continues:

I judge the very notion of a resurrection appearance to 500 at one time to be a late piece of apocrypha, reminiscent of the extravagances of the Acts of Pilate. If the claim of 500 witnesses were early tradition, can anyone explain its total absence from the gospel tradition? E. L. Allen sees the problem here:

Why did not the evangelists include the appearances of 1 Cor. XV? It is difficult to understand why the tradition behind 1Cor. XV should be passed over if it was known. Was it then lost?

His answer is, “The Gospel narratives of the Resurrection are governed by another set of needs and meet another situation than those of the first kerygma” but this is unsatisfactory on his own accounting, since all the apologetical and liturgical motives Allen sees at play in the gospels may be paralleled in the various functions suggested by scholars for the 1 Corinthians 15 list itself. Again, “If we suppose, as we well may, that this incident [the appearance to the 500] is to be located in Galilee, it is not difficult to imagine why it was not taken up into the mainstream of tradition.” But clearly the whole point of 1 Cor 15:11, and at least the clear implication of verses 5-7, is that the quoted creed is the mainstream of the tradition.

Barrett, on the other hand, counsels that “it may be better to recognize that the Pauline list and the gospel narratives of resurrection appearances cannot be harmonized into a neat chronological sequence.” But Barrettʼs agnosticism itself functions as a harmonization. It implies there is a great cloud of unknown circumstance: if we knew more we might be able to see where it all fits in. But in fact we know enough. It must at least be clear that if such an overwhelmingly potent proof of the resurrection had ever occurred it would have been widely repeated from the first. Surely no selection of resurrection appearances would have left it out. The story of the apparition to the 500 can only stem from a time posterior to the composition of the gospel tradition, and this latter, in comparison with Paul, is already very late.

True, ever since Christian Hermann Weisse some scholars have tried to see the episode of the 500 dimly reflected in the Pentecost story of Acts 2. Fuller, representing this position, asks, “Could it not be that, at an earlier stage of the tradition, the [Pentecost] pericope narrated an appearance of the Risen One in which he imparted the Spirit to the +500, as in the appearance to the disciples in John 20:19-23?” But despite the considerable expenditure of scholarly ink the suggestion has generated, including its recent espousal by Gerd Lüdemann, its epitaph must be the words of C. H. Dodd: “it remains a pure speculation.”

In fact, would it not be far more natural to suppose that if any connection existed between the two passages, the relation must be just the opposite? That, rather, an originally subjective pneumatic ecstasy on the part of a smaller number at Pentecost has been concretized into the appearance of the Risen Lord to a larger group on Easter? But then we are simply underscoring more heavily the apocryphal character of the result. Lüdemann unwittingly confirms this: “The number ‘more than 500 brethren’ is to be understood as ‘an enormous number’, i.e., not taken literally. (Who could have counted?)” It is just this sort of detail that denotes the fictive character of a narrative. It is like asking how the narrator knew the inner thoughts of a character: he knows them because he made them up! No more successful is the suggestion that the appearance to the 500 be identified with Luke 24:36ff. The same question presents itself: if there were as many as 500 present on that occasion, how can the evangelist have thought this “detail” unworthy of mention? And if we suppose he did include it, what copyist in his right mind would have omitted it?

Some might challenge my ascription of the 500 brethren note to a later period in view of the challenge to the reader to confirm the testimony of the 500 for himself. But the whole point is that the interpolation is Paulinist pseudepigraphy; the actual author (the anonymous interpolator) did not intend for the actual reader to interview the 500 in his own day. His invitation is issued by the narrator (Paul) to the narratees, the fictive readers, the first-century Corinthians. His point is that had the actual readers been lucky enough to live in Paulʼs day, we might have checked for ourselves.

End of Price quotation, though his entire article, that also examines the appearances to Cephas and James, is online.

For literalists, let me add that when Paul states that Jesus “appeared” to “over 500 brethren at once” (1Cor. 15:6), that would have been to a greater number of “brethren” than were mentioned at the time of Jesusʼ alleged bodily ascension into heaven because Acts 1:9,14-15,22 mentions only “120 brethren” meeting together in Jerusalem just prior to Jesusʼ bodily ascension. Acts also limits the number of people who saw the body of Jesus ascend into heaven to just the apostles (Luke 24:49-53 & Acts 1:2-9 ). But I donʼt want to rush to discussing Luke-Acts since we still havenʼt discussed Mark and Matthewʼs tales of the post-resurrection Jesus yet, which most scholars would admit were probably composed sometime between 1 Cor. and Luke-Acts.

---

TM: It isnʼt the point of a creed to give a lengthy description of all that Jesus did and said after his resurrection. This one circulated in the 30s; one of the purposes, plainly, was to list the people of whom one might inquire.

EB [Further Reply]: The point is not that it was an “early creed,” the point is How Can We Know For Sure How Such A Creed Originated? We canʼt know, we donʼt have any evidence BUT this early creed. And it is sparse evidence indeed. So unless you are assuming a harmonization stance to begin with, you donʼt know either. My view considers the evidence in chronological order, and the most obvious questions that come to mind — prima facie evidence of what appears to be legendary additions, growth, changes in the story over time. For further reading along such lines I suggest:

Dr. Habermas - Babinski: Final Letter On The Resurrection Sent To Dr. Habermas Dr. Gary Habermas is a Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics at Liberty University, and also the author of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead (a book that arose from a debate Dr. Habermas had with the famed British philosopher Antony Flew). Edward T. Babinski is the editor of Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists.

Eight Books Every Christian Should Read

Dialogues need not start with “Godʼs existence,” because if you are dialoging with a member of a revealed religion with a particular Holy Book, itʼs really “their God” that they are discussing whenever they mention “God,” and “their holy revelation of that God” as revealed in their particular holy book. But how do we know such books are holy? And why only those books?

What questions do such books raise concerning their origin, editing, questionable teachings, errors, etc.? How do we know thereʼs only one way of interpreting them? Lastly, why doesnʼt God inspire all devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, who pray for holy guidance, to agree on which holy books are indeed holy and also come to the same conclusions regarding their teachings?

The books Iʼve suggested ought to be read in order since the topics grow more complex and challenging. The first two are by Evangelical Christian biblical scholars who admit that non-Evangelical biblical scholarship has raised valid questions:

1. Inspiration And Incarnation by Peter Enns

2. Godʼs Word In Human Words by Kenton L. Sparks (goes into a bit more depth than Ennsʼ book)

3. The Human Faces Of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (And Why Inerrancy Tries To Hide It) by Thom Stark Thom examines in detail some of the stickiest (and most emotionally jolting ways) in which biblical scholarship calls into question the notion of “biblical inerrancy.” I had the pleasure of reading the manuscript. For me it was like reading James Barrʼs classic work, FUNDAMENTALISM, but updated and with more rigorous questions. See Thomʼs book page in which he answers reviewerʼs questions. And see his new website, Religion at the Margins.

4. Beyond Born Again An early work by theologian Robert M. Price written not many years after he began recognizing that many of the arguments employed by his favorite Protestant apologists were far from being slam dunks but left much unproven or assumed. He discusses the “born again” experience as well as arguments employed by Evangelical Christian apologists from the last generation, i.e., prior to Lee Strobel. (Reading this work and Priceʼs newest one below, one can see that the apologists are still attempting to prove the same unprovable things).

5. Scripting Jesus: The Gospels In Rewrite by L. Michael White (Chair in Classics and Christian Origins and director of the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins at the University of Texas at Austin). Covers a host of essential topics. This work and the one directly below are more challenging than previous books on this list in terms of both their length and level of ideas. I would also suggest reading these books in the same order in which they are listed.

6. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, And History by Dale C. Jr. Allison (Prof. of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary). A forthcoming work that looks to be his magnum opus. A highly revered scholar open to miracles as well as historical criticism. His previous fascinating works include: The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus; and, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement).

   The last two works are perhaps the most controversial. I would not suggest that a Christian begin by reading them:

7. The Christian Delusion, ed. by John Loftus [a collection of essays on basic psychological, historical and sociological questions related to Christianity; recent biblical studies are cited in the endnotes]. By the same author: Why I Am An Atheist, and, The End of Christianity [a forthcoming collection of essays by multiple authors].

8. The Case Against The Case For Christ by Robert M. Price Unless the previous books are read and understood, this one may not be fully appreciated. Price is not arguing his own theses in this work but sticks pretty much to advocating in favor of the host of questions raised by mainstream biblical scholarship versus Lee Strobelʼs Evangelical apologetic arguments. (See also Priceʼs annotated list of must read works on the historical study of the Bible.)

The eight works above should spark questions, even in the minds of Evangelical apologists. The point is not to supply all the answers since no one has them, as even Sparks and Enns, the two Evangelicals above, admit. The point is that questions remain, many unknowns. And belief in itself does not cross the bridge of questions, while reasoning might not even take a person halfway across that bridge, depending on just how many questions one notices and acknowledges. Neither do such questions have to do with whether or not “God” exists. These questions are matters of debate concerning “revealed religions” with their “holy books.”