Posted by Anthony on October 26, 2008
The Athanatos Online Apologetics Academy is enrolling now. It is almost too late to enroll in the “Introduction to basic Biblical Greek” course but it can be downloaded as an e-book in expanded fashion from here. (Good for home schoolers, self-study, small groups, Bible study groups, etc)
Beginning on Nov. 3 is the course on “The Reliability of the New Testament Documents.” This course is useful for those who want to understand why we believe the books we have in the New Testament are what was really written.
Beginning on Nov. 17 is the follow up course, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon.” This course goes the additional step of describing how the books in the New Testament came to be included and how others were excluded. No conspiracy theorist or skeptical nonsense here. Get the facts in this course.
Also beginning on Nov. 17 is the course “Studies in Atheism.” This survey of atheistic thought starts in Greek philosophy and charts its way through Hume, Bertrand Russell, Antony Flew, Ayn Rand, etc, before culminating in an examination of the so-called ‘New Atheists’ such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Dan Dennett. This course is excellent for those wishing to understand the atheistic/secular/humanistic threat to Christianity and the Christian worldview.
Direct inquiries to admissions@academyofapologetics.com.
Enroll in the Athanatos Online Apologetics Academy Today!
Posted by Anthony on October 3, 2008
Many people are intimidated by the pompous declarations of those like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Many people think that becoming a Christian means checking your brain at the door. Some think that it would take endless study to be able to stand up to the challenges against Christianity. Let us be clear: it does take some work, but it need not be all at once and you can do a little at a time. The Athanatos Online Apologetics Academy offers short modules that do not require massive amounts of your time. At the same time, you’ll gain resources to use for further study and you’ll probe some of the truly foundational aspects of the Christian faith.
———-
The staff at the Athanatos Online Apologetics Academy are ready to release the details of the fall session. I should note first of all that the academy now resides at its own domain at www.academyofapologetics.com Old links will not work, but your old login information should.
At present, we are offering four courses, beginning on October 27th. Here are the courses:
Basic New Testament Greek — Begins Oct. 27th (3 week course)
Reliability of the New Testament Documents — Begins Nov. 3rd. (2 week course)
Formation of the New Testament Canon — Begins Nov. 17th. (3 week course)
Studies in Atheism — Begins Nov. 17th. (3 week course)
I recommend taking the Reliability and Formation classes in tandem. Between the two of them you defeat numerous challenges to the Christian faith. On the one hand, you improve your understanding of why we believe that what we have is what was originally written and on the other hand you understand why the books of the New Testament were really chosen, as opposed to accusations made in the Da Vinci Code and skeptics who insist that early Christianity embraced gnosticism such as we see in the Gospel of Thomas.
The Basic New Testament Greek course will teach you the Greek alphabet, how to distinguish between nouns, verbs, and definite/indefinite articles, and equip you with the ability to figure out what the actual Greek words are behind your English translation. You will be amazed at how your Bible studies are transformed.
The Studies in Atheism course is one I’m really looking forward to presenting. We will trace atheism from ancients like Democritus through influential atheists like Hume, Russell, Rand, and Flew. We will end with an examination of the ‘new atheists’ like Richard Dawkins. The course is designed to explore atheism not to answer atheism. Nonetheless, the participant will be pointed in some helpful directions.
We are enrolling in these courses now. Please visit www.academyofapologetics.com for more information and click here if you want to go right to the enrollment and courses page. Additional courses may yet be offered.
Posted by Anthony on June 25, 2008
You may discuss this post at the corresponding discussion forum thread.
In the midst of my various activities lately (finishing my own book, finishing books for review, etc) I have been contemplating and discussing what the proper attitude and conduct should be among Christians towards things like oppressed workers in China and things of that sort. In the current climate that pits left versus right, even among Christians, I believe that I have a unique view that deserves a hearing.
Here it is in a nutshell: The Bible calls Christians to reach out first to their own family, than the family of believers, and then the outside world. It is my view that most of the emphasis on social affairs, from both the left and the right (speaking here only of the Christians on that spectrum), is on the outside world. Like for example, oppressed workers in China. Like for example, the Alaskan tundra. And yes, even issues like gay marriage and abortion on demand.
But the New Testament is clear about the scope of our efforts and I’m afraid we’ve failed dismally about what we’ve already been told. In short, even if the Christian ought to be concerned about some of these other larger issues, until they’ve done the duties that have been clearly set before them, it is dubious how much effort they should place on doing the things that are extended from principles derived from what is clearly set before them. If you should like a direct example of what I mean, it is nonsense for the Christian community to be heavily involved in pro-family iniatives while the Christian community itself endures a divorce rate as high as the non-Christian community.
It might be argued that something like Jesus’ words in Matthew 23 applies: “But you have neglected the more important matters of the law- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”
I am calling attention to the former things that have been neglected, notwithstanding the fact that in some of these issues what we attempt to strain out may not be a gnat anymore, but a ‘camel’ in its own right. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on April 25, 2008
Beginning on April 30th, 2008, Athanatos Online Academy’s course “Studies in Atheism” will begin. This three week course will give a brief history of atheism through the centuries and then leap to a discussion of more modern atheists such as Bertrand Russell, Antony Flew, and the so-called ‘New’ atheists: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and so on.
Why should anyone care? Why should Christians care? Trends in atheism are as discernible as trends in anything else and many agree (even ‘moderate’ atheists will sometimes agree) that the current trends are ominous. Moreover, if Christians want to reach out to their atheistic or agnostic friends, they will need to know what their friends are reading.
The “Studies in Atheism” course allows atheists to speak for themselves. Some response is given but it is primarily about understanding the forces and influences driving the ‘New Atheists’ along with systematically describing the views which atheists tend to have in common.
Beginning two days before the Atheism course, AOA will be offering courses on “Basic Christianity,” the “Reliability of the New Testament Documents,” and the “Formation of the New Testament.” These courses begin on April 28th.
If “Studies in Atheism” let’s atheists speak for themselves, Basic Christianity is offers an objective presentation on ‘mere Christianity,’ allowing Christians through the centuries to speak for themselves. What do the billions of Christians have in common in their beliefs? Why do they believe what they believe? How are those beliefs derived? This three week course is a broad overview and introduction to the foundations of the Christian faith and will help anyone who aims to understand what Christianity really is, rather than a caricature.
The “Reliability of the New Testament Documents” and “Formation of the New Testament” course make use of the books by the high powered Biblical scholar FF Bruce. For those who do not have the books, as much information from the Internet that can be used will be made available, as well. (this is true for all the courses). Anyone who wants to go beyond Sunday School explanations for why Christians worth their salt trust the Bible and the New Testament in particular will find these courses useful.
Many of the courses make use of Youtube presentations of important voices in Christian scholarship and in some cases video lessons by yours truly are used, as well.
To participate in the courses,
Then get ready to learn!
Posted by Anthony on February 22, 2008
A Review of
John Dominic Crossan’s
The Historical Jesus
By Anthony Horvath
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PLAGIARISM. COPYRIGHT 2007 ANTHONY HORVATH.
Introduction
While in Strasbourg attending the Apologetics Academy under Dr. Montgomery we spent a fair bit of time talking about ‘the historical Jesus’ and scholarship on the subject both in the past and in recent times. I decided that further study in that area would be beneficial. For that reason, I chose to review John Dominic Crossan’s 507 page The Historical Jesus. This review will summarize Dr. Crossan’s methodology and his conclusions, present a handful of criticisms that have been made by other scholars, and then conclude with criticism by this writer.
Summary:
Summary Introduction:
Dr. Crossan makes specific emphasis in the beginning of his book about the need to start with an appropriate methodology. He intends, he explains, to tie his conclusions that methodology. For that reason, first his methodology will be summarized and then his conclusions.
Summary of Crossan’s Methodology:
Dr. Crossan begins his prologue into the question of ‘the Historical Jesus’ by saying, “Historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke” (Crossan xxvii). He reflects on a presidential address by Daniel J. Harrington, of the Catholic Biblical Association, which offers short descriptions on seven different ‘historical’ Jesuses. There is Jesus as a political revolutionary, as a magician, as a Galilean charismatic, as a Galilean rabbit, as a “Hillelite or proto-Pharisee,” as an Essene, and as an Eschatological prophet. Crossan admits, “It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography” (Crossan xxviii).
It is in light of this situation that Crossan decides to adopt a methodology that he hopes will be free from such suspicion. He proposes a methodology that is as objective as can be. He refers to his methodology as a ‘triple triadic’ process. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on September 10, 2007
As I referenced in my review (located here) of Strobel’s book ‘The Case for the Real Jesus” I found it ironic that Internet writers and popular audience writers would be speared in a book written by a journalist and written for a popular audience. I assume that since Strobel is specifically seeking out scholars that he feels that the book is in a different class even if it was written for a popular audience. That is probably a valid point.
There are a couple of issues I need to raise here. From the perspective of a Christian apologist that depends on using reasonable argument, I can’t help but think that many skeptics will read in this book constant ‘arguments from authority.’ Now, as a logical fallacy, arguing from authority is really only a fallacy when the authority can’t be considered to be a credible spokesperson on the matter. One presumes that well credentialed scholars would meet such a standard. But look at the title of the first challenge: “Scholars are Uncovering a Radically Different Jesus in Ancient Documents Just as Credible as the Four Gospels.”
Thus, the first chapter of the book is actually a hard look at what scholars themselves are perpetrating on the Historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar is mentioned of course, and then of course some scholars by name, like Karen L. King (pg 25), “Award-winning scholar Morton Smith of Columbia University” (italics mine, pg 26). Elaine Pagels is mentioned, and, of course, Bart Ehrman and Dominic Crossan (pages 27-28). In other words, when Craig Evans- who certainly is a well-credentialed scholar- begins to express his exasperation with his fellow scholars, saying, in response to an inquiry by Strobel as to where these scholars begin to get it wrong,
“Here’s the rub,” [Evans] says, “These scholars can read the Greek in which the New Testament is written, but Jesus didn’t speak Greek, except perhaps occasionally. Most of his teaching was in Aramaic, and his scriptures were in Hebrew or Aramaic paraphrases. Jesus and his world were very Semitic, yet most New Testament scholars lack adequate training in the very languages that reflect his world (pg 30).”
I certainly agree that you need to understand that Jesus and his world were very Semitic, but the astute skeptic might say that a key word here would be ‘most’ as in “Most New Testament scholars.” The skeptic might say, “Well then, I’m sure I can find a scholar who knows their Aramaic who will still entertain the same notions dismissed by Evans.” And the skeptic is probably right. It would basically boil down to a “My scholar can beat up your scholar” scenario.
Strobel’s whole book (indeed, his other books on the same pattern, too) depends on the reader who is not a scholar being able to decide for themselves which scholar is being reasonable or not. But it is just this sort of capability that the scholars in Strobel’s book seem to think does not exist.
For example, if Evans says we need to know Hebrew and Aramaic, does he also think we all need to know Hebrew and Aramaic to reflect on his arguments? I could give a couple of more examples from Evans, but how about the attitude expressed by some of the other scholars?
In chapter three, when Michael Licona is interviewed, Michael Baigent’s credibility is not-so-subtly attacked, and Richard Carrier is described as having two master’s degrees from Columbia University-and we’re left wondering if that is a point in his favor or not. Shortly after, Licona takes aim at arguments made by Jeffrey Jay Lowder. Lowder and Carrier are bigwigs at Infidels.org. Fortunately, Licona does address the substance of these arguments, but then we are confronted with a statement regarding an argument by James Tabor:
“Second, Tabor gets his information from a sixteenth-century Jewish mystic, [Licona] said, his eyebrows raising. “Think about that! If Christians based their theory on what a sixteenth-century Christian reported, we would laugh at that person- and justifiably so. Now believe me, I’m not laughing at Tabor- he’s certainly a credentialed scholar. But you can’t blame people for rejecting his theory.” (pg 147)
Well, actually I think we should be laughing at Tabor. The fact that he’s a credentialed scholar doesn’t make his argument any less stupid, and I don’t think one needs to wait for another scholar to identify it as stupid before one reaches the same conclusion. One does not want to read into the text, but this bone he throws to Tabor seems to be made in the context of insinuating that Carrier and Lowder, on the other hand, could be laughed at.
Given how many of the claims forcefully mocked by Strobel’s selected scholars were first made or argued by other scholars, one wonders how confident we can be that if we hear an argument by a ‘credentialed scholar’ that we are actually hearing something worthy of consideration. One can easily see how this sort of attitude can be used by skeptics against Strobel’s selected scholars. And if such matters can only be comprehended and evaluated by another scholar, should we suppose our only solution is to defer mindlessly to other scholars until we ourselves are scholars? Skeptics will rightly point out that they have ‘credentialed scholars’ on their side. How do we handle this situation?
Though I could pull from other examples illustrating this issue, a very vivid example occurs on page 161 where we again have Licona being provided an opportunity to speak to the substance of skeptical claims, in this instance the claims that Jesus’ resurrection has the same credibility as other so called ‘pagan stories of dying and rising gods.’ Licona cites T.N.D. Mettinger, adding that Mettinger is a ’senior Swedish scholar, professor at Lund University, and member of the Royal Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities of Stockholm.” Licona recaps Mettinger’s argument, and then Strobel continues on.
Mettinger concludes that ‘there is no evidence for the death of the dying and rising gods s vicarious suffering for sins.” [Licona said]
I [Strobel] later obtained Mettinger’s book to double-check Licona’s account of his research. Sure enough, Mettinger caps his study with this stunning statement: “There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world.” (italics his)
In short, this leading scholar’s analysis is a sharp rebuke to popular-level authors and Internet bloggers who make grand claims about the pagan origins of Jesus’ return from the dead.” (page 161)
Now, there is no doubt that such claims are being made by (here unnamed-I wonder who they might be?) Internet bloggers, but Strobel presented this argument by pointing out that it was initiated by scholars themselves! Named are Tom Harpur, Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, and Hugh J. Schonfield! Who exactly is ‘this leading scholar’s analysis’ a sharp rebuke to exactly? It looks to me like the context should suggest Strobel here call out other scholars, but instead he singles out “popular-level authors and Internet bloggers.” Granted, some of these authors were popular level, but these all have some credentials. But what Internet bloggers were referenced exactly? It wouldn’t be-Carrier and Lowder, would it?
Now, I have no great love for Richard Carrier or Jeffrey Jay Lowder. I’ve never found their arguments to be compelling, but having read some of their essays I can see why people find them persuasive. And I certainly don’t have a problem giving scholars their due weight. They’ve worked hard, and it is true, I don’t know Aramaic. I don’t have access in most cases to primary sources. I depend on them to bring me the data. It does not follow though, that I depend on them to interpret the data. No, my real concern here is that the attitude expressed in my quotes (and a handful of others) does two things: 1. It undercuts thoughtful and hard-working Christians striving on the Internet to further the cause of Christ and 2. It does not appreciate the fact that the democratization of the Internet is an asset for us, and even if we preferred that people defer to sober scholars (that we agree with) the fact is that people are going to turn first to sources on the Internet, and only later will they possibly consult some of these more scholarly works.
Now, I personally believe I am such a person undercut in #1. I do not have the credentials, that’s true, but I have been an apologist for more than ten years. I do have a bachelor’s degree at least. In fact, I am currently pursuing my Masters in Philosophy and Apologetics. But I did not need a scholar to tell me that Mithraism post-dates Christianity, nor did I need a scholar to explain to me the significance of that fact. I have thousands of hours of reading, research, and writing behind me. Aware of the problems associated with the “My scholar can beat up your scholar” issue, I have constantly tried to cut through to primary sources whenever possible. And I certainly can thank the scholars in many cases for making those sources available. But why should this be about me?
Let’s take an example right from the book. Near the end, Strobel highlights a number of recommended websites and mentions Tektonics.org. Well, what is interesting about this is that Tektonics, though a very successful apologetics site (Alexa Rank: 280,000-Lee Strobel’s site’s Alexa Rank: 344,000), is maintained by a gentlemen who ‘only’ has a Masters-and the Masters is in Library Science.
What do subtle shots at ‘Internet Bloggers’ and what can be found on the Internet do to JP Holding’s credibility? What is to keep the skeptic from reading this book, getting the distinct impression that only the views of credible scholars should be considered- and by credible is it really meant ‘they agree with me’?- and seeing Holding’s site referenced, from learning Holding’s credentials and applying the very same attitude to Holding as Strobel’s book holds against other ‘Internet Bloggers’?
One doesn’t have to be a credentialed scholar to see that these comments are a kick in the shins of folks like Holding who have been investing tons of time and resources into their ministries and are doing a good job. The fact is that the scholars are doing important work but you are going to need competent Christians on the Internet who, despite not being credentialed in the same sense as the scholars, apply the findings of the scholars to the individualized circumstances that arise when you sit down and converse with the average skeptic. We need these people, and Strobel and his scholars generally concede the need for a more well-informed population (of Christians, too). But don’t pull the rug out from underneath them at the same time.
Now, my second point was that people are going to the Internet for information long before they consult the works of scholars. This is just a fact of life, and it isn’t going to change. Kids start getting interested in these issues as early as 16, 17, and 18. They aren’t going to drop $40.00 for a copy of Metzger’s “The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance” or “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.” It just isn’t going to happen. So, besides the need for having individuals who have made the investment (I’m looking right at my copy of the Canon of the New Testament as we speak) to apply that material for seekers entering the Internet Highway, we need a general change in our tactics and strategies in our modern setting, and simply dismissing what is found on the Internet isn’t going to cut it.
In the first place, while I know this is a problem to the bottom line, one thing I would suggest is that scholars put more of their own work right on the net. Take all of the innards of all the journals and just spill them for all to see. If you don’t like the quality of what is on the Internet, work to improve the quality of what is on the Internet. Another thing that scholars can do is to personally engage skeptics and seekers on the Internet. I know how much time is involved and I know they have a lot on their plate. But look at a person like Peter Kreeft who has awesome material, some of which is even online already, but who posts on the site that he just can’t respond to emails. No doubt, he can’t keep up-perhaps we could better structure how we go about our business so that he can.
I have put these concerns in an article separate from my review of Strobel’s book because I didn’t want the review to become clouded. Strobel has produced a fine book and it will make a great primer and resource for those exploring these issues. Nonetheless, I think we need to better address the changes in how people are getting their truth. We can’t just personally express that we don’t like how they are getting their truth and hope that folks will turn to our own methods.
We shouldn’t forget that it is scholars themselves that have initiated and instigated all of the crazy claims that we hear on the Internet. The Internet, after all, has only been around for less than 20 years and all of the issues addressed in Strobel’s book existed- in the mouths of scholars themselves- long before the Internet came about. What we need to do is equip the Christian population so that they can effectively filter what they hear and pass on these tools to our youngsters. We should also realize that while we should respect what scholars can give us, they can also deceive us, and if we are unable to figure out for ourselves when we are being deceived, God help us.
In conclusion, we must remember that what makes one a credible and credentialed scholar can vary widely on the subject. For example, Michael Licona (chapters 3-4) is described as being mentored by Gary Habermas, the head of Liberty University’s apologetics department. But what did Richard Dawkins say about Liberty University? In his journal recounting a presentation he did attended by a number of such students, he said, “I said that my advice to all Liberty students was to resign immediately and apply to a proper university instead.” Source.
Dawkins does not apparently think very highly of the credentials of those associated with Liberty U, which would include Licona and Habermas, referenced by Strobel. What’s a gent to do? Where can we go to find credentials that will matter to everyone, or will assure us that we can be quite certain that the person is not stating something ‘laughable’? The answer obviously is nowhere. Wherever the solution to this problem lies, it isn’t simply to knock those without credentials or give undue weight to those with them. All sides of this debate believe that there are scholars on the other side that are nuts. In light of this fact, I propose that focusing on credentials will get us to exactly the same place we’re already at.
