“Very difficult to dismiss”

April 8, 2023 By Dan Peterson

Lena Alaia's grave marker — This spot, located near Miami, Florida, represents one of the many reasons that the truth of Christ’s resurrection matters deeply to me.

Last night, Mike Parker (aka Peter Pan) and Robert Boylan (aka Roibeárd Ó Baíoláin, the proprietor of the impressive Scriptural Mormonism blog) recorded a genial ninety-minute conversation about the Heartland movement (regarding Book of Mormon geography), the origins and approach of Mr. Pan’s Neville-Neville Land blog, and l’affaire Richard Nygren (aka le scandale du siècle). I commend the archived video to the attention of any folks out there who might be interested in those subjects or in the people involved in them:

“Episode 35: Discussing Neville-Neville Land with Mike Parker”

I also note two new entries that have appeared on Neville-Neville Land blog since last I mentioned it: “An open reply to Jonathan Neville, part 2,” and “The story of Neville-Neville Land, as told to Robert Boylan.”

***

Here are some notes from a project on which I work for a few minutes every year or so, regarding the resurrection of Christ:

Helmut Koester writes that the appearances of Jesus “cannot very well be questioned.”[1] “We can say with complete certainty,” writes the agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, “that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that he soon appeared to them. . . . Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since it is a matter of public record.”[2] [“At some later time”? Early.] Traugott Holtz declares that the disciples’ “experience of resurrection . . . is in fact an undeniable historical event.”[3]

Critics who, by and large, accept the notion that the disciples genuinely had experiences of a living Jesus after his crucifixion and death can move in basically two directions. They might point out that events such as the resurrection simply don’t occur, or that life after death is an incoherent concept. Or they might say that we simply don’t, or can’t, know what happened.

What we know, says Fuller, “requires that the historian postulate some other event” besides the disciples’ faith in order to explain the sequel. We must identify the cause of the Easter faith . . . outside of their belief.”[4]

There are a number of alternative, naturalistic explanations for the resurrection. Raymond E. Brown terms them “gratuitous charges,” which suggests the seriousness with which most serious scholars have taken them.[5] As James Dunn says, “alternative interpretations of the data fail to provide a more satisfactory explanation” than does the claim of resurrection.[6] The Claremont philosopher Stephen Davis writes “All of the alternative hypotheses with which I am familiar are historically weak; some are so weak that they collapse of their own weight once spelled out. . . . The alternative theories that have been proposed are not only weaker but far weaker at explaining the available historical evidence.”[7] J. A. T. Robinson declares that “it is indeed very difficult to dismiss [Jesus’ postmortal appearances] and still find a credible explanation.”[8]

[1] Helmut Koester, History and Literature, 84.

[2] Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 230-231.

[3] Traugott Holtz, “Kenntnis von Jesus und Kenntnis Jesu,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 104 (1979): 10.

[4] Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 169, 181.

[5] Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, 163. See 163-167.

[6] Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus, 76. Compare N. T. Wright, “Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem,” Sewanee Theological Review 41 (1998): 118-122.

[7] Stephen T. Davis, “Is Belief in the Resurrection Rational?” Philo 2 (1999): 57-58.

[8] J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 124.

[These notes are drawn from a very good 2004 essay by Gary Habermas titled “The Case for Christ’s Resurrection.”]

I continue, too, with my reading of Andrew Loke, Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach (Routledge, 2020). Dr. Loke, a native of Singapore who is currently an Associate Professor at Hong Kong Baptist University, was a practicing physician before he returned to school first in the United States and then in the United Kingdom, where he earned a doctorate in philosophy and theology at King’s College London.

Here is an interesting chain of logic from his sixth chapter (“What happened to Jesus’ physical body?”) that I find clarifying and, therefore, useful. Please note that the word or is taken in the exclusive sense of “either one or the other, but not both”:

(7) Either (7.1), (7.2), or (7.3) is true:

(7.1) Jesus was not crucified (escape hypothesis)

(7.2) Jesus was crucified and he was not buried (unburied hypothesis).

(7.3) Jesus was crucified and he was buried, in which case either (8.1) or (8.2) is true”

(8.1) The body of Jesus remained buried (remain buried hypothesis)

(8.2) The body of Jesus did not remain buried, in which case either (9.1) or (9.2) is true:

(9.1). The body was removed by non-agent(s), e.g. earthquakes (Allison 2005a, p. 204), animals, etc. (removal by non-agent hypothesis)

(9.2) The body was removed by agent(s), in which case either (9.2.1) or (9.2.2) is true:

(9.2.1) Others removed the body, either

(9.2.1.1) Friends of Jesus (removal by friends hypothesis),

(9.2.1.2) Enemies of Jesus (removal by enemies hypothesis), or

(9.2.1.3) Neither friends nor enemies, e.g. tomb robbers (removal by neutral party hypothesis).

(9.2.2) Jesus himself removed his body, in which case either (9.2.2.1) or (9.2.2.2) is true:

(9.2.2.1) Jesus did not die on the cross: he swooned on the cross and exited the tomb later (swoon hypothesis), or

(9.2.2.2). Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead, and exited the tomb (resurrection).

Apropos of (9.2.1.1) and in the spirit of it-isn’t-actually-quite-Easter-yet, I share with you a link to which Bruce Webster called my attention a day or two ago. It’s from the Babylon Bee (“Fake News You Can Trust”): “If Jesus’ Resurrection Were A Hoax”

Full disclosure: Dr. Loke argues, not only following the passage cited above but throughout his book, for (9.2.2.2): “Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead, and exited the tomb (resurrection).”

***

Last night, we gathered with a substantial sample of the extended family for dinner at a Chinese restaurant. The princess, who was (of course) wearing the unicorn headband that had displaced her bunny ears headband earlier in the week, was impressed by all of the “relatives,” albeit that she was a little bit fuzzy as to who they all were and as to what, exactly, the word relatives means.

Alas, though, we bade farewell to both the princess and her father very early this morning at the Salt Lake City International Airport.

Farewells are hard; our house seems empty now. But — in a fitting message for Easter weekend — life goes on. It simply goes on elsewhere. The princess was really excited to try a “Chicago pizza,” and we now have photographic evidence that she has, in fact, done so. And that was followed by FaceTime confirmation of the fact.

Written from the eye of the storm

April 4, 2023 By Dan Peterson

0 Comments

Thanksgiving Point, at the north end of Utah Valley (fair use)

Since their arrival on Saturday night from the eastern United States, one of my granddaughters and her Dad have been staying with us for the week. At six years of age, she is something of a hurricane; we’ve already gone through all of the craft projects that we had lined up for her and our house has been significantly redecorated with variations on Easter eggs and the Easter Bunny. We’re came back not too long ago from Thanksgiving Point, where we spent about two hours going through the wonderful Museum of Ancient Life — a genuine (but perhaps somewhat underappreciated?) local treasure — and then took in a 3-D IMAX film entitled Serengeti: A Journey to the Heart of Africa. Upon returning, we quickly built a small but serious snowman in our back yard, about four and a half feet tall, complete with carrot nose and, exotically, the crown of a pineapple on its head. (Plainly, this is a tropical snowman.) The hurricane slumbers not nor sleeps. Until, of course, she does — and then she’s out like the proverbial light.

At Tell Dan — “Abraham’s Gate” at Tel Dan in northern Israel, which is also called the “Canaanite Gate” in order to distinguish it from the later “Israelite Gate” that is located not very far away.
(Wikimedia Commons public domain image)

Three new items have appeared on the website of the Interpreter Foundation:

The New Testament in Context Lesson 16: “Thou Art the Christ” Matthew 15–17 and Mark 7–9

The 19 March 2023 Come, Follow Me segment of the Interpreter Radio Show featured Bruce Webster, Kris Frederickson, and Martin Tanner, who discussed New Testament lesson 16, “Thou Art the Christ” on Matthew 15–17 and Mark 7–9. It is now available at no charge and liberated from commercial breaks. The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard each and every Sunday evening from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640. Alternatively, you can listen to it live on the Internet, at ktalkmedia.com.

Interpreter Radio Show — March 26, 2023

The discussant for this episode of the Interpreter Radio Show was Martin Tanner. The “New Testament in Context” portion of this show, for the Come, Follow Me New Testament lesson 17, “What Shall I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?”, on Matthew 18 and Luke 10 will be posted on Tuesday, 11 April 2023. The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard on Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com.

The focus of this segment of the Show, which is now made available to you at your convenience, for free and without commercial interruptions, is “Restoration Advocacy: Responses to the critics of the Book of Abraham, and reasons why it is a true translation by the “Gift and Power of God.””

Come, Follow Me — New Testament Study and Teaching Helps: Lesson 16, April 10 — 16: Matthew 15–17; Mark 7-9 — “Thou Art the Christ”

And, as he regularly does, Jonn Claybaugh has provided a concise set of notes for students and teachers of the Church’s “Come, Follow Me” curriculum.

Christ carrying the cross in a portrayal by Titian — Titian, “Christ Carrying the Cross” (ca. 1560)

General Conference provided us with a wonderful weekend, and we’re now well into Holy Week and heading toward what Claudia Bushman likes to call “Resurrection Day.” Here are a couple of links that you might find helpful:

“Grow Your Relationship with Jesus Christ during Holy Week”

“Easter Study Plan”

David Palmer's candidate for Cumorah — This hill, Cerro La Vigia, near the town of Catemaco, in the Municipio de Santiago Tuxtla, Veracruz, México, has been proposed by some adherents of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon as the location of the final Jaredite and Nephite battles. I think they may be right. If so, the Nephites knew it as “Cumorah,” and the Jaredites knew it as “Ramah.”
(Wikimedia Commons public domain photograph)

Here are five links to recent entries on the Neville-Neville Land blog, listed in the order of their appearance:

“Scholarship vs. activism”

“Questions and answers”

“Jonathan Neville: A tool in the hands of our enemies”

“An open reply to Jonathan Neville”

“The “Richard Nygren” affair and some vile accusations against me”

A note on Item 3, above: I observe with interest that, in addition to Mr. Neville’s happy willingness to participate on the podcast of a vocally derisive critic of the claims of the Restoration, “TwoCumorahFraud” is now a participant on what I sometimes call the “Peterson Obsession Board.” Some readers will recall “TwoCumorahFraud,” a recent commenter here, for his vitriolic hostility to me, Jack Welch, the late John Sorenson, the late William Hamblin, and others, denouncing us for having supposedly plagiarized the evil limited Mesoamerican model for Book of Mormon geography from a long-dead member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints named L. E. Hills and, thus, turned our backs on the modern apostles and prophets. The Obsession Board is a largely atheistic place, fiercely critical of the Church and its beliefs and — since its residents overwhelmingly dismiss the Book of Mormon as a fraud — not remotely inclined to “TwoCumorahFraud’s” aggressive “Heartlander” geographical views. But a shared disdain for “apologists” seems to provide congenial common ground for everybody there, at least for the moment.

A note on Item 4, above: I’ve repeatedly said here and elsewhere that, although (like all of my academic associates, so far as I’m aware) I’m unpersuaded by “Heartlander” models of Book of Mormon geography, I’m perfectly happy to fellowship with members of the Church who hold those views. But, curiously, I’m not perfectly happy when a fellow Latter-day Saint calls me “Slander Dan,” alleges that I reject the prophets, and compares me and my friends to Lucifer and his host of devils. This is what I genuinely object to in the behavior of a few persons who are associated with the “Heartlander” movement: The apparent willingness to denounce other active and committed Latter-day Saints for failing to share their opinions on the precise GPS coordinates of the Jaredite city of Lib. While it’s interesting and even, as an academic subject, not unimportant, the geography of the Book of Mormon is, at most, a topic of secondary or tertiary significance. It isn’t worth breaking fellowship with the Saints. It isn’t worth sowing discord in the Kingdom.

Fear and Loathing in a Very Strange Place

March 6, 2023 By Dan Peterson

0 Comments

Pinocchio, in color — An 1883 illustration for “Pinocchio,” by Enrico Mazzanti
(Wikimedia Commons public domain)

There is virtual certainty over at the Peterson Obsession Board that Stephen Smoot, going by the pseudonym of “Peter Pan,” is the author and proprietor of the invaluable Neville-Neville Land blog.

But I know for a fact that he is not. Up until about two years ago (or thereabouts) I myself was unaware of the identity of the blog’s proprietor, although I suspected that it was someone in my circle of acquaintances. At that point, “Peter Pan” identified Panself to me and, sure enough, it was somebody that I knew.

Over at the Obsession Board, though, a few of the folks are claiming that I claim that the actual person behind “Peter Pan” isn’t Stephen Smoot but, rather, a black Latter-day Saint in Alabama by the name of “Richard Nygren.”

I had never heard of any “Richard Nygren” until this allegation was first leveled, and I still know nothing about any such person. Until this blog entry, I have never mentioned the name on this blog nor, to the best of my recollection, uttered it anywhere else. If such a person exists, I know nothing about him except that he is definitely not the author or proprietor of Neville-Neville Land. (His Scandinavian purported name, Richard Nygren, sounds about as likely to me for a black man in Alabama as Nordberg, the name that, presumably for slightly comic effect, was given to O. J. Simpson in The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!)

Inspired, somehow, by my two recent blog entries about anti-Semitism on the FIRM Foundation blog (see here and here), the denizens of the Peterson Obsession Board have been whooping it up about the vast and devastating Smoot-Nygren Scandal. (They apparently couldn’t care less about anti-Semitism.)

But the “scandal” seems to be entirely of their own making. And, as of at least today, very literally so.

Because within just the past hour or two, “Richard Nygren” showed up with a pair of comments on my blog.

And this was immediately noticed and announced by an Obsession Board poster who goes by a pseudonym with the initials EWC. He pronounced it very “convenient” for me and my supposed co-conspirators and obviously wanted his audience there to conclude that somebody had created a fake “Richard Nygren” in order to get us off the hook. (They appear to have taken the bait.)

I think he’s half right. The “Richard Nygren” posts are fake, and there is still no evidence of which I’m aware that a real Black Latter-day Saint apologist in Alabama named “Richard Nygren” even exists. Moreover, I’m reasonably confident that I know who is behind today’s fraudulent posts: It’s good old “EWC” himself.

Why would I come to that conclusion? It’s pretty “inside-baseball,” but some might find it interesting. So permit me to explain:

Two comments from “Peter Pan” appear on my spiffy Disqus moderator panel (first, “Has anyone seen Peter Pan?” and then, four minutes later, “Peter Pan, I’ve heard you’ve been spreading my name around?”). But each was instantly marked “Shadow Banned” as soon as it appeared. Not by me, but automatically.

What does that mean? It means at least two interesting things: First, it tells me, in this case, that the person posting as “Richard Nygren” had already been placed under a “shadow ban” under a prior pseudonym (or series of pseudonyms), but that he was carelessly using an account that Disqus already recognized. Second, and even more significantly, “Shadow Banned” means that, while I can see his comments on my moderator panel, the only other person who can see his comments is the “Shadow Banned” poster himself. That’s the point of a “Shadow Ban”: The person who is under the ban thinks that he’s still able to post on a Disqus blog because he can see what he’s posted. So, until he gets a clue, he continues to comment. But nobody else except the moderator can see his comments.

(If I’m incorrect in this, I’ll welcome correction.)

What this obviously says is that it was “EWC” himself who posted as “Richard Nygren” and then scurried back to the Obsession Board to announce that “Richard Nygren” had just surfaced at Sic et Non. Other than I myself, only “EWC” could have known that “Richard Nygren” had posted on my blog. (I learned about the alleged “Mr. Nygren’s” post from “EWC’s” announcement of it on the Obsession Board, and then I found it on my own moderator panel – though I didn’t at first notice the “Shadow Banned” label.)

And then it was “EWC” who breathlessly announced that I had supposedly deleted “both” of “Richard Nygren’s” comments on my blog. But only EWC and I are in the position to know that there were once two of them. (And again, I learned this from EWC and had to go to my Disqus moderator panel to confirm it.)

But I’ve deleted nothing at all from “Richard Nygren.” Those two posts never appeared at all – except to EWC and, eventually, to me on my moderator panel. They were never deleted. I expect that he imagined that they had been deleted, but that’s only because he had probably never noticed that, during a prior bout of trollish mischief-making on my blog, he had been shadow banned.

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,” wrote Sir Walter Scott, “when first we practice to deceive!”

Of course, there is now frothing indignation over at the Obsession Board about my dictatorial censorship, and so on and so forth, which is probably pretty gratifying to “EWC.” He loves this kind of stuff. He has a lengthy history of regaling his gullible audience there at the Obsession Board with claims to have been an actively serving but unbelieving bishop (perhaps, now, even an unbelieving stake president!) who traveled with me on one of my tours of Israel, where he witnessed at first-hand my buffoonish antics and brazen lies; of almost certainly fictional accounts of conversations with former BYU colleagues of mine who enthusiastically describe the great relief felt in my department and across the University when I retired (or, in some versions of this tale, when I was forced into retirement at the tender age of only sixty-eight), and etc. and etc.

In the course of their howls of protest, “EWC’s” marks have also discovered that I have supposedly banned a poster who went by “Chubby Steve” and that I’ve deleted his posts, too. My reign of terror grows more oppressive every day! But, as a matter of fact, although I was going to ban him shortly, I didn’t. He hasn’t been banned. He took the hint first, and stopped posting. But he didn’t just stop there. I look on my state-of-the-art Disqus moderator panel and there, under the heading of “Deleted,” are Chubby Steve’s posts, each of them bearing the label “This comment has been deleted by the user and can’t be changed.”

In other words, for whatever reason, Chubby Steve deleted his own posts.