{"id":56614,"date":"2021-05-04T10:14:22","date_gmt":"2021-05-04T14:14:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=56614"},"modified":"2021-05-04T10:14:22","modified_gmt":"2021-05-04T14:14:22","slug":"resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html","title":{"rendered":"Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/p>\n

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry<\/em><\/a> (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 \u201cbrief\u201d replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions<\/a> (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Mike describes himself as \u201cof the Jewish faith\u201d but is quick to point out that labels are often \u201cmisleading\u201d and \u201cdivisive\u201d (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, \u201cReformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad\u201d variants of Judaism and learns \u201cfrom those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.\u201d Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment<\/a> on my blog.<\/p>\n

He says his book \u201ccan be described as Jewish apologetics\u201d and one that provides reasons for \u201cwhy members of the Jewish community should\u00a0not\u00a0convert to Christianity.\u201d I will be writing many critiques of the book and we\u2019ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I\u2019m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike\u2019s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.<\/p>\n

To see all the other installments, search \u201cMichael J. Alter\u201d on either my Jews and Judaism<\/a> or Trinitarianism & Christology<\/a> web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.<\/p>\n

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

In this installment, I document the views of Michael Alter regarding the motives and ethical standards of the writers of the New Testament; showing how he is indeed a very hostile witness when it comes to these writings, and engages not infrequently in ad hominem<\/em> attacks. The biases that we all have in one way or another affect our reasoning and the premises we accept, as well as the conclusions that we arrive at, based on those premises. Thus, these false presuppositions adversely affect Alter\u2019s reasoning all throughout his book.<\/span><\/p>\n

Alter reiterated the gist of his many statements documented below, today (5-3-21) in a<\/span> comment on my blog<\/a>: \u201cThroughout John\u2019s Gospel, he has made up additional fictional elements.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

After now 24 replies to his book and also significant personal correspondence, I have never<\/em><\/strong> stated, nor implied<\/strong><\/em>, that Michael Alter is deliberately dishonest, deceptive, insincere, disingenuous, or a liar (or even a purely ignorant, unassuming, innocent mythmaker). I do not do so now<\/em><\/strong>. I think he is wrong about many things, because he has adopted false premises and built false conclusions upon them.\u00a0<\/span>I believe that he sincerely believes these things<\/strong><\/em>, and the demands of rudimentary Christian charity requires me to extend that benefit of the doubt in the first place. He simply sincerely believes what I firmly believe to be erroneous, untrue things. I hope to dissuade him of these falsehoods through the use of reason and explanation of the meanings of New Testament texts, as best I can ascertain them (with the guidance of Christian \u2014 and sometimes also Jewish \u2014 tradition).<\/span><\/p>\n

All bolding is my own; italics are his own.<\/span><\/p>\n

[I]t is, in\u00a0fact, possible that the author of one of the gospels (or other portions of the\u00a0Christian scriptures) was writing what he considered were actual facts and in\u00a0so doing he was correcting and thus contradicting the earlier narratives<\/strong> . . .<\/span> (p. 26)<\/p>\n

Luke rejected Matthew\u2019s historical narratives<\/strong> many times.<\/span> (p. 120)<\/p>\n

Perhaps Luke\u2019s omission, in fact, confirms that the event is an invention\u00a0of Matthew<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 146)<\/p>\n

Why then did Luke omit such an important event that\u00a0coincided with Jesus\u2019s death? Perhaps his omission is, in fact, a deletion and\u00a0confirms that the earthquake event is an invention<\/strong>, that is a \u201cmyth\u201d<\/strong> developed\u00a0by Matthew. Moreover, here too there is no historical verification from even\u00a0one external source for this remarkable event. This omission from sources\u00a0other than Mark, Luke, or even John should raise the proverbial red flag<\/strong>.<\/span> (pp. 147-148)<\/p>\n

Perhaps Luke\u2019s omission is a deletion that confirmed that the\u00a0event (i.e., \u201cmyth\u201d<\/strong>) is an invention<\/strong> of Matthew.<\/span> (p. 160)<\/p>\n

Either the\u00a0information in John was unknown to the synoptic authors, deliberately\u00a0omitted, or a later fabrication<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 175)<\/p>\n

[subtitle] John\u2019s Invented Dubious Details<\/strong> and\u00a0Theology<\/span> (p. 182)<\/p>\n

Luke\u2019s omission suggests that either the event was invented by John<\/strong> after Luke\u00a0had finished his narrative or that he was verifying the narratives of Mark and\u00a0Matthew that no such event occurred<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 185)<\/p>\n

Perhaps his omission, in fact, confirms that the event was an invention of\u00a0John<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 238)<\/p>\n

Nicodemus appears only in\u00a0the Fourth Gospel. This remarkable absence casts doubt as to his historical\u00a0existence<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 238)<\/p>\n

A more probable explanation is that the synoptic authors did not record this\u00a0detail because John invented it<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 267)<\/p>\n

Of course, in addition, these\u00a0speculations presume that the burial episode is historical<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 273)<\/p>\n

The entire Joseph of Arimathea personality may be an invention<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 279)<\/p>\n

It is speculated that Matthew employed unusual wording in 27:62 to\u00a0deliberately obscure the fact<\/strong> that he would have the Jewish leadership violating\u00a0the Sabbath.<\/span> (p. 292)<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, according to\u00a0Christian apologists, members of the Sanhedrin, perhaps<\/em> all of them, are now\u00a0going to order non-Jews to work on the Sabbath in direct violation of God\u2019s\u00a0instruction and in full public view. Such a blatant and deliberate violation of\u00a0the Torah in public refutes the historicity of this legendary episode<\/span> [the story of the Roman guards at the tomb]. (p. 294)<\/p>\n

[I]t makes perfect sense that Luke deliberately omits<\/strong> this event as a part\u00a0of his narrative if, in fact, he doubts Matthew\u2019s sources<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 295)<\/p>\n

One of the foremost objectives of the Gospel of Matthew is to prove\u00a0Jesus\u2019s resurrection. In order to fulfill this objective its author invented<\/strong> the<\/span>
\nepisode of the guard at the tomb. Matthew 27:64 narrates that the purpose\u00a0of the guard is to secure the tomb \u201cleast his disciples come by night, and steal\u00a0him away, and say unto the people. He is risen from the dead: so the last\u00a0error shall be worse than the first.\u201d However, this uniquely written episode<\/strong> is\u00a0nothing more than a clever fa\u00e7ade<\/strong> of the author.<\/span><\/p>\n

Having a guard at the tomb suggests that Jesus\u2019s body could not have\u00a0been stolen. Given that the body has not been stolen or the tomb mistaken<\/span>
\nfor another, there is one explanation for it being empty: Jesus\u2019s miraculous\u00a0resurrection from the dead. The presence of the guard is irrelevant. The issue\u00a0of concern for Matthew is to create<\/strong> a fail-proof set of circumstances to prove\u00a0that Jesus resurrected from the tomb.<\/span> (pp. 297-298)<\/p>\n

. . . the writing of this legendary episode<\/strong><\/span> [the Roman guards at the tomb] . . .<\/span> (p. 298)<\/p>\n

Yet\u00a0another explanation is that the gospel writers were writing a legendary account<\/strong>.\u00a0Gundry (1994, 623-40) has termed these legendary accounts<\/strong> [of the women visitors to Jesus\u2019 tomb]<\/span> as \u201cMidrash.\u201d<\/span> (p. 318)<\/p>\n

Obviously the three\u00a0following gospel authors deliberately changed the text of Mark<\/strong> because\u00a0they understood the inappropriateness between the women\u2019s intention to\u00a0anoint Jesus\u2019s body and their initial oblivion to the problem of moving\u00a0the large stone.<\/span> (p. 326)<\/p>\n

Matthew\u2019s legendary earthquake<\/strong> probably occurred between 3:00 and 5:00 a.m.<\/span> (p. 329)<\/p>\n

Undoubtedly, without the empty tomb there could not be a\u00a0resurrection legend<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 333)<\/p>\n

[T]he writer did an\u00a0excellent job not writing a lie but narrating a legendary account<\/strong> to further\u00a0his theological agenda<\/strong> based on the Hebrew Bible. Specifically, Matthew\u00a0creatively and skillfully weaves a<\/strong> legendary account<\/strong> incorporating passages\u00a0from Joshua 10 and Daniel 6 that are supposedly fulfilled by Jesus.<\/span> (p. 342)<\/p>\n

The episode of the guards at the tomb is, in part, artificially created\u00a0<\/strong>to serve a dual agenda<\/strong>: as an apologetic and as an ad hominem<\/em> against the\u00a0<\/span>Jewish leaderships.<\/span> (p. 344)<\/p>\n

If the guards had made an accusation that they knew it was Jesus\u2019s\u00a0disciples who carried off his body, they would have had to make some arrests.<\/span>
\nYet there are no arrests or trial for this supposed crime. Furthermore, the\u00a0guard would have needed some false witnesses to convict the accused body\u00a0snatchers. Since these events never happened, it demonstrates that Matthew\u00a0made up the entire episode<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 348)<\/p>\n

There are several practical problems<\/strong> that challenge the<\/strong> assumed\u00a0authenticity and historicity<\/strong> of Luke\u2019s narration with the women entering the\u00a0tomb.<\/span> (p. 359)<\/p>\n

[T]hese writers have\u00a0omitted at least one other possibility: the entire episode was a fabrication and\u00a0invention<\/strong> by its author or final redactors.<\/span> (p. 384)<\/p>\n

Later, of course, an unknown redactor of Mark added the final eleven verses\u00a0not found in the original to cover up the discrepancy<\/strong> of Matthew 28:8 and\u00a0Luke 24:9, which had the women going forth to tell the disciples.<\/span> (p. 385)<\/p>\n

The evolution\u00a0of the clothes is apparent: (1) from no clothes (Mark and Matthew), (2)\u00a0to clothes lying about (Luke), and finally (3) to clothes orderly arranged\u00a0(John). Thus, the Gospels are clearly and unmistakably embellished<\/strong>. A second\u00a0possibility advocated by detractors is that the entire burial and Resurrection\u00a0narratives are ahistoric<\/strong> and written for evangelical and theological reasons.<\/span> (p. 396)<\/p>\n

There are several practical problems<\/strong> that challenge the authenticity and\u00a0historicity<\/strong> of Peter and the other disciple entering the tomb (similar to the\u00a0women) on Easter Sunday.<\/span> (p. 405)<\/p>\n

In conclusion, it is dubious<\/strong> that Peter was (1) told before by Jesus that\u00a0he was going to be arrested, crucified, and resurrected multiple times (Mk\u00a0<\/span>8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; Mt 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; Lk 9:22; 18:31-33 and\u00a0perhaps 24:6 by the women) and (2) Jesus performed multiple supernatural\u00a0and miraculous events in Peter\u2019s presence on almost a daily occurrence, and\u00a0yet he did not believe. Rather than being historical<\/strong>, these events were written\u00a0to serve a theological intent<\/strong> to demonstrate that faith was more important\u00a0than seeing or witnessing miracles and signs.<\/span> (p. 409)<\/p>\n

[T]he gospel narrators probably lied <\/strong>in the modern<\/em> sense of the word. When a\u00a0witness in a court of law deliberately excludes, includes, or rearranges material\u00a0according to his purposes, he is committing perjury<\/strong>. The authors and final\u00a0redactors of the gospel narratives were liars<\/strong> in a modern sense.<\/span> (p. 447)<\/span><\/p>\n

John 12:1-8 substantially embellishes<\/strong> the text, making Judas appear<\/strong>\u00a0progressively more heinous and odious than the synoptic narratives: . . .<\/span> (p. 448)<\/p>\n

For several reasons John\u2019s addition that Judas was a one-time thief seems\u00a0like an artificial embellishment<\/strong>. First, this highly significant fact that Judas\u00a0was a thief is omitted from the earlier gospels. Second, this information\u00a0has the ring of a literary design to entertain the reader<\/strong> by making Judas a\u00a0more contemptible and despicable person. Third, this fact is dubious<\/strong>, . . .<\/span> (p. 451)<\/p>\n

Only Judas would ultimately know why he betrayed\u00a0Jesus, assuming that this episode is historical<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 455)<\/p>\n

The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles present an ever-increasing\u00a0evolution and embellishment<\/strong> of Judas\u2019s life.<\/span> (p. 458)<\/p>\n

The significant embellishment<\/strong> of Luke was that\u00a0Judas had now become a Satan-inspired character.<\/span> (p. 463)<\/p>\n

Matthew embellishes<\/strong> Mark in several ways. Matthew\u2019s narrative\u00a0contained 43 extra words and Jesus speaks 83 extra words (i.e., AV<\/span>
\ntranslation).<\/span> (p. 468)<\/p>\n

This gospel embellished<\/strong> the synoptic Gospels by have the arresting\u00a0party withdraw backward and falling to the ground.<\/span> (p. 470)<\/p>\n

After being apprehended, John further embellished<\/strong> the synoptic\u00a0Gospels that not only Jesus was taken but that they also \u201cbound\u00a0him.\u201d In no previous gospel was Jesus described as being bound.<\/span> (p. 470)<\/p>\n

[T]he Gospels and Acts present an obviously ever increasing\u00a0evolution and embellishment<\/strong> of Judas\u2019s life that portrayed him in an ever\u00a0growing negative light.<\/span> (p. 471)<\/p>\n

By understanding this verse, it will be unequivocally apparent that\u00a0Matthew\u2019s citation is either erroneous or a deliberate embellishment<\/strong> to serve as\u00a0a proof that the Hebrew Bible foreshadowed (typology) Judas\u2019s heinous crime.<\/span> (p. 473)<\/p>\n

[T]he Judas episode was a legendary development<\/strong> that evolved\u00a0many years after the events were reported to have occurred.<\/span> (p. 525)<\/p>\n

Assuming that there was an historical Judas<\/strong> . . .<\/span> (p. 525)<\/p>\n

The Judas episodes in the Gospels and Acts do not reflect historicity<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 530)<\/p>\n

In other words, the narrative<\/span> [the story of the disciples walking to Emmaus] is theological, not historical!<\/strong><\/span> (p. 538)<\/p>\n

[A] practical explanation is that the story is Luke\u2019s invention to serve his\u00a0theological agenda<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 544)<\/p>\n

Another subject that challenges the historicity and reliability of the\u00a0Christian scriptures<\/strong> relates to the Emmaus narrative and the Passover.<\/span> (p. 544)<\/p>\n

This listing assumes that Paul is writing\u00a0historicity<\/strong>\u00a0[sic]<\/span> and not theology.<\/span> (p. 552)<\/p>\n

The pertinent question is whether or not the Christian scriptures permit\u00a0pious fraud<\/strong> to achieve this goal. Writing approximately twenty to thirty years\u00a0prior to the synoptic Gospels, none other than the apostle Paul unequivocally\u00a0declares that it was permissible to employ virtually any method to win converts\u00a0<\/strong>and gain souls:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Rom 3:7-8 For if the truth of God hath more abounded though my lie\u00a0unto his glory<\/em>; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather,
\n(as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let\u00a0us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 1 Cor 9:20-23 And unto the Jews I become as a Jew, that I might\u00a0gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that\u00a0I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without\u00a0law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the\u00a0weak become I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all\u00a0things to all men, that I might by all means save some<\/em>. And this I do\u00a0for the gospel\u2019s sake, that I might partaker thereof with you. (Refuted\u00a0by Brown 2000, 14-15)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Phil 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in\u00a0pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea,\u00a0and will rejoice.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

This last reading is awkward and somewhat arcane. However, this verse\u00a0is much easier to understand in the NIV rendering: \u201cBut what does it matter?\u00a0The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true,\u00a0Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Unequivocally, the Christian scriptures advocate and promote pious\u00a0fraud<\/strong>. Given that the gospel narrators had access to Paul\u2019s epistles, it is\u00a0speculated that they followed the advice of Paul and employed pious fraud<\/strong>,\u00a0that is, they incorporated ahistorical portions<\/strong> in their gospels to fulfill their\u00a0theological agendas<\/strong>.<\/span> (pp. 553-554)<\/span><\/p>\n

[O]ne purpose of John\u2019s narratives in 20:20 and 20:27 was\u00a0to corroborate itself with details which seemingly created an illusion that\u00a0the side-piercing episode was historical<\/strong>. . . .\u00a0Here, history was being replaced with theology<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 579)<\/p>\n

The historicity<\/strong> of Jesus\u2019s response to his disciples on Easter Sunday\u00a0evening in Jerusalem is questioned<\/strong> on three grounds.<\/span> (p. 579)<\/p>\n

The eating episodes<\/span> [involving the risen Jesus]\u00a0appear to be legendary embellishments<\/strong> that served a theological agenda<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 583)<\/p>\n

[T]he\u00a0Doubting Thomas episode was written to fulfill a theological agenda<\/strong>. In this\u00a0episode of the Christian scriptures, there is no historicity<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 600)<\/p>\n

John\u2019s agenda was to write a missionary and theological text, not one that\u00a0was historical<\/strong>. This agenda<\/strong> is clearly delineated in John 20:31: \u201cBut these are\u00a0written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that\u00a0believing ye might have life through his name.\u201d . . .\u00a0To recap, the deliberate agenda of John was both missionary and\u00a0theological. One such agenda was promoting blind faith in a risen Jesus.<\/span>
\nAlthough there may be \u201cgrains of truth\u201d (historicity)<\/strong> within his gospel, many\u00a0of the signs were nonhistorical<\/strong> and definitely unconfirmed.<\/span> (p. 604)<\/p>\n

It is speculated that the historicity<\/strong> of the call to the lake is doubtful<\/strong>.\u00a0Instead of being a real historical event<\/strong> it is posited that this episode,\u00a0recorded only in John 21, was really a larger call. . . . John\u2019s call to the lake served as a theological metaphor<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 605)<\/p>\n

[A] speculated alternative is that this episode<\/span> [of Peter catching 153 fish] was a legendary\u00a0account<\/strong> written to promote Peter over the other apostles.<\/span> (p. 609)<\/p>\n

[I]t is possible that this entire episode was a literary invention with\u00a0a hidden symbolic or theological agenda<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 609)<\/p>\n

[I]t must be\u00a0remembered that the Christian scriptures approve of pious fraud<\/strong> when they\u00a0support the spread of Christianity.<\/span> (p. 628)<\/span><\/p>\n

John, being the last of the Gospels, embellished and aggrandized the postresurrection\u00a0appearances<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 632)<\/span><\/p>\n

If<\/em> Paul, in fact, lied<\/strong><\/span> [about there being 500 witnesses of the risen Jesus] and the lie<\/strong> was in fact discovered, he still would\u00a0have gotten away with his deceit<\/em><\/strong> by claiming that it must have had\u00a0something to do with a conspiracy against him. Such a potential\u00a0argument is found in 2 Corinthians 11:2: \u201cLest Satan should get\u00a0an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices\u201d and in\u00a0Thessalonians 2:2: \u201cThat ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be\u00a0troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as\u00a0that the day of Christ is at hand.\u201d Similarly, those who denied Paul\u2019s\u00a0claims could simply have been accused of being false teachers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Rom 16:17-18 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them [[false\u00a0teachers]] which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine\u00a0which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve\u00a0not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words\u00a0and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. . . .
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, there is ample reason to\u00a0believe that Paul\u2019s claim was nothing more than a facade<\/strong>, knowing full well\u00a0that his assertion could not<\/em> have been successfully disproved.<\/span> (pp. 673-674)<\/p>\n

Perhaps his omission was, in fact, a deletion and Luke\u00a0was, in fact, challenging the historicity<\/strong> of Paul\u2019s claim<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 685)<\/p>\n

Only Luke provided an\u00a0exclusive description of Jesus\u2019s ascension, although here there is much to doubt\u00a0regarding the<\/strong> authenticity<\/strong> of this narrative.<\/span> (p. 702)<\/p>\n

Barnes\u2019s apologetic that the differing accounts confirm that the two\u00a0writers<\/span> [Luke and Paul]: . . . (2) . . . are honest men<\/strong> is bogus.<\/span> (p. 723)<\/p>\n

It is the position of doubters and skeptics that the events\u00a0recorded in Matthew and Luke were embellishments<\/strong> or legendary\u00a0texts<\/strong> incorporated to fulfill a theological agenda<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 724)<\/p>\n

On a prima facie<\/em> level the episodes detailed in Acts<\/span> [about Paul\u2019s conversion] are\u00a0historically dubious<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 731)<\/p>\n

[T]here is a stronger argument that can be raised about Jesus\u00a0employing this Greek proverb, an argument that raises doubt regarding the<\/strong><\/span>
\nhistoricity of the incident<\/strong>. . . .\u00a0it seems highly dubious<\/strong> that Jesus would choose to quote a Greek proverb to\u00a0Paul while speaking Aramaic even if the proverb was well-known.<\/span> (p. 732)<\/p>\n

Collectively, these and other differences in the\u00a0three readings raise doubt to the historicity of this episode<\/strong>.<\/span> (p. 733)<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong>Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke<\/em> (2016, Netflix USA)<\/span> <\/span>[Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication<\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n

Summary<\/em>: I document Michael Alter\u2019s many contentions in his book that the New Testament writers sought to produce ahistorical legends, fables, myths, & pure inventions of fictional accounts.<\/span><\/p>\n

Tags<\/em>:\u00a0alleged Bible contradictions,\u00a0alleged Resurrection contradictions,\u00a0Bible \u201ccontradictions\u201d,\u00a0Bible \u201cdifficulties\u201d,\u00a0Bible Only,\u00a0biblical inspiration,\u00a0biblical prooftexts,\u00a0biblical skeptics,\u00a0biblical theology,\u00a0exegesis,\u00a0hermeneutics,\u00a0Holy Bible,\u00a0inerrancy,\u00a0infallibility,\u00a0Jewish anti-Christian polemics,\u00a0Jewish apologetics,\u00a0Jewish critique of Christianity,\u00a0Jewish-Christian discussion,\u00a0Michael J. Alter,\u00a0New Testament,\u00a0New Testament critics,\u00a0New Testament skepticism,\u00a0Resurrection \u201cContradictions\u201d,\u00a0Resurrection of Jesus,\u00a0The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, NT writers: unethical mythmakers?, New Testament writers, the four evangelists, skeptical claims regarding biblical writers\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 \u201cbrief\u201d replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":56098,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[448,172],"tags":[4129,12966,525,524,514,2637,1879,1633,1878,1387,1386,535,4068,140,13451,13448,13445,13457,13454,282,13495,13498,13607,13618,13261,1347,13613,13610,13481],"class_list":["post-56614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-jews-judaism-old-testament","category-trinitarianism-christology","tag-alleged-bible-contradictions","tag-alleged-resurrection-contradictions","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-bible-difficulties","tag-bible-only","tag-biblical-inspiration","tag-biblical-prooftexts","tag-biblical-skeptics","tag-biblical-theology","tag-exegesis","tag-hermeneutics","tag-holy-bible","tag-inerrancy","tag-infallibility","tag-jewish-anti-christian-polemics","tag-jewish-apologetics","tag-jewish-critique-of-christianity","tag-jewish-christian-discussion","tag-michael-j-alter","tag-new-testament","tag-new-testament-critics","tag-new-testament-skepticism","tag-new-testament-writers","tag-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers","tag-resurrection-contradictions","tag-resurrection-of-jesus","tag-skeptical-claims-regarding-biblical-writers","tag-the-four-evangelists","tag-the-resurrection-a-critical-inquiry"],"yoast_head":"\nResurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers? Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 "brief" I document Michael Alter's many contentions in his book that the New Testament writers sought to produce ahistorical legends, fables, myths, & pure inventions of fictional accounts.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers? Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 "brief" I document Michael Alter's many contentions in his book that the New Testament writers sought to produce ahistorical legends, fables, myths, & pure inventions of fictional accounts.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-05-04T14:14:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/04\/Jesus60.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"503\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html\",\"name\":\"Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers? Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers?\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-05-04T14:14:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-05-04T14:14:22+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 \\\"brief\\\" I document Michael Alter's many contentions in his book that the New Testament writers sought to produce ahistorical legends, fables, myths, & pure inventions of fictional accounts.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers? Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers?","description":"Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 \"brief\" I document Michael Alter's many contentions in his book that the New Testament writers sought to produce ahistorical legends, fables, myths, & pure inventions of fictional accounts.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers? Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers?","og_description":"Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 \"brief\" I document Michael Alter's many contentions in his book that the New Testament writers sought to produce ahistorical legends, fables, myths, & pure inventions of fictional accounts.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2021-05-04T14:14:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":503,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/04\/Jesus60.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html","name":"Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers? Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-05-04T14:14:22+00:00","dateModified":"2021-05-04T14:14:22+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 \"brief\" I document Michael Alter's many contentions in his book that the New Testament writers sought to produce ahistorical legends, fables, myths, & pure inventions of fictional accounts.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/resurrection-25-nt-writers-unethical-mythmakers.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56614","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56614"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56614\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/56098"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}