![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/01\/Paul2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAtheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page<\/a>\u00a0from his former site states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn\u00a0his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He has encouraged me to visit his site and offer critiques. Before he departed his former site at Patheos, he wrote under\u00a0a post dated 12-14-21<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI even need to thank the naysayers. Some of them have put up with a lot of robust pushback and still they come. Bravery or stupidity \u2013 it\u2019s a fine line. But they are committed, and there is something to be said for taking that commitment into the lion\u2019s den. Dave, you are welcome at my new place. Come challenge me. All the best to you and thanks for your critiques of my pieces. Sorry I couldn\u2019t get to more of them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Again, at his new site (under\u00a0a post dated 1-27-22<\/a>), after a vicious attack by a commenter, calling for me and indeed\u00a0all<\/em>\u00a0Christians to be banned, Jonathan offered an honorable and principled refusal:\u00a0\u201cI do welcome disagreements because I don\u2019t want [my blog] to [be] just an echo chamber. As long as it is good faith . . . someone like Armstrong does give me ammunition for some of my pieces! As long as they aren\u2019t trollish.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n His words below will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is a reply to his post,\u00a0Christian apologetics and defending Matthew\u2019s guards<\/a>\u00a0(1-31-22), which in turn is a response to my articles,\u00a0Pearce\u2019s Potshots #57: Matthew & the Tomb Guards<\/a>\u00a0(1-28-22)\u00a0and\u00a0Pearce\u2019s Potshots #58: Paul & Jesus\u2019 \u201cEmpty\u201d Tomb<\/a> (1-29-22). See Part 1<\/a> of this larger reply for background.<\/p>\n First, I don\u2019t make this up out of thin air. The general ahistoricity of Matthew\u2019s guards pericope is accepted by all skeptical scholars and a good deal of believing ones\u2014see Brown above. Here is the famous Christian scholar Dale C. Allison:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2026and [the theory that] Matthew, \u201cwith vindicatory intent,\u201d backdated the guard to an earlier time. The most extensive treatment of the subject is Kankaanniemi,\u00a0Guards<\/em>. He argues that the Christian story developed as a response to the early Jewish fiction that the disciples stole the body while Roman soldiers guarded the tomb. Although he has not convinced me that the guards derive from Jewish polemic as opposed to Christian apologetic, we concur that Matthew\u2019s story is not history.<\/span><\/p>\n Dale C. Allison (2021),\u00a0The Resurrection of Jesus<\/em>, New York: Bloomsbury, p. 180.<\/cite><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Allison continues later to make\u00a0exactly the same point as me<\/em>\u00a0concerning the guards not becoming Christians and believing\u2014is\u00a0he\u00a0<\/em>pulling it out of thin air? Is\u00a0his claim<\/em>\u00a0a rabbit out of the hat?<\/span><\/p>\n Whatever the rationalization, it is wildly unlikely that either would have declared, \u201cJesus is Lord!\u201d Annas and Herod would have been like the fictional guards in Matthew 28, who see everything yet fail to lay down their weapons and take up the new faith.<\/span><\/p>\n Ibid. p.331.<\/cite><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a problem today: a lot of Christian scholars: even the more \u201cconservative\u201d \/ orthodox ones, accept false skeptical premises. My friend, Dr. Lydia McGrew, philosopher and amateur theologian (traditional Anglican) has written a book about this, called, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices\u00a0<\/span><\/a><\/em>(2020). Here is the Amazon blurb about it:<\/span><\/p>\n In recent years a number of evangelical scholars have claimed that the Gospel authors felt free to present events in one way even though they knew that the reality was different. Analytic philosopher Lydia McGrew brings her training in the evaluation of evidence to bear, investigates these theories about the evangelists\u2019 literary standards in detail, and finds them wanting. At the same time she provides a nuanced, positive view of the Gospels that she dubs the reportage model. Clearing away misconceptions of this model, McGrew amasses objective evidence that the evangelists are honest, careful reporters who tell it like it is.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And here is the comment of a well-known Christian philosopher:<\/p>\n As Thomas Kuhn pointed out long ago, it is often someone from a different discipline who has the epistemic distance and objectivity to evaluate a widely accepted paradigm\/methodology in another discipline, because practitioners in the latter tend to look at things the way they were trained and, thus, cannot see things accurately. Kuhn\u2019s remarks are right on target when it comes to philosopher Lydia McGrew\u2019s critique of widespread methodological practices in New Testament studies. While\u00a0The Mirror or the Mask<\/em>\u00a0is very easy to read, it is also a massive piece of first-rate, rigorous scholarship that leaves no stone unturned. Replete with very careful distinctions,\u00a0The Mirror or the Mask<\/em> offers a precise analysis of the contemporary practice of employing \u201cfictionalization\u201d to exegete various Gospel texts. McGrew\u2019s careful analysis finds such a practice wanting and dangerous and replaces this practice with an approach that treats the Gospels as honest historical reports based on eyewitness testimony. This book is a must read for all who are interested in the historical accuracy of our portraits of Jesus. I highly recommend it. (J.P. Moreland: Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is what is going on with Dr. Allison above. One would have to see why<\/em> he thinks this way; what evidence he adduces other than conspiracy theories, bolstered by the fact that an increasing number of scholars now believe them. Does he have anything substantial? Jonathan doesn\u2019t present it, if so. But the text of Matthew has in its favor the\u00a0hostile Jewish witnesses of the early centuries after Christianity arose, who themselves talked about the stolen body theory. That\u2019s actual concrete historical evidence; quite different from Jonathan\u2019s relentless mythmaking and legend creation with no<\/em> historical basis. Wikipedia (\u201cStolen body hypothesis\u201d<\/a>) noted this:<\/p>\n A Jewish anti-Christian work dating from the 5th-century, the\u00a0Toledoth Yeshu<\/a>, contains the claim that the disciples planned to steal Jesus\u2019s body from his tomb. In this account, the body had already been moved, and when the disciples arrived at the empty tomb they came to the incorrect conclusion that he had risen from the dead. Later, the corpse was sold to the Jewish leaders for thirty pieces of silver, who confirmed Jesus\u2019s death; Jesus\u2019s corpse was then dragged through the streets of Jerusalem. Another variant comes from a record of a 2nd-century debate between a Christian and a Jew,\u00a0Justin Martyr<\/a>\u2018s\u00a0Dialogue with Trypho<\/a><\/i>: \u201chis disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This makes Matthew\u2019s story more plausible. Jonathan thinks conspiratorially about the Gospels. I look at them, not just with the faith of a Christian (belief in their inspiration), but in light of independent verification of their veracity. I think the scientific and intellectual approach is more respectable than sitting around coming up with 153 different conspiratorial scenarios. And of course, now these include (among many atheists) the increasingly fashionable Jesus mythicism, which I have always considered intellectual suicide; hence, I refuse to interact with it at all.<\/p>\n Jonathan then enlists John Dominic Crossan<\/a> in favor of his \u201cMatthew & the guards\u201d skepticism. Wikipedia says about him: \u201cHis work is controversial, portraying the Second Coming as a late corruption of Jesus\u2019 message and saying that Jesus\u2019 divinity is metaphorical.\u201d So much for him. Why would any Christian be impressed by a scholar who blasphemes Jesus as a creature and not God? He has no credibility in our eyes. But you atheists love him because he spouts anti-Christian things that you agree with.<\/p>\n N.T. Wright<\/a> is mentioned by Jonathan:<\/p>\n The other story which spills over in Matthew\u2019s gospel from the crucifixion narrative to the Easter account involves the chief priests getting together with the Pharisees to go to Pilate and request a guard on Jesus\u2019 tomb. This is of considerable interest, not so much for its own sake (though that is interesting too) but for the sake of\u00a0what it tells us about the story-telling motives of the early church<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0tale<\/strong>\u00a0begins on the sabbath itself\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n NT Wright (2003),\u00a0The Resurrection of the Son of God<\/em>,<\/cite><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n But Wright does not<\/strong> agree<\/em> with Jonathan\u2019s take. He is brought to the table for a particular polemical purpose, as I will discuss below. The book is partially accessible<\/span> at its Google Books page<\/a>. On page 637, Wright recounts Matthew\u2019s story in 27:62-66 and concludes that \u201cthere is nothing intrinsically implausible\u201d in the description of \u201cthe apparently easy collaboration of the Pharisees and chief priests, and of the two together with Pilate.\u201d Then he opines regarding the Jewish polemical use of \u201cthat deceiver\u201d in 27:63 (\u201cthat impostor\u201d in RSV): \u201cit seems more likely that it goes back to some kind of well-rooted memory.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He then cites Matthew 28:11-15, which continues this motif, concluding with \u201cthis story has been spread among the Jews to this day.\u201d Wright\u2019s opinion of this portion is that \u201cThere is nothing improbable in this narrative; indeed, it makes good sense all round.\u201d Frustratingly, page 638 isn\u2019t available on this site, but page 639 is. Here he summarizes \u201cthe Bultmannian scheme\u201d of the passages and he concludes:<\/span><\/p>\n If any historian finds this sequence more probable than the one Matthew offers, I can only admire their ability to believe such remarkable things. But I suspect that if even Rudolf Bultmann were to find himself as a member of a jury he would be more prepared to believe a story like the one Matthew tells than a story like the five- or six-stage development of tradition that must be told if we are to declare that Matthew\u2019s is impossible.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0Jonathan cites Wright from page 638:<\/span><\/p>\n But, while the historian is always cautious about accepting obviously apologetic tales, there are further considerations which make it very unlikely that this one was actually invented from scratch within the Christian community. . . . For our present purposes, the main thing is not to argue that the story, in both its parts, is historically true in all respects, though as we have seen it is unlikely to have been invented as a late legend.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jonathan takes a potshot against me as an apologist by contrasting me wit<\/span>h \u201cactual<\/em> apologists\u201d<\/span> like Wright, who is<\/span> \u201cwell aware of the skeptical and non-Christian accusations\u201d and<\/span> \u201ctakes them seriously\u201d and <\/span>\u201cacknowledges the counter-argument.\u201d I suppose he could say that he did that in some sense, in describing Bultmann\u2019s theory at length. But then he remarks that he thinks that Bultmann wouldn\u2019t even believe his own story over Matthew\u2019s if he were on a jury. And he says of folks who would believe his take: \u201cI can only admire their ability to believe such remarkable things.\u201d So if that<\/em> is taking Bultmann \u201cseriously\u201d it is certainly only in the very mildest<\/em> sense (by merely citing it). Once he gives his own opinion, he virtually belittles<\/em> it (scarcely different from my take on liberal scholars of his ilk).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n So once again the cynical and (his<\/em> self-description)<\/span> \u201cpurposeful passive-aggressive\u201d<\/span> attempt to pit me against the great Christian scholar N. T. Wright with regard to the Matthew guard story, fails miserably. Wright basically believes Matthew\u2019s account (at worst thinking it might have been embellished a bit) because he is an orthodox Anglican believer who actually believes the Bible<\/em> and not an extreme skeptic, like most of those Jonathan cites. Therefore, his conclusion is diametrically opposed to folks like Crossan and Fr. Brown. Their biases (for or against the Bible) are manifest.<\/span><\/p>\n Conveniently, after citing reams of Bishop Wright\u2019s words, he stops precisely before the paragraph above where Wright talks about what Bultmann would do on a jury. Nice touch there, Johnny. I believe in getting a scholar\u2019s whole<\/em> opinion out there, as much as we are able, within space limitations. One more paragraph would not have put Jonathan out. It\u2019s silly and objectionable to quote Wright\u2019s description<\/em> of Bultmann\u2019s view but to omit his negative and rather dismissive opinion<\/em> of it. But I\u2019m delighted that Jonathan brought up Wright, because he has bolstered my opinion a lot.<\/span><\/p>\n It is hilarious because Armstrong accuses\u00a0me<\/em>\u00a0of lacking any historical evidence for why Matthew alone claims this and then provides\u00a0absolutely no evidence himself for his own historical belief!<\/em>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is untrue.<\/p>\n Perhaps his most substantial argument is the claim that there are 135 instances when the Synoptic Gospels make claims that are not seen in any other Gospel. He claims that this makes it \u201cno big deal.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Except many of the ones he mentions are\u00a0again\u00a0<\/em>arguments against historicity!<\/span><\/p>\n Judas\u2019 suicide? It\u2019s included in Acts and there is a clear contradiction between the accounts.<\/span><\/p>\n No there isn\u2019t, as I wrote about last May<\/a>.<\/p>\n The magi and Herod chasing Jesus and family out of the country to live in political asylum for two years before returning out of Egypt to fulfill a Messianic prophecy in Matthew is a super example. Only super-committed Christians have the cognitive dissonance reduction to believe this rather insignificant \u201cfact\u201d of Jesus\u2019 life would be omitted from, say, Luke, who\u00a0flatly contradicts<\/em>\u00a0the claim in having Jesus\u2019 family go to the Temple in Jerusalem\u00a0straight away<\/em>\u00a0before then returning\u00a0straight away afterwards<\/em>\u00a0to Nazareth. This never happened! This is Matthew\u00a0ex eventu\u00a0<\/em>prophesying!<\/span><\/p>\n Nonsense. I\u2019ve dealt with this whole supposed \u201cgotcha!\u201d polemic too:<\/p>\n Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Bethlehem & Nazareth \u201cContradictions\u201d (Including Extensive Exegetical Analysis of Micah 5:2)<\/a>\u00a0[7-28-17]<\/p>\n Jesus the \u201cNazarene\u201d: Did Matthew Make Up a \u201cProphecy\u201d? (Reply to Jonathan M. S. Pearce from the Blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher\u00a0<\/em>\/ Oral Traditions and Possible Lost Old Testament Books Referred to in the Bible)<\/a>\u00a0[12-17-20]<\/p>\n Pearce\u2019s Potshots #11: 28 Defenses of Jesus\u2019 Nativity (Featuring Confirmatory Historical Tidbits About the Magi and Herod the Great)<\/a>\u00a0[1-9-21]<\/p>\n What Armstrong fails to do here is to explore how the guards were posted there and how the Gospel writer knew about them and their arrangement. I briefly discussed the issue in the last post. Matthew would have had to have been privy to a private meeting between the chief priests and Pilate.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n No he wouldn\u2019t. It\u2019s altogether possible that he heard a report from Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, who were Pharisees (Mt 27:62) and members of the Sanhedrin, sympathetic to Christianity. They could very well have been present at the meeting with Pilate with the \u201cchief priests\u201d also.<\/p>\n Of course, he doesn\u2019t mention his sources, or how actual words from secret non-Christian conversations were accurately relayed across such time and space.<\/span><\/p>\n I just provided one perfectly plausible theory. It\u2019s speculation, but it\u2019s plausible and based on some facts we know from the Bible (which is historically trustworthy).<\/p>\n This kind of stuff is too problematic for Armstrong.<\/span><\/p>\n Hardly.<\/p>\n My original piece stands. Armstrong has provided nothing to even remotely change my opinion on that. He should opt for substance over rhetoric because latter just starts a rhetorical whirlpool to the depths.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m happy as always to let readers decide who has built up a more compelling argument or \u201ccase.\u201d<\/p>\n I\u2019m still waiting for the substance.<\/span><\/p>\n Read this and Part 1<\/a> as well.<\/p>\n Just insulting me is an uninteresting game that we can, indeed, both play.<\/span><\/p>\n Once again, I have not<\/strong><\/em> insulted Jonathan personally. I have uttered many strong words, however, against his many flimsy, lousy arguments about this, and his futile, irrelevant (yet dogmatically expressed) bald opinions that entail by their very nature, mythmaking and legend-building efforts.<\/p>\n It\u2019s just that it is a waste of time, no one wants to see it, and I don\u2019t really want to play it anymore.<\/span><\/p>\n Jonathan played it this time, having already charged me in this overall discussion with \u201cbeing willfully disingenuous\u201d<\/span> and \u201cbeing really dishonest.\u201d<\/span> I have not<\/em> accused him of these things: neither now nor ever.\u00a0 So if he is concerned about insulting debate opponents, I suggest that he look in the mirror and the beam in his own eye and not the speck in mine.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, though he lectures me about my nonexistent attacks on his person, he continues all the while (inexplicably) being perfectly content to allow commenters in his combox to insult me up and down in sweeping, prejudicial, and bigoted ways (with the repeated utter lie-myth-whopper that I supposedly ban everyone who simply disagrees with me, front and center). That\u2019s all fine and dandy. I haven\u2019t done this at all with him, yet somehow he has this mistaken notion in his head that I have<\/em>. Go figure. I think it is oversensitivity: something we all fall into at times, as frail human beings.<\/p>\n I guess he has me confused with so many of his atheist buddies who routinely savage and insult Christians and offer little or no rational engagement on the issues between us.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>, or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n\n