OK has been a valued voice on this blog for years, even as my own views on the Shroud—and the direction of the site—have evolved. It has always been a pleasure to engage with him. He is, without question, one of the smartest and best-informed contributors when it comes to the Shroud of Turin. Though we disagree—especially on this particular subject—I have deep respect for his insights and continue to admire his thoughtful approach. I want to bring this up from the depths of a comment to the top. He deserves it and so do all of you.
What follows is OK’s perspective, quoted from a recent comment. What is in quotation offsets are my words, followed by OK’s response.
Dan:
Much of what’s confidently asserted about the timing of Jesus’s death, the rush to burial, or who was present is built on Gospel texts written decades later, shaped by oral tradition, theological emphasis, and community memory. These texts were not forensic records, and their details often reflect liturgical or symbolic aims more than eyewitness reporting. Even the time of death—”about 3 p.m.”—or the involvement of Joseph of Arimathea, or whether it was Passover or even Friday, remains debated among scholars.
Everything can be debated by the so called “scholars” who build their careers by denigrating Christianity. You can always doubt Apollo moon landings or 9/11 attacks or whatever. But those are considered conspiracy theories. Similar conspiracy theories denying the traditional history of Christianity are taught and applauded in academic world.
What’s more, we need to acknowledge that multiple burial scenarios are historically possible, including ones that don’t align with the Gospel accounts. John Dominic Crossan, for instance, taught that based on what we know of Roman crucifixion practices, Jesus may never have been buried at all. Perhaps his followers took him down and wrapped him in a cloth while seeking permission to bury him. Perhaps that permission was denied, and he was placed in a mass grave. Must we dismiss that possibility simply because the Gospels offer a more reverent narrative?
And perhaps you should have much less admiration for guys like Crossan, Raymond E. Brown and other academic dodgers (and the trash they produce) -and more admiration for traditional Christian history. Which can be easily defended, I can assure you.
In Catholic world, the views of guys like those could be considered modernism (which is pseudo-scientific ideology, not supported by the evidence!), condemned in 1907 by the Pope Pius X. Nevertheless, the modernist tendencies returned, especially after Second Vatican Council. Becuase the sound “rational”, while they are completely irrational.
It raises the deeper question: how much of the Gospel account is history remembered, and how much is reverence mythologized?
The New Testament is virtually 100 % historically credible in my opinion. There are very minor issues like minimal differences between the Gospels about tertiary details or the problem of Theudas (which can be easily explained by Luke’s narrative method compressing various Gamaliel speeches into one).
The issues such as Nativity stories (which can be very easily reconciled), Star of Bethlehem, the trial and execution of Jesus, the empty tomb accounts etc. can be quite easily resolved and vindicated. I did it. Actually, the most complex problem in harmonizing the Gospel accounts, is in which direction the disciples sailed through the Sea of Galilee after the feeding of the 5000.
And how much of Shroud-proving involves using the Gospels to validate the Shroud, in order to use the Shroud to validate the Gospels? Why are we doing this? Is our faith really so fragile that it needs forensic confirmation?
Because we have the Shroud. And we have the Gospels. And they cross-validate each other.
Hi, Dan,
Just in case someone reads this piece of yours without examining the comments in the prior one titled, “Whack-a-Mole Theology,” I wanted to add my comment to O.K. here, as well, below.
Best regards,
Teddi
Yes, yes, O.K, I am in total agreement with your final sentence , and I, myself, have argued this for years. People claim it’s circular reasoning, but such people do not really understand what circular reasoning is—which involves information from one source. Such as: the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. However, with the Holy Shroud and the Gospels and secular evidence, we have MULTIPLE lines of evidence which converge to point to important Truths.
All the best,
Teddi
Extremely well said, OK! And I agree with every point you make. Attacks on the veracity and historicity of the Gospel/Acts accounts border on the absurd, certainly for a Christian. There may have been letters and other writings describing the words and actions of Jesus well before the Gospel fragments that we have. Absence is not proof of nonexistence. More importantly, the apostles and other early disciples who observed and heard Jesus directly would obviously have been motivated to tell the story as accurately as possible. Inventing “history” regardless of motive is creating fiction and deceit. This would have been totally contrary to God’s intentions in sending His Son to achieve our salvation. I am confident that God is quite capable of ensuring that His will would be accomplished as He intended and that he selected the apostles for precisely this purpose. Nothing else makes sense unless you reject the notion that Jesus was sent by God and all the other main claims of Christianity. The willingness of the apostles and other disciples to undergo martyrdom is about as strong evidence as you can have of their convictions and sincerity. Plus there was never any effort to create an earthly kingdom of power and wealth which would have been the motive if it were all just a scheme to enrich themselves. And to cite John Dominic Crossan or any other member of the notorious Jesus Seminar as a source to question the credibility of the New Testament is laughable. They are utter heretics and serve to underline the notion that the term “biblical scholars” is of very little value by itself.
Yes, Dan. It is quite harsh to say that the conspiracy theories about the origin of Christianity are taught as respected research at the colleges and universities. But after years of studying history of Christianity on my own (with no formal education at this subject!) unfortunately I came to this bitter conclusion.
I spent several last years bulding the whole New Testament history from scratch. Harmonising the Gospel accounts, checking primary sources, building biographies of the Evangelists and so on. The texts are on https://www.apologetyka.info/ webiste, in Polish of course. but I have original documet files, and can send if requested. Perhaps with today’s AI tools they can be relatively quickly translated into English.
Perhaps I can send several paragraphs from my review of the Bart Ehrman’s New Testament textbook: https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/bart-d-ehrman-nowy-testament-dla-niewierzacych-i-niemyslacych-recenzja,1443.htm The title: ‘Bart D. Ehrman: Nowy Testament dla niewierzących i niemyślących (recenzja)’ ‘The New testament for non-beleivers and non-thinkers (review)’.
So here are those excerpts (translated with the help of Chat GPT):
Let us now return to the question of why Ehrman believes that the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were written “late,” by anonymous authors, and what kind of “research” or reasoning led him to that conclusion (something he never explicitly states). As I mentioned in the summary, the key lies in Chapter 24 and Ehrman’s reasons for rejecting the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles. Although partial clues can be found throughout other parts of the book, Chapter 24 acts as the glue, the knot tying all the threads together. Ehrman simply rejects outright the idea that, in the early stages of Christianity, there existed a Christian hierarchy—which he clearly detests!
His disdain and aversion to (presumably Catholic) hierarchy may stem from his fundamentalist Protestant upbringing (though I’m not certain), and this attitude could have intensified in adulthood after abandoning his faith. This dogma essentially underpins Ehrman’s entire vision of the development of early Christianity—a vision that, in many ways, resembles today’s individualized evangelicalism. According to Ehrman, early Christians were a kind of fanatical zealots (though of course he never uses such a pejorative term), charismatic figures excited by the imminent end of the world, uncritically accepting and (in good faith) producing testimonies that confirmed their own beliefs (confirmation bias).
Therefore, according to Ehrman and those who share his view, they gave up their property, abandoned their daily responsibilities, broke apart families, and caused many other negative, antisocial effects. And when the end of the world did not come in 70 AD, the “business” was taken over by the “dark forces”—the clergy—who created a hierarchical structure to maintain order, destroyed individualism, and imposed a creed and a canon of sacred Scripture.
This is, quite simply, another version of the conspiracy theory of the Great Apostasy, popular in Protestant circles during the Reformation and still held in some fundamentalist Protestant groups today. The theory goes: the early Church was holy, but at some point, it became corrupted and its original teachings were distorted by the evil papacy—until the Reformation came to restore the Church to its original purity. The difference is that Protestants have vague and unclear opinions about when exactly this Great Apostasy occurred, while Ehrman is quite specific: around the year 70.
And it is to this dogmatic, preconceived vision that Ehrman and others like him (let’s be honest—these are not his original ideas) subordinate their analysis of the entire New Testament, presenting it supposedly as “objective” historical research. Anything that doesn’t align with this a priori vision—such as evidence suggesting the existence of hierarchy, or that the Parousia didn’t necessarily have to occur imminently—is simply pushed beyond the threshold of the year 70, categorized as later inventions, interpolations (e.g., 1 Corinthians 14:34–35), or the traditional authorship is questioned, as in the case of certain Pauline letters, especially the Pastoral Epistles.
And as for the “objective” justification for these conclusions (since we can’t very well admit that they really stem from such a biased dogma!), such arguments can always be found afterward. Whether it’s minor differences in Paul’s writing style, slight discrepancies in the accounts of Paul and Luke in Acts, or other details found in the Four Gospels—there’s always something. And any alternative interpretations are simply silenced. After all, our interpretation is “scientific” and the only correct one!
The Gospel of Mark plays a particularly important role in this scheme—not only because it is the shortest and thus allows anything more fully developed in Matthew or Luke (such as the accounts of Jesus’ childhood) to be labeled later additions or inventions—but because it enables liberal critics to devise a solution to what would otherwise seem like an unsolvable dilemma. In other words: having their cake and eating it too.
The dilemma centers on two seemingly incompatible elements: the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and statements by Jesus that appear to suggest the end of the world would come within the lifetime of his disciples, shortly after Jerusalem’s fall. As we know, the end of the world did not occur in 70 AD. This is a problem for liberal critics who date the Four Gospels late—after most of the disciples had already died (late first or even second century). Moreover, the prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction is, in the eyes of most rationalists, a post-eventum attribution to Jesus (with only a few scholars admitting that it might not be).
Thus, dating the Gospel of Mark to around the year 70—just before, when the fall of Jerusalem could be predicted, or just after, when hopes for an imminent Parousia following apocalyptic war had not yet died out—is an attempt by liberal criticism to have it both ways.
The very question of the existence of a hierarchy—which many Protestant circles also reject—is, as I have repeatedly mentioned in this review, highly problematic for rationalists who believe that the original stories were distorted, most likely after the year 70, and that fabricated accounts of supernatural miracles of Jesus and the apostles were added. Yet, it is well known that miracles do not exist… If the hierarchy had existed earlier and guarded the original stories to prevent their distortion, it would mean that those stories are very likely authentic. The word ἐπίσκοπος, episkopos, literally meaning “overseer” or “guardian,” but usually translated as “bishop,” appears in the New Testament in Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 2:25, though in the last case it has its original meaning of “Guardian” (as translated in the Millennium Bible). All these passages are in books that liberal criticism tries to claim were written after 70 AD. Except for Philippians 1:1, considered an “authentic” letter of Paul, but in this one verse the function of “bishop” is not clearly defined, so it can be disregarded (see p. 518 in Ehrman’s book). However, this is the reason why the Pastoral Epistles, which precisely describe the duties of the hierarchy, became the target of furious attacks by rationalists who regard their falsehood almost as a dogma. No matter what arguments are presented to justify this dogma—if refuted, new insinuations can always be made. This is why there is such a strong insistence on the inauthenticity of the Pastoral Epistles, even despite counterarguments against specific accusations.
Now we see what methods the rationalist, liberal criticism really uses to conduct its so-called “scientific research.” And no matter what counterarguments you present, they will always insist that THEY are right. Rationalist, liberal New Testament biblical scholarship has long since become, in fact, pseudoscience. All the major facts (which source wrote what, how many words are in the New Testament, etc.—the raw data that are clear-cut) in New Testament biblical studies, meaning what could be read directly from historical sources, were established well over 100 years ago. Research and discoveries in the 20th century did bring many new pieces of information but did not fundamentally change the established picture. As for interpretations (which include issues like dating or authenticity of individual books, such as letters attributed to the apostles), although the matter remains open, about 100 years ago liberal biblical scholarship established what is called a “consensus.” A “consensus” by definition means a “general” agreement on a certain issue, but the question is how this agreement was reached. The “consensus” in liberal New Testament biblical scholarship holds that the Four Gospels were written between 70 and 100 AD, their authors cannot be established, and the attributed authorship of certain New Testament books, like the Pastoral Epistles or 2 Peter, is false. But does this “consensus” rest on unequivocal facts that cannot be interpreted otherwise? NO! In reality, this “consensus” (which includes only those who agree with it) is really based on a predetermined interpretation, dirty academic “politics,” and intimidation of those who think differently.
This “consensus” is convenient for many circles because it allows them to maintain their views without engaging in exhausting battles with the opposing camp. It’s a kind of “ceasefire.” Regarding the dating of the Four Gospels, 70-100 AD is late enough for anti-Christian groups (atheists, agnostics, rationalists, and Jews) to claim that the stories contained in them were fabricated, yet early enough for Christians to believe that they might be based on the last living witnesses and perhaps still contain authentic information.
As I already mentioned, the rejection of the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles or 2 Peter (in which the author refers to the Transfiguration episode, of which Peter was supposed to be a direct witness) is convenient for rationalists, but it is not yet fatal for Christian faith itself. There are indeed some arguments against the authenticity of these writings, but that does not mean they are necessarily correct. It’s like accusing someone of something without being able to prove it unequivocally — they do not automatically become guilty, though they cannot entirely escape suspicion and infamy.
Returning to Ehrman and his specific case, compared to many other anti-Christian rationalists, he is not really that radical, rather quite moderate on many issues. For example, he accepts partial authenticity of Josephus’ Testimonium (pp. 313-314, Table 14.2). He is not an anti-Christian fury, a raging bull that provokes itself every time and charges at the matador’s cape. On the contrary, he tends to provoke, insinuate, and attack mostly those claims that indeed significantly support the truth of Christianity. That is why he “fits” well in documentary programs on television (which cannot be too openly anti-Christian because people would stop watching them).
And what does the intimidation factor consist of? Unfortunately, the harsh truth is that in academic circles there exists a mentality and rules that are almost mafioso-like. This applies basically to all disciplines, not just biblical studies. Unfortunately, this is a truth I also know firsthand from my own unpleasant experiences. Simply put, the number of academic positions and university chairs is usually smaller than the number of potential candidates, so competition reigns, and it is often unhealthy. Cliques form and cronyism rules, but that’s how it is when there is a small group of specialists in a given field who know each other well and it is assumed that only they are capable of “substantively” evaluating theses and publications presented in that field.
In the academic world, a hierarchy definitely exists because some formal recognition of knowledge and expertise in a given field in the form of an academic degree is necessary. But this leads to actions and abuses of this “dark” side of the hierarchy, because in the end they set the rules and determine what deserves recognition and what does not!
So the leadership, for such and such reasons, established this “consensus” over 100 years ago. And now, holding all academic power in their hands, they can decide what is truth and what is not, what is scientific and what is not. Hence arises the possibility of eliminating those who disagree with the “consensus.” Such is the brutal reality. You don’t agree with the system? Then get out! We’ll make it hard for you — we won’t let your works be published, we won’t give you grants, you won’t get a prestigious position at the university. And they can’t do anything to us anyway, because in the Western world there is, developed in the Middle Ages, a certain autonomy of the academic world, which governs itself by its own rules. Who can formally prove that a professor is talking nonsense, when the substantive side will have to be evaluated by a recognized expert anyway, that is, another professor, a colleague of the first one…?
And in the humanities, such as biblical studies, it is even easier, because often the evaluation of the value of particular arguments is based on quite subjective criteria, and not, for example, on concrete numbers. In this way, the system has lasted for over 100 years, although any sharper and more objective researcher or student of the subject will notice a lot of nonsense and absurdities in these claims that the “great professors” impose. But well, one can always say that “the vast majority” of scholars believe, for example, that the Pastoral Letters are not authored by Paul…
Hence, unfortunately, the truth is that at universities it’s not so much the best who survive, but those who can best adapt to the situation, know whom to stick with, and whom to flatter… And that’s why someone like Ehrman is regarded as a great authority, even though he often makes elementary, almost childish mistakes in his reasoning. In Ehrman’s statements and claims, both in his book and other publications, one can often see remnants of zero-one, fundamentalist thinking. Either the Bible is 100% literally infallible, or it’s complete falsehood and must be rejected along with faith in God. No middle ground options. However, after reading Ehrman’s textbook, I see that he has learned to navigate among various shades of gray—in the murky world of academic intrigues and public media statements.
As for the actual scientific research in biblical studies, although “everything” was “settled” over 100 years ago, these “scientists” in the field still have to “conduct” research. Publish or perish! So various kinds of “studies” are published on various pointless, completely irrelevant topics, often using different tricks and abuses of dialectics (and if we assume that such and such a fragment of the New Testament is not historical, relying on formally flawed arguments from silence, then what conclusions do we get?), which allow the multiplication of nonsense called “research.” Only a small portion of research in biblical studies actually contributes something truly significant to the discussion.
The excerpts end here.
I don’t claim that the works of Crossan, Ehrman, Brown etc. are completely worthless (they are not). But one should take them with extreme care. And there are many, many other good works which disagree with their or similar positions, defending the traditional history of Christianity (in various ways). But the best approach is to get familiar with the primary sources oneself. Today it is much, much easier than several years or decades ago. You don’t have to be a scholar. There are several good translations in the web, tools like https://biblehub.com/interlinear/ (so you don’t need even to know the languages), excellent websites like Textexcavation that we rescued from oblivion: https://web.archive.org/web/20241121092916/http://websimconnect.com/www.textexcavation.com/index.html the access to books and articles is much easier than in the past.
Amen, O.K. amen.
Jim