Author: Thomas Alderman

The Author of the Gospel of Luke is “a historian of the first rank”

[The following is an excerpt from “The Evidence for Jesus,” by William Lane Craig (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-evidence-for-jesus/).  (Citations deleted).]

The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability. . . .  I only have time to look at one example: Luke. Luke was the author of a two-part work: the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.  These are really one work and are separated in our Bibles only because the church grouped the gospels together in the New Testament.  Luke is the gospel writer who writes most self-consciously as an historian.  In the preface to this work he writes:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. (Lk. 1.1-4)

This preface is written in classical Greek terminology such as was used by Greek historians; after this Luke switches to a more common Greek.  But he has put his reader on alert that he can write, should he wish to, like the learned historian.  He speaks of his lengthy investigation of the story he’s about to tell and assures us that it is based on eyewitness information and is accordingly the truth.

Now who was this author we call Luke?  He was clearly not an eyewitness to Jesus’s life.  But we discover an important fact about him from the book of Acts.  Beginning in the sixteenth chapter of Acts, when Paul reaches Troas in modern-day Turkey, the author suddenly starts using the first-person plural: “we set sail from Troas to Samothrace,” “we remained in Philippi some days,” “as we were going to the place of prayer,” etc.  The most obvious explanation is that the author had joined Paul on his evangelistic tour of the Mediterranean cities.  In chapter 21 he accompanies Paul back to Palestine and finally to Jerusalem.  What this means is that the author of Luke-Acts was in fact in first hand contact with the eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and ministry in Jerusalem. . . .

Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight?  The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively.  The book of Acts overlaps significantly with secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable.  This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (1990).  Hemer goes through the book of Acts with a fine-toothed comb, pulling out a wealth of historical knowledge, ranging from what would have been common knowledge down to details which only a local person would know.  Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right.  According to Professor Sherwin-White, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.”  The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, the world-famous archaeologist, still stands: “Luke is a historian of the first rank. . . .   This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”  Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this author is trustworthy.

The Jewish Prophets

When we took up residence in the Middle East, one of my goals was to understand how Arab Christians viewed their relationship with Israel.  I am happy to be able to say that I succeeded: Arab Christians are very critical of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and they are deeply frustrated by what they see as American evangelicals’ unquestioning support of Israel’s actions there.  They believe that it is at least in part due to that support that the United States has not pressed Israel to reach a settlement with the Palestinians or even to suspend its settlement activity in the West Bank.

I think that generally, Arab Christians are loathe to speak of the ways in which Palestinians also contribute to the impasse in Israeli-Palestinian relations.  But it is clearly Israel which dominates the power relationship with the Palestinians, and it grieves me most of all that the Israel I love refuses to do justice toward them.  I want to bring to your attention an excellent sermon by Hikmat Kashouh, Research Professor of New Testament and Biblical Interpretation at Arab Baptist Theological Seminary and Senior Pastor at Resurrection Church in Beirut.  Dr. Kashouh shows how the Jewish prophets themselves denounced in ancient Israel the very practices in which the modern Israeli state is engaged today, and warns of the potentially disastrous consequences.  To hear and/or read the sermon, click here.

Do Not Faint, Part Two

That’s how I imagine it will be: I will have a direct personal relationship with Jesus.  Of course I already have that; what I mean is, it will be like dropping in on Rick Smith.  He’ll be there, otherwise unoccupied, as if he were waiting for me, and he’ll show me his latest projects.  Then we will sit down and hang out together, just like Rick and me; but his words will be life and freedom to my soul, because he is the Son of God.

Of course we believe that in some measure this is available to us now: that the Kingdom of God has broken through into the present age.  I can’t tell you how it happens; but when it does, I understand that he loves me in spite of it all, and it changes me.

Do not faint

When we see Him, then we will see the truth with a clarity only glimpsed in this life in rare moments.  Many of us go for years, even decades, sustained by only a very few such moments – some, perhaps, by a single moment of clarity, but it was a moment so unforgettable that it indeed has the power to sustain us, if necessary, for a lifetime.  It was a moment in which we could see our freedom, even savor it for a moment, and we shouted, “Yes!” and we knew He was there and was welcoming us.  And though it passed, to return we know not when, it still sustains us because the memory is indelible, even decades later.

What if we had such moments often?  What if every day?  What if every moment were like that?

It will be, and soon.

No matter what your suffering now, do not faint.  As Paul said, this momentary light affliction is not to be compared to the glory which is to be revealed in us.

The Meaning of the 2016 Presidential Election

Here are four more recent and very thoughtful opinion pieces from the New York Times on the meaning of the 2016 presidential election.

Ross Douthat, October 16: In Defense of the Religious Right

David French, November 24: Is Criticism of Identity Politics Racist or Long Overdue?

Maureen Dowd, November 26: Election Therapy from my Basket of Deplorables

Jennifer Finney Boylen, December 2: Really, You’re Blaming Transgender People for Trump?

Here is the Latest on the Science of Same-Sex Attraction

Jesus loves LGBT!

“. . . [T]here is a great chasm between much of the public discourse and what science has shown.”

             – Lawrence S. Mayer, Paul R. McHugh, Special Report: Sexuality and Gender – Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences.  The New Atlantis, Number 50, Fall 2016.

In the first six months of 2015, I researched and wrote my Survey of the scholarly literature concerning the nature of same-sex attraction (SSA) and its causes, and published it on this blog under the title, What is Homosexuality – A Survey of the Scholarly Literature.  (Originally posted June 26, 2015; reposted July 4, 2015, see below.)  My primary motive for diving into the literature was to inform myself in order to be able to help my sons in their thinking about the topic.  Chiefly I wanted to know: is there anything to the claim that SSA is inborn and immutable?

Not much, I learned.  The most concise and fair way to summarize my findings would be to say that while there do appear to be one or more unidentified biological factors – perhaps genetic and/or epigenetic – which contribute causally to the incidence of homosexuality, other causes are much more significant, including adverse childhood experience, parental role modeling, and individual free choice; and large numbers of LGBT do change their choices of partners and even their SSA, some once, and some many times over the course of a lifetime.  In short, the weight of the evidence, far from justifying the supplanting of traditional sexual morality, instead provides substantial reason for its reaffirmation.

By pure coincidence, I finished my Survey and posted it on the very day of the decision of the US Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, the gay marriage case.  By that time I had become conscious of the utter lack of discussion about the science of SSA in the policy debates, from gay marriage to transgenderism; but I was still amazed that the science was given virtually no place at all in the Court’s decision.  In the opinion of the Court there was only one mention of any scientific authority, which was a reference to the claim in the brief filed by the American Psychological Association that “sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable” – but the APA brief contains no reference to any scientific evidence.  Yet none of the four dissenting Justices even mentioned the APA’s claim, much less challenged it.  Could it be that 100 “friend of the court” briefs ignored the science completely?

I began looking for someone, anyone, engaged in bringing the science into the policy discussion.  It took over a year, but I have found two pairs of scholars who have published their own surveys of the scientific findings about SSA.  It is very gratifying to be able to say that my own findings are almost entirely consistent with theirs.

One pair published their findings way back in 2000 – unfortunately, I did not become aware of it until August 2016.  Stanton Jones is Professor of Psychology at Wheaton College, and Mark A. Yarhouse is Professor of Psychology at Regent University.  Their book, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate, published by InterVarsity Press, is outstanding.  The other pair of scholars published their review of the literature in a lengthy article in the Fall 2016 issue of The New Atlantis.  Lawrence S. Mayer is a scholar at the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.  Paul R. McHugh is University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.  Their conclusions track very closely with Jones’ and Yarhouse’s (and with mine), namely: there does appear to be a weak biological factor in SSA, but “scientific research does not give much support to the hypothesis that sexual orientation is innate and fixed. . . .  Some of the most widely held views about sexual orientation, such as the ‘born that way’ hypothesis, simply are not supported by science.”

Let me emphasize again, LGBT individuals bear the image of God as much as anyone.  They are citizens and entitled to be treated with dignity and respect.  However, the reckless departure on which our society has embarked is very dangerous.  May it be that our courts and legislatures will soon become acquainted with what science has to say about SSA.  Spread the word.