Is the Bible a book of myths and fairy tales, or is it a book of history and truth?  This DVD series provides a thorough overview of major archaeological and historical discoveries that demonstrate the veracity and accuracy of the Bible.  This series will help you to respond to critical arguments against the historicity of the Bible with solid evidence, and gain a better understanding of the geography, culture, and history of events in the Bible.

View the trailer and get more information here.

TIME: 7:30pm – 9:00pm

WHERE: Bethlehem Community Church, 183 Moffat Rd, Bethlehem, Tauranga, New Zealand.

FORMAT: 60 minute DVD lessons followed by discussions.  This is the second set of DVD’s from Focus on the Family’s True U series and is presented by Dr Stephen Meyer (author of Signature in the Cell).

COST: Free

‘Original’ Text of the New Testament: A Comedy of Errors?
Tuesday 20 March | 7.30 – 9.00 pm | Followed by a light supper

Before the time of printed books, the New Testament was copied by hand. Errors are easily made and may even undermine the reliability of a text. What sort of things did go wrong in the copying of the Bible? How much deliberate editing was going on? And are the conspiracy theories right this time? We will think about the earliest evidence, look at some of the arguments made by every side, and get an overview of what sort of discussions are currently going on regarding the Greek text of the New Testament. No need to know any Greek.

The Gospels: Which Ones?
Thursday 22 March | 7:30 – 9.00 pm | Followed by a light supper

We have not only the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we have also some other gospels, which are not part of the Christian New Testament. Among these are the Gospel of Thomas, of Mary, and even the Gospel of Judas. The last one was only re-discovered a few years back. What is there in these gospels, and why do they not form a part of the books the church uses?

Attendance is free but for catering purposes, please RSVP to Anne Segedin (asegedin@laidlaw.ac.nz) by Monday 19 March 2012.

For more info about about Dirk Jongkind, go here.

HT: Stuart

Preliminaries

I would first like to thank Malcolm Trevena for his opening statement responding to my defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. I am grateful for the importance he places on the truth of the matter and that he chose to attack my arguments without attacking me. I hope to replicate this gentlemanly manner.

Introduction

To begin I would like to look back and recall my opening statement.

In support of my first contention that there are at least four facts which any adequate historical hypothesis must explain, I offered four facts, namely, the burial of Jesus after his crucifixion, the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and that the disciples radically came to believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and also outlined the reasons why each of those facts are commended to us by the majority of experts in the relevant fields.

In support of my second contention, the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead  is the best explanation of the aforementioned facts, I assessed that hypothesis using the conventional criteria historians use for determining the best explanation.

I concluded that Trevena, in order to establish that the resurrection of Jesus did not occur, in the absence of some overwhelming proof of atheism, must propose an alternative naturalistic explanation of those facts which exceeds the resurrection hypothesis in fulfilling those criteria.

Response to Trevena’s Supposed Arguments for the Fiction of the Resurrection

I will now turn to responding to Trevena’s opening statement and the adequacy of his arguments.

Trevena has not proposed a naturalistic alternative to the resurrection hypothesis in order to explain the facts that form the historical bedrock. In failing to do so he has merely argued for the agnostic position: that we should not believe Jesus rose from the dead on historical grounds. Unfortunately for him, this position is consistent with Christian belief, and even consistent with the resurrection of Jesus being an historical, albeit an indeterminate historical, event.

Neither has Trevena specifically disputed any of those four facts. Instead he has cast general aspersions on the reliability of the Gospels. Presumably, this was in order to cast doubt on the reliability of those four facts. He says,

Mr. McEwing’s entire proof of the resurrection of Jesus is entirely based on the assumption that the Bible is a true and accurate account of events that occurred…

This is incorrect. The proof for the resurrection of Jesus comes in the stage where we assess and weigh different hypotheses according to the criteria for the best explanation. But more importantly, the historicity of those four facts are not established by assuming that the scriptures are true and accurate. (Neither were they assumed to be sacred or reliable.) The Bible, the New Testament, the Gospels, and even the resurrection narratives therein, may be riddled with contradictions and unresolvable difficulties, yet the historicity of those four facts would still form solid historical bedrock that begs for explanation. This is because I used the tools and rules common to any historical research project. Such tools and rules include; multiple, independent and early attestation, enemy attestation, embarrassment, dissimilarity, semitisms, frequency, coherence, etc., each of which are “Signs of Authenticity” which serve to uncover kernels of historical information.[1]

Thus, the charge that my case for the resurrection is based entirely on the Bible’s accuracy and truthfulness is false. This also means that the many examples of biblical difficulties that Trevena supplies, even if they cannot be resolved or harmonized (which I do not grant), are irrelevant to my case: to my argument they are Red Herrings.[2] Someone who has a very low view of the Bible, who disbelieves in scriptural inspiration and inerrancy, is able to accept the four facts I presented.

If we are to take Travena’s position in this debate (that the resurrection of Jesus is fiction) seriously, we must insist he deals directly with those facts.

Although the apparent contradictions and difficulties that Trevena mentions are Red Herrings to my argument, because he has chosen to give these pride of place in his argument, and because I believe these contradictions and difficulties do not represent insurmountable problems for the defender of biblical inerrancy, I nevertheless should like to address each. Before doing so I will address this first point of disagreement in order to clarify what my argument achieves.

Let’s Be Clear: What my Case Purports to Show

Trevena states “Let me be clear about what we are not debated [sic].” His following musings are not altogether clear. He states,

Let’s say that Mr. McEwing is 100% correct and Jesus had a literal resurrection. It would not mean that his paternity was divine,[3] it would not prove that his moral teachings were true, or that he was born of a virgin. I could grant Mr. McEwing all the miracles of the Bible, and it would not be true that Christianity is the One True Faith™ and that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Take note again of my second contention: that the hypothesis God raised Jesus from the dead is the best explanation of the four historical facts. Though my case for the resurrection is consistent with many other Christian doctrines being true, including the divinity of Christ and consequently the virtue of his teachings, it does not undertake to argue for them. It is a case for the resurrection. Strange then that Trevena would feel obliged to mention these other doctrines.

Technically, it is a case for the historicity of the resurrection, and not for the fact of the resurrection.[4] This methodological hair-splitting, I think, is no slight on my case, for all historical conclusions are similar. What the historical method does is present the reader with the best explanation and leaves the extra philosophical assumption, that the best explanation is most likely the true explanation, up to him or her as the natural next-step.

I do believe however, contrary to Trevena, that a good case can be made for thinking the rest of Christianity does follow if the resurrection hypothesis is the true explanation.

Does Christiantiy follow from the Resurrection of Jesus?

The resurrection is significant because its not just anyone being raised from the dead and did not take place in a vacuum, but comes within a religio-cultural context at the climax of a unparallelled life. Jesus of Nazereth was a teacher who arrived onto the scene with an unprecedented sense of authority proclaiming the in-breaking kingdom of God with what was understood to be miracles, healings and excorcism. His a radical self-conception as the vanguard and representative of that kingdom; to be the promised Messiah, the unique Son of God, the Danielic Son of Man, as standing in the place of God; inaugurating a new Israel, believing he was able to forgive people’s sins, and that people’s eternal destiny hinged on their response to him.

Horst Georg Pöhlmann notes the consensus of this implicit Christological self-understanding in historical Jesus research, and concludes, “with regard to Jesus there are only two possible modes of behaviour: either to believe that in him God encounters us or to nail him to the cross as a blasphemer. Tertium non datur.”[5]

Its difficult to overstate the tragedy of the cross for the disciples. Their Rabbi was dead. Crucified on the basis of his blasphemous personal claims, according to Jewish thinking Jesus was literally accursed by God. For them, the options are either go home, or find another messiah. Since the conception of resurrection for them is only at the end of the age when the all the righteous saints are raised to new life and justified by God, the resurrection of Jesus is imbued with religious significance. It arrives as no random event, but as a vindication of those personal claims: a divine imprimatur as it were, which then ushers in an era of relating to Jesus as God, of salvation through him and by extension, the apostolic teachings of the New Testament. [6]

When the religio-cultural context and Jesus’ radical self-conception is taken into account, it is a very short step to the rest of Christianity, especially in the absence of any hypothesis which exceeds the resurrection hypothesis in fulfilling the conditions for the best explanation. But even if this small step is not taken, the power of my case is still evident, for; it shows that the resurrection hypothesis is the best explanation, it makes the existence of God more probable, it shuts the mouths of uninformed skeptics claiming its a fiction, and reveals that the rational person cannot be blamed for believing God raised Jesus from the dead.

The Reliability of the Gospels

I now turn to the entirely irrelevant digs on the reliability of the Gospels. Space restrictions do not permit a thorough treatment, so I will focus on those with most the topical appeal. For an answer to the difficulties of the differences in genealogies of Jesus and the hares not chewing cud see the appended material.

Jesus’ Death

The difficulty with two scriptures given (Lk. 23:46; Jn. 19:30) is not an indictment on the historicity of the death of Jesus as is suggested by the subtitle. Rather, it is an alleged contradiction on the final words of Jesus. This is a minor detail historically speaking, and is of relatively small theological consequence if granted. Historically speaking, and vital to any case for the resurrection of Jesus, is the fact that Jesus died and we have these two independent, relatively early sources[7] that attest to it. But if we understand that it is characteristic of the genre of ancient biography to employ summary statements and time-telescoping, then the difficulty evaporates.

The Resurrection of Jesus

The difficulty drawn here is once again not the difficulty suggested by the subtitle, but is with respect to the amount of women at the empty tomb and the various circumstances that occurred there (see Mt. 28:1-10; Mk.16:1-8; Lk. 24:1-12; Jn 20:1-18). The alleged contradictions here once again do not affect my case, since what is important to the historicity of the resurrection is that the tomb was empty and that it was women who were the discoverers of the empty tomb. All four sources are in agreement on these two things.

Its worth noting that small differences like these are typically evidence in favour different accounts being independent testimony and thus more probably historical. Police reports which are identical are generally considered to be evidence of collusion and thus concealing falsehoods. The Gospels may differ in the details, but show agreement in the core facts.

Trevena opines these accounts “can’t all be true,” but draws no explicit contradictions between them. A careful reading suggests a variety of plausible reconstructions of the events that first Easter Sunday.[8]

The Rising of the Saints

The difficulty in Matthew 27:50-53 is of a different variety. Trevena complains that an event so unusual as this, had it occurred would have been be recorded in many extra-biblical sources, especially since the largely illiterate peoples of the Middle East managed to record the teachings, birth and resurrection of Christ. Implied here is an augment from silence (argumentum e silentio) against the historicity of the rising of the saints. Though the assumption (that it would be recorded in many extra-biblical sources) itself is dubious, the entire difficulty evaporates if the rising of the saints is intended by the author to be an apocalyptic symbol. Since this option remains consistent with the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy and taken seriously be a variety of evangelical scholars, we can be thoroughly open as to how to interpret this passage and to think about it’s historicity if a literal interpretation is preferred.[9]

What is interesting here is that Trevena implicitly admits multiple, extra-biblical accounts will exist if an event truly occurred. Given this he should have no trouble admitting the fourth fact of the disciples belief that God raised Jesus from the dead. Additionally, since the bias for accepting the biblical accounts as valuable source material is at this stage completely unjustified, there should be no trouble accepting the other three facts: the burial, the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances, as all of these are abundantly and independently attested.

Summary

To sum up I must insist that Trevena deals with the four historical facts on offer directly, instead of irrelevant generalities on the reliability of the Gospels. We are engaged in a debate on their resurrection of Jesus–not biblical inerrancy. If he is to continue to spouse the position that the resurrection of Jesus is a fiction, I must also insist that he propose a naturalistic account of those facts so he can shift from the agnostic position consistent with Christianity he has been defending. On pain of rationality, such a naturalistic account should outstrip the resurrection hypothesis in fulfilling the conditions for the best explanation. In the absence of an overwhelming argument for atheism, I think the Christian is doubly warranted in believing God raised Jesus from the dead.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Appendices 

Comparing the Genealogies of Jesus

As I have already noted, difficulties like this could be totally irreconcilable yet would still not effect my case for resurrection of Jesus. Further, these genealogies are not tied to the resurrection narratives, and less so are they tied to the creedal material quoted by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-5.

As noted by Trevena the two genealogies (Mt. 1:1-17; Lk. 3:23-38) are different between David and Joseph. The most commonly accepted suggestion accounting for this difference is that Matthew is tracing the legal descent of Jesus (naturally terminating with Abraham who received the covenant that “through your seed all nations on earth will be blessed,” Gen. 22:18) moving from David to Solomon (Mt. 1:6; 2 Sa. 12:24), while Luke is tracing the physical descent of Jesus (naturally terminating in Adam, the first man) moving from David to Nathan, a little known son of David (Luke 3:31; 2 Sa. 5:14). The lineages diverge at David and converge at Joseph, who is the legal son of Jacob (Mt. 1:16) and the physical son of Heli (Lk. 3:23) by a levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10; cf. Gen. 38:8; Ruth 4:4-6), meaning Heli and Jacob were brothers. Interestingly, the Matthean genealogy uses the Greek word egennesen, which denotes being “begotten”, while the Lukan genealogy does not, translating descendants as “the son of.” Thus there is no contradiction in the genealogies, since it’s impossible for two men to beget the same child, but it is possible for the same child to be “the son of” two men: the natural son of Heli and the legal son of Jacob. To explain Jacob and Heli’s different linages the Roman historian Eusebius (c. 263–339 A.D.) states,

Matthan, whose descent is traced to Solomon, begot Jacob, Matthan dying, Matthat, whose lineage is from Nathan, by marrying the widow of the former, had Heli. Hence, Heli and Jacob were brothers by the same mother.[1]

This solution is handed down to us in his Ecclesiastical History (c. 325) who received it from the Epistle to Aristides by Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 160–c. 240), who was himself drawing on earlier tradition.[2]

[1] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Bk. 1: Ch. 7.

[2] Africanus gives the name of Jacob and Matthan’s mother, “By Estha, then—for such is her name according to tradition—Matthan first, the descendant of Solomon, begets Jacob; and on Matthan’s death, Melchi, who traces his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, having married her, as has been already said, had a son Heli” [italics mine]. See The Extant Writings of Julius Africanus: The Epistle to Aristides, ch. 3.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Hares that chew the cud

Trevena correctly states that hares do not chew the cud, while Lev. 11:16 states they do. Its important to realise that the list of clean and unclean animals here is not a twenty-first century science textbook intending to teach animal biology. It is intended as a practical guide for the ancient Israelite in selecting clean foods. Because the hare chews its food in a manner that looks like it chews the cud, it was necessary to point out that the hare is still unclean since the hoof is not divided. As are descriptions of the sun rising and setting, this description is technically incorrect but functionally useful. Insistence that these sort of factual inaccuracies represent a failure of the reliability of the text are dependent on ignorance of the genre, audience and purpose of the text.

To dispel the charge altogether, one need only assert that Hebrew phrase “chewing the cud” should not be understood in the modern technical sense, but in the ancient sense of a chewing motion that includes both rumination and refection in the modern sense.[1]

[1] See Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 89-90.

It’s easy to go through life without asking the hard questions about what we believe and why. But when faced with a tragedy or the searching questions of a skeptic, we can feel defenseless and unprepared. It’s only when we patiently listen to our doubts and consider objections to our faith that we can start to provide grounds for our beliefs and understand others who doubt.

Join us in February to hear from incredible speakers including Sean McDowell, Jeff Tallon, and Tim McGrew as we consider some of the toughest questions about Christianity. The conference will provide a full day of sessions, breakouts, lunch, and a panel discussion. Whether you are a high school student, at university, or simply interested in understanding more about the reasons for Christianity, we encourage you to come. Youth pastors, student leaders, and parents are also welcome.

WHEN:  Saturday, February 18  (10am- 4.30pm)
WHERE: Greenlane Christian Centre, 17 Marewa Rd, Greenlane, Auckland
COST: $10

Schedule:

10am Registration

10.30am Jeff Tallon – Is Science a Threat to Faith?

11.30am Sean McDowell (via skype) – Is Faith Blind?

12.15pm Lunch

1pm Breakout Sessions

Stream 1: Is morality relative and does it matter? – Matt Flannagan
Stream 2: How can one religion be “right” and the others “wrong”? – Trevor Mander
Stream 3: Why doesn’t God do something about the evil in the world? – Ben Carswell
Stream 4: Does God get angry when we doubt? – Jason Kumar and Dominic Bnonn Tennant

1.45pm Breakout Sessions (repeated)

2.30pm Tim McGrew (via skype) – Is the Bible Reliable?

3.30pm Q & A Panel – Ben Carswell, Jeff Tallon, Matt Flannagan, and Trevor Mander

Speakers:

• 
  

  Sean McDowell

  Sean is the founder and president of Worldview ministries, and a well known Christian educator, author, and apologist. He has a passion for reaching the younger generation with the gospel message, and has spoken for organizations such as Focus on the Family, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and Campus Crusade for Christ. He is the editor of the Apologetics Study Bible for Students, and has authored several books including Is God just a Human Invention? (with Jonathan Morrow) and ethiX: Being Bold in a Whatever World.

• 
  

  Jeff Tallon

  Jeff is Distinguished Scientist at Industrial Research Ltd and a former Professor of Physics at Victoria University. He is internationally known for his research in high-temperature superconductors, is a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand and in 2002 was awarded the Rutherford Medal, New Zealand’s highest science award.

• 
  

  Tim McGrew

  Tim is Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University. He is a world-class philosopher and apologist who has written and spoken extensively on the topic of miracles, the reliability of the New Testament, and the intellectual grounds for faith.

• 
  

  Matt Flannagan

  Matt is a theologian and prominent New Zealand Christian commentator, debater and blogger. He specialises in applied ethics and the interface between philosophy and theology. Currently, Matt works part-time as a teaching pastor and youth group leader for Takanini Church of Christ while he runs the popular blog MandM with his wife Madeleine.

• 
  

  Trevor Mander

  Trevor holds a Masters of Divinity and is one of New Zealand’s foremost Christian Apologists. He has a unique ability to communicate complex concepts while making them easy to understand with humour and enthusiasm.

Hosted in conjunction with the Evangelical Union and Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship.

Conference Page: thinkingmatters.org.nz/conference

Facebook Event Page: Facebook.com

Preliminaries

First, I would like to thank Mr. Malcolm Trevena for agreeing to debate me. I hope this exchange will benefit the both of us, as well as all the readers who persevere through to the end of this exchange. I will refer to my opponent from this point on by last name only, and hope that this convention for scholarly and professional decorum will not undermine the geniality of our exchange.

Introduction

The scandal of Christianity is that it is a religion grounded in historical events, which if they can be demonstrated to be false, would empty it of all meaning and power. Chief among those historical events is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.[1] Accordingly, if Christians are to maintain that their faith is reasonable in the current mental environment, it will be crucial to establish the resurrection of Jesus is a true fact of history against critics who argue otherwise.

Most people when they come to Christ do not do so on the basis of historical research. Rather, they come to know the great truths of the gospel, such as God’s existence, of Christ’s atoning life, death and resurrection, on the basis of an experience with the risen Lord Himself. This experience I take as veridical, and a fully legitimate grounding of knowledge. Even though the Christian is warranted in believing what happened 2000 years ago without studying history or philosophy, throughout the course of this debate I will be making my case without reference to this appropriate ground of knowledge. Instead I will be attempting to show that Jesus was raised from the dead in a manner that any responsible and fair-minded historian could accept when this received revelation is absent.

In this debate I will be arguing that there is credible evidence for regarding Jesus’ resurrection from the dead as historical. Malcolm will be arguing the opposing position that Jesus’ resurrection should be regarded as unhistorical. Notice that between fact and fiction there is a third position possible; namely, that Jesus’ resurrection should not be regarded as historical or unhistorical, but rather that any determination of the sort should be regarded as unjustifiable on historical grounds. This agnostic position is compatible with Christianity, since Christians, as I have already noted, do not generally accept Christianity on the basis of historical research or philosophical speculation. What this shows is that no one in this debate is without a burden of proof. With this in mind, I will be defending two main contentions.

(1) There are at least four credible facts that any adequate historical hypothesis must explain, namely, the burial of Jesus after his crucifixion, the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and that the disciples radically came to believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.

(2) The hypothesis God raised Jesus from the dead is the best explanation of those facts.

In this opening statement, I will first look at the historical data that can be recovered from that first Easter weekend. I will then evaluate the resurrection hypothesis: “God raised Jesus from the dead,” using the criteria for the best explanation.

The Historical Data

 (I) The burial

The burial of Jesus in the tomb is according to the eminent scholar John A. T. Robinson, “one of the earliest and best attested facts regarding Jesus.”[2] The reasons this tradition recommends itself include the following.

Jesus’ burial is abundantly attested in early, independent sources. These sources include Mark’s source material for the passion story, probably based on eyewitness testimony in Jerusalem within seven years of the crucifixion.[3] Included also is the kerygmatic confessional formula Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 which was received by him three years after his conversion, usually placed between one and three years after the crucifixion. That is between 34–36 A.D.[4] The critical scholar Richard Bauckham notes the consensus on this dating. [5]

Additional independent material is found in the sources informing Matthew, Luke, and John. The non-canonical Gospel of Peter speaks of the burial, as do the early sermons recorded in Acts which bear signs of having a source other than Luke, probably the apostle Peter himself. Thus we have at least five, and perhaps more, independent sources attesting to the burial of Jesus, two of which are extremely early.

The honourable burial by Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, a group that from a Christian perspective conspired to kill Jesus in a hastily gathered and illegal trial. Thus an understandable hostility existed between the Christians and the Sanhedrinists at that time. The sermons in Acts 2:23, 36; 4:10 say that the Jewish leaders crucified Jesus! The source of Mark’s passion narrative states the ‘whole council’ and all the chief priests, elders and scribes came together to condemn Jesus (Mk. 14:53, 55, 64). How remarkable is it then these early sources agree that an enemy of Christ had done the right thing by him? Since it is “almost inexplicable” why Christians would make this story up, Raymond Brown concludes the honourable burial by Joseph of Arimathea of Jesus is “very probable”.[6]

The necessity of burial in Jewish thinking. Jewish custom on burial practice of corpses, even those of enemies, is well attested to in canon (Gen. 23:4-19; 50:4-14; Josh. 24:32; 1 Sam. 31:12-13; 2 Sam. 2:4-5; 21:12-14; Num. 11:33-34; 1 Kings 11:15; Ezek. 39:11-16), reflected in the non-canonical Tobit, found in Josephus (Against Apion 2.29 §211; cf. 2.26 §205; J.W. 4.5.2 §317), and most eloquently in Philo (De Iosepho 5 §22–27). This was done for the sake of dead themselves and to avoid defilement of the land of Israel required by the Mosaic law, which states “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed by God; you shall not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance” (Deut. 21:22-23; c.f. Ezek. 39:14, 16). Jews applied this verse to victims of crucifixion (Acts 10:39; Gal. 3:13) and viewed the burial of the dead as their highest obligation, even before circumcision of one’s son and offering the Passover lamb.[7]

Roman acquiesced to Jewish customs regarding burial of crucified victims. The normal, typical procedure in peacetime was not to leave the body on the cross or to be tossed in an open grave, especially in close proximity to the Jewish population in Jerusalem and on the eve of the Passover holiday.[8]

No alternative burial narrative or tradition. If the New Testament account of Jesus’ burial is not reliable or it is false, then it is surprising that there is no other account of Jesus’ burial. This argument from silence is permissible since it is expected that some trace of an alternative account would persist, especially in Jewish writings. There are none however, and this is indicative of the general reliability of the New Testament’s burial account and that the location of Jesus’ tomb was known to be accurate.

(II) The empty tomb

By surveying the corpus of writings in historical Jesus research since 1975 in French, German and English, Gary Habermas has observed that approximately 75% of scholars regard the empty tomb as historical.[9] The following are just some of the twenty-three different arguments used to support these scholar’s conclusions.

The reliability of the burial account. If the burial account is basically accurate then the site of Jesus’ grave is known in Jerusalem to both Jews and Christians. Given that no Jew could have believed in a bodily resurrection without leaving behind an empty grave, it is a very short inference to the historicity of the empty tomb. The disciples would have never come to believe such an un-Jewish notion. Even if they had believed, preaching of the resurrection would have been folly had the grave still been occupied, and yet the earliest preaching of the resurrection took hold and flourished in the very city where Christ was crucified, the tomb was available for inspection and the message easily falsified. Moreover, Jewish authorities would have crushed any such belief in its embryonic form simply by pointing to the grave in the hillside or exhuming the body and parading it through the streets. Instead, the Jewish response to the resurrection message lay elsewhere.

For this reason, critics who deny the historicity of the empty tomb are also compelled to deny the historicity of the burial account. Yet, as we have seen, the evidence for the burial is very strong.

The earliest Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. In Matthew 28:11-15 is the story of the Roman guards at Jesus’ tomb reporting to the chief priests what happened (see Mt. 28:4) and how they responded.[10] The historicity of the guards at the tomb is less important than the concluding phrase, “And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.^” Even if we regard the story as an apologetic legend, it is nevertheless indisputable that there is a tradition-history of assertion and counter-assertion behind the narrative. At the time Matthew was writing this narrative the tradition-history was continuing to develop, but what was already commonly known the Jewish response to the preaching of the resurrection, this being “The disciples came and stole away his body.” This is remarkable for had the tomb been occupied the Jewish response would have been look at the tomb or to exhume the body. Instead their response presupposes the tomb was empty. This is enemy attestation, one of the more powerful canons of historical research.

The discovery of the empty tomb by women. In all four gospels it is a group of Jesus’ women followers who are the first witnesses to the empty tomb (Mt. 28:1-10; Mk. 16:1-8; Lk. 24:1-3; Jn. 20:1). What makes this incredible is that women occupied a very low rung on the Jewish social ladder – a reflection of the patriarchy of first century Palestine. Moreover, the testimony of women was regarded as so worthless that Josephus rules it out “on account of the levity and boldness of their sex” (Antiquities IV.8.15). Though their testimony was admissible in court on some matters, given the general reluctance of the Mediterranean world at the time to accept a woman’s testimony on crucial matters, most scholars hold that the gospels would not have made women the chief witnesses to the empty tomb unless they actually were.[11] Any latter legend would have certainly made males the chief witnesses and discovers of the empty tomb. That it is women who are the chief witnesses can only be explained by gospel writers faithfully recording what was to them, an embarrassing truth. This fulfills the criteria of embarrassment, another canon of historical research.

The empty tomb is multiply attested in early, independent sources. The 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 formula implies the empty tomb by stating, “he was buried and he was raised.” As the eminent British scholar N. T. Wright argues in The Resurrection of the Son of God, resurrection from the dead meant some sort of reanimation of the physical body, and that in the ancient mind necessitates an empty tomb. The phrase “on the third day” also implies an empty tomb. Since no one actually saw Jesus rise from the dead, for what reason did it come to be known as “the third day” other than it was on this day the tomb was found empty?

The empty tomb narrative is part of the pre-Markan passion source material. Since Mark is the earliest gospel his source is even earlier. The passage never refers to the high priest by name, assuming everyone knew who was being spoken of. Caiaphas was high priest between 18-37 A.D., so the source must be within seven years after Jesus’ death. Besides this the story is simple and lacks signs of legendary development, being uncoloured by the theological and apologetic motifs characteristic of later narratives.

Matthew is responding to prior tradition (Mt. 28:15) and so has sources independent of Mark. Luke has a source independent of Mark as he reports the disciples verifying the empty tomb, which is confirmed by John, also writing independently. Also in Peter’s sermons in the book of Acts (2:29-32; 13:36-37) he contrasts the grave of David and the grave of Jesus. These add four independent sources to the two very early sources mentioned above.

For these reasons the empty tomb is generally accepted as historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, “it is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.”[12]

(III) The appearances

After the crucifixion the disciples had experiences that they believed was the risen Jesus. The following reasons are why these appearances are a part of the historical bedrock.

Paul’s lists the eyewitnesses. We have already seen the creedal formula Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. The full passage is quoted here.

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received:

that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;
that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.

Peter. Cephas is the Aramaic form of Peter, a semitism which vouches for the authenticity of the creed. We know from Galations 1:18 that Paul spent time with Peter three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, where this tradition was most likely received and verified by him directly. The appearance to Peter is independently attested to in another old Christian tradition found in Luke 24:34.

The Twelve. This is vouched for by Paul who had contact with the twelve, and it is also attested to independently in Luke 24:36-42 and John 20:19-20.

The 500. This appearance is not multiply attested to. Paul does however add a parenthetical remark “most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” This is effectively saying, “The witnesses are there to be questioned, though some have died since.” [13] Since Paul would not have challenged his readers to seek out the witnesses if they did not exist, the historicity of the appearance to the 500 is historically on firm ground.

James. By the criterion of embarrassment and of multiple, independent attestation (Mk. 3:21, 31-35; Jn. 7:1-10) we have high historical certainty that James, the younger brother of Jesus, was a skeptic during Jesus’ ministry. The crucifixion would have confirmed to James that his brother’s messianic pretensions were delusory. Yet afterward he is counted among the apostles and becomes a leader in the church (Acts 1:14; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:9; 1 Cor. 9:5). From Josephus we see James was stoned to death for his faith sometime after 60 A.D. (Antiquities 20.200). What was it that affected this turnaround? Only a post-mortem appearance could have. The conversion of James is one of the surest proofs of the resurrection of Jesus.[14]

“All the Apostles.” Paul’s personal contact with the Apostles is the guarantee of this group, which is possibly a limited circle of Christian missionaries but wider than the Twelve (i.e. Acts 1:21-22).

Saul of Tarsus. Paul appends to the formula his own appearance experience, which radically changed his life. This appearance is attested to multiple times in Paul’s letters, and related in Acts 9:1-9 (c.f. 22:6-11; 26-12-18). Because he was a persecutor of Christians before his transformation on the Damasus road, his testimony can be classed as enemy attestation. Because he saw “Jesus our Lord” (1 Cor. 9:1) he was willing to enter a life of poverty, labor and intense suffering on behalf of Christ, eventually accepting martyrdom for his faith in Rome after 60 A.D. For this reason Paul is the darling of critical scholarship, providing superlative evidence that various individuals and groups, with various dispositions, experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his crucifixion.

Multiple, independent attestation of the gospel accounts. The accounts of Jesus’ post-mortem appearances in the gospels verify Paul’s list of eyewitnesses. Not mentioned by Paul are the women witnesses, independently attested to by Matthew and John (Mt. 28:9-10; Jn. 20:11-17). The omission in the creedal formula is probably due to the discomfort of citing female witnesses, and the gospels inclusion of the women fulfills the criterion of embarrassment. The appearances in Galilee are not in Paul’s list,[15] independently reported by Mark, Matthew, and John (Mk. 12; Mt. 28:16-20; Jn. 21).

The amount of evidence for the post-mortem appearances is incredible. Even the skeptical critic Gerd Lüdemann says, “It is historically certain that Peter and disciples had experiences after his death, in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”[16]

(IV) The disciples came to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The origin of the Christian movement itself hinges on the disciples belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.[17] Belief in the resurrection reversed the tragedy of the crucifixion. Luke Johnson, the New Testament scholar at Emery University muses, “Some sort of powerful transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement early Christianity was.”[18] If this mystery X is not the resurrection we are left with it being a construction either of Christian, Jewish or Pagan influences.

It obviously couldn’t be Christian as the disciple’s belief in Christ’s resurrection from the dead is absolutely foundational to Christian belief – there simply wasn’t any Christianity yet.

The parallels in pagan mythologies are spurious at best; either being symbols of the crop seasons or not in fact resurrections at all. Moreover there is no causal connection to Jewish society, as Jews despised these Pagan myths.[19]

The idea of resurrection in terms of Jewish influences was not unfamiliar (Ex. 37, Isa. 26:19, Dan. 5:2) and this idea flourished in the inter-testamental period.[20] But in Jewish thinking the resurrection of the dead differed in two fundamental respects; 1) it always happened at the end of the world, and 2) it always involved everyone – never a single person. Moreover, it never involved a Messiah that was shamefully executed as a criminal.[21]

But if the disciple’s belief cannot be explained by Christian, Jewish, or pagan influences, then X must be the resurrection. C. F. D. Moule writes, “If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with? The birth and rapid rise of the Christian church remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the church itself.”[22]

The Best Explanation

In his book Justifying Historical Descriptions, C. B. McCullagh lays out a conventional “theory of historical inference” capable of justifying belief in the truth of singular historical descriptions.[23] In meeting these criteria a hypothesis can be rendered more credible than alternative hypotheses with respect to the evidence.

Turing to an evaluation of the resurrection hypothesis: God raised Jesus from the dead.

Explanatory Scope. The resurrection hypothesis comfortably explains all of the four historical facts discussed above.

Explanatory Power. The historical data we do have is extremely probable on the ressurection hypothesis. If Jesus rose from the dead, then we would expect there to be an empty grave, and so forth.

Plausible. When placed in the context of Jesus’ unparalleled miraculous life, his radical self-conception, and his execution on the basis of his personal claims, the plausibility of the resurrection hypothesis grows exceptionally. When placed in a philosophical context of the evidence for God’s existence it no more implausible than rival hypotheses.

Contrivance. The resurrection hypothesis only introduces one additional hypothesis – that God exists. But this need not be an additional hypothesis if you already believe it. Thus the degree of contrivance is low.

Disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs. The resurrection hypothesis does not do anything to disconfirm the belief that dead men don’t rise naturally from the dead. The hypothesis is that Jesus rose supernaturally from the dead.

Exceeds rival hypothesis fufilling these conditions. After two millennia and three hundred years of intense biblical and historical criticism there is little chance a rival hypothesis will compare with the resurrection hypothesis. Many rival hypotheses have been proposed over the years, but each explanation suffers considerable weaknesses with respect to the evidence.

Conclusion

We have considered the evidence for four facts, which we can be sure are a part of the portrait of the historical Jesus. These facts are the burial, the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearance, and that the disciples radically came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. We have also seen that the resurrection hypothesis fulfills the conventional criteria in historical investigation for inference to the best explanation.

For Trevena, it will not be enough that he simply questions my case for Jesus’ resurrection. This would simply leave us with the position of agnosticism regarding Jesus’ resurrection. In order to establish the resurrection of Jesus is a fiction, absent an overwhelming argument for atheism, he must also propose an explanation of the historical data that exceeds the resurrection hypothesis in fulfilling the criteria for best explanation. Unless and until he does so, the rational person cannot be blamed for believing God raised Jesus from the dead.

I hear the best politicians these days are the ones who can unashamedly equivocate on the meaning of “is”, or tell the filthiest lies with a straight face and a slick smile.

On the assumption that there’s a shortage of such people in the world, I think it’s imperative we begin the Dawkins for Prime Minister Campaign immediately.

I was tipped off by an editorial in The Guardian yesterday, where Dawkins gives the final word on why he refuses to debate William Lane Craig. It’s a masterful piece of political spin-doctoring. “Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig,” he begins. “He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a “theologian”.”

Now, just last night I was watching Stephen Fry’s Planet Word, where he talks about the masterful way Goebbels used language to make the industrial-scale elimination of the Jews seem a perfectly reasonable thing. In fairness, Dawkins is no Goebbels, but he would have made a good propagandist.

Notice how he deftly frames his entire piece with aspersions on Craig’s credentials. From the alleged ignorance among his philosopher friends of Craig’s name, to the scare quotes around “theologian”.

Of course, if Dawkins’s audience were savvy enough to check for themselves, as hopefully at least some of them are, a simple Google search would show what utter garbage this is. Here’s how Wikipedia, hardly a sympathetic source, introduces Craig:

…an American analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist. He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and the philosophy of religion, specifically the existence of God and the defense of Christian theism. He has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion and his defense of the Kalam cosmological argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy. He has authored or edited over 30 books including The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology… [etc]

What should we conclude from the fact that Dawkins’s professors of philosophy haven’t even heard of Craig?

Either that these fellows are quacks, or—more likely—that even in an underpopulated field like philosophy the chances of knowing a fraction of the professionals in your discipline is pretty small. For example, I have a three-pronged profession: copywriting, marketing, and web design. Those combine into a fourth profession called conversion-rate optimization. Do you think I’ve heard of even one tenth of the most successful copywriters, marketers, web designers, and CRO experts? I seriously doubt it.

For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”.

What Dawkins means to say is that ever since Craig destroyed the sophomoric arguments in the The God Delusion he has wanted to advance the discussion with Dawkins, and hopefully reveal to all his slavering fanboys how little substance there is to his position. Craig doesn’t want people believing lies—more than can be said for Dawkins, given the rank disingenuousness of his editorial.

Dawkins of course has consistently balked at debating Craig, presumably because he doesn’t want it to be publicly revealed that his arguments haven’t the slightest ability to stand up to rigorous analysis. It wouldn’t look good on his CV.

Craig’s latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice.

One of the greatest “refutations” you can employ is simply to state the facts with a sarcastic slant that implies only an imbecile would accept them. But the accusations of cowardice are perfectly accurate. Dawkins is a coward in the same way he is a bully. He enjoys notoriety and taking shots at Christianity in a medium where he’s got all the control. He can feel like a big man publishing best-selling books aimed at people with even less schooling in critical thinking than he has. But like any bully, if you confront him and threaten him with a bloody nose, he’s quick to disappear.

Dawkins reminds me of Draco Malfoy after Hermione socked him in the kisser in The Prisoner of Azkaban. “Not a word to anyone, understood? I’m gonna get that jumped-up mudblood, mark my words!” he rants to his friends as they beat a sniveling retreat. Yeah right Malfoy.

I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I’m looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury.

Strange—aren’t these people “theologians” with scare quotes? So why are they more worthy than Craig? Could it be because they’ve got less credentials than him? Because they haven’t already published work that obliterates Dawkins’s arguments against God? I guess it’s probably something like that.

After some more accusations of self-promotion, which ring about as hollow as a pot beating on a black kettle, Dawkins turns to Craig’s “dark side”.

You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered.

He then quotes Craig’s defense of God’s actions toward the Canaanite children, concluding: “Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?”

Well, not to state the obvious, but an evolutionary context justifies them pretty well. Surely Dawkins can’t have forgotten writing about how “a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make[s] nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not.” Surely he can’t have forgotten that “any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment.”

If a truly scientific view of the world makes nonsense of blame and responsibility, then certainly there’s no sense in which genocide, or the defense of genocide, is unjustified. There’s no moral dimension to it whatsoever. So why is Dawkins borrowing moral norms he inherited from Christianity to judge Craig, instead of taking the rational approach and admitting there’s no reason whatsoever to condemn genocide, given what he believes?

Well, I suppose it’s because that wouldn’t make for a very good smear campaign.

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t.

This seems oddly forced coming from the man who looks forward to the day when religion is only tolerated behind bars at zoos. But then, it’s all a giant smokescreen anyway; a diversionary tactic. Dawkins needs to use sleight of hand to direct his audience’s attention toward Craig’s character assassination, so they won’t notice how Craig has already assassinated Dawkins’s arguments—and would do so again given half a chance.

Dawkins is clearly cut out to be a master politician. Let’s get him out of the intellectual sphere and put him where he belongs. Dawkins for Prime Minister!

Update: James Anderson and Oxford historian Tim Stanley have also weighed in with their comments. Anderson is typically incisive, concluding that “In the end, all Dawkins has really told us is that he won’t debate Craig because he finds Craig’s views personally offensive. It’s not that Craig’s views are unethical… It’s just that Dawkins…is disgusted — and that’s all there is to it. Even if that were the real reason for his refusal to debate Craig, it would hardly be a compelling one.”

The final details of the tour are still being arranged, but here’s the schedule as it presently stands:

Monday 17th October 2011
7.30pm, Debate: “Does God Exist?“
Public Debate with Stephen Law (lecturer in Philosophy at Heythrop College, London and Editor of the magazine of the Royal Institute of Philosophy THINK). Arranged by Premier Radio.
Westminster Central Hall, London

Tuesday 18th October 2011
12.45pm, Lecture: “The Evidence for God”
Imperial College London, London
Get the live feed here.

6.30pm, Lecture “A Moral Argument for the Existence of God ; can we be good without God?”
University of London Union, Malet Street, London

Wednesday 19th October 2011
7.30pm, Public lecture on Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design followed by a panel response
St. Andrew the Great, Cambridge

Thursday 20th October 2011
7.30pm, Debate at the Cambridge Union: “This House Believes that God is not a Delusion” (Not open to the public)
Proposing the motion: William Lane Craig and Peter S. Williams
Opposing the motion: Arif Ahmed and Andrew Copson
The Cambridge Union, Cambridge

Friday 21st October 2011
7.30pm, Debate: “Does God Exist?“
Debate with Professor Peter Millican (Gilbert Ryle Fellow and Professor of Philosophy at Hertford College, Oxford University).
The Great Hall, Birmingham University, Edgbaston

Saturday 22nd October 2011
9.30am – 5.30pm Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference
William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, John Lennox, and Peter J. Williams
Westminster Chapel, London

Monday 24th October 2011
7.30pm, Lecture: “The Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection”
Southampton Guildhall, Southampton

Tuesday 25th October 2011
7.30pm, Lecture – “Is God a Delusion?” A Critique of Dawkins’ The God Delusion
[or a debate with Richard Dawkins if he should accept the invitation]
Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford

Wednesday 26th October 2011
7.30pm, Debate: “Does God Exist?”
Debate with Dr Peter Atkins (former Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University).
University Place Lecture Theatre, Manchester University, Oxford Road, Manchester

Some of the events will be webcast (access the stream at www.livestream.com/reasonablefaithtour2011), so those of us outside the UK will still get a chance to watch or listen in. We’ll live tweet the debates, if they’re available, so make sure you’re following us on twitter.

Thinking Matters Tauranga and Holy Trinity Tauranga have partnered together to produce a new fortnightly apologetics series for young people called “Thinking Matters in a Whatever World”. The series runs from August to December and is hosted at Holy Trinity, Cnr 3rd Ave and Cameron Rd, Tauranga (New Zealand).

For more info see here.

To be kept up to date with events, speakers and special announcements – like us on Facebook here: www.facebook.com/thinkingmattersyouth

Here are the details:

Tues 26 July – Ethics: What Does God have to do with it? Panel Discussion
7pm
Room OGGB4/260-073
Q&A featuring John Hare, Mark Murphy and Glen Pettigrove. Moderated by Matt Flannagan.

Thurs 28 July – Divine Command Theory A public lecture.
4pm
Room 804-202, Fisher Building, 16 Waterloo Quadrant

The paper first defines what a divine command theory is and relates it to three differences between Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. It then discusses some recent versions of the theory, and replies to three main objections to it, ending with a brief discussion of divine command within Judaism and Islam.

Fri 29 July – Can we be good without God? A public lecture.
7.30pm
Library Theatre B15, Alfred Street

The paper argues that morality, as we are familiar with it in Western culture, originally made sense against the background of a set of beliefs and practices in traditional theism. In elite Western culture these beliefs and practices have now come into question and have been abandoned by many. The result is that morality no longer makes sense within that culture the way it once did. The paper will mention Immanuel Kant here, who put the point this way: morality without belief in God is indeed possible, but is rationally unstable. There are two problem areas in particular that the paper will stress. The first is the gap between the moral demand on us and our natural capacities to meet it. This gap produces the question: Can we be morally good? The second problem area is the source of the authority of morality. This produces the question: Why should we be morally good? The traditional theist answer to these questions has been that God enables us to live in the way we should, and that we should live that way because God tells us to live that way. The paper will look at various kinds of difficulty that arise when these traditional answers are no longer available.

[HT: Matt]

Here are the details:

A Godless Public Square: Do ‘Private’ Christian Beliefs Have a Place in Public Life?
A Jesus Week Panel Discussion
WHEN: 7-9pm Wednesday 3 August
WHERE: Lib B28

Christian theological convictions ought to impact the whole of life both in the private and public spheres; this is what the idea of an “undivided life” means, Jesus is Lord of all aspects of our lives.

Yet this consequence of Christian faith conflicts with a pervasive contemporary attitude: the view that that religion is fundamentally a private matter. It is accepted that a Christian is free to utilise theological convictions when they make decisions about their own life but in a pluralistic society it is increasingly deemed inappropriate to bring such convictions into public discussions about morality, law, politics, economics, education, scholarship and so on. The desire to influence society with Christian ideals or to convert others to the faith is viewed by many as an intolerant desire to impose one’s private views onto others.

It is widely accepted that theological convictions can govern churches and the private lives of believers yet we are told that the public square – government, public policy, the courts, the academy, education, business, arts, media, etc – should be secular only.

This event looks at this issue. The conversation will span Theology, Philosophy and Law led by a panel made up of Christian representatives from each discipline along with you the audience.

Up for discussion are issues like:

- Is it wrong for Christians to impose their ‘private’ religious beliefs onto others?
- Is secularism the neutral perspective it is claimed to be?
- Are public expressions of religion regulated by law?

Bring your own questions and ask them at the Q & A session.

This event is brought to you by the Evangelical Union and Thinking Matters as part of Jesus Week.

Panel:

• Dr Matthew Flannagan – PhD in Theology
• Dr Glenn Peoples – PhD in Philosophy
• Madeleine Flannagan – LLB and Post-Graduate Law Student

• The Facebook page is here