Two egalitarian claims: Mary as apostle to the apostles, and Junia in Romans 16

Mike previews the two main egalitarian arguments he will address.

Scholarly consensus favors inclusive reading (Junia as apostle)

Mike acknowledges the current state of scholarly opinion.

Majority of scholars who affirm Junia as apostle think she was not highest-rank apostle

Mike makes a crucial distinction within the scholarly consensus.

Burer-Wallace thesis: consensus arrived at with thin evidence

Mike presents the paper's opening claim.

Burer-Wallace syntactical argument: dative = 'well known to,' genitive = 'well known among'

Mike explains the core syntactical argument of the paper.

Joseph Smith's claim that 'bara' means 'organize' is inaccurate; traditional Jewish and Christian scholarship has consistently supported ex nihilo creation.

Mike briefly rebuts Smith's Hebrew argument, pointing to the scholarly consensus and encouraging viewers to research it themselves.

Which Gospel was written first — Mike defers to scholarly consensus and warns of the 'house of cards' nature of Gospel dating arguments

Q&A — Cam Spears's question about Gospel authorship dates

Question from 'Pine Creek Doug': do you accept the scholarly consensus that six of Paul's letters are forgeries? — Mike does not accept this

Q&A — atheist YouTuber Doug from 'Pine Creek' asks about Pauline authorship

Q&A: The pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11, woman caught in adultery) was likely not in the original Gospel of John

Viewer asks about the scholarly conclusion that the 'cast the first stone' story is a later addition.

Earlier 20th-century scholarship (especially the Jesus Seminar) treated the Gospels as myths, but current scholarly consensus has shifted. Graham Stanton (King's College London) and David Aune (Notre Dame) both argue the Gospels fit the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios), which aimed to faithfully record historical fact even with theological purpose.

Treating the Gospels as ordinary historical documents and applying standard historical methodology, scholars (even skeptical ones) reach broad consensus on a set of historical facts about Jesus. These facts, assembled together, constitute a powerful cumulative case for the Gospel narrative.

The vast majority of historians — including skeptics — affirm Jesus' historical existence. Only a tiny handful of scholars (Price, Carrier) deny it, and Winger notes they represent a fringe position.

Historians accept that Jesus was baptized by John as historically reliable, partly due to the criterion of embarrassment — early Christians would have had reason to explain away or omit a detail where Jesus submits to a baptism of repentance, suggesting it is not invented.

Scholars broadly agree that during his ministry, people viewed Jesus as a miracle worker and exorcist. Even without affirming the miracles themselves occurred, historians confirm this was the contemporary popular perception.

Historians broadly agree that Jesus himself understood his mission in eschatological terms — that he was bringing in the kingdom of God. This is Jesus's own self-understanding as reconstructed by historical methodology.

There is near-universal scholarly consensus that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This is treated as one of the most firmly established facts of ancient history.

Historians broadly agree the disciples sincerely claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his death and genuinely believed this. The question of what explains those claims is debated, but the existence of the belief itself is accepted as historical.

Historians broadly agree that Paul genuinely converted as a result of what he at least believed was an appearance of the risen Christ, representing a dramatic reversal from his role as a persecutor of Christians.

A majority (though not full consensus) of scholars accept that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea and that the tomb was subsequently found empty. Winger treats this majority position as significant in building the resurrection case.

Charles Talbert (1977) identified the Gospels as ancient biography; Richard Burridge confirmed it

The scholarly turning point on Gospel genre.

Habermas's 2005 scholarly consensus paper on resurrection appearances

Academic consensus on resurrection appearances

Gary Habermas's scholarly consensus claim: early data report the martyrdoms of Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and Paul; few scholars doubt this

Citing the scholarly consensus on apostolic martyrdoms

Scholarly consensus: Jesus mythicism is not a live discussion in academic New Testament studies or history

Mike Licona characterizes the state of scholarly opinion on mythicism

Bart Ehrman's statement: mythicist view has no foothold among modern critical scholars

Quoting agnostic/atheist scholar to demonstrate non-Christian scholarly consensus

Maurice Casey (agnostic) concludes mythicist arguments are completely spurious, put forward by incompetent and unqualified people

Quoting another non-Christian scholar on mythicism

Joseph Hoffmann (agnostic, Harvard/Oxford) calls mythicists the greatest threat to calm academic study of religion next to fundamentalism

Third non-Christian scholar quoted condemning mythicism

The Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities 18.63) was interpolated by a Christian, but most scholars think an authentic Josephus reference to Jesus underlies it

Scholarly consensus on the interpolation question in Josephus

Objection that scholars affirm historicity only because they signed faith statements is refuted by citing atheist/agnostic scholars who agree

Responding to the claim that Christian bias explains scholarly consensus on historicity

Suggestion to mythicists: attend the Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting and ask scholars directly whether Jesus existed

Practical advice for those skeptical of scholarly consensus

Virtual scholarly consensus on historical facts about Jesus: lived in Palestine, believed special relationship with God, performed astonishing deeds, taught in parables, criticized Jewish leaders, crucified under Pilate

Summarizing the bedrock facts about Jesus accepted by virtually all historians including non-Christians

The consensus extends well beyond a minimal "one man named Jesus died by crucifixion" — substantial historical data about Jesus is agreed upon

Qualifying the extent of the historical consensus on Jesus

Bart Ehrman is in a small minority who deny Jesus was known as a miracle worker during his lifetime; most scholars disagree

Noting limits and minority positions within the broader consensus

Audience question: "Consensus holds Jesus existed but was not the Christ of the Gospels" — Licona: that is not a consensus position

Audience Q&A — addressing the claimed scholarly consensus against Gospel accounts

Only a handful of bona fide scholars deny Jesus's existence — Carrier said there were seven including himself, none widely respected in their disciplines

Quantifying the scholarly minority who deny Jesus's historical existence

The claim that Jesus was based on Jesus ben Ananias (from Josephus) is historically untenable given the robust bedrock consensus of historical facts about Jesus.

Q16 from Aaron Rampersad: what do you think about the claim that Jesus Christ was based on Jesus ben Ananias in Josephus's Jewish War?

Michael W. Smith removed his endorsement of the Passion Translation after Winger and others highlighted scholarly consensus that it is an unreliable translation. Bible Gateway also removed the TPT from their platform. Winger sees this as a positive cultural shift: mainstream evangelicalism is becoming aware that the Passion Translation is a sectarian, doctrinally distorted product rather than a legitimate Bible translation.

The Passion Translation: Michael W. Smith removes endorsement; Bible Gateway drops TPT