10 Patient Safety Culture in hospitals. Student’s Name Course Instructor’s name. Institutional Affiliation September 24, 2021. Patient Safety Culture in hospitals. Introduction. Patient safety is an issue of global public health concern. It refers to preventing patients from harm by implementing a care system that contains errors and learns from medical errors to build a safety culture involving healthcare workers, patients, and healthcare organizations. The safety of patients is critical in care quality. Many patients worldwide have suffered injuries, disabilities, and death due to medical errors or unsafe care. Patient safety culture can be defined as healthcare organizations' values about what is essential and how to operate to protect patients. To achieve a safe culture, organizations and their members must understand the values, norms, and beliefs about essential and attitudes and behaviors related to patient safety (Ali et al., 2018). To achieve a culture of safety, organizations should emphasize addressing disparities in the quality of care because the current challenges may worsen the efforts to narrow the gap. The key issues in establishing and providing accessible, responsive, and effective health systems are quality and safety. Poor quality and unsafe patient care increase mortality and morbidity rates throughout the world. About 75% of the healthcare delivery gaps are preventable, and approximately 10% of inpatient admission result from preventable patient harm (Amiri et al., 2018). Patient safety cultures with strong collaboration and leadership drive and prioritize safety (Wu et al., 2019). Strong leadership and commitment from manger are essential because their attitudes and actions influence the wider workforce's behaviors, perceptions, and attitudes. The other important aspects of patient safety culture include; effective communication, mutual trust, shared views on the importance of patient safety, engaging the healthcare workforce, acknowledging mistakes, and having a system that recognizes, responds, and gives feedback on adverse events (Alquwez et al., 2018). Patient safety culture is influenced by burnouts, hospital characteristics, communication, position, work area, commitment to the patient safety program, leadership, and patient safety resources and management. Thesis statement. Patient safety culture focuses on safety in health care by emphasizing the prevention, reporting, and investigation of medical errors that may cause patients' adverse effects, thus reducing harm by implementing necessary measures. Several factors are affecting the culture of patient safety in hospitals. This paper highlights patient safety culture and the factors affecting patient safety culture in public hospitals. Body. Patient safety culture encompasses shared values and beliefs about healthcare delivery system, training and education of healthcare workers on patient safety culture, commitment from leaders and managers, ope ...

1. 10
Patient Safety Culture in hospitals.
Student’s Name
Course
Instructor’s name.
Institutional Affiliation
September 24, 2021.
Patient Safety Culture in hospitals.
Introduction.
Patient safety is an issue of global public health concern. It
refers to preventing patients from harm by implementing a care
system that contains errors and learns from medical errors to
build a safety culture involving healthcare workers, patients,
and healthcare organizations. The safety of patients is critical in
care quality. Many patients worldwide have suffered injuries,
disabilities, and death due to medical errors or unsafe care.
Patient safety culture can be defined as healthcare
organizations' values about what is essential and how to operate
to protect patients. To achieve a safe culture, organizations and
their members must understand the values, norms, and beliefs

2. about essential and attitudes and behaviors related to patient
safety (Ali et al., 2018).
To achieve a culture of safety, organizations should emphasize
addressing disparities in the quality of care because the current
challenges may worsen the efforts to narrow the gap. The key
issues in establishing and providing accessible, responsive, and
effective health systems are quality and safety. Poor quality and
unsafe patient care increase mortality and morbidity rates
throughout the world. About 75% of the healthcare delivery
gaps are preventable, and approximately 10% of inpatient
admission result from preventable patient harm (Amiri et al.,
2018).
Patient safety cultures with strong collaboration and leadership
drive and prioritize safety (Wu et al., 2019). Strong leadership
and commitment from manger are essential because their
attitudes and actions influence the wider workforce's behaviors,
perceptions, and attitudes. The other important aspects of
patient safety culture include; effective communication, mutual
trust, shared views on the importance of patient safety,
engaging the healthcare workforce, acknowledging mistakes,
and having a system that recognizes, responds, and gives
feedback on adverse events (Alquwez et al., 2018). Patient
safety culture is influenced by burnouts, hospital
characteristics, communication, position, work area,
commitment to the patient safety program, leadership, and
patient safety resources and management.
Thesis statement.
Patient safety culture focuses on safety in health care by
emphasizing the prevention, reporting, and investigation of
medical errors that may cause patients' adverse effects, thus
reducing harm by implementing necessary measures. Several
factors are affecting the culture of patient safety in hospitals.
This paper highlights patient safety culture and the factors
affecting patient safety culture in public hospitals.
Body.
Patient safety culture encompasses shared values and beliefs

3. about healthcare delivery system, training and education of
healthcare workers on patient safety culture, commitment from
leaders and managers, open commutation concerning medical
errors and patient injury, a system of detecting and
investigating near misses and medical errors, and establishment
of a just culture. The organization's leadership should be
committed to developing and implement a culture of safety.
However, developing and implementing a culture of safety
should not be made at the expense of reducing the sense of
professional responsibility. Healthcare workers should be
adequately prepared to perform their duties. They should be
aware of their environment to eliminate distractions. In
addition, they should be vigilant in detecting hazardous
situations to prevent the occurrence of such cases.
Patient safety culture consists of psychological, behavioral, and
organizational components. The psychological component is
what individuals think, including their opinions, values,
attitudes, and beliefs. A safety culture requires that employees
should be trained on what safety entails. Safety should always
be the first goal in every health care organization. Most
organizations achieve patient safety by conducting safety
meetings and training healthcare workers. To achieve a
sustained improvement in safety, culture-specific measures,
such as executive work rounds, teamwork training, and creating
safety teams should be implemented. Other methods include;
structured response and rapid response teams, which can
effectively eliminate rigid unsafe culture in healthcare.
Factors influencing patient safety culture.
Burnout.
Different factors, including ineffective teamwork, psychological
and physical overload of health professionals, and unsuccessful
organizational processes, influence a patient safety culture.
Burnout impairs healthcare processes, teamwork, and personal
characteristics. Patient safety is one of the critical challenges in
healthcare today, and in many cases, it depends on healthcare
professionals because they are responsible for providing safe

4. and quality care. To achieve safety in healthcare, healthcare
professionals should be trained since most safety issues arise
from the psychological health of care providers, poor
communication, training, and lack of teamwork. Healthcare
workers should be trained on clinical practice guidelines, better
working conditions, adverse events and new technologies used,
infection prevention guidelines should be provided, and
emotional and psychological support offered to health
professionals.
Healthcare professionals’ wellbeing, anxiety, depression, and
burnout determine the patient-provider relationship and the
quality of care provided: poor wellbeing and high levels of
burnout result in poor patient care and outcomes. Burnout is
directly related to workplace conditions and is caused by
occupational stress mainly arising from the interaction with
other people. Concerning the expected risks, healthcare
professionals get exhausted during working hours, and therefore
they may fail to perform to standards, thus compromising safety
and quality of health.
Patient safety permeates cuts across individual, social, and
organizational factors which depend on human resources.
Burnout depends on characteristics such as human interaction
and physical, organizational factors. Adverse events are
complications that arise from patient care, caused by errors that
are not associated with the natural history of the disease.
Complications occurring as a result of medical errors are
referred to as avoidable adverse events.
Patient safety culture is essential in reducing and preventing
errors. According to the Joint Commission, safety culture is a
collection of values, beliefs, attitudes, competencies,
perceptions, and patterns of the behavior determining the
organization’s commitment to patient safety and quality of
care. A patient safety culture encourages employees to report
near misses and medical errors. Leaders need to implement and
support an environment where employees can speak up to learn
from unsafe conditions, adverse events, and close calls. Leaders

5. can achieve a patient safety culture by encouraging a non-
punitive and transparent approach to reporting. A just culture
that minimizes individual blame and focuses on reducing faults
causing adverse events improves patient safety culture.
Communication
Effective communication is essential when engaging and
providing care for patients. Communication is paramount for
better decision-making and the successful provision of patient-
centered care. Effective communication is essential throughout
the interaction between the provider and the patient as it
ensures that patients and families take part and make informed
decisions concerning their health. Communicati on is important
during diagnosis, assessment, treatment, and follow -up. Poor
communication can expose patients to harm. During a diagnosis
process in the emergency department, 23% of the patients were
not informed about their health. A quarter of them did not
understand the procedure to follow after leaving the emergency
department. Lack of such communication causes harmful
consequences and adverse events.
Effective communication and teamwork promote patient safety
culture. Constant communication between leaders and
healthcare workers improves patient safety culture. Breakdown
in communication between the healthcare provider and the
patient, caregiver, or family contributes to errors and adverse
events. Timely communication of patient progress and discharge
summaries are some of the patient safety culture components.
Poor communication from healthcare provides the leading cause
of medical errors. Inadequate communication contributes to
diagnosis-related malpractice claims.
Leadership
Effective leadership is important in healthcare to foster a
culture of patient safety (Carvalho et al., 2017). Healthcare
organization leaders encourage others to speak up, communicate
issues, and increase safety by promoting an environment of
psychological safety. Leaders can make timely decisions to
protect patients and healthcare workers. Eventually, leaders

6. promoting a positive organizational climate contribute to
employee job satisfaction, reduced medical errors, decreased
burnout, and generally to an improved culture of safety.
Influential leaders use a solid vision to inculcate a sense of
purpose and set the organization’s culture. Leadership
determines the organizational priorities and allocates resources
toward vital safety initiatives.
Leaders must develop and implement strategies that eliminate
intimidating behaviors in the organization (Gutberg & Berta,
2017). Tolerating unprofessional conduct within the
organization undermines patient safety. Lack of a system that
openly addresses such behaviors allows such employees to act
unprofessionally, and that kind of culture can be passed to new
employees. Timely action against such behaviors improves staff
retention and satisfaction, improves patient safety, enhances
reputation, risk-management experience, and creates a better
work environment.
Psychological Safety.
Psychological safety believes that an individual will not be
punished for speaking up or making an error. Psychological
safety is an essential component of patent safety culture and is
associated with burnout and patient safety. It encourages
creativity, transparency, speaking up, and courage when giving
your opinion. A psychologically safe environment allows
providers to discuss matters related to work-life balance, which
improves their wellbeing. To create psychological safety,
leaders should foster an environment where employees feel safe
communicating issues to patient care. Influential leaders
develop a sustainable communication and feedback mechanism
in the organization (Farokhzadian et al., 2018). This increases
the ability to react constructively to patient problems and accept
feedback from care providers. It will be challenging to achieve
a patient safety culture without open communication because
healthcare workers may fear reporting near misses and errors,
thus compromising patient safety.
Collaborative Teamwork

7. Teamwork among employees is essential for a patient safety
culture (Danielsson et al., 2017). Leaders should nurture the
skills of their employees to promote better patient care. Leaders
should also demonstrate a positive attitude which can be
contagious over time. If leaders work together with healthcare
workers, workers are empowered to provide high-quality safety.
Sharing data metrics is an example of collaborative teamwork.
Healthcare workers are more likely to comply with the demands
of workplace objects when they are well informed of why they
should do it (Smith et al., 2017). Collaborative partnership and
effective communication are vital in aligning with a common
goal.
Conclusion.
Enhanced patient safety can only be achieved through adopting
a culture of safety. Patient safety culture is an integrated pattern
of organizational and individual behavior, based on shared
values and beliefs, that constantly seeks to minimize patient
harm resulting from care delivery processes. Patient safety
should be a critical concern for all healthcare organizations and
healthcare workers. It is influenced by communication, the
wellbeing of healthcare workers, teamwork, availability of
resources, and working environment. Patient safety culture can
be referred to as a just culture because it entails providing care
with fairness. The two essential strategies for patient safety care
are; a system within which care providers report near misses
and injuries without blame, relation, or humiliation, and an
open and comprehensive reporting creating an environment that
is reliable in avoiding injuries and near misses (Lawati et al.,
2018).
References
Ali, H., Ibrahem, S. Z., Al Mudaf, B., Al Fadalah, T., Jamal, D.,
& El-Jardali, F. (2018). Baseline assessment of patient safety
culture in public hospitals in Kuwait. BMC Health Services
Research, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2960-x
Alquwez, N., Cruz, J. P., Almoghairi, A. M., Al-otaibi, R. S.,

8. Almutairi, K. O., Alicante, J. G., & Colet, P. C. (2018). Nurses’
perceptions of patient safety culture in three hospitals in Saudi
Arabia. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 50(4), 422-
431. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12394
Amiri, M., Khademian, Z., & Nikandish, R. (2018). The effect
of nurse empowerment educational program on patient safety
culture: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Medical
Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1255-6
Carvalho, R. E., Arruda, L. P., Nascimento, N. K.,
Sampaio, R. L., Cavalcante, M. L., & Costa, A. C. (2017).
Assessment of the culture of safety in public hospitals in
Brazil. Revista Latino-Americana de
Enfermagem, 25(0). https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-
8345.1600.2849
Danielsson, M., Nilsen, P., Rutberg, H., & Årestedt, K. (2017).
A national study of patient safety culture in hospitals in
Sweden. Journal of Patient Safety, 15(4), 328-
333. https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0000000000000369
Farokhzadian, J., Dehghan Nayeri, N., & Borhani, F. (2018).
The long way ahead to achieve an effective patient safety
culture: Challenges perceived by nurses. BMC Health Services
Research, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3467-1
Gutberg, J., & Berta, W. (2017). Understanding middle
managers’ influence in implementing patient safety
culture. BMC Health Services
Research, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2533-4
Lawati, M. H., Dennis, S., Short, S. D., & Abdulhadi, N. N.
(2018). Patient safety and safety culture in primary health care:
A systematic review. BMC Family
Practice, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0793-7
Smith, S. A., Yount, N., & Sorra, J. (2017). Exploring
relationships between hospital patient safety culture and
consumer reports safety scores. BMC Health Services
Research, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2078-6
Wu, C., Wu, H., Lee, Y., & Huang, C. (2019). What attributes
determine overall satisfaction in patient safety culture? An

9. empirical study of the perceptions of hospital staff in
Taiwan. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 49(1),
20180713. https://doi.org/10.1520/jte20180713
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
First level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
First level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

10. 3. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
First level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Second level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Second level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Third level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Third level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
First level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Second level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Second level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
First level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
First level Subheading as an example of a heading of longer
than a

11. single line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Second level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Second level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Third level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Third level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
First level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
First level Subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
45
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
First level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

12. First level Subheading as an example of a heading of longer
than a
single line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Second level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Second level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Third level subheading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
109
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
114
A. TITLE OF APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
B. TITLE OF APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
C. TITLE OF APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
D. TITLE OF APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
E. TITLE OF APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
F. TITLE OF APPENDIX F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
G. TITLE OF APPENDIX G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
H. TITLE OF APPENDIX H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
46
HOW A PHILOSOPHICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE TEXT OF
MARK 4:35-41 ILLUMINATES AN UNDERSTANDING OF
DIVINE AUTHORITY IN THE PERSON OF JESUS
by
MOISES A. ROBLETO
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty
of the James and Carolyn McAfee School of Theology
at Mercer University
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
Atlanta, GA

14. 2021
HOW A PHILOSOPHICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE TEXT OF
MARK 4:35-41 ILLUMINATES AN UNDERSTANDING OF
DIVINE AUTHORITY IN THE PERSON OF JESUS
by
MOISES A. ROBLETO
Approved:
_____________________________________________________
_ Date _____________
Dr. Jeffrey Willetts, Ph.D.
Faculty Supervisor for Thesis
_____________________________________________________
__ Date ____________
Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, Ph.D.
Faculty Advisor for Thesis
_____________________________________________________
__Date _____________
Karen G. Massey, Ph.D.
Associate Dean, Masters Degree Programs, School of Theology
_____________________________________________________
__Date _____________
C. Gregory DeLoach, D.Min.
Dean, School of Theology

15. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As with any project I have completed, many have been
responsible for my success. I wish first to thank the faculty of
the School of Theology at Mercer University. I would like to
certainly lend my appreciation to my thesis advisor, Dr. Jeffrey
Willetts a true Christian Philosopher of Religion for his time
and assisting or directing my path writing this essay and, Dr.
Lloyd Allen, a man whom I respect and admire deeply. Sincere
appreciation and with deep gratitude to my Old Testament
teacher Dr. deClaisse-Walford, this essay would have never
been completed without her input and professionalism and help
since the beginning of my academic endeavor.
While on the other hand, not directly related to my success in
academic life and business endeavors I would also like to thank
all that did not believe in me, especially my high school teacher
that told me I would never amount to anything. (Thank you so
much for being the impetus in all the good things I do)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION TO MODERNITY AND THE BIBLE 1
CHAPTER

16. TWO.......................................................................................
...................................................4
Christian Scholars and their Philosophical Attempts to Preserve
Traditional Readings of the Bible 4
Modern Sensibilities And Skeptical Understanding of the
Gospels 9
Ehrman’s Skepticism 11
CHAPTER THREE 25
METHODOLOGY 25
The Research Questions of this Project: Focused to Provide an
Illumination of Divine Authority in the Person of Jesus of
Nazareth 25
CHAPTER FOUR 28
RESULTS 28
The reliability of the Gospels is based on claims that are rooted
in history. As a New Testament historian, Dr. Craig approaches
the Gospels not as inspired Holy Scripture, but merely as a
collection of ancient writings dated during the first century C.E.
Our surprise as seminary students is that the majority of secular
and Christian scholars accept as historical facts events
mentioned in the Gospels. 28
The Reliability of Jesus's Miracles as Indicated in the New
Testament 32
CHAPTER FIVE 37
DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 37
Discussion: Gareth Moore’s Philosophical Assessment of the
Text in Mark 4:35-41 37
The Miracle in Mark 4:35-41 39
Importance of the Study 49
Conclusion: Confirming the Activity of God 49
ABSTRACT

17. MOISES A. ROBLETO
HOW A PHILOSOPHICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE TEXT OF
MARK 4:35-41 ILLUMINATES AN UNDERSTANDING OF
DIVINE AUTHORITY IN THE PERSON OF JESUS
Under the direction of JEFFREY WILLETS, Ph.D.
Explicitly or implicitly and whether we like it or not, there are
problems which arise when modern Christians read the Bible as
a Christian text, as part of their religious practice. The focus of
this study will be on the philosophical problems caused by the
historical distance between the Biblical world and ours. Those
problems arise when a modern lens is applied to an ancient
religious text. In this thesis, I will give particular focus to the
ways that conceptual confusions arise in understanding the text
by providing a philosophical analysis of the concept of miracles
in Mark 4:35-41 and how this Biblical account in the life of
Jesus and his disciples illuminates the concept of divine
authority. I will show how modern assumptions can distort
readings and meanings of the text. I will also show how the
reading of the text may be freed from these confused
assumptions by making a philosophical assessment of the
concept of miracles to support the claim of Jesus’ divinity.
There are many philosophical questions to be asked about what
we find in the text of Mark 4:35-41 regarding a miracle
performed by Jesus and how we can ascribe sense to it as
twenty-first century readers of the Bible. The stated purpose for
undertaking this inquiry was to study the concept of “Divine
Authority” this was accomplished by means of a thorough study
of leading postmodern scholars own published writings, and
lectures, giving special consideration to the work in Philosophy
of Christianity by Gareth Moore. How are we to understand the
story of Jesus calming a storm? Such writings tended and
clarified what we find in the story of a Storm Stilled. The story
is not told in causal terms, it is not a matter of cause and effect,
in fact, the story is told as one simple command and nature

18. obeys. And so in this essay I respond to the disciples question,
not “How did he do it” but, the real question, “What sort of a
man is this, that even the winds and sea obey him?”
v
CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION TO MODERNITY AND THE
BIBLE
Explicitly or implicitly and whether we like it or not, there are
problems which arise when modern Christians read the Bible as
a Christian text, as part of their religious practice. The focus of
this study will be on the philosophical problems caused by the
historical distance between the Biblical world and ours. Those
problems arise when modern lens are applied to an ancient
religious text. In this thesis, I will give particular focus to the
ways that conceptual confusions arise in understanding the text
by providing a philosophical analysis of the concept of miracles
in Mark 4:35-41, and how this Biblical account in the life of
Jesus and his disciples illuminates the concept of divine
authority. I will show how modern assumptions can distort
readings and meanings of the text. Moreover, I will show how
the reading of the text may be freed from these confused
assumptions by making a philosophical assessment of the
concept of miracles to support the claim of Jesus’ divinity.
There are many philosophical questions to be asked about what
we find in the text of Mark 4:35-41 regarding a miracle
performed by Jesus and how we can ascribe sense to it as
twenty-first century readers of the Bible.
One of the most important questions that the world has

19. continuously grappled with is: Who is Jesus? Answering the
question forms the task of what is referred to as Christology,
which describes the study of the person of Christ. Moreover, the
subject of Christology describes a branch of theology that
explicitly deals with Christ’s person both human and divine.
There is no seminary student who is not under some obligation
to study who Jesus is. The Christian
Scriptures are foundational to that understanding and the
Gospels are central to this knowledge.
However, assessing the sense of the Gospels for Christian
understanding is full of difficulties including the gap between
modern and ancient forms of understanding.
The Gospel of Mark is the earliest of the four gospels within the
New Testament and as such, perhaps, the most authentic of the
four Gospels.[footnoteRef:1] This fact and that it survives at
all is important to me. I find the book of Mark appealing
because it not only shows the humanity of Jesus, but also
represents Him as one with divine authority. According to
accounts within the Gospels themselves, Jesus taught uniquely,
and when He spoke, His disciples somehow knew He had an
authority that was unlike any other prophet sent before him.
During my studies of the Old Testament, time and again I have
seen that God is not to be construed as the name of a person or a
thing. And yet in the Gospels, there is a clear indication that the
person of Jesus is one in whom we may recognize the divine.
The focal point of this research will be the passage of The
Gospel of Mark 4:35-41: [1: Peter M Head, “Christology and
the Synoptic Problem, an Argument for Markan Priority,”
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 5]
That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, “Let us
go over to the other side.” Leaving the crowd behind, they took
him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other
boats with him. A furious squall came up, and the waves broke
over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. Jesus was in the

20. stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to
him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”He got up, rebuked
the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind
died down and it was completely calm.He said to his disciples,
“Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?” They were
terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and
the waves obey him!”[footnoteRef:2] [2: All scripture citations
are from New International version (NIV) unless otherwise
noted.
]
When this passage is analyzed, there are difficulties of
understanding the text and that is the kind of challenges
contemporary Christians face, which makes the understanding
of the Bible hard. We see that the ideas underneath the
disagreements are philosophical. And the question is whether
those underlying assumptions by modern scholars are not
themselves part of the confusion in understanding the biblical
text. My goal, through grammatical philosophical analysis, is to
analyze and clarify how to read the biblical text in order to
avoid the problems certain modern readings inevitably create.
In other words, what does it mean that Jesus, in the Gospel of
Mark, is doing impossible things, things not possible for a mere
human? What does it mean that Jesus can command nature, and
nature obeys?
First, the philosophical approach to the question will be
grammatical rather than analytic or hermeneutical. This
approach was pioneered by the twentieth century philosopher
Ludwig Wittgenstein, and has been further developed in the
philosophy of religion by such figures as D.Z. Phillips, Peter
Winch, Norman Malcolm, Rush Rhees, Gareth Moore, and
Stephen Mulhall. Secondly, for the last two centuries the
subject of the reliability of the Gospel of Mark has found no
rest. The size of this paper does not permit to include a
comprehensive examination of all opinions on this topic. This

21. inquiry will focus its reflection on Mark 4:35-41 only. There
are many accounts in the Gospels of miracles performed by
Jesus. I am focusing on Mark 4:35-41 primarily because Mark
is the earliest of the Gospels, and therefore more reliable
historically, and because this particular account in Mark is a
good example of the relationship between the person of Jesus
and the miraculous.
60
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATUREChristian Scholars and
their Philosophical Attempts to Preserve Traditional Readings
of the Bible
This next chapter successfully examines the thoughts and
perceptions of William Lane Craig on the credibility of the
miracles performed by Jesus in the New Testament. One of the
most important tools of communication for modern philosophers
is the way they understand traditional readings of the biblical
text. A believe in Jesus as Christ-the Messiah-separate church,
synagogues, Christians and Jews.[footnoteRef:3] For more than
2000 years, billions of people have believed that the teachings
of Jesus provide them salvation in this world and in the
hereafter as well. The teachings of Jesus have been translated to
almost all major languages, and people believing in his faith are
present in all parts of the world. Christianity is today the
biggest religion in the world, with 2.4 billion followers. It is not
just the biggest religion of today, but it has remained as one of

22. the key religions throughout history since its inception. For the
past 2000 years, it has been expanding from one region to
another and became a source of meaning and enlightenment for
billions of people throughout this time. “Even the most critical
historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked
as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of
Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius
Pilate and continued to have followers after his
death.”[footnoteRef:4] And this is not just because of his
teachings, but also his miracles from which people and students
of the Bible even today find inspiration. [3: Amy-Jill Levine,
The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the
Jewish Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 2016), 17] [4: Luke
Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the
Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San
Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 123.]
The teachings, miracles, stories, words, and deeds of Jesus have
been recorded in four key Gospels, The writings of Mathew,
Mark, Luke and John, and they have passed on from generation
to generation. The Gospels acted as the main source of
information, but the perception and comprehension of Gospels
have changed and evolved over time. The historical study of the
Bible started as the Gospels perceived as supernatural histories
before the age of enlightenment. The masses believed the
stories shared in the Gospel without any critical analysis. They
believed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and that he
died, and God raised him from death. During the enlightenment
phase, the perception about the Gospels changed. Theologians
of the enlightenment began to critically analyze the teachings
and miracles of Jesus presented in the Gospels and the quest for
the historical Jesus continues. Under this perception, scholars
provided logical rationale and reason for the stories, deeds, and
actions mentioned in the Gospels. This process continued till
1835 when "The Life of Jesus Critically Examined" by David
Friedrich Strauss was published. Then a new era started a type

23. of historical guide to the life of Jesus with attention to
historical authenticity of the Gospels. As perceptions about the
Gospels changed, the perception of Jesus also changed. Today,
questions are raised about the possibility of Jesus born of
Virgin Mary and his resurrection after death. The miracles of
Jesus are questioned even by the brightest minds of today.
William Lane Craig is one of the most influential philosophers
who openly questions the credibility and reliability of the
miracles performed by Jesus. He claims that most of the stories
about miracles of Jesus are legendary and are addressed only by
legends. Still, he gives the benefit of the doubt that Jesus
carried out these miracles as he understands the miracles
a result of divine and supernatural causality.[footnoteRef:5]
Craig claims that when historians critique the four primary
sources of the life of Jesus; even the most doubtful person
cannot fail to believe that Jesus cast out demons and healed the
sick through his miracles, as the synoptic Gospels presuppose
Jesus as a miracle worker. Craig believes that the resurrection
hypothesis, in turn, is dependent on the existence of God, so his
argument begins addressing the criteria of credibility which
enables readers to develop a specific interest in the preaching
and teachings of Jesus as a historical event. In this light,
Christian scholars ended up linking Jesus to these miracles such
as casting out demons and treating the sick[footnoteRef:6] But
most believers today recognize that this idea of mythological
leverage is traditionally inappropriate. On the other hand,
Christian fundamentalist strongly oppose modern scholarship,
and biblical criticism. The extraordinary life of Jesus as a
miracle worker is only necessarily an indication that a person is
divine. [5: William Lane Craig, “Rediscovering the Historical
Jesus: The Evidence for Jesus,” Reasonable Faith 2019,
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-
writings/historical-jesus/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-the-
evidence-for-jesus/ (accessed August 27, 2020).
] [6: Ibid.
]

24. Dr. Craig states that the focus of discussion around the
reliability of the Gospels, and miracles of Jesus is misplaced. It
is not just the number of manuscripts or age of manuscripts
which dictate the authenticity, but it is also the rationale behind
these miracles which prove its correctness.[footnoteRef:7] All
the manuscripts from the 1st century and 21st century carry the
same stories, actions, words, and deeds of Jesus. Despite the
general belief by Barth Erhman that the manuscripts have been
corrupted or changed and a contrast between the first
manuscripts available to them and today's manuscripts show
that there is not even a single difference in doctrine or theology.
Furthermore, in the New Testament, there are approximately
140,000 words, and among this number, only 14,000 words are
not authentic or do not have sufficient evidence to prove their
authenticity. [7: Levine, The Misunderstood Jew, p.17]
This number is very minimal and presents only 1% of the total
word count. In other words, there exists substantial proof for
the remaining 99% of words. This means that not only is the
New Testament available today for preaching is as accurate as
its first-ever available version, but it also contains the
information which has been authenticated by sufficient
sources.[footnoteRef:8] There exists a distinctive feature
between Dr. Craig's work and the work of Friedrich Strauss.
David Friedrich Strauss, in his book "The Life of Jesus
Critically Examined," stated that the stories, words, deeds and
miracles explained in the gospels are not actual stories but
myths. He provided a unique understating of myth. He said that
myth does not have a physical existence, but it is also true.
Strauss said that these miracles attached to Jesus's name did not
happen, but it does not mean that his early followers
misunderstood natural events as supernatural miracles. In his
opinion, these miracles and stories are created to convey the
attributes and abilities of Jesus. Similarly, Dr. Craig says that a
miracle is an event that the natural causes at a time and place

25. cannot produce at that time and place. In other words, they
reflect the life of Jesus, his abilities, powers, and divine nature.
They do not have to be historically proven because they are not
presentations of history. History might state something different
because there are other accounts of the past, but the Gospels are
a primary source of information about Jesus, his life, and his
teachings. Another perspective shared by Dr. Craig is that the
miracles of Jesus have more connection with faith than
scientific reasoning. For example, Jesus’ birth might seem
biologically impossible, but in terms of faith and belief it is
entirely possible. If one believes that God exists and he is the
creator of this world, then logically we can infer that a powerful
God who is capable of creating the universe can also create a
human life without male intervention. What difference does it
make for God to give life a chance in the womb of a virgin
woman? [8: William Craig, “#10 Establishing the Gospels’
Reliability,” Reasonable Faith June 5 2007,
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-
answer/establishing-the-gospels-reliability (accessed August 27,
2020).
]
Similarly, the death and resurrection of Jesus are differentiated
perspectives in Mark and John's gospels. And since both are
contradictory, it indicates that only one story is accurate, But
Dr. Craig says that neither of the two is correct or
incorrect.[footnoteRef:9] It is not the way the story is told; It is
whatthe story told. Both stories accept Jesus left his home and
went to Jerusalem for his last meal. There, Jesus had
discussions with his followers, after which he was arrested and
crucified the next day. This process has some ambiguities
because of two distinct versions, but Craig argues that the spirit
of the story is more important than its structure. The order of
story could vary, but the spirit or soul remained intact. Dr.
Craig states that the fundamental truth of Christianity is
dependent on the general reliability of the

26. Gospel.[footnoteRef:10] He believes that the Gospels presents
four facts that can be demonstrated historically. Dr. Craig
writes in his published work that historian can examine the
historical grounds for belief in Jesus’s resurrection focusing
number one in the honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea,
number two the empty tomb, his post mortem appearances, and
the origin of the disciples’ belief in his
resurrection.[footnoteRef:11] According to Dr. Craig the
resurrection accounts are the best proof Christian have to claim
that God has revealed himself decisively in Jesus. The
resurrection is God’s vindication of Jesus’s radical claims to
divine authority.[footnoteRef:12] [9: William Lane Craig,
“Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: The Evidence for Jesus,”
Reasonable Faith 2019,
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-
writings/historical-jesus/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-the-
evidence-for-jesus/ (accessed August 27, 2020).
] [10: Ibid.] [11: William Craig, “#10 Establishing the
Gospels’ Reliability,” Reasonable Faith June 5 2007,
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-
answer/establishing-the-gospels-reliability (accessed August 27,
2020).
] [12: William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth
and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 15.
]
Modern Sensibilities And Skeptical Understanding oOf tThe
Gospels
Bart Ehrman writes, “There are few things more dangerous than
inbred religious certainty.”[footnoteRef:13] Every religion
follows a unique pattern for recording and propagating the
primary teachings, which can be interpreted as per the
requirements of the respective era. Some religions have their
whole teachings in a secured recorded manner, while others still
struggle to find lost parts or confirm the authenticity of current
teachings. This issue is more common in older religions that
were founded when there were no proper tools for writing and

27. recording. Even if there were sufficient tools, the key people
did not think of recording it. For most monotheistic religions,
the recording phase started much later than the initial date of
teachings. Although maximum efforts were done to reach out to
the authentic sources and record only those teachings, practices,
values, and laws that are backed by sufficient evidence, to this
day, many arguments exist questioning the authenticity of these
teachings. These controversies around teachings exist in all
Semitic religions: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. [13: Bart
D Ehrman, Jesus Before the Gospels (New York: Harper One,
2016), 128.]
In Christianity, the main arguments surrounding the authenticity
and reliability of teachings exist because of differences between
primary sources of information: The synoptic Gospels of Luke,
Mark, Matthew. Another primary source is the Gospel of John,
which contains the highest Christology. The phenomenon of
synoptic Gospels exists because the Gospels of Luke, Mark, and
Matthew share the same stories, teachings, and in most cases,
with the same words in same order. On the contrary, the Gospel
of John has very distinctive content, stories, words, and
theology. This chapter will explore different opinions on the
reliability of Gospels with a special focus on authenticity and
unreliability of gospels under the light of the work of Bart
Ehrman. When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first
began to study the texts of the Bible in their original languages,
he began to discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional
alterations that had been made by earlier translators. In his
published work, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and
changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and
shows the great impact they had upon the Bible we study in
seminary. He frames his account with personal reflections on
how his study of the Gospels in their original Greek
manuscripts made him abandon his faith.
The Gospels of the New Testament are the most inspiring,
powerful, moving, and beautiful books for seminary students.

28. Their stories about Jesus of Nazareth’s deeds and words are a
major source of knowledge for those who seek guidance from
God through Jesus. They have defined moral, ethical, and social
laws for generation after generation. The Gospels have been the
most important source of information and teachings in the
Christian tradition for almost the last two thousand years,
including information regarding creation, morality, a loving
God, mankind in need of a savior, and Jesus coming to the
world in a particular time in history. The scope of these books
is so extensive that they remain equally crucial for civilizations
and for individual lives. Despite their evident significance
throughout history, there is not sufficient evidence that the
books are historically accurate. “There were some books, such
as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to
be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them.”
[footnoteRef:14] [14: Mitchell Reddish, An Introduction to
the Gospels (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2011), 13.
]
Ehrman’s Skepticism
Erhman argues that we do not possess any original copies of the
Gospels; all we have are copies that contain mistakes and
changes made to the original manuscripts.[footnoteRef:15]
There is no denying that they include valuable information that
is historically very significant about the life and death of Jesus,
but the content of the books is also non-historical as well. This
opinion about non-historical content is shared by critical
scholars across the globe. And finally Erhman insists that as a
historian all miracles performed by Jesus cannot be accounted
as historical events due to their incomprehensible supernatural
nature. [15: Ehrman, Jesus Before the Gospels, 128.
]
The Gospels remained a significant part of the lives of masses
throughout history, but their understanding and comprehension
of these religious books varied from time to time and from
civilization to civilization. According to Ehrman, the overall

29. comprehension of the Gospels can be divided into three eras:
Gospels as supernatural histories; Gospels as natural histories;
and Gospels as non-historical myths.[footnoteRef:16] The first
era of understanding, the Gospels as supernatural histories, was
the duration of time from the 1st century to 17th century, from
the beginning of the Christian faith until the bloody wars which
decimated the population in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. This was a stage where scholars studying the Bible
believed and stated that the teachings and stories mentioned in
the Gospels were, in fact, supernatural histories. This era was
the comprehension of the gospel before humanity reached the
Enlightenment period. Before the advent of the 18th century,
the general belief of scholars termed this era as supernatural
history because only it provided them with a possible
explanation of the stories and miracles mentioned in the
gospels. They believed that the books are based on supernatural
events, and that is why they include stories about remarkable
and miraculous happenings, such as Jesus calming a storm,
commanding nature as God does. The gospels are full of miracle
stories from the birth of Jesus until his resurrection. From start
to end, the Gospels are filled with miracles and magical events
for which the human mind has no explanation, so postmodern
scholars believed them to be supernatural stories. Scholars
called them supernatural but believed them in full spirit. They
were convinced that these events happened with the help of
God, with the exception of the miracle with the storm where
Jesus does not ask for help and calms the wind and waves on his
own. [16: Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the
New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999),
15.
]
Furthermore, the second phase of understanding named “The

30. Gospels as natural histories” was the era of enlightenment.
During this time, scholars looked and perceived things very
differently, and they broke free from the previous restrictions
imposed by the Church, and they created a rational way of
seeing and analyzing things. During this phase, the emphasis
remained on the possibility of all human reasons for
comprehending the world and the nature and origins of life in it.
During this time, scholars found scientific and rational reasons
for the miracles that happened during the lifetime of Jesus. For
example, the crucifixion and resurrection were explained by
Paulus as the body of Jesus going into a coma because of severe
stress. Later, he came out of the coma, which has been
perceived as given a new life after death.[footnoteRef:17] [17:
Joseph W. Bergeron, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: Review of
Hypothesized Mechanisms of Death and Implications of Shock
and Trauma-induced Coagulopathy,” Journal of Forensic and
Legal Medicine 19.3 (2012): 113-16.
]
The third phase, named 'The Gospels as non-historical myths,'
started in 1835-36 when David Friedrich Strauss published his
book 'The Life of Jesus Critically Examined.' This publication
initiated the third stage of gospels' comprehension. He argued
that both previous comprehensions were not right and that
gospels were neither supernatural histories nor natural histories;
in fact, they are not histories at all. He presented the argument
that the gospels were actually myths; the stories mentioned in
them never happened. They were created by human minds and
presented to the rest of the world as reality.[footnoteRef:18]
Here the understanding of myth is crucial. Friedrich explained
myth is something that never happened, but usually the main
character in a myth is a god, or supernatural
humans.[footnoteRef:19] In other words, the miracles
mentioned in the gospels never happened, but the message they
want to communicate about Jesus is true. The stories were
created to tell the world truth about Jesus. [18: Ehrman, Jesus:

31. Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, 15.
] [19: Reddish, An Introduction to the Gospels, 13.
]
Erhman argues the stories mentioned in the gospels are
historically inaccurate, but they attempt to convey and
communicate a true comprehension of Jesus.[footnoteRef:20] It
is certain that some information mentioned about Jesus in
gospels is correct, but their order and additional information are
not. For example, the incident of Jesus leaving his home, going
to the city of Jerusalem and having a Passover meal (the last
supper) is, in fact, true. It is true that this meal and meeting
enraged the Roman authorities, and they ordered the arrest of
Jesus; the details about where the meal was prepared, who
prepared it, where Jesus met his followers when he was
arrested, and when he was crucified are all different. The major
differences exist in the versions explained in the Gospel of John
and in the Gospel of Mark. The two primary sources have
distinctive differences, and their versions of the story contradict
each other. John's version is theologically correct but
historically inaccurate, while on the other hand, Mark presents a
theologically incorrect but historically accepted version. This
does not mean that the miracle of Jesus calming the storm
occurred. Either one of these versions is correct, and the other
is not, or it is possible that neither of the two versions is
correct. Perhaps something else happened, maybe it stopped
raining or the whole story was a fabrication. But the two Gospel
authors perceived them in different ways and then explained in
their own unique manner.[footnoteRef:21] [20: Ehrman, Jesus
Before the Gospels, 128.] [21: Bart Ehrman, “Ehrman &
Licona: Are the Gospels Historically Reliable? Part 1” The Bart
Ehrman Blog: The History & Literature of Early Christianity,
March 18, 2018, https://ehrmanblog.org/ehrman-licona-are-
gospels-reliable-part-1 accessed March 18, 2021.
]

32. Furthermore, the stories mentioned in the Gospels might have
higher religious and theological significance, but they are
historically inaccurate. The life of Jesus was influenced and
impacted by the culture and values of that time. His birth, life,
and death, including the miracle of the storm, are all influenced
by the traditions of his time, but some accounts in the Gospels
present stories that do not relate to the traditions of that time,
which indicates that these stories are historically inaccurate.
This is the same point presented by David Friedrich Strauss and
Ehrman as they argued that gospels are full of such stories that
cannot be correct under historical lenses.[footnoteRef:22] There
are a wide range of inaccurate historical stories, including the
one about Jesus' last meal and crucifixion, the Gospels presents
different accounts sometimes irreconcilable. This is not limited
to this one incident. Many stories mentioned in these gospels
contradict each other or contradict with the historical values of
that time. [22: Ibid.]
Another crucial point that raises the question on the reliability
and authenticity of gospels is that there is little to no
information about the authors of gospels. Even though
throughout history, the Gospels have been deemed as the most
significant source of information about the life of Jesus, and
they have been called by their authors "Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John," there is no information about the authors. The four
most crucial books of the largest religion in the world are
anonymous. The names of authors were never announced in
early manuscripts.[footnoteRef:23] The four Gospels with the
most important information about the life of Jesus of Nazareth
circulated anonymously for decades after they were
written.[footnoteRef:24] A general perception existed in history
that these four authors were followers of Jesus who eye-
witnessed his struggles and his life and then wrote these
versions of Jesus' life, but this is not true. The followers of
Jesus were illiterate villagers belonging to the lower class and
Aramaic speaking individuals.[footnoteRef:25] These books

33. were written by well trained and highly educated individuals
who had a very good grip on the Greek language. They were
probably elite Christians living in big cities and had never
witnessed the struggle of Jesus or even met
him.[footnoteRef:26] Their account of Jesus's life is dependent
on the stories they heard. Their source of information was not
written, but oral stories about Jesus's birth, deeds, words, death,
and then resurrection. There is enough evidence to support the
claim that scribes altered or changed the New Testament on
purpose to fit their agenda, they added and deleted information
not found in older manuscripts, in short, there are lots of
reasons to discredit the authenticity of gospels. Moreover, the
gospels were written some 40-65 years later between 70-95CE.
The difference of four to six decades is a long time, and in that
time, the stories changed generations and no true account was
available. Also, the intention behind these writings is unclear,
which raises questions on the authenticity of these accounts. In
brief, the integrity of authors is as crucial as the integrity of the
content. [footnoteRef:27] [23: Reddish, An Introduction to the
Gospels, 14
] [24: Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical
Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2011), 76.
] [25: Acts 4:5-13.
] [26: Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind
Who Changed The Bible (San Francisco: Harper Collins,
2007), 85.
] [27: Robert B. Stewart, Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel B.
Wallace in Dialogue (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press,
2011).
]
The gospels are the biggest source of information about Jesus's
life, death, and resurrection, but their authenticity remains
questionable. The comprehension of the gospels passed through
three different phases, including Ehrman’s proposed 'Gospels as

34. supernatural histories,' 'gospels as natural histories' and 'gospels
as non-historical myths.' The last of these states that gospels are
non-historical myths because the stories mentioned in the
gospels never happened, but the message they want to
communicate about Jesus is true.[footnoteRef:28] The stories
were created to tell the world truth about Jesus. This is
supported by the analysis of stories in the light of history.
These stories might be theologically right, but they are
historically unauthentic. Furthermore, they were not written by
those who had first-hand knowledge of these events. The stories
were written by Greek Christians living in far away in big
cities, and they did not have first-hand knowledge of any of
these events.[footnoteRef:29] The authors of Mark, Mathew,
Luke, and John are anonymous, and their identities are never
revealed, which makes the integrity of writing ambiguous. [28:
Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium,
135.
] [29: Ehrman, New Testament, 81.
]
Ehrman wonders whether the New Testament's gospel has
historically accurate stories. He states that there is no historical
evidence of most of the teachings in the New
Testament.[footnoteRef:30] Ehrman doesn't blame Christians
for believing in the New Testament as he believes that
sometimes it is not easy to demonstrate what exactly happened
due to lack of evidence or lack of information.[footnoteRef:31]
Furthermore, it is not easy to keep records of everything that
happens daily, and that is nobody's fault. But this fact makes
Bart Ehrman doubt the preaching and miracles performed in the
New Testament, especially the passage in Mark 4:35-41,
claiming that miracles cannot be demonstrated historically.
Matthew 8:23-27 presents a similar but different account: [30:
D. B. Wallace, Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual
Criticism (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2019), 51.
] [31: R. W. Yarbrough, “The Epistle of John,” in The

35. Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the
Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs, ed. Robert B.
Stewart and Craig L. Blomberg (Nashville: B&H Academic
Publishing, 2016), 599.]
Then he got into the boat and his disciples followed him.
Suddenly a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves
swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went
and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!”
He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he
got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was
completely calm. The men were amazed and asked, “What kind
of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!”
Ehrman does not condemn the New Testament's Gospel despite
not having historical proof of the events that happened in the
New Testament.[footnoteRef:32] He compares the writers of the
New Testament to historians who do not share all the detailed
information about some of the historical events, but stil l get
their audience to believe in their accounts. Just like the New
Testament writers, historians cannot show all the aesthetic
sensitivities of what exactly happened. This means that the
Christian writers could just assume some of the things they
wrote in the New Testament. [32: D.P. Nystrom, “The
Historical Reliability of the New Testament” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, 61 (2018): 381-84.
]
Based on the arguments about historians failing to record every
detail about the historical events, it is not fair to judge the
Christian writers based on their failure to present historical
facts about the Gospel in the New Testament.[footnoteRef:33]
Still, Erhman argues that secular historians do not have the
same religious beliefs as Christians. This means that the
historians in their historical proceedings cannot demonstrate
that Christian God existed in history as they do not show him

36. anywhere in their writings. Still, Christian historians share one
common trait that is the unified demonstrated facts that the New
Testament was written anonymously, all originals documents
have been lost or destroyed, and miracles of Jesus fall outside
of historical spectrum,[footnoteRef:34] as a non-believer and
historian Ehrman asserts is not appropriate to discuss what
probably happened in the past, especially supernatural events.
[33: C.L. Blomberg “The Formation of the Synoptic Gospels,”
in The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering
the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs ed. Robert B.
Stewart and Craig L. Blomberg, (Nashville: B&H Academic
Publishing, 2016), 42.
] [34: . Yarbrough, “The Epistle of John” in The H, 599.]
Jewish Skepticism of Reliability of the New Testament
This section presents a case against the New Testament, as
highlighted by one of the leading Jewish scholars of our time
identified as Tovia Singer. It is nearly impossible not to
mention a leading Jewish scholar in this work to state the
importance of Jesus Jewishness. Modern scholars like Erhman
and Singer have rejected the idea of Jesus being the Messiah.
For
over two thousand years now, Christians have believed that
Jesus is the Messiah of the Jewish people and all the nations.
Both Tovia Singer and Bart Ehrman develop positions against
the New Testament and miracles allegedly performed by Jesus.
The most common position is that Jesus failed to fulfill
prophecy to the Jewish people, and this made them base their
values and beliefs on a national revelation or Torah. They
claimed that Jesus never fulfilled most of the promises he made
to Jewish people and as such, they could not believe that he was
their savior. Today, most Jewish branches uphold the idea that
Jesus is not their Messiah.[footnoteRef:35] [35: Yarbrough,
“The Epistle of John,” 599
]

37. Singer propones that the miracle recorded in Mark 4:35-41
probably never occurred. In recent decades, discussion of this
miracle presents a variety of problems and has moved in a
number of directions. According to Singer the miracle stories in
the New Testament are fabrications. He turns to the beginning
of Deuteronomy where the Torah addresses miracles: In
Deuteronomy 13:1-2, the Bible raises the question of how to
respond to a “prophet” who offers to show a miracle to support
his message.[footnoteRef:36] How are we to respond if, in fact,
the promised miracle comes to pass just as he predicted? Should
we then follow this “prophet” even if he encourages us to
worship other gods which our fathers did not know? “You must
not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer,” the
Almighty emphatically declares. “I did not send him,” says the
Lord.[footnoteRef:37] For Rabbi Singer miracles performed by
Jesus are just a test from God. This poses certain challenges
that modern readers of the text must face, such as the scientific
inquiry and criticism from Rabbi Singer, who believes that the
messianic age has not and cannot be here yet because prophecy
has not yet been fulfilled.[footnoteRef:38] For example: The
promise to establish the third temple is found in Ezekiel's book,
chapter thirty-seven[footnoteRef:39]Jesus also pledged to
spread God's word and bring people together in peace and
harmony worldwide. However, most Jews believe that Jesus
failed to fulfill all these promises. The Holy temple was
destroyed in the year 70 A.D and never rebuilt. [footnoteRef:40]
[36: Ibid.
] [37: Ibid.
] [38: Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical: Why Doesn’t Judaism
Accept the Christian Messiah Volume 1 (Coppell, TX, USA,
RNVN Publishers, 2010).
] [39: Yarbrough, “The Epistle of John,” 368
] [40: Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol 1: The
Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (San Francisco:
Harper One, 2010), 22.
]

38. No one has ever fulfilled the second coming of Messiah, and in
the Jewish tradition this means that there is no concept of the
second coming of someone who doesn't fulfill his or her
promises.[footnoteRef:41] Jews hold that Jesus did not meet his
Messianic prophecies and promises. This is not true of
Christians, as most of them still believe in the second coming of
Jesus Christ. And the fact that it has not happened yet does not
necessarily mean that it will not happen. Paul, the Pharisee from
Tarsus who became the church’s first great evangelist, confirms
this messianic view, albeit filtered through his understanding of
Jesus as the Christ, the anointed one. [41: Wallace, Myths and
Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, 304.
]
The early believers and followers of Jesus were Jews who spoke
Aramaic and lived in Israel and practiced Judaism, which made
them conversant with the Hebrew teachings.[footnoteRef:42]
They believed that Jesus was their Messiah and longed to see
him come back for them. However, the Jewish leadership did
not think that Jesus was their Messiah and held different
perspectives. For Rabbi Singer claims of Jesus’s divinity or
miracles are false. He claims that Jesus never fulfilled most of
the promises clearly made to the Jewish people in the Jewish
Bible or Old Testament and as such, He could not believe that
Jesus was the Messiah.[footnoteRef:43] Today, most Jewish
branches uphold the idea that Jesus is not their Messiah. For
Singer, the reference that Jesus as being from the lineage of
King David is a contradiction since according to the Gospel of
Luke and Mathew Jesus was born to a virgin, and therefore be
unable to claim the right to Davidic line because tribal lineage
is traced exclusively through a person’s father clearly written in
Torah. [footnoteRef:44] [42: Ibid.] [43: Tovia Singer,
“The Jewish Response to a Christian Challenge”
https://outreachjudaism.org/about-us (Retrieved June 2, 2020.
] [44: Numbers 1:18.

39. ]
Another aspect that Singer criticizes is the miraculous
birth of Jesus by virgin mother. This virgin birth is described in
two books of the New Testament, namely Luke and Matthew.
However, Singer claims that these two books contradict the
details about the virgin birth of Jesus. For instance, the text of
Matthew states that Jesus was born to Mary, who was a virgin
wife to Joseph and had never had sex with her husband
before.[footnoteRef:45] The book of Luke only points out that
Mary was a virgin and gave birth to baby Jesus. The genealogies
in books contradict each other, these two statements are
controversial as they do not provide similar details of the
accounts or the events leading to the birth of Jesus by the
Virgin Mary, and there is contradiction in the two birth
narratives. Singer, alongside other Jewish biblical scholars, has
long debated against the virgin birth of Jesus. Most scholars
argue that no direct link displays information about this virgin
birth.[footnoteRef:46] They claim that this virgin birth is only a
myth. They explain that the Hebrew word for virgin is betulah
adding “when missionaries try to prove the virgin birth of Jesus,
they incorrectly quote Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word they
translate is “Almah” and not “betulah”.[footnoteRef:47] Singer
also argues that Luke and Matthew present different accounts of
the birth of Jesus. He also adds that Virgin Birth is not included
in the early sources of Jewish readings and teachings
documented in the Jewish Bible. As such, it is difficult for most
Jewish people to believe something that is not present in the
historical records of Judaism. Additionally, the scholar claims
that there is no written evidence from history to show that Jesus
was born to a virgin mother. Singer asserts that the notion of
virgin birth comes from the book of Isaiah that describes an
"alma" as the virgin that gives birth. The word Almah translates
to a young woman, but rabbi Singer claims that Christians
translated this word to virgin and accorded the birth of Jesus to
a virgin birth without strong evidence. This fact does not

40. necessarily mean that Mary was a virgin and gave birth to baby
Jesus as a virgin. Either way, other Jews think that maybe Mary
was an Almah and that is the reason why she gave birth to Jesus
despite being a virgin. Tovia Singer writes against the gospel of
the New Testament as he believes Jesus did not fulfill his
prophesies as he promised.[footnoteRef:48] [45: Yarbrough,
“The Epistle of John“381-84.
] [46: Nystrom, “Historical Reliability of the Gospels,” 235.
] [47: Singer, Let’s Get Biblical, 27.
] [48: Nystrom, “The Historical Reliability of the New
Testament,” 382.]
He claims that Jesus as Messiah separates the Jewish faith from
Christianity. This distinction is not the only one, but it’s the
most crucial. Prophecy to a perfect future is characterized by
peace and useful life in various books, including Jeremiah 31;
Isaiah 2; and Micah 4, among others. This was never fulfilled,
and since we live in chaos, war, and conflicts worldwide,
obviously the Jewish messiah has not yet come.
Singer believes that Paul invented Christianity and not Jesus as
most Christians believe.[footnoteRef:4 9] Paul was a supporter
of Jesus Christ, and he converted to Christianity after
oppressing the disciples of the same Christianity on his way to
Damascus. Jewish people believe that Paul was the principal
founder of Christianity.[footnoteRef:50] Then Singer turns his
attention to the New Testament he points out that Jesus never
claimed to be God or messiah, while in the real sense, the
apostle Paul was the principal founder of this religion. He gives
evidence of the seven books in the New Testament, all written
by the apostle. Jewish people believe that Paul developed
Christianity from his teachings as a missionary and an apostle,
and what he experienced as revelation of the resurrection of a
Messiah is not true.[footnoteRef:51] Upon receiving this vision,
Paul traveled to different countries within the Roman Empire to
spread the gospel about the returning of Jesus from death and
reappearing in the kingdom of God.[footnoteRef:52] However,

41. critics of Singer’s work contend that Paul did not develop any
religion, but he only advised people to transform their lives.
Time passed, and Jesus did not return. As a result, Jesus’s early
followers questioned Paul to validate his writings about the
coming of Jesus, which made him establish a Christian doctrine.
[49: Singer, Let’s Get Biblical, 27. ] [50: Nystrom,
“Historical Reliability of the Gospels,” 232.
] [51: Singer, Let’s Get Biblical,110. ] [52: Ibid]
According to Singer, The Catholic Church glued The New
Testament to Old Testament to make it more reliable, but to see
and hear Jesus in his historical context enriches and validates
the New Testament because “Jesus of Nazareth dressed like a
Jew, prayed like a Jew (and most likely in Aramaic), instructed
other Jews on how best to live according to the commandments
given by God to Moses, taught like a Jew, argued like a Jew
with other Jews, and died like thousands of other Jews on a
Roman cross. [footnoteRef:53] [53: Singer, Let’s Get Biblical,
132. ]
Singer believes that Catholic Church attached or glued the
New Testament to the Old Testament to make the story of Jesus
more reliable.[footnoteRef:54] The early Church fathers also
did this to demonstrate some of the events that led to Jesus'
time. [footnoteRef:55] Singer claims that the only reliable
evidence in the Bible is written in the Old Testament, Tanakh is
the word of God, and not the other way around, which is more
different than it is similar to the new synoptic Gospels. “The
assertion of Christianity is that God’s revelation to the Jewish
people and to others did not end with the canonization of the
Jewish scriptures, the Tanakh approximately 450
BCE.[footnoteRef:56] Christians insist that God’s revelations
did not end at that time but continue with the writings of the
New Testament. [54: Ibid.
] [55: Ibid.
] [56: Wallace, Myths and Mistakes, 33-34.

42. ]
Singer believes that Christians have a sole duty to survive and
defend God's word through evangelism and fight against the
enemy, Satan.[footnoteRef:57] He finds this notion
contradictory as the New Testament also states that the idea of
God's kingdom is in people's hearts and has nothing to do with
our surroundings. This teaching implies that what churchgoers
do outside of the church is not a concern to God. Ehrman and
Singer pose an immense problem since both see the Bible
simply as a work of ancient literature full of mistakes,
contradictions, historically unreliable, and not as part of their
religious practice. [57: Singer, Let’s Get Biblical,141.]
CHAPTER THREEMETHODOLOGY
To accomplish this work, this research will examine two
competing approaches to the question of the reliability of
miracle stories in the Gospels, particularly in Mark 4:35-4. I
will examine the philosophical assumptions driving the two
points of view in the discussion of the meaning of the miracle
story and how it functions, and what questions are appropriate
to that discussion. The research will then apply further
conceptual analysis to the two opposing views to clarify the
sense in which the miracle story informs the notion of divine
authority in the person of Jesus. The inquiry will be
grammatical and philosophical in character and will depend on
insights developed by philosophers in the grammatical,
contemplative tradition in the latter half of the twentieth
century.The Research Questions of this Project: Focused to
Provide an Illumination of Divine Authority in the Person of
Jesus of Nazareth
Chapter 1: How can philosophical assessments of the text of
Mark 4:35-41 aid in the understanding of the Divine Authority
in the person of Jesus? As discussed in the introduction, my
focus will be a philosophical understanding of the conceptual
problems generated by modern readings of the biblical text.
Specifically, what kind/s of problem does the historical and

43. cultural distance between ancient and modern/postmodern
readers present to an understanding of the notion of divine
authority in Mark 4:35-41?
Chapter 2: What kind of understanding informs modern
skeptical readings of the biblical text, with specific attention to
the work of Bart Erhman and his reading of the Gospels and
their historical reliability? This section will highlight
traditional modern concerns about the reliability of the Gospels’
accounts of miracles. It will show in what ways a highly
respected biblical historian raises skeptical questions about the
reliability of the Gospels as a basis for believing in miracles.
Chapter 3: What kind of understanding informs modern
recovery readings of the biblical text, with special attention to
the work of William Lane Craig and his philosophical efforts to
preserve traditional readings of the biblical text? This section
will highlight how a highly respected Christian philosopher
attempts to recover the validity of the Gospel accounts of
miracles.
Chapter 4: How does Gareth Moore’s
grammatical/philosophical assessment of Mark 4:35-41 dissolve
the modern tension in reading the biblical text represented
negatively in Ehrman and positively in Craig, with particular
attention to the question of miracles and divine authority? In
this section I will look at how Gareth Moore’s philosophical
assessment of the miracle story in Mark 4:35-41 offers an
alternative reading of the biblical text, presenting a challenge to
the assumptions embedded in both Erhman and Craig.
Chapter 5: This chapter will summarize all the questions
raised from the philosophical perspectives in the interpretation
of the Bible. Also, the issues regarding the person of Jesus and
his life in reference to the book of Mark 4: 35-41 shall be
tackled. How does Moore’s grammatical, philosophical
approach suggest a better way to read the biblical texts, moving
toward a more coherent understanding of the biblical concept of
divine authority in the person of Jesus? In this section, I will
show how Moore’s alternative reading suggests an alternative

44. way of reading the bible, with attention to his work as the
central problem in the philosophy of religion, as an example of
a grammatical reading of divine authority. I will demonstrate
how a grammatical, philosophical reading relates the reading of
the stories of miracles in the Gospels with the divine authority
of Jesus.
Most of the comments discussed revolve around Christianity,
and mostly what I have learned in seminary. In this essay I
looked at problems that may torment the modern-day seminary
student of the Bible. There are many issues involved in reading
the Bible; one is to read it as a work of ancient literature. My
concern was with problems arising for Christian students from
reading the Bible as a specifically Christian book. Half of the
Bible, the part we students call “Tanakh” or the Old Testament
is also what Jewish students use. That is a part that I did not
cover in this essay, since there may be different problems that
arise for Jewish students reading the Jewish Bible today from
those that arise for Christian students reading the Christian
Bible or New Testament. I do not speak for other students, but
since I come from a Christian culture, as, I guess, do all my
classmates, my comments are only a small contribution to the
philosophy of Christianity and not religious philosophy.
CHAPTER FOURRESULTSThe reliability of the Gospels is
based on claims that are rooted in history. As a New Testament
historian, Dr. Craig approaches the Gospels not as inspired Holy
Scripture, but merely as a collection of ancient writings dated

45. during the first century C.E. Our surprise as seminary students
is that the majority of secular and Christian scholars accept as
historical facts events mentioned in the
Gospels.[footnoteRef:58] [58: D. B. Wallace, Myths and
Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove:
Intervarsity Press, 2019), 16-19
]
Fact #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by
Joseph of Arimathea.[footnoteRef:59] this fact is highly
significant because it shows the tomb or burial location was
known to Jews, in that case, the disciples could never have
proclaimed his resurrection in Jerusalem if the tomb had not
been empty.[footnoteRef:60] A respected scholar John A. T.
Robinson of Cambridge University writes.[footnoteRef:61]“the
burial of Jesus in the tomb is one of the earliest and best-
attested facts about Jesus.”[footnoteRef:62] [59: Luke 23: 50-
53.] [60: William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian
Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008),
278.
] [61: Wallace, Myths and Mistakes, 33-34.] [62: John A. T.
Robinson, The Human Face of God (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1973), 131.
]
Fact #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’s tomb
was found empty by a group of his women followers. The fact
that women testimony was discounted in first century Palestine
stands in favor of the women’s role in discovering the tomb.
Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various
circumstances, different individuals and groups of people
experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. The
appearance traditions in the Gospels provide multiple,
independent attestation of these appearances; this is one of the
most important marks of historicity. According to the Oxford
classical dictionary, historicity denotes actuality of past events,

46. authenticity, factuality, and focuses on true value of knowledge
claims about the past. [footnoteRef:63] [63: Simon
Homblower, “Historicity,” in The Oxford Classical Dictionary
(Danvers, Colorado, USA: Oxford University Press, 2012), 79.
]
Fact #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was raised
from the dead despite having every predisposition to the
contrary. Jesus followers were Jews, and they found themselves
between a rock and hard place, first their leader and master was
dead. Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising Messiah,
the reason Jews until this day do not acknowledge Jesus is
because the Messiah was supposed to overthrow Jews enemies,
not be killed, like Jesus was. They like us believed dead people
stayed dead, there was no belief in a risen Messiah, or any dead
person at the time. The significance of those facts gives us firm
faith in the existence of God and that He sent His message
through Jesus, there leaves no room for doubt. God is the
almighty and everything is under his power, if He is capable of
creating the universe in six days, He is capable of doing small
miracles as well.[footnoteRef:64] The facts about Jesus' arrest,
death, burial, and then empty tomb and resurrection can be
assessed and established separately. These stories might not
seem historically correct, but Jesus was a beacon of change. He
changed the world altogether and introduced the biggest
religion of the world which ruled and existed with full power
for 2000 years, and it is still prospering in Asia, Africa and
Latin America.[footnoteRef:65] That makes the Gospels
reliability significant. [64: Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian
Truth and Apologetics, 16.
] [65: Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol 1: The
Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (San Francisco:
Harper One, 2010),43.
]
Jesus was capable of doing things that might not fall in the

47. general historic context. All the big names in the religious
world, from Buddha to Confucius and from Mohammad to Guru
Nanak challenged the status-quo, and they did not necessarily
comply with the historic traditions and
customs.[footnoteRef:66] heir teachings, words, and deeds were
different, and they did not mold their lives according to the
values and customs of their time. Instead, they brought new
values, customs, and concepts of right and wrong. They not only
followed these values themselves but propagated the message to
the masses. This was not just anybody that was resurrected from
the dead, but Jesus of Nazareth a man approved by
God.[footnoteRef:67] [66: Craig, Reasonable Faith, 33.
] [67: Acts 2:22
]
There is no denying that some differences exist in the accounts
mentioned in the Gospels of John and Mark, but these
differences only present two different perspectives, and they do
not mean that the actual event did not happen. It could mean
that an event happened, and two different individuals perceived
it in a different manner, and then these different percepti ons
reflected in their writings. The miracle in Mark 4:35-41 is
presented first chronologically using Markan priority, and then
the same account is described by another source Matthew 8:23-
27. The fact that the story of the storm is found twice in the
New Testament confirms it happened. One principle historian
take in consideration to establish the probability of an event or
saying is multiple early attestations, according to contemporary
scholarship, when two different sources providing the same
story can be used as enough historical evidence that an event
possibly occurred. [footnoteRef:68] Major critics point out that
Jesus's miracles are not reliable because they are not
historically correct, but the important question is: Is the written
record of history correct? The history of that time is not well
reported either. There are some books and historic recordings
which tell about the values, traditions and customs of that time

48. but raised questions just like questions are raised on the
authenticity of religious books including the Gospels and other
manuscripts. Since little evidence is preserved, the authenticity
of the manuscripts and books about the history of that time is
controversial. [68: Robert Stein, The Criteria for Authenticity
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2012), 198. 225- 63
]
Lastly, New Testament scholars claim that there exists a
difference of four to six decades between the actual happening
of events and their recording time.[footnoteRef:69] It is true
that the gospels were not written right away after Jesus's
resurrection, but this does not mean that their recording was all
incorrect. After the resurrection of Jesus, many stories were
attached to him but not all of them must have been included in
the Gospels, as it is stated by the critics like Erhman that the
gospels were written by trained and well-educated authors in
big cities.[footnoteRef:70] It remained the norm among
contemporary scholarship to credit the author of the Gospel of
Luke and book of Acts that while recording the historic events,
he also worked on its authenticity. This is the case with the
gospels of Mark, Mathew, and John as well. They did not write
all the stories they heard about deeds, actions, and words of
Jesus. They investigated it by tracking down the real records;
they checked the integrity of the person who is stating the story.
They looked into whether or not a person telling a story is
deemed as an honest person by his fellow men in society. It was
taken into account that the story is not narrated by just one
person and that multiple eyewitnesses existed for a single
miracle or story.[footnoteRef:71] Similarly, in some cases,
some eyewitnesses were interviewed, and their first-hand
knowledge was recorded. This is not unique to Gospels in
Christianity. This same process was achieved in Judaism, and
repeated in Islam as well when the hadith of Mohammad were
recorded in four main books of Sunnah.[footnoteRef:72] [69:
Pheme Perkins. The Synoptic Gospels and the Act of the

49. Apostles: Telling the Christian Story (Louisville, Westminster
John Knox Press, 2009) 241.] [70: Ibid.] [71: Stein, The
Criteria for Authenticity, 225-63.] [72: William Lane Craig,
The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of
Jesus (Wipf and Stock Publishers: Eugene, 2019), 14.
]
In short, it can be deduced that the time difference is not a
right medium basis on which the miracles of Jesus mentioned in
Gospels can be rejected. The most distinguishing factor about
Christianity is that Christians believe that God revealed himself
throughout history as presented in the Bible, at a particular time
and place in times of Palestinian Judaism. As the philosopher
William Lane Craig analyzes, the Christian faith comprises
different past experiences that define the faith through God's
Gospel and miracles performed by Jesus.The Reliability of
Jesus's Miracles as Indicated in the New Testament
Craig highlights five reasons that make him believe that most
Christians tend to assume that the miracles performed by Jesus
were reliable.[footnoteRef:73] First, he states that there was
inadequate time for the people during this time to obliterate the
historical facts surrounding the miracles of Jesus. This is
because the time interval between when the miracles took place
and the spreading of the Gospel was too short for the authors to
memorize all the happenings that led to the miracles. Secondly,
he states that the miracles were not analogous to the modern-
day and folk tales, especially living in an age of reason and
science. These tales do not show the historical events that led
to the narratives of Jesus' miracles. [73: Ibid.
]
Third, Craig highlights that the Jewish transmission of the
sacred traditions was highly reliable and established. The
ability to learn and remember all the information in large tracts
was considered a sophisticated skill for the people who oversaw
some of these miracles.[footnoteRef:74] The philosopher also

50. adds that great consensus has been established in the New
Testament scholarship that is closed to the genre of the
traditional biographies. [footnoteRef:75]Furthermore, the
generations were so highly sacred that they never dared to
question the reliability of these miracles. Instead, they would
have exercised the same care using the Gospels and the miracles
of Jesus. [74: Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory,
History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans, 2019), 107.] [75: Ibid.
]
The fourth reason for the assumption that the miracles
were reliable is that there were significant limitations on the
embellishment of the traditions about Jesus using criteria of
dissimilarity.[footnoteRef:76] These factors would naturally
implement on the facts that preserved the significance of Jesus
in believers' lives. Finally, Craig believes that most people
would assume the reliability of the miracles of Jesus because
the Gospel writers have a reliable track record of the historical
facts that led to these miracles' performance. Even the most
doubtful people can believe the miracles that Jesus performed
and exorcism recorded in the Gospels are
“Authentic.”[footnoteRef:77] He concludes that the only reason
one can deny that Jesus performed miracles is the assumption of
the existence of the supernatural powers during the time of
these happenings, which cannot be justified.[footnoteRef:78]
[76: Craig, “Rediscovering the Historical Jesus,”18.
] [77: William Lane Craig, “The Reliability of the Gospels,” in
The Good Book Blog: Talbot School of Theology Faculty Blog,
May 29, 2015, https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-
blog/2015/the-reliability-of-the-gospels Accessed August 27,
2020.
] [78: Ibid.]
According to Craig, the abundance and the age of the documents

51. that contain the Gospels is enough proof for their reliability, as
observed by the Christian faith.[footnoteRef:79] Craig agrees
that the New Testament is the best demonstration in
contemporary history in terms of manuscripts' closeness and the
number of the documents presented in an original
form.[footnoteRef:80] This notion proves that the writings in
the New Testament are 99 % similar as the original texts that
were written in the first century times. The philosopher also
adds that nearly 140,000 words in the New Testament resemble
the original texts' words, and only 1,300 still don't do the
same.[footnoteRef:81] As such, the Gospel in the New
Testament is 99% established according to Craig. This implies
that the readers are guaranteed the original texts in the Gospel
of the New Testament. [79: Craig, “ Establishing the Gospels’
Reliability,” 49.
] [80: . Keener,” Christobiography: Memory, History and the
Reliability of the Gospels”,51.
] [81: Craig “Reliability of the Gospels,” 2015.]
Craig claims that the gospels intend to bring out
humanity's history since the creation of heaven and earth. This
means that the gospels in the New Testament represent the
literary genre of the historical writings and preaching of
Jesus.[footnoteRef:82] They are highly incredible and not
fiction, mythological, or fable. The philosopher also adds that
great consensus has been established in the New Testament
scholarship that is closed to the genre of the traditional
biographies.[footnoteRef:83] Some of the things make the
Gospel of the New Testament to be credible. As such, the
Gospels' writers were attempting to inscribe a historical account
of people, events, and places that happened historically (Luke
3.1-3). [82:
William Lane Craig, “Rediscovering the Historical Jesus,”
Retrieved on June 21, 2021 from
https://www.cbn.com/special/apologetics/articles/T he-evidence-
for-jesus-part2.aspx

52. ] [83: Keener, ”Christobiography: Memory, History, and the
Reliability of the Gospels”, 82 -83.]
Craig also establishes the credibility of the Gospels of the
New Testament by determining the facts provided in the
Gospels.[footnoteRef:84] He addresses the criteria of
credibility, which enables readers to develop a specific interest
in the preaching and teachings of Jesus as a historical event.
Most scholars and philosophers engaged in the pursuit of the
historical teachings of Jesus have pronounced several strategies
of determining the reliability of the Gospels through the
authentic historical features” including “multiple attestations,
dissimilarity to the teachings of Christians, retention of
awkward materials, linguistic Semitisms, and rationality with
other original materials and traces of Palestinian
milieu.”[footnoteRef:85] It is misleading for scholars to address
these arguments as criteria, as they only focus on the
information's adequacy facts presented in the New Testament.
Craig highlights that this is a matter that is easy to
determine.[footnoteRef:86] [84: Craig, “Rediscovering the
Historical Jesus,” 88.
] [85: Ibid. ] [86: Craig, “Rediscovering the Historical
Jesus,” 111.]
Craig instead develops the criteria of dissimilarity that
amount to the statements about the influence of the Gospels on
Christians and readers using the likelihood of the different
sayings in Jesus's life.[footnoteRef:87] Some events that led to
the preaching of the Gospel and evidence of the events leading
to this preaching bring a meaningful knowledge to Christians
who believe in God's gospel. Craig confirms the credibility and
the reliability of the Gospels of the New Testament through his
criteria. It is indeed not shocking how the Gospel and the
miracles of Jesus can be established considering his
fundamental personal claims, arrest, burial in a tomb, and
finally, his resurrection. It is almost impossible to believe how

53. the disciples came to find out that Jesus had risen from the tomb
and that God had raised him from the dead. As N.T Wright a
British Christian scholars writes:” that is why, as a historian, I
cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose
again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.”[footnoteRef:88]
Still, the philosopher gives solid reasons for believing that the
gospel and miracles performed by Jesus were credible based on
the historical facts presented in the New Testament. This makes
the gospels of Christ reliable documents and trustworthy
accounts of the life of Jesus in historical times. Therefore,
William Lane Craig conclusively analyzes that God has acted in
history, and Christians can confirm this through the gospels
included in the New Testament. [87: Ibid.
] [88: N.T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 26.
]
To conclude, Jesus’s miracles, including the miracle regarding
the storm in Mark 4:35, present stories, actions, and deeds of
Jesus that are as authentic and reliable as any other historic
content. Dr. Craig states that if one has a belief in God, then
there is no reason for not believing in his
miracles.[footnoteRef:89] If God can create the world in days,
he can definitely create small miracles in no time. Furthermore,
these miracles are the reason which tells that God can do
anything at any time to anyone. He is capable of everything. Dr.
Craig analysis gives us a clear picture of the dating of the
Christian sources, its assessment provides good grounds to
believe that the Gospels are and can be reliable historical
documents. [89: William Lane Craig, The Son Rises: The
Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (Wipf and
Stock Publishers: Eugene, 2019), 14.]

54. CHAPTER FIVEDISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
CONCLUSIONDiscussion: Gareth Moore’s Philosophical
Assessment of the Text in Mark 4:35-41
The topic “How a philosophical understanding of the text in
Mark 4:35-41 provides an illumination of divine authority in the
person of Jesus” is brought into focus in Gareth Moore’s work
in philosophy for theology. In the times in which we are living,
philosophy of religion has been focused in two things as we
seen in the previous chapters. Number 1; attacking the
reliability of the Gospels, and number 2, defending the Gospels
as historically reliable ancient works of literature. Gareth
Moore, O.P. who was a scholar in Biblical studies takes an
entire different approach and teaches us a better way in
understanding the Text.
The miracle story of Jesus calming the storm in Mark 4:35-41 is
important because it seems to indicate that Jesus is a divine
figure. The story portrays Jesus doing what is impossible to a
mere human being, hence the story under scrutiny shows that he
is not a mere mortal.[footnoteRef:90] Jesus speaks and
immediately the storm subsides. If we are not to understand the
miracle story as cause and effect, how can we make sense of
this biblical account? In this chapter is where we discuss the
importance of Jesus speaking to nature and his divine authority.
The story is based on a command from a man and nature obeys.
How can we understand the story and also capture the clear
distinction of Jesus’ close followers in what they say? They are
not asking, how he calmed the storm, but “What sort of a man is
this?” Who is this man, that even the winds and sea obey him?
[90: Moore, Gareth. Biblical Concepts and Our World.
Claremont Studies in the Philosophy of Religion. Edited by D.
Z. Phillips and Mario von der Ruhr. (City published: Palgrave
Macmillan Press Name, 2004), 3.]
The disciples understood that it was not magic or power