Uploaded August 2025 | Updated September 2026, 6 days ago
In this last video in this series about Dr. Habermas's misinterpretations of liberal scholars, I discuss what I call "pseudo-updating" of references to Dale Allison, apropos of the conversion of James.
Allison apparently changed his mind after he wrote in 1985 accepting the idea that Jesus' brother James was converted by a post-resurrecion appearance. In both 2005 and 2021 Allison expressed great doubt about that proposition, thinking it at least as likely that James became a follower of Jesus first and only after that had some sort of resurrection experience.
Habermas triumphantly quotes Allison's now-outdated statement from 1985, footnotes both it *and Allison's more recent writings on the same topic*, but neglects to tell readers that these later references are to pages in which Allison contradicts what he said in 1985!
If you are interested in other instances of serious misinterpretation of scholars in Habermas's work, see this series on C.H. Dodd:
lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2024/05/gary-habermass-misunderstandings-of-c-h.html
See also this post on a truly egregious misinterpretation of David Wenham, in which Habermas quotes half of a sentence by Wenham, purports to summarize Wenham in the rest of the sentence, but summarizes him wildly inaccurately. (Wenham says that Paul may have taken his Damascus Road appearance to have been more physical than his own other visions of Jesus at other times in his life, which he does not characterize as resurrection appearances. Habermas summarizes this as Wenham saying that Paul might have thought that his own Damascus Road appearance was more physical than other resurrection appearances!)
lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2025/07/another-egregious-instance-of.html
In this last video in this series about Dr. Habermas's misinterpretations of liberal scholars, I discuss what I call "pseudo-updating" of references to Dale Allison, apropos of the conversion of James.
Allison apparently changed his mind after he wrote in 1985 accepting the idea that Jesus' brother James was converted by a post-resurrecion appearance. In both 2005 and 2021 Allison expressed great doubt about that proposition, thinking it at least as likely that James became a follower of Jesus first and only after that had some sort of resurrection experience.
Habermas triumphantly quotes Allison's now-outdated statement from 1985, footnotes both it *and Allison's more recent writings on the same topic*, but neglects to tell readers that these later references are to pages in which Allison contradicts what he said in 1985!
If you are interested in other instances of serious misinterpretation of scholars in Habermas's work, see this series on C.H. Dodd:
lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2024/05/gary-habermass-misunderstandings-of-c-h.html
See also this post on a truly egregious misinterpretation of David Wenham, in which Habermas quotes half of a sentence by Wenham, purports to summarize Wenham in the rest of the sentence, but summarizes him wildly inaccurately. (Wenham says that Paul may have taken his Damascus Road appearance to have been more physical than his own other visions of Jesus at other times in his life, which he does not characterize as resurrection appearances. Habermas summarizes this as Wenham saying that Paul might have thought that his own Damascus Road appearance was more physical than other resurrection appearances!)
lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2025/07/another-egregious-instance-of.html
