I skimmed through most of your story. I share some of your pain. Losing the garden story and natural evil being “baked in” was and still is hard for me. I enjoyed the Yancey quote about grace!
Parts of chapter 10 are all I would be critical of. It was infused with some bad historical apologetics and showed a lack of awareness of even the basics of New Testament criticism.
The best solution to the synoptic problem, held by even the most conservative of New Testament scholars, states that the wording and order between Matthew, Mark and Luke is so common they must share literary dependence. Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke copied his text. John is an open issue but slightly more scholars now seem to think John is also dependent on synoptic material. The gospels cannot be used as corroborating eye-witness accounts with conflicting details. When reading Matthew and Luke, I am interested in seeing how they redact Mark’s material to fit their theological needs. This gives me insight into their theology and message which is important since its part of my sacred scripture.
Also, what evidence is there that Mark, the first gospel written, even intended to use the women as witnesses to defend the resurrection? If you aren’t aware, most scholars feel the account originally ends at Mark 16:8 with the women telling no one. That is an odd apologetic! Silence is a very prevalent literary (aka probably not historical) theme in Mark and claiming the witness of women could serve no value here at all is simply not true. And I don’t agree with all that Richard Carrier writes here but he talks about the women at the tomb argument that has been abused. He, an atheist, quotes the story of the women at the well showing just how reliable the testimony of woman was per that statement at least (many believed on account of her testimony). The presence of women at the tomb as an argument for historical reliability is an awful argument.
Not to mention that women were benefactors of the early church. They played very significant roles in financing and preaching the Gospel. Having women play an important role in the tomb story is perfectly understandable in that ancient context whether it happened or not. The historical reality is that Christian women were immensely important at the time. The first we see of the tomb story is probably not until ca. 70CE and all four references may very well be dependent on one source (Mark!). These type of apologetics just don’t work.
The author also isn’t arguing against modern skeptics trying to undermine the resurrection to believers. Mark is writing to Christians who already accept Jesus. Christians for whom the prominence of women was a reality.
What historical evidence, and I do not mean increasingly legendary material in the second century and beyond, is there most of Jesus’ original followers went willingly to their deaths? I know we peddle this story in the pews but I suspect if people looked at the actual evidence fairly they would be disappointed. I don’t doubt many Christians and early Jewish followers of Jesus suffered for their beliefs. But this claim seems to ask the surviving literature to do more than it is capable of. We don’t even know for certain if all the original followers of Jesus became Christians. Some may have drifted away despite what the casting of lots in Acts says. I do not doubt that some of Jesus’ followers were convinced he rose on historical grounds. That is a fact of history in my view. Them dying for that belief, or not, doesn’t change it, but we should still try to get things right and not just pass on stories we learned that are not really corroborated. There is a lot of legendary material about Christian martyrs and most, not all, of the stories about the apostles occurs long after their time and there are contradictory stories (think about the problem of Judas and how he died!). I think Clement may offer some temporally close comments about Peter and Paul being martyred for their faith but I am an evidence kind of guy. Why is later church tradition reliability? Where did it come from? Can I trace an actual line of tradition? Is it corroborated? Is it likely to have been invented? These are all the questions that need to be asked. Your thoughts also do not make a distinction, on historical grounds, between the synoptic and Johannine Jesus. Instead, he appears to be conflated into one. That is the fallacy of the trilemma (Liar, Lunatic or Lord) and sits at the heart of the Bono quote I believe (great band btw!). I agree that is legitimate to do theologically, but you seem to be doing it historically which only results in a fictional, chimeric Jesus.
I also don’t think this statement is demonstrable: “Evolution might be able to explain numerous behaviors of people before and after Jesus, but it does not provide any compelling way of explaining the origin of grace in Jesus of Nazareth.” I read it as a desire to make Jesus unexplainably unique. Evolution cannot explain the incarnation. Jesus having compassion and love? Those are human emotions. Evolution can certainly explain them and we can find a million people who have done great, brand, probable or very improbably things.
For me in the end it all boil down to how you ended:
“I cried out to God and He answered me. I am satisfied.”
That is Jesus and the incarnation. That is the cross and God’s Grace. Historical apologetics don’t work even if we need them at times to open our thinking to new ideas our former mindsets have closed off. God can accommodate our faulty reasoning and speak through it and move us where He wants us.
Vinnie