The Spiral Argument Argument

[Contarini]

Would you say that the Catholic Church is committed to Biblical inerrancy?

The language is certainly used. Whether it means the same thing that it does in evangelical circles is up for debate, and of course in evangelical circles it can mean a lot of things (as Geisler’s criticisms of Blomberg show).

But generally in evangelical circles the term “inerrancy” is used for the view that the Bible is without error in all matters, even incidental ones, while “infallibility” is used for the view that the Bible is an unerring guide on matters of faith and practice, when properly interpreted as a whole (or something like that–the phrasing describes my own view and I won’t claim that everyone would define it the same way).

Catholics seem to use “infallibility” only for the Church and “inerrancy” for any view of Scripture being error-free. The language of Vatican II seems to be interpreted by most Catholic scholars in terms of what I would call “infallibility.” Some Catholics, no doubt including yourself, claim that this is a misreading of Vatican II and that Catholics are committed to the stricter position corresponding to what Protestants would call “inerrancy.” However, like it or not, this is a minority position, and as far as I know no one since Vatican II has been condemned for holding to the position I described above as my own.

This is one of the many reasons why the claim of some Catholics that the terms “conservative” and “liberal” don’t apply to Catholicism are obviously bogus. We have a Catholic teaching which is interpreted in different ways, and the Magisterium since Vatican II has not, to my knowledge, weighed in on which of them is correct.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You keep saying this.

I have only commented on the first two lines of the Spiral Argument, and I have not even BEGUN to defend Matthew as a historical author because until I see that there is common ground for accepting the reliability of a witness, no defense is really possible, is it? You will simply skate away on the excuse that we can’t trust the 100th thing that anyone tells us despite the fact that the other 99 have proven to be true.

Mr. Carson, that’s an excuse on your part. When I “skate away,” you can call me to account. Contrary to what you think, I am not skeptical without good reason. And since your best shot so far at “general reliability” consisted of five, not 99, examples, drawn from all of the Gospels, with none of them peculiar to Matthew, you are getting way ahead of yourself there.

The criteria commonly used by scholars to determine authenticity are found here. I agree with the scholar you cited a while ago who said that these function to establish authenticity but not to rule it out. In other words, there may well be many things that “fail” these criteria and are nonetheless authentic. (And yet again, let me remind you that “reasonably certain for apologetics purposes” and “things whose historicity we accept as believing Christians” are not the same set, with the latter naturally being larger than the former–much larger for you or Habermas, and not quite as much larger for a non-inerrantist like myself.) But these are good starting points for establishing some things that are reasonably likely to be authentic. And again, Habermas accepts these criteria (not for his own theological acceptance of Scriptural authenticity, but for confidence in apologetics).

But since this is where your argument REQUIRES me to be in error, let me ask you two questions.

1. Of the three synoptic gospels, which comes closest to meeting your personal standard of objective historical accuracy?

1. Why?

“Personal standard” implies that it’s something idiosyncratic. I don’t think my views here are unusual at all, though they are (contrary to your frankly uninformed opinion) quite conservative compared to those of most scholars. Both Mark and Luke seem to me to have a pretty high level of reliability, but in different ways and for different reasons. I wouldn’t say that one is more reliable than the other, but differently so. Mark is probably (I follow Richard Bauckham on this) based closely on eyewitness testimony (I agree with Bauckham that the traditional view that Mark wrote down Peter’s reminiscences is fairly plausible, though i wouldn’t put weight on it in an apologetics context), and it frequently meets the “criteria of embarrassment,” indicating that while the narrative has of course been theologically shaped (all the Gospels have), the rough spots haven’t been ironed out too much. In fact, it’s precisely in contrast with Mark that Matthew’s penchant for theological editing becomes so obvious.

Luke, on the other hand, is clearly trying to write history in the mode of Thucydides, Polybius, etc. He claims to have interviewed eyewitnesses, and I think there are good reasons to believe him. Hence, when Luke differs from the other Gospels, I think there are some reasonable grounds for supposing that he is a reliable historical witness.

That doesn’t mean that either of them can be taken uncritically, especially in an apologetics context (again, see Habermas’ point about “minimal facts”). Brown argues against the view that Luke’s birth narrative is based on interviews with Mary (a view I have always found appealing). The birth narrative, as with Matthew, is naturally the most problematic from a strictly historical point of view. I don’t think the presence of legendary material in Luke can be ruled out at all.

Probably, if I had to choose, I’d say that I have a bit higher confidence in Mark . But generally I think Mark and Luke score pretty high.

You didn’t ask about John, but I think John is the Gospel whose “rating” has risen the highest in recent decades (and the much-vilified Fr. Brown was part of the reason for that, according to Fr. Harmless’ note in his online bibliography, though Blomberg doesn’t cite Brown in the survey of the literature in his John commentary, available on Google Books). The speeches are usually regarded with considerable suspicion (in terms of historicity), but then ancient historians are known to have taken more liberties with speeches than with narratives. John may well have had more concern for narrative order than the Synoptics, who seem to group events thematically (Luke may do that less than Matthew and Mark–I don’t know). I think John is written by the disciples of an eyewitness (probably John–though Bauckham, whom I respect very much, says that it is by an eyewitness but the eyewitness wasn’t John–kind of the other way around!).

I’m getting out of my depth here. I have much yet to learn in NT scholarship (looking over the titles in Fr. Harmless’ wonderful bibliography reminded me of that). I have been slogging through N. T. Wright’s great multivolume study of the historical Jesus. But you asked for my personal opinion, so I gave it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Why must the historical events recorded by Matthew be exclusive in order to be trustworthy evidence?

I think you’re mistaking the point here. To establish Matthew’s “general reliability,” you need to point to things the author of Matthew got right, not things that he simply took from another author who may have been more reliable. The reason to be somewhat suspicious of Matthew from a historical point of view is that when we compare Matthew with the others (especially Mark), he so often seems to be giving a theologically “smoother” or more elaborate account, in precisely the ways we would expect if he were a later author smoothing out rough edges in Mark’s earlier and likely more reliable version. And Matthew 16 is a good example (although personally I do not rule out the traditional view that Peter, telling the story to Mark, omitted things that glorified him because Peter was humble–but this is not something that one would normally conclude reading an ancient text and thus isn’t reliable for present purposes).

Matthew may have relied on Q, for example, and utilized those passages which were of value in his judgment. Luke may have done likewise.

Of course. The point is that if in fact the author of “Matthew” was using an earlier source called “Q,” and we establish that Q is a generally reliable collection of things Jesus really said, that doesn’t say much for Matthew’s reliability when he’s “on his own,” as he is in Matt. 16:18-19.

Similarly, there is much material common to Matthew and Luke, and some scholars (Yes, I know, Dr. Tait, not all.) believe that Matthew and Luke relied on an earlier source known as Q. Since both Matthew and Luke approved those verses, it attests to the likelihood that the Q verses are reliable history.

Oh, I’m happy that you accept Markan priority. I’ve been worrying that much of my argument assumed Markan priority and that if you challenged it we’d have another hurdle!

Now, about the connection Matthew shares with Luke. The historical reliability of Luke is really beyond question.

Too strong. But there’s certainly a good case for it.

Hurray! We have accolades being poured out upon Luke as a capable historian. So, how does this help Matthew? Well, did Matthew rely on Luke? No. Did Luke rely on Matthew? No. Did they both rely on Q for important passages in their respective gospels? Yes.

Consequently, the praise that is due to Luke for his diligent efforts to research and record a reliable account of the life of Jesus (and the Acts of the Apostles) is also due in large measure to Matthew for Matthew shares approximately 230 verses in common with Luke.

You’re not making sense here. The Q material is not the basis for the accolades you cite.

If Matthew and Luke are independent of each other but both used Q, then Luke’s qualities as a historian don’t reflect on Matthew. Especially when Matthew’s use of the Q material often differs quite a bit from Luke–for instance, Matthew appears to have woven together a lot of Q material to create a lengthy “Sermon on the Mount,” whereas Luke presents the material scattered throughout his narrative. If Luke is the fine historian we both believe him to be, it’s probable that he presented the material this way because it was not originally found all in one piece–Matthew’s version of the great Sermon is artistic, and doesn’t distort history in any significant way, but doesn’t particularly do anything to establish his reliability when he’s “on his own.” That is to say, Matthew’s tendency consistently seems to be to edit and arrange material for theological and artistic effect.

IOW, if Luke is praised for judging these Q verses to be worthy of inclusion in his gospel, how can Matthew be any less praiseworthy for having chosen them also!

Why would Luke be praised for his selections from Q? That’s not what he’s praised for (from a historical point of view). He’s praised (by those who praise him) for his accuracy in geographical and cultural detail, etc. Those are the places where he’s been found to be accurate. And since Luke’s arrangement of the Q material differs quite a bit from Matthew’s, your argument rebounds on itself.

Thus, anyone who seeks to question the historical reliability of Matthew will have to explain why Matthew has been any less diligent than Luke in selecting what portions of Q he chose to include in his own gospel.

No such difficulty exists. First of all, as I said above, if we have high confidence in Luke’s use of the material from Q, then Matthew’s versions will be judged unreliable where they differ. Luke says “Blessed are the poor.” Matthew says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” If Luke is the utterly reliable historian you say, then Matthew stands convicted of having added two words of theological explanation/commentary. Precisely the sort of thing that supports my argument with regard to chapter 16.

And in the second place, the pericope principally under dispute comes from Mark, not from “Q.” Matthew adds something to Mark’s account, while Luke reproduces it pretty much exactly. That supports Luke’s reliability only by detracting from Matthew’s. Yes, it’s quite possible that Matthew had a separate eyewitness source here. I don’t rule that possibility out. But given Matthew’s persistent tendency to add things (such as “in spirit” to “Blessed are the poor”) there’s a pretty high level of plausibility for the theory that vv. 18-19 are his addition. (Again, remember that I’m arguing for uncertainty here, not certainty that Jesus didn’t say it. Historically speaking, we can’t know for sure. But if anything, the balance of the evidence tips toward it being Matthew’s addition, I think.)

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Bauckham? Did someone mention Bauckham?

you don’t even mention such conservative scholars as Bauckham

I follow Richard Bauckham

I agree with Bauckham

Bauckham, whom I respect very much

Edgar J. Goodspeed uses analogies in the larger Greco-Roman world and the Jewish environment in Israel to compare to Matthew’s Gospel. Goodspeed says that Matthew the tax collector may have written down some of Jesus’ teachings [contemporaneously]. Indeed, it would have been strange if Matthew had not.

Goodspeed writes:

“[Jesus] now has a secretary, a recorder, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah had, to such tremendous advantage!” (p. 10). A little later Goodspeed writes: “Tax collectors were not only proficient in writing but many of them knew shorthand, in Jesus’ times and a hundred years before. While we cannot say that Matthew used it in taking down Jesus’ utterances . . . even without it dictation could be taken down with great speed”.

In addition to Gerhardsson and Byrskog, no one explains the transmission process of the Jesus traditions as clearly as Richard Bauckham does. After describing the notebooks that the rabbis used, he expands the cultural context to the ancient world:

“Such notebooks were in quite widespread use in the ancient world (2 Tim 4:13 refers to parchment notebooks Paul carried on his travels). It seems more probable than not that early Christians used them” (Richard Bauckham. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Eerdmans, 2006., p. 288).

Alan R. Millard did the most thorough study of reading and writing in the time of Jesus. Millard shows that Galilee was not an illiterate backwater. He summarizes an impressive array of material evidence. Key areas and cities in Galilee in the north match up well in Judea in the south, which has more evidence, since Jerusalem is the capital. For example, coin hoards in Galilee reveal the need for records and the existence of robust trade, along the trade routes. So what does Millar conclude?

The previous chapters [in his book] have shown the ubiquity of writing in first-century Palestine, the variety of writing material and scripts, and the range of circumstances in which people wrote. The last chapter made a case against the heavy emphasis placed upon oral tradition . . . This is not to say the Evangelists began to compose the Gospels in Jesus’ lifetime, but that some, possibly much, of their source material was preserved in writing from that period, especially accounts of the distinctive teachings and actions of Jesus. (Alan R. Millard. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. NYUP, 2000., pp. 222, 223-24)

Next, Millard says, as noted, that literacy was fairly high in first-century Israel, but Bauckham acknowledges that this is a debated point; literacy may have been low. Still, though, Bauckham points out that “we should also notice that the followers of Jesus, both during his ministry and in the early church, were drawn from all classes of people. There would undoubtedly be not only members of the educated elite but also professional scribes and copyists” (p. 288). He [Bauckham] then drops a hint that Matthew the tax collector would have been just such a professional (see Goodspeed, above).

Contemporaneous recording of Jesus’ teaching and deeds written down by one of the literate members of His inner circle…a tax collector by the name of Matthew.

Damn, I’m good. And no, I didn’t write this. But I found it. And it is devastating.

 

[Contarini]

Bauckham? Did someone ask about Bauckham?

Edgar J. Goodspeed uses analogies in the larger Greco-Roman world and the Jewish environment in Israel to compare to Matthew’s Gospel. Goodspeed says that Matthew the tax collector may have written down some of Jesus’ teachings [contemporaneously]. Indeed, it would have been strange if Matthew had not.

Goodspeed writes:

“[Jesus] now has a secretary, a recorder, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah had, to such tremendous advantage!” (p. 10). A little later Goodspeed writes: “Tax collectors were not only proficient in writing but many of them knew shorthand, in Jesus’ times and a hundred years before. While we cannot say that Matthew used it in taking down Jesus’ utterances . . . even without it dictation could be taken down with great speed”.

In addition to Gerhardsson and Byrskog, no one explains the transmission process of the Jesus traditions as clearly as Richard Bauckham does. After describing the notebooks that the rabbis used, he expands the cultural context to the ancient world:

“Such notebooks were in quite widespread use in the ancient world (2 Tim 4:13 refers to parchment notebooks Paul carried on his travels). It seems more probable than not that early Christians used them” (Richard Bauckham. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Eerdmans, 2006., p. 288).

Next, Millard says, as noted, that literacy was fairly high in first-century Israel, but Bauckham acknowledges that this is a debated point; literacy may have been low. Still, though, Bauckham points out that “we should also notice that the followers of Jesus, both during his ministry and in the early church, were drawn from all classes of people. There would undoubtedly be not only members of the educated elite but also professional scribes and copyists” (p. 288). He then drops a hint that Matthew the tax collector would have been just such a professional (see Goodspeed, above).

So you (or a source–in which case you should have cited the source) are arguing that Bauckham thinks Matthew the tax-collector wrote the Gospel as we have it? But he doesn’t actually say this, since you say “he drops a hint that Matthew would have been such a professional.”

In fact Bauckham says in this interview with Larry Hurtado that he doesn’t have a satisfactory theory to explain Matthew. He does not say that he thinks the tax-collector Matthew really wrote it. I think you’re really stretching here.

But at least we both admire Bauckham! (I am coming to admire Blomberg too, and I have you in part to thank for it–though perhaps Norman Geisler gets even more credit for his savage attacks on Blomberg and Licona, which have endeared both of them to me!)

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you (or a source–in which case you should have cited the source) are arguing that Bauckham thinks Matthew the tax-collector wrote the Gospel as we have it? But he doesn’t actually say this, since you say “he drops a hint that Matthew would have been such a professional.”

In fact Bauckham says in this interview with Larry Hurtado that he doesn’t have a satisfactory theory to explain Matthew. He does not say that he thinks the tax-collector Matthew really wrote it. I think you’re really stretching here.

But at least we both admire Bauckham! (I am coming to admire Blomberg too, and I have you in part to thank for it–though perhaps Norman Geisler gets even more credit for his savage attacks on Blomberg and Licona, which have endeared both of them to me!)

Edwin

Go back and re-read my updated version.

 

[Contarini]

Go back and re-read my updated version.

Still don’t see where Bauckham says that Matthew wrote it, only that he says (or hints–what does that mean? I don’t have the book at hand) that Matthew may have been an educated professional.

In contrast, I cite Bauckham directly saying (after giving specific theories for the other three Gospels) that “Matthew is the Gospel I understand least.”

Your continual effort to make scholars say things they aren’t actually saying is really wearying.

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Still don’t see where Bauckham says that Matthew wrote it, only that he says (or hints–what does that mean? I don’t have the book at hand) that Matthew may have been an educated professional.

In contrast, I cite Bauckham directly saying (after giving specific theories for the other three Gospels) that “Matthew is the Gospel I understand least.”

Your continual effort to make scholars say things they aren’t actually saying is really wearying.

Edwin

Bauckham in context from your link:

“I guess I ought to clarify my position on eyewitness testimony in the Gospels, since it has been raised and you, Larry, say: ‘As I understand him, he doesn’t mean that the Gospels are “eyewitness testimony” such as a court transcript would provide, but that the Gospels draw on “eyewitness testimony” as it circulated in early Christian circles.’ Well, no, certainly nothing like a court transcript, more like “oral history.” But my point was that the Gospels are CLOSE to the eyewitnesses’ own testimony, not removed from them by decades of oral tradition. I think there is a very good case for Papias’s claim that Mark got his much of his material directly from Peter (and I will substantiate this further with quite new evidence in the sequel to [my book] Jesus and the Eyewitnesses that I’m now writing). I think that the ‘Beloved Disciple’ himself wrote the Gospel of John as we have it, and that he was a disciple of Jesus and thus an eyewitness himself, as he claims, though not John the son of Zebedee. Of course, his Gospel is the product of his life-long reflection on what he had witnessed, the most interpretative of the Gospels, but still the only one actually written by an eyewitness, who, precisely because he was close to Jesus, felt entitled to interpret quite extensively. Luke, as well as incorporating written material (Mark’s Gospel, which he knew as substantially Peter’s version of the Gospel story, and probably some of the “Q” material was in written form), also, I think, did what ancient historians did: he took every opportunity to meet eyewitnesses and interviewed them. He has probably collected material from a number of minor eyewitnesses from whom he got individual stories or sayings. Matthew is the Gospel I understand least! But whatever accounts for Matthew it is not the form-critical picture of anonymous community traditions, which we really must now abandon!”

 

[icamhif]

So, by faith, you know that the gospels are accurate because the Holy Spirit inspired them - not because we can rely on the authors to “get it right”?

I believe that the Scriptures are inspired, but not inerrant.

If by “accurate,” you mean that they accurately represent God’s teachings on faith and morals, then yes.

But if by “accurate,” you mean that they are free from error in every historical/scientific/factual account, then no.

 

[Abu]

Icamhif #249
But if by “accurate,” you mean that they are free from error in every historical/scientific/factual account, then no.

In the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *(CCC) #107:
“Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that [the] truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.”

Thus:
‘These “materially used” (but not formally affirmed) propositions in Scripture would appear to be of three main kinds. First (and most obviously), there are those which the human author does not himself utter but attributes to someone else, in which case divine inspiration guarantees only the truthful reporting of such propositions, not the truth of the propositions themselves. Secondly, this category would include individual propositions used by the author as part of a parable or other imaginative literary composition, in which the formally affirmed teachings it sets out to convey emerge only from the story as a whole. Finally, there are propositions in which not every word is meant to be understood in the most immediate literal sense, since the author may be “using” hyperbole, metaphor, or other literary devices, even within a passage or book which is substantially ‘straight’ history or didactic teaching rather than fiction of some sort.

”In short, what is essentially guaranteed to be true by virtue of divine inspiration, according to the sentence of Dei Verbum, 11, we are considering, is not the isolated propositions taken in their ‘surface’ meaning and without regard to their historical and literary context, but rather (as the next article of *Dei Verbum *puts it) “that meaning which the sacred writers really intended, and which God, by their words, wanted to make known.” 55 The discernment of that divine and human meaning is what the Church understands by a proper ‘literal’ interpretation of the text - which is not to be confused with a ‘literalist’ interpretation.”

There are no “errors” or “contradictions” in the meaning which the sacred writers intended – only in the feelings of those who fail to understand and assent to the teaching of the Church on the Sacred Scriptures. [My emphases].
See rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html

Why? Because we have only the teaching of Christ’s Church which authorized infallibly which writings form the Word of God and is established by Him to teach, sanctify and rule.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I believe that the Scriptures are inspired, but not inerrant.

If by “accurate,” you mean that they accurately represent God’s teachings on faith and morals, then yes.

But if by “accurate,” you mean that they are free from error in every historical/scientific/factual account, then no.

I understand the distinction.

How do you know that the scriptures are inspired?

 

[grannymh]

In the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *(CCC) #107:
“Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that [the] truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.”

Thus:
‘These “materially used” (but not formally affirmed) propositions in Scripture would appear to be of three main kinds. First (and most obviously), there are those which the human author does not himself utter but attributes to someone else, in which case divine inspiration guarantees only the truthful reporting of such propositions, not the truth of the propositions themselves. Secondly, this category would include individual propositions used by the author as part of a parable or other imaginative literary composition, in which the formally affirmed teachings it sets out to convey emerge only from the story as a whole. Finally, there are propositions in which not every word is meant to be understood in the most immediate literal sense, since the author may be “using” hyperbole, metaphor, or other literary devices, even within a passage or book which is substantially ‘straight’ history or didactic teaching rather than fiction of some sort.

”In short, what is essentially guaranteed to be true by virtue of divine inspiration, according to the sentence of Dei Verbum, 11, we are considering, is not the isolated propositions taken in their ‘surface’ meaning and without regard to their historical and literary context, but rather (as the next article of *Dei Verbum *puts it) “that meaning which the sacred writers really intended, and which God, by their words, wanted to make known.” 55 The discernment of that divine and human meaning is what the Church understands by a proper ‘literal’ interpretation of the text - which is not to be confused with a ‘literalist’ interpretation.”

There are no “errors” or “contradictions” in the meaning which the sacred writers intended – only in the feelings of those who fail to understand and assent to the teaching of the Church on the Sacred Scriptures. [My emphases].
See rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html

Why? Because we have only the teaching of Christ’s Church which authorized infallibly which writings form the Word of God and is established by Him to teach, sanctify and rule.

Thank you.

I am amazed that Article 3, Sacred Scripture, CCC page 30, includes a load of paragraphs 101-141.
That is a lot of studying in addition to paragraphs 65-67 which is what I normally refer to.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

If the spiral argument were correct, you would be able to cite scholars from a wide range of faith commitments and none. You can’t do that. That in itself dooms the spiral argument.

I think you’re getting your causality backwards.

I’ve seen critics argue that we can’t take the NT seriously, since we don’t have attestation from non-Christians that Jesus was in fact the Son of God.

The illogic of such a statement is quite startling.

I think you may be doing something akin to that, albeit on a much smaller scale.

 

[icamhif]

I understand the distinction.

How do you know that the scriptures are inspired?

By Holy Tradition. It was the Church that recognized that the Scriptures are sacred.

How do I know that the Church is true?
Well, the overwhelming majority of reputable scholars agree that Jesus existed, that He was baptized by John in the River of Jordan, and that He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There is not much serious dispute among scholars that the Apostles actually died for their faith. That is good enough reason for me to assume that Christ taught His followers some distinctive teachings and intended for His message to be passed down across the generations. The continuity between the beliefs of the Early Church and the teachings of the Churches today which validly claim to have Apostolic lineage gives me confidence beyond reasonable doubt that what the Church teaches is what Christ taught.

 

[Randy_Carson]

By Holy Tradition. It was the Church that recognized that the Scriptures are sacred.

How do I know that the Church is true?
Well, the overwhelming majority of reputable scholars agree that Jesus existed, that He was baptized by John in the River of Jordan, and that He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There is not much serious dispute among scholars that the Apostles actually died for their faith. That is good enough reason for me to assume that Christ taught His followers some distinctive teachings and intended for His message to be passed down across the generations. The continuity between the beliefs of the Early Church and the teachings of the Churches today which validly claim to have Apostolic lineage gives me confidence beyond reasonable doubt that what the Church teaches is what Christ taught.

Don’t look now, but you’re making the Spiral Argument.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have just sent the following email to Dr. Habermas:

Dr. Habermas-

My name is Randy Carson, and I am an amateur Catholic apologist.

Recently, I purchased and viewed the Christ 101 apologetics series produced by Scott Sullivan which featured you and others in cameo appearances.

More recently, I have been engaged in an online debate with Dr. Edwin Tait, a church historian formerly on the faculty of Huntington University in Indiana. Based on the arguments put forth by Dr. Sullivan concerning general reliability, I have been arguing that we may be certain that Jesus promised to build a church in Mt. 16:18-19 because the general reliability of the author of Matthew is sufficient to justify giving the benefit of the doubt to the author. This was an important part of the argument made by Dr. Sullivan, Dr. Kreeft, Dr. Licona, and many others in Christ 101.

Dr. Tait, an Anglican, argues that we cannot be certain that Jesus ever spoke the words of Mt. 16:18-19. Further, he claims that in the absence of any corroborating passages from the other synoptics, there is no evidence that Jesus intended to establish a Church upon Peter. (I’m not sure of your own convictions in this regard, but surely you are familiar with the fact that more than 25 Protestant scholars (including DA Carson) have written that Peter – not Peter’s confession or Jesus – is the rock in that context. Jesus, of course, is the rock in many other passages.) However, it is not my intent to draw you into a discussion over the papacy. 

Instead, I am looking for some clarification regarding the sufficiency of general reliability when approaching the New Testament texts. Dr. Tait has cited your 2005 article, “Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels” as evidence that you do not view general reliability as strongly as Dr. Sullivan argues in his video series. I had read the article myself previously, but I did not come to the same conclusion as Dr. Tait. Perhaps I missed something.

Could you please clarify this for us?

Is the general reliability of the author of Matthew sufficient to establish the historical reliability of Matthew?

Is the historical reliability of Matthew sufficient to support the belief that Jesus did promise to build a church in Mt. 16:18-19 despite the lack of parallel verses in Mark or Luke?

Finally, would you accept or reject the following:

1. The Bible, viewed purely as a historical document, tells us that Jesus claimed to be God and proved His divinity by rising from the dead.
2. Jesus, who is God, promised to build a Church.
3. The Church, built by Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit into all truth, tells us that the Bible is inspired.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Randy Carson
Apex, NC

If I have the correct email address for him, perhaps he will respond.

From: “Habermas, Gary”
Date: April 10, 2015, 10:26:52 AM EDT
To: Randy Carson
Subject: RE: Christ 101, General Reliability and the New Testament

Randy:

I could accept those 3, but if I were trying to build an argument for the inspiration of Scripture, I think there is a stronger way than using 2) & 3). I would argue 1) resurrection, 2) Deity of Christ, 3) Jesus as spokesman for God, 4) Jesus’ teaching of inspiration. Here is the URL for a journal article from the “Areopagus Journal” where I present points 1, 3, 4: digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=lts_fac_pubs I have also argued pt 2 in print.

Gary Habermas, PhD
Distinguished Research Professor
Chair, Department of Philosophy
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

www.garyhabermas.com

Liberty University | Training Champions for Christ since 1971

+++

Did everyone catch that? Referring to my simple, three-point reduction of the Spiral Argument, Habermas wrote, “I could accept those 3.”

I’m reading his article, “Jesus and the Inspiration of Scripture” now. I hope you will, also.

 

[icamhif]

Don’t look now, but you’re making the Spiral Argument.

You can interpret it that way, sure.

The premise I still don’t buy, though, is that we can, by purely historical means, “give the benefit of the doubt” to everything Matthew says, for the “general reliability” argument is not well-established in his favor.

 

[icamhif]

You can interpret it that way, sure.

The premise I still don’t buy, though, is that we can, by purely historical means, “give the benefit of the doubt” to everything Matthew says, for the “general reliability” argument is not well-established in his favor.

Actually, it’s worse than that. I still don’t buy the line of the TSA that we can approach The Gospels “like any other ancient text” and confidently conclude that we can give every book and verse in the Gospels “the benefit of the doubt.”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Actually, it’s worse than that. I still don’t buy the line of the TSA that we can approach The Gospels “like any other ancient text” and confidently conclude that we can give every book and verse in the Gospels “the benefit of the doubt.”

Where is that stated in TSA?

 

[Contarini]

From: “Habermas, Gary”
Date: April 10, 2015, 10:26:52 AM EDT
To: Randy Carson
Subject: RE: Christ 101, General Reliability and the New Testament

Randy:

I could accept those 3, but if I were trying to build an argument for the inspiration of Scripture, I think there is a stronger way than using 2) & 3). I would argue 1) resurrection, 2) Deity of Christ, 3) Jesus as spokesman for God, 4) Jesus’ teaching of inspiration. Here is the URL for a journal article from the “Areopagus Journal” where I present points 1, 3, 4: digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=lts_fac_pubs I have also argued pt 2 in print.

Gary Habermas, PhD
Distinguished Research Professor
Chair, Department of Philosophy
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

www.garyhabermas.com

Liberty University | Training Champions for Christ since 1971

+++

Did everyone catch that? Referring to my simple, three-point reduction of the Spiral Argument, Habermas wrote, “I could accept those 3.”

I’m reading his article, “Jesus and the Inspiration of Scripture” now. I hope you will, also.

Randy, my point in citing Habermas was that Habermas very clearly says that apologists need to pay attention to critical arguments as well as arguments from general reliability, and that he favors a “minimal facts” approach.

You seem to miss the part where he says that your approach isn’t the one he would favor.

I was not arguing that Habermas supported all my views. I was arguing specifically that he points to the need to base apologetics arguments on facts widely accepted by critical scholars.

You seem more interested in playing “gotcha” (as in your rather weird claims of triumph over the fact that Bauckham “hints” that Matthew may have been an educated professional, which somehow proves that Bauckham thinks that Matthew wrote Matthew, even though I demonstrated that he actually says that he has no clear theory on the authorship of Matthew) than in actually inquiring into the truth.

You are a prime example, I’m afraid, of the corrupting influence of apologetics to which I referred earlier. Your reference to a chess game makes this clear. You treat this like a game and your object is to win. Your ultimate goal, of course, is to witness to the truth as you understand it. But you approach debate with the assumption that you already know the truth and your job is to beat down and shame those who challenge it.

I have certainly been guilty of this myself at times in our interactions and at many other times on this forum. It’s a disease from which no one is immune.

Edwin