The Spiral Argument Argument

[Contarini]

That’s not an argument you can win simply because I have to respect the number and names of scholars whose opinions are considered…um…generally reliable…over that of a single Internet forum poster. You can understand that, surely.

Randy, I’m not an NT scholar. I’m a church historian focusing on the Reformation. I’ve pointed this out plenty.

It’s not “my” case. It’s the case of the overwhelming consensus of Biblical scholars.

You lean heavily on a selective group of conservative scholars who you think support you. Even then, the support isn’t as clear as you believe. I have pointed out several times now that Licona, one of the scholars you cite, has suggested that the story in Matthew about the dead rising at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion may not be literal. In fact, the more I read about Licona the more it becomes clear that he’s extremely controversial in conservative circles precisely because his scholarly integrity leads him to be open to the possibility that the Gospels include legendary material. See this further polemic against him by Geisler, for instance.

A further point about your scholars: they are nearly all evangelical Protestants. There was I think one Catholic in the list you gave above who actually had a Ph.D. in Biblical studies. Scott Hahn, a convert from ultra-conservative Calvinism, actually has a Ph.D. in systematic theology, though he writes a lot about Biblical scholarship (and more power to him, I say). Blomberg, the expert you rely on most heavily, (I’m leaving out of consideration the people on your list who aren’t NT scholars at all, which is, interestingly, most of the Catholics.)

Now why is it that when conservative Catholics want to defend an ultra-conservative view of Scripture, they have to go to evangelical scholars? Who are the major Catholic scholars in mainstream academia in the last 50 years or so? Anyone in the scholarly world would name names like Joseph Fitzmyer, Raymond Brown, Roland Murphy, John Meier. . . .these guys did not approach Scripture the way you do. They are pretty much all anathema on this forum because they are “liberal.” But they were the ones who served on the PBC and who would generally be considered the foremost Catholic Biblical scholars of the post-Vatican-II era. They don’t help your case.

This is before even get into liberal Protestant and secular scholarship.

In other words, your favored scholars represent a fairly conservative subset of evangelical Protestant scholarship (with Licona apparently hanging off the edge), and a much tinier group of Catholic scholars (with Hahn, at least, being a convert from an extremely conservative version of Presbyterianism) who agree with this approach.

Furthermore, Blomberg and other conservative evangelical scholars belong to a professional society that requires them to believe in inerrancy, and generally teach at schools that make similar requirements on pain of losing their jobs. Denver Theological Seminary, for instance, requires faculty to say that Scripture is inerrant “in the original manuscripts.” This CT article on the Licona controversy quotes one scholar saying that many people would support Licona openly if they weren’t afraid of losing their jobs.

I am not suggesting that Blomberg is in any way less than honest in his scholarly positions. He’s a man of integrity who has in fact defended Licona against Geisler’s reprehensible heresy-hunting. I’m simply pointing out that he is committed for theological reasons to view Scripture in a particular way, and that this is an institutional commitment, not just a personal one. If he thought differently, he would no longer teach at Denver. Licona has had to change jobs precisely because he’s pushing the boundaries too much.

In short, if you want to make the case that the scholarly consensus supports the historicity of Matthew 16:18-19, you shouldn’t pick Blomberg. Pick someone who has no institutional requirement to take these positions–who wouldn’t have Norman Geisler baying for his professional head on a platter if he dared to agree with me. Or better yet, pick a group of people from different perspectives: evangelicals, liberal Protestants, Catholics, secularists. Only then would you really have a case.

To repeat the basic, simple point one more time: as long as you screen your scholars out for ideological purity, you are not doing a good job of supporting the claim that an honest examination of the NT, purely as history, leads to the conclusion that Matt. 16:18-19 and similar passages are historically accurate.

One other point you still have not dealt with: As I have pointed out repeatedly, the case for Matthew’s historicity (where he’s unsupported by the other Gospels) is much, much weaker than for Mark or Luke, and in some ways even for John. It’s no accident that when evangelical scholars get in trouble for questioning the historicity of some bit of the Synoptics, it’s almost always Matthew. So your “general reliability” argument doesn’t help you here–it hurts you. And that is the point on which you have Blomberg on your side. (Not claiming that he’s on my side on Matthew 16. Of course, he isn’t on your side on the interpretation of Matt. 16. The spiral argument fails miserably there too, but I’ve chosen not to focus on that because the meaning of Matt. 16 has been debated over and over on this forum, and until now I haven’t got a good thorough debate going on the historicity angle.)

 

[Contarini]

You are probably right that this is not a good forum to make my case. Not because I am a lone skeptic who needs to make a case to a scholarly world that supports you (you surely weren’t really suggesting that, were you?), but because people on this forum do not care about mainstream scholarship. They distrust and reject it.

But one last time: as long as you do that, the spiral argument cannot be made with honesty and integrity. You can’t seriously claim that you are approaching Scripture simply as an ancient historical source while refusing to listen to any scholar who doesn’t have the “right” kinds of faith commitments. That just won’t wash.

But I don’t expect you to agree. I expect you to go on listening to people who tell you what you want to hear.

I wonder, though, if you’ll find Licona among those people in ten years. . . . .We’ll see.

Meanwhile, if you should ever be interested in acquainting yourself with the scholarly spectrum as a whole instead of a select group of safe scholar-apologists, here’s an excellent place to start.

Edwin

 

[grannymh]

You are probably right that this is not a good forum to make my case. Not because I am a lone skeptic who needs to make a case to a scholarly world that supports you (you surely weren’t really suggesting that, were you?), but because people on this forum do not care about mainstream scholarship. They distrust and reject it.

I find that your general comment about people on this forum is a tad offensive even though there are probably some, not all, people who may not care about mainstrean scholarship.
Sir, I do care about mainstream scholarship. I also have the freedom to discover additional avenues to truth. To assume otherwise about my person is unwarranted.

 

[Randy_Carson]

New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts
Peter J. Williams
bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/new-evidence-the-gospels-were-based-on-eyewitness-accounts

In this informative and amusing video presentation, Peter Williams demonstrates that the gospels in general and the the Gospel of Matthew specifically, are highly accurate in their use of names and name qualifiers. For example, these common names needed qualifiers:

Name-Qualifier
Jesus-of Nazareth
Jesus-from Galilee
Simon-Peter
John-the Baptist
Judas-Iscariot
Matthew-the tax collector
Mary-Magdalene
Mary-of Clopas
Mary-the mother of Jesus

In the Gospels, names that do not need qualifiers do not have them.

This analysis has only been available since 2003., and Matthew is vindicated at about the 20 minute mark, but the entire talk is worth hearing.

Williams argues that names are among the most difficult things for most people to remember. Events, places, and even sayings are the main things we focus on, but names are often hard to recall. So, when the Gospels are shown to be correct in the matter of seemingly insignificant details such as people’s names, then we can be confident that the author was making real effort to report history accurately.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Further, the disambiguation provided by the name qualifiers would have been completely unnecessary 100 years later. Disambiguation was only necessary during the earliest years of Christianity when the major characters of the Gospel accounts would have been easily confused with other people of the same name. This is an argument for early dating of the gospels.

 

[grannymh]

The Spiral Argument

Here is the full text of the Spiral Argument as contained in an article entitled “Proving Inspiration” on Catholic Answers’ website here:
The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

The first glaring error is obviously the word “Bible”. This is too broad a topic considering the number of books in the Bible. The real issue should be up front with a brief summary of the particulars. This would be similar to the abstract in science research.

The second error is the presumption that accuracy in speech is the only way to approach an ancient text. The textual criticism presented in this thread may be correct; however, it is apparently limited to one verse, Matthew 16: 18. The papacy should be mentioned here which would help stall the “historical” objections. One should also bring in the fact that the Catholic Church is a visible organization.

The third error is to omit evidence that the Catholic Church is founded by the prophet Jesuss Who is generally independently accepted as a historical figure. “Prophet among prophets” is the minimun recognition of a real person.

Randy,

If you are willing to discuss these “errors” and maybe a few others, I am sure that the Spiral Argument will be easier to handle.

For example. This statement needs to be fully demonstrated throughout the Spiral Argument becasuse it is the hinge which separates the Spiral Argument from the circular argument. The historical approach has to go forward from the time of Jesus Christ. It should not be truncated.
Further, Christ said He would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

I do believe that the Spiral Argument is valuable and deserves the extra effort .

 

[Tomyris]

You are probably right that this is not a good forum to make my case. Not because I am a lone skeptic who needs to make a case to a scholarly world that supports you (you surely weren’t really suggesting that, were you?), but because people on this forum do not care about mainstream scholarship. They distrust and reject it.

But one last time: as long as you do that, the spiral argument cannot be made with honesty and integrity. You can’t seriously claim that you are approaching Scripture simply as an ancient historical source while refusing to listen to any scholar who doesn’t have the “right” kinds of faith commitments. That just won’t wash.

But I don’t expect you to agree. I expect you to go on listening to people who tell you what you want to hear.

I wonder, though, if you’ll find Licona among those people in ten years. . . . .We’ll see.

Meanwhile, if you should ever be interested in acquainting yourself with the scholarly spectrum as a whole instead of a select group of safe scholar-apologists, here’s an excellent place to start.

Edwin

I find that your general comment about people on this forum is a tad offensive even though there are probably some, not all, people who may not care about mainstrean scholarship.
Sir, I do care about mainstream scholarship. I also have the freedom to discover additional avenues to truth. To assume otherwise about my person is unwarranted.

I think it is an overgeneralization, not that I ever overgeneralize. Everyone ELSE ALWAYS OVERGENERALIZES. There.

Now that I have that out of my system, I think a simple modifier or two would have helped Contarini. But his writing is of such a caliber that I hesitate to improve it, but here is my modest attempt:

Original:

but because some people on this forum do not care about mainstream scholarship. They distrust and reject it.

My revisions in red.:curtsey::yeah_me:

 

[Randy_Carson]

**TSA Line 2:

From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work. **

This line of TSA immediately requires that two questions be addressed:

1. 
   *]What is textual criticism?
   *]How accurate is the NT text that we have today relative to the original penned by the author?
   
   I will begin with an explanation of textual criticism and discuss various estimates of biblical accuracy in a separate post.
   
   An Accurate Text - Proving the Accuracy of Modern Translations
   
   Each author of a NT book wrote an original manuscript which I’ll call “M”. Using M, copies were made and sent to various Churches in the NT era. I’ll call these second-generation copies, C1, C2 & C3. The number of copies is not important for this illustration. Now, imagine that copies of the copies were made as the Christian Church expanded since every local congregation wanted to have a copy of these important texts. I’ll call the copies of C1, C1a, C1b & C1c. There would also be C2a, C2b, and so forth. With me so far? In the following diagram, each column represents a generation. For example, M is the original, C1 a copy of M, C1a is a copy of C1, and C1a1 is a copy of C1a. Like this:
   
   M > C1 > C1a > C1a1
   
   Over the course of history, some copies are lost or destroyed. The copies which have not been lost are portrayed in red.
   
   M—C1—C1a—C1a1
   -------------C1b—C1b1
   ----------------------C1b2
   -------------C1c—C1c1
   ----------------------C1c2
   ------C2—C2a—C2a1
   -------------C2b—C2b1
   ------C3—C3a—C3a1
   ----------------------C3a2
   -------------C3b—C3b1
   -------------C3c—C3c1
   ----------------------C3c2
   ----------------------C3c3
   
   Now, imagine further that M, C1, C2 & C3 along with C1a, C2a, C3a & C3b have all been lost, but that C1b, C1c, C2b & C3c are all in museums scattered around the world - Moscow, London, the Vatican, etc. Additionally, all of the copies of those copies still exist (I’m simplifying, of course).
   
   We know that M must have existed, and logic dictates that C1, C2 & C3 must have existed (though we may be unsure of the number of first-generation copies). We can learn that both C1 & C2 must have existed by comparing the extant copies C1b & C2b and discovering subtle variations in the texts - copyists glosses or “typos”, if you will. If C1 was slightly different from C2, then those differences will be reflected in C1a and C2a along with all of the subsequent copies of those copies. Variations were passed on from generation to generation. Make sense?
   
   So, how can we know with certainty what the Bible actually said if we don’t have the original autograph (M) or if errors (variations) crept into the text? By comparing the existing texts, scholars can work backwards to determine what M actually said. This process, called Textual Criticism, can never be perfect since humans are involved (along with the Holy Spirit!), but we can have a high degree of confidence that the Bible we have to day contains the message that the original authors intended to convey.
   
   And that degree of confidence brings us to our next question.
   
   (cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Norman Geisler notes in his book A General Introduction to the Bible that the late Bruce Metzer (who taught Bart Ehrman) said that the NT is copied with 99.5 percent accuracy. Geisler goes on to say,

NT textual authorities Westcott and Hort estimated that only about one-sixtieth rise above “trivialities” and can be called “substantial variations.” In short, the NT is 98.33 percent pure. Second, Greek expert Ezra Abbott said about 19/20 (95 percent) of the readings are “various” rather than “rival” readings, and about 19/20 (95 percent) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. Thus the text is 99.75 percent accurate. Third, noted NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said the real concern is with about a “thousandth part of the entire text.” So, the reconstructed text of the New Testament is 99.9% free from real concern.

**Philip Schaff **estimated that of the thousands of variations in all the manuscripts known in his day, only 50 were of real significance and of these not one affected “an article of faith.” Even agnostic NT critic Bart Ehrman admits that

“In fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes pure and simple-slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another” (Misquoting Jesus, 55).

Famous British manuscript expert Sir Frederick Kenyon summed up the matter well when he declared that: “The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, 288).

Consider the following message: Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION. DOLLARS. Notice that even with the error in the text, 100% of the message comes through.

Consider also this message with two lines and two errors.

• Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
• YO# HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS

Here we are even more sure of the message with two errors in it. In fact, the more errors like this, the more sure one is of the message since every new line brings a confirmation of every letter except one. The NT has about 5700 manuscripts. which provides hundreds, in some cases even thousands of confirmations, of every line in the NT.

As a matter of fact, there can be a high percent of divergence in letters and yet a 100% identity of message. Consider the following lines:

1. YOU HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
2. THOU HAST WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS
3. Y’ALL HAVE WON $10,000,000

Notice that of the 27 letters and numbers in line two only 7 in line three are the same. That is little more than 25% identity of letters and numbers, yet the message is 100% the same. They differ in form, but they are identical in content. The same is true of all the basic teachings of the NT. ”​

Taken from:

A Look at Bart Ehrman: Agreements and Disagreements
By Eric Chabot
M.A. Southern Evangelical Seminary, Religious Studies.
chab123.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/what-bart-ehrman-gets-right-and-wrong/

 

[benjohnson]

I’m not an adjunct any more (thank God), but a stay-at-home parent, homesteader, and freelance writer.

I think you just won the game of life. An amalgam of the best of all possible professions.

 

[benjohnson]

I only have a few moments of “only 30 minutes on the computer during Lent” time left - so my critique of the Spiral Argument will be brief:

It perhaps removes the need to have faith given as a gift from God, and instead (in my opinion) relies too much on our own knowledge to build up faith. When an aspect of our knowledge changes due to research or argument - it could be imagined that this faith is prone to crumbling.

Durable faith comes from God’s revelation - or at least for me. My own mind would produce a finicky faith.

 

[benjohnson]

That just won’t wash.

I would agree - approached without pre-conceived notions and from an entirely fact based viewpoint and accepting the wide variety of legitimate research the Bible would sit right next to all the other creation-myth books in the secular library. Perhaps no more facilitating than other books like Kangyur.

 

[grannymh]

I would agree - approached without pre-conceived notions and from an entirely fact based viewpoint and accepting the wide variety of legitimate research the Bible would sit right next to all the other creation-myth books in the secular library. Perhaps no more facilitating than other books like Kangyur.

Those words – “the Bible would sit right next to all the other creation-myth books in the secular library.” is why, in my humble opinion, “Bible” is too broad. A second problem is the presumption that the proven reliablility of the Bible is the only way to validate truth in an ancient text. Studying the intent of the passage and then verifying that the intent was completed is another possible approach.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I’m not an NT scholar. I’m a church historian focusing on the Reformation. I’ve pointed this out plenty.

It’s not “my” case. It’s the case of the overwhelming consensus of Biblical scholars.

Perhaps, but you should cite them. Name some names. I say this because I’ve not come across anyone other than Bart Ehrman who seriously questions the historical reliability of the NT. And even he is supportive in some respects. So, who should I be reading?

You lean heavily on a selective group of conservative scholars who you think support you. Even then, the support isn’t as clear as you believe. I have pointed out several times now that Licona, one of the scholars you cite, has suggested that the story in Matthew about the dead rising at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion may not be literal. In fact, the more I read about Licona the more it becomes clear that he’s extremely controversial in conservative circles precisely because his scholarly integrity leads him to be open to the possibility that the Gospels include legendary material. See this further polemic against him by Geisler, for instance.

I had read Geisler’s disagreement with Licona previously, but thanks.

A further point about your scholars: they are nearly all evangelical Protestants. There was I think one Catholic in the list you gave above who actually had a Ph.D. in Biblical studies. Scott Hahn, a convert from ultra-conservative Calvinism, actually has a Ph.D. in systematic theology, though he writes a lot about Biblical scholarship (and more power to him, I say). Blomberg, the expert you rely on most heavily, (I’m leaving out of consideration the people on your list who aren’t NT scholars at all, which is, interestingly, most of the Catholics.)

Is it a problem for a Catholic to cite Protestant scholars?

Now why is it that when conservative Catholics want to defend an ultra-conservative view of Scripture, they have to go to evangelical scholars? Who are the major Catholic scholars in mainstream academia in the last 50 years or so? Anyone in the scholarly world would name names like Joseph Fitzmyer, Raymond Brown, Roland Murphy, John Meier. . . .these guys did not approach Scripture the way you do. They are pretty much all anathema on this forum because they are “liberal.” But they were the ones who served on the PBC and who would generally be considered the foremost Catholic Biblical scholars of the post-Vatican-II era. They don’t help your case.

It is perhaps an unfortunate fact that Catholic scholars are often late to the party when it comes to explaining and defending the scriptures from skeptics. I think this is due in large part to the fact that Evangelicals are more sola scriptura oriented. And, as you know, Catholicism went through an unfortunate period of liberalism after Vatican II from which (at least in the US), it is just now beginning to recover. So, a young priest in formation in the 60’s and 70’s would be in his 70’s now. The more conservative priests coming out of seminaries in recent years have not yet made their marks upon the academic world.

In other words, your favored scholars represent a fairly conservative subset of evangelical Protestant scholarship (with Licona apparently hanging off the edge), and a much tinier group of Catholic scholars (with Hahn, at least, being a convert from an extremely conservative version of Presbyterianism) who agree with this approach.

Which does not make them wrong, does it?

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Furthermore, Blomberg and other conservative evangelical scholars belong to a professional society that requires them to believe in inerrancy, and generally teach at schools that make similar requirements on pain of losing their jobs. Denver Theological Seminary, for instance, requires faculty to say that Scripture is inerrant “in the original manuscripts.” This CT article on the Licona controversy quotes one scholar saying that many people would support Licona openly if they weren’t afraid of losing their jobs.

I am not suggesting that Blomberg is in any way less than honest in his scholarly positions. He’s a man of integrity who has in fact defended Licona against Geisler’s reprehensible heresy-hunting. I’m simply pointing out that he is committed for theological reasons to view Scripture in a particular way, and that this is an institutional commitment, not just a personal one. If he thought differently, he would no longer teach at Denver. Licona has had to change jobs precisely because he’s pushing the boundaries too much.

In short, if you want to make the case that the scholarly consensus supports the historicity of Matthew 16:18-19, you shouldn’t pick Blomberg. Pick someone who has no institutional requirement to take these positions–who wouldn’t have Norman Geisler baying for his professional head on a platter if he dared to agree with me. Or better yet, pick a group of people from different perspectives: evangelicals, liberal Protestants, Catholics, secularists. Only then would you really have a case.

I will endeavor to do so. However, I think it’s fair to ask you this question: Is it your opinion that the majority of conservative Catholic scholars deny the historical reliability of the NT?

To repeat the basic, simple point one more time: as long as you screen your scholars out for ideological purity, you are not doing a good job of supporting the claim that an honest examination of the NT, purely as history, leads to the conclusion that Matt. 16:18-19 and similar passages are historically accurate.

Aren’t you really in the position of having to admit that you don’t know with certainty whether Mt 16:18-19 was literally spoken by Jesus or not?

One other point you still have not dealt with: As I have pointed out repeatedly, the case for Matthew’s historicity (where he’s unsupported by the other Gospels) is much, much weaker than for Mark or Luke, and in some ways even for John. It’s no accident that when evangelical scholars get in trouble for questioning the historicity of some bit of the Synoptics, it’s almost always Matthew. So your “general reliability” argument doesn’t help you here–it hurts you. And that is the point on which you have Blomberg on your side. (Not claiming that he’s on my side on Matthew 16. Of course, he isn’t on your side on the interpretation of Matt. 16. The spiral argument fails miserably there too, but I’ve chosen not to focus on that because the meaning of Matt. 16 has been debated over and over on this forum, and until now I haven’t got a good thorough debate going on the historicity angle.)

We’ll get there. Be patient.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are probably right that this is not a good forum to make my case. Not because I am a lone skeptic who needs to make a case to a scholarly world that supports you (you surely weren’t really suggesting that, were you?), but because people on this forum do not care about mainstream scholarship. They distrust and reject it.

Arianism was mainstream at one point, wasn’t it? :yup:

But no, I’m not saying that the scholarly world supports me; I’m saying that my very limited exposure to the scholarly world suggests that the scholars have, over the past 50 years or so, come around to the position that the NT is historically reliable.

But don’t just tell me I’m wrong; that’s just an assertion on the part of one non-NT scholar to another. Instead, quote the conservative Catholic NT scholars who have taken the position that we really can’t trust the historical reliability of the gospels and epistles.

As for taking your case elsewhere, how do you think that would work out? Would you be arguing that the NT in general is NOT historically reliable? Or that Matthew individually is not a reliable eyewitness to the life of Jesus? Or would you narrow your focus to a few verses in Matthew 16?

If you have a rock-solid argument that undermines the papacy, you could sell millions of books. And while this seems like swimming upstream to me, perhaps your paper would catch the eye of the faculty at UNC. They are very open to this sort of thing over there.

But one last time: as long as you do that, the spiral argument cannot be made with honesty and integrity. You can’t seriously claim that you are approaching Scripture simply as an ancient historical source while refusing to listen to any scholar who doesn’t have the “right” kinds of faith commitments. That just won’t wash.

You’re merely assuming who I will refuse to listen to, aren’t you? How can you possibly know who I will and won’t read? C’mon…that was a rhetorical flourish, wasn’t it?

But I don’t expect you to agree. I expect you to go on listening to people who tell you what you want to hear.

You should expect me to go on listening to people whom I trust and from whom I can learn how to explain and defend the Catholic faith from skeptics, yes.

I wonder, though, if you’ll find Licona among those people in ten years. . . . .We’ll see.

Since I had never heard of him before last month, I doubt his ultimate demise (which you predict) will bother me in the least.

Meanwhile, if you should ever be interested in acquainting yourself with the scholarly spectrum as a whole instead of a select group of safe scholar-apologists, here’s an excellent place to start.

Edwin

Ah. This is what I requested in my previous post. I am reading them and responding one at a time, so I did not see this until now. Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now why is it that when conservative Catholics want to defend an ultra-conservative view of Scripture, they have to go to evangelical scholars? Who are the major Catholic scholars in mainstream academia in the last 50 years or so? Anyone in the scholarly world would name names like Joseph Fitzmyer, Raymond Brown, Roland Murphy, John Meier. . . .these guys did not approach Scripture the way you do. They are pretty much all anathema on this forum because they are “liberal.” But they were the ones who served on the PBC and who would generally be considered the foremost Catholic Biblical scholars of the post-Vatican-II era. They don’t help your case.

Two more points:

First, Raymond Brown denied the inerrancy of scripture, did he not?

I had to spend quite a bit of time in years past defending Catholicism from the attacks of Bible Christians citing a “top Vatican scholar” who denied the inerrancy of the Bible. And you wonder why he’s “anathema” on this forum?

Tell me, Dr. Tait, whose “case” does Raymond Brown help with that? Yours? Bart Ehrman’s?

Second, wouldn’t it be true that Blomberg, Evans, Hahn, et al would be familiar with the conservative Catholic scholars who deny the historical reliability of the Bible? If so, they don’t seem particularly fazed by the arguments put forth by these Catholics.



Could you provide links to any online articles in which Catholic scholars take issue with the historical reliability of the NT in general or Matthew specifically?

That would be a great step forward in convincing me and the audience of this thread that your objections to TSA are based on more than one man’s personal opinion.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Spiral Argument Syllogism:

1. The Bible is historically accurate.
2. The historically accurate Bible says that Jesus claimed to be God and promised to rise from the dead as proof of His divinity.
3. Jesus rose from the dead.
4. Rising from the dead is either the result of human power or divine power.
5. Rising from the dead is not from human power.
6. Therefore, rising from the dead is from divine power.
7. Therefore, Jesus is God.
8. The historically reliable Bible says that Jesus promised to build a church.
9. A Church built by Jesus cannot teach error in God’s name; it is prevented or protected from doing so.
10. The infallible Church teaches that the historically accurate Bible is also the inspired Word of God.
11. Therefore, the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Spiral argument taken for it’s purpose serves to remove and expose self proclaimed (false) prophets, false ideologies which stem from independent readings of the New Testament based on assumptions and false truth’s based on feelings derived as a divine self revelation.

In short the Spiral argument defends the New Testament writings from being diseased by secular minds and false interpretations of the divine revelations of Jesus Christ.

The Spiral argument exposes all historical false prophets and future prophets by holding them to the divine revelations revealed to those who eye witnessed them first hand and handed them on both orally and written. Apostolic Sacred Tradition is a bulwark to the Spiral argument.

As far as historical scholarship, archeologist and biblical scholarship is concerned. These hold to their own self serving and secular authorities to the agencies who give them a license to conduct such a research. The standard’s used by such important research are limited only to the visible evidence presented to their research which only leads to a professional (licensed) OPINION based on the physical evidence.

The professional opinion to the facts will always place the Catholic Church present in the time to the facts researched with her members.

The Church can claim the New Testament bible books as divinely inspired because She is present before, during and after the New Testament is written and handed down the divine revelations and teachings openly through out the ages to the present. Even at the cost of blood by her saints and martyrs.

This is a fact to which professional historical scholars cannot refute and cannot hold a professional opinion to the Spiral argument mainly because the one giving the objection or opinion was never there to give an eye witness account. Thus the best a historian can do is give an OPINION from a far with copied records to the New Testament historical events.

Such research only educates from what is tangible and physical evidence and dare not enter into the domain of divine inspiration which would subject their license to penalties and or rejection. Let us keep the historical professions within their own confined spaces.

Let it be clear when comparing spiritual matters when the Catholic Church is ever present has the final say, because She is present and gives lively witnesses to the written accounts of the New Testament over the research made from afar of copied and physical evidence which only proves the Catholic Church is ever present.

The Spiral argument offers a contradiction to historical New Testament scholarship. When research only proves an opinion and educated guess from the available physical evidence presented. Which is a contradiction to the Inspiration of the physical evidence, to which only the Catholic Church can give a witness historical account to both the physical evidence and inspirational evidence mainly on the fact that the Catholic Church is present with the evidence researched by the new testament scholars.

Thus there can be no argument against the Spiral argument. Only an opinion to the physical evidence from a far is the best a New Testament historical scholar can give without losing his/her license.

The Catholic Church can claim the New Testament divinely Inspired because She is present in history and her faith is never bound to the laws and licenses of scholarly research.

The Spiral argument protects the divine revelations of Jesus Christ from being infected by secular powers and false interpretations by false teachers who are never present to receive the divine revelations first hand by Jesus Christ Himself.

Thus Sacred Tradition becomes the bulwark to the New Testament and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the eyewitnesses to the New Testament when all three together are TRUTH and give witness to one another recorded in the New Testament as being divinely inspired.

The Spiral argument defends Truth with Truth. Measure all others to the Catholic Church, who make a self claim to their own inspiration of the bible, and you will expose a devil.

 

[Abu]

Contarini #81
Who are the major Catholic scholars in mainstream academia in the last 50 years or so? Anyone in the scholarly world would name names like Joseph Fitzmyer, Raymond Brown, Roland Murphy, John Meier. . . .these guys did not approach Scripture the way you do. They are pretty much all anathema on this forum because they are “liberal.” But they were the ones who served on the PBC and who would generally be considered the foremost Catholic Biblical scholars of the post-Vatican-II era.

Among the most confused and misleading biblical Catholic “scholars” were Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer. The attitude and questionable scholarship of John Meier can be best gauged by his “Ray Brown still takes all kinds of vicious attacks….if they ever knew what some of the rest of us are doing, they’d have a heart attack.” National Catholic Reporter, February 22, 1980, p 20, cited in The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1982, p7-8].

The Pontifical Biblical Commission in counseling exegetes and teachers of biblical studies states: “Let him always obey the Magisterium of the Church.” Hardly what Brown was about.

Msgr. Jerome Quinn, at one time (1980) the only U.S. member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, disagreed with Brown’s views on the ordination of women. Paulist Neil McEleney, a 1979 President of the Catholic Biblical Association, considered Brown’s view of Mary’s role in Christ’s life as “minimalist.” John McKenzie, S.J., author of the impressive Dictionary of the Bible, thought that Brown hedged his controversial conclusions with the appearance of objectivity, while marshalling his evidence in favor of the position to which he was committed. Dennis McCarthy, S.J., a professor at the Biblicum in Rome, suggested (1979) that Brown operated out of a “squirrel cage,” i.e. he ran round and round in circles, always returning to the same place — doubt.

Brown’s favorite terms for the critics of his theories were the following: “ultra-right,” “fundamentalist,” “ultra-conservative,” “right-wing vigilantes,” and “extremists.” Their opinions, he insisted, had “no scholarly respectability.” Labelling like this, which in our society creates impressions not necessarily true or valid, raised doubts in many Catholic quarters about traditional religious formulas.

Many Brownians tend to be in a state of adulation, and in denial of his errors and arrogance. Another failure by the Brownians to acknowledge Brown’s replacement of Scripture and Tradition with doubt.

The attempt by many intellectuals and theologians since Vatican II to declare independence from the Magisterium, “with the logical result that professor poses as pope, represents the crux of the confusion in the minds of believers about the meaning of their religion in the modern world.” Fr James V Schall, S.J., concludes: “The result of no real orthodoxy is a skepticism and usually a counter-orthodoxy.” Distinctiveness of Christianity, James V Schall, S.J., Ignatius Press, 1982, p 176].

The reality is that:
Pope St. Pius X made the rulings of the Commission a part of the Magisterium, the supreme teaching authority of the Church. This extension of the Magisterium was later removed after the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal Ratzinger writes: "The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars …"5 In other words, Pope St. Pius X made the Commission an organ and that organ taught us, publishing its decrees in the A.A.S. Its promulgated decrees were and remain to this day ordinary Magisterial teaching. But after Vatican II the PBC no longer enjoyed this authority.
Note
5. Preface to The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1993.
[LT94 - Rediscovering the Decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission]](LT94 - Rediscovering the Decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission]) [My emphasis].