The Spiral Argument Argument

[Gabriel_of_12]

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].

Your post makes perfect sense;
I would like to add that there have been many great doctors, biblical scholars and Church historians who became saints and yet not all they commented upon is supported by the Church and at times became a contradiction to the teachings of the Church and many were disciplined in obedience to the Church’s teachings.

That said, these theologians and scholars including some popes who write or give commentary remain confined to their sciences and are not used solely to give a divine revelation or divine inspiration. The Church at sunder times has used their commentaries to give or lend support to the Church’s doctrine or teachings. In short the last divine revelation ended with the last living Apostle, all other apostolic successors hand down directly divine revelation in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to all ages.

Yet one should never adhere to a biblical scholar, historian, theologian opinion or commentary to be used as divine revelation or divine inspiration nor to use them as a product to argue against divine revelation.

In such cases the Church proclaims her divine revelation in liturgy and practice. She does not argue divine revelation, She lives it out. She uses doctrine, dogma, profession of faith to defend divine revelation.

The Spiral argument is a tool which exposes the light to all other inspirations and enlightenments from a witnessed divine revelation manifested in the fullness of times. The Spiral argument can only point one to the source to which divine revelation has been given leaving all others that subject themselves to new gospel self interpretations, new inspirations that lead to every wind and doctrine invented by men which contradict divine revelation. We have not touched on faith here only divine revelation.

In defense of Raymond Brown. He has excellent resources and historical facts. When he leans away from Church teaching from his professional opinions and commentary which he is at liberty to do so within the confines of his sciences. But these like Raymond Brown do not speak for the Whole Church.

The Spiral argument points to the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church who is the bulwark of Truth who speaks for the whole Church. Because She is given the keys and divine revelation to bind and loose on earth. When all others are not given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

 

[grannymh]

The Spiral argument points to the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church who is the bulwark of Truth who speaks for the whole Church. Because She is given the keys and divine revelation to bind and loose on earth. When all others are not given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

This is exactly what I have discovered, but have not yet been able to explain it properly. My latest thoughts are to use the Spiral Argument to lead to the Catholic Church’s authority to interpret the Divine Revelation within Holy Scripture. Somehow, this quuestion comes back to me – What is the Bible inspired to do? Another question in the middle of the night. Did any of the scholars mentioned in this thread deny the existence of a man named Jesus?

There are excellent points in your post. But it is the middle of the night and my brain, which saw the comparison between your post and my simple thoughts, has now gone back to sleep. .

 

[Randy_Carson]

But the scribes did make errors – the original ending of Mark is missing, and has different replacements in different manuscripts. The presence of any error shows that this book is not under any special protection from God.

Even the original authors made errors: Quirinius (Luke) and Herod (Matthew) were separated by ten years, yet both are associated with the birth of Jesus.

There is no error.

Jimmy Akin addresses this issue citing NT Wright whose scholarship has been praised by others in this thread.

Does Luke Contradict Himself on When Jesus Was Born?
Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/does-luke-contradict-himself-on-when-jesus-was-born

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lucy-

I’m reviewing this thread, and I may not have responded adequately to your post #13 previously. If I did, please forgive the repetition.

Randy

Originally Posted by Randy Carson View Post
Or TSA may simply be flawed and indefensible.

Many people have pointed out their disagreements and perceived flaws, but I remain unconvinced by their arguments, and apparently, the folks at Catholic Answers are not, either.

However, my faith as a Catholic in the inspiration of Sacred Scripture does not rest upon the syllogism.

So why should anyone else’s?

No one’s faith should rest solely upon this syllogism. However, the purpose of TSA is to either provide the intellect with a basis or reason for responding to God’s grace acting upon the will. IOW, there is an intellectually satisfying reason for believing that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

TSA is just a tool, an attempt to explain how we can know that the Bible is the Word of God,

But it doesn’t explain that. You yourself above admit that it is not via the TSA that you believe what you believe.

Of course it does. TSA walks us through a logical sequence in which we establish via investigation of that which may be known historically that Jesus is God and that He promised to build an infallible Church which declares the Bible to be inspired.

As for my own approach, you are correct; I did not follow this path myself. However, that does not mean that the logic cannot be helpful to others who have not reached the point at which they can say that the Bible is inspired.

used by Catholic apologists when speaking with non-Catholic Christians and non-believers as we endeavor to help them understand our Catholic faith. If TSA is demonstrated to be fatally flawed or if I simply fail to defend it adequately, no one’s faith should be shaken nor should anyone presume that the Bible is not inspired.

It’s the act of using the TSA in evangelizing that is fatally flawed.

Again, the goal of apologetics is not to coerce someone into believing. It is to provide intellectually satisfying answers to the logical questions and objections that prevent one from making an act of faith. And in this capacity, TSA is quite useful.

For one, you yourself admit that it was not the TSA that lead you to certainty about the Catholic Church.
But others should be convinced by the TSA?

Some, yes. Others, perhaps not. There are many objections and many answers.

Personally, I was not familiar with TSA at the time of my conversion, but neither was I skeptical of the Bible because I was already a Christian at the time. I was convinced by the evidence of history in favor of the Catholic Church. Thus, intellectually satisfying evidence DID hasten my entrance into the Catholic Church.

For two, Christians and non-Christians alike have pointed out TSA’s flaws as they see them. Do you care about that?

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that I will attempt to strengthen the argument (whereas you would eliminate it) and to clarify it. No, in that not everyone will be convinced by this or any other argument.

In the Meditations, Descrates puts forward philosophical arguments that are supposed to convince the infidels. But he himself has not arrived at his faith by following those arguments.

Apparently, there is a pattern of Catholic apologists doing this.

A doctor eats a healthy diet, exercises regularly and enjoys good health. However, he may prescribe a treatment plan that includes surgery and medicines to correct and control a condition. He is proposing a course of action, but he himself has not arrived at his health by following his own treatment plan.

In which case, why use the TSA to begin with?

You want that non-Christians be convinced of Christianity/Catholicism
on the grounds of arguments that Christians themselves do not base their faith on??

Why??

The Spiral Argument may not be important or relevant to all, but it may be useful for some. If you have no need of it, you may simply move on to other topics that are more germane to your own needs.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As an older than dirt cranky (feminine of snarky) granny, my opinion is that the Spiral Argument argument is appropriate here because any method of proof is non-demoninational.

Most likely Randy will correct my second opinion. It seems to me that the discussion is focusing on shoring up the method rather than emphasizing the content.

Seconded.

Sorry I did not do so more quickly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In that case, anything goes.

And the method is what? Using arguments that no Christian ever used for himself to come to faith, for the sake of convincing non-Christians that Christianity is true?

Lucy-

You have asserted this in several posts.

Okay…how did you come to believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And it’s obvious that your faith doesn’t rest on this argument. It would be very, very bad if it did. That’s one of the reasons why the argument is a joke. It’s obviously an ex post facto argument constructed to justify beliefs that people already hold.

It’s true that believers already accept that the Bible is inspired whereas non-believers are skeptical, at best. Arguments that attempt to explain the plausibility and probability of this article of faith help the non-believer by providing information that may have been unknown or ill-considered previously.

We all have our eureka moments, Dr. Tait. :yup:

I’m guessing that you have had a few along your current path toward the Catholic Church, yes? And if you should finally become a Roman Catholic, I suspect that it will be in large part because you have become convinced intellectually that there is some important distinction between the Roman and Anglican communions that requires your change in membership.

I think we would both agree that the primary argument for Christianity is the resurrection and not the Spiral Argument. But the Spiral Argument is just one of hundreds of defenses of Christianity that are necessary because of the doubts and disbelief of non-Christians. You should be familiar with how often TSA is useful in these circumstances because of how frequently you have objected to it over the past few years.

So, while you object to TSA, you should at least be able to see why it is a useful apologetics tool that is frequently employed.

And perhaps before this thread has reached its 1,000-post limit, one of us will have had an “aha” moment that will forever decide the disagreement between us.

Thanks by the way for the courteous tone. I’m sorry for the strong language I used before. A lot of it was due to my own personal struggles and pressures. I scapegoated you for my own ambivalent feelings about Catholicism.

Edwin

I shall endeavor to maintain the civility. I do tend to get…um…passionate about these discussions at times.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not questioned in what way? No one claims that Virgil is an accurate work of history.

Scholars generally agree that our modern “critical editions” of the NT (such as the Nestle-Aland) give us a pretty accurate reading of what the “original” authors wrote in the late first and possibly early second centuries.

The tract’s focus on this non-controversial point is suspicious, because it looks like playing to the gallery. People without academic training who are skeptical typically focus on the possibility of textual corruption as the source of their skepticism. Certainly that point needs to be dealt with, but for the purposes of the argument it’s essentially irrelevant.

But this is really a side issue and not the heart of my problem with the argument.

Edwin

Dr. Tait-

As you well know, many scholars attribute the gospels to the traditional authors: Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and so on.

Additionally, many dates are proposed for the writing of these books with skeptics claiming later dates than may actually be correct. Similarly, Christians may tend toward earlier dates than the evidence warrants.

Now, I am of the opinion that the traditional authorship of the Gospels as well as early dating supports the principle of “general reliability”. Further, I know that you will take issue with general reliability as it relates to the discussion at hand.

However, are we in agreement regarding authorship and dating or must we wrangle over these matters as a prelude to the establishment of general reliability? IOW, are you prepared to acknowledge that all four gospels are “generally reliable”? If so, we will be spared quite a few unnecessary posts. :yup:

I’m anticipating that you might be able to concede that the gospels ARE generally reliable, but that this is not sufficient to make the case that TSA needs to make. But that’s an entirely different line of discussion.

Please advise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think it’s dead wrong. For one thing, if you say it is THE way, then all other ways are wrong. Most enormously presumptuous!

If you have another way of explaining the reasons we have for believing that the Bible is inspired to an atheist, would you mind sharing it with us?

Secondly, IMHO the Catholic argument is that the Church says it is inspired, so Catholics believe it is inspired.

Exactly. That is one of the last lines of TSA. However, it must first be explained why the Catholic Church is in the position of being able to say that Bible is inspired.

I think TSA explains both points.

 

[Picky_Picky]

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.

We seem still to be on your first premise. Can I take it for the purposes of the argument that we don’t need to show the historic accuracy of the whole Bible? Perhaps we could agree that asking whether the Genesis creation stories or the Song of Solomon or indeed the Revelation is historically accurate is to ask the wrong question. We are concerned, presumably, for the purposes of your argument, with the Gospels and Acts and the Epistles.

The material you quote in support of the historical accuracy of those Books states that the versions of them we possess today enable us by scholarship to determine the text of the original written versions (“M” in your material) with very considerable confidence – as indeed Contarini has said he believes.

There seem to me to be two subsequent problems.

(1) As I understand it scholars believe “M” to be derived at least in part from earlier sources, both written but now lost (“W”) and oral (“O”). As far as I can see you have shown no way in which we can determine that “W” and “O” were transmitted correctly into “M”.

(2) Secondly, even if you could trace the correct versioning of the present texts back to “W” and “O”, that does not determine that the present texts are historically accurate, or that “M” was historically accurate, or that “W” and “O” were historically accurate: you would have determined their provenance, but nothing more. If “W” was mistaken, that mistake could have been copied correctly into “M” and thence into the NT. The provenance of the texts is useful evidence, no doubt, but determination of their historical accuracy, insofar as it is possible, rests on the verse by verse scholarship Contarini has described.

 

[Picky_Picky]

If you have another way of explaining the reasons we have for believing that the Bible is inspired to an atheist, would you mind sharing it with us?

How about this: you have experienced Christ in the eucharist; this led to trust in the power and truth of the Church which enabled that experience; through this trust and worship you came to have faith; the Church which hallows your faith assures you that the Bible is inspired; when you read the Bible in the light of your faith you are convinced the Church is right, although because of your faith such personal judgement was in any case unnecessary. Is that not (and I am being presumptuous, I know) a better explanation than a dubious attempt to prove faith through syllogism?

 

[Randy_Carson]

IMHO the Catholic argument is that the Church says it is inspired, so Catholics believe it is inspired.

That no Christian has ever used to come to the conclusion that the Bible is inspired.

Lucy-

Notice what Tomyris has said: Catholics believe the Bible is inspired because the Catholic Church says it is.

Okay, but why do people believe the Catholic Church is correct? Or has authority to make this judgment call in the first place?

That’s covered in the Spiral Argument, too.

By His promise of rising and His actual resurrection, Jesus gave us reason to believe that He is God. God promised to build a Church, and the Church which speaks in the name of God cannot speak in error.

So, has anyone ever first come to believe that

1. Jesus was not a legend but an actual historical figure
2. The Bible is historically reliable
3. Jesus actually rose from the dead

and so on?

Yeah, I think people walk through this process in one variation or another all the time. Not every single person and not this exact sequence, but some do follow this general pattern.

The Spiral Argument lays out the steps of a logical argument in an orderly sequence that may or may not not exactly match the actual path each individual follows. But even if the sequence varies, all the boxes need to get checked off at some point.

 

[KathleenGee]

One comment stood out…we believe the particular books of the Bible because that is what the Catholic Church says … for us to believe.

But it was the Protestant spirit that removed the books…so where is their authority…

And they are not educated as many of us are…in the times these books were chosen…by those immediate to the event of Christ…so we trust that the books we reflect and draw the Word of God from…are indeed providing us the fullness of Who God is…of how Christ fulfills and IS the Word Made Flesh.

So much of the problem is not knowing their Christian roots…which are objective…and how Catholicism is all about context, context, context. The latter is most complicated and it is our brethren of higher learning that enlightens us with context to the particular times.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There’s certainly value in trying to look at Jesus from a purely historical point of view. No one can be neutral, of course. But for apologetics purposes it is very helpful to be able to talk about what can be shown historically to be true about Jesus as opposed to the things that we have to accept on faith. And even for our own faith, it can be very valuable to do this, because it can give us a “fresher” understanding of Jesus as a real first-century Jew. The work of N. T. Wright is immensely valuable on both these fronts.

But in the first place, to say that this is the Catholic approach seems odd. And much more importantly, approaching Jesus through normal historical methodology won’t get us where the spiral argument needs to go. No historically trained, critically minded person actually approaching Jesus as they would any other ancient figure would be likely to conclude that part of Matt. 16 without parallel in Mark and Luke is historically accurate. And this of course isn’t the only such passage–it’s just the most relevant for the spiral argument.

At this point, I’m kinda wondering how much of the NT you would be forced to throw out due to lack of multiple attestation.

This is why I happen to think that general reliability is spoken of so highly by so many scholars. If the character of a witness can be destroyed, then the testimony given by that witness is also cast into doubt. Conversely, if a witness is shown to be a person of high integrity, then his or her word is likely to be given much more weight.

My argument will be that BOATLOADS of scholars of all denominational leanings agree that the gospels (Matthew included) are generally reliable. Internal and external evidence corroborates their accounts. They can be trusted. And as their credibility surpasses the tipping point (for all but the most zealous of skeptics), then the burden of proof shifts to the denier.

Because of the benefit of the doubt that Matthew has earned by his accurate reporting of so many details, Dr. Tait, I believe you are in the position of having to prove that Jesus did NOT speak the words of Mt. 16:18-19 and promise to build a Church. And this you cannot do.

Now, in the grand scheme of TSA, the burden of proof lies upon me (or Catholic Answers!) to prove that each of the points contained in the argument are adequately supported. Okay, I cite Mt. 16:18-19 as proof that Jesus promised to build a church, and I cite numerous examples of Matthew’s historical accuracy as evidence that he is generally reliable. Conversely, you reject the idea that we can know with certainty that Jesus ever spoke those famous words, and you claim that Matthew is NOT reliable.

First, we are not dealing with certitude. History can only assign degrees of probability or certainty, agreed? I contend that it is highly probable that Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church.”

Second, these three points - that general reliability is not a valid approach to historical documents, that Matthew is not generally reliable, and/or that Jesus never spoke Mt. 16:18-19 - are yours, and you have must argue the affirmative for each of these resolutions, and the burden of proof falls upon you to prove them. If you disagree, I’m sure you’ll let me know.

In which case, I will post a mountain of material from various scholars (none of whom you will approve of but ALL of whom are more famous than you!) in support of my position.

The place where any historically based apologetic needs to start is the Cross, because that is the one event that practically everyone (leaving out the Muslims, who deny the crucifixion for their own faith-driven reasons and thus, as far as I’m concerned, disqualify themselves from serious consideration as a “corrected” version of the faith proclaimed by Jesus) agrees really happened.

Which is why William Lane Craig and others often start (and end) there.

Proving the accuracy of the Gospels in some generalized way that will ensure that every single story in the Gospels can be trusted is a non-starter. That’s just not how historians work, for one thing, and the Gospels in particular have many stories that by purely historical method look suspect.

Well, that’s the position you’ve staked out. In essence, you’re saying that while we can trust SOME of what the gospel writers recorded, some of it may simply be lies.

Is this skepticism REQUIRED of historians? Or is it simply a personal thing you’ve overlaid upon your own work?

 

[Randy_Carson]

We seem still to be on your first premise. Can I take it for the purposes of the argument that we don’t need to show the historic accuracy of the whole Bible? Perhaps we could agree that asking whether the Genesis creation stories or the Song of Solomon or indeed the Revelation is historically accurate is to ask the wrong question. We are concerned, presumably, for the purposes of your argument, with the Gospels and Acts and the Epistles.

The material you quote in support of the historical accuracy of those Books states that the versions of them we possess today enable us by scholarship to determine the text of the original written versions (“M” in your material) with very considerable confidence – as indeed Contarini has said he believes.

There seem to me to be two subsequent problems.

(1) As I understand it scholars believe “M” to be derived at least in part from earlier sources, both written but now lost (“W”) and oral (“O”). As far as I can see you have shown no way in which we can determine that “W” and “O” were transmitted correctly into “M”.

Both Luke and Paul point to the fact that there were many eyewitnesses still available for consultation about the facts contained in their accounts. For example, writing in the 50’s AD, Paul noted:

1 Corinthians 15:6
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Paul is saying, “Hey, if you don’t believe me, you can ask around.” Eyewitnesses were still alive.

Additionally, you seem to be forgetting that the Early Church was led by 1) hearers of Jesus and 2) by the first disciples of the hearers, the Church Fathers. For example, John, was still alive at the time that all four of the Gospels were being written; he wrote last. Is there evidence to suggest that he was taking pains to correct errors previously recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke?

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote:

“4Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (Against Heresies 3:3:4 [A.D. 189]).

Witnesses such as these were available for consultation regarding the facts, and they stood as a bulwark and guardian of the truth of the gospel.

(2) Secondly, even if you could trace the correct versioning of the present texts back to “W” and “O”, that does not determine that the present texts are historically accurate, or that “M” was historically accurate, or that “W” and “O” were historically accurate: you would have determined their provenance, but nothing more. If “W” was mistaken, that mistake could have been copied correctly into “M” and thence into the NT. The provenance of the texts is useful evidence, no doubt, but determination of their historical accuracy, insofar as it is possible, rests on the verse by verse scholarship Contarini has described.

You are correct that textual criticism does not prove historical accuracy. It only proves that we have a reliable text from which to work.

And no, it does not require “the verse by verse scholarship Contarini has described.” Unless he provides some links to online articles that we can all review, I’m left with the impression that this is his personal hang-up.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Both Luke and Paul point to the fact that there were many eyewitnesses still available for consultation about the facts contained in their accounts. For example, writing in the 50’s AD, Paul noted:

1 Corinthians 15:6
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Paul is saying, “Hey, if you don’t believe me, you can ask around.” Eyewitnesses were still alive.

Additionally, you seem to be forgetting that the Early Church was led by 1) hearers of Jesus and 2) by the first disciples of the hearers, the Church Fathers. For example, John, was still alive at the time that all four of the Gospels were being written; he wrote last. Is there evidence to suggest that he was taking pains to correct errors previously recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke?

Circular, I’m afraid.

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote:

“4Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (Against Heresies 3:3:4 [A.D. 189]).

Witnesses such as these were available for consultation regarding the facts, and they stood as a bulwark and guardian of the truth of the gospel.

AD 189

You are correct that textual criticism does not prove historical accuracy. It only proves that we have a reliable text from which to work.

And no, it does not require “the verse by verse scholarship Contarini has described.” Unless he provides some links to online articles that we can all review, I’m left with the impression that this is his personal hang-up.

Dear me, that’s Contarini dismissed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Circular, I’m afraid.

How so?

Paul proclaims the gospel and says, “Hey, if you don’t believe me, ask those who saw the resurrected Jesus with their own eyes.”

How is this circular? Living eyewitnesses of what Paul preached were available to corroborate his message, and he appealed to them as proof.

AD 189

Hilarious.

John lived until about AD 95. Polycarp was martyred in AD 155. Irenaeus wrote in AD 189.

John taught Polycarp. Polycarp taught Irenaeus.

In an oral culture, this is bedrock testimony.

Dear me, that’s Contarini dismissed.

:yup:

Until he provides evidence beyond his own assertions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is too vague to even approach.

How is any other ancient work approached? Detailed methodology please.

If the methodology is inconsistent, then the entire premise fails.

Here are a few articles outlining the general concepts:

Craig Blomberg
4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952775

Gary Habermas
garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm

JP Moreland
bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament

Dr. Tait may take issue with them, but from my reading of the thread so far, he has yet to provide alternatives. I’m starting to wonder if maybe he has not done so because these authors have gotten it right.

 

[Randy_Carson]

May I expand in what I said in post 26.
“I am grappling with the idea that the Catholic method should be an “universal” method in which anyone can approach Jesus, in the Bible’s Gospels, as being an historic human. Thus, in a sense, we could approach Jesus as a historic figure in the same way we would approach other historic people in ancient writings.”

Apparently, people are a bit unsettled about the term “Catholic method” and I do agree with them. So, for me, the Spiral Argument will be described as an universal method among many other universal methods. I use the term universal as meaning that anyone can use the method that appeals to them[/indent]

Granny-

I recognize that several people have taken exception to the phrase “Catholic approach”, but it must be remembered that Keating is presenting this argument in the context of the Catholic-Protestant debate. Thus, he is saying, “This is how Catholics can prove inspiration. What do you Protestants have?” His real target is sola scriptura as a false doctrine.

And in that light, it makes sense, doesn’t it?

 

[Picky_Picky]

How so?

Paul proclaims the gospel and says, “Hey, if you don’t believe me, ask those who saw the resurrected Jesus with their own eyes.”

How is this circular? Living eyewitnesses of what Paul preached were available to corroborate his message, and he appealed to them as proof.

You are assuming the historical accuracy of the NT in order to prove the historical accuracy of the NT.

Hilarious.

John lived until about AD 95. Polycarp was martyred in AD 155. Irenaeus wrote in AD 189.

John taught Polycarp. Polycarp taught Irenaeus.

In an oral culture, this is bedrock testimony.

Neither Irenaeus nor Polycarp was a witness to the events of the Gospels.

:yup:

Until he provides evidence beyond his own assertions.

Dear me.