The Spiral Argument Argument

[Randy_Carson]

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

What I’m assuming is that when Paul appeals to living witnesses in support of what he has been preaching, that’s pretty strong evidence that he had backing for what he was saying.

Now, if you want to question the authorship of Corinthians, that is another matter. Are you suggesting that Paul did not actually write Corinthians? Or that Paul was in error somehow? Or that Paul was a legendary figure who never really lived?

Do I need to provide evidence of the scholarly consensus that Paul really did write Corinthians?

How far back does your skepticism begin? I can connect the dots…just let me know where to begin.

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

No, but this does not undermine their ability to report accurately what they had been taught, does it?

Dear me.

You want me to provide evidence in support of my positions.

I want Dr. Tait to provide evidence that other scholars hold the same stringent standards that he is espousing.

How is this a problem?

 

[CrossofChrist]

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?

The saints and what they have produced are the proof for the Church. They are the experiential proof that God has revealed himself in Jesus and are the ones pointing to the necessity of the Catholic Church. Something mentioned by Pope Benedict, Cardinal Bergoglio, and von Balthasar. De Lubac mentioned something similar in something I read.

By starting with a historical based proof, your audience (which in this case is atheistic) will already have philosophical presuppositions that will shape the way they view the texts. In my opinion, it makes much more sense to use a criterion of testimony, which points to the historical reality of what happened. This would, it seems to me, place less emphasis on the texts themselves and more emphasis on the early Church that the texts were created for. For instance, is Paul credible? Are the other Apostles credible (who we don’t have much information on from a standpoint of “pure reason” a la liberalism)?

I emphatically say “yes!”. I posted an article by N.T Wright earlier in the thread that points in the direction that I am thinking of. There’s an article you can find online written by Cardinal Dulles, along with a brief part in the CCC under the part about Jesus’ Resurrection that indicate what in my opinion is of great value in determining the path apologetics should take.

But there are also other ways in determining the credibility of the Church. Dei Filius from Vatican I addressed this topic and said there are signs “suitable to the understanding of all” in knowing by reason that the Catholic Church is true. So one need not be a historian to know that faith is reasonable.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Picky_Picky]

What I’m assuming is that when Paul appeals to living witnesses in support of what he has been preaching, that’s pretty strong evidence that he had backing for what he was saying.

Now, if you want to question the authorship of Corinthians, that is another matter. Are you suggesting that Paul did not actually write Corinthians? Or that Paul was in error somehow? Or that Paul was a legendary figure who never really lived?

Do I need to provide evidence of the scholarly consensus that Paul really did write Corinthians?

How far back does your skepticism begin? I can connect the dots…just let me know where to begin.

No, but this does not undermine their ability to report accurately what they had been taught, does it?

You want me to provide evidence in support of my positions.

I want Dr. Tait to provide evidence that other scholars hold the same stringent standards that he is espousing.

How is this a problem?

 

[Picky_Picky]

What I’m assuming is that when Paul appeals to living witnesses in support of what he has been preaching, that’s pretty strong evidence that he had backing for what he was saying.

Now, if you want to question the authorship of Corinthians, that is another matter. Are you suggesting that Paul did not actually write Corinthians? Or that Paul was in error somehow? Or that Paul was a legendary figure who never really lived?

Do I need to provide evidence of the scholarly consensus that Paul really did write Corinthians?

How far back does your skepticism begin? I can connect the dots…just let me know where to begin.

Come, come. You are assuming that the NT is historically accurate in reporting Paul’s reporting of witnesses. That depends on the historical accuracy of the NT. Straightforward, circular. If you are going to argue on the basis of logic, you really do need to follow where logic leads.

In the case of the historical accuracy of the NT, logic doesn’t lead too far. Scholarship is more useful — but that would mean following where scholars lead. Try Contarini, for a start.

 

[Abu]

Gabriel of 12 #101
In defense of Raymond Brown. He has excellent resources and historical facts.

As a modernist his “facts” are often dubious.

Question on 01-07-2002:
Has there ever been a Vatican response to any of the writings of Father Raymond Brown? Was he the first theologian to propose that the bible is infallible only in issues relating to salvation?
Some of his statements about the infancy narratives (dubious history), ever-virgin Mary (was she really), etc. seem to be on the fringe of orthodoxy.

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 01-07-2002: (EWTN)
Very much on the fringe! No, Father Brown, though quite clearly a Modernist, was never condemned, perhaps partly because of his (in my opinion, undeserved) reputation as a Scripture scholar. Hans Kung, who was condemned, took essentially the same position as Father Brown on infallibility and the inerrancy of the Bible. - Dr. Carroll

 

[Abu]

Picky Picky #124
In the case of the historical accuracy of the NT, logic doesn’t lead too far. Scholarship is more useful — but that would mean following where scholars lead. Try Contarini, for a start.

As the scholarship of many “scholars” has been exposed as confused and misleading (post #100), well described and documented in The New Biblical Theorists – Raymond E. Brown and Beyond, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, no real Catholic gives such much time of day.

Contarini seems as confused as they are.

 

[KathleenGee]

Picky Picky…

What about 2000 years of continuity of faith and practice…in the full deposit of faith in Christ…God Is and does not change…unless you do not see God as Truth…which cannot be defined in words or morality…but in the Living Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Come, come. You are assuming that the NT is historically accurate in reporting Paul’s reporting of witnesses. That depends on the historical accuracy of the NT. Straightforward, circular. If you are going to argue on the basis of logic, you really do need to follow where logic leads.

I see. We can’t rely on Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians because it might be falsified in some way. Well, Dr. Tait can speak about the fact that personal correspondence is generally considered reliable if he cares to do so.

However, I will take a different approach. Let’s assume for a moment that Paul has fabricated the whole thing. There really weren’t five hundred witnesses to the resurrection as Paul claimed.

That’s kinda risky, don’tcha think? All someone had to do was to ask, “Can you give us some names, Paul?” and he was busted.

Liars don’t tend to encourage people to conduct searches for second sources because they know their lies will not hold up under scrutiny. Either this was a bold gamble that paid off for Paul, or he was simply telling the truth. Or maybe the whole letter was a medieval forgery.

If I must first establish the historical reliability of ALL of the NT documents, I can grind that out, but it might be reasonable to accept the general consensus of modern scholars on at least a few points to save some time,

In the case of the historical accuracy of the NT, logic doesn’t lead too far. Scholarship is more useful — but that would mean following where scholars lead. Try Contarini, for a start.

Have you ever read any of Dr. Tait’s published papers? A book or two of his perhaps?

I have spent quite a bit of time reading his online interactions with Dave Armstrong, but I find nothing that is peer-reviewed available on the web. Consequently, it’s kinda hard to judge exactly how the good professor’s scholarship would hold up under scrutiny. In contrast, I have provided quotes and links from many well-known NT scholars.

So, while I appreciate that you like what Dr. Tait has to say, I’m not convinced that his credentials have the gravitas that you ascribe to them. We shall see.

 

[grannymh]

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?

Sure it makes sense.

However, any Christian religion can use the Spiral Argument to claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God. In fact, I dobut that any Christian religion denies that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

For some strange reason, I thought that the Spiral Argument was to demonstrate the infallibility of the Catholic Church as carried out in the Church of Pentecost.

Line 9 is a negative and not a real demonstration of chapter 14, Gospel of John. Thus, any Christian religion can claim infalliblility of a democratic vote. Without explaining how it is prevented and protected, the door is open to any and all methods of personal inspired interpretation.

From Post 98

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.

 

[Tomyris]

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?

For starters I would suggest you look at the models for argumentation that Paul, for example, used in the NT. His preaching at Athens was to a very skeptical crowd. The trick is to make it meaningful for today’s crowd.

I see the spiral argument as a departure from what has been given to us as a model and a proven successful argument, given by the Holy Spirit for our use.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Picky Picky…

What about 2000 years of continuity of faith and practice…in the full deposit of faith in Christ…God Is and does not change…unless you do not see God as Truth…which cannot be defined in words or morality…but in the Living Christ.

Exactly so. As it happens I do not see God at all, but what I do see in Christianity is 2000 years of faith and practice. I don’t understand it, but I cannot deny it, and were I capable of being convinced it would be that which could carry conviction for me: 2000 years of faith, still alive and visible and active for good in the world today. That seems to me impressive and moving in a way that an attempt to prove the faith through dodgy logic doesn’t.

 

[PRmerger]

Come, come. You are assuming that the NT is historically accurate in reporting Paul’s reporting of witnesses. That depends on the historical accuracy of the NT.

As long as you apply the same skepticism as you apply to Paul’s writings to any other historical document, I’m ok with that.

(But I’m certain you don’t.)

 

[Picky_Picky]

As long as you apply the same skepticism as you apply to Paul’s writings to any other historical document, I’m ok with that.

(But I’m certain you don’t.)

Any other 2000 year old writing that’s being produced not as evidence of something or as demonstrating something, but as proof of something? I’m certain I do.

 

[Contarini]

Mr. Carson (I’ve decided I’d better call you that, since you keep calling me “Dr. Tait”), I’m once again going to respond to key points instead of post by post. If there’s something I’m missing, please remind me.

The basic issue we keep running into is that you take “reliability” as an either/or. You also keep failing to distinguish between the “general reliability of the NT” and the “general reliability” of specific authors, which is a much more helpful comment. As I’ve pointed out several times now, you haven’t actually given any good reasons to have a particularly high view of the “general reliability” of Matthew.

To be clear: I am not denying that trying to establish the general reliability of a text is important in determining how much of a “hermeneutic of suspicion” to exercise. I agree that it is, and I also agree that many scholars work with an overly acute hermeneutic of suspicion when dealing with the NT. (On the other hand, though, conservative scholars like Blomberg who double as apologists are heavily invested in minimizing the level of suspicion a scholar brings to the text.) The issues we have with regard to “general reliability” are that

1. You fail to distinguish between the “general reliability” of a specific text and that of the NT as a whole, and in particular you haven’t seriously addressed the strong evidence, accepted by many generally conservative scholars (including Licona), that Matthew sometimes tells historically questionable stories to make a theological point.
2. You treat “general reliability” as a simple either/or, when in fact it’s a spectrum. The more reliable you deem the text to be in general, the less suspicious you will be of specific elements that can’t be substantiated externally. The level of trust/suspicion you bring to the text will also vary based on what kinds of questions you are asking. (So, for instance, it’s one thing to say “there are good reasons to think the NT documents are pretty reliable, so it’s rational for Christians to accept them as a matter of faith,” and quite another to say, “We can prove the complete accuracy of the NT documents, down to details like Matthew 16:18-19, by purely historical means.”) And, inevitably, it will vary based on one’s own faith commitments. Which, again, is why the spiral argument is such a bad idea.
3. You overuse “general reliability” as a means of dismissing any serious critical examination of specific passages.

The fundamental problem with the spiral argument is that the pose of “treating the Bible like any other text” is a sham. You for one are doing absolutely nothing of the kind. I am trying, probably very badly, to “play the game” and bracket my own faith commitments. You keep assuming that the skeptical arguments I make in consequence represent how I normally think about the NT, which isn’t true. (My views are certainly more liberal than yours—I think it’s quite likely that Jesus either didn’t actually say “You are Peter and on this rock,” or as Jean Galot suggests in his book on The Theology of the Priesthood that he said it on a different occasion, but either way it’s a correct, divinely inspired interpretation of the implications of Peter’s confession.) You can’t seem to maintain the fiction–and I really think it is a fiction, though not a deliberate one on your part–that you are treating the Bible as you would any other book.

A really good example of this is your predictable reaction (and the still more predictable and more extreme reaction of Abu) to my mention of Fr. Raymond Brown. You condemn him because he didn’t believe in “Biblical inerrancy” in the form you consider orthodox. (It’s been pointed out many times on this forum, by me and others, that it’s not at all clear that Fr. Brown’s views on the Bible were fundamentally unorthodox by the standards of, say, any of the post-Vatican-II Popes, two of whom appointed Fr. Brown to the PBC. But that’s not the point here.) Here, again, the pose drops. At that point you aren’t talking about approaching the Bible like any other book. You seem only willing to trust, as a scholar, a scholar who believes in inerrancy (as you define it). And obviously you wouldn’t do that with any other book.

Whether Fr. Brown is orthodox or not is irrelevant to the fact that he was a mainstream, centrist scholar. Slightly on the conservative side if anything, in my judgment. (My own views of the NT are a little more conservative than his. In fact, like you I generally prefer evangelical NT scholars–my own favorites are N. T. Wright and Richard Bauckham, a bit less conservative than Blomberg admittedly. But I like Brown as well, though I find him a bit of a chore to read.) You and others on this forum see him as a crazy liberal because you are judging scholarship through the lens of your very conservative theology.

And that’s legitimate–if we are reading the NT theologically. As we should be doing. But the silly spiral argument asks us to set our theology aside and approach the NT as any other book. That’s exactly what Fr. Brown strove, patiently and honorably, to do. I actually share Pope Benedict’s concerns about that entire approach. But it’s the approach demanded by the argument that you are defending. And then when anyone really uses that approach, or produces a reasonable approximation thereof (no believer can ever really approach the Bible as an unbeliever), you say, “heretic!”

Which, yet again, demonstrates the fallacy of the spiral argument.

 

[Contarini]

A couple of minor points, and then I’ll let you reply and point out anything I have failed to address.

First, of course I don’t have a problem with your citing evangelical scholars. My point was simply that to support your argument not only do you have to go to scholars with faith commitments that require them to take a conservative approach, but ironically you have trouble even finding Catholics who are that conservative (because, in fact, Vatican II is not generally interpreted as requiring evangelical-style inerrancy, although I recognize that many conservative Catholics argue that it ought to be). But I agree that too much can’t be made of that, given how much Catholic scholars after Vatican II strove for academic respectability. As I said, I myself prefer Wright and Bauckham to Fr. Brown. I also like Ben Witherington as a good, solid exponent of a moderately conservative perspective, and among older evangelical scholars F. F. Bruce. Of these, only Bruce, I believe, was an inerrantist. (I don’t know for sure about Bauckham, but he certainly has no institutional pressure to be one. Witherington I’m pretty sure is not, and I’m more sure about Wright, who is my favorite NT scholar overall.)

And in the second place, when you say that scholars in the past 50 years have moved toward accepting the reliability of the NT–again, you use that term so broadly and loosely. If you mean “inerrancy,” then that isn’t true, except insofar as evangelical institutions have gained accreditation and attracted highly credentialed scholars while still, in many cases (like Blomberg’s Denver) requiring subscription to inerrancy. So in that sense there is a scholarly presence of people arguing for inerrancy which maybe was less the case 50 years ago. (But do note the many ways inerrancy can be defined, and that Geisler, for example, finds Blomberg’s version inadequate, precisely because Blomberg is open in principle to some things that look like historical narratives actually belonging to some other genre.) But if we speak more broadly of a generally respectful attitude to the historicity of the NT, then there are mainstream figures, like Wright and Bauckham, who have indeed championed more conservative views of the Gospels. I think it’s reasonable to say that in general contemporary NT scholars would accept that all the Gospels contain genuine historical material. (I think the biggest shift has been with regard to John.) But it certainly isn’t the case that there is any consensus in favor of “general reliability” (and, again, I find that phrase so vague as to be not very useful.) This is in contrast to the OT situation, where the pendulum has swung very far in the skeptical direction. . . .

Edwin

 

[Abu]

Re the adulation of Fr Brown in some quarters, a realistic perspective from EWTN re the appointment of Fr Brown to the PBC

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 01-18-2002 [EWTN]
Now, as to the matter of the appointment of Fr. Brown to the Pontifical Biblical Commission – or the appointment of anyone to the Commission, for that matter – we must first acknowledge that the PBC exercises no teaching authority, since the time of the Second Vatican Council. It is comprised of notable scholars in various specialties of Sacred Scripture for the purpose of considering matters proposed to it by a competent authority in the Vatican, most especially the pope. Fr. Brown was a prodigious scholar and had many insights which have contributed to the field. On the other hand, I and others have taken issue with some of his premises and principals, most especially his views on inerrancy and the knowledge of Christ. At any rate, I imagine that the pope depends upon advisors for such appointments, as he does for naming bishops and cardinals. I do not know how much personal involvement the Holy Father had in the case of Fr. Brown. But his appointment does not, in itself, suggest that all that Fr. Brown wrote or proposed is perfectly consistent with Church teaching. Consider how many bishops who have been appointed – in the past and present – have proved to be renegades, dissidents and even schismatic. I am not suggesting this of Fr. Brown but making the analogy that a papal appointment does not guarantee orthodoxy. And a great Churchman no less than Cardinal Ratzinger has taken issue with much of what has taken place in the name of modern scholarship in the biblical world, which is represented by the work of Fr. Brown in large part. For my own part, I believe that I have been rather reserved in my criticisms of Fr. Brown.

Father Echert

PS I have known personally other members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and can say from that experience that such an appointment does little to establish the orthodoxy of a particular scholar. [My emphasis].

 

[PRmerger]

Any other 2000 year old writing that’s being produced not as evidence of something or as demonstrating something, but as proof of something? I’m certain I do.

Well, then you TOTALLY and COMPLETELY misunderstand the topic here.



We start with the NT writings as simply historical texts–LIKE ANY OTHER TEXT of antiquity.

We do not use it, for this argument, to demonstrate proof of anything.

You are holding NT documents up to a standard you hold NO OTHER DOCUMENT.

One has to wonder why that is.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

I was thinking the very same thing.

ESPECIALLY when many critics seem to attribute the synoptics to a single source (the Gospel of Mark or “Q”).

As an aside, did you notice how prominent was the name “Craig A. Evans” in the Bibliography that was recommended to you:

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

 

[Abu]

Contarini #134
Whether Fr. Brown is orthodox or not is irrelevant to the fact that he was a mainstream, centrist scholar. Slightly on the conservative side if anything, in my judgment.

Using such a political term as “conservative” is meaningless for Catholicism and for religion. But his fidelity to Catholic dogma and doctrine, or lack of it, is vital to truth as against error – so his orthodoxy is vital for by the end of the second century “Catholic” also meant to be universal and orthodox – faithful to the teachings of Christ. [Fr John A Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 217].

Thus “the fact that he was a mainstream, centrist scholar” means nothing in the judgment of the real Catholic who is concerned with truth as against error. Everyone is obligated to judge Brown’s writing and actions against the truths of faith as Lawrence Cardinal Sheehan has done. That’s why we need to see the facts.

His Cardinal exposes major errors of Brown.
Cdl Sheehan exposed 5 of Brown’s errors (seen in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Nov 1975, p 10-23).

Error 1. Brown says no individual is ever specifically identified as a priest in the NT.
Cardinal Lawrence Shehan says that the NT is not a book of neat linguistics. He cites the New American Bible, Hinds, Noble and Eldredge’s Greek English Dictionary, the English Jerusalem Bible, Goodspeed’s translation of the Chicago Bible, Kleist-Lilly, Joseph Fitzmer, SJ, and Fr Andre Feuillet’s The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers as all acknowledging priests or priesthood in the NT under a variety of terms – presbuteroi, leitourgos, hierourgos, Leitourgon, Leitourgon hierougounta… “The absence of the use of the one term hierus is evidence merely that this one term was not used, not that priest or priesthood are unacknowledged in the NT.” [See *The New Biblical Theorists, Servant Books, 1983, by Msgr George A Kelly, p 84].

Error 2. Brown can only say of the Eucharist as a sacrifice in the NT that the Pauline text has “sacrificial overtones.”
Cdl Sheehan: why has Brown evaded 1 Cor 10:14-21 warning against idolatrous sacrificial feasts and specifically recommending “sharing at the table of the Lord” and communion with the Body and Blood of Christ.

Error 3. Brown claims that the apostles were priests “is based upon a serious oversimplification about the apostles in the NT.”
Cdl Sheehan, having shown already that they were priests, says “Instead of the Church actually established by Christ, he proposes a Church which stemmed from Christ.” In place of the Eucharistic sacrifice “actually instituted by Christ, he proposes a sacrifice and a priesthood which *gradually emerged *some 70 years after” the resurrection of Jesus. – “a far more serious real oversimplification” with no scriptural basis.

Error 4. Brown claims that Christ did not intend Christianity to be a new religion.
Cdl Sheehan shows that St Paul taught that the Church is Christ’s Body (1 Cor6, 10, and Rom 12), the basis of the Church’s teaching on the priesthood and as expressed in Trent.

**Error 5. Are Brown’s errors important to Christ’s Church? **
Cdl Sheehan answers Yes! For truth. If not deemed necessary by Christ, why should a priesthood be necessary now? Brown omits Romans 15:15-16 on a priest of Jesus Christ, and 1 Cor 10:14-22 on the Eucharist’s sacrificial nature, and he deemphasises this again in 1 Cor 11:23-29.
Further he denigrates the credibility of Christ’s Church that teaches that the priesthood was established by Christ.

No wonder there is a crisis in the Church with so many dissenters, including Brown, all having created doubt and confusion, as expressed in this forum.

 

[Contarini]

Well, then you TOTALLY and COMPLETELY misunderstand the topic here.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ohb3w7GL1qa6ipw.gif

We start with the NT writings as simply historical texts–LIKE ANY OTHER TEXT of antiquity.

We do not use it, for this argument, to demonstrate proof of anything.

You are holding NT documents up to a standard you hold NO OTHER DOCUMENT.

One has to wonder why that is.

The argument does use the NT as proof that Jesus established an infallible Church.

You and the others who support the spiral argument are the ones treating the NT unlike any other document. No one would accept such a massive claim based on one passage in one ancient document (yes, I know it’s not just Matt. 16:18-19, but that’s far and away the strongest passage that can be used to support the proposition “Jesus established an infallible Church”–without that passage, the spiral argument almost certainly would never have been made in the first place).

If the question under debate were “did Julius Caesar hand on authority to his nephew Octavian, authorizing Octavian’s later actions in founding what we call the Roman Empire,” and we had three accounts of a particular scene between Julius and Octavian, only one of which (by an author writing under Augustus and showing a persistent interest in drawing connections between the two figures) described such a transfer of authority, historians would be all over it with the suggestion that it was probably anachronistic and didn’t happen quite like that.

The double standard is, in fact, exactly the opposite of the way you claim.

Edwin