The Spiral Argument Argument

[Contarini]

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

The spiral argument claims to be approaching the NT simply as any other ancient document.

Therefore, all these theological critiques (whether justified or not theologically–a point I have no interest in debating with you, especially since you seem incapable of formulating an argument in your own words) are irrelevant to the question at hand.

Find me any scholar not motivated by theological considerations who would describe Fr. Brown’s scholarship as unusually skeptical.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

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

No. Not the first premise which looks at the documents solely as it looks at all texts of antiquity.

I am simply asking Picky to give it the same skepticism/trust that he gives to any other historical document.

 

[Tomyris]

I am thinking of a pile of rocks for a metaphor. Let’s say we want to determine the color of the rocks, and any that are ‘brown’ are false, as we have predetermined the outcome that this is a pile of blue rocks.

Some are blue. Some are brown. Some are bluish-brown. Some are striped brown and blue.

“That’s not really blue,” some will say,“Look at the brown specks!”

Historical documents are like that, unfortunately, with the odd white or yellow rock thrown in. To assess the pile of rocks honestly, you have to get away from a predetermination of what color the rocks are and take them as they come.

You can then compare them to theories of what color rocks should be and determine if the theory and evidence match or contraindicate, and if so, what should prove what. Perhaps the sample is only a few out of millions that others have sampled,
so we can say we have a sample of unusual color, but there is still an observation, based on fact and not on theory, as to what the color or colors of the rocks really are.

 

[Tomyris]

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.

So you would rather Protestants left this forum, or that dissenters - I am assuming you mean Catholics dissenting from Catholic teaching - would just shut up and not voice their doubts and concerns?

 

[Contarini]

There are a couple of posts of your that my more general reply didn’t really cover. So here is a more detailed response to those posts:

Dr. Tait-

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

Particularly with regard to Matthew and John, I’m not sure that “many scholars” is an accurate term. Some very conservative scholars do argue this, but it’s pretty hard to argue for Matthew as we have it being written by an eyewitness, and as a subset of all of NT scholarship I think the scholars who argue such a position could not be accurately described as “many.” But of course the term “many” could mean a lot of things–if ou mean, “more than two or three” then you are probably right!

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.

Well, it’s hard to be sure, since the evidence is pretty sketchy. Which is the case throughout this entire discussion, and why the spiral argument (which shoulders a very hefty burden of proof because of the weight it puts on certain claims) is so untenable.

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:

As I said in my longer post above, the problem with “general reliability” as you’re using it is that it’s a vague concept which you are using far too broadly and on which you are putting far too much weight. And it isn’t an either/or.

I would tend to say that Mark and Luke are pretty reliable, judged simply as historical documents, and that John provides very valuable “multiple attestation” for a number of points, although much of his narrative is obviously theologically stylized. I would put the historical reliability of Matthew pretty low, but that’s assuming Markan priority. That is to say, by “Matthew” I mean those things that Matthew (assuming Markan priority) has added to Mark and “Q.”

I take the collection of Jesus’ sayings which scholars call “Q” to be a faithful report of what Jesus actually taught. My own personal, speculative view based on the early Christian testimony is that the apostle Matthew was the compiler of “Q” (in Aramaic) and that a later author used Q and Mark to create what we call “Matthew.” The material that this later author added does not seem to me to be of very high historical reliability.

But all of this is frankly speculative. So is any reconstruction of just how the Gospels were put together. Which, again, is why arguments such as the “spiral argument” don’t work.

At any rate, I think the point you don’t mention that should be addressed is Marcan priority. I don’t expect you to concede it–I’m not 100% sure of it myself, although on the whole it makes sense. But it’s certainly the majority view among scholars (in spite of a strong resurgence of alternatives in recent decades), and if the spiral argument doesn’t make sense in light of Marcan priority (and I don’t think it does) then I think it fails unless and until Matthaean priority can be clearly established by purely historical methods.

As Richard Bauckham has shown, the debates over when the Gospels were written don’t seriously affect the question of reliability. Even if a relatively late dating is adopted, they were still written within the probable lifetime of some eyewitnesses, or just at the extreme range of such lifetimes, when the eyewitnesses were dying off. I think that’s one of the strongest arguments for the “general reliability” of the Gospels. But not enough to rule out some theological interpolations (such as, potentially, Matt. 16:18-19).

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.

I don’t see how it is. This is what baffles me about the entire debate. You want it to be about whether the Gospels are reliable, when in fact the spiral argument requires it to be about whether the Gospels can be shown to be reliable beyond reasonable doubt by purely historical methods–reliable enough for a point resting largely on Matt. 16:18-19 to stand, and to be in turn the foundation for the claims of the Catholic Church.

We are in agreement that the Gospels taken as a whole are reliable–that is to say, that they provide a generally accurate picture of the life and teachings of Jesus.

The problem is when you move from that statement to particular claims about a story found only in Matthew, the Gospel writer who (with the possible exception of John) seems most likely to elaborate on a story to make a theological point (though probably they all do this to some extent).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No. Not the first premise which looks at the documents solely as it looks at all texts of antiquity.

I am simply asking Picky to give it the same skepticism/trust that he gives to any other historical document.

I don’t follow this. By the time Keating gets to the claim that Christ is not only divine but intended to establish an authoritative Church, he is still claiming to be approaching Scripture purely as an ancient historical work. And he has assumed, apparently, that simply because of the textual accuracy of the NT it must also be historically accurate (though that issue has been done to death already on this thread and the preceding one).

If we gave the NT the same skepticism/trust that we give any other ancient document, we would not conclude that Jesus established an authoritative Church. We would conclude that an author living some decades later, probably after A.D. 70 when the early Christian community was beginning to separate itself from Judaism, saw him as being the founder of that community. That would not prove anything for sure about Jesus’ own intentions, although N. T. Wright is correct that it’s highly unlikely (simply from a historical perspective) that Jesus wouldn’t have intended his work to be carried on in some form by a community of followers.

The whole business of “treating the NT like any other text” is artificial and even a bit ridiculous.

And ironically, that’s the point of the strictures on historical criticism by Pope Benedict (before and after his election as Pope) on which Abu and some others lay such stress. In Introduction to Christianity Ratzinger makes the point that history, per se, will not get us to the Christ of faith. I am confident that he would not approve of the spiral argument.

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

Picky Picky…The need you are addressing is the need of modern man: authentic witness. It is wonderful to come into contact with one who is an authentic witness living his religion…in prayerful relationship…

There is only in this world that does not change: God.

Thomas Aquinas called God the Unmoved Mover. Our understanding of God in his terms was like relating the eye of an owl…that sees in darkness…to God, the sun, the source of light for our world.

A fellow in college came to believe in God because God was the only constant that did not change. So then what is God saying to us, what does He mean…

He comes to us in the face and action and teachings and prayers of Christ. If you were study the lives of the saints, you see many different charisms of each one and in the context of their times…but the truth to their sanctity was that all their charisms brought us to the same experience of Christ.

Same when we go to Mass…when we get beyond the hierarchy and all the baggage and the history…and make an act of faith that this is indeed Christ’s visible Church, you then don’t bother looking really at anyone in there…but the presence of the Lord. Once you are at this stage…everything falls into place.

What is hard is when you fall into routine…no matter how hard you try to be faithful…it is very dry…the same things you hear…until may be someone comes across that lights the flame of your faith.

You have to seek out the Unmoved Mover…Who created time and space…He is there…He is a Person…animating the entire universe with His will. All we have to do is say yes…or…to ask for faith.

 

[Abu]

Tomyris #144
So you would rather Protestants left this forum,

No, why should anyone be denied Christ’s truths? Opportunities to reveal falsehoods and offer truth are always present.

or that dissenters - I am assuming you mean Catholics dissenting from Catholic teaching - would just shut up and not voice their doubts and concerns?

Catholic dissenters from doctrine on faith or morals have rejected the teaching of the Catholic Church on a grave matter of their choice – for real Catholics are bound to give assent to all of the teaching of the Church:
For them, Sections 25-31 cover “not irreformable” teaching even for theologians in the Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian, (Donum Veritatis) [DV] 1990, even for those who “feel” that they cannot give “intellectual assent,” they have “the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.” (31).

*Donum Veritatis *completely rules out all dissent:
“32. The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation *Paterna cum benevolentia *[1974], Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos. In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called “dissent”, which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above. The phenomenon of dissent can have diverse forms. Its remote and proximate causes are multiple.”
#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”

The pick and choose, self–described “Catholic” needs to listen to Christ Himself – “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

 

[Contarini]

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.

“Throw out” in what sense?

Yet again, we are talking about what can be (reasonably) proven to be accurate. Of course we accept many things by faith that are less than certain historically.

From a historical perspective, a lot of things just aren’t certain one way or the other. I’m not sure why you are so bothered by this, except that it gets in the way of the kind of apologetic that you want to do. But no “throwing out” is necessary.

As for multiple attestation–as a source you cited earlier pointed out, it’s a good criterion for establishing confidence, but that doesn’t mean that a singly attested source is inauthentic. It depends on the source (this is where “general reliability” does come into play), on the nature of the story/saying itself, and so on. And at the end of the day we may just not know.

This is why I happen to think that general reliability is spoken of so highly by so many scholars.

It’s spoken of highly by certain conservative scholars who are also functioning as apologists–at least those are the ones you have cited.

But I’m not challenging the importance of determining the general reliability of the text. I’m challenging the idea that there is a thing called “general reliability” which a text either has or doesn’t (in fact it’s a matter of degree, like pretty much everything else in historical inquiry), and which once established gives you a free pass to accept uncritically whatever your source says and exempts you from normal critical analysis of specific issues. That’s not how general reliability works. It’s more of a tie-breaker. You always want multiple attestation if you can get it. And of course there are many other things that influence a decision to believe or not believe a specific story, like how intrinsically plausible the story is, how well it fits with what we know of the culture or of the person in question, and so on. Whether your source (if you have only one) has been shown to be reliable on other issues is one very important factor. And a text may be reliable on some things and less so on others.

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.

Of course, relatively speaking. But this doesn’t replace an analysis of the specific passage, which is what you are trying to make it do. And as I’ve said repeatedly, the general pattern in Matthew seems to indicate a willingness to engage in theological elaboration–Gundry got himself in hot water with the ETS by speaking of “midrash.”

My argument will be that BOATLOADS of scholars of all denominational leanings

Let’s be clear here: if this just means “conservatives of various traditions” it means relatively little. What would really help your case would be to find some non-Christian scholars who agree with you, or even just some scholars who are not theologically committed (and in Blomberg’s case, institutionally committed to the point that he would lose his job otherwise) to inerrancy. What we find, consistently, is that as soon as scholars give themselves the freedom to question whether some of the Gospels may be inaccurate, Matthew is one of the first Gospels to get questioned. And even scholars like Licona and Gundry who claim to believe in inerrancy nonetheless find themselves trying to define inerrancy so as to allow them to acknowledge the non-historical elements their professional instincts perceive in Matthew.

Don’t you think this is suspicious? Doesn’t it look very much as if the only reason some conservative scholars insist that Matthew is a highly reliable text is that their theology (and that of their institutions) requires them to do so. Every time any evangelical scholar allows for any non-historical element in the Gospels, Norman Geisler starts baying for that scholars head on a platter. And predictably, when this happens it usually seems to be over Matthew! Coincidence? Or evidence that “general reliability” is not your friend here?

A scholar with strong conservative leanings but without the institutional pressures to maintain inerrancy, Richard Bauckham, says that “Matthew is the Gospel I understand least.” This in context of a brief statement of the authorship of the four Gospels as he sees it. He has no suggestion to offer with regard to Matthew except that the “traditional” historical-critical picture of “anonymous community traditions” won’t do. I agree with him on that. In fact I tend to agree with Bauckham on most points, which may surprise you! Here’s a very good summary of Bauckham’s general approach, which I suspect will be very helpful to your apologetics efforts

 

[Contarini]

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.

But how does one determine this “tipping point”?

And it appears that your picture of the scholarly world is populated largely by conservative, inerrantist scholars, with wild beasts like Ehrman roaming around in the shadows outside. So the problem is that for you anyone who isn’t an inerrantist appears to be a “zealous skeptic.” The fact that you think I’m in that category is just, frankly, hilarious. I am actually quite conservative and maybe even credulous (I’m sure this sounds to you like Puddleglum the Marshwiggle’s lament that he was too optimistic). Again, I agree fundamentally with the points made by Bauckham in the talk (apparently given at Denver) to which I linked above. I take the witness of Papias seriously, to the point that I seek to find some explanation for the role of Matthew, since I don’t think it’s plausible that Matthew wrote the Gospel as we have it.

I don’t think you have any idea how extreme a position the spiral argument commits you to. Bauckham says casually, as nearly any scholar not theologically committed otherwise (and not with Norman Geisler breathing out threats and slaughter in his vicinity) would do, that of course the testimony of the evangelists contains interpretation. And that’s really all I’m saying–that Matt. 16:18-19 may well be Matthew’s explanation of the significance of what happened and probably isn’t a transcript of exactly what Jesus said. That is not a radical position by any normal scholarly measure. But it’s enough to sink the spiral argument.

Because of the benefit of the doubt that Matthew has earned by his accurate reporting of so many details,

What details? Name one for which Matthew is clearly our primary source. All the examples you gave in a much earlier post were from other Gospels or from the Gospels as a whole. And you didn’t even give that many examples (not that you should have to in an Internet forum post–but you say “so many details” when all you’ve provided is five details none of them primarily found in Matthew). Of course, the Marcan priority question rears its head here. If Matthew were written first, then you would have a stronger case. But if the majority view is correct and Mark was written first, then Mark gets “credit” for any details common to him and Matthew.

You keep just skating over this point. But it won’t bear your weight.

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.

Of course proving a negative is almost impossible. But the burden of proof rests, normally, on the one making the claim. You are making the claim that Jesus said these words. I am saying simply that we don’t know. I don’t have to prove that we don’t know. I simply say that by historical methods we can’t be sure. And “general reliability” works if anything against you, given the general patterns of Matthew as compared to his source material (if the majority view of the Synoptics is correct).

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.

Not yet you haven’t. I’m still waiting.

Conversely, you reject the idea that we can know with certainty that Jesus ever spoke those famous words,

Right. And when one person is making a claim about what we can know with certainty, and the other is simply saying that we aren’t sure, the burden of proof is on the one making the stronger claim. It is absurd to say “I can prove with reasonable certainty that X is true, and I don’t have to make any actual arguments for it–you have to prove that it isn’t certain.”

and you claim that Matthew is NOT reliable.

I claim that Matthew seems to have a penchant for theological elaboration and seems more interested in tracing (by modern standards rather far-fetched) OT parallels than in writing what we would call history. That doesn’t mean that his work is simply fictional–he certainly is writing Jesus’ biography–but ancient biographical methods allowed for considerable freedom in details, and Matthew seems to have availed himself of that freedom more than, say, Mark.

 

[Contarini]

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.”

That’s more reasonable, but I don’t think it’s true.

Second, these three points - that general reliability is not a valid approach to historical documents,

Not what I said. I said that you are overusing general reliability to short-circuit critical analysis of specific passages.

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.

I will indeed. I have not claimed that Jesus never spoke Matt. 16:18-19. I have claimed that the evidence is inconclusive.

I am quite willing to show you why I read Matthew the way I do. I have already provided secondary support by pointing to the examples of Licona (a scholar you originally introduced into the discussion) and Gundry, both of whom concluded (to their own professional disadvantage) that Matthew was unhistorical at certain points. But I can walk through Matthew and give specific examples if you would like that. It just may take me a while

But in general, it’s the proponent of the affirmative who needs to shoulder the burden fo proof

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.

You don’t know whom I approve of or whom I don’t, I suspect.

But I expect some of these scholars to come from perspectives that allow them to accept the possibility that there might be historical errors in the Gospels.

Otherwise you are simply citing people who have faith commitments that require them to do what they are doing. That’s not valueless–if Blomberg eally became convinced that inerrancy was wrong (he has already become convinced that it must be defined in ways that don’t satisfy Geisler)–I’m sure he would take the heat and say so. But to establish the very strong claims of the SA, you need to establish some kind of plausibility by having some sources that are non-inerrantist. Preferably some who aren’t Christians at all, since supposedly we are approaching the New Testament “as if it were any other text.” But of course, as Chesterton said, no one in our culture can really do that

Which, again, is why the SA doesn’t work!

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.

When approaching “any other text,” obviously that is an option. Wouldn’t you agree?

That’s why this exercise is distasteful.

But in fact lying is not what I suspect Matthew of. I suspect him of writing in a genre that is quite different from modern history, and of being less concerned with historical accuracy than Mark or Luke.

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

Obviously the former. The fact that you even ask is just strange.

Does it really shock you to hear that historians don’t just assume that all their primary sources are accurate all the time?

I admit that on some issues in my own field, I’m more skeptical than many. But I think that has more to do with my not being a Lutheran. I.e., I’m surprised by how uncritical many Lutheran scholars are about Luther’s much later reports of his earlier life as a “monk.” Martin Brecht takes at face value Luther’s claim that he never saw a Bible in the monastery, which is ridiculous. Fine scholars repeat gravely Luther’s claim that he went to Rome expecting it to be a place of holiness, which would make him radically unlike just about every other German Christian of his time. The whole business about the “breakthrough,” which has consumed a lot of Luther scholarship over the years, assumes that there really was one in the first place. And so on. I’m not alone in being skeptical about these things, but I’m relatively rare in being a theologically focused scholar of the Reformation who is theologically dubious about the Reformation.

And that comes back to the problem with your approach. You claim to be approaching the Bible as if it were any other text, but your chosen scholars are all conservative Christians committed to inerrancy. That gives you no frame of reference for understanding what it would mean to approach the Bible as if it were any other text.

I know what it’s like to study intensively from a historical point of view texts that I don’t think are divinely inspired. I even know what it’s like to do so in a context where many of my colleagues seem practically to regard them as inspired! So no, I don’t think it’s that I’m unusually skeptical in my opinions on the NT. Again, I’m a fan of Bauckham and Wright, who are two quite conservative scholars in terms of the spectrum of scholarship as a whole. But I do have fairly well-honed critical instincts from my training as a reader of Reformation-era texts.

One final reminder: if you post a “mountain” of evidence, please bear the parameters of the debate in mind. The question is whether we can show by purely historical methods the high probability of Jesus having said the words recorded in Matt. 16:18-19.

If you post material bearing on the general reliability of the Gospels or of Matthew in particular, it needs to show a level of reliability that will support this very specific claim.

It would help if you found scholars who address the specific issue. I will work on that from my end next time I’m in a good library.

Edwin

 

[Picky_Picky]

Picky Picky…The need you are addressing is the need of modern man: authentic witness. It is wonderful to come into contact with one who is an authentic witness living his religion…in prayerful relationship…

There is only in this world that does not change: God.

Thomas Aquinas called God the Unmoved Mover. Our understanding of God in his terms was like relating the eye of an owl…that sees in darkness…to God, the sun, the source of light for our world.

A fellow in college came to believe in God because God was the only constant that did not change. So then what is God saying to us, what does He mean…

He comes to us in the face and action and teachings and prayers of Christ. If you were study the lives of the saints, you see many different charisms of each one and in the context of their times…but the truth to their sanctity was that all their charisms brought us to the same experience of Christ.

Same when we go to Mass…when we get beyond the hierarchy and all the baggage and the history…and make an act of faith that this is indeed Christ’s visible Church, you then don’t bother looking really at anyone in there…but the presence of the Lord. Once you are at this stage…everything falls into place.

What is hard is when you fall into routine…no matter how hard you try to be faithful…it is very dry…the same things you hear…until may be someone comes across that lights the flame of your faith.

You have to seek out the Unmoved Mover…Who created time and space…He is there…He is a Person…animating the entire universe with His will. All we have to do is say yes…or…to ask for faith.

Kathleen:

In the midst of the disputatiousness of this thread, I appreciate your sincerity and goodwill. Thank you.

Picky

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks…I don’t have the background like the others to provide more depth…just my faith experience.

You have to pray to have faith…because it is both transcendent and aspiring…

God bless!

 

[grannymh]

I have a bit of trouble understanding why the Spiral Argument is limited to the human
skills of historical criticism of ancient texts. Seems to me that the proof should “be in the pudding.” Or maybe there is another logical way of approaching the reality of the Catholic Church. For example: accepting God as capable of Divine Revelation. Of course that means one has to accept an existing God as Creator Who interacts with His human creatures. That probably would not work … …

 

[Contarini]

I have a bit of trouble understanding why the Spiral Argument is limited to the human
skills of historical criticism of ancient texts. Seems to me that the proof should “be in the pudding.” Or maybe there is another logical way of approaching the reality of the Catholic Church. For example: accepting God as capable of Divine Revelation. Of course that means one has to accept an existing God as Creator Who interacts with His human creatures. That probably would not work … …

The parameters set by the spiral argument are those of the human discipline of historical inquiry.

That’s a choice by Keating, the older apologists he’s imitating, and the many people like Mr. Carson who follow Keating’s lead.

Complain to them, not me

Edwin

 

[grannymh]

The parameters set by the spiral argument are those of the human discipline of historical inquiry.

That’s a choice by Keating, the older apologists he’s imitating, and the many people like Mr. Carson who follow Keating’s lead.

Complain to them, not me

Edwin

Post 154 is a general information post not directed personally to you or personally to anyone else.

The Spiral Argument is basically a method (avoid the circular argument) which, in my free speech opinion, is not essentially bound to any particular source of historical inquiry. As an independent reader, I can express my personal reactions to elements in the Spiral Argument as described in this thread. Because I may be seeing the Spiral Argument differently – that does not affect my posting.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Abu;12840777]As a modernist his “facts” are often dubious

.

A respected opinion of yours but debatable. Fr.Brown as a biblical scholar is required to present his scientific opinion to the facts, presented to him. Fr. Brown does not produce facts from his science to what is inspired in the Word of God. When he presents his professional opinion to the facts, the subject of his commentary do not change the facts but are mere professional licensed opinions to tangible physical facts as presented.

To which, I might add, the Church would never condemn or reject any biblical (Catholic) scholar who may hold to a professional opinion that would appear to be a contradiction to what the Catholic Church professes.

Case in point, Fr. Raymond Brown is at liberty to write and give commentary to tangible facts publicly that may or may not contradict Church teaching. But Fr. Brown can never teach his professional opinions within the confines of the liturgy of the Church, where only Truth is present and Truth is proclaimed in Liturgy. In liturgy Fr. Brown’s commentaries fly out the window.

Besides a variety of the sorts, such as Fr. Brown is healthy for the Catholic Church. He offers a scholarly professional perspective that does not disprove Church teachings but offers insight from a professional scholarly licensed (limited) science perspective.

I appealed to your previous post because it reveals the differences between a scientific scholarly approach to the physical evidence of the bible that is not in comparison to the eye witnesses who wrote, taught, practiced what is revealed from the inspired scriptures.

I respect Fr. Brown’s professional commentaries and keep them within the confined spaces of his learned sciences. Yet Fr. Brown and biblical scholars and theologians do not speak for the whole Catholic Church.

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.

Commentaries, opinions, questions and public surveys are all subject to criticism. I read Fr. Raymond Brown differently than his respectable skeptics. I have read his commentaries on St. Jerome’s biblical commentaries, a huge read if? I may add. Many times I became distraught at his views, yet upon researching his sources, I was able to ascertain and understand his views, especially from his tangible physical sources and scientific training.

Which brings my point home; The Spiral argument cannot be debunked from a physical tangible evidence used by biblical scholars in the present to refute a lived out 2000 year old faith and practice by eyewitnesses to the written accounts revealed in the bible books. It only leads to a contradiction or an exposure of another using the bible books to teach a different gospel other than the Apostolic 2000 year old teachings.

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

Maybe Hans Kung used his views to attack the Catholic Church as did Martin Luther. I don’t see any evidence of Fr. Raymond Brown using his educated scientific views which keeps his license to refute or oppose Catholic Teaching and sacred traditional Orthodox faith.

Do I like Fr. Brown? Yes, his writings entertain and offer a scientific view which is limited to his science. Do I agree with Fr. Brown? I am at liberty to accept his limited views or reject them. I keep Fr. Brown within the confines of his science and do not read him for my own faith instruction.

In retrospect, I don’t think you will find Fr. Brown teaching his scholarly independent views of biblical commentaries in a Mass liturgical setting? If, Fr. Brown were to do so? He would put himself in the same position as Hans Kung and Martin Luther.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

grannymh;12839913]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

.

“the Catholic Church’s authority to interpret the divine revelation within Holy Scripture”. This is quite a different subject but related to the Spiral argument.

It has been said, " the Catholic Church does not interpret scripture". Ironically Fr. Raymond Brown is quoted as teaching that the Catholic church has only interpreted a few words from sacred scripture and she does not go around interpreting scripture. This is huge in the context of the Spiral argument.

In short the Word of God is living. the Word of God is not ink on a page. The Church does not attempt to interpret God. The Word of God made flesh is made present in the body of Christ the Catholic Church.

How does one person interpret another person? Only God gives witness to who God is. This Jesus Christ the Word of God revealed to the Apostolic Catholic faith in person and presence.

The biblical letters which give a written eye witness account of God the Son who gives divine revelation, God Himself the Holy Spirit gave divine inspiration to the follower’s of Christ, to practice, teach and write what God revealed to them to give witness to the end of time.

To a biblical scholar or historian, the bible books are just ink on a page which is used to gauge a time in historical language, culture and questionable understanding. What is interpreted by biblical scholars is secular and historical to recorded religious undertakings.

The Church does not interpret the scriptures in the way biblical scholars approach them and interpret them to their own historical settings which neglects the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Church interprets the scriptures by living the scriptures out in her daily life and witness to God’s Word who inspires her to live out her faith in the Spirit and Truth. It is from this point the Catholic church has volumes of books written by saints and attested by the beloved disciple of Jesus Christ who writes, " there are not enough books in the whole world which could contain all the things Jesus said and did" while Jesus walked the earth in the fullness of times.

Somehow, this quuestion comes back to me – What is the Bible inspired to do?

It is God who will teach you, It is God the Holy Spirit who will remind you of all the divine revelations and miracles Jesus did and taught. In short the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son who is the Word of God to give witness to His body the Catholic Church and all those under her umbrella in all ages, when God gives witness of who God is to our human nature through the Word of God in the Holy Spirit inspired the eye witness accounts to record divine revelation made to them for us to come to believe in God who saves.

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?

Majority do not deny Jesus existed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Again, how would YOU make the argument?

Please provide your answer in the space below. You may use both sides of the paper if necessary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Yes. I do, and I’m not alone. Either a document and its author are trustworthy or they are not. It’s just that simple. There is no reason to believe that Luke was conscientious and reliable in one chapter and completely off the wall in another. His approach to his work did not change from one verse to the next. If Luke (or any of the gospel writers) was trying to record an accurate account of the events, then either he did or he did not succeed in doing so.

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.

This is incorrect; I can appreciate the distinction. However, if I speak of the “general reliability of the NT”, it is not because of any failure on my part but because of my belief that the entire NT is generally reliable. But I am aware of the fact that the NT was composed by many men over a period of many years. Ironically, I am often forced to make the very point which you seem to think I am missing when I explain to atheists and skeptics that the NT was NOT the product of a single “committee” which organized a common message.

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.

I am very happy to hear this.

(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.)

Do you have a general disagreement with the field of apologetics, Dr. Tait?

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.

1. I do not fail to make this distinction.
2. I have not gotten to Matthew, yet. I’ve only gotten to the second line of TSA.

1. 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.

It will come down to the definition of the word “prove”, won’t it?

1. You overuse “general reliability” as a means of dismissing any serious critical examination of specific passages.

Have we even performed any “serious critical examination of specific passages”, yet? If not, how have I dismissed anything?

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.

Oh. Okay.

(continued due to length)