The Spiral Argument Argument

[grannymh]

It is my current understanding that the Spiral Argument leads to the concept that the Bible is inspired. Link from post 2. catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration

Would it be more productive to demonstrate that the Bible contains Divine Revelation?

Just asking.

 

[Contarini]

From 1907 to 1933 the Pontifical Biblical Commission stated emphatically:

1. ‘Matthew wrote his Gospel before the other Gospels, the Greek Matthew may be later than Mark and Luke;
2. ‘Scholars are not free to advocate the two-source theory whereby Matthew and Luke are dependant on Mark and the “Sayings of the Lord” (“Q”).’
   The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 34].

Pope St. Pius X made the rulings of the Commission a part of the Magisterium, the supreme teaching authority of the Church.

No one has any authority to challenge the Magisterium on teaching re faith and morals.

Thank you for continuing to support my point that the spiral argument is (objectively) a piece of hypocritical balderdash. (That is not to say that Keating or Carson or anyone else is intentionally hypocritical, but that they fail to note the intrinsic hypocrisy of their position.)

That is to say, your posts indicate that from your point of view “looking at the Bible as if it were any other ancient book” is a completely untenable, heretical thing to do. While I disagree with your approach, I recognize that it is consistent.

What is not consistent, and is thus very hard to respect, is the position that “we approach the Bible like any other ancient book, but any scholar who does not start from conservative Chrsitian principles will be ruled out of court.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You tell me. I have asked previously for online articles that I may read from Christian historians who REJECT the idea that the gospels are historically reliable. I’m sure you can find plenty of examples of non-believers who hold this position, but they are just as biased as the Evangelicals that you dismiss.

Everyone is biased.

You can’t throw out people because they happen to have a bias you dislike.

If you are approaching the Bible like any other ancient book, then you must look at the entire spectrum of scholarship, and not only at those scholars who happen to agree with the religious presuppositions you claim to have set aside.

I don’t dismiss Blomberg. I dismiss an argument about “what happens when we look at the Bible like any other ancient book” which rests entirely on the scholarly authority of a narrow range of conservative evangelical scholars who are committed to inerrancy. (But actually I think you are misinterpreting Blomberg and that he’s not as much on your side as you think.)

Blomberg is part of the scholarly spectrum. He has excellent arguments to make.

You, on the other hand, are dismissing everyone from Raymond Brown leftwards, and have also shown no serious awareness of the excellent scholars who inhabit the moderately conservative part of the spectrum between Blomberg and Brown (the two I have referred to frequently are N. T. Wright and Richard Bauckham). You did name Licona as one of the scholars you were listening to, but have consistently ignored the fact that Licona questions at least one story in Matthew and believes it may be a theological elaboration rather than a historical event (he appears to have walked back a bit from this initial position, but still thinks it’s a possible interpretation). A much more skeptical (i.e., closer to the scholarly mainstream) position by a scholar who is still, on the whole, very much on the conservative side of things is that of Robert Gundry. You can see some quotes by him about Matthew on this hostile website.

You also persist in making this a question of the “reliability of the NT” in general. That is nonsensical if you are really looking at the texts historically. The NT is a disparate collection of books by many different authors. We have to go book by book, at least (as you know, I think we actually need to go passage by passage, while of course bearing the general character and purpose of the book in mind). Reliability is also not a simple either/or matter, and an author may be reliable on some things or in some ways and not on/in others.

On the specific question of Matthew’s historical reliability, there is a very wide consensus, ranging from Licona’s modest and tentative claim about one specific story, through Gundry’s much more wide-ranging claims, to the more standard historical-critical consensus represented (in what is still a relatively conservative, or at least moderate, way) by Raymond Brown, that Matthew frequently inserts theological elaborations and is not as concerned with historical accuracy as the other two Synoptics (and perhaps not even as much as John).

So, Matthew is “trustworthy” but historically unreliable? If he is wrong, how is he trustworthy?

Matthew is divinely inspired. Matthew is a trustworthy source for what God wants us to believe about the significance of Jesus’ life. Matthew on his own is not a very trustworthy source for the details of what happened, although that doesn’t mean that the book as a whole is non-historical. Most of what Matthew describes really did happen. I believe that Jesus said most of the things Matthew records him as saying. But the most reliably accurate sections of Matthew are those shared with Mark and/or Luke. Matthew on his own has a fairly low level of historical reliability.

Note again that this is treating Matthew “as if it were any other book,” or trying to do so (it’s really not possible, as I’ve said many times, but I’m doing my best, whereas you don’t seem to me to be taking the premise seriously at all).

Therefore, your question about “what would be left of the NT if you applied this method” is a completely unfounded one. We aren’t talking about how to read the NT as believers. We are talking about what happens if we read the NT as if it were any other collection of ancient books. (I don’t have a theological problem with the above conclusions about Matthew, as it happens, but that’s a separate question, and I’m certainly more inclined to trust Matthew because of my faith than I would be if the book were just another ancient book.)

Also, you have now repeatedly assumed that I think multiple attestation is the only criterion of historical accuracy, even though I’ve explicitly told you that I don’t think that. I know that this is a long and complex discussion and that it’s easy to miss posts (I did so spectacularly and embarrassingly on the other thread).

 

[Contarini]

So just to repeat a few points that you seem to be still missing:

1. All my arguments are premised on a purely historical approach, trying to figure out what we can say with high confidence based on historical methods alone. That is not the same thing as “throwing things out” or not accepting them by faith. (I’m sure my views on those issues would also seem unacceptably liberal to you, but that’s a separate issue.)
2. Multiple attestation is a very important criterion for establishing historical confidence. That does not mean that we “throw out” anything not multiply attested. If something is singly attested, then a lot more weight falls on the character of the single source.
3. There is no getting around the question of the nature of Matthew, a question you have dodged over and over. You have yet to provide any evidence for your belief that Matthew should be regarded as a highly reliable source.
4. Any serious historical inquiry into the reliability of any part of the NT must take the entire spectrum of scholarly opinion into account. Your demand to limit consideration to conservative Christian scholars makes it hard to take your adherence to the “spiral argument” seriously. Obviously it’s in my interest to cite as conservative scholars as possible, which is why I keep pointing out that Gundry and Licona (and even, I’m coming to realize, Blomberg, though he’s the most conservative of the three) recognize the possibility that Matthew includes non-historical material. But by the same token, it’s in your interest to cite as liberal scholars as possible.

 

[Contarini]

If Matthew simply made up a bunch of stuff and then attributed it to Jesus, then he is a liar and not worthy of trust.

False dichotomy that ignores the nature of ancient biographies. As Blomberg recognizes, ancient biographers took great liberties in arranging material and adding speeches, and biographies could include legends. See this hostile review of Blomberg’s Can we still believe the Bible. Actually, the more I learn about Blomberg the less I think he’s actually in your corner on this one, though I assume he probably thinks Jesus said the words recorded in Matt. 16:18-19 or the Inerrancy Police would have pointed out his “heresy.” (Unfortunately, since we’re both largely limited to online sources at the moment, I am finding mostly hostile sources–but they are helpful for highlighting the ways in which Blomberg and other evangelical scholars “fail” to toe the conservative line.)

So, do you think that Matthew has reliably recorded the words of Jesus in his gospel or not?

Remember that we are supposed to be talking about what can be “proven” by reasonable historical methods, not necessarily what I think. As a believer, I have higher confidence in the Biblical authors generally than purely historical methods will support (see Aquinas’ point about faith giving opinion the certainty that normally would accompany knowledge). For one thing, the possibility that the Biblical authors were deliberately lying is not an option I entertain as a believer, whereas by purely historical methods it is always a possibility (though not one that one should jump to, I think).

However, in this particular case (leaving the birth narratives aside) there isn’t a huge difference between what I think and what I think can be “proven” historically. By historical methods, I think we can say that it’s probable that most of Matthew is substantially accurate, because most of it derives from Mark, which I think can be shown with high probability to be based on eyewitness testimony, or on a collection of Jesus’ sayings that also shows up in Luke and that is very likely a pretty accurate summary of Jesus’ core teachings. Note that this is actually quite a conservative position, and I may well be unintentionally “cheating” in my claim that this is defensible by purely historical methods. None of us can really bracket out our beliefs.

The material peculiar to Matthew, which is a relatively small part of the whole, has a lot of question marks over it from a historical point of view. I do not think that this material is very reliable historically. (And again, this is not because I “throw out” anything not multiply attested, but because of the nature of Matthew in particular.) This does not require me to say that “Matthew was a liar,” given the nature of ancient biographies and the obviously theologically driven nature of Matthew’s narrative. And theologically, I don’t have a problem with the idea that God inspired the author of “Matthew” to interpret Jesus’ words and actions through theological additions, both sayings and stories.

The major exception to this is the birth narrative. Here my historical judgment is that the stories are highly unlikely to be true, while my faith commitments make it very hard to throw the stories out. The key claim of virginal conception is, of course, multiply attested (Matthew and Luke, which are pretty clearly independent here given the very different details). And as Fr. Brown pointed out, there is no tradition of Jewish expectation of a virginal conception (for historians, in contrast to popular apologetics, the “argument from prophecy” tends to function as an argument against historicity). But both Matthew’s and Luke’s birth narratives present huge difficulties. Luke of course has much higher “general reliability,” and his stories are less intrinsically improbable. So it’s possible (and I think I could accept this theologically) that Matthew’s stories are “midrash” as Gundry claimed, while Luke’s are historical. But this is probably the main place in the NT where my historical judgments and my faith commitments clash, and where there’s a big gap in consequence between what I believe as a Christian and what I would conclude if I were treating the NT as any other book (if I were doing that, I would conclude with a fairly high level of confidence that the birth narratives are legendary).

This is a bit of a digression. But you asked.

 

[Contarini]

And here we will disagree. I have made the argument - well, repeated the argument made by others really - that the gospel writers have been proven to be accurate in the things that we have been able to corroborate thus far.

But you haven’t made this argument with regard to Matthew in particular. And that’s what you need to do for “general reliability” to work in your favor.

In the meantime you need to deal with the fact that evangelical scholars–two of whom you yourself cited (Blomberg and Licona) accept that ancient biographies could include legends, and that this is therefore a possibility in the Gospels (though both are pretty slow to go there–Blomberg slower than Licona). And in particular, such claims almost always seem to center around Matthew. There’s a reason for that. Matthew has far more material than the other Synoptics (and probably more than John as well, if we’re just talking about stories and not speeches) that looks like legend or theological commentary.

As I said previously, the radio announcers on the Duke and Carolina radio networks can call the same game reliably despite their obvious biases. And while neither of them is infallible, they can be 100% accurate.

They can be. But you don’t assume that any one of them must be, without checking. And of course they are calling a game that they are witnessing (you cannot assume that Matthew as we have it was written by an eyewitness simply on Papias’ testimony), and which many other people are witnessing as well, so that any inaccuracies will be quickly challenged.

I have no problem with this. My problem is with your position that we can’t really trust Matthew because your opinions about how “history is done” prevent you from giving Matthew the benefit of the doubt despite the evidence that he has recorded history reliably

No such evidence has yet been presented.

I have pointed out repeatedly that Matthew consistently gives more theological explanation than the other Synoptics, and that even quite conservative scholars are open to the possibility that he does sometimes add legends or theological explanations to the text.

You just keep ignoring this. You have your narrative that I am a “skeptic” and you keep repeating it, and thereby simply showing your ignorance of the scholarly spectrum of opinion, on which my views are quite conservative.

I’m going to pass by all your nonsense about me being unusually skeptical (by the standards of people with historical training).

Look, I agree with Richard Bauckham that the Gospels are largely based on eyewitness testimony and that the traditional view of Mark (that it is based directly on Peter’s oral accounts of Jesus’ life) is probably correct. That’s a very conservative position. You simply don’t know what you are talking about.

We are talking about two otherwise unattested verses of a Gospel whose author consistently seems to add theological elaboration–an author whom otherwise conservative scholars repeatedly get themselves into trouble over, because their historical judgments compel them to admit the possibility that parts of his narrative may not be historical.

I keep referring to Luke because his credentials as a historian are thoroughly established; thus, I’m hoping to find SOME common ground with you before moving on to Matthew.

The only thing that this will accomplish is to discredit your attempt to claim that I’m some kind of extreme skeptic. It does nothing to establish your point about Matthew.

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

My apologies to everyone for not being more active in this thread over the past two weeks. I have been occupied with work and some travel visiting family for Easter.

I will try to get caught up ASAP.

 

[Tomyris]

The only thing that this will accomplish is to discredit your attempt to claim that I’m some kind of extreme skeptic. It does nothing to establish your point about Matthew.

Edwin

The problem here, dear sir, is that there is no agreement on what admissible evidence is. We are all skeptics, deciding what evidence is valid and what to throw out, on the basis of our presuppositions.

Do you agree?

Until the presuppositions are agreed on, one is arguing apples and the other eggs (I got tired of oranges, and eggs, well, are appropriate to the season).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Everyone is biased.

Including the participants in this thread…as I will come back to in a moment.

Three quick points:

1. You have made much of the fact that a few of the scholars I quoted early on are evangelicals, but this does not apply to Scott Hahn, Scott Sullivan or Fr. Ron Tacelli - all of whom participated in the filming of the video series I referenced early on which covers WHY reliance upon general reliability is a usual and customary practice.
2. I have asked on more than one occasion for online articles which explain why establishing the “general reliability” of a particular author is insufficient. I have cited numerous scholars who say that it IS sufficient, but I’m still waiting for the counter-argument.
3. I have come to the tentative conclusion that we are really just at odds over something that hinges on your personal opinion or preference. YOU think history should be done a certain way, so you reject Catholic Answers’ use of the Spiral Argument because you simply don’t like it. But I haven’t read anything from you (and obviously nothing from any other author that you have cited since you have not cited any) which gives me reason to believe that TSA is flawed.

Arguing about your opinion v. mine is going to be no more fruitful than the “Mary Ann v. Ginger” debate…and far less entertaining.

So, in the absence of any articles or papers from noted NT scholars explaining explicitly why the dozen or more folks that I can cite in favor of the principle of general reliability are wrong, I’m not sure there is really any further we can go in this discussion.

I’m a Mary Ann guy, btw.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Gospel of Matthew
newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

Excerpt:

"The following answers have been given by the Biblical Commission to inquiries about the Gospel of St. Matthew: In view of the universal and constant agreement of the Church, as shown by the testimony of the Fathers, the inscription of Gospel codices, most ancient versions of the Sacred Books and lists handed down by the Holy Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, popes and councils, and finally by liturgical usage in the Eastern and Western Church, it may and should be held that Matthew, an Apostle of Christ, is really the author of the Gospel that goes by his name. The belief that Matthew preceded the other Evangelists in writing, and that the first Gospel was written in the native language of the Jews then in Palestine, is to be considered as based on Tradition.

"The preparation of this original text was not deferred until after the destruction of Jerusalem, so that the prophecies it contains about this might be written after the event; nor is the alleged uncertain and much disputed testimony of Irenaeus convincing enough to do away with the opinion most conformed to Tradition, that their preparation was finished even before the coming of Paul to Rome. The opinion of certain Modernists is untenable, viz., that Matthew did not in a proper and strict sense compose the Gospel, as it has come down to us, but only a collection of some words and sayings of Christ, which, according to them, another anonymous author used as sources.

“The fact that the Fathers and all ecclesiastical writers, and even the Church itself from the very beginning, have used as canonical the Greek text of the Gospel known as St. Matthew’s, not even excepting those who have expressly handed down that the Apostle Matthew wrote in his native tongue, proves for certain that this very Greek Gospel is identical in substance with the Gospel written by the same Apostle in his native language. Although the author of the first Gospel has the dogmatic and apologetic purpose of proving to the Jews that Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets and born of the house of David, and although he is not always chronological in arranging the facts or sayings which he records, his narration is not to be regarded as lacking truth. Nor can it be said that his accounts of the deeds and utterances of Christ have been altered and adapted by the influence of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the conditions of the growing Church, and that they do not therefore conform to historical truth. Notably unfounded are the opinions of those who cast doubt on the historical value of the first two chapters, treating of the genealogy and infancy of Christ, or on certain passages of much weight for certain dogmas, such as those which concern the primacy of Peter (xvi, 17-19), the form of baptism given to the Apostles with their universal missions (xxviii, 19-20), the Apostles’ profession of faith in Christ (xiv, 33), and others of this character specially emphasized by Matthew.”

+++

The Biblical Commission
newadvent.org/cathen/02557a.htm

Excerpt:

The Commission though formed like a Congregation is not a Congregation but seemingly of lower rank. Its decisions are approved by the pope and published by his command. Such approval, when given in formâ communi, does not change the nature of the decisions as emanating from a Congregation or Commission, nor does it make them specifically pontifical acts; much less does it imply an exercise of the pope’s personal prerogative of infallibility. Hence they are not infallible or unchangeable, though they must be received with obedience and interior assent, by which we judge that the doctrine proposed is safe and to be accepted because of the authority by which it is presented. These decisions are not the opinions of a private assembly, but an official directive norm; to question them publicy would be lacking in respect and obedience to legitimate authority. We are not hindered from private study of the reasons on which they are based, and if some scholar should find solid arguments against a decision they should be set before the Commission.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh, and Peter Kreeft, of course.

I should have listed him among the Catholic Scholars supporting “general reliability”.

 

[Contarini]

Including the participants in this thread…as I will come back to in a moment.

Three quick points:

1. You have made much of the fact that a few of the scholars I quoted early on are evangelicals, but this does not apply to Scott Hahn, Scott Sullivan or Fr. Ron Tacelli - all of whom participated in the filming of the video series I referenced early on which covers WHY reliance upon general reliability is a usual and customary practice.

Actually I haven’t made much of the fact that they are evangelical Protestants. I mentioned it, yes, as ironic given your very dismissive attitude to the scholars such as Fr. Brown who are generally considered to be mainstream representatives of post-Vatican-II scholarship. But I haven’t made much of it. Of course there is a small group of very conservative Catholic scholars who agree (in fact may take even more conservative positions than moderate, reasonable evangelicals like Blomberg). The point is not so much whether they are Catholic or Protestant, but that they are all at the conservative end of the scholarly spectrum. They are all committed to some form of Biblical inerrancy for faith reasons. They are all Christian apologists as well as scholars.

Now this doesn’t mean they should be dismissed. But it does mean that if you are trying to defend the spiral argument’s purported appeal to “treating the Bible like any other book,” it’s suspicious when the only scholars you ever cite are committed, as a matter of faith, to a view of the Bible that they do not hold of any other book.

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

1. I have asked on more than one occasion for online articles which explain why establishing the “general reliability” of a particular author is insufficient. I have cited numerous scholars who say that it IS sufficient, but I’m still waiting for the counter-argument.

No, you haven’t. Not in the way that is relevant for our current dispute. I have pointed out to you that the very scholars you have cited have themselves said that ancient biography could include non-historical, legendary elements. They do not use “general reliability” as a knock-down argument to trump careful examination of particular passages. I wasn’t sure at first, but the more I’ve learned about Blomberg and Licona the more certain I’ve become that you are radically misusing them.

You are using “general reliability” in a way that no scholar would, as a cop-out to avoid dealing with specific difficulties. Neither Blomberg nor Licona nor any other serious scholar says that “establishing the general reliability of an author is sufficient.” They are arguing that general reliability establishes the “benefit of the doubt,” and you interpret that to mean that critical questions about specific passages in Matthew can just be brushed aside. Bunk. They aren’t saying that. And if they were saying that, they would be at odds with the overwhelming consensus of scholarship.

Here’s where the rubber hits the road: let’s look at specific commentaries on the specific issue in question. You are twisting and turning to avoid doing that. We know that Raymond Brown believed that Matt. 16:18-19 was a theological elaboration and that it couldn’t be proven historically that Jesus established a Church. That’s the only point, to my knowledge, on which this supposed “modernist heretic” was ever actually criticized by a bishop of the Church. And as I’ve said repeatedly, and as you can verify if you bother to consult any source not from a tiny conservative minority of Catholic voices, Fr. Brown is widely regarded as a middle-of-the-road, judicious scholar. Obviously everyone to his left–all the liberal Protestant and secular scholars–would hold that view as well.

I have also pointed out that your favored evangelical scholars themselves admit that the Gospels may contain non-historical material, and have been excoriated by Geisler and other more conservative evangelicals for their scholarly honesty on this point. You keep ignoring this, but it’s fatal to your argument.

 

[Contarini]

1. I have come to the tentative conclusion that we are really just at odds over something that hinges on your personal opinion or preference. YOU think history should be done a certain way, so you reject Catholic Answers’ use of the Spiral Argument because you simply don’t like it. But I haven’t read anything from you (and obviously nothing from any other author that you have cited since you have not cited any) which gives me reason to believe that TSA is flawed.

So you don’t see the flaw in basing an argument about “what the Bible looks like if we treat it like any other book” exclusively on people who are committed as a matter of faith to treating the Bible differently from any other book? You don’t see a problem with claiming that one can “prove” by the reasonable canons of historical scholarship something that mainstream Catholic scholars plus all liberal Protestant and secular scholars, plus many evangelicals who find themselves unable to toe the party line because of their scholarly honesty, reject?

So, in the absence of any articles or papers from noted NT scholars explaining explicitly why the dozen or more folks that I can cite in favor of the principle of general reliability are wrong, I’m not sure there is really any further we can go in this discussion.

You’re right that we have reached an impasse. You ignore the clear evidence that Blomberg and Licona and other evangelical scholars, not to mention the vast range of scholars to their left on the spectrum, accept the possibility of non-historical elements in the Gospels, especially Matthew.

You ignore this because you desperately want to ignore it. There is no other explanation.

Until you deal with the evidence that even your favored evangelicals admit non-historical elements in the Gospels (from the Geisler links I provided earlier), and also cite some scholars who are not on the conservative end of the spectrum, and until I get a look at a good range of Matthew commentaries to give you more specific evidence of how overwhelming the consensus is, there’s no point going further in this conversation.

You are using “general reliability” as a crutch to avoid discussing the specifics of Matthew 16. That is a completely bogus way of using the concept, and it’s an admission that your view really can’t stand up on its own merits.

Edwin

 

[Abu]

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].

 

[Abu]

Contarini #192
We know that Raymond Brown believed that Matt. 16:18-19 was a theological elaboration and that it couldn’t be proven historically that Jesus established a Church. That’s the only point, to my knowledge, on which this supposed “modernist heretic” was ever actually criticized by a bishop of the Church.

False. There is no “supposition” about modernist Raymond Brown, except by Contarini and the like. Rather his errors are well exposed. How much more error is involved in the claims by such scholars?

Already cited in post #139, and totally ignored above:
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 imbibed in this forum.

 

[Contarini]

False. There is no “supposition” about modernist Raymond Brown, except by Contarini and the like. Rather his errors are well exposed. How much more error is involved in the claims by such scholars?

Already cited in post #139, and totally ignored above:
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 imbibed in this forum.

Thanks for correcting me–Cardinal Sheehan’s criticisms did cover a somewhat broader range than I said, though all of them had to do with issues connected with the priesthood and the Eucharistic sacrifice.

My point stands, however, that this scholar who is pretty much uniformly praised as a reasonable and moderate voice by everyone except Catholics of your way of thinking (i.e., what most people would call “extremely conservative ones,” though I’m aware that you dislike the term and won’t argue it here) clearly did not support the exegesis on which the spiral argument is based. That’s a starting point. When I next get to Asbury Theological Seminary’s library I will look at a bunch of sources and post more citations.

And again, please bear in mind that the more you emphasize Church authority on this issue, the more you help my position.

The spiral argument claims to set Church authority aside to avoid “circularity.” Hence, if you establish that Catholics cannot in fact address this issue without citing Church authority, and cannot even take seriously as scholars authors whose views (in your judgment, not shared by most Catholics) Church authority condemns, you have established that the spiral argument is impossible.

Which has been my point all along.

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually I haven’t made much of the fact that they are evangelical Protestants. I mentioned it, yes, as ironic given your very dismissive attitude to the scholars such as Fr. Brown who are generally considered to be mainstream representatives of post-Vatican-II scholarship. But I haven’t made much of it.

Yeah, ya did. You went on quite a bit about Licona and Geisler, etc. On more than one occasion you have made a point of the fact that I was quoting Evangelicals who are forced(?) to take certain theological positions because of the universities they work for.

Of course there is a small group of very conservative Catholic scholars who agree (in fact may take even more conservative positions than moderate, reasonable evangelicals like Blomberg). The point is not so much whether they are Catholic or Protestant, but that they are all at the conservative end of the scholarly spectrum. They are all committed to some form of Biblical inerrancy for faith reasons. They are all Christian apologists as well as scholars.

Count me on that end of the spectrum, as well.

Now this doesn’t mean they should be dismissed. But it does mean that if you are trying to defend the spiral argument’s purported appeal to “treating the Bible like any other book,” it’s suspicious when the only scholars you ever cite are committed, as a matter of faith, to a view of the Bible that they do not hold of any other book.

As opposed to what? Treating the Bible as if it cannot possibly be of ANY historic value because it was written by people who actually believed that what they were writing was true?

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

TSA stands or falls on its own merits or lack thereof…not on my ability to defend it.

No, you haven’t.

And another request goes unanswered.

Dr. Tait, will you please provide links to any online articles written by noteworthy scholars which contain explanations of why “general reliability” is not an acceptable principle for establishing the historical value of an ancient text?

(This has to be at least my third request.)

BTW - Were you received into the Church this past weekend?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you don’t see the flaw in basing an argument about “what the Bible looks like if we treat it like any other book” exclusively on people who are committed as a matter of faith to treating the Bible differently from any other book?

It’s worse than that. I don’t believe that they ARE treating the Bible any differently than historians treat any other book.

You don’t see a problem with claiming that one can “prove” by the reasonable canons of historical scholarship something that mainstream Catholic scholars plus all liberal Protestant and secular scholars, plus many evangelicals who find themselves unable to toe the party line because of their scholarly honesty, reject?

Your bluster is noted, but you have not provided one single quote or article that actually demonstrates this rejection.

Dr. Tait, I recently read a transcript of a debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman, and I have to say that every time Ehrman took the podium, he reminded me of you. Is that just a coincidence?

You’re right that we have reached an impasse. You ignore the clear evidence that Blomberg and Licona and other evangelical scholars, not to mention the vast range of scholars to their left on the spectrum, accept the possibility of non-historical elements in the Gospels, especially Matthew.

Hilarious. Here you are doing the very thing that you said in your last post that you are not doing. Previously, you wrote:

Actually I haven’t made much of the fact that they are evangelical Protestants.

And yet you mention Licona and company again and again and again…ignoring the fact that I had also quoted Hahn, Kreeft, Tacelli, and others. Oh, and let’s not forget that the Spiral Argument itself has been championed by a very Catholic lay apostolate.

You ignore this because you desperately want to ignore it. There is no other explanation.

Why? I have been a Catholic for 35 years and a Christian for longer than that. IOW, I believed that the Bible is the inspired Word of God for decades before I ever heard of the Spiral argument. Now, I happen to think that the argument is valid and useful, but exactly why am I desperate to ignore the “facts” as you see them?

I’ve been doing online apologetics for nearly 10 years now, and I’m savvy enough to abandon a losing argument when I see one. So, again, why would I willingly choose to play a bad hand in an apologetics debate with a non-Catholic in a forum like this?

Candidly, Dr. Tait, the only person who has ever seriously questioned TSA is you. Perhaps that ought to give YOU pause. Do you see people lining up to take shots at the argument and Catholic Answers? After all, TSA has been a cornerstone argument of CA for a loooong time. Where is the refutation of it? There is none that I’m aware of and that includes my discussions with you.

Until you deal with the evidence that even your favored evangelicals admit non-historical elements in the Gospels (from the Geisler links I provided earlier), and also cite some scholars who are not on the conservative end of the spectrum, and until I get a look at a good range of Matthew commentaries to give you more specific evidence of how overwhelming the consensus is, there’s no point going further in this conversation.

That suits me. I have no desire to quote liberal scholars (and that’s what you really meant when you spoke of “not on the conservative end of the spectrum”. I am not a liberal and care little for their erroneous views. If you count yourself among them, then you know where you stand in my estimation.

You are using “general reliability” as a crutch to avoid discussing the specifics of Matthew 16. That is a completely bogus way of using the concept, and it’s an admission that your view really can’t stand up on its own merits.

Why would I put the cart before the horse? If you cannot accept Matthew as a reliable author, then how can there be any discussion of a single word he wrote?

 

[Abu]

Contarini #196
[Re Raymond Brown]
My point stands, however, that this scholar who is pretty much uniformly praised as a reasonable and moderate voice by everyone except Catholics of your way of thinking…. did not support the exegesis on which the spiral argument is based

That is precisely why those described here as “everyone” are in obvious error as ambiguity and contradiction are not what the Catholic Church and real Catholics are about.

**False Reasoning
Question from on 24/1/02: **
Dear Fr Echert
You have disposed of the false idea that appointment to the present Pontifical Biblical Commission gives unqualified approval to those so appointed regardless of errors promoted.

Also, isn’t it a fact that not being censured by name from Rome for errors does not mean necessarily that the person has not spread errors? Several examples come to mind.

Rahner, with some others, concocted the notion of a “fundamental option” of a type which denied the doctrine on mortal sin taught by the Council of Trent An Introduction to Moral Theology, Wiiliam E May, p 154-155]. Jesuit Fr Karl Rahner, was one of the signatories of a document dissenting from *Humanae Vitae *actually circulated world-wide by its authors so as to get support for it. [Refer *Christian Order, Aug-Sep 92, Jorge Molinero - *Recent History of Theological Dissent *(20 years of Parallel Magisterium, p 432)]. No named censure from Rome, but we know that both errors have been censured by the Holy Father – in *Veritatis Splendor *(# 65-70) and in Evangelium Vitae, however.

Certain beliefs propagated by Origen were condemned centuries after he died by several Ecumenical Councils.

Fr Richard McBrien, has confused many and denigrated the Magisterium – US Bishops have censured much contained in his most recent Catholicism as well as his earlier work, but nothing from Rome has publicly condemned him by name.

Thus, nothing is proved by fallaciously reasoning that because Raymond Brown has not been condemned by Rome to date, in condemning theories which he promoted, that Brown must be in very good standing. The false theories have been condemned by Rome, not only by his bishop who named him, and the reasoning is fallacious because it involves a non sequitur. When bishops govern and teach faithfully, Rome seldom needs to act directly by naming, but in the final analysis Rome chooses when to include names.

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 24/1/02 (EWTN)
Thanks, Peter, for elaborating upon this important point with some examples. In fact, in recent decades Rome has been rather cautious and even slow to act against some dissident theologians and renegade bishops, for reasons known to Rome I imagine. As you note, a lack of condemnation or censure from the Vatican in the present times is not the equivalent of an endorsement. In fact, until the very end, Jesus Christ kept to himself the sinister character and corrupt behavior of Judas Iscariot rather than expose him to the other apostles, even as he stole from the purse of the poor and made plans to betray the Son of God into the hands of sinners. [My emphasis].

At the website below you have What Does The Church Really Say About The Bible, by Edith Myers, The Wanderer Press, 1979
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3752

“…the Pontifical Biblical Commission was formally established by Pope Leo XIII in 1902, and in 1907, in Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae, Pope Pius X declared its decisions to be binding.”

8) On the Author, Date of Composition, and Historical Truth of the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 1911.
Matthew, the Commission said, is in truth the author of the Gospel published under his name. The Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, sometime before the destruction of Jerusalem. We cannot accept the idea that the book was merely a collection of sayings compiled by an anonymous author. While the book was first written in Hebrew, the Greek is regarded as canonical, and is to be regarded as historically true, including the infancy narratives, and passages relating to the primacy of Peter (16:17-19) and to the Apostles’ profession of faith in the divinity of Christ (14:33).

9) On the Author, Time of Composition, and Historical Truth of the Gospels According to St. Mark and St. Luke, 1912.
The Commission upheld the authorship of these books by Mark and Luke, their historicity, and their having been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. It cannot prudently be called into question, the Commission said, that Mark wrote according to the preaching of Peter, or that Luke followed the preaching of Paul. Both of them told what they had learned from “eminently trustworthy witnesses.”

 

[icamhif]

Candidly, Dr. Tait, the only person who has ever seriously questioned TSA is you.

False. I’ve been reading this thread (and the previous thread) since the beginning, and I agree with Contarini on this topic.