The Spiral Argument Argument

[Contarini]

You are correct. Your response is valid, but it does not explain why historical research on Matthew 16: 13-18 stops at 100 AD?

This thread emphasizes eyewitnesses during the time or tradition of Matthew. Early Christian testimony is very valuable. However, that should not automatically exclude the testimony of 21st century Christians who do see a visible Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ Who is True God and True Man. That is why I included verses 13-17 in my citation of Matthew 16: 13-18.

In some bibles, there is a list of popes since Peter. Surely, some historians would be curious about how these men interpreted Matthew 16: 13-18.

Well, from a historical point of view the beliefs of people in the 21st century are not evidence for something that happened in the first. For later beliefs to be evidence, they would have to be close enough that they might have access to some sources that we don’t have, whether oral or written. Papias counts. Irenaeus maybe still does, though much more weakly. Probably nobody after that does, except for people who reasonably claim to have access to written sources that are now lost.

That doesn’t mean that the continuity of faith in Catholicism to the 21st century is irrelevant in a spiritual/theological inquiry–it’s highly relevant and is indeed the main reason I find Catholicism so appealing. But it is not, per se, historical evidence for what happened in the first century.

Thanks for clarifying your remark.

Edwin

 

[grannymh]

Well, from a historical point of view the beliefs of people in the 21st century are not evidence for something that happened in the first. For later beliefs to be evidence, they would have to be close enough that they might have access to some sources that we don’t have, whether oral or written. Papias counts. Irenaeus maybe still does, though much more weakly. Probably nobody after that does, except for people who reasonably claim to have access to written sources that are now lost.

That doesn’t mean that the continuity of faith in Catholicism to the 21st century is irrelevant in a spiritual/theological inquiry–it’s highly relevant and is indeed the main reason I find Catholicism so appealing. But it is not, per se, historical evidence for what happened in the first century.

Thanks for clarifying your remark.

Edwin

I understand what you are saying about historical evidence per se.

However, I am looking at 21st visible evidence and going backwards to the truth found in the written words in Matthew 16: 13-18.
I guess I am still the free spirit from my youth–choosing my own direction for finding the truth.

 

[Contarini]

I understand what you are saying about historical evidence per se.

However, I am looking at 21st visible evidence and going backwards to the truth found in the written words in Matthew 16: 13-18.
I guess I am still the free spirit from my youth–choosing my own direction for finding the truth.

I think that’s an entirely appropriate thing to do–it’s what I do myself, even if the answers seem a bit more confusing to me than they do to you

It’s just not the same thing the current dispute is about. The current dispute is about a particular claim by some Catholic apologists to use the normal methods of historical inquiry to prove Catholicism, by way of the reliability of the NT and the supposed evidence in the NT for Jesus founding “an infallible Church.”

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

What I’m trying to get at is that I don’t believe critics like Contarini are the enemies you seem to think they are.

I do not see Dr. Tait as an enemy. Heck, he may have even entered the Catholic Church last weekend at long last. If he is a liberal, however, then we are sworn enemies for life. After death, we can share a few laughs in heaven

Look, it’s simple. I play chess…or did when I was younger. I’m not a great player, but I spent a lot of time analyzing all kinds of openings and defenses 15-20 moves deep. When a particular line is shown to be inferior, I discard it because there is no reason to wind up in a losing position if you know it is a losing position in advance.

Now, as an amateur Catholic apologist active in a Catholic forum, I have the advantage of playing white in almost every game. After much study, I know most of the openings that I wish to play quite well. But when a non-Catholic makes the first move/post, I have a standard repertoire of defenses that I can play easily from memory. Heck, I know most of the objections better than the person making them does. Repetition over the years hones that skill. I’m not unique in this, btw. Many of the Catholic and non-Catholic regulars have their own favorite openings and defenses which they employ regularly in these threads.

Happily for me, the Catholic Church has the goods, so to speak, and despite the protestations of the non-Catholic contributors and lurkers, Catholicism has the advantage (over Judaism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism) of being TRUE.

Consequently, there is no reason for me to play a bad opening if it’s going to result in a bad position for me in the middle or end game. I have dropped apologetics arguments that I thought were untenable, I have modified my positions on many others, and I have even chastised other Catholics in this forum who were making bad arguments that reflected poorly on the richness of the Church’s history and authority.

So, despite assertions to the contrary, I am not desperate to defend the Spiral Argument. I’m simply unconvinced so far by Dr. Tait (or anyone else) that the Spiral Argument is as weak as they claim it to be. If I see something that proves me wrong, I will never play this line of argumentation again. But until then, I think TSA provides an excellent approach to the establishment of the scriptures as inspired…especially in light of the “burning in the bosom” approach which is commonly held by most Bible Christians.

Finally, as a nod to Dr. Tait (and as evidence of the fact that I am more teachable than he believes), I am considering adding a disclaimer to the beginning of my next posting of TSA noting that not everyone agrees with it - or something to that effect which I haven’t written, yet.

But thus far, I’ve not seen much more than “history is not done that way” with no supporting evidence that the PhD’s I’ve cited are wrong in their positive assessment of the general historical reliability of each individual NT author.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am a former Evangelical who has been a fan of Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, and Lee Strobel, so if anything, I would be “predisposed” to agree with the first line of the Spiral Argument (the line that is under discussion).

But Contarini, in my opinion, has provided us a compelling case about Matthew that no amount of appeal to “general reliability” to the four Gospels in general is going to get around.

Could you be more specific?

What exactly do you no longer believe about the gospel of Matthew that you did believe prior to reading Dr. Tait’s efforts to undermine that gospel?

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I doubt that any such articles exist, for the very simple reason that nobody has bothered to refute a position that couldn’t be held by any competent historian or biblical scholar. As Contarini has pointed out, there are obvious and immediate methodological problems with approaching any text in a hermeneutic of ‘general reliability’. That’s not how any academic - ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ - treats his/her sources.

Nobody has bothered to refute a position which, according to Dr. Tait, is commonly held by conservative, Evangelical scholars?

Gee, I thought those were the kinds of folks that liberals took great pains to refute?

 

[grannymh]

I think that’s an entirely appropriate thing to do–it’s what I do myself, even if the answers seem a bit more confusing to me than they do to you

It’s just not the same thing the current dispute is about. The current dispute is about a particular claim by some Catholic apologists to use the normal methods of historical inquiry to prove Catholicism, by way of the reliability of the NT and the supposed evidence in the NT for Jesus founding “an infallible Church.”

Edwin

I knew we had something in common.

My Irish Mother would tell me. “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”

It is my observation that if the cat known as the Spiral Argument has a controversial first premise of “The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work.” then it is common sense to look for another first premise. Also, being “an infallible Church” misses one of the fundamental goals which directs the Catholic Church to teach and preserve Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation is stronger than the Bible being inspired.

There is no doubt that the Spiral Argument itself presents a rather interesting possibility leading to the validity of Catholicism.

 

[Contarini]

But thus far, I’ve not seen much more than “history is not done that way” with no supporting evidence that the PhD’s I’ve cited are wrong in their positive assessment of the general historical reliability of each individual NT author.

I don’t recall any citations from any Ph.D.'s on the reliability of Matthew, who is the NT author most affected by the current discussion (given the centrality of Matt. 16:18-19).

I have cited evidence that two of the sources you yourself brought up (Blomberg and Licona), including the one you have cited at most length (Blomberg), are open to the possibility that there are non-historical elements in the Gospels. Licona goes farther than Blomberg, and both of them are–as evidenced by their presence on your apologetics video–definitely on the conservative side of the scholarly spectrum. A fortiori, it follows that most other scholars are definitely open to this.

I would be happy to present you with a catena of such scholars at the first possible opportunity (i.e., when I next get myself to Asbury Theological Library), but it’s not clear how much good it will do since you announce that you won’t listen to “liberal” scholars.

That announcement is itself fatal to your argument.

If you get to rule scholars out of court on ideological grounds, then the claim to “approach the Bible like any other book” rings hollow.

I don’t understand why you can’t see this.

Don’t believe me–believe Habermas:

Certainly one of the strongest indications of historicity occurs when a saying or event can be constructed from data that are admittedly well-established even across a wide range of otherwise diverse historical opinions. Historian Christopher Blake speaks of such scholarly agreement as the “very considerable part of history which is acceptable to the community of professional historians.”[39]

Along these lines, I have proposed frequently what I have termed the “minimal facts” historical method, in which I employ only those data that satisfy at least two major standards. Each event or saying must be (1) exceptionally well-attested on multiple grounds, which might be indicated, for example, by authenticity criteria such as those which we have listed here. Further, (2) the event or saying must be recognized as historical by the vast majority of scholars who treat this subject, especially when they oppose the conclusion that they think is nonetheless warranted.

To be fair, Habermas goes on to say that the first point is more important than the second. But of course I’ve been trying to discuss Matt. 16:18-19 based on the standard “authenticity criteria” throughout this entire discussion, and you’ve refused to do so. So you have that noted liberal heretic Habermas against you either way

The Habermas article substantiates solidly what I’ve been saying all along–that the methodology required by the “spiral argument” is not that used by serious scholars. (Note that Habermas isn’t talking about criteria for what he himself believes–he’s speaking apologetically, which of course is what we’ve been supposed to be doing throughout this discussion. He’s saying that it is unwise in apologetics to rely on claims about the NT that aren’t well-attested by the standard critical criteria, as borne out by the scholarly consensus across ideological frontiers (bearing in mind that the scholarly consensus can shift with time, so that direct appeal to the evidence is always the primary method).

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I will work on honoring your request when you post a statement from any credentialed scholar, Blomberg or anyone else, who says that “general reliability” is the sole criterion to be used when multiple attestation does not exist.

That is not what the quote you earlier cited said. Blomberg said that “general reliability” established the benefit of the doubt. That does not mean that you ignore all other internal evidence, comparison with other versions of the story, etc., as you insist on doing.

Furthermore, the entire discussion is moot until you provide an argument for the general reliability of Matthew, which you have conspicuously failed to do.

You are insisting on holding up the entire discussion until we “solve” this question of how much weight “general reliability” has. But we aren’t going to solve that. It’s too vague to solve in the abstract.

It’s hard to give you what you ask for, first of all because most scholars don’t post online articles. They write journal articles and books. I’m sure there are critical reviews of Blomberg’s work out there by more liberal scholars, but I can’t find them online. All I find (and those have been very useful in establishing that his concept of “reliability” does not exclude the possibility of non-historical elements) are tirades against him for supposedly watering down inerrancy. I’m sure I could probably find atheist websites taking him to task, but I have no interest in citing those (unless they are actual, credentialed scholars who double as atheist “anti-apologists”–and even then I’d rather cite folks from closer to the middle).

Here is the best I can do so far, and I actually think it’s pretty relevant. It’s an article by Gary Habermas, not necessarily disagreeing with Blomberg but explaining why “general reliability” is not enough on its own. (I suspect Blomberg would agree and that he’d be bemused/annoyed by the way you are using his work, but I can’t prove that–I can now prove that Habermas does not see things the way you do.)

I read that article a few weeks ago…several times, in fact. I’m not following your thinking. Could you be more specific in how you think Habermas is undercutting the idea of general reliability?

I have just sent the following email to Dr. Habermas:

Dr. Habermas-

My name is Randy Carson, and I am an amateur Catholic apologist.

Recently, I purchased and viewed the Christ 101 apologetics series produced by Scott Sullivan which featured you and others in cameo appearances.

More recently, I have been engaged in an online debate with Dr. Edwin Tait, a church historian formerly on the faculty of Huntington University in Indiana. Based on the arguments put forth by Dr. Sullivan concerning general reliability, I have been arguing that we may be certain that Jesus promised to build a church in Mt. 16:18-19 because the general reliability of the author of Matthew is sufficient to justify giving the benefit of the doubt to the author. This was an important part of the argument made by Dr. Sullivan, Dr. Kreeft, Dr. Licona, and many others in Christ 101.

Dr. Tait, an Anglican, argues that we cannot be certain that Jesus ever spoke the words of Mt. 16:18-19. Further, he claims that in the absence of any corroborating passages from the other synoptics, there is no evidence that Jesus intended to establish a Church upon Peter. (I’m not sure of your own convictions in this regard, but surely you are familiar with the fact that more than 25 Protestant scholars (including DA Carson) have written that Peter – not Peter’s confession or Jesus – is the rock in that context. Jesus, of course, is the rock in many other passages.) However, it is not my intent to draw you into a discussion over the papacy. 

Instead, I am looking for some clarification regarding the sufficiency of general reliability when approaching the New Testament texts. Dr. Tait has cited your 2005 article, “Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels” as evidence that you do not view general reliability as strongly as Dr. Sullivan argues in his video series. I had read the article myself previously, but I did not come to the same conclusion as Dr. Tait. Perhaps I missed something.

Could you please clarify this for us?

Is the general reliability of the author of Matthew sufficient to establish the historical reliability of Matthew?

Is the historical reliability of Matthew sufficient to support the belief that Jesus did promise to build a church in Mt. 16:18-19 despite the lack of parallel verses in Mark or Luke?

Finally, would you accept or reject the following:

1. The Bible, viewed purely as a historical document, tells us that Jesus claimed to be God and proved His divinity by rising from the dead.
2. Jesus, who is God, promised to build a Church.
3. The Church, built by Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit into all truth, tells us that the Bible is inspired.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Randy Carson
Apex, NC

If I have the correct email address for him, perhaps he will respond.

 

[icamhif]

Could you be more specific?

What exactly do you no longer believe about the gospel of Matthew that you did believe prior to reading Dr. Tait’s efforts to undermine that gospel?

Thanks.

That we can approach the book of Matthew “like any other ancient text” and come to a very confident (let alone absolutely certain) conclusion that Matthew did not add to what Christ said for theological purposes, and that Christ really said the words in Matthew 16:17-19. Contarini persuasively pointed out that ancient biographies have a tendency to include non-historical events, and that it is likely to be the case with Matthew, given his consistent tendency to add theological illustrations to the narrative. So you can’t just take a few verified New Testament events that is shared across 2-4 Gospels and say, “Viola! Matthew deserves the benefit of the doubt in everything he writes.” You have to also show some events that are exclusive to Matthew that can be verified by outside sources.

I don’t think we need to approach the New Testament “like any other ancient text,” anyway, for some degree of faith is required in order to believe in anything. As a Christian, I have no problem believing by faith that Christ established an infallible Church, and I don’t believe it because I have approached the New Testament like any other historical text. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to claim otherwise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That we can approach the book of Matthew “like any other ancient text” and come to a very confident (let alone absolutely certain) conclusion that Matthew did not add to what Christ said for theological purposes, and that Christ really said the words in Matthew 16:17-19. Contarini persuasively pointed out that ancient biographies have a tendency to include non-historical events, and that it is likely to be the case with Matthew, given his consistent tendency to add theological illustrations to the narrative. So you can’t just take a few verified New Testament events that is shared across 2-4 Gospels and say, “Viola! Matthew deserves the benefit of the doubt in everything he writes.” You have to also show some events that are exclusive to Matthew that can be verified by outside sources.

I don’t think we need to approach the New Testament “like any other ancient text,” anyway, for some degree of faith is required in order to believe in anything. As a Christian, I have no problem believing by faith that Christ established an infallible Church, and I don’t believe it because I have approached the New Testament like any other historical text. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to claim otherwise.

I’m really sorry to read that Contarini has undermined your confidence in the gospel of Matthew.

Let’s set aside the Spiral Argument for a moment. Would you agree that Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what God wanted transmitted and no less?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You keep saying this.

I have only commented on the first two lines of the Spiral Argument, and I have not even BEGUN to defend Matthew as a historical author because until I see that there is common ground for accepting the reliability of a witness, no defense is really possible, is it? You will simply skate away on the excuse that we can’t trust the 100th thing that anyone tells us despite the fact that the other 99 have proven to be true.

But since this is where your argument REQUIRES me to be in error, let me ask you two questions.

1. Of the three synoptic gospels, which comes closest to meeting your personal standard of objective historical accuracy?
2. Why?

bump

 

[icamhif]

I’m really sorry to read that Contarini has undermined your confidence in the gospel of Matthew.

Let’s set aside the Spiral Argument for a moment. Would you agree that Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what God wanted transmitted and no less?

He has not undermined my confidence at all. If anything, his honesty in scholarly inquiry has strengthened my faith in the New Testament. I believe that the Bible (including Matthew) is inspired by the Holy Spirit and “no less,” but that’s not because I approach the Bible like any other ancient text.

 

[icamhif]

bump

What’s telling to me about this argument, Randy, is that instead of either 1. Providing evidence for historical events that are exclusive to Matthew, or 2. Acknowledging that he has a point about Matthew and that you don’t have the answer at the moment and will look into it…you resorted to the veiled accusation that he may not be convinced of your reasoning, no matter what evidence you provide him. I have never seen him move the goal post in this thread. He has consistently told us what “approaching the Bible like any other ancient text” is about.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He has not undermined my confidence at all. If anything, his honesty in scholarly inquiry has strengthened my faith in the New Testament. I believe that the Bible (including Matthew) is inspired by the Holy Spirit and “no less,” but that’s not because I approach the Bible like any other ancient text.

So, by faith, you know that the gospels are accurate because the Holy Spirit inspired them - not because we can rely on the authors to “get it right”?

 

[Randy_Carson]

What’s telling to me about this argument, Randy, is that instead of either 1. Providing evidence for historical events that are exclusive to Matthew, or 2. Acknowledging that he has a point about Matthew and that you don’t have the answer at the moment and will look into it…you resorted to the veiled accusation that he may not be convinced of your reasoning, no matter what evidence you provide him. I have never seen him move the goal post in this thread. He has consistently told us what “approaching the Bible like any other ancient text” is about.

Why must the historical events recorded by Matthew be exclusive in order to be trustworthy evidence?

Matthew may have relied on Q, for example, and utilized those passages which were of value in his judgment. Luke may have done likewise.

Here’s an analogy: Imagine that you and I both attended the Duke-Wisconsin game and later we both read an account of it in Sports Illustrated. Subsequently, we both decide to cut and paste a portion of that article into an email that we each send to respective family members serving in the military overseas.

My email would thus contain a bit of SI and some material that is unique to Randy but different from what you write. Call it R. Your email would contain some SI but also some material, I, which is unique to you (and different from me and SI). Now, if we both concur that SI reflects the game accurately, then that is multiple attestation that SI got it right.

Similarly, there is much material common to Matthew and Luke, and some scholars (Yes, I know, Dr. Tait, not all.) believe that Matthew and Luke relied on an earlier source known as Q. Since both Matthew and Luke approved those verses, it attests to the likelihood that the Q verses are reliable history. (That there were verses of Q that did not get into both gospels does not diminish those verses, but that’s another matter.)

Now, about the connection Matthew shares with Luke. The historical reliability of Luke is really beyond question. Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that

“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy… [he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

Professor of Classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote:

“For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record… it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth.”

Hurray! We have accolades being poured out upon Luke as a capable historian. So, how does this help Matthew? Well, did Matthew rely on Luke? No. Did Luke rely on Matthew? No. Did they both rely on Q for important passages in their respective gospels? Yes.

Consequently, the praise that is due to Luke for his diligent efforts to research and record a reliable account of the life of Jesus (and the Acts of the Apostles) is also due in large measure to Matthew for Matthew shares approximately 230 verses in common with Luke.

IOW, if Luke is praised for judging these Q verses to be worthy of inclusion in his gospel, how can Matthew be any less praiseworthy for having chosen them also!

Thus, anyone who seeks to question the historical reliability of Matthew will have to explain why Matthew has been any less diligent than Luke in selecting what portions of Q he chose to include in his own gospel.

 

[Abu]

Contarini #219
Abu, you don’t know anything “from history” as long as you refuse to listen to scholars whom you consider heretical.

The fact that the history of the foundation of the Catholic Church by the Christ as found in the Gospels is challenged by some non-Catholic scholars does not change that history one iota, but it does contuse some people like yourself.

To approach the Gospels as history means to look at all the spectrum of serious scholarship… If you aren’t willing to do that–and your continual screeds about Fr. Brown indicate that you aren’t–

That the facts on Raymond Brown are ridiculed by you, but cannot be refuted, merely shows the bias expressed not only on this issue but also against the Catholic Church by you and your followers.

The fact that Christ’s Catholic Church has never contradicted Her dogma and doctrine, though the explanations may develop in insight, refutes all the hype expressed by Brown, you, and those you favour. The only thing serious here is the serious error and hype.

After the foundation by Christ, so belittled by your favourites, we find Christ’s Chief Vicar acknowledged thus:
Real Catholics know that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome.

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle (Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

We are warned against the doubters and those who support falsehood:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).

Thus is Christ’s Peter, chosen so convincingly to head His Church, shown clearly to exercise the tasks given by the Christ, the same St Peter so belittled by some scholars and parroted here.

The reality that it is only Christ’s Catholic Church which has always taught His Truths despite the dismissal of most of the moral teachings in today’s world from divorce, abortion, contraception and all of the others, is a graphic realization of those very mandates from the Christ which are so clearly expressed in Matthew as:

**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

 

[Contarini]

Nobody has bothered to refute a position which, according to Dr. Tait, is commonly held by conservative, Evangelical scholars?

Gee, I thought those were the kinds of folks that liberals took great pains to refute?

Not really, no. As a general rule, conservatives think about liberals a lot more than liberals think about conservatives, because at least in the academy liberals have more power. Liberals are more likely to dismiss evangelicals than “take great pains” to refute them, unless they really break out into the “mainstream,” as N. T. Wright has done for instance. But even Wright often gets dismissed as an “apologist.” I’m not saying that Blomberg isn’t respected in mainstream scholarship, but I doubt that people in more liberal circles who disagree with his more apologetics-oriented writings feel any need to refute them.

You are familiar with Ehrman because Ehrman is an exception in this regard. He is an ex-evangelical and he does argue against evangelicals. That’s one reason you have a distorted view of mainstream scholarship. The people who are most worth paying attention to (other than Brown, whom you know about because of how much he’s reviled in conservative Catholic circles) aren’t on your radar because they aren’t going around arguing against the Bible’s reliability. They may indeed agree with much of what Blomberg says, but they aren’t committed to inerrancy and don’t have the same focus on apologetics. Examples would be W. D. Davies (now deceased) and Dale Allison, who co-wrote one of the standard scholarly commentaries on Matthew. (They are on my mind because I was trying to find online references to Blomberg in “mainstream” or more liberal scholarship, and I found them on Google Books citing a specialized article by him in a footnote.) They are pretty standard historical critics (or were when they wrote that commentary in the 80s–Allison later moved toward taking pre-critical scholarship more seriously, which is an unusual and welcome move in a mainstream Biblical scholar). Not overly skeptical, but very much practitioners of critical methodology. They, and not Ehrman, are the kind of scholar I have in mind when I say that the spiral argument won’t hold up to standard scholarly methods.

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not really, no. As a general rule, conservatives think about liberals a lot more than liberals think about conservatives, because at least in the academy liberals have more power. Liberals are more likely to dismiss evangelicals than “take great pains” to refute them, unless they really break out into the “mainstream,” as N. T. Wright has done for instance. But even Wright often gets dismissed as an “apologist.” I’m not saying that Blomberg isn’t respected in mainstream scholarship, but I doubt that people in more liberal circles who disagree with his more apologetics-oriented writings feel any need to refute them.

You are familiar with Ehrman because Ehrman is an exception in this regard. He is an ex-evangelical and he does argue against evangelicals. That’s one reason you have a distorted view of mainstream scholarship. The people who are most worth paying attention to (other than Brown, whom you know about because of how much he’s reviled in conservative Catholic circles) aren’t on your radar because they aren’t going around arguing against the Bible’s reliability. They may indeed agree with much of what Blomberg says, but they aren’t committed to inerrancy and don’t have the same focus on apologetics. Examples would be W. D. Davies (now deceased) and Dale Allison, who co-wrote one of the standard scholarly commentaries on Matthew. (They are on my mind because I was trying to find online references to Blomberg in “mainstream” or more liberal scholarship, and I found them on Google Books citing a specialized article by him in a footnote.) They are pretty standard historical critics (or were when they wrote that commentary in the 80s–Allison later moved toward taking pre-critical scholarship more seriously, which is an unusual and welcome move in a mainstream Biblical scholar). Not overly skeptical, but very much practitioners of critical methodology. They, and not Ehrman, are the kind of scholar I have in mind when I say that the spiral argument won’t hold up to standard scholarly methods.

Edwin

Would you say that the Catholic Church is committed to Biblical inerrancy?

 

[Contarini]

I read that article a few weeks ago…several times, in fact. I’m not following your thinking. Could you be more specific in how you think Habermas is undercutting the idea of general reliability?

He says that for apologetics purposes he uses a “minimal facts” approach.

I was not of course suggesting that he disbelieved in Jesus speaking the words in Matt. 16:18-19. I don’t know his views on this, and tend to assume that he’ll take a very conservative view given where he teaches (i.e., he wouldn’t still be teaching there if he didn’t).

Your email to him may give the impression that I was claiming his support on the Matt. 16 issue. I wasn’t. I was claiming his support for the principle that in apologetics we should base our arguments on positions that have broad scholarly support and are well attested by standard critical criteria. For Habermas, more so than for me, there will no doubt be a huge gap between what he thinks he can show for apologetics purposes and what he believes as a Christian.

It’s not that he disbelieves in general reliability, but that he recognizes that apologetics needs to deal with critical issues rather than just establishing general reliability and calling for trust on specifics, as you are doing.

Edwin