The Spiral Argument

[Randy_Carson]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the validity of the so-called “spiral argument”.

In 1988, Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers, published his landmark book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, which contained an important argument concerning the Catholic approach to proving the inspiration of the Bible. That argument has become known as the “spiral argument”, and it is reproduced here from a tract published by Catholic Answers:

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

Some people disagree with the validity of this argument, and an example of this will be presented in the next post.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The following argument against the Spiral Argument was posted in another thread recently. I’m reproducing it here without attribution because I do not wish to reveal the source without permission; however, if the original poster wishes to claim his work and join the discussion in this thread, he is certainly more than welcome to do so. In fact, I’m counting on it.

To discuss the claim “Jesus founded the Catholic Church” as a historical claim, we’d need to break down what it means. As it stands, from a historical point of view, it’s pretty much meaningless. Historians deal with phenomena, not essences.

The promise to give Peter the keys occurs in a passage in Matthew that does not occur in the parallel stories in Mark and Luke. From a purely historical point of view, without relying on faith, the most plausible interpretation is that Matthew added this passage as a theological commentary on what happened, and that Jesus did not actually say these words.

Note: that doesn’t mean that I believe this is what happened. Historical analysis is all about probability. It doesn’t establish things with certainty (which is why the spiral argument is so wrong-headed even apart from the specific issues regarding the NT). I don’t know for sure if Matthew’s “addition” describes something that actually happened or a divinely inspired interpretation of what happened. But it’s entirely reasonable to accept, by faith, that the story actually happened. What you can’t do is claim that historically the accuracy of Matthew’s account has been proven. It hasn’t. There is absolutely nothing to confirm Matthew’s account, and defenders of its historicity have to explain why Mark and Luke omit it. The balance of probability is against it (which, again, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, only that you can’t reasonably base your apologetics on the assumption that it did, if you’re supposedly not appealing to divine revelation or the authority of the Church at this stage in the argument).

In short, the only compelling reason to accept that Jesus ever said “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” is the authority of the Church.

Jesus changing Peter’s name is also mentioned in John 1:42, but it’s situated at a completely different point in the story–John doesn’t have any part of the “Caesarea Philippi” episode. So the idea that Jesus changed Peter’s name has more historical basis, but still not enough to support the “spiral argument.”

E. P. Sanders has drawn up a list of things that he thinks we can know with reasonable certainty about Jesus based on historical evidence alone (i.e., without invoking faith). This list is accepted by a lot of scholars. Whether even these things are known with enough certainty to support the “spiral argument” (and indeed whether any historical event can be known with the certainty required by that argument) is dubious in my opinion. But of course it depends in part on what you’re using the spiral argument for.

The bottom line is that anything not on Sanders’ list is not commonly accepted by historians and cannot be assumed for purposes of apologetics, if you’re supposedly not appealing to the authority of the Church and/or the divine inspiration of Scripture. (We both agree that the canonical, inspired authority of Scripture rests on the authority of the Church, of course.)

Hence I repeat: the spiral argument is shoddy and dishonest and you need to stop using it. I am testy about this because I have had this argument over and over again. Nothing like a reasonable counter-argument is ever made, and yet people just go on using the spiral argument. At some point this stops being naive and becomes dishonest.

 

[Della]

Any argument is only as good as it is intended to be–for the purpose it was meant to accomplish.

So, what is Keating’s purpose? Is it to prove to historians that the Bible is reliable history or is it to other people of faith? If the first, the spiral argument seems not to be affective, although the claims made by the detractor, such as “Matthew added comments later” cannot be proved, and so should not be admitted as an argument, it’s merely supposition, which is not history, either.

No argument, it seems to me, can stand against suppositions made by opponents, that’s asking too much.

 

[MarcoPolo]

o discuss the claim “Jesus founded the Catholic Church” as a historical claim, we’d need to break down what it means. As it stands, from a historical point of view, it’s pretty much meaningless. Historians deal with phenomena, not essences.

The promise to give Peter the keys occurs in a passage in Matthew that does not occur in the parallel stories in Mark and Luke. From a purely historical point of view, without relying on faith, the most plausible interpretation is that Matthew added this passage as a theological commentary on what happened, and that Jesus did not actually say these words.

I don’t know what “phenomena” vs “essences” means, but since John validates Peter’s name change also (John 1:42). The theology of the term “Peter” retains its foundational meaning in its etymology and other Scriptures attest to the “foundation” of prophets and apostles on which the Church is built (cf .Eph. 2:19-20). Also, the evidence that we DO have, i.e. Matthew’s account, provides the quote on the keys. What rationale is there to discount that account based on the silence of another? Sanders? Especially when the early Church likewise validates what appears in the Matthean account.

All that being said, I found Keating’s figure of a spiral to be a little confusing myself. I find the argument to be linear. It begins with Jesus and extends through apostolic succession, attested to by the historical witness of martyrs and the early Church, miracles attributed in Christ’s name, fulfillment of prophecy and parallel figures of a succession via the Levitical priesthood, etc…

 

[dshix]

I think your argument has some merit, Randy, and yes, the spiral argument is weak on some fronts, but there really is quite a bit of evidence for the Bible’s historical accuracy and its genuineness and integrity. That can’t be denied.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The following argument against the Spiral Argument was posted in another thread recently. I’m reproducing it here without attribution because I do not wish to reveal the source without permission; however, if the original poster wishes to claim his work and join the discussion in this thread, he is certainly more than welcome to do so. In fact, I’m counting on it.

To discuss the claim “Jesus founded the Catholic Church” as a historical claim, we’d need to break down what it means. As it stands, from a historical point of view, it’s pretty much meaningless. Historians deal with phenomena, not essences.

The promise to give Peter the keys occurs in a passage in Matthew that does not occur in the parallel stories in Mark and Luke. From a purely historical point of view, without relying on faith, the most plausible interpretation is that Matthew added this passage as a theological commentary on what happened, and that Jesus did not actually say these words.

Note: that doesn’t mean that I believe this is what happened. Historical analysis is all about probability. It doesn’t establish things with certainty (which is why the spiral argument is so wrong-headed even apart from the specific issues regarding the NT). I don’t know for sure if Matthew’s “addition” describes something that actually happened or a divinely inspired interpretation of what happened. But it’s entirely reasonable to accept, by faith, that the story actually happened. What you can’t do is claim that historically the accuracy of Matthew’s account has been proven. It hasn’t. There is absolutely nothing to confirm Matthew’s account, and defenders of its historicity have to explain why Mark and Luke omit it. The balance of probability is against it (which, again, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, only that you can’t reasonably base your apologetics on the assumption that it did, if you’re supposedly not appealing to divine revelation or the authority of the Church at this stage in the argument).

In short, the only compelling reason to accept that Jesus ever said “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” is the authority of the Church.

Jesus changing Peter’s name is also mentioned in John 1:42, but it’s situated at a completely different point in the story–John doesn’t have any part of the “Caesarea Philippi” episode. So the idea that Jesus changed Peter’s name has more historical basis, but still not enough to support the “spiral argument.”

E. P. Sanders has drawn up a list of things that he thinks we can know with reasonable certainty about Jesus based on historical evidence alone (i.e., without invoking faith). This list is accepted by a lot of scholars. Whether even these things are known with enough certainty to support the “spiral argument” (and indeed whether any historical event can be known with the certainty required by that argument) is dubious in my opinion. But of course it depends in part on what you’re using the spiral argument for.

The bottom line is that anything not on Sanders’ list is not commonly accepted by historians and cannot be assumed for purposes of apologetics, if you’re supposedly not appealing to the authority of the Church and/or the divine inspiration of Scripture. (We both agree that the canonical, inspired authority of Scripture rests on the authority of the Church, of course.)

Hence I repeat: the spiral argument is shoddy and dishonest and you need to stop using it. I am testy about this because I have had this argument over and over again. Nothing like a reasonable counter-argument is ever made, and yet people just go on using the spiral argument. At some point this stops being naive and becomes dishonest.

Perhaps you could give a better argument? Perhaps that might consist in explaining your reasons, and I assume they don’t involve the " spiral argument, " for your decision to come into the Catholic Church?

Guests of Marcus Grodi, on EWTN, give many reasons for coming into the Church. So it would seem that there is more than one reason. And since these reasons are always based on the Gift of Grace, I don’t see how anyone can say that any of them are invalid. God surely speaks to all through different modes of reasoning. The reasons for Faith do not need to be justified or " proven " in my view. Whatever leads one to Faith is justified per se, by its effects, Faith.

Linus2nd

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think your argument has some merit, Randy, and yes, the spiral argument is weak on some fronts, but there really is quite a bit of evidence for the Bible’s historical accuracy and its genuineness and integrity. That can’t be denied.

Well, it can be denied; it simply isn’t rational or historically accurate to do so

Randy, thank you for the posts, it’s quite a bit to wrap my head around but I think I will find it quite useful… once I grasp it

 

[MarkInOregon]

The following argument against the Spiral Argument was posted in another thread recently. I’m reproducing it here without attribution because I do not wish to reveal the source without permission; however, if the original poster wishes to claim his work and join the discussion in this thread, he is certainly more than welcome to do so. In fact, I’m counting on it.
To discuss the claim “Jesus founded the Catholic Church” as a historical claim, we’d need to break down what it means. As it stands, from a historical point of view, it’s pretty much meaningless. Historians deal with phenomena, not essences.

The promise to give Peter the keys occurs in a passage in Matthew that does not occur in the parallel stories in Mark and Luke. From a purely historical point of view, without relying on faith, the most plausible interpretation is that Matthew added this passage as a theological commentary on what happened, and that Jesus did not actually say these words.

Note: that doesn’t mean that I believe this is what happened. Historical analysis is all about probability. It doesn’t establish things with certainty (which is why the spiral argument is so wrong-headed even apart from the specific issues regarding the NT). I don’t know for sure if Matthew’s “addition” describes something that actually happened or a divinely inspired interpretation of what happened. But it’s entirely reasonable to accept, by faith, that the story actually happened. What you can’t do is claim that historically the accuracy of Matthew’s account has been proven. It hasn’t. There is absolutely nothing to confirm Matthew’s account, and defenders of its historicity have to explain why Mark and Luke omit it. The balance of probability is against it (which, again, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, only that you can’t reasonably base your apologetics on the assumption that it did, if you’re supposedly not appealing to divine revelation or the authority of the Church at this stage in the argument).

In short, the only compelling reason to accept that Jesus ever said “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” is the authority of the Church.

Jesus changing Peter’s name is also mentioned in John 1:42, but it’s situated at a completely different point in the story–John doesn’t have any part of the “Caesarea Philippi” episode. So the idea that Jesus changed Peter’s name has more historical basis, but still not enough to support the “spiral argument.”

E. P. Sanders has drawn up a list of things that he thinks we can know with reasonable certainty about Jesus based on historical evidence alone (i.e., without invoking faith). This list is accepted by a lot of scholars. Whether even these things are known with enough certainty to support the “spiral argument” (and indeed whether any historical event can be known with the certainty required by that argument) is dubious in my opinion. But of course it depends in part on what you’re using the spiral argument for.

The bottom line is that anything not on Sanders’ list is not commonly accepted by historians and cannot be assumed for purposes of apologetics, if you’re supposedly not appealing to the authority of the Church and/or the divine inspiration of Scripture. (We both agree that the canonical, inspired authority of Scripture rests on the authority of the Church, of course.)

Hence I repeat: the spiral argument is shoddy and dishonest and you need to stop using it. I am testy about this because I have had this argument over and over again. Nothing like a reasonable counter-argument is ever made, and yet people just go on using the spiral argument. At some point this stops being naive and becomes dishonest.

Perhaps it would be useful to have the list from E.P. Sanders. I believe this is it, but it not please feel free to correct:

1. Jesus was born around 4 b.c., near the time of the death of Herod the Great
2. Jesus spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village
3. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
4. Jesus called disciples
5. Jesus spoke of their being 12
6. Jesus confined his activity to Israel
7. Jesus taught in towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities)
8. Jesus preached “the kingdom of God”
9. About the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover
10. Jesus engaged in a controversy over the temple, and created a disturbance in the temple
11. Jesus had a final meal with his disciples
12. Jesus was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the highe priest
13. Jesus was executed by the Romans outside of Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate
14. Jesus disciples fled
15. Jesus disciples “saw” him after his death (in what sense is not certain)
16. As a consequence they believed he would return to found the kingdom
17. They formed a community or identifiable movement to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God’s Messiah
18. At least some Jews persecuted at least some parts of this new movement, a persecution that seems to have lasted until the end of Paul’s career

This list was prepared by jonswales from it appears two of E P Sanders books.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Contarini]

I’m the person who wrote the post Randy quoted. I appreciate Randy’s desire to continue the discussion. I started a thread on this same subject under much the same circumstances (a spinoff of discussion on another thread) last year. I would like to hear more responses to the arguments I presented in that thread. In subsequent posts, I’ll respond to the arguments that have been raised in this thread.

 

[Contarini]

Any argument is only as good as it is intended to be–for the purpose it was meant to accomplish.

So, what is Keating’s purpose? Is it to prove to historians that the Bible is reliable history or is it to other people of faith? If the first, the spiral argument seems not to be affective, although the claims made by the detractor, such as “Matthew added comments later” cannot be proved, and so should not be admitted as an argument, it’s merely supposition, which is not history, either.

No argument, it seems to me, can stand against suppositions made by opponents, that’s asking too much.

Keating claims (following the Catholic Encyclopedia) that you can establish the historicity of the Gospels in such a manner as to prove that Jesus established an authoritative Church, whose authority can then support the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture (hence the “spiral”).

This is problematic enough in itself–it’s even worse when people use it to overcome the self-created epistemological problem of the supposed need for an infallible authority. Catholics say “how can you be certain of Scripture?” Protestants say, “how can you be certain of the Church?” And this is supposedly the response.

By purely historical analysis, there is at least a significant likelihood that Matthew added the parts of the “you are Peter” story that don’t occur in Mark and Luke. That’s all I’m claiming. Not that one can assume Matthew added them, but that you can’t assume he didn’t.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps it would be useful to have the list from E.P. Sanders. I believe this is it, but it not please feel free to correct:

1. Jesus was born around 4 b.c., near the time of the death of Herod the Great
2. Jesus spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village
3. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
4. Jesus called disciples
5. Jesus spoke of their being 12
6. Jesus confined his activity to Israel
7. Jesus taught in towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities)
8. Jesus preached “the kingdom of God”
9. About the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover
10. Jesus engaged in a controversy over the temple, and created a disturbance in the temple
11. Jesus had a final meal with his disciples
12. Jesus was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the highe priest
13. Jesus was executed by the Romans outside of Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate
14. Jesus disciples fled
15. Jesus disciples “saw” him after his death (in what sense is not certain)
16. As a consequence they believed he would return to found the kingdom
17. They formed a community or identifiable movement to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God’s Messiah
18. At least some Jews persecuted at least some parts of this new movement, a persecution that seems to have lasted until the end of Paul’s career

This list was prepared by jonswales from it appears two of E P Sanders books.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

The list that I cited (the link vanished when Randy cut and pasted the post) is actually much shorter.

It’s all a matter of probability, so one could draw up longer or shorter versions.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know what “phenomena” vs “essences” means

“Phenomena” are specific things one can observe. One can observe all kinds of things that are different about the contemporary Catholic Church compared to the community of Jesus’ disciples right after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The claim that nonetheless, the essence of the Catholic Church is the same with that of the community Jesus founded is not a claim that can be proven or disproven historically.

Also, the evidence that we DO have, i.e. Matthew’s account, provides the quote on the keys. What rationale is there to discount that account based on the silence of another?

It’s not about “discounting,” but about not assuming it is accurate.

However, by normal principles of historical analysis the Matthew passage does look like a theological addition. When you have three accounts, and only one has this particular theologically loaded section, and furthermore the Gospel in which it occurs consistently has longer and more theologically elaborate versions of various passages than the other two–well, that would be quite enough rationale if it occured in any other context.

I mean, if you had three ancient Roman historians talking about some incident that took place involving Julius Caesar and Octavian, and one of those passages described Caesar as predicting that Octavian would be called “Augustus” and rule Rome, while the other two didn’t include this information, you’d be very suspicious. And if you found that this particular historian had a pattern of providing more elaborate versions of events which seemed vairly consistently to reflect the concerns of the Augustan era rather than those of Julius Caesar’s own lifetime–well, you’d think it was open and shut. (Of course no parallel is perfect . . . )

It’s only because of reverence for Scripture and the Church that I, for one, take seriously the possibility that Jesus did say these words.

Edwin

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Any argument is only as good as it is intended to be–for the purpose it was meant to accomplish.

So, what is Keating’s purpose? Is it to prove to historians that the Bible is reliable history or is it to other people of faith? If the first, the spiral argument seems not to be affective, although the claims made by the detractor, such as “Matthew added comments later” cannot be proved, and so should not be admitted as an argument, it’s merely supposition, which is not history, either.

No argument, it seems to me, can stand against suppositions made by opponents, that’s asking too much.

This, I believe, is the most appropriate response.

Why people use words like “proof” when discussing apologetic rationale is a mystery to me. It is never proof, but it should at least be reasonable.

Our Faith is reasonable, but not provable. That is why it is Faith. That it is reasonable, is grounds for believing.

In all of the conversion stories one reads, the one salient fact is that the arguments in favor of Catholicism were always the MOST reasonable (or probable.) This is a very personal matter, and is substantially intertwined with a person’s First Principles, those unquestioned assumptions that underlie all that we believe.

It is always necessary to determine a person’s First Principles before rational arguments can be presented. This can be very difficult if the person in question is not aware of them. He must first understand those First Principles before he can be asked to forsake them. And of course those arguments are never proofs.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m the person who wrote the post Randy quoted. I appreciate Randy’s desire to continue the discussion. I started a thread on this same subject under much the same circumstances (a spinoff of discussion on another thread) last year. I would like to hear more responses to the arguments I presented in that thread. In subsequent posts, I’ll respond to the arguments that have been raised in this thread.

Thanks, for joining, Contarini. I look forward to the discussion.

 

[Della]

This, I believe, is the most appropriate response.

Why people use words like “proof” when discussing apologetic rationale is a mystery to me. It is never proof, but it should at least be reasonable.

Our Faith is reasonable, but not provable. That is why it is Faith. That it is reasonable, is grounds for believing.

In all of the conversion stories one reads, the one salient fact is that the arguments in favor of Catholicism were always the MOST reasonable (or probable.) This is a very personal matter, and is substantially intertwined with a person’s First Principles, those unquestioned assumptions that underlie all that we believe.

It is always necessary to determine a person’s First Principles before rational arguments can be presented. This can be very difficult if the person in question is not aware of them. He must first understand those First Principles before he can be asked to forsake them. And of course those arguments are never proofs.

Yes, and if one’s first principle is that the Church cannot be infallible, no argument for infallibility will suffice.

 

[Contarini]

This, I believe, is the most appropriate response.

Why people use words like “proof” when discussing apologetic rationale is a mystery to me. It is never proof, but it should at least be reasonable.

Our Faith is reasonable, but not provable. That is why it is Faith. That it is reasonable, is grounds for believing.

In all of the conversion stories one reads, the one salient fact is that the arguments in favor of Catholicism were always the MOST reasonable (or probable.) This is a very personal matter, and is substantially intertwined with a person’s First Principles, those unquestioned assumptions that underlie all that we believe.

It is always necessary to determine a person’s First Principles before rational arguments can be presented. This can be very difficult if the person in question is not aware of them. He must first understand those First Principles before he can be asked to forsake them. And of course those arguments are never proofs.

Yes, yes, yes. Very well put.

This is why Chesterton has been such a powerful influence on so many converts and almost-converts (including myself). He gets at you at the level of “first principles.” Chesterton made me imaginatively Catholic at a point when I still accepted the validity of most of the standard theological arguments against Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Yes, yes, yes. Very well put.

This is why Chesterton has been such a powerful influence on so many converts and almost-converts (including myself). He gets at you at the level of “first principles.” Chesterton made me imaginatively Catholic at a point when I still accepted the validity of most of the standard theological arguments against Catholicism.

Edwin

Thanks Edwin

 

[SPH1]

By purely historical analysis, there is at least a significant likelihood that Matthew added the parts of the “you are Peter” story that don’t occur in Mark and Luke.

That, I believe, is a self-evident fact.

However, by normal principles of historical analysis the Matthew passage does look like a theological addition.

Now this is cutting to the chase. Did Christ speak the words in Matthew or not? And if they were merely a “theological addition”, was it inspired and to be in scripture or not?

If a theological addition, for what purpose? It seems that the Papacy is the only purpose, and I find it interesting that some opponents of the Papacy go so far as to “remove” scripture, such as the words in Matthew.

But what about the theory that the words in Matthew refer only to Peter’s confession of faith, and not Peter himself as the rock? Is that still a theological addition and, if so, for what purpose?

It’s only because of reverence for Scripture and the Church that I, for one, take seriously the possibility that Jesus did say these words.

That is good and noble. But it’s interesting that some opponents of the Catholic Church actually have to resort to REMOVING scripture in their attempts to destroy the Church. The words in Matthew are the example here. But I recall that Luther was prepared to remove James, Hebrews and, I think, Revelation. Not to mention certain OT books. For all of Protestant talk about not adding to or removing scripture, they are the ones doing it.

But, then, once we cannot really rely on the accuracy of Scrupture, what are we left with? I’d say the Church.

 

[Contarini]

That, I believe, is a self-evident fact.

And that’s all it takes, it seems to me, to refute the “spiral argument.” Catholics therefore need to stop using it.

Now this is cutting to the chase. Did Christ speak the words in Matthew or not?

I don’t know. If the Church tells me I have to believe He did, I will do so. Certainly it’s possible, if one takes a traditional Christian hermeneutic of reverence rather than a secular hermeneutic of suspicion, that Mark didn’t record the words because his source, St. Peter, was too humble to mention them. But that won’t fly if one is not starting from Christian premises in the first place.

And if they were merely a “theological addition”, was it inspired and to be in scripture or not?

It was, and it belongs in Scripture. I don’t know of anyone who wants to remove the words from the canon. Apparently you do?

If a theological addition, for what purpose? It seems that the Papacy is the only purpose

The purpose according to the consensus of historical-critical scholarship is to exalt the authority of Peter, probably because the author of the First Gospel belonged to a Jewish-Christian community in Antioch that looked to Peter as its founder. Not exactly the Papacy as currently defined.

I find this interpretation to be overly cynical and overly speculative, by the way. But certainly Matthew seems particularly concerned with questions of church structure and authority–much more broadly than “the Papacy.” You’re making too many leaps there.

and I find it interesting that some opponents of the Papacy go so far as to “remove” scripture, such as the words in Matthew.

Who? I have not heard of this. I know of no version of the Bible that omits these words.

It’s true that some liberal Christians (even including some Catholics–in fact liberal Catholics seem particularly concerned with this, understandably) base a lot on the claim that “Jesus didn’t found a Church,” so in that sense I suppose they are effectively removing the words as authoritative because they think Jesus didn’t say them.

Edwin

 

[MarcoPolo]

"if you had three ancient Roman historians talking about some incident that took place involving Julius Caesar and Octavian, and one of those passages described Caesar as predicting that Octavian would be called “Augustus” and rule Rome, while the other two didn’t include this information, you’d be very suspicious. And if you found that this particular historian had a pattern of providing more elaborate versions of events which seemed vairly consistently to reflect the concerns of the Augustan era rather than those of Julius Caesar’s own lifetime–well, you’d think it was open and shut. (Of course no parallel is perfect . . . )

I realize no parallel is necessarily perfect, however, the primacy of Peter is fairly prevalent in the entire New Testament, not just Matthew. I say this because of his name change and it’s etymology, as discussed above, because of his actions, etc… I haven’t done a statistical count, but one of the most cited passages in the official relatio to the Vatican I pronounciation on papal infallibility is from Luke 22, for example, among an abundant other passages. I do not see the Matthean description as unusual, but entirely fitting and probable.

That being said, I think the Church does have a historicity to it, even if one does not want to use the term “proof.” One can identify historical characteristics and make an assessment of a current Church. Keating calls it spiral. I call it linear. You call it unprovable. So there we are!