The Spiral Argument

[Randy_Carson]

Trent Horn, staff apologist here at Catholic Answers, addressed the topic of the OP today:

The argument for the authority of the Catholic Church is not a circular argument that relies on the conclusion it is trying to establish as one of the premises of the argument. Instead, it is as Karl Keating describes in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism a spiral argument where the different elements are related but not identical.

In his book Keating says that the authority of the Church does not come from the Bible because the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Instead, if we examine the Bible as an ordinary set of historical documents written in ancient Greek we find that there is good evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and established one Church upon the Apostles, with Peter as the head of the Church.

This authority gives us confidence that the texts gathered into the Biblical canon are inspired. So the argument is not circular. We believe in the Church because we believe in the Bible as a set of reliable, though man-made, historical documents. But then, as Augustine says, we are moved to believe in the inspiration of these biblical books, or their divine authorship, by the authority of the Catholic Church.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11336976#post11336976

 

[Contarini]

Trent Horn, staff apologist here at Catholic Answers, addressed the topic of the OP today:

The argument for the authority of the Catholic Church is not a circular argument that relies on the conclusion it is trying to establish as one of the premises of the argument. Instead, it is as Karl Keating describes in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism a spiral argument where the different elements are related but not identical.

In his book Keating says that the authority of the Church does not come from the Bible because the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Instead, if we examine the Bible as an ordinary set of historical documents written in ancient Greek we find that there is good evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and established one Church upon the Apostles, with Peter as the head of the Church.

This authority gives us confidence that the texts gathered into the Biblical canon are inspired. So the argument is not circular. We believe in the Church because we believe in the Bible as a set of reliable, though man-made, historical documents. But then, as Augustine says, we are moved to believe in the inspiration of these biblical books, or their divine authorship, by the authority of the Catholic Church.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11336976#post11336976

Yes. He put it a bit more weakly than I’ve sometimes seen (i.e., more reasonably) by saying “good reason to believe that” and not using the word prove.

But this does seem to be the standard Catholic response.

I would still like to see responses to my criticisms. To summarize, my basic case is:

1. All historical knowledge is a matter of probability, so that you can’t use it to overcome epistemological difficulties (this doesn’t apply to the version Mr. Horn presented);
2. There is a fairly limited (though not sharply defined) list of things that scholars would agree we can know with reasonable certainty by purely historical means about Jesus. It’s possible to argue that the resurrection should be on that list and is only excluded because of the presuppositions of secular scholarship, and in fact something along the lines of “Jesus’ earliest followers claimed that he rose from the dead” is on many such lists. However, “Jesus founded a Church” is not in this category. That’s not to say it didn’t happen, but it can’t be proven to have happened by historical inquiry alone.
3. Specifically, the “You are Peter” passage in Matt. 16, probably the single most important passage regarding Jesus founding the Church, is not found in Mark and Luke. Given the consensus of scholarship regarding the relationship of the three Gospels, this is pretty strong evidence (going by purely historical methods, and not assuming the authority of the Church or the inspiration of Scripture) that this incident may have been a theological addition by the author of “Matthew” and should not be taken as historical. Again, this is not to say that Jesus didn’t speak those words (that question is to be resolved on theological grounds based on the authority of the Church and our understanding of the nature of inspired Scripture, specifically of the Gospel of Matthew), but to say that a purely historical approach will not lead us to conclude with any reasonable probability that He did.

Therefore, the spiral argument fails.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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!

There’s a big difference between saying “the historical continuity of the Church gives us reasonable grounds for accepting what it says, in conjunction with other considerations,” and making the kind of argument Keating does.

Edwin

 

[AmbroseSJ]

2. There is a fairly limited (though not sharply defined) list of things that scholars would agree we can know with reasonable certainty by purely historical means about Jesus. It’s possible to argue that the resurrection should be on that list and is only excluded because of the presuppositions of secular scholarship, and in fact something along the lines of “Jesus’ earliest followers claimed that he rose from the dead” is on many such lists. However, “Jesus founded a Church” is not in this category. That’s not to say it didn’t happen, but it can’t be proven to have happened by historical inquiry alone.

I am having difficulty understanding how the Resurrection can be on some lists, based merely on “Jesus’ earliest followers claimed that he rose from the dead,” while the fact that Jesus founded a Church is NOT in that category, not even based on Jesus’ earliest followers claiming he founded a Church. Why the difference?

 

[Contarini]

I am having difficulty understanding how the Resurrection can be on some lists, based merely on “Jesus’ earliest followers claimed that he rose from the dead,” while the fact that Jesus founded a Church is NOT in that category, not even based on Jesus’ earliest followers claiming he founded a Church. Why the difference?

Because the former is much more clearly the case than the latter, and because there’s less wiggle room in the former than the latter. Again, see the fact that Mark never mentions a Church, while Matthew does. According to most historical critics, the earliest proclamation was that Jesus had been raised and exalted to God’s right hand and would soon return to bring in the Kingdom, and only after some time had passed without this happening did Christians develop a doctrine of the Church.

I’m not saying that this is true. I’m saying only that this is a lot more historically plausible than the view that the earliest followers of Jesus were just interested in His teachings and only later developed the “mythological” belief that He was raised from the dead. There’s a pretty strong consensus that Jesus’ earliest followers thought they had seen Jesus after His death. The debate would be over just how to interpret that, and many people would say that exactly what they experienced is outside the realm of historical inquiry in the first place. Some of the “Jesus Seminar” types would put “Jesus’ followers thought he was raised from the dead” in a somewhat later stratum than the core ethical teachings, so the “Resurrection claim” isn’t as certain as the crucifixion (which is probably the thing we can know most certainly about Jesus) by any means. The Sanders list that I originally posted didn’t have resurrection appearances on it. Apparently it does show up on a different list also by Sanders.

Edwin

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Because the former is much more clearly the case than the latter, and because there’s less wiggle room in the former than the latter. Again, see the fact that Mark never mentions a Church, while Matthew does. According to most historical critics, the earliest proclamation was that Jesus had been raised and exalted to God’s right hand and would soon return to bring in the Kingdom, and only after some time had passed without this happening did Christians develop a doctrine of the Church.

I’m not saying that this is true. I’m saying only that this is a lot more historically plausible than the view that the earliest followers of Jesus were just interested in His teachings and only later developed the “mythological” belief that He was raised from the dead. There’s a pretty strong consensus that Jesus’ earliest followers thought they had seen Jesus after His death. The debate would be over just how to interpret that, and many people would say that exactly what they experienced is outside the realm of historical inquiry in the first place. Some of the “Jesus Seminar” types would put “Jesus’ followers thought he was raised from the dead” in a somewhat later stratum than the core ethical teachings, so the “Resurrection claim” isn’t as certain as the crucifixion (which is probably the thing we can know most certainly about Jesus) by any means. The Sanders list that I originally posted didn’t have resurrection appearances on it. Apparently it does show up on a different list also by Sanders.

Edwin

So only the Gospels are considered historical, not Acts of the Apostles? For purely historical questions, I would have thought that they would have given more weight to the Acts than the Gospels. This is where I would say that Jesus’ followers thought He founded a Church.

 

[Contarini]

So only the Gospels are considered historical, not Acts of the Apostles? For purely historical questions, I would have thought that they would have given more weight to the Acts than the Gospels. This is where I would say that Jesus’ followers thought He founded a Church.

The historicity of Acts is heavily debated. I think that the dominant opinion is far too skeptical, but a lot of scholars in fact think that it was written as early as the early second century and reflects a highly idealized view of the early Church.

Again, I think this is wrong–in fact I think it doesn’t make a lot of sense, given that it seems clearly to be a sequel to Luke and I don’t think anyone puts Luke that late.

There is a good deal of circular reasoning in this sort of thing, as well as an anti-Catholic bias imparted to mainstream scholarship from the 19th-century German Protestants who laid the groundwork for the modern discipline. Books or passages that speak of church authority tend to be dated late, and then the late date is used to argue against Catholic claims.

I think that with regard to Matthew vs. Mark there are more solid reasons for regarding Matthew as later and more theologically elaborate.

And the fact that “mainstream” scholars are biased doesn’t mean that we can just rule them out. Everyone is biased, after all. If we are really proceeding by purely historical means, we can’t just rule people out who are coming from perspectives we disagree with. A bias different from ours may reveal something that our own bias has caused us to miss.

Edwin