“I was wondering if you could recommend a book (or books) that builds a ground-up case for the Bible as divine revelation. That is, something that addresses the unbeliever's question, ‘Why should I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired?’ Any thoughts?”This is not a simple question to answer. Someone may believe or disbelieve the Bible for a variety of reasons. There may also be a difference between the reasons we have for believing the Bible, and the reasons we’re able to give, since there is a dimension of religious experience which is inaccessible to an outsider. In addition, we often know more than we can put into words.
I. Hermeneutics
Unbelievers may reject the Bible out of sheer ignorance. Their knowledge of scripture is confined to hostile, thirdhand caricatures.
The Bible is less of a book than an anthology. Indeed, some books of the Bible are anthologies.
As such, it can be hard for a novice to get a feel for the overall shape of Scripture and sense of where it is going. For example, the prophetic books tend to be anthologies of individual oracles, delivered at different times and places, to differing audiences. As such, they lack linear flow. In addition, they refer to topical sociopolitical events that are obscure or unintelligible to the modern reader without some background. It’s just a jumble.
Likewise, a lot of OT law is geared to the sociological conditions of the ANE, which renders it apparently meaningless to a modern reader.
So, just for starters, a seeker needs to have a roadmap to find his way through what may otherwise seem at times to be an impenetrable thicket or trackless wilderness. Examples include G. Fee & D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth; T. Longman, Making Sense of the Old Testament; T. Schreiner, Interpreting the Pauline Letters, and V. Poythress, The Returning King.
They should also read a good study Bible, such as W. Kaiser & D. Garrett, eds. Archaeological Study Bible.
II. Bible History
Some unbelievers claim that Scripture is unhistorical. For a sampling of literature to the contrary, see: A. Allis, The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its Critics; P. Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? and The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years; R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple; C. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel; F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?; D. A. Carson, & D. Moo, An Introduction of the New Testament; M. Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew & Luke, and Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel; C. Evans & S. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background; M. Hengel, The Four Gospels & the One Gospel of Jesus Christ; J. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, and Ancient Israel In Sinai; J. Hoffmeier, & A. Millard, eds. The Future of Biblical Archaeology; K. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament; A. Köstenberger, Encountering John; V. Long, et al., eds. Windows into Old Testament History; P. Maier, In the Fullness of Time; I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian & Theologian; A. Millard, Reading & Writing in the Time of Jesus; I. Provan, et al., eds. A Biblical History of Israel; J. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, and The Priority of John, and D J Wiseman & E. Yamauchi, Archaeology and the Bible.
For a philosophical defense of Scripture, see: P. Helm, The Divine Revelation.
A number of commentaries on various books of the Bible also accentuate the historicity of the books, such as John Currid on the Pentateuch, Douglas Stuart on Exodus, R. K. Harrison on Numbers, Daniel Block (forthcoming), Peter Craigie, and J. A. Thompson on Deuteronomy, Richard Hess on Joshua, Daniel Block and K. Lawson Younger on Judges, Craig Blomberg, Craig Evans (forthcoming), and Craig Keener on Matthew, James Edwards and Craig Evans on Mark, Darrel Bock on Luke, Craig Blomberg and Craig Keener on John, as well as Darrell Block (forthcoming), F. F. Bruce, Walter Gasque (forthcoming), Craig Keener (forthcoming), Stanley Porter (forthcoming), and Ben Witherington on Acts.
III. The Historical Jesus
Some of the standard “quest” literature includes P. Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, and Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity; R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses; F. F. Bruce, Jesus & Christian Origins Outside the New Testament; P. Copan & R. Tacelli, eds. Jesus’ Resurrection; C. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels; G. Habermas, & M. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus; T. Jones, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"; J. Komoszewski, et al. Reinventing Jesus; L. Strobel, ed. The Case for Christ; R. Swinburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate, N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, and Who Was Jesus?
IV. Bible “Contradictions”
Some unbelievers reject the Bible because it’s full of “contradictions.” This usually involves a very wooden preconception of what constitutes accurate reportage. Some helpful correctives include C. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, and V. Long, The Art of Biblical History.
A useful reference work is: G. Archer, The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.
V. Prophecy
The argument from prophecy is a traditional argument for the inspiration of Scripture. In conventional apologetics, it has tended to focus on isolated Bible verses. A more contextual approach traces the unfolding fulfillment of certain theological motifs, such as we find in T. Alexander, The Servant King, and A. Motyer, Look to the Rock.
VI. Canonics
Sceptics often claim that the canon is a late and arbitrary collection of books, cobbled together by ecclesiastical power politics. But there are several line of evidence for the canon that undercut this Marxist-cum-conspiratorial claim, such as R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church; F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture; E. E. Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents, and The Old Testament in Early Christianity; B. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament; J. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach, and D. Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament.
VII. Miracles
Some unbelievers reject the Bible because they agree with Hume’s critique of miracles. For a couple of fine examinations, see: Earman, J. Hume’s Abject Failure, and D. Geivett & G. Habermas, In Defense of Miracles.
VIII. Comparative Mythology
Some unbelievers reject the Bible because of comparative mythology. For some useful studies on this topic, see: J. Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament; J. Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ, and J. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament.
IX. Creation/Evolution
Some unbelievers reject the Bible because it’s “unscientific.” There are many aspects to this controversy.
One should become conversant with differing schools of thought on the philosophy of science, such as L. Lauden, Progress and Its Problems; J. P. Moreland, Christianity and the Nature of Science, and Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science.
Some books document the internecine warfare within the Darwinian community, such as M. Brown, The Darwin Wars; R. Morris, The Evolutionists; M. Ruse, The Evolution Wars, and K. Sterelny, Dawkins vs. Gould.
A number of roughly religiously-oriented writers have published books critical of secular theorizing on cosmological or biological origins, such as S. Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith; M. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, and The Edge of Evolution; J. Byl, God & Cosmos, and The Divine Challenge; W. Dembski, No Free Lunch; A. Menuge, Agents Under Fire; V. Poythress, Redeeming Science; J. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome; J. Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2; Lee M. Spetner, Not by Chance; J. Wells, Icons of Evolution, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, and K. Wise, Faith, Form, and Time.
There are also a number of books by authors who are not religiously oriented, but nevertheless find fault with various aspects of evolutionary biology, such as M. Denton, M. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, and Nature's Destiny; H. Gee, In Search of Deep Time; J. Greene, Debating Darwin; F. Hoyle, Mathematics of Evolution; M. Midgley, Evolution as a Religion; R. Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism; G. Sermonti, Why Is a Fly Not a Horse? and D. Stove, D. Darwinian Fairytales.
X. Ethics
Some unbelievers reject the Bible on ethical grounds. Some useful treatments from that viewpoint are: G. Wenham, Story as Torah, and D. Wilson, Letter from a Christian Citizen.
XI. The Paranormal
Many people disbelieve the Bible because they have no experience of anything out of the ordinary. So, for them, the world of the Bible doesn’t correspond to the world they know. But there are many case studies in the field of the paranormal, including the occult, which document the fact that the world of Scripture is not a world apart from the world outside our window, such as, G. Amorth & N. Mackenzie, An Exorcist Tells His Story, and An Exorcist: More Stories; D. Bartholomew, Uncertain Belief; D. Fontana, Is There An Afterlife: A Comprehensive Overview of the Evidence; F. Goodman, How About Demons; G. Habermas & J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death; J. Houran and R. Lange, eds., Hauntings and Poltergeists: Multidisciplinary Perspectives; K. Koch, Christian Counseling and Occultism, and Occult Bondage and Deliverance; David Lester, Is there Life After Death?; M. Martin, Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans; H. Montefiore, The Paranormal: A Bishop Investigates; J. W. Montgomery, ed. Demon Possession, and Principalities & Powers; R.W.K. Paterson, Philosophy and the Belief in a Life After Death; M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption; J. Richards, But Deliver Us From Evil; M. Saborn, Light & Death; M. Stoeber and H. Meynell, eds., Critical Reflections on the Paranormal; L. Storm and M. Thalbourne, eds., The Survival of Human Consciousness, and M. Unger, The Haunting of Bishop Pike.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteAs to the prophecy section, I was wondering if you have read Fitzmeyer's work attacking the idea of Biblical messianism, The One Who is to Come? I believe that he takes the Liberal approach which would deny that the Bible speaks of a messiah. Any thoughts?
Thanks,
S&S
To clarify my last question, could you do a post that critiques the hermeneutic that he/they use to come up with this stuff?
ReplyDeleteThanks,
S&S
I'll look into it.
ReplyDeleteOn Contradictions:
ReplyDeleteThe Bible does contain contradictions. The only people who disagree are those who of necessity grant the book endless benefits of the doubt. Parallel accounts of Peter's denials, for instance, are obviously at odds to any reader who hasn't committed himself to biblical infallibility. But as long as *some* explanation (however contrived and unlikely) exists, the perfection of the Bible remains intact. At the same time, though, you are completely unwilling to give another religious book (for example, the Book of Mormon) the same benefit of the doubt. If it contained the same level of apparent contradiction as Peter's denials, you would assume it to be a clear-cut contradiction. For no book but the Bible will you go through the exegetical contortions needed to make dissimilar accounts harmonize.
On the Canon:
No matter how you slice it, you're still taking somebody's word for it that God wrote such-and-such a letter and not another. For example, Luke doesn't say he wrote under a special inspiration that kept him from error. In fact, his prologue indicates that he wrote the book just as any other author would. But men determined that Luke was indeed writing God's own words. And you cast your whole confidence upon what these men say about Luke's writing process, just as the Catholic casts his whole confidence upon men to teach him about transubstantiation or the assumption of Mary.
-- Aaron C.
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“On Contradictions:_The Bible does contain contradictions. The only people who disagree are those who of necessity grant the book endless benefits of the doubt.”
I never give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. In order to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, I’d have to doubt the Bible in the first place. But since I don’t find the Bible doubtful, I never give it the benefit of the doubt.
“Parallel accounts of Peter's denials, for instance, are obviously at odds to any reader who hasn't committed himself to biblical infallibility.”
i) “Obviously” is not an argument.
ii) Yes, I’m committed to biblical infallibility. I’m also committed to the existence of other minds, an external world, the reality of the past, and the general reliability of perceptual and memorial beliefs.
There’s nothing wrong with having certain epistemic commitments, especially when these supply the truth-conditions without which we couldn’t know much of anything.
iii) R.T. France, in his commentaries on Matthew and Mark, has addressed your particular objection (i.e. Peter’s denials). And I assume his more detailed, forthcoming commentary on Matthew will elaborate on that issue.
“But as long as *some* explanation (however contrived and unlikely) exists, the perfection of the Bible remains intact.”
“Contrived” is not an argument. “Unlikely” is not an argument.
You are using a string of tendentious adjectives to do all the heavy-lifting.
“At the same time, though, you are completely unwilling to give another religious book (for example, the Book of Mormon) the same benefit of the doubt.”
i) This is an argument from analogy minus the argument. You are asserting, without benefit of argument, that the Bible is analogous to the Book of Mormon. Where’s your supporting evidence?
ii) The benefit of the doubt is a presumption which assumes that, all things being equal, we should take a witness at his word unless there is counterevidence to impeach his credibility.
Because Joseph Smith was a 19C American, we know a good deal about his life and character. He was a classic charlatan. The evidence is overwhelming.
iii) In addition, Mormonism is a Christian heresy which, like Christian heresies generally, pays lip-service to the authority of the Bible. As such, it can be judge by its consistency, or lack thereof, with the Bible.
“If it contained the same level of apparent contradiction as Peter's denials, you would assume it to be a clear-cut contradiction. For no book but the Bible will you go through the exegetical contortions needed to make dissimilar accounts harmonize.”
“Contortions” is not an argument.
Ironically, Aaron is a secular fideist. He resorts to these question-begging adjectives as a preemptive maneuver. He levels a charge, then discredits any explanation in advance of the fact. This is a way of shielding his disbelief from falsification.
“On the Canon:_No matter how you slice it, you're still taking somebody's word for it that God wrote such-and-such a letter and not another.”
I don’t have a problem with taking people at their word as long as I have good reason to do so.
As writers like Richard Bauckham, John Warwick Montgomery, and C. A. J. Coady have pointed out, there are criteria for reliable witnesses. We can evaluate testimony by common sense criteria.
“For example, Luke doesn't say he wrote under a special inspiration that kept him from error. In fact, his prologue indicates that he wrote the book just as any other author would.”
This is simple-minded. NT histories have their precedent in OT histories. Much of the Pentateuch consists in historical narrative. Yet Moses claims to be a recipient of divine revelation. These are not mutually exclusive categories. And given OT precedent, it isn’t necessary for a NT author writing in the same genre to state the obvious.
“But men determined that Luke was indeed writing God's own words. And you cast your whole confidence upon what these men say about Luke's writing process.”
What makes you think that? I can judge Luke on his own merits, and not on what other men say about him.
“Just as the Catholic casts his whole confidence upon men to teach him about transubstantiation or the assumption of Mary.”
This is yet another argument from analogy minus the argument. For someone who fancies himself a rationalist, you’re long on assertions and short on reasons.
Steve:
ReplyDeleteYes, I’m committed to biblical infallibility. I’m also committed to the existence of other minds, an external world, the reality of the past, and the general reliability of perceptual and memorial beliefs. There’s nothing wrong with having certain epistemic commitments, especially when these supply the truth-conditions without which we couldn’t know much of anything.
AaronC:
Is your belief in biblical infallibility as certain as the other "epistemic commitments" you list? As certain as the existence of other minds? I don't see how it could be. The existence of other minds is self-evident; biblical infallibility isn't, because the Bible has at least the appearance of fallibility (hence all the books written to solve discrepancies). Few people bother to write books proving the existence of other minds ... they don't have to.
Steve:
You are asserting, without benefit of argument, that the Bible is analogous to the Book of Mormon. Where’s your supporting evidence?
AaronC:
You know exactly what I'm talking about here. Both books make religious claims, both are supposed by their adherents to be divine revelations. And both have what appear to be discrepancies and errors. But evangelical apologists, armed with their assumption that the Bible can't ever be wrong, argue that each apparent discrepancy is only a false discrepancy. Mormons, driven by the same religious necessity, manage to explain the errors of their book as well. Ditto the Muslim and his Koran. Creativity and necessity will always find a way to preserve the cherished dogma.
Steve:
I can judge Luke on his own merits, and not on what other men say about him.
AaronC:
As a fallible human being, you are utterly unqualified to look at another man's historical book and determine that God Himself wrote it. There is no way you can ever know this, especially considering that the human author makes no such claim for his book. If I'm wrong, please show me how you can make such a dogmatic determination about a book of history.
Since this was addressed to Steve, I'll let him respond to most of it. However, I was intrigued by this comment.
ReplyDeleteAaronC said:
---
As a fallible human being, you are utterly unqualified to look at another man's historical book and determine that God Himself wrote it. There is no way you can ever know this, especially considering that the human author makes no such claim for his book. If I'm wrong, please show me how you can make such a dogmatic determination about a book of history.
---
I would like to know how AaronC can make such a dogmatic determination about a book of history. If Aaron says that someone is unqualified to determine whether a book is written by God, then Aaron is in fact arguing that there are certain qualifications that would enable such a determination to be made; in which case, I must ask: How does Aaron know what these qualifications are so that he can assert that no one can hold to these qualifications?
Peter:
ReplyDeleteYou're putting the burden of proof on the wrong guy.
We're looking at a book that contains a history and collection of sayings from Jesus. A human author was perfectly capable of penning such a work. Apart from some overtly supernatural phenomenon (e.g., the text radiating light when you open the book), there would be no way of demonstrating that God Himself wrote Luke.
Steve says that God wrote Luke. I say, "You can't possibly know such a thing."
At this point, it's up to *Steve* to prove his point. It's not up to me. He's the one making the grandiose claim.
So Steve, what in Luke makes you so sure that God wrote it?
AaronC:_
ReplyDelete“Is your belief in biblical infallibility as certain as the other ‘epistemic commitments’ you list? As certain as the existence of other minds?”
Sure.
“I don't see how it could be. The existence of other minds is self-evident.”
A philosophically naïve assertion.
“Biblical infallibility isn't, because the Bible has at least the appearance of fallibility (hence all the books written to solve discrepancies).”
I don’t come to an ancient text with the expectation that something written thousands of years ago, with its own cultural codes and literary conventions, will be instantly intelligible to a modern-day reader.
“Few people bother to write books proving the existence of other minds ... they don't have to.”
A lot of common sense beliefs lose their plausibility as soon as you say the human mind was the byproduct of a mindless process.
“You know exactly what I'm talking about here. Both books make religious claims, both are supposed by their adherents to be divine revelations.”
So what? By your yardstick, if Simon Wiesenthal and Josef Mengele both wrote histories of the Third Reich, we should be equally credulous or incredulous regarding their respective historical claims. This is simple-minded.
“And both have what appear to be discrepancies and errors.”
Only if you approach the Bible with the false expectation that an ancient text should never confront the modern reader with any obscurities.
By contrast, the Book of Mormon is a 19C text written in faux King James Bible style.
“But evangelical apologists, armed with their assumption that the Bible can't ever be wrong, argue that each apparent discrepancy is only a false discrepancy. Mormons, driven by the same religious necessity, manage to explain the errors of their book as well. Ditto the Muslim and his Koran. Creativity and necessity will always find a way to preserve the cherished dogma.”
Once again, you’re comparing the incomparable. Both Islam and Mormonism are Christian heresies. They made the Bible the standard of comparison. I’m judging them by their own yardstick.
“As a fallible human being, you are utterly unqualified to look at another man's historical book and determine that God Himself wrote it.”
I never said that God wrote the Bible. The Bible is the product of dual authorship. It was written by inspired men.
There can be evidence for the divine inspiration of Scripture just as there can be evidence for divine creation and providence.
“There is no way you can ever know this, especially considering that the human author makes no such claim for his book.”
i) And how does “especially” function in your claim? Are you now admitted that if it did make an explicit claim of divine inspiration, then it would be possible for a fallible human being to verify that claim?
ii) Luke is a narrative theologian. He is writing in a traditional Biblical genre. That would be understood by his Jewish readers.
iii) There are other narrative cues by which a narrative theology may indicate his inspiration, such as the narrative viewpoint of the omniscient narrator.
iv) There is also Lucan pneumatology and eschatology, which accounts for the oracular emphasis in Luke-Acts. The restoration of the Spirit of prophecy to Israel, the ingathering of the Gentiles, in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, with various sign-gifts, marks the dawning of the Messianic age, and is a fixture of Luke’s narrative theology. And he himself is implicitly included in the fulfillment-structure as a former God-fearer or proselyte who is now a full-fledged follower of the Messiah in his inaugurated kingdom.
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete---
You're putting the burden of proof on the wrong guy.
---
No, I'm putting it on the guy who said he knew the qualifications for determining whether a text was divine in origin or not, such that he could make the assertion that Steve is not qualified.
And since you're concept of proving revelation is of God is "Apart from some overtly supernatural phenomenon (e.g., the text radiating light when you open the book), there would be no way of demonstrating that God Himself wrote Luke" I am quite justified in asking you to demonstrate you know what these qualifications are, since you apparently don't have a clue about them.
BTW: if the text glowed, I'm quite certain you'd say it was written with glow-in-the-dark ink. So how would this satisfy your criteria anyway?
Steve:
ReplyDeleteA philosophically naïve assertion.
AaronC.
"Philosophically naïve assertion" isn't an argument.
Steve:
This is simple-minded.
AaronC.
"Simple-minded" isn't an argument.
[Note to Steve: This is really, really annoying, isn't it?]
Also, Steve, I still don't see any good reasons from you to justify the assumption that Luke wrote his book under a special unction that preserved him from error. OK, he was a narrative theologian writing under a biblical genre. OK, he was a follower of Messiah and probably had gifts of the spirit. But none of this proves your point about the book's verbal inspiration. In the end, you have to fall back on the church's decision regarding the canon. In the end, it's, "Men say that God said it, I believe them, that settles it."
Steve:
Are you now admitted that if it did make an explicit claim of divine inspiration, then it would be possible for a fallible human being to verify that claim?
AaronC.
No, I don't believe so. My point is this: It would be difficult enough to establish this claim, even if the author himself were making it. But in the case of Luke (and nearly all the NT authors) the text itself isn't making any special claims of divine assistance.
Peter:
I am quite justified in asking you to demonstrate you know what these qualifications are, since you apparently don't have a clue about them.
AaronC.
Well, I don't have a clue about many things. But I deny that Steve or anyone else can look at the book of Luke and obtain a legitimate certainty that the author wrote under a special assistance that renders the work absolutely authoritative and error-free. Neither of you guys has given me one halfway decent argument to the contrary. You're too busy critiquing the logical structure of my questions.
Steve:
For someone who fancies himself a rationalist, you’re long on assertions and short on reasons.
AaronC.
I meant to respond to this earlier. No, I don't fancy myself a rationalist. I think rationalism is boring, like living life by mathematical theorems and postulates. Give me poetry, art, intuition over icy, Vulcan-like calculations any day.
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDeleteSteve:_A philosophically naïve assertion.
AaronC. _"Philosophically naïve assertion" isn't an argument.
**************************************************
If you had ever bothered to do any elementary reading in the standard philosophical literature, you would realize that your claim about the “self-evident” existence of other minds is, indeed, philosophically naïve.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm
****************************************
Steve:_This is simple-minded.
AaronC._"Simple-minded" isn't an argument.
[Note to Steve: This is really, really annoying, isn't it?]
********************************************
I didn’t begin and end with an adjective. Aaron has quoted the concluding phrase without quoting the supporting argument, which came before.
“Also, Steve, I still don't see any good reasons from you to justify the assumption that Luke wrote his book under a special unction that preserved him from error. OK, he was a narrative theologian writing under a biblical genre. OK, he was a follower of Messiah and probably had gifts of the spirit. But none of this proves your point about the book's verbal inspiration.”
Aaron has a problem keeping track of his own argument (if one can call it that). He bundled two objections into one, then linked them. You said:
“As a fallible human being, you are utterly unqualified to look at another man's historical book and determine that God Himself wrote it. There is no way you can ever know this, especially considering that the human author makes no such claim for his book.”
So you make two claims here:
i) A Christian can’t know that Luke is inspired.
ii) Luke doesn’t even claim to be inspired.
You also connect your two claims by saying that (ii) is the primary reason (“especially”) for (i).
Therefore, I chose to address (ii). If Luke is writing in a literary tradition which lays implicit claim to inspiration, then (ii), which is your supporting argument for (i), falls to the ground. Where does that leave (i)?
So you have been answered on your own grounds.
“In the end, you have to fall back on the church's decision regarding the canon.”
You must be ignorant of what-all I’ve written on the canon in the past. The evidence for the canon is far more extensive and varied than “the church’s decision.”
“No, I don't fancy myself a rationalist. I think rationalism is boring, like living life by mathematical theorems and postulates. Give me poetry, art, intuition over icy, Vulcan-like calculations any day.”
That explains a lot about the intellectual quality (or lack thereof) of your objections.
And, thus far, I haven’t seen you raise any “poetic” objections to the Gospel of Luke.
Steve, you're making a bold claim: A man named Luke wrote a book under a supernatural influence (even though he never says so and never even tells us that he's Luke). Because of this verbal inspiration, the book is absolutely authoritative. We cannot disagree with it. It is never wrong on any point and we are obligated to accept everything it says.
ReplyDeleteNow given such a powerful claim, we should expect some impressive evidence to back it up. So far, all you've really offered me is the assertion that Luke wrote within "a literary tradition which lays implicit claim to inspiration." Sorry ... that's anything but impressive, given the magnitude of your claim. In fact, it's a bit pathetic.
(By the way, I'm not picking on Luke. I could say all these same things about the special verbal inspiration of Matthew or Esther, e.g.)
As usual, you cover your lack of substance with insults about my intellect. That's OK ... I'm not sensitive about such taunts. I know I'm neither a philosopher nor an intellectual logician (I don't think the down-home storyteller Jesus was, either). So yes, I admit you and the other Triabloguers would fit in much better with the pupils at Athens than I would. Big deal.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“Steve, you're making a bold claim: A man named Luke wrote a book under a supernatural influence (even though he never says so and never even tells us that he's Luke).”
Actually, he does tell us. It’s right there in the title, and the uniformity of textual tradition to the Lucan authorship of Luke-Acts weighs heavily in favor of the originality and authenticity of the title.
“Because of this verbal inspiration, the book is absolutely authoritative. We cannot disagree with it. It is never wrong on any point and we are obligated to accept everything it says.”
Sounds good to me.
“Now given such a powerful claim, we should expect some impressive evidence to back it up.”
You haven’t presented (much less defended) any criteria for what, according to you, would constitute “impressive evidence” to back up such a claim.
“So far, all you've really offered me is the assertion that Luke wrote within ‘a literary tradition which lays implicit claim to inspiration.’ Sorry ... that's anything but impressive, given the magnitude of your claim. In fact, it's a bit pathetic.”
What is a bit pathetic is either your evasiveness or lack of mental discipline when it comes to sticking to your own argument. You were the one who bundled two objections into one, and subordinated one objection to another.
I have answered you on your own terms. This is how you chose to frame the issue. You predicated your objection to inspiration on the secondary allegation that Luke didn’t even claim to be inspired. And you made that secondary allegation the supporting argument for your assertion that there is no reason to believe in the inspiration of Luke.
In principle, these are two distinct issues: (i) Did Luke claim to be inspired? (ii) Should we believe that Luke is inspired?
You, however, linked the two by making a negative answer to (ii) contingent on a negative answer to (i). Therefore, if I disprove your denial of (i), then that, in turn, automaticallyy disproves your denial of (ii).
Here’s a novel idea: what don’t you keep track of your own argument?
Now, maybe you realize that your initial formulation was flawed, but you’re not prepared to admit your mistake. If so, that’s your problem, not mine.
“As usual, you cover your lack of substance with insults about my intellect.”
My response is pegging your own formulation, point-by-point. If my response is insubstantial, then that’s only because your objection is insubstantial. Try following your own argument for a change.
“I know I'm neither a philosopher nor an intellectual logician (I don't think the down-home storyteller Jesus was, either).”
Sure about that?
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=39