I see that John Loftus successfully lured Craig Blomberg to do a guest post at DC. From Loftus’ perspective, the purpose of this exercise was to gain some vicarious respectability. Not being a serious thinker or scholar in his own right, Loftus craves the attention and validation of men who are.
Blomberg later admits that he should have studied DC a bit more thoroughly before accepting the invitation. Perhaps Loftus’ invitation was deceptive. The whole transaction reminds one of Hansel & Gretel–if you know what I mean.
Blomberg is a sophisticated proponent for the historicity and inerrancy of the NT. On a related note, he’s also been defending the historical Jesus for many years now.
In that regard he’s rendered a great service to the church over the years. We salute him for his service to the cause.
Given his field of specialization, Blomberg’s post and subsequent replies are strong where you’d expect them to be strong, and weak where you’d expect them to be weak. There's some useful material, but it also suffers from some predictable limitations.
We can get different things from different thinkers and scholars. The wisest course of action is to mix and match the best that each has to offer in relation to the others.