[net.religion] Biblical Scholarships reply to Dan Boskovich - Objective Evidence...

gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (06/03/85)

   
   
   
  "That's the most important piece of evidence we've 
heard yet" said the King, rubbing his hands; "so now
let the jury-"
  "If any one of them can explain it," said Alice (she
had grown so large in the last few minutes that she wasn't
a bit afraid of interrupting him), "I'll give him a sixpence.
I don't believe there is an atom of meaning in it."
  The jury wrote down on the slates, "SHE doesn't believe
there's an atom of meaning in it," but none of them attempted
to explain the paper.  "If there's no meaning in it," said
the King "that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we
needn't try to find one.
               ---Alice in Wonderland (chapter 12)
 
 
  A few prefatory remarks...
 
  1) What Dan has presented here has alreday been written and
published by Josh McDowell in two works - Evidence that demands
a Verdict;  Further Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
     I would suggest that if Dan is planning on publishing these
postings in any formal way he check out McDowells work before he
is accused of plagiarism.
 
  2) What I find interesting about Dans (and/or McDowells) work
is that they are post facto attempts to give rational justification
to Christian belief.  If in fact the sociological model of religion
is correct (Berger/Luckman The Social Construction of Reality;
Berger The Sacred Canopy: the sociology of religious belief
The Doctrine Commission of the Church of England - Believing in
the Church: the corporate nature of faith) .... etc ....
then I would wonder what these "evidences" and "catalogs of facts"
have to do with a social phenomenon if in fact these "evidences"
and "catalogs of facts" were NOT present nor NECESSARY to persuade
a individual to believe in the first place.
  What is necessary for Christian belief is the proper social
matrix and not the compendium that is presented here.  Dans
work is alreday too late in the genesis of Christian belief - the
social dynamics of the believing community has alreday accomplished
the crucial and critical task.  Dans (and/or McDowells) work is
therefore a work of edification written by believers for believers
even though it pretends to objective scholarship.
 
  3) Dans (and/or McDowells) work is certainly NOT within the
historical tradition of academic biblical scholarship (if one
measures this by such learned societies such as Society of Biblical
Literature(SBL) or American Academy of Religion(AAR))
     Since Dan has called his posting "OBJECTIVE Evidences.." (and
I take this to mean that what he makes reference to in his posting
is verifiable to anyone independent of faith comittment, that is,
it is pure objective empirical facticity) I would think that he
would welcome open discussions with such societies such as SBL or
AAR.
 
    It is not so much that Dan has misinformation (he has this
certainly) but that his work (or McDowells) is carefully formulated
to direct the attention AWAY from the really critical questions
and these are usually the questions (with the aporias that result)
that drive academic biblical scholarship ahead (if you will allow
me the use of the myth of progress).
 
  From my perspective biblical scholarship as practiced in the
academy is indeed antithetical to Christian belief but yet it is
very much in continuity with historic Christianity and in this
way a/theism may be more "Christian" than what now passes
for Orthodoxy.
  In this way and to the extent that Dan has failed to appropriate
this tradition his work here may be cited as "heretical".
 
  So, with apology, I offer the following very brief critique of
Dans posting.
  All quotes are from Helmut Koesters History and Literature of
Early Christianity (1982) - a standard introductory text on the NT
appropriate for 1st year seminary or divinity school students.
 
 
>                    Reliability of The New Testament
>
> It is true that Christianity views the bible as God's revealed word
> to mankind. Those who oppose this view object that the biblical
> account can not be deemed reliable. It is argued that the accounts
> would become distorted during their textual transmission.
>
> However, it can be shown that the New Testament documents are the most
> reliable of all historical documents; and to reject the New Testament
> records without rejecting all other historical documents and regarding
> them unreliable, would be to act in utter bias and absurdity.
>
> Manuscript Evidence
>
> There are more than 5300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament
> today. Over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament.
>
> No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers
> and attestation. In comparison, the "Iliad", by Homer, is second with
> only 643 manuscripts that still survive.
>
  It is interesting that Dan (and McDowell) here try to turn what
is a real problem for NT textual criticism into an asset.  The
5000 manuscripts are an embarrassemnt of riches.  No two manuscripts
agree.  The construction of a stemma (a family tree of dependencies)
is impossible.  Rather, the manuscripts are grouped into families
(Alexandarian,Neutral,Caesarean,Byzantine) of manuscripts that show
similar readings (ie textual additions/deletions/corruptios or the
inclusion/exclusion of dogmatic motifs).
  Sure, there are many manuscripts of the NT - but that only
compounds and make more difficult the task of securing the most
authentic reading.  The creation of new bodies of scholarship is
required to solve these special probelem that cannot be delt with
by traditional classical text critical scholarship.
 
> Besides the number of manuscripts, the New Testament differs from all
> other writings in its interval of time between the composition of the
> book and date of the earliest extant manuscripts. The New Testament
> books were written (originals) in the latter part of the first century.
> The oldest manuscripts in exsistance are of the fourth century. From
> 250 - 300 years later. This is nothing compared to most of the great
> classical authors. Examples below:
 
  Another VERY severe problem masked by Dan (McDowell) into an asset.
Koester writes:
  "It does not make much difference how many manuscripts written
since the the end of the 2nd century have been preserved, since
not a single manuscript provides us with a direct insight into
the text during the the first 50 - 100 years after the writing of
the autograph."
  "...This intensifies the problem which also exist with respect
to the textual criticism of classical authors.  Decisive textual
corruptions, changes, and revisions of ancient texts usually
occur during the period in which the lasting significance of
a text or its author is either not yet recognized or still
debated."
  "... There are numerous examples of alterations and corruptions
of the autographs of the NT writings during the earliest period
of transmission...  The edition of the gospel of Mark which was
used by Luke and Matthew for example was substantially different
from the gospel of Mark we know as transmitted in all texts and
manuscripts."
>
>
> Benjamin Warfield, "If we compare the present state of the New Testament
> with that of any other ancient writing, we must declare it to be
> marvelously correct.
>
> The New Testament has been transmitted to us with no or next to no
> variation; and even the most corrupt form in which it has appeared,
> the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact.
>
  If there is NO manuscript evidence earlier than the latter part
of the 2nd century for documents written in the 1st century then
how could anyone possibly make a statement like this ?
 
 
>                  Evidence For The Historical Jesus
>
>
>   Cornelius Tacitus reports.....
>   Pliny, in his letter .....
>   Suetonius mentions ........
>   Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote ......
>   There are several references to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud....
>   Lucian of Samosata ...
>   Thallus, a Gentile writer of A.D. 52, mentions Christ...
>   A letter from a prisoner named Mara Bar-Serapion ...
>   The Encyclopedia Britanica...
 
  All these quotes address the question as to the reality of the
existence of historical Jesus.  This is not in question.  What
is in question is the historical reliability of the picture of
Jesus in the gospel narratives.
  Simply comparing the parallel accounts in the synoptic gospels
will show how sayinging of Jesus have been altered, miracles
embellished, parables shaped and literary devices introduced
in order to serve the various theological interests of the
authors.
 
  Koester writes:
  "The quest for the historical kernel of the stories in the
Synoptic narrative materials are very difficult.  In fact such a
quest is doomed to miss the point of such narratives, because
these stories are all told in the interests of mission, edification,
cult, or theology (especially Christology), and they have no
relationship to the question of historical reliable information."
 
  With regard to Acts Koester writes:
 
  "The incorporation of numerous miracle stories and legendary
materials demonstrates that the author was just as uncritical
as many historians of his time, but it has a serious consequence:
large parts of the book read like a apostolic romance, not a
historical book.  This impression is reinforced by the lengthy
narrative of the shipwreck (Acts 27-28) which is so typical
of the Hellenistic romance."
 
  The problem is that the gospels receive no exteral corroboration
on what they report.  Therefore, it is difficult to disengauge
historical narrative (historiography in the modern sense) from
history-like narrative used as a literary device to serve
purely theological ends. (The long discourse material of Jesus
in Johns gospel is surely of this latter type)
 
In Conclusion...
 
  If Dan really honestly wants to get involved in academic
biblical scholarship and concomitant with that, if he wishes
to pursue it to the bitter end as a discipline respectable in itself
and independent of churchly and dogmatic ends then I suggest he
join SBL and get a subscription to to JBL(Journal of Biblical
Literature) to find out whats going on in the context of these
matters which he writes.
  If on the other hand Dan wishes to be the author of merely
edifying religious tracts for those people who sit in church
and attend ice cream socials then let him publish what he has
written as it is written.
 
 
    "Whoever can give his people better stories than the
     ones they live in is like the priest in whose hands
     common bread and wine become capable of feeding the
     very soul, and he may think of forging in some
     invisible smithy the uncreated conscience of his
     race."
 
            (Hugh Kenner, The Pound Ezra,  p39)
 
   Gary
 

seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (06/04/85)

In article <612@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) writes:

>  1) What Dan has presented here has alreday been written and
>published by Josh McDowell in two works - Evidence that demands
>a Verdict;  Further Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

I believe that the "liar, lunatic, or Lord" argument actually
comes from C.S. Lewis.  (And presented, with credits, in Josh's
works.)  I agree that Dan should have given credit to the people
he got his material from.

>  Dans (and/or McDowells) work is
>therefore a work of edification written by believers for believers
>even though it pretends to objective scholarship.

Actually, Josh McDowell thought that Christians were crazy.
(Perhaps not unlike certain persons who occasionally post here)
He set out to disprove Christianity.  But the evidence turned him
around and he became a Christian.

Snoopy
tektronix!mako!seifert

"Only visiting this planet"
	-Larry Norman

(unless Martin Luther beat him to that one also. Doretta?)

pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/11/85)

This is a response to Gary Buchholz and Dan Boskovich.  First Gary:
   
It's always a little disturbing to me when anyone tries to wear
the mantle of "biblical scholarship" in an agrument like this,
as if they have the weight of all biblical scholars worth
their salt behind them.  While I am in fair agreement with Gary
(and Tim, but I have some questions about his work also,
maybe later) on the intent and shoddiness of his presentation,
there are definitely some things in Gary's remarks that don't seem
much better.

>  3) Dans (and/or McDowells) work is certainly NOT within the
>historical tradition of academic biblical scholarship (if one
>measures this by such learned societies such as Society of Biblical
>Literature(SBL) or American Academy of Religion(AAR))

Learned *liberal* societies, you mean.  They have a certain perspective
on the issues being discussed here.  What makes their perspective more
qualified than scholars of equal qualification who disagree with them?
Would your have us assume they don't exist?  Why do you personify their
views as "biblical scholarship".  The assumptions you make about your
authorities (equating them with a personified "biblical scholarship")
are just as gratuitous as Dan's.  McDowell's "Evidence" stuff is an
anthology of quotations from numerous sources.  Dan makes the mistake
of using it as a source itself (So do a lot of people).  An anthology
is a starting point for further study, a reference tool.  Dan apparently
hasn't bothered to research the sources McDowell uses because he
agrees with McDowell's conclusions.  But neither have you compared your
sources against those of McDowell in order to show us why the conclusions
reached by them are more sound than his.

Gary uses Helmut Koester's "History and Literature of Early Christianity"
as his source.  By all means, people interested in this subject should
read it.  But don't personify Koester's views as "biblical scholarship".

One example of a source that I know McDowell uses is "A General Introduction
to the Bible" by Geisler and Nix.  It is also a standard text.  You
can also find works by Gleason Archer, Merril Tenney, J.I. Packer and many
others with credentials on par with those of Koester who would contradict
Koester's claims.  Look at Vol. 1 of the Expositor's Bible Commentary for
a sampling.  Why don't these people count as part of "biblical scholarship"?

>In Conclusion...
> 
>  If Dan really honestly wants to get involved in academic
>biblical scholarship and concomitant with that, if he wishes
>to pursue it to the bitter end as a discipline respectable in itself
>and independent of churchly and dogmatic ends then I suggest he
>join SBL and get a subscription to to JBL(Journal of Biblical
>Literature) to find out whats going on in the context of these
>matters which he writes.
>  If on the other hand Dan wishes to be the author of merely
>edifying religious tracts for those people who sit in church
>and attend ice cream socials then let him publish what he has
>written as it is written.
>   Gary

Plain snobbery, Gary.  I'd question whether any journal or society
is "independant" of dogmatic ends.  It's easy for scholars to look
down their noses at those of another opinion and say others are
only edifying their own views with their conclusions.  The best you
can suggest is that those interested consider your sources for
an alternate view.

My point is that I think the issue being discussed is too broad
for us to reach any sound conclusions here.  We don't have
any qualified Bible scholars on the net as far as I
can tell.  All we end up with is people using the work of their
favorite "scholar" to support the views they already hold.  It's
fine if the works are being compared on the same level, but they're
not (as I have tried to point out).

I have some comments for Dan (I hope he's reading this).  Your
use of this material AT LEAST comes very close to plagarism.  I suggest
you use McDowells work for the purpose for which it is best suited
i.e. as a pointer to more in depth referece material.  Become
familiar with the nature of the issues themselves instead of the
thin veneer of McDowell's anthology.  Yeah, you're going to have
to pick out certain specific issues that interest you if you don't
have time to research them all (who does?).  But unless you can
defend ALL of the conclusions you present with a more in-depth personal
knowledge, you're going to get nowhere.  Do some studying on your
own, will you?  Read a little of what the other side has to say
and present the results of your own reading.  It's better to be
able to discuss only one aspect of the "Christian Evidences" issue
when you have spent the time researching it on your own than to
spread a paper-thin veneer of knowledge over it all.  It's also a
more rewarding experience for yourself.

Finally, I question the wisdom of your posting this stuff to both
net.religion and net.religion.christian.  If your posting something
intended to convince non-christians of your views then maybe it should go
in net.religion.  There it will get the acid test it needs (and
fails by itself, anyway).  If on the other hand you are giving it
as information for other Christians or interested parties to use
or consider, then n.r.c is the best place.  But your posting isn't
useful for that either, since you don't even give references to
support the conclusions drawn.  Giving a summary or outline of
someone's work isn't bad, but you seemed to present it as your own.
Shame on you.
-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd