Paul Tobin Responds to The Infidel Delusion (Part 3)

This is part three of Paul's response to the ebook The Infidel Delusion, which is an amateur attempt to deal with our book The Christian Delusion. The first two parts can be read beginning here.

Written by Paul Tobin:

34. One evidence that the pastoral epistles were not written by Paul is the fact that the authentic epistles of Paul contained an imminent expectation of the apocalyptic return of Jesus (the parousia) while the pastorals give the impression of settled communities who see their churches existing into the foreseeable future. As evidence of the historical Paul’s belief that Jesus will return within the former’s lifetime or at the latest within the lifetime of some in his congregations, I quoted the following two passages in my article:

I Corinthians 7:29-31 (NRSV)
I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.

I Thessalonian 4:14-17 (NRSV)
For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.

The Corinthian passage obviously tells us that the apostle believed that the time before the return of Jesus is very short. (“the appointed time has grown short”; “the present form of the world is passing away”) The Thessalonian passage confirms this point and indeed showed that Paul believed that it would come either within his lifetime or the lifetime of the contemporaneous recipients of his letters (“that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord”).

That Paul expected an imminent apocalyptic return of Jesus, within the lifetime of his congregation, is also evident in another passage:

I Corinthians 15:51-52 (NRSV)
Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
That “we will not all die” means that Paul believed that at least some of the original recipients of his letter would still be alive at the sounding of the eschatological trumpet. Taken together with the passage other two passages we have seen, it is quite obvious that Paul was expecting the present world order as he knew it to end either within his lifetime or those of his congregations.

Hays defense is incomprehensible.

For his attempted rationalization of I Corinthians 7:29-31, the most I can make of his claim is that when Paul says the time is “short” he means ‘shortened” and that this is somehow in opposition to the Greek concept of the eternity of the world.

But this does not take away the clear sense of the passage. How could time being ‘shortened’ from infinite to finite have any bearing on Paul’s point? In the couple of verses earlier, Paul had told those who are single not to marry in view of the “impending crisis” so that they do not experience “distress in this life.”

I Corinthians 7:26-28 (NRSV)
I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life.
It does not make sense if by “the time has grown short” (or “has shortened”) Paul was talking about events thousands of years in the future. For what is the meaning then of the “impending crisis” and the advice to singles not to marry to avoid “distress”?

When Hays tries to claim that this “impending crisis” refers merely to some famine, he is either willfully ignoring, or is ignorant of, the significance of the words Paul is using here. The two words translated as “crisis” (anagken) and “distress” (thlipsin) by the NRSV are pregnant with eschatological meaning. As Dale Allison pointed out, the first word, anagken, is used elsewhere in the NT and Septuagint in an eschatological sense (Zephaniah 1:15; Luke 21:23). The second word, thlipsin, which can also be translated as “tribulation,” is used very often in an eschatological sense (Daniel 12:1, Habakkuk 3:16, Zephaniah 1:15, Acts 14:22, Colossians 1:24, Revelation 7:14).[1]

As C.K. Barrett explained in his commentary on I Corinthians:
Men and women are free to marry; but such people (acting against Paul’s advice) will get affliction for the flesh…If wars and rumours of wars, earthquake, pestilence, and famine (cf. Mark xiii. 7f., and especially 17) are at hand, marriage can only have the effect of multiplying the affliction. In the circumstances of the last days men must sit loose to all earthly relationships.[2]
Hays attempt to explain away the imminent eschatological expectation in I Thessalonian 4:14-17 is also equally unsuccessful. He quoted evangelical Gordon Fee who noted that Paul’s emphasis is “not that he and the recipients of the letter will be alive when Jesus returns”. By saying this is not the emphasis of this passage, Fee has sidestepped an important issue. The context of the I Thessalonians 4 is that some believers in Thessalonica had passed away before the parousia, when they had all expected to be alive when Jesus returns. Paul was writing in response to this. As Gerd Lüdemann pointed out, why would the believers had held such a belief unless they had been taught by Paul of an imminent parousia within their lifetimes?[3] That Paul may have not place emphasis in this passage on those who will be around until the parousia is to be expected from the fact that he is trying to console those who are alive that the dead will rise to meet Jesus with them!

As is always the case with evangelical apologetics, the position of the majority of mainstream scholars[4] who concluded, based on the evidence above, that Paul did expect an imminent parousia is simply ignored.

35. Another evidence normally cited by scholars for the spurious authorship of the pastorals is the fact that the pastorals showed a more developed hierarchical structure than those evident from the authentic epistles of Paul.

As usual with the evangelical mindset, Hays tried two mutually contradictory arguments to defend the authenticity of the pastorals here.

Firstly, he made an unsupported assertion that “the polity in 1 Cor 12 seems to have a more developed “hierarchy” than the simpler polity in the Pastorals.” He did not show how he derived such a conclusion.

Secondly, in contradiction to his first argument (which seems to show that he thinks the Corinthian church was more developed than the ones referred to in the pastoral epistles), Hays speculated that Paul had to put “more emphasis on church office, to take over as the apostles died off.”

Let me first note that Hays have conveniently ignored the fact that the developed church hierarchy is an important clue to the spurious nature of the pastoral epistles is something accepted by most critical scholars. [5]

In response to his first argument, the evidence that the Corinthian church was certainly more chaotic that the ones referred to in the pastoral epistles is very clear.

During Paul’s time, we see that the church structure is quite amorphous with no one really in command. In I Corinthians we see that there are many different types of members in the church – apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles workers and others (I Corinthian 12:28). Any of these may choose to speak freely during their worship service (I Corinthians 14:26-33). We can tell that no one was truly in charge when Paul had to ask these Christians to “wait for one another” (I Corinthians 11:33) to prevent a chaotic scramble during the common meal. In the pastorals, this is no longer the case. We find that there are bishops, presbyters and deacons who are formally appointed to their position (I Timothy 3:1-7, 4:14, Titus 1:5-9) and who have the right to get paid (I Timothy 5:27) by the congregation.

Such a hierarchical structure as evidenced in the pastorals is only known in second century Christian texts.[6]

Hays second argument betrays an evangelical’s ahistorical understanding of early Christianity. First, to say that Paul is making preparation for the “death of the apostles” implies the idea of apostolic succession, something which only came about in the second century CE. [7] Paul had no use of this idea of apostolic transmission of his gospels. He expressly disavowed that he received his gospel from any man (Galatians 1:1, 1:11-12).

Second, Paul could not merely “put more emphasis on church office” if the structure is not there to begin with. Notice how he had to plead with the Corinthians to be less chaotic. In the pastorals he is giving advice on an already established hierarchical structure.

It is no surprise that critical scholars are nearly unanimous in declaring the pastorals to be pseudepigraphical. The Catholic New Testament scholar Raymond Brown estimated that 80% to 90% of critical scholars consider these epistles to be spurious.[8]

36. Turning to my summary of the position of critical scholarship on the spurious authorship of Daniel, the Pastoral Epistles, Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, I & II Peter, James and Jude, Hays accused of not even beginning engaging “the opposing literature.” Again all his references of “the opposing literature” are either from evangelical apologists or very conservative scholars. This doesn’t really amount to any criticism since my summary was based on mainstream biblical scholarship which is, of course, at variance with apologetic works!

On Biblical Scholarship and Evangelical Apologetics

Perhaps this would be a good time to explain why the word ‘scholarship’ cannot be used when referring to evangelical literature[9] and why people like Hays are mistaken in placing their trust in such works.

The mark of scholarship is its dependence of evidence and reason regardless of where it leads.

Yet we find that many evangelical institutes have very strict rules about what their “scholars” are supposed to accept. Many evangelical theological seminaries, such as the Dallas Theological Seminary,[10] Denver Seminary[11] and Fuller Theological Seminary[12] require its faculty to sign a strict statement of adherence to biblical inerrancy before they are allowed to teach there. Some institutions even require the faculty member to recommit to this statement annually, just in case they have changed their mind on inerrancy after signing the statement.

Not adhering to these statements could mean loss of one’s tenure and may even result in sacking or forced resignation. The recent case of Bruce Waltke, an evangelical professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, is one such example. He had to resign his post from the Reformed Theological Seminary in circumstances still unclear – but it clearly had to do with his advocating the compatibility of evolution and biblical creation, something clearly anathema to many, if not most, evangelicals.

How can honest scholarship be done when one is already adhering to a position of inerrancy? Imagine physicists being required to sign a statement affirming the “inerrancy” of quantum mechanics before they can get a teaching position in any university! One would not believe any “research” on the fundamentals of physics that comes out from such an institution.

It is the same with evangelicals. When they are already committed to an unalterable belief, then that very position cannot but produce “scholarship” which agrees with such a belief. Thus, it should come as no surprise that any book by Craig Blomberg on the reliability of the gospels will conclude that the gospels are “reliable.”[13] And if Ben Witherington III were to write a book about the Acts of the Apostles, you can bet your bottom dollar he is going to “find” the book historically reliable and that Luke is its author.[14]

Studies where the end results are known beforehand are not works of scholarship but of pure apologetics. As Robert M. Price noted in his recent book, “The Case Against the Case for Christ,” such “scholarship” has only one main goal – to “turn back the clock” to a time when the Bible made is safe from historical criticism.[15]

We do not find this in mainstream biblical scholarship, where debates and differing positions are taken based on how each scholar marshals the evidence. When a consensus is reached by such a boisterous group of scholars–it tends to mean that the evidence for such a consensus is strong. Thus when we say that 80% to 90% of such scholars agree that the pastorals were not written by Paul, we can be certain that the reason for such a consensus must be compelling.

A “Consensus” among evangelicals however, comes not from the result of arguments and evidence but from their “statements of faith.” In other words, such “consensuses” among evangelicals come from the unquestioned presuppositional biases.

So when Hays cites his “authorities” on the reliability of the Bible, all he is saying to the skeptic is, ‘Hey, see how all these apologists with PhD’s are using ingenious methods to defend beliefs which cannot be held without a presuppositionary belief in Biblical inerrancy!”

This concludes my response to the critique of Steven Hays. The next installment will look at the critique of Jason Engwer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Dale Allison, “Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet” Fortress Press 1998, p. 190

[2] C. K. Barrett, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” Adam & Charles Black 1971: p. 176

[3] Gerd Lüdemann, “Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology” SCM Press 1984 p.212

[4] Allison, “Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet” p. 190

David Barr, “New Testament Story (Second Edition)” Wadsworth Publishing Company 1995, p.67

J.D. Crossan & J. Reed “In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom” HarperSanFrancisco 2004, p. 172

Bart Ehrman, “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium” Oxford University Press 1999, pp. 136, 139

Bengt Holmberg, “Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles” Fortress Press 1978, p.151

Helmut Koester, “Introduction to the New Testament, Vol II: History and Literature of Early Christianity” Walter de Gruyter 2000, p.248

Lüdemann, “Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles” p.212

Alvin Roetzel, “Paul: The Man and the Myth” Fortress Press 1999, p.62

E.P. Sanders, “The Historical Figure of Jesus”, Penguin Books 1993, pp. 179-181

Udo Schnelle, “The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings” Fortress Press 1998, p.316

[5] Barr, “New Testament Story” p.170

Bart Ehrman, “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings” Oxford University Press 2000, pp.359-360

Calvin Roetzel, “The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context”, WestminsterJohnKnox 2009, p.160

Schnelle, “The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings”, pp.329-330

[6] Ehrman, “The New Testament”, pp.359-360

[7] Bart Ehrman, “Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew” Oxford University Press 2003, pp. 142-143, 192-193

[8] Raymond E. Brown, “An Introduction to the New Testament” Doubleday 1997, p. 639

[9] I am referring to evangelical works on issues which are fundamental to their faith. There are works of scholarship from the evangelical community in peripheral topics which do not “threaten” their basic beliefs such as textual criticism. One of the most well known experts on textual criticism, Bruce Metzger, was an evangelical.

[10] http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/

[11] http://www.denverseminary.edu/about-us/what-we-believe/

[12] http://www.fuller.edu/about-fuller/mission-and-history/statement-of-faith.aspx

[13] Craig Blomberg, “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels” IVP Academic 2008
[14] Ben Whiterington III, “The Acts of the Apostles: a socio-rhetorical commentary” Eerdmans, 1997, pp. 58, 88

[15] Robert M. Price, “The Case Against the Case for Christ” American Atheist Press 2010, pp.95-96.

80 comments:

Hos said...

We are not liked? That breaks my heart.
Guess who else doesn't like infidels. Osama bin Laden. Of course, those who wrote that book likely fall under the definition of infidel for ol' binny.
Since as everyone knows, the definition of infidel varies by geography. That was even known in the 19th century. As Ambrose Bierece said in his Devil's Dictionary:
Infidel. n. In New York, someone who does not believe in the Christian faith; in constantinople, someone who does(!).

Blue Devil Knight said...

Excellent work, the best post I have seen at this site. This could be a template for how to write a good rebuttal.

I think where the apologists might disagree is in Tobin's somewhat casual dismissal of Hays' claim that he didn't engage with the opposing literature.

Let's assume Tobin is right that the opposing literature is backwards crap by people with an irrational attachment to a particular outcome. Then shouldn't it be easy to just dismantle them based on the evidence? It might be nice if Tobin took on a single instance of what Hays would consider a "top notch" evangelical scholar and just take it apart. Just dismantle it piece by piece.

If it turned out anything like this, it would be incredibly entertaining and educational.

Blue Devil Knight said...

The accolades I threw down apply to all three parts of Tobin's response.

The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvka said...

Presbyters were inherited from Judaism, since the synagogue was overseen by a class of elders. And deacons were already in existence by 35 AD. As for the supposedly-impartial biblical scholarship, they're mostly Protestants with a theological axe to grind; or, to put it more nicely: their theology and preconceived ideas color their interpretation.

Rhacodactylus said...

Wow, intense post, I just wanted to say thanks for all the effort you put into this, it's truly appreciated.

Hos said...

Oooh, nice, Lvka now is picking a fight with Protestantism.
Where is Marcus when you need him?

Jon said...

Paul, I love the statement contrasting real scholarship with conservative scholarship. I think I'll reproduce that at my blog.

O'Brien said...

"It is no surprise that critical scholars are nearly unanimous in declaring the pastorals to be pseudepigraphical. The Catholic New Testament scholar Raymond Brown estimated that 80% to 90% of critical scholars consider these epistles to be spurious."

I agree that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudepigrapha but not because "80% to 90% of critical scholars" thinks so.

"Turning to my summary of the position of critical scholarship on the spurious authorship of Daniel, the Pastoral Epistles, Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, I & II Peter, James and Jude"

I do not think that II Thessalonians, James and Jude are pseudepigrapha.

"A 'Consensus' among evangelicals however, comes not from the result of arguments and evidence but from their 'statements of faith.'"

There are plenty of ideas in secular scholarship that are widely clung to despite resting on foundations of sand (e.g., Q and dating John to 90-100 AD/CE).

Craig Blomberg said...

Hi John. Good to hear from you again. There are, of course, other possibilities about people like me, which are sometimes, though not always, the case. I was raised in a liberal Lutheran environment and went to a liberal Lutheran liberal arts college that held the mainstream critical views you describe. I then went to an evangelical seminary and then to a Scottish university (largely secular but with some Christian presence) for my doctorate. I did "crazy" things while there like decide to follow what I discerned to be the New Testament model and be immersed as a believer in a Scottish Baptist church, cutting myself off from being able to teach in contexts that required me to affirm the legitimacy of infant baptism. It was also where I finally decided that I could believe in an appropriately nuanced form of inerrancy after having been raised in an environment that held "biblical inerrancy" to be an oxymoron, going to a seminary where it was part of the very definition of evangelical and then becoming familiar with the British evangelical scene where it was viewed as a rather uniquely American shibboleth. So I don't believe in inerrancy because I teach at a seminary that includes that in its statement of faith. I teach at a seminary that includes that in its statement of faith because I believe in inerrancy. And I have had enough invitations over the years to teach in places with different perspectives that I hardly feel constrained in my scholarship by that conviction. I examine every new issue relevant to the topic that I become aware of (though I haven't run into very many that weren't already on the landscape during my three degree programs in the 1970s and early 1980s, just in repackaged garb) and if I should decide I could no longer affirm inerrancy, I will go teach at a place that doesn't require it. As for going wherever reason leads, how open are you to returning to Christian faith should reason lead you there? From my now fairly extensive reading of your published and web writings, my sense is "much less so than I would be open to changing my views".

Unknown said...

@Blue Knight.


Hi. Thanks for your kind words!

You wrote: "It might be nice if Tobin took on a single instance of what Hays would consider a "top notch" evangelical scholar and just take it apart. Just dismantle it piece by piece."


Actually someone has already done that. Robert M. Price new book "The Case Against the Case for Christ" - as part of his rebuttal of Strobel's pulp apologetics - provides a good summary of the positions of the "major" evangelical apologists today - Blomberg, Witherington III, W.L. Craig etc.

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

As to your last question Craig, you're probably right my friend, but then I don't think reason will lead me away from where reason has led me in the first place.

Cheers.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Paul: I have heard (from McGrew over at Reppert's site) that Price leaves quite a lot to be desired as a scholar. Do you find that to be not the case? I have never read anything by him, so have no basis. If you say Price's book is worth reading, I'll check it out.

Jason Engwer said...

Previous commenters in this thread have already noted some of the problems with Tobin's response. For those who don't know, we've been responding to Tobin (and other contributors to The Christian Delusion) at Triablogue for a few weeks now. Our comments in The Infidel Delusion aren't all that we've written on the subject. Given how much of our material Tobin ignores on issues like early Christian eschatology and the appeal to scholarly majorities, it seems that he hasn't read much of what we've written in response to The Christian Delusion. Has he even read the entirety of The Infidel Delusion? If so, he isn't acting like it.

While discussing a controversial passage in 1 Corinthians 7, Tobin refers to "the clear sense of the passage". Contrast that assessment with what John Loftus writes about Biblical clarity in The Christian Delusion. See, for example, what I cite from Loftus on pp. 7 and 102 of The Infidel Delusion. Loftus and Tobin keep contradicting each other on the subject. Then again, Tobin is only following Loftus' lead, since Loftus keeps contradicting Loftus as well.

Tobin's assessment of early church government is simplistic and mistaken. What does he mean by "apostolic succession"? The term can be defined in many ways, and concepts of succession existed before the time of the apostles. Where's Tobin's argument that the pastoral epistles refer to some sort of succession that postdates the life of Paul? He should interact with something like Robert Lee Williams' study of the subject in Bishop Lists (Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2005) and explain which notion of succession allegedly appears in the pastorals and how that concept supposedly gives the letters a post-Pauline date. Tobin claims that apostolic succession "only came about in the second century", and he cites Bart Ehrman for support of that claim. Yet, on one of the pages Tobin himself cites (p. 193), Ehrman refers to "the 'apostolic succession,' seen already in a quite early form in 1 Clement". And Ehrman dates First Clement to the first century (ibid., p. 142).

(continued below)

Jason Engwer said...

(continued from above)

Tobin refers to "bishops, presbyters and deacons", but says nothing of the equating of bishops and presbyters in Titus 1:5-7 and the mentioning of only two offices in 1 Timothy 3. He refers to "no one really in command" in the Corinthian church of Paul's day, yet ignores arguments to the contrary and ignores references to church leadership elsewhere in Paul's writings (Philippians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 5:12). Tobin doesn't seem to realize that his appeal to "no one really in command" undermines his own argument. If churches could vary from the alleged Corinthian "chaos" to the structure we see in Philippians and elsewhere in so short a period of time, then how does the church government in the pastorals allegedly prove Tobin's late dating?

Then we get claims like the following from Tobin:

"Paul had no use of this idea of apostolic transmission of his gospels. He expressly disavowed that he received his gospel from any man (Galatians 1:1, 1:11-12)."

How is the means by which Paul received the gospel inconsistent with his giving the gospel to others and expecting those others to do the same? Why would the later communication of the gospel have to occur in the same manner in which the gospel was given to Paul at the start of his ministry? How does Tobin think the gospel was spread in Paul's day? Paul communicated the gospel to others (1 Corinthians 15:1-3), and he expected others to be involved in evangelism and teaching (1 Corinthians 3:5-10, 12:28, 15:11).

Tobin ignores the external evidence relevant to the authorship of the pastorals. Judging by his chapter in The Christian Delusion and the inaccurate claims he makes about patristic issues at his web site, I doubt that he knows much about the external evidence. He refers to Steve Hays' alleged "ahistorical understanding of early Christianity", but he hasn't shown much understanding himself.

Jason Engwer said...

Blue Devil Knight,

The quality of Price's material varies widely from context to context. But since Tobin keeps making such an issue of scholarly majorities, it should be noted that Price often takes positions that put him in a far smaller minority of scholarship than that of Evangelicalism. For example, Price has argued against the existence of Jesus and against the Pauline authorship of documents widely accepted as Pauline among modern scholars. See here for an assessment of some of Price's arguments by James Dunn, one of the foremost New Testament scholars of our day.

Papalinton said...

@ Craig Blomberg
You say, ..."It was also where I finally decided that I could believe in an appropriately nuanced form of inerrancy...."

Papalinton
I am curious to understand the rationale of your decision and the context in which inerrancy can be patterned into an appropriately nuanced form.
Is the motivation for it to mitigate the level of cognitive dissonance [seemingly inherent in such a perspective] through loosening various aspects of the bible to allow wiggle room on what constitutes 'genuinely' inerrant elements to better match with the deeply personal reasons for your choice.

Or is there substantive evidence that inerrancy in this tome is causally linked to a veridical numen, that qualitatively superior to all other claims of inerrancy declared by other faiths? And how are you sure?

I think you would generally agree with me there is enormous variation within the believing community, on the meaning of inerrancy, what it relates to, and the varying pockets of consensus in the context of interpreting the bible. Indeed the variation is almost a match to the numbers of churches. {persiflage on that last sentence, Craig]

Cheers

Blue Devil Knight said...

Jason: thanks, that was my impression too, that Price was sort of a fringe author on the opposite end of the spectrum. That's my worry. I want to read something more along the lines of Friedman's book on the Hebrew Bible, but for the New Testament.

Unknown said...

@Blue Devil Knight
Yes, Price is worth the read.

Engwer made the remark that Price frequently takes positions that are against the consensus. That is true enough, indeed Prices makes no bones about it. And he always marshal's the evidence to support his case and whether one agrees or disagrees with him will depend on the strength of what his arguments are.

As for Engwer, wait for my response to his section. :)

Cheers.

Unknown said...

@Blue Devil Knight

If you want to find the more or less "consensus" position of NT Scholarship then get one (or two) of these undergraduate introductory text to the New Testament:

Barr, D.L., New Testament Story, Wadsworth 1995

Brown, R.E., An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday 1997

Ehrman, B., The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Oxford 2000

Koester, H, Introduction to the New Testament Vols I & II, Walter d Gruyter 1995

Kummel, W. G. Introduction to the New Testament (17th edition), Abingdon 1975

U. Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, Fortress 1998

Although these are textbooks they are easily accessible to the layman. Reading any one of these books will show you how far the likes of Hays and Engwer are from mainstream critical Biblical scholarship.

Hope this helps.

Cheer

Craig Blomberg said...

Thanks for the thoughtful questions, Papalinton. When one is an unemployed Ph.D. student on the verge of graduation and open to teaching in a variety of contexts, unsure if he will get a job given the glut in the market and thus not wanting unnecessarily to close off any possible options, one reflects long and hard on whether one can or cannot with integrity accept the confessional statements of schools that have them. My original dream by going into the discipline of NT studies was to get a job in a secular context where I could present the whole range of scholarly perspectives, defend my own when asked, but encourage students to think for themselves and develop their own views. I had been so frustrated with my undergrad and seminary experiences when only one side of issues was presented. In undergrad, evangelical perspectives were simply dismissed as not scholarly with no substantive interaction with them. In seminary, not all but some of my professors sometimes dismissed certain views of mine as "outside the bounds of evangelicalism" but again without substantive interaction. I was hopeful for a truly liberal environment that would allow me to present all major views, and help students assess strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, at that time in the early 1980s none of the schools to which I applied where I might have been able to do that was interested in me.

My one and only job offer then was at Palm Beach Atlantic University in South Florida, which had a very brief confessional statement of Christian faith that was hardly restrictive at all, and said nothing about inerrancy, but the administration was in chaos, the faculty turnover rate rampant, and the teaching load enormous so it didn't take long for us to be eager to find something better. Denver was the one opening in the mid-1980s that came my way and, unlike the sometimes rancorous debates between, say, Trinity and Fuller in the 1970s, I discovered that inerrancy at Denver was not a high-profile issue to squabble over. People were entirely happy when I insisted that I understood it simply to mean the truthfulness of Scripture when interpreted by sound hermeneutics according to the conventions of each individual genre of writing by the standards of the historical context in which it appeared. Inerrancy is really not the huge theological topic it is often made out to be; that would be divine inspiration. I've read numerous documents in my life, from business documents, to history books, to legal contracts, to lofty poetry, that as far as I can tell are without error. I've even had student papers that so qualify, so long as you don't count typos and grammar! That's what I mean by the nuancing.

John, I guess my question then is, since we both are doubtful that reason will lead us away from where we believe reason has taken us, and yet we also acknowledge that our personal histories, experiences with others, and encounters of new frameworks for thinking about things have been highly influential in getting us to where we are, where do we go from here? The true pluralist would answer that we should each be happy with our own choices and with each other's choices and live together in tolerance. But you and I are apologists and you are also an evangelist (or "de-evangelist"?). You are trying your hardest to "deconvert" as many people as possible, while I, while not engaged usually in overt evangelism, would like people unaware of what I believe are good reasons for Christian faith to at least think seriously about those reasons. We can't both be right. We could both be wrong. But, from your philosophical perspective how should we proceed in conversation, if we do?

Craig Blomberg said...

John, I guess my question for you is, from your perspective, how should people who hold views like you and I, respectively, do proceed in conversation, if at all? The consistent pluralist would say that we should each tolerate each other's perspectives. But you and I are apologists, and you are an evangelist ("de-evangelist?") as well. You aren't content to let Christians believe what they want; you positively want to "deconvert" them and show them how and why their views are delusional. I don't engage in much overt evangelism but I certainly want people who haven't thought about the classic reasons for Christian faith to at least give them serious thought. We can't both be right. We could both be wrong. But the more interesting question for me is how, as two persons who both want to be guided by reason but believe that reason has led us in quite opposite directions, proceed from here?

O'Brien said...

"Such a hierarchical structure as evidenced in the pastorals is only known in second century Christian texts."

Wrong. See 1 Clement and the Didache, both of which are from the 1st century.

"First, to say that Paul is making preparation for the 'death of the apostles' implies the idea of apostolic succession, something which only came about in the second century CE."

Wrong. See 1 Clement, a 1st century epistle.

Unknown said...

@ O'Brien,


The general concensus on the Didache is that it is an early second century text i.e. between 100-120 CE (see Ehrman, "Lost Scriptures" p.212 & Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocryphas Vol II, p.289).


As for Clement,calling is a "first century text" in the context of the present discussion is disingenuous. It is generally dated to 95 or 96 CE, (Ehrman, p.168) i.e. a time when Paul had been dead for three decades. To claim that this somehow "proves" that the church structure is similar to Paul's strains credulity.


Cheers
Paul Tobin

Unknown said...

i can't believe you guys are debating this. Lee stroebel is a joke. The case against the case for christ? Are you serious? Would you give an academic response to kent hovind? this is a joke. rlly, don't waste your time.

and yes, bring it, i can back all of it up...but it is a waste of my and your time.

stroebel...ffs.

Unknown said...

Pink Monkey,

Nobody is debating Lee Strobel. I suggested Price's book "The Case Against the Case for Christ" for Price's "take" on the leading evangelical apologists of the day (e.g. Blomberg, Witherington III,. Boyd, Craig etc)

Cheers
Paul Tobin

Unknown said...

O'Brien,

The Didache is generally dated to the first decades of the 2nd century CE (Schneemelcher, "New Testament Apocrypha, Vol II", p.589, Ehrman, "Lost Scriptures" p.212).

As for the epistle of Clement, calling it "first century" and within the context of the present discussion (whether the church structure evidenced in pastoral epistles is reflected in contemporaneous authentic Pauline texts), using it as 'evidence " is disingenuous. I Clement is dated by most scholars to the very end of the first century - 95 or 96 CE -i.e. more than 3 decades after the death of Paul. (Ehrman, "Lost Scriptures" p.168)

Indeed the structure in the pastorals is more compatible with the Didache and I Clement (both around 100 CE) than the time of Paul. Given below is a quote from Raymond E. Brown :

The general equivalence of presbyteroi (presbyters, elders) and episkopos (bishops and overseers) may be deduced from I Clement 42:4; 44:4-5; 54:2. Evidence from the Pauline Pastorals and the Didache 15 shows that the two fold order was widespread at the end of the first century. [R. E. Brown & J.P. Meier, “Antioch & Rome”, p.163 n.347]

Compared this to the chaos evidenced in Paul’s Corinthian correspondence noted in my posting above .
Yes, I Clement is the earliest known example of the proto-orthodox appeal to the apostolic tradition – 96 CE – more than thirty years after the death of Paul. This in no way makes the case any stronger for the critics – for all it means is that the Pastorals belong to this era not earlier.

Cheers

Jason Engwer said...

Paul Tobin wrote:

"As for Engwer, wait for my response to his section."

Meanwhile, we've seen how you've responded to Steve Hays' section. See the many problems with your response to him that we've discussed here and at Triablogue.

You write:

"Reading any one of these books will show you how far the likes of Hays and Engwer are from mainstream critical Biblical scholarship."

So says the atheist (a minority position) who often contradicts the beliefs of the scholars he cites (more minority positions).

You write:

"The Didache is generally dated to the first decades of the 2nd century CE (Schneemelcher, 'New Testament Apocrypha, Vol II', p.589, Ehrman, 'Lost Scriptures' p.212)."

Your Schneemelcher citation refers to "a compilation of Church regulations probably put together in the first decade of the 2nd century". The regulations can be compiled in the first decade of the second century, yet have originated earlier. On the same page of Ehrman that you've cited, Ehrman goes on to say: "It is probable, though, that the author compiled his account from several sources written at earlier times."

You write:

"As for the epistle of Clement, calling it 'first century' and within the context of the present discussion (whether the church structure evidenced in pastoral epistles is reflected in contemporaneous authentic Pauline texts), using it as 'evidence ' is disingenuous. I Clement is dated by most scholars to the very end of the first century - 95 or 96 CE -i.e. more than 3 decades after the death of Paul."

O'Brien was responding to what you said about alleged second-century content in the pastorals. The reason why he (and I) mentioned the first-century dating of First Clement is because you referred to the second century. Saying that First Clement was written around the end of the first century doesn't justify your initial claim about the second century.

(continued below)

Jason Engwer said...

(continued from above)

Furthermore, I wonder if you've even read First Clement. If you had read it, you should realize that the document refers to its two church offices (bishop and deacon) as having been implemented by the apostles (42, 44). Given that the document represents one Pauline church writing to another Pauline church at the end of the first century, that scenario creates a major problem for your initial claims in this thread. If the two-office structure in question (bishops and deacons) not only exists in a first-century document, but is referred to as an apostolic structure by one Pauline church writing to another at that time, then why are we supposed to believe your initial claim that it's a second-century structure?

You approvingly quote Raymond Brown's reference to how "the two fold order was widespread at the end of the first century". If it was already widespread at that point, then why are we supposed to believe that a document referring to it has a second-century structure? If something is already popular in the late first century, then you'll need more of an argument if you want us to believe that a document of the middle of the first century couldn't have referred to it.

And why did you initially refer to "bishops, presbyters and deacons" if you only had two offices in mind?

Why do you keep ignoring Philippians 1:1? Why do you keep ignoring the other evidence I've cited from the commonly accepted Pauline documents? Why do you keep assuming that disorderly conduct by some in the Corinthian church proves that "no one [was] really in command" and that there was "chaos"? Even if we grant your view of the Corinthians (which we shouldn't), why should we assume that only one governmental structure existed at the time (rather than the variety we see on other issues during that period, the variety of church government we see in the second-century churches, etc.)? You're making a series of dubious assumptions and ignoring evidence that's contrary to your position.

Jason Engwer said...

I quoted from more than one post by Paul Tobin above. One of those posts is now gone. I assume Paul deleted it. But it was there when I wrote my response.

Unknown said...

@Engwer,

I do not have the clearance to delete any posts except my own.


On your comments, all I can say is you are good at avoiding the main issue - that the positions you take vis-a-vis mainstream biblical scholarship (not atheism/theism - which was never the topic of discussion) is a minority one.


As for I Clement being 96 CE, again the point is that it reflects a position well after the time of Paul.


Cheers

Paul Tobin

Unknown said...

paul,

I just can't stand that strobel guy. A fundy friend of mine gave me a DVD of "The Case for Christ". It's now in a landfill somewhere; where it belongs. His arguments are absolutely ridiculous[he's nearly as bad as Hovind]. Then again, what the hell am I talking about...what theist argument isn't?

Unknown said...

@Pink Monkey,

I know what exactly you mean!


But Strobel is quoted so often by lay evangelicals who are actually impressed with his silly "arguments" that - just like McDowell's "Evidence..." of a previous generation - one at least need to be familiar with its contents.

Unknown said...

sad thing is...the same guy also gave me McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Funny you should mention that... LOL

What's not so funny though is that he can't see how I could possibly disagree w/ and poke fun at the immortal McDowell and Strobel.

Josephs4Pres said...

What's up with all the "cheers" endings? Who started that all? John? By the way I love it!

Blue Devil Knight said...

Paul: thanks a lot for the list of references, that's very useful I will check out a couple of them.

Jason Engwer said...

Paul Tobin wrote:

"I do not have the clearance to delete any posts except my own."

I was referring to one of your posts. I quoted one of your posts, then your post was gone.

You write:

"On your comments, all I can say is you are good at avoiding the main issue - that the positions you take vis-a-vis mainstream biblical scholarship (not atheism/theism - which was never the topic of discussion) is a minority one."

I haven't "avoided the issue". I've acknowledged that some of my beliefs are minority views, and I've mentioned that some of yours are as well. I've given examples of your disagreeing with "mainstream Biblical scholarship". Your minority position on atheism is relevant as well, regardless of whether you brought it up or want to discuss it.

You write:

"As for I Clement being 96 CE, again the point is that it reflects a position well after the time of Paul."

I've explained how the dating of First Clement is inconsistent with your initial post in this thread. I've also explained why First Clement's two-office system of church government probably dates earlier than that document. And I've cited its presence in a document widely accepted as Pauline (Philippians). I've also cited evidence for something other than your "chaotic" view of early church government in other documents widely accepted as Pauline.

GearHedEd said...

Paul said,

"...It is the same with evangelicals. When they are already committed to an unalterable belief, then that very position cannot but produce “scholarship” which agrees with such a belief."

This is the same reason I gave Eric about why we should abandon arguments from Thomas Aquinas.

Edwardtbabinski said...

Craig Blomberg wrote, "I've read numerous documents in my life, from business documents, to history books, to legal contracts, to lofty poetry, that as far as I can tell are without error."

I suspect that by applying the same principle Dr. Blomberg could declare ALL ancient Near Eastern writings "without error," not just the books and tall tales canonized as the "Hebrew Bible."

That also reminds me of something I read at the Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog concerning the biblical flood narrative: "Ancient texts like the Atrahasis Epic and Gen 6-9 were intended to be read as free of error in all that they affirm in terms of the particular genre in which they were written. . . [He then supplies exegetical and archeological reasons why Genesis 6-9 is most probably a reworking of Sumerian flood mythology] Finally, given that the balance of probability lies with a reconstruction along those lines, it will be surmised that tradition universalized a local occurrence in the process of elevating it to an occurrence of protological and universal import. No wonder then that the ark lands on the “mountains of Ararat,” the highest mountains of the known world from the perspective of people in the ancient Near East. Where else could it have been said to have landed? That is how great literature works, regardless of genre: poetry and prose, parable and history, protological and eschatological narrative. The particular is universalized according to genre-specific techniques."

Craig Blomberg said...

Hi, Ed. Good to hear from you again too. Sorry if I made it sound like virtually anything could be labeled inerrant. That wasn't my intention. There are errant texts of many kinds all over the place! But I do think the theological doctrine that separates sacred scriptures of various religions from other texts for the adherents of those religions is the notion of being God-originated (inspiration), not freedom from error (inerrancy), though I'm afraid lots of folks don't recognize that.

Your comments about ancient flood narratives take me back to my undergraduate days in the mid-70s. Many still repeat those views, and as an NT scholar I'm hardly an expert on the topic. What's fascinating, however, when one compares both OT and NT stories with partial parallels in cognate literature, is how often the Judeo-Christian accounts are much more muted, less detailed, less fantastic, abbreviated, and the like, so that one certainly cannot claim that later sources more often than not embellished, expanded and exaggerated in the service of trying to "trump" their predecessors. And why would Jews preserve and even canonize a story climaxing with a landing on Ararat in the heart of the empires that subsequently traumatized them? Where else could it have been said to have landed? Why Sinai, of course, or Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. Pure Jewish fiction would surely have preferred those sites.

Unknown said...

craig says,

"But I do think the theological doctrine that separates sacred scriptures of various religions from other texts for the adherents of those religions is the notion of being God-originated (inspiration), not freedom from error (inerrancy), though I'm afraid lots of folks don't recognize that."

i'm only going to pick on you for one point of that mess that is your response:

[this is in response to you now] yes, and i'm afraid those very same folks would skewer you for this very remark. burn in hell w/ us buddy. good company, right?

bottom line is, all of us wouldn't be here[as angry at theists as we are] should you keep your fellow "believers" in proper alignment. why is that such a difficult task given the "inspired" word of the almighty to guide you?

oh yeah, right. He was only so inspired to reach a few of us...screw the rest, we can all just burn for eternity[and this is a powerful argument, but only if you have taken and passed the OTF, no wonder apologists find it lacking].

nice benevolent fellow this god guy of yours is, really.

and btw, it IS a notion[however delusional]. that should be in " ". edit your post craig.

cheers

GearHedEd said...

Craig said,

"...And why would Jews preserve and even canonize a story climaxing with a landing on Ararat in the heart of the empires that subsequently traumatized them? Where else could it have been said to have landed? Why Sinai, of course, or Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. Pure Jewish fiction would surely have preferred those sites."

Biblical reality check:

Um, what empires would those be? Ararat (and the rest of Planet Earth) was an uninhabited wilderness at the time according to the mythology...

Ed B. is right:

"...No wonder then that the ark lands on the “mountains of Ararat,” the highest mountains of the known world from the perspective of people in the ancient Near East."

No politics, just claiming the greatest known elevation to point up that the world must have been flooded at least above the tops of those (known) mountains, proving that God is powerful enough to accomplish the flood as described.

Sheer mythology!

Craig Blomberg said...

No, my point was that if one assumes, with much critical scholarship, that the Genesis Flood Narrative was written late, then Israel would have known about Assyria, Babylon, and perhaps even Persia successively occupying that part of the world that we call eastern Turkey.

How widely known would it have been among the ordinary Jewish populace that Ararat was the largest mountain in the Ancient Near East? But, even if it were widely known, the very fact that it is chosen (as opposed to Sinai or Zion) shows concern for at least one accurate piece of information (Ararat was the tallest known mountain). If the work were pure mythology or fiction, there need have been no such concern. Read, for example, Judith, where all the geography seems to be made up.

Craig Blomberg said...

As to "pink monkey", I'm sorry you've been so hurt, offended, or whatever by fundamentalists that you have to go off on almost incoherent tirades against them. I have no idea what you are referring to or trying to say in your last three paragraphs. And it's disappointing you have to hide your identity as well. But as for burning in hell with the rest of you, as you put it, no, with the very rare exceptions of bizarre people like the Arizona pastor that preaches on youtube about "he that pisseth against the wall" (you have to laugh and cry simultaneously if you watch that), the Lee Strobels and Josh McDowells of this world, both of whom I've met, would not condemn me in the least for the views I hold. It is definitely true, however, that they oversimplify because of the audiences they write for and at times are not abreast of the latest scholarship. But, as for trying to keep my fellow believers in proper alignment, be assured that's why a teach at a theological seminary. Believe it or not, I can be quite embarrassed by faulty or overly simplistic Christian apologetic and one of my goals in teaching is to help my students avoid such.

You'd be a lot more credible (and an enjoyable conversation partner), pick monkey, if you'd calm down and say something rational. If atheism makes a person write like you do, I can't imagine anyone ever wanting to join you. :)

Craig Blomberg said...

Oh, and before you blast me for another typo, yes, I realize the one "a" in my last post should have been an "I."

Cheers, as you put it, whatever that can mean while you remain so mad.

GearHedEd said...

Craig said,

"...If the [story of the flood was] pure mythology or fiction, there need have been no such concern."

Absolutely wrong.

If it was general knowledge then (unknown today) that the mountains of Ararat were the tallest known, then the Jewish fable of Noah's ark and the flood (incidentally plagiarized from earlier Sumerian and Akkadian myths) HAD TO HAVE the Ark settling on top of the TALLEST mountain, not one that was convenient to Jewish religious thinking such as Sinai or Zion.

Consider the alternative: If Noah's Ark had settled on Mt. Zion, but everyone KNEW that Mt. Ararat was the tallest mountain in Asia Minor by nearly 1,000 METERS (about 3/4 of a mile; one could hardly NOT notice this), and taller than Zion by OVER TWO MILES in elevation, then this leaves room for some humans to escape the flood by climbing to higher ground.

In other words, ALL of the world's mountains HAD to be covered, and to PROVE that this was so, the Ark HAD to settle on top of the TALEST mountain. Politics is immaterial to the claim.

GearHedEd said...

...and if the Hebrews had been aware of Chomolangma, they would have placed the Ark THERE.

Craig Blomberg said...

I'm still amazed at the emotions behind and the overstatements within the contributions to this post. John, jump in here again, because you're usually better than that! :)

Again, I apologize vicariously for whoever or whatever has made so many so angry. Ed (do you also have to hide your full identity?), I understood the argument the first time. All you've done is restate it with lots of extra words and lots of them in capital letters. Have you ever read the Sumerian and Babylonian flood stories (or any others)? Can you point out where they show they knew which mountain was tallest or even cared? Can you show me from any ancient literature that we know that it was widespread knowledge in Israel at any relevant period in history that Ararat was the highest mountain? I am unaware of any such evidence. Without it, you just make unfounded affirmations that you try to bolster by saying them louder and longer.

The mythology of ancient nations regularly puts key locations within their own boundaries to show the superiority of those nations over their rivals, even if to our minds, we might have done it differently, and whether or not it makes any geographical or historical sense. Greek mythology makes Mt. Olympus the tallest mountain in the world on a regular basis. Scholars agree that Judith was written to show how God would honor obedience in Israel, especially to the dietary laws, despite being greatly outnumbered by the Syrian armies during the Seleucid reign. But all the names are fictitious and correspond to none of the widely known Syrian generals and rulers, and the geography is mostly wrong, too. That apparently did not prevent the work from inspiring many Jews for the theological points it made. But it does separate it off from its biblical counterparts. The same is true of Tobit. There are a handful of exceptions, but for the most part, ancient Jewish fiction made no attempt to use real people or real places; they had not yet invented what we would call "historical novels." The more that accounts use names of real people and places, the more likely it is that the authors were at least thinking that they were writing historiography rather than mythology, at least trying to write the former rather than the latter. That doesn't mean they succeeded, but it means we need more nuanced and sophisticated arguments to evaluate their success and sometimes just need to say "non liquet".

Having said all that, the literary genre of Genesis 1-11 clearly does set it off from the rest of Genesis so that I have no problem with the view that it was intended to be more theological than historical in nature. If everybody understood and used the word "myth" the way Mircea Eliade did throughout his illustrious career, I'd be open even to using that label. We just don't know enough from that far back in time at all the relevant places to be sure.

In short, it'd be reassuring to be as confident as you are or as the far right is, and that is a characteristic of fundamentalism of both the right and the left that they have to be so sure, but responsible historical scholarship often has to settle for uncertainties and probabilities instead.

Craig Blomberg said...

Again, I apologize vicariously for whoever or whatever has made so many so angry. Ed (do you also have to hide your full identity?), I understood the argument the first time. All you've done is restate it with lots of extra words and lots of them in capital letters. Have you ever read the Sumerian and Babylonian flood stories (or any others)? Can you point out where they show they knew which mountain was tallest or even cared? Can you show me from any ancient literature that we know that it was widespread knowledge in Israel at any relevant period in history that Ararat was the highest mountain? I am unaware of any such evidence. Without it, you just make unfounded affirmations that you try to bolster by saying them louder and longer.

The mythology of ancient nations regularly puts key locations within their own boundaries to show the superiority of those nations over their rivals, even if to our minds, we might have done it differently, and whether or not it makes any geographical or historical sense. Greek mythology makes Mt. Olympus the tallest mountain in the world on a regular basis. Scholars agree that Judith was written to show how God would honor obedience in Israel, especially to the dietary laws, despite being greatly outnumbered by the Syrian armies during the Seleucid reign. But all the names are fictitious and correspond to none of the widely known Syrian generals and rulers, and the geography is mostly wrong, too. That apparently did not prevent the work from inspiring many Jews for the theological points it made. But it does separate it off from its biblical counterparts. The same is true of Tobit. There are a handful of exceptions, but for the most part, ancient Jewish fiction made no attempt to use real people or real places; they had not yet invented what we would call "historical novels." The more that accounts use names of real people and places, the more likely it is that the authors were at least thinking that they were writing historiography rather than mythology, at least trying to write the former rather than the latter. That doesn't mean they succeeded, but it means we need more nuanced and sophisticated arguments to evaluate their success and sometimes just need to say "non liquet".

Having said all that, the literary genre of Genesis 1-11 clearly does set it off from the rest of Genesis so that I have no problem with the view that it was intended to be more theological than historical in nature. If everybody understood and used the word "myth" the way Mircea Eliade did throughout his illustrious career, I'd be open even to using that label. We just don't know enough from that far back in time at all the relevant places to be sure.

In short, it'd be reassuring to be as confident as you are or as the far right is, and that is a characteristic of fundamentalism of both the right and the left that they have to be so sure, but responsible historical scholarship often has to settle for uncertainties and probabilities instead.

Craig Blomberg said...

Ed, have you read the Sumerian and Babylonian flood stories (or any others)? Can you point out where they show they knew which mountain was tallest or even cared? Can you show me from any ancient literature that we know that it was widespread knowledge in Israel at any relevant period in history that Ararat was the highest mountain? I am unaware of any such evidence. Without it, you just make unfounded affirmations that you try to bolster by saying them louder and longer.

The mythology of ancient nations regularly puts key locations within their own boundaries to show the superiority of those nations over their rivals, even if to our minds, we might have done it differently, and whether or not it makes any geographical or historical sense. Greek mythology makes Mt. Olympus the tallest mountain in the world on a regular basis. Scholars agree that Judith was written to show how God would honor obedience in Israel, especially to the dietary laws, despite being greatly outnumbered by the Syrian armies during the Seleucid reign. But all the names are fictitious and correspond to none of the widely known Syrian generals and rulers, and the geography is mostly wrong, too. That apparently did not prevent the work from inspiring many Jews for the theological points it made. But it does separate it off from its biblical counterparts.

Having said all that, the literary genre of Genesis 1-11 clearly does set it off from the rest of Genesis so that I have no problem with the view that it was intended to be more theological than historical in nature. If everybody understood and used the word "myth" the way Mircea Eliade did throughout his illustrious career, I'd be open even to using that label. We just don't know enough from that far back in time at all the relevant places to be sure.

In short, it'd be reassuring to be as confident as you are or as the far right is, and that is a characteristic of fundamentalism of both the right and the left that they have to be so sure, but responsible historical scholarship often has to settle for uncertainties and probabilities instead.

Anonymous said...

There's a lot of what you say Craig, that is true to the best of my knowledge. I just can't see how you continue to believe knowing what you know. Tell us when the Jews were able to create historical novels then, okay? Once you admit that they didn't at the beginning, which is obvious, then when did they started? Plenty of scholars don't think Joseph of Arimethea and Judas Iscariot existed either.

And do tell me if you consider yourself a critical scholar, per Levenson below?

Jon D. Levenson, Professor at Harvard Divinity School in the Department of Near Eastern Studies and Civilizations, offered a great definition of what a critical scholar is when he wrote they “are prepared to interpret the text against their own preferences and traditions, in the interest of intellectual honesty.” See page 3 of his book The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son.

In that same book he argues that "only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH and thus ipso facto idolatrous" (p. 5). Why shouldn't all Biblical scholars be critical scholars?

Craig Blomberg said...

Thanks, John. Excellent and important questions. I haven't researched medieval Judaism much but I suspect the answer lies there. You certainly don't find novels, of any kind, in the earlier but still post-Christian rabbinic literature. Of course, a generation ago, Eric Auerbach, the famous Marxist, argued that you don't find historical novels in any of the pre-Christian cultures of the ANE, not just Judaism. But I doubt I'm qualified to evaluate that.

Plenty of scholars find plenty of parts of the Gospels inauthentic, but Judas and Joseph usually aren't among them. Dominic Crossan is largely alone, among publications with which I'm familiar, in rejecting Joseph of Arimathea, and Judas satisfies the criterion of dissimilarity so well that few critical scholars reject him.

Yes, I would call myself a critical scholar by Levenson's definitions. I have changed my mind on lots of interpretive questions against my preferences. Most scholars, however, don't change their minds uniformly at all periods of their lives, often making lots of changes earlier in their careers and then holding what Don Carson calls "functional non-negotiables" requiring a "Kuhnian revolution" to overturn them. None of us would be able to function well as scholars without them or we'd be Cartesians requestioning our own existence on a daily basis!

The biggest changes I made were after being raised in a uniformly liberal Lutheran environment and going to a very liberal Lutheran liberal arts college that regularly mocked evangelical thought. They protested so hard that I became suspicious there was much more than just "reason" at play and I discovered I was right. I discovered evangelical scholarship that didn't remotely match their caricatures and I was increasingly convinced by it.

In Scotland I became a Baptist against all my better preferences because I saw that's where the Scripture was driving me. But I didn't want to upset my family (which I did) or break ties with large number of places that might have jobs for me (which I also did)!

Later I utterly rejected scientific creationism in favor of theistic evolution despite my preferences not to have to fight that battle repeatedly in my newly adopted evangelical circles.

I have increasingly voted for and supported Democratic political agendas due to my reading of Scripture (!) despite my preferences for not rocking the boat in some circles in which I regularly find myself.

I have affirmed more (theological, not historical) truth in Mormonism than many of my evangelical peers can accept and in liberation theology (a la Ron Sider), which even made the Wikipedia article somebody wrote about me! So I think I am potentially one of the worst examples among evangelical NT scholars to be accused of just holding to my preferences. :)

Unknown said...

hey craig,

cheers. lol. i'm quite the rational conversational partner. i'll admit i was in rare form last night[which can happen when one spends their saturday evening at the watering hole], but i was hardly incoherent.

you want to go tit-for-tat on anything i wrote? i'm fully prepared to back any and all of it up. Have at me.

btw, you talk of of being credible? You'd be much more credible if you could pass the OTF and still hold your beliefs. I was unable to, it didn't take a doctorate to convolute my way out of that fact.

I'm still waiting for the most basic level of credibility, rather than delusional meanderings, from yourself.

and hardly do i hide behind my moniker. pink_monkey is how i avoid being harassed by people like DM. sorry craig, us atheists are a target alot of times, we're the rational minority. although my blogger profile is incomplete at best, i did have a blog by a very similar name that is temporarily taken down[philly is charging licensing fees for blogging, even for non-profits, and i have a legal dispute w/ the city]. so you see craig, i wasn't too hard to identify before...

dropping a few names doesn't get you off the hook. plenty of fundies have you barbecuing in hell despite the fact[which i appreciate] that it bothers you. you seem to be out of touch w/ your own religion[as the names you dropped are too]. it really is a tough task to keep up w/ the beliefs of tens of thousands of denominations though. divinely inspired? lol. You can't even begin to make a case for that. If you can, DO IT. all you've done is assert claims that are only sensical to "believers".

And give up Noah's ark while you're at it. To defend that tale as it is written is absurd. Maybe you subscribe to some loose interpretation, but then why bother. It won't read anything like the popular tale.

btw, the names nate, pleasure to meet you.

and lee strobel? are you serious? he shouldn't even have been dignified w/ a book length response.

GearHedEd said...

Well, I guess there's a few things I should clear up.

First, my handle: I have been GearHedEd@aol.com for about 13 years, and when I first started blogging about 2 years ago, I just created a blogger account through my email. No skullduggery there; I just didn't know that somewhere down the road, people might accuse me of "hiding" because I'm not using my full, real name. In other woerds, there was no intent to be "anonymous", it just fell out that way.


Second, I HAVE read the epic of Gilgamesh (years ago, so don't press me for picayune details!), the Enuma Elish, and some other mythologies that I don't remember the names of off the top of my skull right now. Now, while there was precedent for each mythology claiming to be the object of creation and therefore the center of the world, all of those previous mythologies were pantheistic, and localized. The hebrews made different claims; most notably that their god YHWH was the god of ALL (not yelling, just emphasis; I don't know the html tag sequences for "bold" and "italic" yet), and had created the entire universe. Is it not reasonable to say then that placing Noah's Ark in another country is not tied to justifying YHWH to the Hebrews alone, but to the rest of humanity, and in fact points up the notion that YHWH is the god of everything (not just a local Hebrew god)?

You said,

"...The mythology of ancient nations regularly puts key locations within their own boundaries to show the superiority of those nations over their rivals,..."

THIS is the point I was making: that the Hebrews were claiming superiority of their GOD over their rivals' gods, not of their nation over their rivals' nations, and to point this out, YHWH's ignoring of earthly boundaries is yet another way to demonstrate that He wasn't just another tribal war god.

Third, (fourth, if you count my lack of html skills), I'm not a "scholar" with a rack of letters after my name. I don't publish in journals, I don't attend conferences, I'm not even in the religion business. But I can READ, and I do, voraciously. I started with the bible, because I made a promise that I would read it. I went to bible study classes in the 1980s; I've attended (but not been a member of) Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Jewish church services; I've earned college credits in comparative religions (a few, not enough to consider myself an expert, but I did get a 4.0 average in the classes I took).

I believe the Bible has as much "truth" (read: inspiration from God) in it as the Quenta Silmarillion does.

And I think, like John does, that your priors are showing.

O'Brien said...

"As for Clement,calling is a 'first century text' in the context of the present discussion is disingenuous. It is generally dated to 95 or 96 CE, (Ehrman, p.168) i.e. a time when Paul had been dead for three decades. To claim that this somehow 'proves' that the church structure is similar to Paul's strains credulity."

There is nothing disingenuous about it. You erroneously dated it to the second century (despite bleating about "scholarly consensus," you are apparently unaware what the consensus on Clement is) and I corrected you. Also, there is nothing sacred about 95-96 AD. Clement could have been written earlier.

"The general concensus on the Didache is that it is an early second century text i.e. between 100-120 CE (see Ehrman, "Lost Scriptures" p.212 & Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocryphas Vol II, p.289)."

That's not my understanding. Not only have I read Ehrman but, more importantly, I've read beyond him. I'd like to see how you reconcile a second century date for the Didache with Ignatius' ecclesiology, especially since the Didache is typically assigned a Syrian provenance.

Unknown said...

Craig,

I think you're trying to keep up to too many threads, these guys are good and that can be difficult.Anyway.

I find you to be somewhat more cordial than myself but to me it's your attempt to remain academic. I'm not that type of guy craig, I prefer to ignore societal conventions when possible[and this is not a peer reviewed journal], I don't need them. Now let me enlighten you.

John is a great asset, and he was big enough of a man to realize his folly despite devoting much of his life to it's study. I realized it before i made the time investment, but in my case, the people here at DC helped me to forgo that misfortune[as well as my education in biology].

Seriously, i don't want to argue the nuances of the bible w/ a craig bloomberg[that's you], i don't have the patience, nor do i allow duane gish style argumentation. I'm not interested in your second, third, fourth or even fifth point[including knowledge of scripture] when you can't even establish your primary point; that deities exist... John deals w/ your other points, and I haven't seen you deal with him. He has the biblical knowledge to speak to these people[that's you again] in their own language. I'm content that they[that's you too] have no adequate response to Richard Dawkins, although they[you again] label him as a philosophical ignoramus. I'm actually content that i've never been given an adequate response to myself. I ask theists[you also] to explain[w/ the same evidential quality that is accepted in scholarly circles] why the "supernatural" should be posited in the first place...what evidence there is for this fantasy? All i've ever encountered is special pleading[i expect more from you as well]. I'd convert if there was ever a solid point made. Who doesn't want eternal[well at least extended] life? And who wants to burn for eternity? They've[you to this point] never even progressed to the next question of where the evidence is for a deity that intervenes w/in what we define as nature. Of course, this would now fall well w/in the realm of science.

Appeals to CS Lewis and his "Miracles" is what you get here[i tried it a few times just for fun].

sorry, but I really do find your work meaningless. enlighten me to the contrary[most of us here have been waiting for that]. And while you're at it, convince John. He at least manned up.

anyway, cheers.

next time you wonder about hostility please read some of the comments on this site by christians. The amount of ignorance and sheer stupidity we put up w/ is mind numbing. You'll find very many comments from the people here expressing just that. I also just noticed that John expressed the very same thing above, recently.

Craig Blomberg said...

Thanks, Nate, for your several clarifications. You're right--too many threads, so I'll try to be more focused. I appreciate your candor about your "watering hole." It honestly didn't occur to me that your original invective was due more to being "tipsy" than irate. I need to keep that in mind in the future when I receive hostile attacks in the blogworld! I'm sure the "rational minority" appreciates your careful use of reason that evening (just teasing!).

Seriously, I too am deeply distressed at the tone of so many supposedly Christian forays into the blogworld. It appears that anonymity brings out the worst in many people. That's another theme I return to frequently in my teaching and other speaking opportunities.

Of course, when you say you and others are waiting for convincing cases on controversial topics, I have no idea what you've read and found unconvincing and what you just haven't read. At the popular level, I think Alister McGrath well matches Dawkins in his book The Dawkins Delusion. At a more scholarly level, but still in concise fashion, I think Stewart Goets and Charles Taliaferro's Naturalism is a solid primer. And, of course, there are plenty of more extensive works. Despite all the advances and appropriate critiques in subsequent centuries since, there's still no adequate substitute for reading large chunks of the relevant portions of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theological firsthand.

As for the reliability of Scripture, which you say you're not interested in, but which most everyone else in this thread is, I'll never die on the hills of Ararat! The sine qua non is the historical Jesus and the Gospels, on which the second edition of my Historical Reliability of the Gospels is my best attempt to date. If someone has read that and found it unconvincing, it'd be worthwhile to discuss specifics. If not, that's where we'd need to start. Interestingly, when I first "met" John on-line, despite his commendable and widespread reading, he confessed he hadn't read my book. I've now read his in detail, but don't know if he's reciprocated.

Craig Blomberg said...

Thanks, Nate, for your several clarifications. You're right--too many threads, so I'll try to be more focused. I appreciate your candor about your "watering hole." It honestly didn't occur to me that your original invective was due more to being "tipsy" than irate. I need to keep that in mind in the future when I receive hostile attacks in the blogworld! I'm sure the "rational minority" appreciates your careful use of reason that evening (just teasing!).

Seriously, I too am deeply distressed at the tone of so many supposedly Christian forays into the blogworld. It appears that anonymity brings out the worst in many people. That's another theme I return to frequently in my teaching and other speaking opportunities.

Of course, when you say you and others are waiting for convincing cases on controversial topics, I have no idea what you've read and found unconvincing and what you just haven't read. At the popular level, I think Alister McGrath well matches Dawkins in his book The Dawkins Delusion. At a more scholarly level, but still in concise fashion, I think Stewart Goets and Charles Taliaferro's Naturalism is a solid primer. And, of course, there are plenty of more extensive works. Despite all the advances and appropriate critiques in subsequent centuries since, there's still no adequate substitute for reading large chunks of the relevant portions of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica firsthand.

I'm far from a biologist, though one of my daughters is a biochemist, but I have yet to see anything that refutes Michael Behe's Black Box, or even tries very hard to do so. But perhaps you have and can point me to it; as I say, that's not my field, and I'd love to see how a work of comparable length and detail would reply.

As for the reliability of Scripture, which you say you're not interested in, but which most everyone else in this thread is, I'll never die on the hills of Ararat! The sine qua non is the historical Jesus and the Gospels, on which the second edition of my Historical Reliability of the Gospels is my best attempt to date. If someone has read that and found it unconvincing, it'd be worthwhile to discuss specifics. If not, then I'd hope they would so we could have that conversation. Interestingly, when I first "met" John on-line, despite his commendably widespread reading, he confessed he hadn't read my book. I've now read his in detail, but don't know if he's reciprocated.

Craig Blomberg said...

Sorry about that appearing twice. The first time the message said "URL too big to deliver" and gave me the option to resend it, which I did. That happened to earlier posts of mine on this thread, too, even short ones, but this is the first time something has appeared twice (to my knowledge).

Oh, yes, darn computer that tries to correct me when I'm not wrong. Goets should be Goetz and Theological should be Theologica!

Craig Blomberg said...

TheologicA!!!! :)

O'Brien said...

"I'm content that they[that's you too] have no adequate response to Richard Dawkins, although they[you again] label him as a philosophical ignoramus."

Yes, you are content in your ignorance.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Craig if you want civil intelligent discourse, this might not be the best place.

General criticisms of Behe can be found here. It is decent. This page is succinct.

I prefer an empirical refutation here. Behe tried to address it, but not convincingly. You should be able to follow up on that debate between Behe and Thornton.

Anonymous said...

Craig, take what the anonymous person hiding behind BDK says with a few grains of salt. This site is what it is so judge for yourself. But I assure you if you want an intelligent discussion do not bother with BDK. He speaks before thinking. He doesn't know what he's talking about for the most part. I even banned him for his utter ignorance and he ignored it. Like a bad penny he still comments here.

Craig Blomberg said...

Thanks, Blue Devil Knight. I appreciate the links and will check them out. Yes, I'm afraid you're right about the civil discourse piece. I know John would like it, but it seems not enough others who write in do. But perhaps someday. . .

Craig Blomberg said...

Oh, dear. So should I not trust his links, John? I just wrote my last bit before discovering yours.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Thornton gives Behe a nice beatdown here. I discussed some details about the exchange here. Behe is frankly hapless, this argument is dead as far as I'm concerned (it was still born anyway, as most of these arguments based on personal incredulity are).

If I were a creationist I'd focus exclusively on the origins of life. At least there, there are sufficient gaps to stay afloat for the time being.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Craig: judge for yourself whether I am ignorant, and whether you find a consistently high level of intellectual discussion at this site in the comments section.

Anonymous said...

Craig: "Oh, dear. So should I not trust his links, John?"

No, that's not the problem.

As you can tell we have a history. She claims to have a degree in a real field of study, science. I only majored in the Philosophy of Religion.

It's so frustrating to people like you and I who use our real names to deal with people like BDK who can say anything she wants without worries.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Really John, not gonna let me respond and point out how to get my "real" identity that you value so much? Pot shot at me, then delete my response. Impressive.

Anonymous said...

BDK, I have a spam filter here and for some reason it picked up on your comment while I was away on the phone. I could set it free but I have already banned you so I won't. I find you as troubling as the most troubling Christian here for about the same reasons.

But you're right about the comments not having a civil discussion, that is, so long as people like you fart in it.

Now go away. You are not and never will be welcome here simply because you waste my time dealing with unfounded and ignorant accusation after accusation whenever you make a comment.

Anonymous said...

BDK, this is funny to me. I know you don't like me at all but I swear I am not putting your comments into the spam box. But that's where they're ending up. People who are following this thread can see what you said anyway via email, so relax, idiot.

My question to you is why you brought this up when we already discussed it six days ago.

Do you have that short of a memory?

Now keep your promise and stay away.

Believe when I tell you I am making a difference. You are, and will forever be, a nobody.

Nobody's take pot shots at somebody's.

pink monkey said...

hey craig,

thanks, i'll have to check out some of the writings you recommended.

As far as Behe goes, many biologists don't feel that his arguments deserve full book length responses[his arguments amount to arguments from ignorance or personal incredulity-->i can't see how this could have arisen naturally so it must have been an intelligent designer]. There is however a wealth of literature out there about ID, and essentially every anti-ID piece is a refutation of Behe. Besides, as far as i'm aware, every single illustration of ID that Behe used in Darwin's Black
Box has been thoroughly debunked.

Ken Miller has a long standing history of engaging Behe's arguments. See "Only a Theory" for his partial response to Behe, an overview of the ID movement, and the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District trial where Miller annihilated ID on the stand, and Behe was reduced to refuting himself[also on the stand].

Another good book on the subject is "Intelligent Design Creationism and It's Critics" edited by Robert Pennock. In this work you get pro ID essays from Behe, as well as Christian Philosophers and Theologians. Each one is followed w/ a rebuttal from the naturalist side. I found this book entertaining, and while I ultimately side w/ the naturalists, the theist side made some pretty powerful points. I'd recommend this one for you. Behe gets debunked[which i'd like for you to see], but it's not a full book about biology and Behe; there are essays in here I'm sure you'll find more relevant to your field/interests as well.

nate

Craig Blomberg said...

Thanks, Nate. I appreciate it very much. The Pennock work does sound very interesting and probably most accessible to a non-scientist like me.

Anonymous said...

Craig, you said you have read my material extensively, if I remember correctly.

Does this mean you've read both of my published books?

Care to tell me what you think of one or the other or both of them?

I am as baffled as you are about how to proceed, if you should want to do so.

Craig Blomberg said...

I purchased and read all of Why I Became an Atheist. Do you ever come to Colorado for anything? It'd be fun to meet and just to get to know one another a little. I've dreamed of lots of possibilities--a joint blog (but I really don't have the time), bringing you into a class (that'd be easy if you were ever in town), having you write something for my every other week seminary blog (the right kind and right tone of a post might work but I'd want to get some clearance), or maybe some day a full-fledged joint book-writing project (by the end of 2012 I will hopefully have my plate a lot clearer; I'm assiduously saying no to all offers of book-length writing projects until then), but right now those are all just daydreams. Do you have any ideas?

Anonymous said...

Craig those suggestions look fine with me. As for what I do with Christian scholars who don't disrespect me I work with them, yes. I'm participating with Dr. Dan Lambert at next years Religion and Spirituality in Society Conference on a seminar called Teaching Atheism in the Classroom: A Case Study from a Christian University. Dan uses my book and schedules a conference call with me at the end of each semester with his classes.

As I wrote here that's a worthy education.

With a different Christian scholar whom you know, we're putting together a book proposal right now.

GearHedEd said...

John,

It seems that Dr. Blomberg has chosen to ignore me, as I have no credentials worthy of his notice.

I like this blog, and I try to stick to the topic (usually), and I think the things I say are if not "scholarly", then at least rational.

Or should I categorize myself with BDK and stay on the porch when the 'big dogs' are roaming the streets?

Anonymous said...

Ed, why do you ask me? I don't know. When I go to other blogs I usually want to discuss something with the blog owner. It may not be anything about you at all.

GearHedEd said...

Well, OK...

He raised some objections to my posts, and I answered, but he never responded back to me (but he DID respond in depth to Nate, who was embroiled in the same questions...)

Not that I'm NEEDING his attention, but I didn't get any feedback.

Oh well. Moving on.

Unknown said...

hey ed,

i don't think it's anything personal. He seemed to be thankful that I admitted I drank too much the other night when I was a bit of a bully. If you take a look at my writing style after that, there is alot of give and take built in.

There is in Craig's as well.

He didn't deserve the treatment I gave him, and I cryptically[well somewhat at least] acknowledged that w/ my tone.

He did directly address you about arafat at least. He seems to be a generally nice guy, I don't think that he was blowing you off. I appreciate theists like craig even though I blasted him a bit. I don't respect their published "work", but I do respect the "work" that they've put in to be where they are in their chosen discipline. John put in the same type of work, and that's precisely why I respect him now[especially] because he denounces it.

If it means anything to you
Ed, I respect you. Therefore, indirectly, Craig does too. I'm just busting your balls now, but I am sincere when I say I respect you, and I appreciate your comments. Much as John expressed in his leading post[at least leading at this time], I love you commenters. You, Shane, Chuck, Tyro, Russ,Papil..,Harry, Hendy, Gandy, all of you, you've all helped me more than you could know.
Ty all.

Personally, I look forward to John and Craig collaborating on a piece. I'll be first in line to purchase the result.

And ed, I'm sorry if i failed in this post. I feel like i may have, but i'm putting it out there anyway.

Unknown said...

i just noticed that my buddy o'brien took a shot at me in the middle of that. Sorry friend, but it takes more than a sarcastic statement to refute Dawkins. At least attempt to refer me to Alister McGrath as Craig did.

Btw, he was awarded a D. Phil from Oxford[aka Dr. Phil], and you want me to respect him?

yes o'brien, of course i'm joking. I do however find him unconvincing, especially in matters of biology, which is far from his expertise. He, along w/ you, are unaware that Richard Dawkin's life work forms a cumulative case against Theism. TGD is not all encompassing. Sorry, you fail.