Rethinking Inerrancy so as to Take Account of All the Errors in the Bible:

Hopeful Theism used to be an agnostic, however these days he seems to have converted to some sort of High-Church Christianity; possibly Roman Catholicism. I cannot understand this conversion. I engaged with him a number of times in his comments section. He said that he remains “critical” of apologetics, and yet here he is allowing Mike Licona to redefine ‘inerrancy’, in an Orwellian fashion, without any pushback.

Inerrancy must be defined in dishonest post-hoc ways because the Bible is littered with errors. It is difficult to imagine a book more erroneous than the Bible. Thus, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) defines only the original manuscripts as inerrant. These original manuscripts certainly don't exist today, and the late great Hector Avalos (1958–2021) would have argued that they never existed. Avalos would employ the analogy of his own College Lectures so as to disprove the idea that a discrete set of “original manuscripts” existed. Which version of a hypothetical lecture by Avalos would have been the “original” one? His first draft? An edited and corrected version? If Avalos should depart from his script whilst giving his lecture and ex-temporise, then would the transcript of an audio recording of this lecture then be the “original” version of this lecture? Similarly with books of the Bible. As regards the composition of the books of the Bible, in all likelihood, there would have been a period of open textuality; a period of correction and redaction; a period of insertions and deletions; in which numerous versions of the “original” Biblical Book existed simultaneously.

Avalos discusses the topic of inerrancy, and the concept of there being “original manuscripts” in his The End of Biblical Studies (2007).

Read more »

Just Released: "A Statistical Critique of the Minimal Facts Apologetics of Gary Habermas and Michael Licona." -- Written by Michael J. Alter and Darren M. Slade

SHERM Journal just released a publication whose full correct title is, "Dataset Analysis of English Texts Written on the Topic of Jesus’ Resurrection: A Statistical Critique of Minimal Facts Apologetics." It was co-authored by Michael J. Alter, and Darren M. Slade. In a nutshell, the article disproves (for the first time using actual data) the common apologetic assertion that 90% of "critical scholars" accept the historicity of certain minimal facts about Jesus. Abstract:

This article collects and examines data relating to the authors of English-language texts written and published during the past 500 years on the subject of Jesus’ resurrection and then compares this data to Gary R. Habermas’ 2005 and 2012 publication on the subject. To date, there has been no such inquiry. This present article identifies 735 texts spanning five centuries (from approximately 1500 to 2020). The data reveals 680 Pro-Resurrection books by 601 authors (204 by ministers, 146 by priests, 249 by people associated with seminaries, 70 by laypersons, and 22 by women). This article also reveals that a remarkably high proportion of the English-language books written about Jesus’ resurrection were by members of the clergy or people linked to seminaries, which means any so-called scholarly consensus on the subject of Jesus’ resurrection is wildly inflated due to a biased sample of authors who have a professional and personal interest in the subject matter. Pro-Resurrection authors outnumber Contra-Resurrection authors by a factor of about twelve-to-one. In contrast, the 55 Contra-Resurrection books, representing 7.48% of the total 735 books, were by 42 authors (28 having no relevant degrees at the time of publication). The 42 contra authors represent only 6.99% of all authors writing on the subject.

The leading defenders of the minimal facts approach are Gary Habermas and Michael Licona. One of the authors of this Sherm Journal Article is Dr. Darren M. Slade. He studied under Habermas at the doctoral level, and took many classes with him. He even debated him. You can find the article's webpage Right here. Below is an excerpt from the article's conclusion.

Read more »

Assessing The Minimal Facts Approach of Habermas, Licona, and Craig

[Written by John W. Loftus] Christian apologists Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have proposed a "minimal facts approach" to the resurrection of Jesus. Along with William Lane Craig in his debates, they want to stress that which most scholars agree on as facts and then seek the best hypothesis that explains all of these agreed upon facts. They do not want “to be saddled with the task of first showing that the Gospels are, in general, historically reliable,” writes Craig.[20] Instead, Craig wants to establish “that the Gospel accounts of the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb can be shown to be historically reliable without first showing that the Gospels are, in general, historically trustworthy.”[21] Habermas and Licona tell us about their own “minimal facts approach” in these words: “This approach considers only those data that are strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones…We present our case using the ‘lowest common denominator’ of agreed-upon facts. This keeps attention on the central issue, instead of sidetracking into matters that are irrelevant.”[22]

Read more »