Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sidewinder · 03-14-2002, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


No he isn't defending inerrancy.

As I said, he actually agrues that inerrancy was not a doctrine of the church until recently. He actually argues that those who argue that it was are "misrepresenting the evidence."

Are you sure you read the book?

I've admitted that I don't remember if he stated the purpose of writing his book. However, my opinion stands that his arguments throughout the book are defending the inerrancy doctrine. Even if he claims that some of the writings in the gospels shouldn't be interpreted literally, he is still trying to answer critics and defend the Evangelical doctrine of inerrancy, if only of the gospels. His purpose is to prove that the gospels are the revelation of his god.

Layman · 03-14-2002, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sidewinder:


I've admitted that I don't remember if he stated the purpose of writing his book. However, my opinion stands that his arguments throughout the book are defending the inerrancy doctrine. Even if he claims that some of the writings in the gospels shouldn't be interpreted literally, he is still trying to answer critics and defend the Evangelical doctrine of inerrancy, if only of the gospels. His purpose is to prove that the gospels are the revelation of his god.

Which of course tells us nothing about what his arguments actually are.

Blomberg appears to disavow inerrancy, so I'm rather sure he's not defending a doctrine of inerrancy I would recognize. However, as the title suggests, he is arguing for "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels."

So you've done nothing more than tell us what his own title tells us.

A worthy effort my friend.

Layman · 03-14-2002, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm:


Raymond Brown is a conservative Catholic priest. As a result, there is little, if anything in his Intro that disagrees with the tenets that faith. On the other hand, it is an excellent survey of mainstream thinking in the field. I'd recommend it as a useful resource.

Michael

I haven't read his Intro., but I thought that some of Brown's conclusions did depart from some Catholic tenants, such as Mary's perpetual virginity.

Toto · 03-14-2002, 02:24 PM

I haven't read the book, but there are some reviews on Amazon that might be helpful:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877849927/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">The Historical Reliability of the Gospels</a>

from a generally favorable review by George R. Dekle, Sr:

Quote:

...
He then undertakes a study of the historicity of the Gospel stories, and turns in the most compelling scholarly argument I have ever read for the historical reliability of the resurrection narratives. So far, so good. Five stars up to this point.

Unfortunately, it is in his assessment of Gospel historicity that he goes astray. Blomberg argues repeatedly for the "camcorder exactness" of the Gospel stories. If the Gospels say it, that's exactly the way it happened, and any discrepancies from one story to the next are merely "apparent" discrepancies, which can be ironed out with enough imagination. As one who has made a career of evaluating and presenting testimony, I find that discrepancies in testimony don't equate to falsehood, and that it is neither necessary nor wise to pretend that there are no discrepancies in testimony.

. . .

Blomberg tries to defend too much. Example: Blomberg acknowledges that even the majority of conservative scholars find it unlikely that John wrote the Gospel of John. After making the concession, he then argues vehemently for John's authorship of the Gospel. The Gospel never claims it was written by John, and authorship by John is not necessary to a finding of historical accuracy. Why, then, defend John's authorship so staunchly? Blomberg's zeal in defending questionable conclusions casts doubt on the sound conclusions he presents.

From other reviews, this book appears to appeal to people who know that inerrancy is not a safe position, but still want to believe that the Bible is somehow true. This is not exactly the doctrine of inerrancy, which holds that the mere fact it is in scripture is enough, but it is still not a dispassionate review of the evidence. Is there a good label for this position? Pseudo-inerrancy?

Toto · 03-14-2002, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


I haven't read his Intro., but I thought that some of Brown's conclusions did depart from some Catholic tenants, such as Mary's perpetual virginity.

I read the Intro and a little bit more. Brown separates out what can be established historically, versus what needs to be accepted on faith. He doesn't think that everything Catholics believe can be proved historically. It's very tricky, getting around those Vatican reviewers.

03-14-2002, 02:50 PM

It sounds as though Blomberg denies the "plenary" inspiration of scripture, which means that everything in is true - including geographic and scientific stuff. It sounds as though he holds the doctrine (forget what it is called) that scripture is inspired pertaining to matters of salvation and faith only.

Layman · 03-14-2002, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheDiddleyMan:
It sounds as though Blomberg denies the "plenary" inspiration of scripture, which means that everything in is true - including geographic and scientific stuff. It sounds as though he holds the doctrine (forget what it is called) that scripture is inspired pertaining to matters of salvation and faith only.

If I had to guess, I'd say Blomberg believed in the doctrine of infallibility.

I doubt my opinion will mean much to you, but I think it's a very good book. He eschews the simplistic Josh McDowell approaches to "discord." In other words, he offers a more sophisticated explanation as to what it means for the gospels to be historically reliable. It's a little old though. Published in 1987. He's come out with a brand new book, "The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel" that accesses more recent discoveries and analysis.

Layman · 03-14-2002, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:


I read the Intro and a little bit more. Brown separates out what can be established historically, versus what needs to be accepted on faith. He doesn't think that everything Catholics believe can be proved historically. It's very tricky, getting around those Vatican reviewers.

They seem to have a wide license. J.P. Meier flat out states that James was Jesus' literal full-brother. And that he had other siblings as well.

Layman · 03-14-2002, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
I haven't read the book, but there are some reviews on Amazon that might be helpful:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877849927/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">The Historical Reliability of the Gospels</a>

from a generally favorable review by George R. Dekle, Sr:

From other reviews, this book appears to appeal to people who know that inerrancy is not a safe position, but still want to believe that the Bible is somehow true. This is not exactly the doctrine of inerrancy, which holds that the mere fact it is in scripture is enough, but it is still not a dispassionate review of the evidence. Is there a good label for this position? Pseudo-inerrancy?

The more favorable part of Dekle's review:

Quote:

Blomberg distills the findings of the six volumes of "Gospel Perspectives," a work of conservative scholars. Most of those on the left wing of Biblical scholarship would argue that "conservative Bible scholar" is an oxymoron, but Blomberg proves them wrong. He gives a masterful study of the Synoptic Problem, arriving at the two (or four) document hypothesis as the most satsifactory solution. Next he engages in a cogent critique of modern methods of Biblical criticism, pointing out the worth of such methods as well as their preconceptions and limitations.

He then undertakes a study of the historicity of the Gospel stories, and turns in the most compelling scholarly argument I have ever read for the historical reliability of the resurrection narratives. So far, so good. Five stars up to this point.

Mr. Dekle is a fellow trial attorney I see.

Kosh · 03-14-2002, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:

Mr. Dekle is a fellow trial attorney I see.

You mean, he doesn't let the facts get in
the way of defending his position?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2002, 02:50 PM	#16
TheDiddleyMan Guest Posts: n/a	It sounds as though Blomberg denies the "plenary" inspiration of scripture, which means that everything in is true - including geographic and scientific stuff. It sounds as though he holds the doctrine (forget what it is called) that scripture is inspired pertaining to matters of salvation and faith only.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.