Layman

A good trial attorney addresses all of the facts.

Sauron

Well, now there's a ringing endorsement.

Phillip Johnson, author of "Darwin on Trial" and other pseudo-scientific nonsense, is a full blown professor of law at the U of Cal, Berkeley.

Alexis Comnenus

Hi Guys,

Seems to me that Blomberb is a good example of evangelical scholarship, Brown is in the mainstream and no doubt there are dozens on the liberal wing. To reach an informed conclusion one needs to have read some of each. Then there the fringes outside the pale on both sides - more conservative than Blomberb and ultra sceptical on the other side. Maybe we should read these too.

Oh dear.

Regards

Alex

sidewinder

Does not claiming that the gospels are historically reliable equate to claiming that they the historical parts of the gospels are true? Now, why do you think Blomberg would be trying to argue that the gospels are historically reliable? What's his motive for undertaking such a task? My guess is to prove that the gospels are part of the revelation of the God of the universe. You can call this effort anything you want (inerrancy, infallibility)but it still boils down to claiming that the historical parts of the gospels are true, which means without error. I'm not going into a debate about whether the historical parts of the gospels are true, some are and others aren't. I'm sure Christians have their own methods of making everything true in one way or another.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by sidewinder: Does not claiming that the gospels are historically reliable equate to claiming that they the historical parts of the gospels are true? Now, why do you think Blomberg would be trying to argue that the gospels are historically reliable? What's his motive for undertaking such a task? My guess is to prove that the gospels are part of the revelation of the God of the universe. You can call this effort anything you want (inerrancy, infallibility)but it still boils down to claiming that the historical parts of the gospels are true, which means without error. I'm not going into a debate about whether the historical parts of the gospels are true, some are and others aren't. I'm sure Christians have their own methods of making everything true in one way or another.

Sidewinder,

I think what’s frustrating for you is that you have a preconceived notion as to what Blomberg must believe based on the fact that he’s an evangelical. Evangelicals have a wide range of beliefs regarding inerrancy/infallibility. Some very conservative evangelicals believe in complete inerrancy; everything in the Bible is literally and historically true. Others would talk about “limited inerrancy”, which is the belief that the Bible is only inerrant in discussing matters essential to faith or salvation. This view allows for errors of other sorts: historical, scientific, etc. Many evangelicals (especially academics) fall into this category. They believe there are some events described in the Bible (gospels in this case) that did not happen exactly as the gospel writers described them, or they may not have happened at all. Having read Blomberg’s book twice, I would venture to guess that he is closer to the “limited inerrancy” view. I don’t know this for certain, but that’s the impression I received from reading the book.

You’re trying to make this a simple “either/or” scenario, but it’s not any such thing. If an historical record has a few errors, it doesn’t mean it’s unreliable or completely worthless. Just as we wouldn’t totally ignore a book on World War II because we found a few mistakes in it, Blomberg would probably argue that the gospels should not be thrown out as evidence for Jesus. This doesn’t make them unreliable. Reliability simply refers to an overall level of trustworthiness, it does NOT imply inerrancy. Most historians would say that Tacitus is historically reliable in most of what he records, but nobody argues that this implies the historians believe in the “inerrancy” of Tacitus. It’s the same issue with the gospels…

Toto

Polycarp - could you list one error that Blomberg finds in the Gospels? That should help us decide whether he is an inerrantist.

And what about the charge that he thinks the Gospels are "camcorder" accurate?

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto: Polycarp - could you list one error that Blomberg finds in the Gospels? That should help us decide whether he is an inerrantist. And what about the charge that he thinks the Gospels are "camcorder" accurate?

I don’t recall Blomberg using any sort of “camcorder” analogy, so I can’t speak to that charge. In terms of errors attributed to the gospel writers by Blomberg, the best summary I found of his perspective on the issue is found on page 11 where he makes these two statments:

and a little lower on the same page he says this:

Funny… But that sounds a lot like the statement I made to Sidewinder. This doesn’t sound like a person arguing for inerrancy. Along similar lines, he says this on page 235-236:

In several places, Blomberg refers to one gospel writer (Matthew or Luke) altering their source material, either by adding to, changing, or omitting something that was in Mark or Q. This makes the "camcorder" charge against him seem unwarranted to me. Blomberg probably is an inerrantist, but my understanding of his views, as described in the book under discussion, would place him in the “limited inerrancy” camp that I described earlier.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

Layman

Why would that help us determine? It's quite possible to not be sure that there are errors and still not be an inerrantist. An inerrantist is one who believes unequivocally that the Bible is absolutely free from error. There can be those who aren't sure, or who have a very different understanding of what it means to be free from error.

As Polycarp mentions, Blomberg admits that the gospel writers redacted each others materials and admits that the chronology in many places is not literally historically accurate. Many fundamentalists, such as Josh McDowell, believe that this admission would be to admit error. But Blomberg doesn't classify it in the same way.

And I too never saw Blomberg make any "camcorder" comment. He seems actually to give wide lattitude about the "accuracy" of the chronologies in the Gospels.

SirMonkey

From p. 333 n. 6 of Blomberg's "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament," chapter six of William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith" (Wheaton: Crossways, 1994 Edition):

"...the authors of this book are firm believers in biblical innerancy. I came to this conviction largely THROUGH my study of Scripture, not in spite of it. But some parts are easier to defend than others...."

If Blomberg isn't an innerantist now, he at least was when he wrote this chapter of "Reasonable Faith."

Thanx!-- Sir Monkey

Layman

Fair enough, although the chronology is probably reversed. He wrote the book in 86 I believe, whereas Reasonable Faith was written in 94.