Peter Kirby

That's the point. Lewis is not an authority. Every individual statement must be tried in the court of reason. However, Lewis raises the bar by setting himself up as an authority: "Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced the whatever the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing." And that's a load of nonsense, as Lewis wouldn't notice a piece of fiction in the Gospels if it walked up to him and said, "Hi, I'm a forgery."

You're right. Lewis also presumes that Jesus claimed to be the two-legged God of the Universe.

It's not just a mistake; it's a central plank of a crucial argument that is based on either an inexcusable dishonesty or insufferable ignorance. The pericope adultera is rather famous even among laymen for being a late addition to the text of John, and to fail to note that is, well, proof that something is very wrong. C. S. Lewis is no better than Acharya S., despite their adoring fans.

best,
Peter Kirby

CX

In fairness to Lewis it bears noting that the bulk of his apologetic work belies a complete unfamiliarity with text criticism. Further the mss evidence available at the time and the state of TC as a discipline was not what it is today. Even so, while I would not go so far as to call Lewis a crackpot, he certainly is not the outstanding apologist the faithful make him out to be. Ultimately the majority of his work serves as faith building for the already faithful, but entirely unconvincing to the nontheist.

Doctor X

C.S. Lewis is a waste of a few good trees.

Peter, please "save" the details of your post--which maybe some Textual Criticism 101--what "first class texts"are--as something to link to when someone argues for "inerrancy."

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

Even Bart Ehrman talks about the neglect of the firstborn in NT studies; 9 out of 10 scholars will take what is printed in the body of the latest UBS and think no more. Many have noted that text criticism has stagnated since the early twentieth century, with less than 1% of the main text of critical editions today differing from the edition of Westcott & Hort.

And most of the damning manuscript evidence against the pericope adultera was available to scholars throughout the twentieth century. See the online Tischendorf (1869), which contains a discussion in Latin of the evidence. The interpolation was also common knowledge about an endearing story among theologians of the time. This is not a recent discovery.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Bernard, how much Lewis are you familiar with? This is hardly his only NT error, every time he opens his mouth on the topic he sticks his foot in it. What would you say about someone who claimed to be an authority but knew nothing about the topic?

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

Vork:

He posts a lot on an internet forum? [Case in point.--Ed.] Hey!

--J.D.

winstonjen

If he's not on FSTDT, he should be?

Steven Carr

The story of the woman is so often quoted by people who don't know the late origin of it. Lewis is hardly alone. (but even the JW's know enough to leave it out of their Bible)

With respect, the reference above hardly ties it down to the story we find today in John. What are the 'many sins'?

Both stories are about a woman though, if you think that is enough to identify them.

Peter Kirby

Of course, the case that I am making would be only the stronger if this second century source (Papias) didn't know the story of the woman accused of adultery. Unfortunately we don't have any copies of the Gospel of the Hebrews to check. I have provided the reference, and the reader can determine whether it is likely that a different (unspecified) story is in view.

best,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr

Lewis :- 'Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so'

As we have Infancy Gospels and stories of Jesus going to India, we can be sure that he is a legend.

Lewis's logic is that if Jesus was a legend, we would have people writing stories to fill in the missing years.

But we do have people writing stories to fill in the missing years.

I am certain Lewis would retort that that proves nothing, as they are just stories, not facts about his life.

Lewis's apologetics is cast-iron solid, because circular.

He assumes his Gospels are historical and others not, and uses that to prove that his Gospels are historical and others not.