An apologist provides his response to a blog, which was a response to another blog which reviewed a book by Bart Ehrman ("Forged")
I find it very difficult to detect any substance in the Apologist's comments. As far as I can tell his comments are either:
Filler - no meaning would be lost if these comments were deleted
Source - extracts from the source article (obviously these are necessary)
Misunderstanding - the source text has been misunderstood, resulting in an irrelevant response
Irrelevant - not on topic. No meaning would be lost if these comments were deleted.
#
|
Post
|
Category
|
Notes
|
1
|
A continuing deconstruction of the
blog article appearing here:
|
Filler
|
|
2
|
http://benwallis.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/mike-licona-on-bart-ehrmans-forged.html
|
Source
|
|
3
|
Blog and opposing perspective is
quoted in italics; my response appears in bold type.
|
Filler
|
|
4
|
New Testament studies seem to me to
be hopelessly bothered by ridiculous religious biases on one hand and
reactionary skeptical biases on the other.
|
Source
|
|
5
|
Agreement on my part in principle! We
all have our biases and it is disingenuous in the extreme not to admit them,
nor to admit that others of one's perspective hold such biases as well. I
wouldn't necessarily refer to all who hold views on the matter as
"ridiculously biased" or "reactionary," but at least he
admits bias on both sides.
|
Filler
|
|
6
|
I insist on keeping a keen eye on the
evidence, and weighing the arguments for myself without much concern for the
academic authority (or lack thereof) of the person presenting them. I strongly
encourage others to do the same.
|
Source
|
|
7
|
A wonderful claim and advice!
However, Wallis's own bias is starting to come into focus, given this claim
of his:
|
Filler
|
|
8
|
Licona himself counts among his
historical conclusions that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead by
unknown powers which originate in a disembodied mind. If this was merely a
religious belief on his part that would be bad enough, but he actually
travels around the country to speak publicly and debate opponents in support
of his view that historians ought to conclude based on their scholarly
research that Jesus' corpse was supernaturally reanimated!
|
Source
|
|
9
|
So, Licona holds unorthodox views on
a separate matter not relevant to the subject at hand: deconstructing
Ehrman's claim that much of NT Scripture is "forged." That sounds
like an ad hominem attack and invitation to prejudicial judgement rather than
"keeping a keen eye on the evidence and weighing the arguments without
much concern for academic authority or lack thereof" to me...
|
Misunderstanding
|
Licona's view is not unorthodox, it
is the basis of Christianity orthodoxy. The source is describing the Jesus
resurrection story which is the entire basis of Licona's rationale, and reinforces
Paul's determination of the essence of Christian theology regarding the
resurrection
|
10
|
...he (Liconia) cites Eusebius'
famous list of Christian Scriptures (Ecclesiastical History 6.20.1) as
evidence that the proto-orthodox were quite careful in accepting books as
canonical; in particular, he alleges that the general tendency in the early
Church was to exclude rather than include"...On the contrary, early
Christians offered some notoriously bad arguments in support of canonization,
for example Irenaeus' argument that we can know the four traditional Gospels
are inspired because there are four "principal winds" and four
"zones of the world" (Against Heresies 3.11.8)..."
|
Source
|
|
11
|
Yes, that was a notoriously bad
argument on Irenaeus's part and he was over-reaching based on his own
misunderstandings on the nature of things (which have nothing to do with
Scripture) on that one, obviously. We are all guilty of misunderstanding
certain aspects of reality, of course--but again that doesn't detract from
Irenaeus's soundest point which Wallis fails to mention or respond to:
"In his writing against the Gnostics, who claimed to possess a secret
oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in
different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the bishops
provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture."
|
Irrelevant and Misunderstanding
|
There is nothing here which supports the argument that the early canonical process was reliable. In any case, the description of what Irenaeus says
is not what he actually said. See actual text here… http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103426.htm
|
12
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus#cite_note-45
|
Misunderstanding
|
The Wikipedia text does not reflect Irenaeus'
words (see line above for actual text
|
13
|
Passage quoting Irenaeus in section 2
here:
|
Filler
|
|
14
|
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103426.htm
|
Misunderstanding
|
See above
|
15
|
...and also the initial acceptance by
Serapion of Antioch of the Gospel of Peter as canonical simply because it was
attributed to Peter (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.12).
|
Source
|
|
16
|
Initial acceptance is of course the
key word here. "Initial acceptance" based on the trusted word of a
given congregation of believers did not constitute final endorsement, and
Serapion of Antioch is known for his investigating the matter personally and
reaching a far different conclusion--again a matter Wallis avoids mentioning.
Serapion's statement found here in Section II:
|
Irrelevant
|
The Apologist is endorsing Wallis'
point that Licona was wrong to rely on Irenaeus. Every "endorser" is going to come to a different conclusion, because the authenticity of Scripture at that time was a matter of opinion, based on alignment to a set of beliefs. Serapion is no exception.
|
17
|
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/serapion.html
|
Irrelevant
|
No explanation
|
18
|
More importantly, however, canonical
is not equivalent to authentic; the Church also took as authentic (but not
canonical) a good number of dubious writings, for instance the Apostles'
Creed and the spurious epistles of Ignatius.
|
Source
|
|
19
|
So outside of the Scriptures
themselves, there exist writings (such as certain letters of Ignatius
considered to be spurious--cannily referred to by Wallis as
"epistles" to impute a scripture-like aura on them) that at one
time or another had credibility among certain segments of the Christian
community. That's tantamount to "the "Piltdown Man" hoax once
having a degree of credibility in certain segments of the scientific
community at the time: a matter absolutely irrelevant to the ultimate
certification processes. The fact of the matter is that Counter to Wallis's
claims, it supports Licona's counterclaim that "there is evidence that
the proto-orthodox were quite careful in accepting books as canonical; in
particular, he alleges that the general tendency in the early Church was to
exclude rather than include". So, Wallis inadvertently deconstructs his
own claim in this instance!
|
Misunderstanding
|
Epistle is another word for a letter.
An epistle does not have to be Scripture. Also misses the point that the
"certification processes" for Scripture have been ongoing since the
Bible was authorised in the 4th Century. The Piltdown Man hoax is quite a
good analogy. The difference with Scripture is that the authorised Bible is
sold as the inerrant word of God. So an analogy would be people today who
claim the Piltdown Man is scientific evidence.
|
20
|
Also quite canny on Wallis's part was
to link letters generally accepted as forgeries with "The Apostles'
Creed," conflating the two in the readers' perceptions. The Apostles'
Creed is not Scripture but is supported by it and has its own history,
transitional to the widely-accepted "orthodox" statement of
Christian faith held by the majority of Christians in the basic form of the
Nicene Creed, accepted by most denominations:
|
Misunderstanding
|
Wallis wasn't referring to forgeries,
but to the fact that canonical does not mean authentic. Something that's not
authentic is not necessarily a forgery.
|
21
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed
|
Misunderstanding
|
This link supports Wallis' argument
|
22
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
|
Misunderstanding
|
This link supports Wallis' argument
|
23
|
A continuing deconstruction of the
blog article appearing here:
|
Unnecessary
|
|
24
|
http://benwallis.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/mike-licona-on-bart-ehrmans-forged.html
|
Unnecessary
|
|
25
|
Blog and opposing perspective is
quoted in italics; my response appears in bold type.
|
Unnecessary
|
|
26
|
So after all we see Wallis beginning
to show his bias. After dismissing most of Licona's points out of
hand--asking us in essence to "take his unsupported word" for it
(what other blog invites us to do likewise?), Wallis claims that Licona's "most
serious allegation" challenges this claim of Ehrman's:
|
Filler
|
|
27
|
The New Testament emerged out of
these conflicts, as one of the Christian groups won the arguments and decided
which books would be included in Scripture. Other books representing other
points of view and also attributed to the apostles of Jesus were not only
left out of Scripture; they were destroyed and forgotten. As a result, today,
when we think of early Christianity, we tend to think of it only as it has
come down to us in the writings of the victorious party. Only slowly, in
modern times, have ancient books come to light that support alternative
views, as they have turned up in archaeological digs and by pure serendipity,
for example, in the sands of Egypt. (p183)
|
Source
|
|
28
|
If one reads further, Wallis focuses
attention on Licona's careless use of the word "vote" to describe
how such Scripture was accepted or rejected. True, there is no reason to
assume that Ehrman claimed that a "vote" was taken on scriptural
matters by early defenders of orthodoxy, and at least in one case Ehrman made
clear that he never said that. That's still not to say that Ehrman's clever
rephrasing of events posited above weren't misrepresentations.
|
Irrelevant
|
This response has no relevance to the
source that it refers to.
|
29
|
Recall again the actual argument of
Irenaeus in countering Gnostic and other heretical claims: he and other
members of the orthodox camp had an irrefutable claim to apostolic succession
that was no more than a generation or two removed. In Irenaeus's case, it was
the apostle John who passed on his eyewitness testimony to Polycarp, and
Polycarp to Irenaeus. Recall again also that the original testimony of the
apostles was also subject to clarity and correction by other eyewitnesses to
Jesus in His time. Any error on even the bishops' part would have been
corrected by eyewitness members of the community at large.
|
Irrelevant
|
Irenaeus made no such claim and in any case, no claim at that time can be irrefutable. And He was born 100 years after Jesus
died. There is also a false assumption
here that the gospels are eye witness testimony. The Gospels make no such
claim. There is also no reference to eye witness testimony of any miracles in Ireneaus' writing, except for what he had heard Polycarp say (i.e. more hearsay).
|
30
|
The apostolic succession from John
the Apostle to Polycarp, and hence to Irenaeus:
|
||
31
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp
|
Irrelevant
|
Does not have any connection to the
source that was quoted.
|
32
|
Compare and contrast that with the
claims of those who early on were challenged as being heretical. Again,
ignoring Wallis's "four winds" distraction, and again the fact that
he didn't respond to Irenaeus's soundest argument based on this simple truth:
"In his writing against the Gnostics, who claimed to possess a secret
oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in
different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the bishops
provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture."
|
Misunderstanding
|
The "four winds" is not a distraction
- it epitomises the logic that Irenaeus used. In any case, this is not "Apostolic Testimony" - there is no testimony here from any of the Apostles who met Jesus.
|
33
|
So, make your own rational decisions:
did Wallis correctly respond to Licona's points? Admitting that Licona made
an error in asserting that Ehrman claimed that Scriptural acceptance rested
on a hypothetical vote, is it still not clear that Ehrman is still cleverly
implying some sort of conspiracy to discredit the orthodox viewpoint? Again,
most notably, why do neither Ehrman nor Wallis address Irenaeus's strongest
argument in support of orthodoxy resting on apostolic testimony and rather go
to extreme lengths to direct our attention elsewhere?
|
Irrelevant.
|
There is no mention of a "vote" in Ehrman's book. That's a straw man invented by Licona. The "Apostolic Testimony" argument is false (see above). It's a fact that Irenaeus named the Gospels, but that doesn't make them testimony.
|
34
|
continuing deconstruction of the blog
article appearing here:
|
Unnecessary
|
|
35
|
http://benwallis.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/mike-licona-on-bart-ehrmans-forged.html
|
Unnecessary
|
|
36
|
Blog and opposing perspective is
quoted in italics; my response appears in bold type.
|
Unnecessary
|
|
37
|
This is not the only clear instance
where Licona has misunderstood Ehrman. For example, in one passage Ehrman
wards against the misconception that Christianity was systematically
persecuted in the early days of the Roman Empire, writing that, before the year
249 CE, there were...no declarations that it was illegal, no attempt
throughout the empire to stamp it out"...
|
Source
|
|
38
|
|||
39
|
So basically Wallis is supporting
Ehrman's false claim that Christianity wasn't persecuted at large in the
Roman Empire from Nero's time on until 249CE. While it's true that actual
enforcement of persecution on a local basis was uneven in reality, that's not
to say that the official policy of Rome and the Roman Empire didn't support
persecution. It was a matter of carrying out state edicts, which has always
been uneven in its actual application in any local jurisdiction anywhere. The
same is true, for example, in officially atheist China today. Suppression of
non-state-sponsored Christian churches--mandated by central government
edict--is carried out to a greater or lesser extent based on the whims and
perceived interests of local administrators.
|
Irrelevant
|
Nothing here counters the source. An
assumption that early Christians must have been persecuted because they are
persecuted in modern day China is clearly false.
|
40
|
Again, Christianity was made illegal
in the Roman Empire around the year 30 CE, synonymous with the time of
Jesus's death:
|
Irrelevant
|
Obviously, Christianity had to exist
before it could be made illegal. But in any case it wasn't made illegal.
|
41
|
|||
42
|
when Rome first became aware of
Christianity around A.D. 30, it did nothing to stop it. Thinking this sect
might weaken the always bothersome Jewish religion, Emperor Tiberius asked
the Senate to legalize the Christian faith and declare Christ a Roman god.
But the Senate refused. Instead, it pronounced Christianity to be an 'illegal
superstition,' a crime under Roman law.
|
Misunderstanding
|
This is not correct according to the evidence.
For example, the emperor Hadrian was asked for advice from a provincial
governor about how to deal with Christians. Hadrian stated that merely being
a Christian was not enough for action against them to be taken, they must
also have committed some illegal act. He added that "slanderous
attacks" against Christians were not to be tolerated.
|
43
|
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-4-b-religious-tolerance-and-persecution-in-the-roman-empire
|
Misunderstanding
|
This source is incorrect (see above)
|
44
|
Ehrman and Wallis are also somewhat
disingenuous in stating that Christianity was made "legal" in
269CE. While technically correct that wasn't the end of the story on
Christianity's status nor the end of anti-Christian persecution. The Emperor
Diocletian rescinded Christianity's legal status and initiated one more
terrible persecution in 297CE. The Edict of Milan in 313CE then legalized
Christianity again. However, Julian the Apostate sought to re-establish
Paganism during his short reign and it wasn't until 363CE that Christian
persecution ceased to be official policy for the remainder of the history of
the Empire.
|
Misunderstanding
|
If something is technically correct,
then it's correct. But in any case,
there is no statement that Christianity was made legal in 269CE.
|
45
|
So again, in conclusion: once
Christianity was declared "illegal", it was considered fair game to
be persecuted and suppressed by Roman authorities. Christians were convenient
scapegoats to be blamed and persecuted by local authorities whenever anything
went wrong within their jurisdictions. That status persisted for over three
centuries. The extent to which persecution was carried out by local
authorities at given times and jurisdictions is irrelevant, and claims that
it wasn't official policy to do so are disingenuous. The vast majority of
early Christian leaders were martyred along with prominent followers. A claim
that Christianity wasn't persecuted statewide until 249CE under the emperor
Decius is a popular myth subscribed to by anti-Christian "scholars"
which has no basis in fact. Christianity's official status wasn't permanently
guaranteed in the Roman Empire until after the death of the emperor Julian
the Apostate in 363CE.
|
Filler
|
|
46
|
continuing deconstruction of the blog
article appearing here:
|
Unnecessary
|
|
47
|
http://benwallis.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/mike-licona-on-bart-ehrmans-forged.html
|
Unnecessary
|
|
48
|
Blog and opposing perspective is
quoted in italics; my response appears in bold type.
|
Unnecessary
|
|
49
|
Next we come to the Book of Acts.
Wallis loses all pretense to objectivity in this curious about face! First he
notes Licona quoting Ehrman's own statement regarding Acts:
|
Filler
|
|
50
|
a book that scholars have as a rule
been loath to label a forgery, even though that is what it appears to be
(p199)
|
Source
|
|
51
|
Wallis then goes on to Criticize
Licona's pointing out Ehrman's actual opinion--that Acts "appears to be
a forgery"--with Wallis's following curious statement:
|
Filler
|
|
52
|
Despite this clear indication on the
part of Ehrman that most scholars avoid calling Acts a forgery, Licona claims
that Ehrman speaks of Acts being a forgery as though this is the conclusion
of scholarship." Now, it's not as if Licona simply overlooked on
accident Ehrman's denial of this---he quotes it himself! So, why on earth
should he think Ehrman to have suggested otherwise?"
|
Source
|
|
53
|
I don't see a claim on Ehrman's part
that scholarship didn't supported his opinion in stating that "scholars
have as a rule been loath to label a forgery"--do you? Why criticize
Licona on irrelevant grounds for a matter demonstrated to be the case?
Ehrman, does indeed claim Acts "appears to be a forgery."
Furthermore, if Ehrman's opinion on the authenticity of Acts doesn't rest on
"scholarship", his or another's, what value does it have in the
first place?
|
Misunderstanding
|
The Book of Acts does seem to be a
forgery given Ehrman's definition of the word "forgery". The issue
is about Ehrman's definition of the word "forgery".
|
54
|
I'll paraphrase again for the sake of
relative brevity. The issue in question is whether the description of Paul's
travels--and whom he met with where and when--in Acts is contradicted by
Paul's own statements on his travels in Galatians. Ehrman claims it does.
Wallis states--of Licona:
|
Misunderstanding
|
This is a different issue.
|
55
|
According to Licona, this reading of
Acts is uncharitable. Instead, he believes we should interpret Acts as a
dynamic narrative which tends to "fast-forward" through certain
events without comment, though he doesn't give us a reason to prefer his more
stilted interpretation.
|
Source
|
|
56
|
Actually Ehrman provides a reason.
Recall my posit of 3 days ago in which Licona deconstructed Ehrman's claims that
one basis for disputing Epistles in Scripture was that they were too
long" compared to other known letters at the time and the cost of
producing and disseminating them would have been prohibitively expensive for
someone of Paul's means. What Licona pointed out was that Paul probably
didn't have to provide much (if any) of his own funds in doing so because
Christians volunteered their services. This afforded Paul the opportunity to
teach, analyze and explain in detail those issues which really mattered: theological
insights and practical pastoral matters.
|
Irrelevant
|
This is not a relevant response to
the source quoted above. In any case, Ehrman cannot be given the credit for
identification of the fake epistles. They were identified as such hundreds of
years ago. The issue of how
transcripts were funded is a completely different issue.
|
57
|
*But Ehrman still had somewhat of a
point. There were expenses and practical matters to consider, especially as
the early church sought to consolidate orthodox accounts from multiple
authors in an early canon. That's a far more complex task than editing and
disseminating a single letter to a single church.
|
Irrelevant
|
This is not a relevant response to
the Source quoted above.
|
58
|
Scribes would have to be utilized by
then and whether or not their services were "free," their time was
not. If not directly paid by the church they would still have had to have
made a living and funded their basic needs somehow. Making multiple copies of
Scripture by hand is a laborious, time-consuming process--not even counting
the cost of materials involved. Outside of theological/pastoral matters there
was good reason to keep extraneous material to a minimum, such as accounts of
travels, especially as the church grew and more and more communities would
have wanted a copy--not to mention the necessity of countering as
expeditiously as possible false "scripture" that had begun to
appear at this time.
|
Irrelevant
|
This is not a relevant response to
the Source quoted above. It is however one explanation of how errors,
additions and omissions ended up in the Bible.
|
59
|
Why Acts then? It was written for an
entirely different purpose--to chronicle, as its title suggests, the
"acts" of the Apostles. It is not a theological work per se. Given
its stated purpose, why wouldn't one give more weight to Acts as a more
complete and accurate account of what was in other letters only referenced in
passing, generally of some specific incident immediately linked to another of
Paul's theological or pastoral points, if mentioned at all?
|
Irrelevant
|
This is not a relevant response to
the Source quoted above. It just reinforces the point that Acts is even
further removed from being a primary source than the (genuine) epistles.
|
60
|
A final consideration would be the
strong evidence that Acts itself may have been written as a legal brief: a
document submitted in defense of Paul for his trial in Rome. As such, the
writer of Acts would have the direct testimony of others who accompanied Paul
on his journeys and would be able to question and verify their accounts, as
well as seek clarity from them on any other matter of concern to the author.
The only principle witness inaccessible to interview of course would have
been Paul himself, imprisoned in Rome. As such, there may have been minor
errors, either on the part of the author of Acts or on the part of Paul's own
recollections of those events, but again such would be expected were that to
be the case. Historians claim Acts to have the earliest provenance of NT
Scripture outside of Paul's letters and it appears to be preserved pretty
much in its original form.
|
Irrelevant
|
This is not a relevant response to
the Source quoted above. IT is also pure speculation
|
61
|
Blog and opposing perspective is
quoted in italics; my response appears in bold type.
|
Unnecessary
|
|
62
|
Finally we come to a point where
Wallis agrees with Licona: the probable use of secretaries in Paul's
compositions:
|
Filler
|
|
63
|
Despite Licona's many mistakes, not
all of his criticisms are completely off-target...
|
Source
|
|
64
|
How magnanimous!
|
Filler
|
|
65
|
...He points out that Ehrman himself
admits that many of the reasons for thinking the epistles were forged take
for granted that they were not extensively modified or otherwise influenced
by the thoughts and expressions of secretaries. Yet Ehrman seems unable to
provide good reason for making this assumption, except perhaps that there is
no precedent for it in Greco-Roman antiquity. However, Licona correctly
points out that such an argument is by no means decisive, especially
considering that Paul is known to have used secretaries for his undisputed
letters. So, this seems to me a valid defense against Ehrman's stylistic
charges.
|
Source
|
|
66
|
This pro forma semi-concession on a
single issue made only for the purpose of the appearance of lack of bias on
Wallis's part is quickly brushed aside:
|
Filler
|
|
67
|
Fortunately for Ehrman, the most
powerful arguments against the authenticity of most New Testament books are
not stylistic, but rather based on external data, as well as their
substantive (i.e. style-independent) internal content.
|
Source
|
|
68
|
A sweeping claim indeed that would
necessitate another several volumes of writing to deconstruct. A two hour
basic exchange of views on the matter between Ehrman and another Biblical
scholar has been posted here before--here's the link:
|
Filler
|
|
69
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XGhtX-fNFQ
|
Irrelevant
|
This is a debate on the subject of
the primary sources for the New Testament, and both sides of the argument
agree that those primary sources are lost.
|
70
|
But again note that there is no claim
that some texts never underwent revisions. The only issue is for what
purposes. That's what the whole pseudepigrapha debate is about--which brings
us back to Irenaeus's strongest point in favor of the theological and
pastoral integrity of Scripture as it was known to exist by him in his time:
|
Misunderstanding
|
The first two sentences are true, but Irenaeus
doesn’t make that point…
|
71
|
Irenaeus maintained that the bishops
in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the
bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture.
|
Irrelevant
|
Irenaeus made no such claim (see line
11) and even if he did, this is just an opinion.
|
72
|
Finally, Wallis ends with the false
conclusion that:
|
Filler
|
|
73
|
In sum, then, it seems plain to me
that Licona has allowed his religious biases to get the best of him.
|
Source
|
|
74
|
And, as expected, his further false
conclusion that:
|
Filler
|
|
75
|
..he has little here of value to
offer.
|
Source
|
|
76
|
And he would have us believe that he
and Ehrman haven't allowed their "religious bias" to likewise get
the best of them, as heretofore demonstrated?
|
Irrelevant
|
Ehrman is an agnostic who used to be
an evangelical Christian. What is the nature of his bias?
|
77
|
Note that in the comments section
another deconstruction of Ehrman's claims is mentioned, along with a link:
|
Irrelevant
|
The comments section contains
opinions both for and against.
|
78
|
http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/04/10/forged-chapters-seven-and-eight-collateral-damage/
|
Irrelevant
|
Context not explained
|
79
|
Perhaps that would make an
interesting subject to examine and consider in a future on topic
discussion.
|
Filler
|
|
80
|
Apologies for the "brevity"
of my deconstruction where I relied on paraphrasing and summarizing many
points that were originally presented in more detail. You can read the
original source yourself of course. I'm under pressure from JimC who doesn't
respond to my actual points but nonetheless claims that simplistic/clever
posits have the most merit, and he's counting every one of my words to
excoriate me for not subscribing to such!
|
Filler
|
|
