Not really. The point about bias isn’t necessarily a free pass to reject the consensus just because you don’t like it. It’s just one of a number of factors to be taken into account, and there may be other factors that counter it. With YECism these include, for example, practical and commercial applications for conventional old-earth geology (e.g. oil exploration); the extent, precision and detail of the consensus; the sheer badness of most YEC arguments; and general, practical hands-on experience of how science works that makes their badness all the more painfully obvious.
2 Likes
This is a bias. One which I can appreciate, but also one that is open to doubt because there are other things that are not open to doubt… like the existence of married bachelors.
1 Like
Well said, in my humble opinion. This is yet another common-sense observation that i find unacknowledged by any critical scholar (at least any i have read) when addressing the topic. and as i mentioned above, this is explicitly noted in the New Testament… it is explicitly observed that Titus’s very task was to start organizing the church in Crete by beginning the process of appointing elders in those local churches.
And hence I’m baffled by the constant claim in the critical literature that the pastorals reflect some kind of structured hierarchy or fully established ecclesiology that reflects a second-century date of composition, when it is explicitly noted that this process of establishing elders in the Pastorals was in its nascent or incipient form (at least in Crete), and implicitly the case in 1 Timothy… wherein, in both cases, he is giving guidance to fellow colleagues about how to execute this incipient process.
2 Likes
One which can also be seen in embryonic form in Acts 6:3 with “pick out from among you seven men of good repute.”
2 Likes
I think I know their answer to that one. It’s “apologetics” from the “conservative echo chamber.” And other magic shibboleths like that.
1 Like
This question doesn’t interest me. I have no issues in saying that scholars sometimes use imprecise language or looser arguments when writing popular works. This happens all the time. In addition, sometimes competent critical scholars do put too much emphasis on weaker arguments that can’t bare the weight they would like them to. My sole interest is always in finding the best possible version of any argument and assessing it. I seek truth, not to confirm what I already know or fight an “us vs them” battle versus Ehrman. He is a competent critical scholar but he is just one amongst many and he does use imprecise language and overstate things at times. He said something on his blog not too long ago to the effect of “Scholars now know Paul only wrote 7 of the letters.” The language immediately struck me as overconfident and factually inaccurate. This doesn’t make him incompetent, stupid or a bad scholar. It means I have to vet more carefully what he writes in his more popular publications. None the less, if I wanted to seriously dialogue with the question of pseudonymous authorship in the NT, I would read his scholarly work, not his popular one.
You are again misrepresenting Ehrman. He is responding to the apologetical fallacy that unashamedly, without any evidence, equates the ambiguous elders and deacons in Philippians with the church structure evidence in 2d century Christian writings and the Pastorals. There, a hierarchy of leadership seems to be already assumed. Churches look much more charismatic in the rest of the genuine Pauline corpus.
No, the only fact that remains is you ignored Ehrman’s argument:
“The fact that these Philippian overseers and deacons are never addressed in the letter(s) is itself far more telling: Paul does not tell them to correct the false teaching in the congregation, or to make sure Euodia and Syntyche fall in line, or to deal with any of the problems of the church. The differences from the Pastorals are apt.”
Excerpt From: Ehrman, Bart D. “Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics.” Apple Books. ”
Similarly he points out the same lack of instruction in works like Corinthians. The churches, per the makroiy of critical scholars look more charismatic in the accepted Pauline works when compared to the rejected ones like the Pastorals.
Again, you approach from an uncharitable perspective. You act as if a trained professional never read the Pauline corpus or doesn’t have access to a search tool. Ehrman writes:
“In the meantime, Paul has left Titus behind on the island of Crete in order to appoint presbyters in all the cities there (1:5). These presbyters are evidently meant to serve as bishops of the churches (1:7). Titus is also to bring under control false teachers who are troubling the congregations (1:13) and to work for the social unity and appropriate behavior of the individuals, of different sorts and walks of life, who make up the churches (2:1–10). Here too Titus is envisaged as the ultimate leader of the church on Crete, so long as he is resident among them (2:15).”
Excerpt From: Ehrman, Bart D. “Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics.” Apple Books.
He also writes:
“Titus is instructed to “appoint presbyteroi in every city” (1:5). Obviously, since they are to be appointed, the presbyteroi are not simply older men, but (older?) men who have a leadership role in the churches. Since the author goes on to describe the qualifications of the episkopos two verses later, without indicating that he is talking about someone else now, a reasonable assumption is that the appointed elders in fact are appointed to be overseers. The qualifications of 1:7–9 are similar to those found in 1 Timothy, although there is a greater emphasis here on the need for the bishop to silence false teachers (1:9–11). There is no reference to the in this briefer letter.”
He knows what the letter says. Patronization and condescension are not arguments. Try to understand the nuance of his presentation. He is not making simple truth claims but offering long, carefully reasoned arguments.
Or you can read Ehrman with an open mind. He addresses this:
“The direct polemic of both letters involves false teachers and “Paul’s” insistence that his appointed delegates bring them under control. This is the first and most “urgent message to issue from the apostle’s pen in 1 Timothy, immediately after the letter opening: “charge certain persons not to teach anything heterodox” And it is also the last note sounded at the end of the letter before the final farewell, “avoid the worthless empty talk and the contradictions of falsely-named gnosis” The topic of false teaching dominates both the opening and final chapters. If that is how an author begins and ends a letter, we can be reasonably sure that it is his principle concern. So also with Titus. Here, too, the letter begins with an attack on false teachers. Titus is to “correct what is defective,” (1:5) and appoint leaders who “hold firm to the true word that is taught” who can deliver “sound teaching” and refute ”“anyone who contradicts it (1:9). The false teachers must “be silenced” (1:11). The letter, again, ends on a similar note. Titus is to avoid foolish controversies genealogies, and dissentions, and arguments over the law, “for they are not of profit and futile” (3:9–11). Moreover, any “heretical person” is to be admonished once or twice, and then shunned for good (3:10), since anyone like that is “perverted, sinful, and self-condemned” (3:11).”
Excerpt From: Ehrman, Bart D. “Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics.” Apple Books.
Try second century criticism. The pastorals have much less secure external attestation than other Christian works as is common knowledge.
From my perspective, what I sometimes see from Christians on this forum (and I know it is not fair to lump everyone like this–but it is my honest observation) is this: Trust the CDC, Dr. Fauci, climate scientists, geologists, evolutionary biologists and so on. In all fairness, many here will back up their thoughts with careful reasoning and arguments on these subjects.
But the “trust” the authorities mantra does reign. But not when it comes to Biblical critics who spend their lives studying these issues. Don’t read their actual scholarly works, give them any benefit of the doubt or give them a fair shake. Instead, mock, dismiss and caricature them. Just dismiss their decades of careful study, all the scholarly journal arguments, books, conferences and dissertations as “argument from authority” because we find their conclusions theologically troubling (aka they don’t agree with what we would like to believe). Got it.
When I study as a lay person I always turn off the theological filters. After I carefully assess the evidence I turn the Church hat on and then try to make sense of it. In my experience, keeping the church hat on the whole time precludes us from possessing even the tiniest amount of objectivity.
The bottom line is the forgery makes the work out to be very deceptive from our perspective. I get it. I feel that sting. Sometimes I would like to dump some from the canon for that reason (Luther wanted to dump James so I am in good company right?) but I know I can’t as its there and something I need to wrestle with, pray about and end up just exercising faith and trust in how God chose to do things, or what He allowed to happen. I also know these works have a lot of offer us despite the authorship asterisk.
Vinnie
2 Likes
And most critical scholars put Luke at the end of the first century and they don’t read it like literalists would read Genesis 1. So your proof-text hunting is of little consequence to them since they treat the work like any other historical document instead of the “word of God that must be true in all cases.” While Acts has much in it with historical ties and it does contain history, it also presents a stylized and smoothed out version of church history. I mean, the whole Jerusalem centric focus at the beginning could stem from some history (Im sure followers of Jesus worked in Jerusalem early) but it has every appearance of being artificial as Galilee is prominent in appearance stories as well. The whole Jerusalem to Rome thing is as much Lucan artistry as history remembered.
This is correct. Those bashing the wealth of critical research and dismissing biblical scholarship are the equivalent of YECs in a science discussion. Now, while Biblical criticism doesn’t afford near the certitude as real science, this still applies. Biblical critics are constantly scorned, caricatured, maligned, bashed and misrepresented over and over and over and over and over and over again by evangelicals (especially on the internet). They rarely ever approach a discussion with any charity. The issue is always discussed while dug in a trench, ready for word war. Conservatives are literally guided by a priori beliefs about scripture yet incessantly and ironically bash scholars for their apparent “bias.” I honestly find it nauseating. I mean, they go into the discussion knowing the answers ahead of time (God wrote the Bible and no way could there be a forgery in it) and oddly enough, evaluate the same evidence competent experts do an NEVER or very rarely reach any negative judgment. It is clear the blinders are on. Serious research doesn’t always produce such perfect results. I mean, does it ever?
I am repeating his actual scholarly arguments. Long ago I learned the best way to arrive at truth and to be a fair and honest researcher is to always critique the best form of an argument there is. Even if the person is putting forth a bad version of it, you should still think about and respond to the strongest form of it possible–even if you have to come up with it yourself. This is steel manning and argument. It might be true that Ehrman’s popular work doesn’t always phrase things the best way. But that doesn’t mean refuting his popular arguments is refuting pseudonymous composition. You have to dialogue with the best arguments and the strongest formulation of them possible. If you are an honest and objective researcher, you will approach arguments charitably and try to cast them in their strongest possible light before attempting a dissection of them. Maybe that is the difference between us. I don’t care about poor formulations of arguments. I don’t care about the mistakes or imprecise wording of scholars. I don’t want or need to defend anything Ehrman writes. As far as critical scholars go, he is solid. Not perfect. What I am interested in is fairly assessing the evidence from the proper direction. Apologetical “what ifs” based on answers we already know is not the proper direction for serious Biblical research.
You can’t bring the answers with you. Start neutrally. Be charitable. Try to understand the actual arguments. Realize the starting position is the list of facts I gave above. It is not a far historical leap from them to to finding it more like than not one or a few NT works were “forged.” I mean, this might even be a statistical likelihood. The historical jump is small and quite obvious to critical scholars based on a whole plethora of reasons, many of which are not definitive, but all of which point in a similar direction. This is, however, a grotesquely huge theological leap because it raises serious and valid questions about the canon. I personally don’t want it to be true. I feel the sting of it as much as anyone. Based on everything I have seen, no one arguing against the consensus has approached this question from a fair and balanced angle in here. It is the horror of “forgeries” in the canon that drives the evangelical position. And again, I find this sad because denying the elephant in the room is not explaining why the elephant is in the room. Imagine if all the time spend arguing with YECs could be used to promote the gospel or on further research into the Bible. It is the same with the pastorals. If only we could shift our focus to the aftermath because we can be fairly confident Paul did not write them.
And at the end of the day, if you are really interested in this issue. Buy the book or check it out from a library.
Vinnie
So not even historically accurate in that trivial detail…
Flinging mud on a comment I made to someone else and disregarding what I wrote previously to you in earnest… You seem like a conflicted individual. Not wanting to have this discussion, while feeling compelled and bitter about it.
We can’t have the discussion if you are going to engage in such a methodology and circularly proof-hunt Biblical texts without vetting them or considering alternative understandings. That is been one of my primary points all along. I don’t want to engage in a rigged discussion. Not to mention those seven were for helping widows and do no remotely correspond to the organized structure of the pastorals. Apples and oranges. Just bad, literalist, proof-text hunting. A further example of bringing the answers to the discussion.
They correspond to deacons.
Please don’t take a comment (more like a snippet) addressed to another individual and gang up on it. I have written you several times previously and have acknowledged that what you see is not unreasonable. And I have also tried to redirect the conversation in a different direction. If you don’t want to have that conversation, I can respect that.
Ehrman is an ex-fundamentalist who does not seem to have thoroughly moved past bashing what he once held. It is necessary to examine biases of mainstream critical scholarship as well as of conservative biblical scholarship; both reflect lifetimes of study. Of course, the fact that someone has a particular bias does not prove that they are wrong. It is necessary to examine the argument in each case. In particular, giving particular scrutiny to the merits of arguments that support one’s own opinion is prudent.
Ehrman’s argument is assuming the later (end of the first century or so) concept of a more developed and centralized office of bishop in the letter. But in fact the letter contrasts significantly with early second century sources, giving a much simpler picture of the organization. The letter to Titus does not even mention the requirement of having been a believer for a while, which would fit with this being pioneering ministry. Now, it would not be impossible for a later letter to not mention the full details current at that time, but the reality is that reading the pastoral epistles does not show a late development of church organization. Ehrman knows what the letter says, but he also knows what he, and critical scholarship more generally, want to be true about it. Like the “proofs” popular with young-earth advocates that some feature could not exist beyond 6000 years ago, the “proofs” of date that claim that particular concepts could not have existed before a certain point in human history are incorrect. Paul had certainly seen enough disorder to recognize the value of some sort of leadership, and both the earliest followers of Jesus and those with particular skills in leadership would have naturally had some levels of leadership from the beginning.
How quickly would any particular idea show up? Ideas, even more so than biological evolution, do not follow any fixed pattern. Likewise, claims that particular levels of monotheism or other theological concepts could not have existed until after the exile have no more basis in reality than the Marxist stages of social progress or the supposed strict recapitulation of phylogeny by ontogeny. Of course, the fact that someone could have had an idea four thousand years ago does not prove that it did happen. But the evidence must be considered without imposing either critical or conservative premises.
7 Likes
Yes, Vinnie, I get it that you’re repeating his scholarly arguments. You’ve made that point over and over again. But as I pointed out, the fact that an argument is “scholarly” rather than “popular” doesn’t necessarily mean that it is stronger. It means first and foremost that it is addressed to a different audience and that it makes different assumptions about the terminology that the reader will understand and the level of background knowledge that they will possess. If the “scholarly” and “popular” arguments are based on the same evidence, are interpreted according to the same constraints, make the same assumptions about it, and reach the same conclusions, then the two arguments are one and the same, and it is fallacious to describe one as being stronger than the other just because it is “scholarly.” On the other hand, if they are not the same, then it may well be the case that the scholar’s own “popular” description of his or her scholarly work is inaccurate.
I understand your point here. Sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice precision in order to make a popular argument easier to understand. But it is not acceptable to sacrifice accuracy. It is one thing to use ambiguous or poorly defined terminology, or to skimp on details, in order to aid comprehension. It is a completely different matter to use terminology that is incorrect or misleading. Note too that overstating one’s case also falls into this category.
And scholars do need to be held to higher standards here. Their scholarly expertise puts them in a position of trust, and they can and do use that position of trust to influence people. Especially in their popular works, because it is through their popular works that they wield the greatest influence. If the claims that they make in their popular works are misleading or inaccurate, then they are in breach of that trust.
This is because the claim of “forgeries” in the canon is a serious accusation that goes way beyond simply a denial of inerrancy. It is not like describing parts of it as being myth, or satire, or historic fiction. It is not like attempting to account for the historical context in which it was written. It is not like challenging traditional attributions of authorship that are not asserted by the text itself. Myth, satire, historic fiction, cultural factors and all the rest of it may offend inerrantists and fundamentalists but at least they are written in good faith. Forgeries, on the other hand, are elements that are written in bad faith, with the intent to deceive and misinform.
Most modern criminal justice systems (in liberal democracies at any rate) operate on a principle that someone accused of wrongdoing should be considered innocent until proven guilty. They also set the threshold for conviction as being proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. What we are asking here is to uncritically view the authors and compilers of the Biblical canon as being guilty until proven innocent, with the evidence against them being no stronger than the much weaker standard of “on the balance of probabilities,” if even that.
Well if that is what he is responding to then he is responding to a straw man, because the “apologetical” argument does not “unashamedly, without any evidence, equate the ambiguous elders and deacons in Philippians with the church structure evidence in 2d century Christian writings and the Pastorals.” The “apologetical” argument also considers the possibility that the Pastorals are describing a level of church structure or organisation that is somewhere in between the “ambiguous elders and deacons in Philippians” and the church structure evidence in second century Christian writings, and/or that Paul was actually laying the groundwork for the formation of the structures of church leadership that developed into the second century. Has he considered that possibility?
In fact, as has been repeatedly pointed out on this thread, that is in fact the most likely explanation because while the Pastorals contain more detail on church structure, the detail that they do contain is still very rudimentary and of a nature that would almost certainly develop very early on. If correcting false teaching and telling Euodia and Syntyche to fall in line and dealing with the any of the problems of the church were not things that could have been the responsibility of first century church leadership, then what on earth was?
And has he considered the possibility that charismatic churches, in which everyone has a gift and something to contribute on the one hand, and some form of church leadership or structure on the other, are not mutually exclusive?
Also, what does “makroiy” mean?
3 Likes
Well said, appreciated and I resonate. The idea that experts can’t get things wrong, or should not be subjected to scrutiny or (dare I say) ‘critical’ thinking is very problematic to me. Makes me think about the scholarly and scientific ‘experts’ who denied powered flight as a practical reality…
I can’t find the quote, but I recall I believe R.C. Sproul pointing out that, while he may not have the full breadth or depth of knowledge of scholars in other fields, he can still recognize bad reasoning when he sees it.
And Lewis’s article on “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism” is so instructive - he evicerates many of the “assured results of modern scholarship” with very obvious common-sense observations easily recognized by any other observer that these great biblical critics were utterly blind to… hence the alternate title of the article: “Fern-Seed and Elephants”. He details numerous instances where scholars completely miss the glaringly obvious actuality right in front of them, prefering instead to make ludicrous claims so as to maintain their erudite sounding narratives (e.g., Bultmann’s claim that the personality of Jesus had no importance in the kerygma of the early church, the claim that John’s gospel is an allegory most directly comparable to “Pilgrim’s Progress”. And he concludes that section thusly:
These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can’t see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight.
Ehrman is just my favorite example to engage with, but I recognized the same pattern in my undergraduate studies - I would be presented with some claim that was fully embraced by all “real” scholars… it sounded suspect to me, I’d go and research it that night, fact-check it, find obvious counter-examples or contrary evidence, bring it back to class, and my professors would either stare at me, deer-in-the headlights & ignore the question and move on, hand wave the claim, or (most common), try the ad hominem that I wasn’t embracing the party line because of some theological commitment that I had (never noticing that they obviously had their own theological commitments).
When I read Ehrman and others of his sort, I resonate with Lewis’s thoughts about Bultmann in the aforementioned article:
Through what strange process has this learned German gone in order to make himself blind to what all men except him see?
But the absolute worst example of this blindness I have ever seen I can’t credit to Ehrman, that honor would go to Elaine Pagels, Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University, who wrote and published a book on the Biblical book of Revelation…
And made the most audaciously ludicrous, absurd, and downright stupid claim I think I have ever heard from a so-called biblical scholar:
https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/31/four-big-myths-about-the-book-of-revelation/
The author of Revelation was a follower of Jesus, but he wasn’t what some people would call a Christian today, Pagels says. “There’s no indication that he read Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount or that he read the gospels or Paul’s letters,” she says. “….He doesn’t even say Jesus died for your sins.”
Talk about being so wedded to a narrative that you can’t observe what is right in the text in front of you… Not only can one find throughout Revelation references to the lamb being slain, by his blood ransoming people, the saints washing their robes, making them white in the blood of the lamb…
But one need not look past even the first page of the book of Revelation to find this very poignant description in chapter 1 verse 5:
“To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood.”
But Dr. Pagels can with a straight face claim that the author of Revelation “Doesn’t even say that Jesus died for our sins.” To borrow again from Lewis…
Once a [wo]man has said that, why need one attend to anything else [s]he says about any book in the world?
And to paraphrase Lewis yet more, “This woman asks me to believe she can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is her their obvious inability to read the lines themselves. She claims to see fern-seed and can’t see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight.”
And this from the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University who published a researched book on the book of Revelation.
I trust one can see why I maintain a certain skepticism about the abilities of these scholars… One last apt quote from Lewis from his same work:
“While I respect the learning of the great Biblical critics, I am not yet persuaded that their judgment is equally to be respected.”
When someone like Ehrman is so similarly wedded to his narrative and either so unwilling or unable to be critical with the critical narrative, such that he can make similar errors, such as the grandiose (yet obviously erroneous) claim that (undisputed) Paul always refers to salvation in the future, never bothering to do a simple concordance check and see if that is actually true…
Then yes, I too can respect the learning of this great Biblical critic… but I am not yet persuaded that his judgment is equally to be respected.
4 Likes
Also, very well said. (and emphasis mine - I don’t think it even comes close to "balance of probabilities if actually viewed objectively). Even the adherent to inerrancy that I am, I would have no intellectual difficulty if it were demonstrated and obviously proven beyond reasonable doubt that one or more of Paul’s letters was forged; I would simply recognize that the (not-inerrant) canonization process failed at those particular points. (I in fact harbor that minor doubt about on or two books in the New Testament… as did Luther as well, adherent to inerrancy that he was, also felt he could legitimately harbor doubts about the canonization process). Hence back in my undergrad days, i was completely open to the ideas, and if they held water, I would have dealt with it.
The arguments though range from unconvincing, claims that have multiple alternate explanations, to non-sequitur, to the completely blind.
(the worst in my estimation remain the regular disregard of the obvious differences that are expected to be found between general letters to lay audiences at large and correspondence to an individual professional colleague.)
5 Likes
This again is such a common-sense observation completely ignored or hand-waved by critical scholarship - and I would add that this is not simply a hopeful speculation, or an ad hoc rebuttal invented to argue the case… this is explicitly the situation across the early church as described in the book of Acts.
So not only are these not mutually exclusive, the book of Acts explicitly records that there was indeed both a diversity of these churches, and an ongoing transition from the one to the other, within its history:
-
Some churches (Caesarea, (Syrian) Antioch - which interestingly describes having “prophets” (charismatic types?) sent but no elders yet, Philippi) are described in the book of Acts as recent plants with no established elder leadership.
-
In some churches (Iconium, Lystra, Pisidian Antioch), Paul is explicitly recorded as actively appointing elders.
-
Some churches (Jerusalem, Ephesians) are described as having at the time an established cadre of elders.
- all within roughly the same timeframe as covered by the book of Acts.
- In fact, if you follow the narrative, Paul arrived in Ephesus and spent some significant time there developing that church. Initially, (Acts 19) there are (unsurprisingly) no elders mentioned in the nascent, newly-being-planted church. And yet, after two Paul spends some 2 years there before continuing other mission work in the area… then, on his way back to Jerusalem (some years after initially planting that church), Acts chapter 20 describes Paul’s meeting with the elders at the church in Ephesus.
(Maybe Acts 19 must have been written by a different author than Acts 20?
The former chapter describes a nascent church and doesn’t mention elders, the latter describes an organized church with an established group of elders!).
The very same dynamic can be seen even in modern church planting and mission work today. It is very common for many new churches in today’s environment to begin by a group of (lay) believers gathering who desire a particular kind of church that is lacking. They may reach out to a denomination or mission agency for assistance in becoming more estbalished, but there is no structure, no formal leadership, just gathering by common agreement and organization by courtesy and deference… later, if/as a denomination is able to send a missionary or church-planting pastor, that pastor starts training them… and even in today’s world, one of the first priorities of church-planting pastors that I’ve witnessed is in training, building up, and establishing new elders. Even within today’s culture it is not strange to see various churches at different stages of these very developments.
I mean, even the book of Acts explicitly describes the appointment of elders as one of the main activities of the earliest missionaries, and even criticial scholarship doesn’t date Luke/Acts that late, and it is making claims of what happened previously in Paul’s lifetime. Given that data, a reasonable inquirer would EXPECT some churches to have more structured elders, some not, and for churches to be evolving toward the more structured elder-leadership during Paul’s own lifetime, given that the book of Acts explicitly says that Paul was appointing elders at new mission churches during his lifetime.
To persist, in spite of this obvious data, in not recongizing this kind of development as a real possibility back in the earliest days of the church, when all churches were recently planted churches and when there is deep recorded mission work, is just atrocious blindness.
And to claim that the move from more informal gatherings of believes, to the point where missionaries were beginning to establish structured leaders (elders & deacons) could not have occurred within the span of one person’s lifetime - a person who is recorded independently as devoting his time to appointing elders in newly planted mission churches, is laughably absurd.
5 Likes
“Sproul, rhymes with soul.” What a gift that man’s ministry was, and will continue to be for coming generations.
1 Like
One perrenial problem with critical scholarship is the failure to recognize what would be expected to be the case, and to suggest something is suspect, when in fact it actually fits the pattern that common sense would expect. I addressed that just above, noting that it would be expected in the early church to find some nascent churches without elders, some more established ones with, and some in transition… and yet this very predictable and unsurprising phenomenon is trotted out as evidence for forgery?
Same would be true from what you said here… Assume that Paul had in fact written the 13 letters in the NT… which of them would have been most likely to not have had as wide a circulation as the others, and thus perhaps have been relatively unfamiliar to the early church fathers (and not quoted from as often? Letters addressed to churches at large and intended for wide circulation? Or letters addressed to single individuals? Any common-sense approach would anticipate that attestation of individual letters to individuals would in all likelihood have had a slower circulation and thus been less attributed by earliest sources.
I’ll add another similar observation I just re-discovered next post…
3 Likes
And speaking of the way scholars completely miss the obvious common-sense things we should expect to find… The worst to me is always the way they simply don’t (or won’t?) clue in on the blatantly obvious fact that people write differently to friendly like-minded individual colleagues than they do to audiences at large where they expect potential objections.
I was looking up some material and re-discovered this gem; i’ll mention this one lest you think I’m just focused on Ehrman himself… This I believe comes from Dr. Norman Perrin’s Introduction to the New Testament…
Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians…
Right. Because Paul would clearly have written to his “true child in the faith”, a friend, colleague, and fellow minister, with the exact same “dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts” and use of dialogical opposition that he did when writing to churches wherein he knew there was significant opposition.
Was the extremely well-studied, knowledgable, and highly qualified Dr. Perrin, professor of New Testament at U of Chicago, really so dim as to not realize that Paul would be expected to write in a more “quiet meditative style” to a like-minded confidant and missionary colleague than he would have to a church which in his estimation was deserting the gospel?
Apparently so.
So again… “While I respect the learning of the great Biblical critics, I am not yet persuaded that their judgment is equally to be respected.”
5 Likes