Critiquing: #003 — Qs on Christmas, the historical Jesus, Bart Ehrman & The Ascension
December 11, 2018 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier
Historical Jesus — Gospel Reliability — Birth Narratives — Bart Ehrman — Ascension
Episode Assessment:
| Metric | ——— | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of Accuracy | B+ | Generally accurate with well-substantiated claims, but some interpretations are debated among scholars. |
| Degree of Coherence | A- | The arguments are logically structured, connecting historical context with theological insights. |
| Absence of Fallacies | B | Minor logical inconsistencies, but overall arguments are sound. |
| Degree of Evidence | B+ | Substantial references to historical texts and scholarly works, though some claims rely heavily on interpretation. |
| Degree of Testability | C+ | Many claims are theological and interpretive, making empirical testing difficult. |
| Rational Confidence | B | Arguments are well-supported within their theological framework, though confidence is moderated by the interpretive nature of the content. |
Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:
1. Degree of Testability
The claims presented in the podcast are primarily theological and interpretive, making empirical testing challenging. NT Wright discusses the historical reliability of the Gospels and the birth narratives of Jesus, but these are inherently difficult to verify through empirical means. For instance, the assertion that “we can go back to a very solid basis” regarding the New Testament texts depends largely on the interpretive methods used by scholars.
“One of the great things about having copies of copies of copies is that we’ve got hundreds, thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament.”
2. Rational Confidence
While the podcast provides well-supported arguments within a theological framework, the confidence in these arguments is moderated by their interpretive nature. Wright’s responses to Bart Ehrman’s critiques and the dating of the Gospels are insightful, yet they rely heavily on historical and theological interpretations that are not universally accepted. This can affect the overall confidence in the claims made.
“If I’m making an argument to a fellow ancient historian who isn’t a believer, I think I will say, ‘well, you know perfectly well there’s lots of things that happened that you would write into your books which are only in one story.’”
Formulations of Major Arguments
Argument #1: Historical Reliability of the Gospels
- Premise 1: The Gospels are written by followers of Jesus, who were close to the events they describe.
- Premise 2: Historical texts from the ancient world often rely on single sources and are still considered credible.
- Premise 3: The Gospels provide consistent narratives that align with known historical contexts.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the Gospels can be considered historically reliable within the standards of ancient historiography.
Counter-Argument: The historical reliability of the Gospels is a matter of significant debate. Critics argue that the Gospels were written decades after the events they describe, which raises questions about their accuracy and the potential for embellishment. Additionally, the presence of theological agendas may influence the way events are portrayed, making it difficult to separate historical fact from theological interpretation. This undermines the assertion that the Gospels are as reliable as other ancient texts, particularly when compared to non-religious historical accounts.
Argument #2: The Significance of Birth Narratives
- Premise 1: The birth narratives of Jesus in Matthew and Luke include elements like shepherds and wise men.
- Premise 2: These narratives are seen by some as later inventions to give Jesus a royal introduction.
- Premise 3: Historical texts often contain singular events that are still considered factual.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the birth narratives in the Gospels could be based on historical events despite their unique details.
Counter-Argument: The birth narratives in the Gospels are viewed by many scholars as theological constructs rather than historical accounts. The inclusion of miraculous elements and their alignment with Old Testament prophecies suggest that they were designed to fulfill specific theological purposes rather than report historical facts. This perspective challenges the notion that these narratives are reliable historical records, instead highlighting their role in conveying theological messages within the early Christian community.
Argument #3: Bart Ehrman’s Critique of Textual Reliability
- Premise 1: Bart Ehrman argues that we have only copies of copies of the New Testament texts.
- Premise 2: NT Wright counters that having numerous manuscripts allows scholars to reconstruct the original texts accurately.
- Premise 3: Other ancient texts are often known from far fewer manuscripts, yet are considered reliable.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the New Testament texts are relatively reliable compared to other ancient writings.
Counter-Argument: While it is true that having numerous manuscripts aids in textual reconstruction, the variations among these manuscripts also highlight the complexities of determining the original text. Bart Ehrman’s critique focuses on the discrepancies and changes that occur over centuries of transmission, which can significantly impact the understanding of key theological concepts. This critique suggests that while the New Testament texts are relatively well-preserved, the process of textual transmission introduces uncertainties that challenge the assertion of their reliability.
Argument #4: Theological Interpretations and Historical Events
- Premise 1: The Gospels include theological interpretations of historical events.
- Premise 2: These interpretations are influenced by the authors’ beliefs and contexts.
- Premise 3: Different theological models can coexist within the same religious tradition.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the Gospels’ theological interpretations provide a multifaceted understanding of historical events.
Counter-Argument: The presence of multiple theological interpretations within the Gospels complicates the historical analysis of these texts. Theological agendas can shape the portrayal of events, leading to divergent and sometimes contradictory accounts. This multiplicity of interpretations can obscure the historical core of the narratives, making it difficult to discern the actual events from their theological embellishments. As a result, the historical reliability of the Gospels is called into question, necessitating a critical approach to their interpretation.
◉ Addressing Argument #1:
The Oddity of Divine Communication Through Holy Books
Introduction
One of the enduring questions in theological and philosophical discourse is why an omnipotent and omniscient deity would choose to communicate with humanity through a written text—a Holy Book—when numerous other direct methods could ostensibly be more effective. This essay explores the perplexities and implications of such a choice, examining the inherent limitations of textual communication and juxtaposing it with alternative methods that a deity could employ to convey divine will.
Limitations of Holy Books
Holy Books, while revered and foundational to religious traditions, present several challenges that complicate their role as divine communication tools. Firstly, texts are subject to interpretation. Over centuries, religious scriptures have been read, understood, and applied in myriad ways, leading to denominational splits and doctrinal conflicts. The necessity for interpretation introduces human error and bias, potentially distorting the original divine message.
Secondly, Holy Books are bound by language and context. Languages evolve, and words acquire new meanings or fall out of use, which can obscure or alter the intended message. Additionally, the cultural and historical context in which a Holy Book was written may not be directly applicable to modern readers, leading to misinterpretations or irrelevant applications.
Direct Methods of Communication
Given these limitations, one might question why a deity would not choose more direct methods of communication. For instance, direct revelation, where God speaks directly to individuals, could provide unambiguous guidance. Historical accounts of prophets and mystics claim such experiences, but they are rare and often viewed skeptically by others, lacking the universality a Holy Book can claim.
Another method could be through universal, undeniable signs or miracles. If God were to regularly perform unequivocal miracles, it would leave little room for doubt regarding divine will. Yet, the infrequency of such events in contemporary times poses a significant issue for this approach.
Furthermore, God could employ a form of divine telepathy, directly implanting knowledge and guidance into human minds. This method would eliminate the need for intermediaries and interpretation, ensuring that every individual receives the same clear and precise message.
Conclusion
The choice of a Holy Book as a means of divine communication is indeed paradoxical and suspect, given the potential effectiveness of more direct methods.
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment