Intro: 

This series is an atheist's review of an important skeptical anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.  I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to improving the online dialogue between Christians and non-believers on popular battleground issues.

Mainstream Scholarship Vs. Evangelical Scholarship?

Paul Tobin, author of the 6th chapter of TCD, claims:

I noted the disadvantage that conservatives have when it comes to this topic in my previous post and tried to explain where I thought Tobin was coming from with his chapter.  The Triabloggers have come up with a number of weaker arguments in response (which we'll get to in a moment), but Jason Engwer, for example, admits:

Saying that an Evangelical position is a minority view today has some significance...

Because basically that means as far as the popular literature goes, that scholars need to work out their issues amongst themselves and leave us out of it.  If that puts "God's people" in an inconvenient position, maybe the Christian god should have thought of that before decreeing or allowing otherwise. 

Jason Engwer's "Majority Appeal: Dismissing Evangelicals Because Of Their Minority Status"

Engwer continues:

...Tobin's atheism or Price's view that Jesus didn't exist. If modern unpopularity is bad, how much worse is an unpopularity that's lasted even longer?

A.  Humans are not experts on metaphysics and so an unqualified human consensus on the god question is irrelevant (should we ask humanity at large and throughout history about multiverses, too?). 

B.  Price's views that Jesus didn't exist are not the topic of TCD and surely he'd admit that he has a job to do in terms of attempting to convince the scholarly community his position is correct. 

C.  That one heavily mythologized historical figure was slightly more mythical is a much smaller qualitative deviation from the mainstream than trying to defend that Jesus was actually a god and had superpowers and that the Bible is inerrant. 

D.  The duration isn't necessarily as important as the plausibility of a quality consensus.  Historical tools have vastly improved in just the last 50 years and we can say much the same for the sciences in general in the last 200.  A modern consensus on the shape of cosmology is going to count a lot more in just the last few years than anything said 500 years ago even if that view lasted for 3,000 years.  We have satellites.  They lose. 

Engwer continues:

Richard Carrier's view of the genre of Mark's gospel, for instance, has been unpopular in Biblical scholarship...

In that link, Engwer cites Charles Talbert who is actually a scholar that Carrier often cites to support his views on the genre of the gospels.  The gospels can be mythological biographies. Carrier doesn't dispute that.  I didn't realize we needed a century or so of conservative scholarship to tell us that the gospels narrate the life of Jesus, but okay... 

I wonder how long it will take before it is admitted by evangelicals they narrate obvious mythical elements as well.  **holds breath**

Engwer says:

...it's even more significant that his view was unpopular among the ancient sources who addressed the subject. Similarly, Tobin makes much of modern scholarship's doubts about Luke's census, yet the census account seems to have been widely accepted in antiquity. (For a discussion of the significance of those ancient sources, see my series of posts here.) Or when both the ancient Christian and the ancient Jewish sources seem to agree that Jesus' tomb was found empty after His body had been placed there, why do critics like Tobin reject that ancient consensus? Why should we think the sort of highly speculative objections they propose weigh as much as or more than the agreed testimony of ancient Christian and non-Christian sources, who were much closer to the event in question?

Ancient people weren't necessarily in a position to know better than we do and sometimes we know a lot more than they did.  I can Google more ancient documents in a second than most ancient people would ever even know existed.  Any given early Christian may not have even been aware of the entire NT and so on.  When you don't know any better, you are bound to take arbitrary premises for granted if they didn't have any particular reason to challenge them.  That doesn't really mean anything. 

And in fact, skeptical anthologies like "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave" are still doing that today.  Though you'll find apologists like Steve Hays continually baffled throughout his book long review that skeptics are arguing through layers of ambiguity with various types of provisional conclusions that don't necessarily have to all go together. 

I feel compelled to go so far as to say (in my unqualified opinion) that in all likelihood all skeptical theories are wrong.  I certainly haven't read everything, but from what I have read I get the distinct impression that everyone is arguing in a vacuum of ignorance.  I don't think we do know what happened at the origin of the Christian religion.  It seems likely that most scholars are taking for granted various premises that they don't have a good reason to challenge (out of ignorance) and applying their methods as consistently as they can from there.  The problem is that pretty much none of the source material is that trustworthy and trivial "naturalistic" things are just as easy to invent as mythical things.  I can tell you that I'm holding a ray gun and a baseball bat.  Incidentally both claims are false even though baseball bats exist and I own some.  History isn't necessarily obligated to put a big red arrow over every mundane thing that seems plausible at face value but is nonetheless wholesale invention for who knows what reason.  There may also be some unknown chunk of significant information we don't have.  Who knows.  I can easily quote Steve Hays jumping at any chance to point out the likelihood of a Jewish cover up of certain Christian evidences to save face.  Of course, earlyish Christians would NEVER have any similar motive to do the same.  *eyeroll* 

We don't know what we don't know and even the best "most probable" skeptical case from our vantage point may well be incorrect. 

Engwer says:

Tobin keeps criticizing Steve's citation of Evangelical scholars, but Steve hasn't just cited Evangelicals. Since Steve cited C.E.B. Cranfield, who wasn't an Evangelical, Tobin responded by categorizing him as a "theologian". Apparently, that's Tobin's way of trying to lessen the significance of a non-Evangelical scholar. If he can't dismiss that scholar as an Evangelical, an "apologist", etc., he labels him as a "theologian". But how often has Tobin referred to his own sources that way? He dismisses Cranfield as somebody "whose understanding of the historical method is suspect". Compare Cranfield's credentials to Tobin's. And what about other non-Evangelical scholars who disagree with Tobin? I cited the example of Raymond Brown in my response to Tobin in chapter 6 of The Infidel Delusion. Other non-Evangelicals have disagreed with Tobin's view of the infancy narratives as well, such as Ethelbert Stauffer (Jesus And His Story [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960]), Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, and Joseph Kelly. In fact, as I pointed out in The Infidel Delusion, Tobin's skepticism about the infancy narratives is so radical as to place him in disagreement with the vast majority of modern scholars. If you go to Tobin's web site, you can find more examples of his disagreements with many non-Evangelical scholars. 

I'm assuming that most of Tobin's positions represent the mainstream conclusions and so it would appear that these oddball instances (assuming Engwer is correct) really don't matter.  If Tobin was smarter, he'd have simply ran the ball right down the middle aiming purely at public education of what properly represents modern scholarship (similar to what Bart Ehrman seems to do) rather than bothering with pet theories he doesn't seem qualified to defend.  Oh well.  We'll see how that goes later in this series on chapter six as we sort through all the details.

Engwer says:

Tobin frequently claims that a position is held by a majority or represents "mainstream critical scholars", for example, without presenting any documentation for that conclusion.

That is a problem.  *shrug*  Tobin could certainly have exercised more care with his "scholarly majority heuristic."   It seems his case is still stronger here.

Outro:

Engwer seems only to have waived a bit of dust up in the air.  Not that impressive.  If I'm an average Christian or nonbeliever there's really no reason to be confident about the conclusions of conservative scholarship (over the mainstream) I'm never going to have a chance to dive into and rigorously sort out. 

Steve Hays is up to bat next on the same issue. 

Ben

Intro: 

This series is an atheist's review of an important skeptical anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.  I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to improving the online dialogue between Christians and non-believers on popular battleground issues.

Where was Paul Tobin coming from with his chapter in TCD?

In part one of Tobin's response to The Infidel Delusion (TID), he says:

In part three of Tobin's response to TID, he says:

That makes enough sense to me.  What should we do with this information?  Remember, atheist contributor Richard Carrier had said: 

So how do we apply the OTF to Tobin's chapter?  Similar to dealing with the modern scientific consensus on miracle claims, in terms of scholarship on the vast majority of issues, we'd accept the claims of the consensus of experts and move on with our lives.  This allows Tobin his general assert-a-thon to function well enough in context of the argumentative continuum of TCD.  For those Christian reviewers who will insist that Tobin would need to respond to all of their objections to part 1 to make this stand, please note, I've done exactly that. 

In terms of description, I don't think anyone can contest what the mainstream scholarship generally entails.  For example, Christian reviewer Jason Engwer seems to take this for granted when he says:

Practically speaking for most of us, that really should be the end of the debate.  In this sense Tobin wins all 36 points even if he deviates somewhere from the general consensus or states things wrong.  How can non-scholars hope to do better or be more responsible with the many issues brought up in this chapter and in hundreds if not thousands of scholarly books on the many complicated historical and archeological subjects?  We can't hope to be experts on this, or on physics, philosophy, and whatever other major subject that a "personal" relationship with God would force us to engage to know that we aren't delusional.  You might say, "That's unfair," but then again was it really fair for God to burden people with ancient hearsay that most scholars don't believe stands up to scrutiny?  Even prominent defenders of Christianity like William Lane Craig note the obvious ridiculousness of this situation for ordinary people:

Naturally we've covered the legitimacy of the inner witness many times before in this review series (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).  In short, how can Christians be sure their god-feelings are not just subjective reactions to provocative theistic ideas or are any better than contrary subjective inner feelings from other denominations and religions?  And if we have to marshal all the evidence to responsibly sort this mess out, then we're right back to how ridiculous a situation that is.  Craig is kind enough to sabotage himself in this way:

[note:  A youtuber named antybu86 does a great job of pointing out Craig's general circularity on all his major arguments.]  I also pointed out to Steve Hays that the arguments he appeals to from the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology to show that religious experience would suffice for ordinary people also only fall into the category of compatibility with other theistic arguments that have to actually succeed.  So Christian epistemology is drowning in its own epistemic irresponsibility (and see my my argument map here that defends naturalistic epistemic duties and that entire tangential debate between Hays and myself, since Hays would surely take us right back there). 

Outro:

Now, perhaps the current consensus of Biblical scholarship happens to be wrong.  Certainly as many have pointed out, various contributors to TCD hold some minority positions on various issues.  In all likelihood every scholar in every consensus holds at least some minority views on some issues.  They all should know they have a job to do, an uphill climb so to speak, if they expect those minority views to be taken seriously on whatever those issues are.  Are the serious Christian thinkers among us doing that?  Or more importantly, in a book like "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" do nuances like that even really matter in the face of the strength of the basic criticism presented?  If conservatives don't want liberals to be able to appeal to their bias, why should conservatives get to appeal to theirs to blow off mainstream scholarship?  If it comes down to the arguments, where does that leave the average believer who is in over their heads? 

Ben

Intro: 

This series is an atheist's review of an important anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that has been popularly discussed across the web.  I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be educational and perhaps the best that I personally can contribute to improving the online dialogue between Christians and non-believers on popular battleground issues.

But before we get into the issue of scholarly authority and bias and the details of atheist, Paul Tobin's chapter, a surprising number of Christian reviewers seem relatively okay with an errant word of the Christian god.  Let's take a look.

Looney said this:

I assumed Looney was an inerrantist, but perhaps not.  It seems he is of the opinion at least that inerrancy is optional.

Diglotting said this:

Jayman777 said this:

I'm not clear on what Diglotting and jayman777's views on inspiration are (and I recall that jayman777 doesn't have his views 100% crystallized yet).  Presumably they are fine with their god's word being as generally true and reliable as other human works.  One wonders why a most excellent god aimed so low in terms of quality control, but okay.  The expectations of fundamentalists seem more philosophically justified at face value.

Randal Rauser said this:

Rauser's view of inspiration is the most unsettling since the Christian god can appropriate literally anything that he wants to.  Perhaps mythicism is true and Christianity started out as a mystery cult with a cosmic Jesus who never even existed.  Why couldn't this god just use the urban legend style gospels as "authoritative" and divinely insist the church take historicity seriously?  Maybe Rauser wouldn't have a problem with that, or with my proof that the character of god in the Old Testament lies to Abraham.  I don't know.  But we have to admit here that modern Christians have some extremely lax standards of "inspiration" as far as truth goes and then still manage to be confounded when outsiders looking in have an eyebrow raised.  The only thing left to grant errant documents divine authority is Rauser's flimsy "god perception evidence" and perhaps the "unfair cultural mystique" of the Bible that was discussed in Jason Long's chapter 3.

Each of these Christian folk are willing to defend Biblical contradictions when they think skeptics have gone too far, but ultimately inerrancy (or at least Tobin's standard of inerrancy) isn't an issue for them.  That's a slight majority of Christian reviewers.  The three Triabloggers in The Infidel Delusion will presumably not be giving ground. 

This situation might be inspiring if I thought that the more liberal Christian reviewers were necessarily going to compromise on some of the more important errors in the Bible (as in, something that might help the Christian population get along with the modern world) rather than just covering the Christian god's behind and maintaining the general status quo of mere self-satisfying belief.  I'm not familiar enough with any of their stances on various modern issues to know for sure.

Ben

Intro:

So for research purposes on my review of atheist, Paul Tobin's chapter 6 in "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD) on the "Bible and Modern Scholarship" I've needed to investigate more rigorously the documentary hypothesis (DH) since Tobin neglects to defend it in confrontation with his Christian critics.  Basically the idea is that the Old Testament, especially the first five books traditionally attributed to Moses (for the most part), are actually the work of at least 4 different later sources.  This is justified for a number of reasons, especially but not limited to various contradictions in the stories.  Tobin provides some in TCD that aren't exactly smoking guns and so I've gone looking for better examples.  And the prognosis on that front so far has not been good. 

Tobin cites three books at Christian reviewer, Steve Hays to demonstrate his views represent the consensus, but those books (or the two I can look into via the internet) are much more summaries of conclusions rather than arguments for positions.  The wiki page on the DH has some references I've been looking into and one such reference gives two example pieces of evidence for the DH.  Both suck on the face of it.   

In section "C. Evidence for Composite Character," from The Anchor Bible Dictionary's notes on the Documentary Hypothesis, John Barton says:

Impossible?  Only if you are making crap up.  It doesn't say in 12:1 (or any of the verses referenced) that Terah had to die before Abram left, so I don't see why Abram couldn't have left when Terrah was 145.  Mission Impossible?  Hardly.  Perhaps it is some kind of cultural taboo to ever leave your parents' household before they die and so that is just assumed into context?  Is there some Hebrew death phrase or play on words in 12:1 that doesn't show up in English translations?  Barton doesn't bother to tell us and that's pretty lame. 

The other bit of "evidence" presented is found in these verses:  1 Samuel 9:15-16; 10:1, vs. these verses:  1 Samuel 8:1-22; 10:17-19.  Basically the first point to the people being rebellious against Yahweh and getting a king out of it and the second set points out how Yahweh decrees it to happen.  There's no contradiction theologically since everything good and bad happens on Yahweh's watch and he uses it all towards his own ends.  Other stories portray Yahweh both hardening Pharoah's heart in confrontation with Moses and Pharoah hardening his own heart and not letting the Hebrew slaves go free in Exodus.  Theologically Yahweh is causing things and yet still placing blame on the human agent in use.  It's all part of the plan.  Even if the two sections in 1 Samuel were two accounts woven together the "weaver" could have been fully aware of the "contradiction" and thought nothing of it.  I doubt Christian apologists are impressed.

I'll keep digging into other examples until I find the best ones (assuming they exist).  If anyone wants to point me in the right direction of the best defense of the DH on the internet, please do so.  It would be especially nice if it were presented in light of conservative criticism of it. 

Ben

Intro: 

This series is an atheist's review of an important anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.  I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to improving the online dialogue between Christians and non-believers on popular battleground issues.

First impressions:  This chapter covers way too much ground and doesn't appear to do it very well (since some of the problems are fairly evident in just a first reading).  It is barely argued, mainly asserted and takes for granted the perspective of the first four chapters, where in any other case, we'd just accept secular scholarship and dismiss every defense of supposedly inerrant magical books.  It is a summary of part of another book and Tobin references books that seem to be summaries of conclusions reached by scholars rather than the under-structure of those arguments.   In other words, Tobin opens up a huge cans of worms and leaves himself open to a lot of criticism even if every conclusion he touches on about the Bible and modern scholarship happens to be completely correct.  Many Christian reviewers simply pointed to other evangelical scholarship and said "they disagree."  Any Christian who has some investment in apologetics already and who took offense to the first 3 chapters and especially the "outsider test for faith" in chapter 4 will be unimpressed with Tobin's contribution to TCD (unlike Babinski's chapter 5 which stands on its own merits). 

I will take each issue in turn to the best of my ability and call the debate as it stands presented in TCD vs. the all the responses from Christian reviewers.  As you can see from this post, I will be bringing the entire conversation to my readers, chunk by chunk and will use Christian reviewer, Steve Hays' 36 numbered points (that Tobin uses as well in his responses to Hays) and supplement that framework with the random tidbits less thorough reviewers have contributed.  The table of contents below will eventually be a full set of links for future posts (and I've thrown in some other links for basic reference purposes).  By the end of this survey hopefully it should be clear where each issue stands insofar as what is available online is concerned.  Arguments that require the supplement of books and unavailable academic papers will take a hit in terms of my provisional non-professional conclusions.  It's important though to see how things look through the eyes of the internet-only crowd and people who are in the know can easily figure out which chunks need to be online in the future and easily accessible to all.

Table of contents for my review series on chapter 6 of TCD:

Continue reading →