This is a string of straw men
This response is puzzling. Not once did I claim that abandoning inerrancy means one must abandon historicity. Not once did I claim that inerrancy was a sufficient or necessary condition for any historical fact. Not once did I appeal MERELY to the lack of multiple accounts to discredit a singular account – this is just a string of straw men.
Listeners will remember, I argued that, because Matthew has strong incentive to invent such a story, we should not take it at face-value – we can’t assume its historicity – we need arguments. The fact that Paul’s letters, Mark’s Gospel and contemporary jewish sources don’t mention the polemic when they should plausibly be expected to do so isn’t just an argument from silence and so isn’t insignificant. And again, the fact that the account records a private conversation between members of the chief priests should also be a historical red flag.
CONTEXT(Help)
-
Andrews/Schieber: Does the God of Christianity Exist? »Andrews/Schieber: Does the God of Christianity Exist?
The God of Christianity exists »The God of Christianity exists
The Resurrection of Jesus »The Resurrection of Jesus
The empty tomb »The empty tomb
There are Christian testimonies of the empty tomb »There are Christian testimonies of the empty tomb
What are the motives of the author of Matthew? »What are the motives of the author of Matthew?
75% of all scholars on the subject accept the empty tomb as a fact »75% of all scholars on the subject accept the empty tomb as a fact
This is a string of straw men
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About