|
Round 4 -From
Brady
Hi Johnny, Regarding the use of Moreland’s book, that is fine with me. However, we will need to use both
chapters 5 & 6 for our debate. Chapter 5 covers the reliability of the historical works in the NT
and chapter 6 covers the event of the resurrection. In your last post you say:
In chapter 5 and throughout the rest of his book, Moreland chose his
methodology, or his criteria, without consulting any skeptics in advance.
He simply stated his case as he wished to state it. But that is not exactly true. The criteria Moreland uses are not something that he made up.
They are criteria used by historians in modern histography. They are used both is secular
historical investigation as well as by NT scholars, some that very hostile to historic
Christianity. See Moreland’s footnotes for further details. Regards,
Brady
Round
4 - From Johnny
J.
P. Moreland writes in his book:
For
our purposes, let us assume that the New Testament is a collection of
twenty-seven separate historical sources which, in turn, may have
written or oral sources behind them. We will make no assumption which
takes the New Testament as a divinely inspired document, although I
believe such a position can be defended.
Historiography
is a branch of study which focuses on the logical, conceptual, and
epistemological aspects of what historians do. Critical historiography
studies, among other things, the different tests which should be applied
to a document to determine whether or not it is historically reliable.
When many of these tests are applied to the New Testament documents,
they show themselves to be reliable as, or superior to, most other
ancient documents.
For example, apologists have often appealed to three general tests for historicity: the
bibliographical test, the inter
nal test, and the external test. The internal test asks whether
the document itself claims to be actual history written by eyewitnesses. More will be said
about eyewitness testimony later. The external test asks whether material external to the
document (in this case, archaeology or the writings of the early church fathers) confirms
the reliability of the document. It is beyond the scope of his chapter to delve into the
external test. But is should be pointed out that the New Testament has been remarkably
confirmed time and again by external evidence. This is not to say there are no problems;
but to the unbiased observer, little doubt can be cast on the statement that archaeology has
confirmed the historical reliability of the New Testament.
Moreland has given us an excellent basis for this debate. Regarding “but to the unbiased
observer, little doubt can be cast on the statement that archaeology has confirmed the historical
reliability of the New Testament,” it is one thing to claim that a king named David once lived, but
it is another thing entirely to attribute to him various actions that could only have been accomplished
with the help of God. I could give many other examples, but suffice it to say that while secular
claims have abounded throughout human history, claims of spectacular miracles have not. It is that
marked infrequency that causes open minded people to be much more careful when evaluating
secular claims, none of which have any eternal significance, and claims of Bible miracles, which
Christians claim have eternal significance.
|
