Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism

The well-known C. S. Lewis essay. Tim McGrew probably knows some people from the history of  apologetics who have made similar arguments.

6 comments:

Edward T. Babinski said...

And a rebuttal . . .

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/cs_lewis_theology.htmlcir

Victor Reppert said...

The link is to something on Louis Agassiz.

Victor Reppert said...

Beversluis's revised edition also has some criticisms of the essay.

Walter said...

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/cs_lewis_theology.html

This should be the right link.

Victor Reppert said...

Oh, Mattill again. Then please read Tim McGrew's rebuttal to Mattill on the "archaeological support" thread.

Walter said...

I am not really buying into the gospels as eyewitness accounts. The post-resurrection discrepancies are too great in my opinion.

We have one gospel supposedly written by Levi the tax collector, who claims that the risen Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee. Then we have Luke--who is not an eyewitness--claiming that the post-resurrection appearances happened in Jerusalem. Most people here seem to want to defend Lukan accuracy. Did these "eyewitnesses" forget which part of the country they were in when the newly exalted Jesus came a'knocking? Either Luke was very much mistaken in his research or Matthew and Mark were mistaken in their recollection (Mark is supposed to be telling Peter's story). Best explanation imho is that the gospels were penned by anonymous authors writing at some distance to the actual events based off of oral traditions that diverged from one another.

I believe in the mainstream dating of the gospels as being between 700-100 CE, as well as the mainstream view that they were most likely NOT authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.