Are McDowell Apologetics Valid or Lame?

[McCulloch]

I have listened to McDowell speak. He is among those Christian thinkers of the ages.

Then why does he need to resort to logical fallacies, dishonest arguments and selective use of evidence?

Two active members of this forum have expressed divergent views about the popular Christian apologist Josh McDowell. Is either one correct? Is Josh McDowell a great apologist for this age? Or is he a charlatan, pulling the wool over the eyes of the gullible?

I was a skeptic too until I took a good hard look at the claims of Jesus Christ. In college I met several students who challenged me to take a closer look, to study and examine the Christian faith.

I took the challenge, feeling certain I could prove Christianity to be false, a religion built on nice stories that couldn't stand up to the test of truth.

But as I dug deeper and deeper into the claims of Christianity, I was shocked. I found facts, not fiction. I found so much evidence that I could only come to one conclusion Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He was crucified, He died, and He was resurrected on the third day.

JOSH.ORG: Apologetics

In short, I don't think this book [New Evidence That Demands a Verdict] accomplishes what it claims to do. And I can think of better books, written from an Evangelical perspective, which do accomplish those same aims. Even if I were an Evangelical, I'm afraid I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone.

'Evidence' That Demands a Refund (2001)
Lets see some evidence that demands a verdict on the validity of McDowell.

[Lotan]

The New Testament IS a historical document.

CAPITALIZATION? That's an effective debating technique! Try this...
THE NEW TESTAMENT IS NOT AN HISTORICAL DOCUMENT!!!! Doesn't prove anything, does it? Please save these sort of assertions for someone who cares.

The infidels zealots have the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" platform for their railings and rantings.

More polemic, but still no evidence to refute their arguments.

"Scholars" were once convinced that Caiaphas and Pilate were made up figures of history until the turn of the archeaological spade.

An irrelevant red-herring.

I started this new thread by someone quoting my assertion that McDowell ranks among the great Christian thinkers of the ages. I went and heard the man on two occasions. I have been to college and of course endured his adversaries time and again.

Translation: "I have an opinion".

I click on infidels.org often. (No porn so it's OK). Their views can be discarded like going to Klan supporting sites to get views on race relations.

Still no evidence or argument, just more opinion. Which argument in particular do you think "can be discarded"?

I think that "some" atheists are simply misguided self-gratifying do-gooders that only hear what they want to hear.

That's nice. I think the same about some Christians. That's meaningless to this argument though. Even if you can show that McDowell's critics are biased, you would also need to show that they are also wrong.

There is no reason to think or even assert McDowell is dishonest.

Sure there is. I've already pointed some out. Want more?
"DJK also sings the praises of Josh McDowell, whose book Evidence That Demands a Verdict continues to impress Christians although extensive refutations of it exist. But since DJK has already brought up that handiest of all catchphrases "intellectual dishonesty," it's important to point out that McDowell could fairly be accused of it himself. He is known, for instance, for ignoring critiques of his work by skeptics. Jeffrey Jay Lowder, who wrote a critique of McDowell's sequel New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, has pointed out, "McDowell completely ignored our criticisms in his 'fully updated' New Evidence. This cannot be due to ignorance. I have personally tried to correspond with Mr. McDowell twice; each time I received no acknowledgement. Likewise, I know that many Christians have urged McDowell to respond to our critique, for they have written me telling me so! Clearly, McDowell has no obligation whatsoever to communicate with me or to answer our critique. But he cannot claim that his book has been 'fully updated' when he ignores a direct and comprehensive rebuttal to it." Ignoring one's critics might be a privilege any writer has, but it is not necessarily indicative of someone who is interested in the truth."
...from here.

Questioning his honesty is ad hominem attack is it not?

It's his arguments that are dishonest. I don't know him personally. I suspect that he is probably deluded ala Hovind.

Even "liberal scholars" believe Jesus existed.

So do I. So what? I believe that Alexander existed too, I just don't believe that he had a golden leg.

Reliability of the bible manuscripts

That's not really the issue here, although the original gospels (and epistles) have certainly been altered. The issue is whether McDowell makes his case that the gospel stories are historical., and he don't!

You can make as many polemic arguments against McDowell's critics as you like, but you still haven't even touched their arguments.

[1John2_26]

I'm showing that McDowell is supported by other scholars, and that the back and forth is always going to happen when the Christian speaks.

(By the way, I think you have a good effect on other skeptics on this site. I complimented Cathar1950 reluctantly. But it was warranted.)

That's not really the issue here, although the original gospels (and epistles) have certainly been altered.

What proof do you have of that. It's the damned if you do, damned if you don't opposition. The Gosples if they were edited or altered, would have been washed clean of the difficulties and insults they direct towards power-mongering "Christians." I see the way the Gospels has come down to us as extremely honest.

The issue is whether McDowell makes his case that the gospel stories are historical., and he don't!

That is your opinion. It seems that McDowell is correct on the subjects that his detractors cannot refute. Jesus is still Lord and God.

You can make as many polemic arguments against McDowell's critics as you like, but you still haven't even touched their arguments.

How? They are using arguments from antiquity that they believe are myths and fairy tales and using them to supprt their opposition. And of course damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The synoptic gospels agree in places so they are worthless. John's Gospel is different so it is worthless.

McDowell is supported by others:

The Bible preserves two sets of accounts about the same set of historical events. The books of Chronicles, matched with the rest of the OT, is the first set, and the four Gospels provide the second set. On the one hand this is quite beneficial, but it has also proved a gold mine for critics looking to destroy the claim of Biblical inerrancy, for there are many who hold that the differences in reporting the same events in the Gospels should be classed as contradictions.
Robin Lane Fox, in his book The Unauthorized Version, has written:

Harmony is a misguided method: if we want the truth, we have to choose one of the three or none.
Nothing could be more incorrect. Harmony is an essential part of any attempt to find the truth where we have conflicting yet similar accounts.

Skeptics, of course, view harmony as something illicit when applied to the Gospels or the OT. Jim Meritt complains mightily, describing harmony thusly:
"There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" AND "b" -which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b". But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians". This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they (sic) don't mind adding to verses.
In the same vein, Dan Barker writes:
Some apologists assert that since the writer of John does not say that there were not more women who visited the tomb with Mary, then it is wrong to accuse him of contradicting the other evangelists who say it was a group of women. But this is a non-argument. With this kind of thinking, I could claim that the people who accompanied Mary to the tomb included Mother Teresa, Elvis Presley, and Paul Bunyan. Since the writer of John does not specifically clude these people, then there is no way to prove that this is not true--if such fragile logic is valid.
Obviously, we cannot get overly creative when resolving seemingly contradictory accounts. When invoking speculative factors - which indeed, ultimately and by nature, are arguments from silence - only reasonable speculations that fit in with the characters, setting, the known facts of the situation, and human nature, can be used. "Litle (sic) green martians" or "Mother Teresa" etc. would indeed by ludicrous - but people who might have been there would not be unreasonable. Glenn Miller has answered these complaints succinctly in his own unique way:

For some reason, these arguments don't ever seem to be satisfied. If we have N witnesses to an event, they want "N+1"...And if EVERY SINGLE WRITER talks about the event in EXACT detail, they are accused of "collusion" and "conspiracy". And if EVERY SINGLE WRITER talks about the event, but uses different vocab, style, levels of precison, of selection of details, THEN the antagonists complain about 'contradictions' and 'disagreements'! What's a mother to do?!!!! (I am always amused at these 'argument from silence' literary positions and the ability to spoof it... ("Since Jesus never spoke his own name in the Gospels, he must not have known it!").

[Lotan]

I'm showing that McDowell is supported by other scholars...

So what? As you just said...

Anyone can be a "scholar" by the way.

That's why you need to address the arguments themselves. If you can show that the arguments are flawed, then you can discount the source.

What proof do you have of that.

Here are some. Here are a bunch more.

That is your opinion. It seems that McDowell is correct on the subjects that his detractors cannot refute. Jesus is still Lord and God.

And that is your opinion.

They are using arguments from antiquity that they believe are myths and fairy tales and using them to supprt their opposition.

Wrong.

The 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' argument is lame. It's a logical fallacy. It is useless for that reason, not because of the conclusions that McDowell draws from it.

The 'eyewitness' argument disregards overwhelming statistical evidence
from the gospels themselves (not to mention Luke's direct testimony) in favor of McDowell's assertion that the pattern of agreement/disagreement is "what we should expect". How much more clearly would you like him to admit his presupposition? This argument fails based on objective evidence that is available to anyone. It doesn't rely, as you say, on "myths and fairy tales".

The synoptic gospels agree in places so they are worthless. John's Gospel is different so it is worthless.

Has someone said that? I haven't.

[1John2_26]

This is going where it was intended. Op/ed.

"I" feel McDowell is not dishonest or a liar.

You feel opposite.

The 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' argument is lame. It's a logical fallacy.

And is attributed to C.S. Lewis. Certainly not a lame intellect. It is not a logical fallacy he presented but a logical assertion. His other views on Mere Christianity will get denigrated with the baby going out with the bath water. Semantics and wordsmithing is all that will come about in this thread topic.

McCulloch knew this when he posted the thread.

I stated that McDowell was a great thinker and that assertion remains. That some other people have a problem with the guy is OK with me.

I have his books sitting in my bookcase next to Origin of Species. I've read them all.

[Lotan]

This is going where it was intended. Op/ed.

I'd be happy to discuss the evidence some more if you ever feel like trying that.

And is attributed to C.S. Lewis. Certainly not a lame intellect. It is not a logical fallacy he presented but a logical assertion.

"The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them. The range is false because there may be other, unstated choices which would only serve to undermine the original argument. If you concede to pick one of those choices, you accept the premise that those choices are indeed the only ones possible. Usually, only two choices are presented, thus the term "False Dilemma"; however, sometimes there are three (trilemma) or more choices offered. "
...from here.
Since the trilemma is predicated on a belief in the bible in the first place McDowell's use of it amounts to a circular argument.

His other views on Mere Christianity will get denigrated with the baby going out with the bath water.

Why?

Semantics and wordsmithing is all that will come about in this thread topic.

From you, you mean? I have no shortage of facts to present.

McCulloch knew this when he posted the thread.

Always the conspiracist eh?

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
This is going where it was intended. Op/ed.

I'd be happy to discuss the evidence some more if you ever feel like trying that.

You deny the Gospel and the New Testament as facts. I do not. This can only go one of two directions. I've already turned around and am facing the Cross now. Sorry, I didn't do it ignorantly.

1John2_26 wrote:
And is attributed to C.S. Lewis. Certainly not a lame intellect. It is not a logical fallacy he presented but a logical assertion.

"The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them. The range is false because there may be other, unstated choices which would only serve to undermine the original argument. If you concede to pick one of those choices, you accept the premise that those choices are indeed the only ones possible. Usually, only two choices are presented, thus the term "False Dilemma"; however, sometimes there are three (trilemma) or more choices offered. "
...from here.
Since the trilemma is predicated on a belief in the bible in the first place McDowell's use of it amounts to a circular argument.

Assuming that Lewis came to Christ as an ignorant uneducated backwoods hillbilly. He certainly is real smartnin' in his lernin'. Demoting his intellect has us at crossroads.

1John2_26 wrote:
His other views on Mere Christianity will get denigrated with the baby going out with the bath water.

Why?

You just did and why should it be assumed he won't be deminished as a matter of counter argument?

1John2_26 wrote:
Semantics and wordsmithing is all that will come about in this thread topic.

From you, you mean? I have no shortage of facts to present.

Neatly wrapped up in ifidels.org wrappers. The Trinity for example is well-thought out except the fact that skeptics eliminate the learned treatise by calling the whole deal a myth. There is no common ground.

1John2_26 wrote:
McCulloch knew this when he posted the thread.

Always the conspiracist eh?

When there is one. Lincoln wasn't setup by a lone wolf assassin. Sometimes the shoe fits.

So many "scholars" used in the dismantling of Christianity are nothing more than pouty children that never wanted to believe it in the first place. Good arguers and nothing more.

I could present arceaological examples of the accuracy of the New Testament and seeing "new" finds as supporting the Bible but somehow the sketic gets to say "so what?"

It boils down to a battle with bratty children, with cookie in hand still denying that cookies exist.

[micatala]

I haven't directly read any of McDowell's work, so until I have a chance to more thoroughly look into his statements and the critiques, I am not going to pronounce a view on the thread title.


However,

Quote:
1John2_26 wrote:
And is attributed to C.S. Lewis. Certainly not a lame intellect. It is not a logical fallacy he presented but a logical assertion.

"The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them. The range is false because there may be other, unstated choices which would only serve to undermine the original argument. If you concede to pick one of those choices, you accept the premise that those choices are indeed the only ones possible. Usually, only two choices are presented, thus the term "False Dilemma"; however, sometimes there are three (trilemma) or more choices offered. "
...from here.
Since the trilemma is predicated on a belief in the bible in the first place McDowell's use of it amounts to a circular argument.

Assuming that Lewis came to Christ as an ignorant uneducated backwoods hillbilly. He certainly is real smartnin' in his lernin'. Demoting his intellect has us at crossroads.

Neatly wrapped up in ifidels.org wrappers. The Trinity for example is well-thought out except the fact that skeptics eliminate the learned treatise by calling the whole deal a myth. There is no common ground.

So many "scholars" used in the dismantling of Christianity are nothing more than pouty children that never wanted to believe it in the first place. Good arguers and nothing more.

It boils down to a battle with bratty children, with cookie in hand still denying that cookies exist.

So, Lotan explains the fallacy that Lewis and McDowell have engaged in, and 1John conveniently ignores the point, and instead tries to change the subject to the credibility or biases of the people making the critiques.

The credibility or biases of the critiquers are beside the point. The point is whether the argument McDowell is making is valid or not. This can be done without alluding to the people making the arguments.

Lotan has shown that the McDowell's trilemma is fallacious. Nothing you have said refutes this in any way.

[Lotan]

Lotan has shown that the McDowell's trilemma is fallacious. Nothing you have said refutes this in any way.

Yippee!!!!!

Just for fun, let's enjoy a moment of unbridled ad hominem...

"A large fundamentalist men's organization in Tacoma planned a monumental, city wide, "prayer" breakfast. They bought large ads in the Tacoma News Tribune announcing that the featured speaker would be Josh McDowell. They listed his "credentials," making him sound like one of the world's leading scholars.

My built in B. S. detector turned on an alarm that could be heard a mile away. So, I called the leaders of the "prayer" group and asked for a copy of the resume he had sent them I promptly started making phone calls to all schools, speaking invitations, etc., that were listed on the resume. I am sure you can already see the ending of this. Phony and fraudulent "credentials" were obvious. A large part of the resume was hogwash.

I wrote a column about this in the Tacoma News Tribune and the expression, "it hit the fan," adequately covered the damage control and embarrassment of the sponsors of the "prayer" breakfast. I would hope that by now he has discovered two words, "integrity" and "honesty" regarding his "credentials."
...from here.

Now why would Josh McDowell, "Christian thinker of the ages" need to pad his resume? Maybe he thinks that it will help him pass off defective arguments like the following from "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity"...

"McDowell's Question:

"To what extent is the Bible inspired?" (p. 16)

McDowell's Answer:

The Apostle Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that "all Scripture is
inspired of God." Also the entire Bible is inspired, not just
certain parts, because it ends by saying, "I testify to everyone
who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds
to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in
this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life
and from the holy city, which are written in this book."
Revelation 22:18, 19.

The bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad
men or devils, or of God. Good men or angels would not be physically
able to make a book that put words into God's mouth and bad men or
devils would not make a book that damned themselves to eternal hell,
so it must be the third alternative; the Bible must be given by
divine inspiration.

_Critique_

Trifurcation. This "trilemma" fallacy occurs when a very complex issue
is being presented with only three (tri) alternative solutions when in
fact many alternatives may be possible. The bible may have been composed
by many different people over a period of hundreds of years, many without
the knowledge of the other's actions, and hence without a motive for evil
or for good. Many books in the bible, such as the Song of Solomon, were
written for pleasure and not to advance an agenda or a "truth."

Boy, McDowell sure enjoys using that "trilemma" fallacy. One would imagine that a "great thinker" like him would know better, but hey, maybe he does.

There are many more examples of McDowell's fallacious reasoning here. Non sequiturs, ad hoc arguments, red herrings...the sky's the limit!

[1John2_26]

"If" you believe that Jesus really existed and "if" you believe that other religions are false and don't count, then the "trilemma" holds up. Unless you don't want to consider it. Lewis had already discounted other religions as false and was directing a specific logic to Christ Jesus.

Infidels.org-ish minds are never going to give the slightest credence to the Christian scholar and seeing them from a totally all-out adversarial club of anti-Christians is not ad hom but just a fact.

Look at how easily Caiapahas and Pilate were brushed aside. No pun intended.

McDowell has other "scholars" that feel the way he does about the validity and historicity of the New Teatament:

1. For a defense of the full inerrancy of Holy Scripture, see J.P. Moreland, "The Rationality of Belief in Inerrancy," Trinity Journal (Spring 1986): 75-86.

2. For a summary of archaeology and the New Testament, see Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Archaeology and the New Testament;" in Introductory Articles, vol. 1 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), pp. 645-69. Two of the best summaries of extra-biblical evidence for Jesus are Gary R. Habermas Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus: Historical Records of His Death and Resurrection (Nashville: Nelson, 1985), E F Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).

3. It is sometimes said that Christians use circular arguments to prove the reliability of the Bible. For an analysis and refutation of this claim, see R. C. Sproul, "The Case for Inerrancy: A Methodological Analysis," in God's Inerrant Word: An International Symposium on the Trustworthiness of Scripture, ed. John Warwick Montgomery (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1974), pp. 242-61. For a helpful study of circular arguments in general, especially their relationship to begging the question, see Oliver Johnson, Skepticism arid Cognitivism: A Study in the Foundations of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), pp. 226-39.

4. A brief, helpful survey of various issues in historiography can be found in Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), pp, 285-304. More detailed discussions can be found in William H. Dray, Philosophy of History (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964); Hans Meyerhoff, ed., The Philosophy of History in Our Time (Garden City, MY: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1959); John Warwick Montgomery, Where Is History Going? (reprint ed.; Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1972); Sidney Hook, ed., Philosophy and History: A Symposium (New York: New York University Press, 1963).

5. In addition to Yamauchi, "Archaeology of the New Testament;" see Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp. 152-63.

6. See Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1968); Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York:, Oxford University Press, 1964). For a briefer treatment of the text of the New Testament, see Gordon D. Fee, "The Textual Criticism of the New Testament;" in Introductory Articles, vol. 1 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), pp. 419-33.

7. R. Joseph Hoffmann, "The Origins of Christianity: A Guide to Answering Fundamentalists," Free Inquiry 5 (Spring 1985):50.

8. Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, 2d ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969), pp. 53-54. For a good discussion of the concept of an original autograph in terms of the distinction between types and tokens, see Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Inerrancy of the Autographs" in Inerrancy ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1980), pp.151-93.

9. Gottschalk, Understanding History, pp, 41-171.

10. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1970), p. 142.

11. Gottschalk, Understanding History, p. 89.

12. Thus, Van A. Harvey surely errs when he says that it is required of a modern historian that he adopt a standpoint of methodological skepticism. See The Historian and the Believer (New York: Macmillan, 1966), 26. For a general theory of evidence based on a prima facie burden of proof for skepticism, see Roderick Chisholm, "A Version of Foundationalism," Studies in Epistemology, ed. Peter A. French et al., Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 5 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1980), pp. 543-64. For an excellent treatment of the legal aspects of testing the trustworthiness of witnesses and the application of this testing to the New Testament, see John Warwick Montgomery, Human Rights and Human Dignity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1986), pp. 139-50.

13. Gottschalk, Understanding History, p. 150.

14. See David Hill, "On the Evidence for the Creative Role of Christian Prophets," New Testament Studies 20 (April 1974): 262-74; New Testament prophecy (Atlanta: John Knox, 19811); see also David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).

15. G. N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), pp. 70-77.

16. C. H. Dodd, New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953), pp. 1-11.

17. In addition to Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, see Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

18. See A. W. Mosley, "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World," New Testament Studies 12 (October 1965): 10-26. See also the bibliography on page 7 of C. F D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 3d ed., rev. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981). It is sometimes objected that people in Jesus' day were gullible about miracles and miracle workers. It is alleged that miracle workers were plentiful in the ancient world, and that Jesus' miracles were fabricated to fit with the works of pagan or other Jewish miracle workers. For a good critique of this objection, see A. E. Harvey Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), pp. 98-119.

19. D. E. Nineham, "Eyewitness Testimony and the Gospel Tradition, I, II, III;" Journal of Theological Studies 9 (April 1958):13-25; 9 (October 1958): 223-52;11 (October 1960): 253-64.

20. See T W Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. Matthew Black (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), p. 5; Pierre Benoit, Jesus and the Gospel, 2 vols. (New York: Seabury, Crossroad Books, 1973), 1:28.

21. The most helpful survey of Hellenistic influence on the New Testament is Ronald H. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984). For a treatment of Aretalogies, divine men, and the Gospels, see Howard C. Kee, "Aretalogy and the Gospel," Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (September 1973): 402-22; "Huios," by W V. Martitz, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76), 8:338-40; Michael Green, ed., The Truth of God Incarnate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 36-42; John W. Drane, "The Religious Background," in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed.1. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1978), pp.117-25.

22. See Harald Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings (London: A. W. Mowbray and Company, 1961); Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1961); for brief summaries of this position, see I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, I Believe series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp 195-96; Peter H. Davids, 'The Gospels and Jewish Tradition: Twenty Years After Gerhardsson," in Gospel Perspectives I (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 75-99. Gerhardsson has responded to criticisms from Morton Smith and Jacob Neusner and has summarized and updated his position in The Origins of the Gospel Traditions, trans. Gene J. Lund (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). In The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (New York: Seabury, Crossroad Books, 1981), Martin Hengel has criticized Gerhardsson and has tried to show that there is no precise parallel between Jesus and Jewish rabbis. Three things can be said in response to Hengel. First, Gerhardsson argues in Origins of the Gospel Traditions that the fundamental point of comparison between Jesus and rabbis is memorization of the leader's teaching. But this feature was widespread in the ancient world and is the most likely parallel to hold between Jesus and the rabbis. Second, Hengel seems to prove only that Jesus was more than a rabbi, not less than one, and the addresses to Jesus as rabbi in the Gospels seem to go beyond a mere form of address equivalent to "sir." Third, Moule points out (Birth of the New Testament, pp. 231-34) that the language in the New Testament indicates that the message of Jesus was a deposit to be guarded and protected from error. Thus, Hengel's remark that there was an emphasis on obedience instead of accuracy of learning and knowledge seems to be an overstatement. R. T France has pointed out that even if one does not see a close parallel between Jesus and first-century rabbis, there is still enough evidence about first-century educational practice in general to indicate that memorization was a major means of education and thus Jesus' teaching would have been accurately passed on to others. See R. T France, The Evidence for Jesus (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1986), pp.106-11.

23. For practical implications of this point, see Cleon Rogers, "The Great Commission," Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (July 1973): 258-67; John Lozano, Discipleship: Towards an Understanding of Religious Life (Chicago: Claret Center for Resources in Spirituality, 1980), pp. 1-38.

24. See Marshall, I Believe, pp. 195-96.

25. See R. T France, "The Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus," in History, Criticism, and Faith, ed. Colin Brown (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1976), pp. 101-43.

26. France, "Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus," p. 123.

27. C. F D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1967), pp. 47-55.

28. C. Leslie Mitton, Jesus: The Fact Behind the Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp.136-39.

29. H. E. W. Turner, Historicity and the Gospels (London: A. R. Mowbray and Company, 1963), pp. 76-78.

30. Mitton, Jesus, pp.135-36.

31. Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (1954; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1963), pp. 11-12.

32. Moule, Phenomenon of the New Testament, pp. 66-67.

33. France, "Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus;" p.113.

34. Everett H. Harrison, "Gemeindetheologie: The Bane of Gospel Criticism;" in Jesus of Nazareth: Savior and Lord, ed. Carl F H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), pp. 157-73.

35. R. P C. Hanson, "The Enterprise of Emancipating Christian Belief from History" in Vindications. ed. Anthony Hanson (New York: Morehouse-Barlow, 1966), p. 56.

36. Moule, Phenomenon of the New Testament, pp. 72-75.

Manson, Studies In the Gospels and Epistles, p. 7.

Gottschalk, Understanding History, pp. 156-65.

39. A. R. C. Leaney, "Historicity in the Gospels," in Vindications, ed. Anthony Hanson (New York: Morehouse-Barlow, 1966), p.120, To this may be added Mark 13:32; 15:34.

40. Mitton, Jesus, p.120.

41. See Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 95-114.

42. For the influence of Hellenism on first-century Palestine, see I. Howard Marshall, "Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical Comments," New Testament Studies 19 (April 1973): 271-87. On the language of Palestine in Jesus' day, see Philip Edgcurnbe Hughes, "The Languages Spoken by Jesus," in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1974), pp, 127-43.

43. See Guthrie for a defense of the Pauline authorship of all thirteen New Testament epistles attributed to Paul.

44. Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), p. 31. See pp. 30-47 for an excellent summary of the chronology of New Testament Christology.

45. See Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp, 120-26; Hengel, Jesus and Paul, p. 78-96.

46. The best defense for taking Paul's own word for the origin of his christological views -his encounter with the risen Christ on the Damascus road- is Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).

47. See I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology, Issues in Contemporary Theology series (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1976), pp. 97-110; C. F D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 35-46; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1981), pp. 295-96.

48. See Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp.124-27; Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983), pp. 97-100; R. H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971), pp. 9-49; Raymond E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1973), pp. 81-96.

49. Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, p. 99.

50. The following present arguments for an early dating of the Gospels and other New Testament books: E. Earle Ellis, "Dating the New Testament;" New Testament Studies 26 (July 1980): 487-502; John A. T Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976); John W. Wenham, "Gospel Origins;" Trinity Journal (old series) 7 (Fail 1978):112-34. See the reply by Douglas Moo in Trinity Journal (new series) 2 (1981): 24-36; and the rejoinder by Wenham.

51. For an excellent brief summary of the Synoptic problem, see Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, A Harmony of the Gospels (Chicago: Moody, 1978), pp. 274-79. The standard defense of the priority of Matthew is William Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (New York: Macmillan, 1964). For a defense of the view that Matthew and Mark are independent of one another, see John M. Rist, On the Independence of Matthew and Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).

52. The conclusion that Luke relied on Matthew and Mark is independent of one's acceptance of the four-source theory. It seems clear from Luke's own testimony (1:1-4) that he used sources to compose his Gospel, and Mark was surely one of them. When Matthew's chronological order diverges from that of Mark, Luke follows Mark's order; when Matthew's chronology matches, Luke feels free to differ. This is explicable on the assumption that Luke had Matthew and Mark before him, even if Matthew and Mark are independent of one another.

Besides the volumes by Robinson, a helpful discussion which favors a pre-70 date for John is Leon Morris, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1971), pp, 30-35, Still relevant is the classic argument for Johnannine authorship of the fourth Gospel by B. F Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (1881; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1950), pp, v-xxxfi.

53. Hugo Staudinger, The Trustworthiness of the Gospels (Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1981), p. 9. Many New Testament scholars have not accepted the early date for Acts because it implies an early date for the Gospels. As France has noted: "It is tempting to suggest that the early date has failed to find widespread acceptance not because it is unconvincing in itself but because the results of its acceptance would be too uncomfortable!" See The Evidence for Jesus, pp. 120-21.

54. Marshall, I Believe, p. 159; Leopold Sabourin, Christology: Basic Texts in Focus (New York: Alba, 1984), pp. 15-28.

55. J. P Moreland, "An Apologetic Critique of the Major Presuppositions of the New Quest of the Historical Jesus," unpublished Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979, pp. 96-110; France, "Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus."

56. See the excellent study by Royce Gordon Gruenler, New Approaches to Jesus and the Gospels: A Phenomenological and Exegetical Study of Synoptic Christology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), chaps. 1-5.

57. See Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 67-85.

58. See E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (New York: Macmillan, 1946), pp. 33-36.

59. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (1963; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), pp. 186-93.

60. France, The Evidence for Jesus, p.138

[Lotan]

"If" you believe that Jesus really existed and "if" you believe that other religions are false and don't count, then the "trilemma" holds up.

"If" you already believe, then any circular argument will do. Big deal.

Look at how easily Caiapahas and Pilate were brushed aside.

You mean Mr. Red and Mr. Herring? They have nothing to do with this topic.

McDowell has other "scholars" that feel the way he does about the validity and historicity of the New Teatament:

You've said that already. You also said...

Anyone can be a "scholar" by the way.

But, what the heck? Here's a little more evidence for you to ignore...

" On page 86 in Evidence That Demands a Verdict apologist Josh McDowell refers to some Talmudic passages, including some discussed earlier, to prove the historicity of Jesus. Essentially all he did was scour the Talmud for any sentence, phrase, or passage that could possibly be twisted in such a manner as to refer to Jesus. Context was deemed irrelevant. For example, on page 86 McDowell quotes the Talmud as saying, "The Amoa 'Ulla' ('Ulla' was a disciple of R. Youchanan and lived in Palestine at the end of the third century.) adds: 'And do you suppose that for (Yeshu of Nazareth) there was any right of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: 'Thou shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him,' It is otherwise with Yeshu, for he was near to the civil authority."
Besides the fact that this passage is so vague that hundreds of people could be under consideration, allegations are included that should exclude Jesus, according to apologetic propaganda and the Gospels. For McDowell to cite as a source a passage which refers to Jesus as a beguiler is rather interesting, to say the least. I'm surprised he would admit it. Secondly, if Jesus was near to the civil authority, then McDowell is obligated to cite chapter and verse for corroboration.
McDowell cites Yeb. IV 3, 49a ("R. Shimeon ben Azzai said [concerning Jesus]: 'I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress'") for his own purposes. He is uncomfortable with the word "bastard." So, he quotes Klausner who redefines bastard by saying,..."What is a bastard? Everyone whose parents are liable to death by the Beth Din." Now McDowell feels that he can comfortably quote Klausner's final conclusion, "That Jesus is here referred to seems to be beyond doubt." After disassociating Jesus from the word bastard, McDowell feels he can now claim that "beyond doubt" his passage is referring to Jesus. He neglects to mention the fact that the reason they are punishable by death at the hands of Beth Din is that they are participating in a forbidden union. To be specific, the passage says, "so-and-so is a bastard [having been born] from [a forbidden union with] a married woman..." A footnote to this passage says, "Such a union is punishable by death at the hands of Beth Din." The essence of McDowell's deception lies in the fact that he made it look as if a bastard was anyone who was liable to death by Beth Din, as if Beth Din were some kind of uncontrollable murderer, when they are to be killed by Beth Din because they engaged in an illicit relationship that gave rise to a bastard. So, if it were referring to Jesus, then Jesus would be a bastard, and for McDowell to say it "seems to be beyond doubt" that Jesus is being referred to speaks for itself. McDowell is calling his saviour a derogatory name."
...from here.

I could do this for days...