Mark at Chesterstreet responded (sort of) to my latest post about God’s Word. That’s o.k. I was looking forward to hearing what he had to say. I wasn’t disappointed since I heard just what I guessed I would hear. I would only hope that he actually reads Metzger since it isn’t clear from his reply that he actually has.
"The menace of the scripture’s "message" is one aspect of his own scholarship and field of study that an unbeliever like himself will completely avoid."
As usual, Mark makes sweeping comments about things he has no clue about. I don’t ‘completely avoid’ the ‘menace’ meaning the gloom and doom of eternal punishment. Maybe he misunderstands the words ‘completely avoids.’ You can’t study Christianity or write about it without knowing the punishment that awaits sinners. The punishment is really what Christianity is all about. However, studying it and believing it are two different things. Mark just can’t separate out the two. I, however, can and do. As usual, it all goes back to believing.
"It must stink that Jesus was seen, ate, drank, touched, had brothers and sisters, raised the dead, fed thousands with a basket, was nailed to a tree, buried, resurrected, and all these events are recorded with more historical evidence than the texts of let’s say Plato, Socrates or any other ancient texts."
It doesn’t stink to me. I said before (and apparently in his rush to judge he missed what I said twice now) that I think Jesus was a real person. However, there is no historical proof that he was resurrected. And sorry–comparing the text of Plato (Socrates didn’t write anything down so what he have about him comes from Plate and others) with the story that Jesus is the son of God and resurrected isn’t valid. No one is claiming that Plato was the son of God or resurrected. There is a big difference here.
And I agree with what Metzger has to say:
"Since textual criticism is an art as well as a science, it is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence. This divergence is almost inevitable when, as sometimes happens, the evidence is so divided that, for example, the more difficult readings is found only in the later witnesses.
One of the perennial dangers that confront scholars in every discipline is the tendency to become one-sided and to oversimplify the analysis and resolution of quite disparate questions. In textual criticism, this tendency can be observed when a scholar, becoming enamored of a single method or criterion of textual analysis, applies it more or less indiscriminately to a wide variety of problems."
Unfortunately again I don’t think Mark understood what Metzger had to say and what I had to say. I would suggest to Mark to read that last sentence and think about how he applies his own method to the scripture which he professes to be God’s Word.