Review of Dave Matson’s Commentary (Part 1)

- Brian Lawson

            I want to thank Dave Matson, first of all, for taking the time to read and respond to the Spring 2004 ITW Newsletter.  It’s a nice reminder that both believers and non-believers take the time to read the content of ITW.  So as I respond argumentatively at some points to Mr. Matson’s commentary, I don’t want anyone to think that I don’t appreciate his response.  I’m responding only to his commentary on my articles (Introduction to an Object of Faith and It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane…Its Superman!) and Mark has responded to Mr. Matson’s commentary on his article (A Believer Objectively Comments on the Resurrection of Jesus).

            In the final statement of Dave Matson’s commentary, he writes, “While Jesus, the person, may have existed…we skeptics do not see any good reasons for believing in Jesus’ resurrection and other miracles, despite our own efforts at careful, objective study.”  That statement should be instructive to every Christian who has read my articles and Dave’s commentary.  For certainly when we Christians talk about the Bible’s credibility in historical details, the red flag of doubt is waved by the non-believer at the appearance of anything that we commonly call a “miracle”.  And we should never be surprised because all of us, if we are honest, have some trouble believing anyone’s testimony about the occurrence of uncommon and/or amazing things – especially that which we have not experienced ourselves.  And we’ve all run into people who will tell tall tales to manipulate others into believing and acting certain ways.  This is something that I mentioned briefly in my article, Introduction to an Object of Faith.  I’m glad that Mr. Matson helps me to drive the main point of that article home - that Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one that, if honest, is held in the midst of reasons to doubt.

            It is way beyond my purpose here to defend Biblical miracles in this reply, but I want to say a few things here.  As much as I believe that God has answered my prayers, and has even communicated to me in some unexpected ways (with confirmation), the Bible records some events that I can’t relate to in my own experience.   However, the Bible does not teach that such events (miracles) are normal or that they are to be expected experiences for all persons.  Personally, I have experienced enough to believe that God exists and that He can do all of the other things that I have not experienced, as He deems necessary.  I believe that God has performed miracles as described in the Bible.  Nevertheless, there are chapters and books on the subject of miracles that ITW readers should read in consideration of such an issue.  I recommend two critical articles by Michael Fisher (atheist): Miracles and Christian History at http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/library/weekly/aa041900a.htm  and Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism at http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/library/weekly/aa053100a.htm .  As far as Christian arguments, I recommend two chapters from C.S. Lewis’ book God in the Dock (ISBN: 0802808689), (chapter 2: “Miracles”, and chapter 9: “The Grand Miracle”), and also his book entitled Miracles (ISBN: 0060653019).

            Back to Mr. Matson’s commentary: Dave pulled out the bullwhip on me for being “encouraged by the historical nature of the Bible.”  In some attempt to correct me, he mentions several of the Bible problems that he must think I’ve never considered.  Certainly I acknowledge, as I did in my “Intro” article, that there are several items in the New Testament, and the Bible in general, that are in critical dispute.   It is not my intent here to argue the specifics that he mentioned, nor was it my intent to mention and solve all of the Bible difficulties in my article.  It would be proper to discuss these at greater length with articles dedicated to each individual problem (Noah, Jericho, etc.).  However, and generally speaking, having encountered many of these “problems” in the past (those that Mr. Matson mentions and many more), I am sufficiently satisfied with both the reasoning and the data that serves to defend the Bible against the criticisms often volleyed at these problematic sections.  I will also admit that some “problems” remain unsolved.   I am a conservative Christian, but I do not expect the Bible to be 100% perfect and without questionable details as far as historical concerns.  If my faith in Christ required the Bible to be such a book (as some Christians do), then my faith would have died on a few details long ago.  But, not giving ground to just any and every problem that the critics can drum up, I am satisfied with the overall credibility of the Bible and it’s testimony in the midst of criticism.   That was the point I hoped to make in a very “introductory” article about believing the Bible’s testimony of Jesus and His resurrection.

            Now, let me criticize Mr. Matson’s “commentary” on a few points.  First, he started his commentary musing that he could envision Mark and I discussing the details in “Alice in Wonderland” as givens in the manner that we did the gospel materials.   The first problem here is that Dave believes that the gospels are fiction and apparently thinks that whenever Christians discuss the details in them that they must continually prove all of the details and never discuss them as anything factual, nor ever as pieces of testimony to seriously consider.  The point in my “Superman” article was to make sense of the combined testimony in the gospels because, at face value, they can seem confusing.   The content of that article was intended to speak to both the believer and the skeptic who is trying to understand a combined claim as to what Jesus’ resurrected body consisted of.  In that case, I was discussing the “given” testimony from the applicable New Testament sources.  This is a fair thing to do if anyone is seriously considering the testimony of the New Testament instead of merely dismissing it as fiction. 

Secondly, Matson’s comparison of the gospels with “Alice in Wonderland” does nothing to serve Dave’s criticism of Christianity, but rather sets it up on a tee.   An “Alice” in “Wonderland” – a “character” in an “obviously fictional place” – is a far cry different from a “Jesus” in “Palestine” – a “character” in an “obviously real place”.  Furthermore, the character, “Alice”, met up with obviously fictional characters, and by no means does the writer attempt to impose that story as real.  This is sufficiently different for the character, “Jesus”, who is said to have met up with historically verified characters at a real point in history where the gospel writers attempt to impose their story as historically real.  Mildly stated, there are better literary comparisons for critics to make, but I’ll let Mr. Matson figure those out on his own.

            Let me also criticize Dave Matson’s loaded statements about what scholars think of the gospels.  Certainly he couldn’t have been thinking of the opinion of all scholars, but he called them “mainstream” so as to have readers suppose that most scholars suggest what he thinks.   Perhaps he should have provided a list of scholars, and then I could have returned fire with a list of my own in disagreement.  Nevertheless, let me simply say that his bias is reflected in the unnamed scholars that he is calling “mainstream”. 

Another shortcoming in that segment of Dave’s commentary is that he was not readily admitting the amount of speculation behind what these “mainstream” scholars suppose.   In one short paragraph, Matson announced his understanding of the literary relationships of the gospels, and the pre-literary history of the gospels, as if stating a matter of fact.  However, such issues have not provided scholars with proven answers.  Perhaps Dave has solved these matters making him a “Superman” among scholars?  I doubt it.  However, let me admire him for appearing to take a position on the gospels that I have not witnessed many other secular critics propose (these days).  I interpret him as saying that the gospels were written independently and based on oral traditions that circulated in Christian communities prior to them being written down.  I can appreciate that.  However, it is purely speculative of him (and others) to suppose that it was the communities that developed the traditions (or gospel stories and sayings) to meet their needs.  Robert H. Stein in his book,  Studying the Synoptic Gospels- Origin and Interpretation (ISBN 0801022584), argues that the presence of problematic gospel materials and the lack of gospel materials to directly address several issues of the early church (circumcision, church polity, speaking in tongues, etc.) offers evidence that the gospel writers were faithful to the tradition they received instead of freely developing their own to meet the needs or desires of their communities.  Stein goes into greater detail, and those interested should read chapters 7 & 8 of his book for the full argument.

In support of Matson’s gospel-development theory, he boldly stated that the gospels “were never meant to be laid side by side!”  I agree that the gospel authors did not envision side by side gospel synopses.  But look what we see when we place the gospels side by side! (See ITW Gospel Synopses.)  If anything is “plain as a pikestaff”, it is that three of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, & Luke) share common detail and wording to the point that loyalty to a fixed tradition (or their source) is a greater likelihood than that individual “communities” created their own stories or altered the tradition (or source) with much freedom.  True, we find some differences when gospels account for the same events or teachings. Such may hint at each writer’s theological focuses or attempts at clarification to the common tradition.  Differences may also reflect variations in the gospel tradition due to oral transmission.   There are also events and/or sermons that are not shared by all of the gospels, but only one or two.  However, this kind of difference may merely suggest that more happened in the life of Christ than is accounted for in any one gospel – even more than all of them together (John 20:30 & 21:25).  All of this suggests that Matson’s theory of gospel origins and development, stated as some sort of fact, is really more of a speculation – an opinion of his that only some scholars may share with him in some aspects.  What he presented is a theory that looks at some of the evidence, takes a few scholars at their opinionated word, and states his belief that the gospels must be works of fictional development.  In order to justify his “matter of fact” statements on the origins of the gospels and their dates of authorship, he needs to be able to solve a few issues (such as the Synoptic Problem) that many scholars have various opinions to, but no definite nor proven answers.  Unless he is the greatest scholar of our age, or at least knows something that the scholars don’t, then let me say that his statements about gospel origins was written with unwarranted confidence.  To his credit, he is no worse than most Bible critics in that regard.

            That’s all I have for this response to Dave Matson’s commentary.   I’m glad for his response, and I hope that we have all learned something as a result of his participation.

----End Article---

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THIS DISCUSSION
1) Introduction to an Object of Faith (Believing the Resurrection Story of Jesus Christ) - by Brian Lawson
2) A Believer Objectively Comments on the Resurrection of Jesus - by Mark McFall
3) It's a Bird...It's a Plane...It's Superman! (Identifying the Resurrection Body of Jesus) - by Brian Lawson
4) Commentary By Dave E. Matson (Response to ITW articles, items 1-3) 
5) Brian Lawson's Response to Dave Matson's Commentary
6) Mark McFall's Response to Dave Matson's Commentary
7) Dave Matson's Reaction
8) Concluding Remarks in a Discussion with Dave Matson

END                    Revised: 03/14/05