Concluding Remarks in a Discussion with Dave Matson 

- by Brian Lawson 

Although I anticipate future interaction with Dave Matson, and even look forward to such, this page will serve to conclude my thoughts on this discussion with him.  An outline of the discussion is covered in the following table:

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

First, I want to comment on Dave’s attempt to clarify his comparison between “Alice in Wonderland” and the New Testament gospel materials.  Instead of admitting that he made a poor comparison, he is attempting to avoid the implication that he made in his Commentary.  His latest comments caused more problems.  Just read the second paragraph of Dave's reaction: 

“I did not claim that the Gospels are of the same genre as “Alice in Wonderland.”  I had to reread my first paragraph, because I thought I must have misstated something to cause such a flap.  But, no, I did not equate the two.  My purpose was to express, pointedly, the foolhardiness of putting so much faith in the details of the Gospels, given that mainstream scholars reject them as historical accounts.   That is, historical theories that hang on the Gospel details are no better than those built from the details of “Alice in Wonderland.” (from Dave Matson’s Reaction)

If Dave is saying that “Alice in Wonderland” and the gospels are not of the same genre, and that he did not mean to “equate the two” (in that regard), then what was his point in bringing these two equations to our attention?  Perplexing, I’ll say it is! After positing this particular correlation, it is now interesting to see Dave distance himself from this position. By now distancing himself, Dave has confirmed my original point - he needs to make a better comparison.  As any average reader can see, the Gospels are far different than “Alice in Wonderland” and they are the kinds of documents which claim historical events in historical settings. In other words, while the story of “Alice in Wonderland” invites our imagination to explore fantasy, the Gospels invite serious analysis of their historical claims.  The point of such examination is to determine – rather than accept one type of scholar’s opinion - whether or not the gospel claims provide a valid, or understandable, history.

Quite a bit of Dave’s latest response was dedicated to telling all of us which scholars should be considered when studying issues relating to the gospels and which scholars should not be considered.  All I want to say here is that I hope that most of our readers are beyond such concerns.  What I mean is that I hope that ITW readers are willing to examine the facts presented in a wide variety of resources and evaluate the opinions of a variety of scholars on any issue they are studying.  That is what ITW’s authors encourage readers to do (and what we try to practice).  I hope that none of us is going to avoid one type of scholar merely because they are not “mainstream” (per Matson’s evaluation), or are “mainstream” by his definition, or conservative, or liberal, or whatever.  Granted, I have my own favorite scholars and generally lean toward the “conservative” types.  However, my goal is to be better at going beyond such borders to evaluate the data and arguments of many.  ITW’s co-editor, Mark McFall, is far better at this than I am.  Unfortunately, Matson suggests that we not only go backwards in progress and lean on one kind of scholar, but he suggests that we should accept his favorites as authoritative, or that they are at least the only ones worth bothering with.  I suggest that we read and evaluate from those that he likes, and those he doesn’t like.  I suggest that he also grow beyond this need to ignore a wide variety of input.

Further, I suggest that all of us understand the degree of opinionated speculation saturating much of what many scholars provide in their works.  The better scholars are careful to separate facts from theories and are good at identifying where they are offering opinionated interpretations of the data they observe.  This is especially important when considering the statements of scholars concerning Jesus Christ and what is to be determined as historical or fictional in His life.  Varied scholars may feel they have identified problematic gospel claims about Jesus’ life from a lack of confirmation by non-Biblical sources, or through a philosophical bias against the claims of miracles in the gospel materials.  Reasonable doubt from some of such scholars is understandable regarding the historicity of such claims, but so is the reasoned faith of other scholars.   Why?  Because there is nothing from the past that clearly demonstrates gospel claims about Jesus’ life as undeniably true or false.  Scholar or not, “mainstream” or whatever, unquestionable scientific determination (outside of faith) about what happened in Jesus’ life is not afforded to dogmatic certainty.  But unfortunately much of what Matson has pointed out from his “mainstream” scholars was generally their debatable opinion, not observable fact.  Such things may be helpful to consider, but I value the data provided by any scholar far more than his (or her) opinions, theories, and speculations.  ITW is all about examining the data and argumentation provided by scholars and evaluating their opinions rather than accepting them uncritically.

One of the grandest categories of scholarly opinion of our time is found in the theories about our New Testament gospels – their literary relationship and their origins.  But Matson (again) seems to think that the scholars can offer us a clear answer to such things.  Concerning the Two Source Theory and the Q-Hypothesis, Matson thinks such ideas are a slam-dunk regarding what really is the literary relationship of our gospels thus offering him another two points against the validity of the gospels and their claims.  Bothering to study the issue across the broad spectrum of scholars and scholarly resources, Dave would probably find out that there are good reasons to doubt his favorite theories about the gospel origins and relationships, and that the best scholars regard their favorite theories on the issue with a bit of educated doubt.  For those interested, I cover this somewhat in an article on the Synoptic Problem.

Concluding, I want to thank Dave Matson again for his comments and his input.  Such input is always welcome at ITW, by both Christians and non-Christians alike.  If others have an interest in providing comments and perspectives to be considered for the ITW reading audience, see our Home Page for more information.

-------------------------

The following is a bit of continued discussion by e-mail between Dave Matson and Brian Lawson that is intended to show the conclusion of the "debate":

------------------------

[From Matson to Lawson]:
Too bad this discussion is over, but I know that you have other things that you want to do. I am surprised that you would view me as advocating the dismissal of a viewpoint simply because it was not mainstream. That has never been my position. I did point out two things: 1) some yardsticks by which to evaluate the objectivity of a scholar; 2) that there is something out there that can properly be called mainstream Bible scholarship. The latter was a response to the claim that I had made up the notion for debating purposes. Yes, by all means do look at non-mainstream scholars, even rank apologists, but keep in mind that all scholarship is not equal. Many of these works are written by people who have a huge dogma to serve, a dogma called "biblical inerrancy" that manifests itself in various forms. The fact that my sources (having a variety of opinion) are cited in the encyclopedias, by respected university professors, in such esteemed works as The Anchor Bible, and by scholars everywhere, should ring a bell. No, it's not the end of the argument, as if citing scholars could logically short-circuit the reasoning process, but it is a sign (if there ever was one) that there are some good reasons for the rejection of traditional doctrines. Of course, there is no way--short of writing a book--that I could even begin to get into the guts of these arguments. I have to be contented with pointing out that mainstream Bible scholarship really does exist and has reached a consensus on certain matters relating to the Gospels. Rest assured that mainstream, scholarly opinion is built on facts, however speculative it might seem to you. Perhaps, when I have more time, we could explore some corner of mainstream scholarship.

Sincerely,
Dave E. Matson

----

[From Lawson to Matson]:

Thanks for responding again....I am sorry if I did in fact misunderstand your latest response/reaction.  I know I hate being misunderstood, reinterpreted, and set up under a straw-man. 

When rereading your last piece that I responded to, I still find it very difficult not to interpret that you are easily dismissing scholarship that would see the gospels as providing real history.  It was not my purpose to misinterpret what you wrote.  If you would like me to post something that clarifies your intent in contrast to my understanding, I would consider that.  Please explain to me what you would like me (& ITW) to do.  

In my last response I was trying to find a way to wrap up the discussion since it has seemed to me that you were concerned only with pointing out that some scholars view the gospels as fiction.  To me that sort of point is at least noteworthy, but it is at best an obvious point.  Surely there is disagreement over these matters.   To be involved in criticism and discussions at a meaningful level, I prefer to analyze the data directly, not look at such things through the lenses of a scholar’s opinion.   I’d like to see a thoughtful person like yourself engage the issues over the data *rather than* merely state that one scholar (or group of scholars) might offer a different opinion than mine (or Mark’s).  Argue the data and throw in scholarly opinion as a bonus to your argument(s).  

 As far as back and forth discussion and debate, I prefer to do such a thing in an informal setting – like an e-mail discussion list.  (I prefer saving ITW writing for making a presentation on the issues, rather than engaging individuals).  I am on one discussion list that is made up of mostly non-Christian members who are subscribed to discuss Christianity.  The list is “Xianity” and you can consider subscribing to it at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Xianity .  You’ll get plenty of backup from fellow skeptics when debating me (and other Christians) there.

 I hope this makes sense.  Feel free to follow up with me directly.

-------------------------------------
Brian Lawson
ITW Frontline - Apologetics
--------------------------------------

---

[From Matson to Lawson]

My point was (and is) that mainstream scholarship cannot be ignored regarding the historicity of the Gospels. Its existence cannot be brushed off. However, I fully agree with you that a proper survey of authority, while reasonable as an indication of where mainstream scholars stand, or the existence of such, is no substitute for particular arguments. Authority can only be valued for the arguments that it has produced, as an indication that careful thinkers have reached certain conclusions. Obviously, in a debate, the arguments are primary. (In that respect, you may be interested in a new book by Robert Price, an excellent scholar who feels that even The Jesus Seminar was too generous in allowing that 18% of the Gospels are clearly Jesus, having passed the prescribed battery of tests set by The Jesus Seminar. In that respect, Dr. Price is on the more pessimistic end, which is where I am at. [The Incredible Shrinking Son Of Man -- Robert M. Price, Prometheus Books, 2003])

I don't know if you are interested in Bible contradictions, but I do sell an excellent book by Darrel Henshell for $21.00 (coil bound, 142 pages, 8.5x11"). About 130 contradictions are laid out in two columns, side by side. Of special interest is a chapter (6) that points out the epistemological problems usually encountered in apologetic responses. Usually, you don't get that in a book on Bible contradictions, many works being somewhat superficial, but a useful definition of "contradiction" (among other things) is crucial to the whole subject.

Very Best Wishes,
Dave Matson, editor
The Oak Hill Free Press
P.O. 61274
Pasadena, CA 91116

---

[From Lawson to Matson and ITW Readers]:

In conclusion, it appears that in Dave's point of view, there is a group of scholars that can be labeled "mainstream".  In my view, such a labeling is founded only upon an opinion.  Regardless, I am glad to see that we both have the mindset that the "particular arguments" in the face of the actual facts are essential to the issues being discussed.   So I look forward to studying the issues in light of the facts (as we usually do at ITW) and hope that future discussions with Matson will focus there rather than on which scholars stand behind our personal conclusions.

-------------------------------------
Brian Lawson
ITW Frontline - Apologetics
--------------------------------------

END                    Revised: 04/21/05