What’s fair is fair. Sanctified paleobabble is still paleobabble.
The excellent Evangelical Textual Criticism blog posted this back in February: “Debunking Silly Statements about the Bible.”
Most of the items are examples of claims that over-extend the data. That sort of thing is all too common.
Keep in mind the ETC blog is produced by professional textual critics who have a very high view of Scripture. They just know the data and want people to be honest with it.
From the ETC blog “About” page:
. . . [T]he Evangelical Textual Criticism blog aims to provide a forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology. For discussion on what Evangelical textual criticism means, see here.
The membership of this blog is made up of evangelicals involved in academic study of textual criticism. . . . Those applying for membership must indicate that they have read either the OT or the NT in its original language(s), should be actively involved in text-critical research, and should be already contributing to the blog through comments. They should give e-mail details of an academic and a pastoral referee, a summary of their academic and/or ministry involvement, a statement of their doctrinal commitment (which may be by reference to various classic evangelical statements of faith, e.g. 39 Articles, Westminster Confession), and an indication of their area of interest within textual criticism.
Neat! Thanks Dr. Heiser for another good resource in the battle for Christian academic honesty. Can’t wait to check out the blog.
Ah, does this ever bring back memories! Back in the day when I was devout, and studied the Biblical texts, I’d heard comparisons of the gospels (for instance) with (also, for instance) Julius Caesar’s commentaries on the Gallic Wars. The oldest copies of that date to the Middle Ages, yet no one questions the historicity of Caesar, nor does anyone question that the Gallic Wars occurred, even though around 9 centuries passed within that span. Therefore, because the oldest gospel manuscripts/fragments date back to the first couple centuries CE, a considerably shorter span between the events and the manuscripts, no one can question the accuracy of the gospels or the historicity of Jesus.
Needless to say, the problems with this comparison, to use an allusion to the gospels, are legion. It is, frankly, insane. Even at that time, I was astonished that people would actually use such apologetics.