In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 Introduction Attacks on orthodox Christian beliefs and practices originate from many quarters. Those of us who are professionally located in secular academia find criticisms coming from three main academic locales—biblical studies, theology , and philosophy. (Some also arise out of the sciences, of course, but they will not be my focus in the present book.) Many of these attacks are from intelligent and serious people. Throughout my career, I have found myself from time to time defending religious belief and especially Christian belief from assaults from all three sources. This book brings together some of those writings. Some of the essays have not been previously published; others have appeared in other settings and have been revised for this occasion. The book does, however, constitute a coherent overall argument. Its conclusion is that orthodox Christian belief can be defended against the attacks that are coming its way.1 Part I deals with issues that have arisen in recent years from New Testament studies. The issues here have to do with texts, history, and believability. Chapter 1 deals with the Jesus Seminar, a group of New Testament scholars who achieved real notoriety in the last few years of the twentieth century. They saw themselves as cut off entirely from any sort of churchly or religious authority, and they reached rather startling conclusions, among other things, about the authenticity of the teachings of Jesus. I conclude in chapter 1 that both the methods and conclusions of the Seminar are flawed. Chapter 2 deals briefly with recent research on the source that scholars call Q, a hypothetical source that was apparently used by the writers of the gospels of Matthew and Luke but not Mark. Located primarily in my own hometown of Claremont, 2 Disputed Issues California, researchers on the International Q Project also make rather startling claims that are, I believe, unfounded. Also local to Claremont, Professor Dennis MacDonald has recently argued that much of the material in Mark’s gospel was mimetically copied from Greek classics such as the Iliad and the Odyssey. This thesis appears to have rather dramatic implications for the historical accuracy of claims that are made about Jesus in Mark, although MacDonald does not spell out those implications. Chapter 3 is my response to his argument . Chapter 4 deals with a controversial issue among New Testament scholars, viz., whether Jesus claimed for himself the authority to forgive sins, as the Gospels claim. Since an affirmative answer to this question has long been used by theologians and preachers to support the notion that Jesus was God incarnate, this issue has important theological implications . Chapter 5 is, in effect, a long book review. Recently a group called “Internet Infidels,” who publish mainly on the Internet and in an avowedly antireligious philosophical journal called Philo, has been raising harsh criticisms of Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Their book, The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus , 2005), raises a whole series of criticisms, mainly from people who think clearly and have done their homework. Chapter 6 concerns exegesis, the art or science of reading and interpreting the Bible. Since the time of Bultmann, scholars have asked whether it is appropriate for exegetes to approach the Bible with certain presuppositions. This chapter presents and defends my own views on this matter. Part II deals with theological issues that mainly relate to Christian doctrines. Chapter 7 takes up the issue of relations between the religions and asks whether orthodox or evangelical Christians ought to embrace religious pluralism. I argue that they should not do so; I also try to say what sort of attitude Christians ought to have toward other religions. Chapter 8 specifically concerns relations between Jews and Christians. A recent movement in some Christian circles promotes rethinking Christian theology in the light of the Holocaust. This often involves the recommendation that Christian theses that can be offensive to Jews—e.g., the claim that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God—be revised or rejected. A recent impetus to further thinking about this subject was the appearance in 2004 of Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ. In chapter 8, I present my own views on this subject. Having lived and worked in Claremont, California—the world center of Process Theology—for many years, it is natural that I have had to engage in dialogue with Process thinkers on many occasions. While I admire the accomplishments of Alfred North Whitehead—I...

Share