Paul: The can was open as soon as Deuteronomy was written; and Evangelicals
have still not incorporated it into their theology. They ought to have at
least caught on after Jesus pointed it out. Calvin faced up to the cultural
"barbarity" in the OT; but, modern Evangelicals, wanting a Bible that is
equal to a Chemical Handbook, have rationalized away the teaching of Jesus
rather than incorporating it into their view of Scripture.
Incidentally, Matthew 19:8 is not the only teaching of Jesus that modern
Evangelical theologians would rather throw out than incorporate into their
view of Scripture. In Matthew 10:17-20 Jesus clearly taught that if a
Christian were called to account before a council, there was no need to worry
about what to say for "it is _not you who speak_, but the Spirit of your
Father who speaks in you." That is as strong a promise of divine verbal
inspiration as has ever been made. In Acts 7, Stephen, a Christian "filled
with the Holy Spirit" (which is virtually the same as saying inspired;cf.
Acts 6:10, Luke 1:67) is called to account before a council (Acts 6:12); and
in the process of his defense mixes up the OT history several times (See most
any scholarly commentary on Acts). Rather than admitting the obvious, that
divine verbal inspiration does not guarantee historical reliability,
evangelical theologians rationalize away the data, some even claiming that
"maybe Stephen was not inspired" ,i.e, maybe Jesus does not keep his promises!
With reference to both Matthew 19:8 and 10:17-20 you can see in Evangelical
theology the placing of an autonomous a priori view of Scripture before Jesus
Christ.
As to the resurrecton, Edwin Yamauchi in his usual thorough way addresses
your question and more in his Easter: Myth, Hallucination or History? found
at www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
George's answer is also very good; and I think also of the debate between
Antony Flew and Gary Habermas.
Paul: >I will only add that even with reference to the resurrection of Jesus,
which
>is where the NT makes its ultimate apologetic stand, Paul builds his case in
>I Cor 15 for the resurrection as a historical event upon references to human
>testimony, human sources, not divine revelation (except as prophesying that
>it would happen); and all the apostles do the same thing.
Glenn: And we no longer have these witnesses to talk to. They are all dead.
Thus
we must trust Paul to have told us the truth. This means that we trust this
part of the Bible but not the rest to tell us historical truth? That seems
oddly convenient. Is Paul more trustworthy than the Creator of the Universe?
Paul: In my view all of the historical accounts in the Bible are contingent
upon the human sources available. I see no biblical claim which supports the
view that God reveals or even corrects (indirect revelation) the history qua
history in the Bible. The question is then, What human sources did the writer
of Gen 1-11 have available? It looks very much like his sources for the
history per se were few in number, Mesopotamian, and far removed from his own
day. Paul's sources were more numerous, Christian, and contemporary or at
the worst only one generation removed. It is not convenience, but
consistency that allows me to place more faith in Paul's history than in that
of Gen 1-11.
Along these lines, William Lane Craig has a series of essays on the
resurrection at www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html,
www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb1.html,
www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/guard.html, and
www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html
"Is Paul more trustworthy than the Creator of the Universe?" is begging the
question. I don't see any evidence that the Creator of the Universe revealed
any history qua history in the Bible. I think that is the old paradigm; and
that it is a priori, not biblical.
Paul