It sounds like the sort of book that may (and perhaps should?) simply be dismissed or ignored by mainstream scholars, since its authors choose to attempt to redefine historical study rather than practice it. A book which apparently says things like “Assuming the historical accuracy of Luke’s account…” (p. 75) and complains about “anti-supernatural bias in Bauer’s historical method” (p. 102) is a work of apologetics, not historical study. The issue is not whether it is possible to believe in divine inspiration and the supernatural. The issue is that multiple groups have made and continue to make conflicting and contradictory claims, appealing to divine inspiration to dismiss the difficulties of their position. And so historians have learned (but apparently Kostenberger and Kruger have not) that matters of history cannot be settled by bypassing historical methods and appealing to the supernatural or revelation, since any viewpoint can be justified by appeal to the supernatural. Indeed, conflicting claims based on religious authority and/or subjective experience are a major reason why better evidence-based methods were developed in the first place. But it sounds like, if nothing else, Kostenberger and Kruger illustrate why we still need those rigorous methods.
Burke could readily have simply quoted these authors’ own words back at them, saying that the Kostenberger-Kruger “thesis is wrong not just because these scholars’ interpretation of the data is wrong, but because their interpretation proceeds on the basis of a flawed interpretive paradigm.”
But instead he takes the time instead to engage in a calm yet pointed discussion of their claims. Here’s a sample:
I realize I shouldn’t be surprised that a book aimed at the evangelical market would invoke divine guidance for developments in church history, but it just strikes me as so archaic, a throwback to times when the only explanation needed to make or refute any argument is that “the Bible tells me so.” The Bauer-Ehrman “anti-supernatural bias” allows, at least, for the consideration of tangible, measurable, provable factors in (for example) the canon selection process. Perhaps there are flaws in some arguments made by Bauer-Ehrman theorists—maybe orthodoxy was not influenced by Marcion, maybe the NT writers did self-consciously write their texts as scripture—but to credit the formation of the NT to the Holy Spirit is hardly an effective refutation of these arguments.
And towards the end, the heart of the matter:
The real frustration for me in reading K&K;’s discussion of the canon is that it illustrates vividly how futile it is for K&K; to write a book refuting the Bauer-Ehrman thesis if they refuse to interact with it on the same methodological plane.
Many thanks to Tony for taking the time to draw attention to the problematic aspects of The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (Crossway, 2010)
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In