For Sparks it comes to this: either the views of Jesus or the assured conclusions of CBS [Critical Biblical Scholarship]. At least we know what the choice is. What we do not yet know is what good reasons there might be for preferring CBS over the views of Jesus. Sparks points out that the statements of Jesus probably were not ‘historical-critical testimonies.’ Surely Sparks is right; I am tempted to say, ‘Of course Jesus was not engaged in historical-critical research.’ But how is this even relevant. If—and only if—historical-critical research were the only way that Jesus might learn about the authorship of the Pentateuch (or other matters), then we might have good reason to dismiss the claims of Jesus. But why think that Jesus would have had to do historical-critical research to know such things? I can readily think of other possible ways of knowing—for starters, being the omniscient incarnate Son might be relevant. Perhaps this is too quick, for Sparks says that we may need to reevaluate our commitment to classical christology.
—Thomas H. McCall, “Religious Epistemology, Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and Critical Biblical Scholarship,” in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture, ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 49.
What is perhaps more baffling than the position he takes is that Sparks seems to expect evangelicals to accept his proposals as legitimate evangelical positions when it is not clear that the positions are even Christianpositions.