That’s easy. Plantinga has a *balanced take* on historical biblical criticism (relevant cites below), whereas Scott has become a defensive and unilateral proponent of historical biblical criticism. Plantinga is grateful for the accomplishments of historical biblical criticism, but is not enthralled by them. Scott on his part brandishes Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis as if it were a sword capable of slaying dragons – the dragons who breathe the fire of a full-bodied Jewish or Christian faith. Nothing could be further from the truth: the sword of Wellhausen, and the others Scott tries to wield, are made of papier-mâché. More on why Scott is wrong and Alvin is right below the fold.