Jeffrey Gibson

I should think that to see whether or not Evans is strong (or weak) on history, his list of publications would be more relevant than what you set out above.

In any case, since you've now set out the criteria by which people may be judged as "strong" or "weak" on history, let's see your CV so that we may know why we should think -- as you strongly imply we should -- that you are Evan's opposite.

Jeffrey

dog-on

Hi Jeffrey,

I would really like to know your opinion of this statement, from Evans:

Do you think that Evans is correct? Why or why not?

Jeffrey Gibson

Please note that what is given from Evans above is a selective quotation that Makes Evans seem to say something other than what he was intent to assert.

Here's the full quote:

Quote:

Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. Archaeology, remarkable literary discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and progress in reassessing the social, economic, and political setting of first-century Palestine have been major factors. Notwithstanding the eccentricities and skepticism of the Jesus Seminar, the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding, i.e., as proclaimer of God’s rule, as understanding himself as the Lord’s anointed, and, indeed, as God’s own son, destined to rule Israel. But this does not mean that the historical Jesus that has begun to emerge in recent years is simply a throwback to the traditional portrait. [emphasis mine] The picture of Jesus that has emerged is more finely nuanced, more obviously Jewish, and in some ways more unpredictable than ever. The last word on the subject has not been written and probably never will be. Ongoing discovery and further investigation will likely force us to make further revisions as we read and read again the old Gospel stories and try to come to grips with the life of this remarkable Galilean Jew.

So I'm hardly inclined to answer a question about the correctness of a misleading misrepresentation of what Evans was actually asserting.

In any case, since it appears evident that your question springs from a perception that Evans was wrong to say what he "said", I think it is incumbent upon you first to say why you think that what he "said" is incorrect.

Jeffrey

Toto

Hi Jeffrey - I don't find that quote taken out of context. The context makes it a more literate and intelligent statement, but Craig Evans does say that "the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood."

This is a statement about the trends in scholarship. Do you agree with it or not? Do you agree that the gospels might be a reliable guide to the historical Jesus? What is involved in properly understanding them?

Edited to add: I don't think that the trend in scholarship is to see the gospels as a source of history. As far as I can see, the trend is to see them as literary products. Do you know what Evans is talking about?

No Robots

This is a false dichotomy. All documents are literary documents in some sense, and all have some relationship to history.

dog-on

I think that the statement I quoted was pretty clear and the reference you provided doesn't really change the point he tries to make in the prior quoted statement.

Of course I disagree with his position, as I do not view the gospels as he does.

I simply asked you for your opinion.

Jeffrey Gibson

Knowing what Genre they are.

Then you are woefully out of the loop. The "trend" is to see them as a sub genre of Greco-Roman bioi.

May I suggest, if you really wish to be brought up to seed on this, that you actually read not only Burridge's What are the Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk) but the review of the history of scholarship on the genre of the Gospels, and of Mark in particular, that appears in the introduction of Adella Collin's Hermeneia commentary on Mark.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, you would think that.

Yes, that is patently self evident. But that's not what I asked you to outline. The question I asked you is to explain why it is you think he is wrong to view the Gospels as he does. What are your actual reasons reasons for claiming that his view is is incorrect?

Jeffrey

No Robots

It is important not to lose sight of the Gospels as essentially Jewish literature, as Burridge himself makes clear:

Thus the literary shift from unconnected anecdotes about Jesus, which resemble rabbinic material, to composing them together in the genre of an ancient biography is not just moving from a Jewish environment to Graeco- Roman literature. It is actually making an enormous Christological claim. Rabbinic biography is not possible, because no rabbi is that unique; each rabbi is only important in as much as he represents the Torah, which holds the central place. To write a biography is to replace the Torah by putting a human person in the centre of the stage. The literary genre makes a major theological shift which becomes an explicit Christological claim — that Jesus of Nazareth is Torah embodied.--What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography / Richard A. Burridge, p. 304.

No Robots

Collins is quite critical of Burridge's neglect of Jewish literature:

Burridge's case for defining the Gospels as bioi appears strong in large part because he did not seriously consider any alternative. The very brief review of scholarship under the heading "The Jewish Background" on pages 19-21 does not constitute a serious consideration of the relevant genres of Jewish literature. It is certainly essential to interpret the Gospels in light of Greek and Roman literature. But it is equally essential to interpret them in light of Jewish literature.

--Adela Yarbro Collins / Review of What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography by Richard A. Burridge. In The Journal of Religion, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Apr., 1995), pp. 241.

In fact, Collins cautions against assigning the Gospels to the genre of Greco-Roman biography, stating:

It is certainly true that the Gospels eventually came to be read as lives of Jesus, but such readings should be seen as an understandable, but significant departure from the authors' primary intentions.

--p.245.