Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 07-09-2012, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Form Criticism has gotten us into this dead end where little is felt to be known about Jesus.

boloney

Criticism has showed us romans didnt know much about the original man they murdered and blamed the jews for.

the movement failed in judaism and illiterate fishermen cant write. How much evidence do you expect from a poor poverty striken oppressed Galilean manwho lived a life below that of a peasant??? written about by his oppressors decades after his death????

outhouse · 07-09-2012, 01:07 PM

Now, no one states that some of his sayings and life did not emerge through the mythology written.

as a matter of fact that is all your statements are claiming. some of the oral tradition the gospels were written from, may have led back far enough to come from a eyewitness.

as in the parables and some elements of his life

Adam · 07-10-2012, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

..... No matter. The return to eyewitnesses is notable:
Die apostolische Herkunft der Evangelien nach H. J. Schulz = The Apostolical Origin of the Gospels according to H. J. Schulz, 1994.
....

A review in English on Schulz's book, "which almost certainly will never be translated into English":

Quote:

Die apostolische Herkunft der Evangelien. By Hans-Joachim Schulz. 2d ed. QD 145. Freiburg:
Herder, 1995, 411 pp., n.p.*
Has the apostolicity of the gospels been unmasked as fiction by historical-critical exegesis?
Have recent interpreters been successful in recasting apostolicity in terms of Urkirchlichkeit? And
what are the implications for canonicity and inspiration of a rejection of the gospels’ apostolic
authorship? The present author challenges the notion, postulated by the form criticism pioneered by
Schmidt, Dibelius and Bultmann, that the gospels are the product of anonymous community
members from a time in which reminiscences of the "historical Jesus" had already begun to fade and
the Pauline Kerygma had largely been submerged under Hellenistic syncretism. This separation
between the gospels’ content and apostolic teaching, Schulz contends, could not even be overcome
by redaction criticism’s subsequent emphasis on the theological contribution of the gospel’s final editor.

According to Schulz, historical criticism, owing to its rationalistic presuppositions, is not
truly historical. He urges a return to a "biblical-liturgical hermeneutic." From his critique of form
and redaction criticism he envisages the emergence of a true tradition and genre criticism of the
gospels, based, not on literary models that are historically unrealistic, but on the actual kerygmatic,
catechetical and liturgical processes in the canonical life of the early Church. Specifically, Schulz
finds that ancient attribution places the origin of the gospels in relation to the apostolic proclamation
and the Church’s expansion through the apostolic mission. This stands in contrast to the tenets of
form criticism, which considers the gospels to be late collections of small heterogeneous units of
which only the oldest are of apostolic origin.

As Schulz argues, the constancy of traditions of small integrated units presupposes an early
process of large-scale integration and hence an early formation of the gospels. He suggests the
following dates of composition for the four gospels: the early 60s AD for Mark (Peter’s departure
from Jerusalem in AD 42 caused John Mark to record the liturgical and kerygmatic legacy of the
first Jerusalem stage of Peter’s ministry); AD 66–70 for Matthew; after AD 61–62 for Luke; and
between 62 (John's move to Ephesus) and 66 (shortly after Peter's martyrdom) for John (with the
gospel's final publication in AD 99, shortly after John's death). These conclusions are densely argued,
and brief summaries cannot do justice to the author's cogency and grasp of the original sources.

The author is equally conversant with ancient Biblical and patristic sources and recent
Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant scholarship. It is unfortunate that this work will
almost certainly never be translated into English and thus fail to exert the influence its strength of
argument would deserve. While many will part company with some of Schulz' more idiosyncratic
"biblical-liturgical" reconstructions, such as his contention that the Johannine discourses represent a
meditation of Passover Haggadah and an interpretation of the exodus events in the light of Christ,
the true Passover, Schulz' work represents a serious challenge to historical criticism's
marginalization of the gospels' apostolic content and origin. It is hoped that English-speaking works
on the subject will take up some of Schulz' legitimate findings and incorporate them into a
responsible reassessment of the apostolic authorship of the four canonical gospels.

Andreas J. Köstenberger
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, NC
*This review first appeared in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41 (1998): 476–77 and
is posted with permission.http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/w...Evangelien.pdf

Adam · 07-10-2012, 11:55 AM

Here's more on H. J. Schulz, showing lots of support for J. A. T. Robinson's Redating the New Testament back before 70 CE:
Here is a more detailed reference in a book of H.J. Schulz,

Quote:

"Die apostolische Herkunft der Evangelien", Questiones Disputatae,
Freiburg, 1993, 120-122.

I paraphrase:

The exegetical standardized arguments for a dating of the gospels after
70 have been tested on the interdisciplinary oecumenical symposion
'Dating the Gospels' in Paderborn, Germany, 1982.

They were especially declared to be inadequate by the historians present.
The arguments of J.A.T. Robinson, could not, according to Schulz, be refuted
by the representatives of Formgeschichte and found support from the
historians.
Almost unanimously the year 70 was adopted (accepted) as terminus post quem
for the origen of all gospels.

Especially the historians H. Staudinger and G.A. Lehman indicated that the
characteristic
details of the fall of the city of Jerusalem (with their special shock
effect for
religious Judaism - which after the year 70 were available for everybody
who was interested in time-history and could be obtained from (direct)
eywitnesses - are alien to the reports from the synoptic gospels.

Therefore, the statement that the related passages (in the gospels) should
be characterised (or understood) as 'vaticinia ex eventu' is thought to be
(qualified by them as) an 'unhistorical and uncritical application of the
historico-critical method!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johann...e/message/3970

Adam · 07-10-2012, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Robert K. McIver. Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels. SBL: 2011.
Pg. 130 "consistent with...eyewitness accounts" in the gist, not all details.
Pg. 156 such inconsistencies "are precisely the type of variations one might expect of various eyewitness reports of the same event."

Even more conservative is Ben Witherington in his six-part review about McIver:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Witherington

But as I have shown in my Matthew commentary, there is good reason to entertain the possibility that Matthew’s Gospel was composed in Capernaum in Galilee, where we have evidence of perhaps the earliest Christian worship center in the house of Peter’s mother in law. Thus I must reject the conclusion that it was ‘highly unlikely’ (p. 151), there were any written records of Jesus’ words and deeds early on. One more point is worth making. Once Jesus became a public figure, you will note that he regularly had encounters with inquisitors, many of whom were not friendly. Indeed, many of them had scribes with them. There may well have been written records of Jesus’ words and deeds in Jerusalem, filed by such scribes, and later used against Jesus during the last week of his life, but we cannot be sure about this. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/biblean...book-part-six/

That last sentence feeds right into my development of the Discourses within the Gospel of John as just such "written records...by such scribes, and later used against Jesus"! See my
Gospel Eyewitnesses Post #38 in which I name Nicodemus as an eyewitness of Jesus.

outhouse · 07-10-2012, 04:17 PM

thats not evidence of amy kind

its not even a decent opinion

when you can explain why jews would use a roman core for a foundation like Gmark to base their gospels on.

im listening

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2012, 01:07 PM	#12
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Now, no one states that some of his sayings and life did not emerge through the mythology written. as a matter of fact that is all your statements are claiming. some of the oral tradition the gospels were written from, may have led back far enough to come from a eyewitness. as in the parables and some elements of his life

07-10-2012, 04:17 PM	#16
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	thats not evidence of amy kind its not even a decent opinion when you can explain why jews would use a roman core for a foundation like Gmark to base their gospels on. im listening

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.