TheDiddleyMan

I'm a bit confused right now as to where New Testament scholarship stands on the issues. I mean, on the one hand, I know that most scholars (or so it is said) have taken a stance against groups like the Jesus Seminar, but what exactly are they standing against? For example, I was reading Russell Shorto's book "Gospel Truth" and he wrote that both the Jesus Seminar and Joh Meier rejected about 2 thirds of the miracles of Jesus as being history. It doesn't sound to me like there is a huge difference between the two camps.

I guess what I am interested in is for people who know about NT scholarship (Kirby? Vinnie? Vork?) to comment on where NT scholars stand on the issues. I realize that NT scholarship is varied but I'm interested in hearing what the mainstream-ish opinion is. BTW, this is purely out of interest in knowing where mainstream scholarship stands, not for me to decide what I believe based on majority.


Here are some issues that I would like to know about:

The Authorship of the Gospels - Traditional or not? Were they in fact written by Mark, Matthew Luke and John?

The Gospels - how much of them is considered to be truth? Did Jesus perform all or most of the miracles attributed to him? Did he say all he supposedly said in John?

The Picture of Jesus - portrayed in the gospels - is it him as he was? This is similar to above except that I am interested in the conclusions about him as a person. For example, one may believe that Jesus didn't perform a lot of the miracles attributed to him, but still believe he is the Son of God.

The Empty Tomb and Resurrection - what is true and what isn't?


Thank you,
Kevin

Family Man

Others could probably answer this better, but I'll give it a shot and let others correct my mistakes.

The criticism of the Jesus Seminar comes from two areas. One are the conservative, fundamentalist groups that basically have their heads buried in the sand anyway and assume the truth of the Bible. These are the ones who actually think "But they vote with marbles!" to be a legitimate criticism, and aren't taken very seriously.

The issue between serious NT scholars is more along the lines of what Jesus actually was. E.P. Sanders, for examples, sees Jesus as an end-of-the-world prophet. Others have seen Jesus as a revolutionary. The JS sees Jesus more as a benign preacher/healer if I'm not mistaken.

The Authorship of the Gospels -- all agree that traditional authorship is probably bogus, though some will claim that the traditional authors were the original source (though they acknowledge they can't prove this).

The Gospels -- a very large and difficult subject. Generally speaking, the miraculous aspects of Jesus's career is considered a later Christian addition. Most of what is considered legitimately from Jesus is some (not all) of his sayings and healings.

The Picture of Jesus -- is considered an idealization of the person. No one knows what he really looked like.

The Empty Tomb and Resurrection -- no one likes to say it, but it can't be considered historical. Most will make vague statements, but the bottom line is that it is a matter of faith if you want to believe it happened.

CX

Most mainstream scholars conlcude that authorial attributions of the gospels are pseudepigarphal. The only possible exception is GLk. Some contend that ALk could have been Luke the companion of Paul, but it's not uncontroversial.

Truth in what respect? As in historically true? Mainstream scholars conclude that much of what is written in the gospels is shared memory and theological accretion. GJn is generally regarded as the most theologically developed and thus the least likely to contain historico-biographical information.

Most of the scholars I've read seem to advance a position that there is an historical Jesus underlying the gospel stories, but that there are significant amounts of theological and legendary development.

Vorkosigan

CX has got it. You should buy several into works, like Schnelle's, Brown's, Ehrman's, and LT Johnson's so you can get a well-rounded view of things.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

I can go in depth on Sunday night if you want more but one of the major differences between the JS and other critical scholars like Meier and Sanders probably lies in the sources used to reconstruct the HJ. Meier seems to think the Gospels are our best source for information (see V 1 of Marginal for information on that). I think Crossan would use part of the Gospel of Thomas as if it was independent and written say 50-70 ad whereas Meier would date it second century and dependent on the canonical Gospels. Crossans methdology (Historical Jesus) involves stratification and he comes up with a number of first stratum sources he uses to reconstruct the HJ. Scholars like Meier and Sanders don't agree with the dating of those works or Crossan's view of their independence of the canonical Gospels. Thus different source material is used to reconsdtruct Jesus. natually thepictures are different then. Many scholars find the Gospels to our primary data to be used in reconstructing the HJ (Meier & co.). Other scholars do not (Corssan & co.).

But if you read Meier he comes up with a methodology for finding what goes back to the HJ as does Crossan. The need for such stringent methodology and a strict following of it should suffice in outlining the hazards the Gospels present when reconstructing the HJ from them. They were written anonymously (possibly Luke authored Luke as CX said) and 40 to 70 years after the events they recorded. They were not written by eyewitnesses. The authors created, omitted, shaped, moved, tranmitted and orientated HJ material towards their own theological goals. Some material in the Gospels reflects the divergent theologies of the evangelists. Fro memory off the top of my head, in the passion narratives you do not see the Lucan or Johannine Jesus saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" on the Cross". In John Jesus is in control of the situation the whole time and says "It is finished" and then gives himself up. Luke used Mark as a source but the my God my God line conflicts in part with how Luke was presenting Jesus. See Brown's Two Volume work The Death of Messiah for a DETAILED study of the passion narratives. I am reading it now and it is excellent.

As Brown said in his intro to the NT: "The Gospels are not literal records of the ministry of Jesus. Decades of developing and adapting the Jesus tradition had intervened. How much development? That has to be determined by painstaking scholarship which most often produces judgments ranging from possibility to probability, but rarely certainty."

Also, as Brown's Intro to the NT says on GMark: "On the other hand, an even larger number of scholars would judge much of what Mark narrates as factual. Suppose that Jesus was baptized by JBap and did proclaim the coming of god's kingdom both by sayings/parables that challenged people's entrenched attitudes and by healing the sick and expelling what he regarded as demons; suppose that he aroused the antipathy of Jewish leaders by exercising too sovereign a freedom toward the law, by claiming to speak for God in a way they regarded as arrogant, and by challenging Temple administration through actions and warnings--then Jesus himself would have supplied the kinds of material that ultimately went into the Gospels, no matter how much that material developed over the decades that separated him from the evangelists."

Vinnie

Vinnie

I have Kummel's Intro on the way. Brown referred to this as a more advanced intro somewhere in his intro. I am hoping its good

Vinnie

Which Gospels? The synoptics present a very different picture of the Hj than does Gjohn. See this article:

http://www.acfaith.com/gjohn.html

but even the synoptic Gospels reflect divergent theologues to some extent (though a lesser one than Gjohn vs the synoptics).

But as noted above, different scholars would answer this differently.

How does one historically demonstrate thet Jesus is the Son of God? The more accurate historical question scholars should ask is what did Jesus think of himself and his role in God's kingdom and/or in the movement he was starting/founding? From memory Sander's thinks Jesus saw himself as higher than Messiah--he saw himself as the vicar of God (historical Figure of Jesus). N.T. Wright has his view, Crossan has his, Meier has his etc. You won't get a unanimous answer on this one.

I haven't seen a critical scholar try to defend the Resurrection historically. But if you want to talk about the historicity of the burial story that is a whole different ball game.

Kosh

Vork and Vinnie,

you guys buy books the way I buy power tools.

I'm off to make some sawdust.

TheDiddleyMan

Thanks Vinnie (and everyone else as well). I would like to see you go more in depth.

I guess this all started when I read Case for Christ by Strobel (any thoughts on that book, Vinnie?) I got the impression that all mainstream scholars pretty much were against the Jesus Seminar and that all scholars believe that gospels were written by eyewitnesses and that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is exactly as he is portrayed in the gospels. In other words, everything that the gospels say happened did, except for minor variations (i.e. the words and actions were not verbatim). Nothing in the gospels was "made up" or "not history". But then, after I left the Christian faith, I found out about people like Brown and so on, who didn't think so. And these were not "stubborn skeptics", like the JS, but widely read scholars. So I guess I am wondering what exactly *is* the mainstream viewpoint. I get confused.

Regarding the resurrection, when I think of mainstream scholars, I think of N.T. Wrigh, Ben Witherington and Raymond Brown. All these people, it seems, to me, view Jesus as the Son of God who rose from the dead. Witherington and Wright, it seems, have in fact tried to defend the resurrection historically in their debates. E.g. "Jesus, Two visions" and "Will the Real Jesus Stand Up?" So, I guess, I am asking what is meant by your statement that nobody has tried to prove the resurrection historically?

Final question for you (Vinnie). I have read your posts, and you seem to have a different take than a lot of other people here. I was wondering what your personal thoughts were on the resurrection apologetics of William Lane Craig (the big cheese himself)


Thanks,

Kevin

Vinnie

I will need a much bigger bookshelf soon or else guests may start mistaking piles of books for furniture