Blomberg, Craig L. Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-varsity Press, 1987.
When catechetized in the Reformed faith, e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith, learning is a corollary concern in life; it’s logical and natural to life in the Triune God who creates, sustains and preserves knowledge: Semper Fidelis et Sola Deo Gloria. Of course, good regulated Prayer Book doctrine, worship and piety is another corollary. One further note, before getting involved with Prof. Blomberg’s volume, we point to wayward and forlorn Anglican clerics.
Given the modern Anglican bishops throughout England and the USA (some of whom should be defrocked and thrown overboard), one has to do one’s own reading. We are reminded of Edwin Sandys who said: "The ministers, you see should teach the right way. He which beareth that name and performeth not this office, is but an ' idol.' ' Let another take his bishopric.' Such drones were better smothered than suffered in that hive, where none should live that will not labour. Such as sow not why should they reap ? Neither is it any new thing to cast out unworthy ministers who cast off care of their duty. Solomon deposed Abiathar the high priest : and Justinian deprived Sylverius and Vigilius, bishops of Rome. These are good precedents for princes in like case to follow." Archbishop Sandys— Ser. 1 Sam. xii. 23, 24. Yes, we need to toss a number of them. But, we digress and return to our theme of Prof. Blomberg’s salutary volume.
Returning to better thinking, this 267-page volume is available at: http://www.amazon.com/
Foreward
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction
One: Traditional approaches to the reliability of the Gospels
1. Harmony in the gospels
2. Dissonance in the gospels
3. Evaluating the debate
4. The Synoptic problem
Two: New methods in gospel study
1. Form criticism
A. The classic approach
B. Memorizing the tradition?
C. Flexible transmission within fixed limits
D. Christian prophecy
E. The delay of Christ’s return
2. Redaction criticism
A. The method
B. The critique
3. The gospels as midrash
A. Uses of the term
B. Applications to the gospels
4. Recent hermeneutical developments
A. The new hermeneutic
B. Structuralism
C. Post-structuralism
D. Social-scientific methods
5. Conclusion and case study
Three: Miracles
1. The problem of credibility
A. The scientific objection
B. The philosophical objection
C. The historical objection
2. The problem of identification
A. The question of parallels
B. The question of reliability
C. The resurrection
3. The resurrection
Four: Contradictions among the Synoptics
1. Conflicting theology?
2. The practice of paraphrase
A. Summaries introducing new terminology
B. Theological clarification
C. Representational changes
D. Synedoche
E. Partial reports of longer sayings
3. Chronological problems
4. Omissions
A. Omissions of entire passages or sections
B. Omissions of details within passages
5. Compositional Speeches
A. General considerations
B. A test case: the eschatological discourse
6. Apparent doublets
7. Variations in names and numbers
A. Personal and place names
B. Numbers
8. Conclusion
Five: Problems in the Gospel of John
1. The distinctives of John’s Gospel
2. Similarities between John and the Synoptics
3. Authorship and date
4. The alleged contradictions reconsidered
A. Omissions and singly attested materials
B. Theological differences
C. Chronological problems
D. Alleged historical discrepancies
E. Johannine style
5. Conclusion
Six: The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels
1. Apparent historical errors
A. The death of Judas
B. Abiathar or Abimelech
C. Zechariah son of Berachiah
D. Quirinius
2. The testimony of non-Christian writers
A. Graeco-Roman sources
B. Jewish sources
3. Extra-biblical Christian traditions
A. The apostolic fathers
B. The Nag Hamamadi library
C. Other apocryphal gospels
4. The Jesus tradition in Acts—Revelation
A. The Acts of the Apostles
B. The Epistles of Paul
C. The rest of the New Testament
5. Conclusion
Seven: Final Questions on historical method
1. The genre of the gospels
2. The burden of proof
A. The theory
B. Sample applications
3. Criteria of authenticity
A. Theory
B. Application
Postscript
Scripture Index
Author Index
This volume is a summary or popularized summary of a larger set, the 6-volume set entitled Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. This 6-volume set is a technical set, written by scholars for scholars. The present work is non-technical: it is for students and laymen demonstrating that “questions of historicity will stand up to academic scrutiny.” The inclusion and mention of this 6-volume set is the find of this volume.
Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, ed. R.T France. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003. The other volumes are available by search. http://www.amazon.com/
Until the late 18th century, historical reliability was tied to belief in inspiration and infallibility. The last few centuries have been a fideistic, presuppositional assault on the catholic faith. While harmonizations addressed divergences, the last 200 years has focused on dissonances. We’ll be touring through Werner Kummel’s History later, a virtual tour of an academic graveyard of academic fads.
Tatian’s Diatessaron was an early effort to harmonize the Gospels. Irenaeus offered a theological rationale: John focused on the theological Word, Luke the priestly role, Matthew the human perspective and Matthew the prophetic role (Against Heresies, III.9-11). Origen thought some harmonizations unworkable and employed an allegorical method at places, e.g. the two Temple cleansings by Jesus—one was literal and historical while the other was spiritual.
Chrysostom offered his sage perspective: “But if there be anything touching times and places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said….but those things…which constitutes our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.” Augustine was in this school that the Gospels fail to give clear indications of location or sequence and where sequences are assumed, variant wording conveying the same sense is justified.
For the liberal fideists of liberal assumptions, “embellishments, distortions and distractions” prevails. The story begins with J.S. Semler and J.D. Michaelis. For Semler, the Word of God is not the Holy Scripture; further, the canon is “purely historical and not ecclesiastical.” This anticipates Barth, albeit for different reasons. G.E. Lessing further the cause more aggressively, to wit, religion “cannot rest on historical evidence.” David Strauss advocated that Jesus’ miracles were misinterpreted natural events. F.C. Baur, the Hegelian, postulated the Peter v. Paul antithesis with competing school resolving themselves into some synethesis. Rationists, romantics, Marxists, demythologizers (Bultmann, Dibelius, Perrin) and others—Jesus shall exist in our own image—2 centuries of skepticism.
We briefly note the two-document and four-document hypotheses, the latter development by B.H. Streeter. We scarcely can bring ourselves to retour the academic graveyard, but, God willing, in time, we shall. It’s been awhile since visiting the cemetery of dead postulators.
When catechetized in the Reformed faith, e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith, learning is a corollary concern in life; it’s logical and natural to life in the Triune God who creates, sustains and preserves knowledge: Semper Fidelis et Sola Deo Gloria. Of course, good regulated Prayer Book doctrine, worship and piety is another corollary. One further note, before getting involved with Prof. Blomberg’s volume, we point to wayward and forlorn Anglican clerics.
Given the modern Anglican bishops throughout England and the USA (some of whom should be defrocked and thrown overboard), one has to do one’s own reading. We are reminded of Edwin Sandys who said: "The ministers, you see should teach the right way. He which beareth that name and performeth not this office, is but an ' idol.' ' Let another take his bishopric.' Such drones were better smothered than suffered in that hive, where none should live that will not labour. Such as sow not why should they reap ? Neither is it any new thing to cast out unworthy ministers who cast off care of their duty. Solomon deposed Abiathar the high priest : and Justinian deprived Sylverius and Vigilius, bishops of Rome. These are good precedents for princes in like case to follow." Archbishop Sandys— Ser. 1 Sam. xii. 23, 24. Yes, we need to toss a number of them. But, we digress and return to our theme of Prof. Blomberg’s salutary volume.
Returning to better thinking, this 267-page volume is available at: http://www.amazon.com/
Foreward
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction
One: Traditional approaches to the reliability of the Gospels
1. Harmony in the gospels
2. Dissonance in the gospels
3. Evaluating the debate
4. The Synoptic problem
Two: New methods in gospel study
1. Form criticism
A. The classic approach
B. Memorizing the tradition?
C. Flexible transmission within fixed limits
D. Christian prophecy
E. The delay of Christ’s return
2. Redaction criticism
A. The method
B. The critique
3. The gospels as midrash
A. Uses of the term
B. Applications to the gospels
4. Recent hermeneutical developments
A. The new hermeneutic
B. Structuralism
C. Post-structuralism
D. Social-scientific methods
5. Conclusion and case study
Three: Miracles
1. The problem of credibility
A. The scientific objection
B. The philosophical objection
C. The historical objection
2. The problem of identification
A. The question of parallels
B. The question of reliability
C. The resurrection
3. The resurrection
Four: Contradictions among the Synoptics
1. Conflicting theology?
2. The practice of paraphrase
A. Summaries introducing new terminology
B. Theological clarification
C. Representational changes
D. Synedoche
E. Partial reports of longer sayings
3. Chronological problems
4. Omissions
A. Omissions of entire passages or sections
B. Omissions of details within passages
5. Compositional Speeches
A. General considerations
B. A test case: the eschatological discourse
6. Apparent doublets
7. Variations in names and numbers
A. Personal and place names
B. Numbers
8. Conclusion
Five: Problems in the Gospel of John
1. The distinctives of John’s Gospel
2. Similarities between John and the Synoptics
3. Authorship and date
4. The alleged contradictions reconsidered
A. Omissions and singly attested materials
B. Theological differences
C. Chronological problems
D. Alleged historical discrepancies
E. Johannine style
5. Conclusion
Six: The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels
1. Apparent historical errors
A. The death of Judas
B. Abiathar or Abimelech
C. Zechariah son of Berachiah
D. Quirinius
2. The testimony of non-Christian writers
A. Graeco-Roman sources
B. Jewish sources
3. Extra-biblical Christian traditions
A. The apostolic fathers
B. The Nag Hamamadi library
C. Other apocryphal gospels
4. The Jesus tradition in Acts—Revelation
A. The Acts of the Apostles
B. The Epistles of Paul
C. The rest of the New Testament
5. Conclusion
Seven: Final Questions on historical method
1. The genre of the gospels
2. The burden of proof
A. The theory
B. Sample applications
3. Criteria of authenticity
A. Theory
B. Application
Postscript
Scripture Index
Author Index
This volume is a summary or popularized summary of a larger set, the 6-volume set entitled Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. This 6-volume set is a technical set, written by scholars for scholars. The present work is non-technical: it is for students and laymen demonstrating that “questions of historicity will stand up to academic scrutiny.” The inclusion and mention of this 6-volume set is the find of this volume.
Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, ed. R.T France. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003. The other volumes are available by search. http://www.amazon.com/
Until the late 18th century, historical reliability was tied to belief in inspiration and infallibility. The last few centuries have been a fideistic, presuppositional assault on the catholic faith. While harmonizations addressed divergences, the last 200 years has focused on dissonances. We’ll be touring through Werner Kummel’s History later, a virtual tour of an academic graveyard of academic fads.
Tatian’s Diatessaron was an early effort to harmonize the Gospels. Irenaeus offered a theological rationale: John focused on the theological Word, Luke the priestly role, Matthew the human perspective and Matthew the prophetic role (Against Heresies, III.9-11). Origen thought some harmonizations unworkable and employed an allegorical method at places, e.g. the two Temple cleansings by Jesus—one was literal and historical while the other was spiritual.
Chrysostom offered his sage perspective: “But if there be anything touching times and places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said….but those things…which constitutes our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.” Augustine was in this school that the Gospels fail to give clear indications of location or sequence and where sequences are assumed, variant wording conveying the same sense is justified.
For the liberal fideists of liberal assumptions, “embellishments, distortions and distractions” prevails. The story begins with J.S. Semler and J.D. Michaelis. For Semler, the Word of God is not the Holy Scripture; further, the canon is “purely historical and not ecclesiastical.” This anticipates Barth, albeit for different reasons. G.E. Lessing further the cause more aggressively, to wit, religion “cannot rest on historical evidence.” David Strauss advocated that Jesus’ miracles were misinterpreted natural events. F.C. Baur, the Hegelian, postulated the Peter v. Paul antithesis with competing school resolving themselves into some synethesis. Rationists, romantics, Marxists, demythologizers (Bultmann, Dibelius, Perrin) and others—Jesus shall exist in our own image—2 centuries of skepticism.
We briefly note the two-document and four-document hypotheses, the latter development by B.H. Streeter. We scarcely can bring ourselves to retour the academic graveyard, but, God willing, in time, we shall. It’s been awhile since visiting the cemetery of dead postulators.
No comments:
Post a Comment