Glenn Morton wrote:
> This will not be new to the theologians here, but a recent article in Bible
> Review shows to me why historical accuracy is important, not only in Genesis
> but also in the Gospels. Learn about the 34 different gospels at
>
> http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BR/bswbBRFeature2.html
>
> Particularly worrisome are things like:
>
> "As early as the second century, both the reliability of the canonical
> gospels and their portrayals of Jesus were under fire. For example, the
> philosopher Celsus argued that a saying of Jesus quoted in Mark was actually
> purloined from Plato's Laws (743A): "It is easier for a camel to go through
> the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God"
> (Mark 10:25).(7) Today, a group of scholars known as the Jesus Seminar has
> attempted (in the face of great criticism by many scholars and clerics) to
> determine the relative historical reliability of all early Christian
> traditions about Jesus, both canonical and noncanonical."
>
> While people have generally dismissed my quest for a historical (sort of)
> Genesis, can they dismiss problems with the historical Jesus so easily? Can
> it possibly be true to claim (as many would of Genesis) that like Genesis,
> the Gospels don't have to conform to historical reality? How much of the
> Bible can be non-historical and still have Christianity survive?
>
> I will sit back ans see the comments and responses.
Very quickly -
1) There is little basis for Celsus 'claim but there's nothing implusible
in Jesus quoting a Greek author: Paul did. Palestinian Judaism in Jesus' time
was strongly influenced by Hellenism.
2) Historical research with the gospels & Genesis (& the OT in general) are
not really comparable. There is no serious doubt about the existence of major
NT figures - Jesus, John the Baptist, Pilate - in Palestine during the latter
reign of Tiberius. The historical evidence for Methuselah, Noah, Abraham &c is
considerably less compelling. In the NT case major questions have to do with
specific saying attributed to a known historical figure. With Genesis there are
questions about the existence of some of the characters. (By which I do not
mean to deny that they _did_ exist.)
3) Having said that, it's clear that some of the material in the gospels is
due to the reflections of the early church & the gospel writers, & this simply
from the internal evidence. To take just one important example, the confession
of Peter at Caesarea Phillippi. Mark's account gives the impression that Jesus
rejected the title "Messiah" while in Matthew he praises Peter's attribution to
him of this title as a gift of God. It can't be both ways. There are many
other examples.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 09 2002 - 22:55:45 EDT