'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels' (long)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels' by Craig Blomberg (1987) - a
review.

"..Against this prevailing scepticism, Dr. Craig Blomberg contends that it
is possible, by a careful use of recognised principles of historical
investigation, to demonstrate the overall historical reliability of the
gospels...
"Deliberately refusing to appeal either to the inspiration of the Bible or
to the tradition of the church, Dr. Blomberg convincingly defends the
historical reliability of the gospels...

So reads the blurb on the back of the book. For evangelical apologetics it
is definitely the best book I have read. Blomberg is very well read and
mostly doesn't ignore the tough problems. For example, in the introduction
he dismisses the CS Lewis 'trilemma' argument by introducing the well known
(to non-evangelicals) fourth option- the stories about Jesus were legend -
"unless one can successfully dismiss this alternative, one cannot appeal to
Lewis' apologetic. An examination of the gospels' historical reliability
must therefore precede a credible assessment of who Jesus was."

1. Traditional approaches to the reliability of the gospels
2. New Methods in gospel study
	Form Criticism
	Redaction Criticism
	The gospels as midrash
	Recent Hermeneutical developments
3. Miracles
4. Contradictions among the Synoptics?
	Theology
	Paraphrase
	Chronology
	Omissions
	Composite speeches
	Apparent doublets
	Variations in names and numbers
5. Problems in the gospel of John]
6. The Jesus tradition outside the gospels
	Apparent historical errors
	The testimony of non-Christian writers
	Extra-biblical traditions
	The Jesus tradition in Acts-Revelation
7. Final questions outside the gospels

I am unsure reading the book whether he is trying to prove inerrancy or
historical reliability. I think he is angling towards inerrancy but he
doesn't make that clear. So for example, a different interpretation or
account of a healing by Jesus would not necessarily undermine the gospels'
historical credibility, but it does present problems for inerrancy.
Obviously if you prove inerrancy, you've proved historicity, but the burden
of proof is much higher.

Chapter 2 (New Methods...) looks at modern scholarship's work on the
synoptics and tries to find ways to present the conclusions of scholars in
a conservative way, i.e. he accepts the legitiamacy of form and redaction
criticism, but argues that the final application is often flawed, or
doesn't mean that one gospel writer really changed what another gospel
writer wrote - they just presented it in a different way. Standard stuff in
one way, but good analysis of what non-evangelicals think and some valid
criticisms (in my opinion).

Chapter 3 (Miracles) The section 'The question of parallels' is the most
interesting in this chapter. Considered are 'miracles in the NT apocrypha',
'Greek heroes', 'Magic and exorcism', 'charismatic Judaism'. He argues that
the parallels break down and therefore: "The uniqueness of Jesus' miracles
is itself an argument for their authenticity, by the criterion of
dissimilarity.."
I didn't find all of his arguments convincing, especially as there's no
reference to the Seutonius and Tacitus accounts of miracles (Recently
discussed on this list)

Chapter 4 (Contradictions) Standard stuff that we know and love. The
difference between demonstrating inerrancy and historicity comes into
sharpest focus here, as variations over numbers and place names, or
differing accounts of the same events do not really affect historicity
(otherwise there would be no history at all), but he tries to clear them up
with the usual arguments. Didn't deal with the objection that any
discrepancy anywhere cannot be cleared up by these methods.

Chapter 5 - that the gospel of John is so different from the synoptics is
the problem, in chronology, in theology and in the way Jesus presents
himself. 
"John's omission of so much of what the Synoptics contain and his inclusion
of what they leave out should cause little surprise. On any theory of the
gospel's composition, he had much material from which to choose. If John
had already read the Synoptics and was writing later, then he undoubtedly
assumed that much of what they emphasised needed no further repetition.
Instead, he focused on information they omitted in order to supplement
them."

Chapter 6 (The Jesus tradition outside the gospels) Very interesting
chapter as he surveys extra-Biblical Christian traditions. Argues that a
lot of the early Christian writers aren't dependent on the gospels but on
oral tradition that they themselves were based on, and therefore this backs
up what the synoptics say!!! I think I read his argument correctly. The
apocryphal writings are largely dismissed really because they are
heretical: For example (on the Apocryphon of James) "Not only does this
chronology contradict the canonical gospels... but the references to
parables by means of a short title suggest that they have already become so
widely known in the church that no furhter detail is necessary..."
And on the Protoevangelium of James (well regarded by many in the early
church although Blomberg doesn't mention that): "There are portions of the
infancy gospels which are not objectionable in principle, but with so many
obviously fanciful embellishments it is difficult to give much credence to
the rest of the narratives".(!)
The lack in the chapter is the historical events which don't match up with
other recorded history. Only Quirinius is considered, but not even the
census. He does however, consider the mentions of Jesus by the secular
historians.

Chapter 7 (Final questions..) Argues that scholars come to the gospels with
the wrong approach, and they are unnecessarily sceptical, and he argues
that such an approach to secular history would leave no history at all.
This last seems his biggest weakness, especially as he has hardly
considered the problems of the historical evidence which doesn't match up.
The standard historical approach seems to be to compare what a historian
writes with what is established history and see how well he compares, and
then the areas where we cannot cross-check can more likely be taken at face
value. 


Conclusion: In spite of my criticisms, definitely worth a read. Reasonable
representation of a lot of the evidence and arguments and
counter-arguments. About ten times better than McDowell's "Evidence"

I'll maybe post a few more arguments from the book, as a substitute for
live evangelicals on the list.


Steve Carson-Rowland
Brisbane, Australia
(Witty or incisive quote pending)

• Previous message: In All the Coasts Thereof
• Next message: 'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels'
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]