'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels'
Steve Carson-Rowland kirra@powerup.com.au
Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:41:12 +1100 (00878269272, 199710302236.PAA24682@maxwell.kumo.com)
STEVE CR
[Blomberg defends "the historical reliability of the Gospels"]
[snip]
JIM KIRBY aka Peter #16
I would appreciate clarification of what exactly constitutes "historical
reliability" of the Gospels. I suppose I can be a test case. A few of my
beliefs: Theism is irrational, supernatural miracles are absurd, Mary
wasn't a virgin, Jesus didn't walk on water...
[snip]
STEVE CR
Blomberg doesn't define historical reliability, but from what he writes it
means, did the gospels record what actually happened? That's what I take
him to mean anyhow. If by definition you exclude the possibilities of these
kind of events happening then obviously the gospels are not historically
reliable and you've spared yourself the trouble of further investigation.
PETER KIRBY (true identity now revealed)
The question is, though, how much of the Gospels can be false without
rendering them "unreliable" (a word, BTW, that I tend to shy away from)? If
Judas really lived to a ripe old age, are the Gospels then unreliable? Or
if Jesus died on the cross singing "always look on the bright side of
life"? Or what if Joseph was Jesus' biological father? Or what if there
was no empty tomb? Or what if there was no trial? Or what if there was no
crucifixion? You've already stated that "reliability" does not imply
inerrancy, but how much veracity does it imply? Also, is the question of
whether anything can be *known* from the Gospels matter to "reliability"
(i.e., if they can be "relied" upon in some cases)?
STEVE CR
Between the positions of 1) inerrancy and 2) 'the supernatural can't happen
by definition', there is a lot of ground. This seems to be the ground of a
lot of modern scholarship - the quest for the historical Jesus. I enjoyed
reading E.P. Sanders 'The Historical Figure of Jesus' on this subject.
Steve Carson-Rowland
Brisbane, Australia
(Witty or incisive quote pending)