MODERATION is on.
1. Don’t harmonize the Gospels. That’s like taking four paintings and combining them into one. You come up with something no one painted and no one intended to paint. Let each Gospel author be an artist in his own right. However, a Gospel synopsis, such as those available from UBS, are very useful and important in comparing Gospel texts to one another WITHOUT harmonizing them.
2. When you interpret anything in the Gospels as if the words were spoken or the incident happened in the contemporary world (especially the west), you are almost certainly headed in the wrong direction. The Gospels come to us from another time and place. They aren’t inaccessible, but they require us to let them be what they are and not attempt to contemporize them.
3. Jesus did and said a lot of things that he didn’t explain. Ever. At all. I don’t believe there are special keys to understanding difficult sayings laying around for us to find in some spiritual treasure hunt. If Jesus first century hearers were often confused, then we will probably be confused too some of the time.
4. Our modern computer concordances- English or original languages- do not help us as much as many preachers and scholars claim. Be cautious in how much one scripture “explains” or even “enlightens” another. We have to hear a text the way others heard it, and YES, there may be nuances and references to other scripture at work, but be cautious. Very cautious. Some people think a computer Bible makes them a Biblical genius. Sometimes, it’s quite the opposite.
5. Beware of anyone in Biblical studies- whether it’s Perry Stone or Bart Ehrman- who is out on a limb by themselves. Scholarly consensus may by slow, but it is necessary and important. Ehrman’s boldness comes from his refusal to take peer review seriously. Preachers like Perry Stone and Rob Bell who claim to have little known rabbinic or first century cultural insights are usually taking minority positions that are risky or even rejected and advertising them as legitimate. It’s worth understanding and appreciating the slow task of Biblical scholarship, so when a guy like Everett Ferguson publishes a lifetime study of baptism, it has some real gravitas.
6. Big ideas dominate the Gospels: Who is Jesus? What kind of messiah is he? What does it mean to be a disciple? How does the law and the temple relate to Jesus? What do we learn from Jesus’ suffering? How did the resurrection change everything? What is the Kingdom of God? The smaller the question, the less likely it is that the Gospels are answering it directly. Perhaps indirectly or less than certainly.
7. Textual criticism is very important, because many textual variants are about changing interpretations of Jesus’ words. Phillip Comfort’s Text and Translation Commentary on the New Testament is a must have. Form and source criticism are also useful tools, even if just to understand why the other Gospels lose Mark’s “messianic secret” or Matthew changes Kingdom of God to Kingdom of heaven. And, of course, there’s Mark 16 and John 8. All important parts of serious Gospel study.
8. The Gospels were, with the possible exception of a very early Mark, written after most of the early and Pauline epistles. This is a very, very important piece of information in understanding the Gospels. The epistles show us what Christianity looked like organically, and this helps us understand the emphases of the Gospels in relation to the developing church. The Gospels came out of the environment of being church, church planting, church problems and church mission. The Gospels “sync” with this. I don’t mean to imply that Paul knew (or had before him) all the material that is in all of the Gospels- I don’t believe he did. But I believe Paul is aware of the core texts and core issues in the Gospels.
9. The study of the historical Jesus is important. Not the quest to discover a new Jesus or to shock the world with scandals about Jesus and the church, but the quest to understand better Jesus as the church knows him and proclaims him. Yoder, Recovering Jesus, is a priceless addition. Also, Griffith-Jones, The Four Witnesses. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God is life-changing. Many scholars that you might not let preach in your church have done good and helpful work on the historical Jesus and his world. I have benefited enormously from the work of Borg, Hays and Crossan. Be willing to be challenged, but keep your anchor in the Jesus of the church.
10. Make the study of the Gospels a lifelong passion. Pick one and stay with it for years and decades. Become conversant with higher levels of scholarship in your chosen Gospel and you will have rich insights into all of them. Don’t limit yourself to older authors who rarely understood the value of critical scholarship, but simply used the text to make sermons. Seek to understand Jesus. Determine to come closer to Jesus historically and personally as you come to understand the Gospels better.
The Internet Monk Archives 
You mentioned Everett Ferguson and his study of baptism. Check out Rees Bryant’s book “Baptism: Why Wait?” He’s another sober voice (my father’s) nudging the evangelical world back toward a sinner’s prayer that gets you wet.
LikeLike
Jason just linked to my article inspired by this post, so I thought I’d add my two cents – I really liked this piece, Michael. It’s a great expression of a viewpoint that is not inerrantist and yet is thoroughly conservative, showing that the two are not necessarily wedded to each other.
LikeLike
Hi iMonk,
I thought I’d mention this person’s take on your article, since I didn’t see it on trackback or anything.
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/no-i-am-not-an-inerrantist/
LikeLike
Aranion,
One of the things that leads to “contradictions” of time and details just boils down to two different story tellers emphasizing different things. Theologically, John is emphasizing different themes than Mark and places the money changers in a position that is both theologically significant and significant to the flow of his narrative to emphasize points that Mark isn’t trying to make. So to say it is an error because two authors place it at different points in time misses the point entirely. They aren’t giving us a scientific and chronologically specific rundown of events. They are emphasizing themes that bring out different memories and events at different points that are placed together in a way significant to the author and intended for his audience. So when you get two different authors writing for two different audiences from a non-21st century point of view, there is no wonder that at times things are ordered different. It is only a discrepancy if both authors are making a point that they are telling us precisely when the events happened rather than just what happened. If they both say it happened at this time and they give us different times, then we have a discrepancy. But as it stands in the text that is not the point either Mark or John are trying to make.
LikeLike
I would recommend Mark D. Roberts’s series on “Are the NT Gospels Reliable?” for thoughts on oral transmission of traditions. It contains good stuff to rebut arguments about authorship and therefore reliability.
LikeLike
“If the contradictions were significant, it would be a significant problem, but when did Jesus turn over the tables of the money changers in John vs Mark or how many angels were at the tomb or was John at the cross don’t qualify as significant to me.”
I, for one, would love to read more of your thoughts along these lines. You’re echoing where my own faith and understanding has developed, but I have trouble articulating it.
I feel like I know what the Bible *isn’t* – it’s not a magic book or a scientific treatise or an impersonal, objective record of purely historical events – but I have trouble saying what it *is*, and how it differs from other religious texts.
LikeLike
N.T. Wright is AWESOME.
I keep hearing more and more good things about Yoder Neufeld–have you read his Commentary on Ephesians?
LikeLike
Excellent post. Probably the best essay I have seen on principles for teaching the Gospels.
I have been teaching Luke in Adult Bible Class for the past 8 months and can concur, from my experience, with all your points.
LikeLike
P.S. Er… I should reword something. I should have said, “in what they actually did affirm”, instead of “in what they were specifically affirming”.
The latter makes it sound like I was talking about details that were the focus of a verse or passage, as opposed to incidental details. That not what I meant.
I was talking about a detail like, “About three hours later, Jesus said…”–where the passage definitely communicates something particular about the timeline, regardless of whether it was an important detail.
LikeLike
Are you saying, “The two authors really did flat-out contradict each other in what they were specifically affirming, but it doesn’t matter because it’s a small detail”?
Another option being, “The accounts differ, but the authors were not intending to affirm, ‘There was one and only one angel’ versus ‘There were two and precisely two angels’.”
I think someone like Michael Patton–whom you know well, and who also doesn’t prefer the word “inerrancy”–would go with the latter. He would say, “Inspiration requires that the Bible is true in what it affirms, in as much detail or specificity as it affirms.”
If you’re going with the first, then you’re saying, “Inspired Scripture can get the details wrong, as long as they’re minor details.”
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. I also appreciated the reference to the fellow member of the Churches of Christ – Everett Ferguson.
Rob Bell has some excellent material but it has to be taken with a grain of salt. Like his take on the virgin birth and contemporary culture as Ben bar WII critiques in the links above. If you find yourself saying, “Wow, I never heard that before” it is probably best to find at least a couple other people saying something similar or at least for it to fit sound exegetical and socio/cultural perspectives.
LikeLike
If the contradictions were significant, it would be a significant problem, but when did Jesus turn over the tables of the money changers in John vs Mark or how many angels were at the tomb or was John at the cross don’t qualify as significant to me.
LikeLike
#3 was the question–particularly the issue of kinds of disagreement.
Take Bart Ehrman’s most recent book. (Disclaimer: I haven’t read it yet, I only know what it’s about in general terms.) It’s about contradictions between the gospels. If you respond to that with “We don’t need to harmonize the gospels,” it could mean two things:
1.) It doesn’t matter whether the gospels contradict each other.
2.) Those kinds of disagreements (or “disagreements”) are not meaningful.
It sounds like you’re saying something closer to the second, right?
LikeLike
I mean
1) Study each one on its own as a unique literary creation from a unique situation.
2) Don’t force them to say the same things if they don’t
3) Don’t worry about apparent disagreements. (Unless you are aware of some level of disagreement that I’ve missed, those disagreements are insignificant unless you have a very strict view of inerrancy.)
peace
ms
LikeLike
Michael, could you clarify what you mean by “don’t harmonize”?
Do you simply mean, “Study each one on its own, to understand the picture of Jesus painted by each author. These pictures are not identical; each author had particular concerns & emphases in mind.” ?
In other words, “Don’t try to make them identical”?
Or are you actually saying, “Don’t worry about whether they’re compatible or contradictory”?
LikeLike
Oh, absolutely, wasn’t being sarcastic at all.
I run into a lot of trouble finding reliable scholars who can tell me about the work of other pastors or scholars, and you being one that I respect, I wanted your insight.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Let’s recall what I said about Rob Bell:
>Preachers like …Rob Bell who claim to have little known rabbinic or first century cultural insights are usually taking minority positions that are risky or even rejected and advertising them as legitimate.
The best analysis of Bell- and by an appreciator not participating in “hate speech”- is Ben Witherington III.
All BW’s critiques of Bell are indexed here. http://mattdabbs.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/ben-witherington-on-rob-bell/
BWIII is a qualified academic expert on the social and rhetorical world of the first century. He is in a good position to critique Bell.
My only point was that Bell and many other teachers take minority positions and present them as standard. Neither I nor BW are accusing Bell of anything more than needing some more perspective on cultural background info.
peace
ms
LikeLike
Just out of curiosity (not argument) can you list statements that Bell has made which are weird to standard theology, or which appear to take the Gospels in non-standard ways? I have yet to run into a decent critique of his work that isn’t basic hate speech, and would be really interested to see what you have to say.
LikeLike
Roger: Let me repeat what I wrote immediately above your comment. I was thinking of published commentaries, and Robinson hasn’t done that. I certainly respect his view.
As to your other question, there obviously are none to the person who rejects Markan priority, so the question is a bit pointless, but given the standard criteria used in redaction and form criticism, the evidence is over whelming.
I’m convinced esp by 1) the removal of the messianic secret and 2) the removal of most references to Jesus’ emotions and 3) the inclusion of birth narratives.
LikeLike
Name a passage that stands or falls upon Marcan priority.
LikeLike
“I only know of one major scholar who argues with Markan priority.â€
J.A.T. Robinson, who argues for John.
LikeLike
I was thinking published commentaries. The guy in the Anchor Bible. Can’t recall his name.
LikeLike
“I only know of one major scholar who argues with Markan priority.”
Is it John Wenham? I’ve not read it, but I believe he argues for that in “Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke”
LikeLike
Dana,
Don’t some believe the creed in 1 Cor 15:3-8 is actually very old. Maybe dating to as early as 18 months after Christ’s death?
LikeLike
NT Wright thinks that though the gospels were written down later, their content, particularly of the Resurrection narratives, conveys a very early oral tradition, pre-Paul, that was kept intact. See “Resurrection of the Son of God”.
Dana
LikeLike
Pita,
In following up Nick’s comment to you. I remember reading about a lawyer, who was skilled in evidence, becoming convinced about the truth of the Gospels, because of their differences.
LikeLike
@PITA;
Actually if you ask a lawyer they will tell you it’s normal for witness statements to differ slightly as different people see/notice/emphasise different things, it’s when they are all the same that you know it’s fake!
LikeLike
Not sure I entirely agree with #3 – not that I disagree with the fact that Jesus said things that he never explained. What I find troublesome with that is that it seems to skip over the fact that the Gospels were written later by Jesus’ disciples and they seemed to have included those statements fully expecting that the Church would get the point. Now, we don’t always get what THEY were thinking either so the confusion is still there.
Ehrman really isn’t out on a limb, though. The tragedy of him isn’t that he’s in scholarly whacko land, it’s that the consensus of scholars shred his faith to pieces because the version of Evangelicalismâ„¢ that he was fed couldn’t reconcile with it. Sadly, what he writes IS shocking to many Christians – because churches, frankly, suck at passing on the history of the Christian faith to members.
LikeLike
Radagast:
“…and a case for some to be dated far after especially if one considers the reference in John of followers being expelled from the synogogues or the references to Samaritans.”
Only if you believe that it is not possible that Jesus could actually prophesy that this would happen. To apply a late date to John on this basis implies a sort of mendacity to John and the Christian community that is tantamount to denouncing Christianity as a fraud.
LikeLike
I should not have included Hays with Borg and Crossan. My mistake.
Markan priority: I only know of one major scholar who argues with Markan priority. There’s a lot more going on than brevity, i.e. Mark’s secret, emotions of Jesus, etc. This would be the only example in Biblical studies of a document becoming shorter via age and copying. There was no need for a “Reader’s Digest” version.
Mark is the oldest according to 99% of informed scholars. It’s a sound conclusion.
LikeLike
…did anyone else hear what Matthew Peak wrote…”One thing I have learned is that nature, as God created it, tends to move at a slow and deliberate pace. It achieves its goals, but it does so at the pace God designed it to”…..i”ve thought about that..but never heard it articulated by anyone before…….pretty neat..
LikeLike
imonk, maybe I missed something, but are you talking about *Richard* Hays? I’ve never understood him to be anything but Orthodox and provocative, though I acknowledge that I don’t know his work as well as I know Wright’s, Borg’s, and others’. If so, could you give me just as simple an example as you can of what turns you off from his conclusions? Thanks…
LikeLike
“Don’t harmonize the Gospels. That’s like taking four paintings and combining them into one.”
Good thing you’re not a cop or judge. Nobody would get a conviction.
LikeLike
I find this immensely helpful. Thanks a bunch! Whooda thot, though, that Imonk was a Borg reader?
Anyone interested in Ehrman needs to google and watch his most recent appearance on the Colbert report. It’s comedy at it’s greatest. Colbert rips him to shreds (surprisingly). It really supports Imonk’s don’t harmonize the gospel warnings. (“Jesus is an elephant”)
LikeLike
Lots of excellent food for thought in your post. Thank you.
LikeLike
Thanks, Michael, for your good points. I had to go look up some of the references mentioned and recommended. Everett Ferguson has an excellent article available online. Re. order of composition, I know many scholars believe Mark was written first. I always have had the feeling that Mark is the reader’s digest version of Matthew. Now, I see that some scholars actually think Matthew predates Mark, so might be the case. I agree with Pastor Cwirla. With our lectionary, I think we never get enough of John, but realize that the reason is teaching the narratives from the synoptics. One thing I have found useful for myself: I am partial to John’s Gospel, but find that spiritually, studying Matthew periodically adds to my relationship and understanding of our Lord. Just a thought. AnneG in NC
LikeLike
It has been my practice to meditate on the Gospel on which the Liturgical tradition is focusing. There are different ways to do this. Anyone can get a copy of the revised common lectionary from the internet. Read the daily or Sunday Gospel reading. Or you can just start at the beginning and work your way through. Read very slowly. Let the words (the Word) speak to you. This year is the year for Gospel of Mark.
LikeLike
I especially liked guideline #10: make the study of the gospels a life-long passion. I’m thinking of following the advice of concentrating on one gospel – probably John. I had the opportunity to take a course on John with Dr. Gary Burge when I was at Wheaton College. Would you (or anyone reading this comment) have any suggestions for reading material for digging deeper?
LikeLike
Just thought I would mention that, from the pool of actual history (as opposed to “historical” textual criticism) I think something like 5 or 6 2nd and 3rd century Christian writers all tell us that the order in which the Gospels were written was Matthew, Mark (drawn from Peter), Luke, and John. (Actually, I think one doesn’t clearly mention Luke.) And they all trace the line back to an Apostle, often John, who taught that.
I mention it only because it seems to be taken for granted today, based solely on textual analysis, that Mark was written first. But all of the actual historical data contradicts that assertion. All of the historical record from anyone who might actually know says that Matthew was written first.
Beyond that minor quibble, I think the iMonk’s list is a pretty good one.
LikeLike
Michael, that’s where the confusion came in. I’ve seen stuff about Crossan having some early doubts about the Resurrection, though he seems to have rowed back on those – the early view that the disciples were in such a state of psychic shock over the crucifixion, and unable to contemplate that their master and leader had been buried in a criminal’s grave with his body liable to be dug up and eaten by wild dogs, more or less hallucinated the ‘Easter event’ when they got the strong impression that Jesus was continuing in some sense.
Though as I’ve said, he seems now to be more inclined towards the historicity of the Resurrection?
LikeLike
now your talking….I am gonna start listening again.
LikeLike
Michael,
Great points especially point #2. I’ve been a big fan of Raymond Brown and Meiers although these guys may be a bit dated now.
RedHatRob,
“There is thus, a strong logical case to be made for the composition of all four gospels before 70AD, for the simple fact that none of them makes mention of the destruction of the temple…”
…and a case for some to be dated far after especially if one considers the reference in John of followers being expelled from the synogogues or the references to Samaritans.
LikeLike
In liturgical churches, the 3-year cycle of readings does exactly what the original post suggest on an annual basis – with a year devoted to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John gets sprinkled in here and there, which is too bad, since John’s theological and sacramental approach to Jesus is rather unique from the synoptic tradition.
LikeLike
iMonk is the resident expert on Mark, so he can correct me, but interestingly enough I just picked up a book from the Library by John Stott, “The story of the New Testament : men with a message.”
In it, he claims that Mark’s gospel was the gospel for the disciples. That Mark spends a great deal focusing on what it takes (what sacrifices are needed) to be a disciple of Jesus.
One of the reasons I’d be drawn to Luke is that Luke has a sequel (Acts). But lately I’ve been really interested in Matthew, because it’s probably the most Jewish of the Gospels — and I’ve been very interested in the Judaism of Jesus and his first followers.
LikeLike
Re point #5:
If no one’s managed to discover it in 2,000 years of church history, it’s probably not right (or at any rate, that fact alone should give you reason to consider WHY it has not been discovered). But given contemporary evangelicalism’s disdain for anything reeking of church history or tradition, combined with a Gnostic love for all things “new” and “secret,” it shouldn’t be a surprise that the “newly discovered” is so often blindly accepted as biblical truth.
LikeLike
WRT Point 1:
Many years ago I was taught that Matt., Mark, Luke and John each concentrated on a different aspect of Jesus. As a result, while the ‘harmonized’ gospel is a useful tool in some studies, ultimately it can lead down the garden path. IIRC Matthew was about Jesus the rightful king. Therefore Matthew includes a genealogy proving descent from David through both sides of the family.
Mark, looked at Jesus the good servant, sticking with the genealogy theme, Mark leaves it out since one normally does not care about the pedigree of a servant. Luke, then talks about Jesus, the man.
Luke gives us the other genealogy showing descent from Adam to Jesus proving that Jesus was a man. Luke, then focuses on Christ the Man.
John, then gives us the Gospel of Jesus the G-d. As gods are immortal, having neither beginning nor ending of days, a genealogy is not required.
WRT Point 10
My recommendation, would be Luke’s gospel – but that recommendation must be tempered with the advice of one who knows better than I where you are; the tempering process must also include prayer for God’s wisdom and guidance. That caveat aside – My reason for suggesting Luke is that he is the most western minded of the Gospel writers.
YMMV
LikeLike
“In fact, I get the impression that you regard Ehrman, Crossan, and so forth as somewhat dangerous, in need of being counteracted by some conservative antidote.”
I don’t know about iMonk, but I believe that’s true. Ehrman and Crossan seem to have an axe to grind. But besides that, I think it makes good sense to counter any liberal/skeptical scholarship with conservative scholarship. I think not to this is foolish.
LikeLike
Martha: You confusing these guys with the Jesus seminar. While two participated, that’s a caricature of their individual work. I can’t deal with the three in a comment, but in general, their work on the first century situation in which Jesus spoke and ministered is what I and other evangelicals find helpful, not their unorthodox conclusions about the person of Christ. And certainly not their methodology in regard to the dependability of the Gospels.
LikeLike
Good point on the USB text. In a sense that’s true, but not really in the same way. It seeks to rebuild the best case for the original text of each book.
On Comfort vs Metzger, both are good, but I’m hearing a lot of praise for Comfort from people who have used both. I find Comfort to be an amazing book.
LikeLike
[Mod edit]
All of this has been said before. [Mod edit]
The reason Gospels are harmonized is because the Gospels, when read individually, call for an harmonization with their neighbor Gospels themselves. It’s only natural. Intelligere: to associate in thought. God knows his mankind. When he commissioned the Gospels he knew we would harmonize them. And it’s true the Gospels were written by men outside the western world. But guess what: they were written for the western world, using a western language and evocating Greek common-places of philosophy, epistemology, logocentricity.
NT Wright is only good in small portions. [Mod edit]
Oh, and his let-us-work-for-Kingdom Now-thing – it’s not new. It was that which we called Reformed postmillennialism.
Anyway, I say this half-kiddingly. But see if any of this is crazy enough to be true. I may have overruled my own poetic license. Or made sense. You decide, buddy.
LikeLike
Once again you have done a disservice to Bart Ehrman, who is not “out on a limb” by himself by any means, but represents a (not “the”) mainstream scholarly perspective (i.e., that Jesus was an apocalyptic who expected the world to end soon, and that the bulk of credal Christianity was a later innovation). It would be fairer to say that the field of NT studies is highly politicized, with scholars falling onto a spectrum ranging from liberal/skeptical to conservative/credulous. You accuse Ehrman of refusing “to take peer review seriously,” when the reception of his work has basically varied according to the ideology of the reviewer.
Many NT scholars *are* “out on a limb by themselves,” and there is no shortage of Jesus theories claiming that, for example, his tomb has been discovered and his father really was the Roman soldier Pantera (James Tabor); or that he was a gay ritual magician (Morton Smith); or that “Jesus Christ” was not a man at all but a code-word for a certain species of psychedelic mushroom (John Allegro). But Ehrman is not in this category at all–or even like the “Jesus seminar,” which involves a number of people but still represents a minority viewpoint. As Ehrman himself writes, his basic stance (Jesus as apocalyptic) would be acceptable to many, many (I hesitate to say “most” but this is possible) published scholars in the field, beginning with Albert Schweitzer.
[Mod edit]
LikeLike
Great insights and suggestions. I especially appreciate #10 and your appreciation for not completely ignoring the Crossans and Borgs even though we don’t follow them in many of their conclusions.
Wright’s JVG book IS life-changing. Trust me – I know. =)
LikeLike
magnificent. thanks, michael.
LikeLike
#1 – don’t harmonize the gospels – so true. They all have their own flavor of Jesus. Not a different Jesus – just a different aspect, presenting a fuller picture of Jesus than any one gospel
LikeLike
Excellent post! Thank you.
LikeLike
Thank you Michael! I’m printing this off for future reference,
LikeLike
Based on your #10 suggestion, I have a question. Would there be one or two of the Gospels you would suggest as potential choices for someone like myself to focus on. I am easily drawn toward conceptual abstraction and “big ideas”. Maybe that’s why I’ve always liked John. In more recent years however, I’ve felt the need to become more grounded in things more in touch with life at its earthier levels. I am particularly interested in understanding the Christian faith from within and through the Judaistic worldview it was born into and initially formed by. It (the Judaism of Jesus time) and Jesus both seem to have understood life with God and people as deeply earthy.
Any suggestion you may have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
LikeLike
Michael, I’m just finishing Ehrman’s ” Jesus Interupted “, so your post is timely. I enjoyed Ehrman’s perspective but at times I thought he was on a different playing field. Sadly at times I don’t think anyone would be in the same game game as him. It should come with some kind of warning, anyone new to faith would really struggle with this book. Anyways, thanks for a really balanced perspective. Blessings…Ron Cole+
LikeLike
“I have benefited enormously from the work of Borg, Hays and Crossan.”
I’m intrigued by that, because I’ve heard of Crossan mainly in the context of the Jesus Seminar, and the impression I get from that body is that they went through the Gospels and threw stuff out on the basis of:
(1) Jesus was A Nice Guy
(2) I’m A Nice Guy
(3) I’d never say something like that
(4) Therefore Jesus couldn’t have said something like that
If I’m barking up the wrong tree, set me straight?
LikeLike
Wow, I like this post a lot. Thanks. I am certainly going to link it and read it as much as is needed to fully understand its importance.
LikeLike
Yes, the online Greek/English versions are fun to use but, because of the instant access, can lead to reaching conclusions much too quickly (as in jumping).
Thanks for the plug of Everett Ferguson’s new book. He’s a dear friend. As I read it, I wonder how a good SBC-type would receive it. I’d be very interesting in your review.
LikeLike
A hearty amen to your interpretive guidelines.
A certain humility towards the gospels is implied throughout what you have written which is much to be admired and sought after.
I would quibble with only one of your points. I realize there has been a consensus since the 19th century that Mark was written first and that John came last, and perhaps quite late. This is by no means completely certain. And the trend over the past hundred years has been to back up from ridiculously late dates assigned to all four of the gospels and date them earlier and earlier. Mark almost certainly before the death of Peter & Paul (with a strong patristic tradition and internal evidence that Mark is recording the preaching of Peter about his experiences with Jesus).
But the elephant in the room is the destruction of the Temple in 70AD – an event which sent shockwaves around the mediterranean world. The impact is hard to overestimate – think the destruction of the Trade Center Towers if you want a modern-day crude analog. There is thus, a strong logical case to be made for the composition of all four gospels before 70AD, for the simple fact that none of them makes mention of the destruction of the temple.
In the apologetic of each of them about Jesus’ identity as the messiah, a citation of the destruction of the temple as evidence of God’s having “finished” with the sacrifice of bulls is almost demanded. Such an apologetic is often made after 70 AD. It’s absence from the gospels (and all of the other NT books, especially Hebrews) is a fairly compelling case that ALL of them were written before 70 AD.
– Rob Shearer
Publisher, Greenleaf Press
LikeLike
Isn’t the UBS4/NA27 “something no one painted?”
LikeLike
Great suggestions. Though I’m not sure Comfort can match Bruce Metzger’s “Commentary of the Text of the NT”
LikeLike
You wrote, “It’s worth understanding and appreciating the slow task of Biblical scholarship …”
One thing I have learned is that nature, as God created it, tends to move at a slow and deliberate pace. It achieves its goals, but it does so at the pace God designed it to.
Perhaps we need to take matters in a slower, more “natural” way.
Of course, easier said and done.
LikeLike