Pages

Friday, June 03, 2011

An illustration of the way that critical scholarship is confirming the details of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection, while denying an early papacy

An illustration of the way that critical scholarship is confirming the details of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection, while denying an early papacy.

The question is, “John, how can you accept the work of scholars who don’t believe everything that conservative evangelicals believe? You’re inconsistent to ‘pick and choose’ only among the scholars who agree with you.”

Gary Habermas has been studying what “critical scholars” have been saying about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and he has been noting confluence on an amazing range of details. Here are a couple of paragraphs from one of his recent articles:

As an example of these recent trends, I will compare briefly the ideas of two seemingly different scholars, John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright. We will contrast some of their views on Jesus’ resurrection, following the specific list of topics that we just provided. This will indicate some of their major differences, but perhaps some unexpected similarities, as well. Such will serve as a sample demarcation from the recent theological scene, as well....

Both Crossan and Wright agree without reservation that Paul is the best early witness to the resurrection appearances. They both hold that Paul was an eyewitness to what he believed was a resurrection appearance of Jesus. Further, they share the view that Paul recorded an account in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 that he had received decades before writing the letter in which it appears, and that the apostle probably learned it during his early visit to Jerusalem, just a short time after Jesus’ death.[67]

Perhaps most surprisingly, both Wright and Crossan embrace the claim that the earliest Christian teachings taught that Jesus appeared in a bodily manner. This is the case for several reasons, such as this being the predominant Jewish view at the time. Most of all, this was the clear meaning of the terms. ...

Lastly, both Crossan and Wright readily agree that the resurrection of Jesus in some sense indicates that the truth of Christian belief ought to lead to its theological outworkings, including the radical practice of ethics. As Crossan states, “Tom and I agree on one absolutely vital implication of resurrection faith . . . that God’s transfiguration of this world here below has already started . . .” To be sure, Crossan’s chief emphasis is to proceed to the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection in the world today, contending that we must live out the literal implications of this belief in “peace through justice.” Just as Jesus’ appearances inspired the disciples’ proclamation of God’s victory over sin and the powers of Caesar’s empire, we must “promote God’s Great Clean-Up of the earth” and “take back God’s world from the thugs.”[75]

Wright argues that, for both the New Testament authors like Paul and John, as well as for us today, the facticity of Jesus’ resurrection indicates that Christian theology is true, including doctrines such as the sonship of Jesus and his path of eternal life to those who respond to his message.[76] The resurrection also requires a radical call to discipleship in a torn world, including responses to the political tyranny of both conservatives as well as liberals, addressing violence, hunger, and even death. As Wright says, “Easter is the beginning of God’s new world. . . . But Easter is the time for revolution. . . .”[77]

So there is at least general agreement between Crossan and Wright regarding most of the individual topics which we have explored above. There is at least some important overlap in each of the six categories, except for the historicity of the empty tomb. The amount of agreement on some of the issues, like the value of Paul’s eyewitness testimony to a resurrection appearance, his report of an early creed that predates him by a couple of decades, as well as his knowledge of the message taught by the Jerusalem apostles, is rather incredible, especially given the different theological stances of these two scholars. The emerging agreement concerning the essential nature of Jesus’ bodily resurrection, especially for Paul and the New Testament authors, is a recent twist that would have been rather difficult to predict just a few years ago. And both scholars argue for the believer’s literal presence in righting the world’s wrongs, because of Jesus’ resurrection.
So, here are two different scholars, from two different backgrounds, both of whom I would disagree with on a number of things. But there is a general confluence of agreement over some of the facts. Important facts.

I know the specific points on which I’d disagree with both Crossan and Wright. None of that diminishes the facts upon which these two agree.

You don’t see this kind of agreement among contemporary scholars saying “Peter was the first pope, Linus was the second, Clement was the third, and on and on through a divine succession of history”. In fact, you see a confluence in quite an opposite direction.

15 comments:

  1. John.

    I started reading the study you linked.

    He goes through great detail explaing DIVERGENCE among what he calls 'moderate conservative' (so he is not really considering liberal scholars) scholars on the question of the resurrection of Jesus and affirms that there is broad DIVERGENCE and that many consider the resurrection in spiritual and even hallucinagenic terms. That is not orthodox Christianity.

    Given that the fundamental belief of Christians is all over the map when it comes to historians - how are you still a Christian?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sure there is some divergence. Any time you get two people in a room they will disagree on something.

    But it's the confluence, the agreement on important facts that I'm talking about.

    As I said, I know where I would disagree with these individuals. I am able to weigh the evidence that they would present on different subject matter.

    There is profound agreement on the historicity of the life and death of Christ, the fact that the tomb was empty, the fact that the Gospels are highly accurate historical documents. On and on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I need to sign off quickly.

    I know several people that have gone off to university and studied scholarly works in great detail and across a wide sample relating to Christianity and have came out of university unbelievers. They tell me that scholarship proves that the gospels are late forgeries. They tell me that scholarship proves that the OT record is a legend. In short they are treating those issues in the same manner thatn you are treating the make-up of the early church.

    I do not have faith in the empty tomb because I took a head count of scholars. I do not have faith in the Catholic Church because of a head count of scholars (although I do think extant history is very supportive of Catholic claims). Ultimately, these are matters of faith.

    Historical work is beneficial but it has limits.

    God speed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In short they are treating those issues in the same manner thatn you are treating the make-up of the early church.

    What I'm saying is that, when the same methods are applied to "life of Christ" and "early church", the Life of Christ (facts about it) are confirmed; with respect to the early papacy, it just disintegrates. Same methods.

    I do not have faith in the empty tomb because I took a head count of scholars.

    Nor do I have faith because of a headcount. I have faith because of the grace of Christ. But I am encouraged in my faith because more scholars have established the factual nature of the empty tomb.

    I do not have faith in the Catholic Church because of a head count of scholars (although I do think extant history is very supportive of Catholic claims).

    This is simply not true. The historical work that is being done today (and I've published a lot of it, and I hope to publish a lot more) undermines Roman Catholic claims.

    And further to this, I believe that the Vatican's recent backstepping away from Vatican I and Adrian Fortescue is evidence that even Rome understands that its old stories are being undermined.

    ReplyDelete
  5. With all due respect Kirsten I WAS a devout practicing Roman Catholic, daily Rosary, Daily Communicant for some time and an extra-ordinary Minister of the Eucharist IE Eucharistic Minister. I also wanted to a Roman Catholic Apologist, so I read LOTS of RC Apologists, listened to hours of debates between RC Apologists and Protestants. so I began to look beyond the walls RC apologetics, having a a degree in History, Historical research was and is my forte. Also I studied the Bible using proper exigesis and hermeneutics. The result? Not only is Rome wrong in its Historical claims theologically they teach things that are not only not Biblical but contrary to Holy Scripture, hence I am no longer Roman Catholic, I now attend a Reformed Church (As in Calvinist, Westminster Confession). Rome had its chance at the Council of Trent in the 16th Centuru to affirm the true Gospel instead Rome condemned and anathemised the true saving Biblical Gospel and put works-salvation by "Meriting (earning) Grace" in its place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi john, how are you doing?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi John (not Bugay),

    Your history is such a refreshing contrast to the bios of the "Called to Communion" crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Truth unites and Divides --

    Your comment about John's bio got me thinking about something again that comes around in my thoughts whenever I read about the supposed wonders of going back to Rome.

    Namely, and I cannot speak for anyone who claims to have found the completeness to their journey of faith by returning to Rome; are such journies reflective of the need many have to have their lives structured?

    Meaning; as a political scientist and historian before the pastoral
    ministry and continuing to read in these areas, I remain fascinated by the need that many have to have their lives structured and ordered and the elaborate ceremonies of the Roman Faith provides a lot of structure.

    Might be way off base but I don't think I am in some cases. Liberty is a scary idea and the continuing move by many to surrender their liberty for the sake of security today underlines that. A quote by Ben Franklin lurks in my mind but I cannot recall it exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Liberty is a scary idea and the continuing move by many to surrender their liberty for the sake of security today underlines that."

    Dear Grev,

    I don't think you're off at all. It might not be "all" that undergirds the desire to "swim the Tiber" but it seems like a significant part of it.

    Furthermore, and just as interesting, is the generalization of your hypothesis to socio-political conversions, and not merely theological ones.

    To wit, are you aware that there are some European women who grew up among liberty-loving liberalism who are converting to highly structured Islam?

    Or folks who grew up in democratic capitalism converting to centralized communism?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The liberty vs structure angle is often used by atheists to explain why some atheists become Christian. It is also used by protestants to explain why some protestants become Catholic. Protestants make a half-surrender. I confess Jesus but only the Jesus I am comfortable with. To surrender my interpretive freedom would render me a non-thinker. But it does not. No more than accepting protestantism rendered you a non-thinker like atheists keep saying. God enables our reason. He does not replace it.

    As for the scholars. It really depends which scholars you read. Most will reject the bible. How did late forgeries arrive? You need to have a bunch of church fathers lying. But if you look at who they are that does not make sense. They are not people trying to import pagan teachings and edit the bible to legitimize them. They are staunch conservatives who would rather die than change one iota of the faith. That is who they are and that is what they did. They passed the faith on exactly as they got it. No forging scriptures. No lying about previous generations. No novel doctrines at all. Mary, apostolic succession, prayers for the dead, baptismal regeneration, they made up none of it. It all came from the apostles.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Randy -- The liberty vs structure angle is often used by atheists to explain why some atheists become Christian. It is also used by protestants to explain why some protestants become Catholic. Protestants make a half-surrender. I confess Jesus but only the Jesus I am comfortable with.

    I obviously can't speak for all Protestants. But I am a part of, and familiar with, Protestants who hold to the ideals and confessions of the Reformation and post Reformation period.

    No one I know would say "I only confess the Jesus I am comfortable with." We rather "search the Scriptures," because in these, we find the Christ we are to believe. We are not bound to some arbitrary and syncretistic "tradition" that became codified over the centuries.


    To surrender my interpretive freedom would render me a non-thinker. But it does not. No more than accepting protestantism rendered you a non-thinker like atheists keep saying. God enables our reason. He does not replace it.

    "Interpretive freedom" is a Roman Catholic issue. Because as a Roman Catholic, you don't have it.

    On the Protestant side, what is at issue is finding the Truth. I've written extensively on how Evangelical scholars of the last 30 years are dealing with the most difficult issues that Christians face these days. I believe they are doing wonderful work, and no, I don't believe because of their work, but their work certainly, at an intellectual level, supports my beliefs. That is a virtuous cycle that makes an incredible amount of sense in this world.

    continued

    ReplyDelete
  12. As for the scholars. It really depends which scholars you read. Most will reject the bible. How did late forgeries arrive?

    I posted two scholars here. It does not depend on which scholars you read. Darrell Bock has addressed Bart Ehrman, for example, in his work "Missing Gospels". Bock honestly looks at the strengths and weaknesses of Ehrman's approach. Bock can look at Ehrman's work "Forged" and say, yes, uncategorically, there were many forgeries not only in early Christianity, but in the Roman empire during that time period.

    And D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, Thomas Schreiner, and others I have cited, have gone book by book through the New Testament, and analyzed the arguments that "liberal" scholars make for late dating the NT works, and even for saying they are pseudonymous.

    These individuals analyse thoroughly the arguments that the liberals make (on a book by book basis); they say what's wrong with these arguments, and then they present positive alternatives for their own viewpoint. That's how this all works.

    This is not "surrendering interpretive freedom." This is, in my opinion, taking the most honest approach possible toward the texts of Scriptures (and non-Scriptural documents).


    You need to have a bunch of church fathers lying.

    I absolutely do not. But the evidence does support such things as this: someone greatly expanded Ignatius's legitimate letters, for example. Larded them up with all kinds of later and "Catholic-looking" things. And for hundreds of years, people read "Ignatius," and said, "my, how early Roman Catholicism began." But it is all make-believe. Such examples could be infinitely multiplied.

    And what about Eusebius "reporting" Jesus's letter to Abgar? "A letter from Jesus!! That has GOT to be the most precious piece of writing we've got." Except that some textual scholar somewhere has figured out that it wasn't genuine.

    ReplyDelete
  13. But if you look at who they are that does not make sense. They are not people trying to import pagan teachings and edit the bible to legitimize them.

    But they did it, in instance after instance.

    They are staunch conservatives who would rather die than change one iota of the faith. That is who they are and that is what they did. They passed the faith on exactly as they got it. No forging scriptures. No lying about previous generations. No novel doctrines at all. Mary, apostolic succession, prayers for the dead, baptismal regeneration, they made up none of it. It all came from the apostles.

    Your statement in bold, "they passed the faith on exactly as they got it," is absolutely not true. It is demonstrably false.

    Here's the catch. None of the doctrines you cite came from the apostles. Teaching on Mary did not come from the Apostles. It was a strange mixture of inferences from a hypothetical Eve/Mary connection, and the completely fictitious "Protevangelion of James". Apostolic succession was not evident at all, either in the New Testament, nor in Ignatius. It was an adaptation from pagan practices.

    "1 Clement" had a love affair with the "heierarchy" of the Roman military. All of these things can be, and have been, traced.

    Rome's entire "gig" is not "seek the Truth". It's "protect Rome's authority". "Begin with today's dogmas, then go back into history and tradition and find "proof texts" that can kinda-sorta ("aren't totally inconsistent with") support our dogmas". That's no way to find the Truth. It's CYA, big time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. KRISTEN SAID:

    "I know several people that have gone off to university and studied scholarly works in great detail and across a wide sample relating to Christianity and have came out of university unbelievers. They tell me that scholarship proves that the gospels are late forgeries. They tell me that scholarship proves that the OT record is a legend."

    Sounds like what they'd be taught at the average Catholic institution of higher learning.

    ReplyDelete