Fundamentalist scholars have no trouble with the question. Since they are convinced that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God, then anything Jesus is said to have said in the Gospels is something that he really said. Viola! Jesus preached the Christian faith that his death and resurrection brought salvation.Critical scholars, on the other hand, whether they are Christian or not, realize that it is not that simple. As Christian story tellers over the decades reported Jesus’ teachings, they naturally modified them in light of the contexts within which they were telling them (to convert others for example) and in light of their own beliefs and views. The task is to figure out which of the sayings (or even which parts of which sayings) may have been what Jesus really said.Different scholars have different views of that matter, but one thing virtually all critical scholars agree on is that the doctrines of Jesus’ saving death and resurrection were not topics Jesus addressed. These words of Jesus were placed on his lips by later Christian storytellers who themselves believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead to bring about the salvation of the world, and who wanted to convince others that this had been Jesus’ plan and intention all along.
That's boilerplate Ehrman. What's striking is not his own position–that's what we expect Ehrman to say–but how hard it is to draw a line between his own position on the words of Jesus and the position of "evangelical" scholars like Mike Licona, Dan Wallace, and Craig Evans. We're witnessing the Ehrmanization of Gospel scholarship and evangelical apologetics in some circles.
Critical scholars, on the other hand, whether they are Christian or not, realize that it is not that simple. As Christian story tellers over the decades reported Jesus’ teachings, they naturally modified them...
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that Ehrman often just appeals to scholarly consensus on various topics/issues without actually arguing for why that consensus has good reasons backing it up. Yet, at the same time, in other contexts, he admits that just because there's consensus doesn't mean that such things are true. In which case, he should get down to arguing for why the things he takes for granted are actually so. He hardly does so, and hardly addresses how conservative scholars have addressed the worn out arguments he does sometimes offer.