(Originally published at What's Wrong With the World. Link to original post at 'permalink' below.)
In a few days, on May 19, the Unbelievable radio show will be releasing a podcast of my dialogue with Craig A. Evans on the historicity of John's Gospel. I have not yet heard that podcast myself. Due to some other things going on this weekend, I will probably be first posting and commenting on the debate next week, probably on Tuesday.
In the meanwhile, I want to post as background most of the statements that Evans made in 2012 about the Gospel of John in the course of two nights of debating skeptical NT scholar Bart Ehrman. There were others scattered throughout the debates, and some were revealing, but these are the comments of any length.
These are all available in video form. With each excerpt I will post a video link that is time-stamped, so that you can watch the discussion in context for yourself.
Some of these statements by Evans about the Gospel of John came to light last fall, in 2017, and at that time I wrote about those here. Rather to my surprise, at that time Mike Licona chose to step forward and defend Dr. Evans's statements about Jesus' claims to deity, though he almost immediately clarified that he is not committed to Dr. Evans's position. Since then he has made further statements indicating his own leaning in that direction, including very recently stating that that is the position he would take if a gun were pointed at him. (Minute 9:30 in this podcast.)
Be that as it may, Licona's own defense of what he perceives as Dr. Evans's position on Jesus' unique Johannine deity claims is quite revealing. The arguments themselves make it quite clear that, though Licona uses the confusing terminology of "paraphrase," the theory in question is in fact that of full dehistoricization of those unique claims. Licona argued on the side of Evans and "other scholars" that, if Jesus was secretive about his messianic identity, we "would not expect" to find him "claiming to be God publicly and in such a clear manner as we find John reporting." Of course, the public, clear nature of Jesus' statements in John is the whole point of those historical statements, leading to attempts to stone him on two occasions.
Since last fall, I have listened to the entirety of both nights of 2012 debate between Ehrman and Evans. These are available on Ehrman's Youtube channel. Rather astonishingly, even more explicit and lengthy dehistoricizing comments about the Gospel of John, from Craig Evans, came to light. So far from providing any mitigating "context," further knowledge of all that Evans said at that time reveals many more emphatic comments in the same vein. Again, please note: While some of these (the first segment below) are the same comments that were discussed last fall, the rest are additional and were not brought to light at that time.
This transcript will serve as useful background for the radio broadcast between me and Dr. Evans. I encourage you to read them and, if you have any doubts or questions, watch the video.
I have a few remarks following the transcript, but seeing/hearing what Evans actually said is perhaps even more important than reading what I have to say below, if you don't have time for both.
Emphasis added.
********************************************************************
January 19, 2012, at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia
First night of a two-part (actually, a reiterated) debate with Bart Ehrman on “Does the New Testament Present a Historically Reliable Portrait of the Historical Jesus?”
1:34:00
Ehrman:
Um okay, so, um, in the Gospel of John, Jesus … ah … says a lot of “I am” sayings, very famous sayings, “Before Abraham was, I am,” “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the father but by me,” I am the bread of life, I am the light of the world,” etc. These “I am” sayings, and, at once point, of course, he says, “The father and I are one.” So, my question to you is, do you think the historical Jesus really said these things?
Evans:
I think most of these things were not uttered as we find them by the historical Jesus. So I suspect we don’t have too much difference on John. My view is the gospel of John is a horse of another color altogether. It’s a different genre. John is often compared to the wisdom literature. It’s like Wisdom is personified. Chokhmah, lady Wisdom, or in Greek, Sophia. She wanders the streets. She calls out to people, she does things. Well, nobody would read that and think, “Oh, did you see Wisdom going down the street the other day.” Nobody would think that is a literal person. What is mysterious to me about John is that once you say that and say, “Okay, perhaps we should interpret the ‘I am’ statements as ‘He is’ confessions – ‘He is the light of the world,’ ‘He is the way, truth, and the life’, ‘He is the bread of life,’” a confession of the Johannine community that likely generated that version of the Gospel – About the time you think John is a gigantic parable, then along comes a scholar who says, “Y’know, it’s loaded with historical details, also.” And so that’s what makes John so tricky. There is a Society of Biblical Literature section devoted to John and the historical Jesus chaired by a scholar named Paul Anderson. So that’s probably more [of an] answer than you want. So, I don’t disagree with you too much on that point. I think John is studded with historical details. Maybe you called them nuggets. That’s not a bad way of describing John. But I think the synoptics are more than just some nuggets. And … but ..
Ehrman:
Okay, so let me just add to pursuing that … I mean John … I think both of us are agreeing that John is not historically accurate. It’s theologically been probably the most important of the Gospels, I would say, historically, and people relish the theological. But in terms of its historical accuracy, it’s … if you were there you would not have heard Jesus say these things, probably. It’s a later theological …
Evans:
No, not in so many words, not like that. I don’t think so.
Ehrman:
Okay, so if we toss John out …
[laughter]
Evans:
I’m not tossing John out. And by the way, Bart, I object to saying it’s not historically accurate. Well, if something that isn’t...isn’t exactly historical, how is it not historically accurate? It’d be like saying “You mean the parable, the parable was a fiction Jesus told? It’s not historically accurate?”
Ehrman:
Well we would have to argue what John was intending to produce, whether he was intending …
Evans:
That’s exactly what the question is.
Ehrman:
And we have no access to his intentions.
Evans:
Well that’s what … that’s true for anything in antiquity, I suppose. That’s why we do exegesis.
Ehrman:
So if we agree that John is not historically accurate, which one of the Gospels is?
Evans:
[Shakes his head in apparent disagreement]
Ehrman:
All right, you … you have said that Jesus didn’t say … Okay, you are not going to use John as a blueprint for writing the historical life of Jesus. Because you think it’s metaphorical.
[Evans nods]: Fair enough.
1:44:54
Question to Evans:
“In your book Fabricating Jesus, you discuss the criteria of authenticity that scholars use to reconstruct historical portraits of Jesus. Clearly these criteria cannot apply to every aspect of the life of Jesus. Are there any sayings of Jesus or activities in the Gospels that you are skeptical about?”
Evans: That’s a very good question. Yeah, the criteria by their very nature look, well, they look for sayings and sometimes they’re applied to deeds that can pass the test of the criteria. Some of the criteria are a little wonky, and some have been either modified or set aside.
For example, one criterion says, if the saying occurs in two or more independent streams of tradition, its claimed authenticity is strengthened, because it is not likely to just be a ringer that just floated into one stream. A ringer might get into one stream but would it get into two or three independent streams? It’s not likely. So anyway, and then on it goes. There are other criteria. So there are sayings attributed to Jesus, we’ll just stick with the sayings, that as far as we can tell don’t meet the criteria. And that is partly why the Jesus Seminar, Bart referred to it as regarding as uncertain or inauthentic like 78% of the gospel materials. And it’s because in large measure lots of materials don’t fit the criteria. (Now, I think they’ve had some of the criteria wrong, and there were other problems of context.)
So, yeah, like, I’ve already mentioned the Gospel of John as an example of that. It’s singly attested, so the distinctive material in John is not found in multiple sources but only in one. But also it’s the, um, it doesn’t fit the early first century Jewish setting oftentimes. It doesn’t agree with the synoptic Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke who talks a different way. And so the Johannine sayings, the distinctive ones, with a few exceptions, they’re the ones that look like, as I said earlier, a different genre altogether, something that only incidentally has historical material in it, but otherwise is a completely different type of literature, more like wisdom literature, where Jesus is portrayed as Wisdom personified and walks and talks like Wisdom.
2:02:30
Question for Evans:
“The Gospel of John seems to present a different Jesus than Matthew, Mark and Luke. Do you think John presents a reliable portrait of Jesus and should we trust that those long speeches in John actually originate from Jesus?”
Evans:
Well, let me elaborate on the answer I gave earlier, because I have already answered that, but let me re-state. On a historical level let us suppose we could go back into time with a camera team and audio and video record the historical Jesus and we followed him about throughout his ministry. I would be very surprised if we caught him uttering, “I am this” and “I am that” and one of these big long speeches that we find in John. Okay, so I’m just taking a different tack, but I’m saying the same thing I said before. This aspect of the Gospel of John I would not put in the category of historical. It’s a genre question.
The real question then would be, do these from a theological point of view reflect an accurate theological understanding of Jesus’s person, his accomplishment, what he’s achieved, what he brings to his believers. Is he the light of the world? Is he, y’know, the way, the truth, the life? Is he the bread of life? See? And that’s what Christians can affirm.
Now this difference of the portrait of Jesus in John compared to the synoptics, this was not lost on the early church. There were church fathers that had grave reservations about John. In their mind, John should have been a fourth synoptic gospel, but it wasn’t. And so they were advocating its exclusion from the collection of writings to be read in churches. That’s of course what eventually gave us the canon and what we call the New Testament.
So you could say, theologically, these affirmations of who Jesus is in fact do derive from Jesus. Not because he walked around and said them. But because of what he did, what he said, what he did, and because of his resurrection. And so this community that comes together in the aftermath of Easter says, “You know what? This Jesus who said these various things, whose teaching we cling to and interpret and present and adapt and so on, he is for us the way, the truth, the life, the true vine. He is the bread of life,” and so on. And so that gets presented in a very creative, dramatic, and metaphorical way, in what we now call the Gospel of John.
So I’m urging people here, traditional Christians or conservative Christians, to take a new look at John and not fret over how you can make it harmonize with the synoptic Jesus. That’s the way scholars usually talk. But to look at John as doing something else. It’s not a fourth synoptic Gospel, but it really is a different genre and has a different purpose and is going about the task in a very different way.
January 20, Part II, Acadia University Divinity College
Minute 04:50, Evans's opening statement
First, only a portion of the New Testament is concerned with history. The principal source for material from which we may derive a portrait of the historical Jesus are the three synoptic gospels--Matthew, Mark and Luke. They are called synoptic because they overlap a lot, and we can see them together, which is what the Greek word means, see them together in parallel columns. John’s Gospel is another matter. What genre is it? It’s not another synoptic Gospel, as some would like to think. All agree that there is some history in John, but is it primarily history, or is it something else?
****************************************************************
Some comments:
1) Many of Evans’s comments are clearly about the Gospel of John as a whole, not merely about some carefully circumscribed passages. Ehrman asks him about whether Jesus claimed to be God in the relatively more explicit ways found in John, and Evans answers both by agreeing with Ehrman that he did not and also by going farther and saying that John is a different genre, a “horse of a different color,” from the synoptics.
When Bart says that John is not historically accurate, Evans’s answer is not to defend its historical accuracy but rather to deny its historicity more radically, to say that it’s “not exactly historical” and that, as with a parable, historical accuracy is an inappropriate category to apply to the Gospel of John.
Evans expressly contrasts John with the synoptic gospels by treating it as not a source for the historical life of Jesus because, he implies, it is some non-historical “genre” and contains only “some history.” When Ehrman summarizes Evans’s position by saying that Evans is not going to use John for writing the life of the historical Jesus, because he thinks it’s metaphorical, Evans expressly agrees, saying, “Fair enough.” That he does not consider John a principle source for the historical life of Jesus is also emphasized by his opening comments on the second night.
2) Evans is emphatic about the lesser historicity of the Gospel of John as a whole from the synoptic Gospels. He even goes so far as to suggest that “conservative Christians” should not attempt to harmonize John’s Jesus with the synoptic Jesus and that he is attempting to move conservative Christians in this direction.
3) Ehrman is explicitly asking about Jesus’ claims to be God, both “I and the Father are one” and “Before Abraham was, I am,” and Evans says that he and Bart do not disagree much on this point--namely, that they are ahistorical, which is Ehrman’s point. That is the context of the initial discussion of the "I am" statements--not just the "I am" statements with predicates, such as "I am the light of the world," but Jesus' relatively more explicit claims to deity in John.
4) Evans emphasizes explicitly that the statements, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” and “I am the bread of life” and “I am the true vine” were not historically said by Jesus in any recognizable fashion but rather that the picture of his doing so was the “creative, dynamic, and metaphorical way” in which the Christian community expressed their theological understanding and that Jesus was these things “for us.”
If you followed Jesus around with a video camera, he insists, you would not find him literally saying these things. Not simply because the wording was slightly modified but rather because these sayings “derive from Jesus” only in a metaphorical and theological way and derive from the community’s understanding of his other teachings. They derive from Jesus, but not because he “went around and said them.”
5) Evans’s statement that there were “church fathers” who denied the canonicity of the Gospel of John is simply historically incorrect. He appears to be alluding to the Alogi, so called by an actual church father (Epiphanius). They were heretics of whom we know nothing except from those who oppose them. They apparently denied the Logos doctrine of John. There is some reason to think that they did use doubts about harmonization as part of their way of questioning the canonicity of John, but this was in the service of their theological agenda, and they were not church fathers. Evans has been careless here. Nor did the real church fathers answer them by stating that John is an ahistorical genre!
6) Evans’s repeated use of the phrase “a fourth synoptic Gospel” as if it is synonymous with “a fourth historical Gospel” is invidious. It gives the impression that those who try to harmonize John with the synoptics and who think of John as historical, as much so as the synoptics, are too ignorant to realize that John is different from the synoptics. Nothing is gained for understanding the Gospel of John by this manner of speaking.
Be that as it may, Licona's own defense of what he perceives as Dr. Evans's position on Jesus' unique Johannine deity claims is quite revealing. The arguments themselves make it quite clear that, though Licona uses the confusing terminology of "paraphrase," the theory in question is in fact that of full dehistoricization of those unique claims. Licona argued on the side of Evans and "other scholars" that, if Jesus was secretive about his messianic identity, we "would not expect" to find him "claiming to be God publicly and in such a clear manner as we find John reporting." Of course, the public, clear nature of Jesus' statements in John is the whole point of those historical statements, leading to attempts to stone him on two occasions.
Since last fall, I have listened to the entirety of both nights of 2012 debate between Ehrman and Evans. These are available on Ehrman's Youtube channel. Rather astonishingly, even more explicit and lengthy dehistoricizing comments about the Gospel of John, from Craig Evans, came to light. So far from providing any mitigating "context," further knowledge of all that Evans said at that time reveals many more emphatic comments in the same vein. Again, please note: While some of these (the first segment below) are the same comments that were discussed last fall, the rest are additional and were not brought to light at that time.
This transcript will serve as useful background for the radio broadcast between me and Dr. Evans. I encourage you to read them and, if you have any doubts or questions, watch the video.
I have a few remarks following the transcript, but seeing/hearing what Evans actually said is perhaps even more important than reading what I have to say below, if you don't have time for both.
Emphasis added.
********************************************************************
January 19, 2012, at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia
First night of a two-part (actually, a reiterated) debate with Bart Ehrman on “Does the New Testament Present a Historically Reliable Portrait of the Historical Jesus?”
1:34:00
Ehrman:
Um okay, so, um, in the Gospel of John, Jesus … ah … says a lot of “I am” sayings, very famous sayings, “Before Abraham was, I am,” “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the father but by me,” I am the bread of life, I am the light of the world,” etc. These “I am” sayings, and, at once point, of course, he says, “The father and I are one.” So, my question to you is, do you think the historical Jesus really said these things?
Evans:
I think most of these things were not uttered as we find them by the historical Jesus. So I suspect we don’t have too much difference on John. My view is the gospel of John is a horse of another color altogether. It’s a different genre. John is often compared to the wisdom literature. It’s like Wisdom is personified. Chokhmah, lady Wisdom, or in Greek, Sophia. She wanders the streets. She calls out to people, she does things. Well, nobody would read that and think, “Oh, did you see Wisdom going down the street the other day.” Nobody would think that is a literal person. What is mysterious to me about John is that once you say that and say, “Okay, perhaps we should interpret the ‘I am’ statements as ‘He is’ confessions – ‘He is the light of the world,’ ‘He is the way, truth, and the life’, ‘He is the bread of life,’” a confession of the Johannine community that likely generated that version of the Gospel – About the time you think John is a gigantic parable, then along comes a scholar who says, “Y’know, it’s loaded with historical details, also.” And so that’s what makes John so tricky. There is a Society of Biblical Literature section devoted to John and the historical Jesus chaired by a scholar named Paul Anderson. So that’s probably more [of an] answer than you want. So, I don’t disagree with you too much on that point. I think John is studded with historical details. Maybe you called them nuggets. That’s not a bad way of describing John. But I think the synoptics are more than just some nuggets. And … but ..
Ehrman:
Okay, so let me just add to pursuing that … I mean John … I think both of us are agreeing that John is not historically accurate. It’s theologically been probably the most important of the Gospels, I would say, historically, and people relish the theological. But in terms of its historical accuracy, it’s … if you were there you would not have heard Jesus say these things, probably. It’s a later theological …
Evans:
No, not in so many words, not like that. I don’t think so.
Ehrman:
Okay, so if we toss John out …
[laughter]
Evans:
I’m not tossing John out. And by the way, Bart, I object to saying it’s not historically accurate. Well, if something that isn’t...isn’t exactly historical, how is it not historically accurate? It’d be like saying “You mean the parable, the parable was a fiction Jesus told? It’s not historically accurate?”
Ehrman:
Well we would have to argue what John was intending to produce, whether he was intending …
Evans:
That’s exactly what the question is.
Ehrman:
And we have no access to his intentions.
Evans:
Well that’s what … that’s true for anything in antiquity, I suppose. That’s why we do exegesis.
Ehrman:
So if we agree that John is not historically accurate, which one of the Gospels is?
Evans:
[Shakes his head in apparent disagreement]
Ehrman:
All right, you … you have said that Jesus didn’t say … Okay, you are not going to use John as a blueprint for writing the historical life of Jesus. Because you think it’s metaphorical.
[Evans nods]: Fair enough.
1:44:54
Question to Evans:
“In your book Fabricating Jesus, you discuss the criteria of authenticity that scholars use to reconstruct historical portraits of Jesus. Clearly these criteria cannot apply to every aspect of the life of Jesus. Are there any sayings of Jesus or activities in the Gospels that you are skeptical about?”
Evans: That’s a very good question. Yeah, the criteria by their very nature look, well, they look for sayings and sometimes they’re applied to deeds that can pass the test of the criteria. Some of the criteria are a little wonky, and some have been either modified or set aside.
For example, one criterion says, if the saying occurs in two or more independent streams of tradition, its claimed authenticity is strengthened, because it is not likely to just be a ringer that just floated into one stream. A ringer might get into one stream but would it get into two or three independent streams? It’s not likely. So anyway, and then on it goes. There are other criteria. So there are sayings attributed to Jesus, we’ll just stick with the sayings, that as far as we can tell don’t meet the criteria. And that is partly why the Jesus Seminar, Bart referred to it as regarding as uncertain or inauthentic like 78% of the gospel materials. And it’s because in large measure lots of materials don’t fit the criteria. (Now, I think they’ve had some of the criteria wrong, and there were other problems of context.)
So, yeah, like, I’ve already mentioned the Gospel of John as an example of that. It’s singly attested, so the distinctive material in John is not found in multiple sources but only in one. But also it’s the, um, it doesn’t fit the early first century Jewish setting oftentimes. It doesn’t agree with the synoptic Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke who talks a different way. And so the Johannine sayings, the distinctive ones, with a few exceptions, they’re the ones that look like, as I said earlier, a different genre altogether, something that only incidentally has historical material in it, but otherwise is a completely different type of literature, more like wisdom literature, where Jesus is portrayed as Wisdom personified and walks and talks like Wisdom.
2:02:30
Question for Evans:
“The Gospel of John seems to present a different Jesus than Matthew, Mark and Luke. Do you think John presents a reliable portrait of Jesus and should we trust that those long speeches in John actually originate from Jesus?”
Evans:
Well, let me elaborate on the answer I gave earlier, because I have already answered that, but let me re-state. On a historical level let us suppose we could go back into time with a camera team and audio and video record the historical Jesus and we followed him about throughout his ministry. I would be very surprised if we caught him uttering, “I am this” and “I am that” and one of these big long speeches that we find in John. Okay, so I’m just taking a different tack, but I’m saying the same thing I said before. This aspect of the Gospel of John I would not put in the category of historical. It’s a genre question.
The real question then would be, do these from a theological point of view reflect an accurate theological understanding of Jesus’s person, his accomplishment, what he’s achieved, what he brings to his believers. Is he the light of the world? Is he, y’know, the way, the truth, the life? Is he the bread of life? See? And that’s what Christians can affirm.
Now this difference of the portrait of Jesus in John compared to the synoptics, this was not lost on the early church. There were church fathers that had grave reservations about John. In their mind, John should have been a fourth synoptic gospel, but it wasn’t. And so they were advocating its exclusion from the collection of writings to be read in churches. That’s of course what eventually gave us the canon and what we call the New Testament.
So you could say, theologically, these affirmations of who Jesus is in fact do derive from Jesus. Not because he walked around and said them. But because of what he did, what he said, what he did, and because of his resurrection. And so this community that comes together in the aftermath of Easter says, “You know what? This Jesus who said these various things, whose teaching we cling to and interpret and present and adapt and so on, he is for us the way, the truth, the life, the true vine. He is the bread of life,” and so on. And so that gets presented in a very creative, dramatic, and metaphorical way, in what we now call the Gospel of John.
So I’m urging people here, traditional Christians or conservative Christians, to take a new look at John and not fret over how you can make it harmonize with the synoptic Jesus. That’s the way scholars usually talk. But to look at John as doing something else. It’s not a fourth synoptic Gospel, but it really is a different genre and has a different purpose and is going about the task in a very different way.
January 20, Part II, Acadia University Divinity College
Minute 04:50, Evans's opening statement
First, only a portion of the New Testament is concerned with history. The principal source for material from which we may derive a portrait of the historical Jesus are the three synoptic gospels--Matthew, Mark and Luke. They are called synoptic because they overlap a lot, and we can see them together, which is what the Greek word means, see them together in parallel columns. John’s Gospel is another matter. What genre is it? It’s not another synoptic Gospel, as some would like to think. All agree that there is some history in John, but is it primarily history, or is it something else?
****************************************************************
Some comments:
1) Many of Evans’s comments are clearly about the Gospel of John as a whole, not merely about some carefully circumscribed passages. Ehrman asks him about whether Jesus claimed to be God in the relatively more explicit ways found in John, and Evans answers both by agreeing with Ehrman that he did not and also by going farther and saying that John is a different genre, a “horse of a different color,” from the synoptics.
When Bart says that John is not historically accurate, Evans’s answer is not to defend its historical accuracy but rather to deny its historicity more radically, to say that it’s “not exactly historical” and that, as with a parable, historical accuracy is an inappropriate category to apply to the Gospel of John.
Evans expressly contrasts John with the synoptic gospels by treating it as not a source for the historical life of Jesus because, he implies, it is some non-historical “genre” and contains only “some history.” When Ehrman summarizes Evans’s position by saying that Evans is not going to use John for writing the life of the historical Jesus, because he thinks it’s metaphorical, Evans expressly agrees, saying, “Fair enough.” That he does not consider John a principle source for the historical life of Jesus is also emphasized by his opening comments on the second night.
2) Evans is emphatic about the lesser historicity of the Gospel of John as a whole from the synoptic Gospels. He even goes so far as to suggest that “conservative Christians” should not attempt to harmonize John’s Jesus with the synoptic Jesus and that he is attempting to move conservative Christians in this direction.
3) Ehrman is explicitly asking about Jesus’ claims to be God, both “I and the Father are one” and “Before Abraham was, I am,” and Evans says that he and Bart do not disagree much on this point--namely, that they are ahistorical, which is Ehrman’s point. That is the context of the initial discussion of the "I am" statements--not just the "I am" statements with predicates, such as "I am the light of the world," but Jesus' relatively more explicit claims to deity in John.
4) Evans emphasizes explicitly that the statements, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” and “I am the bread of life” and “I am the true vine” were not historically said by Jesus in any recognizable fashion but rather that the picture of his doing so was the “creative, dynamic, and metaphorical way” in which the Christian community expressed their theological understanding and that Jesus was these things “for us.”
If you followed Jesus around with a video camera, he insists, you would not find him literally saying these things. Not simply because the wording was slightly modified but rather because these sayings “derive from Jesus” only in a metaphorical and theological way and derive from the community’s understanding of his other teachings. They derive from Jesus, but not because he “went around and said them.”
5) Evans’s statement that there were “church fathers” who denied the canonicity of the Gospel of John is simply historically incorrect. He appears to be alluding to the Alogi, so called by an actual church father (Epiphanius). They were heretics of whom we know nothing except from those who oppose them. They apparently denied the Logos doctrine of John. There is some reason to think that they did use doubts about harmonization as part of their way of questioning the canonicity of John, but this was in the service of their theological agenda, and they were not church fathers. Evans has been careless here. Nor did the real church fathers answer them by stating that John is an ahistorical genre!
6) Evans’s repeated use of the phrase “a fourth synoptic Gospel” as if it is synonymous with “a fourth historical Gospel” is invidious. It gives the impression that those who try to harmonize John with the synoptics and who think of John as historical, as much so as the synoptics, are too ignorant to realize that John is different from the synoptics. Nothing is gained for understanding the Gospel of John by this manner of speaking.
Posts
Comments (42)
Without that thesis, Licona's point is significantly weakened, and is also weakened by the fact that a persons personality can't be compressed into a few short books. Even living with a person for a lifetime they can still surprise you.
a) social--John is heavily attacked in mainstream scholarship, so holding that he's strongly historical makes you look like a "fundamentalist"
b) arguments from silence--If it is in John and isn't in the synoptics, this is taken as some huge problem with its historicity.
Bart Ehrman harps incessantly on the argument from silence, sneering that Mark & others would have had to "not notice" if Jesus had made the claims recorded in John.
I've now watched a couple of different debates where Ehrman does this. It's part of his stock in trade. In neither case does the supposed defender of Christianity just stand up and say, "Bart, y'got anything that isn't a really lousy argument from silence?"
Instead, instant capitulation is the norm.
If they think this is some kind of clever jujitsu move, they could not be more mistaken. Bart just laps up the capitulation on the historicity of John and the "I am" statements and says, more or less, "Fine, let's see what else I can get you to give up."
Holding's argument does indeed look desperate. It can't hold any water at all if you simply say OK, Jesus knew about all those drawbacks to claiming to be the Messiah, and he took them all into account, and indeed USED them in his plans for salvation: he used the envy of the priests, the grasping hold on honor of the Pharisees to maneuver them into what he planned for. In any case, like his escaping the crowd that tried to throw him off the bluff, he could walk away from any threat any time he wanted. These nay-sayers seem to reject his divine power, and seem to think that he got crucified because he got caught and couldn't escape.
If I may, Holding was not trying to explain away Jesus' claims to diety in John. In the article, JPH is countering William Wrede's "Messianic Secret" hypothesis, explaining why Jesus didnt go all over the place and say "I'm God, I'm God". John was only mentioned this one time, and Holding is usimg it as a historically valuable source. In other essays, JP has defended the strong historicity of John, including the I Am statements.
I tend to think Jesus was careful about whom he told he was the Messiah when he was in Galilee, chiefly, because of what we find in John 6--the intent to try to make him king by force. (In that sense, we have something like an undesigned coincidence: John explains the so-called "messianic secret" in the synoptics. I owe that point to Craig Blomberg.) He feels no such compunction with the woman at the well in John 4, because the Samaritans were not looking (so I understand) for such a military Messiah and were not going to "get the wrong idea" if the woman passed on his open self-identification.
Claiming deity was not actually the same thing. Indeed, the Jewish expectation at the time was *not* that the Messiah would be God incarnate at all. So claiming deity might get you stoned, but it wouldn't fuel messianic military hopes.
Of course, if Dr. Evans wishes to acknowledge openly what he said in 2012 and say that he has had a major change of mind, that will be a different matter. But otherwise, let's just say that between me and 2012 Evans there is a great gulf fixed, and that as of this time I do not consider myself to have evidence that 2018 Evans is a man of strongly changed mind from 2012 Evans, though he is a man who does not speak as clearly as he spoke in 2012.
But then, in Matthew 26.63, the high priest asks Jesus whether He is the Messiah? How does the high priest know that Jesus has made that claim? We can't find the answer in the synoptics - as far as I'm aware. Two possibilities remain:
1. This is a case of verisimilitude. After the anointing of Jesus, Judas went to the chief priests to betray Jesus. It's possible that he told them that Jesus claims to be the Messiah (since "Messiah" means "Anointed" and Jesus allowed the woman to anoint Him; and because Judas knew that He claimed to be the Messiah from Matthew 16). However, the synoptics do not mention this, so it's really undesigned.
2. Another possibility is that we have here an undesigned coincidence with John. John mentions several times (e.g., 10.25) that Jesus explicitly said that He was the Messiah. John explains the synoptics as to why the high priest asks whether Jesus is the Messiah.
Maybe the way I wrote my comment, and used that quote was confusing? I can do that at times, I'm sorry if that is the case.
I brought up his article because Licona was using the "Messianic Secret" thesis to argue for an ahistorical John. Without that thesis, his case is significantly weakened.
JPH's article kind of flips the whole "Messianic Secret" thing on its head. The full article can be found here. http://www.tektonics.org/qt/secretmess.php
Actually, in the video JPH has on the page with the article, it's basically that Jesus knew full well they would talk, and telling them not to was more like "Just make sure you don't tell anyone wink wink, nudge nudge".
On the other hand from what I understand JPH is good friends with Licona, and has defended him in the past regarding the issue with Norman Geisler.
For some reason he thinks spotlighting, the normal kind even in use today, is equivalent to "displacement" as Licona defines it. He refers to the "freedom in literary composition associated with ancient writers." as something both options are related to. I don't understand why given it is not something limited to the "ancients", nor is it specifically any kind of fancy literary device.
Btw (this directed again to Tim, above), I admit to being puzzled that anyone would think that there is any doubt about "how much Dr. Evans and I actually differ." At least as regards his 2012 comments. Can anyone simply read those comments (which are extremely clear and even emphatic) and wonder how much we actually differ? He isn't speaking in another language or with difficult-to-understand technical terminology. He isn't speaking cryptically. He is actually going on at some length. Anyone who knows my work and was simply handed this transcript, without being told who said these things, and was asked, "Does this person have a very different view from that of Lydia McGrew?" would, I hope, have no hesitation or difficulty in answering that question.
They say our culture in the west is more based on guilt, and individualism than on honor, and collectivism**.
I'm still undecided on this one. I think some of what I have read on the subject makes sense, but I think some out there take it too far. Usually those who say that we can't possibly understand ancient cultures without the help of specific scholars. As well as that specific scholars viewpoint on the ancients. John H. Walton is one that comes to mind. Based on what I've read of his writing, it is either accept his view, or you're simply unwilling to understand ancient works in context.
I don't think he applies the literary devices to John's "I Am" statements, or much of the book for that matter. Apparently he does to the demoniacs in Matthew he think. Well, as "most likely" anyway. He doesn't have the confidence in the idea of conflation that Licona does. Not in that article anyway. He's also far more willing to use harmonization, and has a full article comparing (relatively)recent news to the Gospels.
The bolded is in the original, and is a question from a skeptic it seems.
I suppose it is possible he changed his mind about more common methods of harmonization over time, and left up older articles that didn't reflect his newer understanding. Personally I think he just holds too high a regard for scholars, and doesn't fully realize what is being promoted. From what I understand he is also friends with Licona, so that could be part of it too.
*That's what I'm going to call it anyway.
**Not in the sense of communism.
The more I read, and the more I think about it, the stranger this concept seems to me. I'm thinking there is a different "puzzle piece" that we don't know about yet that fits better at this point. Looks like others are just intent on taking a hammer and making it fit.
But it still seems rather forced, the use to which JPH seems to be putting it. After all, even without specific messianic claims, Jesus' actions were going to attract a lot of respect and honor, no matter what. Going about healing people of leprosy and paralysis, of blindness and deafness, and raising from the dead - these are all going to attract some form and degree of honor, and not just a wee little bit. And his teaching, the Sermon on the Mount and the hundred other times he taught in public meant that he was accorded the honor of "rabbi" without even half trying. And then his miracles like the feeding of 5,000, and then 4,000. And his standing up to Pharisees and Saducees, and poking them in the eye with comments like "whited sepulchres", had to attract honor from people who didn't like those groups. So, while it is manifestly true that Christ got the Pharisees mad at him, it is not true only on account of his claiming messianic status, and he was going to get them upset with all his other stuff anyway. Which He knew beforehand, too.
In any event, in ANY cultural millieu, there are individuals who are more given to viewing others' good with envy, and more given to viewing good as a zero-sum facet of the universe, than everyone else - and these individuals often gravitate to positions of status with regard to the goods available. You can get a Herod the Great after you, or King Saul, whether you do anything to deserve it or not, and whether they are acting out of a strong cultural conditioning or their own personal foibles the results are much the same.
So ultimately the notion that Jesus would have needed to be extremely selective about mentioning his being the Messiah - because of an "honor shame society" - doesn't actually answer for much. It certainly doesn't account for a situation where we can confidently say that the 3 synoptics left it out because it didn't happen, and John made up the messianic claims for theological reasons. That's just bunk.
I do think he overestimates the whole "honor shame culture" thing. Oddly enough he uses it to argue against the "Messianic Secret" hypothesis. In doing so he undermines those who who say John is just making stuff up. I honestly think the rest of the stuff he points out in his article on the "Messianic Secret" makes for a better argument than the "honor shame culture" does.
Your point about people accruing honor simply by their actions is a good one IMO. I don't see how Jesus stating He is the Messiah is somehow "dishonorable", but telling others to go and state that for Him is "honorable".
Your point also made me think of something else. How could it ever be considered dishonorable for Jesus to speak about the honor that is actually His? I mean, He is God, ultimately all honor is His.
@Lydia, I've read the transcript, and will probably do so a couple more times. I've been going back over the articles in your Licona series recently as well. Will there be a transcript of the radio show too? I do better with reading than listening. So much easier to go back and check something when I need to, and I can go through it faster.
I have recently discovered that with VLC media player (which is free) you can download an mp3 file and then speed it up to 1.5 speed for listening, which moves through much faster. I did this in order to listen to the three (largely contentless) podcasts that Licona did with Tim Stratton recently.
Of course, it makes the voices sound somewhat funny, but for the podcast-averse like us it can be worth it. I can say though that the Unbelievable discussion won't be super-lengthy. It should be no more than an hour.
Maybe you should get that software that converts speech into text. Would definitely make such transcripts easier. ;)
I'll listen to it once it is up. I'll probably just listen to it in chunks. I tend to break up most of what I do into small chunks to spread it out through the day. Helps keep me from getting bored with any one thing. Only a few things are truly capable of getting my attention to a significant enough to degree for me to keep at it for long periods of time*.
*In my somewhat unusual situation I have to make sure my attention is as focused as possible. That's not always easy, especially doing something like listening to a podcast.
Go here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=hiZWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA17
The Evangelical theologian Robert Gundry argues in his commentary on Matthew that the birth narratives about Jesus were based on creative appropriations of isolated NT passages, and make more sense as pious midrashic tales rather than authentic history. Gundry was expelled from the Evangelical Theological Society in the early 1980s as a result. But the vote was not overwhelming. Many Evangelical theologians wanted him to remain. In fact in 2013 at the annual Evangelical Theological Society convention there was a strong call for Robert Gundry’s reinstatement as a member. http://defendinginerrancy.com/robert-gundry-declares-peter-apostate/
Michael Bird says Gundry should be reinstated to the ETS. The reason is because increasing numbers of ETS members have grown more comfortable with modern biblical criticism.
Craig Blomberg says we shouldnʼt see the story of Jesus telling Peter to find the coin in the fishes mouth as historical. Also says the ETS should accept Gundry back, that his method of biblical interpretation is perfectly legitimate, that his view of three Isaiahʼs is fine, and that a Pauline imitator wrote books instead of Paul.
William Lane Craig says he doesnʼt know what to think about the “raising of the many saints” passage in the Gospel of Matthew, but that it could be taken as apocalyptic symbolism. When asked his opinion on whether there were guards at the tomb, Lane says he canʼt think of anybody who would defend whether there were really guards at the tombs.
http://defendinginerrancy.com/responding-new-attacks-scripture/
New Testament scholar Dale. C. Allison argues that not only is Matthew's "Sermon on the Mount" a carefully and intricately structured literary construction (as opposed to a recounting of an oral discourse), Allison also explains that the Sermon fits with known rabbinical debates and teachings (i.e., simplicity, humble almsgiving, prayer, forgiveness, fasting, etc.).
As an example, Allison writes:
"Simeon the Just, a rabbi of the Maccabean period taught... ‘Upon three things the world standeth: upon Torah, upon Temple service and upon deeds of loving-kindness’(Abot 1.2). . . . [So] Simeon declares that three things matter most: the law, the Temple, and social or religious acts of benevolence. Now . . . the parallel with the Sermon on the Mount is remarkable. Matthew 5–7 addresses three fundamental issues, the law, the Temple/cult service, and social behavior; that is, it addresses the three things upon which, according to Simeon the Just, the world stands, and it addresses them in precisely the same order. [Thus it seems Matthew] arranged his discourse so as to create a Christian interpretation of the three classical pillars." (Allison, ‘The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount’, Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987), p. 443).
The Evangelical theologian Robert Gundry argues in his commentary on Matthew that the birth narratives about Jesus were based on creative appropriations of isolated NT passages, and make more sense as pious midrashic tales rather than authentic history. Gundry was expelled from the Evangelical Theological Society in the early 1980s as a result. But the vote was not overwhelming. Many Evangelical theologians wanted him to remain. In fact in 2013 at the annual Evangelical Theological Society convention there was a strong call for Robert Gundry’s reinstatement as a member.
Michael Bird says Gundry should be reinstated to the ETS. The reason is because increasing numbers of ETS members have grown more comfortable with modern biblical criticism.
Craig Blomberg says we shouldnʼt see the story of Jesus telling Peter to find the coin in the fishes mouth as historical. Also says the ETS should accept Gundry back, that his method of biblical interpretation is perfectly legitimate, that his view of three Isaiahʼs is fine, and that a Pauline imitator wrote books instead of Paul.
William Lane Craig says he doesnʼt know what to think about the “raising of the many saints” passage in the Gospel of Matthew, but that it could be taken as apocalyptic symbolism. When asked his opinion on whether there were guards at the tomb, Lane says he canʼt think of anybody who would defend whether there were really guards at the tombs.
New Testament scholar Dale. C. Allison argues that not only is Matthew's "Sermon on the Mount" a carefully and intricately structured literary construction (as opposed to a recounting of an oral discourse), Allison also explains that the Sermon fits with known rabbinical debates and teachings (i.e., simplicity, humble almsgiving, prayer, forgiveness, fasting, etc.).
As an example, Allison writes:
"Simeon the Just, a rabbi of the Maccabean period taught... ‘Upon three things the world standeth: upon Torah, upon Temple service and upon deeds of loving-kindness’(Abot 1.2). . . . [So] Simeon declares that three things matter most: the law, the Temple, and social or religious acts of benevolence. Now . . . the parallel with the Sermon on the Mount is remarkable. Matthew 5–7 addresses three fundamental issues, the law, the Temple/cult service, and social behavior; that is, it addresses the three things upon which, according to Simeon the Just, the world stands, and it addresses them in precisely the same order. [Thus it seems Matthew] arranged his discourse so as to create a Christian interpretation of the three classical pillars." (Allison, ‘The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount’, Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987), p. 443).
‘It seems most probable that Matthew himself [the unnamed author of the “Gospel of Matthew” is assumed to be “Matthew” for ease of communication] was responsible for changing the text [of OT passages that he cited to try to portray Jesus as having “fulfilled prophecies”]. Matthew’s own quotations from the Old Testament most probably came from other [Greek] translations of the original Hebrew than the LXX [a Greek translation of the OT] which he apparently adapted to make it more clear how they have found their fulfilment in Jesus. Matthew takes the original meaning of the text as starting point of his interpretation, but then he locates its fulfilment in a new situation. Gundry therefore named Matthew the “Targumist.” The Aramaic Targums that have survived show that there was a living tradition of biblical translation (or interpretation) in which there was no sharp separation between text and interpretation. Extensive paraphrase and even interpolation were acceptable in order to bring out the perceived application of the quotation.’
Menken made an extensive study of “Matthew’s Bible” and came to the following conclusions on the texts forms of the formula quotations:
• Matthew 1:23: The quotation (from Is. 7:14) comes from a revised LXX. The revision ensures that the translation renders the Hebrew more correctly. [The brief line from Isa. is lifted out of its original context which was a prophecy meant for King Ahaz, and referred to a child who had already been conceived in Ahaz’s day.]
• Matthew 2:15: The quotation (from Hs. 11:1) is closer to the Masoretic text than the LXX. This could be due to a revision of the LXX or a fresh translation of the original Hebrew, though this revision can hardly be distinguished from a fresh translation. This translation could be Matthew’s own, or preMatthean.
• Matthew 2:18: The quotation (from Jer. 31(38):15) offers a better translation of the Hebrew as that of the LXX, as well as an adaptation to the context of the verse in Jeremiah and the analogous verse Genesis 37:35.
• Matthew 2:23: This quotation apparently cannot be found in the Old Testament. Menken regards Jdg. 13:5, 7 as the primary source of the quotation. Apparently Matthew saw some parallels between Jesus and Samson [a “Nazorite” who however, did not live in “Nazareth”]. The evangelist probably “composed” the fulfilment quotation with the help of an analogous verse.
• Matthew 4:14-16: The quotation (from Isa. 8:23-9:1) agrees in some points with the LXX, on other points with the Hebrew text, and in details it deviates from both. Matthew probably abbreviated the Old Testament text in view of the context into which he inserted the quotation. At the same time the quotation led him to make explicit some elements of the context that were only implicit in Mark.
• Matthew 8:17: The quotation (from Isa. 53:4) looks like a fairly exact translation of the Hebrew text and much more precise than the spiritualizing rendering of the LXX. Matthew makes the Hebrew word that indicates a he-donkey into a she-donkey which is essential to his application of this quotation.
• Matthew 12:18-21: The quotation (from Isa. 42:1-4) deviates significantly from both the LXX and Hebrew text. It is also problematic that there is very limited connection between the events and the quotation. Matthew omitted from the Old Testament passage the one line that was not compatible with Jesus’ passion and death.
• Matthew 13:35: Matthew ascribes the quotation from Psalm 78:2 to Isaiah. Matthew 13:35b however correlates with Isaiah 29:14 which the evangelist probably had in mind.
• Matthew 21:4-5: The quotation (from Zch. 9:9) has been changed substantially. In fact, the first line of the quotation does not come from Zechariah but from Isaiah 62:11 and has been abbreviated. The Old Testament quotation and the Matthean context have mutually influenced each other. These adaptations of the quotations are due to editorial work of the evangelist.
• Matthew 27:9-19: The quotation (from Zch. 11:12-13) presents a change in wording and sequence of lines, to attune it to the preceding narrative. In its Matthean text, the quotation is a typical ad hoc creation. Some details of the quotations have been derived not from Zechariah 11:12-13, but from other analogous Old Testament passages (Dt. 23:18-19 and Jr. 32(39):6-15) making it the most heavily edited fulfilment quotation. It was obviously so heavily edited to make it fit the narrative context.
Some possibilities can be proposed to explain this inconstancy in wording of the quotations. It seems that when Matthew used Mark, the LXX was used in his fulfilment quotations. The LXX versions of the quotations in Matthew were therefore not Matthew using the LXX but rather Mark. With Matthew’s own quotations which differ considerably from the LXX, various explanations have been proposed by scholars. It could be that Matthew adapted the LXX presenting an independent and free rendering of the LXX version of the passages concerned.
Some assume that the quotations were derived from another (unknown) Greek translation used in Christian circles. It could also be that Matthew used an existing revised form of the LXX. Others think that Matthew derived them from an extant collection of sources, or testimonies (although the existence of such a collection is uncertain as being discussed in the next section) in which it already had its striking form. Some scholars propose that Matthew had drawn his quotations from existing oral traditions.
However, it seems most probable that Matthew himself was responsible for changing the text [of OT passages that Matthew made use of to try to portray Jesus as having “fulfilled prophecies”]. Matthew’s own quotations from the Old Testament most probably came from other translations of the original Hebrew than the LXX which he apparently adapted to make it more clear how they have found their fulfilment in Jesus. Matthew takes the original meaning of the text as starting point of his interpretation, but then he locates its fulfilment in a new situation. Gundry therefore named Matthew the “Targumist”. The Aramaic Targums that have survived show that there was a living tradition of biblical translation (or interpretation) in which there was no sharp separation between text and interpretation. Extensive paraphrase and even interpolation were acceptable in order to bring out the perceived application of the quotation.
SOURCE: Fulfilment in Matthew, F P Viljoen (North west University – Potchefstroom campus)
NOTE: Viljoen, the source of the above, is relatively conservative and attempts to defend Matthew’s citations of the OT by stating, “Though Matthew’s use of the Jewish Scripture sometimes seems to be forced to the modern reader, he utilizes the acceptable Targumist hermeneutical method of his time.”
But Viljoen’s defense begs the question of how acceptable such methods are to critically minded readers raised with a “show me the evidence” mentality.
And speaking of what one can find in the Bible via Targumist imaginings note the “prophetic warnings” this author found: “Did Isaiah warn against Christianity?” and, “Verses fundies ignore”
At least Viljoen admits that Moule remarked that Matthew ignored the original meaning of words and took them out of context, and considered Matthew’s appeals to the Old Testament “manifestly forced and artificial and unconvincing.” Viljoen also admits that “Menken [whose work Viljoen relies on] made a general remark on the way of interpretation in Jewish and Christian circles in the time of the New Testament: ‘all sorts of textual manipulations were also used in early Jewish and Christian circles to reduce the distance between the scriptural word and its alleged fulfilment.’ Menken also writes that perfect correspondence between the old text and the new reality is very rare. Those who accept new beliefs would therefore find ‘means to reduce the cognitive dissonance caused by the imperfect correspondence between the old text and the new reality.’”
See also my two pieces,
Isaiah 53 not a prophecy of Jesus,
Prophecy about Jesus? “Mighty God, Everlasting Father” Isaiah 9:6
Edward T. Babinski of the blog, Scrivenings
In the synoptics Jesusʼ main teaching and concern was “repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.” That was “the Gospel.”
And Jesus is depicted as advocating an approach to gaining eternal life that laid great stress on oneʼs relationships with others, as in his “Sermon on the Mount” Matt. chapters 5-7.
“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”
Matt. 7:12
Several times in the synoptics Jesus tells people to ‘love God’ and concentrate on storing up ‘heavenly treasures’ by ‘loving others,’ and to ‘follow Jesus’ in that respect. It is worth reading the complete passages found in the Synoptics to receive their full effect:
“Good teacher,” one person asked [Jesus], “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’” “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the manʼs face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
Mark 10
Or there is the version in Matthew:
“Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One Who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Matthew 19
There is also a Lukan version:
“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Luke 18
There is this additional teaching about how to gain eternal life that is also found in the synoptics:
“‘The most important one [commandment],’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one, Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.’ ‘Well said, teacher,’ the man replied. ‘You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.’ When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’”
Mark 12
“A lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ He [Jesus] said to him, ‘What is written in the law? How do you read?’ And he answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ And he [Jesus] said to him, ‘You have answered right; do this, and you will live.’”
Luke 10:25-28
Is blood sacrifice necessary for salvation? Jesus in the synoptics did not seem to think so when he instructed people to pray like this for forgiveness:
“Father… forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” Matt. 6:12
“Father… forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.” Luke 11:4
Jesus in the synoptics taught that people who forgave the debts/sins of others would be forgiven by God, simply and directly, without need of a blood sacrifice.
As previously noted, Jesus is depicted as saying in Matthew:
“In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
Matthew 7:12
If that sums up the Law and the Prophets, what need is there for much more to be said? This passage is followed by more that stress above all else, “DOING, PRACTICING, ACTING” well toward others:
“...You will know them by their FRUITS... Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who DOES the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’ Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and ACTS on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock... Everyone who hears these words of mine and does NOT ACT on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand... and it fell and great was its fall. [Matt. 7: 12-27]
Or consider the parable of The Good Samaritan found in Luke, that ends, “Go and do likewise.” Luke 10
Go and do. Doing is the main thing, along with Godʼs direct and ample forgiveness. Speaking of direct forgiveness, according to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus asked God to forgive the Romans who were crucifying him, and one of the two thieves on the cross next to Jesus called Jesus ‘a man,’ but Jesus still promised him paradise.
In the synoptics Jesusʼ main teaching and concern was “repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.” That was “the Gospel.”
Gundry's Matthew commentary is an absolute embarrassment. It is full of the most errant nonsense, representing the worst of the "bad habits of New Testament scholars." This is a man who thinks it is professionally acceptable to state, without argument, that the slaughter of the innocent in Matthew is a "midrash" on the sacrifice of the two turtle doves in Luke. This is a man who thinks it constitutes an argument for Matthew's fictionalization to *state* that the perfectly ordinary phrase "when it was evening" in the feeding of the five thousand is an allusion to the Last Supper because Mark has some reference to "evening" in his account of the last supper. Then he multiplies such ridiculous conjectures throughout the account of the feeding of the five thousand and thinks he's made a cumulative case out of them for Matthew's creatively changing things in order to allude to the Last Supper. And the entire commentary is like that. It is hypertrophic tendenzkritik on steroids, without scholarly merit. Douglas Moo destroyed him in their exchange in JETS, and the only unfortunate thing was that he was taken as seriously as he was.
The argument as to whether or not he should be in the ETS, and in particular those who argued against kicking him out, was political rather than a reflection of the merits of his position. Blomberg dismissed his views in a couple of paragraphs in his book on the reliability of the gospels (and rightly so), but Blomberg likes to defend anyone he perceives as under attack from the right, so he thought he shouldn't be kicked out of the ETS.
Most of the representations above of "evangelicals'" views are correct or (in some cases) such that I can neither confirm or disconfirm. I doubt that Allison should be thought of as an evangelical, though, but whatever. One of the major reasons I'm taking on the entire NT establishment, including evangelicals, is too much openness to fictionalization, on the basis of extremely flimsy argument, though the raising of the saints in Matthew is old stuff and is (in the big picture) almost the least of our worries. However, the representation concerning Blomberg and the fish is not. That was a poor article, one of Blomberg's few really unfortunate scholarly moments. But he did not state that the incident was ahistorical. Rather, he made much of the fact that we are never actually shown Peter getting the coin and used this (and his own subjective perception of the "unworthiness" of what he viewed as such a trivial miracle) to argue that Jesus was being facetious in suggesting that Peter go and get the fish and find the coin. I think his methodology in the article was flawed and problematic, because he was taking each "nature miracle" separately and trying to decide its historicity based upon its theological depth, which is pretty confused and backward. But in the end he decided they all happened except this one, and decided this one didn't happen without actually denying the historicity of the narrative.
Now, enough with the zillions of comments in the thread.
As usual, I'm not going to respond to all of your scattershot claims.
In Acts 1.4-5 we read:
"And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”"
This promise isn't made anywhere in the Gospel of Luke. However, we find it in John 14.16-17.
This about "mother nature" is nothing in comparison of a website that I've come across a long time ago where a guy wanted to establish the theory that the Gospels are actually presenting Buddha's life, and he based his arguments on some simmilarities with greek and pali, like _stavros_ (greek for cross) is simmilar to the pali word for a buddhist monk's mantle, and so on. My point is, there are realy some crazy people out there....
*Well, others will assign any number of pagan gods, but this guy was thinking it was a nearly 1:1 correspondence between the two.
Yeah, I heard someone speak of Krishna being called Zeus Krishna - get it Zeus kind of looks like Jesus and Krishna kind of looks like Jesus. And that Horus had a father named Seb / Geb which is why Jesus had a father named Joseph, because isn't it obvious that Geb = Joseph? They're a crazy bunch out there, those Jesus Mythicists. I talked for about fifteen minutes, but then I began loosing my mind, and he wasn't interested in a sincere discussion. I still think my IQ is 20 points less because of that day.
I don't think Luke 24.49 is an explicit statement of the 'promise of the Father', but indeed rather the same statement as in Acts 1.