Gospels studies - The Next big thing in New Testament studies

At least according to the two archangels, Micael Barber at Singinginthereign and Michael Bird.

Micael Barber reports, of course neutral as always, on the situation.

By form-criticism let me explain what I mean. The form-critical model to which I am referring to holds that the following should be taken as irrefutable historical fact and as foundational for research:

1. Before the sayings of Jesus were incorporated into the Gospels they circulated for a long time through oral tradition which was essentially transmitted anonymously, without authoritative tradents.

2. These sayings were passed along independently of each other.

3. The Jesus tradition was passed along only in small units.

4. Over time elements which were not traceable to the historical Jesus crept into the tradition. For example, the utterances of Christian prophets who spoke “in the name of the Risen Jesus” who accepted as coming truly from the Lord. In fact, the early church was not careful to distinguish what went back to the historical Jesus and so the Jesus tradition was expanded to include large portions of non-historical elements.

5. Many of these non-historical sayings were introduced to help address the needs of the church. For example, sayings were accepted into the tradition which helped answered critical questions facing the church. In essence, when the church wondered, “What would Jesus have said about x?”, a saying was kindly obliged by someone such as a Christian prophet who could speak for the Lord.

6. The elements of the Jesus tradition―which of course now included features that were not authentic―came to be crystallized in various forms: e.g., parables, pronouncement stories, individual sayings, miracle stories, etc.

7. By carefully analyzing the Gospels one can “get behind the text” and happily answer all of the following questions:

―What were the original forms in which the sayings of Jesus were circulated?

―How were these sayings used in the early church at this oral stage?

―Which elements came from Jesus and which came from the early Church?

Keep in mind, for form-criticism to really be carried out the above presuppositions cannot simply be loosely held. This is either what happened or not. To question the basic assertions of the form-critical model is to be unable to use it.

Now, it took about a hundred years but most scholars are now recognizing how ridiculous the schema is.

Not a second too early.

Dawkins getting rational?

Whether it is age or argument, Richard Dawkins at least seems to have changed tactics recently. While earlier denying any intellectual merit at all in holding that a God may exist, he started his latest debate with John Lennox by saying that A serious case could be made for a deistic God.

The report is much of a hoot, some of which of course may be due to it not excactly being written by a disciple of Dawkins. After the previous debate with Lennox, it seems rather revealing that he this time chose to leave his standard arena of distorting Aquinas and arguments for God.

Maybe he has realised that he has been found out? His bluff has been called so many times that it seems appropriate with a new approach.

So then, how does Dawkins now proceed to debate a fellow scientist on the existence of God? By focusing on science? On theistic arguments?

No, by historical arguments against the divinity of Jesus.

Instead, Dawkins was able to move the debate onto a specific attack on Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus, which is a very different argument and obscured the central point of contention – the claim that science had buried God. The fact that Dawkins now appears to be so reluctant publicly to defend his own position on his own territory of scientific rationalism – and indeed, even to have shifted his ground – is a tribute above all to the man he was debating once again on Tuesday evening.

While this may have been a surprise for Lennox, who neither is a Historian, he was at least able to make Dawkins see some historical light.

In the debate, under pressure from Lennox Dawkins was actually forced to retract his previous claim that Jesus had probably ‘never existed’.

That, however, didn't stop Dawkins from committing other errors, revealing his distorted view of the history of science.

And in a revealing aside, when Lennox remarked that the Natural History Museum in which they were debating – in front of dinosaur skeletons -- had been founded for the glory of God, Dawkins scoffed that of course this was absolutely untrue.

But it was true. Construction of the museum was instigated between 1855 and 1860 by the Regius Professor of Medicine, Sir Henry Acland. According to Keith Thomson of the Sigma XI Scientific Research Society, the funds for the project came from the surplus in the University Press’s Bible account as this was deemed only appropriate for a building dedicated to science as a glorification of God’s works.

While Dawkins may not walk the way of Antony Flew yet, he seems at least to have become wise enough to drop or hesitate about several of his arguments from The God delusion.

A name in time

Arhaeologists have found a bowl that may have a dedication to Christ, from the last centuries BC or early first century.

In a time when there are people even not believing he existed, such findings are always amusing. Not only as they tend to stir up so much emotion, also just to see how the arguments for what it really is about goes.

And how it is being spinned by media.

So far the best comment may be from Jim West.

There’s so much wrong here. First, the bowl isn’t the earliest reference to Christ. And second, there’s no evidence that the bowl suggests what they are saying it does. And finally, this is yet another example of ‘much ado about nothing’.

Indeed-

“It could very well be a reference to Jesus Christ, in that he was once the primary exponent of white magic,” Goddio, co-founder of the Oxford Center of Maritime Archaeology, said.

Rubbish and pure, unadulterated speculation. Archaeology has been bastardized yet again in service of the absurd. The Discovery Channel has lost all credibility since they of late seem determined to promote the most nonsensical theories.

In short, talk about The Historical Jesus reveals more than most, modern medias strange mix of sensationalism and shallow insight.

"Ntwrong" also does some memorable musings in the comment section.

I’ve seen that bowl somewhere before. It looks very familiar. Ah yes - I’m sure it used to sit on Morton Smith’s desk. It’s where he kept his pencils.

Better injokes are difficult to dig up.

Dragons can be killed

Unfortunately The Zimbabwean is no fantasy. If nothing else, it is interesting to see how much this letter section shows of both fantasy, fury and faith.

As all may be needed in the present situation, not the least as hope of intervention from the political or humanitarian world outside is nothing to put money on.

Dragons can be killed

EDITOR - Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed – said G. K. Chesterton.

Robert Mugabe is in every sense a dragon. Laying waste the land, devouring human lives, demanding the most vulnerable be sacrificed for his appeasement, hoarding treasure he can’t possibly use just so others can’t have it, armoured, intractable, smoking with resentment and rage, and stinking of hubris. Having deified their own power, such contempt have his ruling proxy elitist thugs for the collective wisdom of citizens, they will not be removed by runoffs, regardless of the outcomes. They have no interest in the betterment of Zimbabwe. Rather the prosperity of her people is everything they fear. They cling to power for no other reason than that they may continue to eat the flesh of damsels and babes. Make no mistake—these dragons will continue to savagely brutalize Zimbabweans no less if they win than if they lose.

Let Zimbabweans abandon hoping in the humanitarian intervention of Britain, the USA, or African neighbour nations for deliverance from these dragons.

The dragon Robert and his maggot-spawn can only be removed by a unified appeal to the hosts of heaven: chariots of fire, legions of angels, and the pulling down of strongholds.

Starting this present moment, let every powerless Zimbabwean begin to speak, mutter, and whisper the holy name of Jesus with every breath he or she draws. Just the name of Jesus is itself a complete prayer. The name of Jesus casts down the mighty from their thrones, and exalts the lowly. The name of Jesus routs pride and bondage straight back into the hell from whence it sprang. So let every lowly and powerless soul between the Zambezi and the Limpopo breathe the name Jesus into the air until victory is ours in the heavenly realms.
ED RILLING, by email

Strong, but perhaps not too strong.