The Historicity of the Old Testament

[annem]

Not a fad. Can you cite any modern historians who have demolished this? Every one I can think of still argues that the Gospels (including many of the non-canonical ones) were indeed written to serve different purposes in different places. It’s kind of hard to understand them in any other way.

For pity’s sake, how can you not have heard of Bauckham’s (and Bauckham is likely the premier scholar today) “The Gospel for All Christians”. It utterly demolished Bultmann’s creaky old community argument. Published in 1997.

And Bauckham’s book is now cited in book after book after book. I seriously cannot think of one single traditional scholar who has suggested communities have anything to do with the Gospels, except in very minor ways.

I have a copy of the book in my own library and can look up any argument you want.

 

[goout]

He followed Bultmann’s fad arguments that the Gospels were written for separate communities (wow, has that one been demolished).

I’d like to see references that debunk the (obvious) observation that the Gospels were written by writers who, err…, lived in a community, and that the Gospels were flavored by the communities they were written in. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a scripture scholar of any competence to see the obvious unique communal points of view between the different writers.

 

[annem]

Can you provide examples? I’m not sure I follow you here. His closest book to me right now - “The Death of the Messiah” - doesn’t even have Gnosticism in the index.

Sure. Have a copy of “The Churches the APostles Left Behind”? In p 39 he actually argues that I Tim 's opponents were “propagandists of gnosticism”. Then, various mentions until in p 123 he - this is just so wrong in my opinion - insists that “the larger group of Johannine Christians…drifted off into gnosticism”>

t

 

[annem]

I’d like to see references that debunk the (obvious) observation that the Gospels were written by writers who, err…, lived in a community, and that the Gospels were flavored by the communities they were written in.

Please get a copy of the essay collection “The Gospel for All Christians” Terrific, brilliant scholarship. which argues “The early Christian movement was not a scattering of isolated, self-sufficient communities with little or not communication between them, but quite the opposite: a network of communities were constant, close communication among themselves” (p 30)…an era of greater mobility than any time until the modern era… and that the “early Christian movement had a strong sense of itself as a worldwide movement” (p 33) with letters, and later, the Gospels, being constantly shared among Christian cities and churches.

To understand many of the new arguments about the Gospels, you also have to be aware of some of the newest breakthroughs in scholarship about how the Gospels were formed, which is quite a different story from the earlier ideas. The most important books on this subject are "Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus and " What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography

 

[billsherman]

Father Brwon was a good priest and a good scholar.

He was the best of both worlds.

This thread has gone too far off topic, so I won’t respond to any of your other posts about Fr. Brown. You can view his work as you wish. But I caution against confusing theology and history. Many of the scholars you have cited are theologians, not historians.

Many scholars are really doing theology when they claim they are doing history. Fr. Brown was doing history, and history alone.

 

[annem]

Many of the scholars you have cited are theologians, not historians.

Every single book I cited was written by a famous biblical scholar. Every single one. The only theologians you can mention are those who wrote an essay on Brown’s works. Very different.

 

[AlbMagno]

Theology and history are different. They try to answer different questions, and use different methods

I often hear this a lot from biblical scholars, but I don’t know if this is true. Our theology describes a supernatural realm which permeates history, which interacts with the natural. As such, Catholic Theology makes historical claims in God’s intervention (Miracles, Providence, Prophecies).

And both history and theology, as sciences (theology being more of a semi-science for its Divine Revelation basepoint) persue the Truth; so, if theology often makes historical claims, then one can see that they can overlap in historical truths also. In that sense, they can, not contradict each other, but doubt each other, which, for a believer with common sense, would end in a conflict and a dismissal, either of Tradition’s theology, or of the consensus among current historians.

For example, if we deny the historicity of Exodus, we doubt that God directly gave Moses the Ten Commandments in the Tablets of Stones, therefore doubting a critical theological point for Jews and Christians.

 

[goout]

None of that alters the fact that each Gospel was written in a specific and unique communal context. That is self evident.

 

[annem]

None of that alters the fact that each Gospel was written in a specific and unique communal context. That is self evident.
*

*

Then why wasn’t it self evident before Bultmann?

So, I think all the newer arguments demolish the community/Gospel theory, which, after all, was built on various also incorrect theories about oral transmission. (See the book “Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus” for this)

Consider, what evidence is there that any of the Gospels (with, perhaps, the exception of Mark) were even written in a specific community, let alone for a specific community? Do we have any evidence of any city after the Gospels were circulated claiming unique knowledge about a Gospel? No.

Bauckham argues the Gospels were never aimed at one particular Christian audience, but at the entire worldwide church, at the network of communities which were in constant communication with one another. This does tie in with all the evidence we have. Recall how Paul expected his letters to circulate, how Revelation was aimed at 7 cities, how, in 110 AD Ignatius of Antioch also sent letters to one city after another. Christian communities in close contact with one another and sharing all the knowledge they had.

Paul’s letters were aimed at specific communities, none of the Gospels were. Even so, Paul’s letters were collected and sent from church to church.

 

[annem]

What about evidence within the Gospels themselves? All the Gospels follow classic ancient biography forms, and Roman bios were expected to circulate widely. Why would Matthew write a Gospel for the community he lived in and had already told and retold the entire story to? Why wouldn’t he want or expect his Gospel to be sent to all nearby cities, and even all the Christian communities at the end of the empire?

One of the most distinct features of early Christianity was the way the apostles moved about. Think of Paul and Peter, Barnabas, Mark, Silas, Apollos, Philip, John, and dozens of others. What scanty information we do have about the apostles and other important members of the church suggests most of them went from city to city to relate what happened and to convert as many people as possible. Papias writes about exactly the time when the Gospels were being written, and he talks about being able to constantly quiz important members of the church who traveled through Hierapolis (which was hardly an important city) .

Furthermore, the way books were composed in the ancient world disproves the community theory. An author read a portion of what he had written very soon after composition, and this portion would be copied and sent hither and yon. Matthew would - just going by the ordinary way every other author in the ancient world acted - would expect the chapters he had written and orally presented to be copied and sent about. This alone demolishes the community theory. By the time half the Gospel was written it would have been read by people perhaps as far apart as Egypt and France.

 

[annem]

But I caution against confusing theology and history

I try to read broadly. I have read hundreds of books by liberal/atheist scholars. I have also read hundreds of books by traditional scholars. I hope you can say the same.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it’s too easy for people to come up with denials of biblical events and many risk embarrassment if later it turns out something in the bible was literally true.

 

[goout]

None of that alters the fact that each Gospel was written in a specific and unique communal context. That is self evident.
*

*

Then why wasn’t it self evident before Bultmann?

So, I think all the newer arguments demolish the community/Gospel theory, which, after all, was built on various also incorrect theories about oral transmission. (See the book “Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus” for this)

Consider, what evidence is there that any of the Gospels (with, perhaps, the exception of Mark) were even written in a specific community, let alone for a specific community? Do we have any evidence of any city after the Gospels were circulated claiming unique knowledge about a Gospel? No.

Bauckham argues the Gospels were never aimed at one particular Christian audience, but at the entire worldwide church, at the network of communities which were in constant communication with one another. This does tie in with all the evidence we have. Recall how Paul expected his letters to circulate, how Revelation was aimed at 7 cities, how, in 110 AD Ignatius of Antioch also sent letters to one city after another. Christian communities in close contact with one another and sharing all the knowledge they had.

Paul’s letters were aimed at specific communities, none of the Gospels were. Even so, Paul’s letters were collected and sent from church to church.

Do you see any distinctions in tone, culture, audience, etc…between the 4 Gospel writers?

 

[annem]

Do you see any distinctions in tone, culture, audience, etc…between the 4 Gospel writers?

Of course. Sorry if I didn’t explain clearly.

The argument isn’t that the Gospel writers were never influenced by culture or that each Gospel writer didn’t have a clear point of view - think of Matthew and the Jewish influence. But rather, that the Gospels were never aimed only at a specific audience. That the whole point of the Gospels was to aim them at the entire Christian movement worldwide. Moreover - and most important - that Christians did feel themselves to be part of a worldwide movement, and that they did communicate with one another, that, for the most part, Christian churches did not exist in isolation from one another.

“The Gospel for all Christians” was written some twenty years ago. It exploded like a bomb among the traditional scholars. There is a consensus forming among the traditional scholars that, yes, the idea of isolated communities was utterly overblown, and much of it is based on guesswork, sometimes even wild speculation, and not a lot of actual evidence.

Anti Christian scholars prefer to argue for isolated communities with no ties to other Christians, so they can argue that, for example, the resurrection was not an original belief but grew in one small fevered group who took over and forced this belief on the majority. Yes, this really is an argument put forth by many anti Christian scholars.

 

[annem]

Do you see any distinctions in tone, culture, audience, etc…between the 4 Gospel writers?

Here is a good example of a traditional Catholic scholar building on Bauckham’s argument: John Bergsma in “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Revealing the Jewish Roots of Christianity” pointed out that anti Christian scholars kept saying John was written in response to Gnostics - all based on John being aimed at one small community. But they were completely wrong. Instead, the themes of light and dark in John are almost identical to the Dear Sea Scrolls writings recently discovered, and were part of the entire worldwide culture of Jewish and Christian beliefs.

Here is another orthodox biblical scholar on the idea of the Gospels being written for only one community: Bird, writing in 2014 in his book ‘[Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus’ said “For much of the 20th century it was assumed Mark was intended for a Marcan community, Matthew for a Marcan…(but) the hypothetical reconstruction of these so-called Gospel ‘communities’ are just…speculative” (pp 276-7).

Even the anti Christian Bart Ehrman, who is always on top of the latest trends, (the middle aged Ehrman now sports an earring) has even (sort of) challenged the idea of a Johannine community.

Bauckham’s argument is unlikely to ever convince most liberal/anti Christian scholars. The last thing they want to believe is that the earliest Christians felt themselves to be part of a worldwide movement. For one thing, it just sound waaay too much like the Catholic church. Which it most certainly does.

Interesting note: Dr William Farmer (Catholic, orthodox, now passed) used to say that one of the great secrets about biblical scholarship was that the liberal/anti Christian scholars refused to read the traditional scholars, ever, whereas the papers and books by the traditional scholars were chock full of quotes from both sides.

 

[AlbMagno]

I believe we should stick with what is more reasonable/truthful, but I find that many of the more “skeptical” theories in Bible history are not really truthful, but rely on conjectures (“we haven’t found evidence of this outside the Bible , therefore it didn’t happen”; “The styles of these two texts don’t match, therefore they weren’t written at the same time”; “this person had a similar life to that person, therefore they must be the same person”; etc.).

So, as these predominant theories seem more like hypothesis, I don’t have a problem in believing in the Pentateuch as literal (except for some parts such as the Creation in Genesis and the details about Noah’s life). But, if for example we find very strong geological evidence that the Red Sea didn’t parted, then I have no problem in accepting a more allegorical interpretation of that part; but, as the majority of the evidence against literality comes only from historiographical conjectures, I have no problem in believing in literal stories now.

 

[Aulef]

Everything is true. It is important to separate historical books from wisdom and prophecy. Thankfully the Church has already done that.