Talk:Gospel

eyewitnesses

Richard Bauckham, a very renowned Bible scholar, has written a book, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," an extremely scholarly tome, 2017, 679 pages long, in which he argues that the Gospels were to a large extent based upon the testimony of eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. It would be nice to see a few quotes from the book in the article. Edittingforfun (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that Bauckham's book got much traction among mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

N. T. Wright

"The question of whether the Gospels are based on eyewitness accounts has long been controversial. Richard Bauckham, in a characteristic tour de force, draws on his unparalleled knowledge of the world of the first Christians to argue not only that the Gospels do indeed contain eyewitness testimony but that their first readers would certainly have recognized them as such. This book is a remarkable piece of detective work, resulting in a fresh and vivid approach to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of well-known problems and passages."

James D. G. Dunn

"Another blockbuster from the productive pen of Richard Bauckham. . . . Not to be missed!"

Graham Stanton

"Shakes the foundations of a century of scholarly study of the Gospels. There are surprises on every page. A wealth of new insights will provoke lively discussion for a long time to come. Readers at all levels will be grateful for Bauckham's detective work that uncovers clues missed by so many."

Martin Hengel

"Fascinating! . . . This book ought to be read by all theologians and historians working in the field of early Christianity. Further, Bauckham's convincing historical method and broad learning will also help pastors and students to overcome widespread modern Jesus fantasies."

Bolding is my own. Seems like this would be a really great resource based on these quotes about it. Am I not evaluating this correctly? ViolanteMD 16:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

BDEhrman September 10, 2020 at 4:13 pmLog in to Reply

He’s a bit of both; the main problem I have is when he claims he’s doing history when he appears to have an apologetic agenda. I would say Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is indeed a historical study and that a large part of it is indeed driven by an apologetic agenda. He is best in his work on early Christian apocrypha (the later apocalpyses), where he does not have a theological stake in the matter. His scholarship gets very different there, and is spot on.

— ehrmanblog.org

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Is Ehrman someone people respect in this space? Hengel's article says he was, "recognized as one of the greatest theological scholars of his time". Is Ehrman someone people would put on the same shelf as Hengel? If so, then seems like we should consider the text itself since there are opposing ideas from respected scholars on both sides? ViolanteMD 16:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.

— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube

Bart, if anything, is academically conservative. Most of his (non-text crit) positions are academic orthodoxy from the 1980s. [...] Virtually all of his positions were mainstream in the 1980s and have a substantial following today.

— BombadilEatsTheRing, Reddit

Ehrman is not as original as you might think. To a great deal he is simply repeating what he learned at the Princeton Theological Seminary. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

If I ever get around to reading the book, I'll be sure to come back to this conversation! ViolanteMD 17:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Craig A. Evans

@Silverfish2024: some comments:

• A statement from 1993 from Craig A. Evans, a conservative scholar, which says (emphasis mine) "are now viewed as useful" is not a good summary of the state of research on the historical Jesus or the historical reliability of the Gospels; not in the body of the article, and even less in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article;
• Sanders is an excellent scholar, but an article on the Gospels is not the place to higlight the view of one unattributed author on Sanders;
• Nor is it the appropriate place to delve deep into the problems with the criteria of authenticity ("On the other hand [...] more successful when reaching the Historical Jesus").

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand displaying Evans as prominently on the page as I did might not have been the best idea.

However, I disagree with your more recent claim "serious? The general conclusion seems to be that we know close to nothing about Jesus" you made when reverting my edit. EP Sanders (at least according to Angela Tilby and Tom Holmen, the latter of whom is cited on the Wikipedia page of the Historical Jesus) claimed we know 'quite a lot' about the historical Jesus. The claim that the Gospels are at least generally reliable (Allison) is not too 'grandiose' for this article, though some might say Dunn's level of confidence could be pushing it.

Holmén, Tom (2008). Evans, Craig A. (ed.). The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-97569-8.

Angela Tilby: E. P. Sanders shone light on Jesus and Paul (churchtimes.co.uk) Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Allison also implied or said the Gospels are reliable on the big picture, though not in the details. I could find some links if you want. Ehrman also claimed the Gospels are historical documents rather than myth or fabrications, though I think he is noticeably more skeptical than the other two. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead

@Silverfish2024: the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, which is not what you are doing; you are pushing a specific pov. The statement

...they provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and most scholars tend to view the Synoptic Gospels as the useful primary sources or even reliable for Jesus.

is problematic for several reasons:

• "they provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus" - to my best knowledge, there is very little reliable knowledge about Jesus that scholars can extract from the Gospels;
• "most scholars tend to view the Synoptic Gospels as the useful primary sources [...] for Jesus" - Sanders, EB: "The Synoptic Gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus" - that's a subtle difference;
• "or even reliable" - the pov of Dunn cannot be generalized to "most scholars."

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

See my comment above. Your claim that very little is known about Jesus does not seem to be what most scholars tend to think. My edit said 'useful or reliable', with Dunn's view being the latter, so I would not think I was claiming Dunn's view to be the absolute majority. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The claim the Gospels provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus has been on this page for a long time now (I don't know who first put it in).

Where did you get the idea almost nothing about Jesus is known? Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It is what we consequently have argued on Wikipedia against the Christ Myth theory supporters, that very lityle seems to be sure, except his existence, baptism, and crucifixion; see the lead of Historical reliability of the Gospels.

Your quote from Sanders, EB, is WP:CHERRYPICKED; a fuller quote is

John, however, is so different that it cannot be reconciled with the Synoptics except in very general ways [...] Scholars have unanimously chosen the Synoptic Gospels’ version of Jesus’ teaching [...] The Synoptic Gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus. They are not, however, the equivalent of an academic biography of a recent historical figure. Instead, the Synoptic Gospels are theological documents that provide information the authors regarded as necessary for the religious development of the Christian communities in which they worked.

You should seriously consider if Wikipedia is the best place for you to vent your convictions; I don't think so. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the Synoptic Gospels, not John, are the primary sources for Jesus, and it is good that you specified as such.

I still disagree with your first point. According to Casey, "the attestation of Jesus' ministry of exorcism and healing is so strong that the majority of New Testament scholars have argued that the tradition had a historical kernel." Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account- page 237

Sanders has argued for 11 statements about Jesus almost beyond dispute. Of course there is not too much certain about Jesus, but I think there is a lot likely to be true. Silverfish2024 (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have tried my best to provide mainstream, high-quality sources and wish not to misrepresent them in any way. I would like to say I have an open mind about this subject, and if you feel I have misused any of my sources, feel free to object. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"providing a good idea of the public career of Jesus"

You re-added diff "providing a good idea of the public career of Jesus" to the lead, with the argument EP Sanders is probably as mainstream as it gets, and his claim has been on this page for years. No reason to delete it now. It's still there, in Gospel#Genre and historical reliability, sourced to Reddish (2011) p.21-22, and Sanders (1995) p.4-5. Reddish doesn't say so, on tbe contrary. Sanders does say so indeed, but cannot be generalized, certainly not in the lead. You're messing-up, just to push through your convictions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; I believe Reddish was the source for the claim that scholarship could distinguish between authentic material and later Church tradition before you deleted it and updated it with Keith's view (an action I support- I think he and Le Donne are rising stars in the field). I did not mean to mislead readers about my source for "a good idea of the public career of Jesus".

Thank you for keeping Sanders and Dunn's views; they are definitely some of the best scholars of Jesus this generation, and their views have arguably held up to this day. Thanks also for including Keith's work. It is important to be aware of trends in scholarship and to keep Wikipedia updated. And thank you once again for reaching out and bearing with me through our disagreement about this page. I hope there is no ill will between us and wish you the best. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses

I added that many, perhaps most scholars, view the author of Luke-Acts as an eyewitness to the Apostle Paul, presumably via the "we passages". I did not touch the claim that the Gospels are not eyewitnesses, though I specified that this was referring to Jesus. Silverfish2024 (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)