The four Blog entries on the topic of the "Historical Critical Method" offer an explanation of how the method of Biblical interpretation that Ehrman presupposes in this textbook developed. What Ehrman takes for granted as the way that "modern" scholars interpret the Bible was over 200 years in the making. While this method of biblical interpretation may not be what you have heard in church, it is the method used by almost all "modern" Biblical scholars and the method endorsed by the Religion department at UNO. Since Ehrman's textbook employs this method, that is one of the reasons why his textbook is used in this course.
Ehrman begins by presenting the conclusion that the earliest Gospel probably was not written before 65-70 CE (page 46 bot). This presupposes another conclusion, no eyewitness to the events of Jesus had a hand in the composition of the Gospels. This means that if Jesus' death was about 30 CE, we must identify how the sayings of Jesus were handed on during the intervening 35 years. Most scholars say this was done by orally passing on the sayings embedded in a short narrative framework, that is, as individual episodes, not as extended narratives.
In the first part of the chapter Ehrman presents his understanding of how this process probably occurred. Of course, a lot of it is educated guess work, but the approach that Ehrman presents is very similar to what you will find in any introductory textbook on the New Testament written by a historical critical scholar. Likewise his skepticism about the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts of the sayings and actions of Jesus is shared by most scholars of this variety. While it might seem odd to us that no one would have thought to write down the sayings and events of Jesus' life before 65 CE, part of the reason has to do with the fact that (for the most part) most people in the ancient world could not write or read (see Box 4.1 on page 50).
Another related issue that Ehrman does not bring up, is that in many groups within ancient societies, a verbal word had more authority than a written word. We will see this is an issue when we discuss the letters of the Apostle Paul. Therefore, when Jesus' sayings were being handed on from Christian to Christian by word of mouth, someone who could claim a direct connection with a reliable source (such as" "I know the Apostle Peter, and he told me thus and so about Jesus") would be considered more historically reliable than a written piece proffered by someone. This is because it is easy to write anything you want on paper (or parchment) and how do we know if it is truth or fiction? Therefore, at the time of Jesus, a verbal report from an authoritative source was generally considered more historically reliable than a written report.
One place where an oral report still takes precedence over a written report in our society is in a court of law. Before any piece of paper with writing on it may be placed in evidence in a case, the authenticity of the writing on that paper must be vouched for orally by someone who is a credible witness. It is for this reason that we do not have more written documents from the early years of Christianity, and the reason that Paul's letters were considered a novelty by some people in the church at Corinth. Of course, any modern religious skeptic will be skeptical about the accuracy of any information handed on by word of mouth for 35 years, and that is exactly Ehrman's position on the matter (see pages 49-50).
Then there is also the possibility that a Gospel writer might alter the story of Jesus to make a theological point. This is exactly the reason Ehrman has a long discussion on Jesus and the passover in the Gospel of John (see pages 52-54 top).
With regard to Ehrman's discussion of the Gospels as ancient biographies, in one respect Ehrman is correct. The Gospels cannot be seen as the equivalent of modern biographies. However, rather than see the Gospels as promoting the "character" of Jesus, I believe the purpose of the Gospels is better described by saying they intend to convince the reader that Jesus is the Son of God and the Jewish Messiah (Christ) (Mark & John). If the purpose of a Gospel was not to convince the readers of the truth claims made about Jesus, at least it intended to reinforce that belief and present the way of life that Jesus taught his disciples as the way of life all Christians were expected to follow (especially true of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel), and perhaps also to demonstrate that Jesus came as the divine savior of the whole world.
Despite the fact that Jesus and all the first Christians were born Jewish, none of the Gospels presents Jesus as only a Jewish savior. The manner in which each Gospel is written either implicitly says that Jesus is the world's savior (such as the arrival of the Magi in Matthew chapter 2, or the Greeks wishing to meet Jesus in John 12:20-21) or various statements are made that presuppose the readers of that Gospel do not come from a Jewish background (such as the need to explain Jewish practices in Mark 7:3-4). Luke's Gospel does not have to stress this point of the universality of Jesus as savior, since it becomes all too obvious in his volume 2, which we call the Acts of the Apostles. However, the belief that Jesus came as the savior of the entire world was not automatically assumed to be true by earliest Christians, as we will see in our study of Paul. So there is considerable development of the Christian message surrounding Jesus between the time Jesus died and the time when the first Gospel was written.
No comments:
Post a Comment