If you ask both gentlemen, is the NT relating reliable history by today's standard of historiography the answer would have to be a resounding "no". However if you are ask both gentlemen is the NT relating trustworthy, reliable history from the standard of ancient historiography the answer would have to be "yes" or close to it, because by ancient standards the Gospels are biographies/historiography, there was room to overlap the two types of genres in ancient history.
The strawman of: "The gospels/new testament dont relay perfect history and have contradictions"is irrelevant, since the only relevant question is can they be used as some kind of historical sources of value and can we in general trust what the New Testament says (not every little minute detail).
Notice in both occasions, Evans opening speech is particularly brilliant, but especially the second debate night where he "refines it, contracts, edits it" while keep the same meaning as the night before. A perfect example of "telescoping" or "changing" his own words from the night before yet retaining his same view, one may say. Close to how the authors of the Gospels represent Jesus, the gospel tradition is constantly changing, molding and reshaping, but the meaning is always being controlled and has limited parameters within the tradition itself. I would also add: by the second night it's clear Dr. Evans comes into his own skin, as Erhman even notes his 'lively presentation'. Evans therefore feels more at home to speak his mind in the comfort of his own skin and does a fantastic job. Well done to Dr. Evans for such a vast improvement in confidence and orator skills, I was happy with night 1, but this was impressive..
To supplement some of the points made by Dr. Evans about ancient historiography watch this series presented by J.P. Holding:
Social Concepts of The Bible
Small Criticism of Dr. Evans
Dr. Evans may have gone a little far in underestimating the
Gospel of John as having reliable credibility by traditional standards,
and since both speakers admit the Synoptic Gospels are interpretive
theological accounts, then Evans must admit although the Gospel of John
is not a synoptic, yet still being a highly theologically developed
interpretation of the life of Jesus does not mean the core message of
the gospel or the intent or meaning behind every verse was not
historical, it seems Dr. Evan's may have a double standard here since he
can picture theologically interpreted statements in the Synoptic Gospels as having some
kind of reliable historical core but not the gospel of John in the same sense, but why not? The answer is not given.
Yet clearly as Dr. Evans himself admits, the Gospel of John is the most Jewish of all the gospels, and the only gospel claiming to be explicitly written by an eye witness who observed all that he witnessed. In fact Evans mentions him and Erhman would never agree on that remarkable factor! So Evans concedes John is written by John the Apostle the very eye witness and disciple of Christ! It seems then that Dr. Evans is underestimating John as a source of historical value, even possibly superior to the former Gospels, I would push the restart button here.
Resources:
No comments:
Post a Comment