Has your study of eyewitnesses and tradition affected your confidence in the historical accuracy of the New Testament? Are critical scholars too quick to dismiss the "reporting" in Gospel accounts?I'm just starting to read the Pope's new book ... this might be a good follow up ... :)
Yes, it certainly has! Most Gospel scholars, including some conservative ones, have been locked into a picture of how Gospel traditions reached Gospel writers that we owe to form critics at the beginning of the last century. I think the form critics were wrong in almost every respect, and we need a new model. I propose one in which the Gospels were much closer to the eyewitnesses and the way the eyewitnesses told their stories than has been envisaged by the dominant scholarly tradition. My proposals need to be debated, and some of my arguments may be proven wrong. We shall see. But that we need a new model is certain.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
They Really Saw Him | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
Richard Baukham argues that the Gospels rely a lot more on eyewitness testimony than modern critical scholarship acknowledges. They Really Saw Him | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction