New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg says they are, and he uses methods of critical historical inquiry to support his views. Although at some points he takes the argument farther than necessary, on the whole he presents a strong and compelling case, looking in a detailed analysis at the Synoptics and John.
The most striking aspect of his argument came at the end when he noted we assume the Gospels to be generally historically reliable unless it is demonstrated clearly they are not. This is the same assumption made for any historical document, especially ones so close in time and space to their events as the Gospels are.
The proper procedure for evaluating the historicity of any portion of the Gospels is thus to assume from the outset that its testimony is reliable and then to consider the force of various objections that might cause a person to change his or her mind. Much critical scholarship, however, inverts this process altogether by assuming the Gospels to be unreliable unless powerful evidence can be brought forward in defense of specific passages or themes. The type of evidence accepted in this latter enterprise is that which passes stringent ‘criteria of authenticity’. Not surprisingly, many scholars who adopt this method accept a much smaller percentage of the Gospel material as authentic. Clearly, much depends on one’s starting point. (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, p. 310)
Actually, Blomberg himself uses those very ‘criteria of authenticity’ to close his argument in the final chapter. He presented a convincing case to me — not that the Gospels are perfectly accurate in every detail, but that they offer a generally reliable historical portrait of Jesus of Nazareth. Their testimony (a key word) is a reliable bridge to Christ.
I agree with his assessment that the Gospels would be considered historically reliable without question were they not religious documents containing miraculous events; Blomberg notes, wryly, that in his visits to college campuses he has found far more openness to miracles among physicists than among biblical scholars and professors in religious studies departments.
That there is so much ambivalence and even hostility to the historically reliability of the Gospels has long mystified me. I don’t know where the resistance comes from — all I know is that it is very real. I read the first edition of his book twenty years ago. This second, expanded edition has confirmed what I already knew — that the Gospels were written so that ‘we might know the certainty of the things we’ve been taught.” (Lk. 1.4)
My impression is that the espoused position in liberal churches is quite close to yours in the sense that they believe the gospels present a “generally reliable historical portrait of Jesus,” even while they believe the Bible is not true in every detail and is only true in fragments.
I think that liberal Christians differ from conservative Christians mainly on which specific fragments and how many fragments are read as literally true and on the content of the historical portrait. For example, many liberal pastors do not believe Jesus literally rose from the dead, but they do believe he literally did espouse a sermon on the mount or social justice kind of moral ethic. I think conservative Christians are more likely to believe Jesus literally rose from the dead and will return someday as well as believing he literally gave the sermon on the mount.
As for me, I don’t think of the gospels as presenting a historical portrait of Jesus, but rather as making the claim that he was the Messiah of which the prophets had written.
I find the liberal idea that one can sort out true fragments from false ones in the gospels itself unbelievable. I have no quarrel with the way conservatives read the Bible, even though it is not my way. I read the Bible in connection with prayer, with lectio divina. It is different from the way of some conservatives, but is not at odds with their way. Some liberals read their chosen fragments the same way conservatives read the Bible; others read their fragments in lectio divina like me; and others, without the Bible, imagine what a just and merciful Jesus would be like.
I knew there was a high probability you’d comment on this post… I thought, “What’s Ken going to say?” (-:
I don’t understand your first statement… that people in liberal churches believe in the general historicity of the Gospels, but also believe the Bible is true only in fragments. Are the Gospels the fragments that are true? Or are the Gospels also true only in fragments? But if that’s the case, how can peope in liberal churches believe they present a generally reliable historical portrait? Me confused.
On further thought, I may more have had in mind liberal clergy… who in my experience are resistant, even hostile, to the notion that the Gospels connect us with a flesh and blood Jesus who lived in Palestine.
I’m glad you read the Bible in connection with lectio divina. A good spiritual practice.
I agree that what I described in the first sentence raises the questions that you raised.
I think what tends to survive the test of historicity are those fragments that can be read, often out of context, as moral teachings. What emerges from that is an image of Jesus as a historical moral teacher.
I think to the extent that the gospels are viewed as myth the historicity is denied. Perhaps there are multiple views of the meaning of the word “history” in the Church.
Another approach I think I see in liberal theology is to consider the gospels as myths based to some extent on facts (the fragments) and non-facts (the other stuff, like miracles) and that there is a belief that myth as well as facts are able to present a reliable historical portrait of Jesus – a man exemplifying the ethic of God, but not one literally born of virgin who walked on water and came back from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Thanks, Ken. That helps to clarify your views for me. Peace to you.
“I agree with his assessment that the Gospels would be considered historically reliable without question were they not religious documents containing miraculous events.”
I would agree with that sentence more if you stopped after the words “religious documents.” I am sure many discount their historicity because of the occurance of miracles, but many scholars doubt their historicity on other grounds as well. I just don’t think it is so cut and dry that the Gospels should be granted an assumption of historical reliability until proven otherwise. I think there are a number of factors which would make a neutral bias more reasonable that assuming reliability until proven otherwise.
Thanks, Josh. Hmmm… isn’t ‘neutral bias’ a contradiction in terms?
Blomberg addresses what he calls a ‘seemingly neutral attitude’ in his last chapter. He notes that in practice it becomes a skeptical attitude because it puts the burden of proof on anyone who would seek to demonstrate the historical reliability of the Gospels.
This dovetails with what I’ve long felt… that neutrality is an illusion. We really are, at bottom, for or against things.
Why not give the Gospels a presumption of innocence, as we do defendants in court?
BTW, were I to write that sentence you quote again, I’d have said ‘the assessment’ rather than ‘his assessment’ since it was more of an inference I made than what he said directly.
Thanks for reading and commenting. Peace to you today.
Re: “This dovetails with what I’ve long felt… that neutrality is an illusion. We really are, at bottom, for or against things. Why not give the Gospels a presumption of innocence, as we do defendants in court?”
This is a very interesting way to look at our situation. It is the common wisdom of postmodernity that we are not neutral, but for or against things. Because of that, the postmodern hermeneutic is one of suspicion. And yet, it does seem more modest, more respectful, more fair to presume innocence. I think that is how one reads the Bible in lectio divina. It involves a kind of trust.
At the university, I studied Hebrew and the Bible with a great scholar who suggested, using Coleridge’s expression, that we must “suspend disbelief” if we are to understand the Bible. One could say, with the same meaning, we must presume innocence.
I think you have found a very powerful analogy here.
Yes (laughing) you are right of course about the “neutral bias,” that crossed my brain fleetingly while writing it. :^)
Personally I don’t feel a need to give the gospels either a skeptical initial view or presumption of innocence. While I know it is beyond my ability to remain entirely neutral (sometimes even slightly neutral), that is what I hope for none the less. I just see too many issues in the gospel accounts to continue to grant them the presumption of complete innocence.
I like Ken’s view however, of finding something worthwhile in suspending belief. At the same time I have found myself implored to suspend belief too many times by people who I just couldn’t believe or agree with concerning the bible, so I’m content to wear a skeptical hat at times.
Thanks for the comments, I’ve benefited from reading.
Josh reminds me here that each of us must struggle with the Bible and God in our own way in our own circumstances. We may sometimes need to presume innocence and other times to exercise a healthy skepticism, especially, for example, when we are “being implored to suspend disbelief.” The presumption of innocence can only be between us and the Bible. I only works when it is freely granted, as in lectio divina. It only works when no predetermined meaning is being imposed on us. It requires freedom.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, or, perhaps worse, a wet blanket, here are some thoughts C.S. Lewis shared with a class of theological graduates. It was published under the title “Fern-Seed & Elephants”:
“A theology which denies the historicity of nearly everything in the Gospels to which Christian life and affections and thought have been fastened for nearly two millennia – which either denies the miraculous altogether or, more strangely, after swallowing the camel of the Resurrection strains at such gnats as the feeding of the multitudes – if offered to the uneducated man can produce only one or other of two effects. It will make him a Roman Catholic or an atheist. What you offer him he will not recognize as Christianity. If he holds to what he calls Christianity he will leave a Church in which it is no longer taught and look for one where it is. If he agrees with your version he will no longer call himself a Christian and no longer come to church. In his crude, coarse way, he would respect you much more if you did the same…
Such are the reactions of one bleating layman to Modern Theology. It is right that you should hear them. You will not perhaps hear them very often again. Your parishioners will not often speak to you quite frankly. Once the layman was anxious to hide the fact that he believed so much less than the vicar; now he tends to hide the fact that he believes so much more. Missionary to the priests of one’s own church is an embarrassing role; though I have a horrid feeling that if such mission work is not soon undertaken the future history of the Church of England is likely to be short.”
If you’d like to read the entire thing, here’s the link:
http://orthodox-web.tripod.com/papers/fern_seed.html
An interesting thing for me is that Blomberg himself doesn’t give the Gospels complete innocence. He allows the Gospel writers much latitude in paraphrasing Jesus’ words and arranging material topically.
He goes farther than I would in trying to iron out wrinkles and tensions between the Gospels… but along the way he presents compelling, critical evidence for his view. These aren’t mathematical proofs… they’re more like testimony in a courtroom. But for me, anyway, it was convincing.
As an aside… I think it’s important to separate the Gospels from the rest of the Bible on this matter. The story of Adam and Eve is a myth… Jonah is a tale. I’ve no problem here.
My concern with the Gospels is that the writers purport to give us historical testimony to Jesus. When we set aside their testimony, thinking we know better, when we adopt the coy ‘seriously but not literally’ approach, we make the Gospel writers out to be false witnesses.
Thanks to you all for your comments… I profit from them. Peace to you.
I’m still trying to understand liberal Christians. The idea that it’s accurate and honest to call oneself a Christian and not believe in a real resurrection is incomprehensible to me. I can understand not believing everything in the New or Old Testament (I don’t believe everything myself). However, if I were to deny the resurrection I would feel compelled not to call myself a Christian anymore. Liberals don’t seem to care much for respecting commonly accepted definitions–though they don’t necessarily talk about their lack of faith to their (usually much more conservative) congregations. What’s up with this? Is this even ethical? I wouldn’t do it. But then that would make me ineligible for the 401ks, etc. that denominations are able to provide for their pastors. And that, I suspect, is the main reason liberals continue to call themselves Christians when they’re really nothing of the sort.
DB — if I had to choose between a liberal Christian who believed the resurrection was a myth, and yet lived life graciously, loving God and neighbor… and a conservative Christian who believed in the bodily resurrection, and yet was mean and arrogant… I would choose the liberal Christian.
The resurrection is certainly a critical thing — the thing on which our faith rests — but in the end there are other important things… like the quality of our lives and how we treat others. I’m really not interested in determining who is and is not a Christian… that’s a task for someone else.
In spite of my own difficulties in believing that the resurrection occurred, I think DB’s assessment here is fair. Liberal Christians should be more honest about the nature of their faith and disbelief. Integrity is at stake.
I worry often that I am not a real Christian – I have so much disbelief, such a small faith. (I feel fortunate to have even a small faith.)
I think that liberal theologians like Tillich and Macquarrie offer a kind of reassurance for those of us who must deal with disbelief. And yet, I think Chris has a better way – just allow the scripture and the apostles a presumption of innocence. So much can be gained by that.
I think that disbelief is something we learn from modernity; and faith is a gift, a great mercy from heaven, that those of us who have so much disbelief may yet enjoy even in a small portion.
You’re a Christian, Ken. You seek to love God and neighbor and to follow Jesus as you understand him. There needs to be a wide latitude, I think, on who can be considered a Christian.
Many people have intellectual doubts and problems with the resurrection. I believe the testimony of the earliest Christians that something astonishing happened the first Easter morning — something that accords with reason and transcends it — but I’d be hard pressed to say exactly what. But as important as that question is, what matters as much is what I do with that… how I live in the reality of resurrection in daily life now. That’s what we all wrestle with.
Peace to you.
If you can’t say anything about who is and isn’t a Christian, would you say someone who is a (religious) Jew is a Christian? Why or why not?
I do think that some people who aren’t Christians will be saved (perhaps they never knew enough about Christianity, are “anonymous Christians,” etc.)–that’s what I don’t think we can speak about.
If someone is Jewish, then I would call them a Jew… unless they were a Messianic Jew, in which case I would call them a Jewish Christian, as the earliest followers of Jesus were.
To say wide latitude doesn’t mean all latitudes. I wouldn’t call an atheist a Christian, for example. I simply think there needs to be a lot of generosity in who gets the name Christian.
In the end, I believe Christ himself will determine who his true followers are… so I feel less pressure to figure out that myself.
Peace to you.
I cannot help but believe that Rome, with its almost total power at the time of Jesus, would have gone to the utmost length to prove there was a body in that tomb when the followers of Jesus spoke openly about his body having been taken up to heaven. The belief in the resurrection was the only reason this out-back Jewish peasant with an arresting personality turned the world upside down and saved the peoples from a hopeless war of civilization against civilization. Thanks be to God for the great gift we have been given in Jesus who reigns now in heaven as a human being.