Criticism of the Gospels

[Alison]

Don't know where exactly this should go so I put it here on this forum. I did a thesis I did a while back concerning the Historicity of the Gospels and how "ironically" has been criticized not by "skeptics," but biblical scholars. One expects atheists and agnostics to deny the historicity of the Gospels. However, some of the most vigorous criticism comes not from skeptics, but from so-called "Christian" scholars teaching in seminaries. These scholars accept the teachings of Jesus (at least the ones they agree with) but generally deny the miraculous aspects of his life including the resurrection. What is sad is that these teachings have influenced the education of a century of pastors in certain denominations.

The Jesus of History vs. Christ of the Church

This model is called Form Criticism. It emerged from the "rationalism" of the late 1800's and has since become the dominant model of understanding the Gospels taught in secular colleges, and in many seminaries as well. The basic claim of the form critics is that while the gospels were, indeed, written by the traditionally recognized authors, that their purpose was to transform the teacher Jesus of Nazareth into the Jesus, the Son of God, and put into his mouth teachings consistent with the doctrines of the Early Church. Thus, the form critics believe that over the historical Jesus was laid a mythological biography. However, they believe that by studying the "forms" of the language, they can find the "true" sayings of Jesus as opposed to sayings added by the gospel writers to advance church doctrine.

Form Criticism: The Assumptions

Form critics assume much and expect others to accept those assumptions with them. Let's look at a few of those assumptions:

The Early Church was a "Creative Community." What this means is that they came up with the doctrine of Jesus as savior over a period of time transforming a teacher of philosophy, ethics and basic morality into a supernatural figure. This transformation takes place, in part, as a matter of natural mythbuilding, but it also takes part consciously by church leaders to encourage and give credence to the ethical and theological teachings which had emerged over the 20-30 years between the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospels. There is, of course, no historical proof of such a claim. Indeed, where historical documents do speak, they do so to confirm the gospel accounts and not to deny them. This lack of evidence doesn't bother the form critics because they claim they can separate the authentic from the fabricated material in the gospels. First, they eliminate any stories of the miraculous. Secondly, they look at the sayings of Jesus to see which are similar to writings in the Epistles and through a convoluted logic eliminate those sayings as being inauthentic because they are found in the Epistles. In other words, the assumption is that the Epistle writers created the doctrine which was accepted by the church and then imposed on the gospels. Of course, a simpler explanation was that the doctrine of the Epistle writers was drawn from the oral tradition of the apostles based on the teachings of Jesus, but form critics prefer the obscure over the simple.

The early church was basically illiterate. The argument here is that the early church was unsophisticated, ignorant peasants easily fooled. However, a close look at the Apostles and other believers shows quite a different group. Matthew had been a tax collector, a public official capable of reading, writing and fairly complex mathematics for the time. Luke was a physician. Paul would have been the equivalent of a Ph.D. in modern terms. Peter, James, John and Andrew, simple fishermen, ran a business which required reading, writing and speaking at least three and probably four different languages.

Miracles are impossible a priori. What this means is that regardless of the evidence any account of the miraculous must be either rejected or attributed to natural causes. While it is difficult to prove the miraculous does exist, it is equally difficult to prove it does not. Certainly, if one humbles oneself before the evidence, we must admit that evidence of the miraculous is to be found in the gospel accounts. Certainly, we can and should test the credibility of the witnesses, but to reject any event out of hand simply because it does not fit in with one's world view is hardly scientific.

Form Criticism Criticized

Form Criticism is flawed by subjectivity. If you get together a dozen form critics and ask them which passages of the gospels are authentic and which are not, you will see several different versions. There are few consistently applied hermeneutical standards for evaluating the text.

Form Criticism cannot explain the transformative power of Christianity. On Good Friday the Apostles are hiding out in Jerusalem. They are meeting behind closed doors. They are doubtful, discouraged and despairing. They are on the verge of disbanding. Fifty days later, they are proclaiming the risen Christ from the rooftops. What transformed a defeated people into a bold force which would eventually reshape the Roman world? A philosophy asking it's adherents to celebrate poverty and self sacrifice, to forgive its enemies, to forego revenge, and eventually to face death because of these beliefs? Is that a belief system one will follow, if it was not for some sort of defining event which placed the imprimatur of God on the philosophy and its teacher? That event would have to be the resurrection of Christ.

The Testimony of the Epistles. The epistles pre-date the Gospels. The form critics admit this. Indeed, they claim that the Epistle writers created the doctrine of Christ out of the historical Jesus. It was from this doctrine that the early Church shaped the Gospels to fit the doctrines. However, if that was the case, how is it that little of the life of Christ is mentioned other than the death and resurrection. Why do we not see little anecdotes, miracle stories, even sayings of Christ mixed in more liberally? We see some, but certainly not in the abundance that one trying to create a myth would include in such writings. Likewise, the style differs greatly. Why not? Perhaps, this is so because the oral tradition had already given them this information. They didn't need to be told. They needed instructions on what it all meant. Likewise, Jesus in the Gospels teaches largely through parables. Yet, the epistle writers use a more expository approach. If the early church were imposing the doctrine of the Epistles onto the Gospels, why not make Jesus teaching style more like the preaching and writing style of the apostles? Perhaps the simplest explanation is still the best. The events were true. From those events emerged the apostolic doctrine contained within the Epistles. The Gospels then simply recorded the actual events which produced the doctrine.

On the whole form criticism asks for a great deal of faith in the unsupported theorizing of disingenuous theologians who are ready to accept the concept of God, but are afraid to face the reality of the divine embodied in humanity. Such an encounter would cause them to face their own inadequacies and dependencies upon the very God they would strip of power. Yet only within that emptying of confidence in self can one come face to face with the Truth standing behind the documents. The Truth the form critics seek, ironically then is hidden behind their theorizing rather than revealed by it. One never finds Truth by fighting against it. One only finds Truth by surrendering to it.

[Psalms18_28]

Amen! That's really good.

The bible says they will be blind. That's why they fight against it. It's hard for a person to accept it as the truth unless they are saved. If you surrender to Jesus, you will find the truth.

[ltl]

Exactly. It's sad to see textual criticism permeate so many Bible colleges today.

Do you know that at least half Protestant and about one third of Baptist (from all types of denominations) PASTORS DO NOT believe in the infallibility of the Bible?

Blind leading the blind to their own downfall.

[Alen]

I read about this a while back, where some people would sit around and discuss the probability of all the events that happened in the Bible, either highly probable, probable, or improbable. When we start doubting scripture, that's where the problem starts.

-Alen

[IM4given]

I read about this a while back, where some people would sit around and discuss the probability of all the events that happened in the Bible, either highly probable, probable, or improbable. When we start doubting scripture, that's where the problem starts.
-Alen

:goodpost:

[John81]

I've noticed over the past couple years or so the media has been interviewing and having as guests and "experts," these sorts of "Christians.

Time and again these "expert Christians" proclaim this or that in Scripture isn't factual, is just alegory, is myth or just a story to relate some point, etc.

Then these same "expert Christians" will proclaim things like homosexuality being a sin and something God doesn't like is only in the Bible because it was written by ancient, bigotted men who didn't know any better. They use the same sort of argument with regards to women pastors.

With these sorts in the news, and the abundance of odd "Christians" on TV, it's little wonder so many in America are yet lost and so many want nothing to do with Christianity. :(

[Kubel]

It's sad to see textual criticism permeate so many Bible colleges today.

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but this isn't textual criticism, but rather, scholars that are critical of what the scriptures really say. The two are almost exact opposites.

[ltl]

Yes, but whatever it is, questioning what the Scriptures really say is very dangerous as well. It has destroyed the faith of many.

[Kubel]

I certainly agree- these 'scholars' mentioned in the OP are like religious athiests. What they are doing is clearly wrong and a sad waste.

But textual criticism, on the other hand, examines various texts (copies of copies of copies of the original scriptures) with the goal to try to determine what the originals actually said.