Three Religious Questions: Does Saying That History Is Not A

Three Religious Questions1 Does Saying That History Is Not A Dominan

Three Religious questions: 1. Does saying that history is not a dominant concern of biblical authors mean that the Bible contains (and God speaks) errors? Why or why not? 3. Which of the criteria for historical Jesus research is (are) your favorite(s)? Why? 3. Which of the criteria do you question? Why? Explain: “Applying the criteria to stage three illuminates stage one.” The book is McMahon, Christopher. Understanding Jesus: Christology from Emmaus to Today. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic, 2013. Print. ISBN:

Paper For Above instruction

The relationship between the historicity of biblical texts and their theological authority has been a longstanding topic of debate among scholars and theologians. A central question arises: does the notion that history is not the primary concern of biblical authors imply that the Bible contains errors, or that God is speaking inaccurately? Conversely, it could also suggest that the biblical writers prioritized theological and spiritual truths over precise historical details. This distinction influences how we interpret scripture and understand divine inspiration.

Many scholars argue that the biblical authors did not intend to produce historical documents in the modern sense. Instead, they aimed to convey theological truths, moral lessons, and covenantal relationships. Therefore, what might appear as historical inaccuracies or discrepancies may reflect different literary genres, cultural contexts, or theological emphases rather than errors per se. For example, the genealogies in Genesis or the sequence of events in the Gospels can be seen through this lens, emphasizing spiritual truths over strict chronological accuracy.

However, the question remains whether dismissing historical concerns as secondary diminishes the reliability of the biblical texts and the guidance they provide. Some theologians maintain that God's inspiration extends beyond mere theological messages, encompassing historical truth as well. They argue that errors or discrepancies, if confirmed, could challenge the infallibility or inerrancy of Scripture, raising questions about divine communication. Others support a view known as 'limited inerrancy,' which acknowledges that the Bible is true in all that it intends to teach, whether theological or historical, but does not necessitate perfect historical accuracy in every detail.

Turning to methods used in historical Jesus research, several criteria have been developed to evaluate the historical authenticity of gospel accounts and sayings attributed to Jesus. Notable among these are the criteria of multiple attestation, embarrassment, contextual credibility, and dialectic. The criterion of multiple attestation, which involves cross-referencing independent sources, is often favored because it enhances confidence in historicity when different accounts corroborate each other. For instance, the consistency of Jesus' baptism across different gospels or accounts supports its authenticity.

The criterion of embarrassment is also highly valued because it suggests that authors would not have fabricated details that were embarrassing or counterproductive to their aims, thereby increasing their historical credibility. An example is the mention of Jesus' baptism or the disciples' misunderstanding as unlikely fabrications, reinforcing their historical basis.

Nevertheless, some criteria are questioned or viewed with caution. The criterion of contextual credibility, for example, relies heavily on modern interpretations of ancient contexts, which can introduce presentist biases or oversimplifications. Similarly, the criterion of dialectic, which examines contradictions or tensions within texts, may be questioned due to the complexity of ancient historical narratives that are not always meant to be modern historical accounts.

Applying the criteria to stage three, which often involves theological reflection or synthesis, illuminates stage one, the initial historical analysis. This progression demonstrates how early historical data (stage one) forms the foundation for more nuanced theological interpretations (stage three). Recognizing this interplay helps scholars avoid overly literal readings and appreciate the theological intent behind biblical texts, which can inform a more balanced understanding of Scripture's historical and divine dimensions.

References

• McMahon, Christopher. (2013). Understanding Jesus: Christology from Emmaus to Today. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic.
• Brown, R. E. (1999). Introduction to the New Testament. Yale University Press.
• Evans, C. A. (2002). Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence. Westminster John Knox Press.
• Gowler, D. B. (2010). What Are They Saying about the Historical Jesus?. Paulist Press.
• Crossan, J. D. (1998). The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Medieval Jewish Prophet. HarperOne.
• Johnson, L. T. (2003). The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest. HarperOne.
• Meier, J. P. (1991). A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Doubleday.
• Sanders, E. P. (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin Books.
• Fitzmyer, J. A. (2008). The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible.
• Klauck, H. J. (2006). Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. Westminster John Knox Press.