header-craig blomberg blog

Has Anything in the Gospels Changed Recently?

← back to blog home

Jul 22, 2009 by Craig Blomberg | 13 Comments

The exchange is predictable.  I am talking with a friend who is not a fellow biblical scholar but they know I like to write books.  “So what’s your latest,” I’m asked.  “Well,” I reply, “I’ve just finished a revised edition of Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey.”  In fact, as of this month, I can now say that the book is in print and available for purchase from Broadman & Holman Publishers (or through your favorite bookstore or on-line).

“That’s great; congratulations,” comes the reply.  Then after an awkward pause, I’m asked some kind of question that basically amounts to “But if you write a textbook about Jesus and the Gospels, what’s there to revise?  Has ancient history changed?”  The question is understandable, but still a little surprising.  After all, any high school graduate who has ever paid attention to the history textbooks they’ve used over the years will have seen one or more works in their second, fifth or even eighth editions.  I suspect there is something about the aura of the person of Jesus (after all wasn’t he divine) and of the Gospels (weren’t they inerrant) that makes us not think of revised editions of books about them as being as natural.

So what is different about the new edition of my book?  First, it’s about 15% longer.  Particularly in the sections on social-scientific study of the ancient Mediterranean world, on literary criticism of the Gospels, on background to the Gospel of John, on the historicity of the Gospels more generally, on the quest of the historical Jesus, and on the Gnostic and other apocryphal Gospels, I have added extra material.  These are areas on which there has been an intense flurry of scholarship in the last twelve years, since the first edition came out.

Second, I have reread every word in the manuscript, leaving many sentences unchanged, but always asking the question of whether or not I can express myself any more clearly, and often making minor, stylistic changes hopefully to improve the work on that score.  Third, I have replaced a substantial majority of the footnotes predating the late 1980s with their equivalents from more recent publications and occasionally updated even slightly more recent footnotes.  Fourth, I have completely reworked the bibliographies to include the latest and best scholarship available on each topic surveyed.  Finally, the publishers have created a brand-new cover, a nicer-looking font, and the maps and charts are a little smaller and definitely more professional looking, at least in my opinion.

In case someone is wondering, no, I haven’t changed my mind on anything of any great importance.  But as long as biblical scholarship continues to produce such a vast, diverse of array of publications, there will always be the need for revised works, especially textbooks, to be aware of, interact with and/or incorporate the most influential and/or valid insights of the latest rounds of research.  Who would have expected twelve years ago that the first decade of the new millennium would bring us The Da Vinci Code, the Gospel of Judas, or the Talpiot tomb with its claims to be the family mausoleum of Jesus?  Who could have predicted the so-called new atheism with its unfounded but vigorously argued claims that Jesus never even existed?  Who’d have guessed the swift decline of approaches such as canon criticism, structuralism and deconstruction or their rapid replacement by historically impossible claims about the formation of the canon, the proliferation of narrative criticism and the skyrocketing amounts of sociological analysis?  And we were already overloaded with excellent commentaries twelve years ago, but the number of good, new series begun since then has grown at a record pace.

So I’m grateful for this chance to keep a well-used textbook as useful as possible.  Check it out!

Comments

13 Comments | Login to Post Comments

Fred Meyer Jul 23, 2009 9:17pm

Good advertisement! I own the first edition and am grateful for it. Thank you for all of your hard work and service to the body of Christ. Grace to you.

Eric Chabot Jul 28, 2009 7:22am

Dr. Blomberg,

Hope all is well. Thanks for all your hard work. I am writing a small book on the resurrection for an apologetics ministry. I have a question about the criteria of authenticity. I have noticed that not all scholars seem to agree that the points in the criteria issue are reliable (multiple attestation), etc. I notice Craig Evans mentions them in Fabricating Jesus. I also notice Dale Allison says some things about them in his latest book. My question is, what are your thoughts? Should we stick with them and use them?

Eric

Craig Blomberg Jul 28, 2009 9:39am

I present them in the book and I think they still can be used positively (to authenticate material). But I also present Tom Wright and Gerd Theissen's four-part criterion of plausibility (double similarity and dissimilarity) which I have been working with for about a decade and particularly since my Historical Reliability of John's Gospel came out in 2001.

Eric Chabot Jul 28, 2009 10:02am

Thanks. What book are you refering to- you present them in?

Eric

Craig Blomberg Jul 28, 2009 11:03am

The revised edition of Jesus and the Gospels, which is what this blog was about, which is what I thought you were responding to.

Randy Widrick Jul 30, 2009 10:42am

Dr. Blomberg,

I have greatly enjoyed The Case for Christ and also the Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (yes, I just finished it).

I just ordered the revised version of Jesus and the Gospels from Barnes and Noble. Can't WAIT to read, underline and highlight. I am sure you realize that there are 28 books on Barnes and Noble authored by you. I would ask you to slow down so I can catch up, but I think it better that I speed up and catch up.

Blessings to you as you pursue His will and work. I hope your daughter is doing well in Rochester, as you said before. My wife and daughter are visiting Denver next week. Keep the weather a bit cool, please. :)

Randy
Binghamton, NY

Craig Blomberg Jul 30, 2009 12:19pm

Thanks, Randy. It sure is cool and wet this week. The 28 must include every book I've ever written a chapter for, because I've only actually authored twelve books, plus seven that were either co-authored or co-edited. But nine more in which I did a single chapter sounds about right.

William Farris Aug 6, 2009 10:28am

Have you addressed Peter Enns or Carlos Bevill in any particular way?

Craig Blomberg Aug 6, 2009 6:44pm

Hi, Bill!

What I'm familiar of from Peter Enns is Old Testament-related. Does he have something on Jesus or the Gospels I should know about? And who is Carlos Bevill?

From those questions you can deduce that the answer to your question is no! :)

William Farris Aug 10, 2009 1:23pm

Sorry for the brevity of the above question. I meant have you any thoughts on Enns' central thesis that got him dismissed from Westminster Seminary, namely, that Scripture reflects a human nature that is fully evident analogous to that of the humanness of Jesus. That is, is it legitimate to regard the Bible as subject to the same ontological categories that were hotly debated during the first centuries pertaining to the substance of Christ? Enns says emphatically yes to that question.
Now Bovell (misspelled above) is another Westminster grad who is also a keen mathematician and has written 2 intriguing books lately on the topic of inerrancy: Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals and By Good and Necessary Consequence: A Preliminary Genealogy of Biblicist Foundationalism. Regarding the first, he attributes the plight of younger inerrantists upon encountering critical elements of serious biblical scholarship to being subject to the all-or-nothing reactions of Bart Ehrman and company. The 2nd volume deals with the origin of inerrancy as being due to the axiomatic/deductive approach scholastic reformed theologians of the 17th century had to take to defend against skepticism of that era, an inerrant Bible being the biblicist epistemic foundation from which doctrine is therefrom deduced with certainty. Now, he says, this is no longer a helpful approach because of the current critical elements now being bantered about.

To quote him in a paper: "...it appears a virtual impossibility to be both an evangelical believer of this kind [one who would affirm that "the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and therefore inerrant in the originals"] and a critical scholar at the same time, a sort of believing critic...The religious icon of the evangelical believing scholar had become a disingenuous cultural construction that ought to be replaced by a more realistic aspiration." Basically, he is saying that the ETS / Chicago version of inerrancy is unsustainable in light of current criticism and that holding on to that is to foster the creation of Bart Ehrman types, as they discover they have been duped. He advocates a different way to be evangelical and the way of Peter Enns might just be that way.

Craig Blomberg Aug 11, 2009 8:16am

It's interesting how each generation often has to rehash debates from the past for themselves. I was a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in the late 1970s at the height of the "battle for the Bible" and all of these issues were thoroughly discussed back then in books that are now out of print and, though available on amazon, probably little known. John Woodbridge's wonderful Biblical Authority (1982) shows that while the term "inerrancy" and some of its definitions are modern, the concept, defined with the breadth that the Chicago statement allowed for, is the historic view of the Christian church and that we abandon it at our peril. The volume edited by Norman Geisler entitled simply Inerrancy discusses at length the other questions and several related ones (1979). Humanity does not require sinfulness--witness Jesus and Adam/Eve before the Fall. Thus the humanity of Scripture does not require error. But it's true that we must avoid the rationalist philosophers or the modern scientists to define what we mean by error. We must become empathetic historians acquainted with the ancient cultures in which the biblical authors lived and do our best to discern what they would have considered errant. In so doing, we will discover the flexibility that Ehrman didn't find at Moody with respect to literary genre and various forms of "imprecision" in narrative. But we will also find limits. While I didn't follow the debate over Enns nearly as closely as I did the debate over Robert Gundry's views within the ETS in the early 1980s, I sense that the issue is similar. Too many people rush to fire folks (in Gundry's case it was not his school that had problems but the ETS that was en route to asking him to resign when he voluntarily preempted them) and ban beliefs rather than doing the harder task of producing the scholarship that shows the implausibility of their views. Still, membership in the ETS breaks a new record every year it seems, and represents scholars of all ages, many of them eager to create a less politicized society but not rejecting its doctrinal basis, so inerrancy, properly understood (Paul Feinberg's article in the Geisler volume should still be read by anyone concerned about definitions), still has a good healthy life ahead of it, I suspect. But the "properly understood" caveat is crucial, no question about it.

Carlos Bovell Aug 11, 2009 10:29pm

Just to clarify, my new book argues that biblicist foundationalism rose to popularity in the 17th century as a strategy adapted in Protestant circles against an impending, pandemic cultural skepticism. Inerrancy, as it was later adopted with new vigor in response to cumulative developments in modern biblical criticism, takes a different form when combined with the biblicist foundationalist mindset of the 17th century. Although my first book focuses on perils of stressing inerrancy too much, my new book treats the good-and-necessary-consequence mindset to scripture that characterizes a good portion of conservative evangelicalism. This biblicist foundationalist mindset, I claim, is a theological innovation, a mindset that I do not believe the Rogers/McKim--Woodbridge debate ever addressed.

In my book, I posit that it was a theological innovation of 17th century Protestantism to place an epistemological gambit on scripture: EVERYTHING was made to stand on scripture for epistemological reasons. I observe that even if this kind of epistemological ploy made perfect sense in the 17th century, it is not feasible today. I give a number of reasons, but the consideration that really concerns me is that it's really a dangerous way to formulate faith, for if inerrancy should ever give way for some sub-culture of believers (I use my interpretation of what happened to Bart Ehrman as an example), the whole faith eventually wobbles (and it appears only to be a matter of time). This pattern needs to stop! The way I see it, the fate of evangelicalism's youth, evangelicalism's most creative resource, is actually hanging in the balance. I think inerrantist evangelicalism is responsible for a number of students losing or ultimately refusing faith.

Craig Blomberg Aug 12, 2009 9:43am

Thanks for joining the conversation, Carlos! I'm sorry I haven't read your work yet. Yes, the first thing Bart Ehrman's autobiographical introduction to Misquoting Jesus reminded me of was Harold Lindsell's influential thesis in the 1970s that if you allowed for the tiniest error anywhere in Scripture you had started down the slippery slope to unbelief!

I had never believed Lindsell on that, not least because as the discussions flourished at TEDS in those years, I had several profs who utterly denied the thesis. I remember Don Carson once saying, "Lindsell is on the side of the angels, but it's a bad, bad book!" Then I went overseas and encountered British evangelicalism first hand where a lot of folks, following Karl Barth's lead were climbing back "up" the slippery slope, moving from liberalism to neo-orthodoxy and some, from neo-orthodox to a fully evangelical position. But inerrancy was never a part of any of their creeds or confessions. So I would certainly agree that it is wrong and dangerous to makie "EVERYTHING" stand, epistemologically, on the inerrancy of Scripture. Howard Marshall's book on Biblical Inspiration from the early 1980s certainly agreed, and he was my doctoral mentor.

Still, thanks to my TEDS education, an appropriately nuanced and carefully defined form of inerrancy it seems to me is still helpful if only for the very simple reason that if Scripture is divinely authored (as well as humanly) and if God cannot err, then Scripture can't either. But, as I've already stressed, we have to define "err" as the people would have among whom Scripture was written. It may well be, tragically, that narrower forms of inerrancy have been responsible for some students losing or refusing evangelical faith, and in a few instances all forms of Christian faith. But the kind of inerrancy I was taught has also helped to bolster thousands of students' faith.