The Jesus Crisis

by Robert L. Thomas (Editor)

Examines the inroads of historical criticism into evangelical scholarship. Though evangelicals reject many extreme conclusions of liberal scholars, some have adopted their same methodology in the interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels, creating a crisis in evangelical scholarship. The authors show how adopting such methodologies are affecting the next generation of pastors, teachers, and scholars.

Genres: Theology

416 pages, Paperback

First published September 25, 1998

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A SERIES OF ESSAYS CRITIQUING THE USE OF “HISTORICAL CRITICISM” OF THE GOSPELS

John MacArthur wrote in his Foreword to this 1998 book, “Some of evangelicalism’s best-known theologians and seminary and college professors are now debating among themselves ideas that would have been deemed entirely nonnegotiable before the last quarter of the twentieth century… to see evangelicals applying this sort of Historical Criticism in order to cast doubt on the authenticity or historicity of the biblical text is wholly unprecedented. Tragically, the prevailing attitude among evangelical scholars today closely mirrors the extreme tolerance that left the door wide open for Historical Criticism in the leading mainline schools and denominations of a hundred years ago… [This book] aims to sort out the confusion that modern historical-critical approaches to Scripture so often leave in their wake. The book answers with clarity and precision the arguments set forth by the so-called ‘evangelical’ critics.”

Author Robert Thomas states in the first chapter, “The claim of these evangelical scholars is that the widely practiced Historical Criticism is not necessarily antithetic to finding the Gospels historically reliable. Yet the results of their research belie their claim... A basic tenet of Historical Criticism is the assumption that the authors of the three Synoptic Gospels depended on one another’s writings…. The other element of the theory maintains the existence of another document called ‘Q’ … No one in recent centuries has ever seen Q, if indeed it ever existed.” (Pg. 16)

Later, he adds, “The hazards of Historical Criticism have entered the evangelical camp, raising questions about how much of the Gospels is accurate history and how much is editorial embellishment… If authorial style introduces historical inaccuracy, it is not ‘contorted historiography and logic’… to conclude that it is BOTH authorial style AND historical distortion. A factual misrepresentation is an inaccuracy, regardless of its cause. Yes, a ‘Jesus crisis’ does exist because evangelicals … have yielded important ground to enemies of the truth.” (Pg. 27)

Both authors state, “Historical Criticism with its assumption of literary interdependence has little room for harmonizing apparent discrepancies in parallel accounts of the Synoptic Gospels…. In fact, evangelicals who practice HC have shown strong rejection for traditional methods of harmonization… they accept the existence of ‘outright discrepancies’ in the Gospels caused by such things as redactional activity of the gospel writers… Without question, early Christian writers held to traditional methods of harmonization.” (Pg. 66)

Farnell observes, “[New Testament] Eyewitnesses prove the concept of an unstable tradition to be untenable, for eyewitnesses would prevent any substantial changes. If the apostles and their eyewitness contemporaries wrote the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, then the New Testament offers NO support for the form-critical evolutionary hypothesis of the tradition as brief, rounded units circulating for long periods of time, that eventually became part of a gospel record created by the ‘Christian community.’ The tradition in the gospels is what came from the minds of the apostles and their eyewitness contemporaries as they composed their works, reflecting on either their own personal reminiscences or those of eyewitnesses.” (Pg. 189)

Thomas says, “Assuming literary dependence for the sake of argument, one could conclude … Mark may have had a special reason for condensing one or both of the other gospels. In fact, literary practice in English writings shows the tendency of a writer to shorter the work of another when editing it… But the phenomenon of so much of Mark being present in Matthew and Luke is explainable best without any literary dependence. Material common to the three Synoptic Gospels could very well have come from a common tradition of oral and brief written accounts of Jesus’ life. In this case, Mark probably never saw Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels before writing his own. The common tradition best explains the origin of all three Synoptic Gospels.” (Pg. 235)

He continues, “The Two-Source Theory cannot account for the ‘Great Omission,’ namely, a large portion of Mark for which Luke has no parallel. If Luke used Mark as a source… why did he omit any reference to Mark 6:45-8:26? An adequate answer to this question has as yet not come from a two-source proponent… That is about 9 percent of consecutive material in Mark’s gospel---some of which surely would have contributed to Luke’s purpose---that the third gospel writer skips completely.” (Pg. 239-240)

Paul Felix wrote about Luke’s gospel, “A natural question to ask relates to the identity of the earlier accounts. Do they include canonical Matthew and/or Mark? Luke could not have referred to Matthew, for he distinguishes the ‘many’ of verse 1 from the apostolic eyewitnesses of verse 2. Since Matthew was one of those eyewitnesses, Luke could not have had his gospel in mind. On the other hand, Mark was not an apostle. Yet according to tradition, he was an eyewitness… and wrote under the auspices of the apostle Peter… If Matthew or Mark had been one of Luke’s sources, he would more likely have given it the recognition of ‘Scripture,’ as Paul did for Luke’s gospel just a few years later (cf. 1 Tim 5:18).” (Pg. 276)

Thomas argues, “So far are they from showing any inclination to harmonize the Synoptic Gospels that at times evangelical historical critics appear to find delight in magnifying differences that allow them to implement the tools of their trade---Source, Form, and Redaction Criticism… The antiharmonistic stance of evangelical HC is an outgrowth of the dehistoricizing tendency of that discipline, and further alienates the ideology from the grammatical-historical method.” (Pg. 324-325)

Thomas wrote in the Epilogue, “a goodly number of evangelical New Testament scholars view HC as a useful tool in studies of the Gospels. This must be one of the greatest mysteries of this century! How can those who profess to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible openly advocate a methodology---actually in IDEOLOGY---that is so blatantly contrary to historical accuracy in Synoptic Gospel texts? This defies rational explanation… What is even more inexplicable is the attitude of some evangelical historical critics toward those who choose the traditional view of independence among the synoptic writers. They take delight in belittling anyone who prefers a literary independence view… Evangelical historical critics have displayed an intense unwillingness to enter into dialogue with people who maintain that the Synoptic Gospels originated independently of each other… It is anomalous that a person on one hand professes a belief in biblical inerrancy… and on the other hand, minimizes the [Holy] Spirit’s part in generating accuracy in the part of that Bible that deals with Jesus.” (Pg. 380-381)

This book will be of great interest to those interested in critiques of the Historical Criticism of the Gospels.

[Michael Beck · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thankful to have read this before preaching a Gospel book. Deals a blow to the historical criticism school of thinking. Should be required for every pastor or aspiring pastor. But alas, most schools teach historical criticism and wouldn't touch this book with a 10 ft. pole. Thankful that this book can still be found and used to help remain faithful to the text.

[Bobby Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic review of liberal theology and their goal of subtly undermining orthodox Christianity. A must read for anyone desiring to know the history of the gospels.

[Cody Plezgnarles · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good scholarship and wonderfully footnoted but a bit dry for those who confess Jesus as Lord.

[Brian Rickett · Rating 5 out of 5]

I required this for students in my NT Exegesis II course; they have just completed it. This book was a collaboration by several of my own professors and friends. Be that as it may, in the words of Stanley Toussaint, "[T[his book is a blockbuster!" Anyone interested in Gospel origin theories must read this.

[Eric Durso · Rating 4 out of 5]

Necessary book for modern evangelicalism.