Shuck and Jive

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

The Forbidden Gospels and Evolution

I am enjoying a new blog by April DeConick, biblical studies professor at Rice University. She puts some important questions out there such as this one:

Why do so many scholars hold so strongly that the New Testament Gospels, particularly Mark, Matthew and Luke, are more accurate and reliable for reconstructing history than the non-canonical when it was proven by Professor Wrede in 1902 (The Messianic Secret) that the author of Mark was a theologian not an historian?

Her blog is called The Forbidden Gospels Blog and below is the conclusion to her post, The Accuracy and Reliability of New Testament Gospels?

The sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels are no more the verbatim words of Jesus than those recorded in the Gospel of Thomas, the Dialogue of the Savior, or the Secret Book of James. They are just more familiar to us because they have been part of the Christian tradition for so long. Has familiarity been mistaken for historicity? Read More

This coming Sunday is Evolution Sunday. First Pres., Elizabethton is one of 577 congregations participating. Plus we are going to be celebrating with African drumming. It is going to be an awesome service! Here is a great YouTube video in support of the Clergy Letter Project. It is called Faith and Evolution: A De-volutionary Encounter! It was put together by Crosswalk America. Be patient, it might take a minute or two to load.

1 comment:

  1. I think someone on her blog raised a great point that the early church accepted these accounts as their closest acceptance of what happened while rejecting others - in that I think there is some confidence. In some sense there is aspects of history in there but that was not the concern of that day - which I find 100% true.

    But I find the NT accounts to be quite honest about the faith and if early church fathers and disciples of the disciples accepted them - or even penned them - I just have to think they have weight.

    After studying the histoy of the alphabet, the jewish religion, and the oral tradition I can see that 30 years would be no problem whatsoever to bring accuracy to the words of someone...namely if that someone is of extreme importance to you. I don't think those disciples wrote as Jesus spoke but I am willing to bet all I have on this earth they wrote these sayings later - put them into a group of teachings - and others put them into books. I would see them being fairly accurate about their portrayal of jesus - and in those 4 gospels in the NT - I see very little dispute from gospel to gospel - not saying things weren't added (they were) - but the basic essences of the person (and what he taught) - is quite similar. But maybe I trust disciples of disciples too much and the early church determination of these books - very possible.