Take Ten Steps Backwards

Not available.

I am being facetious, but not so much as you think I am. When this book came out I had a certain stark foreboding that it would not kind to many scholars whose work I respect. And indeed this is so, and it is fair to say that not all of the criticisms are unjustified. I have never understood why many evangelical scholars continue to work with the bankrupt Q/Markan priority hypotheses; it may be because it is more convenient to work within the framework than to investigate the matter afresh, for heaven knows it is a morass to wade through. But to say, as these fellows do, that evangelical adherence to this thesis is causing a "crisis" of confidence in the Bible and in the words of Jesus? Nay: The average churchgoer isn't reading Blomberg, Witherington, et al. (though they need to), and those who understand their writings will be a little better off than to allow a literary dependence theory to cause them a "crisis" of confidence in Holy Writ.

Let me highlight this book's points that I do agree with. Many (perhaps the majority) of actual points made against the QM hypothesis are excellent. These folks fight tooth and nail for "no literary dependence at all" -- not even Luke using Mark and Matt; though they seem to assume that any dependence would be "all or nothing" -- they apparently don't know about the ancient practice of note-taking. They are right to get on the case of evangelicals who use some of the same silly techniques as the Jesus Seminar: It does not, as they say, cause a crisis, but I certainly cheer all efforts to expose inconsistencies and errors in this kind of thinking. They make some points that suggest refinement on a Lukan usage of Mark paradigm; the essay on Luke's prologue is especially relevant, although it does not occur to the author that Luke was referring to all sources he used in one section and was only being critical of some of them, not including Mark and maybe Matthew. On the other hand, devoting an entire chapter to a special defense and analysis of Eta Linnemann clearly shows that there was a perceived need to fill space.

But it is possible to take this sort of criticism too far, and co-editor Robert Thomas is the one responsible for the worst arguments in this book. I have railed regularly against critics who read the Bible like it was written yesterday, never mind the social, literary, historical, etc. context; some of Thomas' arguments, I regret to say, would look just as comfortable on the pages of McKinsey's old Biblical Errancy newsletter. Let's take the prime example. I've answered points claiming contradiction between Matt and Luke's versions of the Sermon on the Mount by noting that Matt's version is likely to be an anthology -- a collection of Jesus' teachings, organized by Matthew according to his purpose as the composer of a handbook of faith; whereas Luke is more on the historical side, and reports what was actually said on that occasion. No big problem. Both writers were following standard literary and historical practices for the time. But don't tell Robert Thomas this, or you'll be pilloried in the next Inquisition. Thomas insists that such an approach "inevitably leads to diminishing historical accuracy in the Gospels" -- for you see, Matthew 5:1-2 "indicates Jesus began at a certain point to give the Sermon's contents." And what of the literary-device explanation above? Thomas wonders, then, "why would (Matthew) mislead his readers" into thinking that Jesus made this full sermon on one occasion! Note to Robert Thomas: This was a normal practice for the day! No one would be "misled" into thinking this was a full sermon because no one would have thought it was meant to be recorded as such in the first place! But Thomas, clearly, does not agree, with comments like this in response to Blomberg's assertion that Biblical writers followed the typical practices for composers of the day: "Despite what the practice of ancient historians may have been, Matthew's intention to cite a continuous discourse from a single occasion is conspicuous. Was he mistaken?" "No matter what the alleged motives of the writers in so doing, that kind of action is fundamentally problematic at best and dishonest at worst." (!) The only difference between these comment and comments like C. Dennis McKinsey's "read the Bible like a newspaper" is that McKinsey is nastier in his formulations. And yet we are told that it is we who propose such solutions who are "run(ning) roughshod over the historicity of the Sermon's introductory and concluding formulas"!

You might wonder, of course, how Thomas suggests that we resolve the differences in the Sermon, and his answer is: By harmonization! Put it this way: Did Jesus say, "Blessed are the poor" or "Blessed are the poor in spirit"? Thomas replies: He said both, and on the same occasion! Matt and Luke just chose to report one or the other! "Most probably Jesus repeated this beatitude in at least two different forms when he preached His Sermon on the Mount/Plain, using the third person once and the second person another time and referring to the Kingdom of God by different titles." (Funny here how omission is not a sin; but commission is...I thought it was Matthew's intent to show he was citing a continuous discourse? If that is the case, isn't he "misleading" his readers by not giving a full report and leaving things out?)

Thomas is also responsible for a great deal of the book's panic-polemic, and some of his claims (and others in the book) are either misrepresenting their source or are just plain wrong. "(Craig) Blomberg attributes a higher degree of accuracy to modern historians than to Spirit-inspired writers of the Gospels in ancient times." (If by this you mean, Blomberg says that modern historians revere "accuracy" in the sense of not being inclined towards literary practices that we would consider "inaccurate", but the ancients would NOT consider "inaccurate." then you are right: But to frame the matter in a way that suggests that Blomberg thinks that the Gospels contain fabrications is off base.) One claim against literary dependence is that is that the Gospel writers would have acknowledged their sources directly: The idea that ancient writers did not give credit to their sources "runs counter to available evidence" (32) (! -- Tell that to the Tacitean scholar I quoted as saying that "Ancient historians generally felt no obligation to reveal their sources." -- the only "counter" evidence offered is Eusebius, several hundred years after the time of the Gospels!). You know Mark's "sandwich" literary technique? Those who acknowledge the existence of this are accused of saying that "...Mark has constructed an artificial chronological sequence for a literary purpose, but his doing so gives the impression that events happened together when actually they did not." Sure, he gives the reader, reading his work out of its socio-literary context, that "impression"; and it is not the case, as Thomas supposes, that this was "a sort of secret code that only the intellectually elite could break." People in oral and pre-literary societies; people familiar (as Paul was) with rhetorical techniques; people who were dumb and smart alike, didn't think of this as a "secret code" and knew exactly what was going on! Thomas tells us: "Critics ignore the convincing principle that God intended the average reader to understand the Bible." What's so hard to understand about the principle of literary and topical rearrangement? It certainly never caused any oral, pre-literate societies any problems; maybe we're just dumber today? Or maybe more rigid and stubborn in saying how things "ought to be", arrogantly imposing our own preconceptions on the works of ancient writers? And where's that bit about God catering to the "average reader" just so found in the Bible? What about "levels of understanding"? (According to the milk/meat principle, which is laid out in the Bible, God certainly doesn't want us to stay average!)

And so on...the theme for the book is evident in that it contains the usual misinterpretation of Col. 2:8, using it for the purposes of a denigration of scholarship. It is supposed that literary dependence is unlikely on the grounds that the gospel authors would have had no chance to share their work with one another, in part due to the "slow communications of the time" -- huh? Ever heard of "multiple copies"? Ever studied the ancient document delivery system (not exactly Fed Ex, but it sure could get your mail around)? I find it hard to muster any respect for Biblical scholars when they show no sign of having understood the world that the Bible was written in; as it is it seems they assume like the Bible's critics that ancient people were too stupid to tie their own shoes. McKinsey, I think, would be right at home writing a chapter for this book. I could say a great deal more and delineate further errors along the same lines, but there is no need. Despite some bright spots, The Jesus Crisis is marred beyond usefulness by Thomas' "turtle-shell" approach to exegesis. It is bad enough that we have to correct the skeptics on such matters; we don't need professed evangelicals making the same mistakes and impeding progress.