Gospels Are Not Historical - Tumblr Posts
Biblical Criticism: A Flawed Interpretation of the Gospels
By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim
The type of Biblical criticism (or the scholarly “study and investigation of biblical writings”) that is taught today in the world’s finest seminaries is geared towards an understanding of the historical Jesus. While the Criteria of historical Authenticity are very important and untainted in and of themselves, the underlying assumption of how they should be applied is fundamentally flawed. The problem in the quest for the historical Jesus is that everything seems to be centered on the Gospels, without many cross-references between the Gospels and the Epistles, not to mention the book of Revelation. This means that these scholars, many of whom are Christ’s followers, begin their biblical investigation with the preconceived assumption that the Gospels are historical, and they therefore entirely miss the point of the Gospels as well as the overall context of the New Testament. And this is done without even the slightest thought that the Gospels might turn out to be theological renderings of future events rather than historiographical accounts!
For instance, in order to corroborate whether or not the Gospel events happened, little attention is given to the rest of the New Testament Scriptures—such as the Epistles (which tell us that Christ will appear “Once in the end of the world” Heb. 9:26), or the book of Revelation (which verifies that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” 19:10)—but turn instead to “Multiple Attestation” sources of the Gospels that are known as “Mark” (the earliest written Gospel), “Q” (shared verses between Matthew & Luke), “L” (unique material found in Luke), “M” (special material found in Matthew), and “John” (unique material found in John). In other words, the Gospels become the foundation of the subsequent study. Then they add a few more arbitrary criteria—such as “Attestation of Forms” (other genres that Gospel material may appear in, as if this proves the historicity of the Gospels), “Dissimilarity” (If it isn’t Judaic or of the Church it must be unique to Jesus), “Embarrassment” (If the gospels include embarrassing things, they must have happened), and the “Criterion of Rejection” (Events that describe Jesus’ rejection & crucifixion are assumed to be authentic)—as if these inferences are wholly reliable and conclusive. Thus, it is not inappropriate to describe these rules that scholars play by as guessing games!
The tools that scholars use to identify whether or not the Gospel events happened are not only arbitrary and presumptuous, they are also completely out of touch with the rest of the New Testament because they begin with the erroneous assumption that the Gospels are biographies. And this is NOT TRUE! This historical-Gospel inference must be checked against biblical evidence because the Epistles and the book of Revelation give us a very different version of Jesus than the Gospels.
Furthermore, these studies are probabilistic in nature, based entirely on historical reductionism. Thus, these conclusions are not only distorted and partial, but wholly unwarranted.
After a twenty-year Bible study that evolved into a book, “The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days,” my conclusion is that the historical Christ is as real as the Shroud of Turin is authentic!