TMS NTI (New Testament Introduction) Dr. Osborne Final Exam

Historical background of TC and FC D.F. Strauss

- Myth in the gospels - No divine intervention -Therefore, anything supernatural is myth

Separate Apostolic Origin of Each Gospel [Positive contradictory evidence] Luke

Connection with the Apostle Paul in his missionary journeys.

Historical Criticism def.

"...specific procedures used by historical criticism; more broadly, it encompasses the underlying conception of the nature and power of historical reasoning on which historical criticism rests..." Embraces: (1) reality is uniform and universal; (2) it is accessible to human reason and investigation; (3) all events historical and natural occurring within it are in principle interconnected and comparable by analogy; and (4) humanity's contemporary experience of reality can provide objective criteria by which what could or could not have happened in the past can be determined.

Historical background of TC and FC G.E. Lessing

"Accidental facts of history can never become the proof of the necessary truths of reason" - Historicity is unimportant

Papias' Ta Logia from Eusebius

"Lord's oracles" - basis for Mark's gospel - Matthew collected them in Hebrew - Basis for Q - Traditions of John - Things said

Jesus Seminar 7 Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom

(1) Distinguish btw. Jesus of history & Christ of faith. (2) Distinguish btw. Historical value of Synoptic Gospels & gospel of John. (3) Assume priority of Mark. (4) Accept hypothetical "Q" as source of material common to Mt & Lk but not in Mk. (5) Distinguish betw. Schweitzer's eschatological Jesus & Seminar's non-eschatological view of Jesus' teaching. (6) Contrast Jesus' oral & today's written culture. (7) Burden of proof for rests with those who maintain historical authenticity of Synoptics.

Material Criteria for authenticity of Synoptic Material about Jesus

5) dissimilarity & critique. (To Jewish or Christian tradition) 6) coherence & critique. (to what is established by point #5)

Incorporation of Theological Emphases Examples

Jesus & his disciples at Caesarea-Philippi.

Attempted Proof of Literary Dependence (2-Source Theory) 1) Agreements in Wording

Such as the triple tradition of the Rich Young Man/Ruler or the 4x tradition Feeding of the 5,000 Counter: Does not mention disagreements in wording

H. Conzelmann

Theology of Luke

W. Marxsen

Theology of Mark

Independence of Gospels Papias

- Companion of Polycarp who was associate of John -

Historical background of TC and FC Reimarus

Discredit Christianity

Evangelical practitioners of FC and TC

1) George Ladd 2) Robert Stein 3) Robert Guelich 4) Darrell Bock 5) David Catchpole 6) Grant Osborne

MATERIALISM: THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679) Def. of materialism Effect on biblical studies

Reality consists of materiality, therefore anything supernatural [including spiritual, nonmaterial] is excluded. EFFECT: Removes all supernatural elements from the Biblical record

David F. Strauss (1808-1874)

Similar views to Reimarus rigorous scrutiny of religion. Denied the historicity of the supernatural parts of the Gospels, but instead, identified them as "mythic" elements in the gospels. EFFECT: It was now possible to speak of "myth" in Scripture.

Recent Evangelical Interpretation of Luke 18:18-23 Wording of Jesus' Answer

Stonehouse's treatment of the ruler's question & Jesus' reply: the Christology in Mark's version is not as exalted as Matt/Luke. Ipsissima verba vs. ipsissima vox. Does Lk preserve accurate details of the conversation or just the basic substance which he changed for his own theological purposes? Difference of an "independence" approach. All details are retained as accurate, and harmonization of all three Synoptic accounts (Matt, Mark & Luke) is possible, so that the full picture of the incident is based on a combination of the details from all 3 accounts.

G. Bornkamm

Theology of Matthew

Consequence of Literary Dependence

Two-Source Theory Markan Priority and Q

Evaluation of Redaction Criticism

a) Byproduct benefits b) Direct Liabilities 1) Foundational 2) Chronological-evidential-ethical 3) Abnormal historical study 4) Biased philosophical basis 5) Subjectivism 6) Method for identifying "authentic Jesus material"

Responses to TC

a) Questionable assumptions of Tradition Criticism. b) Dibelius: features showing narrative's primitivity. c) Two additional indicators of primitivity/lateness. d) Reasons for rejecting criteria of primitivity.

Characteristics of the Method

a) Synoptics are theology not history. b) Two different realms of reality. - Physical + sense - Faith: anything one believes in his own mind c) Find history/theology of evangelists, not Jesus.

Inductivism Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Def of inductivism Effect on biblical studies

- All truth is learned by experience & experiment [implication: no revelation] EFFECT: 1) Excludes Bible as the source of truth. 2) Reason & experiment replaces divine or biblical revelation. EFFECT: Opens the door for later thinkers.

Historical background of TC and FC Julius Wellhausen

- Applied OT FC to NT - Mark originally oral, circulated in small independent units - Material revised at various times - Material informs about early church and Jesus

NT Scholars Order of Composition

- Either 2-document or 4-document hypothesis - Or, One Gospel from 2 or 2 Gospels from 2 - Majority Markan priority, or 2-document (Mark & Q)

Liberals and form criticism and tradition criticism

- FC is the single most important development in history of gospel criticism, because "it is the only satisfactory explanation of the synoptic gospel material

B.H. Streeter (1874-1937)

- Four source theory - Mark+Q+M = Matthew - Mark+Q+L = Luke - Evolution of literature

Relevance of Literary dependence

- Historicity of Mark and Matt and Luke affected by literary dependence of any kind - If two from one, then essentially there is only one Gospel witness - If Mark unhistorical, the other two are as well - Theologically explicit teaching of Scripture is that, when receiving the report of witnesses, there is necessity for the testimony of more than one witness to establish truth

Tradition and Form Criticism are philosophically-driven

- Incapable of neutrality - Ideology is better term than methodology

Insistence on Harmonizing the gospels

- Incompatibility of harmonization w/ literary dependence. - General testimony of church fathers. - Pre Enlightenment, though not consistent. Origen vs. Celsus 5.56 (p 67)

The Jesus Seminar

- Led by Robert Funk - denied 82% of what the four gospels indicate that Jesus said - Votes on what Jesus said (red, pink, gray, black) - Skeptical towards canonical gospels

Standard Methodology

- Literary dependence of the 3 synoptic Gospels IS the current consensus - Cannot use Historical Critical approach to the Synoptics without some sort of theory of Literary Dependence - Historical Criticism - Includes the subdisciplines of Source Criticism, Tradition Criticism, Form Criticism, and Redaction Criticism

Historical background of TC and FC K.L. Schmidt

- Since gospels episodes are isolated, framework of discourses is unhistorical - Mark is myth & theology & there- fore the episodes in Mark are isolated, & so were "stitched" together by Mark.

Augustine (354-430)

- States that there is no extra material - Would not have contradicted clear and unified church tradition - Augustine's method for harmonizing

Historical background of TC and FC W. Wrede

- The Messianic Secret - Mark has creative and dogmatic elements - Mark is not history. Jesus never claimed to be Messiah during lifetime - Sitz im Leben must be later

Goals of FC and TC

- to determine relative age, original form, and historical veracity - Literary criteria or laws of tradition - determine which parts are accretions, modifications, earlier simpler less/non-miraculous tradition - an evolutionary assumption - anti-supernatural bias - assumption that certain proposed laws of folk tradition also apply to the gospel tradition

Operational Bases of TC

1) Burden of Proof is with those accepting authenticity 2) Primary task of TC: apply laws of tradition

Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923)

1) Criticism. This means methodological doubt; in historical investigation there is only probability not certainty; this is the basis of judgment. 2) Analogy. This means that present experience establishes probability (presupposition: everything continues as we know it today, cf. 2 Peter 3:3−7) 3) Correlation. This means that how things are today correlates to earlier times & events (= mutual interdependence). EFFECT: Miracles are excluded because we are in a closed system where earlier times were no different than today

6 Objections to Pauline Authorship

1) Difference in vocabulary and style - properly explained, required by differences in situations of both writer and recipients 2) Marcion's omission from his canon - expected and not a serious reliable criticism 3) Chronology of the PE does not fit within Acts - No problem fitting chronology within Acts 4) The PE respond to teachings of 2md century Gnosticism - Gnosticism addressed in the PE is not fully developed, issue arises only if assumed to be 2nd Cent works 5) The theology and theological themes of the PE are different from the other 10 epistle recognized as genuine -exaggerated 6) The PE's ecclesiology is too developed for Paul's lifetime - appropriate for 1st Cent church

Effects of discarding two-source theory

1) Establishes the Independence of the witness of all three Synoptic gospels. 2) Dispenses with hypothetical documents of any kind, namely, Q for the 2-Source theory, and M and L for its 4-Source variant. 3) Provides more historical detail. 4) Makes the vast majority of modern scholarship on the Synoptic Gospels becomes suspect passim (Latin for "everywhere").

Customary Arguments FOR and their invalidity

1) Order - does not require Mk's priority. 2) Brevity - Mk condensed earlier gospels? 3) Primitiveness - criteria are subjective. 4) Psychological reflection - "writer must have used Mk in this way..." most used, least supported. 5) Q - doublets & agreement of Mt & Lk. - a. no agreed upon definition of doublets; b. both "doublet" incidents could have occurred in Jesus' ministry.

Pseudepigraphy in the NT Objections

1) Paul attacked such a practice (2 Thess 2:2; 3:17). 2) Deposition of Pseudepigraphic author of The Acts of Paul and Thecla (ca. 170). 3) Rejection of Gospel of Peter by Serapion, bishop of Antioch (ca. ad 180). 4) Quality of 2 Peter is high (thoroughly apostolic & orthodox), not heretical. 5) 2 Peter has NO 2nd century characteristics, such as treating controversies over chiliasm, Gnosticism, theosophical systems (beliefs about God & world based on mystical insights), or church leadership. 6) Second Peter is NEVER listed as SPURIOUS. Disputed (ἀντιλεγόμενον), yes, spurious (νόθος), NO. [Eusebius lists 4 categories of writings in HE 3.25: 1) ὁμολογούμενα, 2) ἀντιλεγόμενα, 3) νόθοι, 4) ἀναπλάσματα ] 7) Pseudepigraphy contradicts Peter's own teaching in the Epistle. Cf. Peter's emphasis on godliness (1:3; 1:6-7) & virtue (1:5), Also, speaks against cunningly devised fables (1:16), false teachers (2:1-2), & the deception of error (2:13).

Modern views of Τὰ λόγια

1) Q, Independent collection of Jesus' Sayings, and deeds 2) Collection of OT Proof texts - Not likely because deeds as well as words of Jesus - ἑρμηνεύω means to translate, not to interpret - Carson & Moo, e.g., only do so b/c of Marcan priority. 3) Error of Papias - wholly or partially. - Either Christians misunderstood Papias or Papias was mistaken. - This is not likely. Why do scholars accept this view? - Mainly because they already believe in Markan priority 4) an Earlier Aramaic Matthew - Matthew composed a gospel in Aramaic. Then he translated/ recomposed it, including other material, into Greek canonical gospel for Diaspora

Three areas affected by Jesus Seminar

1) The Arrangement of Material 2) The Modification of Material 3) The Creation of Material

Areas affected in Evangelical Scholarship 2) Modification of Material

1) The Exception Clause (Matt 5:32; 19:9) - Matthew's addition to Jesus' teaching on divorce and not spoken by Jesus 2) Dialogue with Rich Young Ruler - Matthew changes Mark's wording because he thinks that Mark's Christology is questionable 3) The Pharisees - Matthew's picture s far too negative, corrected by Josephus

Areas affected in Evangelical Scholarship 3) Creation of Material

1) The Geneologies of Jesus - Matthew's genealogy is a figure of speech for Jesus' Messiahship -Luke's is not historical 2) Visit of the Magi - Matthew's transformation of the tradition about the arrival of the shepherds, which Luke recorded 3) The beatitudes - Only 4 of the 9 beatitudes were actually spoken by Jesus 4) The guard at Jesus' tomb - Matthew's account of the soldiers guarding Jesus' tomb may be unhistorical, but in any case, it is not important - At the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, the tombs of the saints were not opened, and the resurrected saints did not appear to people in Jerusalem

Issues raised by RC

1) Theology is pitted against history. History is lost. 2) Harmonizing is made impossible or almost so. 3) Theology of Jesus is hidden/obscured. 4) Jesus' precise words (ipsissima verba) are lost. 5) Grammatical-historical interp. is overridden. 6) Literary dependence reduces testimony of the Synoptics to one questionable historical source (i.e., Mark), instead of strong threefold witness.

Literary dependence on Luke's Prologue

1) Use of canonical gospels? No, not likely. 2) Use of only two or three sources? No, "many" suggests numerous, not 2 or 3. 3) Use of Matt & Mark? No, Lk would not have found them unsatisfactory. 4) Chronological order? Yes, mostly/completely. 5) Possible sources? Yes, both written and oral

Formal Criteria for authenticity of Synoptic Material about Jesus

1) multiple attestation & critique. (Mark, Q, M, L) 2) multiple forms & critique. (Miracle story) 3) Aramaic linguistic phenomena & critique. (poetic form/parallelism) 4) Palestinian environment phenomena & critique. (Obviously Palestinian)

Classification of a pericope according to form

1) paradigms 2) Miracle stories 3) Sayings 4) Historical narratives Legends

Areas affected in Evangelical Scholarship 1) Arrangement of Material

1)Sermon on the Mount - Compilation of sayings Some not spoken by Jesus 2)Commissioning of 12 - Discourse is a composite -Drawn from Jesus on different occasions 3)Parables of Mark 4 & Matt 13 - Spoken on different occasions -Grouped topically by Matt - Contradict explicit statement in intro and conclusions 4) Olivet Discourse - A composite discourse

Evangelical Similarity to Jesus Seminar 10 Similar Issues (p. 15 of Jesus Crisis)

1. The author of Matthew, not Jesus, created the Sermon on the Mount 2. Commissioning of the 12 in Matt 10 is compilation of instructions, not given on a single occasion 3. The Parable accounts of Matt 13 and Mark 4 are anthologies 4. Jesus did not preach the Olivet Discourse in its entirety 5. Jesus gave His teaching on divorce and remarriage without the exception clauses found in Matt 5:32 and 19:9 6. Matt 19:16-17 the writer changed the words of Jesus and the rich man 7. The Scribes and Pharisees were actually decent people whom Matthew painted in a negative light 8. The genealogies of Jesus in Matt 1 and Luke 3 are figures of speech and not accurate records 9. The magi are fictional 10. Jesus uttered only three or four of the eight or nine beatitudes

John Tolland (1670-1722)

1. There is nothing beyond reason. 2. Mysteries (e.g., in Scripture or religious mysteries in general) = priestcraft and paganism. [Some of the criticism = well earned.] 3. Jesus preached a simple, moral religion, nothing more. 4. Ebionites = more "orthodox" because/or authentic Christianity. 5. Christianity = unhistorical and falsely supernatural

Historical background of TC and FC J.H.H Gunkel

Articulated form of OT FC - JEDPT - Stories existed in oral form and were modified before being written down

Arguments AGAINST the 2-source theory

Biblical evidence: 1. Agreements of Matt & Luke vs. Mark. 2. Large amount of material in Mt & Lk not in Mk. 3. Luke's Prologue (1:1-4): specify. Patristic evidence: 1. Papias' witness of Mk getting info from Peter. 2. Eyewitness Matt not likely to have used Mark. 3. Matt = first gospel written.

Skepticism: Hume (1711-1776)

British Empiricism Definition of skepticism: Knowledge is only/such that: 1) what 5 senses perceive (cf. Francis Bacon [d. 1626]). 2) limited & therefore uncertain. 3) cause & effect are unknowable. 4) the only meaningful statements are definitions & statement of facts, because all else is illusion, 5) miracles are a violation or transgression of nature. EFFECT: 1) Uncertainty of whether miracles occurred. 2) Miracles became no longer usable in apologetics (b/c of their uncertainty). 3) Miracles now became the chief problem and not a help in defending the Christian faith

Statement of Literary Independence from Chrysostom

Chrysostom on why Mark has no genealogy (= general awareness of Matthew's account):

Genuineness of 2 Peter External Evidences 1) Patristic allusions

Clement of Rome (ca. 95), Justin Martyr (ca. 140), Ep. of Barnabas (ca. 130), Theophilus of Antioch (end 2nd cent.), Melito of Sardis (ca. ad 175), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 160-215) [wrote comm. on all 7 canonical general epistles], Origen (ca. 250), Jerome (ca. 340-420).

Romanticism: Schleiermacher (1768-1834)

Def: -EXPERIENCE - Emphasis of the movement/ mood (not exactly a philosophy): - Emotion, sensation, feelings, vs. Cold, analytical, rational, and order & control (counter enlightenment) EFFECT: 1. Bible is [merely] the record of religious experience. 2. Bible is NOT divine utterance. 3. Inspiration is just another way to describe human activity. 4. True religion = absolute dependence on something beyond oneself. 5. There is an enormous difference, even a divide, betw/ the Jesus found in the Synoptics & the Christ of John. (Now we must understand that the earthly Jesus of Nazareth "becomes" the Christ/God in John.) 6. Hermeneutics = what does the Biblical writers' message mean for me/us today?

Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976)

Def: De-mythologize and form criticism Deconstructionism and Postmodernism - Mutually exclusive truths can peacefully coexist, because it doesn't matter whether the truths in question conform to an objective reality, because there is NO such thing as objective reality

Existentialism: Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

Def: Everything revolves around ME. I am the center of my universe & whoever/whatever I agree to let in to coexist w/ me EFFECT: Mutually exclusive truths can coexist Subjectivity No such thing as objective reality

Evolution: Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

Def: Uniformitarianism means no outside influence (from God, e.g.), growth must be gradual and from the simple to the complex. Therefore, earlier means simpler, or simpler means earlier EFFECT: - Document hypothesis -Ideas, societies and nations mature in thinking over time

Idealism: G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831)

Def: Geist, all reality = outworking of Geist (Spiritual/mind) - Absolute Spirit comes to selfconsciousness. Thus, MY experience is the arbiter of what is divine. − Reality = ultimately spiritual or mental in character. This is history, nature and thought. − Only a short distance to Pantheism (God IS everything) and, e.g., "May the Force be with you." EFFECT: 1) Goal of all religion = Virtue. 2) No supernatural/miraculous elements in religion, because he was very dependent of Kant. Could not know, even if such existed/happened. 3) Most significant effect may be the students whom he influence:

Synoptic Problem

Def: how to define the literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels, and how to explain the similarities and differences between them.

Agnosticism: Kant (1724-1804)

Definition of agnosticism: - Inseparable barrier between the knower and the thing known. - One cannot know material things as they really are. This is in the phenomenal world. - -> Nonmaterial/spiritual things even less possible to know. This is in the noumenal world. - God & spiritual things are therefore unknowable. EFFECT: The DOUBT of knowing anything spiritual/ supernatural [i.e., anything about God]

Historical background of TC and FC R. Bultmann

Demythologize gospels - we can know almost nothing about the life and person of Jesus. [RKB: but this loss does not really matter, because of Lessing's famous principle:

Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918)

Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) -Evolution of ideas, societies, and nations -Earlier, simpler ideas about God, morality, practices and people

RATIONALISM: SPINOZA (1632-1677)

Dutch Jew, rationalistic pantheist - Reason (rational faculty of man) = primary means of gaining knowledge, "all truth is discoverable by human reason." EFFECT 1) God IS nature, therefore miracles are church's propaganda. 2) Bible contains God's Word, rather than the Bible IS God's Word (i.e. coterminous). 3) Spinoza himself denied the Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch

Fundamental contradictions of FC and TC

FC beginning point - Development of the tradition is assumed to be Long and creative - Accretions = fabrications and embellishments

DEISM: TOLAND, COLLINS, TINDAL Herbert of Cherbury (1583-1648)

Father of English Deism Separation of God from the world (->not involved in it at all). - ->there are no such things as miracles. Cf. ancient Epicureanism. Rejection of supernatural revelation and revealed mysteries -> Jesus cannot be unique. EFFECT: Use of Comparative Religion approaches & popular tendency to accept SYNCRETISM

F.C. Bauer (1792-1860)

German Radical Biblical criticism - Only 4 epistles are of Pual - Gospels are 2nd century -Thesis = Jewish Christianity, Antithesis = Gentile Christianity, Synthesis = orthodox Christianity.

H.S. Reimarus (1694-1778)

Purpose was to discredit the origins of Christianity, indeed, of super naturalistic religion of any kind. EFFECT: This shows the true, overall objective of these ideas

Two Tactics of TC

a. Recover earliest (\ most authentic) form of tradition. b. Exercise critical judgment on historicity/authenticity.

Evangelicals and form criticism and tradition criticism

Guelich and Bock - FC can be a fruitful aid to understanding and exposition

Separate Apostolic Origin of Each Gospel [Positive contradictory evidence] John

Himself as an apostle

Attempted Proof of Literary Dependence (2-Source Theory) 3) Prologue of Luke's Gospel

In his prologue (1:1-4), Luke notes that others had written accounts about Jesus, and now he, Luke, was going to undertake the same sort of task. Stein says one of those other accounts must be the gospel of Mark. Counter: Assumes too much. Presupposes literary dependence so they will confirm their bias. - Luke did not necessarily use a cononical Gospel - Did not necessarily use 2 or 3 sources, "many" attempted to compile an account, suggests numerous accounts, not 2 or three - Likely/mostly in Chronological order - Used both written and oral sources

Genuineness of 2 Peter External Evidences 2) Versional and Other evidence

Incl. by both Coptic versions (Sahidic, 2nd c., Bohairic, 4th c.,), Clement of Alex.'s Old Latin text (incl. all 7 Catholic epp.), Apocalypse of Peter (ca. 200) uses 2 Ptr, Councils of Laodicea & Carthage (363 & 397) recognize as canonical. So, evidence is weak, but solid & early where 2 Ptr was known.

Attempted Proof of Literary Dependence (2-Source Theory) 2) Agreements in Sequence of Material

John the Baptist, Baptism of Jesus, Temptation, Call of disciples, etc Counter: Does not mention that the agreements may be based on the record of historical events - most natural explanation

Historical background of TC and FC M. Dibelius

Less radical than Bultmann, but in his view, the evangelists end up being mere collectors of fragments.

Arguments for Two-Source theory Underlying assumptions for

Literary dependence - Similarities require it (evolution, similar design) - Accepted facts 1) Matt has 90% Mark, Luke has 50+%. 2) majority Mark's vocab = in Matt/Lk alternately/together. 3) relative order Mark supported by Matt & Luke. Where either deserts Mark, other supports; plus, about 200 vv. of discourse material shared by Matt & Luke, not in Mark.

Two-source theory

Mark and Q used by Matthew and Luke

Two Gospel Hypothesis

Matt + Luke = Mark

Attempted Proof of Literary Dependence (2-Source Theory) 3) Agreements in Parenthetical Material

Matthew 24:15 & Mark 13:14: "Let the reader understand!" Counter: doesn't mention that the agreement could be traced to the words of Jesus himself, Who is telling the reader of Daniel (9:27, 12:11) to understand.

Patristic Order of Composition

Matthew was most popular and generally considered first

Conclusion of HC and Gospel Interpretation

Objections to recent evangelical interpretation of Lk 18:18-23: 1. Failure to explain the "Minor Agreements." 2. Rejecting harmonization to explain divergences btw/ gospel accounts leads to loss of ipsissima verba of Jesus. By contrast: Using "independence" approach elicits more details & greater nuance of the whole incident.

Separate Apostolic Origin of Each Gospel [Positive contradictory evidence] Matthew

One of the Twelve (Irenaeus and Tertullian)

Agreements in the Synoptic Gospels: how do church fathers explain them?

Patristic explanation: Inspiration & accuracy of individual authors

Def. and description of Form Criticism

form-criticism... does not consist of identifying the individual units of the tradition... placing them in their various categories. It is much rather 'to discover the origin and the history of the particular units and thereby to throw some light on the history of the tradition before it took literary form endeavors to determine the oral prehistory of written documents or sources

Separate Apostolic Origin of Each Gospel [Positive contradictory evidence] Mark

in the church tradition, a clear connection to Peter (Papias, Clement of Alex.)

Evangelicals and Redaction Criticism 3) Modification

made major changes in material show their own theology, NOT Jesus' history. Christians always accepted that Evangelists made minor changes/ adjustments (e.g., personal stylistic preferences in wording), but... NOT to the extent that RC scholars maintain.

Evangelicals and Redaction Criticism 4) Creativity

radical alteration of historical narrative, e.g., genealogies, beatitudes, discourses, etc., to produce something entirely different. This is NOT true, b/c doing so denies divine inspiration & the principle of truth.

Five common notions of Herbert Cherbury

reason = prime authority 1. Existence of Supreme God; 2. Worship of God; 3. Need for Moral Life; 4. Repentance from sin; 5. Eternal Life w/Reward & Punishment

Albert Schweizer (1875-1965)

regarded Strauss as originator of the "Quest for the Historical Jesus," but it actually began much earlier in the 1600s

Evangelicals and Redaction Criticism 2) Arrangement

they did NOT arrange material in chronological order. True, but...NOT to detriment of chronological accuracy.

Evangelicals and Redaction Criticism 1) Selectivity

they only selected material compatible w/ different purposes of their Gospels. True, but... theology & history are compatible.