"Once one accepts that the Gospels reflect attempts to write reliable history or biography, however theological or stylized their presentations may be, then one must immediately recognize an important presupposition that guides most historians in their work. Unless there is good reason for believing otherwise, one will assume that a given detail in the work of a particular [ancient] historian is factual. This method places the burden of proof squarely on the person who would doubt the reliability of a given portion of the text. The alternative is to presume the text unreliable unless convincing evidence can be brought forward in support of it. While many critical scholars of the Gospels adopt this latter method, it is wholly unjustified by the normal canons of historiography. Scholars who would consistently implement such a method when studying other ancient historical writings would find corroborative data so insufficient that the vast majority of accepted history would have to be jettisoned."
Blomberg, Craig L. Historical Reliability of the Gospels.
(Downers Grove, Il.: IVP Academic, 2007). 304.
Propaganda has a bad name these days, but taken with its original meaning - "a writing written with the purpose to persuade towards a belief or action", propaganda is probably a good description of the genre of writing of the gospels
ReplyDelete"critics have treated the gospel accounts as guilty of being unreliable historically simply because the main message is religious in nature."
ReplyDeleteBad straw man you have going there:
Critics have treated the accounts as unreliable because they are inconsistent and don't agree with each other.