<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Study -- Excellent Critique -- Excessive Apology
Review: Blomberg distills the findings of the six volumes of "Gospel Perspectives," a work of conservative scholars. Most of those on the left wing of Biblical scholarship would argue that "conservative Bible scholar" is an oxymoron, but Blomberg proves them wrong. He gives a masterful study of the Synoptic Problem, arriving at the two (or four) document hypothesis as the most satsifactory solution. Next he engages in a cogent critique of modern methods of Biblical criticism, pointing out the worth of such methods as well as their preconceptions and limitations. He then undertakes a study of the historicity of the Gospel stories, and turns in the most compelling scholarly argument I have ever read for the historical reliability of the resurrection narratives. So far, so good. Five stars up to this point. Unfortunately, it is in his assessment of Gospel historicity that he goes astray. Blomberg argues repeatedly for the "camcorder exactness" of the Gospel stories. If the Gospels say it, that's exactly the way it happened, and any discrepancies from one story to the next are merely "apparent" discrepancies, which can be ironed out with enough imagination. As one who has made a career of evaluating and presenting testimony, I find that discrepancies in testimony don't equate to falsehood, and that it is neither necessary nor wise to pretend that there are no discrepancies in testimony. Blomberg appears to begin with the conclusion of historical accuracy and to sift the evidence for arguments supporting his conclusion. That's not the way you do it. You work the evidence to form conclusions; you don't form the evidence to fit conclusions. You begin with no firmly fixed preconceptions. You collect your evidence, form a hypothesis that explains the evidence, collect more evidence, modify your hypothesis, collect more evidence, modify your hypothesis, and keep doing that until your are satisfied that your conclusions are valid. Only after you have arrived at your conclusions in an unbiased fashion, do you then argue for your conclusions. When you argue for your conclusions, you don't defend the indefensible. Trying to defend too much weakens your argument as a whole. Blomberg tries to defend too much. Example: Blomberg acknowledges that even the majority of conservative scholars find it unlikely that John wrote the Gospel of John. After making the concession, he then argues vehemently for John's authorship of the Gospel. The Gospel never claims it was written by John, and authorship by John is not necessary to a finding of historical accuracy. Why, then, defend John's authorship so staunchly? Blomberg's zeal in defending questionable conclusions casts doubt on the sound conclusions he presents.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Study -- Excellent Critique -- Excessive Apology
Review: Blomberg distills the findings of the six volumes of "Gospel Perspectives," a work of conservative scholars. Most of those on the left wing of Biblical scholarship would argue that "conservative Bible scholar" is an oxymoron, but Blomberg proves them wrong. He gives a masterful study of the Synoptic Problem, arriving at the two (or four) document hypothesis as the most satsifactory solution. Next he engages in a cogent critique of modern methods of Biblical criticism, pointing out the worth of such methods as well as their preconceptions and limitations. He then undertakes a study of the historicity of the Gospel stories, and turns in the most compelling scholarly argument I have ever read for the historical reliability of the resurrection narratives. So far, so good. Five stars up to this point. Unfortunately, it is in his assessment of Gospel historicity that he goes astray. Blomberg argues repeatedly for the "camcorder exactness" of the Gospel stories. If the Gospels say it, that's exactly the way it happened, and any discrepancies from one story to the next are merely "apparent" discrepancies, which can be ironed out with enough imagination. As one who has made a career of evaluating and presenting testimony, I find that discrepancies in testimony don't equate to falsehood, and that it is neither necessary nor wise to pretend that there are no discrepancies in testimony. Blomberg appears to begin with the conclusion of historical accuracy and to sift the evidence for arguments supporting his conclusion. That's not the way you do it. You work the evidence to form conclusions; you don't form the evidence to fit conclusions. You begin with no firmly fixed preconceptions. You collect your evidence, form a hypothesis that explains the evidence, collect more evidence, modify your hypothesis, collect more evidence, modify your hypothesis, and keep doing that until your are satisfied that your conclusions are valid. Only after you have arrived at your conclusions in an unbiased fashion, do you then argue for your conclusions. When you argue for your conclusions, you don't defend the indefensible. Trying to defend too much weakens your argument as a whole. Blomberg tries to defend too much. Example: Blomberg acknowledges that even the majority of conservative scholars find it unlikely that John wrote the Gospel of John. After making the concession, he then argues vehemently for John's authorship of the Gospel. The Gospel never claims it was written by John, and authorship by John is not necessary to a finding of historical accuracy. Why, then, defend John's authorship so staunchly? Blomberg's zeal in defending questionable conclusions casts doubt on the sound conclusions he presents.
Rating: 
Summary: Still reliable after almost 2000 years
Review: Craig Blomberg has given an excellent argument for treating the four gospels as reliable sources of historical information pertaining to the life of Jesus. This is a welcome contrast to so many of the trendy "Jesus Seminar"-ish books being hyped by much of the mainstream media today. Blomberg covers some of the current methods of studying the gospels; such as form criticism and redaction criticism. He doesn't entirely reject their use, but he does point out their limitations so often forgotten by many NT scholars today. In the next section, he briefly addresses the issue of miracles and the fact that it is impossible to prove their non-existence. I found the next two sections to be the most interesting. First, Blomberg covers some of the approaches to addressing apparent contradictions in the gospels and gives some possible solutions. Next, he covers the gospel of John and some of the difficulties encountered when comparing it to the synoptic gospels. The final section covers information on Jesus found outside the gospels in the rest of the New Testament, along with Jewish and Roman sources. Overall, this book is best suited for someone with at least a background in New Testament historical study. If you are just beginning in this area, then you may want to try a book such as F.F. Bruce's "New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" which gives a good introduction to this field. After you've had an introduction, Blomberg's book is perfect for taking the next step in your study of the New Testament.
Rating:
Summary: This is a great book
Review: I had just previously finished a book by John Dominic Crossan, which threw me for a loop. Not only did my mouth drop about a foot, I had this empty feeling about all the things I have believed all these years. He and Marcus Borg seem to take a real liberal approach to interpretation of biblical history, to the point of invalidation. This book was a refreshing alternative to that previous one. It was well written and captivated my interest. I could not believe how much I used my yellow highlighter. This author has a good writing style and I have since purchased a couple of other books by him (on their way, Amazon!) He took a thorough approach (used for his doctoral thesis, I believe) and has cited numerous other sources, which gives the reader other options for purchasing books with similar or alternate views. He effectively invalidated what numerous Nay Sayers have posited about the validity of the historical gospels, or lack thereof. He addresses concerns over the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and how they interrelate, as well as how they relate to the gospel of John. The author addresses miracles and many other issues. I came away from reading the book, with a new feeling of faith. I could see how the historical gospels could in fact, be truthful and still are applicable in today's age. I feel that I better understand the methods used by those Nay Sayers, who have drawn their own interpretations and precisely why their conclusions are not accurate.
Rating:
Summary: This is a great book
Review: I had just previously finished a book by John Dominic Crossan, which threw me for a loop. Not only did my mouth drop about a foot, I had this empty feeling about all the things I have believed all these years. He and Marcus Borg seem to take a real liberal approach to interpretation of biblical history, to the point of invalidation. This book was a refreshing alternative to that previous one. It was well written and captivated my interest. I could not believe how much I used my yellow highlighter. This author has a good writing style and I have since purchased a couple of other books by him (on their way, Amazon!) He took a thorough approach (used for his doctoral thesis, I believe) and has cited numerous other sources, which gives the reader other options for purchasing books with similar or alternate views. He effectively invalidated what numerous Nay Sayers have posited about the validity of the historical gospels, or lack thereof. He addresses concerns over the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and how they interrelate, as well as how they relate to the gospel of John. The author addresses miracles and many other issues. I came away from reading the book, with a new feeling of faith. I could see how the historical gospels could in fact, be truthful and still are applicable in today's age. I feel that I better understand the methods used by those Nay Sayers, who have drawn their own interpretations and precisely why their conclusions are not accurate.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent analysis of the Gospels
Review: The book is an excellent examination of why evangelicals can intelligently understand what it means to view the Gospels as both theological AND historical works. Dr. Blomberg includes discussions on the use of Midrash, form and redaction criticism, and a chapter discussing miracles. I suggest one take notes while reading the book in order to fully comprehend the solutions that Dr. Blomberg offers to many questions that occur in Gospels research. It is not a soft-brained devotional but a toughminded examination for those who are interested.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent introduction
Review: This book will probably not make a Christian of you, but it is certainly a good introduction to Gospel study. The primary focus is obvious in the title, and Blomberg makes an excellent case for it in this summation of the "Gospel Perspectives" series. All in all, I would recommend this book. It is hard going at times, but gave me a much better view of what is going on out there in terms of NT scholarship.
<< 1 >>
| 
