No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
Hermes and Athena consists of the proceedings of a conference of philosophers and New Testament scholars. I think the sponsors of the conference are to be congratulated on bringing members of the two groups together; the interaction was salutary, for all that one of the most significant exchanges is very angry, and makes painful reading. The issues raised appear to me to be of quite fundamental importance.
As Michael Dummett sees it, the most influential New Testament scholars of the present day operate with two axioms, that the Gospels are not a reliable witness to Jesus’ words and deeds, and that Jesus had no powers and no source of knowledge that were not available to other human beings. In so doing, they not only offend and bewilder ordinary believers, but effectively deprive Christianity of any rational basis. However, there is good reason to disbelieve what these scholars seem to take for granted, that the central doctrines of Christianity were derived not from what was taught by Jesus himself, but from later reflection on his life. For this to have been the case, the disciples must have been either deliberate deceivers or mentally unhinged, and their subsequent behaviour is not consistent with either hypothesis. Another mistake that these scholars make is to assume that one should prescind from faith in trying to determine what is or is not likely to be historically true in the Gospel narratives; in general, probability cannot be assigned to alleged events without reference to background beliefs.
1 Edited by Thomas P. Elint and Eleonore Stump. University of Notre Dame Press, 1993. References not otherwise assigned will be to this book.
2 4–5.
3 9.
4 5.
5 15.
6 18–19.
7 13.
8 23–4.
9 25,27–8.
10 26.
11 29.
12 25.29.
13 24.
14 33.
15 37–58.
16 59–70.
17 77–100.
18 101–105.
19 107–140.
20 141–150.
21 151–2.
22 159–190.
23 172–3
24 175.
25 173–4.
26 191–7.
27 201–24.
28 212–3.
29 225–34.
30 235–73.
31 275–81.
32 285–313.
33 315–25.
34 Cf. his Jesus the Magician (San Francisco 1978)Google Scholar.
35 Cf.23, 27. I think it is rather odd of John Collins both to imply that the average Catholic layperson is a myth, and to attribute to her assumptions on the relation of faith to the Jesus of history quite different from those of Dummett.
36 I tried to show this in Sense, Nonsense and Christianity (London: Sheed and Ward, 1964), 250–270Google Scholar.
37 The label is a rather unfortunate one, since, in the present climate of critical opinion, a defense of the basic historicity of the Gospels may well seem a more ‘radical’ option than its alternative. But it will have to do for want of a better.
38 16. I believe that Dummett underestimates the prevalence of the convention of pseudonymity in the ancient world, and its relevance to the study of the documents of the New Testament (16–17); John Collins was right to point this out (28).
39 211–1 2.
40 Cf. 212.
41 6.
42 24.
43 23.
44 Cf. Raymond Brown's witty remark, that authors who maintain that John is not to be taken seriously as a historical witness ‘represent an uncritical traditionalism which arises with age, even in heterodoxy.’ (New Testament Essays, Milwaukee 1965,143).
45 Cf. Dodd, , Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stauffer, , Jesus and His Story (New York 1960)Google Scholar; Morris, , Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids, 1969)Google Scholar; Robinson, , The Priority of John. (London 1985)Google Scholar. Dodd in particular argues in meticulous detail that many of the sayings attributed to Jesus by John derive from very early strata of the tradition, and that these often expound or presuppose specifically Johannine doctrines (Historical Tradition, 115, 321, 419–20, 428). Collins will have it that the ordinary reader of the Gospels can ‘see’ that the Johannine discourses are unlikely to derive from Jesus, because they are so unlike the Synoptic sayings (27). I find it a little curious that he attributes to the ordinary reader authority greater than Dodd's. Also, I am surprised that he thinks that the fact that the term ‘son of God’ is used in so many ways in Scripture has any bearing on Dummett's argument, since it is clear, as Collins himself admits, that the expression is meant in a special sense when applied by the New Testament authors to Jesus (loc. cit.).
46 Dodd, , The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge 1953), 466CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
47 New Testament Essays, (Milwaukee l965), 143Google Scholar.
48 23.
49 Butler, , The Originality of Saint Matthew (Cambridge 1951)Google Scholar; Parker, , The Gospel Before Mark (Chicago 1953)Google Scholar; Farmer, , The Synoptic Problem (London 1964)Google Scholar; Rist, , The Independence of Matthew and Mark (Cambridge, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wenham, , The Reducing of Matthew, Mark and Luke (London 1991)Google Scholar.
50 The Redating of the New Testament (London 1976)Google Scholar. Incidentally, it seems to me that Robinson is as brilliant as a historian as he is piddling as a theologian.
51 Cf. p. xxvi of the Introduction.
52 29.
53 7.
54 25.
You have
Access