Richard Bauckham - Are the Gospels reliable history?

[@Mentat1231]

Putting aside Form Criticism and its legacy of how to approach the Gospels, and coming back to a more natural view of these as ancient memoirs, why couldn't it be the case that the so-called "Q" material is just Matthew's original Gospel in the Hebrew language, which then served as a starting point for someone (perhaps Matthew himself later) to write the fuller Gospel? He could use Mark for structure (especially if he respected it as coming ultimately from Peter) and he could draw from oral traditions and other sources as well. This just seems to fit the data so well (including the so-called Patristic sources).

[@therottingstench]

Dr. Mark Goodacre made a whole Book critiquing the Q source theorem. I have not read it, however food for thought Mentat1231

[@Mentat1231]

@@therottingstench Thanks!

[@gerryquinn5578]

This lecture is actually quite informative. Bauckham explains that the understanding the early form critics had of oral tradition was fundamentally flawed and consequently the conclusions they applied to the gospels were flawed.He develops the understanding of the genre of the gospels, stating that they would have been understood akin to Greco-Roman biographies, which themselves put a great deal of importance on the role of Eye -Witnesses. Perhaps the evidence of tradition has been ignored too readily in the past and a reassessment of the value of tradition is worth considering, especially in connection with gospel authorship. Nevertheless, if Richard Bauckham believes form critics led gospel scholarship down a rabbit hole, so, too, we must be careful with the extreme claims in recent years of some scholars who have become fixated on Greco-Roman historical compositional devices and applied these to the gospels. The new rabbit hole ?

[@therottingstench]

Bloody brilliant presentation!

[@josephbaugh8281]

Very interesting

[@soteriology1012]

I swear this is as interesting as watching the grass grow. No watching the grass grow is far more interesting.

[@Ebergerud]

Badly presented no doubt. A pity. Bauckham's ideas are very deep - he's one of the great figures in Biblical scholarship in this century.

[@Pseudo-Jonathan]

He’s old give him break. His book is much more forceful

[@therottingstench]

I beg to differ

[@jackhays1194]

Perhaps Joel osteen or Benny him would suit you better.