Here at Blogging Theology we like to keep abreast of the best current biblical scholarship created by top scholars in the field. This post is about one such work by Rev Professor John Drane. He is a theologian who is probably best known for his two best-selling books on the Bible, Introducing the Old Testament and Introducing the New Testament (both published by Lion Hudson in the UK and Fortress Press in the US, and translated into more than sixty languages worldwide). He studied in the University of Aberdeen where he was a student of I. Howard Marshall, and he holds a PhD from the University of Manchester, where his mentor was F. F. Bruce. In other words his evangelical credentials are impeccable.
In his popular work Introducing the New Testament, Drane explains what kind of literature the four canonical gospels are. With disarming honesty he writes:
The early Christian communities clearly had no problem in accepting that within the gospel traditions there would be a subtle combination of factual and fictional elements.
To put this in plain English, Drane is saying that the early Christians were cool in accepting made up stories about Jesus and some of them ended up in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the New Testament. Drane continues:
While all four gospels combine literal reporting with creative storytelling, the fourth gospel [the Gospel of John] appears to have a greater preponderance of the latter.
To put this in plain English, Drane is saying that John’s Gospel has much more fiction in it than Matthew, Mark and Luke. This is a shocking admission. It was a major factor in my departure from Christianity. Here are the two quotes in context. It’s worth reading. Beneath these photos is a quote from the Qur’an which explains its vital role in sorting out this colossal mess.
The Qur’an says speaking of the Qur’an and the books of the Christians and Jews:
And unto thee [O Prophet] have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein. Judge, then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee.
Surah 5:48. Translation by Muhammad Asad.
Categories: Bible, Blogging Theology, Gospels, Jesus, New Testament scholarship, Recommended reading, Scholars
Ouch! So even conservative scholars don’t agree with propagandists like Kennywise.
you paid 45 squid for this book?
LOL nope. I saw it in Foyles bookshop in Charing Cross Road and took the pics on my iphone.
since he says, “fictional elements”, and “creative storytelling”, then John Drane drifted further away from the more conservative views of I. Howard Marshall and F. F. Bruce.
But still, they held onto the believe in an inspired, authoritative and historically reliable Bible.
F. F. Bruce, “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?”
He defends them.
So John Drane appears to have drifted away from his mentors.
Maybe he’s just more honest than other “conservative” scholars. It is obvious the NT contains fictional elements. You’d have to be an idiot like Kennywise to not see this. Oh hi, Kennywise! I didn’t see you there. 😉
Any holy book from antiquity including the Quran contains fiction by today’s standards, Welcome to 2020.
You’re getting a little ahead of yourself doorknob. It’s still 2019. 😁
“Fiction by today’s standards”? Well, that’s brilliant. What does that even mean?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is Agnostic trying to act smart but failing miserably. 😂
Brother Mohammad Halaby, I think you can add this to the “self-defeating” arguments thread.
That is also a “creative” translation of Surah 5:48 of Muhammad Assad.
Sahih International is more accurate:
And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion [ literally: “guardian”] over it.
It does not say “whatever there still remains of earlier revelations”
“confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein.” is, what you guys would say, ” a lying translation.”