Jesus' Historical Teaching = Data

https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Podcasts112/v4/16/b7/71/16b771d2-08b9-5f7b-02a6-7354e99367fb/mza_17610210419163367824.jpg/600x600bb.jpg

The Lydia McGrew Podcast

221 episodes

5 days ago

The goal: To take common sense about the Bible and make it rigorous. I'm an analytic philosopher, specializing in theory of knowledge. I've published widely in both classical and formal epistemology. On this channel I'm applying my work in the theory of knowledge to the books of the Bible, especially the Gospels, and to apologetics, the defense of Christianity. My aim is to bring a combination of scholarly rigor and common sense to these topics, providing the skeptic with well-considered reasons to accept Christianity and the believer with well-argued ways to defend it.

Education

RSS

All content for The Lydia McGrew Podcast is the property of The Lydia McGrew Podcast and is served directly from their servers with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.

Education

https://d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/production/podcast_uploaded_nologo/26501428/26501428-1654951983951-8d5d3b52a225e.jpg

Jesus' Historical Teaching = Data

The Lydia McGrew Podcast

29 minutes 19 seconds

1 year ago

Jesus' Historical Teaching = Data

Why should you think that it matters if Jesus didn't historically, recognizably say something recorded in the Gospels? What if that is just the author's extrapolation or application of Jesus' teaching put into his mouth, based on the author's belief that this is the "higher meaning" of what Jesus really taught, or that this is what Jesus would have said if asked? Even if you're not a Christian (yet), it's legitimate for you to wonder what you'd be buying into if you became a Christian. Would you have to adopt the position that apostolic teaching *put into the mouth of Jesus* is just as authoritative as what Jesus really historically taught? That is hardly obvious. The historical teaching of Jesus constitutes theological data in a special way. The Apostle Paul makes it clear in Galatians that he thinks apostles can err, and that Peter did err in not eating with Gentiles. He also says that "we" (presumably himself or other apostles) could in theory teach the Galatians something that contradicted the gospel they had taught before, and that the Galatians needed to be discerning. One way to check apostolic teaching is to see if it agrees with Jesus' historical teaching. There are sayings of Jesus reported in the story of the centurion's sermon that are quite relevant to the question of Jewish and Gentile Christians eating together. But what if he never said them? What if Matthew made them up? Before we accept uncritically the view that it doesn't matter if the evangelists put their words in Jesus' mouth, we should consider the ramifications if they did. Then, knowing that it does matter, we can examine the arguments that they did so. I find these arguments completely lacking in force. See The Mirror or the Mask and The Eye of the Beholder for more information. https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=mirror+or+the+mask&qid=1600272214&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Eye-Beholder-Gospel-Historical-Reportage/dp/1947929151/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2P5N15K1P8TIJ&dchild=1&keywords=the+eye+of+the+beholder+lydia+mcgrew&qid=1617757441&s=books&sprefix=the+eye+of+the+beholder%2Cstripbooks%2C185&sr=1-1