In Craig Blomberg’s essay in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? entitled “A Constructive Traditional Response to New Testament Criticism” he lists the main issues in New Testament studies which evangelicals are being encouraged to accept the consensus of critical scholarship.
He lists them as follows:
(1) the impossibility of harmonizing the Synoptic Gospels one with another
(2) the frequent ‘contradictions’ between John and the Synoptics, with the Fourth Gospel much less historically reliable;
(3) the less trustworthy nature of Acts compared with the letters of Paul;
(4) the unknown authorship of the four Gospels;
(5) the deutero-Pauline nature of 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles;
(6) the pseudonymity of James, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude and the unlikelihood that John who was the son of Zebedee wrote 1-3 John and Revelation;
(7) the composite nature of some of the epistles, particularly 2 Corinthians and Philippians;
(8) the lack of detailed theological unity among the various New Testament writers and books;
(9) the presence of myth and legend in accounts of supposedly supernatural events;
(10) the uses of the Old Testament by New Testament writers that fly in the face of sound hermeneutics; and
(11) the inadequate criteria employed in the canonization of the New Testament. Adoption of any or all of these or similar perspectives requires the evangelical to replace inerrancy with neoorthodoxy, Heilsgeschichte, biblical theology, narrative theology, canonical criticism, and/or the Bible as authoritative tradition.” (348)
Although the bulk of his essay is in response to Kenton Sparks’ treatment of Blomberg’s harmonization efforts, I was glad to see him briefly respond to a book authored by Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell of the Master’s Seminary called The Jesus Quest: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship. Blomberg says it is “one of the most imbalanced and inaccurate publications to appear from a mainstream evangelical publishing house in recent decades.” (349) Blomberg notes that “staunch inerrantist writers such as Carson, Moo, Darrell Bock, Grant Osborne” and he “are maligned at least as much as Rudolph Bultmann and Martin Dibelius.” (350) I completely agree with his assessment.