So the truth is out. Professor Francis Moloney and Jeffrey Archer tell us how the gospels were written.
Note: No eyewitnesses! No oral traditions! No historiography!
Just a skilled scribe and a theologian working together. The purpose of the latter is clear: theology, theology and theology. To replace the faulty theology of the previous gospels with the “correct” theology of a new gospel. And to dress it up like a bio or history to make it persuasive. It has to be persuasive.
And I think that the evidence of the gospels really does point to Moloney and Archer revealing more than they intend. Well not that Archer would care, but the leading Judas scholar Moloney might not have intended to be so well used by the Devil. . . .
Here’s the extract from the transcript of the interview:
Stephen Crittenden: At one level, this is a very interesting literary exercise I suppose about the gospel as a literary form. And how and why various gospels were generated in the past. It seems to me that there’s something going on here about the way one evangelist will write a different account of the same situation that maybe shifts the emphasis slightly or blackens someone’s reputation or restores someone’s reputation. Mark is very critical of Peter; Matthew was clearly writing to restore Peter’s reputation. Thomas comes in in one of the gospels for some heavy flak
Frank Moloney: ..John, yes..
Stephen Crittenden: ..as a bit of an idiot. Is that in fact what you’re up to at an intellectual level, sort of showing us how the process of rearranging existing fragments occurs in the writing of new gospels each time?
Frank Moloney: Stephen, this is exactly what I’m trying to do and what Jeffrey in the end was very happy to collaborate with, and I’m delighted to hear you say this. What I’m trying to do and what Jeffrey has collaborated so well in doing here, is the expression I use is to try to show to a wider audience how a gospel works.
Yep, one can see the authors of Matthew and Luke and John doing to Mark and each other just what Moloney is doing to them. Theological dialogue in action and demonstrated. To postulate hypothetical eyewitnesses does sound a bit silly now, doesn’t it? Bauckham take note!
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!