Morning Prof,
Many thanks for finding the link. Much appreciated.
I gather from your post that while you skimmed through most of the book to get a feel for its approach, Chapter 5 on the subject of the gospel miracles was the focus of your initial look. Quite understandable considering your standpoint on matters of faith. But you might find Chapters 2 on the Date and Attestation of the Documents and Chapter 7 dealing specifically with the writings of Luke of interest.
I have delved into it a little more - but still not finding anything groundbreaking although some of the details are interesting.
On chapter 2 he takes as his starting point the consensus position: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100 - he then tries to argue for earlier dates as others (all of whom are christian apologists) have done. The reason why christians would want to date the gospels earlier is obvious but Bruce provides no compelling evidence and nor have others I've read.
The chapter on Luke is interesting, but doesn't really add anything to what I know - sure there are many references to historical figures who we know from corroboratory evidence existed. Some historical details are wrong. But none of this takes us any further into the historical accuracy of the main claims of christianity - namely the resurrection, miracles, virgin birth, son of god. No amount of correct, but uncontentious, historical evidence elsewhere adds one iota of evidence for the implausible claims. It is a bit like claiming that Harry Potter must be true because Kings Cross station actually exists.
And so onto the key issue - does Bruce actually claim evidence for the miracles as historical fact - he does not - he is clear that they are a matter of faith, not of historical veracity. To quote again:
'The question whether the miracle-stories are true must ultimately be answered by a personal response of faith-not merely faith in the events as historical but faith in the Christ who performed them, faith which appropriates the power by which these mighty works were done.'
I was more interested in chapters 8-10 in which he looks at independent evidence - both archeological and written from Jewish and Roman sources. And he admits on both counts there is precious little. He also makes some bizarre claims to try to bolster his position. Perhaps the most notable being a possible reference to Jesus as Ben-Pantera ('Son of Pantera') which is usually suggested to be a reference to a Roman soldier named Pantheras. Bruce tries to claim that Pantera actually is parthenos, meaning virgin - there is no evidence for this whatsoever, beyond a desire on the part of a christian for it to be true.
