"Scholars have long debated whether the Gospel stories preserve ancient memories or are just Greek literature in disguise. “A scholarly paradigm that has shone in recent years shifts the focus: the Gospels are now seen as literary constructions from the start,” Adam Gopnik writes. In her culminating work, “Miracles and Wonder,” the Princeton professor emeritus Elaine Pagels concludes that the most improbable Gospel stories enlist tropes and myths to smooth over inconsistencies..."
Irony, that the article presumes to be "news" while the new discoveries that affirm the historical Gospels and repudiate the "Fan Fiction" narrative are the real news of our day.
Didn't see this New Yorker article, but have seen many pieces like it. What's curious is that, as you point out, the author calls this "a scholarly paradigm that has shown in recent years..." But he also admits that Pagels is "working within a tradition of historical-Jesus studies that took shape in earnest more than two centuries ago." In other words, it doesn't sound all that new. In fact, Richard Bauckham argues in his final chapter of Jesus & The Eyewitnesses (2nd Edition) that this entire project is officially dead. It's dogma that refuses to look at evidence (i.e. blind faith).
Yeah, there's nothing new about it. This "scholarly paradigm" is the only thing the liberal churches and their seminaries have been teaching for my entire lifetime -- and at least 50 years before that.
There has, all along, been a curious disconnect, though. I still think that the man-in-the pew in most mainstream denominations would be surprised to know how different their leadership beleves from what they believe. Though that same man-in-the-pew would most likely fail at any catechism test on doctrine, he does still believe more profoundly in realities like the resurrection than does his pastor or the seminary professors that taught his pastor.
I'm guessing you've already seen this?
"Scholars have long debated whether the Gospel stories preserve ancient memories or are just Greek literature in disguise. “A scholarly paradigm that has shone in recent years shifts the focus: the Gospels are now seen as literary constructions from the start,” Adam Gopnik writes. In her culminating work, “Miracles and Wonder,” the Princeton professor emeritus Elaine Pagels concludes that the most improbable Gospel stories enlist tropes and myths to smooth over inconsistencies..."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/03/31/miracles-and-wonder-elaine-pagels-book-review-heretic-catherine-nixey
Irony, that the article presumes to be "news" while the new discoveries that affirm the historical Gospels and repudiate the "Fan Fiction" narrative are the real news of our day.
Didn't see this New Yorker article, but have seen many pieces like it. What's curious is that, as you point out, the author calls this "a scholarly paradigm that has shown in recent years..." But he also admits that Pagels is "working within a tradition of historical-Jesus studies that took shape in earnest more than two centuries ago." In other words, it doesn't sound all that new. In fact, Richard Bauckham argues in his final chapter of Jesus & The Eyewitnesses (2nd Edition) that this entire project is officially dead. It's dogma that refuses to look at evidence (i.e. blind faith).
Yeah, there's nothing new about it. This "scholarly paradigm" is the only thing the liberal churches and their seminaries have been teaching for my entire lifetime -- and at least 50 years before that.
There has, all along, been a curious disconnect, though. I still think that the man-in-the pew in most mainstream denominations would be surprised to know how different their leadership beleves from what they believe. Though that same man-in-the-pew would most likely fail at any catechism test on doctrine, he does still believe more profoundly in realities like the resurrection than does his pastor or the seminary professors that taught his pastor.