Adam

Any recommendations on ways to find information about theology and Bible and Church history? Google cannot see or even index information not accessible for free online, and I assume the same is true of Google Scholar (whose status Google in 2011 reduced). That means free access is available only at academic libraries. UCDavis is near me, but I could make better use of my time there if I already knew what I was looking for--so there's not even an index service available online that tells us which hidden books, articles, and reviews have the information we need? Are there some paid services that are worth the price, like High-Beam or the Academic Search of EPSCO? Do they even provide the indexing needed to find what I need once I pay?

I need to do this research because I want to establish more firmly whether scholars have come along who have agreed with me or refuted me about my theses in Gospel Eyewitnesses and related threads here in FRDB. Just that no one here on FRDB has responded to my challenge does not mean that nothing is out there.

This topic is rather general, but there may be resources focussing on this sub-forum, particularly regarding the Bible and research about it.

LegionOnomaMoi

You can always ask those with access to see if they will provide you with an article you find using JSTOR, EBSCO, Project Muse, etc. You don't need to pay to search these. As for the "eyewitness" issue, Bauckham's thesis isn't very widely held. Schröter's review in Journal for the Study of the New Testament covers many common criticisms.

aeebee50

I have used public libraries which have a lot of information.

Adam

Yes, I'll definitely read Schroter's crititue (and Craig Evan's there as well) and the long reply by Bauckham. Meanwhile, just googling "Schroter" along with "Bauckham" brought up the accessible (theFreeLibrary)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/How+ac.....-a0252739706
NOTE: Copying and pasting the link does work in spite of this notice about invalidity of URL.
"How accurate are eyewitnesses? Bauckham and the eyewitnesses in the light of psychological research" in Journal of Biblical Literature, 2010,
by Judith Renham. She takes issue not with the (my) concept of eyewitnesses in the gospels, but with Bauckham's concept that eyewitnesses are accurate. Other than the Johannine source Passion Narrative I don't make a case for any of my seven written eyewitness records being "accurate"--I even present the Johannine Discourses as (mostly) intentional misrepresentations.

Along the way I found free access to
Vol. 7, 1 (2009), in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus , unfortunately not to the desired Vol. 6. It does contain articles by James Crossley and James D. G. Dunn. Dunn seems to be making rather strange arguments for the accuracy of oral tradition, but my thesis is for written exemplars in back of the Synoptics. (Downloads in other issues of JSHJ are $35 each article or section, would run $175 ordinarily for just this one issue.)
Here's Redham's Note 7:
See the following articles in JSHJ 6 (2008): James D. G. Dunn, "Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tradition," 85-105; Samuel Byrskog, "The Eyewitnesses as Interpreters of the Past: Reflections on Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," 157-68; David R. Catchpole, "On Proving Too Much: Critical Hesitations about Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," 169-81; I. Howard Marshall, "A New Consensus on Oral Tradition? A Review of Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," 182-93; Stephen J. Patterson, "Can You Trust a Gospel? A Review of Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," 194-210; Theodore J. Weeden Sr, "Polemics as a Case for Dissent: A Response to Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," 211-24. See also the following articles in JSNT 31 (2008): Jens Schr6ter, "The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony? A Critical Examination of Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," 195-209; Craig A. Evans, "The Implications of Eyewitness Tradition" 211-19.

All JBL issues from 2009 seem available on The Free Library (with few ads).

LegionOnomaMoi

Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tradition

(unfortunately the free download of the files I upload involves a delay, but the full article should be accessible from the link above for free).


The Eyewitnesses as Interpreters of the Past: Reflections on Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

On Proving Too Much: Critical Hesitations about Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

Let me know if these work, and if so I can upload the rest.

Adam

Yes, the free links through 4shared all work, though with difficulty and the imperfection of some missing lines on most pages and on some pages two lines "print" illegibly on top of one another. Thank you ever so much!
James D. G. Dunn unsatisfactorily argues against written eyewitnesses and for the accuracy of Oral Tradition. Byrskog's obituary on Form Criticism (P. 159):
Very effective against Bauckham's optimism, but I never regarded Mark 7 or M passages in gMatthew as from an eyewitness. Catchpole ridicules the concept of the Beloved Disciple being the anonymous disciple with
Andrew in John 1--from elsewhere I know that Catchpole touts Nathaniel as that anonymous disciple. (And I say it's clear that person in John 1 is simply the clearly named "Philip". Nor do I think John the Elder (Bauckham's candidate) was there, nor John the Apostle. John the son of Zebedee only comes into prominence in John 13, he only edited the first twelve chapters.)

For Catchpole's critique of the Resurrection accounts, I recommend the 4th of my articles at Noesis:
Resurrection Sources

mountainman

Cannot speak for the US State Library system however the membership to any main state library here (its free) in Australian allows for remote access to JSTOR and other academic journals and databases. Browse your state library for its membership services,

Adam

UPDATE:
The downloads are perfect when I go to my computer HOME and click on Downloads and find the pdf.file name.

Adam

This is a test of how well I can download from JSHJ through FRDB as pdf. convert to Word.docx and then edit:
Bauckham could be interpreted here as begging off from detailed textual study, but maybe this should be understood as his use of common critical study today (as by James D. G. Dunn) that we must put aside the search for what actually happened or even what the original text said, but just seek to trace back the tradition as far as we can. In the Resurrection accounts, I would see this as seeking the perspective in the testimony of various eyewitnesses, which can conflict. This does not prove there were no eyewitnesses, just that they might nevertheless disagree about what actually happened in (1) what they witnessed and (2) any surmise about the underlying events.

Adam

I read the Jens Schroter review you specified, and did not find much that I would not myself say about Bauckham. That is, if we first get past the difference on what may be called an eyewitness. We both agree that the term should not be applied merely to people consulted or maybe even just believed by the writer (Luke, for example) to be the source of the story or saying he hears--drop the women as they (and anyone else who) did not write anything. My thesis is that certain eyewitnesses did write, and what they wrote is included in subsequent literary productions. Schroter would not call these eyewitnesses, not if the main author did not get his information directly from them. Or that's the way I interpret his review. Bauckham is at fault here as well for failing to work with sources the way I do. I've in the past accused him of pandering to conservative readers. Bauckham's procedure likewise gets him looking like he's defending inerrancy, and Schroter rightly works to separate what happened from what got into tradition and whether conflicting traditions are in the gospels. (I guess on this last point I'm thinking of Theodore Weeden, who has a more thoroughgoing hostile critique of Bauckham, apparently from an atheist perspective in contrast with Schroter's apparent ties to Catholicism.) Specifically Schroter concludes with three points: having an eyewitness does not equal historical accuracy, transformations occur during oral transmission, and some events are not subject to being eye-witnessed (thus there are conflicts between the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke).
I only recently warmed up to Bauckham's vague approach, and now that I know the specifics better I realize that I can't agree on the details. He has exposed all four gospels to renewed attacks based on implied (and refutable) inerrancy. That's no help to liberal Roman Catholic scholars, who need nuance. It's the underlying sources that are key. Focusing on written sources lets me have my seven gospel eyewitnesses. I admit Weeden causes a problem for me on the Resurrection, but that's because we have too many eyewitnesses.