jyoshu

I would say if either Bauckham or Drosnin's ideas stand up to scrutiny over time, then they'll have something. (and I don't think they will.) In terms of process of acceptance, Biblical scholarship is a bit like scientific theory among scientists--it tends to need to stand up to scrutiny and consensus in the Christian world over time.

I'm not saying either are right. I'm just questioning your assertion that the idea had to exist in the 1st 3 centuries to be taken seriously, or that it can't be unprecedented. At least that's the impression I got. For instance, higher Biblical criticism would never have come into place if Biblical scholars held to some litmus test that the method had to have existed in the 1st 3 centuries.

Steven Carr

You mean if the Gospel of Mark uses literary techniques unknown to ancient authors, then it is wrong to ask for evidence of this?

JoeWallack

JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1:17

And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. (ASV)

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_10

"Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.

Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the gospel`s sake,

but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last first."

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_16:7

"But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. (ASV)"

JW:
And so Peter is the First to be called and the Last to be called. Just as "Mark's" Jesus predicted.

Now what is that description for a Christian who in his zeal for Jesus gives an explanation which is not found in the Text and Ignores an explanation which is found in the Text? Toto?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Toto

Biblical scholarship may aspire to the standards of scientific theory, but scientific theory requires an open mind and a willingness to challenge accepted ideas.

Chris Weimer

Toto

Back at you, Chris. Do you think that there is any evidence that would convince Bauckham or his fellow evangelicals of the non-historicity of the gospels? Can you imagine any other branch of inquiry where anyone would try to extract evidence of eyewitness testimony from a literary creation?

Chris Weimer

1. Who cares?

2. What is Caesar's Two Books on War, Alex?

Steven Carr

How?

By noticing that every 14th letter spells out ‘Simon Peter was an eyewitness’? Or that the first named person in a work (or even the second named person…) was the same person mentioned last in a work?

Or by using other literary techniques never mentioned by ancient authors?

Ben C Smith

Let me go on record here as affirming that Bauckham is a first-rate scholar. Did you read the chapters on Polycrates and Irenaeus? The chapters on Papias? Have you read his commentary on Jude and 2 Peter? His work on the Apocalypse of Peter or on the Testament of Moses? His range is excellent, his ideas innovative and provocative.

Last time you accused Bauckham, on this board, of spinning theories without evidence all one had to do was actually read Bauckham to discover that he explicitly, and repeatedly, called that aspect of his hypothesis a suggestion. It is not his fault that you cannot read. Nor is it his fault that you insist on trolling blogs that mention his name.

I do not have the book in front of me. Maybe somewhere in that chapter he wrote something that, unlike last time, insists the inclusio hypothesis is far more than a suggestion. I do not recall offhand. But what I do know is that, if he did, we would not hear about it from you.

You asked about his evidence. He gave Porphyry as evidence, attempting to uncover a broader pattern. I happen not to agree with his conclusions based on that very evidence. Apparently you do not agree either. That does not in any way mean that Bauckham is not a good scholar.

Ben.

Spanky

I'm confused:huh:

Is it this?
or this?