Solitary Man

Bauckham has written many distuinguished papers and books in the past. That doesn't mean that his latest book on eyewitnesses isn't junk.

Ted Hoffman

The title isn't promising since we know there are no eyewitnesses to Jesus' life in the documentary record.
Wait, perhaps he includes people like Pontius Pilate? After all, Pilate personally eyeballed Jesus and asked him a few tough questions before throwing his hands up. It says so right there in the Holy Bible <holds chin up and puts on a stubbon look>.

youngalexander

Oh, ye of limited vision. Learn to see beyond imagination!

Toto

Matthew 19
...

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,

dog-on

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

ktsai

I just came across this a few day ago in my readings.

2 Peter 3:4
and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."

Solitary Man

Wow. You really haven't looked at it at all, have you? Bauckham set out to establish that the gospels, based on form criticism and literary clues, were written by/based on eyewitness testimony.

As Peter Kirby and others noted, your criticism against Sanders was directed at his popular book, not his scholarly book. It's like critiquing evolution through the God Delusion and not scientific articles. Catch up if you want to play.

Zeichman

Re-read my original post. The argument is more or less that IF scholars are full of crap (and I would strongly question the ability of almost anyone here to assess their claims on such a level), then the field must be abandoned. E.g., if there is an ID advocate in the field of biology, the entire field must be abandoned.

Did you actually READ Peter's post? Sanders' credentials were never in question. Solitary is dead on with the Dawkins analogy.

It's a far more serious book, but no one would (or should) claim that Sanders is infallible. Beware the excluded middle between Sanders' conservative view and mythicism.

Sven

That's not what he said. He said that he's not seen anything from anyone in the field which was worth anything. Not that he read something which was not 100% perfect from one or two lone people. Your analogy is something entirely different. Sometimes I really don't understand why I - not a native speaker - have to explain plain English words to English speaking people.

You are the one who reads different things than people write.

The rest what you quoted was not written by me, but by Ted Hoffmann (post #100). Would you please take care with your quotes? Thanks.

Zeichman

I see the abandonment of the field implied in statements such as this: "I've not seen anything from people with such degree to make me think they are worth the paper they are written on anyway."

It's too bad he doesn't back it up; Creationists say stuff like that about biology professors all the time.