Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr
Have you read the utter nonsense that Bauckham references on page 200 of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses?
It can be found http://www.bsw.org/Biblica/Vol-79-19...icle-p525.html
‘If the figure is to be identified as Lazarus, one would have to accept that Lazarus in the Garden was actually dressed for conscious effect. Lazarus dressed in that manner could in context only advertise his remarkable personal history, which was causing such excitement in the city.’
‘It is his naked escape that has been held above to guarantee his historicity and his naked escape is the result of his spare garb.’
The article is sheer garbage ,of the sort that mainstream Biblical scholars would never criticise.
Even Richard Bauckham had the good sense not to quote too much of the work he was referencing. |
FWIW Bauckham makes reasonably clear the problematic elements of Haren's argument and (politely) indicates that he does not agree with the argument in this form. Bauckham had to note that Haren had previously suggested that the young man was Lazarus in order to avoid being accused of falsely claiming priority. |
He calls it an 'unnecessary speculation' that the young man was wearing the shroud of Lazarus , but never criticises 'It is his naked escape that has been held above to guarantee his historicity and his naked escape is the result of his spare garb'.
I imagine that Bauckham regards many of his ideas as 'necessary speculation.' :-)
Bauckham says the young man being Lazarus 'could fit very well indeed' with his arguments.
I wonder how the Christians could track down Simon of Cyrene , a passer-by at the crucifixion, yet the authorities could not track down Lazarus, a famous person that Christians preached about in their fabled 'oral tradition'
07-18-2010, 12:17 AM
