Saturday, September 23, 2006

Christianity's Eyewitnesses

Earlier this week, Chris Price linked to an article by the New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham. The article is about early Christian reliance on eyewitness testimony, a theme I've been mentioning a lot in recent posts in response to Matthew Green, Jon Curry, etc. I don't agree with every detail of Bauckham's article (it addresses many subjects in some form), but I do agree with the general thrust of it. The early Christians were highly concerned with eyewitness testimony. Many eyewitnesses would have been alive and would have been consulted when the gospels and other early Christian documents were being composed. Bauckham's book on this subject is due out later this year. The article Chris Price links to is from 2003.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

6 comments:

  1. GeneMBridges9/23/2006 3:31 PM

    It's worth noting that Bauckham's theological allegiance are more in synch with Moltmann than Westminster Calvinism or generic evangelicals, so this is no appeal to only those with whom we agree.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9/23/2006 3:56 PM

    genembridges: "so this is no appeal to only those with whom we agree"

    That's odd. In his little blog entry, Jason makes his agreement explicit:

    "I do agree with the general thrust of it."

    Wonders never cease in Christian apologetics.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous9/24/2006 5:48 PM

    I recommend Bauckham's book THE GOSPEL FOR ALL CHRISTIANS.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Evan May9/24/2006 6:19 PM

    Ted,

    Context tells us that Jason was referring to the article at hand, and not Bauckham's "theological allegiance." Indeed, he prefaced this statement by saying that he didn't "agree with every detail of Bauckham's article."

    Now, that's odd. In your little comment entry, you ignore both of these facts.

    Wonders never cease in apostate babbling.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous9/25/2006 12:31 PM

    evanmay: "In your little comment entry, you ignore both of these facts."

    So, is Jason agreeing, or disagreeing? I simply pointed out that he made his agreement with the position in question explicit. How am I ignoring facts by pointing one out?

    Amazing!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steven Carr11/21/2006 2:26 AM

    Bauckham says in an interview 'It also highlights the apostle Matthew by adding the description ‘taxcollector’ to his name in the list and by transferring to Matthew the story of the call of a taxcollector that Mark tells of Levi.'

    'Transferring' a story from one person to a different person?

    The Gospellers felt quite free to change who the story was about and pretend it happened to somebody else instead.

    How does that tie up with the 'scrupulous care' with which people preserved names?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)