Richard Bauckham recently appeared on two editions of the Unbelievable? radio program. The topic was Bauckham's book, Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006). James Crossley, an agnostic New Testament scholar, was on with him. The program is worth listening to not only for Bauckham's comments, but also for Crossley's responses. He said that he agrees with most of Bauckham's book, and the few objections he raised aren't of much significance. He largely repeated the arguments he used when he was on the same program with Michael Bird earlier this year.
Concerning one of the issues that came up, the differences between John's gospel and the Synoptics, I would add to what Bauckham said by noting that Papias has most likely recorded for us what John thought of the gospel of Mark. Other evidence, some of which I outline in the article just linked, suggests the same conclusion as is suggested by Papias. John was attempting to supplement the Synoptic view of Jesus. The traditional practice of harmonizing the gospels has merit, then, even apart from a belief in Biblical inspiration and inerrancy.
I have a problem with thinking that John was somehow supplementing the synoptics. The reason is that (at least to me) takes God out of the equation and centers the focus on an individuals understanding and interpretation of events etc and I can't see that being "inspired" in the biblical sense.
ReplyDeleteNow my view of inspiration may be too high, but I do believe in the conduit of human agency but an approach as if there was a conscious effort to "fill in what was missing" indicates that God was somehow inadequate in his ability to "inspire" the message.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett wrote:
ReplyDelete"Now my view of inspiration may be too high, but I do believe in the conduit of human agency but an approach as if there was a conscious effort to 'fill in what was missing' indicates that God was somehow inadequate in his ability to 'inspire' the message."
The supplement is coming from another apostolic source. Where did any gospel writer suggest that nobody should be able to supplement his material? If a work isn't intended to address everything that could be addressed, then why would we find fault with it, in a relevant way, if somebody else is able to supplement it? All of the gospels contain material not found in the others.