I'm struck in a quick survey of that lecture by the emphasis upon the clarity of Jesus' teaching. Even though Licona rather glaringly does not rely (as far as I could see as I moved through the video) on "I and the father are one" or "Before Abraham was, I am" and the Jews attempting to stone Jesus (wonder if he got asked about why he didn't include those in the Q & A!), he still emphasizes repeatedly how clear it would have been to a Jewish audience what Jesus was saying from what he *does* include (which involves a John 5 quotation and the "Son of Man" sayings). Yet the argument he gave *against* the actual historicity of the "I am" statements in John (an argument he later said was just why "scholars" think this, while he remains agnostic) was *quite explicit* that Jesus taught only more cryptically, by parables, etc., and that he *would not* have been really clear in public that he was God. This is another case where one cannot have it both ways. One cannot get up before an audience and enthusiastically tell them how *clear* Jesus was to the Jews that he was claiming to be God and also endorse an argument that he *would not have taught clearly that he was God*. In fact, if Licona is really convinced of what he is saying in this lecture, he should say openly that that argument is *wrong*, not keep on repeating it and giving the strong impression that, even if not fully convinced by it, he thinks it is quite reasonable and has a lot to be said for it. If the whole point of the "Son of Man" claims is that they are *clear* teachings that Jesus is God, then why would Jesus *not* have made the other statements in John, such as "I and the father are one" and "Before Abraham was, I am"?
I also note that he is emphatic about John's independence from the synoptics, yet the theory he is now...what shall we say?...promoting-to-the-point-of-putting-up-a-lot-of-arguments-for-it-though-he-says-he's-agnostic-about-its-conclusion is that John is redacting the synoptics when he writes the "I am" statements in John. Why then so enthusiastically proclaim that the statements in John 5 about God's committing all power to Jesus' hands are *independent* of the synoptics?
I really fear that Licona has way too many balls in the air going here at one time, to put it mildly. He can't keep them all going at once.
I suppose he's trying to keep open various possibilities so as to commend the gospel to as many people & groups as possible (e.g. scholars, atheists, Muslims, historians), and as an intellectually viable/defensible option.
Well, what's really interesting in that lecture is that he's in a sense at his best there. He's speaking to an obviously conservative audience, assuming that the gospels were written by their traditionally attributed authors, and so forth. And he's really excited, genuinely so, about what he has to say. But the problem is that he's constantly trying to limit himself to what's sufficiently acknowledged by *other* scholars he respects, and then get excited about *that*. For example, notice how he seems to acknowledge Matthean authorship and even that Matthew might have been an eye witness of various scenes, but then when it comes to his digression on what Q is, he's laying out the whole 2-source synoptic theory, and he completely skips over any idea that Matthew might have independently witnessed the scenes that aren't restricted to the inner circle. That is, he explains that scholars think that if something is in both Mark and Matthew, then Matthew got it from Mark. Wait a minute! He just explained Matthew's use of Mark by a) the high prestige of Peter and b) Peter's having been present at some scenes (like the Transfiguration) where Matthew wasn't present. That's well and good, but now why are we suddenly saying that if something is in Mark and Matthew, Matthew *got it* from Mark? Why are we adopting a rigid version of 2-source that eliminates the consideration of Matthew's independent access to events? (This bias is very evident in the book as well.)
Similarly, he seems to be avoiding using the statements in John that "scholars" he respects have questioned, but he thinks he's allowed to use, and even emphasize the independence of, John 5:27. But the arguments he is now taking so seriously are too general in application to still "leave" him with John 5:27! If he's so confident of the authenticity of John 5:27, presumably on independent grounds, why isn't that a reason to reject the arguments he is now so poised about?
It seems that he never moves in the direction of being confident and therefore saying, "Okay, so my friends so-and-so and so-and-so are seriously *wrong* about x, because I have *strong reason* to believe that John [or some other author] is reliable on x, and their arguments would force me to throw that out. So I can tell that they are wrong and say that with confidence." Every movement is rather towards affirming less and less, doing his arguments with fewer and fewer verses, and being agnostic about more and more texts. If he's agnostic about John 8:58, there is nothing in the arguments in question that would not cast similar doubt upon John 5:27.
He needs to take the likable enthusiasm and apparent confidence that he displays in that lecture and turn it around into a positive force that allows him to stand against theories that chip away more and more of our available evidence.
But the problem is that he's constantly trying to limit himself to what's sufficiently acknowledged by *other* scholars he respects, and then get excited about *that*.
It seems to me that most of your objections can be resolved if we keep in mind that he's coaching Christian believers into trying to build bridges using the less disputed results of conventional scholarship to win non-Christian converts (or at least show how Christian beliefs have historical support). He's using a method similar to the minimal facts approach. Using stronger (less controversial) facts which need less subsidiary arguments to support. That's why he can acknowledge that conservative Christians believe Matthew has independent eyewitness information, yet doesn't appeal to it to build his case (since it would be difficult and require involved argumentation to support that assumption).
...but now why are we suddenly saying that if something is in Mark and Matthew, Matthew *got it* from Mark?
Saying that Matthew "got" something from Mark (or Q) isn't necessarily a denial of Matthew's status as an eyewitness. It's only to say that Matthew used Mark as a source, like a wire frame upon which he added clay to mould his sculpture. He even suggests the possibility that Q is based on eyewitness testimony of some disciples during Christ's earthly ministry. Which makes sense since Q is purportedly a collection of Dominical saying (not doings) with little to no passion & resurrection material. Personally, I have no problem with Q, but I'm not convinced of its reality as a source. The "reconstruction" of Q might merely be an artifact (or shadow) that emerges out of Luke's redaction of Mark and Matthew.
...but he thinks he's allowed to use, and even emphasize the independence of, John 5:27.
That's probably because there are similar statements in the Synoptics which have Jesus referring to Himself as the "Son of Man" having the role of final Judge (e.g. the "Johannine Thunderbolt" in Matt. 11:27//Luke 10:22//Q 10:22 cf. Matt. 19:28; 28:18; Luke 22:28-30 etc.). So, it's a multiply attested early independent Jesus tradition. Also, even for liberal scholars, genuine historical nuggets in John (or Thomas et al.) doesn't depend on its general reliability or historicity.
He needs to take the likable enthusiasm and apparent confidence that he displays in that lecture and turn it around into a positive force that allows him to stand against theories that chip away more and more of our available evidence.
I agree that Christian scholars should strive for that. Though, maybe Dr. Licona might not think that's possible (or at least necessary) given all that he has learned, given his apologetical goals, and given what he perceives is his God given role in the advancement of the Kingdom.
"Saying that Matthew "got" something from Mark (or Q) isn't necessarily a denial of Matthew's status as an eyewitness. It's only to say that Matthew used Mark as a source, like a wire frame upon which he added clay to mould his sculpture. He even suggests the possibility that Q is based on eyewitness testimony of some disciples during Christ's earthly ministry."
In his book there are places where taking seriously the idea that Matthew was an eyewitness source would resolve things without requiring him to appeal to his elaborate "literary devices," but he doesn't do it. So when we resolutely decide to treat something as if it *isn't* the case in our arguments, just "for the sake of the argument," that has argumentative consequences down the line.
"That's probably because there are similar statements in the Synoptics"
By the same token, if "Son of Man" is as clear as he makes it out to be in the video, then there is no reason to resist "I and the Father are one"!! The argument he's promoted twice now against the latter relies heavily on the premise that Jesus wouldn't have been so clear! Moreover, he is quite explicit in treating John as *independent* of the synoptics in this lecture for purposes of using John 5:27. One couldn't do that given the other argument that he is now indicating such a poised mental state towards--laying it out two different times, even adding to it, but saying he's agnostic about its conclusion. For on *that* argument, there would be absolutely no reason to treat John so confidently as independent of the synoptics on this point. Indeed, John 5:27 could *more readily* be treated as a redaction/elaboration upon/semi-fictional expansion upon the "Son of Man" statements in the synoptics than "Before Abraham was, I am," since the wording is more similar! Instead, he quite confidently treats the attestation to Jesus' teachings in John 5 as *independent* of the synoptics and assumes he's allowed to rely on it.
He seems to have difficulty realizing when his extreme diffidence to other scholars means that he's got incompatible lines of argument rattling around.
AP, you mention both the minimal facts argument and apologetic role and strategy.
The problem is that Licona goes beyond that to *internalize* the extreme deference to "the consensus of experts" represented by the minimal facts approach. And this indeed was always a danger of the approach. Licona doesn't consider himself allowed to *believe* things that he doesn't think he has enough license for from the guild of NT scholars, or at least the ones he feels a lot of respect for. He doesn't consider himself allowed to examine the arguments *underlying* the refusal to grant some premise and decide that the arguments are poor. Unfortunately this has a tendency to take over more and more territory, as I just pointed out concerning the generalized arguments against the historicity of Jesus' teachings in John and the way that those arguments, having the structure that they do, have implications against *both* the I am statements *and* John 5:27.
You can't be diffident like that forever merely on strategic grounds.
Here I would make a partial contrast (though I think even he needs to stand up more to the guild) with Gary Habermas. Habermas *invented* the minimal facts approach, yet Habermas will say outright that "accepted by a majority of scholars" is the least important criterion. He will also, when need requires it in arguing with, say, Dale Allison, appeal to parts of the resurrection accounts that *aren't* admitted by a "large majority of scholars." That is to say, he does not as Licona does hold himself bound by some kind of bizarre notion of scholarly integrity never to think for himself and never to *believe* or rely on even in his *own arguments* anything that isn't "allowed" by enough other scholars or the "right" other scholars. Licona engages in that kind of belief restraint to a fault. Literally, to a fault. And it is therefore not *just* a strategy or a matter of "role." *Especially* not now, when he is lecturing *other* people that they, too, should be much less confident about the "I am" statements or the historical nature of John if they don't have the "right" credentials that he has arbitrarily declared to be necessary to having an opinion. That's really baaaaaad. If he thinks *that* is part of his role in the kingdom, then it's a part of his "role" that he should definitely get rid of.
I should have made clear that when I wrote, "It seems to me that most of your objections can be resolved if...", I was referring to your above objections to the video I just linked to. Not to all your criticisms of Licona in your recent blogs (which I'd already bookmarked a day ago because I wanted to read them in order).
So when we resolutely decide to treat something as if it *isn't* the case in our arguments, just "for the sake of the argument," that has argumentative consequences down the line.
Agreed. However, sometimes purposefully handicapping yourself in that way (at least temporarily) can show your opponents that you can beat them (e.g. skeptics) using their own (often arbitrary or wrong) criteria/standards/methods/presuppositions. Though, I think one should eventually argue for those more conservative positions which are disputed in the "guild" (e.g. Matthew was an eyewitness etc.) using those previously established facts as a common ground bridge.
The argument he's promoted twice now against the latter relies heavily on the premise that Jesus wouldn't have been so clear!
If that's what he states in his book, then I'd point to and use #10 in Robert Bowman's recent article (which I linked to below). Number 10 states, "The divine claims of the “I am” sayings in both John and the Synoptics are implicit and in some instances ambiguous." The "I am" statements in John [and other sayings like "I and the Father are one"] are less explicit and more IMplicit regarding Christ's deity than we usually give them credit. Conversely, the reverse is true regarding the "I am" statements in the Synoptics. They are more EXplicit then we usually give them credit. By interpreting them in this way, they all become more similar than dissimilar. Closer in level and degree. And so all of them become more likely historical and slide that much closer to ipsissima verba and away from ipsissima vox. Though I think both verba and vox have some truth to them. John's record of the "I am" statements which lack predicates seem more explicit (often) because John goes out of his way to record the Jews' negative reaction. They knew that Jesus' statements could technically be interpreted in innocent ways that don't amount to blasphemy (i.e. claim to deity), though they rightly interpreted Him as cryptically implying it. That's why in the heat of the moment they would often seek to stone Him, but then as hours or days pass by they're often frustrated that they can't gather testimonial evidence to really pin Him on any explicit claim to deity (I like Waterland's interpretation of John 10:30-39 which I quoted in blue HERE). Unlike the Synoptics, John doesn't leave us in doubt as to how to interpret Christ's "I am" statements, even though Christ's exact words and wording [spoken in Aramaic and translated into Greek sometimes roughly, sometimes precisely] aren't (technically) explicit claims to deity. It's the context in which John places them and the people's reaction that make them seem more explicit than they actually are.
Moreover, he is quite explicit in treating John as *independent* of the synoptics in this lecture for purposes of using John 5:27.
If that's the case, then I'm not recalling it as well as you are.
Licona doesn't consider himself allowed to *believe* things that he doesn't think he has enough license for from the guild of NT scholars...
In many of his videos he points out that he's psychologically wired to doubt and second guess things. Apparently it comes out [manifests] in and affects his apologetical style. I think he might need a good dose of Reformed Epistemology on the topics of belief in God being properly basic and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. He seems too fearful that his desire for Christianity being true might overly bias him to favorably interpret the evidence on the side of Christianity.
Unfortunately this has a tendency to take over more and more territory,...
Agreed.
You can't be diffident like that forever merely on strategic grounds.
Licona has said no one can be completely objective on this topic, but we should try our best to be so. I agree, nevertheless I think he believes humans can be much more objective then we in fact can be. Or even may be, as Steve points out in one of his blogs. I'd add that as a Van Tillian presuppositionalist I think we're either regenerated and so biased for, or unregenerated and so biased against Christianity.
Licona engages in that kind of belief restraint to a fault.
He says that's how he's wired, and I believe him. He's been open about the different times he's had serious doubts about the truth of Christianity. I think he hinges too much warrant and justification for believing in Christianity on the shifting sands of the historical evidence (which rises and falls from generation to generation), and not enough on the insights of Reformed Epistemology (some of which his friend W.L. Craig has popularized and likely discussed with him about during his times of doubt). His 1. approach to doing history and 2. his approach to his personal faith will naturally tend to affect each other almost like in a feedback loop. That's true with all of us. However, if he doesn't more strongly maintain the distinction/difference, he and the other people who are being influenced by his apologetical method may constantly find their faith to be disconcertingly unstable. That kind of persistent and nagging doubt can psychologically wear a person down to a point that he may just give up on the faith. Because 1. it's too heavy a burden; and 2. because the most epistemically modest thing to do and hold (so it would wrongly seem to him/her) is to not be a Christian because there's apparently not enough historical evidence for it to be persuasive or compelling to all. As if that's an evidential requirement that God ought to have provided and failed to deliver (pace Pascal, whom I agree with cf. HERE).
" If that's what he states in his book, then I'd point to and use #10 in Robert Bowman's recent article (which I linked to below)."
No, he doesn't discuss the "I am" statements in the book at all. I mean in his initial argument public on Facebook defending Evans and in his expansion upon it in his most recent response to me. https://www.risenjesus.com/reading-adapted-form-jesus-teachings-johns-gospel
On the whole "ipsissima vox" thing, I would advise that we simply abandon the phrase altogether. Rob makes a laudable attempt to reclaim a moderate meaning for it, but my strong impression is that right now it is being used far, far too often in the sense that Rob calls "too loose." And if (as I've heard) Craig Evans coined it, then the very person who coined it is throwing it around in the "too loose" sense and creating confusion. We don't need it. We should use "paraphrase" or "translation from another language" or things like that, instead of using what sounds like a technical term, when that technical term is seriously corrupted in its current usage. Just my advice on the usage issue.
"If that's the case, then I'm not recalling it as well as you are."
Minute 44 and following, emphasizing that "it's in John" is an "independent source." He makes a similar comment back a little earlier when he introduces the verses in John 5. Minute 40.
But if "most scholars admit that John is an independent source," he should be able to *refute* the argument he keeps giving that perhaps the "I am" statements are just redactive elaborations on the synoptics. The "I am" statements and "I and the Father are one" would be perfect places to apply that supposed principle that John can be treated as an independent source! Indeed, all the more so where John appears to be talking about completely different incidents and using independent language. The incredibly weak argument for throwing out the "I am" statements as historical, independent incidents really is an illustration of "any stick with which to beat John." Normally, the differences between the accounts would indicate independence! But in that argument, the differences are used to argue that John is making Jesus be too clear compared to the synoptics and that therefore this probably didn't happen!
". I think he hinges too much warrant and justification for believing in Christianity on the shifting sands of the historical evidence (which rises and falls from generation to generation)"
As an evidentialist, I can be relied upon to disagree with that. :-)
The historical evidence doesn't change from generation to generation. What changes is fashion in the academic world. I strongly advise that all of us, and Dr. Licona in particular, distinguish those (the evidence God has given us and scholarly fads in evaluating that evidence) so sharply as even to put them at odds with one another.
I can't resist pointing out that this ability to keep the threads of arguments all held in one's hand, in an interlocking argument, and to see clearly how the premises of one argument are in serious tension with the premises of another argument, is something an analytic philosopher might be expected to be especially qualified to do. A New Testament scholar, maybe not so much. Of course every individual is different, and one could have a very analytically sharp NT scholar. But that isn't a particular strength of the discipline.
You're a real apologist, I'm just a wannabe. So, take my comments with a grain of salt.
Minute 44 and following, emphasizing that "it's in John" is an "independent source." He makes a similar comment back a little earlier when he introduces the verses in John 5. Minute 40.
In minutes 40 and 44 he cites John 5:27 as supporting and being in line with the Son of Man theology in the OT and intertestamental literature.
But if "most scholars admit that John is an independent source," he should be able to *refute* the argument he keeps giving that perhaps the "I am" statements are just redactive elaborations on the synoptics.
I don't see how that follows. An independent source doesn't necessarily mean it's generally reliable as a work. That's why some scholars see GThomas as independent and also having historical nuggets even though they don't think it's generally reliable. Many scholars don't actually believe that John is a coherent whole. Some radical scholars (e.g. Robert M. Price) think it's a patchwork from various Christian groups with conflicting Christologies. And yet these same scholars usually grant that GJohn is an independent source.
The "I am" statements and "I and the Father are one" would be perfect places to apply that supposed principle that John can be treated as an independent source!
But often independence as a source is not by itself a criteron of authenticity. As I understand it, according to the methods of the "guild", any particular Jesus tradition from an independent source usually needs to also be early, and be attested by other independent sources as well if it's going to be afforded a high degree of authenticity. And that's what Licona does at minutes 40 & 44. Though, as Robert Bowman pointed out in his article, the well known criteria of authenticity have lately been called into question by scholars.
As an evidentialist, I can be relied upon to disagree with that. :-)
heh, ;-) But don't you think that during the 19th and early 20th centuries, at the height of form criticism, source criticism and higher criticism, that the average Christian would be hard pressed to answer defeaters of his Christian beliefs? Especially, if he couldn't read, and didn't have the time, financial resources, intellectual aptitude, learning/education, or access to the necessary sources? What of Christians during the Medieval period?
The historical evidence doesn't change from generation to generation.
But the historical evidence includes things like archaeological and textual discoveries which happen periodically and can change the scholarly landscape at any moment. Not to mention cultural, literary, and linguistic discoveries or re-discoveries.
(the evidence God has given us and scholarly fads in evaluating that evidence)
But God gives us varying degrees of evidence (or lack of evidence) in His providence throughout history. Even when it comes to miraculous evidence, not everyone sees the types of miracles Moses did. Or even less spectacular ones like the healings of Myconius and Melancthon through Luther's prayers.
"In minutes 40 and 44 he [MERELY] cites John 5:27 as supporting and being in line with the Son of Man theology in the OT and intertestamental literature."
Clarification:
I think the various criteria of authenticity are useful, though limited in usefulness contrary to how they have been traditionally (pun intended) applied in historical Jesus studies. For those monitoring the conversation who don't know, the criteria of authenticity include things like:
1. the criterion of multiple independent early attestation; 2. criterion of Semitisms; 3. criterion or principle of embarrassment/awkwardness; 4. criterion of dissimilarity/discontinuity 5. contextual credibility (which I think is similar to historical plausibility) et cetera.
If I recall correctly, William Lane Craig gives an introduction to them in one of his lectures on Ehrman. Possibly this one: https://youtu.be/70yS6sxi4p4
"I don't see how that follows. An independent source doesn't necessarily mean it's generally reliable as a work."
Well, I think it wd. probably be helpful if you read the argument I have in mind. You'll find it laid out in several paragraphs in Licona's response to me. Basically, the approach there is to treat John's "I Am" statements, and presumably "I and the Father are one" also, as *not independent* (bold print that) from the synoptics. Instead, they are being treated as sort of imaginative redactions of doctrines taught in the synoptics. In other words, just as Matthew is taken to be redacting Mark, this argument functionally treats John as redacting Mark or the teaching in the synoptics. But if that's the view of John that one takes, then in virtue of that very fact one is *not* treating John as an independent source of information. In fact, very much to the contrary. One is treating John as having the synoptics available and being *dependent* on them for Jesus' teaching, then doing these "'he is' confessions of the Johannine community" about what Jesus already taught as recorded in the synoptics. But in that case, there isn't any rationale anymore for treating John 5:27 as an *independent* attestation to the Son of Man tradition, since it could (if anything even more easily than the "I am" statements) be just an imaginative, dependent redaction of the "Son of Man" statements in the synoptics. And if one starts making arguments such as that the scenes and settings are different, those are perfectly good arguments, but they are the very same types of arguments for the independent nature of the "I am" sayings. What rescues one, rescues the other. The non-independence conclusion that tears down the one has the same effect, if one applies one's principles consistently, of rendering the other prima facie non-independent.
To put it more concisely, if one's causal scenario for *how* a document is unreliable is, inter alia, *that* it is dependent, then one can't simultaneously consider it independent in places that would be as likely or more likely to be "explained" by that same causal scenario.
In other words, just as Matthew is taken to be redacting Mark, this argument functionally treats John as redacting Mark or the teaching in the synoptics.
Hmmm... I assumed that he and Evans (like others) take GJohn as redacting independent Jesus traditions that were circulating in the Johannine community, while (likely) at the same time being aware of the Synoptics.
One is treating John as having the synoptics available and being *dependent* on them for Jesus' teaching, then doing these "'he is' confessions of the Johannine community" about what Jesus already taught as recorded in the synoptics.
I'm guessing there's a typo somewhere here. I don't understand the sentence. Or maybe you're addressing an issue I'm completely ignorant about. If so, you don't need to clarify because you could be spending your time addressing Licona himself instead of lowly me. :)
But in that case, there isn't any rationale anymore for treating John 5:27 as an *independent* attestation to the Son of Man tradition, since it could (if anything even more easily than the "I am" statements) be just an imaginative, dependent redaction of the "Son of Man" statements in the synoptics.
If I understand you correctly, that makes sense.
Honestly, I have to think about all of this afresh. I suspect I'm reading and using scholarly terminology that I don't fully understand. Nor am I sure to what degree you and Mike are accurately describing the situation. I wish I could give you more useful input. heh
For those interested, here's a lecture Licona gives arguing for the deity of Christ on historical grounds:
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/gT2TN6kA5kY
I'm struck in a quick survey of that lecture by the emphasis upon the clarity of Jesus' teaching. Even though Licona rather glaringly does not rely (as far as I could see as I moved through the video) on "I and the father are one" or "Before Abraham was, I am" and the Jews attempting to stone Jesus (wonder if he got asked about why he didn't include those in the Q & A!), he still emphasizes repeatedly how clear it would have been to a Jewish audience what Jesus was saying from what he *does* include (which involves a John 5 quotation and the "Son of Man" sayings). Yet the argument he gave *against* the actual historicity of the "I am" statements in John (an argument he later said was just why "scholars" think this, while he remains agnostic) was *quite explicit* that Jesus taught only more cryptically, by parables, etc., and that he *would not* have been really clear in public that he was God. This is another case where one cannot have it both ways. One cannot get up before an audience and enthusiastically tell them how *clear* Jesus was to the Jews that he was claiming to be God and also endorse an argument that he *would not have taught clearly that he was God*. In fact, if Licona is really convinced of what he is saying in this lecture, he should say openly that that argument is *wrong*, not keep on repeating it and giving the strong impression that, even if not fully convinced by it, he thinks it is quite reasonable and has a lot to be said for it. If the whole point of the "Son of Man" claims is that they are *clear* teachings that Jesus is God, then why would Jesus *not* have made the other statements in John, such as "I and the father are one" and "Before Abraham was, I am"?
ReplyDeleteI also note that he is emphatic about John's independence from the synoptics, yet the theory he is now...what shall we say?...promoting-to-the-point-of-putting-up-a-lot-of-arguments-for-it-though-he-says-he's-agnostic-about-its-conclusion is that John is redacting the synoptics when he writes the "I am" statements in John. Why then so enthusiastically proclaim that the statements in John 5 about God's committing all power to Jesus' hands are *independent* of the synoptics?
I really fear that Licona has way too many balls in the air going here at one time, to put it mildly. He can't keep them all going at once.
I suppose he's trying to keep open various possibilities so as to commend the gospel to as many people & groups as possible (e.g. scholars, atheists, Muslims, historians), and as an intellectually viable/defensible option.
DeleteWell, what's really interesting in that lecture is that he's in a sense at his best there. He's speaking to an obviously conservative audience, assuming that the gospels were written by their traditionally attributed authors, and so forth. And he's really excited, genuinely so, about what he has to say. But the problem is that he's constantly trying to limit himself to what's sufficiently acknowledged by *other* scholars he respects, and then get excited about *that*. For example, notice how he seems to acknowledge Matthean authorship and even that Matthew might have been an eye witness of various scenes, but then when it comes to his digression on what Q is, he's laying out the whole 2-source synoptic theory, and he completely skips over any idea that Matthew might have independently witnessed the scenes that aren't restricted to the inner circle. That is, he explains that scholars think that if something is in both Mark and Matthew, then Matthew got it from Mark. Wait a minute! He just explained Matthew's use of Mark by a) the high prestige of Peter and b) Peter's having been present at some scenes (like the Transfiguration) where Matthew wasn't present. That's well and good, but now why are we suddenly saying that if something is in Mark and Matthew, Matthew *got it* from Mark? Why are we adopting a rigid version of 2-source that eliminates the consideration of Matthew's independent access to events? (This bias is very evident in the book as well.)
DeleteSimilarly, he seems to be avoiding using the statements in John that "scholars" he respects have questioned, but he thinks he's allowed to use, and even emphasize the independence of, John 5:27. But the arguments he is now taking so seriously are too general in application to still "leave" him with John 5:27! If he's so confident of the authenticity of John 5:27, presumably on independent grounds, why isn't that a reason to reject the arguments he is now so poised about?
It seems that he never moves in the direction of being confident and therefore saying, "Okay, so my friends so-and-so and so-and-so are seriously *wrong* about x, because I have *strong reason* to believe that John [or some other author] is reliable on x, and their arguments would force me to throw that out. So I can tell that they are wrong and say that with confidence." Every movement is rather towards affirming less and less, doing his arguments with fewer and fewer verses, and being agnostic about more and more texts. If he's agnostic about John 8:58, there is nothing in the arguments in question that would not cast similar doubt upon John 5:27.
He needs to take the likable enthusiasm and apparent confidence that he displays in that lecture and turn it around into a positive force that allows him to stand against theories that chip away more and more of our available evidence.
But the problem is that he's constantly trying to limit himself to what's sufficiently acknowledged by *other* scholars he respects, and then get excited about *that*.
DeleteIt seems to me that most of your objections can be resolved if we keep in mind that he's coaching Christian believers into trying to build bridges using the less disputed results of conventional scholarship to win non-Christian converts (or at least show how Christian beliefs have historical support). He's using a method similar to the minimal facts approach. Using stronger (less controversial) facts which need less subsidiary arguments to support. That's why he can acknowledge that conservative Christians believe Matthew has independent eyewitness information, yet doesn't appeal to it to build his case (since it would be difficult and require involved argumentation to support that assumption).
...but now why are we suddenly saying that if something is in Mark and Matthew, Matthew *got it* from Mark?
Saying that Matthew "got" something from Mark (or Q) isn't necessarily a denial of Matthew's status as an eyewitness. It's only to say that Matthew used Mark as a source, like a wire frame upon which he added clay to mould his sculpture. He even suggests the possibility that Q is based on eyewitness testimony of some disciples during Christ's earthly ministry. Which makes sense since Q is purportedly a collection of Dominical saying (not doings) with little to no passion & resurrection material. Personally, I have no problem with Q, but I'm not convinced of its reality as a source. The "reconstruction" of Q might merely be an artifact (or shadow) that emerges out of Luke's redaction of Mark and Matthew.
...but he thinks he's allowed to use, and even emphasize the independence of, John 5:27.
That's probably because there are similar statements in the Synoptics which have Jesus referring to Himself as the "Son of Man" having the role of final Judge (e.g. the "Johannine Thunderbolt" in Matt. 11:27//Luke 10:22//Q 10:22 cf. Matt. 19:28; 28:18; Luke 22:28-30 etc.). So, it's a multiply attested early independent Jesus tradition. Also, even for liberal scholars, genuine historical nuggets in John (or Thomas et al.) doesn't depend on its general reliability or historicity.
He needs to take the likable enthusiasm and apparent confidence that he displays in that lecture and turn it around into a positive force that allows him to stand against theories that chip away more and more of our available evidence.
I agree that Christian scholars should strive for that. Though, maybe Dr. Licona might not think that's possible (or at least necessary) given all that he has learned, given his apologetical goals, and given what he perceives is his God given role in the advancement of the Kingdom.
"Saying that Matthew "got" something from Mark (or Q) isn't necessarily a denial of Matthew's status as an eyewitness. It's only to say that Matthew used Mark as a source, like a wire frame upon which he added clay to mould his sculpture. He even suggests the possibility that Q is based on eyewitness testimony of some disciples during Christ's earthly ministry."
DeleteIn his book there are places where taking seriously the idea that Matthew was an eyewitness source would resolve things without requiring him to appeal to his elaborate "literary devices," but he doesn't do it. So when we resolutely decide to treat something as if it *isn't* the case in our arguments, just "for the sake of the argument," that has argumentative consequences down the line.
"That's probably because there are similar statements in the Synoptics"
By the same token, if "Son of Man" is as clear as he makes it out to be in the video, then there is no reason to resist "I and the Father are one"!! The argument he's promoted twice now against the latter relies heavily on the premise that Jesus wouldn't have been so clear! Moreover, he is quite explicit in treating John as *independent* of the synoptics in this lecture for purposes of using John 5:27. One couldn't do that given the other argument that he is now indicating such a poised mental state towards--laying it out two different times, even adding to it, but saying he's agnostic about its conclusion. For on *that* argument, there would be absolutely no reason to treat John so confidently as independent of the synoptics on this point. Indeed, John 5:27 could *more readily* be treated as a redaction/elaboration upon/semi-fictional expansion upon the "Son of Man" statements in the synoptics than "Before Abraham was, I am," since the wording is more similar! Instead, he quite confidently treats the attestation to Jesus' teachings in John 5 as *independent* of the synoptics and assumes he's allowed to rely on it.
He seems to have difficulty realizing when his extreme diffidence to other scholars means that he's got incompatible lines of argument rattling around.
AP, you mention both the minimal facts argument and apologetic role and strategy.
DeleteThe problem is that Licona goes beyond that to *internalize* the extreme deference to "the consensus of experts" represented by the minimal facts approach. And this indeed was always a danger of the approach. Licona doesn't consider himself allowed to *believe* things that he doesn't think he has enough license for from the guild of NT scholars, or at least the ones he feels a lot of respect for. He doesn't consider himself allowed to examine the arguments *underlying* the refusal to grant some premise and decide that the arguments are poor. Unfortunately this has a tendency to take over more and more territory, as I just pointed out concerning the generalized arguments against the historicity of Jesus' teachings in John and the way that those arguments, having the structure that they do, have implications against *both* the I am statements *and* John 5:27.
You can't be diffident like that forever merely on strategic grounds.
Here I would make a partial contrast (though I think even he needs to stand up more to the guild) with Gary Habermas. Habermas *invented* the minimal facts approach, yet Habermas will say outright that "accepted by a majority of scholars" is the least important criterion. He will also, when need requires it in arguing with, say, Dale Allison, appeal to parts of the resurrection accounts that *aren't* admitted by a "large majority of scholars." That is to say, he does not as Licona does hold himself bound by some kind of bizarre notion of scholarly integrity never to think for himself and never to *believe* or rely on even in his *own arguments* anything that isn't "allowed" by enough other scholars or the "right" other scholars. Licona engages in that kind of belief restraint to a fault. Literally, to a fault. And it is therefore not *just* a strategy or a matter of "role." *Especially* not now, when he is lecturing *other* people that they, too, should be much less confident about the "I am" statements or the historical nature of John if they don't have the "right" credentials that he has arbitrarily declared to be necessary to having an opinion. That's really baaaaaad. If he thinks *that* is part of his role in the kingdom, then it's a part of his "role" that he should definitely get rid of.
I should have made clear that when I wrote, "It seems to me that most of your objections can be resolved if...", I was referring to your above objections to the video I just linked to. Not to all your criticisms of Licona in your recent blogs (which I'd already bookmarked a day ago because I wanted to read them in order).
DeleteSo when we resolutely decide to treat something as if it *isn't* the case in our arguments, just "for the sake of the argument," that has argumentative consequences down the line.
Agreed. However, sometimes purposefully handicapping yourself in that way (at least temporarily) can show your opponents that you can beat them (e.g. skeptics) using their own (often arbitrary or wrong) criteria/standards/methods/presuppositions. Though, I think one should eventually argue for those more conservative positions which are disputed in the "guild" (e.g. Matthew was an eyewitness etc.) using those previously established facts as a common ground bridge.
The argument he's promoted twice now against the latter relies heavily on the premise that Jesus wouldn't have been so clear!
If that's what he states in his book, then I'd point to and use #10 in Robert Bowman's recent article (which I linked to below). Number 10 states, "The divine claims of the “I am” sayings in both John and the Synoptics are implicit and in some instances ambiguous." The "I am" statements in John [and other sayings like "I and the Father are one"] are less explicit and more IMplicit regarding Christ's deity than we usually give them credit. Conversely, the reverse is true regarding the "I am" statements in the Synoptics. They are more EXplicit then we usually give them credit. By interpreting them in this way, they all become more similar than dissimilar. Closer in level and degree. And so all of them become more likely historical and slide that much closer to ipsissima verba and away from ipsissima vox. Though I think both verba and vox have some truth to them. John's record of the "I am" statements which lack predicates seem more explicit (often) because John goes out of his way to record the Jews' negative reaction. They knew that Jesus' statements could technically be interpreted in innocent ways that don't amount to blasphemy (i.e. claim to deity), though they rightly interpreted Him as cryptically implying it. That's why in the heat of the moment they would often seek to stone Him, but then as hours or days pass by they're often frustrated that they can't gather testimonial evidence to really pin Him on any explicit claim to deity (I like Waterland's interpretation of John 10:30-39 which I quoted in blue HERE). Unlike the Synoptics, John doesn't leave us in doubt as to how to interpret Christ's "I am" statements, even though Christ's exact words and wording [spoken in Aramaic and translated into Greek sometimes roughly, sometimes precisely] aren't (technically) explicit claims to deity. It's the context in which John places them and the people's reaction that make them seem more explicit than they actually are.
Moreover, he is quite explicit in treating John as *independent* of the synoptics in this lecture for purposes of using John 5:27.
If that's the case, then I'm not recalling it as well as you are.
CONT.
Licona doesn't consider himself allowed to *believe* things that he doesn't think he has enough license for from the guild of NT scholars...
DeleteIn many of his videos he points out that he's psychologically wired to doubt and second guess things. Apparently it comes out [manifests] in and affects his apologetical style. I think he might need a good dose of Reformed Epistemology on the topics of belief in God being properly basic and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. He seems too fearful that his desire for Christianity being true might overly bias him to favorably interpret the evidence on the side of Christianity.
Unfortunately this has a tendency to take over more and more territory,...
Agreed.
You can't be diffident like that forever merely on strategic grounds.
Licona has said no one can be completely objective on this topic, but we should try our best to be so. I agree, nevertheless I think he believes humans can be much more objective then we in fact can be. Or even may be, as Steve points out in one of his blogs. I'd add that as a Van Tillian presuppositionalist I think we're either regenerated and so biased for, or unregenerated and so biased against Christianity.
Licona engages in that kind of belief restraint to a fault.
He says that's how he's wired, and I believe him. He's been open about the different times he's had serious doubts about the truth of Christianity. I think he hinges too much warrant and justification for believing in Christianity on the shifting sands of the historical evidence (which rises and falls from generation to generation), and not enough on the insights of Reformed Epistemology (some of which his friend W.L. Craig has popularized and likely discussed with him about during his times of doubt). His 1. approach to doing history and 2. his approach to his personal faith will naturally tend to affect each other almost like in a feedback loop. That's true with all of us. However, if he doesn't more strongly maintain the distinction/difference, he and the other people who are being influenced by his apologetical method may constantly find their faith to be disconcertingly unstable. That kind of persistent and nagging doubt can psychologically wear a person down to a point that he may just give up on the faith. Because 1. it's too heavy a burden; and 2. because the most epistemically modest thing to do and hold (so it would wrongly seem to him/her) is to not be a Christian because there's apparently not enough historical evidence for it to be persuasive or compelling to all. As if that's an evidential requirement that God ought to have provided and failed to deliver (pace Pascal, whom I agree with cf. HERE).
"
DeleteIf that's what he states in his book, then I'd point to and use #10 in Robert Bowman's recent article (which I linked to below)."
No, he doesn't discuss the "I am" statements in the book at all. I mean in his initial argument public on Facebook defending Evans and in his expansion upon it in his most recent response to me. https://www.risenjesus.com/reading-adapted-form-jesus-teachings-johns-gospel
On the whole "ipsissima vox" thing, I would advise that we simply abandon the phrase altogether. Rob makes a laudable attempt to reclaim a moderate meaning for it, but my strong impression is that right now it is being used far, far too often in the sense that Rob calls "too loose." And if (as I've heard) Craig Evans coined it, then the very person who coined it is throwing it around in the "too loose" sense and creating confusion. We don't need it. We should use "paraphrase" or "translation from another language" or things like that, instead of using what sounds like a technical term, when that technical term is seriously corrupted in its current usage. Just my advice on the usage issue.
"If that's the case, then I'm not recalling it as well as you are."
Minute 44 and following, emphasizing that "it's in John" is an "independent source." He makes a similar comment back a little earlier when he introduces the verses in John 5. Minute 40.
But if "most scholars admit that John is an independent source," he should be able to *refute* the argument he keeps giving that perhaps the "I am" statements are just redactive elaborations on the synoptics. The "I am" statements and "I and the Father are one" would be perfect places to apply that supposed principle that John can be treated as an independent source! Indeed, all the more so where John appears to be talking about completely different incidents and using independent language. The incredibly weak argument for throwing out the "I am" statements as historical, independent incidents really is an illustration of "any stick with which to beat John." Normally, the differences between the accounts would indicate independence! But in that argument, the differences are used to argue that John is making Jesus be too clear compared to the synoptics and that therefore this probably didn't happen!
". I think he hinges too much warrant and justification for believing in Christianity on the shifting sands of the historical evidence (which rises and falls from generation to generation)"
As an evidentialist, I can be relied upon to disagree with that. :-)
The historical evidence doesn't change from generation to generation. What changes is fashion in the academic world. I strongly advise that all of us, and Dr. Licona in particular, distinguish those (the evidence God has given us and scholarly fads in evaluating that evidence) so sharply as even to put them at odds with one another.
I can't resist pointing out that this ability to keep the threads of arguments all held in one's hand, in an interlocking argument, and to see clearly how the premises of one argument are in serious tension with the premises of another argument, is something an analytic philosopher might be expected to be especially qualified to do. A New Testament scholar, maybe not so much. Of course every individual is different, and one could have a very analytically sharp NT scholar. But that isn't a particular strength of the discipline.
DeleteYou're a real apologist, I'm just a wannabe. So, take my comments with a grain of salt.
DeleteMinute 44 and following, emphasizing that "it's in John" is an "independent source." He makes a similar comment back a little earlier when he introduces the verses in John 5. Minute 40.
In minutes 40 and 44 he cites John 5:27 as supporting and being in line with the Son of Man theology in the OT and intertestamental literature.
But if "most scholars admit that John is an independent source," he should be able to *refute* the argument he keeps giving that perhaps the "I am" statements are just redactive elaborations on the synoptics.
I don't see how that follows. An independent source doesn't necessarily mean it's generally reliable as a work. That's why some scholars see GThomas as independent and also having historical nuggets even though they don't think it's generally reliable. Many scholars don't actually believe that John is a coherent whole. Some radical scholars (e.g. Robert M. Price) think it's a patchwork from various Christian groups with conflicting Christologies. And yet these same scholars usually grant that GJohn is an independent source.
The "I am" statements and "I and the Father are one" would be perfect places to apply that supposed principle that John can be treated as an independent source!
But often independence as a source is not by itself a criteron of authenticity. As I understand it, according to the methods of the "guild", any particular Jesus tradition from an independent source usually needs to also be early, and be attested by other independent sources as well if it's going to be afforded a high degree of authenticity. And that's what Licona does at minutes 40 & 44. Though, as Robert Bowman pointed out in his article, the well known criteria of authenticity have lately been called into question by scholars.
As an evidentialist, I can be relied upon to disagree with that. :-)
heh, ;-)
But don't you think that during the 19th and early 20th centuries, at the height of form criticism, source criticism and higher criticism, that the average Christian would be hard pressed to answer defeaters of his Christian beliefs? Especially, if he couldn't read, and didn't have the time, financial resources, intellectual aptitude, learning/education, or access to the necessary sources? What of Christians during the Medieval period?
W.L. Craig explains what I mean in this video that's under 6 minutes HERE:
https://youtu.be/-oPzqNIZG0w
Or, better yet, he BRILLIANTLY gives a whole lecture on the topic here:
Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It?
https://youtu.be/Tq8eDlt_orI
The historical evidence doesn't change from generation to generation.
But the historical evidence includes things like archaeological and textual discoveries which happen periodically and can change the scholarly landscape at any moment. Not to mention cultural, literary, and linguistic discoveries or re-discoveries.
(the evidence God has given us and scholarly fads in evaluating that evidence)
But God gives us varying degrees of evidence (or lack of evidence) in His providence throughout history. Even when it comes to miraculous evidence, not everyone sees the types of miracles Moses did. Or even less spectacular ones like the healings of Myconius and Melancthon through Luther's prayers.
typo correction:
Delete"In minutes 40 and 44 he [MERELY] cites John 5:27 as supporting and being in line with the Son of Man theology in the OT and intertestamental literature."
Clarification:
I think the various criteria of authenticity are useful, though limited in usefulness contrary to how they have been traditionally (pun intended) applied in historical Jesus studies. For those monitoring the conversation who don't know, the criteria of authenticity include things like:
1. the criterion of multiple independent early attestation;
2. criterion of Semitisms;
3. criterion or principle of embarrassment/awkwardness;
4. criterion of dissimilarity/discontinuity
5. contextual credibility (which I think is similar to historical plausibility)
et cetera.
If I recall correctly, William Lane Craig gives an introduction to them in one of his lectures on Ehrman. Possibly this one: https://youtu.be/70yS6sxi4p4
"I don't see how that follows. An independent source doesn't necessarily mean it's generally reliable as a work."
DeleteWell, I think it wd. probably be helpful if you read the argument I have in mind. You'll find it laid out in several paragraphs in Licona's response to me. Basically, the approach there is to treat John's "I Am" statements, and presumably "I and the Father are one" also, as *not independent* (bold print that) from the synoptics. Instead, they are being treated as sort of imaginative redactions of doctrines taught in the synoptics. In other words, just as Matthew is taken to be redacting Mark, this argument functionally treats John as redacting Mark or the teaching in the synoptics. But if that's the view of John that one takes, then in virtue of that very fact one is *not* treating John as an independent source of information. In fact, very much to the contrary. One is treating John as having the synoptics available and being *dependent* on them for Jesus' teaching, then doing these "'he is' confessions of the Johannine community" about what Jesus already taught as recorded in the synoptics. But in that case, there isn't any rationale anymore for treating John 5:27 as an *independent* attestation to the Son of Man tradition, since it could (if anything even more easily than the "I am" statements) be just an imaginative, dependent redaction of the "Son of Man" statements in the synoptics. And if one starts making arguments such as that the scenes and settings are different, those are perfectly good arguments, but they are the very same types of arguments for the independent nature of the "I am" sayings. What rescues one, rescues the other. The non-independence conclusion that tears down the one has the same effect, if one applies one's principles consistently, of rendering the other prima facie non-independent.
See?
To put it more concisely, if one's causal scenario for *how* a document is unreliable is, inter alia, *that* it is dependent, then one can't simultaneously consider it independent in places that would be as likely or more likely to be "explained" by that same causal scenario.
DeleteIn other words, just as Matthew is taken to be redacting Mark, this argument functionally treats John as redacting Mark or the teaching in the synoptics.
DeleteHmmm... I assumed that he and Evans (like others) take GJohn as redacting independent Jesus traditions that were circulating in the Johannine community, while (likely) at the same time being aware of the Synoptics.
One is treating John as having the synoptics available and being *dependent* on them for Jesus' teaching, then doing these "'he is' confessions of the Johannine community" about what Jesus already taught as recorded in the synoptics.
I'm guessing there's a typo somewhere here. I don't understand the sentence. Or maybe you're addressing an issue I'm completely ignorant about. If so, you don't need to clarify because you could be spending your time addressing Licona himself instead of lowly me. :)
But in that case, there isn't any rationale anymore for treating John 5:27 as an *independent* attestation to the Son of Man tradition, since it could (if anything even more easily than the "I am" statements) be just an imaginative, dependent redaction of the "Son of Man" statements in the synoptics.
If I understand you correctly, that makes sense.
Honestly, I have to think about all of this afresh. I suspect I'm reading and using scholarly terminology that I don't fully understand. Nor am I sure to what degree you and Mike are accurately describing the situation. I wish I could give you more useful input. heh
Robert Bowman mentions both Lydia and Steve in the footnottes of his article on the controversy here:
ReplyDeletehttps://robertbowman.net/2017/10/04/top-10-reasons-for-accepting-jesus-i-am-sayings-in-john-as-historically-reliable/