tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6822167354399461518..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Before Abraham was, I amRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33695061387078564132017-10-03T21:40:20.537-04:002017-10-03T21:40:20.537-04:00" Mark also has Christ use "ego eimi&quo..." Mark also has Christ use "ego eimi" in his trial before the high priest in light of Dan. 7:13 which also suggests His full deity."<br /><br />That, by the way, is relevant in another way to apologetics. Bart Ehrman didn't like it when Tim implied (I think it was in their debate on Unbelievable) that Jesus' answer "You have said it" to Pilate is an affirmative. He quibbled on that. But in the trial before the Sanhedrin recorded in Luke 22:70, when Jesus is asked if he is the Son of God, he says, "You have said it." It looks as though what he actually may have said is "I am" as in Mark. If Luke received the information that Jesus said "Yes" or otherwise answered strongly in the affirmative when asked the question, he might not have realized that Jesus used the "I am" statement and rendered the emphatic affirmative answer as "You have said it." The point is that this is evidence that "You have said it" really does indicate an affirmative.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67150184344574854992017-10-03T20:27:18.010-04:002017-10-03T20:27:18.010-04:00So intimacy vs. public-ness isn't entirely wha...<i>So intimacy vs. public-ness isn't entirely what this is about.</i><br /><br />Nor did I intend to imply that Steve thought it applied in every instance. Clearly some places in GJohn where Christ hints at His deity were during (more or less) publics occasions.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75326997839138904132017-10-03T19:35:22.154-04:002017-10-03T19:35:22.154-04:00So intimacy vs. public-ness isn't entirely wha...<i>So intimacy vs. public-ness isn't entirely what this is about.</i><br /><br />I agree. I didn't mean to imply that that was all Steve appealed to. <br /><br />If I recall, Steve also distinguished between how the Synoptics focused on the Lord's ministry outside of Jerusalem, while John focuses on His ministry in Jerusalem (which shouldn't be surprising since half of GJohn is devoted to His final days).<br /><br />It seems to any another reason why John records the "I am" sayings is that by the time of its writing the split between the church and the Jews was so clear cut that the author of John could let loose and tell it like it was, no punches pulled. <br /><br />Whereas the Synoptics were trying to ease into convincing Jewish readers of Jesus' full deity in indirect ways (especially GMatthew [written with a Jewish audience in mind] & GMark [based on Peter's sermons to his Jewish mission field). In order not to shock Jewish sensibilities too much too early. Though, both Mark and Matthew have Christ use "ego eimi" in the story where He walks on water in a way that might intentionally be hinting at His full deity. That is, maybe we're supposed to infer that upon further theological reflection and re-reading of the text. Mark also has Christ use "ego eimi" in his trial before the high priest in light of Dan. 7:13 which also suggests His full deity (<a href="http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-meaning-of-term-son-of-man.html" rel="nofollow">as I've noted in a blog</a>).ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54443678957720142772017-10-03T19:05:46.591-04:002017-10-03T19:05:46.591-04:00We shd. remember though that both "Before Abr...We shd. remember though that both "Before Abraham was, I am" and "I and the father are one" are spoken to partially unsympathetic groups. (Obviously, because they try to stone him.) And the bread of life discourse is spoken to a crowd. So intimacy vs. public-ness isn't entirely what this is about. Though many (not all--not the bread of life discourses) of the additional notable bits in John concern non-Galilee locations, which may be significant as well.<br /><br />I think that in general John was trying to tell things the synoptics didn't tell. Like, "Dudes, why did you leave out the foot washing? For crying out...Okay, nevermind, *I'll* write about the foot washing!"Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66682772318593592762017-10-03T18:42:58.805-04:002017-10-03T18:42:58.805-04:00Steve you wrote a great post about why there are d...Steve you wrote a great post about why there are differences between the Synoptics and John that argued (something like) the Synoptics focused on the public aspect of Christ's ministry, while John focused on more private and intimate aspects and that the latter could be explained by the fact that John was an eyewitness who was among the inner disciples of the Lord. I read the blog a few days ago while going through the archives. So, I don't know if it was a recent or old blogpost. But it made sense how the "I am" statements in John could be historical even though not recorded in the Synoptics. You should link to that post again (if it's and old one).ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67028927351928660662017-10-03T11:10:28.739-04:002017-10-03T11:10:28.739-04:00Presumably he'll say that *that* wasn't wh...Presumably he'll say that *that* wasn't what he meant by compositional devices. But how would it look any different?Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-825055122588892982017-10-03T10:55:46.105-04:002017-10-03T10:55:46.105-04:00What will Licona say to critics who claim all four...What will Licona say to critics who claim all four Gospels are just-so stories in which the narrator concocts etiological fables to retroactively validate later theological developments? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48407892180244166232017-10-03T10:17:59.134-04:002017-10-03T10:17:59.134-04:00Yes, and Evans's reference to the "Johann...Yes, and Evans's reference to the "Johannine community" is highly relevant here.<br /><br />Licona evidently believes (and maybe Evans does too) that they can resist the slide into complete liberalism on this matter by hanging onto the historicity of the teaching of doctrine in the synoptics more strongly than they hang onto the scenes in John. Evans says that the historical bits in the synoptics are "more than just nuggets." But given the extent of "compositional devices" allowed, and the fact that these are attributed to the ancient world *generally*, why exempt the synoptics. Eventually, why not say that *all* of Jesus' claims to the prerogatives of deity are elaborations on something else he said in some other way, we know not when, we know not how, we know not what he actually did say?<br /><br />This reminds me of a scene in the Wind in the Willows where Toad is selling a horse. He says that it's "part thoroughbred" and then adds, "Not the parts you see, of course, the other parts." I really see no reason why this level of fictionalization should not eventually mean that all of Jesus' claims to deity were uttered or implied in some other parts of his teaching of which we have no reliable record--not the parts you see, of course, the other parts.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25484373034829794952017-10-03T08:42:41.093-04:002017-10-03T08:42:41.093-04:00As you now, that's the classic liberal view of...As you now, that's the classic liberal view of the Gospels. The Gospels are historicized doctrines. The church, decades later, fabricated backstories for later doctrinal developments and rituals. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89778568114416485602017-10-03T08:32:28.187-04:002017-10-03T08:32:28.187-04:00Yes, I cannot understand how anyone could think of...Yes, I cannot understand how anyone could think of these entire scenes in John as "paraphrases" of anything in the synoptic gospels. At that point, the term "paraphrase" has lost its meaning. Seriously? Crafting entire scenes as settings for statements Jesus never made, but that are consistent with and expansions upon *completely different* sayings and actions in *completely different* settings, is "paraphrasing"?<br /><br />Part of what is so amusing is that it is Licona who is stating on behalf of "many scholars" the argument that Jesus *would not have* been as clear as he is in the gospels about his deity. (This, by the way, would impugn the historicity of "I and the Father are one" as well, even though it doesn't include the words "I am." Bart Ehrman expressly refers to "I and the Father are one," if I recall correctly, in the video with Evans.) But Evans apparently (in the e-mail that is circulating) wants to claim, and some people are desperate to believe, that Evans only meant that John paraphrases in some *ordinary* sense. As if Jesus said, "Before Abraham was living in Canaan, I am," and John left out "in Canaan," or something relatively harmless like that. But *that* notion of "paraphrase" (the normal one) is utterly incompatible with the argument Licona is making to allegedly show how reasonable Evans's position is! For that argument is quite clear that the statements in John are *too clear* for Jesus to have made them and that he would have made no claims to deity any clearer than the more implicit ones in the synoptics. It looks like Licona is doing Evans no favors if the goal is to obscure Evans's position in the eyes of the public!Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.com