tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post116153585983191803..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: How Influential Was Papias?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1161566157561475872006-10-22T21:15:00.000-04:002006-10-22T21:15:00.000-04:00Ed Babinski wrote:"Steve, I don't recall reading t...Ed Babinski wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Steve, I don't recall reading that very many of the authors whom you and J. P. Holding cite, like Martin Hengel, are themselves inerrantsts."<BR/><BR/>Steve didn't write the article you're responding to. I did. And the other article from which I quoted was written by a guest at J.P. Holding's site. It wasn't written by J.P. Holding.<BR/><BR/>Hengel isn't an inerrantist, but how is that relevant to what I wrote?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"They have reasons for not being inerrants. Even moderates have reasons for not being inerrantists. When you understand and involve yourself debating moderate Christians, then you might understand my own views better as well."<BR/><BR/>I have read and debated liberals and moderates for years. That's why I'm able to quote and interact with people like you and Martin Hengel. I wouldn't be able to quote such sources and write articles about them or in response to them if I wasn't interacting with them to some extent.<BR/><BR/>You seem to think that citing the fact that people disagree with Evangelicals is a significant response to Evangelical arguments. It isn't. We know that people disagree with us. Why do you keep acting as if we don't, and why do you keep acting as if interacting with non-Evangelicals would significantly change our views? We have been interacting with them, and it hasn't significantly changed our views.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"The prima facie evidence is that all four Gospels do not contain the names of the people who wrote them."<BR/><BR/>That's an assertion, not an argument. We have manuscripts that can be dated as early as the second century that have author names included. Even if the author names were added after the original circulation of the documents, it's unlikely that the documents would ever have circulated without oral references to authorship. That one of the gospels circulated anonymously for a long time is unlikely. That all four did is even more unlikely. As Martin Hengel notes:<BR/><BR/>"Nevertheless the fact remains that it is utterly improbable that in this dark period, at a particular place or through a person or through the decision of a group or institution unknown to us, the four superscriptions of the Gospels, which had hitherto been circulating anonymously, suddenly came into being and, without leaving behind traces of earlier divergent titles, became established throughout the church. Let those who deny the great age and therefore basically the originality of the Gospel superscriptions in order to preserve their 'good' critical conscience, give a better explanation of the completely unanimous and relatively early attestation of these titles, their origin and the names of authors associated with them. Such an explanation has yet to be given, and it never will be. New Testament scholars persistently overlook basic facts and questions on the basis of old habits." (The Four Gospels And The One Gospel Of Jesus Christ [Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000], p. 55)<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"None of the Gospels constitue impartial evidence. All four were written by believers in Jesus."<BR/><BR/>That's a different subject than the original subject of this thread. I can understand why you'd want to change the subject, but readers ought to recognize what you're doing for what it is: a changing of the subject.<BR/><BR/>All humans are partial. It's not as if the Romans who were burning Christians or giving them to wild beasts were unbiased. It's not as if Ed Babinski is unbiased. Historians and humans in general regularly accept the testimony of biased sources:<BR/><BR/>"Likewise, to claim that we cannot rationally believe Jesus rose because the New Testament authors were biased toward Jesus is to commit the genetic fallacy. Such an argument fails to address the data they provide. The prominent New Testament historian N.T. Wright comments, 'It must be asserted most strongly that to discover that a particular writer has a 'bias' tells us nothing whatever about the value of the information he or she presents. It merely bids us be aware of the bias (and of our own, for that matter), and to assess the material according to as many sources as we can.'" (Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2004], p. 125)<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"The words of Jesus preserved in all four Gospels could fill a small 16-page booklet."<BR/><BR/>So, do you agree with Evangelicals that the gospel authors were conservative in preserving the words of Jesus rather than fabricating whatever they desired to put in Jesus' mouth?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"90% of Mark is included in Matthew and Luke (including incidental connecting passages in Greek)."<BR/><BR/>You have to be more specific. 90% in what sense? Are you including vague similarities? Surely you know that many scholars would use a much smaller percentage than the one you're citing.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"That Mark was the primary source for the later two longer Gospels (Matthew and Luke) is something most scholars do not appear to doubt today."<BR/><BR/>Similarity of wording or conceptual agreement doesn't demonstrate that Mark is "the primary source" in the sense that Matthew and Luke wouldn't have known of that material without having read Mark. If we assume Markan priority and assume the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke, the latter two could use Mark because of its association with Peter and its widespread acceptance, yet not be dependent on Mark in any way that would undermine an Evangelical view of the gospels. Matthew and Luke repeatedly include details that Mark doesn't include, and they discuss periods of Jesus' life that Mark doesn't address (Jesus' infancy, His adolescence, and His resurrection appearances and ascension). Even if Matthew and Luke had done nothing other than duplicate Mark, you'd still have to address Mark's testimony and the fact that it was so widely accepted and corroborated by sources like Matthew and Luke, and you'd have to address John's gospel.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"We do not know whether or not individual stories about Jesus among the earliest Christians may or may not have been added to other stories, nor exactly how many stories may not owe something to midrashic or pesher interpretations of Jesus. Even the earliest Gospel could have incorporated stories in ADDITION to what 'Peter' allegedly told 'Mark,' and not necessarily authenticated stories either."<BR/><BR/>Issues like those have been addressed at this web site many times and in a lot of depth. Consult the archives. You're ignoring a lot of the documentation you've been given on the subject of this thread, and you're turning to other subjects instead. Your intention seems to be to raise doubts, then change the subject once the initial attempts to raise doubt have been answered.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"I know you believe that the Bible is inerrant, but do you believe your interpretations of the Bible are also inerrant?"<BR/><BR/>I used to. Then Ed Babinski told me the truth, and now I know better. Until you came here, all of us on the Triablogue staff thought we were an Evangelical papacy.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Goodacre's links from his blog can also help introduce you to the whole wide world of Biblical scholarship."<BR/><BR/>Again, I realize that there are non-Evangelical Biblical scholars. I mentioned some of them in the opening post of this thread. Why do you keep acting as if I, Steve Hays, and other Evangelicals you're interacting with here aren't familiar with non-Evangelical scholarship? Maybe you used to be so ignorant that people needed to inform you of the existence of non-Evangelical scholars, but you shouldn't assume that every Evangelical you meet is as ignorant as you were.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/>"Anyone reading all the available info in books and on the web concering the Bible will come to their own conclusions."<BR/><BR/>Yes, we all come to our own conclusions. Here's my conclusion: if you had a good answer to what I've argued about the gospel of Mark and the influence of sources like Papias, you would have provided that answer. You haven't provided it, and that's probably because you don't have it.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1161558763992716892006-10-22T19:12:00.000-04:002006-10-22T19:12:00.000-04:00Steve,I don't recall reading that very many of the...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I don't recall reading that very many of the authors whom you and J. P. Holding cite, like Martin Hengel, are themselves inerrantsts. They have reasons for not being inerrants. Even moderates have reasons for not being inerrantists. When you understand and involve yourself debating moderate Christians, then you might understand my own views better as well.<BR/><BR/>As I see things...<BR/><BR/>The prima facie evidence is that all four Gospels do not contain the names of the people who wrote them. <BR/><BR/>None of the Gospels constitue impartial evidence. All four were written by believers in Jesus. <BR/><BR/>The words of Jesus preserved in all four Gospels could fill a small 16-page booklet. <BR/><BR/>The Gospels themselves are not very long. 90% of Mark is included in Matthew and Luke (including incidental connecting passages in Greek). <BR/><BR/>That Mark was the primary source for the later two longer Gospels (Matthew and Luke) is something most scholars do not appear to doubt today. <BR/><BR/>We do not know whether or not individual stories about Jesus among the earliest Christians may or may not have been added to other stories, nor exactly how many stories may not owe something to midrashic or pesher interpretations of Jesus. Even the earliest Gospel could have incorporated stories in ADDITION to what "Peter" allegedly told "Mark," and not necessarily authenticated stories either. <BR/><BR/>I know you believe that the Bible is inerrant, but do you believe your interpretations of the Bible are also inerrant? (I'm sure we both agree inconclusiveness exists. You just believe that the PROBABILITY of your being correct about holy books being inerrant to their inspired/correct interpretation, is greater than anyone can reasonably doubt.)<BR/><BR/>Mark Goodacre of Duke University is a well known scholar, whom I mentioned, who hosts an enormous website, <A HREF="http://www.ntgateway.com/" REL="nofollow">New Testament Gateway</A>, and also has a personal <A HREF="http://www.ntgateway.com/weblog/" REL="nofollow">blog</A> on biblical scholarship. Goodacre's links from his blog can also help introduce you to the whole wide world of Biblical scholarship. <BR/><BR/>There is even an academic e-List dedicated to the scholarly investigation and discussion of critical questions and issues surrounding the study of the Jesus of History and the rise of Christianity, called, <A HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/" REL="nofollow">XTalk2</A> whose <A HREF="http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/" REL="nofollow">homepage</A> is also at Goodacre's New Testament Gateway.<BR/><BR/>If you wish to study the Gospel of Mark, which most scholars agree was the earliest Gospel written there are several websites with plenty of scholarly information and also questions:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.ntgateway.com/mark/" REL="nofollow">NT GATEWAY ON MARK</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html" REL="nofollow">EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS: GOSPEL OF MARK</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html" REL="nofollow">HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF MARK</A><BR/><BR/>Anyone reading all the available info in books and on the web concering the Bible will come to their own conclusions. I have more doubts about the inerrancy of inerrantists than you do. <BR/><BR/>Happy reading, <BR/>Cheers,<BR/>EdEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.com