tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7550905011536981210..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Excessive Skepticism Of Gospels ScholarshipRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44394695673720957882017-06-19T08:35:35.757-04:002017-06-19T08:35:35.757-04:00The warning against excessive skepticism and the s...The warning against excessive skepticism and the silly use of form criticism is of course salutary in Bauckham, but I also think the comparison to Plutarch (increasingly popular these days) is misguided. Insofar as Plutarch is adjudged to be more willing to fabricate (I have not investigated how accurate this judgement of Plutarch is), we have every reason to believe that the Gospel authors were unlike Plutarch and were trying hard to tell what really happened, not changing things for "literary" or theological reasons. It's fine to allow the way that classical scholars treat classical texts to serve as a check on the wilder fantasies of New Testament scholars, but the Plutarch comparison is increasingly serving as a way of saying that the New Testament authors had "license" to make stuff up, but hey, that's not a problem, because that's how "they" did things in "that genre back then." As your earlier entry on Matthew authorship shows, apparently Bauckham even attributes this kind of loose relationship to truth to Matthew, stating that he "transferred" the story of Levi to Matthew. I found a really great quotation on the Plutarch-Luke comparison from Colin Hemer. See here:<br /><br />http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2017/06/colin-hemer-on-genre-of-lukes-writings.htmlLydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.com