Monday, November 18, 2019

Brad Bowen tries to come back on me

Image result for bauckham
Richard Bauckham


"A Major Transition in Johannie Scholarship is widely acknowledged..." Bauckham Testimony of the beloved Disciple, 9 fn1.




Last fall (around Sept 20,2019) Brad Bowen (secular outpost) and I had a sort of debate over his take on the swoon theory of resurrection. He asserts with no evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross but merely swooned,revived latter in the  tomb and somehow got out. Thus the empty tomb is accounted for without miracles. I think I on rather handily. The reader be the Judge: Here. Now he comes back on it, things are rather slow at the old sec outpost. His big iue is I quoted a gy named Zarely. This is a major sin  he doesn't have credentials. Of course that erases all the quotes I  use  by people who do have credentials. 


 It is VERY CLEAR from the above quotations that a key issue between Hinman and me is this:
Q1: Does the Fourth Gospel provide an historically RELIABLE account of the life and ministry of Jesus?I say “NO” in answer to this question, and Hinman says “YES”.   But there is another closely related question that we also disagree about:[1]
This is typical of his approach, he creates a straw man argument then attacks it as the real position of his opponent. What did I actually claim and why did I say it? Here is what i said about the historical reliability of John, quoting Bauckham: "Bauckham, Testimony of the BD: "there are signs that this dominant approach is now undermined or at least considerably modified by very recent trends in Johanine scholarship,,," fn p9 he [Bauckham] says "a major transition in Johanine  scholarship  is widely acknowledged" He also cites scholars Ray  Brown, John Aston, J.Louis Martyn  "the dominant view being undermined is the older view Bowen knows where John is seen as not historically reliable." [2]

Notice neither I nor Bauckham said  "a significant portion of NT scholars shifted from the previously dominant view that the Fourth Gospel is historically UNRELIABLE to the previously minority view that the Fourth Gospel is historically RELIABLE?" No he said only that the dominate approach is modified he sites three other major scholars one of whom is Ray Brown the current darling of the atheists. I think we can give some credence at least enough to question the swoon theory. Remember  the  swoon theory? That's what all this about remember? 

The next major issue asserts:

Q2: In recent decades has a significant portion of NT scholars shifted from the previously dominant view that the Fourth Gospel is historically UNRELIABLE to the previously minority view that the Fourth Gospel is historically RELIABLE?[3]
Again, this question  is his formulation. He is  claiming to  speak for me and he is misrepresenting my words.
I say “NO” in answer to this question, and Hinman says “YES”.  Hinman speaks of this alleged shift in thinking about the 4th Gospel as “a trend involving many scholars”.  In support of this claim about NT scholarship, Hinman puts forward a quotation that speaks of some NT scholars arriving at the conclusion that “the Fourth Gospel is historically reliable.”[4]
Do I indeed  say "yes?" I think he is exaggerating my view. Again Bauckham's words: " at least considerably modified by very recent trends in Johanine scholarship,,," As for many scholars Bauckham refers to Ray  Brown, John Aston, J.Louis Martyn that's what I meant by many.Perhaps we would also add to that Paul Andersen, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher (who Zarley names).[5]

 My real answer is that it has more reliability than the previous generation was willing  to accept, which was basically none, so it has some. At this point Bowen let's his true interest slip in the goes from arguing about the ideas to answering my view of him:


An important part of Hinman’s support for his claim that I know “nothing about biblical scholarship” is that I am (supposedly) unaware of a major trend in NT scholarship in recent decades where a significant portion of NT scholars have shifted from the view that the 4th Gospel is historically UNRELIABLE to the view that the 4th Gospel is historically RELIABLE.[6]
Obviously "know noting" is hyperbolic. So ok got me there he knows something although not much. But I am not interested in defending that claim because that will come out in the end the  reader will see my scholarship is better than his. I don't have to focus on this particularity issue. But he goes on:

This alleged trend in NT scholarship is also an important part of Himan’s support for his view that the 4th Gospel is in fact historically reliable, and thus that we ought not to be skeptical about the passage in the 4th Gospel that tells the story about a Roman soldier stabbing Jesus in the side with a spear while Jesus was hanging on the cross, and that “the beloved disciple” was present and witnessed liquids that looked like “blood and water” flowing from the spear wound.  So, this is an important part of Hinman’s support for premise (1A) of his Sad Little Argument.[7]

Let' don;t forget it was Baukham who referred to the trend:  Testimony of the BD: "there are signs that this dominant approach is now undermined or at least considerably modified by very recent trends in Johanine scholarship,,," fn p9 he says "a major transition. " [8]
The problem here, however, is that Hinman’s view that a significant portion of NT scholars have shifted from the view that the 4th Gospel is historically UNRELIABLE to the view that the 4th Gospel is historically RELIABLE is a FANTASY, the result of WISHFUL THINKING by Hinman.  No such trend exists among NT scholars or Jesus scholars.
If I am correct that no such trend exists, then Hinman’s claim that I “know nothing about biblical scholarship” remains unsupported, and, furthermore, this would also cast serious doubt on Hinman’s implicit claim to be knowledgeable about NT scholarship. Believing in a non-existent recent trend in NT scholarship, as I will argue Hinman does, is a clear indication of Hinman’s own ignorance about NT scholarship.  Hinman is throwing large rocks at me from inside his house of glass.[9]
Bowen so much more concerned about how he looks than about the truth of God.The historicity of God's word is just an excuse to discuss  how bright Brad is.  Bauckham see,s to suggest the trend,


"How does Hinman support this claim about a recent shift in NT scholarship?  He provides ANOTHER CRAPPY QUOTE, just like he did in support of premise (1B):"

[realize this a quote by   ]
“But during the 1990s, the “Jesus, John, and History” section of the preeminent Society of Biblical Literature had a solid focus on this question of whether or not the Fourth Gospel is historically trustworthy. And they were moving toward the conclusion that it does, thus in opposition to most of the academy. Members of the panel of this section, such as Paul Andersen, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher, have now produced three volumes on this subject as editors, with contributing chapters being mostly from section members. Their conclusion is that the Fourth Gospel is historically reliable.[10]
Bowen chimes in himself:


Rather than demonstrating MY ignorance of biblical scholarship, this VERY CRAPPY QUOTE demonstrates HINMAN’S ignorance of biblical scholarship, and how his view of NT scholarship is based on WISHFUL THINKING rather than on facts and evidence."  [11]
What makes this a crappy quote?  He castigates my use of this source because he has no credentials.His reaction is Langley based upon his assertion that I look to this as an authority, I used the quote because he documents the fact of these three scholars putting out a work defending their views of John. That's what the quote says, it does not say John is all true it doesn't say there's a big trend it says these three guys are working on defending historicity of John I suggest this is a good quote  because at least that much is true.

book by three guys: John Jesus and History, Anderson, ust, and Thacher are the contributors. Here is Anderson's statent abot ohn's historical reliability,

Paul  N. Anderson:
 [John]...alone claims to be rooted in eye witness memory among the canonical Gospels...the prevalent scholarly opinion kn the modern era has come to relate the Jeannine Gospel to the canons of myth and theology rather than history; therefore John's gospel has become off limits for historical quests for Jesus. On the other hand...John has more archaeological content and topographical detail than all the other gospels put together. John also bears any features of Historical realism that contriubte a more plausible view of Jesus ministry than the Markan Gospels...Furthermore John possess a great deal of mundane and theologically innocent material this cannot be adequately explained on the basis of john's alleged ahisoticity,[12]
That is a great quote it offers the basis for a historical view in Jon There are three volumes in this vain.


Although Hinman’s view about an alleged recent trend in NT scholarship is DEAD WRONG, there has been a recent trend in NT scholarship concerning the 4th Gospel.  That trend is described and discussed in an article by a prominent Jesus scholar named James Charlesworth.  The article is called  “The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?” (Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 8, 2010).   James Charlesworth is a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary:[13]

This is supposed to be the  expert who kills my view of a trend toward a new view of John. hen we rad what he says it's laughable:

 We began this essay with one focused question: Is it wise to ignore the Fourth Gospel in re-constructing the life, mission and message of Jesus from Nazareth? The answer is ‘no’. It is now time to move beyond the caricaturing of John as a non-historical theological treatise, a judgment that has plagued scholars since they interpreted Eusebius’s report that Clement of Alexandria correctly characterized the Synoptics as factual but John as ‘spiritual’. I do not think that Clement was defining John as mythological, legendary and unhistorical ( EH 6.14.7). 146 John’s highly interpreted story of Jesus is becoming a telescope to peer back into first-century Jerusalem so we may see not only Jewish stone vessels and mikvaot but also the shadows of a Galilean bringing healing and a renewed oneness with the Father. Is it possible, then, to observe a paradigm shift from ignoring John and focusing only on the Synoptics to including John and sometimes giving priority to some of the traditions preserved in it? Yes.[14]
That is actually agreement with my position,So this source he falls back on to kill my view of a trend toward John actually agrees with my idea of a new paradigm of how we view John. Indeed his own title evokes the paradigm shift.


[1] Bradley Bowen, "Hinman's Defense of his Sad Little Argument: Wishful Thinking About New Testament Scholarship, The Secular Outpost(Nov 12, 2019 )
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2019/11/13/hinmans-defense-of-his-sad-little-argument-wishful-thinking-about-nt-scholarship/

[2]Richard Bauckham,"Introduction,"  The Testimony of the Beloved  Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids Mi: Backer Academic, 9


[3]Bowen op cit
[4] Ibid.

[5] Kermit Zarley,"the Historical Reliability of the Gospel of John" Kermit Zarley blog (Oct 8, 2018)

[6]Bowen op cit
[7]
[8]Richard Bauckham,The Testimony of the Beloved  Disciple:op cit

[9]Bowen op cit
[10]Ibid.


[11]Ibid.


[12] Paul Andersen, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher,  John Jesus and History Vol I Critical Appraisals pf Critical Views. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 20007, 1.
https://www.amazon.com/John-Jesus-History-Appraisals-Literature/dp/1589832930
(accessed 11/14/19)

[13]Bowen op cit

[14]James Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?” (Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 8, 2010).
https://jpcatholic.edu/NCUpdf/courses/BIBL526-Charlesworth_The_Historical_Jesus.pdf

this is funny he puts tittle in quotes and underlines it, does he know how to do foot notes? He emboldened it.


32 comments:

The Pixie said...

You use Bauckman a lot in your argument, so I had a quick look at the reviews for his book; this is prompted by one of them.

Bauckman claims the beloved disciple was not one on the twelve, but nevertheless was at the Last Supper. The Synoptics state that only the Twelve and Jesus were present. How does Bauckman resolve that apparent contradiction?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

first his name is Richard Bauckham not Bauckman.

Bauckman claims the beloved disciple was not one on the twelve, but nevertheless was at the Last Supper. The Synoptics state that only the Twelve and Jesus were present. How does Bauckman resolve that apparent contradiction?

Mark and Luke were not there Matt follows Mark. Apparently "John" was there.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I don't see that as a major issue. Either for John or at some kind of aggrandizement or loyalty to camp might be in play. But it doesn't negate the testimony.

The Pixie said...

One simple argument disproves Christianity. The fact that the earth is over 4bn years old which cannot be reconciled with the chronology of Genesis. Christianity teaches that death, suffering and decay only came into the world after Adam's Fall at the start of the Biblical chronology yet we know that there have been millions of years of death and decay prior to Adam's Fall, so one of the central arguments of Christianity fails.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

No creed or official doctrine says we must accept the chronology of Gensis. I don't. There goes your argument.

Anonymous said...

There goes your bible.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

how many times do you need stuff explained to you?

see you have to accept the stupid bible if you don't it's no good and if you it's stupid but we don't have to play that game, be a liberal,use your brain.

Anonymous said...

So we don't have to accept whatever the stupid bible says about Jesus.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The flood story as written a thousand years before Jesus lived. it had no historicity, Jesus was real and the most authentic source of his teachings are the four gospels.

we have no reason to assume the flood was real. Jesus was and is real.

Anonymous said...

If "the most authentic source" of stories about Jesus is the four gospels, as you say, just as the bible is the most authentic source for the account of Noah, then without any credible independent verification, I have no reason to believe it.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
If "the most authentic source" of stories about Jesus is the four gospels, as you say, just as the bible is the most authentic source for the account of Noah, then without any credible independent verification, I have no reason to believe it.


The story of Noah was taken from pagan mythology.It was fiction, Jesus really existed, There;s a ton of evidence. We have good reason to amuse we have his teachings, I'll do an article on it if you want.

Anonymous said...

What about all those miracles, including the resurrection? A ton of evidence? No, just the bible, and not a single shred of additional evidence. I have no reason to believe it.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
What about all those miracles, including the resurrection? A ton of evidence? No, just the bible, and not a single shred of additional evidence. I have no reason to believe it.

There non canonical documents supporting the Res. weightiness of polycarp, Irenaeus

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

there are 37 non canonical gospels all depict Jesus as flesh and blood miracle worker.

A. Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Thomas which was found in a Coptic version at Nag Hammadi, but also exists in another form in several Greek fragments, is a prime example of a saying source. The narratival elements are very minimal, amounting to things like "Jesus said" or "Mary asked him about this,and he said..." The Gospel is apt to be dismissed by conservatives and Evangelicals due to its Gnostic elements and lack of canonicity. While it is true that Thomas contains heavily Gnostic elements of the second century or latter, it also contains a core of sayings which are so close to Q sayings from the synoptics that some have proposed that it may be Q (see Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels).[4] There are 46 sayings that parallel Q sayings in Thomas. This is what I call the orthodox core of the book.[5]

Be that as it may, there is good evidence that the material in Thomas comes from an independent tradition,t hat it is not merely copied out of the synoptics but represents a PMR. Through Statistical Correlation Analysis of Thomas and the Synoptic, Steven Davies argues that the Gospel of Thomas is independent of the canonical gospels on account of differences in order of the sayings. [6] Lisa Haygood of Fullerton states "serious probability exists that Thomas preserves an older tradition of the historical Jesus than that of the synoptic Gospels." [7] Stephen J. Patterson compares the wording of each saying in Thomas to its synoptic counterpart with the conclusion that Thomas represents an autonomous stream of tradition:
If Thomas were dependent upon the synoptic gospels, it would be possible to detect in the case of every Thomas-synoptic parallel the same tradition-historical development behind both the Thomas version of the saying and one or more of the synoptic versions. That is, Thomas' author/editor, in taking up the synoptic version, would have inherited all of the accumulated tradition-historical baggage owned by the synoptic text, and then added to it his or her own redactional twist. In the following texts this is not the case. Rather than reflecting the same tradition-historical development that stands behind their synoptic counterparts, these Thomas sayings seem to be the product of a tradition-history which, though exhibiting the same tendencies operative within the synoptic tradition, is in its own specific details quite unique. This means, of course, that these sayings are not dependent upon their synoptic counterparts, but rather derive from a parallel and separate tradition.[8]

There are several other non canonical Gospels perhaps the most important for apologetic is Gospel of Peter and I will deal with thyiat and others in part II.

B. evidence of saying source in Pauline references


Koster theorizes that Paul probably had a saying source like that of Q available to him. Paul's use of Jesus' teachings indicates that he probably worked from his own saying source which contained at least aspects of Q. That indicates wide connection with the Jerusalem chruch and the proto "Orthodox" faith.

Anonymous said...

So you have nothing. Nada, Zip. Zero.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

try reading it again, if you don't understand the importance of a saying source then I;ll try to explain. first you have to answer what I said,

Anonymous said...

You say "source". I say is is just additional gospel stories that didn't make it into the cannon (often because they were regarded as heretical for not espousing the emerging church doctrine). As historical documents, they have no independent verification whatsoever. You can say all these gospels agree with each other, but that's not entirely true, either. They give different details, sometimes contradictory versions of the stories. A historian would need more verification than that. There is not universal agreement that Jesus existed, and very little agreement among historians that miraculous events described in the gospels happened at all. Those who do think so are swayed by their Christian beliefs, not by objective historical evidence.

Anonymous said...

Let's talk about "Q".

First, it is a purely hypothetical construct to explain that common elements of the gospel stories. There is no shred of physical evidence that Q actually existed, or providing its provenance.

Second, all this discussion of Q negates any claims of independent verification. It ties all these documents to a common ancestry. From a historical perspective, this means everything derives from a single source, and there is no independent verification. Nada. Zip. Zero.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

You say "source". I say is is just additional gospel stories that didn't make it into the cannon (often because they were regarded as heretical for not espousing the emerging church doctrine).

You don't understand the argument and you have hold of the wrong concept entirely. I am not talking about merely additional sources. I saying sources such as Q.


As historical documents, they have no independent verification whatsoever. You can say all these gospels agree with each other, but that's not entirely true, either.

the vast majority of scholars accept q as well as L and M and others, Those are the sources NT teaches are built upon.

The saying sources go back further than the narrative form Synoptic sayings and show up in gospel of Thomas which indicates they ere early and wide spread

They give different details, sometimes contradictory versions of the stories. A historian would need more verification than that. There is not universal agreement that Jesus existed, and very little agreement among historians that miraculous events described in the gospels happened at all. Those who do think so are swayed by their Christian beliefs, not by objective historical evidence.


the overwhelming majority of scholars believe he existed and that those who who believe he did not are idiots. There are some who take the myther position but they considered on a par with anthropologists like Jeff" Meldrum.

Anonymous said...

You say I don't understand the argument. You're talking about "saying sources". So what? No historian would call that an independent source. It's what all those gospels were derived from. I don't think you understand the argument. We're talking about independent corroborating sources. Do you understand what an independent source is, and why historians need them? The fact remains, there are none.

You also keep backing away from my statement that there is no historical verification for the miracles of Jesus, and claiming instead that most scholars believe that Jesus existed. But regardless of the growing body of serious (and respected) scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus, there is not a solid consensus that the man behind the legends actually performed those miracles. The reason for that lack of consensus is the total absence of any independent sources that would verify it.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

You say I don't understand the argument. You're talking about "saying sources". So what? No historian would call that an independent source. It's what all those gospels were derived from.

you really have no idea how it works, Obviously Q is independent from Matthew, Even Matt uses it the fact that some other group had this list of sayings means the list is independent of the group that used it in Matt,

I don't think you understand the argument. We're talking about independent corroborating sources. Do you understand what an independent source is, and why historians need them? The fact remains, there are none.

first we need to establish what specific claim is being made. that will determine what sources we need. Is it Jesus' tealights,? His existence itself? what?


You also keep backing away from my statement that there is no historical verification for the miracles of Jesus, and claiming instead that most scholars believe that Jesus existed.

that is quite unfair.You want to compare historical feedings with observational forms of science. Historians can't prove things like chemists prove things. You can prove hypothesis by doing chemistry in a lab, historians can;t do history in a lab. We can not go back in time and observe. o all we can do s establish the validity of documents and make probability on the verity holding up. Historical arguments will always be probabilistic and not direct proof. Given all that I base the validity of ancient world miracles upon what can be learned about modern miracle claims


But regardless of the growing body of serious (and respected) scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus, there is not a solid consensus that the man behind the legends actually performed those miracles. The reason for that lack of consensus is the total absence of any independent sources that would verify it.

the growing body of respected people who don't believe Jesus existed is analogous to the growing body of scientific thought that believes bigfoot exists.10 years ago there was one guy, now there are two, it's doubled in just 10 years.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Pix you have given us an agenda for the next four weeks, Monday i'll do a thin on the general state of evidence for the validity of the Gospels overall. that will come in to parts.Maybe I'll see.

Then I will do muckrakes and Jesus mytherism. I am going to bracket those for now so we an take it a step at a time.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I forgot what blog we are on. I ill do this on cadre blog not this one,

Anonymous said...

You are like a hopeless boy or ship sinking in an ocean. You have accepted far too many of our naturalistic premises in order to effectively argue against us. You becoming a fellow atheist is very foreseeable.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
You are like a hopeless boy or ship sinking in an ocean. You have accepted far too many of our naturalistic premises in order to effectively argue against us. You becoming a fellow atheist is very foreseeable.

that is utter bullshit, you have to understand what is crucial to stand by and what is not, you don;t understand that. God is the TS with that as the base there's no limit

Anonymous said...

i never understand the claim that the jews would have brought out jesus' dead body and exposed the disciples. this argument assumes that they HAD the power AND were willing, but where is the evidence? They just confirmed to the masses that jesus was no messiah , he was easily caught and dispatched. why now try to bring out dead body and expose it?

Anonymous said...

It is time for you to come out of the closet and admit that you are an atheist. Even Paul said there is a time for us to put away childish things.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
It is time for you to come out of the closet and admit that you are an atheist. Even Paul said there is a time for us to put away childish things.

I was an atheist then I fond the Lord,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
i never understand the claim that the jews would have brought out jesus' dead body and exposed the disciples. this argument assumes that they HAD the power AND were willing, but where is the evidence? They just confirmed to the masses that jesus was no messiah , he was easily caught and dispatched. why now try to bring out dead body and expose it?

that does not negate his being messiah, read ISAAH 53

Jesse said...

Speaking of Isaiah 53, here is some research that I have done of that passage:

https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-suffering-servant-of-isaiah-53.html

Here also is an overview article on the reliability of the New Testament:

https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2018/03/evidence-for-traditional-dating-of-new.html

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

pretty good stuff

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

here ismy Is 53 submenue

http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2011/01/isaiah-53-suffering-servant-sub-menue.html