POINT #1: The 4th Gospel was probably NOT written by an eyewitness of the life, ministry, or crucifixion of Jesus.
Answer: The point of Bauckham's entire book Jesus and the eye witnesses, us to show that the work is full of eyewitness testimony he points to and proves a huge number. Showing a specific page is irrelevant because it's all over the book. There is oneset of page in particular ,however, as they show his argument for the main authorship of the books is the eye witness "Edler John" named by Papias, 420-425
POINT #2: The 4th Gospel is the least historically reliable of the four Gospels.
Answer:
That is taken out by Bauckham and the three sources Zarely names (see the main article) as evidence if scholarship supporting John's reliability. Bowen's understanding of Biblical scholarship is false. Just having some mistake in John does not invalidate all of John. This answer and the one above actually do take out all 10 points.
Paul Andersen,
Felix Just,
and Tom Thatcher,
Bauckham names John Aston,
J.Louis Martyn
POINT #3:The account of the trial and crucifixion in the 4th Gospel conflicts with the trial and crucifixion accounts in other Gospels.
Answer: 2 problems,
(1) he gives no details there's a good possibility what he calls "conflict" can be harmonized.He has to present the conflicts. It's meaningless otherwise,
(2) He commits the inerrant fallacy, the idea that one mistake in a given biblical document means that we can't trust anything in the document,
POINT #4: Internal conflicts in this passage cast doubt on the historicity and reliability of this passage.
Answer: I have answers. Sorry not enough, he claimed he had a detailed list, this is not detail. It's totally general. this is no better than me simply saying I have answers.
Answer: (1)Since he doesn't say what they are he can't prove I make the same clam. Nor can he prove that historicized prophecy doesn't use real history.
(2)no OT prophesy invokes water flowing from Messiah's side
POINT #6: Other gospels provide no corroboration of the two key historical claims that Kreeft derives from this passage in the 4th gospel.
Answer: The Source has credibility as I document in the main arithmetic. Simce
POINT #7: Other gospels provide no corroboration of Jewish leaders asking Pilate to remove bodies from crosses before the Sabbath day began.
Answer:totally unnecessary we we know they did it they had to.Hebrew Law. we know it from history.
POINT #8: Other gospels provide no corroboration of a wound in Jesus’ side.
Answer: no reason to make it up they had no it;s importance. We know from history the Roans did do that.
POINT #9: Other gospels provide no corroboration of the beloved disciple at the foot of the cross.
Answer: Bauckham argues for Elder john as author (making him the BD) which means he is attested as historical by Papias. The witness at the cross did not have to be the same guy who wrote the gospel He just had to report it to the author,
POINT #10: Other gospels provide no corroboration of stories about the beloved disciple.
Answer: Papias proves Elder john existed, Backham proves he was the BD.
https://www.amazon.com/Testimony-Beloved-Disciple-Narrative-Theology/dp/080103485X
"Bowen-Hinman debate: Papias" no date listed
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/08/photo-authorbauckhamzpstjbww5ohpng.html
The problem for Bradley's view is that while Bauckham does think that there were two Johns it's far from saying that Papias did not have direct access to an eye witness to Jesus. His book is called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and he believes that EJ is one of the eyewitnesses. Not only that but Baukham believes that Elder John wrote the Gospel of John.[pp 420-425]
No comments:
Post a Comment