Tuesday, April 23, 2013

New Testament Questions Galore, Free Audio

For those who enjoy listening to free NT scholarship. I think listening to these sites and podcasts beats listening to the maximally conservative Evangelical scholarship over at Apologetics 315. The questions raised, the uncertainties pointed out by the following scholars are well worth pondering. (I've heard them all, great stuff)

Mark Goodacre at Duke, NTPod:

Dale Allison, The Historical Jesus and the Theological Christ:

David Sanchez, The Apocalyptic Worldview of Mark:

Robert M. Price, The Human Bible (26 show so far)

Robert M. Price, The Bible Geek (over 300 shows so far)
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bible-geek-show/id360861303 You can search for particular topics discussed in past Bible Geek shows by visiting http://recordings.talkshoe.com/rss20430.xml which summarizes topics covered per show, then use Firefox to find specific text. Chrome doesn't list all entries from the RSS feed. Not sure about other browsers.

Dale Martin at Yale, Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature

Dale Martin recently debated maximally conservative Evangelical scholar/apologist, Michael Licona, and Dale raised some obvious knotty questions: http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/10/michael-licona-vs-dale-martin-did-jesus.html (http://apologetics315.com serves as a clearing house for maximally conservative Evangelical apologetics on the web, plenty to listen to there, as I have done, though you soon discover that apologists like Habermas, Keener, McGrew, Blomberg, and many others, were either raised Christian or converted in their teens, and they seem less interested in asking questions than supplying answers to fellow Christians with doubts, including themselves. But why not continue to ask questions, especially since the questions are obvious as pointed out by scholars at the sites I am sharing? And I don't think Martin, Goodacre, Allison or Sanchez are atheists, but they raise some interesting questions for their maximally conservative brethren and recognize that "proving Gospel history" or even proving the physical resurrection of Jesus is far from being a slam dunk. And the theological questions are even more varied and slippery than the historical ones.)

I had heard Dale Martin via his free NT lectures at itunes U, so it was refreshing to see him debate Licona. After you listen to Dale's questions regarding the NT's resurrection stories you might want to read my post, A Carnival of Questions for Resurrection Apologists, which was posted before I had listened to the debate, though my questions mirror many of Dale's points: http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2013/03/carnival-of-questions-for-resurrection.html


Also, there are some things even an Evangelical apologist can't help but notice and hence needs to try and explain away, like the endings that later Christians added to Mark (of which there are more than one, and even those appear in variant forms in different early texts).

Speaking of adding to Scripture, there is also evidence that Paul's letters feature interpolated material (1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). See this fascinating discussion and link to a slide show: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/06/pauline-interpolations.html These are basic questions raised by Pauline scholars, and arranged well by Richard Carrier. Worth pondering, along with William O. Walker's arguments concerning additional interpolations in Paul's letters: https://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/a-case-for-interpolation-does-not-rely-on-manuscript-evidence/

Furthermore, the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, DIFFER MOST FROM EACH OTHER in exactly those places where the ostensibly earliest Gospel, Mark, was silent, i.e., in their tales of Jesus' infancy and post-resurrection appearances (where Mark was silent, so neither Matthew nor Luke could maintain their closeness to one another by following Mark in those areas, hence they diverge the most from each other in exactly in those places).


Later Gospel stories certainly appear to depend on earlier ones, starting with Mark (with of course, a few later urban myths/tall tales about Jesus added to each freshly written Gospel as each appeared). Tracing obvious Gospel trajectories (developments in the story from Mark, Matthew, Luke and finally John) is something done in this brief article: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/wsp1/wsp1-171-ebb-gospel.pdf

There's even a trajectory in the Gospels involving the Judas character: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/journal/wsp1/wsp1-173-kly-judas.pdf


Richard Carrier, VIDEO, Why the Gospels Are Myth: The Evidence of Genre and Content

Interesting stuff.

NOT FREE AUDIO, BUT MORE NT QUESTIONS... (if you can't afford them try obtaining them via interlibrary loan at your local library--they are worth a listen!)

Bart Ehrman, The Historical Jesus http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=643

Bart Ehrman, The New Testament http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=656

Luke Timothy Johnson, Jesus and the Gospels http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=6240


Edward T. Babinski said...

I tend toward the view that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet.

I enjoyed the book, Five Views on the Historical Jesus. It begins with Robert M. Price's chapter on Jesus minimalism, and ends with Blomberg's (written by a maximally conservative Evangelical Christian scholar). Interesting book.

Besides Price and Blomberg, some of the contributing scholars with "in between" views include Crossan and Dunn.

Crossan believes Jesus was historical but argues that much of the NT contains historicized parables rather than history.

As for Dunn, in his enormous tome, Jesus Remembered, he argued that The Gospel of John's narrative is not reliable, nor the claims it makes for Jesus' quasi-divine status. (In his earlier work, Evidence for Jesus, Dunn didn't imagine that Jesus spoke even one word reported in John.) Dunn admits there is little to support the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke, and little evidence that Jesus supported a mission to the gentiles, and no evidence that Jesus saw himself as any kind of messiah (the term does not even appear in Q), nor is there much left of the "Son of Man," except for a few uncertain eschatological allusions. Dunn argues that Jesus did not claim any title for himself. Jesus may have believed that he was going to die, but he did not believe he was dying to redeem the sins of the world. "If Jesus hoped for resurrection it was presumably to share in the general and final resurrection of the dead." There is astonishingly little support for what Jesus' last words were. There is a certain squirming as Dunn admits that Jesus believed in an imminent eschatological climax that, of course, did not happen. "Putting it bluntly, Jesus was proved wrong by the course of events." Then he goes on for four pages trying to argue that we shouldn't be too concerned about this. Dunn's account of the resurrection notes all of the weaknesses of the tradition: The link of Jesus' resurrection to a falsely imminent general resurrection, confusion as to what sort of Jesus the witnesses were seeing, a persistent theme of failure of the witnesses to recognize Jesus (in Matthew 28:17 the disciples are seeing him in Galilee yet "some doubted," not just Thomas), confusion as to where they were seeing Jesus (in Jerusalem and Galilee? on earth or in heaven?). Which is not to say that Dunn does not affirm the resurrection -- he does, but since he admits so many weaknesses and doubts concerning the written accounts he seems to prefer a visionary explanation.

Luke Timothy Johnson is another contributor to the book, but he endorses a literary dependence view of the Gospels over time starting with Mark. And he strongly hedges over whether or not Jesus was literally "born of a virgin." And he also finds much in Greco-Roman religion that parallels what is found in the Gospels.

Edward T. Babinski said...

The authors of Five Views of the Historical Jesus could have chosen other scholars, but most conservatives whose scholarship is well-respected do not affirm inerrancy:
Richard Bauckham,
Tom Wright,
Scot McKnight,
and Larry Hurtado, are a few examples. http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2007/10/in-praise-of--1.html

Larry Hurtado from the list above, started out as a young Assemblies of God pastor but after his further education he now holds a Barthian/Bultmannian view:

"The theological question isn’t whether the biblical texts are 'correct' (and by the way 'correct' on what and in whose eyes?), but whether they witness to divine revelation, NOT whether they supply correct details of HISTORY [my emphasis], paleontology, botany, etc." https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/historically-conditioned-scriptures/#comment-437

"[The point I try to make] isn’t whether NT authors did or did not recognize the historically-conditioned nature of biblical texts but whether people today do." https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/historically-conditioned-scriptures/#comment-453

Hurtado adds, concerning the current state of Evangelical Christian academic institutions:

"What kind of 'academic' institution handles matters in such a disgracefully unfair, unreasonable and unreasoning, and dictatorial manner? What kind of 'Christian' institution is so narrow, so ungracious, so unkind, so Stalinesque as to handle things this way? What does it say about the 'faith' held, how nervous, uncertain, jittery, and reactionary it must be? (As someone once said about such matters, 'With "friends" like these, Jesus doesn’t need enemies!')." https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/academic-injustice-and-shameful-cowardice/