Where is the liberalism in AYBD?

Page 3 of 4 (68 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >
This post has 67 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 308
Dean J | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 2 2014 1:23 PM
Five different versions of the Peter/Mark tradition? Could someone (preferably Denise) elaborate?
Posts 10123
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 2 2014 3:04 PM

Off the top of my head, I don't remember who made the analysis of the details in each tradition, though it was well laid out. And if I remember, I'll come back here (we're talking Papias, and then the church fathers).  Most of the variation was relative to timing; whether Peter was alive at the time Mark wrote, and then how much time after Peter's death in each version.  The point of the analysis was to demonstrate flavor of a tradition.

EDIT:

Out of curiousity, I did an easy search of the Fathers for some quick quotes (there's actually more). 

Papias Fragments 'And the Elder used to say this: “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything which he heard or to make any false statement in them.'

Clement of Alexandria ' Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Cæsar’s equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark.'

Eusebius 'And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.'

Jerome 'MARK the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon “She who is in Babylon elect together with you saluteth you3 and so doth Mark my son.” So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christ to his example. Philo most learned of the Jews seeing the first church at Alexandria still Jewish in a degree, wrote a book on their manner of life as something creditable to his nation telling how, as Luke says, the believers had all things in common5 at Jerusalem, so he recorded that he saw was done at Alexandria, under the learned Mark. He died in the eighth year of Nero and was buried at Alexandria, Annianus succeeding him.'


Posts 308
Dean J | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 2 2014 4:14 PM
Ok thanks. I was aware of the issue of whether Peter was alive or not and as to the order of the gospels. I wasnt aware that some have distinguished five separate versions.
Posts 204
Oldnewbie | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 3 2014 12:14 PM

After much research and thoughtful consideration here are my reasons for accepting the traditional authorship for the Gospels:

 

1. Matthew - Ladies and Gents, he's a tax collector!  Who expects good news from the IRS these days?  (By the way, this in no way is to demean anyone from that august agency reading this and I'll be posting as 'anonymous' from this point forward.)  You've got to give Matthew the benefit of the doubt as it should be considered a miracle from God he survived the first time he preached publicly!  That had to be some sermon in order for him to get out of there in one piece.

2.  Mark - OK, maybe this one should have been called the Gospel of Peter.  No...wait.  At some point one of those appeared and it caused a bit of a problem in Antioch, if I remember correctly.  Can't use that.  Let's just use the secretary's name.  No one knows him so it's going to have to be really, really good news!

3.  Luke - Unless you're looking for additions to your family or expecting negative test results, see Matthew above.  Good news from a doctor?  Possible, I guess, as long as he didn't charge for the house call.

4.  John - If I remember correctly, one of the entries in the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 edition (yes, currently languishing on CP (

https://www.logos.com/product/33266/encyclopedia-britannica) states that by the 4th century at least some church leaders thought that John had been senile when he wrote Revelation I have little problem believing that he had some contemporaries that were of the same opinion regarding his Gospel as well, especially if they were gentiles or ex-Sadducees.   

 

Posts 78
Rob | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 6 2014 10:21 AM

Hi

The problem that I have with AYBD is one of trust. If a person is familiar with all of the academic issues and critical theories etc, then they would be able to wade through it and understand where it is all coming from. If for example, you've never heard of JEDP the material touching on the Pentateuch will through you for a loop. 

So, since I am not familiar with all things critical, I can't help but not trust the material or at the very least, take it for what it is, the opinions of the authors.

This would imply that the vast majority of those using the AYBD and similar products could be walking on thin ice so to speak.

Posts 10123
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 6 2014 11:54 AM

Any religion that depends on reading the exactly right books or listening to the exactly correct pastor would seem to be a bit 'dice-y'.

I always like to ask one of our evangelical pastors (there's 4 in our tiny town), which of them I should be listening to, or should the decision be the music team.


Posts 26285
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 6 2014 12:49 PM

Robert Perron:
This would imply that the vast majority of those using the AYBD and similar products could be walking on thin ice so to speak.

That is not the conclusion I would draw. For two reasons, I have a higher opinion of the general education level of the "majority" although I realize it varies from congregation to congregation. Second, I believe that the majority is able to do a wee bit of research to find the information they need to understand viewpoints they are not familiar with. Third, and here I am being idealistic, I hope the majority does not blindly trust any resource of human origin.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 175
Bill Coley | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 6 2014 10:56 PM

Robert Perron:
So, since I am not familiar with all things critical, I can't help but not trust the material or at the very least, take it for what it is, the opinions of the authors.

I read your post as saying that your lack of experience with or knowledge of "all things critical" in some way justifies your lack of trust in the material. I think the more obvious conclusion is that your lack of familiarity with the material calls for more robust efforts on your part to become familiar with it.

I agree that it can be hard to trust people/ideas we don't know well. But we're wise to remember that trust is a two-piece quilt: earned by those who deserve it, but also given by those prepared to offer it.

As for content that is the opinion of its authors: There is no Logos resource - save, depending on your theology, the Bible - of which that cannot be said.

Posts 6323
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 6 2014 11:16 PM

1 Thessalonians 5:21 has been of great help.  I love the AYBD.  I have put it as my # 1 Bible Dictionary and I'm learning new things (whether I agree with some or not, that's not the point).  Anyway, nice thread.  I think so far everybody has managed to keep it civil...Stick out tongue...I'd still recommend it as a must in every preacher's library, though.  

Blessings & Good night!

DAL

Posts 78
Rob | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 7 2014 11:40 AM

Good points, but, what if you are a person who wants to learn about the Bible but know nothing of the "scholarly" side of Bible study. You would be expecting to learn about the Bible as a closed system with internal consistency and you would expect a program like Logos to help you put the pieces together but as was mentioned in another discussion, a lot of the resources are spiritually deflationary. 

Regarding opinions, well, there are opinions and then there are opinions. Personally, I don't subscribe to JEDP so when I see that the AYBD treats it as an established fact, then it does make me wonder about the rest of the material. 

Is JEDP the Biblical equivalent of Darwinism?

Posts 10123
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 7 2014 12:03 PM

Very likely your series of 'ifs' would be similar to Darwinism, since none of your statements are logically linked.  And in that since, they'd be comparable to many scholarly writings.  And in that since, one could then 'jump' to JEDP.  So, yes, it all seems to connect.  


Posts 18651
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 7 2014 12:07 PM

Robert Perron:
You would be expecting to learn about the Bible as a closed system with internal consistency

The Bible does have internal consistency, but it isn't a closed system. It interacts with and is influenced by the world around it. It was penned in real times and places in history. Surely it is ultimately God's work through and through, but he used human beings who had access to other historic documents as their sources. Even the Bible itself refers to many of these external sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible), so it does no good denying that there were such things or you'll end up with your own internal inconsistency. Studying to find out more about how the Bible relates to other Ancient Near Eastern literature should not detract from one's faith in the miraculous or the amazing consistency of the Bible, but it does help us to understand customs and ideas that are utterly foreign to our 21st century setting.

Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 7 2014 12:13 PM

Robert Perron:

Is JEDP the Biblical equivalent of Darwinism?

It depends on the disposition of the person who is advocating it. For many proponents, it leads to inevitable conclusions of non-inspiration and (because of the disconnect between Biblical assertions and the "conclusions" of DocHype theory) errancy within the Bible text. For these folks, the comparison to Darwinism would be apt--it is an explanation that neutralizes claims of Providential inspiration. There are others, many who were exposed to DocHype in cemetery, who basically only heard the one side of the argument and felt that the hypothesis was adequately proved but who still clung to their belief (George apparently is one of those), who find some way of getting these incompatible theories to co-exist (which inevitably results in the so-called "low view" of Scripture). For these folks, their perspective is not so much like Darwinism as it is like Theistic Evolutionists. These folks try to make room in their explanations for both science and Scripture--which tends to not give either the honor it deserves.

Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 7 2014 12:20 PM

Rosie Perera:

Robert Perron:
You would be expecting to learn about the Bible as a closed system with internal consistency

The Bible does have internal consistency, but it isn't a closed system. It interacts with and is influenced by the world around it. It was penned in real times and places in history. Surely it is ultimately God's work through and through, but he used human beings who had access to other historic documents as their sources. Even the Bible itself refers to many of these external sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible), so it does no good denying that there were such things or you'll end up with your own internal inconsistency. Studying to find out more about how the Bible relates to other Ancient Near Eastern literature should not detract from one's faith in the miraculous or the amazing consistency of the Bible, but it does help us to understand customs and ideas that are utterly foreign to our 21st century setting.

I think there is a substantial amount of evidence--internal evidence Wink--that suggests that the Bible is quite a bit like a closed system, at least in terms of how YHWH wants us to accept and respond to it. He is ALL about the revelation of the Word, and I have come to the conclusion that the "facts" we call "reality" are often counter-factual and counter-intuitive to His revelation precisely to test us as to which we will be swayed by. Before you say YHWH would never do that, you need to account for the fact that He says numerous time in numerous places that this is exactly what He is doing.

For instance, the "people with access to historical documents" notion (Q and its ilk), cannot account for prophecy that is utterly word-centric--i.e. the words of Scripture are literally crafted and chosen to accomplish their set tasks. The Book "as is" presents an organic, unified whole from Gen. 1 to Rev. 22.

Posts 18651
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 7 2014 12:32 PM

David Paul:
"people with access to historical documents" notion (Q and its ilk)

Q is merely theorized (I don't care about it) and JEDP is a theory too, which I never pay any attention to in reading/studying the Bible. I'm talking about the documents that the Bible mentions. God put mention of those into the Bible, ergo he wanted us to know they existed. Not to undermine our understanding of Scripture as an organic, unified whole.

Posts 469
Nick Steffen | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 7 2014 12:34 PM

I think Rosie is referring to these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

Posts 18651
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 7 2014 12:36 PM

Nick Steffen:

Yes, very astute Nick. I included that link too. David chose to ignore it.

Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 7 2014 12:58 PM

Rosie Perera:

Nick Steffen:

Yes, very astute Nick. I included that link too. David chose to ignore it.

No, I wasn't ignoring them...I was simply addressing your "not a closed system" comment in a way that treats the meaning of that concept more fully than you intended.

Actually, one could almost wholly ignore the "document" sources mentioned in that Wikipedia article, as almost none of them exist as tangible text documents at this time, and the ones that do exist by name are almost certainly either pseudepigraphal or simply named like the earlier work. To say that these are evidence of a non-closed system is not giving the concept of a closed system the credit and vigorous vitality it deserves. None of those "sources" effects in any significant degree (or any degree at all?) whether Scripture is opened or closed.

In fact, a few years back I created this graphic to illustrate what I'm getting at. I arrived at this conclusion because cyclical (and thus circular) patterns are one of the most potent concepts in the prophetic constructs found in the Bible.

To say that the Bible is a circular argument is not only inevitable, it is also not to say that it is invalid. Circularity of reasoning is not a problem for YHWH...in many ways it is His bread and butter.

Posts 26285
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 7 2014 1:06 PM

Robert Perron:
You would be expecting to learn about the Bible as a closed system with internal consistency and you would expect a program like Logos to help you put the pieces together but as was mentioned in another discussion, a lot of the resources are spiritually deflationary. 

If this were what one was looking for, I would not recommend Logos. As a closed system one would need nothing but a search, an atlas and possibly a dictionary. Everything else is outside the closed system.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 4761
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 7 2014 1:19 PM

I get what you are saying, MJ, but I think you are stating either too much or not enough (maybe both?). Let's not forget that the closed system we are discussing (if indeed the Bible is one and/or the description doesn't lose more than it gains--I think it is valid) is created by the Creator who speaks things into and out of existence. To say the Bible is a closed system I think gives many people an impression that it is as a result "finite". That is a mistake. It can expand and contract according to the only relevant concern--the will of YHWH. His closed system may well include things we would think not compatible with a closed system. To put it in a succinct way, what I'm saying is this. The closed system of Scripture is the will of YHWH, which can literally be absolutely anything at all, including things we think both improbable and impossible. It is not static but is as fluid as His creative will provides.

Humans, in resources such as commentaries, are simply attempting to describe that system (often doing so very poorly since most don't perceive it correctly), but that doesn't mean that their efforts are outside the system. In the same way a broken clock is correct twice a day, even inept commentary is occasionally capable of describing in a satisfactory way certain facets of the closed system...making them part of that system.

Even more unexpected, perhaps, is that those who stridently insist that the system is an open system can be part of the closed system.

Page 3 of 4 (68 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS