Where is the liberalism in AYBD?

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

Posts 7214
DAL | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, May 30 2014 10:46 PM

I've read and heard some say that the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary is liberal (at least in some entries).  Can anyone give an example where the liberalism may be found.  Or is it just called liberal because sometimes it gives you different views on certain topics? Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

DAL

Posts 18867
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 30 2014 11:16 PM

"Liberal" is a relative term. AYBD has a reputation in some quarters as being "liberal" though many conservative scholars use it heavily and trust it. Some say a better description of it would be "critical-scholarly" rather than "liberal" though in some people's minds those two are roughly equivalent.

Here is one example that might be perceived as "liberal" by some people, from the article on the Gospel of Mark: "although tradition assigns the authorship to a man, there is no inherent reason why, given the gospel’s own anonymity, it could not have been written by a woman"

Posts 7214
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 30 2014 11:22 PM

Rosie Perera:

"Liberal" is a relative term. AYBD has a reputation in some quarters as being "liberal" though many conservative scholars use it heavily and trust it. Some say a better description of it would be "critical-scholarly" rather than "liberal" though in some people's minds those two are roughly equivalent.

Here is one example that might be perceived as "liberal" by some people, from the article on the Gospel of Mark: "although tradition assigns the authorship to a man, there is no inherent reason why, given the gospel’s own anonymity, it could not have been written by a woman"

Oh I see.  Thanks Rosie.  It doesn't bother me, on the contrary, you could toss that information and cite AYBD to show how some go as far as suggesting that a woman could have written Mark, but that the evidence and tradition say otherwise.  Not so bad after all.  I have a lot of reading to do.  I think I will enjoy this puppy a lot as it has become part of my family in my Logos library.  I will prioritize it and put it on my top 5 or 7 dictionaries/encyclopedias as suggested in the webinar.

Thanks!

DAL

Posts 406
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 30 2014 11:33 PM

Rosie Perera:
Here is one example that might be perceived as "liberal" by some people, from the article on the Gospel of Mark: "although tradition assigns the authorship to a man, there is no inherent reason why, given the gospel’s own anonymity, it could not have been written by a woman"
I just don't buy it. If this were the case, The book would have been called Markie. Stick out tongue

Posts 28978
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 30 2014 11:53 PM

Paul C:
The book would have been called Markie. Stick out tongue

Like Georgie Elliot?Wink

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

Posts 18867
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 12:14 AM

DAL:
 It doesn't bother me, on the contrary, you could toss that information and cite AYBD to show how some go as far as suggesting that a woman could have written Mark, but that the evidence and tradition say otherwise.  Not so bad after all.  I have a lot of reading to do.  I think I will enjoy this puppy a lot

Yes, in general AYBD gives enough information that both liberal and conservative readers alike can find ways of citing it to meet their needs. I have it prioritized as my top Bible dictionary.

Posts 10893
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 6:39 AM

Ignoring 'the evidence' (but agreeing with the authorship being 'traditions'), Mark would by necessity have to be male.  Peter's (Cephas) wife traveled with him; there's no way Peter'd have a female secretary.  Plus of course, Mark forgot to finish up, getting so excited over the women.

"I didn't know God made honky tonk angels."

Posts 5285
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 9:29 AM

Denise:

Ignoring 'the evidence' (but agreeing with the authorship being 'traditions'), Mark would by necessity have to be male.  Peter's (Cephas) wife traveled with him; there's no way Peter'd have a female secretary.  Plus of course, Mark forgot to finish up, getting so excited over the women.

The Gospel of Mark would likely have been written by a male, as for the sex of Peter's secretary, Christianity turned the world upside down, we have Jesus being supported by wealthy women (maybe some might even say today Jesus might be labeled as living of the avails of prostitution (not saying any or all prostitutes continued that life after starting to follow Jesus)). We have a strong early tradition of Peter/Mark connection and authorship of the gospel is placed in Mark's hands to give it a direct connection to an Apostle. I am not 100% sure who wrote it but I accept it as a collection of true accounts of the life of my Saviour. It seems unlikely the ending is natural although I do accept the possible validity of those who feel that the ending is suppose to act as a call to encourage us who believes to go out and tell the Good News.... The gospel of Jesus is not ended but goes on with all the believers who follow and proclaim Jesus. 

-Dan

Posts 10893
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 10:24 AM

OK, Dan. We're going to have to 'step lightly' here.  And not disagreeing with your points; only curious.

Where (hopefully a Logos reference) did you get (1) Jesus being supported by wealthy women and (2) how did prostitutes get in the picture?  I'm guessing you're quoting from somewhere.   I'm suspecting someone's working off the verb 'ministering'.

Regarding Mark/Peter, the issue there isn't the tradition per se; rather it's the five differing versions of the tradition.

"I didn't know God made honky tonk angels."

Posts 655
Steve Maling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 11:27 AM

Greetings, Denise,

Ken Bailey for one (but I'm not going to take the time to hunt up a reference) points to Luke 8.1-3, connecting the "ministering" with "the resources" (my rough rendering of BDAG, first numbered paragraph). 

Regarding your second point, I suppose the tradition of Mary Magdalene's alleged former means of support figures in.

Posts 10893
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 11:40 AM

Well, that sure looks like a strong argument.  Majority text and a Catholic pope.  Lordy.

"I didn't know God made honky tonk angels."

Posts 10731
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 11:41 AM

Steve Maling:
I suppose the tradition of Mary Magdalene's alleged former means of support figures in.

Not wanting to start a theological flame war, but the immoral woman in Luke 7 is not identified as Mary.

logosres:dbtel;hw=Mary_Magdalene;off=6 tells us how this "tradition" came to be.

Luke 8:2-3—"who provided for them out of their means" gives rather strong evidence that Jesus received material support from wealthy women.

Posts 7214
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 11:44 AM

Jack Caviness:

Steve Maling:
I suppose the tradition of Mary Magdalene's alleged former means of support figures in.

Not wanting to start a theological flame war, but the immoral woman in Luke 7 is not identified as Mary.

logosres:dbtel;hw=Mary_Magdalene;off=6 tells us how this "tradition" came to be.

Just like Mel Gibson painted Mary Magdalene as the adulterous woman (John 8:1-11) in the Passion of the Christ movie. Stick out tongue

DAL

Posts 5285
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 11:51 AM

Jack Caviness:

Steve Maling:
I suppose the tradition of Mary Magdalene's alleged former means of support figures in.

Not wanting to start a theological flame war, but the immoral woman in Luke 7 is not identified as Mary.

logosres:dbtel;hw=Mary_Magdalene;off=6 tells us how this "tradition" came to be.

Luke 8:2-3—"who provided for them out of their means" gives rather strong evidence that Jesus received material support from wealthy women.

I was not trying to imply Mary Magalene was one I had been thinking of Luke 8 but also Matt. 21:31-32. 

-Dan

Posts 10893
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 11:52 AM

Jack ...  my motive actually was relative to another rabbit trail on whense funding (not necessarily wealthy or female), what the 12's duties were, etc.

However if you review the manuscripts, you'll notice Luke 8.3 was interestingly bouncy as to exactly who got the 'ministering'.  Clearly my curiousity is not remotely early.

"I didn't know God made honky tonk angels."

Posts 10731
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 5:02 PM

Denise:
However if you review the manuscripts, you'll notice Luke 8.3 was interestingly bouncy as to exactly who got the 'ministering'.  Clearly my curiousity is not remotely early.

Whether they ministered to Him or to them, my point is still valid that Jesus received material support from wealthy women. Whether a single word is singular of plural does not make a passage "bouncy".

Posts 10893
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 5:19 PM

Jack ... you should have been a copyist.  You missed your calling.  You're arguing with them.

"I didn't know God made honky tonk angels."

Posts 2841
Michael Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 7:27 PM

We don't know in what way the seven demons from which Mary was delivered manifested their evil.  But it sounds as though evil had quite a hold on her before she was delivered.  (Luke 8:2). Seven is a very significant number in Scripture.  That probably accounts for the tradition of prostitution.  Unmarried women did not have a lot of options in that time, and she is not associated with a husband.  It is not a completely unreasonable assumption, but definitely not proven fact.

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 10893
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 7:40 PM

I'm assuming we're all participating in weekend humor:

- The actual gospel best surmised to be female was Luke; Mark was a long-shot but apparently enough to get the ball rolling. Kudos to Rosie.

- There is no evidence of who wrote the gospels; the only available data is opinions from centuries later. Even 'Matthew' is a major argument.  Kudos to Dal.

- The text doesn't assign prostitution to Mary Magdelene. Kudos to Dan.

- Nor are there any sevens in the Bible associated with prostitution. 10? 40? Any other bids?  Kudos to Michael.

- The text doesn't portray any of the women with Jesus as wealthy; it simply says they paid from their own purse/substance.  Just as Barnabas did.  Kudos to Jack.

- And the text doesn't specify who exactly who they were supporting (Amplified taking no chances and including 'him and them'). The other translations bouncing back and forth. Kudos to Steve.

Now we all have to agree the best was Markie.  Extra kudos to Paul!

"I didn't know God made honky tonk angels."

Posts 406
Paul C | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 31 2014 8:06 PM

Denise:
I'm assuming we're all participating in weekend humor:
I can verify that assumption where Markie is concerned. I attempted to throw stones at my own chauvinism. However, Twisting scripture into a pretzel to support a chauvinistic view appears to be something other than humor. I'm not offended. That just ain't my "Style". Cool

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