Where is the liberalism in AYBD?

"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"

Rosie Perera said:

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"

DAL said:

 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.

Denise said:

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

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.

Jack Caviness said:

Steve Maling said:

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

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.

Denise said:

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

DAL said:

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

The answer can be obtained by an analysis of three key factors:

1. The background of the contributors (especially those writing on disputed issues between "conservatives" and "liberals")
2. the conclusions and where they generally fall in the divide between "conservatives" and "liberals"
3. what presuppositions and methodology are used to arrive to these conclusions (is there a predominance of the use of historical critical methodologies or is the historical grammatical methodology preferred)

A few key topics could help us here

As far as authors are concerned, there is Ronald Hendel on Genesis, Moses Weinfeld on Deuteronomy, John J Collins on Daniel, George Nickelsburg on the Resurrection, Kysar on John, the Gospel, Steven Holloway on Kings, Book of 1-2 (especially the sections on Genre and history and historiography in Kings). An exception might be K. Kitchen on the Exodus (event) who argues for its historicity even though he characterizes the early date (that many conservatives favor) as the "“lazy man’s solution. Almost all of the authors would be classified as moderate to liberal on these controversial issues. 

The conclusions and discussion on disputed issues confirm this assessment:

Hendel on Genesis argues that " There are several competing theories today, but the long-established identification of J (the Yahwist), E (the Elohist), and P (the Priestly source) still provides the most plausible model for the composition of Genesis..."  V 2, p 933. The Joseph narrative, though written down no earlier than the early monarchy, reflects in the tribal relationships a time when the Joseph tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh) were dominant. V 2, p 937.

Weinfeld on Deuteronomy puts "the dating of Deuteronomy in the 7th century B.C.E." while it might preserve some old traditions. V 2, p 174

Collins on Daniel states that "All but the most conservative scholars now accept the conclusion that the book of Daniel is not a product of the Babylonian era but reached its present form in the 2d century B.C.E. Daniel is not a historical person but a figure of legend." V 2, p 30

Nickelsburg on the Resurrection of Jesus after Surveying the Deutero-Pauline Literature (at least 2 Thess and the Pastoral Epistles), concludes that " Although in their present form most of these stories posit a bodily presence almost without exception, elements in the stories strain against such an interpretation: Jesus materializes and disappears suddenly; he is mistaken as a mysterious stranger or a gardener; he is thought to be a spirit or ghost; the disciples disbelieve. This suggests an apologetic tendency in the tradition which objectified Jesus’ presence by emphasizing bodily features or functions."

Kysar on John argues that "The most that can be concluded about the author is that he (or she) was a prominent and respected figure in the Johannine community who assumed sufficient authority to undertake the task of reinterpreting the tradition in the light of the crisis facing the Church." and denies that the author was an eyewitness to the events.  V 3, p 920

Holloway on Kings speaks of "Form critical approaches to miracle stories (legenda) usually emphasize their folkloristic kernel, which has often been “sophisticated” by adding a moral or having it demonstrate a loftier theological value. "  V 4, p 78 The two biblical accounts each provide selected items of accurate information regarding the same historical campaign [of Sennacherib], even though the “miraculous” delivery of Jerusalem in the second account, and probably the dramatic rhetoric of the Rabshakeh’s speeches, are theologically motivated fiction." V 4, p 81.

These conclusions are generally rejected by conservatives.

I will not systematically go over the presuppositions and methodologies behind these conclusions but even a cursory reading of the various articles shows that historical critical methodologies rather than the historical grammatical method are at work. It is clear that the anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions of historical critical method heavily influence these conclusions, especially in the denial of the existence of miracles, God's intervention in history, and the reality of predictive prophecy (e.g. Daniel). We could also mention the assured results of historical criticism that argue for (at least) three Isaiahs as the result of the use of tools such as redaction and form criticisms and deny the book’s own claims that predictive prophecy is at work in "Second Isaiah" for example.

However, many conservatives including myself appreciate AYBD because it does a good job at presenting the state of the critical scholarship (as of the date of writing), generally does a good job at presenting the various views and their arguments, and also deals with a lot of issues that are not controversial (at least not according to the conservatives" and "liberals" divide). Very useful in seminary, less so in the Church.

Denise said:

- 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.

Just to throw a consideration in, you can read that Joanna was the wife of Herod's steward (Luke 8:3), so she very much would have been a woman of means.

But going further, it's not hard to find commentaries (WBC, Anchor, BECNT, NIVAC just to mention some) that would say that given how the sentence is structured, there is at least an implication that Luke is making the point that Jesus' influence has penetrated high places, to high people, to well off people, and the reader would recognize this point given the tradition of mentioning the most important first:

"Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means"

Denise said:

One could simply read the text.

I've always found that to work best.

Well, don't be fooled by 'us conservatives'.  There was a time in the 1800s when 'conservative' meant you studied your Bible.  These days, it's which books and commentaries you can safely read (hint, hint ... not Ehrman).

Yes, you have to check your publishing history (you DO publish, don't you?), what presuppositions underlie your theology, and of course whether you're conservative or liberal.  Only then should you address the more complex issues surrounding 'Jesus'.

Paul, you're comments are always refreshing.

Paul C said:

I struggle with Paul's writings...

You are everyone else on the planet. Good thing he isn't trying to speak for God or anything...

David Paul ... we're struggling and you haven't even written your books yet.

And Paul C ....  I'm not in the flowery business (Arizona!). My belief is that the maximum that Christianity can be, resides in the most that your children can understand. Anything more than that qualifies as a hobby, Piper's professionals, and self-promotion.

While I agree labels can isolate, and that they shouldn't. I don't find them completely unhelpful.

Most Arizona consolates offer free copies.[A]

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.'

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.   

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.

Robert Perron said:

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.

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?