Reading The Bible In 90 Days

My Church will engage in a program to read the entire Bible in 90 days starting on 1/1.  I will be participating as well, even while I am home in WV.  My daily progress will be chronicled on this blog.  What version shall I read?  I thought about using the NLT since I have read next to nothing of that version even though I do not have a large print NLT in my possession. 

Submission To Authority

The following are verses cited in John Howard Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus" as the basis of the Christian's relationship to authority. 

I Tim 2: 3-7, Titus 3:3-7, 2:11-14, I Pet. 2: 21-25, 3:18, Eph. 5:25-27, 4:32-5:2, Phil. 2: 21-25, Col 2: 18ff, 4:1, Eph 6: 1-9, I Cor. 7:20ff, 8:11f, Rom 14:7ff, 15:3f, Gal 5:24; 6:2, Phil. 2:5 .

RATS!

I had planned to read and respond to articles analyzing Baukham's book. However, when I went back to the link to the articles I had saved, I find that to access these articles I would have to pay the theological journal they appear in $25.00/article.  There are at least 6 or 7 articles plus a responding article by Baukham.  I'll have to pass on that.  Also, I switched to a new version of blogger and I don't see a spellcheck option anywhere.  Can anyone tell me how to find it?

"Jesus And The Eyewitnesses: The Gospels As Eyewitness Testimony" by Richard Baukham

In a perfect world, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" by Professor Richard Baukham, Professor of New Testament Studies at St. Mary's College, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, would be the stake that would finally kill Form Criticism's century plus long view of New Testament origins and authorship. It has been the contention of Form Criticism that the Gospels are not the accounts of eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, or accounts by those who heard directly from such witnesses. Form Criticism has maintained that the Gospels are nothing more than folklore and the process by which they became what we now possess is no different from the development of mythology or folk tales. Form Critics envision a process of the original Gospels being reshaped by each generation for its own needs. The changes were the result of communities retelling the Gospels with no controlling authority making sure each retelling remained true to the original. Form Critics believe that the Gospels we now have resulted from several centuries of retelling and that if one can remove layer after successive layer of Gospel retelling that occurred over the centuries, one can discover the true Gospel, as it was first told. The Gospels, according to Form Critics, were the product of Oral Tradition and were not written down during the lifetimes of the original witnesses to Jesus' ministry. "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" demonstrates that the overwhelming evidence indicates that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus. The Synoptics were the result of the witness of the original twelve disciples, John was written by an eyewitness, and those accounts of personal encounters with Jesus by named individuals originated from those named in those accounts. Baukham fashions his argument from a wide array of sources and disciplines. The Scripture references to the Gospels being written in the lifetime of the disciples is overwhelming. The list of names that appear in the New Testament, when compared to the list of all known names of Jews living in Israel before and centuries after Jesus lived on Earth, makes it plain that the Gospels were not folk tales retold over time. Baukham provides the reader with studies in Folklore which demonstrate that the model of Folklore's development over time does not conform to what the original Form Critics, such as Bultman, envisioned. Folk lore did not by in large develop through uncontrolled community involvement. There were processes by which the message of Folk Tales and Myths remained true to the original form. Baukham also demonstrates that the original Church drew on the tradition of Jewish and Hellenistic Schools to preserve knowledge of history, secular and religious. Such methods included teachers certified to pass on the knowledge, students whom teachers deemed worthy to be entrusted with such knowledge and who could memorize vast amounts of information. Paul received just such an education; as Baukham points out, Scripture makes it clear that even Paul had to learn from Peter and other Apostles in Jerusalem. Baukham also points out that the Form Critics ignore the role of Jerusalem in guarding the purity of the Gospel message. While most of Baukhams evidence is irrefutable, some of his evidence is not as strong. Baukham points to a literary device he calls an "inclusio" to prove the authorship of Mark and John. In Mark, Peter's name is the first of the disciples to appear, and the last to be mentioned. This phenomenon, which Baukham calls an inclusio, shows that Peter is the source Mark used when compiling the Gospel. While this is an intelligent theory, even Baukham admits that it is speculation on his part. There are no examples of this literary device in other documents of the same time period, though a few appear later. In John, the Beloved Disciple, named John, appears before Peter and after Peters last appearance, indicating that this disciple has greater credentials to expound the message of John's Gospel than Peter does. Baukham believes that the author of John, John's Epistles, and Revelation, were not written by John Son of Zebedee, but by another John, the Beloved Disciple. I found the language of his case quite speculative. Yet dispite my disagreements with some of Baukham's arguments, I can do nothing but heartily endorse this book, which is one of the most important works in New Testament study to appear in many a year. It is amazing that while the methods and conclusions of the Form Critics have been refuted convincingly by Baukham and earlier scholars, many New Testament scholars still cling to Form Criticism. Why? Some think that if it could be demonstrated that the Gospels changed over the centuries before they reached their final form, the commands in the Gospels we now have can be disregarded. Others seem to be addicted to the idea of the Gospels developing in the same manner as folklore. Others are simply brain dead.

Professor Baukham is a Fellow of the British Acadamy, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and a member of the Doctrine Commission of the church of England.

"Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" was originally published by Eerdmans.

To read my reviews of "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" on my study blog, click here.

Baukham Chapter 18

I finally finished "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" by Richard Baukham. This concluding chapter, "The Jesus of Testimony" mainly concerns how scholars are to treat statements by eyewitnesses to events or those who have heard directly from such eyewitnesses. Baukham points out that past sources for historians which were treated uncritically have received a more thorough investigation. Yet the pendulum has swung too far the other way in that all sources of testimony are considered suspect until proven otherwise. Baukham traces this phenomenon to the Enlightenment which produced an individualism never experienced before. In the field of history, this has led to the view of the historian as interrogator of his sources, not bound to believe any source. This has not boded well for the study of the origin of Scriptures. This professional attitude has led to a distrust of all Biblical claims as to the origin of Scripture. Baukham believes that the approach of Samuel Bysork, in treating the Gospels as documents of ancient historiography, is the best approach in evaluating who wrote them and when were they written. This approach leads to the conclusion that the Gospels were written by either eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, or by those who heard from those who were original eyewitnesses. Of course this synopsis does no justice to the final chapter or the book as a whole. In an ideal world, this book should be the stake that is finally driven into the heart of Form Criticism. While I enjoyed the book, I am glad to be finished so I can move on. But first, I will read articles from a theological journal responding to "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses"; this journal contains articles critical to the book as well as articles supporting it, with a final article by Baukham in response. I will also post a brief review on my main blog.

Baukham Chapters 16 And 17

In chapter 15 of "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony", author Richard Baukham expresses his view that John the brother of Zebedee and the Beloved Disciple who appears in the Gospel of John are not one and the same person. In chapters 16 and 17 Baukham states his case in detail, also claiming the the Beloved Disciple, also named John, wrote the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John, and Revelation; he believes that John the Son of Zebedee did not write these documents.

In Chapter 16, "Papius on John", Baukham points out that the Synoptic Gospels list the twelve Apostles and that these lists acknowledge the debt to the twelve for the contents of them. But the Gospel of John contains no such list. To Baukham, this is evidence that the one most responsible for this Gospel's contents was not one of the twelve. Also, the Son of Zebedee is mentioned only once in this Gospel, Jn. 21:2. Baukham also points to the quote of Papius, see here for the quote, where Papius lists the Apostles in the same order listed in John's Gospel, indicating to Baukham that Papius used that Gospel in constructing his document. Baukham believes Papius made a distinction between John the apostle and the Beloved Disciple. I did not pick up that impression reading the quote.

In chapter 17, "Polycrates and Irenaeus on John", Baukham examines quotes from Polycrates and Irenaeus, both 2nd Century church figures. Polycrates was a bishop of Ephesus who was related to past bishops of Ehphesus and knew those who, like Polycarp,had learned from the original Apostles. A tradition that the Beloved Disciple lived in Ephesus in his final years was well established by the time Polycrates was writing. Baukham believes this document shows that Polycrates claimed a blood relation with both the Beloved Disciple and Philip the Evangelist through one of Philip's daughters. I do not make that connection from reading the document Baukham presents in his book. Baukham also believes that this document is evidence that John was a member of the High Priest's family and may have briefly served as High Priest. I find neither Polycrates document nor Jn. 18:16 evidence for this claim. Baukham also states that the tradition linking the Beloved Disciple to Ephesus never labels this disciple and John the Son of Zebedee the same person. According to Baukham, neither does any of the writings of Irenaeus link the two.

There is much information in these chapters that I can not delve into detail because of time constraints. While I am not competent to establish the correctness or lack thereof for much of what Baukham asserts, the language Baukham uses is more in line with speculation rather than assertion of fact. Baukham himself admits that there is no hard evidence to back up either his theories on this subject or those who advocate alternatives. He also states that the majority of scholars attribute all the writings of John in the New Testament to John the Son of Zebedee.

Only one more chapter to go.

Baukham Chapter 15: "The Witness Of The Beloved Disciple"

"Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospel as Eyewitness Testimony" by Richard Baukham is greatly influenced by the work of Samuel Bysork. Bysork applies the standards of ancient historiography to the concept of "witness" in the New Testament. Baukham applies these standards to the Gospel of John in chapter 15. According to Bysork, the histories considered the most credible in the ancient world were those which were written by or relied upon those who had direct contact with the events in question. Josephus advertised his qualifications as a historian this way: "My qualification as a historian of the war was that I had been an actor in many, and an eyewitness of most, of the events." The portrayal of Jesus' ministry in the Gospels is taken from the direct testimony of those in direct contact with Jesus' ministry; the text of the Gospels is closer to the original eyewitnesses reports than most modern scholars will allow, according to Bysork/Baukham. Not only are the original eyewitnesses the active guarantors of the factual record concerning Jesus' ministry, the are the chief interpreters of that ministry and its message through the four Gospels, which preserve their witness for the Church until the second coming of Christ.

The concept of witness in the Gospel of John confuses some because of the English translation of such words as witness, testify and testimony. English can only translate the word from the martureo word group, which are classified as legal metaphors. (Jn. 15:27, 1:21-22) But there is another word for witness which not tranlated into English because English has no corresponding word. This word is autopes, a word denoting first hand experience. (Lk. 1:2) Some scholars take the position that "witness" is only a legal term, and that John's Gospel was not written by a personal eyewitness to Jesus' ministry but one who was giving theological witness to the message of Jesus's teaching. But the concept of personal eyewitness as participant is contained in the words translated from the autopes word group.

Baukham returns to a concept he introduced earlier, "the inclusio." Baukham believes that Mark's Gospel witnesses to Peter's influence by the use of inclusio, a literary device in which Peter is the first disciple introduced and the last one heard from in Mark. In John, Baukham sees an inclusio that represents the eyewitness testimony of John, a witness that makes John more qualified than Peter to witness to the Gospel in written form. The inclusio begins with the unnamed beloved disciple seeking Jesus out in Jn. 1:35 and ends at Jn 21:22. In 1:35, the beloved disciple is still a disciple of John the Baptist. He is a witness to John's testimony of Jesus being the Lamb of God and is later able to fully understand the significance of the fact that Jesus died with no bones broken and that when pierced, blood and water flowed from Jesus' body. Peter, not a disciple of John the Baptist, had not fully grasped this yet. In Jn. 21:22, Jesus states that John's witness of Him will continue until He returns. The inclusio concerning John, showing that he has a witness apart from Peter's, shows that Johns witness began before Peter's and continued after Peter's witness was finished. It is not that Peter's witness was any less valuable than John's, but Peter's ministry was to be the Shepherd of the new Church, while John was to be a witness to the full meaning of Jesus' acts and teachings. I am not giving full justice to Baukham's presentation because of time constraints, yet the inclusio argument is not the strongest argument in Baukhams book. Baukham himself says that the inclusio is based on speculation more than hard evidence. Part of his argument for an inclusio in the Gospel of John is that the beloved disciple who wrote the Gospel is not the Apostle John listed in the lists of Apostles in the Synoptics. Where he gets that from I do not know. I have been reading the book for a while and remember no such previous reference to this claim. I am very sure I would have remembered it if I had come across it earlier in the book. The claim seems to pop up out of thin air.

Some scholars believe that John could not have written the Gospel bearing his name because to designate himself as the disciple Jesus loved would be an act of self aggrandisement. Baukham states that this view reflects modern sensibilities rather than the thinking of the world the disciples lived in. John was showing his readers the intimacy he had with Jesus so that he could demonstrate his qualifications as a witness as portrayed in the Gospel. Paul was no less willing to remind readers concerning his special call to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:1-5, Gal. 1: 15-16).

On to chapter 16.