Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: leeedgartyler Re; refuting bad apologetics

Expand Messages
  • Darrell Bock
    Ken: I believe the others (Rikk and Bob) have answered your questions about just say so stories for the most part. They are explanations of events that have
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 28, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Ken:

      I believe the others (Rikk and Bob) have answered your questions
      about "just say so" stories for the most part. They are explanations
      of events that have no testimony from the ancient sources that we
      have. I would regard the sources you name-- Gospel of Thomas, the
      Gospel of Peter, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and Philostratus' Life
      of Apollonius-- as "testimony" IF one can find a line of transmission
      that takes us back to a period close to the events (say within a
      generation and the "living voice" of participants). Otherwise they
      are historical sources that need to be assessed. Of course,
      determining if there is a line of transmission is a part of such an
      assessment. This is why Bauckham's new book is so important for this
      discussion. So if your question is do we handle all ancient sources
      from a similar starting point in handling and assessing them, my
      answer is yes.

      old DLB: >>Meier made a point that Eve also makes, that these outside
      accounts
      are not parallels in the strictest sense. There are indications they
      are presented in a distinct manner. Meier uses this to make the case
      for some of these accounts at a historical level. The reading of
      these two chapters would make the point very clear.<<


      Ken's query: ***I'm still a little unclear on your language here. Am
      I correct in thinking
      the "they" and "these" in your second and third sentences refer to the
      gospel accounts of Jesus' miracles and not to the "these outside
      accounts"
      in the first sentence? And also do you mean that Meier argues for the
      historicity of some of the gospel accounts on the basis that they are
      presented in a manner distinct from the alleged parallels? I do not see
      anywhere in these chapters that Meier makes such an argument.***

      I did not intend to say Meier makes the exact same argument as Eve,
      but that they are related. Both make the comparisons and say there
      are differences that must be noted. Eve is the one who makes the
      distinction specific with his classifications. The "they" and "these"
      are the gospel accounts of Jesus (at least several of them but
      probably not all of them). Now one has to distinguish in Meier's
      presentation, the introductory chapters to miracles, where he does
      make this point as a way into the discussion and the analysis of the
      miracles themselves where other criteria, more standard critical
      criteria, are used. I hope this helps to clarify matters.

      Regards,

      Darrell Bock




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.