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

Richard Bauckham on the Tomb

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    Listers will doubtless find this essay by Bauckham to be of interest http://www.christilling.de/blog/2007/03/guest-post-by-richard-bauckham.html Jim -- Jim
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Listers will doubtless find this essay by Bauckham to be of interest

      http://www.christilling.de/blog/2007/03/guest-post-by-richard-bauckham.html

      Jim


      --
      Jim West, ThD

      http://drjewest.googlepages.com/ -- Biblical Studies Resources
      http://drjimwest.wordpress.com -- Weblog
    • dbockdts
      Jim and company: I am keeping a running list of reactions to this on my blog, including a couple of pieces or points from our own John Poirier as well as a
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim and company:

        I am keeping a running list of reactions to this on my blog, including
        a couple of pieces or points from our own John Poirier as well as a
        brief summary of Bauckham points. I am in DC interviewing all day. I
        have now seen the show twice. It will be fun to watch you all list the
        issues when it airs. I suspect there will be several points.

        The address for the blog is: www.bible.org

        Darrell Bock

        --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Jim West <jwest@...> wrote:
        >
        > Listers will doubtless find this essay by Bauckham to be of interest
        >
        >
        http://www.christilling.de/blog/2007/03/guest-post-by-richard-bauckham.html
        >
        > Jim
        >
        >
        > --
        > Jim West, ThD
        >
        > http://drjewest.googlepages.com/ -- Biblical Studies Resources
        > http://drjimwest.wordpress.com -- Weblog
        >
      • Mark Goodacre
        Thanks, Darrell. I ve been posting on this subject too over on the NT Gateway blog at http://NTGateway.com/weblog, and Tyler Williams is providing an
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks, Darrell. I've been posting on this subject too over on the NT
          Gateway blog at http://NTGateway.com/weblog, and Tyler Williams is providing
          an excellent "round up" service on the action in the biblioblogosphere at
          Codex Blogspot:

          http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/index.php

          His latest round up is here:

          http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/wp/2007/03/01/jesustalpiot-tomb-thursday-roundup/

          I'll be blogging on it again later today.

          All best
          Mark
          --
          Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
          Associate Professor
          Duke University
          Department of Religion
          118 Gray Building / Box 90964
          Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
          Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

          http://NTGateway.com/goodacre


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Zeba Crook
          I tried to post this on Mark s Blog, but it didn t seem to believe I was accurately typing in the correct magic letters, so I ll post a comment here. ***
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            I tried to post this on Mark's Blog, but it didn't seem to believe I
            was accurately typing in the correct "magic" letters, so I'll post a
            comment here.

            ***
            Mark, you mention there is no record in reliable sources of Jesus
            having children, but it bears pointing out that Tabor's case would be
            helped (at least a little) if there were at least some evidence even in
            unreliable sources. That *no* single group among the various early
            Jesus followers ever claimed to be associated with "The Son of the Son
            of God" is a very important lacunae in the historical record. All
            sorts of followers of Jesus believed all sorts of wacky things, and
            they based their authority on all manner of characters associated with
            the Jesus story. Had Jesus a wife and son, surely it is not too much
            to ask that there would have been someone trying to use that to give
            themselves authority, and others fighting them on that. It becomes the
            sort of conspiracy theory SO chillingly true that not a shred of
            evidence survived to support it (the less evidence there is, the truer
            the hypothesis because it must have been utterly suppressed).
            ***

            Now, what I'm hoping to see in this debate is some non-partisan
            discussion. I'm going to get bored fairly quickly if the most strident
            voices against the documentary are the usual
            "of-course-they're-opposed-to-the-idea" suspects: NT Wright, Evans,
            Witherington, Johnson (and there are others on this list). And I'll
            equally bored if the only people defending the data are skeptics of
            religion (and there are many here and in other places). So let me
            start that process: I don't believe for a second that Jesus was
            resurrected from the dead, but I have a problem with the notion that he
            was married with children and yet the idea never appears, as hearsay,
            as polemic, or as apology, in any ancient source, apocryphal or
            otherwise.

            Cheers,

            Zeb

            -----------------------------
            Z.A. Crook
            Assistant Professor, Religion
            Carleton University
            1125 Colonel By Drive
            Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
            613-520-2600, ext. 2276
            www.carleton.ca/~zcrook
          • Mark Goodacre
            ... What, you can t do magic? It s a prerequisite for commenters on my blog. (Seriously, sorry that Blogger was mucking about; sometimes it takes a few
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On 02/03/07, Zeba Crook <zeba_crook@...> wrote:

              > I tried to post this on Mark's Blog, but it didn't seem to believe I
              > was accurately typing in the correct "magic" letters, so I'll post a
              > comment here.

              What, you can't do magic? It's a prerequisite for commenters on my
              blog. (Seriously, sorry that Blogger was mucking about; sometimes it
              takes a few attempts.)
              >
              > ***
              > Mark, you mention there is no record in reliable sources of Jesus
              > having children, but it bears pointing out that Tabor's case would be
              > helped (at least a little) if there were at least some evidence even in
              > unreliable sources. That *no* single group among the various early
              > Jesus followers ever claimed to be associated with "The Son of the Son
              > of God" is a very important lacunae in the historical record. All
              > sorts of followers of Jesus believed all sorts of wacky things, and
              > they based their authority on all manner of characters associated with
              > the Jesus story. Had Jesus a wife and son, surely it is not too much
              > to ask that there would have been someone trying to use that to give
              > themselves authority, and others fighting them on that. It becomes the
              > sort of conspiracy theory SO chillingly true that not a shred of
              > evidence survived to support it (the less evidence there is, the truer
              > the hypothesis because it must have been utterly suppressed).
              > ***

              LOL.

              > Now, what I'm hoping to see in this debate is some non-partisan
              > discussion. I'm going to get bored fairly quickly if the most strident
              > voices against the documentary are the usual
              > "of-course-they're-opposed-to-the-idea" suspects: NT Wright, Evans,
              > Witherington, Johnson (and there are others on this list). And I'll
              > equally bored if the only people defending the data are skeptics of
              > religion (and there are many here and in other places).

              But one of the interesting things about this story is that it has been
              received negatively across the board, from apologists to Jesus
              mythicists and many in between. My own take on this is that the
              week's pre-publicity for the documentary has back-fired. I don't
              think that the programme makers expected the fairly consistent
              condemnation across the board. And the media reporting very quickly
              became focused on scholarly rejection of the claims rather than
              religious disputation about them (though there was some of the latter
              too). Of course, they will no doubt still make back the $3.5 million
              invested in the project, but I think that they sincerely expected
              their claims to be received more favourably than they have been.

              On the NT scholars side, there have been very few who have been
              willing to speak out in favour of the claims. One is James Tabor and
              to his credit, he engages with his critics on his blog and elsewhere.
              But another is James Charlesworth who appeared on stage on Monday at
              the press conference with Cameron, Jacobovici, Tabor and Feuerverger
              (the latter is the statistician). I am puzzled about his involvement.
              Has anyone heard any more from him during the week on his thoughts on
              the tomb? The Discovery website also lists as one of its experts
              Francois Bovon of Harvard,
              http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/bios/bios_03.html . As with
              Charlesworth, I have heard no public comment this week from Bovon.
              Does anyone know anything more about his involvement?

              Mark
              --
              Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
              Associate Professor
              Duke University
              Department of Religion
              118 Gray Building / Box 90964
              Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
              Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

              http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... And it s not like early Christians were unconcerned about dynastic succession either. Eusebius, HE 4.22.4 passes on a report from Hegesippus that there
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                At 09:38 AM 3/2/2007 -0500, Zeba Crook wrote:
                >So let me
                >start that process: I don't believe for a second that Jesus was
                >resurrected from the dead, but I have a problem with the notion that he
                >was married with children and yet the idea never appears, as hearsay,
                >as polemic, or as apology, in any ancient source, apocryphal or
                >otherwise.

                And it's not like early Christians were unconcerned about
                dynastic succession either. Eusebius, HE 4.22.4 passes on
                a report from Hegesippus that there was a split in Jerusalem
                between a certain Thebuthis and a relative of Jesus, Symeon
                son of Clopas, over who should be the next bishop. That there
                would be silence about Jesus's own issue in this context is
                telling.

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.