It can be frustrating to read comments on Bauckham’s new book that come across so confident in criticism even though they arguably miss the point entirely. And though I would love to go through each and every argument raised on this blog, point by point, admitting a good point when it is made, and contesting those that are unfair, I just don’t have the time. But this once I wanted to try my best, with what time I have to hand, to make a few simply points in light of comments one reader has been making on my Bauckham posts, and which the same has been posting across blogdom. However, this is a plea, first and foremost, for proper listening and dialogue, especially as I know that I sometimes struggle to give some an honest hearing.
I value the fact that one reader, Steven Carr, has such a different perspective on Bauckham than most others who visit my blog. To have (and listen to) different opinions can be refreshing and we should be able to learn from each other. This is the great benefit of blogging, I think.
However, sometimes opinions can be so ingrained and negative that discussion doesn’t proceed, and I hope this post will facilitate future discussion. And I mean discussion!
In this post thread I suggested to Steven that the ‘tone’ of his pronouncements were hardly encouraging dialogue. He then quickly responded (again at the bottom of that thread) – he perhaps has more time on his hands than me! – in such a way that invited response about more than the mere content of his propositions. My comments on his new points are in colour in italics below.
-----
(For his whole comment, cf. here)
“I was merely stating facts”
Oh come on, Steven! You can surely do better than that! But then if you think metaphysics is about ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ (to quote one of your earlier comments on my blog), then perhaps you truly think this counts as ‘fact’! ;-)
“People who praise McGrath's books about atheism don't use any of the arguments in them. Why not? If they are so good?” (bold emphasis mine)
To use the terminology of logicians, this sentence involves a non sequitur. I know plenty who have found his argumemnts hepful, and thus use them.
“And Bauckham *will* come up with zero evidence that for example, Matthew had another name of Levi.”
You’re sure about that are you?
Really sure?
Before I call your bluff, I think I am noticing a trend in your comments again that could be unhelpful. You cannot enter into dialogue with someone, and their arguments, unless you can respect the other. It can be a difficult thing, but it is necessary if we are to learn from each other.
Just to make the point as to how completely off track one can go, and as you go, when one doesn’t truly dialogue with another opinion, let me quote Bauckham on whether Matthew is the same person as Levi:
‘I have argued that the identification of Thaddaeus and Judas the son of James as the same man is a very plausible harmonization, in the light of plentiful onomastic evidence. But the identification of Matthew with Levi the son of Alphaeus - a traditional case of harmonizing the Gospels, in view of the parallel passages Matthew 9:9 (about Matthew) and Mark 2:24 [sic. This is a typo. He means Mark 2:14] (about Levi the son of Alphaeus) - must, on the same grounds of the onomastic evidence available to us, be judged implausible’ (from Chapter 5)So, you are right that Bauckham produces no evidence that Matthew is the same as Levi! Why? Because he doesn’t argue that Matthew is the same person as Levi!! By the way, Bauckham is the leading NT scholar in the field of onomastics, so you should show some respect when it comes to NT names...
By the way, what you need to do now to prove you can dialogue is to admit that you got it totally wrong, and that you had this wide of the mark because, I think, you are not trying to truly dialogue. You are reacting like a Fundie, and I’m sure that is not what you really want.
“As for not being interested in learned debate, have you read Bauckham’s pdf at http://www.apollos.ws/nt-historical-reliability/BauckhamRichardJHRG1.pdf
I simply could not believe how bad it was, how totally lacking it is in any idea of producing a testable hypothesis and testing it against actual data, or exploring the explanatory power of one hypothesis against another.
Instead Bauckham just pulls stuff out of thin air, such as claiming that Bartimaeus died in between Mark writing and Luke writing.”
Yes I have read it. The only point of weight here is that concerning the death of Bartimaeus (the rest is silly and totally unfair rhetoric for which I respond in this sentence accordingly). You are getting muddled between what Bauckham considers corroborative evidence, and the scholarly attempt to understand all the evidence in light of a particular scheme – something we all must do. In other words, this argument is a consequence of the position the main strands of evidence lead. In chapter 3 of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Bauckham makes clear that his argument that the name Bartimaeus is dropped by Matthew and Luke is simply an inference from the wider argument. Hence he uses the word ‘presumably’. His argument at this point is entirely plausible actually. It is not about ‘pulling stuff out of thin air’, as you claim. You need to respect a scholar if you can truly engage with them, to listen first. ‘Learned debate’ is more than reading another, it is also, as a first step, respectfully listening, truly listening to another.
“Apart from making things up, Bauckham also selects his evidence to fit what he says.
Bauckham writes 'In no case does a character unnamed in Mark gain a name in Matthew or Luke'.
What about Annas and Caiaphas , I hear you cry?
Well, Bauckham says he is excluding chief priests.
Why? Why should chief priests not be relevant to Bauckham's hypothesis that people were named if they were well known to Christians at the time of writing.
Silence. There is NO methodology.
Unless Bauckham cooked the data by ignoring chief priests simply so he could claim 'In no case does a character unnamed in Mark gain a name in Matthew or Luke'”
This, again, is not about arbitrarily making evidence fit what he says, and if you could try to really dialogue with Bauckham’s arguments, rather than just throwing ‘what an idiot’ type blanks at him, then you might have noticed this. Bauckham spends a while justifying his methodological considerations I think in chapter 3. Yes, there is methodology; I must flatly contradict you. Bauckham is trying to understand why some names came to be left out or added. If they are public people then it is no surprise if they get added to the tradition, especially when Bauckham provides good reasons as to why Mark would not mention the name Caiaphas, and why the name was only later added (cf. chapter 8 and the issue of ‘protective anonymity’ building on the work of Theißen).
So, I think Bauckham's argument makes astonishing sense!
All the time, whether with Caiaphas or those less well-known, Bauckham's goal is to ask why names are added or deleted from the tradition. He provides his reasons for the exceptional addition of Caiaphas, and likewise for those, which are the majority, of deleted names. Why were these names dropped? That is the question he is addressing. And this is why his methodological considerations fairly treat Caiaphas elsewhere.
“Well, if you are going to ignore cases where that does happen, you can certainly claim there are no cases where that does happen.
Making stuff up and cooking the data.
Such is the state of NT scholarship.... ”
These stabs only hit the target if you ignore the question he is addressing, what he does in fact treat elsewhere, and his methodological considerations! I will sound patronising now, by, hey, what the heck. You need to learn to truly dialogue and truly listen to the opinion of another. Especially when Bauckham’s learning is, lets be honest, considerably greater than yours in these matters. As to the sate of NT scholarship, you have clearly no idea. All the more reason to listen, instead of firing off ‘what an idiot’ type of comments that display only your lack of insight.
---
Though I find some of your comments frustratingly Fundamentalist, I want to make it clear that I appreciate many of your comments and the fact that you have a different opinions on matters, for this is reason to listen to you. But do yourself a favour and listen carefully to others before you attempt criticisms, otherwise they’ll be as hopeless as the ‘he will produce no evidence for Matthew being Levi’! I'm sure you'll respond to this and attempt to take the above apart. But I only have time for response to matters of substance, and no more time for correcting complete misunderstandings and misrepresentations. If you rustle up only the latter, don't consider my silence evidence that your points are meaningful. And though I personally like Bauckham as a man as well as a scholar, I have no ground to defend him for the sake of it - I didn't wite the book -, so I appreciate all points of substance I will honestly think them through.
By the way, I am still not sure how to pronounce that name :-)
21 comments:
'Why were these names dropped?'
An argument from silence , if ever I heard one?
Hey, perhaps Bartimaeus and Jairus were dropped because people realised there had been no such people.
Why does Mark mention Herod , but not Annas?
Presumably Bauckham is going to pull another ad hoc rationalisation, just like his claim that Bartimaeus died when he died, and his rationalisation that John mention the sons of Zebedee fleetingly because 'particular bodies of tradition were associated with particular named disciples among the Twelve'.
Bauckham , in his pdf , gives no evidence for this.
But then he gives no evidence for his statement that Martk could expect his readers to know of Bartimaeus as a living miracle, who made Jesus act of healing still visible to all who met him.
Really? Mark has to explain what the name means to his readers , who apparently did not have a clue about basic Aramaic, the currency of Palestine, or customs of Jews such as washing hands before meals.
Yet , while Mark expected his readers to struggle with the name 'Bar-Timaeus', (much as Germans can't be expected to know that the name Stephenson comes from 'son of Stephen'), Mark could expect his readers to know this living miracle from his personal testimony to 'the churches of Jerusalem and Judea'.
The article that Bauckham wrote is really, really bad, by any standards of scholarship. Ad hoc rationalisations , pure invention and arguments from silence.
In reply to Steven,
LOL! That's funny Steven!
*sudden realisation*
You are joking right? You were attempting to wind Chris up by writing another 'non-engaging with the evidence/argument/discussion fundamentalist comment'...weren't you?
Crap...you were being serious.
Chris - 'To use the terminology of logicians, this sentence involves a non sequitur. I know plenty who have found his argumemnts hepful, and thus use them.'
What arguments in favour of the existence of God does McGrath put forward in 'The Twilight of Atheism' and 'Dawkins God'?
Why has nobody sprung forward to defend on http://www.infidels.org/ forums Bauckham's claim that Matthew and Mark changing the dramatise personnae of the women at the crufixion/burial shows what 'scrupulous care' they took to change the names of the women present?
I'm still laughing Steven!
Chris is a better soul than I. I would not bother debating with a person who clearly, clearly believes he has nothing to learn and everything to teach. Such persons are scarcely worth the effort it takes to reply to them.
It's a free country. Anybody is enititled to suggest anything they want.
Steven, is this your basic assumption about conversation? What do you think about the points being made by Chris and others about your style or manner of engagement? Would you be able to summarise their concerns and respond? I think that would be helpful.
Guys,
Steven is not going to be able to come up to your level and "discuss" like a real human being. Again, you're dealing with an evangelical fundamentalist atheist, not merely a dialogue partner with different views. He's already thrown in at least 3 red herrings that have to do with the reliability of Mark, and *nothing* at all to do with Bauckham's thesis. He's already running the "point out Bible contradictions!!!" program. Typical fundy.
Nobody appears to want to touch the question of how the lists of the 12 can be carefully preserved when they contain different names.
When discussing the evidence for Christianity, personal abuse is the stock in trade of the commentators on this blog.
Bauckham says that the fact that Matthew and Luke change Mark's report of which women were at the crucifixion/burial demonstrates their 'scrupulous care'.
The way Matthew and Luke change the names of the women at the crucifixion demonstrate their 'scrupulous care'.
They must have agonised for hours.
They knew that Mark had taken 'scrupulous care' to name the women who had been at the crucifixion, drawing on their personal testimony and the testimony of Peter about all of this.
So it could not have been a light decision to drop names which had been compiled with such scrupulous care.
But still they could not in all honesty put their names to documents stating that those women had been there. I quote Bauckham - 'for Matthew, Salome was evidently not a well-known witness', and he knew his readers would not accept a name not already well-known to them.
No amount of his protesting that the list was compiled by somebody who knew Peter would convince his readers that the name was genuine.
So with a heavy heart, and with scruplous care, Matthew confined himself to those women that were well-known to his readers.
But what luck! There was another woman there, Mary the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
While not well known to Mark, or Mark's readers, and presumably also Peter, Mary the mother of the sons of Zebedee was a well-known witness at the time Matthew was writing among Matthew's intended readers.
So , with scrupulous care, Matthew could use that well-known witness rather than Salome, the witness who was only well-known at the time Mark was writing.
That was a bit of luck, wasn't it?
Bilbo protests that when Bauckham says the lists of the 12 are carefully preserved, it is a complete red herring to point out that they contain different names.
Changing the names of the 12 disciples or the names of the women at the crucifixion or dropping names that Mark uses or adding names that Mark omits , has 'nothing at all to do with Bauckham's thesis' that this was all done with 'scrupulous care.'
Yeah, right!
Steven,
Byron wrote: What do you think about the points being made by Chris and others about your style or manner of engagement? Would you be able to summarise their concerns and respond?
They have a point.
Bauckham says 'It also highlights the apostle Matthew by adding the description ‘taxcollector’ to his name in the list and by transferring to Matthew the story of the call of a taxcollector that Mark tells of Levi.'
'Transferring' a story from one person to a different person?
The Gospellers felt quite free to change who the story was about and pretend it happened to somebody else instead.
How does that tie up with the 'scrupulous care' with which people preserved names?
Steven:
I have criticized Bauckham quite sharply in two of Chris's previous posts. I think there's some merit to your criticisms, but your presentation is offensive.
For one thing, it is absurd to dismiss the whole of New Testament scholarship. Do you have any idea of the range of viewpoints out there? Disagreeing with one set of scholars guarantees that you'll be in agreement with another.
I'm echoing the appeal first enunciated by Byron, then reiterated by Simon. Can you summarize Chris's concerns and offer a response to them?
“If Matthew is not the same person as Levi, then how can the lists of the Twelve be 'carefully preserved'?”
Well, that is the question you should have asked before blazing in with an ‘I’m going to disprove this rubbish’ swagger. It helps to understand those you criticise first. Your response just goes to prove the point I was making about you not listening. It just shows you are motivated by some huge ‘chip on the shoulder’ (why, I wonder?) rather than by historical argumentation and discussion.
“In other words, his 'evidence' is a consequence of his arguments and he uses his evidence to back up his arguments?”
Totally misses the point. I spelt out in the post how your reasoning is awry, but I don’t have the time for every comment.
“even a supporter of Bauckahm can do no better than say that his position that the Gospels contain eyewitness details is only a 'suggestion'.”
I would suggest you go to Bauckham to gauge your criticisms.
“'Why were these names dropped?'
An argument from silence, if ever I heard one?”
I'd suggest a basic textbook on historical study to understand the nature of historical hypothesis, especially those of the 1st century, and how they are to be judged
"Why does Mark mention Herod , but not Annas?"
Cf. his chapter 8 in the main book.
“The article that Bauckham wrote is really, really bad, by any standards of scholarship. Ad hoc rationalisations , pure invention and arguments from silence.”
It seems you cannot manage to discuss, Steven, and so I’m at a loss as to how to proceed. And it’s sweet coming from you! Change your hopelessly naïve and amusingly inappropriately arrogant tone or be ignored.
“What arguments in favour of the existence of God does McGrath put forward in 'The Twilight of Atheism' and 'Dawkins God'?”
The way the question is formed shows you haven’t even understood McGrath’s argument. Why do you do this, Steven? What motivates you to just launch unlistening criticisms into someone? And by the way, that nobody sprung forward to defend Bauckham on infidels.org is perhaps evidence that not as many people take that discussion forum as seriously as you think.
“Nobody appears to want to touch the question of how the lists of the 12 can be carefully preserved when they contain different names”
That’s cause I haven’t reached chapter 5 in the series yet, and because I was critiquing you for only related matters, and your silence on those points leads me to believe you admit you were wrong.
“When discussing the evidence for Christianity, personal abuse is the stock in trade of the commentators on this blog.”
I understand you. But they are trying to tell you something about the way you dialogue, or rather the way you don’t dialogue.
Regards your points about the names of the women, I’ll discuss the arguments raised by Bauckham later in this series. Best to judge an argument after it is heard, is it not?
You are also raising questions as to how Bauckham can refer to ‘scrupulous care’ in terms of the 12. Perhaps it is because you are expecting Bauckham to be a Fundie, but he isn’t. I’ll touch more on this later in the series, but you are setting up a straw man.
Finally: change your arrogant tone for your own sake. You are only making yourself look silly. And it hardly motivates me to want to continue to attempt dialogue with you. And that would be a pity. Change the tone, listen to Bauckham before you critique, or don’t expect response.
I claimed that nobody uses McGrath's arguments from his book 'Dawkins God'.
Despite repeated requests, Chris cannot even tell me what they are!
Dawkins says he cannot prove God doesn't exist. McGrath says Dawkins cannot prove God doesn't exist. How is that a refutation of Dawkins?
Chris says I am not interested in dialogue. When I issue an invitation for people to dialogue on a forum, nobody turns up.
Guess who really isn't interested in dialogue? The person who issues an invitation to debate?
Or the person who writes a long comment which doesn't answer any questions?
If the story about Levi was just 'transferred' to become a story about Mark, then where is the 'scrupulous care'?
And where does Bauckham get his data about the well-knownness of healed people in early Christian circles, so he can test his hypothesis about why Matthew and Luke dropped names?
Answer. He makes it up. Literally makes up a story about Bartmaeus being a 'living miracle' to people who stuggled with the name, and makes up a story about Bartimaeus dying between Mark writing and Luke writig.
I also know that Bauckham will have come up with an ad hoc rationalisation of why Mark mentions Herod and Pilate but does not mention Annas aand Caiaphas.
Simply saying that it is in chapter 8 of Bauckham's book is not an answer.
An hypothesis , formed by an inductive look at the data and backed up by tests of that data is what is needed.
For example, which other early Christian drops the names of Annas and Caipahas and why?
Bauckham cannot produce an inductive rule like 'protective anonymity' from just one example.
Take Resurrection where I put forward an hypothesis, that Paul is not talking about dust being reformed, and then test it.
I take places where people who do believe in dust being reformed answer the same quesion.
http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2006/11/short-bible-quiz.html is one test
Paul is another test.
CHRIS
'Regards your points about the names of the women, I’ll discuss the arguments raised by Bauckham later in this series. Best to judge an argument after it is heard, is it not?'
CARR
You mean Bauckham has retracted the arguments about the women he put forward in his article 2 years ago, and now has new ones?
That can be the only explanatiom of your claim that I have not read the arguments Bauckham puts forward.
That can be the only explanation of your claiming that I have not seen Bauckham's arguments - that he has changed them since he write the pdf article I linked to.
Bauckham simply pulls out of various parts of his anatomy the claim that Matthew dropped Salome because she was not well-known when Matthew was writing.
Where is his data backing up his hypothsis that people dropped names if they were no longer well-known?
ANd his data backing up his claim that Salome *was* well-known when Mark was writing?
There is none in the 'peer-reviewed' article, which is terrible scholarship.
Why not call Bauckham on that? The man is not God.
I'm sure you'll feel all self-righteous about this, Steven, but you are still using the same tone ('terrible scholarship' etc), still cannot dialogue, still haven't listened to Bauckham, still don't admit the points I've made in the post and the comments. So I have to sadly ignore your recent comments as I said.
Chris continues to evade all questions....
Not that he is disinterested in dialogue.
More that he cannot find any answers.
So he resorts to ad hominem.
For those who read the previous comment on this post by Steven Carr, please read through the post and the comments and ask yourself who is avoiding the questions and concerns!
Steven, you're getting desperate.
Bauckham may not be God, but he is potentially a divine mediator figure when it comes to NT. Hehe...Without a doubt, one of the best in the business. Carr has only demonstrated here what he demonstrates everywhere else: his poor reading comprehension and overall ignorance of biblical scholarship.
BTW - Stevie is always desperate, Chris. That's his thing...I suggest banning him just purely for aesthetic reasons. Its just a bit ugly seeing his incoherent pestering rants cluttering up every thread on every Christian blog.
Bilbo
All I see is personal abuse and a refusal to answer pretty straightforward questions, such as why names were changed (Matthew to Levi), and why the author of Matthew changed the dramatis personnae at the crucifixion, adding a Mary the mother of the sons of Zebedee to the cast list.
Didn't the author of Matthew know that the author of Mark had compiled the list of women present with 'scrupulous care'?
And why was the story of all those people who rose from their tombs and appeared to 'many' in the city of Jerusalem not well known enough for Mark , Luke and John to use?
Surely such a story would have spread like wildfire and been well known throughout the Roman Empire.
So why is it unknown outside Matthew's Gospel when Acts says that a by contrast insignicant suicide was known to all the residents of Jerusalem.
All no doubt discussed in a book detailing what what was well known to eyewitnesses of the events...
I do not have access to my sources right now, so this has to be a rather tentative suggestion: Was not the father of the Maccabee brothers known as Matthew? So is it not possible that Jesus renamed Levi after this historical character to symbolize his transformation from collaborator tax collector to loyal Jew?
Richard Fellows.
Post a Comment