Having made the assertion in a previous blog that text critics are the nicest people in the world, I’m sorry to say that I’ve seen a couple of glaring exceptions, both involving panel book reviews at Society of Biblical Literature, and both involving Bart Ehrman.
The first exception was at SBL a couple of years ago. Larry Hurtado’s excellent volume on biblical manuscripts as the earliest artefacts of Christianity was presented for review by Prof. Ehrman and three others (Kim Eitzen-Haines and Anne-Marie Vanl.) Prof. Ehrman was perhaps more than forthright. Off the top of my head, I seem to recall that among the issues of contention was Prof. Hurtado’s presentation of evidence for the preferential status of writings which would later receive canonical status, as contrasted with writings which would later be deemed heretical. The vigorous exchange between the two good professors culminated in Ehrman’s explicit accusation that Hurtado was prejudiced by his prior theological commitments to historic Christianity, evoking Hurtado’s telling response that he was not the only panel member with prior theological commitments. This withheld statement screamed loudly the news that Ehrman’s recent publication, Misquoting Jesus was a shameless apologetic against historic Christianity, and precipitated Ehrman’s newest (2008) anti-apologetic work about how the Bible cannot explain the problem of pain.
I witnessed the second exception just last week at the annual SBL meeting in Boston. Again, the context was a panel review, this time of David Parker’s latest work on textual criticism Title. The panel featured perhaps five of the most recognised names in textual criticism: Eldon Epp, Ehrman, Hurtado, and Michael Holmes, and of course Prof. Parker. In this session, Prof. Ehrman was vitriolic and struck me as ungracious, if not outright vicious.
Before proceeding to Ehrman’s review, I should say something about Prof. Epp’s contribution. He briefly described the book, and then quickly moved to a point of contention he has with Prof. Parker. Prof. Parker seems entirely pleased to get beyond text types, but Prof. Epp doesn’t share such a dismissive perspective. He gave an excellent defence of text types, which he describes as being more like textual constellations. We look forward to reading his discussion of the topic in the coming year. Prof. Hurtado also reinforced Epp’s discussion.
After Prof. Epp’s paper, Prof. Ehrman proceeded to heap the highest praise on Prof. Parker, followed by what struck me as a concerted effort to be as insulting as possible. The primary point of substantial criticism was that the book fails to be an introductory text to our discipline, contrary to its subtitle. One gets the impression that if Prof. Parker had omitted the subtitle, Ehrman’s presentation would have been reduced down from 20 minutes to three or four. One or two others mentioned the same thing to me in private, but I found it interesting that instead of conceding the point, Prof. Parker took time in his response to embrace the notion that his book is indeed an introduction.
I should note that if the book is indeed to be read as an introduction, then Ehrman’s criticisms struck me as having the sound of truth in them. In this regard, I found Ehrman’s vitriol curious. At first, his comments seemed witty and good natured, evoking a number of chuckles throughout the large audience. However, after a string of such comments, their more sinister nature seemed in evidence. They seemed designed to ridicule and humiliate, and eventually, many in the audience realised that chuckling to these sorts of cheap shots was unbecoming of academia. Ehrman’s nasty as possible approach to critiquing this work was unnecessary. He could have graciously pointed to the weakness of referring to this volume as an “introduction” without trying to ridicule Parker as dithering and inept. Indeed, one or two of the other panellists mentioned the same criticism, but did so with respect and appreciation for Prof. Parker.
A good example of a stinging and crippling review with class and respect is Gordon Fee’s review of Ehrman’s Orthodox Corruption. In this short review, Prof. Fee’s criticism of Ehrman’s work is entirely devastating. However, the destructiveness of Prof. Fee’s criticism is actually rather subtle; one needs to read it carefully to see its power. Most importantly, Fee seems pained to write such a devastating critique. His criticisms are not the sort which are “in your face.” One need not be insulting when critiquing another person’s research.
I was impressed with Prof. Parker’s gracious response toward Prof. Ehrman. I would have been tempted to ignore Ehrman’s critique in its entirety, and spent my time engaging with the other three panellists.
It seems that Prof. Ehrman is destined to continue to sit on future review panels in textual criticism sessions at SBL, simply because he draws a crowd. This may indeed be rather unfortunate. I was told by someone that at least one significant text critic with close professional ties to Prof. Ehrman was quite embarrassed by his performance. Rightly so, and for this reason, one would hope that future reviews will be more disciplined.
One scholar asked if such ungraciousness is simply typical of someone who has made a major paradigm shift from Evangelicalism to agnosticism. The question may be enlightening.
Friday, 5 December 2008
Thursday, 27 November 2008
The Rhetoric of Inerrancy
Some Evangelicals go out of their way to combat the term inerrancy. As I've said recently, I don't mind Evangelicals not using the term inerrancy, but I think it is problematic for Evangelicals to make the concerted effort to berate the usage of the term.
Usually, Evangelicals who berate the term inerrancy are quick to affirm the Bible as the Word of God. They might even affirm the Bible's "infallibility" (I can't really perceive much difference between the two terms) and "authoritative."
This being the case, their argument against "inerrancy" is problematic. They end up implying that the Bible has errors in it, and this is a problem for people who otherwise have such a high view of scripture.
Usually, Evangelicals who berate the term inerrancy are quick to affirm the Bible as the Word of God. They might even affirm the Bible's "infallibility" (I can't really perceive much difference between the two terms) and "authoritative."
This being the case, their argument against "inerrancy" is problematic. They end up implying that the Bible has errors in it, and this is a problem for people who otherwise have such a high view of scripture.
SBL and Fellowship of the Guild
I attended the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature last week in Boston, and hope to make a few blog posts about it. This post contains some general comments about my experience of the guild.
Last year, SBL was at San Diego. One text critic who is not an American made a general comment last year about how militarised America is. Of course, he was generalising based upon his experience of San Diego which is a significant centre of military activity in the U.S. This year in Boston, I didn’t see a single military person in uniform. I suppose it is possible that Boston has largely been demilitarised since the days when its harbour was clogged with British warships and citizens were required to provide room and board for Redcoat soldiers.
One thing I’ve learned in the last several years is how gracious text critics are toward each other. There seems to be a genuine camaraderie and eagerness to fellowship with one another. I’ve especially been impressed with how accepting they’ve been of me as a very junior member of the guild. A number of senior members of our discipline have taken a genuine interest in my work and have said or written encouraging things to me. One senior member entrusted me with a paper he presented for the meeting, although he intends to publish it soon, just cautioning me about how I might cite it prior to its publication. Other significant members have seen my blog and gone out of the way to say nice things about it. Another member initiated a conversation with me on a particular issue and was very helpful in pointing out a basic misunderstanding I had of another text critic’s work.
One of my best experiences was on my first day of my first SBL annual meeting in Philadelphia in 2005. I had been out of academia for a dozen years or more and had been completely out of touch with my former associates at Regent College, and so I hardly knew anyone at the meeting. I sat down at a general orientation session coincidentally near a distinguished gentleman who kindly introduced himself to me, and we quickly discovered our mutual interest in text criticism . As it turns out, this was none other than James A. Royse whose chapter on scribal habits in the Holmes-Ehrman volume I had read before, but had forgotten his name. His gracious demeanour toward me is something I won’t ever forget.
Along these lines, I have to mention how text critic Amy Anderson encouraged me during this time. Amy teaches at North Central College in Minnesota and published an important work on a group of manuscripts known as family one. I read this work back in 2005 and zipped off a brief email to her thanking her for such a good quality work. At the time, I was in an interim pastoral ministry and was unsure of my next career move. She promptly replied and helped me see an avenue toward working on a PhD. An important element, she explained, was to attend SBL and to get to know some people. I checked into it, but the cost for non-students was so prohibitive that I simply could not afford to go, especially since I had just had a job change and was financially insecure.
Amy, however, was persistent. About a month before the meeting, she initiated another email exchange, urging that I attend SBL. She talked me into it, and this was one of the best decisions I’ve made. More than that, Amy drew me into her group of students and associates so that I was not a loner at the conference. She even included me in a lunch meeting with David Parker. I hope that I can honour her by having the same encouraging and generous spirit toward others in the years to come.
Since that time, I’ve been privileged to get to know most of the text critics who blog at Evangelical Textual Criticism. This is a special treat and has afforded me many opportunities for serious informal discussion of our guild. They are all very generous and tolerant of me even whenever I spout out stuff about which I know nothing (which is often). I always walk away better informed and feeling like I have an inside track on issues in the discipline.
Last year, SBL was at San Diego. One text critic who is not an American made a general comment last year about how militarised America is. Of course, he was generalising based upon his experience of San Diego which is a significant centre of military activity in the U.S. This year in Boston, I didn’t see a single military person in uniform. I suppose it is possible that Boston has largely been demilitarised since the days when its harbour was clogged with British warships and citizens were required to provide room and board for Redcoat soldiers.
One thing I’ve learned in the last several years is how gracious text critics are toward each other. There seems to be a genuine camaraderie and eagerness to fellowship with one another. I’ve especially been impressed with how accepting they’ve been of me as a very junior member of the guild. A number of senior members of our discipline have taken a genuine interest in my work and have said or written encouraging things to me. One senior member entrusted me with a paper he presented for the meeting, although he intends to publish it soon, just cautioning me about how I might cite it prior to its publication. Other significant members have seen my blog and gone out of the way to say nice things about it. Another member initiated a conversation with me on a particular issue and was very helpful in pointing out a basic misunderstanding I had of another text critic’s work.
One of my best experiences was on my first day of my first SBL annual meeting in Philadelphia in 2005. I had been out of academia for a dozen years or more and had been completely out of touch with my former associates at Regent College, and so I hardly knew anyone at the meeting. I sat down at a general orientation session coincidentally near a distinguished gentleman who kindly introduced himself to me, and we quickly discovered our mutual interest in text criticism . As it turns out, this was none other than James A. Royse whose chapter on scribal habits in the Holmes-Ehrman volume I had read before, but had forgotten his name. His gracious demeanour toward me is something I won’t ever forget.
Along these lines, I have to mention how text critic Amy Anderson encouraged me during this time. Amy teaches at North Central College in Minnesota and published an important work on a group of manuscripts known as family one. I read this work back in 2005 and zipped off a brief email to her thanking her for such a good quality work. At the time, I was in an interim pastoral ministry and was unsure of my next career move. She promptly replied and helped me see an avenue toward working on a PhD. An important element, she explained, was to attend SBL and to get to know some people. I checked into it, but the cost for non-students was so prohibitive that I simply could not afford to go, especially since I had just had a job change and was financially insecure.
Amy, however, was persistent. About a month before the meeting, she initiated another email exchange, urging that I attend SBL. She talked me into it, and this was one of the best decisions I’ve made. More than that, Amy drew me into her group of students and associates so that I was not a loner at the conference. She even included me in a lunch meeting with David Parker. I hope that I can honour her by having the same encouraging and generous spirit toward others in the years to come.
Since that time, I’ve been privileged to get to know most of the text critics who blog at Evangelical Textual Criticism. This is a special treat and has afforded me many opportunities for serious informal discussion of our guild. They are all very generous and tolerant of me even whenever I spout out stuff about which I know nothing (which is often). I always walk away better informed and feeling like I have an inside track on issues in the discipline.
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
Inerrancy, Authority and the Original Text
I had a good chat with a long time scholar friend who bristled at the term inerrancy. He does believe in the authority of the Bible, but argued that we should avoid the term inerrancy since we don't have the original manuscripts of the Bible.
But nonetheless, the Bible is authoritative, he assured me.
The problem with this line of argumentation is that it fails to understand that the text is something which is non-physical. The Word of God is "immaterial" and is merely reflected (more or less) in the various manuscripts of the New Testament, depending on the accuracy of the scribe and exemplars. We reconstruct the inerrant Word of God as best we can based upon these material witnesses. The physical manifestation of the text (i.e., the manuscripts) are patently not inerrant--they have errors in them; yet the ultimate reality of God's Word behind the physical manuscripts is perfect.
My friend would not accept this argument of mine, insisting that it is impractical to argue for the perfection of something which has no physicality. So I asked him what is it then that he thinks is "authoritative." He replied, "The Word of God." But I replied, "Do you mean the physical manuscripts, or the real text behind the physical manifestation of the text reflected in the manuscripts?"
This stumped him. Ultimately, if you can't have an inerrant text without the original manuscripts, neither can you have an authoritative text without the original manuscripts.
Of course, for myself, I have no problems with saying that the real text behind that which is physically manifested in the manuscripts is inerrant, and the fact that we don't have the original manuscripts doesn't impact this perception.
But nonetheless, the Bible is authoritative, he assured me.
The problem with this line of argumentation is that it fails to understand that the text is something which is non-physical. The Word of God is "immaterial" and is merely reflected (more or less) in the various manuscripts of the New Testament, depending on the accuracy of the scribe and exemplars. We reconstruct the inerrant Word of God as best we can based upon these material witnesses. The physical manifestation of the text (i.e., the manuscripts) are patently not inerrant--they have errors in them; yet the ultimate reality of God's Word behind the physical manuscripts is perfect.
My friend would not accept this argument of mine, insisting that it is impractical to argue for the perfection of something which has no physicality. So I asked him what is it then that he thinks is "authoritative." He replied, "The Word of God." But I replied, "Do you mean the physical manuscripts, or the real text behind the physical manifestation of the text reflected in the manuscripts?"
This stumped him. Ultimately, if you can't have an inerrant text without the original manuscripts, neither can you have an authoritative text without the original manuscripts.
Of course, for myself, I have no problems with saying that the real text behind that which is physically manifested in the manuscripts is inerrant, and the fact that we don't have the original manuscripts doesn't impact this perception.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Silenced Women of Corinth: The Text Critical Solution
Here is my discussion of the Silenced Women of Corinth passage. As with most of my blog posts, I do not mean to imply that it is a scholarly masterpiece; most blog posts are written off the top of my head. In this case, the article was written for a church community, although it attempts to update the reader on the latest academic discussion--which is on-going.
If I were to re-write it, I would bring into the discussion a paper presented by Jeffrey Kloha at Society of Biblical Literature (Washington D.C., Nov, 2006), arguing that his examples of Western displacements--fragmentary as they are and hardly comparable to redactionary displacement of whole texts--do not make his case. But also, I would soften my own conclusions; perhaps I come across as too certain.
Information about recent developments in the debate is taken from Eldon Epp's Junia: The First Woman Apostle.
http://jmleonardfamily.googlepages.com/silencedwomenofcorinth
If I were to re-write it, I would bring into the discussion a paper presented by Jeffrey Kloha at Society of Biblical Literature (Washington D.C., Nov, 2006), arguing that his examples of Western displacements--fragmentary as they are and hardly comparable to redactionary displacement of whole texts--do not make his case. But also, I would soften my own conclusions; perhaps I come across as too certain.
Information about recent developments in the debate is taken from Eldon Epp's Junia: The First Woman Apostle.
http://jmleonardfamily.googlepages.com/silencedwomenofcorinth
Saturday, 11 October 2008
Free and Strict Transmission of the New Testament Text
The Alands express in the following paragraph their view that early scribes felt free to improve or paraphrase their texts, and that we have extant manuscripts to prove it:
"Until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely. It was a " living text," unlike the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, which was subject to strict controls because (in the oriental tradition) the consonantal text was holy. And the New Testament text continued to be a 'living text' as long as it remained a manuscript tradition.... They also felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standards of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively. This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not yet attained canonical status, especially in the earliest period when Christians considered themselves filled with the Spirit. As a consequence the "Early text" was many-faceted, and each manuscript had its own peculiar character. This can be observed in such early papyri as p45, p46, p66, and so forth. The fact that this was not the normative practice has been proved by p75, which represents a strict text just as p52 of the period around A.D. 125 represents a normal text. It preserves the text of the original exemplar in a relatively faithful form... (69).
The bulk of the paragraph suggests a sceptical view of the transmission of the New Testament text in the early period--that we should be rather glum about the reliability of the New Testament text. However, it might be easy to overlook the penultimate sentence in which the Alands profess that not all manuscripts were so free in their transmission. Quite the contrary, there was a very careful, strict approach to the transmission of the biblical text in the earliest period and that this was "the normative practice."
Some would contest this assertion that strict transmission was the normative practice in the second and third centuries. This is the location of one of the great fronts in current textual criticism.
"Until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely. It was a " living text," unlike the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, which was subject to strict controls because (in the oriental tradition) the consonantal text was holy. And the New Testament text continued to be a 'living text' as long as it remained a manuscript tradition.... They also felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standards of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively. This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not yet attained canonical status, especially in the earliest period when Christians considered themselves filled with the Spirit. As a consequence the "Early text" was many-faceted, and each manuscript had its own peculiar character. This can be observed in such early papyri as p45, p46, p66, and so forth. The fact that this was not the normative practice has been proved by p75, which represents a strict text just as p52 of the period around A.D. 125 represents a normal text. It preserves the text of the original exemplar in a relatively faithful form... (69).
The bulk of the paragraph suggests a sceptical view of the transmission of the New Testament text in the early period--that we should be rather glum about the reliability of the New Testament text. However, it might be easy to overlook the penultimate sentence in which the Alands profess that not all manuscripts were so free in their transmission. Quite the contrary, there was a very careful, strict approach to the transmission of the biblical text in the earliest period and that this was "the normative practice."
Some would contest this assertion that strict transmission was the normative practice in the second and third centuries. This is the location of one of the great fronts in current textual criticism.
Thursday, 2 October 2008
Text and Canon Papers at Evangelical Theological Society Meeting
This year's theme for the ETS annual meeting is Text and Canon. There are many papers being presented on the issue. I've listed some of them here which I plan to attend.
The ETS annual meeting will be held in Providence RI Wed Nov 19-21, just prior to the Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting in Boston.
Wednesday9:20 AM-10:00 AM
David Hutchison (Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary)
The Next Great Step in New Testament
Textual Criticism
10:10 AM-10:50 AM
John Wei-Ho Wu (Logos Evangelical
Seminary)
Authenticity of the Distinctively Byzantine
Shorter
11:00 AM-11:40 AM
Andrew W. Pitts (McMaster Divinity
College)
A Re-assessment of the Use of Variant-
Units in New Testament Textual Criticism:
Definitions and Boundaries
4:30 PM-5:10 PM
Michael Bird (
College)
The Role of “Canon” in New Testament
Room 556 B
TEXT & CANON
Panel Discussion of Three Views on
the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament
Moderator: Kenneth Berding (
of Theology)
2:55 PM-3:15 PM
Jonathan Lunde (
Theology)
Taxonomical Framework
3:15 PM-3:35 PM
Walter Kaiser Jr. (Gordon-Conwell
Theological Seminary)
Single Meaning, Unified Referents
3:35 PM-3:55 PM
Darrell L. Bock (
Seminary)
Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts, and
Referents
3:55 PM-4:15 PM
Peter Enns (
Seminary)
Fuller Meaning, Single Goal
4:15 PM-4:30 PM
INTERMISSION
4:30 PM-5:30 PM
Q&A Discussion
Westin Narragansett Ballroom A,
Ground Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: New Testament Canon
2:50 PM-3:30 PM
Edward Stevens (International Preterist
Association)
The New Testament Canon Formed by
AD 70
Westin Narragansett Ballroom B,
Ground Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: New Testament Text
3:40 PM-4:20 PM
Michael Pahl
Scripture and Tradition, Orality and Gospel:
A New Look at an Old Controversy
4:30 PM-5:10 PM
Mike Arcieri (Faculté de théologie
évangélique,
Complete Listing of All Variant
between the Robinson-Pierpont 2nd ed.
and the Nestle-Aland 27th ed.
5:20 PM-6:00 PM
Richard Taylor (
Seminary)
On the Use (and Abuse) of a Critical
Apparatus
Thursday
Room 553 A/B
SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
8:30 AM-9:10 AM
Dean Deppe (Calvin Theological Seminary)
Textual Alterations in the Gospels of the
TNIV
9:20 AM-10:00 AM
Darrell L. Bock (
Seminary)
Response
Thursday
Westin Waterplace Ballroom II,
2nd Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: New Testament Text
8:30 AM-9:10 AM
Douglas Huffman (Northwestern College)
A Survey of Text—Critical Issues in the
Book of Acts
10:10 AM-10:50 AM
James Sweeney (
Did the Gospel of Matthew Use an Early
Form of the Didache as a Source?
Westin
3rd Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: New Testament Text
8:30 AM-9:10 AM
Abidan Paul Shah (Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary)
Rewriting History: An Analysis and Evaluation
of Current Revisionist Approaches to
New Testament Textual Criticism and Their
Impact on New Testament Studies
9:20 AM-10:00 AM
Douglas Estes (Western Seminary—San
Jose)
John versus the Canon: A Counterfactual
View of the Fourth Gospel
10:10 AM-10:50 AM
Jeff Cate (
The Angry Jesus in Mark 1:41
Westin Waterplace Ballroom III,
2nd Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: New Testament Text
8:30 AM-9:10 AM
Adam Messer (
Seminary)
Unveiling Patristic Impressions: Theology
and Textual Corruption in Matthew 24:36
9:20 AM-10:00 AM
Timothy Ricchuiti (
Seminary)
Tracking Thomas: A Text-Critical Look at
the Transmission of the Gospel of Thomas
10:10 AM-10:50 AM
Vern Poythress (
Seminary)
The Interaction of General Knowledge and
Canon in Appreciating Biblical Narratives,
Illustrated with Luke 5:12-16
11:00 AM-11:40 AM
William Warren Jr. (
Theological Seminary)
Canons, Copies, Communities, and Conflicts:
The Text of the New Testament in the
Second and Third Centuries
Westin Narragansett Ballroom C,
Ground Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: Text & Canon
9:20 AM-10:00 AM
Jason Sexton (The
Andrews)
How Far Beyond
Ballroom
12:50 PM-1:40 PM
PLENARY SESSION 3: TEXT &
CANON
Daniel B. Wallace (
Seminary)
New Testament Text
Ballroom
1:40 PM-2:30 PM
PLENARY SESSION 3: TEXT &
CANON
Charles E. Hill (Reformed Theological
Seminary)
New Testament Canon
Thursday
Westin
Third Floor
NEW TESTAMENT CANON,
TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND
APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE
Moderator: Mike Kruger (Reformed
Theological Seminary)
2:50 PM-3:30 PM
Darrell L. Bock (
Seminary)
Why Apocryphal Literature Matters for NT
Study: Relevance, Models, and Prospects
—A Look at the Influence of the New
School of Koester-Robinson
3:40 PM-4:20 PM
Charles E. Hill (Reformed Theological
Seminary)
From Codex to Loose-leaf Binder: Some
Recent Trends in Canon Criticism
4:30 PM-5:10 PM
Daniel B. Wallace (
Seminary)
Recent Developments in NT Textual Criticism
and Why They Matter to Evangelicals
5:20 PM-6:00 PM
College)
Summary and Evaluation: Toward an Evangelical
Understanding of NT Canon, Textual
Criticism, and Apocryphal Literature
Friday
Westin Waterplace Ballroom III,
2nd Floor
NEW TESTAMENT CANON, TEXTUAL
CRITICISM, AND APOCRYPHAL
LITERATURE
9:10 AM-9:50 AM
Jang Ryul Lee (
The “Goodness” and “One-ness” of God: A
Study of the Saying in Mark 10:18, “No one
is Good except One, God”
10:00 AM-10:40 AM
Maurice Robinson (Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary)
Eclectic Observations regarding the Current
Critical Text
Friday
Hilton Providence Hotel
Rosemoor Ballroom North
SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
THEME: Recent Evangelical Works on
Jesus
Moderator: Leslie Robert Keylock (Evangelical
University and Seminary)
Part I: Recent Popular Works on the
Historical Jesus
9:10 AM-9:25 AM
Grant Osborne (Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School)
Craig Evans’s Fabricating Jesus
9:25 AM-9:40 AM
Daniel B. Wallace (
Seminary)
Ben Witherington’s What Have They Done
with Jesus?
9:40 AM-9:55 AM
David Turner (
Seminary)
Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace’s Dethroning
Jesus
9:55 AM-10:45 AM
Craig Evans, Ben Witherington III, and
Darrell L. Bock
Responses, Panel Discussion, Questions
Part II: Recent Works on the Life and
Teaching of Jesus
10:45 AM-11:00 AM
Eckhard Schnabel (Trinity Evangelical
Divinity)
Mark Strauss’s Four Portraits, One Jesus:
School
11:00 AM-11:15 AM
Mark Strauss (
Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd’s The Jesus
Legend
11:15 AM-11:30 AM
Graham Twelftree (
Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld’s Recovering
Jesus
11:30 AM-12:20 PM
Mark Strauss, Paul Eddy, and Thomas R.
Yoder Neufeld
Responses, Panel Discussion, Questions
Friday
Westin Washington Room, 3rd Floor
TEXT & CANON
THEME: New Testament Canon
9:10 AM-9:50 AM
Alan Kam-Yau Chan (Chinese Christian
Union Church—North)
Canonical Effect of the Hebrew Bible upon
the Literary Formation of the Prologue in
the Gospel of Mark
Friday
10:50 AM-11:30 AM
Philip Miller (
The Least Orthodox
Preferred: A New Canon for New Testament
Textual Criticism?
11:40 AM-12:20 PM
Samuel Lamerson (Knox Seminary)
Mark 16, Again? Are the Vocabulary and
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
