Responding to a quote from Mark Driscoll:
I frankly have trouble understanding how a follower of Jesus could find himself unable to worship a guy he could “beat up” when he already crucified him.
Read the whole article, Revelation and the Violent “Prize Fighting” Jesus.
I’m borrowing my title from Dave Black’s latest essay, because I’m talking about the same subject and I’m about to publish the second edition of his book, Why Four Gospels?. (I suggest reading Dave’s essay first. It’s short!)
I just spent a weekend with Dave as he spoke at First United Methodist Church here in Pensacola and Chumuckla Community Church a ways to the northeast of here. For some, having a Southern Baptist (Southeastern Baptist)seminary professor (though “missionary” is his preferred title) preach at a United Methodist church might be considered coloring outside the lines. If so, I think it’s a kind of coloring that we need to do more of.
Now in case you haven’t caught on, this is one of my blog posts meditating on books I’m about to publish, in this case, of course, Why Four Gospels?. It’s a little book that is out of the mainstream of New Testament scholarship these days. It challenges the priority of Mark, and proposes that the gospels were written in the order of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John.
But that isn’t the most important thing that it does. It challenges the methods used, and in fact takes a completely different approach to what is usual in looking at the reliability and the context in which the gospels were written.
One of the problems I’ve noted with historical Jesus studies (in which theories regarding gospel authorship are obviously important), is that especially in the popular literature too little time is spent discussing and justifying the basic methodology used. For example, is the best way to discover the historical record of an individual to divide what is recorded of him into small parts and then look for criteria to decided on which of these are probable and which are not?
I’m not saying one cannot discover the reasoning behind these various choices. One can. But one often has to be very diligent in doing so, because they are often glossed over. I went through a course in gospels in college without every really understanding the nuts and bolts of things like form or redaction criticism, yet I was learning “facts” about the gospels which were derived from those disciplines.
On the other hand many more conservative handbooks and commentaries poke a few holes in some critical views and then regard their task as complete. Obviously not every commentary can cover every issue in full detail, but I think it should be better covered than it is. (If I might recommend one book, I think Dr. David DeSilva’s An Introduction to the New Testament [link is to my notes] is very commendable on this issue.)
Robert H. Stein, in Jesus the Messiah [link again to my review] commendably tried to address the criteria and how they should apply. I would note that I’ve changed my mind on a couple of points since I wrote that review, but I would still say that Stein makes a valiant effort but fails to reach his goal. If I may push an analogy, he colors with different colors, but stays inside the lines.
Along with Bauckham and a few others, Dave Black is not only coloring outside the lines, but switching coloring books as well. How successful this effort will be remains to be seen, in my opinion. But it is much more likely that one can provide support for a more orthodox view of the historical Jesus in this way than simply by trying to alter the criteria one at a time.
So there’s a much more important goal that Dave Black has in mind here. He’s not just looking at a different order for the writing of the four gospels; he’s examining the way in which we determine that order and in turn attempting to place the gospels in the context of the life of the early Christian church. In a way we could call this historically anchoring the sources as well.
His effort is commendable in another way: It is concise. In about 120 pages (we may lengthen this mildly with larger type in the Energion edition), he lays out a case that is both broad and strong. I’m not saying he has convinced me on all points; I’m a stubborn character, and not easily convinced. What he has convinced me of in those few pages is that this is a book that you need to read and answer if you think you have a good grasp of gospel or historical Jesus studies.
And that leads me to the inevitable questions. I’m always asked why I publish books I disagree with. This isn’t a really good example of that, in that I don’t have all that firmly held positions on this topic, general stubbornness aside. But I really like that question. I aim to publish a range of books that tend to push the boundaries within orthodox Christianity. I hope these will make us rethink our ideas, no matter what our present position is.
Charismatics have questioned my publication of Holy Smoke! Unholy Fire!, which addresses abuses in the charismatic movement and particularly in some revival movements. Recently I’ve been questioned over the just released (and not yet available even on all major online retail sites) Finding My Way in Christianity, which leans to the liberal side. On the other hand, my own book Identifying Your Gifts and Service assumes the continuation of spiritual gifts and includes a prayer language, or speaking in tongues, among them.
So I’m delighted to add Why Four Gospels? to the mix. Of this book in particular I would say it’s a must read in its subject area. I know I’m the publisher and I’m biased, but remember that I’m also somewhat of a defender of historical-critical methodologies (though the Jesus Seminar criteria are not amongst the things I defend), and thus my bias may not all be one way.
One amazing feature of this book is the bibliography, which is the size of a chapter in itself. The conciseness and brevity of the book mean it will lead to further study, or so I hope, and the means of that study are provided here along with the questions.
From John Wesley, via John Meunier, where you can read more of the context:
But still a man may judge as accurately as the devil, and yet be as wicked as he.
Hmmm!
I found this image via the Vietnamese commerce web site Thuonggiaviet.com. I don’t read Vietnamese at all, but I occasionally read the site using Google Translator, a mildly challenging proposition.
I tracked the image to the artist, John Strieder, on deviantart.com. I’m not posting it here, despite the fact that I found it on a number of other sites (9 thus far), because I can’t find any permission to use it online. Check it out, though. I’d be interested in your comments. Besides the interesting 3d effects, how much of this do we do to our children?
I did not react very favorably to the announcement of the Common English Bible, because I didn’t really see the benefit of this particular version and its placement. From a ministry point of view my question is just who will be reached by this Bible version, not just in evangelism and outreach but in discipleship and Bible study in the church. I have a hard time seeing who that will be. From a business point of view the question would be what niche will the version fill that is not already filled by a current Bible.
In order to receive a favorable evaluation based on either of those questions, a Bible version needs to be substantially better than those readily available. Repairing a few clumsy structures isn’t sufficient. I would add that I question the total resources placed into new translations in the English language as opposed to translations in other languages, especially those with no scriptures at all. At the same time many Bible publishers do contribute some of their revenue to such projects.
Having thought (and said) all that, I still requested a free CEB New Testament, and I received it a couple of days ago. I’m just going to give you my first impressions. I want to thank the Common English Bible Committee for making these free New Testaments available and sending one to me.
I started by reading 2 Corinthians. I found silent reading easy, and the general outlines of Paul’s arguments quite easy to follow. I was not confronted with excessively theological language that I would expect to have to explain if I was teaching a class using this Bible. The sentences were a bit too short for my taste, and were even a bit reminiscent of the NCV which was intended as a children’s Bible originally. I think the NCV sounds choppy when read aloud.
In one place I watch closely in Bible translations, 2 Corinthians 5:20-21, The CEB does use one translation I didn’t think quite make it, “God is negotiating with you through us” in verse 20. I prefer the NLT (and NRSV amongst others): “God is making his appeal through us.” Verse 21 is a fairly straightforward literal translation, which I also prefer. The NLT’s translation “For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin …” is clearer, but also tends to limit the options for interpretation in a controversial passage.
I also read 1 Corinthians 12-14, where I didn’t find much that was exceptional. Again, the reading is easy, but still gives me the impression of being a bit choppy. The questions in 1 Corinthians 12:29-30 are properly translated to imply the answer “no.” I found 1 Corinthians 13 rather bland. Some of the soaring phraseology seems to be lost in very clear, yet not very impressive phrasing. One can certainly argue the value of clearly understanding the thought versus the poetic feeling of the passage.
In the preface, the translators indicate that they use a number of contractions except in passages that should be regarded as more formal. I’m thinking I’m not going to agree with all their choices on this, but again, this is a subjective matter, more based on my taste than any particular principle.
I found the preface very helpful. I often recommend that Bible students read the introduction to their translations. You can learn a lot that way. In some cases, you get essentially sales hype, but in most cases you get some good basic theory as well as a good introduction to the choices made by the translators. I commend the CEB preface.
Finally, my wife asked me to read from John 1 to her. Reading out loud was an interesting experience from this Bible. I would have to rate the sound of John 1 as abysmal. I’d much prefer to do a scripture reading here from the NLT or the NRSV (given that most people won’t let me use my favored REB!). The constant repetition of “the light” is jarring.
I’m going to continue reading this New Testament for some time and allow these early negative impressions to be changed. Certainly a number of passages read quite well when read silently, and I found the translation easy to understand. Not every translation has to be great for oral reading. The main problem I see is that this Bible doesn’t seem to me to excel enough over currently available options to make me want to switch to using it for any of my own activities.
… at Zwinglius Redivivus. It does not include me, but I can’t think of anything I wrote recently that I would have nominated, so I can’t complain. Also, I won’t be quoting John Calvin favorably, so this may not be remedied in the immediate future.
(If you don’t get the Calvin thing, go and actually read the carnival!)
… at Free Old Testament Audio. And I have now dropped to #30. Freefall!
