James Crossley's blog Contact: jgcrossley10 - AT - yahoo - DOT - co - DOT - uk

Saturday, August 25, 2007

SBL 2007

This should at least be fun, shouldn't it and if Jim West likes it then...

S17-79 Synoptic Gospels
11/17/2007
1:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Room: San Diego C - MM

Theme: Panel Review of Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006)

Jeffrey Peterson, Austin Graduate School of Theology, Texas, Presiding
John Kloppenborg, University of Toronto, Panelist (20 min)
Adela Yarbro Collins, Yale University, Panelist (20 min)
James Crossley, University of Sheffield, Panelist (20 min)
Richard Bauckham, University of St. Andrews-Scotland, Respondent (25 min)
Discussion (65 min)

10 Comments:

Anonymous Jim said...

If it goes well and is interesting I'll review it positively and if not I'll scale it like a Lutheran fish.

;-)

Just kidding. I know it will be fascinating.

Now where's that DVD of your debate with Craig? Those people still haven't put together a North American version.

August 25, 2007

 
Blogger J. B. Hood said...

Yikes. Do you have experience debating/challenging Richard? He's a bulldog, I here, doesn't like to let go once he gets riled up.

August 27, 2007

 
Blogger Steven Carr said...

Bauckham has discovered the previously unknown literary device of indicating eyewitness sources by naming the same person first and last in the book.

For example, Mark's Gospel names Peter first (or possibly third) and also last.

Could the SBL vote to name this literary device a 'Bauckham' after its inventor?

What greater honour can there be to have a literary device named after you by a group of your peers?

August 28, 2007

 
Anonymous Hugh said...

Sock it to him, James. I still don't get Bauckham's argument which seems to be directed to proving that eyewitnesses CAN tell the truth. Even if we grant that - and there are a lot of very beggable questions there - I don't see how that helps us to know whether any given witness is a) an eyewitness) and , more importantly, perhaps, for his purposes b) even the witness is an eyewitness, that he IS telling the truth. Or have I missed the point?

August 30, 2007

 
Anonymous Christopher Shell said...

Although Bauckham's is a significant book and is blessed with common sene to boot, it is going much too far to say with Steven Carr that he has proved or discovered the existence of any guarantor-inclusio device.

From memory, none of the four gospels even mentions the same individual both first and last at all!

Matthew begins with Jesus the son of Abraham and David, and ends with Jesus. Jesus is therefore the eyewitness in question. And of course it is indisputable that he was indeed an eyewitness of his own entire life. But I am not sure he was ever pursued by the researcher Matthew's taperecorder.

Mark begins with John the Baptist and ends with Peter.

Luke begins with Theophilus - OK then with Zechariah. He would have been mighty old to be an eyewitness. He ends with Jesus. The previously-named person was Peter.

John begins with John the Baptist and ends with Peter.

Not much of a pattern there, nor would Bauckham himself call it a pattern.

August 30, 2007

 
Blogger Steven Carr said...

You don't like Bauckham's inclusio method of proving the eyewitness nature of the Gospels.

OK, now consider that the number 496 is both a triangular number, and a perfect number.

Now factor in that John 1:1-18 has 496 syllables and that John 21:1-23 has 496 words.

I rest my case.

August 30, 2007

 
Blogger Steven Carr said...

Bauckham gets eviscerated at Papias

September 03, 2007

 
Blogger Quixie said...

To Christopher Shell;

Dude . . . I think that Steve Carrs 496 quip was a togue-in-cheek one. You don't really believe he's positing a proof for inclusio, do you?

That actually made me laugh

Ó

September 17, 2007

 
Anonymous Christopher Shell said...

Hi Steven-

Yes - but what is the connection of the John inclusio with the Synoptics' inclusiones?

When I read that about 496 about 6 months ago, I counted up and couldn't make either figure come to 496. One was close, the other was more clearly slightly out. In any case, one is words and one is syllables.

September 22, 2007

 
Anonymous Christopher Shell said...

Aha, I see belatedly that you are a sceptic like me. Inclusio and chiasmus were ever the most frequently-claimed and hardest to prove devices. Chiasmus is ABA, which is found everywhere but everywhere. Inclusio is just another kind of ABA (where B equals just about everything).

September 22, 2007

 

Post a Comment

<< Home