tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post248642768894049400..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: Bart Interrupted: Part FourBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-33319386665302421122009-04-23T18:02:00.000-07:002009-04-23T18:02:00.000-07:00Since I haven't seen it, here is the link to BW3's...Since I haven't seen it, here is the link to BW3's full presentation of the L=BD argument.<br /><br />http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/01/was-lazarus-beloved-disciple.html<br /><br />It does make a lot of sense. It's causing me to reevaluate a lot of passage in the fourth gospel, particularly the "Behold your mother" one (since Lazarus was associated with the women contingent anyway) and of course all the significance that would be added to the Resurrection event.Rob Suggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04565586727038679732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-11536967655207037812009-04-23T09:21:00.000-07:002009-04-23T09:21:00.000-07:00Actually my position is not novel.
The Beloved D...Actually my position is not novel. <br /><br />The Beloved Disciple is always referred to in the third person in this Gospel. We would expect the first person, and nowhere is this clearer than in John 21 where 'he' is distinguished from 'we' the community. See also at the cross in John 19, where again it is in the third person. <br /><br />The Beloved Disciple wrote down his testimony. It was later edited into the form of a Gospel, perhaps by John of Patmos when he returned from exile. The whole point of the final story in this Gospel which denies that Jesus says "the Beloved Disciple will live until I return" is to make clear that Jesus only said "what if it is my will that...". Why the need for this clarification? Two reasons: 1) Lazarus had died again (and we can understand why his community might not expect that since Jesus had raised him once); 2) since he had died there was impetus to gather his memoirs and produce a Gospel from them. <br /><br />BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-76981427302639666522009-04-23T08:03:00.000-07:002009-04-23T08:03:00.000-07:00Are you saying Lazarus is the beloved disciple but...Are you saying Lazarus is the beloved disciple but NOT the author of the Gospel of John? I had always taken it for granted (based on John 21) that the beloved disciple was the author.<br /><br />So your theory is based on the assumption that the end of John 21 was not written by the author but an addendum by someone else (the community)?<br /><br />Sorry if I'm missing something, I'm just trying to understand your novel position without having read a detailed explanation.cawoodmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02108527908963003806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-39348841616519608022009-04-23T07:56:00.000-07:002009-04-23T07:56:00.000-07:00Marc my response is that Lazarus did not call hims...Marc my response is that Lazarus did not call himself 'the Beloved Disciple'. This is the term his community and family used for him as John 11.1-3 shows. John 21 makes clear Lazarus is not the final editor of the Fourth Gospel--the community says "this is the disciple who testified and wrote these things down, and we know his testimony is true." Who is the we? His community of course, who gathered his memoirs and edited them into a Gospel after he died. The Beloved Disciple himself seems to have called himself the elder or old man to judge from 2-3 John by the time he got older. <br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-15522464568659879872009-04-23T06:47:00.000-07:002009-04-23T06:47:00.000-07:00I guess my question is this: if Lazarus was the au...I guess my question is this: if Lazarus was the author why would he sometimes call himself "the beloved disciple" (seemingly a pseudonym) and sometimes explicitly "Lazarus"?cawoodmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02108527908963003806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-17177319194945940432009-04-22T18:13:00.000-07:002009-04-22T18:13:00.000-07:00Lazarus is very central to John's gospel anyway. T...Lazarus is very central to John's gospel anyway. The raising of Lazarus basically started the rumbling that got Jesus crucified, as John tells it in ch. 11. A bit different from the synoptics, where Lazarus never appears (except for the beggar in the parable, covered with sores). But this is the kind of thing explainable by the different perspectives of the author. A Judean author would have a different take on the politics that went into the arrest and crucifixion. <br /><br />I'll certainly order WHTDWJ. Been wanting to read it for a while, but the Lazarus angle has me hooked.Rob Suggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04565586727038679732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-77837769166447395552009-04-22T16:21:00.000-07:002009-04-22T16:21:00.000-07:00Sorry Marc there is no last supper in John as ther...Sorry Marc there is no last supper in John as there is in the Synoptics. There is instead a meal earlier in the week (see John 12.1-3) which involves footwashing, not this is my body, this is my blood. And guess whose house the meal in John 12 is--- Lazarus' just as in John 11 as well. Notice that the Beloved Disciple reclines on the same couch with Jesus. The host always reclined with the chief guest at such meals. Who is the host? The Beloved Disciple. None of the Galilean disciples had a house in or near Jerusalem. But the Beloved Disciple did. You need to read What Have They Done with Jesus?<br /><br />BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-25765386259593025762009-04-22T11:36:00.000-07:002009-04-22T11:36:00.000-07:00Interesting theory, certainly a possibility, but t...Interesting theory, certainly a possibility, but the phraseology in John 11:3 is not the same as elsewhere and it does not seem that Lazarus was a disciple in the strict sense of "follower" who would have been at the last supper. <br /><br />It seems unlikely that the author of the Gospel would name Lazarus a couple of times and then refer many times to the same person as the "beloved disciple". It's a puzzle indeed, not as clear for me as for you apparently.cawoodmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02108527908963003806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-32516242916106051492009-04-21T14:35:00.000-07:002009-04-21T14:35:00.000-07:00Hi Marc:
It is quite clear that the 'one whom Jes...Hi Marc:<br /><br />It is quite clear that the 'one whom Jesus loved' is Lazarus (see John 11.1-3). John of Patmos, who is not likely John Zebedee, put this Gospel together after the death of the Beloved Disciple, as John 21 makes perfectly clear. I have made this case at great length in 'What Have They Done with Jesus?' Note that exactly none of the Zebedee traditions we find in the Synoptics appear in the Fourth Gospel. Not even the calling of the Zebedees. Nor do we have any of the Galilean miracle stories found in the Synoptics except the feeding of the 5,000/ walking on water story. Instead we have a bunch of unique stories about what Jesus did in Judea and Samaria, which is why most recent commentaries on John insist it is by a Judean disciple They are right-- its by Lazarus. <br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-25728363771040115642009-04-21T13:10:00.000-07:002009-04-21T13:10:00.000-07:00Ben, how do you deduce that the author of the Gosp...Ben, how do you deduce that the author of the Gospel of John is not the beloved disciple.<br /><br />I agree with Ken Boa's assessment that the beloved disciple is John himself by considering the beloved disciple as one of the inner circle and deducting those named in addition to him to arrive at John. Are you saying the disciple John was not the author?cawoodmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02108527908963003806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-37870377186111464592009-04-16T13:40:00.000-07:002009-04-16T13:40:00.000-07:00Thank you for your response! I suppose we all str...Thank you for your response! I suppose we all struggle with different theological issues in our walk with Christ. I am grateful.<br /><br />Jonathan BowmanJonathan Bowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08953741933272364675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-5659431922046506722009-04-16T04:53:00.000-07:002009-04-16T04:53:00.000-07:00GEEZ! I kinda regret leaving the'notify by email'...GEEZ! I kinda regret leaving the'notify by email' thing on my comment. thanks for all the good comments, seems like this subject ht a nerve, maybe Ben will delve into it somewhat, liked the informative discussion. JohnCorpus Christi Outreach Ministrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164866291727500237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-88268176605285958482009-04-16T04:40:00.000-07:002009-04-16T04:40:00.000-07:00Hi YouthGuy:
Read my book the Living Word of God....Hi YouthGuy:<br /><br />Read my book the Living Word of God. <br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-49432904721337901182009-04-16T03:05:00.000-07:002009-04-16T03:05:00.000-07:00Technically they are claiming that genetic mutatio...<I>Technically they are claiming that genetic mutations are proof of evolution. What are genetic mutations? All living things have a specified code of information built into to their systems, this code is called DNA. Over time as science has advanced in its ability to examine and test DNA, the evolutionists thought for sure that they would find NEW/ADDED genetic information in the changes that were taking place in the various species.</I>No, they are claiming that genetic mutations are one kind of proof. The basic theory of evolution is that current species came about by a process of 'descent with modification by means of genetic variation and natural selection.'<br /><br />Humans most certainly do have more genetic information than, say, a mouse or a monkey. But we also retain the same genes that passed down to us through them.<br /><br />We know this, for one example, because the gene that manufactures vitamin C for many mammals was switched off in the set of primates from which humans developed. That no longer functioning gene, or pseudo-gene, is still in our genome. You can't get more basic for proof than that.<br /><br />The problem with the argument from design is that historically it isn't even Christian. It dates back to the Greeks. Because of Paley, many Christians have unfortunately now attached their faith to a fundamentally losing argument.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-56641232936714318092009-04-15T21:53:00.000-07:002009-04-15T21:53:00.000-07:00I'd like to give a brief response to two points ma...I'd like to give a brief response to two points made by Corpus Christi Outreach Ministries above.<br /><br />1) The claim that random mutation _never_ adds to the genetic information in DNA (but rather only rearranges it) is false.<br /><br />A simple counterexample is when a particular gene is <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication" REL="nofollow">duplicated</A> and followed later by one or more <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation" REL="nofollow">point mutations</A>.<br /><br />The equivalent of this in a series of characters in the English language would be the string "match^" being duplicated to "match^match^" followed by a point mutation to "match^patch^" By any measure of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory#Quantities_of_information" REL="nofollow">quantity of information</A> the final string has more.<br /><br />Obviously in order to produce a distinct and useful DNA string there would need to be more point mutations than the English string above. But this is quite conceivable since mutations of the duplicated gene normally do not harm the function of the organism since the original gene is still present. This leads to a faster mutation rate in such genes over successive generations than non-duplicated genes.<br /><br />Now I grant that this conclusion, in and of itself, does not prove that evolutionary theories are true or that they can fully explain the complexity and variety of of lifeforms.<br /><br />But the above information does refute the claim that random mutations cannot increase genetic information.<br /><br />2) Though I am no fan of Richard Dawkins (I refute many of his atheistic arguments in lay formation courses I teach), I do want to debunk the claim that after being asked about mutation increasing genetic information he hesitated because he was "trapped in a corner".<br /><br />He paused at that moment because in that question it became clear to him the purpose of the whole interview was not what he had be led to believe. In fact, Dawkins can give a better answer to the question than I did above, and he has in his writings.<br /><br />For the whole story, see <A HREF="http://web.archive.org/web/20050207101650/http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/dawkins1.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A> or a summary <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<br /><br />Though Dawkins is, among other things, bad at philosophy, he isn't bad at evolutionary biology.<br /><br />Fr. Terry Donahue, CC<br /><br />P.S. I lean towards the theistic evolution camp myself, and as a Computer Science major I made my way through a significant amount of information theory... Still comes in handy on occasion as a Catholic priest.Fr. Terry Donahue, CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191060499486455322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-19751655766471964702009-04-15T21:35:00.000-07:002009-04-15T21:35:00.000-07:00I'd like to give a brief response to Corpus Christ...I'd like to give a brief response to Corpus Christi Outreach Ministries above.<br /><br />The claim that random mutation _never_ adds to the genetic information in DNA (but rather only rearranges it) is false.<br /><br />A simple counterexample is when a particular gene is <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication" REL="nofollow">duplicated</A> and followed later by one or more <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation" REL="nofollow">point mutations</A>.<br /><br />The equivalent of this in a series of characters in the English language would be the string "match^" being duplicated to "match^match^" followed by a point mutation to "match^patch^" By any measure of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory#Quantities_of_information" REL="nofollow">quantity of information</A> the final string has more.<br /><br />Obviously in order to produce a distinct and useful DNA string there would need to be more point mutations than the English string above. But this is quite conceivable since mutations of the duplicated gene normally do not harm the function of the organism since the original gene is still present. This leads to a faster mutation rate in such genes over successive generations than non-duplicated genes.<br /><br />Now I grant that this conclusion, in and of itself, does not prove that evolutionary theories are true or that they can fully explain the complexity and variety of of lifeforms.<br /><br />But the above information does refute the claim that random mutations cannot increase genetic information.<br /><br />Fr. Terry Donahue, CC<br /><br />P.S. I lean towards the theistic evolution camp myself, and as a Computer Science major I made my way through a significant amount of information theory... Still comes in handy on occasion as a Catholic priest.Fr. Terry Donahue, CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191060499486455322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-65549958206987403942009-04-15T20:19:00.000-07:002009-04-15T20:19:00.000-07:00Hello John of Corpus Christi Outreach,
Thanks for...Hello John of Corpus Christi Outreach,<br /><br />Thanks for your reply about the status of evolution. You mentioned DNA and information (or information theory). The biggest gain in evolutionary theory over the past 9 years is the genome. More than that, the genome of current animals has all the genetic records of past of past forms, so there are genetic “fossils in the molecules”. Humans still have fish gill genes, for example. It turns out that genetic molecules are fossils too. As the genomes of more animals are compiled, the growing data is showing a correlation of the molecular history with the fossil history. A correlation of Paleontology and Molecular Biology. As time goes on, gaps in the fossil record will be filled by the genes found in living animals. A good resource for this is Hubert P. Yockey’s book, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life 2005; Cambridge University Press.<br /><br />Whales and dolphins evolved from a land animal and are distantly related to the hippopotamus since they all have a common ancestor that walked on land. Moreover, whales and dolphins can’t smell at all. But from the whale and dolphin genome we now know that they have all the genes necessary for smell. It turns out that all those genes are there, but they turned off. Nasal passages evolved into the blow hole and the sense of smell dropped away, and the genes were turned off. The whale genes for smell now have no use for smelling, but they do have a use as a record of evolution. <br /><br />Chickens and birds evolved from dinosaurs. The domestic Chicken has genes for teeth that are turned off. But dinosaurs needed teeth. In 2005, Biologists at the University of Wisconsin attempted to trigger the formation of teeth in a normal chicken by injecting the embryo with a virus designed to ‘turn on’ the relevant gene (note no new genes were added, the tooth genes were already there). Says one of the researchers, ‘So the idea of turning on one gene that might be able to do this in an animal that hasn’t made teeth in over 70 million years was somewhat of a stretch.’ However, one could see very clearly tooth formation on the lower jaw.<br /><br />Implications for theology? There was probably no historical Adam. The NT understanding of Adam in Rom 5 and 1Cor 15 will need to be updated.<br /><br />JerryJerry in Seal Beachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06798218987505533146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-78922454271925097002009-04-15T14:00:00.000-07:002009-04-15T14:00:00.000-07:00Jerry as a retired firefighter I certainly dont h...Jerry as a retired firefighter I certainly dont have the scientific backround as you, and am aware of good Christians who embrace evolution [Dinesh Desouza]but it seems to me that evoluion (Macro] as science is coming under intense questioning these days(1066) EVOLUTION- It’s time to do a little update. These past few weeks in Texas we have had a debate on evolution and how it should be presented in the text books. The final decision seemed to give both sides a little wiggle room. During the debate news papers would report things like ‘all scientists agree that proofs of evolution are all around us’ and basic misinformation on the whole subject. But to be fair, what do the advocates of evolution mean when they say there are proofs all around us? Basically they are speaking about known changes in the various classes of species that exist. Technically they are claiming that genetic mutations are proof of evolution. What are genetic mutations? All living things have a specified code of information built into to their systems, this code is called DNA. Over time as science has advanced in its ability to examine and test DNA, the evolutionists thought for sure that they would find NEW/ADDED genetic information in the changes that were taking place in the various species. In point of fact, if Darwinian evolution [macro] were true, you would find numerous examples of new information in these mutations. How many species have they found with this new information? Absolutely none! Again, stuff like this isn’t just a glitch in the system, it is absolute scientific/observable truth that tells us evolution, on a large scale, never happens. What does happen is various changes take place within their own set/class of being. That is God made things ‘after their own KIND’ this would mean that God did not create all the changes in the various species in the initial act of creation, but he set things in categories ‘kinds’ if you will. Now, in no way is it a violation of scripture for species to change/adapt along the way, this would be consistent with the language used in the bible. But what have we discovered? We have found that whenever a change takes place, the ‘change’ that is taking place is simply a rearrangement of already exiting information. DNA has the ability to replicate itself, sometimes in the process of duplicating, mistakes happen. Sort of like if you copied something and the copy had a glitch. Well when this happens you have a mutation, a change in the DNA. Sometimes this process actually is beneficial to the species. This is basically what they mean when they say ‘evolution is all around us’, what they are not telling you is that this actual process has proven that new information NEVER shows up. That in order for evolution to happen you NEED NEW INFORMATION, new genetic information that did not exist in the original parent. So to be honest about it ‘all the proofs’ that are around us are simply showing us that evolution, to the point of new species evolving from previous ones, actually never can happen! This singular problem in the field of genetics is considered to be the single greatest obstacle that science has run into in trying to prove the reality of evolution. When Richard Dawkins [one of the so called new atheists] was asked if he could give any examples of new information being discovered in living things, he hesitated and stuttered as he realized that the interviewer had him trapped in a corner. The atheist knows that this is only one of many scientific proofs that speak against evolution. Like I said before, the more science advances, the more proof we have against Darwin’s theory.Corpus Christi Outreach Ministrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164866291727500237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-25844035317666205522009-04-15T08:58:00.000-07:002009-04-15T08:58:00.000-07:00Jerry, I hope you won't mind if, inspired by your ...Jerry, I hope you won't mind if, inspired by your comment, I suggest someone else you may very much enjoy reading, given your background.<br /><br />A little book called <I>God Still Matters</I>, by the late Herbert McCabe, OP. He was a Dominican, with a background in science before he became a theologian.<br /><br />(for what it's worth)John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-52761959194198940002009-04-15T08:55:00.000-07:002009-04-15T08:55:00.000-07:00Sure, start with my little book called The New Tes...<I>Sure, start with my little book called The New Testament Story...</I>I highly recommend it, as the first book by Ben (if I may) that I have had the pleasure to read. (I've wish-listed some of his others.)John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-33188434567116281842009-04-15T08:04:00.000-07:002009-04-15T08:04:00.000-07:00I found this very helpful. Thank-youI found this very helpful. Thank-youmatthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053050572052804795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-27073397926053070202009-04-14T21:31:00.000-07:002009-04-14T21:31:00.000-07:00Dr. Witherington,
I realize this is an off topic ...Dr. Witherington,<br /><br />I realize this is an off topic conversation, but how does one approach the New Testament in light of the fact that we do not have the original texts, hapax legommena, and that sections such as John 7:53 through 8:11 are not original?<br /><br />In what sense is scripture inspired and in what sense is it authoritative? Do you know of anything that I can read?<br /><br />An Amateur TheologianJonathan Bowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08953741933272364675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-58775035860367734742009-04-14T20:56:00.000-07:002009-04-14T20:56:00.000-07:00Hello Ben,
I’ll cut to the chase and ask the quest...Hello Ben,<br />I’ll cut to the chase and ask the questions, and would be delighted if you could respond. They might represent a middle ground between Ehrman’s and your viewpoints:<br /><br />1. Are there small errors in the Gospels such as 2 demoniacs in Matthew and 1 demoniac in Mark and Luke? (I have Gleason Archer’s Encyclopedia of Bible difficulties, but I still have difficulties)<br />2. If the answer to 1. is yes, then is it appropriate to have a moderate view of inspiration and the illumination of the Holy Spirit?<br /><br />I am an evangelical who is also an aerospace engineer with a major contractor; among the many things our company does is Cosmology research as described by the Big Bang. Part of that is we are working on the James Webb Telescope which is the replacement for the famous, yet aging Hubble Telescope. I am also a theistic evolutionist who believes that the theory of evolution could fall under the doctrine of God’s providence. God’s guiding, working through the laws of nature, originating and evolving life. I’ve read Bart’s latest and your reviews on this blog which I really appreciate. I’m sorry, I have not read any of your books yet, but I have read N.T. Wright and his New Testament and the People of God series and I’ve read Darrell Bock. I have learned about some of the various criterions for discovering the historical Jesus through John P. Meiers's A Marginal Jew series. Richard Horsley's Paul and Empire is important I think, such as what the word Gospel really meant to first century ears. The Physicist and Theologian John Polkinghorne has been influential to me as well. So these are some of the author’s who have shaped my worldview and part of the result of that to me is purposing to have a moderate/conservative response to questions 1.and 2.<br /><br />ThanksJerry in Seal Beachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06798218987505533146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-14566500721934047282009-04-14T18:32:00.000-07:002009-04-14T18:32:00.000-07:00Ben, I would like to see more of your works availa...Ben, I would like to see more of your works available in Libronix (Logos) where I do most of my study. Any plans for that? Depend on the book publisher such as Eerdmans in the case of NT Story?Rob Suggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04565586727038679732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-80715697779272770722009-04-14T17:49:00.000-07:002009-04-14T17:49:00.000-07:00Dr. Witherington,
These posts are fantastic -- gr...Dr. Witherington,<br /><br />These posts are fantastic -- greatly helpful responses that put in words what so many of us are trying to articulate. One request: Even splitting these posts into four parts leaves them as <I>huge</I> reading endeavors; would it be possible to separate the portions of each post with headings, or something similar? It can feel overwhelming otherwise -- but I do want to finish them!<br /><br />Thanks for your always-refreshing work.Brad Easthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09342341127122254107noreply@blogger.com