tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post5230466613938683759..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: Bart Interrupted--- A detailed Analysis of 'Jesus Interrupted' Part OneBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-49213060455542152212009-05-15T12:00:00.000-07:002009-05-15T12:00:00.000-07:00Any scholar can claim to "prove" OR "disprove" the...Any scholar can claim to "prove" OR "disprove" the bible - as a text standing on its own, anyone can strain logic to justify apparent inconsistencies, or overstate those inconsistencies. When one pulls one's view back from the microscopic analysis, the big questions are whether the bible is truly inspired by God and whether it is entirely inerrent in its expression of God's will for our lives. Those questions cannot be proven nor disproven, in the same sense that one cannot prove nor disprove God's very existence -- it is a matter of faith. <br /><br />My thinking is that if the bible is the inspired word of God, why does it require so much analysis and reconciliation. If an almighty God was imparting his word on such limited creatures as ourselves, would he not make that word crystal clear to us (not subject to debate)?<br /><br />If God intends that the bible be used as the single guide to lead us to him, why would he allow it to be so subject to interpretation.EJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06186695851469472273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-47489455393308315242009-05-07T14:14:00.000-07:002009-05-07T14:14:00.000-07:00As far as I have been able to glean from the writi...As far as I have been able to glean from the writings of Wright and Witherington I don´t see that they engage in any serious way with phenomena like miracles. Instead of spending so much time on the thoughts of folks like Lonergan or why we shouldn´t rule out the possiblity of men walking on water from a philosophical viewpoint, I´d rather see a more practical approach were they deal with modern studies in psychology, parapsychology, biology, psychics etc that hardly gives credence to tales about men walking on water, the power of prayer or glossalia. In short - I´d like to see some evidence instead of philosophical ruminations.Antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08953580367621238997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-33659995968489160712009-05-06T14:38:00.000-07:002009-05-06T14:38:00.000-07:00"This kind of reasoning reminds me of the argument..."This kind of reasoning reminds me of the argument N T Wright has made that the more improbable a story looks the more there may be some real history behind it. Like the story about the newly resurrected christian zombies walking around Jerusalem in Matthew 27:52. Makes one wonder why gentlemen like Wright and Witherington don´t become Shia muslims or Mormons since stories about a Imam who is hiding for hundreds of years in a cave until the End time or golden plates hidden away in America are so improbable that they cannot be pure fantasy."<br /><br />I don't think that improbability itself isn't proof of the historicity of something. My point is that it isn't proof against it either. The degree of improbability however can support or weaken an argument for the historicity of a document <I>given the other elements of the argument</I>. <br /><br />Both Wright and Witherington engage with more than the improbability of the events in their argument, but also the probability of admitting to such events given historical and cultural context of the documents, as while as the rhetorical and literary style of the document itself which deal with the intentions of the author. Considering these details, there is a large difference between the gospels and the book of Mormon.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-80683797529201693252009-05-05T12:32:00.000-07:002009-05-05T12:32:00.000-07:00J C Freak wrote:
"The gospels speak of an improba...J C Freak wrote:<br /><br />"The gospels speak of an improbably situation. My father used to say that if something were not phenomenal, then people wouldn't write about it. Part of the interest in the story is its improbability. And yet, the details of the story is possible, given an openness to the supernatural. Thus, any "disproving" that occurs isn't a matter of historical or textual study, but epistemological persuasion."<br /><br /> This kind of reasoning reminds me of the argument N T Wright has made that the more improbable a story looks the more there may be some real history behind it. Like the story about the newly resurrected christian zombies walking around Jerusalem in Matthew 27:52. Makes one wonder why gentlemen like Wright and Witherington don´t become Shia muslims or Mormons since stories about a Imam who is hiding for hundreds of years in a cave until the End time or golden plates hidden away in America are so improbable that they cannot be pure phantasy.Antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08953580367621238997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-80399409275053372772009-04-27T14:30:00.000-07:002009-04-27T14:30:00.000-07:00Hi Rosebaronet: Thank you for this comment. My ans...Hi Rosebaronet: Thank you for this comment. My answer is that some Evangelicals misuse the Bible when it comes to the issue of women and their roles, but in fact, even Paul is a strong advocate of women playing important ministerial roles in his missionary work-- see my book Women in the Earliest Churches. <br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-4125081618561017572009-04-27T14:00:00.000-07:002009-04-27T14:00:00.000-07:00I appreciate the scholarship, and the point about ...I appreciate the scholarship, and the point about the Historiographical and literary Convention of the ancients. I agree, if it was Tacitus or Josephus, we should make allowance for the conventions of the time, but we are not, we are talking about the Bible, people are using the Bible not as an ancient text, but "Inerrantly inspired" Words of God that still justify submission of women to men, so what do you mean that post-enlightenment analysis isn't applicable. If people ever treat Bible as ancient text subjecting them to historical context and convention, then sure, but people are not. So if the conservative (evangelical) branch of the population insists on using Bible anachronologically, why do you oppose scholars employing post-enlightenment analytical method on it?Rosebaronethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15582980315788337414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-37399212122428092072009-04-17T05:27:00.000-07:002009-04-17T05:27:00.000-07:00Dr. Witherington:
In your post, you make the contr...Dr. Witherington:<br />In your post, you make the contrast between pre-Enlightenment and post-Enlightment ways of doing history. I'm wondering if you'd extend that to include the ancient practice of mixing historical fact with imaginative elaboration?<br /><br />Isn't it possible that elements of the Gospels are not historical but imaginative elaboration on the part of the story tellers? Couldn't the 'wisemen' the 'flight to Egypt' be a plot device to make a point?<br /><br />Or must the post-Enlightenment Christian insist that each element of the story be 100% historical. If so, wouldn't this be making the same category of mistake that Ehrman makes (applying post-Enlightenment standards of 'facticity' to pre-Enlightenment stories)?wabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00964826042850069901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-74098261326757671532009-04-16T23:40:00.000-07:002009-04-16T23:40:00.000-07:00Assessing Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the bir...Assessing Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the birth of Christ, we must notice that they both report a birth at Bethlehem. They wouldn't bother to do so, presumably, unless they took this report to bolster messianic claims on behalf of Jesus. We can reasonably suppose, then, that both evangelists were motivated to place the birth at Bethlehem (even though everybody knew Jesus grew up in Nazareth, that he was of Nazareth.<br /><br />As to Luke's particular way of getting Mary to Bethlehem--Caesar's registration requirement-Philip Kitcher has a comment:<br />"The overwhelming evidence is that this [Luke 2:1-4] is a complete fiction. For not only are there no records of a census or a general taxation at this time, but, even if there had been one, this is surely not the way in which it would have been conducted. We know something about Roman attitudes towards the religious lore and ethnic traditions of the Jews--at best they saw them as barbaric enthusiasms. We also know something about the ways in which Romans obtained population counts and how they levied taxes. Instead of moving the population around, they quite sensibly dispatched their own trusted officials. Luke invites us to think of Cyrenius as having done something quite mad. In the interests of administering some kind of census or taxation, he encourages a mass migration so that there can be conformity to the ethnic principles of the natives."<br /> <br />Surely today's believers are centered enough on what matters about Jesus--the message of the Sermon on the Mount, the power of the cross and resurrection--that they can take an entrancing and instructive legend for what it is, and not transmogrify it into a historical monograph.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02594317489026507409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-26387802018851890072009-04-15T16:39:00.000-07:002009-04-15T16:39:00.000-07:00Pastor:
Did you read Donald Wiebe's book? He too...Pastor:<br /><br />Did you read Donald Wiebe's book? He too is a minister. Just respond whether or not you read it. If you have read it I will then admit my comment was elitist. But telling the truth is not elitist. Yes or no. Did you take the time to read it?BlackSwan13https://www.blogger.com/profile/02407150744837513533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-61569130649973286952009-04-15T06:00:00.000-07:002009-04-15T06:00:00.000-07:00Blackswan:
My comment of elitism was in response ...Blackswan:<br /><br />My comment of elitism was in response to these words of yours, emphasis mine: "Most readers here won't take the time the read Wiebe, <B>because, in all honesty, it is too disciplined and scholarly for most seminarians and even those with PhDs from most seminaries!"</B>You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but after reading and re-reading it, I find it hard to read such a statement as anything but elitist. <br /><br />Pax vobiscum.Sky McCrackenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13971591289953416023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-14996821557731990482009-04-14T17:05:00.000-07:002009-04-14T17:05:00.000-07:00Pastor Sky McCraken. It is not elitist to point o...Pastor Sky McCraken. It is not elitist to point out mumbo jumbo of Ben Witherington. It is too bad that there are some people who are actually trying to find the truth. As a Pastor start with honesty. That is all that Bart Ehrmann has done. But thanks for name calling in response to me, it is only one more reminder that I am thankful everyday that all of my children and grandchildren don't attend church.BlackSwan13https://www.blogger.com/profile/02407150744837513533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-12137420095789006342009-04-14T08:14:00.000-07:002009-04-14T08:14:00.000-07:00Dr. Witherington,
Thank you for the insightful re...Dr. Witherington,<br /><br />Thank you for the insightful review.<br /><br />Your assessment of Ehrman's credentials is very appropriate. If he were writing a book on surgical techniques and his medical training was as an allergist, it wouldn't be sniping for a trained surgeon to gently point this out--just as you did.<br /><br />Blessings,<br />TimTimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16017511829895886949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-56488158139607607852009-04-14T07:11:00.000-07:002009-04-14T07:11:00.000-07:00Wow Blackswan... that doesn't sound intellectual o...Wow Blackswan... that doesn't sound intellectual or academic - that sounds elitist.<br /><br />But what do I know, I'm not scholarly enough to read - I'm just a pastor.Sky McCrackenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13971591289953416023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-67593392782135286352009-04-14T06:40:00.000-07:002009-04-14T06:40:00.000-07:00Just one more thought for those who may think I di...Just one more thought for those who may think I didn't engage Ben Witherington with honest intellectual honesty. I would suggest those people who feel they are such scholars to read Donald Wiebe's books to gain an understanding of why the theology discipline is so disrespected among scholars. It is unscientific and apologetic. In universities that is the opposite of scholarship. Most readers here won't take the time the read Wiebe, because, in all honesty, it is too disciplined and scholarly for most seminarians and even those with PhDs from most seminaries!BlackSwan13https://www.blogger.com/profile/02407150744837513533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-635120273378661952009-04-14T05:08:00.000-07:002009-04-14T05:08:00.000-07:00Timothy, there are a number of ways to assess prob...Timothy, there are a number of ways to assess probability. These normally reduce to estimation based on their frequency of occurrence. There is an extremely low probability of the Big Bang happening in this universe (no one expects to find one in their back yard when they go to walk the dog this morning!), just as there is an extremely low probability of angelic appearances or astrological events heralding births. <br /><br />You made a statistical statement about these events yourself - you called them "one time" events. With the big bang, we have strong evidence that it did occur as a one time event. I'd say it's fair to call that a one-time event - meaning it happens with extremely low probability. For the stories in question it is difficult to say with certainty whether they are one time events or non-events, so their probability is either very low or none, depending on the correct characterization of them.<br /><br />It's possible to have reasons, apart from probability, for believing such events took place. However, Ehrman is correct in dealing historically with them as low-probability events. That is a useful probabilistic argument. <br /><br />It is made more useful by asking more general probablistic questions about incidents "like" this. Ceasar only crossed the rubicon once, making that a low-probability event. But we find that this is of a class of events that happens often - generals lead armies across rivers fairly often, historically speaking. Washington crossed the Delaware. If we generalize further to discuss armies crossing geographical barriers, then we find Hannibal crossing the Alps. This is not infrequent. <br /><br />Astrologers being led to the birthplace of an important figure by the stars is another matter - it belongs to a class of improbable events. Likewise Shepherds being led there by angels. <br /><br />It is somewhat facile to say that, "reading ancient literature without bias, one cannot assess the probability of..." some very improbable event, such as the impregnation of Atia by Apollo in the form of a snake. It is not true that the best we can say is that "ther eis a naturalistic explanation and a supernaturalistic explanation". The best we can say is that we have innumerably large experience with human conception coming through intercourse with other humans, plenty of experience with artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization, and no confirmable examples or known methods of human conception through intercourse with Apollo in the guise of a snake. We can conclude that such is very improbable. That doesn't rule out the possibility of it, but we must weigh the probability in our historical considerations.smijerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00565212411446092552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-51526573394253268832009-04-13T22:17:00.000-07:002009-04-13T22:17:00.000-07:00Okay, so by that criterion the probability of the ...Okay, so by that criterion the probability of the Big Bang is approximately 0. Likewise, Caesar hasn't crossed the Rubicon once in the last 100 years, but should we assign nearly 0 probability to that as well? Clearly not. So one time events cannot have their prior probability assessed based on their frequency of occurrence. And my point about Luke wasn't that Luke's account bolsters the epistemic value of Luke's account but rather that it bolsters the epistemic probability of the events that he reports, unless you beg the question and assume that his account is unreliable until proven reliable. After all, every witness is presumed to provide some support for the events he gives witness to, unless you have reason to suspect his unreliability. Lastly, I don't see how Krishna is relevant.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864413635563589644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-44135888341091423642009-04-13T19:35:00.000-07:002009-04-13T19:35:00.000-07:00A bishop walked around England scattering acorns o...A bishop walked around England scattering acorns on the path behind him. One day someone asked him why he was doing that. He said that it was to keep the lions away. The person answered that there were not lions in England. The bishop said, "Wow it works better than I thought."<br /><br />That is the logic of Ben Witherington. I suggest that he might start by reading outside of the circular arguments that make sense to him. George Lakoff has written a great book about how we think from new research in cognitive science. There are many others that show that the 18th Century arguments of Ben Witherington do not make sense in light of new understandings of how the brain works and rationalizes its own preconceived lies and ideas.<br /><br />I mentioned this to Bart Ehrman once and asked him why the church had been silent for over 30 years about the truth which is over 30 years. Bart Ehrman went to seminary with a good friend of mine, and was taught, and rattled, by a friend of mine who taught him Old Testament in Princeton. What Ehrman has done is opened up and told the truth. It is the first step in trying to understand the complexity of the human mind that will hang on to a lie rather than face the truth. When we can be honest about that, as Mr. Ehrmann has been, we can have some cross disciplinary studies that reach into the deepest areas of human deception - religion.<br /><br />In a response something I blogged to Gerry Spence (the attorney and author) he wrote "The church, however, is the greatest whipmaster of our culture." After years in seminary, and over 10 years as a minster, and having taught Greek and other college courses I tip my hat off to Mr. Ehrmann. When Bart Ehrmann and Gerry Spence and cognitive scholars start talking together, and honestly we will begin to better understand what it means to be sentient humans. It starts with honesty, as Mr. Ehrmann is willing to do and not philosophical 18th Century mumbo jumbo of Ben Witherington.BlackSwan13https://www.blogger.com/profile/02407150744837513533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-34420277479877911772009-04-13T14:37:00.000-07:002009-04-13T14:37:00.000-07:00Tim - how to assess probability of this type event...Tim - how to assess probability of this type event without bias? Well, one approach is to to assess the frequency of such an event occurring in modern times. Over the last decade it's running at a rate of zero percent. Over the last century, the same. Over all of history something similar has been reported a couple of times... weren't there similar stories about Krishna or someone? But those stories are unconfirmed, and disbelieved by most modern people on the basis of low probability. So, an assessment of the frequency of such incident yields a low priority.<BR/><BR/>As to Luke, since it is his account we are assessing the accuracy of, I don't see how using his account as confirmation bolsters the authority of his account.smijerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00565212411446092552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-5140051575907235202009-04-13T13:25:00.000-07:002009-04-13T13:25:00.000-07:00James said the following:"Further, he knows that i...James said the following:<BR/><BR/>"Further, he knows that it’s improbable that “wise men” would know beforehand of any birth in a small town in Galilee, let alone be impelled to attend it, let alone by guided to the birthplace by a star. He also knows that there’s no evidence confirmatory of the enrollment reported by Luke, and that such an enrollment isn’t likely to have occurred (there are more convenient ways to raise revenue), and that it’s improbable that a birth be visited by shepherds at the invitation of angels."<BR/><BR/>Okay, let's say we approach this text completely without bias. How then do we assess the probability of wise men being guided to the birthplace of the Jewish messiah by a miraculous event? Likewise, how do we know it's improbable that shepherds will be visited by an angel and likewise invited or guided? We're not biased here, so we're neither assuming the possibility nor the impossibility of the miraculous. It seems that at best we can say that there is a naturalistic explanation and there is a supernatural explanation, unless we beg the question at hand. (There's a difference between saying what verdict we'll reach via methodological naturalism and saying what's rational to believe.) Secondly, there is evidence confirmatory of the census. It's in the Luke text. Of course you meant evidence outside of Luke. But does every ancient document require confirmation of its claims? No, they don't, so again, let's not beg any questions. <BR/><BR/>The whole account might be dubious from a certain historical perspective on account of there being a simpler naturalistic explanation, but that is a far cry from showing the conservative Christian to be irrational or believing a contradiction.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864413635563589644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-35110958570106265932009-04-12T22:59:00.000-07:002009-04-12T22:59:00.000-07:00Well, that was an interesting 6,555 word post by B...Well, that was an interesting 6,555 word post by BW3.<BR/><BR/>My position is that the NT should be read with a "soft focus", paying attention to major story elements but not worrying about details (e.g. cock crowing, day of crucifixion) or order (e.g. temple cleansing, rejection in Nazareth). I think we should take seriously Papias' report that Mark wrote down an account, but it was "not in order. And if you grant that Matthew and Luke follow Mark's pattern, then what you end up with is a collection of events, with little order-importance (with the exception that the narrative is bookended with John the Baptist's mission and the Passion). <BR/><BR/>With that in mind, significant discrepancies like the two genealogies or the two birth narratives indicate that they both should be ignored. Is it really important that Jesus be born in Bethlehem? Who cares what Micah wrote? A historian should work to establish facts based on reports from the time, not on a presumed fulfilled prophecy that is awkwardly fit into a narrative.<BR/><BR/>As to Ehrman, I find his work to be sufficiently robust and detailed to merit being taken seriously, whatever he has or has not done in academia. I've read a couple of his books, and he handles the Synoptics well. As to the Gospel of John, that's a toughie for anyone to reconcile with the Synoptics. So much of John doesn't even feel like a story, what with the extended dialogues that appear (heavily in ch 5 and 7 - 10). Structurally, John is very different and really feels like it was congruent with Pauline theology (although any genetic relationship seems hard to establish).<BR/><BR/>In any event, even though I disagree with a substantial amount of what BW3 wrote here, I'm glad he's commenting on the book. It stimulates thought.Quiddityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08543124816916606452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-26039141518308641052009-04-11T00:28:00.000-07:002009-04-11T00:28:00.000-07:00Dear Prof Witherington,Nice video you have here. P...Dear Prof Witherington,<BR/><BR/>Nice video you have here. Prof Bock mentioned a bit about this book when lecturing us. I enjoy the work both of you...<BR/><BR/>Happy Easter<BR/><BR/>Warmly Regards from Indonesia<BR/>odith adikusumaOdith Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03670768408830196109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-41881273250608655142009-04-10T17:46:00.000-07:002009-04-10T17:46:00.000-07:00It strikes me as too much of a break from traditio...It strikes me as too much of a break from tradition to assert that the meal described in John did not take place on Thursday night, or that John did not intend for it to be taking place then. The "one of you will betray me" and subsequent departure of Judas (with the clear implication that he is off to summon the authorities and does not appear again until the arrest)indicate to me that it is the same meal described in the Synoptics. <BR/><BR/>Plays and movies based on the Gospels have portrayed the foot washing and the institution of the Eucharist as taking place at the same meal without any difficulties, whether or not they choose to depict the meal as a Seder.James Kabalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02335302113772004687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-29987421008224035662009-04-10T17:22:00.000-07:002009-04-10T17:22:00.000-07:00Hi Jthom18:The book you just mentioned from Oxford...Hi Jthom18:<BR/><BR/>The book you just mentioned from Oxford U. Press IS a popular level introduction for the educated lay person. It is not a technical level work at all, its an introductory textbook. So no, that book does not make your case. This is like arguing that because I wrote a similar level book Women and the Genesis of Christianity for Cambridge U. Press, this proves that I must be an expert in that field. No, what makes that clear is the two scholarly monographs I wrote for C.U.P. before Women and the Genesis (namely Women in the Ministry of Jesus and Women in the Earliest Churches), which were the BASIS for the popular level book. <BR/>Kapish? <BR/><BR/>Oxford knows perfectly well that Bart is an excellent writer, and they were interested in making money off his skills in writing popular level books. <BR/><BR/>Happy Easter!<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-71775102360990400892009-04-10T11:15:00.000-07:002009-04-10T11:15:00.000-07:00Thanks for this summary, Ben. You mentioned in pa...Thanks for this summary, Ben. You mentioned in passing that even Ehrman himself doesn't see these issues as necessarily compromising one's faith, but I think that point deserves a bit more attention. Not being a conservative, verbal-inspiration fundamentalist myself, it frankly wouldn't bother my faith in the slightest, even if it were proven (I am not suggesting it has been proven) that Jesus was born in Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. Sure, it would mean that there is an "error" in the literal history of some gospels. It would also mean that the evangelists erred in seeing the geographical place of Jesus' birth as one of the things foretold by the prophets.<BR/><BR/>But so what? There are still plenty of prophecies that were clearly fulfilled regarding who Jesus was and what he did. There are still records about what he said and what he did that maintain quite a bit of harmony. The stuff that really constitutes gospel isn't dependent in the slightest, on such "historical" minutiae.<BR/><BR/>I have heard Ehrman speak a couple of times, it seems to me that he (as you correctly pointed out) is making the same assumption the fundamentalists in my church make: "if there is an error in one thing, you can't trust any of it." I disagree with them both.Dan Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01635080266346679464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-38869254566533276112009-04-10T11:03:00.000-07:002009-04-10T11:03:00.000-07:00Does writing a book like - The New Testament: A Hi...Does writing a book like - The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings - (for Oxford University Press no less) not count as "the necessary laboring in the scholarly vineyard to be in a position to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted from a position of long study and knowledge of New Testament Studies"? I mean if writing a New Testament Introduction for Oxford University Press doesn't qualify you to write a popular book about the New Testament, I'm not sure what does.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14773945232144262515noreply@blogger.com