I accept the idea of compositional devices and think this is a great idea. But what are the limits on such a use, at least by a reader trying to be faithful?
The way I see it, folks like Roach are right to be concerned about Woke folks trying to take such a technique and try to social engineer their way out of doctrinal truths. The issue is, even when one applies compositional devices, I don't see how that entails that progressive theology is even correct. That's where I think Roach is jumping to conclusions in haste. If it were me, Licona could put a large amount of this to bed by agreeing with Roach that woke activists do abuse scripture, and that compositional devices in no way affirms progressive theology in the area of sexuality, etc.
I haven't viewed Roach's 2 most recent videos. I've been told by two people who have that he's gotten so weird in them that the videos will discredit themselves. If Roach implied that acknowledging the use of compositional devices by the authors of the Gospels affirms progressive theology in sexuality, that would suggest to me that the 2 people who told me that are correct.
@@MikeLiconaOfficial Thanks Doc, his ultimate argument is that compositional devices erode a high view of scripture as part of broader views of redaction criticism. Without a "high view of scripture" it makes wading into the culture war pointless in his view since it's all "man made". Poor stewardship of the church in recent years as outlined in Megan Basham's new book has people rightfully on edge. I think both of you would probably agree that Gnosticism and Hermeticism are deviations from orthodoxy, which are running rampant in modernized forms. Karl Marx and Feuerbach are both Hegelians and they played off each other relative to Christianity and picked up on by later movements. That's where a lot of this is coming from.
What I discussed in that section is the connection between inspiration-inerrancy, theological doctrines, and ethics. Harold Lindsell demonstrated in his book, The Battle For The Bible, that whenever a person, school, or denomination abandons the classic doctrine of inerrancy, it leads to theological decline and shifts in moral standards (since the morality based on the Bible is no longer trusted or it is reduced unto cultural relativitiy). This point was also restated in the Summit III meeting of the ICBI on biblical application. Finally, even the CSBI reaffirmed my claims when it states: Article XIX. WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.
to Licona, sir I am aware that you are a renowned apologist for the resurrection and I've read several of your books. I agree on the compositional devices to some degree. However, my opinion differs from yours. 1) No ancient authors wrote a biography of the resurrected and extraordinary teacher they witnessed or heard about. The unique experience of the resurrection event was very likely to change all ways of thinking and the customs of writing biographies. 2) The Gospel authors’ writings contain uniquely similar and identical content regarding the teacher’s words and actions, unlike the more flexible characteristics of typical ancient biographers. In other words, we cannot see many compositional devices in the synoptic Gospels, except for some content. If the authors had employed compositional devices, the Gospels would exhibit more distinctions. Therefore.... Regarding the resurrection story in the Gospels, I believe the authors are more likely to have received and written from each other's sources rather than using compositional devices. Given the extraordinary and urgent circumstances of the historical resurrection event, it is likely that they could not avoid making human errors due to limited information and sources. So I think we need to be willing to acknowledge the authors' errors and mistakes. To add one more point, given the significant differences in the resurrection accounts in the synoptic Gospels, it is more likely that the authors wrote based on their own traditions and sources rather than referencing each other's material. -from Lee in South Korea
Thanks for commenting. But I don't think the points you're making hold. RE: #1. If we witnessed an extraordinary event today and reported on it, that would not necessarily alter the conventions for reporting in place. RE: #2. The authors of the Gospels stay closer to their sources than do other ancient biographers. However, they still seem to make use of many of the compositional devices observed in the writings of other ancient writers. I fail to see why the first observation would require an absence of the second. Even if some errors were to be present in the resurrection narratives, that would not negate the use of compositional devices elsewhere in those narratives. For example, let's say Matthew and Mark were mistaken that the initial appearance to Jesus' group of male disciples was in Galilee. That would not negate their use of literary spotlighting when making mention of one angel at the tomb.
@@MikeLiconaOfficial Thanks for your response. As far as I am concerned, No one in modern times has experienced anything quite like the resurrection witnessed by the disciples. While the Gospels likely contain elements that utilize ancient compositional devices, the synoptic Gospels exhibit many characteristics that suggest the authors aimed to faithfully edit and record transmitted sources rather than transform them through such devices. The description of an angel at the tomb is very likely part of the oral tradition, not a product of ancient compositional techniques. Anyway your answer means a lot. I'm always here to support you on your journey toward understanding the truth of Jesus' resurrection. Keep going strong!
I accept the idea of compositional devices and think this is a great idea. But what are the limits on such a use, at least by a reader trying to be faithful?
The way I see it, folks like Roach are right to be concerned about Woke folks trying to take such a technique and try to social engineer their way out of doctrinal truths. The issue is, even when one applies compositional devices, I don't see how that entails that progressive theology is even correct. That's where I think Roach is jumping to conclusions in haste.
If it were me, Licona could put a large amount of this to bed by agreeing with Roach that woke activists do abuse scripture, and that compositional devices in no way affirms progressive theology in the area of sexuality, etc.
I haven't viewed Roach's 2 most recent videos. I've been told by two people who have that he's gotten so weird in them that the videos will discredit themselves.
If Roach implied that acknowledging the use of compositional devices by the authors of the Gospels affirms progressive theology in sexuality, that would suggest to me that the 2 people who told me that are correct.
I answer that question in chapter 10 of "Jesus, Contradicted."
@@MikeLiconaOfficial Thanks Doc, his ultimate argument is that compositional devices erode a high view of scripture as part of broader views of redaction criticism. Without a "high view of scripture" it makes wading into the culture war pointless in his view since it's all "man made".
Poor stewardship of the church in recent years as outlined in Megan Basham's new book has people rightfully on edge. I think both of you would probably agree that Gnosticism and Hermeticism are deviations from orthodoxy, which are running rampant in modernized forms.
Karl Marx and Feuerbach are both Hegelians and they played off each other relative to Christianity and picked up on by later movements. That's where a lot of this is coming from.
What I discussed in that section is the connection between inspiration-inerrancy, theological doctrines, and ethics. Harold Lindsell demonstrated in his book, The Battle For The Bible, that whenever a person, school, or denomination abandons the classic doctrine of inerrancy, it leads to theological decline and shifts in moral standards (since the morality based on the Bible is no longer trusted or it is reduced unto cultural relativitiy). This point was also restated in the Summit III meeting of the ICBI on biblical application. Finally, even the CSBI reaffirmed my claims when it states:
Article XIX. WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.
to Licona, sir
I am aware that you are a renowned apologist for the resurrection and I've read several of your books. I agree on the compositional devices to some degree. However, my opinion differs from yours.
1) No ancient authors wrote a biography of the resurrected and extraordinary teacher they witnessed or heard about. The unique experience of the resurrection event was very likely to change all ways of thinking and the customs of writing biographies.
2) The Gospel authors’ writings contain uniquely similar and identical content regarding the teacher’s words and actions, unlike the more flexible characteristics of typical ancient biographers. In other words, we cannot see many compositional devices in the synoptic Gospels, except for some content. If the authors had employed compositional devices, the Gospels would exhibit more distinctions. Therefore....
Regarding the resurrection story in the Gospels, I believe the authors are more likely to have received and written from each other's sources rather than using compositional devices. Given the extraordinary and urgent circumstances of the historical resurrection event, it is likely that they could not avoid making human errors due to limited information and sources. So I think we need to be willing to acknowledge the authors' errors and mistakes.
To add one more point, given the significant differences in the resurrection accounts in the synoptic Gospels, it is more likely that the authors wrote based on their own traditions and sources rather than referencing each other's material. -from Lee in South Korea
Thanks for commenting. But I don't think the points you're making hold.
RE: #1. If we witnessed an extraordinary event today and reported on it, that would not necessarily alter the conventions for reporting in place.
RE: #2. The authors of the Gospels stay closer to their sources than do other ancient biographers. However, they still seem to make use of many of the compositional devices observed in the writings of other ancient writers. I fail to see why the first observation would require an absence of the second.
Even if some errors were to be present in the resurrection narratives, that would not negate the use of compositional devices elsewhere in those narratives. For example, let's say Matthew and Mark were mistaken that the initial appearance to Jesus' group of male disciples was in Galilee. That would not negate their use of literary spotlighting when making mention of one angel at the tomb.
@@MikeLiconaOfficial Thanks for your response. As far as I am concerned,
No one in modern times has experienced anything quite like the resurrection witnessed by the disciples.
While the Gospels likely contain elements that utilize ancient compositional devices, the synoptic Gospels exhibit many characteristics that suggest the authors aimed to faithfully edit and record transmitted sources rather than transform them through such devices. The description of an angel at the tomb is very likely part of the oral tradition, not a product of ancient compositional techniques.
Anyway your answer means a lot. I'm always here to support you on your journey toward understanding the truth of Jesus' resurrection. Keep going strong!