Thursday, September 28, 2017

Jesus never said the "I am" statements?

In the following video, New Testament scholar Craig Evans agrees with Bart Ehrman that Jesus never made the "I am" statements recorded in John. Anyone who thinks this "literary device" stuff is no big deal needs to realize that, if one goes where Evans is going, that no longer passes the laugh test.

Evans gives no argument. He makes a bizarre analogy between John's gospel and the personification of Lady Wisdom in Proverbs. But of course he isn't a myther, so Jesus did exist and did say things, right? So that's obviously a really poor analogy, and it's not clear precisely what Evans thinks it does for his argument. Using the term "genre" doesn't help, since obviously John is not writing an allegorical personification of a characteristic like wisdom. This is a lazy use of the concept of "genre." He then explicitly says that these were "he is" confessions of "the Johannine community" rather than statements made by Jesus.

Evans has to admit the awkwardness of all the historical facts confirmed in John (!) but apparently doesn't let this stop him from having an agreement-fest with skeptical scholar Ehrman (who goes for the jugular, unsurprisingly) that Jesus never made the "I am" statements. Watch here. It's short.



Now:

Apologist Jonathan McLatchie shared this video in a public forum on Facebook with the comment that the field of New Testament studies needs to be reformed.

In the ensuing thread, Mike Licona, still regarded by many as in some measure a conservative biblical scholar, came in and apparently defended Evans's comments throwing all of the "I am" statements under the bus. He is, to my mind, fairly explicit, though not quite as explicit as Evans.

1. Although the message is the same, the way Jesus "sounds" in John is very different than the way He "sounds" in the Synoptics.

2. The way Jesus "sounds" in John's Gospel sounds very much like how John "sounds" in 1 John. That is, the grammar, vocabulary, and overall style of writing in both are strikingly similar.

Number 2 could be because John adjusted his style to be similar to his Master after spending much time with him. This would be similar to how some married couples adapt their laughs and expressions to one another over time. The other option and the one believed by most scholars is that John paraphrased Jesus using his own style. The reason scholars go with this latter view is because Jesus "sounds" so differently in John than in the Synoptics.
By no means does this mean John is historically unreliable. It means that John is often communicating Jesus' teachings in a manner closer to a modern paraphrase than a literal translation. Stated differently, John will often recast Jesus saying something explicitly the Synoptics have Him saying implicitly. For example, one does not observe Jesus making his "I am" statements in the Synoptics that are so prominent in John, such as "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). That's a pretty clear claim to deity. Mark presents Jesus as deity through His deeds and even some of the things He says about Himself. But nothing is nearly as overt as we find in John. Granted, the Synoptics do not preserve everything Jesus said. However, if Jesus is cryptic in public even pertaining to His claim to be Messiah as He is in Mark--hence the "Messianic Secret," we would not expect for Jesus to be claiming to be God publicly and in such a clear manner as we find John reporting. Those are just some of the reasons why scholars see John adapting Jesus' teachings. Jesus' precise words (ipsissima verba) may not be preserved in John but His voice (ipsissima vox) certainly is. (emphasis added)

To be blunt, the talk of paraphrase here merely fogs the issue. Evans is not saying that the "I am" sayings in John are paraphrases in any normal sense of that term of explicit claims to deity that Jesus actually made, and if Jesus did not publicly and explicitly claim to be God as he does in John, then calling what we find in John a "paraphrase" is merely creating confusion. That isn't a paraphrase. That's making stuff up.  And if that's how the phrase "ipsissima vox" is going to be used, then it is just another phrase for "making stuff up," not a mere reference to what ordinary people call "paraphrasing." Licona is expressly arguing that Jesus would not and hence did not publicly, clearly, and overtly claim to be God in the real world. But in John he does do so. No use of the term "paraphrase" nor the phrase "ipsissima vox" (which I believe Evans originated) can get around this.

Needless to say, Licona's arguments here are extremely weak. There is a large difference between claiming to be God and encouraging the crowds in messianic expectations. Jesus never at any time hesitated to offend the religious leaders of his day and even in the synoptics seems to have gone out of his way to do so. As for Jesus "sounding different" in the synoptics, there is that awkward bit of John that escaped and got into Matthew somehow, Matthew 11:25-27. Moreover, real people do talk in different styles at different times, and John seems to have had a memory for long, connected discourse. Mostly this is assertion disguised as argument for a very strong claim--that Jesus did not overtly and explicitly claim identity with the Father as he is portrayed as doing in John. What argument there is is the typical weak sauce of New Testament literary criticism.

Every time I think that some new shift from Dr. Licona can't surprise me, he surprises me. I was surprised when he hypothesized that the whole Doubting Thomas episode might be made up, but I thought he'd be more uncomfortable about publicly endorsing Evans's comments throwing the "I am" statements under the bus. Evidently not.

Again, this post and hence the comments are set to public, which is why I can read them even while on Facebook hiatus. I am not publicizing anything that has not been said in public, but I am "boosting" it. Saddened as I am by what Dr. Licona is apparently endorsing, I'm afraid that I think this is a crucial enough matter that it needs to be known. Jesus' claims to deity are, to put it mildly, important, and so people should know when scholars think he didn't make them. I pray that the Lord will use any such publicizing and/or criticisms that come as a result to motivate Dr. Licona to reconsider. Needless to say, I urge that such criticisms and corrections always be made in a spirit of Christian love and with the best good in mind of Dr. Licona as well as of the Christian community as a whole, including his followers.

Update: Dr. Licona has responded in "grieved" fashion to my critique in this post, adding an entirely ex post facto caveat to his original comment, a change which in any event does not render his comments unobjectionable or unimportant. And certainly does not make me a misrepresenter of what he said. I will quote his response, leaving out only an unnecessary name of a participant on Facebook and, at the end, some irrelevant ad hominem patronization directed towards me.

I'm grieved to see Lydia once again stretching my words to say more than I did. I try to nuance my words carefully, especially in view of some like Lydia who look for things to criticize. But sometimes I'm not as careful as I should be and assume (wrongly) that others will grant some leeway in communications and be charitable.
So, I'll try to be a little clearer here. I agree with all Johannine scholars that Johannine adaptation is present in his Gospel. However, scholars differ on the degree of adaptation that is present. I wouldn't go as far as Craig A. Evans for whom I have the highest regard. To be honest, I do not know how much John adapted certain traditions. But some is obviously present to anyone who spends a significant amount of time studying the Gospels. Are the "'I am' without predicate" statements in John part of his adapting things Jesus implicitly said and presenting them in a manner in which Jesus says them explicitly? In other words, are we reading the ipsissima vox (his voice) of Jesus here rather than the ipsissima verba (his very words). I don't know. In my single reply to [another commenter], I provided reasons why many, perhaps even a majority of Johannine scholars say they are Johannine adaptations. I have argued elsewhere that historical data strongly suggests Jesus believed He was deity. So, if Jesus made implicit claims to deity and John recasts those claims in a manner that has Jesus making them in an explicit sense, then that's what John did and we need to be comfortable with that. Otherwise, we take issue with the way God gave us the Gospels.
Licona gave not the slightest hint in his original comment that he was representing the views of other scholars and not his own view. He made the comment in his own person. Indeed, even had he added the phrase "in the view of the majority of scholars," the comment as a whole still would have implied an endorsement of that argument, given all his wording that followed. But he did not even bother adding any such mildly distancing (though not very distancing) phrase. Here is the lead-in to the original comment, as originally given:

Keener has said that "all" Johannine scholars acknowledge Johannine adaptation of the Jesus tradition. To see this in action, I recommend that you read through the Synoptic Gospels several times in Greek. Then read John's Gospel and 1 John several times in Greek. (One can also observe this in English but it is far clearer and even more striking in Greek.) You will observe a few items relevant to this discussion:
1. Although the message is the same, the way Jesus "sounds" in John is very different than the way He "sounds" in the Synoptics. 

That was the lead-in. No mention of this as merely a neutral representation of what other scholars think. Now he wishes to backtrack and say, instead, that he is agnostic about whether Jesus made the "I am" statements. This is hardly much better. The headline now would be "Leading Apologist Completely Unsure About Whether Jesus said 'I am'" rather than "Leading Apologist Thinks Jesus Never Said 'I Am.'"

This is, pace Licona, still a very low view of John's accuracy, even after the backtrack. And if John made up the "I am" statements, the doubts of his accuracy are cast far wider than even those statements. As far as what we have to "be comfortable with," foot-stomping and saying, "We have to be comfortable with that" is pointless. It does not take the place of a good argument for what God, and John, actually did. What it comes to is, "If God gave us factually crappy gospels, we have to live with that, and I'm going to deem anybody impious who is bothered by the possibility." This is faux piety. God didn't have to send Jesus to die at all. He didn't have to give us such good records of Jesus' life. But he seems to have done so. Let's not pretend that it's no big deal if we are left with only a poor and unreliable record in John of what Jesus taught about one of the most important truths in the world--that Jesus is God. It is a big deal. Merely saying that if these records are poor, we have to "be comfortable with that," is ridiculous. Actually, we don't have to be comfortable. We should mourn if that's the situation, not "be comfortable." Fortunately, there are not good arguments for Licona's agnosticism about Jesus' explicit claims to deity. So please, stop patronizingly telling us what we need to be comfortable about.

Update 2: Since I realize that a lot of people are going to read this post who haven't been reading either of my blogs before, since this post has gotten more publicity, I want to take this opportunity to point out that I've been carefully and in detail writing in response to Dr. Licona's ideas for over a year and a half now. Some of these are quite lengthy posts. They all involve argumentation and ideas, not personalities. I'd like to make people aware of this body of work so that they can read it for themselves. This news concerning the I Am statements came up in the midst of an on-going project that I have concerning Licona's work. It is not precisely a side show but certainly was an unexpected sudden illustration of the reasons for the concerns I have always voiced about the "literary devices" work. My arguments against that work have already to some degree been laid out but also are in the process of being laid out further. I am planning posts on quite a few of Licona's Roman examples in the book followed by posts on his gospel examples. I have previously written about some of the same gospel examples he uses, based upon his long, on-line lectures.

Here are my old posts on Licona's work, written last year:

A Gospel Fictionalization Theory is No Help to the Gospel

More on Licona, Genre, and Reliability

An announcement of the previous post at this blog containing some more content

Straining to Find a Genre

New Post on "Genre" in the Gospels

Here is the beginning of my new series:

New Testament Interpretation in the Real World

Hoaxer or Historical Witness: The Johannine Dilemma

Flowchart: On Alleged Literary Devices

For those who haven't followed my work before, below is a brief bio. I would just note that, if anything, my professional work in probability theory is more recent and prominent than my doctorate in English, and it is relevant to the evaluation of arguments. Though of course a degree in literature may well be relevant where (poor and highly speculative) literary criticism appears to be the order of the day in a field like biblical studies. I can be reached with direct correspondence at lydiamcgrew [at] gmail [dot] com.

Lydia McGrew is a widely published analytic philosopher who specializes in classical and formal epistemology, probability theory, and philosophy of religion. She is the co-author (with Timothy McGrew) of Internalism and Epistemology: The Architecture of Reason (Routledge, 2007) and of the article on the argument from miracles in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2009). She received her PhD in English from Vanderbilt University in 1995. Since then she has published extensively in analytic philosophy, specializing in probability theory and epistemology.  Her articles have appeared in such journals as ErkenntnisTheoriaActa AnalyticaPhilosophia Christi, and Philosophical Studies, and she is the author of the entry on historical inquiry and theism in The Routledge Companion to Theism (2012). She home schools, and in her spare time, she blogs about apologetics, Christianity, culture, and politics. She lives in southwest Michigan with her husband and children. She is the author most recently of Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (2017).

24 comments:

Phil said...

I agree with you about his comments. I've seen things that worried me before, but they seem to becoming more frequent and more serious. I can't see what's affecting his understanding of Scripture. I do hope and pray that he takes a good long look at what he is saying and reverses course... soon 😟

Temporal Musings said...

Robert Price argued a while back on Luke Muellenhausen's podcast that Licona would go down a liberal path. Maybe Robbie is among the prophets?

Lydia McGrew said...

What saddens me most is when people say this isn't that important. Can't we at least be honest and clear-headed enough to admit that it's important? Then we might start to demand stronger arguments rather than punting to the New Testament scholarly establishment and passively accepting whatever "most scholars" tell us.

Brian Chilton said...

It is so sad that some of our prominent so-called "conservative" scholars are going down this path. How is this different than the Jesus Seminar's work? The Jesus Seminar was responsible for my 7-year hiatus from the faith. John's Gospel has been doubted before and come up to be discovered as historical (e.g., discovery of the Pool mentioned in John 5). The teachings in John's Gospel are thoroughly Jewish (e.g., comparison of light and dark in John and the writings of the Qumran community). John focuses on the Jerusalem and Judea ministry of Jesus, so his teachings were to a different audience than that of Galilee.

Blessings,

Brian Chilton
https://bellatorchristi.com

Kevin Wells said...

I am just a simple software engineer, so forgive my impudence in advance, please. Two things about this I don't understand.

First, why liberal biblical scholars never seem to acknowledge that all theories are provisional and (if the history of the discipline is an indication) will likely be discarded, if not mocked outright as hopelessly naive, in the next generation?

Second, why is it that passages that "sound like" John wrote them are prima fascia taken to be inventions, i.e. John's just making Jesus say what he would have said had he thought of it at the time.

Imagine a writer having to write history with no notes, voice recorders, or video equipment upon which to rely. The writer's voice will invariably "intrude", intentionally or not.

Third (math is not my strong suit), has anyone, anyone at all, considered (just for the fun of argument) that Jesus' voice could having greatly influenced John's writing? Jesus' persona and voice certainly influenced John much more directly and deeply than the other gospel writers. As a laughably incongruent illustration: it would be no great coincidence if future readers (if there be any) of my own writing could accuse me of inventing some hard-to-verify C.S. Lewis quote because it 'sounds' like the writing surrounding it. The quote would be original, but my style, not really as much.

Again, please forgive my naiveté. It precludes me having a respectful assessment of the reliability of the 'Assured Results of Following Nagging Doubts', as practiced by the academy.

Lydia McGrew said...

Yes, the idea that John was very influenced by Jesus' manner of talking is a well-known, and I think legitimate, response to this argument. I think we can finesse it further. Hypothesis: Jesus had *a* particular way of talking, which he didn't speak in at all times. This included phrases and themes that we now think of as "Johannine" about receiving our witness, coming down from heaven and going up to heaven, raising people up at the last day, being or not being condemned, and so forth. It included what we now think of as the "Johannine" relatively simple linguistic form as well. But like most of us, Jesus didn't constantly, at every moment, speak in the same way. Sometimes he gave aphorisms in the style of the sermon on the mount. Sometimes he gave parables in the style of the parable of the Prodigal Son. Sometimes he made bitter, biting, brief comments like the one recorded in Luke, "It is impossible that a prophet should die outside of Jerusalem." And so forth. But at times he fell into the almost sing-song, somewhat repetitious, poetical form with themes that we consider "Johannine." This style in particular made a big impression on the young John, and he developed it as his own when circumstances dictated that he, rather than spending his life fishing with his father and brothers, was instead going to be a prominent leader in an entirely new religious movement--the Christian church. So when John was writing or dictating his own writing, this was the style he adopted most of the time. It even occupied a more prominent place in his own style than it had in Jesus's speech. This is also known in our own life--people who admire a writer and almost tiresomely (to some in their audience) follow certain phrases and styles of his, so that they are even more Lewisian than Lewis, as it were.

When John came to write his own gospel, he was concerned to fill in things not found in the earlier gospels, which after all, people could look up there. So he gives us the valuable treasure of additional discourses, trips to Jerusalem not mentioned there (it could even be that Jesus took John but not all the disciples with him on some of these journeys south to Judea), and several of those places where Jesus spoke in "that style" that had so deeply influenced John, not found in the synoptics. As I mentioned in the post, "that style" also shows up in Matthew 11, which fits very well with the theory I'm giving here.

In *one* case (John 3, the discussion with Nicodemus), this assimilation of John's style to Jesus's creates ambiguity as to where Jesus' speech ends and the narrator's commentary begins. Big whoop. Out of John 3 and this one ambiguity have been spun many theories, but it's almost incomprehensible to me that there are sincere people who will throw John's reliability in reporting Jesus' speech and sayings under the bus and seriously entertain, if not adopt, the conclusion that John made up entire speeches and sayings of Jesus, by leaning heavily on that one place where we're unsure where the close-quotes should come. I encourage every young apologist to go and read John 3, get over your slight shock that there exists such a difficulty in one chapter, and get inoculated by realizing that this one ambiguity doesn't support an airy structure of theory that relegates John's entire gospel to the genre of historical fiction.

Kevin Wells said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anthony Rogers said...

Some time ago I wrote an article that some might find helpful on relevant aspects of this issue. See here: "Mark My Words: The Deity of the Son in the Gospel of Mark" (http://legacy.prts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Journal-7-1-final.pdf)

geoffrobinson said...

Just for the sake of argument, let's say John translated Jesus from Aramaic to Greek in a style of Greek that was unique to John. I fail how this would show that John made up the statements.

Lydia McGrew said...

I'm not sure whether you take yourself to be replying to Licona or to me by that comment. I'm certainly aware of the plausibility that Jesus was speaking Aramaic and that John is thus translating what he remembers.

I *think* perhaps you're answering the argument Licona gave about the style of John. I agree that in the translation to Greek John's style might come through. On the other hand, someone taking the other side would presumably say that he finds Jesus' style more consistent amongst the synoptics even though they are also presumably translating Jesus from Aramaic to Greek. I don't find that convincing, either, as an argument for Johannine invention of sayings, because of the hypothesis I gave above in the thread.

Mike Licona said...

Lydia: Here is an article on the topic I just posted that interacts with yours: https://www.risenjesus.com/reading-adapted-form-jesus-teachings-johns-gospel

Lydia McGrew said...

Mike: Okay, I will be reading it, one way or another, quite soon. I'm running into an oddity in that my McAfee Web Adviser is freaking out about the Risen Jesus site. They list it as "medium risk" to visit the site, so I may just ignore the warning.

I will also be out of town most of the day tomorrow for a speaking engagement, which I have to prepare for tonight.

Paul Williams said...

Lydia rightly smells a rat, but is patronizingly dismissed by Dr Mike Licona:

https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/09/30/lydia-rightly-smells-a-rat-but-is-patronizingly-dismissed-by-mike-licona/

Callum said...

Lydia: really glad to see you collect all relevant links in one post! I'm also glad that your work has come to the attention of Mike and is making waves. Dialogue and debate is how progress is made, may the truth win out!

Lydia McGrew said...

Thanks, Callum, I value the opportunity to have this discussed in a scholarly fashion.

Paul Williams, I've been away nearly all day. My understanding is that that blogger is writing about the earlier incarnation of Mike's "response" post. When and if I respond (there does not appear to be much content to respond to, other than credentialist chest-thumping), I will respond to the redacted version, though I will note just in passing that it has been significantly toned down from the original.

Tony said...

Mike Licona responded to Lydia with this passage (taken out of a larger response):

In other words, are we reading the ipsissima vox (his voice) of Jesus here rather than the ipsissima verba (his very words). I don't know. In my single reply to [another commenter], I provided reasons why many, perhaps even a majority of Johannine scholars say they are Johannine adaptations. I have argued elsewhere that historical data strongly suggests Jesus believed He was deity. So, if Jesus made implicit claims to deity and John recasts those claims in a manner that has Jesus making them in an explicit sense, then that's what John did and we need to be comfortable with that. Otherwise, we take issue with the way God gave us the Gospels.

I tried to read this charitably, but I keep running off a cliff: it doesn't allow me to be a balanced evaluator of the evidence. This is how he asks us to look at it: (1) with indecision: "I don't know..." Then with a hypothetical: "So, if Jesus made implicit claims..." But he doesn't give us the opposing hypothesis to contrast it with, to consider, and maybe to lean toward: If Jesus made EXPLICIT claims...

This is not balanced. This is not "I am leaving the matter up for grabs so far". This is not the discussion of someone who is merely pointing out the position OTHERS have taken. This is how you write when you have accepted that position that those others have taken, but want to appear still undecided or still weighing and balancing, still entirely open to a new argument.

At least, that's the sense I get from it. I have seen it a thousand times with scholars who build an enormous body of thesis, one on top of another on top of another, and while at each stage they seem to be merely positing the POSSIBILITY of a claim, to look at it "fairly", but 2 chapters later they simply take it as "established" or "as shown to be most probable". I don't know if Mr. Licona is doing this, as I have not read the entire response he made. I hope I can be proven wrong. Please, somebody show me that this is not what he was doing.

Lydia McGrew said...

Yes, he seems *extremely* impressed with these arguments, not distanced from them. If nothing else, they are supposedly so good as to have moved him to complete agnosticism on the matter!

One of the oddest things about the change between the earlier and present version of Licona's response to me is its incorporation (without putting it in a block quote) of the whole argument he initially gave for the conclusion that these sayings were not made explicitly by Jesus. Indeed, that Jesus would not have been so explicit! At that time, the argument was merely made "bare," as it were, and it undeniably sounded like Licona's own position. Now, by incorporating it verbatim into a longer post, in the course of which he *goes back* a couple of paragraphs later and says that he's agnostic, he gives it a sort of retrospective different interpretation.

In any event, as I keep pointing out, being totally unsure whether Jesus claimed to be God explicitly or only implicitly is no small matter, either. Such an historically complex hypothesis, with so many implications concerning John's veracity, given all of our other evidence for John's veracity, requires much better arguments than those Licona (speaking on behalf of "scholars") has laid out.

Marco said...

In his commentary to the gospel of John Craig Keener only affirms that many doubt that the claim stems from Jesus in these words. (Footnote 674 on page 771)

He does NOT say that he himself thinks that this is the case. (page 771)

He says that the Isaianic “I am” is distinctly Johannine. (page 771)

He says that explicit high Christology in Mark and the Synoptics is rare. (page 772)

He gives reasons for Mark not including these statements. (page 772)

He points also to the high Christology in Q (Matt 3:11-12/Luke 3:16-17 and Matt 11:27/Luke 10:22) which is not far away from John 8:58. (page 772)

Finally he also mentions Mark 6:48-50 which has also an “I am” statement in vers 50 (in Mark 6:48-50 Mark is even more explicit than in the parallel passage in John 6:20). This shows that the “I am” is not unique to John though it is far more common there. (page 772)

This is was a very brief summary ...

Lydia McGrew said...

Licona's attempts to use Keener's name in his response to me is worded in such a way that he apparently thinks he can get some cachet from invoking the name without really coming out and saying in so many words that Keener endorses his own ideas or Evans's. So I'm sure Licona would point to that in response to your points. But I do consider it rather illicit. Just some vague statement to the effect that "all scholars agree that John did some adapting of the teachings in the synoptics," and apparently this is supposed to mean that the illustrious cloak of Dr. Keener is cast over the statements of Dr. Evans! Not to mention Dr. Licona.

I also (as I plan to point out in the response I am gradually writing) consider the reference by Licona to Dr. Keener's widely acknowledge personal holiness to be completely out of line, not to mention the implication that, if one were to "clean house" with regard to Evans's ideas, one would literally kick Keener out of a job and out on the streets. Seriously? This is over-the-top. A kind of reverse ad hominem. I'm sure Keener himself would be deeply embarrassed by it and would beg that allegations of his personal saintliness not be used to shield any scholarly ideas against criticism and debate.

humblesmith said...

It would now seem that verbal plenary inspiration has gone by the wayside. We now are told that John took the words of Jesus and adapted them, expanded upon them, and made them more explicit than what Jesus originally said.

This is a dangerous path, one heavily treaded by liberal theologians for the last hundred years. It is nothing new. It seems every generation must fight the same battle for a strong view of the scriptures.

Glenn Smith
humblesmith.wordpress.com

Kevin Wells said...

I don't think anyone should appeal to inspirationto as evidence for John's historical veracity. From an evidentialist perspective (in deference to our gracious hostess) that is quite circular. The question is whether or not one can show, via literary, textual and historical investigation, that some quotes of Jesus in John are probably invented by John. Now the answer to this question bears on inspiration and/or inerrancy (of whichever stripe), not vice-versa.

As an apologist (albeit of no great experience), I must scrupulously avoid "this is true because the bible is true because the bible is inspired" type of argument. It seems to me this is sometimes hard for scholars who write for exclusively "conservative" Christian audiences to comprehend.

Lydia McGrew said...

"I don't think anyone should appeal to inspiration to as evidence for John's historical veracity. From an evidentialist perspective (in deference to our gracious hostess) that is quite circular."

Right, I agree. And as you know of course, I never do so.

Licona tries (bizarrely, in light of my work and explicit statements to the contrary) to put me in that box, but I won't fit in the box. :-) I will be making that point in a reply I plan to publish later today.

scarlett clay said...

Thank you for your thorough response to Licona's assertions. I think you are absolutely right. Keep up the good work!

Lydia McGrew said...

Thank you very much for the encouragement. I am about to hit "publish" on a post at What's Wrong With the World about some of the Roman examples in Licona's book. No doubt there will be outrage in certain circles that I would dare to "stride" into classical literature, especially since (gasp) I don't read Greek. To that I will only say, "If you have some highly technical argument from some esoteric point in Greek that my argument is wrong, bring it on, bring it out, and make it clear. Then we can evaluate it." But as a matter of fact, this material (in Roman history) can be pretty dull and takes a lot of energy to slog through but is not highly technical. And "Greek magic" is not going to make poor arguments into good ones. In any event, even if readers like you do not have time (understandably enough!) to read through everything I write, hopefully it will be useful to read some of it and to see the kinds of evidence that are available.