Although overall, I’m more with Mark Goodacre on the Wikipedia debate than with Ben Witherington or Jim West, I found it mildly ironic that the Wikipedia article on the synoptic problem points to the need for a very careful sifting of Wikipedia’s information. To say the least, it could certainly do with Mark overhauling it and rendering it into a coherent argument and readable English.
I often use Wikipedia as a jumping off point for things, never as a final court. And any similar resource will always need to be used with caution, and the more so while people who could contribute knowledgeably to it, prefer to turn up their educated noses, and stick out their academic tongues. One of the more bizarre references in the synoptic problem page is not placed with the main solutions (let the reader understand) but has the appearance of a later more fundamentalist edit.
A handful of researchers, such as Eta Linnemann, argue that each of the evangelists are independent of one another and that the apparent literary similarities are merely coincidental. This theory agrees with the Christian belief that the whole Bible, including the Gospels, was inspired directly by the Holy Spirit and that therefore no intermediate or source documents between books are required because “all scripture is God-breathed”
I would have remained cheerfully ignorant of Linneman’s existence or views but, intrigued by this drivel, dug around. His Her demolition of Q says
The gospels report the words and deeds of our Lord Jesus. They do this partly through direct eyewitnesses (Matthew, John) and partly by those who were informed by eyewitnesses (Mark, Luke).30 In that case the similarities as well as the differences are just what one expects from eyewitness reminiscence.
I’d almost rather see Q reign unchallenged than see this put forward as a serious argument. But it gets worse:
I was a theologian for decades but did not know about the inspiration of the Holy Scripture. I had to be born again to find this out … As a theologian, I was steeped in historical-criticism. If the Lord had not taken me out of it, I would still be in it. … For many years I had taught my students the historical-critical theory that there is a synoptic problem, whose only solution is the two-source theory. I taught that Matthew and Luke copied Mark, and then added their own information from another source. Now I found this had no basis.
Obviously this highlights the need for those who combine personal faith with academic rigour to be showing a better way generally. But I will risk putting Jim West’s and the Wiki sceptics’ noses out of joint (and Jim should be more put out that this man woman was taught by Bultmann, was an associate Professor at Marburg, and still says this stuff). It seems to me that if people like Jim West and Ben Witherington and many others don’t engage in the public information forum that is Wikipedia, then the field will be left to those for whom rigorous academic engagement and true faith have at best nothing to do with each other, and at worst are opposed. And it’s too important for that.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Jim // Aug 23, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Eta is a woman. She was a student of Bultmann who ‘converted’ to fundamentalism- burned all her books and his, and left Germany for Indonesia to become a missionary teacher.
I know all this because she said it with her own mouth at a conference she lectured at at SEBTS when I was there.
She was remarkably rude and began her lecture (which was itself wretchedly incoherent) with “I will be taking no questions whatsoever. You are here to hear me, I am not here to hear you”
2 doug // Aug 23, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Presumably SEBTS is some fundie group? What were you doing there?
3 Jim // Aug 24, 2007 at 12:44 am
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. It wasn’t back then, but it has become such. Tragically.
4 Suzanne // Aug 24, 2007 at 6:53 am
Linnemann has become the darling of the biblical manhood and womanhood movement. Presumably the fact that she now teaches the Bible to native pastors in Indonesia means that she is not actually exercizing authority over “real” men.
This is from the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
I am reminded of Eta Linnemann—
one particularly “learned and holy”
woman. A brilliant student of Rudolf
Bultmann and Ernst Fuchs, as well as
Friedrich Gogarten and Gerhard Ebeling,
she had “the best professors which
historical-critical theology could offer.”4
And yet she was troubled for many years.
Even with her intellectual accomplishments—
two doctorates and an esteemed
teaching position—she was sure that she
was still seen as inferior to men. In her
words,
In my preconversion life, I
bitterly fought for women’s
equality in “spiritual office.”
The thorn of embitterment
was ever driven into me anew
by my so-called “brothers in
ministry,” especially by those
who were my mental inferiors
and possessed no other merit
than the privilege of wearing
trousers on the basis of their
physical constitution.5
This way of thinking all changed,
however, on November 5, 1977, when at
the age of fifty-one she trusted Christ,
ending her rebellion against being a
woman. Linnemann describes her conversion
to Christ as being “renewed by
His grace,” the product of which was a
sense of fulfillment and contentment
according to God’s good design for her
as a woman.6
Her new life was also marked by
a new path of Christian scholarship.
Within a month of her decision to follow
Christ she “repented” of her “perverse
theological teaching” and eventually
wrote Historical Criticism of the Bible,
which, as Robert Yarbrough describes
it, was her post-conversion blast against
German higher criticism.7 That particular
book, as to be expected, received
extremely mixed reviews. And yet there
is no question as to the significance of
her scholarly endeavors. Since that time
Linnemann has made numerous contributions
to the field of NT studies from
her unambiguously evangelical perspective.
For this evangelicals can be grateful—
especially evangelical men.
JBMW Fall 2006, page 5
5 Suzanne // Aug 24, 2007 at 7:05 am
Oops, TMI but I meant to include this little gem from the JBMW preface.
Scripture is clear that authoritative teaching in the church belongs, by God’s design, to men. It is equally clear that women contribute to the church in many and varied ways. One of these ways is scholarly writing, like that of Linnemann, a brilliant lady who is also submissive to the teaching of Scripture.
SO you can relax - she has no authority.
6 Jim // Aug 24, 2007 at 4:40 pm
She had no authority once she went bonkers.
7 Peter Kirk // Aug 25, 2007 at 8:45 pm
The CBMW types ought to be worried about being outed as liberals. First, I expose (in a comment here) that one of their friends, Al Wolters, doesn’t believe that King Solomon wrote the whole of Proverbs, but that 31:10-31 is (gasp!) a Hellenistic composition. Now Jim West is found to be agreeing with them. Can they be trusted any longer to be good inerrantist evangelicals?
Leave a Comment