This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
@Thucyd: Technically, I don't. I'm not trying to insert that claim into the article. You are trying to insert the claim that the theological argument is limited to the final chapter into the article, so the burden is on you to locate a source (preferably an uninterested third-party source) that says that. Your source itself refers to the entire book as "theological writing". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do think you have the burden of proof for your surprising claim. This is what Bauckham clearly says and writes, and it's obvious. Just tell me, according to you, where else in the book do you find a theological argument? Thucyd (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The concurrence of historiographic and theological concepts of witness in John's Gospel is wholly appropriate to the uniqueness of the subject matter. Search the book for "God" -- the idea that God was active in history in the incarnation of Jesus Christ is very clearly theological and not historical, and referring to Jesus as "unique" is a crypto-theological claim frequently made by theologians pretending to do history (see Meier's Schaffer lectures). It would be OR to insert this into the article, but the source you cited is better summarized as "the book also contains a theological argument" than "the final chapter contains a theological argument". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please... google count for God (in a book on the NT!!!) and cherry-picking of a sentence on John that does not present an argument... I think it means 'I can't find a theological argument elsewhere"... Just to be sure: have you ever read the book? Thucyd (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean, or even imply that I meant, every instance of the word "God" in a book on the NT would be a theological argument on the part of the book's author. I meant a lot, or at least several, of such instances are the author invoking God, or divine provenance, or the "uniqueness" of Jesus and his message, as a theological argument. No, I have not read the book, and I don't want to; my study of the NT has led me to believe the views it advances are still considered pretty fringe among mainstream secular scholarship (and history is, by definition, secular -- when it invokes God it is called theology), and since NT studies is not my main area of interest I don't feel the need to familiarize myself with all sides of the issue as I do with Japanese literature, especially when doing so would require payment of pretty exhorbitant delivery fees. But why should my not having read the book itself matter? This article is not supposed to be based on your reading of the book itself. I read the cited source, and provided what I felt was a more neutral summary of its contents. Hijiri 88 (聖やや)
This is my point, your assertion is based on a respectable but personal feeling, an incorrect interpretation of a ref., and no access to the last chapter that begins with: "the historical part of my book is now complete" (p. 472).
Again, claiming that there is no historical argument in the last chapter is not the same as claiming that there is no theological argument in the rest of the book. But I'm tired of arguing, so I guess I'll just agree to disagree.
I listened to Ehrman's debate with Bauckham about the subject of the book. I also read several reviews of the book on jstor, such as the one in Biblica. The majority of sources that aren't written by conservative evangelicals say the arguments in the book are unlikely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with the conclusions. I don't have the time or money to devote to such books, when I can get all I need of conservative evangelical scholars on YouTube. Sixty hours of the The Master's Seminary and a whole bunch of debates with Ehrman, Dale Martin and so on are enough. (Note that I'm not saying Bauckham himself holds conservative evangelical theological views. I don't know. I mean that virtually everyone with a graduate degree in a relevant field who agrees with his historical conclusions is a conservative evangelical, and I get enough of that "side" of the debate from free open courses.)
