. . . with talk of Darrell Bock, Daniel Wallace, and Fundamentalism.
OK, a lot of folks have been keeping up with this so allow me to keep track as best I can — call this another Carnivalette until we get the BSC XXIV that we’ve all been waiting for.
It all started with Darrell Bock’s essay in Christianity Today entitled “When the Media Became a Nuisance.” Apparently this article committed grand larceny in getting Jim West’s goat because he responded with a post about “Bock’s Protestation.” In this post the good Dr. saw fit to label Bock a fundy (a term he later defines here) after Bock labeled Borg and Crossan libéralés in his CT piece. Jim’s post drew comments from my brother from another mother Bryan L. in which he basically called Jim a hippopotamus-cricket (or hypocrite for short) — Bryan followed up with a post of his own noting Bock’s and Wallace’s responses. Jim responded by saying if you’ve read a thousand fundies you’ve read em’ all. Daniel Wallace (who co-authored Dethroning Jesus with Bock) weighed in with expectations of Jim having a scalp laceration large enough to give Bock a chance and let his argument seep in. He also offered a nice apologetic for Bock’s position. Finally Dr. Bock responded, noting that Borg and Crossan call themselves libéralés so what’s the big deal? Bock followed up with a post on his blog noting his response to Jim as well as a response to our beloved James McGrath’s review of Dethroning Jesus. I’m working through the book myself at present and hope to have a review ready in the next couple of weeks (shout out to Le Orsbon at Thomas Nelson for the review copy — much love my dude, much love!) Bock responded to McGrath in the comments with seven counter points that I hope will open up more dialogue between the two. One thing I take issue with in James’ review is when he says:
Fair points are made about textual criticism, and much is done that is positive to challenge the impression that many people get from books like Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus that we do not have a very good idea of what the originals of the New Testament documents looked like.
I didn’t see much positive in the first chapter “Claim 1” in regards to Ehrman’s work. What I did see in that chapter disappointed me greatly because I’ve been a big fan of both Bock’s and Wallace’s writing for some time. They basically erected straw man and left themselves enough wiggle room to deny charges of fallacious argumentation by saying, ‘well, this isn’t really what Ehrman said, but one gets the impression that this is what Ehrman meant’ (my paraphrase of course ;) ) — one of my biggest pet peeves was their faulting Ehrman, not for what he DID say, but for what he DIDN’T say (p. 51) as if Ehrman was obligated to include everything that they saw as relevant.