#3: Nick Barnett. Bible reader extraordinaire. Wakes up around 6am every morning to read his Bible and pray, ’cause he sees it as important.

From kottke.org: Searching for Jesus:

From a recent issue of the New Yorker, Adam Gopnik surveys a recent selection of books about who Jesus was.

The American scholar Bart Ehrman has been explaining the scholars’ truths for more than a decade now, in a series of sincere, quiet, and successful books. Ehrman is one of those best-selling authors like Richard Dawkins and Robert Ludlum and Peter Mayle, who write the same book over and over — but the basic template is so good that the new version is always worth reading. In his latest installment, ‘Jesus, Interrupted’, Ehrman once again shares with his readers the not entirely good news he found a quarter century ago when, after a fundamentalist youth, he went to graduate school: that all the Gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death; that all were written in Greek, which Jesus and the apostles didn’t speak and couldn’t write (if they could read and write at all); and that they were written as testaments of faith, not chronicles of biography, shaped to fit a prophecy rather than report a profile.

Shame about those, you know, facts.

#1: Tim Green. Bible Reader at Pablo & Rusty’s.

Another debate, this one entitled Jesus: Messiah, Myth, or Legend?, was held at Macquarie University on March 16, 2010. The event was co-sponsored by the Christian group I’m part of, Macquarie University Christian Union, and the Macquarie University Atheist League.

The speakers were Dan Barker and Chris Forbes.
Dan Barker is co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (USA), was a former teenage evangelical preacher and an ordained minister, but is now one of America’s leading atheists. Dr Chris Forbes is a Senior Lecturer in Ancient History, and Deputy Chairman of the Society for the Study of Early Christianity. His areas of interest include New Testament history, and the intersection of early Christianity and Graeco-Roman culture.

It was a really good debate, and very well attended by all sorts of people. Further, it didn’t suffer from the format in the same way as the previous debate. It was, however, incredibly one-sided. In my opinion, Barker was thrashed. This is one of the best defences of Jesus as a historical figure I’ve heard.

Have a listen, and see how what you think.

(Note: the debate goes for well over an hour, so the file is relatively large: ~70 MB.)

A debate on whether the Bible is an Acceptable Guide for Morality was held at Macquarie University on March 16, 2010. The event was co-sponsored by the Christian group I’m part of, Macquarie University Christian Union, and the Macquarie University Atheist League.

The speakers were Dan Barker and Greg Clarke.
Dan Barker is co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (USA), was a former teenage evangelical preacher and an ordained minister, but is now one of America’s leading atheists. Dr Greg Clarke is co-founder and director of the Centre for Public Christianity. His PhD in literature was focussed on how theology is discussed in the arts and humanities. He is primarily interested in talking about the importance of Christianity for understanding the meaning of life.

It was a fascinating exchange, but left me feeling deeply sorry for Dan. It also suffered a little from the debate format. The speakers were at cross purposes most of the time, so I think it needed to be a little more conversational than it was. Have a listen, and see how you react.

(Note: the debate goes for well over an hour, so the file is relatively large: ~70 MB.)

When surveying the verbal changes made by NT authors in their use of the LXX, several patterns emerge. Firstly, in general, the form of verb chosen by the NT author mirrors the content. That is, the point of the passage or clause is not proven by the choice of verbal aspect, but the writer’s intent is supported and strengthened by the chosen morphology. Acts 2:32 is the strongest case of this, where a clear, intentional temporal change is made from David’s Psalm. Peter’s argument depends on his interpretation of David as a prophet who spoke about the present time of Jesus’ death and resurrection—however, the verb form is not the only way this conclusion is derived. The surrounding content leads us to this understanding, an interpretation which is supported by means of his removal of future temporal elements from the verb form and clause.

This coherence between content and morphology, while hardly surprising, explains the exegetical conclusions achievable with such an analysis. In the main, they aren’t a host of earth-shattering readings of NT texts. Comments above are not too dissimilar from popular commentaries. However, looking closely at the verbal semantics can give on a number of occasions some extra nuance to our reading.

We hear the reality of γέεννα, and the urgency of righteousness (compare the imperfective up-close-and-personal Mark 9:48 with the more distant future form of Isa 66:24). With the disciples we can feel the immediacy of the kingdom of heaven. We can stand on this side of the cross and God’s revelation in Christ and see the fulfilment of his promises. Our exegetical conclusions cannot be based only in verbal semantics, but with an appropriate consideration of context looking carefully at the chosen morphology helps to discern the subtleties of particular applications of OT texts to Christ and the church.

The New Testament authors were thus creative in their use of Scripture, but faithful at the same time. They had keen insight in understanding Jesus as the climax of theological history. Old Testament texts are used to show that Jesus is the Messiah, the anti-type of the Davidic King, the one who has ushered in the eschatological age. Furthermore, his people, the church, are also the fulfilment of God’s purposes for his people in Christ. We stand in continuity with Israel, but can see how God has acted for us in Christ as promised beforehand. This theology is of course writ large throughout the New Testament. The edited forms of scriptural verbs employed by the authors simply aids their explanation and confirms their conclusions.