Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I think Tomes enjoys studying and learning this kind of thing and would do it even if he was not applying it to the LCM. In doing so he inevitably comes across some new, interesting subject that Lee and LSM (those knowers of all that is knowable) were duh about. And so he, by producing an epic, unassailable case for the subject, effectively makes the LSM braintrust look like the bunch of dummies that they are. To the point that even the faithful cannot disagree. They can ignore, but they can't disagree.
The point is not that the Synoptic Problem is something that every Christian needs to know about. It's that it is something that everyone who truly wants a complete understanding of the Bible (i.e. people who create new translations and write study bibles and claim to be ministers of the age) ought to want to know about. Lee and LSM didn't, which shows they weren't and aren't truly serious students of the Bible. They were and are more interested in maintaining their reputations than getting it right.
It's just one more reason to believe that they aren't what they claim(ed) to be, and you can't get too many of those if you were ever under their influence.
|
I certainly agree that WL's methods and practices were not orthodox, he was a tyrant, misled people and tried to control them. However, both Nee and Lee were not privy to more current and important Biblical studies and findings of the synoptic gospels made available to scholars of today. Lee was not open to current NT studies and findings anyway. Thus, the ideas they presented were based on Biblical findings and studies from the early 1900s. The entire Recovery version is misleading primarily because it does not include more recent information aside from WL's misinformation and unorthodox doctrines.
Where I think Nigel primarily shines in his overall synopsis is the exposure of the shortcomings of WL/WN's presentations of the Biblical point of view considering the findings of Biblical scholarly studies since the early 1900s. I find his use of the words, "mark's posteriority" intriguing. He notes that WL/WN used Philip Schaff among others for their historical viewpoints. I purchased (Feb 1979 after I left the LC---maybe WL had suggested it) the 3 volume set of Philip Schaff's
History of the Christian Church which I read many years ago but now seems like an out of date and simplistic viewpoint of the history of the Christian Chruch compared to what is available today (btw---I tried to sell it a few years ago on ebay but no takers--now you can buy the "8" volume set on kindle for $1.99---my 3 volume set is over 2800 pages---the 8 volume set is 7120 pages--but who's counting?). What a deal?
In any case, it appears that Nigel has presented a remarkable document which certainly provides new information for those who are trying to understand the history of the LC and especially WL/WN's viewpoints over the years and how out of sync they were with the rest of Christian thought.