Hawaii (photo from trekearth.com)
ExJesus or Exegesis?
An interesting play on words, but this article concerns the word exegesis. Do not worry, there is no crazy cult here, although I do not control my usually wonderful blog commenters.;) I am thankful for blog moderation, because of a very small minority though.
W.R.F. Browning explains that the term exegesis is found in the LXX (Septuagint) and is not in the New Testament. Today it refers to commentary on the Biblical text, which attempts to relate words and verses and sections of Scripture to others in order to formulate proper understanding. Modern exegesis makes use of textual criticism and literary disciplines as well as archaeology. Browning (1997: 125). Browning points out that mistakes made in the area of exegesis could result in false exegesis. Browning (1997: 125). False exegesis could be related to the idea of eisegesis, which is a negative term used to describe the practice of imposing preconceived meanings into Biblical texts, even when clearly they are not the original meanings. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 49). Exegesis can also be defined as the process of seeking to understand what a text means and communicates on its own. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 49).
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart write that the first job of the Biblical interpreter is called exegesis and this is to find the original, intended meaning. This is a historical task to read the Scripture and find out how the original writers intended it to be understood. Fee and Stuart (1982: 21). The use of the original Biblical languages in doing exegesis is important and learning how to deal with original manuscripts, which have variant readings, is also very useful. Fee and Stuart (1982: 22). But, Fee and Stuart state that good exegesis can be done even without these tools. Fee and Stuart (1982: 22). The implication is that with a good translation, a contextual, exegetical review of Scripture should bring accurate results.
With the use of texts and tools, I do examine Scripture from the original language, and review the writings of actual linguists in order to better understand particular Biblical writings. I find that many of the modern translations, such as the New American Standard Bible, are so accurate that when I exegete the English text, and then examine and exegete texts which feature the original languages, the same basic results are produced.
Hermeneutics is a related discipline, which studies principles and theories of how a text should be interpreted, and reasons out relationships between the Biblical author, the text itself, and original and future readers. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 59). Exegesis or eisegesis would be done within certain rules of hermeneutics. Fee and Stuart write that the hermeneutics usually covers the entire field of interpretation including exegesis. It is also used for seeking the present relevance of ancient texts. Fee and Stuart (1982: 25).
It is the weekend, and I have had a tedious, but rewarding week of PhD dissertation revisions. I wish to present a couple of fun things for the weekend.
Below are my two most expensive comics in my collection, from kingpinned in links. They are both worth approximately $30 each, and so obviously I am not a major world-class comic book collector.
Each of the photos are of the comic I own, but not the actual copy. I have graded both of my books shown here as very fine, which is one level below near mint by my grading.
Batman 256 (1974)
Doctor Strange 179 (1969)
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) ‘Exegesis’ in Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
FEE, GORDON D. AND DOUGLAS STUART (1982) How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/03/nature-receives-
red-card.html
A very good blog Russ. You give the best explanation of an uncommon word (exegesis) and the readers of this blog will better be able to understand what has taken place in the translation of the Bible. You have a 'special talent' in being able to put things into words for those of us who have not done all the difficult research that you have obviously done. I commend you on your efforts. You will soon be asked to defend your thesis, and with God's help you will win.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
ReplyDeleteI will succeed as God shows me favour.
I had a relative who collected the Marvel comics. And used to sell them on e-bay and make good money from them. They were all in pristine condition mind, (not that I'm asserting yours aren't) and the original editions. I don't know how much they went for, but it seems to me that there are far more collectibles for boys, at least of a couple of generations ago than girls. Marvel comics, matchbox or dinky cars, thunderbirds vehicles, not to mention things like Hornby train sets. The list is quite magnaminous for boys, yet girls would be pushed to find the same collectibles perhaps apart from Barbie, I would think. But maybe its my perception, but its just how it seems.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Deejay.
ReplyDeleteOn eBay a few years ago, I saw a high-grade edition of The Amazing Spider-Man #1 (1963) sell for over $100,000 USD.
I did not make a bid, and neither did Chucky nor Bobby.
If I could go back in time, I'd rather see Billy Cobham live, since that would be my only opportunity to see a MO show, but also because Neal's playing has not changed as drastically as Billy's has over the years.
ReplyDeleteComparing the two against each other, I probably like (young) Billy better for improvisational feel.
"Herman-newtix or Hermeneutics?"
ReplyDeleteThanks, Herman.
ReplyDeleteI have official and unofficial live albums of both players.
For technical ability and presentation, I like Neil slightly better for his overall larger selection of drums and percussion and his better interaction with the double bass. For improvisation and overall, Billy is a much better jazz player, style wise, and Neil is a slightly better rock drummer. Neil is likely more precise, as Billy is known for his sticks sometimes clicking while playing. Billy plays at a higher speed more often. As for musical feel, it would depend on the type of song/piece. Which drummer would be better would depend on the type of song/piece.
I can't remember the guitarists name! It's on the tip of my tongue. This kind of playing is just sick. Makes me want to just hang it up. These guys are amazing. I play bass but only consider my self musical. These cats are truly musicians.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Joey.
ReplyDeleteJohn Mclaughlin is the guitarist from Mahavishu Orchestra, and Alex Lifeson is the guitarist from Rush.
These cats are truly musicians.
I agree.:)
Thank you for your explanation in the field of Biblical Interpretation. One thing I have learned and I think you will agree, is that too often we as readers of the Bible immediately apply a hermeneutic before applying exegesis. That is we seek contemporary relevance first as opposed to trying to discover the Holy Scripture's original intended meaning.
ReplyDelete-Eyes Wide Open-
Two incredible drummers and two incredible drum solos! Very Classy addition to a great blog.
ReplyDelete-Drum Stick Hick-
too often we as readers of the Bible immediately apply a hermeneutic before applying exegesis.
ReplyDeleteYes, if you avoid that, it will keep you out of a cult.
-Drum Stick Hick-
Better than being Professor Hick.
Cheers.:)
Russ,
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you remarked on the accuracy of the NASB. I use the NIV (except when I read the Psalms, when I use the KJV), though at least one person has told me they don't like the NIV because the translators have already done the interpretation for you. That person prefers the NKJV. One missionary told me they like the Holman's Christian Standard.
The first Bible I ever read was the KJV, and I used to use that one to memorize from, because of its "authoritative" sound, and because the KJV is the most poetic of any translation. But nowadays, it sounds so foreign to people, that I think a newer translation is better to memorize from, especially if you're memorizing salvation verses to use with people. Also, even though I began reading the KJV on my own when I was in the 6th grade, I find the NIV much easier to understand. (When I was in the 6th grade, I used to read where it would say, "in various unsundry times and in divers manners," and I used to wonder what SCUBA divers would have to do with that verse! A few years later I found out that "divers" was an old spelling of "diverse." LOL!)
Cool comics! I have a handful of comics from the 70's, and one from '69 (without a cover), which are probably worth practically nothing. I really like the idea that superheroes are now seen in movies and on TV. I remember watching a cartoon on TV of the X-Men several years ago, and Nightcrawler (I think it was him, but I don't remember for sure) actually talked about being born again! And in a positive light, too! Of course, it was probably nothing more than an attempt to draw evangelicals into its viewership.
In general, comic books have reflected the darkening of our society, at least here in the U.S. Comic books used to define good and bad (just as western heroes on TV and in the movies used to; i.e, the good guys used to wear white hats and the bad guys used to wear black hats, etc.). Nowadays, a "hero" can be a mixture of both good and bad. There are no clearly-drawn lines anymore, it seems. The "heroes" have become very dark, and the "villains" have sometimes become characters that you feel for (sometimes they have been painted as victims).
But I remember reading a comic book that was probably in the 70's, where Superman was trying to prove that mankind was basically good, and Batman was trying to prove that mankind was basically evil. Each of them would take the other to various places where people were doing things that were an example of what they (Superman or Batman) were trying to prove (almost like a Scrooge/ghost scenario) If I remember correctly, Superman finally won the argument.
interesting - appreciated the writing on exegesis...
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm more of a Russell Malone, Benny Green, Ray Brown Jazz fan. But, these drummers are amazing.
comics? yes, I think women are usually not into collections as much as men - my baseball friends (both male) even collect information in their heads about all those statistics...
the differences - the differences
haha!
they don't like the NIV because the translators have already done the interpretation for you.
ReplyDeleteI have heard that several times.
Of course, it was probably nothing more than an attempt to draw evangelicals into its viewership.
A good point, Jeff.;)
But I remember reading a comic book that was probably in the 70's, where Superman was trying to prove that mankind was basically good, and Batman was trying to prove that mankind was basically evil. Each of them would take the other to various places where people were doing things that were an example of what they (Superman or Batman) were trying to prove (almost like a Scrooge/ghost scenario) If I remember correctly, Superman finally won the argument.
I will go with Batman.;) Human beings are made in the image of God, and this is not completely cancelled out, but sin has caused fatal corruption in persons. Thankfully, the atoning and resurrection work of Christ and the culminated Kingdom of God is the remedy.
I am glad you like the comics. Insightful thoughts once again, Jeff, cheers.
interesting - appreciated the writing on exegesis...
ReplyDeleteThanks.:)
I guess I'm more of a Russell Malone, Benny Green, Ray Brown Jazz fan. But, these drummers are amazing.
Cheers. There are many very good drummers I have not heard.
the differences - the differences
haha!
True, but I appreciate my female commenters.
Russ:)
dang, i've been wanting to use that play on word for ages, you beat me to it.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Lon.;)
ReplyDeleteClassic Batman! You have excellent taste!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ruthie.
ReplyDeletePlease check out kingpinned in links, as all my comics are shown. Not the actual comics, but photos from the web of issues I own. Once I have some PhD/professor cash, I would like to add some other really nice books to my collection.
I hope all is well with your education and life plans.
Russ:)
OT:
ReplyDeleteI finally finished the Harry Potter series today (Deathly Hallows), and I can strongly recommend the whole series as a tribute to the power of sacrificial love, and the importance of trust and friendship. Not unlike Lord of the Rings, but with less historical trivia. Also like LOTR, these are themes that relate to the Christian life, whether intended or not -- stumbling through the darkness, being conditioned by experience, friendship and gradual revelation and understanding of truth to relinquish selfishness and embrace selflessness.
Looking forward to the 6th movie later this year.
And no, there is nothing about Dumbledore being gay...
Well, Chuck, you are a controversial 'cat'. I have not read the Harry Potter books, as I do not have time for fiction reading, other than the odd comic book, since I have so much academic reading to do. I have enjoyed the five Harry Potter films. I must state that contrary to some evangelicals, based on the films, and not the books, I cannot see major differences between the uses of occult fiction in The Lord of the Rings, in comparison to that of Harry Potter. From watching all the films, I reason they both feature alternate realities from our own, and should be reviewed in that context.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have a problem with many of the horror films that are released. My Mom receives several of them on her cable movie channels, and some are disgusting. I have not watched the entirety of any of these, but, Saw, Hostel, House of 1000 corpses, and The Devil's Rejects are awful with gory violence at points. These horror films make me angry, and it is a shame that people in our Western society use their freedom to make these films. I dislike films, which glorify evil, making entertainment from the horrific suffering of others, even in an alternate reality. I think if Christians are going to criticize films, more of the time should be spent discussing these horror movies, in contrast to films such as Harry Potter. I am not against all violence in movies, and enjoy some action adventure films and admit that horror films, such as several from Vincent Price, do have artistic merit.
Thanks very much, Sir Charles (Chuckness Monster).
Hate the horror stuff myself. Blood and stuff makes me ill. Cannot even watch the medical shows on TV. I often wonder why people watch this sort of stuff myself but there is obviously a market for it. When I was 19 and not walking with the Lord my mates took me to see The Exorsist. I lasted 15 mins and walked out. Got called all sorts of names but did not really care.
ReplyDeleteOne more week to go and then 3 months Long Service Leave. I'm having a long break Russ.
Catch you soon, Russell.
Thanks for the good input.
ReplyDeleteOne more week to go and then 3 months Long Service Leave.
Good for you, Russell. I hope it goes well. Where are you going, or is it a secret?
Russ:)
Two points on translations in favor of holding on to the AV: First, the Elizabethan language gives us a vocabulary that "modern" English can't match. We have no equivalent for "contemn," for example, or, "ensample," but taken in context they leave no mystery to their meanings. Second, the translation is made from an example of the Byzantine text family. This is the "majority" group that is found on parchment (which didn't last as long in the more humid North-Mediterranean climate) which may not have as "ancient" a representation as the Alexandrian group (papyrus, found in dryer Egyptian locations), but the working difference is that the Byzantines are more theologically complete with better sentence structure, etc., while the papyrus fragments show a quickly-jotted-down writing style with more grammatical errors, etc. Also there are hundreds of places in the NT where the Egyptian pages seem to have dropped doctrinally important references to Christ's pre-existence, deity, blood, role as Judge, etc. The names on the theory that the quick and sloppy writing on the papyrus pages was necessarily the oldest (As if the Apostles, just jotted bits down and left it to future copyists to complete their thoughts for them!) have been the subject of some discussion concerning their own faith and honesty outside these issues themselves; but like the Emperor's New Clothes, it has become a matter of scholarly honor to sign onto this theory as hard fact. The Orthodox, in the meantime, never did get the news about this "new truth," and still hold the Byzantine family as being the oldest, while both have come from their provinces.
ReplyDeleteBatman and the punisher are my 2 all time favorite comics, they are mere humans with no super powers, that is why I like them so much. Rick b
ReplyDeleteTwo points on translations in favor of holding on to the AV: First, the Elizabethan language gives us a vocabulary that "modern" English can't match. We have no equivalent for "contemn," for example, or, "ensample," but taken in context they leave no mystery to their meanings.
ReplyDeleteGood points, the linguistic strengths of the King James are documented. I have used the King James Version at times.
This is the "majority" group that is found on parchment (which didn't last as long in the more humid North-Mediterranean climate) which may not have as "ancient" a representation as the Alexandrian group (papyrus, found in dryer Egyptian locations), but the working difference is that the Byzantines are more theologically complete with better sentence structure, etc., while the papyrus fragments show a quickly-jotted-down writing style with more grammatical errors, etc.
Another good point, Robert.
I wrote an article entitled, New Testament Manuscripts in Satire and Theology in October 06.
religion facts
Here is a portion of that article.
My writing is not in italics.
The debate really comes down to the question: When was the New Testament originally written? And this question leads to another important question: Even if it was written at an early date, how do we know the New Testament that exists today is the same as the original? How do we know the modern translations aren't full of human errors, additional content, or the interpretations of countless human scribes?
The Role of Textual Criticism
No original manuscripts of the original Greek New Testament have been found. However, a large number of ancient manuscript copies have been discovered, and modern translations of the New Testament are based on these copies. As one would expect, they contain some scribal errors. In fact, "there is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes."
It is the task of textual criticism, therefore, to study and compare the available manuscripts in order to discern which of the variations conforms the closest to the original. Bruce Metzger of Princeton University, a prominent modern textual critic, describes the role of textual criticism this way:
The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original. In some cases the evidence will be found to be so evenly divided that it is extremely difficult to decide between two variant readings. In other instances, however, the critic can arrive at a decision based on more or less compelling reasons for preferring one reading and rejecting another.
Paleography: Dating Ancient Manuscripts
Of course, the reliability of a given manuscript is based in large part on its age: earlier manuscripts are more likely to be accurate reflections of the original, so they are given more weight than later copies. It is therefore important for textual critics to know the dates of the manuscripts they are analyzing.
Interestingly, carbon dating and other chemical methods are rarely used in determining the age of manuscripts. Instead, a paleographer analyzes the handwriting of the text, which yields a much more precise date than carbon dating would. A paleographer "cannot establish the exact date but he can confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's."
The Earliest Extant Manuscripts
Fortunately, textual critics and paleographers have a large number of ancient manuscripts at their disposal, many of which have been found within the last century. Nearly the entire New Testament exists in manuscripts dated to before 300 AD. Other important manuscripts date to the fourth and fifth centuries.
The manuscripts dating from 100 to 300 AD are almost entirely papyrus fragments. These fragments are named with a "P" followed by a number. The vast majority of them were found in Egypt in the twentieth century, and are now kept in various museums and libraries throughout the world, including at Dublin, Ann Arbor, Cologny (Switzerland), the Vatican and Vienna.
The earliest manuscript of the New Testament was discovered about 50 years ago. P52 is a small papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (18:31-33 on the front; 18:37-38 on the back), and it has been dated to about 125 AD. This makes it a very important little manuscript, because John has been almost unanimously held by scholars to be the latest of the four gospels. So if copies of John were in circulation by 125, the others must have been written considerably earlier. Moreover, the Gospel of John's greater theological development when compared with the other three gospels has led some scholars to conclude it was written as late as 120 or even 150 AD. The P52 fragment seems to make such late dates impossible.
In addition to the early papyrus fragments, a large number of parchment manuscripts have been found that date from 300 AD onward. These are usually named for the place in which they were discovered and are abbreviated by a letter or sometimes a number. The manuscripts A/02 (Codex Alexandrinus), B/03 (Codex Vaticanus), and Sin./01 (Codex Sinaiticus) contain nearly complete sets of the New Testament. By comparing these to the earlier papyrus fragments, they have been shown to be quite reliable.
Codex Vaticanus (B), the earliest of the great parchment manuscripts at about 300 AD, has resided in the Vatican since the middle ages and remains there today. It is one of the most important manuscripts for textual criticism.
Codex Sinaiticus (Sin.) dates to about 350 AD. It was discovered in 1844 in a monastery on Mount Sinai by a Russian. After some resistance, he persuaded the resident monks to allow him to take it to St. Petersburg. On Christmas Eve, 1933, the Soviet government sold it to the British Museum for 100,000 pounds. It was put on permanent display in the British Library, where it still resides, along with other early biblical manuscripts.
Codex Alexandrinus (A), dating to circa 450 AD, was transferred from the Christian library in Alexandria to the British Library in the seventeenth century, where it still resides today. The Catholic Encyclopedia details its history:
Codex A was the first of the great uncials to become known to the learned world. When Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Alexandria, was transferred in 1621 to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, he is believed to have brought the codex with him. Later he sent it as a present to King James I of England; James died before the gift was presented, and Charles I, in 1627, accepted it in his stead. It is now the chief glory of the British Museum in its manuscript department and is on exhibition there.
British Museum Pamphlet on the Codex Sinaiticus
Philip W. Comfort, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts.
C.C. Edgar, Select Papyri.
Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (1992). Full text is available online at Questia Online Library.
Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Paleography.
E.G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (1987).
G. Cavallo & H. Maehler, Greek bookhands of the early Byzantine period, A.D. 300-800 (1987).
Leighton Reynolds, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature.
C.H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands (1956). On the dating of manuscripts with the aid of contemporary documents.
J. Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism (1974). W.H.P. Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament (1939).
H.J.M. Milne & T.C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (1938).
D.C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text (1992). On the idiosyncratic manuscript D.
C.H. Roberts, Manuscript Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (1979).
G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles (1956): on P46
This article is helpful as it provides a scholarly, objective perspective on the issue of New Testament manuscripts. I am a philosophical theologian working on finishing his PhD, and I do not claim to be an expert of the origin of New Testament texts, however, here are some of my thoughts based on this article.
The divine inspiration of Scripture was noted as important. The New Testament is not full of mythological stories of clearly fictional characters, but actual people that existed. The same group of people discussed within the New Testament, is also the group that produced the Scripture. Therefore, the New Testament is historically grounded on eyewitness testimony, and associates of eyewitnesses.
Since every manuscript contains scribal errors, we can conclude the copies are not equal to the original inspired letters. This does not mean that we have to abandon the Biblical idea of inspired Scripture. I firmly hold to the concept of 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired by God for teaching, and training. I think we can deduce that scribal errors do not equate with theological errors, and therefore scribal errors do not eradicate or change the New Testament’s essential doctrines. There are enough New Testament documents extant that scholars would know if certain schools of manuscripts contained serious differences in theology from other schools. This is why as Christians we do not need to take seriously the claims of critics that state that lost or hidden New Testament era documents from the group of eyewitnesses contradict the ones found in the New Testament. The manuscript evidence supports the fact that there are scribal errors in the documents, but does not support the idea of major theological differences between different groups of manuscripts.
My theory of inspiration would include the idea that God inspired the original New Testament documents written by those within the group of Christ and the Apostles. Since the documents would eventually physically disintegrate, God would have to use supernatural means to maintain the original documents. The idea of God using some kind of supernatural force field to maintain the documents as good as new does not seem in line with how God works in our world over a long period, and so it is not surprising that God allowed the originals to be destroyed or lost, and instead maintained his Scripture through copying. The copying mistakes did not affect any major doctrine, but we do have related issues like with the ending of Mark.
Mark 16: 9-20 does not appear in Codex Vaticanus (B),or Codex Sinaiticus (Sin), the two oldest groups of manuscripts. Marlowe (2006: 1). The manuscripts have Mark ending at 16: 8. However, 16: 9-20 does appear in Codex Alexandrinus (A), which is a slightly newer manuscript. Miller (2005: 1).
It is possible a scribe or scribes added 16: 9-20, which became part the majority of New Testament texts, but it does not change the essential message of the Gospel or New Testament. We have copies from the two older groups of manuscripts which allow scholars to speculate that it is possible that Mark 16: 9-20 was not written by Mark, but written by a scribe at a later date. God has therefore not allowed a corruption of New Testament theology at its core even if he did allow an uninspired scribe to write 16: 9-20 and allowed it to become part of the majority text. It is also possible that Mark died and God inspired an associate who had known Mark to complete the book which appears in the majority text.
My essential Christian theology is not changed whether or not Mark ends at 16: 8 or 16: 9-20. If Mark died and the book ended at 16: 8, I do not see any need to place demands upon the Markan text and state that it had to have contained an actual resurrection appearance. The ending of the book does make it clear that Christ was no longer in the tomb and was resurrected. The tomb was empty, and a man, likely of supernatural origin in 16: 6-7 made it clear that Christ had risen. My hope is that a scribe or scribes did not think that the lack of a resurrection appearance and an abrupt ending meant that another ending had to be created. My New American Standard Bible has two different additional endings after 16: 8. However, if endings were added by scribes, God has still provided the Church with evidence of this from Codex Vaticanus (B),and Codex Sinaiticus (Sin). The Church could therefore take anything stated in these verses as less than Biblically authoritative, but these verses do not influence major Christian doctrines. I therefore can view our present New Testament as an essentially accurate copy of the original inspired word of God.
Marlowe, Michael D. (2006) ‘Mark 16: 9-20’, Bible-Researcher.com, Ohio.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
Miller, Dave (2005) ‘Is Mark 16: 9-20 Inspired?’, Apologetics Press.org, Montgomery, Alabama. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780
Thanks, Rick.
ReplyDeleteIt is funny though how Batman can go toe to toe with other persons far more powerful than himself, such as Carnage and Green Lantern, in my comics. I have a crossover comic where Batman (DC) beats up Carnage (Marvel). I really like Batman, and his human powers seem to be enhanced when necessary.:)
did you ever read the one were Batman gave superman the whoppin of his life, He almost killed superman, right before, Batman told superman something to the effect, remember, I am the only man to have just about killed you. It was great.
ReplyDeleteThen the punisher had some great toys also. Like the baton that would change hardness only in his hands. One guy grabbed it and hit punisher with it, but it was only as hard as styrofoam, but then once punisher got it back he said Titanium and then pummled the guy with it, it was great. Rick b
Rick, I have read about that issue several times, but have not seen it. Batman is likely the better fighter, but Superman is far more powerful. Rick, please let me know if you find that issue, and I will post it on here. I hope you like my books on kingpinned, I will post some more noteworthy ones on here over time.
ReplyDeleteThe Punisher strikes me as a very tough guy, and I know he has fought Spider-Man and Daredevil.