P
patg
Guest
Oh, and there’s no agreement or proof of that either.
And the earliest full copy of any of the Big 4 is dated to at least a century after Jesus’ death so I guess they are also useless.
- Status
And the earliest full copy of any of the Big 4 is dated to at least a century after Jesus’ death so I guess they are also useless.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Very nicely said. You continue to enlighten me. Thanks.I’ve often thought this - if not in* quite* the same sense as you, I suspect
If they had had this access, they would have avoided many mistakes, while making different ones, as the moderns do.
What they did have, was whatever means they had in their own times & places. Which is equally true of all scholarship, in any discipline, at any time & in place - including them.
For some reason, it seems to be taken for granted by some that either
The Church’s capacity to increase in understanding of the Bible did not end with the death of St. John Damascene in 750:
- the Fathers are the last word in the Catholic understanding of the Bible
or
- Biblical scholarship today has no value for the Church today
- Neither is true
- neither is the attitude of the teaching Church
Position 1 is favourable to the sort of despair of the Church shown by (self-styled) traditionalists. It’s very like the same despair of Dispensational Premillenialists; which is sad beyond words. And very injurious to all concerned
- Every utterance of the Fathers is not sacrosanct
- nor were they inspired
- not even those who were Doctors -as eight of them are
- Nor are all of them entirely orthodox, even the sainted ones - whether by our standards or those of their times
- nor did they always agree wwith one another
- nor did they always agree with themselves
- nor did they all have a good or accurate knowledge of the Biblical tongues
- nor are they always accurate in their understanding of things tangential to Scripture - such as geography or history
None of this takes away from their value, nor is it any threat to their position as sources of Christian wisdom, of many & varied kinds: but theology is not helped if one set of Christian thinkers is given the tyrannical power - one they would not have dreamed of thinking it proper for them to have - of stopping all progress in the sacred sciences. No Father, Doctor, bishop, theologian, or other human teacher or teachers, however saintly, wise or worthy of veneration, has that power: because no-one human is able to know, understand, appreciate the entire Faith. This is why all theological “achievements”, no matter whose, are always limited & open to improvement & correction. On earth, things will always be this way - it is an inescapable result of being created, limited & sinful.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Not necessrily. People undoubtedly kept and discarded writings based on their view at the time of their compatibility with other known writiings. We can assume certain things, but unfortunately they are educated guesses at best. We may never know the truth. Only some new discovery is likely to either support or completely trash Q as an option.
I really don’t think its based on any criteria needed. It has served so far to be a useful tool in determining what material Mark might have had at his disposal, it is of immense importance in helping to solve the minor agreements problem. Surely scholars wouldn’t be wasting time on a theory that offered them no help. And the minute something better comes along that explains the data better, undoubtedly they will discard it.
J
JimG
Guest
My point was that Q is a literary construct. It could, in fact, be “reconstructed” simply by putting together material from the existing Gospels, for which it is deemed to be a source. To that extent it has a literary existence.
Scholars are looking for “sources” of the Gospel material, and are concerned with the synoptic problem. It may be that earlier generations of scripture scholars didn’t think the synoptic gospels posed a problem. In any case, it seems that Q is postulated as a hypothesis to answer the problem of source material.
It would be similar to future generations of scholars reading, for example, the Harry Potter series, and then looking for sources of the material therein, and then postulating possible documents which might have contributed to the series as source material.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I think you may be quite right that earlier scholars never saw the synoptics as a problem. It would be difficult to really see the situation until somebody starting linking the agreements together , the order, grammar, etc. That’s when the “problem” became apparent. Historically most people I think assume that each is telling the “same story from a different perspective”.
That is satisfactory to many. Not to the scholar of course. I tend to get your literary reality as well.
I’m not sure your analogy to Harry Potter would be correct. It would be more akin to finding the same story in multiple Harry Potter books and realizing that they must be from an original source…In that case, the author’s mind presumably.
But I think we are basically in agreement.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
The “Gospel” of Thomas post-dates the Scriptures by at least a century. Quite simply, it’s useless.
That’s not necessarily true. While there is still some debate about the dating of Thomas, we will accept your dating as a good 100 years after the last Gospel which I think we all agree would be John. The writing of Thomas is not the critical factor. It’s the dating of the material he used. There is still debate here whether Thomas used material earlier or at the time of Mark and/or ML, or after. If before or at the same time, his writing becomes useful in discerning something about what Mark might have done editiing wise of his Gospel. If Thomas sources are f from Post MML, then they are as you assert of no value for that reason.
It remains useful of course as every scrap of paper we find from those days is, in helping us flesh out the lives and times of that very important period.
That’s not necessarily true. While there is still some debate about the dating of Thomas, we will accept your dating as a good 100 years after the last Gospel which I think we all agree would be John. The writing of Thomas is not the critical factor. It’s the dating of the material he used. There is still debate here whether Thomas used material earlier or at the time of Mark and/or ML, or after. If before or at the same time, his writing becomes useful in discerning something about what Mark might have done editiing wise of his Gospel. If Thomas sources are f from Post MML, then they are as you assert of no value for that reason.
It remains useful of course as every scrap of paper we find from those days is, in helping us flesh out the lives and times of that very important period.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I’m not talking about the evidence of it after its discovery - I’m referring only to the a priori impossibility of its existence before it was discovered. If it exists - then it is inexplicable that it was not evangelised. As it was not, it follows that, notwithstanding the requirements of Tradition & the Faith, several dogmas are falsified by it - which is why it does not & cannot exist.
Theologians have not been slow to use a priori arguments to disprove what is in fact true - the quotation of the Psalms to disprove Galileo’s cosmological doctrines is an obvious example. The same methods, appealing to the same authorities as are used in Theology, leave no place for the actuality of Australia. That, is my point in arguing as I did in that post.Direct proof of its existence is neither necessary nor possible - perhaps those who doubt the legitimacy of critical scholarship don’t appreciate this.
But I appreciate the attempt to make an analogy.
OK - if you can give me one of the references to Australia before 1640 or so, I’d be grateful for the education. But AFAIK, it was completely unknown for 1600 years (I’m using Abel Tasman as the terminus ad quem - so as not to exaggerate the time during which it was unknown to Christians).
It’s not intended be complete - that would be ridiculous: but it’s a perfectly fair point as far as it goes, no ?
Belief by plausibility is Da Vinci Code logic. And I agree with Karl: the lack of mention of such a source throughout the centuries is a large obstacle for Q proponents.
What matters is the type of the reasoning used - not the conclusion. A conclusion may be invalid - it does not follow that the type of reason that lead to it is invalid.
If the use of arguments from plausibility were of no value, it would follow that, because it is implausible that the Vatican keeps a register of all Protestants in the world, the implausibility of the notion favours the truth of it. The value of arguments from plausibility cannot be decided by whether or not they suit the ideas one already accepts - if that were to happen, reason would be made the slave of our egos, as it would not be allowed to lead to conclusions we did not like. That would not be reasoning, but self-deception
& worse. It would certainly be an odd way of obedience to the truth.Whether one likes a book or not is irrelevant to the quality of the reasoning in it - modes of reasoning can be valid, even if they are used to support fictions. If this were not so, the use of valid syllogisms in atheistic books would be ruled out for Christians. That is a good example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. So I hope you never read St. Thomas Aquinas - for he uses the same logical resources as Aristotle.
Arguments from plausibility are important for academic work & judgements of character, & of value - to name only two applications. Your own conclusions use them - necessarily, seeing that neither you nor I possess firm knowledge as to whether Q existed. In matters where there is any uncertainty, they can hardly be avoided. Every Catholic who discounts the arguments for Protestantism because of the lateness of certain of its doctrines, is saying that it is implausible that it could be a valid Christian movement. The apologetic for apostolic succession which tries to refute the claims of other Churches, is based on plausibility. Ridicule of critical positions on the ground that the Fathers did not know or need them, is based on plausibility.
Not all texts known to Patristic scholars were mentioned by the Fathers - this does not make the Nag Hammadi finds non-existent, or the Dead Sea documents. Why is it so important for the Fathers to know of all ancient Christian documents ? I don’t understand this POV at all - but it would be a disaster for scholarship if we had to tailor realities to make them fit the ideas we already had. That is what obscurantism is: not allowing facts to be bigger than or different from our preconceptions. Critical scholarship by contrast is open to correction, instead of being shut off from it, which is the temptation for dogma. How can the Church be a learning Church, a Church of mathétai, disciples, if it is obscurantist ?
S
scottm
Guest
And those problems that it can’t answer would be — what? I’ve read of this but never read a book or a journal wherein a true problem was stated. Instead, it’s always, “I like vanilla ice cream. Therefore vanilla is the best ice cream, with chocolate inferior because I like vanilla best.” That’s how Markan Priority and a written Q are always declared “best.”
Maybe you’ve found something new. I doubt it, but, maybe you really did find something new. I’d love to see a problem or two that cannot be explained except by Markan Priority.Yep, gotta love the “science” of figuring out authorship:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2616777&postcount=11
TheI one and only truism that we know about Q is that it consisted of the oral tradition of the original Apostles. Anything beyond that is subjective bias. That includes the assertion that one gospel writer copied off another – it’s entirely a subjective bias. Even Markan Priority is itself a subjective conclusion.
Full copy, probably right. But portions of a particular gospel have variously been found within a few decades of the resurrection.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
We are actually talking about evidence after its discovery. In the oversimplified definition, what Q proponents assert is that the same “source” was used by synoptic writers. So if it existed and they used it, they would have to know about it. Go back now the comparison in which I quoted Karl on how well was preserved the book of Philemon, but somehow not this Q source in writing or tradition.
The Australia analogy would work if people that already knew about Australia and used it as one of the foundations for their religion neglected to ever mention it.
And I feel there is a misunderstanding here that I claim we should not try to learn without proof. I said no such thing, and I felt that most of your post was responding to something that was not said. More specifically, we should not put excessive trust in theories for which there is poor evidence just because it is plausible. If Q is true, it certainly has offered us too little reason to embrace it, and actually more reason to disbelieve it.
Really, what is to keep us from positing a Z source, and defending it by saying “well, not all ancient texts are mentioned”? (much less those on which the Gospels were based!!)
A
annem
Guest
Since no one mentioned this, thought I’d bring in a few points.
The Jesus Seminar recently published “Q’”, or what they claim that they have deduced is Q. It’s a sayings gospel like the Gospel of Thomas. Many of the scholars in the Jesus Seminar are quoting from it in their newest publications as if it were an actual gospel instead of something they made up.
But how much evidence do we have that there is a Q? Or, if there was a Q, why would it be a sayings gospel, like the Gospel of Thomas?
This is building an assumption upon a guess and then hoping the structure stands.
A number of other scholars have published books lately (Nicholas Perrin is one) showing how Thomas must have been written after 180 AD and was derived from the synoptics. If so, that calls into question the entire idea that Q was a sayings gospel. Certainly it makes it doubtful that Thomas has any earlier sayings than the gospels.
The church fathers said Matthew was the first gospel and was written in Aramaic. Why couldn’t Matthew have been Q, and then the Matthew we have now the product of a later redactor? I take it this idea is silly, or it would be discussed more. Does anyone out there know why it wouldn’t work?
God bless, Anne
The Jesus Seminar recently published “Q’”, or what they claim that they have deduced is Q. It’s a sayings gospel like the Gospel of Thomas. Many of the scholars in the Jesus Seminar are quoting from it in their newest publications as if it were an actual gospel instead of something they made up.
But how much evidence do we have that there is a Q? Or, if there was a Q, why would it be a sayings gospel, like the Gospel of Thomas?
This is building an assumption upon a guess and then hoping the structure stands.
A number of other scholars have published books lately (Nicholas Perrin is one) showing how Thomas must have been written after 180 AD and was derived from the synoptics. If so, that calls into question the entire idea that Q was a sayings gospel. Certainly it makes it doubtful that Thomas has any earlier sayings than the gospels.
The church fathers said Matthew was the first gospel and was written in Aramaic. Why couldn’t Matthew have been Q, and then the Matthew we have now the product of a later redactor? I take it this idea is silly, or it would be discussed more. Does anyone out there know why it wouldn’t work?
God bless, Anne
B
buffalo
Guest
Remember Pentecost? The Holy Spirit could be “Q”.
T
TOME
Guest
As I have been trying to follow the post of this thread (my attempts have been made in small doses because of my schedule) I saw several references to the Fathers of the Church and their knowledge - or better lack of knowledge - of a “Q” source as proof that such a source did not exist. I think Spirit- Meadow has answered these criticism well.
I would like to add that if you study the writings of the Church Fathers they really were not all that interested in how the gospels came into being, rather, they were involved in using the “completed” product in there defence of the faith against the attacks the Church was facing as well as continued instruction of those who already had accepted the faith.
If I am not mistaken, biblical scholarship, of the likes being discussed here, didn’t occur until the age of the “Enlightment”.
In my less than humble opinion, I think if many of the Church Fathers were alive today and were participating in this forum they would tell us we were wasting our time on this type of discussion.
What is important is what is the Church Magisterium teachesg us on how to apply the gospels to our every day life. That is why works such as “In the Beginning” by Pope Benedict is, I think and pointed out by SpiritMeadow the type of scriptural study we should be focusing on - let the experts do their work and let those responsible for teaching, teach.
The more I read these post the more I am convince that the biggest problem is not what the biblical scholars write but our ignorance of what the Church teaches using thier work. I cannot understand how any debate about “Q” or “two” source theory “J-E-P-D” etc can be brought up in a forum without apparently any knowledge by far to many of the use of the best of scriptural scholarship by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI?
If they have no problem using modern scriptural scholarship in their teachings then why should we? Or perhaps they are not truly orthodox in their teachings?
Maybe this is because too many of us are not really familar with the writings of these two great theologians and have limited our famaliarity of their teachings to the sound bites we hear on Catholic Radio (by the way I am a supporter of Catholic Radio so this was not a criticism of this important tool of Evangelization).
But to those who are highly critical of modern scriptural scholarship, please explain to me why Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI seem to have no problem with good scriptural scholarship throughout their theological works?
I would like to add that if you study the writings of the Church Fathers they really were not all that interested in how the gospels came into being, rather, they were involved in using the “completed” product in there defence of the faith against the attacks the Church was facing as well as continued instruction of those who already had accepted the faith.
If I am not mistaken, biblical scholarship, of the likes being discussed here, didn’t occur until the age of the “Enlightment”.
In my less than humble opinion, I think if many of the Church Fathers were alive today and were participating in this forum they would tell us we were wasting our time on this type of discussion.
What is important is what is the Church Magisterium teachesg us on how to apply the gospels to our every day life. That is why works such as “In the Beginning” by Pope Benedict is, I think and pointed out by SpiritMeadow the type of scriptural study we should be focusing on - let the experts do their work and let those responsible for teaching, teach.
The more I read these post the more I am convince that the biggest problem is not what the biblical scholars write but our ignorance of what the Church teaches using thier work. I cannot understand how any debate about “Q” or “two” source theory “J-E-P-D” etc can be brought up in a forum without apparently any knowledge by far to many of the use of the best of scriptural scholarship by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI?
If they have no problem using modern scriptural scholarship in their teachings then why should we? Or perhaps they are not truly orthodox in their teachings?
Maybe this is because too many of us are not really familar with the writings of these two great theologians and have limited our famaliarity of their teachings to the sound bites we hear on Catholic Radio (by the way I am a supporter of Catholic Radio so this was not a criticism of this important tool of Evangelization).
But to those who are highly critical of modern scriptural scholarship, please explain to me why Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI seem to have no problem with good scriptural scholarship throughout their theological works?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Gottle, you continue to be a breath of clarity in this discussion. I never fail to learn from your posts. Thank you.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I really don’t think this is true. Please provide sources for your claim that copies of the gospels were found within “decades” of the resurrection.And those problems that it can’t answer would be — what? I’ve read of this but never read a book or a journal wherein a true problem was stated. Instead, it’s always, “I like vanilla ice cream. Therefore vanilla is the best ice cream, with chocolate inferior because I like vanilla best.” That’s how Markan Priority and a written Q are always declared “best.”
**I find it pretty hard to believe given you have stated in other posts about the massive research paper you did on this very subject. To be so disingenuous to assert that there are no problems in claiming a Matthew priority is ridiculous and not believable. Why on earth would the majority of scholars use such a Markan priority if it didn’t resolve problems better than the other hypotheses?
“…if Mark had Matthew and Luke before him, as teh neo-Griesbachians posit, why would he on the one hand have left out useful material such as the Lord’s Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, and the preaching of John the Baptist, and on the other hand espand the stories he did include with so many inconsequential details.” Joel Marcus, “Mark 1-8” p. 41.
The problem of doublets is much better handled with the 2-source than any other. Joel Marcus p. 44.
Given Mark’s poor greek, we would have Mark making the texts of Matthew and/or Luke less intelligible rather than ML cleaning up Mark’s poor version.
Of course I doubt these will convince you. You are one who has made it quite clear that faith for you depends on things being correct as given from antiquity no matter how poor their resources were or how limited their abilities were. You wish the possibility of Q not to be. I simply report what is the general common accepted belief by the scholars today. **
Yep, gotta love the “science” of figuring out authorship:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2616777&postcount=11
**It is truly amazing what they can do these days. I’ve gained such an amazing respect for Mark that I never realized before. He truely was something of a genius in his formation of his Gospel. **
TheI one and only truism that we know about Q is that it consisted of the oral tradition of the original Apostles. Anything beyond that is subjective bias. That includes the assertion that one gospel writer copied off another – it’s entirely a subjective bias. Even Markan Priority is itself a subjective conclusion.
It would be as I understand it the minority position that Q was an oral tradition only. It may have been, but most scholars still think it more likely to have been a collection of written sayings. Such things were fairly common among Jewish and other groups as well. Copying would be unfair. Like anyone who does research and writes a paper, Matthew and Luke especially had several sources to draw from. What they wrote was unique to their own theology, yet, they were apparently reverent enough of these souces that they often did little editing and seamed them in in ways that was both awkward and noticeable enough to pick out easily. Can you prove this subjectivity or is this just your opinion?
Full copy, probably right. But portions of a particular gospel have variously been found within a few decades of the resurrection.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Thanks Tomb. I would have abandoned this thread a while ago had it not been for you and Gottle. Both of you bring clarity, rationality, and facts to the table. My point here is to learn, and you have taught much. Thanks
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Do you mean why don’t people embrace Q as “good Scriptural scholarship”?
S
scottm
Guest
Wait a minute – if a person doesn’t agree with you, then his mind is not clear and not rational?Thanks Tomb. I would have abandoned this thread a while ago had it not been for you and Gottle. Both of you bring clarity, rationality, and facts to the table. My point here is to learn, and you have taught much. Thanks
I already told you: They approach the topic with a bias.
Answer: Because Mark wrote second or third in time. The birth of Jesus and the Lord’s prayer and the Sermon on the Mount were already available. Matthew wrote for a primarily Jewish audience. Luke wrote for a primarily Gentile/Roman audience. Mark’s gospel was written for a universal audience and so presents a vibrant, active, universal Jesus that knows where he’s going and knows who he is and can’t be stopped.
Ultimately, if we’re going to ask why XYZ isn’t in the gospels, we’ll get no answer. John admitted at the close of his gospel that he could have written more but didn’t. There, “problem” solved.
Imagine the gospels on scrolls, and imagine a desk big enough to hold only two scrolls at a time. Now imagine that you are Mark, and you’re writing your gospel. You’ll alternatively open up Matthew and Luke on your desk as you write your gospel. You can have one open but not both. THIS EXPLAINS THE SIMILARITIES in wording and ordering of events. Mark always follows either Matthew or Luke. Experiment with that at home. You’ll see that it works out.
This does not hold true in the real world. In the real world, students study composition from masters and still write poorly. In the real world, A+ students and D- students sit next to each other in a classroom learning from the same teacher and from the same example materials. In the real world everyone writes uniquely. Walk through a public library. The guy on this shelf studied from the guy on the other shelf, yet they don’t write the same way.
“Wuthering Heights” by Emile Bronte – 1847, masterpiece of literature
“Uncle Remus” by Joel Harris – 1881, horrible grammar and spelling yet it was written after the masterpiece! How can this be!? How can you have rotten writing after excellent writing?
“Call of the Wild” and “White Fang” by Jack London – 1903 and 1906, mature writing with good grammar and vocabulary
“Hardy Boys” – 1927, immature writing style, yet it came after the good stuff! How can this be!?
Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn” has horrible grammar and spelling, but his short stories do not. Same author, yet so very different. How can this be?!
Editors can remove mistakes and they can add mistakes. In the real world they do both. And in the real world every person writes his own way. That’s what makes libraries so much fun.
Also, Mark’s gospel was intended to be read out loud. (So was “Uncle Remus.”) Try it someday. Instead of watching a DVD for 80 or 90 minutes, read the gospel of Mark out loud without stopping. You have to do it in one sitting to get the full effect. It doesn’t count if you stop before the end. You’ll need 80 minutes give or take a little but it’s well worth the time. You’ll be amazed by it.
Addendum – you take off your lawyer hat and willfully overlook the presuppositions that go into the scholars’ conclusions, and then declare “Majority vote wins! Truth is determined by majority vote!. We have our truth now that we have a majority vote!” I neither overlook their presuppositions nor do I measure truth by majority vote.
T
TOME
Guest
Marco Polo,
No, my point is more about, what seems to me, the total rejection of most of the good biblical scholarship of the since the mid-20th century. Look at the praise Pope Benedict XVI has for this scholarship as evidence in the beginning of his work, “Jesus of Nazarath”. Or Pope John Paul II’s use of this scholarship in his addresses of late 1979.
That is what I was talking about. There has been a lot of good work done in the last century which our Holy Fathers acknowledged and used but it seems to many of us are ignorant of or have rejected. The “Q” hypothesis may be part but I am refering to the whole of the works done and continued to be used especially by Pope Benedict.
So I ask again,if it’s good enough for them, why not us as well?
No, my point is more about, what seems to me, the total rejection of most of the good biblical scholarship of the since the mid-20th century. Look at the praise Pope Benedict XVI has for this scholarship as evidence in the beginning of his work, “Jesus of Nazarath”. Or Pope John Paul II’s use of this scholarship in his addresses of late 1979.
That is what I was talking about. There has been a lot of good work done in the last century which our Holy Fathers acknowledged and used but it seems to many of us are ignorant of or have rejected. The “Q” hypothesis may be part but I am refering to the whole of the works done and continued to be used especially by Pope Benedict.
So I ask again,if it’s good enough for them, why not us as well?
S
scottm
Guest
I was flipping through that book a few days ago. In particular, I was reading from the section on John’s gospel. The Pope discussed and then rejected some of the “scholarship.” He doesn’t take it all blindly. His eyes are open. He sees the presuppositions and the weighs them and then makes a conclusion, and sometimes that conclusion is a rejection of “truths” asserted by the scholars.
- Status