S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
your post 70 I already wrote I have no clue what its supposed to signify…protestants I guess. but what that has to do with this, sorry but I missed your point.
- Status
your post 70 I already wrote I have no clue what its supposed to signify…protestants I guess. but what that has to do with this, sorry but I missed your point.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Joel_Tunnah:
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Yes I see, Mr. McCarthy wishes that we return to a neo-patristic method of doing biblical exegesis. I see.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
You are so sad…No one said everyone buys into Q…There are if you had bothered to read about 4 different theories now running about. The prevailing one remains no matter how much you scream the posit of a Q.
I am taking away exactly nothing. I have not the ability to put forth such hypothesis. I simply report what is going on in the field at this moment. You continue to associate me with the Jesus Seminar in an attempt to make me look somehow evil. I resent it and ask you to prove such a connection.
Your remarks about the crucifixion are uncalled for, unchristian, and beneath response.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Because it’s not a Gospel.
The New Merriam-Webster Pocket Dictionary of 1972 defines “Christ” as “Jesus, esp. in his character as the Messiah” (capitals theirs). Does this book, which asserts the Christ-iness of Jesus qualify as a Gospel? I think not. And neither does “Thomas’s”.
We have fragments, the earliest of which is the Rylands Papyrus, containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It dates to 130 AD, way before “Thomas”.
P
patg
Guest
Try the 2007 online version: “…the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation.” We are pushing this semantics thing way too far. I believe it qualifies as an important early work about Jesus. There are so few that one would be rather rash to disregard any as meaningless.
That would matter if we had a real date on the earliest remnant of Thomas.
T
TMC
Guest
OK… Still losing me. How is discussing the order of authorship discrediting the Gospels? If Matthew was written first, how does that discredit its contents, or the contents of the other Gospels? How does one lead to the other. I’m not trying to be obtuse, but I see no connection.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
In Mark, there is seemingly no indication of a virgin birth. In fact, some passages, like Mark 3:20-21, appear to contradict the idea (if Mary had been visited and told of Jesus’ special status, why would his immediate family question his sanity?)
In the earliest known copies, Jesus status could best be described as ‘annointed’, not God like or God. For example, look at how the version of the cursing of the fig tree subtly differs from Matthew and Luke (11:12-21). There is less suggestion of omnipotence or of Jesus being omniscient. Also see 8:22-25, spittle was a more conventional means of healing, and the miracle took multiple tries.
There is also no mention of the Trinity. And, in the earliest versions, the resurrection is truncated and only suggestive.
Personally, I like Mark, especially in scholar’s versions, where the tense switches and it is very excited and breathless. For me, apostles who are sometimes very dense, a Jesus who is not infinitely patient with them, etc. all highlights His human nature, making Him, in some ways, more accessible.
But the thinking, even by the 3rd century was that Matthew must have been first, because it contained key concepts missing from Mark. Mark was viewed as a ‘cliff note’ version of Matthew.
Personally, since we are talking about an Aramaic and Hebrew oral tradition being first recorded in Greek, possibly decades after the actual events, I don’t see the big deal myself. But some people still think that anything that questions a Matthew first model is somehow threatening.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
your next to last paragraph is the important one here. It is precisely the reason that Matthew contains so much more information that it is not considered first. The oldest is usually the most basic and simplest. If Matthew is first, then we have Mark inexplicably taking out massive amounts of information, some of it actually very much in keeping with his own theological goals.
S
scottm
Guest
SpiritMeadow, I no longer believe that you’re a lawyer. A lawyer by necessity of his job is able to follow arguments and discuss the substantive merits of an argument both pro and con. You are not doing that. Instead of analyze the matter like a lawyer would you are throwing mud at everyone who [gasp!] disagrees with your bias. That’s totally uncool.
And your posts would be easier to read if you used the quote function correctly.
Here’s the bias that you’re ignoring: the old dead guys of church tradition said that Mark wrote third in time. They are our leaders. They are our guides. They are deemed correct by default. Yes, that is the bias that we’re supposed to hold. We are supposed to begin with their statement and keep it unless and until we conclusively prove them wrong.
I’ll do what you have not been able to do. I’ll give you specific arguments with chapter and verse from the professional journals.
#1:
With tradition as our starting position, Mark didn’t have to write the virgin birth narrative because Matthew and Luke already did it. It was already done twice, once in Matthew and once in Luke, and on top of that, Mark’s immediate audience didn’t care. His immediate audience, the mixed-race (ie, universal – there’s the word I used before) church in Rome, was under severe persecution by Emporer Nero and needed to hear about Jesus’ physical ministry, the touching and talking that he did in the real lives of real people. Problem solved.
#2:
A specific argument laid down for Mark coming first is that his theology is more “primitive” than Matthew’s and Mark’s theologies. That’s the official scholarly word. Another way of saying this is that Mark’s teachings concerning Jesus are “harder” (another scholarly word) to accept or understand. The more primitive, or hard to swallow, a theology is, so the argument goes, the older it is. Mark therefore just golly-gee must have written first. One specific example of this alleged primitiveness is the lack of a birth narrative, stated above, as if the first guy to write about Jesus necessarily had to be the first person to give us a birth narrative. He just had to do it. The first writer cannot possibly ever, ever, ever leave out the birth narrative. Pffft.
Vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate, right?
But as an initial matter, scholars widely accept the church tradition that Mark learned from his traveling companion and teacher, Peter the Apostle. Okay, if we are going to let majority vote determine truth for us, as you are doing as a cheerleader for Q, then how can it be said that Mark’s theology is less acceptable than that of the other two synoptics? :gasp: Such a claim strikes at the very root of every Christian denomination on Earth church and cannot be lightly accepted. Peter, the first Pope of the Catholic tradition, the chief apostle for the first 12 chapters of Acts, the apostle whom Jesus personally commissioned to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-19), is an authority to be honored, not denigrated. Serious theological problems arise when one entertains the assumption that Peter’s theology is not as good as that of Matthew and Luke.
#3:
But Mark’s theology is actually arguably more advanced than that of the other two writers. Consider this specific example alleged in professional journals: Mark 1:32-34 compared to Matt 8:16 and Luke 4:40. The problem in this passage is that Mark says “many” people were healed, whereas Matthew and Luke say “all” the sick in the town were healed. Certainly if Jesus is God then “all” is better than “many.” Some scholars argue that Matthew and Luke made a favorable editing decision. An equally rational theory is that Mark said “many” because he wanted his readers to know that Jesus healed a large number of people. Based on Luke’s and Matthew’s accounts there might only have been two or three sick people in the town. The church fathers’ claim that Mark was Matthew and Luke’s editor is actually an improvement on the text. This analysis applies equally to Mark 3:9-10 as compared to Matthew 12:15 and Luke 6:19, where the same objection is raised.
And your posts would be easier to read if you used the quote function correctly.
Here’s the bias that you’re ignoring: the old dead guys of church tradition said that Mark wrote third in time. They are our leaders. They are our guides. They are deemed correct by default. Yes, that is the bias that we’re supposed to hold. We are supposed to begin with their statement and keep it unless and until we conclusively prove them wrong.
I’ll do what you have not been able to do. I’ll give you specific arguments with chapter and verse from the professional journals.
#1:
With tradition as our starting position, Mark didn’t have to write the virgin birth narrative because Matthew and Luke already did it. It was already done twice, once in Matthew and once in Luke, and on top of that, Mark’s immediate audience didn’t care. His immediate audience, the mixed-race (ie, universal – there’s the word I used before) church in Rome, was under severe persecution by Emporer Nero and needed to hear about Jesus’ physical ministry, the touching and talking that he did in the real lives of real people. Problem solved.
#2:
A specific argument laid down for Mark coming first is that his theology is more “primitive” than Matthew’s and Mark’s theologies. That’s the official scholarly word. Another way of saying this is that Mark’s teachings concerning Jesus are “harder” (another scholarly word) to accept or understand. The more primitive, or hard to swallow, a theology is, so the argument goes, the older it is. Mark therefore just golly-gee must have written first. One specific example of this alleged primitiveness is the lack of a birth narrative, stated above, as if the first guy to write about Jesus necessarily had to be the first person to give us a birth narrative. He just had to do it. The first writer cannot possibly ever, ever, ever leave out the birth narrative. Pffft.
Vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate, right?But as an initial matter, scholars widely accept the church tradition that Mark learned from his traveling companion and teacher, Peter the Apostle. Okay, if we are going to let majority vote determine truth for us, as you are doing as a cheerleader for Q, then how can it be said that Mark’s theology is less acceptable than that of the other two synoptics? :gasp: Such a claim strikes at the very root of every Christian denomination on Earth church and cannot be lightly accepted. Peter, the first Pope of the Catholic tradition, the chief apostle for the first 12 chapters of Acts, the apostle whom Jesus personally commissioned to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-19), is an authority to be honored, not denigrated. Serious theological problems arise when one entertains the assumption that Peter’s theology is not as good as that of Matthew and Luke.
#3:
But Mark’s theology is actually arguably more advanced than that of the other two writers. Consider this specific example alleged in professional journals: Mark 1:32-34 compared to Matt 8:16 and Luke 4:40. The problem in this passage is that Mark says “many” people were healed, whereas Matthew and Luke say “all” the sick in the town were healed. Certainly if Jesus is God then “all” is better than “many.” Some scholars argue that Matthew and Luke made a favorable editing decision. An equally rational theory is that Mark said “many” because he wanted his readers to know that Jesus healed a large number of people. Based on Luke’s and Matthew’s accounts there might only have been two or three sick people in the town. The church fathers’ claim that Mark was Matthew and Luke’s editor is actually an improvement on the text. This analysis applies equally to Mark 3:9-10 as compared to Matthew 12:15 and Luke 6:19, where the same objection is raised.
S
scottm
Guest
#4:
Another example from the journals is Mark 6:5-6 compared to Matthew 13:58. Admittedly this is a “hard” reading for on the surface it does limit the power of “the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). Note, however, that in its context with the miracles of chapter 5 – controlling weather, exorcism of a dangerous man, raising a girl from the dead – this statement in Mark 6 actually gives a powerful message that demonstrates great literary skill on the part of Mark. Verses 1-4 are a setup for another miracle. Verse 5 reverses the audience/readers’ expectation, and this unexpected break forcefully drives home not an ill-formed theology but a fundamental point in Christian theology: you must have faith in God. (This is exactly the point later stated in Hebrews 11:6 and we don’t call that “primative”.)
#5:
A third example of a “hard” saying is Mark 10:17-18 compared to Matthew 19:16-17 and Luke 18:18-19. Jesus’ statement, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone,” can easily be interpreted as both an admission of fault and a denial of deity. Both points contradict canonical Christian doctrine. However, one must remember that Mark did not write his gospel with chapter breaks and verse numbers. This account of the man with many possessions must be read in the context of verses 13-16 (requirement of faith) and verses 23-27 (reliance upon God, not upon wealth). In this setting, Jesus’ comment “no one is good but God alone” was a setup for the man to admit that he had not actually followed all the commandments of the law (verse 20), and it amplifies the two messages flanking it. Mark’s message might be hard, but it is properly seen as deep theology.
#6:
Another specific example argued in professional journals for Markan priority is the simple, terse, unrefined style of Greek in Mark’s gospel. His low language strongly suggests, if not proves, that Mark was not a fluent Greek writer. The conclusion drawn from this is that Mark must have written first, for certainly (the argument goes) no one would take a finely-written document, copy from it, and end up with a comparatively poorly-written document. I addressed this argument previously from one direction with reference to The Hardy Boys and White Fang. Looking at it from another direction, it is clear now to Greek-language scholars that Mark wrote in popular speech for the common man. His gospel is colloquial, designed for listening as opposed to reading. One may say that the language in Joel Chandler Harris’ Uncle Remus or in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer are primitive, but no one disputes the value of those three books because through the “vulgarness” of the language deep humanity, and human-ness, is brought forth in a way that no polished speech could ever duplicate. Mark’s gospel, when read aloud to a Greek-speaking audience, has a similar effect: his Jesus is very real.
#7:
That Matthew, Mark, and Luke present stories in different orders is facially obvious, and it was one of the reasons that gave birth to “Q” and the theory of Markan priority. Scholars who favor Markan priority point out that when either Matthew or Luke departs from the story order written by Mark, they – Matthew and Luke – never agree together on this departure. Ironically, this agreement-to-not-agree actually shows that Matthew and Luke did not have Mark in front of them when they composed their respective gospels! If in fact Matthew copied from Mark, and Luke separately copied from Mark, then on their departures Matthew and Luke should sometimes agree. It is a simple game of odds: “all things are possible, but not all things are probable.” It is not probable that never would Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in their game of hopscotch, yet never they do. Thus, the most rational conclusion is that Mark had both Matthew and Luke in front of him, for this would immediately explain the pattern of agreements! But a noteworthy phenomenon shines forth when one compares the three gospels under the assumption of Markan inferiority: at every point where Mark departs Matthew in favor of Luke, he continues for a time in Luke. At every point where Mark departs Luke in favor Matthew, he continues for a time in Matthew. This accounts for the omission of particular stories in Mark.
Another example from the journals is Mark 6:5-6 compared to Matthew 13:58. Admittedly this is a “hard” reading for on the surface it does limit the power of “the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). Note, however, that in its context with the miracles of chapter 5 – controlling weather, exorcism of a dangerous man, raising a girl from the dead – this statement in Mark 6 actually gives a powerful message that demonstrates great literary skill on the part of Mark. Verses 1-4 are a setup for another miracle. Verse 5 reverses the audience/readers’ expectation, and this unexpected break forcefully drives home not an ill-formed theology but a fundamental point in Christian theology: you must have faith in God. (This is exactly the point later stated in Hebrews 11:6 and we don’t call that “primative”.)
#5:
A third example of a “hard” saying is Mark 10:17-18 compared to Matthew 19:16-17 and Luke 18:18-19. Jesus’ statement, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone,” can easily be interpreted as both an admission of fault and a denial of deity. Both points contradict canonical Christian doctrine. However, one must remember that Mark did not write his gospel with chapter breaks and verse numbers. This account of the man with many possessions must be read in the context of verses 13-16 (requirement of faith) and verses 23-27 (reliance upon God, not upon wealth). In this setting, Jesus’ comment “no one is good but God alone” was a setup for the man to admit that he had not actually followed all the commandments of the law (verse 20), and it amplifies the two messages flanking it. Mark’s message might be hard, but it is properly seen as deep theology.
#6:
Another specific example argued in professional journals for Markan priority is the simple, terse, unrefined style of Greek in Mark’s gospel. His low language strongly suggests, if not proves, that Mark was not a fluent Greek writer. The conclusion drawn from this is that Mark must have written first, for certainly (the argument goes) no one would take a finely-written document, copy from it, and end up with a comparatively poorly-written document. I addressed this argument previously from one direction with reference to The Hardy Boys and White Fang. Looking at it from another direction, it is clear now to Greek-language scholars that Mark wrote in popular speech for the common man. His gospel is colloquial, designed for listening as opposed to reading. One may say that the language in Joel Chandler Harris’ Uncle Remus or in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer are primitive, but no one disputes the value of those three books because through the “vulgarness” of the language deep humanity, and human-ness, is brought forth in a way that no polished speech could ever duplicate. Mark’s gospel, when read aloud to a Greek-speaking audience, has a similar effect: his Jesus is very real.
#7:
That Matthew, Mark, and Luke present stories in different orders is facially obvious, and it was one of the reasons that gave birth to “Q” and the theory of Markan priority. Scholars who favor Markan priority point out that when either Matthew or Luke departs from the story order written by Mark, they – Matthew and Luke – never agree together on this departure. Ironically, this agreement-to-not-agree actually shows that Matthew and Luke did not have Mark in front of them when they composed their respective gospels! If in fact Matthew copied from Mark, and Luke separately copied from Mark, then on their departures Matthew and Luke should sometimes agree. It is a simple game of odds: “all things are possible, but not all things are probable.” It is not probable that never would Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in their game of hopscotch, yet never they do. Thus, the most rational conclusion is that Mark had both Matthew and Luke in front of him, for this would immediately explain the pattern of agreements! But a noteworthy phenomenon shines forth when one compares the three gospels under the assumption of Markan inferiority: at every point where Mark departs Matthew in favor of Luke, he continues for a time in Luke. At every point where Mark departs Luke in favor Matthew, he continues for a time in Matthew. This accounts for the omission of particular stories in Mark.
S
scottm
Guest
**#8: **
Consider Mark 16:1-8 compared to Matthew 28:1-8. Scholars biased against church tradition argue that the awkwardness of Mark’s story is proof that Matthew copied off Mark. Verse 7 in Mark’s account does not fit, they argue. Verse 8 more properly follows from verse 6. In comparison, Matthew’s account is smooth; he smoothed out Mark’s roughness. If one assumes the historical accuracy of the resurrection story then Mark’s version can easily be explained: “they said nothing to anyone” until they reached the disciples. It is facially obvious that the women told people what they saw and heard. The resurrection story would not otherwise exist if they told no one. Furthermore, if Mark came last in time then the world already had two presentations of the fuller picture. Mark did not have to say, “The women told the disciples,” because everyone knew that the women told the disciples. What Mark added to those other accounts is the human fear that the women felt, fear than any person would have felt under the same scenario yet fear not brought out by either Matthew or Luke. Mark added to the story as presented in the other two gospels. It is therefore rational to believe that Mark was the editor, not the source, and made the scene more “human.”
#9:
Another example is Mark 2:23-28 compared to Matt 12:1-8 and Luke 6:1-5. In Mark’s report and Luke’s report Jesus defends his conduct solely on an appeal to general law and the authority of King David. This is seen by some scholars as odd, because the issue in that story was Jesus’ alleged violation of the Sabbath laws. It is noted that Matthew adds to this defense an argument specifically concerning the Sabbath. Query, why does Mark not address a Sabbath defense also? The allegation is that Mark wrote first, and Matthew cleaned up his account. This need not be so. Mark did not write with chapter breaks and verse numbers. In his gospel this story falls on the heels of Jesus claiming authority to forgive sins against God Himself (vs. 1-12), Jesus publicly associating and befriending “sinners” in the name of God (vs. 13-17), and Jesus claiming status higher than that of the Pharisees, their rules, and even John the Baptist (vs. 18-21). Viewed in this light, Jesus’ appeal to David’s technical violation of Mosaic law carries great force for the audience/reader of Mark’s gospel, for it plainly means that the Pharisees did not understand the law of their own forefathers that they purported to teach! This claim of ignorance or misunderstanding would be weakened, not strengthened, by adding Matthew’s additional appeal to specific law on the Sabbath. Thus it need not be said that Matthew copied off Mark. It is entirely reasonable to say that Mark (and Luke also) intentionally omitted that which Matthew previously recorded. Furthermore, those who assert that Matthew and Luke both added to Mark must explain why Luke did not add to Mark in this instance.
#10:
Another example is Mark 1:7-8 versus Matthew 3:11-12 and Luke 3:16-18. The alleged problem is that Matthew and Luke add a statement about a winnowing fork and burning chaff. The argument is that if Mark was rational, he would not have omitted that statement in his version of the story. Such an assertion, unfortunately, betrays less than pure rational thought (there, I said it) for it wholly ignores the clear fact that Mark was a different biographer who wrote for a different audience and portrayed Jesus on the whole differently than Matthew and Luke portrayed him.
#11:
Consider Mark 14:65 as compared to Matthew 26:67-68 and Luke 22:63-65. Scholars argue that Mark’s omission of the sentence, “Who is it that struck you?” would not have occurred if Mark had before him the other gospels. This argument again betrays an a priori bias. Why must Mark duplicate the other writers? Why must any writer duplicate those who come before him? Individuality is encouraged in other settings. Why shall it be pushed out of thought here? Perhaps Mark left out that phrase to make a greater point: at that very time, in the scene described in verses 66-72, a prophesy of Jesus was coming true. For Mark to add the missing phrase would detract from the huge force of fulfilled prophesy in those next sentences. Those who insist that Mark erred would themselves have written a less-powerful gospel than that which Mark wrote.
Consider Mark 16:1-8 compared to Matthew 28:1-8. Scholars biased against church tradition argue that the awkwardness of Mark’s story is proof that Matthew copied off Mark. Verse 7 in Mark’s account does not fit, they argue. Verse 8 more properly follows from verse 6. In comparison, Matthew’s account is smooth; he smoothed out Mark’s roughness. If one assumes the historical accuracy of the resurrection story then Mark’s version can easily be explained: “they said nothing to anyone” until they reached the disciples. It is facially obvious that the women told people what they saw and heard. The resurrection story would not otherwise exist if they told no one. Furthermore, if Mark came last in time then the world already had two presentations of the fuller picture. Mark did not have to say, “The women told the disciples,” because everyone knew that the women told the disciples. What Mark added to those other accounts is the human fear that the women felt, fear than any person would have felt under the same scenario yet fear not brought out by either Matthew or Luke. Mark added to the story as presented in the other two gospels. It is therefore rational to believe that Mark was the editor, not the source, and made the scene more “human.”
#9:
Another example is Mark 2:23-28 compared to Matt 12:1-8 and Luke 6:1-5. In Mark’s report and Luke’s report Jesus defends his conduct solely on an appeal to general law and the authority of King David. This is seen by some scholars as odd, because the issue in that story was Jesus’ alleged violation of the Sabbath laws. It is noted that Matthew adds to this defense an argument specifically concerning the Sabbath. Query, why does Mark not address a Sabbath defense also? The allegation is that Mark wrote first, and Matthew cleaned up his account. This need not be so. Mark did not write with chapter breaks and verse numbers. In his gospel this story falls on the heels of Jesus claiming authority to forgive sins against God Himself (vs. 1-12), Jesus publicly associating and befriending “sinners” in the name of God (vs. 13-17), and Jesus claiming status higher than that of the Pharisees, their rules, and even John the Baptist (vs. 18-21). Viewed in this light, Jesus’ appeal to David’s technical violation of Mosaic law carries great force for the audience/reader of Mark’s gospel, for it plainly means that the Pharisees did not understand the law of their own forefathers that they purported to teach! This claim of ignorance or misunderstanding would be weakened, not strengthened, by adding Matthew’s additional appeal to specific law on the Sabbath. Thus it need not be said that Matthew copied off Mark. It is entirely reasonable to say that Mark (and Luke also) intentionally omitted that which Matthew previously recorded. Furthermore, those who assert that Matthew and Luke both added to Mark must explain why Luke did not add to Mark in this instance.
#10:
Another example is Mark 1:7-8 versus Matthew 3:11-12 and Luke 3:16-18. The alleged problem is that Matthew and Luke add a statement about a winnowing fork and burning chaff. The argument is that if Mark was rational, he would not have omitted that statement in his version of the story. Such an assertion, unfortunately, betrays less than pure rational thought (there, I said it) for it wholly ignores the clear fact that Mark was a different biographer who wrote for a different audience and portrayed Jesus on the whole differently than Matthew and Luke portrayed him.
#11:
Consider Mark 14:65 as compared to Matthew 26:67-68 and Luke 22:63-65. Scholars argue that Mark’s omission of the sentence, “Who is it that struck you?” would not have occurred if Mark had before him the other gospels. This argument again betrays an a priori bias. Why must Mark duplicate the other writers? Why must any writer duplicate those who come before him? Individuality is encouraged in other settings. Why shall it be pushed out of thought here? Perhaps Mark left out that phrase to make a greater point: at that very time, in the scene described in verses 66-72, a prophesy of Jesus was coming true. For Mark to add the missing phrase would detract from the huge force of fulfilled prophesy in those next sentences. Those who insist that Mark erred would themselves have written a less-powerful gospel than that which Mark wrote.
S
scottm
Guest
And on and on we can go. It’s like Newton’s law of physics: for every “proof” that Mark came first there is an equal and opposite proof for Mark not being first. Every reason for Mark can be turned around as a reason not for Mark. The final vote, thus, must be outside the text. This means that if we acept as a default position the teaching of tradition, then we will reject Markan priority as unproven speculation. If instead we accept as a default position that tradition is false, then we will, well, we will, um, we will do whatever we want to do.
Honest people recognize that it’s all just a matter of bias. The text of the Bible by itself will not lead to an answer. You’ll decide up front that tradition is right or you’ll decide up front that tradition is wrong. Vanilla is the best ice cream or vanilla is not the best ice cream.
Honest people recognize that it’s all just a matter of bias. The text of the Bible by itself will not lead to an answer. You’ll decide up front that tradition is right or you’ll decide up front that tradition is wrong. Vanilla is the best ice cream or vanilla is not the best ice cream.
T
TOME
Guest
Earlier I wrote that Pope Benedict praise the work of modern scriptural scholars in his work, “Jesus of Nazareth”. And the answer to one person’s question, Yes I did read the same book as you. And I am fully aware of the criticism our Holy Father articulated in this work towards modern scholarship as well. Actually if you are familiar at all with any of the other works of Pope Benedict, he usually has the same criticism and the same praise of modern biblical scholarship.
It seems to me that his criticism focuses on three areas. First, he is highly critical of those scholars who deny the historicity of the Christ Event, i.e. the Incarnation, Christ’s ministry and the His Passion, Death and Resurrection and attempt to use the historical-critical method to validate their belief. The second area he criticizes is towards those scholars who attempt to use the historical-critical method beyond its scope, failing to realize or acknowledge that this methods and all historical research have definite limitations which Pope Benedict enunciates in detail far better than I can in summary so I will leave it at that. The third area of criticism is towards those who see the scriptures as an assembly of ancient literature and nothing more. He criticizes those who faith to understand all the text of the Bible as an organic whole, of God working through these human text revealing Himself and our true human nature. Far to many scholars, admittedly, are stuck in the past and fail to see the evolution of Salvation History through the Inspired Word.
So yes I am fully aware of our Holy Father’s criticism of modern scholarship expressed in this book as well as many other works as well. (Just a side note, he even made referance to those who are stuck looking into the past and cannot see the future in his homily he gave the first Christmas as Pope - I understood the reference without a commentator’s help - so again I am well aware of his ongoing criticism of modern biblical scholarship.)
However, when I read the forward of his book, “Jesus of Nazareth” and read such comments such as, “The first point is that the historical-critical method - specifically because of the nature of theology and faith - is an remains an indispensable dimension of exegetical work.” (xv).
Or, “The historical-critical method - let me repeat - is an indispesable tool, given the structure of Christian faith”… “This method is a fundamental dimension of exegsis.” (xvi)
Or, " I hope it is clear to the reader, though, that my intention in writing this book is not to counter modern exegsis; rather, I write with profound gratitude for all that it has given and continues to give us. It has opened up to us a wealth of material and abundance of findings that enable the figure of Jesus to become present to us with a vitality and depth that we could not have imagined even just a few decades ago" (xxiii)
I cannot help but think this is praise.
It seems to me that his criticism focuses on three areas. First, he is highly critical of those scholars who deny the historicity of the Christ Event, i.e. the Incarnation, Christ’s ministry and the His Passion, Death and Resurrection and attempt to use the historical-critical method to validate their belief. The second area he criticizes is towards those scholars who attempt to use the historical-critical method beyond its scope, failing to realize or acknowledge that this methods and all historical research have definite limitations which Pope Benedict enunciates in detail far better than I can in summary so I will leave it at that. The third area of criticism is towards those who see the scriptures as an assembly of ancient literature and nothing more. He criticizes those who faith to understand all the text of the Bible as an organic whole, of God working through these human text revealing Himself and our true human nature. Far to many scholars, admittedly, are stuck in the past and fail to see the evolution of Salvation History through the Inspired Word.
So yes I am fully aware of our Holy Father’s criticism of modern scholarship expressed in this book as well as many other works as well. (Just a side note, he even made referance to those who are stuck looking into the past and cannot see the future in his homily he gave the first Christmas as Pope - I understood the reference without a commentator’s help - so again I am well aware of his ongoing criticism of modern biblical scholarship.)
However, when I read the forward of his book, “Jesus of Nazareth” and read such comments such as, “The first point is that the historical-critical method - specifically because of the nature of theology and faith - is an remains an indispensable dimension of exegetical work.” (xv).
Or, “The historical-critical method - let me repeat - is an indispesable tool, given the structure of Christian faith”… “This method is a fundamental dimension of exegsis.” (xvi)
Or, " I hope it is clear to the reader, though, that my intention in writing this book is not to counter modern exegsis; rather, I write with profound gratitude for all that it has given and continues to give us. It has opened up to us a wealth of material and abundance of findings that enable the figure of Jesus to become present to us with a vitality and depth that we could not have imagined even just a few decades ago" (xxiii)
I cannot help but think this is praise.
T
TOME
Guest
I saw a question as to whether or not either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI wrote on the existance of an “Q” source. I cannot remember reading where either one of them did make a comment or reference to this controversy.
Perhaps I am begging the question here but from what I have read of their works, especially Pope Benedict’s works, I do not think this particular issue is really important. Most of my reading of Pope John Paul II was/is in the area of Moral Philosophy and Theology. When reading John Paul’s work on the Theology of the Body I understood it to be closely tied into his moral philosophy which has as its pillars “Anthropology” the study of man but this goes far beyong the mere study of bones but asks the more basic question “What make man, man” or “What makes us truly human”. Here I found Pope John Paul’s use of scripture, with modern scriptural scholarship as one of his “Tools” in formulating and expressing his theology.
Focusing in on Pope Benedict XVI a couple of things struck me about his use of biblical scholarship especially when it comes to such hot topics such as “Q” source or which gospel came first. What struck me was how he stays away from these contraversies.
Perhaps he finds them to be irrelevant or just not that important.
Earlier I mentioned the praise Pope Benedict had for good biblical scholarship and it was pointed out, quite correctly, that our Holy Father is not reticent when it come to criticizing biblical scholars as well.
But a term the Holy Father used in “Jesus of Nazareth” is moving me to write what I wrote above, namely, I think these contravacies are really not necessary. The term I am refering to is “Christological hermeneutics”. What is really important is all of scripture (Old and New Testament) must be understood as being centered in Christ. The important question then is not which gospel came first but how do the gospels blend together to form an organ whole. How are the gospels and all of scripture in communion with Christ as its center.
I was suprized by what he wrote in “Jesus of Nazareth” about what he wrote about American Scholarship leading this approach and I would like to quote him:
American scholars developed the project of “Canonical
Exegesis” i.e. reading the individual text within the
totality of the One Scripture, which sheds new light on
all the individual text.
This, as our Holy Father actually comes from Vatican II itself. What is important is the content and unity of scripture as a whole, again with Christ as its center.
This is even at the center of his writings on Our Blessed Mother. Advent and Christmas will be here before we know it and if the future is anything like the past questions on Mary will start coming to the forefront. Pope Benedict’s work “Daughter Zion” will help with our understanding but what strikes me about this short work is this concept of content and unity of all scripture with Chist as the center - Christological Hermeneutics.
So reading all the post that have been presented here I am beginning to wonder just how important is all this debate? I personally find the idea of a “Q” source reasonable after all in Dei Verbum Chapter V No. 19 it does state that, “The Sacred Authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which have been handed on either orally or in written form…” Why couldn’t the “Q” source be one of those “certain of the many elements”? And isn’t reasonable to think that once the gospels were written then the need or even the popularity of a “Q” source quickly faded and was lost because it just wasn’t needed.
Again, the discussion may be interesting but I am growing in my opinion that it is not all that important in light of what our Holy Father teaches as what our approach to studying scripture should be.
Perhaps I am begging the question here but from what I have read of their works, especially Pope Benedict’s works, I do not think this particular issue is really important. Most of my reading of Pope John Paul II was/is in the area of Moral Philosophy and Theology. When reading John Paul’s work on the Theology of the Body I understood it to be closely tied into his moral philosophy which has as its pillars “Anthropology” the study of man but this goes far beyong the mere study of bones but asks the more basic question “What make man, man” or “What makes us truly human”. Here I found Pope John Paul’s use of scripture, with modern scriptural scholarship as one of his “Tools” in formulating and expressing his theology.
Focusing in on Pope Benedict XVI a couple of things struck me about his use of biblical scholarship especially when it comes to such hot topics such as “Q” source or which gospel came first. What struck me was how he stays away from these contraversies.
Perhaps he finds them to be irrelevant or just not that important.
Earlier I mentioned the praise Pope Benedict had for good biblical scholarship and it was pointed out, quite correctly, that our Holy Father is not reticent when it come to criticizing biblical scholars as well.
But a term the Holy Father used in “Jesus of Nazareth” is moving me to write what I wrote above, namely, I think these contravacies are really not necessary. The term I am refering to is “Christological hermeneutics”. What is really important is all of scripture (Old and New Testament) must be understood as being centered in Christ. The important question then is not which gospel came first but how do the gospels blend together to form an organ whole. How are the gospels and all of scripture in communion with Christ as its center.
I was suprized by what he wrote in “Jesus of Nazareth” about what he wrote about American Scholarship leading this approach and I would like to quote him:
American scholars developed the project of “Canonical
Exegesis” i.e. reading the individual text within the
totality of the One Scripture, which sheds new light on
all the individual text.
This, as our Holy Father actually comes from Vatican II itself. What is important is the content and unity of scripture as a whole, again with Christ as its center.
This is even at the center of his writings on Our Blessed Mother. Advent and Christmas will be here before we know it and if the future is anything like the past questions on Mary will start coming to the forefront. Pope Benedict’s work “Daughter Zion” will help with our understanding but what strikes me about this short work is this concept of content and unity of all scripture with Chist as the center - Christological Hermeneutics.
So reading all the post that have been presented here I am beginning to wonder just how important is all this debate? I personally find the idea of a “Q” source reasonable after all in Dei Verbum Chapter V No. 19 it does state that, “The Sacred Authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which have been handed on either orally or in written form…” Why couldn’t the “Q” source be one of those “certain of the many elements”? And isn’t reasonable to think that once the gospels were written then the need or even the popularity of a “Q” source quickly faded and was lost because it just wasn’t needed.
Again, the discussion may be interesting but I am growing in my opinion that it is not all that important in light of what our Holy Father teaches as what our approach to studying scripture should be.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The reason I asked was because you brought up “good Scriptural scholarship” in a thread about Q. And I don’t see the connection. Certainly not in this thread! Apparently our Popes haven’t seen it either.
If “Q” is just the Holy Spirit speaking through handed down tradition, then what’s new under the sun? We have known that for 2,000 years. No?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The problem, going back to the OP is whether or not this “speculation” has been elevated to “fact.” It has in more than one circle. I took an online class at Notre Dame on the New Testament. As I recall the professor espoused this Q theory as sound theory. I don’t remember him saying anything arguing against it. It was my first exposure to the matter and I had never heard of it. I’ve also heard Father Larry Richards state Q in a factual manner in one of his talks. No disclaimer of its controversial nature. That’s a big problem.
When we’re making arguments like “why couldn’t it have existed” or the Church Fathers just didn’t care about Q or didn’t mention it because they didn’t consider it important, or they lost track of it…then we’re just throwing darts at a board, exemplifying pure speculation.
When we’re making arguments like “why couldn’t it have existed” or the Church Fathers just didn’t care about Q or didn’t mention it because they didn’t consider it important, or they lost track of it…then we’re just throwing darts at a board, exemplifying pure speculation.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I sure can’t speculate why you were not given that other theories existed besides the posit of “Q”. My own experience may have been similar. I was studying the “synoptics” in a 13 week class meeting like 3 hours a week. I don’t recall specifically hearing about any other theories either. Perhaps because it was not central to the subject matter at hand. I would expect this would be quite different if i were in a class specifically to one or another of the gospel writers. Then the subject would be explored in full I would hope.The problem, going back to the OP is whether or not this “speculation” has been elevated to “fact.” It has in more than one circle. I took an online class at Notre Dame on the New Testament. As I recall the professor espoused this Q theory as sound theory. I don’t remember him saying anything arguing against it. It was my first exposure to the matter and I had never heard of it. I’ve also heard Father Larry Richards state Q in a factual manner in one of his talks. No disclaimer of its controversial nature. That’s a big problem.
When we’re making arguments like “why couldn’t it have existed” or the Church Fathers just didn’t care about Q or didn’t mention it because they didn’t consider it important, or they lost track of it…then we’re just throwing darts at a board, exemplifying pure speculation.
I think it more likely that if Q indeed existed, it was long gone before any ECF came on the scene. And it does not appear especially from our earliest Church fathers that many were particularly interested in exegesis. They seemed for the most part intent on evangelizing and keeping everyone on the same page.
Put you are absolutely right that it is speculation, albeit intelligent speculation to be sure. If Q is never found, its existence will of course never be proven. Nor its non-existence either.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Of course you are right, IMO. This is quite threatening to some for reasons that are not particularly obvious, yet they feel somehow that to question the ancients about anything in the bible is the lose faith in Christ. This is sad. I guess scientists would be better off not to have questioned ptolemy and his earthcentered cosmology either.
Actually I think this has everything to do with some people’s association with “Q” talk meaning somehow the hated “Jesus Seminar”. People are always afraid of the unknown and fear it will topple faith, or the normal course of how the world works. It changes nonetheless.
- Status