Should we start compiling a list Rodahi? I would like to know what the boundaries are. Are nicknames like "deLayman" and "EgoNomad" appropriate? Or are they irrelevant remarks/commentary that do nothing to buttress an argument?

So, if only some of the passages are influenced Christian sources, then some were not, agreed?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:

Layman: Finally, a skeptic who is willing to read a book on history!
Zoroaster: Asshole.

I think both comments are inappropriate.

Let's ALL, theists and non-theists, strive to avoid using derogatory/sarcastic remarks when dealing with each other. I will do my best to follow my own suggestion.

Furthermore, the BC&A Forum is for the serious discussion/debate of issues relating to the Bible. Regardless of position, those individuals who support their respective arguments with FACTS and solid, verifiable EVIDENCE are going to CONVINCE more reasonable readers than those who do not. Irrelevant remarks/commentary do nothing to buttress an argument.

rodahi



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Layman: Should we start compiling a list Rodahi? I would like to know what the boundaries are. Are nicknames like "deLayman" and "EgoNomad" appropriate? Or are they irrelevant remarks/commentary that do nothing to buttress an argument?

I am against name-calling and ridicule. Terms such
as "bigot," "fundamentalist," "asshole," "deLayman," "EgoNomad," "sport," "slugger," etc., have no place in serious debate.

All I can do, as a moderator and poster, is ask other posters to refrain from the use of inflammatory words. Like I said, effective immediately, I am going to make a concerted effort to avoid using sarcasm, name-calling, and demeaning language.

rodahi




[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 14, 2001).]

I'm guilty.

I'll watch it.

Thanks.

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman: Finally, a skeptic who is willing to read a book on history! Your statement implies the unwarranted assumption that skeptics do not read history. Where did you get that idea, Layman? Layman: I liked the book too, but I found it a little dated and naive as to source and literary criticism. Afterall, the book was written in 1977, well before the avalanche of scholarship in the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus. You failed to mention how Grant's conclusions differ from those who have participated in the "Third Quest for the Historical Jesus." rodahi

My statements about skeptics was overbroad. My apologies.

As for Grant and the Third Quest.

Perhaps most important is his seemingly limited understanding of source criticism. Currently, scholars from the Jesus Seminar to Ben Witherington accept the usefulness of the criteria of multiple attestation because of their confidence in the results of much source criticism. There is a large amount of confidence that Mark, Q, and Paul rely on distinct sources. A large number of scholars also believe that Luke uses distinct sources independent of the others. There are also many who realize that Matthew relies on distinct sources, but there are also many who believe that much his unique material is disparate or may be redactional.

Additionally, research into the Gospel of John, encouraged by the release of so much Qumran material, have produced a majority opinion that the Gospel of John is in fact based on separate sources than the Synoptics. C.H. Dodd and Raymond E. Brown were leaders on this front.

That's just off the top of my head.

Layman: As for Grant and the Third Quest.

Perhaps most important is his seemingly limited understanding of source criticism.

I have read Grant's Jesus. To be quite frank, I am not sure why you think he "seemingly [has a] limited understanding of source criticism." Pick a chapter from the book and give a specific example of how his understanding of the historical Jesus significantly differs from that of E. P. Sanders, Bart Ehrman, John P. Meier, John Dominic Crossan, or Helmut Koester.

Layman: Currently, scholars from the Jesus Seminar to Ben Witherington accept the usefulness of the criteria of multiple attestation because of their confidence in the results of much source criticism.

True enough, but how does this fact bear on Grant's conclusions/views?

Layman: There is a large amount of confidence that Mark, Q, and Paul rely on distinct sources. A large number of scholars also believe that Luke uses distinct sources independent of the others. There are also many who realize that Matthew relies on distinct sources, but there are also many who believe that much his unique material is disparate or may be redactional.

Okay. I don't necessarily agree here, but for the sake of argument, I won't quibble.

Layman: Additionally, research into the Gospel of John, encouraged by the release of so much Qumran material, have produced a majority opinion that the Gospel of John is in fact based on separate sources than the Synoptics. C.H. Dodd and Raymond E. Brown were leaders on this front.

There is the POSSIBILITY that the narrative attributed to John is based on sources other than the synoptics. I do not think "majority opinion" holds that this is a demonstrable fact. Would you cite a few critical historians who hold the view that the narrative attributed to John is the product of anything other than the community where the book was produced in the latter part of the first century?

rodahi

Rodahi: I have read Grant's Jesus. To be quite frank, I am not sure why you think he "seemingly [has a] limited understanding of source criticism." Pick a chapter from the book and give a specific example of how his understanding of the historical Jesus significantly differs from that of E. P. Sanders, Bart Ehrman, John P. Meier, John Dominic Crossan, or Helmut Koester.

Actually, my premeire disagreement with Grant is his devaluation of the criteria of multiple attestation. E.P. Sanders, J.P. Meier, and most others cholars that I have read use this as one valuable tool (among others). Unless I am mistaken, J.D. Crossan values attestations that occur in both Q and the Gospel of Thomas. J.P. Meier finds congruences between Mark, Q, and John to be valuable. And Luke T. Johnson believes that the Last Supper is attested to by multiple sources because of its reference in Luke, Corinthians, and Mark.

Again, referring back to my quote on this topic in my first response. Grant says he doesn't think that the occurrence of a saying in different "gospels" is evidence of multiple attestation. I agree with him. But I think this demonstrates some level of unfamiliarity with the source criticism that the Third Quest seems to rely on to justify the criteria of multiple attestation. Multiple attestation does not count something as multiply attested because it appears in different gospels, but when it appears in different sources.

How does this bear on his views?

That would take some time. But I believe that a reliance on the criteria of dissimilarity, for example, without respecting the criteria of multiple attestation, provides us with a picture of Jesus unduly distinct from the movement he left behind. In other words, when you focus on and consider most reliable those things that make Jesus distinct from his Jewish environmnent and the movement he spawned, your picture will be unduly distorted.

Rodahi:

There is the POSSIBILITY that the narrative attributed to John is based on sources other than the synoptics. I do not think "majority opinion" holds that this is a demonstrable fact. Would you cite a few critical historians who hold the view that the narrative attributed to John is the product of anything other than the community where the book was produced in the latter part of the first century?

I don't see why the proposition that the Gospel of John is independent from the Gospel of Mark requires that it be the product "of anything other than the community where the book was produced in the latter part of the first century." Seriously, why do you think the two are inconsistent?

As I indicated above, three respected New Testament Scholars who have articulated, somewhat nuanced, John's independence of Mark, are C.H. Dodd, Rayomnd E. Brown, and Ben Witherington. J.P. Meier also accepts this view.


[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 14, 2001).]

Rodahi,

This is how J.P. Meier characterizes the status of the study of source criticism and the Gospel of John:

As for Meier's opinion:

A Marginal Jew, at 44.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
[b]Rodahi: I have read Grant's Jesus. To be quite frank, I am not sure why you think he "seemingly [has a] limited understanding of source criticism." Pick a chapter from the book and give a specific example of how his understanding of the historical Jesus significantly differs from that of E. P. Sanders, Bart Ehrman, John P. Meier, John Dominic Crossan, or Helmut Koester.

Layman: Actually, my premeire disagreement with Grant is his devaluation of the criteria of multiple attestation.

Okay. You and a few Christian scholars disagree with the criteria Michael Grant uses in his book Jesus. I am not sure how that makes anyone right or anyone wrong. As you know, multiple attestation does not prove anything. It merely makes some individuals more confident in asserting that such and such event happened in the past.

rodahi

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
[b]A "few?"

I think you are mischaracterizing the status of scholarship. "Most" would be more accurate.

And I don't think that the "Jesus Seminar" qualifies as "Christian scholars," although some of them may be Christians. Ditto for E.P. Sanders.

I'd be curious if you know of any New Testament scholars who flatly reject the criteria of multiple attestation.