Freethought & Rationalism Archive

driver8 · 11-29-2007, 08:10 AM

Malachi, I think you're essentially correct regarding scholarly perspective. I view the NT as a crime scene, or series of crime scenes, whether intentional or not. It cannot be taken at face value, so one might as well approach it as a crime, and consider the basic criminal elements of opportunity, motivation, and benefit. Furthermore, religion is closely entertwined with politics and economics, with perhaps a splash of mental illness. I have not the time to unravel this mystery but I wish you luck in doing so.

Zeichman · 11-29-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

1) The assumption of Gospel "sources" and the lack of acknowledgment of the individual influence of the writer.

These aren't mutually exclusive. Plenty of scholars are exploring the vast middle area that you have also precluded (Christian Origins Seminar, Dennis MacDonald, etc.), without privileging the form-critical category of "tradition." You claim that there is ZERO evidence to support this (surely hyperbole); what investigation into the matter have you done and can refute?

Quote:

1a) There is a "Q document" and "Q" precedes the Gospels.

Obviously there is shared text between Matthew and Luke that has to be explained in some fashion. Q was a good first stab at it. Q has become some insane pillar however with all kinds of ideas building off Q without even any real evidence for a "Q document" in the first place.

Q is hardly the "first stab" at it, as anyone who knows the history of the synoptic problem will tell you.

Quote:

This is such a joke. First of all, I think a part of this desire to elevate Q is an existing anti-Markan bias. Mark was always the least appreciated and most problematic Gospel, and with Markan priority that just doesn't sit well. There is still a desire to put something before Mark, and all the better if that thing before Mark is a part of Matthew, which was always considered the "best" of the Gospels. So "Q" priority is a way to try and weasel back to Matthean priority.

You're kidding, right? What Matthean ideologies do people like Burton Mack, John Kloppenborg, Stephen Patterson, etc. find in their historical Jesus' mouth? If anything, MATTHEW is the hardest gospel for modern Christians to palate. James Crossley dates Q after Mark, iirc.

Quote:

In reality there is no evidence even for Q, much less that Q comes before Mark. Trying to date a theoretical construct, which you derive from looking at commonalities and discrepancies between three texts, before any of the texts that are being compared is such a foolish notion that I can't even believe that its so mainstream.

I'm sure you'd be able to refute it easily, given how foolish you claim it is.

Quote:

Again this reflects my statement in point #1, the desire to derive some sources that can be traced back to "eye witness accounts".

Again, you must be kidding. Have you read Burton Mack or William Arnal? Those guys sure are sure biased in favor of Christianity.

Quote:

The "expanded Mark theory" is I think better and simpler for several reasons.
1) We already know that Mark exists and that there were multiple versions of Mark.

Oh? Do tell. I sure hope you won't be appealing to Secret Mark and the pseudonymous Clementine epistle.

Quote:

2) Its more likely that two different writers would have the same text because they both copied from a single document than that both writers chose to integrate two different sources.

Which is a poor explanation as to why Markan and non-Markan materials are in blocks in Luke's gospel.

Quote:

3) If you look at the so-called Q material in Matthew and Luke, the ordering of the passages relative to each other follows the same patterns as the ordering of the Markan passages.

I simply don't understand what you're saying.

Quote:

1b) The Gospel of John incorporated a separate "miraculous signs" Gospel.

Obviously the Gospel of John has a whole set of passages about miraculous signs which are not found in the synoptics. The dominant view of this material is that, yet again, is comes from some "separate source".

Is there any evidence for this separate source? No.

I think you mean "archaeological evidence." Robert Fortna, JD Crossan, Burton Mack and others would contend that there is plenty of evidence for this, just not in terms of a separate, written document.

Quote:

What about the idea that the author of the Gospel of John made it up himself?

Are you suggesting that that is mutually exclusive to the idea of a signs gospel? You might want to re-read Mack and see that he makes no appeals to tradition there.

Quote:

2) The material is integrated seamlessly throughout the work, it isn't just lumped in in one segment.

You might want to either re-read John or re-read the advocate of the signs gospel with whom you are familiar. The dialogues formed around these signs is hardly "seamless" and are obviously accumulated interpretations of the miracle over a lengthy period of time.

Quote:

2) The idea that the Gospel of John is unrelated to the Synoptics.

As Ben Smith has pointed out, this is hardly consensus. Burton Mack, JD Crossan and others harmonize this with the signs-gospel hypothesis, attributing non-miraculous portions of John to Markan dependence.

I might also add that I don't see how any of these are "fundamental" flaws since NONE of them are agreed upon by all scholars.

Ben C Smith · 11-29-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Oh? Do tell. I sure hope you won't be appealing to Secret Mark and the pseudonymous Clementine epistle.

He may be referring to the different endings of Mark, calling a document with the longer ending a different version than a document with the shorter ending or the abrupt ending.

Ben.

youngalexander · 11-29-2007, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Some scholars think Cage is just noise!

Sometimes it is not even that.

gstafleu · 11-29-2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

That is correct. The (soft) humanities are virtually nothing like the (hard) sciences. If you go into one expecting the other, you will be disappointed.

They use the same methodology, don't they?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu · 11-29-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Right. Some scholars think Cage is just noise, (though I think this noise make wonderful music)!

Unless you are a physicist, or have studied the matter somehow, isn't quantum mechanics just noise to you?

Gerard Stafleu

GakuseiDon · 11-29-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I think that "mainstream" New Testament scholarship is fundamentally flawed and generally based on a set of fundamentally unsupportable and incorrect assumptions.

Furthermore, I think that demonstrating these flaws is relatively easy, only showing just how inept and off base the mainstream scholars are.

Is there anything that mainstream New Testament scholarship gets right, IYO? And what should modern NT scholarship look like?

Amaleq13 · 11-29-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

That is correct. The (soft) humanities are virtually nothing like the (hard) sciences. If you go into one expecting the other, you will be disappointed.

They use the same methodology, don't they?

It is more a question of the significant difference in the nature of the data than the methodology applied.

Ben C Smith · 11-29-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

They use the same methodology, don't they?

It is more a question of the significant difference in the nature of the data than the methodology applied.

Also in the amount and availability of the data.

Compare the number of fossil forms discovered every single year to the number of papyri or inscriptions.

Ben.

dog-on · 11-30-2007, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Some scholars think Cage is just noise!

Sometimes it is not even that.

Hehe...

Do you want an mp3 version of 4'33"?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-29-2007, 08:10 AM	#11
driver8 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Utah Posts: 167	Malachi, I think you're essentially correct regarding scholarly perspective. I view the NT as a crime scene, or series of crime scenes, whether intentional or not. It cannot be taken at face value, so one might as well approach it as a crime, and consider the basic criminal elements of opportunity, motivation, and benefit. Furthermore, religion is closely entertwined with politics and economics, with perhaps a splash of mental illness. I have not the time to unravel this mystery but I wish you luck in doing so.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.