Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rick Sumner · 11-09-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Zeichman: "Your standard of an apologist is someone who believes we can, with some confidence, state that Jesus said something? How is this apologetics?"

That's a Christian, [if you add son of god].

That calls them aardvarks, if you add aardvark. This is an utterly empty statement.

Regards,
An atheist who believes that we can, with some confidence, say Jesus said something.
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner · 11-09-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

So accepting an HJ makes one an apologist? A Christian apologist? The late Robert Funk was anything but a Christian apologist (cf. his anti-orthodox polemic in the end of "Honest to Jesus").

I've always thought it rather serendipitous that the only Jew in Galilee who didn't believe in a vengeful God is the one Funk (who died a liberal Christian) would least like to. This isn't to say he's a liberal Christian apologist, but "anything but a Christian apologist" is overstating his case a little. Perhaps 'anything but a conservative apologist' might be more apt.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Zeichman · 11-09-2005, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

I've always thought it rather serendipitous that the only Jew in Galilee who didn't believe in a vengeful God is the one Funk (who died a liberal Christian) would least like to. This isn't to say he's a liberal Christian apologist, but "anything but a Christian apologist" is overstating his case a little. Perhaps 'anything but a conservative apologist' might be more apt.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

What Christian doctrines did Funk hold in his later years? A completely unorthodox view of "original sin" is all that comes to mind.

yalla · 11-09-2005, 11:05 PM

Try this.
Once upon a time Christian scholars asserted that Luke was a doctor. My wife's RSV has a "helpful" section at the back which describes the author of the gospel as such.
Much was made about the "medical" words to be found in the text of the gospel.
Scholars made lists of such words and analysed their possible origins and so on.

Now all of that was in the context of an assumption that patristic legend was authentic and that Luke was a valid transmitter of tradition going back to the days of Paul and even further.
It fitted into, was reinforced by and was in turn a reinforcment of the conventional orthodox picture of the origins of Christianity of the time.

Then along came Cadbury who apparently demolished this neat little scene.
So that no longer is it common to defend the assertion that Luke "the beloved physician" was the author of that gospel by pointing to the presence of medical words.

This was unfortunate for the orthodox representation of "who wrote the gospels?' because a prop had been knocked out of their defense. It had ramifications for the credibility of the gospel as a source because the author was relegated to anon. status from a previously prestigious one and hurt the credibility of tradition that assigned the gospel to a doctor named Luke.
A similar story can be told about the "we' sections in Acts and the literary device of travel narration...not so clear cut a story but the parallel is there.

Now I would submit that once upon a time Luke as the doctor who had medical words in his gospel was a sub-paradgm or element of the paradigm that was the standard Christian story that explained the origins of the gospel[s].
That element is now rarely asserted.
When it is I would suggest to you that it is apologetic in nature, ie it defends the validity of the old tradition.
The paradigm has altered.

I see the hypothesis of Q operating in a similar matter but still in the stage where it is the dominant paradigm yet to be demolished if it will be.
It serves, as I have said before, to validate the standard story that there is a continuous line of oral and written tradition BACK from all 3 gospels to JC himself...as Mack for eg. states.
Doherty for eg could could write lots about the silence of 1C authors [pre-the gospels version] and a response to him could be "but we have a written account of the words of JC BEFORE the gospels...it's called Q unfortunately it was lost"
Funk may be sceptical of scholars and the origins of the stories in the gospels and how they were written but he still claims that Q can take us back to an HJ.
That is his bottom line...Q connects JC to the gospels...whatever doctrines Funk did or did not hold are irrelevant, he can have SOME of the JC from the gospels because Q is the link.
No Q, no link [except oral trad of course].

Thus Q is an important element in the assertion [or defense] of the Christian belief that the words of JC can be ,at least partly, gleaned from the gospels.

Is that so controversial?

J.Drury "Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel''

RE 2DH..."no doubt owing to the fact that it tends to support rather than detract from the historical validity of the gospel narrative. It is the DESIRE [my emphasis] for historical validity that holds the 2 documents together" p.40
[paraphrase]... the historicity of the mass of teaching common to Mt. and L comes under an ominous question mark.
" Q, with which priority of Mark has the HAPPY [my emphasis] result of attributing a high degree of probability to all 3 synoptics" p.120

see you
yalla

S.C.Carlson · 11-10-2005, 06:26 AM

The discussion of Q and apologetics is interesting but needs more nuance. Q has been around for more than 150 years and in part derives its staying power to its ability to satisfy both traditionalists and non-traditionalists in different respects.

Non-traditionalists (e.g. 19th cen. German liberal Protestants, today's Jesus Seminar) like Q because it presents a portrait of Jesus that is not tethered to the views of Jesus in the canonical gospels, all of which culminate in his passion and crucifixion. Thus, Q allows the non-traditionalist scholar to consider a Jesus that is not closely tied to a Pauline dying and resurrected savior. Q is liberating to this camp.

Q also appeals to the traditionalist camp because it promises to preserve authentic Jesus material that is older than any of the canonical gospels. Thus, any modern criticism on how late Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are can be neutralized by an even earlier source. Indeed, W. R. Farmer has documented the apologetical value of Q within 19th century German scholarship. The hypothetical nature of Q is convenient because its text cannot be known to anywhere within the same degree of precision, so Q's malleability makes it a harder target for strong criticism.

Granted, Q is not a perfect fit for either camp. Some traditionalists are uncomfortable with the fact that Q is not part of the canon, and some non-traditionalists see Q as an overly flexible technique to backdate certain Jesus traditions. But, in the end, Q promises something for everyone, which is what explains its staying power among both traditionalists and non-traditionalists.

The relevance for this thread is that just because Q happens to be useful for some apologists, that does not mean that this usefulness is the only reason why Q enjoys its support. Non-traditionalists find Q useful too.

Stephen

Julian · 11-10-2005, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

It is the same argument that is used against the GH. Mark surely would not have omitted a lot of the things he did if the text of Matthew or Q was directly in front of him. Thus, Mark cannot be dependent upon Q any more than he can be dependent upon Matthew. You would have to propose a method for going through Q (I presume we are generaly following Luke's ordering) where you look at all the Mark // Q overlaps and ask why Mark jumps around here and there and why he adds this but omits that.

You are supposed to be able to give a good redaction critical explanation of such things. Crossan speaks of redactional confirmation, "It is not really a second proof but a way of testing some postulated genetic relationship. If, for reasons such as those given in the preceding example, you postulate Matthean and Lukan dependence on Mark, you should be able to explain every omission, addition, or alteration in Matthew and Luke over their Markan source. Because, of course, we still have Mark"

So the independence of Mark and Q probably should be accepted as an axiom of the 2dh in my opinion.

I am not yet good enough to provide specific redactional criticism on this topic, so my complaints are of a more general nature. I am mainly jumping into this discussion to have my points attacked and thus learn from the process. In other words, I am here more to increase my knowledge and refine my method of thinking upon this problem, than I am to provide valuable new insight.

A few weeks ago I was a firm believer in the standard 2SH hypothesis. Having since read Sanders and Davies Stydying the Synoptic Gospels, Mack's The Lost Gospel and gone back over some of Robert Price's work on cynic sayings I now find myself in a position where I am thoroughly confused and not quite sure what to think. I suspect that that is the correct, and more reasonable, place to be.

I still think that my view on this matter is different from GH in the sense that, assuming Markan priority, Mark was written in an age of no (or simple) gospels. Matthew and Luke appear on the stage when gospel material was far better known and in circulation. Their environments were different. People didn't really know gospels in the Markan day as they did when Matthew and Luke penned theirs. Naturally, they would have been far more restricted in what they could write given the expectations.

Anyways, to summarize, I am here to learn and being told why I am wrong or why my argument is incomplete and, indeed, how it could be improved, is exactly why I am here making these posts, so in this case I thank you for your response as it has provided me with more knowledge.

Quote:

Basically, if Mark knew Matthew he would have retained something like the sermon on the mount. A view of Mark that rejects such does not appear intelligibile from my viewpoint. Likewise, much of the rich Q material would have went into Mark. Instead we have doublets and other things.

Again, we are making assumption on the thoughts and agenda of Mark, a very dangerous and uncertain proposition. Maybe the Sermon on the Mount wasn't in Q at the time of Mark. Maybe he didn't like it. Maybe he liked it but it didn't serve his agenda, since it contains no miracles or controversy and, furthermore, speaks against the general theme of secrecy that he seems to pursue. What would be the point of not telling anyone how wonderful he is but then start talking to huge crowds. Then again, he does talk to crowds after his escape from the crowds attempt in the boat, for example. *shrug* Too many unknowns to make the assumption that he would have to use all of Q. He seems the most tendentious of the gospel writers. But frankly, it all seems a bit messy. Another thing that I don't hear much about is the issue of scribal harmonization, a known phenomenon, that could severely impact this issue.

Quote:

You claim Matthew and Mark would have felt "compelled, at least moreso than Mark, to include as much as possible." If Mark knew of the sermnon on the mount or a lot of the Q sayings he does not have, he would have been compelled to incorporate them into his gospel. The omission of some material is more inexplicable than other material, however.

Vinnie

I tentatively disagree for the reasons stated above.

Julian

Ben C Smith · 11-10-2005, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Ben,

I've been reading this page of yours,

Redactional tendency and editorial fatigue.
http://www.textexcavation.com/redactedit.html

and I think it's quite good. It gives all sides of the story rather objectively.

That's how the Synoptic scholarship should be!

Best,

Yuri.

Thanks, Yuri.

Julian · 11-10-2005, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I wrote in my article:

----If you sit down and comb through all the material at times some of the arguments can be poorly constructed and look rather tenuous. For example, it has been suggested that Mark's poor Greek is an indication that this text was written first. It is supposed to be easier to see how Matthew and Luke would improve on the poorer Greek of Mark. But this is not a good method for determining the direction of synoptic relations. People rewrite material in their own style. It could work both ways. In the second and subsequent centuries, many of the apocryphal gospels have 'worse' Greek than Mark (worse according to the Attic standard). As EP Sanders notes, " Many authors, and no doubt many readers and hearers, preferred more colloquial and less elegant prose." Different prose for different audiences.---

Epitome of lesser quality is entirely subjective and depends on the audience. Thus, no direction of synoptic dependence can be established on this basis.

Vinnie

Probably 'epitome' and 'lesser quality' should be two separate arguments. I dont' see the need for an epitome post Matthew and Luke.

Is Mark colloquial? Or is it just bad? Wouldn't vocabulary be the most important factor in colloquialism? He also has grammar problems. Did they reflect colloquial usage or was Mark just wrong?

xxxx και xxx και xxx και xxx doesn't sound colloquial to me, it just sounds bad. However, I have not read all of Mark in Greek since I am not quite good enough for that yet. I will have more comment upon this topic a year from now or so.

Julian

Rick Sumner · 11-10-2005, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

What Christian doctrines did Funk hold in his later years? A completely unorthodox view of "original sin" is all that comes to mind.

I suppose that depends on what you consider "Christian doctrine." Funk always considered himself a Christian, he's stated as much more than once. I'm not aware of any text in which he states otherwise.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Yuri Kuchinsky · 11-10-2005, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

I would say this is an incorrect assesment. Crossan believes that some of the Miracle Traditions and some of the deeds traditions are accurately retained. Funk also accepts this as true.

There's certainly an appearance that the Jesus Seminar scholars prefer to focus on the sayings tradition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

YURI:
And neither is there any proof that, in the earliest period, the sayings of Jesus were preserved separately from the rest of the gospels material.

Zeichman:
I think Thomas points otherwise,

But does it, really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

plus the possibility (whether or not you accept it, Yuri) of multiple layers of Q. Their methodology is fairly consistent, and they certainly accept that miracle collections arose alongside Q and Thomas (Thus, signs and one or two other miracle sources). Mack makes this evident in "Who wrote the New Testament" and "A Myth of Innocence." Crossan dates the miracle source as early as Q1 and Thomas1 in his layering of strata in The Historical Jesus.

I think the sayings tradition is late, for the most part. IMO those scholars who put too much emphasis on it are barking up the wrong tree.

Yuri.

11-10-2005, 06:26 AM	#65
S.C.Carlson Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,307	Q and Apologetics The discussion of Q and apologetics is interesting but needs more nuance. Q has been around for more than 150 years and in part derives its staying power to its ability to satisfy both traditionalists and non-traditionalists in different respects. Non-traditionalists (e.g. 19th cen. German liberal Protestants, today's Jesus Seminar) like Q because it presents a portrait of Jesus that is not tethered to the views of Jesus in the canonical gospels, all of which culminate in his passion and crucifixion. Thus, Q allows the non-traditionalist scholar to consider a Jesus that is not closely tied to a Pauline dying and resurrected savior. Q is liberating to this camp. Q also appeals to the traditionalist camp because it promises to preserve authentic Jesus material that is older than any of the canonical gospels. Thus, any modern criticism on how late Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are can be neutralized by an even earlier source. Indeed, W. R. Farmer has documented the apologetical value of Q within 19th century German scholarship. The hypothetical nature of Q is convenient because its text cannot be known to anywhere within the same degree of precision, so Q's malleability makes it a harder target for strong criticism. Granted, Q is not a perfect fit for either camp. Some traditionalists are uncomfortable with the fact that Q is not part of the canon, and some non-traditionalists see Q as an overly flexible technique to backdate certain Jesus traditions. But, in the end, Q promises something for everyone, which is what explains its staying power among both traditionalists and non-traditionalists. The relevance for this thread is that just because Q happens to be useful for some apologists, that does not mean that this usefulness is the only reason why Q enjoys its support. Non-traditionalists find Q useful too. Stephen

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

11-09-2005, 11:05 PM	#64
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Try this. Once upon a time Christian scholars asserted that Luke was a doctor. My wife's RSV has a "helpful" section at the back which describes the author of the gospel as such. Much was made about the "medical" words to be found in the text of the gospel. Scholars made lists of such words and analysed their possible origins and so on. Now all of that was in the context of an assumption that patristic legend was authentic and that Luke was a valid transmitter of tradition going back to the days of Paul and even further. It fitted into, was reinforced by and was in turn a reinforcment of the conventional orthodox picture of the origins of Christianity of the time. Then along came Cadbury who apparently demolished this neat little scene. So that no longer is it common to defend the assertion that Luke "the beloved physician" was the author of that gospel by pointing to the presence of medical words. This was unfortunate for the orthodox representation of "who wrote the gospels?' because a prop had been knocked out of their defense. It had ramifications for the credibility of the gospel as a source because the author was relegated to anon. status from a previously prestigious one and hurt the credibility of tradition that assigned the gospel to a doctor named Luke. A similar story can be told about the "we' sections in Acts and the literary device of travel narration...not so clear cut a story but the parallel is there. Now I would submit that once upon a time Luke as the doctor who had medical words in his gospel was a sub-paradgm or element of the paradigm that was the standard Christian story that explained the origins of the gospel[s]. That element is now rarely asserted. When it is I would suggest to you that it is apologetic in nature, ie it defends the validity of the old tradition. The paradigm has altered. I see the hypothesis of Q operating in a similar matter but still in the stage where it is the dominant paradigm yet to be demolished if it will be. It serves, as I have said before, to validate the standard story that there is a continuous line of oral and written tradition BACK from all 3 gospels to JC himself...as Mack for eg. states. Doherty for eg could could write lots about the silence of 1C authors [pre-the gospels version] and a response to him could be "but we have a written account of the words of JC BEFORE the gospels...it's called Q unfortunately it was lost" Funk may be sceptical of scholars and the origins of the stories in the gospels and how they were written but he still claims that Q can take us back to an HJ. That is his bottom line...Q connects JC to the gospels...whatever doctrines Funk did or did not hold are irrelevant, he can have SOME of the JC from the gospels because Q is the link. No Q, no link [except oral trad of course]. Thus Q is an important element in the assertion [or defense] of the Christian belief that the words of JC can be ,at least partly, gleaned from the gospels. Is that so controversial? J.Drury "Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel'' RE 2DH..."no doubt owing to the fact that it tends to support rather than detract from the historical validity of the gospel narrative. It is the DESIRE [my emphasis] for historical validity that holds the 2 documents together" p.40 [paraphrase]... the historicity of the mass of teaching common to Mt. and L comes under an ominous question mark. " Q, with which priority of Mark has the HAPPY [my emphasis] result of attributing a high degree of probability to all 3 synoptics" p.120 see you yalla

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.