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.

Here are what I think are some of the core flaws in mainstream New Testament scholarship.

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

By this I mean that there is an underlying assumption within mainstream scholarship that one way or another, the texts of each of the Gospels is based on some either some pre-existing text or pre-existing oral tradition.

This is a somewhat new development in scholarship which developed after the widespread acknowledgment that none of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts in and of themselves.

Acknowledging that the Gospels were not themselves eyewitness accounts, the next step for defenders of the faith was to affirm their validity by arguing for them being based on eyewitness accounts in some fashion, via some linage of transmission.

Out of this methodology, those in NT studies who diverged from being defenders of the faith (Ehrman, Pagels, etc.) still retained their taught methodology, and still look at the Gospels as a record of some transmitted tradition, thus they look at the Gospels as patchworks of some other pre-existing accounts.

Regarding this, I think that not only is there ZERO evidence to support this methodology and this belief, but indeed there is abundant strong evidence to the contrary.

What seems to be an almost taboo view in NT scholarship is the idea that the writer of the specific work invented a given narrative element themselves. NT scholarship seeks to retain the role of the Gospel authors (whoever they were) purely as vessels, yet in reality, when it this every applied to any other field of literary scholarship? It never is, not even in the fields of history.

Even when one studies history, the proclivities of the writer are discussed and taken into account. So even if one were to erroneously classify the Gospels as history this is still not forgivable, but the problem is made even more apparent when one considers that the Gospels are not history in the first place.

Who can imagine a writer of a FICTIONAL story that didn't actually imbue the story with his own message, his own themes, his own ideas, his own plot, his own characters, his own morals, etc.?

Well this is the problem for NT scholars, because the Gospels are not supposed to be reflections of the writer, they are supposed to be reflections of Jesus, and once you acknowledge that the writer had an influence, then you go down the road of acknowledging that the Gospels don't tell us about Jesus, they tell us about the writers. The Gospels tell the stories that the writers wanted to tell, they don't tell the story that "Jesus wanted us" to know, and while this would be the first and most obvious observation of any literary work in any other field, it is lacking in New Testament scholarship.

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.

The most pernicious of these ideas is that the "Q document" is older than the Gospels themselves, and thus this "Q document" is one of the sources of transmitted tradition that goes back to Jesus. "Q" many scholars like to claim, is "more authentic" than anything else we have, "Q" is the real eyewitness account, etc.

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.

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

I think that a much better explanation is simply that there was an intermediary expanded version of the Gospel of Mark upon which both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were based.

Either what we call the Gospel of Mark is a shortened version of the longer version that "Matthew" and "Luke" used, or what we call GMark did come first and a longer version was made of it, which was what the authors of Matthew and Luke used.

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.
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.
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.

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.

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

Well, that's not an acceptable idea.

I think the evidence is greatly in favor of the miraculous signs material being the invention of the author, here are the reasons why:

1) The miraculous signs material serves the purpose of one of the major themes of the work, which is negatively portraying the Jews.
2) The material is integrated seamlessly throughout the work, it isn't just lumped in in one segment.
3) Like other aspects of the Gospel of John, it is reactionary against Synoptic claims.

On the one side there is zero compelling evidence, and on the other there is compelling evidence.

The most important point is #1. Despite the apologetics, the Gospel of John is an anti-Jewish work, and the whole point of the "miraculous signs" elements is anti-Jewish. Its not some outside separate element, its a well thought out part of an integrated theme, which is an indication that ti was the brainchild of the author himself.

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

This idea has widespread acceptance, yet its totally unsupportable with much evidence to the contrary.

The biggest defense of this claim is that "But John is different". Well of course its different, if it weren't different it wouldn't be a separate Gospel. Claiming that the differences between John and the others indicates that John wasn't influenced by the others is like claiming that the differences between Star Wars and Spaceballs indicates that the writer of Spaceballs had never seen Star Wars.

One problem with the issue of John is that acknowledging the dependence of John on the Synoptics relies on first acknowledging point #1.

You first have to acknowledge that the Gospel writers invented narrative elements themselves before you can address John's dependence on the Synoptics.

Obviously, if John includes a narrative element that was invented by one of the other writer then this indicates influence, one way or another.

This doesn't mean that John sat down with any particular writing or even that he read any of them, but that at least he was aware of the existing Synoptic narrative in some fashion.

The easiest example of this is the use of the casting of lots for clothing (which is derived from Psalm 22) in the crucifixion scene in both John and the Synoptics.

The only possibilities for this are that:
1) This really happened, and thus it stems from eyewitness accounts, which is why its in all of the Gospels.
2) This was part of a Passion narrative that came before Mark, and this Passion narrative is a tradition upon which the Passion scenes in all of the Gospels are based.
3) This is a narrative element that was invented by the author of the Gospel of Mark, which means that every writing that incorporates this element was influenced by the Gospel of Mark either directly or indirectly.

I think that option #3 is the one with the best evidence and support, and this applies to many of the scenes that are common between John and the synoptics, including the Temple disruption scene, walking on water, etc.

Either all of those things had to have actually happened, and thus this is why they are in both John and the others, all of those things had to be part of a pre-Markan tradition, and John and the others are all based on that core set of traditions, or all of those things were invented by the author of Mark, in which case everything that uses those elements was influenced by Mark.

The "mainstream scholarship" generally opts for explanation 1 or 2, with the more conservative opting for 1 and the less conservative opting for 2, but very few opt for 3, yet 3 is the most reasonable and the one with the most evidence to support it.

3) There actually were "disciples"

The "disciples" of Jesus are so obviously fabricated that I really don't see how anyone can maintain that they existed and have any credibility, yet of course they are so central to Christianity that to acknowledge that they didn't exist it just as good as acknowledging that Jesus never existed.

Nowhere does anything written prior to the Gospels talk about disciples of Jesus.

With all of Paul's discussion of the people and affairs of his time, he never calls any of the people he talked about disciples, and he never indicates that they personally met Jesus or talked to him or spent time with him, etc. Aside from the obvious interpolation of "The Twelve" in 1 Corinthians, there is never any mention of any of the other supposed 12 apostles by Paul other than "Cephas", James and John.

The counter argument to this is that Paul was a "bad guy" who was trying to minimize the others, and thereby didn't mention these things. While the first part of this may be true, the second part doesn't ave any proof behind it.

Likewise, the first part would only likely be true if the others weren't actual disciples of Jesus in the first place.

Conclusion

These are just some of the core fundamental problems that I see in the so-called "mainstream" scholarship. There really isn't any way of reconciling the mainstream view with a view like mine. Its like one person who works from the assumption that the world is flat and the other that it is round. These people can never come up with a reconcilable method for world navigation.

I think these problems are endemic to mainstream NT scholarship and are promulgated at the institutional level. By receiving a formal "education" in NT studies you are by definition going to be taught these wrong ideas. Those core flaws are instructed as a core part of the education and they undermine all of mainstream NT scholarship.

Equinox

Malachi151, good points.

Forgive my lack of knowledge here, but why is 1Cor15:5 an "obvious interpolation"? Or, more generally, what evidence do we have for and against the existence of the disciples? Is there a simple webpage that describes this? I checked here:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_15:5

and there isn't anything (yet).


Next (and more on topic) - what real or imagined holes in Malachi's post should be discussed?

Have a great day everyone-

Equinox

Ben C Smith

If mainstream NT scholarship is generally based on incorrect assumptions, why are some of the assumptions you list either points of contention or even minority positions within mainstream NT scholarship?

Point of contention. There are plenty of mainstream scholars who question Q.

Minority position.

Point of contention. There have been lots of mainstream NT scholars on both sides of this fence.

Ben.

aa5874

Perhaps the majority of Biblical scholars are followers and believers in Jesus or Jesus' apologists. Maybe that is where the problem lies.

Malachi151

I agree with you Ben, I was painting with a very broad brush. However, it is quite fair to say that there are many people who are considered mainstream scholars, even many with multiple degrees who currently hold positions at universities or other such esteemed institutions, who hold some of all of these views.

You don't find this type of situation in the hard sciences.

Likewise, I'm still trying to figure out what having a bunch of credentials actually means in this field. Seeing as how so many people with credentials in this field hold absurd views, I can't say that they mean much.

Roland

Malachi -

So glad to see you back here. I've always found your arguments to be very thoughtful, well-researched, logical and convincing. I've missed your insights.

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.

Ben.

dog-on

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

mountainman

Here's the reason: the navigation is enacted
amidst an archipelago of postulates. Plenty of
free ports of call to rests from the journey.

I can count at least 9 postulates underpinning
the current theories of historical (and in many
cases mythical) jesuses.


At least Nine HJ Postulates


1) Sufficient historicity - the actual history of the time
can be recovered in sufficient detail to have some assurance
that one obscure person existed.

2) HJ Core (assumed as an unexamined postulate).

3) Evidentiary - because "of the fact" that christianity exists,
it may be concluded that some HJ, or charismatic founder,
or "NRM personality" started it.

4) Textual core written records are historical evidence of an HJ.

5) Source Language: the New Testament was written in Greek

6) Transmission: the critical Westcott-Hort transmission is correct

7) History: the christian historiology written c.314 is true and correct

8) Apostlic lineage: the apostle Paul wrote something preserved to us

9) Paul and his letters are "historical"


Note. Having listed these, it is obvious that some
if not many of the current Mythical Theories
are founded on some of these as well.

Malachi151

You don't even find this type of situation in other fields of history or forensic anthropology.

New Testament studies isn't humanities or social studies. What we are discussing here should be akin to any other field of history or forensic anthropology.

New Testament studies is a biased field, I think that's pretty plain to see.