Loren Rosson III

Hi folks --

I could use some brainstorming from everyone. Recently the online magazine, The Edge, asked scientists for their “most dangerous ideas� as follows:

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_index.html

"The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?"

119 scientists responded. Read them, they’re great. On my blog I decided to spin off this list with some “dangerous ideas in biblical studies�. So here’s my own question:

"The history of biblical studies is replete with scholars who were considered dangerous in their time; Reimarus, Strauss, and Schweitzer, etc. What is your dangerous idea? Any idea you think is dangerous, not because you think it's false, but because many others want it to be false and you think it's true?"

Here are seven examples to get the ball rolling, the first five of which I came up with on my blog, the following two made by other bloggers so far in the comments section. I should note that I do not necessarily agree with all of these to the extent their originators do, though I agree significantly or in part, which is why I chose them.

1. Biblical exegetes are forever reinventing the wheel, making little to no progress. (Dale Allison: "Forgetting the Past", The Downside Review, Vol 120, No 421; Resurrecting Jesus, Chapter 1)

2. The biblical texts we have today cannot be trusted. (Bart Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus)

3. The historical Jesus attached sacrificial meaning to his death, believing that his blood would appease God's wrath. (Scot McKnight: Jesus and His Death)

4. Scholars cannot be trusted to interpret biblical texts if they cannot be trusted to recognize a transparent hoax like Secret Mark. (Donald Akenson: Saint Saul: Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, Chapter 4)

5. A Jewish Jesus is just as agenda-driven as a Hellenized Jesus, and the historical Jesus is irrelevant in any case. (William Arnal: The Symbolic Jesus)

6. Q is a mirage (suggested by Michael Pahl in my blogpost; cf. Farrer/Goulder/Goodacre)

7. New Testament studies should become a genuinely secular discipline, e.g. a period of history studied as you might find in a history dept? (suggested by James Crossley under my blogpost).

So everyone, what is YOUR dangerous idea in this field?


For further reference, here are my two blogposts:

http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006...ous-ideas.html

http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006...l-studies.html

Chris Weimer

Hey Loren,

I saw your post yesterday, and thought I'd make my own. I haven't put it on my blog yet, but I'd thought I'd go ahead and share it here. I noticed that even though you mentioned biblical studies, you kept it exclusively to the New Testament. I think I shall do the same.

1. Matthew is a thoroughly Christian document written by Christians for Christians and not for Jews. (I'm still hoping to release this paper soon.)

2. Acts is not a historical source accurately dating the Christian movement.

3. Q is not dead yet.

4. Much real progress on the gospels have yet to be recovered because of the mentality to not accept change.

5. The Gospels as they stand are not hundreds of years worth of layers of different hands and much editing and redactions.

Loren Rosson III

Chris,

Thanks for this, Chris. I suppose the livelihood of Q is dangerous to as many people as it being a mirage (my view) is to others.

I don't think you want "not" in the above statement.

Rick Sumner

". . .we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary.; and other sources about Jesus do not exist."(Bultmann Jesus and the Word, )

A sentiment that is alternately applauded or derided, depending on who is saying it, yet even among its advocates few (including, for that matter, Bultmann himself), really seem to understand what such difficulties imply. I can think of one--Luke Johnson (when one gets past his frequent invective)--who really seems to understand what it means to suggest the old adage about historical impossibility and theological legitimacy.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

This one rather intrigues me. Could you perhaps touch on highlights of the arguments offered for this? I've just ordered the book based on this sentence alone.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Chris Weimer

Personally I don't find it dangerous either way. Luke copying Matthew would actually strengthen my argument in several places, but that doesn't mean I should abandon Q for Farrer-Luke. Evidence dictates the conclusion. That's one problem I have with these "dangerous" lists - it assumes (correctly, nonetheless) that scholars are in fear of damaging evidence to their claims. The whole idea is absurd and ludicrous. We should be embracing all evidence, evaluating all claims, not trying to promote our own view as best, even if that means tenure.

See! It's already proving to be very dangerous. Of course, the statement must needs have plenty of qualifiers, but I think it could hold up rather well.

Loren Rosson III

Yes, of course, but many people, scholars and laypeople alike, do fear these things. By a "dangerous idea" I mean what the folks at The Edge were getting at -- an idea someone thinks is dangerous, not because he/she thinks it is false, but because many others want it to be false, though it may well be true.

Loren Rosson III

Rick, I wrote a full review of the book here:

http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2005...ical-lamb.html

JoeWallack

JW:
Biblical Scholarship should Start with the Assumption that the Impossible is Impossible.

This would be a basic Assumption in any Discipline outside of Biblical Scholarship. Once you Start with the Wrong Assumptions none of your Conclusions will have any basis in Logic.

For most of its history Christian Bible scholarship Assumed that the Impossible was Possible. It's only relatively recently that Mainstream Christian Bible scholarship has Retreated to a Position of being Neutral on the subject of the Impossible.

A Case in point of this problem would be the new:

Mark 1:9 and Nazareth as Jesus' hometown

Thread here. Mahlon Smith and Stephen Carlson both have probably more Biblical Scholarship knowledge than any Skeptic here. Yet when Smith writes:

"Thus, if one follows Mark's narrative, there is a such a radical
difference between the reception Jesus receives at Capernaum (ch 1-2) &
that which he receives in this "native territory" (Mark 6) that the
author could not possibly have intended the two sites to be the same."

and Carlson agrees they are both making a nonsensical Conclusion that most Skeptics here, with much less knowledge, wouldn't make.

For starters, since the Anonymous author of "Mark" is Unknown, and the Account consists primarily of the Impossible, we can not Possibly make a Conclusion of "the author could not possibly have intended the two sites to be the same.":

1) This Implies a Minimum level of Certainty which doesn't exist any more than Jesus does.

2) Smith's Argument is based on selected individual words and phrases. These are the Most likely to have received attention by The Christian Editing. A much more reliable and less susceptible to Editing Source are the Author's overall Themes which Smith Ignores.

3) The Overall Themes of "Mark"

1 - A Story of The impossible

2 - Ironic Contrast Style

3 - Reactions to Jesus

make it Possible that what Smith said was Impossible, radically different treatment of Jesus in Capernaum vs. his native territory, is Possible.

Moreover, when we look at the Details of the Hometown visits and "Mark's" overall theme we see that the radically different treatment above in the Same potential place wasn't just Possible, it's Likely:

Mark 1:21 (NIV)

"21 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. 23Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil[e] spirit cried out, 24"What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"
25 "Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. "Come out of him!" 26The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.
27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, "What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him." 28 News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee."

Mark 6: (NIV)
"1 Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
4 Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor." 5He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6And he was amazed at their lack of faith."


Note that Chapter 1 Implies that Capernaum was Jesus' hometown and there is no Explict statement that it was not. Therefore, there is no reason to explicitly identify Capernaum as Jesus' hometown in Chapter 6. Therefore, that Capernaum was the same Jesus' hometown for Chapters 1 and 6 is at a minimum, the Default position.

Beyond this, the wording of the stories is extremely similar. Apparently, the author wants to make sure that the Reader understands the Audience is the same.

In the big picture, "Mark's" story is all about Reactions to Jesus and "Mark" uses an Ironic Contrasting Style to illustrate the Reactions. "Mark's" Jesus is figuratively portrayed as "Everywhere", in your home, at your work, in your Synagogue and at your Temple. It's entirely Possible, with "Mark's" Ironic Contrasting Style of Presenting Reaction to Jesus, that he would intentionally show opposite Reactions to Jesus in the exact same Location. This is exactly what the Author has done with Jerusalem's reaction to Jesus. He is first welcomed as The King. When he Returns, he is Condemned as The Criminal. What changed in between? This is the Theme throughtout "Mark". Jesus is initially welcomed everywhere and then subsequently Condemned. The Author's question for The Audience is:

Why?

Therefore, that the Author Intended Capernaum to be the Same hometown in Chapters 1 and 6 is not just Possible, it's Likely.


Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

andrewcriddle

My dangerous idea would be

Critical study of the New Testament and Early Christianity provides only limited genuine support for modern feminist concerns and agendas.

Andrew Criddle