Vorkosigan

....convinced one way or the other either about Markan priority

Yes, tell me more! Let me guess....there are hints in Wright that Matthew was the first gospel written.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

As I said, I haven't even seen the new book yet, so I am relying on Mr. Baxter.

Does Wright give one saying in the Gospels which he considers not authentic, or one Gospel story which Wright does not consider based on historical fact?

Layman

If you want to avoid oversimplification, then I suggest you drop your apparent argument that belief in miracles = post modernism. We are discussing historical methodology. And as Professor Evans noted, post modernist in the field of history reject the methodological approaches to history that Sanders and Meier emphasize. You almost grasp this in your last statement, but seem intent on cheap rhetoric rather than an examination of how the two groups approach history.

Layman

Actually, I remember him saying something like Matthew used Mark, but Luke may have used Matthew. As this statement would indicate, he's more skeptical of Q--though does not reject it outright.

I've been trying to find that argument in his book, but its 800 pages long and I've forgotten where I read it.

Paul Baxter

on Wright on gospel priority,

my impression is that he doesn't care too much. He said at one point that "the same would be true if you held that Mark used Matthew" (or words to that effect), citing an old scholar named Farmer who held to Matthean priority. Since he feels that all the material has some basis in fact, leaving room for textual mistakes and lapses of memory and so forth, it doesn't realy matter to him (or to me) which came first. Nothing critical rides on the outcome. I vaguely recall longer discussions in his earlier books, but I won't bother to look them up now.

On I Thess,

I was reading today an essay by Helmut Koester in the book _Paul and Empire_ (ed. Richard Horsley) where he said in a footnote that the passage in ch 4 could not possibly refer to a "rapture", but did not explicate. I don't have any further comment, as I find the passage confusing myself. I'm just passing it along since it was of interest. Koester was talking about the political overtones involved.

Vorkosigan

If you want to avoid oversimplification, then I suggest you drop your apparent argument that belief in miracles = post modernism.

That's not the point I'm making. The point is not about belief, but about responses to the epistemological authority of science. Meier and Ross are both making the same point, though they use different arguments. Each of them believes in some supernatural power for which they want the rules suspended.

We are discussing historical methodology.

No kidding. And integrating the latest scientific findings is a hallmark of good history.

And as Professor Evans noted, post modernist in the field of history reject the methodological approaches to history that Sanders and Meier emphasize.

Sanders has no methodological approach. With Meier things are somewhat different. He often does succeed in doing something like history, although his presentation is often extraordinarily slanted, and he often resorts to ex cathedra ukases like everybody else in the field. Where he steps out of historical methodology is in his attempt to get the reader to accept that history cannot explore the reality of miracles. As you know perfectly well, historical method rules them out. Anything else is apologetics.

You almost grasp this in your last statement, but seem intent on cheap rhetoric rather than an examination of how the two groups approach history.

They approach it in the same way, each attempting to overrule historical method where it clashes with deeply held beliefs. Each also writes from a sociopolitical stance, Ross from the Left, Meier from that of the Catholic cleric, which determines the way the writing will go. Each considers opposing views driven by self-interest, while their is propelled by profound moral sense and a righteous "theory of history." And each unethically slants their presentation. The only difference is knowledge -- the quotes from Ross are about science, a topic he knows nothing about, while Meier knows quite a bit about the NT. They have a lot in common, Layman.

Vorkosigan

Layman

In other words, they do not share your philosophical commitment to naturalism. I don't think that is in dispute here. If that is the extent of your point, then I don't see much to argue about. I agree, Meier doens't share your philosophical viewpoint regarding miracles. To the textent that he agrees with a post-modernist, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, is pretty irrelevant. Such an agreement does not make him a post-modernist, a Muslim, or a Hindu.

Moreoever, comparing him and others to post-modernists is especially misleading because of how significantly they disagree about how to do history. Or, rather, that they disagree about what historical studies mean and what its goals are.

It's a clever piece of empty rhetoric to find a similarity with a disfavored group (at least from someone's point of view) and claim they are the same. Kinda like talking about how similar Canadians and Nazis are because Canadians have socialistic tendencies and the Nazi party had the term "socialist" in its name.

Besides, it doesn't take a methodology to conclude that miracles never happened. It simply takes an assumption.

Toto

Not to drag this too far off topic, I have located the article that linked Christian evangelicals with postmodernism. Alan Wolf, "The Opening of the Evangelical Mind" from the Atlantic Monthly, Oct 2000.

Scroll down to Faith meets Foucault

Layman says: "Besides, it doesn't take a methodology to conclude that miracles never happened. It simply takes an assumption."

Not true: centuries of modern scientific observation in which miracles have not happened and the world follows regular laws not found in the Bible leads one to conclude that the miracles described in the Bible never happened.

Layman

Interesting.

How many centuries would you say humanity has employed "modern scientific observation"? And how much of said humanity so employed it?

Layman

Ah, so now we are discussing evangelicals generally. Of course, neither Sanders or Meier are evangelicals. Nor does the article have anything to do with the study of history.