MikeSatterlee@cs.com wrote:
> Hello George,
>
> You wrote: That _some_ of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels were
> creations of the gospel writers is quite clear.
>
> I don't think that is clear at all. Simply because some of Christ's words are
> quoted differently in one gospel account than they are in another does not
> mean that those differences were created by the gospel writers. One writer
> may be reporting some of the words Christ spoke and another gospel writer may
> be quoting some others. For instance, Matthew may have only reported Christ's
> reference to "the abomination that causes desolation spoken of through the
> prophet Daniel" and not reported his also equating it with the Roman armies
> which would surround Jerusalem, while Luke may have reported Christ's
> speaking only the other half of the equation.
So Jesus actually said (in Aramaic) -
"But so when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet
Daniel, standing in the holy place, set up where it ought not to be, [and] when
you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.
... " (I assume that "let the reader understand" is editorial,
though I suppose
some people think it should be in red letters.)
Actually there is no reason at all to think that Jesus said all of this
unless one has the notion that the evangelists were like selective court
reporters. The result in this case is not as grotesque as similar
"harmonizations" with other texts but is sufficiently awkward to make an open
minded person wonder about the attempt.
& of course you have to continue the same thing through the whole
discourse. So to Mk.13:18 you have to add "or on a sabbath" from Mt.24:20, &
then in the next verse from Mt. you have to add "which God created"
from the next
verse of Mk. & it gets more complicated when you mix in Lk.
This - not the Bible or Jesus' words or those of the
evangelists but the
proposed method of harmonization - is absurd.
To speak more positively: It's not hard to see that Luke, having a
version of Mark as one of his sources, has toned down the language somewhat:
"abomination" is dropped but "desolating" is carried over into "its desolation"
(eremoseos & eremosis). & this is consistent with the fact that throughout
Luke-Acts a relatively friendly attitude is shown toward Rome.
& this brings out another reason why naive historical harmonization
doesn't work. When Mt or Lk modify the words attributed to Jesus in Mk, they
often do it in ways that are characteristic of that particular
evangelist. This
shows that they were not simply reporting words from some other source, for in
that case the characteristic Matthean or Lucan diction wouldn't appear. Robert
H. Gundry, _Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art_
(Eerdmans, 1982) is a very detailed treatment of Mt which devotes a lot of
attention to this point.
> You wrote: it's extremely unlikely that the entire Book of Daniel was written
> by a Jew of the 6th century B.C. ... The gospel writers, probably a couple
> of hundred years after the composition of Daniel ...
>
> You've told me where you are coming from. From the schools of higher
> criticism.
Is it satisfying to you to be able to put me in a box with a scary name?
The term "higher criticism" is a bit antiquated, partly because most
biblical scholars today, including conservatives, make use of some aspects of
what used to be called "higher criticism". They try to understand
biblical texts
in the historical, social &c context in which they developed, were written,
edited, and transmitted. I.e., they take history seriously and
recognize that we
can't assume that the Bible is a collection of timelessly true
propositions which
can be read in the same way today as they could 2000 or 3000 years ago.
Use of the historical-critical method does NOT mean that one has to make
further assumptions about the Bible such as that the Bible is no different from
any other ancient literature, that it is not authoritative for our
theology, that
the boundaries of the canon need not be respected, or that accounts
of miraculous
events can be rejected _a priori_.
> The book of Daniel clearly claims to have been written by Daniel
> himself from beginning to end. The words "I, Daniel" and other such claims of
> authorship can be found in every part of the book, from beginning to end. If
> it was not then the Bible is not a book which can be trusted.
One aspect of taking the historical context of the book
seriously is that
we have to ask how pseudonymity was regarded in the cultures in which the book
was written and read.
> If it is not,
> how can we believe it when it tells us God raised Jesus Christ from the dead?
This tired tactic is simply a bogeyman to keep people from studying the
matter with open minds. If it's true, why do I say that I believe that "On the
third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures" every Sunday? Why
would a theologian like Pannenberg, who (I suspect) wouldn't touch
the idea that
a 6th century Daniel wrote the whole Book of Daniel with a ten meter
pole, devote
a good deal of scholarly effort to critical arguments affirming belief in the
resurrection of Jesus?
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
--------------DE3A394F11AA91148074CEE3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
--------------DE3A394F11AA91148074CEE3--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Tue Jul 09 2002 - 18:57:53 EDT
<html>
<p>MikeSatterlee@cs.com wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Hello George,
<p>You wrote: That _some_ of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels
were
<br>creations of the gospel writers is quite clear.
<p>I don't think that is clear at all. Simply because some of Christ's
words are
<br>quoted differently in one gospel account than they are in another does
not
<br>mean that those differences were created by the gospel writers. One
writer
<br>may be reporting some of the words Christ spoke and another gospel
writer may
<br>be quoting some others. For instance, Matthew may have only reported
Christ's
<br>reference to "the abomination that causes desolation spoken of through
the
<br>prophet Daniel" and not reported his also equating it with the Roman
armies
<br>which would surround Jerusalem, while Luke may have reported Christ's
<br>speaking only the other half of the equation.</blockquote>
So Jesus actually said (in Aramaic)
-
<br> "But so when you see the
desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy
place, set up where it ought not to be, [and] when you see Jerusalem surrounded
by armies, then know that its desolation is near. ... " (I assume
that "let the reader understand" is editorial, though I suppose some people
think it should be in red letters.)
<br> Actually there is no reason
at all to think that Jesus said all of this unless one has the notion that
the evangelists were like selective court reporters. The result in
this case is not as grotesque as similar "harmonizations" with other texts
but is sufficiently awkward to make an open minded person wonder about
the attempt.
<br> & of course you have
to continue the same thing through the whole discourse. So to Mk.13:18
you have to add "or on a sabbath" from Mt.24:20, & then in the next
verse from Mt. you have to add "which God created" from the next verse
of Mk. & it gets more complicated when you mix in Lk.
<br> This - not the Bible or
Jesus' words or those of the evangelists but the proposed method of
harmonization
- is absurd.
<p> To speak more positively:
It's not hard to see that Luke, having a version of Mark as one of his
sources, has toned down the language somewhat: "abomination" is dropped
but "desolating" is carried over into "its desolation" (<i>eremoseos </i>&
<i>eremosis</i>). & this is consistent with the fact that throughout
Luke-Acts a relatively friendly attitude is shown toward Rome.
<br> & this brings out another
reason why naive historical harmonization doesn't work. When Mt or
Lk modify the words attributed to Jesus in Mk, they often do it in ways
that are characteristic of that particular evangelist. This shows
that they were not simply reporting words from some other source, for in
that case the characteristic Matthean or Lucan diction wouldn't appear.
Robert H. Gundry, _Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological
Art_ (Eerdmans, 1982) is a very detailed treatment of Mt which devotes
a lot of attention to this point.
<br>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>You wrote: it's extremely unlikely that the entire
Book of Daniel was written
<br>by a Jew of the 6th century B.C. ... The gospel writers,
probably a couple
<br>of hundred years after the composition of Daniel ...
<p>You've told me where you are coming from. From the schools of higher
<br>criticism.</blockquote>
Is it satisfying to you to be able
to put me in a box with a scary name?
<br> The term "higher criticism" is
a bit antiquated, partly because most biblical scholars today, including
conservatives, make use of some aspects of what used to be called "higher
criticism". They try to understand biblical texts in the historical,
social &c context in which they developed, were written, edited, and
transmitted. I.e., they take history seriously and recognize that
we can't assume that the Bible is a collection of timelessly true propositions
which can be read in the same way today as they could 2000 or 3000 years
ago.
<br> Use of the historical-critical
method does NOT mean that one has to make further assumptions about the
Bible such as that the Bible is no different from any other ancient literature,
that it is not authoritative for our theology, that the boundaries of the
canon need not be respected, or that accounts of miraculous events can
be rejected _a priori_.
<br>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>The book of Daniel clearly claims to have been written
by Daniel
<br>himself from beginning to end. The words "I, Daniel" and other such
claims of
<br>authorship can be found in every part of the book, from beginning to
end. If
<br>it was not then the Bible is not a book which can be trusted.</blockquote>
One aspect of taking the historical
context of the book seriously is that we have to ask how pseudonymity was
regarded in the cultures in which the book was written and read.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>If it is not,
<br>how can we believe it when it tells us God raised Jesus Christ from
the dead?</blockquote>
This tired tactic is simply
a bogeyman to keep people from studying the matter with open minds.
If it's true, why do I say that I believe that "On the third day he rose
again in accordance with the Scriptures" every Sunday? Why would
a theologian like Pannenberg, who (I suspect) wouldn't touch the idea that
a 6th century Daniel wrote the whole Book of Daniel with a ten meter pole,
devote a good deal of scholarly effort to critical arguments affirming
belief in the resurrection of Jesus?
<p>
Shalom,
<br>
George
<p>George L. Murphy
<br><A HREF="http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/">http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>
<br>"The Science-Theology Interface"</html>