Reflectorites
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:10:07 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
Since I am un - sub -scribing from the Reflector before 1 January 2001, this is
my last post on this particular sub-thread.
>>PR>What ; you really think it is more likely that Jesus rose from the
>>dead than the Gospel authors simply exaggerated and theologized
>>to push their own agenda ?
>SJ>Yes. The many mutually contradictory naturalistic hypotheses advanced to
>explain Jesus' life, death and resurrection are less credible than the
>Bible's own account. Proof of this is that the naturalistic hypothesis come and go
>and never hold a large following for long - they just tend to be recycled
>endlessly.
>PR>Is this proof of the paucity of apologetics. You haven't provided evidence
>for any of these "mutually contradictory". True there are different
>explanations for different parts but no-one claims they are all true.
Which is the same as saying they are all "mutually contradictory"!
>SJ>The point is that even if Christianity was true, a sceptic could always make
>ad hoc claims that "the Gospel authors simply exaggerated and theologized
>to push their own agenda".
>PR>True. But this is supported by simply reading the Gospels together.
>And it is far more common for Christians to make ad hoc explanations !
Since Christians are the ones making the explanations in defence of the
Gospels, a critic could always say this.
>SJ>And besides, even if "the Gospel authors simply exaggerated and
>theologized to push their own agenda", that is just another way of saying
>that they emphasised and interpreted the events of Jesus life, death and
>resurrection to meet the needs of their target audience. There is nothing
>wrong with that.
>PR>True. And they did that. But they changed bits to fit their own theology.
>Some things don't fit at all (for example, Jesus last words). John
>doesn't fit the other three at all well.
Paul is making the unfounded assumption that Jesus can only have said the
things in the synoptic gospels. But unless Paul was there himself, he cannot
know this. John was probably the last of the gospels to be written and it
would make sense for him not to repeat what the others had said but
supplement their account with his own account.
In the case of Jesus' sayings on the cross, Matthew and John were probably
the only gospel writers actually present at Jesus' crucifixion. And it seems
from Mk 15:40 and Lk 23:49 that most of Jesus' followers "stood at a
distance, watching these things". But Jn 19:25-26 says that John was with
Jesus' mother "Near the cross of Jesus", so he probably heard more things
that Jesus said than the other gospel writers.
>SJ>What the sceptic needs to show is not that "the Gospel authors simply
>exaggerated and theologized to push their own agenda" but that the events
>never happened and that "the Gospel authors" were liars and deceivers.
>PR>No, you need to show they are true.
No. All that I need to do is show that the gospel accounts *could* be true.
It is beyond my abilities to show that they *are* true.
Besides, an anti-supernaturalistic critic like Paul would always deny that
the gospels were true, no matter what evidence I was able to present.
But if the gospel accounts *are* true, then anti-supernaturalistic critics like
Paul will know one day, too late, that they were true.
PR>It is impossible to show the events never happened, and people do not
>claim "liars and decievers", an apologist straw man.
No. Paul himself claimed in a previous post to the effect that the gospel
writers could not be trusted because all Christian apologists could not be
trusted.
PR>This presumes
>historical accuracy was an aim of the Gospels.
See previous.
>>SJ>See above. There is no evidence that "the gospel stories" were "cobbled
>>together". AFAIK, most (if not all) Biblical scholars whether liberal or
>>conservative, believe that the gospels were based on earlier written
>>sources.
>PR>This is ludicrous. This can only be a referral (presumably) to the 'Q'
>gospel
>SJ>No. There is no evidence that there ever was a "Q gospel". It is a liberal
>invention:
>PR>No, its the bits of Matthew and Luke that are common and not in Marcan
>material, Steve.
See previous. That the gospel writers made use of source materials is not
disputed. That it was a document named Q is disputed.
The fact is that the Q hypothesis has failed and is rejected by most NT
scholars:
"(3) "Q" The theory that Matthew and Luke had, in addition to
Mark, a second definable source has not met with general
approval. Even by some of those who have accepted Mark as a
written source for a portion of the contents of Matthew and Luke,
"Q" has been rejected or is at least seriously questioned. The
reason for this coolness toward "Q" is not that anything in
Scripture or in the conservative position would rule out the idea
that additional written sources were used by the evangelists. It
rests, instead, on reasons such as the following: (a) we have Mark,
but we do not have any independent-separately existing-document
containing non-Marcan Matthew-Luke material. Neither has any
historical reference to it ever been found. (b) "Q" is difficult to
delineate. For example, does The Lord's Prayer belong to it? But if
so, which version: Matthew's (6:9 ff.) or Luke's (11:2 ff.)? Do The
Beatitudes belong to it? But again, in which form: Matthew's (5:3
ff.) or Luke's (6:20 ff.)? Many similar illustrations could be given.
To reconstruct "Q" is simply impossible. (c) ... if it be claimed that
"Q" consists of "sayings of Jesus, ' how is it that narrative material
is also included (Matt. 4:1-11, cf. Luke 4:1-13; Matt. 8:5-13, cf.
Luke 7:1-10; and at least in part also Matt. 11:2 ff., cf. Luke 7:18
ff.)?. (d) Again, consulting the same list, how is it to be explained
that the order in which the passages were recorded varies so
widely in Matthew and Luke that, for example, what in Matthew is
found consecutively in chapters 6, 7, and 8 (respectively, "Be not
anxious," Encouragement to prayer, and the story of the
centurion's faith) occurs in Luke in the reverse order, chapters 12,
11, and 7? (e) If "Q" is conceived of-as it often is-as having been
an early Gospel, we may well ask, "What kind of Gospel is this,
one that lacks the most essential part of all, namely, the story of the
crucifixion and the resurrection?" .... It is understandable,
therefore, that so-called document "Q" has not been generally
accepted. In order to rescue it, attempts have been made to
supplement it by adding other similar sources or modifications. For
examples in answer to the objections mentioned above- see
especially those under (b) and (d), it is claimed that there must have
been more than one recension of "Q." Hence, some speak of "QM-
" and "QLk " or else, before the Gospel according to Luke was
written in the form in which we now have it, "Q" had already been
combined with "L" into "proto-Luke." Therefore, whoever it was
that wrote the Gospel known to us as the one "according to
Matthew" had before him one form of "Q." and the writer of Luke
made use o. another form. In fact each Christian center possessed a
different recension of "Q." (Hendriksen W., "New Testament
Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew," 1982, pp.47- 48)
And:
"These are some of the facts which go to make up the 'Synoptic
Problem'. How do we account for the large areas of overlap? Did
one Gospel derive the material directly from another? Did they use
common sources? If so, were these sources written or oral, and did
they consist of substantial collections or of isolated fragments?
Until fairly recently there was a widely (though never universally)
agreed 'solution' to the problem. Put simply, it was that Mark
wrote first, that both Matthew and Luke made direct use of Mark's
Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke both had access also to a
document no longer extant, consisting largely of collected saying of
Jesus, and known to scholars as 'Q.' (possibly derived from the
German Quelle, 'source'). This classical solution, with the
arguments generally used to support it, is conveniently set out by
Leon Morris in the volume on Luke in this Series ... Morris'
conclusion there was that 'nothing more than a tentative hypothesis
is justified', and subsequent discussion has shown that his caution
was well placed. The areas of crowing uncertainty may
conveniently be summarized under three headings ... (ii) Doubts
about Q. Either of the views mentioned in the last paragraph makes
Q unnecessary; the common material, whatever the source from
which Matthew derived it, was taken by Luke direct from
Matthew, not from a third document. Even among supporters of
Marcan priority there have been some who find no place for
Q....While some scholars continue to write books on the theology
and composition of Q. regarded as a single document (though
possibly composed in different 'editions'), many are prepared only
to speak of 'Q material', envisaged not as, a single document, but
as various units of material, some written, some oral, to which both
Matthew and Luke had access.... the formation of the Gospels was
too complex and 'living' a process to be tied down into a diagram
of dependence, however complicated, and a simple assumption that
'Matthew used Mark' cannot be the whole truth (still less a neat
delineation of a single document Q). If it was once possible to use
the classical 'Two-Document Hypothesis' as a non-negotiable
framework for the study of the Gospels, that time is now past."
(France R.T., "Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary," 1985,
pp.34-37)
>SJ>"Q Document. The Gospel of Q or Q Document is a hypothetical
>collection of Jesus' sayings that supposedly antedates the four
>Gospels. The Q hypothesis comes from the German word Quelle,
>meaning "sources." Q was used heavily by the Jesus Seminar to
>arrive at their radical conclusions.
>PR>Oohhh... Radical, Must be bad then.
No. Just inconsistent and therefore wrong.
>SJ>Since Q allegedly contains
>sayings, not works or miracles of Jesus, it is used as a basis for
>denying the resurrection.
>PR>No it isn't actually. It is an attempt to discover the written sources used
>by Matthew and Luke.
See above.
>SJ>Since the earliest Q contained no
>references to Jesus' deity, this too is held to be a later mythological
>invention. If true, this would undermine the historic apologetic for
>Christianity.
>
>PR>All this really means is "ignore it, because we don't like it".
See above.
>SJ>..A central consideration is that there is not one shred
>of documentary evidence that Q ever existed. No manuscript or any
>version of it has ever been found.
>PR>This is true. There are overlaps in other Gospels but the document
>itself does not exist.
There is no evidence that it *ever* existed!
>SJ>No church Father ever cited any
>work corresponding to what current scholars mean by Q. From
>what is known of the documentary tradition of the early Christian
>centuries, this lacuna is improbable in the extreme if the work ever
>existed. Former Q proponent Linnemann observes the reverence
>with which critics regard Q: "This is the stuff of fairy tales"
>(Linnemann, "Is There a Q?". Apologists can assume with
>confidence that Q is a modern creation and that no manuscript will
>turn up next week to prove them wrong." (Geisler N.L., "Baker
>Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," 1999, pp.618-619).
>
>I am referring to the original written sources kept by the apostle Matthew,
>the record of Peter's teaching kept by Mark, the historical research
>conducted by Luke: and either the notes or memory of the apostle John. I
>can expand on this if necessary.
>PR>Okay, I mean this has to be a joke, doesn't it Steve. I mean , look at your
>complaints above about 'Q', and then you write this !
No. See above.
PR>I mean you are complaining about the large amount of work gone into 'Q'
>(all this says is "we don't like it" "there's no manuscripts" "fundie
>scholars hate it") and then you've just made up this codswallop.
See above.
PR>I mean, you are taking the mickey, surely ?
No. See above.
>PR>and Matthew and Luke's usage of Mark. As Steve omits to
>>mention, study of this shows three things : Firstly, that Matthew
>>(especially) rewrote bits he didn't like.
>SJ>How can "study" show "that Matthew ... rewrote bits he didn't like"? How
>do the critics know 20 centuries later what Matthew "didn't like"? And
>what is the original that Matthew is supposed to have rewritten?
>PR>Er. Read the bits of Matthew that came from Mark and see how he changed
>some of them.
Paul has no conclusive evidence that "Matthew that came from Mark". It is
just an *assumption*.
Personally I agree with the original view, now making a comeback, which
is that Matthew was the original source gospel:
"(i) Marcan priority challenged. The view that Mark was the first of
our Gospels to be written arose in the first half of the nineteenth
century, and became dominant soon after the middle of that
century. Before that it had been assumed that Matthew was written
first. Now the older view is being strenuously resurrected The
classical view is the 'Augustinian', represented today e.g. by B. C.
Butler; this holds that Matthew's Gospel was used by Mark, and
that Luke in turn used both. The view more widely promoted
today, however, is the so-called 'Griesbach Hypothesis', which is
now supported by a significant group of scholars of widely varying
traditions. This is that Matthew's Gospel was used by Luke, and
that Mark is a deliberate condensing of the contents of the two into
a single work. Those who would declare firmly for Matthaean
priority on the basis of either of these views are still a minority, but
a larger number of scholars have been sufficiently impressed by
their arguments to be reluctant to commit themselves firmly to an
overall assumption of Marcan priority." (France R.T., "Matthew,",
1985, p.35)
PR>I don't know how much simpler I can make this. All suggestions gratefully
>accepted.
Except from supernaturalistic, Bible-believing Christians like me!
>PR>Secondly, that Matthew
>>and Luke rewrote things to fit their own personal views.
>SJ>See above. This is not necessarily wholly false. Like eyewitnesses to a
>traffic accident, the gospel authors all report the same core events from
>their own particular perspective and emphases.
>PR>No, they are rewriting Mark's version, [and the "core event" document you
>don't like].
See above.
PR>You surely don't think this is based on eyewitness testimony
>do you ? Well, you probably do.
Yes. One of the gospels (Luke) *claims* that his gospel was " based on
eyewitness testimony":
Lk 1:2 "just as they were handed down to us by those who from the
first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."
Another gospel writer (John) claims he wrote his gospel based on his
"witness" of them:
Jn 21:24 "This is the disciple who testifies [Gk. witnesses] to these
things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is
true."
>PR>And thirdly,
>>the 'Q' Jesus is a far more credible, demythologised Jesus than
>>anything in the Bible.
>SJ>Not surprising since Q is a naturalistic invention. And after naturalistic
>critics have finished removing `bits *they* didn't like" and "rewrote things
>to fit *their* own personal views" they are of course left with a
>naturalistic Jesus which to them would seem "far more credible".
>PR>I can't believe you are so stupid to believe that 'Q' was constructed this
>way.
Paul still doesn't get it. I don't believe that there was a 'Q' to be
"constructed" (i.e. re-constructed) in the first place!
So when naturalistic (= anti-supernaturalistic) scholars derived a
hypothetical document called `Q' from the gospels, the only document that
*could* have resulted was one that depicted "a far more credible,
demythologised Jesus than anything in the Bible"!
It is an exercise in self-deception if they really thought that what they
finished up with was what the *real* source of the gospels. What Geisler
writes of the Jesus Seminar anti-supernaturalist methodology applies here
also:
"Uncritical Acceptance of Q. The method by which the Jesus
Seminar was able to come to their radical conclusions with a
flourish of scholarly activity was simple. They demoted the first-
century and eyewitness contemporary accounts of Jesus' life (the
four Gospels) to late works of mythology and replaced them with
nonextant works, such as Q. .... But Q is a purely hypothetical
document. There are no manuscripts. No one ever quoted such a
book or referred to its existence. It is a purely hypothetical literary
reconstruction based on unjustified presuppositions. It stands in
contradiction to the known evidence....
Circular Reasoning. The reasoning process of the Jesus Seminar is a
sophisticated form of the logical fallacy known as Petitio Princippi,
or begging the question. Its circular reasoning begins with a
desupernaturalized view or a first-century figure and concludes at
the same point.
Conclusion. Despite their desire and achievements for drawing wide
publicity, nothing is new in the Jesus Seminar's radical conclusions.
They offer only another example of unsubstantiated negative Bible
criticism. Their conclusions are contrary to the overwhelming
evidence for the historicity of the New Testament and the reliability
of the New Testament witnesses. They are based on an
unsubstantiated antisupernatural bias. "
(Geisler N.L., "Jesus Seminar," in "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics," 1999, p.388)
>SJ>Naturalistic critics have been doing this `search for the historical Jesus'
>for centuries, but all they end up with is a pale reflection of *themselves*!
>PR>Of course, it doesn't occur to you that the Gospel authors could do this too.
Unlike the modern critics, the gospel authors *knew* Jesus first-hand.
PR>Actually I agree with your "reflection of themselves" remark.
Then Paul has just shot himself in the foot!
>>SJ>In any event, the major letters of Paul are, AFAIK, accepted as genuine
>>by most (if not all) Biblical scholars, whether liberal or conservative, and
>>these letters predate the gospels in their final form, and yet contain all
>>the main facts that are in the gospels.
>>PR>It amazes me that you can write such nonsense. Paul had no knowledge
>>of the Jesus in the Gospels.
>SJ>Since Paul's companion for much of his Christian life was Luke who wrote
>one of the gospels, this bit of modern liberal scholarship dogma is itself
>"nonsense".
>PR>Well, point out to me where Paul refers to the life and works of Jesus
>outside the absolute basics then.
Paul contradicts himself. His first claim was "Paul had no knowledge of the
Jesus in the Gospels" but now he admits that Paul knew of "the absolute
basics" of 'the life and works of Jesus"!
I did not say that "Paul refers to the life and works of Jesus" (i.e. in any
detail). I said earlier that Paul's letters were to Christian churches about
various specific matters where "the life and works of Jesus" (to use Paul's
words) were not in dispute.
I also pointed out that Paul's friend and travelling companion was one of
the gospel writers, Luke (Col 4:14, 2Tim 4:11; Phm 1:24), but I should
have added that at another time it was Mark (Acts 12:25; Phm 1:24).
In addition, at the start of his ministry Paul stayed with Peter for 15 days
(Gal 1:18). Later on Paul met with the apostles in Jerusalem at least twice
(Acts 15 & 21). Apart from all this, Paul was living in Jerusalem not long
after Jesus had been crucified (Acts 7:58) and became a member of the
church at Antioch (Acts 9-11) where he was active in preaching the gospel
himself (Acts 9:22; 11:26). So the idea that Paul was ignorant of "the life
and works of Jesus" is simply absurd.
But as this is a large subject and since this is my last post on this sub-thread
as I am leaving the Reflector in another 2 days, it is pointless to start. Paul's
"absolute basics" is sufficiently close to my "the main facts" for my
purposes.
>PR>The "main facts" were that he was born,
>>lived a quiet life, and was crucified at some time. Paul apparently knew
>>nothing of the Jesus of the Gospels beyond the very basic outline.
>SJ>See above re Luke.
>
>The only writings we have of Paul are letters written to already established
>churches for specific purposes. There would be no point in Paul repeating
>the gospel stories to these churches since these were not in dispute.
>PR>Odd this doesn't apply now. Tell me, do you have any original ideas of your
>own or do you just copy everything from apologetics books.
This question supplies its own answer!
PR>I mean, this
>is a really pathetic excuse don't you think, given that Paul talks about
>Christ risen a lot ; or was this "in dispute".
See above for the answer to Paul's false dichotomy between "Paul talks
about Christ risen a lot" and Paul does not refer "to the life and works of
Jesus outside the absolute basics".
>PR>[snip Aliens stuff]
>SJ>I note that Paul just ignores my point!
>PR>I don't remember exactly, but you wrote some stuff about aliens. If you don't
>like the snip, please reinsert it.
Checking back it was an answer to one of Chris' points. And Paul does
discuss Chris' aliens point further down. So my apologies to Paul.
>CC>Is there any reason for believing that Jesus existed?
>>
>>I repeat what the Encyclopaedia Britannica said:
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,109559+2+106456,00.htm
l
>>ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA. Jesus Christ. Non-Christian sources.
>>... These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
>>opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was
>>disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the
>>18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries. ...
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>PR>This presumably is written by a priest who is dumb enough to by the
>>"opponents never questioned it".
>SJ>Note however if it
>comes from a secular source like the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
>PR>You really think the person who wrote this was "secular".
I said the *source* was "secular", not the person who wrote it. I don't
know what the religious position was of the person who wrote it, but I
would be surprised if he was an evangelical Christian. All of the EB articles
on Christian theological issues that I have ever seen are what I would
classify as theologically liberal.
But anyway, my main point was that "Paul just dismisses any evidence
against his position" in the sense that, if it is written by a Bible-believing
Christian, Paul rejects it on those grounds alone. Thus Paul, by his very
methodology, can never arrive at any other answer than that Christianity is
false. Therefore, if Christianity is in fact true, Paul would never be able to,
in this life, know it.
Of course if Christianly is true, then Paul *will* eventually know it, but too
late, in the next life!
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fact is that an equally logical terminus a quo is to be found in the
restorations under Ezra or Nehemiah - which were of similar purpose and
only twelve years apart. The Temple had been rebuilt and its worship
reestablished for many a year. But Jerusalem's wall was still broken down
and the city itself, with the exception, probably, of the estates of the rich,
lay in ruins. The purpose of Ezra and Nehemiah was to rebuild the city, and
they received permission from the kings of Persia to do precisely that
Nehemiah's commission is very explicit (Neh. 2:5). Ezra had a similar
purpose and work (Ezra 7:8,9). Now, 48 years from Ezra's date of 456
B.C. is 26 A.D. (26 rather than 27, for there is no year 0 A.D.), the time, as
nearly as we can tell, when John the Baptist proclaimed to the people of
Judea, `Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.' "
(Harris R.L., "Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and
Exegetical Study," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1957, pp.150-151)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 10:14:29 EST