Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

[robrecht]

To be honest, a sizable segment of the field is seeing issues with Q in the first place. His convoluted theory has even more issues with it than Q alone. Not to get overly technical here, but I think some sort of the Farrer-Goudler Hypothesis could be correct. If we dispense with Q...

Yes, Goodacre has continued to make an impact. This is why historical Jesus scholars like Meier (and popularizers like Ehrman) and others cannot avoid the source-critical questions.

However, I wonder if it really should be seen as Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. As Hengel argued, why not Mark, Luke, Matthew, John?

Alan Garrow is currently defending this theory, but note that both Hengel and Garrow do not dispense with a form of Q, just as others will combine the Farrer hypothesis with Q. I personally don't think we can recover the potential complexity or chaotic reality without endless hypothesizing so the simpler theories (2 source theory, even simpler Farrer) are probably as close as we will ever get. And we cannot avoid the creative authorial roles of the evangelists, which genuinely obscures their use of sources. This is why historians have to see the gospels as primary evidence for the views of these authors.

[robrecht]

From my readings, the majority scholarly opinion is that none of the Gospels were written by their traditional namesake. Nothing in my readings suggest that Ehrman is in the minority for making this sort of claim. Let me note that this isn't to say that I, personally, accept that opinion. I think Bauckham and others make strong cases why traditional authorship is valid, but, again, this does not appear to be the majority opinion.

To avoid the dilemma that you and psstein present in terms of characterizing the majority, I typically refer to the consensus of critical scholars, and define them as SBL membership or, better yet, SNTS membership. There is no ambiguity about the consensus of these scholars.

[Cerebrum123]

I use it to play old games: AD&D Gold Box (including Unlimited Adventures - I downloaded a couple hundred games), original Mechwarrior, original Civilization.

You should try checking out gog.com. They have a bunch of really old games, and they have it already preset to download a working emulator with said game. Now, obviously you wouldn't want to do this with games you already own, but they might have a few older games you would have wanted to get in the past.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, Goodacre has continued to make an impact. This is why historical Jesus scholars like Meier (and popularizers like Ehrman) and others cannot avoid the source-critical questions.

Alan Garrow is currently defending this theory, but note that both Hengel and Garrow do not dispense with a form of Q, just as others will combine the Farrer hypothesis with Q. I personally don't think we can recover the potential complexity or chaotic reality without endless hypothesizing so the simpler theories (2 source theory, even simpler Farrer) are probably as close as we will ever get. And we cannot avoid the creative authorial roles of the evangelists, which genuinely obscures their use of sources. This is why historians have to see the gospels as primary evidence for the views of these authors.

At this point, I think I would go with Goodacre over Farrer, et al. I affirm the traditional authorship, as AFAICS arguments against it rest on unwarranted assumptions. The more I read N. T. Wright, the more I get the general sense that critical scholarship has a strong tendency to miss the forest for the trees; critical scholarship should not be dismissed, but it should not be uncritically accepted either.

[robrecht]

At this point, I think I would go with Goodacre over Farrer, et al. I affirm the traditional authorship, as AFAICS arguments against it rest on unwarranted assumptions. The more I read N. T. Wright, the more I get the general sense that critical scholarship has a strong tendency to miss the forest for the trees; critical scholarship should not be dismissed, but it should not be uncritically accepted either.

Accepting critical scholarship uncritically--that's kind of humorous. Also, Goodacre agrees with the Farrer model of Lukan dependence on both Mark and Matthew without the need for Q.

[One Bad Pig]

Accepting critical scholarship uncritically--that's kind of humorous. Also, Goodacre agrees with the Farrer model of Lukan dependence on both Mark and Matthew without the need for Q.

I could be misremembering; I recall reading in Goodacre's case against Q that he distanced himself from one hypothesis against Q, but I can't recall precisely how he referred to it.

[robrecht]

I could be misremembering; I recall reading in Goodacre's case against Q that he distanced himself from one hypothesis against Q, but I can't recall precisely how he referred to it.

He did not want the Farrer model to be too closely associated with Michael Goulder's various lectionary theories of composition, but Farrer, Goulder, and Goodacre all follow the basic Farrer source-critical hypothesis of Markan priority, no Q, and the double-tradition material resulting from Luke's use of both Mark and Matthew. That might be what you're remembering?

[One Bad Pig]

He did not want the Farrer model to be too closely associated with Michael Goulder's various lectionary theories of composition, but Farrer, Goulder, and Goodacre all follow the basic Farrer source-critical hypothesis of Markan priority, no Q, and the double-tradition material resulting from Luke's use of both Mark and Matthew. That might be what you're remembering?

I might be remembering Goodacre distancing himself from Lukan priority in the book.

[psstein]

From my readings, the majority scholarly opinion is that none of the Gospels were written by their traditional namesake. Nothing in my readings suggest that Ehrman is in the minority for making this sort of claim. Let me note that this isn't to say that I, personally, accept that opinion. I think Bauckham and others make strong cases why traditional authorship is valid, but, again, this does not appear to be the majority opinion.

I think a slight majority see Mark as written by John Mark, and the same is true with Luke. Of course, no real literature reviews on the issue exist, at least that I know of.

[psstein]

I might be remembering Goodacre distancing himself from Lukan priority in the book.

I thought it was Matthean priority, actually.

Either way, I don't think Matthean or Lukan priority is defensible.

[psstein]

To avoid the dilemma that you and psstein present in terms of characterizing the majority, I typically refer to the consensus of critical scholars, and define them as SBL membership or, better yet, SNTS membership. There is no ambiguity about the consensus of these scholars.

Yes, because there are evangelical scholars (not to denigrate evangelicals as a whole, of course) who will uncritically accept the traditional authorship.

[robrecht]

I might be remembering Goodacre distancing himself from Lukan priority in the book.

Goodacre definitely disagrees with Lukan priority, but then so does Farrer so they agree on this point.

[Adam]

I think a slight majority see Mark as written by John Mark, and the same is true with Luke. Of course, no real literature reviews on the issue exist, at least that I know of.

What majority are you talking about?
Evangelicals, evidently, contrary to what Adrift was intimating. Yes, Evangelicals to a majority, perhaps almost a unanimity, would hold to John Mark as the author of our Gospel of Mark, pretty much as we have it.
The academic world is a completely different matter. The non-Evangelical, non-RC more secular (not implying atheism, just non-subservience to dogma) scholars to a majority REJECT John Mark as the author. Further, to the extent they accept John Mark as author they might be referring to a Source of gMark (the non-Twelve-Source portion, for example) or the Proto-Mark (minus three chapters absent in gLuke) used in creating gLuke.
Rejecting all the above, I suggest a Proto-Gospel underlies all three Synoptics and a Passion Diary underlies all four gospels. (It's my Thesis that there are seven written eyewitness accounts within the four gospels.)