Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

See more
See less

Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by psstein View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by psstein View Post
    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.
    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      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.
      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          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.
          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            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.
            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              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.
              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                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?
                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  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.
                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          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.
                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                            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.)
                            Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-06-2024, 04:30 PM
                            2 responses
                            22 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-01-2024, 09:43 PM
                            1 response
                            31 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM
                            0 responses
                            11 views
                            1 like
                            Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM
                            0 responses
                            18 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-09-2024, 09:39 AM
                            28 responses
                            201 views
                            1 like
                            Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                            Working...
                            X