[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #601
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 8 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 601
In this issue:
Re: Mack on Q...
Re: Mack on Q1
Q: reality or fantasy
Re: Q: reality or fantasy?
Re: Q: reality or fantasy?
Reflections: Synoptic Question/Quest for Historical Jesus
Bible Study Programs
Re: Q: reality or fantasy?
To: nt-greek@virginia.edu
Re: Reflections: Synoptic Question/Quest for Historical Jesus
Clarification on cynics and hellenism within Judaism
Re: Reflections: Synoptic Question/Quest for Historical Jesus
Re: Q: reality or fantasy
Clarification on cynics, etc.
Re: Q: reality or fantasy
Re: Q: reality or fantasy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 02:35:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Mack on Q...
To: Gregory Bloomquist [GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca]
I enjoyed your analogy of comparing the methodology of source criticism and
that of sub-nuclear physics. Very post-modern of you.
Most of us are in a quantum state spiritually, hoping to find hope in the
uncertainty principle. If only Q (either from Star Trek or the Gospels
source) could help!!!!!
Just a note from the lighter side. :)
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 02:35:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Mack on Q1
Concerning Larry Hurtado and Kenneth Litwak's latest interchange:
I wanted to make some comments on the value of source criticism vis a vis
this discussion.
> Thanks to Greg Bloomquist for cogent and patient comments about the
> usefulness of hypothesis-making in Christian Origins. I too support the
> validity-in-principle of hypothesis-making, even when they cannot be
> fully verified or falsified. Their usefulness is largely in whether they
> help us to provide a provisional explanation for data that might
> otherwise be unexplained or less adequately explained without the
> hypothesis.
> But of course one must always retain a distinction between
> hypothesis and data, and between a hpothesis that is almost totally
> untestable on the one hand, and a hypothesis that is to some significant
> extent testable. It is a common temptation in scholarship to treat
> yesterday's hypothesis as today's fact, when the hypothesis was never
> sufficiently tested in the lst place.
> On the specific question of the usefulness of Cynic parallels to
> Q material, I'd like to raise a couple of methodological qualms. Given
> the eclectic nature of the Hellenistic/Greco-Roman period, it is VERY
> difficult to establish direct influence/borrowing. Various traditions
> were just "in the air" or "in the groundwater" all over, and remember
> that Jewish tradition had been in contact with GReek culture for over 300
> yrs. by the time of Jesus, so a lot had probably become "domesticated" as
> "Jewish" that might once have derived from non-Jewish sources.
Like a "coat of many colors", if you look close enough, you can see the
different color threads woven against another. No one I know of is
suggesting that if there was a Q, he had a copy of Cynic writings that he was
copying from as he wrote. Or that he was a closet Cynic. I think the idea
is that if there was a Q, that he was influenced by the thread of Cynic
thought that was present in prevelant hellenistic culture. I don't see it,
but I think that is the understood argument here, thank you.
> Moreover, Samuel Sandmel long ago (in his classic SBL
> presidential address published in JBL) warned the guild about
> "parallelomania"--the facile use of analogies of this or that to
> establish direct connection/influence. The address clearly needs to be
> dusted off and re-read, sadly, even by members of the guild old enough to
> have read it already! It is not enough to find something roughly
> analogous in form or even content to some Jesus saying to be able to
> posit a direct influence/borrowing, or even to label it--e.g., "cynic"
> etc. The item in question must be sufficiently DISTINCTIVE of this or
> that source to make the borrowing/influence and label appropriate. In
> the present case offered by Greg from Mack, this hardly appears to be the
> case!
I agree, and this is where Mack's argument is weak, in that the Cynic
influence is NOT a distinctive influence. To say so is a big leap. There
may be a parallel in presentation of the material, but as noted by others in
this current discussion, it is a common parallel in other literature of the
period.
> Moreover, as Greg noted, it is always an important question as to
> whether alleged influences (e.g., Cynic) may have become imported into
> the Jesus tradition in the course of its being "traditioned" in early
> Christian groups and activities. So, even if one were able to posit a
> cogent case of influence of this or that, the further question is at what
> stage and under what circumstances the influence might have had its
> effect. Given the immense amount of special pleading put forth by Mack
> et alia against the masive evidence of Jesus as a Jewish prophet-figure,
> operating under the influence of another such figure (John the Baptist),
> and in the orbit of Jewish revitalization movements of the time (with
> strong eschatological orientations), I am not impressed with the idea
> that the Cynic paradigm is useful or correct in understanding Jesus or
> the earliest stages of the Jesus tradition.
>
> Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
The assumption that Q existed, and that it existed as an earlier source than M
ark is where some would like to posit that it can help us understand the
early Christian oral witnesses and even the historical Jesus. This is the
ever present temptation of those still subconsciously working on the quest for
the historical Jesus. (Please let it die!). The only thing the theory of
"the Cynic-influenced Q" can show is that the alleged author Q and his
alleged community were distinctively influenced by Cynic rhetoric. And that
could help us better interpret Q texts. But it doesn't, so the theory
doesn't help.
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 07:09:44 -0800
Subject: Q: reality or fantasy
An interesting article recently out by Robert Morgan in JSNT
54 (1994): 3-28, entitled "Which was the Fourth Gospel? The
Order of the Gospels and the Unity of Scripture" proposes
the order Mark-Matthew-John-Luke (and dispenses with Q).
Greg Doudna
Marylhurst College
gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov
- --
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 08:07:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Q: reality or fantasy?
I think the major problem that Ken was responding to, and I apologize if
I am putting words into your mouth, Ken, was Mack and Kloppenberg. While
I have my own problems with the Q hypothesis, I also recognize as Tim
pointed out that any other theory is just as "vaportext". My concern is
that current Q studies have not only posited the existance of the
vaportext but have gone on to determine levels of Q tradition, tell us
definitive things about Q's community(s), and even about the original
message of Jesus-which has little in common with the Christian message as
presented in the four canonical gospels. I find all of that a little
difficult to lend credence too-how is one really able to give my that
much info on a text that in itself is already a hypothetical construct?
Seems to me to be going too far on too little evidence, just my opinion.
- -Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@billings.lib.mt.us
------------------------------
From: GAlanC@aol.com
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 13:22:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Q: reality or fantasy?
I have really been undecided on the issue of Q but have had many suspicions.
I have recently picked up a book on the subject and would like any comments
the list has about it.
_Is There A Synoptic Problem: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First
Three Gospels_ Eta Linnemann Trans by Robert W. Yarbrough published by Baker
1992
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 13:19:24 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Reflections: Synoptic Question/Quest for Historical Jesus
I hope that I may be allowed to indulge briefly in some
reflections on the current thread with the heading, "Mack on
Q1 and Cynics" and the lengthy discussion in late Fall on Q,
especially as they are not consciously or deliberately
theological in nature (although that too can and perhaps
will be disputed) but have to do rather with the search for
elusive truths (not Truth, which may be even more elusive,
apart from inquiring faith) through rational investigation.
One comment in yesterday's exchanges seemed to voice a wish
that the "quest for the historical Jesus" would die a
natural death and not suffer (I pun consciously and
deliberately) repeated and annoying resurrections. This
puzzles me. Is it akin to Paul's " ... henceforth we know
Jesus KATA THN SARKA no more"? Or is it some quality in the
writings of the "quest" scholars, beginning with Schweitzer
himself, that awakens fears that any historical Jesus will,
when discovered, be disappointing and threaten to destroy
our faith? For my part, I will say that I do not share such
a fear. On the other hand, I share a passionate desire to
uncover/recover whatever facts can be uncovered/recovered
about the historical Jesus. Perhaps this is a consequence of
being heir to both Greek and Judaeo-Christian traditions,
but whatever the reason, I know that I am not alone in
feeling thus. The Christian faith is inherently rooted in
history, grounded in the conviction that God has intervened
in human history and acted personally in it through a single
human destiny that paradoxically remains a single human
destiny while holding transcendent significance beyond its
time and place. How then can one confesses and professes
that faith fail to be passionately interested in all that
can be known about Jesus? Do not the gospels themselves
incite this interest in us? Luke appeals to a desire
"EPIGNWNAI THN ASFALEIAN about the LOGOI in which one has
been instructed." John says that he doesn't think there's
room in the world for the books written on "the many other
things that Jesus said and did." This being the case, I
don't see how one can expect historical curiosity in
believers or non-believers to die down permanently. In fact,
I really can see only one reason for any endeavor to pour
cold water on the ever-renewed quest: fear that it may lead
to something embarrassing. And that strikes me as an
unworthy motive, for a believer, at least.
I hope that I may voice these sentiments without appearing
to impugn the motives of those who have scorned the "quest"
and/or the endeavor to research (written) sourcs and oral
traditions that evidently are presupposed by the text of our
canonical (and perhaps of one or more non-canonical)
gospels. I myself am skeptical, deeply skeptical, about any
great probability that the research will disclose shocking
new information that will either assist or hinder faith. I
doubt that all the scholarship on Synoptic sources and on
Q's possible strata and affinities will uncover major new
facts about the historical Jesus (although it might well
uncover some of the far-less-obvious history of
first-generation Christianity). Despite this skepticism,
however, the last thing in the world that I'd want to do is
to squelch the research on these questions; I find them
fascinating, and I am not disturbed by the supposition that
a hypothesis may be thought to be more than a hypothesis
(nor have I a passionate desire to put my finger into the
crucifixion wounds--and the text of John doesn't say that
Thomas ever did so).
I do not wish, any more than does Ken Litwack, to renew the
long thread of last fall on Q; I think it was a good venting
of the whole spectrum of stances that can be and are taken
toward the Q hypothesis (on the whole, I think it revealed
more about stances taken by people than about the Q
hypothesis itself, although that too did occasionally get
aired). The literature on the Q-hypothesis is "out there"
for those who want to read about it, and the SBL has an
ongoing study group committed to work on it, so that the
bibliography continues to expand. I do think that this list
is the proper place for discussion of distinct
sub-hypotheses such as this of Cynic influence on Q1 (and,
unless I'm mistaken, there was some confusion in some
postings about the difference between cynicism (lower-case
c) and the Cynic movement of itinerant preaching
philosophers). But I AM bothered, not so much by the
publication of William Farmer's new book with the sub-title
_The Pastoral Relevance of the Q Hypothesis_ (certainly it's
a free country, and freedom of speech still survives despite
its many and vocal foes), as by the strange sort of fear it
seems to express and seek to promote, that research into
gospel origins CAN AND JUST POSSIBLY MAY be the undoing of
Christian faith. In my own judgment, on the other hand, a
Christian faith that is afraid of the truth is not a faith
worth holding, and if we fear that the truth discovered may
in fact undermine Christian faith, does that mean that we
should turn away from the quest for truth (truths, that is)?
Greg Bloomquist wrote yesterday, "I know how you feel." Am I
reiterating some of the same thing you meant, Greg, or is
this so much rambling?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 13:20:26 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Bible Study Programs
While I certainly do not mean to fault the information and
judgments presented in Tim Walk's review of Bible Study
software, it does seem to me that the review would have been
of greater value both to readers of Christian Computing and
to members of this list had there been an up-front statement
that it treated ONLY programs for DOS and/or WINDOWS and not
offered, not necessarily intentionally, the impression that
there are no Macintosh Bible Study programs, which, of
course, is not true. As these programs have been
discussed--and recently--on this list, I won't try to say
anything specific about them here.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Q: reality or fantasy?
Lindemann is certainly not the last word on the subject. However, she
raises some very important issues. The focus of her work is to
demonstrate that the mutual dependance theories don't stack up to the
evidence of word order, vocabulary commonality, pericope differences and
order, and some other criteria. In each of those categories less than
50% is common between all 3 or between any 2 which is a very telling
argument against some sort of dependance as the 2 Source and Griesbach
has it. I personally did a small test, emphasis on small, to verify a
few of her finding and found that in those instances I tested she was
correct.
- -Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@billings.lib.mt.us
On Wed, 8 Mar 1995 GAlanC@aol.com wrote:
> I have really been undecided on the issue of Q but have had many suspicions.
> I have recently picked up a book on the subject and would like any comments
> the list has about it.
>
> _Is There A Synoptic Problem: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First
> Three Gospels_ Eta Linnemann Trans by Robert W. Yarbrough published by Baker
> 1992
>
------------------------------
From: STULAMMERRA@crf.cuis.edu
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 14:15:28 -0600 (CST)
Subject: To: nt-greek@virginia.edu
sub nt-greek Richard A. Lammert
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 16:22:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Reflections: Synoptic Question/Quest for Historical Jesus
On Wed, 8 Mar 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> How then can one confesses and professes
> that faith fail to be passionately interested in all that
> can be known about Jesus?
Carl,
I share your reaction to those who seem to react negatively to the
historical quest out of fear for what results might be produced and the
resulting damage to one's faith. However, I (not speaking for anyone
else) find myself strangely unaffected by the question reproduced above.
Perhaps it is my failing as a student of biblical theology. Or perhaps I
have been too much convinced by the skeptics regarding the possibility of
historical knowledge. Or perhaps I have too much of Karl Barth and Hans
Frei in my theological heritage. I fear nothing from the results of
historical research (my response to the rhetoric of historical researchers
is another matter), but I cannot bring myself to be excited about the
quest for the historical Jesus, in spite of the fact that the doctrine of
the incarnation has always been an exciting and intriguing one to me. If
this is a malady for which I need theological therapy, I can tell you
that at least my malady is not a phobia.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 16:33:13 EDT
Subject: Clarification on cynics and hellenism within Judaism
I'm afraid that the B-GREEK list owner (still David Marotta?) may
take me out of the game for what follows, but I am finding the
discussion lively and am interested in pushing some of the
assumptions in the discussion further. Carl, you are right that I
was venting some frustration in my brief paragraph, but I hope that I
have dealt with my frustration positively in trying to respond to
some of the methodological questions raised.
Larry Hurtado's comments about method and hypothesis, namely, that
"their usefulness is largely in whether they help us to provide a
provisional explanation for data that might otherwise be unexplained
or less adequately explained without the hypothesis", is good, with
one modification: there is no data -- understood as "facts" --
without the hypothesis! There are phenonmena and observations that
beg explanation, but there are no data or facts. These arise only
within the hypothesis. (Larry also suggests that there is a
difference between "a hypothesis that is almost totally untestable on
the one hand, and a hypothesis that is to some significant extent
testable." This is an interesting but somewhat dangerous and
subjective position, for what is untestable one day may be entirely
so the next. I'll leave this one though for the philosophers among
us.)
The relative nature of data and facts is extremely important for the
discussion at hand, which has now become a twofold one: (1)
methodological questions regarding possible cynic and/or rhetorical
influence on Q and (2) the methodological questions that are posed by
the Q hypothesis.
First, the cynic question, i.e., (1). (If there is value in it, I
shall post some thoughts on Q at a later time; if not, I'll just
keep quiet. :-) I don't think that there is a consensus
on the cynic Jesus or cynic Jesus traditions as to whether, as Larry
suggests, we are dealing with "direct influence/borrowing", which he
deems difficult to trace. While it is true that Jewish traditions
had been in contact with Hellenic ideas for at least 700 (not
300) years prior to Jesus (see Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Daniel and
Contacts between the Aegean and the Near East Before Alexander," Ev.
Q. 53 (1981) 37-47), the penetration by Hellenism since Alexander's
conquests was certainly more important and suggests that any
untainted Judaism would be difficult to find.
But, note: that "untainted" Judaism does not necessarily mean that
hellenism has to be embraced to be in evidence. Using Richard
Niebuhr's models of the encounter of Christ and culture, modified by
Al Wolters for an examination of the encounter of Christianity and
classical culture, I would suggest that there are at least 5 ways
that Hebrew religion -- Judaism is really a hellenistic phenonmenon
itself -- responded to hellenism and became Judaism: (1) the fuga
mundi approach: radical opposition to everything hellenistic and the
exaltation of things Jewish [the position of Hag. 15b in which R.
Elisha b. Abuyah is said to have fallen into heresy because he was
continually singing Greek songs], (2) the preparatio evangeli
approach: those who shared the fundamental views of hellenism and
of judaism in order to (a) use hellenism -- where appropriate -- to
undermine it and to exalt Judaism [e.g., the Yao Sabbaoth cult
identified by Goodenough as "accepting the best of paganism
(including its most potent charms) as focusing in, finding its
meaning in, the supreme Yao Sabbaoth"], or (b) show that hellenism
was not superior to Judaism and that it was, in some cases, indebted
to Judaism [e.g., the preserved work of Aristobulus on Torah or of
Philo as read by Wolfson], (3) the two orders coexistence approach:
those who felt that though Hellenism and Judaism might not mix, they
might nonetheless co-exist [e.g., the Sadducees, who acc. to David
Daube felt that while the text of Scripture alone was binding, also
felt that "any question not answered by it [Scripture] might be
approached quite freely, in a philosophical fashion"], (4) the
transformationist approach: those who sought Hellenism's
transformation [e.g., Philo], and (5) the embracing of the Zeitgeist
approach: those who saw hellenism in a most positive light and
actively and intellectually embraced Hellenism through the exaltation
of all things hellenistic and sought to show how Judaism was
inadequate as it stood and could be better expressed through
Hellenism [e.g., if 1 and 2 Maccabees provide any accurate picture of
events, we should be able to find this tendency among literary
remains of followers of Jason, or possibly Menelaus, who apparently
embraced Hellenism even to the exclusion of Judaism].
At the NEH Seminar led by Louis Feldman of Yeshiva University, we
tried to imagine anywhere in the hellenistic world that the influence
of hellenism would not be felt. We couldn't identify any. (I tried
to suggest that just as there were areas of New Jersey that had no
culture, that surely there must have been some place in the
Hellenistic world that ....... :-) As such, we ought to be very
suspicious precisely of those models that would suggest that there is
no hellenistic influence whatsoever, especially in the main body of
our extant evidence, namely, texts! As my colleague Rivkah Ulmer has
shown, even in the rabbinic treatises that reject hellenistic
influence, the style of argumentation is clearly hellenistic!
What I am suggesting then is that Mack and others are not engaged in
an unbridled search for "parallels" against which Sandmel warned us;
rather, the better scholars who are pursuing these leads (scholars
such as Mack) are after precisely what Larry suggests: not just
"something roughly analogous in form or even content to some Jesus
saying to be able to posit a direct influence/borrowing, or even to
label it--e.g., "cynic" but something "sufficiently DISTINCTIVE of
this or that source to make the borrowing/influence and label
appropriate."
Yet, it doesn't appear to me that what Mack and the "Claremont"
school identify as distinctive is something that they are necessarily
saying is found in all of the Jesus traditions. I do not read them
as saying that all of the Jesus traditions have been influenced by a
distinctive form of life and (what I am pushing them on) a
distinctive form of rhetoric that we may call cynic. But, they are
suggesting that at the roots of the Q tradition -- a unique stratum
of the tradition -- there was such a distinctive.
Larry -- though I won't hold him to it since e-communications are
usually ephemeral and not intended for perpetuation by scholars! --
seems to be less cautious than the "Claremont" school, however, when
he puts forth his own critique of Mack: "given the immense amount of
special pleading put forth by Mack et alia against the masive
evidence of Jesus as a Jewish prophet-figure, operating under the
influence of another such figure (John the Baptist), and in the orbit
of Jewish revitalization movements of the time (with strong
eschatological orientations), I am not impressed with the idea that
the Cynic paradigm is useful or correct in understanding Jesus or the
earliest stages of the Jesus tradition." Is Larry himself suggesting
that ALL of the early strata can be pictured via this one single
approach that he has put forth here? If so, then he may find his own
critique coming back to haunt him!
What I would be so bold as to say is that at every layer of the
tradition, there will be a reflection of aspects of hellenistic life
and/or literary style. This will be true whether we encounter cynic
influence in the Q tradition (be it in the Q tradition as a whole or
in stratigraphically identified layers) or whether we encounter the
Jesus-as-prophet tradition (which as Vermes and others have noted
clearly owes something to hellenism in what it affirms and in what it
rejects). As noted above, these may be either conscious rejection,
some form of coexistence, or wholehearted endorsement of the
hellenistic enterprise; there will not be silence.
To their credit, scholars engaging the cynic hypothesis are
struggling to see how it may fit in the overall picture. Indeed, as
Larry writes, if it is helpful, then let's use it; if not, let's not
bother ourselves more with it. But, to answer that question, we must
at least engage it! I would be willing to say with Larry that we
should also engage the Jesus-as-prophet picture. Indeed, let a
thousand flowers bloom!
Greetings!
GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Faculty of Theology | Faculte de Theologie
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA
Email: GBLOOMQUIST@SPU.STPAUL.UOTTAWA.CA
Voice: 613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
Fax: 613-236-4108
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 14:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Reflections: Synoptic Question/Quest for Historical Jesus
To the degree that I have no phobia regarding historical searches
threatening faithful confession, I chime in with Philip. My fear is in
fact from the unhistorical conclusions frequently drawn. Mack's
arguments are weak at best, and are founded entirely on a hypothetical
construct of a hypothetical construct as to be unhistorical. And while
the idea that the traveling Cynic philosopher has something in common
with an itinerant Jew in Galilee is certainly possible, to what degree is
the commonality one of the ancient world-traveling rabbis, Wilburys,
philosophers, poets in exile etc. Anyway, I shall spare you more
unfocused ramblings.....
- -Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@billings.lib.mt.us
------------------------------
From: John Calvin Hall <johnhall@gulf.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 18:09:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Q: reality or fantasy
>An interesting article recently out by Robert Morgan in JSNT
>54 (1994): 3-28, entitled "Which was the Fourth Gospel? The
>Order of the Gospels and the Unity of Scripture" proposes
>the order Mark-Matthew-John-Luke (and dispenses with Q).
I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the theory of a Q document. This is
nothing more than the German Higher Critic's vain attempts to attack the
Inspiration and Inerrancy of the Word of God.
Those who predominantly hold to the Q theory are those who base the
Scriptures on traditional (i.e. "word of mouth") forms of transfering of
history. I am a Christian. I believe that the origination of the gospels are
from holy men of God who were moved of the Spirit (2Peter 1:21). They were
NOT some compilations of oral history, they were written by those who the
Scriptures and early church fathers told us (John the Apostle wrote G.
according to John, Luke wrote Luke, et. al.). To toy with the concept of a Q
document theory gives credence to the higher critics, and the majority are
nothing more than pagans who've gleefully take pot shots at the mighty anvil
of God - - His Word!
JCH
------------------------------
From: JOHNSOST@cgs.edu
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 17:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Clarification on cynics, etc.
Thanks to Gregory Bloomquist for a very reasoned statement on the scholarly
enterprise and getting at cultural influences on early Christianity.
There`s just one observation I would like to make. There does seem to be this
idea floating around about a "Claremont" school of thought on the subject of
Cynicism and early Christianity. I suppose one of my professors, Burton Mack,
should be proud of this fact. But frankly, I don't think Gregory Riley cares
for it, and I KNOW James Robinson doesn't like it, considering all his work on
Nag Hammadi and Q reconstruction. In fact, part of the re-emergence of the
issue is due to a seminar 8-10 years ago at CGS, and several members of that
seminar have been the most active in trying to get scholars to discuss the
idea. However, this idea of a "Claremont school" is a bit deceiving, since two
of its three faculty members, while greatly affirming the history of religions
approach that fuels the discussion, have a number of problems with the way the
issue has been worked out by Mack and others. Also, most of the scholars
working on the issue hale from England, Canada, and Massachusetts. It's truly
an international discussion.
I suppose I'm sounding a little testy on this point. But this is
partly do to the fact that such labels (and I am sure that Gregory did not
intend this) make it easier to dismiss a discussion as relevant only to a few
individuals; partly due to the fact that it then labels Claremont grads and
students as holding to a particular point of view, when in fact, in this case,
most do not (though I personally will back up Mack on a number of points
concerning Q and hellenistic popular philosophy); and partly because I've seen
some pretty irrational Claremont and Harvard bashing lately that ticked me off
(most recently Larry Hurtado's claim that Claremont and Harvard folks are the
only ones who take Walter Bauer's _Orthodoxy and Heresy_ seriously anymore.
Larry, I've been wondering -- where the heck did that one come from? Bizarre!
Surely you've read Bart Ehrman's _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_. Or,
is Bart an isolated phenomenon? (I don't think so -- n.b. to B. E.: I agree
with your respondents at SBL. What a study!!!))
So, let's press on with the thread and discuss the issue. Here's a
great excuse for all of us to run to the library and get our copies of Diogenes
or the Cynic epistles or others, do some non-biblical Greek reading, and maybe
debate how extensive greek popular philosophy has had an impact on Judaism and
Jesus (sorry, adverb above) in the first century.
Steve Johnson
(Guess where!)
------------------------------
From: DWSchumach@aol.com
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 20:54:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Q: reality or fantasy
>I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the theory of a Q document. >This is
nothing more than the German Higher Critic's vain attempts >to attack the
Inspiration and Inerrancy of the Word of God.
I think you would find it surprising that some of the most outspoken
defenders of the verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy of scriptures in
evangelicalism today also embrace historical-critical methodologies without
reservation. It is also difficult to judge the motivations of < German
Higher Critics> in their academic pursuits. They may have simply observed
the <phenomena of scripture> and developed a theory to explain it without
malicious intents. Unfortunately some concluded that the Bible was not God's
Word, a position that does not necessarily follow from critical theories.
Don Schumacher
------------------------------
From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 21:32:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Q: reality or fantasy
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 20:54:34 -0500
From: DWSchumach@aol.com
Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
I think you would find it surprising that some of the most outspoken
defenders of the verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy of scriptures in
evangelicalism today also embrace historical-critical methodologies without
reservation. It is also difficult to judge the motivations of < German
Higher Critics> in their academic pursuits. They may have simply observed
the <phenomena of scripture> and developed a theory to explain it without
malicious intents. Unfortunately some concluded that the Bible was not God's
Word, a position that does not necessarily follow from critical theories.
Your description of the way scholarship happens is a pretty model, but
it's hard to believe it any longer. Most of the various luminaries in
the subject over the past hundred and fifty years have had axes to
grind, and grind them they did. Some were infected with a serious
form of anti-semiticism, and wanted to draw big lines between Judaism
and Christianity. Some were infected with a sort of secularism, and
sought to establish that the first Christians didn't believe most of
the things later Christians find important. Some wanted to establish
that the New Testament clearly took the "Protestant" side in most
questions; others wanted to establish that it clearly took the
"Catholic" side in the same questions. Some had a clear preference
for an anti-Pauline Christianity, and others had a clear preference
for a Paul over against the synoptics Christianity--and both of these
therefore wanted to draw big distinctions between the two.
For all of these, it isn't hard to notice their biases when reading
their actual words, instead of the tedious repetition of their words
by others. And yet, even when their bias is so strongly established
as it often is, their words get continually repeated as if their
serious methodological flaws were unimportant.
And some, to be sure, were dispassionate scholars who didn't bring to
the text (or so they thought) any presumptions about its meaning.
But even then there is a serious bias: the bias that one should not
bring any presumptions to scripture when interpreting it. That is,
the bias that the scriptures are of "private interpretation" or that
the community of the Holy Spirit is not relevant to their
interpretation.
The interpretation of scripture is not value-free, nor does anyone
approach it without some advance decisions about method, goals, and
purpose. It is then quite legitimate to bring up those presumptions
of method, goals, and purpose in analyzing the work of various
scholars.
I don't have any particular opinion on the subject of Q (which was
part of the origin of this thread), except a slight preference for the
theory, and an abiding conviction that the whole subject is fairly
irrelevant to the actual use of the scriptures in the church.
>From my perspective, the musings of most biblical scholarship are
rather pointless and occasionally useless. I don't think it's a
threat the way some fundamentalists might, but I also don't think it's
particularly important. The questions that biblical scholars are busy
addressing are so peripheral to my faith or to the life of the church,
that they really are just off the mark.
If there's any point to this somewhat long post, it's this: Academic
biblical scholarship, to my eye, has an over-self-important view of
its role. Scholars having so carefully separated themselves from the
church for a hundred and fifty years, it doesn't surprise me that the
church tends not to care about they scholars any longer.
Michael
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #601
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu