John Dominic Crossan, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, a group that renders irrational fundagelicals nuts, because it employs rational processes - like textual analysis, as opposed to blind superstition.
Trying to educate certain innominate and ignorant fundies is almost like trying to teach a borderline mutt to do simple tricks, say like "fetch" and "lie down". As often as you patiently repeat and show them how to go about it, they inevitably foul it all up then gape at you (at least the four legged sort) with mouth open and tongue dripping drool.
In an earlier blog :http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/02/q-tradition-satanic-origin-hell-no.html
I did my best to educate on the matter of the Q tradition (it's not a "gospel" per se, since its thread runs through the 3 Synoptic Gospels, and mainly Matthew and Luke) and how and why it isn't anything other than the rational product of a scriptural impasse: that is, we have no authentic first hand accounts of Yeshua's life which antedate original Greek accounts that date from 40 to 120 years after his putative death.
This impasse led the early Church to the "two-source" theory: to wit, that Mark was an independent composition, and Matthew and Luke rely on Mark (into which they insert another compilation consisting mainly of sayings).This hypothetical compilation is designated as Q, derived from the German word for source. The 'M-tradition' meanwhile, refers to material incorporated in Matthew and peculiar to it, while the 'L-tradition' refers to material incorporated in Luke and peculiar to it.
The case for existence of Q follows from the argument that Matthew and Luke show independence in the double (2-source) tradition, the material that Matthew and Luke shared that does not appear in Mark. Accordingly, the literary connection in the double tradition is explained by an indirect relationship, namely, through use of a common source or sources.
Arguments for Luke's and Matthew's independence include:
- Matthew and Luke have different contexts for the double tradition material. It is easier to explain Luke's "artistically inferior" arrangement as due to not knowing Matthew.
-The form of the material sometimes appears more primitive in Matthew but at other times more primitive in Luke.
-Independence is likely in light of the non-use of the other's non-Markian tradition, especially in the infancy, genealogical, and resurrection accounts.
-Doublets. Sometimes it appears that doublets in Matthew and Luke have one half that comes from Mark and the other half from some common source, i.e. Q.
Even if Matthew and Luke are independent, the Q hypothesis states that they used a common document. Arguments for Q being a written document include:
- Exactness in Wording. (Sometimes this is striking. For example: Matt. 6:24 = Luke 16:13 (27/28 Greek words). Matt. 7:7-8 = Luke 11:9-10 (24/24 Greek words).
-There is commonality in order between the two Sermons on/at the Mount.
-The presence of doublets, where Matthew and Luke sometimes present two versions of a similar saying, but in different contexts. Doublets often serve as a sign of two written sources.
-Certain themes, such as the Deuteronomistic view of history, are more prominent in Q than in either Matthew or Luke individually.
If Q ever existed, it must have disappeared very early, since no copies of it have been recovered and no definitive notices of it have been recorded in antiquity. One possible hypothesis, as I noted in the previous blog on Q, is that the early Church Bishop Papias was aware that Matthew had been acquainted with a collection of Aramaic sayings of Jesus- the putative and original Q. However, no draft was ever recovered.
Cutting to the chase, the most pertinent point now, after decades of scholarly research (more than can be obtained from online bible schools!) is that the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are the most important residual sources of the Q-tradition, if one wants the material closest to what Yeshua really said!
But never fail, there's always a dumb fundie around to try and toss a spanner into the works and muddy the waters. One to which I refer dodged a recent test in Exegesis I posted, so we know (until he takes that test and scores at least a 70%) we can't take his words too seriously. Anyway, in his latest blog he scribbles:
"many atheists ( i.e., closet Catholics? ) defend both the Jesus Seminar AND the Satanic "Q." What is interesting , to say the least , is that these alleged "atheists" will cite teachings from their former ( Neo-Nazi ) JESUIT alma mater "
Actually, this guy isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer so we have to cut him some slack. As noted in earlier blogs, merely because one cites from previous college material (even a Catholic university's theology course) doesn't mean he's validating or accepting that belief system in any way. He is merely using available ammunition to correct misinformation and ignorance, e.g. spouted by his know-nothing sibling, on a topic (Q-tradition) he knows nothing about. Now, I suppose if I tried real hard I could have stretched my memory and left out the notes, but at the age of 64 why go that route? Especially as I still have the notebooks in my possession! So it made much more sense to just consult the source!
As for being a "closet Catholic", what a hoot! I'm sure the Pope would love to hear an atheist is part of his flock, but then again, I think not -especially as that atheist doesn't buy into the Virgin birth, the Immaculate Conception, the Ascension or the Resurrection! (Far less the God-man myth!)
Not content to disclose his ignorance all at once, he continues:
"Anyway , and I mentioned some of this in a blog last year - but for those visitors who missed it , the late Robert ( FLUNKIE ) Funk ( who I pray got truly saved ,lest he NOW be waiting for his cohorts now in HELL ) , organized the Jesus Seminar in 1985 under the auspices of Westar Institute . The seminar is a consortium of anti-Christ scholars from across the globe which meets twice a year to discuss and pronounce what THEY believe to be the authentic works and words of Jesus . Now , get this..the seminar is MOSTLY composed of liberal CATHOLICS , Protestants , Jews , and...ATHEISTS !! Most are professors , albeit anti-Christ ones , but some are not . "
In fact, he tells all lies, since the Seminar is actually represented by diverse cross-section of members across the religious spectrum, including some of the most eminent scholars such as John Dominic Crossan, author of The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant - who was actually a co-founder of the Seminar.
In a rational aspect, the Seminar treats the canonical gospels as historical sources that represent the vehickles closest to Jesus' actual words and deeds as well as elaborations of the early Christian community and of the gospel authors. The fellows place the burden of proof on those who advocate any passage's historicity. That person then, must muster a defense of his or her position, using reliable textual analysis or appeal to actual historical sources. No fairy tales or simple personal beliefs are allowed.
Those who really and seriously want to see how the exegetical and textual analysis process sheds light on the actual historical Jesus can do no better than to read Crossan's magnificent book - which I doubt the wunderkind-fundie has done, just as I'm sure he's never read the Origin of Species.
Again, let us bear in mind that when bellicose fundies blather aimlessly about "Jews, atheists, liberals, Catholics" in conjunction with "anti-Christ views" they're merely disclosing themselves as intolerant bigots. Rather than research the work produced, they knee-jerk react and condemn it because it doesn't fortify their supernaturalist preconceptions.
As he waxes on:
"The seminar has made it a stated GOAL to publish critical works on the New Testament . Many of the conclusions at which the seminar arrives are due to their unjustified rejection of any miraculous intervention by God into history ( can y'all spell S-A-T-A-N?? ) . Members of the seminar take any reference to a miracle as simply not credible"
Again, facile and over-simplistic! In fact, the Seminar uses tried and true textual analysis methodology to assess a probabilistic score for any given saying. As that score approaches 100%, it means it is highly probable it was actually uttered at some point. If around 50% it is "maybe-maybe not", and if the score veers low, toward 20% or so, it is more probable that someone else (copyist?) put the words into Jesus' mouth. All passage ratings a encoded via colors with red the highest likelihood, pink somewhat lower, and black the lowest. This is the best we can do, and certainly no fundies were around then to record what was actually stated!
A sample of higher probability sayings:
1. Turn the other cheek (92%): Mt 5:39, Lk6:29a
2. Coat & shirt: Mt5:40 (92%), Lk6:29b (90%)
3. Congratulations, poor!: Lk6:20b (91%), Th54 (90%), Mt5:3 (63%)
4. Second mile (90%): Mt5:41
5. Love your enemies: Lk6:27b (84%), Mt5:44b (77%).
Up to this time, the Seminar has concluded that of the various statements in the "five gospels" (four canonical plus the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas) attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself (red or pink coded). The Gospel of John fared worse than the synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, with nearly all its passages attributed to Jesus being judged inauthentic.[16] The Gospel of Thomas includes just two unique sayings that the seminar attributes to Jesus: the empty jar (97) and the assassin (98). Every other authentic or probably authentic saying has parallels in the synoptics.
Amongst the quotes, passages and citations with the least confidence (lowest probabilities of having been said) are those referencing Gehenna or "Hell" as places of fiery torment. The Seminar's fellows rated Jesus' references to Gehenna and Hades as gray at best, often black (near zero probability). The fellows regarded the "black" and similar other references as inventions of early Pauline (e.g. strict orthodox) Christians responding to those who rejected Jesus' message or to "false" Christians (e.g. Gnostics) within the community. Naturally, the Paulines would want to consign any group that didn't toe their line (like the Gnostics) to fiery perdition, along with umbelievers - so they inserted passages to suit.
All of this comports with what I indicated in the earlier blog, despite my brother's standard hysterical raging about "Satan". He needs to add some tranquilizers to his meds when he reads other folks' blogs.
Anyway, he carries on:
"This antisupernaturalism crept in to biblical scholarship by way of David Hume and David Strauss , but no justification for WHY it is true is given ! It is merely assumed that Hume did away with miracles , but the argument that supposedly did away with them is neither mentioned or defended "
Again, this exposes more of his lack of education. As I noted, there is no "anti-supernaturalism" per se or as some preconceived hypothesis. The Seminar Fellows simply applied the historical criteria and standards available, along with textual analysis, to ascertain the probability with which any given claim, or even passed the reality threshold. Most didn't, but a number came close, including to do with Lazarus.
As for Hume, it wasn't so much that he "did away with miracles" as offered a miracle TEST. According to Hume:
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish"
A perfect test case is the Fatima "miracle" of 1917, where 70,000 people reportedly saw the Sun move back and forth. As author and biologist Richard Dawkins put it in his essay collection, Unweaving the Rainbow :
"On the one hand, we are asked to believe in a mass hallucination, a trick of the light, or a mass lie involving 70,000 people. This is admittedly improbable. But it is LESS improbable than the alternative: that the Sun really did move...If the Sun had moved in truth, but the event was seen only by the people of Fatima, an even greater miracle would have been perpetrated: an illusion of NON-movement had to be staged for all the millions of witnesses not in Fatima."
As a further example of the Hume test, consider the claim of a miracle: Jesus “walking on water”. Prof. Hugh Schonfeld (The Passover Plot) has a simple explanation for this: a mistranslation of the Hebrew word “al” which can mean “by” or “on”. So, when a scribe really wrote “walking by the water” it was translated to “walking on the water”.
Now let us apply the Hume test. Is the Schonfeld claim of mistranslation MORE or LESS miraculous than a man actually violating the law of gravity and walking on water? It doesn’t require a lot of thought or effort to see that the mistranslation of a passage of the New Testament is LESS miraculous (or if you prefer, less improbable) than that a man actually, literally walked on water.
The point is, using this rational test for a miracle claim, allows the analyst to process more information and claims than otherwise might be the case - but it isn't the same as Hume "doing away with miracles". NO, he merely provided the rational basis to assess them against more prosaic alternative possibilities.
The Pastor rambles on unaware of how his mishmash sounds:
"Because of the seminar's assumption of antisupernaturalism , it must take ANY miracle in the ( TRUE ) Gospels and make it a later invention by the Gospel authors . Further , because it takes the position that Mark is the earliest Gospel ( because it is the shortest ) , they think it follows that the earliest Gospel was written no earlier than A.D. 70 . Hence , the seminar holds that the four Gospels were written between A.D. 70 and 100 . And because these Gospels were allegedly written so late after Jesus' death they think it follows that the material recorded about Jesus is untrustworthy "
But, as I showed, there's no apriori assumption of anti-supernaturalism. Merely the application of the Hume test. (Which I provided illustrations of).
Further, the default position is not supernaturalism or antisupernaturalism but a totally neutral stance of withholding of acceptance until the burden of proof is met. Since, supernaturalism constitutes the more extraordinary claim, then the greatest burden of proof is on showing the factual or historical basis for any claimed supernatural event, and to also show beyond a reasonable doubt it is not based on an archaic myth (for example, Jonah being swallowed by a whale dates back to an ancient Babylonian Origin myth).
Further, the duty of the skeptic or rationalist is certainly not to disprove a supernatural claim (equal to proving a negative) but for the supernaturalist to show his claim has historical or textual validity.
Another thing, Mark is not regarded as the earliest Gospel because of being the "shortest" - but rather because its textual elements (from the Greek) hold up better in comparison with other ancillary materials, such as the Qumran scrolls. In addition, the lateness of the other gospels (Luke and Matthew) is not denoting an emergence of "untrustworthiness" but rather of falling probability that the transcriptions are as faithful to the storyline as the earlier (Q-tradition implicit) Mark. All of this I noted in the earlier blog.
I'm not going to wade through all of his complaints about Q and the Seminar's treatment of supernatural passages, only to touch on a couple to illustrate how far off the beam he is. He writes:
"It is on this basis that they claim that 84% of Jesus' sayings are later inventions . This scenario , however , has multiple problems . First , as stated above , the bias against the miraculous is utterly baseless ! Saying that miracles are impossible is a philosophical position , NOT an historical position "
Again, the Seminar doesn't say all the miracles are "impossible" -rather they rank each in terms of separate probabilities, on their own terms. Nor does the Seminar say that 82% (since 18% are deemed authentic) of the sayings are "later inventions", only that the degree of implicit trust in their accuracy is relatively less, based on historical and textual analysis.
A number of criteria for inauthenticity are as follows:
1) Self-reference: Does the text have Jesus referring to himself?
2) Framing Material: Are the verses used to introduce, explain, or frame other material, which might itself be authentic? For example, in Luke, the "red" (high probability) parable of the good samaritan is framed by scenes about Jesus telling the parable, and the seminar deemed Jesus' framing words in these scenes to be "black" (low probability).
3) Theological Agenda: Do the verses support an opinion or outlook that is unique to the gospel, possibly indicating redactor bias? For example, the prophecy of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) was voted black (unreliable) because the Fellows deemed it to represent Matthew's agenda of speaking out against unworthy members of the Christian community.
To get a handle on the last, imagine a gospel supposedly dug up from the 2nd century or so, then finding all the way through it castigations and epithets against outsiders (e.g. Jews, unbelievers) such as a certain Florida pastor has been found to use! Well, it would be deemed rightfully inauthentic!
Once again, also, we remind readers none of the Fellows said that " miracles are impossible" so there is no "bias against the miraculous". What they did is simply apply reason (via Hume's miracle test) in conjunction with rigorous textual and historical analysis to ascertain the weakness of given miracle claims or other events.
Florida's puppet pastor then scolds:
"Further , the early church was unanimous about Matthew being the first written Gospel . "
This one is really hard to fathom given that this fundie has a bee in his bonnet against all Catholics! (Incessantly referring to them as "Satanic" or portraying them in negative ways, such as his Catechist sister). So it's hard to reconcile his vehement outrage against "the harlot of Babylon" vis-a-vis now seeking refuge in their declarations concerning an earlier appearance of Matthew, based on what the "early Church" (e.g. CATHOLIC CHURCH) said!
Doesn't he grasp, or is he so slow -witted, that he can't figure out that the EARLY CHURCH IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
I mean, that was the only Church existing then! So why won't he make up his mind: is he going to condemn it as "Satanic" OR is he going to endorse its views on the origin of certain gospels? Personally, I believe he plays this game because he gambles his followers are too slow or dumb to reference that the only early Church was Catholic and NOT Evangelical!
Finally:
"Third , the manuscript evidence ( for which "Q" has NONE..NADA...ZILCH...ZERO !! ) , from the early second century argues strongly for an Asian origin of John in the first century"
But actually, as I showed already,
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/12/should-certain-people-be-prohibited.html
John was notched out as a Gnostic Gospel!
As I noted:
The Gospel of John was actually an original Gnostic gospel (as Meyer notes). It was adopted by orthodoxy and then edited to fit its political/theological agenda. Anyone able to read Greek can see that heavy editing took place in the text of John. (A fact also pointed out by Yale Professor Dale B. Martin in his online course: Introduction to New Testament History and Literature.
Of particular import is his lecture: The Historical Jesus:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament/content/sessions/lecture13.html
Which clearly shows the editing in John to make it conform to orthodoxy.
Believe me, folks, if this "pastor" was anywhere NEAR the truth - at least moreso than the Jesus Seminar- there's no way an eminent institution like Yale University would feature a course on the Historical Jesus like the one above (With a book by Bart Ehrman as primary reading-text).
To that end, I do hope all interested readers will avail themselves of the REAL learning to be had via that course, as opposed to witless, immature blogs posed by folks who can't even pass a basic test on Exegesis!
No comments:
Post a Comment