Father Elroy Hecker of Loyola, taught the introduction to the Q, L, M traditions based on actual notes from the early Church councils. Interestingly, Fundies refer to these early Church councils - but don't believe their notes or conclusions! Maybe that's why they can't pass an Exegesis test!
It is incredible that the issue of the integrity of the Q tradition is being questioned by certain know nothings of the evangelical persuasion. I am at a loss to fully account for this, so will return to some lecture notes from my Exegesis course taken at Loyola University, in the Spring of 1965.
Among the issues interjected by Fr. Hecker was the bifurcation of beliefs that many Protestants have concerning the gospel origins, and how they controvert reality. The best way to express this bifurcation is perhaps in terms of the eidetic versus the approximate.
Those of the eidetic mentality are fully convinced, despite all historical and archaelogical evidence to the contrary, that the gospels came down on a silver holy thread direct from heaven and are therefore the whole, inerrant WORD of the lord, bar none. These people are mainly of the evangelical cults, perhaps because they are too terrified to approach scripture on the basis of open inquiry. For their minds, it is more suitable to begin with an accepted dogma, then constrain everything to fit within it.
The more rational exegetes, including John Dominic Crossan, John Allegro, Geza Vermes and the Jesus Seminar, come at the issue from one of approximation. That is, it is conceded from the outset that none of the canonical gospels can actually reach back directly to the era or time of Yeshua. It is simply an impossibility.
How so?
Serious exegesis, as I have noted, must incorporate the proper attention to textual analysis and language origins. If language themes and evidence are ignored, then the product is codswallop, pure and simple. It doesn't matter how much they stamp their feet and demand otherwise - you simply can't make a sow's ear into a silk purse!
Let's process this slowly and surely, lest the more feeble-brained not see where we're going because it's too fast for them to pick up. We know from some extant scrolls - especially from Qumran, that the original language pertaining to the teachings of Yeshua were all in Aramaic. This was none other than the ancient Semitic tongue used by most of his compatriots. While it is closely related to Hebrew it is not exactly the same, but rather somewhat like Old English is to modern English.
The problem enters because the four Gospels that have actually survived, have survived only in the GREEK, not Aramaic. Further, the best textual scholars on the case unanimously agree that all four were actually composed originally in Greek, and not translated from Aramaic (though we may use the Aramaic in parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls to gain a better idea of what the colloquial terms of the day really meant).
The noted Church historian Eusebius also quotes the early Bishop Papias, that Matthew had been acquainted with a collection of Aramaic sayings of Jesus. But, apart from this second hand account, none have survived so can't be compared to what's in the Greek gospels. Papias, for his part, did not even allude to a Semitic draft in the first Gospel. Nor did the Jewish branch of primitive Christians known as the Ebionites produce an Aramaic Gospel.
Again, this means NO canonical gospel can be traced directly back to the era of Jesus, so what we arrive at is only an approximation or educated guess as to what he really said and meant, not an eidetic (perfectly accurate) transference!
The canonical gospels fall into two main groups: Matthew, Mark and Luke, on one hand, and John on the other. The first three are known as "the Synoptic Gospels" because they reflect the same general point of view, adhere to the same general story line and use the same words - and can even be set out in parallel columns (by passage) showing their similarities.
In an earlier blog, I also noted The Gospel of Mark appears to have committed the sayings (defined as the Q or Quelle tradition) to paper about 40 years after the inspiring events, then Matthew and Luke composed their versions some 15-20 years after Mark. Finally, as noted in the earlier blog on this - John was actually an original GNOSTIC gospel that was reworked to conform to the Catholic Orthodoxy and added some 50-75 years after Matthew and Luke. (Again, if one knows Greek, one can easily spot the multiple edits in John that transmute its content from a Gnostic view to an orthodox Catholic one).
As Oxford scholar Geza Vermes notes (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. xii), the similarities and differences between the Synoptics spawned many intense Church debates on the so-called "synpotic problem". Once again, the thrust of the early Church was one of open investigation and inquiry - not closed minded dogmatism.
As our friendly Florida pastor once put it (accurate for once!), in terms of the process:
"The early church councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Was the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?""
All of which is true, since even Fr. Hecker taught this. Father Hecker? A Jesuit? Of course, because when our maestro pastor refers to "the early Church councils" he isn't referring to any evangelical church - which hadn't come into being yet! He was referring to the Roman Catholic Church, which held the only known church councils at that time (at least until Martin Luther broke away via the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century!)
This is validated when we see the words of Bishop Irenaeus himself (from one of the Councils' logs) testifying to what can legitimately be recognized as a faithful scriptural text. He writes (ibid.) these coda are approved and accepted, since:
"by indicating that tradition, derived from the apostles of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul...and by indicating the faith...which came down to our time by means of the succession of bishops"
The bold highlight, of course, shows in no uncertain terms this can only be the CATHOLIC Church.
Thus, the early Church arrived at 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. As Geza Vermes notes (ibid.):
"The consensus of scholarly opinion is that the Synoptic Gospels are the teachings of Jesus subject to the least doctrinal manipulation. "
Thus, Matthew, Mark and Luke are the most important sources if one wants to get at what Yeshua really said! This doesn't mean they are free of manipulation, and one can easily pick out the syncretic additions (such as references to Hell) when one examines them using Greek textual approaches. Meanwhile, the Gospel of John (or fourth Gospel) is the least trsutworthy - and yet here is the one the fundies cite most often for their salvationism shtick.
It is interesting amidst all this, any fundie would be daft and dopey enough to condemn the early Church for doing the work they maintain they should have done! But again, this appears to result from a major historical denial and an absence of awareness that when they (fundies) refer to early councils of the Church they are referring to the CATHOLIC Church.
Maybe they need to change their approach and wording: say like "according to an 18th century meeting of the early Evangelicals - like Rev. Josiah Strong- all the early Church Councils were wrong".
But of course, if they do that, they have no basis to critique the process used by the early Church!
Talk about being hoist on one's petard!!
No comments:
Post a Comment