I have been considering the issues raised in several places about how one looks at the canonical Gospels. The synoptics, share an interesting problem -- on the one hand they tell the same story, and often use the same incidents, and even Greek idiom. That later is especially interesting when it applies to things attributed to Jesus who spoke Aramaic. At the same time, the lineages in Luke and Mathew do not agree, the birth narratives do not agree, Mark has none, Mathew never mentions the Ascension, a pivotal point in the faith story for most of us.
The Quelle hypothesis attempts to solve the problem with the idea that all of the gosplers shared a common source. The problem is how to account for the differences in lineage, birth narrative, and events? I find the quelle hypothesis particularly unappealing when Thomas is proposed as Q. Thomas is, I am convinced, derivative.
Back to the Gospels!
If not Quelle, what? The way the gospels vary does not lend itself to a linear solution, that is if we posit that Mathew is dependant on Mark (the eldest by scholastic consensus) and Luke on either both or Mathew, we run into several issues.
One, Mark is also the shortest. Are we seeing fictional embellishment in Mathew and Luke?
Two some parts of both Mathew in Luke are similar, albeit they do not agree (lineages.)
Three Mark has no birth narrative.
So, Q lends itself to the idea that a source existed which can be discerned and thus the work of the Seminar. Their entire exercise in rating passages was based on the idea that they could discern Q.
But that leaves us with the problem of the parts that are not in the other works. Several Seminar authors do suggest fictional accounts are involved. But, the whole structure of Mathew and Luke suggest otherwise.
So where do we go with this? I find myself in several places. First, I think Mark and oral tradtion are the combined sources. One can explain a lot that way, without any secret code or hidden documents. Two I think Thomas is clearly a gnostic invention. Three I suspect we will never be really sure.
Now, John represents another matter entire. John seems to me to be playing Socrates to Jesus's Plato. That is he was not describing a life, but a teaching and using Jesus stories to make his points. Of course, we can argue that if he got the points right, it does not matter, and I do. But if one is applying for no to--me--obvious--reason, a 'reporting in the 21st century' standard to the work issues arise.
What I come to is the question of what matters. I could be a Christian if Mark were the only canonical gospel. In fact, it would be easier in some ways, absent John. I could be a Christian if we discovered Luke or Mark, flat erred. In fact one of the Gospels miss-attibutes a quotation from the Midrash. I am still a Christian.
It seems to me that if one invests some sort of mystical authority in the Bible, so that it MUST be right, on every point, one weakens the potential of the faith. I frankly not only do not accept, 'inerrant' I think the idea is silly.
But, I wonder, what others think? Can someone convince me, even a little bit, that inerrant makes any sense? I am open to reason I think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I have my problems with the Q hypothesis as well, largely because I really just want to shout 'Q really is a scholarly construct'. At best, it points to a probable common source for some parts of Matthew and Luke which is different from Mark. Contrary to Q scholars, I really don't think we can know the content of Q beyond the parallels noticed in Matthew and Luke. So, all the outrageous speculation on the theology of Q is simply hot air, at the end of the day. My own inclination is, with you, to presume oral tradition here, but I concede the verbal parallels may point to a written source at some point. Too bad we know not much else about it.
I like John and I really do think that it is an attempt to get what really happened. There is an engaging interest in correcting the chronology in the 4th Gospel as well as making Jesus' teachings more clear. That makes it feel rather more stylized, but I'm not sure it rings false to me.
Well, we've talked enough to know that I'm not going to argue inerrancy with you. Authoritative is enough for me. Obviously, we read the Bible with a mix of techniques, but all this reading should lead to the same place: is the Bible the basis on which we view the world and make our decisions in the world. What all that pans out to be, of course, may differ, but I think that is the most important starting point among Chrisitans.
Peace,
Phil
That the three synoptics do not agree on every small detail speaks more to their truth in the essentials, than if they did agree on the small stuff.
Considering that the Gospels were written in Greek, not the language of Jesus, and that they were, at least in part, very likely from an oral tradition, the wonder is that the similarities are so great.
That the compilers did not clean up the contradictions for future readers is to their credit.
I'm with Phil. I like John's Gospel, too.
The idea of inerrancy is silly.
I am not suggesting, or at least do not mean to suggest that John has no value -- far from it. But(!) I read it as Christology -- the church's first effort to explain Jesus to itself and the world, not necessarily as history. I think that is OK, indeed essential.
FWIW
jimB
Via email, Stephan says:
steve has sent you a link to a blog:
Could not Jesus of spoken Greek as well? According to the story he fled israel and was raised in the empire. Were not most of the early Christians Hellenized Jews. Meaning most of the people Jesus was sent to spoke Greek.
Posted with permission.
Via email, Stephan says:
Its possible that Jesus was not raised in Egypt of course. That part of the story may be taken from pagan heroic literature. The hero is attacked by an enemy as a child and is often raised in a foreign land.
Jim;
I don't think we need to look at pagan literature (epic, perhaps, but certainly, novels) to explain Jesus in Egypt. One, if Herod really did do the Slaughter of the Innocents (and he may well have been crazy enough in the last few months of his life which roughly correspond to the time frame we're talking here), it makes sense that Jesus' family might think it wise to pick up and get out. Egypt is a logical place to go as it is close by and has a considerable Jewish population.
Second, I think on a non-historical level, we should take Matthew's cross-referencing seriously. They go to Egypt as a fulfillment of the prophecy from Hosea 1,11. The Slaughter is prefigured by Jeremiah 31,15. I know that answers no historical questions (it may even raise problems), but I don't think we need to go to pagan sources to explain the passage.
Peace,
Phil
Phil,
It is Stephan's concept. I found it interesting, and so passed it on. Stephan now knows how to send comments directly, without emailing me, so I hope he will.
I was more taken with the question of Jesus as bilingual. Much of the history of last / first century Palestine, has to do with the conflict of Hellenization of the Jewish people.
We know the influence of Greek and to a lesser extent, Roman cultures was pervasive precisely because the pharisees were so excised about it. Did Jesus have at least some working knowledge of Greek? Interesting to speculate on, even if we probably cannot ever tell.
FWIW
jimB
Post a Comment