"Scholars will explode the myth of The New Testament"

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Howiedds]

Kwd:

Somebody was willing to pay somebody some money to prove that the Gospels are wrong.

I don't understand how you made that leap. What does the existence or non-existence of Q have to do with proving the Gospels are wrong? Q's raison d’être is to help explain one solution to the relationship between the gospels.

[kwd111]

Kwd:

Somebody was willing to pay somebody some money to prove that the Gospels are wrong.

I don't understand how you made that leap. What does the existence or non-existence of Q have to do with proving the Gospels are wrong? Q's raison d’être is to help explain one solution to the relationship between the gospels.

Not a leap at all Howie...

This is a quote from the article:

The Research Project at the University of Copenhagen, which has just been granted 4.7 million kroner by the Velux Foundation, has been titled "The Gospels as re-written Bible"

It is a research but the goal has already been stipulated.

[Howiedds]

Kwd:

The Research Project at the University of Copenhagen, which has just been granted 4.7 million kroner by the Velux Foundation, has been titled "The Gospels as re-written Bible"

Was there another page to the article that I didn't read or are you just paranoid. I didn't understand the title of the paragraph "The Gospels as re-written Bible" as you did.

The one page I read clearly stated that they were trying to present an alternative theory of the chronology of and dependence of the Luke and Matthew on each other so that Q would not be a necessary assumption.

In a new research project, researchers from the Faculty of Theology will attempt to establish that this lost scripture never existed.
The Research Project at the University of Copenhagen, which has just been granted 4.7 million kroner by the Velux Foundation, has been titled "The Gospels as re-written Bible". During the next tree years a group of scholars will map the development of the four gospels in order to establish that the Gospel of Luke is not, as believed so far, a contemporary of the Gospel of Matthew, and that the shared content of the two is not to be explained by the existence of a lost scripture, but by the fact that the author of St. Luke's Gospel used St. Matthew's Gospel as well as that of St. Mark as basis for his own scripture.
Probably a majority of New Testament scholars believe in Q. But as we will attempt to show, the hypothesis has severe flaws and should be replaced by a more obvious one".


Exactly where, except in your mind that closed down after reading this meaningless phrase that didn't seem to be pertinent to what the article said, did it say it was out to "prove the Gospels wrong," as you put it. If anything they were attempting to get a rid of the need for Q. In fact that was the only goal stated in the article. Why would that be proving the Gospels wrong?

[Heterodoxus]

Q is only useful, or most useful, to those who hold the majority scholarship position that Mark was written 1st and that Luke and Matthew made use of Mark, their own independent oral traditions, and some other source that was common to Luke and Matthew but not to Mark. Once one rejects "Markan priority," the need for Q disappears.

Agreed.

For those unfamiliar with Streeter's "four document theory" (and if I noted it correctly):

• in addition to any oral traditions from Antioch, the Matthew Gospel contains both material unique to Matthew and elements from Mark's Gospel;
• Matthew also contains what Papius termed the logia (sayings) of Peter which might have been included in the material unique to Matthew and/or in Mark's Gospel.

But, like Q, those logia are presumed to be non-extant because there's nothing, either within or without the proto-orthodox period of Christianity (that I'm able to locate), which indicates those logia ever existed.

Also, if I read the article correctly, I'm under the impression that they're seeking a possible alternative to Q, not to debunk the Gospels.  Did I misread the article?

[kwd111]

Kwd:


Exactly where, except in your mind that closed down after reading this meaningless phrase that didn't seem to be pertinent to what the article said, did it say it was out to "prove the Gospels wrong," as you put it.

OH Howie, oh Howie, oh Howie...

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

[Howiedds]

hetero:

Also, if I read the article correctly, I'm under the impression that they're seeking a possible alternative to Q, not to debunk the Gospels.  Did I misread the article?

If you did, then I did as well.

In fact, I don't understand the basis for the headline Scholars will explode the myth of The New Testament or the paragraph that is entitled The Gospels as re-written Bible.

The one page article gave no indication of how they were explode(ing) the myth of The New Testament or rewriting the Bible. I thought they were trying to get back to a more traditional view that excluded Q.

[Howiedds]

hetero:

Also, if I read the article correctly, I'm under the impression that they're seeking a possible alternative to Q, not to debunk the Gospels.  Did I misread the article?

If you did, then I did as well.

In fact, I don't understand the basis for the headline Scholars will explode the myth of The New Testament or the paragraph that is entitled The Gospels as re-written Bible.

The one page article gave no indication of how they were explode(ing) the myth of The New Testament or rewriting the Bible. I thought they were trying to get back to a more traditional view that excluded Q.

[kwd111]

hetero:

Also, if I read the article correctly, I'm under the impression that they're seeking a possible alternative to Q, not to debunk the Gospels.  Did I misread the article?

If you did, then I did as well.

In fact, I don't understand the basis for the headline Scholars will explode the myth of The New Testament or the paragraph that is entitled The Gospels as re-written Bible.

The one page article gave no indication of how they were explode(ing) the myth of The New Testament or rewriting the Bible. I thought they were trying to get back to a more traditional view that excluded Q.

Maybe it was the headline that caused me to take a wrong view!  I guess it was the author's attempt to insert his personal opinion.

[Heterodoxus]

I thought they were trying to get back to a more traditional view that excluded Q.

Yes, that was my impression also.  It puzzles me how that turned into an attempt to debunk the Gospels

I wish Christians would quit being so defensive and read the entire article (albeit it could have been worded better  ).

[Heterodoxus]

Maybe it was the headline that caused me to take a wrong view!  I guess it was the author's attempt to insert his personal opinion.

OK, perhaps. 

[twotimer]

It seems so strange that Q has been posited to exist without any direct references to it.  Couldn't the similarities between the synoptic gospels be explained by a common oral tradition rather than a common written document?

I don't think it strange at all. The wording is too similar for an oral tradition, besides, Q consists of a list of sayings without a narrative accompanying them. The idea of a common written source makes a lot of sense. Now that the Gospel of Thomas has been discovered, we know that sayings gospels like Q exist. In fact, many of the sayings in Thomas are the same as Q.

[Heterodoxus]

Q consists of a list of sayings without a narrative accompanying them. The idea of a common written source makes a lot of sense.

Agreed.  The sayings of Jesus or Mark Twain, if/when recorded separately without narrative, might be called J, or T.

many of the sayings in Thomas are the same as Q.

They "are the same"? Or, they are thought to be the same?

[Howiedds]

hetero and two timer:

many of the sayings in Thomas are the same as Q.

They "are the same"? Or, they are thought to be the same?

The fact that many of the sayings in Thomas and Q may be the same is beside the point. The significance of Thomas is better demonstrated by twotimer's earlier point that discovering a Gospel that is also a sayings document, devoid of narrative, increased the likelihood that a common source, "Q", that contained only sayings, did exist.

[smoodock45]

Speaking of “oral” tradition I would expect most Christians would be able to fill in these blanks without any help from others or a written document.

_______ _____ how sweet the _____
That _____ a ______ like me
I once ___ ____ but now __ _____
Was _____, but now _ ___.

We don’t need to know one another, but I am sure most of us could recite the four common stanzas of this work by heart without any trouble, misplacement of words or putting completely foreign words than should be in those blanks.

On a more secular “oral” tradition, many, if not all of us, on this forum could probably successfully fill in the following blanks without any help from anyone else or a written document:

Hello _______, my old ______
___ come to ____ with ___ _____
Because a ______ softly ________
Left ___ _____ while _ ___ ________
And the ______ that was _______ in my _____
Still _______ ______ the _____ of _______

The above is part of a work that was created over 40 years ago. Nevertheless, is there one among us who had lived through that time that wouldn’t know the words to place in each blank above? There may even be some who are a lot younger who know what to place in each blank above. In line with the above, but a little less than 40 years ago, would be the cult classic “Rocky Horror Picture Show.” Many fans know the whole dialogue by heart. Some have memorized only the dialogue of a favorite character, but the point is, these people could recite from memory the words written by Richard O’Brian, and yet most fans have never met. They wouldn’t need a script, but most (having never met) could stand in the same room with one another and recite together every word without missing a single word or pause.

The writers of the Synoptics do not have to be dependent upon one another or a “Q” document. Often the disciples discussed things Jesus said and did, while they were travelling and again when they returned to “the house” in Capernaum. The repetitive rehearsing of what occurred through dialogue with one another would have helped lay the foundation of a very accurate oral tradition of what was said and done by Jesus. Jesus also often questioned the disciples about what they discussed among themselves and about specific things he had said or done. He answered questions they had and defined terms he used in parables. There seems to be a very reasonable argument that the disciples of this Rabbi remembered, wrote down and taught what Jesus’ said and did with great accuracy.

Paul offers us a few examples of “oral” tradition written down in some of his epistles. He gives us an example in his letter to the Corinthians. He taught them like a rabbi, with a kind of rhythm and repetition of certain words. Notice:

“For I handed over to you what I also received:
That the Messiah died on behalf of our sins according to the Scriptures
And that he was buried
And that he rose on the third day according to the Scriptures,
And that he was seen by Cephas,
Then the twelve;
Then, he was seen
By more than five hundred brothers at once;…
Then, he was seen by James,
 Then by all the apostles.” [1Corinthians15:3-7 (Scripture form etc. taken from Misquoting Truth; by Timothy Paul Jones; chapter 5, pp.90-91)]

[Howiedds]

Smoo:
I loved the way you compared our world of modern communication with an illiterate society 2,000 years ago. After such comparisons, it's really hard to take any of your posts seriously.

The writers of the Synoptics do not have to be dependent upon one another or a “Q” document. Often the disciples discussed things Jesus said and did, while they were travelling and again when they returned to “the house” in Capernaum. The repetitive rehearsing of what occurred through dialogue with one another would have helped lay the foundation of a very accurate oral tradition of what was said and done by Jesus.

The gospel writers drew on oral traditions for their source material. It makes sense that each writer would have selected some things and rejected others. They would organize their material based on some principle they chose. They would also find it necessary at times to offer explanations about the events.

Seeing the similarities among the synoptics regarding the material chosen, their order of presentation, the choice of words even in the explanatory comments, especially when viewed as large blocks of material,  have led most to believe there is more than a coincidental relationship between them.

As you noted, all three writers might have been familiar with a number of stories and sayings of Jesus that had been widely circulated and would, therefore, be expected to make use of them in their Gospels. What such an exposure does not account for is high degree of similarity in the sequence of the material. When two stories are presented that are independent of chronology but appear in two different Gospels in the same order and content, it strongly suggests that they have a literary relationship. For example, between Mark 13 and 16 there are 38 narrative units of events or teachings. 34 of them appear with the same content and sequence in Matthew 24-27. In some cases, these units appear in all three synoptics in the same sequence.

There is also a substantial agreement in the wording among the synoptics. Although two Gospel writers could agree on the material from the oral tradition to be used, it is not likely that they would use the same wording in the narratives they use. Nevertheless, there is a close agreement in the common use of words, grammar, and order of the words themselves; some times it's verbatim. One example would be Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13. Out of some 30 words in the passage, one word, one, differs. How likely would such identical passages be recorded from an Oral tradition?

The comparison of their composition, content, sequence, and wording, with all drawing on an oral tradition over decades, should lead one to believe that they have a relationship. An oral tradition alone would not account for such agreement. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that one of them was written first and been a source for another. As to which came first and who relied on whom, that is the synoptic problem.

• Is this poll accurate? by CCC460 [March 09, 2010, 10:05:42 PM]
• Islam... peaceable? by dadman [March 09, 2010, 09:33:22 PM]
• Number playing on earthqu... by SteveC [March 09, 2010, 08:27:49 PM]
• Escape from Sobibor by SteveC [March 09, 2010, 08:02:10 PM]
• ABORTION by allthegoodnamesweretaken [March 09, 2010, 07:20:13 PM]
• Scientists hard at work! by SteveC [March 09, 2010, 06:39:18 PM]
• Bible prophecy .. In the ... by SteveC [March 09, 2010, 10:00:41 AM]
• This is crazy. by kwd111 [March 08, 2010, 09:01:04 PM]
• Celebration of Purim by kwd111 [March 07, 2010, 08:59:35 PM]
• Ras Shamra by LeahOne [March 07, 2010, 06:47:14 PM]
• An addition to the family by Acumen [March 05, 2010, 10:40:46 PM]
• Earths Axis Changed - Day... by kwd111 [March 05, 2010, 12:06:35 PM]
• Oops, 'Missing Link' Foss... by kwd111 [March 04, 2010, 07:11:17 AM]
• "Scholars will explode th... by Howiedds [March 03, 2010, 11:27:57 PM]
• Sign of things to come? by dadman [March 03, 2010, 01:19:36 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 533
• Latest: GaryRichards

Stats

• Total Posts: 83958
• Total Topics: 2508
• Online Today: 29
• Online Ever: 133
• (March 03, 2010, 07:21:16 AM)

Users Online

Users: 1
Guests: 19
Total: 20

SteveC