tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post2471012832062424934..comments2023-06-01T14:08:49.977+00:00Comments on Confessions of a Doubting Thomas: The Synoptic Problem and some Solutions...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-10592958340653264272016-12-02T14:51:52.170+00:002016-12-02T14:51:52.170+00:00Explain the five problems of synoptic gospelExplain the five problems of synoptic gospelAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09749648247386482028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-46135474034721358132015-03-01T22:01:49.155+00:002015-03-01T22:01:49.155+00:00Christians should not be surprised that authors of...Christians should not be surprised that authors of some of the books in the New Testament "plagiarized" the writings of other New Testament authors, ie, the authors of Matthew and Luke copying huge chunks of Mark, often word for word, into their own gospels.<br /><br />This habit is not new in the Bible. There is evidence that Old Testament writers did the exact same thing. An example: the entire chapters of II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 are almost word for word identical!<br /><br />If the Bible is the inspired Word of God, why would God have the author of one inspired book of the Bible copy almost word for word large sections, sometimes entire chapters, from another inspired book of the Bible? Is that how divine inspiration works?<br /><br />So should we simply accept this "word for word copying" as the will of the Almighty, accepting it blindly by faith, continuing to insist that God wrote the Bible, or should we consider the overwhelming evidence that the books of the Bible are human works of literature, no more divinely inspired than any other work of fallible human authors? Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-7973832198003228652011-12-30T15:14:26.394+00:002011-12-30T15:14:26.394+00:00The Markan priority view has also grown in promine...The Markan priority view has also grown in prominence among Evangelicals and other conservative Christians: <br /><br />http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2011/12/has-michael-r-licona-considered-raising.htmlEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-79291982036804483432011-12-30T15:11:33.994+00:002011-12-30T15:11:33.994+00:00Ricky, Very nice post and comment. You and I are o...Ricky, Very nice post and comment. You and I are on the same wavelength when it comes to the Synoptic Problem. In fact it is not uncommon to find biblical scholars arguing that Mark was first and that the other Gospels are later derivatives of the Markan outline including John. Such scholars include:<br /><br />1) Steve A. Hunt, author of Rewriting the Feeding of Five Thousand (Studies in Biblical Literature). He argues that the Fourth Gospel author rewrote/rescripted the feeding stories in the earlier Gospels adding his theological imagination to the mix -- his recent book constitutes a sustained challenge to those who think the fourth Gospel was composed by an independent eye witness: Rewriting the Feeding of Five Thousand (Studies in Biblical Literature)<br /><br />2) Roger David Aus, author of Feeding the Five Thousand: Studies in the Judaic Background of Mark 6:30-44 par. and John 6:1-15 (Studies in Judaism). He raises questions concerning the historicity of the feeding stories, and lists Hebrew and Hellenistic influences that probably gave birth to such a miracle story: Feeding the Five Thousand: Studies in the Judaic Background of Mark 6:30-44 par. and John 6:1-15 (Studies in Judaism)<br /><br />3) Dominika A. Kurek-Chomycz Leuven, author of The Fragrance of Her Perfume: The Significance of Sense Imagery in John's Account of the Anointing in Bethany See her paper (attached). She points out that the tale of the anointing of Jesus in John is most likely not based on eyewitness testimony but was rewritten from stories in earlier Gospels. She names scholars who agree with her. She also points out that the author of the fourth Gospel often redacts stories adding sensory information.<br /><br />I enjoy reading biblical scholarship, articles, books, NT Abstracts, etc. And I have several blog pieces that argue in favor of the Jesus story being rescripted over time:<br /><br />Scent from heaven? Who nose? Do tales of Jesus' anointing, resurrection & bodily ascension, bear the aroma of truth? (I wrote this piece before reading Dominika's paper): http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2011/02/perfumed-jesus.html<br /><br />The word about the growing words of the resurrected Jesus:<br />http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2010/03/word-about-growing-words-of-resurrected.htmlEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-90196139250460645162011-12-27T16:21:18.230+00:002011-12-27T16:21:18.230+00:00Marcus,
I don't want it simple. But I do want...Marcus,<br /><br />I don't want it simple. But I do want 'it' to be reasonable and justifiable. The 'it' in question being that which I believe. <br /><br />Is is reasonable and justifiable to believe that what we have here (in the gospels) is independent, eye-witness reportage, with a bit of (legitimate) storytelling spin? The more I read on this issue and the further into it I dig, the less I can believe that. Not only are these stories not eye-witness reportage, but they are not independent either. One has copied another, keeping some bits the same, and changing other bits.<br /><br />Mark, for example, begins his gospel with a story of Jesus going to a baptism of repentance. While there, the Spirit descends like a dove <b><i>into</i></b> him. (NB almost all English translations render this word as 'upon' in Mark 1 and 'into' in virtually all other uses of the word in the NT - translation bias?)<br /><br />Matthew tells basically the same story, except that he changes the word for into to the word for <i>upon</i> which changes the sense of the story. Matthew also adds a couple of lines of dialogue where John says he shouldn't be baptising Jesus, and Jesus says its OK. Matthew has also added a couple of chapters before this showing that Jesus was filled with the Spirit from birth - this wasn't something new that happened when John baptised him, as Mark implies.<br /><br />A plain reading of the text suggests that Mark's Jesus was human, repented (thus, by implication, a sinner), was baptised and then the Spirit entered into him. <br /><br />Matthew disagreed with this on almost every level, so changed the story to make it absolutely clear that Jesus was always full of the Spirit, never needed to repent and the baptism was the proclamation from heaven of the start of his public ministry.<br /><br />Of course, the church today believes the latter story and would call anyone who believed the former story a heretic. But that clearly wasn't the case 1900 years ago; one gospel writer, and presumably his readers, believed the former story. <br /><br />So my issue is this - using the texts from the bible, we cannot tell which of the two different Jesus personae described was the real one. And Luke's is different again. And John's even more so. <br /><br />The contemporary Evangelical Church believes Jesus was pretty much as John described him, with some bits from the other gospels added on. <br /><br />But what if John was wrong and Mark was right? What if Jesus was a man, filled with God's spirit, but only a man and not the second person of the Trinity?<br /><br />Mark's Jesus is not perfect. John's is.<br /><br />Art doesn't have a right answer, but history had a real Jesus (I think) and I want to find out the facts about who he was, not merely accept the stories that have been made up about him. Not all paintings give an accurate picture of the scene they show. That is fine for art. But if you want to know the truth about something depicted, you have to (somehow) decide which (if any) of the available paintings best represent the scene.<br /><br />The thing is, I'm not happy <i>assuming</i> that one of the paintings is accurate without good reason. I'm also not happy with the assumption that the four paintings must show the same picture, when this is plainly not the case.<br /><br />The problem is, how to discern any truth from a painting. Maybe there's none...Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-90858423478172789572011-12-24T15:44:00.959+00:002011-12-24T15:44:00.959+00:00I've often heard the "different viewpoint...I've often heard the "different viewpoints of same events" explanation. However, in the original post, the example: "(e.g. Mark 6v5 where Jesus 'could do no mighty work') which Matthew or Luke rewrites (e.g. Matthew 13v58 where Jesus 'did not do' any mighty works)" seems to stretch that line of reasoning.<br /><br />This isn't just an argument of semantics - "could [not] do" is NOT equivalent to "did not do". A subset to be sure. But to say Jesus could *not* do mighty works is no small thing. Why would works inspired by God not want us to be clear on such a point? Why be lacking on a point concerning omnipotence?<br /><br />If we're going to concede that "could [not] do" is in error... now we have to consider that might not be the only error, even if unintentional, and rules out the possibility that the current works we have are 100% inspired & inerrant. Whether the "original" works are or not is somewhat irrelevant if don't have them - such a claim would only support that some portion could be inspired & inerrant but we can't be sure which part that is. How useful is that? Why would an omnipotent god let us wind up in such a predicament over something so critical?Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-60259787086497440362011-12-22T22:34:58.239+00:002011-12-22T22:34:58.239+00:00Art doesn't have a right answer.
As I read th...Art doesn't have a right answer.<br /><br />As I read this, I worry you want it simple, but life isn't simple. At least, people aren't. One of the great things about alternative newspapers recording the same events is that often accurate recordings of similar facts come out feeling totally different if the writers are looking for different things.<br /><br />I have seen reports of events where I have been present, where I would have to say the reports were accurate but did not reflect the emphases that I took away. It can be frustrating; it can be revealing.<br /><br />The Gospel writers do sometimes disagree with each other in exactly this way. This does not mean they impose or change realities, or make Jesus in their image. Unless each story of 200 words contains everything that can be said about each such occasion... (without stage directions, comments on facial expressions, distance between participants... hmm...). Stand in one place, all you see is light; stand to the side, all you see is shadow. Same scene. Which is really right? Wrong question. <br /><br />I'm happy to find & explore the facets of truth we are granted, and to seek for more of them within what is recorded. Truth is personal, supple and living, and in the midst of the delightful complexity of the Gospel records we find it in a glorious dealing with God and people.<br /><br />I'm not sure I'd like the simpler version you seem to prefer. It doesn't reflect the way life works for me. And real people really reflecting a real God should have colours and moods, not black & white inevitability. <br /><br />Beautifully simple answers to hard questions are enticing, but they're like MacDonalds, and although some may be lovin' it - seriously, there's better food out there.Marcus Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603530412980948533noreply@blogger.com