Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

[lilpixieofterror]

It never ceases to amaze me how terrified people are of their computers. As if they're magical electric boxes that require a degree in rocket science to fix, maintain, and operate. If you spent $300 bucks and had to send your PC to India in order to uninstall Win 10, hate to say it, but you got ripped off. Your local PC shop probably coulda done it for you for $50 bucks and had it back to you the next day. Assuming you needed a new copy of Windows 7, you'd probably be looking at no more than $150 altogether, and the PC hardware would likely still have been under warranty.

My father is a skilled carpenter. Retired now, but occasionally still does his own framing, flooring, siding, roofing, even a little bit of electrical and plumbing if need be. Computers freak him the heck out, but what he doesn't understand is that if you know how to work on your car or your home, in my opinion, you can work on your own computer. It's not like you have to test wires, or solder transistors anymore. Everything is plug and play. And you don't need to know code language to install or uninstall simple applications or even your operating system unless you're working on something Unix based (which Windows isn't). It's really a psychological thing though. No matter how many times I try to explain how these things work...it's still magic to him.

Yeah really, for 300 dollars, he could have bought a cheap or used laptop or desktop from somebody, with windows 7 installed on it.

[robrecht]

I should write for Saturday Night Live?
You sayin' I'm crazy? Who ya callin' Paranoid? I'll paranoid you up the side of the head!

C'mon, R. We battled for months at a time back in about 2012, maybe 2011. We're even officially Friends here at TWeb. (You don't have to be crazy to be my friend, but it helps!) Are you really this testy or are you just testing me?
You're the farthest thing from Fundy RC. Nevertheless, that Ehrman is not RC himself is sufficient proof you're not Ehrmanite. Eremite? Did I misspell something?

I remember that I couldn't get you to stop claiming that scholars were stupid or incompetent or something like that and you refused to read Gilbert Van Belle's book, which would be of fundamental importance to your attempt to identify sources within the fourth gospel. I think I also tried to get you to identify what you claimed were Aramaisms. I'm not at all testy, and I do love the Catholic tradition, and the Eucharist. I consider historical Jesus studies to be sort of a fun hobby because I do not accept some of the methodological source-critical presuppositions, preferring instead the more rigorous historico-critical exegetical methods, which can only take us so far in terms of the historical Jesus. I also like other exegetical methods, postmodern and especially ancient Jewish midrash, but they are even less helpful in establishing a scholarly basis for Leben-Jesu-Forschung.

[Adrift]

I consider historical Jesus studies to be sort of a fun hobby because I do not accept some of the methodological source-critical presuppositions, preferring instead the more rigorous historico-critical exegetical methods, which can only take us so far in terms of the historical Jesus.

Hey robrecth, Just curious, what do you mean by methodological source-critical presuppositions, and in which way does that differ from historio-critical exegetical methods? Can you give examples of both? Thanks!

[robrecht]

Hey robrecth, Just curious, what do you mean by methodological source-critical presuppositions, and in which way does that differ from historio-critical exegetical methods? Can you give examples of both? Thanks!

Sure. Ehrman's method presupposes that Mk, Q, John, Thomas, and special Matthean and Lucan material can be cited as examples of independent attestation. I think Frans Neirynk and others have shown that John was at least indirectly dependent upon at least one of the synoptic gospels if not all three. Those who believe in Q, admit to Mark-Q overlaps or some even say that Mark was fully dependent upon Q. Most think that the gospel of Thomas was dependent upon the synoptic gospels. Each individual gospel, including most of their special material can be better understood with reference to the redactional interests of the author of each gospel. The more rigorous historico-critical methods view the gospels as primary evidence for the views of the authors (exegesis), their communities, secondary evidence for some possible polemical opponents, and only tertiary evidence in attempts to establish plausible reconstructions of the historical Jesus. Literary analyses may also be used to appreciate the artistry of the evangelists, quite apart from historical analysis, either for pure literary appreciation or for theological reflection.

[One Bad Pig]

You might be a little square for using IE, but Win 7 is perfectly okay in my book. In fact, I recommend most people stick with it if they don't care for 8.1 and up. Now maybe if you were using Win 98...

My PC is still running Win 98, but I don't take it on the internet much any more, since many sites will not load properly. I use my newer laptop for surfing.

(actually, I have a PC running Win 3.11, but it's not internet-connected)

[Adrift]

My PC is still running Win 98, but I don't take it on the internet much any more, since many sites will not load properly. I use my newer laptop for surfing.

(actually, I have a PC running Win 3.11, but it's not internet-connected)

Holy Cow. 3.11? What do you use it for exactly? Last I worked on a system that old I remember we had a bowling alley that was still using, I think, 3.0. I can't remember the details because it was so long ago, but they wanted to maintain the OS for new equipment, but it was pretty much impossible.98 is, just, archaic. I'd be constantly frustrated if I had to use something that old and slow.

[lilpixieofterror]

Holy Cow. 3.11? What do you use it for exactly? Last I worked on a system that old I remember we had a bowling alley that was still using, I think, 3.0. I can't remember the details because it was so long ago, but they wanted to maintain the OS for new equipment, but it was pretty much impossible.98 is, just, archaic. I'd be constantly frustrated if I had to use something that old and slow.

I used to play with an old win 3.11 machine, when I was a teenager and was curious about how it worked. While computers today are much more advanced; the principles really haven't changed all that much.

[Adrift]

Sure. Ehrman's method presupposes that Mk, Q, John, Thomas, and special Matthean and Lucan material can be cited as examples of independent attestation. I think Frans Neirynk and others have shown that John was at least indirectly dependent upon at least one of the synoptic gospels if not all three.

So those who hold that John is dependent upon the synoptics would assert that there is no independent historical core at all? What do those who hold this position generally think of Thomas then? Would they assert that Thomas is earlier than John, and thus retain an independent core in part?

Those who believe in Q, admit to Mark-Q overlaps or some even say that Mark was fully dependent upon Q.

I didn't know that there was anyone who thought that Mark was fully dependent upon Q. Surely this is a minority view, yes?

Most think that the gospel of Thomas was dependent upon the synoptic gospels. Each individual gospel, including most of their special material can be better understood with reference to the redactional interests of the author of each gospel.

These views I'm more familiar with.

The more rigorous historico-critical methods view the gospels as primary evidence for the views of the authors (exegesis), their communities, secondary evidence for some possible polemical opponents, and only tertiary evidence in attempts to establish plausible reconstructions of the historical Jesus. Literary analyses may also be used to appreciate the artistry of the evangelists, quite apart from historical analysis, either for pure literary appreciation or for theological reflection.

Hmm. Okay. I think I'm still confused. Are the points made above the paragraph I'm currently replying to associated with "methodological source-critical presuppositions"? If so, I fail to see how one conflicts with the other. Couldn't one hold both "methodological source-critical presuppositions" AND a "historio-critical exegetical method"? Most scholars I read hold to your definition of historio-critical exegetical method (at least, as I understand them).

[Adrift]

I used to play with an old win 3.11 machine, when I was a teenager and was curious about how it worked. While computers today are much more advanced; the principles really haven't changed all that much.

Sure. They all retain a simple folder system. That's a hard thing for a lot of people (including my father) to get his head around. You should see his desktop. Oy vay.

[lilpixieofterror]

Sure. They all retain a simple folder system. That's a hard thing for a lot of people (including my father) to get his head around. You should see his desktop. Oy vay.

Yep, windows is sort of like the office file manager. It's job is to take your programs, arrange them, and make them accessible when you want them. I know I need to go though every few weeks and clean out stuff like the start up menu (because software engineers seem to think you want their programs running at all times) or the desktop (I only keep things I want quick access to on the desktop). Although keeping a ton of links, on your desk top, does seem to be something the older generations seems to like. As I recall, Windows 3.1 and 3.11 had file managers that had a bunch of clickable icons as opposed to modern day windows explorer. I'm guessing some of that tons of icons, on the desktop, stems from that (we grew up with 95 and 98, so we didn't have to worry about that).

[robrecht]

So those who hold that John is dependent upon the synoptics would assert that there is no independent historical core at all?

No, just that there is no independent attestation to elements shared in common by John and the synoptics.

What do those who hold this position generally think of Thomas then? Would they assert that Thomas is earlier than John, and thus retain an independent core in part?

It's a totally separate question. For example, Ehrman thinks Thomas is independent of the synoptics, but Meier thinks, along with the majority, that Thomas is more likely dependent upon the synoptics. Otherwise, their source-critical presuppositions are identical. The question of Q is also a totally separate question. Neirynck supported the Q hypothesis, Goodacre opposes it, but both think John and Thomas are both dependent upon the synoptics. But the American Q cottage industry generally considers Thomas to be independent of the synoptics and therefore a possible witness to use in the reconstruction of Q.

I didn't know that there was anyone who thought that Mark was fully dependent upon Q. Surely this is a minority view, yes?

Yes, definitely a minority view, but it happens to be the view of the first person to write a full-length commentary on Q. But Mark-Q overlaps are undeniable by Q proponents and these show that there is some type of relationship that eliminates any strong claim of independent attestation.

These views I'm more familiar with.

Hmm. Okay. I think I'm still confused. Are the points made above the paragraph I'm currently replying to associated with "methodological source-critical presuppositions"? If so, I fail to see how one conflicts with the other. Couldn't one hold both "methodological source-critical presuppositions" AND a "historio-critical exegetical method"? Most scholars I read hold to your definition of historio-critical exegetical method (at least, as I understand them).

The field divides itself among (1) some dinosaurs who still rigorously debate the source-critical issues; (2) many who adopt various source-critical presuppositions without any real debate; and (3) those who adopt various literary or postmodern approaches that purposefully avoid source-critical positions and focus only on each document as a whole. I consider the dinosaurs to be the proponents of a more rigorous form of historico-critical exegetical method, especially if they do not remain unevolved dinosaurs that practice source-criticism without any appreciation for the redactional and authorial creativity and artistry of the evangelists. The middle group is less rigorous because they adopt source-critical methodological presuppositions without much appreciation of the unresolved source-critical issues. This group also has its dinosaurs that assume that special material is necessarily separate source material, ie also without much appreciation of the authorial role of the evangelists. In this way, Ehrman's approach represents a rather old-fashioned 4-source theory of Streeter (plus Thomas). The diachronic dinosaurs of both these groups need to appreciate the value of synchronic literary or postmodern approaches that emphasize the authorial function of the evangelists. In this way, I think it is best to combine multiple methodologies, and I have a particular penchant for those of us who appreciate ancient literary methods of interpretation (eg, Aristotle's Poetics). In this way, we combine ancient literary criticism, modern Literarkritik (= source-criticism), and post-modern literary criticism.

[Mikeenders]

Ehrman thinks Thomas is independent of the synoptics, but Meier thinks, along with the majority, that Thomas is more likely dependent upon the synoptics. Otherwise, their source-critical presuppositions are identical. The question of Q is also a totally separate question. Neirynck supported the Q hypothesis, Goodacre opposes it, but both think John and Thomas are both dependent upon the synoptics. But the American Q cottage industry generally considers Thomas to be independent of the synoptics and therefore a possible witness to use in the reconstruction of Q.

I am probably the only one but my eyes glaze over when the discussion gets too focused on what this person thinks and that person support as it has for the last ten pages. Do you guys (and that includes Nick) really think that has high value? I am a meats and Potatoes data and actual point kind a guy so forgive my interjection. Now if theres going to be an entry test for Heaven then I might worry about what Erhman thinks or what club he is in but the only time any of these guys have any value to me is with actual data they present.

I got to say though Robrecht your defense for why Bart doesn't go into opposing viewpoints in his books as he should was one of the strangest defenses I have ever heard. I Don't think any one more conservative would get away with not bringing up the strongest points against their position because it makes for a better easier read (I am not implying you have to get into all the minutiae)

[Adrift]

No, just that there is no independent attestation to elements shared in common by John and the synoptics.

This is a little confusing to me. So, then, those who hold this view may believe that there may be some original source material that was not picked up by the synoptics?

It's a totally separate question. For example, Ehrman thinks Thomas is independent of the synoptics, but Meier thinks, along with the majority, that Thomas is more likely dependent upon the synoptics. Otherwise, their source-critical presuppositions are identical. The question of Q is also a totally separate question. Neirynck supported the Q hypothesis, Goodacre opposes it, but both think John and Thomas are both dependent upon the synoptics. But the American Q cottage industry generally considers Thomas to be independent of the synoptics and therefore a possible witness to use in the reconstruction of Q.

I intended it to be a totally separate question. I think the above makes sense to me though. Though I might quibble about what you mean exactly by "thinks John and Thomas are both dependent upon the synoptics"...Thoroughly dependent, or mostly dependent?

Yes, definitely a minority view, but it happens to be the view of the first person to write a full-length commentary on Q. But Mark-Q overlaps are undeniable by Q proponents and these show that there is some type of relationship that eliminates any strong claim of independent attestation.

Who was the first person to write a full-length commentary on Q? What are some examples of Mark-Q overlaps that are suggested?

The field divides itself among (1) some dinosaurs who still rigorously debate the source-critical issues; (2) many who adopt various source-critical presuppositions without any real debate; and (3) those who adopt various literary or postmodern approaches that purposefully avoid source-critical positions and focus only on each document as a whole. I consider the dinosaurs to be the proponents of a more rigorous form of historico-critical exegetical method, especially if they do not remain unevolved dinosaurs that practice source-criticism without any appreciation for the redactional and authorial creativity and artistry of the evangelists. The middle group is less rigorous because they adopt source-critical methodological presuppositions without much appreciation of the unresolved source-critical issues. This group also has its dinosaurs that assume that special material is necessarily separate source material, ie also without much appreciation of the authorial role of the evangelists. In this way, Ehrman's approach represents a rather old-fashioned 4-source theory of Streeter (plus Thomas). The diachronic dinosaurs of both these groups need to appreciate the value of synchronic literary or postmodern approaches that emphasize the authorial function of the evangelists. In this way, I think it is best to combine multiple methodologies, and I have a particular penchant for those of us who appreciate ancient literary methods of interpretation (eg, Aristotle's Poetics). In this way, we combine ancient literary criticism, modern Literarkritik (= source-criticism), and post-modern literary criticism.

I think this is way above my head. If it wouldn't be any trouble, would you be able to offer examples of passages or books of the NT where we can clearly see the differences between the different field divides, and how each come to their conclusions? I apologize if that's asking more than you're willing to provide. If you'd rather offer a source that clarifies the divides, that would be sufficient as well.

[robrecht]

I am probably the only one but my eyes glaze over when the discussion gets too focused on what this person thinks and that person support as it has for the last ten pages. Do you guys (and that includes Nick) really think that has high value? I am a meats and Potatoes data and actual point kind a guy so forgive my interjection. Now if theres going to be an entry test for Heaven then I might worry about what Erhman thinks or what club he is in but the only time any of these guys have any value to me is with actual data they present.

I got to say though Robrecht your defense for why Bart doesn't go into opposing viewpoints in his books as he should was one of the strangest defenses I have ever heard. I Don't think any one more conservative would get away with not bringing up the strongest points against their position because it makes for a better easier read (I am not implying you have to get into all the minutiae)

So you think that Ehrman should be more focused on what this person thinks and that person supports as this thread has for the last ten pages?

[Adrift]

I got to say though Robrecht your defense for why Bart doesn't go into opposing viewpoints in his books as he should was one of the strangest defenses I have ever heard. I Don't think any one more conservative would get away with not bringing up the strongest points against their position because it makes for a better easier read (I am not implying you have to get into all the minutiae)

As I understand it, Ehrman isn't at all that interested in defending his views against conservative views as much as he's interested in presenting the overall mainstream academic view to a general audience. So, the reason a lot of his work may be new to some Christian readers is that he's simply presenting the general secular academic view. Nothing he says is that radical really. That said, while his views are generally mainstream, he does seem to paint a more pessimistic or antagonistic view in his popular work against more traditional views. I would find it surprising if a number of more conservative scholars were to point to aspects of his more popular works and find them completely fringe. They might point to aspects and say, "well there are varying opinions on this subject, and he doesn't offer as full a spectrum as deserving", but he's not exactly fringe. As far as I can tell, he's fully within the mainstream, especially among secular academic scholars.