Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

[robrecht]

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?

Rather, the opposite. Those who think John is independent of the synoptics, therefore think that whatever John and the synoptics have in common must have come from a source that predated both John and the synoptics.

I intended it to be a totally separate question.

i thought you were looking for a convergence of the two questions when you said: "What do those who hold this position generally think of Thomas then?" Those who hold the first position need not generally think the same thin

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?

All different degrees of dependence, and either direct or indirect dependence, or written or oral dependence may be defended.

Who was the first person to write a full-length commentary on Q?

HT Fleddermann, a very nice man, by the way.

What are some examples of Mark-Q overlaps that are suggested?

Mark 3,22-30 and Q 11,14-15.17-26 12,10

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.

I guess I'm not as good of a popular writer as Ehrman. I went to look for a book I was thinking of, written by a former colleague of mine. I thought it was written in English, but it turns out it is only in Dutch. It was a good summary of the various methods utilized and positions taken in 20th century NT exegesis, written pretty much from the same perspective that I take, 'though I also focus more on ancient literary criticism. Maybe a good example would be the messianic secrecy motif in the gospel of Mark. Initially, this was proposed by Wrede as something present in the pre-Markan tradition used to explain why a non-messianic Jesus of history was later being proclaimed as a the Messiah after his death and resurrection. This traditional idea was also reflected somewhat in Paul (1 Cor 2,8), but it later became a major theme of the gospel of Mark. Pure source critics would argue whether or not Mark was a Pauline gospel or not. Were other strong Pauline themes clearly present in the gospel of Mark? Wrede was also foreshadowing the form critics and redaction critics insofar as he also tried to separate traditional elements of the messianic secret in Mark from what he identified as definitely part of Mark's redaction. When redaction critics and literary critics focused more exclusively on the gospel of Mark some believed that the messianic secrecy motif was invented by Mark himself and that it was the most important key for understanding Mark's gospel. Some even believed that Wrede had proposed it as something invented by Mark, rather than something Mark found in his tradition and utilized. Looking at ancient literary criticism, one might also interpret this as a Markan technique similar to the recognition and reversal plot element described by Aristotle. Ehrman historicizes the messianic secrecy motif, not all that differently to the 19th century life of Jesus historians. I'm not sure if this will be helpful but perhaps it is a start.

[Adam]

"Fascinating", but perhaps only to "Mr. Spock" "enthusiasts" such as myself. "Eh?" for a truly good use of Canuck vernacular here.

As Robrecht and I have been through lots of this on the old crashed TWeb and we know what we're in for, I propose, if he is willing, that he and I hash this out in a more frequented sub-forum like Apologetics 301. Or formal debate, if someone can devise a suitable proposition. We can be sure that both sides are represented, as Robrecht will keep the Faith once delivered to the sainted academics, and I will attack at every opportunity.

Robrecht is perfectly free to decline, as he has more job and family obligations than I do--and may be thoroughtly impatient with my "Bull in the china shop" manner of proceeding.

[robrecht]

"Fascinating", but perhaps only to "Mr. Spock" "enthusiasts" such as myself. "Eh?" for a truly good use of Canuck vernacular here.

As Robrecht and I have been through lots of this on the old crashed TWeb and we know what we're in for, I propose, if he is willing, that he and I hash this out in a more frequented sub-forum like Apologetics 301. Or formal debate, if someone can devise a suitable proposition. We can be sure that both sides are represented, as Robrecht will keep the Faith once delivered to the sainted academics, and I will attack at every opportunity.

Robrecht is perfectly free to decline, as he has more job and family obligations than I do--and may be thoroughtly impatient with my "Bull in the china shop" manner of proceeding.

I respectfully decline. Polite discussion is fine, but formal debates and dedicated threads devoted to in-depth discussion of idiosyncratic personal theories is something for which I just don't have sufficient patience.

[psstein]

Mark is decidedly not dependent on Q.

Q is the material that appears in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. See, for example, the material in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew) or the Sermon on the Plain (Luke).

[robrecht]

Mark is decidedly not dependent on Q.

Q is the material that appears in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. See, for example, the material in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew) or the Sermon on the Plain (Luke).

He is according to some scholars, eg, Jan Lambrecht and HT Fledderman. As we said above, it is definitely a minority opinion.

[One Bad Pig]

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 use it to play old games: AD&D Gold Box (including Unlimited Adventures - I downloaded a couple hundred games), original Mechwarrior, original Civilization.

[Adrift]

I use it to play old games: AD&D Gold Box (including Unlimited Adventures - I downloaded a couple hundred games), original Mechwarrior, original Civilization.

You could probably use an emulator, couldn't you?

[Adam]

He is according to some scholars, eg, Jan Lambrecht and HT Fledderman. As we said above, it is definitely a minority opinion.

"Minority" meaning that only these two who hold that ALL of gMark is derived from a proto-gospel called for convenience "Q" appropriately, because that means "Source" in German.
However, great respect is granted by top Consensus scholars to Dennis R. MacDonald for (to my mind) proving that gMark does in large part (but not all) depend on such a "Q".
Don't be confused by the old mere definition in 1924 by B. H. Streeter to treat "Q" AS IF it were merely the Double Tradition where gMatthew and gLuke overlap outside of gMark.

[Adam]

I respectfully decline. Polite discussion is fine, but formal debates and dedicated threads devoted to in-depth discussion of idiosyncratic personal theories is something for which I just don't have sufficient patience.

Fine, but I was merely being self-deprecating about "Bull in the China shop". I would not by nature just have opposed Consensus scholarship. I would just not necessarily be bound by it.
Do I understand you as assuming that I was planning to deal only with my own NON-CONSENSUS opinions? As I understood Adrift, he wants to find out what are the methods and results of contemporary scholarship. True, that would put most of the focus on you who know it better than I. I would serve sometimes as the foil, but mostly as the questioner as to whether certain methods did indeed imply certain results.

[Mikeenders]

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.

You've drank too deep from the Kool-aid my friend. My point was about discussing actual data not opinions and "consensus" so why would I care about what Ehrman is interested in? I really don't read anyone but for facts. In science I care about consensus because in science consensus is derived by testing but for the most part thats not the case when it comes to Biblical scholarship.

Just stating my preference for fact based conversations - Applicable verses, underlying greek, historical witness etc etc - whether I affirm or deny the virgin birth will rest on that not Ehrman's opinions (or anyone else's). Now consensus on facts I have no issue with but then the discussion then is about facts not consensus -fringe or otherwise. However I realize in academia there can be hour on hours long discussions on various authors views and where they are or are not so to each his own. I just never met anyone really enriched by it as they would by discussing facts and data. Now when it comes to Ehrman's books and not covering the stronger points against his positions - thats part of a discussion about facts and data and no Ehrman is not simply interested in presenting overall mainstream academia - his readership are looking for truths about the NT and he fulfills their wishes - so that being the case again - not exploring the stronger points against what he is presenting isn't intellectually sound.

[robrecht]

"Minority" meaning that only these two who hold that ALL of gMark is derived from a proto-gospel called for convenience "Q" appropriately, because that means "Source" in German.
However, great respect is granted by top Consensus scholars to Dennis R. MacDonald for (to my mind) proving that gMark does in large part (but not all) depend on such a "Q".
Don't be confused by the old mere definition in 1924 by B. H. Streeter to treat "Q" AS IF it were merely the Double Tradition where gMatthew and gLuke overlap outside of gMark.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. Lambrecht and Fledderman (and others) are not speaking of a proto-gospel in the traditional sense but the Q-document as it can be reconstructed from the double tradition. I've attended a couple of seminars with MacDonald, and I like what he does with Homer and ancient Greek emulation, but I've never paid much attention to his complicated source theory. I don't think many people would agree with you that he has proven it.

[One Bad Pig]

You could probably use an emulator, couldn't you?

Probably, but it works fine. Since the CMOS battery is dead, the date and time are no longer set, but I don't need that to play my games.

[psstein]

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. Lambrecht and Fledderman (and others) are not speaking of a proto-gospel in the traditional sense but the Q-document as it can be reconstructed from the double tradition. I've attended a couple of seminars with MacDonald, and I like what he does with Homer and ancient Greek emulation, but I've never paid much attention to his complicated source theory. I don't think many people would agree with you that he has proven it.

To be honest, a sizable segment of the field is seeing issues with Q in the first place. His convoluted theory has even more issues with it than Q alone. Not to get overly technical here, but I think some sort of the Farrer-Goudler Hypothesis could be correct. If we dispense with Q...

However, I wonder if it really should be seen as Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. As Hengel argued, why not Mark, Luke, Matthew, John?

[psstein]

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.

Yes and no. I think Ehrman is defending mainstream scholarship against what he would consider fundamentalism. In some cases, he does present a fairly mainstream view. However, in other cases, he will make minority opinions look like majority ones. For example, he constantly bangs on about how few scholars think the gospels were written by the authors to whom they're attributed. What he won't talk about is that many scholars do find the evidence for Mark and Luke convincing, though almost everyone thinks Matthew didn't write Matthew, and John likely didn't write John.

I don't like his popular books. He'll either overstate a case or give a false impression about something. I do, however, really like his academic works.

[Adrift]

Yes and no. I think Ehrman is defending mainstream scholarship against what he would consider fundamentalism. In some cases, he does present a fairly mainstream view. However, in other cases, he will make minority opinions look like majority ones. For example, he constantly bangs on about how few scholars think the gospels were written by the authors to whom they're attributed. What he won't talk about is that many scholars do find the evidence for Mark and Luke convincing, though almost everyone thinks Matthew didn't write Matthew, and John likely didn't write John.

I don't like his popular books. He'll either overstate a case or give a false impression about something. I do, however, really like his academic works.

From my readings, the majority scholarly opinion is that none of the Gospels were written by their traditional namesake. Nothing in my readings suggest that Ehrman is in the minority for making this sort of claim. Let me note that this isn't to say that I, personally, accept that opinion. I think Bauckham and others make strong cases why traditional authorship is valid, but, again, this does not appear to be the majority opinion.