SCOTUS Rules 5-4 for Gay Marriage

[Adrift]

Markan priority is no longer the consensus and is beginning to lose traction, yes. Because there is good evidence it is false.

For example, two arguments in favour of Markan priority are Mark’s being shorter and its simpler style. Albert Lord notes that there were oral parallels of texts that tell the same story, but in a longer and shorter variation. This demonstrates that shorter does not equate with earlier. (Albert B. Lord, The Gospels as Oral Traditional Literature, from William Walker, ed., The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, Trinity University Press, (1978), p42.)

It is also noted that authors rewrote material in their own style, and whilst some preferred elegance others preferred colloquial speech. (E. P. Sanders, and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, Trinity Press International, (1989), p72.)

David Neville notes that E. P. Sanders has observed that despite being argued by a variety of scholars, the QM hypothesis has been found wanting by most scholars. Neville himself notes that whilst Markan and two-Gospel hypotheses are able to solve the “synoptic problem,” Markan priority is simply just largely assumed without taking into account of alternate viewpoints and dealing with their defender’s arguments. (David Neville, Mark’s Gospel: Prior or Posterior?, Sheffield Academic Press, (2002), p284, 337-338)

William Farmer has written many books arguing in favour of Matthean priority. Other scholars who argue against Markan priority include: Bo Reicke, B. C. Butler, D. J. Chapman, Eta Linnemann, Hans-Herbert Stoldt, and John Rist. Linnemann in particular noted that in a sample of 35 pericopes, only 22.17% of the words are identical among all three synoptic Gospels. (Eta Linnemann, Is There A Synoptic Problem?, Grand Rapids: Baker, (1992), p129)

Even secular and classical scholars have found the Markan/QM hypothesis wanting, including: Northrop Frye, Albert Lord and George Kennedy. Members of the International Institute for the Renewal of Gospel Studies also do not hold to Markan priority, including: Lamar Cope, David Dungan, Allan McNicol, David Peabody, and Philip Shuler. The second problem lies in the testimony of Papias. Papias is often dismissed, but his testimony gives us warrant to suppose there was a version of Matthew written in Aramaic, prior to the Greek version. Papias’ explanation of Mark’s Gospel being based on the preaching of Peter provides a much better explanation. (Bo Reicke, The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels, Fortress, (1986), p46-47)

Other problems include the fact that 1st century AD Palestine was an oral culture where writing desks did not exist yet. In such an oral culture, works would have been produced from memory and on notes. In fact, note taking was extremely prevalent in the ancient world. (George Kennedy, Classical and Christian Source Criticism from William Walker, ed., The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, Trinity University Press, (1978), p131)

Yes, I know of the Farmer and Goodacre alternatives, and the potential issues with Markan priority, but surely it's still the majority held view, isn't it? Even Goodacre seems to think that the two source solution will remain dominant for some while.

[RumTumTugger]

All right moron, that's enough. End of discussion.

Translation: I'm out of my league here and don't want to admit I'm wrong

[One Bad Pig]

Just to be clear, are you asserting that Markan priority is not the majority held position among academics anymore, or that the relationship between the three synoptics is no longer in question? From my reading, outside of Goodacre and a few others, Markan priority is still assumed.

I'm fairly certain that, while Goodacre does not accept Q, he does accept Markan priority.

[Rational Gaze]

Your rhetorical strategy is just to deny deny deny deny and assert that any and every source that would actually supply knowledge of any kind is untrustworthy due to being too liberal or too old or both.

Ah, the irony.

Inerrantists. You know innerracy? That pretty common view of the bible that approximately 100% of conservatives on this site subscribe to? Or do I need an Evangelical-written book published within the last month to convince you of that?

In other words, you don't actually know what inerrancy is.

I was a liberal when I was a Christian. My approach to the bible largely hasn't changed since then. I'm not remotely close to being a fundamentalist.

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

"The documentary hypothesis still has many supporters".

Yeah, just too bad it isn't the consensus any more. Markan priority still has supporters in academia despite no longer being consensus. Your inability to think isn't our problem, chump.

[Rational Gaze]

Just to be clear, are you asserting that Markan priority is not the majority held position among academics anymore, or that the relationship between the three synoptics is no longer in question? From my reading, outside of Goodacre and a few others, Markan priority is still assumed.

Markan priority is no longer the consensus and is beginning to lose traction, yes. Because there is good evidence it is false.

For example, two arguments in favour of Markan priority are Mark’s being shorter and its simpler style. Albert Lord notes that there were oral parallels of texts that tell the same story, but in a longer and shorter variation. This demonstrates that shorter does not equate with earlier. (Albert B. Lord, The Gospels as Oral Traditional Literature, from William Walker, ed., The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, Trinity University Press, (1978), p42.)

It is also noted that authors rewrote material in their own style, and whilst some preferred elegance others preferred colloquial speech. (E. P. Sanders, and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, Trinity Press International, (1989), p72.)

David Neville notes that E. P. Sanders has observed that despite being argued by a variety of scholars, the QM hypothesis has been found wanting by most scholars. Neville himself notes that whilst Markan and two-Gospel hypotheses are able to solve the “synoptic problem,” Markan priority is simply just largely assumed without taking into account of alternate viewpoints and dealing with their defender’s arguments. (David Neville, Mark’s Gospel: Prior or Posterior?, Sheffield Academic Press, (2002), p284, 337-338)

William Farmer has written many books arguing in favour of Matthean priority. Other scholars who argue against Markan priority include: Bo Reicke, B. C. Butler, D. J. Chapman, Eta Linnemann, Hans-Herbert Stoldt, and John Rist. Linnemann in particular noted that in a sample of 35 pericopes, only 22.17% of the words are identical among all three synoptic Gospels. (Eta Linnemann, Is There A Synoptic Problem?, Grand Rapids: Baker, (1992), p129)

Even secular and classical scholars have found the Markan/QM hypothesis wanting, including: Northrop Frye, Albert Lord and George Kennedy. Members of the International Institute for the Renewal of Gospel Studies also do not hold to Markan priority, including: Lamar Cope, David Dungan, Allan McNicol, David Peabody, and Philip Shuler. The second problem lies in the testimony of Papias. Papias is often dismissed, but his testimony gives us warrant to suppose there was a version of Matthew written in Aramaic, prior to the Greek version. Papias’ explanation of Mark’s Gospel being based on the preaching of Peter provides a much better explanation. (Bo Reicke, The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels, Fortress, (1986), p46-47)

Other problems include the fact that 1st century AD Palestine was an oral culture where writing desks did not exist yet. In such an oral culture, works would have been produced from memory and on notes. In fact, note taking was extremely prevalent in the ancient world. (George Kennedy, Classical and Christian Source Criticism from William Walker, ed., The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, Trinity University Press, (1978), p131)

[Starlight]

1979, eh? I'm sure you reached deep down into the barrel for that one.

Wenham's was the major commentary on Leviticus prior to Milgrom, and Wenham was an Evangelical, hence I thought you might take him more seriously. However I was wrong, because this is all just a game to you and you're not actually interested in knowledge and simply pretend to find fault with any sources outside your bubble. Your rhetorical strategy is just to deny deny deny deny and assert that any and every source that would actually supply knowledge of any kind is untrustworthy due to being too liberal or too old or both.

My skepticism kicks in only when people start saying things like "the authors were 100% accurate,

Oh, for real? Please tell me who says that.

Inerrantists. You know innerracy? That pretty common view of the bible that approximately 100% of conservatives on this site subscribe to? Or do I need an Evangelical-written book published within the last month to convince you of that?

The only people I typically see putting theories ahead of facts are dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalists such as yourself.

I was a liberal when I was a Christian. My approach to the bible largely hasn't changed since then. I'm not remotely close to being a fundamentalist.

I mean, this was written in 1993:

Wow, a random conservative Christian hating on the documentary hypothesis. That changes everything.

Or, your preferred source of Wikipedia:

Which says that R. N. Whybray in 1987 was the main voice against the documentary hypothesis. But his arguments have basically not met with particularly great acceptance and insofar as they have led to any great discussion on the subject, people have largely been rethinking exactly what the deal is with J and E but accepted the standard views of P and D. Friedman (1987) and Baden (2012) have since laid out extensive arguments for the JEDP theory, and today "The documentary hypothesis still has many supporters".

[robrecht]

I know more about the New Testament than the Old ... Although insulated 'sceptics' like Starlight seem several decades - several centuries even - behind, which is why you still get dum-dums claiming there is a Synoptic 'problem' still and defending Markan priority even though scholars don't regard them as accurate anymore. ...

Are you seriously trying to claim that the current scholarly consensus is opposed to Markan priority? There are a few serious scholars who do not hold to Markan priority, but I have never seen anyone claim that Markan priority is no longer the consensus.

[Adrift]

Although insulated 'sceptics' like Starlight seem several decades - several centuries even - behind, which is why you still get dum-dums claiming there is a Synoptic 'problem' still and defending Markan priority even though scholars don't regard them as accurate anymore.

Just to be clear, are you asserting that Markan priority is not the majority held position among academics anymore, or that the relationship between the three synoptics is no longer in question? From my reading, outside of Goodacre and a few others, Markan priority is still assumed.

[Rational Gaze]

I mean, this was written in 1993:
"The time has long passed for scholars of every theological persuasion to recognize that the Graf-Wellhausen theory, as a starting point for continued research, is dead. The Documentary Hypothesis and the arguments that support it have been effectively demolished by scholars from many different theological perspectives and areas of expertise. Even so, the ghost of Wellhausen hovers over Old Testament studies and symposiums like a thick fog, adding nothing of substance but effectively obscuring vision. Although actually incompatible with form-critical and archaeology-based studies, the Documentary Hypothesis has managed to remain the mainstay of critical orthodoxy. One wonders if we will ever return to the day when discussions of Genesis will not be stilted by interminable references to P and J. There are indications that such a day is coming. Many scholars are exploring the inadequacies of the Documentary Hypothesis and looking toward new models for explaining the Pentateuch."
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...s.aspx#Article

Or, your preferred source of Wikipedia:
"Opposition to the documentary hypothesis increased when R. N. Whybray in 1987 renewed some traditional arguments with far greater consequences in his book The Making of the Pentateuch. By that time three separate models for the composition of the Pentateuch had been proposed... Since Whybray there has been a proliferation of theories and models regarding the origins of the Torah, many of them radically different from Wellhausen's model. Thus, to mention some of the major figures from the last decades of the 20th century, Hans Heinrich Schmid almost completely eliminated J, allowing only a late Deuteronomical redactor. With the idea of identifiable sources disappearing, the question of dating also changes its terms. Additionally, some scholars have abandoned the documentary hypothesis entirely in favour of alternative models which see the Pentateuch as the product of a single author, or as the end-point of a process of creation by the entire community... While the terminology and insights of the documentary hypothesis, notably its claim that the Pentateuch is the work of many hands and many centuries and that its final form belongs to the middle of the 1st millennium BCE, continue to inform scholarly debate about the origins of the Pentateuch, it no longer dominates that debate as it did for the first two-thirds of the 20th century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docume...ing_of_support

[Rational Gaze]

All right moron, that's enough. End of discussion.

I think I'll trust what actual scholars say and what I have learned through my actual study then trust you in your official capacity as just some random guy on the Internet.

[Rational Gaze]

Basically every single scholar has to interact with JEDP even if they hold alternative views, because it's the dominant paradigm of all OT study.

Oh, you sweet summer child. JEDP used to be the dominant paradigm of OT. That is why it must be interacted with. Which is kind of why you still kind of have to tackle the ideas of Form Criticism in NT studies even though that has been discarded for even longer. Notable and influential ideas are typically still interacted with for quite some time until they eventually pass out of scholarly circles altogether. Which is why you will rarely see scholars reference the Christ Myth hypothesis. It was still a notable and influential idea one hundred years ago, even though it had been discredited by then.

Gordan Wenham, who is an Evangelical scholar who generally himself favors conservative views, says the following in his commentary The Book of Leviticus, 1979, pg 9

1979, eh? I'm sure you reached deep down into the barrel for that one.

My skepticism kicks in only when people start saying things like "the authors were 100% accurate,

Oh, for real? Please tell me who says that.

and in no way did any of the stories ever grow with the telling,

This is actually a relatively uncontroversial fact... which you would have known if you had any familiarity with the subject at all.

and in no way did the author ever let his own political and theological biases shape his retelling of the accounts or influence the things he depicts the characters saying

For the most part, yes. The only people I typically see putting theories ahead of facts are dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalists such as yourself.

the credulous, uneducated, superstitious, unscientific, stone-age people thought something supernatural had happened...

The stone age, eh? That's strange. According to JEDP, the Torah was authored in the iron age. Whereas, if Mosaic authorship is accepted, then that only pushes things back to the bronze age. Oh, and cut the bigotry. It would be funny if it weren't so antiquated. Promoting such ideas about ancient people today is just tragic. The belief that ancient people were stupid, ignorant yokels has been discredited for even longer than JEDP and Form Criticism. Please, go read a book. For your own sake. You're embarrassing yourself.

we should assume they were right."

Again, who is saying this?

I'm pretty sure all you've got is an F game.

This is actually only my G game so far. My F game is a little too advanced for you. I'm pretty sure if I bought my A game, then you'd suffer a mental breakdown and develop PTSD. If I bought my A* game, then you'd most likely end up in a catatonic state.

[Starlight]

Hopefully you mean this as hyperbole, as no apologist I know of who argue for the historicity of the Resurrection would say anything like that.

I wasn't specifically talking about the apologetic arguments for the historicity of the resurrection (which, btw, I think are a joke), just about the idea of believing absolutely everything the bible says. The people are real, the places are real, but there's no particular reason to believe that the bible gets the words or events exactly right, so the bible should be considered a loose guide to the approximate truth of historical events.

[Starlight]

This is simply false. You have not kept up with modern scholarship at all.

All right moron, that's enough. End of discussion.

[Leonhard]

and if the credulous, uneducated, superstitious, unscientific, stone-age people thought something supernatural had happened then we should assume they were right."

Hopefully you mean this as hyperbole, as no apologist I know of who argue for the historicity of the Resurrection would say anything like that.

[Rational Gaze]

And in that time... nothing's changed. The JEPD theory has been all but universal for decades and even centuries. It has not suddenly died since 1979 or since 2004.

This is simply false. You have not kept up with modern scholarship at all.