Reflections On History
Tools And Language
In Poul Anderson's The Snows Of Ganymede, a Planetary Engineer, reflecting on what has become of the Psychotechnic Institute, comments that:
groups and organizations forget their original purposes;
means become ends;
the Christian Church started with the ideal of a universal brotherhood;
later, it burned those who disputed its authority.
The Church began with the proclamation of the Resurrection. Since this claim could be verified neither empirically nor rationally, the organization had to resort to authority and force. Jesus' original teaching:
"The kingdom is at hand. Repent and believe the good news." Mark 1:15 -
- I think did mean that a universal brotherhood was imminent. However, Jesus tried to initiate the kingdom or brotherhood by his own vicarious suffering and, after his execution, Peter proclaimed the Resurrection, which had not been Jesus' message.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But we do see passages in the Gospels where Our Lord said He would have to die and be raised from the dead to complete the mission He was sent for, offering salvation to fallen mankind. And that means, ultimately, union with God in the beatific vision. Not a merely worldly society.
Sean
Sean,
But my understanding is that the Gospels were written as propaganda with later beliefs put into the mouths of the protagonists.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I don't believe the Gospels were mere propaganda or that they were all written, after AD 70. Scholars as learned and respectable as the ones you favor have offered what I consider convincing arguments for both the early composition and historical reliability of the Gospels. Such as Chapman, Butler, Fisher, Dungan, etc.
Sean
Sean,
The Gospels are propaganda in that they propagate a belief.
Second and separate point: the texts are far from unedited factual reports of words and deeds. Each author has his slant. Was Barabbas a thief or an insurrectionist? Who are blessed - the poor or the poor in spirit? Has Jesus risen and gone to Galilee or risen as he told you while still in Galilee? Etc.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course I agree the Gospels propagate a belief. I agree with that sense or use of "propaganda."
And of course the Gospels were "edited" in the sense of having four different authors with somewhat different, but COMPLEMENTARY, "slants" on Our Lord. Including minor inconsistencies of the kind you cited.
I repeat, however, that I don't believe in the Q/Markan priority hypothesis. My view now is that of the Neo-Griesbachian Hypothesis advocated by scholars like William Farmer. For example, we have PHYSICAL evidence, in the Oxford Fragments of Matthew, of that gospel existing long before AD 70. That alone demolishes the Q/Two Source/Markan Priority theory.
Sean
Sean,
I will check this out with James Crossley, Biblical Scholar.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The Oxford Fragments of Matthew were papyrus fragments containing portions of Matthew's text found with legal documents dated to the 12th year of Nero's reign (AD 65-66) in Egypt. Allowing ten years, at least, for copies of Matthew to spread from Syrian Antioch (where it was believed to have been composed), then that gospel may have been written circa AD 55. Well within range of eyewitnesses who had seen and heard Christ!
And I also believe Luke's Gospel was written second and drew on Matthew and other sources. Nor do I believe that it was composed after AD 70. One point which I think many defenders of a late date for Luke never seem to consider is how that gospel ends with St. Paul's first Roman captivity, circa AD 60-61. If Luke was written after the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul (circa 67) and the fall of Jerusalem in 70, why was no mention made of those events in Luke? It would have been so NATURAL for an early Church history writer to have done so. Instead, it ends with Paul's first Roman captivity. That indicates Luke existed by AD 62.
Sean
Sean,
Do you mean Acts - which is Luke's Gospel, Part II?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Darn and drat! You are right, I really goofed up! I MEANT the Acts of the Apostles, but I used the NAME of the wrong book, the Gospel According to Luke. Even allowing for Acts being rightly thought a continuation of Luke's Gospel, I still messed up! This is what I get for writing too hastily and not rereading before hitting the "Publish" button.
Let me rewrite what I botched up. I believe both Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were written after Matthew and before Mark's Gospel. Nor do I believe they were composed after AD 70. One point which I think many advocates of a late date for Luke's works never seem to consider is how Acts ends with St. Paul's firs Roman captivity, circa AD 60-61. If Acts was written after the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul (circa 67) and the fall of Jerusalem in 70, why did Luke make no mention of those events? It would have been so NATURAL for an early Church writer to have done so. Instead Acts ends with Paul's first Roman captivity. That indicates Acts (and probably Luke's Gospel) existed by AD 62.
That straightens out the mess I made with my earlier comment!
Sean
Sean,
So you do disagree with the traditional order of Mt, Mk, Lk and Jn, although in a different way? OK.
One thing certain is that the composition of the Gospels is extremely complicated.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Correct, because I now believe in the Neo-Griesbachian hypothesis. I believe the gospels were composed in the order Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John. And that all three of the Synoptics were composed before the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.
Sean
Post a Comment