NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/21939

Text File | 1993-01-02 | 3.2 KB | 69 lines

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Path: sparky!uunet!hfsi!ata
From: [e-mail] (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Crucifixion of Jesus?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:06:22 GMT
Lines: 57

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>
>>Jim, the English translation I have barely supports this the
>>theory.  I have transcribed the NIV translation below of the
>>passages you site.  If both of these texts started out as word by
>>word copying, then the translation certainly leaves something to
>>be desired!  Note, for example, that Matthew doesn't even mention
>>that the paralytic is lowered through the roof.  This certainly
>>can't be a by-product of translation, now can it?  Looking at the
>>English, this is about as good a case of paraphrasing a commonly
>>known account that I can think of.
>
>From "Introduction to the First Three Gospels" by William Barclay
>(Professor of Divinity & Biblical Criticism at the University
>of Glasgow, AND a believing Christian)
>
>   One of the most interesting facts which emerge on a close
>   study of  the first three gospels is that Matthew and Luke
>   seem deliberately to 'improve' Mark. They alter certain
>   things in Mark in order to improve Mark's style and Mark's
>   material. They sometimes improve his vocabulary ... they
>   sometimes improve his style ... Mark is prepared to put things
>   in a way from which Matthew and Luke shrink, because they are
>   more aware of the theological implications than Mark is. Matthew
>   and Luke tend, so to speak, to 'protect' the apostles. They tend
>   to omit anything that might look like a criticism of the apostles...
>                              p. 88-89.
>
>So your "non-copying" hypothesis is rejected even by the mainstream of
>scholars who are themselves Christians.

Of course Barclay's opinion is close to that of many scholars
today.  If you read my previous postings, you would see that I
acknowledged the mainstream theories of M, Q and the copying of
Mark.  I also said I disagreed and asked for someone to post
reasons why this "copying" couldn't be explained as both of them
having a common source.  I'm still waiting, and to tell the truth,
quoting XYZ as saying that they believe this or that just doesn't
answer my question.  Also note that everything you quoted above
also holds if all the Synoptic Gospels had a common source.

>
>Stating the matter bluntly, Matthew and Luke were derived from Mark
>because the preceeding document was felt to be Theologically Incorrect,
>and in need of improvement.

That's a nice theory, what facts do you have to back it up (Gee, who
sounds skeptical here? :) )

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - [e-mail]

--
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  [e-mail]
HFS, Inc.          VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive     MS:601       |    Voice:    [phone]
McLean, VA  22102               |      FAX:    [phone]