Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: On Apostasy and Q
Indeed, Moroni lived 400 years after the death of NT apostles . . .
Ok. I'm confused. I thought Moroni was supposed to be an angel.
which, as I remember, makes the way Q is used look like a historical farce.
I wouldn't get too attached to that kind of stuff. First, it's overwhelmingly accepted by the scholars of biblical criticism that the two-source hypothesis (and thus Q) is legitimate. Now, since this directly implies that some (more conservative) interpretations of the bible's origins are quite probably wrong, it's a foregone conclusion that you'll have a ready-made source of nay-sayers.
It's true that extracting the "real" history and intent of these documents is complicated and there's much ambiguity, and that's exactly what these nay-sayers rely on in their dismissal of the parts they don't like, such as the Jesus Seminar's conclusion that Jesus was an itinerant "wisdom sage" who never rose from the dead. But what they always neglect to mention is that the exact same charges apply to their own interpretations of the whole thing.
The Jesus Seminar folks don't claim that their interpretation is based on "revelation". LDS, on the other hand, makes claims that are easily as unorthodox (Jesus appears to the Indians), claims they're "revealed" truth, and dismisses other interpretations as part of the "great apostasy". From this side of the fence, it looks like you're all engaging in "historical farce".
Because there's so much ambiguity, you'll always end up with arguments on both sides. The best thing we can really do is to let people who have the training to evaluate these things do it. And by that, I mean people who can read the original texts in their original languages, people who have spent a significant time studying the relevant historical periods.
I'm not saying Akenson's conclusions are wrong. I'm saying that he's making them in a context in which it's not difficult to spin the information a lot of different ways. Earl Doherty's conclusions in The Jesus Puzzle are quite credible, IMO, and he's very much in favor of Q.
Let's not forget Q is an invention, perhaps a helpful and useful one, but only if we don't forget its an invention.
That's kind of my point. Q is a very useful invention, that was created to help "sort the wheat from the chaff" in the gospels. So why, even in liberal churches, is it given so little attention? The only people who even know about it are the scholars and the occasional layman who's taken an interest in the matter.
It seems like there ought to be more discussion (again, at least in liberal churches) of what parts of scripture are reliable, and what parts are probably later accretions. To me, it seems like it's absence smacks of fear. Fear that by admitting that the bible isn't 100% pure, then people won't believe any of it.
But thinking that the bible hasn't undergone some purely human motivated editing is the same kind of wrong-headed gullibility that leads to believing that the Adam and Eve or Noah stories are literal truths.
RSS
On Apostasy and Q
This post is very interesting, as are the comments. I might inject that the LDS have no official position on "when" the apostasy occured that I know of, only how - which, without when, leaves much open for reflection. Indeed, men like Origen, Eusebius, &c., may have had both the authority to act in God's name and the power. (Indeed, Moroni lived 400 years after the death of NT apostles . . .) It is also common for LDS to emphasize the importance and inspiration of such men as William Tyndale or Martin Luther and other reformists. Indeed, I, for one, feel a strong kinship between my "Mormonism" and dissenters and non-conformists like William Blake and John Bunyan. I would certainly characterize Joseph Smith as a non-conformist and Christian dissenter. Anyway, despite the apostasy, LDS do not believe that God ever washed his hands of history. His hand, on the contrary, is in all things.
As for comments on Q, the Early Church, &c., I can strongly recommend Donald Harman Akenson's two volumes, _Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds_ and _Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus_ . . . especially the Appendix, "Winnie-the-Pooh and the Jesus Seminar," which, as I remember, makes the way Q is used look like a historical farce. (Unfortunately, my copies of both books are at home today . . .) Let's not forget Q is an invention, perhaps a helpful and useful one, but only if we don't forget its an invention.
View Full Discussion