From: Adrian Teo (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Oct 03 2002 - 14:55:12 EDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: george murphy [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:49 AM
> To: Adrian Teo
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Did Peter walk on water?
> > True. But one must also be careful not to be too hasty in
> dismissing the claim either.
> Haste isn't the problem here. The question has been
> discussed for a long time. It might have been hasty for
> someone in 1910 to say that Newtonian physics had to be
> abandoned at the sub-atomic level. Today it would take
> overwhelming new evidence to convince physicists that they
> should go back to some repristination of Newton.
I should make myself clearer. I was referring to people like myself
on the outside, who should not be too hasty to jump to the conclusion
just because it is favored by the majority of scholars. At this
point, recognizing my limited exposure to the issue, I have not
heard any convincing explanation for the patristic consensus problem.
> > The tradition is significant in this case because of the
> sheer weight of the consensus. Nobody in the first four
> centuries challenged the authorship of Matthew. All who have
> written about it ascribe it to the Apostle. Several of these
> were people who lived within a handful of generations from
> the time of the Apostles, knew and spoke the languages and
> lived in the culture. They have to be taken seriously. I
> realize that Q is very firmly entrenched in modern biblical
> scholarship, and it has especially been promoted by the Jesus
> Seminar to support their arguments.
> The Jesus Seminar can be left out of the discussion.
> Its invocation suggests a kind of guilt by association - like
> arguing against Darwinian evolution because Marx & Engels
> used it. Plenty of scholars who have no patience with the
> sorts of things the Jesus Seminar does have accepted the
> basic idea of Q - e.g., F.F. Bruce.
You are right. I didn't mean to invoke the guilt by association, but
I can see how my statement seem to imply that. I apologize.
At this point in my limited research on this topic, I am trying to
understand how scholars explain the patristic consensus on the
authroship of Matthew. What, in your opinion, is the most convincing
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 03 2002 - 20:10:53 EDT