What You May Have Missed While You Were Away

by OldGenerationDude 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  OldGenerationDude

  I do note the error in this sentence:

  Why abandon the hypothesis of Q? This is new and is happening now.

  I should have written (and thought I did), "Why abandon the hypothesis of Q? This is not what is happening now."

  Unfortunately my spell check doesn't help when I put the wrong words in. As long as I spell correctly is all that matters to that macro--and as you pointed out, that is not enough. And because I knew what I was saying, I glossed over it when I re-read it prior to reposting.

  I am also certain that I never wrote that conclusions from source and textual critical method are losing favor. What I wrote was that the Q theory is currently challenged in some academic circles by what appears to be a swing in favor of an independent dating and composition theory of the gospel attributed to Matthew. This is due to some scholars developing a "no evidence for Q" theory. They aren't abandoning it, but like the Jamnia hypothesis some are merely giving a more balanced view when before it had been popular to say that there was no reason to believe the writings of the early Christians that attributed the Marcan account to the secretary or assistant of Peter. Saying that such could have been possible is not abandoning the Q hypothesis or stating that we know for sure who wrote Mark.

  So while I understand how that first sentence I wrote was incorrect, surely if read back to what I wrote you will see I never meant to give the impression that critical theory was out the door.

  On the contrary, the whole point of my posting is to show that we may have missed out on a lot that critical analysis has to offer because of the Watchtower and its leaning toward traditional views without consideration for the higher critics' approach.
• 

  OldGenerationDude

  One of the things I note that happens at times on this message board is that we often are still stuck in the Watchtower mode when we read things.

  When I was a Witness I used to see all statements in black and white. Of course now I know that all things don’t work out that way in real life. You can have various possibilities to choose from for any dilemma. One of them could be the answer, or parts of this one and that could be the solution, or all could be wrong, or all could be incomplete—heck all can be right in some instances because all solutions could work. Who knows unless we try them out (which could take generations, so don't hold your breath).

  Perhaps this is what has happened here (note I said “perhaps”). It's what is called "ambiguity intolerance." The Watchtower not only feeds on people who have a tendency for this type of personality, but it feeds the ambiguity intolerance as well by promoting that nothing ambiguous could or should be tolerated ("all things are either good or bad, for there exists nothing in between"). We need to be careful that any traces of this in us not cloud our reading of what some post on here. It could save us a lot of time challenging one another.

  While I may not be the best at getting my thought across, I am definitely not directly challenging (or at least intended to do so) any thoughts or choices others make outside of Watchtower control. Sure, there is some ambiguity in what I wrote, but that is because I didn’t make it up. I have a lot of books opened on my desk and my desktop on my computer, and the ambiguity of many scholarly views (because these are generally all “theory”) are purposeful in most cases and get lifted along from there to what I write on the screen.

  I’m Jewish and so I have to be careful that I write things that make sense in Christian thought (even a lot of atheists only tend to argue against Christian views with little or no arguments that have anything to do with the viewpoint of actual Jewish religious thought—which is hard to pin down at times, let me tell you!). So if I am a little too ambiguous, then maybe it’s because I’m trying to be cautious and not lose people in an outright kvetching against the Tower.

  And yes, before you ask, I was a Witness. And no, I’m not now a Jewish convert. I am a Jew by birth.
• 

  Pistoff

  OGD:

  Agreed that when one is a JW, as I was (raised in, faded starting with the Dateline 2002 program) that neutral analysis of belief is not possible without repercussions.

  My take on the OP is that Q as a theory is not being abandoned; it is of course just a theory, though in my uneducated opinion one that has merit. The Q theory didn't come up out of thin air; it has developed as a way to help understand the problems inherent in the gospels, to try to uncover the story of the differences and the similarities.

  The Q theory, and the whole field of textual, form and source criticism, is always under attack or being discredited by writers/scholars who have an agenda, such as supporting the traditional view that the gospel writers were actually written by the accredited authors, or that the Hebrew Bible included all the books that are in the Catholic canon. Those conclusions/ideas found in the original post seem to me to be biased, especially when one of the scholars is quoted from a Zondervan publication. The Q theory and ideas that come out of source criticism seem threatening to some (most?) believers.

  What I really enjoy about being where I am is the ability to consider ideas and findings, without worrying (consciously or otherwise) if it will clash with my beliefs.
• 

  panhandlegirl

  Pistoff, Thanks for the list of books. I will be sure and order and read these books.
• 

  OldGenerationDude

  Pistoff--

  You keep stating again and again that I wrote that the Quelle hypothesis is being abandoned. I even showed you where I made a mistake and corrected a sentence from which you should be able to discern that it isn't being "abandoned":

  I do note the error in this sentence:

  Why abandon the hypothesis of Q? This is new and is happening now.

  I should have written (and thought I did), "Why abandon the hypothesis of Q? This is not what is happening now."

  All I mentioned is that there is a movement in academic circles, not attacking Q, but giving credence to the traditional view that the gospel of Matthew could have been written simultaneously with Mark or even independently, without using Mark as a source. This doesn't mean that Matthew was written by the apostle. It doesn't mean that Q didn't exist. It doesn't mean that Mark couldn't have been a source. It doesn’t' mean any of those things.

  Why do you keep insisting that I am saying that Q is being abandoned?

  Go back and count how many times I state that I never intended to say that Q was being abandoned. How many different posts of mine do I state that I Q is NOT being abandoned? How many times within these particular posts do I repeat that?

  Then go back and count how many times you reply insisting or implying the opposite. Why do you insist that I say Q is being abandoned in the face of the many times you can count that I say it isn't? Why are you insisting, contrary to what can be read here, the opposite?

  We are saying the same things, not the opposite, and you also keep ignoring that I am stating that Q is not being abandoned.

  Is it that you are reading posts cynically, attributing a motive to support Watchtower teaching that these books were written by who they say they are? Reading something with a critical eye means analyzing, but reading with a cynical eye means not having trust. If I, a Jew, have an agenda, what would it be? Making a convert? To what? You can't become a Jew unless you were born a Jew. You might be able to convert to the religion, but that is rare and very hard to do because we aren't looking to convert people to our religion. Jews don't believe in Christianity's view that humankind needs to be redeemed from some original sin that marks all due to what Adam did. Why would I want to attribute Matthew to the actual apostle? Outside of hoping people leave the Watchtower, what does it really matter to me?

  All I've been saying is that the Watchtower view is false, and that Watchtower view states that Q is false. I don't agree with that. I don't believe it is. And I never wrote that Q was being abandoned.

  I have made this thread because I am against the Watchtower view, as I am in all my posts which can be examined. I am also against how it makes cynics out of people. We need to be critical, yes, in our approach. But cynical? If you don't trust that others can have your best interest at heart you might miss out on a lot.

  We don't have to keep distrusting everyone or attributing some dark motive to each person who comes along like the Watchtower teaches JWs to be. True, there are people out there who want to cause others harm. But I tell you with all honesty, I am not one of them.
• 

  Pistoff

  OGD:

  No offense intended.

  I am skeptical, hopefully not cynical.

  My take on the gospels fall in the source criticism camp, that they were written by difrerent factions of the Jesus movement, reflecting their differing views on Jesus and their differing location and circumstance.

  I really don't know much about the Council of Jamnia.

  I look at the Hebrew Bible as a collection of books, redacted somewhere between 400 and 700 BCE.

  I think we share the fun of looking at many different sources of information about bible origins and the life of Jesus.
• 

  ziddina

  Interesting... Very interesting...

  I'm not able to do the research you've mentioned, at this time - if ever. I've found sufficient data regarding the origins of other, older religions and belief systems to be more than adequate at freeing my mind from the Watchtower cult straightjacket.

  But it sure sounds interesting. I wish I had the time - and a bit stronger inclination. But very early in my life, when I figured out that the Israelites AND their 'god' couldn't accurately identify an erupting volcano - well, that 'enlightened' me sufficiently to lose interest in Middle-Eastern mythology.

  But thank you again for this thread and your comments. I hope that I can dig into those topics eventually.

  Zid