„Î’ și Evanghelia zicătorilor.

„Î’

As it became clear that there was no satisfactory theory explaining how any one gospel could have been derived from any other, scholarly attention turned to the idea that the gospels were instead derived from some form of ‘proto-gospel’. One such theory was of a ‘proto-Mark’; but this didn’t explain why there should be quite a number of passages in Luke (about a fifth) that were very similar to Matthew but either absent from, or significantly different in, marcă.

It was therefore suggested that passages common to Matthew and Luke, dar nu Mark, had originated from another lost document, known as ‘Q’.

This is a fairly plausible theory. Dar, bearing in mind Luke’s observation that there were ‘many’ such accounts in existence, trebuie să fie supus următoarelor avertismente:

• Este foarte probabil ca aceleași ziceri și conturi să fi apărut în mai multe diferite surse. prin urmare, este nerezonabil să presupunem că pasaje care apar în Marcu, precum și în Matei și Luca nu ar fi putut fi, de asemenea, în „Q”.
• Nu există niciun motiv special pentru care toate aceste pasaje ar trebui să provină din același document sursă. Matei și Luca ar fi putut chiar să aibă acces la diferite surse, verbal sau scris, care pur și simplu s-a întâmplat să includă aceste citate obișnuite.
• Citate similare nu provin neapărat din același dialog original. Ca profesor itinerant în tradiția orală evreiască, Iisus ar fi refăcut aceleași ziceri în multe ocazii diferite pentru multe audiențe diferite.

În ciuda acestor slăbiciuni, teoria a câștigat o popularitate atât de mare încât mulți vorbesc de parcă documentul ar exista de fapt; nu este, nici nu există vreo atestare externă a faptului că a existat vreodată. Așa-numitele copii ale ‘Q’ au fost create prin simpla tehnică de preluare a pasajelor de mai sus de la Matei și Luca, și combinându-le într-un singur text. (Aceasta implică o măsură de judecată a valorii cu privire la cea mai bună redare: dar diferențele sunt relativ minore, deci nu contează prea mult ce versiune este citată.)

Natura pur teoretică a „Q”, și avertismentele de mai sus, sunt foarte importante de reținut; deoarece, după cum vom vedea, mulți critici moderni citează „Q’ as if it proves that the gospels were created by a process of adding later myths and dogmas to an earlier source that was free from such supernatural elements. In reality, nu dovedește nimic dincolo de posibilitatea ca un document similar, sau documente, ar putea have existed and been used as A source by the gospel writers.

A Hidden Agenda

The manner in which ‘Q’ is derived means that all ‘Q’ scholars necessarily accept Luke and Matthew as authentic, since without them there is no ‘Q’ text. In any case, from a historical standpoint, the documentary evidence for this is so overwhelming that there is no real alternative.

But many of these scholars still find this unacceptable, for the very simple reason that the gospels contain so many descriptions of supernatural events, plus dramatic claims by Jesus about himself, God and life after death. Irrespective of what the texts say, they cannot accept that Jesus actually did and said these things.

The crux of the problem here is the isssue of documentary authenticity versus content. De exemplu, despite the far weaker evidence for Homer’s Iliad, few scholars would ever question its authenticity, since no-one is expected to take its content too seriously. It doesn’t claim to be an eyewitness account. There is no suggestion that even Homer himself would have staked his life on its veracity; and between the events it describes and its writing there was ample time for myths and legends to evolve.

With the New Testament, the case is very different. If the gospels really are the authentic testimony of the first followers of Jesus, then we are left with a straight choice as to what we are going to make of them: lie, delusion or the truth? As we will see, it is very difficult to square the first two with the given facts. It challenges our entire world view and demands a response; and thousands have given their lives rather than deny its truth, starting with those very first followers.

The easiest way to avoid confronting the content is to continue challenging the document’s authenticity. Scholars are as human as the rest of us; and so, for them, it is necessary to maintain that the only truly authentic portions are those that fit their own preconceptions. We will now go on to to examine how some seek to do this.

The Rejection of Mark

We have already pointed out that, even if we accept that a ‘Q’ document may have existed, this provides no justification for rejecting passages that are also present in Mark. Logically, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, any passage that is attested by all three sources should be deemed more, not less, reliable. But these scholars take the opposite view, claiming any such passage (and there are many) is the result of ’embellishment’ by Mark, and dismissing it as ‘unreliable.’

So how do they attempt to justify this position? Basically, the argument runs that Matthew and Luke agree most closely when they follow Mark, hence they must have been copying from Mark (or proto-Mark). Prin urmare, instead of this being the testimony of three witnesses, it is the testimony of only one; whom, they suggest, adapted or created these passages to support his own doctrinal viewpoint.

In reality, the entire argument is flawed. The degree of agreement between Matthew and Luke is highly variable. Take, de exemplu, Matei 3:11 și Luca 3:16-17, which agree fairly well, though by no means exactly; yet these are accepted as ‘Q’ texts despite having a parallel in Mark 1:7. Then compare the two incidents described in Matthew 19:13-22, marcă 10:13-22 și Luca 18:15-23, selected at random from amongst the many passages that are rejected. It is highly debatable which follows which most closely; yet in both incidents Mark describes Jesus’ emotional responses in a manner quite distinct from that of Matthew and Luke, giving the lie to the suggestion that they copied from him. This degree of variation is far more consistent with Luke’s testimony to multiple sources and first hand knowledge than to these theories of documentary evolution.

Such rejection also flies in the face of the available external evidence. The Părinții Bisericii timpurii testify that Mark based his gospel directly on the testimony of Peter, who was appointed as leader of the church by Jesus himself, and for whom Mark worked as an interpreter. So not only are there no valid historical or textual grounds here for rejecting Mark, but to do so indicates a severe loss of objectivity.

General Rejection of First-hand Testimony

Such scholars do not only reject Mark’s testimony, in orice caz; they also reject Luke’s own testimony that there were many sources and that he had direct access to actual eyewitnesses. So here already, in spite of their need to accept the authenticity of Luke, they are effectively calling him false.

On what grounds? Roman scholars now acknowledge Luke as one of the best historians of his time: so there is no justification here. The arguments for a late dating of Luke’s writings have been generally discredited, and most scholars now accept that they date from before the fall of Jerusalem, when he would indeed have had access to first-hand testimony. Și, așa cum sa arătat mai sus, the degree of variation between the gospels lends itself more to a view of multiple sources than to just one or two.

To put it simply, the argument is not based on evidence; mai degrabă ignoră dovezile, pentru că este necesar să-l avem așa pentru a justifica ceea ce urmează acum.

„Q1”, „Q2’ și „Q3’

După ce am ajuns la ceea ce este denumit în mod obișnuit „Q”; o versiune redusă drastic a evangheliilor, din care au fost acum aruncate porțiuni uriașe, procesul continuă. În continuare se presupune că ceea ce rămâne nu este nici o înregistrare exactă; dar rezultatul unei meditații anterioare a textelor.

Acum, dacă unii din Iisus’ zicerile au fost adunate în colecții de scriitori anteriori, dovezile unei astfel de editări pot fi găsite în textele rezultate, fie în alegerea materialului, fie în narațiunea însoțitoare; la fel ca Matei, Mark și Luke își prezintă propriile stiluri și accente distincte. But what is being claimed here is that the writers deliberately invented stories and sayings which they attributed to Jesus in order to further their own doctrinal viewpoints.

So there now begins a process of attempting to decide who, allegedly, wrote what. Interesant, bearing in mind the claims made for objectivity in this process, there has been much debate even amongst scholars of this persuasion as to what criteria they should use. For example Jacobson assumes that quotations from the Septuagint, and references to John the Baptist are evidence of later additions, whereas Schultz assumes any theological ideas that have parallels in hellenistic thought are proof of this.

Probably the nearest to an objective basis for such an analysis is that of Kloppenborg. El se străduiește să utilizeze o tehnică orientată spre redactare bazată pe principalele teme literare din „Q”. El identifică trei dintre acestea: Q1 (care critică respingerea evreilor față de Iisus și Ioan Botezătorul), Q2 (care se concentrează în principal pe principiul încrederii în Dumnezeu) și Q3 (relatarea lui Isus’ ispită). El citează, de asemenea, sprijin suplimentar bazat pe formele lingvistice utilizate, observând că Q2 folosește forme asemănătoare cu „înțelepciunea biblică’ ziceri, întrucât Q1 folosește forme narative cunoscute sub numele de „chreia.’

La fel Kloppenborg este cu adevărat obiectiv, sau face, de asemenea, presupuneri nejustificate? in primul rand, ca la Jacobson, Schultz, și colab., el începe cu presupunerea că „Q’ textele provin dintr-un singur document care a fost supus unei succesiuni de modificări, and then looks for criteria by which he can separate the various supposed elements. Secondly, the reality of the situation is again nowhere near as simple as this. The existence of themes allegedly belonging to Q1 in parts of Q2 necessitates the theory that Q2 has been glossed over by the person responsible for Q1. Similarly passages are assigned to one or other group on the basis of very tenuous arguments.

And what of the forms-based evidence? Here again, Kloppenborg has fallen into one of the commonest errors of literary criticism – assuming that linguistic style is unaffected by content. It is only to be expected that Jesus’ main public teaching sessions (‘Q2’) would have been conducted in traditional ‘wisdom’ styles. But the passages concerned with Jesus’ dealings with the Jewish leaders („Q1”) are clearly not ‘teaching’ but narrative, combined with plain, very blunt, speaking. If these had been in ‘wisdom’ style, that would have been suspicious, whereas narrative ‘chreia’ are entirely appropriate. În mod similar, Iisus’ ispită (‘Q3’) should differ in style; for this is an account of a very private event (he was alone) that could only have come through confidences to his followers, and was clearly not part of his public teaching.

But what of Luke’s perfectly reasonable claim that Jesus’ ministry included toate these elements? And if, as Luke implies, these quotations do not come from a single source document then it is far from surprising if the resultant text exhibits a variety of interwoven themes. Just look a little more closely for a moment at Q3 (Mt 4:1-11 and Lk 4:1-13), and see how Matthew and Luke, whilst agreeing in substance, differ over not only the details of what was said, but even the sequence of the temptations. This strongly suggests they were nu referring to a common source document, as the ‘Q’ theory presupposes, but rather were citing independent oral or textual sources. în plus, although Mark does not describe the event, he does confirm that it happened (Mk 1:12-13).

What does this analysis really tell us? Given the criteria used, even if we had three totally different sources, all containing some or all of these three elements, merged them together and analysed them in this manner, we would still get a similar result. So this does nu show us the composition of the immediate sources used by the gospel writers. All it really proves is that, underlying the gospel accounts are wisdom style teachings, exchanges condemning the intransigence of the Jews, and an account of acute personal temptation. Considering most historians accept that Jesus was one of the greatest teachers of all time, that he was rejected by his own people yet allowed himself to die at their hands, that is entirely unsurprising.

Asa de, based once more on distinctly questionable assumptions, we now have the even more hypothetical documents Q1, Q2 and Q3.

The Gospel of Sayings.

Some scholars now proceed to reject Q3, because it is ‘mythical’, etc., and Q1, because they claim it was invented by a later author critical of the Jews’ refusal to obey God. This leaves us with Q2 – sayings concerning reliance on God, etc..

But even this is not acceptable to some, so they continue removing anything else they deem to be ‘mythical’ (i.e. supernatural) sau, în judecata lor, teologic prea avansat pentru a fi atribuit lui Isus. Apoi, ei susțin că ceea ce rămâne este „Evanghelia zicalelor” originală’ – singurul ‘adevărat’ evidența învățăturilor lui Isus.

Un documentar TV (nu o expunere: mai degraba, părea simpatic) a filmat unele dintre aceste deliberări. Un grup de savanți s-a așezat în jurul unei mese discutând opiniile lor cu privire la validitatea unuia dintre Isus’ ziceri. Fiecare avea câte un set de jetoane colorate, opiniile reprezentate ale textului variind de la fals la autentic. S-ar spune, „Asta nu mi se pare ca ceva ce Iisus ar fi spus,’ alta, care îi amintea de o vorbă similară despre Isus, etc.. După ce l-am discutat o vreme, au votat afișându-și jetoanele, și a mers mai departe. Dar criteriile pe care le aplicau erau în esență opinii subiective bazate pe părerile lor personale despre Isus. Discuția efectivă a dovezilor textuale a fost aproape inexistentă.

Astfel de teorii sunt, desigur, foarte popular printre sceptici, iar caracterul lor controversat garantează statutul de best-seller. Susținătorii lor vorbesc adesea ca și când acestea ar fi fapte dovedite științific, acceptat de toți, cu excepția câtorva reacționari. Dar, așa cum arată acest schiță, asta este departe de a fi cazul. Poate următorul comentariu din 1995 Recenzia Encyclopaedia Britannica Year Book a evenimentelor din acest an la rubrica, 'Religie,’ (pagină 266) vă va ajuta să puneți acest lucru înapoi în context:

“Seminarul Iisus, o organizare a 74 cărturari biblici formați în 1985 pentru a vedea pe Isus istoric prin mijloace științifice, a stârnit o controversă cu publicarea ‘Cele cinci evanghelii: Căutarea cuvintelor autentice ale lui Isus.’ The volume concluded that 82% of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Bible are inauthentic. Other Scholarly works that differed with the scriptural accounts that drew attention during the year included ‘Jesus: a Revolutionary Biography’ by John Dominic Crossan (see BIOGRAPHIES), ‘The Lost Gospel’ by Burton L. Mack, ‘Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time’ by Marcus J. Borg, and ‘The Religion of Jesus the Jew’ by Geza Vermes. These works relied heavily on the Book of Q, a collection of sayings and aphorisms attributed to Jesus that the scholars in question believe were used as sources by Matthew and Luke. In June a conference on “Reclaiming the Bible for the Church,” held in Northfield, Minn., drew theologians who charged that scholarly groups such as the Jesus Seminar were misinterpreting the Bible by removing it from its setting in the church community.”

False Conclusions from False Premises.

Some claim that the Gospel of Sayings is a text of great power: but many others find it rather dull, and are left wondering why Jesus should have attained such worldwide renown for teachings such as these. They may well ask: for most of what remains is essentially little different from the pronouncements of many sages, both before and since. But what else would you expect, when most of the distinctives of Jesus’ teachings have been edited out?

It is even claimed that, as the Gospel of Sayings contains no references to heaven, Înviere, miracles, etc., this proves that they are concepts added later. Dar, așa cum am văzut, asta se întâmplă pur și simplu pentru că Evanghelia zicerilor a fost sintetizată pe baza acestei presupuneri prin editarea multor afirmații emfatice contrare.

O altă eroare frecventă este confuzia frecventă între Evanghelia zicătorilor și „Q”. Primul este un subset foarte restrâns de „Q”: dar susținătorii vorbesc adesea ca și când cei doi ar fi sinonimi.

De asemenea, se susține adesea că un document sectar timpuriu, the Evanghelia lui Toma, conține multe extrase din Evanghelia zicătorilor. Acest lucru este improbabil: tot ce se poate spune cu adevărat este că se pare că a folosit o colecție timpurie a lui Isus’ ziceri ca una dintre sursele sale: alte părți sunt în mod clar false.

Și ce zici de evangheliile adevărului și perfecțiunii, cele de Petru, Iuda și Filip – chiar de către femei?

Concluzie

All that can reasonably be said concerning the ‘Q’ theory is that a similar source or sources, written or oral, may have existed and been used by the gospel writers. But attempting to use this conjectural document as a basis for further extrapolations – and then citing these as ‘evidence’ for conclusions which clearly contradict the two prime source documents and external historical testimony – tells us little except that some people desperately need a reason to reject the testimony of the gospels.

Înapoi la articolul principal.