tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873059253261642303.post1021008438692700529..comments2023-11-02T10:50:42.128-05:00Comments on CLOSED: Holy Innocents Day and shallow suspicion of the BibleTLF+http://www.blogger.com/profile/01650010433581488888noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873059253261642303.post-10122675332710778992009-12-30T15:27:33.587-06:002009-12-30T15:27:33.587-06:00"Yeah, much of seminary was like listening to..."Yeah, much of seminary was like listening to some weird late night radio show, where everybody calls in to share conspiracy theories about everything that happens."<br /><br />I loved this line Fr. Fountain. Even at Asbury, which is on the conservative side, I got some of this post-modern conspiracy theory stuff. Enjoying your blog!Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06529046356895711706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873059253261642303.post-28011874730047267172009-12-28T20:23:50.820-06:002009-12-28T20:23:50.820-06:00Thanks, Archer - I think it was Kuhn's "N...Thanks, Archer - I think it was Kuhn's "Nature of Scientific Revolutions" in which he wrote of the ability of a lone anomaly to pull down a whole edifice of "normal science" - you know, like "Wait a minute, I think the Earth is the one going 'round the Sun, not the other way 'round." "Q" is a Biblical example par excellence!<br /><br />Thanks, Floridian! That is, of course, an enduring message of the Holy Innocents.TLF+https://www.blogger.com/profile/01650010433581488888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873059253261642303.post-50771024217725927502009-12-28T11:29:05.787-06:002009-12-28T11:29:05.787-06:00I posted the long list of Scriptures forbidding th...I posted the long list of Scriptures forbidding the shedding of innocent blood at Lent & Beyond (http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/mark-1013-16-2/)Floridiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873059253261642303.post-6069068620215784792009-12-28T11:17:47.524-06:002009-12-28T11:17:47.524-06:00Haha, yeah I remember those days at seminary. The ...Haha, yeah I remember those days at seminary. The longer I have been out of seminary, the more I am convinced that there is just a very fine line between a serious biblical academic and a complete "bible code" crackpot. <br /><br />They fabricate these elaborate fictions to explain texts and inconsistencies without one shred of credible proof, and then they expect us to believe them because their theories are self-justifying (at least to their own minds). <br /><br />Case in point: the Q source theory, sometimes called the synoptic problem amongst other things. If you ever want to watch a bible scholar meeting completely melt down, question the existence of the Q source. They are more convinced that the Q source exists than anything they actually read from the actual gospel texts. <br /><br />While I don't have a strong opinion either way on the Q source, the irony is that it can be completely logically explained away without a need for a Q source. For example, Mark was written first, Matthew was written, copying most of Mark and adding his own stuff, and Luke was written copying stuff from Matthew and Mark. Therefore, the Q source is really stuff unique to Matthew, and the need for the Q source evaporates. But that's not trendy enough to get you an article in the Biblical Quarterly or wherever. <br /><br />I always took stuff like that in seminary and now with a grain a salt. If you actually start pulling out the strands of their exegetical tapestry, it is amazing how many of those theories completely unravel in a hurry.The Archer of the Foresthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075768526819990250noreply@blogger.com