\documentclass[10pt,a4paper]{article}

\usepackage[LGR,T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[margin=2cm]{geometry}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{multicol}

\newcommand{\textgreek}[1]{\begingroup\fontencoding{LGR}\selectfont#1\endgroup}

\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{pgfplots}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{tikz}
\newenvironment{Figure} % for in multicols; see http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/12289/23992
    {\par\medskip\noindent\minipage{\linewidth}}
    {\endminipage\par\medskip}

\title{Discussion paragraph\\\large{Rethinking Fundamental Theology, chap. 5}}
\author{Camil Staps}
\date{October 1, 2015}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{multicols}{2}
    This essay will largely be a list of inaccuracies and hasty conclusions made by O'Collins that I'd like to point out. I will finish however, by providing some different perspectives.

    \medskip
    
    There are some obvious inaccuracies, like some incorrect Bible references\footnote{Mk.~14:51 on p.~115 should be 14:61; Lk.~22:39-40 on p.~119 should be 22:29-40} and that all Christians use the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 in the Eucharist on p.~121, while at least some Roman Catholic churches only use the Apostle's Creed. These inaccuracies are maybe not the biggest sin against the scientific method, but do make one wonder how trustworthy the rest of the text is -- and this is important, especially because O'Collins makes an appeal to his authority on p.~102 saying that he `will attribute to [Jesus]  only examples [of sayings] where such justification [of the saying being Jesus's] is possible.'

    \medskip

    But there are much worse things happening than this. Quotes, for example, are sometimes taken out of context. We saw already in chapter 4 that he writes (p.~58):

    \begin{quote}
        Immanuel Kant famously remarked that two things make human beings think of God: the `starry skies' above and the `moral law' within their hearts.
    \end{quote}

    Yet the \emph{actual} statement made by Kant at the very end of his \emph{Critique of practical reason} doesn't mention God whatsoever. This may be acceptable if it was clear from the context that God was hinted at, but that's not the case either. The whole section doesn't mention God -- and that's not surprising, because Kant tried very hard to suggest a worldview \emph{without} God.

    \medskip

    Then, in chapter 5, on p.~97, O'Collins writes:

    \begin{quote}
        The Gospels, it has been convincingly argued, came from one eyewitness (John) and from three other evangelists who took much of their material from eyewitnesses.
    \end{quote}

    The book \emph{Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony} by R. Bauckham is referred to. Now, that theory is actually \emph{not} a common one, and several sources say John was (one of) the latest Gospel(s), and the \emph{least} likely to be written by an eyewitness\footnote{See e.g. \emph{The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church}. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005.}\footnote{If John's Gospel were an eyewitness account, what should we do with 21:24b, `and we know that his testimony is true'?}. According to Matthijs den Dulk, Bauckham wanted to open this up as a possibility, but surely didn't make any claim. It is unclear where O'Collins gets that this one possible theory has been `convincingly argued'.

    \medskip

    O'Collins suggests five reasons to ascribe a saying from the Gospels to Jesus (rather than two a second- or third-stage redactor). One of them, for example, is multiple attestation. However, he doesn't follow these guidelines himself when later he shows the difference between Jesus and Old Testament prophets (p.~116):

    \begin{quote}
        [Jesus] spoke with his own authority, prefacing his teaching with `I say to you' (Matt.~5:21-44) and not with such prophetic rubrics as `thus says the Lord' or `oracle of the Lord'.
    \end{quote}

    We only find this way to speak in Matthew, Mark and Luke. As we know, Matthew and Luke were largely compiled from Mark and a source Q with sayings of Jesus. Now, if Q was merely a list of sayings, that is, without context, we would only find `I say to you' \emph{originally} in Mark. Therefore, we cannot just ascribe that way of speaking to Jesus, because it doesn't enjoy multiple attestation.

    \medskip

    Then, on p.~127, O'Collins writes:

    \begin{quote}
        If Jesus did say `Our Father' (Matt.~6:9, unlike Luke~11:2 where there is no `our'), it was in a prayer he proposed for others (`pray then like this' -- Matt.~6:9).
    \end{quote}

    There is indeed a difference in the use of `our': Matthew has \textgreek{\<hm\~wn} which Luke lacks. However, there is no significant difference in the `pray then like this': Matthew writes `\textgreek{o\<'utws o\~\>un prose'uqesje \<ume\~is}', `So pray like this', and Luke has `\textgreek{\<'Otan prose'uqhsje, l'egete}', `When you pray, say'\footnote{All quotes in this paragraph from the Nestle GNT 1904 text, translation mine.}.

    Therefore, we cannot argue that `Our Father' would be intended for others while `Father' is Jesus's own prayer: they are \emph{both} intended for others, so based on this passage we can only argue God's fathership, \emph{not} Jesus's sonship.

    This is related to an issue on p.~126, where O'Collins writes (in the section concerning hints at the Trinity-Son in the Gospels):

    \begin{quote}
        Mark's Gospel at least five times calls God `Father' [\dots] Jesus evidently spoke of and with God as his father in a direct, familial way that was highly unusual or even unique in Palestinian Judaism.
    \end{quote}

    This seems more like an argument for hints at the Trinity-Father, not for hints at the Son. Surely, these notions are inseparable -- but the whole point of the Trinity is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are inseparable. Considering that O'Collins also writes that `Jesus seems to have described and thought of the divine Spirit in a fairly normal prophetic way', that leaves \emph{no} arguments for the existence of the Son in the NT, \emph{no} arguments for the Holy Spirit, and only arguments for hints at the Father.

    \medskip

    Lastly, on p.~128, O'Collins makes a distinction between the views of Paul and John the evangelist. Paul, in Heb.~1:1-2, would see Jesus as the Son, while John, in his prologue, sees Jesus as the Word. If we look closely however (that is, if we read the whole verse), Heb.~1:2 refers to the Word by saying `and through whom [the Son] also he [God] made the universe'. And in Jn.~1:14 a link with the Son is made: `The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, \dots' And in Jn.~1:18, we read that the one and only Son has made known the Father. While O'Collins in this case clearly makes a mistake, this \emph{could} be a hint at Jesus's sonship: Jesus, according to John, is the \emph{one and only} Son, so His relationship with the Father is other than the relationship of others.

    \medskip

    Being a Christian, I can agree with most of the theological claims O'Collins makes. However, his argumentation is sadly inaccurate. The five reasons that are given for ascribing a saying to Jesus I can agree with, but I would encourage these guidelines to be actually used.

    I don't see at all why miracles in modern time are different from miracles in Jesus's time (O'Collins calls their existence `another question' on p.~112, but doesn't provide any argumentation). There are no clear reasons to assume that God needed miracles in that time but doesn't need them any more. I don't think one can effectively argue that the stories about miracles in the Gospels are historically correct, while miracles can't happen any more in this time. If we were to argue the latter, I would vouch for reading the miracle accounts as figurative speech.

    With regards to what's written on p.~129, we cannot deny Christ revealed the Father in fullness (see e.g. Jn.~1:14;~16;~18). What we can deny is the completeness of the Gospels. Also the disciples, after having spent several years with Jesus, need to meet Him after His death to understand His Truth better (Lk.~24:31;~45). I would, with these texts, argue that Jesus revealed the Truth fully, but that that Truth can never be captured in a book (or four), and that therefore Christians try to enter into a relationship with Christ. This then is also how I read the last pages of chapter 5.
\end{multicols}

\end{document}

