FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-10-2001, 05:27 PM   #1
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post Bernard Muller's Site on the Historical Jesus

For those of you who have not read it, Bernard Muller's extensive, well-written and well-documented site with numerous articles is available here:

<a href="http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/index.shtml#main" target="_blank">http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/index.shtml#main</a>

I have not read enough articles to get a feel for the his entire position, but his writing is interesting and thought-provoking. Some of you were asking about Q:

<a href="http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/q.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/q.shtml</a>

and Muller's article on it is quite interesting. Muller believes Q is post-Mark and dependent on it. Interesting read.

Toto, have you seen his site?

Michael
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 12-10-2001, 10:04 PM   #2
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by turtonm:
<strong>Toto, have you seen his site?

Michael</strong>
I haven't been keeping up with the JesusMysteries Group lately - I had opted out of getting the emails over Thanksgiving. Thanks for reminding me.
Toto is offline  
Old 12-11-2001, 02:28 PM   #3
xoc
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: in my mind
Posts: 276
Post

Why would someone date Q. as "post-Mark" since there is no substantial evidence Q. ever existed in the first place? Isn't it just an unecessary complication? (like they can't just say Luke borrowed from Mark)
xoc is offline  
Old 12-11-2001, 02:56 PM   #4
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by a_theistnotatheist:
<strong>Why would someone date Q. as "post-Mark" since there is no substantial evidence Q. ever existed in the first place? Isn't it just an unecessary complication? (like they can't just say Luke borrowed from Mark)</strong>
Some Christian scholars like to date the purported 'Q' around 50 CE, because it makes it look like there is some early evidence of the existence of the historical Jesus. Without that, the Gospels are so late that they provide no firm evidence of his existence.

(Of course, this would make Q contemporaneous with Paul's letters, and the picture of Jesus in Q is quite different from that in Paul. It's hard to make sense of Christian history.)

Did you mean to say that Luke borrowed from Matthew? This would get rid of the need for Q. That is Mark Goodacre's position in <a href="http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/index.htm" target="_blank">Mark Without Q</a>
Toto is offline  
Old 12-12-2001, 06:53 PM   #5
aikido7
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Here
Posts: 234
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Toto:
<strong>

Some Christian scholars like to date the purported 'Q' around 50 CE, because it makes it look like there is some early evidence of the existence of the historical Jesus. Without that, the Gospels are so late that they provide no firm evidence of his existence.

(Of course, this would make Q contemporaneous with Paul's letters, and the picture of Jesus in Q is quite different from that in Paul. It's hard to make sense of Christian history.)

</strong>
In a world without instantaneous communication, it is easy for me to believe that there were a number of geographically/theologically seperate
post-Jesus groups in the Mediterranean area. It wasn't until 325 AD that the "politically correct" version of Jesus was set down in any systematic way.
aikido7 is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 04:07 AM   #6
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by a_theistnotatheist:
<strong>Why would someone date Q. as "post-Mark" since there is no substantial evidence Q. ever existed in the first place? Isn't it just an unecessary complication? (like they can't just say Luke borrowed from Mark)</strong>
I would say there is very substantial evidence for Q, and so would many scholars, even those who are not Q adherents. Without Q, how do you account for the close relationship between Matt and Luke?

Michael
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 05:46 AM   #7
MortalWombat
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: St Louis area
Posts: 3,458
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by turtonm:
<strong>

I would say there is very substantial evidence for Q, and so would many scholars, even those who are not Q adherents. Without Q, how do you account for the close relationship between Matt and Luke?
</strong>
...while keeping in mind that the common material in Matt and Luke that isn't in Mark is not in the same order, and the setup lines for for the Q sayings in Matt and Luke are different as well (I am mentioning this to counter the argument that Q material was invented by Matt and that Luke used Mark and Matt as a reference). And also keep in mind that Q sayings (albeit at an early stage) are present in the Gospel of Thomas.
MortalWombat is offline  
Old 12-13-2001, 04:13 PM   #8
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by MortalWombat:
<strong>

...while keeping in mind that the common material in Matt and Luke that isn't in Mark is not in the same order, and the setup lines for for the Q sayings in Matt and Luke are different as well (I am mentioning this to counter the argument that Q material was invented by Matt and that Luke used Mark and Matt as a reference). And also keep in mind that Q sayings (albeit at an early stage) are present in the Gospel of Thomas.</strong>
Some of Q and Thomas overlap. In any case, that doesn't mean anything as far as whether Luke and Matt copied each other or had a document in common.

Michael
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 12-14-2001, 05:26 AM   #9
MortalWombat
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: St Louis area
Posts: 3,458
Post

Michael, I was making the point that the existence of Q material in Thomas (a gospel which otherwise shows a completely different view of Jesus) also makes a case for the existence of Q as a separate source, rather than something that Matt invented and Luke copied from (which is an argument that anti-Q people use). The fact that the common Q material in Matt and Luke is in different order and has different setup lines also shows that Luke didn't just copy it from Matt, but that it was a separate source of reference material from Mark that Matt and Luke used independently.
MortalWombat is offline  
Old 12-15-2001, 09:42 PM   #10
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by MortalWombat:
<strong>Michael, I was making the point that the existence of Q material in Thomas (a gospel which otherwise shows a completely different view of Jesus) also makes a case for the existence of Q as a separate source, rather than something that Matt invented and Luke copied from (which is an argument that anti-Q people use). The fact that the common Q material in Matt and Luke is in different order and has different setup lines also shows that Luke didn't just copy it from Matt, but that it was a separate source of reference material from Mark that Matt and Luke used independently.</strong>
I;m not sure this is supported by the evidence. The Gospel of Thomas provides scholars with evidence that Jesus groups collected his sayings and nothing more. GThom is rather late 2nd century as far as I can tell (based on the concensus of scholars I have talked to) and gnostic. I think Q is possible, but just as possible in my view, is the farrer hypothesis which says ALk borrowed from GMt. There are significant problems with both. I GMt and GLk are independently based on 2 sources from whence the minor agreements? If not why does ALk chop up the sermon on the mount and sprinkle that great material throughout his gospel in a much less impressive fashion? PLus occam's razor may apply as well, since Q is purely hypothetical and no manuscript evidence for it exists.
CX is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:24 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.