Toto

Egads, man, this has nothing to do with mythicism. Earl Doherty thinks that Q existed.

Note that the Q-skepticism position is held by people with PhD's from prestigious universities.

yalla

It's all Strauss's fault.
He's to blame.
Not just for the mess that is Q but for the mess of a-historicity that has re-erupted lately thanks to Bart peering under the rock to see what the noises are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Strauss

As wiki puts it:
What made Das Leben Jesu so controversial was Strauss's characterization of the miraculous elements in the gospels as being "mythical" in character

Nicholas Perrin, in the book recommended by bingo the clowno above ,says that Strauss "had dealt a stunning blow both to the rationalist and supernaturalist undestandings of the historical Jesus .....Strauss had raised the stakes by suggesting that there were after all no facts to be had"
Oops.
He lost his job [Strauss that is, that'll teach him ...and others].

Around the same time came the realization, after a mere 1700 plus years, of Markan Priority and with it the awareness that the eye witness disciple "Matthew" was not in fact the author of the first gospel but merely a copyist of "Mark", a non disciple, non eye-witness.

Thats a blow to a long held credibility.

As Perrin says [in the context of discussing the early explorations of literary dependencs[s] in the synoptics]:
"By appealing to the notion of primitive gospels Holtzmann thought he had uncovered the means of dispelling the dark clouds of Strauss's radical scepticism. For if early documents such as [Gk letter - precursor to Q] and A [and later Mark itself] one then had a plausible means of reconstructing the historical Jesus" [p. 5 of "Questioning Q"].

And away it went from there.

Like I said, its all bloody Strauss' fault.

mountainman

* these reactions are reminiscent of those of Photius reading the books of Leucius Charinus.

Also of the historicists the reality of a mythical Big J.


Approaching the Theoretical Q from the Ammonian Canon Tables

Approaching the question of Q via the canon tables, published with early editions of the greek new testament, there can only be 650 source items in total, as summarised in Analysis of the Eusebian Canon Tables - The Large Q of 650 source sayings

outhouse

and all of these people you speak of hold a minority postion at best, period.

that doesnt give credibility to the mythers in this thread and their wayward ways

yalla

outhouse
The debate around the Q hypothesis is not based on mythicist vs historicist.

Just to give you 2 examples.
The editors of the book "Questioning Q' are both mainstream authoritive biblical scholars namely:
1. Mark Goodacre Lecturer in NT in Dept of Theology at Uni of Birmingham
2. Nick Perrin Ass Prof of NT at Biblical Theological Seminary Hatfield Penn.

Other writers in the book include persons holding positions at -Jewish Theo Sem NY, Austin Grad School of Theology Texas, Baptist Theo Seminary Virginia.
In addition I could name others of comparable standard orthodox conservative non mythicist standing who dispute Q who also hold similar positions.
For example in the comment I quoted in my firstpost on this topic the author, J.G.Fenton, is [or was] a Church of England minister and Principal of Lichfield Theological College.

Opposition to Q is neither mythicist based nor a fringe position.


Here, check out this bloke -John Henry Drury, who is a proponent of the Farrer theory which is the antithesis to Q.
I'll help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Drury_(priest)

outhouse

maybe your not getting my point.

the majority position is that the two source hypothesis is followed. Q/M


the vast minority position is not following the two source.


it is a fringe position.

yalla

outhouse,
The Dean of Christ Church at Oxford University and the Bishop of Durham [who wrote the foreword to the Goodacre/Perrin book] are not 'fringe' people.
They are solid conservative Establishment Church positions very high in prestige.
As for being a minority that is irrelevant.
Chritianity was once a very small minority, definitely a fringe group, do you think that equates to it being wrong?

Judge the issues on their merits, not your imagined groupings.

outhouse

just because you dont follow the two source hypothesis, doesnt mean the vast majority of scholars dont.


thanks for listing biased opinions to bolster your own, that is a classic example of hypocritical thinking

outhouse

refute this



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document


Although most scholars accept the Two Source Hypothesis, many have never been entirely happy with it


and the main resaon their not happy with it, is because the original document didnt survive


overwhelming evidence points to a Q source, period.

yalla

That is precisely is what, in small part along with the material in the link provided by Jon A, I am attempting to do.
Arguing based on logic and evidence borrowing from credible authoritive scholars such as Drury, Goodacre, Farrer, just to name 3, none of whom deserve your dismissal as fringe minority mythicists..
Please dispute the argument, not resort to ad hom or sweeping prejudicial generalizations.
Engage the material.