Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-11-2012, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

There is no evidence for "Q."

3 different scriptures, is evidence.

What three?

"Q" is based on the assumption that Luke did not have a copy of Matthew, so Q is defined as the common portions of Luke and Matthew.

Please write complete thoughts without leaving these gaping holes.

Toto · 11-11-2012, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

..

the scriptures themselves are excellent source of information for this purpose..

Are you sure you are not a Christian?

Quote:

... theres no reason there wouldnt be oral traditions in these illiterate roman cultures, by people fooled into faith.

Quote:

why speculate about "oral traditions",

but really, is anyone discounting oral tradition in a illiterate culture??????????

Yes, informed criticism discounts oral tradition.

This was not an illiterate culture. The gospel writers clearly had written sources for most of their narratives.

Quote:

So that leaves you trying to explain how a movement started wide and varied, in many different geographic locations so quickly with a simular central theme in a illiterate culture.

Could you detail how wide and varied, and when you think it started??

Quote:

...

It also leaves you asking why so many different people found this fiction so important it changed their lives so much that they would face persecution following this fiction.?

This is a Christian talking point - Why would they die for a lie? But people die for lies and for fictions all the time.

Quote:

You biggest mistake with fiction, is trying to explain why authors wrote in a temple event and crucifiction, where enough people were alive who attended, who would flat know, someone was creating fiction.

Another Christian talking point. There is no evidence of this story within a generation of the time it would have happened.

Quote:

yet nothing at all indicates from these cultures, they thought someone was pulling their leg, or purposely misleading them.

You haven't read Lucien of Samosata? He portrays second century Christians as gullible and easily fooled by a wandering scam artist.

outhouse - come out of the closet. I don't believe that you are an atheist.

outhouse · 11-11-2012, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

3 different scriptures, is evidence.

What three?

"Q" is based on the assumption that Luke did not have a copy of Matthew, so Q is defined as the common portions of Luke and Matthew.

Please write complete thoughts without leaving these gaping holes.

L, M, T.

sotto voce · 11-11-2012, 02:09 PM

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you offered.

Toto · 11-11-2012, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What three?

"Q" is based on the assumption that Luke did not have a copy of Matthew, so Q is defined as the common portions of Luke and Matthew.

Please write complete thoughts without leaving these gaping holes.

L, M, T.

Since L could have used M as a source, and T could have used L and M as sources, the existence of these 3 sources cannot be used to prove Q without some extra argument.

outhouse · 11-11-2012, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

L, M, T.

Since L could have used M as a source, and T could have used L and M as sources, the existence of these 3 sources cannot be used to prove Q without some extra argument.

who, with credibility, can offer up M priority, to L ??? is it, or is it not a fringe theory by the vast minority with no real substance.

what we do have is Markan priority

Toto · 11-11-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Since L could have used M as a source, and T could have used L and M as sources, the existence of these 3 sources cannot be used to prove Q without some extra argument.

who, with credibility, can offer up M priority, to L ??? is it, or is it not a fringe theory by the vast minority with no real substance.

what we do have is Marken priority

No, it is not a fringe theory. The standard estimates of the dating of the gospels have Matthew written prior to Luke. Luke is generally felt to be a later gospel, as the author claims to be correcting the record of many who have written before.

I assume that you are using the standard abbreviation of M = Matthew. Mark is in no way evidence of Q.

outhouse · 11-11-2012, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

who, with credibility, can offer up M priority, to L ??? is it, or is it not a fringe theory by the vast minority with no real substance.

what we do have is Markan priority

No, it is not a fringe theory. The standard estimates of the dating of the gospels have Matthew written prior to Luke. Luke is generally felt to be a later gospel, as the author claims to be correcting the record of many who have written before.

I assume that you are using the standard abbreviation of M = Matthew. Mark is in no way evidence of Q.

I understand M or if you wish Mt is a hair prior to finished L. but is that true for Ur-L or proto L which contians Q, per Marcions gospels.

and why would L only take Q and nothing else.

My point, its almost unanimous, L did not use Mt

who is credible that follows the Augustinian/Farrer hypothesis

Toto · 11-11-2012, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No, it is not a fringe theory. The standard estimates of the dating of the gospels have Matthew written prior to Luke. Luke is generally felt to be a later gospel, as the author claims to be correcting the record of many who have written before.

I assume that you are using the standard abbreviation of M = Matthew. Mark is in no way evidence of Q.

I understand M or if you wish Mt is a hair prior to finished L. but is that true for Ur-L or proto L which contians Q, per Marcions gospels.

and why would L only take Q and nothing else.

My point, its almost unanimous, L did not use Mt

who is credible that follows the Augustinian/Farrer hypothesis

I'm not sure if it is worth the effort to figure out what you mean, but to answer your last question, from Synoptic Problem Website (2004)

Quote:

The Farrer Hypotheis (FH) is also a Markan priority solution, but dispenses with Q as unnecessary, holding that Luke's use of Matthew is sufficiently plausible (Farrer 1955; Goulder 1972; Goodacre 2002; cf. Storr 1786; Lummis 1915; Ropes 1934). The Farrer Hypothesis is the leading contender to the 2SH in England and is beginning to have some in-roads in North America.

Goodacre is certainly credible. I don't think any of these theories can claim certainty.

You would do better to actually discuss the issues, than label one position as "fringe" and dismiss it.

Minimalist · 11-11-2012, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

There is no evidence for "Q."

3 different scriptures, is evidence.

I call it "wishful thinking" not evidence.

To each his own, I suppose.

View Poll Results: Please read the opening post. Then choose ONE from each number.
1 a. The content of Mark was made up completely by the author.	3	14.29%
1 b. The content of Mark was creatively collected from earlier written and/or oral sources.	15	71.43%
1 c. Neither. I will state my views below.	4	19.05%
2 a. The content of Matthew was made up completely by the author.	0	0%
2 b. Matthew creatively combines Mark with made up material.	5	23.81%
2 c. Matthew creatively combines Mark and Luke with made up material.	1	4.76%
2 d. Matthew creatively combines Mark and a second source* also used in Luke with made up material.	6	28.57%
2 e. Matthew creatively combines Mark and a second source* also used in Luke with material from earlier written and/or oral sources.	6	28.57%
2 f. None of the above. I will state my views below.	2	9.52%
3 a. The content of Luke was made up completely by the author.	1	4.76%
3 b. Luke creatively combines Mark with made up material.	2	9.52%
3 c. Luke creatively combines Mark and Matthew with made up material.	3	14.29%
3 d. Luke creatively combines Mark and a second source* also used in Matthew with made up material.	7	33.33%
3 e. Luke creatively combines Mark and a second source* also used in Matthew with material from earlier written and/or oral sources.	5	23.81%
3 f. None of the above. I will state my views below.	1	4.76%
4 a. Q did not exist.	3	14.29%
4 b. The Q theory does not provide a reasonable explanation for the material shared by Matthew and Luke.	0	0%
4 c. The Q theory provides a reasonable explanation for the material shared by Matthew and Luke.	7	33.33%
4 d. The Q theory provides the best explanation for the material shared by Matthew and Luke.	6	28.57%
4 e. Q is the source for the material shared by Matthew and Luke.	4	19.05%
4 f. None of the above. I will state my views below.	2	9.52%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

11-11-2012, 02:09 PM	#14
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	Circularity, spin. Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you offered.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.