Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 11-05-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Mack is explaining here the origin of the gospel mythology.

:huh: ??? Where do you get this???.:huh: In the passage you quote, Mack is explaining the origins of Q

What evidence do you have that Q was not used
in the fabrication of fictitious and/or mythological
gospels? The confession of Eusebius?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-05-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

:huh: ??? Where do you get this???.:huh: In the passage you quote, Mack is explaining the origins of Q

What evidence do you have that Q was not used
in the fabrication of fictitious and/or mythological
gospels? The confession of Eusebius?

How is that you don't see that this question should be addressed to Mack not to me?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-05-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

How is that you don't see that this question should be addressed to Mack not to me?

Jeffrey

Allow me then to clarify that I am addressing
all interested parties who have examined the
existence of this hypothetical Q. Why target
Mack?

Umm .. because Mack was the subject of the discussion?

Quote:

Let's generalise.

Let's not. To do so would be to hijack this thread which is presently examining whether Jay has misread what Mark said in the quote of Mack that Jay gave us.

JG

Toto · 11-05-2007, 05:44 PM

This has been split, and may be merged into an existing thread.

Let me comment that Eusebius did not know anything about Q, so I do not see anything useful coming out of this question.

Also - what's with "lex" ? Peter Brown is signing lex's posts, so no one is fooled.

Magdlyn · 11-05-2007, 05:44 PM

Pete Brown=mountainman=

lex
Newcomer

Join Date: May 2007
Location: manly
Posts: 3

???

eta, x-posted w/Toto!

mountainman · 11-05-2007, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This has been split, and may be merged into an existing thread.

Let me comment that Eusebius did not know anything about Q, so I do not see anything useful coming out of this question.

The question:

What evidence do we have that Q was not used
in the fabrication of fictitious and/or mythological
gospels?

is certainly not my favorite topic.

Myth and fiction were both advocated,
not just fiction.

Quote:

Also - what's with "lex" ? Peter Brown is signing lex's posts, so no one is fooled.

Hey, go and look up the history today and way-back.

The machine I am using to post from this morning
(while I am at Manly Beach in Sydney) is set to auto
login another user Lex, who is not me.

I failed to log off Lex and login as myself
before posting, that's all.

This has happened once or twice before.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 11-05-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Pete Brown=mountainman=

lex
Newcomer

Join Date: May 2007
Location: manly
Posts: 3

???

eta, x-posted w/Toto!

Does it all make sense now?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 11-05-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Let me comment that Eusebius did not know anything about Q, so I do not see anything useful coming out of this question.

Am I entitled ask exactly how you know that
Eusebius knew nothing about Q?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Toto · 11-05-2007, 07:38 PM

Hi Pete,

Do you know what Q is?

Quote:

Conventional symbol for the source of material in both Matthew and Luke that differs significantly from the text of Mark. This symbol was coined in a 1890 essay by Johannes Weiss, who used it as shorthand for the German word "source" (Quelle). But the Q hypothesis itself is credited to C. H. Weisse (1838), who was the first to maintain that Matthew & Luke independently edited Mark and the same "sayings source" (Redenquelle).

Eusebius did not speak German, and had completed his life work by the 19th century, I think you will agree.

Your favorite topic, of course, is this obsession with Eusebius having composed everything.

mountainman · 11-06-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hi Pete,

Do you know what Q is?

Quote:

Conventional symbol for the source of material in both Matthew and Luke that differs significantly from the text of Mark. This symbol was coined in a 1890 essay by Johannes Weiss, who used it as shorthand for the German word "source" (Quelle). But the Q hypothesis itself is credited to C. H. Weisse (1838), who was the first to maintain that Matthew & Luke independently edited Mark and the same "sayings source" (Redenquelle).

Hi Toto,

Yes I understand what Q is: it is a hypothetical source derived
from a logical analysis of the composition of the synoptic gospels.

Your reference above says:

Quote:

Recognition of its existence is a scientific corollary of two other conclusions about the relation of the synoptic texts:
the priority of Mark as the prime literary source for Matthew & Luke; &
the independence of Matthew & Luke as editors of Mark.

and then, as the second issue discussed about Q says:

Quote:

Lack of reference: The absence of a ms. of Q is not a major problem, since most Christian literature written before the Constantinian era (4th c. CE) is no longer in existence.

There are a number of unexplored logical corollaries
as to why this state of affairs exists.

Quote:

Eusebius did not speak German, and had completed his life work by the 19th century, I think you will agree.

Yes, most scholars today see the bulk of Eusebian output
squared away by a "quills down" c.324 CE, aside from VC.
He may not have spoken German, but curiously Arnaldo
Momigliano somewhere mentions he may have been Jewish,
but this may not be relevant to NT studies.

Quote:

Your favorite topic, of course, is this obsession with Eusebius having composed everything.

A knowledge of Eusebius is recommended for NT studies.
Eusebian chronology is foundational. Mainstream has been
obsessed since at least 324 CE over the christian canon
and its "liberation from heretical writers".

I agree that the synoptics were generated from a source
document, but in a radically different manner that what
the German scholarship has logically deduced. They have
the postulate that "christian writings" preceed Constantine
while I am not bound by that constraint until refuted by
some form of monumental/archaeological evidence, which
may yet appear.

My explanation for the hypothetical Q involves the reverse
engineering of the Eusebian canon tables to the list of about
600 odd sayings and events which it allocates systematically
to the 4 synoptics. IMO the synoptics could have been
prepared from this list underlying the Eusebian Canon table.

I am dearly appreciative of the fact that I am not overly
persecuted and intolerated for my radical departure from
this mainstream obsession with "christianity" and its totally
conjectural literary "history".

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

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

11-05-2007, 05:44 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This has been split, and may be merged into an existing thread. Let me comment that Eusebius did not know anything about Q, so I do not see anything useful coming out of this question. Also - what's with "lex" ? Peter Brown is signing lex's posts, so no one is fooled.

11-05-2007, 05:44 PM	#5
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Pete Brown=mountainman= lex Newcomer Join Date: May 2007 Location: manly Posts: 3 ??? eta, x-posted w/Toto!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.