Loomis

I always thought that Q was a hypothesis. Not a theory. As I understand it a theory is a type of hypothesis. A theory is a well-substantiated hypothesis; but not substantiated enough to be considered a fact.

AFAIK Markan Priority is considered a theory; whereas Q is still just considered a hypotheisis.

Mark Goodacre for example, accepts the theory of Markan priority, but rejects the Q hypotheis.

A Monopoly on Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q

ApostateAbe

Right, the methodology of minimalism would lead us to have no answers at all concerning the origins of Christianity, and it is a dead end as far as the topic of Jesus is concerned. So, I think it would be best if such people did not have a seat at the table. Yet, here they are. I bring minimalism into the discussion because they always bring themselves into it, and they are the primary position represented in this forum. It is ridiculous, but, yeah. If it were the goal of most people to have less knowledge of early Christianity, then minimalists would be welcomed. Minimalists believe that we don't have any choice but to have less knowledge, because probability estimates are no different from worthless guesses.

That ties into the answer your first question. We determine that it is probable that religious texts are historical by looking at the contents. If the contents of a second-century letter purported to be written by the Apostle Paul matches the point of view that we expect for the Apostle Paul and not a later Christian sect, then we make the conclusion that the letter was probably written by the Apostle Paul. Minimalists, of course, do not accept mere probability estimates, which they see as too subjective. They want only hard archaeological evidence, as you said, which leaves us with hardly anything.

Toto

Abe, I beg you to stop shooting from the hip and making such authoritative pronouncements on matters that you know so little about.

"Minimalism" is a term that usually applies to those who see a minimal amount of history in the Hebrew Scriptures, and it is used by their enemies who woud prefer to find a maximal amount of history. If you are going to (mis)use that term for NT studies, you need to define what you mean.

Depending on how you define it, I think that scholars like Robert Price and R Joseph Hoffman might qualify as minimalists, since they think that little or nothing can be known about a historical Jesus. This does not mean that they have no answers about Christian origins. If you keep knowledgeable scholars like that away from the discussion, you will be left with ideologues who are overconfident about their ability to find history in theological tracts - usually because of their own biases. What would be the point of that discussion?

This paragraph is so mistaken I don't know where to start. Probability estimates are just that. The typical error of historicists is turning a statement with some probability into dogma.

It almost sounds like you prefer confident, but wrong, statements to accurate statements about the limits of our knowledge.

Do you think that the Apostle Paul wrote in the second century? Very interesting.

Loomis

Why?

Do you think it is possible to assert literary dependencies without asserting specific creation dates?

What's wrong with asserting a chronology without any specific dates? (Assuming the evidence permits it?)

Loomis

I always thought that the first postulate of the Q hypothesis is that no one is going to produce it.

Loomis

There is uncertainty in everything – but that uncertainty doesn’t prevent us from forming hypotheses and testing theories.

Why make an exception for the bible?

Loomis

That’s what a hypothesis is. It’s the precursor to a theory. It has no support when it is first asserted.

So why is that a fault? Why do we have to dismiss it?

ApostateAbe

OK, sorry. I agree with your definition, and I think minimalists deserve a place at the table in the studies of the Hebrew scriptures, because they have the evidence in their favor in most respects. Not so with the Christian New Testament. The same methodology and biases apply, but they do not have probability in their favor.

OK, that is a good point. Lacking answers about the historical Jesus do not necessarily mean they lack answers about the origin of Christianity. It is just that their theories are bone-headed. Minimalists and those who use minimalist arguments should not be considered non-ideological, nor should non-minimalists be thought of as primarily ideological. I certainly have another point of view. Minimalists tend to have an interest in emphasizing the wrongness or uncertainty of religious scriptures. The non-minimalists, while they include Biblicists (or "maximalists") also include those who are just trying to make the most probable theories to fit the evidence. I know that minimalists think of themselves the same way, but what concerns me is the reality. Minimalists are not nearly as non-biased as they think.
Sorry, I mean "second-century letter" as in a letter that was copied in the second century, not necessarily composed in the second century. Paul obviously lived in the first century.

show_no_mercy

And this is why I was confused about him bringing up the term "minimalist" when discussing New Testament texts.

Biblical Minimalism.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, I know that the word applies primarily to those in OT circles. In NT circles, they have similar conclusions and they are still "minimalists," but they don't have a place at the table (for good reasons).