Steven Avery

Hi Khalimirov,

I'm quite familiar with Mark Goodacre, although the article was originally given here by Toto, not by me. Ironically Mark has pretty much helped tear apart any former "consenus" about Q, making his usage by Toto, "Mr. Consensus" (except re: skepticism) doubly ironic.

While Mark Goodacre holds to "Markan priority" he is very forthright that it was forged in a crucible of dubious thinking and doubtful logic.

Why don't you try to give what you consider the single one or two most compelling arguments for Mark preceding Luke rather than vica versa ? Or are the theories so arcane and convoluted that they cannot be given a simple explanation ?

Anderson and Lupia and a few others on the links I have referenced have given a number of good reasons for an early Luke, approximately 40 AD, which would likely precede Mark. So we could compare. I did notice that most of the article given by Toto actually discussed which was earlier, Mark or Matthew, so those arguments would be generally irrelevant in the Luke-Mark discussion.

Personally I think the word "priority" is questionable, btw, as it can have different meanings to different people.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Hi Toto,

So.. yes or no. Does Mark Goodacre discuss the Lukan priority view (as per Richard Anderson, John Lupia and others) in the article you give as a supposed disproof of same. If yes, please give the exact quotes. If not, admit here that you have been playing a shell game with the forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto The next line should be "my name is praxeus and I'm an internet addict. I can't let go of a discussion." Or maybe that's my line..

Toto, you got caught baldfaced making an assertion you cannot support about no gospels in the era of Jesus. If a Christian poster did that your moderators would be all over them like hot tar during street paving.

Rather than admitting your shenanigans, and saying that this was your opinion only, which would be the excellent integrity route, you tried to switch gears and find some case against Theophilus and Lukan priority. On that you have failed miserably, basically offering discussions on other issues and acting dismissive in ignorance.

And any early dating theory (many of which are held by a variety of folks) contradict your theory. You stated an opinion of yours as a "factoid" and you got nabbed.

So of course I will stick with the thread. Its interesting watching you play games with the forum when you are supposed to be a 'moderator'. And then you give stupid "lectures" about "maverick scholars" that are just junque. You know your position is inconsistent so you try various tones of condescension and aggression. It's rather comical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto :. At one point, belief in Q was an overwhelming consensus; Mark Goodacre has turned that around, and now there is a good deal of Q-skepticism...

Yet the folks in my camp have generally been laughing about "Q" for decades.
Hmmm..... Mark Goodacre at least has caught up on the basics.
Mild kudos.

Shalom,
Steven

khalimirov

I would love to get into a discussion on Lukan priority vs Markan priority. Unlike yourself I do not belong to any 'camp', since I am an experimental psychologist and look at New Testament scholarship with an interest from the outside. However, since I don't have my sources with me at the moment, perhaps you would like to start with refuting the arguments given by Mark Goodacre for Markan priority in 'the case against Q'. It is primarily his arguments that I would be using in defense of Markan priority and since you know all these arguments I would like to see you try to refute them. If you are not willing to start, I will respond at some later time, when I am back home with my sources. By the way, for me it is not a matter of one or two compelling arguments. It is converging evidence that I am after.

Steven Avery

That places you in the 'camp ' of experimental psychology . We can leave aside for now what baggage that might entail.

Khal, I was asking you to summarize what you consider the one or two clearest and most powerful Markan priority arguments given by Mark Goodacre, with special emphasis as to how they would compare to the early Luke position.

Take your time, no rush, I realize that you want to 'converge' a number of issues, however if that means that there really aren't any singular clear issues for Markan priority then that should be stated and the discussion can move on from there.

I've never claimed to be an expert on these matters as the common view seemed Q-less (clueless) to me for a long time - so I didn't muck around much in the details of the Q-mud.

Shalom,
Steven

Toto

What part of "Marcan priority precludes Lukan priority" has escaped you? Is binary logic not part of your tool set?

Perhaps I should have said that the consensus of scholarship, including many devout Christians, is that there were no gospels in the era of Jesus. Only a few confessionally influenced apologists and maverick scholars think that any gospel can be dated to the first half of the first century CE, but they have no real evidence on their side, only wishful thinking.

What a hoot. It's not my opinion only.

Face it, praxeus, early dating of the gospels is a fringe movement, with about as much support as Jesus mythicism. But, unlike mythicism, it is going nowhere.

Take a survey of the forum. Who is comical? Who is condescending and agressive?

Sauron

The problem, of course, is that you had no reason to be laughing at Q. The rationale by which you arrived at a skeptical position on Q was weak, which is why your anti-Q arguments never got off the ground. And rightly so, I might add.

It took someone else - Goodacre - to bring a better argument to the table to create a believable skepticism about Q. Which is how it should be.

So Goodacre's praise belongs to him, and you hardly share in it. Your arguments are not his; so you do not reap any kudos from his work. Goodacre's arguments are interesting; on the other hand, your arguments were rightly ignored.

You see, prax, it's not enough to be correct. You have to be correct for the right reasons. Anyone can flip a coin.

RED DAVE

From praxeus:
Dude, watch your language. This verges on antisemitism.

RED DAVE

Toto

Hey RED DAVE:

I think that praxeus identifies as Jewish ("messy" Jewish?). The "Jewish rabble" reflects the portrayal of the Jews in the New Testament, especially Matthew and Acts, where mobs of Jews are portrayed as calling for Jesus' crucifixion and continually threatening Paul.

This doesn't just verge on anti-Semitism, this is the basis for the medieval pogroms against the "Jews who killed Jesus". But the anti-Semitism is in the text, not in praxeus.

After the Holocaust, Christian theologians - Germans and Catholics in particular, but all European Christians - reevaluated their sacred literature, and tried to do penance. Opinions differ on how successful they were theologically.

This is a separate topic, which can get very involved and overheated. Please take any further discussion of anti-Semitism in the gospels to a separate thread.

But this does constitute part of my argument for why the book of Acts is not directed at the Jewish high priest. The Jews in Acts are generally depicted as irrationally and violently opposed to Paul, often acting as a mob, while the gentile Roman officials are portrayed as relatively open minded an enlightened. This document does not appear to have been written to gain favor with a Jewish official.

khalimirov

Steven, before presenting arguments for Markan priority I have a few questions for you so that I can understand your position and what I'm up against.

Am I correct in stating that you hold to Lukan priority and that Luke was written is the 40s? Are you a biblical literalist and do you see the Gospels as historically reliable? I'm just asking because I've noticed that these things often go together with an extreme early dating.

What is your solution to the synoptic problem? We know there's a literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke, so what is it? Luke was used by Matthew and Mark? Did Mark also use Matthew? What's your view on this?

If you go for a pre-70 Luke what do you think of the standard view that Luke knows about the Jewish revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70?

Luke 13:34-35

34"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 35Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'

Luke 23:6

But Jesus said, 6"As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down."

Luke 23:20-24

20"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


Of all Canonical Gospels Luke is the one who seems to have the clearest references to the war and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. What do you think of this?

Steven Avery

Toto, are you just playing dumb ?

You offer a supposed refutation of a 40-AD Luke and Lukan priority theories that does not even address the view of a 40-AD Luke and Lukan priority theories.

And you offer this as "proof" !
And you claim to be able to understand "logic" ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto Perhaps I should have said that the consensus of scholarship, including many devout Christians,

No, late dating is not the "consensus" of scholarship, not when there are many books and papers out defending early dates. Nonetheless, you are stepping closer to speaking honestly and properly, especially as a 'moderator' who jumps on the assertions of others, if you offer a qualification to your false and biased "factoids".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto Face it, praxeus, early dating of the gospels is a fringe movement..

What stupidity.
It would be like my writing post after post here saying..

"Face it Toto, Amaleq, etc.. mythicism is a fringe movement"

You would say "so what".

And actually early NT dating is doing very well, thank you. And the Richard H. Anderson paper and subsequent discussions have really opened up folks to considering the NT reality, consistency and internal truth and claims.

And also the strengthening of the true inerrancy movement is very significant. (Full and true inerrancy in the Received Texts, including the Bible in our hands, the King James Bible). The skeptics sense that true, tangible Bible inerrancy is the real issue, so they do everything possible to try to politicize against the real challenge to their confusions, such as vigorously supporting errant versions, their duckshoot texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto Take a survey of the forum...

Why ? Better Christian posters (with one notable exception, who avoids sharp discussions) get suspended and banned and intimidated. All Christian posters get harassed by a cacophony of skeptic junque coming from weird and conflicting angles.

Note:
There are apparently some new posters, I am not commenting on their situation.

And I would much rather write for truth, before the Lord Jesus Christ, than to write for political points or to write to salve the close-to-seared consciences of some unbelieving self-proclaimed infidels.

If they did not loudly protest, with gnashing of teeth, the proclamation of the truth of the Bible, and the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus Christ, then I would be surprised.

Shalom,
Steven