Amaleq13

Owned and read, amigo. Name a page and I'll give you a quote.

I believe he accepts the possibility that the Q community adopted sayings from some other philosophical school or movement. I'm pretty sure he considers the Q community to have been originally Jewish.

Amaleq13

Whoops! My mistake. Change "James" to "Cephas" and the source is 1 Corinthians 15:5.

Sorry for the confusion.

Layman

So am I, but I hardly think there is evidence to resconstruct a movement based on a shared source or sources.

That second statement is very true.

I've read the arguments and did not find them convincing.

This strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

Sure, I'd appreciate that. Take all the time you want.

When you get home could you isolte these verses for me?

I guess I'm getting at why you are so convinced that Q is some sort of encapusaltion of a community. Kinda like reconstructing the Dead Sea Scrolls community with only a few of its hymns and poems.

It seems to me that Doherty insists that his Q community could not be all that diverse. He has to postulate the merger of two separate traditions, the Jerusalem and the Galiliean ones. But I have yet to see any real argument about why one community, or one person, could not have produced the roots of both.

I think we are question begging somewhat hear. In any event, I was looking for evience of a Q community, not of Q itself.

I'm somewhat skeptical that Josephus, who afterall was the military governor of Galilee for a while, can be viewed as "outside 'press'."

In any event, it appears the only evidence we have is a hypothical Galilean source attested by two non-Galilean sources from after the fall of Jerusalem and an assumption that the hypothetical Galilean source can be viewed as representing some sort of Galilean community that at some point merged with another, disjunctive, community.

Vinnie

Scholars who accept the existence of Q often have mixed views on the text itself. One end of the spectrum is delineated by the mantra proposed by John Meier:

“I must admit, though, that the affirmation of Q’s existence comes close to exhausting my ability to believe in hypothetical entities. I find myself increasingly skeptical as more refined and detailed theories about Q’s extent, wording, community, geographical setting, stages of tradition and redaction, and coherent theology are proposed. I cannot help thinking that biblical scholarship would be greatly advanced if every morning all exegetes would repeat as a mantra: “Q is a hypothetical document whose exact extension, wording, originating community, strata, and stages of redaction cannot be known.” This daily devotion might save us flights of fancy that are destined, in my view, to end in skepticism.”5


Another end of the spectrum is delineated by John Dominic Crossan’s mantra given in response to Meier’s:

“But how does he [Meier] know that those things cannot be known unless he has entered into detailed debate with the alternative quarter-century of scholarship that runs, for example, from Robinson (1971) to Kloppenborg (1990) and extends into both the Society of Biblical Literature’s Q Seminar and the International Q Project? Furthermore, there is another and even more basic mantra that those same exegetes should utter each morning on rising: “Hypotheses are to be tested.” And you test them by pushing, pushing, pushing, until you hear something crack. Then you examine the crack to see how to proceed. Q was quite acceptable as long as it was nothing more than a source to be found within the safe intracanonical confined of Matthew and Luke. But now the Q Gospel is starting to look a little like a Trojan horse, an extracanonical gospel hidden within two intracanonical gospels. If certain scholars have held all noncanonical gospels to be late and dependent, what will they do with a noncanonical gospel that is not only early and independent but on which two intracanonical are themselves dependent?”

Given the implications of some of these statements and some other things in the field there is a tense relationship here and Q's nature is a major point of contention.

Vinnie

Vinnie

vii Jesus Puzzle:

10th Piece of Jesus Puzzle:

Supposedly Carrier sees this as an ABE??? :boohoo:

Vinnie

Amaleq13

I think Cephas, James, and Paul shared a belief in a Resurrected Savior. I also think Doherty's thesis that this entity existed for them entirely in a spiritual realm. I don't see how anything I've written (except writing "James" when I meant "Cephas") disagrees with anything Doherty proposes.

NO! I cannot figure out how you can read my posts and still get my views so wrong.

As I have stated repeatedly I wouldn't expect Mark to fabricate a Gentile mission because he would have been constrained by the historical realities I described (i.e. Jewish origin with no Gentile mission). I also wouldn't expect him to fabricate such a thing because he would have every reason to suspect that his audience was well aware of those historical constraints.

I already have several times. Are you not reading the entire posts? The Jewish origin of the entire movement is the first historical fact with which Mark was constrained.

Who is "them"?

I wrote:
Given the historical constraints described above, how could the author of Mark have created such a thing and expect it to be credible? If his audience was primarily, if not exclusively, Gentile, these are exactly the people who would know quite well that Jesus conducted no ministry in their area.

Vinnie replied:
I guess I'm just going to have to keep repeating myself until you get this:

THE JEWISH MISSION IS AN HISTORICAL REALITY! NOBODY MADE IT UP!

It starts with Cephas, according to Paul, and proceeds from there. (In reference to my earlier mistake: I tend to think of James as the starting point because of his apparently fabulous reputation and popularity with fellow Jews. I imagine that his joining would have provided significant legitimacy)

The entirely spiritual Resurrected Savior was not crucified by Rome for insurrection but by the demonic powers that ruled the lowest heavenly sphere.

Layman

Paul does not indicate that this was the beginning of the movement. Far from it. He specifically refers to several events prior to the appearance to Cephas. Specifically, that Christ died. That he was buried. And that he was raised from the dead.

Vinnie

Here is where the miscommunication starts. When I say Jewish mission I meant the one that took place in Palestine on Galilean soil. The earthy Jewish mission of Jesus , traditions of which can easily can be shown to predate Mark (ca 70 c.e.).

I'm not talking about a heavenly revelation mission to Jews. I'm talking about the on the ground Jesus mission. If it is your argument that Mark created this then I will be happy to point out the flaws with that as I see them

Vinnie

Layman

What are your references for James having a "fabulous reputation and popularity with fellow Jews"?

Amaleq13

If it helps make me seem less gullible, I think Mack goes a bit nuts in [i]Who Wrote the New Testament?[i/].

(I think I got the title right above) And to Vinnie, yes, I own and have read that one too.

I don't know that I would say "convinced" so much as "consider it a credible hypothesis from which to work". We seem to have read the same books and come away with different views of the credibility of the claims contained within them. I certainly can't add anything to their efforts that I imagine might convince you.

That "merger" is accomplished by Mark.

If I thought Mark was written as early as Q or Paul's letters, I would tend to accept Jesus as an historical figure.

My "outside" was in relation to Christian texts.

Except for the very end, I would say that is pretty accurate. I don't think the actual community merged with anybody and I don't think Doherty suggests that either. The idea of the Q community members was merged with the Risen Savior. I'm not sure anyone has any idea what happened to the actual members.

I'll get back to you later tonight or over the weekend with the specific references.