"Q": What's the deal?

[vern_humphrey]

Do you understand what Occam’s Razor is? It would apply in this argument if the evidence equally suited the Farrer and two-source theories, both both hypothesees have their flaws, and both have good points to support them.

If you look back a few posts, you’ll see where I quoted a modern defintion of it.

Archeology is more accurate than you think. Mark was written in the early 60s, Matthew in the mid to late 60s, Luke in the late 70s or early 80s, and John in the late 90s. There’s a small margin of error for each of these, but none that would imply Mark was written after Matthew.

Got cites for the date for Mark from an archeological source?

 

[buffalo]

I’m aware.

Archeology is more accurate than you think. Mark was written in the early 60s, Matthew in the mid to late 60s, Luke in the late 70s or early 80s, and John in the late 90s. There’s a small margin of error for each of these, but none that would imply Mark was written after Matthew.

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS

Year AD ** Event** The Resurrection. The leaders of the Jews persecute the first Christians. Saul/Paul is converted. Matthew composes his Hebrew gospel/ liturgy in Palestine. Matthews gospel is translated into Greek. King Herod Agrippa executes the Apostle James the Great. Peter escapes and flees to Rome. The other apostles spread out from Palestine. **44****King Herod Agrippa dies.** **49** **Jews and Christians expelled from Rome following riots.** Luke writes his gospel for the Gentiles, partly based on Matthews gospel. First of Pauls epistles; some influenced by Matthews gospel. Paul imprisoned by Romans. A copy of Matthew’s Gospel taken to India.

54 Nero becomes emperor. The Apostle James the Less, bishop of Jerusalem, killed by stoning. The Christians are expelled from the Temple. Luke completes his Acts of the Apostles. Paul asks Timothy to join him on a mission to Spain. Paul released from prison. Peter ordains Linus, Cletus and Clement as assistant bishops. Peter endorses Lukes gospel by using it in a series of talks. Mark issues a first transcript of Peters talks. Peter approves Marks transcript. Used as a Gospel. Lukes gospel published as an authorised gospel. Acts issued with the authorisation of Paul and Peter. John writes twenty chapters of his Gospel. 64 July Rome devastated by fire.

 

[Teflon93]

Did… did I imply somewhere that I don’t believe in God? Are you under some awful impression that this debate is something like evil scholars grr vs. God-fearing Catholics?

No!

Actually, I was referring to Ehrman, not you—he’s essentially traded God for study of God’s Word and various heretical and mythical competitors to it.

I apologize—I would never question your faith!

And how does that explain the EXACT same phrasings?

“Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

“We shall go on till the end. We shall fight in France. We shall fight on the seas and oceans. We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender.”

Hmm, memorable phrases during memorable events tend to be, well, memorable.

 

[Teflon93]

I have listened to the Historical Jesus course and…

What are you talking about?

Listen to the 1st or 2nd lecture where he talks about his criteria.

If I recall, he wrapped up the section with some comment like, “You may not agree with this particular criteria, but you must have some similar criteria”, something along those lines.

 

[Cranch]

Could the “source” be none other than the Holy Spirit?!

The inspired nature of the Holy Scriptures does seem to get short shrift in these source theories. From Pope Leo XIII in *PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS:*For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost…This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.”

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Ehrman on the criterion of independent attestation.

Here is the most important line:

Obviously there are limitations to this criterion. It is important to emphasize that merely because a tradition is found in only one source - for example, the parable of the Good Samaritan occurs only in Luke - it is not automatically discounted as historically inaccurate. That is to say, the criterion shows which traditions are more likely to be authentic, but does not show which ones are necessarily inauthentic, a critical difference!

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium page 91.

And he then continues on pages 91-94 to discuss the criterion of dissimilarity which specifically about using documents that disagree and their relation to Christian beliefs. Sorry there is no good short paragraph to quote.

This matches exactly with what I remember from the Teaching Company. And it would be odd that he would change his position to the complete opposite for that one course.

I think it is time you admit you were distorting Ehrman’s position. The evidence has been presented, what is your response?

 

[mschrank]

Ehrman on the criterion of independent attestation.

Here is the most important line:

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium page 91.

And he then continues on pages 91-94 to discuss the criterion of dissimilarity which specifically about using documents that disagree and their relation to Christian beliefs. Sorry there is no good short paragraph to quote.

This matches exactly with what I remember from the Teaching Company. And it would be odd that he would change his position to the complete opposite for that one course.

I think it is time you admit you were distorting Ehrman’s position. The evidence has been presented, what is your response?

So what you are saying is that Ehrman admits that no evidence for something is not evidence against it, although evidence for something is obviously evidence for it. In other words he is not trying to argue from silence. Good. I wish many other scholars would follow the same principle.

 

[Teflon93]

Ehrman on the criterion of independent attestation.

Here is the most important line:

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium page 91.

And he then continues on pages 91-94 to discuss the criterion of dissimilarity which specifically about using documents that disagree and their relation to Christian beliefs. Sorry there is no good short paragraph to quote.

This matches exactly with what I remember from the Teaching Company. And it would be odd that he would change his position to the complete opposite for that one course.

I think it is time you admit you were distorting Ehrman’s position and lying about what he said and wrote. The evidence has been presented, what is your response?

I wasn’t distorting or lying about anything. Didn’t he include this as one of his criteria? Didn’t the paragraph you cited simply indicate it’s not the ONLY criterion? Didn’t I state above that I recalled in addition to the agreement issue, he also argued that arguments against interest factored in?

If we find that what he said in the Teaching Company course doesn’t match EXACTLY, did you lie? Did you distort?

Does “if I recall correctly” mean nothing?

You are pretty quick on the draw when it comes to namecalling.

So is Ehrman an agnostic or what? Did I distort that as well?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

I’m not distorting anything. If my recollection is faulty, just point out the reference where Ehrman says, “I am not questioning whether Christ was God. I am not saying he is not.” or somesuch. Simple, right?

There is a section in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium where he discusses what he does as a historian in his work. Read pages 195 through 197. Here is a short quote:

…I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian…I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles…"

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

I wasn’t distorting or lying about anything. Didn’t he include this as one of his criteria? Didn’t the paragraph you cited simply indicate it’s not the ONLY criterion? Didn’t I state above that I recalled in addition to the agreement issue, he also argued that arguments against interest factored in?

If we find that what he said in the Teaching Company course doesn’t match EXACTLY, did you lie? Did you distort?

Does “if I recall correctly” mean nothing?

You are pretty quick on the draw when it comes to namecalling.

So is Ehrman an agnostic or what? Did I distort that as well?

You said Ehrman that a citeria that accounts “must agree to be valid.” This is a distortion of his position as stated above. Even after I pointed out that this was a distortion you continued to agrue that he held such a position. The paragraph quoted and the reference to the next few pages does not show that this not the only criterion to be followed, but that the criterion is completely different from what you said. Accounts do not have to agree to be valid. Whether you were lying intentionally or not is not something I know, but you were lying. At the very least you were reckless in distorting the position of Ehrman.

You should admit you distorted Ehrman’s position and lied.

Ehrman is an agnostic.

 

[Teflon93]

There is a section in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium where he discusses what he does as a historian in his work. Read pages 195 through 197. Here is a short quote:

…I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian…I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles…"

 

[Teflon93]

You said Ehrman that a citeria that accounts “must agree to be valid.” This is a distortion of his position as stated above. Even after I pointed out that this was a distortion you continued to agrue that he held such a position. The paragraph quoted and the reference to the next few pages does not show that this not the only criterion to be followed, but that the criterion is completely different from what you said. Accounts do not have to agree to be valid. Whether you were lying intentionally or not is not something I know, but you were lying. At the very least you were reckless in distorting the position of Ehrman.

You should admit you distorted Ehrman’s position and lied.

Ehrman is an agnostic.

Oh, for God’s sake!

If agreement is unnecessary, why is it a condition/criterion at all?

Why does he mention it if it doesn’t matter?

Doesn’t he clearly view those accounts without independent agreement to be less reliable than those with?

Doesn’t the posited Q essentially reduce the reliability of the agreeing gospels by implying that they in fact are simply drawing from one source?

In the Boolean logic of Ehrman’s historical method does not this series of ANDs in fact reduce the historical Jesus to a much smaller figure than the Biblical Jesus?

Is it any surprise that an agnostic searching for the historical Jesus might well find one who doesn’t look like a very good candidate for Godhood given this criteria?

Wasn’t Pope Benedict XVI right when he says of textual critics in “Jesus of Nazareth”—PARAPHRASING FROM MEMORY—I COULD BE WRONG----that they went in search of Jesus armed with a mirror and were surprised to see he looked like them?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

but calling me a liar for not recollecting perfectly a course I listened to over a year ago and something I read God knows how long ago is a bit excessive, don’t you think?

lie - b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker.

You lied. Admit it.

 

[Teflon93]

lie - b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker.

You lied. Admit it.

I did no such thing.

And how about using the common definition while you’re at it:

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Oh, for God’s sake!

If agreement is unnecessary, why is it a condition/criterion at all?

Why does he mention it if it doesn’t matter?

Doesn’t he clearly view those accounts without independent agreement to be less reliable than those with?

Independent accounts that agree do increase the probability that the account is true. But independent agreement is not necessary for the account to be valid. This is not a difficult concept. I cannot believe you do not understand.

Doesn’t the posited Q essentially reduce the reliability of the agreeing gospels by implying that they in fact are simply drawing from one source?

Yes. So?

In the Boolean logic of Ehrman’s historical method does not this series of ANDs in fact reduce the historical Jesus to a much smaller figure than the Biblical Jesus?

Not really. The historical search for Jesus addresses different questions that the search for the Biblical Jesus.

Is it any surprise that an agnostic searching for the historical Jesus might well find one who doesn’t look like a very good candidate for Godhood given this criteria?

I don’t know what you asking here, but it should be noted that when Ehrman started his search he was not an agnostic, but a believer.

Wasn’t Pope Benedict XVI right when he says of textual critics in “Jesus of Nazareth”—PARAPHRASING FROM MEMORY—I COULD BE WRONG----that they went in search of Jesus armed with a mirror and were surprised to see he looked like them?

I have no opinion on this.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

I did no such thing.

And how about using the common definition while you’re at it:

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

The second definition is valid in this situation because your statement so reckless in regard to getting the facts right. I cannot know your intention, but in being so reckless you showed a complete disregard for accuracy. And even after your statement has been shown to be completely wrong you still will not admit it was a distortion.

 

[Teflon93]

Independent accounts that agree do increase the probability that the account is true. But independent agreement is not necessary for the account to be valid. This is not a difficult concept. I cannot believe you do you not understand.

And how does one determine validity except by employing the criteria? Would one meeting ALL not be considered “more likely valid” than one not meeting ANY?

Yes. So?

If someone has an agenda to portray the synoptic gospels as less reliable, would not Q be useful?

Not really. They historical search for Jesus addresses different questions that the search for the Biblical Jesus.

Which ones precisely?

I don’t know what you asking here, but it should be noted that when Ehrman started his search he was not an agnostic, but a believer.

Didn’t I say this already? Fundamentalist, found sola scriptura not true, agnostic?

I have no opinion on this.

Well, it seems relevant to a discussion of Ehrman’s criteria. One may define out a whole bunch of things, then BAM! apocalyptic prophet.

 

[Teflon93]

The second definition is valid in this situation because your statement so reckless in regard to getting the facts right. I cannot know your intention, but in being so reckless you showed a complete disregard for accuracy. And even after your statement has been shown to be completely wrong you still will not admit it was a distortion.

Oh, please—I invited correction on that score. You’re haggling over Must Agree.

Calling me a liar isn’t reckless?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

And how does one determine validity except by employing the criteria? Would one meeting ALL not be considered “more likely valid” than one not meeting ANY?

I don’t know what you asking, but the point is you said that Ehrman required sources to agree to be valid when he does not require this.

If someone has an agenda to portray the synoptic gospels as less reliable, would not Q be useful?

Not really since since Q can be tested against other sources in the same way the gospels of Luke and Matthew could be. In fact since the two source hypothesis or four source hypothesis make Mark and Matthew more independent of each other it can increase the reliability of things in the Gospels.

Which ones precisely?

Well, for example the historical method cannot address whether the miracles really happened.

Didn’t I say this already? Fundamentalist, found sola scriptura not true, agnostic?

Ehrman did not become an agnostic because he found sola scriptura to be untrue. After he broke with fundamentalism he became a mainline protestant. It was the problem of theodicy that eventually caused him to become an agnostic.

Well, it seems relevant to a discussion of Ehrman’s criteria. One may define out a whole bunch of things, then BAM! apocalyptic prophet.

Ehrman did not define out anything. He is using the standard historical method.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Oh, please—I invited correction on that score. You’re haggling over Must Agree.

Because it is the essential issue.

Calling me a liar isn’t reckless?

No. You lied. Case closed.