OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 31, 2014, 02:35:39 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Q Theory and other unrelated discussions  (Read 2403 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« on: April 09, 2006, 08:16:41 AM »

Thank you Keble. You proved my point exactly.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2006, 08:33:08 AM »

Although I don't agree with the Q hypothesis, I think you're too quick to undermine the intelligence of those scholars who purport it; scholars who clearly do not simply "ignore" the fact you allege they do.
I don't deny that they are intelligent at all. I am suggesting that a great many people are keen to undermine Christian notions; support of a "Judas Gospel" (being a more recent) to "Q Gospel" (undermining the tradition of who wrote the Gospels).
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2006, 08:54:32 AM »

Montalban, it's time for a basic course in the Documentary Hypothesis.
Keble, thanks for the condascending start. Always good to start off on the right foot.
It's not too hard to notice that the synoptic gospels are more similar than can be accounted for by simply recounting the same story
It's not to hard to see that the gospels are based on one guiding Holy Spirit helping the Aposltes recall the same events and sayings.

But at the end of the day, after all your speculating is over and done with I prefer to believe the church in regards to the authorship and construction of the Gospels. And, as no one's ever seen "Q" or heard of it, you can cite as many people you want who are 'intelligent' and who support its exisistence.

See:
http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/
« Last Edit: April 09, 2006, 09:07:58 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2006, 08:55:32 AM »

Thank you Keble. You proved my point exactly.
Did you have a point? Huh
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2006, 09:12:51 AM »

Although I don't agree with the Q hypothesis, I think you're too quick to undermine the intelligence of those scholars who purport it; scholars who clearly do not simply "ignore" the fact you allege they do.

Why else do they believe in the Q-gospel if not for the closeness of the various Gospels (at some points)?
If you have perhaps an ancient source that mentions this lost gospel, please cite it.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2006, 09:56:17 AM »

I don't deny that they are intelligent at all. I am suggesting that a great many people are keen to undermine Christian notions; support of a "Judas Gospel" (being a more recent) to "Q Gospel" (undermining the tradition of who wrote the Gospels).

The documentary hypothesis says nothing about who wrote the gospels; it is perfectly consistent with the traditionally ascribed authorship.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2006, 10:10:12 AM »

Keble, thanks for the condascending start. Always good to start off on the right foot.

I don't know how it is an improvement on what you call condescending to see it and raise the ante. At any rate, you give the impression of not knowing about the documentary hypothesis what I learned in tenth grade.

Quote
It's not to hard to see that the gospels are based on one guiding Holy Spirit helping the Aposltes recall the same events and sayings.

You're trying to posit a theory of divine dictation and independence which the gospels themselves deny. And there's really no reason to believe in it. When all is said and done, you're posturing, exalting your own faith in the interest of your own pride. If you actually read what I said, you would have noted that I specifically mentioned parts of the scholarly community who do not think that Q existed as a separate document. I was already aware of Mark Goodacre's site as well as others. By my analysis, his position is simplistic; but in any case, it means nothing without consideration of the rest of the field, and specifically, his detractors. I personally do not think that Q is a document we know enough about to make much of in the way of claims (and it is certainly not Thomas!)  but at this point Im convinced of Markan priority.

The bigger problem here is that you are reckoning pride in defending the church as righteousness. I don't beleive that the church teaches what you claim with anything like the confidence you ascribe to it.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2006, 05:54:57 PM »

I don't know how it is an improvement on what you call condescending to see it and raise the ante.
I point out that you started your thread to 'teach me a lesson'. You've already taken a position where-by you believe you hold knowledge that I don't, and you're here to teach me. If you don't like your students to question you then you shouldn't be here to teach.
At any rate, you give the impression of not knowing about the documentary hypothesis what I learned in tenth grade.
Again with the condascending behaviour.
You're trying to posit a theory of divine dictation and independence which the gospels themselves deny.
I am not. I am stating that they don't rely on Q because no one's ever heard of it. No one's ever seen it.
You have evidence for Q from any historical source?
And there's really no reason to believe in it. When all is said and done, you're posturing, exalting your own faith in the interest of your own pride.
This is an Orthodox Christian forum. I am exalting Orthodox Christianity by accepting the teachings of the Church.

AND no one's ever heard of Q
If you actually read what I said, you would have noted that I specifically mentioned parts of the scholarly community who do not think that Q existed as a separate document.
I didn't address that bit which agrees with what I believe
I was already aware of Mark Goodacre's site as well as others.
Good. Now we know we both are aware.
By my analysis, his position is simplistic; but in any case, it means nothing without consideration of the rest of the field, and specifically, his detractors. I personally do not think that Q is a document we know enough about to make much of in the way of claims (and it is certainly not Thomas!)  but at this point Im convinced of Markan priority.
I understand you are. You seem to have a problem with people who disagree with you.
So far you've gone to being condascending, and also indignation (that I would simply seek to promote 'my views' )
The bigger problem here is that you are reckoning pride in defending the church as righteousness. I don't beleive that the church teaches what you claim with anything like the confidence you ascribe to it.
Then please quote me the Church Fathers that mention Q
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2006, 06:02:03 PM »

The documentary hypothesis says nothing about who wrote the gospels; it is perfectly consistent with the traditionally ascribed authorship.
The documentary hypothesis is more normally applied to the first 5 books of the Bible. And it suggests that Moses didn't write those books. So it does go against 'traditionally ascribed authorship'.

Maybe you believe in a different documentary hypothesis, or of applying the documentary hypothesis in a different manner to the NT so that it doesn't do what it does to the author of the OT

Getting back to Q
No evidence whatsoever has even been found for the existence of a Q Gospel. Not even a single manuscript fragment of Q has ever been found. None of the early church fathers mentioned anything that could have been the Q Gospel.

« Last Edit: April 09, 2006, 06:04:32 PM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2006, 08:53:47 PM »

I point out that you started your thread to 'teach me a lesson'. You've already taken a position where-by you believe you hold knowledge that I don't, and you're here to teach me.

I don't have a problem being here to teach you,  if you need teaching, and your original statement gave me the impression of ignorance.

Quote
If you don't like your students to question you then you shouldn't be here to teach.

Young man, I have been arguing religion on the internet since you were in primary school. I've put up with a lot ruder people than you, so you are wasting your time in escalating. Anyway, getting on to some content:

Quote
I am stating that they don't rely on Q because no one's ever heard of it. No one's ever seen it.
You have evidence for Q from any historical source?

Plenty of people have heard of it; the question of course is how much the deduction of its existence is borne out in reality. The gospels themselves give indication of other traditions besides themselves. The notion that such a document might have existed is not unreasonable.

If you want to demand historical reference, I'd have to ask you what form such a reference would have taken. Gnostic documents which are mentioned by name are easily matched to documents which appear with names; as a document without a name, obviously it would be hard to match it with some specific apostolic mention of a text. Thus I don't hold the test reasonable.

Quote
This is an Orthodox Christian forum. I am exalting Orthodox Christianity by accepting the teachings of the Church.

Actually, I think you are exalting yourself. But moving along:

The documentary hypothesis is more normally applied to the first 5 books of the Bible.

You are right-- I should have been referring to the synoptic problem.

Quote
No evidence whatsoever has even been found for the existence of a Q Gospel.

You are, of course, misrepresenting the theory. "Gospel" is your word, and that of some controversialists, but it is not the word I used, nor is it widely used by scholars, in my experience.

And your statement that there is no evidence is untrue, for the evidence is right there in the text of the synoptic gospels.

Quote
Not even a single manuscript fragment of Q has ever been found. None of the early church fathers mentioned anything that could have been the Q Gospel.

If the first is true-- and it's not clear how anyone could tell-- I don't believe your second claim. As in the earlier part of this message, one would have to know how such a document would have been referred to, if it had been known about. It is easy enough to see that almost any reference to sayings could actualy refer to Q, but we wouldn't know one way or the other.

BTW, I notice you haven't defended your original argument.
Logged
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2006, 09:16:22 PM »

to the poster above who pointed out that the original "Gospel of Judas" was of Cainite origin- thank you!

  Who could take anything seriously from a group that lionized the first Homicide-perpretrator as a hero of the Faith? Still, the scholar in me would like to see the show on some level..........When I walk my dog at night I often run into an extremely liberal schoolteacher who seems to defend EVERY position he has ever heard so long as it contradicts HISTORICAL Christian positions. Just the other night he told me that the MOST CONTRADICTORY thing he had ever heard in his life was the Nicean Creed.  I, very eloquently retorted, "What are you trying to do? Kill me?!?!?!" He said, "No, it really is self-contrdictory!"  I said, "It ISN't self-contradictory- it is simply BEYOND COMPREHENSION!" He replied, "No! It's contradictory!" I said, "Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean it's contradictory, it's just a MYSTERY!" Before I knew it, we were on the ground fist-fighting...........O.K. that's a slight exagerration, but really, to dig up a fourth-century heretical document and think it's going to turn Christianity on its head.................noot very smart.................
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2006, 10:18:41 PM »

I don't have a problem being here to teach you,  if you need teaching, and your original statement gave me the impression of ignorance.

Young man, I have been arguing religion on the internet since you were in primary school. I've put up with a lot ruder people than you, so you are wasting your time in escalating. Anyway, getting on to some content:
You assume to teach, you are condascending. I point this out, and you say I am rude. Try a little introspection.
Plenty of people have heard of it;
LOL! That's not true. You mean 'plenty of people believe in it'.

Cite one Church Father who uses it as a source or refers to it.

the question of course is how much the deduction of its existence is borne out in reality. The gospels themselves give indication of other traditions besides themselves. The notion that such a document might have existed is not unreasonable.
That it might have existed is based on speculation... itself based on the fact three of the four gospels are dealing pretty much with the same subject the same way.
If you want to demand historical reference, I'd have to ask you what form such a reference would have taken.
I mentioned the words "Church Fathers"
Gnostic documents which are mentioned by name are easily matched to documents which appear with names; as a document without a name, obviously it would be hard to match it with some specific apostolic mention of a text. Thus I don't hold the test reasonable.
You haven't cited ANY reference that points to the actual 'gospel'
Actually, I think you are exalting yourself. But moving along:
No, I'm exalting the church
You are right-- I should have been referring to the synoptic problem.
I thank you for this admission, only given you were here to 'teach me about this', and even in your most recent post you're still saying I exhibit little knowledgde on this.
You are, of course, misrepresenting the theory. "Gospel" is your word, and that of some controversialists, but it is not the word I used, nor is it widely used by scholars, in my experience.
What's 'your word' then?
And your statement that there is no evidence is untrue, for the evidence is right there in the text of the synoptic gospels.
Based on speculation
If the first is true-- and it's not clear how anyone could tell-- I don't believe your second claim. As in the earlier part of this message, one would have to know how such a document would have been referred to, if it had been known about.
How about someone saying "And Matthew used an earlier work..."
It is easy enough to see that almost any reference to sayings could actualy refer to Q, but we wouldn't know one way or the other.

BTW, I notice you haven't defended your original argument.
My original argument was about the Judas Gospel.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2006, 12:05:40 AM »

LOL! That's not true. You mean 'plenty of people believe in it'.

Well, obviously YOU have heard of it, or else we wouldn't be having this argument.

Quote
Cite one Church Father who uses it as a source or refers to it.

I've already explained that this is not a reasonable test.

Quote
That it might have existed is based on speculation... itself based on the fact three of the four gospels are dealing pretty much with the same subject the same way.

Uh, yeah-- they not only deal with it in the same way, they tend to use the same words! It seems to me that you are going to keep using this lame argument no matter what I say, but ordinarily one would expect three independent accounts to vary quite a bit in their wording. For ordinary documents the degree of similarity evident in the synoptics would be taken as certain proof of interdependency in terms of texts.

Quote
I mentioned the words "Church Fathers"

And I said that you couldn't prove that references in the church fathers weren't to this Q. For that matter, I'm disinclined to take your word as to what the fathers may or may not say.

I also find myself disinclined to waste more time on this. I laid out a synopsis of where the field is on this issue, and you've ignored it in favor of a lot of posturing. I don't even think that Orthodoxy teaches what you claim.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2006, 12:34:25 AM »

Well, obviously YOU have heard of it, or else we wouldn't be having this argument.
I've heard of genies too, but that doesn't mean that I think that they exist. So I think you're trying to put too much emphasis on the fact that people have 'heard of it'. No one's ever seen the Gospel of Q (prior to speculative deconstructions in the last 100 years)
I've already explained that this is not a reasonable test.
It's like the genies. I ask for you to show me someone who's seen them, and you say it's an unreasonable test.
Uh, yeah-- they not only deal with it in the same way, they tend to use the same words! It seems to me that you are going to keep using this lame argument no matter what I say, but ordinarily one would expect three independent accounts to vary quite a bit in their wording.
They do vary 'a bit'.
For ordinary documents the degree of similarity evident in the synoptics would be taken as certain proof of interdependency in terms of texts.
I don't argue that Mark may have been referred to by Luke, or visa versa. I've already noted that my argument is against Q! A 'gospel' no one's seen.
And I said that you couldn't prove that references in the church fathers weren't to this Q.
Course I can... show me any Church Fathers referring to any book prior to Matthew, Mark, Luke that these people drew upon.
"None of the early church fathers mentioned anything that could have been the Q Gospel. (2) There is good evidence that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written between 50 and 65 A.D., not after 70 A.D. Many of the early church fathers attributed the Gospels to the Apostle Matthew, John Mark, and Luke the doctor. (3) If the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they were written by actual eyewitnesses of Jesus and/or close companions of eyewitnesses pf Jesus. If Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written by actual eyewitnesses of Jesus, we should expect many similarities. If the Gospel record actual words spoken by Jesus, we should expect the eyewitnesses to report Jesus saying the same things. (4) There is nothing wrong with the idea of the Gospel writers using the other Gospels as sources. Luke states in Luke chapter 1 that he used sources. It is possible that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. It is possible that there was another source in addition to Mark."

http://www.gotquestions.org/Q-Gospel.html
Luke 1:1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke says he draws on the 'accounts'. This could be a 'source' Gospel, however it could mean oral accounts of witnesses.
For that matter, I'm disinclined to take your word as to what the fathers may or may not say.
You can't reduce what the Church Fathers say to being 'my word'. Source a Church Father that knows of Q, and you don't have to rely on 'my word'.
I also find myself disinclined to waste more time on this. I laid out a synopsis of where the field is on this issue, and you've ignored it in favor of a lot of posturing. I don't even think that Orthodoxy teaches what you claim.
Goodbye. Grin
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2006, 07:36:19 AM »

This seems to have degenerated into a dispute which is on one level about a very small difference of opinion. You are pushing harder than is justified for the nonexistence of anything that could be called "Q"; I argue that there's too much evidence in the text and too much ambiguity in the eternal testimonies to make such a strong claim.

We are both arguing against the position that one can deduce some "theology of Q". I said that in the very first long post, and it's about time you stopped trying to saddle me with that error. On the other hand, I think the Markan priority position explains the similiarities and differences between the synoptics better than any other theory-- excepting the shared Matthean-Lukan material. It is possible this latter material-- the Q-- originates in oral transmission rather than representing a distinct written document.

The more I think about your "church father" argument, the less convincing it becomes. For example, I look at the 1st Epistle of Clement, and I see that it is liberally paved with quotations from the OT and passages that can be construed as quotations from the New. The problem is, nowhere does Clement tell where any of them come from; indeed, many "quotations" are not identified as such, so that it is impossible to determine whether he (for example) quotes a Pauline letter from the actual text or not.

If anyone else is interested in a comprehensive site about the synoptic problem, I recommend starting here.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2006, 09:19:25 AM »


This seems to have degenerated into a dispute which is on one level about a very small difference of opinion.
I thought you were going! I won't address your post in the order you wrote it, because I find your web citation most interesting. It shows that one can speculate and come up with dozens of different theories. Well done.

On a side note I like how it elevates certain people by saying
"Leading scholars: Christian Hermann Weisse (1838), Paul Wernle (1899), Burnett Hillman Streeter (1924); cf. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (1863)."
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/index.html
I prefer the Church Fathers.

Oh, and another side note, in fairness your cite mentions my own; http://ntgateway.com/Q/, which you reject out of hand.

Into this vibrant Christian world; of Christians discussing and teaching I would accept that there was interaction.

I know no source that mentions Q. I doubt it exists. When we talk about Q we tend to talk about a singular source, most suggest it was written; hence (so the proponents suggest) the consistency in the 'copying' from it. Marcan priority is not the same as a "Q" source.

I have stated that they may have drawn upon each other, this to me is not a problem when people corroborate. I cite Luke in the post above. But that is different from the way those support the Q-hypothesis, who use it to suggest that they were mere copyists (with little bits of liberal re-workings thrown in; to undermine the 'inspiring' nature of the Gospels). Inseparable from this is we would be encouraging speculations as to who wrote "Q"? Why it never surfaced of its own? (a great boon for Gnostics who love to believe that information was hidden). And so forth.
You are pushing harder than is justified for the non-existence of anything that could be called "Q"; I argue that there's too much evidence in the text and too much ambiguity in the eternal testimonies to make such a strong claim.
Your own source site suggests a plethora of different and competing theories all available from the same evidence.
We are both arguing against the position that one can deduce some "theology of Q". I said that in the very first long post, and it's about time you stopped trying to saddle me with that error. On the other hand, I think the Markan priority position explains the similarities and differences between the synoptics better than any other theory-- excepting the shared Matthean-Lukan material. It is possible this latter material-- the Q-- originates in oral transmission rather than representing a distinct written document.

The more I think about your "church father" argument, the less convincing it becomes. For example, I look at the 1st Epistle of Clement, and I see that it is liberally paved with quotations from the OT and passages that can be construed as quotations from the New. The problem is, nowhere does Clement tell where any of them come from; indeed, many "quotations" are not identified as such, so that it is impossible to determine whether he (for example) quotes a Pauline letter from the actual text or not.

I note that buried in your text here a reference to 'oral transmission', or Traditionhypothese. I will deal with that later on

The more I think about your counter-argument the more convinced I am that you're not aware about the  nature of the transmission of knowledge in the early church. All the teachings of Christ were given to the Apostles at Pentecost.

You mention Clement. No where does Clement have to be quoting an earlier gospel. I mentioned something in a similar light in a post above - which you must have missed, regarding Luke. I accept that the teachings of Christ were held 'in common' as it were amongst all the Apostles. There is no need for reliance on an earlier written source by an unknown writer.

It is a part of Orthodox (and Catholic) belief that not all that was transmitted was written down. The last of the Gospels notes this....
John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Paul gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching. This does not make Paul a 'copyist'. Nor does it suggest a super-copy/source with which all the authors relied upon.
 
Paul  also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn...
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
 
He says that is authority to teach comes from the lord (1 Thess. 4:2). As an Orthodox Christian I believe that the Lord inspired the writers of the Gospels. The Q argument is more that they were copyists, rather than inspired. You want to argue against this, that's good for you. But it begs the question that any of the authors were witnesses. A flow on from this is that their writings are then undermined... one could then speculate which writings they 'made up' (having not been witnesses). Another question that would be left is (and I think I've mentioned this earlier) is "Why was this source Gospel not kept?" What teachings did it contain that were suppressed.

Back to the oral tradition. The proponents of Q suggest that there must have been a single source shared by various authors. They don't deal with or Traditionhypothese, as your own site says.

Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2006, 12:16:20 PM »

I thought you were going! I won't address your post in the order you wrote it, because I find your web citation most interesting. It shows that one can speculate and come up with dozens of different theories. Well done.

What it shows, for those who are interested in finding out, is that there is quite a range of scholarly opinion on the subject. And when you say, "I prefer the Church Fathers," I notice that we have never actually come to the fathers' endrosement of your theory.

Quote
Oh, and another side note, in fairness your cite mentions my own; http://ntgateway.com/Q/, which you reject out of hand.

Part of the problem here is that you simply aren't being honest about what I have said. I don't reject Goodacre's position "out of hand"; I'm simply trying to put it within the context of the field, in which it is simply one position. I have been honest about the range of opinion from my first post; if anything is being rejected out of hand, it is by you. (Well, except the other site, which is conservative Protestant apologetics and not scholarly.)

Quote
I know no source that mentions Q. I doubt it exists. When we talk about Q we tend to talk about a singular source, most suggest it was written; hence (so the proponents suggest) the consistency in the 'copying' from it. Marcan priority is not the same as a "Q" source.

You've never bothered to address my criticism of the "nobody mentioned it" argument: that you cannot tell that nobody mentioned it, since it has no name.

Quote
I have stated that they may have drawn upon each other, this to me is not a problem when people corroborate. I cite Luke in the post above. But that is different from the way those support the Q-hypothesis, who use it to suggest that they were mere copyists (with little bits of liberal re-workings thrown in; to undermine the 'inspiring' nature of the Gospels). Inseparable from this is we would be encouraging speculations as to who wrote "Q"? Why it never surfaced of its own? (a great boon for Gnostics who love to believe that information was hidden). And so forth.Your own source site suggests a plethora of different and competing theories all available from the same evidence.

You are beating a strawman. I myself attacked the (mostly liberal) tendency to amplify the hyposthesized Q into some separate and not necessarily Orthodox tradition. That surely is too speculative, and indeed those people tend to find the Q they seek: one which challenges orthodoxy. Nonetheless, abuse of the truth is not its invalidation.

Quote
The more I think about your counter-argument the more convinced I am that you're not aware about the  nature of the transmission of knowledge in the early church. All the teachings of Christ were given to the Apostles at Pentecost.

Well, not ALL. Paul, for one was not there; and he himself testifies that he was taught, not that everything was put into his mind through inspiration. And then there is the council in Acts 15, which would have been unnecessary (or for that matter, Peter's vision of the sheet). I'm not convinced in the slightest that you are repesenting the tradition correctly; indeed, what you are saying sounds rather Fundamentalist.

Quote
You mention Clement. No where does Clement have to be quoting an earlier gospel.

And nowhere does he have to not be. As I argued (and you failed to address), you cannot tell from his epistle.

Quote
I accept that the teachings of Christ were held 'in common' as it were amongst all the Apostles. There is no need for reliance on an earlier written source by an unknown writer.

Reliance on it for what? The phrase "held in common" begs the question: held how? If you are going to argue for some sort of mystical commonality, you're pretty much making an "and then a miracle occurs" explanation, because you can hide essentially any system of similarities or differences inside it. Or to be more precise: you are attributing every difference and every similarity to the direct action of the Holy Spirit. I don't know about you, but I am not moved by "the Spirit faked it" arguments-- and that's what you are giving me.

I don't think the difference between oral and written transmission is as big as you are trying to make it. Plenty of people who "believe" in Q do not insist that it be a specific text.

Quote
As an Orthodox Christian I believe that the Lord inspired the writers of the Gospels. The Q argument is more that they were copyists, rather than inspired.

For the integrity of the gospels, it is in some sense vitally important that they were copyists. Inspired copyists, OK; but making them not copyists at all demolishes their authority as relators of what Jesus actually said. It is reasonable to demand that those who dare to repeat his spoken words have some connection to the actual speaking; the words must trace back to someone who heard them with his ears. Therefore I see nothing wrong theologically with (say) Luke working from a list of sayings or from a community which was able to repeat them to him. You are trying to turn him into a prophet.

Quote
You want to argue against this, that's good for you. But it begs the question that any of the authors were witnesses.

It does not. Nothing bars a witness from using other sources-- particularly in the case of the birth narratives, where neither Matthew nor Luke was likely to have been there. (And indeed, Luke implies that he has this material from Mary, not through a revelation.)

Quote
Another question that would be left is (and I think I've mentioned this earlier) is "Why was this source Gospel not kept?" What teachings did it contain that were suppressed.

I've already answered this in part: such questions are too speculative. In the case of what was suppressed from it, they are utterly speculative. In the case of why we don't have it as a separate document, there are lots of possible explanations. One can also speculate on the various endings of Mark, to a similar lack of conclusion.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2006, 10:12:00 PM »

What it shows, for those who are interested in finding out, is that there is quite a range of scholarly opinion on the subject. And when you say, "I prefer the Church Fathers," I notice that we have never actually come to the fathers' endrosement of your theory.
I have already said that none have mentioned "Q"

And what your site shows is that one can speculate to one's heart's content.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2006, 06:52:05 AM »

I have already said that none have mentioned "Q"

And I have already answered that several times: that you cannot show that.

Quote
And what your site shows is that one can speculate to one's heart's content.

You keep calling it "your site", but in fact it is simply one of many I came across that provides a good survey of the field. And you keep saying "speculation", but it seems to me that you are unable to distinguish between speculation and reasonable difference of opinion. I do not think the certainty of your opinion is reasonable, because you cannot produce evidence for it. Specifically, you cannot show that the father do not refer to this Q. And if you want an actual church father, St. Augustine does not agree with your theory.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2006, 07:00:19 AM »

And I have already answered that several times: that you cannot show that.
You're welcome to quote a Father who mentions "Q".
You keep calling it "your site",
Yes, you cited it. It's a good site. I think you for doing so because it shows that if you speculate hard enough you can get to dozens of different theories, not all of which use "Q".
but in fact it is simply one of many I came across that provides a good survey of the field. And you keep saying "speculation", but it seems to me that you are unable to distinguish between speculation and reasonable difference of opinion.
How did they come to this opinion?
I do not think the certainty of your opinion is reasonable, because you cannot produce evidence for it.
You mean that because no one's ever seen Q I can't produce any evidence that no one's ever seen "Q" ! LOL!
Specifically, you cannot show that the father do not refer to this Q. And if you want an actual church father, St. Augustine does not agree with your theory.
Did you read the quote? All he does (as far as I can see) is support the order in which the gospels were written. He doesn't mention (as far as I can see) a previous gospel, in fact he quite specifically starts his passage by saying that there were four.
"So these four evangelists, well-known throughout the entire world (and perhaps they are four because of this, since there are four parts of the world, through the whole of which, they have proclaimed, in a certain manner by the very sacrament of their own number, that the church of Christ has spread) are regarded to have written in this order: first Matthew, then Mark, third Luke, and last John. Hence, there is one order to them in learning and preaching, and another in writing."
(Ibid.)

I have honestly missed the bit which says "And they relied upon an earlier work" or some such statement. Please point this out.

In fact it again re-states four, only that they were aware of EACH OTHER, not another source...
"Of these four, to be sure, only Matthew is regarded to have written in the Hebrew language, the others in Greek. And although they seem to have each maintained a certain story line of their own, it is still recognized that each one of them did not want to write as if ignorant of the others before him or omit by mistake the things that the other is found to have written. But as each was inspired, he did not add an unnecessary duplication for his own work."
(Ibid.)


Thanks in advance.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2006, 07:05:38 AM »

Keble, I've had a look at some of the other Fathers on your site and the one's I've read simply put forward the notion that the Gospels were written in a particular order and that two of them may have looked to the first for inspiration; not another source Gospel
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2006, 07:14:23 AM »

Hopefully someone wants to talk about the Judas Gospel
« Last Edit: April 11, 2006, 07:55:02 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2006, 12:22:27 PM »

Hopefully someone wants to talk about the Judas Gospel

Why? It's just another gnostic text.

But maybe you'll want to look at this: "The Gospel of Skip and Muffy" Discovered
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2006, 12:41:22 PM »

You mean that because no one's ever seen Q I can't produce any evidence that no one's ever seen "Q" !

No, I mean something stronger: you can't prove that scriptural references by the earliest fathers aren't to such a document. Therefore the statement that nobody mentions it is indefensible.

Quote
He doesn't mention (as far as I can see) a previous gospel, in fact he quite specifically starts his passage by saying that there were four.

Well, he's hardly a contemporary witness, is he? The most you can say (using him as an example) is that by the fifth century nobody knew of Q as a specific document.

On the other hand, it's clear that he believed in something resembling the normal method of basing one document on another. I don't have a commitment to "Q" as a specific document, but it's clear to me that Luke is not based directly on Matthew, and that Luke uses some material from source common to Matthew that isn't in Mark. The simplest solution to this to deduce Markan priority and posit some source of the "Q" material which Matthew and Luke used independently of one another, and which the author of the Gospel of Thomas also used. That source need not have been a single document, or for that matter even written at all.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2006, 09:23:23 PM »

Why? It's just another gnostic text.
'Cause it's what the thread should be about.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2006, 09:27:43 PM »

No, I mean something stronger: you can't prove that scriptural references by the earliest fathers aren't to such a document. Therefore the statement that nobody mentions it is indefensible.
You mean to say that you've no evidence for Q means that there's no evidence against Q. A novel line of thinking.
Well, he's hardly a contemporary witness, is he?
He's your witness. Now you're going to start criticising your own evidence!
The most you can say (using him as an example) is that by the fifth century nobody knew of Q as a specific document.
You mean that by the fifth century there's no evidence for Q. You can't even get your story straight. You introduce Augustine as a witness for your case, and he quite clearly says only 4 gospels, so, having said that you simply 'suppose' it's because whatever evidence for Q no longer exists!  Grin
On the other hand, it's clear that he believed in something resembling the normal method of basing one document on another.
How does that prove Q?
I don't have a commitment to "Q" as a specific document,
What is "Q" to you?
but it's clear to me that Luke is not based directly on Matthew, and that Luke uses some material from source common to Matthew that isn't in Mark. The simplest solution to this to deduce Markan priority and posit some source of the "Q" material which Matthew and Luke used independently of one another, and which the author of the Gospel of Thomas also used. That source need not have been a single document, or for that matter even written at all.

LOL. You keep me in stitches
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2006, 10:05:07 PM »

'Cause it's what the thread should be about.

It takes two to tango.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2006, 10:20:20 PM »

You mean to say that you've no evidence for Q means that there's no evidence against Q. A novel line of thinking.

You know, I'm wondering whether you don't understand my argument, are whether you're just misrepresenting it on purpose. You keep at this "there's no evidence," but of course there is. It's in the text of the gospels themselves. You keep saying "nobody mentions Q" as if this somehow vetoes that evidence, but it doesn't-- because you can't demonstrate that nobody mentions a text that doesn't have a name.

We've been around all those points before, and you've reduced to say "not mentioned!" over and over, in the face of me refusing it as evidence. Well, and misrepresenting my point in referring to Augustine.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2006, 11:08:26 PM »

It takes two to tango.

It does, hence I've made the first step.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2006, 11:09:16 PM »

You know, I'm wondering whether you don't understand my argument, are whether you're just misrepresenting it on purpose.
I'm wondering if you understand your own argument. You cite Augustine and then argue against him
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2006, 09:03:57 AM »

Topic Split from Original.  Go on you merry way in discussing this, as it has NOTHING to do with the Judas Gospel.

Also, personal insults will not be tolerated.  This is a general warning for all.
Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.14 seconds with 58 queries.