Just received a new Book

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I believe Seattle is oversimplifying Indy's position. Whether Indy disagrees that others may pursue knowledge than the method which you described is Indy's is the question I have.

I understand some may accept something on faith and never reexamine. If that method works for that person, great.

Does Indy find it a waste of time for others to constantly rething things? Rocky doesn't care and won't grasp it, but Indy may.

Seattle doesn't care what Indy's position is. He's taking a shot at Mormons and Mormon culture like he always does. He doesn't want to be bothered with details like what someone on the board has actually written.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

SU, were not really going to make a thread that started out about "Markan Priority without Q" into a probe about Indy's hermeneutical approach to the Scriptures? I would really rather talk about Q

Q was a German derivation, but I am fascinated to see why Goodacre believes Lukan origin to be both Mark and Matthew. He uses a lot of Greek in it, so I will be lost on those points, but I noticed from his website he is not without some credentials.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Q was a German derivation, but I am fascinated to see why Goodacre believes Lukan origin to be both Mark and Matthew. He uses a lot of Greek in it, so I will be lost on those points, but I noticed from his website he is not without some credentials.

To bad, Chapel-Hill Coug isn't around anymore. There is probably a decent chance that he knows Goodacre. I generally like his blog, but I like to read the blogs of the New Testament studies bent. Another one I like is,

http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

To bad, Chapel-Hill Coug isn't around anymore. There is probably a decent chance that he knows Goodacre. I generally like his blog, but I like to read the blogs of the New Testament studies bent. Another one I like is,

http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/

Well, I appreciate this.

I do note however, encountering these well-educated, younger classicists, is making me feel completely chagrined about how poorly I structured my own education. Back when I was in school, one had to read Sunstone at night with lights on under covers, so nobody would report you to the HCO. Sunstone is also of varying quality, but it was a nice respite from the hagiographic stuff thrown at us.

I'll get Chapel Hill back involved. Goodacre is at Duke in Durham.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

That's a very weak defense. I'd call it a mixed bag; damning with faint praise.

You play the cards you are dealt.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

But my essential point was not so much to attack Indy's approach to LDS faith here, but to put a mirror in front of him and show he's the same as those Medieval Catholics he condemns. He just doesn't have resort to the power of the state which would (inevitably) corrupt him absolutely, as it does anyone who has decided there's no point in looking any further than the Book.

What a bunch of nonsensical hyperbole. What I've objected to is those whose appear to rely solely or primarily on academic study of ancient texts as a basis for their knowledge of things which are of a spiritual nature. Then, when they find something in their academic studies that APPEARS to be irreconcilably different than what is accepted as doctrine, they side with the "understanding of man".

Academic pursuit in and of itself is a commendable and noble pursuit, but when it delves into the spiritual realm there is undoubtedly risks associated with it, especially when you are dealing with reconciling the innumerable biblical texts which are both woefully incomplete and unascertainably corrupt. Thus, arriving at ironclad conclusions about what they are and aren't saying at the expense of one's testimony is lamentable.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Arch, I haven't read the book, but from my reading of his other stuff I think I understand his basic claim. He is not suggesting a sayings source couldn't or probably didn't exist; he is arguing that we don't need to hypothesize a saying source because in his view Luke is dependent on both Matthew and Mark and where most scholars would say "Q" is the source for Luke, Goodacre would argue for Matthew.

Graphically, we might depict the traditional hypothesis of Markan Priority and the existence of Q as the following:



Goodacre still relies on Markan Priority, but rejects Q. Here is how I would graphical represent his idea:



Note, L refers to sources unique to Luke and M to sources unique to Matthew.

Apologies to all for diverting the thread.

This is an interesting graph. My question: How is distinction between Q and L/M meaningful or even possible (given the record)? Seems Q and L/M stand for the same thing. If all scholars agree there is Q and/or L/M where's the beef?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Apologies to all for diverting the thread.

This is an interesting graph. My question: How is distinction between Q and L/M meaningful or even possible (given the record)? Seems Q and L/M stand for the same thing. If all scholars agree there is Q and/or L/M where's the beef?

I think your right SU that it is a pretty narrow distinction, and not a distinction that necessarily has a lot practical implications. However, in the most general sense the distinction between Q and L/M is that Q is a shared source and thus by implication neither Luke or Matthew are the author of such sayings whereas L/M could be created or authored by Luke and Matthew respectively. Thus Q is likely to be earlier and possibly closer to the original sayings of Jesus.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Apologies to all for diverting the thread.

This is an interesting graph. My question: How is distinction between Q and L/M meaningful or even possible (given the record)? Seems Q and L/M stand for the same thing. If all scholars agree there is Q and/or L/M where's the beef?

Scholars agree that Mark was the first Gospel written. If you had participated in our reading group, you'd known that. Jab.

What German scholars have long postulated is that Matthew and Luke referred to Mark and to Quelle, or Q, German for source, to write gospels which both followed and differed from Mark.

So the question devolves around whether Matthew or Luke are sufficiently different to merit consideration of a separate source, or whether the differences weren't simply the idiosyncracies of the Gospelists. As I have just begun this work, I'm not certain as to more important details.

You'd also understand the arguments better if you read Ehrman's Misquoting, Orthodox Corruption and Lost Christianities.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I think your right SU that it is a pretty narrow distinction, and not a distinction that necessarily has a lot practical implications. However, in the most general sense the distinction between Q and L/M is that Q is a shared source and thus by implication neither Luke or Matthew are the author of such sayings whereas L/M could be created or authored by Luke and Matthew respectively. Thus Q is likely to be earlier and possibly closer to the original sayings of Jesus.

It sounds like Q is a concept developed by defenders of the Gospels' historicity. I guess I never thought about or understood that per se.