When was first Gospel written and what was it?
Comments
-
Closing remarks for my part...
I'm hoping to be able to study under Black - he teaches at my seminary. He's only teaching greek during J term, and thats not a class I want to pack into two weeks.
Also apologies to Logos for violating rule number 1 &2.Andy Evans said:John said:Is it the word "Garbage" that you are referring to?
- Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
- Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
Ken Baker said:
Closing remarks for my part...
I'm hoping to be able to study under Black - he teaches at my seminary. He's only teaching greek during J term, and thats not a class I want to pack into two weeks.
Also apologies to Logos for violating rule number 1 &2.Yay Ken [Y]
0 -
John said:
Yes, isnt it amazing how he completely ignored every church father or historian that taught "Q" theory
You single out miniscule issues and ignore the large ones. If you want to deny that Peter taught in Rome it still does nothing to advance your theory.
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;" (Luke 1:1-2)
Luke told us that the scriptures were written by eyewitnesses. "Q" theory tells us they werent. Seems pretty clear to me. Either you believe the Bible or you dont.
This wasn't some minuscule point but absolutely necessary for Black's position, which has to have this implausible scenario in order to account for the obvious interdependence of the texts (he at least understands the arguments for the priority of Mark and seeks to offer an alternative, however implausible, if one may not say ridiculous). The bottom line is that he is unable to account for the evidence in a plausible way. His reconstruction also requires him to dismiss the very evidence of the fathers whom he claims to be following (and I found it annoying that he never conceded this, but kept up the pretense that his view is derived from the fathers, not the fathers except where he has to offer an alternative to Markan priority to account for the evidence, contradicting the fathers and not even acknowledging it to the unsuspecting reader who has just been told how the rest of scholarship doesn't follow what the fathers said).
Can you name the church father whom I have ignored, or are you all talk and fluff? What father said that Greek Matthew was written first? They said that Matthew wrote a Hebrew/Aramaic sayings source first. I agree with them. Like I said, you need to read them instead of just taking someone else's word and then attacking everyone else without knowing their position.
You do realize that Luke wasn't an eyewitness, and that he used 'sources' don't you? And that he apparently knows the Aramaic or Hebrew underlying the speeches of Jesus found in Greek Matthew? "Q theory" doesn't state that Q wasn't written by eyewitnesses--show me where Streeter in his classic defense ever states this. You should read Thiede's argument that Matthew took down short-hand notes of Jesus' preaching near the Sea of Galilee which he identifies with Q. You like to quote Scripture, but why don't you believe the parts about not falsely accusing others, and listening to both sides of a matter first?
0 -
Dean053 said:
This wasn't some minuscule point but absolutely necessary for Black's position ...
If Black would happen to be wrong on one point or another, it does not invalidate his entire thesis. If you disagree with his reconstruction of Peters preaching which was essentially the creation of Mark, that does not prove a Markan priority.
Nor would disproving Blacks theory entirely prove that Q-theory is correct. This is basic logic.
The church Fathers are not the most unified bunch, so anyone who quotes them will always have an opponent who can find another one to contradict what has been quoted. Sometimes they even contradict themselves. But attempting to pretend that they are a monolithe is not the point.
The point is, that none of the church fathers ever heard of such a thing as "Q". The concept is completely foreign to them. Those who were the closest to the sources attributed the scriptures to eyewitnesses. Matthew was written by Matthew, one of the twelve apostles. Can you find a church father who denies this?
It was critical scholarship that later on wanted to deny apostolic authorship and invented numerous theories, none of which can be proven.
Those who invented Q theory wrote off all the early Christian testimony and invented their own fictitious account of where the scriptures came from. The primary motivation is obvious to see ... they do not believe the scriptures. Astonishing fulfillment of New Testament prophecy which came to pass in the late 1st century forever proved Christ and his apostles to be absolutely genuine. Scholarship had to find a way to deny this amazing Revelation from God. Inventing theories that the scriptures were written after the fact, with plenty of time for "editing" of course, by people who did not witness anything was the solution.
Today the late dating is falling apart as more and more evidence proves it wrong. Yet many still cling to the bogus theories that gave rise to those bogus dates.
Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew ...
- Eusebius of Caesaria, citing from Origin (185-253AD)0 -
John said:
The point is, that none of the church fathers ever heard of such a thing as "Q". The concept is completely foreign to them. Those who were the closest to the sources attributed the scriptures to eyewitnesses. Matthew was written by Matthew, one of the twelve apostles. Can you find a church father who denies this?
I hope you don't expect that the Church Fathers would call it "Q" since that is a designation derived from German (Quelle – "source"). Since you cite Eusebius, let us see what he has to say regarding this.
1 And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark,2 a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.Church History, Book 2, cap 15. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume I: Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. Edited by Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890.
It is hardly questionable that there were oral traditions circulating at the time. Note all of the apocryphal gospels which were written, mostly under gnostic influence. That these have been subsumed under the label "Q" seems to bother you.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
John said:
If Black would happen to be wrong on one point or another, it does not invalidate his entire thesis. If you disagree with his reconstruction of Peters preaching which was essentially the creation of Mark, that does not prove a Markan priority.
No, if he is wrong on this, then he hasn't accounted for the obvious textual interdepedence and he consequently doesn't have an argument. There's no 'happens to be' about it--it's crucial to his position that Mark and Luke used Matthew, rather than Greek Matthew using Mark and Q (or, as I prefer, and so hereafter, Aramaic Sayings Matthew).
[quote]
Nor would disproving Blacks theory entirely prove that Q-theory is correct. This is basic logic.
Again it's not, because Black's is trying to disprove Q/Aramaic Sayings source. If he fails to do this, then Aramaic Matthew Sayings source still stands as the only alternative. You don't seem to be following the logic here, despite your appeal to 'logic'.
[quote]The church Fathers are not the most unified bunch, so anyone who quotes them will always have an opponent who can find another one to contradict what has been quoted. Sometimes they even contradict themselves. But attempting to pretend that they are a monolithe is not the point.
So your guy has to throw out the earliest fathers--including Papias--and you make excuses for him. When scholars do this, they are the devil. When Black does it, you excuse it. Am I wrong?
And no, actually the earliest church fathers are unified. Prove otherwise instead of just stating it. They would have to be unified, since they all basically followed Papias, who learned his stuff from John the Evangelist himself, who knew Peter and probably wouldn't have gotten his facts about Peter and Mark's Gospel wrong. Oops, now it's you who are throwing out the fathers because they disagree with your theory[^o)] I hope God doesn't send you to hell for it like you seem to want to want him to do to others.
[quote]The point is, that none of the church fathers ever heard of such a thing as "Q". The concept is completely foreign to them. Those who were the closest to the sources attributed the scriptures to eyewitnesses. Matthew was written by Matthew, one of the twelve apostles. Can you find a church father who denies this?
No, they didn't say 'Q'. But they did say that Matthew was originally a Hebrew or Aramaic sayings source which was later interpreted. Since Q can be defined (Thiede etc) as an Aramaic sayings source which was later interpreted, how is it different?
[quote]It was critical scholarship that later on wanted to deny apostolic authorship and invented numerous theories, none of which can be proven.
And your view can be proven? What other theories are these? Streeter didn't want to deny apostolic authorship. So why did he come up with Q? Because he sat down and saw that there must be textual interdependence. If you knew Greek and had a halfway reasonable mind you would see it too.
[quote]Those who invented Q theory wrote off all the early Christian testimony and invented their own fictitious account of where the scriptures came from. The primary motivation is obvious to see ... they do not believe the scriptures. Astonishing fulfillment of New Testament prophecy which came to pass in the late 1st century forever proved Christ and his apostles to be absolutely genuine. Scholarship had to find a way to deny this amazing Revelation from God. Inventing theories that the scriptures were written after the fact, with plenty of time for "editing" of course, by people who did not witness anything was the solution.
Wrong again, Q was around before Bultmann, and was motivated by the desire to account for the textual interdependence. The original proponents of Q identified it with Papias' sayings source, which was eyewitness testimony. Streeter wasn't an unbeliever either. Thiede has argued that the Gospel of Mark was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Hardly fits your caricature does it?
[quote]Today the late dating is falling apart as more and more evidence proves it wrong. Yet many still cling to the bogus theories that gave rise to those bogus dates.
It's not falling apart. I hold to an early date for the Aramaic sayings source and Mark, but I would hardly say the consensus is falling apart. How is it falling apart exactly? Even most so-called evangelicals put Matthew around 70 AD.
[quote]Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew ...
- Eusebius of Caesaria, citing from Origin (185-253AD)You didn't even finish the quote. This really seems to demonstrates either dishonesty or gross ignorance on your part, since the quote contradicts you and speaks only of Hebrew Matthew:
Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language
Furthermore, as everyone knows, Origen got this from Papias, the guy whom you now say didn't know what he was talking about, for no other reason than that Black can't accommodate what he says and still dispose of Marcan priority.
0 -
George Somsel said:
I hope you don't expect that the Church Fathers would call it "Q" since that is a designation derived from German (Quelle – "source"). Since you cite Eusebius, let us see what he has to say regarding this.
The quotation you posted actually supports my view and is rejected by Q-theory advocates. It says nothing of mysterious sources, by any name you wish to give them. It in fact tells us who the source was, and it is referring to direct apostolic authorship at the hand of Peter. "Q" theory denies apostolic authorship, as that was the whole purpose for which it was invented.
George Somsel said:It is hardly questionable that there were oral traditions circulating at the time. Note all of the apocryphal gospels which were written, mostly under gnostic influence. That these have been subsumed under the label "Q" seems to bother you.
Key phrase here is "at the time". At which time? Are you claiming that apocryphal gospels were being written and circulated at the same time that the apostles were out preaching, as Peter was in your quotation? If so, you are mistaken. This should be obvious just by looking at the their content.
The countefeits and perversions which arose quickly afterwards were foretold by Jesus and the apostles. (Mark 4:15, Acts 20:29-30, 1Tim 4:1) Their existence does not disprove apostolic authorship of the four genuine gospels, nor does it prove Q-theory or Markan priority to be correct.
The real issue here is that proponents of Q theory and/or Markan priority deny apostolic authorship. At best, a small handful of authentic sayings of Christ are mixed in with a bunch of fiction (your "oral traditions") added later by non-eyewitnesses.
The New Testament authors claim to be eyewitnesses. If a person does not believe them, then I have to wonder why they would bother to have any interest in the New Testament at all? Why spend time and effort studying a book you do not believe? But that seems to be what modern scholarship has evolved into.
"And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem ..." (Acts 10:39)
0 -
Dean053 said:
You didn't even finish the quote. This really seems to demonstrates either dishonesty or gross ignorance on your part, since the quote contradicts you and speaks only of Hebrew Matthew:
While reading your lenghty post, I made notes of several incorrect statements and logical errors. I had intended to respond to it until I got to this portion, which caused to me question whether or not it is worth it.
I quoted a portion of the text and supplied an ellipsis for the sake of brevity. Now I am being accused of dishonesty or gross ignorance. Judging from the length of your post, I understand that brevity on a message board is not a concern which you share, but the ad hominem nature of your attack is uncalled for in any case.
No one here has rejected papias or any of the church fathers. At this point the majority of your post is straw-man argumentation, and I find it almost humorous that it was yourself who objected to the "tone" of others earlier in the thread.
Since I cannot see anything positive coming from continuing this discussion, I believe this is a good point to end it.
I highly suspect from some of your comments that you have not even read Black. Anyone else who might be following this thread and have an interest, I encourage you to read Black for yourself. He has been misrepresented here. My comments were factual but some were taken out of context or misconstrued.
To Summarize: The Bible is true. Matthew was written by Matthew along with the other apostles. It is first in the canon because it was the first to be written. Q-theory is a man-made theory which is false.
One last note on the "textual interdependence" comment. This is where Black is strongest. He completely reconstructs the gospel of Mark from readings in Matthew and Luke. Anyone who claims he is weak in this area simply did not read it or is not intellectually honest.
0 -
John said:
Key phrase here is "at the time". At which time? Are you claiming that apocryphal gospels were being written and circulated at the same time that the apostles were out preaching, as Peter was in your quotation? If so, you are mistaken. This should be obvious just by looking at the their content.
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.Lk 1.1-4
Note that he says "many", not simply apostles. I think it incontrovertable that the gospels are the summation of the teaching of the early Church and not simply historical accounts. In fact, not historical accounts at all. A simple comparison of the gospels with attention to the order of events which differ from one to the other and even the content of some events, many of which could only have happened once. and therefore not be reports of subseqent similar events, make plain. I'm afraid, my friend, that you are irredemably ignorant.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
Note that he says "many", not simply apostles.
Luke says that what he recieved was handed to him by eyewitnesses. That means Apostles. Luke also tells us that all the believers dwelt in "one accord" at that time. This rules out your "different communities, different myths" theory. Later, Paul took Lukes gospel and submitted it to Peter. (Gal 2:2)
These are Biblical facts, whether your view can reconcile them or not. The gospels we have are the product of eyewitnesses. I'm sorry if you lack the faith to believe that. You have placed more faith in mans theories than you have in inspired testimony.
George Somsel said:I'm afraid, my friend, that you are irredemably ignorant.
Ad Hominem eh George? I guess if thats all you have left, we are finished here.
0 -
John said:George Somsel said:
Note that he says "many", not simply apostles.
Luke says that what he recieved was handed to him by eyewitnesses. That means Apostles. Luke also tells us that all the believers dwelt in "one accord" at that time. This rules out your "different communities, different myths" theory. Later, Paul took Lukes gospel and submitted it to Peter. (Gal 2:2)
These are Biblical facts, whether your view can reconcile them or not. The gospels we have are the product of eyewitnesses. I'm sorry if you lack the faith to believe that. You have placed more faith in mans theories than you have in inspired testimony.
George Somsel said:I'm afraid, my friend, that you are irredemably ignorant.
Ad Hominem eh George? I guess if thats all you have left, we are finished here.
The problem is not my identifying you as being ignorant. The problem is that you have shown yourself to be ignorant by simply dismissing Markan priority and Q theory with no argument other than to call it "garbage" or "false." Your only argument is your tradition.
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat." 3 He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?Mt 15.1-3
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
Well, unless we find a copy of Q, it will always remain a theory – just as the Griesbach theory remains a theory and will continue to do so.
What amazes me is that the only fragments of Q to survive happen to be sections that Mark copied.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Michael Childs said:
What amazes me is that the only fragments of Q to survive happen to be sections that Mark copied.
Who says that Mark has anything to do with Q?
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
John said:
Amazingly difficult as it might be for certain unbelieving "SCHOLARS" to believe, Matthew really was written by Matthew.
That may well be true, and I think it is. But I'd be a little more humble about it since the manuscript we call Matthew is anonymous. So I wouldn't say that it was without doubt written by Matthew since it does not claim to be so.
I would not say so, that is, unless George says so. [:O]
Frankly, in my old age, I have never be more certain of what the Scripture says and less certain of what scholars say. And I am older than George.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
George Somsel said:
The problem is not my identifying you as being ignorant. The problem is that you have shown yourself to be ignorant by simply dismissing Markan priority and Q theory with no argument other than to call it "garbage" or "false." Your only argument is your tradition.
Even if I gave no argument at all, the burden of proof lies with those advancing a theory which contradicts scripture and the unanimous testimony of the early church. Can't you see that? Don't let your ego get in the way. If you can "prove" "Q" theory, you will be the first to be able to do so.
And George you and I both know that you would also very quickly cite "tradition" if it favored your manmade theory. But in this case it does not, so you attack tradition. Stop being a hypocrite. I have cited the scriptures themselves as the first and primary proof. If you want to reduce that to nothing while elevating your unbelieving "scholarship", go ahead.
If I am ignorant because I believe what the Bible says George, then please call me ignorant.
I will no longer respond to your posts unless your attitude changes. You may have the last word.
0 -
I don't keep up with stuff like this, but I didn't know that we had found fragments of Q.Michael Childs said:What amazes me is that the only fragments of Q to survive happen to be sections that Mark copied.
0 -
Somewhere near Eden (but probably not near the cherubim) is a cave with a pristine copy of 'Q' and the YHWH-ist writing (with 2 versions by the way).
Just from the mathematics, I think Mark 1-9/10 was used by Matthew and Luke. But the early 'churchmen' do have an interesting affinity for the same phrasing found in 'our' Matthew.
I guess I'm not married to a need for the 12 disciples to be 'authoritative' since (1) they were frequently wrong before Jesus' death (2) Matthew notes some were disbelieving at Jesus' exit, and (3) the Holy Spirit stepped in after that.
So it probably works out to whatever the Holy Spirit thought appropriate.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
John said:
Luke says that what he recieved was handed to him by eyewitnesses. That means Apostles.
eyewitnesses include multiple Mary's, James the brother of Jesus, the man who left his loin-cloth behind ... but this thread appears to be an argument that will not die - despite good intentions I'm unable to resist this one.
I may be wrong but it seems to me that what is important in what is in the Gospels not how they came together. The first is vital the second is interesting.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I forgot all about Mary and the baby Jesus ... Christmas!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Michael Childs said:George Somsel said:
Well, unless we find a copy of Q, it will always remain a theory – just as the Griesbach theory remains a theory and will continue to do so.
What amazes me is that the only fragments of Q to survive happen to be sections that Mark copied.
Mark is not Q. Q is used by Matthew and Luke to supplement what they took from Mark (in addition to their special traditions).
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Michael Childs said:
I would not say so, that is, unless George says so.
"So." Now, don't think I am advocating anything here – I'm just being silly.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
John said:
If I am ignorant because I believe what the Bible says George, then please call me ignorant.
But the bible does say "George."
33 Ἄλλην παραβολὴν ἀκούσατε. ἄνθρωπος ἦν οἰκοδεσπότης ὅστις ἐφύτευσεν ἀμπελῶνα καὶ φραγμὸν αὐτῷ περιέθηκεν καὶ ὤρυξεν ἐν αὐτῷ ληνὸν καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν πύργον καὶ ἐξέδετο αὐτὸν γεωργοῖς καὶ ἀπεδήμησεν.Listen to another parable. A man was a property owner who planted a vineyard and enclosed it with a fence and dug a winepress and built a tower and then he leased it to the Georges and moved out.
So there you have it.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
It's not available from Logos, but in "Redating the New Testament" John A. T. Robinson makes a good argument for all the gospels being written before AD 70. In "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", Richard Bauckham speaks of Papius and the gospels as eyewitness accounts. It's not always an easy read, but worth the effort.
0 -
Terry M Moore said:
in "Redating the New Testament" John A. T. Robinson
That's John A T Robinson of Honest to God infamy.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I may be wrong but it seems to me that what is important in what is in the Gospels not how they came together. The first is vital the second is interesting.
Amen! And we'll said!
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
MJ. Smith said:
eyewitnesses include multiple Mary's, James the brother of Jesus, the man who left his loin-cloth behind ...
Yes they did. But did the eyewitnesses immediately depart from the apostles, go out and begin their own "communities" and "traditions", and then write their own customized gospels? I think not. A half dozen or so scriptures come to mind that state otherwise.
During the lifetimes of the Apostles, the Apostles were the heads of the church. Peter, James, and for a time John were headquartered at Jerusalem. The church at Antioch gained in influence but deferred to the elders at Jerusalem as long as those elders were alive.
The eyewitnesses formed a community with the Apostles in which they had all things common. They didnt have time to start their own little custom gospel clubs because they were being urged by the Apostles to prepare for the coming flight out of Jerusalem. A dozen or more scriptures come to mind, but I trust you already know them.
If Luke was seeking eyewitnesses, where would he go? Randomly around the countryside? Or would he go to where the believers were gathered? I think it would be obvious that most credible eyewitnesses would be following those who Christ himself had ordained ... the twelve Apostles and thousands of disciples who stayed with them.
While Christ was still with them (the Apostles), he promised that the coming Holy Spirit would bring all things to their remembrance, everything that he had told them (John 14:26). Was he doing this just for fun, or was it so that they could accurately preach and record the gospels for all humanity to hear them? This promise was not made to the dozen or so fictituous communities that have been fabricated by "Q" theory. It was made to the original eyewitnesses, the Apostles.
If anyone wants to see where "Q" theory leads spiritually speaking ... read some of Burton Macks material (Who wrote the New Testament). You will see that he is so far gone that he flat out denies any of the claims of the New Testament. There was no virgin birth, there were no miracles. There was no resurrection, it is all just fiction invented by various communities that generated the gospels, all using "Q" as their basepoint. Jesus really wasn't that special of a guy after all. His mother gave birth out of wedlock, but his followers idolized him and wrote all those things after he died. He was even married and had several affairs with prostitutes. Not recommended for new Christians for sure. "Q" theory is the seed that produced that rotten tree.
Or maybe you have heard of the "Jesus Seminar"? A few years back they became famous for producing a New Testament that had colored highlighting so that you could know which parts were really spoken by Jesus and which were fiction. THis is where "Q" theory leads. It is a dead end and it doesn't arrive at the truth. It is just the old serpent, once again asking "Hath God said?".
So whose living room are we in now anyway?
0 -
Terry M Moore said:
It's not available from Logos, but in "Redating the New Testament" John A. T. Robinson makes a good argument for all the gospels being written before AD 70.
I've read it. Excellent book.
0 -
John said:
While reading your lenghty post, I made notes of several incorrect statements and logical errors. I had intended to respond to it until I got to this portion, which caused to me question whether or not it is worth it.
I quoted a portion of the text and supplied an ellipsis for the sake of brevity. Now I am being accused of dishonesty or gross ignorance. Judging from the length of your post, I understand that brevity on a message board is not a concern which you share, but the ad hominem nature of your attack is uncalled for in any case.
No one here has rejected papias or any of the church fathers. At this point the majority of your post is straw-man argumentation, and I find it almost humorous that it was yourself who objected to the "tone" of others earlier in the thread.
Since I cannot see anything positive coming from continuing this discussion, I believe this is a good point to end it.
I highly suspect from some of your comments that you have not even read Black. Anyone else who might be following this thread and have an interest, I encourage you to read Black for yourself. He has been misrepresented here. My comments were factual but some were taken out of context or misconstrued.
To Summarize: The Bible is true. Matthew was written by Matthew along with the other apostles. It is first in the canon because it was the first to be written. Q-theory is a man-made theory which is false.
One last note on the "textual interdependence" comment. This is where Black is strongest. He completely reconstructs the gospel of Mark from readings in Matthew and Luke. Anyone who claims he is weak in this area simply did not read it or is not intellectually honest.
That's a very convenient why of extricating yourself from having to actually back up your statements.
No, you ended the quote at the very part that would have rendered the quotation an argument against your position. And I qualified my statement by stating that your use of ellipses 'seemed' dishonest or ignorant. I see that you have no problem reading all kinds of false motives and positions into others, but yet when you are called to account you are quick to take offense. The fact still remains that you used ellipses in such a way that it removed the part that would have contradicted your position. If that isn't either ignorance or deception, what is it? It's not I that should be trying to backtrack and account for myself--your use of ellipses created a dishonest argument--own your faults for once instead of trying to shift the blame.
Once again you haven't followed the logic of the argument presented to you--his textual reconstruction is done within the context--as pointed out numerous times--of an implausible scenario that rejects what Papias said--and an appeal to the earliest traditions of Papias is supposed to be the appeal of his argument over others. Now I wonder if you have read Black, or whether you really understood what he was trying to accomplish.
0 -
Terry M Moore said:
It's not available from Logos, but in "Redating the New Testament" John A. T. Robinson makes a good argument for all the gospels being written before AD 70. In "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", Richard Bauckham speaks of Papius and the gospels as eyewitness accounts. It's not always an easy read, but worth the effort.
Robinson's work is almost indispensable in my opinion ... hint hint Logos.
0 -
John said:
If anyone wants to see where "Q" theory leads spiritually speaking
John said:THis is where "Q" theory leads.
Yes, I am familiar with the Jesus Seminar - I know people who respect the participants and some who consider the whole seminar as humorous - voting via colored balls on the unknowable. I know people pretty much anywhere on the spectrum between. The forums are not the place to discuss these issues. Yes, I am culpable for my part in this - which Is why I've said nothing arguable here - I know who I know.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Dean053 said:
That's a very convenient why of extricating yourself from having to actually back up your statements.
No, you ended the quote at the very part that would have rendered the quotation an argument against your position.
"... who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language"
There you go Dean, I posted the rest of the quote. Now which part of it do you claim is an argument against my position? I assume that you are referring to the statement about Hebrew? I never took a position one way or another on a Hebrew Matthew. That is your sacred cow, not mine. I never uttered a single word on the subject.
I suggest that you go back and carefully re-read the thread and see. Nothing I have stated in this thread hinged upon Matthew being written in a particular language. There is nothing in the quotation that contradicts my position, and hence, there was no evil intent on my part of using a partial citation.
Please, go back and quote me where I took a position on Matthew being in (or not being in) Hebrew. If you cannot do it, then you are off on another red herring of a goat trail.
And do I need to point out (again), that all of this fillibustering on your part does nothing to advance your theory? Even if you were able to prove me 100% wrong, it does not prove your own position to be correct!
The End.
0 -
I'm not aware that I'm fillibustering. On the contrary, I've sought to provide evidence, and to require from you that you back up your statements--which you have refused to do.
Okay, so it was ignorance on your part. For someone coming on here, throwing out accusations that people don't believe the Bible or accept the traditions relating to the Gospels, you should have a better idea of the arguments. As is commonly accepted, Matthew is not a translation of Aramaic. It was composed in its present form in Greek. Therefore if Matthew wrote the sayings of the Lord in Aramaic, it was not our present text of Matthew. What was it then? I think it was the sayings of Jesus found in Matthew's Gospel--the parts identified as Q--which form the core of it. That does no violence to any church father, nor to inspiration, nor to anything. For some reason you think it's the unpardonable sin.
And BTW, what do you mean you haven't a position? Black's position requires that he--contrary to the church fathers which he says everyone else rejects--deny that Matthew was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew--you can find that in his book, page 66 should you care to check. Why? Because, unlike you, he knows that it can't be a straight translation but at best a freely expanded work. That's why he has to argue that Origen misinterpreted Papias, and that the term dielektw (check how that word is used in the NT and elsewhere) here means Hebrew style, not dialect, contrary to all ancient readers and the opinion of virtually any scholar of Greek. Black at least knows that Origen is an argument against him. Again you confirm my suspicions that you didn't really understand Black when you were reading him.
No, 'proving' you wrong wouldn't 'prove' me right. One would hope, however, that it might persuade you to hear people out a bit better before jumping to uncharitable conclusions
0 -
Dean053 said:
And BTW, Black's position requires that he--contrary to the church fathers which he says everyone else rejects--deny that Matthew was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew--you can find that in his book, page 66 should you care to check.
Page 66 has no such argument. The copy I have is copyright 2001. I see there is a new edition dated 2010 on Amazon. Possibly your page 66 is my page 50. The amazon preview is not working for me for some reason.
If anyone would like to check this out for themselves, a preview of Blacks book is available online at Google Books. Page 50.
Blacks thesis is not totally dependent upon this one point which Dean here has chosen to focus on. He does on page 50 point out that it is likely that Matthew was written in a "Hebrew Style" and not "Hebrew Language". He also states his belief that many have followed this error. However, Deans assertion that his entire thesis stands or falls with this one point is a pretty large leap in logic in my opinion. Black sets forth a theory of his own as an alternative to Q theory and markan priority. But his alternative theory need not be 100% correct in order to prove the assertion that Q theory is false.
I believe Blacks theory has a lot going for it, and I am convinced it is essentially correct. If Dean here could come up with substantial evidence contrary to the essential thesis, I would love to have a look at it. So far all I see is a debatable contention over a very minor point. Nitpicking if you will.
Attacking Blacks thesis does absolutely nothing to advance "Q" theory. Each theory must stand or fall on its own merit.
The only way you will prove "Q" theory is to come up with evidence or proof. Everyone knows that there is no evidence or proof to support it. Your theory is just a theory. It has not been proven, and YOU CANNOT PROVE it.
I am just going to ignore all your Ad Hominem remarks against me. They mean nothing. As if arrogant words about teaching others "humility" could come from a heart posessing humility.
Matthew ... the inspired Word of God.
0
