Choosing a faith

Sorry missed this.

quote:

---

I never said that the Farrer hypothesis din't need Q

---

Evasion. As I stated the Farrer hypothesis does away with Q without Matthean priority. And it can do that because Matthean priority has almost no relevance to the issue.

quote:

---

My only point was that Matthean priority as outlined in the Griesbach hypothesis did away with Q.

---

Which is obviously not true. It is not Matthean priority that does away with Q, it is the idea that Luke used Matthew as a source.

quote:

---

If the Griesbach hypothesis is one of the available proposals. It is a minority view which I happen to agree with. That is the only claim I'm making.

---

False again. You even misrepresent your own arguments. The (false) claim you actually made was that the Griesbach hypothesis somehow proves that Matthean priority does away with Q. You don’t explain how - because it doesn’t. (And if you really cared about the truth you would know that).

quote:

---

I didn't claim that it was needed.

---

So just what does it do then? If assuming that Luke uses Matthew as a source is all that is necessary how can you say that Matthean priority does away with Q? Because even Griesbach makes that assumption.

quote:

---

I have affirmed that many times but you keep repeating it as if you have a point.

---

Of course I have a point. Matthean priority has very little to do with doing away with Q. Why can’t you acknowledge that?

quote:

---

It does as it is part of the Griesbach hypothesis which I subscribe to, which does away with the need for "Q". Sure you can have "Q" even with Matthean priority but it makes "Q" far less likely. "Q" was only necessary for Streeter's Hypothesis. The Griesbach hypothesis essentially replaces "Q" with Matthew.

---

And the Farrer hypothesis does away with the need for Q and includes Markan priority. So Markan priority is as good as Matthean - and those are the only two possibilities seriously considered,

quote:

---

It also makes sense as Streeter proposed "Q" in 1900 by discounting what was written by the early church fathers and based solely on what he saw in the Gospels. Even with the increase in available material there is never any mention of this document anywhere until 1900.
​

---

Which again shows that Matthean priority has very little to do with the arguments for Q. As you ought to know - and have known before you made the claim in the first place.

quote:

---

I'll post this again as you seem to have ignored it the first time.

---

It seems that you are ignoring the fact that it does nothing to support your claim - which I pointed out.

quote:

---

Unless I misspoke, and I'm pretty sure I didn't, I didn't say that It was proof that "Q" didn't exist, b ut I would say as above that it makes it highly unlikely.

---

To repeat myself you claimed that it proved that Matthean priority did away with the need for Q. Not that it proved that Q did not exist.

quote:

---

The Griesbach hypothesis does make "Q" unlikely for reasons I pointed out above

---

Your claim was that Matthean priority did away with the need for Q. But you never gave any reasons for that and it looks very much like you don’t have any.
(You also seem to be confusing the Griesbach hypothesis with the arguments for it).

quote:

---

It doesn't do away with "Q" buit if we have Matthean priority there is no need for "Q" nor is there any evidence

---

You make three claims here and ALL three are false.The Griesbach hypothesis DOES do away with Q by assuming that Luke used Matthew as a source. I don’t see how you could get that wrong.Matthean priority has nothing to do with the “need” for Q which is based on the textual relationships between Matthew and Luke.And those textual relationships are where the evidence is.And if you had really done the research you would know all that. I do.

quote:

---

Once again, it doesn't do away with Q it just makes it completely unnecessary. Why can't you acknowledge that

---

Because it isn’t true. I’ve shown that it isn’t true in this discussion.
You haven’t offered any argument at all to support it, just waved vaguely at the Griesbach hypothesis which doesn’t help.If you care about the truth, why are you so set on clinging to this falsehood?

quote:

---

The point is hardly about doing away with Q. The existence of Q is only the result of Streeter trying to make sense of his hypothesis. The point is about determining the dating of the Gospels.

---

The point is your assertion that we should prefer Matthean priority because it does away from the need for Q. Which is an obvious falsehood.

quote:

---

True, however part of the Griesbach hypothesis essentially see Matthew in place of Q.

---

Exactly as the Farrer hypothesis does. Matthean priority has nothing to do with that.

quote:

---

This is from Irenaeus:

quote:

---

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”

---

---

So? It doesn’t address the issue at all. But note what is said about Mark. If the Church Fathers are so reliable, why do are that - according to your preferred views - so wrong about Mark? Matthean priority demands that Mark is derived from Matthew

quote:

---

I could go on dealing with what you say, and I have spent enough time on the subject already.

---

You have chosen to waste time with evasion and falsehood rather than addressing the issue. That is on you.

quote:

---

I have read the book by David Alan Black Why Four Gospels nad found his position compelling.

---

I bet that he doesn’t agree with you on this point.

quote:

---

I have done my best to argue for his position and it is clear you don't agree. That's fine.

---

No you haven’t. You have done your best to try to pretend that a falsehood you have invented is true. Which is evasion and handwaving and not a trace of any real argument.

quote:

---

Here is a link to the wiki site on the Griesbach Hypothesis

---

Which - as I have pointed out - says that you are wrong. But of course you don’t care about the that.

quote:

---

Sure you can look at it that way but what really matters is truth

---

Then why would you tell falsehoods to prop up your beliefs. Why would you insist on those falsehoods even after they’ve been shown to be false? Why insist that others should “acknowledge” those falsehoods? (Message 988).It seems that the important thing is propping up your beliefs - and the pretence of rationality - while trampling all over the actual truth and rationality.

quote:

---

After much reading and study I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus was an historical event.

---

The reading and study is obviously irrelevant. You like the idea and went looking for excuses to believe it.

quote:

---

I can't prove it and someone who disbelieves in an external intelligence will obviously find it non-sensical, but frankly from a theistic POV it makes it a rational conclusion IMHO.

---

I would say that it only makes sense from a Christian perspective - and that only because in that perspective it is assumed as a given and the problems are set aside.

quote:

---

That is one explanation. I would argue against based it on the basis that it is not consistent with the concept of survival of the fittest from evolution.

---

Which is a misrepresentation. I’ve already referred you to The Selfish Gene and to the example of social insects.

quote:

---

How does sending funds to help educate young women in Uganda increase my, or anyone else's, chances of expanding one's gene pool?

---

I don’t think that anyone claims that it does (though it might have an indirect effect).Let’s try something a little less simplistic.Social species gain more by cooperating with and helping the others in their social group then they would be being purely selfish. We can see that even in the social insects.For humans - at least - the division of “us” and “them” is not biologically determined. We can see “young women in Uganda” as being part of “us” and therefore to be helped.That’s far from the whole story, but it is a start in the right direction.

quote:

---

I have read many books on both sides of the argument about resurrection and I have come to the conclusion that without the resurrection Jesus would have been a failed messiah like about a dozen others.
​

---

The fact that you really like the idea of the Resurrection is not exactly convincing to anyone. And that is all your opinion can tell us. I mean you kept on claiming that Matthean Priority removed the “need” for Q long after it became obvious to you that it wasn’t true.
And really if your “research” meant anything to you you would have known it from the start. Now be honest and admit that your “research” is meaningless and your opinions are based entirely on your personal likes and dislikes,In reality Jesus was hardly a successful Messiah. And apparently Rabbi Scheerson is still believed by some to be the Messiah although he died in 1994. Come to that, why would it need a real resurrection rather than just the belief in one? The evidence is hardly good.

quote:

---

It DOES do away with the need for "Q"

---

It doesn’t. You have provided absolutely no reason to think that it does.

quote:

---

Once again here is the wiki site for the Two Gospel or Griesbach hypothesis.

​

Here is a quote from it.

quote:

---

The two-gospel hypothesis contrasts with the two-source hypothesis, the most popular and accepted scholarly hypothesis. Supporters say that it does not require lost sources like the Q source and was supported by the early Church. Proponents of the two-gospel hypothesis generally also support the traditional claims of authorship as accurate to disciples and their direct associates, which implies the gospels were written comparatively soon after Jesus's death, rather than the later dates of authorship supported by other schools of thought.

---

---

Even here what they say is that the Griesbach hypothesis does away with the need for Q, not Matthean priority. And the part of the Griesbach hypothesis that does do it is the idea that Luke used Matthew, not the idea that Matthew was written before Luke.Although even that does not actually do it because the “need” for Q is really the arguments for Q. Which do not go away if you simply assume Matthean priority - and the site says that they are not so easily answered. These responses are not new so you have no excuse for not knowing about them. So I guess I should thank you for proving my point. Here you are repeating an obviously false claim, with no idea of how it could be true, repeatedly citing a web page that provides no support at all. Your dedication to your invention clearly overrides any interest in the truth you might have, or anything found in your “research”.

quote:

---

Many, and likely most at the time would have considered Him, a failed messiah. He hadn't mounted an army, let alone driven the Romans out of Israel. This is what, as was popularly believed, a messiah would do.
​

---

Nor had he achieved the throne, nor had any of the end-time prophecies associated with the Messiah come about.

quote:

---

Jesus had a different view of the Hebrew Scriptures and acted on it. In the Gospels however we can see that when Jesus was crucified the disciples headed for the hills not wanting top suffer the same fate.

---

No, we don’t see that at all. In fact we see them staying in Jerusalem until after the Resurrection. Mark says nothing (except in the added verses which are still placed after the Resurrection and show only two leaving Jerusalem). Matthew even says that they leave Jerusalem specifically to meet the resurrected Jesus. In Luke only the two on the Road to Emmaus leave, and even they know about the Empty Tomb and the angel’s message that Jesus lived (24:22-24). John says that the Jerusalem appearances (20) came before the Disciples left for Galilee (21).So what you “see” in the Gospels is denied by three and not mentioned by the fourth (or denied again if you count verses added to Mark).I think this shows again that your claims of “research” are meaningless. You cling to ideas you like regardless of what your supposed sources say. The truth - even the truth of what the Gospels say - counts for nothing against that.

quote:

---

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or not.

---

I am not being obtuse at all. Unlike you.

quote:

---

1/ The Griesbach hypothesis concludes Matthean priority.
2/ The Griesbach hypotheisis does not include Q
3/ Therefore with Matthean priority there is no "need" for Q.
​

---

That is an obvious non-sequitur, and indeed I believe I already answered it (Message 909). We might as well say:1/ The Farrer hypothesis concludes Markan priority.
2/ The Farrer hypotheisis does not include Q
3/ Therefore with Markan priority there is no "need" for Q.
​
( Note that in both it should be “includes” not “concludes”)Both are equally wrong and for the same reason.

quote:

---

Matthean priority does not exclude "Q" but does not "need" it.
​
With Matthean priority either position concerning Q can be argued.

---

And exactly the same is true with Markan priority. So Matthean priority makes no difference at all.Really arguments are not just collections of words. You need to understand the issues. You have already seen that the answers to the arguments for Q have nothing to do with Matthean priority and that is quite enough to show that you are wrong. Unless Matthean priority in itself provides the answers - and you know it doesn’t - you can’t be correct.

quote:

---

Yes, there are competing ideas about when the Gospels were written and the order in which they were written. Markan priority was based on the internal evidence by Streeter and ignored the external evidence.
​

---

Given the shortage of external evidence that would seem sensible. The key question is whether Matthew is derived from Mark or vice versa. But the external evidence presents them as independent creations - if the external evidence is even talking about the Gospels we have. Papias, for instance is either wrong about the language Matthew was written in or talking about a different document, lost to us. And in that case, wouldn’t the external evidence favour Markan priority? Papias possible reference to Mark does not have a similar problem, and if Papias is correct and is referring to Mark, Markan priority follows.

quote:

---

Here is a link to a book by Dennis Barton that outlines the history behind Markan priority as well as the arguments for it and outlines why Matthean priority is much more likely. You can select the chapters of interest, or just ignore the whole thing.Church History

---

It looks somewhat polemic in nature and completely ignores the reasons for proposing Q. That is not good. I think we can partially blame Barton for your error, but you certainly should have been aware of the issues after they were brought up in this thread.

quote:

---

One point of interest is if "Q" actually existed then it would be more important to the early Christians and would have been preserved as more important than the Gospels. Also, the first church fathers would have referenced it as well.

---

If there was a document written in Aramaic by Matthew - as Papias says, that would have been important yet no such document is known. And if I recall correctly in the earliest quotes from the Gospels, the source is not identified.

quote:

---

The Gospels point to a heavenly throne with His Kingdom being those that followed Him, without geographic boundaries. See Daniel 7.

---

Daniel 7 does not refer to the Messiah sitting on a heavenly throne - indeed it des not directly refer to the Messiah at all, and it is God who sits on the heavenly throne. And the kingdom spoken of - which was meant to come in about 200 years before Jesus died - still does not exist.

quote:

---

As for end times prophesies Jesus said that as to when only the Father knows

---

As should be obvious I was talking about Jewish prophecies linked to the Messiah. If they have not come to pass we can hardly see that Jesus was a successful Messiah.

quote:

---

Firstly the accounts were written by fallible human beings. Secondly they were individuals and knew different parts of the story. Yes there is discontinuity in the details.

---

In other words what you claimed to “see” in the Gospels isn’t there because the Gospel authors got it wrong. Pardon me for doubting that your inventions are more reliable than the Gospels.

quote:

---

However, if this whole story was concocted then we wouldn't see these differences. They would have carefully aligned their stories

---

Only if they were working in collusion - and if the author of Luke used Mathew, as we both believe, then he rejected much of Matthew’s story. And of course you ignore the far more reasonable possibility of the story growing over time, and in different directions in different groups.

quote:

---

They are however, all in agreement that Jesus was resurrected just as witnesses to a car accident will give conflicting stories but they all agree that the accident occurred

---

Reports of car accidents generally agree fairly well on where the accident occurs. If the author of Matthew knew that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem on instructions from Jesus, and Jesus appeared to them there he certainly would not have thought that they went to Galilee - again on Jesus’ instructions - and met Jesus there instead. And if Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew, as you believe, then he certainly ought to know the truth of that.So I think that the discrepancies are far more significant than you admit.

quote:

---

I think that I already answered this but I'll try again. Firstly we have Jesus quoted as saying only the Father knows. Jesus did not forecast a time of the end times, and yes some Christians have always been there to say that it is coming soon.

---

That is misleading. According to the Gospels Jesus knew that it was coming soon, but not the exact time.Mark 13 Not knowing “the day or hour” certainly does not rule out some knowledge of when it would happen - and within the lifetime of the disciples is certainly imprecise enough to be consistent with that language.

quote:

---

The quote from Jesus about it happening in the life times of some that were alive then is not about end times at all. It is His message denouncing violent revolution.

---

That is certainly not what the Gospels say:
Mark 13 Indeed Mark 13 is clearly referencing Daniel 7 - which is about a successful rebellion.

quote:

---

I agree with the first part and have stated that previously. Just how does Luke use Matthew if Matthew wasn't written first?

---

As I pointed out early in the conversation it is widely agreed that Matthew was written before Luke. That does not in any way require that Matthew was written before Mark - which is the real question.

quote:

---

It never was about an earthly throne. I just wrote a long answer to Tangle about the end time prophesies. I would add though that I don't believe that Jesus had supernatural knowledge about the future. Yes He predicted the war and what the Romans would do as a result.

---

I think that it was always about an earthly throne - certainly it was at the start. Besides your reply to Tangle completely leaves out the bit about God coming down and sorting the mess out. Or the bit about Heaven and Earth passing away later in the chapter. At least have the honesty to admit that they are there.

quote:

---

I agree that I overstated the case but we have the account of Peter denying Him and then this quote from John 20. However I pretty much agree with you

---

We also have the fact that there is no sign that the authorities were after them. None of them were arrested with Jesus. There is no mention of any of them getting into any trouble until quite a bit later and for other reasons. Even announcing the Resurrection - long after it supposedly happened - didn’t get any of them arrested.

quote:

---

I agree either Markan or Matthean priority necessarily exclude Q.

---

I hope you meant that “neither” exclude it because that is the obvious fact. It is silly to suggest otherwise.

quote:

---

It kinda does beg the question then of why Streeter would come up with his hypothesis by using Q when there is no mention of it in any document. It would have been foundational in the early church had it existed.

---

No it doesn’t. If you were familiar with Streeter’s arguments you would know that - and we have discussed 5 in this thread.Streeter felt that the evidence was against Luke using Matthew as a source. Another source, used by both was considered the best answer by Streeter and other scholars found his arguments persuasive,

quote:

---

There are two lines of thought on what Papias wrote. The first is that the translation of Papias is that he wrote in the Hebrew style which could mean that he wrote it in Greek but with Hebrew references. Secondly simply that it has been lost. My own opinion from reading all that I could find, is that he wrote initially in Aramaic with the local audience but very soon afterwards translated into Greek for a much broader audience.

---

I don’t find the first convincing at all. A style is not the same as a language. And any relationship between an Aramaic documents written by Matthew and the Gospel we have is purely conjectural.

quote:

---

I don't see why a very early Aramaic version would make a difference. Barton contends that it was available in Greek by 44AD.

---

Barton can claim what he likes, it is evidence that matters. What evidence links this lost document to the Gospel we have?

quote:

---

He talks about Q in Chap 8.

---

I know, I read it. It’s awful.

quote:

---

Here is the quote from Daniel 7.

---

Which does not mention a throne, simply stating that the “one like a son of man” (who is not the Messiah - likely intended to be Michael) would rule over the people of the Earth.

quote:

---

The Son of Man was a messianic term which Jesus used often. It might not use the word throne but if you have a kingdom you probably have a throne.

---

The one in Daniel is implicitly not even a Son of Man (and the term just means “human being”). And since the kingdom is earthly why should the throne not be earthly, too?

quote:

---

As I read the timeline He met them in Jerusalem and the told them to go to Galilee

---

Luke completely disagrees. In Luke the women met Jesus and told the Disciples. He did NOT say that the disciples should go to Galilee. Then Jesus met two on the road to Emmaus and told them to stay in Jerusalem until after Pentecost. And they are never told to go to Galilee - nor is there any mention of their going, even in Acts.
Your supposed analogy completely breaks down - the differences in the accounts are two great,

Yes, you’re correct. The message was delivered by angels.

quote:

---

That passage in Mark is about Jesus forecasting the destruction of the Temple as I have explained several times

---

You will note that despite being asked when the destruction will happen Jesus never actually mentions it in his reply - which leads me to conclude that it is not scheduled until the end of the events. Nevertheless as you can see the point is the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy.

quote:

---

Yes, but not an earthly rebellion

---

Learn some history GDR. The Maccabean Revolt was earthly, successful and led to the creation of the Hasmonean Kingdom which was quite successful (eg conquering Edom) until the Romans moved in.

quote:

---

If you notice in Daniel 7 Jesus is given dominion over all nations.

---

Jesus is not in Daniel 7. He wasn’t even born until after the events. The “one like a son of man” is more likely meant to be Michael.

quote:

---

He is making it clear that it isn't just about the Jews but for the whole world, so it can't be just a local rebellion

---

Which is how the Jews get (and keep) the privileged place they are assured of. God intervenes, the enemies of the Jews are defeated, there’s a new order in the world where the Jews have a special place. Try Zechariah 14:

quote:

---

That's true, and He was correct. The war happened with the temple being destroyed in 70AD. Also, again I'm not saying that Jesus had supernatural knowledge of the future. It was because He understood the political situation in Judea and was lobbying against violent revolution.

---

That’s not what it says. That’s why I quoted it.

quote:

---

Verse 14 first references Daniel 7. It then goes on to advise the Judeans to flee to the mountains. If this is about the end of the world why go the mountains. If hwoever Jerusalem is under siege that sounds like as good a place as any.

---

You obviously don’t understand the Jewish concept of the end times. Note of course that the “abomination” - pagan worship in the Temple - would be a massive provocation to the Jews. Jesus isn’t talking about just rebellion plots. Note also that it did not happen.As I pointed out the Jews did predict attacks on Jerusalem and much attendant suffering preceding the end times. But God would intervene - and Jesus alludes to that, to - and the Jews would come out on top. So there is reason to flee, but it’s not because of the coming end of the world (which isn’t destruction, simply the establishment of God’s rule - as in Daniel and Zechariah). But the end is still coming.Really, “it’s not about the end of the world because I only look about the parts before that” isn’t much of an argument. It’s certainly not an argument the someone who cares about the truth would make.