i think this discrepancy is rather interesting...

[Jayhawker Soule]

What does this mean?

It means precisely what it says. The hypothetical Q document would have had to have had it sources before 10 c.e.

When Jesus was younger than 14? Interesting ...

 

[waitasec]

no he was 10

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

no he was 10

Or under 17 ...

In its Nativity account, the Gospel of Matthew associates the birth of Jesus with the reign of Herod the Great, who is generally believed to have died around 4 BC/BCE. Matthew 2:1 states that: "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king" and Luke 1:5 mentions the reign of Herod shortly before the birth of Jesus. Matthew also suggests that Jesus may have been as much as two years old at the time of the visit of the Magi and hence even older at the time of Herod's death. But the author of Luke also describes the birth as taking place during the first census of the Roman provinces of Syria and Iudaea, which is generally believed to have occurred in 6 AD/CE. Most scholars generally assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC/BCE. Other scholars assume that Jesus was born sometime between 7–2 BC/BCE. [wiki]

In any event, sojourner's pre-10CE Q must have been a sparse and curious document indeed.

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, sorry. What I meant to say was 10 years following the crucifixion. That would place it about 40 c.e.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Such discrepancies I dismiss as typical human error. It's basic psychology that two people can see the same exact event, but have a completely different recollection of it.

It could also be said that two people can view the same event differently. So differently, that they are seeing two different events in the same time and space.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeah, sorry. What I meant to say was 10 years following the crucifixion. ...

Of course ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parenthetically, while pontificating on the date of Q it would be wise to remember that the text is hypothetical - sort of a Text of the Gaps. It may well be a very reasonable inference, but it is an inference, and people like Goodacre should not be thoughtlessly dismissed.

 

[sojourner]

Parenthetically, while pontificating on the date of Q it would be wise to remember that the text is hypothetical - sort of a Text of the Gaps. It may well be a very reasonable inference, but it is an inference, and people like Goodacre should not be thoughtlessly dismissed.

No one's dismissing Goodacre. But when it gets down to the brass tacks, ya gotta pick a camp and work within the assumptions of that camp. I'm firmly in the Q camp.

 

[waitasec]

i respect that...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No one's dismissing Goodacre. But when it gets down to the brass tacks, ya gotta pick a camp and work within the assumptions of that camp.

Why? What is it about Q that you "gotta" have? What conclusion do you draw that are dependent on Q?

I'm curious: where do you find Goodacre and Farrer weak?

 

[sojourner]

Why? What is it about Q that you "gotta" have? What conclusion do you draw that are dependent on Q?

I'm curious: where do you find Goodacre and Farrer weak?

Assuming that Q existed, it likely either existed in oral form only, or in some written form that was not permanent, such as wax tablets. The "Galilean" nature of Q suggests that it might not have been written. This is conspicuously consistent with the theory that the synoptics were originally oral stories before being written down. Q solves the problem of widely disparate texts having some common source -- especially given their times and probable places of origin. Its existence also solves some conundrums with Thomas.

In Kloppenborg's treatment of a "reconstitution" of Q, we find a document of quotations, similar to Thomas. It reads very well, for something that "never existed."

I've not read enough Goodacre and Farrer to comment knowledgeably.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Q solves the problem of widely disparate texts having some common source -- especially given their times and probable places of origin.

Conveniently so.

In Kloppenborg's treatment of a "reconstitution" of Q, we find a document of quotations, similar to Thomas. It reads very well, for something that "never existed."

So does a good deal of historical fiction. That an intentional and informed reconstitution reads well is less than compelling.

I've not read enough Goodacre and Farrer to comment knowledgeably.

"Enough"?

You promote Q as fact yet have never studied the informed arguments against it. That's remarkable.

 

[sojourner]

Conveniently so.

since we don't have the smoking gun, I find it decidedly inconvenient.

So does a good deal of historical fiction.

Oh! you mean, like the rest of the bible.

That an intentional and informed reconstitution reads well is less than compelling.

So... the bible, as a whole, isn't an intentional and informed construction???

You promote Q as fact yet have never studied the informed arguments against it. That's remarkable.

No. I assume Q as the most plausible theory. That you, Jayhawker, have missed the distinction is ... remarkable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No. I assume Q as the most plausible theory. That you, Jayhawker, have missed the distinction is ... remarkable.

The distinction being missed is that between informed assumptions and ignorant ones.

 

[sojourner]

The distinction being missed is that between informed assumptions and ignorant ones.

Sorry. I didn't realize you thought you were ignorant on that matter.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You promote Q as fact yet have never studied the informed arguments against it. That's remarkable.

No. I assume Q as the most plausible theory. That you, Jayhawker, have missed the distinction is ... remarkable.

The distinction being missed is that between informed assumptions and ignorant ones.

Sorry. I didn't realize you thought you were ignorant on that matter.

Sorry indeed: 'I know you are but what am I' is a petty retort best left to pre-pubescent children. That you think it clever is rather remarkable.

 

[waitasec]

it takes one to know one....

 

[sojourner]

Verbosity is poor camouflage for the obvious...