They both share the idea that Q could not be necessarly a complete Gospel. Bart defines Q as “material shared by Matthew and Luke that is not also found in Mark.”
If I am not mistaken, Bart raises the question about the sequence in Mark’s narrative that would be at odds with the stories that are not found in it but Matthew or Luke. He asks why on earth an author would choose such an errand way to compile his work.
Bart Ehrman does not think that the existence of Q implies that its material is historically reliable. On the other hand, he seems thinking that Q contains sayings that Jesus said, using the criterion of independent attestation. And the criteria of analysis of the phrases used, that could not possibly be made up by early Christians. And the fact that they fit the narrative of Jesus beginning His public office.
Bart Ehrman said that after Paul’s lost letters, Q would be the next document he dreams to find.
Ian Mills takes a different stand. He goes for Ockham’s razor, he pushes for a simpler explanation of the common passages and common themes. He moved from the two source theory, and then ended up shifting to the other side. He thinks his research is gonna keep moving that way.
But, as far as dreams are concerned, they would both be attracted to their repetitive feel-good delusions.
Robert, where are you on this?
Halfway between Bart and Ian?
Since you say they are diametrically opposed, what are the planks leading to Bart’s conclusion and the planks leading to Ian’s conclusion?
Whose line of reasoning is more persuasive?
I will have to watch this whole video again. With Ian’s educational background and credentials, I thought he was in the “most critical scholars” camp.
Is it because if one takes the New Testament Criticism track vs. the Second Century Christianity track, one is likely to be on a certain side of this argument.
Robert
Whereas most 2/4-source scholars believe that Q was predominantly a sayings-source and did NOT contain a passion narrative, Bart refuses to accept this and thinks that Q could have contained a passion narrative. Thus, for Bart, Q could be more like what we commonly consider to be a full gospel. See ** you do not have permission to see this link **, and elsewhere.
Steefen
So Bart is not always a member of your “most critical scholars” team.
The following statement is not my final position in stone:
Since there is no historical Jesus in the 20s CE
Since Saul’s Conversion Vision was not a 3-month course on how to develop a Christology
Since the authentic Pauline letters are light on biographical information about the Biblical Jesus
Paul invented Jesus
The authentic letters of Paul is the Oral Tradition
That Oral Tradition, that Christology, needed a plot narrative.
A biography is created for the Pauline Christology.
Now, what came first? Q or Mark?
I am going to say, Mark, then Q, then Matthew, then Luke, then John.
It is possible the propaganda was assigned to multiple writers–say, Mark and Mr. Q.
Then there was a second round of writing to improve on Mark and Mr. Q.
Then we get Matthew and Luke.
Then, after Emperor Titus died and Domitian became emperor, a third round of writing was challenged and we got John.
Robert said Whereas most 2/4-source scholars believe that Q was predominantly a sayings-source and did NOT contain a passion narrative, Bart refuses to accept this and thinks that Q could have contained a passion narrative. Thus, for Bart, Q could be more like what we commonly consider to be a full gospel. See ** you do not have permission to see this link **, and elsewhere.
The more narrative that gets added to Q, the more Mark/Q overlap thats allowed and the nearer Q gets to being a full gospel, the more Q starts to look like Matthew.
From the links provided.
“My view is that we can’t know whether this document copied by Matthew and Luke had a passion narrative. How could we know, really?”
“We cannot know the full contents of Q […]”
“[…] How many others did Q narrate? Unfortunately, despite the extravagant claims of some scholars, we simply cannot know.”
“We cannot know the full contents of Q […]”
“At this stage I should simply re-emphasize that despite the exuberant claims of some scholars, we cannot know the full contents of Q, because the document has been lost.”
From my source:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“Notwithstanding the extravagant claims of some scholars, we simply do not know the full extent or character of Q. It is probably best for methodological purposes to define it strictly as -material shared by Matthew and Luke that is not also found in Mark.-“
I don’t know how to reconcile your statement “Thus, for Bart, Q could be more like what we commonly consider to be a full gospel.” with the data provided and in circulation. The use of “thus” as a logical implication of some argumentation, in your phrase, on the other hand, could be read as a sign of poor judgment and a lack of reasoning.
Robert
Both positions are valid hypotheses and variations of both could both be partly true. The Q hypothesis used to be followed by the great majority of NT scholars, but Mark Goodacre (Ian’s doctoral promoter at Duke) has done a superb job of challenging the Q hypothesis in favor of the Farrer model, which posits Luke’s direct dependence upon Matthew to explain the double tradition (material that is found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark). Bart characterizes the majority as still following the Q hypothesis, but this can no longer be assumed.
Steefen
Thank you. Do you recall a Ehrman-Goodacre debate or anything?
“That’s all I’m saying.”
It’s all you’re saying, now. But you must distinguish between the intention of the author and the intention of the text.
The following up clarification goes with your intention, not what the text points to.
The moment you pinned the “clarification” to my phrase, and that one only, already the text started to talk by itself and generate meanings. Meanings not necessarily in tune with your feelings or will.
The statement you pinned was the intro and gathered what I felt were the commonalities between Bart and Ian. What in Math is called the lowest common denominator. So any other information or specification you added later won’t work since if you add more you will not have a minimum ground they both shared.
Umberto Eco’s theory of textual cooperation gives to the reader an essential role in the process of constructing meaning. Only the reader fills in the many gaps in the text, which is never completely understandable, not even the author.
You can’t go back into the past driving your DeLorean trying to make it up with your words.
That’s why people like Trump should not be on Twitter.
P.S.
Since the text was supposed to be a comment on @Steefen “I do not think he is saying anything Prof. Ehrman would not say,” I conceived the structure of the text being:
1) Shared common ground
2) Bart position on Q
3) Ian simple approach on Q
4) the Last statement on Ian’s wishes (3) and Bart’s dreams recalled in (2).
@Robert: “The text itself is inanimate–it has no intention apart from that intended by its author or imagined by its reader. “
This is completely wrong and doesn’t take into accounts all the work done on semiotics in the past century.
@Robert: “Ian does not even believe that Q existed so it seems rather silly to discuss […]”
Here is the transcript of the video starting from minutes 2:44:
“[…] With just saying so to speak it could have been like the same way Mark might be using Hebrew scripture they’re using something maybe else but it’s not a gospel source right well the key source is so this there’s 220, some, it’s 220 some verses, uh, between Matthew and Luke where we have high verbatim agreements, um, and it’s mostly sayings material, um, the narrative introductions for these sayings, um, this sort of most of the miracles and stuff isn’t double tradition, um, it’s mostly saying’s material.”
Ian talks about this shared material and uses exactly the same words as Bart “[…] material shared by Matthew and Luke that is not also found in Mark.” even if doesn’t call it Q.
I said: “Ian Mills takes a different stand. He goes for Ockham’s razor, he pushes for a simpler explanation of the common passages and common themes. He moved from the two source theory, and then ended up shifting to the other side. He thinks his research is gonna keep moving that way,” so I acknowledge he is on the other side.
It’s not the first time you put into other people’s mouths things they didn’t say.
For instance, you didn’t provide any reference where Bart states that Q “is a complete gospel,” that would make the conversation interesting.
But not only that, you didn’t provide any wording of Bart where he is stating that “it could be a complete gospel.”
You keep on saying it over and over, so what?
Repeating it doesn’t make it true. And most things could be, as could not be.
You could take an entire bottle of laxative if you couldn’t find the cough syrup.
@Robert: “The text itself is inanimate–it has no intention apart from that intended by its author or imagined by its reader. “
I’m going to respond to that, first.
The reception theory was born in Germany from Jauss and Iser. It exalts the moment of the reading. But not to relativize any interpretation, but to see its basis in the activity of the subjects who read. Jauss introduces two primitive topics: how to overcome the subjectivism of reading and how to recognize, on a historical level, the methods of reception. He introduces the concepts of the implicit author and reader that will then be developed by Umberto Eco. His interest – and what he believes the task of criticism to be – is to reason about the effects that a text can produce in the reader, knowing that it implies a whole series of possible readings.
We need, for beginning, to analyze the relationship between the author, the reader, and the text (intentio auctoris, intentio lectoris, intentio operis).
So we realize few intensions:
- to find in the text what it says regardless of the author’s intentions, discarding the intentio auctoris;
- to search in the text for what the recipient finds in reference to his own systems of signification and not in reference to his desires, drives, “arbitrio” (intentio lectoris)
- to look in the text for what it says in reference to its own contextual coherence and to the situation of the systems of signification to which it refers (intentio operis)
According to Umberto Eco, to interpret the text one must not start from the author’s life, from what he thought when he wrote (intentio auctoris). It is only within the text (intentio operis) that what the recipient finds in reference to his own systems of signification and in reference to his own arbitrators, desires, signification must be explored.
Since you used Bart’s alleged extra text consideration on his intents to impose them on the wording I felt to highlight that the intentio auctoris is irrelevant.
Also the “or imagined by its reader,” brings any arbitrary meaning in the scope while even the reader has his own limits in the interpretation.
Your liberalism in choosing arguments seems more like libertinism to me.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)