The Mark loop idea makes sense - it could explain the fishermen dropping everything . it's like their 5th lap. (This last thing I heard in other discussion)
So glad to hear a well respected and highly intelligent scholar reject the hypothetical Q source. One thing that is interesting to me is that if you look at the time and location that the mythicist argument was first introduced to the church you see that the Q hypothesis came about shortly thereafter. I think that the Q hypothesis was possibky developed as a way to try to claim there was another "independent source" which would clearly bolster the historicity arguments.
I'm not sure if Tabor's theory of Mark requires as improbable a coincidence as Carrier says it does. It's been demonstrated quite persuasively (as Carrier himself documents) that the author of Mark employs a chiasmic structure to his _entire_ narrative: the beginning matches the end, but also the second episode matches the second-to-last, the third matches the third-to-last, etc. So it would definitely be true that, if we knocked out the first and last episodes, the remainder would look like a perfectly coherent chiasmus. So the only coincidence is that the first episode is completely contained in the first page of the codex and the last episode is completely contained in the last page. How improbable is that, really? I don't know enough about ancient compositional practices to say.
The mood and tone of the end of Mark bears a close resemblance to the end of The Iliad. It's not the end of the whole play, but it is an appropriate, elegiac pause to close the curtain on the current act.
17:30 If there was a Q it would relieve a lot of headaches for a lot of people. But that's not the basis for hypothesizing there was a Q. The hypothesis has to result _from_ suggestive evidence, not the other way around. Hypothesizing a Q with no basis other than that it would provide certain answers related to the synoptic gospels is circular reasoning. The subsequent search for Q also risks confirmation bias. I'm not the expert but I suspect Matthew and Luke both knew each other's work, largely agreed, but held some slightly divergent views. Anything that is hypothesized to have come from Q could just as well have been made up by Matthew and Luke, and/or could have come from a number of random sources. In those first few decades there were probably many stories, and many people telling stories, about whom we know nothing because there were so few written records in the first place, and any that did exist didn't survive.
The impulse to invent a Q is the same as to invent a god. If we don't want Mark, Matthew, and Luke to have made it all up, we need Q to provide it for them to copy from. But that solves nothing, because then Q had to make it all up, instead. It is not necessary for Matthew to know Luke; it suffices for Luke to take some things from Matthew, and in other cases use Mark's original version where he likes it better, and make up whatever else he likes.
Dr Goodacre has built on the Ferrer hypothesis to effectively show that Q is completely unnecessary. Mathew used Mark and Luke/Acts used both Mathew and Mark.
I absolutely agree with your statement and what Dr. Goodacre points out. I think it is a Quazy idea. Even if we found such a document, it is just as likely if not more so, to be about some other guy and the gospel writers changed the name. (One might even consider the Illiad and the Odyssey in the same manner, where the material was rewritten to make it apply to Jesus. As Gilbert & Sullivan say in their Mikado: "Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.")
Imagine "scholars" a thousand years from now claiming there was an unknown O document which contained details about Oz, which L Frank Baum and later Ruth Plumly Thompson and others after Baum's death MUST have used because there is no way they could have all made this stuff up and have it match details.
Игры
![Eminem - The Death of Slim Shady [Album Trailer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X0HIrS6kUYI/mqdefault.jpg)
Great detective work by Dr, R.C. on the ending of Mark plus!
I love listening to carrier!!
Ditto! I often go back and re-listen to some of these videos.
The Mark loop idea makes sense - it could explain the fishermen dropping everything . it's like their 5th lap. (This last thing I heard in other discussion)
So glad to hear a well respected and highly intelligent scholar reject the hypothetical Q source.
One thing that is interesting to me is that if you look at the time and location that the mythicist argument was first introduced to the church you see that the Q hypothesis came about shortly thereafter. I think that the Q hypothesis was possibky developed as a way to try to claim there was another "independent source" which would clearly bolster the historicity arguments.
Agreed. It's really that simple.
Interesting observation - and explains a lot.
I'm not sure if Tabor's theory of Mark requires as improbable a coincidence as Carrier says it does. It's been demonstrated quite persuasively (as Carrier himself documents) that the author of Mark employs a chiasmic structure to his _entire_ narrative: the beginning matches the end, but also the second episode matches the second-to-last, the third matches the third-to-last, etc. So it would definitely be true that, if we knocked out the first and last episodes, the remainder would look like a perfectly coherent chiasmus. So the only coincidence is that the first episode is completely contained in the first page of the codex and the last episode is completely contained in the last page. How improbable is that, really? I don't know enough about ancient compositional practices to say.
The mood and tone of the end of Mark bears a close resemblance to the end of The Iliad. It's not the end of the whole play, but it is an appropriate, elegiac pause to close the curtain on the current act.
17:30 If there was a Q it would relieve a lot of headaches for a lot of people. But that's not the basis for hypothesizing there was a Q. The hypothesis has to result _from_ suggestive evidence, not the other way around. Hypothesizing a Q with no basis other than that it would provide certain answers related to the synoptic gospels is circular reasoning. The subsequent search for Q also risks confirmation bias.
I'm not the expert but I suspect Matthew and Luke both knew each other's work, largely agreed, but held some slightly divergent views.
Anything that is hypothesized to have come from Q could just as well have been made up by Matthew and Luke, and/or could have come from a number of random sources. In those first few decades there were probably many stories, and many people telling stories, about whom we know nothing because there were so few written records in the first place, and any that did exist didn't survive.
The impulse to invent a Q is the same as to invent a god. If we don't want Mark, Matthew, and Luke to have made it all up, we need Q to provide it for them to copy from. But that solves nothing, because then Q had to make it all up, instead.
It is not necessary for Matthew to know Luke; it suffices for Luke to take some things from Matthew, and in other cases use Mark's original version where he likes it better, and make up whatever else he likes.
Dr Goodacre has built on the Ferrer hypothesis to effectively show that Q is completely unnecessary. Mathew used Mark and Luke/Acts used both Mathew and Mark.
I absolutely agree with your statement and what Dr. Goodacre points out. I think it is a Quazy idea.
Even if we found such a document, it is just as likely if not more so, to be about some other guy and the gospel writers changed the name. (One might even consider the Illiad and the Odyssey in the same manner, where the material was rewritten to make it apply to Jesus. As Gilbert & Sullivan say in their Mikado: "Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.")
I would love to interview A.N Sherwin White. Ever heard of him?
Imagine "scholars" a thousand years from now claiming there was an unknown O document which contained details about Oz, which L Frank Baum and later Ruth Plumly Thompson and others after Baum's death MUST have used because there is no way they could have all made this stuff up and have it match details.
carrier top man