Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"?

[Peter Kirby]

Also, let's notice here, in gMark, the "tribulation" in the one happening "in those days" (of Jerusalem destruction)

Mar 13:17 And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
Mar 13:18 Pray that it may not happen in winter.
Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.
Mar 13:20 And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.

But in gMatthew, the "great tribulation" is not associated to the prior "in those days" (of Jerusalem destruction), but instead, subsequent of the events of 70.

Mat 24:19 And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
Mat 24:20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a sabbath.
Mat 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.
Mat 24:22 And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

Thanks for this, though. This is actually a useful contribution.

[Bernard Muller]

And this is why nobody here really cares about your opinions or your website. Overly specific, overly certain, overstated... and we're just over it. The only way someone is going to agree with all your specific "conclusions" is if they were some kind of fan, but we are not generally given to being fans just by the mere fact that we are here on a forum giving our own opinions. The way that you stump your website constantly and rarely engage the issues on the basis of evidence and analysis actually presented by you on the forum, or specific comment uniquely engaging the person to whom you are replying, is the major part of the explanation for the lack of constructive engagement that you get here in return. It would be easier to overlook how un-'demonstrated' your stuff is, if your presence were more than just that of a self-linking pontificator.

Well, I said it as I feel it. Why should I engage in time consuming piece meal argumentation when I have a webpage which fully addresses already coherently all the issues about Q? With tons of evidence and arguments which would be very much too long to display on this thread.
I am not going to spend my time on these issues because most, if not all, on this board, have made their mind against a somewhat conventional position for Q. And I know there will not attempt to read my webpage. So why did I post it? Just to show why I claimed on Q can be demonstrated and it is readily available. That would answer:

So if you posit some/any written sources, the hypothetical nature of Q isn't a strong argument, whichever way you spin it.

And contrary to many members of this board, I am engaged, after years of study, with firm conclusions. I cannot deny that.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

So can I point to Kloppenborg or Christopher Tuckett instead for much better and actually-conventional presentations of the Q hypothesis? From people who know Greek and sometimes also Aramaic? (No, I forgot, you don't have to know either Greek or Aramaic to reach a firm and certain independent conclusion about a lost ancient hypothetical document being written in both.)

Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel
http://www.amazon.com/Excavating-Histor ... ppenborg+q

Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q
http://www.amazon.com/History-Early-Chr ... =tuckett+q

There's no need to go scrounging around on your website. Klopp in particular has made his whole career out of this, but there's Tuckett too if you hate his stratification hypothesis.

[Bernard Muller]

So can I point to Kloppenborg or Christopher Tuckett instead for much better and actually-conventional presentations of the Q hypothesis? From people who know Greek and sometimes also Aramaic? (No, I forgot, you don't have to know either Greek or Aramaic to reach a firm and certain independent conclusion about a lost ancient hypothetical document being written in both.)

Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel
http://www.amazon.com/Excavating-Histor ... ppenborg+q

Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q
http://www.amazon.com/History-Early-Chr ... =tuckett+q

There's no need to go scrounging around on your website. Klopp in particular has made his whole career out of this, but there's Tuckett too if you hate his stratification hypothesis.

TYPICAL: two scholars who opposed each other on an important point of Q.
BTW, Klopp has changed his initial position on stratification in the past. This is what I wrote on my webpage on Q:
>> c) Scholars who are separating "Q" in different strata (acknowledging parts of "Q" as late) do not agree with each other (and have many critics!), coming up with different "solutions". One of those, John Kloppenborg, probably the best known in this field, considerably changed his "model" and acknowledged candidly: "I might say at this point that I regard my stratigraphic proposals in Formation [of Q] and ExQ ['Excavating Q'] as interesting bits of guesswork, like Pentateuchal criticism. If it actually helps clarify the final state of the text, fine. If it doesn't, drop it. If another model comes along to make better sense of the text, then drop or modify my model. We are playing a heuristic game here, not trying to recreate the composition process; that, epistemologically, is completely beyond our capabilities." (Synoptic-S, On-line Seminar, Oct. 2000) <<
I think he was rather clueless and involved in guesswork. I don't know where he is at now about Q.

I also notice their books are only available by buying them. My webpage on Q is free of charge & available with one click of the mouse.

From people who know Greek and sometimes also Aramaic? (No, I forgot, you don't have to know either Greek or Aramaic to reach a firm and certain independent conclusion about a lost ancient hypothetical document being written in both.)

I relied on Aramaic literates for that conclusion, which is very secondary in my work. I did not make much from it, excepts about the analogy with what Papias stated regarding Matthew's logias.

There's no need to go scrounging around on your website. Klopp in particular has made his whole career out of this, but there's Tuckett too if you hate his stratification hypothesis.

Yes, you can buy many books about Q , and because of the divergent learned (and sometimes shifting) opinion of scholars, be totally confused. Another way is to investigate the textual evidence with an open mind. This is what I did and took the trouble to explain it on the web (and not requiring scrounging from anyone), for people with also an open mind. (unfortunately, many prefer not to learn about different conclusions than theirs, even if these later are readily available and justified through evidence & arguments).
I got that comment from a reader: "... the eloquent cases you make for a later (and real) 'Q', 'Thomas' and the like have given me pause over taking John Crossan's opinions as the last word ... I really think you are closer to disentangling the NT mess than most."

BTW, I am not saying my work is above criticism and, in the past, on this forum, when a passage of my website has been contested, I never adopted a haughty attitude (=I am right, so you are wrong). Instead I took the engagement fairly coolly, discussing the evidence and argumentation for each side.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

So... don't waste money reading books that contradict each other when you can just come and get a consistent narrative by reading 1 obscure one-man website. Seems legit.

You're misreading Kloppenborg's statement of honest hues of doubt in the face of vociferous criticism as backpedaling. Perhaps Kloppenborg's nuanced position is incomprehensible to you, who doesn't attract much serious interest and feels no pressure whatsoever to quailify statements ... both for reasons of not engaging in a critical dialogue at a high level of sophistication and just not being smart enough to know how good your evidence really is and the the limits of precision within reason.

[Bernard Muller]

So... don't waste money reading books that contradict each other when you can just come and get a consistent narrative by reading 1 obscure one-man website. Seems legit.

Most of these scholars wrote one-man books. And I got many thousands who have hit my page on Q. Maybe not so obscure.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

So... don't waste money reading books that contradict each other when you can just come and get a consistent narrative by reading 1 obscure one-man website. Seems legit.

Most of these scholars wrote one-man books. And I got many thousands who have hit my page on Q. Maybe not so obscure.

Your website contradicts the other websites and the books as well. You get no points in edgewise over the scholars who contradict each other. Everyone contradicts each other. Even you. You do not stand alone outside the world, looking in and rendering final judgment. Nobody does. (You are, essentially, pretending to be God omniscient.)

As for what smart people do who want to reach the best critical conclusions, they read people who contradict each other. But instead of being confused and running away scared (the attitude of a stupid person, perhaps?), they feed on that dialectic and use the varying perspectives to extract the evidence and argument that they find the most convincing. And if anyone finds only one person to have all that, for a big and complex and ambiguous subject like this, I guarantee you that such a person is a dribbling moron. Have you really thought through the implications of your hypothetical fanbase that goes straight to you for all the real answers? How retarded are they? (That is, if they exist as such... at least that guy read a little Crossan too... hope he didn't get too "confused" by it right? .... )

The point here is that you can make a not-so-1-man review of literature (and, more importantly, the nuggets of evidence and argument that might be reasonably contained therein) by reading more than one man (and women!). And only a moron does not. Even you have benefited from your travels through literature, though you rebel against it and fraudulently claim your intellectual product as your exclusive, Herculean invention. Shouldn't your readers?

[Bernard Muller]

Your website contradicts the other websites and the books as well. You get no points in edgewise over the scholars who contradict each other. Everyone contradicts each other. Even you. You do not stand alone outside the world, looking in and rendering final judgment. Nobody does. (You are, essentially, pretending to be God omniscient.)

Of course, I contradict other parts (or whole) of the content of other websites and the books. What did you expect? Here is an example: if I consult four doctors about some ailment of mine, and I get four different diagnostics, the natural thing to do would be for me (even if at the start I do not know much about medicine) to start my own research in order to determine the cause of my pain.
Many discoveries have been made by someone observing the confusion in a particular field, or conclusions which do no fit the evidence or seem too far fetched, etc., etc., and then try by himself to find the solution.

As for what smart people do who want to reach the best critical conclusions, they read people who contradict each other. But instead of being confused and running away scared (the attitude of a stupid person, perhaps?), they feed on that dialectic and use the varying perspectives to extract the evidence and argument that they find the most convincing.

Great, but why not look at and study the evidence by yourself first, and then learn what others have to say on the matter. Reading dozen of books is very much time consuming and will dull the mind, which may prevent you to think on your own. And let's face it, people are going to read the books which they think are going to support their own ideas.

And if anyone finds only one person to have all that, for a big and complex and ambiguous subject like this, I guarantee you that such a person is a dribbling moron.

In other fields, as complex & ambiguous, if someone brings an all encompassing well-documented credible solution, he is considered a smart person. But here, you are a moron, despite the years of research you put into it.

Have you really thought through the implications of your hypothetical fanbase that goes straight to you for all the real answers? How retarded are they? (That is, if they exist as such... at least that guy read a little Crossan too... hope he didn't get too "confused" by it right? .... )

Some of my readers who contacted me, said they read other books with their theories: These are some of their comments:
* "Partly I was amazed because, in the three or four years now that I have been 'seriously' (as an amateur) looking into NT apologetics, in print and (more cautiously) on the web, I only came across your website a few days ago. I feel I have wasted much time and energy piecing ideas together from my own readings, when you have done such a thorough job already!
... these years have given me an appreciation of the work you must have put in, both in painstakingly reading, re-reading and comparing, as well as scrupulously arranging your material into coherent topics and valid conclusions.
So this sums up my second amazement, which is my real joy at seeing the elegant, lucid and compelling arguments you make - 'arguments' is almost the wrong word: since you rely so much on primary sources to tell the story, your own interpretations are almost unnecessary. The texts, when arranged and compared as you do, reveal their secrets quite readily for those with eyes to see. I ... had cause to laugh out loud in pleasure at the novel (to me anyway) but straightforward and undeniable conclusions that your patient research has yielded.
And for this, I thank you.
another one:
"I visited your website and found it quite thorough and informative ... I thought that your comments at your site regarding the beginning of Christianity, proto-Christianity, and the later date for Acts, and its problems of continuity with 'Luke' and 'Luke's' discontinuity with the rest of the Gospels to be accurate observations that have been made by many scholars. Excellent stuff. ...
I realize English is not your native tongue, but I do hope someone sometime will re-edit your articles or utilize them in their own work, since they contain some excellent observations."
another one:
... I shall sign off there. Once again, let me register my deep admiration and appreciation for your wonderful work, which is at the same time so unlike any of the other Jesus resources available on the web, and so reassuringly transparent despite the obvious weight of reading and careful scholarship behind it."
and another one:
"... I found your site a few years ago and was very impressed. I remember it being one of the best "historical Jesus" sites I've seen on the web... And I think you've come up with one of the most plausible reconstructions of a possible historical Jesus that I've seen ....

The point here is that you can make a not-so-1-man review of literature (and, more importantly, the nuggets of evidence and argument that might be reasonably contained therein) by reading more than one man (and women!).

Why do you think my readers did not read other texts on the same topic?

And only a moron does not. Even you have benefited from your travels through literature, though you rebel against it and fraudulently claim your intellectual product as your exclusive, Herculean invention. Shouldn't your readers?

Do you think I can prevent my readers to read other material? I cannot and if I could, I would not ask them that.
And on my overall title, I wrote; "Jesus, a historical reconstruction" and not "Jesus, the historical reconstruction". Not like Carrier, who for some time in the past, claimed his mythicist theory, when published, would be the only one valid and the others should be trashed (he does not say that anymore).

claim your intellectual product as your exclusive, Herculean invention

I did not claim that: I even favorably included quotes from scholars in my website, yes even from Doherty & Carrier.
If someone got the same well argued conclusion of the same topic, and I know about it, I am most eager to put them in front, which I did (in my introduction webpage, I wrote "Some elements have already been reported by others."). Furthermore, this is not really a one-man product. Because of the occasional criticism from some of my readers, I had to make some corrections or clarifications. So these readers contributed indirectly to my website.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

What did you expect?

Too much, apparently. Never mind. Wonderful website. Bravo. ... Let's shut down the forum, kids. We got a tripleplusgood website!!

In other fields, as complex & ambiguous, if someone brings an all encompassing well-documented credible solution, he is considered a smart person.

Sometimes. Or sometimes he is recognized as someone who spent a long time talking about "well-documented, credible" fantasies about the sunken kingdom of Atlantis.

"Jesus, a historical reconstruction" and not "Jesus, the historical reconstruction"

... and there's my point, if taken to its logical conclusion, which is that you'd get more engagement here giving up this implicit request for adulation of you, your opinions, and your website. By talking out ideas instead of linking them, or realizing that linking is not a substitute for engaging in conversation. And recognizing all the leaps of speculation -- or just a lot, lot more of them -- made that are """demonstrated""" on your website.

[Bernard Muller]

Sometimes. Or sometimes he is recognized as someone who spent a long time talking about "well-documented, credible" fantasies about the sunken kingdom of Atlantis.

But looking at the evidence, starting by Plato, the origin of it, any fantasies about Atlantis fall to the ground very quickly.
Usually these far-fetched fantasies are made up to sell books. I did not write my website in order to make money.

... and there's my point, if taken to its logical conclusion, which is that you'd get more engagement here giving up this implicit request for adulation of you, your opinions, and your website. By talking out ideas instead of linking them, or realizing that linking is not a substitute for engaging in conversation. And recognizing all the leaps of speculation -- or just a lot, lot more of them -- made that are """demonstrated""" on your website.

I am a very modest person. I am not looking for adulation of me, my opinions or my website. Sure, some of the feedback from my readers came up very enthusiastic (making them seemingly adulating me), but that's beyond my control. And I did not get or ask for anything more from them. And some of the feedback was rather negative.
I explained already why I would provide links to my website. But there are many cases, as demonstrated on this forum, I got engaged in a long conversation on a particular issue.
Leap of speculations? That's what I have tried to avoid by taking great pain into justifying all my points. I discussed many times here what others thought were speculations. Where do you think I speculate without justifying my conclusions? A speculation ceases to be just that if you can "demonstrate" with evidence it is probably true.

Cordially, Bernard