Why no other evidence of the massacre of the babies?

Post by **_TK** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:02 pm

MC--

excellent-- thx for the research. very interesting!

TK

Post by **_jackal** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:06 am

Paidion wrote:JC, it is indeed questionable that a document "Q" ever existed. It's supposed existence is based entirely on a theory.

The following site can provide some reading for you on the topic:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-exist.html

And the conclusion of the article you cite states:

I do not pretend to have achieved a certainty but only a probability in favor of the Q hypothesis. Perhaps each of these arguments are surmountable, but each points in a certain direction, and the cumulative force of these arguments lead me to favor the Q hypothesis as the best explanation of the synoptic data. The presence of the minor agreements is the only one very serious argument against the Q hypothesis, and it has been successfully addressed in detail by writers from Streeter to Neirynck. An assessment of the totality of the evidence indicates a balance in favor of the Q hypothesis, and thus it is my working hypothesis.

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:02 am

Jackal, I had read the final paragraph of the article before I offerered it.

It seems that you pre-supposed that I was bringing forth an article which would indicate that "Q" never existed. That was not the case. JC seemed to indicate a need for more information on the subject. I offered it.

Post by **_jackal** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:37 am

Paidion wrote:Jackal, I had read the final paragraph of the article before I offerered it.

It seems that you pre-supposed that I was bringing forth an article which would indicate that "Q" never existed. That was not the case. JC seemed to indicate a need for more information on the subject. I offered it.

When you prefaced your cite with, "it is indeed questionable that a document "Q" ever existed", you created an impression that the theory was doubful. Conversely, even though there is evidence both ways, the author of the article you cited instead concludes that the evidence supporting the theory is stronger and that the theory is more likely than not to be valid.

Post by **_jackal** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:54 am

JC wrote:jackal, can you tell me where I can get a copy of this "Q" document because I've never seen it. I have, however, seen copies of the synoptics so perhaps (using your own standard) the document titled "Q" never existed.

Ironically, you are willing to accept the existance of a 1st century autograph of an eyewitness, even though the best that historians have are 3d century manuscripts, from which they assume are copies and infer the existance of 1st century autographs. It appears you have a double standard. On one hand you are willing to accept inferences as to the existance of some 1st century documents when they support your dogma and theology, but totally reject any inferences, regardless of the supporting evidence, for those that do not.

There isn't a shred of evidence it ever existed and no, the opinions of the Jesus Seminar don't count as evidence.

Likewise, there isn't a shred of evidence of the existance of any 1st century gospels. And, yes, the earlist evidence does support the existance of an early "sayings" gospel. And I never mentioned the Jesus Seminar. No need to.

As far as liberal scholars, yes I most definitely include the Roman Catholic church in that camp.

.

You seem to be equivocating. On one hand, you seem to infer that "liberal" scholars are biased as anti-christian and out to disprove the existance of Jesus, yet, simply because the RCC accepts the liklihood of the two-source hypothesis, you automatically group them as liberal. Last I heard, the RCC was not trying to disprove Jesus or anything in the bible.

I'm not anything close to an authority when it comes to archeology but I've read accounts contradicting the one you posted. Since this is not my field, I'll defer to the experts. The problem is... the experts don't agree.

Can you cite an authority who presents archaeological evidence, pottery shards or the like, dating to the first century in bethlehem, rather than just assumes that Bethlehem existed as a small hamlet because of the lack of any evidence?

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:40 pm

When you prefaced your cite with, "it is indeed questionable that a document "Q" ever existed", you created an impression that the theory was doubful

It IS doubtful!

But that is irrelevant to the reason I posted the website address.

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:33 am

Jackal,

Is the existence of bethlehem during the time of the gospels mentioning of Jesus' birth questionable, not likely, or is it certain that it did not exist? Could you please present in an undeniable statement what it is that you think, especially in light of Mort_Coyle's presented material? Thanks

Post by **_jackal** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:58 am

SoaringEagle wrote:Jackal,

Is the existence of bethlehem during the time of the gospels mentioning of Jesus' birth questionable, not likely, or is it certain that it did not exist? Could you please present in an undeniable statement what it is that you think, especially in light of Mort_Coyle's presented material? Thanks

I would have to say that during the Hasmonian, Herodian and early Roman period, that it was not likely that Bethlehem existed. Despite several searches, no archaeological evidence of that period has been found. It would be hard to believe that the residents of even a small town never broke or discarded a pot or jar for hundreds of years.

And nothing Mort Coyle presented refutes this. His argument is based on accounts of Bethlehem in the old testament, including of David, Rachel, etc, taken from the books of Genesis, Judges, 1 Samuel, 1 & 2 Chronicles, etc. But the setting of all these books are either before or during the babylonian exile. In my earlier post, I acknowledged that an earlier Bethlehem had existed in the early Iron Age, and that archaeologists had found many aritifacts from that period. So, Mort Coyle's evidence of that period is not germane or relevant. The archaeological evidence, or lack thereof, indicates that this early Bethlehem was abandoned around or shortly after the exile, and did not exist during the early Roman period. All that Mort Coyle has to say of that period is, "I'm not sure which reports you've been reading because it is well established that Bethlehem was an inhabited location in the 1st century A.D. " without anything more.

Post by **_jackal** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:15 am

Paidion wrote: It IS doubtful!

The article you provide disagrees with you.

But that is irrelevant to the reason I posted the website address.

You had said you provided it to give some background on the subject. That article gives a thorough and objective discussion on both the pro and con evidence and arguments on the Q hypothesis, and in the end, reasonably concludes that Q, more likely than not, existed. Is that the background you were trying to provide?

Post by **_Paidion** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:18 am

The article you provide disagrees with you.

It doesn't show that the proposition that Q did not exist, is not doubtful.
The author did not state that this proposition is not doubtful. He stated:

"I do not pretend to have achieved a certainty but only a probability in favor of the Q hypothesis."

Any proposition that is not certain, is doubtful. The author's achievement of "a probability in favor of the Q hypothesis" tells us only that his confidence that the hypothesis is true is greater than 50%. My own degree of confidence is less than 50%. But that doesn't imply that the author of the article "disagrees" with me.