I love Holding's lack of logic.

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_04.html


'No one has ever found an original copy of "Q" (though it may have existed, and its existence is not antithetical to even a conservative view of the NT) or of any of its "layers" which are supposed to have existed as well, according to some of our most recent theorists.

and Holding quotes Miller 'Remember, we have NO ARCHEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL DATA WHATSOEVER that supports the BELIEF of 'layers'. When the NT manuscripts appear in the digs, they are FULLY FORMED as they are today (read: "NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS"!). This MUST be understood.'

and Holding writes about supposed documents before our Gospels in their current forms '... our evidence is too vague to support any definite conclusions:'

But does Holding listen to himself?

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02_MT.html

'The evidence points to an original document of some sort in Aramaic, and to a later work (perhaps a translation, but more likely a work "from scratch" by a man competent in both Aramaic and Greek) which equates with our present Gospel of Matthew which may or may not have been influenced by Mark. '

All of a sudden , we have evidence of other documents before Matthew!

Holding continues 'The "shared material" in Matthew and Luke (assuming here, for the sake of argument only, the veracity of the two-source hypothesis) seems to point towards a sort of notebook put together by Matthew which was distributed among the apostles. '

Where is this notebook, Holding? Have you ever seen a copy?

How come the evidence is too vague in one of your articles and then you pile speculation upon speculation in another article about notebooks, translations, reworked documents, two 'editions' of Matthew (one in Aramaic, when there is not ONE Aramaic Christian document from the first century - everything is in Greek), etc etc.


Holding writes in one article 'The truth is that Matthew could in no way have had a copy of Mark "at his elbow" to copy it.'

and in the other 'In this situation, he argues, a well-known Greek text like Mark would be in a position to exercise literary influence on Matthew.'

So JP (IIM) Holding ridicules dependence when it suits him to say that and argues for it when it suits him to say that, and is undecided 'may or may not have been influenced by Mark), when it suits him to say that .


But such is Christian apologetics......


But where are the Aramaic documents from the first-century, Holding? Where are these notebooks?

Holding writes in one and the same article

'Since the authority of Peter was behind Mark's Gospel, it would be a case of Matthew borrowing from Peter - not Mark. As part of the inner circle of apostles, Peter would have outranked Matthew -- and he would not be borrowing from Mark, thus solving the problem of borrowing from a non-apostle.'

and later

'The apostles were concerned with spreading the message, not reaping royalties and glory from footnotes and attributions; and France adds this caution [Fran.MET, 74]:

...the notion that an apostle would regard himself as somehow a class apart from ordinary mortals shows just how far we have moved away from the value-scale which Jesus himself inculcated into Matthew and his colleagues!'

So there was an inner rank of apostles, and there would have been a problem of borrowing from a non-apostle, yet Holding also says that the apostles did not regard themslves as a class apart from non-apostles and the whole value scale inculcated by Jesus makes talk of one apostle outranking somebody else ridiculous.

Holding claims everybody knew that borrowing from Mark's Gospel could be somehow attributed to borrowing from Peter, but the apostles were not concerned with attribution.

Truly, JP (IIM) Holding will argue out of both sides of his mouth at once.

Steven, sorry, I don't quite understand your post. Which statement of Holding's do you think is wrong? You don't actually say.

GDon,

Stevie is showing his usual lack of critical thinking skills. He thinks a document that is a theoretical construction (Q), with no attestation of any sort, is comparable to:

- a document that has been attested by witnesses to have existed in another language, which happened also to be the language of the featured character(s) -- (i.e., Matthew)

- a document that would have reflected normal scribal practices of the peiod (i.e., notebooks)

In other words, he just sees "no document extant" in both cases and assumes that all the same contextual markers apply. Just like if he finds one case of oral tradition not working to preserve accuracy, that means ALL oral tradition, all over the world and through time, is inaccurate. It's just force of habit.

He also apparently thinks France's comments about "ordinary mortals" somehow means there were not distinctions in regard within the apostolic circle, but it's hard to tell, since the second message is quite nearly incoherent.

I think he and skepticbud have been sharing beer.

Jimbo's Personal Heckling and Ranting Thread

04-23-2003 @ 04:46 PM post located here
GakuseiDon:

Steven, sorry, I don't quite understand your post. Which statement of Holding's do you think is wrong? You don't actually say.

I'm just pointing out the way Holding decries speculation about Q, because there are no documents called Q, while he conjures up out of thin air translations, revisions, Aramaic works, notebooks etc etc.

He would have more success trying to show that Matthew wrote a work in Aramaic, if he could produce one Christian Aramaic work from the first century AD.

Today @ 11:20 PM post located here
stevencarrwork:




I'm just pointing out the way Holding decries speculation about Q, because there are no documents called Q, while he conjures up out of thin air translations, revisions, Aramaic works, notebooks etc etc.

He would have more success trying to show that Matthew wrote a work in Aramaic, if he could produce one Christian Aramaic work from the first century AD.

No need for any further answer, Stevie.

Next whine?