Q and the Synoptics or Why I am not a Christian

TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Q and the Synoptics or Why I am not a Christian

Q is a hypothetical that regardless of its actual state of existence explains the nature of the Synoptic Gospels better than a inspirational or infallibility position and harmonization. Higher Criticism has never listened to opinionated claims of those who would twist the normal concepts of history into a pretzel to create a pure absurdity of apologetics, The priority of Mark and Q explain the contradictions and variations in supporting redaction criticism (editing history) as their explanation in contrast to the implausible absurdities of harmonization in order to maintain a belief that is simply an outworn tradition about the canon that is not supported by its nature or fact.
I came to my atheistic position from a belief in scripture not from my present paganism. A fair treatment of the scripture will at least save one from the heresy of orthodoxy. It is the hard core studying of them with an objective and unbiasly fair analysis rather than an a priori apologetic stance and its conclusion that the scripture is inerrant, infallible and/or inspired that allowed me to see the probable and plausible nature of the texts. The ideas of inspiration and infallibility present an improbable and implausible dogmatic position that requires the gymnastics of fantasy and fanciful harmonizations that cause the character Jesus to pop up like a windup jack in the box in repeated scenarios or a redundancy speech and absurdity bordering on Dadaism and surrealism. It is this position that is not a normative understanding of history, reality and science that has been a fragmentation from the real world view to some fantastic world view where the characters in the narrative are no longer function within context but are transported from the meaning of the scriptures to the doctrine of medieval superstition, dogma and absurdity (did I say pure 24 karat unmitigated asininity?).

Matthew and Luke reproduce 94% or Mark's text. The high degree of exact word for word correspondence of Matthew with Mark, Luke with Mark but not Matthew with Luke in these areas indicate plagiarism of Mark at least by contemporary high school or college standards. When we look at what Matthew and Luke have in common but not found in Mark we see non-contextually sayings that are placed in the body of Mark in different places by Matthew and Luke sometimes to the alteration of Mark's original meaning or text. We call this common material Q. I discovered this by placing Mark in the center of a three foot poster board with Matthew to the left and Luke to the right. I then drew lines of the corresponding pericopae (passages of self contained stories) . Where Matthew and Luke followed Mark the lines connecting them were straight. Where the saying were added jumped around and crisscrossed widely.

Next in my study I found that the variations of the stories made more sense if Mark was indeed earliest and plagiarized by the other gospels. For Mark consistently presented with the more primitive reading or such that the theology was more primitive than the other two. Matthew for example exaggerates the miraculous and heightens the Christological flavor of the story lacking and in Mark. He does so in such a consistent manner that the stories are sometimes butchered as compared to Mark and the dynamics of the stories left awkward. Mark starts off a very worldly account with Matthew, Luke and then John becoming more and more sensational and supernatural with Jesus becoming divine.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5072
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
DP

 

DP

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5072
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Evolution of the NT

 

I recently finished Why I Am Not a Muslim and one of the things that stood out was the observation by Warraq that the Koran is a comparatively late development - he estimated the 9th century (300 years after Muhammad) using strong sources and it had appeared through a process of evolution with multiple Korans/holy books existing and being combined/elevated until the number diminished but there were always multiple versions. I'm guesstimating around 8 without the book to hand existed at the beginning of the 20th Century and even now there are 3 accepted versions of the Koran in existence. 

Obviously, the NT gospels and supporting writings would have had a very similar developmental path, with different cities/churches producing different doctrines and these competing - at least until  the Council of Nicea. I wish I knew the exact evolution of the NT as well as who authored it. It's always interesting to get a feel for those shadowy figures that lie behind the assertions. If we knew just who did the work it would remove much of the 'magical' quality of the gospels. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: I

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

I recently finished Why I Am Not a Muslim and one of the things that stood out was the observation by Warraq that the Koran is a comparatively late development - he estimated the 9th century (300 years after Muhammad) using strong sources and it had appeared through a process of evolution with multiple Korans/holy books existing and being combined/elevated until the number diminished but there were always multiple versions. I'm guesstimating around 8 without the book to hand existed at the beginning of the 20th Century and even now there are 3 accepted versions of the Koran in existence. 

Obviously, the NT gospels and supporting writings would have had a very similar developmental path, with different cities/churches producing different doctrines and these competing - at least until  the Council of Nicea. I wish I knew the exact evolution of the NT as well as who authored it. It's always interesting to get a feel for those shadowy figures that lie behind the assertions. If we knew just who did the work it would remove much of the 'magical' quality of the gospels. 

 

 

We will never know who actually authored various texts in the New Testament apart from some of the letters of Paul. Even then many of his are forgeries that were attributed to him long after his death.  The earliest New Testament was by Marcion who was a heretic and something of a Gnostic.  He viewed the God of the Old Testament much like we do. He saw Yahweh as a tyrant that committed genocide, got angry too often and was a Jeaoulous god.  He taught that the god of Jesus was a god of love and superior to the Jewish god. He was a different god completely.   He therefore threw out the Old Testament, Matthew, Mark and John. They too were too Jewish for him. He used the gospel of Luke and some of Pauls letters.  The churches at that time responded by collecting their on copies of scripture and various cannons formed. By the fourth century  the East liked most of what is now in the New Testament except Hebrews. The East like all of it except the Book of Revelation. The West di not like  Hebrews because it stated that if you rejected Christianity you could not return to it. Many in the Western Chrurches had been forced to offer incense to Caesar. They later had returned to the church. In the East they thought Revelation was just a screwy book and did not like ti. This is a simplification but gets the gist of the political conflcit.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

Richard is a brilliant atheistic writer who wrote the link above.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism