History questions not worth their own thread IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Huh? Nixon's desegregation and Equal Rights Amendment were wonderful things.

The Southern Strategy was pretty much based around saying "You know, black people don't much like us anymore. Let's get people who don't like black people to like us." Policy may not have reflected this 100% of the time, but that was a key to Nixon's victory in 68.
 
Yeah, I was referring to the southern strategy.
 
Of course it's not necessarily the case. All that we actually have are the Gospels that we have, and anything else, including the existence of possible sources for them, is inference. But that doesn't mean there's no evidence for the existence of Q. You say yourself what the evidence is: the fact that there's a lot of material that's in both Matthew and Luke that isn't in Mark. Yes, you are right that there are alternative explanations for this fact. I think the Augustinian hypothesis - and its modern descendant, the Griesbach hypothesis - is just too implausible. Of course one can't prove that Mark wasn't written by condensing Matthew, but an examination of what this would involve makes it just much less likely than the other way around.

I don't agree with this much at all. By "evidence" of Q, I mean that there is not one primary or indirect reference to any sort of Q-document made in any other sources, contemporary, later or otherwise. It's an entirely hypothesized thing, no different than primitive physicists who thought that outer space was filled with aether because light needed to be transmitted through something.

I don't think the opinion that Matthew was condensed into Mark is implausible at all. It's almost the same principle by which the Jefferson Bible was created; albeit with less rationalistic fallacies inbed. (Just an aside, I don't really believe any theory on the explanation for the synoptic Gospels, partially because I'm not expert on the subject; but all I know is that a lot of the explanations I've heard for some commonly accepted wisdom on scripture seems quite ridiculous to me.)

The only real alternative to the Q hypothesis, as far as I know, is the Farrer hypothesis, according to which Matthew was based on Mark and Luke was based on both Mark and Matthew. I.e. Luke got the "Q" material direct from Matthew. This also seems implausible to me, though not as implausible as the Griesbach hypothesis. The main objection, as I see it, is that Matthew is just so much better written than Luke! He organises the material in a more sensible and thematic way, including the "Q" material. It doesn't make sense to me that Luke would take this material from Matthew and muddle it up. Neither does it make sense to me that Luke would take Matthew's nicely constructed, distinct speeches that he attributes to Jesus at key points of his narrative, chop them up, and bung the bits into a long series of disconnected saying stories in the middle of his Gospel.

That criticism is so subjective that I can hardly see how it's a criticism at all. That Luke couldn't have been made using Matthew and Mark as sources because Matthew is a much better literary Gospel than Luke has so many underlying assumptions to it that I don't think are true at all. Leaving aside that each Gospel author had a specific agenda, emphasizing certain elements of the information and stories they had a hold of, why isn't it possible that maybe Luke was just a bad author? You've never seen a student write a thesis relying heavily upon a single source, of which the original source would ultimately have just been a better paper than the thesis?

He might have, of course, but history is a matter not of proving or disproving that something happened but of weighing the evidence and considering what best explains it. I think that the majority of scholars are right to think that the Q hypothesis best explains the text of the Synoptic Gospels. That's not to say it has no problems. It certainly does have problems, not least those texts where Matthew and Luke agree with each other but not with Mark. There are possible solutions to these problems; but even without them, I think the problems raised by the Q hypothesis are a lot less severe than those raised by its rivals.

I make no claim as to what the most likely answer is; maybe in the end, Q is the best theory out of them all. All I'm claiming is that any sort of statement which implies we hold factual, scientific knowledge about the composition of the Gospels is highly objectionable, because ultimately what we have is little more than guess work, assumptions, and unreliable secondary testimony--my original response being to your claim that we can be "virtually certain" about Matthew not originally being in Aramaic.
 
That criticism is so subjective that I can hardly see how it's a criticism at all. That Luke couldn't have been made using Matthew and Mark as sources because Matthew is a much better literary Gospel than Luke has so many underlying assumptions to it that I don't think are true at all. Leaving aside that each Gospel author had a specific agenda, emphasizing certain elements of the information and stories they had a hold of, why isn't it possible that maybe Luke was just a bad author? You've never seen a student write a thesis relying heavily upon a single source, of which the original source would ultimately have just been a better paper than the thesis?
How many of these poorly-written theses go onto join their parent-source as part of their field's canon? It seems more likely to admittedly under-informed eyes that early Christians would be willingly to adopt a better-constructed Matthew while retaining a more-venerable Luke than to saddle a better-constructed, more-venerable Matthew with what would amount to the bad fan-fiction of Luke.

But, there's doubtless some details I'm missing, so... :dunno:
 
How many of these poorly-written theses go onto join their parent-source as part of their field's canon?

Presumably, a set of illegal religious communities in the 1st century didn't have as rigorous standards as a 21st century university. Maybe Luke was a bad author but enough of a reputable person that his Gospel was still accepted as being divinely inspired. Maybe those communities never saw Matthew to begin with.

Of course this is going off of Plotinus' belief that Luke's Gospel is a poorer composition than Matthew, a belief I certainly do not share. The subtle Christology in Luke is much more eloquent than in Matthew or Mark in my opinion. Plus it has arguably a greater emphasis on God's mercy, compared to Matthew's emphasis on justice and Jesus' connection to the Temple.

You see how much speculation is involved in scriptural studies; it's why I'm not a fan of the field.
 
I don't agree with this much at all. By "evidence" of Q, I mean that there is not one primary or indirect reference to any sort of Q-document made in any other sources, contemporary, later or otherwise. It's an entirely hypothesized thing, no different than primitive physicists who thought that outer space was filled with aether because light needed to be transmitted through something.

Of course you're quite right there. And, yes, there are scholars who are very reluctant to accept the existence of Q, and prefer to solve the Synoptic Problem without bringing in any hypothesised sources, for precisely this reason. It could be said that a weakness of the Q hypothesis is that it postulates a text which was sufficiently widely circulated for two Gospel authors to use it quite independently, and which has not survived. Personally I'm not sure of the strength of this sort of objection. There are undoubtedly many early Christian texts which have not survived, as is shown by (a) the fact that new ones are sometimes discovered, and (b) the texts we have refer to others, such as the lost letter of Paul to the Corinthians that is mentioned in 1 Corinthians. And indeed Luke himself says that there existed many written sources.

If the textual evidence is strong enough that a now-lost text really did exist, I don't have a problem with saying so if it explains the evidence sufficiently well to overcome the fact that no other trace of the text exists. I cannot even begin to pretend to be a New Testament scholar, but a large majority of those who are think the Q hypothesis is the best, so I'm willing to trust their judgement.

I don't think the opinion that Matthew was condensed into Mark is implausible at all. It's almost the same principle by which the Jefferson Bible was created; albeit with less rationalistic fallacies inbed. (Just an aside, I don't really believe any theory on the explanation for the synoptic Gospels, partially because I'm not expert on the subject; but all I know is that a lot of the explanations I've heard for some commonly accepted wisdom on scripture seems quite ridiculous to me.)

The thing is that Jefferson had particular ideological reasons for accepting some Gospel material and not others. If Mark did, they are much harder to make out. More importantly, Mark does not make sense as an abridgement of Matthew. The author leaves out a great deal of material, and yet expands the material he does include with irrelevant details such as the colour of the grass or the fact that Jesus had a pillow. He makes the language rougher and less well written. Conversely, it's easy to see why there would be these differences if Matthew was using Mark as a source. He cut down the details of the stories he took from Mark because he was adding a lot of other material as well. He improved and smoothed the language (just as Luke also did).

Perhaps more importantly, these are just general points. I agree that these things are largely subjective, as are assessments that one text is better written than another, and certainly not enough by themselves to claim that Markan priority is a near-certainty. But the theory makes more sense at a much finer granular level too, when examining in detail the words in each pericope. I'm not qualified to do that or comment on it, but those who are find Markan priority repeatedly confirmed.

LightSpectra said:
Of course this is going off of Plotinus' belief that Luke's Gospel is a poorer composition than Matthew, a belief I certainly do not share. The subtle Christology in Luke is much more eloquent than in Matthew or Mark in my opinion. Plus it has arguably a greater emphasis on God's mercy, compared to Matthew's emphasis on justice and Jesus' connection to the Temple.

I didn't mean that Matthew's theology is superior to Luke's or his ideas are better - they may well not be - simply that I think he expresses them better. I'll accept, though, that that kind of judgement is always going to be very subjective.
 
Skimming some stuff on late 19th century boxing, it seems that most of the big-name boxers in the US were Irish. Is there any particular reason for this? My first guess would that it's just a matter of the Irish diaspora being poor enough to consider being repeatedly punched in the face as a career path, and heavily-concentrated enough in the citities for that to actually pan out on occasion, but if that's the case, why don't we see more Italian, Jewish or Polish boxers?
 
Skimming some stuff on late 19th century boxing, it seems that most of the big-name boxers in the US were Irish. Is there any particular reason for this? My first guess would that it's just a matter of the Irish diaspora being poor enough to consider being repeatedly punched in the face as a career path, and heavily-concentrated enough in the citities for that to actually pan out on occasion, but if that's the case, why don't we see more Italian, Jewish or Polish boxers?

Perhaps it was just a cultural thing? Early modern boxing originated in the British Isles and as far as I know, was not terribly common in Continental Europe.
 
Skimming some stuff on late 19th century boxing, it seems that most of the big-name boxers in the US were Irish. Is there any particular reason for this? My first guess would that it's just a matter of the Irish diaspora being poor enough to consider being repeatedly punched in the face as a career path, and heavily-concentrated enough in the citities for that to actually pan out on occasion, but if that's the case, why don't we see more Italian, Jewish or Polish boxers?
If you look at a lot of the early 19th century boxers, after Molineaux, a good number of them are Irish, or Anglo-Irish. As Bombshoo said, Irish exposure to Boxing gave them a leg up on the competition as it were in the 19th century, and the only other population that enjoyed a similar advantage, the English, were pretty much gone as an immigrant community by the late 1800s.

Additionally, the Irish were kind-of-sort-of already integrated at this time, to a much better extent than the Italians, Poles or Jews were at the time. It tended to draw their attention to general American past-times rather then looking inward towards their own communities (which is why the Jews, Poles and Italians began to be so noticable later on in the history of American Boxing).

Lastly, settlement patterns did play a very significant role. While we tend to think of Boxing as an Urban phenomenon, anti-prize fighting laws were in place throughout the North East. While they certainly still happened in places like New York, it added an additional risk to large financial backing to boxing matches, which meant that most Boxing Matches of significance in this time period happened in the American west, which never bothered to regulate Prize fighting since that was never really a thing among their native population.

The most common places for these fights were Texas, Nevada, California, and above all else New Orleans. New Orleans in particular was a city of immense Irish Immigration and while few of the Irish champions of that era came from these places, the superior degree of integration and already existing Irish populations in these regions certainly meant that young Irishmen would be more comfortable moving to these regions and more likely to move in the same social circles. African Americans similarly did very, very well in the late 19th century possibly because they enjoyed similar advantages over newer minorities.

EDIT: Oh, another contributing factor was the Irish tendency towards police service, which was instrumental to introducing Americans towards boxing and physical culture in general at the time.
 
I'm actually kind of amazed how you seem to have comprehensive knowledge not only of Ireland, but of the Irish diaspora, to the point where you can correct others on their knowledge of boxing history and pre-prohibition Irish street gangs.
 
The Sultan of Brunei in the latter half of the 19th century (who lost a bunch of territory to Brooke and the British) was about 100 years old (as I recall the exact date of birth isn't certain, but they know the year, butting him at 99 or 100 plus change).

A recent Dutch Queen (Juliana?) was in her mid ninties when she died, but she gave up the throne well before that
 
Queen Elizabeth II is currently Britain's eldest monarch and she's over 87.
 
You can get into candidates such as Pepi II, Taejo, and Drest I with claimed extraordinarily long reigns and lives, but I would lean towards them being overstated and would guess that 100 years old is hard to beat
 
The Sultan of Brunei in the latter half of the 19th century (who lost a bunch of territory to Brooke and the British) was about 100 years old (as I recall the exact date of birth isn't certain, but they know the year, butting him at 99 or 100 plus change).

A recent Dutch Queen (Juliana?) was in her mid ninties when she died, but she gave up the throne well before that

Here's the Brunei guy.

On Juliana's page "Upon her death at the age of 94, she was the longest-lived former ruling monarch in the world."
 
Ranma IX also has a decent shot at it.

Also John Davies in Hanes Cyrmu says that Roman-Style Villa owners "Introduced capitalist farming" to Britain. Anyone have any idea what that means and if there's any truth to it? I don't trust his judgement on Roman affairs.
 
Ranma IX also has a decent shot at it.
I don't know about their relative health status, but Lizzy does have a year and a half on him age-wise despite being 3 years behind in length of reign. But it is still 8 years for her to match Juliana, and 14 to catch Abdul Momin of Brunei.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom