Yuri Kuchinsky

I said that earlier in Message 95, October 10, 2004.

Jerusalem Church had the ultimate authority for early Jewish-Christians. So this is the logical place to produce the Jewish-Christian "M" (the common source of Mt and Mk). Besides, numerous shared features of Mt/Mk indicate Judean provenance.

I try to minimise speculation in my theorising. In any case, NT field is full of speculation, for example about "Q".

You're simply not aware of all the evidence that exists. Read my book and my webpage.

Yours,

Yuri

spin

I think you're kidding yourself.

Your "M" is not minimising speculation. A Mt based on Mk is certainly more frugal.

I'm sure you've done a lot of work to put together your book and so are raring to go, but I see no methodologically sound way you can get before the current gospels as we have them in the earliest manuscripts, except at the level of speculation.


spin

Yuri Kuchinsky

Why do you think so, spin?

A more frugal answer is not necessarily the best one.

"M" has no more and no less right to exist than "Q".

What is perfectly obvious from looking at the 4 canonical gospels is that ultimately they all derive from a shared source. None of them is older than the others, in the shape we see them. They are all peas in the same NT pod.

Also, it is perfectly obvious that each of the 4 canonicals had been continuously edited over a considerable period -- often in conjunction with the others. Clearly, there's cross-pollination among them.

There were multiple editions of the gospels over time. All in all, it's a very complex picture. To deny this is to escape from reality.

Yours,

Yuri.

spin

How do you distinguish betweem a Judean provenance and a Judean settling in this case?

When you don't say anything more viable with the less frugal answer, it is.

I didn't bring Q into this conversation. We were talking of Matt Mark and your hypothesized common source.

What is perfectly obvious to you may just as obviously be false to someone else. Try again.

This may be true, but excruciatingly difficult to substantiate.

To pick a path through the complexity is crystal ball work.


spin

Yuri Kuchinsky

I don't understand your question.

This is a matter of opinion.

If you don't like hypothetical sources, then presumably you also reject Q. Correct?

If it's obvious to the majority then I win.

If you don't like the heat, then you'd better get out of the kitchen.

But at least there's hope ahead, if one picks one's path carefully. If you stay in the stagnant pool of mainstream opinion, then you only have the crystal ball and nothing more.

Yours,

Yuri

spin

You claim that there is a Judean provenance behind Mark and Matt. How do you decide that it was actually provenance and not simply dramatic setting for the stories.

Many linguistic issues point to a Greek and Latin context for the writing of Mark and its use by Matt -- otherwise

No. Occam's razor is not opinion, it's a principle. There is no reason to accept a more complex solution that offers nothing more in its complexity.

I don't argue it.

Historical matters are simply not matters of popularity. Stop playing games.


That's downright stupid as a response.

You propose a scenario which places an enormous burden on you to overcome to have any credibility and the best you can say in your defence is that? It doesn't give much hope for the work that backs it up.

You are just dropping cliches and polemic without any substance. Being on II should tell you to be careful about where you cast your aspersions of stagnant mainstream.


spin