Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 09-18-2002, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
Luke used Mark and other sources, and says so. They all had other sources to some extent, diaries and note perhaps. In John's case I would say it was mostly from memory or his own notes. Of course only those looking for a witch see more than can be known. (Not that many skeptics need much proof for their theories). A more interesting point, post-Doherty, is:

If the similarities indicate copying and collusion, shouldn't skeptics stop complaining the accounts are too disparate? Which is it? If I were a skeptic I would be very troubled with the ever-changing skeptics arguments. It's laughable really, coming from those ever claiming to be more "rational" and dependent on proof.

Radorth

Where does Luke say he used Mark?

Did Matthew use Mark?

Are there bits of Luke and Matthew which are similar, but not in Mark?

Any evidence whatever that any Gospel writer was ever persecuted?

'Collusion' indicates more than one person. Any evidence that sceptics claimed more than one person 'colluded' on a Gospel?

Vinnie · 09-18-2002, 11:53 PM

whats up with 'Gospels 101' here?

Mark has 661 verses

Matt has 1,068,

Luke has 1,149.

Eighty percent of Mark's verses are reproduced in Matt

65 percent of Mark's verses in Luke.

The Marcan material found in both the other two is called the "Triple Tradition".

The approximate 220-235 vv. (in whole or in part) of nonMarcan material that Matt and Luke have in common is called the "Double Tradition."

In both instances so much of the order in which that commom material is presented, and so much of the wording in which it is phrased are the same that dependence at the written rather than simply at he oral level has to be posited."""

Brown (Intro to the Nt p. 111)

Vinnie

Vorkosigan · 09-19-2002, 12:12 AM

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[1] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke implies in verse 3 that he used sources, but does not actually state so out loud.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie · 09-19-2002, 12:22 AM

Luke or whoever wrote Luke states that he/she has carefully investigated it from the beginning, however

Vinnie

Radorth · 09-19-2002, 04:08 PM

Quote:

In both instances so much of the order in which that commom material is presented, and so much of the wording in which it is phrased are the same that dependence at the written rather than simply at he oral level has to be posited

If it was just copied from the written, you would not have the thousand variations skeptics are forever bellyaching about, or used to, before it hurt their latest fad theory. Criminy, we were given whole papers to read claiming the gospels were untrue because they couldn't get their story straight. Now it's "they copied most of it word for word so this means they didn't even exist." We haven't heard a word about the differences lately, except another unproven theory, "the writings were redacted." Once we were told the the crucifixion stories were full of contradictions. Now we are told they were "slavishly copied."

Assumption piled upon presumption, contradiction on contradiction.

It sure takes the pressure off on this end though. If you folks ever come up with a consistent story of your own, you might make a convert. Maybe you should have a council or something. May I suggest Nicea?

Radorth

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

Radorth · 09-19-2002, 04:20 PM

Better yet, go build a hospital. Such undertakings are far more impressive to the ignorant masses than five dollar words and novel theories.

Radorth

Family Man · 09-19-2002, 04:30 PM

Gosh, Radoth, you spend so much time fighting straw men it's a wonder if you ever spend time in the real world. As has been pointed out repeatedly to you in the past, no one claims the gospels were "slavishly copied". Why you think repeating such a canard, especially after being corrected repeatedly, does anything but make you look ridiculous is beyond me.

That the gospel writers borrowed from one another, particularly from Mark to Matthew and Luke is well established in NT studies.

Nor does this "copying" (to use the term very loosely) preclude the authors of Matthew and Luke from editing Marcan materials to reflect their own theological points of view. I can provide examples if you like.

Nor does it prevent them from adding material, either from other sources or from their own imagination.

Hence, it is possible for one gospel to "copy" from another one, add material, and end up with a contradiction.

In short, your whole argument is childish, naive, and doesn't even address how skeptics approach the biblical studies (which is pretty much how scholars do it.) If you can't address the issues responsibly, don't expect anyone to treat you with anything less than the contempt you deserve.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]

Arouet · 09-19-2002, 11:03 PM

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Arouet ]

Vorkosigan · 09-20-2002, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
Better yet, go build a hospital. Such undertakings are far more impressive to the ignorant masses than five dollar words and novel theories.

Radorth

Radorth, please see
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156563246X/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Q and the History of Early Christianity</a>. This is probably the major work on Q, along with Mark Goodacre's recent skeptical work, which I have not yet read. Or you could go directly to Goodacre's website <a href="http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/" target="_blank">The Case Against Q</a> for a good start on why people support and oppose the idea. We don't mind you being a Q-Skeptic, that's a respected and defensible position. But mindless, ignorant and churlish ranting will get you nowhere here.

Vorkosigan

Radorth · 09-20-2002, 07:14 AM

Blah, blah, Radorth is an idiot. It's all his fault.

Not sure whose being ignored the most here. My questions remain unanswered.

Oh, "Q" exists all right. But why does it have to be a single document? "It" is probably both written and verbal, which explains all sorts of stuff. Could it be a diary? Notes? Oral conversations If you have a site which allows for that likelihood, I will happily read it. More simplistic theories are uninteresting to me.

Radorth

09-19-2002, 04:30 PM	#17
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Gosh, Radoth, you spend so much time fighting straw men it's a wonder if you ever spend time in the real world. As has been pointed out repeatedly to you in the past, no one claims the gospels were "slavishly copied". Why you think repeating such a canard, especially after being corrected repeatedly, does anything but make you look ridiculous is beyond me. That the gospel writers borrowed from one another, particularly from Mark to Matthew and Luke is well established in NT studies. Nor does this "copying" (to use the term very loosely) preclude the authors of Matthew and Luke from editing Marcan materials to reflect their own theological points of view. I can provide examples if you like. Nor does it prevent them from adding material, either from other sources or from their own imagination. Hence, it is possible for one gospel to "copy" from another one, add material, and end up with a contradiction. In short, your whole argument is childish, naive, and doesn't even address how skeptics approach the biblical studies (which is pretty much how scholars do it.) If you can't address the issues responsibly, don't expect anyone to treat you with anything less than the contempt you deserve. [ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ] [ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

09-19-2002, 11:03 PM	#18
Arouet Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Johnson county, Tx Posts: 13	<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> [ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Arouet ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-18-2002, 11:53 PM	#12
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	whats up with 'Gospels 101' here? Mark has 661 verses Matt has 1,068, Luke has 1,149. Eighty percent of Mark's verses are reproduced in Matt 65 percent of Mark's verses in Luke. The Marcan material found in both the other two is called the "Triple Tradition". The approximate 220-235 vv. (in whole or in part) of nonMarcan material that Matt and Luke have in common is called the "Double Tradition." In both instances so much of the order in which that commom material is presented, and so much of the wording in which it is phrased are the same that dependence at the written rather than simply at he oral level has to be posited.""" Brown (Intro to the Nt p. 111) Vinnie

09-19-2002, 12:12 AM	#13
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[1] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke implies in verse 3 that he used sources, but does not actually state so out loud. Vorkosigan

09-19-2002, 12:22 AM	#14
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Luke or whoever wrote Luke states that he/she has carefully investigated it from the beginning, however Vinnie

09-19-2002, 04:20 PM	#16
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Better yet, go build a hospital. Such undertakings are far more impressive to the ignorant masses than five dollar words and novel theories. Radorth

09-20-2002, 07:14 AM	#20
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Blah, blah, Radorth is an idiot. It's all his fault. Not sure whose being ignored the most here. My questions remain unanswered. Oh, "Q" exists all right. But why does it have to be a single document? "It" is probably both written and verbal, which explains all sorts of stuff. Could it be a diary? Notes? Oral conversations If you have a site which allows for that likelihood, I will happily read it. More simplistic theories are uninteresting to me. Radorth

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.