Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doctor X · 03-04-2004, 10:19 PM

Sensei:

Quote:

. . . would this not weaken the "fact" that Mk is a "source" of Mt?

No.

There is a fantastic book, by Throckmorton . . . which is happily in print! Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels. It is WELL worth the price--particularly used! I have the 4th. edition and use it most times I have to post on the NT.

It places Mt next to Mk next to Lk and you can follow how they follow Mk, change Mk. You can also see Q--portions where Mt=Lk that are not in Mk. The 4th. edition has a great introduction to the basic Criticus Apparatus and the basic textual witnesses--though . . . he is a bit "optimistic" stating that something like 90% of the witnesses agree by a major factor!

In fact what are you doing still here?!!! Go buy it!

--J.D.

Amaleq13 · 03-05-2004, 06:18 AM

IMHO, Kloppenborg does a really good job describing the evidence and various competing theories of text dependency in Excavating Q.

The primacy of Mark and a dating of around 70CE is supported by a clear majority consensus that even includes as conservative a source as the Catholic Study Bible.

CX · 03-05-2004, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kingdomovehearts
Matthew wrote his gospel in 41 AD, Mark wrote his in 65 AD. Wrong info bud.

I have an idea. As this is a critical discussion board perhaps you could put forward a critical discussion supporting this assertion. Additionally please don't quote the entire post to which you are responding.

CX · 03-05-2004, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sensei Meela
Not to come off as too uninformed, but, supposing that Mk's "prediction" was a later addition to the original, and thereby an admission of post-contemporary material, would this not weaken the "fact" that Mk is a "source" of Mt?

Not at all. Mark's "mini-apocalypse" is part of the evidence for a post 70 dating. It constitutes nothing at all in the way of evidence for literary dependence of GMt on GMk. Additionally even "granting alterations" the case for AMt's use of GMk is overwhelming. I recommend reading a good intro text or something on the synoptic problem. There are a number of reasonably good resources on the web that outline the evidence and arguments for Markan priority and Matthean dependence on GMk as a source.

Mageth · 03-05-2004, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX
I have an idea. As this is a critical discussion board perhaps you could put forward a critical discussion supporting this assertion.

Well, Matthew must have been written first. After all, it does appear in the Bible before Mark. Isn't it obvious that the books of the Bible were written in the order they appear? Genesis first, then Exodus, then Deuteronomy...

CX · 03-05-2004, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Well, Matthew must have been written first. After all, it does appear in the Bible before Mark. Isn't it obvious that the books of the Bible were written in the order they appear? Genesis first, then Exodus, then Deuteronomy...

Well... at least that would be an argument; a really really sucky one, but an argument nonetheless.

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

03-05-2004, 06:18 AM	#22
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	IMHO, Kloppenborg does a really good job describing the evidence and various competing theories of text dependency in Excavating Q. The primacy of Mark and a dating of around 70CE is supported by a clear majority consensus that even includes as conservative a source as the Catholic Study Bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.