Freethought & Rationalism Archive

michael wellenberg · 03-30-2006, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mephie00

Well, we can start out with some basics of the basics of the biblical scholars. Is that part from Matthew also mentioned in Mark?

It is : Mark 9:9.

Quote:

They also, along with Mark, used a "Q" document. A collection of sayings or teachings of allegedly Jesus. (Even the Vatican states that it believes that "Q" exists.")

It is not an document though whose existence is proven, as far as I know, it remains only a theory (Arbeitshypothese, in German).

Quote:

When they agree with Mark, it was taken from Mark, when they agree in areas separate from Mark, it came from Q."

They had probably some other individual sources.

Quote:

So, if Matthew was taking from Mark then who was Mark? The gospels don't mention Mark in any of the lists of disciples.

Presupposing that Mark was the earliest gospel we have to accept that we even have no idea about the quality of his source(s) and to what extent he may have used it/them ; we do not even know for certain whether he used any at all.

With regards

Michael

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-30-2006, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael wellenberg

It is not an document though whose existence is proven, as far as I know, it remains only a theory (Arbeitshypothese, in German).

It is certain that Matthew and Luke contain a great number of verbatim agreements which did not come from Mark. That means that either Luke copied Matthew (a hypothesis which entails problems of its own) or Luke and Matthew used a common written source. If they used a common written source, that source would be Q. It doesn't matter what it was (although a sayings gospel is the most likely format). If they used any common written source then Q existed, by definition.

Quote:

They had probably some other individual sources.

Why hypothesize multiple common sources if one will suffice?

Quote:

Presupposing that Mark was the earliest gospel we have to accept that we even have no idea about the quality of his source(s) and to what extent he may have used it/them ; we do not even know for certain whether he used any at all.

That's true but it doesn't really matter to the Q theory. Q is the common material in Luke and Matthew that did not come from Mark.

michael wellenberg · 03-30-2006, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

That's true but it doesn't really matter to the Q theory. Q is the common material in Luke and Matthew that did not come from Mark.

Agreed. With "individual sources" (Sonderquellen, in German) I meant those pieces in Matthew and Luke that do not stem from Mark, and are not derived from Q either, and only appear in Matthew OR in Luke.

Michael

S.C.Carlson · 03-30-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael wellenberg

Agreed. With "individual sources" (Sonderquellen, in German) I meant those pieces in Matthew and Luke that do not stem from Mark, and are not derived from Q either, and only appear in Matthew OR in Luke.

The technical term for this in English-speaking scholarship is usually "special material" or "Sondergut" (even in English).

Stephen

michael wellenberg · 03-30-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The technical term for this in English-speaking scholarship is usually "special material" or "Sondergut" (even in English).

Stephen

Thank you, Stephen ! (I continue to try to improve my English)

Michael

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.