spin

So far only people haven't read the o.p. and the leading instruction as to how people are asked to vote here.

The result is that naughty Yalla has voted that (1b) the content of Mark was creatively collected from earlier written and/or oral sources, yet that (1c) 1b is not correct.

Naughty ApostateAbe has voted that (4c) the Q theory provides a reasonable explanation for the material shared by Matthew and Luke, that (4d) the Q theory provides the best explanation for the material shared by Matthew and Luke, and that (4e) Q is the source for the material shared by Matthew and Luke.



If people voted as indicated, the results would more likely represent percentage breakdowns of the options for each number.

outhouse

it is evidence


how one percieves it is the real question

Chili

Oh, I sure have no problem with the sequence as they are presented in the NT, but the NT is put together with purpose and for this Matthew has to be first to show what was wrong so they later can present Luke doing it right.

So then if Matthew is doing it wrong he would not know the details as to why he did it wrong or he would have done it right, and so the author of Matthew knew exactly how it is supposed to be done, and that so now becomes the flip-side of Luke who corrected his error and that is why these two Gosples are by the same author or at least were collaborating the context of both.

And then Mark is a side issue after Matthew was put through the wringer a couple of times and is there only to show the continuity between Matthew and Luke. And perhaps more than anything is there to show that the myth is needed to get the job done now by way of example that removed the distance from the prophetic word to the allegory within, which had to be so because Christ was here to stay, or at least, heaven is brought down to earth and is here to stay.

And then of course John is the new Mark with a different ending for sure.

outhouse

after paul, I do believe there was other scripture in use, he states there was.

because it didnt survive, doesnt mean it never existed. much of all the works from this time are flat lost from history. so nothing is unusual with missing scripture, it is to be expected.

lost to war, fire, redaction, romans. take your pick.

With that said, depite what many think oral traditions were prevelent in these illiterate cultures. If it was important, it was used in oral tradition before a scibe ever put it to paper. Only with time would important oral tradition ever be put to writing, and then oral tradaition still took priority. Carrier goes into this a little.



oral tradition was wide and varied, and depending on geographic location, you had different versions.


Its obvious Gmark made it to the scribes of L and Mt communities, which combined with oral tradition and other scriptures, inspired traditions to be combined.

I dont find much opposition that both L and Mt evolved into its current state, over quite some time, with Markan priority.


makes it look much more complicated then it really is, and im not saying its nailed down to a science.

but posting many different guesses not used and has no following, really doesnt address the real problem.


he would have more credibility with me, had he only addressed the current models being investigated that follows mainstream scholarships.

spin

Gotta say it really isn't useful to baldly announce 'There is no evidence for "Q"' as is the counterclaim that "3 different scriptures, is evidence."

Please don't be so umm..., minimal about such things. Explain yourselves. Don't be so terse you use words for bricks rather than as means of communication.

If you see that there is no evidence for "Q", then here you need to offset the fact that the vast majority of biblical scholars have provided what they seem to think is evidence.

And I don't see how "3 different scriptures" is necessarily evidence.

Please don't just rehearse great battles of history. You are not on the barricades defending your territory. Try to discuss your differences. Elucidating your views as they affect the views of others will help everyone including yourselves.

aa5874

A "vast majority of Biblical Scholars" who accept "Q" is NOT evidence of a specific text or manuscript called "Q" and does not offset the claim there is no evidence for "Q".

Common material found in gMatthew and gLuke is termed "Q" but that terminology does not at all exclude that the author of gLuke did copy the common material from gMatthew.

This is basic.

If there is common material in TWO sources then:

1. One may have copied the other.

2. Both copied a similar source.

spin

For those people who find the notion of oral tradition involved in the development of gospel material:

1. do you consider that the only people involved in the development of the gospels were the writers of the texts?

2. do you truly imagine that there was no christian speculation about events and figures beyond that of those who actually wrote the gospels?

3. if there were such speculation, do you think that it may have been disseminated, but was not considered by the gospel writers?

Consider the birth narratives in Mt & Lk, which share the most minimal similarities, the same personnel and the same event in the same location, but beside that no similarities. Did one writer eventually relate the birth of Jesus to David and connect that to Bethlehem and the other writer copied those details but nothing else? How do you imagine the birth narratives developed with the same minimal starting material but developed in such different ways? Do think about it and save the automated response, "I am out of the office at the moment, but, if it involves money, no."

There seems to me to be an irrational recoil on this forum from the notion of oral transmission of christian ideas between christian communities that could become sources for gospel content. There may not have been oral traditions involved, but you need to get beyond the unthinking refusal to contemplate the notion. The only thing I can think of is that many people feel if they accept the possibility that there were oral sources, then they are admitting some link to original apostolic traditions. Far from it, oral traditions are part of the speculative mechanisms of any religion. Traditions tend to breed in the bed of religious community discussion. In Judea one estimate is that less than 2% of the population was literate. Did the rest have no ideas of their own? If they did have ideas, did they not circulate them? Did they not talk about their ideas with others who shared the same religion?

Groups of people in a country separated from one another by valleys, mountains and rivers consistently develop language traits that diverge from other groups, develop cultural traits that diverge from other groups, sayings, stories, and other traditions, none of which has anything directly to do with written traditions. I expect cultural traditions naturally change through oral transmission. So I don't see why anyone has difficulties considering the possibility of oral traditions behind some of the material in the christian corpus of traditions. It ultimately may not have been the case, but the eventuality should seriously be considered, given that it would be exceptional not to have happened, as it has happened with most other community cultural manifestations.

Iskander

How to explain the similarities in Mark, Matthew and Luke?

In answering this question it is assumed there was a man that went about saying and doing things and that this man had attracted followers.

The gospels are the story of that man as recalled by those followers who were interested only in the significance of his life and teachings.

The significance of his teachings in the absence of a commanding authority is reflected in diverse compilations of his sayings and the significance of the same saying is modified when it is being considered by people of a different culture, language ,geography etc living in later times.

I voted for the existence of followers scattered over a wide geographical area and the existence of numerous recordings of the stories told by those followers. The stories were not the same because different men and women have different ways of remembering the same event or the same teaching.

I voted for Mark being the first compilation of the gossip about Jesus, because Mark is the one of the three under consideration without the elaborate re-working of the significance of the life and sayings of Jesus. It is an answer to the question, what is special about what he did?

Matthew and Luke are the answer to the question, what has all that got to do with us?

spin

I notice poor editing in two of my posts, both have a word missing:

post #21

So far only two people haven't read the o.p. and the leading instruction as to how people are asked to vote here.

and post #27

For those people who find strange the notion of oral tradition involved in the development of gospel material:

Chili

But oral tradition would remove the mystical aspect or at least would not contain continuity of the mystical journey. So mores may always be right and are 'part of the show' but are much to segmented to be narrated into a whole.

I would ask Mark questions like what is with the camel hair coat and the belt, and what are all these locust about? . . . if 'milk and honey' is what his John should be on. So no scavenging for sure if he was a true Nazarite from that beautiful little big city of God where the manger holds plenty and is filled from an infinite source inside the wrappings, says Luke, that contained him to keep the light of common day out so the star of Bethlehem could easy be seen.

So I then suggest that the camelhair coat makes Mark's John a stranger who is searching for meaning in life and maybe just got zapped the night before and now feels guilty as sinner and tightened his belt in repentance himself . . . and just wants to 'pass on' the new love that he found (must feel good to him), while eating 'the catch of the day' with no 'intuit source' available to him.

So then the dove descended and now poor John becomes Jesus-with-a-mandate-to-preach and went strait home to teach his own instead of leaving his past behind to 'let new life' begin. What comes to mind here that indeed a [spiritual] virgin he was to be so motivated as John, who now becomes Jesus-at large as suggested by the 'Mother-in-law' allegory wherein the old 'temple tramp' is called on duty at once . . . and so a true Nazarite he was not, (cf Lk.7: 1-10).

Let's not forget that the 'baptism of repentance' John preached is like 'flesh seeking life' and all John needed to say is that 'fire from heaven' will come upon you and "the angels [of light] will wait upon you" to make people come forward to receive, while in the 'myth proper' this is actually a self-assurance period until the dove does descend.

The question remains: How can they be synoptic? and where does Mark get all these 'goodies' from that are so neetly tucked in.