Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ichabod crane · 07-09-2004, 09:59 PM

In the discussion on another thread the issue of Matthew's presenting Jesus as teaching an imminent end of the world was raised. Another interesting thing struck me about the three main examples of this regarding the two source (Mark/Q) theory of synoptic origins. Consider:

10:23 - This passage is unique to Matthew.
16:28 - This passage would be sourced to Mark.
24:34 - This passage would be sourced to Q.

Now doesn't it seem odd that three incidents of teaching the same thing (i.e. an imminent end of the world) would come from two or three different sources? Surely we should expect that Jesus' teaching of the imminent eschaton should be found primarily in only one source? This seems to me to be good evidence against the two-source theory in its classical form. What do you think?

Vinnie · 07-09-2004, 10:05 PM

"""""""Now doesn't it seem odd that three incidents of teaching the same thing (i.e. an imminent end of the world) would come from two or three different sources? Surely we should expect that Jesus' teaching of the imminent eschaton should be found primarily in only one source?""""""""

I am not following this train of thought at all. Why one source?

Vinnie

ichabod crane · 07-09-2004, 10:12 PM

Even if we accept that the sources contain sayings of a historical Jesus, we would expect each source to have particular concerns and outlook, so that we should discern some thematic coherence, not just a random collection of sayings. If the sources are just a random collection of sayings, then the idea of a source becomes useless; we could postulate that there is one original gospel X, and all the other gospels are just random selections from this original gospel X. But if the source writers collected sayings based on some sort of thematic or theological paradigm, then that makes more sense.

If there was no historical Jesus, or there was but most of the sayings attributed to him are made up, then we certainly should see thematic coherence in the sources.

A teaching of the imminent end of the world is not something insignificant. Either a source would want to present that idea, or it would not. That's why I find it odd that these sayings are scattered amongst the alleged sources.

Vorkosigan · 07-10-2004, 06:39 AM

Quote:

If there was no historical Jesus, or there was but most of the sayings attributed to him are made up, then we certainly should see thematic coherence in the sources.

They were made up by different people, so thematic coherence is probably not possible.

07-09-2004, 09:59 PM	#1
ichabod crane Regular Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 262	Problem with two source (Mark/Q) origin of Matthew In the discussion on another thread the issue of Matthew's presenting Jesus as teaching an imminent end of the world was raised. Another interesting thing struck me about the three main examples of this regarding the two source (Mark/Q) theory of synoptic origins. Consider: 10:23 - This passage is unique to Matthew. 16:28 - This passage would be sourced to Mark. 24:34 - This passage would be sourced to Q. Now doesn't it seem odd that three incidents of teaching the same thing (i.e. an imminent end of the world) would come from two or three different sources? Surely we should expect that Jesus' teaching of the imminent eschaton should be found primarily in only one source? This seems to me to be good evidence against the two-source theory in its classical form. What do you think?

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

07-09-2004, 10:05 PM	#2
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	"""""""Now doesn't it seem odd that three incidents of teaching the same thing (i.e. an imminent end of the world) would come from two or three different sources? Surely we should expect that Jesus' teaching of the imminent eschaton should be found primarily in only one source?"""""""" I am not following this train of thought at all. Why one source? Vinnie

07-09-2004, 10:12 PM	#3
ichabod crane Regular Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 262	Even if we accept that the sources contain sayings of a historical Jesus, we would expect each source to have particular concerns and outlook, so that we should discern some thematic coherence, not just a random collection of sayings. If the sources are just a random collection of sayings, then the idea of a source becomes useless; we could postulate that there is one original gospel X, and all the other gospels are just random selections from this original gospel X. But if the source writers collected sayings based on some sort of thematic or theological paradigm, then that makes more sense. If there was no historical Jesus, or there was but most of the sayings attributed to him are made up, then we certainly should see thematic coherence in the sources. A teaching of the imminent end of the world is not something insignificant. Either a source would want to present that idea, or it would not. That's why I find it odd that these sayings are scattered amongst the alleged sources.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.