Steven Carr

I had asked Radorth :-
I'm curious to know if you think the authors of Matthew and Luke did or did not use Mark and or 'Q' as a source or sources (or Mark using Matthew or whichever combination you prefer).


Do you think the Synoptic Gospels are totally independent of each other? A plain 'yes' or 'no' would save your time when posting your answer :-

----------------------------------------

An answer to these questions would be nice. We shall wait and see.

Did any Gospeller use any other Gospel as a source? It seems a pretty straightforward question to me.

Radorth

No. Why do you ask?

Radorth

Steven Carr

So I might learn :-)

The next thing for me to learn is :- Who copied from whom? Any thoughts?

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

lpetrich

I'm not aware that he ever claimed to have copied much of his Gospel from Mark and Q. Whatever he might have called Q, of course.

MortalWombat

Who said anything about collusion? I'd like to see a quote.

Vorkosigan

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.


Who ever said anything about "collusion?" The similarities that indicate copying are there and have satisfied all scholars that the texts have been copied from each other, though they continue to argue about the exact amount and direction. Meanwhile the accounts have differences based on the individual author's understanding, strategy and theology. I don't understand why these simple points, known to everyone here, are too difficult for you to grasp.

Vorkosigan

Radorth

And I don't understand the complicated, semi-coherent, simplistic explanations for why Luke is twice as long as Mark. Is it possible Luke knew or found out a lot more than Mark could recall? Is it possible Luke had access to notes, diaries, documents that Mark did not have? Is it possible Mark saw and heard a lot more than he wrote? Is it possible John referred to Mark, but copied very little of it?

None but a cynic would deny all these very likely possibilities, and a true skeptic would think about them and admit them rather than just rely on innuendo as evidence. Most "skeptics" are simply cynics.

We have to read "all scholars" as "all scholars ordained by skeptics.com." But that's OK, they contradict each other so much, I rely on them as well.

Sure I understand there could have been copying. I have no idea how much, and neither do you. You see a witch if two verses aren't identical, such as "Why do you call me good?" And if they are identical, you see another witch. Your PRESMPTIONS preclude any kind of consistent, honest argument IMO. This is somewhat true of everyone, but while many have asserted I am wrong, they hve not pointed out gaping inconsistencies in my thinking. And from your question, I doubt you have any idea how I think anyway.

Radorth

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Radorth:
[QB]And I don't understand the complicated, semi-coherent, simplistic explanations for why Luke is twice as long as Mark. Is it possible Luke knew or found out a lot more than Mark could recall? Is it possible Luke had access to notes, diaries, documents that Mark did not have? Is it possible Mark saw and heard a lot more than he wrote? Is it possible John referred to Mark, but copied very little of it?

None but a cynic would deny all these very likely possibilities, and a true skeptic would think about them and admit them rather than just rely on innuendo as evidence. Most "skeptics" are simply cynics.[/b]

They are all possibilities. But the fact is that Luke had two major sources for his gospel, one being Mark and the other either Q or Matthew. No doubt other sources are involved, such as Josephus and perhaps the putative L source. Any theory of the composition of "Luke" has to account for the similarities to the other Synoptics. This is well-known in NT studies, so I don't understand why you are not aware of it.

This is somewhat true of everyone, but while many have asserted I am wrong, they have not pointed out gaping inconsistencies in my thinking.

If you had "thinking" we could maybe discuss inconsistencies.

And from your question, I doubt you have any idea how I think anyway.

Substitute "if" for "how" and you are dead on.

Vorkosigan

Arouet

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Arouet ]</p>