3 ms·

Some scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were dependent on earlier sources. This proves that the Gospels were "edited over the centuries?" You've pointed ou

• acqq 10y ago
  > You've pointed out one case Excuse me, I guess you haven't noticed that the author of earlier comments with whom you exchanged opinions is not the one who wrote the comment you answered here. Let me try to explain you why I gave that Wikipedia quote here. I've read your statement: "I meant that Matthew and Luke were independently written by separate authors at different times -- potentially including information from earlier source material -- not the results of various edits of the sources over time." Now if you read my quote, it points to the text in Wikipedia that notes that "the majority opinion among scholars is" "that Matthew and Luke both used [Mark's Gospel] and the "sayings gospel"" "as their basic sources." I don't claim that "everybody" believes that, I don't claim that Wikipedia itself is a proof, or always right. The quote I've selected, however, matches the information I have, and that is that majority of scholars believe that the basis for both Matthew's and Luke's is Mark's and "the sayings." I've never considered Wikipedia as a "proof" but only as a pointer for something that is written in the real books and articles about the topic. I've just read your claim "independently wrote" and "potentially including earlier sources" and recognized that your claim doesn't match what I understand is the majority opinion opinion of the Gospel scholars (not "potentially" but that the basic source is Mark's), which you maybe haven't been aware of, and you could be interested to know about. So I've quoted the first entry that I stumbled to, not knowing how detailed Wikipedia is. And it is actually more detailed, this entry, for example, is the whole only about what is again claimed to be a "preferred by an overwhelming majority of critically trained New Testament scholars" as an answer to the so-called "synoptic problem": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis "The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection from the Christian oral tradition called Q." It's surely not a proof by itself for anything but it links to more primary sources and also to the other opinions, which are claimed to be a minority ones.
  • learc83 10y ago
    This is entire thread is the result of someone saying that the New Testament is a result of being "heavily edited over the centuries". Many people believe that the Bible was translated many times through the centuries and thus edited many times. This is a myth, and what I was trying to refute. The Gospels and most of the rest of the New Testament most likely existed in the form we have them today by the end of the first century. The collection as a whole was most likely standardized by the middle of the second century. Then we got a collection of different people arguing mostly from what they just read on wikipedia. The problem is that you and the other 2 people commenting don't seem to understand that I'm not saying that many Biblical scholars don't believe that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q as sources. I'm arguing that most Biblical scholars believe they were written by 1 person each using Mark and Q, and other oral traditions as a source. As opposed to each being the end result of multiple edits made over the centuries. >I've just read your claim "independently wrote" I think you're mistaking my meaning of independently wrote. I mean that they were created independently of each other, by separate authors. I do not mean they are lacking any dependencies. >"potentially including earlier sources" I said potentially because no Biblical scholars are very certain of any of their hypotheses. Biblical criticism is not a science and most New Testament scholar would tell you that they believe that the 2 source hypothesis merely the most likely. Most computer scientists believe that P != NP, but if I told you that "potentially P!=NP", you wouldn't take that to mean that I believe most computer scientists believe it does. As to whether Matthew and Luke were based on Mark and Q, the current most accepted theory is that they were. However as I said before Biblical scholarship is an art not a science. The 2 source theory is currently fashionable, but there are many reasonable arguments against the 2 source theory and many scholars that do not agree with it.
    • acqq 10y ago
      > The 2 source theory is currently fashionable, but there are many reasonable arguments against the 2 source theory and many scholars that do not agree with it. However, again majority of these other scholars and the other theories that you refer to still claim that the synoptic gospels aren't "independently" written, that is, that they weren't written only on "oral traditions." The scholars are aware that arguing only "oral tradition" implies even more "edits" and "inventions" over the time between the events happened and were written, that is, that they'd have to assume that a direct "intervention from God" prevented "the Chinese whispers" effect that would ensue. And that the scholars can't believe because if it were so until the point the texts were written the first time, it would have continued to be even more so afterwards and they know it isn't so. That's why I've entered the discussion, because I'm really not aware of scholars that would even use your choice of words. You can of course say that you personally don't even have to believe what any of scholars claim, and I wouldn't have reacted were it obvious for me that your argument is based purely on your faith, as in you having a "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction" rather than using a scientific approach. Again, I'm not aware of scholars that openly argue only from their "spiritual position" who are even accepted as being scholars from the rest of them. Because if "God made it intentionally so with all these errors and inconsistencies" all their efforts are in vain, and there's no point to even discuss.