3 ms·
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
by 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.
- learc83 10y ago>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." There are actually mainstream Biblical scholars who propose that all 4 gospels were written mostly independently of each other based mainly on oral tradition. The argument is that Jewish society at the time transmitted information primarily orally, oral tradition was regarded as more accurate than written sources. The argument goes that they were very practiced in transmitting stories without changes and had been doing so for generations. The gospels were all written within living memory of Christ's life. We're not talking about hundreds of years. There are also Biblical scholars who believe that Luke was based on eyewitness accounts through interviews both written and oral. These Biblical scholars usually are usually also Christian, but in their academic works aren't arguing from a "spiritual position". My personal opinion, based on reading many sources on this topic, is that it's likely that Luke combined early written accounts from Mark and other sources with witness interviews to produce his gospel. "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."