5 ms·

I thought it was fairly non-contentious [0] that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily (almost exclusively) from the author of Mark's work, along wit

by Jedd 3y ago

I thought it was fairly non-contentious [0] that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily (almost exclusively) from the author of Mark's work, along with this unknown source (usually referred to as Q). It seems fairly reasonable then to assume it was a literary device made by the author of Mark - his writing is actually pretty good as far as allegory goes - that was subsequently lifted near verbatim by the later two authors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcan_priority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcan_priority

timbit42 3y ago
The parts Matthew and Luke didn't get from Mark, but match, are considered to be from Q. There are some parts of Matthew and Luke that neither come from Mark nor Q so they each also have one or more other sources unique to themselves.
- Jedd 3y ago
  > There are some parts of Matthew and Luke that neither come from Mark nor Q so they each also have one or more other sources unique to themselves. Given that we know nothing about the provenance or contents of 'Q' - it's lost to time, and its hypothetical existence is effectively intuited by some researches - I do not understand how we can identify the set of things 'not in Q' (or indeed 'in Q'). I'd also note that there's zero evidence to suggest the unknown authors of Matthew and Luke had other sources - there's more evidence to suggest they were simply making stuff up.
  - guerrilla 3y ago
    Have you tried actually reading the proponents arguments instead of relying on arrogance? That might be a better way to find out why the consensus is what it is.
    - Jedd 3y ago
      I have read a fair amount on this subject. If you could cite some rational sources that describe what you're alluding to, I'd be delighted to read them. As I noted in a sibling comment, the consensus is Marcan Priority, but a) it's not a huge majority, and b) it's ultimately a tallest dwarf competition anyway.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    So your theory is they simply made up the exact same stuff? Maybe you do believe in miracles after all then.
    - Jedd 3y ago
      I don't know how you get to that conclusion. Q is literally 'source' - with unknown author and unknown content - so we don't know what's in it nor what's not in it. Therefore I challenged the claim by parent that 'anything not in Q ...' because that's an objectively ludicrous statement. My 'theory', inasmuch as I have one, is that the authors of Luke and Matthew had different target audiences, different incentives, but predominantly the same (probably two sets of) materials. They made different mistakes than the author of Mark, and indeed each other, though were presumably much more earnest. The author of Mark was probably just writing allegorical fiction. The author of Matthew for instance was the only one to talk about saints / zombies rising from the graveyards and walking into town, being seen by many people, etc - which is an odd thing for everyone else to have missed or not think to be worth mentioning. There's a beautiful graphic showing % breakdowns of the Mark / Luke / Matthew content about half-way down this page: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gospels https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gospels EDIT: that whole page is worth a read to get a better idea on the bleed between the different texts, a historical context for when they were probably written, and a reminder of the earliest copies we can reliably put dates to.
      - joenot443 3y ago
        I think earnestly citing RationalWiki is enough to give me pause to take the rest of your 'theory' seriously. You know it's a humor website for teenagers, right? It's essentially ED for a different kind of edgy post-reddit nerd, it's not really a serious place to learn about theology.
        Jedd 3y ago
        I was defending my earlier logic (we don't know what's in Q, therefore we don't know what's not in it). Have you identified a flaw there? I would prefer to earnestly cite Price, Carrier, Fitzgerald etc, but those citations are less convenient, especially for casual readers (clicking a link rather than obtaining books). Disliking the style of rationalwiki seems insufficient reason to discount the clear assertions made, explained, and with original sources cited on that page. Can you identify matters of factual error in that graphic I pointed at, or other material on that link? I note this is the only comment you've made on the entire thread. I don't believe it moves us forward.
ShamelessC 3y ago
Non contentious? Don’t a large portion of Christians believe the Bible is divine and any words included are there because of God?
- defrost 3y ago
  There are a large number of camps that don't align about this issue. The King James Only movement alone: asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. and has been divided into five subgroups with varying opinions about the text and its relation to God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement This barely scratches the surface of the many opinions held about the collections of smaller books that are bound as versions of "The Bible"; which books, which translations, which interpretations, etc.
  - ShamelessC 3y ago
    Thanks! Very interesting.
    - graemep 3y ago
      There is a lot of disagreement about even what documents should be in the Bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon and lots of disagreement about translation and interpretation.
  - HeckFeck 3y ago
    > asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. As one who is fond of classical English literature, I am compelled to agree.
- Jedd 3y ago
  Well, we get into murky territory here. I'd suggest a large portion of self-identified Christian believers really haven't thought much about it at all, beyond (as you say) some orthodox assumptions about divine nature etc. But as per my link above to wikipedia (Marcan Priority) the larger consensus amongst religious historians / researchers is that Mark was written first, Luke & Matthew were written subsequently, and based heavily on a combination of Mark + some unknown source ('Q').

by Jedd 3y ago

timbit42 3y ago

The parts Matthew and Luke didn't get from Mark, but match, are considered to be from Q. There are some parts of Matthew and Luke that neither come from Mark nor Q so they each also have one or more other sources unique to themselves.

Jedd 3y ago
> There are some parts of Matthew and Luke that neither come from Mark nor Q so they each also have one or more other sources unique to themselves. Given that we know nothing about the provenance or contents of 'Q' - it's lost to time, and its hypothetical existence is effectively intuited by some researches - I do not understand how we can identify the set of things 'not in Q' (or indeed 'in Q'). I'd also note that there's zero evidence to suggest the unknown authors of Matthew and Luke had other sources - there's more evidence to suggest they were simply making stuff up.
- guerrilla 3y ago
  Have you tried actually reading the proponents arguments instead of relying on arrogance? That might be a better way to find out why the consensus is what it is.
  - Jedd 3y ago
    I have read a fair amount on this subject. If you could cite some rational sources that describe what you're alluding to, I'd be delighted to read them. As I noted in a sibling comment, the consensus is Marcan Priority, but a) it's not a huge majority, and b) it's ultimately a tallest dwarf competition anyway.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  So your theory is they simply made up the exact same stuff? Maybe you do believe in miracles after all then.
  - Jedd 3y ago
    I don't know how you get to that conclusion. Q is literally 'source' - with unknown author and unknown content - so we don't know what's in it nor what's not in it. Therefore I challenged the claim by parent that 'anything not in Q ...' because that's an objectively ludicrous statement. My 'theory', inasmuch as I have one, is that the authors of Luke and Matthew had different target audiences, different incentives, but predominantly the same (probably two sets of) materials. They made different mistakes than the author of Mark, and indeed each other, though were presumably much more earnest. The author of Mark was probably just writing allegorical fiction. The author of Matthew for instance was the only one to talk about saints / zombies rising from the graveyards and walking into town, being seen by many people, etc - which is an odd thing for everyone else to have missed or not think to be worth mentioning. There's a beautiful graphic showing % breakdowns of the Mark / Luke / Matthew content about half-way down this page: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gospels https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gospels EDIT: that whole page is worth a read to get a better idea on the bleed between the different texts, a historical context for when they were probably written, and a reminder of the earliest copies we can reliably put dates to.
    - joenot443 3y ago
      I think earnestly citing RationalWiki is enough to give me pause to take the rest of your 'theory' seriously. You know it's a humor website for teenagers, right? It's essentially ED for a different kind of edgy post-reddit nerd, it's not really a serious place to learn about theology.
      - Jedd 3y ago
        I was defending my earlier logic (we don't know what's in Q, therefore we don't know what's not in it). Have you identified a flaw there? I would prefer to earnestly cite Price, Carrier, Fitzgerald etc, but those citations are less convenient, especially for casual readers (clicking a link rather than obtaining books). Disliking the style of rationalwiki seems insufficient reason to discount the clear assertions made, explained, and with original sources cited on that page. Can you identify matters of factual error in that graphic I pointed at, or other material on that link? I note this is the only comment you've made on the entire thread. I don't believe it moves us forward.

ShamelessC 3y ago

Non contentious? Don’t a large portion of Christians believe the Bible is divine and any words included are there because of God?

defrost 3y ago
There are a large number of camps that don't align about this issue. The King James Only movement alone: asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. and has been divided into five subgroups with varying opinions about the text and its relation to God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement This barely scratches the surface of the many opinions held about the collections of smaller books that are bound as versions of "The Bible"; which books, which translations, which interpretations, etc.
- ShamelessC 3y ago
  Thanks! Very interesting.
  - graemep 3y ago
    There is a lot of disagreement about even what documents should be in the Bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon and lots of disagreement about translation and interpretation.
- HeckFeck 3y ago
  > asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. As one who is fond of classical English literature, I am compelled to agree.
Jedd 3y ago
Well, we get into murky territory here. I'd suggest a large portion of self-identified Christian believers really haven't thought much about it at all, beyond (as you say) some orthodox assumptions about divine nature etc. But as per my link above to wikipedia (Marcan Priority) the larger consensus amongst religious historians / researchers is that Mark was written first, Luke & Matthew were written subsequently, and based heavily on a combination of Mark + some unknown source ('Q').