4 ms·
Kind of odd to see this turning up here: this theory isn't new and in fact is one of the couple most accepted theories about the origin of the gospels. It was
by wheels 2y ago
Kind of odd to see this turning up here: this theory isn't new and in fact is one of the couple most accepted theories about the origin of the gospels. It was proposed more than a century ago, and this article doesn't say anything particularly new or interesting about it. Honestly, the Wikipedia page is probably better:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
- readthenotes1 2y agoI was kind of wondering if the reason it showed up was that it was AI generated and then edited.
- zifpanachr23 2y agoPerhaps
- emmelaich 2y agoThe conclusion feels a bit AI-ish.
- zargon 2y agohttps://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
- andrewflnr 2y agoWell yeah, but you can just post the wiki article if that's better. HN is usually cool with that.
- refulgentis 2y agoWe should reduce all links to Wikipedia if feasible? Sounds like redux of https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
- andrewflnr 2y agoIf you want to post about a random topic, and Wikipedia is better than the random blog where you encountered the topic, you should prefer to post the Wikipedia article. This is a specific case of "prefer to post higher-quality pages", which I hope is not controversial.
- refulgentis 2y agoI'm shaking my head over here. Never thought I'd hear people complaining they got a link to an article instead of Wikipedia. I literally can't believe it. This is a good article and its bone-headed for several obvious reasons to argue it should be replaced by a wikpedia article. Let's go with the most utilitarian: If this was just a site for entity-name-matching to wikipedia articles, it wouldn't be very popular.
- andrewflnr 2y ago> entity-name-matching to wikipedia articles I thought I made it clear that this was a strawman. Literally no one is proposing that. If you think OP is good actually, feel free to argue that on its own grounds.
- refulgentis 2y agoLet's roll back the entire tape and see where you said its a strawman and you're not actually proposing that and its all theoratical. >> Well yeah, but you can just post the wiki article if that's better. HN is usually cool with that. >> If you want to post about a random topic, and Wikipedia is better than the random blog where you encountered the topic, you should prefer to post the Wikipedia article. This is a specific case of "prefer to post higher-quality pages", which I hope is not controversial. I'm sorry, there's nothing about it being a strawman and that you're not actually proposing it. In fact, its quite easy to read the opposite, you say "This is a specific case of prefer to post higher-quality pages" and "Wikipedia is better than the random blog where you encountered the topic" You got out over your skis and went too far. Maybe you spoke sloppily and were just speaking completely theoratically about an abstract example and forgot to mention that. Its fine, but I'd prefer you didn't pretend you made clear this was all an abstract intellectual exercise and you liked the article.
- chris_wot 2y agoQ is something that has been hypothesised, it has never been actually found. The Wikipedia article shows that it's definitely not universally accepted by any stretch.
- wheels 2y agoThat seems to literally just be restating what I said? Being one of the couple most accepted implies that there are other theories, and if it'd been found, it wouldn't be a theory, but simply part of the historical record.