3 ms·

Read 'The case against Q' book. You don't need to invent a 'Q' if you simply assume Matthew copied from Mark/Luke or Luke from Mark/Matthew. That is actually a

Read 'The case against Q' book. You don't need to invent a 'Q' if you simply assume Matthew copied from Mark/Luke or Luke from Mark/Matthew. That is actually a much simpler explanation and in the real world if you were a professor with students handing in their paper, you would assume a A>B>C relationship, rather then assume there was some unknown Q that you have no evidence for. To assume there is some Q that B and C shared, you would need a lot of evidence. But my large point that you quoted is that these didn't come about as a perfectly finished product to then be used by somebody else, rather there was continual rewriting before the text reached a final form.

Suppafly 2y ago
>You don't need to invent a 'Q' if you simply assume Matthew copied from Mark/Luke or Luke from Mark/Matthew. I'm not a biblical scholar at all, but IIRC, the timelines of when those works were created doesn't support this idea, which is why the general consensus among actual biblical scholars is that there is some other work or works that the older two borrowed from. If the simpler explanation that you prefer actually made sense, they'd have never come up with the other theory. >But my large point that you quoted is that these didn't come about as a perfectly finished product to then be used by somebody else, rather there was continual rewriting before the text reached a final form. That seems mostly unrelated to the concept of whether or not the earlier books borrowed from a previous shared source or sources. Being handwavy about dates seems to be a common issue with people trying to work backwards to prove a point vs those that look at the available data to come up with a conclusion.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  > I'm not a biblical scholar at all, but IIRC, the timelines of when those works were created doesn't support this idea We don't know when they were created. The traditional dating are just badly supported assumptions. We absolutely do not have clear evidence that one is after the other. Its actually the other way around, its textual analysis that lead people to conclude that one must have been before the other. So if you change the analysis you also potentially change assumed dates. > which is why the general consensus among actual biblical scholars is that there is some other work or works that the older two borrowed from The field is actually very much split on this issue. Conservatives are still holding on to Q but even the people who believe in Q, have no uniform definition and what Q is has a wild amount of variation. So at best one can say that most people agree that some earlier source was involved. In the last 30 years, there has been a ton of movement against the traditional Q arguments. And I think its fair to say that there isn't a clear consensuses among scholars at secular schools. And many people simply say that they are not really sure. > If the simpler explanation that you prefer actually made sense, they'd have never come up with the other theory. You have a totally oversized believe in the infallibly of science. This field was utterly dominated by conservative scholars or outright priests for 1900 years, it took 100s of years to move away from simply Matthew priority as claimed in Church tradition. Having these sources being independent was a core assumption of much of christian scholarship, and questioning that fundamental assumption was not easily done (and doing so could impact your job). In the 1880s the strong believe in independent tradition basically required people to come up with a solution to preserve that, or it would overthrow a huge amount of traditional history. If you start without 2000 years of church history and assumptions, and you just straightforwardly think about it, Q isn't the thing you would reach for. > That seems mostly unrelated to the concept of whether or not the earlier books borrowed from a previous shared source or sources. Yes it does. Because one version of Luke might have copied from one version of Matthew. Mark in its final might be later then both. But all of them might contain stuff from an earlier gospel. As long as you are comparing fixed text and ask 'what was first', you are already fundamentally of track. You need to go threw these text bit by bit and figure out difference in the different layers. Once you do that talking only about the finish forms isn't really helpful at all.

Suppafly 2y ago

>You don't need to invent a 'Q' if you simply assume Matthew copied from Mark/Luke or Luke from Mark/Matthew. I'm not a biblical scholar at all, but IIRC, the timelines of when those works were created doesn't support this idea, which is why the general consensus among actual biblical scholars is that there is some other work or works that the older two borrowed from. If the simpler explanation that you prefer actually made sense, they'd have never come up with the other theory. >But my large point that you quoted is that these didn't come about as a perfectly finished product to then be used by somebody else, rather there was continual rewriting before the text reached a final form. That seems mostly unrelated to the concept of whether or not the earlier books borrowed from a previous shared source or sources. Being handwavy about dates seems to be a common issue with people trying to work backwards to prove a point vs those that look at the available data to come up with a conclusion.

panick21_ 2y ago
> I'm not a biblical scholar at all, but IIRC, the timelines of when those works were created doesn't support this idea We don't know when they were created. The traditional dating are just badly supported assumptions. We absolutely do not have clear evidence that one is after the other. Its actually the other way around, its textual analysis that lead people to conclude that one must have been before the other. So if you change the analysis you also potentially change assumed dates. > which is why the general consensus among actual biblical scholars is that there is some other work or works that the older two borrowed from The field is actually very much split on this issue. Conservatives are still holding on to Q but even the people who believe in Q, have no uniform definition and what Q is has a wild amount of variation. So at best one can say that most people agree that some earlier source was involved. In the last 30 years, there has been a ton of movement against the traditional Q arguments. And I think its fair to say that there isn't a clear consensuses among scholars at secular schools. And many people simply say that they are not really sure. > If the simpler explanation that you prefer actually made sense, they'd have never come up with the other theory. You have a totally oversized believe in the infallibly of science. This field was utterly dominated by conservative scholars or outright priests for 1900 years, it took 100s of years to move away from simply Matthew priority as claimed in Church tradition. Having these sources being independent was a core assumption of much of christian scholarship, and questioning that fundamental assumption was not easily done (and doing so could impact your job). In the 1880s the strong believe in independent tradition basically required people to come up with a solution to preserve that, or it would overthrow a huge amount of traditional history. If you start without 2000 years of church history and assumptions, and you just straightforwardly think about it, Q isn't the thing you would reach for. > That seems mostly unrelated to the concept of whether or not the earlier books borrowed from a previous shared source or sources. Yes it does. Because one version of Luke might have copied from one version of Matthew. Mark in its final might be later then both. But all of them might contain stuff from an earlier gospel. As long as you are comparing fixed text and ask 'what was first', you are already fundamentally of track. You need to go threw these text bit by bit and figure out difference in the different layers. Once you do that talking only about the finish forms isn't really helpful at all.