Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Solve the Synoptic Problem

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Solve the Synoptic Problem

    Or actually, convince me that I should take anything other than the two-source hypothesis or a variation on it seriously. I would argue we have a redacted version of Mark's gospel meaning it could have been re-composed from a proto-Mark after Matthew and Luke were written but without making use of Matt/Lk. The other working hypothesis I can accept as reasonable (in fact I came up with it, although I'm sure someone else has already thought of this idea) is that Matt/Lk used a further redacted version of Mark that I will call "post-Mark", but that post-Mark did not survive.

    I now draw your attention to The New Oxford Annotated Bible which is contains scholarly commentary on a less evangelical-bias than others - Introduction to Luke:

    * "Luke's Gospel is dependant on other earlier writings, especially the Gospel according to Mark."
    * "As for its date, all one can say with certainty is that Luke wrote this account after Mark composed his Gospel."
    Scholar: Marion L Soards. This appears to leave no room for doubt that Luke was dependant on Mark.

    Mark's introduction is less definitive:

    * Mark "is generally thought to be the earliest and to have been used as a source for both Matthew and Luke."
    Scholar: Richard A Horsley

    It is stated definitively when listing the parallels:

    * "A majority of scholars think that the Gospel of Mark was independently used as a source by Matthew and Luke."
    * "A majority of scholars think that Matthew and Luke used a source that has not survived (known as “Q”)."
    P.2266

    Matthew's introduction states it definitively:

    * "Some scholars have seen the Gospel’s replacement of Mark’s tax-collector Levi (Mk 2.13–17) with Matthew (9.9–13) as a sort of authorial signature. Yet, the fact that the Evangelist was so reliant upon Mark and a collection of Jesus’ sayings (“Q”) seems to point to a later, unknown, author. The Gospel’s time of writing is likewise unknown."
    Scholar: JRC Cousland

    And finally there is a section specifically on it called "The Sources of the Gospels" (pp.1744-5). It says this:

    * "Luke knows most of Mark but has no parallels to Mk 6.45–8.26; whether Luke chose to omit this section or had a different version of Mark remains unclear. Detailed analysis of the traditions shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke provides strong support for the view that Mark was the earliest Gospel. But, given its rough, draftlike composition, both Matthew and Luke revised it extensively."

  • #2
    Originally posted by Aractus View Post
    Or actually, convince me that I should take anything other than the two-source hypothesis or a variation on it seriously.
    What about a multi-source hypothesis: That numerous short written fragments were in general circulation among Jesus' followers each half a page to a page in length and giving an account of a single event/teaching? And then each gospel writer either included all the fragments their community had into a single narrative, or selectively choose from among the fragments available to them, and added a bit from oral teachings they'd heard?

    At the end of the day is there any demonstrable difference in predictions made between a multi-source hypothesis and a two-source hypothesis?

    The other working hypothesis I can accept as reasonable (in fact I came up with it, although I'm sure someone else has already thought of this idea) is that Matt/Lk used a further redacted version of Mark that I will call "post-Mark", but that post-Mark did not survive.
    Secret Mark? That's a trigger-word on this site.
    Last edited by Starlight; 06-04-2017, 01:43 AM.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      What about a multi-source hypothesis: That numerous short written fragments were in general circulation among Jesus' followers each half a page to a page in length and giving an account of a single event/teaching? And then each gospel writer either included all the fragments their community had into a single narrative, or selectively choose from among the fragments available to them, and added a bit from oral teachings they'd heard?
      Oh sure there's patchwork all over the place. I'm not suggesting otherwise, and Mark is no exception to that.

      Comment


      • #4
        The Minor Agreement of Matthew 26:67-68 and Luke 22:64 is very difficult to explain on a strict understanding of the Two-Source Hypothesis. It is better explained on the Farrer Hypothesis.

        Comment

        Related Threads

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
        1 response
        24 views
        0 likes
        Last Post whag
        by whag
         
        Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
        60 responses
        281 views
        0 likes
        Last Post tabibito  
        Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
        45 responses
        299 views
        1 like
        Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
        Started by shunyadragon, 02-15-2024, 11:52 AM
        74 responses
        319 views
        0 likes
        Last Post whag
        by whag
         
        Started by whag, 02-06-2024, 12:46 PM
        60 responses
        337 views
        0 likes
        Last Post whag
        by whag
         
        Working...
        X