RE: Evangelicals, Trump and a Quick Bible Study
October 27, 2020 at 9:48 pm
(This post was last modified: October 27, 2020 at 10:10 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
"Other books" is Q.
More elaborately -
There are direct lifts from mark in both matthew and luke. Long strings of characters copied verbatum, even parentheticals copied, even mistakes. Luke agrees with mark against matthew and matthew agrees with mark against luke but only rarely do matthew and luke agree against mark. Additionally, there are large amounts of material common to luke and matthew that do not exist in mark at all.
As for the notion that mark also used q as a source - we know that mark had a source. The same simplicity that's used to assess notions of additional sources is used here. At the very least, much of what was in mark didn't contradict q, if there were a q. That would have been expected to yield more agreement by luke and matthew against mark. It would have been even more troublesome, in effect, to the synoptic problem. Multiplying problems by reducing entities.
Even in the two source hypothesis it's possible that, ultimately, one source was used. We simply describe a portion of that source as markan due to it's presence in the text, which was an accident of history. However, for purposes of explanation of effect considered, this is equivalent to a two source hypothesis as all that's being explained is how the differences and agreements between the Now Markan source and later texts came to arise.
This needs to be said. None of these texts, absolutely none of them, were the product of a single author let alone the author by namesake. That's why no explanation that boils down to a single man taking one text from some other single man and making shit up himself fits. Even in single source ordering solutions that's a non starter.
More elaborately -
There are direct lifts from mark in both matthew and luke. Long strings of characters copied verbatum, even parentheticals copied, even mistakes. Luke agrees with mark against matthew and matthew agrees with mark against luke but only rarely do matthew and luke agree against mark. Additionally, there are large amounts of material common to luke and matthew that do not exist in mark at all.
As for the notion that mark also used q as a source - we know that mark had a source. The same simplicity that's used to assess notions of additional sources is used here. At the very least, much of what was in mark didn't contradict q, if there were a q. That would have been expected to yield more agreement by luke and matthew against mark. It would have been even more troublesome, in effect, to the synoptic problem. Multiplying problems by reducing entities.
Even in the two source hypothesis it's possible that, ultimately, one source was used. We simply describe a portion of that source as markan due to it's presence in the text, which was an accident of history. However, for purposes of explanation of effect considered, this is equivalent to a two source hypothesis as all that's being explained is how the differences and agreements between the Now Markan source and later texts came to arise.
This needs to be said. None of these texts, absolutely none of them, were the product of a single author let alone the author by namesake. That's why no explanation that boils down to a single man taking one text from some other single man and making shit up himself fits. Even in single source ordering solutions that's a non starter.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
