Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 11:57 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.
RE: Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.
(May 5, 2019 at 12:09 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: Darrell Bock “All of this evidence appears to point to a date in the 60s”.

J.A.T.Robinson

John Wenham (well, AD 40 isn't the 60s, but in the spirit of the challenge...!)


To be clear, I'm not going to argue for a pre-70 dating.


Two points from the OP:

Far too much is attempted with Q. To use a document whose existence is hypothetical is building on very weak foundations. Q could have been a person, a fluid oral collection document, simply a set of things regularly repeated, or nothing at all.

More importantly, whilst attempts to reconstruct the historical Jesus rule out use of special status for Mark and others, standard historical techniques plus some specific to NT historicity can be used in the normal ways to draw conclusions. We can learn a lot by treating the NT as a collection of historical documents with their own generally obvious biases.

Most Biblical scholars accept the existence of Q; it's mainstream.
Reply
RE: Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.
Most scholars accept the likelihood of Q, although some don't (e.g. Mark Goodacre) and support for it has declined a lot since the heady days of the Jesus Seminar. There's a whole world of ideas about it's existence, content, origins etc etc. My point would be that those placing weight on it or a particular form of it are building their house on sand (which BTW is a Q saying). I mean it might be a thing, or not.

Certainly those going down the Q1 Q2 Q3 route are having a laugh.

Q could just as easily be a person who talked to M and L rather than a document, for example.
Reply
RE: Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.
(May 7, 2019 at 1:07 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: Most scholars accept the likelihood of Q, although some don't (e.g. Mark Goodacre) and support for it has declined a lot since the heady days of the Jesus Seminar. There's a whole world of ideas about it's existence, content, origins etc etc. My point would be that those placing weight on it or a particular form of it are building their house on sand (which BTW is a Q saying). I mean it might be a thing, or not.

Certainly those going down the Q1 Q2 Q3 route are having a laugh.

Q could just as easily be a person who talked to M and L rather than a document, for example.

Quote:The Q source (also called Q document, Q Gospel, or Q from German: Quelle, meaning "source") is a hypothetical written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings (logia). Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church's oral tradition.[1][2][3]
Along with Marcan priority, Q was hypothesized by 1900, and is one of the foundations of most modern gospel scholarship.[4] B. H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was written in Koine Greek; that most of its contents appear in Matthew, in Luke, or in both; and that Luke more often preserves the text's original order than Matthew. In the two-source hypothesis, the three-source hypothesis and the Q+/Papias hypothesis Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources. Some scholars have postulated that Q is actually a plurality of sources, some written and some oral.[5] Others have attempted to determine the stages in which Q was composed.[6]
Q's existence has been questioned.[6] Omitting what should have been a highly treasured dominical document from all early Church catalogs, its lack of mention by Jerome is a conundrum of modern Biblical scholarship.[7] But copying Q might have been seen as unnecessary as it was preserved in the canonical gospels. Hence, it was preferable to copy the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, "where the sayings of Jesus from Q were rephrased to avoid misunderstandings, and to fit their own situations and their understanding of what Jesus had really meant".[8] Despite challenges, the two-source hypothesis retains wide support.[6]

Wikipedia -- Q Source
Reply
RE: Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.
Q doesn't exist
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.

Inuit Proverb

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Gospel of John controversy Jillybean 12 338 March 4, 2024 at 7:25 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Mark's Gospel was damaged and reassembled incorrectly SeniorCitizen 1 335 November 19, 2023 at 5:48 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  How can you prove that the gospel of Mark is not the "word of god"? Lincoln05 100 11593 October 16, 2018 at 5:38 pm
Last Post: GrandizerII
  The Gospel of Peter versus the Gospel of Matthew. Jehanne 47 5656 July 14, 2018 at 12:22 am
Last Post: Godscreated
  The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts athrock 127 22652 February 9, 2016 at 1:46 am
Last Post: Minimalist
  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles = Satanic Gospel Metis 14 4017 July 17, 2015 at 12:16 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  Why do gospel contradictions matter? taylor93112 87 18498 April 28, 2015 at 7:27 pm
Last Post: Desert Diva
  The infancy gospel of thomas dyresand 18 6690 December 29, 2014 at 10:35 am
Last Post: dyresand
  "Gospel Quest" (or The Jesus Timeline) DeistPaladin 93 16337 August 11, 2014 at 5:40 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Can christians here explain Mark 5:2-13? Brakeman 38 10071 December 25, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Last Post: Chad32



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)