Woman in Bible & Quran!

[Dr.Who]

Where does this ability come from?

Textual criticism

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...ticism+list+disputed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/11/13/text-variants/

Textual criticism confirms much of what we know about the bible. Textual criticism is also what prompts Nums sources into theorizing that there is a Q document. But within the field there are things that can be stated with a high degree of certainty and things that cannot be stated with high degree of certainty.

Our ability to know what was in the originals is pretty high. Our ability to know if mark and matthew came from a common source (other than the actual historical events) is more dubious.

 

[numinus]

Our ability to know what was in the originals is pretty high. Our ability to know if mark and matthew came from a common source (other than the actual historical events) is more dubious.

Of course. The latter is an inference from the former, hence has a smaller degree of certainty. It could very well be that the two came from the same oral tradition, hence no Q.

 

[Dr.Who]

Of course. The latter is an inference from the former, hence has a smaller degree of certainty. It could very well be that the two came from the same oral tradition, hence no Q.

I didn't fact check before this post...But didn't both Mark and Matthew claim to be eyewitnesses. If so that would eliminate the possibility that the books came from the same oral tradition or a third Q unless the statement about them being eyewitnesses is wrong or a lie.

 

[numinus]

I didn't fact check before this post...But didn't both Mark and Matthew claim to be eyewitnesses. If so that would eliminate the possibility that the books came from the same oral tradition or a third Q unless the statement about them being eyewitnesses is wrong or a lie.

No.

Mark, matthew and luke are called 'synoptic' -- which means they 'see eye to eye' -- or a general conformity in style and content.

Other gospels, especially the gnostic gospels of nag hamadi fame -- thomas, judas, mary magdalene, etc. have fundamentally different philosophical traditions.

 

[Dr.Who]

No.

Mark, matthew and luke are called 'synoptic' -- which means they 'see eye to eye' -- or a general conformity in style and content.

Other gospels, especially the gnostic gospels of nag hamadi fame -- thomas, judas, mary magdalene, etc. have fundamentally different philosophical traditions.

Whether or not they are synoptic how would that change whether or not the authors claimed to be eyewitnesses? If one author says he is Mark and he was an eyewitness and the other claims to be Matthew and he is an eyewittness then they two books could not possibly be derived from the same hypothetical Q source.

 

[numinus]

Whether or not they are synoptic how would that change whether or not the authors claimed to be eyewitnesses? If one author says he is Mark and he was an eyewitness and the other claims to be Matthew and he is an eyewittness then they two books could not possibly be derived from the same hypothetical Q source.

No.

The actual documents of the gospels of mark and matthew where written a century after the crucifixion. They are merely copies which can be traced to q.

 

[Dr.Who]

No.

The actual documents of the gospels of mark and matthew where written a century after the crucifixion. They are merely copies which can be traced to q.

Using the same techniques that are used to suppose an imaginary Q document we can suppose two originals for Mark and Matthew with much greater certainty. And as I have said a few times now if Mark and Matthew contain statments that the authors were named Mark and Matthew respectively then that would rule out the possibility that those statments at least were from the same source. Unless one is trying to say that the author of Q was named both Mark and Matthew at the same time. Are you?

 

[9sublime]

Why couldn't someone be called Mark and Matthew? Theres millions of things that could have happened over the course of Jesus's life, let alone the following 2,000 years that could make the Bible utterly unreliable.

 

[numinus]

Using the same techniques that are used to suppose an imaginary Q document we can suppose two originals for Mark and Matthew with much greater certainty. And as I have said a few times now if Mark and Matthew contain statments that the authors were named Mark and Matthew respectively then that would rule out the possibility that those statments at least were from the same source. Unless one is trying to say that the author of Q was named both Mark and Matthew at the same time. Are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

Ninety-one percent of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and fifty-three percent of Mark is found in Luke. This material constitutes the Triple Tradition. The Triple Tradition is largely narrative but contains some sayings material. Since so much of Mark is Triple Tradition, some scholars combine it with the rest of Mark and talk about a Markan Tradition instead. In addition to the Triple Tradition, Matthew and Luke share content not found in Mark, called the Double Tradition. This content is mostly composed of sayings (mainly by Jesus, but some by John the Baptist) but includes at least one miracle story (the Centurion's Servant) as well.

Agreement in the order of the content is the strongest indication of a documentary dependence, especially when the agreement touches topical arrangements instead of chronological (e.g., both Matthew and Mark relate the death of John the Baptist in a flash-back). Therefore most scholars have not found purely oral theories plausible. The pattern of order is quite different between the Triple and Double traditions.

In the Triple Tradition, the order (or arrangement) of the pericopes is largely shared between Matthew and Mark or Luke and Mark or among all three. It is rarely the case that Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in arranging the Triple Tradition. This formal property means that Mark is a middle term between Matthew and Luke.

 

[Dr.Who]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

Ninety-one percent of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and fifty-three percent of Mark is found in Luke. This material constitutes the Triple Tradition. The Triple Tradition is largely narrative but contains some sayings material. Since so much of Mark is Triple Tradition, some scholars combine it with the rest of Mark and talk about a Markan Tradition instead. In addition to the Triple Tradition, Matthew and Luke share content not found in Mark, called the Double Tradition. This content is mostly composed of sayings (mainly by Jesus, but some by John the Baptist) but includes at least one miracle story (the Centurion's Servant) as well.

Agreement in the order of the content is the strongest indication of a documentary dependence, especially when the agreement touches topical arrangements instead of chronological (e.g., both Matthew and Mark relate the death of John the Baptist in a flash-back). Therefore most scholars have not found purely oral theories plausible. The pattern of order is quite different between the Triple and Double traditions.

In the Triple Tradition, the order (or arrangement) of the pericopes is largely shared between Matthew and Mark or Luke and Mark or among all three. It is rarely the case that Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in arranging the Triple Tradition. This formal property means that Mark is a middle term between Matthew and Luke.

Alternatively, the explanation could be that Mark and Matthew saw the same things at the same time and knew each other enough to influence what they wrote.

When two people see the same thing we would expect that they would describe the same thing. When they both quote Jesus we would expect that the quotes would be the same. I would expect similarity in content.

However if the two letters were the result of a third letter Q then I would expect there to be more than similarity in content. I would expect there to be large areas of the same text.

If there is such a thing as a Q document I propose that it is more likely that it went down like this:

Mark and Matthew decided to write down the events that they saw. They talked to each other about it. One of them had written notes about what their rabbi said during his life; a collection of his quotes. This would be the Q document. They both then wrote their biographies of Jesus and they both referred to the Q to make sure that they got the quotes right.

This explains the "synoptic problem" (which is really no problem) while not introducing the unsupported idea that the books were plaguirizations or later fictional creations.

 

[numinus]

Alternatively, the explanation could be that Mark and Matthew saw the same things at the same time and knew each other enough to influence what they wrote.

When two people see the same thing we would expect that they would describe the same thing. When they both quote Jesus we would expect that the quotes would be the same. I would expect similarity in content.

However if the two letters were the result of a third letter Q then I would expect there to be more than similarity in content. I would expect there to be large areas of the same text.

If there is such a thing as a Q document I propose that it is more likely that it went down like this:

Mark and Matthew decided to write down the events that they saw. They talked to each other about it. One of them had written notes about what their rabbi said during his life; a collection of his quotes. This would be the Q document. They both then wrote their biographies of Jesus and they both referred to the Q to make sure that they got the quotes right.

This explains the "synoptic problem" (which is really no problem) while not introducing the unsupported idea that the books were plaguirizations or later fictional creations.

There are many theories -- most of them involve the hypothetical q. Your suggestion is implausible without q.

 

[Dr.Who]

There are many theories -- most of them involve the hypothetical q. Your suggestion is implausible without q.

You are free to think that.