christundivided said:
rsc2a said:
That's where your theory begins to fail.
Mark would have only copied about 41% of Luke or 45% of Matthew. Why skip so much already existent material if one was trying to create an account of the life of Jesus? Furthermore, why skip so much material, yet not add anything (or very little) that is unique to your own account? Why not include the ~25% of the material that both Luke and Matthew share in your later accounting?
What you present is predicated upon knowing the motive of the author and his writing style. You do not know the motive of the author nor do we have sufficient samples of the author's writings as to make such a determination. This is one of the reason I said. "You have no frame of reference".
Luke, for one, explicitly states his motivation, and we have more of his writing style than of many, many other authors. :-X
[quote author=christundivided]
I have plenty of reference including a knowledge of how later tellings of history evolve from earlier tellings. The writing becomes tighter, the information becomes greater, and the language becomes clearer. (As a general rule...among other evolutionary features.) In each of these areas, Mark appears to be the earlier source for both Matthew and Luke.
Did you even recognize you mentioned "as a general rule". There is a reason we use the term "general rule". There are plenty of exceptions to a "general rule". There isn't enough evidence to draw such a conclusion. Many times "scholars" form opinions and present them as "fact" instead of as a "theory". This is a problem we all have with "pride". [/quote]
And it's up to the person challenging the general rule to give sound reasoning why this rule would be being violated. I haven't seen such evidence for your position.
[quote author=christundivided]
(To be fair, your position was the one favored by the early Church fathers. And, to answer your earlier question, I don't think Q is a requirement. Mark could have been written first, then Matthew with Luke borrowing from both of them.)
I don't base my opinion on the early church fathers. I just see it as a natural order to the recording of the Gospels. I believe the Gospel of Matthew began in Hebrew form for Hebrew converts. It would have been necessary for a "Hebrew convert" to have a documented, orderly account of the life of Christ. As such, I think Matthew would have been a very early work. I'm not saying the writing hasn't changed over time. I believe it has. Yet, I believe it began very early. Maybe in the late 30s or 40 AD. I see Luke as originating in the late 40s or early 50s.[/quote]
These dates honestly make no sense,and I know of no one else who holds to such an early dating. Furthermore, it goes against the pattern of church growth we know from history and see in Scriptures. In all likelihood, most (if not all) of Paul's writings would have pre-dated the gospel accounts and Paul shows a clear understanding of the life and teachings of Jesus.
[quote author=christundivided]You have to admit that modern scholarly consensus place all the Gospel writings outside the explosion of the early church. I believe these writngs would have been vital to early church growth. [/quote]
Actually, I'll admit no such thing, nor do I believe these writings would have been vital to early church growth. The early church was exploding because people were more concerned with caring for others than they were concerned with musical style, influencing politics, or judging their brethren.
[quote author=christundivided]
To claim that Luke didn't reference earlier material based on his claim here is just absurd. Luke was clearly a classical historian, and looking at multiple sources was (and still is) a key method for obtaining facts for the version of history the historian is recording.
While I can see you wanting to believe this, there really is no reason to believe it. Yes, Luke used sources, but I believe these "sources" were accounts of eye witnesses personally given to Luke. Not necessarily the "writings" of others.[/quote]
It's absurd to think that Luke behaves as virtually every other historian, both ancient and modern?
[quote author=christundivided]There is no evidence that Luke used or borrowed from another writing. [/quote]
Except for the nearly identical Greek in several parallel passages in both the Matthew and Lukian gospel accounts?
[quote author=christundivided]There is very little doubt that "oral tradition" of the life of Christ was essential to the early development of the Church. These oral tradition would have been prevalent and would have produced "overlap" in any account of the life of Christ. To say any of the writings are the "base" of another.... is just plain conjecture.[/quote]
Yes...the vast majority of Bible scholars are basing their viewpoints on plain conjecture and not using reasoning at all. :
[quote author=christundivided]There is a recent theory that Luke was a Jew. Maybe even a Jewish priest. I am inclined to believe this.
Gill referencing "Dr Lightfoot's" take on Luke 1:1
The phrase, αναταξασθαι διηγησιν, "to set forth in order a declaration", is as Dr. Lightfoot observes, out of the Talmud (h), agreeably to the Jewish way of speaking.[/quote]
There is? And so?
