Entering or Exiting Jericho: a contradiction in the gospels?

[christundivided]

I don't believe this is a case of "Ipsissima Vox".

You piss in your what?

LOL. Good old King James speak.....

 

[Timotheos]

AS a side note, I think it is rather silly to believe the Mark somehow influenced both Luke and Matthew.

Dumb post of the day?

Nearly every synoptic scholar holds to a Markan priority.  I'm still on the fence, but I am fairly certain Luke was last amongst the 3.  So between you and the scholars... I'll go with their silliness.

Okay Okay Okay... no need to get personal. Personally I might want to go with your assertion concerning internal evidence suggesting Mark represented testimony from eye witness accounts.

Want to discuss the evidence? Do you really believe "Q" really existed?

Meant to make it sarcastic.  Sorry.  That was my dumb post of the day then.

Whether Mark is going off of eye witness testimony or oral tradition which is founded on eye witness testimony matters little to me.  We can discuss the evidence.  I enjoy synoptic studies.  Though I'm not sure why you asserted into the question that I hold to a Q source.  Q doesn't relate to Mark (though some scholars believe there is minor overlap).  I'm not sure where I stand on the 2 source/4 source hypothesis.  But I think a good case can be made for Markan priority.  So I start with that minimum. 

 

[rsc2a]

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.

I don't even know why I responded to you. After this, it won't happen again. I've quoted the only thing worth responding to...

Is this the only thing worth responding to because the other points show the extremely shaky ground you are basing your hypothesis on? Like, for instance, when you said that we didn't know Luke's motivation for writing expect that he explicitly states exactly why he wrote his missive.

[quote author=christundivided]Paul shows a clear understanding because he lived during the life of Christ.[/quote]

Why assume that Paul would have been familiar with Jesus? I find that the text actually implies the exact opposite prior to his conversion.

[quote author=christundivided]Also, you're confusing the time between when a particular text is first written and when it becomes widely distributed and accepted. My dates would allow for an early introduction and proper time for them to become relevant among the assemblies.[/quote]

What in the world does this have to do with my point?

[quote author=christundivided]It may have taken a decade or more for this to happen.[/quote]

I'm pretty certain that if one of the Twelve wrote an account of the life of Jesus, it would have been accepted nearly instantly by the early church. You'll also find that the many of the writings, like for instance the canonical gospel accounts and Paul's writings, actually spread fairly quickly.

[quote author=christundivided]You're being very silly in your responses to me and I am tried of it. You try your best to nit pick everything I say. Go away.[/quote]

It's silly to point out that you contradicted the explicit statements of Luke? It's nit-picky to point out that the Greek in Matthew and Luke are identical in places?

 

[christundivided]

AS a side note, I think it is rather silly to believe the Mark somehow influenced both Luke and Matthew.

Dumb post of the day?

Nearly every synoptic scholar holds to a Markan priority.  I'm still on the fence, but I am fairly certain Luke was last amongst the 3.  So between you and the scholars... I'll go with their silliness.

Okay Okay Okay... no need to get personal. Personally I might want to go with your assertion concerning internal evidence suggesting Mark represented testimony from eye witness accounts.

Want to discuss the evidence? Do you really believe "Q" really existed?

Meant to make it sarcastic.  Sorry.  That was my dumb post of the day then.

Whether Mark is going off of eye witness testimony or oral tradition which is founded on eye witness testimony matters little to me.  We can discuss the evidence.  I enjoy synoptic studies.  Though I'm not sure why you asserted into the question that I hold to a Q source.  Q doesn't relate to Mark (though some scholars believe there is minor overlap).  I'm not sure where I stand on the 2 source/4 source hypothesis.  But I think a good case can be made for Markan priority.  So I start with that minimum.

Some consider "Q" to to relate to all three. Only a Markan priority would discount "Q" from Mark. I personally think the very idea behind "Q" to be silly. Its complete conjecture and a fabrication of an over active imagination. If the various assemblies of the early church would have had distributed/shared a written copy of the various oral traditions of the "sayings of Jesus".... It would be somewhere. It would have been an important part of church history. In fact, I think that brings us to the point of discussing a facet of the Gospels that is often overlooked in these discussions.

If there were "written" accounts of the life of Christ before any extant copies of the "Gospels". Would the early church that used/reproduced these accounts..... consider them to be both "inspired" and inerrant? If not, then why not?

 

[Timotheos]

Some consider "Q" to to relate to all three. Only a Markan priority would discount "Q" from Mark. I personally think the very idea behind "Q" to be silly. Its complete conjecture and a fabrication of an over active imagination. If the various assemblies of the early church would have had distributed/shared a written copy of the various oral traditions of the "sayings of Jesus".... It would be somewhere. It would have been an important part of church history. In fact, I think that brings us to the point of discussing a facet of the Gospels that is often overlooked in these discussions.

If there were "written" accounts of the life of Christ before any extant copies of the "Gospels". Would the early church that used/reproduced these accounts..... consider them to be both "inspired" and inerrant? If not, then why not?

First no one of reputation refers to Q as a reference to all the synoptics.  Q is only the text that Matthew and Luke have in common.  Again, I don't have a hard and fast position on Q.  But I lean very comfortably toward Markan priority.

I think the "written" accounts Luke was referring to has a very interesting theory in a Mathaean prioritist in his book The Progressive Publication of Matthew (http://www.amazon.com/Progressive-Publication-Matthew-Ward-Powers/dp/B005Q6KLHK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370360682&sr=8-1&keywords=progressive+publication+of+matthew).  I haven't finished it, but I hope to.  He proposes an interesting theory that solves many problems.  What Luke had were short stories written by Matthew in Hebrew.  Luke compiled these which accounts for the similarity.  Some time either before or after, Matthew compiled his account in Greek. 

 

[christundivided]

Some consider "Q" to to relate to all three. Only a Markan priority would discount "Q" from Mark. I personally think the very idea behind "Q" to be silly. Its complete conjecture and a fabrication of an over active imagination. If the various assemblies of the early church would have had distributed/shared a written copy of the various oral traditions of the "sayings of Jesus".... It would be somewhere. It would have been an important part of church history. In fact, I think that brings us to the point of discussing a facet of the Gospels that is often overlooked in these discussions.

If there were "written" accounts of the life of Christ before any extant copies of the "Gospels". Would the early church that used/reproduced these accounts..... consider them to be both "inspired" and inerrant? If not, then why not?

First no one of reputation refers to Q as a reference to all the synoptics.  Q is only the text that Matthew and Luke have in common.  Again, I don't have a hard and fast position on Q.  But I lean very comfortably toward Markan priority.

I think the "written" accounts Luke was referring to has a very interesting theory in a Mathaean prioritist in his book The Progressive Publication of Matthew (http://www.amazon.com/Progressive-Publication-Matthew-Ward-Powers/dp/B005Q6KLHK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370360682&sr=8-1&keywords=progressive+publication+of+matthew).  I haven't finished it, but I hope to.  He proposes an interesting theory that solves many problems.  What Luke had were short stories written by Matthew in Hebrew.  Luke compiled these which accounts for the similarity.  Some time either before or after, Matthew compiled his account in Greek.

Do you have a well known reputation? I believe you consider yourself informed on the issues. If I were you.... I wouldn't be throwing around a "reputation" argument. I could care less about the average reputation argument. If you want to throw around arguments about reputation, you should study Augustine's opinion on the matter?

There is no need to fabricate an elaborate, overly complex hypothesis to completely harmonize all the Gospel accounts. We just don't know. There is not solid evidence for a Markan priority.

 

[Timotheos]

Do you have a well known reputation? I believe you consider yourself informed on the issues. If I were you.... I wouldn't be throwing around a "reputation" argument. I could care less about the average reputation argument. If you want to throw around arguments about reputation, you should study Augustine's opinion on the matter?

There is no need to fabricate an elaborate, overly complex hypothesis to completely harmonize all the Gospel accounts. We just don't know. There is not solid evidence for a Markan priority.

I was not including myself in the reputation.  But give it time

I do believe I am informed on the issues.  I have a feeling I've read more on it than you.  I'm sure you don't care about reputable scholars who hold Markan priority, but you should. 

As for solid evidence for Markan priority, that is just simply ridiculous.  It is not just a hypothesis that has no observable data to back it up.  There are very strong reasons to hold to it.  If you want, I would be willing to do a formal debate about it.  Which view do you hold to?

 

[christundivided]

Do you have a well known reputation? I believe you consider yourself informed on the issues. If I were you.... I wouldn't be throwing around a "reputation" argument. I could care less about the average reputation argument. If you want to throw around arguments about reputation, you should study Augustine's opinion on the matter?

There is no need to fabricate an elaborate, overly complex hypothesis to completely harmonize all the Gospel accounts. We just don't know. There is not solid evidence for a Markan priority.

I was not including myself in the reputation.  But give it time

I do believe I am informed on the issues.  I have a feeling I've read more on it than you.  I'm sure you don't care about reputable scholars who hold Markan priority, but you should. 

As for solid evidence for Markan priority, that is just simply ridiculous.  It is not just a hypothesis that has no observable data to back it up.  There are very strong reasons to hold to it.  If you want, I would be willing to do a formal debate about it.  Which view do you hold to?

Feelings? Humm.........If you have read more than I have, which I doubt, it might just be a liability rather than a "strength".

Sure. Lets do it. I have already stated that I believe Matthew was written first, Yet, I do not believe that Luke is based on Matthew.

 

[Timotheos]

Should we narrow the topic to "Markan Priority"?  I will take the affirmative and you the other position?  Or we could do Matthaen priority and you would be the affirmative.  Either one is fine with me.  And how do we want to do the format?

 

[christundivided]

Should we narrow the topic to "Markan Priority"?  I will take the affirmative and you the other position?  Or we could do Matthaen priority and you would be the affirmative.  Either one is fine with me.  And how do we want to do the format?

I don't know how narrow we can go. I was thinking more of dealing with the Synoptic Gospels in general. If you want to narrow it to either or, then I will take the opposing view to Markan Priority.

Lets let a third party set the format. We can then give our opinion. I'd value almost anyone's input. I'm certain FSSL or Ransom would be good place to start.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I should point out that this conflict does not exist in the Lolcats version of the Bible.

Luke 18:35 Jebus n his Lolcats wuz neer Jeriko n a blind allee kitteh wuz diggin’ in de trash 4 sum foodz.

Mark 10:46 an dem caem to Jericho. But den, wehn HappyCat leeves town wif hiz deesipulz, an tehres alot uv peepul folloing dem (coz their famus u knoe), look hai, tehres blind begga sits bai teh road. Him calld Bartimaios, son of Timaios.

 

[rsc2a]

So, according to LOLcat, the blind man was the son of our own Timotheos?

 

[Castor Muscular]

So, according to LOLcat, the blind man was the son of our own Timotheos?

I don't know, but I think I just made a case that the LOLcat Bible corrects the Greek, which may lead to a whole LCVO following. 

 

[Timotheos]

Should we narrow the topic to "Markan Priority"?  I will take the affirmative and you the other position?  Or we could do Matthaen priority and you would be the affirmative.  Either one is fine with me.  And how do we want to do the format?

I don't know how narrow we can go. I was thinking more of dealing with the Synoptic Gospels in general. If you want to narrow it to either or, then I will take the opposing view to Markan Priority.

Lets let a third party set the format. We can then give our opinion. I'd value almost anyone's input. I'm certain FSSL or Ransom would be good place to start.

Each of you write an intro statement and let me know when you are ready to post.

How long does the statement need to be?

 

[Timotheos]

I gotta stop throwing my hat in the ring until I have time to dedicate to it. 

I have a PhD seminar on Revelation next week (SEBTS).  I have to finish up 2 presentations on apocalyptic works (4 Ezra & 12 testaments of the patriarchs).  The week following, I have to finish my paper (use of the OT in the 7th message to Laodicea).  After that, there is only a bunch of book reviews.  So I will be ready to devote myself to this in around 3 weeks.  By then, my summer vacation will be close to beginning

I hope that is not too long to wait.

 

[FSSL]

I gotta stop throwing my hat in the ring until I have time to dedicate to it.

LOL!! I am sure that christundivided will not have changed his opinion by then.

 

[christundivided]

I gotta stop throwing my hat in the ring until I have time to dedicate to it.

LOL!! I am sure that christundivided will not have changed his opinion by then.

Are you trying to say I'm stubborn...

I resemble that remark.......

 

[Timotheos]

I gotta stop throwing my hat in the ring until I have time to dedicate to it.

LOL!! I am sure that christundivided will not have changed his opinion by then.

Are you trying to say I'm stubborn...

I resemble that remark.......

Honestly, I am worried that in those 3 weeks that I will not even think about it, you will have loaded your bazooka and annihilate me.  PLUS, I have the influence of David Alan Black working against me (he is my ThM mentor).  I am not whole-heartedly convinced of Markan priority and have even taught the 2 gospel hypothesis.  This will be a big mental exercise arguing for a view that I am leaning toward but not completely convinced of.

 

[FSSL]

Are you trying to say I'm stubborn...
I resemble that remark.......

Ha!

 

[Timotheos]

Just wanted to say that I am still interested in doing this if CU is.  I don't have a lot of free time, but as I get closer to November, my fall semester should be lightening up (both as a teacher and a student).