Option 1: Matthew corrected Mark by removing ** you do not have permission to see this link **, not interrupting the flow of what the disciples would personally experience.
Option 2: Mark or somebody else inserted the verse (** you do not have permission to see this link **) from Matthew.
Option 3: Matthew, independent of Mark (either correcting Q, if Q included the interruption, or not correcting Q, if Q did not include the interruption) has its own sequence of verses.
= = =
The above options have come up in this discussion.
If there are no other options to consider, the list of options are closed. Those who say no to all three options and have no option to put forward for consideration, speak now or forever hold your peace, contributing to this discussion.
I object?
Why?
I cannot articulate a reason or an option for consideration.
Objection overruled and contempt warning.
Steefen said
Steefen
The original post does not have to push Matthean chronological priority.
I am making the point that Matthew does not come first.
Mark came first but in a later version of Mark, the Matthew verse was clumsily inserted.
That is as far as I am willing to go.
That’s far enough.
The later version of Mark is the version we now possess. This version appears to have another Matthew verse inserted into an original, where the original looks a lot like what we have now in Matthew.
That’s evidence for Matthew’s priority.
Robert said
Steefen said
Robert: not necessarily. Mark, with the interruption, may have exactly copied Q. Matthew may have corrected Q and Mark.
No, that is not my position. If Mk 13,9.11 was part of Q, it would not have included Mk 13,10, which is very easily understood as a Markan insertion.
You think Mark 13:10 is very easily understood as a Markan insertion?
So you think its very easy to understand Mark inserting 13:10 into an original version which looked very much like Matthew’s?
Robert
There’s no reason to include in this option the idea that Matthew was independent of Mark. The most commonly accepted scholarly ‘solution’ to the synoptic problem believes that Matthew was dependent on both Mark and Q.
Steefen
You are not saying anything different than Option 3.
For contempt, you are on mute, Robert. See you in another thread. Maybe, maybe not.
Robert
My Option 4: Matthew is dependent upon both Mark and Q. Matthew followed Q 12,11-12 in Mt 10,17-22 and also followed Mk 13,5-13 in Mt 24,4-9.14.
Steefen
Matthew followed Q, Chapter 12, verses 11-12. Produce Q, Chapter 12, verses 11-12.
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.
Matthew followed Q, Chapter 12, verses 11-12
but did not follow Mark 13:9 at Matthew Chapter 10, verses 17-22
even though Mark 13: 9 includes “you will be handed over to the local councils” and Matthew 10, verse 17 includes “you will be handed over to the local councils.”
“You will be handed over to the local councils” appears in Mark and Matthew. Matthew cannot be following Q because, by definition, it cannot be in the Gospel of Mark.
and
Matthew followed Mark Chapter 13, verses 5-13 at Matthew 24, verses 4-9 and verse 14.
Steefen
You did not produce Q.
Give us the side-by-side bi-lingual text, translators, publishers, date of publication, and encylopedia entry.
And while you are at it, tell us what Bart has said about your bi-lingual or tri-lingual source.
Bart 11/29/2017
Since the 19th century scholars have argued that Matthew did not get them from Luke or Luke from Matthew (for reasons I’ll suggest below); that probably means they got them from some other source, a document that no longer survives.
This came to be known as the “Sayings Source.” The scholars who developed this view were principally German, and the word in German for “source” is “Quelle.” And so, for short, scholars call this hypothetical lost document Q.
The Contents of Q
We cannot know the full contents of Q, but this has rarely stopped scholars from trying. One popular and widespread view, for example, is that Q did not contain a Passion narrative, but consisted entirely of sayings of Jesus, and that it was, therefore, very similar to the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of 114 sayings of Jesus without any stories of his deeds or experiences and no references to his death and resurrection. I will be dealing more fully with this view in Chapter 12, when I discuss the Gospel of Thomas.
At this stage I should simply re-emphasize that despite the exuberant claims of some scholars, we cannot know the full contents of Q, because the document has been lost.
Steefen
But, since November 29, 2017, Robert has found a foreign language copy of what Bart and many others call a hypothetical document.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)