joelr
Well-Known Member
. It's telling right away that you are framing this as "my argument" and my "beliefs". This is none of those. This is by far the consensus in Christian scholarship.
-The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources;[9][10] the authors of Matthew and Luke, acting independently, used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with the collection of sayings called the Q document and additional material unique to each;[11] and there is a near-consensus that John had its origins as a "signs" source (or gospel) that circulated within a Johannine community.[
This article from Bible.org summarizes the current scholarship and reasons why it's known that Matthew sourced Mark. Most historians believe all were sourced from Mark. The arguments are explained in more detail on the site.
"Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke. On the other hand, less than 60% of Matthew is duplicated in Mark, and only 47% of Luke is found in Mark.1"
"
To sum up reasons for Markan priority, the following eight arguments have been given.
(1) The argument from length. Although Mark’s Gospel is shorter, it is not an abridgment, nor a gospel built exclusively on Matthew-Luke agreement. In fact, where its pericopae parallel Matthew and/or Luke, Mark’s story is usually the longest. The rich material left out of his gospel is inexplicable on the Griesbach hypothesis.
(2) The argument from grammar. Matthew and especially Luke use better grammar and literary style than Mark, suggesting that they used Mark, but improved on it.
(3) The argument from harder readings. On the analogy of early scribal habits, Luke and Matthew apparently removed difficulties from Mark’s Gospel in making their own. If Matthean priority is assumed, then what is inexplicable is why Mark would have introduced such difficulties.
(4) The argument from verbal agreement. There are fewer Matthew-Luke verbal agreements than any other two-gospel verbal agreements. This is difficult to explain on the Griesbach hypothesis, much easier on the Lachmann/Streeter hypothesis.
(5) The argument from agreement in order. Not only do Luke and Matthew never agree with each other when they depart from Mark’s order, but the reasons for this on the assumption of Markan priority are readily available while on Matthean priority they are not.
(6) The argument from literary agreements. Very close to the redactional argument, this point stresses that on literary analysis, it is easier to see Matthew’s use of Mark than vice versa.
(7) The argument from redaction. The redactional emphases in Mark, especially in his stylistic minutiae, are only inconsistently found in Matthew and Luke, while the opposite is not true. In other words, Mark’s style is quite consistent, while Luke and Matthew are inconsistent—when they parallel Mark, there is consistency; when they diverge, they depart from such. This suggests that Mark was the source for both Matthew and Luke.
(8) The argument from Mark’s more primitive theology. On many fronts Mark seems to display a more primitive theology than either Luke or Matthew. This suggests that Matthew and Luke used Mark, altering the text to suit their purposes."
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org
Right away you have given away that you are being disingenuous with the "6 year old" red herring and have no argument. The quote is from the Wiki page on the canonical Gospels.
"The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110."
The scholars used are Perkins - Professor of Theology at Boston College, Mitchell Reddish an associate professor in the Religion Department of Stetson University, Andrew T. Lincoln a British New Testament scholar who serves as Emeritus Professor of New Testament at the University of Gloucestershire.
This is again consensus scholarship in history and Christian Bible studies.
Yes they changed some details, it's called religious syncretism. YOu think changing the time span to 40 days means it's real?? Oopsy, did you forget the past about where modern science has proved a world flood never happened?
The flood was a hurricane or worse to answer your question - "Six days, a 1 se’nnight the hurricane, deluge, (and) tempest continued
Sweeping the land: when the seventh day came, were quelléd the warfare,
130.Tempest (and) deluge which like to an army embattail’d were fighting.
Lull’d was the sea, "
That is a common apologetics that isn't true. The details of the ship are far from complete. Based on the dimensions the ship may float, but that doesn't tell you much. By 1-600BC ship building was perfected in the ancient world. To have correct ship plans in a myth is far from unusual.
Yes there are lots of flood stories. All myth or were inspired by a local flood. Doesn't matter the sources, they are all myths about rebirth and starting anew. Unless you are a fundamentalist then you think the myths were actual events. Like people thinking Hercules and Zeus were real Gods.
Unfortunately for you myths that are popular are not always based on reality. The most common myths are:
Creation of mankind from clay
Acquisition of fire for the benefit of humanity
Dying god
Creative sacrifice
Axis mundi
Deus otiosus
Titanomachy
Giants
Dragons and serpents
flood myths
But flood myths are ruled out by modern flood geology. Noah came into being as a story sometime after 1200BC, so it's the last flood myth and clearly copied from several sources.
Last edited:
