This pie chart give an accurate breakdown of the concurrence of the three synoptics:
wayward wrote:
These first three are more than likely copies of another lost document, commonly called, "The Q document" , and if there was a Q doc, where did it go?
"Q" is hypothetical, Bill. It isn't known to have actually existed as a single source document.
wayward wrote:
Or if there was not, these 3 manuscripts could only have been created through much "literary interdependence". To me, either way this spells editing.
You're problem is that you only see editing as "removing" - you don't seem to be willing to consider "adding" as a possible explanation. 76% of Mark concurs with 45% of Matthew and 41% of Luke. I'm sure the only way you can rationalize this is to determine that the authors of Matthew and Luke whittled Mark down. Not accurate.
wayward wrote:
So what was edited? We only have to look as far as the recently found scriptures and compare words, paragraphs and phrases to arrive at some conclusions.
And which "recently found scriptures" woud those be, Bill?
wayward wrote:
I do agree that there are mistakes in the so called "gnostic text" as well as the "canonical text". But as I have been saying "Mary Magdalene" has a much more important role in the "gnostics" then in the "canonical text". With this, even in the canonical, it is obvious that she was the first person to see the risen "Christ" which should have made her the first apostle, and not "Peter" but no, she was called by the church "the apostle to the apostles". If you take a moment to study this statement, you can see that it was worded to soften her importance. She is not called an apostle as such, only the apostle to the apostles, which I believe to be a much different distinction.
This entire dialogue is pointless. Your knee-jerk value judgments are you own and you're welcome to them, but they have nothing to do with critical examination of the texts. They're simply your own bias.
TCP
الفقرة السابقة
