joelr
Well-Known Member
one good point.... (smile).
scholarship? I heard something a long time ago, and it shocked me, but thanks be to God it open my eyes. a statement was made, "scholars LIE". and guess what, it was a scholar who made the statement. YIKES!
so, scholarship? it means nothing to me.
101G.
Yes I can tell. Guess who else lies. People who write religious scripture. Including Christian literature. In fact we know for a fact that Epistles 3 is a forgery. The 36 other Gospels not in canon but intended to be real are also known as forgery. So is all the non-canonical material.
So knowing all that forged material exists must mean that the Biblical canon is also one big lie, right? No?? But that is your logic? You said scholars lie so therefore all scholarship isn't reliable.
So your own logic doesn't even work in your case.
It's also absurd to even suggest. Scholarship has to be peer-reviewed to check for mistakes. Most Christiain scholarship is done by believers with degrees in Theology, NT studies and so on.
So to just hand wave and assert them all "liers" is insane and completely discredits your position.
You clearly have NO interest in what is actually true but rather are just looking to forward an agenda. So much so that you will resort to the most obvious fallacies and fundamentalist rhetoric like "all scholars lie" and have zero interest in any kind of honest exchange.
Anyways, what scholarship does have is EVIDENCE. Evidence that can be checked. Your example isn't even evidence because you don't explain which scholar said "scholars lie", in regards to what was being lied about and what was the evidence? I'm thinking you just made that up as if it isn't an obvious deflection.
SO, if you disagree with the assessment of the Synoptic Problem, please explain why the arguments are false.
Besides the fact that 98% of Mark is found verbatim in Matthew and 87% in Luke.
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.
So you want to take scholarship off the table yet seem to want to forward all these psuedoscientific wu ideas about colors and Bible code crank?