Errors in your Holy book

[waitasec]

Matt. and Lk. also used their unique material. Neither is simply a "rewrite" of the earlier stuff.

thats why i'm askin'

There is no extant copy of Q, other than what scholars have reconstructed. If you're interested, there's a really good book you could peruse:

Q the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus, John S. Kloppenborg, WEstminster John Knox Press, 2008.

cool. thanks

 

[Mudcat]

where else could it come from? if the resurrection wasn't in Q or in mark and matthew and luke used those as sources...

isn't it true that we have evidence of Q's existence but we do not have it or a copy of it?

Don't want to but into the conversation, but if you are looking for alternative early resurrection sources, than it should be noted that James, IIRC, predates Mark.. also I think some, if not all of Paul's stuff may have been written prior to Mark as well.

Though they don't involve themselves with a resurrection narrative as the synoptic do, the concept of a post crucifixion resurrection is assumed in them.

 

[waitasec]

Don't want to but into the conversation, but if you are looking for alternative early resurrection sources, than it should be noted that James, IIRC, predates Mark.. also I think some, if not all of Paul's stuff may have been written prior to Mark as well.

Though they don't involve themselves with a resurrection narrative as the synoptic do, the concept of a post crucifixion resurrection is assumed in them.

thanks...butt in all you want..it's a free country, errr a free forum

in regards to pauls writings i have been privy to that too...
i didn't apply that knowledge when asking

believe it or not i did at one time go to bible college, but this was when i was a youngster...about 26 yrs ago... long story.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

in regards to pauls writings i have been privy to that too...

Knee deep. So many experts. So little substance.

 

[waitasec]

Knee deep. So many experts. So little substance.

what do you mean, pray tell?

 

[Otherright]

That's not a "scribal error." And it did completely skew the tenor of Mark's story, because it rewrote the ending.:areyoucra

No, I'm saying the scribal errors don't. Mark 16 is an interpolation, not a scribal error, and yeah, you're right it did change theology for certain groups mainly the snake-handling arsenic drinking groups.

 

[Shermana]

No, I'm saying the scribal errors don't. Mark 16 is an interpolation, not a scribal error, and yeah, you're right it did change theology for certain groups mainly the snake-handling arsenic drinking groups.

The question is though at what point did Mark 16 get the interpolation, there is early literature like some of the apocryphal acts that describe the drinking of poison thing.

 

[CaptainBritain]

what do you mean, pray tell?

dont feed it

 

[Otherright]

The question is though at what point did Mark 16 get the interpolation, there is early literature like some of the apocryphal acts that describe the drinking of poison thing.

Apparently, sometime around the fifth century.

 

[waitasec]

dont feed it

thanks...i'll heed your advice.