OFF: read your bibles

[f. rat]

Sorry folks, but I still prefer my argument:

news:3BC6E375.EF42DAF3 at blueyonder.co.uk

Eric Siegerman wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 02:24:48AM +0000, Jon Jarrett wrote:
> > As for the Gospels, Luke at least
> > goes back to before 70 A. D., though not demonstrably further and so
> > could, just, have been written by someone remembering what Luke had told
> > them. I believe in recent years they've managed to get John back even
> > further, to the point were he could plausibly have written the text used
> > in the copy they have. That's not to say he did but it's possible. As far
> > as I know that's the academic state of play.
>
> Hmm.  Last I'd read, they were arguing whether Mark or Matthew
> came first, around 70 AD.  Then the other two synoptics (Matthew
> or Mark, and Luke).  John came last, near the end of the first
> century.  Here's an argument for Mark:
>         http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html
> In his intro, he mentions four theories, two each in favour of
> Mark and Matthew, and adds that "Lukan priority is rarely
> supposed".
>
> One of the pro-Mark theories says that the authors of Matthew and
> Luke both independently used Mark as a source, along with another
> document, now lost, that they refer to as "Q" (from the German
> for "source", if I recall).  Here's an argument for this theory:
>         http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-exist.html
>
> I have to admit I haven't read either of those essays; I just
> now found them.  But they're bookmarked :-/
>
> --
>
> |  | /\
> |-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        erics at telepres.com
> |  |  /
> The world has been attacked.  The world must respond ... [but] we must
> be guided by a commitment to do what works in the long run, not by what
> makes us feel better in the short run.
>         - Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada