OFF: read your bibles

[Eric Siegerman]

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