/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12470450]

Matthean Priority or Markan Priority, /lit/? Which one do you subscribe to?

[Anonymous No.12470466]

>Not reconstructing the q document

[Anonymous No.12470497]

>>12470450
Matthean

[Anonymous No.12470516]

>>12470466
>not knowing that the q hypothesis was dropped by most critics 20 years ago

[Anonymous No.12470701]

Markan Priority is a Protestant plot. Why do you think it was started by a bunch of German scholars? The Protestant fears Matthew 16:13-19.

[Anonymous No.12470706]

What's the debate here, for the uneducated

[Anonymous No.12470712]

>>12470701
That's what you say.

[Anonymous No.12470713]

>>12470706
The order in which the books of the New Testament should be arranged and read. Matthew goes first.

[Anonymous No.12470734]

>>12470450
John. The NT can only be put in its proper context when we understand Jesus' relationship with the creator in Genesis.

[Anonymous No.12470747]

>>12470706
The debate is: which of the "Synoptic" Gospels was written first? Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all so similar that there's a strong suspicion that they draw from each other as sources. But which of them was the first to be written? Christian tradition holds that it's Matthew. A movement to say that it's Mark arose in Biblical scholarship in the 19th century. There are strong arguments in favor of both positions.

[Anonymous No.12470756]

>>12470450
>not Revelation priority

[Anonymous No.12470760]

>>12470747
>>12470713
Does it actually affect the readings as >>12470701 implies?

[Anonymous No.12470766]

>>12470713
>>12470747
And what are the strongest arguments for each?

[Anonymous No.12470767]

>>12470450
I subscribed to Matthean Priority but then I discovered it's only bimonthly. What a rip-off.

[Anonymous No.12470785]

>>12470760
Well, it all depends. There's universal agreement that John was the last Gospel written. There's almost a similar level of agreement that Luke was the third Gospel written, although there are some people who believe in Lukan priority. So the debate really comes down to Mark vs Matthew.

And, yes, Matthew vs Mark being the first Gospel written does have some interesting implications for Christianity, and particularly for Catholicism. All three Synoptic Gospels have Peter confessing that Jesus is the Son of God. But in Mark it looks like this:

>Then Jesus and His disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say I am?”

>They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”

>“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”

>Peter answered, “You are the Christ.”

>And Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about Him.

While in Matthew it looks like this:

>When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

>They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

>“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”

>Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

>Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

>Then He admonished the disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Christ.

So there's obviously a lot in Peter's confession in Matthew that directly relates to the Catholic Church's claims about the papacy, and about its claim to superiority among all Christian Churches.

[Anonymous No.12470826]

>>12470785
Thanks for that, I appreciate it.

Why is priority not granted to the gospel (or passages of the gospels) which contains the most detail? Is the hypothesis that subsequent gospels plagiarized and falsified?

[Anonymous No.12470840]

>>12470826
The idea is that the earliest Gospel written will necessarily be the Gospel written closest to the time when Jesus actually walked the earth. A Gospel written in 50 or 60 AD is going to be closer to Jesus than a Gospel written in 100 AD. Or that's how the argument works. It's part of the quest to get at the "authentic" Jesus.

[Anonymous No.12470971]

>>12470840
The date written (compiled) indicates nothing about the age of the manuscripts.

This is the problem with theistic Christianity. The Bible isn't a piece of rational fiction where the reader is rewarded for being especially astute.

[Anonymous No.12471000]

Thomas and Judas, then Matthew, then John

[Anonymous No.12471009]

>>12470450
Markan, if someone says Q is a lie they’re retarded.
t. Person who took ONE theology course in colllege

[Anonymous No.12471019]

>>12471000
>he unironically believes in non canonical gospels
ishygddt

[Anonymous No.12471064]

>>12470785
>And, yes, Matthew vs Mark being the first Gospel written does have some interesting implications for Christianity, and particularly for Catholicism.
>So there's obviously a lot in Peter's confession in Matthew that directly relates to the Catholic Church's claims about the papacy, and about its claim to superiority among all Christian Churches.

How can this be meaningful in discussions of papal supremacy when the issue of papal supremacy wasn't debated for at least 700 years after both Matthew and Mark were written? Especially given that all parties debating papal supremacy agree that Matthew and Mark are equally inspired and authoritative.

[Anonymous No.12471073]

>>12471009
Q is no longer accepted by the majority of textual critics. This has been the case for at least 20 years. Either your professor is in the minority who still believe in Q, or, more likely, they hadn't bothered to read any literature on the issue since they were taught. Or you're old as dirt.

[Anonymous No.12471084]

>>12470971
>theistic Christianity
tell us about nontheistic Christianity lol

[Anonymous No.12471091]

I actually read a book about this (yes /lit/,some people here read books!) and I've been convinced of Marcan priority and Q, modern (((scholars))) be damned (literally).

[Anonymous No.12471092]

>>12471084
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

[Anonymous No.12471114]

>>12471092
I'd like to hear your take on it. I doubt that wikipedia article reflects your thoughts 100% accurately.

[Anonymous No.12471119]

>>12471091
What book did you read?

[Anonymous No.12471132]

>>12471119
A Literary Approach to the New Testament

[Anonymous No.12471146]

I didn't know there was a debate, but this makes me want to look into it. I was always taught that Mark came first, then Matthew, Luke, and John

[Anonymous No.12471168]

>>12470450
Mark was almost certainly written first, according to most New Testament scholars.

[Anonymous No.12471205]

>>12471132
>A Literary Approach to the New Testament

By John Paul Pritchard (1972)? There's been a lot of development in the field in the last 50 years. Do you really believe that Q is an orthodox Christian idea and that everyone who criticises the Q hypothesis is a subversive Jewish agent? And all that based on one book from 1972.

[Anonymous No.12471257]

>>12470785
>So there's obviously a lot in Peter's confession in Matthew that directly relates to the Catholic Church's claims about the papacy, and about its claim to superiority among all Christian Churches.
So this is the power of Catholic apologians

[Anonymous No.12471262]

>>12471114
Oh. That's not at all the tone you first struck.

I think dogmatic faith is a distraction from Christ's teachings. Christians are taught to be Christlike in their interactions with others and modest in their faith in the Lord. The moment a Christian starts making it their business whether, and to what degree, another person's faith is "true" marks the moment of their downfall—it's when their faith becomes a thing of pride. From pride comes spite and contempt. There's no place for that in Christ's teachings.

I lost my faith years ago and I haven't been able to reestablish it. I choose to follow the tenets of Christianity while keeping the issue of my salvation (or lack thereof) under wraps. Curiously enough, members of my church tend to regard me as one of the more devout Christians.

[Anonymous No.12471265]

>>12471257
Well, Maimonides and Aristotle say...

[Anonymous No.12471305]

>>12471262
I'm tone-deaf. What is Christian salvation to you?

[Anonymous No.12471364]

>>12470466
>>12470516
If it exists, what are the possibilties its safegaurded by a Christian esoteric secret-society.

[Anonymous No.12471492]

>>12471305
I can't answer that with credibility because I don't believe in God. The paradigm with which I am most familiar is heavily influenced by the narrative whereby Christ descended into Hell and claimed the key of death. Salvation is attained through a genuine belief that God sent his only Son to die for this purpose. In doing so, He offered us a path to salvation. Salvation is attained through Christ who cleanses us of sin.

[Anonymous No.12471507]

>>12471364
Zero, given that the q hypothesis has nothing to do with secret knowledge. It claims the opposite. The q hypothesis is that there was a text of the sayings/acts of Jesus that served as a base for the synoptic Gospels, and that it can be almost entirely reconstructed by comparing the synoptic Gospels. The q hypothesis is most likely false, but even if it were true, it would have nothing to do with hidden knowledge.

[Anonymous No.12471511]

>>12471507
>>12471364
Sounds like a good novel tho. I'm a slut for a good secret organization.

[Anonymous No.12471517]

>>12471511
go read Dan Brown and then whip yourself until you're truly sorry, then you may return to /lit/

[Anonymous No.12472346]

>>12471511
Get out of here, Dan.