Another bible version

No, the best proof is that there isnt a single fragment, of tens of thousands, of NT text in hebrew or aramaic that predates a Greek version. Not one.

I also like how in the NT there are numerous instances where the writers take great pains to include a single specific Hebrew word in the middle of a Greek sentence. These are words with perfectly good Greek translations. Why not translate the whole sentence if it was indeed first spoken in Hebrew? The likely cause is because Jesus was actually already speaking in Greek and he was the one to actually use the Hebrew word.

 

Sly, when do you date The Gospel of Mark? Consensus is that it is the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels. Just trying to get a framework here.

 

Friday nights...after beers at Ri-Ra's?

 

Just going off memory here, I think Mark is dated around 90AD if I recall correctly.

However, there are new studies that suggest some fragments of Matthew are actually eyewitness accounts. In other words, written as they occurred or soon after, due to the prevalent literary style of the early to mid first century.

Edit: Ok just looked it up, it is dated as early as 65 AD.

 

which is not at all how you characterized it previously.

"The Q source is an idiotic attempt to explain why the Gospels tell the same story."

it's not about "telling the same story". it's specific events, word usage, phrasing, tone, etc.

only a tiny fraction of mark isn't repeated in either matthew or luke.

meanwhile, just under half of luke and just under half of matthew are essentially the same (and that sameness accounts for 3/4 of mark -- matthew and mark also agree on another 20% or so of mark).

luke and matthew also repeat something like a quarter of each other's material that doesn't appear anywhere in mark. finally about 1/3 of luke is unique to luke and about 20% of matthew is unique to matthew.

huh? you think the q hypothesis is some kind of attempt to discredit faith? i'd be surprised if the majority of biblical scholars who give credence to the q source hypothesis aren't christians.

 

sure, peter is greek in origin. andrew is greek in origin. philip is greek in origin.

simon is hebrew in origin. sly was saying it was greek because it had been translated into greek. of course, "simon" isn't the greek form -- it's the anglicized form so it's a weird point to try to make.

 

With all that, there MUST be some document that has never been seen, or described or even specifically referred to...huh?

It is an attempt to explain whay 2 tell the same story and one does not. That's pretty much it....so to say that i was wrong isn't entirely correct. Again, I know about the Q hypothesis.....I just think it's a stupid hypothesis.

Not to discredit faith....to discredit the belief in Bible itself. If a "Q" document exists, then doesn't that erode the belief in divine inspiration as well as the canonized New Testament as the divine word of God?

 

some suggest it might have been the gospel of the hebrews.

not saying you don't know it, just saying you tried to discredit it by over-simplifying it. you made it sound self-evident that the same story would be told the same way, leaving out that they don't actually all agree on the story.

does it? it's hard for me to answer that since i have no belief in divine inspiration. i would think it would be further evidence of man's hand in the process, but then i think that about all sorts of aspects of the bible. if you can overlook those, why can't you overlook q?

 

I could accept q....if it existed. Why would a multitude of documents derived from such a document exist, but not the original? It's too much like a 'missing link' insertion for my taste without any proof of it's existence, or anything that points to such a document existing except some similarities and dissimilarities and it makes too many suppositions. That's why I don't like it. My son drew a picture of his dog from memory, I drew my dog and my wife drew the dog. Mine and his look a lot alike but are different. My wife's is pretty different.....does that mean there must have been some other 'Q' drawing of our dog that my son and I used but my wife didn't?

 

the similarities are too overwhelming to attribute to mere coincidence. i doubt there's more than a slight minority of bible scholars who don't agree that the works of mark, luke, and matthew are derivative of each other in some way.

and there's not a multitude of documents, there are two. q would not be the only biblical document that we don't have a copy of. look at the dead sea scrolls. how many of those were completely unknown works prior to their discovery?