Can someone please explain to me how the Q source theory is more viable than the account given by Papias of Hierapolis? The synoptic Gospels cover a lot of the same territory, but...they don't do it verbatim, they do it in different styles, and except for Luke (which was the only Gospel not written by one of Christ's direct disciples), in very Hebraic syntax and style, which evinces a translation (Harold Bloom criticized the literary merit of the Gospels precisely because they read like they are written in the style and syntax of Hebrew or Aramaic, which he finds unsuitable to Greek). Then there is the this idea that the Gospel of John came from a wildly different sect than the rest of the Gospels, when the truth is simply that the Gospel of John was the Gospel that was only for full Christians (even today, before saying the Nicene Creed, which takes the place of the traditional Christian confession formula stating Jesus Christ is God, the Orthodox Church says "guard the doors!", which was something started to give the alarm in case Pharisees were coming by, and this is also the time when catechumens, that is, Christians who were not fully initiated, had to depart).
The biggest mark against Papias' account is---the Gospels give indications that the Temple of Jerusalem will be destroyed (now that Christ's Body replaces it), so historians beg the question and say they must have been composed after the Destruction of the Temple, since actually predicting it is out of the question.
I don't know if there's a good way to answer this question OP.
Hasn't the Q source theory come under a lot of scrutiny as well?
The question seems absurd because there will never be substantial answer
Icon from a Church that burned down. The fire was so hot, it melted the glass.
Q source is just one theory, however I dont know many serious scholars who accept the idea that that any of the gospels were written by apostles
>e synoptic Gospels cover a lot of the same territory, but...they don't do it verbatim,
The Q theory states that the Q source was probably only a collection of Jesus's sayings rather than a narrative. It supposedly explains why they appear similar with differences, personally, I think Luke and Mathew were just working of copies of Mark, but I'm not an expert on the subject.
>nce actually predicting it is out of the question.
Its called Occam's razor. It also, circumstantially fits the events of the time, the temple had been destroyed, destroying the heart of Judaism, and both Peter and Paul had perished in the first persecutions. It was the perfect time to commit events to memory, as the first generation Christians were dieing off.
How Christianity was Invented
At the very least, watch some of it to see what arguments you may get.
At the best, you have an answer.
You'll know in a few seconds, if you can get past the irritating, breathy voice of the narrator that is.
>Harold Bloom criticized the literary merit of the Gospels precisely because they read like they are written in the style and syntax of Hebrew or Aramaic, which he finds unsuitable to Greek
Don't take Harold Bloom's opinions seriously.
because you asked the question, and I gave you the answer, you want to remain a sheep that's your choice, but the gospels weren't written by Jesus's desciples, they bascially codify the evangelion of Titus's military victory of the Judeans.
This is a good point in the right direction, many Christ cucks don't even want to go near Joseph Atwill's work, it's too sensical for them
But this documentary is faulty from the get go. Jews had statues in their temples, is says so right in the OT. The Ark itself had physical depictions on it. And ancient Jewish synagogues have art.
1. he's at least two steps removed from the apostles; a guy who knows a guy who supposedly knew the guys in question
2. writing about hearing that the apostles wrote down their recollections does not provide a substantial link to the anonymous books later grouped as the gospels; some scholars even think he's referring to a different matthew work altogether because his description doesn't add up
I did a quick review on Papias's work and it feels like it's conjecture because he's saying parts of the gospels are incorrect, but he's about 60 years apart after the events happened. The Didache and the epistle Clement of Rome appears to be more reliable.
1. Which is a lot closer than contemporary historians. I'll ask again, is there any reason to doubt him? Because ancient historians who were further removed are generally used as sources unless there is a good reason not to use them.
2. What do you mean, it doesn't add up? How doesn't it?
>is there any reason to doubt him?
gee i dunno, the fact that modern scholarship discounts or at the very least questions his claims? the majority of scholars are against mark the evangelist having written that gospel regardless of papias.
so you're telling me you're going to take the hearsay statement of a stranger from history over the educated view of modern biblical scholars who have dissected these books and the time period to death? laughable.
it seems like you ignore everything in mainstream biblical scholarship that disagrees with your preconceived orthodox notions. it's honestly tiring debating with you because you aren't here to discuss, you're here to shove your fringe theories in everyone's face and then either hide or derail any arguments against you.
>he fact that modern scholarship discounts
K. Can you point out why yourself or are you going to rely on the memes of modern scholars?
Reminder that we are lied to all the time, absolutely constantly, by modern scholars about tons of shit.
>the majority of scholars are against mark the evangelist having written that gospel regardless of papias.
which ones? Most scholars affirming that view dont take into account the corpus of historical literature written in favour of apostolic authorship
>Well, I've read all the fragments left of him. You can do it in ten minutes. I'm unsure of what you're referring to.
'Judas did not die by hanging but lived on, having been cut down before he choked to death. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles makes this clear: Falling headlong he burst open in the middle and his intestines spilled out, Papias, the disciple of John, recounts this more clearly in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord, as follows:'
"Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this world, his flesh so bloated that he was not able to pass through a place where a wagon passes easily, not even his bloated head by itself. For his eyelids, they say, were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen, even by a doctor using an optical instrument, so far had they sunk below the outer surface. His genitals appeared more loathsome and larger than anyone else's, and when he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment, they say, he finally died in his own place, and because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day one cannot pass that place without holding one's nose, so great was the discharge from his body, and so far did it spread over the ground."
That's not very different from the typical Christian idea, which is that he was hanged and his corpse bloated, and then when he was cut down, it ruptured. Papias's idea works just as well, Papias is just assuming he was alive when he crapped himself, which there is no reason to.
>but the gospels weren't written by Jesus's desciples, they bascially codify the evangelion of Titus's military victory of the Judeans.
This theory is incoherent. Christians would not be actively trying to convert Greeks, against Roman wishes, if this were the case.