Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

kiwihellenist.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 298 posts

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#111

Post by ShamelessC »

Jedd wrote: post #80
timbit42 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but would they all make the same error? Either there was no error or they all inherited it from another source or Matthew and Luke inherited it from Mark. There is some evidence in Matthew that it could have originally been written in Aramaic.

I thought it was fairly non-contentious [0] that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily (almost exclusively) from the author of Mark's work, along with this unknown source (usually referred to as Q). It seems fairly reasonable then to assume it was a literary device made by the author of Mark - his writing is actually pretty good as far as allegory goes - that was subsequently lifted near verbatim by the la…

Non contentious? Don’t a large portion of Christians believe the Bible is divine and any words included are there because of God?

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#112

Post by Jedd »

timbit42 wrote: post #107
Jedd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was fairly non-contentious [0] that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily (almost exclusively) from the author of Mark's work, along with this unknown source (usually referred to as Q). It seems fairly reasonable then to assume it was a literary device made by the author of Mark - his writing is actually pretty good as far as allegory goes - that was subsequently lifted near verbatim by the la…

The parts Matthew and Luke didn't get from Mark, but match, are considered to be from Q. There are some parts of Matthew and Luke that neither come from Mark nor Q so they each also have one or more other sources unique to themselves.

> There are some parts of Matthew and Luke that neither come from Mark nor Q so they each also have one or more other sources unique to themselves.

Given that we know nothing about the provenance or contents of 'Q' - it's lost to time, and its hypothetical existence is effectively intuited by some researches - I do not understand how we can identify the set of things 'not in Q' (or indeed 'in Q').

I'd also note that there's zero evidence to suggest the unknown authors of Matthew and Luke had other sources - there's more evidence to suggest they were simply making stuff up.

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#113

Post by bhelkey »

hot_gril wrote: post #59
labster wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already are. And not just deep in the Harry Potter fandom, but in bitter, highly public schisms over the meaning.

I will fight someone in public over the time turner thing. No it's not a closed loop, yes they could've used it to kill Voldemort.

It's not a closed loop? It's been quite some time since I read the Prisoner of Azkaban but I was under the impression that was one of the limits.

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#114

Post by Zancarius »

hprotagonist wrote: post #104
Zancarius wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presently reading through a review—looks like a great recommendation! The charges he levies against modernity are pretty damning but not at all untrue. We're not all that dissimilar from the Israelites who were repeatedly condemned to the status of remnant, to be ruled by unjust kings, conquered and displaced by other nations, yet forever snubbing the will of the Most High. We've just swapped more obvious idols (on o…

oh -- well if we're going _there_ then for sure add Brueggemann to your list. His "The Prophetic Imagination" is incendiary, even 40-odd years on.

This is dangerous. Logos has quite a few of his works in their library.

I'm never going to get through my ever-growing backlog. And I still have yet to start on John Walton's Lost World series. Thanks! Haha!

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#115

Post by defrost »

ShamelessC wrote: post #111
Jedd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was fairly non-contentious [0] that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily (almost exclusively) from the author of Mark's work, along with this unknown source (usually referred to as Q). It seems fairly reasonable then to assume it was a literary device made by the author of Mark - his writing is actually pretty good as far as allegory goes - that was subsequently lifted near verbatim by the la…

Non contentious? Don’t a large portion of Christians believe the Bible is divine and any words included are there because of God?

There are a large number of camps that don't align about this issue.

The King James Only movement alone:

    asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible.
and has been divided into five subgroups with varying opinions about the text and its relation to God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement

This barely scratches the surface of the many opinions held about the collections of smaller books that are bound as versions of "The Bible"; which books, which translations, which interpretations, etc.

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#118

Post by Jedd »

ShamelessC wrote: post #111
Jedd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was fairly non-contentious [0] that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily (almost exclusively) from the author of Mark's work, along with this unknown source (usually referred to as Q). It seems fairly reasonable then to assume it was a literary device made by the author of Mark - his writing is actually pretty good as far as allegory goes - that was subsequently lifted near verbatim by the la…

Non contentious? Don’t a large portion of Christians believe the Bible is divine and any words included are there because of God?

Well, we get into murky territory here.

I'd suggest a large portion of self-identified Christian believers really haven't thought much about it at all, beyond (as you say) some orthodox assumptions about divine nature etc.

But as per my link above to wikipedia (Marcan Priority) the larger consensus amongst religious historians / researchers is that Mark was written first, Luke & Matthew were written subsequently, and based heavily on a combination of Mark + some unknown source ('Q').

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#119

Post by willsoon »

ShamelessC wrote: post #111
Jedd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was fairly non-contentious [0] that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily (almost exclusively) from the author of Mark's work, along with this unknown source (usually referred to as Q). It seems fairly reasonable then to assume it was a literary device made by the author of Mark - his writing is actually pretty good as far as allegory goes - that was subsequently lifted near verbatim by the la…

Non contentious? Don’t a large portion of Christians believe the Bible is divine and any words included are there because of God?

[dead]

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#120

Post by guerrilla »

Jedd wrote: post #112
timbit42 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parts Matthew and Luke didn't get from Mark, but match, are considered to be from Q. There are some parts of Matthew and Luke that neither come from Mark nor Q so they each also have one or more other sources unique to themselves.

> There are some parts of Matthew and Luke that neither come from Mark nor Q so they each also have one or more other sources unique to themselves. Given that we know nothing about the provenance or contents of 'Q' - it's lost to time, and its hypothetical existence is effectively intuited by some researches - I do not understand how we can identify the set of things 'not in Q' (or indeed 'in Q'). I'd also note that…

Have you tried actually reading the proponents arguments instead of relying on arrogance? That might be a better way to find out why the consensus is what it is.
Post reply on HN