Woman in Bible & Quran!

[Untouchable]

Reading the bible would make you more and more interested by Woman status in Christianism!
Women are considered as dirt that defiles men in the bible:

Revelation 14:4 "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."

The bible considers the Birth of any female is a loss: Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It's a Roman Catholics Bible).


Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls: Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

Daughters inherit nothing when there are sons:
"If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. (Numbers 27:8)" So the American law of splitting everything equally is not Biblical.

Women are not allowed to speak in the church:
"let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35



In the bible:
To the woman (Eve) He (God) said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

In Christianity: Woman is a daughter of falsehood (Saint John Damascene)


In Christianity: Woman is the fountain of the arm of the Devil, her voice is the hissing of the serpent (St. Anthony)


Comparison btwn Islam and Christianity
http://www.christianity-islam.com/woman.html

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/images/dymphna.jpg

Any Comment?

[Coyote]

In short - historically, it SUCKED to be a woman in any of the Abrahamic faiths. Wasn't so hot in the Hindu faith either...

Ancient man was scared ****less of woman.

[Bunz]

Coyote, I will agree. Another notch in the ole bible is obsolete belt.

[Coyote]

I say it's time to kickass

[Bunz]

Shred em up, pup!

[r0beph]

I wouldn't mind finding me a nice young christian concubine I could purchase and keep on hand for those times when boredom creep in. Explain how keeping a concubine is ok in the bible yet...having sex while not married to a woman is not...I'm confused.

[Untouchable]

...But The situation in Kuran seems clearly better!
http://www.christianity-islam.com/woman.html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac9.htm#links

[r0beph]

...But The situation in Kuran seems clearly better!
http://www.christianity-islam.com/woman.html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac9.htm#links

In truth however, what is said in either book matters little, it's what people do with it that does. In many sects of christianity, even here in the US, women are treated pretty horribly (see some of the holiness factions, where the woman has many rules concerning her atire, her relation to her husband, her ability to CHOOSE who she wishes to love, etc) Islam is no different, regardless of what the book says, there are many who even KILL women over things such as infidelity and make a claim this is religious right.

The people make the words into reality, not the other way around. So to me I don't give a crap about what either book says, I only care about those who institute it and how.

[Bunz]

The bible and most religious text are similar to communism. Fantastic ideas of peace and harmony and all that jazz, do XYZ, and prosperity will be yours...all of them make sense on paper. It is a matter of the practicality of putting the practice of it to good use.

[Coyote]

In truth however, what is said in either book matters little, it's what people do with it that does.

That is one thing that PaleRider emphasized in a discussion on political ideologies - the difference between something in theory and something in practice. I've come to agree with that.

[Dr.Who]

Reading the bible would make you more and more interested by Woman status in Christianism!
Women are considered as dirt that defiles men in the bible:

Alternatively misreading the Bible would just make one wrong. From the creatin story and on the Bible affirms the worth of women.

Revelation 14:4 "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."

The bible considers the Birth of any female is a loss: Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It's a Roman Catholics Bible).

Since the book of Ecclesiasticus is not in my bible I won't comment.


Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls: Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

This passage is full of laws about things people are not suppose to do. It says things like "if a man strikes another..." The wording is not suppose to indicate that fathers are suppose to sell their daughters into slavery any more than it says that men are supposed to strike each other.

The Bible recognized that men would hit each other and men would sell themselves as slaves (which was much more like a job back then and did not resemble slavery as practiced in the US 200 yrs ago). It then set limits on striking and slavery and a whole bunch of other stuff. That pasage says that every male slave would have to be set free and every female slave would have to be set free in a different way called "redemption".

Daughters inherit nothing when there are sons:
"If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. (Numbers 27:8)" So the American law of splitting everything equally is not Biblical.

Actually the Americans have no "way" as a person is free to give all his inheritance to his cats if he wants to and leave none to any children.

But daughters did sometimes inherit things even when there were sons. Like here it was up to the parent. If the daughter got married then she would share her husbands inheritance and the parent might choose to give it to the son. But he might choose to give it to her anway - it was his choice. The passage did not limit parents from giving anything to daughters but said that if there were no sons it couldn't be "given to the cats".

Women are not allowed to speak in the church:
"let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35


In this one church the women had a habit of jumping up and yelling questions to thier husbands or others who were seated on the other side. Clearly they should be quite during the service. In the same book it talks about how women should speak - indicating that it was OK for them to talk. They just shouldnt yell.


In the bible:
To the woman (Eve) He (God) said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Which was a prophetic curse that has turned out to be true. Men have ruled women for most of human history. The other part of the curse was that men would work hard in the fields which also came true. Today we do everthing we can to overcome the hard work in the fields and should also do whatever we can to overcome the tendency for men to dominate women.

In Christianity: Woman is a daughter of falsehood (Saint John Damascene)

Do you have any source that demonstrates that this was actually said by that guy? And who was that guy and why should I care? I man was he Jesus? Does he speak for Jesus or God?


In Christianity: Woman is the fountain of the arm of the Devil, her voice is the hissing of the serpent (St. Anthony)


Again, did Jesus say that? do you have any evidence that St. Anthony said that? If he did so what?


Any Comment?

Don't believe everything someone tells you to believe.

Try this one:

Galatians 3:8
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[Divine Love]

Just want to make a point
Christianity was a divine religion that got mixed with loads of superstitious ideas. For one thing, the first versions of bible appeared decades after Jesus's so-called Ascension. How can bible's teachings be kept intact after several decades?
So I believe the current christian thoughts can't be assigned to real Christianity?

[Dr.Who]

Just want to make a point
Christianity was a divine religion that got mixed with loads of superstitious ideas. For one thing, the first versions of bible appeared decades after Jesus's so-called Ascension. How can bible's teachings be kept intact after several decades?
So I believe the current christian thoughts can't be assigned to real Christianity?

The first letters were written decades after His ascension - true. But decades means that it was within the lifetime of the actual witnesses. Most of the writers were the actual people who traveled with Jesus. If what they said or who they claimed to be should have been called into question then the thousands of people who wittnessed the events/lack of events had the opportunity to step forward and speak out. Instead of thousands of other witnesses speaking out that the testimony of the Bible was wrong, we have instead, witnesses speaking out to say that they too saw the same things.

The things written about match history as much as can be confirmed - the places talked about actually exist, the people actually existed, and the events actually existed. Many of the places, people and events have been corroborted, many have not been corroborated, but none have been contradicted.

Using textual criticism as a historical tool we know that the contents of the letters are almost exactly what they were when they were first written. We also know what the errors are; and most of the errors are equivalent to saying that a "T" was not crossed or an "i" was not dotted. None of these so-called errors change the meaning or the main message.

So I believe the current Christian thoughts can be assigned to real Christianity

[Divine Love]

Muslims beleive that all the messengers were sent by a single god (Allah)
But when you ask a muslim clergy why all these single-sourced religions are so much contradictive in the most essential thoughts they respond by saying that they are all alterd by ill-intended people. One reasoning is the time gap and the other is the fact that the first bible(s) appeard not in the Jesus's language. (First bibbles in Greek while they should have been in Hebrew).

For more info:
Quran explains the story of many messengers like Jesus, Joseph, Solomon, ...
While there is a lot of similarities in the whole outline of the stories there are some serious contradictions in some details that make a big difference in the message that is conveyed to the reader while comparing Quran and Bibble.

I recommend reading Quran entirely for those who do religious researches.

[Dr.Who]

Muslims beleive that all the messengers were sent by a single god (Allah)
But when you ask a muslim clergy why all these single-sourced religions are so much contradictive in the most essential thoughts they respond by saying that they are all alterd by ill-intended people. One reasoning is the time gap and the other is the fact that the first bible(s) appeard not in the Jesus's language. (First bibbles in Greek while they should have been in Hebrew).

For more info:
Quran explains the story of many messengers like Jesus, Joseph, Solomon, ...
While there is a lot of similarities in the whole outline of the stories there are some serious contradictions in some details that make a big difference in the message that is conveyed to the reader while comparing Quran and Bibble.

I recommend reading Quran entirely for those who do religious researches.


I am not a fan of the Quran but for the sake of accuracy I would note that some insist that it has no contradictions citing reasons for various apparent contradictions. See the section on interpretation if you like.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:oNBQk78dxBkJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an+%22no+contradictions%22+koran&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

[Divine Love]

What I meant was that both quran and new and old testaments cited stories of messengers but in a different way, while characters and places are the same.
For example, messengers in new and old testaments lie, cheat, steal properties and even commit adulltry, while these are considered as sins in christian and jewsh laws. But in quran This is no the case.

[numinus]

Just want to make a point
Christianity was a divine religion that got mixed with loads of superstitious ideas. For one thing, the first versions of bible appeared decades after Jesus's so-called Ascension. How can bible's teachings be kept intact after several decades?
So I believe the current christian thoughts can't be assigned to real Christianity?

There is ample evidence to support that the synoptic gospels (at least mark and matthew) comes from a single source document (Q) that was written , quite possibly, by an eyewitness.

[pocketfullofshells]

A better reason to find some parts of the Koran not matching , aside from translation or other things, is that the Koran was in effect a Living document over The Prophet Mohammad's life...It was given to him from God, part by part as things changed and Islam grew and came into new challenges. Things that may have been needed in order for the Word to spread and Mohammad to bring the message of Islam at the start, may not have meshed with the needs later as it had a more firm root. The Koran was never Written as once piece, but simply was organized more by what each part deals with, rather then a Chronological order, that would more greatly show the shifts over time.

I suppose one could use that same theory to show why the Old Testament is basically run by a cruel, needy, Wicked, bastard....and then the Jesus basically comes out with Love understanding forgiveness...ect....Things the "God" never really seemed to ever show himself in the bible in my view. ( I guess I can add Hypocrite )

[Dr.Who]

I suppose one could use that same theory to show why the Old Testament is basically run by a cruel, needy, Wicked, bastard....and then the Jesus basically comes out with Love understanding forgiveness...ect....Things the "God" never really seemed to ever show himself in the bible in my view. ( I guess I can add Hypocrite )


There is a very simple reason: people who read the OT don't understand it and see what they want to imagine.

The God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. In both He clearly shows Himself to be Holy, Just, and Loving.

However, the Bible is dispensational - revealing the whole plan gradually over time. In the OT His qualities of Justice and Holiness were emphasized while His qualities of Love were still present. In the NT his qualities of Love are emphasized while His qualities of Holiness and Justice are still present.

As an example, a God that could let dirty old men who rape children go unpunished would in no way be loving. Justice demands punishment and this is an aspect of love.

When one understands all three qualities; holiness, love, and justice and how they work together perfectly then God is much less hard to understand.

[Dr.Who]

There is ample evidence to support that the synoptic gospels (at least mark and matthew) comes from a single source document (Q) that was written , quite possibly, by an eyewitness.

The very existence of Q seems to be more hypothetical than real. It would be even more dubious to decide that Mark and Matthew then draw from this one common source that may not even exist. I think it is more likely that both Mark and Matthew were written by the authors given credit for them.

[9sublime]

The Bible is obviously going to be corrupted, edited and changed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just not wanting to accept facts.

Any book that goes through 2000 years, numerous language translatisons, governments, competiton from other faiths and multiple authors is not going to be the same when it comes out the other end.

[Dr.Who]

The Bible is obviously going to be corrupted, edited and changed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just not wanting to accept facts.

Any book that goes through 2000 years, numerous language translatisons, governments, competiton from other faiths and multiple authors is not going to be the same when it comes out the other end.

As long as we posess the older versions we can correct the errors that creep into the copies.

At this point we do not posess the originals which were penned by the authors but we can recreate them pretty well.

I am not concerned about the New World Translations or the Mormon translations or even the mainstream translations that are just bad because we still have the ability to know what was in the originals to a very high degree of accuracy.

[9sublime]

Where does this ability come from?

[SW85]

Hmm. Curious that you blame this on Christiandom but then proceed to cite mostly the Old Testament, which is included in the Christian Bible only to provide a more thorough context within which one can understand the revelation. But whatever.

Mostly this debate doesn't interest me. What the Bible says vs. what the Koran says is immaterial. What matters is that nearly every country where the followers of the Koran exist in any appreciable numbers dresses up their women like sacks of potatoes, subjects them to segregation, locks them up in the house, etc. If you're prepared to argue that Koranic societies today treat their women better than Christian ones do, I'd love to see what you have to offer.

Still, some of this is rife with sophistry and therefore worth getting into.

Women are considered as dirt that defiles men in the bible:

Revelation 14:4 "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."

I don't see this as particularly controversial. It's a throwback to Corinthians 7:8-9, "Therefore to the unmarried and the widowed I say, it is better that you remain unmarried like me. But if you cannot control yourself, then you should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (i.e., if you can, never have sex except to procreate. But if you can't help it, at least get married first).

I don't see that it denigrates women especially here since they are presumably under the same injunction. The defiling lies in the act of sinful disobedience to God -- the means by which one does so (whether with women or with other men or even, say, goats) is immaterial.

The bible considers the Birth of any female is a loss: Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It's a Roman Catholics Bible).

Well, I don't have a copy of the Septuagint handy so I have no idea of the context in which this was written (nor would I be particularly inclined to defend it if I did -- I'm not Catholic). But I think it's curious that in your effort to attack the Bible you include something that isn't included in much of the world's Bibles.

Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls: Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

Couple of things here:

(1) Again, this is the Old Testament. It's laws applied to Jews living under it at the time. It is not binding on Christians.

(2) Old Testament slave laws existed for the protection of slaves. They were rather, ahem, progressive by the standards of the time, given that most societies regarded slaves as barely even amounting to property.

(3) The Old Testament also provides rather detailed instructions for the ideal manner in which to clean fungus from between one's toes. I suppose you're going to tell me that Christians (or Jews) are therefore cleaner than Muslims?

Daughters inherit nothing when there are sons:
"If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. (Numbers 27:8)" So the American law of splitting everything equally is not Biblical.

In other words, it establishes agnatic-cognatic primogeniture. Also pretty progressive for the standards of the time. In some societies of the day, if all the male descendents of a household were extinguished, their property reverted to the control of the ruler even if there were competent women still surviving.

In the bible:
To the woman (Eve) He (God) said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

IIRC this was punishment for Eve's behavior in the garden of Eden -- childbirth would be painful but they would still desire it nonetheless. Certainly not an arbitrary thing if one accepts Genesis as canon.

In Christianity: Woman is a daughter of falsehood (Saint John Damascene)


In Christianity: Woman is the fountain of the arm of the Devil, her voice is the hissing of the serpent (St. Anthony)

I thought you were citing the Bible here?

Ancient man was scared ****less of woman.

I've always thought the feminist trope about how ancient man was afraid of womankind was silly. What would man have to fear from them? Why not assume it was simply contempt for people perceived to be physically inferior?

More importantly: who really cares? Does the fact that a religion has been historically unkind to a particularly lefty constituency render it untrue?

[numinus]

The very existence of Q seems to be more hypothetical than real. It would be even more dubious to decide that Mark and Matthew then draw from this one common source that may not even exist. I think it is more likely that both Mark and Matthew were written by the authors given credit for them.

Of course its hypothetical. It would remain hypothetical until someone actually gets a hold of q.

It is hypothesized because mark and matthew share similar styles in sentence construction, chronology, and in some instance, exact phrases.

John, on the other hand, is an entirely different class on its own.

[numinus]

The Bible is obviously going to be corrupted, edited and changed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just not wanting to accept facts.

Any book that goes through 2000 years, numerous language translatisons, governments, competiton from other faiths and multiple authors is not going to be the same when it comes out the other end.

That is exactly the reason why hermeneutics is applied to it -- as in all ancient documents. We need to sift fact from a mound of fancy. It is tedious work, of course, but eventually, we hope to get a clear picture of it.

[9sublime]

That is exactly the reason why hermeneutics is applied to it -- as in all ancient documents. We need to sift fact from a mound of fancy. It is tedious work, of course, but eventually, we hope to get a clear picture of it.

But you wont. I applaud the work of the people involved to have got to far in finding the sources and other ways to prove the accuracy - but come on. It comes from 2,000 years ago, when the world was a very unreliable place.

[numinus]

But you wont. I applaud the work of the people involved to have got to far in finding the sources and other ways to prove the accuracy - but come on. It comes from 2,000 years ago, when the world was a very unreliable place.

Nonsense.

Archeology gets most of its important clues from documents -- even oral tradition -- dating back much farther than 2000 years ago.

[9sublime]

The more you dig into the Bible, the more you will find it will have been manipulated and changed. I'm willing to put money on it.

[numinus]

The more you dig into the Bible, the more you will find it will have been manipulated and changed. I'm willing to put money on it.

That's what the gray matter between your ears are for.

[Dr.Who]

Where does this ability come from?

Textual criticism

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:olu4Bhvr-D8J:www.theopedia.com/New_Testament_Textual_Criticism+textual+criticism+ list+disputed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/11/13/text-variants/

Textual criticism confirms much of what we know about the bible. Textual criticism is also what prompts Nums sources into theorizing that there is a Q document. But within the field there are things that can be stated with a high degree of certainty and things that cannot be stated with high degree of certainty.

Our ability to know what was in the originals is pretty high. Our ability to know if mark and matthew came from a common source (other than the actual historical events) is more dubious.

[numinus]

Our ability to know what was in the originals is pretty high. Our ability to know if mark and matthew came from a common source (other than the actual historical events) is more dubious.

Of course. The latter is an inference from the former, hence has a smaller degree of certainty. It could very well be that the two came from the same oral tradition, hence no Q.

[Dr.Who]

Of course. The latter is an inference from the former, hence has a smaller degree of certainty. It could very well be that the two came from the same oral tradition, hence no Q.

I didn't fact check before this post...But didn't both Mark and Matthew claim to be eyewitnesses. If so that would eliminate the possibility that the books came from the same oral tradition or a third Q unless the statement about them being eyewitnesses is wrong or a lie.

[numinus]

I didn't fact check before this post...But didn't both Mark and Matthew claim to be eyewitnesses. If so that would eliminate the possibility that the books came from the same oral tradition or a third Q unless the statement about them being eyewitnesses is wrong or a lie.

No.

Mark, matthew and luke are called 'synoptic' -- which means they 'see eye to eye' -- or a general conformity in style and content.

Other gospels, especially the gnostic gospels of nag hamadi fame -- thomas, judas, mary magdalene, etc. have fundamentally different philosophical traditions.

[Dr.Who]

No.

Mark, matthew and luke are called 'synoptic' -- which means they 'see eye to eye' -- or a general conformity in style and content.

Other gospels, especially the gnostic gospels of nag hamadi fame -- thomas, judas, mary magdalene, etc. have fundamentally different philosophical traditions.

Whether or not they are synoptic how would that change whether or not the authors claimed to be eyewitnesses? If one author says he is Mark and he was an eyewitness and the other claims to be Matthew and he is an eyewittness then they two books could not possibly be derived from the same hypothetical Q source.

[numinus]

Whether or not they are synoptic how would that change whether or not the authors claimed to be eyewitnesses? If one author says he is Mark and he was an eyewitness and the other claims to be Matthew and he is an eyewittness then they two books could not possibly be derived from the same hypothetical Q source.

No.

The actual documents of the gospels of mark and matthew where written a century after the crucifixion. They are merely copies which can be traced to q.

[Dr.Who]

No.

The actual documents of the gospels of mark and matthew where written a century after the crucifixion. They are merely copies which can be traced to q.

Using the same techniques that are used to suppose an imaginary Q document we can suppose two originals for Mark and Matthew with much greater certainty. And as I have said a few times now if Mark and Matthew contain statments that the authors were named Mark and Matthew respectively then that would rule out the possibility that those statments at least were from the same source. Unless one is trying to say that the author of Q was named both Mark and Matthew at the same time. Are you?

[9sublime]

Why couldn't someone be called Mark and Matthew? Theres millions of things that could have happened over the course of Jesus's life, let alone the following 2,000 years that could make the Bible utterly unreliable.

[numinus]

Using the same techniques that are used to suppose an imaginary Q document we can suppose two originals for Mark and Matthew with much greater certainty. And as I have said a few times now if Mark and Matthew contain statments that the authors were named Mark and Matthew respectively then that would rule out the possibility that those statments at least were from the same source. Unless one is trying to say that the author of Q was named both Mark and Matthew at the same time. Are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

Ninety-one percent of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and fifty-three percent of Mark is found in Luke. This material constitutes the Triple Tradition. The Triple Tradition is largely narrative but contains some sayings material. Since so much of Mark is Triple Tradition, some scholars combine it with the rest of Mark and talk about a Markan Tradition instead. In addition to the Triple Tradition, Matthew and Luke share content not found in Mark, called the Double Tradition. This content is mostly composed of sayings (mainly by Jesus, but some by John the Baptist) but includes at least one miracle story (the Centurion's Servant) as well.

Agreement in the order of the content is the strongest indication of a documentary dependence, especially when the agreement touches topical arrangements instead of chronological (e.g., both Matthew and Mark relate the death of John the Baptist in a flash-back). Therefore most scholars have not found purely oral theories plausible. The pattern of order is quite different between the Triple and Double traditions.

In the Triple Tradition, the order (or arrangement) of the pericopes is largely shared between Matthew and Mark or Luke and Mark or among all three. It is rarely the case that Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in arranging the Triple Tradition. This formal property means that Mark is a middle term between Matthew and Luke.

[Dr.Who]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

Ninety-one percent of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and fifty-three percent of Mark is found in Luke. This material constitutes the Triple Tradition. The Triple Tradition is largely narrative but contains some sayings material. Since so much of Mark is Triple Tradition, some scholars combine it with the rest of Mark and talk about a Markan Tradition instead. In addition to the Triple Tradition, Matthew and Luke share content not found in Mark, called the Double Tradition. This content is mostly composed of sayings (mainly by Jesus, but some by John the Baptist) but includes at least one miracle story (the Centurion's Servant) as well.

Agreement in the order of the content is the strongest indication of a documentary dependence, especially when the agreement touches topical arrangements instead of chronological (e.g., both Matthew and Mark relate the death of John the Baptist in a flash-back). Therefore most scholars have not found purely oral theories plausible. The pattern of order is quite different between the Triple and Double traditions.

In the Triple Tradition, the order (or arrangement) of the pericopes is largely shared between Matthew and Mark or Luke and Mark or among all three. It is rarely the case that Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in arranging the Triple Tradition. This formal property means that Mark is a middle term between Matthew and Luke.

Alternatively, the explanation could be that Mark and Matthew saw the same things at the same time and knew each other enough to influence what they wrote.

When two people see the same thing we would expect that they would describe the same thing. When they both quote Jesus we would expect that the quotes would be the same. I would expect similarity in content.

However if the two letters were the result of a third letter Q then I would expect there to be more than similarity in content. I would expect there to be large areas of the same text.

If there is such a thing as a Q document I propose that it is more likely that it went down like this:

Mark and Matthew decided to write down the events that they saw. They talked to each other about it. One of them had written notes about what their rabbi said during his life; a collection of his quotes. This would be the Q document. They both then wrote their biographies of Jesus and they both referred to the Q to make sure that they got the quotes right.

This explains the "synoptic problem" (which is really no problem) while not introducing the unsupported idea that the books were plaguirizations or later fictional creations.

[numinus]

Alternatively, the explanation could be that Mark and Matthew saw the same things at the same time and knew each other enough to influence what they wrote.

When two people see the same thing we would expect that they would describe the same thing. When they both quote Jesus we would expect that the quotes would be the same. I would expect similarity in content.

However if the two letters were the result of a third letter Q then I would expect there to be more than similarity in content. I would expect there to be large areas of the same text.

If there is such a thing as a Q document I propose that it is more likely that it went down like this:

Mark and Matthew decided to write down the events that they saw. They talked to each other about it. One of them had written notes about what their rabbi said during his life; a collection of his quotes. This would be the Q document. They both then wrote their biographies of Jesus and they both referred to the Q to make sure that they got the quotes right.

This explains the "synoptic problem" (which is really no problem) while not introducing the unsupported idea that the books were plaguirizations or later fictional creations.

There are many theories -- most of them involve the hypothetical q. Your suggestion is implausible without q.

[Dr.Who]

There are many theories -- most of them involve the hypothetical q. Your suggestion is implausible without q.

You are free to think that.