Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
It would make more sense to me if maybe...
I subscribe to an internet forum called /r/AcademicBiblical or something, and it's been brought to my attention that some 90 percent of Academics subscribe to a theory termed "Markan Primacy", citing that some 80 something percent of Mark is included in Matthew, even including typographical errors. Which is fine, I have no problems with that.

It would make more sense to me though if Mark were originally transcribed in the Coptic, Matthew in Hebrew, and Luke in Greek, or something along those lines (St. Mark being the traditional Primate (sp?) of the Alexandrian church.)

I'll try to find the article i found, because I found it very convincing, and I'm not an easy guy to get along with.
I found it: "How Editorial Fatigue Shows That Matthew and Luke Copied Mark"

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)