Featured About part of Mark not included in Luke, the “great omission”

[AgnosticBoy]

Isn’t it possible Mark came later and mostly included material which was found in BOTH of the other two gospels, and was cautious in this regard,


and then with pray, included a modest amount of other material?

Never thought of that. In my view, whichever was written first would've likely been used as a source. It seems likely that both Luke and Matthew used Mark than the other way around. For instance, ~75% of Mark is found in Matthew and Luke, but the similarities are not so great when you make the comparison the other way around (for instance, 45% of Matthew is found in Luke and Mark, which is 30% less than the stat i just gave about Mark).

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm very curious about that source that all Gospels used, the one that is unique to each Gospel. Did the "Q" source just exists as oral tradition? Was it like the Gospel of Thomas that seems to just have a lot of sayings?

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

It seems likely that both Luke and Matthew used Mark than the other way around.

I, too, think this is probably the case.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

This supports the theory that **Mark was used as a source** by both Matthew and Luke (known as **Markan Priority**).

Okay, so “Markan priority” might be my search phrase.

It means both that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and that it was used as a source for both Matthew and Luke.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Did the "Q" source just exists as oral tradition?

I asked this earlier. We do know that oral tradition about Jesus and the early Christian faith did exist. Some of it existed in the form of 'creeds', like in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5...

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.

And according to general scholarly consensus, 1 Corinthians (~55 AD) predates Mark (~70 AD), and the information about both existed before the final written form. Some say that the NT was not meant to serve as Scripture and I think that would be a good topic, by itself.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

And according to general scholarly consensus, 1 Corinthians (~55 AD) predates Mark (~70 AD),

Yes, the four gospels are at the front of the New Testament. But I think it’s about three letters of Paul which are estimated to have been written earlier.