• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There is that idea yes, that there was an oral tradition for fifty years until the author of Mark came along. It is also possible the Mark Gospel was two lost written accounts that were merged, meaning the oral tradition was much shorter. About 85% of Matthew is found in Mark and most of the 15% are Greek legends. Luke seems to have had Matthew, Josphius, and Mark. John seems to have had the three plus that weird community that might have existed in Jerusalem. I hate using weasel words but really this is all speculation. Not convinced the M source had to have existed, since you can get there without it.

    It is worth mentioning that the story about the adulteress in John was in oral form for a long time before written down. So, yes it is possible that this feat happened more than once. Pity that story is even less likely to have happened compared to the rest of the stories, given how nice it is.

    • rambling_lunatic
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am aware of the two-source hypothesis. My opinion is that those two sources probably derive from oral tradition, and this oral tradition is also the source material that Paul drew from.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure why not? Some Essen community is chilling there with their stories of a Jewish dying and rising God, Paul shows up and takes it seriously.