A: The only more or less contemporary sources we have for the life of Jesus are the four New Testament gospels. The gospels were originally anonymous, but during the second century, the Church Fathers attributed them to four of the apostles, based on which apostle they felt most likely to have written each one. However, there is no reason to accept the assigned authorships, and modern scholars say that the authors could not have been apostles.
Scholars say that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as their principal source for the life of Jesus. In fact, the "Missing Block" proves the the author of Luke's Gospel knew nothing of the life of Jesus, other than what he found in Mark's Gospel. John's Gospel, in turn, was based principally on Luke's Gospel, with some input direct from Mark's Gospel.
Another source used by both Matthew and Luke was the hypothetical 'Q' document. However, 'Q' contained only sayings attributed to Jesus, and did not even mention the crucifixion or resurrection. Whenever Matthew and Luke used the same material from 'Q', they placed the saying or parable in quite different settings and times - evidence that neither really knew whether Jesus had really spoken the saying, nor in what context.
Although it contains no sayings from 'Q', Mark's Gospel is therefore the primary source of information now available on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. All the other gospels are derivative.
The elaborate framework (parallel) structure of Mark's Gospel could not plausibly have been a true chronological record of the life or crucifixion of Jesus so, at the very least, the author substantially altered the accounts he received, to suit his literary preferences. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says that Mark seems to depend on traditions (and perhaps already shaped sources) received in Greek - in other words not first hand accounts from any of the apostles. Parallels have been detected between Mark and Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and 1 Corinthians. Some have suggested that Mark's Gospel is an elaboration of material he found in Paul's epistles, and that he created the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
There are two kinds of sources...primary and secondary. A primary source is information you see with your own eyes. An example would be a book written in first person, or a newspaper article. A secondary source is information that has been passed on. An example of this would be a gossip magazene or fiction book. Hope this helps :)
a primary source would be first hand from an educated certified doctor or something like that. a secondary source would be information from someone...like me!
Primary sources of data are original and collected directly by the researcher, like surveys, interviews, and experiments. They provide first-hand, unprocessed information. In contrast, secondary sources are based on existing data that has already been collected and analyzed by others, like books, articles, and reports. Primary data is more accurate and specific to the researcher's needs, while secondary data offers insights from already available information.
= What are the positives and the negatives of the primary source? =
Primary source data is when a person is actually on the scene taking random examples and questions whereas secondary source data is taken from newspapers, magazines, hearsay, Internet ..... etc
The primary source of information was from witness statements.
An Artifact is a primary source of information.
Quran Pak is the main primary source of information about the religion of Islam.
A primary source provides firsthand information or data, while a secondary source interprets or analyzes primary sources.
Email can be considered a primary source depending on the context. If the email contains original information or firsthand accounts of events, it is often considered a primary source. However, if the email is forwarding information from another source, it may not be considered a primary source.
The Congress record is the primary source for specific information on a particular bill.
No, Encyclopedia Britannica is not considered a primary source. It is a secondary source that compiles information from various primary sources.
primary sources of information
A primary source is original information created at the time of the event being studied, such as diaries, letters, photographs, or speeches. An example of a primary source would be a firsthand account from someone who witnessed an event.
The internet can be a primary source if the information comes directly from an original or firsthand account or data. For example, a research study published on a reputable website would be considered a primary source. However, if the information is a secondary source, such as a news article summarizing a study, then it would not be considered a primary source.
It depends on what you need it for :)
Primary source information is original material,Secondary sources analyze and interpret primary sources