Does Luke 1:1-4 pressupose many more lost Gospels in addition to Mark and Matthew?

[farpinho]

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Does it pressupose the previous existence of many other lost 1st Century Gspels (other than Matthew and Mark) that didn’t survive and even the early church fathers didn’t know of? What do we know about them?

 

[ahs]

I’m not 100% sure how to answer this, but there were indeed many writings that were sorted through before the Canon of the NT was decided on. Some that have survived include the 2 letters of Clement to the Corinthians (the 1st is actualy Clement, the 2nd likely not), the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and others. I read that during the years of persecution in the first few centuries, many of these writings were destroyed.

 

[Garyjohn2]

It could be referring to those “gospels” that are not currently in the Bible. Luke says others have undertaken this…so perhaps they wrote gospels that were inaccurate, or they started but never finished? He could also be referring to the Matthew and Mark as well.

 

[Don_Jackson]

Does it pressupose the previous existence of many other lost 1st Century Gspels (other than Matthew and Mark) that didn’t survive and even the early church fathers didn’t know of? What do we know about them?

St. Luke was referring to the Apocryphal Gospels (under the names of Matthias, Thomas, and other apostles) which the apostles contended were not authentic gospels.

So, not so much a presupposing of existence of other lost gospels, but “unauthorized” gospels.

Peace and all good!

 

[farpinho]

St. Luke was referring to the Apocryphal Gospels (under the names of Matthias, Thomas, and other apostles) which the apostles contended were not authentic gospels.

So, not so much a presupposing of existence of other lost gospels, but “unauthorized” gospels.

Peace and all good!

But these Apocryphal Gospels we know of were composed during the second century, many years after Luke’s…

 

[Mystophilus]

Does it pressupose the previous existence of many other lost 1st Century Gspels (other than Matthew and Mark) that didn’t survive and even the early church fathers didn’t know of? What do we know about them?

In part because of vague references in the Early Fathers to an apparent collection of sayings of Jesus, textual critics have posited the existence of Q (Quelle, “source”), a proto-Gospel possibly used as the basis for Matthew and Luke.

 

[patrick457]

Does it pressupose the previous existence of many other lost 1st Century Gspels (other than Matthew and Mark) that didn’t survive and even the early church fathers didn’t know of? What do we know about them?

Or alternatively, Luke was referring to Matthew and/or Mark, or to the people who have passed on Jesus’ story by word of mouth before he (Luke) began writing it down.

The interesting thing about Luke is that he seem to have felt that the other gospels or oral stories circulating at his time lacked something: they lacked a coherent plot. If you read Matthew or Mark closely, you would notice that they are episodic in nature - different pericopes are often strung together (differently) using stock phrases like “at that time.” It seems that this was a ‘problem’ that Luke sought to remedy by writing his own version of the life of Jesus, which pays more closer attention to the narrative thread and gives a more solid historical context for it.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Or alternatively, Luke was referring to Matthew and/or Mark, or to the people who have passed on Jesus’ story by word of mouth before he (Luke) began writing it down.

I would tend to agree with you except that “two” doesn’t quite seem to fit the bill for “many,” (polus) although Matthew and Mark or some iterations of the two could certainly be part of “many.” Also anastaxasthai seems to imply that many attempted to actually write out a version of the events surrounding Jesus’ life prior to Luke’s version.

 

[farpinho]

Or alternatively, Luke was referring to Matthew and/or Mark, or to the people who have passed on Jesus’ story by word of mouth before he (Luke) began writing it down.

The interesting thing about Luke is that he seem to have felt that the other gospels or oral stories circulating at his time lacked something: they lacked a coherent plot. If you read Matthew or Mark closely, you would notice that they are episodic in nature - different pericopes are often strung together (differently) using stock phrases like “at that time.” It seems that this was a ‘problem’ that Luke sought to remedy by writing his own version of the life of Jesus, which pays more closer attention to the narrative thread and gives a more solid historical context for it.

Agreed. Luke appears to state “implicitly”, by the beginning of his Gospel, that he wanted to put the narrative “in chronological order”. But it still makes me wonder how many he meant by “many”. There might be many lost Gospels we know nothing of, like maybe this one.

 

[farpinho]

I would tend to agree with you except that “two” doesn’t quite seem to fit the bill for “many,” (polus) although Matthew and Mark or some iterations of the two could certainly be part of “many.” Also anastaxasthai seems to imply that many attempted to actually write out a version of the events surrounding Jesus’ life prior to Luke’s version.

That.

 

[patrick457]

Agreed. Luke appears to state “implicitly”, by the beginning of his Gospel, that he wanted to put the narrative “in chronological order”. But it still makes me wonder how many he meant by “many”. There might be many lost Gospels we know nothing of, like maybe this one.

Yep.

 

[Garyjohn2]

I would tend to agree with you except that “two” doesn’t quite seem to fit the bill for “many,” (polus) although Matthew and Mark or some iterations of the two could certainly be part of “many.” Also anastaxasthai seems to imply that many attempted to actually write out a version of the events surrounding Jesus’ life prior to Luke’s version.

I’m not familiar with the original language, but is it possible that more than one person was working on Matthew and Mark? They (Matthew, Mark) may be the primary authors, but who was helping them? Did they have disciples of their own that wrote it, or helped gather information, or organize witness accounts? The idea that one old man alone in a room scribbling on parchment may not be accurate…but I admit I don’t know what would be!
That may meet the definition that “many” were trying to make an account of Christ, the product of which was two complete gospels.

Just a thought!

 

[patrick457]

I’m not familiar with the original language, but is it possible that more than one person was working on Matthew and Mark? They (Matthew, Mark) may be the primary authors, but who was helping them? Did they have disciples of their own that wrote it, or helped gather information, or organize witness accounts? The idea that one old man alone in a room scribbling on parchment may not be accurate…but I admit I don’t know what would be!
That may meet the definition that “many” were trying to make an account of Christ, the product of which was two complete gospels.

Just a thought!

You also have to remember that in the ancient world, when people wanted to ‘write’ something down formally and professionally they were usually not the ones who did the actual writing (even if they could write), instead they made use of amanuenses, professional scribes who jotted down what was dictated to them. We know for instance that St. Paul employed a guy named Tertius to write the letter to the Romans (16:22), and we can infer from some of his other letters that he was not the one who was writing them as well (cf. Galatians 6:11), perhaps again using Tertius or some other amanuensis. IMHO it is reasonable to assume that maybe the other NT authors also have had scribes handy: there is in fact a tradition that the apostle St. John had one (St. Prochorus, identified with the Prochorus in Acts 6:5).

In other words, we are so accustomed to think of the authors of the New Testament as writing like this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

When in reality it would have been closer to this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[farpinho]

Good point
There were several people involved, might be the case.
Some scholars usually like to describe the Gospels as written by the “community of Mark”, “community of Luke”, “community of John”, “community of Matthew”…

 

[farpinho]

That could explain the “problem of authorship” in the Book of Acts?

 

[patrick457]

Good point
There were several people involved, might be the case.
Some scholars usually like to describe the Gospels as written by the “community of Mark”, “community of Luke”, “community of John”, “community of Matthew”…

There’s certainly that common idea that each of the four gospels was specially penned for specific “communities.” That being said, there have been recent scholars like Richard Bauckham (author of The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences) who are questioning this idea: Bauckham’s thesis is that the gospels were intended for all Christians in general and not just for isolated communities.

 

[farpinho]

There’s certainly that common idea that each of the four gospels was specially penned for specific “communities.” That being said, there have been recent scholars like Richard Bauckham (author of The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences) who are questioning this idea: Bauckham’s thesis is that the gospels were intended for all Christians in general and not just for isolated communities.

So, should I take that Luke dedicated his gospel to all christianity from start, and not just wrote it to Teophillus? And rather, did these communities really exist, or is it just a hypothesis?