"Gospel behind the Gospels"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alex8
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alex8

Guest
Who knows where the expression “Gospel behind the Gospels” is first recorded? Or which author defines it? I’m grateful for any answer
 
Last edited:
Alex8 said:
Who knows where the expression “Gospel behind the Gospels” is first recorded? Or which author defines it? I’m grateful for any answer
Click to expand...
Never heard of that expression and I’m 72.
 
You are probably referring to the theoretical Q source that many modern theories believe is the source upon which Matthew, Mark, and Luke appeal to write the synoptics. The idea being that because the synoptic gospels have a common thread of stories, in some cases extremely similar in how they are verbalized, Matthew, Mark, Luke were either directly or indirectly taking their narratives from a common source. Lots of modern scholars advance this theory, so there are lot of authors who would probably cover it. Personally, I don’t give it a lot of credence or thought.
 
Hodos said:
dern theories believe is the source upon which Matthew, Mark, and Luke appeal to write the synoptics. The idea being that because the synoptic gospels have a common thread of stories, in some cases extremely similar in how they are verbalized, Matthew, Mark, Luke were either directly or indirectly taking their narratives from a common source.
Click to expand...
Or they are all witnesses to the same events.
The fact that three witnesses agree on what happened is in no way a reason to believe that somebody else told them what to say.
 
Last edited:
Zaccheus said:
Or they are all witnesses to the same events.
The fact that three witnesses agree on what happened is in no way a reason to believe that somebody else told them what to say.
Click to expand...
I agree, this is why I reject the Q theory.
 
On Google the oldest reference to that exact phrase I found went back to 1994.

If you mean the broader idea, the earliest reference would be from the Gospel of Luke - who explicitly acknowledges that his Gospel is based on prior sources, and that other compilations have been made.

Scholarly probes into the origins and composition of the Gospels can be traced back to the 18th century. The Q Source was first well postulated in 1863 by Holtzmann, but wasn’t given that name until Johannes Weiss in the early twentieth century.

If you want a more specific answer I’m happy to try and help.
 
Thank you. No, I’ve met this prhase two or three times in a book, published in the 1960s. I want to translate this expression into another language. Although I come across a lot of theological terms but “Gospel behind the Gospels” is not used at all in the literature of that language. I hoped to find an original author to realize the cotext
 
Last edited:
Could you share the book and the context? That might be helpful in answering the question, unless you’re already satisfied with what’s already been written on this thread.

Pax
 
I find the Q Theory strange, it’s like the apostles are plagiarising an earlier source. But they are the witnesses to Jesus’ life so IMO, “Q” had to be Jesus. They’ve shared his life and probably shared the stories amongst themselves.

I think bible scholarship always seems to dismiss God in their studies. The parable of the Loaves and Fishes is dismissed as just the miracle of sharing. The same here they are dismissing the experiences of the apostles and create a fictional Q character.
 
On the one hand, you have early Church Fathers like Eusebius, Iraneus and Papias testifying that the writings were by the gospel writers after whom they are named. On the other hand, you have the Q gospel theory created in Germany 150 years ago. I pick the early Church Fathers any day.
 
I think its really only Papias (whose writings we no longer have). Iraneus and Eusebius were quoting Papias, as I recall. Also, even Papias didn’t say that the authors did not use other sources in their work. (And Iraneus did not seem to think much of many of the things Papia said, so its a bit odd that he relies on him for this.)
 
Thank you so much for this answer! I really forgot about Google Scholar 😬 I haven’t read these articles yet but I hope it helps me greatly 😊
 
Last edited:
This book is “Jerome Bible Commentary”, the first edition. I understand the context. It says about Q or about another unpreserved tradition. Thank you and others, who responded, a lot. I guess it’ll be enough
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
Papias didn’t say that the authors did not use other sources in their work.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The Two-source Hypothesis (which includes Q) does not contradict any of the early testimony. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Christian - and Catholic - Bible scholars agree with the Two-source Hypothesis. I even first learned about in Catholic high school!

It’s the hypothesis that fits the evidence the best. If you’ve got a better one, you’ll be a famous Bible scholar!
 
Zaccheus said:
Or they are all witnesses to the same events.
The fact that three witnesses agree on what happened is in no way a reason to believe that somebody else told them what to say.
Click to expand...
That is of course true but point of this theory is that they even use similar wording. That suggests it is not simply same experience but also that there might be similar source.

Then again they spent so much time together, lived in same culture and so on… it isn’t that much of a stretch that they would have similar vocabulary.
 
Xarto said:
I find the Q Theory strange, it’s like the apostles are plagiarising an earlier source. But they are the witnesses to Jesus’ life so IMO, “Q” had to be Jesus. They’ve shared his life and probably shared the stories amongst themselves.

I think bible scholarship always seems to dismiss God in their studies. The parable of the Loaves and Fishes is dismissed as just the miracle of sharing. The same here they are dismissing the experiences of the apostles and create a fictional Q character.
Click to expand...
I would agree with you. I think they also assume that there wasn’t an oral gospel being proclaimed by the apostles at the time that the gospels were written, and that the gospels were written to preserve the oral gospel preached by the apostles.
 
Last edited:
Either way it is interesting to see the commonalities.

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

Who is first? Well the Gospel of Matthew has like 3 endings from different times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top