Gospel sources, "Q"

[jmcrae]

Are you not a follower of Jesus? John is the only gospel that explicitly states it is written by an eye witness.

Most likely because of its late date, St. John would have mentioned that, because most of his audience would not have been born yet when Jesus was walking the earth. So it would have been interesting to them, that he was an eye-witness.

When the other Gospels were written, most of the eye-witnesses were still alive - it would be like mentioning, “I was alive when Obama was president” - yeah, so was everyone else - so what?

 

[bingbang]

Most likely because of its late date, St. John would have mentioned that, because most of his audience would not have been born yet when Jesus was walking the earth. So it would have been interesting to them, that he was an eye-witness.

When the other Gospels were written, most of the eye-witnesses were still alive - it would be like mentioning, “I was alive when Obama was president” - yeah, so was everyone else - so what?

Could you please post the verses?

 

[buffalo]

Oh?!?!?

What about this?
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/arts/photos/2008/06/19/trek-de-lancie.jpg

and this?

Ahhh- I forgot about that pesky Q.

I stand corrected.

 

[buffalo]

I think that the few arguments given on the wikipedia article about markan priority are far more convincing than anything in this post:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markan_priority

Also a lot of the things in your post are misleading and unproven. I have never heard that Peter gave these talks, linguists have not proven that Matthew was originally in Hebrew, and you give the impression that Markan priority is not the most favored theory today according to NT scholars (it is).

Did you read the entire paper? Some think there was an Aramaic Matthew.

In his Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas, Clement commented on 1 Peter 5, 13. As Eusebius did not copy the full quotation, we are using here the Latin translation by Cassiodorus: Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the Gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesars knights and uttering many testimonies of Christ, [Mark] being begged by them that they should be able to record what was said, wrote the Gospel which is called the Gospel of Mark, from the things said by Peter; just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews`.
((RDCA and RO 131)).

 

[NotWorthy]

For the sake of the Catholic church, I would hope not.

But I think it did.

 

[NotWorthy]

Are you not a follower of Jesus? John is the only gospel that explicitly states it is written by an eye witness.

I thought it was accepted that Levi was Matthew.

But no, Mark wasn’t an eyewitness, although it is tradition “little t” that he was the man who lost his towel and ran away in the Garden of Gethsemane. He may have been around Jesus from time to time, but it is said he got his Gospel from listening to Peter’s sermons in Rome.

 

[pnewton]

Do you have evidence of this?

Matthew? Do you think one of the apostles was not an eyewitness? Mark identifies himself in Mark 14:51-52. It is a common way of identifing oneself. John uses "the disciple whom Jesus loved.

 

[NotWorthy]

Matthew? Do you think one of the apostles was not an eyewitness?

That is correct. Levi the Tax Collector is Matthew.

Mark identifies himself in Mark 14:51-52. It is a common way of identifing oneself. John uses "the disciple whom Jesus loved.

It is a tradition in the early Church, but its not proof that Mark was an eye-witness to all the events of the Gospel.

It is more commonly held that Mark got his Gospel from listening to Peter preach in Rome.

 

[pnewton]

That is correct. Levi the Tax Collector is Matthew.

It is a tradition in the early Church, but its not proof that Mark was an eye-witness to all the events of the Gospel.

It is more commonly held that Mark got his Gospel from listening to Peter preach in Rome.

Proof wasn’t asked for, or available; evidence was. I find the inclusion of that incident and the way it was rather compelling, especially when seen in light of Church Tradition. I think it goes without saying that Peter was a likely source for much of the Gospels. In some cases, he was the only one who could report what happened.

 

[scottm]

So what do you think is the solution to the synoptic problem? It doesn’t matter if the presuppositions were from atheists or agnostics, just if they are accurate.

From my understanding it isn’t the fact that Mark doesn’t give a birth narrative that makes people think it was the first, it is the fact that it has slightly odd wording at times (that are corrected in Matthew and Luke) and is more condensed than the others. It is unlikely that the author of Mark would jumble words and just take things out of the story if he was using Matthew and Luke to write.

And I also think it is funny how the great majority of scholars believe that Mark was first, including Christians and Catholics.

The “solution” to the synoptic problem is that there is not a problem to be solved. The entire question is artificial.

The “odd wording” of Mark can be explained as style. An English professor teaches 30 students every class, every semester, yet none of them copy his style, and all most all of those students will finish the class writing worse than the teacher. Seriously, in the US a college graduate will have had four years of high school English and two semester of college English, minimum. Minimum. How many of them can actually write well – 5%? We’ve been studying Shakespeare for 400 years. How many clones have arisen? Is it more than twelve total in 400 years?! Libraries contain thousands of different books, none of which read the same way. Compare the simple language of the Hardy Boys to anything by Jane Austen. The simple books were not written first.

True story: My brother got his PhD at Notre Dame. While he was a grad student there he showed a writing of his to a professor, to get his review. The professor responded that the first half was good, but the second half was not so good, and was obviously written by two different people. The professor was certain that two different people wrote the material, for this-and-that reason. My brother wrote the entire thing himself – both halves.

The point of this, and the truth of it, is as plain as the sun is hot and the sky is cold: simple language is not an indicator of first-in-time. Seriously, that truism is SELF-EVIDENT.

Modern “scholars” approach the subject with a preconceived bias. Fact. The Dungan book maps the history of the matter over the centuries. The scholarly magazines and books of the last few decades prove this point conclusively. That episode with my brother and his professor demonstrates that these “scholars” can’t even get the right answer with something written today. We have no reason whatsoever to trust their theories about something 2000 years old.

 

[simspt]

All,

We’ve taken up the NT in the 2nd year of my diocesan Scripture class. Today, we learned about Q and Mark being sources for Matthew and Luke. This was presented as the dominant /popular theory, but there was also a ‘3 sources’ theory presented as well.

What is the ‘orthodox’ understanding of this? Is this something that the Pope would give a nod to? Any suggestions appreciated!

Thanks, Juli

beware of those who use hypothesized source material to reconstruct Jesus to suit there wishes. Liberal scholars are notorious for this… Its a very interesting topic but has limited use. theres lots of good books on the subject and ray brown in his intro to NT does a good job explaining the limitations that honest scholars must acknowledge when constructing their theories. There are some very strong reasons to support the two source theory and Markan priority but again watch out for scholars who try to reconstruct JESUS against the Church’s tradition. Mostly liberal scholars

 

[Zooey]

Did you read the entire paper? Some think there was an Aramaic Matthew.

In his Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas, Clement commented on 1 Peter 5, 13. As Eusebius did not copy the full quotation, we are using here the Latin translation by Cassiodorus:
Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the Gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesars knights and uttering many testimonies of Christ, [Mark] being begged by them that they should be able to record what was said, wrote the Gospel which is called the Gospel of Mark, from the things said by Peter; just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews`.
((RDCA and RO 131)).

I am one of those people who believe in Matthew Aramaic as the first Gospel.
As a matter of fact, I believe that Matthew Aramaic is the REAL “Q”…That is: There is indeed a source underlying all the synoptics.But it’s not some supposed “Q”; it’s :thumbsup:good old Matthew Aramaic.
Matthew Greek, Mark, & Luke all depended on it.
Mind you, modernist scholars would no doubt lose their tempers and their senses to be presented with a theory that not only affirms the existence of an earlier Matthew (meaning that Mark is not, after all, the first Gospel, as they love to insist). But–It **also **accepts the existence of a genuine Gospel that underlies all the Gospels that we now have in our Bibles.
Not some imagined document that they want to try to invent, in order to throw doubt about. No; Matthew Aramaic is the oldest, most traditional, most conservative undersanding of Scripture.
I have to admit to wishing I could, just once, listen in as, say, a member of the “Jesus Seminar” gnashes his teeth over the fact that his arguments have turned 'round and bit him.

 

[NotWorthy]

Proof wasn’t asked for, or available; evidence was. I find the inclusion of that incident and the way it was rather compelling, especially when seen in light of Church Tradition. I think it goes without saying that Peter was a likely source for much of the Gospels. In some cases, he was the only one who could report what happened.

But if Mark was an eye-witness to all of Jesus’ ministry, wouldn’t he have been a candidate to fill Judas’ office in Acts 1?

 

[patrick457]

All,

We’ve taken up the NT in the 2nd year of my diocesan Scripture class. Today, we learned about Q and Mark being sources for Matthew and Luke. This was presented as the dominant /popular theory, but there was also a ‘3 sources’ theory presented as well.

What is the ‘orthodox’ understanding of this? Is this something that the Pope would give a nod to? Any suggestions appreciated!

Thanks, Juli

Well, there’s not really anything that the Church has declared on this matter, so you can pretty much weigh the evidences and finally make up your mind about which theory (and there are quite a number of them) is the strongest. I personally don’t care much for the whole idea of the existence of a ‘Q Document’ because I find the arguments against it rather compelling.

 

[patrick457]

I am one of those people who believe in Matthew Aramaic as the first Gospel.
As a matter of fact, I believe that Matthew Aramaic is the REAL “Q”…That is: There is indeed a source underlying all the synoptics.But it’s not some supposed “Q”; it’s :thumbsup:good old Matthew Aramaic.
Matthew Greek, Mark, & Luke all depended on it.
Mind you, modernist scholars would no doubt lose their tempers and their senses to be presented with a theory that not only affirms the existence of an earlier Matthew (meaning that Mark is not, after all, the first Gospel, as they love to insist). But–It **also **accepts the existence of a genuine Gospel that underlies all the Gospels that we now have in our Bibles.
Not some imagined document that they want to try to invent, in order to throw doubt about. No; Matthew Aramaic is the oldest, most traditional, most conservative undersanding of Scripture.
I have to admit to wishing I could, just once, listen in as, say, a member of the “Jesus Seminar” gnashes his teeth over the fact that his arguments have turned 'round and bit him.

Which reminds me. In a further refinement of the Two-Source Hypothesis (the Four Document Hypothesis), the so-called ‘M-Source’ is included in the equation. It is believed to be a hypothetical textual source for the Gospel of Matthew, that special material of the Gospel of Matthew that is neither Q-source nor Mark: some who subscribe to it think that it is possible that M was actually Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew (aka the Gospel of the Hebrews).

That being said, I personally subscribe to a theory close to yours.

BTW, a few (out of many) quotes from the Fathers in what they believe to be is the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’:

Behold, the mother of the Lord and His brothers were saying to Him, “John the Baptizer is baptizing for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him.” But He said to them, “How have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perchance this that I have just said is ignorance.”

• St. Jerome, Against the Pelagians 3.2

And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and rested on Him and said to Him, “My Son, in all the prophets I was expecting you, that you should come, and I might rest in you. For you are my rest; you are my first-born Son, who reigns in eternity.”

• St. Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 4

“Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and carried me to Tabor, the great mountain…”

• Origen, Commentary on John 2.12 (cf. On Jeremiah, homily 15.4; St. Jerome, Commentary on Micah 2, Commentary on Isaiah 11)

“If your brother sins in word, and makes satisfaction to you, seven times a day receive him.” Simon his disciple said to him: “Seven times a day?” The Lord responded and said to him, “Still I say to you, until seventy times seven. For indeed in the prophets, even after they were anointed by the Holy Spirit, the speech of sin was found.”

• Against the Pelagians 3.2

In the gospel of which we often make mention we read that a lintel of the Temple of infinite magnitude was broken and divided.

But in the gospel which is written with Hebrew letters we read, not that the veil of the Temple was rent (Matthew 27:51), but that the lintel of the Temple, of marvelous magnitude, fell.

• St. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 4, Epistle 120 (to Hebidia)

But the Lord, when He had given the shroud to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to Him. James indeed had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour when he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he saw Him risen again from among those who sleep. …] “Bear forth,” said the Lord, “a table and bread.” He bore bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to James the Just and said to him, “My brother, eat your bread, because the Son of Man has resurrected from among those who sleep.”

• St. Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 2

 

[NHInsider]

But if Mark was an eye-witness to all of Jesus’ ministry, wouldn’t he have been a candidate to fill Judas’ office in Acts 1?

It would appear from the description in Acts that there were a number of candidates to fill the office, not just the two on the “short list.”

But I don’t think anyone is saying Mark was an eyewitness to the entire ministry (unless I missed it somewhere in this thread) - it’s pretty much accepted tradition that he was a young teen at the time of the crucifixion.

 

[NHInsider]

The most annoying thing to me about the search for/theories of proto-gospels is the way it rejects/denigrates the importance and value of oral tradition. The reality is that in the ancient world there was a thriving tradition of oral transmission of information. Just because we have for the most part lost the ability to listen/remember/repeat lengthy accounts of events doesn’t mean that this was not a legitimate and reliable way of passing information from person to person and even generation to generation. We know historically that in most cultures there is a long history of oral transmission before the beginning of any form of writing, and that the two typically exist in tandem until (if) wide-spread literacy replaces oral transmission with written.

The Apostles, as we know, were told to preach the Gospel, not to write it down. And as there were 12+ of them, plus other eyewitnesses who were not ordained, there would have been some variations in those accounts, but also significant similarities - particularly with reference to the words of Jesus which would have been preserved with care. This is a more than adequate explanation for the similarities in the texts of the synoptics, regardless of which was actually committed to written form earliest.

And, as I have observed here before, it is not contradictory to say that “Matthew is the author of the gospel by that name” while acknowleging that it was his teaching, recorded by another. That was the way of the ancient world, and it is both arrogant and silly for us to claim that because our definition of “authorship” is different, it must apply.

It is frustrating that historians and anthropologists will give respectful credance to the oral traditions of all kinds of ancient and primitive cultures - but not to Christianity.

 

[jmcrae]

But if Mark was an eye-witness to all of Jesus’ ministry, wouldn’t he have been a candidate to fill Judas’ office in Acts 1?

Perhaps he was too young, at that time, since another tradition holds that he is the boy who offered the fish and loaves to Andrew, at the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes.

If he were only a boy at that time, it’s not likely that he would have been old enough to be considered an Apostle, less than a year later.

 

[Axion]

Q is a made-up idea, devised on the basic presupposition that the gospels wee cobbled together from various sources and not written by their traditional authors.Until a copy of Q or any other presupposed “original” documents is found, it remains just an unsubstantiated whimsy, largely created to undermine the contents of the gospels. Of course since the same people who advocate the existence of Q, also state the gospels were written late, there SHOULD be either copies of Q or historic references to it available.

Strangely there aren’t.

 

[buffalo]

The “solution” to the synoptic problem is that there is not a problem to be solved. The entire question is artificial.

The “odd wording” of Mark can be explained as style. An English professor teaches 30 students every class, every semester, yet none of them copy his style, and all most all of those students will finish the class writing worse than the teacher. Seriously, in the US a college graduate will have had four years of high school English and two semester of college English, minimum. Minimum. How many of them can actually write well – 5%? We’ve been studying Shakespeare for 400 years. How many clones have arisen? Is it more than twelve total in 400 years?! Libraries contain thousands of different books, none of which read the same way. Compare the simple language of the Hardy Boys to anything by Jane Austen. The simple books were not written first.

True story: My brother got his PhD at Notre Dame. While he was a grad student there he showed a writing of his to a professor, to get his review. The professor responded that the first half was good, but the second half was not so good, and was obviously written by two different people. The professor was certain that two different people wrote the material, for this-and-that reason. My brother wrote the entire thing himself – both halves.

The point of this, and the truth of it, is as plain as the sun is hot and the sky is cold: simple language is not an indicator of first-in-time. Seriously, that truism is SELF-EVIDENT.

Modern “scholars” approach the subject with a preconceived bias. Fact. The Dungan book maps the history of the matter over the centuries. The scholarly magazines and books of the last few decades prove this point conclusively. That episode with my brother and his professor demonstrates that these “scholars” can’t even get the right answer with something written today. We have no reason whatsoever to trust their theories about something 2000 years old.

My writing style can change with my mood or the weather. Comparing things I wrote say10, 20 or 30 years ago the claim would be they were not written by the same author.