Gospel sources, "Q"

[patrick457]

I noticed that a lot of people in this thread just take what early church fathers said as fact. I don’t really know if this is a great idea. Yes, they may have only been a century or less from when these documents were written, but that is a long time in those dates. Its not like these documents were originally dated. If Mark was written first, but Matthew was circulated on a more wide scale at an earlier time, it would seem like Matthew was written first.

I just don’t think that we should put much stock into what church fathers said about the origins of the gospels in the first few centuries. Any document had to get copied and transported by foot between towns. Any story that came with the guy that delivered the gospels to other areas would be believed. I just would place a lot more faith in modern linguistic and historical experts than the stories of the church fathers.

This is where I’d beg to differ.

First, of course, a hundred years or less is a pretty long time, but two thousand years is a much longer time period than that.
Second, relying on modern experts is good, but one must always keep in mind that in this science, nothing is really permanent. What is today’s majority opinion can turn into tomorrow’s fringe science, and vice versa. Let’s face it: in recent times, we know more about the world Jesus lived in than our fathers a century ago thanks to archeological and literary discoveries, yet even now our picture is still incomplete. The picture we have now would either be corroborated or drastically changed, depending on future discoveries.
Third, we humans have biases. We can say that the early Fathers had biases of their own, but modern-day scholars have it too. Everybody reads their own interpretation into stuff: the available data tells us something, and our minds supply the conclusion. Again, the more data we gather, the chances that we may have to revise our thinking depending on what they now tell us become larger.

Which brings us to: what exactly is there in modern theories that somehow make them more credible? Putting other arguments and assumptions aside, I personally believe that we should have a more critical mind. If we can’t take the Fathers’ testimonies at face value, by the same token we shouldn’t immediately trust scholars in the present either, since they are all humans like us who have preconceived notions; it doesn’t matter whether who’s more ‘smart’ or ‘advanced’ here (seriously, why do we have this stereotype that past generations, just because they are in some respects, ‘primitive’, are automatically rather dumb and gullible compared to us, their more ‘advanced’ descendants? ), in the end, we humans color everything with our biases. What I suggest instead is that (1) you should take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt: test, compare and think, and (2) always reevaluate and recheck your opinion especially in the light of new data: over and over, if necessary. Finally, (3) always entertain the possibility that your (present) idea could be wrong.

 

[Sheeniac]

Interestingly enough, when we studied OT Scripture last year, we discussed oral history and oral transmission. The stories, preachings, and parables would be well known, and any change would or inaccuracy would be instantly spotted - be it written or oral.

So when bingbang says:

I just don’t think that we should put much stock into what church fathers said about the origins of the gospels in the first few centuries. Any document had to get copied and transported by foot between towns. Any story that came with the guy that delivered the gospels to other areas would be believed.

I would have to differ. There would be widespread and long term communications, and copies would be compared. This was sacred writing.

 

[bingbang]

Which brings us to: what exactly is there in modern theories that somehow make them more credible? Putting other arguments and assumptions aside, I personally believe that we should have a more critical mind. If we can’t take the Fathers’ testimonies at face value, by the same token we shouldn’t immediately trust scholars in the present either, since they are all humans like us who have preconceived notions

The church fathers were just writing down stories that they heard. I have yet to read anything from the church fathers that say why they believe Matthew was written first, just that it was. Modern scholars actually have reasons to support their opinions found in the literature. I don’t think the church fathers went through the text trying to figure out which came first like modern scholars do.

 

[bingbang]

Interestingly enough, when we studied OT Scripture last year, we discussed oral history and oral transmission. The stories, preachings, and parables would be well known, and any change would or inaccuracy would be instantly spotted - be it written or oral.

So when bingbang says:

I would have to differ. There would be widespread and long term communications, and copies would be compared. This was sacred writing.

The context of the scripture was very likely to be preserved, but when and who something was written by probably wasn’t of much importance to the ancient Christians.

 

[TMC]

Interestingly enough, when we studied OT Scripture last year, we discussed oral history and oral transmission. The stories, preachings, and parables would be well known, and any change would or inaccuracy would be instantly spotted - be it written or oral.

So when bingbang says:

I would have to differ. There would be widespread and long term communications, and copies would be compared. This was sacred writing.

And yet we have many copies of various new testament writings dating back to about 200, and virtually no two copies are identical. Given that there were so many variations in the texts available to the Fathers, its hard to credit the idea that they “any inaccuracy would be instantly spotted.”

 

[Sheeniac]

And yet we have many copies of various new testament writings dating back to about 200, and virtually no two copies are identical. Given that there were so many variations in the texts available to the Fathers, its hard to credit the idea that they “any inaccuracy would be instantly spotted.”

TMC - I’ll admit ignorance in this area, so I will ask my instructor and get back to you!

 

[bingbang]

And yet we have many copies of various new testament writings dating back to about 200, and virtually no two copies are identical. Given that there were so many variations in the texts available to the Fathers, its hard to credit the idea that they “any inaccuracy would be instantly spotted.”

I am fairly certain that most of these differences are quite inconsequential.

 

[jmcrae]

The church fathers were just writing down stories that they heard. I have yet to read anything from the church fathers that say why they believe Matthew was written first, just that it was. Modern scholars actually have reasons to support their opinions found in the literature. I don’t think the church fathers went through the text trying to figure out which came first like modern scholars do.

They didn’t have to; they knew Matthew. He was one of their teachers. They were there, studying as kids, and probably helping fill the ink wells and cut the pens, when the Gospels were being written down.

The Gospels were not something that the Early Fathers found under a rock somewhere. They knew the authors.

 

[TMC]

They didn’t have to; they knew Matthew. He was one of their teachers. They were there, studying as kids, and probably helping fill the ink wells and cut the pens, when the Gospels were being written down.

The Gospels were not something that the Early Fathers found under a rock somewhere. They knew the authors.

I believe Matthean primacy is based on the writings of Origen. He was born in 185, at least 100 years after the first Gospels were written. It seems unlikely that his life overlapped with any of the evangelists.

 

[Axion]

I believe Matthean primacy is based on the writings of Origen. He was born in 185, at least 100 years after the first Gospels were written. It seems unlikely that his life overlapped with any of the evangelists.

So if someone today published an academic book that said Dickens was written AFTER HG Wells, and copied Wells’s stories, how long do you think that book would survive witthout being laughed out of court? The same goes for Origen writing a key treatise which everyone knew was wrong - it wouldn’t have survived. The other bishops and theologians would have said “What rubbish. We have our copies of Q. Everyone knows that’s the source!”

 

[pnewton]

I noticed that a lot of people in this thread just take what early church fathers said as fact.

I do not consider it fact, just better evidence than modern scholarship has provided. One hundred years is a lot less than two thousand years. It is highly unlikely that Christians of the second century had less access to information than current scholars. Additionally, we have the assurance of Christ that the Holy Spirit would guide us in all truth. Modern scholars have not expanded their wisdom as much as they have their pride.

 

[patrick457]

I believe Matthean primacy is based on the writings of Origen. He was born in 185, at least 100 years after the first Gospels were written. It seems unlikely that his life overlapped with any of the evangelists.

Actually, it was St. Irenaeus, writing in 185 (just when Origen was being born ), which remarked that Matthew also issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church. Here’s the rub: no Church Father actually explicitly asserted that Matthew wrote the Greek gospel found in today in our Bibles. They always just talk about Matthew writing a gospel in Hebrew.

Presently, I’m currently entertaining the possibility of Markan priority - along with Matthean priority, but I don’t think the nebulous Q Document, of the great conundrums of modern Biblical scholarship, is really necessary to solve the Synoptic Problem.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think the closest thing to a “Q” is actually the Oral Tradition that made up many of the early Homilies of the Apostles and early Evangelists. There was a brief outline that each homily was based on that covered the basics of the synoptics.

 

[abucs]

I noticed that a lot of people in this thread just take what early church fathers said as fact. I don’t really know if this is a great idea. Yes, they may have only been a century or less from when these documents were written, but that is a long time in those dates. Its not like these documents were originally dated. If Mark was written first, but Matthew was circulated on a more wide scale at an earlier time, it would seem like Matthew was written first.

I just don’t think that we should put much stock into what church fathers said about the origins of the gospels in the first few centuries. Any document had to get copied and transported by foot between towns. Any story that came with the guy that delivered the gospels to other areas would be believed. I just would place a lot more faith in modern linguistic and historical experts than the stories of the church fathers.

Fair enough bingbang but i would also point out the bias of some of these self proclaimed experts. I would say it is not enough to say some people somewhere call themselves experts so take what they say without thinking or doing your own research. You have to engage with the reasons they have for holding certain views to see if those reasons are credible.

I would also point out the well connected literary environment of the 1st Century Mediterranean World with Christian preachers criss crossing, meeting each other multiple times and writing letters to Churches for advice and for introductions. The Gospels would not have been kept in isolation. If they had done then they would not have been accepted universally by the early Church, but Gospels would have been connected with regions and cities. The later this would have happened the more controversy it would have caused in other regions.

There has been a lot of rubbish assumed in the field of academic Biblical research but it is starting to get its act together now and leave some of the biased mistakes of the 19th century Bismarck biblical criticism far behind. (Some non religious though keep going back to those ‘findings of experts’ without engaging critically with their reasoning and prejudices so keep repeating the same mistakes).

youtube.com/watch?v=292NTf1cCNw

archive.southcoasttoday.com/d…3/a06op041.htm

 

[Zooey]

They didn’t have to; they knew Matthew. He was one of their teachers. They were there, studying as kids, and probably helping fill the ink wells and cut the pens, when the Gospels were being written down.

The Gospels were not something that the Early Fathers found under a rock somewhere. They knew the authors.

 

[scottm]

And yet we have many copies of various new testament writings dating back to about 200, and virtually no two copies are identical. Given that there were so many variations in the texts available to the Fathers, its hard to credit the idea that they “any inaccuracy would be instantly spotted.”

Aye, but that’s because the differences are almost always inconsequential: a spelling mistake here, a grammar error there. That’s the sort of the thing being counted in those stats, and those type of meaningless mistakes account for just about every difference that we have found.

Fact: The “Q” theory and the theory of Markan priority were constructed by (cough) scholars (cough) who didn’t believe that God wrote the Bible. And that’s the wrong way to begin.

 

[TMC]

Aye, but that’s because the differences are almost always inconsequential: a spelling mistake here, a grammar error there. That’s the sort of the thing being counted in those stats, and those type of meaningless mistakes account for just about every difference that we have found.

Fact: The “Q” theory and the theory of Markan priority were constructed by (cough) scholars (cough) who didn’t believe that God wrote the Bible. And that’s the wrong way to begin.

It is completely and totally untrue that either the Q theory or Markan priority were constructed by scholars that did not believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. They are the theories of serious theologians, many of the Catholic, all of them men of faith. Do you have any evidence otherwise?

 

[bingbang]

They didn’t have to; they knew Matthew. He was one of their teachers. They were there, studying as kids, and probably helping fill the ink wells and cut the pens, when the Gospels were being written down.

The Gospels were not something that the Early Fathers found under a rock somewhere. They knew the authors.

Who knew Matthew? Which church fathers?

 

[Erich]

While I am leaning towards thinking that it’s a weak theory, there are some strong points to it.

Verse Analysis:

Mark’s Gospel - 661 verses

Matthew’s - Similar to Mark 600
Q - 235 (meaning overlap with Luke)
Only in Matthew - 233

Luke’s - Similar to Mark 365
Q - 235 (meaning overlap with Matthew)
Only in Luke - 550

235 verse overlap could suggest that one had the other 2 in front of him when writing…

While I normally read through to the end of a new (to me) thread before posting, I do want to respond to the point made in the last sentence above. Perhaps someone else already said so, but…

the whole premise behind the Q theory is that Matthew did not have Luke in front of him when writing (and vice versa).

 

[Erich]

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.

It is completely and totally untrue that either the Q theory or Markan priority were constructed by scholars that did not believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. They are the theories of serious theologians, many of the Catholic, all of them men of faith. Do you have any evidence otherwise?

The theory that Mark wrote his gospel first (drawing from the previously-unknown/unheard of “Q” source), with little supporting evidence, came to be spread as part of Bismarck’s anti-Catholic ‘Kulturkampf’ policy.

Of course, Bismarck was a politician not a theologian. The universities in Germany at that time were government controlled, and anyone upholding the priority of Matthew was seen as pro-Catholic and unpatriotic at a time of nationalist fervor.

And how could Protestants in general (and Bismarck in particular) undermine the authority of the Catholic Church? Well, what is one of the primary verses pointing to the establishment of the papacy? Why, Matthew 16:18 of course: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This verse does not appear in any of the other Gospels.

So, if it could somehow be “demonstrated” that the Gospel of Matthew could not possibly have been written by Apostle Matthew (an actual eyewitness) and that therefore this verse had to have been “added in later,” what does that say about the authority of a Church based in part on that verse?

From The Gospels Are Historical:

…Firstly, every early historian states that Matthew wrote the first Gospel. Any theory, however clever, must be doubted when it is unable to face the challenge of history.

Secondly, it conflicts with the doctrinal teaching of the Church regarding authorship.

Thirdly, the whole Markan logical edifice is balanced on a presumption. This presumption is that the Gospel of Mark was carefully thought out in the author’s room and composed by him in his best Greek style.

If a different scenario more consistent with history, doctrine and literary analysis replaces this presumption, the theory loses its foundation. …

…Those who held the view that Mark wrote third persevered in their research. From literary analysis and the ancient historians they developed the scenario of Peter giving a series of talks. In these he quoted alternatively from Matthew and Luke and thereby blended them together like two streams conflating into one. Peter’s secretary Mark, in response to repeated requests, issued copies of his unedited verbatim shorthand transcript. This is what we now know as Mark’s Gospel. According to Clement of Alexander (who lived 200 years nearer to the events than did Jerome), Peter was indifferent to its distribution until he saw its beneficial effects.

From Clement we know that Mark issued his transcript to meet an urgent demand. We can see how Luke’s Gospel could have been written pre-Mark but published after it. When Jerome wrote his: ‘Prologus Quattuor Evangeliorum’, he records that the Gospels were Published in the Matthew, Mark, Luke order. But, when writing his history: ‘Of Illustrious Men’, Jerome places them in the Matthew, Luke, Mark order (i.e. in order of writing). It should also be remembered that in Jerome’s covering letter to the Pope, regarding his vulgate version, he had to explain why he had placed the Gospels in an unfamiliar order.