Gospel sources, "Q"

[scottm]

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?

amazon.com/History-Synoptic-Problem-Composition-Interpretation/dp/0385471920

 

[steve53]

FWIW, we can reasonably pin Luke finishing up writing Acts to A.D. 63. Acts ends somewhat abruptly with Paul being in Rome for two years. Paul probably first arrived in Rome in A.D. 61.
Both Luke and Paul were likely executed in the persecutions of the Christians that began in mid-A.D. 64. If Luke had survived the persecutions, it certainly would have been a centerpiece of Acts.

source John Hagan “Fires of Rome”

 

[TMC]

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.

amazon.com/History-Synoptic-Problem-Composition-Interpretation/dp/0385471920

I have heard the Bismark conspiracy theories before, and find them unconvincing. I don’t know what is in the book that the link goes to,

To my knowledge, the first modern theologians to put forth the Q hypothesis were Marsh and Schleiermacher, who both worked and wrote in the early 19th Century. Marsh, I believe, was an Anglican priest. Schleiermacher was some kind of Reformed style protestant. I have never heard that either was atheistic or that either doubted the divine and inspired nature of the Gospels. Since then, many Catholic theologians have agreed with the idea of Markan priority, some accepting the Q idea, some not. Brown is the one that comes most prominently to mind.

To be clear, I have doubts about Q myself, but lean toward Markan primacy (while keeping an open mind). I just don’t see any reason to try to bolster one’s argument either way by suggesting that those on the other side are motivated by some kind of evil intent. Lots of good people are on both sides of this particular discussion. Good people can also be wrong. Why slander the character of long-dead theologians and clergy by questioning their motives now?

 

[Sheeniac]

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).

True - I was suggesting that as a possible alternative to Q. I should have been more explicit!

 

[bingbang]

FWIW, we can reasonably pin Luke finishing up writing Acts to A.D. 63. Acts ends somewhat abruptly with Paul being in Rome for two years. Paul probably first arrived in Rome in A.D. 61.
Both Luke and Paul were likely executed in the persecutions of the Christians that began in mid-A.D. 64. If Luke had survived the persecutions, it certainly would have been a centerpiece of Acts.

source John Hagan “Fires of Rome”

It is unlikely that any of the gospels were written before the fall of the temple in 70 AD.

EDIT: Anyway, I find it somewhat odd that many of you think that any theory other than Matthew being written first is somehow against the Catholic Church. Which gospel was written first and used by other gospel writers (and no one is doubting that the earliest gospel was used by the other two) has no bearing on the accuracy of the gospels. This isn’t an us vs. them type of argument between Catholics and protestants or atheists. As was already said faithful Christians and Catholics are on both sides of this argument.

 

[pnewton]

EDIT: Anyway, I find it somewhat odd that many of you think that any theory other than Matthew being written first is somehow against the Catholic Church.

I didn’t catch where anyone said that. No, Q is not widely received here, as is Markan primacy. But I do not think anyone has said it is a matter of the Catholic Faith.

 

[Erich]

It is unlikely that any of the gospels were written before the fall of the temple in 70 AD.

From The Authors of the Gospels:

Matthew in 16: 1-12 attacks the Pharisees and Sadducees four times in a long passage. In the related passage in Mark 8: 11–27, we see the mention of the Pharisees reduced and there is no mention of the Sadducees. If Matthew had written second, why would he double the references to the Pharisees and insert the phrase and the Sadducees four times? We need to remember that by AD 85 the Sadducees had ceased to exist.

Why would Matthew (17: 24-7) in 85 AD be preoccupied with the half- shekel Temple tax which had ceased to exist fifteen years earlier?

Comparing the two stories in Matthew 15: 1-2 and 15: 21, with Mark 7: 2-4 and 7: 28, we see Mark finding it necessary to explain the act of washing and the nationality of a Canaanite. Matthew writing for Palestinians had no need to do this. If Matthew was writing in 85 AD for a mainly Gentile readership, and basing his Gospel on Mark`s Gospel, why did he leave out the helpful explanations provided by Mark?

Matthews Gospel is full of examples claiming Christ fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies (e.g. 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 27:9). He reports the rending of the Temple veil (27: 51), yet does not record the fulfilment of Christs biggest prophesy – The destruction of the Temple.

According to Matthew 12: 38-42, Christ said the story of Jonas would be a sign to a disbelieving Jewish generation. The point of the story (see Jonas chapters 1and 2) is that the pagans would flock to be righteous while the chosen people would keep their hard hearts. The three-day whale incident is ancillary to the main story. If Matthew had written towards the end of the century when the Gentiles were flooding into the Church, he would have been able to show the full fulfilment of the prophecy ((CTH 42)).

These are all signs of Matthew writing pre-70 AD.

The traditional belief is that the Gospel of Luke was composed by the companion of Paul in Greek no later than 65 AD. It was based on his personal research and extracts borrowed from the Gospel of Matthew. Those claiming this Gospel was written anonymously about 85 AD, or in the second century, deny the author was a companion of Paul.

So let us look at the evidence.

The author declares his aim is to set out an orderly account of the events in the life of Christ and His followers. He does so in the form of a communication to Theophilus. In a second volume, known as Acts, the author continues the story from where he left it at the end of his Gospel. If it can be shown that Acts was composed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, it follows that Luke`s Gospel was also composed prior to 70 AD.

The author of Acts records the conversion of Paul in chapter nine and then spends eighteen chapters detailing the travels of Paul, including his arrest, voyaging, shipwreck, arrival in Italy and his two years awaiting trial. But when we would expect details of Paul`s trial; sentence or release; there is an abrupt silence. The absence of this information is a clear indication that Acts was completed before 64 AD.

Acts ends at a time of peace for the church in Rome. Yet secular historians tell us there was a great persecution of Christians after 64 AD. As this does not appear in Acts, we have another indication that Acts was sent to Theophilus before this date.

This dating is confirmed by the way Jerusalem and its Temple are treated. Luke-Acts constitutes one third of the New Testament, yet contains two thirds of the references to Jerusalem. In the two volumes of Gospel and Acts, the city is mentioned 31 times. We can see that the Temple and Jerusalem are very prominent in the thinking of the author. Yet he ignores their destruction, the civil and religious symbolism of such destruction and the impact on the life of the Church and her missionary preaching. Again, the obvious reason is that Jerusalem and the Temple were still standing at the time he wrote.

The letters sent by Paul to various destinations became well known and copied for reading in the churches. Luke, as the companion of Paul, would not have foreseen their future importance, so did not mention them. But a writer of a generation or more later, giving an account of the life of Paul, would have alluded to at least one as an example of the writing ability of Paul and his thought. Yet nothing is said.

Quite the contrary, it is highly likely that three of the Gospels were written before the fall of the temple in 70 AD.

 

[Erich]

But I do not think anyone has said it is a matter of the Catholic Faith.

It’s implied. See Apostles and Apostolic Men and What does Section 7 of Dei Verbum teach?

 

[NotWorthy]

It is unlikely that any of the gospels were written before the fall of the temple in 70 AD.

Why is this unlikely? It seems to make perfect sense to me.

 

[pnewton]

It’s implied. See Apostles and Apostolic Men and What does Section 7 of Dei Verbum teach?

Then I stand corrected. I guess there are some that do believe it is a matter of Catholic Faith. I wil not go that far. The Catholic Church has never implied doctrine. She defines doctrine. That which is not explicitly defined is not required to be believed. In any case, I do not agree with your authors that Dei Verbum implies a required order or method of transmission. Here is a quote from Dei Verbum:

The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing,

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

I am a firm believer in going straight to the source.

 

[bingbang]

Why is this unlikely? It seems to make perfect sense to me.

Mark 13:1-2, luke 21:6, and Matthew 24:1-2 all talk about the destruction of the temple. To me (and many scholars) this seems to show that the gospels were written after it happened.

 

[buffalo]

Mark 13:1-2, luke 21:6, and Matthew 24:1-2 all talk about the destruction of the temple. To me (and many scholars) this seems to show that the gospels were written after it happened.

What???

These are speaking of the future.

The actual destruction of the temple is not mentioned.

 

[buffalo]

Mark 13:1-2, luke 21:6, and Matthew 24:1-2 all talk about the destruction of the temple. To me (and many scholars) this seems to show that the gospels were written after it happened.

What scholars and citations?

 

[pnewton]

Mark 13:1-2, luke 21:6, and Matthew 24:1-2 all talk about the destruction of the temple. To me (and many scholars) this seems to show that the gospels were written after it happened.

It does not matter. Jesus said it before the destruction of the temple.

 

[bingbang]

What scholars and citations?

What do you mean citations? To be honest I can’t give you names off the top of my head but that is what I learned in Christian University courses.

 

[buffalo]

but that is what I learned in Christian University courses.

As far as this goes I would erase it from memory.

 

[NotWorthy]

Mark 13:1-2, luke 21:6, and Matthew 24:1-2 all talk about the destruction of the temple. To me (and many scholars) this seems to show that the gospels were written after it happened.

Why does it seem to show that the Gospels were written after it happened?

Couldn’t Jesus, you know… being God and all, have foretold this future event?

 

[buffalo]

Year AD Event The Resurrection. The leaders of the Jews persecute the first Christians. Saul/Paul is converted. Matthew composes his Hebrew gospel/ liturgy in Palestine. Matthew`s gospel is translated into Greek. King Herod Agrippa executes the Apostle James the Great. Peter escapes and flees to Rome. The other apostles spread out from Palestine. **

44** King Herod Agrippa dies. **

49** Jews and Christians expelled from Rome following riots. Luke writes his gospel for the Gentiles, partly based on Matthews gospel. First of Pauls epistles; some influenced by Matthew`s gospel. Paul imprisoned by Romans. A copy of Matthew’s Gospel taken to India. **

54** Nero becomes emperor. The Apostle James the Less, bishop of Jerusalem, killed by stoning. The Christians are expelled from the Temple. Luke completes his Acts of the Apostles. Paul asks Timothy to join him on a mission to Spain. Paul released from prison. Peter ordains Linus, Cletus and Clement as assistant bishops. Peter endorses Lukes gospel by using it in a series of talks. Mark issues a first transcript of Peters talks. Peter approves Marks transcript. Used as a Gospel. Lukes gospel published as an authorised gospel. Acts issued with the authorisation of Paul and Peter. John writes twenty chapters of his Gospel. **

64** July Rome devastated by fire. **

65 Spring** Nero commences persecution of Christians. Peter martyred. Linus replaces Peter as bishop of Rome. Mark issues second edition of Peter’s talks. **

66** Jewish rebellion in Palestine. Paul goes to Spain. **

68 early** Jerusalem surrounded for first time by Romans. 68 June Suicide of Emperor Nero followed by civil strife. This leads to the Roman troops surrounding Jerusalem being withdrawn. Paul returns from Spain and visits Asia and Crete. Paul writes an epistle to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem. The Hebrew Christians flee from Jerusalem to Pella. Paul again imprisoned in Rome and then martyred.

69 Galba, Vitellius and Otho die trying to become emperors. **

69** Vespasian becomes emperor and renews war in Palestine.

69 Romans surround Jerusalem for second time. Clement of Rome replies to Corinthians on behalf of Linus. **

70 Aug** Jerusalem, including its Temple, is destroyed. Linus dies (about 81). Cletus becomes bishop of Rome. **

91** Domitian starts persecution. Cletus dies (about 92). Clement becomes bishop of Rome. Jewish leaders (about 96) hold a conference at Jamnia. Clement, bishop of Rome, exiled by Romans to the Crimea. John the Apostle (About 96) adds final chapter to his gospel. John the Apostle dies.

98 Trojan becomes emperor. About 101 Clement dies and Evaristus becomes bishop of Rome. About 130 Papias records that Mark wrote down Peter`s words. About 180 Ireneaus familiar with the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence. About 200 First Latin translations (prologues). Matthew-John-Luke-Mark sequence. About 200 Clement of Alexandria says gospels of Matthew and Luke written first.

 

[StTommyMore]

I reject Q. There are no fragments, no mention of an outside source by the Fathers. It was hypothesized to cast doubt on the Gospel of Matthew, on which the Papacy rests. No Matthew means no Papal authority (and hence the popularity among secularists and Protestants). In addition, it is the application of revolutionary theory to theology. (Matthew is longer, so it must have come later). In actuality, Matthews length can be attributed to other reasons.

 

[scottm]

I reject Q. There are no fragments, no mention of an outside source by the Fathers. It was hypothesized to cast doubt on the Gospel of Matthew, on which the Papacy rests. No Matthew means no Papal authority (and hence the popularity among secularists and Protestants). In addition, it is the application of revolutionary theory to theology. (Matthew is longer, so it must have come later). In actuality, Matthews length can be attributed to other reasons.

I agree that Q is garbage, and I would agree that Q was hypothesized to remove God as author of the Bible, and I would agree as a FACT as surely as fire is hot and ice is cold that there is NO EVIDENCE of Q at all – but I don’t agree that Matthew is the platform for the papacy. The Eastern Orthodox Church from day 1 accepted the papacy without recourse to Matthew. That’s just historical fact. The Matthew argument was never the reason for papal primacy in the unified Church.