Gospel sources, "Q"

[StTommyMore]

Darwinism? Are you serious?

Absolutely. The evolutionary mindset permeates everything. Everything is seen to have evolved. One of the reasons Mark is erroneous believed to have been written first is that it is the shortest Gospel, and Matthew used Mark, Q, and M as sources. Luke then used Mark, Q, and L. There is another hypothesis as to why Mark is shorter. Much of the added length in Matthew is based on establishing relevance to the Old Testament. Matthew, being written first, is addressed to Jews, hence the necessity of linking Jesus to the old covenants (principally Abraham, Moses, and David). Mark, written later and to a largley Roman audience did not need this information, and focused on what Jesus did, rather than His teachings.

 

[TMC]

And I don’t have them.

Someone set out some sources for Markan priority in another thread entitled “Gospel of Matthew”.

 

[TMC]

Absolutely. The evolutionary mindset permeates everything. Everything is seen to have evolved. One of the reasons Mark is erroneous believed to have been written first is that it is the shortest Gospel, and Matthew used Mark, Q, and M as sources. Luke then used Mark, Q, and L. There is another hypothesis as to why Mark is shorter. Much of the added length in Matthew is based on establishing relevance to the Old Testament. Matthew, being written first, is addressed to Jews, hence the necessity of linking Jesus to the old covenants (principally Abraham, Moses, and David). Mark, written later and to a largley Roman audience did not need this information, and focused on what Jesus did, rather than His teachings.

Check your calendar. The Q theory became popular before Darwin was born.

 

[StTommyMore]

Check your calendar. The Q theory became popular before Darwin was born.

Actually you are incorrect. The Q hypothesis became popular until the 1870’s. Darwin was born in 1809. It really took off in universites during the “Kuturekamph” (culture war) in Germany in an attempt to solidify German loyalty to Germany and not to the papacy.

 

[buffalo]

Someone set out some sources for Markan priority in another thread entitled “Gospel of Matthew”.

That would be up to bing to check them out and see if he wishes to promote them.

 

[bingbang]

Someone set out some sources for Markan priority in another thread entitled “Gospel of Matthew”.

I am sure that there are many sources for Markan priority as I believe what I have read that most scholars believe Mark was first.

As for Mark being first is a product of Darwinism, I find that absolutely hilarious. It isn’t just the length of Mark that evolved, it is the wording as well. Matthew seems to clean up some of the wording in Mark.

 

[bingbang]

Actually you are incorrect. The Q hypothesis became popular until the 1870’s. Darwin was born in 1809. It really took off in universites during the “Kuturekamph” (culture war) in Germany in an attempt to solidify German loyalty to Germany and not to the papacy.

No one was loyal to the pope in Germany shortly after the reformation. Also, Mark being first has nothing to do with the validity of the papacy.

 

[bingbang]

That would be up to bing to check them out and see if he wishes to promote them.

meh, I don’t really care enough to do any more than a quick google search.

 

[StTommyMore]

No one was loyal to the pope in Germany shortly after the reformation. Also, Mark being first has nothing to do with the validity of the papacy.

First, germany was sharply divided, not all of Germany flocked to Luther’s banner. Of course, if you were educated in American public schools, it would be easy to see why you would think otherwise. And as far as the Papacy goes, Matthew 16:13-20 is a key text for the papacy, and no other account of St. Peter’s confession includes the blessing bestowed upon him by Jesus. If the legitimacy of this text can be disputed, then the Papacy falls into question.

 

[bingbang]

First, germany was sharply divided, not all of Germany flocked to Luther’s banner. Of course, if you were educated in American public schools, it would be easy to see why you would think otherwise. And as far as the Papacy goes, Matthew 16:13-20 is a key text for the papacy, and no other account of St. Peter’s confession includes the blessing bestowed upon him by Jesus. If the legitimacy of this text can be disputed, then the Papacy falls into question.

I have never heard Markan priority used to argue against the validity of Luke or Matthew. Can you give me some sources that try to make that argument?

 

[StTommyMore]

I have never heard Markan priority used to argue against the validity of Luke or Matthew. Can you give me some sources that try to make that argument?

The Synoptic Problem by Farmer is a book that refutes Markan priority but gives a history of the synoptic problem. Most of my info on the Synoptic problem comes from lecture notes in some of my classes, which so far have not been in-depth discussions of the Synoptic Problem. It gets discussed briefly, but is not the focus of the course.

 

[bingbang]

The Synoptic Problem by Farmer is a book that refutes Markan priority but gives a history of the synoptic problem. Most of my info on the Synoptic problem comes from lecture notes in some of my classes, which so far have not been in-depth discussions of the Synoptic Problem. It gets discussed briefly, but is not the focus of the course.

Are you going to a Catholic school?

I went to a school where my professors were mostly protestants (at least in the classes about Christianity). Anyway, they believed in Markan priority but the possibility that this some how makes Matthew or Luke less valid never came up. Also, a whole lot of Protestants believe that the Bible in inerrant and divinely inspired, so which book came first has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of the gospels.

 

[StTommyMore]

Are you going to a Catholic school?

Yes. My professors that have taught on this have gotten doctorates from Marquette, Notre Dame, and Fordham

 

[bingbang]

Yes. My professors that have taught on this have gotten doctorates from Marquette, Notre Dame, and Fordham

I edited this post to add a bit more. Only one of my teachers was ever a Catholic at my school.

 

[pnewton]

I tend to trust Christian scholars more than people (especially Catholics that just take church teaching as truth) on the internet.

If I had to guess it seems like a better assumption to believe that it was later added into the story. *If Jesus had said that during his life *I feel as though it would have just been left out of the gospels as something he said in passing. It seems more likely that after the destruction of the temple people starting saying “hey, Jesus said this would happen” and it was included in Mark.

I see the problem. It is one thing to postulate a theory of how the Gospels came to be. It is another thing all together to use this theory to say that the writers may have lied. If Jesus said that???

I have no problem with those that believe in Q, despite no physical evidence, as longs as they do not deny the authenticity of Holy Scripture, or any other critical* Christian* doctrine. . I liken it to belief in the Easter Bunny as long as one does not deny the resurrection. FYI, I also attend a Baptist college and a Baptist seminary. I know of no professor that denied that the Bible is inerrant or suggested that lies may have been added later. That was a while back. Perhaps current scholarship has advanced into insanity since then.

I heard Peter Kreeft say once that the one thing that was needed to believe the most idiotic things in the world was a PhD. You have demonstrated exactly why Jesus trained his apostles most intentely (more than the crowds) to leave an authority structure behind to conteract wild fads and the changing whims of time.

 

[bingbang]

I see the problem. It is one thing to postulate a theory of how the Gospels came to be. It is another thing all together to use this theory to say that the writers may have lied. If Jesus said that???

I have no problem with those that believe in Q, despite no physical evidence, as longs as they do not deny the authenticity of Holy Scripture, or any other critical* Christian* doctrine. . I liken it to belief in the Easter Bunny as long as one does not deny the resurrection.

Yeah, I deny the authenticity of the holy scripture. I really have no idea what actually happened with Jesus but I don’t just take the gospels as truth.

 

[StTommyMore]

Are you going to a Catholic school?

I went to a school where my professors were mostly protestants (at least in the classes about Christianity). Anyway, they believed in Markan priority but the possibility that this some how makes Matthew or Luke less valid never came up. Also, a whole lot of Protestants believe that the Bible in inerrant and divinely inspired, so which book came first has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of the gospels.

At my school ALL pf the Philosophy, Theology, and Catechetics professors are required to be Catholics faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. (Even though the question of priority has never been ruled on my Magisterium) Two of my three professors are former Protestant pastors (Both of Calvinist traditions). The basic argument against the Papacy is that portions of Matthew were added much later and were added to justify the Papacy and were not part of the original work (which may or may not have been penned by Matthew). Keep in mind this push comes not from Protestants, but secularists.

 

[StTommyMore]

Yeah, I deny the authenticity of the holy scripture. I really have no idea what actually happened with Jesus but I don’t just take the gospels as truth.

Why not? I mean you must have a reason.

 

[bingbang]

Why not? I mean you must have a reason.

I have read “the Case for Christ” before but I don’t really buy into the arguments. We don’t know who wrote the gospels or when they were written. The earliest full manuscripts we have of the gospels are from hundreds of years after they were written. There is a lot of reasons for people to exaggerate claims or for stories to kind of get misquoted. There are also some verses in the different gospels that make me think that Jesus might have been misquoted. For instance, the beatitudes.

Matthew:

*5.3."Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

5.6 " Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.*

Luke:
*
"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 6.21 " Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. *

Matthew uses the same wording as luke (“poor” and “hunger”) but Luke uses these words literally and Matthew uses them figuratively. In my eyes, these quotes likely stem from the same event and oral tradition but end up meaning completely different things. It just makes me question everything in the gospels to be honest.

EDIT: why don’t you accept the Koran as truth?

 

[StTommyMore]

I have read “the Case for Christ” before but I don’t really buy into the arguments. We don’t know who wrote the gospels or when they were written. The earliest full manuscripts we have of the gospels are from hundreds of years after they were written. There is a lot of reasons for people to exaggerate claims or for stories to kind of get misquoted. There are also some verses in the different gospels that make me think that Jesus might have been misquoted. For instance, the beatitudes.

Matthew:

*5.3."Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

5.6 " Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.*

Luke:
*
"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 6.21 " Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. *

Matthew uses the same wording as luke (“poor” and “hunger”) but Luke uses these words literally and Matthew uses them figuratively. In my eyes, these quotes likely stem from the same event and oral tradition but end up meaning completely different things. It just makes me question everything in the gospels to be honest.

EDIT: why don’t you accept the Koran as truth?

I do not accept the Koran because its teachings are inconsistent with the Bible. I also know that we can know certain things about Jesus through the light of reason alone. And i also believe that “contradictions” can be rectified in a number of ways. In the example you give, There is reason to believe they are different events. One was on a mountain, one was on a plain. Also, being a preacher, it is reasonable to assume He would say the same (or similar) things to different groups of people. after all, these massive crowds did not follow him around for his 3 year ministry. And we have internal evidence to suggest that Jesus said a great many things, and taught a great many things, that were never recorded in writing.