What if Q were to be found: in the canon or not?

[Erich]

Substituting modern judgement for theirs seems ill-advised.

You are assuming that the entire book we call “Mark” was written by this same person. Hardly likely. Was there a “gospel” of John Mark that was the basis what came to be Mark in the form we have it? Yes, I believe there was. Is there evidence it derived from the Gospels that followed it? No, I don’t think so.

And you are “substituting modern judgement for theirs” when it comes to your assumption that there was more than one Gospel that was written after Mark wrote his.

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.

 

[Erich]

The Markan Priory theory holds that the Gospel of Mark was written between 65-80 AD, that the Gospel of Matthew was written between 90-110 AD, and that the Gospel of Luke was written between 95-140 AD.

Yet, Clement of Alexandria, who lived ca. 150-215 (i.e. as few as only 10 years removed from the supposed date of authorship of 140 AD for Luke, and as few as only 40 years removed from the supposed date of authorship of 110 AD for Matthew), records that he himself had traveled widely, meeting and listening to truly notable men from all over the Roman Empire. Remember that, while Rome was the administrative heart of the Church, her intellectual center was at Alexandria. The town had long possessed a famous pagan university, and the earlier presence of Philo had also made it the center of Jewish studies; it was here the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament had been made.

Eusebius quoted (i.e. not paraphrased) the following from Clement’s books:"So greatly then did the brightness of true religion light up the minds of Peter`s hearers that they were not satisfied to have a once-for-all hearing nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with appeals of every kind begged Mark, the follower of Peter, whose gospel we have, to leave them too a memorial in writing of the teaching given them by word of mouth. Nor did they cease until they had persuaded the man, and in this way became the cause of the written gospel according to Mark. And it is said that the Apostle, when the fact became known to him through the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved [or ratified] the writing for use in the churches.

Clement relates the anecdote in the sixth book of: The Outlines [Hypotyposes], and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, also bears witness to it and to Peter mentioning Mark in his earlier letter. Indeed they say that he composed it at Rome itself, and that he indicates this when referring figuratively to the city as Babylon in these words: The elect [the church] that is in Babylon greets you and so does my son Mark.
And again in the same books, Clement states a tradition of the **very earliest presbyters** about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. **He used to say that the first written** of the gospels **were those having the genealogies**. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. **While Peter was publicly preaching** the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, **the audience**, which was numerous, **begged Mark**, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, **to write down the things he had said**. And he did so, handing over the Gospel to those who had asked for it. And when Peter got to know about it, he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it … But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel…
In this last paragraph above, Clement of Alexandria clearly sets down which two gospels were the first to be written - Matthew and Luke. He is the only early historian to specifically write concerning the chronology of the Gospels. He said he was quoting the very earliest presbyters [note in the plural]. Other writers did not dispute his evidence.

In particular (assuming Matthew was written as late as 110 and Luke was written as late as 140), the authors of the gospels themselves (or, at least, their pupils, if the authors themselves were no longer living) did not dispute his evidence. So by this evidence, for John to have known of the other Gospels (in particular, Mark’s), all of the synoptic gospels would have had to have been written prior to Peter’s martyrdom (in 64 AD, according to the “Gospel of Wikipedia”)

 

[Erich]

Clement of Alexandra recorded that: “And when Peter got to know about it [Marks Gospel] he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or promote it”. This raises an interesting question. If Marks Gospel was the first gospel to be written, and therefore the flagship of the Christians, why was Peter so indifferent regarding its promotion? On the other hand, if we accept that two well prepared and constructed Gospels already existed, and Peter had merely preached a series of sermons based on them, Peter’s attitude is easy to understand.

 

[Langdell]

Am I the only person who thought this thread was going to be about Star Trek?



(Sorry, I couldn’t resist!)

 

[patrick457]

Am I the only person who thought this thread was going to be about Star Trek?



(Sorry, I couldn’t resist!)

Or James Bond.

If you’re feeling particularly naughty, you can say that all these Qs have one thing in common, and that is they are all fictional.

 

[Langdell]

Or James Bond.

If you’re feeling particularly naughty, you can say that all these Qs have one thing in common, and that is they are all fictional.

 

[patrick457]

To continue:

The material which is specific to the Gospel of Matthew is called Special Matthew (M material). You have, for example, the Matthean birth narratives (1-2; we’ll classify this as M material here because while Matthew and Luke do agree in the basics, namely that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that His parents were named Mary and Joseph, the two Gospels give two different accounts), a good deal of Matthew-only parables such as the Parable of the Weeds (13:24-30, 36-43), the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl of Great Price (13:44-46), the Dragnet (13:47-50), the Unmerciful Servant (18:23-25), the Laborers in the Vineyard (20:1-16), the Two Sons (21:28-32), the Ten Virgins (25:1-13, but cf. Luke 12:35-36), and the Sheep and the Goats (25:31-46), Judas’ death (27:3-10), and the soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus (27:62-66, 28:11-15).

It could also be considered that a part of the Sermon on the Mount, especially the first half of chapter 6, constitutes M material. However, it should also be kept in mind that it is often difficult to distinguish between what is called M material and what might be regarded as simply fuller versions of Triple Tradition pericopes. You have, for instance, Matthew 3:14-15, where Jesus comes to ask baptism from John.

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him…

On the one hand, these are two whole verses’ worth of what would be Special Matthew. On the other hand, though, these verses only make sense in the narrative context provided by Triple Tradition material (verses which have parallels with Mark and Luke). Much of the special material is in this fashion - unique to Matthew yet sandwiched in a Triple Tradition context. Other examples include Peter trying to walk on water (14:28-31), “Thou art Peter and upon this rock…” (16:17-19), the infirm and the children in the Temple (21:14-16), the dream of Pilate’s wife (27:19), and the earthquake and other supernatural events at the death of Jesus (27:51b-53). All in all, one would notice that like Double Tradition, Special Matthew is rich in sayings material, especially parables. It also has narrative, though one would notice that M Material has a more greater emphasis towards the supernatural and (for lack of a better term) ‘fantastic’: i.e. the coin in the fish’s mouth and the resurrection of the saints.

This feature is another element which needs to be considered when trying to solve the Synoptic Problem. The question that arise is: has Matthew ‘added’ these materials to an already existing account in Mark (or Luke, or both of the two), or did Mark (or Luke, or both) excise them away?

Moving on: material specific to Luke is called Special Luke or L Material. Some of the most prominent representatives of this are the Lukan birth narratives (1-2), the boy Jesus in the Temple (2:41-52), the raising of the widow of Nain’s son (7:11-17), the Samaritan villages (9:51-56), the return of the seventy-two disciples (10:17-20), the Good Samaritan (10:29-37), Mary and Martha (10:38-42), the friend at midnight (11:5-8), the rich fool (12:13-21), the murder of the Galileans (13:1-5), the fig tree (13:6-9), the fig tree (13:6-9), the healing of the bent woman (13:10-17) and the man with dropsy (14:1-6), the invitation to feasts and dinners (14:7-14), the lost coin (15:8-10), the Prodigal Son (15:11-32), the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31),the servant of all work (17:7-10), the healing of ten lepers (17:11-19), the Unjust Judge (18:1-8), the Pharisee and the Publican (18:9-14), Zacchaeus the tax collector (19:1-10), the two swords (23:6-12), the trial before Herod Antipas (23:6-12), and the road to Emmaus (24:13-35).

L shares one of the complications of M material: sometimes, though less often than in Matthew, it appears in a Triple Tradition context, for example the women of Jerusalem (23:27-32) and the conversation with the two crucified criminals (23:40-43). In addition, L has another complication shared hardly at all by Special Matthew. It is sometimes difficult to judge whether one should ascribe a piece to L or whether one should call it a different version of Triple Tradition material. Examples of this include Luke’s version of the rejection in Nazareth (4:16-30; cf. Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6a), the calling of the first disciples (5:1-11; cf. Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20, also cf. John 21:1-11), and the anointing of Jesus (7:36-50; cf. Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9, also cf. John 12:1-8). In each case the incident is placed differently from its (partial) parallel in Matthew and Mark and in each case the account is a much fuller one. In both the pericopes about the calling of the disciples and the anointing one can also see a few parallels with the Gospel of John.

Out of all materials we’ve discussed, L Material is the most famous. Here you will find some of the most-loved parables - the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Rich Man and Lazarus to name three. In addition, one can find in the non-parable materials some of the most three-dimensional, human touches in the Gospels.

 

[patrick457]

We have so far discussed four kinds of material: Triple Tradition, Double Tradition, Special Matthew, and Special Luke. Triple Tradition material revolves largely around Mark, its ‘middle term’; Double Tradition seems to be largely sayings material, often with near-verbatim agreement, and not so similar in its order as Triple Tradition. These four make up the bulk of the Synoptics and each pericope will, in some measure, fall into one of these four categories. However, when looking at both Special Matthew and Special Luke, we can see that some difficulties would arise in classifying material. For instance, does Jesus’ encounter with John the Baptist in Matthew 3:14-15 fit in the Special Matthew category, or are they, rather, a special Matthean element embedded in the midst of Triple Tradition? Further, do Lukan pericopes like the rejection at Nazareth sit more easily in the Special Luke category or should they really be regarded as distinctive Lukan versions of material that also occurs in the other two Synoptics?

Thus, we notice that categories are not so clear-cut and that there is some blurring between categories. It is usually straightforward to classify a pericope into one type of material or the other, but sometimes the categories are shown not to be water-tight. In addition to the issues connected with M and L, one should also be aware of two further matters concerning Triple and Double Tradition.

1.) Not-quite Triple Tradition Material: The first of the two would be material that is not, strictly speaking, Triple Tradition, but which is, nevertheless, very closely related to it. We have seen before how a great deal of Mark is covered in the general category of Triple Tradition; i.e. most of his material is paralleled in both Matthew and Luke. We now add to this the fact that some of Mark is paralleled in Matthew but not in Luke and some (but less) of Mark is found in Luke but not in Matthew. An example of Matthew-Mark material would be Jesus entering Gennesaret (Matthew 14:34-36; Mark 6:53-56); the story of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4), meanwhile, is a specimen of Mark-Luke material.

Now why is this material related to Triple Tradition instead of Double Tradition? Double Tradition, as we saw above, is the technical term used to describe the body of material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Here, by contrast, we see that Mark is the common element, like pure Triple Tradition. Furthermore, this material always appears in Markan order in Matthew and the Markan sequence in Luke: the common thread throughout is Mark.

The same pattern is repeated regularly in the Synoptics. Some have attempted to crystallize this phenomenon into a formula, saying that whenever Matthew departs from Mark’s order, Luke keeps to it (and vice versa). There has, however, been a great deal of debate about the use of such formulas. For one, it is difficult to state them without assuming one of the solutions to the Synoptic Problem, namely Markan priority. Further, all too often they tend towards an unhelpful oversimplification of the data. It is much more helpful if one simply continues to remember the rule that Mark tends to be the middle term in the Synoptics.

 

[patrick457]

2.) Mark not being the middle term: To the aforementioned rule there are several important exceptions: there are a handful of instances where Mark is clearly not the middle term. These passages where Mark is not the middle term constitute the most difficult phenomenon in the Synoptic Problem, because it so blatantly blurs the basic distinction between Triple and Double Traditions, thus more than anything else preventing the easy classification of everything into clear-cut, convenient categories that would otherwise be possible.

A good representative of this phenomenon can be found the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-19). where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in places.

Matthew: “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

Mark: “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.”

Luke: “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.”

One would notice some clear agreement between all three Synoptics (“like a grain of mustard seed;” “the birds of the air”), some agreement between Matthew and Mark (“smallest of all the seeds…larger than all the garden plants”) and between Mark and Luke (“What is the kingdom of God like?”). What is striking however is that there is also agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark (“which a man took and sowed…becomes a tree…in its branches”).

Also interesting is the placement of this parable. As we’ve mentioned countless times, Mark is usually the common element which means that one tends to not to find agreements in order between Matthew and Luke. Matters are different here, however, since both Matt and Luke pair this with the Parable of the Leaven (Matthew 13;33; Luke 13:20-21), which does not appear at all in Mark’s Gospel.

Passages like this in which Mark is not the middle term appear in all three Synoptics and feature substantial agreement, either (or sometimes, both) in order and wording, between Matthew and Luke. Such are not very common and isolating them is not always straightforward, not least because the matter of agreement between Matthew and Luke is simply a question of degree. Every Triple Tradition passage features some agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark; what one has to decide is whether to consider the agreement major, as in the passages we are now discussing, or minor, as in the majority of Triple Tradition material. Other passages which people have taken the agreement to be major include John the Baptist (Matthew 3:11-12; Luke 3:15-17; cf. Mark 1:7-8), the Temptation in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; cf. Mark 1:12-13), the Beelzebub controversy (Matthew 12:22-37; Luke 11:14-23; cf. Mark 3:22-30) and the mission of the disciples (Matthew 10:1-15; Luke 9:1-6, 10:1-12; cf. Mark 6:6b-13).​

 

[patrick457]

We’ll only deal briefly with Special Mark here. Compared to M and L, there is very little material unique to Mark’s Gospel; one would notice that the graph below gives a rather measly estimate of only 3%, compared to Special Matthew’s 20% and Special Luke’s 35%. The three main examples of Special Mark include the healing of a deaf and mute man (7:31-37), the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-25), and the naked young man in Gethsemane (14:51-52).

In conclusion, yet another review of the various material and in-betweens:

1.) Triple Tradition: Found in all three Synoptics. The order of this material is similar across the three Gospels.
2.) Double Tradition: Found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. The order tends to vary between the two Gospels.
3.) Special Matthew (M): Found in Matthew alone.
4.) Special Luke (L): Found in Luke alone.
5.) M in Triple Tradition: Material unique to Matthew embedded in Triple Tradition material and would make no sense outside of context.
6.) Lukan Triple Tradition: Three pericopes which have parallels in Matthew and Mark and might be described as Lukan versions of Triple Tradition material.
7.) Not Quite Triple Tradition: Material found in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke or in Mark and Luke but not in Matthew. These are not, strictly speaking, Triple Tradition pericopes since they occur in only two Gospels, but they are akin to Triple Tradition because they appear in the Markan order.
8.) When Mark is not the middle term: Some material halfway between Triple and Double Tradition. Appears in all three Synoptics but unlike Triple Tradition, features substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark.

Final repetition: Mark is often, but not always, the ‘middle term’. Reason for this is, in Triple Tradition, there are usually substantial agreements between Matthew, Mark and Luke, between Matthew and Mark, and between Mark and Luke. There are only minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. The order of Triple Tradition passages and those which are not quite it is usually similar to the Markan order. Matthew and Luke less often agree together in order against Mark.

 

[Julia_Mae]

And you are “substituting modern judgement for theirs” when it comes to your assumption that there was more than one Gospel that was written after Mark wrote his.

From The Gospels are Historical:]…Firstly, every early historian states that Matthew wrote the first Gospel…

Here is my statement in original context:

This is also, BTW, why if “Q” is found in some form, it will not become part of the Canon. Whatever may be in it is: A.) already part of the Canon and so would be redundant and/or B.) has material not considered worthy of inclusion by those much closer to the original events than we are. Substituting modern judgement for theirs seems ill-advised.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It’s OK to be Catholic and think that Q is a crock and not only that but that Matthew was written first–then Mark–then Luke–then John.

I believe in Q scholarship and modern scholarship about the who wrote the gospels in the same amount that Catholics viewed Protestant “scholarship” from 1525 to 1625!

If I’m retarded and mistaken about that then also were all the doctors of the Catholic Church for the preceeding 1900 years.

Now scoff at me the way the Arians scoffed against the unsophistication of Athanasius.

St. Thomas Aquinas pray for us!

Oh by the way–ask St. Thomas Aquinas who he thinks wrote the gospels!

 

[patrick457]

It’s OK to be Catholic and think that Q is a crock and not only that but that Matthew was written first–then Mark–then Luke–then John.

I believe in Q scholarship and modern scholarship about the who wrote the gospels in the same amount that Catholics viewed Protestant “scholarship” from 1525 to 1625!

If I’m retarded and mistaken about that then also were all the doctors of the Catholic Church for the preceeding 1900 years.

Now scoff at me the way the Arians scoffed against the unsophistication of Athanasius.

St. Thomas Aquinas pray for us!

Oh by the way–ask St. Thomas Aquinas who he thinks wrote the gospels!

Two cents for the moment. I guess we need to reject the Griesbach-Farmer theory as well according to this line of reasoning, as it was first formulated and was popular among 18th century Protestant biblical scholars.

If you have the right to believe in the priority of Matthew and the absence of Q, I guess I also must have the right to believe in the priority of Mark - at least for the canonical Greek gospels, not counting the supposed Matthean Logia purported to be in Hebrew/Aramaic; I think that it could have preceded all the canonical Gospels - and the absence of Q. (Hey, I’m not claiming my theory is the hypothesis to end all hypotheses - I’m very much open to further insight) Or not?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I can handle Mark being written before Matthew. What I can’t handle is the COPYING of Q.

If Q were a cut and paste copying hodgepodge the people opposed to Christianity and the Jews would have absolutely shredded the validity of the gospels!

We have good Catholics that are skeptical of alot of things today. Are you going to tell me that Catholics from 50 to 100 wouldn’t have been skeptical of anything written about Jesus?

I’m telling you that they wouldn’t believe a cut and paste hodgepodge.

They would believe the real people–Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John writing about Jesus!

Don’t get me wrong–I’m not saying that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were mere dictation machines–they were true authors.

But they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Why do the gospels SEEM to be disjointed or cut and pasting of one another?

Because the authors didn’t sit down and write their gospels all in one sitting.

I believe that they pondered what they had seen and heard thermselves–checked things out that they didn’t personally see–and PRAYED about what they should write.

The result is that what we have is what the Holy Spirit wanted us to have for our salvation!

That’s why I think Q is a crock!

But if you’re asking me if there were many sayings of Jesus and recounting of his life that was done by the many early churches in the first century–yes I can believe in that–and I can believe that the gospel authors knew of such things and might have participated in the early churches recounting Jesus’ life.

That doesn’t mean though that FOLLOWERS of them YEARS later–cut and pasted and copied.

That is a crock invented by the devil and put forth by so called scholars.

Why is it so hard to conceive of the disicples that Jesus who is God–who picked them–as having brains enough in prayer with the Holy Spirit and inspired by that Holy Spirit as being able to write the gosples!!!

The reason it is hard for modern scholars is that they REALLY don’t believe in the miracles of Jesus and really in their heart of hearts they don’t believe in the resurrection!

Now they’re not going to say that because then they would be run out of their faculty positions in Catholic seminaries but I really do believe that is the case with SOME of them!

Lastly: why did someone as smart as St. Thomas Aquinas believe that the real Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels?

Are you going to tell me that he was dumb?!

 

[Julia_Mae]

Now scoff at me the way the Arians scoffed against the unsophistication of Athanasius.

Oh by the way–ask St. Thomas Aquinas who he thinks wrote the gospels!

See, I don’t really care who wrote anything. I did think the OP’s question about if it would be included in the Canon was interesting, but the thread was insta-derailed by the “no such thing” contingent. I think how what we have was assembled is pretty interesting, too, but I’ve found these discussions impossible to pursue.

I’m all happy with anything you wish to believe as long as it doesn’t involve harming helpless creatures.

 

[Dymphna82]

Let’s assume that a) there was a document, Q, which was a source for the sayings quoted from Jesus by the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; and b) that there was nothing in Q which contradicted the Gospels or tradition.

If Q were to be discovered in a buried jar in a cave, would it then be added to the canon accepted by the Church? If it were to be added, how would this be done?

Am I the only person that thinks this is Star Trek related?

ETA: Okay, I see I’m not.

What’s a Q?

 

[steve53]

“The Markan Priory theory holds that the Gospel of Mark was written between 65-80 AD, that the Gospel of Matthew was written between 90-110 AD, and that the Gospel of Luke was written between 95-140 AD.”

That is a REALLY bad theory.

 

[fisherman_carl]

If the Lord had wanted us to find this so-called Q then don’t you think we would have found it already? *Perhaps the reason why the stories in the gospel are so similar is because these were the stories that everyone knew because they were taught by the disciples. *Perhaps on the Lord’s day for instance, during the early Mass. *St. Justin Martyr describes the Mass in AD 150 and says:

“On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.”

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/532/Sunday_Eucharist_in_the_Early_Church_St._Justin_Martyr.html

 

[fisherman_carl]

one of the gospels had to be written first, like Matthew. then the other writers refered to it when writing their gospel. Thus, it would be the first gospel that was written and not some lost gospel called Q that would explain the similarities.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I think the gospels were written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. None of them mention that catechlismic event. Dont you think it would have been worth mentioning since Jesus predicted it?