UM's Series: Gospel Origins

[UMSonOfMan7]

Two and half questions:
1. What do you, personally, make of the idea of Q, the semi-legendary source of (some of) the gospels?

2. What was the state of Judaism at 70 A.D.? I mean, the Temple had just been crushed -- what was their theology like? What was going on in their worldview in reaction to that? How far-flung were the Jewish people outside of Judea, and how well did they communicate with each other?

2.5. What's the best guess at the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what relation might they have to early gospel fragments? Could the Qumran enclave be early Christians? (I could look this one up on my own, but I'm lazy and I'd like someone else's opinion on this too.)

I'll come back to 2 and 2.5 later, as they will actually take a little bit of research for me to give you an answer.


As for Q, I remain undecided on the matter. Not only have I not been convinced either way, I really haven't seen strong enough evidence to lead me towards a particular direction. What is a fact is that there is a significant portion of common material in Matthew and Luke beyond what is in Mark, but still of a high level of common verses/passages, word usage, and organization, etc.--such a high degree that Bible scholars again agree almost across the board that there must be a common source at work there.

Thus, there are two primary theories for how to explain that. The most well-known theory is that of Q--that there was a common source outside of the gospels that both Matthew and Luke used, in addition to Mark. This source has never been discovered and may no longer exist, but Robert Funk in The Complete Gospels has created a collection of those common passages not found in Mark that gives us a fairly good idea of what Q might have looked like if it existed.

The competing theory is that in addition to using Mark, either Matthew or Luke copied from the other as well (most likely Matthew copying from Luke and Mark, rather than the other way around) instead of from a Q document. In other words, it could be that they had a common source that we call Q for simplicity that was used in addition to Mark, or it could be that Mark was written; then Luke was written using Mark as a primary source but incorporating additional material from the community (which still suggests the possibility of another source of material, no longer in existence); then Matthew was written, using Mark as a Primary source and Luke as a secondary source and then also having a little bit of additional material from the community.

In my mind, both are just theories put forward to explain the information we have available to us. But there just isn't enough evidence either way for me to come to a decision on the matter. I hope that before I die we'll come across some additional pieces of the puzzle and I'll be able to get a little bit clearer picture of what happened.

[fragmentsofdreams]

Why do you think it is more likely Mark-> Luke -> Matthew? [acronym="If I recall correctly"]IIRC[/acronym], my New Testament professor, a critic of Q, believed it was Mark -> Matthew -> Luke.

[UMSonOfMan7]

Why do you think it is more likely Mark-> Luke -> Matthew? [acronym="If I recall correctly"]IIRC[/acronym], my New Testament professor, a critic of Q, believed it was Mark -> Matthew -> Luke.

Well, it could be either way, but I tend to lean towards the theory of starting small and then adding and elaborating. To me, that just makes more sense, but beyond the strong evidence for a second common source, there's scant evidence either way as far as what that source was or which book (of those two) was written in what order.

[Knowledge3]

It appears that a large part of the emphasis in dissecting the 4 root gospels of [acronym="New Testament"]NT[/acronym] is based around the the validation of the author.

We have John 1,2, and 3. Are any of the 3 written by different apostles? Or were they all from the same source?


For example,If you go backwards in time to Samuel 1, the introduction makes a note that identity of the orginal author is unknown.

Why are the 4 gopsel authors rountinely subject to a scholar's questioning if the author's identity of Samuel 1 is unknown?

Does the date or age of an ancient text give a writing more validation than a later version of the same writing?

What is a fact is that there is a significant portion of common material in Matthew and Luke beyond what is in Mark, but still of a high level of common verses/passages, word usage, and organization, etc.--such a high degree that Bible scholars again agree almost across the board that there must be a common source at work there.

The way I tackle this problem is to view it like a magazine. Each writer contributes thier work to the chief editor. Wouldn't the chief editor of the magazine smooth out those rough edges and perfect the collection of articles to make it fit and flow with the theme of the magazine?

That could be a good theory to explain the similiarity.

[UMSonOfMan7]

We have John 1,2, and 3. Are any of the 3 written by different apostles? Or were they all from the same source?

According to Bart Ehrman (Google him or look up his books on Amazon if you don't know who he is), most scholars conclude that 1, 2 and 3 John are from the same author but that that author is neither the apostle John nor the author of the Gospel of John. However, they do believe that the author probably was a part of the same community out of which the Gospel of John was produced, but that the essay of 1 John and the letters of 2 and 3 John were written later.

For example,If you go backwards in time to Samuel 1, the introduction makes a note that identity of the orginal author is unknown.

Why are the 4 gopsel authors rountinely subject to a scholar's questioning if the author's identity of Samuel 1 is unknown?

Probably because people continue to assert that the gospels were written by the four people they were later attributed to, despite that there is no reliable evidence of this and despite that he gospels were originally anonymous. Meanwhile, those seem people generally accept that we don't know who wrote 1 Samuel, so there is no dispute there.

Does the date or age of an ancient text give a writing more validation than a later version of the same writing?

Yes. Assuming a given writing really is merely a later version, history has still shown us that ancient writings underwent changes over time as later editors/redactors/scribes altered lines, rewrote sections, or even added or removed entire portions. On the other hand, it may not even be a later version of a writing; it could simply be that it was written late and the person writing it had no actual direct connection to the events/people they were writing about.

What is a fact is that there is a significant portion of common material in Matthew and Luke beyond what is in Mark, but still of a high level of common verses/passages, word usage, and organization, etc.--such a high degree that Bible scholars again agree almost across the board that there must be a common source at work there.

The way I tackle this problem is to view it like a magazine. Each writer contributes thier work to the chief editor. Wouldn't the chief editor of the magazine smooth out those rough edges and perfect the collection of articles to make it fit and flow with the theme of the magazine?

That could be a good theory to explain the similiarity.

Actually, that doesn't explain it at all. We aren't talking about four people writing stories about the same events, with the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) we are talking about three people having nearly all the same stories, being written in very similarly with very similar wordings. Check the gospels out when lined up side by side and you'll see, such as by reading Gospel Parallels. See this thread for a fuller explanation of that.