Just received a new Book

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Scholars agree that Mark was the first Gospel written. If you had participated in our reading group, you'd known that. Jab.

What German scholars have long postulated is that Matthew and Luke referred to Mark and to Quelle, or Q, German for source, to write gospels which both followed and differed from Mark.

So the question devolves around whether Matthew or Luke are sufficiently different to merit consideration of a separate source, or whether the differences weren't simply the idiosyncracies of the Gospelists. As I have just begun this work, I'm not certain as to more important details.

You'd also understand the arguments better if you read Ehrman's Misquoting, Orthodox Corruption and Lost Christianities.

I understood all this including that Mark is recognized as the oldest of the Gospels. My point was that whether you're talking about Q or L/M you're talking about a source outside the Gospels relied upon by these anonymous authors for their material. Whether it's a single Q source or a bifurcated L/M source seems to me speculation, and, after all, not an earth shattering distinction.

The crux of the analysis is that "Mark," "Luke" and "Matthew" were writing some 40+ years--at least--after Jesus' death, they weren't the "apostles" described in the Gospels, and they were relying on secondary sources. Whether you call those sources Q or L/M strikes me as largely speculation and somewhat beside the point.

But now Pelagius has enlightened me that Q is a device developed by Christian scholars to try to take the accounts of Jesus' life and works back closer to first hand accounts of Jesus' life and death.

By the way, if you give Q any credence you need to qualify that Mark it the first canonized Gospel.

In any event, knowing human nature and the way things work, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were prior versions of the Gospels that are no longer extant, whether you want to call them Q or A or B or C or XYZ or whatever.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It sounds like Q is a concept developed by defenders of the Gospels' historicity. I guess I never thought about or understood that per se.

Q is pretty well accepted among scholars. Goodacre is in the clear minority. My example was meant to motivate why Q might be a relevant distinction. Someone, who does not even believe that there is a historical kernel in the the gospels would clearly not find the distinction particularly relevant. However, I think even the most liberal (for example, the Jesus Seminar) believe there is a least of kernel of historical truth in the gospels about Jesus.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Q is pretty well accepted among scholars. Goodacre is in the clear minority. My example was meant to motivate why Q might be a relevant distinction. Someone, who does not even believe that there is historical kernel in the the gospels would clearly not find the distinction particularly relevant. However, I think even the most liberal (for example, the Jesus Seminar) believe there is a least of kernel of historical truth in the gospels about Jesus.

Well, my point is how do we know that there was a single unified Q source? And if we accept there were secondary sources relied upon by anonymous authors of the Gospels (as most scholars seem to do) why does the distinction matter?

I understand that Mark's origin has been placed sometime after the destruction of the Temple by Romans. That's a good 40 years plus or minus after Jesus' death. So Q raises the tantalyzing possiblity that a version of the Gospels may have existed much earlier than Mark. But couldn't that be said of L/M?

Isn't what all scholars agree on that there was a source (or sources) relied upon by Matthew and Luke outside the predecessor Mark? The exact nature of that source is largely conjecture. Correct?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Isn't what all scholars agree on that there was a source (or sources) relied upon by Matthew and Luke outside the predecessor Mark? The exact nature of that source is largely conjecture. Correct?

That's what I understand but hopefully Goodacre's book will explain it better.

I wonder if the "source" was not a written source but rather oral traditions still extant at the time of writing on the parchments.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Isn't what all scholars agree on that there was a source (or sources) relied upon by Matthew and Luke outside the predecessor Mark? The exact nature of that source is largely conjecture. Correct?

Yes, the only thing that I would add is that the Q hypothesis implies that they had a least two sources in common: Mark and Q.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's what I understand but hopefully Goodacre's book will explain it better.

I wonder if the "source" was not a written source but rather oral traditions still extant at the time of writing on the parchments.

Arch, I don't think scholars are in favor of an oral Q (although it is likely to have its genesis in oral tradition) because of the word agreement between Matthew and Luke. They often agree word for word or with just minor variation even when they are not quoting from Mark.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Arch, I don't think scholars are in favor of an oral Q (although it is likely to have its genesis in oral tradition) because of the word agreement between Matthew and Luke. They often agree word for word or with just minor variation even when they are not quoting from Mark.

I know that, but was just offering an aside. The almost word for word agreement would counter an oral tradition. However, in some societies the ability to convey matters with oral precision can be amazing.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Arch, I don't think scholars are in favor of an oral Q (although it is likely to have its genesis in oral tradition) because of the word agreement between Matthew and Luke. They often agree word for word or with just minor variation even when they are not quoting from Mark.

How, if at all, do some of the studies in the last century to the present of the elaborate oral traditions in the Balkans and India inform this analysis? I know that it wasn't until a young genius from Harvard (who died young, tragically) went to the Balkans and tape recorded the bards there and from that was able to demonstrate some tendencies and ticks in the Iliad endemic to orally transmitted works that scholars understood an oral tradition was the source of the Iliad. This happened just in the past century. The propagators of oral traditions have phenominal memories and can remember entire books word for word, books of Biblical length. Intereestingly, they have found that their memory powers diminish as they become more literate.

In these pages I've called Joseph Smith Homer to the American Anglo-Saxon underclasses and it would not shock me based on some stuff that I've read if he were to have recited the whole Book of Mormon after composing it from memory. My conjecture, I know. I believe there is some evidence that Muhammad did something like this, although scholars also believe the Koran was more of a collaborative effort than Muslim tradition holds.