Gospel priority

[Philologus]

I don't yet know the answer, but I am most often looking at the gospel relationships as follows:

Mk -> *Ev
Mk and/or *Ev -> Jn
*Ev and maybe Mk -> Mt

Then finally Luke is aware of all the preceding gospels:

Mk -> Lk
*Ev -> Lk
Mt -> Lk
Jn -> Lk

No Q?

[John2]

Mark, Hebrew Matthew (which spawned the NT Matthew and Ebionite Matthew), Luke (which used everything in Greek that preceded it) and John.

[Peter Kirby]

I don't yet know the answer, but I am most often looking at the gospel relationships as follows:

Mk -> *Ev
Mk and/or *Ev -> Jn
*Ev and maybe Mk -> Mt

Then finally Luke is aware of all the preceding gospels:

Mk -> Lk
*Ev -> Lk
Mt -> Lk
Jn -> Lk

No Q?

The classic argument for Q is that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark (but not each other). It is difficult to speak confidently about 'Q' when the double tradition material appears in *Ev and Mt already, for Luke to use there.

Of course, the two source hypothesis (with Q) does deserve consideration.

[Philologus]

The classic argument for Q is that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark (but not each other). It is difficult to speak confidently about 'Q' when the double tradition material appears in *Ev and Mt already, for Luke to use there.

Of course, the two source hypothesis (with Q) does deserve consideration.

Why do you think the Q hypothesis enjoys such support among scholars? I don't find the herd mentality explanation convincing. I also don't find the "exciting secret gospel" explanation convincing.

[Peter Kirby]

The classic argument for Q is that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark (but not each other). It is difficult to speak confidently about 'Q' when the double tradition material appears in *Ev and Mt already, for Luke to use there.

Of course, the two source hypothesis (with Q) does deserve consideration.

Why do you think the Q hypothesis enjoys such support among scholars? I don't find the herd mentality explanation convincing. I also don't find the "exciting secret gospel" explanation convincing.

I don't know. What's your opinion?

[Philologus]

The classic argument for Q is that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark (but not each other). It is difficult to speak confidently about 'Q' when the double tradition material appears in *Ev and Mt already, for Luke to use there.

Of course, the two source hypothesis (with Q) does deserve consideration.

Why do you think the Q hypothesis enjoys such support among scholars? I don't find the herd mentality explanation convincing. I also don't find the "exciting secret gospel" explanation convincing.

I don't know. What's your opinion?

I'm not knowledgeable enough to oppose the majority so I accept their conclusion.

The standard arguments in favor of Q aren't worth repeating here, but one bias I personally have is the belief that the gospel writers didn't create a lot of the material in the gospels but rather assembled it from various sources. So I would lean towards postulating more sources, not fewer.

[Peter Kirby]

The classic argument for Q is that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark (but not each other). It is difficult to speak confidently about 'Q' when the double tradition material appears in *Ev and Mt already, for Luke to use there.

Of course, the two source hypothesis (with Q) does deserve consideration.

Why do you think the Q hypothesis enjoys such support among scholars? I don't find the herd mentality explanation convincing. I also don't find the "exciting secret gospel" explanation convincing.

I don't know. What's your opinion?

I'm not knowledgeable enough to oppose the majority so I accept their conclusion.

The standard arguments in favor of Q aren't worth repeating here, but one bias I personally have is the belief that the gospel writers didn't create a lot of the material in the gospels but rather assembled it from various sources. So I would lean towards postulating more sources, not fewer.

Many years ago I attempted to assemble some of the arguments in favor of Q:

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-exist.html

Or, more specifically, that "Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and a second source termed Q."

I am not especially averse to the Q hypothesis or to postulating more sources.

Humility on these matters can just as well lead to doubt and an attempt to discern the merit of various hypotheses, instead of a singular deference for one hypothesis.

[Ken Olson]

The classic argument for Q is that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark (but not each other). It is difficult to speak confidently about 'Q' when the double tradition material appears in *Ev and Mt already, for Luke to use there.

Of course, the two source hypothesis (with Q) does deserve consideration.

Why do you think the Q hypothesis enjoys such support among scholars? I don't find the herd mentality explanation convincing. I also don't find the "exciting secret gospel" explanation convincing.

I don't know. What's your opinion?

I'm not knowledgeable enough to oppose the majority so I accept their conclusion.

The standard arguments in favor of Q aren't worth repeating here, but one bias I personally have is the belief that the gospel writers didn't create a lot of the material in the gospels but rather assembled it from various sources. So I would lean towards postulating more sources, not fewer.

I think you have answered your own question here. The presumption that the gospel writers didn't create a lot of the material in the gospels but rather assembled it from sources is, alongside the 'herd mentality' (or 'received wisdom'), is perhaps the major attraction of the Two Document (Mark-Q) Hypothesis, especially in its Four Source (Mark + Q + M + L) form. The Evangelists did not create or omit material, they just re-arranged sources.

E. P. Sanders discusses this in the conclusion to the section on the synoptic problem in his book E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (1989), which I think should be required reading for discussion of the topic.

Sanders - Studying the Synoptic Gospels - 117.png (272.05 KiB) Viewed 301 times

Sanders - Studying the Synoptic Gospels - 118.png (290.7 KiB) Viewed 301 times

Sanders - Studying the Synoptic Gospels - 119.png (170.97 KiB) Viewed 301 times

Best,

Ken

I call this this approach that Sanders summarizes as 'nothing was ever omitted and nothing was ever created' the conservation of matter and energy approach to the synoptic problem.

[Sinouhe]

In my view :

• The pauline epistles are first and are based mainly on the OT and on second temple beliefs and expectations

• Mark is mainly based on Paul, the OT and on second temple beliefs and expectations

• Matthew is mainly based on Mark and the OT

• Im not sure if John used Luke or if Luke used John.

• But im strongly convinced that Q did not exist.

• Ev is a very bad source, fragmentary and based on quotations. I believe that this source is of no use in solving the synoptic problem.

[dabber]

In my view :

• The pauline epistles are first and are based mainly on the OT and on second temple beliefs and expectations

• Mark is mainly based on Paul, the OT and on second temple beliefs ....

Good to meet someone similar minded.

My version, Paul first, early based on celestial Christ, OT and Greco-Roman mysteries. Mark second post 70 ce destruction of Jersusalem. Matthew used Mark. Luke used both Mat and Mark. John based on Mark and logos-greek philosophy. Q, passion narrative hypothetical. Ev of little use (but would like to be proved wrong!). Thomas likewise.