The Q Theory Debate (concerning New Testament authorship)

[Dragon Reborn the 3rd]

This is a spill-over from another topic...

Originally posted by Miang here (http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=298199&perpage=30&pagenumber=4):
With the exception of Paul and his genuine epistles (and Paul never knew the living Jesus), none of the gopels are by the people they're traditionally attributed to. This is quite easy to demonstrate. Mark's ignorance of geography and palistinian customs, Matthew and Luke's mutual dependance upon Mark and other sources (Q and Josephus to name two), and John is both late and pure greek mysticism.


Originally posted by Noah Crane in reply to Miang:
1). This doesn't call into question the historical value of the Gospels.
2). It's not 'easy' to demonstrate at all and there are good reasons to attribute Mark to John Mark who appears in Acts and is mentioned in I Peter 5:13 as tradition does (if the authorship were simply an invention it would have been attributed to an apostle not a relatively minor figure like Mark), this is supported by many of the foremost Biblical scholars of modern times like Oscar Cullman, Leon-Dufour and so on so it isn't simply an ulta-conservative stance either. The author of Luke-Acts is the companion of Paul (not an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry in any case). Matthew is perhaps a little harder to prove but if it isn't the apostle Matthew then it is most probably from a community started by the apostle. Same goes for John, which it is neither appropriate to date very late (i.e. any later than 90-95 and should actually be dated earlier, in fact John Robinson, a 'liberal' by any other standards dates it as the earliest Gospel of all), nor to call 'pure Greek mysticism' (who knows where you pulled that from) since it reflects the mind of a hellenistic Jew and modern scholarship is coming to look on John as the most 'Jewish' of all the Gospels.

The priority of Mark, though it has practically assumed the status of a critical dogma in recent times, is neither definite nor should it be held to cast into doubt the traditional authorship of the Gospels in any case. And I'm still wondering where you got the idea that Matthew and Luke used Josephus from. :confused:

And finally what exactly are you trying to prove? That Jesus did not exist?

And now my response:

As for the Q theory...Noah Crane, I believe, has sufficiently argued against your assumptions. However, I'll take a bite as well. I do believe you make a huge (unjustified) leap to say, "none of the [gospels] are by the people they're traditionally attributed to." Do you know this for a fact? Were you there? No, you can not reasonably make such a preposterous claim. They may have been written by people other than who they are said to be written by, but not necessarily. More evidence suggests the traditional authors than for any single other author. As Noah Crane pointed out, if early Christians were going to falsely attribute a Gospel to an individual, they would most likely have attributed it to one of the disciples of Christ - particularly the closest three to Jesus (Peter, James, and John).

You completely rely on the Q theory - perhaps with a little variance here and there - when it is far from being conclusive. It is a very convenient way to explain it...that Matthew and Luke copied Mark, and then wherever they didn't they copied off of a separate source, and then where they didn't copy off of either, they copied from their own unique sources. Oh, how that just conveniently fits what a skeptic would want to believe. Well, the data also supports other possible theories as well...I'll have to get into those later.

[Miang]

Er, Q isn't about that, DR3. What Q is is a sayings gospel, nothing more. Why Q was originally hypothesized to exist is that, in Matthew and Luke, there's a number of sayings attributed to Jesus (which do not appear in Mark in any form) which are completely identical between one another.

Even if Matthew and Luke were written as first hand accounts one would not expect two independant translations of sayings from Aramaic into Greek (let alone recollected ones) to hit upon that same concordance unless both were going from a common, already translated, document.

[Dragon Reborn the 3rd]

When I was referring to the Q theory, I implied the additional components to it as well...the reliance on Mark, each with their own sources, etc. etc.

Nevertheless, though I do not disregard the Q theory (and the rest attached with it), I do not think we can be as stubbornly positive that that is how it happened despite what the "scholars" think. There are additional possibilities.

The alleged authors of the Synoptics were at various points together, and likely shared stories and quotes, etc., perhaps even writing bits and pieces for the other two to add to their rendition. The intended audiences for each Gospel seems to have been a collaborative decision; it seems that Matthew writes to the Jews, Mark to the Romans, Luke to the Greeks, and John to the general world (where M, M, L, and J refer to the actual author - whoever that may be).

It is also a possibility (one I doubt a skeptic would be eager to dismiss) that however the original Gospels were written, they were modified to be made similar some time later by the scribes who copied them down.

There are more, but I don't have time to go through them all...I believe it is probably a combination of the various possibilities and not just one simple explanation. The argument I am trying to make is that the evidence does not allow for complete assurance in the Q (and such related) theory.

[Dragon Reborn the 3rd]

Haha, yeah, I stop in every so often...Mostly I've been doing schoolwork. Apologetics rocks. :) :up:

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Miang
Er, Q isn't about that, DR3. What Q is is a sayings gospel, nothing more. Why Q was originally hypothesized to exist is that, in Matthew and Luke, there's a number of sayings attributed to Jesus (which do not appear in Mark in any form) which are completely identical between one another.

Even if Matthew and Luke were written as first hand accounts one would not expect two independant translations of sayings from Aramaic into Greek (let alone recollected ones) to hit upon that same concordance unless both were going from a common, already translated, document.

Question: Can you rule out separate texts being justified against each-other by a later editor? Say, he looks at them both, and thinks "Hey, these guys should be saying the same thing if they are talking about the same thing...." and just makes the appropriate changes, thus leaving them identical for posterity...

Mind you, I'm not a biblical scholar or even enthusiast AT ALL. But to be fair, I have to ask if a point like that couldn't be explained otherwise. I've always thought that post-hoc editing (or just plain old de novo composition) could account for much of the bible.

I've heard there's an excellent book called "The Gospel according to jesus Christ" which supposedly discusses which writings or ideas can be attributed directly to Christ, as opposed to an apostle or some later commentator. I've been meaning to read this book for years. Any comments/advice?

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by FFGFollower
Wow, DR3, you're still here? I remember you from way back.
How you doing old buddy? lol.

So I suppose this means you are dropping the sham about not being FFG? :rolleyes:

[Miang]

A comp crash ate the first attempt at a reply, hopefully this one will come out better. Keep in mind though, I barely feel up to keeping my head on my shoulders, let alone doing anything with it. I do need an excuse to stay up at the moment and if I should wander a bit, please forgive me ahead of time.

Anyways...

The alleged authors of the Synoptics were at various points together, and likely shared stories and quotes, etc., perhaps even writing bits and pieces for the other two to add to their rendition.

This doesn't quite work very well, for a couple of reasons.

First, while the actual wording of the sayings between Mattew and Luke is identical, the circumstances in which they're used are not. A quick example---

But when he (John) saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptising, he said to them:"You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stone God can raise up children for Abraham. The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." --- Matthew 3:7-10

And its counterpart

John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him,"You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." --- Luke 3:7-9

In Matthew, John's 'brood of vipers' speech is directed to the Pharisees and Sadducees who come out to where he is baptizing. In Luke, John's warning is directed to the Jews in general, those who are coming to be baptized by him. Yet in both, the speech is word for word.

(Here's a rather nice listing of the 'q-sayings' and their places in both M and L http://www.livius.org/q/q-source/q2.htm)

In general, Matthew seems to group most of the q sayings together, interspacing them with comments like "and Jesus finished this saying and. . ." while Luke tries to work them into the narrative. For example, most of the Q-sayings in Matthew's Jesus' Sermon on the Mount are split into the Sermon on the Plains and at various points throughout Jesus' travels.

It's the exactness of wording and the differing on circumstances that led to the idea of a 'sayings gospel', with just the words but little information on the circumstances in which they were said, even though at the time Q was first proposed (~1800'ish) there were no examples of such a thing known to exist in early Christian writings. Q did get a nice boost in the 1950s when the Gospel of St. Thomas (A sayings gospel) was rediscovered.

The intended audiences for each Gospel seems to have been a collaborative decision; it seems that Matthew writes to the Jews, Mark to the Romans, Luke to the Greeks, and John to the general world (where M, M, L, and J refer to the actual author - whoever that may be).

Er, wouldn't say that exactly. Mark is written to gentile Christians mistrustful of the leadershp of the Jewish-Christian church (Note that a particular theme in Mark is that the apostles never really understood Jesus).

Mattew is written to Jewish-Christians (Concern for the early church, showing how Jesus fullfilled signs from the Jewish scriptures, etc.).

The author of Luke/Acts makes his/her purpose clear in its introduction---

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. --- Luke 1:1-4

In other words, "Luke" or whatever the author's name may be, was motivated to write this gospel because he/she felt that the previous 'accounts' which had been written were lacking the necessary accuracy which his/her investigations could provide. Aside from correcting whatever misunderstandings "Luke" might have been referring to, its purpose is to promote Pauline Christianity.

John is written for gentile audiances. Jesus is no longer the Messiah of the Jewish Scriptures but the the divine Logos made flesh. There's no references to Jewish prophesies, him being a decendant of the House of David, etc. He lives among the Jews but speaks out "You people" "Your Laws", etc. It's a Hellenization of Jesus.

Besides which, why stop at four? Irenaeous did answer that question, but I never really thought it was all that convincing an answer.

There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels. --- Irenaeous, Against Heresies

Who was the Gospel of Peter written for (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html)? There's _lots_ of gospels.

It is also a possibility (one I doubt a skeptic would be eager to dismiss) that however the original Gospels were written, they were modified to be made similar some time later by the scribes who copied them down.

Happens, I mentioned the Gedara/Garasa/Ghergesnes substitution in the Byzantine texts. Others I've heard of, but they usually don't amount to much more than adding a word or sentence to an existing passage. Adding 70 speeches or so between Matthew and Luke would be a bit more work, not to mention making one wonder why they didn't bother to do the same for Mark.

When I was referring to the Q theory, I implied the additional components to it as well...the reliance on Mark, each with their own sources, etc. etc.

Very well, let's go into Markan priority then.

* Most of the time, both Matthew and Luke support the ordering of events in Mark (And do note that this is doubly interesting in light of Papias' statement "And the presbyter said this: Mark the interpreter of Peter, wrote down exactly, but not in order, what he remembered of the acts and sayings of the Lord, for he neither heard the Lord himself nor accompanied him, but, as I said, Peter later on." If Matthew or Luke represent independant lines of information than Mark, why are they apparantly following his uncertain memory?)

* In cases where one or the other strays from that order, usually the other will still be supporting it.

* There is no case in which Matthew and Luke agree in placing an event outside of Mark's framework, wherever Matthew and Luke both depart from Mark they also depart from each other.

* Mark consists of 661 verses. Of these, about 600 are repeat/rephrased in Matthew, and 350 in Luke. In total, there's only 31 verses of Mark that do not have a parralel passage in one or the other.

* Mark has the most 'unpolished' or 'primitive' language, if you like, including preserved Aramaic words in the text, Greek slang, etc. Where these occur in Matthew or Luke more standard Greek phrases are used.

* Mark's theology is rougher than either Matthew or Luke. This is kind of hard to summarize with anything other than examples so---

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." --- Mark 10:17-18

And how it appears in Matthew...

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get internal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied "There is only one who is good." --- Matthew 19:16-17

Note the differences. The 'Good' has been moved away from teacher to thing, Jesus' question about "why do you call me good?" has been ommitted.

It's not too difficult to come up with some reasons why theology might have moved Matthew to alter Mark's version, a very easy reading of Mark would involve Jesus explicitly denying his divinity. It's harder to think of any reason why Mark would have altered Matthew to come up with his version of it though.

Another, with all three in this time.

People were bringing children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciple rebuked them. When Jesus saw this he was much displeased. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belong to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. --- Mark 10:13-16

Matthew's rendition of the same...

Then the little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there. --- Matthew 19:13-15

And Luke's...

People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them, But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will not enter it." --- Luke 18:15-17

Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark's comment that Jesus was "most displeased". In Mark, Jesus takes the children up into his arms. Matthew replaces this with an impersonal religious gesture "He laid his hands upon them", Luke doesn't mention it all. Most likely, both felt thatthese were too 'human' emotions for Jesus to be displaying.

I'd like to touch on Luke-Josephus but it's getting late, had a nice quote from The Jewish War last time that I'd need to look up again. Hopefully tommorow morning sometime.

[Miang]

Finally getting to Luke-Josephus now.

There's the parallels. For example, Luke's account of the centurion's servant has a certain odd relation to a story told by Josephus in the Jewish Wars in which the Roman legate to Syria is described as "A friend to the Jews." When Emperor Gaius commands him to place his statue inside the temple, the legate explains his predicament to the Jewish people as "For I am under authority, as well as you." This rather resembles the comment to Jesus attributed to Luke's centurion "For I myself am a man under authority" (Luke 7:8)

Luke's the only gospel with an account of Jesus' childhood. Even in Luke it's a single incident, Joseph and Mary go to Jerusalem for the Passover festival while Jesus is 12 years old. While there,
Jesus is lost and the two spend three days searching for him. They finally find him in the Temple discussing religious matters with the priests who are "amazed at his understanding and his answers." (Luke 2:47)

Josephus in his autobiography reminences back to his own prodigal childhood

Moreover when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had for learning; on which account the high priest and principle men of the city (Jerusalem) came then frequently to me together in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of the points of the Law.

The ages are different, but might also be taken as a signal for suspicion in itself. 12 is the age at which Soloman became King, 3 is a number associated with the Messiah in Jewish numerology.

While Josephus mentions that there were many "Imposters and deceivers" at the time of first century Palestine attempting to lead the Jewish people into rebellion against the Romans he mentions three specificly. Judas the Gallilean (Who led the revolt following Quirinius' census after the Romans took control), a false prophet named Theudas who led a group of revolutionaries and claimed to be able to part the Jordan river, and another false prophet he simply refers to as "The Egyptian" who claimed to be able to take down the walls of Jerusalem with a miracle. Oddly enough, these same three and no others are also mentioned by the author of Luke/Acts , including the apparant namelessness of the last (Acts 5:36-37, 21:38).

There's a reason why Josephus picked those that he did. His attempt to tie the early revolt to the census is aimed at convincing the Romans that the revolt was the fault of the agitations of a specific group, not a spontanious uprising (Wheras archaeology has tended to indicate that more or less everyone and their grandmother was planning rebellion at the time, there were peasant uprisings, aristocratic uprisings, religious uprisings, etc). By shifting the blame to some Jews he's trying to protect most of the Jews, who he describes as simply being led astray. The religious movements, likewise, are an easy target to attribute such unrest to, and one Josephus never fails to invest with withering scorn.

Moreover, "Luke" seems to have inadverdently wound up making a mixup of Josephus here.

You know Greek? Aren't you, then, the Egyptian who stirred up trouble some time ago and led four thousand men of the sicarii out into the desert? --- Acts 21:38

Who are the men of the sicarii? Josephus actually seems to be the originator of the word, he derives it from the latin word for a short dagger (Sicae).

When the country was purged of these, there sprang up another sort of robbers in Jerusalem, which were called Sicarii, who slew men in the day time, and in the midst of the city; this they did chiefly at the festivals, when they mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed daggers under their garments, with which they stabbed those that were their enemies; and when any fell down dead, the murderers became a part of those that had indignation against them; by which means they appeared persons of such reputation, that they could by no means be discovered. The first man who was slain by them was Jonathan the high priest, after whose death many were slain every day, while the fear men were in of being so served was more afflicting than the calamity itself; and while every body expected death every hour, as men do in war, so men were obliged to look before them, and to take notice of their enemies at a great distance; nor, if their friends were coming to them, durst they trust them any longer; but, in the midst of their suspicions and guarding of themselves, they were slain. Such was the celerity of the plotters against them, and so cunning was their contrivance.

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. But Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them.

But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed every one to their own homes, and there concealed themselves. --- The Jewish Wars 2:13:3-5

Consider the Sicarii's methods, they hide their weapons on their persons and rely on blending into crowds to get close to their targets; what would they be doing following a would-be prophet out into the desert (Not to mention the open)? Luke seems to have inadverdently conflated all three stories that Josephus relates here into one.

The first that he talks about is the Siracii, their attacks, and the fear generated among the people by them. Next "there was also" a group of men who convince the people to follow them out into the desert. The Roman procurator Felix thinks that this is the prelude to a revolution, sends his soldiers out after them, and "kills a great number of them". Finally, we have the story of the unnamed Egytian prophet who leads 30,000 people up to the Mount of Olives in preperation of an attack on Jerusalem (And his promised invocation of divine power to bring down its walls for that attack). Felix attacks them ahead of time and the Egyptian's forces are crushed, he escapes but is never heard from again.

[Dragon Reborn the 3rd]

Originally posted by Wormboy
Question: Can you rule out separate texts being justified against each-other by a later editor? Say, he looks at them both, and thinks "Hey, these guys should be saying the same thing if they are talking about the same thing...." and just makes the appropriate changes, thus leaving them identical for posterity...
That is a possibility. One I have considered. The one problem I see in that is that there are exact statements, word for word, letter for letter, with the exception of one word, and then it goes back to word for word, letter for letter. (see, for example, Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial in Matthew and Mark and compare)

Actually, I already wrote that it was a possibility in my second post:
It is also a possibility (one I doubt a skeptic would be eager to dismiss) that however the original Gospels were written, they were modified to be made similar some time later by the scribes who copied them down.

I've heard there's an excellent book called "The Gospel according to jesus Christ" which supposedly discusses which writings or ideas can be attributed directly to Christ, as opposed to an apostle or some later commentator. I've been meaning to read this book for years. Any comments/advice?
It is most likely biased, one way or another. What is most important, though is if it presents the other arguments and soundly provides counter-arguments.


And, yes, Miang, I will get back to yours..."Save the best for last" ;) :) You distracted me with some of those links. Hehe. These other writings (on the site with the Gospel of Peter) were intriguing.

I like you as a person. You don't (most of the time - 99%+) attack other people, but rather simply put down the data. It's too bad we have to disagree so often...:(

Here's a webpage that argues against the Q theory: http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/ten.htm

[Miang]

Thank you.

Oh, I've seen them before. Keep in mind, though, they're not arguing for independant authorship of each. Their theory is that Mark was written first, Matthew used Mark, and then the author of Luke used both Mark and Matthew.

Could work, but I'm rather of the mind that it makes thinggs more complicated than Matthew and Luke both using Mark and Q.

[Dragon Reborn the 3rd]

Yeah, I picked up on that. :) I just have to check out the data myself, I guess...though probably not in the Greek comparisons quite yet. But still a much more thorough analysis than what I've seen before (simply verifying which stories are used by which by which books). A word-by-word or phrase-by-phrase analysis. Checking for literal copies and for which is the most descriptive, which is the least, etc. etc. signs that could point to which is the original author or if the evidence is inconclusive or if it supports another theory - such as semi-mutual interdependency.

[Miang]

*Nudge for the night*

[Miang]

I don't know why just remembered this thread all of a sudden...

Anyways, *nudge*.