Luke says he had gathered and investigated the writings about Jesus and his followers that were available at that time:
“1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1)”
In order to assert Q against Matthew as a source for Luke, you would have to explain why Matthew’s gospel wouldn’t have been available for Luke, since Matthew’s gospel is exactly the type of thing Luke was looking for to do his research?
And the Wikipedia article on Q says:
“How could a major and respected source, used in two canonical gospels, disappear? If Q did exist, it would have been highly treasured in the early Church. It remains a mystery how such an important document, which was the foundation for two canonical Gospels, could be lost. An even greater mystery is why the extensive Church catalogs compiled by Eusebius and Nicephorus would omit such an important work yet include such non-canonical accounts as the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas. The existence of a treasured sayings document in circulation going unmentioned by early Church Fathers remains one of the great conundrums of modern Biblical scholarship.”
Dr. Ehrman recommended Mark Goodacre’s ** you do not have permission to see this link ** on the blog. Goodacre believes that Luke used a version of Matthew in writing his gospel instead of Q. He makes several good points, but, apparently, most textual critics do not find the case convincing.
This is a fascinating argument but it tends to obscure what for me is the most interesting question. Where did this material come from? Even if Q did not exist as a separate document and Luke knew Matthew you still have a bulk of material that seems central to the early tradition of which Mark is unaware.
However I think the concern about the survival of Q is overblown when you consider the amount of material from the ancient world that does not survive. We only have 7 of Paul’s letters and it’s obvious he wrote many more than that. Our earliest complete copy of Plato is from the Middle Ages. Of the 120 plays that the greatest of the Greek playwrights, Sophocles, is know to have written, only 7 survive. Etc.
Stephen said
This is a fascinating argument but it tends to obscure what for me is the most interesting question. Where did this material come from? Even if Q did not exist as a separate document and Luke knew Matthew you still have a bulk of material that seems central to the early tradition of which Mark is unaware.However I think the concern about the survival of Q is overblown when you consider the amount of material from the ancient world that does not survive. We only have 7 of Paul’s letters and it’s obvious he wrote many more than that. Our earliest complete copy of Plato is from the Middle Ages. Of the 120 plays that the greatest of the Greek playwrights, Sophocles, is know to have written, only 7 survive. Etc.
From what I have been reading, while many scholars believe only 7 of them were written by Paul, there is only really a consensus that 3 are not. On the other three is this some doubt but not the kind of consensus Dr. Ehrman often says. For example, Dr. Crossan, among others, say “perhaps not.”
Well as you say practically everyone except fundamentalists reject the Pastorals as Pauline. And the eschatology of II Thess so clearly contradicts I Thess that it would hard to square their authorship. What debate there is, is over Colossians and Ephesians. Interesting arguments. Let me recommend Prof Ehrman’s scholarly work FORGERY AND COUNTERFORGERY in which he deep dives into the textual arguments. If they are Pauline then Paul changed both his writing style (twice!) and his theology. I suspect what drives the debate is the reluctance to admit that the NT contains deliberate forgeries.
john76 said
Luke says he had gathered and investigated the writings about Jesus and his followers that were available at that time:“1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1)”
In order to assert Q against Matthew as a source for Luke, you would have to explain why Matthew’s gospel wouldn’t have been available for Luke, since Matthew’s gospel is exactly the type of thing Luke was looking for to do his research?
And the Wikipedia article on Q says:
“How could a major and respected source, used in two canonical gospels, disappear? If Q did exist, it would have been highly treasured in the early Church. It remains a mystery how such an important document, which was the foundation for two canonical Gospels, could be lost. An even greater mystery is why the extensive Church catalogs compiled by Eusebius and Nicephorus would omit such an important work yet include such non-canonical accounts as the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas. The existence of a treasured sayings document in circulation going unmentioned by early Church Fathers remains one of the great conundrums of modern Biblical scholarship.”
Good point. Q is a lot like Bigfoot. Very exciting. A lot of fun, especially since no one can see him. Like the Lochness Monster. We keep looking. No one finds, and the excitement just goes up. Meanwhile the orangutan (which is actually quite amazing) in the zoo bores us to tears. It shouldn’t.
The missing document for real is Aramaic Matthew which the early church fathers attested to. Many other documents which were also quite real are also quite missing. Such as the works of Hegesippus (sp?) & Greek Irenæus. And regarding the authors of the Gospels, if I can know the last name of my great great great grandfather born 203 years ago, certainly the early church could remember the names of the writers of the Gospels, through oral tradition, & not just from written accounts. They did remember them, both in oral tradition, and through the titles, (according to Matthew, etc.). which are on all but one of the earliest manuscripts that contain the first sentence.
Ryan_1 said
From what I have been reading, while many scholars believe only 7 of them were written by Paul, there is only really a consensus that 3 are not. On the other three is this some doubt but not the kind of consensus Dr. Ehrman often says. For example, Dr. Crossan, among others, say “perhaps not.”
For the record, I see that I accidentally misquoted Dr. Crossan (who is, by the way, about as far from being a fundamentalist Christian is one could be and still self-identity as a Christian). He said (in his wonderful book from last year ‘How to Read the Bible & Still be a Christian’) “likely not”, as opposed to “perhaps not.” Big difference.
Peace
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)