Loading...We have seen that most scholars agree that the problem of the close similarities and striking differences among our Synoptic Gospels — the “Synoptic Problem” — is best solved by thinking that Mark was copied (to a greater or lesser extent) by both Matthew and Luke, the view called “Markan Priority.” The majority continues to believe there was a “sayings source” available independently as well to Matthew and Luke, that gave them many of the sayings of Jesus that they record but are not found in Mark (the Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes, some of the parables, lots of his memorable one-liners). Others, as I’ve said, maintain that Matthew copied Mark and that Luke copied both Matthew and Mark.
Even if we agree there was probably a Q source and even if we don’t, we are still left with the fact that a good number of Matthew’s stories are not found in either Mark or Luke (Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, the visit of the Magi, a bunch of his parables), just as there are a number in Luke not in the other two (the trip to Bethlehem, Jesus as a twelve year old in the temple, the parable of the Good Samaritan, etc.).
That means
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
In German “Quelle” also means a spring, as in a source of water coming from the ground.
That’s why some scholars think the theory of Q is all wet.
Doc, this made me laugh out loud and nearly do a spit-take.
Is it possible that the Matthew source and the Luke source were Matthew himself and Luke himself? That what is unique in each of their Gospels originated with them?
Yup, ultimtaely there is no way to know for sure.
You mentioned the ‘genre-critical method’, Dr Ehrman. Could you say a little more about this, please? In fact, I get confused between a lot of the terms for different types of biblical criticism, eg. Form, Redaction, Literary, as many seem to overlap. Would you consider doing a post (or series of posts) on the different methods of biblical criticism, please (when time allows)? Many thanks.
Ah, sorry, that was a term I used in my textbook in a different chapter. It’s an approach to a writing that explores and establishes its genre (e.g., biography, history, novel, short story, “gospel”) and recognizes the standard feature of works that belong to it; it then uses that understanding to explore the particular work at hand. And so if ancient biographies typically work in a certain way (different, say, from modern ones), and the Gsopels are kinds of biographies, then what kinds of things do we look for in the Gospels. This approach is quite different from redaction criticism, which looks to how an editor has modified his written sources, and form criticism which provides an analysis of the formal features of a passage to determine what can be said about the context within which it would have been formulated in the oral tradition. All of these, in one way or another, are forms of literary analysis.
Good idea to do some posts on these various methods!
Thank you Dr Ehrman. That’s very helpful. Could you recommend any books that describe all the different forms of biblical criticism and the history of their development, please? (The more accessible the better thanks).
You might look at Eldon Epp and George McCray, The NT and Its Modern Interpreters. It’s old but probably gives you what you want. For the methods themselves (not so much their history) I explain the various Gospel methods except form criticism in my NT textbook. Also any history of NT interpretatoin will give it, e.g., the one by Stephen Neil and NT Wright or the one by William Baird (3 vols.)
Let’s assume the four source hypothesis is true. Do Mark, Q, M , and L ever describe the same event? Do any two of them ever describe the same event?
If the same event is described in the same words in Matthew Mark and Luke, it is because Matthew and Luke got it from Mark (not because it was found in all four sources). But there are places where you have materials that both Matthew and Luke have drawn from Q in a passage known to Mark, but that’s almost always because there’s nowhere else that would make much sense to put hte Q sayings — e.g., when Jesus is tempted in the wilderneness: Q had that, so did Mark, but they had different bits — Mark just he fact of temtation; Q the discussion of Jesus and the Devil. So of course in that case Mt and Luke took the Q sayings of the devils temptatoin in the same place. That is called a Mark – Q overlap.
I have been able to build on your ideas concerning the Synoptic Problem and the Four-Source Hypothesis. I would like to thank you for explaining Markan Priority and how the hypothetical Q source helps account for the similarities and differences between the gospels. This is important because Matthew and Luke have different theological perspectives, and knowing where each comes from is important. I also think that your emphasis on redaction criticism and how it brings out the interests of the authors is very insightful. All in all, you have added depth to our conversation on early Christian thought. I’m not certain about the thoughts of your colleague and friend, Mark Goodacre.
He’s a good friend and an excellent scholar. And we completely disagree about Q. 🙂
Is there any support for the idea that the unique parables in Matthew and Luke also appeared in Q but Matthew chose to use some that Luke didn’t use and vice versa?
Hi Bart,
Do the findings you cite apply to the Peshitta bible too?
I’ve recently discovered it via a book recommended by a friend:
“Prayers of the Cosmos” by Neil Douglas-Klotz.
I found a web site with the translations: thearamaicscriptures.com
But only read excerpts to this point.
Thanks much , John
The Peshitta was simply a tranlation of the Greek Bible.
Given Luke’s use of sources for unique accounts, it’s puzzling to dismiss the first 2.5 chapters as later additions. These chapters align perfectly with Luke’s thematic emphasis on the temple. Luke-Act’s narrative arc, which begins in the temple and expands outward, suggests Luke intentionally started Jesus’ story there.
The Greek style, reminiscent of LXX, also supports this theory. If Luke’s source was someone familiar with the temple and its traditions, it’s natural that the writing style would reflect this influence.
Furthermore, Luke’s structure conforms to a standard Gospel pattern, where a prologue precedes an introduction to John the Baptist. Luke’s detailed account of Jesus’ birth/childhood, including the parallel narrative about JtB, reflects Luke’s desire to follow the standard pattern.
Starting at 3:1 would disrupt this structural precedent, omitting the prologue and jumping straight into the JtB narrative. Similarly, beginning with genealogy would break convention by omitting JtB altogether.
The placement of genealogies in biblical narratives doesn’t follow a strict precedent. For example, the genealogies of Cain(Genesis 4:17-24) and Adam(Genesis 5:1-32) appear in unexpected places, interrupting the narrative flow.
It’s reasonable to conclude that the first 2.5 chapters are original, carefully crafted to introduce Jesus’ story in a way that aligns with Luke’s thematic/structural goals.
I don’t see why the fact that Matthew and Luke used sources for much of their material counts as evidence that they weren’t also making a lot of stuff up. I’m sure they guy who invented the story about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree as a boy also had lots of legitimate sources about Washington as well. And many of the stories in Matthew and Luke were clearly made up–the flight to Egypt, the trip to Bethlehem, the birth of John the Baptist, etc. If somebody made those stories up, I don’t see why it couldn’t have been Matthew or Luke–especially if those stories advanced their respective theological agendas (as you have so ably demonstrated).
It’s not probative, but it does at leasat show their tendencies and inclinations. They could certainly also have been making things up, but I think if we have established tendencies and since we know there are tons and tons of stories in cirulation before they wrote that there need to be reasons in one case or another for thinking something was made up whole cloth. I’m definitely not opposed ot hte idea. Someone made up the stories, to be sure, but to say we have the smoking gun I think requires some argument, case by case.
“parables of the treasure hidden in the field (Matt 13:44), the pearl of great price (Matt 13:45–46), the dragnet (Matt 13:47–50)”
Thomas Logion 109, 76 and 8 (243 words) uniquely occur in the NT here, and get squeezed into this hasty triplet of Matthew, totalling 125 words. And the resulting Greek is awful, careless, and a real quicky. Lectio brevior? I don’t think so!
Matthew redacted Marcion into Luke, while composing his own in the side. Matthew reserves the pivotal words for his own dictionary (kingdom of the heavens, the father) while rewriting Marcion in Christianity-style, handing “kingdom of God” and “God” to Luke.
Matthew usually has the better version compared to what Luke makes of the Thomasine logia; Matthew always corrects the grammar, the syntax, the nuances – Matthean Posteriority is a given really
Before you may repeat the baseless “Thomas is a late redaction of the canonicals”, answer me this please Bart: how on earth can it be that Thomas, Marcion and Luke all share the exact same Thomasine logia? 59 of the 62 Thomasine logia in Luke are also present in Marcion / *Ev
https://www.academia.edu/123948288/The_super_canonical_Synoptics_Marcion_and_Luke_and_Thomas
One picture says more than a thousand words:
https://ibb.co/d0ZkyF0N
I am almost through reading Schonfield’s “Passover Plot”(1965). In part 2 of the book, he makes reference to the “Teaching Document” as Q. However, he also refers to a “Testimony Book” written ca. 50, attributable to Matthew. Is this “Matthew” identical with the evangelist?
Yes, that’s whom he has in mind.
The conclusion is that — without the original writings and knowledge concerning when and and by whom they were written — all we know is that the have the nth copies of three gospels that: 1) have both similarities and differences, and 2) provide stories concerning the birth and adult life of Jesus, recognizing that these accounts contain both similarities and differences.
We each then make up our minds what to believe. Here is what I believe: Jesus was born to Jewish parents in the province of Galilee. He spent a decade in India, living in a Jewish settlement where he was educated and learned about both Jewish history and the writings of Buddha (some of the stories he told are similar Buddha’s). He became convinced that God had selected him to return to Galilee and provide religious guidance to the Jewish people. He created parables to teach the people that God wants then to help others, especially the poor and maimed. He was crucified, but his followers believed he was resurrected. Over time, his teachings were accepted gentiles and rejected by Jewish authorities, who called their religion Christianity and believed Jesus was equal to God (I don’t).
Are the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas also sources for Q, M or L?
Lynn Howell
Probably not.