I'm not competent to comment in this discussion, given my extremely limited knowledge of the issues involved, but I appreciate y'all posting all this information. I'm learning a lot and that's a good thing. Thanks.

So on the issue of Q, I was reading about the Farrer hypothesis that claims:
Mark -> Matthew
Mark + Matthew -> Luke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_hypothesis

I suppose it might also be:
Mark + Q -> Matthew
Mark + Matthew -> Luke

As I was looking at the similarity in content and sequence of the hypothesized Q material in Matthew and Luke, it is hard to believe that these gospels were independently taking quotes from Q. It seems much easier to believe that Luke used Matthew.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html

Why do scholars assume that Luke did not use Matthew? Did they assume that differences in the nativity stories implied independence? Why not assume that Luke was "correcting" Matthew to match the views of a particular Christian faction?

What I want to know is who wrote the damn things. Being in the third person, it appears to be someone either making it all up, or following some dude around and writing about him. It seems very unlikely to me it would be the named guy writing it.

Or maybe just hearsay about people who may or may not have existed.

(March 11, 2015 at 2:03 pm)robvalue Wrote: What I want to know is who wrote the damn things. Being in the third person, it appears to be someone either making it all up, or following some dude around and writing about him. It seems very unlikely to me it would be the named guy writing it.

Or maybe just hearsay about people who may or may not have existed.

Here is the story of the gospel that early church leaders believed.
(1) Matthew (disciple Matthew for Jerusalem church)
(2) Matthew -> Luke (friend of Paul for Gentile church)
(3) Luke -> Mark (transcript of Peter's Roman testimonies based on Luke)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-gospel_hypothesis

I like that theory, and I imagine the following in addition:
(1) Mark was not a popular gospel, because it was mostly a summary of Luke, therefore it was simply filed-away and preserved in an ancient state.
(2) Matthew and Luke were actively used gospels, so they were actively modified. Independent nativity myths were added, and independent events following the empty tomb were added. This gave them the appearance of being composed after Mark, when their core was actually older than Mark.

So that's the watchamadoodle theory. (It will probably change tomorrow after I learn more. )

That's some freaky ass shit, I like it

(March 11, 2015 at 2:03 pm)robvalue Wrote: What I want to know is who wrote the damn things. Being in the third person, it appears to be someone either making it all up, or following some dude around and writing about him. It seems very unlikely to me it would be the named guy writing it.

Or maybe just hearsay about people who may or may not have existed.

Nobody knows for certain who wrote the Gospels. "Tradition" is what theologians have gone with to attribute authorship.

"Mark" was supposedly a companion of Paul who wrote the Gospel based on the teachings of Peter, who in turn wasn't present for all the events in the Gospel. For example, the Gospel of Mark establishes that Peter was hiding with the servants when Jesus was dragged before the priests at his trial. Peter could not have known the dialog, so Mark is hearsay on hearsay with events the double-hearsay account couldn't have witnessed.

And it goes downhill from there.

"Matthew" was supposedly an eye-witness since he was supposedly a traveling companion of Jesus and yet he seems to rely heavily on "Mark", even correcting Mark where he got elements of Jewish theology wrong. Then Matthew destroys whatever credibility he might have as an eye-witness by lying his ass off about what the OT says.

"Luke" was another traveling companion of Paul who says in his very first few verses in his Gospel that he was not reporting his own eye-witness account but compiling the accounts he'd heard elsewhere, making it a patchwork of anonymous hearsay.

And last and least, we have "John" who was supposed to be a simple fisherman and writes with the style of an educated theologian. who refers to himself as "the beloved disciple", who's theology of Jesus is considerably advanced (proto-orthodox) and who refers to "The Jews" as a separate religion, so if the disciple of Jesus wrote this Gospel as attributed, I'm the Surgeon General of the United States.

Nice, thanks. So I should just believe everything they wrote and not ask questions then.

"Hearsay" doesn't seem a strong enough word after this many iterations. More like rumour, legend or asstalk.

(March 11, 2015 at 5:08 pm)robvalue Wrote: "Hearsay" doesn't seem a strong enough word after this many iterations. More ...asstalk.

I like that last one.

(March 11, 2015 at 5:05 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: "Matthew" was supposedly an eye-witness since he was supposedly a traveling companion of Jesus and yet he seems to rely heavily on "Mark", even correcting Mark where he got elements of Jewish theology wrong. Then Matthew destroys whatever credibility he might have as an eye-witness by lying his ass off about what the OT says.

Do these errors in Jewish theology and interpretation of the OT occur in the pieces of Matthew that are unique to Matthew?

Maybe Matthew and Luke evolved their unique material after composition, and originally Luke was simply a version of Matthew written for Gentiles. Maybe the subset of Matthew common to Luke was originally written in Aramaic and translated to Greek to become Luke. Later the Aramaic Matthew was translated to Greek too. Then the two gospels evolved the nativity and post resurrection stories independently. By that time Matthew was no longer a Jewish gospel, so the mistakes that you mentioned crept in.

Also, scholars believe there was a Gospel of the Nazarenes that might fit this theory. Nazarenes may have descended from the Jerusalem church, so that would fit too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Nazarenes

(March 11, 2015 at 1:37 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: So on the issue of Q, I was reading about the Farrer hypothesis that claims:
Mark -> Matthew
Mark + Matthew -> Luke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_hypothesis
As I was looking at the similarity in content and sequence of the hypothesized Q material in Matthew and Luke, it is hard to believe that these gospels were independently taking quotes from Q. It seems much easier to believe that Luke used Matthew.

Similarity of sequence? There is no such similarity. On the contrary, the differences in where gMatt and gLuke place the common Q material in their common Marcan framework is one indication that they are working independently with the same material.

Quote:Why do scholars assume that Luke did not use Matthew? Did they assume that differences in the nativity stories implied independence? Why not assume that Luke was "correcting" Matthew to match the views of a particular Christian faction?

It’s a conclusion, not an “assumption”. This article summarises the reasons most scholars accept that gLuke and gMatt used the Q material independently and why they don’t accept that gLuke depended on gMark and gMatt instead. Note in particular the section headed “Matthew’s and Luke’s Handling of the Double Tradition”, which gives the three main reasons it is agreed that gLuke did not use gMatt.

---

(March 11, 2015 at 2:03 pm)robvalue Wrote: What I want to know is who wrote the damn things.

I’d like to know that about many anonymous ancient sources. I’d also like more sources, closer sources to the events in question and sources with better indications of where the ancient authors got their information (footnotes would be nice as well). Unfortunately, I’m unlikely to get any of these things. Welcome to the study of ancient history.

Quote:Being in the third person, it appears to be someone either making it all up, or following some dude around and writing about him. It seems very unlikely to me it would be the named guy writing it.

What “named guy”? None of the gospels name their writers – those are later editorial additions.

Quote:Or maybe just hearsay about people who may or may not have existed.

Most ancient sources are what you keep calling “hearsay”. That’s just the nature of the material we have. And “may not have existed” is not the default position. “Probably existed, though we can’t be certain” is.