3 ms·

Most scholars agree that the gospels were independent works written by different authors. Many scholars believe that Mark was written first, and that Matthew an

by learc83 10y ago

Most scholars agree that the gospels were independent works written by different authors. Many scholars believe that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke both drew from Mark and a non-surviving source called Q. Almost everyone believes that John was an independent work. I'm not aware of any scholars who believe that the Gospels are just differing branches--the results of various edits.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Your description (despite using the phrase "independent works") is exactly the opposite of what "independent works" means, as it describes a specific chain of dependency.
- learc83 10y ago
  I meant that Matthew and Luke were independently written by separate authors at different times--potentially including information from earlier source material--not the results of various edits of the sources over time. Also most scholars believe that they were all written during the first century, so the claim that there were "edits over the centuries" that I was initially refuting is incorrect.
  - acqq 10y ago
    "The majority opinion among scholars is that Mark was the earliest of the three (about 70 AD) and that Matthew and Luke both used this work and the "sayings gospel" known as Q as their basic sources. Luke has both expanded Mark and corrected his grammar and syntax—Mark wrote poor Greek. Some passages from Mark he has eliminated entirely, notably most of chapters 6 and 7, which he apparently felt reflected poorly on the disciples and painted Jesus too much like a magician. Despite this, he follows Mark's plot more faithfully than does Matthew.[40]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Comparison_with_other_writings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Comparison_with...
    - learc83 10y ago
      Some scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were dependent on earlier sources. This proves that the Gospels were "edited over the centuries?" You've pointed out one case where some scholars believe some information wasn't included. However, Mark is right there along side it with that information. Nothing was lost. It certainly wasn't the result of various edits over the centuries. Also the supposition on Matthew's motives is just that, supposition. If he were synthesizing multiple texts and other oral sources, he likely wouldn't reproduce them all in their entirety. And why are you citing wikipedia as a source?
      - acqq 10y ago
        > You've pointed out one case Excuse me, I guess you haven't noticed that the author of earlier comments with whom you exchanged opinions is not the one who wrote the comment you answered here. Let me try to explain you why I gave that Wikipedia quote here. I've read your statement: "I meant that Matthew and Luke were independently written by separate authors at different times -- potentially including information from earlier source material -- not the results of various edits of the sources over time." Now if you read my quote, it points to the text in Wikipedia that notes that "the majority opinion among scholars is" "that Matthew and Luke both used [Mark's Gospel] and the "sayings gospel"" "as their basic sources." I don't claim that "everybody" believes that, I don't claim that Wikipedia itself is a proof, or always right. The quote I've selected, however, matches the information I have, and that is that majority of scholars believe that the basis for both Matthew's and Luke's is Mark's and "the sayings." I've never considered Wikipedia as a "proof" but only as a pointer for something that is written in the real books and articles about the topic. I've just read your claim "independently wrote" and "potentially including earlier sources" and recognized that your claim doesn't match what I understand is the majority opinion opinion of the Gospel scholars (not "potentially" but that the basic source is Mark's), which you maybe haven't been aware of, and you could be interested to know about. So I've quoted the first entry that I stumbled to, not knowing how detailed Wikipedia is. And it is actually more detailed, this entry, for example, is the whole only about what is again claimed to be a "preferred by an overwhelming majority of critically trained New Testament scholars" as an answer to the so-called "synoptic problem": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis "The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection from the Christian oral tradition called Q." It's surely not a proof by itself for anything but it links to more primary sources and also to the other opinions, which are claimed to be a minority ones.

by learc83 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

Your description (despite using the phrase "independent works") is exactly the opposite of what "independent works" means, as it describes a specific chain of dependency.

learc83 10y ago
I meant that Matthew and Luke were independently written by separate authors at different times--potentially including information from earlier source material--not the results of various edits of the sources over time. Also most scholars believe that they were all written during the first century, so the claim that there were "edits over the centuries" that I was initially refuting is incorrect.
- acqq 10y ago
  "The majority opinion among scholars is that Mark was the earliest of the three (about 70 AD) and that Matthew and Luke both used this work and the "sayings gospel" known as Q as their basic sources. Luke has both expanded Mark and corrected his grammar and syntax—Mark wrote poor Greek. Some passages from Mark he has eliminated entirely, notably most of chapters 6 and 7, which he apparently felt reflected poorly on the disciples and painted Jesus too much like a magician. Despite this, he follows Mark's plot more faithfully than does Matthew.[40]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Comparison_with_other_writings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Comparison_with...
  - learc83 10y ago
    Some scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were dependent on earlier sources. This proves that the Gospels were "edited over the centuries?" You've pointed out one case where some scholars believe some information wasn't included. However, Mark is right there along side it with that information. Nothing was lost. It certainly wasn't the result of various edits over the centuries. Also the supposition on Matthew's motives is just that, supposition. If he were synthesizing multiple texts and other oral sources, he likely wouldn't reproduce them all in their entirety. And why are you citing wikipedia as a source?
    - acqq 10y ago
      > You've pointed out one case Excuse me, I guess you haven't noticed that the author of earlier comments with whom you exchanged opinions is not the one who wrote the comment you answered here. Let me try to explain you why I gave that Wikipedia quote here. I've read your statement: "I meant that Matthew and Luke were independently written by separate authors at different times -- potentially including information from earlier source material -- not the results of various edits of the sources over time." Now if you read my quote, it points to the text in Wikipedia that notes that "the majority opinion among scholars is" "that Matthew and Luke both used [Mark's Gospel] and the "sayings gospel"" "as their basic sources." I don't claim that "everybody" believes that, I don't claim that Wikipedia itself is a proof, or always right. The quote I've selected, however, matches the information I have, and that is that majority of scholars believe that the basis for both Matthew's and Luke's is Mark's and "the sayings." I've never considered Wikipedia as a "proof" but only as a pointer for something that is written in the real books and articles about the topic. I've just read your claim "independently wrote" and "potentially including earlier sources" and recognized that your claim doesn't match what I understand is the majority opinion opinion of the Gospel scholars (not "potentially" but that the basic source is Mark's), which you maybe haven't been aware of, and you could be interested to know about. So I've quoted the first entry that I stumbled to, not knowing how detailed Wikipedia is. And it is actually more detailed, this entry, for example, is the whole only about what is again claimed to be a "preferred by an overwhelming majority of critically trained New Testament scholars" as an answer to the so-called "synoptic problem": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis "The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection from the Christian oral tradition called Q." It's surely not a proof by itself for anything but it links to more primary sources and also to the other opinions, which are claimed to be a minority ones.