Original Question
Mainstream scholarship widely supports the view that the authors of Matthew and Luke shared a common source, since lost, in contemporary discourse called "Q".
Yet it is easily plausible that the common source between them is simply whichever of them occurred first, such as to ...
@KorvinStarmast, I appreciate the support. I am perfectly aware that many would not want to participate in such a discussion for any number of reasons. I am equally aware that many find it useful, important, or engaging. For this discussion as well as any other, I hope that the same principle is respected: If you are willing and able to make a useful contribution, please do so, and if you are disinterested in the subject, freely move your attention elsewhere.
The Q and Synoptic Problem extensive encyclopedia entries from the IVP Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd Ed. also show that while the Q theory is still viable, it is increasingly challenged by non-Q theories. Good luck!
@GratefulDisciple: Thank you for the references, but deeply studying the issue in books is outside of my current involvement. I am hopeful that someone who genuinely understands the questions could resolve my confusion with some succinct explanation.
@GratefulDisciple: Unfortunately, in retrospect, I rather think I misjudged the complexity of the issues by framing them a simple a dilemma between only two positions currently taken seriously, 1) that the synoptic problem is real and relevant, and Q is the best solution, versus 2) that the problem is not real or relevant, and Farrer, or some simple permutation, satisfactorily explains the origins of the texts. Now I am left with the dilemma of whether to open a new posting strictly on the synoptic problem, in order to avoid conflating two related but apparently separate problems.
I would welcome thoughts from anyone about the possibility of separating the discussion into two postings, as I suggested above.
@epl After my readings so far, my sense is: 1) The "synoptic problem" is just a label for a puzzle to be explained with various theories, not a problem for faith at all, simply a puzzle for people interested in the origin of those gospels. So yes, until there is a definitive solution (which is unlikely, unless there is more manuscript findings), it will remain a puzzle that is real. Is it relevant? Not for Christians who trust the apostles who wrote them, because as Christians we want to be Christ disciples. For them, it's relevant to interpret the Gospels better.
@epl cont'd 2) Starting about mid 1960s, within the academia, new non Q theories started to be entertained, esp. with the growing respect for Luke's literary construction (see paper and book in my comment to dannii's question in BH.SE). The undergrad thesis above is helpful to trace a "family tree" of hypotheses and Farrer represents one main branch of course, but given scholars's past "prejudice" or preference the new theories have not had a chance to take root.
@epl cont'd 3) about creating new question, it's up to your interest :-) This question can remain to focus on how Q theory is superior, and community rating seems to be positive. Dannii's question in BH.SE can serve as how Q theory can be rebutted for the sermon on the mount passage (which I plan to answer someday). Asking whether the "synoptic problem" is a real is trivial because obviously it is. But if there is an angle to the problem you're interested in, give it a shot ! I'm sure the community will help you edit it so it can serve both yourself and the C.SE / BH.SE community.
@GratefulDisciple: You say the problem is obviously real, but here I certainly have a real problem, because I haven't seen any question that seems to me can't be easily answered by the suggestion that one author wrote a text, a second author used parts of it, and a third author used parts of each. Also note perhaps you misunderstood that I wasn't expressing concern about challenges to religious conviction only to understanding to the logical literary progression based on extant text, as one might approach any subject.
@epl. Glad that we now understand each other better. In my opinion (which is also evident in some of the scholars's writings), there is simply not enough data to make one literary progression theory to be definitive. It's all about probabilities, and the probabilities change depends on reasonable assumptions. If you're interested in the origin of the gospels, unfortunately there is no substitute to reading a lot of papers.
there is simply not enough data to make one literary progression theory to be definitive. It's all about probabilities. Agree! But if it's unequivocal that three texts exist, and nearly certain that each was written by a different author, what is the problem?
From what I read so far "the problem" is about how the 3 gospel writers borrow from each other, and how the 3 gospel writers come up with texts specific to each gospel. It's detective work, basically.
Imagine plagiarism. It's not a simple copy and paste. There are many types of plagiarism beyond copying the text. An idea can be copied. A framework of thesis can be copied. The latter two are harder to detect.
And considering the source material prior to the Gospel being written. Some scholars speculate that there is an oral tradition. Other scholars think it was a written tradition. Some thinks the origin is in Aramaic, not Greek, etc.
There are a lot of variables involved. And that's part of the problem. Those elements will quickly become apparent to you once you start reading some papers. I myself, who only has cursory interest in the problem, is quickly bogged down. But trying to be intelligent reader of scholarly paper, I notice certain themes in the scholarship that I just mentioned above.
In early 20th century, scholars assume the 3 synoptic gospel writers were not that creative literary writers, except Matthew. That they more or less wrote as historian / biographer, instead of writing a creative literary theological account. But there was an explosion in mid 50s especially after the growth of literary criticism in the 1st half of the last century that make scholars look at the gospels with a new eye, and by now it's established that Luke is a literary masterpiece as well.
The how is how they take apart prior writing and use the elements to synthesize a new writing with an agenda and rhetorical expression of their own.
I highly recommend you to at least read the paper that I was going to base curiousdannii's answer on : Luke's Rewriting of The Sermon on The Mount. It can give you a taste of the "how".
that the texts are works of literature seems to be all we can know about them unequivocally, because of all the information we have comes from intrinsic clues. if they have historic value also then fine but even so they are still literary.
sure i would look at the paper if it doesn't take more than a few sittings
i agree. but if the "problem" is simply that the precise course of events is underdetermined from the surviving texts, then that's trivially true of any set of text that lack autographs or details of the author's life and methods.
Well, it's 37 pages long. Someone who is in the field would probably read it in one sitting, but not me :-) I'm used to reading things like this, but I'm not a scholar in the field. And although the paper is not very technical, it's still on the technical side. So for me I need a few "sittings".
As I said, we're dealing with theories and probabilities. The name of the discipline is literary criticism. They DO take into account the author's life, worldview, education, place, historical events surrounding the author, cultural values prevalent at the time, etc. Just like how English major study Jane Austen through her 6 novels and whatever was left from her unburned letters. It's just for the gospel writers, it's a lot harder. But the techniques and methods is roughly similar.
Of course, when making their theories, although it's verifiable, it's far from the same level as scientific experiment. It's verifiable if other scholars follow through the same set of assumptions.
Literary critic can justifiable say "here's something that may have happened", but as the consumer of that theory, we ALWAYS have to know the assumptions.
I don't know enough to give you a straight answer. What I do know is there is material specific to each gospel writer. Where do they get the material from? Doesn't that qualify as an extinct source?
it's obviously possible that two copied something else that the third didn't but why speculate if it gets us nowhere other than simply to say its obviously possible.
Or a potential solution to the synoptic puzzle (as the conclusion of the undergrad thesis alluded to) is to be the basis of another puzzle, like the historical Jesus.
"if you can't tell me why the author made some change by his own volition, then i think someone else made the change for him (who of course we can't see)"
For myself, the problem itself is not what interests me, but I want to dig deeper into the gospel. So I learn more about Luke's literary construction that provides better insight into the meaning of some of the gospel passages.
"if you can't tell me why the author made some change by his own volition, then i think someone else made the change for him (who of course we can't see)" We really have no information about the real authors. Scholars use "Luke", "Matthew", or "Mark" as a shorthand. Liberal scholars thought they were attributed to them by later authors.
because the conclusions various groups and individuals reach about the texts is vastly different even though the texts we (in the modern world not antiquity) are all reading are obviously the same (except for differences in reconstruction from the manuscripts, and in translation, for most of us who read in our own modern venacular, like me), and i want to know what each group is adding to their assessment that gives them confidence in a conclusion different from the many others.
yes absolutely conservative Christians have a view that liberal Christians and non-Christians lack, but this particular issue isn't as far as i can see a religious/secular one.
i'm mostly interested in what is coming from secular or liberal institutions because of course if you believe something about the text than you believe it about the text. i can only have a conversation about the text with someone who wants to have a conversation about the text. i can't learn anything about you or my next-door neighbor by reading an ancient source, only about the author and events from that time.
I think we already covered what you're trying to do. It's a bunch of theories and the confidence level depends on the assumptions. Personally, I don't put much value into those theories. I don't know about you, but I'm more about what the purported author's understanding of the words and background concepts that I value a lot more, and that line of investigation is more on other texts that survived like the 2nd temple works, history of the Roman empire, history of early judaism, etc.
Speculation about the origin of the texts is quite different than ascertaining what the author tries to convey to the audience, don't you think? I'm more of the latter. The star of the gospels is Jesus. So by extension, I'm more interested in what Jesus trying to convey to the gospel reader.
you agree many who support Q who aren't conservative, right? Actually that's not the case :-) Evangelicals later support that theory too (I came across an article the other day, let me find it). So my point is that conservatives are more interested in the latter (ascertaining what the author tries to convey).
In other words, conservative find that the research on origin matter less than the fact that the apostles authorized the writing as true tradition coming from Jesus.
Yes, I agree that there are still a lot of people who support Q, but support seems to be reversing in trend.
are you saying that the more one is either willing to break from a conservative tradition, or not consider it the first place, the less likely that person is to come a conclusion such as q hypothesis?
Conservative tends to produce theory that adds fuel to the historicity of Jesus and of the apostle preserving true tradition of Jesus of faith.
Liberal tends to produce theory that adds fuel to Jesus is merely a historical figure that didn't claim to be God, and that later gospel writers create untruthful accounts about him to spread the faith.
The paper I showed you for example (Luke and Sermon on the mount) I think it has conservative value, because it preserves the integrity of the historical Luke (the companion of Paul) who pieces together Matthew and Mark to serve his audience (Gentile) in the community of believers that he was part of in spreading the gospel.
I have a bias toward reading conservative papers, whether it is Q or Q-less theories.
I'm very happy that in the past 50 years or so, conservatives of many stripes, evangelicals primarily, are defending against liberal scholars so the tides are turning.
SO MANY good arguments in papers and reference books refute liberal theories one after another. SO MANY. That adds confidence to me as a believer that what I believe is scholarly defensive.
I mean, scholarly defensible.
The bias is because I want my faith to be respectable in the academia :-) as well as life saving (i.e. coming from God).
you said that for you the main difference between the two groups is that conservatives are more likely to invoke their own beliefs form outside the texts when studying them, or did i misunderstand?
no. What I meant is they try to understand the gospel by digging into the meaning of a word or a concept by consulting outside texts like Josephus, writings of Philo of Alexandria, deuterocanonical books, etc.
you think that is a distinction from liberal scholars, that is, that the liberal groups don't read josephus or philo or indeed other contemporary texts?
That reference collection I would recommend to any conservative Christian. Contains the best of the best of conservative scholarship. Of course, there are a lot of conservative fundamentalist out there still, who wouldn't appreciate it that much. I'm talking about run of the mill evangelical churches nowadays.
My point is that conservative scholars are engaging liberal scholars using common methods, consulting common texts (which is basically anything the survive), but arguing from conservative perspective, exposing liberal prejudices.
For example, the famous JEPD theory of how the Pentateuch came about has almost been discredited after 100 years.
BTW, that's the Old Testament analog to the "synoptic problem".
so do you think that the main difference is which sources are being used or which prejudices one or another group may have while examining those sources?
In that 8 volume dictionary reference, there are extensive articles about JEPD as well the Synoptic problem. Of course, since it's an encyclopedia it's summary. What I appreciate about the set is the priority given to research review for each topic, giving large number of bibliographical references to key positions.
Not the sources being used (respectability is the measure here, whether liberal or conservative). But the difference is exposing the other side's prejudices.
I have to go. Nice talking to you. I'll come back a few hours later.
If you are interested in a sample article from that dictionary set, here's one for Synoptic Problem and here's one for Q. The links are available until tomorrow.
before you said you find conservative authors more reliable, compared to liberal ones. i was trying to understand how you identified the differences in the methods and came to your preference.
I have been reading these kinds of articles for more than 20 years. By now my stance is as follows:
1) there is academic professionalism refereed by journal editors, so peer review; the more respectable the journal, the more reliable academically they are.
2) academic standard for liberal and conservative by now are the same, meaning they are upfront with their assumptions, and not allow faith to get in the way if not appropriate.
3) conservative will start with conservative leaning assumptions, but liberal will start with liberal leaning assumptions, but they can still interact professionally and critique each other.
4) there are limited resources (people, time, money), so academic agenda of the conservatives will be more focused on defending academically research areas that will bolster Christian faith. Vice versa.
5) Especially now in the information age, it's very easy just by looking at school, publisher, journal affiliation, CV, blog of an author to get a sense whether a scholar is aligned with your own faith or not.
6) As you know, there are denominations. So good academics in each denomination will ALSO start with a subset of broadly conservative assumptions. Catholic scholar will assume certain things, while Protestants will not.
But I find in general nowadays, conservative and liberal scholars of all stripes can "play ball" nicely.
what kind of decisions do you mean? When it comes to Q and synoptic gospel, if you note those articles, there's not much faith involved. So I don't make a decision one way or the other.
But when it comes to the historicity of Jesus's claim to be Son of God, of course it matters a lot.
i am understanding that you feel that conservative NT scholars are more reliable than liberal ones. all i was asking is what you have identified as the differences in their methods that your attribute to making them more reliable
Did I say that? I think I merely say that recently conservatives have been "upping their game", so to speak, and do not let the liberals (who from the start were academics) browbeat the conservatives with their claim of academic superiority, like the JEDP theory of Pentateuch.
I also implied that lately since conservatives academic have addressed a lot of those liberal positions, the situation now is more reversed. Especially in the post-modern era, where a lot of modern era assumptions are being questioned, EVEN by liberals themselves. So liberal fight other liberal, and conservative have the benefit of being more unified and can beat liberals better.
Exactly, genuine exchange. Very obvious in IVP Dictionary articles.
In areas that the conservatives don't have much academic leg to stand on, you can see in those articles that they admit they don't have it. But they just present the unknown in the best possible conservative light.
I'm not that qualified to answer. My personal sense is that Enlightenment era scholars were united in their modern philosophy but they are still looking for a common philosophy in this post modern age.
I was listening to a course by a Christian literary criticism professor (C.S. Lewis type) who presented a history of literary criticism since Plato.
It's very obvious that there are SO MANY theories in the last 3-5 decades it was bewildering even for him, and the lesson for us laymen is that it's not worth getting into those theories. So conservatives would instead stick with a few classical ones.
For NT Studies, I usually look at their conclusion first.
If it's the type of Bart Ehrman (an ex evangelical by the way) who thinks Jesus is not God, that I wouldn't go there.
But let's say there are Catholic scholar who debates Protestant scholar but both obvious committed to the doctrine of Trinity, then I would listen to both and see which one is more plausible and has better position academically. Of course that would mean I need to choose some assumptions. For example, canon formation is highly debatable between Catholics and Protestants.
The reason I prefer the IVP dictionaries is that they make sure to include good scholars in conservative circle while including major liberal ones, depending on the topic.
I myself look at Jesus and worship HIM, not the theologies. Diversity to me are ok as long as they are Trinitarian and believe in the Apostles Creed.
That way I see the major 3 branches complementing each other: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants.
But if you say diverse must include Jehovah Witnesses and Mormon, it's too far out for me.
Everyone has to make their own decision on what is "safe", but I will always say: worship Jesus, son of God and He should be the standard on which NT Study / theology is "safe".
A lot of times I see committed Christian unnecessary narrow the field because they make assumptions based on unknowns that are not academically supported. They are still Christians, but then would be less tolerant of some other denominations.
If I may clarify, I object to modern philosophy (I'm referring to Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Nietsche, etc.) because they make wrong assumption about God. Their assumptions exclude the Christian God and it's not the place of philosophy to do that.
I embrace philosophy, but not modern philosophy. So I embrace Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas.
It's like in Physics we now have to reject Newtonian physics that cannot explain things that Einstein can explain. Einstein is superset of Newtonian physics. I would say Plato + Aristotle is a superset of modern philosophies.
ancient is superset of modern. It remains true that all Western philosophies is a footnote to Plato.
Now in the post modern age, philosophers are rediscovering ancient philosophies, not just Aristotle + Plato. They also reevalute medieval philosophers like Aquinas, Anselm, Don Scotus, Ockham, etc.
I see a lot more books published in medieval philosophies in the past 3-5 decades compared to early 20th century, for example. Books on Thomas Aquinas in the first half of 20th century are mostly by Catholics.
the philosophers who you say make the wrong assumptions about god, are you lamenting that they simply were not advocating for christianity or that they were explicitly against it?
Each modern philosopher advocates a system of thought that is "modern" in character, which starts with their assumption which is Cartesian (Descartes is appropriately called the Father of modern philosophy).
So Christian modern philosopher has to make room for their faith. But because of their committment to the modern philosophical system, they are crippled from the start, so their advocacy of Christianity is defective compared to Aquinas, for example.
For example, Kierkegaard is definitely a Christian, so does Blaise Pascal. But their defense of Christianity is crippled and cannot fully account for the power of the Christian metaphysical system like Aquinas.
Of course modern philosophers like Nietszhe, Hegel, or Hume are decidedly non Christian.
Kant is Christian, but his ethics are defective, so cannot be recommended for Christians.
Roughly a philosophy that limits supernatural activity to what can be explained by a single principle of either reason or emotion. Philosophy that denies Reason's ability to include certain attributes of God.
(BTW the definition above is purely ad hoc. I can do better doing some thinking / research first. Maybe a good candidate for a C.SE Question :-) )
Please note, that medieval philosophy is NOT anti science. Science is not synonymous with modern philosophy.
Let's pick The Good. Modern philosophy wants to come up with its own ethical standard that not necessarily derive from Christian teaching, which define that God is the ethical standard of what's Good. So instead of starting from what God reveals as Good, they want to do like Kant, for example.
Do you read C.S. Lewis?
He had good philosophical training, and he was very conversant in Romantic philosophies vogue in his time (early 20th century), also some of the analytic philosophies like Bertrand Russell. And he started as atheist.
But then he discovered the undefensible assumptions that modern philosophers make and slowly became Christian. Some of his writings like The Pilgrim's Regress can describe to you a lot better than I am.
He is also a literature professor, so wrote essays on the nature of the Gospel. Very good essays.
He defended liberals who claim that gospel is just another myth.
I mean, he fought liberals who claim that gospel is just another myth.
Well, he can't helped it, he's smack in the middle of the enlightenment. What I find worrisome is that his ethical system is based on Categorical imperative. No room for love. No room for God.
For Christians today, we are fortunately are out of that era. The era that believed in humanism's progress, but then produced World War and the holocaust. The illusion is over.
Love: where in Kantian system the place for Jesus's self sacrifice for others that we should imitate? God: where in Kantian system God's justice to reward the downtrodden to prevent revenge in the world? This is just what comes to mind. Again, I could have produced a better answer with more time and research.
If you are a Christian, once you compare that kind of ethics with Thomist (Aquinas) ethics, you don't want to go back. Aquinas's system is a superset of Kant.
His philosophical system is more encompassing. Has room for God and everything that human being desires in the world and in the world to come.
He accounts for everything and also put everything in perspective. You name it, you'll find it in Summa Theologica or Summa Contra Gentiles.
But does it in a Christian way, totally faithful to the Bible.
Of course the synthesis is Catholic (although in his era, there were no Protestants).
I myself is not a Catholic, but I appreciate his system very much. Maybe someday I become Catholic, but I'm more attracted to Eastern Orthodox for now, although I was raised Presbyterian.
what do you mean? As a Christian, God is the standard for morality, obviously. The ethical standard that God revealed should be the first principles, then we define the details using an appropriate philosophy.
For example, purpose of government, laws that are Christian, euthanasia & abortion, etc.
Human rights nowadays are based on secular principles, quite different from human rights based on Christian principles.
Christian morality is not simply obeying commandments in the Bible, but working out Biblical principles in a responsible and comprehensive philosophical system that take into account a variety of human emotions, reason, purpose, etc.
Morality is what others expect you to do in relation to other human beings within a society.
No man is an island, even personal value has impact on society.
Christian morality has an added dimension to include what God expects you to do in relation to Him.
Various religions have their own morality to influence a person's obligation toward other members within their religious society as well as in the world plus to the religion's conception of God.
A country's morality is expressed in the laws of that nation, which also define obligations in relation to other residents of that country, or in the case of UN to all nations.
You are exactly right: competing moral philosophies have incompatible expectations.
There is no rule. You have to start with first principles.
If the context is a country, then the political system of that country will be the arbiter.
Because I'm a Christian, I would start with God's expectation of me, and for that I study the Bible because the Bible is his revelation of his "values" to us.
If I need help in expounding the details, then I would study Aquinas's ethics. :-) Simple, right ?
I live in Canada. Canada has a moral system embedded in the laws. When the precepts of that law intersect with my Christian moral system (which in turn are informed NOT by Canadian law but by God's law in the Bible), then yes, good Canadian citizens can act morally according to Christian standard without their intending to do it.
Let's say Canada law allows for euthanasia (I'm not sure whether that's the case), then a Canadian citizen doing euthanasia would NOT be doing a moral action according to my standard.
I hope my explanation is clear. There is moral system, there are people subscribing to a moral system, there is moral action, and there is the ultimate beneficiary of the moral system. In the Christian case, the ultimate beneficiary is God. In the Canadian case, it's the good of the Canadian society.
Each of those 4 dimension can intersect. The intersection can be small or large. In the medieval era, they overlap completely, having the church controls the moral system 100%. That's why it's called Christendom. (Christian kingdom)
Yes, it's case by case. Not all Canadian law are in line with God's law. And in my opinion it's Canadian Christians's duty to advocate changes through the political process.
morality is a philosohical term that simply mean value system. All human beings operate with a value system, don't you think? Conscience is universal, no? I would ask that non-Christian what their morality is based on.
I think the majority of non Christians would agree that people without morals should be called animal / beast, like in the word acting "beastly" ?
i'm just trying to understand, if morality is different from one person to another, then how does it succeed in informing us to behave toward each other?
You say "it succeed" as though morality has a life of its own. It doesn't. It's the people who have the power to enforce it that can succeed. That's why I keep referring to political process, church, military, etc.
Even God is "powerless" to enforce it, if everyone rebels against him.
But the inner freedom can make that obedience either compulsory or out of free-will agreement. Or one (like myself) can advocate to improve the morality that I was socialized with.
My sense of justice demands it yes. And I hope the rightful authorities will punish the person with due process.
People live in multiple societies simultaneously.
I'm both a citizen of God's kingdom as well as Canada.
So I can demand to Canadian authority part of my right as Canadian citizen.
And if that person bribes Canadian authorities and are not punished, as a citizen of the Kingdom of God, I can rightfully expect God to punish him.
I can explain and can appeal to his conscience given by God. But a human being has the terrible gift of free will to reject that appeal. God has given a human being the ability to harden his heart toward God.
Even God wouldn't force someone to be on God's side
But fortunately, Canadian authorities don't find that relevant. You do murder, you claim ignorance of the law, it doesn't matter.
As a human being we can make the natural connection. Morality is not mathematics. Most moralities have some affinity to human conscience because we are not animals.
All this is covered in Book 1. But obvious thing like do not murder is so basic, that most moralities would agree on it PRECISELY because it's part of human conscience which Christians teach comes directly from being made in the image of God.
The short answer is the Fall. People don't even recognize the True God, so they make up religion to appease the religious nature that they cannot avoid. Morality is based on the religion they make up. That's why God has to reveal in a special way the 10 commandments, and later Jesus's New covenant to literally bring "light to the world".
Fall is a partial blindness. Some values are so basic, some needs for God and purpose are so basic, they remain.
Based on your questions, I think Mere Christianity can answer a lot and you can ask follow up questions later. I'm afraid I have to go. Nice chatting with you! Happy Easter!
Discussion between GratefulDisciple a…
Discussion between GratefulDisciple a…