Question and Some Help

[reeann]

Today at 03:09 PM Gooch's dad said this in Post #4

No, the gospels are later stories, probably based on early oral traditions, and not independent accounts. The synoptics all are based on Mark and a lost Q gospel. John is likely to be at least partly dependent on Mark, but is also not an eyewitness account, being written in the mid-90's (far too late to be an eyewitness account).

Modern bible scholars agree on these major points. Yes, you can find a few fundamentalist scholars who have a presupposition that the gospels must be early, but that isn't proper historical analysis.

This was posted on another thread.  I am confused and now I'm going to have to read some more (*grins), but I always thought the Gospels were written by the author in which teh Gospel is entitled.   Can anyone give me links, etc., references to read up on this.  Any information will be helpful.  Thanks

 

[filosofer]

Keep in mind that there is no textual evidence for Q; it is a hypothetical/artificial construct, based on many suppositions.

Personally I have studied the issues for 20+ years at the seminary and professional level, and I have found that scholarly study, teaching, and preaching can be done quite well without ever referring to Q.

 

[Allen2]

Many Scholars believe that Matthew and Luke used Mark, plus other sources that they carefully considered. That God inspired the NT tells us WHAT we have, but not the process that the Lord used and the human agents involved. And, yes, Q is merely a waste basket category for any of the sources that might have been used in the composition of the gospels: there is no textual evidence for Q because all we have in any case are the gospels as they now stand written.
Even IF oral traditions were part of the Gospels, the Jews were a hearing culture and were trained early to remember every detail. Also, we shouldn't under estimate the ability of the Jews during the days of Jesus to write(both Greek and Aramaic) and to keep notes.
The traditional notions of authorship still have sound arguments to support them. Papias, who probably knew the Apostle John, said that Mark was Peter's interpreter and wrote his composition accurately. Irenaeus said that Mark wrote prior to the death of Peter , who was martyred in Rome in between AD 60-70. Clement of Alexandria also asserts that Mark produced his gospel while Peter was still alive. God bless, Al

 

[Singleman]

To answer only one of the points raised in the quote above, it is not a certainty that John's gospel was written in the 90's AD. Some scholars date it earlier (D.A. Carson, in his commentary, places it tentatively in the 80's), and even if the later date is correct John could have lived that long. He would have likely been in his seventies. There's also the possibility that someone else wrote down the gospel based on John's teaching and testimony. In any case, the ancient tradition that John the apostle is the authority behind this gospel is not easily dismissed.  (Although if you are disposed to skepticism, you can always find a way.) 

 

[filosofer]

In my postgraduate class on John's Gospel, as I studied the dating issue, I am more inclined to put John early - perhaps before A.D. 50 making John the first written Gospel.

And as a further note on the OP, there are more than a few "fundamentalists" who reject the premise of Q or its existence; many conservative scholars are not anywhere close to the fundamentalist camp, yet also reject and refute the entire Q hypothesis. Q (referrring to the German word Quelle meaning source) was defined as the material common to Matthew and Luke but not in Mark; Note, that this is not based on textual evidence or manuscripts, but only as a literary device to identify that specific kind of material. Someone could define a term XXX referring to all words that do not have the letter alpha, which could be helpful as condensing references to that group of words, but has little bearing on whether it is a separate document.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Very interesting! How can we date a manuscript without having the original? I'm just wondering what the processes are to date these things.

 

[Singleman]

Yesterday at 06:19 PM filosofer said this in Post #5

In my postgraduate class on John's Gospel, as I studied the dating issue, I am more inclined to put John early - perhaps before A.D. 50 making John the first written Gospel. ...

You may be right. Robinson in his book, The Priority of John made a good argument for an early date for John. The only real obstacle to this is the stubborn tradition that the gospel was written when John was old. I would be very happy with an early date; it would certainly refute a lot of the criticisms leveled at the Fourth Gospel as a late and secondary work.

 

[Dr Andrew]

17th March 2003 at 01:19 AM filosofer said this in Post #5

In my postgraduate class on John's Gospel, as I studied the dating issue, I am more inclined to put John early - perhaps before A.D. 50 making John the first written Gospel.

And as a further note on the OP, there are more than a few "fundamentalists" who reject the premise of Q or its existence; many conservative scholars are not anywhere close to the fundamentalist camp, yet also reject and refute the entire Q hypothesis. Q (referrring to the German word Quelle meaning source) was defined as the material common to Matthew and Luke but not in Mark; Note, that this is not based on textual evidence or manuscripts, but only as a literary device to identify that specific kind of material. Someone could define a term XXX referring to all words that do not have the letter alpha, which could be helpful as condensing references to that group of words, but has little bearing on whether it is a separate document.

"Conservative scholars" and "fundamentalists" are a pretty similar bunch in my experience. However, this doesn't mean that non-conservative scholars don't have problems with Q either. But you are being unfair to the hypothesis itself in your eagerness to ignore it. Yes, it is a "literary device", as you put it, but its one based on WORD FOR WORD AGREEMENT, sometimes which can last for several verses. This theory exists at all because COPYING OF A WRITTEN DOCUMENT is the only sane way to account for this. The oral way doesn't work because although stories can and were told and retold the SAME WORDS were hardly ever used (indeed, the stories change and vary even while being recognisably the same story). Studies of oral cultures have shown that the only way to account for the synoptic relationships is some form of WRITTEN COPYING. And if something was copied in written form and we don't have it then, hey presto, we are reasonable to assume a written document we don't have (or maybe one we do if you think that Luke copied Matthew).

Dr Andrew

 

[Dr Andrew]

18th March 2003 at 01:24 AM Singleman said this in Post #7




You may be right. Robinson in his book, The Priority of John made a good argument for an early date for John. The only real obstacle to this is the stubborn tradition that the gospel was written when John was old. I would be very happy with an early date; it would certainly refute a lot of the criticisms leveled at the Fourth Gospel as a late and secondary work.

If wishes were horses... The truth is that Robinson's argument is noted - and then summarily ignored - by pretty much every gospel scholar there is.

Dr Andrew