COPIES - Q Theory
Feb 16, 2015 17:53:50 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Feb 16, 2015 17:53:50 GMT -5
WERE MATTHEW AND LUKE A COPY OF MARK?
The infamous "Q THEORY" (Q from the German Quelle, or “source”) is a theory which became popular in the 1700s. It is basically the belief that behind the Gospels lies an unknown lost document labeled ‘Q.’ There is however no actual emmirical proof that this "mystical" lost document ever existed.
While manuscripts exist as early as the first century, no-one has yet found even a fragment of Q and it was never refered to by any ancient authors or of the early Church Fathers. The deafening silence in the annuals of history suggest strongly it never existed - essentially then Q "theory" is essentially an hypothesis built upon another hypothesis.
The weight of historical evidence that DOES exist, indicate that Matthew wrote the first Gospel dealing a death blow to the Q-theory. Any theory, however clever, must be doubted when it is unable to face the challenge of history. The theory that Mark wrote his gospel first and the others were simply 'copies' is just that, a theory based solely on presumption. If a different scenario more consistent with history, doctrine and literary analysis replaces this presumption, the theory loses its foundation. Many indeed question the so called Q-theory today and rightly so.
Is Matthew a copy of Mark?
Firstly there is considerable historical evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel first and therefore logically cannot be a copy of Mark.
Still all four gospels concentrate on the life of one man, one would logically expect some overlap of information and direct quotes would naturally by close on 100% identical.
To illustrate, two biographies on the life of President Obama that both included a large percentage of his public addresses would logically have a certain duplicity of vocabulary.
Regarding overal narrative, what percentage is ‘acceptable’ is purely subjective, but one could reasonably expect at least 5-10% of the information to be similar. A narritive duplicity as high as 90 – 100 % implies collaboration** and this would call into question authenticity.
Matthew's gospel is 42% unique. Matthew he gives us ten parables that the others do not. These include four in chapter 13, those of the weeds in the field, the hidden treasure, the “one pearl of high value,” and the dragnet. Others are the illustrations of the unmerciful slave (Mt 18:23-35), the workers in the vineyard (20:1-16), the marriage of the king’s son (22:1-14), the ten virgins (25:1-13), and the talents (25:14-30).
Matthew is also more explicit as to figures. It is typical that he alone tells us that it was for thirty pieces of silver that Jesus was betrayed. His concern with accurate figures may well have been due to his having been a tax collector. The expression “the kingdom of the heavens,” used often instead of “the kingdom of God,” is unique with him.
Regarding Luke, 59 percent of his Gospel is unique with him. He records at least six specific miracles and more than twice that number of illustrations that are not mentioned in the other Gospel accounts, devoting one third of his Gospel to narrative and two thirds to the spoken word; his Gospel is the longest of the four. (Also it should be noted that there is considerable internal evidence that Luke wrote his gospel before Mark (which would mean obviously is was not a ‘rehash’ ).
Every early historian states that Matthew wrote the first Gospel. Any theory, however clever, must be doubted when it is unable to face the challenge of history. The theory that Mark wrote his gospel first and the others were simply 'copies' is just that, a theory based solely on presumption; If a different scenario more consistent with history, doctrine and literary analysis replaces this presumption, the theory loses its foundation
The infamous "Q THEORY" (Q from the German Quelle, or “source”) is a theory which became popular in the 1700s. It is basically the belief that behind the Gospels lies an unknown lost document labeled ‘Q.’ There is however no actual emmirical proof that this "mystical" lost document ever existed.
While manuscripts exist as early as the first century, no-one has yet found even a fragment of Q and it was never refered to by any ancient authors or of the early Church Fathers. The deafening silence in the annuals of history suggest strongly it never existed - essentially then Q "theory" is essentially an hypothesis built upon another hypothesis.
The weight of historical evidence that DOES exist, indicate that Matthew wrote the first Gospel dealing a death blow to the Q-theory. Any theory, however clever, must be doubted when it is unable to face the challenge of history. The theory that Mark wrote his gospel first and the others were simply 'copies' is just that, a theory based solely on presumption. If a different scenario more consistent with history, doctrine and literary analysis replaces this presumption, the theory loses its foundation. Many indeed question the so called Q-theory today and rightly so.
Is Matthew a copy of Mark?
Firstly there is considerable historical evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel first and therefore logically cannot be a copy of Mark.
Still all four gospels concentrate on the life of one man, one would logically expect some overlap of information and direct quotes would naturally by close on 100% identical.
To illustrate, two biographies on the life of President Obama that both included a large percentage of his public addresses would logically have a certain duplicity of vocabulary.
Regarding overal narrative, what percentage is ‘acceptable’ is purely subjective, but one could reasonably expect at least 5-10% of the information to be similar. A narritive duplicity as high as 90 – 100 % implies collaboration** and this would call into question authenticity.
Matthew's gospel is 42% unique. Matthew he gives us ten parables that the others do not. These include four in chapter 13, those of the weeds in the field, the hidden treasure, the “one pearl of high value,” and the dragnet. Others are the illustrations of the unmerciful slave (Mt 18:23-35), the workers in the vineyard (20:1-16), the marriage of the king’s son (22:1-14), the ten virgins (25:1-13), and the talents (25:14-30).
Matthew is also more explicit as to figures. It is typical that he alone tells us that it was for thirty pieces of silver that Jesus was betrayed. His concern with accurate figures may well have been due to his having been a tax collector. The expression “the kingdom of the heavens,” used often instead of “the kingdom of God,” is unique with him.
Regarding Luke, 59 percent of his Gospel is unique with him. He records at least six specific miracles and more than twice that number of illustrations that are not mentioned in the other Gospel accounts, devoting one third of his Gospel to narrative and two thirds to the spoken word; his Gospel is the longest of the four. (Also it should be noted that there is considerable internal evidence that Luke wrote his gospel before Mark (which would mean obviously is was not a ‘rehash’ ).
Every early historian states that Matthew wrote the first Gospel. Any theory, however clever, must be doubted when it is unable to face the challenge of history. The theory that Mark wrote his gospel first and the others were simply 'copies' is just that, a theory based solely on presumption; If a different scenario more consistent with history, doctrine and literary analysis replaces this presumption, the theory loses its foundation