ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Two Source Gospel Theory

Do you believe in the Two-Source Theory about The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Matthew and Luke copied from Mark (95% of Mark is in both) and M and L copied from a earlier Christian text called "Q", since Matthew and Luke have 65% of the same material? This is a scholarly hypothesis.

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Thomas on 9/10/14
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



As I had mentioned in another post, there is one theory that the Greek gospels of Matthew and Mark are based on an earlier lost Aramaic gospel by Matthew.
---StrongAxe

Yes I agreed with you tht is the theory. That theory is presented to make the Gospels less reliable and put doubt about the scripture. It works to make them unispired thoughts of men who did not really know what they were talking about.

This theory was Championed in Germany before Hitler took over.
---Samuelbb7 on 3/15/15


Samuelbb7:

You wrote: You are John does claim he was there. See first John 1.

I mentioned only Matthew and Mark, because those are the gospels under discussion, not John. Luke already claimed he was not an eyewitness. Also, while it is Christian tradition that the same person wrote the gospel of John as the epistles of John, these books make no actual claim that this is so.

Matthew is the Tax collector who was supposed to be one of the 12.

As I had mentioned in another post, there is one theory that the Greek gospels of Matthew and Mark are based on an earlier lost Aramaic gospel by Matthew.
---StrongAxe on 3/13/15


You are John does claim he was there. See first John 1.

Matthew is the Tax collector who was supposed to be one of the 12.
---Samuelbb7 on 3/13/15


Luke says he gathered the material to write an account of events:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, ...

Luke must not have been an eyewitness.
---Rod4Him on 3/13/15


Samuelbb7 wrote: No. The Two source theory is based on the understanding that the writers of the Gospels could not be eyewitnesses and telling what happened.

So it starts with the assumption the Bible is a lie and then justifies what it has assumed.


Matthew does not claim to be an eyewitness account, and neither does Mark. So where is the lie?

Cluny wrote: .The only problem with an objective document called Q (from the German Quelle or source) is if one believes that the writers of the Bible channeled it by a process akin to automatic writing.

I had heard one theory that the synoptic gospels were based on a lost, earlier Aramaic gospel, possibly written by Matthew. No automatic writing involved.
---StrongAxe on 3/12/15




No. The Two source theory is based on the understanding that the writers of the Gospels could not be eyewitnesses and telling what happened.

So it starts with the assumption the Bible is a lie and then justifies what it has assumed.

As noted Matthew, had to copy since he is a liar. Mark wrote what Peter told him and Luke says he collected stories from eyewitntesses.
---Samuelbb7 on 3/12/15


The only problem with an objective document called Q (from the German Quelle or source) is if one believes that the writers of the Bible channeled it by a process akin to automatic writing.

I've run across people who think things like this.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/12/15


Do you believe in the Two-Source Theory about The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke?
---Thomas on 9/10/14

Would it change my faith or yours if true?
Possibly mine....if anything varied from what GOD's multiple prophets, prophesied.
Even, where found that doctrinal men touched the KJV Bible, certainly all the newest versions, they can't out smart GOD. Their own devices are found by search...and are witnesses against them. Pointing back to truth.
GOD, provides for those who ask, seek,prophets verify.
Deu_4:29 But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
Psa_119:45 I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.
---Trav on 9/29/14


Do you believe in the Two-Source Theory...?

I can't say I do, nor that I don't. It's an interesting theory that attempts to explain the similarities between the books. Q is usually understood as being a source of Jesus' sayings. In addition, as was pointed out in the blog question, 95% of Mark is in M and L. The theory says that Q is common and Mark is common between the books.

All that does not take away from the inspiration of Scripture.
---Rod4Him on 9/28/14


Samuel, you will find the destruction of Jerusalem described in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. I hope that helps.
---lerner2 on 9/27/14




Dear Learner as a future event not a past one if memory serves me. If I am wrong could you please point out the verses of them saying it has happened.

Thank you.
---Samuelbb7 on 9/27/14


Sometimes scholars are over-educated and tend to believe the musings of fallible man over the inspired Word of God.


---jerry6593 on 9/26/14


Actually, Matthew, Mark and Luke, all three, make specific mention of the destruction of Jerusalem.
---learner2 on 9/21/14


Cluny, OK, thanks.
---learner2 on 9/21/14


The New Testament could have and I believe were written in the first century.

Many modern scholars say no because myths take longer to spring up. But the dating methods cannot give a exact answer so there is no hard proof either way. They were written in fist century Greek and the first writers of the list stated they were from the first century.

The modern scholars dismiss this since they believe the writers could not be first century.

Other scholars suggest that some were before 70 AD since they make no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem.

So it is a matter of faith in the end. Do we believe that GOD inspired and gave us the Bible or do we believe it is the work of just men and there is no god.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 9/21/14


\\Cluny, I don't quite follow your last comment.
---learner2 on 9/18/14\\

You said earlier that only Mark was written in the 1st century.

I said this is not true.

You said that many people believed it.

I said something to the effect that many people believing something is meaningless if what they believe is not the truth.

NOW do you understand?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 9/20/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


Cluny, I don't quite follow your last comment.
---learner2 on 9/18/14


\\Cluny, it is certain that many people think so anyway.
---learner2 on 9/18/14\\

What many people think is meaningless if it's not the truth.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 9/18/14


Cluny, it is certain that many people think so anyway.
---learner2 on 9/18/14


\\The most credible of the four Gospels is Mark because it was written in the 1st century.
---learner2 on 9/17/14\\

They all were.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 9/18/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


Sayeth versus saith. This depends how far back one wishes to go.

"Now therefore, thus SAYETH the Lord, Thou shalt not come downe from that bed on which thou art gone vp, but shalt surely die. And Eliiah departed."
- 1611 King James Bible

Cambridge Edition of KJV says "saith".
---Rita_H on 9/17/14


The most credible of the four Gospels is Mark because it was written in the 1st century.
---learner2 on 9/17/14


\\we know Full well that those chosen Inspired writers of Gods Word were moved to write from different places altogether not knowing, that and what the other is writing about also. Thus sayeth the Bible
---Jasper on 9/16/14
\\

Please give the EXACT BCV where the Bible saith (not sayeth) that the Gospel writers wrote independently, not knowing what the others were doing or conferring with them.

St. Luke begins his Gospel with a contradiction of what you claim.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 9/17/14


//Thus sayeth the Bible//
---Jasper on 9/16/14

I agree with it but the Bible does not say that.
---Scott1 on 9/16/14


Send a Free Holiday Ecard


"Major apostatises around 1838 so why bother with guess work when we know Full well that those chosen Inspired writers of Gods Word were moved to write from different places altogether not knowing, that and what the other is writing about also. Thus sayeth the Bible
---Jasper on 9/16/14


Some verses to read:

Remember, the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit who brings to rememberance all things.

John 14:26
John 2:22
John 16:4
Acts 20:35
1 Corinthians 11:2
1 Thessalonians 2:9
Jude 1:17

Remember the school field trip in which afterwards you were to write about your trip? How many students wrote almost the same thing as you did (without actually copying each other)?

Besides the four gospels, there were hundreds of other eyewitnesses who wrote about the life of Jesus - enough material to fill the Library of Congress.
---Steveng on 9/15/14


Well, if a number of witnesses have experienced the same thing, a lot of what they say will be the same, but there will be differences in details.

Something copied would be word for word the same, not interrupted by other things. And I don't see this to be the case. So, why is this idea even being discussed?

It seems ones just make up things. And if ones do not check for themselves, but only go by what has been said, these make-believers can fool some number of people, just by their say-so to lazy hearers.
---com7fy8 on 9/15/14


It really doesn't matter. It's the Word of God that is steeped with truth.

The only thing God is concerned with is: did you believe it? Did you obey it?
---kathr4453 on 9/12/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


I just found a good article by Jimmy Akin dealing with this "synoptic problem."

You now have enough information to find it for yourself.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 9/11/14


That is possible and Mark might be that Q text. However there are enough differences in methodology of writing (structure, detail, and language) and audience that Matthew written to Jews and Luke written to a personal friend that the different purposes is accomplished in spreading the knowledge of Jesus.
---Scott1 on 9/11/14


Does it matter?

Whether the writers of the three Synoptics were individually inspired or used what written material was available, they still wrote under God's leadership.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 9/10/14


The Two-Source Hypothesis was first circulated in 1838.

That was a magical time in major apostasies.

If there is a Q, then what else was said by Q? Boy, what a picture could be painted.

Players of Q, Jesus is the Christ.
---aka on 9/10/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.