Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

9

Mark is more reliable.¹ Even if you were to completely discredit Mark², something is more than nothing. You cannot reasonably compare the accuracy of one document that exists with one that is only speculated to exist. Anybody that tries to tell you differently is selling something³. Answering your stated question is really that simple. In the world of ...


6

The Gospel of Thomas consists mostly of sayings, and it explicitly claims to be a Gospel in its first sentence. So that's pretty good evidence that something like Q would have been thought of as a gospel around the time when Thomas was written (which is sometime between the mid 1st and mid 2nd century, we don't know). On the other hand, we don't know when ...


5

The existence of Q was first inferred by 19th century German theologians from a statement made by the 2nd century bishop Papias of Hierapolis. Papias is quoted in Eusebius' History of the Church as saying, "Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." (History of the Church, 3.39.16). The Germans pointed ...


5

Abstract Q is an entirely theoretical document that nevertheless seems likely to have existed if Mark was the the first written Gospel. It's long been known that Matthew, Mark, and Luke share significant material and we know from internal evidence that Luke incorporated a variety of sources: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of ...


4

Since the Gospel of Thomas was first discovered, scholars have been divided on whether the gospel was written in the second century or early in the first century. One view is based on the assumption that gnosticism could not have existed before about the second century, because Christian doctrine could not have split into two distinct streams so soon after ...


3

The Synoptics are very similar to each other, and it's almost universally agreed that this similarity is such that there had to be a literary relationship between them. That is, in many places the authors had access to one of the other Gospels, or that the authors of two gospels had a common written source. There are two basic patterns which any solution ...


3

There is no certain evidence that Q is earlier than Mark, although parts of it could be. Some scholars of the 'Q' hypothesis believe they have identified three distinct layers in Q, written over a period of time. The Didache, a community rule-manual of discipline on church order, is widely regarded as having existed, at least in its earliest form, earlier ...


1

Egerton may be to John what Q is hypothetically to Matt/Luke. Wikipedia cites Jon B. Daniels (The Complete Gospels): "... suggestions that the Egerton Gospel served as a source for the authors of Mark and/or John also lack conclusive evidence. The most likely explanation for the Egerton Gospel's similarities and differences from the canonical gospels is ...


1

To me, in order for any book to be considered a Gospel the first thing it would have to have is the teaching of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ since that's what the word means in the underlying NT Greek in the canonical Gospels. That is the good news after all; that Christ died, was buried, and rose again! εὐαγγέλιον (euaggelion) ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible