ichabod crane

I wouldn't have thought that no current scholars defend it. But in relation to the Jesus Myth theory, it seems that the idea of Matthew using Luke as a source fits nicely. Matthew is the most Judaic of the gospels, and has as a primary concern explaining the Jew's rejection of Jesus as Messiah. This is the end stage of historicizing Jesus. Thus, I would postulate the following chronology based on the Jesus Myth hypothesis: Pauline epistles -> Gospel of John -> Gospel of Mark -> Gospel of Luke -> Gospel of Matthew. I would place the Gospel of John earlier than the other three because it seems to me to have strong docetic tendencies and to represent a "half-way house" in the historicization of the myth. The above reconstruction does not represent what most Jesus Myth theorists say; it is my own reconstruction based on their theory.

Actually Vinnie, there are many important historical issues and questions which have very little and ambiguous evidence. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be carefully researched and studied; bit by bit light is shed, even if our explanations end up only being best guesses. But if for no other reason then their supreme influence on Western civilization, the documents of the New Testament deserve painstaking historical examination, however difficult the task may be.

Vorkosigan

Why do you see this as the end stage? The problem of the Jewish rejection of Jesus is inherent in any historicization process.

Vinnie

"""""""""""Actually Vinnie, there are many important historical issues and questions which have very little and ambiguous evidence. """""""

That was my point. Little or ambiguous evidence is useless. NT scholars tend to stack ambiguous theories on top of one anothber compounding the probability or error.

"""""""""""That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be carefully researched and studied;""""""""

Of course but if the evidence is inconclusive say so and don't build on it. For example, those who write on the synoptic problem note all current views have problems. Scholars tend to just go with the one they think has the least problems//explains most things.

This hardly sounds like a great idea. Its guesswork built on top of guesswork.

"""""bit by bit light is shed, even if our explanations end up only being best guesses.""""""""

If all we are doing is guessing then those historical incidents you speak of should not be that important.

"""""""" But if for no other reason then their supreme influence on Western civilization, the documents of the New Testament deserve painstaking historical examination, however difficult the task may be."""""""""

Yes but if the scholar is not an uber-minimalist then he is either incompetant, biased, thinking wishfully or all three. When there is a paucity of evidence we don't make leaps and say x, y and z. We simply lack sufficient evidence regarding event x and leave it at that.

If all solutions to the synoptic problems today have weaknesses and problems, why should I buy any of them? Why not some hitherto unknown theory, something uber-complex like Boismard's?

There could have been all manner of shared sources // editors aware of different sources // stages of a gospel, etc. Parts of LK may be dependent upon MT while parts of MT are dependent upon LK while both also are dependent on a large saying source and smaller ones. For example, maybe original Luke had no infancy narrative and a later editor aware of Matthew's decided he wanted this gospel to have one and is so different from Matthews's because the evangelist decided "I'll show you how to write a birth narrative..."

Vinnie

Layman

You might want to check out, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, by Martin Hengel.

Therein, Hengel dates Luke before Matthew and shows some skepticism of Q. Can't remember how far he goes on the Luke and Matthew dependence angle.

Dominus Paradoxum

Thanks, I've now added it to my "list". Are there any others you could recommend? I'm just getting started in reading up on biblical criticism. So far I've the only book I've read in the area is The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture By Bart D. Ehrman.

Layman

I could recommend lots of books. But I was trying to think of some critical scholarship that took the idea of Lucan priority over Matthew seriously. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others (at least, not others that do not date Acts to 62 CE because there is no execution of Paul narrated).

Dominus Paradoxum

That's okay. I was looking for biblicial criticism in general -- that is, from any of the different areas.

Toto

The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, by Martin Hengel.

A short exerpt can be read on Amazon.

ichabod crane

Two reasons: keep in mind that on the Jesus Myth hypothesis, the anti-Judaistic elements in the gospels were intended to account for the fact that Christianity did not establish itself amongst the Jews and was regarded by them as heretical. If this is true, then firstly I would expect that once the anti-Jewish gospel was written (and Matthew is that gospel), that all subsequent gospels would want to incorporate the same anti-Jewish elements. But Mark and Luke don't. Secondly, the issue of addressing the problem of the Jews would only have arisen down the track as there was significant Jewish/Christian friction, and in that context it is hard to imagine gospels being written that didn't have anti-Jewish elements.

The only other possibility is geographical: Luke could have originated in an area where Christians had little contact with Jews, and Matthew in Palestine where the conflict was. But in that case there must be a Q, because the non-Mark commonalities between Luke and Matthew necessitate some relationship between them.

Vorkosigan

But this seems to me to be falling into the same trap that the Q proponents fall into: attributing motives where it is not possible to know them. Just as Q proponents claim Luke "wouldn't have" broken up the Sermon on the Mount, so you claim that Luke "wouldn't have" left out the anti-Jewish elements. But we don't know what went on in the minds of either Luke or Mark, so I can't really accept your assertion here. "Luke couldn't have" is not a valid argument.

That's certainly true. But in this passage you've explained anti-Jewish elements without recourse to a historicization process. Anti-Jewishness arises naturally out of the friction between Judaism and Christianity, and isn't necessarily the end of a historicization process. Whether Jesus was historical or not, the anti-Jewish stance is inevitable once Jews rejected him.

Right, but not necessarily a Q. Luke having Matthew explains everything. Anyway, it is hard to imagine Luke arising where there are no Jews (where would that be in the Roman Empire??).

Vorkosigan