gnosis92

Earl Doherty argues that Luke and Matthew expanded on Mark, and therefore do not provide an independent witness to a historical Jesus, and John also.

Bart Ehrman in his work Introduction to the New Testament argued that the material in Luke and Matthew that is not contained by mark and Q contain special material L and M, and that they do provide independent witnesses to a historical Jesus. In other words, even though "Luke" and "Matthew" used Mark and Q as their primary sources, they still believed in, and attest to a historical Jesus, and had access to their own independent sources for him.

John may or may not be dependent on Mark, but even if John did use Mark, he included his own special material, which would suggest John and possibly a signs gospel as indepedent witnesses to a historical Jesus.

The Gospel of Thomas and Peter may be in the same camp, and the Gospel of Thomas may attest to an early version of Q, Q1 and Q2, that Q was a collection of sayings attributed to a historical Jesus, and probably indepedent of Mark.


So according to Ehrman, we have Paul, Q, special L, M, John, a possible signs gospel, and possibly Thomas, and Peter as independent attestations of a historical Jesus. While Matthew and Luke relied on Mark as their primary source, contra Doherty, they accepted a historical Jesus, and supplemented Mark with their own information about the historical Jesus, which may come from oral or written traditions then circulating in their time period, a mere 40-50 years after the event.

EarlDoherty

Neither Ehrman nor anyone else has any clear way of demonstrating that the “special material” in Luke and Matthew is based on Jesus traditions, is invention by L & M, or from some other source not attributed to Jesus. Labelling it as “attesting” to an HJ or that L & M “believed in” an HJ is simply wishful thinking. Since there is so much acknowledged invention, a lot of it based on scripture, in the redaction of sources on the part of L & M, it's not a leap of faith to figure that the "special material" comes from the L & M imagination, too.

The fact that John’s material, especially teaching material, is so different from everyone else’s would tend to rule it out as representing any tradition attached to Jesus, since how could such dramatically different tradition have arisen and survived over time in its own insularity in competition with the synoptic? Far more sensible that it is the product of the community that produced the GJn. I believe it originally reflected that community’s thinking and language about their (originally spiritual) Revealer Son, and got grafted onto an ‘HJ’ story when the Johannine community came in contact with the synoptic Gospel(s). And since John had no compunction about changing, stripping off all manner of material he must have inherited from that synoptic source, this is hardly an indicator that he had to believe in an HJ.

But even if every single evangelist “believed in” an historical Jesus, on the basis of the previous synoptic or Q material they encountered, this would not have to indicate that there was one. The existence of an historical figure at the root of Q is a separate issue, one which I have addressed chiefly in The Jesus Puzzle.

When preconception is not brought to the question, it is relatively easy to understand that Mark simply invented the Gospel story, with most of its characters, set against a Q-type preaching-movement background, incorporating the passion element (based on a cultic precedent) into the mix. Everything follows from Mark, with the Q and Thomas material originally unattached to anyone in particular. When you start a snowball rolling down a cluttered hill, it tends to pick up a lot of material. When a number of them get rolling, some are bound to collide and even cohere.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

dog-on

If you were to read the Gospels of John and Mark without trying to understand John in light of Mark (or vice versa), one could easily come to the conclusion that they are talking about two different people. Matthew and Luke simply add to the confusion.

Her pinkness saves

line up about a dozen 7 year olds. You are mark/Q, whisper something into the far left kids ear and tell him to pass it on. Once it's gone through the group select the middle kid(luke) and the far right kid (matthew), and have them write down what they heard.

Now, Tell us what happens next, remembering that they are both (ultimately) working from the same source. ^^

gnosis92

I respectfully disagree, as do most professional academic historians. Since "matthew" and "luke" lived closed in time to the events narrated, and since the mere fact "Jesus existed" is not an extraordinary claim, if they accept the historicity of jesus, and we have no good reason to doubt it, i see no reason to reject it. The presence of special m and special l implies an existence of a hj independent of mark and q, and matthew and luke attribute their special material to hj. i agree with you that ehrman has no way of "proving" special m and l come from a hj rather than a concoction, but 1- matthew and luke attribute m and l to a hj, and
2- they lived close in time to the events narrated, 3- we have no good reason to doubt it.

i don't deny you can doubt anything, but it seems to me much of history of antiquity is accepting the records antiquity has provided for us unless there is very good evidence to dout it.


i'll leave the material in john for professonal scholars, but for neil diamond klotz, he feels the material preserved in john and thomas represents authentic hj tradition

matthew, luke and thomas attribute Q to a hj as well. three different groups, matthew luke and thomas have had a copy of Q and they all attribute q to a hj, rather than john the baptist. that implies hj enjoys multiple attestations, something professional historians accept (along with contextual credibility and dissimilarity) as evidence for a historical j.

for what it's worth i do think paul and other early xtians thought of a hj along the lines of a mj as you describe-- i agree with you platonic thinking is reflected in paul and hebrews.

Mythra

And, exactly how would it be determined that their own "independent sources" were nothing more than their own ideas and personal ideologies that they wove into the story? I fail to see why it's unacceptable to think that some of the details in the gospels are the sole product of the imaginations of the writers.

gnosis92

some ideas no doubt, but i fail to see why it's unaceptable to think that some of the details in the gospels are the product of communal remembrance of historical events.

ehrman argued that some of special m's material is dissimilar, that is to say, it contradicts, christian ideas of salvation, for example the parable of goats and sheep, which states it is how you treat the poor, not your belief in jesus, which saves you. this dissimilarity is one reason to accept the passage as authentic tradition. it also contains apocapltic imagery, which for ehrman supports the idea of a hj as an apocalptyic prophet, which was clearly attentuanted in later documents.

Mythra

One could also argue that this dissimilarity argues against a single historical founder. At least on the surface, it certainly appears that individual groups were each trying to get in their two cents worth, and placing the words into the mouth of Jesus.

This is very apparent when you compare the synoptics with John. No thinking person could imagine that Jesus' spoke primarily in parables and mysterious sayings, and also spoke in the long soliloquies that we find in John.

Mythra

On the other hand, if Jesus had presented a single, coherent message, just imagine the scores of christian authors, expositors, apologists, and theologians who would have to go out and find a real job.

Machiavelli

Thanks for the link, nice read.