Was the Gospel of Matthew originally a sayings gospel

[papas]

Firstly, I'm not basing this entirely from the Papias and Irenaeus quotes. I'm wondering what the arguments are in favor and against the Gospel of Matthew being originally a sayings gospel:

Personally I think it was, seeing as Matthew 5:3-7:22 are entirely sayings.

However, if you examine, Luke 11-18 is almost entirely sayings as well, parables, so it may mean nothing.

I plan on making some statistics regarding the sayings in the Gospels, like percentage of sayings, amount of sayings, etc.

Any opinions are much appreciated,

Vlad

[Adam]

Firstly, I'm not basing this entirely from the Papias and Irenaeus quotes. I'm wondering what the arguments are in favor and against the Gospel of Matthew being originally a sayings gospel:
Personally I think it was, seeing as Matthew 5:3-7:22 are entirely sayings.
However, if you examine, Luke 11-18 is almost entirely sayings as well, parables, so it may mean nothing.
I plan on making some statistics regarding the sayings in the Gospels, like percentage of sayings, amount of sayings, etc.
Any opinions are much appreciated,
Vlad

You seem to be approaching this from self-study of limited scope.
You seem unaware of Higher Criticism and the theory that a Q document preceded the gospels we have know. The common understanding is that Q is basically all the sayings verses Matthew and Luke share, but excluding any that are in Mark. (I personally disagree on the finer points.) And as it appears unlikely that the Apostle Matthew is the author of Matthew as we have it, the best resolution of the external evidence (Papias and Irenaeus) and internal evidence is that he wrote Q, but others combined it with Mark and added further material. (This is called Matthean material, but not because Matthew wrote it. Similarly anything added in Luke that is not in Matthew or Mark is called Lucan material.)
Adam

[papas]

You seem to be approaching this from self-study of limited scope.
You seem unaware of Higher Criticism and the theory that a Q document preceded the gospels we have know. The common understanding is that Q is basically all the sayings verses Matthew and Luke share, but excluding any that are in Mark. (I personally disagree on the finer points.) And as it appears unlikely that the Apostle Matthew is the author of Matthew as we have it, the best resolution of the external evidence (Papias and Irenaeus) and internal evidence is that he wrote Q, but others combined it with Mark and added further material. (This is called Matthean material, but not because Matthew wrote it. Similarly anything added in Luke that is not in Matthew or Mark is called Lucan material.)
Adam

I know that it is the near-universal belief that Matthew and Luke redacted Q and Mark. That is not what I'm discussing here. I'm not an expert by far on the Synoptic Problem, but I just wanted to know some pros and cons to the sayings in our present Matthew being an independent sayings gospel.

[Nazaroo]

It may help to put the various theories regarding the Synoptic problem in perspective.

They were originally developed to avoid the conclusion that Matthew copied Luke or vise versa. This in the early days of liberal 'semi-Christian' apologetic criticism would have been a taboo, since the four Gospels would no longer be on an equal footing, and people would be encouraged to dig even deeper regarding gospel origins. The attitude taken by early Christian academia was "experts only: just enjoy our edifying apologetic commentaries".

As more people inside and outside the church and academia became aware of problems like the question of plagarism, the attitude shifted to "okay, you can peek, but its not for the squeamish".

Finally, in the post-Christian era of anti-faith academia, its, "You can still be a Christian, but you have no historical basis for it: smart people treat Jesus like Santa Claus."

But a realistic modern Christian faith-based view can easily accomodate a basic stance for the integrity of Holy scripture by a more sensible and calmer understanding of its purpose. From this point of view, Holy Scripture can be 'inerrant' because its scope is not intended to encompass 'modern science' or natural history. It can remain 'pure' because it was created in the form best suited to its original recipients, i.e., their language and cultural terms. It is then up to Christians to continue to update and refresh the translation and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, to preserve and reveal universal (eternal) truth.

With this more developed insight and self-examination, Christianity can accommodate the probability of various NT writers (including the evangelists) borrowing or quoting from one another, since they are part of a single developing and expanding community of believers.

As a result, commentators, theologians, and apologists are more open to considering the (quite plausible) possibility that Matthew is simply an ecclesiastical rearrangement of Luke for apologetic and liturgical/didactic purposes.

There is no more need for a 'Q', since modern Christian scholars are comfortable with the idea of evangelists borrowing from each other.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Ok I think we need to clear up a few things about the 'Q' document:

-First, Q is a purely hypothetical document. We have no copies of it, no quotes from it, and no references to it in other writings. In fact I'd go so far to say that we have no evidence that such a document even exists.

-For that reason most anything we can say about Q is little more than speculation.

-Third the only thing that proponents of the Q theory agree upon is that it pre-dates the gospels(or at least Matthew and Luke) and contains material from Luke and Matthew not found in Mark. Pronents of the Q theory disagree on everything else pertaining to Q: who wrote it, why they wrote it, where it was written or even what exactly it says(is it just sayings, or does it have naration as well? Does it have Markain material or is it strictly whats not in Mark?).

For my own part I reject teh Q theory because of the lack of evidence, and the simple fact that it is unnecessary(a common oral tradition with a basis in fact explains the problems 'Q' was created to address). However I'm more bothered by the ammount of stock thats put into a hypothetical document, as well as the crazier theories that are related to it.

[Zeluvia]

The gospel of Thomas is very like the hypothesized "Q document", a list of sayings of Christ.

The idea of Q came about by taking every verse of the three synoptics and laying them side by side, to find out where the similarities and differences were. There were enough similiarties between Matthew and Luke that were NOT in Mark to suggest there had been another document consisting just of the "sayings" of Christ.

This is not that much of a stretch, since the Gospel of Thomas has been found.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

The gospel of Thomas is very like the hypothesized "Q document", a list of sayings of Christ.

first, we're not certain Q was only sayings. Some assert it had a little narritave material, others claim it had a mix of mark and Matthew/Luke material.

Secondly the GoT is a far later document than Q, or any of the Biblical gospels. And was never accepted by the orthodox church.

Finally the fact that we have a document that is similar to what Q might be doesnt mean that said document must exist.

The idea of Q came about by taking every verse of the three synoptics and laying them side by side, to find out where the similarities and differences were. There were enough similiarties between Matthew and Luke that were NOT in Mark to suggest there had been another document consisting just of the "sayings" of Christ.

Again though, this is all speculation. Speculation is not evidence. And most certainly isnt worthy of hte ammount of attention that hte Q theory is given.

This is not that much of a stretch, since the Gospel of Thomas has been found.

I dont the Q theory is absolutely false. I simply see no reason to accept it. If someone could give some real evidence(NOT speculation) of its existence, I might be willing to change my mind.

[Zeluvia]

Well, you are right, it is only speculation that the writers of Matthew and Luke had another document other than Mark to work from, that explains the mulitiple similarites.

Until we find Q, in a pot in a cave somewhere, we can't prove it.

However, I would give it a 75% probablity that there WAS another document that both Matthew and Luke used in addition to Mark, just based on the number of identical parrallels in those two gospels.

As for the age of the Gospel of Thomas, that is currently in dispute, with some scholars dating it even before Mark.

[Adam]

However, I would give it a 75% probablity that there WAS another document that both Matthew and Luke used in addition to Mark, just based on the number of identical parrallels in those two gospels.
As for the age of the Gospel of Thomas, that is currently in dispute, with some scholars dating it even before Mark.

Yes, Zeluvia,
75% probability or more.
No, no, I'm sure no scholar dates the entirety of The Gospel of Thomas before Mark.. The half of Thomas that is like the Synoptics might have an early date, but the other half that is Gnostic is dated to the 2nd Century.
Adam

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Well, you are right, it is only speculation that the writers of Matthew and Luke had another document other than Mark to work from, that explains the mulitiple similarites.

And a common oral tradition with a basis in history explains the simalarities as well. Without having to having to speculate a mysterious document that we cant even agree on what it says.

Until we find Q, in a pot in a cave somewhere, we can't prove it.

I dont think finding a whole copy of the document is necessary. If we found a comment by an early writer to the effect that Matthew and Luke's source was a given document it would be enough to estabilsh that such a document probably existed.

However, when it comes to Q we have nothing except speculation. And until we have something else, anything else, theres no reason to accept it.

However, I would give it a 75% probablity that there WAS another document that both Matthew and Luke used in addition to Mark, just based on the number of identical parrallels in those two gospels.

I'd say the chances are quite a bit less. Probably closer to 30%(although assigning percentages to something like this is stupid). Considering that 1. The simalarities can be explaned other ways. And 2. Some of them are not really as 'similar' as they are made out to be.

[Adam]

I dont think finding a whole copy of the document is necessary. If we found a comment by an early writer to the effect that Matthew and Luke's source was a given document it would be enough to estabilsh that such a document probably existed.
However, when it comes to Q we have nothing except speculation. And until we have something else, anything else, theres no reason to accept it.

Well, how about St. Luke?
Lk 1:1:

Seeing that many others have undertaken to draw up accounts of the events...as these were handed down to us by those who from the outset were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.

Or are you an errantist?
ADam

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Well, how about St. Luke?
Lk 1:1:

Or are you an errantist?
ADam

Meh I was going to respond to this earlier, but I forgot.

Ok its not clear how many writings Luke is speaking of. He's talking about 'many' , however in a society where almost all information was transmitted oraly(and even most writings were ment to be read outloud to a group of people) he probably has in mind far fewer than we would think. Further, he was almost certainly including Matthew and Mark(and possibly John, although I personally think John was written after Luke) in here.

Also, theres nothing here to indicate anything that could be equated with what we would think of as Q. Honestly I dont think this verse can be used to say anything either way on the existence of such a document.

[Adam]

Meh I was going to respond to this earlier, but I forgot.
Ok its not clear how many writings Luke is speaking of. He's talking about 'many' , however in a society where almost all information was transmitted oraly(and even most writings were ment to be read outloud to a group of people) he probably has in mind far fewer than we would think. Further, he was almost certainly including Matthew and Mark(and possibly John, although I personally think John was written after Luke) in here.
Also, theres nothing here to indicate anything that could be equated with what we would think of as Q. Honestly I dont think this verse can be used to say anything either way on the existence of such a document.

Why am I not surprised that you are too dense to admit you were wrong?
Adam

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Why am I not surprised that you are too dense to admit you were wrong?
Adam

Because I'm not. I admit THe opening verses of Luke could include the 'Q' document, but it doesnt have to. And I also see no reason to think Luke wasnt including Matthew and Mark in his mind.

[Adam]

Because I'm not. I admit THe opening verses of Luke could include the 'Q' document, but it doesnt have to. And I also see no reason to think Luke wasnt including Matthew and Mark in his mind.

Granted, as to your first sentence. I dispute the second.
However, your position is lodged between a rock and a hard place.
Those who readily acknowledge that Luke may have been referring to early extant full gospels are often unbelievers who just flat-out believe that gospel is very late and unreliable. To take Luke-Acts seriously dates it to 64 A. D., which most scholars recognize is before the complete forms of any of the gospels (except Luke itself, which was indeed the first to be complete as we have it, apart from some textual problems in the D text and such). To take Luke seriously is to be faced with the fact that Luke knew of several written sources already in existence (some of which he probably never saw, but had heard of). One of these early sources was probably Q. Another was the earlier version of Mark that did not include the three chapters of Mark not found in Luke.
Adam