Comment by irrational | Hacker News Reader

Comment by irrational | Hacker News Reader

> The Farrer hypothesis proposes that Matthew used Mark as a source, but Luke used both Mark and Matthew as a source. This approach is simple and negates the need for a Q source altogether.

> A weakness of the Q source hypothesis is the absence of any textual evidence despite extensive scholarly efforts to find it. The entire hypothesis is based on statistical and literary analysis and inference. It adds complexity to the synoptic problem by introducing an additional layer of tradition, transmission, and composition, which may not be warranted given the available evidence (or rather lack thereof).

Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that the Farrer hypothesis is most likely true?

Edit: Or, maybe I should just continue reading to the end first:

> On the other hand, it would also make for a more complex explanation than other scholars have proposed, violating the principle of Occam’s Razor. Alternatively, Mark could have been the source for Matthew, and Matthew for Luke, which is a much simpler explanation than the Q hypothesis.

You would think so, until you realize that Matt and Luke have some narratives in common to the exclusion of Mark.

That has to be accounted for, which is where Occam's Razor falls short. It's probably the strongest argument in favor of a Q source.

Which ones do they have in common?

Mark, according to tradition was a student of St. Paul, and he personally met St. Peter. Matthew was a Jesus disciple himself. Luke was also a friend of St. Paul, and possibly met St. Peter as well.

So, for me the simplest explanation is that Mark had to write his gospel on his own, because he was first, but Matthew and Luke could both use previous works as a source, so they do not have to start from scratch, but still they both did have enough of their own stories to add.

So, in the end "the Q source" isn't any written source it is just what they both remembered from their conversations with Peter and Paul (or, in Matthew's case, even with the Jesus himself).

I thought most scholars dated the gospels late enough such that the authors couldn't be people who actually knew Jesus. There isn't really much evidence as to who the authors were.

No. All the gospels were written within living memory of the events. The destruction of the temple dates the synoptics before 70CE.

The earliest Pauline Epistle, likely Epistle to the Galatians, was likely written within a couple decades of the crucifixion.

That's certainly not what most historians would say. Wikipedia has an article on dating the Bible and 70CE is the earliest date for Mark, with Matthew and Luke later than that. John is listed as possibly as late as 110CE.

Indeed: some scholars date the synoptic gospels after 70AD because of their metaphysical assumption that predicting the future is impossible.

But late dating creates a host of disparate problems that must be explained. One problem coming to mind: Acts of the Apostles clearly ends with Paul still being alive.

If you simply don't share the assumption that prophecy is fundamentally impossible, then early dating for Mt, Mc and Lc becomes easy to accept on the basis of evidence.

This. Many Christians take dating at face value and don't realize that most of the dating is based on the assumption that miracles (including knowing the future) is impossible, therefore the books must be written after the events mentioned therein have already occurred in the past.

'Most' is important to recognise here. I'm studying theology at Cambridge University and at least one current professor (in a small faculty) advocates strongly for an early dating of John (i.e. pre-70). It is important to note that a lot of the rationale behind dating, as with Q itself, is supposition/educated-guesswork. To take the example of John, arguments for a later dating, which is the mainstream perspective, is based on the idea that the theology is too developed for it to be early rather than direct historical evidence. Paul's epistles, which are early arguably display a very high christology, suggesting John is not such an outlier here.

Wikipedia's article on Mark dates it as sometime before 70CE, not as an earliest date, but as a minimum - thanks to Leander and Ehrman. I am not sure how you can make the claim that 70CE is earliest or what most historians would say.

Mark alludes to the war that began in 64CE, that eventually led to the destruction of the temple in 70CE, but does not mention that destruction. Thus, for the majority of scholars, Mark must have been written before that moment.

Further, Burkett and Duling date Matthew to within a decade of Mark being written, because of similar events that should have influenced the writing if it was later, but did not. On the other hand, some suggest an even earlier date to 40-50CE (Wright, Wenham).

You won't be able to force the synoptics to a "much later date", as they were dated and discussed (poorly) by Papias of Hierapolis in 95-110CE. Therefore the works happened before this. As he was also "a hearer of John", you also can't date the Gospel of John after Papias was already dead.

The majority view is that the synoptics were written within living memory of the original witnesses, as I've already stated.

Anybody that starts an argument with 'according to tradition' has already lost any scientific credibility.

> So, in the end "the Q source" isn't any written source it is just what they both remembered from their conversations with Peter and Paul (or, in Matthew's case, even with the Jesus himself).

What a amazing memories they had, decades later, without sharing a written source by just talking to the same people they literally produced the same text word for word, with common phrasing, literally style and everything. Yeah totally, that is incredibly likely.

Or you can actually read 'The case against Q' that shows there evidence of literally dependence.

At some point its pretty easy to identify who is serious about studying this topic and how just wants to take 'tradition' as an article of faith.

No serious scholar actually believes the gospels were written by the people they are attributed to. They were most likely written/compiled later and attributed to people with authority (which was common back then).

On the Farrer hypothesis, Luke used Matthew as a source, accounting for their shared material. Mark Goodacre may be the current leading academic proponent of the Farrer hypothesis. His article ‘Fatigue in the Synoptics’ (https://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fatigue.htm) is a short read that makes part of the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com