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.
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.
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).
> 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.
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.
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.