Favorite Gospel

[CaDan]

Canonical or non-canonical. :)

[fragmentsofdreams]

I like Luke. He is strong on the message that the Gospel is for all of humanity.

[CaDan]

I should express my biases, although I'm not voting. Normally, I really like Mark the best (especially read aloud in a good translation), but lately I have really been grooving on Matthew 5-7.

I find Thomas informative for another perspective on the sayings tradition. I find Peter intellectually interesting, but not particularly relevant to my faith.

current music: Peter Gabriel - Bread and Wine

[sakamuyo]

I prefer the Gospel of Christ. :)

[Toney]

Matthew. It was written for Jewish-Christians.

(My ancestry is Scottish, btw)

[Polycarp1]

I love Matthew, Luke, and John for different reasons. Matthew for his familiarity (many of the "lines everybody knows" are from Matthew's rendition of them) and for his steadfast stance on the Gospel in a difficult context; Luke for the compassion and focus on what's most important; and John for the exalted concepts and transcendency of everyday things that his portrait of Jesus uses.

[tulc]

I like the Gospel that led me to become a Christian. I like the gospel that keeps me serving Him and my brothers and sisters.
tulc( ;) )

[PaladinValer]

The Gospel according to St. Matthew for me

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I like Luke the best.

[Buttermilk]

(My ancestry is Scottish, btw)
There are two types of people in the world:
Those who are Scottish and those who wish they were :P ;)

[Buttermilk]

S'cuse my total ignorance but what is Q when it is at home?

[Polycarp1]

S'cuse my total ignorance but what is Q when it is at home?
Q, which unfortunately has never been at home for people to visit, is short for the German Quelle, or "source" -- there's a German equivalent to Montgomery Ward or Sears Roebuck called "Quelle" with the same sort of thick catalog as they used to put out, being "the source for what you want to buy."

What Q is, is a hypothetical construct, either a document or an oral tradition, of sayings of Jesus -- "pericopés" -- that are found in both Matthew and Luke's Gospels but are not present in Mark. It is hypothecated that the final editions of the Matthew and Luke books were constructed by using Mark as a frame story, including the material from Q, and material exclusive to each writer. Luke tells us that he, seeing all the stories about Jesus that were going around, researched out what could be believed among them and wrote it down for the benefit of "Theophilus."

The problem is that there is absolutely no evidence for Q other than the fact that Matthew and Luke (the books) contain material clearly identical or nearly so, though often in quite different places, that is not in Mark -- but all three "Synoptic Gospels" agree on about 90% of what is in Mark, so there was clearly a connection. And it does not stand to reason that Mark would have abridged Matthew by leaving out three quarters of the teaching stories.

There is a logical solution to this, though: the early Christian writer Papias tells us that the Apostle Matthew first wrote down the logia of Jesus, though not in order. Logia is not the plural of logos, "word," though it's a related word -- it means, roughly, "sayings, oracles, teachings." And that sounds very much like what the Q source is supposed to be, since nearly everything hypothecated to be a part of Q is "stories and teachings of Jesus."

There's also the problem that we're given to understand by the source critics that there were separate oral traditions -- which is a fine concept if you're talking hundreds of years of a nomadic people, but we're looking at stuff within the lifetimes of people who had known and followed Jesus.

So the theory is that what Papias said is true -- Matthew Levi did collect the teachings of Jesus. Meanwhile Mark put together a narrative of Jesus's life, with the theme of showing Him as Son of God, basing it largely on Peter's reminiscences (also historically attested). Luke works from a copy of Mark, a copy of Matthew's logia document, and his own researches (traditionally he was a close friend to Mary after Paul's death, and could have gotten a lot of the early-chapter stuff that's unique to him from her).

Meanwhile somebody, probably in Antioch, does a free translation of the logia document into Greek, and uses Mark as a frame story, Either Matthew the Apostle or this somebody collects the bulk of Jesus's teachings in the logia document into thematic groups, which this somebody includes as the five great sermons in Matthew -- the Sermon on the Mount, the denunciation of the Pharisees and the eschatological discourse of chapters 23-25, and so on. Using Mark as framework, then, this editor makes the logia become the five sermons and a few other inclusions, to produce the Gospel According to Matthew as we know it today. (Calling it that when it was his editing job was quite legitimate in those times -- it was the Gospel, complete with Jesus's life story, and it was "according to Matthew" because it included his collection of teachings complete. The editor would modestly have omitted any reference to himself, presenting it as Matthew's work; in his view, all he had done was to organize it better.)

This accounts for what's called "the Synaptic Problem" -- the fact that all the first three Gospels tell the same story, but with the details and the teachings in different places -- while minimizing the amount of assumptions not historically documented that one needs to make.

[CaDan]

As you might have guessed, I am more of a Q guy myself, specifically the Helmut Köster version. HOWEVER, I am in no way dogmatic about it. There are a variety of solutions to the Synoptic Problem, but none of them are able to completely explain it.

A very nice overview of most of the theories is found at
The Synoptic Problem Homepage (http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/)

[Toney]

That's a very good overview.

Another variant (not included on CaDan's link) on the 2SH solution is advanced by Spong. I used to be a Q guy.

Mark, primary source, midrashic* development of a lectionary for liturgical use in the Jesus community between Passover and Rosh Hashana; then,

Matthew, with Mark in front of him. Midrash lectionary for use by the Jesus people covering the entire Jewish liturgical year; then,

Luke, with Matthew and Mark in front of him. Christian midrashim par excellence! Events in the (five book) Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy) are reinterpreted chronologically to point to Christ.

*midrash = the underlying significance of Biblical text where present events are given new meaning and understanding by examining the past as recorded in Hebrew scripture. Ergo, Matthew's creative genius in expanding Mark's Gospel accounts for the 'Q' material.

[Buttermilk]

Thanks Polycarp1 :)

[CaDan]

That's a very good overview.

Another variant (not included on CaDan's link) on the 2SH solution is advanced by Spong. I used to be a Q guy.

Mark, primary source, midrashic* development of a lectionary for liturgical use in the Jesus community between Passover and Rosh Hashana; then,

Matthew, with Mark in front of him. Midrash lectionary for use by the Jesus people covering the entire Jewish liturgical year; then,

Luke, with Matthew and Mark in front of him. Christian midrashim par excellence! Events in the (five book) Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy) are reinterpreted chronologically to point to Christ.

*midrash = the underlying significance of Biblical text where present events are given new meaning and understanding by examining the past as recorded in Hebrew scripture. Ergo, Matthew's creative genius in expanding Mark's Gospel accounts for the 'Q' material.

It's there. It's usually known as the Farrer Hypothesis. Michael Goulder expanded on it. Spong adopts Goulder's analysis.

Nice overview here (http://ntgateway.com/Q/) by Mark Goodacre, a student of Goulder's.

I'm still wating for my phone call from Loome that they have found a copy of Luke: A New Paradigm for me.

current music: Thomas Dolby - Windpower

[elanor]

I love all the gospels, and couldn't possibly choose one over another. :)

[Toney]

It's there. It's usually known as the Farrer Hypothesis. Michael Goulder expanded on it.

Sure is. Thanks for pointing it out to me, Dan. What do you think of FH as a way to D-Q?

[Rising Tree]

John ROCKS. It shows a more down-to-earth Jesus than any other gospel.

[Reader Nilus]

I like St Luke, because he pulls no punches when it comes to the social teachings of the Kingdom.
Jeff the Finn

[CaDan]

Sure is. Thanks for pointing it out to me, Dan. What do you think of FH as a way to D-Q?

I don't know what "D-Q" means in this context.

I think the Farrer hypothesis's largest problem is in the treatment of the Markan material appearing in both Matthew and Luke. Luke seems to never be influenced by Matthew's modifications of Mark, which strikes me as strange if Luke had both Matthew and Mark to work from. Luke seems to work directly from Mark and never from Matthew's modifications of Mark.

current music: Guitar Slim & Jelly Belly - Hummingbird Blues

[Toney]

I was being too cute. I wondered if the Farrer hypothesis provided a persuasive argument against a need for Q material, i.e. to D-Q.

Luke seems to have relied on Matthew for the Faith of the Centurion story (Lk 7, Mt 8). There are other examples. As Luke worked the story of Jesus as midrashim from the Torah, the Exodus material appears to be mostly Marcan but Levitical material like the Centurion's story seems to be Matthean. I don't know; it's not my field. To me, DQ is ice cream.

[tulc]

To me, DQ is ice cream.
Yes please, two scoops vanilla!
tulc(it always get back to ice cream hallelujah!) :thumbsup:

[Toney]

/me sees that CaDan has left the creamery for a moment.

We got soft hypothetical vanilla, solidly frozen literal vanilla, and deconstructed vanilla al dente, which is the best, say Hallelujah! Quale?

[CaDan]

I've been minding threads with the smokers, hoods, and greasers over in Liberal Theology! Sorry!

current music: REM - Paint It Black (bootleg cover)

[elanor]

Why must every thread dwindle to talk of ice cream? The "cute" of this is rapidly wearing off...

[tulc]

I've been minding threads with the smokers, hoods, and greasers over in Liberal Theology!
man, sounds like my white trash roots! :) I knew there was a reason I felt drawn there!
tulc(hanging on the corner, lowering property values, that was my first job) :cool:

[CaDan]

Why must every thread dwindle to talk of ice cream? The "cute" of this is rapidly wearing off...

Because kids love ice cream!

Matthew 11

16* ¶ But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,
17* And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
19* The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

And my exegetical hat is a lot more boring. I tend to get mean, which is definitely something to avoid. You can ask seebs about what a charmer I am when I get mean . . .

current music: Aaron Copeland - Simple Gifts (from Appalachian Spring)

[elanor]

I just get tired of clicking on a link in my subscribed threads, expecting to see a response on topic, and instead seeing posts about ice cream. We have a cafe thread. Can't you put it there and stop taking other threads off-topic?

[CaDan]

Luke seems to have relied on Matthew for the Faith of the Centurion story (Lk 7, Mt 8). There are other examples. As Luke worked the story of Jesus as midrashim from the Torah, the Exodus material appears to be mostly Marcan but Levitical material like the Centurion's story seems to be Matthean. I don't know; it's not my field. To me, DQ is ice cream.

But Faith of the Centurion is not Markan. It is Q material. I guess I'm not seeing your argument here.

Actually, I think the arguemnt against Luke's reliance on Matthew is pretty strong in this story. Luke likes the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (he uses it six times). Matthew uses this phrase in Mt. 8:12 for the only time in his gospel. It seems very strange that Luke would not pick up on this phrase and use it in his version of the story when he likes that phrase so much in other places.

Now: would y'all rather have this or ice cream?

current musci: eorge Gershwin - An American in Paris

[Toney]

Now: would y'all rather have this or ice cream?



Enough Q for me! Any Neapolitan? :yum:

[zoziw]

The Gospel of John is my favourite.

[Treasure the Questions]

I don't think I have a favourite, each of the gospels in the New Testament contribute something different to the picture of Jesus I have, and I need them all to get a complete picture - or as complete as we can have.

Karin

[Grimace]

The Gospel of John is my favourite.
Mine too :)

[UberLutheran]

1) Of the Canonical Gospels, Luke is the only one which which makes a concerted effort to present Jesus' humanity -- the Son of God, but fully human at the same time.

2) Luke's Jesus pulls no punches with regards to social teachings. We are to care for others the same way God cares for us. Period.

3) Luke actually tries to make a history of the life and work of Jesus, combined with the work of the early Church. Luke-Acts is very good reading in and of itself, on its own terms.

[Zacharias]

Yochanan is my favorite Gospel.

[cygnusx1]

I love all of them but I voted for John ...............:amen:

[Iosias]

My favourite is most definitely Matthew :)

[cygnusx1]

Luke used to be my fav , when I became a Calvinist John's Gospel became my fav because so many locked doors flew open! :wave:

[LADY DI]

John's Gospel is my favorite. :)

[meebs]

Matthew best. :D I think John is a little too long winded for me - i dip in and out, but matthew is easier on the brain. :scratch:

The other two are ok. ^_^ ^_^

[stumpjumper]

Being a Lutheran, I'm kind of a fan of Matthew.

It comes up a lot on the liturgical calender...

[artrx]

They all have thier unique slants and gifts, but i like John the most.

[Mandrake]

I was torn between Matthew and Thomas, and ended up saying Thomas. I really enjoy hearing Christ's words presented in their most unadulterated form. I love the narrative in Matthew, and there's no doubt that he had a way with words, presenting many of Christ's teachings in their most memorable forms, but there's something about the rather stark sayings of Thomas that really appeals to me.

[Im_A]

I was torn between Matthew and Thomas, and ended up saying Thomas. I really enjoy hearing Christ's words presented in their most unadulterated form. I love the narrative in Matthew, and there's no doubt that he had a way with words, presenting many of Christ's teachings in their most memorable forms, but there's something about the rather stark sayings of Thomas that really appeals to me.

i agree. from what i've read of Thomas, there seems, and i could be wrong in how i'm seeing this book, but there seems more of a pushing on the individual to seek out truth. i'm not saying there isn't that in the other cannonical books, but i like how the Gospel of Thomas portrays that...as far as i have gotten in my reading of it for that matter.

i haven't voted yet, because i don't know how i can vote.

[Mandrake]

The gnostic influences on Thomas do seem to encourage that sort of continual pursuit of spiritual truth, as opposed to some of the other Gospels, which have traditionally been presented as spiritual truth in and of themselves. I hadn't thought of it that way before, though it actually probably explains part of why I enjoy it.

[cygnusx1]

usually John's Gospel , but I have a fondness for LUKE's Gospel .

[eRev]

John babe

...all you need is love love
love is all you need