If they discovered a Q fragment. How would they even know? Wouldn't it look the same as a page from Matthew and Luke?

>>17785360 (OP)
Protip: The Gospel of Thomas is Q.
Bible scholars are afraid to explore that angle because it's basically heresy and there's still religious bias in Bible studies.

>>17785812
Does the Gospel of Thomas have corresponding material for all the verses attributed to Q?
I don't think it does, but I'm not sure.

>>17785812
no, it does not match the synoptics.
one of the synoptics is Q, the others copy it.

>>17785360 (OP)
Protip: The Q source is a hypothetical with no evidence other than literary patterns found throughout mark and Luke.

There are a million other hypotheses to explain the literary dependency including Hebrew Proto-gospels from any of the gospel authors, such as Matthew (which has historical evidence).

>>17785812

Have you even read Thomas you brainlet? It's a short document with 114 sayings. None of them are from the Matthew-Luke double tradition. The reason people bring up the Gospel of Thomas is because it's an example of a "sayings Gospel" which is what Q would've been. The only thing the Gospel of Thomas has with Q would be the layout of the document, not the actual content.

>>17787447

So where did the authors of Matthew and Luke get their information from?

>>17788298
Matthew was an eye witness apostle, capable of writing his own primary testimony.

Luke literally starts his gospel by saying
>1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

>>17785360 (OP)
Systematically? I'm not sure, but in general, yes, Thomas represents the missing common source quite well.

>>17787440
>>17788293
There's some papers written on how the Synoptics rip material from Thomas. I'll try to find them again. All I'm saying is the reason this perspective is obscure is because of the state of Bible scholarship. There's still religious dogma and religious people who are gatekeeping things that seem like heresy.

>>17788307

>They were eyewitness accounts.

so Matthew, Mark, and Luke coincidentally wrote similar events they were eyewitness accounts to (but left out all the material that John later remembered). Interesting.

>>17788361
https://www.academia.edu/40695711/Absolute_Thomasine_priority_the_Synoptic_Problem_solved_in_the_most_unsatisfactory_manner
https://www.academia.edu/40951733/Two_types_of_Jesus_parables_canonical_vs_Thomasine_like_night_and_day
https://www.academia.edu/41668680/The_72_logia_of_Thomas_and_their_canonical_cousins

>they don't know that it was written by Greeks

>>17788372
>so Matthew, Mark, and Luke coincidentally wrote similar events they were eyewitness accounts
No, Matthew was the only eyewitness out of those three. Mark was Peter's scribe in Rome and used his testimony. And Luke wrote under Paul and did his own separate investigation.

>(but left out all the material that John later remembered)
buddy, its been 2000 years, these arguments have already been settled for a millennia.
John was apart of Jesus's inner circle of Apostles which included Peter and James.
John also had an ego, he liked to call himself "The beloved apostle" (to be fair, Jesus did leave Mary in his care)
John's entire gospel is focused on the theology and the deeper meanings behind Jesus's teachings.
John's gospel comes 20-30 years after the other three.
John probably read one of the gospel's and said "Mine will be better" and started writing.

>>17788398
This sounds right

>>17788398

>Only John was able to remember all these public events that allegedly had thousands of witnesses. Matthew, Mark, and Luke weren't.

The three major literary sources behind the Synoptic Gospels:
1. The Gospel of Thomas. This is the immediate source behind the Jesus character and his sayings
2. Homer. This is where the overarching plotline comes from, putting Jesus and his disciples into different events and places
3. The Old Testament. Some events come from here but Old Testament inspiration was necessary to put a Jewish spin on things to make the New Testament seem like a continuation of the Old. It's like "Abrahamic glue" to make it suitable to that religious base

>>17788408
this is why i subscribe to the "Hebrew Proto-gospel of Matthew"

>Matthew writes his first gospel in Hebrew (a well versed jew writing to a Jewish audience about Jewish prophecy fulfillment)
>Mark and Luke read it and get a general consensus of how things went
>Mark asks Peter for his perspective on the specific events mentioned by Matthew
>Luke does his investigation and questioning based on the events in the proto gospel
>Both gospels are published in Greek
>John reads one and says "well Matthew didn't write about miracles that were irrelevant to Jewish prophecy or Jesus's deeper theology, so that's how I will write mine"

>>17785360 (OP)
Assuming a Q document exists, it was not a narrative like the surviving gospels but something like a collection of sayings of Jesus. Personally I haven't heard many scholars talking about Q lately, because its not really necessary to explain why Mathew and Luke share stuff that Mark lacks.
>>17785812
I think there are a number of scholars who thing Thomas contains actual fragments of the oral traditions of the early Church, perhaps even as much as the Canonical gospels. Its complete dismissal is more part of Christian scholarship rather than secular.

>>17785360 (OP)
Not necessarily. It would contain similar elements to the Matthew and Luke, but it could also very well have very different tales and elements interspersed. The two gospels only share like a quarter of their material iirc.
>>17788361
>buddy, its been 2000 years, these arguments have already been settled for a millennia.
Two monks coming to an acceptable compromise rationalization while still presuming as a starting point that the religion is true is not settling.
Critical analysis of the Gospels is barely a few hundred years old, and most of that was extreme baby steps.

>>17788430
>Homer as source of the synoptic gsopels.
Lmao what. May you explain, please?

>>17788474
I'm not sure what anon is talking about, but I have heard scholars point out that in the original Greek, parts of the gospels pretty directly copy language used in Homer.

>>17788361

Really? Which verses from Thomas?

>>17788449

That's the "Injil" that Muslims believe in.

>>17788430

He can't explain. He's just a pseud who watches MythVision and thinks he's smart.

>>17788474
Dennis MacDonald's work is quite well known now. I'm surprised I have to explain this. His work on Homeric parallels is high quality. Check out his newest book Synopses of Epic, Tragedy, and the Gospels on Library Genesis at the very least.

>>17788491
>That's the "Injil" that Muslims believe in.
uh no. Jesus didn't write anything.

>>17788487
Read the third paper I linked to here: >>17788379

>>17788491
>MythVision
You can cope about this all you want but I personally looked over MacDonald's parallels myself and I find them convincing.
I'm not here to talk to religious people by the way. I do not care what you believe in. I'm just here to give pointers to those who want to do their own research.

>>17788449
Why would Matthew write in Hebrew, which wasn't even spoken by then? Why would he be literate in Hebrew, at that? He was a customs officer, not a priest, not a rabbi. His account would be written in Greek or Aramaic, which were the common languages of the area and the ones he'd be reasonably literate in.
>>17788499
Thanks.

>>17788532
The only Gospel like document I can even imagine being written in Hebrew would be titled "Account of the Blasphemer Yeshu" and written by Shmuel ben Akiva for the edification of some random Babylonian Yeshiva.
I guess the Toledot Yeshu kind of counts.

>>17788486
>parts of the gospels pretty directly copy language used in Homer

Posthomerica lasted through the medieval period.

>>17788532
>>17788542
they could also be in Aramaic. There are plenty of writings, psalms and manuscripts found in Aramaic around the Galilee region. And that is the language Jesus likely spoke at the time.

>>17788398
>John also had an ego
>and started writing

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written

>>17788602
the point is, these other hypotheses have just as much validity as a secret list of sayings by Jesus that somehow Matthew and Luke both knew about but the Church didn't preserve (Q).

>>17788602
There's really no such thing as Hebrew at the time in the classical period. It's all Aramaic. Hebrew is a subset that comes up much later in medieval reinterpretations of the language.

I would go the other way and say that the original NT was Latin and the original OT was Greek.

Jesus probably only uses Aramaic in certain circumstances. He usually exclaims in it, which is evidence that he wasn't using it primarily, which means he was using Greek. Even the supposed temple of cohens used Greek. Although, Clermont-Ganneau records many forgeries produced in more modern Hebrew supposedly taken from the site, they were all figured out over a century and some decades ago.

>>17788690
>Jesus probably only uses Aramaic in certain circumstances. He usually exclaims in it, which is evidence that he wasn't using it primarily, which means he was using Greek.
All of Roman Judea spoke Aramaic. Galilee, Capernaum, and Nazareth were populated by 100% Aramaic speakers.. Officials from Rome and outsiders spoke Greek. If anything, it would be the opposite, where Jesus spoke commonly in Aramaic while exclaiming in Greek..

>>17788705
In the just about translation of the Bible Jesus is exclaiming in Aramaic only. Also, there's not really that much evidence for Aramaic. It supposedly explodes in the time of the Achaemenid's but even there the evidence is scant.It's mostly a post-Israeli narrative to try to match the region up to their fake historical accounts. It's like how they take literal Canaanite inscriptions but call them proto-Hebrew in order to write themselves into a history that they don't belong in. The region was largely Latinized before the Romans formally even assimilated the territories. Caesarea, Diocaesarea, and other places existed when the Levantine client kings were still around. Those Levantine client kings largely have Greek names. I can't think of a single one that doesn't. Herod for example is a Greek name. But in truth, many supposedly "ancient Hebrew" names like Shimon are actually Greek, the word Simon appears two hundred years in Greek before it ever appears in Aramaic.

>>17788721
no that's complete pseudo history. Aramaic native to this specific region of Judea and was even on the rise during the time of Christ. It evens sees its peak dominance as the primary language of the region from 100-600 AD until the Islamic conquests.

>>17788742
>It evens sees its peak dominance as the primary language of the region from 100-600 AD until the Islamic conquests

Wrong. Syriac already phased out Aramaic by around 300 AD. It's why Origen's Hexapla made from six sources the Bible only survives in Syriac and not in Aramaic/Hebrew. In fact, when Origen wrote his final edition, the Tetrapla (the four books), he removed the two Aramaic/Hebrew sources because he thought they couldn't be trusted. Even in his time Aramaic had only spurious accounts and copies.

>>17785360 (OP)
>Wouldn't it look the same as a page from Matthew and Luke?
It would look a lot like Matt and Luke, but would have other parts that are different.
>>17788307
There's no evidence that any of the attributed authors actually wrote anything. That's just church tradition that attributed the authors to the texts, with the flimsiest of justifications.

>>17789596
>There's no evidence that any of the attributed authors actually wrote anything. That's just church tradition that attributed the authors to the texts
this is an unprovable, baseless atheist talking point and you know it.
Just because we don't have the originals doesn't mean the authorship should be questioned. We've also never found a manuscript that didn't properly attribute the correct author to the gospel. Which is evidence. Also Why settle for forging authorship by Mark or Luke? and not Peter or Paul?
We don't have the original manuscript for Homer's Odyssey, but no one denies its authorship.