Some of those who subscribe to the theory that the Jesus traditions were not published until decades after the resurrection assert that authorized tradents were responsible for accurately preserving the traditions via "oral tradition" methods. For example, Richard Bauckham contends that > Of crucial importance for our whole argument in this book is the role of individual authors and tradents of Jesus traditions. We have suggested that the traditions were originated and formulated by named eyewitnesses, in whose name they were transmitted and who remained the living and active guarantors of the traditions. **In local Christian communities which did not include eyewitnesses among their members, there would probably be recognized teachers who functioned as authorized tradents of the traditions they had received from the eyewitnesses either directly or through very few (authorized) intermediaries.**1 Which leads to the question: What percentage of the 1st century Christian population is assumed to have served as (Bauckham-style) authorized tradents of the oral tradition, who would have accurately memorized something comparable to what would one day be contained in Matthew's Gospel? [Reference to a published estimate would be most appreciated.] Ultimately, am trying to establish whether this is a greater percentage than those who were literate (at least able to read) within the early Christian population. ___ 1 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 290.

Many who theorize concerning Gospel origins claim that the material which was ultimately published in the four Gospels was preserved almost exclusively as oral traditions, carefully tended by local tradents, until the Gospels began to be published thirty to fifty years after the ascension. For example, Richard Bauckham contends that > Of crucial importance for our whole argument in this book is the role of individual authors and tradents of Jesus traditions. We have suggested that the traditions were originated and formulated by named eyewitnesses, in whose name they were transmitted and who remained the living and active guarantors of the traditions. In local Christian communities which did not include eyewitnesses among their members, there would probably be recognized teachers who functioned as authorized tradents of the traditions they had received from the eyewitnesses either directly or through very few (authorized) intermediaries.1 Accordingly, how long is it theorized that it would take to teach the Jesus traditions, such as what would one day be contained in Matthew's Gospel, to new tradents who would be responsible for accurately preserving such via oral tradition methods? [Reference to a book/article on the topic would be greatly appreciated.] On Paul's second missionary journey he makes it out to Macedonia (Acts 16–17). However, his visits to Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, etc. are characterized as being both brief and mostly evangelistic, rather than instructional (i.e., training a tradent). Relative to Thessalonica, Acts 17:2 indicates that Paul reasoned in the synagogue for a mere three Sabbaths; although, Paul's epistles suggest that he was in the city for more than two or three weeks. Even if for a slightly longer period, Paul's letters from Corinth applaud the Thessalonians for their grasp of the traditions (2 Thess. 2:15) and their dissemination of the word (1 Thess. 1:8). But was he there in each of these cities long enough to train up a tradent? > To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:14–15 ESV) Am trying to draw a comparison between how long it would take to help someone accurately memorize a set of material akin to Matthew, without recourse to a written document, as opposed to simply making a copy of a document. It would seem much more effective to instead leave behind a copy of a Gospel, given that Matthew could be copied within a week. (A related question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105788/what-percentage-of-the-1st-century-christian-population-served-as-authorized-tra) P.S. I do recognize that some scholars deny that there were formal tradents or that anyone necessarily preserved anything accurately. ____ 1 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 290.

Since the Synoptic problem indicates that the Synoptic gospels form a comprehensive view that gives a holistic perspective, therefore, bible readers can Not use the argument that the 3 gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are 3 separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ's lifetime. I emphasize can Not because if we consider all the following Hypothesis and models associated with the Synoptic gospels then we have to take into account that: -one of the gospels was a source for the other two gospels Or -two of the gospels was a source for one of the gospels Or -one of the gospels and some other Q source(s) were a the sources for the other 2 gospels and so on and so forth.............. Two-Source Hypothesis [Mark-Q model] Four-Source Hypothesis [Mark-Q model with M and L] Mark-Q Theory with Proto-Luke Proto-Matthew (and Proto-Luke) Proto-Mark (MkH) Markan Hypothesis (MkH) Proto-Secret Mark Koester Hypothesis Deutero-Mark (dMk) Three-Source Hypothesis [Mark-Q-Matthew model]3SH Farrer Hypothesis [Mark-Matthew model] Griesbach (or Two-Gospel) Hypothesis [Matthew-Luke model] Proto-Matthew Traditional Augustinian Hypothesis [Matthew-Mark model] Proto-Luke Proto-Matthew (pMt) Proto-Gospel Theory (UrG) LTH: The Logia Translation Hypothesis Multiple Proto-Gospel Theories Mark-Luke model Luke-Matthew model Luke-Mark model Luke-Q model Therefore, Christian apologists can No longer use the argument that Matthew, Mark and Luke are 3 separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ's lifetime.   However, would it still be correct to state that? a)Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are a comprehensive view that correspond to 1 eyewitness account of Jesus Christ's lifetime b)and Gospel of John is the other eyewitness account of Jesus Christ's lifetime Therefore, would it be correct to say that the Bible has 2 eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ's lifetime?

We have a variety of questions on when New Testament texts were composed, such as: - When Was The Gospel of Luke Written? - When was the New Testament written, and by who? (unfortunately, the posts here are only able to provide a very high-level overview of this expansive subject) Is there sufficient historical/textual information to estimate when the Gospel of Mark was composed? What assumptions are necessary to make this estimation?

I always thought Matthew, Mark and Luke are different books originally were written by different people. But recently I was told that Matthew, Mark and Luke are originally the same book but in different versions. At the beginning there was one book only and then it was edited or adjusted by different people so at the end we left with three versions of the same book. Is it true?

# Original Question Mainstream scholarship widely supports the view that the authors of Matthew and Luke shared a common source, since lost, in contemporary discourse called "Q". Yet it is easily plausible that the common source between them is simply whichever of them occurred first, such as to be then used by the other. Indeed, the synoptic "problem" appears easy to resolve through the proposal that Mark appeared first, followed by Matthew, which referred to Mark, and that Matthew was in turn followed by Luke, which referred to both predecessors. Such a proposal is offered here not definitely to reject other possibilities, only to suggest that the supposed "problem" might not accurately be portrayed as a serious or difficult dilemma. (The Mark-Matt-Luke chronology with maximal dependency among them and no shared extinct source is known as the *Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis*.) Why are the contrasted features of the three texts argued to be problematic, and why do so many suggest that Q provides the best available solution? # Further Comments I appreciate the link to the article by Peter Kirby . Although I cannot evaluate how much it is representative of the wider scholarship, it is certainly more concise, precise, and directed than the other summary accounts I have seen. Unfortunately, I fail to be persuaded, though I welcome further commentary that might clarify the steel-man representation, that is, the most compelling possible argument, for the position. I would share my thoughts on the Kirby summary: - Currently, the Wikipedia article on Q , like other accounts I have seen, frames the hypothesized source as substantially a list of sayings and teachings. In contrast, the summary includes references to the genealogy, nativity, and resurrection accounts, the former two notably creating a glaring contrast between Matthew and Luke. A source centered on teachings during adult life would not likely resolve questions surrounding birth and death. Of course Q plausibly could be framed as including these details. At issue is not the possible scope of the document, but rather that any such unresolved ambiguity threatens dialectal consistency between facts in the premises and inferences in the conclusion. Any particular framing and argumentation must resolve this ambiguity outright, and preserve consistency throughout. - The stance largely betrays an urgency to depict the authors' intention and skills, especially Luke's, as elevating above other objectives factual precision and rigor, such that the authors would have been unwilling to make any alteration that detracts from providing the reader with a comprehensive and accurate account of events. Yet plainly all three synoptic texts, replete with emotional poignancy, rhetorical structure, and poetical presentation, are, in addition to anything else, works of creative literature. As the arguments apparently rest on the belief that the authors pursued a fact-centered method, they collapse unless the possibility can be excluded that an author based decisions on his subjective perception of how they contribute to the artistic literary quality the resulting text. Even as the view is common that the synoptic texts are not fact-centered accounts, the argumentation variously dismisses or ignores the relevance of artistic tastes or motives. The controversy need not entail whether the texts might describe real events, only whether they might also express artistic literary intent as a competing concern. - The argumentation entails an onus-shifting fallacy, wherein the perceived lack of clear indication of an author's motives and rationale for usage of two extant sources in a discernibly consistent and systematic way is claimed to support the conclusion that the author did not rely on those two sources. If Luke had reasons to weave together two sources and embellish them in some particular fashion, then those reasons simply may have died with Luke. Equally, even he might have been unable to articulate such reasons were he asked while alive. Any or indeed every scholar's inability to conceive of Luke's reasons for making some choice cannot lead to a conclusion about whether he made that choice. Given that inferring motives and rationale is central to the critical practice of studying text, it may be tempting to presume that every one indeed may be reliably inferred, but ultimately the number of questions that one might hope to resolve long after the fact will vastly exceed the number that one accurately can resolve. Confidence that anyone can reasonably know why another did all that he did will surely generate erroneous results. - The discussion omits consideration of the intrinsic probability that the particular, hypothetical text was indeed created and then subsequently lost. While surely many documents have perished, in fact most that ever were created, the Q hypothesis asserts the occurrence of a text carrying details on a particular subject and in possession by particular authors, yet that was not preserved, nor even mentioned in extant text, while still other texts in possession of the same individuals were preserved. Each of these particular constraints lowers the probability that the entire sequence of events occurred as described, and augments the accumulated demand on the strength of evidence to support the hypothesis. Weighed against the vast uncertainty in the speculation supporting the conclusion, the argumentation would seem to fall short of such demand.