No data for hypothetical gospel sources
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“I was surprised to hear Dan McClellan speak with apparent certainty regarding hypothetical written sources for the canonical gospels in the recent ‘Easter and the Undead’ episode. In a matter of seconds, McClellan rattled off a list of hypothetical gospel sources in the manner of a fundamentalist preacher or apologist, but I’m not sure sure what data Dan relies on to support such claims.
It’s obvious the anonymous authors of Matthew and Luke copied much of the gospel of Mark nearly word-for-word. This is called the triple tradition material: the material nearly identical in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Then there is the material that Matthew and Luke have in common which is not found in Mark. This is called the double-tradition. Some scholars speculate that Matthew and Luke must have been using another source, referred to by the letter ‘Q’, as a way of explaining this material they have in common (not found in Mark).
The problem is we don’t have any copies of ‘Q’ and have we have no material evidence/data to indicate that it ever existed. It’s a purely hypothetical source! A considerable number of current mainstream scholars have abandoned the ‘Q’ hypothesis because it’s just as likely that Luke, writing later than Matthew, copied the double-tradition material straight from Matthew; such a theory eliminates the need to speculate about hypothetical sources. Nevertheless, Dan McClellan spoke about ‘Q’ as if it is settled scholarship founded on solid data, as opposed to rigorously contested scholarship without a shred of material evidence.
It got worse when McClellan went on to claim that whoever Matthew and Luke each had their own unique (hypothetical) sources called ‘M’ and ‘L’. Some scholars posit the existence of ‘M’ to explain the material in Matthew unique to Matthew (such as the visitation of the Magi after Jesus’ birth), and they posit the existence of ‘L’ to explain the material unique to Luke (such as the parable of the prodigal son). Again, the problem is obvious: we don’t have any copies of ‘M’ or ‘L’, even if they ever existed.
It’s just as likely - perhaps even more likely - that the anonymous authors of Matthew and Luke simply made up the material that is unique to their document. Did Matthew really have exclusive access to a document containing the story of the Magi, or was this just a creative invention added to his fictional birth narrative for theological reasons? Did Luke really have his own secret document containing the parable of the prodigal son?
Why postulate all of these unnecessary, hypothetical sources? Serious scholars don’t waste their time dreaming up imaginary sources for the non-canonical gospels; they simply admit that whoever wrote those documents created most of the material. Why not admit the same is true for the four canonical gospels? Why does Dan McClellan treat the canonical gospels with kid gloves and insist there must be written sources to account for all of their material?
I realize Dan McClellan is not a fundamentalist or an apologist (thank you!), but he seems so steeped in those traditions (at least in the Mormon context) that he appears unable to jettison the kinds of faith-based, dogma-induced arguments that lead to the source-o-mania that plagues the study of Christian origins.
There is no data for ‘Q’, ‘M’, and ‘L’, or the oft-referenced ‘oral tradition’. I’m not sure why Dan McClellan can’t see this - or why he sees this but chooses not to be transparent on his podcast. I hope he will follow the data and abandon this reliance on hypothetical sources.”
kwf2011 via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
04/27/24
More reviews of Data Over Dogma
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“I’ve been following both the Dans independently for awhile now (also, shout out to TGIA!), and I love the deep dives of the Bible in this pod.”
Apchicago7 via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
05/02/23
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“One is well educated and well spoken and does all the work.
The other can’t seem to string a sentence together without pausing, and adds nothing to the podcast.
I see a few podcasts like this and I don’t understand why an expert would duo with someone who not only knows little but can’t...”Read full review »
Kal Drake via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
08/01/23
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“With social media still mired in conspiracy and misinformation, this is refreshing burst of fact based education and entertainment.
It goes to prove that genuine fact based content is far more entertaining.
This is one for fans of ‘The Infinite Monkey Cage’”
Vanhalenforever via Apple Podcasts ·
Great Britain ·
04/27/23
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
Get Chartable Analytics »
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
Listen now
Links
Genres
Artwork or description wrong?
Request an update »
Updates may take a few minutes.
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
Get Chartable Analytics »
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
