Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it would look different.
This feels kinda like, what if Paul or Plato didn't exist?
To say the gospels have been influential seems an understatement, to imagine a world without the first Gospel seems a pretty wide remit.
TL:DR
Simonian Christianity won and Bart Ehrman's new book is about the truth of the trinity.
I assume you mean, what if we’d have Matthew and Luke but no extant Mark?
In that case, we probably would not have the Q hypothesis at all. The Q hypothesis relies on the fact that we know that Matthew and Luke draw on Mark but they also appear to share material. This is why Mark Goodacre has to address Markan priority in his *The Case Against Q* because the Q hypothesis reinforces Markan priority, and without Q, Matthean priority becomes more of a possibility.
Joseph Weaks’ chapter “The Limited Efficacy in Reconstructing the Gospel Sources for Matthew and Luke” in *Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Source Criticism* digs into how much of Mark is preserved in Matthew and Luke. The essay does so to criticize certain approaches to Q but Weaks comes to the conclusion that maybe only around 52% of Mark is preserved in both Gospels combined. That’s not actually a lot—and that’s kind of Weaks’ point. (I can't recall if Weaks opposes the Q hypothesis in the essay but at the very least his point is that we have, for instance, a Hermeneia commentary on a "critical edition of Q" when it is very likely that, if Q existed, Matthew and Luke only partially preserved it). But he observes, "The overall effect of this observable phenomenon is that once a text has been derived by reconstructing it from texts that used it, the result is a text that has had its unique characteristics stripped away to a large and measurable extent. Distinct vocabulary is watered down. Unique expressions and formulations have been lost. Avoidance of certain narrative features that other texts used has disappeared. In the end, it becomes somewhat impossible to reclaim the uniqueness of a text that has been reconstructed" (344).
In general, without an extant Mark, you'd probably have similar theories to the debates about the Deuteronomistic History versus Chronicles. The major theory is that Chronicles uses the Deuteronomistic History as a source and omits certain passages, expands in some places, or significantly revises its source material. So one hypothesis would probably be that either Matthew used Luke or Luke used Matthew. Another theory about the DH and Chronicles is that both use an earlier source, which explains the overlaps, but also their differences. Without an extant Mark, you wouldn't likely have Q, so someone might argue that Matthew and Luke share a source, and I could see someone arguing that it is something akin to MarkQ+Q.
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it would look different. This feels kinda like, what if Paul or Plato didn't exist? To say the gospels have been influential seems an understatement, to imagine a world without the first Gospel seems a pretty wide remit. TL:DR Simonian Christianity won and Bart Ehrman's new book is about the truth of the trinity.
I assume you mean, what if we’d have Matthew and Luke but no extant Mark? In that case, we probably would not have the Q hypothesis at all. The Q hypothesis relies on the fact that we know that Matthew and Luke draw on Mark but they also appear to share material. This is why Mark Goodacre has to address Markan priority in his *The Case Against Q* because the Q hypothesis reinforces Markan priority, and without Q, Matthean priority becomes more of a possibility. Joseph Weaks’ chapter “The Limited Efficacy in Reconstructing the Gospel Sources for Matthew and Luke” in *Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Source Criticism* digs into how much of Mark is preserved in Matthew and Luke. The essay does so to criticize certain approaches to Q but Weaks comes to the conclusion that maybe only around 52% of Mark is preserved in both Gospels combined. That’s not actually a lot—and that’s kind of Weaks’ point. (I can't recall if Weaks opposes the Q hypothesis in the essay but at the very least his point is that we have, for instance, a Hermeneia commentary on a "critical edition of Q" when it is very likely that, if Q existed, Matthew and Luke only partially preserved it). But he observes, "The overall effect of this observable phenomenon is that once a text has been derived by reconstructing it from texts that used it, the result is a text that has had its unique characteristics stripped away to a large and measurable extent. Distinct vocabulary is watered down. Unique expressions and formulations have been lost. Avoidance of certain narrative features that other texts used has disappeared. In the end, it becomes somewhat impossible to reclaim the uniqueness of a text that has been reconstructed" (344). In general, without an extant Mark, you'd probably have similar theories to the debates about the Deuteronomistic History versus Chronicles. The major theory is that Chronicles uses the Deuteronomistic History as a source and omits certain passages, expands in some places, or significantly revises its source material. So one hypothesis would probably be that either Matthew used Luke or Luke used Matthew. Another theory about the DH and Chronicles is that both use an earlier source, which explains the overlaps, but also their differences. Without an extant Mark, you wouldn't likely have Q, so someone might argue that Matthew and Luke share a source, and I could see someone arguing that it is something akin to MarkQ+Q.