Does it matter whether Matthew copied from Mark or Mark copied from Matthew, or Luke copied from both or from Mark only? Does it matter if Matthew and Luke each had another written source document or not? These conclusions of modern scholarship regarding the synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke are virtually unchallenged today.

Furthermore, does it matter whether the gospels report accurately what Jesus said, or only approximately or not at all, and which and how do we know? Again does it matter how much of the narrative reported in the gospels is historical, or whether it was invented by the early Christians?

Let me offer some answers to these questions.

The reason that it is of importance to know that there were older source documents Mark and Quelle is that we can then realize that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not three independent witnesses. Mark and Quelle are the two oldest independent witnesses. Matthew and Luke together by their reproduction of nearly all of Mark in the same words and the same order demonstrate the prior existence of Mark, and Matthew and Luke again by their reproduction of many sayings and some episodes demonstrate the prior existence of another document possessed by both.

John appears to be another independent source, but his story conflicts so much with that of Mark that we can only conclude that either Mark was mistaken in his story or that John was mistaken in his. Thomas also appears to be another independent source, but it is a collection of sayings only.

Matthew reports many sayings found only in his gospel and a few fanciful incidents not found in any other gospel. Since these passages are not duplicated elsewhere it is not possible to prove that they are from another written document, because they could have been from oral stories. The style however is that of a written document and is called the Matthean document by scholars. This may have been written originally in Aramaic, although some scholars think that the form of the Greek indicates that it was originally written in that language. We will call it Mattheus, or M for short.

Luke contains many anecdotes, parables, and sayings not found in any other gospel. A few of these are found in Thomas but not in Matthew. These items are found in many parts of Luke, and were assigned by Burnett Streeter to another older document which he called the Lucan document but again it is not provable that they are from a written document. However, Luke in his first four verses refers to "many" older written documents which he has "traced accurately", and there is nothing to disprove the hypothesis that these were found by him in written form. Furthermore most of them occur in the three sections of Luke which have no parallels in Mark but many in Matthew, and none of them occur between portions which are clearly copied from Mark. This is most easily explained by the assumption that they were in Quelle originally, but omitted by Matthew, rather than that Luke intermixed them somewhat randomly with sections from Quelle but never with sections of Mark. This was De Witt Burton's hypothesis, that the material called "Quelle" included two documents, one called Galileus or G and the other Pereus or P, which Luke reproduced completely but Matthew did not.

But whether "Q" was one document or two documents, it compels us to deny independent authenticity to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and to accept instead the independent authenticity of Mark, Quelle, Mattheus, and Thomas, and to ascribe independent witness to John although it must be examined more carefully since it conflicts with the others throughout.

Let us ask therefore, what narratives or teachings are found in both Mark and Quelle, since they are probably the oldest documents and independent witnesses. At first glance this question would seem to conflict with the assertion that Quelle contained passages found in Matthew and Luke but not Mark. However, there are clearly duplications of stories between them where Matthew or Luke tells both the version found in Mark and the version found in Quelle.

Thus we find that the two oldest independent witnesses Mark and Quelle, confirm the following facts about Yeshua's life.

These bare essentials of his early career may be affirmed with confidence since they are attested to by both Mark and Quelle, and in some cases by Thomas as well.

Now let us ask what are the likenesses between Mark and the so-called gospel of Thomas. Since Thomas consists of sayings only, introduced usually by a question put to him by his disciples, we can not obtain very much information on the events of his life, but perhaps we can of his teaching.

Quelle and Thomas have many sayings in common. Some of them are proverbial expressions which could easily have been put in Yeshua's mouth by the editors, such as, Whoever has ears to hear, use them and listen!

Thomas and Mattheus (the Matthean document or document M) also have some sayings and parables in common.

From these observations we are in a better position to assay the authenticity of sayings and doings in the gospels. If a passage is found in three or more independent sources, it can be taken as having a high degree of certainty. If a passage is found in two independent sources, it can be taken as having a high degree of probability. If a passage is found only in one source it may be doubted, unless it is consistent with other material found in other sources.

Thus, when we are told that Yeshua appeared on Mount Hermon with Moses and Elijah, we do not have to accept it, since it is attested in only one source. But if we are told that Yeshua refused to give a sign, we can believe that happened, since it is attested in two sources, even if we are uncertain as to whether he made an exception for the sign of Jonah. And when we are told that Yeshua said, No prophet is appreciated in his hometown, we can believe that with some certainty, since it is attested to in three sources, in fact, in four sources: Mark, Quelle, Thomas, and the gospel of John.

But if we are told that Yeshua drove the moneychangers out of the temple we can believe that but with some hesitation, since it is attested to in two sources, but with considerable differences: Mark reports it on Yeshua's entrance into Jerusalem, whereas John reports it at the beginning of his career on the first of four visits to Jerusalem; Mark reports Yeshua as quoting exactly from Isaiah and Jeremiah, but John reports Yeshua as claiming that the temple is his own father's house and changes the word "robbers" to "merchants". And when we are told that Yeshua told a parable about how no one would believe in a sign such as someone rising from the dead, we do not have to believe that, since it is attested to in only one source; but we can accept it nevertheless since it is consistent with his refusal to perform a sign found in two other sources.

Similarly, when we are told that he told a parable about a Samaritan rescuing a Jew who had been beaten by robbers, we do not have to believe that since it is attested to in only one source; but still we can accept it because it is consistent with his teachings that we should love our enemies, and the Jews considered the Samaritans their enemies.

And we do not have to accept John's telling us that Jesus claimed all his healings and miracles as signs, when both Mark and Quelle tell us that Yeshua refused to perform a sign, and Quelle tells us a parable about how no one would be convinced by a miraculous sign anyway. Furthermore Mark and Quelle tell us repeatedly that Yeshua told those who were healed to "go and tell no one", and "it is your own faith that has healed you", both of which refute any reports that Jesus claimed his healings as signs.