Where did Matthew and Luke get stories for their gospels?

Answer 1

Matthew's source was his own experiences. He was an eyewitness to and a direct participant in many of the events he wrote about.

Luke's sources were varied, since he was not a disciple. He says in his Gospel that it was compiled from eyewitness sources. Mary was likely one of them.

Luke 1

1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Answer 2

A:First of all, we need to establish authorship of the two gospels. If they were written by Matthew, a disciple of Jesus, or by Luke, a close associate of Paul, it could be said that their sources are obvious. However, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were originally anonymous, and were not attributed by the Church Fathers to the apostles whose names they now bear until later in the second century. Scholars have concluded that these attributions are unlikely to have been correct, partly because the two gospels were only written late in the first century and partly because neither gospel could really have been written by an eyewitness to the events described. Two passages im Matthew's Gospel (Matthew 27:8; 28:15) describe items in the passion narrative that are remembered "to this day". Such a description would be very inappropriate unless Matthew was written long afterwards.

Both gospels were originally written in Greek and both contain many verses which, when compared in the Greek language, are common to Mark's Gospel. For example, Matthew contains some 600 of the 666 verses in Mark. Scholars have demonstrated that this can only be explained by the two evangelists copying everything they knew about the life and mission of Jesus from Mark. Additional material common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark, is attributed to the hypothetical 'Q' document. The author of Luke may have relied on the works of Josephus for some of the historical background he provides in the gospel and in Acts of the Apostles.

Matthew and Luke contain different and contradictory accounts of the birth and early childhood of Jesus. Scholars do not know where this material could have come from, but John Shelby Spong (Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus) says that neither birth story contains any historical truth.

Matthew and Luke also contain different and contradictory accounts of the resurrection of Jesus and of the appearances of the risen Jesus. Once again, Scholars do not know where this material could have come from.

Answer 3

The authors of both Matthew and Luke relied on Mark's Gospel for all the information they knew about the life and mission of Jesus. A second source that they both used was the hypothetical 'Q' document, containing many sayings attributed to Jesus. They both, particularly Matthew, used the Old Testament as a source to provide a link to the Judaic past. The author of Luke's gospel also seems to have used some material from the works of the Jewish historian Josephus.

Luke's copy of Mark's Gospel appears to have been incomplete, resulting in a major omission now known as the "Missing Block" or "Great Omission". There is no known source for his stories of the nativity, the genealogy of Jesus or the resurrection appearances.

Matthew's stories of the nativity, the genealogy of Jesus and the resurrection appearances are remarkably different to those of Luke. There is also no known source for these accounts.