Gospel sources, "Q"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sheeniac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sheeniac

Guest
All,

We’ve taken up the NT in the 2nd year of my diocesan Scripture class. Today, we learned about Q and Mark being sources for Matthew and Luke. This was presented as the dominant /popular theory, but there was also a ‘3 sources’ theory presented as well.

What is the ‘orthodox’ understanding of this? Is this something that the Pope would give a nod to? Any suggestions appreciated!

Thanks, Juli
 
I see the “Q” Gospel as being a ridiculous theory. Why?

Just think: what is this Q? It’s the Gospel itself—the story of Christ’s Life. If you read 4 biographies on WWII, they would all read 90% the same. Why? Because it was an actual event, and people who witnessed this event all witnessed the same thing from each of their perspectives. So the 4 stories written down by different people who have spoken to witnesses and, in some cases, were witnesses themselves, would obviously read the same.

The fact that all 4 Gospels are so similar, even though they were written (or dictated) by 4 vastly different men (a tax collector, a devout Jew, a Greek doctor, and another fisherman) a little after Christ’s death around 33 AD just shows that the story actually did take place. There were hundreds of Gospels floating around during that time. How would these men who did not know each other (aside from St. Matthew and St. John) be able to read through all of these Gospels and take the exact same truthful information out of them while rejecting the false information all in a period of 10 years?
 
MarianD said:
I see the “Q” Gospel as being a ridiculous theory. Why?

Just think: what is this Q? It’s the Gospel itself—the story of Christ’s Life. If you read 4 biographies on WWII, they would all read 90% the same. Why? Because it was an actual event, and people who witnessed this event all witnessed the same thing from each of their perspectives. So the 4 stories written down by different people who have spoken to witnesses and, in some cases, were witnesses themselves, would obviously read the same.

The fact that all 4 Gospels are so similar, even though they were written (or dictated) by 4 vastly different men (a tax collector, a devout Jew, a Greek doctor, and another fisherman) a little after Christ’s death around 33 AD just shows that the story actually did take place. There were hundreds of Gospels floating around during that time. How would these men who did not know each other (aside from St. Matthew and St. John) be able to read through all of these Gospels and take the exact same truthful information out of them while rejecting the false information all in a period of 10 years?
Click to expand...
You haven’t done much research on the issue, have you? First of all Q is only a source for the synoptic gospels (if you believe Q exists). The gospel of John is quite different than the other three gospels so that completely throws off your “well if 4 people saw the same things then their stories would be nearly identical.”

Also, it is unlikely that any of the gospel writers were actually eye witnesses though John is the only gospel that states the author was an eyewitness.

There were not “hundreds of gospels” floating around at the time the others were written. There were many gospels produced in the second century though. Also, the gospel of John was written well after the other 3 gospels.

And it isn’t just that the stories of the synoptic gospels are the same, it is the wording as well. Even if two people saw the same event, and were asked to write about it 10 minutes later, it is very unlikely they would use the same wording to describe it.

I guess what you are saying is that the synoptic gospels were written completely independent of each other and it is just a coincidence that they are so similar. I have never heard anyone ever suggest this because it is basically impossible.
 
^ I must admit I’ve never sat down and read about the theories. I’ve been told about it (not in RCIA) and I’ve received a quick summary of it. Guess it was incorrect?

I’d have to look more into it then. Even if, however, the theory of the Q Gospel is correct, it in no way invalidates the Story of Christ. It just shows that many people plagiarized an original document about the Story. St. John was an actual Apostle while St. Luke and St. Mark were not. So St. John’s Gospel would likely be different and have more intimate stories about Christ and what He said to His disciples.

But St. Luke’s Gospel would have to be like the others because of the way it was written. In its beginning, St. Luke says that he researched the Story of Christ and wrote his Gospel based on what he researched. St. Mark would have done the same, seeing as to how he wasn’t an apostle but was a disciple of St. Paul and probably converted after Christ’s death.

Maybe that’s why the Protestants always say “Read the Gospel of John first”. Probably because he was the only eye-witness who wrote a canonical Gospel?
 
MarianD said:
^ I must admit I’ve never sat down and read about the theories. I’ve been told about it (not in RCIA) and I’ve received a quick summary of it. Guess it was incorrect?

I’d have to look more into it then. Even if, however, the theory of the Q Gospel is correct, it in no way invalidates the Story of Christ. It just shows that many people plagiarized an original document about the Story. St. John was an actual Apostle while St. Luke and St. Mark were not. So St. John’s Gospel would likely be different and have more intimate stories about Christ and what He said to His disciples.

But St. Luke’s Gospel would have to be like the others because of the way it was written. In its beginning, St. Luke says that he researched the Story of Christ and wrote his Gospel based on what he researched. St. Mark would have done the same, seeing as to how he wasn’t an apostle but was a disciple of St. Paul and probably converted after Christ’s death.

Maybe that’s why the Protestants always say “Read the Gospel of John first”. Probably because he was the only eye-witness who wrote a canonical Gospel?
Click to expand...
Protestants likely say “read the gospel of John first” because it can be used to support salvation by faith alone.

The two main theories today are that mark was written first and then Matthew and Luke used a combination of Q and Mark (as well as other unique sources) to come up with their gospels. The other theory main theory is that Mark was written first, then Matthew used Mark and Luke used Mark and Matthew (though Luke and Matthew’s order could be switched). Those are the two theories that seem to be the most main stream.

Q is doubted by some for a few reasons. First of all there is absolutely no physical or documented evidence that Q existed.

There is also what is called minor agreements. I found this on a website that explains the problem well:

“The minor agreements are those agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark (or “anti-Markan agreements”) that occur in triple tradition. Some of the minor agreements are quite striking; for example, both Matt. 26:68 and Luke 22:64 but not Mark 14:65 include the question “Who is it that struck you” in the beating of Jesus. Therefore, the minor agreements are suggestive of a literary connection between Matthew and Luke outside of either Mark or Q, calling into question the relative independence of Matthew and Luke.”
 
**Markan Priority and the Q theory (on which it is built) are – and I say this literally – MERELY PRESUPPOSITIONS.

They are NOT conclusions based upon facts. **

In this following thread, in posts 91 - 93, I present eleven actual arguments raised in favor of Markan Priority and Q from the actual PhD/graduate school/professional publications. I literally found these arguments repeated in multiple publications and books. In that thread I show how BACKWARDS those “scholars” are. The fact that these arguments would be presented as “truth” or “evidence” is itself evidence that the entire theory is GARBAGE! That the entire theory is purely a PRESUPPOSITION!

The pro-Mark argument of #1 is that Mark must be first because he doesn’t give a birth narrative. Pffftttt.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2909115

The book A History of the Synoptic Problem by David Laird Dungan is a must-read. Required reading. Buy it and read it already. He walks through the history of when, where, who, why, and how this theory came to be. He gives the names, dates, places, and current-event context of the people who proposed each little step toward the current “theories.” You’ll be flabbergasted when you learn that this “theory” was literally constructed upon presuppositions of atheism and agnosticism.
 
John was not the only eyewitness among the Evangelists. Matthew and John Mark both walked with Jesus.

The Q theory is totally in concert with Catholic thinking, as is rejecting the theory. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the gospels. How this was accomplished is not as important and the Church has never ruled on it. I guess if pressed, I would have to say I am not a believer in Q. Rather, I think some of the events of the life of Jesus were passed around in a rote fashion, but which of these were used and the order they were used was something the writers too to themselves. I think the Q theory, like many other modern theological speculations, tend to have a bias against the miraculous in favor of the mundane. It is easier to seek intellectual solutions than allow for the Holy Spirit.

John is obviously different. It was last. There was no need to re-hash old ground. John was writing an interprative narrative instead of story-telling.
 
Sheeniac said:
All,

We’ve taken up the NT in the 2nd year of my diocesan Scripture class. Today, we learned about Q and Mark being sources for Matthew and Luke. This was presented as the dominant /popular theory, but there was also a ‘3 sources’ theory presented as well.

What is the ‘orthodox’ understanding of this? Is this something that the Pope would give a nod to? Any suggestions appreciated!

Thanks, Juli
Click to expand...
I don’t like the Q source stuff. We used the Little Rock Series and they had it in there. This series is very good with the exception of the Q Source. All this might be interesting in a speculative class but not in basic bible study. I’m in my 9th year of bible study at my parish and what most people want is to see our doctrines in scripture and see the spiritual sense, that is, what we can learn to apply to our lives. Presently, we are using Fr Raymond Brown’s book on the Gospel and Epistles of John. He is an excellent biblical scholar as long as the publishers stay away from some of his “Higher Criticism” commentary - the Historical-Critical Method.
 
There is no evidence for 'Q".

Read this and drive your prof nuts:

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
+ Challenged by Markan priority, Protestants and Catholics, at the beginning of the 20th century, encouraged a deeper study of ancient languages and placed large resources at the disposal of archaeological researchers in Palestine. This has born rich fruit.
Code: 
        + Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
        
        + In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.
        
        + Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark, so  producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John.             The Church Fathers were familiar with and used the same order.
        
        + When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament in the  fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John             sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today.
        
        + A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternately,             so confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third.
        
        + Both the historical and literary evidence shows that Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles.
        
        
        + Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he             alternately quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the             work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).+ The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed             to those who made requests. This explains the apparent `poor Greek` of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary             Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.
        
        + By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel.
        
        + This vindication of the reliability of the historical records makes them a reliable and firm authority for accepting             that John the Apostle wrote the fourth Gospel.
        
        + The Clementine Tradition brings the ancient historical records and the latest literary analysis together in perfect             agreement.
        
        **THE CHURCH**
        + Dei Verbum, a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican             Council, insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels.
        
        + The Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with Dei Verbum.
        
        + The Clementine Tradition is in agreement with Dei Verbum.
        
        + Rome urges the use of both historical evidence and scientific literary analysis
        
        + The Holy See has issued many recent statements in which the historicity of the Gospels is accepted as a fact.
         ================
THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
is in full accord with:
Code: 
        The earliest Christian historians
        Modern literary analysis
        The doctrine of the church
        Recent Church statements
more…
 
How old is the “Theory of Q”? What proof is there of any “Q”?

And didn’t the Pontifical Biblical Commission (circa 1903) declare, infallibly, that Matthew wrote the first Gospel?
 
Sheeniac said:
All,

We’ve taken up the NT in the 2nd year of my diocesan Scripture class. Today, we learned about Q and Mark being sources for Matthew and Luke. This was presented as the dominant /popular theory, but there was also a ‘3 sources’ theory presented as well.

What is the ‘orthodox’ understanding of this? Is this something that the Pope would give a nod to? Any suggestions appreciated!

Thanks, Juli
Click to expand...
Hi Juli -

at one time, “Q” was pretty much accepted as true by most Scripture scholars. It has slipped greatly in recent years, however, although many people (and lots of books) still refer to it as a given.

To me the fact that there has never been even a fragment of “Q” found anywhere makes it a weak hypothesis.

It is however very likely that the eyewitness accounts were actually written not by the eyewitnesses but by those who heard their reports - this is consistent both with what we know of first/second century rabbinical practices and with the probability that the Apostles themselves did not write (being professionally fishermen and other tradespeople, not scribes).

Of course, if your professor is enamored of “Q” you will want to humor him/her in your responses. . . . most of us do not appreciate being told our pet theories are out of date . . .
 
scottm said:
**Markan Priority and the Q theory (on which it is built) are – and I say this literally – MERELY PRESUPPOSITIONS.

They are NOT conclusions based upon facts. **

In this following thread, in posts 91 - 93, I present eleven actual arguments raised in favor of Markan Priority and Q from the actual PhD/graduate school/professional publications. I literally found these arguments repeated in multiple publications and books. In that thread I show how BACKWARDS those “scholars” are. The fact that these arguments would be presented as “truth” or “evidence” is itself evidence that the entire theory is GARBAGE! That the entire theory is purely a PRESUPPOSITION!

The pro-Mark argument of #1 is that Mark must be first because he doesn’t give a birth narrative. Pffftttt.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2909115

The book A History of the Synoptic Problem by David Laird Dungan is a must-read. Required reading. Buy it and read it already. He walks through the history of when, where, who, why, and how this theory came to be. He gives the names, dates, places, and current-event context of the people who proposed each little step toward the current “theories.” You’ll be flabbergasted when you learn that this “theory” was literally constructed upon presuppositions of atheism and agnosticism.
Click to expand...
So what do you think is the solution to the synoptic problem? It doesn’t matter if the presuppositions were from atheists or agnostics, just if they are accurate.

From my understanding it isn’t the fact that Mark doesn’t give a birth narrative that makes people think it was the first, it is the fact that it has slightly odd wording at times (that are corrected in Matthew and Luke) and is more condensed than the others. It is unlikely that the author of Mark would jumble words and just take things out of the story if he was using Matthew and Luke to write.

And I also think it is funny how the great majority of scholars believe that Mark was first, including Christians and Catholics.
 
NotWorthy said:
How old is the “Theory of Q”? What proof is there of any “Q”?

And didn’t the Pontifical Biblical Commission (circa 1903) declare, infallibly, that Matthew wrote the first Gospel?
Click to expand...
For the sake of the Catholic church, I would hope not.
 
Sheeniac said:
All,

We’ve taken up the NT in the 2nd year of my diocesan Scripture class. Today, we learned about Q and Mark being sources for Matthew and Luke. This was presented as the dominant /popular theory, but there was also a ‘3 sources’ theory presented as well.

What is the ‘orthodox’ understanding of this? Is this something that the Pope would give a nod to? Any suggestions appreciated!

Thanks, Juli
Click to expand...
I would start with Dei Verbum if I were you, and follow the footnotes to the more ancient sources. 🙂

Present it to your professor as “another theory,” rather than arguing with him about the Q theory - but as other posters have pointed out, there is very little evidence for it, and the official teaching of the Church doesn’t appear to support it.
 
Sheeniac said:
All,

We’ve taken up the NT in the 2nd year of my diocesan Scripture class. Today, we learned about Q and Mark being sources for Matthew and Luke. This was presented as the dominant /popular theory, but there was also a ‘3 sources’ theory presented as well.

What is the ‘orthodox’ understanding of this? Is this something that the Pope would give a nod to? Any suggestions appreciated!

Thanks, Juli
Click to expand...
There is not a shred of evidence to support “Q”. It is sheer unfounded speculation.
 
bingbang said:
Do you have evidence of this?
Click to expand...
Both of them are mentioned in the Scriptures themselves, as followers of Jesus, so if we start by assuming that the Scriptures themselves are an accurate record of what happened, then, yes - Matthew and John Mark were both followers of Jesus.

Or are we now going to go all “Jesus Seminar” and say that these things were added later, and aren’t part of the original inspired text? 🤷
 
buffalo said:
There is no evidence for 'Q".

Read this and drive your prof nuts:

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
+ Challenged by Markan priority, Protestants and Catholics, at the beginning of the 20th century, encouraged a deeper study of ancient languages and placed large resources at the disposal of archaeological researchers in Palestine. This has born rich fruit.
Code: 
        + Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
        
        + In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.
        
        + Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark, so  producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John.             The Church Fathers were familiar with and used the same order.
        
        + When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament in the  fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John             sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today.
        
        + A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternately,             so confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third.
        
        + Both the historical and literary evidence shows that Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles.
        
        
        + Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he             alternately quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the             work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).+ The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed             to those who made requests. This explains the apparent `poor Greek` of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary             Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.
        
        + By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel.
        
        + This vindication of the reliability of the historical records makes them a reliable and firm authority for accepting             that John the Apostle wrote the fourth Gospel.
        
        + The Clementine Tradition brings the ancient historical records and the latest literary analysis together in perfect             agreement.
        
        **THE CHURCH**
        + Dei Verbum, a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican             Council, insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels.
        
        + The Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with Dei Verbum.
        
        + The Clementine Tradition is in agreement with Dei Verbum.
        
        + Rome urges the use of both historical evidence and scientific literary analysis
        
        + The Holy See has issued many recent statements in which the historicity of the Gospels is accepted as a fact.
         ================
THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
is in full accord with:
Code: 
        The earliest Christian historians
        Modern literary analysis
        The doctrine of the church
        Recent Church statements
more…
Click to expand...
I think that the few arguments given on the wikipedia article about markan priority are far more convincing than anything in this post:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markan_priority

Also a lot of the things in your post are misleading and unproven. I have never heard that Peter gave these talks, linguists have not proven that Matthew was originally in Hebrew, and you give the impression that Markan priority is not the most favored theory today according to NT scholars (it is).
 
jmcrae said:
Both of them are mentioned in the Scriptures themselves, as followers of Jesus, so if we start by assuming that the Scriptures themselves are an accurate record of what happened, then, yes - Matthew and John Mark were both followers of Jesus.

Or are we now going to go all “Jesus Seminar” and say that these things were added later, and aren’t part of the original inspired text? 🤷
Click to expand...
Are you not a follower of Jesus? John is the only gospel that explicitly states it is written by an eye witness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top