Had "Q" existed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter archangel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

archangel

Guest
The two source hypothesis holds that Mark was the first gospel to be written and was the primary source for Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke also sourced another, now “lost”, document referred to as “Q”.

Q is postulated because Matthew and Luke have sayings in common that Mark doesn’t have.

The NAB references Q in its footnotes on the USCCB website.

Does the Church have an official teaching on the authors of the gospels? On their sources or origins? Was there ever a “Q” in existence?
 
“Q” is a theory.

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
Code: 
		 **By**

		 **Dennis Barton**

		 **
		The Gospels are Historical
**

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION

is in full accord with:
Code: 
			 The 				earliest Christian historians

			 Modern 				literary analysis

			 The 				doctrine of the church

			 Recent 				Church statements

			 The following pages contain the evidence for 				the claims made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how Markan priority grew; its baneful 				effect on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of the Church`s reaction.
 
Archangel, no the Church’s teaching doesn’t get specific as to who the exact authors of the four Gospels. Teachings, such as the the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) names them as “Sacred Authors”. From the Church during the time of the Church Father’s did accredit each Gospel to the Four, but their teachings and the Council of Hippo, stress that their original sources had to be from eye witnesses.

But the Church, as expressed in Dei Verbum, teaches that God’s revelation comes through human instruments, allowing these authors to express themselves using the culture and literary style of the times in which they lived. This gave rise to the widely accepted theory that each of the four Gospels developed with in and for particular areas or Churches as Faith Documents, that is writings which came out of the particular people’s Faith Response -how they experienced and express the meaning of the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, how and why Jesus became for these Churches in particular and the Universal Church the “Christ”.

The Church hasn’t and I doubt that She ever will make a doctrinal proclamation on the “Q” source. As for me, from my studies I agree with those who hold there is an outside source used indepentantly but the authors of the Gospels. I base this opinion on the fact, as declared by Dei Verbum, that the Oral Tradtions existed before the written Gospels. So it seems reasonable to me that an outside (of the 4 Gospels themselves) source - possibily a list of sayings from Jesus - that were used independantly by the Gospel authors, as well as, authors of non-canonical gospels. The Gospel of Thomas seems to be an example of this.
 
40.png
TOME:
Archangel, no the Church’s teaching doesn’t get specific as to who the exact authors of the four Gospels. Teachings, such as the the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) names them as “Sacred Authors”. From the Church during the time of the Church Father’s did accredit each Gospel to the Four, but their teachings and the Council of Hippo, stress that their original sources had to be from eye witnesses.

But the Church, as expressed in Dei Verbum, teaches that God’s revelation comes through human instruments, allowing these authors to express themselves using the culture and literary style of the times in which they lived. This gave rise to the widely accepted theory that each of the four Gospels developed with in and for particular areas or Churches as Faith Documents, that is writings which came out of the particular people’s Faith Response -how they experienced and express the meaning of the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, how and why Jesus became for these Churches in particular and the Universal Church the “Christ”.

The Church hasn’t and I doubt that She ever will make a doctrinal proclamation on the “Q” source. As for me, from my studies I bel agree with those who hold there is an outside source used indepentantly but the authors of the Gospels. I base this opinion on the fact, as declared by Dei Verbum, that the Oral Tradtions existed before the written Gospels. So it seems reasonable to me that an outside (of the 4 Gospels themselves) source - possibily a list of sayings from Jesus - that were used independantly by the Gospel authors, as well as, authors of non-canonical gospels. The Gospel of Thomas seems to be an example of this.
Click to expand...
“Q” is addressed very well in the Authors of the Gospel I linked. It is definately worth reading, and it goes back to the original tradition of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John,
 
Buffalo, believe it or not, but I was reading your link when you made your last post. You’re right it is definitately worth reading and I hope every one who becomes involved with this thread reads it as well.

Thanks!
 
There is a lot of hype regarding ‘Q’, and many scholars have gone at length to determine from where and whence it derived, to not much avail.
While most scholars generally accept it’s existence, some tend to stress that is only a theory–yet a working theory that much of NT studies is based upon. For without Q, modern biblical scholarship crumbles, and everyone has to come up with a new theory to figure out the shadowy beginings of our most mysterious Gospels.
In short, Q employs alot of people; Early Christian testimony regarding the origins of the Gospels doesn’t.
That said, Q probably did exist, but in a very abstract way. There were most likely in fact many Q’s written from different locations and time-periods.
So regarding whether Q is real: it is and it aint.
 
Can I jump in here with a short comment on this subject? I am, in no way, a bible expert in any way, but I try to read the Scriptures and study when and what I can. I draw my conclusion on the existance of “Q” by applying my own logic. Unless you accept that only the 4 Sacred Authors wrote of the sayings of Jesus and no other person thought of nor was moved to do so, then there had to be some other source for them to draw on. There, it may be a simple answer to an abstract topic but it works for me! Peace.
 
http://bestsmileys.com/crying/13.gifNobody ever gives me the answer I want to vote for!!http://bestsmileys.com/crying/13.gif

OK, now that that 😉 childish whine is over…I have suggested this before, & I am throwing it out again:
The teaching within many traditions of Christianity, in the past, was that the first gospel was Matthew (Aramaic). The other gospels were written later, & so was the translation of Matthew into Greek.
OK. Just think of Matthew (Aramaic) as being “Q”, & the problem goes away. All the gospel writers leaned on Matthew (Aramaic).
In this scenario, the first gospel in Greek may well be Mark, or maybe not. But,IMHO, it harmonizes what look to be totally different theories.
 
I like Zooey’s theory best–Matthew wrote first, (as as always been the tradition), and other gospel writers relied to some extent on Matthew.

There is no need for a separate Q tradition unless one believes that Mark was written first–something which is certainly not proved. Not to mention the fact that no evidence for Q has ever been found.
 
I believe “Q” helps kill apostolic tradition in the early Church.

Also, to date the writing of the Gospels late in the first century helps kill apostolic tradition.

I do not know if this is the motive, but the effects are similar.

(One must first believe.

Then our love will grow.

Also, our knowledge will develop.

Also, our understanding will grow.

Also, our wisdom will grow.)
 
OK, let me make some enemies. This is not a subject for amature conjecture. I am trained as an Historic-Redactive Analist. We are the nit-pickers who put the Holy Writ under the microscope and through the computer to disassemble such things as syntax, gramatical consistency, stilistic “fingerprints” etc., and place it in it’s historic setting. This to better understand exactly what the writer was talking about and bust the baloons of the uneducated “jump on a stump” preachers who consistantly draw wild conclusions, such as Mellenialism. That does not mean that we doubt the validity of the revealed truth, we just insist upon complete and absolute fidelity to what was actually written, or re-written as many books of the Old Testament started out as one thing, only to be recast at a later date to another purpose. We are the ones charged with finding out what God was saying both originally and in the latter itterations, and you would be surprised to find out how frequently, and by how many different people what we have now was rewritten before we got it, which is after all the very nature of prophecy. I assure you that Mark, not Mathew is the earliest book, though it is later than the Epistles, and that Q does exist, sort of. What Q is, is nether specified nor important. The term “Q” comes from the German word for “unknown” and it probably never was a book as such. It is unknowh, because there is no “copy” of it that we can study directly. It is the common source for Matthew and Luke, who also drew upon Mark, was probably an early body of teaching of that extended community of the Church the first three Gospels were written in, and was most likely oral. Mat and Luke would not have thought of it as a formal “thing.” It was simply the teaching that all knew. It’s fingerprints are all over Matthew and Luke, as they copied complete “paragraphs,” arranging them to tell the Good News in the manor and order most digestable to their particular flocks. Along with Mark and Q, Matthew had a source called "M,’ and Luke had a source called “L”. “Q,” “M,” and “L” are academic constructs, which should be of no interest to the layity. They are technical devices which are not transparent to those who are not specifically trained in them, and frankly that includes most seminary graduates. Do you have to be an expert on Magnetic Resonence Imaging to go for an MRI when your doctor tells you to, or do you trust him to tell you why your hip hurts and that all your worldly goods are about to end up property of the medical industry? Leave the heavy lifting to the experts who serve and answer to the Magesterium. You will note that I have said nothing about John. John comes from outside the extended community of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and is thought to have had only one source, not shared with the other three. This is my professional oppinion as an academic, and is accepted by the pearage. As to what I personally believe, I believe what the Church in it’s magesterial capacity teaches. 🤓
 
Desert Father:
“Q,” “M,” and “L” are academic constructs, which should be of no interest to the layity.
Click to expand...
Academic constructs, precisely. Of no concern–probably not, unless they work to deconstruct Scripture and the laity’s faith in it.

An article by Bernard Orchard, O.S.B. published in This Rock, March 1994, proposes a theory of the writing of the gospels that is somewhat at variance with recent academic trends. The entire article makes interesting reading. His conclusions:

"1. Matthew was composed to meet the urgent needs of the primitive Church of Jerusalem (the Church set up by Peter), which needed a manifesto defending its integrity and its right to exist in the earliest days.
  1. Luke was written at the behest of Paul to meet the urgent need of his churches to have their own manifesto to prove their full equality with Jewish Christians.
  2. Mark was the result of the collaboration of Peter and Paul to make sure that the spiritual and doctrinal unity of the Universal Church was not impaired as a result of the appearance of Luke beside Matthew in the churches of both.
  3. The Gospel of John made it clear that the primary objective of Jesus throughout his public ministry was the winning over of the spiritual authorities in Jerusalem; at the same time it had the further purpose of readjusting the chronological sequence of his ministry which had been somewhat distorted by the literary sequence of the three synoptic Gospels."
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea1.asp
Source: This Rock, March 1994
 
I was browsing some of the forums and found this one quite interesting. I am a Catholic and accept whatever the Church’s position is on what gospel was written by whom and when. However, I’m not sure what that position is.
Does the Church take the view that the order in which the Gospels were written is Mark, Matthew, Luke and John? Which of them does the Church view as actual Apostles?

I took the chance today read the paper by Dennis Barton referred to in this forum. Wow! I had a headache going through all of that.
His conclusion is that the Gospel order is Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, and that Matthew and John were Apostles while Luke and Mark were secretaries of Paul and Peter.
 
I do not understand what is being taught.

Is there an official teaching on which gospel was written first?

Please give a simple answer, thank you.
 
Desert Father:
OK, let me make some enemies. This is not a subject for amature conjecture. I am trained as an Historic-Redactive Analist. We are the nit-pickers who put the Holy Writ under the microscope and through the computer to disassemble such things as syntax, gramatical consistency, stilistic “fingerprints” etc., and place it in it’s historic setting. This to better understand exactly what the writer was talking about and bust the baloons of the uneducated “jump on a stump” preachers who consistantly draw wild conclusions, such as Mellenialism. That does not mean that we doubt the validity of the revealed truth, we just insist upon complete and absolute fidelity to what was actually written, or re-written as many books of the Old Testament started out as one thing, only to be recast at a later date to another purpose. We are the ones charged with finding out what God was saying both originally and in the latter itterations, and you would be surprised to find out how frequently, and by how many different people what we have now was rewritten before we got it, which is after all the very nature of prophecy. I assure you that Mark, not Mathew is the earliest book, though it is later than the Epistles, and that Q does exist, sort of. What Q is, is nether specified nor important. The term “Q” comes from the German word for “unknown” and it probably never was a book as such. It is unknowh, because there is no “copy” of it that we can study directly. It is the common source for Matthew and Luke, who also drew upon Mark, was probably an early body of teaching of that extended community of the Church the first three Gospels were written in, and was most likely oral. Mat and Luke would not have thought of it as a formal “thing.” It was simply the teaching that all knew. It’s fingerprints are all over Matthew and Luke, as they copied complete “paragraphs,” arranging them to tell the Good News in the manor and order most digestable to their particular flocks. Along with Mark and Q, Matthew had a source called "M,’ and Luke had a source called “L”. “Q,” “M,” and “L” are academic constructs, which should be of no interest to the layity. They are technical devices which are not transparent to those who are not specifically trained in them, and frankly that includes most seminary graduates. Do you have to be an expert on Magnetic Resonence Imaging to go for an MRI when your doctor tells you to, or do you trust him to tell you why your hip hurts and that all your worldly goods are about to end up property of the medical industry? Leave the heavy lifting to the experts who serve and answer to the Magesterium. You will note that I have said nothing about John. John comes from outside the extended community of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and is thought to have had only one source, not shared with the other three. This is my professional oppinion as an academic, and is accepted by the pearage. As to what I personally believe, I believe what the Church in it’s magesterial capacity teaches. 🤓
Click to expand...
Can you successfully argue against this? The Authors of the Gospels?
 
Jim Baur:
I do not understand what is being taught.

Is there an official teaching on which gospel was written first?

Please give a simple answer, thank you.
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge, the Church does not have any official position on which gospel was written first, or even for that matter, on the authorship of particular gospels, (since the title of a gospel is not itself part of the inspired writing!).
 
The Clementine Tradition of the early Church said it was Matthew, Luke, Mark and then John.
 
buffalo:

You said Tradition. Is this then an official teaching, that is, Magisterium, Holy Bible and Tradition?

To one and all: Does the order change any of our doctrinal belief?

Desert Father: Do the Historic-Redactive Analists make changes to doctrine?

To all that respone, please make it simple, thank you!
 
Jim Baur:
buffalo:

You said Tradition. Is this then an official teaching, that is, Magisterium, Holy Bible and Tradition?

To one and all: Does the order change any of our doctrinal belief?

Desert Father: Do the Historic-Redactive Analists make changes to doctrine?

To all that respone, please make it simple, thank you!
Click to expand...
Basically the Markans really downplay the Divinity of Christ if they allow it at all. He was just a good man, a good philospher, with a great message. This makes Jeus a liar (so it is really self defeating as a liar can’t really be good) as He himself proclaimed His Divinity. Late dating of the Gospels excludes eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. Therefore, they become stories and ways to teach. Miracles become miraculous events. It goes on and on. It also defeats the martydom of the Apostles.
 
From The Authors of the Gospels

For nearly 2000 years Christians have maintained that the Apostles Matthew and John (eye-witnesses of the public life of Christ) and Mark and Luke (secretaries to Peter and Paul) composed the four Gospels. Today this historical basis of Christianity is widely denied, not only by non-Christians, but also by some within the Christian community.
Code: 
		 When at parish level speakers are asked to provide solid reasons for this change, the usual replies 			are: `The experts say so`, or `everyone agrees`. I therefore felt the need to make a personal investigation.

		 This involved collecting the external evidence (what the early historians wrote) and the internal 			evidence (modern literary analysis of the texts). This booklet contains the result of that research.

		 The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels) show clear 			signs of borrowing. The dispute as to who borrowed from whom, and therefore in what order they were written, is 			the key to the debate regarding authorship.
THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION

is in full accord with:
Code: 
			 The 				earliest Christian historians

			 Modern 				literary analysis

			 The 				doctrine of the church

			 Recent 				Church statements

			 The following pages contain the evidence for 				the claims made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how Markan priority grew; its baneful 				effect on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of the Church`s reaction.
more…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top