Had "Q" existed?

[RobNY]

buffalo:

Can you successfully argue against this? The Authors of the Gospels?

I just read that link, and I wanted to see if what it said was really credible. I’ve got to totally second buffalo’s question here. I’d love to hear Desert Father’s take on this.

-Rob

 

[Zooey]

buffalo:

Basically the Markans really downplay the Divinity of Christ if they allow it at all. He was just a good man, a good philosopher, with a great message. This makes Jesus 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.

I have to agree… I would not put it so strongly, but this is certainly the biggest danger of making the assumption that Mark was first.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Occam’s Razor is a rule that says to look for the simplest explanation, which has been given by several posts above.

My thanks to another poster in another thread in this forum for a link to an article by Robert Sungenis, founder of Catholic Apologetics International, called “Fr. Raymond E. Brown, The Demise of Catholic Biblical Scholarship” at this link

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/fr-ray-brown1.htm

Sungenis rips away at historical criticism, and with regard to the Q source, argues that it was not just benignly suggested, but that it is used to argue that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, and therefore are subject to human errors, such as embellishments and even greater falsifications (e.g. miracles).

Sungenis’ article weaves this point into a larger dissection of historical criticism. My thanks to the poster from Canada who provided the link to that informative article in another thread.

Some of the well-intentioned remarks in this thread fall under the knife of Sungenis’ critique of historical criticism.

His thesis is to support the Church’s historical interpretation and approach to scripture, that it was intended to be read and appreciated as it is written. Amen.

 

[Santa_Cruz]

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.

Just when we thought we knew who “Deep Throat” was.

 

[Leeta]

Desert Father, you don’t seem to be a real scholar at all since you don’t know that the “Q” derives from the German word, “Quelle” which means not ‘unknown’, but ‘source’. or ‘origin’. It was German Protestant theologians who came up with the historical-critical analysis technique.

Quit pretending.

This technique has led to the discrediting of the accuracy and inerrancy of the Gospels. This is another reason for the great loss of faith in Germany and elsewhere.
In 4th grade Catholic religion class in the German school my son attended, the textbook explained matter of factly, that the fleeing Hebrews waded through the ‘reed sea’ when they crossed the Red Sea.
Then my sons in the German high school religion class (religion class is required) had to explain what the Stations of the Cross were to their fellows. (Only one Catholic Church in this large city even has the Stations in the church).
Then a year later these same high school students were given the historical-critical biblical analysis to study and use in interpreting the Bible. So at the end of high school, the vestiges of the students’ faith was effectively destroyed, just in time to begin their adult life.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

You know–I think it’s very important to withstand the impulse to attack someone’s character when discussing this kind of subject, especially if they’re just trying to offer some insight.
Instead of delivering warnings against the dangers of such scholarship, we should be ‘scholarizing’ ourselves against it (or for it).

 

[dancus]

ibelieveit:

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.

Congratulations:

Yours is the only sensible answer I’ve read. Your on the right track only you stopped short of the station. Study a short bio. of Mark and you’ll know exactly who “Q” is. As for the writer on Biblical Scholars being confused, I know many Biblical Scholars and only the fuzzy-thinkers are confused. By the way, “Q” is nothing more then the initial letter of question. Dan