How do you answer the "Q Source" question?

[po18guy]

You may find these articles helpful: google.com/search?q=catholoic.com&gws_rd=ssl#q=catholic.com+Q+source.

The upshot is that there is no “Q” source. It’s a theoretical biblical exegesis that assumes things based on the fact that the authors of the four Gospels didn’t write about the same things. Which proves nothing except that they were writing to different people for different reasons, and like any writer of this kind of literature, included those things they were inspired to relate. If anything it shows that the Gospels weren’t accounts all told in the same way as if pre-agreed upon, but they were written by four men who either witnessed the events first hand, Matthew and John, or had them relayed to them by witnesses, as in Luke and Mark. Luke from various sources, including Mary, and Mark from Peter.

Amen! Twelve men, all Hebrews with their amazing cultural ability to memorize and relate memorized things to succeeding generations, spent three years almost constantly in Jesus’ presence, learning the same Gospel from the “J” source (Jesus). Now, at times during those three years, some of them were gone on various errands. All did not witness all things. And, each saw the Gospel unfold according to their own perspective, with their differing intellectual abilities.

20-40 years later, when it became clear that the Parousia was not immanent, the accounts were committed to writing and show some differences in perception, detail and order, but the lessons they teach are completely consistent, exactly as God intended. He chose to use human instruments knowing of their fallibility, but gave them the Holy Spirit to guide and to correct their frailty.

Now, Peter was the prince of the Apostles. So, is it really a mystery, or corrupting influence that the other authors chose to consult with Peter and/or Mark’s writings to ensure that they included what was important?

What burns me up is over-educated and smug “moderns” arrogantly presume that the further they are away from an incident, the more they know about it. Do they not know that all things are subject to entropy?

The “Q” (Quelle) is a purely human construct, like the rapture. It is one man’s thoughts (Burnett Hillman Streeter), sold to others. Once the concept has been proffered, evidence is then found which seems to support it.

 

[JaKael02]

Is this a fair summary or no??

This is sort of off topic, but in the event that “Q-Source” was discovered, it would likely not help reconcile differences in the gospel or contribute to great ecumenical unity or be canonized.

• First, it’s likely only 1 document of the text would be found. The dating would only be approximate, even if they allowed a piece to be carbon dated.
• Second, if any teaching was contrary to the existing Scripture, it would be considered a heretical piece. If a teaching was in union with existing Catholic Church but not Protestant it would only divided the two.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

What is Q?

Broadly speaking, the synoptic gospels are made up of the following material:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0px-Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.png

Triple Tradition: Refers to the material shared by Matthew, Mark and Luke. It broadly has the same order across all three gospels, in fact this order tends to be identical with Mark’s, to the point that if you were to isolate triple tradition material in Matthew and Luke you’d end up with a complete gospel generally similar to Mark in structure. Now there are times when Matthew or Luke may occasionally place individual incidents differently, but striking thing about it is that it is rare for both Matthew and Luke to place the same incident differently. Even where Matthew and Luke apparently depart from Mark’s narrative order, they very often both of them end up reverting into agreement with Mark. In other words, the gospel of Mark is often (but not always) the so-called ‘middle term’, the man in the middle.

Double Tradition: Material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark; what supporters of the two-source theory (aka Q theory) term ‘Q material’. Not as numerous as triple tradition material, but still substantial to some extent. Its content is mainly sayings material (i.e. the Our Father, the Beatitudes) but includes some narratives such as the centurion’s servant and the testing of Jesus in the desert as well. It is made up overall of somewhere between 200 and 250 verses of material, usually Jesus’ own speech. The interesting thing about this material is that you don’t have much of it in a closely parallel order; there is some kind of parallel order, but not the same one you get with triple tradition. The order tends to vary between the two gospels.

Special Matthew (M): Material found in Matthew alone. Like double tradition, much of it is sayings material (for instance, the parables in Matthew 25:1-13 and 25:31-46), with a few exceptions (i.e. the Temple tax in Matthew 17:24-27). Some of it can also be found embedded within triple tradition material; for instance, Judas’ death and the brief reference to Pilate’s wife in Matthew 27.

Special Luke (L): Material found only in Luke, usually narrative material like the announcement to Zechariah and John the Baptist’s birth, the Annunciation and Visitation, the boy Jesus in the Temple and the Road to Emmaus, and also saying materials like the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.

Special Mark: Material found only in Mark. Unlike M or L, there is very little ‘special Mark’ material that it’s hardly a separate category by itself. A few examples we can give here are: Jesus healing a deaf and mute man using His spittle and fingers (7:31-37), Jesus healing a blind man in Bethsaida (8:22-25), and the young man “clothed with a linen cloth over his naked body” in Gethsemane (14:51-52).

These are essentially the main elements. (One should keep in mind however that these categories are not water-tight.) Most of the materials in the three gospels usually fit one of these four or five categories. But there are four complications, if you will:

M Material in Triple Tradition: Material unique to Matthew embedded in triple tradition material and would make no sense outside of context; for example, Jesus’ conversation with John the Baptist just before His baptism in 3:14-15.

Lukan Triple Tradition: Three pericopes or passages which have parallels in Matthew and Mark and might be described as Lukan versions of triple tradition material (the rejection at Nazareth at 4:16-30; the call of the first disciples at 5:1-11; the anointing of Jesus at 7:36-50).

Not-quite Triple Tradition: Material found in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke (cf. Matthew 14:34-3; Mark 6:53-56), or in Mark and Luke but not in Matthew (for example, the woman at the treasury; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4). These are not, strictly speaking, triple tradition material since they occur in only two out of the three gospels, but they are akin to triple tradition because they appear in the Markan order.

When Mark is not the middle term: Some material halfway between triple and double tradition. Appears in all three synoptics but unlike triple tradition, features substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. Major examples of these are the story of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:11-12; Lk. 3:15-17; cf. Mk. 1:7-8); the temptation (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; cf. Mark 1:12-13); the Beelzebul controversy (Matt. 12:22-37; Lk. 11:14-23; cf. Mk. 3:22-30); the parable of the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32; Lk. 13:18-19; cf. Mk. 4:30-32) and the mission of the disciples (Matt. 10:1-15; Lk. 9:1-6, 10:1-12; cf. Mk. 6:6b-13).

Thanks

 

[thistle]

Is this a fair summary or no??

This is sort of off topic, but in the event that “Q-Source” was discovered, it would likely not help reconcile differences in the gospel or contribute to great ecumenical unity or be canonized.

• First, it’s likely only 1 document of the text would be found. The dating would only be approximate, even if they allowed a piece to be carbon dated.
• Second, if any teaching was contrary to the existing Scripture, it would be considered a heretical piece. If a teaching was in union with existing Catholic Church but not Protestant it would only divided the two.

This cannot happen because there is no Q source.

 

[patrick457]

One problem with Q is:

People still keep holding to the old claim that it is a ‘sayings source’ or Logienquelle, although if you look at the actual double tradition material it is clear that while it is mostly made up of sayings attributed to Jesus,there are actual narratives such as the story of the centurion/hekatontarch from Capernaum (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10) and the messengers from John the Baptist (Matthew 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35) - although admittedly even these narratives are mostly made up of dialogue.

In fact, the supposed Q material apparently has a narrative sequence in which the progress of Jesus’ ministry is carefully plotted: John the Baptist’s appearance in the Jordan, his preaching, Jesus’ baptism, temptations in the wilderness, Jesus coming to and leaving ‘Nazara’ (this is the interesting thing between Matthew and Luke: in this one instance after the temptation (Matthew 4:13; Luke 4:16) they call Jesus’ home village Ναζαρὰ ‘Nazara’, although in other passages they spell the name as either Ναζαρέτ ‘Nazaret’ or Ναζαρὲθ ‘Nazareth’), a great Sermon, Capernaum where the centurion’s boy/servant is healed, messengers from John the Baptist.

 

[abucs]

The word diēgēsin here actually refers more to ‘narrative’ or ‘narration’. In other words, many people have tried to “to draw up an [orderly] narrative” (anataxasthai diēgēsin) - in other words, a coherent, linear account, as opposed to disjointed anecdotes. And in fact, Luke’s gospel is generally ‘orderly’ by Greco-Roman standards at least when you compare it to Matthew or even Mark - he organizes pericopes into a fixed scheme.

Thank you, i am aware of the ‘orderly linear account’ that Luke refers to and the fact that his account is more orderly and structured than that of Matthew.

The point remains the same though. To draw up an account like Matthew would take the (name removed by moderator)ut from many people. The Apostles, scribes etc. That doesn’t mean there were necessarily many written narratives in circulation at the time of Luke.

The fact that Luke uses the generalised description ‘many people have attempted to draw up an account’ might very well refer to the apostles creation of Matthew where Luke would want to explain his need to improve on their structure without bringing disrespect to the position or importance of Matthew et al, in comparison to himself.

 

[Dmitri77]

http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/articles/q-who1.jpg

Excellent question…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This cannot happen because there is no Q source.

There is no Jesus either .

But we validly infer that from the existence of the Gospels and Christian succession.

Likewise with Q - though the degree of confidence … not so much .

 

[thistle]

There is no Jesus either .

But we validly infer that from the existence of the Gospels and Christian succession.

Likewise with Q - though the degree of confidence … not so much .

Plenty of evidence for Jesus. Zero evidence for Q.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Plenty of evidence for Jesus. Zero evidence for Q.

Define evidence

 

[thistle]

Define evidence

You are Catholic and you are not aware of any evidence for Jesus??

In case you are referring to Q, then evidence is something of lesser or greater substance that can be provided to support a claim. In the case of Q there is nothing to support a claim for Q. Q is 100% speculative.

 

[hadulzo]

Q souce is hypothesis. In one of his books Benedict talks about it as just one of the many tools we can use to study scripture in historical context. Not usefull for spiritual reading, so why be concerned about it.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I don’t believe in the Q Hypothesis. But I do not think one would invalidate the truth of the gospels. Anyway (I didn’t read all the posts, so sorry if someone already posted it) here’s what Jimmy Akin has to say. catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/some-thoughts-on-q

 

[Della]

Q souce is hypothesis. In one of his books Benedict talks about it as just one of the many tools we can use to study scripture in historical context. Not usefull for spiritual reading, so why be concerned about it.

The reason we need to be concerned is that some people use it to try to disprove doctrine or events/persons mentioned in the NT. Lay people who read such ideas can become confused, doubt or lose their faith–as in the case of the OP’s friend. If it never existed I see little to no value in it–certainly not for spiritual reading.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are Catholic and you are not aware of any evidence for Jesus??

In case you are referring to Q, then evidence is something of lesser or greater substance that can be provided to support a claim. In the case of Q there is nothing to support a claim for Q. Q is 100% speculative.

Ah, now I see the reason for your difficulty. You are running a narrow Law type definition.
Here we are in a different wider context. The accepted definition is signs or indications of something to support a belief or proposition.

Here the belief is the Q hypothesis. And the evidence is remarkable similarity in the material common to both Mt and Lk.

Evidence can be direct, which is your definition, or it can be indirect/inferential - the case here.

This means evidence is a concept that allows for degrees of intellectual coercion and therefore subjective disagreements. It is a non-binary concept though like sexuality some think it is an all or nothing matter and consider other views intolerable and are unable to abide dialogue.

The truth of the Catholic faith would seem to be another example that has no direct evidence to coerce intellectual assent. That is why it’s faith. Yet the indirect evidence is such that one may assent without crippling reason, and indeed it is even quite reasonable to do so.
The same with evolution. One is not unreasonable for taking a position either way.

The same with Q but to a lesser extent than evolution as the evidence is based on less evidence. As JP2 said, evolution is more than a theory, it is a hypothesis.

I think Q is more theory than hypothesis myself…but who knows for sure.

 

[thistle]

Ah, now I see the reason for your difficulty. You are running a narrow Law type definition.
Here we are in a different wider context. The accepted definition is signs or indications of something to support a belief or proposition.

Here the belief is the Q hypothesis. And the evidence is remarkable similarity in the material common to both Mt and Lk.

Evidence can be direct, which is your definition, or it can be indirect/inferential - the case here.

This means evidence is a concept that allows for degrees of intellectual coercion and therefore subjective disagreements. It is a non-binary concept though like sexuality some think it is an all or nothing matter and consider other views intolerable and are unable to abide dialogue.

The truth of the Catholic faith would seem to be another example that has no direct evidence to coerce intellectual assent. That is why it’s faith. Yet the indirect evidence is such that one may assent without crippling reason, and indeed it is even quite reasonable to do so.
The same with evolution. One is not unreasonable for taking a position either way.

The same with Q but to a lesser extent than evolution as the evidence is based on less evidence. As JP2 said, evolution is more than a theory, it is a hypothesis.

I think Q is more theory than hypothesis myself…but who knows for sure.

Q is pure speculation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Q is pure speculation.

Yes, speculation with some evidence

 

[Della]

Yes, speculation with some evidence

It was that kind of “evidence”–the stringing together of seeming related verses- to “prove” some preconceived idea-that created the “Rapture,” the "thousand year reign of Christ, the “tribulation,” and other odd theories that have robbed thousands of their peace in Christ. Mine is the voice of experience having been a victim of it as a one-time Pentecostalist.

Anyone can string together any number of verses out of context, and make them evidence for anything. It is very poor biblical exegesis.

The Q source was plucked out of thin air, just as the rapture and other non-biblical, non-historical, non-Sacred Traditional theories have been. There is no substantial evidence to support the Q source.

Stating that verses can be put into categories, as in the Q theory, is not evidence that the Q theory has any merit any more than doing the same with verses to prove the rapture theory makes it evidence for it’s veracity. Again, it is very poor biblical exegesis unknown to the Early Church Fathers or to the whole of biblical exegesis until invented in the 20th century. It’s as faulty as Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide or any number of other bad ideas.

 

[patrick457]

Yes, speculation with some evidence

Actually, it’s more like this.

What you have are data. Specifically, the following data:

• Double tradition, the stuff found in both Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels that are not in the gospel of Mark
• Material found in both Matthew and Luke that treat of the same topic but are otherwise wildly different (again, the infancy narratives and the genealogies)

The Logienquelle / Q is a hypothetical document that tries to explain both of these phenomena: why Matthew and Luke share similar (sometimes even exactly similar) passages, but at the same time have major differences that seem to point to them being independent of one another.

There is no direct external evidence that such a document did exist in the 1st century. We have no copies of Q. We have nothing from early Christian writings that speak of such a document (as I mentioned, for a while it was thought that Matthew’s logia to which Papias referred might be Q, but no scholar now believes this). No archaeological evidence, no literary evidence. If there is any, I ask you to bring that up. (And no, the Gospel of Thomas doesn’t count.)

In fact, if you allow for the possibility that Matthew and Luke are not independent of each other, then the need for a Q disappears. You can simply explain double tradition as one of the two copying and adapting the other’s material.

 

[patrick457]

The “Q” (Quelle) is a purely human construct, like the rapture. It is one man’s thoughts (Burnett Hillman Streeter), sold to others. Once the concept has been proffered, evidence is then found which seems to support it.

No. B.H. Streeter formulated the modern form of the two-source hypothesis in the 1920s, but he’s just building on the work of past scholars. (In fact, I don’t think there’s that much scholars who hold to the exact same version of the Q theory as Streeter presented it: Streeter proposes that the special Matthaean and the Lukan material were also derived from written documents themselves. In other words, Matthew and Luke is a hodgepodge of at least four documents.)