Is there a Q source?

[jegow]

In Scripture class the other day we had gone over the ‘Two Source Hypothesis’. This included the ‘Q’ source and some other confusing letters, ‘M & L’. Is there a good document to turn to about the validity of this ‘Q’ hypothesis? Does this hypothesis even hold any water factually?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

jegow:

In Scripture class the other day we had gone over the ‘Two Source Hypothesis’. This included the ‘Q’ source and some other confusing letters, ‘M & L’. Is there a good document to turn to about the validity of this ‘Q’ hypothesis? Does this hypothesis even hold any water factually?

I am reminded of Chesterton’s comment on the Missing Link - The only thing we know for sure is that it is missing.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

jegow:

In Scripture class the other day we had gone over the ‘Two Source Hypothesis’. This included the ‘Q’ source and some other confusing letters, ‘M & L’. Is there a good document to turn to about the validity of this ‘Q’ hypothesis? Does this hypothesis even hold any water factually?

M = the Marcan source​

L = the Lucan source.

You may also hear of Ur-Luke and Proto-Mark = IIRC, early drafts of those Gospels.

Quelle = German for “source” - abbreviated to Q.

OTOH, no one has ever seen a page of these.

OTO, the Gospels have specific features, themes, contents, ideas. They say one lot of things rather than another lot of things, include some things in common and not others, resemble each other in certain ways, and not others. And come from a particular culture and time rather than another.

This set of hypotheses is not wishful thinking for the sake of spinning clever theories - it’s an attempt to account for the realities of the texts. It’s an attempt to construct a Grand Unified Theory which does justice to what they are, and say, and to how they are interrelated. It’s based on the evidence of the documents as the things they are.

Maybe the whole set of reconstructions of the realities of the process by which the Gospels as we have them came into existence, is a mistake. But these questions - or the details which prompt them - arise from the documents; as well as from what is said about their history in the early Church. We have these documents - why do they, have these particular features ?

One thing is for sure - they did not come into existence in a vacuum. So asking about their human features, is legitimate. And if the questions can be better focussed, so much the better.

Try the “New Jerome Biblical Commentary” - or the introductions in the Jerusalem Bible and the NAB ##

 

[pnewton]

Joe Kelley:

I am reminded of Chesterton’s comment on the Missing Link - The only thing we know for sure is that it is missing.

Great quote. It’s amazing how through the centuries non of these pre-gospel traditions existed and it is only in our enlightened time that these theories have been formulated.

These theories, along with many late dating theories of the gospels seem to have a biased against the most obvious answer, that they record the same events. That is why they are in sync.

There is a reason why Jesus taught us that unless we come as a child, we shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

 

[hermit]

Because they have been discovered in this “enlightened age” has no bearing on their validity.

It wasn’t until recently that we were able to view the three dimensional body on the shroud of Turin even though it was there for centuries.

 

[st_julie]

Maybe the Q source is really Sacred Tradition.

st julie

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

jegow:

…Does this hypothesis even hold any water factually?

You might want to review these threads from earlier discussions on this very topic:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8040

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=9209

 

[buffalo]

st julie:

Maybe the Q source is really Sacred Tradition.

st julie

Or the Holy Spirit!

 

[Lorarose]

Or Mary!!

 

[Karl_Keating]

Gottle of Geer:

This set of hypotheses is not wishful thinking for the sake of spinning clever theories - it’s an attempt to account for the realities of the texts. It’s an attempt to construct a Grand Unified Theory which does justice to what they are, and say, and to how they are interrelated. It’s based on the evidence of the documents as the things they are.

Something like Q is needed if Markan priority is to work. But nothing like Q has been discovered, either on its own or even referred to in other ancient documents. If it existed, Q was one of the most important documents in Christian antiquity. Why does no trace of it remain?

The cleanest solution is that it never existed in the first place. But it MUST have existed if Mark’s was the first Gospel. The conclusion? Mark’s wasn’t the first Gospel.

This seems like an easy syllogism, so why are so many hesitant to make it? One reason is that Mark’s is the Gospel with the fewest miraculous elements and fewest “awkward” passages. If it was written first, one could argue that later Gospels added to it and, in doing so, intruded pious but inaccurate material.

This was an attractive theory to certain nineteenth-century scholars whose belief quotient was deficient–scholars who later, with their more recent counterparts, would be characterized as saying that biblical stories were “all the truer for never having happened.”

If you posit that Matthew was the first Gospel, you have a much more difficult time discounting the miraculous and other elements. Mark becomes a subset of Matthew instead of Matthew being a fanciful emendation of Mark.

 

[patg]

Karl Keating:

Something like Q is needed if Markan priority is to work.

That is a somewhat unfounded assumption.

But nothing like Q has been discovered, either on its own or even referred to in other ancient documents.

That was the argument before the analysis of the Gospel of Thomas - now we have a “sayings only” gospel which parallels the synoptics at numerous points and is an independent witness to the parables and sayings of Jesus. While we don’t have Q (yet) we do have proof that at least one early sayings gospel existed. Sure it has gnositc overtones but don’t tell me that we know of no such genre.

If it existed, Q was one of the most important documents in Christian antiquity. Why does no trace of it remain?

You are implying that we have really great records of the other gospels which is hardly true. The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The nest oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

The books all of us use titled “The Gospels of Jesus” are not even froma a single source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament.

Don’t act like we fave such solid foundation and know or have everything there is to know or have!

The cleanest solution is that it never existed in the first place. But it MUST have existed if Mark’s was the first Gospel. The conclusion? Mark’s wasn’t the first Gospel.

This seems like an easy syllogism, so why are so many hesitant to make it? One reason is that Mark’s is the Gospel with the fewest miraculous elements and fewest “awkward” passages. If it was written first, one could argue that later Gospels added to it and, in doing so, intruded pious but inaccurate material. This was an attractive theory to certain nineteenth-century scholars whose belief quotient was deficient–scholars who later, with their more recent counterparts, would be characterized as saying that biblical stories were “all the truer for never having happened.”

Fortunately, most 21st century scholars disagree with you (along with the 19th century ones). It is much “cleaner”, logical, natural, and supportable to believe that Jesus’ story was developed, edited, and embellished as time went by. An anlysis of the common sayings clearly shows that they were modified as time went by. Of course that makes it harder for the church to insist on the literal historical accuracy of some stories but it is also much more likely to be true.

Pat

 

[jegow]

patg:

That is a somewhat unfounded assumption.
That was the argument before the analysis of the Gospel of Thomas - now we have a “sayings only” gospel which parallels the synoptics at numerous points and is an independent witness to the parables and sayings of Jesus. While we don’t have Q (yet) we do have proof that at least one early sayings gospel existed. Sure it has gnositc overtones but don’t tell me that we know of no such genre.

But there is a difference. My original question was where did the mysterious ‘Q’ source stand in Catholic tradition. See, we have 4 Gospels in the canon of Sacred Scripture. The Gospel of Thomas or that of ‘Q’ are not there. In *Dei Verbum *# 10, it reads, “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church.”

1. The Gospel of Thomas is not found in the canon of Sacred Scripture and therefore supplies a weak contribution to the proof of another mysterious source, ‘Q’.

patg:

You are implying that we have really great records of the other gospels which is hardly true. The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The nest oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

1. We believe that oral tradition was among other things the very first moments of our Sacrerd Tradition. That the Gospel message was orally passed on till it was written down. We have fragments of the early writings but where I stand on this is that there appear to be no fragments of the mysterious ‘Q’. A Gospel that is not in our canon and is not going to convince me that there is another source that is not in our canon that exists.

patg:

Fortunately, most 21st century scholars disagree with you (along with the 19th century ones). It is much “cleaner”, logical, natural, and supportable to believe that Jesus’ story was developed, edited, and embellished as time went by.

1. In Dei Verbum # 7 it reads, “This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the apostles, who by their oral preaching, by example and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with him and from what he did, or what they had learned through the promting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those apostles and apostolic men, who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.”

Well, Vatican II makes it kind of clear of how the message of salvation got into written form. It was the fulfillment of the apostles’ commission. I realize that through translations we lose some meaning but I doubt we lose the original message intended through the prompting of the Holy Spirit which is what it sounds like when you say that,“the Jesus story was embellished as time went by.”

So maybe you could explain a little bit more of the ‘logicalness’ of what you have said is the ‘cleaner’ argument to hold for the Gospels and myterious ‘Q’.

jegow

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Wait a second. The Gospel of Thomas is a late document. I suppose it can be used somehow to support the theory that an early “sayings gospel” existed, if it were’nt for the apparent dependance of it on all four gospels and even a quote of Paul.
While I don’t think Q neccessarilies implies Markan prioity, it is generally taken in that direction.
Even with Mattew and Luke being dated into the 80’s I still think that is way too fast for all the sayings and miracles to develop all that much.
Q doesn’t have to be a problem. Some have posited a Q in 4 layers in which Jesus goes from being a “cynic sage” in stage 1 to being the Almighty in stage 4. If there is no proof that Q even existed, then this is absolutely bonkers.
On a different note, Did the Early Church Fathers, quoting Christ outside of the New Testament, have a copy of Q? Did the writer/s of the Didache have a copy of Q? Did Paul have a copy of Q? Did Peter in 2pet. have a copy of Q? I don’t know. Writings like this would make me believe in Q more than the Gospel of Thomas.
Of course similarities between documents like The Didache and Matthew bring some to draw the conclusion that one had a copy of the other. Alot of this “they had to have something already in writing for them to copy from” stuff makes the Gospel writers seem kind of stupid.
I don’t accept the 4 layer Q.

 

[Robin_L.in_TX]

We’re having similar questions that occur as we study the diocesan program “Formation Toward Christian Ministry.”

The one point that strikes me most is that while all the attributes of 2nd century Judaism for midrash is fully explored, why don’t these scholars give any importance at all to the oral nature of the Jewish people? They were a people of oral traditions, memorizing Torah, and discussing it often. Just because we are a society of pencilpushers and cut and paste DOES NOT mean that they were.

The entire sections that are the same in the Gospels were probably due to the importance placed upon them, that they were taught and, dare I say memorized, by catechumens. Perhaps there are valid reasons that entry into the faith took years, and that was before all the development of the meaning of the deposit of faith, too.

As a teacher, I often summarize important concepts from the Bible, the CCC, and magisterial documents. This does not mean that I am the source of the encapsulated ideas and writings–but merely a summary of what is widely taught. Mark could also be a summary, rather than a bare bones predecessor.

In any event, if these scholars were on the right track, you’d find more of them converting, rather than losing their faith, which happens all too often. The proof is in the pudding; the tree is known by its fruit.

Seems to me there may have been a good reason that Jesus revealed His truth to fishermen, instead of to the scholars!

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L.

 

[Karl_Keating]

patg:

You are implying that we have really great records of the other gospels which is hardly true. The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The nest oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

All of this is quite irrelevant. No one claims we have complete, early manuscripts of the Gospels. What we certainly have is no manuscript whatsoever, early or late, of Q. From a second-century manuscript of Luke or from a first-century fragment of Matthew one can argue that those Gospels date from some time in the first century. Since no scrap of Q exists, one can’t make a similar statement about it.

Fortunately, most 21st century scholars disagree with you (along with the 19th century ones). It is much “cleaner”, logical, natural, and supportable to believe that Jesus’ story was developed, edited, and embellished as time went by. … Of course that makes it harder for the church to insist on the literal historical accuracy of some stories but it is also much more likely to be true.

True, most biblical scholars disagree with the position I hold, which isn’t a position I developed but one that I adopted. But so what? As John A. T. Robinson noted in “Redating the New Testament” (and he was a very liberal scholar), most biblical scholarship consists of regurgitating what other recent scholars have said. There is very little that is original or that re-examines first principles (which is precisely what Robinson did, as he explained in the introduction to that book).

You have identified a motive force behind Markan priority: That Gospel is the simplest, and Matthew and Luke probably fleshed it out. This argument makes sense to many biblical scholars but doesn’t make sense to many people who actually write.

A fuller text that is written for one audience later may be summarized for a different audience. Most book manuscripts start long and end up being edited down. Ditto for essays and articles. Especially ditto for poetry.

If we apply Occam’s Razor, we will prefer the simpler over the more complex answer. If you look only at the raw manuscripts of the synoptics, any of them could have been written first. There is no sufficient reason to posit that the shortest must have been first.

But once you start talking about interdependence, for Mark to have been first you need something like the invisible Q. (You don’t need Q if Matthew or Luke was first.) Why assume the existence of an unproved document when the easier course is to say that Matthew or Luke came first?

 

[tuopaolo]

This isn’t about Q so I guess its maybe a little off-topic but here’s a paper that argues that Mary Magdalene authored the fourth gospel (the one we call the Gospel according to John):

beloveddisciple.org

I already posted this in another thread.

I thought the paper was very interesting.

 

[jegow]

tuopaolo:

This isn’t about Q so I guess its maybe a little off-topic but here’s a paper that argues that Mary Magdalene authored the fourth gospel (the one we call the Gospel according to John):
I thought the paper was very interesting.

This is precisely what ‘Q’ is about. To many, including myself, ‘Q’ is something that doesn’t seem to fit. It doesn’t seem to fit because the motives backing it don’t make sense. There is no evidence for its existence. And the excuse that it was lost before anyone saw it is not good enough. I mean, do you believe that Joseph Smith actually had something called the Urim and Thummim (the plates) but that they were taken up to heaven before many could really see them. Do we have proof that they existed? Those of us who are not Mormon (and no offense to them by the way) would say well … no, and that is why I am not one myself. But doesn’t this same thread start to get weaved through Catholic thought by saying that John did not write John’s Gospel, that Mary Magdalene did and all the other nonsense. It begins to make the tradition of our Church look silly. It makes it look like we have a bunch of stories, made up by someone, since we can’t agree who wrote them and when. Ex. Then those who are no longer Christian will say, there is no proof for the existence of the Gospels, and that is why I am not a Christian. Extreme thought, yes, but think about it – could it lead to this?

For example, one person on this thread thinks that the Jesus story is just an embellished story that grew through time. You bring to attention a paper on how Mary Magdalene might have written the Gospel of John.

So why insist something that is not part of our tradition as Catholics. Mary Magdalene is not believed to have written the Gospel of John, and even by suggesting something like this means that as members of the faithful, there are doubts all over the place of who wrote this or that in the Bible. Mysterious ‘Q’ is not the only thing I have heard that is off track, I have heard a lot more than this. Which in the end this is my point for the this whole thread - is that it damages the faith of people – to say or claim that there are many contested theories about who wrote what, or that some just copied off of ‘Q’ when we have believed the Holy Spirit inspired them to write it.

I don’t mean to be mean but hey, Catholic means Universal and it bugs me that there are uncertainties about the Bible like this. That it is so hard to agree on things.

God Bless.

jegow

 

[jegow]

tuopaolo:

This isn’t about Q so I guess its maybe a little off-topic but here’s a paper that argues that Mary Magdalene authored the fourth gospel (the one we call the Gospel according to John):
I thought the paper was very interesting.

This is precisely what ‘Q’ is about. To many, including myself, ‘Q’ is something that doesn’t seem to fit. It doesn’t seem to fit because the motives backing it don’t make sense. There is no evidence for its existence. And the excuse that it was lost before anyone saw it is not good enough. I mean, do you believe that Joseph Smith actually had something called the Urim and Thummim (the plates) but that they were taken up to heaven before many could really see them. Do we have proof that they existed? Those of us who are not Mormon (and no offense to them by the way) would say well … no, and that is why I am not one myself. But doesn’t this same thread start to get weaved through Catholic thought by saying that John did not write John’s Gospel, that Mary Magdalene did and all the other nonsense. It begins to make the tradition of our Church look silly. It makes it look like we have a bunch of stories, made up by someone, since we can’t agree who wrote them and when. Ex. Then those who are no longer Christian will say, there is no proof for the existence of the Gospels, and that is why I am not a Christian. Extreme thought, yes, but think about it – could it lead to this?

For example, one person on this thread thinks that the Jesus story is just an embellished story that grew through time. You bring to attention a paper on how Mary Magdalene might have written the Gospel of John.

So why insist something that is not part of our tradition as Catholics. Mary Magdalene is not believed to have written the Gospel of John, and even by suggesting something like this means that as members of the faithful, there are doubts all over the place of who wrote this or that in the Bible. Mysterious ‘Q’ is not the only thing I have heard that is off track, I have heard a lot more than this. Which in the end this is my point for the this whole thread - is that it damages the faith of people – to say or claim that there are many contested theories about who wrote what, or that some just copied off of ‘Q’ when we have believed the Holy Spirit inspired them to write it.

I don’t mean to be mean but hey, Catholic means Universal and it bugs me that there are uncertainties about the Bible like this. That it is so hard to agree on things.

God Bless.

jegow

 

[JimG]

If, as Karl says, Q is not needed, particularly if we take the order of composition of the Gospels as they have come down to us–i.e., Matthew first, then why bother with it?

It reminds me of the scientists who at one time thought there was a need for a luminiferous aether, even though there was no evidence of its existence.

 

[tobias]

Try this on for size;
You’re a fisherman who has just devoted 3 years of your to the teachings of one whom you came to believe as the ‘Son of the living God’. Your Messiah died and rose from the dead as He had promised. You alone of your 12 (11) companions was charged with lifting up the faith of the others after He was gone. You alone were given the ‘Keys to the Kingdom.’ The authority from the master falls squarley on your shoulders. What do you do in the form of teaching the sayings and message of the master?
Oral teaching was the predominante method of conveying what was being taught at the time of Christ (at least in the Jewish heritage). So the responsibility is yours to convey the teachings of the master, not only to the new believers, but to the other apostles themeselves. We find this in Acts as the believers learned ‘at the feet of the apostles’, of whom Peter was the head. So early on in Judea the sayings and the story of Jesus is taught and handed on by oral tradition, as was the status quo of discipleship. Keep in mind the apostles were not scattered from Israel right away but eventually had to as the Jews condemned those who believed in Christ. When they did finally go to various parts of the middle east and asia minor the oral traditions were with them as they went. The oral tradition was probably greater than any single work we find in the New Testament today. If any one of the Gospels were to contain all of what the collection of the four contain, such a gospel would be over bearing, and become hard to understand and digest as a single work. The Gospels were inspired not dictated, so the writers were not stripped of free will and the ability to edit and form their Gospel as they remembered it, or to order the events as they had recalled.
If Mark is the first, which it seems impossible to discover, then it would make sense since Mark traveled with Peter (see Acts). And as we see in Paul’s writings it was common that one would dictate and another write. Could Mark be the narration of Peter? I for one believe that it is, at the very least from his traveling companion on his missionary journeys.
Q is quite the fanciful idea, at least as a written source. If Q is meant as the oral tradition of the apostles then I say Amen.