A
adrift
Guest
Thank you. I was confused by your statements. Yes the Church does not say any theory is correct. So if someone wishes to adhere to the Fathers opinions they are perfectly within the Church. Right?
- Status
D
diggerdomer
Guest
If a given opinion coheres with Church teaching, yes. If not, no.
S
simspt
Guest
For me understanding the Church’s teaching on how the Gospels (written tradition of the Church with theological insights regarding the testimony of the Apostles) were formed makes it very plausible the Evangelists who wrote the Gospels did so using oral and pre existing written traditions. This in no way limits IMO the inspiration of these writings.
catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_HistTruthFitzmyer.htm
S
scottm
Guest
Of course they did. And that makes “Q” be merely oral tradition. Nobody can complain about that definition of Q.
A
Alan55
Guest
There is no way to support the claim with respect to “most Catholics.” It is easy to support with respect to “most bible scholars.” One source: the introduction to the commentary on Mark’s gospel in the Sacra Pagina commentary series.
A
abucs
Guest
Hi CatholicTiger, i think you might be interested in the following links from slightly different perspectives.
markgoodacre.org/Q/index.htm
maplenet.net/~trowbridge/farmer.htm
I think the use for Q basically stems from the idea that the Gospel stories were exaggerated over time.
If you start with this assumption then it makes sense that the longer Gospels Matthew and Luke came from the shorter Gospel Mark. Because Matthew and Luke both have different Infancy Narratives, different geneologies and different accounts of the Sermon on the Mount/plain it was then assumed that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospel without knowledge of the other.
Because Matthew and Luke have lots of common material that Mark doesn’t have then the answer must be that they both borrowed from a common source - hence Q.
But this all stems from the exaggerated stories assumption and also the primacy of Mark assumption.
There are some decent textual arguments for why Mark was written first but equally decent textual arguments for why Matthew was written first.
My working assumption is Matthew, Luke then Mark.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No, the theory of the “Q” source suggests that it was a written, not oral, tradition.
S
scottm
Guest
I know that. And that’s where the theory turns into cow dung.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
The Holy Spirit did not inspire the writers of the bible to go and copy their material from someone else.
Nobody copied Q!
Q is a lie. It is my opinion that the devil came up with the idea of Q because He didn’t want people to believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the bible.
Nobody copied Q!
Q is a lie. It is my opinion that the devil came up with the idea of Q because He didn’t want people to believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the bible.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
How do you know what the Holy Spirit did or did not do?
No, the devil did not come up with Q, scholars did. It may or may not be true, as scholars readily admit. It’s simply an hypothesis. Those who support the hypothesis along with those who reject it do not deny the inspiration of Scripture.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Why is it so hard for today’s liberal Catholics to fathom the possibility that the Holy Spirit told the gospel writers what to write when the gospel writers in prayer asked?!
Why is it so hard to fathom the possibility that if the gospel writers were not eye witnesses to the events that they wrote about that maybe just maybe they ASKED or were TAUGHT the events by the disciples who did eye witness the events?
If the gospel writers were true authors as the Catholic Church teaches would they be authors or copiers or editors if they just cut and pasted from Q?
If you had to bet your soul on either the Church Fathers being right about the authors of the gospels or Catholic church tradition for about 1900 years being right about the authors of the gospels or a HYPOTHESIS that contradicted all that by modern Catholic “scholars”–which would you choose?
If you did a survey of modern “scholars” who support the notion of Q and asked how many of them disbelieve the resurrection–the miracles of Jesus–the Virgin birth–do you think you’d get an almost zero number or do you think there would be many of them that would disbelieve these dogmas of the Catholic Church?
Jesus said “you will know them by their fruits”.
How many people do you think are inspired to embrace the Catholic faith when they are first told the notion of Q?
How many people do you think fall away from the Catholic faith when they hear notions such as Q?
“Q scholarship” is as modern and true as “Luther scholarship” was 500 years ago!
Why is it so hard to fathom the possibility that if the gospel writers were not eye witnesses to the events that they wrote about that maybe just maybe they ASKED or were TAUGHT the events by the disciples who did eye witness the events?
If the gospel writers were true authors as the Catholic Church teaches would they be authors or copiers or editors if they just cut and pasted from Q?
If you had to bet your soul on either the Church Fathers being right about the authors of the gospels or Catholic church tradition for about 1900 years being right about the authors of the gospels or a HYPOTHESIS that contradicted all that by modern Catholic “scholars”–which would you choose?
If you did a survey of modern “scholars” who support the notion of Q and asked how many of them disbelieve the resurrection–the miracles of Jesus–the Virgin birth–do you think you’d get an almost zero number or do you think there would be many of them that would disbelieve these dogmas of the Catholic Church?
Jesus said “you will know them by their fruits”.
How many people do you think are inspired to embrace the Catholic faith when they are first told the notion of Q?
How many people do you think fall away from the Catholic faith when they hear notions such as Q?
“Q scholarship” is as modern and true as “Luther scholarship” was 500 years ago!
A
Axion
Guest
Excellent post. “Q” seems innocuous, but it is in fact Step One on the path to declaring the gospel writers all frauds and falsifiers, and then to start to eny the contents of the gospels themselves. The fact that the Q theory has no physical evidence whatsoever, makes people’s dogged adherence to it, even more curious.
A
Alan55
Guest
It is easy to fathom the notion that the Holy Spirit told the gospel writers what to write. It just doesn’t appear to be true, from the best scholarship, and the Church does not ask us to believe that it is true. All that the Q hypothesis asks us to believe is that prior to the writing of the Gospels, there were unwritten stories about Jesus circulating among Christian communities and even some written sources that compiled sayings of Jesus, for example. This hypothesis doesn’t challenge the inspiration of scripture or the miracles of Jesus, as you mistakenly suggest. It simply undercuts one theory of biblical inspiration, that the Holy Spirit somehow told the gospel writers what to write, i.e., the discredited dictation theory. My faith is not undercut by the notion that there were written sources for the gospels. One such written source, which is well attested, is the Old Testament itself. Even the Fathers would hold that some gospels were derived or influenced by others. If you believe in the “Matthew first” theory, you’d say that Mark was a shorter version of Matthew. If you believe in the “Two Source” hypothesis, you’d say that Mark came first and was a source for Matthew and Luke. Either hypothesis posits a written gospel as a source for another written gospel.
What is not easy to fathom is why those who don’t like modern biblical scholarship think that by name-calling, anger and expressions of disgust, they will convince others to disregard the best available scholarship.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
“Q” is simply a hypothesis latched on to by Protestant “scholars” because it is used to undermine Apsotolic Authorship. If this most basic of beliefs can be questioned, then you can question everything is the Gospels, opening the door for denial of Papal authority, existence of miracles, and even the resurrection itself.
S
scottm
Guest
There’s more. The Q Hypothesis asks us to believe that the gospel writers COPIED OFF AND EDITTED those other writings. This is distinguished from them being inspired and knowledgable in their own right. The Q Hypothesis does not allow for Writer #2 to know his material on his own, and to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in his own right, and write it himself. The previous gospel (whichever one it was) wasn’t used simply as a reference book to jog memory, under the Q Hypothesis. Rather, by the Q Hypothesis, Writer #2 took what already existed, laid it next to Q, copied what he liked, and editted what he didn’t like, and this without any influence by God, and this because he couldn’t have written a gospel on his own. He had to copy from prior material.
The analysis conducted under the rubric of the Q Hypothesis is completely secular – God isn’t part of the equation. The hypothesis assumes that subsequent gospel writers were incapable of writing on their own. THAT is the Q hypothesis. And that’s why it’s a problem.
As has been said, nobody ever found “Q.” The hypothesis remains only and merely because people don’t want the Holy Spirit involved in the writing of the Bible. People want the Bible to be exclusively a human invention. To reach that conclusion, it must be true that subsequent writers wrote without the influence of God — that is, they just copied off the people who preceded them.
Nobody claims that the Old Testament is Q, however. The Church Fathers said that Matthew and Luke preceded Mark, which is wholly contrary to what Q-adherents preach. I am not aware of any Church Father saying anything that we today would call the Q Hypothesis.
Name-calling is indeed bad, but on the other hand you are wrongly assuming that the Q hypothesis is good scholarship. It’s not good scholarship. It’s the opposite of “scholarly” even.
A
Alan55
Guest
You seem to accept that inspired gospel writers used the Old Testament and other gospels as sources, yet could not have used a written sayings source (Q), which would somehow undercut the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t make sense. I agree that we do not have a copy of Q, nor did the Fathers mention it, but that doesn’t seem dispositive to me.
I’m one of those who accept the inspiration of scripture and such teaching of modern biblical scholarship as the two-source theory and Q hypothesis. I see no reason why an author, would not start with written sources, arrange, edit, revise, and still be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
By the way, I also accept that a very human Pope could discuss matters with a number of bishops, consult the historic teaching of past Popes, councils, theologians, etc., then draft a document, circulate it for comment, revise, and promulgate a particular doctrine as an infallible – that is, inspired – dogma of the Church. Don’t you? The doctrines of infallibility and biblical inspiration are closely related.
I’m one of those who accept the inspiration of scripture and such teaching of modern biblical scholarship as the two-source theory and Q hypothesis. I see no reason why an author, would not start with written sources, arrange, edit, revise, and still be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
By the way, I also accept that a very human Pope could discuss matters with a number of bishops, consult the historic teaching of past Popes, councils, theologians, etc., then draft a document, circulate it for comment, revise, and promulgate a particular doctrine as an infallible – that is, inspired – dogma of the Church. Don’t you? The doctrines of infallibility and biblical inspiration are closely related.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Q believers claim to know that the apostles Matthew and John didn’t write their own gospels.
Don’t you think that if the apostles didn’t write Matthew and John that the early churches would not have accepted those written accounts?
Many gospels were written that claimed to be written by the apostles but the early churches could easily tell that they were forgeries. They didn’t become part of the bible.
Don’t you think that if there were a Q writer that the early church could have easily identified him?
The earliest of the churches believed the apostles themselves foremost.
It is no accident that even the apostle Paul spoke with Peter and the other disciples before beginning his ministry.
Don’t tell me that the early Catholic Church revered written accounts that had no known author!
Q is a lie.
Don’t you think that if the apostles didn’t write Matthew and John that the early churches would not have accepted those written accounts?
Many gospels were written that claimed to be written by the apostles but the early churches could easily tell that they were forgeries. They didn’t become part of the bible.
Don’t you think that if there were a Q writer that the early church could have easily identified him?
The earliest of the churches believed the apostles themselves foremost.
It is no accident that even the apostle Paul spoke with Peter and the other disciples before beginning his ministry.
Don’t tell me that the early Catholic Church revered written accounts that had no known author!
Q is a lie.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Allrighty then! Very well put in very strong statements.
S
scottm
Guest
What?! You’re missing the whole point.
Let’s go teach every student our whims as FACT because, by golly, if we think it then it’s true. Right? THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU JUST SAID. You exactly just said that if someone thinks it, it is necessarily true. You think they used Q. Ergo, they did use Q, so we should teach everyone that they used Q.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
Sure, let’s teach that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is true also. There’s every ounce as much evidence of the Monster as there is Q. Ditto unicorns and fairies. Wait, there is more evidence of the existence of unicorns and fairies than there is of Q. More. By your own measuring rod – “I think it; therefore it’s true and should be taught to students” – we should teach students that fairies are real!
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Hmm. Well, Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and was devoted to Mary as the Mother of God. Was he wrong?
- Status