"Q": What's the deal?

[vern_humphrey]

Gentlemen, can we knock off the personal attacks, name calling and accusations? It is adding nothing to the debate.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Since your only example of Ehrman not using standard historical methods has blown up in your face, do you still think Ehrman is doing pseudo-history?

 

[anthony022071]

What is the deal with Q? Did it really exist, or is this just an attempt of liberal scholars to subvert the traditionally ascribed origins of the synoptic gospels?

AFAIK, “Q” seems to be based on the “layers of accredidations” theory in higher criticism, where slowly, a small “Jesus story” kept having layers of more and more miraculous stuff added on later. Along with Marcan priority (as opposed to Matthewian) it “smells” like a slight against tradition.

So… is Q real or not? At the end of the day I have a hard time believing in it because not a single copy exists nor was it ever mentioned. I think that, given what I know now, that all synoptics were compiled from a common oral tradition (the people at that time were largely illiterate and had, correspondingly, memories that would amaze us because of advanced memorization techniques) that was probably controlled tightly by the Church (hence common word-for-word similarities).

The idea behind the Q theory is the desire by biblical scholars to “get behind” or “get to the bottom of” the mystery of Jesus Christ and the things he said. Everything having to do with Jesus’ divinity or the supernatural or the miraculous is assumed to be redaction upon what Jesus actually said and did. These things are out of the question,or explained away so that they lose their force.

So all that is left are some moralistic sayings and parables which have their origin in some school or tradition prior to Jesus. And Jesus is left as merely a teacher of morals,or a religious reformer,or a political messiah. All else about Jesus is redaction.

Modern biblical exegetes have done professionally and “scientifically” what men of the Enlightenment did privately – separating the things in the New Testament which are acceptable to men with a common sense or rational frame of mind from the things that are incredible,that is,the things which seem to be the products of Jewish superstition.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Everything having to do with Jesus’ divinity or the supernatural or the miraculous is assumed to be redaction upon what Jesus actually said and did. These things are out of the question,or explained away so that they lose their force.

So all that is left are some moralistic sayings and parables which have their origin in some school or tradition prior to Jesus. And Jesus is left as merely a teacher of morals,or a religious reformer,or a political messiah. All else about Jesus is redaction.

Can you name some Biblical scholars that say that all parts of New Testament about Jesus and divinity, the supernatural, or the miraculous are are reaction? I am not aware of any. And in fact, the idea that it is all redaction does not even make sense. Redaction in reference to text is an editing form where multiple sources are combined. There may be brief additions by the redactor(s), but the elements of divinity, the supernatural, and miracles are too central to the themes of the New Testament to be the result of redaction.

 

[Teflon93]

Since your only example of Ehrman not using standard historical methods has blown up in your face, do you still think Ehrman is doing pseudo-history?

Yes, I do, chiefly because your claim that Ehrman “not using standard historical methods has blown up” in my face is completely unsupported.

The miracles offer a good example of why he practices pseudohistory and not history.

Christ’s turning water into wine is an example of a miracle. Either it happened, or it didn’t happen. How is it immune to the common methods of historical inquiry?

Now, I am the proud owner of a history degree. What magical thing do you think historians do which makes our discipline too esoteric for the miraculous?

All historians do is marshal historical evidence into a narrative. Herodotus did it by going around and interviewing war veterans and comparing their accounts. He also visited key battle sites. In a more literate society, this is made easier by comparing written accounts.

So how precisely are Christ’s miracles out of the question?

This isn’t physics we’re talking about, but history.

Ehrman practices pseudohistory by refusing to address claims which are in essence historical. They happened, or they didn’t. Now, Ehrman does go to some lengths to dig up alternate claims of miracle workers in history, which is fine. But to ignore the claims of Christ which are the very reason so many believed him to be God seems a little, well, distorted, doesn’t it?

 

[Teflon93]

The idea behind the Q theory is the desire by biblical scholars to “get behind” or “get to the bottom of” the mystery of Jesus Christ and the things he said. Everything having to do with Jesus’ divinity or the supernatural or the miraculous is assumed to be redaction upon what Jesus actually said and did. These things are out of the question,or explained away so that they lose their force.

So all that is left are some moralistic sayings and parables which have their origin in some school or tradition prior to Jesus. And Jesus is left as merely a teacher of morals,or a religious reformer,or a political messiah. All else about Jesus is redaction.

Modern biblical exegetes have done professionally and “scientifically” what men of the Enlightenment did privately – separating the things in the New Testament which are acceptable to men with a common sense or rational frame of mind from the things that are incredible,that is,the things which seem to be the products of Jewish superstition.

Exactly—they establish preconditions which BY DEFINITION eliminate the possibility that Christ is who he claimed to be.

This is precisely what the Pope was driving at.

If I were to arbitrarily limit my historical investigation of Napoleon to 1792 and to the area of Toulons, I would claim—voila!—that the historical Napoleon was a Corsican artillery captain. I would have defined out the most important aspects of his career, and what history remembers him for.

Similarly, we could ignore the Bible altogether and claim the historical Jesus was nothing more than the footnote in Josephus.

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t know what you asking, but the point is you said that Ehrman required sources to agree to be valid when he does not require this.

Then why is agreement included in his criteria? If it doesn’t matter, why include it?

Not really since since Q can be tested against other sources in the same way the gospels of Luke and Matthew could be. In fact since the two source hypothesis or four source hypothesis make Mark and Matthew more independent of each other it can increase the reliability of things in the Gospels.

Well, except for the fact that it doesn’t exist. Do you think they tossed away a source which was so useful? Why do you think there’s no direct reference to it in other writings, say, as with the plays of Sophocles?

Well, for example the historical method cannot address whether the miracles really happened.

Sure they can. For example, Constantine the Great claimed he had a vision of Christ before his showdown with his brother. He promised to convert if he won the battle, which he did. There are a number of actions he took which were attested and confirm this miraculous vision, not least of which is he did convert.

There’s one example right off the bat for you.

Ehrman did not become an agnostic because he found sola scriptura to be untrue. After he broke with fundamentalism he became a mainline protestant. It was the problem of theodicy that eventually caused him to become an agnostic.

Well, okay, as I noted, I certainly don’t have a reference in front of me and may well have not recalled it correctly. Care to post a link?

Ehrman did not define out anything. He is using the standard historical method.

Where is this standard historical method to be found? They didn’t issue me one while I was getting my degree.

Again, a reference would help as we could test the claim.

Do you mean to claim that no historians argue with Ehrman?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Christ’s turning water into wine is an example of a miracle. Either it happened, or it didn’t happen. How is it immune to the common methods of historical inquiry?

A historian can only show what probably happened, but a miracle by its very nature is the the most highly improbable explanation possible. How can a historian ever show the most highly improbable explanation is what probably happened? This is not to say that miracles do not happen just that the methods of history cannot be used to say whether a miracle did not did not probably happen.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Then why is agreement included in his criteria? If it doesn’t matter, why include it?

Do you have a learning disability? I have answered this question before. Agreement can increase the probability, but is not necessary.

[qyote]Well, except for the fact that it doesn’t exist. Do you think they tossed away a source which was so useful? Why do you think there’s no direct reference to it in other writings, say, as with the plays of Sophocles?

I don’t know why it was lost, if it even existed. I am not an expert on Q.

Sure they can. For example, Constantine the Great claimed he had a vision of Christ before his showdown with his brother. He promised to convert if he won the battle, which he did. There are a number of actions he took which were attested and confirm this miraculous vision, not least of which is he did convert.

There’s one example right off the bat for you.

The question of whether Constantine had a vision is something that can be tested, but how do we do show if it was a message from God or a hallucination or that he lied or that it is reported incorrectly?

Well, okay, as I noted, I certainly don’t have a reference in front of me and may well have not recalled it correctly. Care to post a link?

There is an interview printed in the back of the paperback of Misquoting Jesus. I don’t know if the interview is posted online.

Where is this standard historical method to be found? They didn’t issue me one while I was getting my degree.

Again, a reference would help as we could test the claim.

Do you mean to claim that no historians argue with Ehrman?

I probably should have said he uses standard historical methods. For a nice introduction you could look at From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods Martha C. Howell and Walter Prevenier. Of course, some historians disagree with Ehrman.

 

[Teflon93]

A historian can only show what probably happened, but a miracle by its very nature is the the most highly improbable explanation possible. How can a historian ever show the most highly improbable explanation is what probably happened? This is not to say that miracles do not happen just that the methods of history cannot be used to say whether a miracle did not did not probably happen.

But that is a very alien thought to the historian!

The improbable happens all the time in history. In fact, it is the improbable, the remarkable, and the unusual which gets remembered and recorded in history.

The historian demonstrates the improbable occurred the way they demonstrate any other event happened:

• marshal available evidence
• weigh the evidence
• construct a narrative to fit the evidence

Honestly, that’s the historian’s craft.

If enough credible witnesses claim water turned to wine at a wedding, and if there is evidence of people following the miracle worker shortly thereafter, those are indications that the improbable did in fact occur.

Here’s another non-Christian example:

Hannibal took his elephants over the Alps. Elephants. Over. The. Alps. This is a simply incredible feat. We know it happened because there were historical records of the havoc the remaining elephants wrought, of Hannibal’s march, and (now this part is from memory) elephant bones in the Alps.

So historical inquiry is quite possible into things which are quite improbable.

Ehrman’s removal of miracles from the equation is likely due to the lack of non-Gospel evidence of direct miracles during Christ’s ministry. What this misses is that obviously through the Gospels Christ remains one of the best-documented figures of the 1st century.

 

[Teflon93]

Do you have a learning disability? I have answered this question before. Agreement can increase the probability, but is not necessary.

Okay, if it increases the probability, isn’t it necessary? In other words, if there is no other independent attestation, isn’t there a strict limit as to how valid the claim will be considered?

I don’t know why it was lost, if it even existed. I am not an expert on Q.

Well, that’s part of the historical inquiry, right?

Clearly, the Gospels, even the ones considered apocryphal, were so prized in a culture where paper and scriveners were quite expensive that we have more copies of them than any other ancient book. Was it 53, 83? Something like that.

So wouldn’t the book used to write the synoptic Gospels be prized enough to copy, to distribute, etc?

Absence of evidence is not synonymous with evidence of absence, but one must admit that this does present some problems for the Q hypothesis.

The question of whether Constantine had a vision is something that can be tested, but how do we do show if it was a message from God or a hallucination or that he lied or that it is reported incorrectly?

Of course, these are all sound historical questions, but one cannot test history the same way one can test acidity. You marshal the evidence, weigh it, and craft the narrative.

The fact that Constantine had the symbol of Christ painted on his troops’ shields, converted, and stopped the Roman repression of Christians is surely evidence in favor of it. Alternate hypotheses need to marshal greater evidence.

There is an interview printed in the back of the paperback of Misquoting Jesus. I don’t know if the interview is posted online.

That helps—I’ll check it out. Thanks!

I probably should have said he uses standard historical methods. For a nice introduction you could look at From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods Martha C. Howell and Walter Prevenier. Of course, some historians disagree with Ehrman.

I will check that one out—sounds very interesting. I have several historiography references but not that one.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Okay, if it increases the probability, isn’t it necessary?

No.

In other words, if there is no other independent attestation, isn’t there a strict limit as to how valid the claim will be considered?

Think about it this is way. Say there is a claim that is backed up by one text. Now, we find 250 other independent texts that confirm the first text. Has the probability gone up that the claim in the first text was true gone up? But this does not mean that the first text was not valid before the finding of the other 250 texts.

Absence of evidence is not synonymous with evidence of absence, but one must admit that this does present some problems for the Q hypothesis.

Most Biblical scholars admit this including Ehrman .

Of course, these are all sound historical questions, but one cannot test history the same way one can test acidity. You marshal the evidence, weigh it, and craft the narrative.

The fact that Constantine had the symbol of Christ painted on his troops’ shields, converted, and stopped the Roman repression of Christians is surely evidence in favor of it. Alternate hypotheses need to marshal greater evidence.

See next post about miracles.

 

[Teflon93]

No.

Yes, I’m a stats guy by trade—variables either significantly impact a model or are noise. If multiple attestation increases historical validity per Ehrman’s model, it is in fact necessary for it. 100 pct validity must be impossible without it. Keep in mind we’re talking his model here; historical facts either happened or did not happen; a one or a zero. They are not probabilistic at all; our ability to measure the one or the zero is.

Think about it this is way. Say there is a claim that is backed up by one text. Now, we find 250 other independent texts that confirm the first text. Has the probability gone up that the claim in the first text was true gone up? But this does not mean that the first text was not valid before the finding of the other 250 texts.

Well, not necessarily. If 249 were mere copies of 1, the validity of the 1 is the only relevant question. Isn’t that what the Q claim is about?

The truth of the text is obviously not directly tied to our ability to determine its truth. The current temperature is what it is; the thermometer may or may not accurately reflect it. The probability we’re discussing is in fact the probability that the thermometer does accurately reflect the temperature. We will then read the thermometer to see what that temperature is.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

But that is a very alien thought to the historian!

The improbable happens all the time in history. In fact, it is the improbable, the remarkable, and the unusual which gets remembered and recorded in history.

The historian demonstrates the improbable occurred the way they demonstrate any other event happened:

• marshal available evidence
• weigh the evidence
• construct a narrative to fit the evidence

Honestly, that’s the historian’s craft.

If enough credible witnesses claim water turned to wine at a wedding, and if there is evidence of people following the miracle worker shortly thereafter, those are indications that the improbable did in fact occur.

Here’s another non-Christian example:

Hannibal took his elephants over the Alps. Elephants. Over. The. Alps. This is a simply incredible feat. We know it happened because there were historical records of the havoc the remaining elephants wrought, of Hannibal’s march, and (now this part is from memory) elephant bones in the Alps.

So historical inquiry is quite possible into things which are quite improbable.

Ehrman has nice section on miracles in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I would quote it but it goes on for pages. Basically, he points out that all of history is improbable. But the problem with miracles is that defy all probabilities. He points out that this does not mean that miracles have not happened, but they are just not something we can show probably happened. For a better explanation see page 192-197.

Ehrman’s removal of miracles from the equation is likely due to the lack of non-Gospel evidence of direct miracles during Christ’s ministry. What this misses is that obviously through the Gospels Christ remains one of the best-documented figures of the 1st century.

Not at all. His “removal” of miracles from a historical study of Jesus for is the reasons above. He does discuss some the non-Gospel evidence of Jesus’ miracles so it is because of a lack of this type of evidence.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Yes, I’m a stats guy by trade—variables either significantly impact a model or are noise. If multiple attestation increases historical validity per Ehrman’s model, it is in fact necessary for it. 100 pct validity must be impossible without it. Keep in mind we’re talking his model here; historical facts either happened or did not happen; a one or a zero. They are not probabilistic at all; our ability to measure the one or the zero is.

Part of Ehrman’s basic point is that a historian can never say 100% what happened, but only what probably happened. Ehrman is not trying for 100% validity. Historical facts did either happen or not, but a historian can only say what probably happened.

Well, not necessarily. If 249 were mere copies of 1, the validity of the 1 is the only relevant question.

I said they were indepenent.

Isn’t that what the Q claim is about?

Not sure what you are asking.

The truth of the text is obviously not directly tied to our ability to determine its truth. The current temperature is what it is; the thermometer may or may not accurately reflect it. The probability we’re discussing is in fact the probability that the thermometer does accurately reflect the temperature. We will then read the thermometer to see what that temperature is.

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for your posts guys,

Does Q rest on materialistic/non-Christian assumptions (I think Marcan priority does, because it assumes that Jesus never really did any of those things and over time the tradition grew, so smaller = earlier)?

No, it isn’t that simple. Marcan priority rests primarily on a close comparison of the parallel stories in Mark and Matthew. You notice, for instance, that Matthew’s versions of the stories are usually shorter and less vivid, even though Matthew is a much longer book. Also, if Matthew came first then it follows that Luke and Mark borrowed from Matthew. But if that were the case you would expect Matthew and Luke sometimes to agree against Mark in the way they arrange their material. You wouldn’t expect Mark and Luke to agree against Matthew. But in fact, when the Gospel writers differ in their organization, Mark and not Matthew appears to be the common link.

Secondly, what are the assumptions made in proposing the existance of Q?

Marcan priority, primarily. I myself am very unsure that Q ever existed as a document–it might have been oral tradition instead. I have also wondered if Q might be the “Hebrew [Aramaic] Gospel of Matthew” spoken of by some of the Fathers, but I’m not sure this holds up linguistically.

Edwin

 

[anthony022071]

Can you name some Biblical scholars that say that all parts of New Testament about Jesus and divinity, the supernatural, or the miraculous are are reaction? I am not aware of any.

Rudolph Bultmann,who said that the only thing about Jesus was that he existed,and who thought that belief in the Resurrection could be disposed of,had a huge influence on the course of biblical exegesis. Even when biblical scholars don’t say outright that the divinity of Jesus,
the supernatural and miraculous elements
are not all a matter of accretion and redaction onto the sayings and acts of Jesus,that is what their scholarship often implies. If you go to a public library or a secular bookstore and look at the books in the Christianity section,you’ll probably find that as much as half to three quarters of the more recent scholarly
books on Jesus or the gospels cast doubt on and undermine his divinity. And the authors of these books are often well-respected theology professors teaching at universities. They receive
applause and awards for giving speeches and writing books which
undermine the divinity of Jesus.

And in fact, the idea that it is all redaction does not even make sense. Redaction in reference to text is an editing form where multiple sources are combined. There may be brief additions by the redactor(s), but the elements of divinity, the supernatural, and miracles are too central to the themes of the New Testament to be the result of redaction.

But many modern biblical exegetes don’t even believe in the divinity of Jesus,nor in the supernatural or the miraculous. They don’t trust the veracity of the gospels as to how Jesus is presented – as the Son of God,the Messiah. They are intent on finding explanations which do not have to do with the reality of God and God’s interfering with the world. It’s true that the elements of divinity,the supernatural,and miracles are central to the themes of the New Testament,but when disbelieving scholars
go to work on the Bible,they look for historical,cultural,literary explanations where God,as a reality,is not a factor. That’s the whole problem with much modern biblical scholarship – it doubts the veracity of the Bible,and robs it of it’s force.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Ammonius Saccus;2657284:

Can you name some Biblical scholars that say that all parts of New Testament about Jesus and divinity, the supernatural, or the miraculous are are reaction? I am not aware of any.

Rudolph Bultmann,who said that the only thing about Jesus was that he existed,and who thought that belief in the Resurrection could be disposed of,had a huge influence on the course of biblical exegesis. Even when biblical scholars don’t say outright that the divinity of Jesus,
the supernatural and miraculous elements
are not all a matter of accretion and redaction onto the sayings and acts of Jesus,that is what their scholarship often implies.

You are misrepresenting Bultmann’s work if you are saying that he said the supernatural and miraculous elements as the result of redaction and accretion (I see you added accretion). One of the key things Bultmann did was propose the Signs Gospel. This source is seen as a pre-70 source that is full of supernatural and miraculous elements. In Bultmann’s view the supernatural elements of the Gospel of John do not come from redaction or accretion, but from an early source.

As to your characterization of Bultmann’s view of Jesus and what can be said about him, I think you misrepresenting that as well. Specifically Bultmann did not see the resurrection as something that could be disposed (but he did not see it as a historical fact), in fact he believed the resurrection was essential.

See: people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_760_bultmann.htm

But many modern biblical exegetes don’t even believe in the divinity of Jesus,nor in the supernatural or the miraculous. They don’t trust the veracity of the gospels as to how Jesus is presented – as the Son of God,the Messiah. They are intent on finding explanations which do not have to do with the reality of God and God’s interfering with the world. It’s true that the elements of divinity,the supernatural,and miracles are central to the themes of the New Testament,but when disbelieving scholars
go to work on the Bible,they look for historical,cultural,literary explanations where God,as a reality,is not a factor.

OK, but you claimed that they say the supernatural elements are all a matter of redaction. Can you specifically cite some instances of scholars claiming that the supernatural elements are all redaction?

That’s the whole problem with much modern biblical scholarship – it doubts the veracity of the Bible,and robs it of it’s force.

It is not a problem if they are using the methods of history. Do you think historians should start from the position that all the miracles in Bible are true? How would you have historians look at the miracle claims of other faiths such as Islam or Buddhism?

 

[Teflon93]

Marcan priority, primarily. I myself am very unsure that Q ever existed as a document–it might have been oral tradition instead. I have also wondered if Q might be the “Hebrew [Aramaic] Gospel of Matthew” spoken of by some of the Fathers, but I’m not sure this holds up linguistically.

Edwin

But if Q were oral, wouldn’t that refute the very argument for Q? After all, much hash is made of the notion that “exact phrasing” reproduced requires a written record.

Now, from what I know of oral cultures and my own experience being able to recall big chunks of Churchill quotations, I personally don’t believe that to be the case. And yet Q proponents refer to it again and again.

 

[Teflon93]

Part of Ehrman’s basic point is that a historian can never say 100% what happened, but only what probably happened. Ehrman is not trying for 100% validity. Historical facts did either happen or not, but a historian can only say what probably happened.

Well, only in the sense that we were not present, I suppose. History is always subjective to a degree.

Yet you’re refusing to see what should be obvious: if multiple attestation wasn’t a necessary element to prove validity, it would not be found in Ehrman’s criteria at all by definition. That’s not the same thing as saying it’s the SOLE criterion (which I’ve never said), just that it is a necessary one.

I said they were indepenent.

Yes, but independent can mean a lot of things. If you meant that these accounts had no connection to one another but through the events they observed, then yes, the more the merrier when it comes to attestation.

The truth of the text is obviously not directly tied to our ability to determine its truth. The current temperature is what it is; the thermometer may or may not accurately reflect it. The probability we’re discussing is in fact the probability that the thermometer does accurately reflect the temperature. We will then read the thermometer to see what that temperature is.

Here, I was simply trying to differentiate clearly the probability we’re talking about. It is not in fact the probability the event occurred at all. It either did or did not, 0% or 100%. This is because it is a past event. The probability in question is actually one of “how accurately does our historical evidence reflect actual events?”

This is important to distinguish because when one sets criteria upon which to include or exclude evidence, and to weight evidence, it is very easy to skew your probability.

This is my problem with Ehrman’s treatment of miracles.

If a man showed up tomorrow and raised the dead, a miracle, clearly we could marshal historical evidence to demonstrate whether he did or did not do so. We will in all likelihood not be able to prove it with 100% certainty, but that is not a requirement.

So when it comes to using historical methods to address miraculous events, I simply think Ehrman plays fast and loose. I speculate that this is because doing so would require treating the Gospels as more literal than he, an agnostic, would treat them. Given his Fundamentalist background, which he rejected, this might not be a welcome method of inquiry.

But this is merely my speculation.