"Q": What's the deal?

[mschrank]

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.

Unless I am wrong, both theories depend on accepting the following premises:

a) Q is a written source, because a gospel is too long to commit to wrote memory
b) Shorter = earlier (less ‘accredations’)

I was reading the St. Joseph edition of the NAB yesterday and I was very surprised that the commentary presented the Q hypothesis as fact. So, I’m wondering now whereas before I always thought it was Jesus Seminar type nonsense.

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).

Yet, I am willing to change my mind.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

…or is this just an attempt of liberal scholars to subvert the traditionally ascribed origins of the synoptic gospels?

Yes. And for the most part, they succeeded, as evidenced by your mention of the NAB pushing this fiction. Sadly, the average person believes this is the reality. Plus they see it on National Geographic channel every night, along with Jesus’s wife and kids.

The real facts are, we have no copies of “Q”, and none has ever been mentioned by any historical source. The so-called “internal evidence” is opaque to any but the initiated (like the Jesus Seminar). Have you ever read a description of Marcan Priority? I keep thinking I’m missing something, because it’s so stupid.

The earliest memories of the Church (and they are real memories) are that Matthew the apostle wrote his gospel first, from his own experiences. There is no historical or archaeological evidence that contradicts that. None.

 

[JimG]

“Q” has a literary existence, but there is no evidence that it ever had an actual existence.

“Q” is essentially that material which is common to Matthew and Luke but is not found in Mark.

The idea is that Mark and Q were primary sources of the synoptic gospel material, and that Luke and Matthew used those two sources to compile their gospels. (The “two source” theory.) In my opinion there are a lot of problems with it, not least the fact that there has never been any external evidence that Q ever existed.

 

[mschrank]

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)?

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

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

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

As I said, most of the critical method’s theories are nearly incoherent - but Q seems to be the product of only one assumption: since Matthew and Luke share several identical lengthier versions of episodes in Mark, they used Mark as a source and another document to fill in the details - Q.

Here’s a simpler, more logical structure - and one that has the authority of the church fathers behind it:

1. The apostle Matthew is the earliest source; writing for jewish christians around 45AD, originally in hebrew, then translating into greek.
2. Mark produces an abbreviated version of Matthew for gentiles in Rome, filled in with details from his time as Peter’s companion.
3. Luke, the companion of Paul, produces his own version using Matthew and Mark as sources. This is a two part volume, with Acts.

This is called the Augustinian Hypothesis, and it eliminates the need for Q, or twisted logic.

 

[buffalo]

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
is in full accord with:

               The earliest                 Christian historians

               Modern literary                 analysis

               The doctrine                 of the church

               Recent Church                 statements

               The following                 pages contain the evidence for the claims made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how                 Markan priority grew; its baneful effect on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of                 the reaction of the Church.

 

[Teflon93]

Good question.

A hypothetical for your consideration:

We are standing outside the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001.

In recollecting the events of that day later, you and I write accounts which largely agree factually. We each claim two planes crashed into the Towers. We describe the fires, and people leaping to their deaths. We describe the collapse. We excerpt Mayor Giuliani’s speech with significant agreement.

Now, did you and I use the same unseen source for our memoirs, or did we simply recall events which actually happened, events seared into our respective memories?

If you answered the former—congratulations! You too could be a Jesus Seminar member!

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

or is this just an attempt of liberal scholars to subvert the traditionally ascribed origins of the synoptic gospels?

Joel Tunnah:

Yes.

Can you please tell me how you determined that people like Herbert Marsh, Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, Christian Hermann Weisse, Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, John S. Kloppenborg are liberals?

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Can you please tell me how you determined that people like Herbert Marsh, Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, Christian Hermann Weisse, Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, John S. Kloppenborg are liberals?

That’s theologically liberal. This isn’t about whether they would vote for Hillary.

(they’re all protestants too - which should give catholics some pause before promoting these theories)

 

[mrteachersir]

To pose such a claim a Q requires more than the stated propositions. It requires belief that the Gospel of Matthew, which historically was the first Gospel accepted by early Christians, was not written by Matthew. Then, it would have to suppose that Mark was written sometime before Matthew (to allow for his gospel to be popularly read). It would also have to suppose that Luke did not ask any of the other Christian leaders (besides the Apostle Paul) about happenings with Jesus (like, even though he followed Paul around, he didn’t come into contact with any other apostles or other disciples of Jesus).

The first two assumptions are expressly contradictory to Tradition and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Tradition holds that Matthew was written first by the apostle Matthew, that Mark wrote Mark sometime afterwards (at the behest of people clamoring for Peter’s version), and that Luke was written by Luke (Paul’s companion) at the request of one Theophilus. The Church Fathers accepted the authority of the Gospels as Apostolic, never once doubting the authenticity nor the authorship. This was affirmed by Vatican II (DCDR). Thus, to proclaim otherwise is liberal: it changes the nearly 2 millenium of constant beliefs.

 

[mrteachersir]

If they are Protestants, they have no reason to adhere to the authority of Christ’s Church. Luther didn’t, Calvin didn’t, Zwingli didn’t. They jsut created doctrines from thin air (and cut books from the Bible that didn’t agree with their theology). For these “scholars” to do otherwise would not fit the Protestant ideal of independence.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

That’s theologically liberal. This isn’t about whether they would vote for Hillary.

(they’re all protestants too - which should give catholics some pause before promoting these theories)

Other than Schleiermacher (who definitely a liberal Christian), how are the others liberal?

 

[mschrank]

Other than Schleiermacher (who definitely a liberal Christian), how are the others liberal?

Could you please tell me why they are to be trusted and why you believe Q is a good theory that is not based in materialistic premises. I want to hear both sides of the story. Thanks.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Could you please tell me why they are to be trusted and why you believe Q is a good theory that is not based in materialistic premises. I want to hear both sides of the story. Thanks.

I never said they should be trusted or that Q is a good theory. If want a good quick introduction to the Q hypothesis I suggest you read Bart Ehrman’s The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. You can get it on Amazon or probably your library.

amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195322592/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-8517571-8673603?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188421813&sr=8-2

 

[mschrank]

I never said they should be trusted or that Q is a good theory. If want a good quick introduction to the Q hypothesis I suggest you read Bart Ehrman’s The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. You can get it on Amazon or probably your library.

amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195322592/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-8517571-8673603?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188421813&sr=8-2

Quick intro, wow, 480 pages. Also, isn’t Ehrman a card carrying Jesus Seminar dude and agnostic?

 

[Genesis315]

The idea that Matthew comes later than the Apostle is essentially rooted in atheism or naturalism. The modern dating is given so that it is written after the fulfillment of certain prophecies in it–because the prophecies couldn’t really have been fulfilled, they must have been written after the fact

 

[mschrank]

The idea that Matthew comes later than the Apostle is essentially rooted in atheism or naturalism. The modern dating is given so that it is written after the fulfillment of certain prophecies in it–because the prophecies couldn’t really have been fulfilled, they must have been written after the fact

Which is generally referred to as “begging the question”

 

[Teflon93]

Quick intro, wow, 480 pages. Also, isn’t Ehrman a card carrying Jesus Seminar dude and agnostic?

Yes. He is a former Fundamentalist and now an agnostic. He may not formally be part of the Jesus Seminar but is a debunker.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Yes. He is a former Fundamentalist and now an agnostic. He may not formally be part of the Jesus Seminar but is a debunker.

He had nothing to do with the Jesus Seminar. What do you mean by debunker?

Quick intro, wow, 480 pages.

You would not need to read it all and it is a fairly quick read. It is basically an introductory college text book.

 

[mschrank]

He had nothing to do with the Jesus Seminar. What do you mean by debunker?

You would not need to read it all and it is a fairly quick read. It is basically an introductory college text book.

I think he means a liberal type.

I think the best question to ask is, is it possible to make a case for Q and still preserve the validity of the texts as historical documents (i…e, orthodox interpretation).