"Q": What's the deal?

[EphelDuath]

You’re right, my mistake. Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q together, but neither Mark nor Q are related, as far as I know.

Couldn’t it just have been a common “Jesus story” that survived by word of mouth?

That used the exact same vocabulary, even through language barriers? That’s surprising.

If you have two people in a trial that give the exact same testimony, word for word, despite the fact that both were first-hand witnesses, don’t you think there’s something suspicious going on?

 

[Teflon93]

Yes. The view of the Jesus Seminar of Jesus as a JEwish wise man and Ehrman’s view of an apocalyptic prophet are mutually exclusive.

Now, a Jewish wise man could be an apocalyptic prophet, but not is the ways the the Jesus seminar and Ehrman are using these terms.

Well, I don’t know what you mean.

My case is that the Jesus Seminar and Ehrman use different methods. These methods are not easy to break down into one or two sentences for a post. I am sorry if you will not take the time to read the actual work that Ehrman has done (a review is not going to give the full picture).

He laid it out in about 10 minutes in his Teaching Company lecture. I’m sure that requires simplification, but agreement was definitely a big part of it, as was argument against interest.

Because the entire book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium is dedicated to questions of how to use the historical method to look at Jesus and what this can tell us about Jesus. I am not going to quote the whole book and a short description of a few sentences would not do it justice.

How about the introduction? That’s usually where the thesis is laid out. A summary? Outline? Notes?

Yes. Heard of the Internet? That’s where they keep our message forums, where we discuss and sometimes even extensively quote evidence in support of our arguments. And all without a library card!

Ehrman has never said that Christ is not God. He is agnostic on that question as well as the question of whether God exists. Can you stop with the distortions?

I’m not distorting anything. If my recollection is faulty, just point out the reference where Ehrman says, “I am not questioning whether Christ was God. I am not saying he is not.” or somesuch. Simple, right?

The thing is he does not have a requirement that accounts must agree. Look at his use of the letters of Paul. This why it is better to go directly to source instead of looking at reviews.

He specifically used this criteria during his “Historical Jesus” course for The Teaching Company. Why don’t you go to the library and listen to it? It’s better to go to the source, right?

An opinion that is not held by the majority of Biblical scholars. You may not think the evidence supports the conclusion that Q existed, but there is evidence.

I’m not impressed that a majority of Biblical scholars think anything. A majority of Catholics know Christ is God and that he guides his Church.

I prefer to spend my time with my majority than yours. Your mileage may vary.

 

[mschrank]

You’re right, my mistake. Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q together, but neither Mark nor Q are related, as far as I know.

That used the exact same vocabulary, even through language barriers? That’s surprising.

If you have two people in a trial that give the exact same testimony, word for word, despite the fact that both were first-hand witnesses, don’t you think there’s something suspicious going on?

But I don’t think the Gospels were based on eyewitness testimony, I mean, Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses, and Matthew most likely was based on an aramaic source (according to tradition).

The question is, would two aramaic speaking Greeks translate using the same words?

 

[buffalo]

The reason for the Q hypothesis is because Matthew, Luke and Mark all have several passages in common that use the exact same vocabulary and sentence structure. Either they all used previous manuscripts to write their documents, or they each memorized word-for-word how to document Jesus’ miracles, which seems evident of some kind of fraudulency.

No room for the Holy Spirit and the infusion of knowledge at Pentecost?

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

THE END OF A QUEST
I was prompted to study the historicity and authorship of the Gospels due to the conflicting messages coming from within the Catholic Community. I now have complete confidence that the Apostles Matthew and John, eyewitnesses of the life of Christ, wrote two of the Gospels. Also that Luke and Mark, secretaries to Paul and Peter wrote the other two. I also accept that Luke composed ‘Actsand that the epistles were written by those whose names have been traditionally attached to them. I have also become aware of the endorsement the Catholic Church gives to these views. In the course of this quest, I have come to accept the evidence of Clement of Alexandria and the other early historians and its confirmation by modern literary analysis. This is that the Gospels were written in the order of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, but published in the order of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I also accept that Mark conflated the Gospels of Matthew and Luke in a manner that explains his allegedlypoor Greek. I find that two gospels were composed by eyewitnesses to Christs public life, while the other two were authenticated by the eyewitness Peter. I see the Markan priority theory, which was created to explain the alleged poor Greek of Mark, as unnecessary, redundant and dangerous.

 

[Teflon93]

You’re right, my mistake. Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q together, but neither Mark nor Q are related, as far as I know.

That used the exact same vocabulary, even through language barriers? That’s surprising.

If you have two people in a trial that give the exact same testimony, word for word, despite the fact that both were first-hand witnesses, don’t you think there’s something suspicious going on?

Nope. I testified in a murder trial and in chatting with the prosecutor a bit later he confirmed that separate accounts of the what the murderer said when we confronted him were identical.

Why do you think that was?

Because that’s what the guy said.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The problem with “Q” is that it violates Occam’s Razor (one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.) The simplest explanation that fits all the known facts is best.

“Q” is an entity that was invented to make the Markan Priority theory work. There is no evidence that it ever existed. Take away “Q” and the Markan Priority theory collapses.

The “evidence” for Markan Priority is basically that is shorter than the other Synoptic Gospels and the Greek is rougher. Neither of those factors prove it was first, and can be accounted for by remembering that in ancient times, writers often worked ear-to-hand, not eye-to-hand.

 

[EphelDuath]

Because that’s what the guy said.

The guy said, in the third person, in multiple languages, that he was going to go do something before he actually did it? And, therefore, why does John not use any of the synoptic Gospel’s phrases?

C’mon, I love miracles. The fact that we have a Bible at all is a miracle in itself. But don’t try to push a box of absurdities into the mix.

No room for the Holy Spirit and the infusion of knowledge at Pentecost?

So why does Matthew say “Kingdom of Heaven” and Luke says “Kingdom of God?” The theory is that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, and thus changed the word. Which is 100% understandable from most viewpoints, but if you’re suggesting he was literally indoctrinated with the scripture by God, then he committed blasphemy by changing it.

But I don’t think the Gospels were based on eyewitness testimony, I mean, Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses, and Matthew most likely was based on an aramaic source (according to tradition).

Absolutely true. The source that Matthew and Luke have in common is known as Q.

 

[buffalo]

But I don’t think the Gospels were based on eyewitness testimony, I mean, Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses, and Matthew most likely was based on an aramaic source (according to tradition).

The question is, would two aramaic speaking Greeks translate using the same words?

Matthew and John wrote as eyewitnesses. Mark was Peter’s recorder.

 

[Teflon93]

The problem with “Q” is that it violates Occam’s Razor (one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.) The simplest explanation that fits all the known facts is best.

“Q” is an entity that was invented to make the Markan Priority theory work. There is no evidence that it ever existed. Take away “Q” and the Markan Priority theory collapses.

The “evidence” for Markan Priority is basically that is shorter than the other Synoptic Gospels and the Greek is rougher. Neither of those factors prove it was first, and can be accounted for by remembering that in ancient times, writers often worked ear-to-hand, not eye-to-hand.

It is also no slight problem that these gospels which were supposedly lifted from Q don’t seem to reference any document that fits the bill.

We know where we’re missing Greek plays, for example, because these are referred to in other extant Greek documents.

Where the gospel authors are not fabulists in the eyes of these scholars, they are apparently plagiarists.

 

[mschrank]

No room for the Holy Spirit and the infusion of knowledge at Pentecost?

Whoah,

Interesting thought there! Actually, wow, I mean it seems like almost a miracle in itself. Could the “source” be none other than the Holy Spirit?!

I think we may be deviating a bit from the historical method now, hah!

 

[EphelDuath]

Where the gospel authors are not fabulists in the eyes of these scholars, they are apparently plagiarists.

That’s just bias speaking. “Plagiarism” implies they were trying to take credit for something. In reality, they just wanted to incorporate elements from Mark and the hypothetical Q to help the audiences they were speaking to, rather than re-writing all of the sayings and parables and leading to messes with translation issues.

 

[Teflon93]

The guy said, in the third person, in multiple languages, that he was going to go do something before he actually did it? And, therefore, why does John not use any of the synoptic Gospel’s phrases?

Perhaps because he paraphrased, or perhaps because he had a lousy memory. Why don’t you produce the evidence instead of resorting to John of the gaps arguments?

C’mon, I love miracles. The fact that we have a Bible at all is a miracle in itself. But don’t try to push a box of absurdities into the mix.

Right. The very unmiraculous fact that people can recall extraordinary events of their lives in great detail is absurd. Especially those who are from an oral tradition.

Hey, if you’d rather believe in an unseen book rather than an unseen God, have at it.

But to pretend both do not require acts of faith is a bit, well, absurd.

 

[Teflon93]

That’s just bias speaking. “Plagiarism” implies they were trying to take credit for something. In reality, they just wanted to incorporate elements from Mark and the hypothetical Q to help the audiences they were speaking to, rather than re-writing all of the sayings and parables and leading to messes with translation issues.

No, actually, that’s just somebody tweaking you. That’s what means.

Now, in that case, I did actually rely on my Smiley Source, which I’ll henceforth refer to as S…

 

[EphelDuath]

“Q” is an entity that was invented to make the Markan Priority theory work. There is no evidence that it ever existed. Take away “Q” and the Markan Priority theory collapses.

The Gospel of Thomas is an example of a “sayings Gospel.”

The evidence for Q, as opposed to just universally accepting the Farrer hypothesis, is that Luke and Matthew have a lot in common that isn’t just from Mark, meaning either one used the other or there’s a second source (for example, Luke has an abbreviated Sermon on the Mount that still has some material in Matthew, but not all of it).

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is also no slight problem that these gospels which were supposedly lifted from Q don’t seem to reference any document that fits the bill.

We know where we’re missing Greek plays, for example, because these are referred to in other extant Greek documents.

Where the gospel authors are not fabulists in the eyes of these scholars, they are apparently plagiarists.

Absolutely correct – there has never been a copy of “Q” found, and no document that would answer for “Q” is ever mentioned by ancient writers.

“Q” is a 19th Century invention, created to bolster a flawed theory.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Gospel of Thomas is an example of a “sayings Gospel.”

But the Gospel of Thomas is not “Q.”

Saying, “Well, there could have been a document like that” is the error the original proponents of “Q” made – and violated Occam’s Razor.

The evidence for Q, as opposed to just universally accepting the Farrer hypothesis, is that Luke and Matthew have a lot in common that isn’t just from Mark, meaning either one used the other or there’s a second source (for example, Luke has an abbreviated Sermon on the Mount that still has some material in Matthew, but not all of it).

But that’s not actually evidence – since it admits of many different scenarios. For example, Luke may have had to hand a copy of Matthew. And Mark may be based on the use of Matthew as an aide memoire by Peter.

“Q” is needed only if we accept at the outset Mark wrote first. In other words, to prove the theory, the proponents must get us to accept the theory first.

 

[EphelDuath]

Hey, if you’d rather believe in an unseen book rather than an unseen God, have at it.

Did… did I imply somewhere that I don’t believe in God? Are you under some awful impression that this debate is something like evil scholars grr vs. God-fearing Catholics?

Perhaps because he paraphrased, or perhaps because he had a lousy memory.

And how does that explain the EXACT same phrasings?

Why don’t you produce the evidence instead of resorting to John of the gaps arguments?

I have. Look at the Sermon on the Mount stories in both Gospels. Clearly at least one of them is using an independent source, but both of them are using the same material as the other.

“Q” is a 19th Century invention, created to bolster a flawed theory.

… of course the theory is flawed. If we had one amazing answer that explained everything that’s backed up by boxes of evidence, then everybody would flock to that. The two-source hypothesis conveniently explains it more than the Farrer hypothesis.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

He specifically used this criteria during his “Historical Jesus” course for The Teaching Company. Why don’t you go to the library and listen to it? It’s better to go to the source, right?

I have listened to the Historical Jesus course and I don’t think he says what you say. I will not debate these issues with you anymore.

 

[EphelDuath]

But the Gospel of Thomas is not “Q.”

I’m aware.

Saying, “Well, there could have been a document like that” is the error the original proponents of “Q” made – and violated Occam’s Razor.

Do you understand what Occam’s Razor is? It would apply in this argument if the evidence equally suited the Farrer and two-source theories, both both hypothesees have their flaws, and both have good points to support them.

“Q” is needed only if we accept at the outset Mark wrote first. In other words, to prove the theory, the proponents must get us to accept the theory first.

Archeology is more accurate than you think. Mark was written in the early 60s, Matthew in the mid to late 60s, Luke in the late 70s or early 80s, and John in the late 90s. There’s a small margin of error for each of these, but none that would imply Mark was written after Matthew.

 

[mschrank]

The problem with “Q” is that it violates Occam’s Razor (one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.) The simplest explanation that fits all the known facts is best.

Careful with that one, Nominalism was one of the worst things in western philosophy ever and Ockham is often cited against God.