Quelle and Markan Priority

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stratiotes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stratiotes

Guest
Tradition has favored the belief that Matthew was the first gospel written, followed by Mark, and then Luke. Matthew is thought to be the tax-collector disciple of Jesus spoken of in the gospel. Mark is thought to be a close companion of Peter’s and written with the information he primarily gained from Peter. Luke is thought to have been a companion of Paul’s and written with information he gained from Mary. Matthewan priority was supported by Augustine and others.

Some, primarily in the late 19th and early 20th century, have floated the hypothesis that Mark was the first gospel written. In addition, the hypothesis that there was an earlier work of ‘sayings of Jesus’ on which all the gospels relied – often referred to as the Q document (for the German word for source, Quelle). What are your thoughts on the Markan priority theory and on Q?
 
I do not believe in a Q source because the Tradition does not support this view. Tradition says that Matthew was written first.I believe Matthew was written first, in Aramaic, then later translated into Greek. Second, Luke was written. Third, Mark was written. The difference in sequence of events in Mark is that he sometimes followed Luke and at other times, Mark followed Matthew. Mark was a condensed version that left out things a Roman audience would not understand or be interested in.
This is the view of William R. Farmer in his book The Gospel of Jesus, The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem.
 
Matthew-Aramaic WAS “Q” [quelle].
Mark was written with Matthew Aramaic as a source. So were Matthew-Greek and Luke.
It was a happy day for me when I realized that this actually answered this question. It means, you see, that Tradition was correct, and that the evidence produced by the Marcan priority school actually proves that Matthew [Aramaic] came first. 👍👍
(Which was scarcely what they were hoping for…).
 
Right now, I’m personally divided between two hypotheses: the Griesbach-Farmer, aka the Two-Gospel Hypothesis (which postulates that Matthew was written first, followed by Luke, then by Mark, which used both Matthew and Luke) and the Farrer Hypothesis (Mark first, followed by Matthew, and then by Luke, which used both Matthew and Mark). So yeah, I admit I can’t choose from the poll, unless you change it to one that allows for multiple answers. 😃

I admit I really don’t see a need for Q anymore.
 
Zooey said:
Matthew-Aramaic WAS “Q” [quelle].
Mark was written with Matthew Aramaic as a source. So were Matthew-Greek and Luke.
It was a happy day for me when I realized that this actually answered this question. It means, you see, that Tradition was correct, and that the evidence produced by the Marcan priority school actually proves that Matthew [Aramaic] came first. 👍👍
(Which was scarcely what they were hoping for…).
Click to expand...
This is one possible case IMHO (BTW nice to see you again! :)), but the problems in my opinion are:

Q was originally postulated to be a collection of quotations of Jesus’ teaching, or ‘sayings’, without any connecting narrative. It doesn’t record the events of Jesus’ life, but is rather a mere list of what Jesus said. Supporters of the theory point out that Q may have been in structure like the Gospel of Thomas, which is basically just that: a sort of ‘the Best of Jesus’ collection of quotes (“Jesus said…”) without any story that bridges the sayings. By contrast, the Gospel of the Hebrews (as some Fathers have called the Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew) seems to have a narrative structure.

This idea however is sometimes challenged by some scholars, who argue that one should not exaggerate the connection between Thomas and Q. Not to mention that according to them, Q apparently has a blatant narrative exordium in which the progress of Jesus’ ministry is carefully plotted.

And, because no discussion of Q will never be complete without this :p:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nd_films_Qs.jpg/250px-James_Bond_films_Qs.jpg
 
Stratiotes said:
Tradition has favored the belief that Matthew was the first gospel written, followed by Mark, and then Luke. Matthew is thought to be the tax-collector disciple of Jesus spoken of in the gospel. Mark is thought to be a close companion of Peter’s and written with the information he primarily gained from Peter. Luke is thought to have been a companion of Paul’s and written with information he gained from Mary. Matthewan priority was supported by Augustine and others.

Some, primarily in the late 19th and early 20th century, have floated the hypothesis that Mark was the first gospel written. In addition, the hypothesis that there was an earlier work of ‘sayings of Jesus’ on which all the gospels relied – often referred to as the Q document (for the German word for source, Quelle). What are your thoughts on the Markan priority theory and on Q?
Click to expand...
There is no Q. That is sheer unfounded speculation plucked out of the air. There is absolutely zero evidence to support a Q claim.
 
I am currently going through FTCM (Formation Toward Christian Ministry) through our archdiocese. This is my second time, because I went through it the first time prior to and immediately after being received into the Church. Sacred Scripture is coming up in my classes, and since I’ve taken them before, I know what’s coming - New Testament will teach me about Q and how the writers of the New Testament probably weren’t the people tradition says they were; Old Testament will teach me about J, D, E, P and any questions/comments I make in either will be met with patronizing answers that let me know I am uneducated and ignorant and need to get with the program. Were it not for a wonderful Adult Faith Formation Director in my parish, who shares my views of Sacred Scripture and assures me that they are Catholic (he’s a cradle Catholic), I don’t know what I would do. I pretty much believe what tradition (not sure if that’s big T or little t) says about authorship of the New Testament. This is really rambling, but mostly it is to say thank you to those who have responded on this thread who give me confidence that I am Catholic in my views. When I came into the Church it was in big part because I accepted Her authority, and I’m still learning where differences of opinion are “allowed” (for want of a better word). When I first came on the views above it was in our RCIA class and I thought they were the accepted Catholic teachings that I needed to give my allegiance to. The sad thing is, since our FTCM program is the formation program for catechists in our archdiocese, that is what will continue to be taught. Thanks for letting me ramble.
 
None of the above:

Matthew, Luke, Mark and John. That is how the early Church listen them before St Jerome.
 
The Q theory has largely been abandoned by Scripture scholars. The Catholics were late to the party in believing in Q, and they’ll be late to the party to give up Q.

The Q theory was part of the efforts of the Kulturkampf to undermine the Catholic Church. That pesky Mt 16 Rock and Church problem! They tried to Q their way around it but of course it’s ultimately failed, because when Jesus says the gates of hell shall not prevail, he means it, and has the power to back up his words. 👍
 
Thanks - I have to agree and I’m pleased that there is near consensus for the orthodox ;). If any of you are amazon.com addicts, be sure to give me a positive review on my somewhat critical review of Keith Nickle’s Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Looks like there are a lot of readers there who do not like the reviews written by critics. I gave it a decent star rating because it is well written and organized. But the words of my review are not so favorable for the theories it contains:
amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AF3X7J0XC391L/002-0452800-1270449
 
patrick457 said:
Right now, I’m personally divided between two hypotheses: the Griesbach-Farmer, aka the Two-Gospel Hypothesis (which postulates that Matthew was written first, followed by Luke, then by Mark, which used both Matthew and Luke) and the Farrer Hypothesis (Mark first, followed by Matthew, and then by Luke, which used both Matthew and Mark). So yeah, I admit I can’t choose from the poll, unless you change it to one that allows for multiple answers. 😃

I admit I really don’t see a need for Q anymore.
Click to expand...
None of the anti-Q arguments have really matched the pro-Q arguments, though, as they end to involve editorial and redactional procedures on the part of the Evangelists somewhat akin to nuclear fission. If anything, in North America and the UK, a LOT of folks (including scholars) have really engaged in a kind of anti-Q backlash, in part, I think, because the conclusions of Q scholarship run counter to more traditional understandings of the origins of Christianity.

Q may not exist; but then again, neither does the Gospel of Mark - both are reconstructions; both are hypotheses. That is to say, in New Testament scholarship, an exegesis of any given passage is laboring under a whole series of assumptions and hypotheses (most of them well founded) and ultimately raises a whole series of epistemological concerns: that Mark is the earliest canonical Gospel, that our understanding of Koine Greek is accurate, that what we call “Mark” represents a single text, and (most of all) that the textual reconstruction of Mark in the exegete’s Greek Bible is not simply a synthetic backproduct but corresponds more or less to the first-century original (autograph).

Thus, such skepticism regarding Q has something of the character of creationism in the context of academic biology. Hypothesis is piled onto hypothesis, although few would claim that efforts to classify a particular species are irresponsible or frivolous.
 
thistle said:
There is no Q. That is sheer unfounded speculation plucked out of the air. There is absolutely zero evidence to support a Q claim.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I became a lapsed Catholic in my teens. The Catholic high school I went to taught the “Quelle” theory. It confused me back then, and at my reversion, I heard a Bishop Sheen talk where he mentioned the sources of the Gospels.

I wonder what the purpose was to make the straight forward complicated and vague? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top