The Gospel "Q"

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

Stylteralmaldo

Guest
If interested, please read this reference regarding another Gospel that may have been written but is supposedly now lost to history. Anyone have any thoughts on this?:

campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/q/q_/q_document.html#The%20Case%20for%20Q

Arguments for Luke’s and Matthew’s independence include:
  • Matthew and Luke have different contexts for the double tradition material. It is argued that it is easier to explain Luke’s “artistically inferior” arrangement of the double tradition into more primitive contexts within his Gospel as due to not knowing Matthew.
  • The form of the material sometimes appears more primitive in Matthew but at other times more primitive in Luke.
  • Independence is likely in light of the non-use of the other’s non-Markan tradition, especially in the infancy, genealogical, and resurrection accounts.
  • Doublets. Sometimes it appears that doublets in Matthew and Luke have one half that comes from Mark and the other half from some common source, i.e. Q.
Even if Matthew and Luke are independent, the Q hypothesis states that they used a common document. Arguments for Q being a written document include:
  • Exactness in Wording. Sometimes the exactness in wording is striking. For example: Matt. 6:24 = Luke 16:13 (27/28 Greek words). Matt. 7:7-8 = Luke 11:9-10 (24/24 Greek words).
  • There is commonality in order between the two Sermons on/at the Mount.
  • The presence of doublets, where Matthew and Luke sometimes present two versions of a similar saying, but in different contexts. Doublets often serve as a sign of two written sources.
  • Certain themes, such as the Deuteronomistic view of history, are more prominent in Q than in either Matthew or Luke individually.
 
The “Q” hypothesis has a couple of major difficulties. There is no historical evidence of “Q” and it cannot be tested.
 
Cardinal Ratzinger has commented on this matter and said pretty much the same as Pax posted.
 
Most scholars now agree Gospels were all written before 70 AD. Just a thought - what if this “Q” source was the Holy Spirit?
 
Higher criticism strikes again.

“Q” has pretty much been debunked by most non-liberal scholars.

Most would also agree that Mark was the first Gospel written and it was essentially Peter’s account and Matthew and Luke had it in mind when they wrote their accounts.

The Q people believe that the Apostles or their close associates did not write the Gospels but later generations did. It is basically “scholarship” based in and inherent skepticism.

Mel
 
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. You’re all awesome! I guess that’s part of what this site is all about. Thanks! 🙂
 
This “Q” theory starts by saying that there must have been a source used by authors other than the Evangelsits. A source that no one has ever seen, by an unknown author, that is not mentioned in any of the texts that we accept as a matter of Faith are the inspired works of GOD. The logical end to the Q theory is that the works may not be inspired because it is too hard to believe that the unknown Q, and the unknown author of Q, and the unknown authors of the Gospels who used Q were all inspired.

My argument is as follows:

  1. *]We don’t know these men (Matthew and Luke), their location, or their knowledge of one another, yet we speculate that they (or others speaking for them) must have used the same source document as each independly prepared the Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke.
    *]*There is no physical evidence of “Q”, nor is there any reference to it in the writings from the Apostles, their contemporaries or the Fathers of the second and third century. *
    *]*There is no reason to believe that the Gospels were not penned by the Evangelists for whom they were named. *

    *Further it seems to me that the source “Q” is an illogical conclusion. It seems to be derived by induction to support the argument that the Gospels were written later and by others rather than earlier by Matthew, eyewitness and Apostle, and by Luke close contemporary of Paul. It is what you might need to support the theory that the Gospels were written later. If they weren’t then Q isn’t necessary. *

    I believe that all this whole theory is part of a long range attack on the authenticity of the Gospels by the same people who believe that the miracle of the Loves & Fishes was about getting the people to share. They imply that the Lord was not Divine; not the Master of all.

    If the Gospels are not authentic and inspired, then Christ did not rise from the dead, and we are all fools.

    There was an excellnat Article in This Rock a couple months ago. It is, Combating Bible Scepticism, Fredrick Marks. It is a good read. The July-August issue has part II which is next on my plate
 
Most Protestant scholars date Mark before Matthew that is true. The Catholic Church has always held that Matthew pre dates Mark. There was something discovered by a Protestant scholar about a year ago that has led to him dating Matthew a few years before Mark. In line with what the Catholic Church has said all along.
 
What about the other Gospel of “Q”? Just watch Star Trek: The Next Generation and you’ll see him preach it from time to time 🙂

(BobCatholic runs away as the pillows are thrown at him for such a bad joke) 🙂
 
Br. Rich SFO:
Most Protestant scholars date Mark before Matthew that is true. The Catholic Church has always held that Matthew pre dates Mark. There was something discovered by a Protestant scholar about a year ago that has led to him dating Matthew a few years before Mark. In line with what the Catholic Church has said all along.
Click to expand...
That is intersting. I have no problem with it. In fact it makes perfect sense that Matthew would be the first written.

Mel
 
It seems to me that a prior textual source that Matthew and Luke could have used is possible-without compromising inspiration and authenticity. Let us say that Acts (which is the second part of the longest single work in the Bible-Luke-Acts) came after the writting of the Gospel, this is fact (as indicated by the opening of Acts). It seems by content of Acts, that it comes prior to Paul’s death in the mid 60s, but while he was in Rome. So, the Acts would have been written around 60-64, with the Gospel prior to that, possibly a couple or a few years before. This would but it in the mid to late 50s. All reasonalbe and probable in my mind. By the time the mid 50s had come around, Jesus would have been bodily absent for two decades. This is more than ample time for other accounts to be written-in fact, it would be absurd to think that nothing would have been written in that time period, given the importance of Jesus in the life of his followers, and the amount of long distance teaching that may have gone on. One also must not discount the opening lines of St Luke’s Gospel: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the things that have been fulfilled among us,” &c. St Luke quite plainly declares that there were preexisting accounts, some oral, some written, and that he made use of them. Where inspiration comes in is what material was used and how the material was arranged, giving a different light onto Jesus’ words, and how deep and multifaceted His teachings are.

In Christ,
Adam
 
Br. Rich SFO:
Most Protestant scholars date Mark before Matthew that is true. The Catholic Church has always held that Matthew pre dates Mark. There was something discovered by a Protestant scholar about a year ago that has led to him dating Matthew a few years before Mark. In line with what the Catholic Church has said all along.
Click to expand...
I’m not denying your logic, but I think my Catholic Bible at home even says that Mark “might have been” written before Matthew.

Like I said in a different post however, which came first is really irrelevent when it comes down to it. However, being a history buff, it still intrigues me.🙂
 
Re Q - I am reminded of Chesterton’scomment on the *missing link. *He noted that the only thing we know for sure is that it is still missing.
 
*There is no physical evidence of “Q”, nor is there any reference to it in the writings from the Apostles, their contemporaries or the Fathers of the second and third century. *

Ah, but now we have the recently discovered Gospel of Thomas - real physical evidence for a “sayings” Gospel just like Q and also not mentioned by any of those in your list. The logic for a “Q” is quite substantial - I can recommend some good research works if you are interested.
**
*There is no reason to believe that the Gospels were not penned by the Evangelists for whom they were named. *

I have never heard any Cathololic bible scholar or theologian make such a bizarre comment… there is every reason to believe they were not written by the named individuals.

Pat
 
It seems the only real evidence for the existence of Q is literary. i.e., it’s material that is found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.

If you happened to leave a bunch of your own writings in your desk drawer and the textual critics got hold of it some centuries later, they could probably demonstrate from internal evidence that these were not of course actually written by you, but by those who knew you, and edited later by distant relatives. They would also lay out all the literary sources upon which you depended.

Here is a site which argues against Q, but not being familiar with it, I can’t vouch for it one way or the other: ntgateway.com/Q/faq.htm

JimG
 
Just a thought…

Why would “Q” (if it existed at all) have to be a document? Could this source be a person, well known to the Gospel writers and available to them especially if the Gospels were written only 20 to 30 years after the death of Christ?

If we are tossing hypotheses around, I would like to offer this one. The “Q” source is Our Lady, Mary the Mother of God.

That would explain why there is no physical evidence of “Q” and it “disappearing very early”.

Mary would have intimate details of Jesus’ life and mission.

It would be reasonable to expect that Mary would have been a resource for the early Church.

It would be unreasonable to think that the early church would have ignored her.

Mary as Spouse of the Holy Spirit would be in a unique position to serve as a source for the Gospels.

As I said, it’s just a thought.

Bill
 
Ah, but now we have the recently discovered Gospel of Thomas - real physical evidence for a “sayings” Gospel just like Q and also not mentioned by any of those in your list. The logic for a “Q” is quite substantial - I can recommend some good research works if you are interested.
Click to expand...
The Gospel of Thomas is NOT a Christian work, but a Gnostic one. It was also disproved by the Church Fathers in the first few centuries of the Church. The Gospel of Thomas has nothing to do with the teachings of the Apostles, but was rather an attempt by Gnostics to use Jesus to teach their beliefs. It was not written until about 100 years after the death of the Apostles, and the ideas espoused in it were railed against as heresy by the earliest scholars of Scripture right about the time it was written.

Furthermore, the Gospel of Thomas was not recently discovered, but rather recently rediscovered; it had been written about before and debunked, but no existing copy had been found. The recent movie Stigmata tried to make something out of the Gospel of Thomas, but was almost entirely fantasy, including the idea that the Church ever tried to suppress the Gospel as a Christian writing. It’s an interesting document regarding the blending of Christianity and Gnosticism, two completely seperate and contridictory faiths, but it doesn’t represent any kind of Apostalic teaching.

Unfortunately, the Gospel of Thomas has been used by some to back up the idea of a “Q” Gospel, but that’s a stretch to say the least. The Gospel of Thomas post-dates the Gospels, and *quotes *them, in addition to putting forth ideas and concepts that we know only developed later, and those concepts were debunked by the early apologists who wrote against Gnosticism. In fact, there are huge problems within the Gospel of Thomas, for example it attributes teachings of Paul from his letters to the mouth of Jesus Christ, a mistake that shows a very incomplete knowledge of Christian teachings.
 
What’s even more humorous about the Gospel of Thomas is that even ultra-liberal scholars like the Jesus Seminar admit that the GoT has only 5 sayings likely to be authentic to Jesus but all 5 ARE FOUND IN THE CANINOCAL GOSPELS. 😉

So it is extremely likely that the GoT is LATE and borrowed sayings from the other gospels and the gnostics added some of their own bizzare philosophy.
 
I get the impression that 'higher criticism" is quite common among Catholic circles…unfortuantly. Does anyone else find this? I have a copy of the “The Catholic Answers Bible”, which has very orthodox theology, but seems (I just got it recently) to appeal to higher criticism to a degree (ex. accepting the possibility that the ‘pastoral epistles’ were not written directly by Paul, the Q document, and a very late date for the book of Daniel…which negates the supernatural nature of the prophecies of the Gentile empires contained within).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top