The Gospels and Q

[Bithynian]

Yeah, I know (although my own NT teacher made a convincing case for the “strangeness” of Mark’s Greek not being strange at all, but rather a singular gift for punchy narration).

I found this short article written by Barton explaining his position.

From my quick skim, it’s very different to my misinterpretation of SaberBob’s statement, sorry!

 

[C.Longinus]

We have to remember Peter’s Greek is fisherman’s Greek. The dude was not your scribe, he was the dude who you got fish from. Matthew, being a publican and Luke being a doctor would obviously speak better Greek than he did. John on the other hand, is a thorny case. He is a fisherman as well but his access to the high priest and his father’s business having hired hands might be enough to suggest his literacy.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Dovekin]

You have offered 2 good reasons why the Lord’s Prayer may not have been included:

1. the community already knew it well
2. there were people who rejected Jewishish practices and Mark did not want to offend them.

I do not find them very convincing. 1) how would they recognize Jesus if his characteristic prayer was left out? 2) is the audience really that narrow?

But that is not important. You are doing what Gorgias wants to do, giving reasons why the Lord’s Prayer is absent. We are discussing which came first, Mk or Mt. Do either of these give us any help in deciding that?

Mark was primarily writing the broad narrative of Christ’s life

Without a nativity story or a resurrection appearance? What is the basis for considering the gospel “a broad narrative” rather than a narrow account of our redemption? (or whatever you think of as not a broad narrative) i am not sure “history” is Mark’s purpose rather than the immediate presence of God. .Matthew’s purpose is history as well as the other.

 

[Pattylt]

I realize Marks Greek is considered rough but it also includes chiastic structures that show evidence of higher Greek education. I just always assumed he was writing in a way to appeal to his audience, sort of like how Mark Twain wrote using local vernacular to bring the audience into the story. I think it’s brilliant!

Of course, I’m no scholar and I consider it literature much more than history.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is a theory that Mark’s Gospel was a sermon by Peter that Mark took down in shorthand – which could explain missing or rough parts.

 

[Pattylt]

Then how do you explain the chiastic structure of it? That takes planning and thought?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t – it’s not my theory.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Forget ‘Q’. I’d like to know who wrote The Didache. Are there any reasonable theories about that?

 

[PeterT]

I personally think Q is Hebrew Matthew. I think tradition had it right with Matthew coming first. I suspect the reason for most textual criticism being set against it is because we only have Greek Matthew which came later. As tradition relates, the first in a Hebrew dialect and later on, one in Greek.

This is basically what I believe too, except that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew mostly contained the teachings of Jesus, his great sermons and sayings and not the historical narrative found in the Greek Gospel of Matthew and in Mark and Luke. I think most of the historical narrative found in Greek Gospel of Matthew was taken from the Gospel of Mark and other sources to make the Gospel of Matthew more “complete”.

 

[SaberBob]

Re the “chiastic” structure of Mk,; even aside from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Peter had DECADES to work out (in collaboration with Mark and other literate believers) effective homilies, including the basic “Jesus story”.

Also, it’s possible there were two versions of Mk floating around which were merged very early: one the verbatim transcript (Koine or Latin shorthand was near mandatory for any scribe) with all the toughness and confusions and the other being more polished, with the chiasms. The manuscripts with the post empty tomb verses may be remnants of pre-merging.

When I refer to the Patristic writings, it’s more for their claims on priority; the Gospels with the geneologies first, with Hebrew Mt followed soon by one in Koine which was already accepted by the gentiles when Luke wrote his text circa 60 - 65. Per Barton, we could have a likely scenario where Peter is addressing “Caesar’s knights” going back and forth between Mt and Lk, and adding in his own memories and Aramaisms. The late Bernard Orchard I believe, plotted out this cross referencing and the case, I think, is quite compelling.

 

[C.Longinus]

We are discussing which came first, Mk or Mt. Do either of these give us any help in deciding that?

I believe the discussion was centered on Q.

 

[C.Longinus]

1. is the audience really that narrow?

Do we need to go over how Romans looked at Jews.

 

[Dovekin]

I believe the discussion was centered on Q.

Then why were we talking about Mk?

Since you don’t seem to like answering questions, people have said Q was an excuse for claiming Marcan priority. We are looking at Mk to see if there is internal evidence that it is earlier than Mt.

IOW, discussing Mk is so we can judge its relationship to the parts that Mt and Lk share but Mk leaves out. Do you have another way to connect the discussion to Q?

 

[C.Longinus]

Since you don’t seem to like answering questions, people have said Q was an excuse for claiming Marcan priority.

Since you don’t like staying on topic, I’ve already showed that Markan priority doesn’t necessitate Q.

 

[OddBird]

Ah, got it !

I hadn’t understood @SaberBob was referencing the Clementine Gospel tradition.

All cleared up, thank you !

 

[SaberBob]

Q was created in the later 19th C to deal with BOTH the issue of Lk and Mt having material not found in the assumed common source of Mk AND the operating assumption neither Lk or Mt read the other. Add to these two assumptions another earlier one, Late Composition of the Gospels and in secular NT studies this was, until the early 20th C, assumed to be VERY late, well outside any possible eyewitness testimony,

Hence, to preserve the secular position the Gospels are not historical because they were written too late to be credible witness accounts, those German academics denied the Clementine tradition by saying the crude Mk was written before Mt, a position based entirely on Mk’s bad Koine. In turn, Q had to be affirmed to explain (away) the not found in Mk common material of Lk and Mt because it is ALSO assumed that the “Lukan community” and “Matthean community” were isolated believers unaware of each other, but drawing both upon Mk and (utterly conjectural) oral or text sources, such as Q.

So, what we have as “the assured findings of NT scholarship” is biased conjucture supported by multiple assumptions, works out mathematically as near zero chance of being valid.

 

[JimG]

Q was created in the 19th century to support a particular theory of gospel composition. Nobody had ever heard it until then. It has no real existence except as a literary construct.

 

[BartholomewB]

It has no real existence except as a literary construct.

Exactly! The “Q: true or false?” debate is still alive and well after 150 years or more, for the very good reason that there is no way to reach a demonstrably factual Yes or No answer, short of a Herodian-era parchment scroll being found in a cave somewhere, in a new Qumran-type chance discovery. Until that happens, there is no such thing as certain knowledge, one way or the other. The only thing we can do, each one of us, is assess the balance of probabilities on the basis of the evidence available.

 

[PeterT]

JimG:

It has no real existence except as a literary construct.

Exactly! The “Q: true or false?” debate is still alive and well after 150 years or more, for the very good reason that there is no way to reach a demonstrably factual Yes or No answer, short of a Herodian-era parchment scroll being found in a cave somewhere, in a new Qumran-type chance discovery. Until that happens, there is no such thing as certain knowledge, one way or the other. The only thing we can do, each one of us, is assess the balance of probabilities on the basis of the evidence available.

Well of course there would be no such thing as certain knowledge in regards to the existence of a written Q source. But the circumstantial evidence of what we know about that very early part of Church history strongly suggests that Q as a written document simply didn’t exist because if it had existed in quantities needed for the writers of the synoptic gospels to have reasonable access to it, it surely would have been mentioned by name by at least some of the early Church fathers.

That there is simply no mention — anywhere — of such purported document by anyone living in that time period should be enough circumstantial evidence that Q — as a written document — most likely never existed.

What’s more plausible is that the “Q” source was an oral tradition well known among the early Christians and that the authors of the synoptic gospels knew about it.

 

[Gorgias]

That’s there’s simply no mention — anywhere — of such purported document by anyone living in that time period should be enough circumstantial evidence that Q — as a written document — most likely never existed.

What’s more plausible is that the “Q” source was an oral tradition well known among the early Christians and that the authors of the synoptic gospels knew about it.

Sure. So, which problematic supposition do we want to adopt? That it was a written tradition (without any evidence of such a document ever existing) or that it was an oral tradition (with all the attendant hand-wringing about the supposed unreliability of oral traditions)?