The Gospels and Q

[PeterT]

PeterT:

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)?

That the “Q” source was either oral tradition or that it didn’t exist (neither in written form nor in oral form). As already expressed on this thread, there are alternate theories and explanations about how and when the Gospels were written.

 

[BartholomewB]

what we know about that very early part of Church history strongly suggests that Q as a written document simply didn’t exist

Higher up on this thread you agreed with @irenaeuslyons who thinks that Q is Hebrew Matthew. What made you change your mind?

In that post you said:

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

This is exactly what Q is thought to be, a collection of the Lord’s sayings without any historical narrative. And there’s another unsolved puzzle in connection with the Hebrew Matthew, which I mentioned in my post #28 or 29. Did Jerome find it in the library at Caesarea, or didn’t he?

 

[PeterT]

PeterT:

what we know about that very early part of Church history strongly suggests that Q as a written document simply didn’t exist

Higher up on this thread you agreed with @irenaeuslyons who thinks that Q is Hebrew Matthew. What made you change your mind?

In that post you said:

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

This is exactly what Q is thought to be, a collection of the Lord’s sayings without any historical narrative. And there’s another unsolved puzzle in connection with the Hebrew Matthew, which I mentioned in my post #28 or 29. Did Jerome find it in the library at Caesarea, or didn’t he?

I do believe in the probable existence of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew that I believe was likely written by the apostle Matthew himself as the forerunner to the current Greek Gospel of Matthew, but most of the proponents of the Q source theory, IIRC, including German scholar Johannes Weiss who first proposed the existence of Q, believe that Q is another non-Matthew written document that the authors of Luke, Mark and Matthew used to write their Gospels. It’s this hypothetical Q document which I believe never existed.

I’m more inline with the thinking of the earlier German scholar, Friedrich Schleiermacher, except that besides containing only the parables and sayings of Jesus (as he believed), I believe the original Hebrew Matthew also contained the great sermons and discourses of Jesus that are contained in the current Gospel of Matthew.

 

[SaberBob]

The idea that Q was a compilation of Jesus’ sayings with little or no narrative, let alone extended discourses is ANOTHER unsupported supposition that actually goes against current research of oral-dominent cultures.

 

[Dovekin]

Aren’t there extended discourses and sayings of Jesus with little narrative that appear in both Mt and Lk but not Mk? I don’t get what you are saying. The sayings/discourses appeared with narrative?

And what light does recent research shine on the Gospels?

 

[SaberBob]

Q, as widely posited, is supposed to be ENTIRELY sayings–like the late 2nd C Gospel of Thomas–with NO narrative

 

[annem]

Hi, I believe there has been a very sharp turn away from Q among biblical scholars. Here’s a good book on the subject: “Questioning Q”, by Goodacre and Perrin, both outstanding orthodox, Protestant scholars.

Unless Q was Hebrew Matthew - that is very possible - haven’t the arguments that backed up the Q theory fallen to pieces?

First, because the so-called gospel of Thomas has now been shown to have been written post 160 AD, irregardless of the claims of Crossan, so there is no possible sayings gospel that Q was based on.

Second, and most important, the connection between Matthew and Mark is now looking much more likely to have been oral tradition (surprise, surprise, just as the Catholic church always taught). A recent book has revolutionary arguments about this: “Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus” by Wright.

I don’t think anyone realized how completely saturated Roman society was by communal reading until Wright came along with his bombshell of a book. And it explains so much no one realized before. Certainly it explains the parallel portions, and it explains why, in other instances, Mark seems to use Matthew instead of Matthew using Mark.’

God bless Anne