The Gospels and Q

[C.Longinus]

Q is based on an analysis of the Gospels

And it doesn’t follow Occam’s razor. What’s more accurate would be to say Matthew used Mark and Luke used both Matthew and Mark, and both Luke and Matthew made editions to their source material.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s a source of Jesus’ quotations used independently by Matthew and a Luke.

No… it’s a theorized source of quotations. No one can claim to have evidence of Q. It’s kinda like looking at a depression in the sand and saying, “I think this is a footprint, but I’m not sure…”

But yes, much of the enthusiasm for the Q (German for quelle meaning ‘source’) hypothesis

I tend to like to think that it’s from the French. You know… not “source” but “what???”

I’ve never quite understood why this is an issue at all; but I’m not an academic. If my brother, myself, and my best friend go to an amazing football game and sit at field level on the 50, then decide afterward to each write about it, there will be remarkable coincidences and some definite differences, all based on our interpretations and experience of that game.

Yeah, but if – in you each write articles of your experience – some of you use the exact same phrases to describe some events, and other phrases to describe others, and all of you use the exact same phrases to describe some, it’s pretty obvious that someone’s gonna ask “who did ya’ll plagarize?”

If you think Mk copied from Mt, why is the Lord’s Prayer omitted?

Good question. Maybe because Mark’s audience was less interested in Jewish prayer forms, and the Lord’s Prayer fits nicely to previously-existing Jewish prayers?

 

[Zach]

The theory is Matthew and Luke used Q, Mark, and that they had independent sources named M and L. With everything else to do with the Bible there are other theories

These were my next two sentences.

 

[Dovekin]

What’s more accurate would be to say Matthew used Mark and Luke used both Matthew and Mark, and both Luke and Matthew made editions to their source material.

And shared some of the same source material.

How is that different?

 

[Dovekin]

Maybe because Mark’s audience was less interested in Jewish prayer forms, and the Lord’s Prayer fits nicely to previously-existing Jewish prayers?

Why would Mark’s audience be less interested? It is that kind of insight that motivates a deep analysis.

 

[C.Longinus]

Gorgias:

Maybe because Mark’s audience was less interested in Jewish prayer forms, and the Lord’s Prayer fits nicely to previously-existing Jewish prayers?

Why would Mark’s audience be less interested? It is that kind of insight that motivates a deep analysis.

Why would Romans be interested in Jewish prayer forms?

 

[C.Longinus]

I’m sure you’ve heard of Farrer’s hypothesis. In it there is Markan priority but no need for Q.

 

[BartholomewB]

There’s a curious detail about the alleged “Hebrew” (or Aramaic) Matthew. I’m writing from memory and I haven’t been able to check all the details, but the story goes something like this. Before he ever visited Caesarea, Jerome said the library there held a copy of the Hebrew Matthew. Then he went to Caesarea and used a number of the books he found in the library there, but he never mentioned the “Hebrew Matthew” ever again. One suggested explanation is that, before he learned Hebrew, he repeated the information that was generally accepted in the West, but once he was able to read Hebrew and Aramaic he looked at the book, found it wasn’t what people were claiming it was, and maintained a discreet silence about his discovery because he didn’t want to cause anyone any embarrassment.

 

[Pattylt]

It’s an interesting question if there was a Hebrew Matthew or not. All we know now is that we don’t have it and the Matthew we do have was written in Koine Greek and extensively uses Mark including word for word in some places and following the same order. His changes and additions to Mark are usually to emphasize his agenda of prophesy fulfillment from the OT.

It is not believed to be an eyewitness account due to his amount of Mark used. He doesn’t seem to be telling his own story but correcting Mark’s.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The theory of the Document Q was created out of thin air in order to explain the fanciful theory of markan priority.

Every lie requires the addition of layer after layer after layer of new supposed explanations To make it fit with the truth. That is why lies get bigger and bigger. Usually the truth turns out to be a very simple explanation that does not require the creation of New supposed evidence And new supposed explanations .

You have just explained Occam’s Razor – don’t unnecessarily create entities. The simplest explanation that fits all the FACTS is the best.

We don’t have a copy of the Q document. No ancient writer mentions such a document. There is no evidence that it ever existed. It was created to fit a theory.

There is, however a known source – Mary. Luke mentions that “Mary stored these things up in her heart.” How would he know that unless she told him?

 

[C.Longinus]

It is not believed to be an eyewitness account due to his amount of Mark used.

And on what basis? Isn’t it known that Matthew the tax collector wasn’t a witness to all of Jesus’s ministry, so should it be a surprise that Matthew used some of Mark?

 

[C.Longinus]

There is, however a known source – Mary. Luke mentions that “Mary stored these things up in her heart.” How would he know that unless she told him?

Or John could have told Luke. Or James. The possibilities abound. Q isn’t the go-to option.

 

[Pattylt]

so should it be a surprise that Matthew used some of Mark?

He used over 90% of Mark.

 

[Dovekin]

You have just explained Occam’s Razor – don’t unnecessarily create entities. The simplest explanation that fits all the FACTS is the best.

And you have just given an example of the baseless conjectures that multiply when it is not used. A document that is used by Mt and Lk is a lot more likely than testimony from Mary, James etc. without being acknowledged.

I guess we have our own ideas of what is simplest.

 

[Dovekin]

Why would Romans be interested in Jewish prayer forms?

Why would they not? We can bounce this back and forth like this, or you can look at what this says about Mk. Does the immediacy of Mk preclude Jewish prayer forms? What purpose was there, in deleting the prayer that was in his source? How does this advance our understanding of the gospel?

But what matters of deep moment are contained in the Lord’s prayer! How many and! How great, briefly collected in the words, but spiritually abundant in virtue! so that there is absolutely nothing passed over that is not comprehended in these our prayers and petitions, as in a compendium of heavenly doctrine.
St Cyprian

 

[Nihilo]

In school I never understood the hype around Q, since it is purported as a theory. What is Q and why is there so much stock put into it?

Is there a lot of stock in it, in Catholicism?

Apostolic /Sacred Tradition implies that all the Gospels were either written /dictated by Apostles, or they were approved and thereby authorized by the Apostles, and so are authenticated written records of authentic Apostolic Tradition either way. The weakest possibility is that bishops in the era immediately following the Apostolic era exercised their Apostolic pastoral authority to approve writing /books /documents as being authentically Apostolic.

If Q is real, then whatever is quoted from Q in the Gospels is authentically Apostolic, and there is never any reason to suppose that quoting a document in Scripture, thereby makes that whole document also a scripture.

 

[Bithynian]

Is there a lot of stock in it, in Catholicism?

Generally, no.

I think to most laypeople - such as myself - it is viewed as academic theorising.

To many academics (whether theologians, historians and such), the Q hypothesis in itself is not especially problematic, and I think many would say “yes, it’s probably true” without too much further thought (if only because textual criticism is not exactly a common discipline). Though, of course, some academics do disagree: my professor of NT studies preferred a Matthian priority that excluded Q.

I think where legitimate issues arise is because of the “intellectual novelties” that have arisen from assuming Q is true. Many of these are very bizarre and highly speculative: attempts to reconstruct Q, attempts to find out who the “real Jesus” was based on this reconstructed Q, attempts to reconstruct the early-Apostolic Christian community based on Q and the “real Jesus”, etc.

I’ve read some of these books and - while interesting in their own right - I personally am more likely to believe a theory that St Augustine rode a Harley Davidson around Manichaean neighbourhoods while making rude hand gestures.

 

[Dovekin]

There is a range of scholarly opinion on Q, from a conservative “just the overlap of Mt and Lk, not Mk” to assessments of the underlying theology of Q. Everybody agrees that there are passages of Mt and Lk that are not in Mk. Most agree that these were in a written document, though some think the document was Mt, not something separate. Speculation goes on from there, losing supporters as it gets more detailed.

Unscholarly opinion is all over the place, as may be expected.

 

[Gorgias]

It is not believed to be an eyewitness account due to his amount of Mark used. He doesn’t seem to be telling his own story but correcting Mark’s.

If you believe in Marcan priority, of course.

If you make the claim of Matthean priority, on the other hand, you can assert “eyewitness” for both.

(And, in any case, given that there is original material in Matthew, even when correspondences are taken into account, it’s not necessary to claim “it is not believed to be an eyewitness account.” In fact, many scholars do make the “eyewitness” claim, so it would be more accurate if you asserted “many do not believe Matthew to be an eyewitness account”… )

We don’t have a copy of the Q document.

You don’t really need a document, do you? The claim is of a source, not a document, per se, anyway… right? If you have sayings of Christ that are well-known and often-quoted, then it’s trivial to imagine them being used in the development of a Gospel.

He used over 90% of Mark.

Or… 90% of Mark comes from Matthew. Listing correspondences is easy; discerning ‘source’ and ‘destination’ takes more effort and requires some assumptions…

A document that is used by Mt and Lk is a lot more likely than testimony from Mary, James etc. without being acknowledged.

Umm… Luke does have an acknowledgement, right?

What purpose was there, in deleting the prayer that was in his source?

All of this talk of “deleting” and “inserting” still presumes a particular order!

 

[vern_humphrey]

And you have just given an example of the baseless conjectures that multiply when it is not used. A document that is used by Mt and Lk is a lot more likely than testimony from Mary, James etc. without being acknowledged.

I guess we have our own ideas of what is simplest.

Luke 2:19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.

How would anyone know what Mary treasured and pondered in her heart? Obviously only someone she told about it.

I have an ancient writer – Luke, no less – who tells us what was in Mary’s heart. Can you show me an ancient writer who mentions the Q document, or any document that would fulfil the role of the Q document?