The Q source--a theory elevated to fact?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hainleys
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hainleys

Guest
I’m very confused and wary about the Q source theory. It seems to be presented everywhere I go as though it were actual fact (sort of like evoluation). Yet I have some real problems with it, because it seems to me to be yet another way some theologians reduce the concept of Divine Inspiration in the composition of Scripture, as well as downgrading Tradition. It actually is a recent development in thinking, first being developed in the 1800s as a response to the “problem” of similarities in the synoptic Gospels. I just don’t see the similarities as being a “problem”–I see them as a natural outcome of the same people reporting the same events.

It is always important to have a “teachable heart” and so I would appreciate your take on the validity of the Q source theory. Thanks very much!
 
I have seen that Q “THEORY” elevated too high as well. It is amazing when theories like this can become so popular to the point people act as if it is fact.
 
I think it is an excellent theory that has very few holes. However, I have never heard it described as fact, as it is something impossible to prove based on the current evidence. Someday it may be proved (or disproved) depending on future discoveries and analysis.

Saying it can’t be true because then Mark would have to be first and many people don’t like putting Mark first, is very open to debate and disagreement.

Saying we have no evidence of any such a “sayings gospel” used to carry some weight but then the Gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945 and it is a clear example of a “sayings gospel”.
 
patg said:
I think it is an excellent theory that has very few holes. However, I have never heard it described as fact, as it is something impossible to prove based on the current evidence. Someday it may be proved (or disproved) depending on future discoveries and analysis.

Saying it can’t be true because then Mark would have to be first and many people don’t like putting Mark first, is very open to debate and disagreement.

Saying we have no evidence of any such a “sayings gospel” used to carry some weight but then the Gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945 and it is a clear example of a “sayings gospel”.
Click to expand...
I’ve recently spent some time on the issue and best as i can tell its still the favored hypothesis for biblical scholars. Actually its called the 2-source theory hypothesis. It assumes a Markan priority and claims that ML independently had access to Mark. The problem is both ML both have material not found in Mark that is amazingly similar to each other (we aren’t talking just subject matter, that would be assumed, but order of presentation, language used and a whole host of linguistic and syntax things that are exceedingly complex). One explanation is that both ML had a sayings writing (named Q meaning simply source) that they both used.

Other arguments posit variations of this, placing Matthew first, used by Luke, and Mark using both. This is known as the Griesbach Hypothesis. It uses no Q, but unfortunately can’t answer some significant problems of doublets, minor agreements, and other things. The 2-source hypothesis continues to handle those problems much better.

Other theories include the Farrer argument which has Markan priority but Luke using both Matthew and Mark. This fails the above problems as well.

Another has Mark using Matthew and Luke used them both. Again the same problems as above.

And finally, that all 3 of them used Q but also a proto-gospel likewise lost. This is dismissed easily as violating Occam’s Razor given that it posits unnecessary hypothetical assumptions on each other to succeed.

Thus to the majority of scholars the 2-source Q theory is still the most accepted model.

Arguing that some of our ECF say Matthew was first and somehow we are going out of our way to challenge them is rubbish. They had no understanding of modern scientific methods of textual criticism, nor the wealth perhaps of raw documentation we have today. In any case it changes nothing much in terms of biblical teaching on substantive issues at all.

The premise of “Q” simply allows scholars to look at the scripture in a new way, always with the sole desire to understand as perfectly as possible what our writers actually meant. The more we learn the more we know. Such is God’s continuing revelation.
 
One additional point…on my blog archive "Gospel of Mark Pt.3, there is a fuller discussion of what I understand of the problem in discussing Joel Marcus’s book Mark 1-8. This is part of the anchor book series which is well known for its for the most part excellent exegetical work.

There is also another blog on my blogroll called Source Theory I believe and you can find a good deal more material there.
 
If Matthew is written by the Apostle Matthew why would he need to draw on any other source at all?
 
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton

**
**
**This blows Markan theory away.
**
**
**
…
The theory that Mark’s gospel was the first to be written dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious and widespread doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built.
‘The Authors of the Gospels’ sets forth an alternative view. Using primary sources written by the earliest Christian historians (The Church Fathers) and the findings of modern literary analysis,the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology widely used prior to the time of Jerome.
This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness companions of Jesus. The author points out that this teaching was recently renewed in a Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican Council.
 
I’ve heard Karl Keating address this “Q source theory” more than once on CAL. He says one of the big problems with it is the utter lack of mention of it in early Church history.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I’ve heard Karl Keating address this “Q source theory” more than once on CAL. He says one of the big problems with it is the utter lack of mention of it in early Church history.
Click to expand...

:eek: That is not a convincing argument, not at all 😃​

“The Case Against Q”, by Mark Goodacre, is a good book on this issue. He uses the same critical methods as those who are not convinced by the case made against it - that is how it should be examined. Disagreements of this kind do not destroy Bible criticism - they are one of the modes by which it makes progress.

Even if untenable, the hypothesis has certainly been stimulating & fruitful, not least because it has encouraged the ever-closer study of each of the gospels; & this has greatly benefited appreciation of the gospels, both as literary works & as examples of early Christian theology. That has in turn benefited the study of the other NT books & their literary structure, theologies, & the like. And the better we understand the NT literature in those ways (as in others), the better equipped we are to appreciate the relations between the Testaments. Which in turn deepens the Church’s understanding of the relation between the Bible & the other means of grace, as well as of the relation between faith, theology, dogma, tradition & history. And that in turn contributes to a better understanding of ecclesiology, the shape of the Liturgy, & of the Church’s mission. 🙂 These disciplines condition, assist, & strengthen each other. (And none of them is to be found in the Church alone, just as the sciences are not.)

The case against this or that element in critical scholarship - such as the Two-Source Theory, or the Four-Source Hypothesis (aka JEPD) - is (FWIW) not the same thing as arguing against critical scholarship. So even if Q (for example) should turn out to have less explanatory power than at present is supposed, the critical approach to the Holy Bible would no more be damaged (let alone destroyed) than physics has been destroyed by having to reject the phlogiston theory, or than medicine has been destroyed by having to reject the four humours theory.

It’s not clear that people always realise this 😦 - & it would be a pity, if those who have concluded to their own satisfaction that the critical scholarship of the Bible is (even in principle) a bad thing, were under the impression that the discrediting of influential & widespread hypotheses meant the end of critical scholarship. An hypothesis which is discredited can (in principle) always be revived, because scholarship is not static; the considerations that invalidate it are as liable to be invalidated as the hypothesis, so today’s exploded hypothesis may in due course be re-established on more solid foundations.
 
Michael_C said:
If Matthew is written by the Apostle Matthew why would he need to draw on any other source at all?
Click to expand...

Because no Christian is a solo performer - the Church is a body, the Body: not a jumble of unconnected individuals. And inspiration does not in any way rule out the use of sources, influences, helps of various kinds: if anything, it presupposes them.​

Luke was not above learning from others before he wrote - why should the author of this gospel have been ? Christians cannot function alone - far less can they do by themselves, & without help from others, anything of lasting importance. Do you know of a single exception to this ? Because I don’t 🙂 St. Paul had his helpers & colleagues, in Aquila, Priscilla, Timothy, Sylvanus, Epaphras, Titus, Barnabas & others - it is at the very least (to put it no more strongly) highly probable that Matthew had his helpers.

Besides, the gospels share many motifs, even though they are written with different emphases & on different plans. Whatever else a gospel is, it is a literary work with a message - & literary works don’t come into being “out of the air”; they have a tradition behind them. Q may or may not be tenable as an hypothesis to account for the relations between Mathhew, Mark & Luke; but it does at least seek to throw light on the history of the tradition which led to the written gospels we have now. Aren’t we supposed to be rather keen on traditions & Tradition 🙂 ?
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

:eek: That is not a convincing argument, not at all 😃​

“The Case Against Q”, by Mark Goodacre, is a good book on this issue. He uses the same critical methods as those who are not convinced by the case made against it - that is how it should be examined. Disagreements of this kind do not destroy Bible criticism - they are one of the modes by which it makes progress.

.
Click to expand...
What you are implying is that the writers of the Gospels didn’t understand them themselves, the first generations didn’t get it right, that we have had a 2,000 year gap in understanding, and only recently have figured it all out. 😦
 
Like his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI said in his book, Jesus of Nazareth, I too “trust the gospels.”

In his book Introduction to Christianity, His Holiness says that faith is just something that “hits” you. Exactly. It hit me, for sure, and I’ve never been the same.
 
What a pity St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ignatius, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, Origen, and Eusebius didn’t have access to modern scholarship and critical methods.
 
buffalo said:
What you are implying is that the writers of the Gospels didn’t understand them themselves, the first generations didn’t get it right, that we have had a 2,000 year gap in understanding, and only recently have figured it all out. 😦
Click to expand...
No. This is an understandable feeling, but it is not what is meant, I think, by the posters above. The Apostles understood the Gospel and transmitted it to the faithful. But as to the authors of the books known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, “author” is a difficult word in this context. The Gospel was principally oral in the early Church. I have read that some Church Fathers even thought writing it down was a bad idea, but I don’t know if that’s true. But clearly the authorsip of these works is not like authorship today. We don’t know for sure who first wrote down the Gospels (except maybe Luke), or the sources he used to do so. That each Gospel is different, and that they conflict with each other on some details is obvious. So it is not only legitimate, but valuable, to study these texts and try to better understand their sources and hopefully deepen our understanding. At least that is how I take it, those smarter than me on Biblical scholarship please correct my errors.
 
Michael_C said:
If Matthew is written by the Apostle Matthew why would he need to draw on any other source at all?
Click to expand...
Dunno, just looks very much as if he did. The order of presentation is quite compelling. A good synoptic gospel book is very helpful in letting you see this on one page.
buffalo said:
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton

**
**
**This blows Markan theory away.
**
**
**
…
The theory that Mark’s gospel was the first to be written dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious and widespread doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built.
‘The Authors of the Gospels’ sets forth an alternative view. Using primary sources written by the earliest Christian historians (The Church Fathers) and the findings of modern literary analysis,the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology widely used prior to the time of Jerome.
This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness companions of Jesus. The author points out that this teaching was recently renewed in a Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican Council.
Click to expand...
He may argue strongly, but he’s in the minority and thats like 60 years old now.
MarcoPolo said:
I’ve heard Karl Keating address this “Q source theory” more than once on CAL. He says one of the big problems with it is the utter lack of mention of it in early Church history.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t expect them to have, given that textual criticism, and the entire panoply of hermeneutical devices were unknown to them. If there was Q it is called Q for a reason, It is an unknown source. If it had been known to the ECF, obviously it would not be called Q.
Crumpy said:
Like his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI said in his book, Jesus of Nazareth, I too “trust the gospels.”

In his book Introduction to Christianity, His Holiness says that faith is just something that “hits” you. Exactly. It hit me, for sure, and I’ve never been the same.
Click to expand...
Benedict has also spoken openly and often of his acceptance and amazement of what has been discerned through good scholarly exegesis. See “In the Beginning…”
Joel_Tunnah said:
What a pity St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ignatius, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, Origen, and Eusebius didn’t have access to modern scholarship and critical methods.
Click to expand...
Wow, I sure agree with that. Given their amazing talents, what wonders they might have produced with those tools. Their contribution to our understanding and faith is still to be honored for the great contributions they still are.
 
If there is a Q document the Synoptic writers use, does that make them any less inspired?

Even St. Luke, in the opening of his Gospel, referred to various documents and stories about Jesus circulating at the time.

In any case, Q (if it exists) was not considered canonical. Otherwise, it would be included as one of the Gospels, right?
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Wow, I sure agree with that. Given their amazing talents, what wonders they might have produced with those tools. Their contribution to our understanding and faith is still to be honored for the great contributions they still are.
Click to expand...
Your arrogance, and lack of reverence for your betters, is truly boundless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top