I asked my question because I didn’t think Q was part of what scholarship they utilize. Do JP2 or B16 ever talk about this “Q”?
Praise?!? Hardly. Did you read the same book I did? I suggest you re-read it. Benedict is in fact highly critical of modern biblical scholarship in Jesus of Nazareth. He says that they got the picture of the “Historical Jesus” completely wrong, and also criticizes their underlying assumptions and biases - most of which are contrary to the teaching and tradition of the Church.
Adding to this – every lawyer has seen poorly-written papers filed by fellow lawyers. How is that someone can take the same composition classes as you in high school and college, and then take the same 1L writing class that you took, and for three years read the same court decisions that you read, yet submit trash on behalf of his clients? And to make it worse, the poorly-written papers will quote from beautiful court decisions! A lawyer can sit there with a fine court decision on his desk, or on his computer screen, and copy from it at length, but his overall brief or letter is terrible!
Church tradition is that Matthew wrote first. If they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong? We’ve opened up a ugly box. For example, church tradition also says that Mary was assumed into heaven without dying. Okay, that one became dogma, but it was only tradition until then. It was only tradition.
Ya, take that one to the atheist living next door to you, and then invite him to worship Jesus with you. Ain’t gonna go over well.The modern view of things, summed up nicely in any copy of the USCCB-approved New American Bible, is that none of the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses to the events they descibe. They were all penned anonymously, late in the 1st century and into the 2nd century, with only “Q” as a source for the sayings of Christ.
That’s really sad - I’m glad no one expects Catholics to believe anything stated in that article. How many times has the auhor been on the Pontifical Biblical Commission?
I don’t understand this response. How does the order of authorship effect the Divinity of Jesus? Or is this sarcasm?
OK, this makes a little more sense. But even if the Church has taken a stand on the order of authorship, and I was not aware that it had, its certainly not any kind of infallible teaching. As far as undermining other teachings, what teachings depend on this for support?Church tradition is that Matthew wrote first. If they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong? We’ve opened up a ugly box. For example, church tradition also says that Mary was assumed into heaven without dying. Okay, that one became dogma, but it was only tradition until then. It was only tradition.
But more importantly, a rearrangement of the order laid down by tradition is necessary for the conclusion that everyone copied off of someone else. Instead of having three independent synoptic gospel witnesses we only have one witness, the mysterious Q. Everyone copied off of him, but unfortunately we lost this source. WE LOST THE SOURCE OF THE BIBLE. It’s gone. Ouch. So now our entire religion is built upon hearsay. “Someone said that this happened, but I can’t tell you who said it. It’s just something that I heard in the crowd.”
Pfft.
So the Church can’t lose the source of the Gospels, the Church IS the source of the Gospels. Because I believe this, I can’t imagine what significance the order of authorship can have, except that scholars wish to understand the authorship better in order to improve their scholarship. I have no idea if the current trend towards “Matthew first” is correct, but it’s really a matter of scholarship, not of faith. At least that’s my view.
Why does this put the Gospels on “shaky ground?” We are not Protestants with nothing but sola scritura to point to. We are not “people of the Book.” The Word is not some scratchings on papyrus. It is the faith received from the Apostles. The Gospels are in the canon because the Church put them there. How can the precise date or ordering of their authorship effect the Catholic faith?
Guess you’re having a horrid time understanding anything here. I don’t care who wins. You do. I simply state what is the prevailing opinion at this time. You CANNOT prove it is not…You are free to argue you don’t agree with it all day. Since you are not trained in this field any more than I am, I doubt they will be interested in your opinion or mine.Wait a minute – if a person doesn’t agree with you, then his mind is not clear and not rational?
**Whoa, you certainly wrote yourself into that one…guess you’re a bit defensive. Who mentioned you at all? **
I already told you: They approach the topic with a bias.
Y**You continue to be horribly unable to understand how scholars operate. **
Answer: Because Mark wrote second or third in time. The birth of Jesus and the Lord’s prayer and the Sermon on the Mount were already available. Matthew wrote for a primarily Jewish audience. Luke wrote for a primarily Gentile/Roman audience. Mark’s gospel was written for a universal audience and so presents a vibrant, active, universal Jesus that knows where he’s going and knows who he is and can’t be stopped.
Few agree with you that Mark wrote for a universal audience. Most argue that he wrote for a local community in the midst of persecution or facing. That’s the stuff you find even in the intro’s to Catholic study bibles. Of course you can surmise that Mark left out important events (more difficult if you posit he was writing for a universal evangelical reason…so your counter your own argument), because they were already written about, but it is pure conjecture…and one might think the Lord’s Prayer rather an important item to leave out deliberately
Imagine the gospels on scrolls, and imagine a desk big enough to hold only two scrolls at a time. Now imagine that you are Mark, and you’re writing your gospel. You’ll alternatively open up Matthew and Luke on your desk as you write your gospel. You can have one open but not both. THIS EXPLAINS THE SIMILARITIES in wording and ordering of events. Mark always follows either Matthew or Luke. Experiment with that at home. You’ll see that it works out.
Guess I’;ll just imagine the table bigger and solve my problem that way…Can you hear yourself ? LOL…You cannot explain the doublets that way, they just get worse positing Matthew first. and L is like taking out 5, creating 5 new ones and ends up with more than before…
This does not hold true in the real world. In the real world, students study composition from masters and still write poorly. In the real world, A+ students and D- students sit next to each other in a classroom learning from the same teacher and from the same example materials. In the real world everyone writes uniquely. Walk through a public library. The guy on this shelf studied from the guy on the other shelf, yet they don’t write the same way.
“Wuthering Heights” by Emile Bronte – 1847, masterpiece of literature
“Uncle Remus” by Joel Harris – 1881, horrible grammar and spelling yet it was written after the masterpiece! How can this be!? How can you have rotten writing after excellent writing?
“Call of the Wild” and “White Fang” by Jack London – 1903 and 1906, mature writing with good grammar and vocabulary
“Hardy Boys” – 1927, immature writing style, yet it came after the good stuff! How can this be!?
Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn” has horrible grammar and spelling, but his short stories do not. Same author, yet so very different. How can this be?!
Editors can remove mistakes and they can add mistakes. In the real world they do both. And in the real world every person writes his own way. That’s what makes libraries so much fun.
Also, Mark’s gospel was intended to be read out loud. (So was “Uncle Remus.”) Try it someday. Instead of watching a DVD for 80 or 90 minutes, read the gospel of Mark out loud without stopping. You have to do it in one sitting to get the full effect. It doesn’t count if you stop before the end. You’ll need 80 minutes give or take a little but it’s well worth the time. You’ll be amazed by it.
**All of this is not on point. We are talking about redacting a document, not being unable to write your own book as good as someone else wrote theirs…I’m astounded you would propose something that has nothing to do with this. **
Addendum – you take off your lawyer hat and willfully overlook the presuppositions that go into the scholars’ conclusions, and then declare “Majority vote wins! Truth is determined by majority vote!. We have our truth now that we have a majority vote!” I neither overlook their presuppositions nor do I measure truth by majority vote.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say. This seems cut and pasted from somewhere. It’s about protestants?
Really? We aren’t? That’s strange, because I was just in mass yesterday and there were 4 readings from the bible, and innumerable other references to it.
That’s why the link is blue! Click on it.
Again, your arrogance knows no bounds. I think you underestimate the “average Catholic”, and greatly overestimate the intellectual rigor of “biblical scholars”.
Wow, this is dramatic. Yes, SpiritMeadow, we’re in a new “dark ages” because not everyone buys into the idea of Q. Are you serious?
Check the catechism.
The Bible is a source of understanding. Christ is The Source of all understanding. This is not the rambling of some “Jesus freaks” or “theological liberals.” This is the Catholic Faith. The idea the Bible dropped from heaven without error in 33 AD is the new theology. The Church existed before the canon. The canon is important, but the canon is not the Word. The early Church Fathers understood this. The Magisterium has proclaimed this over and over.
