The Q source--a theory elevated to fact?

[SpiritMeadow]

I never mentioned to a single soul on this forum that I was a lawyer. The only place it is is on my blog as a passing comment on my profile. I will not be bated by amateurs.

 

[MarcoPolo]

And it does not appear especially from our earliest Church fathers that many were particularly interested in exegesis. They seemed for the most part intent on evangelizing and keeping everyone on the same page.

Again, though, this seems to point to a more wishful opinion of what the ECF were “interested in.” Augustine for example did a lot of exegesis. St. Paul used careful exegesis of the words of the OT…

Galatians 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many; but, referring to one, “And to your offspring,” which is Christ.

…so I don’t see why meticulous methods would have not also revealed this Q in SOMEONE’s writings if it existed. Ya know?

 

[SoCalRC]

your next to last paragraph is the important one here. It is precisely the reason that Matthew contains so much more information that it is not considered first. The oldest is usually the most basic and simplest. If Matthew is first, then we have Mark inexplicably taking out massive amounts of information, some of it actually very much in keeping with his own theological goals.

Markan priority is pretty widely held by biblical scholars at present, and there is some archeological evidence to support it. But I am not wholly convinced. We have lots of scraps and partial books, but seemingly very little in Aramaic or Hebrew. In other words, Mark may have been the first Greek Gospel, but still not the first Gospel.

Personally I’ve always seen variations of the ‘Q’ theory as too complicated. Variations of the Farrer hypothesis, or translation integration theories, just seem more probable by virtue of their simplicity. But I don’t find even true Markan priority a threat to my faith either.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Again, though, this seems to point to a more wishful opinion of what the ECF were “interested in.” Augustine for example did a lot of exegesis. St. Paul used careful exegesis of the words of the OT…
**Indeed he did, and I don’t mean to denigrate them in any way. Augustine is actually one of my most favorite saints, i’ve read both the Confessions and City of God. All I suggest is that in the very early years, exegesis was less important, and the tools of the trade have taken some time to develop. **

…so I don’t see why meticulous methods would have not also revealed this Q in SOMEONE’s writings if it existed. Ya know?

Perhaps, I just am not an expert in this area. I don’t know how or why the dude who first posited Q came to his conclusion and upon what work he built. It may be self-obvious. I certainly can say that until I first saw a synoptic parallel book I would never have imaged the issues involved. I guess there is no reason someone couldn’t have done so manually by copying by hand.

Markan priority is pretty widely held by biblical scholars at present, and there is some archeological evidence to support it. But I am not wholly convinced. We have lots of scraps and partial books, but seemingly very little in Aramaic or Hebrew. In other words, Mark may have been the first Greek Gospel, but still not the first Gospel.

**very true. I am probably more convinced of markan priority than say I am about Mark’s being written in Syria. That’s Marcus’s view but I’m not sure I’m ready to move over unless I see that other experts are convinced. So far they are not. While Marcus’s opinion solve some things, they don’t answer all the problems. And dating really becomes a new thing as well. Mark would no longer be writing about Nero in Rome but about the Palestinian wars of 66-73 CE. It sure is interesting to me at least. **

Personally I’ve always seen variations of the ‘Q’ theory as too complicated. Variations of the Farrer hypothesis, or translation integration theories, just seem more probable by virtue of their simplicity. But I don’t find even true Markan priority a threat to my faith either.

I think its akin to what you find in the NRA. They end up arguing for some silly things some times because they are terrified that if they give in anywhere, eventually the entire right will be gutted. I think some of our brethren have the same fear about the bible. If anything it’s given me greater faith, and many others say the same thing. Some no doubt lost theirs, but one has to question what faith is based on in such a case I think.