To Q or Not to Q?: That is the question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chuck
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chuck

Guest
The theroy of the text referred to as “Q” presumably used by authors of the Gospels as a source document seems to be widely accepted by the priesthood.

Is this a product of the suspect theology taught by liberal seminaries or is there a cedible following of achedemia such as Scott Hanh and other reputable scholars?

Q seems like a reasonable concept to me but, the wide spread acceptance also seems to have moved beyond theoretical to factual.

Your thoughts?
 
40.png
Chuck:
The theroy of the text referred to as “Q” presumably used by authors of the Gospels as a source document seems to be widely accepted by the priesthood.

Is this a product of the suspect theology taught by liberal seminaries or is there a cedible following of achedemia such as Scott Hanh and other reputable scholars?

Q seems like a reasonable concept to me but, the wide spread acceptance also seems to have moved beyond theoretical to factual.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
This a product of the suspect theology taught by liberal seminaries.

Mel
 
I file the theory of “Q” along with the Gnostic Gospels under “T”…for TRASH.
 
I doubt that its Trash. While I’m no biblical scholar, the theory of a Q source makes perfect sense. Why would you in any way say that it is liberal?
 
40.png
Bizob:
I doubt that its Trash. While I’m no biblical scholar, the theory of a Q source makes perfect sense. Why would you in any way say that it is liberal?
Click to expand...
While it is a hypothosis which seems to fit the Data it has not one shread of evidence to support it. As such it is pure speculation. I have a hypothosis…

The Fathers testify that Matthew was the first to write a Gospel and in Aramaic. “Modern Scholars” say Mark was first. My Hypothosis is…

"Matthew, being a Levite and tax collector, could very well have been keeping notes. He compiled his notes in an Aramaic Gospel account. Mark wrote his Gospel. which was used by Luke as one of his sources**,** along with the Aramiac Matthew. Then Matthew was translated into Greek and additional material was added giving it its present form.

No Q here and the similarities and differances are all accounted for along with the testimony of the Fathers.
 
40.png
metal1633:
The Fathers testify that Matthew was the first to write a Gospel and in Aramaic. “Modern Scholars” say Mark was first. My Hypothosis is…
Click to expand...
I like your hypothesis better. In the end I believe that Q will turn out to have been an incorrect theory.

JimG
 
I don’t understand the necessity of a Q source document. Didn’t the evangelists draw from Sacred Tradition to write the Gospels? Wouldn’t the Apostolic paradosis account for the similarities? Personally, the belief that there must have been earlier writing smacks of the “put it in writing” mentality that Sola Scriptura either produces or by which Sola Scriptura is produced.

Justin
 
40.png
1962Missal:
Personally, the belief that there must have been earlier writing smacks of the “put it in writing” mentality
Click to expand...
I agree. To some extent, it seems that the historico-criticial method of literary criticism as applied to the scriptures, always assumes that the ultimate author was working from some preceeding written source material. It discounts oral tradition. Also, since many critics tended to date the gospels so late, it seemed to require an intervening written source. Personally, I think the gospels were all written fairly early, but I’m not a biblical scholar.

JimG
 
The Church has proclaimed for the first 1,900 years, that Matthew was written first, shortly after the resurrection.

Then Mark, relying upon Matthew but with Peter’s help adding some things and subtracting some things, then Luke comes along later borrowing from both Matthew and Mark but having some additional insights, then last is John’s gospel which is completly different.

What is wrong with this understanding? Makes perfect sense to me.

Why is it necessary to invent this “Q” source?

I say Q is a bunch of BS!
 
In freshman theology the Jesuits taught us that Mark wrote the first gospel and it was narrated to Mark by Peter.
 
I can’t really comment on Q because I’m not a Scripture scholar or an expert on the traditional teaching of the Church. But I do think historic-critical method has its use. I’m a theology major. I see it used to viscerate texts all the time and therefore am always suspicious of it. But our improved understanding of the context of the Scriptures, including parallel genres in contemporaneous cultures, can help us gain deeper insights into the full meaning of the Bible. So while lots of it is liberal hogwash, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
Andreas Hofer:
… So while lots of it is liberal hogwash, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Click to expand...
The theory of Q doesn’t change anything about how the Gospels are translated or interpreted, does it?

So Q preserves the status quo, which would make it conservative.

Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top