P
patrick1945
Guest
While reading “The Death of the Messiah”, I noticed that the author made repeated references to a person called “Q” as a likely source for the first 3 gospels. Is there any conjecture as to who he/she might be?
- Status
Q
quasimodo
Guest
Q was a character on Star Trek the Next Generation.
or
Q in Biblical studies is a fudge factor used to explain why Matthew and Luke have more material than Mark. They reason that Mark is shorter and more rustic than the other, two and (almost) everything you see in Mark is in the other two. Therefore, (behold) Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. But where (you ask) did the material present in both Luke and Matthew come from that they did not take from Mark? Why, it must be from an unknown source - Q. ( The German word for source begins with Q - get it?). Then we must also present a theory about the material unique to Matthew and the material unique to Luke. They too, therefore, had their own unknown sources. So, to make everything fit with the Q theory, there must really be 3 unknown sources. And then you throw in John and the unknown sources keep multiplying.
there is no proof that any of the these sources have any existence apart from the theories of bible scholars.
or
Q in Biblical studies is a fudge factor used to explain why Matthew and Luke have more material than Mark. They reason that Mark is shorter and more rustic than the other, two and (almost) everything you see in Mark is in the other two. Therefore, (behold) Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. But where (you ask) did the material present in both Luke and Matthew come from that they did not take from Mark? Why, it must be from an unknown source - Q. ( The German word for source begins with Q - get it?). Then we must also present a theory about the material unique to Matthew and the material unique to Luke. They too, therefore, had their own unknown sources. So, to make everything fit with the Q theory, there must really be 3 unknown sources. And then you throw in John and the unknown sources keep multiplying.
there is no proof that any of the these sources have any existence apart from the theories of bible scholars.
P
patrick1945
Guest
Thanks Quasimodo. That makes sense to me.
Another question, then, if you don’t mind. The author of “Death…” was reputedly a great American scholar of the Bible and a priest, so I assume his theories and musings have some basis. He also states that St. Mark, while not an apostle was likely a close disciple and that some scholars believe that Mark was “transcribing” the recollections of St. Peter. He also mentions without further explanation that Mark may have been the “naked” young man running from Gethsemane. Huh?
As an aside, it seems that the seeper I get into this , the more the questions arise.
Another question, then, if you don’t mind. The author of “Death…” was reputedly a great American scholar of the Bible and a priest, so I assume his theories and musings have some basis. He also states that St. Mark, while not an apostle was likely a close disciple and that some scholars believe that Mark was “transcribing” the recollections of St. Peter. He also mentions without further explanation that Mark may have been the “naked” young man running from Gethsemane. Huh?
As an aside, it seems that the seeper I get into this , the more the questions arise.
U
Usagi
Guest
Are you asking where the “naked young man” comes from, or why people think he might have been Mark himself?
If the former: Mark’s Gospel (and only Mark’s Gospel) mentions that when Jesus was arrested, a nameless “young man in linen” with the group was nearly seized as well, but ran off leaving the soldiers holding on to his clothing.
If the latter: People think that young man may have been Mark because it’s a pretty strange incident for a writer to mention, and only Mark mentions it, but without giving the man’s name. It’s similar to why the unnamed “beloved disciple” in John’s Gospel is generally assumed to have been John himself.
Mark’s Gospel also describes the angel at the empty tomb merely as a “young man in linen” rather than as an angel. At least one book I know of suggests that the “angel” was also Mark, who visited the tomb early and told everyone else that Jesus’ body had vanished. That, of course, would make the mention of actual angels in the other gospels an embellishment, so I suspect that explanation is not widely accepted in the Church.
If you want to get into really wacky fringe stuff, a guy in the 1950s claimed to have found a missing bit of Mark’s Gospel that again features the mysterious young man in linen, this time in a parallel to the story of the raising of Lazarus (which is otherwise found only in John’s Gospel).
Usagi
P
Paisius
Guest
My friend the best advice I can give you is don’t get too caught up in questions like these. By getting you to question the source of this book or that there is a real danger you may begin to question your faith as well.
Never forget…God is the real source of **all **of the books of the bible and ultimately that’s all that matters.
Q
quasimodo
Guest
I have heard all of these things too, and they make some sense. I have the image of Peter as an impetuous, rough and ready sort of guy. Rustic, if you will. The gospel of Mark comes across that way - rough ready and rustic - but very sophisticated nevertheless. If you read Mark carefully, you will note that Peter is not cast in the best of lights. An honest, humble, self effacing image of the apostle emerges, as though Peter did not want to be white washed in the telling.
As far as I can tell, the fact that only Mark mentions the boy running away is all they have to claim it is Mark doing the running. It makes sense, but it is no where near proof and in the end it is not important.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
The existence of multiple sources for Luke and Matthew that included both Markan and a Q source is well attested to. Normally any good Catholic study bible will tell you all about it. Rather than being some “theory” as if it were merely something dreamed up, the texts support the divisions. check out any synoptic gospels book. None of this would have been uncommon, oral stories were abundant, and probably some writings. Most writings were not self-autographed.
It is clear Mark was not an apostle. Some argue that he may have been a disciple of Peter’s and Papias quoted in Eusebius so states, and that Mark wrote down Peter’s preachings. Others find no petrine flavor to Mark, nor does he treat Peter well as apposed say for instance Luke. There is reasonable belief but not proof of course, that Mark may be the John Mark of Acts and the pauline literature. That would have made him a disciple of Paul’s at least initially until he left him in mid mission.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
oddly enough I just posted yesterday an article on the authorship of Mark based on Dr. Joel Marcus’s Mark 1-8, part of the Anchor book series, and a wonderful book. I highly recommend it. So far all the reviews I’ve seen are supportive of the basic exegesis, differing on a minor point here and there as you would expect.
Note this is for the serious student, but it is for the laity. You don’t need a degree to understand it.
Happy studying
Note this is for the serious student, but it is for the laity. You don’t need a degree to understand it.
Happy studying
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
sigh…:dts:
P
patrick1945
Guest
Many thanks to all of you.
Paisius, I appreciate your words of caution. Hopefully, my faith is well enough grounded. I guess I came to the conclusion long ago that God didn’t want to make all of this too easy for us. That is, if the Gospels were written “perfectly”, with no seeming inconsistencies and with full attribution and substantial corroboration, then what good would faith be? What place would it have if the Message were easily laid out before us?
I remember reading in the novel, “Barabbas”, St. Peter comforting Barabbas in a Roman prison with the words, “By your struggle, you have known Him.”.
Paisius, I appreciate your words of caution. Hopefully, my faith is well enough grounded. I guess I came to the conclusion long ago that God didn’t want to make all of this too easy for us. That is, if the Gospels were written “perfectly”, with no seeming inconsistencies and with full attribution and substantial corroboration, then what good would faith be? What place would it have if the Message were easily laid out before us?
I remember reading in the novel, “Barabbas”, St. Peter comforting Barabbas in a Roman prison with the words, “By your struggle, you have known Him.”.
J
Joel_Tunnah
Guest
Since “Q” has never been found, and is not noted in any historical record, it follows that it must be “made up”. It is a mental construct, fabricated to support this literary critical theory.
The theory is premised on two ideas: 1) there is no such thing as revelation, and 2) the early church fathers were unanimously incorrect about the Gospel authorship.
Not a good position to start from for a Catholic.
A
annem
Guest
I agree with you. Papias and other church fathers claimed Matthew wrote the first gospel in Aramaic. I’ve always thought it more reasonable that Matthew, in Aramaic, was the original source for the similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
I know that Funk/Jesus Seminar recently published what they claim is “Q”, and that many liberal scholars are quoting from it as though it were an actual document. Frankly, I feel this is a joke. They simply sound silly quoting from it, and yes, I have read some books where it is actually quoted from.
The Jesus Seminar and other liberal scholars based the idea of a “sayings gospel” or Q" being the original source for the gospels on hot air and the presumption–now proven false–that the sayings “Gospel of Thomas” could be dated early. Since it has recently been proven to date to later than 170 AD so much for that theory.
Blessings, Anne
S
Stratiotes
Guest
I agree that caution is a good thing and too much speculation can get us into hot water quite often. But I feel very much the same way about it - an untested faith is no faith at all. If you are a hardened skeptic, you won’t take anybody’s word for it but will look for their sources - and their proof. Sounds like this author is one of those who takes church tradition as fact where he likes and then throws it out where he does not. Some of the stories you mention have come down to us through church tradition (such as who wrote which book).
I may get flamed for this but I would recommend you read Dr. Bart Ehrman’s works on church history and the development of the canon. He is a well-respected early church historian. He is a former Protestant turned atheist (sometimes he claims he’s an agnostic). But, he does seem relatively balanced and well-documented in his work. As a protestant, I found his work extremely challenging to my thinking about sola scriptura - which was one more break in my Protestant armor that led to my conversion.
By the way, Bart Ehrman’s book in response to the Da Vinci Code is also quite good.
A
annem
Guest
I don’t think you are as likely to get flamed on a Catholic forum for mentioning Ehrman, since in so many ways his books don’t touch Catholics. He was born a fundamentalist and his aim with most of his books seems to be to shake the faith of fundamentalists.
His “Misquoting Jesus” was a huge bestseller (for a book about biblical scholarship) and is a perfect example. There is no doubt that the work is one-sided, even ludicrously so. He huffs and puffs about every single textual error he can find–and, in the end, finds only two truly questionable areas, the woman caught in adultery and the end of Mark. But these have been known since the year dot and were always noted in every biblical commentary. Hardly a surprise to anyone with any knowledge of the bible. And he can’t really find anything that affects dogma or morals. Yet for those who are raised on sola scriptura and the bible without the authority of the church this might well lead them away from belief in God.
Catholics, however, are on a very different footing. The bible came from Catholic apostles, Catholic gospels, and was confirmed under the authority of the Catholic church. If the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in most of the oldest gospels we have, we know Papias spoke about it, and we know that the church has examined it carefully and included it.
I believe Ehrman has a Catholic wife, however. Does anyone know anything about how she feels about his books?
Blessings, Anne
Z
Zooey
Guest
:yup:
I think that the real “Q” ***was ***Matthew in Aramaic.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Matthew was mistakenly thought to be the first Gospel, hence its placement in the NT. Mark actually was. There is common material in Luke Matthew and Mark that cannot be accounted for. true enough it may not be a single source, but may have been several, but then you posit that all three writers just happened to have that entire group. Thus the unknown writings are designated Q. We know they had to exist since 3 separated writers used it, we know nothing further. I am unaware of what the Jesus seminar has been doing lately.
I dont know what you mean by saying early church fathers were unanimously incorrect about Gospel authorship. As far as I know, Papias, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, Iraenaeus, Origen, and Clement all subscribed to papias quote of the elder that Mark was a disciple of Peter’s, having not witnessed the Lord nor been a follower prior to his death on the cross. The Church has it appears never claimed Mark to have been an apostle or eyewitness to the events he describes.
P
patrick1945
Guest
Fr. Raymond Brown, the author of “The Death of the Messiah”, is a “supporter” of the “Q” theory. But, I doubt that he’d agree with your last paragraph. Isn’t it possible that a person or persons, referred to as “Q” was also divinely inspired , but that his/her true identity remains hidden?
S
scottm
Guest
Pfffttt! ROFLOL!
Oh, thanks for the laugh, man. I needed that right now as I sit in a hospital lounge.Ya, “well attested to” – if you like theories as supportive as wet paper. I’ve read dozens of the professional, academic, NT journals in which this very question is discussed. I’ve read the books. I’ve attended the lectures. I wrote a masters-level research paper on this issue. Been there, done it all. There is not one “evidence” for Q or Markan priority that cannot be turned around and presented as an evidence for Mark coming 2nd or 3rd in sequence. Every bit of the Q-theory can be turned around BECAUSE it is nothing but someone’s subjective preference, aka “bias.”
If I like chocolate best, I look for chocolate cake and chocolate ice cream and chocolate cookies. If I like strawberry best, I look for strawberry treats. If I like the idea that the gospel writers copied from one another because they didn’t have enough in their teeeeeeeny tiny brains about this guy who walked around preaching in the public for 3 years to write something on their own, I look for Q.
Do it yourself – pull a journal and write the opposite of what the author writes. You’ll be shocked at how easy it is. Maybe that’s why the Q theory and Markan priority were not contrived until the 1800s. Ya, it’s funny how people fluent in the languages could miss something so “obvious” for 1800 years.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
so nice of you to be so rude and saracastic. I’m well aware that there are differences of opinion on many of these questions, the two-source theory, 3 source and 4 source theory. You’re attempts to secure victory for your argument by citing your self-promoted study is interesting but unfortuanately not compelling.Pfffttt! ROFLOL!
Ya, “well attested to” – if you like theories as supportive as wet paper. I’ve read dozens of the professional, academic, NT journals in which this very question is discussed. I’ve read the books. I’ve attended the lectures. I wrote a masters-level research paper on this issue. Been there, done it all. There is not one “evidence” for Q or Markan priority that cannot be turned around and presented as an evidence for Mark coming 2nd or 3rd in sequence. Every bit of the Q-theory can be turned around BECAUSE it is nothing but someone’s subjective preference, aka “bias.”
If I like chocolate best, I look for chocolate cake and chocolate ice cream and chocolate cookies. If I like strawberry best, I look for strawberry treats. If I like the idea that the gospel writers copied from one another because they didn’t have enough in their teeeeeeeny tiny brains about this guy who walked around preaching in the public for 3 years to write something on their own, I look for Q.
Do it yourself – pull a journal and write the opposite of what the author writes. You’ll be shocked at how easy it is. Maybe that’s why the Q theory and Markan priority were not contrived until the 1800s. Ya, it’s funny how people fluent in the languages could miss something so “obvious” for 1800 years.
I’ve studied at the Masters level these same subjects as well. I continue to find the Q theory the best so far. In either case, it not that important to the discussion. We will probably never know where mark got his information, our earliest evidence is that he got some of it from peter, but much of what mark writes about does not include either peter or any of the apostles, so he got it from somewhere, since the Church understands he wasnt an eye witness.
J
jimmy
Guest
Q is simply an idea. Whether scholars agree is irrelevant. Many of these scholars are atheists trying to prove their points. Every man comes to the scriptures with preconceptions. Many of them have the preconception that the gospel accounts are false. That leads to many theories. Q has never been referenced or mentioned in any historical document and there has never been a fragment of it found. It is simply an idea, a hypothesis.
- Status