S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I can think of no reason why not
- Status
J
jimmy
Guest
It is not only that Q’s identity remains hidden, its existence remains hidden.There is not one scrap of evidence that indicates that there ever was a Q.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
For my own edification who are the scholars you deem atheistic in this area? I’m in agreement that we all bring our biases, even the expert Scott.
I’ve never read any commentary of Mark that suggested that the gospels were false, some are surely in conflict with others as to time or place, but I’ve not read apparently anyone who started out what that premise.
J
jimmy
Guest
One name would be John Dominic Crossan.
A
adam_in_ohio
Guest
Wasn’t Q the smart guy in James Bond?
J
jimmy
Guest
Q was actually Denzel Washington in the movie John Q.Wasn’t Q the smart guy in James Bond?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Lest anyone think I’m a complete fool like scott tried to make me out as, I’ve found this additional information: These writings can be located at earlychristianwriings.com or
mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/faq.htm
By far, the most widely accepted solution for the synoptic problem is the Two Source Hypothesis (2SH). However, two other proposed solutions have emerged as serious alternatives: the Two Gospel Hypothesis (2GH) in America and the Farrer Hypothesis (FH) in Britain. Other solutions that have attracted the attention of a plurality of scholars include the Augustinian Hypothesis (AH) and the Jerusalem School Hypothesis (JSH).
Despite recent challenges, the 2SH remains the dominant synoptic theory today among New Testament scholars for most of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century. Lately much attention has been devoted to studying Q and its own history of composition.
and,
mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/2sh/index.htm
The Two Source Hypothesis (2SH) has been the predominant source theory for the synoptic problem for almost a century and half. Originally conceived in Germany by Ch. H. Weisse in 1838, the 2SH came to dominate German protestant scholarship after the fall of the Tüübingen school with H. J. Holtzmann’s endorsement of a related variant in 1863. In the latter part of the 19th century, the Oxford School brought the 2SH to English scholarship, culminating in B. H. Streeter’s 1924 treatment of the synoptic problem. Now, the 2SH commands the support of most biblical critics from all continents and denominations.
Of course scholars disagree, thats what scientific investigation is all about, the truth is winnowed out eventually. The point is, there is no reason to label a person who states what is commonly held as the prevailing theory as a nut because you happen to disagree. The Q theory may be someday completely debunked as incorrect, or it may be otherwise.
I don’t understand this anamosity given the Church gives freedom to do just this kind of thing and has a battery of biblical experts of its own doing the same thing.
mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/faq.htm
By far, the most widely accepted solution for the synoptic problem is the Two Source Hypothesis (2SH). However, two other proposed solutions have emerged as serious alternatives: the Two Gospel Hypothesis (2GH) in America and the Farrer Hypothesis (FH) in Britain. Other solutions that have attracted the attention of a plurality of scholars include the Augustinian Hypothesis (AH) and the Jerusalem School Hypothesis (JSH).
Despite recent challenges, the 2SH remains the dominant synoptic theory today among New Testament scholars for most of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century. Lately much attention has been devoted to studying Q and its own history of composition.
and,
mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/2sh/index.htm
The Two Source Hypothesis (2SH) has been the predominant source theory for the synoptic problem for almost a century and half. Originally conceived in Germany by Ch. H. Weisse in 1838, the 2SH came to dominate German protestant scholarship after the fall of the Tüübingen school with H. J. Holtzmann’s endorsement of a related variant in 1863. In the latter part of the 19th century, the Oxford School brought the 2SH to English scholarship, culminating in B. H. Streeter’s 1924 treatment of the synoptic problem. Now, the 2SH commands the support of most biblical critics from all continents and denominations.
Of course scholars disagree, thats what scientific investigation is all about, the truth is winnowed out eventually. The point is, there is no reason to label a person who states what is commonly held as the prevailing theory as a nut because you happen to disagree. The Q theory may be someday completely debunked as incorrect, or it may be otherwise.
I don’t understand this anamosity given the Church gives freedom to do just this kind of thing and has a battery of biblical experts of its own doing the same thing.
J
jimmy
Guest
The problem I have is when it is presented as fact. You can not look at someone who rejects the two source theory and say they are any less informed. It is far more plausible to say that the Q source theory is false because there is no actual evidence that it existed. There will never be a conclusion to the debate unless Q is found. It will not be proved true and it will not be proved false. It is a matter of your approach to the text of the gospels.
P
patrick1945
Guest
It sounds to me like reasonable people can disagree. My thanks to those who provided constructive (name removed by moderator)ut.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I disagree with your conclusion that it is far more plausible to say that the Q source theory is false because there is no actual evidence of it.
There is…and thats the point. It’s a common thing in science, escpecially particle physics. The math tells you the particle must exist even though no one has every found one. Of course its not total proof, and will never be, but it is evidence. The math in that case is the evidence.
The problem of the synoptics is answered by the conclusion that that there must have been a Q or a lot of little Q’s…(the latter being more problematical i would argue). That is evidence…
Obviously others propose other answers, which are equally unproveable. The best answer to date as far as i can determine is the two-source Q theory. That’s the best I can tell.
J
Joel_Tunnah
Guest
You start with a false premise: that there is a “problem” which needs a “solution”.
D
DaveBj
Guest
Thanks for your comments. I haven’t studied this “problem” in an academic setting, but I have looked at it from an amateur’s point of view and found the evidence for the Q hypothesis lacking.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.
This year I have been slowly slogging thru Matthew in Greek, Latin, and English, as well as reading several commentaries (including the Navarre Bible). One of the Protestant commentators (Donald Hagner, Vol. 33 of Word Biblical Commentary) is always commenting about one passage or another that Matthew borrowed from Mark and shortened what Mark had written. Wouldn’t it be just as easy to say that Mark borrowed from Matthew and expanded it? Or that Matthew wrote what the Holy Spirit brought to his memory, and Mark wrote what Peter told him to write?
J
jblake
Guest
I’m not sure if you are being facetious or serious.
None the less, a theory that some Aramaic Primacy advocates hold is:
- Aramaic Matthew was written first;
- Aramaic Mark, translated into Greek;
- Aramaic Luke, translated into Greek;
- Greek Matthew, which is a redaction of Aramaic Matthew;
- Aramaic John was written, then translated into Aramaic;
This is very much a minority position, even amongst Aramaic primacists.
xan
jonathon
A
annem
Guest
Jonathan, I don’t have your faith in majority–or even minority–opinions among scholars. Renan, Strauss, Bultmann, all the various theories have vanished like smoke. The entire History of Religions theory collapsed and is now taken almost as a joke. Whenever I think of liberal modern scholarship I recall Crossan arguing that Jesus and his followers were a bunch of hippies in a time of Augustan yuppies. Or Funk and the Jesus Seminar voting on which words of Jesus actually spoke. Fifty years from now I doubt anyone will recall what their theories were.
Of course I trust some modern scholars. N T Wright and Larry Hurtado come to mind, as do Bauckham and Hengel.
Which scholars do you find most reliable?
Blessings, Anne
R
rwoehmke
Guest
I am not a professional Bible study guy with lots of degrees, but I have personally found the on-line book below to be very reasonable in its conclusions, Ray Brown and all those academics to the contrary. There are enough hypothesisies out their that if all the hot air were put in a huge balloon you could move a house.
www.churchinhistory.org
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS
[According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
www.churchinhistory.org
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS
[According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
J
jblake
Guest
Which scholars does the person grading my papers like.
I tend to pay far more attention to minority positions, because that is where you’ll learn both the virtues, and flaws of the various theories.
xan
jonathon
is a hypothetical but possible stage in the tradition as a result of which the first three, “Synoptic”, gospels were written.
S
scottm
Guest
Yes it would, and that’s the point – for 1800 years people read the Bible and read the Bible and read the Bible and read the Bible and never thought, “Wow, you know, Matthew must have copied from Mark. He MUST HAVE!” For 1800 years they read the Bible and never thought that it must be so!
What changed, eh? Biases, that’s what. The Bible was no longer authored by God. It was authored by humans. With that idea firmly implanted in their heads, scholars were forced to say that successive gospel writers copied from their predecessors and we lost the document that started the whole chain. They had no choice but to go in that direction. Fast forward in time, and now we have a generation of college teachers who never looked at the problem any other way.
D
dranzal
Guest
Have any of you who are arguing read this link? I read it some time ago. I agree with this poster that it is quite reasonable.
It should give us pause that “Q” is a relatively recent theory. It should give us pause that the Early Church Fathers have Matthew as written first.
It should give us pause that the current so-called “scholarship” deliberately calls everything into question. According to them, the Gospel writers didn’t write the Gospels, miracles weren’t miraculous, and Jesus may not have actually said anything we attribute to Him. If that is correct, maybe Jesus never said “Peter, you are rock” or “This is my body”. The current “scholars” think they know so much more than the early Church Fathers.
Is it possible there is no “Q”? That Matthew the apostle wrote “Matthew” fairly soon after the resurrection? That Matthew was circulated to the various churches for use in liturgy so the other gospel writers had access to a copy? That Luke (secretary of Paul) at Paul’s request and with a copy of Matthew wrote his Gospel addressing the gentiles?
- Status