Who was "Q"?

[dranzal]

I’ll save you some time and paste some here. If it interests you, the link goes into much more detail.

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm

The theory that Mark’s gospel was the first to be written dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious **and widespread **doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built.

‘The Authors of the Gospels’ sets forth an alternative view. Using primary sources written by the earliest Christian historians (The Church Fathers) and the findings of modern literary analysis,the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology widely used prior to the time of Jerome.

This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness companions of Jesus.The author points out that this teaching was recently renewed in a Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican Council.

For nearly 2000 years Christians have maintained that the Apostles Matthew and John (eye-witnesses of the public life of Christ) and Mark and Luke (secretaries to Peter and Paul) composed the four Gospels. Today this historical basis of Christianity is widely denied, not only by non-Christians, but also by some within the Christian community.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels) show clear signs of borrowing. The dispute as to who borrowed from whom, and therefore in what order they were written, is the key to the debate regarding authorship.

There are three main schools of thought:
~ The Jerome Tradition (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) ~
~ The Markan priority theory (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John)~
~ The Clementine Tradition (Matthew, Luke, Mark, John) ~

THE JEROME TRADITION asserts that:

• The order of Gospel composition was in the sequence they appear in our Bibles today.
• St. Jerome and some other early Christians made use of this order.
• If internal evidence contradicts these historians, the literary analysis must be in error.

THE MARKAN PRIORITY THEORY asserts that:

• Those, who wrote second and third, would have improved the literary form of the Greek in the borrowed verses. They would not have deliberately corrupted the Greek.
• Marks Gospel is in poor Greek` when compared to that of Matthew and Luke.
• So Matthew and Luke must have borrowed from Mark.
• This shows that Mark wrote prior to the other two (i.e. Markan priority).
• Matthew the Apostle (an eyewitness of the public life of Christ) would not have borrowed from a non-eyewitness when forming the basis of his account.
• This indicates that Matthew the Apostle did not write the Gospel named after him. It must have been composed by an unknown person at a later date, using Marks Gospel as a basis and adding additional material from other sources (these are referred to as Q`).
• As Luke also improved on Greek of Mark, he must also have written late. This means he could not have been a companion of Paul.
• These findings of modern literary analysis show that the ancient historians were in error. They are not therefore a reliable source for the historical claim that the fourth Gospel was by John the Apostle, eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus…
• As none of the authors of the Gospels were Apostles or their companions, their writings can not be seen as accurate accounts of what Jesus said and did.
  +The authors must have been unknown writers, living at late dates, expressing their beliefs in the form of stories.

As the Markan priority theory is based upon modern scientific
research, and the Jerome Tradition is based on historical records,
Science should be trusted in preference to old traditions.

The Jesus of History is not the same as The Christ of Faith
Christianity is therefore not built on a firm historical basis.

The above statement about Markan priority should cause grave concern. This is the theory that the current “scholars” adhere to.

 

[dranzal]

Continued…

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION

• Challenged by Markan priority, Protestants and Catholics, at the beginning of the 20th century, encouraged a deeper study of ancient languages and placed large resources at the disposal of archaeological researchers in Palestine. This has born rich fruit.
• Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
• In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.
• Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark, so producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. The Church Fathers were familiar with and used the same order.
• When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament in the fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today.
• A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternately, so confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third.
• Both the historical and literary evidence shows that Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles.
• Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternately quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).+ The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed to those who made requests. This explains the apparent poor Greek of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.
• By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel.
• This vindication of the reliability of the historical records makes them a reliable and firm authority for accepting that John the Apostle wrote the fourth Gospel.
• The Clementine Tradition brings the ancient historical records and the latest literary analysis together in perfect agreement.

THE CHURCH

• Dei Verbum, a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels.
• The Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with Dei Verbum.
• The Clementine Tradition is in agreement with Dei Verbum.
• Rome urges the use of both historical evidence and scientific literary analysis
• The Holy See has issued many recent statements in which the historicity of the Gospels is accepted as a fact.
  ================

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
is in full accord with:
The earliest Christian historians
Modern literary analysis
The doctrine of the church
Recent Church statements

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is a very interesting line of reasoning “for a Catholic”. I just read on another thread where the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of mary is not in the NT, and not noted in any historical record for centuries, and therefore “it follows that it must be made up”.

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.

I think your historical criticism is a little short. Any serious bible student will learn that the early writers had sources that are not available to us today. Even Jerome used some that we no longer have. Don’t you ever wonder what happened to the letter to the Laodiceans mentioned by Paul? The fact that there were other sources used by the gospel writers does not diminish their inspired quality.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

This is a very interesting line of reasoning “for a Catholic”. I just read on another thread where the Immaculate Conception…is not in the NT.

Huh?

Matthew 1
18And the generation of CHRIST was in this wise. When his mother MARIE was spoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with childe by the Holy Ghost. 19Whereupon Joseph, for that he was a just man, and would not put her to open shame: was minded secretely to dismisse her. 20But as he was thus thinking, behold the Angel of our Lord appeared to him in sleepe saying: Joseph sonne of David, feare not to take MARIE thy wife, for that which is borne in her, is of the Holy Ghost. 21And she shal bring forth a sonne: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shal save his people from their sinnes. 22And al this was done that it might be fulfilled which our Lord spake by the Prophet saying, 23Behold a Virgin shal be with childe, and bring forth a sonne, and they shal call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24And Joseph rising up from sleepe, did as the Angel of our Lord comaunded him, and tooke his wife. 25And he knew her not til she brought forth her first borne sonne: and called his name JESUS.

Any serious bible student will learn that the early writers had sources that are not available to us today. Even Jerome used some that we no longer have.

Yes. +1 to the Vulgate.

The fact that there were other sources used by the gospel writers does not diminish their inspired quality.

Chrisitianity is based on actual events in history. The enemy knows this, so his line of attack is often at the “historicity” of the Gospels. Q is an attack. It should be met as such.

To me, it’s equivalent to that painting of the Blessed V.M. that was done in sh*t.

 

[rwoehmke]

Matthew 1
18And the generation of CHRIST was in this wise. When his mother MARIE was spoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with childe by the Holy Ghost. 19Whereupon Joseph, for that he was a just man, and would not put her to open shame: was minded secretely to dismisse her. 20But as he was thus thinking, behold the Angel of our Lord appeared to him in sleepe saying: Joseph sonne of David, feare not to take MARIE thy wife, for that which is borne in her, is of the Holy Ghost. 21And she shal bring forth a sonne: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shal save his people from their sinnes. 22And al this was done that it might be fulfilled which our Lord spake by the Prophet saying, 23Behold a Virgin shal be with childe, and bring forth a sonne, and they shal call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24And Joseph rising up from sleepe, did as the Angel of our Lord comaunded him, and tooke his wife. 25And he knew her not til she brought forth her first borne sonne: and called his name JESUS.

What does this quote have to do with the Immaculate Conception? It was Mary’s conception by her parents that was the Immaculate Conception. Mary was conceived without ever having Original Sin as a special intervention by God for the woman who would become the mother of Jesus. Hence “highly favored” or “full of grace”.

 

[patg]

Chrisitianity is based on actual events in history.

No, Chrisitianity is based on faith. Very few Christian beliefs can be supported through objective historical analysis.

The enemy knows this, so his line of attack is often at the “historicity” of the Gospels.

Ignoring historical criticism introduces a lie into any contemporary Christian faith that claims history as its basis. It is not acceptable to assert that one’s views are historically accurate and at the same time reject the standards and practices of historical method and historical thinking. Such a lie undermines Christian practice and spirituality which must have to do with the truth and the real.

Q is an attack.

No, Q is a theory which fits many of the facts. The idea that its validity may in some way harm other beliefs is not a valid reason for rejecting it.

It should be met as such.

I’ve met it and it seems very reasonable. Oh, and the Church does not require belief or disbelief.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

What does this quote have to do with the Immaculate Conception?

Sorry, I thought he was referring to the other immaculate conception…

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

No, Chrisitianity is based on faith. Very few Christian beliefs can be supported through objective historical analysis.

False.

It is not acceptable to assert that one’s views are historically accurate and at the same time reject the standards and practices of historical method and historical thinking.

I agree completely, and if “Q” was subjected to the standards of any other historical inquiry, it would be rejected forthrightly.

The last time I checked, actual Historians don’t invent documents and authors.

 

[patg]

No, Chrisitianity is based on faith. Very few Christian beliefs can be supported through objective historical analysis.

False.

Actually, it is very true. But that’s a topic for another thread…

I agree completely, and if “Q” was subjected to the standards of any other historical inquiry, it would be rejected forthrightly.

Then it’s really strange that it hasn’t been.

The last time I checked, actual Historians don’t invent documents and authors.

No, but they do try to reach logical conclusions by analyzing theories. I bet you even admit that there was once an original copy of each gospel even though we have nothing even close - are those originals invented or do we logically theorize that they must have existed?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well I’m just completely dumbfounded. Apparently the idea of Q is terribly threatening. I’m told that Satan is behind it. I have no clue what is wrong now with common biblical exegesis which occurs in every seminar in the world.

What exactly do you all want to be the truth here? The vehemence of the attack suggests that, yet I’m not seeing the proofs extended to us who think Q a rational theory. I’m assuming you have some theory as to the source of the synoptic problem?

Why does it matter what order the Gospels are listed? How does it matter who wrote first? What does it matter who wrote anything? It still is.

I can’t conceive it matters to faith. It matters a lot if we are trying to extract as closely as possible the full breadth and depth of meaing in what Jesus and those close to him said and did.

These are basic discussions being held in Catholic universities and seminaries worldwide, yet I’m getting here such anger as if this is somehow threatening to the Church and/or faith.

What gives?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well I’m just completely dumbfounded. Apparently the idea of Q is terribly threatening. I’m told that Satan is behind it. I have no clue what is wrong now with common biblical exegesis which occurs in every seminar in the world.

What exactly do you all want to be the truth here? The vehemence of the attack suggests that, yet I’m not seeing the proofs extended to us who think Q a rational theory. I’m assuming you have some theory as to the source of the synoptic problem?

Why does it matter what order the Gospels are listed? How does it matter who wrote first? What does it matter who wrote anything? It still is.

I can’t conceive it matters to faith. It matters a lot if we are trying to extract as closely as possible the full breadth and depth of meaing in what Jesus and those close to him said and did.

These are basic discussions being held in Catholic universities and seminaries worldwide, yet I’m getting here such anger as if this is somehow threatening to the Church and/or faith.

What gives?

What’s wrong with “Q” is that it violates Occam’s Razor – it is an invention needed to make a theory work. There is no “Q.” The men who proposed it never found such a document. No ancient writer mentions such a document.

On the other hand, the traditional Matthew First approach does away with the need for any inventions or suppositions.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Well I’m just completely dumbfounded.

Obviously.

If you think this is all academic, and irrelevant, maybe you should read the Apologetics page here more. Attacks on Christianity by atheists very often hinge on the idea that the Gospels are not trustworthy documents, and that we don’t really know what the “Historical Jesus” said and did.

As someone summarized nicely above, Q presumes that none of the gospel writers was an eyewitness, or even a companion of an eyewitness. And you ask why this matters? Are you serious?

Many Catholics quite mistakingly take the attitude that defending scripture is not necessary if you’re catholic - because well, we’ve got the church to tell us what to think. This is nonsense, and nothing the church has ever said or done supports this view. It also supports the stereotypes Protestants and other anti-catholics have of us.

Do you think Dr Scott Hahn would say gospel authorship, and the order they were written in are irrelevant to the Church and to Faith?

 

[patg]

If you think this is all academic, and irrelevant, maybe you should read the Apologetics page here more. Attacks on Christianity by atheists very often hinge on the idea that the Gospels are not trustworthy documents, and that we don’t really know what the “Historical Jesus” said and did.

Actually, what you should read are the statements by the Church, especially the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The document Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels is a good place to start (available online). Another excellent work is ***Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know. ***

As someone summarized nicely above, Q presumes that none of the gospel writers was an eyewitness, or even a companion of an eyewitness.

Which is most likely very true. Even the Pontifical Biblical Commission states that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists.

Many Catholics quite mistakingly take the attitude that defending scripture is not necessary if you’re catholic - because well, we’ve got the church to tell us what to think. This is nonsense, and nothing the church has ever said or done supports this view. It also supports the stereotypes Protestants and other anti-catholics have of us.

Do you think Dr Scott Hahn would say gospel authorship, and the order they were written in are irrelevant to the Church and to Faith?

You need to be a little more honest here as the church itself does not require any particular belief in authorship, order, dates of compostion, or historical accuracy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s understand that the “Q” theory is in itself neutral.

If you accept the “Q” theory, that** doesn’t** prove that the authors of the Gospels were not who tradition says they are.

Similarly, if you reject the “Q” theory, that doesn’t prove that the Gospels were actually written by the traditional aiuthors.

However, there is no “Q.” No one has ever produced a copy of it. No one has ever offered a scrap of evidence from ancient writers that some specific document, now lost, might have been “Q.” Therefore theories based on “Q” must fail through lack of evidence.

If we wish to prove that Mark wrote first, and Matthew and Luke copied him, we have to do it without inventing the mythical “Q.”

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Actually, what you should read are the statements by the Church, especially the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The document Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels is a good place to start (available online).

Very edifying. Which part would you like to discuss? Let’s start with section V:

Others begin with a false idea of faith, as if it had nothing to do with historical truth–or rather were incompatible with it. Others deny the historical value and nature of the documents of revelation almost a priori. Finally, others make light of the authority of the apostles as witnesses to Christ, and of their task and influence in the primitive community, extolling rather the creative power of that community. All such views are not only opposed to Catholic doctrine, but are also devoid of scientific basis and alien to the correct principles of historical method.

How about section XIV?

They are strictly forbidden to disseminate, led on by some pernicious itch for newness, any trial solutions for difficulties without a prudent selection and serious discrimination, for thus they perturb the faith of many.

That last one seems particularly applicable in this discussion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What’s wrong with “Q” is that it violates Occam’s Razor – it is an invention needed to make a theory work. There is no “Q.” The men who proposed it never found such a document. No ancient writer mentions such a document.

On the other hand, the traditional Matthew First approach does away with the need for any inventions or suppositions.

**I was responding more to the viciousness of the attack. I have no special issue with whether Q is correct or not. This person asked a question. I gave what appeared to me, and so far still appears to me to be the best answer. If you are so obviously correct in your Occam razor argument, I assume all the experts would agree with you. They don;t appear to be. **

Obviously.

If you think this is all academic, and irrelevant, maybe you should read the Apologetics page here more. Attacks on Christianity by atheists very often hinge on the idea that the Gospels are not trustworthy documents, and that we don’t really know what the “Historical Jesus” said and did.

We aren’t atheists here. I care not one whit what they have to say. There is nothing to suggest the documents are not trustworthy in suggesting who wrote first, who used what sources in what they wrote. I’m not on the apologetics page because I am discussing serious exegesis, not trying to defend the faith.No faith is being attacked. Just academic honesty apparently

As someone summarized nicely above, Q presumes that none of the gospel writers was an eyewitness, or even a companion of an eyewitness. And you ask why this matters? Are you serious?

**The posit of Q does NOT presume none of the writers were eye-witness or companions to an eyewitness. The writers appear from their sharing of material to have had a great deal of both written and unwritten material to draw from. **

Many Catholics quite mistakingly take the attitude that defending scripture is not necessary if you’re catholic - because well, we’ve got the church to tell us what to think. This is nonsense, and nothing the church has ever said or done supports this view. It also supports the stereotypes Protestants and other anti-catholics have of us.

Don’t you see what you’ve said? People think that Catholics dont think for themselves but wait for the Church to tell them what to think? Are YOU Kidding…thats what people say to me constantly here…"is the Church okay with this, what does the Magisterium say. I came here expecting to have conversation at a high level and all i get is, "you shouldnt read that, the Magisterium disapproves of this IMO, what do the Early Church fathers say? this is before they will even read it.Surely you don’t need to defend scripture when its not attacked nor by a non-Catholic.

Do you think Dr Scott Hahn would say gospel authorship, and the order they were written in are irrelevant to the Church and to Faith?

I don’t read Dr Hahn, who I’m sure does a fine job of giving an apologetic defense of the faith. There is a place for that. It’s not in a serious discussion of exegetical work.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Very edifying. Which part would you like to discuss? Let’s start with section V:

How about section XIV?

That last one seems particularly applicable in this discussion.

Shame on you. How can you so totally misrepresent the document. You ignore 95% of what it says in encouraging the continued efforts of scholars mindful of good methodology, and go the the very end and out of total context pull two final admonitions. I cannot believe your deceitful actions.

 

[patg]

Shame on you. How can you so totally misrepresent the document. You ignore 95% of what it says in encouraging the continued efforts of scholars mindful of good methodology, and go the the very end and out of total context pull two final admonitions. I cannot believe your deceitful actions.

Amen!

And, as the church has made no doctrinal statements on “Q” (and most of the other items we have mentioned), we are all quite free to disagree. If anyone thinks it is the work of the devil to do so, I can recommend a number of very Catholic books and documents.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

I’m not misrepresenting the document, and I didn’t cherry pick. The intent of the Instruction is clear to any honest person.

catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_HistTruthFitzmyer.htm#PBCText

The documents that you claim support your views do not. Contrary to your claims, the Faith is based on historical events, and the Church stands by the historicity of the Gospels. Thank the Lord.

 

[patg]

The documents that you claim support your views do not. Contrary to your claims, the Faith is based on historical events, and the Church stands by the historicity of the Gospels. Thank the Lord.

Not quite. The faith is based on what the church says are historic events. While we may have faith that these events occured, we do not have any direct historical evidence that they did.

Show me a history book which states that a man came back to life in 33 AD or that an immaculate conception occured or that Jesus died for our sins… You can’t because these are faith events, outside the realm of the historian.

The church makes very few statements on the historicity of the gospels and stands behind them as faith documents, not as historical records. This is very evident in the overall theme of the PCB’s document.

Anyway, we are way off topic. I think we have answered the OP as to what the “Q” theory consists of, including the fact that there is no official statement on it and we are totally free to believe it is a probable explanation.