Why "Q" makes no sense to me

  • Thread starter Thread starter whowantsumadebo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whowantsumadebo

Guest
Greetings,
In the world of Biblical scholarship, it is often–even generally–asserted that: 1. Mark was the first Gospel written; 2. Matthew and Luke each had copies of Mark, which they borrowed extensively from. 3. Matthew and Luke both used a separate authoritative peice of Christian Tradition (most likely in written form), called “Q”, which they also copied from.
What I am about to say is most unscholarly; but in the several years that i’ve been reading about all this stuff, it still doesn’t make any sense to me, for this reason: 1. The “Q” Material, as well as the M & L material, don’t make collectively coherence without the basic narrative framework. 2. Did “Matthew” and “Luke” not know the basic narratives, yet still have Q, M, and L?
I understand many arguments suggesting that Matthew used Mark, and that Matthew and Luke had copies of Q, but I still have problems accepting Markan priority and its influence on Matthew and Luke.
Can anyone feel what I’m sayin’?
 
The Gospels we have in the Bible are “passion Gospels”, that is, the climax of each of these gospels is the suffering, death and ressurection of Jesus. However, it is likely that many different “gospels” cirrculated that were just collections of Jesus’ teachings. Eventually, they were compilled and filtered into a narrative.

Matthew and Luke’s “Q” source was likely a collection of teachings that they integrated into the narrative.
 
40.png
Crumpy:
I stumbled across this article on a different branch of the Catholic Answers website

The Evolution of the Gospels
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea1.asp

Makes a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...
That was a great find! It stays true to what the Church teaches concerning the authorship of the Gospels, and avoids the quagmire of recent theories of anonymous authors etc.

Thanks!

hurst
 
40.png
Gnosis:
The Gospels we have in the Bible are “passion Gospels”, that is, the climax of each of these gospels is the suffering, death and ressurection of Jesus. However, it is likely that many different “gospels” cirrculated that were just collections of Jesus’ teachings. Eventually, they were compilled and filtered into a narrative.

Matthew and Luke’s “Q” source was likely a collection of teachings that they integrated into the narrative.
Click to expand...
Ok, let’s take the episode where Jesus is tempted by the devil in the wilderness. Mark simply states that he was tempted by the devil; both Matthew and Luke tell the supposed “Q” narrative. That’s just it: the temptation narrative makes no sense in isolation. Q is not simply sayings; it involves confrontations with John’s disciples and the Temple authorities. It has a narrative sequence. Some of the sayings have no context outside of the Gospel settings.
Why would Matthew and Luke have this information, and not the rest of the Jesus story? Likewise, the M and L material make absolutely no sense on their own, save the infancy stories. Likewise, my sentence structure makes no sense!
I just don’t get it!
 
40.png
whowantsumadebo:
Ok, let’s take the episode where Jesus is tempted by the devil in the wilderness. Mark simply states that he was tempted by the devil; both Matthew and Luke tell the supposed “Q” narrative. That’s just it: the temptation narrative makes no sense in isolation. Q is not simply sayings; it involves confrontations with John’s disciples and the Temple authorities. It has a narrative sequence. Some of the sayings have no context outside of the Gospel settings.
Why would Matthew and Luke have this information, and not the rest of the Jesus story? Likewise, the M and L material make absolutely no sense on their own, save the infancy stories. Likewise, my sentence structure makes no sense!
I just don’t get it!
Click to expand...
Really! Why didn’t Luke, for example, just include the entire so-called “Q” narrative rather than buffering it with his own narrative if it was essentially the same story?? :rolleyes:
 
Q itself seems like a myth to me. There is no evidence of its actual existence. It can only be said to exist as a literary definition: material that is found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark.
 
Since the Q document is entirely hypothetical and has no documentation, feel free to disregard the hypothesis that it existed and refer to more traditional accounts of the formation of the Gospels.
 
I just finished reading the article lnked above by Crumpy. That is an excellent article for understanding the origin of the gospels in their traditional order–i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
 
Honestly, I believe there is some kind of literary relationship between the synoptics, and John, and the letters, and apocryphal material. I also know that tons of money have been made off formulating theories about Gospel origins. Scholars have spent their whole lives trying to figure out some of those questions that make “Q” and “Markan priority” sound silly; but if the very first premise does not make any sense, then everything that comes after it falls apart.
So I have to conclude that the traditional Church teachings provide just as much evidence and coherence, if not more, than the “two source hypothesis.”
 
40.png
whowantsumadebo:
Honestly, I believe there is some kind of literary relationship between the synoptics,
Click to expand...
Certainly there is a literary relationship among the gospels. According to the author of the article mentioned above, Matthew was written first, primarily for the early Jerusalem Church. Luke used Matthew as a source, but adapted it for Gentiles, and added material based upon his own research with eyewitnesses and others. Mark was based on a series of lectures given by Peter, who in turn used both Matthew and Luke as references, but he included only those things with which he–Peter–was personally acquainted.

The Evolution of the Gospels
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea1.asp
 
I think it should also be noted that the synoptic Gospels were all written around the same time period, just for different audiences. Mark was written for teh Romans, Matthew for the Jews, and Luke for the gentiles, so naturally they are going to expound different points of emphasis (the Romans could not have cared less about Jewish prophecy, which is why it would naturally abound in Matthew and not really so much in Mark), but given that they were all of the same time period, it would only be logical that they all correlate fairly closely with one another. (as opposed to the Gospel of John, which was written as a direct response to the heresies that had developed over the previous decades).
 
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
Code: 
            **By**

            **Dennis Barton**

            **
        The Gospels are Historical
**

FOREWORD
Code: 
            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.
**

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION

is in full accord with:
Code: 
                The earliest Christian                 historians

                Modern literary                 analysis

                The doctrine of                 the church

                Recent Church                 statements
more…
 
40.png
whowantsumadebo:
Greetings,
In the world of Biblical scholarship, it is often–even generally–asserted that: 1. Mark was the first Gospel written; 2. Matthew and Luke each had copies of Mark, which they borrowed extensively from. 3. Matthew and Luke both used a separate authoritative peice of Christian Tradition (most likely in written form), called “Q”, which they also copied from.
What I am about to say is most unscholarly; but in the several years that i’ve been reading about all this stuff, it still doesn’t make any sense to me, for this reason: 1. The “Q” Material, as well as the M & L material, don’t make collectively coherence without the basic narrative framework. 2. Did “Matthew” and “Luke” not know the basic narratives, yet still have Q, M, and L?
I understand many arguments suggesting that Matthew used Mark, and that Matthew and Luke had copies of Q, but I still have problems accepting Markan priority and its influence on Matthew and Luke.
Can anyone feel what I’m sayin’?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and you’re not alone. The 2001 edition of La Bible de Jerusalem postulates a much better theory in my opinion that preserves the early patristic traditions. They suggest there was a version of St. Matthew in Aramaic, then St. Mark followed in Greek, then St. Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel was translated into Greek (under St. Matthew’s guidance) with some reliance on St. Mark’s Gospel, St. Luke used all three of the above as well as independent traditions he learned from the Blessed Mother, St. Paul, etc. Finally, St. John wrote his Gospel.
 
From the Authors of the Gospels

There is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that Q or its author ever existed. If Q had existed, it would have been the most precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. According to the Markans we owe the preservation of The Our Father and The Beatitudes to Q. Mark did not bother to record them. If Q had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been treasured, copied and passed from hand to hand and read at Services.
Code: 
		 Markan priorists want us to believe that the community that produced `Q` later lost it, although 			it was so important that Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, made much use of it. Then the communities of 			Matthew and Luke also lost it. It is hard to believe that only two copies were made of `Q` and these just happened 			to be in the possession of the isolated communities in which Matthew and Luke lived and these communities lost 			them. If more copies were made for many communities, Markans have to explain how all these copies of this key Christian 			document were lost. Also, how did ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of 			Christian or heretical literature?

		 Those who hold the Markan theory demand the most stringent proof for the historicity of the Gospels, 			for which we have much historical evidence. Yet they accept conjectures and theories about `Q`, based on further 			conjectures and theories for which there is no evidence at all. In reality `Q` was created in the 19th century, out of nothing, to fill a hole in the Markan priority theory.
more…
 
It is my understanding, and if I am wrong someone will straighten me out, that there is not a single autograph of any of the gospels. That is, no piece of papyrus, vellum, etc. on which Matthew, Mark, Luke or John actually, physically wrote. This means everything we have available now is just a copy of something else.

The problem I am confronted with is that I simply don’t have a professional knowledge of first century Greek, and even earlier Hebrew, and Aramaic that would permit me to find out for myself if the scholars are on to something when they compare, for example, the Greek of Matthew with the Greek of Mark. It may be that one is very rough but the other polished, but you can’t tell that from the translations.

If someone claimed Abraham Lincoln often used the word “e-mail” I would recognize the anachronism. However, if one of the gospel copyists wriiting about events in the year 50 made reference to the Jewish War in the 60’s I wouldn’t have a clue.

The bottom line here is that people like me just have to rely on authorites they trust.
 
I really liked the title of this thread and would like to respond taking a different point of view. For me the possibility of the existence of a “Q” source does make sense, but I would like to stress the word “possibility” as oppose to probrability.

My understanding is based on three basic reasons and I would add a little comment as well.

The three reasons are internal evidence and the criticism of this evidence. Second is based on history and third is an anology with other writings of the past.

First from the study of many sincere scriptural scholars their works point to the fact that there is enough (at least for me) evidence to raise the question and draw the conclusion that there may have been another source or sources used by the authors of the Gospels. If there was no reason to believe this possibility was was the possibility raised in the first place? Also, why does some of the evidence presented go beyond the canonical Gospels to the writings of such works as the Gospel of Thomas and other noncanonical works? I do not intend to go into detail about the scholarship and reasoning others present, I do not think it is needed here and besides I think the works of the scholars themselves should speak for themselves if others would study them. But the fact remains, there is a large body of work that raises the posibility of the “Q” source and their works should be addressed as presented not dismissed outright without a fair hearing.

I find that often when others reject the possibility of other sources such as “Q” at the root of the rejection is a couple of reasons - even if these reasons are not stated outright. I find that many are troubled with the possibility of “Q” because it throws into question their concept of how the Gospels were written. I think many operate from the view point that the four Gospels were written by four individuals quite indepently of each other. That is each Gospel was written by its author much as a person would write a story or novel or a history with the big difference being as they were writing they were being guided by the Holy Spirit who guarenteed not only the Revealed truth of each Gospel but that every “T” was crossed and every “I” was dotted. They fail to understand that the Gospels are faith documents which developed in and through various Churchs reaction to the Gospel message. Just as the Gospel message effects each of us individually and as a people differently so to did the Gospel message effect the community of believers differently and it was from their faith response to the Gospel message we find the Gospels developed.(this I realize is a thread onto itself so I will pause here with this trend of thought).

Also, I find at the rejection of the “Q” source is rooted in the mistrust of where this hypothesis developed. Even with a cursory knowledge of this debate one should know that the scholariship that originally developed this theory was rooted in the Enlightenment and Protestant biblical scholarship of the 18th and 19th centuries. Because of this, I find people a prejudice that fuels rejecttion this scholarship outright because it is perceived as an attack, either directly or indirectly on the teaching authority of the Pope and the Church and not on the merits of the scholarship itself… “If it is Protestant or Liberal Catholic - which is the same thing as Protestant - scholarship, there is not value to it, it must be wrong”. However, again I ask (somewhat rhetorically) if there was no reason to even think that a possible outside source existed, how was thought even conceived?
 
40.png
TOME:
I That is each Gospel was written by its author much as a person would write a story or novel or a history with the big difference being as they were writing they were being guided by the Holy Spirit who guarenteed not only the Revealed truth of each Gospel but that every “T” was crossed and every “I” was dotted.
Click to expand...
I’m no stranger to scholarship, liberal and conservative–both of which generally favor Q and Markan priority. I don’t uphold a fundamentalist view of Scripture, and I recognize the literary relationships between the Synoptics. I have read many convincing arguments that Matthew and Luke both redacted or expanded Mark in a certain spot, or that Luke stayed truer to Q and Matthew liberally changed it around. But at its very foundation, Q seems to me like a “fill in the gaps” work of literature, that is, filling in the Gaps between the gospel narratives, with references to those narratives in them, I.E. Mark’s brief mention of Christ’s temptation and Q’s full description of it. I know most Q scholars don’t know what to do with that one.
So I think either Q is completely stupid at its base, or I am completely stupid in my understanding of it, and also that of the gospel origins.
Maybe Matthew and Luke both already knew the Gospel narratives, especially the passion (what Christian wouldn’t?) but chose to conveniently copy from Mark, adding their own collected material (M & L) along with the conspicuously “gospelly” structured sayings and doings from Q.
Is this how I am supposed to understand it? I’m really serious; i’m not here to bash Q or Markan priority. I’ve read a ton of arguments in their favor, but the very premise still seems fishy to me.
 
From a historical point of view, I can conceive of the possibility of a “Q” source even though there is no independent evidence, that is we just do not not have a copy or a fragment of a copy of such a source. For me, however, I can think of two reasons for why we do not have such hard evidence.

First, we know historically, that when the Church was facing Roman persecution, the Roman did not arbitrarily. We know that over all they acted with a general plan - one based on how the Romans handled any group they considered subversive. We know that the Romans, in order to destroy a group they considered dangerous to their society, would first seek out to destroy the groups leadership. At the same time they would attempt to destroy any writings or documents of that group (the Romans would try to wipe the group completely off the map and one way to illiminate the fact that a groups existed was to destroy their writings and liturature). Finally if those two steps did not work in acheiving the successfull destruction of a cult then there would be a general persecution.

This being the case and given the fact that written liturature was a scarce comodity I can understand why a “Written” “Q” source no longer exist. But I would add another reason, it simply was superceeded by the Gospels themselves and was not needed or as popular as it may have once been. The Gospels in narritive form perhaps just made more sense and a list of independent sayings and actions were no longer needed because they could be found in the broader and more understandable, thus accepted, contex of the Gospels. To illustrate my point, there are many quotation books but how many people read them let alone buy them on a regular basis? And remember, I am asking this from the perspective of the 21st Century where book are not rear.

This brings me to my third point which is really an off shoot of what I just wrote. I can understand why a physical copy of “Q” does not exist given what I just wrote. Consider, we know from the letters of Paul (Phil 2, for example) that there were many prayes and hymns of the Apostolic Church that do not exist today outside of Paul’s epistles. What about the spiritual books or works that were popular hundreds of years ago, fell out of useage and no longer exist? Consider many of the writings of the Church Fathers that we know existed or have a reasonable belief that they existed but there is no hard evidence of this fact. Why couldn’t the “Q” source suffered this same fate especially, as I stated about, those sayings/stories of “Q” that effected the Church the greatest were incorporated into the written faith response of the Church we know as the Gospels?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top