Q Sources

[adnilgnav]

What do you think this phrase is to mean?

Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. (Q14:26)

 

[justified]

Just so we're on a good starting ground -- we can agree that Q is a reconstructed source that that there is a lot of disagreement about which particular passages it consists of...rightr?

 

[adnilgnav]

Right, one of the reason it's not in the Bible is because of the disagreements.

 

[justified]

Now I'm really confused. Why don't you explain to me what it is...

 

[Dmckay]

I'll ignore the "Q" source question as mote. As to the meanning of the passage in question there can only be one interpretation in light of the context of Scripture, i.e. "Honor your father and your mother." Jesus is emphasizing the primacy that a believer's relationship with Christ is supposed to have in that believer's life.

Our love and loyalty to Christ is supposed to be such, that by comparison, or feeling for our family is as if we hate them. Which comes first in our lives? Christ and our responsibilities to Him and the Church? Or do we choose to abrogate our responsibilities to Christ in favor of our family.

How can this work out practically in the life of a believer? Suppose, as has happened in the past, your familly is held hostage by a "Cæsar" and you are given a choice of bowing and pledging allegiance to "Cæsar" or watching your family die before they kill you. What would you do. While in a Church History class in Bible College I was appalled by the number of students who were of the opinion that the early Christians were stupid to die rather than to say, "Cæsar" is Lord. They were of the opinion that it was just 3 words, nobody would know, and then they would be free to continue to live and witness for Christ.

What would you do?

 

[adnilgnav]

From wordtrade.com, Q is collections of sayings of Jesus that began with John the Baptist. According to a book by Dennis Duling, it is part of the Two-source theory and it has 235+ verses from the first generation of believers within Galilee. It consists of only 2 narratives: the temptation of Jesus and a miracle story not a passion one like mark, luke, matthew, john. It mainly has 2 types of sayings: wisdom and apocalyptic. But it strongly agreed to be more of the apocalyptic sayings.


There fore i asked what you think this phrase is to mean. Is it too passive? is it wrong? Since it can be contridicting to what is in matthew, mark, luke, and john.

 

[Dmckay]

From wordtrade.com, Q is collections of sayings of Jesus that began with John the Baptist. According to a book by Dennis Duling, it is part of the Two-source theory and it has 235+ verses from the first generation of believers within Galilee. It consists of only 2 narratives: the temptation of Jesus and a miracle story not a passion one like mark, luke, matthew, john. It mainly has 2 types of sayings: wisdom and apocalyptic. But it strongly agreed to be more of the apocalyptic sayings.


There fore i asked what you think this phrase is to mean. Is it too passive? is it wrong? Since it can be contridicting to what is in matthew, mark, luke, and john.

What it is, is a limitation of the idea of verbal, plenary inspiration and a limitation of the ability of G-d to accomplish His Will. The Holy Spirit is sufficient answer for the similarities between the synoptic Gospels without introducing a "Q" document which they supposedly copied from.

 

[justified]

Right, now I think I see the problem:

The books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, called the Synoptics ("look-together") all are extremely similar in content. Statistical analysis revealed that 80% of Mark's text is found in both Matthew and Luke, nearly unaltered (Luke corrects some poor style). Analysis also revealed that in both Matthew and Luke there are common sayings and stories which do not appear in Mark, but which seem to be almost exactly the same. From this they deduced that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for their gospels, but that they must also have used another source in common. From the German word for "source" they named it "Q."

So what does this mean? It means that "Q" is an artificial, hypothetical construct derived entirely from the text of Matthew and Luke. It is probably not far off from some kind of "sayings source" that existed in the First Century, but it certainly does not contradict anything in the gospels because it IS the gospels!

 

[filosofer]

S. Petrie wrote an article in Novum Testamentum, 3 (1959), titled "'Q' is Only What You Make It". He notes the "exasperating contradictoriness" of scholarly views:

"Q" is a single document; it is a composite document, incorporating searlier sources; it is used in defferent redactions; it is more than one document. The original language of "Q" is Greek; the original language is Aramaic; it is used in different translations. "Q" is the Matthean Logia; it is not the Matthean Logia. "Q" has a definite shape; it is no more than an amorphous collection of fragments. "Q" is a gospel; "Q" is not a gospel. "Q" includes the Crucifixion story; it does not include the Crucifixion story. "Q" consists wholly of sayings and there is no narrative; it includes some narrative. All of "Q" is preserved in Matt. and Luke; not all of it is preserved; it is better preserved in Luke. Matt's order is the correct order; Luke's order is the correct order; neither order is correct. "Q" is used by Mark; it is not used by Mark.

So, make Q anything you want, call it anything you want, and make it support any position you want.

 

[justified]

yup, a lot of people disagree with it. But I wonder if Petrie realised (and he did; he was just being a bonehead by playing a rhetorical game) that scholarship goes through a period of confusion to eventually come to a consensus. 1959 and 2006 are far-removed from one another.

 

[Nazaroo]

It helps to understand the theological motive for the invention of Q in the first place.

In order to avoid the obvious suggestion that Luke copied Matthew, or Matthew copied Luke, it was desirable to deny that they had knowledge of one another. The main purpose of this artificial maneuvering was to prevent people from simply junking either Luke or Matthew, since the implication is that one of them then becomes very unoriginal. For instance, if Luke simply used Matthew and Mark, and added one or two parables, then why bother with him at all, except as a footnote to Matthew?

Scholars who wanted to maintain the idea of four independant gospels were forced to deny that Matthew or Luke knew of and used the other.

 

[filosofer]

yup, a lot of people disagree with it. But I wonder if Petrie realised (and he did; he was just being a bonehead by playing a rhetorical game) that scholarship goes through a period of confusion to eventually come to a consensus. 1959 and 2006 are far-removed from one another.

However, 2006 has not produced any more consensus or better "guaranteed" results" concerning Q.

BTW, it would be nice to avoid any kind of name calling. "Bonehead" doesn't achieve anything to support any position in this thread. Even Petrie poked fun at the concepts, but not the people who advocated.

But this may just be me.

In Christ's love,
filo

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

Some say it did not ever exist.

Shalom,
davidoffinland

 

[justified]

However, 2006 has not produced any more consensus

Actually there is a rather large consensus, to the point where it is taught as such in a lot of schools. By consensus, I mean over 50% of those who have studied the issue. But not a great deal more.

In order to avoid the obvious suggestion that Luke copied Matthew, or Matthew copied Luke, it was desirable to deny that they had knowledge of one another. The main purpose of this artificial maneuvering was to prevent people from simply junking either Luke or Matthew, since the implication is that one of them then becomes very unoriginal. For instance, if Luke simply used Matthew and Mark, and added one or two parables, then why bother with him at all, except as a footnote to Matthew?

I'm not sure this makes sense. I'd love tos ee some evidence that Matthew or Luke used Luke or Matthew...

 

[Dmckay]

It couldn't possibly be that the synoptic Gospels are just that because they all witnessed the events as stated, but just have slightly different takes on things. The same way that a dozen eyewitnesses to an event today will differing accounts despite viewing the same event.

 

[adnilgnav]

I will go on to say that the Synoptic Gospels weren't written by eyewitness. we belive them to be eye witnesses but the author himself or herself didn't hear or see Jesus, when looking at the dates.

As far as the Synoptic Gospels one being a footnote of another can't be true because it's word for word. Don't you think? There is also the thought that Mark was written by a woman.

So,
What do you think this phrase is to mean?

Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. (Q14:26)

is it relevant or irrelevant to the christian life?

 

[justified]

It couldn't possibly be that the synoptic Gospels are just that because they all witnessed the events as stated, but just have slightly different takes on things. The same way that a dozen eyewitnesses to an event today will differing accounts despite viewing the same event.

Here are some things you have to think about:

1. We are not talking about just narration of the same events, we are talking about narration of the same events using the exact same words

2. Luke was not a witness of Christ. In fact, he SAYS he uses sources (Luke 1:1-3):

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

2a: there were several histories at the time Luke wrote
2b: "handed down by the eye witnesses" means there were sources, both oral and written probably. It also means Luke was not one of them.
2c: it was drawn up under the patronage of a guy named Theophilus

In the conventions of the time, when you write history, you use other written sources. We have zillions of examples of this in Graeco-Roman historiography. I suggest a read of David Aune's The New Testament in its Literary Environment for more information on Luke-Acts and ancient historiographical methodology. For example, Tacitus, when "quoting" Claudius' speech (for which we also have an engraved record) follows that engraved record, but then also feels free to make up parts, and to make Claudius sound better.

3. The only gospel which claims to be dependent upon eyewitness claims is John's.

4. None of the gospels has a named author attached to it.

 

[Nazaroo]

Scholars who wanted to maintain the idea of four independant gospels were forced to deny that Matthew or Luke knew of and used the other.

Just to expand upon this, the long passages in Matthew/Luke in which the wording is nearly identical can only be explained one other way: they both copied a common source, for instance 'Q'. This way, Luke and Matthew can maintain equal authority and footing, by finding them BOTH guilty of copying. Since Luke admits as much, it is a small step to infer Matthew also has done the same, especially if we also posit Markan Priority and dependance upon it by both Luke and Matthew. Mark's authority is preserved by being the 'first', while Luke and Matthew are second but restored to 'equal' status by preserving important non-Markan material.
John is so unique he maintains his status regardless of any Synoptic solution.

But it is hard to deny the artificiality and non-scientific basis of this attempt to preserve 'four independant gospels' in the light of the extensive and blatant evidence of copying on the part of at least two evangelists.

 

[justified]

But it is hard to deny the artificiality and non-scientific basis of this attempt to preserve 'four independant gospels' in the light of the extensive and blatant evidence of copying on the part of at least two evangelists.

Once again, you have no evidence. Just a couple crazy ideas.

 

[filosofer]

Just to expand upon this, the long passages in Matthew/Luke in which the wording is nearly identical can only be explained one other way: they both copied a common source, for instance 'Q'. This way, Luke and Matthew can maintain equal authority and footing, by finding them BOTH guilty of copying. Since Luke admits as much, it is a small step to infer Matthew also has done the same, especially if we also posit Markan Priority and dependance upon it by both Luke and Matthew. Mark's authority is preserved by being the 'first', while Luke and Matthew are second but restored to 'equal' status by preserving important non-Markan material.
John is so unique he maintains his status regardless of any Synoptic solution.

But it is hard to deny the artificiality and non-scientific basis of this attempt to preserve 'four independant gospels' in the light of the extensive and blatant evidence of copying on the part of at least two evangelists.

Well, if you limit yourself to only two ways to explain, then you have already guaranteed a result! But I suggest that there are other ways to look at this, and not accept that there was a "Q" document.

Remember, "Q" started out by definition to be "material in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark". It had nothing to do with a "document" that existed, but was descriptive of the reality of the three Gospels. Of course, since "Q" is shorthand for German Quelle, which means source, the assumption is that there had to be such a document. But that is an assumption, not a demonstrable fact, and certainly no manuscript evidence to support it.