The Q Document/Source:Does It Exist?

[James Is Back]

First of all, it is not pure conjecture; it is the best theory we have based upon real evidence. Second of all, the doctors of the church do NOT state definitively. It is merely church tradition, which as we know can be changed. The New American Bible, the approved Catholic Bible of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, states in its introduction to Matthew, "In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there," thus showing its acceptance both of the Q document and that Mark was written first and that Matthew is based upon it (just as I have said.

You keep saying evidence once again what evidence?

 

[Meowzltov]

You keep saying evidence once again what evidence?

We've discussed the evidence (the analysis and comparison of texts). You simply don't want to admit it as such.

Please reply to my use of the New American Bible's (the official Catholic Bible of the U.S.) reference to Mark and the Q document as sources for Matthew.

 

[James Is Back]

We've discussed the evidence (the analysis and comparison of texts). You simply don't want to admit it as such.

Comparison of the texts is not evidence it's just assumption. Without no physical evidence or any ECF(Ante or Post Nicene)documenting any proof no one can prove that Q existed. All anyone has is a theory that hasn't been proven.

 

[Meowzltov]

Comparison of the texts is not evidence it's just assumption

Like I said, YOU don't accept it as evidence. That doesn't mean it isn't.

I notice you STILL refuse to deal with my point about the official Catholic Bible accepting the Q Document and the fact that Mark was written first. Apparently the Catholic Church considers it as evidence, but no, that's not good enough for you.

 

[Root of Jesse]

First of all, it is not pure conjecture; it is the best theory we have based upon real evidence.

Theory is not fact.

Second of all, the doctors of the church do NOT state definitively.

Actually, Irenaeus did. I quoted him. He doesn't say "I think" or "Maybe". And there's others.

It is merely church tradition, which as we know can be changed.

You think the Canon of Scripture can be changed???

The New American Bible, the approved Catholic Bible of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, states in its introduction to Matthew, "In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there," thus showing its acceptance both of the Q document and that Mark was written first and that Matthew is based upon it (just as I have said.

The introduction to any book, regardless of who approved it, is not infallible or definitive. Neither are footnotes. But it is not a unanimously held belief.
You're right, it's not a dogma or doctrine (other than the Canon of Scripture). But since the Canon of Scripture has them in the order it presents, I'll go with that.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Well, now that we've all discussed, debated and argued over our opinions of why we can or can't trust the eyewitness accounts that we find in our bibles, it's time to get back to the question at hand. Does anyone have any concrete evidence that this source called 'Q', actually, in real time, real life existed?

God bless you all
In Christ, Ted

 

[Root of Jesse]

Like I said, YOU don't accept it as evidence. That doesn't mean it isn't.

I notice you STILL refuse to deal with my point about the official Catholic Bible accepting the Q Document and the fact that Mark was written first. Apparently the Catholic Church considers it as evidence, but no, that's not good enough for you.

Can you show me where the introductions and footnotes of any Bible are considered infallible? Someone who wrote that says it's so, and the Bishops can give it imprimatur, meaning it's not against the Bible, but that's not definitive. When an encyclical comes out and declares it, then I'll force myself to accept it. But your idea that "the Catholic Church considers it as evidence" is just not so. (Do you remember when Pope Paul issued "Humanae Vitae" and the Canadian Catholic Bishops Conference dissented openly??? Proof that a Bishops Conference doesn't speak for "the Catholic Church", but themselves, at times.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hi all,

Well, now that we've all discussed, debated and argued over our opinions of why we can or can't trust the eyewitness accounts that we find in our bibles, it's time to get back to the question at hand. Does anyone have any concrete evidence that this source called 'Q', actually, in real time, real life existed?

God bless you all
In Christ, Ted

Well, that's what the vote is about. I don't see many actually voting.
But I don't know that anyone's discussed, debated or argued over why we can't trust the eyewitness accounts. I don't think any of us are denying the trustworthiness of what's been written by the authors.

 

[Meowzltov]

Can you show me where the introductions and footnotes of any Bible are considered infallible? Someone who wrote that says it's so, and the Bishops can give it imprimatur, meaning it's not against the Bible, but that's not definitive. When an encyclical comes out and declares it, then I'll force myself to accept it. But your idea that "the Catholic Church considers it as evidence" is just not so. (Do you remember when Pope Paul issued "Humanae Vitae" and the Canadian Catholic Bishops Conference dissented openly??? Proof that a Bishops Conference doesn't speak for "the Catholic Church", but themselves, at times.

You were, not too many posts ago, making the argument that modern scholarship was "conjecture" and the ideas the church put forth for 1500 years were definitive. Obviously, from the Catholic source that I've given, you will agree that Catholic teaching on this is merely tradition (as I said). IF you are going to appeal to Catholic teaching, at least have the courtesy to appeal to current Catholic teaching.

Can I ask you, what is your real reason for being against the scholarship? What axe are you grinding here? How does a Q Document threaten you? What is the significance to you?

 

[Root of Jesse]

You were, not too many posts ago, making the argument that modern scholarship was "conjecture" and the ideas the church put forth for 1500 years were definitive. Obviously, from the Catholic source that I've given, you will agree that Catholic teaching on this is merely tradition (as I said). IF you are going to appeal to Catholic teaching, at least have the courtesy to appeal to current Catholic teaching.

Why should we? There is nothing new in Catholicism that has any merit. I guess you approve of what was done to the Church in "the spirit of Vatican II"? Much of what was done in that spirit is now being reversed, because it isn't what was instructed. Also, I once thought the New St. Jerome Bible Commentary was a good work, but much of it is not. Some of the authors had agendas. I will trust what's been tried and is true. Truth never changes.

 

[Meowzltov]

Theory is not fact.

Theory is based on carefully collected and analyzed data. A theory is not just conjecture. The theory of the Q Document is the best we can do with the evidence we have.

Actually, Irenaeus did. I quoted him. He doesn't say "I think" or "Maybe". And there's others.

Irenaeus is mere tradition. Nothing he said was dogma or even definitive in this particular case. It doesn't matter that Irenaeus was convinced of his opinion. In this topic the church has changed her opinion, as I gave you the source.

You think the Canon of Scripture can be changed???

Off topic -- no one is discussing changing canon.

The introduction to any book, regardless of who approved it, is not infallible or definitive. Neither are footnotes. But it is not a unanimously held belief.

I'm not claiming it is infallible or definitive. I'm claiming it is on par with what Irenaeus said, and is present church teaching.

 

[Meowzltov]

I guess you approve of what was done to the Church in "the spirit of Vatican II"?

OH puhleeze don't assume stuff about me. You have no idea. I'm the one trying to get a latin mass said at my parish.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Theory is based on carefully collected and analyzed data. A theory is not just conjecture.

In this case it is. There's no Q document in evidence.

The theory of the Q Document is the best we can do with the evidence we have.

I will wait with baited breath for something more. I don't, and many Catholic scholars don't, believe that there's a Q document.

Irenaeus is mere tradition. Nothing he said was dogma or even definitive in this particular case. It doesn't matter that Irenaeus was convinced of his opinion. In this topic the church has changed her opinion, as I gave you the source.Off topic -- no one is discussing changing canon.I'm not claiming it is infallible or definitive. I'm claiming it is on par with what Irenaeus said, and is present church teaching.

He's not the only one, and again, he didn't say "It's my opinion", or "It's my theory". The dogma, though, is the Canon of Scripture. It states Matthew first, Mark second, Luke third. The Church has not changed her opinion. Some people in the Church have, but so what? I don't think it's on par with someone who was much closer to the event. And it is not present church teaching by many.
http://catholicexchange.com/the-q-document

 

[Root of Jesse]

OH puhleeze don't assume stuff about me. You have no idea. I'm the one trying to get a latin mass said at my parish.

I didn't assume anything. I asked a question, and you didn't answer it. My point is that Catholic interest in Q-hypothetical-document-theory is about as new as that. It's a Protestant innovation that some Catholics have swallowed.

 

[Meowzltov]

he didn't say "It's my opinion", or "It's my theory".

No one did that in those days.

 

[Meowzltov]

The dogma, though, is the Canon of Scripture. It states Matthew first, Mark second, Luke third.

The order of scripture does not tell the order in which it is written. That is only your opinion. It is not canon. It is not dogma. That you think it is dogma is entirely your imagination. In the original canon, James was placed directly after Acts. Now it is placed after the Pauline epistles, because Paul has a more priveleged place theologically. Obviously if James has switched positions, the position can't have to do with when James was written.

 

[Meowzltov]

The order of scripture does not tell the order in which it is written. That is only your opinion. It is not canon. It is not dogma. That you think it is dogma is entirely your imagination.

I didn't assume anything. I asked a question, and you didn't answer it. My point is that Catholic interest in Q-hypothetical-document-theory is about as new as that. It's a Protestant innovation that some Catholics have swallowed.

I wouldn't call the US Conference of Catholic Bishops "some Catholics."

I won't allow the assertion of dogma where no dogma exists. I've tried reasoning with you. I've given you good arguments. I've given you scholarly sources. I've given you Catholic sources. I don't know WHAT the underlying psychological need is for your belief, but I know when I've run into a wall, and this is a brick one.

I wish you well, and perhaps we can chat again on other topics.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No one did that in those days.

And you know this, how?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The order of scripture does not tell the order in which it is written. That is only your opinion. It is not canon. It is not dogma. That you think it is dogma is entirely your imagination. In the original canon, James was placed directly after Acts. Now it is placed after the Pauline epistles, because Paul has a more priveleged place theologically. Obviously if James has switched positions, the position can't have to do with when James was written.

The Canon of Scripture is dogma. It was settled in the early 300's, dogmatized at Trent.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I wouldn't call the US Conference of Catholic Bishops "some Catholics."

I won't allow the assertion of dogma where no dogma exists. I've tried reasoning with you. I've given you good arguments. I've given you scholarly sources. I've given you Catholic sources. I don't know WHAT the underlying psychological need is for your belief, but I know when I've run into a wall, and this is a brick one.

I wish you well, and perhaps we can chat again on other topics.

Your arguments are fine, but your sources, I question. I gave you sources that state otherwise, and I have modern ones that agree. Psychological need? none. Just that I know who to trust and when.