Gospel of Q

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by xdisciplex, May 16, 2007.

  1. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was just searching on the internet trying to find an answer to my other question when I came across a synoptic gospel problem site which deals with the gospel of Q hypothesis. Actually I thought that Q has been disproven but this argument here is pretty strong in my opinion, if it's really the way the author describes it.

    http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/ten.htm

    The Phenomenon of Fatigue


    When one writer is copying the work of another, changes are sometimes made at the beginning of an account which are not sustained throughout - the writer lapses into docile reproduction of his / her source. This phenomenon of 'fatigue' is a tell-tale sign of a writer's dependence on a source. Matthew, for example, correctly calls Herod tetraarchV ('tetrarch') in 14.1, only to lapse into calling him the less correct basileuV ('king') in 14.9, apparently reproducing Mark (6.26) who has called him basileuV ('king') throughout. Likewise, Luke re-sets the scene for the Feeding of the Five Thousand in 'a city called Bethsaida' (polin kaloumenhn Bhqsaida, Luke 9.10) only to lapse into the Markan wording later, 'We are here in a deserted place' (wde en erhmw topw esmen, Luke 9.12, cf. Mark 6.35).
    It is revealing that this phenomenon also occurs in double tradition (Q) material, and always in the same direction, in favour of Luke's use of Matthew. Take the Parable of the Talents / Pounds (Matt. 25.14-30 // Luke 19.11-27). Matthew has three servants throughout. Luke, on the other hand, has ten. But as the story progresses, we hear about 'the first' (19.16), 'the second' (19.18) and amazingly, 'the other' (o eteroV, Luke 19.20). Luke has inadvertently betrayed his knowledge of Matthew by drifting into the story-line of his source (see further my 'Fatigue in the Synoptics', NTS 44 (1998), pp. 45-58).
     
  2. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Q' is a good hypothesis. Too bad, no one has found one shred of evidence of such, so I'd say it is "cut from whole cloth" that does not even exist.

    Ed
     
  3. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Q" hasn't been disproven, but there are many theories which make the existence of "Q" unneccesary for the Gospels to have been written. The theory that makes the most sense to me is the theory of Marcan priority.

    The problem with "Q", and with theories that suppose the writers of Matthew and Luke had supplementary sources, is that these theories suppose that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses at all, and were in fact written at the earliest just before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.

    If one thinks, as I do, that much of the New Testament was completed before AD65, Marcan priority, with no "Q" or Matthaian/Lucan supplementary sources, makes a lot more sense, and argues in favor of Luke using Matthew as source material.
     
  4. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    The whole issue with Q is basically that Q goes against divine inspiration.

    If God inspired all of the writers why in the world should they have copied from each other or copied from Q? This makes no sense.

    Maybe the more you get into such things the harder it becomes for you to simply have a simple faith. Those people which do not even know about these things have it much easier to simply believe that the bible is inspired.
     
  5. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, if you think learning goes against faith, don't learn.

    To me, learning strengthens faith, because it makes it more real.
     
  6. Chemnitz

    Chemnitz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Q for the most part is only a hypothesis that can only be proven should such a document ever appear. However, this is unlikely since nobody ever really mentioned such a document in the early writings. Would the existence of such a document negate the doctrine of inspiration? Hardly, Luke openly admits that he used resources to compile the Gospel account that bears his name.

    I myself have never been a big fan of any of the priority theories because they are mainly based on conjecture. The similarities between the synoptics could simply be a commonality in their source materials.
     
  7. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Xdisciplex: I believe you would find that 2 Timothy 3:16, from which we get the term "divine inspiration," refers to the actual text, not the human secretaries.
     

Share This Page

Loading...