Q and other Source Documents

interesting question, Dr Bob. i'd always assumed that the Synoptic problem was irrelevant to Bible translation.

 

I'm assuming this is where we would hold discussions on underlying text issues. It certainly comes up a lot.

I never thought these source discussions were very interesting. God inspired the gospels and that's all I needed to know. I guess it does matter, though, if you are trying to get your hands around other problems, such as the longer ending of Mark.

I'm a novice in this subject area so I look forward to hearing what other people have to say.

Andy

 

I think we can rule the Didache out as a source document - that's early 2nd century at best, although it's a useful interpretative tool eg: re the Pastorals' 'offices' - "appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons" (italics mine) - how very Baptist!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Q= a list of remarks made by jezus similar in shape (but not contend) to the gospel of Thomas.

Mark's account is first one written down still in existance. Q is probably a little older, but it is possible it was never written down untill it was hopelesly corrupted.

Mark's account + Q + a 3rd source (possibly an Aramaïc text) = Matthew's account

Mark's account + Q + a 3rd source (RC tradition suggests Mary) = Luke's account part 1

 

I too believe the similarities between our Gospels must be due to some common underlying influences on their composition.

IMO these influences were the Holy Spirit and the real people and events documented.

 

I think it's funny to read books that not only tell us what Q said (although no text exists) but also what the "Q community" believed and taught. Imaginative reconstructions abound.

If Q existed, it may have been similar to the Logia mentioned by Papias, although no one knows for sure. (Matthew wrote the Logia, according to Papias.) Peter's preaching probably was the source for Mark's gospel; and Luke likely researched his while Paul was held in Caesarea. And it may well be that the old belief in a common oral tradition underlying the Synoptics is the right answer after all.

 

I hold to the traditional view that Matthew was the first Gospel to be written, and I do not have a "synoptic problem" (or is that "synaptic problem").

I would recommend a few books:

1. John Wenham's Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke:A fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem

2. Eta Linnemann's Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology--Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical and Biblical Criticism on Trial: How Scientific is "Scientific Theology"?