The "Q" theory

I firmly believe the Gospels differ among themselves for the simple reason they were each written by a different person, each with different perceptions, writing ability, and powers of observation...and that each of these men may or may not have been present when the events happened about which they wrote. As a former cop who took thousands of witness statements, I speak from first hand experience. And I believe most Bible students feel the same. With this in mind, I believe we can safely ignore the Q concept.

However, there's one group who refuses to apply the same principles to the differences between mss when there's no valid reason to not apply them. I believe Ed Edwards has this fact catalogued in his list of double standards.

 

Hmmph. Q is from the french - "Qu'elle" - its a bit like the X in algebra, it stands for the unknown. I'll certainly admit I don't know what Q really was.

As agreed in the posts above, there are many many theories as to what Q really was, and NONE OF THEM MATTER, because, regardless, God used whatever it took to give us our present gospels, and they're good enough for Him, and therefore good enough for me.

 

I thought Q stood for the German Quelle, meaning source.

 

It's not called the Synoptic Problem for nothing. It's amazing just how much word for word overlap there is in the Synoptics, but then the problem arises, when counting and comparing individual words for complete tallies and so on, what base Greek text is the best? If one holds to Byzantine-priority, for example, a great deal of "harmonizations" are actually synoptic agreements, and, in addition, as someone has already pointed out, if Matthew indeed was written first (according to tradition), then Q is much less a document than a few pericopes and several hundred "tid-bits" that Matthew decided not to use or include.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Oh, I forgot to say this, but the Synoptic Problem is just that because it seems that there wouldn't have been so much exact word for word overlap if the Evangelists used their own words, and that there wouldn't be so many differences if they used identical source material. But Eta Linnemann has written a book, What Synoptic Problem? (or something like that), trying to reconcile the two.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

The same situation is found in the Old Testament when comparing Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles among themselves.

First, it's plain that other books of Kings & Chronicles existed, which didn't make it into Scripture. I have been roundly criticized elsewhere for saying that Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles were written by men and chosen by God to become Scripture, but these critics can offer no plausible explanation of their own for the making of these Scriptures.

Next, it's strange that the "missing Kings & Chronicles" isn't mentioned all that much. As for why these missing accounts weren't chosen as Scripture, I'm guessing they didn't mention the actions of God all that much and were more secular works than are those God made Scripture.

Here are some proof verses for the existence of other accounts:

2 Kings 1:18, NIV... "As for all the other events of Ahaziah's reign, and what he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?

(No, they are NOT, at least, in SCRIPTURE.)

2 Chron.16:11 "The events of Asa's reign, from beginning to end, are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel."

(But not in the books of Kings that God made Scripture.)

There are also the writings of the prophets Iddo and Shemaiah, who lived during the reigns of Jeroboam, Rehoboam, and RB's son Abijah, whose writings also deal in genealogies.(2 Chron. 12:15)

Clearly the hand of GOD is evident here in choosing from among the various accounts of the kings of Israel and Judah. perhaps He caused the others to be lost to prevent any dispute about which ones are actually Scripture. This could also be true of the "Q" documents of the Gospels.

 

Oh yes, the find that KJVO's claim to be a "worthless piece of discarded parchchment". Whassupwiddat???

 

Canonization has always been a very interesting topic to me. Perhaps another thread should be started on The Canon of the Old and New Testaments? Just how was this organized creature put together? Things like the book of Ruth coming just after Pr. 31 and the "virtuous" woman in the OT Canan. Things like the glosses that appear all over the OT, such as, e.g., "...that can be seen to this day." Just when is "to this day" anyway? Things like Moses' death in Dt., something certainly Moses himself did not write, although the style of writing is not markedly different than the rest of the Pentateuch. Why is the last clause of the OT Canon, "And he went up" (WAYYAAL)? This is very peculiar Hebrew grammar, but certainly leaves the reader expecting something more.

I think it would be great for someone to start a new thread along these lines.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

I tend to agree. The basis of the "Q" theory is that the fantastic events (i.e. miracles) of the Gospel accounts must be mythical in origin--they are too unbelievable to be eyewitness accounts. Therefore, the "Q" theory was created to show the origin of these myths.

Why is it so many people in academia are trying to prove ancient legends actually occurred (Gilgamesh, Atlantis) yet when it comes to the Bible they take the opposite tack--to prove it did not occur?