Is there a consensus among biblical scholars that Q is for real? Who first put forward the idea of Q?
It is a subject I know very little about. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks

Martin

Toto

Check out the links in this previous thread:

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000459.html

There is a good page on the religioustolerance site, and a site devoted to 'Q' skepticism.

It appears that the scholarly consensus is that Q was a real document, but the skeptics have some interesting points.

Most scholars accept Q now. There is still no textaul proof of its existence, although Helmust Koester beleives that there is strong reason to accept Thomas as contianing hte core of the Q saying source. Thus if that is the case we do have textual evidenceo of Q but we dont know that we do. In the mean time, until we can prove that, there are no texts, it is puerly theoretical. But most scholars accept it becasue it is a srong theory. Morover, as Koester demostrates there is such good evidence for it now that it is pretty much beyond doubt.

Nevertheless, there is still an intrepid minority of scholars, some highly respected, who do not buy the Synoptic thoery. Probably the most important was William Farmer, who I had the honor of knowing personally in seminary. He's retiried now, but up to the middle 90s he taught at Perkins School of Theology in Dallas at Suthern Methodist U.

The theory that opposses the Q source is called the "Greisebach hypothesis" and it says that mark is a synopsis of Matthew, thus Q disappears becasue it is not needed and the whole probelm is solved. As I say it still has its supporters.

The theory of Q, which is to say the "Synoptic theory" was started in the middle of the 19th century, and I think it was Wellhausen the famous German theologian at Tubingen in Stutgart who started the theory. The theory says that Matthew and Luke copied Mark plus another source, Q, which is form a German word meaning "hidden," and that other source is the material common to Matt and Luke that is not in Matthew. Than it gets funcy becasue there is an "M" source, whicih is material unqiue to Matt. There is an "L" source, material unique to Luke, and another source, I forget what it's called but it is shared by Mark and John but not by Luke and Matt. This material is very sparce.

The synoptic Gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John is on his own, he is not part of the synopitics, although some say there are sources in common between Mark and John.

Mtea =>None of that is a skeptical matte. The synoptic tradition is not something born out of skepticism or an attempt to disprove the Bible. Most liberal scholars beleive in God and have a form of religious belief. They are not trying to prove that the Bible is false or to create doubt in people's minds. They are merely trying to use a scientific method to recover the original text and understand what was said prior to redaction, or to understand why the books were redacted and what the readactors has in mind.

It is easy for the unweary to be misled by the termenology. When liberal scholars speak of "errors" in the bible, they do not attach the kind of significace to that term that a skpetic does. In speaking of copy errors they are not saying "The Bible is not the word of God."

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited May 15, 2001).]