EarlDoherty

The "Q material" is by definition material shared by Matthew and Luke which Mark (who preceded them) does not have.

If there was no Q to explain that shared material, is it your position that Matthew simply invented all the verses otherwise assigned to Q?

And are you aware of the particular problems which such a position creates?

Earl Doherty

aa5874

What is completely amazing in this "Q" discussion is that there are some who think that writers of antiquity were incapable of making stuff up without using some other source when the Gospels as found canonised show that it is not necessary for a writer of antiquity to use information readily available.

Examine the last prayer of Jesus before he was arrested in gMark, it is a one verse-23 word prayer.

Mark 14:36 - Now, examine the last prayer of Jesus in gJohn before Jesus was arrested. It is a whole chapter of 26 verses and about 600 words. And not one single part of part of Mark 14.36 is in gJohn's Jesus prayer.

See John 17.1-26

This shows quite convincingly that any writer of the Synoptics could have written a story about a character called Jesus without the need for any other previous source.

There is no need for any "Q" source and even if some other source was present about a character called Jesus it was not necessary for any writer to have used the "sayings" when the author of gJohn shows that he could make Jesus "say" whatever he wanted.

And, upon further examination of the "sayings" of gJohn's Jesus, it will be noticed that, although assumed to be written after the Synoptics, this Jesus did not use virtually any of the "sayings" of the Synoptic Jesus.

I find "Q" is irrelevant to the MJ.

The MJ only deals with information of antiquity that is extant.

dog-on

Is it the consensus that Q post dates Mark?

Toto

Most people who believe in Q think that it pre-dates Mark, or that there are layers, some of which are earlier than others.

But from the text, there is no real way to tell.

dog-on

That is what I thought.

If Q predates Mark, then why doesn't Mark seem to know about it?

andrewcriddle

Maybe Mark did know of Q and made significant use of it.

However, modern reconstructions of Q, which are based around the material found in Matthew and Luke but not Mark, necessarily produce a document with only limited parallels to Mark.

Andrew Criddle

maryhelena

Matthew invented verses in his gospel? Well, Earl, seeing that Jesus is invented to begin with - sure, Matthew, or whoever, could have carried the storyline along with any imaginary flights of inspiration that took his fancy. To assume that some 'sayings' go back to a historical Jesus - I'm sure you don't want to go there. The other alternative is to postulate a non-Jesus historical person X and ascribe 'sayings' to such a person - but I don't think you even want to go there. So, its down to pure flights of fancy for Matthew and anyone else involved with that gospel...

Particular problems? Sure, I probably don't know what all the problems are that some NT scholars have invented for themselves...But it looks like, with this new venture at the University of Copenhagen - that there are some scholars out there prepared to look past the fog that Q has generated.

dog-on

Or, as seems to be evidenced by the fact that the material pointed to as being Q does not appear in Mark, Q, if it even existed, post dates Mark.

The only reason I think Q is placed pre Mark is to rationalize an oral tradition as the pre Markan source of the Jesus story.

andrewcriddle

I think you may be missing my point. Q is a reconstruction based primarily on the material common to Luke and Matthew but missing from Mark.

Hence for methodological reasons Q as reconstructed will have only limited overlap with Mark.

(There is some overlap: eg Q is generally supposed to have had a saying forbidding divorce, although this is also present in Mark.)

Q may well date from around the same time as Mark, however dating it substantially later than Mark, (eg having Q composed by someone who knew Mark), probably requires too long an interval between the date of Mark and the dates of Matthew and Luke.

Another argument against too late a date for Q is that Q does not appear to show evidence of being written after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle

dog-on

I understand how Q is derived.

I also have no issue with a long interval between Mark and the later gospels.

Lastly, I do not see a real reason to need to have Q placed prior to 70AD, other than for those that hold to the belief in oral tradition.

I do view Luke/Acts as second century, perhaps as late as the middle part of that century.