burning flames

the existence of Q? based on what happens when we combine mathew and luke and subtract whatever is in mark?

is it true that this "q" source is very close to the teachigns of the greek cynic philosophers?

is it true that gospel of thomas is probably a good source of some of jesus's real sayings?

is it true that when people like jesus taught but didnt write down their lessons, that people would follow and write their saYings down? so what we find in the gospels, in a story form, is more indicative of legend building than an accurate portrayal of the way ancient people would have recorded jesus's teachings?

Toto

Q is a hypothetical source meant to explain the common language in Matt and Luke that cannot be explained by copying from Mark.

Opinion is split on whether Q actually existed.

A lot of the sayings of Jesus are close to Cynic sayings.

Probably not, but opinions vary

That sounds reasonable.

Zeichman

The Cynic analogy is often overstated (especially by manipulation of the sayings database), but provides a very useful way of interpreting the woes in Luke/Q 11:39ff.

A great majority of scholars accept the existence of Q in some form, though there are many approaches as to whether it was a unified document, whether it was composed in stages, etc. You'll find that the number of people who deny Q is disproportionately large online.

Ben C Smith

And disproportionately educated.

Happy holidays, Chris.

Ben.

Zeichman

Zing!

I hope no one inferred anything disparaging about that comment I made. It's just something that a newcomer should keep in mind.

I'd certainly admit that Goodacre makes some good arguments against Q as traditionally conceived (I'm thinking of his final chapter in the Case Against Q; things like hologopistos and ho Iesous etelesen legontes... being in the Critical Edition of Q, the assumption of a non-existent narrative in the dialogue with John the Baptist in Q 7:18-35), but I fear that too many of them are either reversible or simply inconclusive. It should be noted that the same can be said of many arguments for the Q hypothesis as well.

Personally, I've been leaning towards the idea that Mark used Q lately, but we'll see how long that lasts. The synoptic problem is still a mess at this point, anyway.

Doug Shaver

I went through a phase of Q skepticism, until I got my ass whipped trying to defend it in another forum.

The argument that Luke and Matthew were copying from some document in addition to Mark now seems persuasive to me. However, I remain very skeptical of efforts to reconstruct exactly what was in that document.

Solitary Man

This is a growing position. I think many scholars remain skeptical of the Kloppenborg-Robinson critical Q.

Ben C Smith

Absolutely. The online world is a very different demographic.

Amen to that.

I might note that I am not entirely a Q skeptic... at least not yet. I think Farrer is easier for me to defend than the two-source theory, but there are still a few remaining straws in the Q pile for me.

You might be interested in my collection of redactional or editorial arguments for priority, which I have assembled from as neutral a point of view as I can muster.

Ben.

Ben.

Zeichman

It's important to remember that the Critical Edition of Q is a "minimal Q" and that Kloppenborg and Robinson both have larger Qs for themselves, as do most scholars. Dennis MacDonald is working on a book that would expand Q to the point where it is essentially a proto-gospel and a Christian re-writing of Deuteronomy.

Thanks for the link, Ben.

spin

I'm in a bit of a haze in this subject, but Farrer, when I think of it, has always seemed up against it in explaining things that Q does best: explaining why things seem to be one source in Mt while they are two in Lk. The mission in Mt is two missions in Lk (12 & 70). Material in the sermon on the mount is spread through Lk. A few other examples that have crossed my mind don't raise their ugly heads at the moment, but the basics seem to me to be that it's harder to get to Lk via Matthew than to get to both Mt and Lk via a second source, which more easily allows one redactor to unite sources (rMt) and the other to keep them separated (rLk).

Aren't minor agreements better explained using a 2 source analysis allowing scribal cross fertilization down the line? (I tend to keep out of this stuff normally because it so often runs to water with "scholar X said..." but "Y said..." -- at least as I see it.)


spin