Malachi151

I always kind of gloss over Q because to me it doesn't seem very important. As far as I know, Q is important for trying to figure out how the three synoptics were constructed, but is this of any real significance to the topic of historicity?

Does Q have any bearing on historicity? Is it worth discussion when discussing historicity?

As far as I can see, whether the elements of the Gospels came from Q or any other source is of no significance, because whatever Q is, then just leads right back to the same issue that you get into when addressing the Gospels directly, which is reliance on the prior scripture and other extant works.

Am I missing something here?

Peter Kirby

Possibly, it could be argued, a Q document presupposes a type of person who would produce Q and a type of people who would first receive Q. If that person and people aren't predicted on the JM hypothesis, it would be nonconforming data for the JM hypothesis. (Which is all very abstract without specifying what "JM" hypothesis we are talking about.)

--
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Let me remove it from the realm of the abstract.

Take the hypothesis JM-1, which states that the origins of the Jesus complex is a savior god idea that only later took on flesh in the Gospels.

1. On JM-1, Jesus is always a savior god idea, both before and after he takes on flesh.
2. In Q, Jesus is not a savior god idea but rather a human sage.
3. Therefore, Q is evidence that JM-1 is false.

At the very least, to preserve the JM, it is necessary to come up with a JM-2. This is basically the JM-2 that Earl Doherty came up with:

1. On JM-2, one origin of the Jesus complex is a savior god idea (i.e., the epistolary lit).
2. On JM-2, another origin of the Jesus complex is a human sage story-cycle (i.e., Q+Thomas).
3. In Q, Jesus is not a savior god idea but rather a human sage.
4. Therefore, Q is not evidence that JM-2 is false.

There are at least two ways that Q is relevant, even allowing for the possibility of JM-2 type hypotheses:

A. By necessity, explaining Q has nearly doubled the complexity of the JM hypothesis. Might there be a non-JM hypothesis on a par with JM-2 in complexity that also explains both Q and the epistolary lit?
B. JM-2 allows that there were people who believed in a simply human Jesus during the first century of the era. While Doherty strives to prove that this Jesus is as mytho-fictional as Paul's, it will remain a legitimate area of inquiry whether this is the case. Thus, JM-2 leaves a door open to a HJ in a way that a JM-1 type hypothesis does not.

Overall, I'd say that the existence of Q would be the biggest piece of data you can hit upon for a JM hypothesis after the reading of the NT epistles. It's huge. And for the Q skeptic in all of us, I'd point out that the Gospel of Thomas can step in as ersatz Q in these discussions, as also presenting a Jesus that doesn't have savior god aspects. So an alternate resolution to the Synoptic Problem won't entirely make this go away.

--
Peter Kirby

Doug Shaver

Not that I have ever noticed.

If I correctly understand the arguments for supposing that Q existed, they have nothing to do with any assumptions about Jesus' historicity.

yalla

I think that hypothetical Q is used in a circular manner to attempt to authenticate an assumed historical JC.
Between the first gospel [conventionally g"Mark'] and the first century writings, especially genuine Paul, there is an absence of gospel details and even mimimal reference to a historical JC at all.
Alleged Q can be used to bridge this void, this gap.
And it, in turn presumes the presence of a HJ.
So by presuming the validity of the Q hypothesis an alleged written and oral tradition can be retrojected previous to 'Mark' to an alleged HJ.

Thus Burton Mack in "Who Wrote The NT":
"Before Mark there was no such story of the life of Jesus". p151.

BUT, earlier page 47, he says:
'Q will put us in touch with the first followers of Jesus. It is the earliest written record we have .....it documents the history of a single group of Jesus people for a period of about 50 years from the time of Jesus in the 20s until after the Roman-Jewish War in the 70s".

Note the assumptions.
1. There was an HJ.
2. There were followers of HJ.
3.A document [Q] exists that records material connecting that HJ and those followers to the gospel of "Mark" through the intervening period.

Without the hypothetical Q there is no connection between alleged HJ and 'Mark''s details.
Q is used to validate the tradition stretching back to HJ.
Remove Q from this process and all Mack has is an unevidenced assertion that HJ et al existed.
With Q, as he uses it, he can create a thread of continuity.
So whilst Q may not require an HJ for it to be postulated, it is used in a manner to shore up the HJ edifice.
cheers
yalla

Malachi151

Yes, this is the argument that I was curious about, but I wonder about its validity and impact. Can 'Q" really do these things, and what about the two source hypothesis?

Peter Kirby

I have a hard time reading past yalla's bias. Can someone express the thought without all the jabber-jaw of "hypothetical" this and "alleged" that? I think he's saying that "Q is both alleged to preserve HJ [without a Q HJ would fall] and used to 'prove' HJ [with Q, an HJ may stand]". But then, I thought Q was alleged to help solve the Synoptic Problem, not because of some insecurity in the NT field about the existence of Jesus.

--
Peter Kirby

Malachi151

Agreed, but I think that its function as a tool may be shifting.

gstafleu

Isn't at least Q1 just a collection of sayings? I.e. no Bethlehem, no Nazareth, no Maria, no Joseph, no Maria Magdalena, no crucifixion...? If so it misses all the usual items that are missing from Paul (except for the crucifixion), in other words all the items connected with a human Jesus. The Jesus presented there is just a clothes-horse for a bunch of sayings (and not very original sayings at that). If we then postulate Q to be "early" that would be a step in forming a developmental model that starts with a non-human Jesus, the various human aspects being attached later in the gospels that derive from Q.

Gerard Stafleu

Peter Kirby

I don't know what Q1 is, but the Gospel of Thomas is just a collection of sayings. Perhaps we could frame the discussion in terms of such an actual collection, rather than the hypothetical earliest layer of Q. Unless you come prepared to defend Kloppenborg's stratification--or perhaps propose your own stratification based on a new reading of the evidence.

--
Peter Kirby