Tharmas

Do we have any Q Skeptics among our experts here in Bib Hiss & Crit? I’m asking because I’ve been feeling a growing skepticism myself. When I first came across Q, years ago, the idea seemed pretty neat, you know, one of those flashes that seemed to make everything suddenly fit together.

Now, however, the more discussions I come across of the layers of traditions in Q, and whether the Baptism scene in Q belongs to an earlier or later layer, etc. etc., the more uneasiness I feel. I have even see posters on these boards claiming Q as a reference to use in cases of “multiple attestation” criteria! All this for something that is, after all, a hypothetical construct.

So, I’ve checked out Goodacre’s site “The Case Against Q” http://www.ntgateway.com/Q. The arguments appeal to me because there is a certain simplicity to them and I like simplicity (maybe I’m just a simple guy).

At this point I find myself becoming willing to think of Q as perhaps nothing more than the vast oral tradition of stories and sermons that were circulating before Mark, Matthew and Luke put pen to vellum, or whatever. We know that many of these stories continued to circulate for years independent of the Gospels (such as the one about the woman taken in adultery). There was definitely a body of material out there. But so far, we have no trace of anything written, nor any reference to any written document, that would fit the description of Q.

So, experts, am I wasting my time? Or is this line of inquiry worthy of further pursuit?

judge

I like the first two reasons from the link you supplied.

1.No-one has ever seen Q

2.No-one had ever heard of Q

the_cave

Well, I'm certainly not an expert, but I wouldn't say it's not worth the time. Q remains a hypothetical document. (Nevertheless using it for multiple attestation does appear to be widespread.) I think Goodacre is on the wrong track by assuming that Luke uses Matthew, but that doesn't mean Q existed. The problem is, however, that there are large passages of Matthew and Luke that agree with each other--which presumably would be Q passages. But I think there's a case to be made that there was simply an evolving list of sayings and whatnot, that Matthew and Luke both drew from. Sure. They must have been formalized in places, but that doesn't mean there was one, single document that was written down. Maybe they were originally memorized.

Doctor X

You would think Lk would have the sense to reconcile the birth narratives . . . and the genealogies . . . and whether or not Judas hung himself or exploded if he had Mt as a source.

It seems quite clear that Mt and Lk shared a source. You can see where Mt and Lk both independently change Mk and you can see where one "quote" Mk but the other does not.

However, perhaps some take it a bit far to imagine they can determine seventeen layers of this source and the address of their authors. . . .

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

The best statement of the pro-Q case, in my opinion very convincing, is the opening chapter of Christopher M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity. Very thorough, and some devastating arguments.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

How much literature on the subject have you read?

Not all Q scholars accept the layering of Q. In fact, many view it as extremely hypothetical and not very probative of anything.

On what grounds do you claim there was a baptism accout in Q?

This is hardly incredible as you make it. Even if you subscribe to Goodcare's thesis (Mark without Q) all of Q is still in Matthew. We would have, for independent references, the triple tradition material as one and the double tradition material as another as its not dependent upon Mark. We would also still have special L.

But this position just raises another "Q" issue. Matthew's non-Marcan material has a ton of sayings material. You have to posit a saying source(s) for Matthew at some point whether its Q, "X, Y or Z."

The double tradition text is not hypotheical at all. It exists in Matthew and Luke and it can be used for multiple attestation whether its called Q or not. Yet, of course, denying Q would change a few things but I don't see how its impact would be major. Its only major for those who reconstruct specific strata in Q and argue from there. And presumably for Jesus' mythicists whose case is built on this recontruction of Q (e.g. Amaleq13 and possibly Doherty). Mark can't be viewed as putting it all together (Q Community and Paul) or whatever it is that is claimed.

E.P. Sanders is another scholar who subscribes to Mark without Q. Many have found his treatment of the synoptic problem in Studying the Synoptic Gospels very convincing. I am not fully swayed but the book jolted my take on the issue greatly and made me much more sober in regards to the dominance of the 2ST. I respect this position a great deal. The synoptic problem is much more controversial than one might expect from reading all the discussions here since many of us agree on Q and just assume it throughout our discussion.

Double tradition material is mostly sayings material. Also, there are miracle and parable lists evident from the canonical Gospels as well. No other sources mentions them either. We also have a sayings list of Jesus known as the Gospel of Thomas from the first century. Lists of Jesus material were used in the early church. There is nothing remarkable about Q in this light.

Q was simply engulfed by canonical Christianity (submerged into two late first century Gospels) that became authoritative shortly after they were written by second century Christian exegetes.

Its worthy of further pursuit. Maybe we can try to go through some of the arguments for Mark without Q one example at a time? At least cover a few for informational purposes so those who aren't aware of the specifics of the debate can be?

Vinnie

edited by Toto to fix quote tag

Vinnie

Tuckett is a heavyweight Q scholar. Also an important text I have not read but see referenced all over the place in Q discussions in scholarly works would be Neirynck's work on on the minor agreements.

Vinnie

Nomad

I abandoned Q after reading essays from Michael Goulder, Austin Farrer, Mark Goodacre and Eric Eve. The final nail in the coffin came when I read John Kloppenborg Verbin's Excavating Q (which I found completely unconvincing), and Mark Goodacre's The Case Against Q in which he takes on not only Kloppenborg, but also Chris Tuckett, and demonstrates in systemic fashion each of the errors and fallacies that underly the 2DH and belief in Q. Goodacre's arguments on "Editorial Fatigue" are especially convincing, and thus far I have not seen a satisfactory response to this theory from any defender of Q (Kloppenborg's review of Goodacre included).

Prior to all of this I accepted Q as reasonable (though not the detailed reconstructions of the International Q Project), but what I found very interesting in Goodacre's book (besides his arguments against Q) was his pointing out the near total ignorance amongst serious scholars in North America about arguments against Q, including from some of my personal heroes like Raymond Brown. Goodacre, for example, points out that in Brown's tremendous An Introduction to the New Testament Brown does not make a single reference to Farrer at all, nor to Goulder in respect to Q! He not only does not consider the Farrer Hypothesis (Marcan priority with Luke using both Mark and Matthew), but seems to be entirely ignorant that such an hypothesis exists at all. This is astonishing to say the least. So far as many North American scholars are concerned, they act as if Q is an established fact, and this has stopped most serious inquiry into whether or not Q offers the best explanation of sources for the Synoptics.

The question now is whether or not the next generation of scholars will stop this "Q Juggernaut" or if it will continue to roll unchallenged in Canadian and American (and German) universities and seminaries.

Peace,

Nomad

Biff the unclean

The main problem I see with "Q" is that scholars focus on the surviving gospels instead of taking all the many other versions into account.

A few years back I was stuck on a 10-hour flight with nothing to read except a paperback about Tarzan. These were all new Tarzan stories, all by different authors. They were the result of a contest. All the writers had been given a set of contest rules that included set points that they had to include in their stories. The winners got a prize and had their piece published. I never can sleep on planes.

The published stories, as you would expect, all supported one another but all included unique details from the author's imaginations.

Idle speculation: "Q" was the contest rules. A set of basic guide lines, from the contest's sponsor, that the authors could build on to their hearts content. The reason we don't have "Q" is that they were all thrown away when the contest was over.

Toto

Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q