yalla

I have a problem.I find it very difficult to get good books that explore the issues covered in this forum.I'm currently eagerly awaiting a copy of Doherty's book to arrive from overseas.In the meantime ,and for some time past, my major source of info and speculation has been this site-for which I thank you all.But I would like to zero in on the "Q" hypothesis about which I am very sceptical.I have read material by Goulder,Goodacre and Farrer and their thesis that Luke copied Matthew rather than using the common source Q has merit IMO.However just about all the books I do get to read seem to regard Q as a given.Could I request the participants of this forum discuss the validity of the Q theory?Pretty please?

Roland

I'm far from an expert on Q, but from what I understand, virtually all the material common to Matthew and Luke (and not found in Mark) is located in different places in the two gospels. This makes it unlikely that Luke would have copied Matthew. A more likely explanation is that both writers had a common source ("Q") from which they derived similar material when they were reworking Mark.

Toto

Vorkosigan will be back from vacation this Friday, and will probably be willing to discuss this in depth.

You could start here:

Book Review: The Case Against Q

Q: If there is no Q, is there really no Q?

Doherty accepts most liberal scholarship, including Q.

jbernier

I agree - a large number of scholars accept as given that there was a single document from which both Luke and Matthew copied, which modern scholarship has been called "Q" (for "Quelle").

I will say up front that I think that Q is a reasonable hypothesis - in fact, it is a very powerful hypothesis, which is precisely why it has become so popular. However, I do think that many scholars overemphasize its "givenness." I think that it is pretty clear that Luke and Matthew drew upon common written material to which we no longer have access. For a variety of reasons I think that it is unlikely that one copied from the other. However, I am not convinced that there is sufficient warrant to jump from that to "It must have been a single and distinct document" as the Q hypothesis argues. Perhaps it was an expanded version of Mark to which we no longer have access (remembering, of course, that Matthew and Luke themselves are, on one level, expansions of Mark). Perhaps it was more than one document. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. The truth is that, in the absence of the discovery of new manuscripts, we will never really know what form this common material will take. To assume a single document is just too speculative, imho.

Toto

Mark Goodacre's website is here: The Case Against Q

Also:

The two gospel hypothesis

I have not read a scholarly defense of Q in rebuttal to Goodacre, so I have the impression that the Q-skeptics are in the ascendency. But things move very slowly in this field.

jbernier

My suspicion is that this is the case, although I would not stake my life on it. "Q" is rooted in the source critical methodology that was popular back in the first half of the last century. This methodology has become increasingly critiqued over the last 20 or so years. As the field of Biblical studies in general moves away from source criticism it is no surprise that there is a move away from the Q hypothesis.

yalla

Thanks for the responses.Let me explain why I am so suspicious of the Q hypothesis.Firstly, I think it serves an apologetic purpose , particularly in a context where Mark is dated 70ce plus and given chronological priority-both of which presumptions work for me.It is convenient for apologists to then be able to explain the origin of material in Matthew and Luke but not Mark as coming from a source prior to Mark thus pushing back the gospels' dating to pre70ce once again and simultaneously providing an independent source able to be utilised when talking about "multiple attestation".All very convenient.Secondly I do not think it stands up to analysis.I read Streeter and the Jesus Seminar's 5 gospels and looked at the material they said was Q.When I followed my RSV's cross references I frequently ,if not usually,found a direct OT source for the alleged Qism.Why not then posit a simple trajectory?From the OT via the creative mind of Matthew to his text?Then Luke copies that stuff , as he wishes , within the general structure of Mark?Thirdly, I am suspicious of the constant reference to "oral tradition" for the source of gospel material.Again ,backtracking as best as I can, I frequently find either OT or other sources for the NT stuff .No "tradition" required just simple "borrowing" of material.IMO Q is used in this manner to provide an acceptable alternate layer particularly useful for apologists when utilising 'multiple attestation".What do you lot think?

FordMadoxBrown

One book I have not seen mentioned here so far, but which I found very thought-provoking, is 'the lost Gospel: Q and early Christianity' by Burton L Mack.

Mack is convinced Q was a circulating document like the Gospel of Thomas, and he even attempts a reconstruction. I wasn't convinced, as it's just as likely that Luke drew from Matthew the bits he didn't get from Mark, but of course Matthew had to have another source than Mark, and s amny of the 'Q' passages in Matthew sound as if they stem fro early collections of sayings (You'll gather I favour late dates for Gospel authorship!).

jbernier

There are a number of scholars who have attempted such. There is even a volume in the generally excellent Hermeneia Commentary series that offers a reconstruction of and commentary upon Q. I'll be blunt: I think this sort of work is overly speculative, especially given that we do not know for sure if Q even existed!

Toto

religioustolerance.org on 'Q' - claims to summarize all sides

Mack's Lost Gospel can be browsed on Amazon, as can Marcus Borg's The Lost Gospel Q: The Original Sayings of Jesus.