The gospel of Q

[Rex]

What is the gospel of Q and does it prove the Gospels are false?



Q comes from the German "quelle" meaning "source." Some biblical scholars have proposed that there was a document prior to the writing of the gospels which was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke as a source of information.1 They have called this hypothetical document "Q." It is hypothetical because there is no proof that the document existed. Nevertheless, this proposal has gained some acceptance in scholarly circles due to the very close similarities and identical written accounts found in both Matthew and Luke. It is reasoned that the very similar accounts must be taken from a common source.
Since Matthew was probably originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic according to the historian Papias, and all we have is the Greek texts, some conclude that a translation of the Hebrew gospel of Matthew into Greek would have resulted in translations slightly different from the Luke accounts. But since some of the accounts are identical, it is proposed that Matthew and Luke shared a common reference source. This is perfectly reasonable and we do see differences in translations as well as identical wording. Is this the result of an unknown document known as Q? Perhaps, but there is no way to be sure since it is possible that one copied from another or copied from Mark.
Following is a small sample chart of some of the sayings in Matthew and Luke that are identical as is demonstrated by being underlined. The text is taken from the NASB.


Read the rest here. You will enjoy!

 

[dudley thoth]

i basically accept the Q hypothisis, in as far as both matt and luke wrote a gospel account independently of each other, both using material that the other didn't, sharing a common source, using the gospel of mark as their foundational text.
their independent use of mark is a testamony to its authenticity. the same can be said of 'Q'.
in the synoptics we have the cream of the Jesus story. doubt ye not!l

 

[anders]

In the beginning...

all material in the Gospels was circulated by word of mouth. There is nothing strange in thinking that several versions circulated. In itself, that does neither refute nor confirm the authenticity of any version (or collection of fragments or whatever).

When you look at the extra-canonical Gospels, like that of St. Thomas, and go on with comparisons, it gets really interesting!

 

[Sola Fide]

The Gospel of "Q" --- Rex has done a fairly good job of presenting this subject. In my readings, the strongest proponents of the Q theory have been Jesus Seminarians or theologians who are fairly Liberal in their views. The strongest proponent of the Q hypothesis is John Dominic Crossan -- a theologian on whose points I differ with quite often. It's easy when taking a serious look at the gospels to come to this conclusion -- that there was a single source. I actually quite agree with the notion that the gospels DID have a common source, but not in the traditional sense of this theory. Let me explain my views:

Perhaps one of the greatest single thinking errors that I see done when serious Biblical scholarship is done by many many theologians is they fall into the trap of examining scripture from a 21st century perspective NOT a 1st century perspective. After all ... the gospels were written by 1st century Jews ... NOT 21st century Whites, African-Americans, etc. First and foremost when conducting true serious Biblical scholarship one must (do your best) to put aside 21st century thinking and enter into the thinking of the writer of the time: culture, period, intended audience, meaning, etc.

This being said, what was mentioned above about the oral traditions is quite correct. I think that we in the 21st century often get into a snobby way of thinking often when it comes to understanding ancient civilizations. I see this as true in regards to what is WRITTEN especially in ancient cultures. For example, we often think: "If source A is 1000 years old and source B is 1500 years old, source B MUST be the older story." That's 21st century thinking and completely ignores the idea of oral tradition. We see strong oral tradition in many cultures. Good examples include Native American stories and the story of Beowulf. In Judaism, the oral tradition is particularly strong ... it was not uncommon at all (in fact it was very common) for Jewish men to have large portions of the Torah committed completely to memory.

Thus, I would argue that these stories DID exist in the common collective oral stories of the disciples of Jesus ... NOT in a common WRITTEN document. These stories were told again and again with great emphasis on detail. If the Dead Sea Scrolls have hammered any point home for me it's been this one --- that Jews are notoriously meticulous when it comes to detail. There simply wasn't as high of a value placed on writing as there is now in many cultures ... they didn't live in the land of CNN and the internet and we can't and shouldn't forget that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders, you said it in regards to books such as Thomas ... it does get "interesting" when you start looking at texts like that. I don't want to debate that particular topic here, but would love to if someone would like to create the thread (perhaps it already exists and I just didn't notice it).

SF

 

[dudley thoth]

For example, we often think: "If source A is 1000 years old and source B is 1500 years old, source B MUST be the older story." That's 21st century thinking and completely ignores the idea of oral tradition. We see strong oral tradition in many cultures.

Right on! :clap:

 

[Sola Fide]

The Gospel of "Q" --- Rex has done a fairly good job of presenting this subject. In my readings, the strongest proponents of the Q theory have been Jesus Seminarians or theologians who are fairly Liberal in their views. The strongest proponent of the Q hypothesis is John Dominic Crossan -- a theologian on whose points I differ with quite often. It's easy when taking a serious look at the gospels to come to this conclusion -- that there was a single source. I actually quite agree with the notion that the gospels DID have a common source, but not in the traditional sense of this theory. Let me explain my views:

Perhaps one of the greatest single thinking errors that I see done when serious Biblical scholarship is done by many many theologians is they fall into the trap of examining scripture from a 21st century perspective NOT a 1st century perspective. After all ... the gospels were written by 1st century Jews ... NOT 21st century Whites, African-Americans, etc. First and foremost when conducting true serious Biblical scholarship one must (do your best) to put aside 21st century thinking and enter into the thinking of the writer of the time: culture, period, intended audience, meaning, etc.

This being said, what was mentioned above about the oral traditions is quite correct. I think that we in the 21st century often get into a snobby way of thinking often when it comes to understanding ancient civilizations. I see this as true in regards to what is WRITTEN especially in ancient cultures. For example, we often think: "If source A is 1000 years old and source B is 1500 years old, source B MUST be the older story." That's 21st century thinking and completely ignores the idea of oral tradition. We see strong oral tradition in many cultures. Good examples include Native American stories and the story of Beowulf. In Judaism, the oral tradition is particularly strong ... it was not uncommon at all (in fact it was very common) for Jewish men to have large portions of the Torah committed completely to memory.

Thus, I would argue that these stories DID exist in the common collective oral stories of the disciples of Jesus ... NOT in a common WRITTEN document. These stories were told again and again with great emphasis on detail. If the Dead Sea Scrolls have hammered any point home for me it's been this one --- that Jews are notoriously meticulous when it comes to detail. There simply wasn't as high of a value placed on writing as there is now in many cultures ... they didn't live in the land of CNN and the internet and we can't and shouldn't forget that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders, you said it in regards to books such as Thomas ... it does get "interesting" when you start looking at texts like that. I don't want to debate that particular topic here, but would love to if someone would like to create the thread (perhaps it already exists and I just didn't notice it).

SF

 

[dudley thoth]

For example, we often think: "If source A is 1000 years old and source B is 1500 years old, source B MUST be the older story." That's 21st century thinking and completely ignores the idea of oral tradition. We see strong oral tradition in many cultures.

Right on! :clap:

 

[martha dodge]

Another theory about the similarity of the Gospels is possibly that the disciples told a similar story because they saw very similar situations and heard very similar word from Jesus Christ. And lets not forget the Holy Spirit. He was sent to recall for the disciples, the words of Jesus Christ. I know it is a simple solution but the older I get the more I learn to trust that my Jesus can do anything. Even keep His Holy Word pure and correct. What do we need with a q gospel?