Why is the Q document hypothesized?

[Antithesis]

I'd posted this in Scholar DIR earlier, but I've received PMs from multiple users saying they couldn't reply there, and one of them suggested I repost it here. So here goes.

First, I will list the cases for the Q document according to Wikipedia:

• Sometimes the exactness in wording is striking, for example, Matthew 6:24 = Luke 16:13 (27 and 28 Greek words respectively); Matthew 7:7–8 = Luke 11:9–10 (24 Greek words each).

• There is sometimes commonality in order between the two, for example Sermon on the Plain/Sermon on the Mount.
• The presence of doublets, where Matthew and Luke sometimes each present two versions of a similar saying but in different context, only one of those versions appearing in Mark. Doublets may be considered a sign of two written sources, i.e., Mark and Q.
• Luke mentions that he knows of other written sources of Jesus' life, and that he has investigated in order to gather the most information.

All of these, now, can be explained very simply without any Q document. Here's how: simply assume that Matthew borrows text from Mark, and that Luke borrows text from both Mark and Matthew. This seems like a much simpler explanation to me, as it doesn't introduce some mysterious document that was popular enough to have been in the hands of the authors of both Matthew and Luke, but which has never been cited by anyone. What's wrong with this logic?

Edit: maybe Scriptural Debates was a better place for this after all. Could I request a move?

 

[Pegg]

I'd posted this in Scholar DIR earlier, but I've received PMs from multiple users saying they couldn't reply there, and one of them suggested I repost it here. So here goes.

First, I will list the cases for the Q document according to Wikipedia:
All of these, now, can be explained very simply without any Q document. Here's how: simply assume that Matthew borrows text from Mark, and that Luke borrows text from both Mark and Matthew. This seems like a much simpler explanation to me, as it doesn't introduce some mysterious document that was popular enough to have been in the hands of the authors of both Matthew and Luke, but which has never been cited by anyone. What's wrong with this logic?

Edit: maybe Scriptural Debates was a better place for this after all. Could I request a move?

what makes you think such a document ever existed?

It doesnt exist today, and in reality, no one can prove that it ever existed!
If it was indeed a real document, surely it would have been commented on by the many church "fathers", but not a word is said about it by any of them.

If Matthew and Luke both borrowed from Marks writing, why do they not mention the following:

Jesus looked around with indignation, being thoroughly grieved at the insensibility of their hearts (Mark 3:5)

John and James were surnamed Boanerges (Mark 3:17)

the woman with a blood flow had spent all her resources (Mark 5:26)

Herodias was nursing a grudge against John the Baptizer and Herod stood in fear of John and kept him safe (Mark 6:19,*20)

Jesus invited his disciples to rest up a bit (Mark 6:31)

the Pharisees washed their hands up to the elbow (Mark 7:2-4)

Jesus took the children into his arms (Mark 10:16)

Jesus felt love for the young ruler (Mark 10:21)

Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Jesus privately (Mark 13:3)

a young man left his linen garment behind (Mark 14:51,*52)

The illustration of the harvest time and sickle illustration Mark 4:26-29;

The deaf man whom Jesus cures (Mark 7:32-37)

The blind man whom he cures (Mark 8:22-26)



There is reason to accept that the gospels were written from eyewitness testimony rather then copied material.

 

[oldbadger]

I'd posted this in Scholar DIR earlier, but I've received PMs from multiple users saying they couldn't reply there, and one of them suggested I repost it here. So here goes.

First, I will list the cases for the Q document according to Wikipedia:
All of these, now, can be explained very simply without any Q document. Here's how: simply assume that Matthew borrows text from Mark, and that Luke borrows text from both Mark and Matthew. This seems like a much simpler explanation to me, as it doesn't introduce some mysterious document that was popular enough to have been in the hands of the authors of both Matthew and Luke, but which has never been cited by anyone. What's wrong with this logic?

Edit: maybe Scriptural Debates was a better place for this after all. Could I request a move?

Hello Antithesis! Thanks for getting this thread moved. I don't know why the Scholar Thread is Blue/Green because one cannot post questions on it, I think it should be purple/pink so that it can be ignored by non-scholars.

I like this suggestion very much....... The fact that Luke's and Matthew's nativity accounts differ is surely not enough to discredit your idea. Since both nativity accounts are seriously flawed anyway, and quite possibly 'tamperings' with the original reports, I prefer your proposal.

 

[oldbadger]

what makes you think such a document ever existed?

Hi Pegg..... Antithesis is proposing that the Q document did not exist.

It doesnt exist today, and in reality, no one can prove that it ever existed!
If it was indeed a real document, surely it would have been commented on by the many church "fathers", but not a word is said about it by any of them.

Antithesis and I both agree that it does not have to ever have existed.

If Matthew and Luke both borrowed from Marks writing, why do they not mention the following:

...... hang on...... they cherry picked.

John and James were surnamed Boanerges (Mark 3:17)

No they were not. Yeshua called them thus. Galilean fishermen could probably call great distances across water. I have listened to Essex oystermen calling to each other over hundreds of yards in calm weather and flat water. These brothers might have relayed Yeshua's speeches ashore for him.

the woman with a blood flow had spent all her resources (Mark 5:26)

Herodias was nursing a grudge against John the Baptizer and Herod stood in fear of John and kept him safe (Mark 6:19,*20)

a young man left his linen garment behind (Mark 14:51,*52)

This was Mark's personal story, methinks.

The deaf man whom Jesus cures (Mark 7:32-37)

A beautiful story..... so you think that if the synopsis theory is correct that Mark, Matthew and Luke would be perfect copies of each other? Take away the original parts and the theory collapses? You can believe that, but I can't.

The blind man whom he cures (Mark 8:22-26)

I particularly like this report. Miraculous, but no miracle. I smile every time I think of it.

There is reason to accept that the gospels were written from eyewitness testimony rather then copied material.

You think that Luke was an eyewitness? Mark and Matthew may have witnessed some events, but Mark may be written up from his own memories and with the help of Cephas's notes?

 

[Pegg]

You think that Luke was an eyewitness? Mark and Matthew may have witnessed some events, but Mark may be written up from his own memories and with the help of Cephas's notes?

Luke was not an eyewitness, but he got his information from eyewitnesses.

Mark was obviously an eyewitness to many of the events he records, but not to all. He, like matthew and luke would have got confirmation of some of the events from eyewitnesses.

Whatever we accept to be true or not, one thing is for sure, the gospels were all written during the lifetimes of the apostles and therefore were written while eyewitnesses would still have been alive.

 

[oldbadger]

Luke was not an eyewitness, but he got his information from eyewitnesses.

Mark was obviously an eyewitness to many of the events he records, but not to all. He, like matthew and luke would have got confirmation of some of the events from eyewitnesses.

Whatever we accept to be true or not, one thing is for sure, the gospels were all written during the lifetimes of the apostles and therefore were written while eyewitnesses would still have been alive.

Hello again....

I am happy with the above. And I don't mind if the accounts were carried forward by word of mouth until they could eventually be written.

But I do believe that human exaggeration and hyperbole enhanced these reports so that miraculous events turned into miracles. Obviously that belief pushes us apart, but I like to focus on the the fact that we can agree on other aspects of the NT.

 

[nazz]

I'd posted this in Scholar DIR earlier, but I've received PMs from multiple users saying they couldn't reply there, and one of them suggested I repost it here. So here goes.

First, I will list the cases for the Q document according to Wikipedia:
All of these, now, can be explained very simply without any Q document. Here's how: simply assume that Matthew borrows text from Mark, and that Luke borrows text from both Mark and Matthew. This seems like a much simpler explanation to me, as it doesn't introduce some mysterious document that was popular enough to have been in the hands of the authors of both Matthew and Luke, but which has never been cited by anyone. What's wrong with this logic?

Well scholarly consensus is that Luke is not dependent upon Matthew. However the Farrer Theory suggests it was which you can read about here:

Synoptic Problem Website

 

[sojourner]

I'd posted this in Scholar DIR earlier, but I've received PMs from multiple users saying they couldn't reply there, and one of them suggested I repost it here. So here goes.

First, I will list the cases for the Q document according to Wikipedia:
All of these, now, can be explained very simply without any Q document. Here's how: simply assume that Matthew borrows text from Mark, and that Luke borrows text from both Mark and Matthew. This seems like a much simpler explanation to me, as it doesn't introduce some mysterious document that was popular enough to have been in the hands of the authors of both Matthew and Luke, but which has never been cited by anyone. What's wrong with this logic?

Edit: maybe Scriptural Debates was a better place for this after all. Could I request a move?

You're forgetting the material that is common to Matt., Luke and Thomas. There's nothing wrong with your logic, and there's certainly a legitimate scholastic "camp" that does not see a need for Q, but Q offers an exegetical perspective that is good to have.

 

[sojourner]

what makes you think such a document ever existed?

It doesnt exist today, and in reality, no one can prove that it ever existed!
If it was indeed a real document, surely it would have been commented on by the many church "fathers", but not a word is said about it by any of them.

If Matthew and Luke both borrowed from Marks writing, why do they not mention the following:

Jesus looked around with indignation, being thoroughly grieved at the insensibility of their hearts (Mark 3:5)

John and James were surnamed Boanerges (Mark 3:17)

the woman with a blood flow had spent all her resources (Mark 5:26)

Herodias was nursing a grudge against John the Baptizer and Herod stood in fear of John and kept him safe (Mark 6:19,*20)

Jesus invited his disciples to rest up a bit (Mark 6:31)

the Pharisees washed their hands up to the elbow (Mark 7:2-4)

Jesus took the children into his arms (Mark 10:16)

Jesus felt love for the young ruler (Mark 10:21)

Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Jesus privately (Mark 13:3)

a young man left his linen garment behind (Mark 14:51,*52)

The illustration of the harvest time and sickle illustration Mark 4:26-29;

The deaf man whom Jesus cures (Mark 7:32-37)

The blind man whom he cures (Mark 8:22-26)



There is reason to accept that the gospels were written from eyewitness testimony rather then copied material.

It probably never existed as a written document, but as oral sayings of Jesus.
That's why it doesn't "exist" today, and why it isn't mentioned by the desert fathers and mothers.

Since each gospel writer operated from a different hermeneutic, Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark what they thought was necessary to their particular understanding of the significance of the Jesus Event.

There is no reason to believe that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, given their relatively late writing, the style of writing, and the level of orality in that time period.

 

[Pegg]

It probably never existed as a written document, but as oral sayings of Jesus.
That's why it doesn't "exist" today, and why it isn't mentioned by the desert fathers and mothers.

Since each gospel writer operated from a different hermeneutic, Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark what they thought was necessary to their particular understanding of the significance of the Jesus Event.

There is no reason to believe that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, given their relatively late writing, the style of writing, and the level of orality in that time period.

when do you think they were written?

 

[nazz]

when do you think they were written?

Truth is, nobody really knows. It's all conjecture.

 

[Pegg]

Truth is, nobody really knows. It's all conjecture.

well, if you had to take a guess, what century do you think they would have been written in?

 

[nazz]

well, if you had to take a guess, what century do you think they would have been written in?

Well even most scholars believe that three of them, and maybe all of them, were written in the first century. I agree. Setting a latest possible date is pretty easy. It's usually determined by quotations from the text by early church fathers. But setting the earliest possible date is a bit trickier.

 

[Pegg]

Well even most scholars believe that three of them, and maybe all of them, were written in the first century. I agree. Setting a latest possible date is pretty easy. It's usually determined by quotations from the text by early church fathers. But setting the earliest possible date is a bit trickier.

thats a good estimate, i agree with them being written in the first century too.

And if they were written in the first century, it would have had to have been sometime between 33ce - 99ce. Lets say they were written 10 or even 20 years after Christs death (just for speculations sake) then Jesus apostles, his mother, brothers, sisters, friends and disicples would still have been alive.

Even if they were written 50 years after Jesus death (66ce), there would still have been eyewitnesses alive who could have confirmed the accounts recorded in them. So for me its a no brainer, the gospels are what they claim to be....eyewitness records of the events of Jesus life.

 

[Sunstone]

Even assuming any of the Gospels were written while eyewitnesses were still alive, it is surely amusing that anyone would further assume those eyewitnesses were consulted, let alone have editorial powers, over the Gospels.

 

[Pegg]

Even assuming any of the Gospels were written while eyewitnesses were still alive, it is surely amusing that anyone would further assume those eyewitnesses were consulted, let alone have editorial powers, over the Gospels.

how else would an account of anything be made without consulting the witnesses?

And the fact is, there are some accounts in the gospels that could only have been revealed by the witnesses to the event.

 

[outhouse]

how else would an account of anything be made without consulting the witnesses? .

From compiling oral and written traditions. Gmark is said to be a compilation written around 70CE.

From a unknown author writing to what amounts too as Jesus and all Jews very enemies, the Romans.

And the fact is, there are some accounts in the gospels that could only have been revealed by the witnesses to the event

I dont think you could ever prove thisis factual.

Provide credible sources please.

Because there are many aspects of the NT that are not historical. Gmark has the geography completely incorrect for the area. He could not have known Galilee or Israel to make as many mistakes as he did.

The trial is not historically accurate.


Again we dont have any details emerge until 40 years after Jesus death, in a different part of the world by a different culture, by people that were not witness to any events

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The gospel of Mark does not name its author:

The author used a variety of oral sources, including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative, which he rewrote (scholars debate by how much) and connected with introductions and conclusions; possibly the first connected narrative was not the gospel we know but an earlier proto-Mark, which underwent one or more revisions before the modern version was produced.

The author/s would not have to use a variety od sources if one was a eyewitness.

 

[outhouse]

I'd posted this in Scholar DIR earlier, but I've received PMs from multiple users saying they couldn't reply there, and one of them suggested I repost it here. So here goes.

First, I will list the cases for the Q document according to Wikipedia:
All of these, now, can be explained very simply without any Q document. Here's how: simply assume that Matthew borrows text from Mark, and that Luke borrows text from both Mark and Matthew. This seems like a much simpler explanation to me, as it doesn't introduce some mysterious document that was popular enough to have been in the hands of the authors of both Matthew and Luke, but which has never been cited by anyone. What's wrong with this logic?

Edit: maybe Scriptural Debates was a better place for this after all. Could I request a move?

Q probably existed. only a vast manority have opposed it.

 

[Pegg]

Q probably existed. only a vast manority have opposed it.

where is the document?

No early century historians ever make one single mention of it. Why not?

 

[metis]

I have it but I ain't showing it to you. However, if you have enough money... :yes: