Existence of Q

[Martin]

I always took the existence for granted (just like I once took the historical Jesus for granted). Then I stumbled over this site: The Case Against Q

I must admit that the more I read about Q, the more ludicrous it becomes: A hypothetical manuscript, which was proposed in 1838, but which today -- nearly 200 years later -- hasn't been confirmed by a single fragment or by a single Patristic writing.

And what is the purpose of Q? Solely to explain how Luke and Matthew can independently have a lot of material in common.

But why shouldn't Luke have read Matthew? According to the Q hypothesis, Luke has read Mark, and he states he has read several others:

Luke 1,1 Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us,

So what do we need Q for?

[Rune Nyrup]

Originally Posted by Martin

I always took the existence for granted (just like I once took the historical Jesus for granted). Then I stumbled over this site: The Case Against Q

I must admit that the more I read about Q, the more ludicrous it becomes: A hypothetical manuscript, which was proposed in 1838, but which today -- nearly 200 years later -- hasn't been confirmed by a single fragment or by a single Patristic writing.

And what is the purpose of Q? Solely to explain how Luke and Matthew can independently have a lot of material in common.

But why shouldn't Luke have read Matthew? According to the Q hypothesis, Luke has read Mark, and he states he has read several others:

Luke 1,1 Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us,

So what do we need Q for?

I don't really know much about the scholary debate here. But when I first heard about Q I assumed that it wasn't a document as such, but simply the body of sayings (some or most of them attributed to Jesus) that were going around at the time when Luke and Matthew wrote their gospels.

Do Biblical scholars really believe that Q is a specific document?

[steenkh]

Interesting. I have no problem accepting that Luke simply read Matthew and Mark, but I assumed that when scholars proposed the Q manuscript it was becuase that simple solution had problems of its own.

I am not sure if the argument that a scrap of Q should have surfaced after 200 years is very persuasive. After all, we get the impression from Luke's own words "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account" that there were a lot of manuscipts floating around at the time, and we only have Mark's and Matthew's texts today. Should there not be more than two others?

[ShazaamsCape]

Thought you mean't the dude from Star Trek the Next Generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)

as in a god-like figure. I guess you mean some book.

[wheels5894]

I have always thought Q interesting but was taught Greek by Michael Goulder I fierce opponent of the idea. Basically he has worked, with others, on the minor agreements in Luke and Matthew - places where the exact words are used. There are quite a lot of these. There are enough to say that it is vastly unlikely that these have just happened and so we have to consider if Matthew was read by Luke.

now the dating of Luke is usually quite a bit later that Matthew - Matthew in the 70s (after Mark obviously) and Luke in the late 80s or even 90s. It is therefore quite likely that Luke would have heard of the Matthean Gospel if not seen it and would have sought it out. he mention such in his introduction.

Q requires that Luke did not see Matthew but fail to provide the evidence or indeed anything. Some scholars have spent years analyzing the common text between Matthew and Luke claiming even to detect several layers in it with a base a bit like the Gospel of Thomas. I think to many reputations are on the line now for it to be dropped yet but I think the next generation of scholars will have to let it quietly die.

As a footnote, when I went to university to study Theology one of the New Testament lecturers was a Q specialist known to Michael Goulder. On an Xmas card he sent me, Goulder wrote, 'don't believe what ???? tells you about Q' which caused me some amusement!

[Martin]

Originally Posted by Rune Nyrup

Do Biblical scholars really believe that Q is a specific document?

I guess so, since you can buy several different reconstructions of Q from Amazon.

Originally Posted by steenkh

Interesting. I have no problem accepting that Luke simply read Matthew and Mark, but I assumed that when scholars proposed the Q manuscript it was becuase that simple solution had problems of its own.

That's what I assumed too (just like I once assumed there was a historical Christ).

But it seems the only real problem with Luke having read Matthew, is to explain why he has skipped lots of Matthew's material. For instance, why did Luke write a nativity story that's radically different from Matthew's?

Originally Posted by steenkh

I am not sure if the argument that a scrap of Q should have surfaced after 200 years is very persuasive. After all, we get the impression from Luke's own words "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account" that there were a lot of manuscipts floating around at the time, and we only have Mark's and Matthew's texts today. Should there not be more than two others?

In the mean time we have found plenty of gospels. From memory: Thomas, Judas, fractions of Peter, the James infancy and so on. I think I read somewhere that there was about 50 gospels.

Originally Posted by wheels5894

I have always thought Q interesting but was taught Greek by Michael Goulder I fierce opponent of the idea.

You were taught by Michael Goulder! I'm impressed. For those who didn't read the entire site, Michael Goulder was the current defender of the Farrer Hypothesis -- also known as the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

Originally Posted by ShazaamsCape

Thought you mean't the dude from Star Trek the Next Generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)

as in a god-like figure. I guess you mean some book.

No, I meant the dude from Bond.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Martin

For instance, why did Luke write a nativity story that's radically different from Matthew's?

Perhaps Luke simply skimmed over that part. :-p

No, more likely, Luke may have read a doctored or damaged version of Matthew's manuscript, or perhaps simply disagreed with Matthew.

[GordonHide]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Perhaps Luke simply skimmed over that part. :-p

No, more likely, Luke may have read a doctored or damaged version of Matthew's manuscript, or perhaps simply disagreed with Matthew.

If Luke had access to Mathew in substantially the form we see it today, it must be questionable that he would have been motivated to attempt what amounts to a rewrite unless he was convinced that Mathew was wrong in places and/ or had omitted things of importance.

ps: Their differing views of Christology might provide a motive for a rewrite. Perhaps Martin will give us his view on that.

[Vermillion]

Then maybe it was really just that he only had access to a damaged version of Matthew's works. It would explain the discrepencies.

[Reprieve]

Perhaps Luke heard Matthew's work as an oral story, which would naturally change from the time it had been written to the time he heard it.