User:Alecmconroy/Q document
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Q document or Q (from the German Quelle, "source") is a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke.
The recognition of 19th-century New Testament scholars that Matthew and Luke share much material not found in their generally recognized common source, the Gospel of Mark, has suggested a second common source, termed the Q document. This hypothetical lost text—also called the Q Gospel, the Sayings Gospel Q, the Synoptic Sayings Source, the Q Manuscript, and in the 19th century The Logia—seems most likely to have comprised a collection of Jesus' sayings. Recognizing such a Q document is one of two key elements in the "two-source hypothesis" alongside the priority of Mark.
The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted solution to the Synoptic Problem, which concerns the literary relationships between and among the first three canonical gospels (the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke), known as the Synoptic Gospels. Similarity in word choices and event placement shows an interrelationship. The synoptic problem concerns how this interrelation came to pass and what the nature of this interrelationship is. According to the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used the Gospel of Mark, independently of one another. This necessitates the existence of a hypothetical source in order to explain the double tradition material where there is agreement between Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark. This hypothetical source is named Q for convenience.
[edit] The Synoptic Gospels
Of the four canonical gospels included in the New Testament, three are very similar: Mark, Matthew, and Luke. These gospels often recount the same stories about Jesus, generally follow the same sequence and, often use the same or similar wording. Because they share the same view, these three gospels are known as the Synoptic Gospels (from Greek synoptic, meaning "seeing with the same eyes").
A substantial amount of material is repeated in all three synoptic gospels. This material is known as the triple tradition. About half of the material in the synoptic gospels (taken together) would be considered "triple tradition" material.
Another substantial block of material is repeated in both Matthew and Luke, but is absent from Mark. This material is known as the double tradition. About one-fifth of the material in the synoptic gospels (taken together) would be considered "double tradition" material.
A small amount material (about 9%) is found in both Mark and Matthew, but not in Luke. A very small amount of material (about 2%) is found in Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew)
Additionally, each gospel has some material that is unique to it alone. Luke has a relatively large amount of such material-- Luke-only material makes up about 15% of the synoptics. Matthew-only material, meanwhile, makes up about 9% of the synoptics. Mark has the least amount of unique material-- Mark-only material makes up less than 1% of the synoptics.
[edit] The Synoptic Problem
The relationships between the three synoptic gospels goes beyond mere similarity in viewpoint. The gospels often recount the stories, usually in the same exact order, sometimes even using the exact same words. Some sections are repeated nearly verbatim.
Scholars note that the similarities between the Mark, Matthew, and Luke are too great to be accounted for by mere coincidences. Since multiple eyewitnesses reporting the exact same events will basically never relate a story using exactly the same word-for-word telling, Scholars and theologians have long assumed there was some literary relationship between the three synoptic gospels.
The precise nature of the relationships between the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke is know as the Synoptic Problem. The recognition of the question, and attempts to resolve it, date to antiquity. For example, Augustine of Hippo, a 5th century bishop, tried to explain the relationships between the synoptic gospels by proposing that perhaps Matthew was written first, then Mark was written using Matthew as a source, and finally Luke was written using Matthew and Mark as sources. Although this specific solution has fallen out favor with modern scholars, it represents one of the earliest and most influential proposed solutions to the synoptic problem.
[edit] Markan priority and the Triple Tradition
One of the first steps towards the solution of the synoptic problem was to note that Mark appeared to the earliest of the four canonical gospels.
Several lines up evidence suggest that this. Mark is the shortest of the gospels-- suggesting that the longer gospels took Mark as a source and added additional material to it, (as opposed to Mark taking longer gospels but deleting substantial chunks of material). Mark's use of diction and grammar is less sophisticated than that found in Matthew and Luke-- suggesting that Matthew and Luke "cleaned up" Mark's wording (as opposed to Mark intentionally "dumbing down" more sophisticated languages). Mark regularly included Aramaic quotes (translating them into Greek), whereas Matthew and Luke do not.
For these and others, most scholars accept that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and the Gospels Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source. If Markan priority is correct, the triple tradition would be explained as those parts of Mark which both Matthew and Luke chose to copy.
[edit] The Two-source Hypothesis and the Double Tradition
Markan priority, while explaining most of the similarities between the three synoptic gospels, is unable to provide a complete solution to the synoptic problem. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke have much material in common. While most of that material appears to have copied from The Gospel of Mark, some of the material common to Matthew and Luke isn't found in Mark.
The material (collectively known as the "double tradition") is often presented both Matthew and Luke using very similar wording, and often presented in the same order. Since this material is absent from Mark, the use of Mark as source cannot explain how the same stories, using the same words, came to be found in both Matthew and Luke.
Scholars therefore suggest that in addition to using Mark as as source, Matthew and Luke must have both had access to another second source, which they independently used in the creation of their gospels. This suggestion is know as the the name "two-source hypothesis". This hypothetical second source is referred to as Q (from the German "Quelle" meaning "source").
Although a few scholars still question it, the two source hypothesis is currently the most widely accepted solution to the synoptic problem.
[edit] The Q Document
If the two-source hypothesis is correct, then the second source, Q, would almost certainly have to be a written document. If Q were merely a shared oral tradition, that could not account for the nearly identical word-for-word similarities between Matthew and Luke when quoting Q material.
Similarly, it is possible to deduce that the Q document was written in Greek. If Q had been written in some other language (for example, Aramaic), it's highly unlikely that two independent translations produced by Matthew and Luke would have the exact same wording.
The Q document would have had to be composed prior to both the the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Some scholars even suggest Q may have predated Mark.
The Q document, if it did exist, has since been lost-- but scholars believe it can be partially reconstructed by examining elements common to Matthew and Luke (but absent from Mark). This reconstructed Q is notable in that it is generally does not describe the events of the life of Jesus-- Q does not mention the Jesus' birth, his selection of the 12 disciples, his crucifixion, or the resurrection. Instead, Q appears to be mere a collection of Jesus sayings and teachings, but without any interconnecting narrative. This hypothesis was greatly strengthened in 1945 by the discovery of another "Sayings Gospels", The Gospel of Thomas.
[edit] What happened to the Q document?
[edit] Did Mark use Q?
http://books.google.com/books?id=glLJbMX6WHYC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=%22mark+used+q%22&source=web&ots=R5bg5m-Ruj&sig=s1iyi7kwUyJxd42ffk4bBzPD6eo If it could be shown that Mark used Q, then Q could safely be placed at least a few years before 70. But scholars are very much divided on the question of whether Mark knows the final form of Q or merely shares some tradition with Q. The matter is complicated by
EXTENDED QUOTES: "Dr. Marcus turns next to the question of whether Mark used "Q." Typically Q has referred to material used by Matthew/Luke but not by Mark. But is this the case? We know that Markian material and Q material do sometimes speak to the same story. An example would be the temptation story. Mark's is 2 verses, Matthew's 11, and Luke's 13. Similarly, all write a parable about the mustard seed. The Matthew/Luke version is almost identical to each other, but vastly different from Mark's.
Why does this matter? It matters simply because if Mark did use Q we can examine his editing, the same way we can examine the editing of Matthew/Luke of Mark. Unfortunately the evidence here is weak. It is likely at least the Mark was aware of Q sayings, but much more gets one into the same problems we have assuming a Matthew or Luke priority. Mark is just leaving out hugely important stories that favor his theological themes.
Additionally, if Mark used Q, his versions should be more developed, instead of less. And we see again and again, that the Matthew/Luke use of Q ends up smoother and less awkward in language and syntax than the comparable story in Mark. Marcus remains unconvinced." http://iowamusings.blogspot.com/2007/10/gospel-of-mark-7.html
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1550-3283%28191210%2916%3A4%3C634%3ADMUQOD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage Did Mark Use Q or did Q User Mark?
[edit] Did Thomas use Q?
[edit] The Date of Q
Given Q's silence on the his issue of the resurrection, some scholars suggest Q must have been written no later than 50 CE[2]
[edit] The Q Community
[edit] Notable Contents of Q
[edit] Contents of Q
Some of the most notable portions of the New Testament are believed to have originated in Q:
[edit] Expanded Content of Q
Title Verses in Luke Verses in Matthew John's preaching (Lk 3:7-9, Mt 3:7-10) The Coming One (Lk 3:16-17, Mt 3:11-12) Jesus Tested (Lk 4:1-13, Mt 4:1-4, 9-12, 5-7, 13) Inaugural sermon (Lk 6:12, 17, 20 ; Matt 5:1-2) Congratulations (Lk 6:20-26, Mt 5:3,6, 4, 11-12) Love of enemies (Lk 6:27-36, Matt 5:44, 39-42; 7:12; 5:46-47, 45, 48 On judging (Lk 6:37-38, Matt 7:1-2 Blind guides (Lk 6:39-40, Matt 15:14; 10:24-25 On pretense (Lk 6:41-42, Matt 7:3-5 Tree & fruit (Lk 6:43-45, Matt 7:16-20; 12:33-35 Foundations (Lk 6:46-49, Matt 7:21, 24-27 Centurion's slave (Lk 7:1-10, Matt 7:28; 8:5-10, 13 John's inquiry (Lk 7:18-20, 22-23 Matt 11:2-6 Jesus praises John (Lk 7:24-28 Matt 11:7-11 Law & prophets (Lk 16:16, Matt 11:12-13 Children in the marketplace (Lk 7:31-35, Matt 11:16-19 Foxes have dens (Lk 9:57-62, Matt 8:19-22 The Mission Speech (Lk 10:2-12 Matt 9:37-38; 10:7-16 Damn you Chorazin (Lk 10:13-15 Matt 11:21-24 Rejecting the sender (Lk 10:16 Matt 10:40 Father & son (Lk 10:21-22, Matt 11:25-27 Privileged eyes (Luke 10:23-24 Matt 13:16-17 Lord's prayer (Luke 11:2-4, Matt 6:9-13 Ask, seek, knock (Luke 11:9-13 Matt 7:7-11 Beelzebul controversy (Luke 11:14-23 Matt 12:22-30 Return of an unclean spirit (Luke 11:24-26 Matt 12:43-45 Congratulations to the womb (Luke 11:27-28 Request for a sign (Luke 11:16, 29-32 Matt 12:38-42 Lamp & bushel (Luke 11:33 Matt 5:15 Eye & light (Luke 11:34-36 Matt 6:22-23 Prophet's tombs (Luke 11:47-48 Matt 23:29-32 Wisdom's oracle (Luke 11:49-51 Matt 23:34-36 Blocking the way (Luke 11:52 Matt 23:13 Veiled & unveiled (Luke 12:2-3 Matt 10:26-27 God & sparrows (Luke 12:4-7 Matt 10:28-31 Before the father (Luke 12:8-9 Matt 10:32-33 Blasphemies (Luke 12:10 Matt 12:32 Spirit under trial (Luke 12:11-12 Matt 10:19 Disputed inheritance (Luke 12:13-14 Rich farmer (Luke 12:16-21 On anxieties (Luke 12:22-31 Matt 6:25-33 On possessions (Luke 12:33-34 Matt 6:19-21 Homeowner & burglar (Luke 12:39-40 Matt 24:43-44 Unexpected return (Luke 12:42-46 Matt 24:45-51 Peace or conflict (Luke 12:49, 51-53 Matt 10:34-36 Knowing the times (Luke 12:54-56 Matt 16:2-3 Before the judge (Luke 12:57-59 Matt 5:25-26 Mustard seed & leaven (Luke 13:18-21 Matt 13:31-33 Two gates (Luke 13:24-27 Matt 7:13-14, 22-23 Dining with patriarchs (Luke 13:28-30 Matt 8:11-12; 20:16 Jerusalem indicted (Luke 13:34-35 Matt 23:37-39 Promotion & demotion (Luke 14:11, 18:14 Matt 23:12 The feast (Luke 14:16-24 Matt 22:1-10 Hating one's family (Luke 14:26-27, 17:33 Matt 10:37-39 Saltless salt (Luke 14:34-35 Matt 5:13 Lost sheep & coin (Luke 15:4-10 Matt 18:12-13 Two masters (Luke 16:13 Matt 6:24 God's rule & violence (Luke 16:16 Matt 11:12-13 Not one serif (Luke 16:17 Matt 5:18 On divorce (Luke 16:18 Matt 5:32 Millstone award (Luke 17:1-2 Matt 18:6-7 Scold & forgive (Luke 17:3-4 Matt 18:15, 21-22 Mountains into the sea (Luke 17:6 Matt 17:20 Coming of son of Adam (Lk 17:22-24, 26-30, 34-35, 37 Mt 24:26-28, 37, 39-41 Entrusted money (Luke 19:12-26 Matt 25:14-30 On twelve thrones (Luke 22:28-30 Matt 19:28
[edit] The case for a common second source
The existence of Q follows from the argument that neither Matthew nor Luke is directly dependent on the other in the double tradition (what New Testament scholars call the material that Matthew and Luke share that does not appear in Mark). However, the verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke is so close in some parts of the double tradition that the only reasonable explanation for this agreement is common dependence on a written source or sources. Even if Matthew and Luke are independent (see Markan priority), the Q hypothesis states that they used a common document. Arguments for Q being a written document include:
- Exactness in wording. 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 present two versions of a similar saying but in different contexts. Doublets may be considered a sign of two written sources.
- Certain themes, such as the Deuteronomistic view of history, are more prominent in Q than in either Matthew or Luke individually.
- Luke mentions that he knows of other written sources of Jesus' life, and that he has investigated in order to gather the most information. (Luke 1:1-4)
[edit] The case against Q
Austin Farrer [3], Michael Goulder [4] and Mark Goodacre[5] have argued against Q, while maintaining Markan priority, claiming the use of Matthew by Luke. Other scholars argue against Q because they hold to Matthean priority (see: Augustinian hypothesis). Their arguments include:
- There is a "prima facie case" that two documents both correcting Mark's language, adding birth narratives and a resurrection epilogue, and adding a large amount of sayings material are likely to know each other, rather than to have such similar scope by coincidence.
- Specifically, there are 347 instances (by Neirynck's count) where one or more words are added to the Markan text in both Matthew and Luke; these are called the "minor agreements" against Mark. 198 instances involve one word, 82 involve two words, 35 three, 16 four, and 16 instances involve five or more words in the extant texts of Matthew and Luke as compared to Markan passages.
- While supporters say that the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas supports the concept of a "sayings gospel," Mark Goodacre points out that Q has a narrative structure as reconstructed and is not simply a list of sayings.
- Some make an argument based on the fact that there is no extant copy of Q and that no early church writer makes an unambiguous reference to a Q document.
- Scholars such as William Farmer maintain that Matthew was the first Gospel, Luke the second, and that Mark abbreviated Matthew and Luke (the Griesbach hypothesis). Q, part of the Two-Source Hypothesis, would not have existed if Matthean priority is true, as Luke would have gotten his triple tradition ("Markan") and double tradition ("Q") material from Matthew.
- Scholars such as John Wenham hold to the Augustinian hypothesis that Matthew was the first Gospel, Mark the second, and Luke the third, and object on similar grounds to those who hold to the Griesbach hypothesis. They enjoy the support of church tradition on this point.
- In addition, Eta Linnemann rejects the Q document hypothesis and denies the existence of a Synoptic problem at all.[1]
- Nicholas Perrin has argued that the Gospel of Thomas was based on Tatian's Gospel harmony the Diatessaron instead of the Q document.[6]
[edit] History of the Q hypothesis
If Q ever existed, it must have disappeared very early, since no copies of it have been recovered and no definitive notices of it have been recorded in antiquity (but see the discussion of the Papias testimony below).
In modern times, the first person to hypothesize a Q-like source was an Englishman, Herbert Marsh, in 1801 in a complicated solution to the synoptic problem that his contemporaries ignored. Marsh labeled this source with the Hebrew letter beth (ב).
The next person to advance the Q hypothesis was the German Schleiermacher in 1832, who interpreted an enigmatic statement by the early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis, circa 125: "Matthew compiled the oracles (Greek: logia) of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech". Rather than the traditional interpretation that Papias was referring to the writing of Matthew in Hebrew, Schleiermacher believed that Papias was actually giving witness to a sayings collection that was available to the Evangelists.
In 1838 another German, Christian Hermann Weisse, took Schleiermacher's suggestion of a sayings source and combined it with the idea of Markan priority to formulate what is now called the Two-Source Hypothesis, in which both Matthew and Luke used Mark and the sayings source. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed this approach in an influential treatment of the synoptic problem in 1863, and the Two-Source Hypothesis has maintained its dominance ever since.
At this time, Q was usually called the Logia on account of the Papias statement, and Holtzmann gave it the symbol Lambda (Λ). Toward the end of the 19th century, however, doubts began to grow on the propriety of anchoring the existence of the collection of sayings in the testimony of Papias, so a neutral symbol Q (which was devised by Johannes Weiss based on the German Quelle, meaning source) was adopted to remain neutrally independent of the collection of sayings and its connection to Papias.
In the first two decades of the 20th century, more than a dozen reconstructions of Q were made. However, these reconstructions differed so much from each other that not a single verse of Matthew was present in all of them. As a result, interest in Q subsided and it was neglected for many decades.
This state of affairs changed in the 1960s after translations of a newly discovered and analogous sayings collection, the Gospel of Thomas, became available. James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester proposed that collections of sayings such as Q and Thomas represented the earliest Christian materials at an early point in a trajectory that eventually resulted in the canonical gospels.
This burst of interest led to increasingly more sophisticated literary and redactional reconstructions of Q, notably the work of John S. Kloppenborg. Kloppenborg, by analyzing certain literary phenomena, argued that Q was composed in three stages. The earliest stage was a collection of wisdom sayings involving such issues as poverty and discipleship. Then this collection was expanded by including a layer of judgmental sayings directed against "this generation". The final stage included the Temptation of Jesus.
Although Kloppenborg cautioned against assuming that the composition history of Q is the same as the history of the Jesus tradition (i.e. that the oldest layer of Q is necessarily the oldest and pure-layer Jesus tradition), some recent seekers of the Historical Jesus, including the members of the Jesus Seminar, have done just that. Basing their reconstructions primarily on the Gospel of Thomas and the oldest layer of Q, they propose that Jesus functioned as a wisdom sage, rather than a Jewish rabbi, though not all members affirm the two-source hypothesis. Kloppenborg, it should be noted, is now a fellow of the Jesus Seminar himself.
[edit] References
- ^ Matt 3:7-10 & Luke 3:7-9. Text from 1894 Scrivener New Testament
- ^ Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel By John Seargeant Kloppenborg
- ^ Austin M. Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q" in D. E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), pp. 55-88, reproduced at http://NTGateway.com/Q/Farrer.htm.
- ^ For example, Michael Goulder, "Is Q a Juggernaut", Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996), pp. 667-81, reproduced at http://ntgateway.com/Q/goulder.htm.
- ^ See, for example, Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Marcan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002)
- ^ Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship Between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron by Nicholas Perrin published by the Academia Biblica Society of Biblical Literature 2001 ISBN-10: 1589830458
see also NT Wright on Trusting the Gospels
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- A Reconstruction of the Text of Q by James Tabor
- Text and on-line resources for the Lost Sayings Gospel Q
- The New Testament Gateway: The Synoptic Problem and Q
- The Case Against Q, by Mark Goodacre
