Dan Wallace weighs in on Q

[Greektim]

Since it made for some good discussion, I thought I would point to this article just published on Wallace's blog.

He basically says that the arguments of Q are fairly weak:
(1) We would not expect any Q document to exist if Matthew and Luke "swallowed" it up. Why keep it around as a separate document if it has been improved by Luke and Matthew?
(2) If there are only 2 (published) Mss of Mark before the 4th century (though long considered canonical by the 2nd century), why would we expect a Q document to have survived as well (especially considering #1)?
(3) It is possible that we have remnants of a proto-Q document in many of the Luke/Matthew Ms fragments. Wallace then gives a short list of 8 Mss (all from Luke btw, though he explains why this is the case) and argues why these may be a valid Q document or at least a proto-Q document

He then goes on to give 5 guidelines to id a Q Ms (all to be taken as a whole to aid in id not to solidify):
(1) early (pre 4th century date)
(2) exclusive double-tradition w/ Matt (duh!)
(3) no markings id it from Luke (as was done in the Eusebian canons)
(4) different order as we find in Luke (or Matt?); this is his strongest point IMO
(5) slight difference between Luke (indicating a Lukan redaction)

At the end of the article, he applies these criteria to the 8 Mss mentioned above.

He goes on to give other proofs of the existence of Q, but I'm not going to list them all. Check out the article. Even if you disagree (and I still do), it shows that this is not simply a modernist way to deny inspiration. Prominent evangelical scholars hold to it at the same time holding to inspiration. Wallace is a good example. And he even admits that he is not holding his breath that any soon to be published Mss will be a Q document. But he is obviously hopeful (probably in the same way a pro-Byzantine text person is hopeful that these finds confirm ancient Byzantine readings).

 

[preachinjesus]

This is a helpful piece. Notice how Wallace, a legitimate scholar, is able to consider the entire picture and draw excellent points from his work.

Ultimately I think the whole thing about Q for so many evangelicals ends up being about a misunderstanding concerning inspiration. Even if a Q document existed (I do not hold that a physical document existed) it wouldn't corrupt a proper understanding of inspiration. You can be fully evangelical, fully biblical, fully conservative, and fully support inerrancy while also fully holding to Q.

From the conversation we had around here I am more convinced that the difficulties around this issue primarily stem from a misunderstanding of the doctrine of inspiration.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Since it made for some good discussion, I thought I would point to this article just published on Wallace's blog.

He basically says that the arguments of Q are fairly weak:


I agree with Dan Wallace on the weakness of the elusive Q document. If there is such a document, God, in His providence, has not allowed it to be found. If it did show up, it would be interesting, but not change the fact that the driving force in scripture is that God breathed it to man. I don't see how a Q document fits in the inspiration of the scriptures, but God did inspire some writers to quote or reference books not in the canon, so anything is possible. I guess the question there is that if any of the Gospel writers did use Q, then why is there no reference made identifying Q?

 

[Yeshua1]

Since it made for some good discussion, I thought I would point to this article just published on Wallace's blog.

He basically says that the arguments of Q are fairly weak:


I agree with Dan Wallace on the weakness of the elusive Q document. If there is such a document, God, in His providence, has not allowed it to be found. If it did show up, it would be interesting, but not change the fact that the driving force in scripture is that God breathed it to man. I don't see how a Q document fits in the inspiration of the scriptures, but God did inspire some writers to quote or reference books not in the canon, so anything is possible. I guess the question there is that if any of the Gospel writers did use Q, then why is there no reference made identifying Q?

Just wondering why is there such a need to determine that Q document actually ever existed in the past? Why assume that it did, for could not the Gospels been written by each writer under inspiration of the Holy spirit, using each individual research and notes as is?

 

[quantumfaith]

Since it made for some good discussion, I thought I would point to this article just published on Wallace's blog.

He basically says that the arguments of Q are fairly weak:
(1) We would not expect any Q document to exist if Matthew and Luke "swallowed" it up. Why keep it around as a separate document if it has been improved by Luke and Matthew?
(2) If there are only 2 (published) Mss of Mark before the 4th century (though long considered canonical by the 2nd century), why would we expect a Q document to have survived as well (especially considering #1)?
(3) It is possible that we have remnants of a proto-Q document in many of the Luke/Matthew Ms fragments. Wallace then gives a short list of 8 Mss (all from Luke btw, though he explains why this is the case) and argues why these may be a valid Q document or at least a proto-Q document

He then goes on to give 5 guidelines to id a Q Ms (all to be taken as a whole to aid in id not to solidify):
(1) early (pre 4th century date)
(2) exclusive double-tradition w/ Matt (duh!)
(3) no markings id it from Luke (as was done in the Eusebian canons)
(4) different order as we find in Luke (or Matt?); this is his strongest point IMO
(5) slight difference between Luke (indicating a Lukan redaction)

At the end of the article, he applies these criteria to the 8 Mss mentioned above.

He goes on to give other proofs of the existence of Q, but I'm not going to list them all. Check out the article. Even if you disagree (and I still do), it shows that this is not simply a modernist way to deny inspiration. Prominent evangelical scholars hold to it at the same time holding to inspiration. Wallace is a good example. And he even admits that he is not holding his breath that any soon to be published Mss will be a Q document. But he is obviously hopeful (probably in the same way a pro-Byzantine text person is hopeful that these finds confirm ancient Byzantine readings).

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

This is a helpful piece. Notice how Wallace, a legitimate scholar, is able to consider the entire picture and draw excellent points from his work.

Ultimately I think the whole thing about Q for so many evangelicals ends up being about a misunderstanding concerning inspiration. Even if a Q document existed (I do not hold that a physical document existed) it wouldn't corrupt a proper understanding of inspiration. You can be fully evangelical, fully biblical, fully conservative, and fully support inerrancy while also fully holding to Q.

From the conversation we had around here I am more convinced that the difficulties around this issue primarily stem from a misunderstanding of the doctrine of inspiration.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Greektim]

Just wondering why is there such a need to determine that Q document actually ever existed in the past? Why assume that it did, for could not the Gospels been written by each writer under inspiration of the Holy spirit, using each individual research and notes as is?
Reply With Quote

The fact that the synoptics are in fact synoptic implies that there was some inter-dependence amongst them. The debate is what relied on what and so on. This does have a bearing on interpretation when comparing one account to another. Thankfully, however, gospel studies are moving into a literary direction and away from source criticism and redaction criticism. The synoptics are being studied as their own literary work and with their own theological emphasis. One of the best books I have read recently on the synoptics is Reading the Gospels Wisely by Dr. Pennington.

 

[Yeshua1]

The fact that the synoptics are in fact synoptic implies that there was some inter-dependence amongst them. The debate is what relied on what and so on. This does have a bearing on interpretation when comparing one account to another. Thankfully, however, gospel studies are moving into a literary direction and away from source criticism and redaction criticism. The synoptics are being studied as their own literary work and with their own theological emphasis. One of the best books I have read recently on the synoptics is Reading the Gospels Wisely by Dr. Pennington.

Each Gospel writer had his own "agenda" to further in His Gospel, correct?

And they could use their own sources/eyewitnsses etc without needing to rely upon some other Gospel ?

 

[Van]

Dr. Wallace seems to be saying none of the currently known fragments appear to be copies of the "Q" source which some scholars believe formed part of the basis of Luke and Matthew and even perhaps Mark.

As we see with Jesus, an inspired author can quote or paraphrase all or part of an existing document while making the same or a different point. Thus in Jude we can have references to an uninspired document, but still consider that portion included by the inspired author as inspired. So whether or not the "Q" source was inspired or not does not matter. If that source is quoted or paraphrased by an inspired author, i.e. Luke, then the gospel of Luke remains fully inspired.