Quelle

[quantumfaith]

I would like to know some of the thoughts of "yall" scholars and theologians on "Q". I am not approaching from a "liberal theology" perspective (although several view me as such). Just interested in your thoughts as to the possibility or likelihood that the synoptic writers may have used some common source as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to pen the gospel narratives.

Just trying to learn.

 

[Greektim]

I would like to know some of the thoughts of "yall" scholars and theologians on "Q". I am not approaching from a "liberal theology" perspective (although several view me as such). Just interested in your thoughts as to the possibility or likelihood that the synoptic writers may have used some common source as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to pen the gospel narratives.

Just trying to learn.

While it is possible, I think the probability is very low. I am amazed at how vast the theory has caught in synoptic studies amongst NT scholars. It goes right along with Markan priority, the other prominent view. But I guess I have been influenced enough by my prof and read a few things and researched only a tiny bit myself that make me opt for Matthaen priority. It is also a view that does away with the need for Q.

Here is an interview that might help explain what I am talking about.

 

[Yeshua1]

While it is possible, I think the probability is very low. I am amazed at how vast the theory has caught in synoptic studies amongst NT scholars. It goes right along with Markan priority, the other prominent view. But I guess I have been influenced enough by my prof and read a few things and researched only a tiny bit myself that make me opt for Matthaen priority. It is also a view that does away with the need for Q.

Here is an interview that might help explain what I am talking about.

Agree with you that matthew was written as first Gospel, earlier than many suppossed for its dating, and that the Gospel writers did not just go into a " Spirit trance" to record the books, but that they collected eveidence, spoke to eye witnesses, verified historical accuracy of the fcats, ALL unsder supervision of the Spirit, who made sure all written was fully accurate!

Those holding to Q argue for either liberal/critical views inspiration, or else see apostles as being robots wriiting in a trance like state!

 

[Greektim]

Agree with you that matthew was written as first Gospel, earlier than many suppossed for its dating, and that the Gospel writers did not just go into a " Spirit trance" to record the books, but that they collected eveidence, spoke to eye witnesses, verified historical accuracy of the fcats, ALL unsder supervision of the Spirit, who made sure all written was fully accurate!

Those holding to Q argue for either liberal/critical views inspiration, or else see apostles as being robots wriiting in a trance like state!

I think that is a misrepresentation (or at least a bit harsh) for those evangelicals holding to Q. It is a hypothesis has 0 Mss support, making it very implausible for me.

If I may, I would recommend reading The Progressive Publication of Matthew (which the PhD dissertation version can be viewed here)

 

[SolaSaint]

If I may, how much influence does "Q" have in our seminaries?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would like to know some of the thoughts of "yall" scholars and theologians on "Q". I am not approaching from a "liberal theology" perspective (although several view me as such). Just interested in your thoughts as to the possibility or likelihood that the synoptic writers may have used some common source as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to pen the gospel narratives.

Just trying to learn.

"Q" do you mean the scientist that comes up with all those cool gadgets for 007? He is sooooo cool! :thumbsup:

 

[Greektim]

If I may, how much influence does "Q" have in our seminaries?

A great deal of influence. It is the standard academic view of the synoptics. I've heard it said that if we ever leave markan priority (which much of the time assumes a Q source for the similarities between Matthew and Luke; not to mention the M and L sources) then we would have to re-write 95% of gospel commentaries.

 

[quantumfaith]

While it is possible, I think the probability is very low. I am amazed at how vast the theory has caught in synoptic studies amongst NT scholars. It goes right along with Markan priority, the other prominent view. But I guess I have been influenced enough by my prof and read a few things and researched only a tiny bit myself that make me opt for Matthaen priority. It is also a view that does away with the need for Q.

Here is an interview that might help explain what I am talking about.

Thanks for sharing this GT. I found it quite interesting, may have to put "Why four Gospels" on my reading list.

Currently reading "The History of Christianity by Johnson, started it sometime back, but got distracted with other things. Hoping to plow through it now. Happy New Year.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I would like to know some of the thoughts of "yall" scholars and theologians on "Q". I am not approaching from a "liberal theology" perspective (although several view me as such). Just interested in your thoughts as to the possibility or likelihood that the synoptic writers may have used some common source as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to pen the gospel narratives.

I don't have any problem with the idea since Luke declares outright that he used sources and investigated the life of Jesus himself and wanted to lay things out in consecutive order (Luke 1:3).

However there just doesn't seem to be any real evidence for it. It certainly would make sense, but just because it makes sense doesn't mean it happened.

I think it would be fair to say that Luke was the third gospel written and John was the fourth, but as far as I know, we don't have any decisive evidence whether Matthew or Mark was the first gospel written.

Ultimately, it shouldn't matter in regard to our interpretation of scripture.

 

[stilllearning]

I am getting more and more excited!

That fact that nobody seems to be concerned that both Q and markan priority, totally forsake verbal inspiration, is a good sign that the Lord’s return is even that much closer.
(That is, with more and more of the “Church”, so openly turning from God’s Word.)

The more the world/Church turns from the LORD, the more ready it is to accept the anti-Christ.

 

[Baptist Believer]

That fact that nobody seems to be concerned that both Q and markan priority, totally forsake verbal inspiration, is a good sign that the Lord’s return is even that much closer.
(That is, with more and more of the “Church”, so openly turning from God’s Word.)

The more the world/Church turns from the LORD, the more ready it is to accept the anti-Christ.

Why are you "openly turning from God's word" by ignoring Luke 1:3 that tells us that Luke investigated the life of Jesus? He didn't take dictation (which is verbal inspiration), so verbal inspiration - as the general method of inspiration - is invalid.

You presume that those who don't hold to the unbiblical view of verbal inspiration are turning from God. Get over yourself and check the scriptures you claim to believe.

 

[stilllearning]

I don't have any problem with the idea since Luke declares outright that he used sources and investigated the life of Jesus himself and wanted to lay things out in consecutive order (Luke 1:3).

However there just doesn't seem to be any real evidence for it. It certainly would make sense, but just because it makes sense doesn't mean it happened.

I think it would be fair to say that Luke was the third gospel written and John was the fourth, but as far as I know, we don't have any decisive evidence whether Matthew or Mark was the first gospel written.

Ultimately, it shouldn't matter in regard to our interpretation of scripture.

You said.....

“I don't have any problem with the idea since Luke declares outright that he used sources and investigated the life of Jesus himself and wanted to lay things out in consecutive order (Luke 1:3).”

That is not really what Luke declared.......
Luke 1:1-4
V.1 ¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
V.2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
V.3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
V.4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
------------------------
V.1 “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order”
“a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,”

(This is an “Attitude” that is at the heart of our faith
There are some things that are most surely believed among us.

Note: If you Don’t “surely believe” the Bible than YOU ARE NOT SAVED!
John 5:46,47 “For had ye believed Moses.......”
------------------------
V.1 & 2 V.1A “As many have taken in hand....”
V.2 “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;”

This is talking about the uninspired writings of men(Because men have always written about Jesus); But they can only give you eyewitness accounts:
Just a “head knowledge” of the LORD:
Therefore they aren’t worth very much!
------------------------
V.3A “It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding”
The supernatural quality of Inspired writings: They are a perfect record!
Here, the Lord gave Luke a perfect understanding of every word to write!
------------------------
V.3C “Of all things from the very first"
This is the true source of Inspired writings: (They are “from above”

These 4 words(“from the very first"): Come from the Same Greek Word translated "From Above" in other parts of the Bible John 3:3 & 31
------------------------
The true source of Luke’s Gospel account, was not from himself or eyewitness accounts(like the other writings he mentioned), but from the LORD(from above).

 

[preachinjesus]

I would like to know some of the thoughts of "yall" scholars and theologians on "Q". I am not approaching from a "liberal theology" perspective (although several view me as such). Just interested in your thoughts as to the possibility or likelihood that the synoptic writers may have used some common source as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to pen the gospel narratives.

Just trying to learn.

Its an important question. GT has provided, as usual, a wise answer. As I've seen there is still a stable reliance on the Q tradition. Several major works in 2012 even continued to work through specific issues related to Q and how it might best be understood synoptically and textually. I would say that within academic circles the Q theory is still very much en vogue among mainstream scholars and continues to have a remnant of acceptance among evangelical scholars.

As for my position (which is perhaps conjectural at best, I'm a historical theology guy) I hold that there were probably multiple oral traditions circulating by the time the Gospel writers sat down to put their stories to paper/parchment. One of the things we must keep in mind is that even in the most conservative (and reasonable) dating of the NT documents you don't see the Synoptics until about AD 50-65. So that's about fifteen to twenty years between the resurrection and when the authors sat to write. Pretty lengthy time for the earliest Christians to just sit there without having some existing oral traditions. I don't hold that Q is a singular document of sayings of Jesus that was written and available. We have zero textual evidence for a physical document. Matthean or Markan priority both have good cases, though given the oral nature of the transmission and inscripturation of Mark's Gospel (likely by Peter) I can hold the GMatt informs GLuke as a kind of textual foundation.

One simply cannot reasonably hold to verbal dictation theory of inspiration when you look closely at the documents of the NT. In fact, several go out of their way to say they are dictated from God, though they do accept (in a roundabout way) inspiration (rightfully so.) I'm not offended by a Q tradition. I'm not offended by a Q document but I do challenge my scholarly peers to produce a textual basis for it. In a time when the earliest manuscript data is shading towards late 1st century and early 2nd century discoveries, why hasn't a Q document survived?

I believe there is likely a number of oral sources that informed the Synoptic writers. There was probably a set of sayings of Jesus that informed the earliest Christian communities in their worship and practice. As the Gospel proceeded forth, there was a need to explicitly cite things Jesus said and did as a basis for authority and ministry. In a culture where the vast majority of people were illiterate and already had an oral tradition built in, an oral tradition was probably a realistic probability.

I'd be interested as to why, from the assembled here, Q presents a challenge to biblical evangelicalism? Why does it challenge our established notions of inspiration?

That would an interesting conversation to see.

 

[quantumfaith]

Its an important question. GT has provided, as usual, a wise answer. As I've seen there is still a stable reliance on the Q tradition. Several major works in 2012 even continued to work through specific issues related to Q and how it might best be understood synoptically and textually. I would say that within academic circles the Q theory is still very much en vogue among mainstream scholars and continues to have a remnant of acceptance among evangelical scholars.

As for my position (which is perhaps conjectural at best, I'm a historical theology guy) I hold that there were probably multiple oral traditions circulating by the time the Gospel writers sat down to put their stories to paper/parchment. One of the things we must keep in mind is that even in the most conservative (and reasonable) dating of the NT documents you don't see the Synoptics until about AD 50-65. So that's about fifteen to twenty years between the resurrection and when the authors sat to write. Pretty lengthy time for the earliest Christians to just sit there without having some existing oral traditions. I don't hold that Q is a singular document of sayings of Jesus that was written and available. We have zero textual evidence for a physical document. Matthean or Markan priority both have good cases, though given the oral nature of the transmission and inscripturation of Mark's Gospel (likely by Peter) I can hold the GMatt informs GLuke as a kind of textual foundation.

One simply cannot reasonably hold to verbal dictation theory of inspiration when you look closely at the documents of the NT. In fact, several go out of their way to say they are dictated from God, though they do accept (in a roundabout way) inspiration (rightfully so.) I'm not offended by a Q tradition. I'm not offended by a Q document but I do challenge my scholarly peers to produce a textual basis for it. In a time when the earliest manuscript data is shading towards late 1st century and early 2nd century discoveries, why hasn't a Q document survived?

I believe there is likely a number of oral sources that informed the Synoptic writers. There was probably a set of sayings of Jesus that informed the earliest Christian communities in their worship and practice. As the Gospel proceeded forth, there was a need to explicitly cite things Jesus said and did as a basis for authority and ministry. In a culture where the vast majority of people were illiterate and already had an oral tradition built in, an oral tradition was probably a realistic probability.

I'd be interested as to why, from the assembled here, Q presents a challenge to biblical evangelicalism? Why does it challenge our established notions of inspiration?

That would an interesting conversation to see.

Thanks PJ for your thoughtful and informative post. I have read that there is some evidence that the oral tradition was occurring in the transmission of knowledge in the early church....particularly in the form of hymns sung at their worship gatherings. I too think it is an interesting question (for some to challenge themselves with) as to how some common source such as "Q" or others in anyway diminishes the role of God in the revelation of the NT.

 

[Greektim]

I am getting more and more excited!

That fact that nobody seems to be concerned that both Q and markan priority, totally forsake verbal inspiration, is a good sign that the Lord’s return is even that much closer.
(That is, with more and more of the “Church”, so openly turning from God’s Word.)

The more the world/Church turns from the LORD, the more ready it is to accept the anti-Christ.

Q aside, how does Markan priority forsake verbal inspiration???

 

[Baptist Believer]

That is not really what Luke declared.......
Luke 1:1-4
V.1 ¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
V.2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
V.3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
V.4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

I see you are using a version of the KJV.

Here's the passage in NASB:

Luke 1:1-4:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

That's where I'm getting my assertion. Luke was a companion of Paul and was unlikely to have been an eyewitness of the life and ministry of Jesus incarnate. However, he was part of a body of believers which undoubtedly included eyewitnesses of Jesus incarnate and well as being an eyewitness of the ministry of the early church which spread the message of the gospel (the word - the declaration of the availability of the Kingdom of God).

If you Don’t “surely believe” the Bible than YOU ARE NOT SAVED!

Who has claimed they do not believe the Bible? Not me. Not anyone else in this thread.

This is talking about the uninspired writings of men(Because men have always written about Jesus); But they can only give you eyewitness accounts:
Just a “head knowledge” of the LORD:
Therefore they aren’t worth very much!

I would be delighted to read legitimate eyewitness accounts of Jesus, regardless of whether the writings were "inspired" or not "inspired."

If the account is true, it is worthwhile.

The true source of Luke’s Gospel account, was not from himself or eyewitness accounts(like the other writings he mentioned), but from the LORD(from above).

They are a work of God and Luke in unison. Luke's Gentile background drives him to organize the story of Jesus in more or less consecutive order as opposed to the more thematic organizations of the other gospels. Luke also uses different words than Matthew or Mark when he "quotes" Jesus, providing interpretation according to his background and interests.

While verbal inspiration provides a nice efficient theory, close examination of the gospel documents undermines that theory. Certainly the gospels are inspired, but the method of inspiration is more mysterious and not easily quantified by those who want nice, neat theories. The way one knows they are inspired is by putting the words of Jesus and the gospel writers into practice.

 

[Yeshua1]

A great deal of influence. It is the standard academic view of the synoptics. I've heard it said that if we ever leave markan priority (which much of the time assumes a Q source for the similarities between Matthew and Luke; not to mention the M and L sources) then we would have to re-write 95% of gospel commentaries.

Interesting that ALL we have is conjecture, specualtions though...

have there EVER been any manuscript found that resembles this 'Q?"

 

[quantumfaith]

Interesting that ALL we have is conjecture, specualtions though...

have there EVER been any manuscript found that resembles this 'Q?"

I understand your question, have you ever seen any autographs of the canonized scripture?

 

[Greektim]

Interesting that ALL we have is conjecture, specualtions though...

have there EVER been any manuscript found that resembles this 'Q?"

I find it interesting that even when I support a view that I clearly don't hold, I get lumped in with them. I already stated this. But the hypothesis works without Mss, although we all know that a Q Ms would make their day. I'm just looking forward to this supposed 1st cent. Ms of Mark to be published in the upcoming year.

 

[John of Japan]

I would like to know some of the thoughts of "yall" scholars and theologians on "Q". I am not approaching from a "liberal theology" perspective (although several view me as such). Just interested in your thoughts as to the possibility or likelihood that the synoptic writers may have used some common source as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to pen the gospel narratives.

Just trying to learn.

As GreekTim pointed out, Q has 0 manuscript support. It also has 0 historical support. Some would point to the statement by church father Papias that there was an Aramaic/Hebrew origin to Matthew's Gospel (a disputed interpretation of Papias). But that isn't Q.

Having translated the Gospels into Japanese, we are now reviewing our translation, will finish Mark today and begin Luke next week. In the process I've examined the Greek of every single parallel passage in the Synoptics, and I feel the resemblances (supposedly explaind by Q or Markan priority) are overblown. There are times that the Greek is precisely the same between Matthew and Mark, but that is seldom true in Luke, who goes his own way lots of times. And even Mark and Matthew have their own wording the greater majority of times. If Q existed, there would be a lot more agreement between Mark and Matthew.

I find it easy to explain the times that the wording is exactly the same between synoptics by the fact that the original was exactly the same: the wording and works of Jesus. The human authors (and I believe in verbal-plenary inspiration) may have consulted with each other. That is unproveable historically and maybe linguistically, but even if proven would not affect my belief in verbal-plenary inspiration. The Bible is a human-divine book any way you cut it.