-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The "Q" theory
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
It still exists, I found it on Amazon.com.
I don't know much about it, when I first heard about it years ago, I thought it had something to do with Star Trek.
I don't know much about it, when I first heard about it years ago, I thought it had something to do with Star Trek.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
I don't believe it ever existed.
I believe there were numerous source documents, including "Q" as a generic title, the Logia, the Sayings of the Twelve. That would be in keeping with the Jewish culture of that day.
From those, maybe many parts of these were memorized by early believers, the Gospel writers could pick and choose sayings, teachings, etc. They could also borrow from each other.
The Gospel writers were not hermits writing in a vacuum. Matthew, Peter (whose Gospel Mark records), Lucas and John were well-travelled men and had parchments and scrolls and access to a wealth of resources in those first decades of the Christian Church.
From those, maybe many parts of these were memorized by early believers, the Gospel writers could pick and choose sayings, teachings, etc. They could also borrow from each other.
The Gospel writers were not hermits writing in a vacuum. Matthew, Peter (whose Gospel Mark records), Lucas and John were well-travelled men and had parchments and scrolls and access to a wealth of resources in those first decades of the Christian Church.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Because I don't believe it. Do you have a copy of this Q document?
The Q document is a theoretical construct that attempts to explain shared portions of the synoptic gospels as well as the testimony of Papias as provided through Eusebius.
Q, it seems to me, to be a convenient shorthand for the various collections Dr. Bob has cited; the differences in the Gospels could indicate a multitude of sources, not a single document.
There is no known Q document; various attempts to reconstruct it have resulted in versions that don't contain a single verse of Matthew.
The latest interest in the Q document seems to have been created by the Gospel of Thomas, which should be a cautionary note.
In addition, Papias said that Mark was Peter's interpreter, which would indicate that Mark wrote in Greek. Of Matthew he says, "Now Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could."
Because I don't know Greek, I am not sure what "Hebrew manner of speech" means. Is it Hebrew? Aramaic? Or a Palestinian Koine?
"Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ' αὐτὰ ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος."
Q, it seems to me, to be a convenient shorthand for the various collections Dr. Bob has cited; the differences in the Gospels could indicate a multitude of sources, not a single document.
There is no known Q document; various attempts to reconstruct it have resulted in versions that don't contain a single verse of Matthew.
The latest interest in the Q document seems to have been created by the Gospel of Thomas, which should be a cautionary note.
In addition, Papias said that Mark was Peter's interpreter, which would indicate that Mark wrote in Greek. Of Matthew he says, "Now Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could."
Because I don't know Greek, I am not sure what "Hebrew manner of speech" means. Is it Hebrew? Aramaic? Or a Palestinian Koine?
"Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ' αὐτὰ ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος."
I've heard some argue that "Q" was simply oral tradition--there was a body of oral tradition that was used as source for the gospels.
If you've ever lived where a people group practice keeping their history intact through oral tradition, you realize that this it not as far fetched as it seems on the surface.
If you've ever lived where a people group practice keeping their history intact through oral tradition, you realize that this it not as far fetched as it seems on the surface.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Why would anyone assume I am wrong if I don't believe in a theoretical document that no one has ever seen? I believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote what God intended for them to write, plain and simple.
Considering that God inspired the original authors, I agree with you.
God did; however, allow those authors some latitude in their writings. The author's personality and style of writing was maintained. I think the inspiration process was more of a thought for thought basis with God watching over to make sure there were no errors.
Take a look at Revelation. If God were to have specified every word, then the Greek would have probably been a better style.
Some of Paul's arrogance was demonstrated in his epistles. I think God did this for a reason. The Bible contains the good, the bad and the ugly. We are all human and He certainly did not hide the fact that the authors or the people who they wrote about were perfect Christians.
If we know that King David can commit adultry and murder, then when we fail, we will not give up hope. This by no means tells us it is okay to sin. But, it puts Christianity into perspective in a world full of sin.
Because God allowed personality of the author, I have no doubt that He allowed some of those authors to obtain their information through possible secular sources. If Q did indeed exist, it would not harm my belief in the inspiration of the originals. It would have simply been "reference material".
Marcia
Active Member
I agree with Terry. Q is entirely hypothetical; there is no evidence for it. I first came across it as a new believer when I was visiting a rather liberal church. It confused me at first because what I was reading assumed there was a Q document and I wondered why I had never heard of it. Then I learned it doesn't exist!
My understanding is that the Q theory arose from German Higher Criticism in the 1800's -- people who sought to give human, non-supernatural explanations to how the Bible came about.
I think the onus is on the Q proponents to show evidence for such a document. But they can't because it doesn't exist -- God inspired the Gospel writers just as He inspired all the other writers of the Bible.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
God could have used Q to help Matthew and Luke know what to write; or God could have done it some other way. Regardless, it is plain that Matthew and Luke have some teachings of Jesus that Mark didn't have. So their source is "Q" but that's only shorthand for "what was it?"
How can you NOT believe in something that is really a question instead of a statement?
How can you NOT believe in something that is really a question instead of a statement?
Daniel David
New Member
"Q" was first popularized by liberals who did not want to accept the inerrancy of Scripture.
I hold to Matthean priority, and therefore have no need for Q. It is just a theory. Still, it is more credible that KJVO.
I hold to Matthean priority, and therefore have no need for Q. It is just a theory. Still, it is more credible that KJVO.
Marcia
Active Member
When I've read about Q, it's always presented as almost a fact, not as a question. Why wouldn't the 4 gospel writers have different info? God used each of them and their own relationship and history with Jesus differently. So some of the info is the same, some different, but the info comes through their own unique personalities, and each gospel has its own unique slant. Amazing how the HS does this! It seems easy to me.
Daniel David
New Member
Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark wrote down Peter's sermons. That leaves Luke. Luke said he studied prior to the writing of his gospel. That would include interviews (with Mary?), the disciples, the writings of Matthew, etc. Q is only necessary if one denies inspiration.
I can remember covering the Q concept in school and it didn't make much sense then either. There is a bit of box folks seem to paint themselves into with Q. If there is information two people recorded they had to get it from someone else (Q) and sense we don't have Q we can't be sure if the information is accurate. If they have unique information it must not be original because no one else has the information and we can't be sure it is accurate. Either way you are left with the opportunity to deny the authenticty of scripture.