To Q or not to Q? ... that is the question

[toejam]

What are your thoughts on the Q hypothesis? Do you think it existed? How confident can we be in reconstructing it? Should it be used as a 'source' for the historical Jesus?

What arguments for its existence do you find persuasive? What arguments against its existence do you find persuasive?

My own thoughts are tentative. I've read Kloppenborg and Goodacre, and I find that both make good points. I'm not convinced that Luke is entirely independent of Matthew, but nor am I convinced that all of Luke's double-tradition material is sourced from Matthew. Sometimes Luke does seem to preserve the earlier reading. My own view is that Luke is dependent on both Mark, Matthew and a Q-like document/sayings tradition that Matthew was also aware of. I don't think the synoptic problem can be as easily solved as either the 'Two-Source' or the 'Farrer' hypotheses suggest. I think it's more complex than that. I think there's probably a bit of truth in both hypotheses. But that is just my tentative conclusion, and I don't have much confidence behind it.

[Bernard Muller]

Q has been discussed on this forum at length.
I have a webpage in favor of its past existence here, with arguments against "Luke" knowing about gMatthew:
http://historical-jesus.info/q.html
If my conclusion about the great omission in Luke' gospel is accepted, then "Luke" did not have gMark & gMatthew together (only gMark & Q): http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html
Cordially, Bernard

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think it's almost a distinction without a difference. Nobody thinks Matthew composed the Q material himself, do they? So either way the Q material predates Matthew which means it is only academic whether Luke had access to the material independently, only through Matthew or both.

[Peter Kirby]

It's not entirely academic.

A text presupposes a writer. It also suggests a community that would use it, given the expense of texts back then.

As Goodacre points out, a 'pedagogical virtue' of Q is that it points to a community that celebrated Jesus but without a big emphasis on the cross and Easter. Sometimes young seminarians need that extra push to see that possibility.

When it comes to the discussion of the historical Jesus, or the historicity of Jesus, this becomes either a point of data that needs to be explained--or, if there is no Q, nothing at all needs to be explained about it. Significantly, Doherty spends a good chunk (maybe a third) of his "Jesus Puzzle" book hacking away at an explanation of Q.

Without Q, the Q material becomes exactly like Sondergut M (or L), just some more stuff being said or made up about Jesus at the time of the writing of the synoptics. Significantly, there would be less evidence that there was ever anyone in the 1st century who believed in Jesus apart from the story of his death and resurrection.

[Metacrock]

It's not entirely academic.

A text presupposes a writer. It also suggests a community that would use it, given the expense of texts back then.

As Goodacre points out, a 'pedagogical virtue' of Q is that it points to a community that celebrated Jesus but without a big emphasis on the cross and Easter. Sometimes young seminarians need that extra push to see that possibility.

When it comes to the discussion of the historical Jesus, or the historicity of Jesus, this becomes either a point of data that needs to be explained--or, if there is no Q, nothing at all needs to be explained about it. Significantly, Doherty spends a good chunk (maybe a third) of his "Jesus Puzzle" book hacking away at an explanation of Q.

Without Q, the Q material becomes exactly like Sondergut M (or L), just some more stuff being said or made up about Jesus at the time of the writing of the synoptics. Significantly, there would be less evidence that there was ever anyone in the 1st century who believed in Jesus apart from the story of his death and resurrection.

there are other reasons why Q might lack those elements, including the fact that it may not have. Since we dont' have a copy. Mat might have left out the Q version because it too much like the one he did use.

another to consider is that a saying source doesn't place the focus on action that might be why it lacks reference tot he cross. It's a saying source.

[Peter Kirby]

It's not entirely academic.

A text presupposes a writer. It also suggests a community that would use it, given the expense of texts back then.

As Goodacre points out, a 'pedagogical virtue' of Q is that it points to a community that celebrated Jesus but without a big emphasis on the cross and Easter. Sometimes young seminarians need that extra push to see that possibility.

When it comes to the discussion of the historical Jesus, or the historicity of Jesus, this becomes either a point of data that needs to be explained--or, if there is no Q, nothing at all needs to be explained about it. Significantly, Doherty spends a good chunk (maybe a third) of his "Jesus Puzzle" book hacking away at an explanation of Q.

Without Q, the Q material becomes exactly like Sondergut M (or L), just some more stuff being said or made up about Jesus at the time of the writing of the synoptics. Significantly, there would be less evidence that there was ever anyone in the 1st century who believed in Jesus apart from the story of his death and resurrection.

there are other reasons why Q might lack those elements, including the fact that it may not have. Since we dont' have a copy. Mat might have left out the Q version because it too much like the one he did use.

another to consider is that a saying source doesn't place the focus on action that might be why it lacks reference tot he cross. It's a saying source.

The matter of whether there was a Q is still significant. If we believe there was no Q, there is no debate over its contents.

[Adam]

What are your thoughts on the Q hypothesis? Do you think it existed? How confident can we be in reconstructing it? Should it be used as a 'source' for the historical Jesus?

I started and devoted a lengthy thread on my Horizontal Synoptic Solution to showing that the first three gospels devolve from a common ancestor called in German variously the Urevangelium or the Grundschrift. It accepts Dennis R. MacDonald's proof that the classic Q is an illusion because it underlies Mark as well as Matthew and Luke.
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 2963#p2963

[John]

How do the proponents of the Q document account for the fact* that the early church fathers didn't show awareness of/discuss/quote the purportedly independent Q document? It would appear to be a strange omission if such a document existed (and was available to atleast two independent authors 'Matthew' and 'Luke', who incorporated it in their writings). If the Q document was anything comparable to the gThomas in structure, and a revered piece of scripture by some ancient community, it would seem extremely weird that it escaped mention by any author in the early church tradition.

*pardon my ignorance if that is not the case, it is my understanding that no reference to any separate document (independent of 'Matthew' and 'Luke') with the content of the hypothesized Q document is extant.

[neilgodfrey]

How do the proponents of the Q document account for the fact* that the early church fathers didn't show awareness of/discuss/quote the purportedly independent Q document? It would appear to be a strange omission if such a document existed (and was available to atleast two independent authors 'Matthew' and 'Luke', who incorporated it in their writings). If the Q document was anything comparable to the gThomas in structure, and a revered piece of scripture by some ancient community, it would seem extremely weird that it escaped mention by any author in the early church tradition.

*pardon my ignorance if that is not the case, it is my understanding that no reference to any separate document (independent of 'Matthew' and 'Luke') with the content of the hypothesized Q document is extant.

The reason given from all I have read is that it was no longer of interest once it had been incorporated into Matthew and Luke. If Q's contents had been taken over in their entirety in a more complete narrative like Matthew's or Luke's there was no more need for Q especially since Q contained no interest in Jesus' death.

[Robert Tulip]

[Q] was no longer of interest once it had been incorporated into Matthew and Luke. If Q's contents had been taken over in their entirety in a more complete narrative like Matthew's or Luke's there was no more need for Q especially since since Q contained no interest in Jesus' death.

Neil, here you say that “interest in Jesus’ death” was somehow central for a “more complete narrative.” Are you saying that an assumption that Jesus Christ actually existed is central to explaining the lack of later interest in Q?

How do you reconcile this centrality of a historical Christ with the argument you have advanced in the Loaves and Fishes thread that the existence of Jesus Christ is not central to scholarly explanations of this miracle?

Do you believe in Jesus or not? ‘Interest in Jesus’ death’ presumes the assumption that there was an individual historical person by the name of Jesus Christ. You have previously questioned the evidence for this claim, for example by publishing Earl Doherty’s comments on Bart Ehrman. Why did you promote mythicist ideas if you are really still a closet Jesus believer?

Jesus Christ did not exist. He was invented as a parable by Gnostics, as an imaginary ideal human mediator between time and eternity, between history and the cosmos. The orthodox subsequently took over the Gnostic parable and historised the myth. That is a far more parsimonious explanation than historicism for the use of an earlier set of ethical sayings within a Jesus parable.

Neil Godfrey said in the Loaves and Fishes thread that the “hypothesis that Gnosticism gave birth to Orthodoxy” is something that “no-one else has any obligation to take … seriously.” That seems to indicate true belief that Orthodoxy gave birth to Gnosticism. Correct?