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

[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.

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.

My point was not that it's not significant but that there is no reason to assume Q lacked the resurrection. If it did there is o reason to assume that means there was no resurrection. I am saying we can't know if Q had that in it or not, if not, what the import of it being there was.

Of cousre the issue of Q itself is improtant. I accept Q. I'm not a Griesbach guy, although I was in Central America group with Bill Farmer, I went to Perkins and Knew Farmer.

there aren't many Griesbachers left. About 16 years ago I read a bunch of stuff on the little scrapy band that was carrying on but I haven't heard of them since then.

[Peter Kirby]

It's not entirely academic.

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.

My point was not that it's not significant but that there is no reason to assume Q lacked the resurrection.

I understand your point. It's overstated and a bit of a tangent to the previous discussion. 99% of scholars who assume Q also assume that it has no resurrection in the text. Ergo, this is one way in which the Q document is relevant to us and our inquiry into early Christianity (and not just 'entirely academic'). And on the minority view that Q contained the resurrection, Q is still interesting - maybe even more interesting.

If you could recognize the point I'd made to which you replied, perhaps we can move on to discuss yours.

[Charles Wilson]

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.

Peter Kirby:

I am currently not a believer in a "Q Community" and one of the reasons was given by you just above. There are others.

The Scribal Schools in the Sumerian Epoch were so important that even when Ebla was at war with Mari, they exchanged Scribes (Pettinato, Ebla). Writing and reading were highly valued skills. These skills appeared to be limited to the Scribal Schools training Scribes for use in the Court Administration. This fact explains why some words ("amargi", "Freedom" <=> "Return-to-the-Mother") could retain meaning over 1000 years. When use of the letters is highly constrained and limited to those within the Royal Courts, changes which might be "naturally expected" in a widely dispersed environment are not found as often. In fact, there were traces of a "Proto-Eblaite" language that conserved Symbols that carried over into the later Eblaite language. In our world today (If Philadelphia, Pa. counts as "In our world..."), there are translators offered for certain court cases where, although everyone supposedly speaks English, no one understands anyone else, like the "Fenster" character in the movie "The Usual Suspects". The requirement that "Everyone speaks and writes the same" has been lost and the radiation of linguistic uses in many small communities brings change to the language at an astonishing rate.

The tacit assumption is seen above: "A Q Community must have CELEBRATED Jesus". Why? With this idea, we have crossed a boundary: There was a "separate" Community of readers and writers or at least a Community that had a group of writers at its Core. They lived and CELEBRATED a Set of Sayings. This is nowhere to be seen or found, except in one locale: The Roman Court. Although, in the interest of Statistical Theory, there is the small chance that such a "Community" could exist, the more accurate statement would be that "Only in the Roman Court, or its Assigns, could such a Community exist". It would not be a "Celebration" at all. It would be a "Job Assignment".

"Convert the Literature which we have stolen into a set of documents that prove we, the Romans, are the True Heirs". Again, Nicholas of Damascus forged a "Genealogy" for Herod showing that Antipater was of the "Principal Stock" of the Jews who were taken to Babylon, for the purpose of giving Herod the "Right" to become High Priest if he desired (Note to Metacrock: The identity of this forgery with the genealogy in Matthew was, as I have stated in another place, merely "Suggestive").

In short, PK, I might even be convinced that there was a "Q Community", if such a Community was understood to consist of Scribes from the Roman Court who were given texts and told to rewrite Jewish History for a Roman End.
Y/N/M?

CW

[Peter Kirby]

They lived and CELEBRATED a Set of Sayings. This is nowhere to be seen or found, except in one locale: The Roman Court.

What's it with people turning everything in the Roman empire into something about the Roman emperor? The empire was a big place. Big enough for some set of sayings to be celebrated somewhere else.

[Charles Wilson]

Relax, PK. You want to believe in "Q". Go ahead. OK with me. Go for it.

I, "Who is not a 'people' ", disagree. I offer a specific, well defined Thesis. My Thesis brings in the Roman Meaning at the end of the tale, not at the beginning.
Sure, the Roman Empire was a big place, full of all sorts of people. The Attributes of your "Q Community", however, would be most unusual, consisting as I stated above, of a Group of Readers and Writers who had a VERY narrow focus and and even narrower Skill Set. Not only were they fluent in Latin and able to write in Greek, they had a workable - though not completely fluent - ability to read and write Aramaic. Very, VERY small group here. In fact, only one or two people come through in History with that Skill Set: Nicholas of Damascus and Mucianus, Governor of Syria when Vespasian began his March on Rome. They lived at different times as well. A very small Community indeed. Michael Weitzman has posited a Community that may meet that Standard and they live near the place where Immer lived but this was not "Q". They were Jews and Scribes, working and fluent in Hebrew and in Aramaic. This is not "Q".

I repeat my objections and they will stand until they get refuted: A "Q Community" would necessarily have to consist of readers and writers who had the wherewithal to assemble a Set of Sayings, sayings that run from Jannaeus to Domitian. The Assumption that they CELEBRATED these sayings goes WAAAY beyond any Data so far offered. The Occam's Razor explanation requires the most economical explanation and one of those explanations must involve the Roman Court.

I remain open to the possibility, but, unlike a settlement such as Jabnit, which actually existed and explains a lot, the positing of a "Q Community", which celebrated a "Jesus" but did not mention a Resurrection or involve other predicates, is highly, HIGHLY, unlikely.

CW

[Peter Kirby]

Relax, PK. You want to believe in "Q". Go ahead. OK with me. Go for it.

I don't believe in Q...

The Occam's Razor explanation requires the most economical explanation and one of those explanations must involve the Roman Court.

Nonsense.

[Charles Wilson]

I don't believe in Q...

RILLY! Then please take this moment to tell why not "Q"?

The Occam's Razor explanation requires the most economical explanation and one of those explanations must involve the Roman Court.

Nonsense.

Yeah, OK. I understand that. Nonetheless, in the interest of economy of Posts, understand that the Attributes of a "Q Community" are extremely narrowly defined in a Society where fluency and Cross Cultural knowledge through time would leave very few people qualified to be a member of that group. I mentioned the Weitzman group. That might qualify if a Domitian, aware of this community, ordered the translations of Aramaic texts for the purpose of giving Domitian the Glory originally given to Titus (Asserting that Titus ordered a "Sign's Gospel" f'rinstance.) Through time. That would still leave a very sizable Roman Component.

Economy, however, as a useful device, would require some proof that would allow the more complex explanation to stand. You may quibble over application of Occam's Razor. Fine. OK. Sure thing. The point stands. Someone, ANYONE show me that the English Word "Community" applies to what is being discussed here - without tying the very learned members of this "Community", such members having multiple linguistic skills, Cross Cultural awareness, etc. - to learning given in a Royal Court - Roman, Parthian, whatever.

CW

[Peter Kirby]

I don't believe in Q...

RILLY! Then please take this moment to tell why not "Q"?

I don't believe in Q because I accept the plausibility of other hypotheses, such as the Farrer Hypothesis.

The Occam's Razor explanation requires the most economical explanation and one of those explanations must involve the Roman Court.

Nonsense.

Yeah, OK. I understand that. Nonetheless, in the interest of economy of Posts, understand that the Attributes of a "Q Community" are extremely narrowly defined in a Society where fluency and Cross Cultural knowledge through time would leave very few people qualified to be a member of that group. I mentioned the Weitzman group. That might qualify if a Domitian, aware of this community, ordered the translations of Aramaic texts for the purpose of giving Domitian the Glory originally given to Titus (Asserting that Titus ordered a "Sign's Gospel" f'rinstance.) Through time. That would still leave a very sizable Roman Component.

Economy, however, as a useful device, would require some proof that would allow the more complex explanation to stand. You may quibble over application of Occam's Razor. Fine. OK. Sure thing. The point stands. Someone, ANYONE show me that the English Word "Community" applies to what is being discussed here - without tying the very learned members of this "Community", such members having multiple linguistic skills, Cross Cultural awareness, etc. - to learning given in a Royal Court - Roman, Parthian, whatever.

CW

I offer for consideration that, in the first century, several cities (and the elite circles in these cities) were capable of supporting this kind of literary activity: Antioch, Alexandria, Athens, Ephesus, and Jerusalem (before the war) among them. Maybe more. Rome of course too, but not everything literary happened there.

[toejam]

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.

Well, there's always the Papias quote that "Matthew composed the logia (sayings) in Hebrew", although Papias is a highly dubious source for several reasons.

[Metacrock]

I understand your point. It's overstated and a bit of a tangent to the previous discussion. 99% of scholars who assume Q also assume that it has no resurrection in the text. Ergo, this is one way in which the Q document is relevant to us and our inquiry into early Christianity (and not just 'entirely academic'). And on the minority view that Q contained the resurrection, Q is still interesting - maybe even more interesting.

If you could recognize the point I'd made to which you replied, perhaps we can move on to discuss yours.

fair enough, Pete.