Why Q is not a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text for claiming that Jesus was anything

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Why Q is not a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text for claiming that Jesus was anything

Post by ABuddhist »

The root of the problem with relying upon Q to prove anything about Jesus is that it does not survive, nor is it attested from patristic or similar sources. Rather, it is a hypothetical document, dating from the 19th century, created in order to explain material found within both of GLuke and GMatthew that is not found within GMark. Therefore, the possibility remains (most recently advanced by the scholar Mark Goodacre, who has debated against mythicism with Dr. Richard Carrier) that this hypothetical document did not exist, and that the material found within both of GLuke and GMatthew that is not found within GMark got theere through other means (such as one author copying from another or a later editor inserting material attributed to Q into both GMatthew and GLuke; because despite karavan's claims, there is considerable evidence that our collections of Christians' scriptures was centrally edited into its more-or-less standard form in at least some way - wherefore the gospels are always in the same order from all of our manuscripts).

Even if it be conceded, however, that Q existed, its very lack of surviving copies (or even references to to it before scholars devised the hypothesis), means that we have no way of ascertaining its original length, contents, purpose, reliability, or origins - all of which are essential before we can ascertain whether we should trust its portrayal of Jesus. I am very wary of claims that Paul was a fictional figure (as is Dr. Carrier, who is the leading advocate for the fringe theory that Jesus was fictional) because we have letters (giving them definite content and length) that present themselves as having been created by Paul (giving them them an origin and approximate date) for the benefit of Christian congregations (giving them a purpose). Of course, even accepting these, one can easily question Paul's letters' reliability (hence dispute about interpolations into the letters, pseudo-Pauline letters, and Paul's honesty). But without surviving documents claimed to be "Q", we are really left in the dark, as it were, about many things that would allow us to better assess its reliability. Did it claim to have an author? was the claimed author regarded as a trustworthy person (rather than, for example, a person famous for creating fictions about people)? Was the full text of Q copied into both gospels, or was there more that was not copied?

If the full text of Q was not copied into both gospels, then many other questions relating to its reliability arise. Did the non-copied portions of Q indicate that its author was writing the work as some type of rhetorical exercise rather than a reflection of truth? conversely, did the non-copied portions of Q indicate that its author was sincerely trying to recall what Jesus had said and provide evidence why we should trust eir efforts? Did the non-copied portions of Q indicate that its author was such an uncritical attributer of traditions to Jesus that we should regard with skepticism eir attribution of any tradition to Jesus (as with Papias and his claim that Jesus preached about talking grapes arguing about which of them should be eaten by YHWH's chosen)?

In order to put into better perspective the idea that the author of Q may have been writing Q as some type of rhetorical exercise rather than a reflection of truth, I cite the existence within Islam of mawdu' (fabricated) ahadith, which, although regarded by Muslim scholars as fabricated, are and were nonetheless used by Islamic preachers and missionaries in order to make Muhammad seem to be a very kind man and similar purposes. I am not saying, obviously, that the alleged surviving content of Q is united by making Jesus seem to be a very kind man, but the principle remains that the material within Q could have been fabricated by the author(s) of Q for similar reasons as guided the users and creators of mawdu' ahadith - evangelizing and preaching to Christians. And in the absence of surviving copies of Q in its entirety, we have no idea about whether a full manuscript would reveal these or even more scandalous things about its reliability.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Why Q is not a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text for claiming that Jesus was anything

Post by rgprice »

There is no "Q". I'm quite confident at this point that Marcion's Gospel is essentially "Q". Matthew and Luke are both derived from Marcion. The way I have it, Matthew was derived from Marcion (and Mark) first, then Luke was derived from Marcion and harmonized with Matthew and (and Mark). That ends up accounting for all the features way better than Q does.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Why Q is not a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text for claiming that Jesus was anything

Post by ABuddhist »

rgprice wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:21 am There is no "Q".
With all due respect, such a thesis, although one that I sympathize with, should be defended - Mark Goodacre has done such a thing. Still, I hope that you will do such in your latest book.
User avatar
Jagd
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Why Q is not a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text for claiming that Jesus was anything

Post by Jagd »

rgprice wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:21 am There is no "Q". I'm quite confident at this point that Marcion's Gospel is essentially "Q". Matthew and Luke are both derived from Marcion. The way I have it, Matthew was derived from Marcion (and Mark) first, then Luke was derived from Marcion and harmonized with Matthew and (and Mark). That ends up accounting for all the features way better than Q does.
Do you think Marcion & Mark probably derive from earlier narratives, perhaps scant legends/fables? And where does the Gospel of Thomas fit in this?
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why Q is not a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text for claiming that Jesus was anything

Post by John2 »

I think "Q" was the original Hebrew version of Matthew (aka the Gospel of the Hebrews), as per Papias, and we know its length and some its contents from church writers, and we know who used it (Nazarene Jewish Christians). I don't know if it was written before Mark, but they are the only two gospels that Papias is said to have known, and according to Eusebius' chronology he lived c. 115 CE, so there would need to be enough time before that for the Hebrew Matthew to have circulated and been translated multiple times.

And since Papias says that the Hebrew Matthew was translated more than once, what I think happened is that whoever created the NT Matthew combined parts of one or more of these translations with Mark and whatever else they cared to add to them and made that gospel.

And whoever created the Ebionite Matthew used one or more of these translations and whatever else they cared to add to them and made that gospel. And Marcion and Luke used a copy of this to make their gospels (along with Mark and perhaps the NT Matthew in Luke's case), which is why Luke is thought to resemble Marcion's gospel (and why it says that "many" had previously written about Jesus). And this is why there may be some "Matthew" in Marcion's gospel and why Marcion was celibate and a vegetarian and opposed to sacrifice and Torah observance, because these things were in the Ebionite Matthew.

To me this is no different than Josephus writing the first edition of the Jewish War in Hebrew and then having it translated into Greek ("I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country").
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Why Q is not a legitimate pre-gospel Christian text for claiming that Jesus was anything

Post by schillingklaus »

Q could have been an anonymous gnomology or one assigned to a different speaker.

Markan priority is thoroughly faulty, with or without Q, as Mark's combines midrash leading to Matthew's parallels with midrash leading to Luke's parallels, especially in the case of the feeding miracles.
Post Reply