Who are the current best proponents of Q?

[Giuseppe]

One would be Dennis McDonald, of which I am going to read his last book on Mark and Q.

Are there others? Is Q in decline?

[Ken Olson]

Is Q in decline?

Oh, no, no, not at all. I just think that its appeal is becoming more selective

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

more selective

Precisely what? That anyone invents a Q for himself?

I would like to question the Carrier's dubious claim that Q is a source invented by historicists for historicists (not precisely his own words, but the sense was that).

It seems to be a singular "coincidence", that Paul has no Jesus's ministry at all, while Q has no death and resurrection and not even prophecies of them.

[schillingklaus]

All those who abuse Q by connecting it with Markan Prioritism are automatically disqualified.

Carrier is a fool, as Q has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with historicity or not.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

more selective

Precisely what? That anyone invents a Q for himself?

I would like to question the Carrier's dubious claim that Q is a source invented by historicists for historicists (not precisely his own words, but the sense was that).

This applies not only to Q, but to all reconstructed texts. I don't mean that in theory, but as a fact. Three "text-reconstructors" have four different opinions on what is supposed to be original and each one makes up his own Q, his own gospel or letter (just as all Jesus historians reconstruct their own Jesus). There are scholars (and amateurs) among them who then imagine that they are "rational"

imho the invention of Q has several causes. One of them, however, is the firm belief that a) Jesus existed and that b) the gospel texts are more or less based on real events, no matter how much these were literarily transformed. The reconstructed Q usually forms the link between the assumed realistic and true-to-life conversations of Jesus and the literary sayings and artificial dialogues in the gospels.

[Giuseppe]

imho the invention of Q has several causes. One of them, however, is the firm belief that a) Jesus existed and that b) the gospel texts are more or less based on real events, no matter how much these were literarily transformed.

So also Carrier, but it has been the same Richard Carrier who has been able, in a discussion with Denys MacDonald, to make the latter say things as the following:

But I’m sure that the Q document was written by a single individual who recrafted it. I sometimes have told my students that the real hero of the Q document may be the author and not Jesus, and Jesus may have been the opportunity for the author to show his own radical vision of Judaism. I don’t know if that’s helpful, but it could be that the real hero of the Q document is the author.

..which sounds very as a mythicist!

In addition, if Martjin Linssen is mythicist in virtue of Thomas, why can't a Q-theorist be mythicist in virtue of a collection of sayings just as Thomas? Only because Thomas is anti-demiurgist while Q is pro-YHWH ?

In third place, note how the pieces of the puzzle fit very well between them in the Doherty's reconstruction as exemplified in this image.

[Giuseppe]

Really I think that the Marcionite priority over (at least only) Luke kills Q. As explained validly in this thesis.
Hardly I can give up that really rational conclusion.

Even so, I enjoy a lot in reading McDonald, now.

[Ken Olson]

more selective

Precisely what? That anyone invents a Q for himself?

I would like to question the Carrier's dubious claim that Q is a source invented by historicists for historicists (not precisely his own words, but the sense was that).

It seems to be a singular "coincidence", that Paul has no Jesus's ministry at all, while Q has no death and resurrection and not even prophecies of them.

It's a joke (hence the wink emoticon) borrowed from the movie This Is Spinal Tap (1984), a parody of the rock-u-mentary genre about the fictional band Spinal Tap. It's from a scene in which the filmmaker making the documentary (played by Rob Reiner, who also directed the movie) interviews the band's manager and asks if their popularity is in decline and the manager rejects that notion and insists that 'their appeal is becoming more selective", which is a euphemism for their popularity being in decline.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ6JxAgmxXg

Yes, there are more and more scholars in the field rejecting the Q theory. Farrer has replaced Griesbach as the major alternative, (it's hard to find a Griesbachian these days), though the Matthean posteriority hypothesis has picked up a number of adherents in just the past few years, and there are any number of other theories about (e.g., Delbert Burkett, and those who allow Marcion's priority to canonical Luke, like Jason BeDuhn, or all the canonical gospels, such as Matthias Klinghardt and Markus Vinzent).

That isn't to say that adherents of the Two-Document Hypothesis consider or admit that their theory is in trouble. John Kloppenborg and several of his students (notably Alan Kirk) are still publishing on Q and Q-related theories, though most of the material published on the Q theory assumes Q rather than arguing for it. I'm not sure whether the scholars at Leuven are still producing Q scholarship since G. Van Belle's retirement. Dieter Roth has a fairly recent book on the Q parables. Ruben Zimmerman and Michael Labahn in Germany still hold the Q hypothesis last I checked. Christopher Tuckett (though now retired from teaching), Paul Foster, and Tobias Hägerland have offered relatively recent critiques of the Farrer theory from the 2DH perspective, and I understand two articles criticizing me on the topic of 'unpicking' (one by Olegs Andrejevs and David Sloan) are at press now.

I've heard Dennis MacDonald present papers in the Q Section at SBL and I'm under the impression he's regarded as a bit eccentric or outsidethe mainstream by other Q scholars.

Best,

Ken

[schillingklaus]

Q makes perfect sense without abstruse faerie tales like an HJ. All it takes is logical conclusions from the obvious interpolations and deformations leaving redactorial fatigue in the canonical gospels. Those HJers with Q just have the compeletely wrong and absurd motivation for Q. Further, there is no need for Q being Jewish instead of hypocritically Judaized.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

In addition, if Martjin Linssen is mythicist in virtue of Thomas, why can't a Q-theorist be mythicist in virtue of a collection of sayings just as Thomas? Only because Thomas is anti-demiurgist while Q is pro-YHWH ?

As a scientific theorem, Q has a special, well-defined area of application, namely the literary relationships of two synoptic gospels (Matthew and Luke). This is how Q was once developed. Q assumes Markan priority and the assumption that Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark, but denies that Matthew and Luke are directly dependent on each other (in either direction). Q wants to explain why Matthew and Luke have a lot in common (besides Markan material) without Matthew knowing Luke or Luke Matthew.

You can imagine that other lost gospels or sources once existed, but those sources have nothing to do with what scholars have labeled Q.

In third place, note how the pieces of the puzzle fit very well between them in the Doherty's reconstruction as exemplified in this image.

This reconstruction has nothing to do with "Q". Q as a theorem is not a lost source intended to explain the content of Mark's gospel, but some content of GMatthew and GLuke beyond the Markan material.

Doherty is free to assume such a source (and many others sources and layers). But such a source is not Q as German New Testament scholars once developed it as a theorem.