Talk:Q source

To the editors of this page: I'm afraid it needs to be rewritten.

I am a nonspecialist reader; today I was reading a series of Wiki articles on biblical scholarship (following up a meatspace argument about the historicity or ahistoricity of Jesus). As usual, wikipedia was endlessly informative and useful and quite good about balancing the discussion between atheist and christian interpretations. But then I ended up here and foundered. The article is basically unreadable and very un-encyclopedia-like; I would suggest that this is because it lacks an introduction, a sentence or two which discusses the state of biblical scholarship, and the various sources for the new testament, and where the Q Document fits into this. I would do this myself, but I know little or nothing about the topic.

A proper intro should read something like:"...a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. The New Testament is generally recognized by scholars to be composed of writings from three sources; accounts by apostles of Jesus, written sometime after his death, collections of the sayings of Jesus, recorded in the form of epistles, and finally writings of early Christians such as Paul...." The Q document, if it existed, would be a common source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are epistles which generally seem to draw on information from the Gospel of Mark, but also information not present in Mark...

I have of course invented the previous (and factually incorrect)sentence to show what a proper introduction might look like if anyone wanted to write it.jackbrown 09:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)jackbrown[reply]

I suggest that a couple diagrams could help even more. For example, a diagram of the Two Source Hypothesis with arrows from Mark and Q pointing to Matthew and Luke, as found in textbooks. A highlighted example of a synopsis, separating out Q material with yellow highlighter (as hypothesized), would also help. --Peter Kirby 18:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone put this sentence into something resembling a legible sentence:

Further textual analysis tends to confirm this hypothesis as Q, the document generated by subtracting Mark from the intersection of Matthew and Luke, has a thematic structure and consistency that is generally considered unlikely to be due to chance.

It starts off in one direction and goes somewhere else. -- Zoe

It is trying to say that Q has certain themes that are more prominent in itself than in either Matthew and Luke that you would not expect to find by subtracting Mark from them. What this article really needed is a summation of all the arguments for Q, which I've provided now. -- Stephen C. Carlson

But it isn't grammatically correct. -- Zoe

It got rewritten, but that sentence could have used a comma before "as" since it was being used as a conjunction. -- Stephen C. Carlson

"Two-Source Hypothesis" is hyphenated on another page that refers to it, and I have altered this page so that it is hyphenated here. One newspaper headline says:

New Age-Discrimination Rules Proposed

and another says:

New-Age Discrimination Rules Proposed

The difference in meaning is a good argument in favor of the tradional way of using hyphens. -- Mike Hardy

If this article is going to have a "Case for Q" section, should it not also have a "Case Against Q" section?

Feel free to write one. Ashibaka (tock) 02:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added one, based partly on Goodacre's book The Case Against Q. It's always a good exercise to write for the "enemy" POV. :) --Peter Kirby 00:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV? I don't think so.

The first line states that "For alert readers of the New Testament, the recognition that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke share much material not found in their familiar source, the Gospel of Mark, has suggested a common second source, called the Q document (Q for German Quelle, "source")."

"For alert readers"? You must be joking. How is that a neutral POV? I've added the NPOV tag because of it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the Ta bu shi da yu adjective to specify those readers who might notice such things? Insert whatever the appropriate Ta bu shi da yu adjective may be, please, and remove the little tag. --Wetman 04:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Andriesb. "Alert readers" has been changed to "New testament scholars." Very telling change indeed. Does one see the shift in emphasis? The POV of Wikipedia is that the alert reader is not to be credited, and only "New Testament scholars" have the requirewd authority. The "alert reader" is very much the person Virginia Woolf dubbed The Common Reader in two collections of essays on literary subjects, as seen by the educated and alert, critical but non-professional reader. Is such a reader now an "elitist" at the cultural level of Ta bu shi da yu? A question to ponder, not to answer. --Wetman 19:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative material =

Some have gone so far as to speculate that Q Source was one of the ‘parchments’ used by Paul in the persecution of the early Church.

I moved this statement from the main article. It could be a garbled form of a genuine position, but as written I'm not aware of a single scholar that advocates this. There are a lot speculative things about Q, but let's at least include those that a fair number of scholars actually hold. Stephen C. Carlson 03:30, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

Miscellaneous material

It should also be noted that the prominent liberal theologian Dr. John Robinson, concluded that Matthew's Gospel was written as early as 40 A.D. (see: Augustinian hypothesis). This is argued would undermine the Q document which accepts a later date.

Robinson did not reach any definite conclusion but deliberately set out to test the limits of what could be proven, not necessarily to prove such things as an AD 40 date of Matthew (yes I've read his book). More importantly, some have placed Q in the 30s and so this presents no absolute problem for a Q, only a subjective one (i.e. scholars who place Q in the 40s or 50s would be wrong, but that does nothing to affect the plausibility of the existence of Q).

John Wenham who the work that many scholars find to be one of the most prominent works supporting the traditional Augustinian hypothesis wrote the following in his work "The [Church] fathers are almost unanimous in asserting that Matthew the tax-collector was the author, writing first, for Hebrews in the Hebrew language: Papias (c. 60-130), Irenaeus (c. 130-200), Pantaenus (died c. 190), Origen (c. 185-254), Eusebius (c. 260-340), Epiphanius (c. 315-403), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-86) and others write in this vein. The Medieval Hebrew gospel of Matthew in Even Bohan could be a corrupted version of the original. Though unrivaled, the tradition has been discounted on various grounds, particularly on the supposed unreliability of Papias, from whom some would derive the whole tradition." (John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke (1991), p. 116).

I have pared this down to what is necessary (it's a variation on the Farmer argument).

Historian David Hackett Fischer considers historical immediacy to be one of the key determinants of historicity and the church father Papias is a very early source in regards to testimony that the Matthew wrote his gospel first. Papias wrote the following:

I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains." (Eusebius (III, xxix).

According to Irenaeus, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp , a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (Against Heresies 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Polycarp is considered to not tolerate any deviation from the traditions of Christianity and he often asked his readers to turn back to the faith delivered to Christians from the beginning. [1] In Ephesus, Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, who appointed him to be Bishop of Smyrna. [2] Matthew being written first is generally not accepted by Q source proponents.

All this is irrelevant because Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, does not say the Gospel of Matthew was written first.--Peter Kirby 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Material

This was moved from the main text (Stephen C. Carlson 04:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Prof. Mack has argued that it is a non-Christian source. There is no direct reference to the resurrection or the Virgin birth and many of the quotations in Q would be considered blasphemy in the time of Jesus.

In any event, all we can say for certain is that ‘Q’ Source is not referred to by any of the Church Fathers as a Christian work, and no copy of Q has ever been found. It is a hypothetical source.

In the first paragraph, the contents of Q are in Matt and/or Luke. How's that blasphemous? In the second paragraph, we don't know Q's name, so how can we say for certain that it was not referred to by any of the Church Father at all much less as a Christian work? Stephen C. Carlson 04:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ties to documentary hypothesis

I think there should be a short section noting the similarity of this hypothesis to the documentary hypothesis, since they were both formed around the same period of biblical scholarship and they both introduce lost sources to the books of the Bible. AUhl 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the documentary hypothesis about the first five books of the Jewish bible? This is about a completely different set of books in a completely different part of the Christian Bible. I don't see how they are related, other than both being origin hypotheses. Clinkophonist 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus template

The only reason I added the {{Jesus}} template was that there is a link to this article from it (I was going from link to link to see which articles were where). However, upon further examination, I note that the link I clicked on was Jesus' sayings according to the Christian Bible which redirects here. Apparently, Clinkophonist transferred the original article to Wikisource and (according to edit history) "[redirected] to the closest article on wikipedia to the topic" [3] אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AH! That makes a whole lot of sense now. Hmm.. Maybe just remove the link from the template? If someone clicks on a link in a template that says "Quotes" in regards to Jesus, I do not think they are refering to a hypothetical sayings Gospel.--Andrew c 02:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, link stricken from the template. Much better :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 02:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Logia"

tThis Wikipedism betrays unfamiliarity with the literature. --Wetman 21:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deuteronomism

"Certain themes, such as the Deuteronomistic view of history, are more prominent in Q than in either Matthew or Luke individually."

Something is wrong with this sentence, specifically the phrase "are more prominant in Q." No copy of Q exists. There is no consensus reconstruction of Q. How can we make a statement with this type of certainty? The given reference doesn't clear any of this up nor does it make any direct reference to Deuteronomism. More even importantly how is agreement between theories a proof?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.63.71.49 (talk • contribs) 3 August 2006.

This is like saying "Q contains the word 'blanket' 5 times as much as the rest of Matthew or Luke". Out of context, it would make sense if phrased "The material believed by scholars to have originated from Q contains the word...", however I believe that context is established already in this article, therefore the further explanation about what Q is, isn't needed. Regardless if it is a hypothetical grouping of sayings, or an actual early document, it is a clear fact that the material called by scholars "Q" has a different tone/set of themes than the rest of Matthew or Luke. That is all this sentence is saying. Whether this is a coincidence, or has another explanation is up for debate, but this article is about the Q hypothesis. Hope that helps.--Andrew c 16:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another proposed link

I have been instructed to post here http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/q.html. The article defends Q as originally a separate document, and which was compiled around 80, after GMark was known, but before GMatthew & GLuke were written. Of course it would help if you like this webpage and post it as a link. Thanks. If posted, I will add up on it my name and a link to my bio, as I did for my front page, http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html (which is already posted as a link on three Wikipedia pages).Bernard