Citizendia
Your Ad Here

"Sayings of Jesus" redirects here. For Jesus' words on the cross, see Sayings of Jesus on the cross. The seven sayings of Jesus on the cross are a traditional collection of seven short phrases uttered by Jesus at his Crucifixion immediately before he died

The Q document or Q (from the German Quelle, "source") is a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. The German language (de ''Deutsch'') is a West Germanic language and one of the world's major languages. The Gospel of Matthew (Gk Κατά Ματθαίον Ευαγγέλιον is one of the four Canonical gospels in the New Testament and is a Synoptic gospel The Gospel of Luke (Gk Κατά Λουκάν Ευαγγέλιον) is a synoptic Gospel, and is the third and longest of the four canonical Gospels of the

Contents

Introduction

The recognition of 19th-century New Testament scholars that Matthew and Luke share much material not found in their generally believed common source, the Gospel of Mark, has suggested a second common source, termed the Q document. The Gospel of Matthew (Gk Κατά Ματθαίον Ευαγγέλιον is one of the four Canonical gospels in the New Testament and is a Synoptic gospel The Gospel of Luke (Gk Κατά Λουκάν Ευαγγέλιον) is a synoptic Gospel, and is the third and longest of the four canonical Gospels of the Content Authorship The gospel itself is anonymous but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century a text was attributed to Mark, a cousin This hypothetical lost text — also called the Q Gospel, the Sayings Gospel Q, the Synoptic Sayings Source, the Q Manuscript, and (in the 19th century) The Logia — seems most likely to have comprised a collection of Jesus' sayings. The 19th century of the Common Era began on January 1, 1801 and ended on December 31, 1900, according to the Gregorian calendar In New Testament criticism the term logia (Greek "sayings utterances oracles" singular logion) is applied to a supposed collection of sayings of Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC / BCE —26–36 AD / CE) Recognizing such a Q document is one of two key elements in the "two-source hypothesis" alongside the priority of Mark. The Two-Source Hypothesis (or 2SH is an explanation for the relationship between the three Gospels of Matthew Mark and Luke Markan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the three Synoptic Gospels, and that the two other synoptic evangelists Matthew

The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted solution to the Synoptic Problem, which concerns the literary relationships between and among the first three canonical gospels (the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke), known as the Synoptic Gospels. The synoptic problem concerns the literary relationships between and among the first three canonical gospels (the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Similarity in word choices and event placement shows an interrelationship. The synoptic problem concerns how this interrelation came to pass and what the nature of this interrelationship is. According to the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used the Gospel of Mark, independently of one another. Content Authorship The gospel itself is anonymous but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century a text was attributed to Mark, a cousin This necessitates the existence of a hypothetical source in order to explain the double tradition material where there is agreement between Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark. This hypothetical source is named Q for convenience.

The synoptic problem

Main article: Synoptic problem

Of the four canonical gospels included in the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, and Luke - due to common narratives and viewpoints - are called the Synoptic Gospels (from Greek synoptic, meaning "seeing with the same eyes"). The synoptic problem concerns the literary relationships between and among the first three canonical gospels (the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and This article is about the canonical books of the New Testament The synoptic gospels are the first three Gospels of the New Testament in the Christian Bible.

Their similarities exceed mere congruency in perspective, and are not easily attributed to coincidence. The narrative is retold in a common sequence, and nearly identical phrases appear in all of the works. It has been long proposed by serious reviewers that the books were based on a common published source or sources, given the improbability of three eyewitnesses producing verbatim accounts of their experiences.

The recognition of this synoptic problem, and attempts to resolve it, date to antiquity. The fifth century bishop Augustine of Hippo posited that Matthew was written first, then Mark was written using Matthew as a source, and finally Luke was written using Matthew and Mark as sources. The Augustinian hypothesis is a solution to the Synoptic problem, which concerns the origin of the Gospels of the New Testament. This early and influential explanation is no longer supported by modern scholars.

Markan priority

Main article: Markan priority
Markan priority hypothesizes Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke.
Markan priority hypothesizes Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke. Markan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the three Synoptic Gospels, and that the two other synoptic evangelists Matthew

One of the first steps towards the solution was to note that Mark appeared earliest of the four canonical gospels.

Several lines of evidence suggest this. Mark is the shortest of the gospels — suggesting that the longer gospels took Mark as a source and added additional material to it, as opposed to Mark taking longer gospels but deleting substantial chunks of material. Mark's use of diction and grammar is less sophisticated than that found in Matthew and Luke — suggesting that Matthew and Luke "cleaned up" Mark's wording (as opposed to Mark intentionally "dumbing down" more sophisticated languages). Mark regularly included Aramaic quotes (translating them into Greek), whereas Matthew and Luke did not.

For these and other reasons, most scholars accept that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and the Gospels Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source.

The two-source hypothesis

Main article: Two-source hypothesis
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark and a second document called "Q" as a source.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark and a second document called "Q" as a source. The Two-Source Hypothesis (or 2SH is an explanation for the relationship between the three Gospels of Matthew Mark and Luke

Markan priority, while explaining most of the similarities between the three synoptic gospels, is unable to completely explain the synoptic problem. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke have much material in common. Most of that material appears to have been copied from The Gospel of Mark.

But some of the material common to Matthew and Luke isn't found in Mark. The material (collectively known as the "double tradition") is often presented in both Matthew and Luke using very similar wording, and often presented in the same order. Since this material is absent from Mark, the use of Mark as source cannot explain how the same stories, using the same words, came to be found in both Matthew and Luke.

Scholars therefore suggest in addition to using Mark as as source, Matthew and Luke may have both had another second source, which they independently used in the creation of their gospels, hence the name "two-source hypothesis". This hypothetical second source is referred to as Q (from the German "Quelle" meaning "source").

Although a few scholars still question it, the two source hypothesis is currently the most widely accepted solution to the synoptic problem.

The Q Document

If the two-source hypothesis is correct, then the second source, Q, would almost certainly have to be a written document. If Q were merely a shared oral tradition, it could not account for the nearly identical word-for-word similarities between Matthew and Luke when quoting Q material.

Similarly, it is possible to deduce that the Q document was written in Greek. If Q had been written in some other language (for example, Aramaic), it is highly unlikely that two independent translations produced by Matthew and Luke would have the exact same wording.

The Q document must have been composed prior to both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Some scholars even suggest Q may have predated Mark.

The Q document, if it did exist, has since been lost, but scholars believe it can be partially reconstructed by examining elements common to Matthew and Luke (but absent from Mark). This reconstructed Q is notable in that it generally does not describe the events of the life of Jesus; Q does not mention Jesus' birth, his selection of the 12 disciples, his crucifixion, or the resurrection. Instead, Q appears to be a collection of Jesus' sayings and teachings.

The case for a common second source

The existence of Q follows from the argument that neither Matthew nor Luke is directly dependent on the other in the double tradition (what New Testament scholars call the material that Matthew and Luke share that does not appear in Mark). However, the verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke is so close in some parts of the double tradition that the only reasonable explanation for this agreement is common dependence on a written source or sources. Even if Matthew and Luke are independent (see Markan priority), the Q hypothesis states that they used a common document. Markan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the three Synoptic Gospels, and that the two other synoptic evangelists Matthew Arguments for Q being a written document include:

The case against a common second source

Austin Farrer [1], Michael Goulder [2] and Mark Goodacre[3] have argued against Q, while maintaining Markan priority, claiming the use of Matthew by Luke. Austin Marsden Farrer (1904– 29 December 1968) was an English Theologian and Philosopher. Michael Douglas Goulder (born 1927 is a British Biblical scholar who has spent most of his academic life at the University of Birmingham where he retired as Professor of Biblical Mark Goodacre is a New Testament scholar and Professor at Duke University 's Department of Religion Other scholars argue against Q because they hold to Matthean priority (see: Augustinian hypothesis). The Augustinian hypothesis is a solution to the Synoptic problem, which concerns the origin of the Gospels of the New Testament. Their arguments include:

History of the Q hypothesis

If Q ever existed, it must have disappeared very early, since no copies of it have been recovered and no definitive notices of it have been recorded in antiquity (but see the discussion of the Papias testimony below).

In modern times, the first person to hypothesize a Q-like source was an Englishman, Herbert Marsh, in 1801 in a complicated solution to the synoptic problem that his contemporaries ignored. Herbert Marsh (1757 - 1839 was a Bishop in the Church of England. Year 1801 ( MDCCCI) was a Common year starting on Thursday (see link for calendar of the Gregorian calendar (or a Common year starting on Tuesday Marsh labeled this source with the Hebrew letter beth (ב).

The next person to advance the Q hypothesis was the German Schleiermacher in 1832, who interpreted an enigmatic statement by the early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis, circa 125: "Matthew compiled the oracles (Greek: logia) of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech". Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (ˈʃlaɪɐmaxɐ ( November 21, 1768 &ndash February 12, 1834) was a German theologian Year 1832 ( MDCCCXXXII) was a Leap year starting on Sunday (link will display the full calendar of the Gregorian For the Genus of Grass skipper Butterflies, see Papias (butterfly. For the Syrian city called Hierapolis Bambyce see Manbij. Hierapolis ( Greek: 'holy city' was the ancient city on top of the Greek (el ελληνική γλώσσα or simply el ελληνικά — "Hellenic" is an Indo-European language, spoken today by 15-22 million people mainly Rather than the traditional interpretation that Papias was referring to the writing of Matthew in Hebrew, Schleiermacher believed that Papias was actually giving witness to a sayings collection that was available to the Evangelists.

In 1838 another German, Christian Hermann Weisse, took Schleiermacher's suggestion of a sayings source and combined it with the idea of Markan priority to formulate what is now called the Two-Source Hypothesis, in which both Matthew and Luke used Mark and the sayings source. Year 1838 ( MDCCCXXXVIII) was a Common year starting on Monday (link will display the full calendar of the Gregorian Calendar (or a Common Christian Hermann Weisse ( August 10, 1801 &ndash September 19 1866) was a German Protestant religious Philosopher Markan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the three Synoptic Gospels, and that the two other synoptic evangelists Matthew Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed this approach in an influential treatment of the synoptic problem in 1863, and the Two-Source Hypothesis has maintained its dominance ever since. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann ( May 7, 1832 - 1910 German Protestant theologian, son of Karl Julius Holtzmann (1804-1877 was born at Year 1863 ( MDCCCLXIII) was a Common year starting on Thursday (link will display the full calendar of the Gregorian calendar (or a Common

At this time, Q was usually called the Logia on account of the Papias statement, and Holtzmann gave it the symbol Lambda (Λ). In New Testament criticism the term logia (Greek "sayings utterances oracles" singular logion) is applied to a supposed collection of sayings of Toward the end of the 19th century, however, doubts began to grow on the propriety of anchoring the existence of the collection of sayings in the testimony of Papias, so a neutral symbol Q (which was devised by Johannes Weiss based on the German Quelle, meaning source) was adopted to remain neutrally independent of the collection of sayings and its connection to Papias.

In the first two decades of the 20th century, more than a dozen reconstructions of Q were made. The twentieth century of the Common Era began on However, these reconstructions differed so much from each other that not a single verse of Matthew was present in all of them. As a result, interest in Q subsided and it was neglected for many decades.

This state of affairs changed in the 1960s after translations of a newly discovered and analogous sayings collection, the Gospel of Thomas, became available. The 1960s decade refers to the years from the beginning of 1960 to the end of 1969 The Gospel According to Thomas ( Coptic: ⲡⲉ̅ⲩ̅ⲁ̅ⲅⲅ̅ⲉⲗ̅ⲓⲟⲛ̅ ⲡⲕ̅ⲁ̅ⲧⲁ ⲑ̅ⲱ̅ⲙⲁⲥ also known as The Gospel James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester proposed that collections of sayings such as Q and Thomas represented the earliest Christian materials at an early point in a trajectory that eventually resulted in the canonical gospels.

This burst of interest led to increasingly more sophisticated literary and redactional reconstructions of Q, notably the work of John S. Kloppenborg. John S Kloppenborg is a Canadian professor of religion who has authored numerous books and articles based on Christian Bible scholarship Kloppenborg, by analyzing certain literary phenomena, argued that Q was composed in three stages. The earliest stage was a collection of wisdom sayings involving such issues as poverty and discipleship. Then this collection was expanded by including a layer of judgmental sayings directed against "this generation". The final stage included the Temptation of Jesus.

Although Kloppenborg cautioned against assuming that the composition history of Q is the same as the history of the Jesus tradition (i. e. that the oldest layer of Q is necessarily the oldest and pure-layer Jesus tradition), some recent seekers of the Historical Jesus, including the members of the Jesus Seminar, have done just that. The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using Historical methods These historical methods use critical The Jesus Seminar is a group of about 150 individuals including scholars with advanced degrees in Biblical studies, Religious studies or related fields as well as Basing their reconstructions primarily on the Gospel of Thomas and the oldest layer of Q, they propose that Jesus functioned as a wisdom sage, rather than a Jewish rabbi, though not all members affirm the two-source hypothesis. The wise old man (also called sage or " Senex " is an Archetype as described by Carl Jung. Rabbi (pronunciation, although in English usually) in Judaism, means a religious ‘teacher’ or more literally ‘my great one’ when addressing any master Kloppenborg, it should be noted, is now a fellow of the Jesus Seminar himself.

Skeptical of Kloppenborg's tripartite division of Q, Bruce Griffin writes:

This division of Q has received extensive support from some scholars specializing in Q. But it has received serious criticism from others, and outside the circle of Q specialists it has frequently been seen as evidence that some Q specialists have lost touch with essential scholarly rigor. The idea that we can reconstruct the history of a text which does not exist, and that must itself be reconstructed from Matthew and Luke, comes across as something other than cautious scholarship. But the most serious objection to the proposed revisions of Q is that any attempt to trace the history of revisions of Q undermines the credibility of the whole Q hypothesis itself. For despite the fact that we can identify numerous sayings that Matthew and Luke have in common, we cannot prove that these sayings come from a single unified source; Q may be nothing but a convenient term for a variety of sources shared by Matthew and Luke. Therefore any evidence of revision of Q counts as evidence for disunity in Q, and hence for a variety of sources used by Matthew and Luke. Conversely, any evidence for unity in Q - which must be established in order to see Q as a single document - counts as evidence against the proposed revisions. In order to hold to a threefold revision of Q, one must pull off an intellectual tight-rope act: one must imagine both that there is enough unity to establish a single document and that there is enough disunity to establish revisions. In the absence of any independent attestation of Q, it is an illusion to believe that scholars can walk this tightrope without falling off.

However, scholars supporting the hypothesis of the three-stage historical development of Q, such as Burton L. Mack, argue that the unity of Q comes not only from its being shared by Matthew and Luke, but also because, in the layers of Q as reconstructed, the later layers build upon and presuppose the earlier ones, whereas the reverse is not the case. Burton L Mack is a writer and John Wesley Professor (now Emeritus) in early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont California So evidence that Q has been revised is not evidence for disunity in Q, since the hypothesised revisions depend upon asymmetric logical connections between what are posited to be the later and earlier layers. [6]

See also

References

  1. ^ Austin M. In New Testament criticism the term logia (Greek "sayings utterances oracles" singular logion) is applied to a supposed collection of sayings of Markan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the three Synoptic Gospels, and that the two other synoptic evangelists Matthew The synoptic problem concerns the literary relationships between and among the first three canonical gospels (the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and The Two-Source Hypothesis (or 2SH is an explanation for the relationship between the three Gospels of Matthew Mark and Luke Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q" in D. E. Nineham (ed. ), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), pp. 55-88, reproduced at http://NTGateway.com/Q/Farrer.htm.
  2. ^ For example, Michael Goulder, "Is Q a Juggernaut", Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996), pp. 667-81, reproduced at http://ntgateway.com/Q/goulder.htm.
  3. ^ See, for example, Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Marcan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002)
  4. ^ http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/q_linnemann.pdf
  5. ^ Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship Between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron by Nicholas Perrin published by the Academia Biblica Society of Biblical Literature 2001 ISBN-10: 1589830458
    see also NT Wright on Trusting the Gospels
  6. ^ The Lost Gospel: The Book Q and Christian Origins Macmillan Co. The Lost Gospel by Burton L Mack develops the hypothesis of the " Q " source for the common material of Luke and Matthew not found (1993, paperback 1994).

External links

© 2009 citizendia.org; parts available under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License, from http://en.wikipedia.org
 Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic