Why the need for a Q document?

[ooguyx]

Why do some people believe that there is a Q document for the Gospels, ultimately what is the need for such a document? I don't see a problem with 4 men with the same experience telling the story in slightly different yet non-contradictory ways (especially considering the work of the Holy Spirit). Is there something that this theory adds to our understanding of the synoptics that I'm missing?

 

[arapahoepark]

It is largely a liberal invention. Evangelicals have accepted it and used it in a liberal way others in a conservative way. I seem to think Q doesn't have to be a document or a proto-gospel that is largely portrayed that the gospel writers (who they say weren't eyewitnesses or the real names of those who wrote them) as but, rather mere differences or other eyewitness accounts that were written in in Luke and Matthew for their respective audiences.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Part is the desperate search for a way to shove as much time as possible between the events of Jesus' life, and of those who knew him personally in the days of his flesh, and the dominical Gospels. "Q" creates a forgotten text, somewhat parallel to Mark, which together feed the narratives of Matthew and Luke, who are conveniently removed from the time of Jesus, and direct contact with him.

So, Mark is treated as the "closest thing" to personal acquaintance with Jesus that we actually have, and must be the source of some of the other Synoptics, but which leaves gaps that a hypothetical document must fill. John doesn't matter; because it's so different, it must be a work of complete fabrication.

It is not as though there is unanimity of thought on Q, its putative composition or age. Since it is the real fiction, it can have untold permutations. Even among non-conservative scholars, there is a wide range of attitudes. Martin Hengel (Tubingen) many years ago was writing about die kronologikal problem for the skeptical critics (see Between Jesus and Paul). There is simply not enough time for all that evolutionary development they wish there was. So, if there was a Q, its origins are in the A.D. 30s, in Jerusalem (see http://larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/hengels-impact1.pdf ).

Could Matthew and Luke have used Mark's Gospel? That thought's not out of the question. Are there other explanations for the close verbal parallels in the common narratives? Yes, if there was a single origin of the NT church (as Acts reports), with a coherent oral narrative that took one basic form as narrated by an actual apostolic band, who actually had those real experiences and shared them with others, who cared deeply about bringing many others into a truthful relationship with the Man they knew.

There were multiple sources; absolutely there were. They could have been written and oral. Was Mary (Jesus' mother) alive to speak to Luke? Surely, Zechariah was not. But we have Zechariah's song, either from his own pen, or from Mary's (or her memory). Luke could have known Jesus, or (as I think most likely) he really was a second-generation convert. And yet, he did have direct access to the apostolic memories, as well as the input of others, maybe even Mark.

For Mark's part, he most likely recorded Peter's version of the gospel-story. Between the three Synoptics, they all pulled from one body of knowledge, they all shared from a single, composite (made up of many) source--but the experience was objectively true. It really happened. And that is the best explanation for the facts.

Given the results of the century-and-a-half critical research project (to get behind the Gospels to the "real" origins of Christianity), we now have practically conclusive proof that such a reach is impossible--because there is no further back to find. The Gospels aren't 2nd century forgeries, constructed elsewhere than Judea/Galilee. The detail contained therein is so accurate, one would have needed 21st century data collation to fake all the shades of life found in them. Compared with the blatant copy-cat Gnostic gospels of the later period, the made-up stories of the latter are obvious fairy tales.

One last note, George Milligan wrote (1908) an excellent commentary on 1&2 Thessalonians, in which he proposed that Paul "must have been well acquainted with the actual words of Jesus, and in all probability had actually some written collection of them in his possession." And he lays out a table of comparison, https://archive.org/stream/stpaulsepistlest00millrich#page/lx/mode/2up . Note that the texts Milligan points to are from Matthew and Luke.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well written Bruce!

This is a really good book: Amazon.com: Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books eBook: Michael J. Kruger: Kindle Store

It's puzzling to me how readily many accept the Markan priority thing and simply assume the source criticism story.

The amazing thing about the way "scholarship" works in this area is complete lack of any manuscript evidence. That is to say that Ehrman or his ilk will propound some theory without a shred of manuscript evidence to support an evolutionary theory. It is assumed, a priori, that development had to occur and they are willing to make up scenarios out of whole cloth in which some conspiracy exists to support the theory.

They would be laughed out of court if they ever tried any of their methods in a real trial based on evidence.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thanks, Rich.

I guess Kruger challenges Markan priority? Nice to know, if so.

Well over half-a-century now, I believe Ned B. Stonehouse gave a conservative's appropriation of it (see The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (1941), The Witness of Luke to Christ (1951), Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (1963)).

In seminary, I took note of John Wenham's Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem IVP: 1992. He challenged the prevailing Markan priority view (he of Easter Enigma, a more well known book).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I guess Kruger challenges Markan priority? Nice to know, if so.

Don't quote me on that point. I can't remember for sure. I was simply recommending the work and then was making my own observations. Kruger does do a fantastic job of approaching Canon from many different angles and supporting evidences and arguing for a robust view that challenges not only liberal scholarship but community based models (i.e. Roman Catholic views).

I just have a pet peeve about speculation. I think each author had a purpose in mind in how they collated what was in the possession of the Christian community and don't see a need for theories on who takes priority based on similarities. It seems it's better explained by hearing the same accounts over and over and over again.