Source Q

Document Source Q or Q or simply Q 's original German meaning) is a hypothetical source (presumed lost), some scholars believe it is the cause of the common elements of the gospels of Matthew and Luke , absent in Mark. It would be a collection of sayings of Jesus of Nazareth that some biblical scholars have attempted to reconstruct and would date around the year 50 ^Introduction

The agreement of the biblical scholars of the nineteenth ^century to the fact that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke have in common many passages missing in the sources of inspiration which they have traditionally been assigned (the Gospel of Mark and Old Testament), suggested the existence of a second common source, called "Q document" (in German Which means "source"). This hypothetical text (also called Gospel Q Series Q Series Synoptic words, and since the late ^nineteenth century , Logia is to say in Greek) appears to have been essentially a collection of words Jesus. With the assumption of the priority of the Gospel of Mark, the Q document hypothesis is constitutive of what biblical scholars call the assumption of two sources.

This two-source hypothesis is the most generally received Synoptic Problem , which touches on literary influences between the first three canonical gospels (the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke), known as the Synoptic Gospels. These influences are sensitive by the similarities in word choice and order of these same words in the sentence. The "synoptic problem" speculates on the origin and nature of these relationships. Based on the assumption of two sources, not only Matthew and Luke both based on the Gospel of Mark , independently of one another, but as we detect similarities between Matthew and Luke we do not found in Mark's Gospel, we must assume the existence of a second tradition. This second source, hypothetical, is called Q.

The Synoptic Gospels

We find almost everything in Mark's Gospel in the Gospel of Matthew, and even found much of Mark's Gospel in the Gospel of Luke. In addition, Matthew and Luke share a large number of sentences or narrative elements missing from the Gospel of Mark.

Of all the gospels written during the first centuries of our era, only four are now received in the canon of the New Testament: the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. The Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke are very similar in composition: they relate the same facts and stories about Jesus, generally follow the same storyline and uses the same lexicon.

The Gospel of John, by contrast, has long been recognized as distinct from the first three, as the originality of its themes, its content, the time interval it covers, as the narrative order and style. Clement of Alexandria summed up the uniqueness of the Gospel of John as follows: "John, coming last, and made aware that land had already been exposed in these early gospels ... himself has composed a spiritual gospel . "

The term 'synoptic "comes from a word Greek meaning "woman who marries the same point of view" . Given the many similarities between the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, these three works are called Synoptic Gospels.

The Synoptic Gospels do offer many parallels between them: more than 80% of the verses of Mark are found in Matthew and Luke . Because the content is found in three gospels, it is called Triple Tradition. The passages of the Triple Tradition are mostly narrative, but there are also some words of Christ.

But also, there are also many identical passages between Matthew and Luke, but absent from the Gospel of Mark. Nearly 25% of the verses of the Gospel of Matthew are echoed in Luke (but not in Mark). The common passage between Matthew and Luke are referred to as the Double tradition.

The Synoptic problem

The links between the three synoptic gospels beyond the simple analogy of view: not only because these gospels relate the same stories, but they almost always present them in the same order, and sometimes by using exactly the same words, so that some passages are word for word identical (see cons below the original Greek).

The researchers note that these similarities are too profound to be simple coincidence: several witnesses of the same scene do not generally give exactly the same story, and especially each employ a vocabulary and a register of their own. This remark prompted long biblical scholars and theologians to assume a literary authorship between the three synoptic gospels.

Similar passages from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the same words are highlighted in red .

The precise nature of the relationship between the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke is the so-called Synoptic Problem. The formulation of this question and attempts to answer back to antiquity in truth: for example, St. Augustine has tried to account for this mystery by arguing that the Gospel of Matthew was written first, then that Mark would have pushed the story of Matthew and Luke finally turn was inspired by the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Augustinian hypothesis). Although this compromise has fallen into disuse among biblical scholars, it nevertheless represents one of the solutions of the oldest and most influential synoptic problem.

The priority of Mark and the triple tradition

An important step in solving the synoptic problem has been taken with the recognition of the priority of the Gospel of Mark on the other Gospels. Several indices reflect this citation:

• Mark's Gospel is the shortest: it is more plausible to assume that the other gospels, which resumed the whole substance, have added items, rather than assuming that Mark has deleted passages of the other two texts (because why would he do?)
• the register and syntax of Marc are less developed than the other two evangelists (Matthew and Luke): this suggests that the two other synoptic Gospels are rewritten versions in good Koine of Mark's account, for it is not likely that Marc has intentionally degraded its model in literary terms;
• finally Marc regularly quoted phrases in Aramaic (which he translated into Greek), which are neither Matthew nor Luke.

The hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark, written first, would have served as a partial source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, now generally accepted.

For these reasons and others, most biblical scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest, and in addition this text was the source of at least partially to the other two synoptic gospels. If this assumption of the priority of Mark is correct, then the triple tradition is nothing but all the passages in Mark, drawn by the other two evangelists.

In the double tradition in the Q document hypothesis

The assumption of the priority of the Gospel of Mark, if well aware of most of the similarities between the three synoptic gospels, yet still explains only a part, and for this reason, we can say that does not fully mimic the problem. Indeed, apart from the famous passages inspired by the Gospel of Mark, there are still between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke a respectable fraction of common elements. These elements together under the collective term "second tradition," consist of sentences with identical words used in the same order. To the extent we do not find in the text of Mark, researchers (Marsh, Schleiermacher, Weisse) assumed that Matthew and Luke were based, also independently, a second text (hence the term of "two-source hypothesis"), called Q (from German means "source").

Despite the objections of some researchers, the two-source hypothesis is now the most commonly advanced to the synoptic problem.

If this hypothesis is correct, two sources, while the second source is certainly a written document, as if it were an oral tradition, it could not account for the similarity of words (lexicon) and even less the coincidence in word order. In addition, it was hoped to further that this hypothetical source in the version on which Matthew and Luke had access, was written in Greek, for had it been written in another language (in Aramaic, for example), their translations could not at this point coincide. Some researchers also assume that the Q document preceded the Gospel of Mark.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke, written independently, and support one another on the Gospel of Mark, but apparently also on a second common source, called "Q document" that is the hypothesis of two sources.

The Q document, if it ever existed, is now lost, but of course the content can be partly reconstructed from the passages common to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and absent from the Gospel of Mark. But the text has a line and rebuilt all at remarkable: in general, it provides no account of the life of Jesus (he evokes neither his birth nor the choice of twelve disciples nor his crucifixion nor his resurrection). However, it forms a collection of words and doctrine of Jesus.

Arguments for the existence of a second source

Thus the existence of a source Q is deduced that neither Matthew nor Luke borrow from one to the other in the passages belonging to the double tradition. Furthermore, the coincidence in the choice of words between the two evangelists is such that the only reasonable explanation is the use by the two authors of the same (or similar) written documents. Although Matthew and Luke wrote independently of one another (assuming the priority of Mark), the Q hypothesis says they relied on a common source. The main arguments in support of this hypothesis are:

• sometimes amazing coincidence between the words of the text, as in Mt June 24 = Lk 16 13 (27 and 28 Greek words, respectively); Mt 7 7-8 = Lk 11: 9-10 (24 Greek words each).
• The word order is occasionally even identical, for example in the Sermon on the plain and the Sermon on the Mount.
• The appearance of the same redundancy, when Matthew and Luke give two versions of an identical sentence, but in two different contexts. These redundancies may also echo the use of two written sources.
• Certain themes, such as vision Deuteronomistic history, more pervasive in Q (as we can reconstruct it) than in Matthew or Luke individually.
• Luke said that he knows of other sources on the life of Jesus, and he tried to gather all available information Luke 1 1-4.

Doubt about the existence of a second source

Austin Farrer , Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre disavow the Q hypothesis, while defending the assumption of the priority of Mark, and consider that Matthew was inspired by Luke. Other researchers dispute the Q hypothesis because they think that the Gospel of Matthew is the oldest ( Augustinian hypothesis ). Their main arguments are:

• It is primarily self-evident that two documents correcting the style of Mark, adding biographical details (birth and resurrection) as well as quantity of citations, are likely to be inspired from each other, rather but to look across.
• There are exactly 347 runs (according Neirynck), where one or more words are added to the text of Mark, both in Matthew and Luke, which is designated as "approximate match" with Marc, that among these, 198 consist of a single word, 82 in two words, 35 words in three, 16 in four words, and there are only 16 instances where Matthew and Luke increase text Marc five or more words.
• Where proponents of the Q hypothesis asserts that the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas confirms the existence of a "gospel of the sayings" of Jesus, Mark Goodacre points out that the Q document presented to us provides a narrative structure , and is not a mere collection of sentences.
• Some researchers also derive support in the fact that not only is there no manuscript of the Q document, but any writer of antiquity does not refer to a text like this.
• Other researchers, such as William Farmer , defending the Griesbach hypothesis that the Gospel of Matthew is the oldest, from the Gospel according to Luke then, Marc and Matthew have just summarized. The Q document, element of the assumption of two sources, has no reason to exist if the priority of Matthew is correct, because while Luke was able to tap its references in Mark and in Matthew.
• For researchers such as John Wenham, adopt the Augustinian hypothesis that neighbor is still the Gospel of Matthew is the oldest, the Gospel of Mark coming second, the Griesbach hypothesis is also better than Assuming the source Q. The Catholic tradition also supports this view.
• Eta Linnemann, meanwhile, rejects the hypothesis of the source Q and goes up to challenge the relevance of a problem diagram .
• Nicholas Perrin suggests that the Gospel of Thomas is to source the Diatessaron of Tatian the Syrian , not the Q document .

History of the hypothesis Q

For the contemporary period, the first researcher to suggest the existence of a second source is probably Herbert Marsh , who in 1801 published a rather complex solution to the synoptic problem, which had almost no response. In his book, Marsh calls this hypothetical text beth the name of the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet ().

Then in 1832, the German theologian Schleiermacher examines the enigmatic phrase following the Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis (writing about 125): "Matthew compiled the logia of the Lord with Hebrew towers ... Rather than rely on the traditional explanation that Matthew had written his Gospel in Hebrew, Schleiermacher thought that Papias testified that there is actually a collection of sayings of Christ, available to evangelicals.

In 1838, Christian Hermann Weisse said the hypothesis of Schleiermacher and added the assumption of the priority of Mark, to formulate what we now call the assumption of two sources: Matthew and Luke drew in both the Gospel of Mark and a source of quotations of Christ. This theory of two sources and resumed in 1863 by Heinrich Julius Holtzmann in a book that remains a benchmark, "The Synoptic Gospels, their origin and historicity" (Die synoptischen Evangelien, ihr Ursprung und Charakter geschichtlich, Leipzig, 1863), and since , assuming the two sources remains an important avenue of research.

Until that time, the source was commonly referred to as hypothetical collection of Logia in reference to the words of Papias, and Holtzmann designated by the Greek letter lambda (). In the late ^nineteenth century , however, doubts emerged about whether this hypothesis to depend a philological reading of the sentence of Papias, or even to identify a collection of sayings, so that now preferred to use the letter Q (given at the time by Johannes Weiss) to neutralize the debate. In the first two decades of the ^twentieth century , it offers no less than a dozen reconstructions of the "Q source", but these reconstructions differed both among themselves and found that there is not even share a single verse the Gospel according to Matthew. This is one reason why interest in the case of two sources marking time then for several decades.

Things changed in 1960 with the translation of a collection of sayings of Christ recently discovered the Gospel of Thomas. James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester hypothesize that the source Q and the Gospel of Thomas represent the first step of Christian writings that will lead in a few decades in the canonical Gospels.

This renewed interest led to new attempts, more literary and sophisticated, to establish the text of the source Q, particularly under the pen of John S. Kloppenborg. The latter, analyzing certain literary aspects of texts, suggests that the source Q was composed in three stages: the first step was to produce a compendium of wisdom on the subject of poverty and submission to the master, then this collection has been increased criticism of judgments against the contemporary and the latest addition is the story of the Temptation of Christ.

Although Kloppenborg defend himself to confuse the history of the composition of source Q with the story of Jesus (that is to say, to pretend that the source Q is necessarily the first testimony on the Christian tradition), some commentators contemporaries , including members of the Jesus Seminar U.S. do not hesitate to take the plunge. Basing their analysis on the Gospel of Thomas and the old layer of the source Q, they suggest that Jesus behaved more like a sage than a rabbi Jew. Kloppenborg, it should be noted, is now a member of the Jesus Seminar.

Bruce Griffin , who doubts the relevance of the tripartite division of Q given by Kloppenborg, wrote about it:

"The phasing of Q is widely argued by many researchers on this issue. But others have harshly criticized and beyond the circle of specialists, it seems to demonstrate that these researchers have lost all sense of scientific rigor. The idea that one can reconstruct the history of a text that does not exist, and must rebuild from Matthew and Luke, is alien to the scientific caution. But the most serious objection to the proposed revisions for Q is the history of these subsequent revisions, which undermines the credibility of the hypothesis Q For although we can identify many common passages between Matthew and Luke, we can not demonstrate that these passages come from the same source, Q is perhaps nothing more than a convenient term that overlaps actually several texts used by Matthew and Luke. That's why every argument for successive revisions of Q is also an argument in favor of the composite character of Q, that is to say in favor of a multiplicity of sources for Matthew and Luke. Conversely, any argument for the unity of Q (to be shown for Q see a single document) also goes against the thesis of the two proposed revisions. Advocate for the tripartite structure of Q returns, intellectually speaking, to stand on a tightrope: for we must assume that both the unity of the text is sufficient for us to speak of a single document, and at the same time asserting that there is sufficient disparity to justify the partition of the text. Without independent evidence on Q, it is unrealistic to believe that a researcher can keep his balance in this position. "

However, researchers pro-development in three stages of Q argue, as Burton L. Mack, the unit of Q is derived not only from the fact that Matthew and Luke used it, but also that the three "layers" of successive text, as can be replenished, in addition and effectively assume the previous layer, which imposes an order. Also, evidence of the composition of phased Q does not go against the unity of this source, since the last two phases identified from the asymmetric logical relations between what we assume to be the state and the state developed earlier text .

Contents of the document admitted Q

Some of the most remarkable passages in the New Testament are known from the document Q:

References

(0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5, rated)

 Loading ...

Help us improve the wiki Send Your Comments