Gospel Q-Your thoughts?

by Seven 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  Back to Q: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/

  The basic Q theory is quite simple: (1) Matthew and Luke obviously had a version of Mark as one of their written sources, yet (2) Matthew and Luke also sometimes verbally agree on passages (especially sayings) which are absent from Mark. Then they must have had at least another common written source = Q (from German Quelle, "source").

  Actually no document corresponding to Q has been found yet. It is certainly not the Gospel of Thomas as we know it, although the latter might depend on Q too. The theory is complicated if, as is probable, (1) Mark has known and used Q too and (2) there has been influence from successive editions of Matthew and Luke on the extant text of Mark. The last parameters make it more difficult to ascertain what exactly were the contents of Q. Moreover, it is quite likely that Q itself underwent successive revisions and additions.

  The above link gives an interesting summary of the current theories.
• 

  Leolaia

  It predates the four gospels and was written in Aramaic.

  Actually, most if not all Q theorists I know of believe that the work was written in Greek, as it exhibits extensive intertextuality with the LXX and other Greek versions (cf. the evidence in Dale Allison). The wording is just too close for Q (or Matthew and Luke) not to have been written originally in Greek. The evidence of Aramaisms (such as have been suggested for Mark or John) is also difficult to interpret: they could constitute evidence of original language, or they could be evidence that the author was bilingual.

  Mark Goodacre is also a leading proponent of the view that Q did not exist per se, but that Luke was dependent on Matthew. I think there is evidence on both sides for and against Q, and I'm a little agnostic on the matter at the moment.