So I thought it time to undertake the "Q" debate:
But Q has become a very controversial idea, as well, because it is merely a theoretical document which scholars have taken to the habit of describing as real. For some, it seems a "must", a necessary component of Biblical structure. Some examples of Q pericopes include The Beatitudes, loving one's enemies, Judgment, building on rock, the Lord's Prayer, the (controversial) Sign of Jonah. several parables, and other material.
The whole debate stems from attempting to establish the methods of composition in the Bible. Some scholars have resolved that the Gospels and other New Testament material found common source material among one or two literary works. Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan examines the myth of Satan in an historical context, but her work is partially dependent on notions of Q, and the idea that some of the "history" in the Gospels is inaccurate in deference to Roman authority; however, Pagels does a good job of showing a possible development of the Gospels, with contemporary events staining each Gospel uniquely. Part of the giveaway is the characterizations of Satan appearing in the Gospels, Apocrypha, and extrabiblical church writings of early Christianity. Pagels' explorations of the idea and character of Satan end up lending strong weight to the influence of common-source documents tailored to the periods of their Gospel compositions.
But even the dating of when Q would have been composed is a matter of some question. Various textual cues and possible misinterpretations suggest a wide array of events which might be mentioned within the hypothetical document.
What is most interesting, though, is the specific argument against Q, which seems naïve in the sense that it actually helps my understanding of Q theory, and increases my favor of the idea of an extrabiblical source document.
At any rate, there's plenty of reading there, so take it or leave it as you would. But just to make it more confusing, the Catholic perspective.
Enjoy. Seriously, figuring out the nature of the Bible is one of the things about Christianity that can actually be fun. Think of what we'll learn about people if we can ever understand what the authors actually meant.
:m:,
Tiassa
As a side note, the large number of German- and French-language websites on "Quelle" reminds me that religion is alive and well across the pond.Q is, with the Gospel of Mark, one of the two major literary sources of the synoptic gospels, and is identified as material common to Matthew and Luke , but not in Mark. Unlike Mark, Q did not survive, inasmuch as most if not all of Q had been copied into Matthew and Luke. It is probably easiest to regard Q as an arbitrary symbol, though it is sometimes associated with the German word for source = Quelle. ("Q Source")
But Q has become a very controversial idea, as well, because it is merely a theoretical document which scholars have taken to the habit of describing as real. For some, it seems a "must", a necessary component of Biblical structure. Some examples of Q pericopes include The Beatitudes, loving one's enemies, Judgment, building on rock, the Lord's Prayer, the (controversial) Sign of Jonah. several parables, and other material.
The whole debate stems from attempting to establish the methods of composition in the Bible. Some scholars have resolved that the Gospels and other New Testament material found common source material among one or two literary works. Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan examines the myth of Satan in an historical context, but her work is partially dependent on notions of Q, and the idea that some of the "history" in the Gospels is inaccurate in deference to Roman authority; however, Pagels does a good job of showing a possible development of the Gospels, with contemporary events staining each Gospel uniquely. Part of the giveaway is the characterizations of Satan appearing in the Gospels, Apocrypha, and extrabiblical church writings of early Christianity. Pagels' explorations of the idea and character of Satan end up lending strong weight to the influence of common-source documents tailored to the periods of their Gospel compositions.
But even the dating of when Q would have been composed is a matter of some question. Various textual cues and possible misinterpretations suggest a wide array of events which might be mentioned within the hypothetical document.
What is most interesting, though, is the specific argument against Q, which seems naïve in the sense that it actually helps my understanding of Q theory, and increases my favor of the idea of an extrabiblical source document.
At any rate, there's plenty of reading there, so take it or leave it as you would. But just to make it more confusing, the Catholic perspective.
Enjoy. Seriously, figuring out the nature of the Bible is one of the things about Christianity that can actually be fun. Think of what we'll learn about people if we can ever understand what the authors actually meant.
:m:,
Tiassa