Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] three arguments that it is unlikely that Q exisited ?

Expand Messages
  • Zeba Crook
    Dear Brian, I think it s interesting that the arguments for and against Q or the 2DH never change, they just get repeated, and that neither camp is ever
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 28, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Brian,

      I think it's interesting that the arguments for and against Q or the 2DH
      never change, they just get repeated, and that neither camp is ever
      convinced by the other's protestations.

      These are all good points you make, but as arguments against Q they're not
      logical and they're not consistent with what we know of other ancient
      documents.

      "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:
      (1) The survival of the Gospel of Thomas shows that a collection of

      > sayings attributed to Jesus would have been prized and very likely to be
      > copied and thereby preserved. If Q was a collection of mostly sayings
      > attributed to Jesus, surely it would likewise have been prized and very
      > likely to have been copied and thereby preserved. But this has not
      > happened. We have no extant manuscript of Q. Therefore it is unlikely
      > that Q ever existed.

      That there is no extant copy of Q is unfortunate, to be sure. But there is
      no logical link being something being prized and its surviving. The fact
      that Q has not survived does not mean, logically, that it was not prized.
      Surely you can predict what a Q supporter would say next: Paul refers in 1
      Cor 5:9 to a letter he wrote which we no longer have. If Q was anything
      like the extant gospels we have, then it was anonymous. Paul on the other
      hand, was obviously a very revered leader (many of his letters were kept,
      many were written in his spirit, and someone wrote extensively about his
      acts), and yet there is a letter of his which has not been preserved.
      Obviously there is no relation between something being treasured and its
      being preserved, for we know that didn't always happen.

      > (2) Mark has been copied and preserved even though most of its material
      > is largely found in Matthew and Luke. If Q existed, surely it would have
      > been copied and preserved even though most of its material would be
      > found in Matthew and Luke. But Q has not been copied and preserved.
      > Therefore it is unlikely that Q ever existed.

      We don't know that it was not copied, and we don't know that attempts were
      not made to preserve it. The only thing we do know is that it did not
      survive. Given how much else from the ancient world has not survived, why
      is it so problematic that Q might be among them?

      > (3) If Q existed, we should expect there to have been a reference to its
      > existence in early Christian writing, for instance in the writing of
      > Papias or Justin. But, as J. S. Kloppenborg Verbin has shown, the Papias
      > tradition concerning TA LOGIA does not refer to Q but is indeed nonsense
      > if Q (as defined by the 2DH) existed. Moreover, Justin
      > would appear to make no mention of Q. It would seem that there is no
      > clear reference in early Christian writing to Q. It is therefore
      > unlikely that Q existed.

      First of all, how often does it happen that what we'd expect is not what we
      find? This is not very strong argumentation. Secondly, returning to Paul's
      lost letter, is it ever referred to in early Christian writings? I myself
      do not know the answer to this, but I suspect it is not. Are we to doubt
      its existence on these grounds?

      Let me clear, nothing of what I've said here is meant to *prove* that Q
      existed, for my own points here are not probative in that direction either.
      I've simply responded to arguments against Q that, based on what we do know,
      don't work logically. In other words, there may be reasons to doubt Q's
      existence, but these are not among them.

      Cheers,

      Zeb

      ***

      Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
      University of St. Michael's College
      Faculty of Theology
      81 St. Mary Street
      Toronto, Ontario, Canada
      M5S 1J4

      (416) 964-8629
      http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~zcrook/


      >
      >
      > Best wishes,
      > BRIAN WILSON
      >
      > >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/
      >
      > Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
      > > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
      > > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
      > _
      >
      > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
      ... Many books in antiquity have been lost. Note Lk 1:1, Now?? many have undertaken to compile an account? of the things?? that have been fulfilled?? among
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 28, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        > (1) The survival of the Gospel of Thomas shows that a collection of
        > sayings attributed to Jesus would have been prized and very likely to be
        > copied and thereby preserved. If Q was a collection of mostly sayings
        > attributed to Jesus, surely it would likewise have been prized and very
        > likely to have been copied and thereby preserved. But this has not
        > happened. We have no extant manuscript of Q. Therefore it is unlikely
        > that Q ever existed.

        Many books in antiquity have been lost. Note Lk 1:1, "Now?? many have
        undertaken to compile an account? of the things?? that have been fulfilled??
        among us" [NET], which testifies to the existence of many such works.

        > (2) Mark has been copied and preserved even though most of its material
        > is largely found in Matthew and Luke. If Q existed, surely it would have
        > been copied and preserved even though most of its material would be
        > found in Matthew and Luke. But Q has not been copied and preserved.
        > Therefore it is unlikely that Q ever existed.

        The truncated and reconstructed ending of Mk testifies that it can close
        to being lost, having been reduced to a single damaged manuscript
        at one point. Q was evidently not so lucky.

        > (3) If Q existed, we should expect there to have been a reference to its
        > existence in early Christian writing, for instance in the writing of
        > Papias or Justin. But, as J. S. Kloppenborg Verbin has shown, the Papias
        > tradition concerning TA LOGIA does not refer to Q but is indeed nonsense
        > if Q (as defined by the 2DH) existed. Moreover, Justin
        > would appear to make no mention of Q. It would seem that there is no
        > clear reference in early Christian writing to Q. It is therefore
        > unlikely that Q existed.

        The only way this argument would hold any water is if the Gospels
        really are the late forgeries that so many assume them to be. If,
        on the other hand, the synoptics were written in the 50's and 60's,
        Q's loss would predate Papias et al by a generation or more. They
        don't mention Q any more than they mention the many other accounts
        that Lk 1:1 sites because they lived decades later than Luke's
        composition.


        ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
        ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
        ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
        mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
        "The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different
        stages of composition, but even of complete communities whose
        beliefs are accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens
        a naive willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing
        like Mark (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright




        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Zeba Crook
        ... Could you expand on what you mean by late forgeries ? Who is it that assumes this? Zeb *** Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand) University of St. Michael s
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 28, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Jeffrey Glen Jackson wrote:

          > if the Gospels really are the late forgeries that so many assume them to be

          Could you expand on what you mean by "late forgeries"? Who is it that assumes
          this?

          Zeb

          ***

          Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
          University of St. Michael's College
          Faculty of Theology
          81 St. Mary Street
          Toronto, Ontario, Canada
          M5S 1J4

          (416) 964-8629
          http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~zcrook/



          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 9/28/2001 10:27:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jeff@jeff-jackson.com writes:
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 28, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 9/28/2001 10:27:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
            jeff@... writes:

            << Many books in antiquity have been lost. Note Lk 1:1, "Now?? many have
            undertaken to compile an account? of the things?? that have been fulfilled??
            among us" [NET], which testifies to the existence of many such works.>>


            This interpretation of Lk 1:1 is problematic: it assumes, anachronistically I
            think, that Luke would already have conceived a clear break between Old and
            New Testaments of the kind that we take for granted today. It is perfectly
            possible that the works alluded to by Luke in this verse are not at all
            "lost". Luke may have regarded Matthew as simply a continuation of a long
            line of Jewish scribes who have written about the "things which have been
            brought to fulfillment in our midst, as those who were eyewitnesses and
            ministers of the word have handed down to us". If mine is NOT the correct
            interpretation of Lk 1:1, then it is rather surprising that Luke never
            alludes in his prologue to known books from antiquity from which he
            demonstrably and copiously drew in writing his own Gospel narrative,
            beginning in 1:5.

            Leonard Maluf

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Emmanuel Fritsch
            ... I understand, Jeffrey, but perhabs your demonstration would be valid even if the synoptics were written between 70 and 100. And more over, considering the
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 28, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Brian said, Jeffrey Glen Jackson answered :

              > > (3) If Q existed, we should expect there to have been a reference to its
              > > existence in early Christian writing, for instance in the writing of
              > > Papias or Justin. But, as J. S. Kloppenborg Verbin has shown, the Papias
              > > tradition concerning TA LOGIA does not refer to Q but is indeed nonsense
              > > if Q (as defined by the 2DH) existed. Moreover, Justin
              > > would appear to make no mention of Q. It would seem that there is no
              > > clear reference in early Christian writing to Q. It is therefore
              > > unlikely that Q existed.
              >
              > The only way this argument would hold any water is if the Gospels
              > really are the late forgeries that so many assume them to be. If,
              > on the other hand, the synoptics were written in the 50's and 60's,
              > Q's loss would predate Papias et al by a generation or more. They
              > don't mention Q any more than they mention the many other accounts
              > that Lk 1:1 sites because they lived decades later than Luke's
              > composition.

              I understand, Jeffrey, but perhabs your demonstration would
              be valid even if the synoptics were written between 70 and 100.
              And more over, considering the worst case of gospels being a
              late forgery, the forgery would have included the silence about
              sources...

              But I think, my objection to Brian would be : for what reason
              should Justin have mention of Q ? Does he have mention of Luke,
              Mark, Matthew ?
              Am I wrong if I say that the single Justin's mention of a
              NT writer is the John of Revelation ?

              Silence arguments look allways weak for me. With such arguments,
              so easy to prove that Jesus, Descartes or Attila never existed.
              Are silence arguments well-considered in NT scholarship ?

              a+
              manu

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
              ... I should have used more care in this forum about how I worded that. I should have used the term psuedepigrapha instead of forgeries as it is less
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 28, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                > Could you expand on what you mean by "late forgeries"?
                > Who is it that assumes this?

                I should have used more care in this forum about how I
                worded that. I should have used the term "psuedepigrapha"
                instead of "forgeries" as it is less judgmental of the
                authors.

                Most scholars date the synoptics to the late first century
                (about 70 AD for Mark, 80 AD for Luke, and 90 AD for
                Matthew seem to be the most common dates one sees)
                and reject the traditional authorship ascriptions.

                Most would probably object to the term "forgery" or
                even "pseudepigraphon" (I'm sure I'm not spelling
                that right) since it is usually held that the Gospels were
                originally anonymous. However, there is no manuscript
                evidence for anything other than the traditional titles, and
                early tradition is unanimous regarding the authors as well.
                I think it likely the titles were there from the first copies.

                ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
                ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
                ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
                mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
                "The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different
                stages of composition, but even of complete communities whose
                beliefs are accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens
                a naive willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing
                like Mark (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright




                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
                ... Exactly. It is a weak argument that they didn t know Q. And even if they didn t know Q, it can just as easily mean that Q is no longer extant (later
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 28, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Silence arguments look always weak for me. With such arguments,
                  > so easy to prove that Jesus, Descartes or Attila never existed.
                  > Are silence arguments well-considered in NT scholarship ?

                  Exactly. It is a weak argument that they didn't know Q. And even
                  if they didn't know Q, it can just as easily mean that Q is no longer
                  extant (later Gospels make this less likely) as it can mean that Q
                  never existed.


                  ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
                  ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
                  ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
                  mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
                  "The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different
                  stages of composition, but even of complete communities whose
                  beliefs are accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens
                  a naive willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing
                  like Mark (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright




                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • David Gentile
                  Besides the standard arguments, here is a non-standard theory: Q was in fact contained within a full gospel, something like a proto-Matthew. Call it
                  Message 8 of 11 , Sep 28, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Besides the standard arguments, here is a non-standard theory:

                    Q was in fact contained within a full gospel, something like a
                    proto-Matthew.
                    Call it "gospel-C".
                    The sayings were not integrated. Certain parts, like John's special
                    preaching were in their places. But most were inserted in the form of a
                    list. For example, the sermon on the mound/plain could have been very
                    unstructured, and simply been a list of "and Jesus said"s.

                    Such a document might invite re-writes to better integrate the sayings into
                    the narrative, (leading to Matthew and Luke), but would not in itself demand
                    preservation.

                    Mark does contain detail not contained in the other gospels, this might of
                    helped it to be preserved.
                    (And also might indicate it is not an original document either.)
                    If gospel-C had no extra text, there would be very little reason to preserve
                    it.

                    Dave Gentile
                    Riverside, IL


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Brian E. Wilson" <brian@...>
                    To: <Synoptic-L@...>
                    Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 5:03 AM
                    Subject: [Synoptic-L] three arguments that it is unlikely that Q exisited ?




                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Brian E. Wilson
                    Tim Reynolds wrote (concerning Q ) -- ... Tim, I agree that it is not necessary to posit Q (as defined by the 2DH) to solve the synoptic problem. I see the
                    Message 9 of 11 , Sep 30, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tim Reynolds wrote (concerning "Q") --
                      >
                      >Plus (4) it's unnecessary.
                      >
                      Tim,
                      I agree that it is not necessary to posit Q (as defined by the 2DH)
                      to solve the synoptic problem.

                      I see the problem, however, not in Q being an *unnecessary* hypothetical
                      entity, but in Q being a hypothetical document *as defined by the 2DH*.

                      My suggestion is that there was a documentary source (not a continuous
                      gospel, but a set of individual notes for teaching Jesus tradition)
                      larger than any synoptic gospel and containing virtually all the
                      material in them (in Greek), and that each synoptic gospel is basically
                      a cut-down version of this document.

                      In other words, think of "Q" as vastly expanded to include virtually
                      everything in the synoptic gospels, and of each synoptic gospel being
                      produced by connecting together an independent edited selection of self-
                      contained units of Jesus tradition from this.

                      Best wishes,
                      BRIAN WILSON

                      >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                      _

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Tim Reynolds
                      Mt23.24 tim ... Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@bham.ac.uk
                      Message 10 of 11 , Oct 1, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Mt23.24

                        tim

                        "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:
                        >
                        > Tim Reynolds wrote (concerning "Q") --
                        > >
                        > >Plus (4) it's unnecessary.
                        > >
                        > Tim,
                        > I agree that it is not necessary to posit Q (as defined by the 2DH)
                        > to solve the synoptic problem.
                        >
                        > I see the problem, however, not in Q being an *unnecessary* hypothetical
                        > entity, but in Q being a hypothetical document *as defined by the 2DH*.
                        >
                        > My suggestion is that there was a documentary source (not a continuous
                        > gospel, but a set of individual notes for teaching Jesus tradition)
                        > larger than any synoptic gospel and containing virtually all the
                        > material in them (in Greek), and that each synoptic gospel is basically
                        > a cut-down version of this document.
                        >
                        > In other words, think of "Q" as vastly expanded to include virtually
                        > everything in the synoptic gospels, and of each synoptic gospel being
                        > produced by connecting together an independent edited selection of self-
                        > contained units of Jesus tradition from this.
                        >
                        > Best wishes,
                        > BRIAN WILSON
                        >
                        > >HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/
                        >
                        > Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                        > > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                        > > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                        > _
                        >
                        > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.