Searching commentaries for "Q"

Page 1 of 2 (39 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 38 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 12
InNeedOfGod | Forum Activity | Posted: Wed, Mar 21 2018 8:39 AM

How do I search for Q in my commentaries? I've tried several methods, but have not found one that works.

UPDATE: Thank you for those taking the time to give me tips for this search!!  I am grateful.

Posts 13368
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 8:52 AM

InNeedOfGod:
How do I search for Q in my commentaries? I've tried several methods, but have not found one that works.

What do you mean by "search for Q"? Because Q is hypothetical, there are no direct references to it. (Apart from in the Hermeneia commentary on Q, that is.)

If you want to search for every time the word Q occurs, you can literally just search for Q. There will be many false positives — for example when "Q" means "question".

You can narrow it down by searching for quelle ANDEQUALS Q. That will only show occurrences of the word 'Q', when the hovertext on the word contains the single word 'quelle'. There should be no false positives, but not all occurrences of Q have hovertext, so you'll miss some.

Posts 10223
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 9:34 AM

Mark Barnes:

What do you mean by "search for Q"? Because Q is hypothetical, there are no direct references to it. (Apart from in the Hermeneia commentary on Q, that is.)

No offense to Mark, but ??.

The best I use is "'Q'" WITHIN 4 WORDS  Mark (or Mat, Luk, Tho, etc)

Of course, that just narrows down the Q's.

 


Posts 1022
Keith Pang | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 9:38 AM

Mark is right. Q is hypothetical there is no Q document. It’s an assumption but there is no hard proof for it. Funny if there was such a document it did not survive 

Shalom, in Christ, Keith. Check out my music www.soundcloud.com/kpang808

Posts 13368
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 9:39 AM

Denise:

Mark Barnes:

What do you mean by "search for Q"? Because Q is hypothetical, there are no direct references to it. (Apart from in the Hermeneia commentary on Q, that is.)

No offense to Mark, but ??.

Do the question marks indicate confusion, or disagreement? In other words, which part isn't clear, or with which part don't you agree with?

Posts 10223
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 9:51 AM

How does an opinion concerning Q impact searching for Q discussions? Ergo ??.


Posts 13368
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 10:06 AM

Denise:

How does an opinion concerning Q impact searching for Q discussions? Ergo ??.

Saying that Q is hypothetical is hardly an opinion. It's scholarly consensus. Exhibit A: the definition given in AYBD: "“Q” (the abbreviation for German Quelle, “source”) is the name scholars have given to the hypothetical source that would account for the gospel material (not found in Mark) that Matthew and Luke have in common."

Leaving that aside, my point remains. Other than in the Hermeneia Commentary on Q, there are no direct references to Q in Logos, so you can't search for them. In other words, you can search for any references to Matthew by searching for <Bible ~ Matthew>, but you can't search for references to Q by doing <Bible ~ Q>, or anything like it.

I said the single Hermeneia volume that purports to be a commentary on Q was an exception. That creates a Q referencing scheme, which allows you to search for <Q ~ Q 1-22>, which will return all the references to Q in your library. But that's not at all helpful, as they're all within that single volume.

Posts 10223
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 10:09 AM

You miss the ?? point. Searching for Asherah doesn't mean she's real or needs to be. Ditto Q.


Posts 2
David Stockdale | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 10:09 AM

I performed a search using the search term:  'Q source'

and received a number of good hits - articles about the Q hypothesis as well as commentaries that refer to it.

Posts 17990
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 10:09 AM

InNeedOfGod:
How do I search for Q in my commentaries?

quelle WITHIN {Milestone <Mt-Lk>}

Mark Barnes:

You can narrow it down by searching for quelle ANDEQUALS Q. That will only show occurrences of the word 'Q', when the hovertext on the word contains the single word 'quelle'. There should be no false positives, but not all occurrences of Q have hovertext, so you'll miss some.

Thanks - Bible Milestone searching finds Bibles, Commentaries, Notes with "Q" hover-text having quelle ("Q" without hover-text are missing).

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 13368
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 10:29 AM

Denise:
You miss the ?? point. Searching for Asherah doesn't mean she's real or needs to be. Ditto Q.

The analogy doesn't apply. You can search for mentions of Asherah, and my post also explained how to search for mentions of Q.

But Asherah isn't a document, hypothetical or otherwise, so she can't stand as an analog to a document you would reference. My simple point was that you can't search for direct references to Q. That's because while you can mention a hypothetical document, you can't give a reference to hypothetical document. There is not yet such thing a Q 11:1, and therefore you can't search for Q 11:1 (previous exceptions for Hermeneia, of course). That's all I was saying.

Posts 10223
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 10:38 AM

Actually, I chose Asherah on purpose ... the god or the symbol. Another argument one can search for.


Posts 356
Mathew Haferkamp | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 11:11 AM

Hey InNeedOfGod

    I tried " Q " (quotation mark, space, capital Q, space, quotation mark) and got a pretty good response.  Maybe that will help. 

Posts 195
Daniel Radke | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 11:24 AM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):

This comment/questions does not pertain to the specific questions at hand, but I am very curious as I look at your screenshot - how did you get the year of publication, abbreviation for series, and author's name to appear in front of almost every commentary? Have you manually edited the names of each commentary?

eChristianResources.com - Connecting Christians With Quality Evangelical Resources Available For FREE On The Internet (including links to free Logos/Vyrso resources!)

Posts 12
InNeedOfGod | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 12:35 PM

Thanks -  This is a help

Posts 12
InNeedOfGod | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 12:37 PM

Thank you - that gave me a lot of good hits

Posts 12
InNeedOfGod | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 12:38 PM

Thanks - I got a lot of good results with this

Posts 17990
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 21 2018 12:45 PM

Daniel Radke:
This comment/questions does not pertain to the specific questions at hand, but I am very curious as I look at your screenshot - how did you get the year of publication, abbreviation for series, and author's name to appear in front of almost every commentary? Have you manually edited the names of each commentary?

Yes for manually editing all my English commentary titles => https://community.logos.com/forums/p/139386/890581.aspx#890581

Note: sorting commentary search results by Resource is chronological.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 1429
Forum MVP
Veli Voipio | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 22 2018 12:05 AM

I've got good results with

" Q " WITHIN {Milestone<Mt-Lk>}

I checked "match case" and left other matches unchecked.

I am not a search expert, but just tried.

It finds also Qumran related text etc.

(I am not supporter of the Q hypothesis, I prefer to think that the authors had longer pieces of written material and used a cut-and-paste method. Maybe my thinking is too modern Embarrassed)

Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 8.1

Posts 89
David Staveley | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 22 2018 2:11 AM

Veli Voipio:

I've got good results with

" Q " WITHIN {Milestone<Mt-Lk>}

I checked "match case" and left other matches unchecked.

I am not a search expert, but just tried.

It finds also Qumran related text etc.

(I am not supporter of the Q hypothesis, I prefer to think that the authors had longer pieces of written material and used a cut-and-paste method. Maybe my thinking is too modern Embarrassed)

The Griesbach hypothesis assumes that Matthew wrote his "long" gospel first (as per Papias' remark preserved in Eusebius that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel first, and everyone else translated him into Greek), and Luke used him and "other sources" (cf Luke 1.3 " having investigated everything carefully" - this is thought by many scholars to refer to other sources for his gospel) to compile his gospel. Then, Mark made a "summary" of both Luke and Matthew.

The principle reason why the 2-Source Hypothesis (which assumes the existence of an "UrMarkus" or "Q" source) is so popular is because it assumes that things evolve from the "simple" or "primitive", into the more complex. And not the other way round - from the complex into the simple. This is thought of as more "scientific" because Darwinian evolution assumes the same thing - that simple life forms develop into more complex life forms - and thus adds credence to such an assumption.

Also, the 2-Source theory assumes that authors are less likely to take out sayings by Jesus, than they are at adding to them. Thus Matthew and Luke expanded upon Mark adding more words of Jesus, rather than Mark subtracting word of Jesus from both Matthew and Luke. This assumption is a fundamental axiom in textual criticism - that scribes are more likely to expand upon a source rather than to edit out words - and thus, again, seems to bolster up such an assumption. It seems more "scientific". 

I prefer the Griesbach hypothesis principally because it is the only one that assumes that the Evangelists were authors or writers of the gospels, and not mere editors or redactors. The 2-Source hypothesis assumes more copying-and-pasting than Griesbach, leaving little room for creativity by the authors. They are thought of as slavishly using sources, rather than creating a gospel. At least in Griesbach, Matthew created his original Hebrew gospel. He wasn't a slave to sources.

Dr David Staveley Professor of New Testament. Specializing in the Pauline Epistles, Apocalyptic Judaism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Page 1 of 2 (39 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS