Gospel of Q
There is no copy of the imaginary Gospel of Q. It is assumed by liberals that the other gospel writers copied Mark and this Q source. Is there a good source on this in Logos?
Comments
-
Leave your evaluation "imaginary" and "assumed by liberals" stuff out if you want a serious answer. The scholars who promote the idea of "Q" are a mix across the spectrum.
The Hermeneia volume Robinson, James McConkey, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis; Leuven: Fortress Press; Peeters, 2000. is a good place to start.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Q is a hypothesized source containing the sayings of Jesus that are common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark. As a working theory of Gospel sources, it is widely accepted across the theological spectrum. Virtually any introduction or survey of the Gospels or the New Testament or Bible dictionary will have material on it. My Logos Factbook shows about a dozen entries in my dictionaries alone. Whatever your Logos library size, that would be a good place to start in order to learn more.
0 -
Q is a hypothesized source
"hypothesized" = imaginary. Thanks for the clarification.
0 -
Almost every scholar, both "conservative" and "liberal" (I dislike these labels for biblical scholarship) recognize that Matthew and Luke used Mark and the hypothetical Q document, reconstructed from Matthew and Luke in print, as sources. Matthew includes almost all of Mark's gospel, and Luke uses about half of it. There is clearly a literary relationship between the three.
You use the word "copied" as though it is a negative term, but in an oral society, when the gospel writers decided to write down their gospels, it was perfectly natural for them to look to sources of information already written down in order to organize their information. If Mark's gospel came mostly from Peter, which most scholars also believe, then it would be natural for them to defer to Mark for order and the basic framework. If they had a list of sayings of Jesus, Q (simply from the German word quélle for source), then they would have used that as well.
This two source hypothesis is the best current explanation for why the synoptic gospels are so similar, yet so different in some key areas. It's not some sort of reductionist conspiracy, and it does nothing to undermine the gospels.
You should be able to find the information in your favorite commentary's introduction on Matthew or Luke.
Disclaimer: I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication. If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.
0 -
It is assumed by liberals that the other gospel writers copied Mark and this Q source.
You do realize, 'it is assumed that there were original copies of the gospels' (surprisingly the question remains). And it's also assumed our Matthew was the Matthew mentioned by Papias. Or that our Mark was his Mark. Both quite unlikely. So many assumptions remain.
0 -
I prefer Luke 1:1-4 over contentiousness for contention's sake.
0 -
Is there a good source on [Q] in Logos?
I'd like to suggest https://ref.ly/logos4/Factbook?ref=bk.%25Q. Your results may be different, but I see a number of (academic) articles on it from different perspectives.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
"hypothesized" = imaginary. Thanks for the clarification.
HUH????
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
"hypothesized" = imaginary. Thanks for the clarification.
HUH????
What's the word for this? I can't remember...
'the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect:'
I wish we could have a highlighters to express mode. But I guess it would be long before someone tried to use them for 'the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect'
tootle pip
Mike
How to get logs and post them.(now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs) Latest Logos, MacOS, iOS and iPadOS
0 -
Thanks - I was unclear if the post was humorous or serious - humor I could understand, serious I was puzzled.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
