What is Q

[melinky]

One of the guys in my Bible study class is reading some book about "Q" and when I tried to look it up on Amazon found a bunch of books, but no real answer about what it is, or isn't.

Melinda

[rgrove]

For your own research do a search on "synoptic gospels" and "Q". This will net you the information you were originally after.

As you've already probably noticed Matthew, Mark and Luke are very similar in what they contain. For that reason they have the name "synoptic gospels". Some people believe that they are all derivatives of another work that they have called "Q". Q comes from the first letter of the German word "quelle" which means "source". So basically, the argument asserts that there was an earlier document that contained the information you find in the synoptic gospels as well as other information probably. We know that there were accounts, but we don't know how many:

Luke 1:1-4 - "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

Did he just draw on Mark and Matthew? Or were there others? Or, as Q theory historically asserts, was there one document that all of these relied upon.

To tie this into some other threads on the board, for example, the conspiracy theories that are attributed to the early church always talk about "lost" or "supressed" gospels where we find out the "truth" about the real, "historical Jesus". (DaVinci Code nonsense)

Here's a typical website on the issue (the first in my search with the above info):
www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/09/synoptic-problem-faq.html

You will find some buzzwords associated with this as well. The "historical Jesus" is a big one. Red flags should go up whenever you hear that. It generally means that what we see in the synoptic gospels isn't the true picture. We need to use "higher criticism" (another flag) to shed away the myth from the man yadayadayada... Frequently (but not always) the supernatural inspiration of these books and by extension the rest of the Bible gets attacked. Not always of course, but this is a frequent end result. I'm sure Matthew can give more info since I know this is something they always discuss quite a bit there in new testament studies courses.

If you read the page that I linked to above you should end up thoroughly confused. If not, then I'll be either impressed or worried. ;D

[fairbank]

Thanks Ron, and good question Melinda. "Q" is a buzzword (or buzz letter if you prefer) itself. Again it is generally part of a presumption that the leadership of the Holy Spirit could not possibly account for the similarities in the synoptic gospels, not to mention that the authors actually witnessed the very same events. While the scholars postulate about a common "source," they never stop to consider that the source could be the Holy Spirit and common experience. Bless you as you seek Him!

Eric

[rgrove]

Fairbanks! Good to see you in this thread. But surely you could add more high end seminary knowledge than that!

What I posted was from a discussion with an old pastor of mine and a dividing line broadcast by James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries). James also made similar points to what you made. He pretty much considers all of these arguments that he heard at Fuller Seminary (where he got his Masters) to be nothing short of an attack on the theopneustas inspiration of scriptures. Looking forward to non-secondhand information from the edumacated classes here.