New Lutheran Seminary Names President

[PlainOldPastor]

“Q” is, as one of my beloved seminary professors used to say, “a figment of somebody’s scholarly imagination”.

Even if some sort of “Matthew + Luke source document” does exist buried somewhere beneath the sands of time, literally no one alive today has seen it or has any idea what is in it. So, any speculation as to its content is just that - speculation, and should not be treated as the serious work of academicians, let alone pastors.

[peterm]

Q is the time jumping being from Star Trek the next Generation 

[MaddogLutheran]

The problem with Q is that unless there have been recent finds it remains a hypothetical document without a shred of manuscript evidence.  Yet our understanding of the Gospels are supposed to incomplete unless we take Q into account.

We can also say that the original Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are hypothetical documents. We have no copies of them either.

And the dishonesty continues.   

Since the canon gospels originated as oral traditions eventually committed to Greek on paper, this makes absolutely no sense.  Beyond your desire to be provocative and troll us.   The Church has recognized these 4 gospels as distinct works since their beginnings, eventually declaring them canonical.  "Q" never had any such recognition.

Please stop your trolling.

[Harry Edmon]

I am willing to bet you could take the same logic that comes up with "Q", compare two stories on the same topic from the New York Times and the Washington Post, and claim that they both originally come from a "unknown" previous document called "X".

[MaddogLutheran]

Good answer. It is a source of both consternation and amusement that there exists a "Commentary" on Q.

If you don't like calling it "Q", call it a commentary on the common sayings found in Matthew and Luke (but not in Mark).

As long as you stop pretending that the sayings common to Matthew and Luke not appearing in Mark somehow impugns the canonical status of any of these gospels.  Or implies another authoritative, canonical gospel exists but has yet to be found.

[Michael Slusser]

I am willing to bet you could take the same logic that comes up with "Q", compare two stories on the same topic from the New York Times and the Washington Post, and claim that they both originally come from a "unknown" previous document called "X".

Perhaps from a briefing from Sarah Huckabee Sanders in the White House . . . ?  Of course. That doesn't mean that the logic is bad--in fact, it would even corroborate it.

Peace,
Michael

[Brian Stoffregen]

The Church has recognized these 4 gospels as distinct works since their beginnings, eventually declaring them canonical.  "Q" never had any such recognition.

Q has always had such recognition among the scholars I read.


What is your explanation for the sayings of Jesus that are found in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark? Where did they come from? If not Q, then where? What's your theory?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Good answer. It is a source of both consternation and amusement that there exists a "Commentary" on Q.

If you don't like calling it "Q", call it a commentary on the common sayings found in Matthew and Luke (but not in Mark).

As long as you stop pretending that the sayings common to Matthew and Luke not appearing in Mark somehow impugns the canonical status of any of these gospels.  Or implies another authoritative, canonical gospel exists but has yet to be found.

Huh? The hypothetic existence of Q doesn't imply another authoritative, canonical gospel exists; any more than theorizing that there were oral sources before the written texts implies that those oral sources have canonical authority. Canonical authority is centered in the books that we have in the canon, not what might have existed before. The theory that 2 Corinthians might be three separate letters that were brought together doesn't change its canonical authority. The belief that the pastorals were not written by Paul doesn't change their canonical authority.

[Brian Stoffregen]

“Q” is, as one of my beloved seminary professors used to say, “a figment of somebody’s scholarly imagination”.

Even if some sort of “Matthew + Luke source document” does exist buried somewhere beneath the sands of time, literally no one alive today has seen it or has any idea what is in it. So, any speculation as to its content is just that - speculation, and should not be treated as the serious work of academicians, let alone pastors.

Nope, the evidence for what is in Q is found in Matthew and Luke. The existence of a common source for those sayings comes from the serious work of biblical scholars.


Again I ask, what's your explanation for the source of the common sayings found in Matthew and Luke? What has your serious study in a parallel version of Matthew and Luke lead you to believe?

[Brian Stoffregen]

I am willing to bet you could take the same logic that comes up with "Q", compare two stories on the same topic from the New York Times and the Washington Post, and claim that they both originally come from a "unknown" previous document called "X".

And if we found a document "Y" that looked a whole lot like what we believe is in "X" that would add support to the theory that there was an "X".


If not from "X", what would your explanation be for articles in the Times and the Post containing exactly the same quotes. What would have been the source for those quotes? (Oh, and neither of the writers could have been eye-witnesses or ear-hearers of the quotes they use.)

[Harry Edmon]

I am willing to bet you could take the same logic that comes up with "Q", compare two stories on the same topic from the New York Times and the Washington Post, and claim that they both originally come from a "unknown" previous document called "X".

And if we found a document "Y" that looked a whole lot like what we believe is in "X" that would add support to the theory that there was an "X".


If not from "X", what would your explanation be for articles in the Times and the Post containing exactly the same quotes. What would have been the source for those quotes? (Oh, and neither of the writers could have been eye-witnesses or ear-hearers of the quotes they use.)

But in my case there is no document "Y", each reporter did their own story independently.   But since you so enjoy your mythological document "Q" I am sure my example will fall on deaf ears.

[Charles Austin]

Once again, I ask: Since we don't believe that God dictated literal, actual real words that we currently have in a generally unified manuscript, why does it bother people that it is reasonable to assume a "Q" or accept the variants in the texts that we do have?

[Dan Fienen]

One theory that I like (and yes I know that I am being heretical and would be drummed out of any ELCA seminary for putting forth such an impossible theory) is that the sayings that are common to Matthew and Luke were witnessed by Matthew so he had them first hand and that Luke in his research spoke with eye witnesses who related them to Luke.  Why are they not in Mark?  Either Mark didn't talk with the same people, or that Mark thought that they were not important for the narrative and points that he was making and so left them out.  Less writing for him to do, less stuff for his readers to plow through.  Alternatively, in making his condensed Gospel and since Matthew and Luke had already covered the material, he didn't think it important to include it.


The Gospels were not scholarly biographies as we know the genre today.  Today a scholar will want to write a comprehensive overview of the entire life of his subject and include as much of the material that he researched as possible.  Even so, there will be sifting of material and selecting of what is important to include and what can be omitted since even scholarly biographies can be only so long.  These are Gospels, designed not to give complete biographies but to assemble the material important for creating faith and guiding the faithful, according to the points that the Gospel writer intends.


Perhaps Q was not so much a document or an oral collection so much as the body of witnesses that the Gospel writers consulted.  Let's not forget that the scholarly consensus places the writing of the Gospels in the later half of the first century, at most some 70 years after the death of Christ.  If some of the eye-witnesses to Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection were young adults at the time, that places the writing of the Gospels within a long lifetime of the eye witnesses, children of eye witnesses at most.  We are not talking about a couple of hundred years of oral transmission before the written Gospels were produced.  And in an era when literacy was less common, oral tradition was conservative, prizing accuracy more than innovation.

[MaddogLutheran]

Good answer. It is a source of both consternation and amusement that there exists a "Commentary" on Q.

If you don't like calling it "Q", call it a commentary on the common sayings found in Matthew and Luke (but not in Mark).

As long as you stop pretending that the sayings common to Matthew and Luke not appearing in Mark somehow impugns the canonical status of any of these gospels.  Or implies another authoritative, canonical gospel exists but has yet to be found.

Huh? The hypothetic existence of Q doesn't imply another authoritative, canonical gospel exists; any more than theorizing that there were oral sources before the written texts implies that those oral sources have canonical authority. Canonical authority is centered in the books that we have in the canon, not what might have existed before. The theory that 2 Corinthians might be three separate letters that were brought together doesn't change its canonical authority. The belief that the pastorals were not written by Paul doesn't change their canonical authority.

No, that's not how you and people of like mind talk about the Q.  You consistently imply, in a gnostic sort of way, that there is some missing, hidden information to be divined from this Q.  That orthodox Christianity was merely the result of suppressing other competing texts, and if only we uncover that lost knowledge, our belief will be more perfect.

Your underlying assumption is that God's revelation is incomplete, and that we need to use our human intellect to uncover it.  I hope that sounds like Genesis 2 to you.   I take it on faith that God's revelation is sufficient.  To long for something more is unbelief.

[MaddogLutheran]

Once again, I ask: Since we don't believe that God dictated literal, actual real words that we currently have in a generally unified manuscript, why does it bother people that it is reasonable to assume a "Q" or accept the variants in the texts that we do have?

Because, as I just explained yet again to Pr. Stoffregen, people who assume a Q don't stop there.  They assume that this missing knowledge is somehow relevant to our faith.  It ends up in gnostic and unbelief.  Or idolatry, because one fills in those assumed blanks with a revelation of one's own making.