How many scholars believe that Q existed as a source for Matthew and Luke? Many scholars accept the existence of Q as a source for Matthew and Luke. It is a fundamental aspect of the two-source theory , according to which Matthew and Luke independently used both Mark and the hypothetical source, Q. The two-source theory is given as the primary solution to the synoptic problem in most of the introductory textbooks, and it is assumed in many of the commentaries, monographs, and articles written about the Gospels.
However, there have always been detractors, including some who dispute both tenets of the two-source theory, Markan priority, and Q, arguing instead that Matthew was the first Gospel , that Luke used Matthew, and that Mark used Matthew and Luke The "two-Gospel" or Griesbach theory , and others who maintain Markan priority but dispense with Q by proposing that Luke also knew Matthew The Farrer theory.
It is perhaps safe to say that while Q remains popular among New Testament scholars, there is a significant number of scholars who are unconvinced about the existence of the hypothetical document, Q. In modern times, Matthew, Mark, and Luke have been referred to as the "synoptic Gospels," since they take a similar view of the life of Christ.
Many presuppose that the extensive agreements between these Gospels indicate some type of literary collaboration, and for the last century New Testament scholars have been attempting to explain this phenomenon. One factor that complicates matters is that there are many instances in which one Gospel describes matters differently from either one or both of the other Gospels.
The quest for a solution as to how these similarities and dissimilarities occurred is known as the "synoptic problem," while "source criticism" is the field of study devoted to solving the problem. The early church was not too concerned with this problem, assuming that the Gospel writers recorded their information from personal memory and firsthand reports as opposed to the need of copying each other or a common written source.
The scholars then try to account for this common information found in these two gospels that is absent from Mark's gospel.
The working hypothesis is that Matthew and Luke, in addition to having Mark as a source for their information, had a second independent source that Mark did not use. This second independent source is called simply the "Q-source.
That letter Q is used since it is the first letter of the German word quelle , which is simply the word for source. That is to say, the Q-source is a source that is unknown to us but known to the gospel writers Matthew and Luke. Thus the conditions in which the Sayings Source originated included both continuity with the beginnings and with the developing congregational structures across the region.
Luke 6. About 50 CE Paul mentions in 1 Thess. The execution of James the son of Zebedee by Agrippa I cf. Acts Mark wrote his story of Jesus some time after the war and shortly after Q had been revised with the Q3 additions. If we date Q3 around 75 C.
For Mark, Q was extremely useful, for it had already positioned Jesus at the hinge of an epic-apocalyptic history, and it contained themes and narrative material that could easily be turned into a more eventful depiction of Jesus' public appearance. Q provided Mark with a large number of themes essential to his narrative.
He was taken with the epic-apocalyptic mythology, the theme of prophetic prediction, and the announcment of judgment upon the scribes, Pharisees, and "this generation. Q also provided material that could easily be turned to advantage as building blocks in a coherent narrative account. The John-Jesus material was a great opener. The figure of the holy spirit was ready-made to connect the Q material on John and Jesus with the miracle stories Mark would use.
Q's characterization of Jesus as the all-knowing one could be used to enhance his authority as a self-referential speaker in the pronouncement stories Mark already had from his own community. The notion of Jesus as the son of God could be used to create mystique, divide the house on the question of Jesus' true identity, and develop narrative anticipation, the device scholars call Mark's "messianic secret. The apocalyptic predictions at the end of Q could then become instructions to the disciples at that point in the story where Jesus turns to go to Jerusalem.
And, as scholars know, there are a myriad of interesting points at which the so-called overlaps between Mark and Q show Mark's use of Q material for his own narrative designs. The common material in Q and Mark cf. Mark 1. But if Mark had known Q, his criteria for selecting the material he used, and especially the sayings he omitted, cannot be explained. The reasons given remain hypothetical Mark as supplement to the sayings source, Q as supplement to Mark, a critical debate by Mark with the Christology of the sayings source , and fail to make plausible the considerable differences in the literary configuration and theological orientation between Q and Mark.
A direct literary connection between Mark and Q must be regarded as improbable. The text complexes they share point rather to independent access of each to old Jesus-traditions, but contacts between the two streams of tradition at the pre-redactional level are not to be excluded.
A much discussed feature of Q arises out of Q's version of the mission charge.
0コメント