Scriptural Evidence of "Q"?

Post Reply
User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Scriptural Evidence of "Q"?

Post by Homer » Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:16 pm

Many biblical scholars refer to "Q" which is supposed to be a written record of at least the sayings of Jesus which was used by the authors of the gospels as a resource. Some theologians (Godet and others he cites) take from something Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians as evidence of this document:

1 Corinthians 7:25 (NASB)
25. Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.


Their reasoning appears to be (and Godet isn't the easiest to understand) that Paul is careful to note that he is giving his opinion as advice rather than a command because there were available writings at the time of Jesus' sayings which could be referenced regarding the subject. Elsewhere in this letter Paul makes clear that what he says about divorce wasn't covered by Jesus but what he says carries Apostolic authority.

If these folks are correct, then the early church had what might be considered scripture, other than the Old Testament, much earlier than commonly thought, as the Letter to the Corinthians is very early.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Scriptural Evidence of "Q"?

Post by steve » Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:24 am

I don't think Paul's statement can be forced to speak of written sayings of Christ. It is certain that the teachings of Christ began to be taught orally as early as Acts 2:42. In fact, there were several sayings of Jesus that Paul knew for which no written records are known to have existed (Acts 20:35). Some sayings of Christ might have been written down as early as the letters to the Corinthians (early 50s), but Paul's reference to known teachings of Christ would not point that direction necessarily.

Evidence for Q is mostly based upon similarities between the contents of Matthew and Luke for which no parallel exists in Mark. That is, scholars have assumed that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their "sources." However, there is material in Matthew and Luke for which there is no parallel in Mark. In places where Matthew and Luke parallel each other, but without Mark as a source, scholars have imagined the existence of another (now lost) written source, known by and used by Matthew and Luke. This source is hypothetical merely. It has never been discovered. It is labelled "Q" because the theory originated in Germany, and the German word for "source" is Quelle.

To my mind, this theory does not adequately answer to all the data of the synoptics (the so-called Synoptic Problem). Furthermore, I find it an entirely unnecessary proposition.

Post Reply

Return to “The Gospels”