The
Problem With Q
[another
scripture essay by textman]
CONTENTS:
1. On Dating
The Sources And Such
2. The Hermeneutics
of Q
3. On Peter's
Confession
4. The Pillars
of Q
1. On Dating The Sources And Such
In modern New Testament studies the so-called synoptic problem is answered, by the bulk of biblical scholars, from the area of source-criticism, which generates the two-source theory. This popular hypothesis - wherein Matthew and Luke independently make use of both Mark and Q - can itself be criticized from within the historical paradigm, and from without by way of other methods and paradigms. For example, the humanities can provide several good arguments against the existence of Q by highlighting certain features common to the first generation of believers. These might include the following three observations:(1) Oral culture -> the vast majority of the early believers were illiterate, and so had no need for any documents (eg. they carried the words of Jesus in their hearts).
(2) Parousia -> the intense apocalyptic sentiments so prevalent in the first century meant that writing things down for prosperity amounts to a practical denial of the imminence of the end times (occasional letters excepted).
(3) The need for Christian literature (apart from Paul) first appears with the crisis created by the loss of the original apostles and the first generation of disciples. Thus Mark and Peter created the Gospel form (c.68-70CE) to preserve the memories of 'the Rock', and to correct and supplement the growing influence of Paul's epistles as a major source of Christian kerygma.Furthermore, the idea that the synoptic Gospels (and 'Acts of Apostles') were all produced within the same two decades (c.70-90CE) - via a sort of sudden and inexplicable literary outburst - is also highly problematic (perhaps even fundamentally untenable); or at the very least, highly unlikely without considerable direct supernatural intervention. More realistically, it takes some years for an ancient papyrus book to get compiled and written and copied and published and distributed and received and read and digested and considered, and finally, responded to (in writing). Scholars tend to forget that even such mundane social processes have a direct bearing on the synoptic problem. Both socially and psychologically then, there should be a gap of about a half generation between the major New Testament books. This cultural lag is essential to the historical process, but easily overlooked; although the details are easily applied to the matter of dates:
50-60CE -> Paul's Epistles (approximately one dozen in eight canonical books).
c.70 -> Gospel of Mark (names are from c.160). Responds to the epistles.
c.85 -> Gospel of Matthew. Responds to Mark; supplements with Tanakh.
c.100 -> Gospel of John. Responds to Paul, Mark, and Matthew.
c.115 -> Luke-Acts. Responds to all of the above; ergo "'many".
There is a natural development in the creation of the four gospels that corresponds to their production at different times and places, and among different groups of believers. Thus Mark is widely known to be the earliest of the four, but the rest of the series is not so obvious. The consensus places Matthew and Luke next (together and in the middle of the canonical sandwich), followed by John (the most theologically 'mature' or 'advanced'; and also in accord with the canonical format). This consensus scheme has two things in its favor: (1) It relies on the canon for its basic model (2) adjusted to the results biblical criticism in one particular (by simply switching the positions of Matthew and Mark).
However, little more can be said for it. It does not provide, for example, an explanation for the following item: 90% of Mark is in Matthew; but only about 45% of Mark is in Luke. If Matthew and Luke were made or compiled virtually simultaneously (historically speaking), how do scholars account for this strange discrepancy in the numbers? If Mark was the only Gospel available to Luke, as Q-scholars maintain, we should expect a much higher percentage of Mark in Luke's text. Moreover, we cannot expect him to use the word 'many' in reference to his sources (cf. Lk 1:1f), but rather 'one' or 'very few' would be much more appropriate. Generally though, the scholars don't bother to explain such things (mysteries?) because (apparently) it means and proves nothing in any case. In other words, historical facts and realities have no meaning for them. But, in fact, these simple and suggestive facts are very unlikely to be entirely worthless. Indeed, these percentage numbers ought (at least) to suggest something about how and when Matthew and Luke were made. Not which year they were written, of course, but which came earlier or later, since the 'simultaneous creation' hypothesis has no real basis in history or scripture, but only exists as a not-so-subtle suggestion built into the canonical format of the New Testament (which arrangement is neither chronological nor rational).
The early date for Luke-Acts accepted by most scholars today (c.85CE) is largely based on a certain lack of good external evidence, and various unwarranted assumptions which lead to faulty judgments and hasty conclusions. It is also influenced in great measure by the canon itself: Luke is the third Gospel there, and *therefore* was written after Mark and before John. And by tradition: in order to provide the work with apostolic authority, the author had to be identified with someone from the first generation with close connections to the 'top guns'. And also by fear: if the author was not an eyewitness (such as Paul's Dr. Companion) then it (allegedly) has no apostolic or historical force, and thus loses all validity. None of these "reasons", or any others provided by the scholars, is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Luke-Acts was written around 80-85CE. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence (eg. parallels and other links with Matthew, the Pastorals, Josephus, Justin Martyr, John's Gospel, etc etc etc!) to suggest that composition did not occur until the early second century.
Since the above schemed corresponds to the available external evidence, as well as the social-psychology of Greco-Roman society, and much - if not all - of the literary or internal evidence of the New Testament texts themselves, etc etc, it ought to shed some light on the alleged synoptic problem. Further observations and arguments could be garnered from the literary and existential paradigms as well, but none of these will make any impact upon the advocates of Q (who have already made up their minds to discount the relevance of significant facts and 'minor' historical realities relating to the canonical process). This can be easily illustrated by reference to the fact that archaeology has not uncovered a single page, a single fragment, not so much as one tiny shred of papyrus from this alleged document called Q. [The 'Gospel of Thomas' is a second century production, and so cannot be used to support the two-source theory.] Q-scholars can ignore this fact only because this total lack of physical evidence is not, so they say, conclusive. It is, nevertheless, very highly suggestive; as is the fact that most Q-scholars are not even worried about this undeniably significant detail!
2. The Hermeneutics of Q
All of this suggests that this entire Q business is fundamentally a hermeneutical and methodological problem insofar as it involves a particular interpretation of the synoptics (and John), and a certain 'pre-manufactured' understanding of the historical, textual, and related evidence. Note that this latter is precisely what Q allegedly provides. It is an interpretive tool (or conclusion) based upon the following items:(1) Reflections of Mark can be found in both Matthew and Luke.
(2) Matthew and Luke have materials in common (mostly sayings)
that are not found in Mark.
(3) The synoptics were all written in the same two-decade span
(70-90CE) such that Matthew and Luke could not possibly have
known each other's writings.The natural conclusion to be reached from these facts (note that the first part of #3 is an *assumption*, NOT a fact after the manner of #1&2) is that some other document dating from 70CE (or earlier) was available to both Matthew and Luke ... but *NOT* to Mark! This document is the 'Sayings-Source' of Q fame which can be "reconstructed" by comparing the various similar passages shared by Matthew and Luke. All this appears to be very straight-forward and logical and irrefutable; hence its current overwhelming popularity.
But if there is a flaw anywhere in the 'evidence' or in the subsequent reasoning thereon, then we may certainly conclude that the two-source theory is not quite as solid as it appears to be. Since the first two points above (ie. those concerning Mark) are very well grounded in the facts of history and scripture, any flaws must reside in the third point. The weak link in the Q chain is the claim that Luke-Acts was composed round about the years 80-85 (note that the entire Q-edifice depends upon this notion). Most scholars accept this early date because it seems to 'fit' the following items:
1. Use of Mark's Gospel (structure and narrative), c.68CE.
2. Luke's 'references' to the Fall of Jerusalem (cf. Lk 21), 70CE.
3. No allusions to severe persecution by Emperor Domitian, 81-96.
4. No references to the break with Judaism (the 'Parting of the Ways'); or to the Council of Jamnia, 85-90. Numbers three and four are actually not as weighty as they seem, although the NJBC lists these as contributing reasons for the consensus position. But Fitzmyer also cautions against over-reliance on such evidence: "Modern interpreters have long been puzzled by the failure of New Testament writers to mention the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70" (Fit 55). [However, there are others besides Luke who make indirect reference to it, but the generality or vagueness of such references makes them virtually useless for placing dates.]
5. Authorship traditions of the early church. Since the attribution of apostolic authorship enhances authority, the Church would not have attributed authorship of Luke-Acts to the physician and companion of Paul unless it were true, because he was (supposedly) a minor and obscure figure. [In other words, a perfect candidate for a late and anonymous work -> But the naming of the gospels came only in the second half of the second century (cf. Irenaeus), and was based mostly (I would almost say: 'entirely') on suggestions provided by the sacred texts themselves (eg. Col 4:14; 2Tim 4:11; Philemon 1:24) ... That is, at a time when questions of authority became paramount to the very survival of the *authentic faith* of the early Greek churches.]
6. Luke did not use Matthew as a source. If Matthew was available to Luke he would not have restricted himself only to the savings. [But, in fact, Luke *does* borrow some narrative materials from Mt!] Rather, they say, he would have made a more effective [ie. scientific?] use of it. For example, in the nativity scene, Luke's cosmopolitan interests would have compelled him [they suppose] to make some reference to the eastern magi. [It may be that Luke's shepherds do just that (indirectly) by way of unsubtle contrast. In any case, the error in this point exists in the absurd and unfounded assumption that the unknown author of Luke-Acts must think just exactly after the manner of modern bible scholars and exegetes; which is utterly ridiculous!]
7. Since Luke shows little knowledge of Paul's theology - [I would say, rather: that Luke shows little *interest* in Paul's theology; please note the significance of this distinction!] - and so did not know his letters - [a *very* questionable "deduction"] - Luke's association with him must have been before the letter-writing campaign began. This means that Luke knows the Paul before 49CE, but not the Paul after that date! But, in fact, Luke's references to the 'basket escape' episode, and the 'Damascus road' episode, indicate that the author of Luke-Acts did use at least some of Paul's letters as part of his 'many' sources, theology notwithstanding. Moreover, since Paul is the hero of Acts, and had gained a legendary status in the community (which also take some decades to build up), it is highly unlikely that Luke could be entirely ignorant of the Pauline epistles (which by the year 80 were already coming together to form the earliest collections that would form the backbone of the later New Testament). People were still reading Paul's epistles two decades after his death, and the Paul-legend was still very much in the making. It is only decades later (ie. after the turn-of-the- century) that we find the combination of legendary status, de-emphasis on the Parousia, and a relative popular ignorance [or misunderstanding; cf. James and 2Peter] of the contents of the authentic epistles. That Luke displays little knowledge of the actual historical Paul (and his theology) - in fact misrepresents them - cannot be due to ignorance, but rather to Luke's unique (ie. free) editorial use of the information provided by the epistles: Luke is not interested in presenting Paul's theology, nor is he concerned to present an accurate (ie. scientific) account of his person and activity in conformance to the high standards of modern biography. Luke's use of his sources is clearly very selective; he took only what was useful to his own theology and purposes, and to the image of the heroic missionary as part of his carefully constructed parallels between Jesus and Paul.
This item warns us not to impose modern standards of good history-making on ancient authors. Thus Luke was definitely not a good historian according to the best modern standards of historical science; but then no ancient author could be expected to live up to such unrealistic standards (ie. they simply did not have the tools and methods). Danker says that this truism is a "cliche, pompous, and irrelevant, for no such works from antiquity can stand that type of scrutiny" (Dan 25). On the other hand, the gap between truth and fiction was often quite plain to many ancient history-writers (and even many ancient history- readers). Some were even rather upset by this 'muddying of the waters'. Thus Lucian of Samosata called other historians 'liars', and pointed out that his 'True History' at least has the virtue of being an honest sort of lying; for "I shall at least be truthful in saying that I am a liar" (Dan 24).
3. On Peter's Confession
In synoptic studies the matter of the 'middle term' is of some consequence. Usually Mark is the middle term. This means that there are plenty of "triple agreements, lots of Mark-Matthew agreements, lots of Mark-Luke agreements, but relatively few Matthew- Luke agreements" (Sand 84). But sometimes Matthew is the middle term, and this creates problems for the two-source proponents. Of course, help is always available by appeal to "proto-Mark", and overlaps, and other sundry hypothetical documents; but it is best to stick with the materials at hand. Thus the middle term is usually Mark, occasionally Matthew, and rarely Luke.This bare statistical fact contains a lot of hidden information. For example, it suggests a correspondence with the earliest copies of the synoptics as regards their relative authority and age.This means that the synoptics appeared in the following sequence: Mark, Matthew, Luke. Thus Goulder's opinion is "that Mark, usually the middle term, was first. Matthew became the middle term when Luke preferred Matthew to Mark" (Sand 87). This also means that the value of the parallel arrangement of the three books in a synopsis is not in the hunt for the elusive bandersnatch (ie. Q), but rather in the search for the tendencies and oddities of the editorial policies of all four evangelists. Simply knowing the chronological order of the four gospels (Mark, Matthew, John, Luke) cuts through much of the flak and confusion created by Q and its over-clever advocates.
We can illustrate the value of these outrageous claims by briefly examining a typical pericope from the triple tradition: Lk 9:18-22 (a.k.a. #158 'Peters confession') in Aland's 1982 'English Synopsis'. In this pericope we can see how Luke shows some awareness of Matthew even while Matthew and Luke both "improve" on Mark's short story. The characteristic editorial policies of Matthew and Luke are each here visible, and they show us how the various synoptics statistics are earned (eg. Matthew has 90% of Mark, Luke 45%). We can also see that Matthew remains the more faithful of the two later evangelists in his handling of Mark. His procedure of slimming down the story slightly at the beginning and ending in order to expand the center with midrash are typical of Matthew, as are his other displays of rabbinic skill (cf. Mt 16:14f parr).
Now we can certainly understand Matthew easily enough without reference to any sources other than Mark and LXX; but Luke seems to display a close knowledge of both Matthew and Mark. Luke also changes and slims down the start and end of the story - but far more radically than Matthew! - and in the vital central scene he corrects Matthew and Mark both. Observe carefully the points of agreement and disagreement or omission in these three series:
A - 1. Mk -> Who do men say I am?Note also that in this pericope the phrase 'Son of Man' is used only once by each evangelist. Here Luke corrects Matthew by agreeing with Mark as to its position in the story (ie. at the end), but even goes one step further by improving on both. In Mark it is the narrator who speaks the phrase; in Matthew it is Jesus asking about it; but only Luke has Jesus deny Peter's answer "saying, 'The Son of Man ..." in stark contrast to the positive response of Jesus to Peter found in Mt 16:17!
2. Mt -> Who do men say that the Son of Man is?
3. Lk -> Who do the people say that I am?B - 1. Mk -> You are the Christ.
2. Mt -> You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
3. Lk -> The Christ of God.C - 1. Mk -> And he charged them ...
2. Mt -> Then he strictly charged the disciples ...
3. Lk -> But he charged and commanded them ...
4. The Pillars of Q
The arguments of Goulder and Boismard on the matter of Q are most divergent. When compared, and they also reveal opposing views on the use of sources and the degree of free composition. Boismard sees our evangelists and their immediate predecessors (the editors of the intermediate redactions) as basically conflators, not authors. Goulder sees Matthew and Luke especially as authors, able to write excellent material, especially parables and ethical teaching. (Sand 112)At this point Sanders prefers to move to a more central position between these two extremes, and while there is indeed something to be said for drawing upon the strengths of all the conflicting positions, we are forced to part company with him here. Instead we suggest that, if anything, Goulder does not go far enough in affirming the high level of creativity and inspiration inherent in the work of all four evangelists!
Judgments of that are valid must be based upon the strength of the evidence at hand, as well as on the soundness of the scholar's reasoning therefrom. The two-source hypothesis, even in its simple form, takes so much for granted that it is highly problematic that none of the following points can be considered established as solid evidence (despite widespread scholarly acceptance):
1. Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark and Q.
2. Q was a document.
3. Q consists of materials common to Matthew and Luke.
4. Neither Matthew nor Luke knew the other.
5. The 'minor' agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark
are to be explained as largely the result of coincidence.
6. The major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark
are the result of overlaps between Mark and Q.
7. Mark did not know Q; the overlaps are purely coincidental. (Sanders 91)Even a cursory examination of the abundant literature on Q will show that "no one solution to the synoptic problem is without objection" (Sand 112). The various positions on the matter each have their own particular strengths and weaknesses. The question must then become a victim of Occam's Razor -> Which solutions have the greatest flaws? After several deep cuts (eg. the manifest falsity of the above seven "facts") the pro-Q view suffers serious losses. Moreover, the "two-source solution must deny what is very probable: that Luke knew Matthew" (Sand 112). It would seem, then, that the whole idea of Q implies the abdication of meticulous biblical scholarship, mainly because the very foundations of the two-source hypothesis are, at best, shaky and unreliable in the extreme!
WORKS CITED
Danker, F.W. Jesus And The New Age: A Commentary On St. Luke's
Gospel. Rev.Ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.Fitzmyer, J.A. The Gospel According To Luke (I-IX): Introduction,
Translation, And Notes. Anchor Bible Vol.28. New York:
Doubleday & Company, 1981.Sanders & Davis. Studying The Synoptic Gospels.
London: SCM Press, 1989.
ON THE SO-CALLED SYNOPTIC
PROBLEM
(Or:
... Who Has the Last Laugh?)
Now here's a curious thing. The alleged synoptic problem was apparently solved by K. Lachmann (the 'laughing man') and C.H. Weisse way back in 1838. It is now 1997, and so in 160 years of ever-advancing and up-to-date, scientific, and multifaceted BS (ie. biblical scholarship), the idea of two sources for Mt and Lk ... [Namely: Mk & Logia (or, simply, Q). Now this 'Q' is not the nemesis of Captain Jean Luc Picard of the Starship Enterprise etc etc, but rather is the common name given to a nonexistent and hypothetical 'document' that supposedly existed for a few years around mid-1C. It was made up of about 200 verses, mostly 'Jesus-sayings' (ie. those to be found outside the triple tradition).] ... has managed to convince all but a small minority (about 5%) of todays biblical scholars (and thus pertnear 100% of Bible students).
.
This stubborn persistence of what is essentially an unhistorical idea, entirely lacking for solid evidence, is truly amazing! It is usually explained with the observation that the alternatives (many have been tried and tossed) only raise more problems that are more difficult, if not always impossible, to answer. For example, the famous 'lilies of the field' teaching in Matthew would have been used by Luke (or so they imagine) if he had Mt as a source (Luke says he did) because it fits beautifully and consistently with his special interest in poverty. Thus he would not have passed it by; and therefore the 19C Germans were right! Now these particular objections (and there are many others of like logic as well) to the non-Weisse solutions to the synoptic problem are certainly serious and deserving of well-considered responses, but they also share a common flaw in that they are highly speculative in nature, and thus necessarily problematic to the nth degree.
.
In studying the massive secondary literature of the biblical sciences, the first rule-of-thumb is that it is neither safe, nor necessary, nor proper, nor wise to second-guess the evangelists, and so to judge what they would or would not have done under such and such conditions and circumstances, etc. The second is that what seems perfectly obvious to modern scholars may not be quite so obvious to the Christian writers and readers of the 1&2C. In short, there may be a very good reason why Luke over-looked the lilies. Perhaps this saying was even more famous in the early 2C when Luke wrote his history. Or perhaps the saying was too closely associated with the gospel that later was accorded to Matthew. Or perhaps the lilies *are* there in Lk; hidden between the lines as it were.
.
Or perhaps Luke is honoring the author of Mt by not using his very fine gem of a saying. After all, one cannot readily improve on perfection; and Luke is reluctant to borrow overmuch from Mt in any case; etc. etc. Whatever the answer may be (and we will never know it with certainty until we ask the author directly), it is quite enough to know that historically plausible answers *can* be found for these seemingly insurmountable redactional difficulties. Of course, finding these solutions will require something more than a minimal 5% effort. Moreover, all of this is just smoke and mirrors causing much noise and confusion in order to deflect the attention from realizing that all these interesting and challenging 'death-blows' to the non-Weisseians do little to destroy alternative solutions, and absolutely nothing in the way of answering objections to Weisse, or even supporting the fundamental weaknesses inherent in the 2-source solution.
.
Another odd thing is that there is no real gain to be had from the use of this Q idea in the actual study of the gospels; other than as a handy tag to identify those sayings outside the triple-tradition. In order to effectively study Mt all that is required is a parallel of Mk beside it. That's it. No parallel of Lk or Jn is needed or necessary! In the same way, Q is also needed about as much as Jean-Luc needs his Q! ... In the end, what we are left with is an evergrowing monstrous-mass of biblical scholarship that is firmly based on a false and ridiculous notion that was inspired by much useless and fanciful speculation to no good purpose! Well actually, it's only been 158 years; but it sure looks as if those nasty 19C Germans have gotten the last laugh. Unfortunately, they are still laughing at all of us for being so foolish as to follow them so faithfully, and for so long, and yet failing to 'get the joke'.
Addendum: In our article (above) we claimed that Q was still useful as a handy tag for the triple tradition ... But ... "By definition Q refers to material found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark" (Harr 7). Which is quite right. So, of course, what we meant to say was that Q is still a handy tag for the non-Markan double tradition. Would you believe that this snafu was actually due to a mere typo? Oh well ...
/ Newsgroup > alt.bible / Date > 9 July 1998 /
So it seems that the entire convoluted edifice upon which the hypothetical source-document (called 'Q') is built, depends upon the notion that the authors of Matthew's Gospel and Luke-Acts were working independently of each other at exactly the same time (c. 85 CE), and also being entirely unaware of the other's efforts. Now the foolishness of this silly notion is absurdly easy to demonstrate; for we need look no further than the opening verses of Luke's Gospel where he tells us the reasoning behind his two-part history. Thus in the very beginning of this introduction to Lk-Acts the author states that:
.
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you ..." (Lk 1:1-3).
.
Now if Luke was unaware of Matthew, that would mean that he had at hand Mark's Gospel, and ... ??? ... and that's it! This means that we are left with two only possibilities: either (1) Luke was unable to discern the difference between 'one' and 'many' ... OR (2) Lk-Acts was NOT written in the first century CE. So you may call me a radical if you wish, but I prefer to imagine that Luke did know the difference between 'one' and 'more than one'.
.
In other words, Luke's introduction strongly suggests that he had at hand not just Mark's Gospel, but those of Matthew and John as well. Since this is not at all a difficult idea to grasp, we must ask why Bible scholars are almost unanimous in rejecting it. My guess is that the reason lies not in the problematic nature of the texts themselves, but rather in the very problematic nature of Bible scholars. That is, most Bible scholars are theologians first, last and always, rather than (or much more than) historians; and the problem with theologians (as everyone knows) is that they are really not very bright at all! By this I simply mean that they have no real feeling for the historical process as it actually occurs in reality, but rather they view history from the rarefied atmosphere of the platonic realm (which they happily inhabit).
.
In other words, for them, history is absolutely subservient to theological development. Thus since it seems plain to them that John's Gospel is theologically superior to the other three, it is, of course, inconceivable that Luke-Acts could have been written *after* John. That is, this scenario (which I propose) is simply *IMPOSSIBLE!* ... But, in reality, theology does NOT determine the shape and course of history; and not even the shape and course of biblical history! If we are able to grasp the significance of this simple fact, we are then in a position to see that the theological model of canonical history is fundamentally inadequate to cope with the diverse and complex nature of Holy Scripture. Indeed, if we apply another approach - say, 4X, the literary model - then (not surprisingly) we are led to a different conclusion as to the chronological arrangement of the four Gospels ...
.
Thus if we take the four Thessalonian letters as our base paradigm, we can see the gradual development from the short, almost primitive, letter one to the lengthy and elaborate epistle of letter four. If we apply this same logic to the Gospels, it is apparent that the rude and 'primitive' Gospel of Mark comes first. Next up is the midrashic expansion of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew, which is little more than an elaborate and "improved" version of Mark. And then comes the Gospel of John with its developed theology and emphasis on prolonged speeches, dialogues, and monologues. This Gospel is very consciously an alternate version of the previous two Gospels. This leaves us with Luke-Acts with its wider historical sweep, and its many plots and subplots. This book (in two parts) is, from the literary perspective, quite clearly the most complicated and developed writing; and in terms of sheer mass it alone comprises the bulk of the New Testament. From all this it is apparent that Luke-Acts must be a second century production (allowing for sufficient time between each Gospel); and the vast majority of the scriptural evidence fully supports this scheme ... But *only* once we have rid ourselves of our theological tunnel-vision!
