This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
To the editors of this page: I'm afraid it needs to be rewritten.
I am a nonspecialist reader; today I was reading a series of Wiki articles on biblical scholarship (following up a meatspace argument about the historicity or ahistoricity of Jesus). As usual, wikipedia was endlessly informative and useful and quite good about balancing the discussion between atheist and christian interpretations. But then I ended up here and foundered. The article is basically unreadable and very un-encyclopedia-like; I would suggest that this is because it lacks an introduction, a sentence or two which discusses the state of biblical scholarship, and the various sources for the new testament, and where the Q Document fits into this. I would do this myself, but I know little or nothing about the topic.
A proper intro should read something like:"...a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. The New Testament is generally recognized by scholars to be composed of writings from three sources; accounts by apostles of Jesus, written sometime after his death, collections of the sayings of Jesus, recorded in the form of epistles, and finally writings of early Christians such as Paul...." The Q document, if it existed, would be a common source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are epistles which generally seem to draw on information from the Gospel of Mark, but also information not present in Mark...
I have of course invented the previous (and factually incorrect)sentence to show what a proper introduction might look like if anyone wanted to write it. jackbrown 09:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)jackbrown
Can someone put this sentence into something resembling a legible sentence:
"Two-Source Hypothesis" is hyphenated on another page that refers to it, and I have altered this page so that it is hyphenated here. One newspaper headline says:
New Age-Discrimination Rules Proposed
and another says:
New-Age Discrimination Rules Proposed
The difference in meaning is a good argument in favor of the tradional way of using hyphens. -- Mike Hardy
Feel free to write one. Ashibaka ( tock) 02:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The first line states that "For alert readers of the New Testament, the recognition that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke share much material not found in their familiar source, the Gospel of Mark, has suggested a common second source, called the Q document (Q for German Quelle, "source")."
"For alert readers"? You must be joking. How is that a neutral POV? I've added the NPOV tag because of it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
So, what is the Ta bu shi da yu adjective to specify those readers who might notice such things? Insert whatever the appropriate Ta bu shi da yu adjective may be, please, and remove the little tag. -- Wetman 04:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I moved this statement from the main article. It could be a garbled form of a genuine position, but as written I'm not aware of a single scholar that advocates this. There are a lot speculative things about Q, but let's at least include those that a fair number of scholars actually hold. Stephen C. Carlson 03:30, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
Robinson did not reach any definite conclusion but deliberately set out to test the limits of what could be proven, not necessarily to prove such things as an AD 40 date of Matthew (yes I've read his book). More importantly, some have placed Q in the 30s and so this presents no absolute problem for a Q, only a subjective one (i.e. scholars who place Q in the 40s or 50s would be wrong, but that does nothing to affect the plausibility of the existence of Q).
I have pared this down to what is necessary (it's a variation on the Farmer argument).
All this is irrelevant because Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, does not say the Gospel of Matthew was written first.-- Peter Kirby 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
This was moved from the main text ( Stephen C. Carlson 04:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC))
In the first paragraph, the contents of Q are in Matt and/or Luke. How's that blasphemous? In the second paragraph, we don't know Q's name, so how can we say for certain that it was not referred to by any of the Church Father at all much less as a Christian work? Stephen C. Carlson 04:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I think there should be a short section noting the similarity of this hypothesis to the documentary hypothesis, since they were both formed around the same period of biblical scholarship and they both introduce lost sources to the books of the Bible. AUhl 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The only reason I added the {{ Jesus}} template was that there is a link to this article from it (I was going from link to link to see which articles were where). However, upon further examination, I note that the link I clicked on was Jesus' sayings according to the Christian Bible which redirects here. Apparently, Clinkophonist transferred the original article to Wikisource and (according to edit history) "[redirected] to the closest article on wikipedia to the topic" [3] אמר Steve Caruso ( desk/ poll) 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
tThis Wikipedism betrays unfamiliarity with the literature. -- Wetman 21:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Yes, Wikipedism is an unfamiliar term.
"Certain themes, such as the Deuteronomistic view of history, are more prominent in Q than in either Matthew or Luke individually."
Something is wrong with this sentence, specifically the phrase "are more prominant in Q." No copy of Q exists. There is no consensus reconstruction of Q. How can we make a statement with this type of certainty? The given reference doesn't clear any of this up nor does it make any direct reference to Deuteronomism. More even importantly how is agreement between theories a proof?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.63.71.49 ( talk • contribs) 3 August 2006.
I have been instructed to post here http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/q.html. The article defends Q as originally a separate document, and which was compiled around 80, after GMark was known, but before GMatthew & GLuke were written. Of course it would help if you like this webpage and post it as a link. Thanks. If posted, I will add up on it my name and a link to my bio, as I did for my front page, http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html (which is already posted as a link on three Wikipedia pages). Bernard
I have removed this from the main article:
This sentence makes no sense, and I do not understand how this is a reverse argument of Q. I read the linked page in question, and the only thing I saw was that Perrin and Wright theorized that Thomas (not Q) was based off of the Diatessaron. I almost changed the wording to reflect that, except Thomas is off topic here. Please figure out a better, more informative way to convey this information. I'm sorry I couldn't fix it myself, but I do not understand what is trying to be said. Thanks- Andrew c 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this not one of the points in the article already?
Or this one.
So whats the point of contention? Are you Andrew c now saying that this article does not reflect any connection between Q and the Gospel of Thomas? If it is off topic then why does the topic contain the above quotes? The Q theory states that the Gospels where fabricated from a single text composed of quotes or sayings. Nicholas Perrin stated that the historical proof for Q to validate this is the Gospel of Thomas. Nicholas Perrin states that the Gospel of Thomas was fabricated not from a tradition of a quotes or sayings Gospel (Q) but from a Harmony Gospel called the Diatessaron. So the synoptic problem is resolved either by a quotes gospel or a Harmony Gospel. So in the evolution of the Q theory why is the Diatessaron history omitted? Of course until Nicholas Perrin and Mark Goodacre point out that for the Q theory to work the whole history of a harmony Gospel including canons created by Ammonius Saccas and Tatian (both a matter of history) has been omitted. Why is a contridictory validatable history being ignored? One that shows a tradition of a fabricated quotes Gospel (the Gospel of Thomas) not having it's origin in Q but instead in a Harmony Gospel? Why are you omitting rather then correcting? IF you don't time for one how can you have time for the other? If there is contention please notify me before removing a contribution? Have you not asked for the same? I am open to work with others to make a more effective article. I am reverting my additions, if you can find a better wording please contribute but please don't blanket remove text under the excuse you don't have time to fix it. I will do my best to word it more clearly but the references I gave where clear. LoveMonkey 06:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The Q theory has very little to do, so far as I'm aware, with the Gospel of Thomas, which many many people who accept Q believe has no independent sources beyond the four canonical gospels. Q is based on the numerous similarities between Matthew and Luke that do not derive from Mark, and also on the fact that it is considered unlikely that the authors of Matthew and Luke had access to one another's work directly, because of the different genealogies, the different nativity stories, and so forth. Putting so much emphasis on the Gospel of Thomas seems very problematic to me - it is worth mentioning, but is not the main basis for the Q theory. john k 15:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No I disagree. Also could you tell Andrew c to stop editwarring on my edits. His arguments seem pedantic. Why is he not on the talkpage here or on the several other aritcles he has went to and edited out, my contributions while deciding which scholars are note worthly and which ones aren't 1. Also why is it now people like Andrew c are deciding what SOURCED information is pertinent and what SOURCED information is not? Also if you want I can source the link between thomas and Q more thoroughly. But I will need you to support me adding content since Andrew c does not seem to do anything but war edit. Thanks LoveMonkey 06:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
For clarification edits don't offend me, war editing does. If you would like I can add a list of your war editing to several other articles and contribution to those articles that I made in the past two days. If you where trying to work with me then why all the edits first? No talk pages. Even after I came here and responded and since you did not I re-added the comments and then tried to accommodate you anyway. Your edit by the way does not get the point. It removed the fact that the very basis of Q is the synoptic problem. It removes that canonical historical context addressed by more then just Perrin. You also seem to like to pick and choose which scholars I can and can not add to articles, why is that? Please address this rather then just walking away and starting this whole mess all over again. LoveMonkey 07:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, it has been argued that the Gospel of Thomas also stated that the format of that book, which was almost entirely quotations, was an additional reason for believing that some sort of "sayings source" was extant in the early years. Badbilltucker 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I am just a casual reader who noticed the enigmatic reference to the Gospel of Thomas. This section remains incomplete, and you who are working on this entry need to address it. My own sense from reading what you have written about Q and what little I know about Thomas is that there is overlap. This needs to be explained. Does Thomas precede Q and the synoptic gospels, or not? Formerwolfman ( talk) 14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Ya'll must know a lot about John S. Kloppenborg. Can you help me with rewriting the article recently created on him? nadav 12:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I just finished two books all about Q, so, I'm gonna try to regurgitate this and polish up this article. :) Hang on to your hats! -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 16:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just read through this article and I found that the basic concept of what the Q document is (a theoretical unpreserved source document) is repeated again and again. Each new section (up to "The case for a common second source") seems to say the same thing over and over.
I'm sure the first few large sections of this article could be quite easily summed up much more briefly without losing anything.
Grand Dizzy ( talk) 02:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't think that the only sources for Matthew and Luke were just Mark and Q... Since both are different gospels wouldn't each have a 3rd source of their own... meaning Luke would have its own sourse and matthew would have its own sourse... so if you arn't talking about just shared sources it would seem that there would be 4 sources involved... Gkeebler ( talk) 03:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Some polishing i've been meaning to do for a long time, but real life has interfered. Going to try to find the time to actually get it done now.
Just to organize my own thoughts, here are some subjects that need addressing between now and FAC.
More later --
Alecmconroy (
talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
"It is a theoretical collection of Jesus' sayings" and "it appears to be a collection of Jesus' sayings and teachings" - What about the narrative elements and the sayings of John the Baptist?
Why do we have a relatively short "Introduction" section, after a stubby lead? Couldn't that information just be turned into the lead section?
This article needs to deal with how supporters of the two-source-hypothesis respond to the 'minor agreements', which is obviously the biggest problem for the theory. Q/Mark overlap and other arguments need to be addressed, and their mainstream acceptance assessed.
"no early church writer makes an unambiguous reference to a Q document." - Does anyone even make an ambiguous one? Are there any remotely plausible candidates anyone's put forward for the Q document, now that the Logia hypothesis is disfavored?
"Nicholas Perrin has argued that the Gospel of Thomas was based on Tatian's Gospel harmony the Diatessaron instead of the Q document" - What does this have to do with the rest of the article? Who thinks the Gospel of Thomas is based on Q?? - Silence ( talk) 07:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Since Matthew and Luke both mention the Virgin Birth, but Q apparently did not, what was the origin or this story, since it does not appear in Mark? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 ( talk) 10:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
See Raymond Brown, "Birth of the Messiah." The 1st option above, that the Virginal Conception is historical, sometimes is explained as a "family secret"--Mary didn't want it talked about until after her death, maybe James kept it quiet until his own martyrdom (62 CE), etc. Jakob3 ( talk) 17:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
... has some interesting ideas about Biblical history ... interesting in a way that I think is the fringe of the fringe. There is thus a vote for deletion here. Those of you who are knowledgable and care about Biblical history, please check it out. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The more I read this article, the more obvious it is to me that its structure is flawed. At present it has the following structure:
(Note that the above is my analysis of the structure, not the article's actual subheadings.)
Numbers 1 and 4 need to be combined. The focus needs to be on Q, and the solution to the Synoptic Problem (which is well presented in this article) can be left to that subject's article. Number 3 neesd to be incorporated elsewhere, withiout the block quote and more sumamrised (if at all). Number 5 needs to be incorporated thematically under other headings, because at the monent three areas of the article deal with the possible formation of Q. Number 6 can probably be retained. Number 2 needs a lot more content, like possible authorship, location, date, literary genres, themes and theology, historicity.
Perhaps the following structure? (following are suggested Wikipedia subheadings).
History of scholarship can be incorporated in all three, as Q is—in the absence of an actual manuscript—a scholarly construction. Subsections are probably appropriate for all three. Block quotes (Papias and Griffin) should be avoided as scholarly opinion should be summarised, and people are less likely to read long quotes. And the article needs many more inline citations.-- Iacobus ( talk) 04:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The above statement should be removed or 'enormous number' replaced with "hundreds/dozens/a double handful/thousands/billions/117/2,093,000", or something more appropriate. An enormous number is incredbily vague for something like this. Glenn no last name ( talk) 16:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a general consensus that this article needs to be reworked. Most of the material is good, but the format, redundancy and piecemeal approach makes it hard to read. Also references are needed. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The two articles heavily overlap. Either merge them or heavily rewrite both to make a single coherent non-overlapping exposition. Also keeping in mind the articles Synoptic problem and Synoptic Gospels. Otherwise the overall exposition of the whole topic of Synoptic Gospel looks rather chaotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.69.71 ( talk) 15:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Since some of my edits were just reversed, let me explain them here. I'm cleaning up the article slightly--it really needs to be entirely re-written--, rephrasing the description of some of the arguments which seem to me to be more caricatures, and removing references to non-academic non-peer-reviewed items that advocate fringe positions duly rejected by 99.99% of specialists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.240.165 ( talk) 02:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
This article needs to be added to the "Q" disambiguation page. 122.151.126.124 ( talk) 23:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I am reading Analects. While people have made a big fuss over this, it makes for terrible reading. I could not help but think of "Q". If it was like that, no wonder it "disappeared!" I would insert it as "See also" but have no WP:RS for even that minor contribution. Student7 ( talk) 00:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The canonization "processes" is sadly misunderstood by the person who made this statement. Canonization was the recognition of the books in circulation in the various churches. This is flawed logic. While they appear to be a RS, it doesn't pass the sniff test. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This edit completely misunderstands the purpose of the section that contains it. The statement made by the editor is "The Golden Rule does not originate from Christianity". The source, http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/Qluke.html, is discussing what is introduced into the Gospel narrative in Q as opposed to the Markan source. It does not state that it was introduced by the Gospels or Christ himself, although Christ's form of reciprocity is the first to state it positively, it states that Mark does not contain the Golden Rule and both Matthew and Luke do. That is evidence that the source that is common to both Matthew and Luke, Q, contains the Golden Rule. Nothing more. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Another example is from Luke. Jesus' apparent reference to Herod Antipas as "a fox" (Greek alōpēx) has led some to describe Antipas as cunning, as foxes were commonly thought of in the Greek world as cunning.“ However, this does not make historical sense, for Herod Antipas was not otherwise known to have been particularly cunning. Moreover, Jesus' Aramaic word can only have been ta'alā, which also means 'jackal' (canis aureus), and there were more jackals than foxes in Israel. Luke's translation of ta 'alā with alōpēx was however virtually inevitable, because ta'alā does mean 'fox', whereas there was no standard Greek word for 'jackal', because there were no jackals in Greece. Logic dictates that Jesus described Antipas as a jackal. The jackal was a noisy, unclean nuisance of an animal, a predator which hunted in packs. This is a accurate description of one member of the "pack of Herods", none of them genuinely observant Jews, some of them ruthless rulers who worked with packs of supporters to hunt down their opponents and kill them, as Antipas had hunted down and killed John the Baptist and was now hunting down Jesus. Thus the recovery of Jesus' original word ta 'alā helps to fit this saying more accurately into its original cultural context. [1]
I copied this material from the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article, which is probably going to be AfD'd or reduced to a stub soon. It could be incorporated here or become part of a future article on Aramaic Q. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to change the page title to Q Sayings Gospel. Since most scholars agree that Q was used by its editors in document form, it makes little sense not to call it a gospel as it must have been used as such before it was absorbed into Mark, Matthew and Luke. The fact that Q is not a full biographical gospel is no argument for not calling it a gospel as e.g. the Gospel of Thomas is also a collection of sayings and likewise lacks a narrative set-up but is still called a gospel (as are indeed many apocryphal christian writings). Q is in fact richer in content than is Thomas, as well as closer to the later christian gospel content. Brithnoth ( talk) 07:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone look at Oral transmission (synoptic problem) please. In ictu oculi ( talk) 10:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Comments copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Q source introduction-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 21:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
In the introduction to the Q source article, the following paragraph is found.
One of the most notable skeptics of Q is Mark Goodacre, a New Testament professor at Duke University.[4] The omission of what should have been a highly treasured dominical document from all the early Church catalogs, and from mention by the fathers of the early Church, might be seen as a great conundrum of modern Biblical scholarship.[5] However, other scholars explain this by pointing out that copying Q source was unnecessary, since it was embedded in other texts...
I feel that Mark Goodacre's argument(s) should be presented in the sentence currently footnoted as 5, not the sentence that is currently there. As it is currently, the argument is presented weakly and doesn't fit well with the counterargument that is presented after it.
I apologize. I don't think I did this right. I was expecting this post to go on the Q source page. It has been a long time since I have tried editing a page.
Eincrat ( talk) 10:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I had actually created the second image on the right as a vector replacement for the first image. I think it can be interpreted simply – left to right shows the sourcing – but in case of disputes the already-existing third image could be used. Parcly Taxel 15:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The case against is much longer than the case for even though the case for has broad support and the case against has little contemporary support. We should cover the topic with each element getting an appropriate amount of coverage. Giving more coverage to the minority view is a violation of Due Weight WP:UNDUE. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 23:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
"Its lack of mention by Jerome is a conundrum of modern Biblical scholarship."
Saint Jerome was late 4th Century and early 5th Century. Any Early Church (1st Century) document that is lost today was probably already lost in the year 400 when Saint Jerome was alive and writing. This would explain why he specifically never mentioned any titles that may have been what we now (in retrospect) call the Q Source, hence why I question why the Article bothers with that sentence. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 04:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
richard Carrier is a new testament historian, with all necessary credentials, PhD, peer-reviewed articles on the topic. He made a blog post about this wp article [7] -- Raminagrobis ( talk) 21:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Q source. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Is Q source the best title of those used, for this page? As Q stands for 'Quelle' which is German for source, it is titled, source source. Is Q document, not a better title. It is a term widely used, and avoids the source source issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.65.62 ( talk) 19:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz: You reverted my changing the bolded fake headers in the "Further reading" section. Could you explain why you don't believe we should adhere to the Manual of Style I linked in this case? "Short sections" is not a term I've come across before. Opencooper ( talk) 23:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I was just bringing that up in case that was where your objection lied. IAR can be used to support any position, and I just as well could say "MoS be damned, it's just basic HTML common sense". I guess I won't be able to convince you regardless, even if the documentation is clearly against your stance, but you wouldn't be the last editor I met like that... Who cares about those using accessibility technologies or properly using semantic elements in our markup, right? Opencooper ( talk) 03:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
– a mention of Q-lite has been added to the lead – Q-lite is not mentioned elsewhere in the article (violates MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article") – the mention of Q-lite has no citation – Q-lite is mentioned in the Three-source hypothesis article, "The sayings collection may be identified with Q-lite", but the sentence has no references – if no sources can be added to support the addition of Q-lite it should be removed from both articles - Epinoia ( talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I'd appreciate it if seasoned Wikipedia editors would read through my chapter and book proposing a radical new solution to Q, which I call Qn. The basic contours of the proposal was first developed in this published chapter:
“First Dionysian Gospel: Imitational and Redactional Layers in Luke and John.” Classical Models of the Gospels and Acts: Studies in Mimesis Criticism. Claremont Studies in New Testament & Christian Origins 3. Edited by M. G. Bilby, M. Kochenash, and M. Froelich (Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2018), 49–68. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3745622 doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbcd1wt.11 ISBN 97819462301884
Over the last 6 months, I've defined five scientifically testable hypotheses, developed a completely new scientific methodology, and compiled a massive amount of evidence, all using a new open science approach/format that I call a LODLIB (basically treating a book as evolving software, something the Wiki community should probably appreciate):
Bilby, M. G. (2021 Jan). The First Gospel, the Gospel of the Poor: A New Reconstruction of Q and Resolution of the Synoptic Problem based on Marcion's Early Luke. LODLIB v1.33. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3927056
These contributions are sufficiently groundbreaking that they merit a new page for my synoptic problem solution (Qn) as well as a biographical page featuring my work as a New Testament scholar and a leader in the Library and Information Science community. I'd welcome seasoned editors to review my work and come to your own conclusions. Vocesanticae ( talk) 19:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The only public response made thus far is by Phil Tite at U Washington. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3977017 Please read it over. It may take a few more months for other scholars to go on record. It would be nice to find a balance between this Wikipedia article being current (as many articles are, up to the minute!) and being traditional, as you've noted. Perhaps a brief mention of the basic idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocesanticae ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
To the editors of this page: I'm afraid it needs to be rewritten.
I am a nonspecialist reader; today I was reading a series of Wiki articles on biblical scholarship (following up a meatspace argument about the historicity or ahistoricity of Jesus). As usual, wikipedia was endlessly informative and useful and quite good about balancing the discussion between atheist and christian interpretations. But then I ended up here and foundered. The article is basically unreadable and very un-encyclopedia-like; I would suggest that this is because it lacks an introduction, a sentence or two which discusses the state of biblical scholarship, and the various sources for the new testament, and where the Q Document fits into this. I would do this myself, but I know little or nothing about the topic.
A proper intro should read something like:"...a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. The New Testament is generally recognized by scholars to be composed of writings from three sources; accounts by apostles of Jesus, written sometime after his death, collections of the sayings of Jesus, recorded in the form of epistles, and finally writings of early Christians such as Paul...." The Q document, if it existed, would be a common source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are epistles which generally seem to draw on information from the Gospel of Mark, but also information not present in Mark...
I have of course invented the previous (and factually incorrect)sentence to show what a proper introduction might look like if anyone wanted to write it. jackbrown 09:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)jackbrown
Can someone put this sentence into something resembling a legible sentence:
"Two-Source Hypothesis" is hyphenated on another page that refers to it, and I have altered this page so that it is hyphenated here. One newspaper headline says:
New Age-Discrimination Rules Proposed
and another says:
New-Age Discrimination Rules Proposed
The difference in meaning is a good argument in favor of the tradional way of using hyphens. -- Mike Hardy
Feel free to write one. Ashibaka ( tock) 02:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The first line states that "For alert readers of the New Testament, the recognition that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke share much material not found in their familiar source, the Gospel of Mark, has suggested a common second source, called the Q document (Q for German Quelle, "source")."
"For alert readers"? You must be joking. How is that a neutral POV? I've added the NPOV tag because of it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
So, what is the Ta bu shi da yu adjective to specify those readers who might notice such things? Insert whatever the appropriate Ta bu shi da yu adjective may be, please, and remove the little tag. -- Wetman 04:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I moved this statement from the main article. It could be a garbled form of a genuine position, but as written I'm not aware of a single scholar that advocates this. There are a lot speculative things about Q, but let's at least include those that a fair number of scholars actually hold. Stephen C. Carlson 03:30, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
Robinson did not reach any definite conclusion but deliberately set out to test the limits of what could be proven, not necessarily to prove such things as an AD 40 date of Matthew (yes I've read his book). More importantly, some have placed Q in the 30s and so this presents no absolute problem for a Q, only a subjective one (i.e. scholars who place Q in the 40s or 50s would be wrong, but that does nothing to affect the plausibility of the existence of Q).
I have pared this down to what is necessary (it's a variation on the Farmer argument).
All this is irrelevant because Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, does not say the Gospel of Matthew was written first.-- Peter Kirby 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
This was moved from the main text ( Stephen C. Carlson 04:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC))
In the first paragraph, the contents of Q are in Matt and/or Luke. How's that blasphemous? In the second paragraph, we don't know Q's name, so how can we say for certain that it was not referred to by any of the Church Father at all much less as a Christian work? Stephen C. Carlson 04:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I think there should be a short section noting the similarity of this hypothesis to the documentary hypothesis, since they were both formed around the same period of biblical scholarship and they both introduce lost sources to the books of the Bible. AUhl 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The only reason I added the {{ Jesus}} template was that there is a link to this article from it (I was going from link to link to see which articles were where). However, upon further examination, I note that the link I clicked on was Jesus' sayings according to the Christian Bible which redirects here. Apparently, Clinkophonist transferred the original article to Wikisource and (according to edit history) "[redirected] to the closest article on wikipedia to the topic" [3] אמר Steve Caruso ( desk/ poll) 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
tThis Wikipedism betrays unfamiliarity with the literature. -- Wetman 21:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Yes, Wikipedism is an unfamiliar term.
"Certain themes, such as the Deuteronomistic view of history, are more prominent in Q than in either Matthew or Luke individually."
Something is wrong with this sentence, specifically the phrase "are more prominant in Q." No copy of Q exists. There is no consensus reconstruction of Q. How can we make a statement with this type of certainty? The given reference doesn't clear any of this up nor does it make any direct reference to Deuteronomism. More even importantly how is agreement between theories a proof?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.63.71.49 ( talk • contribs) 3 August 2006.
I have been instructed to post here http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/q.html. The article defends Q as originally a separate document, and which was compiled around 80, after GMark was known, but before GMatthew & GLuke were written. Of course it would help if you like this webpage and post it as a link. Thanks. If posted, I will add up on it my name and a link to my bio, as I did for my front page, http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html (which is already posted as a link on three Wikipedia pages). Bernard
I have removed this from the main article:
This sentence makes no sense, and I do not understand how this is a reverse argument of Q. I read the linked page in question, and the only thing I saw was that Perrin and Wright theorized that Thomas (not Q) was based off of the Diatessaron. I almost changed the wording to reflect that, except Thomas is off topic here. Please figure out a better, more informative way to convey this information. I'm sorry I couldn't fix it myself, but I do not understand what is trying to be said. Thanks- Andrew c 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this not one of the points in the article already?
Or this one.
So whats the point of contention? Are you Andrew c now saying that this article does not reflect any connection between Q and the Gospel of Thomas? If it is off topic then why does the topic contain the above quotes? The Q theory states that the Gospels where fabricated from a single text composed of quotes or sayings. Nicholas Perrin stated that the historical proof for Q to validate this is the Gospel of Thomas. Nicholas Perrin states that the Gospel of Thomas was fabricated not from a tradition of a quotes or sayings Gospel (Q) but from a Harmony Gospel called the Diatessaron. So the synoptic problem is resolved either by a quotes gospel or a Harmony Gospel. So in the evolution of the Q theory why is the Diatessaron history omitted? Of course until Nicholas Perrin and Mark Goodacre point out that for the Q theory to work the whole history of a harmony Gospel including canons created by Ammonius Saccas and Tatian (both a matter of history) has been omitted. Why is a contridictory validatable history being ignored? One that shows a tradition of a fabricated quotes Gospel (the Gospel of Thomas) not having it's origin in Q but instead in a Harmony Gospel? Why are you omitting rather then correcting? IF you don't time for one how can you have time for the other? If there is contention please notify me before removing a contribution? Have you not asked for the same? I am open to work with others to make a more effective article. I am reverting my additions, if you can find a better wording please contribute but please don't blanket remove text under the excuse you don't have time to fix it. I will do my best to word it more clearly but the references I gave where clear. LoveMonkey 06:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The Q theory has very little to do, so far as I'm aware, with the Gospel of Thomas, which many many people who accept Q believe has no independent sources beyond the four canonical gospels. Q is based on the numerous similarities between Matthew and Luke that do not derive from Mark, and also on the fact that it is considered unlikely that the authors of Matthew and Luke had access to one another's work directly, because of the different genealogies, the different nativity stories, and so forth. Putting so much emphasis on the Gospel of Thomas seems very problematic to me - it is worth mentioning, but is not the main basis for the Q theory. john k 15:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No I disagree. Also could you tell Andrew c to stop editwarring on my edits. His arguments seem pedantic. Why is he not on the talkpage here or on the several other aritcles he has went to and edited out, my contributions while deciding which scholars are note worthly and which ones aren't 1. Also why is it now people like Andrew c are deciding what SOURCED information is pertinent and what SOURCED information is not? Also if you want I can source the link between thomas and Q more thoroughly. But I will need you to support me adding content since Andrew c does not seem to do anything but war edit. Thanks LoveMonkey 06:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
For clarification edits don't offend me, war editing does. If you would like I can add a list of your war editing to several other articles and contribution to those articles that I made in the past two days. If you where trying to work with me then why all the edits first? No talk pages. Even after I came here and responded and since you did not I re-added the comments and then tried to accommodate you anyway. Your edit by the way does not get the point. It removed the fact that the very basis of Q is the synoptic problem. It removes that canonical historical context addressed by more then just Perrin. You also seem to like to pick and choose which scholars I can and can not add to articles, why is that? Please address this rather then just walking away and starting this whole mess all over again. LoveMonkey 07:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, it has been argued that the Gospel of Thomas also stated that the format of that book, which was almost entirely quotations, was an additional reason for believing that some sort of "sayings source" was extant in the early years. Badbilltucker 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I am just a casual reader who noticed the enigmatic reference to the Gospel of Thomas. This section remains incomplete, and you who are working on this entry need to address it. My own sense from reading what you have written about Q and what little I know about Thomas is that there is overlap. This needs to be explained. Does Thomas precede Q and the synoptic gospels, or not? Formerwolfman ( talk) 14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Ya'll must know a lot about John S. Kloppenborg. Can you help me with rewriting the article recently created on him? nadav 12:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I just finished two books all about Q, so, I'm gonna try to regurgitate this and polish up this article. :) Hang on to your hats! -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 16:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just read through this article and I found that the basic concept of what the Q document is (a theoretical unpreserved source document) is repeated again and again. Each new section (up to "The case for a common second source") seems to say the same thing over and over.
I'm sure the first few large sections of this article could be quite easily summed up much more briefly without losing anything.
Grand Dizzy ( talk) 02:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't think that the only sources for Matthew and Luke were just Mark and Q... Since both are different gospels wouldn't each have a 3rd source of their own... meaning Luke would have its own sourse and matthew would have its own sourse... so if you arn't talking about just shared sources it would seem that there would be 4 sources involved... Gkeebler ( talk) 03:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Some polishing i've been meaning to do for a long time, but real life has interfered. Going to try to find the time to actually get it done now.
Just to organize my own thoughts, here are some subjects that need addressing between now and FAC.
More later --
Alecmconroy (
talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
"It is a theoretical collection of Jesus' sayings" and "it appears to be a collection of Jesus' sayings and teachings" - What about the narrative elements and the sayings of John the Baptist?
Why do we have a relatively short "Introduction" section, after a stubby lead? Couldn't that information just be turned into the lead section?
This article needs to deal with how supporters of the two-source-hypothesis respond to the 'minor agreements', which is obviously the biggest problem for the theory. Q/Mark overlap and other arguments need to be addressed, and their mainstream acceptance assessed.
"no early church writer makes an unambiguous reference to a Q document." - Does anyone even make an ambiguous one? Are there any remotely plausible candidates anyone's put forward for the Q document, now that the Logia hypothesis is disfavored?
"Nicholas Perrin has argued that the Gospel of Thomas was based on Tatian's Gospel harmony the Diatessaron instead of the Q document" - What does this have to do with the rest of the article? Who thinks the Gospel of Thomas is based on Q?? - Silence ( talk) 07:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Since Matthew and Luke both mention the Virgin Birth, but Q apparently did not, what was the origin or this story, since it does not appear in Mark? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 ( talk) 10:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
See Raymond Brown, "Birth of the Messiah." The 1st option above, that the Virginal Conception is historical, sometimes is explained as a "family secret"--Mary didn't want it talked about until after her death, maybe James kept it quiet until his own martyrdom (62 CE), etc. Jakob3 ( talk) 17:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
... has some interesting ideas about Biblical history ... interesting in a way that I think is the fringe of the fringe. There is thus a vote for deletion here. Those of you who are knowledgable and care about Biblical history, please check it out. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The more I read this article, the more obvious it is to me that its structure is flawed. At present it has the following structure:
(Note that the above is my analysis of the structure, not the article's actual subheadings.)
Numbers 1 and 4 need to be combined. The focus needs to be on Q, and the solution to the Synoptic Problem (which is well presented in this article) can be left to that subject's article. Number 3 neesd to be incorporated elsewhere, withiout the block quote and more sumamrised (if at all). Number 5 needs to be incorporated thematically under other headings, because at the monent three areas of the article deal with the possible formation of Q. Number 6 can probably be retained. Number 2 needs a lot more content, like possible authorship, location, date, literary genres, themes and theology, historicity.
Perhaps the following structure? (following are suggested Wikipedia subheadings).
History of scholarship can be incorporated in all three, as Q is—in the absence of an actual manuscript—a scholarly construction. Subsections are probably appropriate for all three. Block quotes (Papias and Griffin) should be avoided as scholarly opinion should be summarised, and people are less likely to read long quotes. And the article needs many more inline citations.-- Iacobus ( talk) 04:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The above statement should be removed or 'enormous number' replaced with "hundreds/dozens/a double handful/thousands/billions/117/2,093,000", or something more appropriate. An enormous number is incredbily vague for something like this. Glenn no last name ( talk) 16:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a general consensus that this article needs to be reworked. Most of the material is good, but the format, redundancy and piecemeal approach makes it hard to read. Also references are needed. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The two articles heavily overlap. Either merge them or heavily rewrite both to make a single coherent non-overlapping exposition. Also keeping in mind the articles Synoptic problem and Synoptic Gospels. Otherwise the overall exposition of the whole topic of Synoptic Gospel looks rather chaotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.69.71 ( talk) 15:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Since some of my edits were just reversed, let me explain them here. I'm cleaning up the article slightly--it really needs to be entirely re-written--, rephrasing the description of some of the arguments which seem to me to be more caricatures, and removing references to non-academic non-peer-reviewed items that advocate fringe positions duly rejected by 99.99% of specialists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.240.165 ( talk) 02:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
This article needs to be added to the "Q" disambiguation page. 122.151.126.124 ( talk) 23:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I am reading Analects. While people have made a big fuss over this, it makes for terrible reading. I could not help but think of "Q". If it was like that, no wonder it "disappeared!" I would insert it as "See also" but have no WP:RS for even that minor contribution. Student7 ( talk) 00:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The canonization "processes" is sadly misunderstood by the person who made this statement. Canonization was the recognition of the books in circulation in the various churches. This is flawed logic. While they appear to be a RS, it doesn't pass the sniff test. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This edit completely misunderstands the purpose of the section that contains it. The statement made by the editor is "The Golden Rule does not originate from Christianity". The source, http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/Qluke.html, is discussing what is introduced into the Gospel narrative in Q as opposed to the Markan source. It does not state that it was introduced by the Gospels or Christ himself, although Christ's form of reciprocity is the first to state it positively, it states that Mark does not contain the Golden Rule and both Matthew and Luke do. That is evidence that the source that is common to both Matthew and Luke, Q, contains the Golden Rule. Nothing more. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Another example is from Luke. Jesus' apparent reference to Herod Antipas as "a fox" (Greek alōpēx) has led some to describe Antipas as cunning, as foxes were commonly thought of in the Greek world as cunning.“ However, this does not make historical sense, for Herod Antipas was not otherwise known to have been particularly cunning. Moreover, Jesus' Aramaic word can only have been ta'alā, which also means 'jackal' (canis aureus), and there were more jackals than foxes in Israel. Luke's translation of ta 'alā with alōpēx was however virtually inevitable, because ta'alā does mean 'fox', whereas there was no standard Greek word for 'jackal', because there were no jackals in Greece. Logic dictates that Jesus described Antipas as a jackal. The jackal was a noisy, unclean nuisance of an animal, a predator which hunted in packs. This is a accurate description of one member of the "pack of Herods", none of them genuinely observant Jews, some of them ruthless rulers who worked with packs of supporters to hunt down their opponents and kill them, as Antipas had hunted down and killed John the Baptist and was now hunting down Jesus. Thus the recovery of Jesus' original word ta 'alā helps to fit this saying more accurately into its original cultural context. [1]
I copied this material from the Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article, which is probably going to be AfD'd or reduced to a stub soon. It could be incorporated here or become part of a future article on Aramaic Q. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to change the page title to Q Sayings Gospel. Since most scholars agree that Q was used by its editors in document form, it makes little sense not to call it a gospel as it must have been used as such before it was absorbed into Mark, Matthew and Luke. The fact that Q is not a full biographical gospel is no argument for not calling it a gospel as e.g. the Gospel of Thomas is also a collection of sayings and likewise lacks a narrative set-up but is still called a gospel (as are indeed many apocryphal christian writings). Q is in fact richer in content than is Thomas, as well as closer to the later christian gospel content. Brithnoth ( talk) 07:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone look at Oral transmission (synoptic problem) please. In ictu oculi ( talk) 10:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Comments copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Q source introduction-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 21:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
In the introduction to the Q source article, the following paragraph is found.
One of the most notable skeptics of Q is Mark Goodacre, a New Testament professor at Duke University.[4] The omission of what should have been a highly treasured dominical document from all the early Church catalogs, and from mention by the fathers of the early Church, might be seen as a great conundrum of modern Biblical scholarship.[5] However, other scholars explain this by pointing out that copying Q source was unnecessary, since it was embedded in other texts...
I feel that Mark Goodacre's argument(s) should be presented in the sentence currently footnoted as 5, not the sentence that is currently there. As it is currently, the argument is presented weakly and doesn't fit well with the counterargument that is presented after it.
I apologize. I don't think I did this right. I was expecting this post to go on the Q source page. It has been a long time since I have tried editing a page.
Eincrat ( talk) 10:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I had actually created the second image on the right as a vector replacement for the first image. I think it can be interpreted simply – left to right shows the sourcing – but in case of disputes the already-existing third image could be used. Parcly Taxel 15:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The case against is much longer than the case for even though the case for has broad support and the case against has little contemporary support. We should cover the topic with each element getting an appropriate amount of coverage. Giving more coverage to the minority view is a violation of Due Weight WP:UNDUE. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 23:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
"Its lack of mention by Jerome is a conundrum of modern Biblical scholarship."
Saint Jerome was late 4th Century and early 5th Century. Any Early Church (1st Century) document that is lost today was probably already lost in the year 400 when Saint Jerome was alive and writing. This would explain why he specifically never mentioned any titles that may have been what we now (in retrospect) call the Q Source, hence why I question why the Article bothers with that sentence. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 04:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
richard Carrier is a new testament historian, with all necessary credentials, PhD, peer-reviewed articles on the topic. He made a blog post about this wp article [7] -- Raminagrobis ( talk) 21:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Q source. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Is Q source the best title of those used, for this page? As Q stands for 'Quelle' which is German for source, it is titled, source source. Is Q document, not a better title. It is a term widely used, and avoids the source source issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.65.62 ( talk) 19:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz: You reverted my changing the bolded fake headers in the "Further reading" section. Could you explain why you don't believe we should adhere to the Manual of Style I linked in this case? "Short sections" is not a term I've come across before. Opencooper ( talk) 23:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I was just bringing that up in case that was where your objection lied. IAR can be used to support any position, and I just as well could say "MoS be damned, it's just basic HTML common sense". I guess I won't be able to convince you regardless, even if the documentation is clearly against your stance, but you wouldn't be the last editor I met like that... Who cares about those using accessibility technologies or properly using semantic elements in our markup, right? Opencooper ( talk) 03:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
– a mention of Q-lite has been added to the lead – Q-lite is not mentioned elsewhere in the article (violates MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article") – the mention of Q-lite has no citation – Q-lite is mentioned in the Three-source hypothesis article, "The sayings collection may be identified with Q-lite", but the sentence has no references – if no sources can be added to support the addition of Q-lite it should be removed from both articles - Epinoia ( talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I'd appreciate it if seasoned Wikipedia editors would read through my chapter and book proposing a radical new solution to Q, which I call Qn. The basic contours of the proposal was first developed in this published chapter:
“First Dionysian Gospel: Imitational and Redactional Layers in Luke and John.” Classical Models of the Gospels and Acts: Studies in Mimesis Criticism. Claremont Studies in New Testament & Christian Origins 3. Edited by M. G. Bilby, M. Kochenash, and M. Froelich (Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2018), 49–68. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3745622 doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbcd1wt.11 ISBN 97819462301884
Over the last 6 months, I've defined five scientifically testable hypotheses, developed a completely new scientific methodology, and compiled a massive amount of evidence, all using a new open science approach/format that I call a LODLIB (basically treating a book as evolving software, something the Wiki community should probably appreciate):
Bilby, M. G. (2021 Jan). The First Gospel, the Gospel of the Poor: A New Reconstruction of Q and Resolution of the Synoptic Problem based on Marcion's Early Luke. LODLIB v1.33. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3927056
These contributions are sufficiently groundbreaking that they merit a new page for my synoptic problem solution (Qn) as well as a biographical page featuring my work as a New Testament scholar and a leader in the Library and Information Science community. I'd welcome seasoned editors to review my work and come to your own conclusions. Vocesanticae ( talk) 19:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The only public response made thus far is by Phil Tite at U Washington. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3977017 Please read it over. It may take a few more months for other scholars to go on record. It would be nice to find a balance between this Wikipedia article being current (as many articles are, up to the minute!) and being traditional, as you've noted. Perhaps a brief mention of the basic idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocesanticae ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)