The Four-Source "Q" Theory

[pjohns]

One problem that has long plagued theologians is the so-called "Synoptic Problem." In a nutshell, it is this:

The three Synoptists (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) use almost identical language in places. (In fact, a "harmony of the gospels" is sometimes useful, in this regard.)

Just how to resolve this?

One way, I suppose, would be to adopt the so-called "Dictation Theory": According to this, God just dictated the words to be used, verbatim; so the Synoptists wound up with the very same words in many places.

But I reject this theory--as do most serious theologians nowadays.

One problem with it is this: It does not explain the vast differences in style between, say, the Synoptists and John; or between Peter and Paul; or between any of the above.

Almost 100 years ago, B.H. Streeter devised a theory (known as "The Four-Source 'Q' Theory) that may work, however.

It essentially goes like this:

Mark--not Matthew, as had long been supposed--is the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels.

Matthew used Mark as a base.

He supplemented it with a Caesarean source document, known as "Q" (for the first letter of the German word, quelle: meaning source).

He further supplemented it with a Jerusalem source document, known as "M" (which gives Matthew its distinctively Jewish flavor).

Already, we have accounted for three of the four sources.

Moreover, Luke is believed to have used an Antiochene source document, known as "L." This, in addition to Mark and "Q."

The theory is, admittedly, not perfect; its most glaring problem is the fact that no such source documents have yet been discovered.

Still, I can see no better alternative.

Thoughts?

[Peter1469]

Good question.

I don't think that our current translations are accurate. But that is off topic.

[jet57]

One problem that has long plagued theologians is the so-called "Synoptic Problem." In a nutshell, it is this:

The three Synoptists (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) use almost identical language in places. (In fact, a "harmony of the gospels" is sometimes useful, in this regard.)

Just how to resolve this?

One way, I suppose, would be to adopt the so-called "Dictation Theory": According to this, God just dictated the words to be used, verbatim; so the Synoptists wound up with the very same words in many places.

But I reject this theory--as do most serious theologians nowadays.

One problem with it is this: It does not explain the vast differences in style between, say, the Synoptists and John; or between Peter and Paul; or between any of the above.

Almost 100 years ago, B.H. Streeter devised a theory (known as "The Four-Source 'Q' Theory) that may work, however.

It essentially goes like this:

Mark--not Matthew, as had long been supposed--is the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels.

Matthew used Mark as a base.

He supplemented it with a Caesarean source document, known as "Q" (for the first letter of the German word, quelle: meaning source).

He further supplemented it with a Jerusalem source document, known as "M" (which gives Matthew its distinctively Jewish flavor).

Already, we have accounted for three of the four sources.

Moreover, Luke is believed to have used an Antiochene source document, known as "L." This, in addition to Mark and "Q."

The theory is, admittedly, not perfect; its most glaring problem is the fact that no such source documents have yet been discovered.

Still, I can see no better alternative.

Thoughts?

1.1 What is the synoptic problem?

The synoptic problem is an investigation into the existence and nature of the literary interrelationship among the first three "synoptic" gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptic gospels, in contrast with John, because they can readily be arranged in a three-column harmony called a "synopsis." Unlike John, the synoptic gospels share a great number of parallel accounts and parables, arranged in mostly the same order, and told with many of the same words. Any proposed solution to the synoptic problem, therefore, must account for these literary similarities among the synoptics, not so much in terms of their factual content, but in the selection of that content, the arrangement of the material, and wording of the parallels.

No offense, but - what's the problem?

Identical language? Compiled by the same person and transcribed?

Sorry, but I don't really get the point...

[Doublejack]

Best to just throw it in the trash and not waste any thought on it.

[pjohns]

No offense, but - what's the problem?

Identical language? Compiled by the same person and transcribed?

Sorry, but I don't really get the point...[/FONT][/COLOR]

The "problem" is this: How do we explain the great similarity of wording among the three Synoptists?

Again, one theoretical possibility is known as "The Dictation Theory" of inspiration.

But that, then, begs the question: Why is there such an enormous difference in style, among the various New Testament writers? Did God mysteriously change His style, every time he used another instrument?

An alternative is Streeter's so-called "Four-Source 'Q' Theory."

[jet57]

The "problem" is this: How do we explain the great similarity of wording among the three Synoptists?

Again, one theoretical possibility is known as "The Dictation Theory" of inspiration.

But that, then, begs the question: Why is there such an enormous difference in style, among the various New Testament writers? Did God mysteriously change His style, every time he used another instrument?

An alternative is Streeter's so-called "Four-Source 'Q' Theory."

I think your best bet is the books were complied and transcribed by the same group.

[pjohns]

I think your best bet is the books were complied and transcribed by the same group.

That is an interesting theory.

But it still begs the question: Just what "group" did the transcribing, in your opinion?

[jet57]

That is an interesting theory.

But it still begs the question: Just what "group" did the transcribing, in your opinion?

That's where anthropology comes in. Certain societies set up in that area at the time; you'd know better than I which ones I suppose, and from studying that society and any remaining writings on the leaders, important issues, enemies etc, you can draw a very accurate picture of who they were, which will tell you a great deal about ho and why and how those books were compiled and transcribed.

The similarities though, tell me that these books were the reworking of a single group of people, probably in an official capacity...

[pjohns]

That's where anthropology comes in. Certain societies set up in that area at the time; you'd know better than I which ones I suppose, and from studying that society and any remaining writings on the leaders, important issues, enemies etc, you can draw a very accurate picture of who they were, which will tell you a great deal about ho and why and how those books were compiled and transcribed.

But why is this easier to believe than Streeter's theory (which, admittedly, is not without its difficulties; not the least of which is the fact that no such documents have yet been discovered)?

[jet57]

But why is this easier to believe than Streeter's theory (which, admittedly, is not without its difficulties; not the least of which is the fact that no such documents have yet been discovered)?

..... changing the post