As of late several people have been pushing the Q theory realting to the Gospels.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I've always been suspicious of this theory, but never have any arguments against it.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Does the Church have any writings or theologins that have a defence against it?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š That said, on the other side, what advantage would "Q" pose us, for those on the opposite side?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I can see how it would be advantageous to Protestants who have no tradition, but not Orthodox or even Catholics (who I've often met many proponents for this that are Romans).
I'm certainly no expert, but as discussed above "Q" to my knowledge is a hypothetical written "source" for the Synoptic Gospels.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
Arguments against it:
1. it's a hypothesis and there's no proof it existed.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š To my knowledge, the theory comes up because people have looked into the "style" of the Gospels and have come up with commonalities, differences in content and style and hypothesized that there might be a common source.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š They will never be able to prove it, unless a major archaelogical find comes up.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š My opinion: the theories of Q make assumptions based on theories of writing and "hearsay" applicable to modern people, but not necessarily applicable to 1st century AD Palestinians and Greeks.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
2. It seems to me that they make too much the "written" souces and ignore the idea of oral transmission.
- how did an indiividual scholar make his hypothesis?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Some may have done so in good faith and on solid academic grounds.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Others make weak hypothesis, which clearly have an agenda, and goÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š one to push it as their career.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The scholarly soundess of any Bible hypothesis has to be closely examined.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
- many key points of the content of the Gospels is reflected in the other books of the New Testament
- even the hypothesized earliest book of the New Testment (James) has sections which to me clearly show that a LOT was going on in the early Church that wasn't written down explicitly (i.e. the last chapter, which makes passing the sacraments of healing and confession, with the underlying assumption that the audience knows what it is and has done it; he's exhorting them to partake of the sacrament frequently).ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
In the end, we just don't know enough about the writing of the Gospels to make any judgments on how they were derived [my completely unscholarly opinion: St. Luke's Gospel, especially the first two chapters, comes from a direct source that Luke interviewed.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Hint: he painted a few pictures of her.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š :)ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ]
As far as who it benefits: the only people much of this kind of work has benefited are those who wish to change Christianity, be they "liberal" mainline Protestants or "liberal" Catholics.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Biblical inerrancy-type evangelicals generally have nothing to do with this scholarship.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Rome (as opposed to some ostensibly Catholic scholars) has encouraged academic study, hoping for new insights, while cautioning that the books are divinely inspired and that any conclusions must be consistent with the Faith.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š To my knowledge it has not approved of any theories that have come out of this movement.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š