Q

[_1 Iron]

There is no hidden knowledge in Christianity. We are saved by the grace of God, not by secret knowledge.

Peace.

While I may not have the same understanding as you intended when you penned this, all I can say is, "Amen."

And peace be unto you as well, sister. :)

[_Aristotle Smith]

But here’s my point so as not to be overlooked, if I can do it the justice you gave this other point held by bizarro 1 Iron – from an LDS perspective, the evidence for a “Q” source that was used to compile both Matthew as well as Luke points to a missing document. You claim it is not missing, because we see the evidence for it in the two sources we do have. As you may recall from the OP, I have posited that both authors could very well have only included those portions of the text that they found most palatable to their intended audiences (i.e – a Jewish audience in the case of Matthew, and a Greek audience in the case of Luke), but neither including the most important portions of the text.

Uh, sure, but how are you going to know that they excluded portions of the text since by your own admission they excluded them and are now lost? If you want to hypothesize in the absence of data, be my guest, but that's pointless and boring.

For example, we have the Gospel of John which, by many accounts, was recorded so long after the resurrection of Christ that the author of it could not have been a contemporary witness to the events it includes.

Given the standard scholarly dating, John is 10-15 years older than Matthew and Luke, and 25-30 years older than Mark. In any case, none of the writers of the gospels were contemporary witnesses to the events.

Perhaps the content of this Gospel was preserved using oral tradition.

All of the gospels came about this way. Matthew and Luke happened to use 2 prior written sources (Mark and "Q"), but both also included oral tradition. John is also based on written sources.

Or perhaps it also represents something else.

Oh goody, more speculation sans data (which conveniently mirrors your beliefs and biases)?

Critics of Christianity claim it shows a growing complexity in Christian theology, which I have to say is true when compared to the other three Gospels.

Perhaps, but when you take into account that Mark, Matthew, and Luke are already theologically complex, you don't have much of a point.

There are many ways to explain this, yet from the LDS perspective an obvious one is that the Gospel of John need not reflect new complexity, but rather lost complexity that was preserved in some way.

Wow, a mini-apostasy followed by a mini-restoration by John? Just out of curiosity, how much of the redactional history of John are you aware of? I ask because if you are aware of it, I don't see how you can be making that point.

This isn’t to say that John is perfect in it’s transmission. But taking the whole of the Gospels into account, the average Christian who accepts “Q” and other textual arguments for the construction of the New Testament has to contend with John as well as the synoptic.

And? What's your point? Christians have had to deal with John being very different from the synoptics for almost 2,000 years. I think they are well aware of the problem.

I view your argument against the acceptance of a hypothetical “Q” by Mormon’s as too limited. And it ignores the implications that your assumptions have for John if you no longer accept that John was written by the Beloved Apostle of the Lord.

John wasn't written by John of Peter, James, and John fame. What are the implications, I'm curious?

Jolly good show, though. Keep it up.

Now you are starting to sound like an apologist.

[Guest]

Second, which is my contention, is the group that includes the longer standing traditions that may not claim inerrancy but tie their claims to authority from God back to the Bible. Could the Catholic church accept the possibility that there is human interpretation involved in Matthew 16:18 without some discomfort, for example?

Of course there is human interpretation in scripture. It was written by humans, in a context of their time, experiences, culture, etc.

A few of the earliest writings, such as some of Paul's letters, were copied and shared across the different churches (churches in the sense of ordinariates..the Church in Ephesus, the Church in Corinth, etc). But these were not a Bible. They supported what the ordained presbyters, the successors to the Apostles, were teaching and handing on to the faithful, and to those they trained as presbyters (Bishops). The first presbyters having been taught by the Apostles, directly.

These earliest writings did not exist outside of the liturgical and oral tradition. They came from it.

As the Apostles began to die off, there became an imperative to write down the Apostolic teachings. From this, came the later writings. The churches (now growing in number), copied and circulated these writings (again) and by the mid-fourth century, a table of contents begins to emerge and is being described in early Christian writings.

Again, the writings being held as important and scriptural, because they describe the Apostolic Faith, which handed on in its entirety, is scriptural, liturgical, sacramental, and oral.

The history continues on from there, but my point is, any catholic (by that I mean anyone of the Universal Church), understands this history from a very early age.

But, I'll quote this from the introduction to Matthew, that is in my Catholic Bible (New American Bible) http://www.usccb.org/nab/Bible/matthew/intro.htm:

"The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel [Matthew] have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called "Q" (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning "source"), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the "Two-Source Theory" given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated "M," written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew's use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

As for the place where the gospel was composed, a plausible suggestion is that it was Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. That large and important city had a mixed population of Greek-speaking Gentiles and Jews. The tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians there in the time of Paul (see Gal 2:1-14) in respect to Christian obligation to observe Mosaic law are partially similar to tensions that can be seen between the two groups in Matthew's gospel. The church of Matthew, originally strongly Jewish Christian, had become one in which Gentile Christians were predominant. His gospel answers the question how obedience to the will of God is to be expressed by those who live after the "turn of the ages," the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The principal divisions of the Gospel according to Matthew are the following:

The Infancy Narrative (Matthew 1:1-2:23)
The Proclamation of the Kingdom (Matthew 3:1-7:29)
Ministry and Mission in Galilee (Matthew 8:1-11:1)
Opposition from Israel (Matthew 11:2-13:53)
Jesus, the Kingdom, and the Church (Matthew 13:54-18:35)
Ministry in Judea and Jerusalem (Matthew 19:1-25:46)
The Passion and Resurrection (Matthew 26:1-28:20)"

Peace.

[_1 Iron]

I find it interesting, A. Smith, that no where in your comments do you hold to the possibility that God could restore the original source that we are calling "Q" for convenience. Why? You keep saying it's lost, and to the speculation that it could be restored you say, "Boooorrrrring!" because that is just going too far??!! Ha ha!

You scoff derisively at a notion that something is possible, by God mind you, waving it aside because you feel it is "sans data"; but more importantly, because it is in line with my biases (read: my beliefs that contradict yours in some manner). I find that hardly revealing. You posit time lines for the gospels that you feel comfortable with as if they are matters-of-fact, for example. Yet the scholarly datings for all four have a range that varies significantly from those you list. I suspect you gave the one's you did because they best suit your biases and come from sources you trust more than others. The difference between us, that I can see, is I qualify my statements as opinion based on the evidence while you are stating things as if they were fact. No big deal I guess. But interesting.

[_1 Iron]

Madeline,

Thank you for sharing that quote with me. It was very informative. :)

[_Aristotle Smith]

I find it interesting, A. Smith, that no where in your comments do you hold to the possibility that God could restore the original source that we are calling "Q" for convenience. Why? You keep saying it's lost, and to the speculation that it could be restored you say, "Boooorrrrring!" because that is just going too far??!! Ha ha!

No, I don't say it's impossible that God could restore something. So I will ask you again, what is your evidence that he has? Yes, I find your speculations sans evidence boring.

You scoff derisively at a notion that something is possible, by God mind you, waving it aside because you feel it is "sans data";

Not scoffing here at God. I'm even willing to take things on faith provided there is not contrary evidence to that thing. Thus, I have no problem taking resurrection on faith (as there is no contrary evidence, other than an a priori assumption of naturalism).

but more importantly, because it is in line with my biases (read: my beliefs that contradict yours in some manner). I find that hardly revealing.

1 Iron, I will look at what you think is the case provided you do one of the following: 1) Give me some positive evidence for what you are arguing or 2) Give me some argument that does not have contrary evidence against it. So far, you have done neither.

You posit time lines for the gospels that you feel comfortable with as if they are matters-of-fact, for example. Yet the scholarly datings for all four have a range that varies significantly from those you list. I suspect you gave the one's you did because they best suit your biases and come from sources you trust more than others.

Sorry to disappoint you again. I would much prefer that the gospels be from contemporary eye-witness accounts. But, there is no evidence that this is the case, so in the name of truth I don't go around saying it is the case. As for the datings, I am well aware that all datings for the gospels are conjectural, but it's the best we can do. If you have EVIDENCE against the standard datings I am all ears. However, I'm pretty well read in this area so I doubt you have anything compelling.

For example, I find nothing to quibble with over the excerpt that madeleine cited from her Catholic Bible (it's straight out of any scholarly New Testament Intro book). So let me ask you a question 1 Iron. If Mormons find it so much easier than Catholics to accept things like "Q," the two-source hypothesis, and late gospel authorship, why is it that madeleine's Catholic Bible mentions those things while your LDS Quad does not?

The difference between us, that I can see, is I qualify my statements as opinion based on the evidence while you are stating things as if they were fact. No big deal I guess. But interesting.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

[_MCB]

The analogy is so good. Any LDS academic who would accept the Q hypothesis would be three sneezes from apostasy. It would be rip-roaringly funny.
S/R

Hello MCB,

I don't agree with your sentiment. I think it more likely that an academic from a traditional school of Christianity, such as Anglicans or Catholics, would find the "Q"-source more problematic than a Mormon scholar. It has long been the official stand of the LDS faith that the Bible is the word of God - so far as it is translated correctly. Not so the case with others.

by the way - would you mind addressing the OP by sharing your personal thoughts on "Q", as well as your religious background? It would help me to know who I am addressing in some more detail.

Thank you.

Thank you madeline for continuing the discussion from a Catholic perspective. As you know, my computer access is limited at the present time, probably for my own good, LOL! Yes, because of scripture & tradition , we have no problems with Q. For obvious reasons, LDS would. Once they accept Q, they are only three sneezes from accepting the KJV and other plagiarisms. The analytic methods for the Q hypothesis and those used for finding the sources for the Book of Mormon are remarkably similar, except for the Book of Mormon, the parallel texts, other than Manuscript Story, need evaluations of parallels from multiple scholars in order to be presented as viable. More difficult, but still doable.

[_madeleine]

No problem.

It's good to see you. :)

[_1 Iron]

No, I don't say it's impossible that God could restore something. So I will ask you again, what is your evidence that he has? Yes, I find your speculations sans evidence boring.

The challenge here, Smith, is I see the Book of Mormon and other modern scripture to be evidence that God has, indeed, restored "something". You apparently don't. I have not yet argued that God HAS restored anything from the "Q" source. I will in a moment. But I haven't yet. In fact, going all the way back to the OP, I suggested that some form of the "Q" source would be more pure in it's teachings. And this is where you and I seem to diverge very sharply.

As you have pointed out, the evidence of a "Q" source was revealed when it became apparent that Matthew and Luke were effectively copying material either from Mark or some shared source or sources. I am entertaining the idea that these ur-sources contain more than not only what was included in the New Testament manuscripts but what we have shown we are prepared for in the scripture we have received.

You say, it's all speculation without evidence. LDS prophets have long taught that we are under condemnation for not living the scripture we have; they have long taught that there is other scripture including the sealed portions of the Book of Mormon as well as scripture from the lost tribes, etc. that we are simply not ready for. To you, there is no evidence here. To me, there is plenty of evidence for this hypothesis. I mean, I'm not going to say I'm living the scriptures as fully as I could. Are you? (We are, after all, arguing on an internet message board about scripture. I have a hard time seeing examples of this behavior in Christ's life as we know it. Seems almost exactly the sort of thing he'd teach against, really. Yet...)

But to keep things interesting for you, lets go back to this:

You said -

Even so, this is the weakest of the three arguments I gave. The three main problems are (in order from most damaging to least damaging):

1) Why does 3 Nephi always follow the defective Byzantine text, and not the earlier text?
2) Why does 3 Nephi reconstruct any speeches that are at all similar to speeches in the New Testament since in neither place were any speeches written down verbatim?
3) If you are going to reconstruct a speech in the exact same way as the New Testament does, why would you reconstruct the later and more theologically embellished speech, rather than the earlier speech which is closer to the hypothetical "Q" source? Note, this is tricky, I'm not relying on "Q" as an actual source, I'm saying that the Lukan version is likely a better witness to the original (lost) "Q" source, so why not follow that version if you are going to reconstruct speeches EXACTLY the same way as does the New Testament?

Earlier I had said I believe Joseph Smith was given a "loose translation" where we find the almost word-for-word quotes from the KJV of the Bible. You took this to mean that it should be a loose translation of the Bible itself. I mean, it's a loose translation of the plates. I believe, and do not believe I am alone on this, that the words on the plates here are not exactly what Joseph Smith provided us but that God gave to Joseph's mind the words that were most familiar to him and which we are already living under as witness to Christ's teachings. There are examples of a tight translation, such as David Whitmer described, were Joseph spelled out or was given exactly translated words, phrases, and content. But we are straying a bit from the discussion about "Q". All 3 of your points are only logical if one eliminates God from the translation process. Yet all 3 become non-issues if one accepts that God was giving Joseph Smith the best content for His purposes; whether it was loosely or tightly translated was based on the situation at hand.

I know it sounds trite to you, and perhaps you have personal heartburn over something that happened to you that you are blaming on the church, but I don't see your argument against 3 Nephi any more compelling than I see atheist arguments against the books of the New Testament. I've heard plenty of arguments against the veracity of the Bible that are equally compelling, yet equally easy to explain when understood by faith as well as reason.

Perhaps it will help this discussion if I include Section 7 of the D&C which is exactly an example of the sort of document I am speaking of. This parchment that Joseph was given in vision that was penned by John appears to be part of the last chapter of John, a chapter that many scholars feel may be an addition and unoriginal itself. If authentic, as I believe it to be, it shows not only more information that clarifies content in John 21, but also indicates that authorship of the original text may be attributed to the Apostle John even if the actual words we have today in the Bible are not directly his.

In short, D&C Section 7 is evidence that LDS already believe in "Q"-like sources.

[_1 Iron]

No problem.

It's good to see you. :)

madeleine,

I should take the time to thank you more specifically for pointing out my error in understanding of the Roman Catholic view; but more importantly doing so in a manner that is respectful of your beliefs as well as mine.

The opportunity to converse on the topic, and thereby learn, was my intent in starting the thread. And while I anticipated having to clarify my own position it has been interesting that not only have I had to address multiple tangentially related topics that appear to only apply to this topic because someone else has an issue with the Book of Mormon containing biblical quotes, I've had to decipher between positions that were not mine as an original but are loaned to me to defend with what I can only assume is malicious intent. Perhaps I judge too harshly.

Anyway, thank you for showing a more excellent way.

Peace.