Throughout my academic career I have always wondered about Q. To most scholars, Q is a hypothetical gospel used by Synoptic authors. Depending on what source hypothesis you might adhere to Q will hold different weight. I have always believed in the plausibility of the existence of Q, yet have always struggled with the capacity in which it functioned.
I recently read an article by Holly E. Hearon titled, "The Implications of Orality for Studies of Biblical Text. In the article Hearon identifies the problems caused by scholarship that has continued to focus primarily on the "written dimension of rhetorical culture." In a few instances she does this concerning Q and the Synoptic authors' use of Q and of each other. At this point Hearon recognizes the work of James Dunn. Dunn in looking at the differences in certain stories in the Synoptics feels that the oral nature of the culture allowed for different versions of the same story to be produced completely seperate from each other. The point Hearon is trying to make is that source hypotheses like the two-source hypothesis causes us to look at the as a written culture with authors borrowing pieces from other written sources, not as an oral culture where storytellers add their own twist on a version of the story already in their possesion.
So what does this mean for Q? In a primarily written culture Q stands as a hypothetical source full of random sayings. In an oral culture Q becomes more. Q becomes an outline used by performers, by storytellers. Textual scholarship should complete its shift towards orality by recognizing Q as such an outline. Instead of being known as "the sayings gospel," it should be known as "the story gospel."
7 comments:
I just found your blog from a comment you made on another blog. I noticed you are an MTSO student. I just received my acceptance letter for that school yesterday, but I still have some time left as an undergrad and will start Fall 2008. Small world.
Nice to meet you! I'll be gone by Fall '08 hopefully started on my PhD. But I hope you enjoy MTSO.
The problem with an oral Q is that at times there appears to be too great of word for word verbal similarity. For example both Matthew and Luke have:
“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit worthy of repentance. Do not presume/begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Mt 3:7b-10 // Lk 3:7b-9 NRSV).
The Greek text of Matthew 3:7b-10 and Luke 3:7b-9 are almost word for word identical (roughly 96% the same), except for two exceptions. (1) Matthew has “presume” and Luke has “begin” in the phrase “Do not ... to say to yourselves.” Also, (2) Luke has an extra “and” which NRSV didn’t translate, they could have translated it as: “And even now the ax ...”
Furthermore, when you consider the possibility that John most likely spoke in Aramaic and not Greek, then the 96% agreement is hard to explain without written sources. If you compared a handful of English translations of the Greek text of Mt 3:7b-10 // Lk 3:7b-9, how many of them would be word for word exactly the same? Probably none! Similarly, what is the chances of Matthew’s account and Luke’s account of this passage to be two independent translations of the Aramaic and yet have such a similar word order in Greek? Definitely none! For unlike in English, in Greek, word order is more flexible.
Of course, by this argument one cannot prove that all of (so-called) Q is textual. Personally, I feel that much of Q scholarship goes too far in assuming that it was a singular written source. I’m open to the possibility that parts of “Q” were from an oral tradition, but I’m also open to the possibility that “Q” was more than one written source. In my opinion, we don’t have enough evidence to say much about Q, except that it appears that Matthew and Luke shared a source or sources, some written, perhaps others oral, which we call “Q.”
What does this say about Mark in your opinion?
Nick asks: What does this say about Mark in your opinion?
Could you elaborate a little more? I'm not for sure I understand your question.
Do you see Mark a an oral gospel? If Mark is the earliest gospel and it is assumed Mark got some information from Q, then is Mark using an oral Q or a written Q or both?
If we apply Lord's theory to the discussion, is it possible that because an oral Q existed Luke and Matthew could have produced their stories without ever coming in contact with the other?
I guess we have ask ourselves if the theory of Q is even enough, especially when orality is brought into question. One must always keep in the back of his/her mind of how these gospels where presented to their audiences in the first place.
Contrary to Milman Parry and Albert Lord, I seriously doubt that the Homeric epics can viewed as simply frozen (or transcribed) “oral poetry.” Alfred Heubeck, in his commentary to Homer’s Odyssey writes: Not only were the Iliad and the Odyssey products of long and careful planning and polishing; they could not have been created at all without the aid of writing. ... In short, the poet of the Iliad, I believe, took the decisive step from oral poetry to written composition, a step of epoc-making importance whose effects cannot be overestimated (p. 12).
Similarly I would seriously doubt that Mark’s gospel was simply a transcription of oral preaching. That is not to say that there are not indications which might appear to show that Mark’s gospel is based on an earlier oral tradition. Undoubtedly, it must be so. There had to be an oral tradition which preceded the written text of Mark’s gospel.
My problem with Q is that unlike Mark, we don’t have its text. Or let me put it another way, lets say we had an extant text of Q almost identical to the text reconstructed by the International Q Project and published in “The Critical Edition of Q” (Fortress, 2000), and we didn’t have Mark. How successful do you think scholars would be in reconstructing Mark from Matthew, Luke, and Q? How close would they come to the Greek text of Mark’s gospel? In my opinion, they wouldn’t come close at all. In my opinion, it would be impossible to reconstruct anything like Mark from Matthew, Luke, and Q. At places they might be close, but other places they would be way off. (I could go into a number of reasons for this, if it isn’t obvious to you.)
So I have doubts about Q being a single written source. I assume that parts of it had to be written (especially where Matthew and Luke have a high degree of verbal similarity), but I’m also willing to see part of (so-called) Q as being oral tradition, because that is the major way 1st century Christians would have encountered the gospel, through oral preaching.
As for the (so-called) Mark & Q overlaps, maybe I need to look at the data again, but off the top of my head, I don’t see any problem with attributing that to oral tradition. After all, before a written Q and before a written Mark, all the Jesus traditions were oral.
Post a Comment