Theology Notes > University Of Oxford Theology Notes > Gospels Notes

Qsource Notes

This is a sample of our (approximately) 18 page long Qsource notes, which we sell as part of the Gospels Notes collection, a 2.1 package written at University Of Oxford in 2016 that contains (approximately) 104 pages of notes across 6 different documents.

Learn more about our Gospels Notes

Qsource Revision

The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Gospels Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.

Gospels 

The Q-Source Hypothesis D Catchpole : The Quest for Q General Principles Catchpole : Attempts to show the possibility of Q, over its rival Goulder's theory. Q : The hypothetical second source used by Matthew and Luke alongside Mark. Priority of Mark : That Mark was used by Matthew and Luke. This is a conviction shared by advocates and opponents of Q.

- There are 'minor agreements' between Matthew and Luke against Mark. If Luke were proved to have used Matthew, the origin of the non-Marcan material in Matthew would still need clarification.

- A Farrer : Set Matthew 'in the stream of a living oral tradition' and attributed to him a free reshaping and enlargement of the work of his predecessor, Mark, in the light of practical, doctrinal and liturgical influences. M Goulder has argued that the origin of the non-Marcan material in Matthew is to be found in the liturgically shaped and theologically creative work of Matthew, and the challenge he has posed is a serious and powerful one. To accept a chain of Mark-Matthew-Luke dependence would still leave open in principle the question of where the non-Marcan material in Matthew originated. Instead of Q, we would be discussing 'M', assessing the extent of Matthean creativity, attempting to distinguish pre-Matthean tradition and Matthean redaction in each of the little 'm's which might or might not have been associated in pre-Matthean collections.

- In this case, Luke could never be a witness to the pre-Matthean wording. For another, no appeal to the common order of double traditions in Matthew and Luke would be possible, and thus the establishing of pre-Matthean collections would be more speculate. Contemporary Argument : The argument between advocates and opponents of the Q hypothesis has moved beyond the need to establish a literary relationship between Matthean and Lucan material in the non-Marcan parts of those gospels. this is quite right, partly because of the intensity of the verbal agreement in individual traditions, partly because of very frequent agreement in the ordering of unity which might have been arranged in any number of other sequences, and partly because identical secondary editorial additions appear in both versions. Both sides of the debate agree that when a writer changes a text we would normally expect the change to be in harmony, rather than disharmony, with the writer's theological outlook and intention, and with such evidence as we have from a reading of his work as a whole concerning its setting and purpose. There are two sorts of evidence that would work in favour of a unified Q :

1. If Luke were regarded as independent of Matthew, and if we succeeded in establishing the existence of a set of 'q's, as distinct from a set of 'm's, then the agreement in order when combined with a proximity would suggest a belonging together of the different traditions.

1. Proximity would be importance : The agreement in order of the three traditions in Matt 11:2-6/Luke 7:18023 ; Matt 11:7-11/Luke 7:24-28 ; Matt 11:16-19/Luke 7:31-35 would say more than in other orders.

2. If we succeeded in establishing a congruence of concerns and emphases between secondary editorial additions made to a series of individual traditions, then the possibility of literary unity would be enhanced. Of course, not all traditions exhibit internal evidence of strata, and there will remain some uncertainty about whether they might be associated on the basis of an identity of concern alone.

1. The problem then will resemble that raised by the use of the criterion of coherence in the quest of the historical Jesus : Does coherence simple a common source or a consistent development?

1

Two main concerns : I.

The discovery in directly related Matthew/Luke traditions of a substantial number of examples of verbal variations in which Luke has preserved the original form. A. Implication : Sometimes it is Matthew, sometimes it is Luke who gives a saying in what is clearly its original form. This is explication if both are drawing from the same source, each making slight notification of his own; it is not so if either is dependent on the other. The more such discoveries pile up, the less sustainable is the notion that Luke used Matthew.

II. The discovery of some sort of space between the theology of Q and the theology of Matthew. The Q hypothesis does not demand that the theology of Q should be at odds with the theology of Matthew, for the obvious reason that Q and Matthew may well have never been on the same theological trajectory. Nevertheless, Michael Goulder's argument that Q and Matthew are source-critically indistinguishable because they are theologically indistinguishable deserves to be taken seriously. A. I shall argue that space is indeed visible between the two on key issues such as poverty, the Gentiles, the debate about the status of the law, the kingship and Davidic lineage of Jesus, the relationship of Jesus to Wisdom, and the gift of the Spirit. Suggestion : That Luke gives us access to an earlier version than that in Matthew, and that in different ways they undermine the theory of Matthaean creativity. Some in addition provide very important evidence of the space between the theology of Q and the theology of Matthew.

Specific Principles

1. The Beatitudes : Matthew 5:3-12 / Q 6:20-23 For both Matthew and Luke the beatitudes serves to introduce, and therefore to control, the first extended discourse by Jesus. The word 'extended' must be emphasised, because of course the announcement in Nazareth (Luke 4:18-21) is programmatic for the third evangelist, yet in itself it is the briefest indication of major themes for the mission as a whole. For Luke, as for Matthew, the detailed unfolding of the teaching of Jesus has still to begin. For him therefore, as for Matthew, it is to be expected that the balance and the priorities of Jesus' teaching for their respective communities will be disclosed by means of the beatitudes. Any definition of either evangelist's redactional activity which does not give this fact due recognition will be problematic. Advocates of the Q hypothesis not infrequently introduce at this point the additional refinement of Qmt. The effect of this is to assign four of the five beatitudes which are unique to Matthew, namely those concerned with the meek /merciful /
pure / peacemakers, to a later version of Q and not to the original version nor indeed to MattR. If Luke used Matthew we are required to view as credible an extremely drastic shortening and the removal of several themes which one might have expected Luke to favour. In the form proposed by Goulder we are asked to accept that Matthew was responsible for creating a tradition marked by serious internal tensions, and that Luke only partly corrected them. The internal tensions in Matthew : i.

The 8 short beatitudes are clearly intended to be clasped by the two saying which share the apodosis 'for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven' (v3/10). But those two sayings are divine from one another by their protases' 2

treating in the one case a state to which anyone would aspire, being 'poor in spirit' and in the other case a state to which no one would aspire, being 'persecuted for righteousness'. ii. The collection as a whole is not uniform : sometimes piety and principled action are treated (v 3, 5-9), sometimes adverse and unhappy human experience (v4,10). iii. Within the six describing approved conduct there is an overlap, since meekness (v5) is the same as poverty in spirit (v3). iv. There is a discrepancy between those sayings whose apodoses envisage the future experience of the age to come (v3,4,7,8,10) and those which envisage an experience in the present age (v5,6,9), v. Between all the short beatitudes and the subsequent long one. The short sayings have no reference to the person of Jesus but the long one (v11-12) does. Such tensions are normally accepted as evidence of editorial interference, maybe envy a sign that one literary level or stage of development is discernible, but certainly not that one writer has been engaged in single-stage creative work. vi. Tension is observable between Matthew 5:3-12 and material elsewhere in Matthew. In Matt 11:5 a summary of Jesus' activity is provided, a summary so important to Matthew that all the miracles listed have been assembled in the preceding narrative. The only preceding material which feeds into the statement that 'the poor have the gospel preached to them' is Matt 5:3 where, contrary to Matthew's normal implication that poverty really is poverty, we are faced with something different, 'poverty is spirit'. Goulder argues that Matthew is glossing on not Q but Isaiah 61, but this is in mind in Matt 11:5 and poverty there cannot be taken on a spiritual level. If Matt 5:3 is a glossing of Isaiah 61 it is an improper spiritual glossing and the problem of the tension between 5:3 and 11:5 remains. vii. The three beatitudes in Luke 6:20-21 create at first sight a different impression. As they stand they are thematically homogenous, not merely dealing with aspects of human suffering rather than aspects of virtue and piety, but above all in dealing with the single problem of poverty view from three angles. The hungry and the sorrowful repeatedly emerge as the poor. When we ask who the poor are we see tension - Luke 6:20 under Goulder's suggestion, then the poor are ascribes. But for Luke they are not confined to the ranks of the poor : 'give to every one who begs from you; and of him that takes away your goods do not ask them again' 6:30. The evidence suffices to show that Christians addressed here are not poor. Goulder's suggestion that the Lucan beatitudes are 'restricted to the demandingness of discipleship' falters. Luke here appears to have an interest of the many extra themes of the Matthaean beatitudes, and it is not easy to see why he should have committed them. If it is not just the disciples addressed then there is room in the discourse, and most suitably in the beatitudes to say something about other topics than poverty. Luke does emphasise some of these things - much as peacemaking. But it is hard to envisage Luke's discarding of Matt 5:9. We have seen that Matt 5:3-10, 11-12 as it stands is internally dislocated and replete with themes which Luke would be unlikely to pass by, especially in the first extended discourse he presents. We have also seen that Luke's parallel version shows evidence of a certain amount of stress and strain, most notably in the evidence between the three short beatitudes and the narrative setting (Luke 6:20) and the long beatitude which follows (Luke 6:22-23). It would be an extraordinarily happy coincidence that Luke should find in his dislocated and inconsistent source the raw material for so integrate a proclamation as Luke 6:20 / 21 contains. That being so, one has to ask whether there might be a better way than which the opponents of Q are composed to choose : We have sufficient evidence to favour the view that : a. Luke 6:330 represents the earliest stratum in the tradition. b. Matt 5:11-12 / Luke 6:22-23 is the first of the superimposed strata c. Matt 5:5, 7-9 constitute either a pre-Matthaean expansion in advance of the MattR addition in Matt 5:10 or together with Matt 5:10 and other small adjustments a more sweeping MattR revision d. Luke has for his part made minor changes of no great movement. The incoherence of the data within the tradition, the inconsistency of the reconstruction of the history of the tradition on the basis of Luke's use of Matthew, and the coherence and consistence of the alternative reconstruction on the basis of the Q hypothesis may all be failed claimed as support for that hypothesis. 3

- It should not be forgotten that on the matter of poverty a gap has been found separating the outlook of Q from the outlook of Matthew. Q was concerned about the poor : the position of the trio of beatitudes (Q620b,21) at the start of the inaugural discourse puts that beyond doubt. But where is there any sign of Matthaean energy in this area? True he adopts here a tradition on poverty but he does nothing constrictive with any of them - clearly happier with piety than poverty.

2. Turning the Other Cheek : Matt 5:38-40/Q 6:29 This is a classic case of confused presentations by both Matthew and Luke, neither of whom can be regarded as preserving the earliest form of the tradition. On the other hand, both combine to enable us to reach back to an unconfined version which must have been a shared source. Starting point : Matt 5:38-39a - alone uses plural forms, while Matt 5:38b does not : More than one level of tradition is involved. Matthew has set the saying 'turn the other cheek' in a new legal context and at the same time partially adapted it to deal with a quite different problem. Luke, for his part, has made a less far-reaching change, but he has shown in the process his lack of understanding of the original concern of the saying. The Q hypothesis enables us coherently to reconstruct the history of the tradition in a way that the hypothetical Lucan use of Matthew does not.

3. Love of Enemies : Matt 5:43-48/Q 6:26-28, 32-36 The demand for love and prayer is set out in absolute terms without any supporting argument (v44-45). The significance, but not the incentive or the reward, is presented in v45 as sonship. That sonship is almost certainly not eschatological or a matter of becoming : it is a matter of being and the open realisation of that which is. Those who act lovingly show themselves to be sons of God in that they behave as he does. Just as Sirach 4:10 sees sonship in very practical terms as the imitation of God's care for the widow and the orphan, so Matt 5:44-45 sees sonship in very practical terms as the imitation of God's benevolence towards the wicked. The saying in v44-45 is so complete in itself that the addition of extra material in v46-47 suggest the existence here of strata material, specifically that the former is earlier than the latter. That means that v44-45 are on the whole preMatthaean, though one feature immediately arouses suspicion as possible MattR interference, name the references to the good and the righteous. For one thing, the logic of the saying demands only the evil as beneficiaries of divine action; for another, MattR is plainly responsible for a similar and even more artificial formulation in 22:10, 'both bad and good'. The sayings in v46-47 are strikingly discordant with what precedes them : i.

An argument is produced to support of the behaviour demanded, whereas previously there had been no argument.

ii. A future perspective is introduced for the first time in the form of a reward for those who behave better than certain despised groups of person : tax collectors / Gentiles. The last named will soon be encountered again in another saying which looks gratuitous and secondary in its own setting. iii. Special problems are introduced by the saying about 'greeting only your brothers' : i.

Failure to greet is scarcely on a par with enmity and persecution.

ii. If love is the theme of v46 in the light of v44a, prayer should be, but is not, the theme of v47 in the light of v44b. iii. It makes little sense to speak of Gentles greeting only their brothers, since brotherhood presumes a religiously defined community. 4

iv. Not greeting 'only your brother' is a piece with the suspicious element of v45, the presence of the good and the righteous alongside the evil and the unrighteous. i.

All in all, v46-47 are confined as secondary in relation to v44-45, and in the case of v47 a singularly maladroit addition.

Several other Lucan features appear more primitive than their Matthean counterparts. Thus :

1. 'doing good' is appropriate as a a synonym for 'loving' at just the point where 'greeting' is so inappropriate.

2. The revenant range of God's action includes the ungrateful and evil and not the good as well - a much morose startling and restrictive reference. Once can understand a Luke to Matthew movement but scarcely one form Matthew to Luke. Correspondingly the matching absence of 'only' is more primitive. The situation win Matt 5:44-47 is therefore that there is a primary layer (v44-45) , which cannot be attributed to Matthew's creativity, and a secondary later (v46-47) which is at crucial points preserved in a more primitive form by Luke, and cannot be attributed to Matthew's creative activity either. And Luke's distinctiveness over against Matthew cannot be account for in terms of Luke's use of Matthew Once again, is there 'a better way'? Yes, a development form a pre-Q stage to an editorial-Q stage and then subsequently to MattR and LukeR stages. Mark / Luke

3. The Lord's Prayer : Matt 6:9-13/Q 11:2-4 The Lord's Prayer is set in Matthew within a paragenetic section directed positively to disciplines and polemically against hypocrites who are allegedly concerned only with the outward appearance of righteousness. Three topics are discussed : Almsgiving / Prayer / Fasting - and each of the three units comes to a conclusion with the assurance that 'the Father who sees in secret will reward you' (Matt 6:4,6,18). Within this tripartite scheme the section 6:7-15 reads as an interruption and this would normally lead us to infer the presence of source material. Futher, there is within this section additional evidence of strata. Matt 6:14-15 is evidently derived from Mark 11:25 : "And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." But there remain the prayer and its introduction The paragenetic introduction (6:7-8) also has a polemical thrust, though it criticises a different group of persons from the hypocrites of 6:1,5,16, and it is directed at a different problem, that is, verbosity towards God rather than creating an impression among men. This must be a secondary addition to the prayer itself, since the original purpose of the prayer can hardly have been to serve as a model of a certain smile style of prayer - that would be to trivialise it - but rather as instruction on what should be prayer. Indeed, Matthew's introductory 'Pray then like this' is rather less suitable than Luke's 'When you pray, say…'. Consequently different layers of pre-Matthaean material seem to be before us, and certainly not a uniform creation by the evangelist himself. The two versions of the Lord's Prayer are set alongside one another, how easy is it to regard Luke's version as simply an edited version of Matthew's text?

- Some of the distinctive details of Luke 11:2-4 are readily explicable as LukeR.
- That which Matthew achieved by adding 'trespasses' to the Marcan saying about forgiveness Luke achieves by internal editing of the prayer itself. In these respects LukeR activity can be discerned, and moreover no sign is conveyed that the Lord's Prayer was to Luke some kind of unalterable holy text. That being so, the cubical

5

question is whether Luke would have reduced the address to the Father, removed t he petition for God's will to be done, and also the final petition for deliverance of evil We have no evidence from Luke's use of Mark that he preferred short references to God as Father. Such an inference can only be made on the basis of Luke's use of Matthew, which is not given but an opinion. The one Marcan reference to 'your Father who is in heaven' Mark 11:25 occurs in a saying which Luke does not retain. That saying is transferred by Matthew to his 6:14 as a commentary as a prayer for forgiveness in the Lord's Prayer.

- This makes it easy to see the initial and length invocation of 'our Father who art in heaven' (6:9) as a preparation for that same commentary saying. We know that in a different but also closely associated saying Luke was content to retain a reference to 'the heavenly Father' (Matt 7:11/Luke 11:13), just as elsewhere he was content to retain a rather formal and extended invocation of the 'Father, Lord of heaven and earth' in prayer (Matt 11:25/Luke 10:21). So there is no reason to suppose that Luke would have shortened Matt 6:9 had he known it, and every reason to suppose that Matthew is responsible for lengthening an earlier shorter version. The shorter Lucan version of the Lord's Prayer is more original than the Matthaean version, which was therefore not created by Matthew. The phenomena in Matt 6:1-18 suggests that MattR was responsible for weaving into the antiPharisaic fabric of the section as a whole a secondarily extended version of the Lord's Prayer (6:9-13) with a Marcan saying (6:14-15) attached as commentary. The original short form had already receive an artificial editorial introduction (6:7-8). Once gain the Q hypothesis permits a coherent and consistent reconstruction of the history of a tradition in a way not achieved by the hypothesis that Luke used Matthew.

6

****************************End Of Sample*****************************

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Gospels Notes.