| |
The STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI issue article summary
The summary of the selected article appears at the bottom of the page. In order to get back to the contents of the issue this article belongs to you have to access the link from the title. In order to see all the articles of the archive which have as author/co-author one of the authors mentioned below, you have to access the link from the author's name. |
|
| |
Abstract: The document Q (Quelle) – Source of the Synoptique Gospels? This study is divided in 6 chapters. In the first chapter I dealed with some aspects concerning the introduction in the problems of the subject. From this point of view I showed the context of the theological frame in which Q document has appeared, namely – the attempt of the biblical scholars to explain the similitude between the first three Gospels so - called synoptic. In this sense because of the large amount of non-Marcan material which is found in both Matthew and Luke it has been presumed by many biblical scholars that these evangelists must both have used a common source called Q (Quelle) containing generally sayings of Jesus. Assuming that, it is to be said, that this would be the main reason which could explain the similitude between the two gospels according to Matthew und Luke and not with Mark’s gospel. In the second chapter entitled - Attempts to define the existence of Q – I have treated the data upon which this Q hypothesis was founded: The large amount of common material in Matthew and Luke (up to 250 verses) and which is not common with Mark; The order in which both Matthew and Luke have used their common material is roughly similar; The existence of so-called doublets in Matthew and Luke etc. In this context I emphasized the Vaganay’s opinion who has dispensed with Q altogether, but has substituted for it another source (Sg) which he thinks more adequately accounts for the double tradition. But Vaganay’ Sg source is no more certain in its content than the Q source. There is considerable difference of opinion among scholars who postulate a Q source as to the precise details of contents- is the main idea of the considerations of the third chapter. The fact of the existence in some Q passages of the close agreements while in others there are wide divergences is due to the following aspects according to the V.Taylor’ suggestions : editorial modifications; different recessions; parallel versions; composite theories of Q. But the existence of these variations emphasizes the fact that Q is not without it’s seriously problems. In the fourth chapter I have insisted upon the problems which present the Q theory regarding the relations between the first three Gospels of the canon of the New Testament. The conclusion of this paragraph is the following: The most significant consideration that raises a problem for the Q hypothesis is the lack of any contemporary literature parallel to the type of document which Q is supposed and claimed to be. As concerns the probable purpose of the hypothetical Q document - the matter of the fifth chapter – I referred on the suggestion of the most scholars according those the purpose of the Q document is to link to the catechetical demands of the early church. At the basis of such supposition can be the reason that it is not difficult to imagine the usefulness of a collection of the sayings of Jesus in the primitive community. But the advocates of such hypothesis must never forget and overlooked that to the gospels of the New Testament were accorded a status which was never attained by the source Q. In the last chapter- The date and authorship of the Q – I have pointed out the fact that because of its hypothetical character it is clearly not possible to specify either the date or provenance of Q. Concerning the authorship of the Q document is to assert that if it is difficult to establish the authorship of some of the extant New Testament writings than it is doubly difficult to specify the author of a hypothetical source. As a final conclusion on the Q problems is to assert that there is no common point of view among the biblical scholars concerns the existence, the structure, the contents, the date or the authorship of the Q source. The only solution in determining and define the origin and relationship between the synoptic gospels and to solve, but only in part, the synoptique problem is to emphasize the role of the holy Tradition of the primitive church in writing of the gospels and the mutual dependence one upon another of the evangelists. |
|
