|
The Q source (also Q document, Q Gospel, Q Sayings Gospel, or Q from (ドイツ語:Quelle), meaning "source") is a hypothetical written collection of Jesus's sayings (logia). Q is (part of) the "common" material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church's Oral Tradition.〔Horsley, Richard A., ''Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance and Tradition in Q'', Horsley, Richard A. and Draper, Jonathan A. (eds.), Trinity Press, 1999, ISBN 978-1-56338-272-7, ("Recent Studies of Oral-Derived Literature and Q" ), pp. 150-74〕〔Dunn, James D. G., ''Jesus Remembered'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003, ISBN 978-0-8028-3931-2, ("Oral Tradition" ), pp. 192-210〕〔Mournet, Terence C., ''Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q'', Mohr Siebeck, 2005, ISBN 978-3-16-148454-4, ("A Brief History of the Problem of Oral Tradition" ), pp. 54-99〕 Along with Markan priority, Q was hypothesized by 1900, and is one of the foundations of most modern gospel scholarship.〔Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. ''The five gospels.'' HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Introduction," p 1-30.〕 B. H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was written in Koine Greek; that most of its contents appear in Matthew, in Luke, or in both; and that Luke more often preserves the text's original order than Matthew. In the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources. Some scholars have postulated that Q is actually a plurality of sources, some written and some oral.〔Mournet, Terence C., ''Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q'', Mohr Siebeck, 2005, ISBN 978-3-16-148454-4, ("Statistical Analysis of Synoptic Gospel Pericopes" ) pp. 192-286〕 Others have attempted to determine the stages in which Q was composed.〔"'Q.'" Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005〕 Q's existence has been questioned.〔 Omitting what should have been a highly treasured dominical document from all early Church catalogs, and from mention by the early Church's fathers is a conundrum of modern Biblical scholarship.〔James R. Edwards (, ''The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009 ) p. 228〕 But copying Q might have been seen as unnecessary as it was preserved in the canonical gospels. Hence, it was preferable to copy the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, where the sayings of Jesus from Q were rephrased to avoid misunderstandings, and to fit their own situations and their understanding of what Jesus had really meant.〔(From the preface to the Sayings Gospel Q, International Q Project, 2001 http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm)〕 Despite challenges, the two-source hypothesis retains wide support.〔 == History == (詳細はAugustinian hypothesis: that the Gospel of Matthew was the first to be written, Mark used Matthew in the writing of his, and Luke followed both Matthew and Mark in his (the Gospel of John is quite different to the other three, which because of their similarity are called the Synoptic Gospels). Nineteenth-century New Testament scholars who rejected Matthew's priority in favor of Markan priority speculated that Matthew's and Luke's authors drew the material they have in common with the Gospel of Mark from Mark's Gospel. But Matthew and Luke also share large sections of text not found in Mark. They suggested that neither Gospel drew upon the other, but upon a ''second'' common source, termed Q.〔This hypothetical lost text—also called the Q Gospel, the Sayings Gospel Q, the Secret of Q, the Synoptic Sayings Source, the Q Manuscript, and (in the 19th century) The Logia—is said to have comprised a collection of Jesus' sayings. Acceptance of the theories of the existence of "Q" and the priority of Mark are the two key elements in the "two-source hypothesis". (See also the Gospel of the Hebrews and Streeter).〕〔D. R. W. Wood, New Bible Dictionary (InterVarsity Press, 1996), 739.〕 Herbert Marsh, an Englishman, is seen by some as the first person to hypothesize the existence of a "narrative" source and a "sayings" source, although he included in the latter parables unique to Matthew and unique to Luke.〔William R. Farmer, "The Synoptic Problem, 1964, Macmillan, p. 14〕 In his 1801 work, ''A dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our Three First Canonical Gospels'', he used the Hebrew letter Aleph (א) to denote the narrative source and the letter beth (ב) to denote the sayings source.〔Hultgren, Stephen (2002). ''(Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition )''. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 4-5.〕 The next person to advance the "sayings" hypothesis was the German Friedrich Schleiermacher in 1832. Schleiermacher interpreted an enigmatic statement by the early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis, ''circa'' 125 ("Matthew compiled the oracles ((ギリシア語:''logia'')) of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech, and everyone translated them as well he could") as evidence of a separate source. Rather than the traditional interpretation—that Papias was referring to the writing of Matthew in Hebrew—Schleiermacher proposed that Papias was actually referring to a sayings collection of the apostle Matthew that was later used, together with narrative elements, by another "Matthew" and by the other Evangelists.〔Hultgren, Stephen (2002). ''(Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition )''. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 9-10.〕 In 1838 another German, Christian Hermann Weisse, took Schleiermacher's suggestion of a sayings source and combined it with the idea of Markan priority to formulate what is now called the Two-Source Hypothesis, in which both Matthew and Luke used Mark ''and'' the sayings source. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed this approach in an influential treatment of the synoptic problem in 1863, and the two-source hypothesis has dominated ever since. At this time, the second source was usually called the ''Logia'', or ''Logienquelle'' (''logia''-source), because of Papias's statement, and Holtzmann gave it the symbol Lambda (Λ). But toward the end of the 19th century, doubts began to grow about the propriety of anchoring its existence to Papias's account. So a neutral symbol Q (which was devised by Johannes Weiss to denote ''Quelle'', meaning ''source'') was adopted to remain neutrally independent of the collection of sayings and its Papian connection. This two-source hypothesis speculates that Matthew borrowed from both Mark and Q. For most scholars, Q accounts for what Matthew and Luke share — sometimes in exactly the same words — but that are absent in Mark. Examples are the Devil's three temptations of Jesus, the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, and many individual sayings.〔Bart D. Ehrman, ''Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium'', Oxford University Press, p.80-81〕 In ''The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins'' (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that a third hypothetical source, referred to as ''M'', lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke.〔Streeter, Burnett H. ''(The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates )''. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1924.〕 And some material present only in Luke might have come from an also unknown ''L'' source. This four-source hypothesis posits that there were at least four sources to the ''Gospel of Matthew'' and the ''Gospel of Luke'': the ''Gospel of Mark'', and three lost sources: Q, M, and L. (M material is represented by green in the above chart.) Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis. For example, in his 1953 book ''The Gospel Before Mark'', Pierson Parker posited an early version of Matthew (Aramaic M or proto-Matthew) as the primary source.〔Pierson Parker. ''The Gospel Before Mark''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.〕 Parker argued that it was not possible to separate Streeter's "M" material from the material in Matthew parallel to Mark.〔William R. Farmer, ''The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis'', Macmillan, 1981 p. 196〕〔(Everett Falconer Harrison, ''Introduction to the New Testament'', Wm. Eerdmans 1971 ) p. 152. 〕 In the early 20th century, more than a dozen reconstructions of Q were made. But these reconstructions differed so much from each other that not a single verse of Matthew was present in all of them. As a result, interest in Q subsided and it was neglected for many decades. This state of affairs changed in the 1960s after translations of a newly discovered and analogous sayings collection, the ''Gospel of Thomas'', became available. James M. Robinson of the Jesus Seminar and Helmut Koester proposed that collections of sayings such as Q and Gospel of Thomas represented the earliest Christian materials at an early point in a trajectory that eventually resulted in the canonical gospels. This burst of interest after the ''Gospel of Thomass discovery led to increasingly more sophisticated literary reconstructions of Q, and even to redactional speculation, notably in the work of John S. Kloppenborg. Kloppenborg, by analyzing certain literary and thematic phenomena, argued that Q was composed in three stages. In his view, the earliest stage was a collection of wisdom sayings involving such issues as poverty and discipleship. Then, he posits, this collection was expanded by including a layer of judgemental sayings directed against "this generation". The final stage included the Temptation of Jesus narrative. Although Kloppenborg cautioned against assuming that Q's composition history is the same as the history of the Jesus tradition (''i.e.'', that the oldest layer of Q is necessarily the oldest and pure-layer Jesus tradition), some recent seekers of the Historical Jesus, including members of the Jesus Seminar, have done just that. Basing their reconstructions primarily on the ''Gospel of Thomas'' and the oldest layer of Q, they propose that Jesus functioned as a wisdom sage, rather than a Jewish rabbi, though not all members affirm the two-source hypothesis. Kloppenborg is now a fellow of the Jesus Seminar himself. But scholars supporting the three-stage Q development hypothesis, such as Burton L. Mack, argue that Q's unity comes not only from its being shared by Matthew and Luke, but also because, in the layers of Q as reconstructed, the later layers build upon and presuppose the earlier ones, whereas the reverse is not the case. So evidence that Q has been revised is not evidence for disunity in Q, since the hypothesised revisions depend upon asymmetric logical connections between what are posited to be the later and earlier layers.〔The Lost Gospel: The Book Q and Christian Origins'', Macmillan Co. (1993, paperback 1994).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Q source」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|