So I thought it time to undertake the "Q" debate: As a side note, the large number of German- and French-language websites on "Quelle" reminds me that religion is alive and well across the pond. But Q has become a very controversial idea, as well, because it is merely a theoretical document which scholars have taken to the habit of describing as real. For some, it seems a "must", a necessary component of Biblical structure. Some examples of Q pericopes include The Beatitudes, loving one's enemies, Judgment, building on rock, the Lord's Prayer, the (controversial) Sign of Jonah. several parables, and other material. The whole debate stems from attempting to establish the methods of composition in the Bible. Some scholars have resolved that the Gospels and other New Testament material found common source material among one or two literary works. Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan examines the myth of Satan in an historical context, but her work is partially dependent on notions of Q, and the idea that some of the "history" in the Gospels is inaccurate in deference to Roman authority; however, Pagels does a good job of showing a possible development of the Gospels, with contemporary events staining each Gospel uniquely. Part of the giveaway is the characterizations of Satan appearing in the Gospels, Apocrypha, and extrabiblical church writings of early Christianity. Pagels' explorations of the idea and character of Satan end up lending strong weight to the influence of common-source documents tailored to the periods of their Gospel compositions. But even the dating of when Q would have been composed is a matter of some question. Various textual cues and possible misinterpretations suggest a wide array of events which might be mentioned within the hypothetical document. What is most interesting, though, is the specific argument against Q, which seems naïve in the sense that it actually helps my understanding of Q theory, and increases my favor of the idea of an extrabiblical source document. At any rate, there's plenty of reading there, so take it or leave it as you would. But just to make it more confusing, the Catholic perspective. Enjoy. Seriously, figuring out the nature of the Bible is one of the things about Christianity that can actually be fun. Think of what we'll learn about people if we can ever understand what the authors actually meant. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well ... Well, I tend toward it, but without better archaeological support, it's still a theory. It's not quite as accepted as Evolution Theory, but I'm not clued into the history of the debate because much of it occurred in languages I don't read. This is one of those things I hope other people are reading about as well. Because my understanding of the situation is that the idea of "Q" is not some debunker's fancy, but rather a symptomatic offshoot of legitimate literary and sociological debate concerning the actual meaning of the Bible. Like I said, though--I'm not clued into the history of the debate, so I'm not prepared to support that reconstruction of circumstance. For instance, in addition to Q itself being difficult to date, even in speculation, one plank of its support, the Gospel of Thomas has some difficulties of its own insofar as its academic credibility is concerned: Just ... uh ... just for instance. But I can't figure any excuse for putting it off any longer. I've got the time, so I figure I'll try to do some reading over the next little bit. But I do lean toward the idea of Q, and if it turns out to be legitimate, we learn a tremendous deal about the authorship of the Bible, as theories like Pagels' gain support by demonstrating the historical context of the Gospels. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK great. I quote aspects of Q quite often but I'd really enjoy hearing some objective views from others I respect, kinda like you for example.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Since Q is hypothetical, might I add a little hypothesis myself? Is it possible that the gospel that the apostles received and were proclaiming, was of such a clear and consistent nature that it might seem as if they were taken from a secondary (literary) source? The apostles experienced Jesus to be alive (John 2:22), and they themselves claim the gospel is inspired by God (2Peter1:21 and 1 Tim.3:16) Using these statements as premises, it is hypothetically possible that what these scholars call "Q" is nothing other than The source: Spiritually inspired by Jesus himself - historically, literarily, and spiritually transmitted. Yeah right, you say - leave it to Jenyar to bring in the supernatural short-cut solution. This is not my intention. I realize I am somewhat ignorant about the details of the Q-debate, as I haven't read any of the books about it, but as a Christian I do consider spiritual solutions to be viable ones. And I think one hypothesis deserves another Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Perhaps the best starting point for a web based excursion into the Synoptic Problem is Rutgers Synoptic Gospels Primer. I particularly appreciate the statement found immediately beneath the index: The Goodacre site presents The Case Against Q. It is logically possible in the same way, and to the same extent, that it is logically possible that unicorn poop is a superior fertilizer. Read the section on the Synoptic Problem. That, and the observation that clear and consistent are hardly Biblical attributes, argue against your hypothesis. As for the rest, there exists good reason to believe that 1 Timothy and 2 Peter are early 2nd century CE pseudepigraphs. As for the Gospel of John, many NT scholars doubt that the author was John, son of Zebedee. For example: It seems that your "hypothesis" rests firmly on redacted 2nd century CE apologetics.
