Does the "Q" Gospel exist?

[Alpine]

The only problem I have with your conclusion is that conservative scholars believe in "Q" as well. I hear what you are saying though.

I'm not sure that many conservative scholars believe in the Q book.

 

[BereanTodd]

I'm not sure that many conservative scholars believe in the Q book.

Trust me, as someone who has come through one of the most respected and very conservative seminaries, they do. There is nothing inherantly liberal or wrong with believing in Q. I have no problem with earlier source material - Luke said he undertook to study and compile things. Now I don't personally hold to the Markan priority line and the way that they generally describe Q to have been involved (again not that there would be anything wrong if they were correct). But it is perfectly acceptable to realize and accept that the authors sometimes relied upon source material.

 

[Brad2009]

Thanks for sharing that. My inital impression of the whole "Q" conspiracy is that of gross educated speculation.

It seems to me, that without more evidence it is impossible to make a reasonable conclusion. I am hoping to find something that I might consider pertinent, but as of yet on this subject it is still under my personal category of a contrived, left field "non-issue"

I am hoping to better understand the significance of a conclusion one way or the other.

I think its important to note the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are congruent.

Saying that the Q document probably existed and was lost does not give us any reason to believe that it was not a Scriptural document.

The congruency of Matthew, Mark and Luke point to the commonality of the testamony of the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which if gathered from multiple testamonies and recorded.

If a gospel according to Peter were to have been lost and that had been the common element, or some hypothetical along those lines, then I see no problem. The testomony could not have been divergeant from Matthew, Mark and Luke, which agree.

 

[sebastian]

Luke himself says at the begining that he made careful research about what happened, his sources for the information where probably the same as the sources Matthew and Mark had. The idea of a 'Q' gospel, whoever wrote it, whether it be Matthew or maybe conversations with Peter or James, is spoken of in the bible in my opinion. I don't see how that is liberal or anti-Christian in anyway.

uh sorry, i should have read this thread properly, just read what BereanTodd says, ignore me.

 

[Atlantians]

This is a subject I have not explored and would like to hear some theories.

Thoughts, ideas, theories?

Feel welcome to share whatever you think might be helpful.

There is no real academic reason to believe in Q as it is normally described.

If a 'Q'-like document existed, it would have been collection of notes and quotes written by the educated among the disciples. This would likely have been Mathew, maybe Judas, likely a few others and maybe a few of the women.

This would have been a collection of statements with notes as to when and where thing occured and were said. This would have been very likely and plausible. The disciples would have copied this and then written their Gospels and preaching notes off of that ample list.

Luke would have utilized this and added whatever else he collected in His documentation.

Mark would have received such a list from Peter, his mentor.

 

[ARBITER01]

If it did exist, then Luke didn't use it since a good percentage of his material is different in many ways than the others.

 

[Atlantians]

If it did exist, then Luke didn't use it since a good percentage of his material is different in many ways than the others.

If he used it, it would have been (like I said) the portions of his Gospel that were exceedingly similarly worded.

 

[Yekcidmij]

This is a subject I have not explored and would like to hear some theories.

Thoughts, ideas, theories?

Feel welcome to share whatever you think might be helpful.

Q exists insofar as there is definitely information that Luke and Matthew have in their gospels that Mark does not have in his gospel. As far as there being some long lost document that contains just the information that Matthew and Luke share, there is no hard evidence as to there being such a document. As to where Matthew and Luke got their information from (the stuff that Mark doesn't write down) is anyones guess. Perhaps they were both writing down well known oral stories and not getting their info from some other, now lost, document. Then again, maybe there is a 5th gospel out there with this information in it.

Of course, a lot of this seems to depend on whether or not you grant Mark's gospel "priority", meaning that you think Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke rely heavily on him for information.

 

[gratefulgrace]

I believe it is a plausible theory. I am not saying I believe it though as I don't know enough about it. gg

 

[NacDan]

Q is a character in Star Trek: The Next Generation. I doubt that his gospel existed prior to the Canon.

Danny

 

[KC02]

I would say that is it improbable that no writing of the sayings of Jesus existed at that time. I imagine lots of writers were taking notes.

The question is: did the Gospel writers use the "Q"? Now that I have no idea

This is a subject I have not explored and would like to hear some theories.

Thoughts, ideas, theories?

Feel welcome to share whatever you think might be helpful.

 

[murjahel]

The International Q Project operates under the direction of the Society of Biblical Literature. It is reminiscent of the "Jesus Seminar". Two prominent spokesmen for the Q project, Mack and Robinson, were early members of the Jesus Seminar and friends of Robert Funk. Mack dropped out of the Jesus Seminar to work on his Q project, and Robinson rarely attends the ‘amen’ sessions of the Jesus Seminar.


The Q ‘conspiracy’ began in the 19th century. Sceptics tried to use the gospel of Mark to aid their dissent on the canonical gospels. Mark is the shortest of the gospels. It contains few references to the divine status of Jesus. It has no reference to his virgin birth. Early sceptics eliminated or rationalized the miracles recorded by Mark. They used the gospel of Mark then, in their attempts to assert that Jesus was only a social preacher, who unfortunately died at the hands of some who did not understand Him. They therefore purported, that the longer gospels were much later additions of material by Christians who wanted to build a religion based on events that never really happened.


Yet, to support such a theory, Mark had to be twisted and passages of it had to be ignored to help. So, soon Mark was eliminated from their debate, and a search for Q began.


"Q" is a shortened term used for the French word ‘quelle" meaning ‘source’. The sceptics wanted to find a book out there that would prove that early Christianity did not preach the resurrection, deity of Jesus Christ, miraculous events... etc. If they could find an early gospel, that only had a few trite, but wise sayings of Jesus, but not mention the resurrection, deity, etc., then they could feel validated in their rejection of such.




The Jesus Seminar pushed Q back into people’s awareness. Some of the early Jesus Seminar adherents therefore departed to again find such Q evidence. Siegfried Schulz, in a book called "The Sayings Source of the Evangelist" (1972), says a church in Syria wrote out the final form of Q between 30 and 65 A.D. He said this ‘gospel’ lacked Christ’s passion, atoning death, resurrection, and miracles of Jesus ministry. Of course, this was total speculation, lacking any reference, or even circumstantial evidence to support it. That pushed the Q heresy into direct conflict with orthodox, evangelical Christianity.


Q is a ‘hoped for’ book to account for the source of the canonical gospels. If Q were the source for Matthew and Luke, as they purport, why would Matthew need a source for his information, being he was an eyewitness to most events recorded? So, they say, it was not the disciple ‘Matthew’ that wrote the gospel "Matthew". They say it was someone who acting as an imposter, therefore a liar, that wrote that gospel. Matthew and
Luke are narrative gospels, containing the events of Jesus’ first coming, and the Q supporters do not want those events to be true, so they search for a Q that will be void of narrative events.


There are similarities between the canonical gospels, as Q asserts, and therefore, on that, we agree. Much of Matthew and Luke are based on a common document. If the passion story is not in Q, and it were that source, then it is clear that Matthew and Luke came from a common source, which is not Q. Their hypothesis proves to be false.


One Q supporter, Schleiemacher, proposed that Matthew wrote only the sayings, and not the gospel itself. This opinion lacked verification in both ancient church tradition and Matthew’s gospel. Historical evidence, quotes of writers in that first century, proved beyond question, that to be false.

Christian Herman Weisse (1801-1866) expanded on Schleiemacher’s error, and said that Q was the source for Matthew and Luke. Schleiemacher had said it was only the source for Matthew. From that, the Q supporters, took the similarities from Matthew and Luke, subtracted the narrative parts, leaving only some sayings, and said that that was what was in the hypothetical Q, for which they searched.



They ignore the similarities that tell of the resurrection, the messiahship or divinity of Jesus, and they claim such things were added later. The only tangible proof they can try to claim is the ‘gospel of thomas’. The gospel of thomas was a collection of 114 sayings of Jesus (supposedly), that is not mentioned by any of the very early church writers. It is not mentioned until the third century, and all who mention it in that century call it spurious, heretical, gnostic, and a fraud. The only complete manuscript is in Coptic, and dates to 400 A.D. The book reflects the teachings of Simon the sorcerer, and Cerinthus, and their followers. These false prophets were bitterly opposed in early Christianity... The simoniai became the later gnostics, and much of their doctrines still afflict the Christian faith.


The idea of the Q supporters is to use the gospel of thomas to try to sell the idea that the anti-divinity, anti-messiahship of Jesus teaching was the original Christian religion. They try to assert, without any evidence, that orthodox beliefs are counterfeit.


The Q theory was invented in the 1800's. Schleiemacher (1768-1834) misinterpreted the word LO-GIA, that was used by Papias, and took it to mean a ‘sayings gospel’ with the idea that all it contained was Jesus’ words. The word, LO-GIA really means ‘what Jesus said or did’, not just ‘sayings’. And further research showed that the quotations from the Logia showed much narrative, and in fact, it showed the whole narrative of the canonical gospels, and then some. Schleiemacher though he had a reference in Papias’ use of that word for a ‘Quelle’ of the canonical gospels that would contain no narrative. Research and exegesis tears his theory to shreds... though many keep trying to revamp it.


Q was extracted from Matthew and Luke, in the same way as evolutionists extracted the "Nebraska man" from a pig’s tooth. There is absolutely no evidence to support their choices of what to extract, and what to deny. It is based on speculation based on what they desire to be in such a book, if it were ever found to be an actual book.


Roughly there are 235 parallel passages between Matthew and Luke that Q idolaters want to make a part of Q. There are more parallel passages than that, but Q-worshippers do not want them, for they speak of the resurrection, one of the prime beliefs of orthodox Christianity.



Mack took what he thi nks Q would have said, but how would he know that, with no evidence such a book ever existed. Did Q give him a copy??? Did Q call him on his cell phone? Are there any quotes from any ancient source to verify one word? NOOOOOO!!!!!


Mack joked: "This is going to complicate things for them (orthodox believers). There will be a text! It is going to have a Library of Congress number."


Mack then proceeded to fabricate the book of which others had hoped to find evidence. No evidence of such book exists, or proof of what it contained, but Mack took some verses of Matthew and Luke, excluded ones which did not agree with his heresy, and called it ‘evidence’...

That is the JOKE! This imaginary book should have "Mack" listed as its author, for no ancient source is the author of Q.


Proponents of Q have perverted the idea of Logia. In fact, if you notice their writings, they do not mention it in this age. For they want the Q to differ from what Logia proved to be. The proponents of Q do not want that gospel that teaches Jesus was the Messiah and divine, or that teaches that Jesus died an atoning death on the cross, and was resurrected the third day. They want Q to make Jesus to be just a man who made some wise statements, and the rest of the gospel story to be a later fabrication.


The sceptics, gnostics and simoniai proponents of Q want to discount what orthodox scholars have taught for centuries. The Q supporters want to substitute a different hypothesis based on a non-existent Q.​

 

[murjahel]

Is there a threat to orthodox Christianity? Should we wear sackcloth and pour ashes on our heads? Should we tear up our Bibles? Have we followed a false gospel? Does Q document our error?

How can a non-existent book document anything??? It is total imagination. It is the dream of heretics and sceptics. It has not been found. No mention of it is found to even give any hope that there is something to find. They talk as though there is irrefutable evidence, and they only have their own dreams as evidence.
The story of the "Trojan Horse" tells of a city (Troy) under attack. The enemy could not breach the walls of Troy, so the war lingered. The plan of the attackers was to build a huge wooden horse of wood. They hid some soldiers within it, and gave it as a present to the people of Troy. Then they pretended to retreat in defeat. The city dwellers pulled the present into the city walls, and celebrated their apparent victory. At night, the soldiers within the horse, came from the horse, opened the city’s gates, and allowed the enemy of the city to come within.

Q supporters have a similar motive. The liberal, anti-Christ, anti-divinity, anti-resurrection people want to destroy orthodox Christianity. They start out with an innocent horse, an idea that Matthew and Luke had a previous source. Once Q is accepted into Christian concepts, we find that the invaders will attempt to finish their attack. So, do not be fooled by their opening line. Beware the Trojan Horse called Q.
Orthodox Christians do not doubt the internal evidence of the gospels to show a common source. Yet, in the actual evidence of the early church records, and evidence of internal similarities of wording, the Hebrew LOGIA, written by the disciples using Matthew’s notes, with narratives and sayings from the birth of Christ to His resurrection is proven. The narrative including the resurrection of Jesus makes the Logia to be unacceptable to the sceptic, the gnostic, the Q-idolaters.
The sceptics want a ‘sayings book’ that orthodox Christians will say ‘amen’ to... but which lacks miracles, prophecy of a return, resurrection, etc. To remove these tenets of faith is their goal. Their hope or imaginary conjuring up of a Q... is their attempt at ‘evidence’.
Therefore, the Q hypothesis is a threat to orthodox belief. The Q supporters want the canonical gospels to be authored by non-eyewitnesses, who lied as to their identity, and based on another unfound, mysterious work. They want all miracles and prophetic revelation to not be in Q. Only generic statements of Jesus are to be found therein. But.. What is the good news of the ‘gospel’ if that were true???

No such book as Q has been found. No quotes in early church writings quote such a book. No scraps of it have been found. It exists only in the mind, and in the hopes, of the sceptics. ​

 

[murjahel]

Nagging questions and problems
that honest scholarship cannot answer include:

1. No copies are to be seen, no fragments...


2. No mention of Q in any other writings... (Early church writers were not shy, and mentioned the good and the bad, yet this Q is never mentioned once. Eldad and Medad is even mentioned, but not Q.


3. The Achilles heel of Q is that internal evidence of the canonical gospel, and external quotes of the early church keep proving the Logia to be the source. (Compare Matt. 4:12-13, Mark 1:14, 221, Luke 4:14, 16, 31 which prove that Luke was not independent from Matthew’s Logia, and the unique spelling of Nazareth showed Logia was not the sayings gospel, but a narrative.​