The Q Source

[Hentenza]

I think I know what you are talking about. I think Mark's gospel is the closest to what actually happened due to it having the least amount of fluff like angels rolling stones etc..... Plus Archeology says it is most like whatever this "Q" source is.

There is no Q source.

 

[dies-l]

There is no Q source.

I know that this is off topic, but

(a) how do you know?

and

(b) why would it be so offensive to your understanding of Scripture if there were a verifiable "Q" source? Stated another way, why is the "Q" source-theory so troubling to some conservative Bible scholars?

 

[Hentenza]

I know that this is off topic, but

(a) how do you know?

There are not extant copies or fragments, no quotes by the NT writers, no quotes by the ECFs, etc.

(b) why would it be so offensive to your understanding of Scripture if there were a verifiable "Q" source? Stated another way, why is the "Q" source-theory so troubling to some conservative Bible scholars?

The typical use from those that advocate it is to argue a late date for the synoptic gospels, to deny their authorship, and to deny the infallibility of scripture.

 

[dies-l]

There are not extant copies or fragments, no quotes by the NT writers, no quotes by the ECFs, etc.



The typical use from those that advocate it is to argue a late date for the synoptic gospels, to deny their authorship, and to deny the infallibility of scripture.

Thanks for the response. I have been familiar with the "Q Source" Theory for some time, and I have really never seen it used to undermine the authority of Scripture. (Actually, I think it helps strengthen the argument for Biblical authority, but that is just my opinion). But, if that has been your experience, I cannot prove or even really argue otherwise. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I have wondered about this (resistance to the theory) for some time, so it helps to hear your explanation.

EDIT: I will add for clarification that I don't see a problem with disagreements about authorship of given books of the Bible, either. I don't see that it undermines the authority of Scripture in the slightest if, for example, it turns out that the Gospel of Matthew was actually written by one of Matthew's disciples. But, I suppose that is a discussion for another thread.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

"Q" (the source) is not a document. It is the verbal teaching from the Altar.

Why is there an Altar? Because there is a Eucharist.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Attending the Divine Liturgy gives us answers to difficult biblical questions. All we have to do is listen and take part.

Forgive me...

 

[JacksLadder]

"Q" (the source) is not a document. It is the verbal teaching from the Altar.

Why is there an Altar? Because there is a Eucharist.

Forgive me...

I think the "Q" source might have been the original Oral traditions or could have been a earlier document or oral teaching similar to this.

"The Gospel of Q is different from the canonical gospels in that it does not extensively describe events in the life of Jesus. Rather, it is largely a collection of sayings -- similar to the Gospel of Thomas. Q does not mention events like Jesus' virgin birth, his selection of 12 disciples, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension to heaven, etc. It represents those parts of Jesus' teachings that his followers remembered and recorded about 20 years after his death. "He is presented as "a charismatic teacher, a healer, a simple man filled with the spirit of God. Jesus is also a sage, the personification of Wisdom, cast in the tradition of King Solomon."1 -http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

 

[Hentenza]

LOL!!!! No wonder no one can find the Q source.

Tell me, if the main reason for the invention of the Q document is to "attempt" to prove that the synoptic writers "copied" from the document then how can the "document" be oral?

 

[JacksLadder]

LOL!!!! No wonder no one can find the Q source.

Tell me, if the main reason for the invention of the Q document is to "attempt" to prove that the synoptic writers "copied" from the document then how can the "document" be oral?

I never said their has to be a "Q" document just that Mark is the closest of the Gospels to the original teachings being oral or documented.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I think the "Q" source might have been the original Oral traditions or could have been a earlier document or oral teaching similar to this.

"The Gospel of Q is different from the canonical gospels in that it does not extensively describe events in the life of Jesus. Rather, it is largely a collection of sayings -- similar to the Gospel of Thomas. Q does not mention events like Jesus' virgin birth, his selection of 12 disciples, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension to heaven, etc. It represents those parts of Jesus' teachings that his followers remembered and recorded about 20 years after his death. "He is presented as "a charismatic teacher, a healer, a simple man filled with the spirit of God. Jesus is also a sage, the personification of Wisdom, cast in the tradition of King Solomon."1 -http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

Sounds like they are talking about the "Didache". I can't trust that website as a source.

Forgive me...

 

[Hentenza]

I never said their has to be a "Q" document just that Mark is the closest of the Gospels to the original teachings being oral or documented.

Oh, ok. You kept posting for it so I guess I assumed.

 

[JacksLadder]

Sounds like they are talking about the "Didache". I can't trust that website as a source.

Forgive me...

I actually think eventually a document will be found that is older than the Didache".

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I never said their has to be a "Q" document just that Mark is the closest of the Gospels to the original teachings being oral or documented.

That would be incorrect, according to The Orthodox Church. The Gospel of St. John has that honor. Mark suffers from date errors.

Forgive me...

 

[Hentenza]

That would be incorrect, according to The Orthodox Church. The Gospel of St. John has that honor. Mark suffers from date errors.

Forgive me...

Could you specify what date errors are in Mark?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You're smart, you can figure it out.

Oh wait... maybe not.

Hmmm... We would have to be told.

Forgive me...

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

You're smart, you can figure it out.

Oh wait... maybe not.

Hmmm... We would have to be told.

Forgive me...

burden of proof is on you.

 

[Hentenza]

You're smart, you can figure it out.

Oh wait... maybe not.

Hmmm... We would have to be told.

Forgive me...

Watch it. I'm older than you.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It's in chapter 14.

Forgive me...

 

[Hentenza]

It's in chapter 14.

Forgive me...

Mmmm....maybe I'm older than I think. You might need to be more precise. I don't see the date issue.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Watch it. I'm older than you.

Reve 19:4 And fall the elders/presbuteroi <4245>, the twenty four and the four living-ones and they worship to the God, to the One sitting upon the throne saying: "amen allelouia".