Q document

Originally posted by rwingett
So within Q we can see the evolution of early Christian thought as it developed.

This all makes perfect sense...especially in light of human nature...yet the historical approach often meets with opposition from believers.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This all makes perfect sense...especially in light of human nature...yet the historical approach often meets with opposition from believers.

Of course. They have a vested interest in believing that their bible is actually the infallible word of god, and not the composition of lesser mortals.

Originally posted by rwingett
I've been studying early Christian history off and on for a while now. One thing that has interested me is how the bible came to be written. Two items in particular - the "two source hypothesis" and the "Q document", have been of great interest. Since so many of the recent threads here have been absolute garbage, I've decided to write a post about the ...[text shortened]... Christianity looked virtually nothing like what Jesus had envisioned.

And there you have it.

The traditional Christian myth claims that the bible is the word of God, which Jesus passed on to the apostles, who passed them down to the church fathers, who passed it on to the bishops, in an unbroken line of “apostolic succession”, down to this day.

Well - no.

The traditional Christian "myth" is that the Bible was inspired by God, but the evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) used their own words and literary forms to express those ideas.

What you're referring to is Apostolic Tradition or oral tradition - the unwritten aspect of Christianity.

This view is demonstrably false.

Naturally - it's a strawman. 🙂

The early Jesus community transmitted their beliefs mainly via oral tradition until things were written down in the mid to late first century.

Actually, the oral tradition continues to this day.

It is certain that during this formative period, wholesale errors or many outright distortions were introduced into the Christian doctrine.

Of course - they're called 'heresies'.

How, then, is one to know what it was that Jesus actually said?

Look at the geographical distribution of competing views.

It has been argued that the oldest of Jesus’ teachings would be the most authentic. They would have been subjected to the least amount of error or manipulation.

If you're talking about teachings written down - then not really. I would argue that it is as easy (if not easier) to modify written documents at a time when not everyone was familiar with those documents and only a few copies existed than it is to cause wholesale changes in the remembered beliefs of an entire community.

By using the Gospel of Thomas and by comparing Luke with Matthew, it has been possible to make a good reconstruction of what the Q document contained.

All this tells us is the least common denominator - i.e. what we know with some degree of certitude that Jesus did say. It does not tell us which of Jesus' sayings come from the oral tradition. There is no reason to assume that all sayings of Jesus not in Q are inauthentic.

Here's an illustration. Suppose you had three sources a thousand years from now reporting on President Clinton's famous words:

"I did not have sex with that woman"
"I did have sex with that woman"
"Have sex with woman"

Can you automatically assume that the last form accurately represents Clinton's views?

Without going into any details on its purported contents, the hypothetical Q document reveals the teachings of Jesus in a very different light.

I would like you to go into detail.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]The traditional Christian myth claims that the bible is the word of God, which Jesus passed on to the apostles, who passed them down to the church fathers, who passed it on to the bishops, in an unbroken line of “apostolic succession”, down to this day.

Well - no.

The traditional Christian "myth" is that the Bible was inspired b ...[text shortened]... ls the teachings of Jesus in a very different light. [/b]

I would like you to go into detail.[/b]

I absolutely detest this style of debate, where you copy and paste individual sentences from my post and then respond to them individually with a short rejoinder. It leads to a very fractured and incoherant discussion that breaks down further and further as people respond to little bits here and there. Furthermore, it is a mark of sheer laziness on the part of the poster that he can't be bothered to cobble together a complete and integrated rebuttal.

I will only respond to your final point, where you request that I go into more detail about the purported contents of the Q document. But alas, I will only do so by saying that it is far more work than I wish to go to at this time. Laziness on my part? Perhaps. But it would require a post even lengthier than the one I started with. I would, however, refer you to the website below, where you can research the subject at length at your own leisure.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

The site presents despcriptions of Q and various arguments and links in favor and against Q.

Originally posted by rwingett
I absolutely detest this style of debate, where you copy and paste individual sentences from my post and then respond to them individually with a short rejoinder. It leads to a very fractured and incoherant discussion that breaks down further and further as people respond to little bits here and there. Furthermore, it is a mark of sheer laziness on the part ...[text shortened]...

The site presents despcriptions of Q and various arguments and links in favor and against Q.

There are probably more scholarly treatments than this, but The Lost Gospel of Q by Marcus Borg, a slim book published in 1996—and, according to the jacket, the first translation in “easily accessible form”—is highly readable.

Another well-written overview of the whole “search for the historical Jesus” (especially, but not limited to, the Jesus Seminar) is Russell Shorto’s Gospel Truth, which discusses Q and the two-source theory.

Originally posted by vistesd
There are probably more scholarly treatments than this, but The Lost Gospel of Q by Marcus Borg, a slim book published in 1996—and, according to the jacket, the first translation in “easily accessible form”—is highly readable.

Another well-written overview of the whole “search for the historical Jesus” (especially, but not limited to, the Jesus Seminar) is Russell Shorto’s Gospel Truth, which discusses Q and the two-source theory.

True, but the internet is free and readily available.

Originally posted by rwingett
True, but the internet is free and readily available.

You are right. Also, the site you referenced has a lot of very scholarly content.

Originally posted by rwingett
I absolutely detest this style of debate, where you copy and paste individual sentences from my post and then respond to them individually with a short rejoinder. It leads to a very fractured and incoherant discussion that breaks down further and further as people respond to little bits here and there. Furthermore, it is a mark of sheer laziness on the part ...[text shortened]...

The site presents despcriptions of Q and various arguments and links in favor and against Q.

Furthermore, it is a mark of sheer laziness on the part of the poster that he can't be bothered to cobble together a complete and integrated rebuttal.

No - it's a mark that some of us have jobs and simply do not have the time to compose a thesis-style response that would earn first place at a high school debate contest.

I will only respond to your final point ...

That's your idea of a "complete and integrated rebuttal"?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Furthermore, it is a mark of sheer laziness on the part of the poster that he can't be bothered to cobble together a complete and integrated rebuttal.

No - it's a mark that some of us have jobs and simply do not have the time to compose a thesis-style response that would earn first place at a high school debate contest.

I will only r ...[text shortened]... pond to your final point ...

That's your idea of a "complete and integrated rebuttal"?[/b]

Blah, blah, blah...go waste somebody else's time. You lazy, intellectually stunted bum.

Originally posted by rwingett
Blah, blah, blah...go waste somebody else's time. You lazy, intellectually stunted bum.

So the debate-initiater sets the terms for the debate?

Originally posted by Halitose
So the debate-initiater sets the terms for the debate?

I did not actually intend for it to be a debate at all. I merely presented the material for people to consider. I had never seen the topic brought up here before and thought it might interest some. I am prepared to answer some questions about Q, but I have no intention of engaging in lengthy debates defending Q against its detractors.

Originally posted by rwingett
I am prepared to answer some questions about Q, but I have no intention of engaging in lengthy debates defending Q against its detractors.

Just to be clear, I don't think that LH was disagreeing with the hypothesis;
he was just saying that, just because the Synoptics evolved this way does
not exclude the notion that the text was inspired by God.

In fact, the RCC doesn't take the position that the Gospels were 'written
by God' like many fundamentalists would have us believe. The introduction
I cited -- which received the nihil obstat and imprimatur indicating
that they were free of doctrinal error and approved by the Church -- indicates
that there is precisely that mindset in understanding the evolution of the texts.

However the Church does maintain that, whether something was actually
said by Jesus, or whether it was interpolated by a later scribe, the text remains
'God breathed' or inspired, or infallible for matters of faith.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Just to be clear, I don't think that LH was disagreeing with the hypothesis;
he was just saying that, just because the Synoptics evolved this way does
not exclude the notion that the text was inspired by God.

In fact, the RCC doesn't take the position that the Gospels were 'written
by God' like many fundamentalists would have us believe. The intro ...[text shortened]... , the text remains
'God breathed' or inspired, or infallible for matters of faith.

Nemesio

I understand his position, but that piecemeal "cut and paste" style of debating infuriates me to no end. So I decided to air my grievances with my characteristic lack of tact. The results, as I should have forseen, were predictable.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[bIt is certain that during this formative period, wholesale errors or many outright distortions were introduced into the Christian doctrine.

Of course - they're called 'heresies'.

😀

Originally posted by rwingett
I understand his position, but that piecemeal "cut and paste" style of debating infuriates me to no end. So I decided to air my grievances with my characteristic lack of tact. The results, as I should have forseen, were predictable.

I agree with you, Wingnut; why is it so hard for someone to simply write a coherent couple of paragraphs addressing the points in toto?? Plus, my quote and replies always come up bold and I have to freakin edit 4 times before I figure out where to put the "/".