The Q Gospel.

[outhouse]

As for Q actually being lost, or just not copied, that is a possibility. However, I just find it awkward that no one seems to mention it, and that even though it seemed to be popular (as in both Matthew and Luke use it) it was still lost. That is just a problem I see with it; however, I wouldn't argue that it didn't exist. Just that it has to be remembered that it is hypothetical, and we can't put too much emphasis on it, as there are other options.

I dont have a problem that no one talks about it, or wrote about it. didnt the romans burn many villages around Galilee when they sacked the temple?

I agree there could have been more to it then sayings.


Ill throw a guess out here for ya

There was a early gospel that might have been known in a small group of people that got destroyed when the romans raided the place. the gospels may have been destroyed but were getting the oral tradition from said hypothetical gospel.


We are still left with two books that have common material found no where else earlier that came on the scene about the same time, and we know there were other books that were mentioned that didnt survive. Its not shocking at all that there is no mention of a gospel like it nor the fact it hasnt ever been found.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by outhouse

I dont have a problem that no one talks about it, or wrote about it. didnt the romans burn many villages around Galilee when they sacked the temple?

Wouldn't really matter in this case if Rome did burn many villages in Galilee simply because the use of Q would have been after the fact. Since Matthew and Luke supposedly used it, that means it would have to have been in existence during that time. In fact, we can't even realistically date it to anytime before 70, and thus, it would have been free from being burned during the first Jewish war.

Ill throw a guess out here for ya

There was a early gospel that might have been known in a small group of people that got destroyed when the romans raided the place. the gospels may have been destroyed but were getting the oral tradition from said hypothetical gospel.

The problem though is that Q can not be dated earlier than 70 C.E., which was after Romans would have raided those places. So we can't assume ti was destroyed in such raids.

Not to mention that most scholars agree that it would have been a written document that both Luke and Matthew copied from. Thus, we can say safely that it survived until at least 80-90 C.E.

So the way it would seem is that it gained quite a bit of popularity (enough to have been used by two communities), and then all of a sudden disappear. That is where my problem with Q arises. Of course, that is a possibility, but it is nonetheless a problem.

We are still left with two books that have common material found no where else earlier that came on the scene about the same time, and we know there were other books that were mentioned that didnt survive. Its not shocking at all that there is no mention of a gospel like it nor the fact it hasnt ever been found.

Actually, Matthew and Luke do not necessarily come from the same time. It is well within possibility that Matthew was written in the 80's while Luke/Acts was written in the 90's. So that would give Luke the chance to have used Matthew as a source.

And it is a little surprising that a gospel that seemed to be popular enough to be copied by two sources, all of a sudden then disappears.

[outhouse]

maybe after being used it was lost in the Kitos war

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

And it is a little surprising that a gospel that seemed to be popular enough to be copied by two sources, all of a sudden then disappears.

I've thought about that, too. Not only was the "text" "copied," both the "original text Q" AND all of its copies.

I've allowed myself to imagine that perhaps there was a Jesus who taught some stuff to a few disciples, they memorized it, and later when it was written down, each representative church modified it to their needs.

haha

[outhouse]

well another thought was the original gospel had material that didnt quite jive with the directions the gospel authors were steering.

there could have been quite a few copies floating around and after they cherry picked them, they destroyed a few theirselves. the others fell by the wayside or destroyed in war

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by outhouse

well another thought was the original gospel had material that didnt quite jive with the directions the gospel authors were steering.

there could have been quite a few copies floating around and after they cherry picked them, they destroyed a few theirselves. the others fell by the wayside or destroyed in war

Why go through the trouble? I mean we don't see that happening otherwise.

[CynthiaCypher]

Originally Posted by gnostic

The biggest conflicting parts of the NT texts are found in 2 different Jesus' birth scenarios, from Matthew's and Luke's.

Methinks not. The biggest conflicting parts are the theological differences in the accounts.

[outhouse]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Why go through the trouble? I mean we don't see that happening otherwise.

something happened.

we have a unknown source that shouldnt be a oral tradition.

the same way they both copied mark, they copied something else as well.


if the Q had content that didnt jive , it would be no problem to throw it in a fire once your won gospel wad all the info you wanted or cared about.

you also would not want something out their preaching to a different target audience

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by outhouse

something happened.

we have a unknown source that shouldnt be a oral tradition.

the same way they both copied mark, they copied something else as well.


if the Q had content that didnt jive , it would be no problem to throw it in a fire once your won gospel wad all the info you wanted or cared about.

you also would not want something out their preaching to a different target audience

My question is why use such a gospel in the first place? Why not just ignore it, instead of preserve it by copying it? And do we have any grounds to even think that they would have cherry picked from a source, and the destroy the rest? I don't think so. Instead, when we later see such works being destroyed, they were destroyed in total. Bits and pieces weren't kept and preserved. Instead, the entire gospel or work was deemed heretical, or of no use.

I see no reason to assume that in just this one case, two Gospel writers (which suggests that it was in fact popular) saw this other source (Q in this case) to be important enough to copy parts of it, yet then turn around and destroy all copies (and what is the chance that two separate groups would do the exact same thing?). That seems like a major leap.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I've thought about that, too. Not only was the "text" "copied," both the "original text Q" AND all of its copies.

I've allowed myself to imagine that perhaps there was a Jesus who taught some stuff to a few disciples, they memorized it, and later when it was written down, each representative church modified it to their needs.

haha

I have to say that I never even thought of Q being copied. But that makes sense. For some reason I just assumed that Matthew and Luke used the original manuscript. But thinking about it now, it doesn't make much sense.