Document Q contains no concept of a suffering Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter paarsurrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paarsurrey

Guest
Hi

But the most telling feature of the Q Jesus has proven to be the most perplexing, for he seems to bear no relationship to Paul’s. Scholars continue to puzzle over the fact that Q contains no concept of a suffering Jesus, a divinity who has undergone death and resurrection as a redeeming act.
pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partthre.htm

Any commets, please.

Thanks
 
The “Q” document remains a theoretical invention. There is no evidence that it ever existed. It has been postulated because The Gospels tell such a similar story, that many scholars cannot believe that they are not copies of some other common source. Of course these same scholars utterly discount Divine Inspiration or the fact that the Gospels were written either by eyewitnesses or were dictated by eyewitnesses.

It is also important to note that the “Q” (“Quelle”) hypothosis is of very recent origin, I believe it was first proposed about 20 years ago, but I may be wrong about that.

The web site you provided is not a reliable source.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document
 
It is older than 20 years but it is so theoretical that I pay it very little attention. To be sure there were and are people that have a shallow grasp of suffering but there is little evidence that Q is a clearly distinguishable document.

CDL
 
Here is another explanation for the similarity between the Gospels:

They were written by eyewitnesses of the Lord, and reflect what He said and did.

😛
 
I guess I’ll address the point brought up in the subject (title) of this thread.

Yes, it is correct that the “Q” document has no concept of the suffering of Jesus. It also has no concept of His birth, life, death, or any other aspect of the life of Christ. That is because there is not “Q” document. There is speculation. There is theory, but there is no “Q” document.

Even promoters of the “Q” hypothesis readily admit that no document answering its description has ever been found. Not even one that was found and subsequently lost. They admit that there is no evidence it ever existed.

As a consequence, speculating on what may or may not be in a document which no one has ever seen and which exists only as a hypothetical (NOT theoretical) construct, can be of no use and bear no fruit.
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

But the most telling feature of the Q Jesus has proven to be the most perplexing, for he seems to bear no relationship to Paul’s. Scholars continue to puzzle over the fact that Q contains no concept of a suffering Jesus, a divinity who has undergone death and resurrection as a redeeming act.
pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partthre.htm

Any commets, please.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Q is otherwise known as the “sayings sourece” - i.e. it is a collection of Jesus’s sayings. As such it is hardly surprising that there is nothing in it about events in the first week of April AD30.
 
mathematician said:
Q is otherwise known as the “sayings sourece” - i.e. it is a collection of Jesus’s sayings. As such it is hardly surprising that there is nothing in it about events in the first week of April AD30.
Click to expand...
As has already been stated several times in this thread, Q is a purely hypothetical document. It’s not even known if it really existed, and therefore it is totally impossible to say what exactly may have been in it if it did exist.
 
ibkc said:
As has already been stated several times in this thread, Q is a purely hypothetical document. It’s not even known if it really existed, and therefore it is totally impossible to say what exactly may have been in it if it did exist.
Click to expand...
It is thought that it might have existed precisely because its contents can plausibly be inferred from the Gospels. There are three possibilities:

1.) Matthew used Luke as a source.
2.) Luke used Matthew as a source.
3.) They both drew upon a hypothetical third document Q.
 
These hypothetical documents were developed out of Protestant think tanks that contain no mention of suffering. Is anyone surprised?

CDL
 
Or. . .how about:

St. Luke spoke to the Virgin Mary about the events of her annunciation and Jesus’ years at home, as well as with the Eleven, and with many other eyewitnesses.

St. Matthew was "there’ with the others of the Eleven, as well as knowing the Virgin.

St. Mark spoke with St. Peter and others of the Eleven and other eyewitnesses, including the Virgin.

St. John was ‘there’ with the others of the Eleven and other eyewitnesses, including the Virgin, in fact taking the Virgin Mary to stay with him as Jesus commanded.

All explain the ‘similarities’ and the ‘differences’ quite nicely, without any need to make an artificial ‘construct’ of a hypothetical document.
 
mathematician said:
It is thought that it might have existed precisely because its contents can plausibly be inferred from the Gospels. There are three possibilities:

1.) Matthew used Luke as a source.
2.) Luke used Matthew as a source.
3.) They both drew upon a hypothetical third document Q.
Click to expand...
How about this scenario, as an alternative (which has the advantage of being the:thumbsup: 👍 traditional teaching of Christianity throughout history):
1.) Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic.
2.) Luke wrote his gospel in Greek, using Matthew/Aramaic as his source.
3.) Mark wrote his gospel, using Matthew/Aramaic as his source.
4.) Matthew’s gospel was translated into Greek, using:
[a] Matthew/Aramaic, ** Mark, and [c] Luke, all as source material.

Therefore:
“Q” is no longer even a “hypothetical” document. “Q” is simply a dodge to keep from acknowledging Matthew’s gospel, as it was originally written, as the real source for all four of the gospels as we now have them in our Bibles.

Gotta:extrahappy: love tradition.:yup: Beats those guys:mad: trying to cast doubt on the inspiration of Scripture, by :banghead: claiming it was secondhand news.**
 
Okay. I do not usually get into THIS kind of stuff on here but here goes.
Like so many people have posted, Q is one solution to the assumed shared literary dependence between the synoptics. One thing that first of all has to be established is that Q is based upon Markan priority. Markan priority is based upon presuppositions by certain scholars. As it has been pointed out on here, the historical evidence indicates that Matthew wrote first and very importantly that Mark uses Peter as his source. So often the “primitive” argument used by those who postulate Markan priority fails to take into account that Mark IS primitive but that does not mean that Matthew is not as well. So many of the items found in Matthew that point to a Jewish-Christian audience prior to the destruction of the Temple cannot be adequately explained by those who contend it is a later writing by an anonymous writer.
Liberal scholars assert that because one of their presuppositions is that the gospels circulated without names attached to them.
Once again, they fail to account HOW the early church magically came up with these names and did so without any dissenting opinions.
The whole Q theory can be discarded if one believes that Luke used Matthew. The so called minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark have always been a sticking point for those who hold to Mark being written first.
So while Q does not have to be false, the weight of evidence points in another direction.
 
I’m not terribly familiar with Q so I can’t speak with authority. If Q doesn’t contain a suffering Jesus, doesn’t that mean that the gospel writers agree on the material they share about the suffering Jesus? In other words, did they think it was necessary highlight it a second time considering they all agreed on a suffering Jesus the first time?

I think what would really be shocking was Q material that said Jesus did not suffer.

Peace,

Ryan 🙂
 
I think we need to keep on making the point:

The OP, who spoke of “document Q containing no concept of a suffering Jesus”, does not even have ‘document Q’ showing him that because no such document is extant, if there ever were one. It is a SPECULATION, not a verifiable, proven reality

There is a ‘scholarly speculation’ of relatively recent date, and not accepted by even a majority of current scholars, that there ‘may’ be a ‘document source’ (Q being the first letter of the German word for source) because, supposedly, this ‘document’ would have been ‘used’ by the synoptic gospel writers as a source for each of their individual gospels.

But there is no proof that there is, or ever was, any such thing as “Q”.

Zip. Zilch. Nada.

I could speculate that Gene Roddenbury used a “Q” document, originally formulated by the REAL Vulcans, to write his Star Trek series. And he even named one of his characters after it.

It makes so much SENSE, and look, the series itself points to “Q”. How else could Gene have ‘known’ about ALL those universes without it?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
But there is no proof that there is, or ever was, any such thing as “Q”.
Click to expand...
Hi

So let us look into as to why the **Secular Historians **look for the document “Q” or the source document. Thus goes their reasoning:

“To move from the New Testament epistles to the Gospels is to enter a completely different world. In Parts One and Two, I pointed out that virtually every element of the Gospel biography of Jesus of Nazareth is missing from the epistles, and that Paul and other early writers present us only with a divine, spiritual Christ in heaven, one revealed by God through inspiration and scripture. Their Jesus is never identified with a recent historical man. Like the savior gods of the Greek mystery cults, Paul’s Christ had performed his redeeming act in a mythical arena. Thus, when we open the Gospels we are unprepared for the flesh and blood figure who lives and speaks on their pages, one who walked the sands of Palestine and died on Calvary in the days of Herod and Pontius Pilate.”

pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partthre.htm

They further add:

“The core of the historical Jesus precedes the Gospels and was born in the community or circles which produced the document now called “Q” (for the German “Quelle,” meaning “source”). No copy of Q has survived, but while a minority disagree, the majority of New Testament scholars today are convinced that Q did exist, and that it can be reconstructed from the common material found in Matthew and Luke which they did not get from Mark.”

Your insight into the issue and your differing comments are welcome, while remaining steadfast unto your present faith, please, unless you are otherwise convinced.

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top