Who was Q?

Who was Q?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/details/thegospelaccordi00nichuoft
earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

A source or sources of information seperate from Mark that Luke and Matthew used. Probably not an actual gospel, just oral traditions concerning Jesus.

The Arians, clearly and the evil Catholics and orthodox wanted to strike their names from the records

Nobody.

It was a hypothesis. There is no evidence for it.

It was a German invention, not an ancient one.

You know, other than the parts of Luke and Matthew that read exactly the same as each other and aren't copied from Mark.

supposedly there are other gospels kept by the vatican

Luke took what was written by others and compiled it into a cohesive chronological gospel. How do I know? He starts off his gospel saying that's what he's doing. So he took what everyone wrote, not just Matthew, Peter (Mark) and whomever, and put it all in "good order".

There is no Q.

Do you think maybe Mohammad's inner circle would have written similar accounts of Mohammad's life, without needing to reference something else? Or is this blind spot just with Jesus' disciples?

Then, as far as I understand you, you're claiming "Q" is simply Matthew-influence on Luke. But then why do you have the doublets? Consider Matthew 16:13- to the end of chapter, and Luke 9:18-27.

Enormous commonality. You have Peter declaring Jesus is the Messiah, followed by Jesus predicting his death.Matthew puts it right after the Pharisees and Sadducees demanding a heavenly sign, followed by him telling his disciples not to trust those Jews.. Luke puts it right after him healing some dudes and feeding a crowd of 5,000 with a tiny amount of food, something Matthew mentions as being well into the past.

So either Luke didn't think Matthew's account was reliable, which in turn means he was probably drawing upon some alternate source to contradict it, or they were both drawing on some source about this sequence of the messianic proclamation followed by death prediction but disagreed as to where it went in the general narrative of Jesus's activities.

It's not the only example, but it's the first I could think of.

>Do you think maybe Mohammad's inner circle would have written similar accounts of Mohammad's life, without needing to reference something else? Or is this blind spot just with Jesus' disciples?

What does this have to do with anything? And yes, it's likely that when decades after the fact, you start seeing stuff being written about Mohammad popping up, you have a variety of sources informing said histories, not all of which would have survived.

The Gospel of Luke is just him embellishing previous accounts for appeal to a posher gentile audience. Matthew was based on or existed parallel to a Jewish Aramaic version of the gospel and the non-canonical Gospel of Peter follows Mark closely.
archive.org/details/thegospelaccordi00nichuoft
earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html

Isn't Q the Gospel of Thomas (not the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the other one)?

That's another guess.

>Mark written before Matthew
Anyone what a bit of patristic culture know that Matthew was written first, but subhuman atheicucks deny it because Jesus prophetized the fall of Jerusalem and atheicucks can't handle the truthfulness of Jesus's prophecies.

Anyway even the prophecies of Revelation are realizing today, and it's now pretty clear that islam is the false religion supported by the new world order and the false prophet is indeed the Pope.

>Anyone what
Anyone with*

Nah, it's more that when Matthew deviates from Mark in details but not in narrative, it's to fix problems that Mark made, usually something to do with Judaic religion, culture, or geography.

So, for instance, Mark gives Jesus's last words on the cross in Aramaic, despite the fact that he's quoting a Hebrew Psalm. Matthew changes it to Hebrew, while retaining the meaning.

In Mark 5:1, Jesus sails across the Sea of Galilee to get to the "Land of the Gerasenes". Gerasa is closer to the dead sea than it is to Galilee, which is why Matthew's version in 8:28 has it the Gadradenes. Mark claims that Jesus was tried for blasphemy for claiming to be the Jewish Messiah; Matthew changes it to a supposed claim that he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in 3 days.


To assert that Mark was written after Matthew and with Matthean influence means that Mark read this stuff, decided to change certain details, and made them wrong. He would have to be some sort of strange idiot savant, to get his writings taken seriously despite the factual errors made in his changes. If you assume Markan priority though, it's much simpler. Matthew read Mark, saw that it was generally good but had a few issues, and fixed details here and there.

t. Christard with critically handicapped thinking

>parts of Luke and Matthew that read exactly the same as each other
No they don't. They recount many of the same events, and the dialogue is often verbatim, but the narration certainly isn't, ESPECIALLY in Greek

No.

Q is nothing but a hypothetical construct some German came up with to describe why people witnessing and writing about the same man had similar stories to tell.

Jesus Christ.

I know you think you're smart.

I know you think you're a Christian.

I would beg you to reconsider, as both are lies no matter how many seminaries you attended.

If Matthew wrote in Greek, he did so very badly, since Matthew is consistently Aramaic syntax (unlike Mark).

The titles to the gospels were added posthumously and one reason why only 4 gospels may have been accepted is because the influential church father Irenaeus thought it fitting that there should only be 4 gospels as there are 4 corners of the earth and 4 winds.

>but the narration certainly isn't, ESPECIALLY in Greek

Matthew, 9:9-10

>Καὶ παράγων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐkεῖθεν εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον kαθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον, Μαθθαῖον λεγόμενον, kαὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Ἀkολούθει μοι. kαὶ ἀναστὰς ἠkολούθησεν αὐτῷ.

>Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ ἀναkειμένου ἐν τῇ οἰkίᾳ, kαὶ ἰδοὺ πολλοὶ τελῶναι kαὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἐλθόντες συνανέkειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ kαὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ.

Luke, 5:27-29


>Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξῆλθεν, kαὶ ἐθεάσατο τελώνην ὀνόματι Λευεὶν kαθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον, kαὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἀkολούθει μοι.


>kαὶ kαταλιπὼν πάντα ἀναστὰς ἠkολούθει αὐτῷ.

>Καὶ ἐποίησεν δοχὴν μεγάλην Λευεὶς αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ οἰkίᾳ αὐτοῦ· kαὶ ἦν ὄχλος πολὺς τελωνῶν kαὶ ἄλλων οἳ ἦσαν μετ’ αὐτῶν kαταkείμενοι.

We see consistently starting verses off with the word Καὶ, whether or not grammatically necessary, we see adjectives and verbs before their subjects, we see identifiers after the verb and not before. Far more similar to each other than "Aramaic syntax".


Ha! Like I would be Christian. I have more sense than that. I'm someone who has actually read the Gospels and found them to be full of shit.

Unironically Jesus. It would have been a collection of sayings attributed to him, much like the Gospel of Thomas.

An oral tradition.

>>Καὶ παράγων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐkεῖθεν εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον kαθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον, Μαθθαῖον λεγόμενον, kαὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Ἀkολούθει μοι. kαὶ ἀναστὰς ἠkολούθησεν αὐτῷ.
>>Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ ἀναkειμένου ἐν τῇ οἰkίᾳ, kαὶ ἰδοὺ πολλοὶ τελῶναι kαὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἐλθόντες συνανέkειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ kαὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ.
Do these look remotely verbatim to you?

>We see consistently starting verses off with the word Καὶ, whether or not grammatically necessary
That's because it's Hebrew style, ya dingus. Hebrew uses "and" profusely, so much that most traslations, except for a few like the King James, omit a ton of "ands", and even the King James uses the translations of "but" and "yet" and other words in a lot of places to break up the use of "and".

>And he said, O Lord God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham. Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water: and let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master. And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder. And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher. And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking. And she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels. And the man wondering at her held his peace, to wit whether the Lord had made his journey prosperous or not.

Matthew wrote in poor Hebrew, and the translators did the best they could.

>Ha! Like I would be Christian. I have more sense than that. I'm someone who has actually read the Gospels and found them to be full of shit.

I always wonder if people like you are ever surprised to be found out so quickly.

Oh, so they are syntactically similar! Guess you're wrong about Matthew.

>That's because it's Hebrew style, ya dingus.


You, like John, can't tell the difference between Aramaic and Hebrew. Color me shocked.

Can someone explain this?

>Ha! Like I would be Christian. I have more sense than that. I'm someone who has actually read the Gospels and found them to be full of shit.

How so what of all their predictions and the like?

What else did you read that convinced you that they are not true

...

But user

There is no Q

You're the only person on this thread I'd call an idiot. I doubt you're in any position to say that someone isn't smart.

>come into thread looking for academic discussion of textual criticism of the Bible
>get an assblasted idiot stirring up shit

Good going.

History does not support the existence of Q

No, there is absolutely no chance.
Thomas contains about 4 verses in the canonical gospels, and even then they're not the same.

Or, and here's an idea, what if Luke used Matthew as a source? (or possibly the other way round, I can't remember which came first)

t. uneducated atheinigger

Go to hell demonic shitskin

In his [Origen’s] first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows:
Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.’ 1 Peter 5:13
Eusebius, Church History, Book 6

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

It would explain a lot...

>Men writing hundreds of years after the fact and with a bias toward their selective factions' views are a conclusive source of first hand information.

>Men writing hundreds of years after the
>I have learned by tradition

Pick one


Also
>Men writing hundreds of years after the fact and with a bias toward their selective factions' views are a conclusive source of first hand information.
Sound like atheicucks scholars

Anyway why are you atheicuks """""""""""""""""studying""""""""""""""""" christianity since you hate it, you're masochists ?

I AM AUTISTIC!!!!!

Men writing at a time of precarious uncertainty with a contest raging over which sect was going to inherit power.
vs
Men writing hundreds of years after the Renaissance and Enlightenment paved a way for an impartial discussion.

>Anyway why are you atheicuks studying christianity since you hate it, you're masochists ?
>refuse to believe in his contrived legends
>atheist
Because despite the uncritical views promulgated by you mainstream Christians one must recognize the positive aspects of the faith and choose what to emphasize from it and also because coming into contact with Christianity has become unavoidable due to their expansionist efforts.

Why is studying in quotes.
An atheist would be more trustworthy to be objective since we have little cognitive bias.

Oh amd most of us don't 'hate' Christianity.
Get off your cross bitch