"Scholars will explode the myth of The New Testament"

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Heterodoxus]

Recent article from U.Copenhagen

For discussion:

• do you think there is "a more obvious" replacement for Q?
• what do you think that replacement, if any, might be?
• what impact do you think replacing Q might have, if any, on both Bible content and Christian belief?
  

[Acumen]

I see no reason to believe in Q, but I am open to the idea if the evidence is quite good.

[Heterodoxus]

... if the evidence is quite good.

"Ay, there's the rub!" (Hamlet III-1)

[Acumen]

... if the evidence is quite good.

"Ay, there's the rub!" (Hamlet III-1)

I'm hesitant to believe in what scholars want to exist, but haven't found transcripts of.

[CCC460]

Q is only a theory. It matters little to the Apostolic faith handed down. I don't see how it's existance or non-existance would have any bearing whatsoever on the Christian faith.

[kwd111]

 

The Gospels as re-written Bible

The Research Project at the University of Copenhagen, which has just been granted 4.7 million kroner by the Velux Foundation, has been titled "The Gospels as re-written Bible"

For 4.7 MILLION kroner... I think people would be happy to print anything and call it a scientific study!

Global warming comes to mind as one of such previous efforts done for granted money.

For 1 MILLION kroner... I would be happy to study how cow droppings is definitely the reason for global warming.

As Chick-fil-a said... just "eat more chicken"!   

[Howiedds]

hetero:

For discussion:

    * do you think there is "a more obvious" replacement for Q?
    * what do you think that replacement, if any, might be?
    * what impact do you think replacing Q might have, if any, on both Bible content and Christian belief?

Strictly on an academic basis, any alternative to Q to explain material common to Luke and Matthew that is absent from Mark would be more comfortable than ascribing it to a source that has never been found but created to  make a theory plausible.

There are flaws in all the theories to the "synoptic problem," as it is called. A variation or two of the one that these researchers are trying to prove have been around for decades.

what impact do you think replacing Q might have, if any, on both Bible content and Christian belief?

As ccc said, whatever conclusion is drawn about Q or the proposed theory,  it's existance or non-existance would (not)have any bearing whatsoever on the Christian faith.

It would an interesting academic pursuit that would probably just add one more theory which would be as imperfect as any to date.

[Acumen]

It seems so strange that Q has been posited to exist without any direct references to it.  Couldn't the similarities between the synoptic gospels be explained by a common oral tradition rather than a common written document?

[Heterodoxus]

Couldn't the similarities between the synoptic gospels be explained by a common oral tradition rather than a common written document?

Wih the possibility of a "common oral tradition" in mind, might Peter's memoirs (aka: "sayings of Peter," per Streeter, and commented upon by Papius [ca. 130 CE] in his Sayings of the Lord) be a better alternative than Q?

[CCC460]

It seems so strange that Q has been posited to exist without any direct references to it.  Couldn't the similarities between the synoptic gospels be explained by a common oral tradition rather than a common written document?

Yes.

But i think that the theory of Q goes into consideration of the fact that the stories are told with such commonality that it seems reasonable to assert a common written source. An oral tradition might tend to have more variation.

Personally, I think that if Q does exist, its existence comes from the oral tradition that was written down at one point. Then the gospels could have come from that.

As Howie said, it's an interesting academic question, but it's one that has little bearing when discussing faith.

[Lilly]

I have to shake my head when I see the same people who accuse the Gospels of being so contradictory that they cannot be reconciled, then turn around and say there must be a Q document because the Gospels are so alike.  Huh?

The alternative to Q is the Holy Spirit.  That's who Jesus said would remind his followers of all that he taught them.  The traditions of men, including the manmade theory of a Q document, mean nothing.

[kwd111]

My point, in this matter, is simply the statement that was given.  Somebody was willing to pay somebody some money to prove that the Gospels are wrong.

It would be different if the person wanted to find out either way.  Thus the very heart is wrong from the beginning.

The only person who would want to take on the task would be another individual or group that is of the same mindset and thus have a tainted and biased viewpoint and very likely to skew the information to receive the 4.5 million kronos.

[Howiedds]

Acumen:

It seems so strange that Q has been posited to exist without any direct references to it.

It is a bit of academic "slight of hand" that is useful to explain some of the theories of the "synoptic problem;" that is its only claim to fame.

Couldn't the similarities between the synoptic gospels be explained by a common oral tradition rather than a common written document?

Similar stories told in the three synoptics can most certainly be explained by all three remembering an oral tradition about what Jesus said and did that was told and retold in the community of Jesus people. That alone is not what we see, however. It is not just the similar narratives, the similar events recorded and sayings and parables recounted. It is that they are repeated in a similar order and very closely parallel wording that leads people to believe that they are dependent on each other in some fashion.

If there are decades in which the stories are told in no particular chronological order but as independent vignettes, which is how oral tradition is preserved, with each teller using his own choice of words to tell it, it is not likely that there would be such a close correlation in the order of the events and words used in the telling. The theory is that writers who choose the chronology and the final wording of events that are independent of each other and the sayings that were not originally recorded verbatim and end up choosing almost identical wording and chronology must have depended on each others works.

The dispute doesn't seem to be that they were aware of each other, only in who wrote first and who had whom in front of them when writing theirs.

[Howiedds]

hetero:

"sayings of Peter," per Streeter, and commented upon by Papius [ca. 130 CE] in his Sayings of the Lord) be a better alternative than Q?

There are several alternative explanations to the "synoptic problem" that eliminate the need for Q. Q is only useful, or most useful, to those who hold the majority scholarship position that Mark was written 1st and that Luke and Matthew made use of Mark, their own independent oral traditions, and some other source that was common to Luke and Matthew but not to Mark. Once one rejects "Markan priority," the need for Q disappears.

[Howiedds]

Lilly:

I have to shake my head when I see the same people who accuse the Gospels of being so contradictory that they cannot be reconciled, then turn around and say there must be a Q document because the Gospels are so alike.  Huh?

Whatever contradictions there are between the Gospels have nothing to do with the explanation that is needed for the similarities between Luke and Matthew that are not to be found at all in Mark if one holds to the Mark 1st theory.

The alternative to Q is the Holy Spirit.  That's who Jesus said would remind his followers of all that he taught them.  The traditions of men, including the manmade theory of a Q document, mean nothing.

I don't think that anyone here has suggested that these theories have anything to do with faith convictions. Some of us are just interested in the literary connections and the possibilities in both your testament and mine.

• Children's Prayer.... unc... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 11:08:14 PM]
• Riot against Messianic Je... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:43:30 PM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:25:51 PM]
• The Kids Are All Right. by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:08:19 PM]
• Honduras... here we come!... by SquirleyWurley [July 30, 2010, 06:23:50 PM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [July 29, 2010, 03:56:49 PM]
• 77'7" Kerrville Cross Rai... by SteveC [July 28, 2010, 01:54:13 PM]
• That Darling of Creationi... by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 05:51:56 PM]
• Segmentation & Evolution by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 10:56:42 AM]
• I must have overslept on ... by SteveC [July 26, 2010, 11:12:09 PM]
• 'Little Brown Balls' Tie ... by charliejohn [July 25, 2010, 07:34:39 PM]
• Whales Descended From Tin... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:23:50 PM]
• South Pacific Plant May B... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:05:31 PM]
• Transitional Species Exis... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 05:09:41 PM]
• Fundamentalist's Peppered... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 02:32:03 PM]
• Haeckel and his Embryos by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 10:36:39 AM]
• Flagellum,"poster child" ... by SteveC [July 24, 2010, 11:10:12 PM]
• Evo's Fundamentalist Posi... by Ed.W [July 22, 2010, 10:44:19 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 558
• Latest: Messedumbessy

Stats

• Total Posts: 86510
• Total Topics: 2615
• Online Today: 21
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 1
Guests: 20
Total: 21

SteveC