IntroductionThis page is a brief introduction to the lost Gospel
of Q. Although no Q document has yet found, it (as a writing
or tradition) is considered by most scholars in recent times to have
formed the basis of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke -
possibly in conjunction with an early version of the Gospel of Mark That of course proves - nothing. As has been noted in my own essay which PEST overwhelmingly ignores, the vast majority of those who accept the thesis do not accept it after critical evaluation and the problem is seldom examined afresh.
[sc]
[eq].
Q and QumranDr James Tabor of the University of North
Carolina Whom PEST quotes constantly not because he is the most relevant source, but because it's handy and online described Q as follows:
"Q (from the German word Quelle/Source) is technically
defined as the material that Luke and Matthew have in common that is not
found in Mark. With few exceptions this material turns out to be
teachings or saying of Jesus, leading many scholars to conclude that
Luke and Matthew were following a written source, perhaps the earliest
collection of the Teachings of Rabbi Yeshua, put together in Palestine
before 50 C.E." [tq]
From an analysis of the Jewish writings at Qumran, Tabor
has shown that the Jewish sect of that community taught of "The Righteous
Teacher", a messianic leader from around the second century BCE. It seems
that this teacher had promised that two Messiahs would arrive to lead
Israel to salvation within a forty year forty year period which expired
long before the first century CE [tm]. Since
other fragments found at Qumran contain similar verses to those found in
the New Testament [sm], it
seems possible that Q may have in fact been based on the sayings of
this "Righteous Teacher", rather than a first century "Jesus Christ". How remarkably asinine. The link goes here and says absolutely nothing about Q, about "similar verses", or anything that supports this point. What is PEST trying to pull?
As reconstructed, the Gospel of Q appears to has a rather
striking - and familiar - ending (as stated by Luke 22:28-30):
"You are those who have continued with me in my trials;
as my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that
you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones
judging the twelve tribes of Israel." [tl]
Tabor notes that the fragment 4Q521 recently published
from the Qumran scrolls shows that the Qumran community had expected a
saviour (and attendant resurrection of the dead) not found in the earlier
Hebrew traditions found in the Torah Funny, because the fragment clearly alludes to the same Isaianic passage Jesus appealed to in Luke. Hmm. Not found "in the Torah," huh? If "Torah" here just means the Law, that's a sneaky point. Tabor here says not a word about this fragment having an expectation of a "savior" (much less in the Christian sense), and Jewish belief in resurrection goes back, sorry, to Daniel and the Maccabbean era, as Tabor does say but as PEST quietly ignores.[t4].
The Evolution of QAlthough the Gospel of Q, as can
be made out from an analysis of Matthew and Luke, does
specifically name Jesus, there are many central elements of Christianity
which are not mentioned in any way. Isn't this great? First we argue for a document not even extant, then we claim to know what isn't in it! According to Religious
Tolerance, these include:
"...adultery, angels, apostles, baptism, church, clergy,
confirmation, crucifixion, demons, disciples, divorce, Eucharist, great
commission to convert the world, healing, heaven, hell, incarnation,
infancy stories, John the Baptist, Last Supper, life after death, Mary
and Joseph and the rest of Jesus' family, magi, miracles, Jewish laws
concerning behavior, marriage, Messiah, restrictions on sexual behavior,
resurrection, roles of men and women, Sabbath, salvation, Satan, second
coming, signs of the end of the age, sin, speaking in tongues, temple,
tomb, transfiguration, trial of Jesus, trinity, or the virgin birth." Yep, those "experts" at religious tolerance sure know their stuff. In contrast, the wiser person is the likes of those who say, with Meier, that no one can know what Q said if it did exist, and Hultgren, who says that one can only say what Q contained, not what it didn't - and in turn, cannot use it to say anything about what those who used it did not believe in.
[rq]
The traditional view is that two further sources were
added to Q before it came to be incorporated into Matthew
and Luke, around thirty years after the supposed death of Jesus.
The first, c. 60-70 CE, introduces John the Baptist (who Josephus said died in 68 CE) I can only guess where this goofy idea is taken from.
and attributed the Q sayings and further teachings to Jesus. The
second c. mid-70s CE, attributed further sayings to Jesus, and for the
first time introduced the idea of him as "the Son of God". These teachings
also appear in the Gospel according to Mark, which also seems to date from
around this time "Around this time" is criminally vague. In debate PEST refused to state his position on Mark's date with any more specificity.[rq].
On the basis that the Q Gospel may have originally related
to much earlier traditions, rather than to the "Jesus" of the first
century CE, Tabor has compiled a list of "original sayings" of Jesus not
found in Q. These are limited to proclamations of the imminent
coming of the "Kingdom of God"; the casting out of demons by the power of
God; the days of John the Baptist, various parables and a version of the
Lord's prayer Again, this is merely an arbitrary exercise.[ta].
One proposal is that the story of "Jesus Christ" was based on a
real "Rabbi Yeshua", but enhanced with legendary and mythological accounts
around the time that the Gospels were written towards the end of the first
century CE.
A more radical suggestion, based on the apparent silence of many early
Church fathers on the person of Christ, is that Christianity did not begin
teaching that Jesus was a historical figure until the mid-second century
CE That "silence" claim is refuted here and here, and the "enhanced" excuse is merely a ready-made argument lacking in specifics.[fc].
Apologetics and QThe standard approach of Christian
scholars and apologetics has been to reject the idea that the New
Testament Gospels were based on the Gospel of Q - and to prefer
instead the idea of the Gospels being based on common oral traditions or
even, in extreme cases, eye-witness accounts Sure, that is "extreme" - to say they were done in line with preferred historiographical methods of the day. PEST also forgets other literary dependence ideas, such as the Griesbach hypothesis, and my own preference of Matthean-Markan independence and Lukan dependence.[qh].
However, this position is rejected by most scholars In other words, PEST once again hides behind majority for lack of ability to engage the issues.[rq], and
the problem remains of the "Teacher of Righteousness", apparently from the
first century CE, and the similarity of his teachings to the character of
Jesus Christ. The "problem" is a contrivance. One wants to ask why the teachings would not have similarities, being in the same Palestinian milieu to begin with.
ConclusionThere is reason to believe that the Gospel of Q,
which forms a central portion of Matthew and Luke, could
have been based upon the sayings of a messianic teacher from the second
century BCE, whose failed prophesies were a source of some dismay to the
Jewish cult of first-century Qumran. There is no reason to believe this; it is an absurd contrivance.
A controversial view gaining
much attention Much? From whom? Just PEST so far. It sure didn't make it into any of the materials on the subject I went through, including the most recent works by Stein, etc. is that the early Christians somehow appropriated this
older "Teacher of Righteousness" into their own cultural setting; began
teaching that he actually rose from the dead before disappearing again;
and placed the story in the context of their recent past It is creative, ridiculous, and not found in any peer-reviewed journal. What does that tell you? |
