The Lost Gospel 'Q'

The Lost Gospel 'Q'

Joined: April 30th, 2005, 4:27 am

May 22nd, 2010, 12:33 pm #1


Vince if you read this, thought I would start a new thread on the theory behind the lost gospel of Q (Quelle).  Here is an interesting link that I thought was a worthwhile read. JB

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q3.htm
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

May 22nd, 2010, 2:04 pm #2

and comment later. Thanks for the link.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2010, 2:50 pm

May 22nd, 2010, 10:32 pm #3

Vince if you read this, thought I would start a new thread on the theory behind the lost gospel of Q (Quelle).  Here is an interesting link that I thought was a worthwhile read. JB

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q3.htm
It was interesting. I'll look into it some more, and especially look forward to anything Vince might uncover.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 11th, 2003, 7:06 am

May 23rd, 2010, 7:02 am #4

Vince if you read this, thought I would start a new thread on the theory behind the lost gospel of Q (Quelle).  Here is an interesting link that I thought was a worthwhile read. JB

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q3.htm
As I read through the article. I've left it til now so I could concentrate on it for the length of time it takes.

[ This theory maintains that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke copied much of their material from the Gospel of Mark and from a lost Gospel of Q. ]

I've read that before and I don't agree that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. It may be true but I've never found any evidence to back that theory. I think they copied from the same sources and different sources (from each other) and put their own spin and filler into their stories.

[ Q appears to have been written in Greek - at least the version of Q that was used by the authors of Luke and Matthew was in this language. Most references in Q to the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) were to the Greek Septuagint translation, not the Hebrew original. ]

Yes, I agree, the source was all written in Greek. Now Bart Ehrman maintains that at least ONE of the Gospels had to be written in Aramaic because of certain word forms and word plays which could only work in Aramaic -and he could be right- but my feeling is that they were written by Aramaic-speaking people who transformed their inside jokes into Greek. I've seen Low German (Mennonite) people do that kind of thing. "Outsiders" don't get the jokes because of the language difference -because they don't understand the german language but those who understand the language get the jokes too ... even though they're written in English. (Low German has no actual written form).

[ The writing of Q apparently started about 50 CE, about 20 years after Jesus' execution by the Roman authorities. Unlike other Gospels which were apparently written over a short interval of time, Q was intermittently expanded over a period that has been estimated as great as 35 years. ]

I disagree. I know these dates are constantly thrown around but I've never seen anyone explain exactly WHY they choose these dates. I think the source material is MUCH older than that ... reaching back to at least 85 years BC. The ranting against Pharisees makes no sense because they were the most respected religious group EXCEPT ... during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus.

Why would Jesus care about the Pharisees in 33 AD? It was the SADUCEES who were powerful and corrupt. The high priest and his cohorts were all Saducees.

[ What is remarkable about Q1 is that the original Christians appeared to be centered totally on concerns about their relationships with God and with other people, and their preparation for the imminent arrival of Kingdom of God on earth.]

I agree.

[ The Gospel contains strong statements which are anti-family and which oppose Jewish religious rules. Rewards and punishments are described as occurring in this life, not after death. The "Kingdom of God" is described as a type of utopian society on earth which his followers were creating, not some future location in heaven after death. God is presented as a loving father with an intimate concern for the welfare of believers. The Holy Spirit is mentioned, but appears as a gift given by God, not as a separate person of the Trinity. There is no reference to Jesus' death having any redeeming function; in fact, there is no mention of the crucifixion or resurrection at all. ]

Yep. I pretty much agree. Jesus death having a redeeming function? I'm not really sure in my mind whether the death was anticipated by some or simply rationalized later ... after it happened.

[ The religious and spiritual life of the early Christian movement two decades after Jesus' crucifixion bears little relationship to today's Christianity. ]

Yeah, I don't think Jesus was crucified; I think he was stoned by a Jewish "mob" and then hung on a tree until sundown, according to Jewish tradition. This is why the "3 days" don't match up with 72 hours worth of time.

[ A modern day Evangelical Christian would probably regard all of Jesus' followers as unsaved and essentially ignorant of all of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. ]

Agreed.

That's just my quick-pick commentary. Not anything that I vehemently disagree with or emphatically want to correct. Just my own hunches, based on a lot of little indicators from the text of the New Testament.

-Vince

PS: The Jesus Christ "story" IMO, didn't start with a real live personal leader by the name of Jesus Christ, but rather as a concept ... which caught on all over the place. I see Christianity as having started up, much like a river starts up from multiple mountain streams from a vast area of hundreds of miles apart.

THE WAY movement was already pretty old and had split into essentially 2 -3 parts, with two parts being in Egypt and at least one part being in Syria and moving through the northern Mediterranean region. When Paul went on his missionary trip(s) he wasn't STARTING groups; he was visiting groups and converting them to his own gospel flavor.

The way I perceive it, THE WAY movement started up with a concept of a cosmic Jesus Christ who was TO COME, (according to research of the old scriptures) and was to reign/and/or die and rise again ... depending on different group interpretations. They spoke of it as an accomplished event which they received in visions or gnostic revelation. It didn't start with a flesh and blood leader whom we think of today as Jesus Christ; the character was later inserted to fill the bill -(in the 4 Gospels).

The reason I think this is because there was WAY TOO MUCH splintering already by the time Paul preached his gospel. Such splintering is impossible in the same generation that the founder of a religious movement lived. It only happens 2-3 generations after the leader has died and his followers have died too. Take the Mormon religion for example: It was founded in the early 1800's and is approaching 200 years of existence. You only see splintering beginning NOW.




<i></i>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 4th, 2007, 4:09 pm

May 23rd, 2010, 11:22 am #5

In the Eyes of the Essenes...
The Pharisees were the "Seekers After Smooth Things"...
-- Dead Sea Scrolls: Nahum Commentary 4Q169: Column 1, verse 7.
-- Old Testament: Isaiah 30:10...
<blockquote>Isaiah 30:8-11 --
8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: 9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: 10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: 11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.
They were Collaborators with the "enemy"... (The Romans)...
-- Referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls as... The "Kittim".

So, in the eyes of the Essenes...
The Pharisees were NOT...
-- "the most respected religious group".

On the other hand...
The Saduccees were the False Priesthood in Jerusalem...
And...
The Essenes wanted to see the True Priesthood (the Zadokite Priesthood) Restored.

So, in or around "33 AD"...
Jesus, the Messianic Priest/King of the Essenes...
Would have railed against members of Both of those Parties.

-PRev1-
</blockquote>

President Barrack Hussein Obama

-- Nobel Peace Prize, 2009 --
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
-- George Orwell, "1984" --
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

May 23rd, 2010, 5:01 pm #6

More pragmatic then?

Sounds reasonable. If Jesus was focused on becoming King, the Pharisees would have been his biggest threat because they would have eroded his support. It would explain his constant railing at them as well ... which was possibly more posturing than anything else.

The Sadducees, on the other hand -even if they WERE corrupt- would offer the most tangible support IF he ever DID manage to get into power ... because they had a lot of self-interests to protect under a kingdom and generally supported whoever was in power, like kind of an old-boys club.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 4th, 2007, 4:09 pm

May 23rd, 2010, 6:14 pm #7



Were the False Priesthood.
-- They weren't Zadokites.

To the Essenes...
-- The Saduccees were Defilers of the Temple.

And...
Having claimed the High Priesthood as their own...
The Saduccees had the most to lose...
So, they would have provided the Most Opposition...
-- To Jesus and members of his Revolutionary Movement.

-PRev1-
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

May 23rd, 2010, 6:41 pm #8

Would Jesus NOT have railed against Sadducees moreso than against Pharisees?

"Something" ain't quite right.

[ John 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; ]

He prophesied? He was a Sadducee.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

May 23rd, 2010, 6:49 pm #9



Were the False Priesthood.
-- They weren't Zadokites.

To the Essenes...
-- The Saduccees were Defilers of the Temple.

And...
Having claimed the High Priesthood as their own...
The Saduccees had the most to lose...
So, they would have provided the Most Opposition...
-- To Jesus and members of his Revolutionary Movement.

-PRev1-
That early Christianity wasn't much different in some respects, from modern Christianity.

If they were expecting Jesus to show up today -incognito- and rise to prominence, PROVING himself to be the real Jesus Christ .... what do you think would happen?

One Jesus after another would show up, rise to some prominence, be hailed as the REAL THING .. and then slide off into obscurity, as another one came along to replace the previous.

HOWEVER ... the STORIES or traditional understandings of each Jesus would NOT pass away! The best of each would survive and be amalgamated into the ongoing saga.

I think that may be what happened with the Jesus character too. The best parts were kept and ascribed to newcomers ... until they got this impressive library on all of his activities and teachings.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 4th, 2007, 4:09 pm

May 23rd, 2010, 7:40 pm #10

Would Jesus NOT have railed against Sadducees moreso than against Pharisees?

"Something" ain't quite right.

[ John 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; ]

He prophesied? He was a Sadducee.

-Vince
Of course, it's easier to claim that someone had "Prophesied" something... After the fact.
And, the Gospel Texts were written After the Crucifiction.

As for railing against the Sadducees...
<blockquote> Matthew 16:6 --
And Jesus said to them,
"Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
He didn't exactly have any High Praise them.
But...
They WERE the "PTB" (Powers That Be) in Jerusalem...
And...
Opposing them Directly...
Only would have resulted in a more speedy route to the Crucifiction.

-PRev1- </blockquote>
Quote
Like
Share