Is it reasonable to think there was no "Q" document?

[Gawen]

And that Mathew really did write it himself? It reflects a certain ideological veiwpoint in gMatthew, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that it is not a coincidence. When you consider how that 'Q' theory is just the perfect theory to help the church bridge the gap between the past and the present world of critical Biblical scholarship, well that hardly seems to be a coincidence either. 'Q' is just to comfortable, to cozy, to convenient, not just for Matthew, but also for those churches making the transition from certain, dogmatic faith and a strange new world of uncertainty.

What do you all think?

[Whitney]

Q document?  Never heard of it.

[Gawen]

It is the hypothetical source of material Matthew and Luke used in their Gospels but not found in Mark. There are no existing copies of "Q" thereby rendering it hypothetical. Its the source of Jesus's quotations and its existence is inferred from an analysis of the text of Matthew and Luke. Q, otherwise known as the Two Source Hypothesis is accepted by a majority of contemporary scholars and it is also contested.

[Squid]

Q document?  Never heard of it.

It's some of that "who really wrote the bible" type stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

[Gawen]

Hmmmm...no Bible scholars on this board?

[Tank]

Hmmmm...no Bible scholars on this board?

Only you it would appear

[xSilverPhinx]

I think if I remember correctly penfold is one, though he appears rarely. Too Few Lions is too, I think.

[Gawen]

Eh...no matter. Not awfully important anyway.

[fester30]

There may not be a need for a Q document.  The great flood was a story in many societies, passed down with some alterations to the varying communities, but with the moral and theme intact.  Matthew and Luke were written pretty soon after the events of the life of Jesus supposedly took place, so the Q document may have been word of mouth, perhaps from the same person telling them stories.  They both also looked back at the prophesies to fill in the Messiah blanks, such as with the virgin birth, as that was not with the other source document, Mark.  They even moved some details around, such as Jesus being from Nazareth, which perhaps may have been the truth if Jesus existed, but being born in Bethlehem due to a census which did not yet exist in those times, as the prophesies talked of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem.  I think the important thing to remember is that Emma Watson is now legal and hot.  Nothing else really matters now that the new Potter movie is out, right?

[Gawen]

  I think the important thing to remember is that Emma Watson is now legal and hot.  Nothing else really matters now that the new Potter movie is out, right?

I think that pretty much clinches it!

[Crow]

I think the Q document is the RCC equivalent of the golden plates of the latter day saints. It helps ties what happened in Mark to religious mythology that was common and known by the masses and is also why it looks plagiarist against other religions from around the roman empire.

Whether Mathew and John made it up or not is impossible to know with current evidence, personally I would take a guess that they didn't but rather taken from stories told by street preachers or common stories told by people at the time mingling the tails of the old gods to the new gods. There are other forms of Christianity that predate the RCC and have totally different accounts of what happened and who Jesus was (wont be able to give citations at the moment but will find them as soon as I get the chance but there quite easy to find yourself if interested).

[Gawen]

Whether Mathew and John made it up or not

You mean Matt and Luke?

...is impossible to know with current evidence,

This I can agree with.

...personally I would take a guess that they didn't but rather taken from stories told by street preachers or common stories told by people at the time mingling the tails of the old gods to the new gods.

That's not quite what I meant my "making it up". Q theorists think there was some sort of document that Matt and Luke used to 'clean up" Mark. The majority of scholars think there was. But one never knows and your opinion could very well be correct. But in the sense that Matt and/or Luke used word of mouth is what I meant by making it up (or just simply making it up out of thin air, as it were)....as compared to an earlier document that Mark never saw.

There are other forms of Christianity that predate the RCC and have totally different accounts of what happened and who Jesus was (wont be able to give citations at the moment but will find them as soon as I get the chance but there quite easy to find yourself if interested).

There are about 40'ish proto-Christian "gospels". Perhaps the strangest one is the Carpocratian Gospel that would seem to suggest a homosexual fling with Jesus. The current Gospel as we know it says...when Jesus is arrested a young naked man flees (Mark 14:51-52). The Greeks were more inclined to write of romantic involvements between spiritual leaders and young men.