Hi all,
I’m wondering what people make of the Q document and why a number of Greenies I speak to think it disproves the reliability of the bible?

Hi Dave,

why not buy a copy of our Christ Files DVD…

Its explains why Q enhances the reliability of the NT testimony.

To me the first question to ask is whether or not such a document exists.

I’m not sure where people get off dreaming up a theory that, if it’s true, disproves something.

Because if it turns out not to be true, it disproves nothing.

If there’s not too many negatives there to make sense.

Q isn’t (necessarily) a document… its a source of information… it could be just saying that Luke and Matthew spoke to the same eye witnesses.

Basically your mates are clutching at straws not to engage with the Scriptures. They don’t really don’t understand historical analysis.

ie historians have noticed that Luke and Matthew share the same material but didn’t copy each other… so its a theory to explain that fact.

Check out the video of Prof Bauckham on the Christ files site

And if it’s not even a document, it makes even less sense. What are they saying? That because a report is based on sources outside the report, it’s not true?

Does anyone think the idea of ‘Q’ sounds a bit too neat and tidy, especially considering how many sources there could have been?

I guess I meant to also ask how big the “Q document” theory is in modern biblical scholarship? Or is it mainly big in liberal circles? The wiki seems to imply it’s big.

Dave Lankshear - 05 March 2008 01:34 PM

I guess I meant to also ask how big the “Q document” theory is in modern biblical scholarship? Or is it mainly big in liberal circles? The wiki seems to imply it’s big.

Here’s an example of John Dickson taking the Q source seriously.

I remember one of the funniest moments for me at Moore college was reading that ‘Q is undoubtedly the most important document we have for early Christianity.’ But it’s a document we don’t have! I laughed till I stopped.

Gordon Cheng - 05 March 2008 12:56 PM

To me the first question to ask is whether or not such a document exists.

I’m not sure where people get off dreaming up a theory that, if it’s true, disproves something.

Because if it turns out not to be true, it disproves nothing.

If there’s not too many negatives there to make sense.

I notice this piece is written in classic Gordonian, but can’t help but wonder if the language employed is reminiscent of other pieces on this website. Maybe they come from the same source? I propose that this and other similar pieces encountered have been influenced by a biblical source document we shall call Q456.

I was thinking C3PO.

hi de hi,
The whole ‘Q’ thing is great fun, I just love the way it is talked about with such assurance in some circles.  A related and similar issue is of course the Old Testament JDPE theory.  The Bible and how we got it is an interesting study, but when it comes to actually study of the Bible it is the text as we have it we should spend more time on.
regards,
Jon R

I might do a sermon series on Q.  ;-)

why a number of Greenies I speak to think it disproves the reliability of the bible?

What is their argument? What do they actually say?

Craig Schwarze - 05 March 2008 07:42 PM

why a number of Greenies I speak to think it disproves the reliability of the bible?

What is their argument? What do they actually say?

The Greenies like Q because it didn’t use any paper in it’s manufacture, whereas all the gospels have left paper remnants scattered across the ancient world - very environmentally unfriendly.

Oh, but they used renewable papyrus swamps! Didn’t you know?

I learned about Q when I did New testament II studies and found the arguement convincing but hardly a challenge. That the Gospels as we know them arrived some time later is accepted. That a common source for the Synoptic Gospels seems to be the most likely source also seems apparent. This challenges authenticity how?
I would have thought the existence of Q indicated a standing record of Jesus between those times and also indicated that the church remained true.

Why Greenies?
I mean I know quite a few who are not at all anti Christian, some who are Christian and a few who are anti.... hmmm sounds like the rest of the world