Great video as usual. I've seen several videos on Q and I think you structure your presentation very well. Personally, I think Q probably did exist, in some way, shape or form. I think it's possible that Q was actually several shorter ancient sayings sources. In other words, Q wasn't just one document, but many. I have recently begun studying Mark Goodacre and think he brings up many good arguments against Q. Either way, its fun to think about!
Thank you Spirit Guru! I appreciate your kind words and find your thoughts on Q very interesting. I also think Dr. Mark Goodacre makes some really great points against Q. Indeed, it is fun to think about!
Ok…who knew that explaining The Didache would actually be easier than explaining Q. Thanks for the information. You did a great job explaining VERY complicated concepts relating to the Bible. Thank you for the video.
There is so much to ponder here. I will have to watch it a couple of times. I'm still on the fence regarding the existence of Q; as a historian my bias is toward written sources. But one could spend a lifetime seeking to solve The Synoptic Problem, it goes so deep.
Excellent explanation of Q. I find New Testament study incredibly fascinating. I am a big fan of MythVision, Gnostic Informant, History Valley, Atheologica and Esoterica so I have listened to hours and hours of theories of various religious scholars. Only one thing is for certain, there is always more to learn
What's interesting about the Gospel of Thomas is how many of it's sayings also correspond to the Epistles. The theory that Thomas is actually Q is the one I'm most inclined towards.
The term "synoptic" comes from Johann Jakob Griesbach's work "Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci et Lucae", written in 1776. In the book, he placed the parallel accounts in the three gospels side by side so that they could be read together (synopsis = to view together).
I'm glad that you got to the "Sayings of Jesus" by Thomas. It's a great example for at least one "Q" source. I liked this video and the one on the Didache! Thanks for sharing. My only advice is to drop the "C.E." & "B.C.E." and use A.D. and B.C.
I am and exChristian of 30+ years, now an atheist for the last year and a half, and I think you explained "Q" very well. I've been studying critical Biblical scholarship for the last two years now and I have been skeptical of "Q" until I started to unpack it recently. Scholars usually specialize in one area and it's a lot to study and compare all of them and be a _jack of all trades (master of none)._ I have taken tons of notes because I can't possible remember all the different scholarship on any given subject at one time. Not sure if this is a faith based or non-faith based channel but I just SUBSCRIBED.
Thank you icypirate! Your words are much appreciated! This is not a faith based channel. I focus specifically on the history of religion and religious texts. Thank you for your subscription!
May YESHUA grant you both repentance & mercy & I pray that your faith will be cleansed and rooted in the GOD OF ABRAHAM ISSIAC AND JACOB MY LORD & KING JESUS CHRIST. Amen…Hallelujah
This is all so fascinating! I find it sad though that so many ancient texts were lost, destroyed, 'misplaced' & whatever else. It's also astonishing how much information appears to be missing from orthodox teachings. It's important to be thirsty for knowledge, however the majority of people seem to accept whatever knowledge/texts currently exist. My mind has always been curious!
I'd like to see an analysis of how many parallels exist between Luke and Mathew if we assume that Thomas was Q. I know it doesn't remove all the redundancy but it must weaken the overall argument.
Sorry to be so late in commenting. Could you cite the scholar or scholars who claimed that there was no evidence that sayings sources existed (13:18)? I have seen advocates of the Q hypothesis claiming there were such scholars and that their claim was disproved by the discovery of the Gosepl of Thomas, but I've never seen anyone cite and quote any scholar who made such a claim.
@@ReligiosityPlus Thanks for the reply, but that doesn't answer the question I was asking. I know there are scholars who doubt Q existed. I'm one myself. I was asking about the claim at 13:18 that, prior to the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas (in 1945), there were scholars who argued against Q on the basis that there was no evidence that sayings sources existed. Could you cite the scholar or scholars who made that argument and where they made it? I tend to suspect there were none and that the claim is a straw man circulated by proponents of Q. (It certainly wasn't Goodacre, Fitzgerald, or Carrier who were all born twenty-some years after the discovery of Thomas). I reposted this because I couldn't find my first reply. Apologies if you get duplicate posts.
Hey I have a question, did ever the early church fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyon (especially this guy), Papias of Hierapolis and others talking abt such Q sources? Like if I remember this right Irenaeus of Lyon stated that the mark and Luke got there gospel accounts directly from the apostles such as Peter and Paul could it be the the Q source could be the Founding Fathers? Well it do questions the sequencing, and what abt the Gospel of John which Irenaeus of Lyon says that it was written by John himself.
Yes to some extent we can say it existed but I think brother as they wrote the Gospels after Jesus Christ ascended to heaven. So, like they wrote it the way they remembered and also they were together so obviously they would've talked or shared saying and teachings of Jesus. It can be possible, right?
Matthew travelled with Jesus…did he even need a “Q” source? And I could swear that I heard Michael Heiser say The Gospel of Thomas was 2nd century, long after the 4 Gospels were written. Am I mistaken on that?
While Matthew himself may have, the Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew himself, but was written decades later. As for Thomas, it has a writing date of as early as 60AD. It is, in fact, the only Gospel which may have been written before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The others all mention that destruction, putting their earliest date *after* that destruction, in 70CE.
This is intriguing. I understand the argument in favor of Q, but I feel like certain facts were looked over. For instance, it makes sense that Matthew and Luke would turn to Mark as a reference; but the differences between the three can also be contributed to the authors' contemporaniousness. Matthew was a Disciple and so we can assume much if not most of his writings were from memory. Mark was most likely a teenager during Jesus' ministry, and studied under the Apostles. Luke was a convert to Christianity and traveled with Paul the Apostle, and his Gospel begins with saying that he has recorded the first hand accounts of Jesus' contemporaries, which again makes sense that he would rely on multiple written sources as well as word of mouth. I think these reasons alone are a better explanation of the contradictions in timelines and contexts.
You need to read the book "Cold-Case Christianity" by J. Warner Wallace. He was forensic investigator and atheist who wanted to disprove the Gospels to support his beliefs. But instead, he became a Christian because of the Gospels. If the Gospels were written one exactly like the other, then he would know from his police work if that they collaborated on their separate stories because of being exactly the same. But he realized that the differences stood out like multiple witnesses seeing the same "crime" from different perspectives. Their stories were more reliable because they were each somewhat different.
That may work for a homicide case in a courtroom, but it doesn't work so great when Mathew and Luke can't agree on the actual infancy narrative, or the actual genealogy of Jesus, or why you even need a genealogy if he doesn't have a human father descending from David. When did the crucifixion take place? The synoptic version, or John's? All the details of post- resurrection are clearly different depending on the gospel you read. You call that Holy Scripture?
“More reliable because somewhat different” is not the same as “true”. The various accounts of King Arthur are somewhat different. Are any of them true?
Q-skeptics have what look to me like plausible rebuttals to the claims in this video. The consensus in favor of Q has lost ground lately as a growing minority of scholars are becoming convinced that Luke used both Mark and Matthew to write his gospel (the Farrer hypothesis). The idea that the material common to Matthew and Luke (but absent from Mark) is almost word-for-word identical is just not true. Sure, there are bits here and there where you get a string of words that matches identically, but these are the exceptions to the rule. It’s really easy to see if you sit down with a “synopsis” or “parallel gospel” (e.g. Gospel Parallels by Throckmorton), which lays the same scenes from Matthew, Mark, and Luke side by side. You can open to a random page and likely find a case of Matthew and Luke telling the same story using different words. It’s similar enough to tell that somebody is copying somebody else, but it quickly becomes clear that each author is putting their own spin on the material. It’s embarrassing to Q scholars that they have to guess whether Matthew’s version or Luke’s version is closer to the “real” Q. The supposedly “airtight argument” for why Luke couldn’t have copied Matthew is that they contain the same material but in different sequence. But how is this even an argument at all? Was Luke really so incompetent a storyteller, that he was incapable of making different editorial choices than his sources? Luke tells us twice in his first sentence (!) that he's setting out to write an "orderly account," which suggests he was not content with the order given in his sources. Why would we then be surprised if he changes Matthew's order? Luke appears to be be using Mark as his base for chronology, and then borrowing material from Matthew, but changing the order it’s presented in. Matthew loves giving Jesus long monologues. Luke prefers to keep the action moving, so he takes material from Matthew’s sermon on the mount and interpolates it into contexts where Jesus would have an occasion to say these things. Studying the synoptics side-by-side has made me appreciate the way Matthew improves on Mark, and then Luke improves on both of them. Luke was not an idiot; he was the best writer of the 3. Does all the evidence really point to Q? There are places where Matthew and Luke seamlessly transition from the same bits taken from Mark to the same bits supposedly taken from Q. Did Matthew and Luke both independently happen to combine the same Mark material with the same Q material? If it happened once, maybe, but you see it in The Beelzebul Controversy, On Temptations, Parables of Mustard Seed and Yeast, Parable of the Wicked Tenants, and Greatness in the Kingdom of God. That’s a lot of heavy lifting for coincidence to be doing. But the mystery dissolves if Luke had a copy of Matthew at his disposal. Another reason to question Q is that not all the material common to Matthew and Luke (but missing in Mark) is sayings material. Sometimes Matthew and Luke overlap in the narrative. For example, Luke has a close paraphrase of Matthew 11:2-6: “When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” Does that sound like something that would be in a “sayings of Jesus” document? Doubtful, but it makes perfect sense if Luke is just borrowing a bit of Matthew’s exposition. The discovery of the gospel according to Thomas was proclaimed as a victory by Q theorists, but there’s a problem here. Thomas is just a collection of sayings, presented in seemingly random order, but that’s not what Q is. Not if Q is to explain the overlap between Matthew and Luke! That Matthew-Luke overlap has narrative, and it seems to occur in order. Though Matthew and Luke’s overlap material occurs in different scenes, it still occurs in largely the same sequence. That suggests that Q would need to involve a story-arc-something Thomas does not have. So even taking into account the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, Q-theorists are still postulating a document unlike any we have actually found in the ancient world. There are lots more arguments against Q; check out Mark Goodacre’s book “The Synoptic Problem, a Way Through the Maze.”
If that's average amount Q is used, I bet you upped that average with this video! 😂 Interesting video! I had never heard of the hypothical Q, very interesting way to account for different questions between Matthew and Luke. So, would it be to the assumption that if Q existed that it was also divinely inspired, like the Bible? Also, another fun fact, in German we learned about quelle, but it was often in the context of a water source, like where rivers began. Interesting!
Thank you Whitley! Also, good question. I think Q was just a list of sayings of Jesus, some of which (perhaps even all?) Jesus probably really did say. So I think many Christians would say that Q, or at least the parts of Q that made it into the gospels are inspired scripture!
What do you do with ' Matthew and Luke, Peter and John were EYE WITNESSES' Why would they have to borrow information? The first gospel was dictated by Peter, and John Mark his assistant wrote it down. It should be the gospel of Peter. 😢
The traditional story about the authorship of the Gospels does not hold up to scrutiny. It is highly unlikely that any of the authors were eyewitnesses. None of them claim to be, and the author of Luke makes it clear that he is not an eyewitness. There was a gospel called the Gospel of Peter, and we have a fragment of it, but no one believes it was written by Peter. Early Christians wrote lots of fantasy and forgery.
08:44 "Did Jesus give the Lord's Prayer twice?" Why not? As a math teacher in a school I often repeat what I previously though my students but they, for some reason, forget. I imagine Jesus - The Son of God - to walk around and for three years to repeat the same things again and again until finally the stupid disciples start to grasp the divine ideas. :) So, maybe, He gave The Lord's Prayer not only twice but TWO HUNDRED TIMES in different situations with different variations. It appears that The Holly Spirit considered these two versions enough to preserve them. They are enough similar to figure out what are the main points, and different enough so we can now how to use them in a practical sense without the need to be verbatim.
"L" is the source(s) of Luke that is exclusive to Luke, ie Matthew didn't use. "M" is the source(s) that is exclusive to Matthew, ie Luke didn't use. "Q", which you said you understand, is the source(s) Matthew and Luke shared outside of Mark.
As a former Muslim I wanted to convert to Christianity but I didn't anything can make me more spiritual. I follow Daoisim now. Ebrahimic religions are no more than allegations!!!
Sorry i do not understand how drawing Q material from oral tradition would force the same order. PS Matthew and Luke share more literal long quotes than Mark and Matthew do. So if Matthew copying Mark explains the long quotes shared between Mattew and Mark then the even more shared long quotes show that Luke copied Matthew. So here flies the independence out of the window. Next we apply Luke's adverse reaction to Matthew and we get a good explanation, why Luke does not follow Matthew's fucked up order. (Example the vows over Capernaum etc...)
. And if there was a collection of words and deeds of Jesus that then became the gospels, then how were they collected and who manages the collection of all the Jesus traditions? Peter, James and John were fisherman and most likely did not know how to read and right in those early days. Judas was dead. Matthew was a tax collector, so he knew how to read and write. We are told that Jesus knew how to read since he looked for the place in Isaiah where it said particular things. So most likely so did Jesus' brother James also know how to read and write. But the apostles already knew what they heard and saw and were about the business of preaching it. So they may not have had the motivation to gather sayings with any urgency. So who was so motivated to learn as much as he could from the apostles and write it down? I think it was James who went about asking the apostles and writing down the depositions and asking for confirmation from other apostles. For James, Jesus' brother, was not with the 12 during his ministry. But we saw the risen Jesus as it says in 1 Cor 15:7. So no doubt that James was seriously motivated to learn as much as he could about his brother, Jesus. The apostles would have recognized that James had a legitimate right to know what he missed. So he would interview the apostles, and as a Jew, James was requires to establish everything with two or three witnesses. It would have most easy to remember the miracles; the surprise of those miracles would have made those events memorable. They would have remembered the context. But the sayings would have been harder to remember the context. Other apostles would remember Jesus saying something like that, but they would not as easily remember the context. So, I think this is how the Q source came to be. Eventually, the parts of the Q source that were more attested came to be written down as the gospel of Mark. It is the most conservative gospel that everyone confirmed as true. The other parts of Q that were left were sayings that were not as well confirmed and/or lacked context so could not conservatively be included in a narrative like Mark. The other gospel writers include much of this for completeness. So it is a speculation that James wrote down Q. There is some circumstantial evidence of this, however. James eventually became the leader of the Jerusalem church. And no one obtains such a position unless they have shown great determination to gather and maintain and validate the traditions of the Church. Since they did not exist at first, James must have shown this determination by gathering the testimony to begin with. Also, James became known as James the Just, which means James had a zeal for making sure of his facts before making his decisions, a skill he learned by gathering testimonial evidence from the apostles.
Matthew and John had direct memories of what Jesus said and did. Mark had the direct memory of Peter, his mentor. Luke had Paul and the other apostles to learn from. The Church father Papias said Matthew was written first, in Hebrew. Matthew was later translated to Greek. Then Mark was written in Greek. Luke was written before Acts. Important teaching like the Lord's prayer and the Sermon on the Mount I would expect to be taught by Jesus more than once over three and a half years of His ministry. This would allow different apostles to put the same teachings in different contexts. I expect some of the apostles took written notes of Jesus's teachings and repeated them as they preached in the decades afterward. This is what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John referred to as they wrote the four gospels.
The Gospel of Matthew that we have now was clearly composed in Greek. It is not a translation. The traditional story of the writing of the Gospels does not hold up to scrutiny.
I would say Luke wouldn't have really followed Jesus around as he didn't come into the fray until Paul. And Paul never learned directly from Jesus. And Luke was a follower of Paul. And if Luke and Paul had a higher christology that maybe because he had a different agenda/belief about worshipping Jesus as God and not thanking God for sending Yeshua
I would abstain from mixing religious belief from source criticism. God sending Yeshua is religious belief and can't be addressed, and has no place, in the historical treatment of literature, be that of a religious nature or not. Although there's little doubt Luke was pro-Pauline, as I recall he has his own authorial agenda which doesn't quite line up with Paul, as seen by his ironing out the conflict between the Jerusalem "church" and Paul, and, from memory, seeing as though Paul's conversion in Acts varies from Paul's own telling. There's likely something else going on besides being pro Pauline, or not.
@boxerfencer well most of the 12 disciples have been displaced in our nee testament replaced with Paul and his letters judging other churches. Seems like they didn't like what Jesus taught his own apostles
@@kydenj28 I'm not sure I know what you mean. who's they? If you mean the early church, what makes you think the new testament reflects that church? Or that the new testament in a product of that organization? The Gospels are rather late to give a good indication of what the first church really thought, and Paul's work, the earliest documents we have, doesn't clearly stipulate much of the conflict but rather like listening to half a conversation and being forced to infer what's not heard.
@boxerfencer by they I Mean the Roman's who persecuted the manipulated the Christians into accepting pagan doctrine as Christian fact. Like changing the sabbath to Sunday and all the holidays that came along woth their culture. Why do we get to read the letters by Paul but never even get to hear of the gospel of Thomas. Yet thomas would have walked with Jesus and Paul would never even have learned one thing from Jesus. So did Jesus make a mistake choosing the 12 original disciples plus the extra that replaced judas. Just to say nope those guys were wrong and it's Paul that's the guy I really meant to choose?
@@kydenj28 i don't know of any proof that the Romans forced paganism into or onto Christians. Youve got to realize that by the point you're referring to, Christians weren't Jews anymore, and therefore pagan worldview and practices come along for the ride. Why we get to read the letters of Paul? I assume that's because they were conserved by the church because this church we have today, in most of its iterations, is Pauline. What makes you think the author of Thomas worked with Jesus? Did Jesus make a mistake in choosing his disciples? Good question. Depends on what you think was Jesus's objective. My personal take is that Jesus had no intentions to reach gentiles, so no it wasn't a mistake. The mistake came later and was made by Paul, who embarked on a mission never envisioned by the early church, or Jesus.
Because they gotta have it from somewhere given the fact that they were not eye witnesses nor were they the disciples of Jesus Christ. Either they lied and pulled out stories from their own Or they got it from a source.
Very interesting. I am of the opinion that Mark's Gospel was written by Peter, then Matthew with Luke next. Luke is supposed to be a second gegeneration Christian and one of Paul's followers
Actually, the book was dictated to Mark from Paul. Luke was writing his Gospel at the behest of his patron, a wealthy Gentile Christian, Theophilus, and it included interviews of many witnesses. By trade, Luke was a doctor(and possibly an educated slave who had earned his master's trust). The first part of "The Acts of the Apostles", he makes direct comments to Theophilus before he records what was happening after Pentecost, and later, he traveled with Paul who was spreading the Gospel, first with Barnabas, and later with different others.
For me the Marcion Gospel is the Q factor because it is for me as well as many Scholars the First Gospel contained in the First Bible Canon. Paul's writings were the first Christian writings that preceded any of the 4 synoptic Gospels and Maricon being a devout Disciple of both Paul and Peter for me saw Paul's Gospel as the right esoteric Christology as compared to Jame , Peter and John's exoteric Jesus as the Messiah. Christ Jesus in you not among you is the difference and the battle of which Christology is correct is still being argued over today. Is Jesus a physical Messiah or a Spiritual Savior or a combination of both. Each Person must decide for them self concerning that question and that is the blessing of free will. As 2nd Corinthians 13:5 in the bible +say's = Examine yourself's, weather you be in the Faith: prove your own self. Know you not your own self's, how Jesus Christ IS IN YOU.
Awesome video!!! As the other person said, I've seen a good amount of videos about Q, but this one is really easy to follow. Also I find the last argument you brought up for markan priority really interesting as I've never heard it before, I thought you were going for editorial fatigue for a little haha. On the gospel of Thomas part though, does this mean somebof they gospels sayings may go back to the historical Jesus? Also, has anyone posited the gospel of Thomas as being Q?
Thank you so much for the kind words! I really appreciate it. I think some scholars would say that a couple of sayings from the Gospel of Thomas (might) go back to the historical Jesus. Then again, other scholars would strongly disagree. I'm not sure if anyone would posit that the Gospel of Thomas is Q. The Gospel of Thomas has so many sayings that are wildly different from what we find in the gospels that it is almost certainly not Q. Thanks for the questions!
I was awakened between 2:30 and 3:00 on the Sabbath... December 16, 2023...and prompted to write the following... "I'm at the beginning of every end and the end of every beginning, Im the HI between the O's, Im the ONE at the beginning of every 3 and the end of every 8, Im at the beginning of every life and the end of every death, Im the source of all that is, was, and ever will be, Im Q- the link between life and death- the ETERNAL one... The Incarnation is complete!!!" Take it for what you will, but thats whats been revealed to me personally. 🙏💗💗🙏
I love how it's stated that some of the evidence will be speculative, when all of the evidence is based on a document that is ONLY speculated to exist. Do these super smart people even listen to themselves?
It's been a while since I've listened to myself but in this particular case, I think I've got a point. While Q is speculative, the case for Q (or something like Q) is very strong. How else shall we explain the fact that Jesus, an Aramaic speaking Jew living in a lower class oral culture, has been documented as saying something verbatim in Greek by two different people in two entirely different contexts. Does it make more sense that Matthew and Luke both heard two different oral traditions about a saying of Jesus and they both happened to translate it in Greek using the exact same word order (which is almost entirely unheard of). Or does it make more sense that Matthew and Luke got their information from a shared Greek source and simply copied it down in their gospels. If you add in the fact that these verbatim sayings are in different contexts, it becomes a smoking gun. Q clearly existed. This is my conclusion of the evidence and almost every secular bible scholars conclusion as well.
Just because “Q” has never been found, doesn’t mean Q isn’t real. I believe it is real but because it has never been found, it remains hypothetical. It helps explain much of what is found in Matthew and Luke.
The gospel of "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." Thomas
Q is another reason why so-called scholars do not impress me. I find that they often can’t see the forest because of the trees. Bart Ehrman comes to mind.
@@ReligiosityPlus I am a chemist and biologist by education and own an environmental consulting company. I have been learning from and working with scientists and engineers for nearly 46 years. I will call them techie types. In that time, I have seen techie types lie, obfuscate, plagiarize, and ignore contraindications against their positions. This is obviously not an indictment against all techie types, for I have known many who are noble and trustworthy, but the aforementioned reprobates of the previous sentence demonstrate that techie types are right down in the soup bowl (or perhaps cesspool) with the rest of humanity regarding human foibles. The scholars in the non-STEM humanities suffer the same fate. Being mindful of that, examples from personal experience are useful. My freshman elective New Testament History and Literature class was taught by a Ph.D. atheist from Yale Divinity school who taught Q and the Documentary Hypothesis of Wellhausen. I saw no definitive evidence for their theories then and see none now, so my initial experience with a “scholar” left me unimpressed. Moving into STEM, the “scholars” wanted me to believe that humanity is entirely an accident of natural processes, even though their origin of life experiments, such as Miller’s and Urey’s reaction vessel testing of Oparin’s soup pot theory produced only simple amino acids and nothing more complex; to this day, the abiotic origins of life biochemists have produced nothing more than what can be considered simple, spare parts in a junkyard. James Tours at Rice University has done a fabulous job of lifting the skirts of the evoestablishment to show their dirty undies regarding the poverty and paucity of their abiotic origins theories. But I digress. Bart Ehrman misses the forest because of the trees in that he thinks that the mind blowing teachings of Jesus that are in direct opposition to the way the world does things were made up by a bunch of uneducated guys who, by the way, were willing to die for their beliefs without harming anyone else. Moreover, he believes, or so I deduce, that their writings were accepted by people who were hoodwinked, failing to recognize that the people who accepted their writings accepted them because they, too, had been eyewitnesses to Jesus. Michael Heiser (God bless him; I miss him) could not see the forest through the trees and past his own Divine Council teachings (which I largely agree with) regarding his interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8 in that he failed to account for the fact that the DSS were hidden from view for millennia, whereas the MT was in common use by Jews since the Second Temple period. The MT has provenance through the Masoretes, who were priests, as Lea Himmelfarb of Bar-Ilan University aptly demonstrates; the Essenes were not priests, or at least had no official capacity as such. Would God hide the Divine Council meaning of Deuteronomy 32:8 for millennia until the DSS were found, or is it more likely that Deuteronomy 32:8 “children of Israel” is the correct wording and fits the context of Deuteronomy 32? I have written four books on Bible prophecy (wildtimes.us) and discovered through the process that the “scholars” teaching the dominant Hal Lindsay-ish positions - ones I used to hold to - are wrong. I could go on for hours about the “can’t see the forest because of the trees” phenomenon, but this is not the venue for that. I appreciate the scholars for their deep-dive capabilities, but they can go off the rails.
Interesting insights! Thank you for that. Much appreciated! As someone who enjoys reading both Bart Ehrman and Dr. Heiser I found your response interesting.
Q are the comments made which are all sourced from either the written or oral Torah. Being of Jewish faith, Q aka what Jesus said and debated was based on the Torah. That is Q
Yes there is the proof I know because Father God in Heaven Jesus said that my Children lack of my Truth I know this why I was sent to find truth I did soon going to see hear feel the love light of good for humanity
First things first. The Gospels are no historical records but a catechesis for proselytes. From that perspective the question is whether Q is just a summary of Jesus saying or his catechesis is very important distinction. When it is the later, then Q is more realistic. How is that? When we read the real quotes and letter s of Paul we have the oldest witnesses about Jesus. And that is not much. Everything else is speculation. The Gnostic tradition has corrupted the N.T. So the real Paul is not high Christology because that is the Gnostic rubbish and lies, that we also see in the apocryphal gospels. When we have separated the real Paul from the alleged, constructed gnostic Paul, we get a clearer view about Jesus-movement. When we then turn back to Q we see suddenly one document rise on the horizon that everyone has blocked out: The Didache. The Didache is a teaching that forms the basis of the structure in Matthew, and is very clear a teaching used in Judaism in Jesus and Paul. Q is not a saying source but a catechesis in Greek for the proselytes because they only understood Greek. The Gospel of Thomas is not a saying source but also a catechesis, a guide for spiritual life. The argument that the Didache is situated in the late 1th to the first half of the 2th century is not valid argument, because also the gospels are dating back to the same period. Secondly there is proof that the Didache is already from the time of Paul but for the year 70, because the words of the Last supper are not mentioned. The Last supper has in the Didache still the original blessing on bread and wine as used in Judaism. And that is a very strong indication that the Didache is from an very early date.
My understanding is Paul only wrote about 3 things (i.e. virtually nothing) he claimed were direct quotes of Jesus: 1. The eucharist 2. An instruction to pay your preacher (very convenient given Paul was a preacher) 3. An instruction to not get divorced Paul seemed to know essentially nothing about the gospel claims of Jesus' teachings, actions, miracles, etc. Instead he wrote about his own distinct theology. Seeing the gospels and Paul's writings as catechisms makes a lot of sense.
@@canwelook I see y get what I mean. But Paul did not write anything abut the Eucharist, divorce, just maybe prayer practise. These texts that are "quoting' Paul, are texts that are later and not Pauline. In the Didache, the words of what we call now the 'Eucharist' are not present. That is the first proof that this texts is much older than that they state. When this text was found in the library of the patriarchate of Constantinople in the 19th century, they immediately declared the text to be a fraud. Something we now know not to be true. If Paul created a new theology is very questionable. What he did, he did explain the old prophetic tradition and saw that fulfilled in the exalted Christ, who God revealed to him.
The authors of Mark Mathew Luke and John were not the disciples. Yes Mark was written first but scholars can prove Jesus followers did not write the gospels. Look into Richard Carrier. He’s a great scholar
Uh, bro. get a copy of the Five Gospel produced by the Jesus Seminar where participating biblical scholars agreed on what Jesus actually said to be printed in red, in pink what he may have said as found in the biblical, in gray passages attributed him and black words he never spoke.
SATAN, has made sure the word, GOSPEL, is used alot to confuse the gospel according to Christ from the gospel about Christ the gospel being only one gospel gospel, is easy to get wrong, thus not preached to all nations, preventing the eventual return of Christ, WHEN IT DOES. It isn't now. Confusing? The gospel is simple, any other gospel, no matter how true is rocket science, with a need for a savior, and holy spirit thrown in complicated. Mt. 24:14, gospel Thy kingdom come, gospel. Mk.1:14-15. Matthew is the first book,because it should be the first book. The whole new testament could be the book of Matthew.
YOUR SPIRIT IS ALL CONFUSED N WE BOTH KNOW WHAT N WHO IS DOING THAT N DONE THAT. Yes if u had the spirit of truth in u Then u would believe the words of Jesus regardless when they were written down. Dont u know Moses was dead long before the words he said was ever put into a Hebrew Bible or Torah but u know he was real n the Laws of God was given to him so the one greater then Moses has came n preached n teached n his words is written in the same book that moses are and they lived more then 1000 yrs apart but are of the gospel of God but Jesus fulfilled the laws of Moses n moses isnt christ n wont return back to defeat Satan n his demons of evil. Jesus said it shall be many to come saying all kinds of things about him n being false teachers n lies Paul said it will people try to teach other docturines then the true one
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
As a Christian I greatly appreciated this video. Balanced and very educational.
Do you think Matthew mark .luke and John WROTE THE BIBLE OR DID THE PEOPLE WHO DECIDED WHICH WRITINGS WERE GETTING TO STAY MERELY USE THESE NAMES?
Great video as usual. I've seen several videos on Q and I think you structure your presentation very well. Personally, I think Q probably did exist, in some way, shape or form. I think it's possible that Q was actually several shorter ancient sayings sources. In other words, Q wasn't just one document, but many. I have recently begun studying Mark Goodacre and think he brings up many good arguments against Q. Either way, its fun to think about!
Thank you Spirit Guru! I appreciate your kind words and find your thoughts on Q very interesting. I also think Dr. Mark Goodacre makes some really great points against Q. Indeed, it is fun to think about!
Q - means SOURCE.
Ok…who knew that explaining The Didache would actually be easier than explaining Q. Thanks for the information. You did a great job explaining VERY complicated concepts relating to the Bible. Thank you for the video.
Thank you very much Richardglady! Your kind words are much appreciated!
Can't wait for more videos!!
Yaaaaayy!! You're back! I'm so happy, I was just thinking about this channel earlier today. Loved the video! Thanks for making it 🙏
Hey PixelArt01! Good to hear from you again!
qofficial.net/password tick tock, portal incoming aug 18th
Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God. Jesus Christ is King!
Highly appreciated video mainly because it is concise. While also being logical.
Many videos are tediously long and hard to go back and forth.
There is so much to ponder here. I will have to watch it a couple of times. I'm still on the fence regarding the existence of Q; as a historian my bias is toward written sources. But one could spend a lifetime seeking to solve The Synoptic Problem, it goes so deep.
What a great video l. Well done and thank you sir.
Excellent explanation of Q. I find New Testament study incredibly fascinating. I am a big fan of MythVision, Gnostic Informant, History Valley, Atheologica and Esoterica so I have listened to hours and hours of theories of various religious scholars. Only one thing is for certain, there is always more to learn
Thank you Gerald! I am also a big fan of those UA-cam channels you have listed! I totally agree, there is always more to learn!
What's interesting about the Gospel of Thomas is how many of it's sayings also correspond to the Epistles. The theory that Thomas is actually Q is the one I'm most inclined towards.
The term "synoptic" comes from Johann Jakob Griesbach's work "Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci et Lucae", written in 1776. In the book, he placed the parallel accounts in the three gospels side by side so that they could be read together (synopsis = to view together).
As a Muslim I really enjoyed this vid. Great explanation.
I'm glad that you got to the "Sayings of Jesus" by Thomas. It's a great example for at least one "Q" source. I liked this video and the one on the Didache! Thanks for sharing. My only advice is to drop the "C.E." & "B.C.E." and use A.D. and B.C.
I am and exChristian of 30+ years, now an atheist for the last year and a half, and I think you explained "Q" very well. I've been studying critical Biblical scholarship for the last two years now and I have been skeptical of "Q" until I started to unpack it recently. Scholars usually specialize in one area and it's a lot to study and compare all of them and be a _jack of all trades (master of none)._ I have taken tons of notes because I can't possible remember all the different scholarship on any given subject at one time.
Not sure if this is a faith based or non-faith based channel but I just SUBSCRIBED.
Thank you icypirate! Your words are much appreciated! This is not a faith based channel. I focus specifically on the history of religion and religious texts. Thank you for your subscription!
May YESHUA grant you both repentance & mercy & I pray that your faith will be cleansed and rooted in the GOD OF ABRAHAM ISSIAC AND JACOB MY LORD & KING JESUS CHRIST. Amen…Hallelujah
Thanks!
Thank you dougwulf! Much appreciated!
This is all so fascinating! I find it sad though that so many ancient texts were lost, destroyed, 'misplaced' & whatever else. It's also astonishing how much information appears to be missing from orthodox teachings. It's important to be thirsty for knowledge, however the majority of people seem to accept whatever knowledge/texts currently exist. My mind has always been curious!
Oh but they are all coming out now just as God said it would in revelation
Awesome awesome video!!! Well explained and so appreciated good sir! Thank you!
Thank you for your kind words! Much love!
I'd like to see an analysis of how many parallels exist between Luke and Mathew if we assume that Thomas was Q. I know it doesn't remove all the redundancy but it must weaken the overall argument.
It's a great explanation of this staff. Thanks
Fascinating! I love this stuff!
Thank you Pat! I think it's pretty neat to learn about! :)
Sorry to be so late in commenting. Could you cite the scholar or scholars who claimed that there was no evidence that sayings sources existed (13:18)? I have seen advocates of the Q hypothesis claiming there were such scholars and that their claim was disproved by the discovery of the Gosepl of Thomas, but I've never seen anyone cite and quote any scholar who made such a claim.
Sure, the main guy that denies Q would be Mark Goodacre of Duke university. There are others such as David Fitzgerald and Richard Carrier as well.
@@ReligiosityPlus Thanks for the reply, but that doesn't answer the question I was asking. I know there are scholars who doubt Q existed. I'm one myself. I was asking about the claim at 13:18 that, prior to the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas (in 1945), there were scholars who argued against Q on the basis that there was no evidence that sayings sources existed. Could you cite the scholar or scholars who made that argument and where they made it? I tend to suspect there were none and that the claim is a straw man circulated by proponents of Q. (It certainly wasn't Goodacre, Fitzgerald, or Carrier who were all born twenty-some years after the discovery of Thomas).
I reposted this because I couldn't find my first reply. Apologies if you get duplicate posts.
Hey I have a question, did ever the early church fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyon (especially this guy), Papias of Hierapolis and others talking abt such Q sources? Like if I remember this right Irenaeus of Lyon stated that the mark and Luke got there gospel accounts directly from the apostles such as Peter and Paul could it be the the Q source could be the Founding Fathers? Well it do questions the sequencing, and what abt the Gospel of John which Irenaeus of Lyon says that it was written by John himself.
Interesting, thank you!!
Its so Interesting to hear academic christian lessons from a person with AC/DC Tshirt😅
Talking about Jesus Christ while wearing AC/DC is wild
It's a wild world out there! :)
😂
great video mate, very dense on information and we'll structured
Great video!! Thanks!!
Still waiting for the new videos, its been almost 5 months ☹️
Great show Bo- love eco and his whole spiritual perception. Get ready as we move into the golden age , the age of Aquarius ❤️✝️🇺🇸😊🥲🙏🏼
Good your back. Great video and keep them coming.
Thanks Jason! I have more in the works!
Another great video!! Can't wait for the next one :)
Thank you very much Scott! I appreciate your kind words! :)
Love this!
So darn interesting sending love from an agnostic
This was great!
Excellent video 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Yes to some extent we can say it existed but I think brother as they wrote the Gospels after Jesus Christ ascended to heaven.
So, like they wrote it the way they remembered and also they were together so obviously they would've talked or shared saying and teachings of Jesus.
It can be possible, right?
Matthew travelled with Jesus…did he even need a Q source?
The german word „Quelle“ is more connected to the english word „well“ (you can clearly see the word root here) as in „poisoning the well“.
I thought the gospels of Thomas was suggested much later than the other gospels at 140 AD?
It’s been long thought that Thomas MAY go back as far as the late 30s AD
Enjoyed this video
Thank you very much Bubble Bunch!
Matthew travelled with Jesus…did he even need a “Q” source? And I could swear that I heard Michael Heiser say The Gospel of Thomas was 2nd century, long after the 4 Gospels were written. Am I mistaken on that?
While Matthew himself may have, the Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew himself, but was written decades later. As for Thomas, it has a writing date of as early as 60AD. It is, in fact, the only Gospel which may have been written before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The others all mention that destruction, putting their earliest date *after* that destruction, in 70CE.
This is intriguing. I understand the argument in favor of Q, but I feel like certain facts were looked over.
For instance, it makes sense that Matthew and Luke would turn to Mark as a reference; but the differences between the three can also be contributed to the authors' contemporaniousness. Matthew was a Disciple and so we can assume much if not most of his writings were from memory. Mark was most likely a teenager during Jesus' ministry, and studied under the Apostles. Luke was a convert to Christianity and traveled with Paul the Apostle, and his Gospel begins with saying that he has recorded the first hand accounts of Jesus' contemporaries, which again makes sense that he would rely on multiple written sources as well as word of mouth. I think these reasons alone are a better explanation of the contradictions in timelines and contexts.
You need to read the book "Cold-Case Christianity" by J. Warner Wallace. He was forensic investigator and atheist who wanted to disprove the Gospels to support his beliefs. But instead, he became a Christian because of the Gospels. If the Gospels were written one exactly like the other, then he would know from his police work if that they collaborated on their separate stories because of being exactly the same. But he realized that the differences stood out like multiple witnesses seeing the same "crime" from different perspectives. Their stories were more reliable because they were each somewhat different.
That may work for a homicide case in a courtroom, but it doesn't work so great when Mathew and Luke can't agree on the actual infancy narrative, or the actual genealogy of Jesus, or why you even need a genealogy if he doesn't have a human father descending from David. When did the crucifixion take place? The synoptic version, or John's? All the details of post- resurrection are clearly different depending on the gospel you read. You call that Holy Scripture?
“More reliable because somewhat different” is not the same as “true”. The various accounts of King Arthur are somewhat different. Are any of them true?
Q-skeptics have what look to me like plausible rebuttals to the claims in this video. The consensus in favor of Q has lost ground lately as a growing minority of scholars are becoming convinced that Luke used both Mark and Matthew to write his gospel (the Farrer hypothesis).
The idea that the material common to Matthew and Luke (but absent from Mark) is almost word-for-word identical is just not true. Sure, there are bits here and there where you get a string of words that matches identically, but these are the exceptions to the rule. It’s really easy to see if you sit down with a “synopsis” or “parallel gospel” (e.g. Gospel Parallels by Throckmorton), which lays the same scenes from Matthew, Mark, and Luke side by side. You can open to a random page and likely find a case of Matthew and Luke telling the same story using different words. It’s similar enough to tell that somebody is copying somebody else, but it quickly becomes clear that each author is putting their own spin on the material. It’s embarrassing to Q scholars that they have to guess whether Matthew’s version or Luke’s version is closer to the “real” Q.
The supposedly “airtight argument” for why Luke couldn’t have copied Matthew is that they contain the same material but in different sequence. But how is this even an argument at all? Was Luke really so incompetent a storyteller, that he was incapable of making different editorial choices than his sources? Luke tells us twice in his first sentence (!) that he's setting out to write an "orderly account," which suggests he was not content with the order given in his sources. Why would we then be surprised if he changes Matthew's order? Luke appears to be be using Mark as his base for chronology, and then borrowing material from Matthew, but changing the order it’s presented in. Matthew loves giving Jesus long monologues. Luke prefers to keep the action moving, so he takes material from Matthew’s sermon on the mount and interpolates it into contexts where Jesus would have an occasion to say these things. Studying the synoptics side-by-side has made me appreciate the way Matthew improves on Mark, and then Luke improves on both of them. Luke was not an idiot; he was the best writer of the 3.
Does all the evidence really point to Q? There are places where Matthew and Luke seamlessly transition from the same bits taken from Mark to the same bits supposedly taken from Q. Did Matthew and Luke both independently happen to combine the same Mark material with the same Q material? If it happened once, maybe, but you see it in The Beelzebul Controversy, On Temptations, Parables of Mustard Seed and Yeast, Parable of the Wicked Tenants, and Greatness in the Kingdom of God. That’s a lot of heavy lifting for coincidence to be doing. But the mystery dissolves if Luke had a copy of Matthew at his disposal.
Another reason to question Q is that not all the material common to Matthew and Luke (but missing in Mark) is sayings material. Sometimes Matthew and Luke overlap in the narrative. For example, Luke has a close paraphrase of Matthew 11:2-6: “When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” Does that sound like something that would be in a “sayings of Jesus” document? Doubtful, but it makes perfect sense if Luke is just borrowing a bit of Matthew’s exposition.
The discovery of the gospel according to Thomas was proclaimed as a victory by Q theorists, but there’s a problem here. Thomas is just a collection of sayings, presented in seemingly random order, but that’s not what Q is. Not if Q is to explain the overlap between Matthew and Luke! That Matthew-Luke overlap has narrative, and it seems to occur in order. Though Matthew and Luke’s overlap material occurs in different scenes, it still occurs in largely the same sequence. That suggests that Q would need to involve a story-arc-something Thomas does not have. So even taking into account the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, Q-theorists are still postulating a document unlike any we have actually found in the ancient world.
There are lots more arguments against Q; check out Mark Goodacre’s book “The Synoptic Problem, a Way Through the Maze.”
Interesting! Though see my comment of today by mikejurney9102.
1:24 "quelle" is pronounced with a k and v (like "kvelle")
Q gives Picard such a hard time but loves him as a brother really
Appreciate the video 👍
I think I worked it out! Q = eye witnesses+ verbal repetition 🎉
Here is my point of view. What happens when you compare q with the Jesus parts of the Koran? Can we find original Jesus “gospel” here?
If that's average amount Q is used, I bet you upped that average with this video! 😂
Interesting video! I had never heard of the hypothical Q, very interesting way to account for different questions between Matthew and Luke. So, would it be to the assumption that if Q existed that it was also divinely inspired, like the Bible?
Also, another fun fact, in German we learned about quelle, but it was often in the context of a water source, like where rivers began. Interesting!
Thank you Whitley! Also, good question. I think Q was just a list of sayings of Jesus, some of which (perhaps even all?) Jesus probably really did say. So I think many Christians would say that Q, or at least the parts of Q that made it into the gospels are inspired scripture!
@@ReligiosityPlus good points! Anything Jesus actually said obviously has to be divinely inspired! He is the divine!
I always thought that the 4 gospels were written but ocular testimony.
What do you do with ' Matthew and Luke, Peter and John were EYE WITNESSES'
Why would they have to borrow information?
The first gospel was dictated by Peter, and John Mark his assistant wrote it down. It should be the gospel of Peter. 😢
The traditional story about the authorship of the Gospels does not hold up to scrutiny. It is highly unlikely that any of the authors were eyewitnesses. None of them claim to be, and the author of Luke makes it clear that he is not an eyewitness. There was a gospel called the Gospel of Peter, and we have a fragment of it, but no one believes it was written by Peter. Early Christians wrote lots of fantasy and forgery.
08:44 "Did Jesus give the Lord's Prayer twice?"
Why not?
As a math teacher in a school I often repeat what I previously though my students but they, for some reason, forget. I imagine Jesus - The Son of God - to walk around and for three years to repeat the same things again and again until finally the stupid disciples start to grasp the divine ideas. :)
So, maybe, He gave The Lord's Prayer not only twice but TWO HUNDRED TIMES in different situations with different variations. It appears that The Holly Spirit considered these two versions enough to preserve them. They are enough similar to figure out what are the main points, and different enough so we can now how to use them in a practical sense without the need to be verbatim.
Q sounds like a Cliff notes version used to assist earlier believers.
Nice shirt!
I understand the "Q" references but need some additional background on "L" and "M".
"L" is the source(s) of Luke that is exclusive to Luke, ie Matthew didn't use. "M" is the source(s) that is exclusive to Matthew, ie Luke didn't use.
"Q", which you said you understand, is the source(s) Matthew and Luke shared outside of Mark.
There're plains on mountain ranges, not a good choice for an example.
Never take biblical teachings from a man wearing
an AC/DC tshirt.
As a former Muslim I wanted to convert to Christianity but I didn't anything can make me more spiritual.
I follow Daoisim now.
Ebrahimic religions are no more than allegations!!!
Sorry i do not understand how drawing Q material from oral tradition would force the same order.
PS Matthew and Luke share more literal long quotes than Mark and Matthew do. So if Matthew copying Mark explains the long quotes shared between Mattew and Mark then the even more shared long quotes show that Luke copied Matthew.
So here flies the independence out of the window. Next we apply Luke's adverse reaction to Matthew and we get a good explanation, why Luke does not follow Matthew's fucked up order. (Example the vows over Capernaum etc...)
. And if there was a collection of words and deeds of Jesus that then became the gospels, then how were they collected and who manages the collection of all the Jesus traditions? Peter, James and John were fisherman and most likely did not know how to read and right in those early days. Judas was dead. Matthew was a tax collector, so he knew how to read and write. We are told that Jesus knew how to read since he looked for the place in Isaiah where it said particular things. So most likely so did Jesus' brother James also know how to read and write. But the apostles already knew what they heard and saw and were about the business of preaching it. So they may not have had the motivation to gather sayings with any urgency. So who was so motivated to learn as much as he could from the apostles and write it down?
I think it was James who went about asking the apostles and writing down the depositions and asking for confirmation from other apostles. For James, Jesus' brother, was not with the 12 during his ministry. But we saw the risen Jesus as it says in 1 Cor 15:7. So no doubt that James was seriously motivated to learn as much as he could about his brother, Jesus. The apostles would have recognized that James had a legitimate right to know what he missed. So he would interview the apostles, and as a Jew, James was requires to establish everything with two or three witnesses. It would have most easy to remember the miracles; the surprise of those miracles would have made those events memorable. They would have remembered the context. But the sayings would have been harder to remember the context. Other apostles would remember Jesus saying something like that, but they would not as easily remember the context. So, I think this is how the Q source came to be.
Eventually, the parts of the Q source that were more attested came to be written down as the gospel of Mark. It is the most conservative gospel that everyone confirmed as true. The other parts of Q that were left were sayings that were not as well confirmed and/or lacked context so could not conservatively be included in a narrative like Mark. The other gospel writers include much of this for completeness.
So it is a speculation that James wrote down Q. There is some circumstantial evidence of this, however. James eventually became the leader of the Jerusalem church. And no one obtains such a position unless they have shown great determination to gather and maintain and validate the traditions of the Church. Since they did not exist at first, James must have shown this determination by gathering the testimony to begin with. Also, James became known as James the Just, which means James had a zeal for making sure of his facts before making his decisions, a skill he learned by gathering testimonial evidence from the apostles.
Why wouldn’t Jesus teach ‘the Lord’s prayer’ in different settings? Not everyone was in the same place at same time. Same with any of His teachings.
The wonderful scholar the late Fr John Meier accepted the Q hypothesis as most likey, but did not rule out that it was oral tradition.
Matthew and John had direct memories of what Jesus said and did. Mark had the direct memory of Peter, his mentor. Luke had Paul and the other apostles to learn from.
The Church father Papias said Matthew was written first, in Hebrew. Matthew was later translated to Greek. Then Mark was written in Greek. Luke was written before Acts.
Important teaching like the Lord's prayer and the Sermon on the Mount I would expect to be taught by Jesus more than once over three and a half years of His ministry. This would allow different apostles to put the same teachings in different contexts.
I expect some of the apostles took written notes of Jesus's teachings and repeated them as they preached in the decades afterward. This is what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John referred to as they wrote the four gospels.
The Gospel of Matthew that we have now was clearly composed in Greek. It is not a translation. The traditional story of the writing of the Gospels does not hold up to scrutiny.
I would say Luke wouldn't have really followed Jesus around as he didn't come into the fray until Paul. And Paul never learned directly from Jesus. And Luke was a follower of Paul. And if Luke and Paul had a higher christology that maybe because he had a different agenda/belief about worshipping Jesus as God and not thanking God for sending Yeshua
I would abstain from mixing religious belief from source criticism. God sending Yeshua is religious belief and can't be addressed, and has no place, in the historical treatment of literature, be that of a religious nature or not.
Although there's little doubt Luke was pro-Pauline, as I recall he has his own authorial agenda which doesn't quite line up with Paul, as seen by his ironing out the conflict between the Jerusalem "church" and Paul, and, from memory, seeing as though Paul's conversion in Acts varies from Paul's own telling.
There's likely something else going on besides being pro Pauline, or not.
@boxerfencer well most of the 12 disciples have been displaced in our nee testament replaced with Paul and his letters judging other churches. Seems like they didn't like what Jesus taught his own apostles
@@kydenj28 I'm not sure I know what you mean. who's they? If you mean the early church, what makes you think the new testament reflects that church? Or that the new testament in a product of that organization?
The Gospels are rather late to give a good indication of what the first church really thought, and Paul's work, the earliest documents we have, doesn't clearly stipulate much of the conflict but rather like listening to half a conversation and being forced to infer what's not heard.
@boxerfencer by they I Mean the Roman's who persecuted the manipulated the Christians into accepting pagan doctrine as Christian fact. Like changing the sabbath to Sunday and all the holidays that came along woth their culture. Why do we get to read the letters by Paul but never even get to hear of the gospel of Thomas. Yet thomas would have walked with Jesus and Paul would never even have learned one thing from Jesus. So did Jesus make a mistake choosing the 12 original disciples plus the extra that replaced judas. Just to say nope those guys were wrong and it's Paul that's the guy I really meant to choose?
@@kydenj28 i don't know of any proof that the Romans forced paganism into or onto Christians. Youve got to realize that by the point you're referring to, Christians weren't Jews anymore, and therefore pagan worldview and practices come along for the ride.
Why we get to read the letters of Paul? I assume that's because they were conserved by the church because this church we have today, in most of its iterations, is Pauline.
What makes you think the author of Thomas worked with Jesus?
Did Jesus make a mistake in choosing his disciples? Good question. Depends on what you think was Jesus's objective. My personal take is that Jesus had no intentions to reach gentiles, so no it wasn't a mistake. The mistake came later and was made by Paul, who embarked on a mission never envisioned by the early church, or Jesus.
This is so funny to listen to, since my name starts with the letter Q, & also my friends call me Q 😂
How do we know Thomas is Q?
We do not know that Thomas is Q. It's entirely possible that the gospel of Thomas used Q (or something like Q) but Thomas isn't Q.
@Religiosity Plus sorry. I meant how do we know it's not Q.
Why can't they be their own source?
Because they gotta have it from somewhere given the fact that they were not eye witnesses nor were they the disciples of Jesus Christ.
Either they lied and pulled out stories from their own
Or they got it from a source.
Wouldn't it have been written in aramaic?
If its hypothetical its hypothetical, not the proof
Very interesting. I am of the opinion that Mark's Gospel was written by Peter, then Matthew with Luke next. Luke is supposed to be a second gegeneration Christian and one of Paul's followers
Actually, the book was dictated to Mark from Paul. Luke was writing his Gospel at the behest of his patron, a wealthy Gentile Christian, Theophilus, and it included interviews of many witnesses. By trade, Luke was a doctor(and possibly an educated slave who had earned his master's trust). The first part of "The Acts of the Apostles", he makes direct comments to Theophilus before he records what was happening after Pentecost, and later, he traveled with Paul who was spreading the Gospel, first with Barnabas, and later with different others.
@@stevenward3856 What is your evidence please?
You’re back!! Finally - I was just wondering what your channel was up to lol
Well thank you so much Olivia! Great to hear from you! :)
For me the Marcion Gospel is the Q factor because it is for me as well as many Scholars the First Gospel contained in the First Bible Canon. Paul's writings were the first Christian writings that preceded any of the 4 synoptic Gospels and Maricon being a devout Disciple of both Paul and Peter for me saw Paul's Gospel as the right esoteric Christology as compared to Jame , Peter and John's exoteric Jesus as the Messiah. Christ Jesus in you not among you is the difference and the battle of which Christology is correct is still being argued over today. Is Jesus a physical Messiah or a Spiritual Savior or a combination of both. Each Person must decide for them self concerning that question and that is the blessing of free will. As 2nd Corinthians 13:5 in the bible +say's = Examine yourself's, weather you be in the Faith: prove your own self. Know you not your own self's, how Jesus Christ IS IN YOU.
Awesome video!!! As the other person said, I've seen a good amount of videos about Q, but this one is really easy to follow. Also I find the last argument you brought up for markan priority really interesting as I've never heard it before, I thought you were going for editorial fatigue for a little haha. On the gospel of Thomas part though, does this mean somebof they gospels sayings may go back to the historical Jesus? Also, has anyone posited the gospel of Thomas as being Q?
Thank you so much for the kind words! I really appreciate it. I think some scholars would say that a couple of sayings from the Gospel of Thomas (might) go back to the historical Jesus. Then again, other scholars would strongly disagree. I'm not sure if anyone would posit that the Gospel of Thomas is Q. The Gospel of Thomas has so many sayings that are wildly different from what we find in the gospels that it is almost certainly not Q. Thanks for the questions!
So they didn’t write their own gospels ??😳😳😳
14:00 Some scholars think that the Sayings Gospel of Thomas is an annotated version of Q to confirm with more (proto-)gnostic views.
I was awakened between 2:30 and 3:00 on the Sabbath... December 16, 2023...and prompted to write the following...
"I'm at the beginning of every end and the end of every beginning,
Im the HI between the O's,
Im the ONE at the beginning of every 3 and the end of every 8,
Im at the beginning of every life and the end of every death,
Im the source of all that is, was, and ever will be,
Im Q- the link between life and death- the ETERNAL one...
The Incarnation is complete!!!"
Take it for what you will, but thats whats been revealed to me personally. 🙏💗💗🙏
I love how it's stated that some of the evidence will be speculative, when all of the evidence is based on a document that is ONLY speculated to exist. Do these super smart people even listen to themselves?
It's been a while since I've listened to myself but in this particular case, I think I've got a point. While Q is speculative, the case for Q (or something like Q) is very strong. How else shall we explain the fact that Jesus, an Aramaic speaking Jew living in a lower class oral culture, has been documented as saying something verbatim in Greek by two different people in two entirely different contexts. Does it make more sense that Matthew and Luke both heard two different oral traditions about a saying of Jesus and they both happened to translate it in Greek using the exact same word order (which is almost entirely unheard of). Or does it make more sense that Matthew and Luke got their information from a shared Greek source and simply copied it down in their gospels. If you add in the fact that these verbatim sayings are in different contexts, it becomes a smoking gun. Q clearly existed. This is my conclusion of the evidence and almost every secular bible scholars conclusion as well.
If there is no such thing as Q then what is the point
Just because “Q” has never been found, doesn’t mean Q isn’t real. I believe it is real but because it has never been found, it remains hypothetical. It helps explain much of what is found in Matthew and Luke.
The gospel of "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become
a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will
enter the kingdom of heaven." Thomas
Q is another reason why so-called scholars do not impress me. I find that they often can’t see the forest because of the trees. Bart Ehrman comes to mind.
Interesting perspective. Why do you think they miss the forest for the trees?
@@ReligiosityPlus I am a chemist and biologist by education and own an environmental consulting company. I have been learning from and working with scientists and engineers for nearly 46 years. I will call them techie types. In that time, I have seen techie types lie, obfuscate, plagiarize, and ignore contraindications against their positions. This is obviously not an indictment against all techie types, for I have known many who are noble and trustworthy, but the aforementioned reprobates of the previous sentence demonstrate that techie types are right down in the soup bowl (or perhaps cesspool) with the rest of humanity regarding human foibles. The scholars in the non-STEM humanities suffer the same fate. Being mindful of that, examples from personal experience are useful. My freshman elective New Testament History and Literature class was taught by a Ph.D. atheist from Yale Divinity school who taught Q and the Documentary Hypothesis of Wellhausen. I saw no definitive evidence for their theories then and see none now, so my initial experience with a “scholar” left me unimpressed. Moving into STEM, the “scholars” wanted me to believe that humanity is entirely an accident of natural processes, even though their origin of life experiments, such as Miller’s and Urey’s reaction vessel testing of Oparin’s soup pot theory produced only simple amino acids and nothing more complex; to this day, the abiotic origins of life biochemists have produced nothing more than what can be considered simple, spare parts in a junkyard. James Tours at Rice University has done a fabulous job of lifting the skirts of the evoestablishment to show their dirty undies regarding the poverty and paucity of their abiotic origins theories. But I digress. Bart Ehrman misses the forest because of the trees in that he thinks that the mind blowing teachings of Jesus that are in direct opposition to the way the world does things were made up by a bunch of uneducated guys who, by the way, were willing to die for their beliefs without harming anyone else. Moreover, he believes, or so I deduce, that their writings were accepted by people who were hoodwinked, failing to recognize that the people who accepted their writings accepted them because they, too, had been eyewitnesses to Jesus. Michael Heiser (God bless him; I miss him) could not see the forest through the trees and past his own Divine Council teachings (which I largely agree with) regarding his interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8 in that he failed to account for the fact that the DSS were hidden from view for millennia, whereas the MT was in common use by Jews since the Second Temple period. The MT has provenance through the Masoretes, who were priests, as Lea Himmelfarb of Bar-Ilan University aptly demonstrates; the Essenes were not priests, or at least had no official capacity as such. Would God hide the Divine Council meaning of Deuteronomy 32:8 for millennia until the DSS were found, or is it more likely that Deuteronomy 32:8 “children of Israel” is the correct wording and fits the context of Deuteronomy 32? I have written four books on Bible prophecy (wildtimes.us) and discovered through the process that the “scholars” teaching the dominant Hal Lindsay-ish positions - ones I used to hold to - are wrong. I could go on for hours about the “can’t see the forest because of the trees” phenomenon, but this is not the venue for that. I appreciate the scholars for their deep-dive capabilities, but they can go off the rails.
Interesting insights! Thank you for that. Much appreciated! As someone who enjoys reading both Bart Ehrman and Dr. Heiser I found your response interesting.
Im sorry but how can u be talking about a bible with AC/DC shirt?
Crazy world we live in! I happen to love both rock n''roll and the Bible!
Q are the comments made which are all sourced from either the written or oral Torah. Being of Jewish faith, Q aka what Jesus said and debated was based on the Torah. That is Q
Couldn’t the Q source have been a person?
Did ‘Q’ even exist then?
Yes there is the proof I know because Father God in Heaven Jesus said that my Children lack of my Truth I know this why I was sent to find truth I did soon going to see hear feel the love light of good for humanity
First things first.
The Gospels are no historical records but a catechesis for proselytes.
From that perspective the question is whether Q is just a summary of Jesus saying or his catechesis is very important distinction. When it is the later, then Q is more realistic.
How is that? When we read the real quotes and letter s of Paul we have the oldest witnesses about Jesus. And that is not much. Everything else is speculation. The Gnostic tradition has corrupted the N.T. So the real Paul is not high Christology because that is the Gnostic rubbish and lies, that we also see in the apocryphal gospels.
When we have separated the real Paul from the alleged, constructed gnostic Paul, we get a clearer view about Jesus-movement. When we then turn back to Q we see suddenly one document rise on the horizon that everyone has blocked out: The Didache. The Didache is a teaching that forms the basis of the structure in Matthew, and is very clear a teaching used in Judaism in Jesus and Paul. Q is not a saying source but a catechesis in Greek for the proselytes because they only understood Greek. The Gospel of Thomas is not a saying source but also a catechesis, a guide for spiritual life. The argument that the Didache is situated in the late 1th to the first half of the 2th century is not valid argument, because also the gospels are dating back to the same period. Secondly there is proof that the Didache is already from the time of Paul but for the year 70, because the words of the Last supper are not mentioned.
The Last supper has in the Didache still the original blessing on bread and wine as used in Judaism. And that is a very strong indication that the Didache is from an very early date.
My understanding is Paul only wrote about 3 things (i.e. virtually nothing) he claimed were direct quotes of Jesus:
1. The eucharist
2. An instruction to pay your preacher (very convenient given Paul was a preacher)
3. An instruction to not get divorced
Paul seemed to know essentially nothing about the gospel claims of Jesus' teachings, actions, miracles, etc. Instead he wrote about his own distinct theology.
Seeing the gospels and Paul's writings as catechisms makes a lot of sense.
@@canwelook I see y get what I mean. But Paul did not write anything abut the Eucharist, divorce, just maybe prayer practise. These texts that are "quoting' Paul, are texts that are later and not Pauline. In the Didache, the words of what we call now the 'Eucharist' are not present. That is the first proof that this texts is much older than that they state. When this text was found in the library of the patriarchate of Constantinople in the 19th century, they immediately declared the text to be a fraud. Something we now know not to be true. If Paul created a new theology is very questionable. What he did, he did explain the old prophetic tradition and saw that fulfilled in the exalted Christ, who God revealed to him.
👍
Or the more reasonable explanation on why Mathew and Luke’s texts were longer was because they made some stuff up 😂
well, no.
No need for a physical manuscript of Q. All evidence is on internal grounds not external.
In Sunday school we are taught God held their hands and wrote it! 😂😂😂😂They LIED TO US!
Wearing that shirt with the light-bearer lightning bolt is esoteric symbology... not good.
The authors of Mark Mathew Luke and John were not the disciples. Yes Mark was written first but scholars can prove Jesus followers did not write the gospels. Look into Richard Carrier. He’s a great scholar
Oh yeah there was a famous book called Josephus take that book and put it next to your old testament and it basically
Have you ever read the Quran?
Q is probably coming out of Hellenistic wisdom traditions.
🤔Q... 🤨👉Question?🤔🤨👉Quote?🤔🤨👉Quick!🤗right to the Core!🤔Choir?
🤗Choir!😊👉a Choir!🤔acquire?👈😉👉ac...Quire!👈😇👍acquired!!!😆🤣🙃😉
Jesus preached for over 3 years and yet we only have a hand full of words he said. YES he most likely repeated a lot of what he said
Uh, bro. get a copy of the Five Gospel produced by the Jesus Seminar where participating biblical scholars agreed on what Jesus actually said to be printed in red, in pink what he may have said
as found in the biblical, in gray passages attributed him and black words he never spoke.
@@conradbulos6164 Just because scholars said it, that means NOTHING! That isn't even the point. I'm talking repeating himself over and over.
SATAN, has made sure the word, GOSPEL, is used alot to confuse the gospel according to Christ from the gospel about Christ the gospel being only one gospel gospel, is easy to get wrong, thus not preached to all nations, preventing the eventual return of Christ, WHEN IT DOES. It isn't now.
Confusing?
The gospel is simple, any other gospel, no matter how true is rocket science, with a need for a savior, and holy spirit thrown in complicated.
Mt. 24:14, gospel
Thy kingdom come, gospel.
Mk.1:14-15.
Matthew is the first book,because it should be the first book. The whole new testament could be the book of Matthew.
It’s in the Vatican
❤yyes
YOUR SPIRIT IS ALL CONFUSED N WE BOTH KNOW WHAT N WHO IS DOING THAT N DONE THAT. Yes if u had the spirit of truth in u Then u would believe the words of Jesus regardless when they were written down. Dont u know Moses was dead long before the words he said was ever put into a Hebrew Bible or Torah but u know he was real n the Laws of God was given to him so the one greater then Moses has came n preached n teached n his words is written in the same book that moses are and they lived more then 1000 yrs apart but are of the gospel of God but Jesus fulfilled the laws of Moses n moses isnt christ n wont return back to defeat Satan n his demons of evil. Jesus said it shall be many to come saying all kinds of things about him n being false teachers n lies Paul said it will people try to teach other docturines then the true one
You are a bible scholar