What is the "Q Gospel"? 

This scholar is so easy to listen to because he has a great speaking voice, does not get rattled, and is open about where or how he arrives at his conclusions. A pleasure to watch and hear the two of you talking. Great historical perspective.

Basically skeptics put the NT gospels thru a trial that they do to no other ancient document. Somehow two biographies written by two different people are expected to be identical...it's like they have 0 clue how eyewitness testimony works or how people tell stories. The funny thing is if Luke and Matthew were alot more similar, they would accuse one of copying the other.

I have heard the theory that the Q Source didn't even exist as an actual document, which would mean that the Q Source was just the existing mass of oral stories among Christians at the time--those stories that everyone would have known because they heard it a million times.

The first time I heard about Q was in high school. My NT teacher essentially called it hogwash and showed materials that even suggested Mark was the last of the synoptic gospels written. I personally don't really care.

Leave Q to James Bond movies and Star Trek…

It's the original Q Anon

The problem with typical discussions about the synoptic problem is that we fail to recognize that there was a lot of oral teaching before the Gospels were written and that there was constant communication between the churches of the first century. As such, we cannot determine order or dependency with any certainty.

This … this … this is not the same “Q” I initially thought it was.

Something that I have heard is that Matthew was universally recognised as primary, with Mark, then Luke, and eventually John taking their cues from what went before to provide the context within which to emphasise what they found would be meaningful for their audience. Late to the scene, a German scholar published a work positing Marcan primacy, which was universally excoriated, and the author banished into academic oblivion. Shortly thereafter, the Kaiser sought means to express independence from Rome over Catholic education in Germany. The Kaiser interfered in higher education, taking the unprecedented steps both of firing the orthodox university dean and replacing him with the discredited academic. The Kaiser's motive was to undermine Matthew's gospel, which alone recorded Jesus' giving the keys to Peter. German scholars got the message loud and clear: support Marcan primacy or face oblivion at the hands of the Kaiser. Thereafter, German scholars started publishing works attacking Matthean primacy and defending Marcan primacy. From there, the perspective gradually found broader acceptance. The genesis of Marcan primacy is then both late and motivated, not simply from considerations unrelated to relevant questions but from political machinations and careerist self-interest.

“The gospel is that I am so sinful that Jesus had to die for me, yet so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me. This leads to deep humility and deep confidence at the same time. I can’t feel superior to anyone, and yet I have nothing to prove to anyone.” - Tim Keller

I thought the Q gospel was a conspiracy theory 😆

The main source for the synoptic Gospels is Peter. Q is not a document but a person and it’s Peter.

"Q" is one of those hypotheses with plausible deniability built in; clearly its main purpose is to cast aspersions on the veracity of Scripture as Revelation. "We don't have a reliable testimony in the Gospels because the _real_ firsthand accounts are found in 'Q' and we don't have that, so..." etc. It's an unfalsifiable "claim" (really just an inference left as an exercise for the reader). "Except it's technically not, because we might find "Q" one day, so let's act like it might exist..." which inevitably degrades into "Let's act like it does exist" in practice.

The Case Against Q is a New York Times best seller in the making if it’s marketed just a little differently

The ultimate thing is that that secular scholars are so convinced by the things the writers say because they’re all so similar yet different that they’re looking for some sort of document to disprove the gospel

Q was an Exisyentialist Scripture-Scholar who was born and died during the Psychedelic Seventies. He edited the entire Bible!

90% of the known world around the time of Jesus were illiterate writing material and books were very expensive and were for the rich alone so people learned orally so books and letters weren’t readily available and you treasured them and didn’t pass them around because they may be damaged or lost etc you kept them hidden under lock key. The fact that the New Testament is so accurate is down to the oral tradition and the Holy Spirit guiding the church. Also there were over 90 gospels and the church had to decide what was scripture and what was not.

Luke explain it as follows: Luke 1:1 [1]Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Luke 1:2 [2]Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; Luke 1:3 [3]It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, Luke 1:4 [4]That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (KJV)

It’s difficult to find charitable intentions for creating the hypothesis for Q. I’m guessing that it is the result of people who did not read the Church Fathers. Frankly, if we ever found another gospel, we would definitely dig into it, because Christians are not afraid of the truth. That being said, it is a fair argument to make that if God is indeed guiding the church, then He would have provided us this fifth gospel if it was essential. Clearly, it is not, and it is very doubtful it exists at all.

Matthew and Luke both new the Blessed Mother, who in Luke's Gospel is mentioned as "...and she treasured these things in her heart"...was the Blessed Mother the "Q" source for Matthew and Luke?

No idea if it’s intentional anymore but what a ridiculous title. Nothing at all to do with what the guy, who was very fair in his presentation (I say as someone interested in this from a secular perspective), actually said.

Learned about Q document from a Catholic college, Loras.

Man, I thought he was going to talk about a much different Q... I need some sleep.

This guy's not wrong in what he says, but defending against this kind of attack is actually much easier than that. There is a statistical proof that Mark wasn't written first, with odds of the data arising by chance of less than 3 in 100 million. Basically, Mark wasn't written first. All the people who believe in Q acknowledge that the only reason to think Q exists at all is that they think Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke didn't use each other, and you have to explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke somehow. But Mark wasn't written first. So there is no good reason to think Q even exists. The whole Mark + Q theory falls apart like a house of cards.

The Church has rejected the "Q" hypothesis, as well as the idea that Matthew either wrote after Mark or that his work was not the full Gospel of Matthew as we have it today: June 19, 1911 (AAS 3 [1911] 294ff; EB 401ff; Dz 2148 ff) II: Should the verdict of tradition be considered to give adequate support to the statement that Matthew wrote before the other Evangelists and wrote the first Gospel in the native language then used by the Jews of Palestine for whom the work was intended? Answer: In the affirmative to both parts. IV: Can even probable arguments be given in support of that opinion of certain recent writers according to which Matthew did not write a Gospel properly and strictly so-called, such as has been handed down to us, but merely a collection of the sayings or discourses of Christ which were drawn on by another anonymous author, whom they make the editor of the Gospel itself? Answer: In the negative. June 26, 1912 (AAS 4 [1912] 465; EB 117f; Dz 2164ff) II: Ought those to be considered faithful to the above prescriptions, who without the support of any traditional evidence or historical argument readily embrace what is commonly called the two-document hypothesis', the purpose of which is to explain the composition of the Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke chiefly by their dependence on the Gospel of Mark and a so-called collection of the discourses of our Lord; and are they consequently free to advocate it? Answer: In the negative to both parts.

Considering what I know about oral tradition, it feels so much more likely that the "sayings Gospel" was just an oral tradition of the sayings of Jesus, which were transmitted to paper at a later date. This is what happened with the Ramayana and the Quran, a common practice among ancient peoples.

Even if it did exist, it wasn't willed by the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church to be known or included in Scripture, respectively.

Majority of comments seem to be Christian’s who still have a Sunday school understanding of how the NT was written. The truth is, the vast majority of Christian NT scholars subscribe to the Q theory. It’s the best way to make sense of why Luke and Matthew share so much material that is often times word for word which doesn’t happen unless there is copying occurring. Either Matthew and Luke copied from the same source (Q) or Luke was copying Matthew which is what Goodacre proposes.

This is a weird criteria, so if Mathew and luke had EVERYTHING that mark had in his Gospel then what🤨🤷🏻‍♂️all of a sudden the Q document doesn’t exist??? How come just because there is additional information found in mathew and luke we shouldn’t just do the rational thing and assume it cane from them, they’re own experience and adding in detail that they had knowledge of because they experienced it…. This sugestion more easily explains the reason for more information about the events that we find in mathew and luke.

Abcdefghijklmnop rstuvwxyz Where's Q? Answer: watch the video clip.

thanks. I'm always learning/

Q is the guy giving Bond his funny toys.

That's a really unfortunate first impression given that Q Anon is a thing people believe in who are also in christian faith.

The common source is reality

A little misleading. "Quelle" should not be confused with an anonymous internet entity .

Q =The injeel that god gave to jesus christ Jesus christ is the only one who know this book .

What about the theory that Mark is based on an oral tradition that began right after Pentecost and then Matthew and Luke used that same oral tradition as well.

I guess so many of us as kids always pictured God dictating & narrating the gospels to the biblical authors.

It's such a dumb theory. One reason i say so is Matthew is a remarkably good witness to conversations with other Jews at the time, such as the Pharisees. He's such a good witness that he creates credibility for themes alleged by rabbinic documents dating 200 AD and later to have been discussed by figures who preceded/overlapped the life of Jesus like Shammai, Hillel etc--about whom no 1st century documents exist at all. If you study the matter you find Matthew comes across as someone who heard such conversations. Even though he's not super interested in what Pharisees think but he seems to accurately report. Matthew's account of what Jesus really said and did is actually really credible. And just as you'd expect, Mark doesn't come across nearly as much to be a firsthand witness.

Why hasn’t this been mentioned all along, all we know is Holy Spirit’s inspiration and eye witness account.

The gospel according to Qanon.

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:45 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

We can't believe the Gospels were divinely inspired because there's no proof, so we should believe that they came from some other source, for which there is no proof. That makes perfect sense! 🙄

Q predicted this.

Honestly Q needs to srar in Star trek lore only. Humor people, not like we dont need to lighten UP

What about John’s Gospel?

Drafts of Finnegan's Wake were known to have circulated among the close knit circle of James Joyce's friends for *years* prior to its eventual publication in 1939. Was there a Q-Finnegan-Begin-Again text? As a text, is there anything new, strange, peculiar about the origin of the several gospels *as texts* that any textual scholar would not recognize as being within the range of normal for the eventual acceptance of *any* text as original? Not to be a complete troll, but what do you imagine Tolkien scholars of the future will be publishing two thousand years from now about the origins of the original texts of the Lord of the Rings? Look, with every passing year fewer and fewer people believe that Neil Armstrong actually set foot on the Moon on July 16 1969, one of the most carefully documented events in human history - from another celestial body. Yes, there is a lot of rubbish around, but there are also a lot of things that were true, are true, and will remain true - because they were always true.

Q=cardiac output times stroke volume

So, who wrote Q?

Q = Mary and the apostles

Am I the only one with no audio?

I’m now more confused now, than before I watched this video. 🫤