← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Zoroaster
Thread ID: 8512 | Posts: 26 | Started: 2003-07-27
2003-07-27 16:06 | User Profile
[url=http://www.dunedinmethodist.org.nz/bibl/q4df.htm]http://www.dunedinmethodist.org.nz/bibl/q4df.htm[/url]
Q for something different Luke and Matthew
The quadrupling of versions - in the official Christian scriptures - of the career of Jesus of Nazareth, is an open invitation to us to do some thinking for ourselves. The four Gospels are obviously not independent eye-witness accounts, and the way they relate to one another tells us a lot about how their authors' minds worked. The standard scholarly explanation for the connections amongst the first three Gospels is the two source theory. Mark, it is very commonly believed - on good evidence - was written first (towards 70 C.E.). Matthew and Luke copied from Mark a generation later. They also worked with another written source, 'Q' (for want of a better label) which no longer survives as a separate document. 'Q' was in Greek, at least in the editions that Matthew and Luke got hold of.
We can make a good stab at reconstructing 'Q' on the basis of the non-Markan material common to Matthew and Luke, with a few other bits and pieces which seem to belong in the same company. A most interesting document emerges. It has an integrity and completeness of its own - which is some sort of vindication of the whole theory.
'Q' begins with a sample of John the Baptist's stern preaching, and moves on to the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. There is one miracle story - the healing of the centurion's slave, included probably because of the important saying it contains. 'Q' is in large measure a compilation of sayings of Jesus, organized into discourses - the material of the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, for instance, and including some parables.
A document like this has been put together to meet the needs of some particular community, and it is reasonable to suppose that the selection of material and the way it is presented will tell us something about them. We get the impression of a sectarian group located, geographically, close to the Sea of Galilee. It is 'sectarian' in the sense of reacting against the dominant religious pattern and its advocates, in the name of a purer form. 'Q' is scathing about Pharisees and Scribes. There is instruction calculated to preserve the unity of the group, under pressure. There is detailed guidance for carrying through the 'mission'. It seems that the mission didn't have much success, to judge by their bitter reaction. The 'Q' people know what poverty means. Practical necessities of food and clothing certainly do matter, yet they are challenged to rise above these concerns to trust in God. They look forward to the coming of the 'Son of Man' of Daniel 7, through whom God's reign of righteousness will be established.
It's not too fanciful to suppose that we have in 'Q' a kind of missing link between later Christianity and the actual career of Jesus of Nazareth. It is understandable that most of the sayings material that seems most surely original to Jesus comes to us in this strand of tradition. Scholars date 'Q' in the fifties, which is early, compared with almost anything else we have.
Of the greatest interest is what 'Q' leaves out. There are no nativity stories. Disciples are not mentioned by name. Jesus is not described as 'Messiah' - that stream of Jewish expectation is not picked up. Nor is he closely identified with the coming 'Son of Man'. He is the messenger of divine Wisdom, and that is sufficient dignity and authority.
The execution of Jesus is not recounted, and there is no hint that his death has saving significance. Jesus dies just as you expect prophets to die at the hands of the establishment. 'Q' offers none of the sacrifical theology which became pervasive in early Christianity. At an earlier time it was strongly argued against the existence of 'Q' that there would never have been a 'gospel' that lacked this theological dimension. The 1945 discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, a well-developed first-century pure-sayings gospel, rendered that argument null and void.
If atonement thinking did not feature in the Jesus movement, we may wonder where it came from. It certainly arose early, because it was part of the orthodoxy Paul inherited. There is a tantalizing gap of a generation between the death of Jesus and the beginning of written reflection on his career. Though we don't have the record of it happening, we may guess that somewhere an educated scribal group, recognizing Jesus as in truth a word from God, tried to think through the significance of that insight in terms of their Jewish faith tradition. What they came up with was the conviction that the death of Jesus was the final achievement of what the Jewish temple system had always been concerned with. It was a radical sacrifice for sin that had universal implication. This caught on. It suggested the way for an integration of the old and the new. The gift in Jesus was the decisive stage in God's ages-long salvation-work for humankind.
We now know that there was variety in earliest Christian thinking. Paths diverged. But dissenters on this theological issue achieved only a hidden representation in the Christian scriptures - through 'Q'. The winners of the inter-Christian competition for the right to call the theological shots (as ultimately judged by the Emperor Constantine) gained, as part of the prize, the chance to decide which scriptures would become 'official'.
We cannot reasonably claim that early theological developments were misguided. But we are entitled to ask whether particular ancient rationalizations remain appropriate to our own circumstances. The variety of focus for different Christian groups at the beginning, alongside the perception that Jesus himself did not offer any kind of 'Christian theology', invites us to seek insight into the Jesus-event that speaks to the challenges of our own time.
Note: There is an excellent presentation of a reconstruction of the 'Q' document in The Complete Gospels - Annotated Scholars Version Robert J. Miller editor HarperSanFrancisco 1994 Evan Lewis
=================================================== The dogmatic Christian who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds sickness.
The inquiring mind, on the other hand:
"Questions with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
THOMAS JEFFERSON, LETTER TO PETER CARR, AUG. 10,1787
2003-07-28 06:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Zoroaster@Jul 27 2003, 11:06 * *The dogmatic Christian who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds sickness.
The inquiring mind, on the other hand:
"Questions with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
THOMAS JEFFERSON, LETTER TO PETER CARR, AUG. 10,1787**
One is baffled by your apparent belief that professed Christians have never questioned 'even the existence of God'. Putting individuals inside labelled boxes is a marked sign of a mind that is most definitely not inquiring.
2003-08-06 19:39 | User Profile
Tex, I put the qualifying adjective "dogmatic" befroe Christian. If you dislike free thinkers posting on your forum, I will post elsewhere. Perhaps you perfer Christian Idenitity fanatics to those of us who dare question the divinity of Yahweh.
-Z-
2003-08-07 01:31 | User Profile
You might be interested in an article from the Atlantic Monthly, [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96dec/jesus/jesus.htm]The Search for a No-Frills Jesus[/url]. It discusses the attempts to reconstruct Q and the conclusions some scholars have drawn from it about the historical Jesus and his following.
[url=http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Church_History/Early_Christian_Writings/Q/]Page with links to articles about Q.[/url]
There is disagreement whether Q is earlier or later than Mark, or whether Q existed at all.
Edit: Link fixed
2003-08-07 02:00 | User Profile
And [url=http://www.adam2.org/articles/bookshelf.html]here[/url] is a dissenting view. > **For years, the media have told a story that lends itself to tabloid headlines: Secret Books of the Bible Found! Church Suppresses Real Gospel! Historical Jesus Never Said Those Things! The news is that naive Christian belief in the Gospels has been exploded by the careful investigations of a new generation of biblical scholars. It makes for great copy in the newsweeklies and on PBS.
In "Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way," (Oxford, 260 pages, $25) Philip Jenkins examines the motives and methodologies of these radical scholars. He finds that their agenda is hardly scientific or objective. They are on a mission. They want to prove that orthodox Christianity is an artifact of early church politics and has nothing to do with what Jesus actually said or did.
Their weapon is the arcane apparatus of textual dating and interpretation. If they can make their case, the whole edifice of Christianity ââ¬â creeds, liturgies, hierarchies ââ¬â comes tumbling down, and we are left with an itinerant first-century sage whose views (to get to the crux of the matter) about, say, sexual behavior would not disturb anyone on "Temptation Island."**
2003-08-07 02:06 | User Profile
Thanks Stanley,
When I have time, I'll look at the links. It would be great to discuss something besides CI.
-Z-
2003-08-07 08:07 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Zoroaster@Aug 6 2003, 14:39 * ** Tex, I put the qualifying adjective "dogmatic" befroe Christian. If you dislike free thinkers posting on your forum, I will post elsewhere. Perhaps you perfer Christian Idenitity fanatics to those of us who dare question the divinity of Yahweh. **
Z, did you even read my post?
I thought I was clear in expressing bewilderment as to why you apparently believe that Christians cannot be or ever have been 'free thinkers', and therefore should not put them in a box. As a matter of fact, I encourage free thinking because I believe that honest effort in that task will lead to Christian faith for the individual inquirer.
I do not truck with the CI people, so that doesn't really wash here.
2003-08-07 13:19 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Zoroaster@Jul 27 2003, 12:06 * ** The dogmatic Christian who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds sickness.
**
It would be interesting to know if you are making this statement as a concerned, professing Christian or as an informed but outside observer.
The article on "Q" is interesting, but the source is to my mind somewhat questionable. Speaking as a Methodist, the Dunedin parish as it represents itself on the webpage could be considered to be in a state of apostasy (which, admittedly, so could much of the Methodist denomination in the U.S.) That said, other articles, publications and links presented by this parish cast some doubt on the usefulness of this branch of "free thinking". I refer specifically to the parish publication "Matike", a "magazine for gay and lesbian Christians, and those who journey with them." Other questionable articles, such as this: [url=http://www.dunedinmethodist.org.nz/mind/ists.htm]http://www.dunedinmethodist.org.nz/mind/ists.htm[/url]
-fit into the same mold.
I find great value in examining one's own faith, but sources such as this one are just as dogmatic as the most fanatical CI adherent. To be a "free-thinker" hopefully doesn't mean accepting alternative views without a healthy dose of skepticism.
I think that the construction of "Q" relies on a great deal of conjecture, and is driven by an ideology at odds with traditional values held by most Christians. But it is an interesting topic, and provides a revealing look at the lengths some critics will go to make Christ conform to their own lifestyle.
2003-08-07 13:47 | User Profile
I do not truck with the CI people, so that doesn't really wash here.
Glad to hear that, Tex. It appears taking away their keyboards would be the only way to silence these fools.
I suppose, Weisbrot, you could call me a Gnostic Christian. I don't object to free-thinking Christians at all, though, like you, I tend to stay on the conservative side as far as moral behavior goes.
Every religion is true in one wat or another. But much of religion must be understood metaphorically, in the spirit of the times in which it was written. When religion gets stalled in time and stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then people are in trouble.
-Z-
2003-08-07 14:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by Zoroaster@Aug 7 2003, 08:47 * *Every religion is true in one wat or another.ÃÂ But much of religion must be understood metaphorically, in the spirit of the times in which it was written.ÃÂ When religion gets stalled in time and stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then people are in trouble. **
You sound like Joseph Campbell or Shirley MacLaine, Z. :)
True Christianity does not countenance such relativism. It may be fine for Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Paganism, Dualism and various other lesser belief systems to ecumenically believe every one to be true in some sense or another, but not Christianity.
Nay, Christ proclaimed himself the only way. We can squiggle and squirm, but ultimately there's just no getting around that claim of exclusivity by the God-Man.
2003-08-07 15:06 | User Profile
More like Joseph Campbell, Tex. Your kind of rigid thinking, Tex, imperils America.
-Z-
2003-08-07 15:28 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Zoroaster@Aug 7 2003, 10:06 * ** Your kind of rigid thinking, Tex, imperils America. **
Not my thinking, Z, but Christ's own words. One is of course free to accept or reject His claim. All I ask is that we not water it down or make it into something it most definitely is not. Let the chips fall where they may.
And 'my kind of thinking' built America and all of Western Civilization. It is relativism that is imperiling it, not the other way 'round.
2003-08-07 16:17 | User Profile
I am not a Bible person, Tex, so when it comes to Christ's own words, I must give you the edge. Truth, not "Relativism," is what I seek, and the Q question seems like a good place to start. What Christ actually said, if we are to get at the truth, must be seperated from the dogma that followed his message. Since I wasn't there, I don't know whether there was an actual "flesh and blood," historical Christ, but I believe there is a living Christ, such as Paul encountered on the Road to Damascus.
AntiYuppie wrote an article about a year back about how traditional Christianity served Western Civilization well until roughtly 1800, when first the Darby nonsense, then the Zionist movement corrupted it. I can't find the article, if you or AntiYuppie could, it would also be a good starting point. What mainly concerns me about Christianity is that we are entering, or perhaps are already well into, the Age of the Antichrist, i.e, the Judeo-Christian era, which threatens to destroy Western Civilization, at least as we know it. At some point in time, probably after the fall, the entire question of Christianity and Bible must be re-examined, that is, if our kind are to survive.
-Z-
2003-08-08 07:06 | User Profile
So much flowery prose, wintermute, which I do aesthetically admire, yet still leaves my soul dry and thirsty for a higher understanding. Once again we are left with Christianity standing alone and unique in its incongruence with the world. To the disbeliever, Christianity will not be given quarter no matter how it is manifested. When meek, it suffers the full blame of Western man's fall. When strong, its enemies whine and cry about intolerance and certain judgement.
For the record, when I stated 'my kind of thinking,' I was referring to moral certainty, holding fast to true Truth, ideological supremacy and purposiveness of action, as opposed to moral relativism, tolerance of degeneracy and general squeamishness. I was not specifically speaking to Christian belief, though I do maintain that belief is the heart and soul of Western man and the cornerstone of everything good in Western civilization.
Blessed are the meek and the first shall be last. I do not claim 'choseness,' but in faith I do claim to be an heir according to the promise, solely because of God's grace. My love for you is expressed in the upmost desire that you also become an heir. But I will never back down from Christ being the only way. True Christianity simply will not allow that.
And by the way, nice aside to the 'teleological suspension of the ethical.' Another favorite of mine is 'purity of heart is to will one thing.'
2003-08-08 23:13 | User Profile
...'my kind of thinking,' I was referring to moral certainty, holding fast to true Truth
Well said Tex.
Unlike Zoro, I do believe your kind of thinking may well yet redeem America.
God Willing.
2003-08-08 23:34 | User Profile
Tex,
How does nationalism figure into your Christianity? It would seem, given the universal nature of Christianity, that a Christian would have no opinion on massive non-White immigration into the West, provided that the new comers were converted. In other words, how do you square the universalism of your religion with the particularism of your politics?
2003-08-09 02:53 | User Profile
**Well said Tex.
Unlike Zoro, I do believe your kind of thinking may well yet redeem America.**
Scratch a Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christian and you will find a Christian Zionist underneath. Their blind faith that the Bible is the literal word of God has made America Israel's whore.
-Z-
2003-08-09 10:03 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Bardamu@Aug 8 2003, 18:34 * ** In other words, how do you square the universalism of your religion with the particularism of your politics? **
Matthew 22:15-22
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
Quite simply, the universalism of Christianity is spiritual, not political.
2003-08-09 14:49 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Zoroaster@Aug 8 2003, 21:53 * ** ..........
Their blind faith that the Bible is the literal word of God has made America Israel's whore.
-Z- **
You are so easily mislead about Christians, Zoroaster. I am a fundamental Old Time Gospel Baptist. I reach out to other Judiased Christians with the facts concerning Jews and their ideas for control of God's Blessing for us.
As those of us have followed the advice laid out in 2 Corinthians:, 2 Corinthians 6
we are not always looked upon as welcoming or tolerant. Our God is a Holy God of Segregation and He DOES NOT CHANGE.
Only mankind, in their desire to create a loving and tolerant god, changes.
We are most assuredly not associated with those that support Jews or their seed.
2 John 1 6. ** And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. 7. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.**
2003-08-09 16:56 | User Profile
Golfball, I was raised by fundamentalist Christians, so I know where you are coming from. In fact, my grandfather in his time was considered by many to be a great evangelist. By the time I reached adulthood, however, I rejected his brand of Christianity, though I didn't reject the living Christ. My kind of religion comes from my own inner revelation, call it my-God-given light: it has little, if anything, to do with the Bible, which, after all, was written by Jews, for Jews.
Best Regards, -Z-
2003-08-10 03:22 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Zoroaster@Aug 9 2003, 11:56 * ** ........... though I didn't reject the living Christ. ........... **
Raised right, free choice.
Glad to know that you have not rejected Christ.
So many people do.
Salvation is not in the church, fellowship is. There are those that are quite happy to share fellowship with queers, racemixers, non-whites and pedophiles. There are lots of racemixers, queers, non-whites and pedophiles that use Jesus Christ as an excuse to get near white children and espouse their doctrine upon them. ( sometimes, even their sexuality )
There are those that choose to share fellowship with the ones that have separated from the filth and apostasy, I am counted amongst those.
Fellowship is what you choose to make of it and how you relate to others that share a like mind.
I can understand your choice for that is your choice to make.
2003-08-12 06:43 | User Profile
[url=http://ntgateway.com/Q/ten.htm]Ten Reasons to Question Q[/url]
2003-08-13 03:42 | User Profile
I usually stay away from religious threads but this one has questions that interest an atheist like me.
1) How did the Gospels take their present form?
2) How much of the Gospels are historically true?
3) Can the answer to the first question help to answer the second?
My answer to the third question: since so much of the answers to the first question are based on assumptions and speculation (many of the assertions made about Q in Zoroaster's original article are disputed by others), the only answers we can get to the second question are possibilities, not certainties.
I have no desire to argue anyone out of his faith, but I want everyone to know where I'm coming from when I discuss these topics.
2003-08-14 12:16 | User Profile
Did a "flesh and blood" Jesus really exist?
The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
[url=http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm]http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm[/url]
-Z-
2003-08-15 10:26 | User Profile
*Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 14 2003, 18:31 * ** It even has articles on Preterism! **
If that interests you, here's another (although you may know it already):
[url=http://www.preteristarchive.com/]The Preterist Archive[/url]
2003-08-16 18:40 | User Profile
There will always be those non-jews that find an excuse to deny Christ, for example:
**The Proof The assertion that Jesus Christ is a myth can be proved not only through the works of dissenters and "pagans" who knew the truth - and who were viciously refuted or murdered for their battle against the Christian priests and "Church Fathers" fooling the masses with their fictions - but also through the very statements of the Christians themselves, who continuously disclose that they knew Jesus Christ was a myth founded upon more ancient deities located throughout the known ancient world. In fact, Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"15 (Emphasis added.) As Wheless says, "The proofs of my indictment are marvellously easy." **
as garnered from the truth be known website.
I cannot win in an argument against a Jew about Christ. I cannot win in an argument with a pagan or an atheist concerning Christ or the existence of Jesus Christ. I cannot read all of the aramic, assyrian, hebrew, greek, egyptian,....... neither can you.
However, as a Christian, no matter how much one is degraded, a believer such as myself will tell you that you must have faith.
You are given the choice to believe or discard the Word of God. It's that simple.
Some have stated their choices here as well as explained themselves quite clearly.
If there are any doubts to the existence of Jesus Christ, then why do the Jews hate Him so much?
Listen, God gave the Jews a chance to turn away from their filthiness a long time ago......, through His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
They REFUSED.
They refused then, and they refuse to accept Him even now.
Logic dictates that something had to exist in order to be turned down in the first place.
Jews have made the choice to reject Jesus Christ. Are you counted in the same group as Jews?
I'm not!