The "Q" theory

It still exists, I found it on Amazon.com.

I don't know much about it, when I first heard about it years ago, I thought it had something to do with Star Trek.

 

I don't believe it ever existed.

 

Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Because I don't believe it. Do you have a copy of this Q document?

 

I've heard some argue that "Q" was simply oral tradition--there was a body of oral tradition that was used as source for the gospels.

If you've ever lived where a people group practice keeping their history intact through oral tradition, you realize that this it not as far fetched as it seems on the surface.

 

Why would anyone assume I am wrong if I don't believe in a theoretical document that no one has ever seen? I believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote what God intended for them to write, plain and simple.

 

Couldn't the differences in the Gospels just compliment one another to give the full picture? I remember studying "Q". There are alot of theories out there about it.

 

I agree with Terry. Q is entirely hypothetical; there is no evidence for it. I first came across it as a new believer when I was visiting a rather liberal church. It confused me at first because what I was reading assumed there was a Q document and I wondered why I had never heard of it. Then I learned it doesn't exist!

My understanding is that the Q theory arose from German Higher Criticism in the 1800's -- people who sought to give human, non-supernatural explanations to how the Bible came about.

I think the onus is on the Q proponents to show evidence for such a document. But they can't because it doesn't exist -- God inspired the Gospel writers just as He inspired all the other writers of the Bible.

 

God could have used Q to help Matthew and Luke know what to write; or God could have done it some other way. Regardless, it is plain that Matthew and Luke have some teachings of Jesus that Mark didn't have. So their source is "Q" but that's only shorthand for "what was it?"

How can you NOT believe in something that is really a question instead of a statement?

 

"Q" was first popularized by liberals who did not want to accept the inerrancy of Scripture.

I hold to Matthean priority, and therefore have no need for Q. It is just a theory. Still, it is more credible that KJVO.

 

When I've read about Q, it's always presented as almost a fact, not as a question. Why wouldn't the 4 gospel writers have different info? God used each of them and their own relationship and history with Jesus differently. So some of the info is the same, some different, but the info comes through their own unique personalities, and each gospel has its own unique slant. Amazing how the HS does this! It seems easy to me.

 

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark wrote down Peter's sermons. That leaves Luke. Luke said he studied prior to the writing of his gospel. That would include interviews (with Mary?), the disciples, the writings of Matthew, etc. Q is only necessary if one denies inspiration.

 

I can remember covering the Q concept in school and it didn't make much sense then either. There is a bit of box folks seem to paint themselves into with Q. If there is information two people recorded they had to get it from someone else (Q) and sense we don't have Q we can't be sure if the information is accurate. If they have unique information it must not be original because no one else has the information and we can't be sure it is accurate. Either way you are left with the opportunity to deny the authenticty of scripture.