SingleDad

In order for the historical Jesus position to be true, it seems to me it must assert two things:
[list=1][*]An historical Jesus existed[*]This historical personage must be (in some way) the progenitor of the christian religion.[/list=a]

It seems to me that with the Q hypothesis (which appears strong) we have a persuasive claim of an historical personage. The question is, was this person somehow a progenitor of the religion, in some way inspiring it? Or did the gospel writers go find someone to provide a body for the messiah that was hithertofore entirely spiritual?

Perhaps if the second is true we don't quite have the pure mythicist position, but we don't seem to have the entirely historical position.

It seems an interesting question, then, to ask, does Paul appear to have knowledge of Q? And direct knowledge; it's of course plausible to pick out a guy to later inject who bore some coincidental resemblance to pre-gospel theology.

Toto

I did a quick search and found Paul and the Gospel of Q by a believer, who seems to think that the apparent ignorance of Q by Paul might be an argument against the existence of Q.

The best he can come up with is
He concludes (almost desparately):

xoc

I really don't see how this is contradictory.
"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord: 'Let not the wife depart from her husband.'"
Obviously a reference to Jesus' teaching on divorce.
Next verse is "But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away the wife."
Is Paul claiming Jesus taught this? If I had the original text we could just look at the quote marks right? (yeah so there probably wouldn't be quote marks)

Paul allows divorce... wait. Jesus specified "marital unfaithfulness" as grounds for divorce. Paul's verses here are too ambiguous to say what he was allowing divorce for- I don't have any reference for "belief" in the cited verses anyway.

Berenger Sauniere

[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: Berenger Sauniere ]

Berenger Sauniere

Paul's documents are mentioned in Timothy II 4:13 (KJV). "The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments." What Paul had at his disposal was much more than a single document.

[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: Berenger Sauniere ]

Layman

It, of course, is an interesting question. But one which can only be answered "Yes" or "We Don't Know." Paul's Christian ministry appears to have lasted about 30 years or so. From those thirty years, we only have a from 7-13 letters. Not even one a year. In fact, on average, its only about one every three years (although, of course, they weren't evenly distributed). So while a review of the existing Pauline letters could reveal his familiarity with Q, a review of the existing Pauline letters would not necessarily reveal that he was unaware of Q.

But while I find the question of Paul's familiarity with Q to be interesting, it doesn't fit into the question of Jesus' existence in the way you think it does. Paul--whether depending on Q or not--has many clear references confirming the existence of Jesus and many features of Jesus' life. Indeed, if Paul is unfamiliar with Q, but confirms many of the details of Jesus' life or teachings, that just shows that there were a number of early sources testifying to Jesus' life and teachings.

SingleDad

Layman

The question is whether Paul appears to have knowledge of Q.

Well, the historicist position is a positive claim and thus it bears the burden of proof.

Only with an interpretation so forgiving as to verge on an ad hoc presupposition.

[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: SingleDad ]