Diogenes the Cynic

They can tell Matt and Luke used a common sayings source, so that source, ipso facto is Q. The answer is yes, they can tell Q existed. Any shared external source for that material is Q. "Quelle" is a placeholder name for "common source" (in fact, "source" is the literal meaning of the word).

Matthew and Luke did not create the Q material themselves, therefore it is independent of them.

Diogenes the Cynic

This is simply wrong.
That is not the meaning of the word "Messiah" in English, or in any language, and no modern English definition would have any bearing on its meaning in the Hebrew Bible anyway. There is no etymological connection between the Hebrew words for "anointed" and "saviour."
I'm not sure you understand this passage as well as you think you do because it supports nothing you just claimed. It says, as I just said, that there is no etymological connection between the Hebrew words for "anointed" and "saviour."
This is completely irrelevant. Public acclaim is no criterion, nor is it necessary to assume that anyone said he was the Messiah before he died. This is factually false. There is no text calling for any such thing. Claiming to be the Messiah was not (and still is not) blasphemy or against any Jewish law. The Jewish messiah is not God, has no "familal relationship" to God, and Jesus never claimed any such relationship anyway.

"Anointed" and "Son of God" are regal honorifics, not divine ones.

aa5874

Again, you appear to have limited knowledge of Scholarship. Not all Scholars agree that there is an actual document called "Q".

It is wholly illogical that the author of gMatthew and gLuke could NOT have made up stuff.

The claim in gMark 6.48-49 that Jesus walked on water MUST have been made up and we see that it is found in gMatthew.

The claim in gMatthew that Jesus was the Son of a Holy Ghost MUST have been made up and it is found in gLuke.

Virtually all the miracles in gMark, gMatthew, and gLuke were made up so it is quite illogical to PRESUME gLuke did not merely copy or modify sayings found in gMatthew.

Diogenes the Cynic

The vast majority of scholars do agree, though, and material very similar to (but not exactly the same as) Q is also found in other early sources like Thomas and Clement.

It is not rational to imagine that Matthew and Luke both independently invented the exact same collection of Greek sayings attributed to Jesus.

aa5874

Again, you show very limited knowledge of the Canon and promote absurdities.

If gLuke contains identical sayings as found in gMatthew then one OBVIOUS explanation is that gLuke copied gMatthew which is EXACTLY what is deduced when we see the very same events in gMatthew and gMark.

Diogenes the Cynic

Yeah, that's one obvious hypothesis, but it has a lot of problems with it. A shared source common source works better.

EarlDoherty

You are missing a couple of key distinctions here. One may not find an *intended* crucified Messiah in the Hebrew bible (at least, that would be *our* judgment), but that doesn’t mean that some exegete (like Paul) couldn’t find something which he judged pointed to a crucified Messiah. And that is precisely what the epistles tell us: Christ and his activities are to be found in the scriptures (Isaiah 53: he was pierced for our transgressions; Zechariah 12:10: they shall look upon him whom they have pierced; Psalm 22:16: They have pierced my hands and my feet.) Early cultic Christianity was precisely this, whether other Jews had anticipated them or not, the perception (impelled by various philosophical and salvific ideas in the air of the time) of the revelation in scripture of God’s Son and the redeeming sacrifice he had undergone. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews has created an entire sacrifice in heaven solely out of scripture. It’s called innovation; the history of ideas is full of it.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter if Jews were not expecting a crucified Messiah. When a new idea arises, it’s automatically the case that no one had thought of or expected it before. That hardly prevents the new idea from occurring. Otherwise, we’d never come up with new ideas.

If one thinks one has perceived a new truth, especially through divine revelation, then *that* is what impels the creation of the perceived personality. In their minds it hasn’t been fabricated, it’s been revealed.

Earl Doherty

neilgodfrey

Most fellow atheists and agnostics I know couldn't care less if there was a historical Jesus or not. And their conceptions of Jesus are probably as varied as those among Christians.

Why should it make any difference, ideologically, to an atheist if Jesus existed or not? How many really care? But clearly a believing Christian does have an "ideological" interest.

aa5874

Again, this shows your limited knowledge--No shared source has been found for the common material in gMark and gMatthew so what you claim is unreasonable.

neilgodfrey

The high priest was a messiah, an anointed one, whose death liberated those who had had to seek refuge as exiles in cities away from home for their inadvertent sins.

King Saul was a messiah, an anointed one (he is described as the anointed shield of Israel), whose death on the battle field allowed the entrance of David's reign.

Likewise the Son of Man in Daniel was a metaphor for the saints who had been persecuted yet who would rise victorious. We can trace the evolution of this Son of Man figure in subsequent literature into a real heavenly being.

Isaac was believed by some sectarians in the Second Temple period to have been literally sacrificed (the angel had to call Abraham's name twice, indicating to some that the first call came too late) and his blood was shed as an atonement for the sins of Israel. This was apparently from the time of the Maccabean martyrs whose shed blood was likewise seen as having atoning power for Israel's sins.

The David figure in the Psalms especially is a king who must suffer, even to the point of death, who must go to his own Mount of Olives in prayer, facing death, before he is restored.

The only difficulty in accepting the possibility that some Jews would find a messianic saviour through shed blood is the modern misperception that the Bible speaks only of a messiah as a worldly conquering figure. There is probably more evidence in the OT to the contrary, or that opens the door to a contrary view, I suggest.