Steven Carr

Is mainstream Biblical scholarship capable of distinguishing between historical existence and myth?

Did Q exist or not?

Toto

Eh? What do you think? Have you seen any evidence of that ability?

Q is a hypothetical source, so it's hard to say - but it's not a myth in any case.

ApostateAbe

Yes and yes. Can you clarify what you mean? Q was not proposed because of a myth that it existed (there was never such a myth), but it was proposed as a source of the commonalities between Matthew and Luke that are not contained in Mark.

aa5874

If "Q" is just a theory based on commonalities between gMatthew and gLuke then there is no extant historical source of antiquity that can show that there was an actual "Q" document.

Once the NT as found canonised is fundamentally incrdible, implausible and non-historical, then the authors did not need any previous source to write their VERSION of Jesus.

Until it can be proven or reasonably established that all writers or any single writer of the NT could not have written about any event or character unless there was some other previous source, then "Q" is not a theory but just a suggestion, a guess or simply mere speculation.

Vic333

The existence of Q is a theory, not speculation. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it's still a theory. It does not need to be proven that there was no other way for the gospels to be written for it to be plausible, that just isn't how historical theories work. Nor is it controversial. Luke himself states that he is writing from sources that were handed down to him.

aa5874

Well, you can also claim in your case that up to today it is still a theory that the earth is flat.

Once there is no support for a "theory" then it must be dismissed as mere speculation or an unsupported belief.

In order for the "Q" theory to be of any good it must be conclusively shown within reason that all or any of the Gospels authors could have only written what was previously found in other sources.

It is common among all the Gospels that Jesus was raised from the dead, it is not mandatory that all the authors must have used some previous source that claimed Jesus was raised from the dead.

The Synoptics as found canonised do not even appear to be historical in nature but fabricated stories about implausible events and supernatural entities embedded in known fiction.

Unless a "Q" document can be found then one can only speculate.

Vic333

Well, it is a theory that the Earth is flat: it's just not a good one and does not do a good job of explaining the available evidence.

You do not need to change the definition of the word theory to disprove Q. In order for a theory to be accepted it needs to fit the evidence. Come up with evidence that the Q theory does not answer and, presto, you've done it. That's how theories work. It shouldn't be too hard to do, there are plenty of people that don't like Q. Dig through something they've written. I would be interested to see some good ideas.

I'm not in love with Q, I don't give a rip whether it exists or not, but it seems to answer some questions raised about the synoptics better than other theories I have heard.

aa5874

But, now you must admit that guesses, speculations and suggestions also SEEM to answer some questions about the Synoptics.

You need to show that you understand the difference between "speculation" and "theory".

By the way, a "good for nothing theory" is really "idle speculation".

Vic333

What's the deal with the bold face and underlining?

And, what's your agenda? You appear to be pretty emotionally wrapped up in this. Do you just want Q to be non-existant just for the sake of it?

If you do not and cannot understand differences between speculations and theories then I don't really think it would be feasible to have any sort of a conversation with you about the nature of any given theory. In order to discuss theories one must talk about how it fits the data, which you don't seem to want to do. I had hoped to see some interesting comments on the Q statements, since I find them interesting, but you seem to just want to dismiss the idea by calling it speculation. So be it. But, I cannot do anything with that. I'll just chalk up the last couple of replies as wasted time. At least now I know.

Good bye.

ApostateAbe

Vic333, you are new here, so I should have warned you before: all of us ignore aa5874 for the reason you have just found. Sometimes, I argue with people even if they are both unreasonable and stubborn because there is a possibility that I will learn something. With aa5874, I learn almost nothing, so it is a complete waste of all things invested in it.