dog-on

How early?

Earlier than Mark? If so, how do you know this?

Diogenes the Cynic

I didn't say earlier than Mark, but, by definition, it has to be earlier than Matthew and Luke.

Q is generally believed to be the earliest layer of sayings tradition associated with Jesus.

Duvduv

Speaking of Luke, in chapter 2 the entire notion of the virgin birth is contained solely within a single verse, prior to which Mary is simply visited by an angel, and of course without it, the story could simply be the tale of Jesus the son of Joseph and Mary (which we find in the story in the Temple) where Joseph is described as being from the family of David in chapter 2. The reply to verse 34 doesn't necessitate a virgin pregnancy, and then the story about Elizabeth certainly has nothing to do with it. In fact, the story sounds self0contained starting from chapter 2.

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

Duvduv

And speaking of Matthew, it's interesting to note that in chapter 21, where the messiah is described as riding on a donkey through the narrator, no one in the audience knew he was the "son of David" in order to announce it with Hosanna.

And yet with all that, the author of Matthew has the crowds call him a PROPHET and not the messiah riding on the donkey. One can only imagine why this author used the word prophet rather than messiah, especially when Jesus does not clarify matters when confronted at the temple and asked to explain his authority.

GMark is even more ambiguous in chapter 11 than GMatt. Jesus is not called son of David, and the crowd simply calls out "blessed be the kingdom of our father David" which has nothing to do with Jesus as messiah, but only a longing for a non-Herodian kingdom restoring the dynasty of David.

Toto

It is considered to be the earliest, but the basis for this consideration is quite flimsy, or hypothetical if you prefer.

Q doesn't need to be much earlier than Matthew.

aa5874

People here know about the hypothetical "Q".

But, ONLY actual evidence counts.

You have NO actual credible source of antiquity for your Jesus and certainly cannot present any real document called "Q" so please move on.

If "Q" is found I can almost be certain that it will destroy your HJ.

I pray you FIND your hypothetical "Q".

Duvduv

The Son of Man figure in the Second Parable of Enoch is not described as the descendant of David but as a heavenly being. It must be the case that the original idea of Jesus as Son of Man was as a heavenly being. However, one might expect to see it used in the pauline epistles as well.

dog-on

Agreed, if in fact Q existed, it wouldn't necessarily need to be much earlier than Matthew.

This being an equally likely hypothesis (at least based on the actual evidence available), versus one of putting Q prior to Mark, says exactly what about the historicity of Jesus himself?

Not much, imo, as for example John or Acts provide ample evidence (scholarly approved to boot) that early writers had no qualms about putting their words onto the lips of the characters in their stories. To posit a different conclusion and then to cite this conclusion as evidence for HJ amounts to no more than special pleading, or so it seems to me. At least, one may be reasonably sceptical about it.

Duvduv

I am not familiar with all the issues relating to the Q argument, however I think it is fair to say that an original boiler plate story about Jesus simply involved the life of a holy man/prophet (with no nativity story or Baptist story) who then came to be viewed as a messiah figure morphed with Son of Man born to Joseph and Mary and eventually turned into a divine savior figure merging with Jewish ideas of a messiah.

As usual, what I don't understand are the choices that were made for interpolations, whereby some would have been just as easy to insert as the ones that were inserted over time. But if insertions were not overseen by a centralized authority but by various individuals along the way, there would have been no central or commonly held criteria of what should or should not be added such that the eventual "Church" did not view itself qualified to monkey with what were viewed as such ancient texts.

Diogenes the Cynic

Just, FYI, Q is only sayings and parables. It does not contain any narratives, but some minimalist frames for the sayings. Q has no stories, as such (except for the parables), it doesn't even have any miracles or a resurrection.

Thomas is the same. A spare sayings gospel (which, by the way, is proof of concept for sayings gospel hypothesis for Q) which does not call Jesus the Messiah, Christ, "son of" either God or man, or anything but "Rabbi."