Johann_Kaspar

And what is the Kingdom of God? What change of attitude/behaviour?

Amaleq13

Read the contents of Q:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

If there was an historical Jesus, it seems to me that Q offers the best approach to understanding his ministry.

Doctor X

Unless of course the Q community broke off early during the development of the movemet.

I just love certitude. . . .

--J.D.

Johann_Kaspar

Sorry, but I am getting lost. Q for me is a mind's game. All that stuff relies on the hypothesis that there was one writer named (or not) Matthew, one writer named (or not) Mark, one writer named (or not) Luke, and so on. What about texts being written and rewritten over a lenghty period? In my opinion Matthew was the first and also the last one to be edited. So if you want to look for the source of Matthew, look only inside "Matthew". Well, I mean the Hebrew one. By the way, the closest to the Q, we have it (even if it was also translated/edited): look for Thomas.

But it does not answer my first question: what kind of ministry and what kind of change of attitude/behaviour? What is the kingdom of god? I think that it is the key for understanding many things.

Amaleq13

Then you will probably not be interested in my "investigation" because I consider Q and Markan priority to be the most credible explanation for the evidence of Gospel textual relationships. I consider the alternate theories you mention to be less credible.

My answer isn't changed: read Q. Actually, the specifics of the ministry do not seem relevant to my ultimate goal of figuring out the Jesus-James relationship. That may change as new information is added.

Amaleq13

Well, aside from the inclusion of the name "Jesus", there isn't much to connect Q with Paul but I'm not sure if that is what you mean.

Doctor X

Amaleq13:

Just a caution. It seems reasonable to conclude that the "earliest layers" of Q are "early" with regards to the development of the various movements--but is it early eough to assume that it represents "what Junior said?"

I do not know, and I am not sure anyone knows.

The charge that the disciples never knew who Junior was leads me to suspect that the movement represented by them was secular. Of course, that assumption falls if the reason for the charge is simple invective against a movement that cannot defend itself.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

If Q can be reduced to a list of unattributed sayings with an apparent resemblance to Cynic-style teachings, no.

Actually, I'm not trying to get that specific at this point. I'm just trying to establish some common ground for later speculation. Specifically, I'm interested in eventually trying to get a clear picture of the Jesus-James relationship.

According to Q, the followers of Jesus considered him to be a miracle-working, divinely inspired teacher and called him "Son of God" and referred to him as "God's Wisdom" incarnate.

I think this is consistent with how Mark's Gospel portrays them except it adds the element to which you refer. The disciples are portrayed as repeatedly failing to understand Jesus' attempts to identify himself and his mission while Jesus is portrayed as asking that all miraculous signs of this truth be kept a secret.

To me, this suggests that belief in Jesus as the Messiah did not exist until after the resurrection experiences. Mark seems to be "explaining" why the living Jesus' followers did not proclaim him the Messiah while he lived and why they did not publicly predict his death/resurrection.

Amaleq13

Getting back to my personal focus for this thread, what can we conclude with regard to James during Jesus' ministry?

Mark's Gospel portrays Jesus' family, including his brothers, considering him crazy and, presumably, rejecting his teachings/message. Q contains admonitions from Jesus to his followers that they can expect to divide families with their gospel and that they can expect potentially violent resistance from others.

Can we assume that James rejected whatever Jesus was teaching?

Also, we have testimony about James from Josephus, Hegesippus, and Origen (I'm pretty sure he is the third) that seems to suggest that he had obtained a pretty impressive reputation among the Jews of Jerusalem independent of any subsequent, post-resurrection leadership position. In other words, the evidence seems to me to suggest that James was known as "the Just" and as a generally pious man before Jesus was killed.

Johann_Kaspar

I could be interested... if I had time. Sorry. For me what is important is not what is credible or uncredible, it is facts and testimonies. Thomas comes first. An then many editions.

Q is not real. It is hypothetical. I could not go past that point until the hypothesis would be verified. Much more important than anything else is to study the ideology of those texts so as to understand them.
Still, good luck of success with you research!