Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-29-2004, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

I will say up front that I think that Q is a reasonable hypothesis - in fact, it is a very powerful hypothesis, which is precisely why it has become so popular.

Hi, jbernier,

It doesn't seem so reasonable to me...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

However, I do think that many scholars overemphasize its "givenness." I think that it is pretty clear that Luke and Matthew drew upon common written material to which we no longer have access.

That much is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

For a variety of reasons I think that it is unlikely that one copied from the other.

It's certainly possible, and even probable, that the later editors of one copied from the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

However, I am not convinced that there is sufficient warrant to jump from that to "It must have been a single and distinct document" as the Q hypothesis argues.

I agree here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Perhaps it was an expanded version of Mark to which we no longer have access (remembering, of course, that Matthew and Luke themselves are, on one level, expansions of Mark).

I think it's quite reasonable that there may have been some early sayings collections, that were later included into the gospels. But this is still very far from one big, unified Sayings Source.

And I don't think that Matthew and Luke are the expansions of Mark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Perhaps it was more than one document.

Yes!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. The truth is that, in the absence of the discovery of new manuscripts, we will never really know what form this common material will take. To assume a single document is just too speculative, imho.

We agree on that.

But, then again, I see the whole mainstream NT scholarship as a massive fraud. 99% of it is totally unscientific. It's mostly apologetics in a variety of flavours.

Best,

Yuri

Llyricist · 06-29-2004, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

IMO Q is used in this manner to provide an acceptable alternate layer particularly useful for apologists when utilising 'multiple attestation".What do you lot think?

What's really bad is when they use Mt Lk and Q as independent multiple attestation, as I've seen some do here.

ichabod crane · 06-29-2004, 07:15 PM

Didn't Q invent exploding wristwatches and cars that can fly, that sort of thing?

Just kiddin' ...

jbernier · 06-29-2004, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ichabod crane

Didn't Q invent exploding wristwatches and cars that can fly, that sort of thing?

Just kiddin' ...

Please do not forget that time that he gave Riker his cool Q powers.

Jonathan

p.s. I wrote something similar on an exam in a course on the synoptic gospels. It was the last final of the last semester of my undergrad, I was tired and the prof had a good sense of humour. "What is Q?" "Well, apparently not that guy from Star Trek." I got a 88 in the course so it must not have hurt me that much.

ichabod crane · 06-30-2004, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

p.s. I wrote something similar on an exam in a course on the synoptic gospels. It was the last final of the last semester of my undergrad, I was tired and the prof had a good sense of humour. "What is Q?" "Well, apparently not that guy from Star Trek." I got a 88 in the course so it must not have hurt me that much.

You're more game than I am! Actually I was thinking of the guy in a lab coat from the James Bond movies that makes all the groovy gadgets ... I think he's called Q, isn't he?

GakuseiDon · 06-30-2004, 12:35 AM

Actually, I came across an 'old exercise book' that shows that the Q from Star Trek was copied from the Q from James Bond. It is "The Q Mysteries" by Freakily Gullible.

What if there was a Q that appeared years before the James Bond Q? What if that Q shared many of the same features? We looked into this, and we were stunned by the results!

Consider:

The Star Trek Q (ST Q) had an antagonistic relationship with the main character; so did the James Bond Q [1].

The ST Q had the ability to do fantastic things; so could the JB Q [2].

The ST Q always appeared cynical and jaded; so did the JB [3].

It is only sheer prejudice that stops us from seeing that the ST Q was built on the JB Q.
---------------------
[1] Origen, quoted in Roberston (1922)
[2] Smith, John (1904)
[3] Graves, Kersey (1890)

jbernier · 06-30-2004, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Actually, I came across an 'old exercise book' that shows that the Q from Star Trek was copied from the Q from James Bond. It is "The Q Mysteries" by Freakily Gullible.

Oh my God! Are you serious?

Seriously, though, how can you take something called the "Q Hypothesis" seriously? They are two of the most unserious characters in TV or film.

Dominus Paradoxum · 06-30-2004, 05:10 PM

If there is no Q, I would find it more likely that Matthew copied from Luke (or a "proto-luke"), because Luke seems to have the more anchient form of the sayings. Why has no one defended that hypothesis?

Yuri Kuchinsky · 07-01-2004, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominus Paradoxum

If there is no Q, I would find it more likely that Matthew copied from Luke (or a "proto-luke"), because Luke seems to have the more anchient form of the sayings. Why has no one defended that hypothesis?

Hi, Dominus Paradoxum,

Check out the Jerusalem School, that's what they say...

JerusalemPerspective.com Website

... Featuring the work of Jewish and Christian scholars, particularly those of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research
www.jerusalemperspective.com/

All the best,

Yuri

Dominus Paradoxum · 07-01-2004, 01:49 PM

Wow! It looks like they have at least a hundred articles. Thanks Yuri.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-29-2004, 07:15 PM	#13
ichabod crane Regular Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 262	Didn't Q invent exploding wristwatches and cars that can fly, that sort of thing? Just kiddin' ...

06-30-2004, 12:35 AM	#16
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Actually, I came across an 'old exercise book' that shows that the Q from Star Trek was copied from the Q from James Bond. It is "The Q Mysteries" by Freakily Gullible. What if there was a Q that appeared years before the James Bond Q? What if that Q shared many of the same features? We looked into this, and we were stunned by the results! Consider: The Star Trek Q (ST Q) had an antagonistic relationship with the main character; so did the James Bond Q [1]. The ST Q had the ability to do fantastic things; so could the JB Q [2]. The ST Q always appeared cynical and jaded; so did the JB [3]. It is only sheer prejudice that stops us from seeing that the ST Q was built on the JB Q. --------------------- [1] Origen, quoted in Roberston (1922) [2] Smith, John (1904) [3] Graves, Kersey (1890)

06-30-2004, 05:10 PM	#18
Dominus Paradoxum Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: California Posts: 1,000	If there is no Q, I would find it more likely that Matthew copied from Luke (or a "proto-luke"), because Luke seems to have the more anchient form of the sayings. Why has no one defended that hypothesis?

07-01-2004, 01:49 PM	#20
Dominus Paradoxum Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: California Posts: 1,000	Wow! It looks like they have at least a hundred articles. Thanks Yuri.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.