Soul Invictus

I shall check into that book. I want to see if their theory is more sound than what we are currently working off of.

MortalWombat

I don't know what you mean when you say Q ignores the Gospel of Thomas, when many of the sayings in Thomas are in also in Q.

Q/Thomas paralles

Darth Dane

http://www.gospelthomas.com/


What does "Q" mean, I have a problem seeing what it is?






DD - Love & Laughter

Volker.Doormann

I think about this question there are a lot of post in the archive of this forum. But I think the trueness in the history line does not affect the known text. Hardy no one do know, whether there was an historical William Shakespeare, and this als do not affects his text. I have done a best fit in the text lines on the synoptical Gospels and Thomas, and all 3 do show positives values. This means there is a common base in te text line. I think there are a lot of good translations to find on the web. One starting URL may http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

'Q' is the initial letter 'Q' of the German word 'Quelle', which means source. It is meant that 'Q' should be a 'source' for the synoptical Gospels.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

I cite from the bottom URL:

"The Q hypothesis is one part of a solution to "the Synoptic Problem," that is, the question of the literary interrelationships between the first three Gospels (the Synoptic Gospels)".

http://www.concentric.net/~Mattison/Jesus/QPars.htm

It is explicit said, that Q belongs to the tree Gospels of Marc, Matthew and Luke. - Not to Thomas.

Volker

Bernard Muller

I explained on my pages how I arrived to that.
First I look at HJ background. Poor, uneducated, rural Jew:
the early years
Then I look at John the Baptist and his great influence. And it just happens that HJ's public life starts right after JB's arrest:
John the Baptist
Dating of HJ & JB
Then I look at what made HJ briefly known: He is credited of having healed (a few) people. That caused a hysteria. Of course the whole thing started by accident, a fluke. And HJ, nor his friends, probably never took this healer thing too seriously (in view of setbacks). The point is, Jesus did not get started as a sayer, and the saying things is marginal:
Jesus' public life
Then I explained Jesus, as an uneducated peasant, talking to other uneducated peasants, could not have got too fancy. Obscure sayings would not have been accepted from him, nor anything theologically involved. His main topic had to be according to his times & audience and very simple:
Jesus' message & followers, and Paul, etc.
I explained very clearly my position on parables (meant for later Christians) starting here, with a lot of evidence:
Jesus' alleged parables
And the late dating of Q (many of it written after GMark) is explained here:
Q, late dating
and for GThomas late dating here:
GThomas late dating

There are other parts of my website where I take on alleged Jesus' sayings, such as in a page called HJ-3a.

Best regards, Bernard

Volker.Doormann

Added.
You can read on vinnie's page http://www.acfaith.com/gthomasq.html : "The Gospels of Thomas and the Q Gospel are two ancient Christian texts that are composed primarily of the sayings of Jesus. Hence, they are both called "sayings gospels". In contrast, the four canonical gospels are all considered "narrative gospels". Thomas and Q pose many perplexing questions regarding the origins of the Jesus movement. Helmut Koester correctly maintained that, "The Gospel of Thomas and Q challenge the assumption that the early church was unanimous in making Jesus' death and resurrection the fulcrum of Christian faith. Both documents presuppose that Jesus' significance lay in his words, and in his words alone."

From this, because of 'Q' is named as 'document', 'Q Gospel' and 'ancient Christian text' , one could think there do exist an ancient hardware document from the early Christianity, called Q.

But this is a hoax trilogy. Q is pure fantasy.

Volker

aikido7

"Fantasy" may be a bit overblown, don't you think? Isn't there a difference between "fantasy" and "drawing a meaningful conclusion based on factual data to produce a hypothesis?"

Volker.Doormann

No.