Interesting link regarding the supposed "Q" source

[drummerboy]

http://jimmyakin.com/2014/09/visualizing-q.html

I know Akin doesn't have a good rep in trad circles, but this is an interesting article nonetheless. 

[Guapo]

http://jimmyakin.com/2014/09/visualizing-q.html

I know Akin doesn't have a good rep in trad circles, but this is an interesting article nonetheless.

Young jedi, "it's all FOG." Which is what Dr. Rao calls Kant. Don't waste anymore of your time on it along with Raymond Brown.  Trads don't
have anything to do with them they have systematically destroyed the classical historical Scripture study. It has permeated in all
N.O. Seminaries and has undermined the Faith of many.  You would be better off reading St. Bonaventure or Aquinas.

[rbjmartin]

Our Scripture professors at OLGS argued against the existence of Q, mostly because there is no evidence that such a text ever existed. Further, I believe one of them proposed the possibility that "Q" was not a text but a person or even an oral tradition. We have to remember that the ancients were MUCH better at remembering and re-telling large bodies of prose. This makes a lot more sense to me than the "Q" theory.

[Jayne]

Somebody posted a bad homily here not too long ago.  Among the many things wrong with it, the priest talked about Q as if this were a known fact rather than a theory.  When I learned about it in school, it was the same.  We were left to think that all intelligent and educated people accepted the existence of Q.  It's nice to see this being dispelled.

[VeraeFidei]

Q is absolutely ridiculous, and its parroting as divine revelation (though ironically those who parrot Q don't even believe in divine revelation 95% of the time!) with no real evidence is indicative of the well from which it springs - liberal protestantism.

[Jayne]

Q is absolutely ridiculous, and its parroting as divine revelation (though ironically those who parrot Q don't even believe in divine revelation 95% of the time!) with no real evidence is indicative of the well from which it springs - liberal protestantism.

That's it exactly.  Very well said.

[Gardener]

So... a text which has never been produced is assumed to exist, and this provides, for its proponents, an ability to make legit the illegitimate texts such as gnostic gospels, despite never having been seen by anyone nor mentioned by those who would have seen it.

Kinda like the missing link of Scripture Study, eh?

Where's Teilhard when you need him? Bet he could even produce a bit of Q. Probably be the lucky bastige to discover a fragment. lol.

[Miriam_M]

Q was discredited many years ago by reputable biblical scholars in a straightforward and non-cute "visualization" way.    No one needs to go through Akin's artificial exercise to arrive at the conclusion that there is no authenticity to a Q source.

(No offense to drummerboy is intended.    Akin just makes me yawn.  Always too cute by half and way over-impressed with himself.)

[VeraeFidei]

Also, I should add that Q was developed to undermine the authority of the Gospel according to St. John, as his Christology is "higher" according to certain scholars, and his assertion of Our Lord's divinity clearer.

[drummerboy]

 I suppose a clarification on my part is in order.  I never intended to state my belief in the Q source, I mostly posted this for discussion's sake and to pick brains.  My reasons for not believing in Q are the same as those already stated.  Liberal protestant scholars who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ had to justify their belief somehow against the unmistakable evidence of the Gospels, so hey! just make up a source of material that conveniently contains phrases to make Jesus look like nothing more than a good wise man (hmm....we've heard that before, now haven't we?).  I also find the lack of good historical method amongst Biblical scholars quite disturbing.  I couldn't believe the stretches Raymond Brown made in his Introduction to the Gospel of John to make John not the author of his Gospel, but rather this silly idea that the Beloved Disciple wasn't really John, was the real author of the Gospel, and John maybe did some editing or contributed a few ideas.  And in my opinion, they tread dangerous water by how easily they just discard all the ancient traditions regarding authorship and source material.  Any historian worth his salt knows that these oral traditions passed down are always worthy of serious consideration.

[Guapo]

 

I suppose a clarification on my part is in order.  I never intended to state my belief in the Q source, I mostly posted this for discussion's sake and to pick brains.  My reasons for not believing in Q are the same as those already stated.  Liberal protestant scholars who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ had to justify their belief somehow against the unmistakable evidence of the Gospels, so hey! just make up a source of material that conveniently contains phrases to make Jesus look like nothing more than a good wise man (hmm....we've heard that before, now haven't we?).  I also find the lack of good historical method amongst Biblical scholars quite disturbing.  I couldn't believe the stretches Raymond Brown made in his Introduction to the Gospel of John to make John not the author of his Gospel, but rather this silly idea that the Beloved Disciple wasn't really John, was the real author of the Gospel, and John maybe did some editing or contributed a few ideas.  And in my opinion, they tread dangerous water by how easily they just discard all the ancient traditions regarding authorship and source material.  Any historian worth his salt knows that these oral traditions passed down are always worthy of serious consideration.

[VeraeFidei]

I suppose a clarification on my part is in order.  I never intended to state my belief in the Q source, I mostly posted this for discussion's sake and to pick brains.  My reasons for not believing in Q are the same as those already stated.  Liberal protestant scholars who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ had to justify their belief somehow against the unmistakable evidence of the Gospels, so hey! just make up a source of material that conveniently contains phrases to make Jesus look like nothing more than a good wise man (hmm....we've heard that before, now haven't we?).  I also find the lack of good historical method amongst Biblical scholars quite disturbing.  I couldn't believe the stretches Raymond Brown made in his Introduction to the Gospel of John to make John not the author of his Gospel, but rather this silly idea that the Beloved Disciple wasn't really John, was the real author of the Gospel, and John maybe did some editing or contributed a few ideas.  And in my opinion, they tread dangerous water by how easily they just discard all the ancient traditions regarding authorship and source material.  Any historian worth his salt knows that these oral traditions passed down are always worthy of serious consideration.

For what it is worth, I never understood you to be believing in Q.

Also, that theory about St. John vis a vis the Beloved Disciple is the standard theory amongst historical-critical scholars these days. According to them, virtually nobody wrote that to which his name is attached in the New Testament.

[drummerboy]

Yeah, their authorship debates get rather ridiculous after a while.  A lot of these scholars love to hear themselves talk and make themselves feel good and useful by making fanciful theories all their own, and are incapable of reaching a decision because that would mean they can't debate and hear themselves talk anymore.