09-26-2013, 04:05 PM
"Q" Document Is Discovered
By Soren Miriam
Biblical scholars have been trying to explain the Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels for just shy of 2000 years. The 'lost' document "Q", as scholars have dubbed it, has its existence postulated because Matthew and Luke possess extensive materials not found in Mark. Mark is believed to be the first of the Gospels written and therefore, a primary source for Luke and Matthew.
Since Matthew was originally Aramaic, but since his linguistic agreements with Luke are so strong "Q" must have been a Greek document. It is 'known' that the "Q" must have at least 207 verses by comparing Luke3:2-4:16; 6:20-7:35; 9:57- 10:34; 11:2- 12:59; 13:18-35; 17:20-37 to the comparable verses in Matthew.
The occasion resemblances to between Mark and "Q", particularly in brief striking sayings, together with the amount of discourse in Mark, have led many scholars to believe that Mark was familiar with "Q" and wrote to supplement it with as little duplication as possible. It can hardly be alleged , then, that "Q" was in any real sense a source of Mark.
The writer of "Q" had to have had intimate knowledge of Jesus as most of the material ascribed to it from the comparisons of Matthew and Luke are in fact discourse material attributed as saying of Jesus Christ.
The mysterious "Q" Document was discovered in a monastery in China, believed to have been removed from German at the end of World War Two. It has recently been brought out to see the light of day in an attempt to either cause unrest in the CCD or the in The United States of America as these populations would be the most affected by the potential fall out from such a document.
Could the 'Holy Bible' really just be a product of edited literature? Or is truly the inspired 'Word of God'?
Now why, do you ask, could this discover cause such an uproar? Wouldn't this be an amazing historical find that is an extra-biblical source that substantiates the Bible?
If this work is genuine, it paints Jesus as a militant zealot with plans to attack the Roman Empire and drive the invaders from the Holy Land. The document in question also distorts many of the traditional saying of Jesus Christ. The journalist is not going to put any of these examples in the press at this time, as scholars from all over the world are fighting over the legitimacy of this "Q" document and its source.
Edited by doulou, Sep 30 2013, 08:52 PM.
By Soren Miriam
Biblical scholars have been trying to explain the Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels for just shy of 2000 years. The 'lost' document "Q", as scholars have dubbed it, has its existence postulated because Matthew and Luke possess extensive materials not found in Mark. Mark is believed to be the first of the Gospels written and therefore, a primary source for Luke and Matthew.
Since Matthew was originally Aramaic, but since his linguistic agreements with Luke are so strong "Q" must have been a Greek document. It is 'known' that the "Q" must have at least 207 verses by comparing Luke3:2-4:16; 6:20-7:35; 9:57- 10:34; 11:2- 12:59; 13:18-35; 17:20-37 to the comparable verses in Matthew.
The occasion resemblances to between Mark and "Q", particularly in brief striking sayings, together with the amount of discourse in Mark, have led many scholars to believe that Mark was familiar with "Q" and wrote to supplement it with as little duplication as possible. It can hardly be alleged , then, that "Q" was in any real sense a source of Mark.
The writer of "Q" had to have had intimate knowledge of Jesus as most of the material ascribed to it from the comparisons of Matthew and Luke are in fact discourse material attributed as saying of Jesus Christ.
The mysterious "Q" Document was discovered in a monastery in China, believed to have been removed from German at the end of World War Two. It has recently been brought out to see the light of day in an attempt to either cause unrest in the CCD or the in The United States of America as these populations would be the most affected by the potential fall out from such a document.
Could the 'Holy Bible' really just be a product of edited literature? Or is truly the inspired 'Word of God'?
Now why, do you ask, could this discover cause such an uproar? Wouldn't this be an amazing historical find that is an extra-biblical source that substantiates the Bible?
If this work is genuine, it paints Jesus as a militant zealot with plans to attack the Roman Empire and drive the invaders from the Holy Land. The document in question also distorts many of the traditional saying of Jesus Christ. The journalist is not going to put any of these examples in the press at this time, as scholars from all over the world are fighting over the legitimacy of this "Q" document and its source.
Edited by doulou, Sep 30 2013, 08:52 PM.
