Let's Read Together the So Called "Lost Gospel of Q"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- Most scholars consider the "Q Source," now embedded in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, the earliest collection of the Teachings of Jesus that we have access to. You can download a free PDF copy at the link below. I am encouraging my viewers to actually READ through this source and then respond in Comments with your overall impressions. See my Prompt in the comments.
jamestabor.com...
On the entire issue of the "Q" source, whether it existed as a separate document, how Matthew and Luke came to make use of this material, with all the current views pro- and con- see the wonderful book:
jamestabor.com...
On-line Course: Creating Jesus--Why Mark's Gospel was Forgotten
sales.mvp-cour...
About Dr. James D. Tabor: jamestabor.com...
Tabor Books: jamestabor.com...
Academic Blog: jamestabor.com;
RUclips: / jamestaborvideos
Support Dr. Tabor’s Research: / jamesdtabor
About Dr. James D. Tabor: jamestabor.com...
Academia:independent.ac...
Instagram: / drjdtabor
Twitter: / jamesdtabor
Facebook: / jamesdtabor
LinkedIn:
/ james-tabor-12119324
Personal Blog: genesia.org
![Natanael Cano - Amor Eterno [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EO4prCs6WpM/mqdefault.jpg)
Surprised by how interesting this exercise was. Love this kind of "assignment" on RUclips so we can draw our own conclusions. Done like a true teacher
Hey James, I dont know if you read your comments, but I have been passively consuming your content for quite some time now, and I just need to thank you.
It took many, many hours of searching, but you said something that finally opened my eyes. You drew my attention to Mark, which in turn seared Pontius's words into my mind.
The Roman Rhetoric that is woven into his speech left me with a burning sense of 'Childlike Wonder.'
Thank you, Meister, for extending your lamp, and allowing others to use it to light theirs.
Please notice how I introduce this "Q" document: with these possible alternatives: WHETHER it existed as a separate document, OR the materials Matthew and Luke draw upon from each other OR drawn from elsewhere. So the idea here is to READ the content, not so much debate these matters of existence, origin, or literary relationship to the Synoptic problem.
On the entire issue of the "Q" source, whether it existed as a separate document, how Matthew and Luke came to make use of this material, with all the current views pro- and con- see the wonderful book: The Synoptic Gospels: Four Views, review and link here:
jamestabor.com/tabor-bookshelf-the-synoptic-problem-four-views/
Accordingly, I respectfully request comments that have to do with an analysis of the ideas in this text. It is well known that various highly competent scholars over the past 200 years have taken many different positions regarding the literary composition of the Gospels. I look forward to reading substantive comments from those who are thoughtful and engaged in the material.
Please download the Q Source document and READ it through. Maybe imagine you had never heard of Jesus, John the Baptist, or this movement and you got hold of this text, read it, and were then asked--Well, what is in it? What is it mainly about? What are the main ideas, themes and emphases? Here are some prompts that might help get your thought going:
As you read through ask yourself what is here and not here, content wise.
To what degree might this represent a version of the Jesus movement BEFORE and independent of Paul?
What are the major themes and emphases?
How is John the Baptizer presented?
How is the figure of Jesus portrayed?
Is there a “Christology” reflected?
What about the atoning death of Jesus which is central to later forms of Christian faith?
What sort of apocalypticism is reflected?
What is the view of the future?
What would it be like for someone to “Follow” the Teachings of Jesus based on Q?
I think, if Q really exist, it should writen before Jesus crusified
I’ve long struggled with excepting the blood of Yahshua for a list of reasons that can be simply put as lies and deceit. There’s no J in the Hebrew language. And Exodus 3:15 clearly states, “ And Elohim said further to Mosheh, “Thus you are to say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘יהוה Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Aḇraham, the Elohim of Yitsḥaq, and the Elohim of Ya‛aqoḇ, has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all generations.’
It doesn’t say until King James wants to Anglicize it. Furthermore the image of the White hippie Christ is another distortion ( aka lie) of the truth.
The Messiah wasn’t born on Dec,25 this is a pagan ritual for the winter solstice. Just the same Easter ( Ishtar) is the spring solstice.
In Christianity we go to church on Sunday, what happened to “Keep the Sabbath holy” which is Saturday. Last I checked that’s one of the big 10. I could go on but I conclude with there is no writings in between the age of 13 & 27 ( which is crucial for me because if the “”holy”” Ronan emperor Constantine felt the need to hide these years from the record of history then that means there’s something there to hide). And while I’m on the Constantine tip he called I’ve 2K secs of Christianity to the counsel of Nicaea but all who came didn’t go home. Why? Because they had to be killed for there belief or disbelief. Plus how many books were excluded from the Bible? How about the Book of Enoch ? Why wasn’t it included. He lived over 400 years and got the free pass on death and was taken straight to Heaven. Pretty amazing if you ask me. I could go on but I won’t 😆
Anyhow I say this with love and respect. I give you thanks for sharing your passion and studies with us.
This is the first I’ve seen you and your channel. I’ve subscribed 👍🏻
Much love
A Gog of Magog Genocide!
The syllables Ha-lle-lu-yah or “Halleluyah” were in use by the Muskogee and Algonquin-speaking nations of the east and southeast coast before colonists. There are two independent recorded instances where the word Halleluyah was in use in Native towns that had never encountered Europeans. Thomas Thorowgood(1) in the 1650s recorded Halleluyah and other syllables similar to the Tetragrammaton in use by the Powhatan. One hundred years later, James Adair(2) made the same observations while living for 40 years in Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek towns in the 1700s.
Thorowgood had encountered with the Native Tetragrammaton variations. Vocables are a combination of syllables that are themselves compositions of the same core group of syllables; Yah, Weh, Yo, Heh, Wah, Ha, Ho, Hoi. It is interesting however that the names for God between these two geographically separated groups are similar. Yoweh sounds like a variation of Yahweh. Yo-he-wah sounds like a variation of Je-ho-vah. And Muskogee Yah, is analogous to the use of Yah in Hebrew. All three of those vocable sets are names for God in Muskogee and Tsalagi, just as their counterparts in Hebrew are names for God. As for the origin of the word Halleluyah in Native towns beyond the frontier in Adair’s life, in places that had never encountered a European, is history lost to genocide and time.
The Gospels was written after Jerusalem was destroyed. The Apostles were writing letters to the congregations before the Gospels was written. Because after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Jewish practice of animal sacrifices ended when the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. With the temple gone, there is no longer a place for the sacrifices to be offered according to the Mosaic Law. Did they make the Gospels up because they had no temple no more. No they didn't. The Gospels are proof of Jesus. The need for animal sacrifices no longer existed, for Christ had fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law (Matthew 5:17). Animal sacrifices were merely a type of the perfect Sacrifice-the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). The sacrifice of Christ paid the debt of sin for all mankind, both Jew and Gentile (Romans 1:16; Hebrews 9:12-15).
John was an eyewitness to Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem and he received Revelation for the congregations of Christ!
The First of John
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have observed and our hands have felt, concerning the word of life, 2 (yes, the life was made manifest, and we have seen and are bearing witness and reporting to you the everlasting life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us), 3 that which we have seen and heard we are reporting also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us. And this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
Enoch , Elijah and Moses are asleep in death. Mark 12:26 But concerning the dead being raised up, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account about the thornbush, that God said to him: ‘I am the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob’? 27 He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living. You are very much mistaken.”
Matthew 22:31 Regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, who said: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.”
Luke 20:38 He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.”
Nice to meet you Sir! I appreciate this video on a level that many in my circle would ever understand. I am on a mission to find TRUTH! It's been a long road. (My story isn't relative at this time) But you have brought forth what I was looking for! Gratitude!!!
I will be contacting my 89 years old father and explaining this to him. He LOVES learning as do I!
Dear Mr. Tabor, Thanks very much for your work and clear explanations. I think of you as a scholar and a gentleman, with a reasonable approach to faith via knowledge. That is so very refreshing, especially in contrast to some current culture trends.
Though for most of my life I have said that I don't believe in god, I find that I can believe, if I allow myself; If I stop trying to reason out how he could exist. I guess, I absorbed beliefs of the people around me growing up in an average American town in the 1970s, and they remain subconsciously, while I contradict them consciously. What's a man to do? 😉 Well, as I grow my own form of faith, slowly and consciously, I find your work very helpful. It seems to present the essence of Christianity, in a way that feels much more comfortable to me than the religions around me. That helps me to feel okay to develop my faith in a god, for more peace and happiness in my lifetime, without submitting my critical mind to dogma.
.... And it's all just so gosh darn interesting.
Thank you
I cannot thank you enough, Professor, for all this invaluable information. I have just finished reading your book Paul and Jesus and it confirms what I have figured out from my Bible study. This book helped me to put many pieces of the puzzle in their appropriate places.
Shabbat shalom.
My first impressions are that in Q, Jesus seems much more concerned with the more earthly, practical matters. The intent of Jesus' words seems to have shifted with different writers throughout time, having him focus on more the more intangible, spiritual rather than the problems that his people faced at that moment. It's interesting how Jesus was used so early on to push others' agendas.
I really appreciate you taking the time to make these videos, and to make put this stuff out there for the public. It's wonderful that academics are making their work available, and encouraging the public to read and engage. It's wonderful and appreciated!
More human you mean?
Thank you so much Professor you are truly a really good guy. I am so grateful for all you have done.
A lifetime of lecturing provides for such a gentle and pleasing method of translating information
Leaves me with a smile
I just recently found your channel and it has reignited my interest in the historical Jesus and trying to understand his true teachings. I really really appreciate you putting this together and sharing it with the world. It is so important! I really appreciate your insights and perspective.
Your work is so thoughtful, challenging, but most of all, thought provoking. I am so looking forward to your lecture in September, along with lectures by several of your colleagues. I am not a scholar, but have an amateur’s interest in these topics. Thank you for taking the time to make space for us
I’ve been interested in learning more about the Q source, thank you Dr Tabor!
This is going to be one of the most important videos that you have made👍👍👍👍👍
Thank you very much. I have been wanting a Q reference for some time and I will use this as a part of my study material.
It would be most interesting to do a similar listing of verses derived from Q in the synoptics, especially those deriving from Paul. Then we would have a clear way of discerning the original teachings from the influences of the Pauline school.
Thank you so much professor Tabor. This is extremely useful. Love your content. Always.
Thank toy, I will down load and read. I love your insights to all our sacred scripts. "I am learning!"
Dr. Tabor, I teach World Religions at a local community college, and my students are always surprised when I cover the two-source theory of the development of the Gospels. In response to your question, here are a few observations: Jesus' short pity teachings remind me of the Dhammapada, where the Buddha does the same thing. The sparsity of the parables, which I have always considered to be at the core of Jesus' teachings. And finally, the early signs of apocalyptic accretions, which I believe bent Jesus' message in the wrong direction. I think he was far more existential, and was focused on helping people connect to God. - Val Sutter, Elk Grove, CA
Thanks for these...how do you understand the figure of Jesus in this text?
Thank you for your reply. I have though about this a lot, and I understand Jesus as a guru or perhaps as a dance instructor who says, "dance this way, and you will experience God." If a person does as Jesus instructs, they will experience the presence of God. This is best demonstrated in the beatitudes where Jesus teaches that if we acknowledge our spiritual poverty, weep for the tragedies of the others, and experience the rejection that comes from trying to live life as a good person, they will experience the Kingdom of God, now. @@JamesTaborVideos
We all have a tendency to overthink things. I understand the pursuit of 'Q' scholarship and have no worries with it and to me 'Q' is an exercise in overthinking the message of the gospels. There are many 'rabbit holes' that can take us away from that message. (Heb 4:12). Love your body of works Dr Tabor. 🙋
Wow, I just read Q. It feels like bits of everything or that everything could come from it. Thank you Mr Tabor and thank you God for the person who wrote this down. And thank you Lord Jesus
I found your video interesting personally, I have never heard of the Gospel of Q in till recently and it’s definitely peaked my curiosity. I appreciate the PDF and you explain things so beautifully. Thank you.
As suggested read the 9 pages you had so kindly prepared. They are helpful to see the roots of the Gospels. Thank you Sir. I first heard about Q Document from Dr Shabir Ally in a debate he had with a Christian scholar. I think what we have in the Gospels is a glossy version Christianity - not a bad thing. Orthodox churches have their own well researched commentaries to understand the whole Bible and their individual books. I like the verses: 10:23-24 Blessed are those who have eyes to see...... & 13:24 : Narrow gate saga. My favourite parable of Jesus is that about the sower. Only those seeds fell on good ground will grow and yield results. T
Thank you so much Sir. I don't have the resources to go to University but I have a deep desire to understand truth.
James, with all your studying of these new testament words. Do you accept that Y'Eusa was a true Prophet?
I thought Q was a hypothetical document. According to Wikipedia (faulty source, I know) there are no ancient sources referencing it. This includes the pre-nicene fathers
And that is explained in both the blog post and the video...hope you have time to watch and read the text...
thanks for the q source material, dr. tabor, it's fascinating.
Thank you for doing this work. You have made this extremely easy for me to read and understand this material. Very cool. So glad you find enjoyment in continuing to teach though RUclips. Your manner and method of teaching has helped me learn so much about the history and embellishment of the stories Contained in and outside of the Bible from this time period. I was not raised in a religious tradition but I’m surrounded by the culture of Christianity, in all of its forms. Things that never made sense that I never received a sufficient explanation for, like the concept of original sin. Why would God need a middle man as in “Jesus” etc. The pastors and preachers that I’ve spoken to over the years weren’t interested in presenting the information if they ever new any of it or not. The answers given were that’s a mystery or like they are completely unaware of the structure of Genesis. Thank you again for helping me understand this literature.
there is zero consensus on the content of any Q source. Most scholars (who accept it) think that it contained a narrative element as well as sayings. There have been MANY attempts to reconstruct the Q source.
It's more likely that Luke just copied Matthew. Q is an effort to early date Jesus' quotes in Matt and Luke, for which there is no evidence. Even if there is a Q source, it could have been written at any time before Matt. Q does NOT appear in Paul or Mark, which is evidence against early authorship.
As you said, Q is mainly the teachings. One of exception is the healing of the centurian’s servant, the version in Luke where the centurion sends servants rather than approaching Jesus himself.
Thank you so much for putting this together, Dr. Tabor! Forgive the following longish impressions, but I have listened to a great number of your lectures, and listened to audio versions of two of your books, and have been puzzling over this Q text quite a bit since you posted it:
1. There is an almost complete absence of narrative in the text. Two exceptions are the episode with John’s messengers and the story of the centurion.
2. And as far as I can see, the only persons identified by name are John the Baptist and Jesus.
3. John’s message seems a bit sterner and more threatening - more fire and brimstone. The sayings that emphasize forgiveness and not judging appear to be associated with Jesus.
4. One caveat to the previous: some of the sayings are directly attributed to John, and some to Jesus. But others are not directly attributed in the text, but only by the use put to them by the evangelists. Could the Q source have contained a collection of sayings associated with the John-Jesus movement as a whole, with specific attributions to either of the two teachers shifted or confounded over time?
5. There are no references to the apostles in this text, outside of a passing notice in 17:5-6. The final passage refers to followers who have continued with Jesus being set on thrones to judge the twelve tribes. But there is no clear indication that there are only twelve “special” followers, each one to occupy one of the thrones.
6. The whole idea in that later passage that Jesus is “appointing” people as judges seems a little out of line with the earlier direction to forebear judging and, presumably, to leave that the God when the kingdom arrives.
7. The Jesus of this text conveys a strong sense of urgency about the kingdom. Everybody is supposed to drop everything, leave their plows in the field, leave whatever they have in the house, don’t look back and follow him. And following apparently means literally wandering with the followers - with nowhere to lay one’s head, relying on faith for provision to one’s needs. Where are they going? Where are they to await the arrival of the kingdom? In the Gospel of Luke there is the clear sense of a kind of journey that begins in Galilee and moves, with deliberate intent, toward Jerusalem. That doesn’t appear in this text. The emphasis is just on repentance, renunciation and preparation for the imminent arrival of the kingdom.
8. I found it difficult to put together any coherent understanding of the “Son of Man” teachings. In some places, Jesus seems to portray himself as a messenger announcing the coming of the Son of Man. In other places (7:24-35) he seems to identify himself as the Son of Man. Perhaps the compilers of the sayings differed among themselves about what Jesus had taught? Or perhaps Jesus himself was not sure?
9. When Jesus says, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me,” it is natural to infer that he means the Father is the one who sent him. But could he mean John?
10. The passage from 10:21-22 is very striking. One reading is that Jesus himself does not claim to know who the Son is - only the Father knows that. But it is one thing to say that only the Father knows who the Son is, and quite another thing to say only the Son knows who the Father is. Don’t the prophets and pious people of Israel know who the Father is? Is it possible that Jesus believes he is the Son, and believes that whatever experience of the Holy Spirit he had when he was baptized by John imparted in him a kind of gnosis that gave him a true, and unique, understanding of the true nature of the Father?
11. When John’s messengers ask, on behalf of John, whether Jesus is he who is to come, Jesus does not confirm or disconfirm that claim. He only points out that he is performing good works of power that no one should be offended by, and then goes on immediately to extol John.
I reached through the screen for my copy just fine.
Much thanks.
Always interesting and thought provoking. Thank you for sharing.
I didn't notice any female influence in the text, and I was looking for it. The tone is a declaration with some distinct indignation smoldering on a back burner.
Tabor was funny at the end of his lecture. After I have put my hand to the plow, I don't turn around to see if Tabor is happy.
Good observation...are women ever in "sayings" materials? Something to think about...in contrast to Thomas.
Their influence is genuinely present. Mt. and Lk come to mind with their prominent nativity narratives. The circumstances of birth weren't/aren't something that men grant ''pride of place''. There is also Mt. 13-12 to consider as of female influence. What man expects his father to give him ''more'' for doing what was expected? In contrast, females do have just such an expectation.@@JamesTaborVideos
the Jesus of Q is a teacher and deeply focused on a mission to draw his people to action for the kingdom of God. Not a symbol of unity, someone in direct opposition to the current temple religious structure and deeply populist in his movement. John is portrayed as the first to embrace the move as the paver of the way and someone without which Jesus would never have succeeded as Jesus and johns messages are essentially the same. This very much a deep apocolpic view that sees the end as coming soon within heart beats. In fact they see it as Jesus ready to call forth the kingdom at any moment. The redemptive elements the savior complex of Jesus is not present in a strict Q reading what is their is the need for personal responsibility and accountability for sin and community forgiveness. His followers ability to cure the sick and cast out is demons is nearly as much verbiage as Jesus' own accomplishments. The message is flattly we will bring in whoever will listen to and embrace our movement be they prositute, tax collector or pharisee but if they are not sincerely repentant of their sins or they actively work against the movement their is nothing but ruin and damnation for them.
Great observations...lots of ins and outs here...it is certainly not a simple complex.
Not at all the roots of the future Christianity are evident but unrefined. Again this is a small off shoot of judism and while the ideas are inline with the law as they see it. It's interesting to see the proto form without the later lense of Roman unification under Constantine and pre Paul making the church gentile friendly. Q is raw and radical judism preaching about the covenants fulfillment through love, where Yahweh is not a destroyer but instead a loving father who holds his children to a high standard but will provide for them endlessly
Dr Tabor, once again you're right on track with the reading I'm doing anyway. I'm currently rereading Burton Mack's Q book, and it will be interesting to compare your version of Q with his
Having compared this document with Mack's origina translation of Q and his chapters about the initial development of the Jesus movement has made me hope for a course from Dr Tabor, similar to yhr gospel of Mark course.
Love your work James!
I will say thank you for now, as is my custom, and perhaps more after doing the reading
Based on the reading, Jesus comes off as a difficult, disturbing person. It's easy to imagine how he could have been perceived as a public nuisance. It's not so easy to imagine how he expected people to apply his teaching, or even what it meant. In Matthew he does tell folks to obey the scribes and Pharisees, so that may be helpful...
Reading this document really underscores the weaknesses of the two-document hypothesis for deriving Q. This document does not read cohesively. The jump to 4:2b-12 implies that connective material is missing. It doesn't deliver especially primitive material. The Centurian story is Pauline with a strong supercessionist theme. The reference to taking up one's cross would be truly remarkable if it could be attributed to Jesus while he was extant, but that is unlikely. This writing also reads as if jumbled, with parts that look related scattered about. An example is the saying about a rich man speaking "from the abundance of his heart," and later there is a different passage about a man's heart being where his treasure is. There clearly is something going on with the Q passages, but this methodology, i.e., the two-document hypothesis- is not getting to the bottom of it.
More good info ,thanks dr tabor ( Christ our righteousness).
Thank you for sharing your compilation. One thing that stood out to me is that Iesou is referred to as Son of Man throughout the document except on page 2 4:2b-12, where it is the Satan who calls him “Son of God” and 10:21-22 where he speaks in the third person. In 6:27-37, others will also be sons of the Most High God. Interesting.
Thank you. This is amazing
Very thankful for this resourceful video, which will help me tackle each gospel like a journey through the different passages of the Q source, as if to cut the Gospels into a journey with milestones. What transpired to me from reading it is that the Q source looks like the most appropriate way any historical document must start. It looks like the joints of the Gospels that might have been written down verbatim on sight. The other biblical passages would then be meant to create the cohesion and the bone structure, so, like a bone, if they had been lost, they would possibly be rebuilt differently without loss of functionality, if the one who takes care of that effort is experienced enough, if he knows how to help broken bones grow again. I will definitely try something along those lines after I find a way to highlight Q in the Gospels, but then I need a Bible in paper formay, which is not easily available in my country.
I like the fact fact that "Quelle" does not only mean "source" but also means "spring".
I like the term defined as;
"springwell".... Cheers!
Thanks for sharing "Q" ❤ After reading Q I was overwhelmed with the idea that Jesus was a prophet to the Jews who called out Jewish leaders for their hypocrisy and taught the real meaning behind the law - an inner righteousness that comes from trusting God the father and allowing a natural and inner righteousness to flow (Like water) out of our hearts not a set of rules. We are all potentially sons of God who will ascend to heaven. Jesus' death and resurrection was misunderstood(Hellenized) and or mythicized. Jesus was a man born of a woman who had brothers and sister(s). He was a man not a God, who was called by some to be-the messiah or king of the Jews. His kingdom though was spiritual (Out of your belly or inner source shall flow rivers of living waters (Spirit). I see this inner source to be like the Chinese concept of "Wu Wei" or effortless action or the free flow of energy (Spirit). Jesus was like a yogi who was enlightened or Taoist priest who was one with the Dao and practiced effortless action (In a Jewish context). 😊
Yes! Jesus was a Prophet and a Messenger of God ..
Thank you so mu ch❤
I would go with the earliest beliefs. If I'm understanding this, it would be what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:42-50.
BTW I find MUCH value in your video's. I am one who believes the Old and New Testament scriptures have been manipulated through translation and with words added and some removed, however, I do believe YAH has encoded the true message in the Hebrew NAME meanings, same with places, cities, and mountains names etc. and try to understand the earliest Hebrew culture, and or the culture of the various different tribes, or gentile nations being written about, and then put it all into context with the whole chapter, and always go with the earliest manuscripts
Thank you for your work. Great research that ALL Christians need to know.
You said "I believe YAH has encoded..." That is what most apologists don't get. Why would an Almighty, All-knowing, All Powerful creator god encode anything?. To encode is to negate those attributes.
@@aremuola9464 I think you are misunderstanding what I meant. In ancient Hebrew the Names all meant something, they named people for what their character was like. So even though the evil ones mistranslate and change words over time much of the meaning of the passage comes out just in knowing what that persons name means in Hebrew... that being said, an ALL powerful, Almighty One can do whatever he pleases. The anointed One spoke in parables, so .... BTW Im not an apologist.
I've always thought that there must have been fragments of sayings and happenings about Jesus written in Aramaic or possibly Hebrew that were used to compile what ended up being the gospel story written in greek.
According to MacDonald Q was was written fully formed in greek
I read the document and it really is a good exercise to see the texts together as a kind of book in themselves. Some seem to attach to a part of the Jesus narrative and not simply as wise sayings. For instance, John the Baptist is a narrative (it's not even a Jesus saying) and naturally comes at the beginning. Or the trials in the desert prior to his ministry. Or perhaps the warnings at the last days in Jerusalem. These sit awkwardly next to moral sayings without connection to a narrative. This makes me skeptical that these were ever a book in themselves. Acts 21 speaks of the daughters of Phillip and it is suggested that this relates to Luke mentioning his sources (the Gospel of Luke begins by acknowledging multiple sources). Perhaps these sayings had been gathered by these remarkable young women (though not as a book) and they gave them as material for the gospel that Luke was working on. The Gospel of Matthew then uses Luke as a principal source.
Good observation...some have doubted that the temptation narrative was part of Q--if it did circulate independently. I do think, however, that a case can be made for a fairly tight flow and organization...it takes a bit of analysis to see it. I will do a video on that in the future, but wanted to start with just encouraging people to read it!
I would love to see you put together your own version of the bible good doctor. With only those books and scriptures that remain true to the original teachings without the interjections of the church fathers who came later, I think they injected the Trinity doctrine into everything they could get their hands on, like the Didache that has contrary forms of baptism.
This was a very impactful and insightful read. Thank you, Dr. Tabor for this.
Overall, my impressions are of a Jewish teacher/preacher/prophet consistent with those of the Tanakh/OT.
Jesus and his teachings here are very much Jewish and seeking to reach and influence a Jewish audience.
John is clearly someone Jesus admires, seeing him as an epochal figure, and seeks to emulate him in his teachings.
And Jesus as Q depicts here is definitely more focused on the necessity of good behavior/living rather than the need to affirm creedal statements. The Messiah then is a teacher whose kingdom is ushered in with adherence to this interpretation of the Law more than it is a about getting salvific formulae correct or domination and conquest.
This also seems to be underscored as it opens with John denouncing Jewish leaders as being unable to live up to being true children of Abraham and then proceeds to teach to tax-collectors, who would’ve been deemed traitorous, and Roman(?) soldiers. Jesus seems to affirm this kind of view, in some ways opening up the definition of “Israel” to include Gentiles who believe in God through his teachings and adhere to them.
In Malachi the Jews are told to follow the Laws of Moses, before Elijah appears. JESUS would have known this directive as a believing Jew.
Abraham was the first to receive, The Gospel, The good news of the Kingdom! Galatians 3:6 Just as Abraham “put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 7 Surely you know that it is those who adhere to faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 Now the scripture, foreseeing that God would declare people of the nations righteous through faith, declared the good news beforehand to Abraham, namely: “By means of you all the nations will be blessed.” 9 So those who adhere to faith are being blessed together with Abraham, who had faith.
New King James Version
Galatians 3:8
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”
Wow, what a fascinating exercise. I jotted down what I expected to find before reading it, and I was wrong! This is a lot more social than I had expected.
"I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will grind together; one will be taken and the other left." and "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken. I tell you, you will not see me until you say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”
I had assumed these were written after the destruction of the temple. Wrong.
To what degree might this represent a version of the Jesus movement BEFORE and independent of Paul?
It holds together well and is a different version of Christianity. Where are the sexual sins? Sin is social evil and not personal morality.
What are the major themes and emphases?
Justice, sharing, even the social gospel. Future kingdom.
How is John the Baptizer presented?
Strongly represented.
How is the figure of Jesus portrayed?
A teacher. Eight references as the Son of Man and I think Jesus was hinting he was the Son of Man, so apocalyptic.
Is there a “Christology” reflected?
Not a divine Christology. Not a sacrificial atonement. An apocalyptic Son of Man.
What about the atoning death of Jesus which is central to later forms of Christian faith?
Missing!
What sort of apocalypticism is reflected?
Parts I had rejected as being written post the destruction of the temple are clearly apocalyptic Son of Man references here. This is not Paul's religion.
What is the view of the future?
An post-apocalyptic kingdom
What would it be like for someone to “Follow” the Teachings of Jesus based on Q?
Is that a challenge? While I no longer call myself a Christian, I like to say I follow the teachings of Jesus. Reading this in one go, I am not a good follower of Jesus.
Precisely...there are so many people who are ready at the drop of a hat to give their overly dogmatic assessment of the "Q Source," who could not tell you much of anything about what this extraction contains...
Thank you, @@JamesTaborVideos Learning from you is a joy.
Your every presentation on the synoptic problem, Professor Tabor, calmly and convincingly adds another page to a consistent story. The Jesus before Paul has no pretensions of divine origin nor mission of mystical cosmic redemption. His was an urgent call to return to sincere Torah observance with compassion in preparation for the kingdom of God to come on earth.
I've also appreciated your presentation on Hebrew Matthew with its Jamesian emphasis (propaganda?) and the Ebionites who used it. Where do you think in the sequence of gospel writing might it have come? Would you judge it to have come probably before canonical Luke-Acts with its influence from Josephus, proposed by Dr Steven Mason? I'm aware that the scholarly consensus on Greek Matthew is that it is not a translation of any preceding Hebrew text.
But Luke, itself appears to have a more complex origin than just a rewriting of Matthew. Dr Bilby's analysis of the reconstructed version of Luke used by Marcion shows, with sound logic and considerable statistical significance, that canonical Luke is a later and expanded version of this earlier gospel which had survived into Marcion's time. What is intriguing, is that this Gospel combines Mark and Q, yet it was also without the deifying narratives of the birth and resurrection appearances of Jesus. Could it have even predated Matthew's gospel, but was not utilized by its author who made his own independent combination and redaction of Mark and Q?
For interest, Dr Bilby presented his fascinating detailed analysis on History Channel, but a more manageable summary was given on Gnostic Informant
ruclips.net/video/a6k5oVBsBWM/видео.html
Good observations...what is there and not there is most fascinating to think about...
Awesome I will definitely be working on this assignment. I am working on an essay currently on my theory Jesus and Mary were partners and had children.
Dear professor Tabor. Thank you so much for this and many other videos providing us with new insights and education. A question arose in my mind related to the Q source: Let us suppose we had lost the gospel of Mark - and kept the Q - we should be able to isolate the Markan material in Matthew and Luke and look at it as a separate book. Has anyone done this just to compare and find out how this fits with the gospel of Mark as we know it?
I sometimes wonder about the tempting of Jesus in the desert, about the stone turning to bread, about the casting yourself down from the pinnacle of the temple, etc. Where is the author getting his information? How would he know Jesus was being tempted by the devil? The only one who would know would be Jesus. And we don't have any testimony that Jesus told anyone about that. Maybe some of his disciples heard him responding with the words that are recorded and surmised that Jesus was being tempted.
Yes, the nature of all the gospels tends to be to relate things, like any good literary work, that the person writing would not have experienced firsthand. None of the gospels make any claim of being eyewitness testimony...
@@JamesTaborVideos
Not explicitly! But John 12:24 strongly suggests that the book of John was eyewitness testimony by whoever wrote it. It says, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." This is suggesting that the book in hand is eyewitness testimony, though possibly copied by "we", whoever they might be.
The Subcontinent! The myth of the 4 elephants of a giant turtle or tortoise supporting or containing the world occurs in Hindu mythology, in Chinese mythology and in Native American mythology.
This is the World and kingdoms that the four kingdoms of Alexander the Great could not conquer. It was prophesied in the Book of Daniel. Alexander the Great died after attacking India and his Kingdom was divided into four. And Rome became the 6th Kingdom in the Book of Revelation. There was other Kingdoms in the world.
Matthew 4:8 Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”
@@mikejurney9102
Why didn't Peter and Paul and The Apostle John, the beloved flee to the mountains. They were writing letters to the congregations before the Gospels was written. Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. To the mountain of Jehovah. When Nero who was 666 or 616 destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and executed Peter and Paul. The Roman Empire the 6th Kingdom hunted all who worshiped God. John was the last man standing and congregations that received Revelation. Jesus told Peter and John what was going to happen them.
Jesus does choose who rules with him in his Kingdom.
John 13:6 Then he came to Simon Peter. He said to him: “Lord, are you washing my feet?” 7 Jesus answered him: “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will understand after these things.” 8 Peter said to him: “You will certainly never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him: “Unless I wash you, you have no share with me.”
After Jesus was resurrected these sealed ones was told to feed his sheep. The faithful slave.
John 21:17 He said to him a third time: “Simon son of John, do you have affection for me?” Peter became grieved that he asked him the third time: “Do you have affection for me?” So he said to him: “Lord, you are aware of all things; you know that I have affection for you.” Jesus said to him: “Feed my little sheep.18 Most truly I say to you, when you were younger, you used to clothe yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and another man will clothe you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 He said this to indicate by what sort of death he would glorify God. After he said this, he said to him: “Continue following me.”
20 Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, the one who at the evening meal had also leaned back on his chest and said: “Lord, who is the one betraying you?” 21 So when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” 23 So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?”
The Apostle Peter and Paul was writing letters to the congregations before the Gospels were ever written. By about 70 AD they were executed and Jerusalem was destroyed. As long as the Apostle John was alive they believed Jesus was returning. But about 25 or 30 years later John received Revelation for the congregations. John probably was the Q source for the Gospels because he was an eyewitness to all about 70 AD.
Okay, I read it. Thanks, Doc, very nice. If these are supposed to mostly be his original sayings, I found it strange it had one about how you had to accept your cross. I think he may have planned on being martyred, but I doubt he knew the method. of course, they had all sorts of weird notions 2000+ years ago, but this one seemed odd. "first say, peace be to this house. and if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you." i wonder what they meant by that.
I always get a bit sad reading anything about these guys, and paul, cause none of it happened, of course. they totally believed it.
however, unlike most people who don't believe in it, i do think there were probably some universal spiritual processes very much at work in these things. some of these experiences aren't given to just anybody and if they interpreted them with an overlay of their beliefs of that time and place, that's merely human. some of these people were pretty extraordinary.
thanks for providing this. i also took your Mark class and found it very interesting.
The Gospel Q is not a list of saying but a teaching, as the Pirke Avot.
There was no christianity before the year 70.
And the only text that comes near it is the Didache.
Tabor is still despaired seeking for the historical Jesus.
But one never will find him. Only Paul gives a few clues and that is congruent with some details of Jesus conviction by Pontius Pilate.
There is nothing else, how long you will seek. There is nothing else.
It is my understanding that John's gospel was initially considered gnostic amd not accepted by the orthodox church until 180 AD.
2 Timothy 2:15
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
King James Version (KJV)
The problem was there was only the Jewish scriptures, so therefore the book of Timothy that ladder and all the other Epistles don't count for anything other than opinions.
Therefore I suggest you get a good Hebrew Bible in order to study the the scriptures.
Hello Dr Tabor, i see your a professor also at the Univ of N.Carolina. im pretty sure you know B.Erhman. how is your relationship with him ? I also want to know how we understand for Q to predate paul. Thank you 🙏
I think a lot too much has been made out of the possibility that Q might contain very early material and that it might be a "contending" form of early Christianity. Dr Tabor does in no way suggest anything like "maybe they didn't view Jesus' death as atoning" or "maybe they had a completely different view of Jesus" but some scholars have voiced these theories emphatically. There are also other problems in thinking so, but especially the following. The Q document reads quite much like some of the polemical writings from Qumran that clearly are "insider documents", probably not at all meant for outside eyes in the context they are offered. That's why we don't really know who "the teacher of righteousness" or "wicked priest" in Qumran texts are.
In my view Q comes across as something written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and addressing issues which also Paul had to face decades before: why hasn't the Christ returned as many of the believers have already died? How to keep the faith and people loyal in this situation? It also displays a bitter clash between the early Christian message and the rejecting Jews. From that perspective it's not that unusual or odd to not find speculations on atonement or christology. This writing is probably not meant to read as the Gospels proper and I think its addressees would have understood that immediately.
It would be unwise to draw far reaching conclusions from omissions, particularly when the document in its salvageable form is not very long. Most likely it leaves a lot unsaid on purpose. Even so, there is a short exhortation to "pick one's cross" (stauros, as a clear fixed symbol) and clearly Jesus is thought to be coming back, thus some type of resurrection view can be read behind. There have been many celebrated attempts to distinguish between earlier and later traditions (strata) but I think it streches the credibility of scientific methods too far to argue either way. Any type of material, be it apocalyptical or wisdom teaching or whatever, reads quite comfortably from the premise I mentioned before: that Q was written as community exhortation to address a pressing situation in which the Jews were still rejecting the community's message despite all the apocalyptic signs of destruction, and Jesus still hadn't yet returned. Of course and even probably there are materials of different phases and some of it very likely goes back to Jesus himself but serious historical study shouldn't make too bold statements about these.
It is interesting enough to study the writing in its own right, exactly as Dr Tabor is suggesting here, as quite much the contemporary of Mark and reflecting a very unique situation. When you read Q openmindedly (is that a word?) it actually has a lot of narrative going and may have contained even a bit more but possibly buried under the other Gospel transitions.
Thanks to Dr Tabor for this interesting video and for making the Q document so easily accessible for many.
Regardless of those secondary questions I mainly just want folks to ask what is here and what is not! And READ it.
@@JamesTaborVideos I very much appreciate that. :) Q does deserve attention. And just to clarify, I don't personally care about conclusions some people might draw on "silence and omissions". I published a couple of papers on Q in the 90ies and it was my main area but I have lost all touch (and almost interest) with any biblical study for decades. Every now and then I enjoy videos on these subjects and very much so your thoughtful and high-class content.
I would like to read it but cant access your website rightnow
Surprisingly, I'm affected by it in a negative way. It's almost entirely a collection of moralizing and "parabalizing", if you will, with nothing of historical import, except one mention of "John" who we are left
to assume is John the Baptizer. You could even call it anti-family and antisocial.--MM
Great comment, just what I was hoping for...reading it in isolation makes a huge difference I think, in trying to get at the content. Some would see the demands of the text as negative, others see it as reflective of such an apocalyptic movement that thinks it is the END ALL and BE ALL of prophetic history...e.g. The Torah and the Prophets were UNTIL John--now the new era is breaking in. Except is apparently was not! Thanks you Albert Schweitzer.
Sounds like one of the writers would have talked anout the temple if after 70AD.
Thank you for sharing this, James. I'd love to hear what you think about my five hypotheses and proofs regarding the priority of Marcion's Gospel to Luke and the two-source hypothesis for Marcion's Gospel as the foundation for establishing Q (or Qn) scientifically. Some of the blue text passages in your text of Q also happen to be well-attested for Marcion's Gospel. In a related note, BeDuhn and I have just submitted and publicly archived a Greek text of his reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel in the Journal of Open Humanities Data section of the Harvard Dataverse. It's currently being peer-reviewed, and we'd welcome your critical feedback on it.
Thanks for taking the time to comment here Mark...I respect your work and that of Jason...and Klinghardt and others...and just got the "Big" book of Dennis McDonald as well, with his approach to Q. At this point I have not offered any academic response but would like to do so in the future. I am also working with Robert Lindsey's theories on Luke...and even his putting Mark back into Hebrew, with some very interesting observations. My main hope at this point is to get our wider public, much like my former students, to at least READ the texts and enter the "game" so to speak. Like you, I think of this when I rise up, and when I lay down, and when I walk along the way. I have worn out several copies of my Nestle's text--as I am sure you have as well. I got my first one at age 17...took a course from Abraham Malherbe, then at Abilene Christian College (now University), before he headed North. Was never the same thereafter...that was the tipping point for me majoring in Greek, and also getting my Ph.D. under JZ Smith in the Humanities, not the Div School at Chicago...
I’m so confused how can we know what’s in the gospel of Q when we don’t have any manuscripts for it?
Read the text Dr. Tabor. Perhaps Q was written by James?
It sounds to me that the Q sayings are written by more than one person/source. I think al lot of the sayings may have been common Jewish sayings, kind of like Aesop's fables. Some parts God sounds merciful and others not. The main theme is repentance and preparing for the apocalypse. I was surprised it didn't have this part:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Even in the first pericope, it looks to me like this was written well after the destruction of the second temple -- "the wrath to come". And it seems aimed at uniting the various sects under the Pauline flag while committing the various other branches (most likely Jamesian) to be "cut down and thrown into the fire". The tone continues throughout to be something no first century Palestinian Jewish person under Roman occupation would ever say (or listen to), e.g. raising up gentiles as equal to sons of Abraham, a centurion saying "I am not worthy to have you come under my roof" etc. It's not as wildly antisemitic as other material in the gospels -- but neither is it of Jewish origin. I'm kind of shocked that so many well-respected secular New Testament scholars don't see this.
I could not agree more. The Roman centurion here is no different than the Roman centurion at the cross of Christ who also has more faith than all Israel (or the Jews) by recognizing Jesus as the Son of God, which is anti-Jewish and pro-Roman. Also "their fathers" (Luke 6:20-26) instead of "our fathers" is just as anti-Jewish as Mark's 7:3 "and all the Jews except they wash their hands". Is Jesus not a Jew also? So much of Q is post Paul, and might be scraps Mark left on the cutting room floor, and which Matthew and Luke then included in their extended cuts.
Also, like you, I think John could be alluding to the coming destruction of Jerusalem, not just to the coming judgment at the end of the age. Many of these Nazarene sayings get repurposed by the Gentile churches after the fall of Jerusalem to explain that fall. For example, the parable of the Jews choosing their own Jesus Barabbas instead of Paul's imaginary Jesus Christ, or God rejecting the natural children of Abraham, and raising up new children to Abraham from the nations (stones of Deucalion). In both cases, according to the Gentile churches, God is rejecting the Jews for rejecting Paul, and Paul's Gospel, and Paul's imaginary Jesus Christ. But, unfortunately, people do not understand the Gospels because they lack the historical context for doing so. It is ancient history.
Fascinating ideas.
Yeah. Many years ago I was trying to understand how a pacifist tax-paying Jesus could say "Take up your cross and follow me." That sounded seditious and rebellious to me. But then I found out that was from Paul and his church. Then that led to other study. How could Paul's teaching end up in Mark's Gospel? Well, Mark's Gospel came after Paul. And Mark's Jesus is a parable for Paul. Everything in Mark is parable. Paul is the sower that went out to sow, and the Satan James sent birds of the air (apostles and teachers of the law) to pluck up the seed, robbing Paul of his labors. Jubilees 11:10
Luke 14:27 may and may not be talking about bearing the cross for Jewish sedition against Rome. "Bearing your cross" was later a metaphor for Paul's Gospel of the cross, which freed one from bondage to the Law, and entailed persecution for the sake of Paul's Gospel, and not persecution for the sake of Torah. This is why Peter rejects Paul and Paul's Gospel in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-12, Luke 6:22-23), and why Peter rejects Mark's Jesus and Mark's Gospel of the cross in Mark 8:31-34, and why Mark includes this same "saying" in Mark 8:34 as a counter-rejection of Peter. Peter is expected to follow Paul's example, and Paul's Gospel, and Paul's Jesus. But Peter and all the Jews fall away from Paul and Paul's Jesus in Antioch, and also later in Jerusalem, just as they all fall away from Mark's Jesus in Mark's Gospel. So Luke 14:27 is metaphor, and yet still based on the Roman crucifixion of Jesus, possibly for being overly zealous of the Law and the messianic kingdom (4 Maccabees 17:21, John 2:16-17, Acts 21: 20-21). It would be something of a paradox if the pacifist turn the other cheek Jesus of the Gospels advocated being literally crucified for murder and insurrection, as would have been the case for Barabbas if not for a little creative parable on Mark's part. The parable being: "the Jews" of the Jerusalem church rejected Paul and his Jesus Christ, and chose instead their own Jesus Barabbas. Being only a parable, it is not clear if Mark means this other Jesus was literally involved in insurrection and murder, or only that his Jerusalem church was later involved in the war with Rome along with the other Jews.
"Luke 6:22-23 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake...for in like manner did their fathers unto the prophets." Note this is like Galatians 2:11-14 where some came from James, and then Peter and the other Jews hypocritically separated from Paul's Gentiles. From whence we have hypocritical separatists - which in Hebrew is hypocritical Pharisees or Perushim. So Q is again here post Pauline and, in this case, very much in line with Mark's Gospel. Paul's experience in Antioch with Peter and some scribes (teachers of the Law) come from James is a big deal for Mark and also for Q. It all has to do with the Jerusalem "church" rejection of Paul and Paul's Jesus for being "lawless". For which cause these Jerusalem church zealots of the Law and Sicarii try to kill Paul (Acts 21 and 22). In the same way the Gospels later portray "the Jews" as trying to kill Jesus. However Luke 6:20-21 seems to go back to the Poor of the Jerusalem church, and a temporal kingdom of God, characteristic of the Nazarenes. So again Q appears to be a mixed bag, as one would expect, because Pauline Christianity evolved from Nazarene sedition (Acts 24:5).
@@stephen-f9h All your little Bible study really shows is that you can jump about in scripture linking this passage to that passage and come up with pretty much any theology you want.
Dear Dr. Tabor. How probable do you think the hypothysis is that there never was a Q source, but that Luke more likely copied from Mathew?
Isnt the go to James the just part in the Gospel of Thomas before Paul?
The reason the ‘Q Source’ is hypothetical is because it doesn’t exist. The purpose of it’s invention was to support the hypothesis that the first gospel written was Mark’s. Prior to the 19th century, it was widely agreed that Mathew was written first, thus placing all the gospels earlier and into the timeframe of first person witness.
19th century theologians had wished to de-emphasize the literalness of the gospels and bring Christianity more in line with scientific realism.
It seems to me that Q is simply stuff that Mark chose not to use, and then it later showed up in Luke and Matthew. In fact Mark may have created some of Q and the rest originated from the Jerusalem church, and Mark chose not to put either in his own Gospel, perhaps wanting to keep his Gospel short and to the point.
Good compilation of the material found in Luke and Matthew but not Mark. Thank you. My look at the material shared in Matthew and Luke, however, does not show the dependence on a literary source. There are far too many differences in the Greek to assume literary dependence. I think it is more likely these were oral pieces that were communicated around Judea in the teaching of the Apostles and others and were modified somewhat by the tellers. So, they are similar, but not the same.
I would say the same for Mark. As the transcribed teaching of Peter in great part, Mark too has an oral source. Those pericopes have the marks of being crafted for oral presentation and memory with the pericopes very often having an organizational pattern called chiasm. In addition, Peter's part was probably adapted to his audience and the time he had. Those of us who are teachers know how that goes. A written gospel does not have nearly the same restraints.
So, *"What would it be like for someone to “Follow” the Teachings of Jesus based on Q?"*
Since all three Gospels are sourced in the oral teachings of the Apostles prior to being written down, Q, if you will, is found in all three. Therefore, there is no appreciable difference.
*"Is there a “Christology” reflected?"*
Yes, but only as we view the whole of the teachings. _It is artificial to separate the Q sayings as you have done from the whole._
*"What sort of apocalypticism is reflected?"*
The apocalypticism is the same. All three include the Mt. of Olives discourse and other remarks about the future with little difference.
❤
Those who assume that the Q Source exists, also assumes that Jesus was an actual historical person. How many scholars are mystics? So far, as I have listened to many, my estimation is none. There are no scholars who are mystics. The reason I am emphasizing this is that, to me, the Hebrew Bible was written and inspired by mystics (Kabballah) and the characters are symbols that represent and point to internal spiritual transformation. How does God communicate to the prophets? By internal visions and dreams! I view myself as a mystic from my deep experiences, such as St. John of the Cross' Dark Night of the Soul (I had the experience without even knowing about this as it was after I described my experience to a friend who gave me the book to read. This is the same as with another experience of the Abraxas. Only this time it was 4 years after my experience that I found out it was an Abraxas experience.)
It is interesting that if one was to ignore the temptation pericope (4:2b-12), you could actually attribute all of the teaching until 6:49 to John the Baptist. The continuity between the two is also interesting; notions of bearing fruit, lending goods/money, coats and the notion of 'your father.' Jesus then suddenly appears and congratulates the faith of a gentile, which then is reported back to John and the pericope of 7:18-23 and 7:24-35 ensues.
It's at this point where people begin to follow Jesus and he commissions people to proclaim the imminency of the kingdom of God. Furthermore its at this point that Jesus takes the role of the teacher and begins extrapolating upon the coming kingdom - denouncing the rule of the demonic, the pharisees and lawyers. The timing that denunciation would be fulfilled would be at the coming (either the return, or ascension) of the son of man, wherein those who had participated in the trials of Jesus would enter his kingdom (22:28-30).
The Jesus of Q does foretell some form of suffering (17:23-37), yet we are not sure as to what that may entail. It is plausible that Q portends some sort of angelic/human rebellion wherein depravity increases, as both the settings of the narratives of the flood and Sodom contain a backdrop of angelic human miscegenation and 'false teaching' (which is understood within the paradigm of apostasy, not heterodoxy). It may be that Q's Jesus sees many false teachers arise, convincing everyone to abdicate from Q's God, dooming them in the process. But if one clings to the teachings of Q's Jesus they will suffer, but eventually vindicated alongside him.
This was a really fun exercise! Thank you Professor Tabor!
The Q document is the original Hebrew Matthew. Its spoken of by early church historians as being held in Cesseria.
Yea some of the Greek translations that we have today are later than some of Paul's epistles but that doesnt mean the source material is later than Paul's writings. You guys dont actually think the Jewish followers of Jesus wrote the Gospel down in Greek do you? That's preposterous.
James Edward's has a book called the Hebrew Matthew and the development of the Synoptic Tradition. I havent seen any solid proof that the gospel of Mar precedes the other synoptic Gospels for that matter. The claim that Mark is first is central in arguments that says the more detailed gospels of Matt and Luke are more or less embellishments and are not historically accurate. It's just as likely Mark is a reduction of Luke or Matthew
I understand your position, it is the traditional one, but I think it is mistaken. I have several videos where I go through and show that Mark is not derivative...just look at the Playlist on the gospels on my channel and see what you think of my argument.
So who created this collection ‘Q’ again? Is it a fact that we don’t know for sure who the Gospel writers are?
It is written that throws 500 eye witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, but yet we hear not one witness coming forward and saying that they seen this. I find that to be suspicious, especially after reading the Hebrew Bible...😊
Reminder standing of Jesus is that he's a Man that was anointed by God to be a prophet and Paul came along and see no way to make money, Constantine saw it as a way to unite a falling kingdom, but he didn't convert and the Roman Catholic Church as means of control, thus Christianity was born🤦
Refined Paganism😊
Things you wish existed. If I want waffles I ask for waffles. If I want proof and evidence I will go elsewhere. The dating of the gospels is now so early there is no room for a "W" source. W for waffles.
If the gospels were written after 70AD, then they would have mentioned the destruction of the temple. But none do. It suggests they were all written prior to 70AD.
They would have known from the book of Daniel. The Gospels is for a future fulfillment. Matthew 24:15
the disgusting thing that causes desolation: Daniel foretold that “disgusting thing(s)” would be associated with desolation. (Da 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) Jesus here indicates that “the disgusting thing that causes desolation” had not yet appeared; it was to come in the future. And 33 years after Jesus’ death, Christians witnessed the initial fulfillment of this prophecy when they did catch sight of a disgusting thing standing in a holy place. The parallel account at Lu 21:20 reads: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near.” In 66 C.E., pagan Roman armies surrounded “the holy city,” Jerusalem, a place that the Jews viewed as holy and that was the center of the Jewish revolt against Rome. (Mt 4:5; 27:53) Discerning Christians, who recognized that the Roman army with its idolatrous banners was “the disgusting thing,” took it as the final signal to “begin fleeing to the mountains.” (Mt 24:15, 16; Lu 19:43, 44; 21:20-22) After the Christians fled, the Romans desolated both the city and the nation. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70 AD., and the last Jewish stronghold, Masada, fell to the Romans in 73 AD. (Compare Da 9:25-27.) The detailed initial fulfillment of this prophecy provides a solid basis for trusting that the greater fulfillment will also take place, culminating with Jesus’ “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Mt 24:30) Many ignore Jesus’ statement that Daniel’s prophecy would be fulfilled after Jesus’ day, and they follow Jewish tradition in applying Daniel’s prophecy to an event in 168 B.C.E. when Syrian King Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) profaned Jehovah’s temple in Jerusalem. Antiochus attempted to stamp out the worship of Jehovah, even building an altar over the great altar of Jehovah and sacrificing pigs as an offering to the pagan god Zeus of Olympus. (See study note on Joh 10:22.) The apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees (1:54) uses an expression similar to the one found in the book of Daniel (associating disgusting things with desolation) and applies it to the event in 168 B.C.E. However, Jewish tradition and the account in 1 Maccabees are human interpretations, not inspired revelations. Certainly, Antiochus provoked feelings of disgust by desecrating the temple, but his attack did not result in the desolation of Jerusalem, the temple, or the Jewish nation.
(if we go with)
The Gospels was written after Jerusalem was destroyed. The Apostles were writing letters to the congregations before the Gospels was written. Because after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Jewish practice of animal sacrifices ended when the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. With the temple gone, there is no longer a place for the sacrifices to be offered according to the Mosaic Law. Did they make the Gospels up because they had no temple no more. No they didn't. The Gospels are proof of Jesus. The need for animal sacrifices no longer existed, for Christ had fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law (Matthew 5:17). Animal sacrifices were merely a type of the perfect Sacrifice-the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). The sacrifice of Christ paid the debt of sin for all mankind, both Jew and Gentile (Romans 1:16; Hebrews 9:12-15).
John was an eyewitness to Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem and he received Revelation for the congregations of Christ!
The First of John
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have observed and our hands have felt, concerning the word of life, 2 (yes, the life was made manifest, and we have seen and are bearing witness and reporting to you the everlasting life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us), 3 that which we have seen and heard we are reporting also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us. And this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
@@strappedfatman7858 thanks for the reply. The soon and at hand destruction also explains why in the book of Acts, believing citizens of Jerusalem are all selling their property and moving out. They knew what was about to happen in their generation. Anyone who followed these believers would have been saved from destruction.
I read through it, and found what I would suspect, that Jesus’s Christology was a prophet, healer, teacher, and a good deeds ethics philosopher.
The inclusion of the three temptations narrative was interesting because it is a mythological motif.
And if that is the case, I think the early Christians who read Q, were strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism, maybe even saying he is the Jewish Zarathustra.
The temptation of Zarathustra is “you are only a man so therefore you can’t overcome my temptations”
In this story Jesus refers to himself as a man and the devil refers to him as the “the son of God” but this status of “son of God” occurs directly after his baptism.
And in this text John the Baptist baptizes with water but Jesus will Baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit.
Zarathustra baptized with water, fire, and "holy wind."
So, I would argue that this early text was not merely the sayings of Jesus or all true stories but a syncretism with Zoroastrianism specifically. And the later gospels were a syncretism with Greek literature.
The three temptations of Zarathustra would have been known and it is saying he is a great as a Zarathustra and the Old Testament prophets.
I think Q and Mark (I took your Mark course) are older than Matthew (or Hebrews) and Luke, Dr. Tabor. I'm a seeker of "truth." I think Stephen, as recorded in Acts, is a pastiche of the martyrdom of James (the bishop of Jerusalem & the Brother of Jesus).
I don't know what to think of Saul/Paul as, clearly, the prevailing groups modified his words at a later date, his message in the epistles seems schizophrenic. I've read your Jesus Dynasty and Dr. Robert Price's the amazing colossal apostle, but I'm more interested in ancient textual guidance.
Besides for the DSS as presented in the Nag Hammadi scrolls book I read, where am I going to find the essence of the John/ Jesus/ Simon Magus/ ?is it Dositheus? Lineage? Are Ebionites the same as Nazoreans? Do they have the unadulterated message? Does Mandaeism? Ethiopian Christians? Mar Thoma Christians in India? Where can the knowledge revealed in any of the Ancient Mystery Cults be unveiled today? Or am I wasting my time looking at the various failed apocalyptic messianic cults? Thank you for your time. :)
Is it possible that luke used matthew as a source or vise versa
What about those sayings which are in all 3. Assume Mark redacted rather than had sayings independently?
What do you understand the ‘kingdom of God‘ to be?
Gospel of Mark being the Peter dramatic version written in Greek and Matt and Luke versions later.
Your consolidation of Luke assumed Q was in a Semitic language best guess, shows human writing and storytelling. When was it originally written or was it done in BCE?
Do you see a supernatural element for all your knowledge and research?
Thank you for sharing this. It seems to me that Jesus himself did not write down his teachings neither did his disciples. So it is left to the believers to compile a list of teachings from sources who may have heard him and could remember what they could. The gospel writers then compiled a narrative and combined it with Pauls teachings and opinions to form the foundation of Christian doctrine. The doctrine itself get modified in the second and third centuries by Roman and Greek thought overriding the Jewish teachings which is based on the Torah. I have started a study of the Torah from Jewish teachers, as I try to fathom “What did Jesu teach?”
My vision is very poor, but i will try later. I am quite certain there is no Q. I once wrote out the synoptic gospels, passage by passage. Using Hatch and Redpath i used the variations to find OT references. I found a consistency in all the variations. Most noteable is that the words מערה מאת לוק יענה all appear in Solomon's passage on the way of life. I find there were 4 classes of disciples. The other 70, the first 70, the 12 in general and the 3 who were closest to the Lord. These lessons could have been taken directly from the script bag of one disciple from each group. The titles are taken from the first words according to judaic tradition. In particular, you notice the ship in a storm gets further before calling out for help. Ones light grows from just enough for one, to light the room and finally to shine out the window attracting others. Pick any passage and find it's true. And look at Hebrews. The word means multi-portioned. Im sorry if this is a burden. It is important.
Somebody put a lot of effort to discern and write down this Q source you provide here. The larger question is why? Why were these quotes put in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. The more I think about it, the more clear it becomes. Whoever collected the sayings in the original Q source (Perhaps James) also included how much corroboration those testimonials had. Some sayings were backed up by the confirmation of many apostles. Other sayings only had one or two witness to corroborate them.
So when the gospel authors started writing up their narratives, each had to decide what to include. Mark was not an eye witness, so he only included what had the most corroboration in the Q source. Peter probably helped construct the narrative from the sayings in the Q source. The authors that were Jewish (Mark and Matthew) did not think women's testimony carried much veracity, so they do not include much information about the birth narrative and the testimony of the women at the tomb. Matthew, of course, was an eye witness, so he includes more information than the other gospels, and we have extended testimony in his narratives. Luke was not Jewish, so he was under no obligation to require multiple witness corroboration. He was a doctor, and so perhaps he thought we had more experience detecting deceptive behavior. This would allow him to accept single eye witness testimony if he interviewed the witness himself thoroughly. So we have more information from the testimony of women such as the birth narrative and the testimony of the women at the tomb.
John is a different story. He seems to go out of the way to avoid talking about the narratives of the typical things that Jesus said. This makes me think that he must have had access to the Q source. And he must have been aware of the other gospels and decided to write about other things not included in the synoptic gospels and instead try to give some insight into the relationship between Jesus and the Jews or between Jesus and the Father.
Indeed, these are all worth addressing, though I am not sure your assumptions of authorship, eyewitness testimony, and without real problems. In this post at least, I was trying to hone in on the content of this collection explicitly...
@@JamesTaborVideos
Yes, you are right. I am only theorizing here. But I don't know how it could be avoided. If James was literate, had access to the apostles, was the brother of Jesus, who appeared to him after the resurrection. How could he not start asking questions and looking for confirmation? How could he not write it down and start studying it?The subject would have been just too important to ignore in good faith.
Some clues to its reliability might be how well the literary style of the book of James matches the literary style of some of the other gospels. Perhaps Luke was working with James to translate his notes into Greek. Also, notice that the book of James indicates a personality geared to such a task. He writes, "He who knows the good he should do and does not do it sins." 4:17. And , "The tongue is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body..." 3:6, which would require confirmation of anyone's word for it. Plus, you don't get to be the first bishop of Jerusalem just because you are related to Jesus. You have to earn it by being earnestly intent on collecting and maintaining the traditions of the Gospel.
This also might explain why the gospels are not signed... It was a group effort. I can imagine James helping Matthew look up scriptures that he used. I can imagine Jesus actually being the one to teach James, his younger brother, how to read and write. Wouldn't that be ironic. Yes, it seems the destiny of James is all too clear.
Maybe that's how James got his title of "James the Just": James may have studied investigation techniques in order to investigate what happened in the ministry of Jesus. These techniques may have found use in investigation other occurrences in his day to make sure the innocent were protected.
On a first pass, I’m surprised at just how Jewish Jesus is, and how often he’s pointing people to God and not to himself at all. His message seems more about the purity of your faith and trust in God over man and in simply obeying god like a kid obeys a parent.
These are the personal memory of someone who heard these words, and repeated them. Our source (Source) is someone's grandchild, it seems to me. Which is obviously true, and didn't sound quite as stupid when I first thought it.😂
Oh, well. In person would be easier.
Probably a chain of folks...we have stray saying in papyri, the Didache, the Gospel of Thomas, and elsewhere...
Q is composed in Greek and does not derive from oral tradition or memory. It is literary in composition.
YR DOCUMENTS ARE NOT CLEARLY VISIBLE ON SCREEN ?
YR connection is bad.
I listened to the entire video and have no idea who Q is.
John de Lancie
@@christophermanley3602
👍
@@christophermanley3602 Thanks, I found him!
I thought that there was a Q source but it was lost.
Interesting didn't know about the 'Q' writings just confirming again Christ is Quetzalcoatl 🐉🐍🔱 Born from a Virgin... Crucified on a Cross... It's all about finding the 'Virgin Bride' 🌹👑 I wouldn't believe anything those old apostles said.....
In terms of present and missing content, there is remarkably quite a bit here in terms of Christology, prophecy, practice, and eschatology.
A brief example
Atonement through faith - Absent
Salvation through works and grace- Present
The Virgin Birth - Absent
The Son of David - Present
Jesus as the Son of God and Man - Present
Jesus pre-existing - Questionable
The Passion - Absent
A prediction of suffering - Present
The major emphasis and content
Repenting and turning to the ways of God.
Living by God's example.
Loving first in all things.
Imitate God by imitating Jesus
John is presented as the greatest of all prophets, one who was prophesized to come make way for the Lord.
There is clearly more congruence in the teachings of Jesus and John, it is evident they are of the same ilk.
Jesus is presented as one greater than John who is claimed to be the greatest born among women, this presents some interesting potentials, perhaps the pre-existing idea. Jesus is presented as the Son of Man and the Son of God, seemingly the firstborn Son of God and also the Son of Man ie Adam.
There is quite a Christology present here.
Examples
Jesus is portrayed as the firstborn Son of God and the Son of Man ie the son of Adam, he seems to indicate a special position.
Jesus can reveal the Father to whom he chooses and the Father is hidden until he does.
Jesus was given the Kingdom of God and all things became subject to him.
Jesus was the one prophesized to come along with John before him.
Jesus was sent directly by the Father.
Jesus says that to reject him is to reject the Father.
Jesus says that the only one who knows who the Son is, is the Father, and the only one who knows who the Father is, is the Son.
Jesus is presented as one who becomes King of the creation.
As I mentioned before there is no atoning death, there are shades of such an event being shortly in that it is said the Son of Man must suffer and be rejected.
Atonement through faith - Absent
Salvation through works and grace- Present
The eschatology presented seems to have the wrath of God pending being held back only to bring others into the Kingdom, when the house is full then and only then will the wrath come, it is interesting in that it appears this gathering also includes gentiles. It also runs contrary to that which is articulated by prominent scholars.
I think they confuse the statement, "The Kingdom of God is at hand", which as far as I am concerned in the proper context is referencing the arrival and teachings of John and Jesus.
The view of the future is the return of the Son of Man and what seems to be the Kingdom of God being established on earth with Jesus as King and the disciples sitting beside him in judgment of the 12 tribes. It is also evident that many gentiles will be among them.
I think what it would mean to follow these teachings is simply to live in compassionate love, placing others ahead of oneself in service and a lack of importance on material possessions and the material world. Living according to the spirit of love in the example laid out by Jesus who set the example based on the Father and what he considered the true heart of the law of Moses. In addition to not practicing iniquity.
I try to as much as I can, strive to live by these teachings, ironically however being a Gay man I fear I am disqualified. I am not quite sure how to discover what iniquity is but as far as I can tell it would be to ignore the needs of others and treat them badly.
I would also add it seems that one can arrive at Binitarianism in a form though not complete equality, I do not see the evidence for the personhood of the Holy Spirit but rather that the Holy Spirit is the very breath of the Father and the Father's power in action. It appears that Jesus was both present before and incarnated but not equal with the Father only subject to him but also sharing in Divinity given dominion over all save the Father himself being subject to the Father similar to the King being subject to the Emperor. Very different than traditional Church doctrine.
Q = the social gospel
For me it looks like socio-political program for folk-teocratic revolutionary movement.
I bet these were written down when said.