Then you say it’s not based on “fact.” Followed by a bunch of assertions, which I assume you want us to consider as “facts”? If they are not “facts” then why should I pay any attention to you at all?

I stopped following my heart and started following my brain. Life got better and made more sense.

Just follow your heart.

Jesus is Gods Mercy, believe in Jesus and why he died and follow the Commandments.

Never forget God created the earth and it’s here on earth where who remains to control what?

Pray for those who let things from the physical relm come between them and their spiritual relationship with God.

“Thank you for your fantastic review!..”

Thanks for reading, Evita..!! Yeah, whether or not you find the Q-source hypothesis to be convincing (which I do), the point of reading these kinds of books is to realize that Christian origins are much more complicated, mysterious, and interesting than many of us were led to believe. I was taught to believe that the book of Acts of the Apostles was all I needed to know about Christian origins, and that that everything could be traced back from the Apostles to the very words of Jesus. I remember reading Bart Ehrman’s ‘Lost Christianities’ and realizing that simple picture I was taught was just too naive. Ehrman showed me that Christian origins are far more diverse, and many alternatives need to be considered.

It is great reading, but be careful Evita! You will soon find the topic to be addictive.

I am half way through this book and getting ready to do a review myself. I love this book!

I was a Christian, and upon waking up spiritually moved away and dropped all religious limits and affiliations.

Today I find it fascinating to read and learn the histories of the various religions, and come to my own conclusions.

Whether Q is real or not, I just like the fact that it makes us think, expand our awareness and consider other alternatives. Because I am sure of one thing and that is that today’s Christianity is a far, far way from what it all was meant to be originally.

Just wanted to say that I have met people to claim just such a thing. I really went to the mat with one Catholic woman (who ran the church’s RCIA classes !!) over this and other textual origin matters.

Maybe the real scholars aren’t positing Q as being absolutely real, but a BUNCH of folks are doing just that.

Actually, if this document ever did exist, we have a pretty good idea of what it would say.

Any determination as to the source of the Gospels (and most of the Early Christian writings, for that matter) will involve conjecture. Certainly some of the conjecture (such as Matthean reliance on the Gospel of Mark) has far greater evidence and persuasion than other conjecture (such as Nicodemus being the author of the Gospel of John, as some may claim.)

In fact, Q has even greater problems with this, as the document itself is a matter of conjecture! At least with Matthew we have copies (albeit not duplicates.) With Q we have to conjecture whether the document even exits, conjecture what it contains, and are left with the same problems of conjecture as to the source of Q’s information. At least with Matthew we have less steps.

As for my own bit of conjecturing, I would say Matthew’s source consisted of three items (in addition to the Gospel of Mark, of course): 1) The use of midrashic elements combined with the Greek form of progymnasmata, 2) oral sayings attributed to Jesus that the intended reader expected to hear and 3) Matthew’s own mind.

As to the first, we need only look at the birth narrative. A ruler killing all the baby boys, then Jesus fleeing to Egypt and coming back out? One hardly needs a road map to see the obvious comparison to Moses. Further, Jesus’ birth account by Matthew follows the form of progymnasmata–a Greek system of presenting a biography. First present the person’s race (Jesus’ genealogy). Then present famous happenings at, or about the time of their birth (the star). Say good things about the town they were born in (Bethlehem) and finally, any prophecies fulfilled by the birth.

In fact, this answered one of the troubling issues I always had with Luke’s rejection of Matthew’s birth story. If Luke was relying upon Matthew (as I claim) why would he so greatly re-write the story? However, if Luke recognized this as Greek codswallop when Luke wrote to a Jewish audience, he felt free to completely reject Matthew’s use of Greek idioms.

As to the second, Matthew was writing to peasants. What peasant doesn’t want to hear that they shouldn’t have treasures on earth? (Matt. 6) Or that their needs would be taken care of? Or that the leaders were the “bad guys”? (Matt 23.) [Note, this was written post 70 CE. At the time of Jesus, the Sadducees would be the bad guys, not the Pharisees.]

Finally, as to the third, we have Matthew just raw making up stuff. Like the prophecy attempting to resolve the pesky issue of Jesus coming from Nazareth. (Matt. 2:23) Or the soldiers at the tomb.

One theory is that Matthew received the material for his gospel for a source unique to him, called the “M” source. (Similar to an “Ur-Mark.”) However, people realized this was an unnecessary step—why create another source when we can say it simply was Matthew’s material? In the same way, we could call that “M” source the original “Q”—but again, why add an unnecessary document? Why not say it simply comes from Matthew?

Ha ha!

It showed! It worked! Take that you evil twisted spam filter. I have outwitted you this time!