Re: What's Wrong with Q?

From: Travis Bauer (
Date: Sat Oct 28 1995 - 12:42:59 EDT

On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Nichael Cramer wrote:

> > Could you show me some evidence from history or archaeology from the first
> > 1800 years that scholars believe supports the 'Q' hypothesis? I believe the
> > 'Q' hypothesis is a relatively recent creation.
> Belief in Quantum Mechanics and the model of an expanding universe have
> even shorter histories. Are we to dismiss those because the vast
> majority of humanity didn't believe in them?

        There is a fallacy in this comparison. These principles of
physics are something that we have. Thus it is irrevelant what anyone
ever thought about the matter. We don't have to rely on what other
people have thought.
        We don't have Q. Thus all we can count on is the historical
wittness. This would be traces of it in the other texts, such as the
Gospels, or what other people had written about it.
        Thus the comparison is invalid.

        It seems to me that part of the renewing interest in Q is that in
the past it was held as an interesting theory, but a theory held
tentatively while we are searching for the actual text. But people like
the Jesus Seminar are taking this interesting idea and proclaiming it
like fact. In the book "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" (don't
bother reading it, it is a waste of time), John Spong comes very close to
stating that we have found Q and unless a person already knew the story
behind it, he could easily think that Spong is saying that Q has been found!

        What does anyone think about the idea that Q could be a set of
stories that hadn't been written down but stories passed by word of
mouth, which must have existed? Surely the similarities demand some
explanation, and in the face of the almost abscence of any evidence of a text,
why not say oral tradition.

  / Travis Bauer / Earth is a beta site. /
/ Jamestown College / /

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:31 EDT