Were APOCALYPTIC DOCTRINE inserted into the Q document?? The document is actually non-apocalyptic...
2007-07-16 08:19:30 · 9 answers · asked by Furibundus 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Maybe it's not the original?
2007-07-16 08:22:01 · answer #1 · answered by Even Haazer 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Really hard to say since we don't know exactly what was in "Q." Since it supposedly contained only quotes, I would think it would be very easy to change the tone of any document that used Q as a source by being more selective with what quotes are used. In other words, if you want to have Q support a gospel you are working on, and want it to be very apocalyptic, all you have to do is use only the apocalyptic quotes from Q.
2007-07-16 08:27:22 · answer #2 · answered by MacDeac 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I was unaware of any reference to the Q document, which logically existed but never found. The Q is German theological conjecture. The Apocalyptic aspects, in my opinion, are the influence of John 1 (the first 10 or so chapters) and Revelation, which I do attribute to an ancient man exiled to an island. So, my question to your question -- was Matt. and Luke, John 1 and Revelation a single manuscript before the 3rd century?
2007-07-16 08:31:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The "Q" document is hypothetical. There is nothing to directly examine, only the reputed resonances we find in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. All we can determine comes from the ways in which their accounts differ. Without an actual source, there is no way to determine what might have been "corrupted". If you mean that Matthew and Luke added "apocalytic" material to their own texts, that's a different matter. (And what about Mark, who apparently didn't use Q at all?)
2007-07-16 08:28:13 · answer #4 · answered by skepsis 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's all theoretical. No one has ever proved "Q" to exist, although there is a good argument for it based on the similarities in the synoptic gospels. But we have no idea what it would have originally said.
Consider that the gospels were written for different people and that's why they're different. Matthew was directed at the Jews, Luke towards the scholars, etc...so there are variations.
2007-07-16 08:25:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There was no Q document. The writers received the words to write directly from the mouth of God. The varying gospels emphasize different aspects of Jesus. The Q document is a theory by scholars to discredit the teachings of the Bible and make the Bible less authoritative.
2007-07-16 08:25:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think Mark was based off of the best and oldest known documents. Though the ending was tacked on to make it jive with Matthew and Luke. Matthew, Luke, and John are believed to be written and based off of Mark.
John was almost nixed from canon because of its gnostic overtones...
ssshhh... don't tell anyone! ;-) lol
2007-07-16 08:30:11 · answer #7 · answered by Emperor Insania Says Bye! 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why are you talking about a theoretical document as if it is an actual document?
The whole "Q" thing is a THEORY. Not fact.
Matthew and Luke differ because Matthew was an actual apostle and Luke was a disciple of Paul. Luke's Gospel contains more of the infancy of Jesus because Luke knew the Blessed Mother.
2007-07-16 08:23:02 · answer #8 · answered by Max Marie, OFS 7 · 0⤊ 6⤋
Of course. With each Gospel, Q was altered more and more.
2007-07-16 08:27:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋