Subscribe to "A Daily Spiritual Seed" eNewsletter.
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Q, The Earliest Gospel Login/Join
 
posted
I'm back to reading books on the Kindle, mainly because of the three weeks it takes for printed books to get from Amazon to Canada. Actually this particular one I could probably have bought in Canada, but never mind. It's a highly readable and intelligible introduction to Q by John S. Kloppenborg, who teaches at the University of Toronto. In simple terms, Q is hypothetical document proposed as a source for the parts that Matthew and Luke have in common that don't come from Mark. The discovery of the complete Gospel of Thomas at Nag Hammadi added weight to the argument for Q's existence, in that it showed that the sayings collection existed as a literary form in early Christianity. Once you isolate Q from Matthew and Luke, you become aware of its different slant from the other sources of the gospels. Q speaks to a rural audience in Galilee, emphasizes the kingdom teachings, and doesn't mention Jesus' death at all. I can recommend the book (or ebook) for those new to the modern, historical study of the New Testament.

John S. Kloppenborg. Q, The Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.
 
Posts: 949 | Location: Canada | Registered: 03 April 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
Thanks, Derek. Any info as to authorship?
 
Posts: 3607 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Stratification seems to be the big thing nowadays. April DeConick did it with Thomas. Urban von Wahlde did it with John. Kloppenborg did it with Q much earlier in his career. His basic idea is that a community of Q-Christians existed in rural Galilee, without much contact with the Paul-Christians in urban Judea. Of course, ultimately the traditions of the northern group must have been absorbed into those of the southern group, otherwise we wouldn't have our canonical Matthew and Luke.
 
Posts: 949 | Location: Canada | Registered: 03 April 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Also, it seems that the letter of James is a product of the northern community rather than the southern community.
 
Posts: 949 | Location: Canada | Registered: 03 April 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Derek and Phil,
are either of you familiar with the book, "Eyewitness to Jesus," by Matthew D'Ancona and, Carston Thiede ?

They contend that the five pieces of manuscript in Oxford U, could be the original gospel of Matthew, dated 35 AD.

I don't have the expertise to know if their arguments are valid or not, buy as a lay-man, they seem convincing.

Jim
 
Posts: 52 | Location: Massachusetts | Registered: 01 April 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
I haven't read that book, Jim, but have a friend who's a scripture scholar and will ask him about it. That would be quite amazing to have a document that old.
 
Posts: 3607 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata