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.

Thanks, Derek. Any info as to authorship?

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.

Also, it seems that the letter of James is a product of the northern community rather than the southern community.

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

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.