Q

[_1 Iron]

"Q is not talked about very often" ??

Try "it is NEVER talked about."

The first time I heard of it was last year, after I left the correlated path.

Christian history has no official place in Mormonism. I doubt it will ever take hold in the correlated path.

Christian history to a Mormon is chapter 2 of Talmage's Jesus the Christ: Christ in the premortal world.

Hello Zeezrom,

Have you ever read Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities"? While I agree with your point that early Christian history is not dwelt on in official church teachings, the more I have studied on it myself, the more charitable I find this position to be. Frankly, and at the risk of alienating our Christian friends here on the board to make this point, I don't see how an in-depth consideration of the state of Christianity in it's infancy can lead to any other conclusion than it veered sharply into many different and conflicting directions at that time. What we have inherited around us is the result of earthly forces, much like evolution, that gave us the combination of these teachings that best suited the powers that were.

The LDS church is, in my opinion, much like a preserved specimen of pure Christian DNA returned back to viability.

It's more charitable to focus on the shared good between us is my opinion. If you have had a different experience in researching the early history of Christianity, I'd love to read about it.

[_1 Iron]

The analogy is so good. Any LDS academic who would accept the Q hypothesis would be three sneezes from apostasy. It would be rip-roaringly funny.
S/R

Hello MCB,

I don't agree with your sentiment. I think it more likely that an academic from a traditional school of Christianity, such as Anglicans or Catholics, would find the "Q"-source more problematic than a Mormon scholar. It has long been the official stand of the LDS faith that the Bible is the word of God - so far as it is translated correctly. Not so the case with others.

by the way - would you mind addressing the OP by sharing your personal thoughts on "Q", as well as your religious background? It would help me to know who I am addressing in some more detail.

Thank you.

[_Aristotle Smith]

And yet, we now find you comparing the hypothetical content of this source to the Book of Mormon when it appears to suit your needs.

“Jolly good!” as a John Cleese character would say.

Nope! But nice try at humor.

Let's review what my initial problem was with your argument. You said that LDS are more likely to accept the discovery of new documents because of the theoretical belief in an open canon, plus the idea that the Bible is defective and many plain and precious things have been suppressed, lost, or changed.

My point was that "Q" is not a new document that has been discovered, therefore it is silly to say that Mormons would be more likely to accept is as a new document. Not to belabor the obvious, but "Q" is lost for good, we don't have the original "Q" source. What we have is a reconstructed "Q," taken from Matthew and Luke. So the version of "Q" that we have, is one that was never lost. Bottom line either "Q" is still lost, and therefore Mormons can't accept or reject it. Or, a version of "Q" was never lost (it's been sitting the New Testament the entire time), and therefore Mormons can't claim that they accept it as a lost document.

Now why did I use "Q" correctly? Again, I have to state that the main value in "Q" is in limiting the amount of sources we actually have. "Q" doesn't give, it taketh away.

So let's be real specific. It seems logical that "Q" would have had some teachings that were the basis for Luke's sermon on the plain, and those same teachings were also the source for Matthew's sermon on the mount. For a whole host of reasons, Luke's version is probably closer to the original "Q" source. Thus, if 3 Nephi is also going to have Jesus giving those teachings (from the "Q" source), wouldn't it be closer to the less modified and embellished source, i.e. the sermon on the plain?

Even so, this is the weakest of the three arguments I gave. The three main problems are (in order from most damaging to least damaging):

1) Why does 3 Nephi always follow the defective Byzantine text, and not the earlier text?
2) Why does 3 Nephi reconstruct any speeches that are at all similar to speeches in the New Testament since in neither place were any speeches written down verbatim?
3) If you are going to reconstruct a speech in the exact same way as the New Testament does, why would you reconstruct the later and more theologically embellished speech, rather than the earlier speech which is closer to the hypothetical "Q" source? Note, this is tricky, I'm not relying on "Q" as an actual source, I'm saying that the Lukan version is likely a better witness to the original (lost) "Q" source, so why not follow that version if you are going to reconstruct speeches EXACTLY the same way as does the New Testament?

At this point, I can simply suggest that the true “Q” if we had it would support the Matthew text most closely since we don’t actually have it to compare with anything,

The only reason you would think this is because the Book of Mormon requires that you think this. There is no evidence that Matthew's version followed "Q" more closely.

that Joseph Smith relied on a loose translation method for quoting this portion of the Bible,

Loose translation would have resulted in different words which conveyed the same idea, not the exact same words. That's called opening up your KJV and copying them. In other words, he didn't translate anything here.

I’ve made my case as to why it’s not a real issue for the LDS faith.

No you haven't. You gave a vague idea that Mormons are more open to further light and knowledge. And in that vague sense you may be correct. However, Mormons are not open to more light and knowledge when it materially damages the claims of the restoration. I think in this case it does.

I don’t see your point being a challenge either. I believe that we, as a generation, are under condemnation for not living or accepting the scripture we have, therefore I see no reason to take issue with God giving Joseph Smith the existing words of the Sermon on the Mount in place of more pure language for this same generation in the Book of Mormon.

Then why the hell do you care about "Q" at all. God gave you the scriptures that you have, (and last I checked there are no handy notations in the LDS scriptures indicated when Matthew and Luke are sourcing "Q"), so why do you care about "Q" in the slightest?

So, if we may, perhaps we can return to the “Q” source and what it means to your belief in scripture? As a former Mormon turned Christian, do you feel you are more willing to accept Luke over Matthew because of your knowledge of “Q”? Or do you read both with an equal eye?

I'm not an inerrantist so from a theological perspective "Q" really doesn't change anything for me. From a historical perspective, "Q" puts limits on reconstructing the sayings and deeds of the historical Jesus. Since I don't think that scripture is limited to the actual sayings and deeds of Jesus (otherwise why bother with the entire Old Testament, Paul, Revelation, etc.), it really doesn't affect my faith at all.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I don't agree with your sentiment. I think it more likely that an academic from a traditional school of Christianity, such as Anglicans or Catholics, would find the "Q"-source more problematic than a Mormon scholar. It has long been the official stand of the LDS faith that the Bible is the word of God - so far as it is translated correctly. Not so the case with others.

Actually, Anglicans and Catholics have never been fundamentalists, nor inerrantists, so "Q" doesn't affect them as much as you seem to think it does.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Actually, Anglicans and Catholics have never been fundamentalists, nor inerrantists, so "Q" doesn't affect them as much as you seem to think it does.

scriptural inerrancy is more a product of 19th century America than anything else.

[_1 Iron]

I don't agree with your sentiment. I think it more likely that an academic from a traditional school of Christianity, such as Anglicans or Catholics, would find the "Q"-source more problematic than a Mormon scholar. It has long been the official stand of the LDS faith that the Bible is the word of God - so far as it is translated correctly. Not so the case with others.

Actually, Anglicans and Catholics have never been fundamentalists, nor inerrantists, so "Q" doesn't affect them as much as you seem to think it does.

Perhaps this is the case. Yet, I disagree with MCB's comment as it was made. It would seem that the categories of faith traditions that would have the hardest time accepting the possibility of a "Q" document, along with it's use in the compilation of Matthew and Luke, would fall into two main groups.

First, as you suggest, those that take a stance regarding the Bible being inerrant. It wouldn't matter how long such a tradition has existed.

Second, which is my contention, is the group that includes the longer standing traditions that may not claim inerrancy but tie their claims to authority from God back to the Bible. Could the Catholic church accept the possibility that there is human interpretation involved in Matthew 16:18 without some discomfort, for example?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Could the Catholic church accept the possibility that there is human interpretation involved in Matthew 16:18 without some discomfort, for example?

Depends on the Catholic. The guys over at Catholic Answers (Patrick Madrid for example) would have problems, but actual Catholic scholars like Joseph A. Fitzmyer wouldn't bat an eye. The Roman Catholic Church, or any of the Eastern Churches don't really have a concept like sola scriptura, their authority comes from elsewhere.

[_madeleine]

If there is any understanding of the New Testament at all, in context of the Early Church, I don't see how authorship is an issue. *shrug*

To be more precise, as a Catholic I am not sola scriptura. The New Testament came out of the Sacred Tradition of the universal Church. God didn't bind several volumes of sacred text together and present it on a mountain. Sacred Tradition and Scripture work together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Faith handed on, once for all, is made complete in this manner.

There is no hidden knowledge in Christianity. We are saved by the grace of God, not by secret knowledge.

Peace.

[_1 Iron]

I'm not an inerrantist so from a theological perspective "Q" really doesn't change anything for me. From a historical perspective, "Q" puts limits on reconstructing the sayings and deeds of the historical Jesus. Since I don't think that scripture is limited to the actual sayings and deeds of Jesus (otherwise why bother with the entire Old Testament, Paul, Revelation, etc.), it really doesn't affect my faith at all.

Before I get into the rest of your post, I wanted to thank you for sharing this. I appreciate a simple answer to a simple question such as was asked for in the OP.

Now - to the remainder:

Let's review what my initial problem was with your argument. You said that LDS are more likely to accept the discovery of new documents because of the theoretical belief in an open canon, plus the idea that the Bible is defective and many plain and precious things have been suppressed, lost, or changed.

My point was that "Q" is not a new document that has been discovered, therefore it is silly to say that Mormons would be more likely to accept is as a new document. Not to belabor the obvious, but "Q" is lost for good, we don't have the original "Q" source. What we have is a reconstructed "Q," taken from Matthew and Luke. So the version of "Q" that we have, is one that was never lost. Bottom line either "Q" is still lost, and therefore Mormons can't accept or reject it. Or, a version of "Q" was never lost (it's been sitting the New Testament the entire time), and therefore Mormons can't claim that they accept it as a lost document.

It’s funny that nothing you said just now reflects my view at all. Brilliant work, I must say because it’s very interesting.

But here’s my point so as not to be overlooked, if I can do it the justice you gave this other point held by bizarro 1 Iron – from an LDS perspective, the evidence for a “Q” source that was used to compile both Matthew as well as Luke points to a missing document. You claim it is not missing, because we see the evidence for it in the two sources we do have. As you may recall from the OP, I have posited that both authors could very well have only included those portions of the text that they found most palatable to their intended audiences (i.e – a Jewish audience in the case of Matthew, and a Greek audience in the case of Luke), but neither including the most important portions of the text. For example, we have the Gospel of John which, by many accounts, was recorded so long after the resurrection of Christ that the author of it could not have been a contemporary witness to the events it includes. Perhaps the content of this Gospel was preserved using oral tradition. Or perhaps it also represents something else. Critics of Christianity claim it shows a growing complexity in Christian theology, which I have to say is true when compared to the other three Gospels. There are many ways to explain this, yet from the LDS perspective an obvious one is that the Gospel of John need not reflect new complexity, but rather lost complexity that was preserved in some way. This isn’t to say that John is perfect in it’s transmission. But taking the whole of the Gospels into account, the average Christian who accepts “Q” and other textual arguments for the construction of the New Testament has to contend with John as well as the synoptic. I view your argument against the acceptance of a hypothetical “Q” by Mormon’s as too limited. And it ignores the implications that your assumptions have for John if you no longer accept that John was written by the Beloved Apostle of the Lord.

Jolly good show, though. Keep it up.

[_Aristotle Smith]

scriptural inerrancy is more a product of 19th century America than anything else.

Yep, and it all came to a head during the fundamentalist/modernist controversy. It's a shame that so many Americans (Mormons included) think that this defines the parameters of "real" Christianity.