Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book

[neilgodfrey]

Casey had what he called a 'chaotic' model of Q.

Is that really that much different from the idea that it had been written down at one point? At least I don't see why anyone would get into vicious debates about it. The only question worth arguing about in this case is whether Luke used Matthew or some other text.

Casey's "chaotic model" of Q denied that Q was ever an "it" "that had been written down at one point". It was a piece of writing here, another scrap of writing there, something else by another person over there . . . .

[Ulan]

Casey's "chaotic model" of Q denied that Q was ever an "it" "that had been written down at one point". It was a piece of writing here, another scrap of writing there, something else by another person over there . . . .

Yup, that's how it sounded to me. My question stands: What's the big deal? I always considered "Q" more of a descriptive concept than anything else, at least before someone finds evidence of an actual manuscript. Whether it was written down in one piece or several, who cares? All of the gospels show signs that they are composite, even the Gospel of Mark. So "Q" may only have been put together in the gospels themselves? It shatters my worldview...

Does he say anything regarding the idea that Papias' "Matthew" was in fact "Q"?

[andrewcriddle]

Casey's "chaotic model" of Q denied that Q was ever an "it" "that had been written down at one point". It was a piece of writing here, another scrap of writing there, something else by another person over there . . . .

Yup, that's how it sounded to me. My question stands: What's the big deal? I always considered "Q" more of a descriptive concept than anything else, at least before someone finds evidence of an actual manuscript. Whether it was written down in one piece or several, who cares? All of the gospels show signs that they are composite, even the Gospel of Mark. So "Q" may only have been put together in the gospels themselves? It shatters my worldview...

Some scholars believe that there was an early (proto)-Christian group, often known as the Q-Community, for whom Q was the inly authoritative Christian text. I.E. They believed and taught all the material in Q but did not believe or teach any of the things found in other portions of the NT but not in Q.

This is only plausible if Q existed as an actual document.

Andrew Criddle

[Ulan]

Some scholars believe that there was an early (proto)-Christian group, often known as the Q-Community, for whom Q was the inly authoritative Christian text. I.E. They believed and taught all the material in Q but did not believe or teach any of the things found in other portions of the NT but not in Q.

This is only plausible if Q existed as an actual document.

Or several documents? For instance, if you just have the logia in one collection and the rest in some kind of "letter"? That doesn't change much about the idea. I have no problem imagining a basically Jewish group reading a document of the sayings of one of their former teachers. However, in the end, this isn't really more than speculation. It's one of those ideas that are likely, but that's all there is to it. Likely doesn't mean it really happened. That's basically why I don't see why it's even worth arguing over the point whether it was one document or maybe just one or two collections of sayings plus some letter or oral communication.

It's a bit like arguing over whether the NT is one book or several different texts.

[Mental flatliner]

There are no texts, objects/artifacts or archaeological sites that verify the 4th-C-narrative about a 1st century preacher named Jesus of Nazaareth

Lucky for us we have an extremely complex collection of 1st century narratives, artifacts and events that do.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What 1st century "artifacts" do you believe confirm anything about Jesus? What verifiable events? What narratives corroborate the Gospels and which Gospels do they corroborate?

[Mental flatliner]

What 1st century "artifacts" do you believe confirm anything about Jesus? What verifiable events? What narratives corroborate the Gospels and which Gospels do they corroborate?

Ethically, I can't answer this question. Whatever evidence I give you will be rejected, and you'll increase the size of the void you call a mind.

[neilgodfrey]

It's a bit like arguing over whether the NT is one book or several different texts.

I'm not sure if you're interested but there is more to it than that. If there were such a document then it is significant because it would be our earliest evidence for both Jesus and his followers that dates to the time of Paul's own writings. That leads to significant questions for a number of scholars: why is there such completely different kinds of evidence at the earliest strata for Jesus/Christianity? On the basis of Q we can argue that the first Jesus followers had no interest in the death of Jesus -- it meant nothing to them in any "religious" sense. Jesus to this "Q community" of Galilee was little more than an inspiring teacher-founder of their movement.

And that raises more questions about the origin of Christianity as we know it.

[Mental flatliner]

I'm not sure if you're interested but there is more to it than that. If there were such a document then it is significant because it would be our earliest evidence for both Jesus and his followers that dates to the time of Paul's own writings. That leads to significant questions for a number of scholars: why is there such completely different kinds of evidence at the earliest strata for Jesus/Christianity? On the basis of Q we can argue that the first Jesus followers had no interest in the death of Jesus -- it meant nothing to them in any "religious" sense. Jesus to this "Q community" of Galilee was little more than an inspiring teacher-founder of their movement.

And that raises more questions about the origin of Christianity as we know it.

There's no rational reason for rejecting the gospels as something other than primary sources. They represent the oldest sources we have on Jesus, and we still have them in complete form.

When you disregard them, you create a mental disconnect with reality, and errors in judgment always follow. It's always in your best interest to consider all sources without being selective.

[neilgodfrey]

What 1st century "artifacts" do you believe confirm anything about Jesus? What verifiable events? What narratives corroborate the Gospels and which Gospels do they corroborate?

Ethically, I can't answer this question. Whatever evidence I give you will be rejected, and you'll increase the size of the void you call a mind.

Believe me, if you could point to first-century artifacts confirming anything about Jesus I promise you I would not reject them but revise my whole viewpoint on how Christianity began. I've changed my mind several times before on critical issues and would be very willing to do so on this one, too.