Has anyone ever heard of "Q" being a missing part of the Bible, specifically the lost Gospel of Q?
Many people don't realize that the Bible we read today is not the original version. For example, the "King James version" was actually edited by King James, hence the name. Many things were taken out because King James didn't want his people reading or hearing them.
I came across the Paul Wallis channel on YouTube the other day and watched the 5-part series of "Jesus in India," which covered the years of Jesus' life that are missing from the Bible. Part 2 of the series is titled "Jesus in India, Pt 2, Thomas, Q & Jesus before Christianity." You can find it on YouTube or paulwallis.com.
Just wondering if anyone else has heard of this.
yes, I've been studying the Q-Source for awhile now, and have read several different translations. One of my favorite sites is;
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html
and glad you posted this, think more people need to research the Q Gospel, helps to explain our Q😇
See u/RandomNumber. There is no ancient document that can be called "Q", it's an invented construction believed to have existed and to predate the inspired gospels because critics wanted to use the similarities to explain away the whole book.
There is in fact a tradition that predates the written gospels: it's the oral memory of what Jesus and the Apostles said, and appears in such places as the creed of 1 Cor. 15:3-4. There is one other potential source for this, and it's the passion portion of the Syriac (Aramaic) text of Matthew. But according to Irenaeus and Papias, this, if it was a separate conception, was just Matthew's uninspired draft of the inspired gospel he later wrote. Bible writers are allowed to write drafts before they write the inspired text: Jeremiah did. Is it possible Jesus said things that were written down but didn't make it into the inspired canon? Absolutely! John said so.
So the idea of using some construction to denigrate that which is inspired is the wrong motivation, and that's what most Quelle researchers are doing. If we take the inspired text and its human-authored context as they present themselves, we get an accurate picture without needing to pretend to construct a "superior" or "higher" text. The best course is to show all the variant and supportive readings, not to show fewer and fewer of them.
u/kkuff
yes, I'm aware that many don't 'believe' in the Q-Source, and that's fine. But it also doesn't make sense, since it's basically the common material between Matthew and Luke...🤔
it's also very close to the Jefferson Bible , so I always read it with that in mind. Thomas Jefferson has a great explanation of what he considers the definition of being a Christian; in his letter to Dr. Rush.