Mark and 'Q'?

[Freedbychrist]

So I have been reading some Bible history books and I came across the "Two-Source Hypothesis" which says that Mark was written about 70 AD, and at the same time a collection of Jesus' sayings, referred to as Quelle or 'Q', was in use at well. The book then goes on to say that Luke and Matthew were written based on Mark and Q, and that Q was subsequently lost.

I'm having a hard time with this because I never heard it before. I always assumed that all the gospels were written around the same time, independently of one another, and by the apostles for whom they're named. So, now they were written by followers in apostolic tradition? A few decades after Jesus' death?

Am I falling prey to 'New Historicism" or is this more or less the truth? And, if true, why wasn't Q included in the canon? Did the Catholics destroy it for their own purposes?

I'll be asking my pastor on Sunday but I thought I'd ask you enlightened souls first. I've looked on the internet and found articles, but not on Biblical sites. I'd feel much better hearing from a godly community and not National Geographic, you know?

Oh, and the book I'm reading is 'History of the World Christian Movement' by Irvin and Sunquist.

[raptureme]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem gives a good reference

It does look there is a common source between mathew / mark / luke, and John being a different book giving a quite different viewpoint

It's not known who wrote these books, it wasn't until 393 that the new testament as we know it today was formalized

St Jerome when he produced the Vulgate had a big influence

[raptureme]

Of course, the key point to remember here is that whomever wrote these texts was inspired by God, and these texts contain the word of God.

Who and when they were written isn't that important, don't get suckered into arguging about it with people, what matters is these are the texts that God endorsed and that is why we have them today, it's his chocie

[Freedbychrist]

Of course, the key point to remember here is that whomever wrote these texts was inspired by God, and these texts contain the word of God.

Who and when they were written isn't that important, don't get suckered into arguging about it with people, what matters is these are the texts that God endorsed and that is why we have them today, it's his chocie

:thumb Thanks for the info!

[matheteou]

Of course, the key point to remember here is that whomever wrote these texts was inspired by God, and these texts contain the word of God.

Who and when they were written isn't that important, don't get suckered into arguging about it with people, what matters is these are the texts that God endorsed and that is why we have them today, it's his chocieI would urge caution with these kinds of statements, either the texts ARE the Word of God or they aren't. If they only contain the Word of God, which words are and which aren't. The Jesus Seminar thrives on a similar belief and meet annually (?) to "decide" which words Christ spoke in the gospels.

[raptureme]

I would urge caution with these kinds of statements, either the texts ARE the Word of God or they aren't. If they only contain the Word of God, which words are and which aren't. The Jesus Seminar thrives on a similar belief and meet annually (?) to "decide" which words Christ spoke in the gospels.

Sorry, you may have misinterpreted me,

I said they contain the Word of God, I never said anything in it wasn't. If I wrote a book it would contain my words.

For me, there is no difference between "is the word of god" and "contains the word of god", it's not like I said "contains the word of god and some other stuff"

hope this is more clear :thumb

[matheteou]

Sorry, you may have misinterpreted me,

I said they contain the Word of God, I never said anything in it wasn't. If I wrote a book it would contain my words.

For me, there is no difference between "is the word of god" and "contains the word of god", it's not like I said "contains the word of god and some other stuff"

hope this is more clear :thumb"Is" is a shorter, more concise word than "contains" and leaves little or no room for doubt, which is why I posted what I did. The following is from the "Moody Handbook of Theology". While these definitions are very short, I think they provide enough information for you and/or others to research "Inspiration" more fully:INSPIRATION. The act of the Holy Spirit in which He superintended the writers of Scripture so that, while writing according to their own styles and personalities, they produced God’s Word written, authoritative, trustworthy, and free from error in the original writings. The English word inspiration is the KJV translation of the Greek term theopneustos, meaning “God breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16).

INSPIRATION, CONCEPTUAL. The view that the concepts or ideas of the biblical writers are inspired but not the words of Scripture. God gave the concepts to the writers who wrote in their own words; hence, there may be errors in Scripture.

INSPIRATION, DYNAMIC. The view that the Holy Spirit motivated the writers of Scripture, yet they had freedom in writing, allowing the possibility of error. This view is sometimes equated with the partial inspiration theory.

INSPIRATION, NATURAL. The view that there is nothing supernatural about the Bible; the writers wrote the Scriptures with human insight and skill as other authors would produce other fine books.

INSPIRATION, PARTIAL. Means that parts of the Bible are inspired, but not necessarily all the Bible. Revelatory matters pertaining to faith and practice are inspired, but non-revelatory matters such as history and science may be in error.

INSPIRATION, VERBAL PLENARY. The view that the inspiration of Scripture extends to the actual words (verbal) and to every part of the entire (plenary) Bible. In past usage verbal plenary inspiration was equated with inerrancy.

Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology (623). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.