The Gospel of Q? Textual Criticism and Biblical Reliability.

The Gospel of Q? Textual Criticism and Biblical Reliability.

The Gospel of Q? Textual Criticism and Biblical Reliability.

2039 Posts



A student asks Dr. Frank Turek’s opinion about the Gospel of “Q” after she read this on one of Bart Ehrman’s books. In his response, Dr. Turek touches on the subject of textual criticism and talks about two Biblical Scholars, Ela Linnemann and Dan Wallace.


21 thoughts on “The Gospel of Q? Textual Criticism and Biblical Reliability.

  1. Frank

    The reason Q doesn’t exist anymore is because it was burnt along with all other religious documentation that didn’t comport with the Roman Jesus or the passion narrative. Very simple. Stop dancing around the obvious lol.

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  2. Cyance

    0:28 Not (neccesarily) prior to Mark. Mark was written independent of Q.
    0:41 Not true. James, Luke and Matthew are all clearly influenced by Q, so much so that based on them, it has been partially reconstructed.
    1:21 Eta Linneman was a theologian, not a textual critic/historian. In fact she completely renounced the latter 2. She's not really a Biblical scholar of any capacity.
    2:00 No we can't. If that was true there wouldn't have been so much debate. Our earliest sources of the big 4 are already copies of copies of copies with many possible additions. There's a reason Wallace ignored that in the debate.

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  3. Religionisevil

    Anyone else come here from Paulogia and TMM?

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  4. gary wersley

    ..qoutations from early Church Fathers are not evidence of the actual existence of Jesus, they could probly be better described as evidence that the Jesus story existed, at the time that they wrote.. the story is not evidence of the man himself.. non of the early Church Fathers had ever met Jesus, and non of the gospel writers had either.. St. Paul, also never actually met Jesus, and so his letters are not evidence of the man, Jesus, but are evidence that some form of faith in Cult Of Jesus existed, at the time that he wrote.. Paul wrote to churches that existed and were widespread across the Roman Empire, before any of the gospels that we know of was writ.. various different branches of the faith existed, and it is probable that they had written scriptures too, before Matt, Mark, Luke, John, put pen to parchment.. Church Fathers voted to keep some of these versions of written gospels, rejecting some other versions.. this is probly how the NT was compiled.. compiled by vote of early Church Fathers.. we have no original documents from that time.. what we have now are (supposed) copies of missing documents..
    it is a certainty that non of the Gospel writers were witness to events they relate..

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  5. Marco De Antoni

    Sorry, do we have the Greek or the Latin text?? I am looking for it. to have a critic on a text, we need to have the text waiting for being analyzed. do we have it? or are we talking about hairsbreadth?

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  6. Abraham Froman

    Q-anon is a conspiracy theory, but Q … whoever is a source for … jibberish

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  7. Danger Mouse

    I wonder if he still feels like that?!

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  8. David Pinheiro

    43% earlier than 200 years later??? How can this be proof that we have manuscripts close to the originals?
    We don't even have copies of the originals … And probably neither copies of the copies of the originals …
    When was the passage of the adulterous woman (John 8) added to the book?

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  9. Zebulon 8

    Church father's ? The Bible says not to call anyone Father 🤔

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  10. ladillalegos Ara

    Thats the problem when they just read Bart Ehrman, sometimes they think he said thinks that he didn’t even say (for example Bart says “we don’t have all the documents we would like” people understand “We don’t have any documents”)

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  11. Libertarian Prince


    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  12. altarush

    Did Paul make up the Q source or did he write it? Did he get it from God or an angel or from Jesus or Holy Spirit? Did he listen to Mary or One of the disciples since he knew a lot of the gospels without studying them?

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  13. wajutiem08

    Why do Christian Apologists have to distort the issue in order not to giian honest answer.b

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  14. LethalBubbles

    He is deceptively avoiding the chronology issues and the parallelisms that the source theory is based on in the first place. Of course Q doesn’t “exist” in the sense that he is framing it. Have you ever heard of a “Workprint”? Q was simply a list of the things which Jesus said. It would’ve been obsoleted by Matthew and Luke which use the same sayings of Jesus, but now interlaced with stories of Jesus’ life. John wasn’t written yet.

    Additionally it is theorized that Mark was written first, not second or third. Marcan priority is a fundamental supposition for the Q theory as Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source in the similar way to Q. By comparing parallel verses in Luke and Matthew, and subtracting what is from Mark, we can make an hypothetical reconstruction of the other source: Q.

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  15. Andrew Griffin

    She got him! She's absolutely right. There are no original manuscripts for Matthew and Luke. The probability of Matthew and Luke saying the same exact things? Not likely. It's pretty obvious they shared a common source.

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  16. The Man

    If the person/persons claiming that they are "Q" or "Q+" go the biblical route, they are going to claim that they are divine.

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  17. KittyChanU2

    Q he was on Star Trek

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  18. Zoti Media Group

    Of course is a fabrication and not relevant as the church have problems if accepted. Koran one more time confirmed.

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  19. D C

    But the issue is the 0.01% of verses regarding the trinity theology of the gospels which doesn't really exist. Not a defence at all of the NT. Poor.

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  20. Victor von Furstenberg

    of course q exists, and it's only the source used by Matthew and Luke, that's it. Both have taken from Marc and Q, since both have similarities that Marc does not have.

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply
  21. AllOtherNamesUsed

    Brooke Foss Westcott, of Greek NT textual criticism fame, places an Aramaic/Syriac NT before the Greek NT (cf Khabouris Codex, Peshitta, etc, beware of Lamsa if you shop for Peshitta translations!):

    "Moreover it is known that books were soon translated from Syriac into Greek, and while such an intercourse existed it is scarcely possible to believe that the Scriptures themselves remained untranslated. The same conclusion follows from the controversial writings of Bardesanes (dead in the year 222 CE, Catholic Encyclopedia– AGR) which necessarily imply the existence of a Syriac Version of the Bible. Tertullian's example may show that he could hardly have refuted Marcion without the constant use of Scripture. And more than this, Eusebius tells us that Hegisippius 'made quotations from the Gospel according the Hebrews and the Syriac and especially from [writings in?] the Hebrew language, showing thereby that he was a Christian of Hebrew descent. This testimony is valuable coming from the only early Greek writer likely to have been familiar with Syriac literature…

    "Ephraem Syrus (dead 373, Catholic Encyclopedia–AGR), a deacon of Edessa, treats the Version in such a manner as to prove that it was already old in the fourth century. He quotes it as a book of established authority, calling it 'Our Version'; he speaks of the Translator one whose words were familiar; and though the dialects of the East are proverbially permanent, his explanations show that its language even in his time had become partially obsolete.

    "Another circumstance serves to exhibit the venerable age of this Version. It was universally received by the different sects into which the Syrian church was divided in the fourth century, and so has continued current even to the present time. All the Syrian Christians, whether belonging to the Nestorian (Church of the East–AGR), Jacobite (Syrian Orthodox Church–AGR) or Roman communion, conspire to hold the Peshitto authoritative and to use it in their public services. It must consequently have been established by familiar use before the first heresies arose or it could not have remained without a rival. Numerous versions or revisions of the New Testament were indeed made afterwards, for Syriac literature is peculiarly rich in this branch of theological criticism; but no one ever supplanted the Peshitto for ecclesiastical purposes…

    "But meanwhile there is no sufficient reason to desert the opinion that has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that its formation should be fixed to the first half of the second century. The text, even in its present revised form, exhibits remarkable agreement with the most ancient Greek Manuscripts and the earliest quotations from, The very obscurity that hangs over its origin is a proof of its venerable age, because it shows it grew up spontaneously in Christian congregations, and it was not the result of any public labour. Had it been a work of late date, of the third or fourth century, it is scarcely possible that its history should be so uncertain as it is."

    Brooke Foss Westcott, "A General Survey of the History and Canon of the New Testament" (Seventh Edition, 1896), p. 244-8.

    I'll add the URLs in a post following this one, so if you don't see it below then it was blocked, but you can always search google books for the title.

    July 13, 2021 at 9:15 pm Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.