The 'Q' Gospel | Clearly Explained

Was there really an ancient collection of sayings from Jesus Christ circulating before the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Did Matthew and Luke really use Mark to help them write their gospels? Is there any evidence that they used a sayings source called "Q" to add additional information in their gospels? This video takes a brief look at Q as a hypothetical source for the special Matthean and Lukan material. Bible scholars and New Testament enthusiasts alike should find this video enlightening!

#newtestament #christianity #bible

- Religiosity Plus

[ora_et_labora]

As a Christian I greatly appreciated this video. Balanced and very educational.

[stevenward]

I'm glad that you got to the "Sayings of Jesus" by Thomas. It's a great example for at least one "Q" source. I liked this video and the one on the Didache! Thanks for sharing. My only advice is to drop the "C.E." & "B.C.E." and use A.D. and B.C.

[richardglady]

Ok…who knew that explaining The Didache would actually be easier than explaining Q. Thanks for the information. You did a great job explaining VERY complicated concepts relating to the Bible. Thank you for the video.

[thespiritguru]

Great video as usual. I've seen several videos on Q and I think you structure your presentation very well. Personally, I think Q probably did exist, in some way, shape or form. I think it's possible that Q was actually several shorter ancient sayings sources. In other words, Q wasn't just one document, but many. I have recently begun studying Mark Goodacre and think he brings up many good arguments against Q. Either way, its fun to think about!

[pixelart]

You're back! I'm so happy, I was just thinking about this channel earlier today. Loved the video! Thanks for making it 🙏

[geraldmeehan]

Excellent explanation of Q. I find New Testament study incredibly fascinating. I am a big fan of MythVision, Gnostic Informant, History Valley, Atheologica and Esoterica so I have listened to hours and hours of theories of various religious scholars. Only one thing is for certain, there is always more to learn

[agnelomascarenhas]

Highly appreciated video mainly because it is concise. While also being logical.

Many videos are tediously long and hard to go back and forth.

[georginashanti]

This is all so fascinating! I find it sad though that so many ancient texts were lost, destroyed, 'misplaced' & whatever else. It's also astonishing how much information appears to be missing from orthodox teachings. It's important to be thirsty for knowledge, however the majority of people seem to accept whatever knowledge/texts currently exist. My mind has always been curious!

[LNR]

What's interesting about the Gospel of Thomas is how many of it's sayings also correspond to the Epistles. The theory that Thomas is actually Q is the one I'm most inclined towards.

[lauterunvollkommenheit]

The term "synoptic" comes from Johann Jakob Griesbach's work "Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci et Lucae", written in 1776. In the book, he placed the parallel accounts in the three gospels side by side so that they could be read together (synopsis = to view together).

[blankfrancine]

There is so much to ponder here. I will have to watch it a couple of times. I'm still on the fence regarding the existence of Q; as a historian my bias is toward written sources. But one could spend a lifetime seeking to solve The Synoptic Problem, it goes so deep.

[icypirate]

I am and exChristian of 30+ years, now an atheist for the last year and a half, and I think you explained "Q" very well. I've been studying critical Biblical scholarship for the last two years now and I have been skeptical of "Q" until I started to unpack it recently. Scholars usually specialize in one area and it's a lot to study and compare all of them and be a _jack of all trades (master of none)._ I have taken tons of notes because I can't possible remember all the different scholarship on any given subject at one time.
Not sure if this is a faith based or non-faith based channel but I just SUBSCRIBED.

[chrisd]

What a great video l. Well done and thank you sir.

[joshuagrant]

I'd like to see an analysis of how many parallels exist between Luke and Mathew if we assume that Thomas was Q. I know it doesn't remove all the redundancy but it must weaken the overall argument.

[joaofleumatico]

great video mate, very dense on information and we'll structured

[jordicarnesubiranas]

It's a great explanation of this staff. Thanks

[scottleibbrandt]

Another great video!! Can't wait for the next one :)

[JBigJ]

This is intriguing. I understand the argument in favor of Q, but I feel like certain facts were looked over.
For instance, it makes sense that Matthew and Luke would turn to Mark as a reference; but the differences between the three can also be contributed to the authors' contemporaniousness. Matthew was a Disciple and so we can assume much if not most of his writings were from memory. Mark was most likely a teenager during Jesus' ministry, and studied under the Apostles. Luke was a convert to Christianity and traveled with Paul the Apostle, and his Gospel begins with saying that he has recorded the first hand accounts of Jesus' contemporaries, which again makes sense that he would rely on multiple written sources as well as word of mouth. I think these reasons alone are a better explanation of the contradictions in timelines and contexts.

[luckydog]

Matthew travelled with Jesus…did he even need a “Q” source? And I could swear that I heard Michael Heiser say The Gospel of Thomas was 2nd century, long after the 4 Gospels were written. Am I mistaken on that?

[The_IN_Famous_ElGuapo_]

Good your back. Great video and keep them coming.