File: 1452483233915.jpg (163 KB, 836x1000) Image search: [Google]

163 KB, 836x1000

Can someone please explain to me how the Q source theory is more viable than the account given by Papias of Hierapolis? The synoptic Gospels cover a lot of the same territory, but...they don't do it verbatim, they do it in different styles, and except for Luke (which was the only Gospel not written by one of Christ's direct disciples), in very Hebraic syntax and style, which evinces a translation (Harold Bloom criticized the literary merit of the Gospels precisely because they read like they are written in the style and syntax of Hebrew or Aramaic, which he finds unsuitable to Greek). Then there is the this idea that the Gospel of John came from a wildly different sect than the rest of the Gospels, when the truth is simply that the Gospel of John was the Gospel that was only for full Christians (even today, before saying the Nicene Creed, which takes the place of the traditional Christian confession formula stating Jesus Christ is God, the Orthodox Church says "guard the doors!", which was something started to give the alarm in case Pharisees were coming by, and this is also the time when catechumens, that is, Christians who were not fully initiated, had to depart).

The biggest mark against Papias' account is---the Gospels give indications that the Temple of Jerusalem will be destroyed (now that Christ's Body replaces it), so historians beg the question and say they must have been composed after the Destruction of the Temple, since actually predicting it is out of the question.