Q Was a Woman

There are many factors in Q, a source for both Matthew and Luke, which point in the same direction:

Why such an interest in the female God, the divine Sophia?

Why is woman’s domestic work accorded equality with a man’s work (Luke 13.20-21; 12.26-27; 17.25)?

Why is there such an interest in the salvation of women (Luke 17.35)?

Why is Q so interested in protecting women from remarriage and divorce (Luke 16.16-18; 17.27)?

Why the interest in flowers and in heralding all that blooms (Luke 12.27-28; 6.43-45)?

Why is Q interested in itinerant prophets, given the prominent role of women as prophetesses in the earliest church (Luke 10.2ff; Luise Schottroff, ‘Itinerant Prophetesses’)?

Why does Q remember so many words of Jesus containing domestic elements — salt that has lost its savour (Luke 14.34-35); children (10.21-24); lamps (11.33-35); washing cups (11.39-44); mixing flour until leavened (13.21)?

Why does Q have such an interest in purses? eg “Make purses for yourselves” (Luke 12.33; cf. 10.4)?

Surely the answer must be: Q was a woman.

And if so, given the early date of Q (ca. AD 50), would we not expect a woman at the centre of Jesus’ circle of followers? Yes, Q was — in all probability — Mary Magdalene.

The earliest known Gospel was written by a woman. To those who protest that this is just a hypothesis, I ask: Why should we add to the centuries of suppression by male Evangelists of this Woman’s Gospel, penned by the foremost of the apostles who tradition records arrived first at the tomb? No, the Gospel of Mary, Q, must be given its rightful attribution — to the first of the Evangelists, a woman.

Return of the JEDP – Leningrad Codex DH Colour-Code

Tanach.us hosts an electronic version of the Leningrad Codex, the manuscript followed by the BHS edition of the Hebrew Bible. The site is maintained by the J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research.

A handy feature of this site is that you can view the Leningrad Codex colour-coded for each of the Documentary Hypothesis (DH) sources: J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomist), and P (Priestly). The particular range of the sources follows Richard E. Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible. Just select “All” in the “DH” box in the top-right corner.

Of course, identifying the breaks in the Tanach doesn’t mean that one is committed to a grand reconstruction of these sources. But, whatever the (often considerable) difficulties involved, a critical reading of the Tanach cannot be achieved without reference to its putative sources. And it’s particularly useful for understanding a number of passages, including, for example, Numbers 16:

(This only works for Genesis to Deuteronomy, which is what the Documentary Hypothesis usually applies to. No – there’s nothing for Joshua.)