[dragontamer]

I think a lot of people are interested in a more academic treatment of the time of the Acts of the Apostles up though Paul's journey.

There is a huge amount of early Catholic/Christian history that comes down to oral traditions and the flowery language of the Bible. Which forces us to wonder what parts are metaphor and which parts were real history.

Like we know St. James somehow ended up in Spain (erm, Iberia or whatever it was called back then). But did they take with them oral tradition alone or did they have books to help keep the story consistent?

If Q existed, it may have been a book or reference for the early Bishop/Apostles. It's be insight to how they lived and worked.

--------

Oral Tradition is how the world worked back then. But it also existed in a time of writing and documentation (see the Roman Empire around that time).

I think most people are happy with oral tradition as an explanation. But the gospels seem too similar for oral tradition alone.