Research suggests that people adopt conspiracy theories in an attempt to satisfy (1) existential (e.g., the need to feel secure and in control), (2) epistemic (e.g., the need to understand the world), and (3) social (e.g., the need to feel positive about one’s self or group) motives (Douglas et al., 2017). In this chapter, we consider the extent to which this framework can explain belief in the QAnon conspiracy theory specifically. QAnon beliefs appear to be driven by existential threats, such as the belief that there is a vast satanic paedophile ring which is being covered up by left-wing Hollywood elites. Regarding epistemic motives, such as the tendency to seek patterns where they do not exist, it becomes understandable why some people might be attracted by cryptic “Q Drops.” Finally, QAnon beliefs are typically right-wing and tend to point the finger towards the left-wing elite for all the alleged wrong-doings. QAnon beliefs, therefore, also appear to be socially motivated. Following the discussion, we outline the similarities and differences between QAnon and other conspiracy theories, and outline ideas for future research.

Troublesome events are common in human groups, and humans respond to perceived dangerous situations by creating narratives that both give a name to the events and serve as one means of exercising control. We argue that conspiracy narratives are a distinctive type of danger narrative but also one that varies with the degree of alleged danger. These narratives are most likely to develop during periods of extreme social and cultural dislocation. QAnon is one in a succession of conspiracy narratives through American history, such as witchcraft narrative in 1692 Salem and the 1980s Satanic cult narrative, in which satanic figures are alleged to have invaded the everyday world with catastrophic results. It is a particularly important case as it can be analyzed in real time and it has reached an advanced level of narrative development. We identify core characteristics of advanced conspiracy narratives as revelatory framing, mythic themes, insurgent media network, and narrative radicalization. Narrative radicalization is particularly important as it involves blaming specific actors and attributing intentionality to their actions, which constitutes a bridge from narrative interpretation to social intervention.

Newton’s laws and consideration of units are used to present and discuss the mass on a spring as an example of a harmonic oscillator, a mechanical oscillator with a sinusoidal time dependence. Both the transient solution, where the oscillator is started away from equilibrium and left on its own, and the driven solutions, where a sinusoidal driving force is applied, are presented. The quality factor, Q, is introduced, which characterizes the relative amount of damping forces present, such as those of friction or air drag. The quality factor is related to the number of oscillations that are made when left on its own and to the excitation bandwidth, the range of frequencies over which resonance is observed. Musically relevant examples include the ocarina, tuning fork, some speaker enclosures, and the phenomenon of sympathetic resonance.

The literary relationship (if any) between Matthew and Luke continues to be debated, and so the relationship between the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain continues to be debated (with implications for how one reads both Matthew and Luke). This essay argues that the confluence of several facts – (1) obviously Matthean redaction is missing from Luke 6:21–49; (2) the more we subtract Matthean features from Matthew 5–7, the closer we get to the Sermon on the Plain; (3) 1 Clement 13:2, which seems to be independent of the synoptics, is closer at points to Luke 6:27–42 than it is to the Matthean parallels; (4) intertextual ties to Leviticus 19 are clustered in Luke 6:27–42 but separated in Matthew 5 and 7; and (5) in a number of instances, words and expressions in Luke 6:21–47 seem, by the standard tools of our trade, to be more original than their Matthean counterparts – adds up to a strong case that the Sermon on the Mount was not the source for the Sermon on the Plain. Luke is not a reader or an interpreter of Matthew’s Gospel. The data rather support the Q hypothesis or the theory that Matthew was a reader of Luke.

In his Gospel Writing, Francis Watson argues that certain fragments from the so-called Egerton Papyrus that appear to have clear counterparts in the Gospel of John belong to a gospel that precedes John. This essay argues that while Watson seems right in his diagnosis of the historical sequence, he is also methodologically wrong in the manner he treats the later gospel as part of and a result of his argument. In two particular respects he mistreats John: (1) John’s use of the Egerton Gospel is no less logical than the Egerton gospel itself (though at a much more sophisticated level), and (2) John’s use of the Egerton Gospel does not allow for the discovery of “strata” within or behind John itself. In both respects, one must stick to a methodological rule that is of universal import within New Testament scholarship and directly relevant to “gospel reading”: in principle, the text that we have has priority over any attempts at reconstructing its origins.

A recent resurgence in support for Matthean Posteriority (Alan Garrow; Rob Macewen) builds on the secure footing of Marcan Priority alongside growing skepticism about Q. Could it be that advocates of what Francis Watson calls the “L/M Theory” have the direction of dependence wrong, and that Matthew knew Luke? The case for Matthean Posteriority refreshes the discussion of the Synoptic Problem by providing a new and interesting challenge, but the case for seeing Luke as a reading of Matthew rather than Matthew as a reading of Luke remains strong: (a) Matthew’s redactional fingerprints repeatedly appear in material he shares with Luke; (b) Luke often shows “fatigue” in his versions of double-tradition material; (c) Luke betrays knowledge of Matthean literary structures; and (d) Matthew fails to include congenial Lucan details on politics, personnel, and geographical context.

This chapter considers the reception of Mark’s Gospel in John’s text with special reference to the feeding miracle in John chapter 6. The following topics are explored. The first concerns how John reads Mark. In other words, what potential did the Markan rendering of this miracle-story have to offer John that answered to his purposes at that point? The second and main section will then explore how John writes his account. Put otherwise, how did John renarrate the feeding miracle not only in light of its Markan pretext but also as integral to his development and interpretation of its meaning in the chapter as a whole? The final topic will be a brief treatment of the further renarration of the miracle in chapter 21.

In addition to treating the critical issues that arise in the interpretation of Matthew, for example, the birth narrative and the Sermon on the Mount, the significance of the “formula quotations,” the implications of considering it to be a “Jewish gospel," the Synoptic Problem, and Q.

This chapter provides a brief overview of the “quest for the historical Jesus” and survey current trends in research. These trends include shifting evaluations of (1) the criteria employed in determining the authenticity of sayings (e.g., dissimilarity) and other methodological issues, (2) recent discussion of “Q,” and (3) the relative value of noncanonical books.