Did Matthew really reference "Q" writings?

[Kevin_Williams]

I have heard conflicting reports that Matthew and possibly Luke may have or did not reference the early writings of “Q” in the gospels pertaining to some teachings of Jesus. Does anyone have the true scoop on this?

Some bibles note it and some don’t. Some internet comments say Q may have been a “Lost Book”. Of course, what else would one expect from the internet?

Did early Councils recognize the validity of Q?

 

[Andrew_11]

Kevin Williams:

I have heard conflicting reports that Matthew and possibly Luke may have or did not reference the early writings of “Q” in the gospels pertaining to some teachings of Jesus. Does anyone have the true scoop on this?

Some bibles note it and some don’t. Some internet comments say Q may have been a “Lost Book”. Of course, what else would one expect from the internet?

Did early Councils recognize the validity of Q?

I’m no expert on the subject, but my understanding is that Q is simply a theory that Mathew and Luke used an earlier account of Jesus’s life to assist them in writting their gospel. I believe it is a fairly modern idea and the early church wouldn’t have had the slightest idea what Q was. There isn’t really any evidence that it exists, its just a theory.

 

[JimG]

As far as I can tell, there’s never been any evidence for “Q” as an actual document somewhere. It can be said to have a purely literary definition: “Stuff that is in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.”

For biblical scholars who are obsessed with finding sources for everything, the fact that some material is common to Matthew and Luke but is not found in Mark, means that those two evangelsts must have had two sources: Mark plus something else which we shall call Q.

To me, the whole source theory is suspect.

 

[Zooey]

From all that I have read about it, Q is a theory to explain similarities between the Gospels.
IMHO, I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be natural resemblances–we are dealing with historical facts here. Not that long after the fact, either.
In any case, once you realize that Matthew was almost certainly originally written in Aramaic, you** have** Q: Matthew Aramaic would be the original gospel. Both Mark & Luke would have depended heavily on it. (Matthew Greek clearly goes without saying; Matthew is, as it were, the direct offspring of Matthew Aramaic).

 

[Maranatha]

It seems like some want both accounts to be taken from the same fiction writer. Is it possible both were not based on a document but on events that really took place?

 

[jimmy]

Kevin Williams:

I have heard conflicting reports that Matthew and possibly Luke may have or did not reference the early writings of “Q” in the gospels pertaining to some teachings of Jesus. Does anyone have the true scoop on this?

Some bibles note it and some don’t. Some internet comments say Q may have been a “Lost Book”. Of course, what else would one expect from the internet?

Did early Councils recognize the validity of Q?

Q is nothing more than a theory. They have found no Q or references. They came up with this theory based on the idea that there are many similar passages in Matthew and Mark and Luke. Whether there was an earlier gospel that would fit Q, is still undiscovered.

 

[Karl_Keating]

Q is “necessary” only if you argue that the first-written Gospel was Mark and that Matthew and Luke came later and depended on it and, to account for similarities in the later synoptics, a “sayings” source (Q = “Quelle” [German] = “source”).

If you hold to the traditional order–Matthew, Mark, Luke–there is no need for Q. Ditto if you think the order was Matthew, Luke, Mark. Similarities can be accounted for without positing Q.

Q, if it existed, would have qualified as one of the most important documents of Christian antiquity, but no copy of it has been found, and no ancient document makes reference to it.
So why was there such a push to claim that Mark came first, even if the argument necessitated a Q that has left no independent trace? Because Mark is the shortest, simplest, and least-miracle-filled Gospel.

If it is the earliest of the synoptics, one can allege that the later Gospels added pious fluff to the original, simple storyline. The miracles that appear in Matthew or Luke but not in Mark could be argued away–a convenience for those who are uncomfortable with God’s intrusion into history.

 

[Pax]

Karl,

As always, you have provided a terrific answer.

 

[Jim_Baur]

My opinion: If one can get Christians to believe in “Q,” one has knocked out APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION in the first century. Moreover, one has deleted the HOLY SPIRIT, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…

 

[DrCat]

I vaguely recall reading somewhere (I don’t remember where or exactly when - and it may have only been a rumor here on QA Forums) that Q had been discredited. I may be wrong (usually am when relying only on memory). Can somebody correct me if I *am *wrong?

John

 

[In_Petto]

DrCat:

I vaguely recall reading somewhere (I don’t remember where or exactly when - and it may have only been a rumor here on QA Forums) that Q had been discredited. I may be wrong (usually am when relying only on memory). Can somebody correct me if I *am *wrong?

John

No, you’re not wrong. I have an magazine article on the subject around here somewhere and will post about it if I can find it.

 

[whosebob]

Kevin Williams:

I have heard conflicting reports that Matthew and possibly Luke may have or did not reference the early writings of “Q” in the gospels pertaining to some teachings of Jesus. . .

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Kevin,

You may want to take a look at the following post which I made earlier today in another thread in the Scripture forum; the resources I listed may be of help to you:

Re: St. Joseph’s Edition of the New American Bible by whosebob

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I guess I dont understand this Q thing, I have heard about it in the past though.
Here is what I see, if the events in history really happened then why wouldnt authors record the same things as happening? This Q thing seems to say that one person made up an original alsmost fictional story and others copied the story.