Here are the realistic conclusions:
A Question of Priority
By: Karl Keating
Extracts:
‘The theory most in favor in recent decades has been that of Markan priority. It holds that Mark wrote first and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from him and from a collection of the “sayings of the Lord” known as Q (from the German Quelle, “source”). Mark is not only the shortest of the synoptic Gospels, it is the most simply written. Advocates of Markan priority say it makes more sense to think that Matthew and Luke expanded on Mark rather than that Mark reduced either Matthew or Luke.
‘….Dom Bernard Orchard, monk of Ealing Abbey and chief editor of the 1953 *Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (*which, along with its 1969 revision, are my favorite commentaries).
‘I find Orchard’s thesis persuasive, if not compelling, particularly since I hold, with writers such as Jean Carmignac and Claude Tresmontant, that all of the Gospels were written much earlier than advocates of Markan priority will allow. Besides, I think Q is a fantasy and that any such document, had it ever existed, would have been preserved, copied, and commented upon in antiquity just as the canonical books of the New Testament were, yet antiquity is entirely silent on Q.’
catholic.com/magazine/articles/a-question-of-priority
This is a compelling refutation of the “Q” theory which like all the other aberrations proposed try to belittle the teaching of Christ through His Church “that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that [the] truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.”
Here is another:
**Answer by Fr. John Echert on 22-July-1999 (EWTN): **
‘As a matter of fact, I am currently reading the work you ask about,
The Hebrew Christ. As you note, the author, Claude Tresmontant, argues the thesis that there was likely a Hebrew text behind all four Gospels. He argues principally upon the vocabulary and structure of the Greek Gospel texts, noting that there appear to be the same principles and lexicon of sorts operative in the Gospels that were operative in translating the Hebrew text of the OT into the LXX. He goes through several texts of each of the Gospels to demonstrate the Semitic structure and speculates as to the Hebrew original. He argues that the original Hebrew texts were probably written soon after the Gospel period and translated not long after that. So he would date the Gospels earlier than what is popular today-as would I-and he also argues for an early dating of John relative to Luke and Mark. I am intrigued by his theory and his work to support his thesis. I am also a proponent of early dating for the Gospels and am not convinced of Markan priority or of the alleged “Q.”
‘As to why the scholarly world has not acknowledged this thesis or work, I am not surprised. Modern critics tend to be very critical and many are dismissive of anything that challenges in any way the status quo of current thinking in the field. No doubt they would argue that there is no evidence of Hebrew originals, apart from a reconstruction of the Greek text. But then again, the same may be said of “Q.” I recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in this area and has some facility with Hebrew and Greek. Without linguistic skills, however, this book may be difficult for many readers. Another writer to be noted, now deceased, is John A.T. Robinson who is cited several times in *Hebrew Christ *and argued from another perspective for an early dating of the Gospels.
Thanks, Dave’ [My underlining]
