Two questions... what do you think is "Q"? and was the Gospel of Matthew composed in Hebrew?

  • Thread starter Thread starter colliric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

colliric

Guest
Bible scholars often point to a mysterious “Q” document , believed to comprise only of
Jesus Sayings, as having been a prototype work used by both Matthew and Luke.

I wonder if this work was written in aramaic. What do you think it may have been?

Would the older Church tradition(see intro to the Gospel in Douay Rheims) of Matthew having been written in Hebrew first actually solve this mystery? Was the original Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, the document we may be calling “Q”?

Also was the Gospel of Matthew actually originally composed in Hebrew at all? and if so, who translated it into Greek?
 
Personally, I think “Q” is not a writing at all. It is simply the Traditional Preaching of the Apostles when spreading the Gospel.

I do believe the original manuscript of Matthew was written in Aramaic, but that’s just my opinion.
 
I’ve never ehard of this “Q document” before. would you happen to have a link to any eprtinent information? Thanks.

Also, when I think of Q I think of Q from Star Trek The Next Generation.
 
Starwynd said:
I’ve never ehard of this “Q document” before. would you happen to have a link to any eprtinent information? Thanks.

Also, when I think of Q I think of Q from Star Trek The Next Generation.
Click to expand...
There is no Q document. It is a theory put forth that because of similarities in some of the Gospels that they had a common source called “Q”.

Thoroughly debunked in the article I referenced.
 
Starwynd said:
I’ve never ehard of this “Q document” before. would you happen to have a link to any eprtinent information? Thanks.

Also, when I think of Q I think of Q from Star Trek The Next Generation.
Click to expand...
In the Markan Priority theory, the Q (from the German Quelle, ‘Source’) is a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. It is a theoretical collection of Jesus’ sayings, written in Greek.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke share much material not found in their generally believed common source, the Gospel of Mark (or so it was according to the theory). This problem has suggested a second common source, termed the Q document.

For the record, I don’t really believe in the Two-source Hypothesis and Markan Priority despite many scholars parading these as fact. I am actually somewhere between the Augustinian and Griesbach Hypotheses concerning the Synoptic Problem, which both advocate Matthean Priority:

-The Griesbach Hypothesis (aka the Two Gospel Hypothesis) suggests that Matthew wrote his Gospel first, followed by Luke, who used Matthew’s Gospel as one of his various sources in composing his own. Mark then used and conflated the two gospels in a procedure that mostly followed where Matthew and Luke agree in order except for discourse material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Synoptic_problem_Griesbach_hypothesis.png
Diagram of the Griesbach Hypothesis.

-The Augustinian Hypothesis suggests that Matthew wrote his Gospel first, then Mark, then Luke, and each Evangelist depended on those who preceded him.
A variant of this hypothesis is that Matthew wrote the proto-Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew/Aramaic, which Mark, and Luke after him, translated and copied. Then later when Matthew’s Gospel was translated into Greek, the translator liberally adapted some of the phraseology of Mark and Luke to compose the Greek Matthew.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Synoptic_problem_-Augustinian_hypothesis.png/250px-Synoptic_problem-_Augustinian_hypothesis.png
Diagram of the Augustinian Hypothesis.

As for the proto-Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, yes, I do believe in it. Perhaps it might even be the fabled Q Document hypothesized by scholars.
 
It really seems that Q is a theory used to ignore the truth of the Gospel and reduce it to a story which developed from another, rather than representing the truth. When the Gospel is reduced to a story which has been passed on it can be dismissed and reinterpreted.

It seems a bit wishy washy to me, and I see it very popular with those who like to play fast and loose with the faith. Association does not prove anything, but it certainly is telling.

Why can’t the similarities be based upon the fact that the events were actual events which would create obvious similarities in the accounts of the events, based upon point of view.

As for Matthew I would certainly agree about Aramaic.

God Bless
Scylla
 
“Q” I have also wondered if this was a series of letters written from apostles to other apostles. I don’t see why it would have to be one written document instead of several, all of which might not have been in the hands of the Gospel writers.
 
RedSoxFan said:
“Q” I have also wondered if this was a series of letters written from apostles to other apostles. I don’t see why it would have to be one written document instead of several, all of which might not have been in the hands of the Gospel writers.
Click to expand...
Or maybe “Q” was the Holy Spirit at Pentecost infusing knowledge upon the Apostles.
 
Or “Q” is the Blessed Virgin (and the apostles) memories and teachings of Jesus --IOW, the beginnings of “Sacred Tradition”.

Oh my goodness! Can you imagine the consternation of some to think that their own ‘scholars’ are thus supporting the “Catholic” Sacred Tradition in this hypothesis?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Or “Q” is the Blessed Virgin (and the apostles) memories and teachings of Jesus --IOW, the beginnings of “Sacred Tradition”.

Oh my goodness! Can you imagine the consternation of some to think that their own ‘scholars’ are thus supporting the “Catholic” Sacred Tradition in this hypothesis?
Click to expand...
No!!! Help!!! This cannot be. That would mean it’s all true! Every bit of it! We have to find another way out of this. Let’s make something else up.😉
 
buffalo said:
No!!! Help!!! This cannot be. That would mean it’s all true! Every bit of it! We have to find another way out of this. Let’s make something else up.😉
Click to expand...
They’ve already used the letters Q and M. Perhaps we will see all the letters of the alphabet used to describe sources of the Gospels (“This portion of Matthew is almost certainly borrowed from A and this one from W, which are perhaps both influenced by Q”)?

Also, since Q has a potential to help support the Catholic belief in Sacred Tradition, the more open-minded Anti-Catholics (isn’t that oxymoronic?) will claim that it must be a ploy of Satan to mislead true Christians. 😃
 
I am no expert on these matters, but I have read Buffalo’s Clementine Document and other material… The Clementine order and info in that document resonates with me. Some of the later notions, like “Q” from the German word for a spring, fountain, or source, smacks of a construct useful in writing papers for publication(you know, in the academic world, it is “publish or perish.”). 👍
 
I am certainly beginning to firm on both Matthew, the Greek version, and Luke having been based somewhat on “Q” and that “Q” may have in fact been Matthew’s complete Gospel in it’s original Language… It probally was NOT Jesus Sayings alone, but probally was a fairly Complete Gospel according to St Matthew in Aramaic… This Just seems to fit with me and it gels with Church Tradition.

Because Matthew’s Gospel contains the Majority of Jesus actual teachings within it(which is what Biblical scholars contend that
“Q” itself contains). So perhaps Luke may have simply refered to Matthew in the original version, and then Matthew was translated, perhaps later on, into Greek.

Luke certainly indicates knowledge of other Gospels out there and also somewhat his intention to synthazise the good news of Jesus into a definitive account. I think their is some weight to the hypothysis(and the Church Tradition) and it should be checked out…
 
No Q. No need. The gospels harmonize so well for the reason that the testimony of any three witnesses would harmonize. They are telling the truth, albeit from different perspectives.

No Hebrew for Matthew. It is so Hebrew-ish, because Matthew was a Hebrew. It was his primary language and it was how he thought, so it comes through.
 
The Q hypothesis has fallen a lot of scholars estimation- there are many anti- i think con wins out. why would there have to be a document? Why couldn’t Oral tradition be the transmitter of the faith.To me it is a sola sciptura, everything has to be on paper- in order to be authentic stuff.Tradition and oral transmission are just as solid-even more then written sometimes.CS lewis once said if you have to choose between Oral or written traditions - stick to the Oral- more authenticate.🙂
 
No Q. No need. The gospels harmonize so well for the reason that the testimony of any three witnesses would harmonize. They are telling the truth, albeit from different perspectives.

…except there are passages in the Synoptics that are in verbatim agreement…get any three witnesses to a momentous event, such as Kennedy’s assssination or 9-11, and try to find entire sentences agreeing in precisely the same words, expressing the same emotional context…the imputed existence of Q is not due to there being mere evangelistic harmony, it arises from the heightened degree of such harmonious accord. For any of us today to dismiss it with a wave of the hand, and cite patristic sources in support of such airy dismissals, seems rather condescending…at least we should engage in a good faith dialogue regarding biblical hermaneutics, seems to me…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top