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

[pnewton]

…except there are passages in the Synoptics that are in verbatim agreement… 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…

Nope. Many of the passages are verbatim for a short period because they are the actual words of Christ, or they are stories from one particular person. For example, the story of the transfiguration could only have come from Peter of John. Peter’s denial of Christ had to come from him. Jesus’ trial before the the Jew’s I think came from one person. Another reason for such agreement is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is unique in all of history in this regard.

This thread is about what we think. Check the title. It is not condescending to dismiss this modern idea of a Q document. I, for one, do not just do it with a wave a of hand, except here, as Q was also a popular fad when I was in seminary. If you want to believe it, go ahead. I do not see any point, even if there was such a document. I’ll believe it when I see it.

 

[NotWorthy]

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…

Or maybe the Holy Spirit had a hand in this harmonization.

 

[mtr01]

As far as I’m concerned, “Q” is just a theory needed by the “textual-criticism” school of modern Bible scholars to lend support to the Markan primacy theory. If we take the Church’s traditional stance that Matthew was written first, the need for some mysterious “Q” document disappears.

I see no reason to abandon the traditional stance and accept “Q”, especially without one shred of evidence that such a document ever existed.

 

[IrishBrigade]

Nope. Many of the passages are verbatim for a short period because they are the actual words of Christ, or they are stories from one particular person…

…

…hmm…you have, in fact, strengthened the posibility of Q’s existence by stipulating the verbatim agreements being the ‘exact words of Christ’, which is of course what Q is reputed to be (Jesus and JBap sayings). Again, the likelihood of verbatim accord among witnesses is made stronger if there is a common source to draw from; this seems evident on its face…additionally, the notion of Markan conflation of the more fully developed Lucan and Matthean gospels, while possible of course, does give concern…I’m getting the notion from the direction of thread replies that to contest traditional acceptance of Synoptic theory rises to apostasy…I’m sure that is not the intention of the posters on these fora…*

 

[pnewton]

…I’m getting the notion from the direction of thread replies that to contest traditional acceptance of Synoptic theory rises to apostasy…I’m sure that is not the intention of the posters on these fora…

Absolutely not. One is free to believe in the theory if you find it valid. I just see other, more plausible and simpler, explanations. The original post asked for opinions, so yours should be as welcome as anybody’s without counting hands and voting.