As I was reading this interesting thread, this very same thought came to mind. I wondered why some scholars believe there must have been a previous written source that was lost instead of Sacred Tradition? Obviously, I am not a bible scholar, but is there a better argument for a written source of “Q” rather than from an oral source?
As I was reading this interesting thread, this very same thought came to mind. I wondered why some scholars believe there must have been a previous written source that was lost instead of Sacred Tradition? Obviously, I am not a bible scholar, but is there a better argument for a written source of “Q” rather than from an oral source?
The existence of Q follows from the argument that neither Matthew nor Luke is directly dependent on the other in the double tradition (what scholars call the material that Matthew and Luke share that does not appear in Mark). However, the verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke is so close in some parts of the double tradition that the only reasonable explanation for this agreement is common dependence on a written source or sources.
Non-supporters of Q meanwhile would answer that the hypothesis is mainly a relic of 19th-early 20th century scholarship, in which it was common to solve every problem by postulating another written source. For example, in 1924 B. H. Streeter solved the synoptic problem with his Four Document Hypothesis by assigning a written source to each type of material - triple tradition was from Mark; double tradition was from ‘Q’; special Matthew was from ‘M’ and special Luke was from ‘L’.
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.