Hey Frens, I was doing some reading & research about Jesus Christ and came upon this wikipedia entry.
What do you guys think?!?!?! I thought it was quite extraordinarily interesting.........!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
Funny that it even specifically calls out the "far-right conspiracy theory QANON"....😂🤣🐸🧐🧐🧐
This article is about the hypothetical source text used in the Christian Gospels. For the Hebrew Bible text denoted by the abbreviation Q, see Codex Marchalianus. For the far-right conspiracy theory, see QAnon.
The "Two-source Hypothesis" proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark and a second hypothetical document called "Q" as a source. Q was conceived as the most likely explanation behind the common material (mostly sayings) found in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. Material from two other sources—the M source and the L source—are represented in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke here by green and teal respectively.
The Q source (also called The Sayings Gospel, Q Gospel, Q document(s), or Q; from German: Quelle, meaning "source") is an alleged written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings (λόγια, logia). Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church's oral gospel traditions.[1][2][3]
This is why I tell people to take my word for it, because the proof that would be satisfactory would take too long.
While your data is essentially correct, the issue is where the data leads. All the extant Peshitta traditions indicate a very early original tradition for the whole of the NT, about 200. My proposal is that this tradition exists because Matthew wrote an uninspired passion draft in Aramaic (which I call "Mattai") before he wrote the full Greek text we have copies of today. To this original Aramaic would have been later added translations of the other gospels, along with translation of anything in the Greek not in the shorter Aramaic draft. This is evidenced by the testimony of Irenaeus (two generations after John) and Papias that Matthew wrote first in a Hebraic tongue, and the counterevidence that it's believed Mark completed first; it resolves the apparent contradiction. Then Mattai, Mark, and Matthew are all composed in the 50-65 range, just when early Q dating is placed.
The Q hypothesis was actually intended to make Mark and Matthew much later than Q, say in the 90s. It was supposed to put many layers (adding the imaginary M and L; I've seen one version with 6 layers!) between our copies and the originals to cast doubt on the originals. But the real solution to the synoptic problem is much easier, namely that there is no problem because Mark and Matthew built on each other. So I'm saying the first document of the Peshitta was Mattai and it was a draft of Matthew before it was completed in Greek. This also accounts for the minute textual data and the apparent disappearance of Q: it didn't disappear, its tradition got mixed into tradition of translating from Greek into Aramaic so that you couldn't easily tell one source from another looking at a Peshitta document. Plus, it removes the temptation for the higher critics to push for extra late dates because it upholds the conservative dates and gives the simplest explanation for all the evidence.
Mattai is written independently; Mark translates and builds on Mattai, sounding Hebraic but in Greek; Matthew builds on Mark with new apostolic detail; Luke has both and supplies additional material from Mary and from someone in the Perean ministry while also having many minor agreements with Matthew not in Mark, and Luke IIRC was the best chronologer when there were discrepancies of ordering narratives. Zero unattested sources, compared to three to six.
But I only say that in case people are listening, nobody has to take my word for it.
Peshitta and Early Aramaic:
The Peshitta is a later translation of the Greek New Testament, not evidence of an early Aramaic original for all the books. Old Syriac Gospels, show differences from the Peshitta, proving it wasn’t the first form of the NT.
"Mattai" as an Aramaic Draft:
There’s no historical or textual evidence for an "uninspired passion draft" by Matthew. Early Christians, including the other apostles, confirmed the Gospel texts. Any early deviation would have been spotted and rejected since the early church was highly concerned with preserving accurate teachings.
Markan Priority vs. "Mattai":
The idea that Mark built on "Mattai" and Matthew built on Mark ignores the evidence for Markan priority. Mark’s simpler language and structure suggest it was written first, with Matthew and Luke expanding on it—not the other way around.
Timeline Problems:
Dating Matthew, Mark, and "Mattai" in such a short window (50–65 CE) strains credibility. If "Mattai" had existed, there would be textual evidence or church testimony pointing to it, but none exists.
Good job, so organized and so fast, did you get AI assistance?
I didn't say it was the first form of the NT, as there are Syriac Priorists who think it was. I said if part of Matthew was the first writing of the gospel it resolves many problems and actually creates none.
There were no more deviations between Aramaic and Greek Matthew than those we currently observe in the manuscripts we have (as you point to in paragraph 1), which are not much different from those between one gospel and another or one manuscript of the same gospel and another. Confirmation without overemphasis on perfect verbatim copying (unlike the OT) was indicated by their practices as sufficient.
The solution resolves the debate between Markan and Matthaean priority; Matthew started first, Mark finished first. Matthew's passion is in simpler language than his extended sermons.
The textual evidence is the Peshitta into which Mattai would have been enfolded, and the historical testimony is Irenaeus, Papias, and Eusebius, as stated already. See what they said about Matthaean priority. There is no strain in credibility when conservatives see all three synoptics (plus Acts) in the same short window; I merely add that not only Luke but also Matthew had two occasions to write at length.
You sound insistent on rejecting something new to you. That's why I started by telling people to relax because it doesn't really matter for most purposes. Unless someone is up against one of those higher critics who is insistent on discrediting the authors and historical testimonies so as to feel comfortable about some imaginary invention. I answer all the imaginary inventions by supplying one already-known document and saying it's the real Q instead of the imagined inaccessible one. But if you'd rather live in a JEDPR+ alphabet world where each imaginer proposes his new vision of things that do not exist, feel free. I haven't bound you by telling you the evidence.
I can make points fast because if have a Miro for theological debates. Are you a Unitarian? Trinitarian? Is Jesus Christ God?
If Matthew and Luke recorded sayings of Jesus as witnesses to him, it makes sense that some or several parts would be identical, or closely similar because they were preserving His words as witnesses. It negates the entire reason for a q source.
Of course Jesus is God and I'm a trinitarian. That's why he could die to take away my sins and rise to give me his eternal life. It's the unitarians who insist on many theoretical layers in the text tradition even while they insist there are no theoretical layers in God.
Whatever. In theological debates it's usually recognized that (Moses was right) two accounts containing many agreed logia over 90% verbatim indicate a single source. Since Luke and Paul weren't present like the disciples and Luke didn't say who his other sources were, and since the nature of the agreements with Mark also introduces complications, the whole synoptic problem is how these agreements came about. It's regarded as untenable to believe that the apostles engaged a rote oral memorization program but then selected differently and arranged differently from within that program, and Luke just got in on that. Much better sourcing is to state one copied from and modified another's manuscript. The unique indications of both the copying direction and the historical testimony (which are too boring to try to summarize accurately here) suggest there's something more subtle than just three manuscripts. So the conservative critic looks for the hypothesis that assumes the least about this copying and also explains the language gap.