Talk:Q source

I do not accept the Q hypothesis at all

All the Early Church father believes the Gospels where written in the order they are in in our present Bibles. Mark does has numerous unique characteristics, it wasn't completely engulfed into Matthew and Luke. Matthew is larger then mark only cause it has the most detailed accounts of the Sermon on the Mount and other discourses, Mark's actual Narrative does contain more historical information.--MithirandirOlorin 16:11, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

I am not sure why you think that when majority of scholarship doesn't seem to have a problem. Is it mostly because early church fathers didn't reference such a document?--Tony 16:18, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

There are plenty of scholars of question the Q theory, their just not given much mainstream coverage.--MithirandirOlorin 16:45, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

Like who? And I am really wondering why you think Q should be questioned.--Tony 16:50, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

Cause if it existed it would still be part of the Bible. The Common source of the Gospels is what happened and The Holy Spirit.--MithirandirOlorin 16:56, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

Yes I agree it is what happened is the common source when dealing with historically based scripture. But it could just as easily be posited that the material (especially the non-historical and more theological content) in Mathew and Luke not found in Mark was derived from a common source. So Mathew and Luke used Mark and another source to write their Gospels. If they can use other works as sources like Mark, then why can't they use other material from a different source?--Tony 17:07, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

Luke based his informaiton on interviewing Eye witnesses, that's what his intorduction imply if you know the Greek. I don't bleive either Mark or "Q" where sources. Matthew predates Mark.--MithirandirOlorin 17:15, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

Mark in fact does predate Mathew, Luke and John. And the Pauline epistles, most of them date before Matthew. In fact if the Gospels were laid out chronologically from when they date, it should be Mark, Luke, Mathew, John. That chronology of the book order is derived from both conservative and liberal scholarship.--Tony 17:20, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

No that's the cunclsion fo Modenr shclars based on the Q hypothosis, All the early Father agreed Matthew was first. Matthew was the Jewish oreinted Gospel, and Paul said the Gospel was for the Jews First and then the Gentiles, so it fits.--MithirandirOlorin 18:00, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

Those dates are not derived through the Q hypothesis, those dates are derives by other means. Personally I am still agnostic or unsure about the Q hypothesis personally, but I am not in opposition to it. I appreciate you going to the early church fathers, as that is authoritative especially the writings before 150AD. For the moment leaving your exegesis of Pauls writing about Jews and Gentiles, which fathers exactly state that Mathew was first?--Tony 18:02, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

Irenaus, Eusebius, Papais, all of them to address it, Augustine niavely called Mark the "Abrivator of Matthew".--MithirandirOlorin 19:28, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

What precise book and where in that book does it support your view that Mark does not predate Matthew? And what exactly was said in support of this?--Tony 22:42, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/49_matthew.html--MithirandirOlorin 00:04, 29 May 2011 (PDT)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markan_Priority#Arguments_against_Markan_priority --MithirandirOlorin 00:04, 29 May 2011 (PDT)

The first link goes to a page that no longer exists. The second link, for the first topic in the Wikipedia portion it concludes a case for Q. The second section of the second link, only argues for certain versions of Markan priority and not very convincingly only spending a sentence on it. And the third section of the second link it amounts to "could have". I do not think this amounts to a very strong case against Mark predating Mathew, nor against the Q document which is the crux of this discussion, as part of your source actually uses the argument against Markan priority for a case in support of the Q document.--Tony 02:04, 29 May 2011 (PDT)

I was providing sources for the fact that the Early Church Father said Matthew was first, which is ceded by the Wiki articles, Wiki eidotros simly view less signifcance to that then I do.--MithirandirOlorin 05:00, 29 May 2011 (PDT)

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/49_matthew.html I don't know why the first link is screwing up, the page certianlly still exists. If it still doesn't work go to the site's homepage, it's in the New testament seciton under Semitic origins--MithirandirOlorin 05:00, 29 May 2011 (PDT)

I see nothing at that link that shows Mathew was written before Mark and/or that disqualifies Q as a possible source. The quotes that I suppose support Mathew priority claim so from the Hebrew, the quote don't require Mathew priority in the Greek text.--Tony 11:38, 29 May 2011 (PDT)

The eariest soruces saying Matthew was orgnally Hebrew also say Matthew was first in the same places. The 2 views are qquite linked.--MithirandirOlorin 11:45, 29 May 2011 (PDT)

Right, but that is with writing in Hebrew. When it went to Greek, it changed, that's the point because there were others already in Greek. And again, majority of scholarship declares Mark written first. I have yet to see a comprehensive reason why that would be wrong, your sources so far have either shown proof for the Q document, or refer to the book first written in a different language than what the others were written in. So while it may be the first written in Hebrew, it is not the first written in Greek. --Tony 11:50, 29 May 2011 (PDT)

The majority of "Scholarship" doesn't agree wiht us about Creaitonism either. I'm gonna take the word of the Early father who lived much closer then us to when they where wrriten.--MithirandirOlorin 01:08, 30 May 2011 (PDT)

You have not dealt with the arguments I put forth showing your sources lacking.--Tony 11:23, 30 May 2011 (PDT)

The hirsotrical dosucmention poroveing them wrong is all I need.--MithirandirOlorin 21:41, 30 May 2011 (PDT)