A theory to explain this is that Matthew and Luke both had access to the same source- another proto-Gospel that contained these passages. In the 20th century, this mysterious source was termed Q (short for Quelle, which is German for 'source').
So the 'Q-Source' is really the 'Source-source'.
And while we're at it, it's S-O-U-R-C-E, not SAUCE. It's not something you put on a chip butty. |
Mmmm-mmm... delicious Q Sauce
|
Matthew compiled the logia of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech, and everyone translated them as well he could - Papias of Hieropolis
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us - Luke 1: 1
YES
The theory of the Q-Source provides a link from Gospels written in the 80s CE back to the events of Jesus' lifetime. Matthew and Luke are written after the destruction of the Temple in the Jewish Revolt but draw upon materials like Q from before that important event.
No copies of Q are known - but then no copies of the Gospel of Thomas were known until the Nag Hammadi Library was discovered in 1945. Thomas is another 'sayings Gospel' - a collection of logia. This makes the existence of Q more plausible, as do references by Papias and in Luke's Prologue.
|
NO
There is no evidence for Q - either physical evidence (no copies exist) or literary evidence (no ancient writers ever refer to it; instead they refer to the four canonical Gospels being the earliest accounts). Q is a theory that supports a late dating of the Gospels preferred by atheists.
If the canonical Gospels are what they have always been claimed to be - independent eyewitness accounts of Jesus' ministry, crucifixion and Resurrection - then there's no need for Q. If the Gospels were written in the 60s CE then there's no need for a 'sayings Gospel' since this is within the lifetime of the historical Matthew, Mark and Luke.
|