I am sympathetic to some of the arguments in the article, and believe there are many scholars of good will who do not think through all of the implications of the theories that are being passed down to them. I also think that there are scholars who have an agenda that is contrary to the good of the church they purport to serve. Perhaps some ivory towers should be hermetically sealed...

Is that an ad hominem?

Gordo

Originally posted by Henry Karlson:
But this helps go with the point I made that the Aramaic Matthew + Oral tradition would be Q. Q only is a symbol of a variable, of material we can tell is being borrowed from.. in the same way other text criticism works with ancient documents. It's simple, it works, it shows it works in relation to non-Biblical texts.

Originally posted by tobit:
Glad to see a modern catholic commentary question the Q theory and reduce it to theory rather than fact nowhere is Q mentioned by the church fathers

Dear friends,
I know there has been a lot of senseless debate on the issue of which came first,
the Greek Chicken or the Aramaic Egg. Well I would like to set the record straight as
far as the earliest Church record of such an issue.
It is recorded that Saint Matthew Levi Bar Khalpi transcribed all of "the Master's
Sayings" in their original Hebrew. And later others translated as best they could this
compilation into Koine Greek so as to create their Gospel narratives.

Now later others took this to mean that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic,
and later others translated it into Greek as best they could....but this is not what the
testimony says at all. Matthew most probably was Messiah's scribe, and wrote down
His lessons, parables, phrases and debates with Jewish Rabbis, Scribes, Priests,
Commoners and Gentiles as they happened or afterwards at the day's end.

It may be that later when he wrote his Gospel narrative he too used his Hebrew
notes and created his Gospel as we know it. We know that the Judeo Nazaraeans had
a Gospel in Hebrew, called the Gospel of the Nazaraeans...could our Matthew be the
Translation? Matthew's Book of Sayings was written in Jerusalem and used by others
afterwards. Most likely the Greek Matthew Narrative was written and published at
Caesarea.

We do know that Mark wrote his Gospel Narrative based upon Saint Peter's
preaching. And I suppose Peter used Matthew's Hebrew Book of the Messiah's Sayings
as well. The Gospel of Mark was compiled in Rome and written in Alexandria, were it
was published and circulated from.

Luke seems to have used both Matthew's Book of Sayings as well as the Hebrew
Gospel, Mark's Greek Gospel and other eye witness accounts. He wrote his Gospel
Narrative in Greek at Syrian Antioch, where it was published and circulated.

John wrote his Gospel Narrative in Ephesos as a filler, in order to complete the
history and teachings of Jesus not recorded by Matthew or buy any other. His work
was written in Koine Greek from the start.

This is the united testimony of the Ancient Church from Gaul to Egypt, From Greece
to Asia, from Syria to Judea. There is no other testimony other than this.

So much for aramaic primacy...as there is no ancient Syrian or Mesopotamian
tradition that contradicts this...that is until long after the Church of the East
separated Herself from Antioch, and I do mean long afterwards...like the 17th
Century.