The Search for Q

No, not John De Lancie. More religion stuff.

I am not much of a believer in Q. Q is a theory about the origin of certain parts of the New Testament. It is essentially a belief that a now-lost primitive version of some of Jesus' sayings and doings is behind that which Matthew and Luke have in common with each other, but not with Mark. Some fanciful Q scholars have even attempted to reconstruct the text, by carefully comparing what Luke and Matthew have in common, and adding one or the other's version, (usually whichever seems more primitive.) Donald Harman Akenson kills the theory of Q quite dead in his book, Saint Saul (appendix II.) He probably kills my theory too, but here goes.

Many of the second century Church fathers asserted that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, and was the earliest gospel. There are certain things in Matthew that suggest an Aramaic origin. The subtly written pun, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church" in Matthew 16:18 plays on two different meanings of the Aramaic word kephas, using two different Greek words that reek of a translation. You can picture the translator trying to convey the subtle word play in a way that a Greek would pick it up.

Then there is the recent theory that Gamaliel may have parodied the Sermon on the Mount in the very late second temple era, circa 70 AD. This suggests a very early, and very Aramaic, origin for Matthew.

I am no academic, but here is my fanciful theory: just like the Church fathers said, Matthew was written very early, and in Aramaic. But it was not Matthew, as we know it today. There may have been a few narrative parts in it, but it was essentially focused on Jesus' teachings. In this early Christian age and in Matthew's locale, the narrative of Jesus' life would not have been necessary - many of his disciples were still alive and could orally tell new disciples all about Jesus' doings. The teachings would have been what Matthew would want to capture: what better way to nip growing heresies in the bud than to write out as eloquently as possible all that Jesus taught?

At some point, a very liberally translated Greek copy of this Matthew made it into Luke's hands. Some of it he incorporated into the Sermon on the Plain, some of it elsewhere. Matthew itself would later have its skeletal narrative fleshed out and be rewritten in Greek for the benefit of new Gentile converts.

This is close enough to Q to satisfy some of the Q-adorers, I think. And it better fits the traditions of the early church fathers, who were only a century removed from the apostolic age, and deserve to be listened to about these things far more than scholars are willing to let them be.