# What is the status of "Q" gospel theory?



## tommyb (Feb 5, 2010)

How seriously is the mysterious "Q" text, the source of the synoptic gospels, taken in Reformed and acedemic circles. I've always had problems with it but a lot of writers I respect seem to think it's a given.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 5, 2010)

I think the key point to make from a Reformed standpoint is that we have not lost any of God's intended canon, so if there was a 'Q' source, God saw fit to include the Synoptics in the inspired canon and not 'Q'. Now whether there is a Q or not, I don't know. I tend to think two of the Synoptics must have utilized the other rather than all three using another source, but I'm not sure which of the three was the source.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 6, 2010)

I think it's all this guy's fault:


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 6, 2010)

I am a fan of a Mattean underlining of the Synoptics.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 6, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I am a fan of a Mattean underlining of the Synoptics.


 
I'm sorry, young man. Are you speaking English?


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 6, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I am a fan of a Mattean underlining of the Synoptics.


 
My dad holds this too, but I've never asked him why. Would you mind giving a brief summary of why you think Matthew the likely source?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Feb 6, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> I think it's all this guy's fault:


 
I was thinking the same thing, Tim.


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 6, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> I think it's all this guy's fault:


 
Whose fault? Archbishop Laud?


----------

