Is there any evidence for Q that could puncture “the case against Q” which seems watertight to its proponents? Perhaps the Lord’s Prayer will answer the prayers of Q supporters everywhere.
The Matthean version of the prayer is better known and longer. It is easy to envisage the author of Matthew adding these comments as clarifications. It is much harder to imagine the author of Luke removing them. Why shorten a reference to our Father in heaven to simply ‘Father’? Why remove the reference to God’s will being done? The latter makes sense, on the other hand, as an addition that explains what it means for God’s kingdom to come – i.e. when one prays for the kingdom to come, one is praying for God’s will to be done on earth the way it is in heaven.
Moreover, these are just the sorts of explanatory glosses that we find Matthew adding at times to Mark’s material. For instance, where Mark (in chapter 13) speaks of the ‘desolating sacrilege’ standing where it ought not to be, Matthew clarifies things for the reader: the ‘desolating sacrilege’ is something that Daniel wrote about, and the place it ought not be is the Holy Place, i.e. the Temple. Let the reader understand.
Such evidence seems to tell strongly against Luke having used Matthew, and that is the most common viewpoint among Q skeptics.
Does the case against Q have a flat tire – or as they say in Britain, a puncture?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In