There is a dead comment here talking about how bad the writing is here.
Maybe the comment is dead because it was too harsh? But in any case, the writing here is very poor.
The actual information offered is barely worth much more than my following summary:
Mark was written first. Then Matthew then Luke. Q is a hypothetical source that addresses the commonality between these gospels but has never been found. As Q was a theory, there are variations where only Matthew and Luke reference Q, or maybe Mark also referenced Q. Or maybe Q never existed and the oral tradition is sufficient to explain all the commonalities (especially between Matthew and Luke).
Which happens to be all my Religion class ever covered. Q theory has never been proven or disproven. The early Church had an oral tradition (Jesus never wrote anything down personally, which is why we rely upon Mark, Matthew and Luke). John has an obviously different writing style.
Indeed. This is one of those articles where I struggle to decide to upvote. I wish I could upvote the discussion without upvoting the article itself, because this article does not deserve it
Maybe the comment is dead because it was too harsh? But in any case, the writing here is very poor.
The actual information offered is barely worth much more than my following summary:
Mark was written first. Then Matthew then Luke. Q is a hypothetical source that addresses the commonality between these gospels but has never been found. As Q was a theory, there are variations where only Matthew and Luke reference Q, or maybe Mark also referenced Q. Or maybe Q never existed and the oral tradition is sufficient to explain all the commonalities (especially between Matthew and Luke).
Which happens to be all my Religion class ever covered. Q theory has never been proven or disproven. The early Church had an oral tradition (Jesus never wrote anything down personally, which is why we rely upon Mark, Matthew and Luke). John has an obviously different writing style.
The truth of the matter has been lost to time.