...
Sorry for the length of this comment but there are several points raised here that demand a response. Tony writes: There’s no reference to a Q, by any of the New Testament writers, by the early...
View Article...
"So why all the fuss about Q? Who benefits? How does the supposititious Q help us understand the words of Jesus, and live a Christian life?" - It probably provided PhD fodder when research material...
View Article...
No one, to my knowledge, ever claimed that Q was a text. It is simply the name given to material common to Matthew and Luke, not found in Mark; the inference being that they are drawing on a common...
View Article...
I personally believe that "Q" is the Oral Tradition of the Church and therefor no written record exists outside of the Gospels. - Joe Mulvihill
View Article...
The first steps in holding back the heresy of progressivism are in understanding their agenda and modus operandi. Thank, Tony. - Deacon Ed Peitler
View Article...
I find it wonderfully appropriate that the letter "Q," particularly as portrayed in the illustration accompanying your article, gives the appearance of looking along the hollow barrel of a paper key....
View Article...
I've always wondered at this Q! I'm glad someone writes about it because the commentary in the New American Bible is filled with references to Q. I always disliked the New American commentary, and now...
View Article...
I thank Pete Brown for his considered and temperate response. I wish, however, that people would be a great deal more skeptical about such claims than they are. The plain fact of the matter is that the...
View Article...
I am reluctant to reply to petebrown’s very well-written post, since Anthony Esolen is obviously best equipped to do that. But heck, what is a comments section for otherwise? So here are a couple quick...
View Article...
Pete Brown, the nonexistent writer of Q as efficient cause? The immaterial Q as material cause? The unsubstantial Q as formal cause? You academic types can be very confusing. Can you really confirm...
View Article...
The St. Jerome Biblical Commentary has an excellent explanation of "Q". It is not included in the Canon of the Bible and is not a tenet of our faith. It is a possible explanation as to the contents of...
View Article...
I commend you for your efforts, Dr. Esolen. Look at all the activity of opinions you hve stirred and this is only the first installment! A briiliant young FSSP priest at our chapel is returning to...
View Article...
All that and not a single reference to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit with and for each author of the Synoptic Gospels. Thus, I think 'Q' as in simply quarrelsome. - Ernest Miller
View Article...
The Gospels were written by people of faith about people of faith and for people of faith. They must be read in the same Spirit that inspired them and that guides the Magisterium of the Church. There...
View Article...
Take St Paul's "evil communications corrupt good manners." (1 Cor 15:33) He appears to be quoting from Meander's lost comedy, "Thais,"Φθειρουσιν ηθη χρησθ' ὁμιλιαι κακαι· as the quotation is found in...
View Article...
Father Swetnam and I have it right!!!. I hate to be boastful, but most of you are out in the bushes on this including the author. Focus on obtaining the Beatific Vision and "Q" be damned. If it doesn't...
View Article...
I believe Meyrat has understood best why I've written this piece. I object very strenuously against presenting as truth something which is merely conjectural, and then basing theological conclusions...
View Article