Monday, February 4, 2019

The Fallacy of Q


Many scholars accept the existence of Q as a source for Matthew and Luke.  It is a fundamental aspect of the two-source theory, according to which Matthew and Luke independently used both Mark and the hypothetical source, Q.  The two-source theory is given as the primary solution to the synoptic problem in most of the introductory textbooks, and it is assumed in many of the commentaries, monographs, and articles written about the Gospels.[1] 

The "synoptic problem" is the question of the specific literary relationship among the three synoptic gospels—that is, the question as to the source or sources upon which each synoptic gospel depended when it was written.
The texts of the three synoptic gospels often agree very closely in wording and order, both in quotations and in narration. Most scholars ascribe this to documentary dependence, direct or indirect, meaning the close agreements among synoptic gospels are due to one gospel's drawing from the text of another, or from some written source that another gospel also drew from.[2]

I will have to be excused for not recognizing the “synoptic problem”, no matter how often I read the gospels the problem eludes me. Obviously it takes greater intelligence than what I have garnered to be able to notice such issues. Naïvely, I believed that God in some way assisted the authors in their writing. That would account for similarities, especially since the subject matter is the same in the three synoptic gospels. There is also that statement at the end of John’s gospel which says; “…there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.[3] John also remarked; “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.[4] There was no shortage of information as I see it, there was obviously too much for any author to do justice to the speeches of Jesus. To assign credibility to the gospels is a flawed belief according to the “Jesus Seminar” –a collection of religious intelligentsia. “The Jesus Seminar was a group of about 50 critical Biblical scholars and 100 laymen founded in 1985 by Robert Funk that originated under the auspices of the Westar Institute. The seminar was very active through the 1980s and 1990s, and into the early 21st century”[5] This cluster of esteemed biblical scholars stripped Jesus of anything spiritual, or divine. “According to the Seminar, Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead. Sightings of a risen Jesus represented the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.”[6]
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength.[7]
I wonder if when Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it,”[8] he was suggesting that intellect isn’t the priority in pleasing God. Paul wrote, “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom,” and in another place he wrote, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith.’”[9] Stupidity is not a virtue, and it is not what I am advocating. Intelligence is necessary in our human environment, but it is faith that transports us toward the divine. The Jesus Seminar lost its way, the four beans with which they voted, biased results. The conclusion, the supposed clever people, came up with was based on human intelligence only. There is no way reach a spiritual resolution with four coloured beans and material interpretation of spiritual phenomena. The Q Source comes from the same intelligent reasoning, devoid of spiritual influence.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[10]
To know God’s message, you must know Jesus. Jesus was God’s likeness on earth. If one rejects Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, he rejects God. There is no Q!


[1] www.bibleodyssey.org
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org
[3] Joh 21:25 
[4] Joh 20:30, 31
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org
[6] Ibid
[7] 1Co 1:18-25
[8] Mar 10:15 
[9] Rom 1:16, 17
[10] Joh 1:1 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Is What we Believe Tradition or God's Word?

  A sampling of comments and thoughts to think about when considering what we believe: A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” “In tod...