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
[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org
[6]
Ibid
[9]
Rom 1:16, 17
No comments:
Post a Comment