The mythical “Q” source and modern Bible criticism’s self serving double standard

bible4

There are identical verses in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Markans claim both authors copied from Mark’s Gospel. They further assert that Matthew and Luke had no knowledge of each other. So where did they obtain their many identical verses that were not present in Mark’s Gospel? Markans say they copied from a lost document, which they call ‘Q’ from the German word ‘Quelle’ (Source).

There is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that ‘Q’ or its author ever existed. If ‘Q’ had existed, it would have been the most treasured, copied, precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. According to the Markans we owe the preservation of ‘The Our Father’ and ‘The Beatitudes’ to ‘Q’. Mark did not bother to record them. If ‘Q’ had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been passed from hand to hand and read at Services.

Markans want us to believe that the community that produced ‘Q’ made such few copies that none have been found or have been mentioned by historians. Yet the anonymous authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, found two rare copies and made them the basis of their writings. Then the communities of both Matthew and Luke lost ‘Q’. If ‘Q’ was so important, multiple copies would have been made for many communities. Markans have not explained how all copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did all knowledge of ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature?

Those who hold the Markan theory demand the most stringent proof for the historicity of the Gospels, for which we have much historical evidence. Yet they accept conjectures and theories about ‘Q’, based on further conjectures and theories for which there is no evidence at all. In reality ‘Q’ was created out of nothing by theologians in the 19th century, to fill a hole in the Markan priority theory.

Read more

Authentic Bible history vs New Age Nonsense: Was Matthew or Mark the first written Gospel?

BibleInspired

For 2000 years Christians have accepted that the four Gospels provide reliable historical facts about the life of Jesus. They also accepted that the ancient historians provided reliable accounts regarding the origins of these Gospels. Borrowing had obviously taken place between the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke, later known as: ‘The Synoptic Gospels’. Who had borrowed from whom was of little academic interest until 1764 when Henry Owen, an Anglican Vicar, proposed that Mark wrote after Luke.

Although discussed in Germany, conservative scholars rejected the idea because it contradicted Jerome’s sequence of Matthew-Mark-Luke.

But Owen had arrived at his theory by critically examining the wording used by the authors, and this prompted others to also do so. In 1838 Christian Weisse claimed that as Mark’s Gospel was in poor grammatical Greek, compared to the other two, he must have written prior to them.  His reason was that the ‘borrower’ would not deliberately turn good quality Greek into poor quality. The sequence that Mark wrote first became known as the Markan Priority Theory.

Rationalists and other non-believers in the German Universities, supported by the government, championed this theory because all the ancient historians had said that Matthew wrote first. The acceptance of Markan Priority would mean all the early Christian historians were seriously wrong so unreliable.

Also, they could argue, that as most scholars dated Mark as writing about 64 AD, Matthew and Luke must have been written much later. So, these Gospels would have been authored by anonymous individuals who had never met Christ. They would have constructed stories of Christ not based on facts but on their personal faith.

Such a lack of Scriptural reliability would devastate Evangelical Christianity. And the evidence for the historical claim, by the Catholic Church, to having been founded by Christ would be undermined.

Christians answered those promoting Markan Priority [In future here referred to as Markans], by basing their stand on the words of the historians and on the reliability of Jerome’s listing in the order of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But although they undermined the Markan position, they failed to win the debate convincingly.

On the other side, Markans found it necessary to rely on an alleged historical document they called Q – although there was not the slightest historical evidence that it ever existed. The two sides fought each other to a stand-still.

Then, in 1965, the Second Vatican Council maintained that the historians were correct. It restated that the eyewitness Apostles and their apostolic friends had authored the four gospels. Soon afterwards, research led to a third theory emerging (or re-emerging), which would reconcile modern critical analysis with the historical evidence.

Read more

Modern Bible Myths: The “Q Source”.

BibleInspired

Irenaeus, Eusebius, Tertullian and others had travelled throughout the Roman Empire, and were well educated.

Why did they have no knowledge of the alleged anonymous authors or ‘Q’?

Why did the Jews, heretics and pagans never mention them or it?

Why were all the ancient historians and theologians completely ignorant of ‘Q’? Or the name of the genius, who had produced the key written account of the life and teaching of Christ?

Also, why did all the historians of the period, alleged to have lived far apart, accept the gospels were written by four other men and agree their names and backgrounds?

Read more

Making the Sign of the Cross is absolutely ancient, rooted not only in the Old Testament but the New.

The Catholic Sign of the Cross is absolutely ancient, rooted not only in the Old Testament but the New (Apocalypse speaks of those who have the sign of God in their foreheads — and those who have the sign of the Beast in their foreheads).

When Catholics undergo the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Bishop (sometimes a priest) seals the sign on our foreheads with holy chrism. St. John of Damascus wrote:

This was given to us as a sign on our forehead,
just as the circumcision was given to Israel:
for by it we believers are separated and distinguished from unbelievers.

Crossing one’s self recalls this seal, and the invocation that is said while making this holy sign calls on our God — the Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost — and is a sign of our of belief; it is both a “mini-creed” that asserts our belief in the Triune God, and a prayer that invokes Him.

The use of holy water when making this sign, such as we do when we enter a church, also recalls our Baptism and should bring to mind that we are born again of water and Spirit, thanks be to God.

Read more

Submitted by Doria2