From: Gordon Coleman <>
Newsgroups: nz.soc.religion,aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Tigger gave it a try
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 13:24:19 +1100

A brief interjection, if I may.....

Able wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:55:23 +1200, Tigger <> wrote:
> 
> >Nigel B. Mitchell wrote:
> >>
> >> You have said that there are no contradicitons in the autographs.
> >> No-one can prove that, because we do not know what is in the
> >> autographs.
> >
> >A key point. Is Able one of these people that has to believe in the
> >inerrency of the bible to support his faith? That would be consistent
> >with requiring such documents as the autographs without evidence of
> >their existence.
> 
> Let Able answer,
> NO.
> As far as evidence of the existence of the autographs, we have the
> evidence of what the Bible says about itself.
> Liberal Scholars say that there are no autographs, they do not exist.
> They would rather believe that Mathew and Luke copied from Mark and
> that they all copied from a document called Q. Well that is roughly
> one of the many theories.
> Now the Early Church has never mentioned this document,
> and none has been found to exist. Yet they have more faith in the
> existence of this Q document than the autographs that are described by
> the Bible.

If you look at the synoptic gospels, there are some pretty clear
examples of copying - some sections are word-for-word. I don't think
there can be any doubt that somebody used somebody else's account as a
basis, or as a source.

Did Luke have other sources - call them Q or call them late for
breakfast - that he used in the writing of his gospel?  Clearly the
answer must be *yes*.  The author of Luke wasn't there, didn't meet
Jesus, didn't follow him around.  He freely admits that the basis of his
gospel is a careful investigation of the facts, interviewing of
eyewitnesses, examining the stories that were circulating, all to
provide a *reliable* account.  And Matthew?  And Mark?  Surely they had
sources too.  The early church fathers suggested that Mark's gospel was
based primarily on the recollections of Peter.  Seems plausible enough.
If the author of Matthew was the apostle of that name (the author is not
identified in the book), he would presumably have written based on
recollections.  But he may have had earlier written records or summaries
of Jesus' teaching (e.g. notes taken of Jesus' words), and may have
consulted other sources.

I don't have a problem with the concept of "Q".  But was it a document?
Or a person? Or an oral account that had been committed to memory to
ensure its reliable transmission to others (in an uneducated society,
people may often remember an oral message far more accurately than a
written one)?  

The problem arises when you start building complex theories around
hypothetical documents that may or may not have existed. If the gospels
were written reasonably close to the time of the apostles (and most
evangelical scholars - not an oxymoron by any means - would still hold
to apostolic authorship for Matthew and John, and apostolic authority
and historical reliablity for Mark and Luke), then there is no need for
a *document*.  "Q" may simply be the pooled recollections of the
still-living apostles and witnesses to the life of Christ, whether
written down or communicated verbally.

Anyway, that's my two cents' worth for the moment.  

Cheers,

Gordon