For those of us that aren't aware, some scholars believe that Matthew and Luke copied a lot of their material from the gospel of Mark (supposedly the oldest Gospel).  But there is a lot in Matthew and Luke that doesn't appear in Mark.  So, some scholars came up with a hypothetical document titled 'quelle' (a German word meaning 'source').  'Q', for short.  Now, it should be noted that no one has ever seen this document and church history doesn't seem to know about it.  But, most...ahem...'liberal' scholarship holds to it like it is the source document for (at least) the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

However, my view is more like this (And mind you, this is just my view.  I haven't heard this from anyone else.).  To me, Mark reads more like an underground subversive tract.  Almost like a secret code -- the kind you swallow or burn up after you've read it.  What I see as a more likely possibility is that  Mark copied from Matthew or Luke and, since those accounts were more fleshed out, the author of Mark didn't need to expound on anything.  That, or maybe 'he' didn't have time.  It could be that the writer could have written that account during immense persecution and could possibly be found out at any moment so 'she' didn't have time to do more that hit the highlights.  Now, I may be naive, but to me, this sounds a lot more reasonable than living and dying on a hypothetical document that no one has ever seen and most people doubt ever existed.

Just some food for thought.

Peace be with you.



Ted M. Gossard said…
Interesting. I'll bet there are scholars out there who have some similar sort of view. I don't know about a "Q". Seems kind of nebulous to me since there is no evidence beyond conjecture for such.

Popular Posts