Troublesome Topic: MARK DID NOT RELY ON A Q DOCUMENT AND MATTHEW DID NOT RELY ON MARK OR Q

The reason we have four Gospels is that they give us four independent, yet similar voices explaining why we should believe that Jesus is the Savior of the world.

I disagree with those who say that Mark relied on a lost document called Q, and that Matthew relied on Mark or Q (referring to a supposed common source for Mark and Matthew).

Why would Matthew need to rely on anyone else’s writing? He was a disciple of Jesus! He did not need to rely on anyone else to write his account of Jesus.

If you look for similarities between Mark and Matthew you will find similarities; if you look for differences you will find differences.

The theory that there was a Q manuscript and Mark relied on Q and Matthew relied on either Mark or Q (I have head both ideas postulated) undermines the validity of their testimony as independent eye witnesses or based on eye witnesses, and by so doing it assists those who call the identity of Jesus into question.

In the Old Covenant “every matter was established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” Here we have more than three witnesses, we have four. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses and Mark and Luke heard the stories of various eyewitnesses.

What’s more, they all wrote during a time when many eye witnesses of Jesus were still alive. If they got something wrong, there were many people who could set the record straight.

The Bible presents the four Gospels as credible testimonies about Jesus. We should not accept any theories that challenge the independent testimony of the Gospel writers, especially theories based on assumptions and supposed hints, like the idea of Q.