Qopycats?

I've been thinking about something I read in the U.S. News and World Report magazine I discussed in my previous entry. In one of the articles, a measure of doubt was cast on the authenticity of the Gospels. It was suggested that portions of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were "borrowed" from the Gospel of Mark in that Mark was written first and the other two used it as a sort of template to produce their Gospels. It was further suggested that Mark was "borrowed" from an as yet unidentified earlier source known by the scholarly community as "Q". Thus, it is concluded that there aren't really three corroborating sources (Matthew, Mark, Luke), but only one original source ("Q") from which the others were copied and recopied. Or, so the story goes. We'll set aside the fact that this "Q" document hasn't even been found and is, therefore, purely speculative. Now, I've seen these arguements presented elsewhere, and they are very often used in an attempt to discredit the Gospels as reliable sources. But should they be discredited?

First, it seems that the case for the "plagarizing evangelists" falls a little short. If Matthew and Luke really did copy their material from Mark, then they must have been some of the worst copyists in all of history. Several details between the Gospels have the distinct appearance of contradictions. Notice I said "appearance." I did so because I do not believe they are actually contradictory and can be reconciled with a little time and study. But I digress. Given the time they were written and the fact that so many eyewitnesses were still alive, how could Matthew and Luke possibly hope to have any credibility while being so sloppy in their acts of "borrowing" material? Especially when some of the apparent contradictions revolve around arguably the most central tenant of Christianity: the resurrection. In Mark, the two Mary's and Salome first arrive at the tomb and are met inside by a young man in a white robe. Also, the stone was already rolled away from the tomb's entrance. In Matthew's Gospel, Salome is not mentioned and the women experience an earthquake and see an angel descend and roll the stone away. In Luke's version, the two Mary's and Joanna (along with other women not mentioned) were the first on the scene. As in Mark's version, the stone was already rolled away, but instead of one man greeting them, two stood beside them. Let's be honest here. If you were writing a gospel that you had stolen to impact people for your faith, would you be so careless with the details surrounding the most critical and foundational aspect of your beliefs? I doubt it.

But, just for kicks, let's say we agree that Matthew and Luke copied Mark who copied this undiscovered "Q" document. Regarding the credibility of these Gospels, what follows from this? Nothing! Suppose they did copy portions. So what? It simply does not follow that they should be discredited based solely on this notion. Let me use an example to clarify. After 9/11, Time magazine ran an article on the events surrounding that date and the tragic loss of life on American soil. Imagine that, some time afterward, I also wrote an article about 9/11 and copied a few paragraphs from Time's article. Fast forward a thousand years when someone discovers the remains of both Time's and my articles. Of course, they notice the similarities between the two and they conclude that I "borrowed" my material from Time. As it turns out, they'd be right. Could they then legitimately conclude that 9/11 never occurred based solely on this evidence? Of course not! Likewise, they couldn't conclude that, instead of commercial planes crashing into buildings, a Cessna landed on the roof of a building. Yet this is what some have done in the case of the Gospels. They conclude that, either Jesus didn't even exist, or he was simply a guru or a really swell guy. These conclusions are completely unfounded based on these details.

Keep in mind that these accounts (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are based on eyewitness testimony. The author of Matthew was the apostle Matthew who witnessed Jesus' acts and heard his words. The author of Mark was a disciple of Peter, who witnessed Jesus' acts, heard his words, and, according to Jerome, approved and authorized the Gospel to be read in the churches. The author of Luke was the disciple of Paul who, post-resurrection, witnessed Jesus' acts and heard his words. So, it can hardly be said that these Gosples are fanciful fiction. Even if some portions were copied, they were done so by way of agreement with what was written. They copied and wrote down what they believed because they witnessed it!

What better testimony do you need than multiple independent eyewitness accounts? For my money, it doesn't get much better.