W is the new Q

by Richard on February 19, 2007

Locusts & Honey proposes a radical new solution to the “Synoptic problem”.

I can’t imagine why no one has thought of it before.

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }


DH 02.19.07 at 4:44 pm

To me there is no solution needed because they ARE synoptic. Just because a passage is in two of the Gospels but not in another doesn’t mean they aren’t synoptic. Once people understand that then there really is no point in coming up with, “man-made, man’s “wisdom”, Q, X, Y, Z alphabet soup. THe answer to the “synoptic” issue isn’t “Q” but “I AM”. If you get my drift.


Wood 02.19.07 at 5:35 pm

That’s hilarious.

Mind you, between them Wikipedia and Google are ruining everything.


DH 02.19.07 at 6:08 pm

It seems weird and strange to imply indirectly that wikipedia is “God inspired”. Seems heretical to me (just being humorous).


Wood 02.19.07 at 7:11 pm

Man. And they say Americans can’t get irony…


Richard 02.19.07 at 11:40 pm

“Just because a passage is in two of the Gospels but not in another doesn’t mean they aren’t synoptic.”
No, it doesn’t. And nobody said it did.

The “Synoptic problem”, in a nutshell, is to disentangle the literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke. There clearly is a relationship, but it isn’t as simple as some ’solutions’ to the problem suggest.

Of course, if you believe the gospels were all simply dictated by God to a group of automata you sweep this problem aside. And open up a whole lot more!


Richard 02.20.07 at 12:00 am

You’re not convinced by wiki then, Wood?


Kim 02.20.07 at 7:39 am

I don’t know about the Bible, but the Wikipedia is inspired, perspicuous, sufficient, and inerrant - and that’s then end of the matter: sola Wikipedia!


DH 02.20.07 at 3:45 pm

Wood, I get irony. Hense my (humorous) line. :)

Richard, I don’t believe it was totally “automata” because the personalities of the writers were allowed but those “personalities” of the writers that were allowed I don’t believe contradict each other but are perfect compliments to each other and thus perfect as compliments. Other than that “dictated by God”? yes I also don’t believe it creates even more problems.


DH 02.20.07 at 3:56 pm

I think my analogy of three different people looking at the same “McDonalds” with each person having emphesis’s on different parts of the McDonalds describes the “so-called” differences between the Gospels. When one understands that then one doesn’t have to operate with a predisposition of “no inerancy”. If I look at a McDonalds and emphesize the building because I’m a architect I might also mention the business to a lessor extent but it isn’t going to fully describe it because my “personality or expertise” is in architecture. And Vice-versa for the person emphsizing the “business” of McDonalds who mentions to a lessor extent the building or architecture. They are both describing the same things perfectly it is just that between the personalities more description is given within the respective personlities of the writers and thus compliment each other perfectly. Thus the so-called differences are actually compliments.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>