Q-Source, Do you believe that there was a Q? If so, then was God’s
inspired word lost?

The Q-Source is a hypothesis contrived to explain both the similarities
and the differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke. Was there a written
source of sayings and acts of Jesus available before Mark or Matthew wrote
their gospels? I would assume almost certainly there were. Did Mark draw
upon those written sources? I cannot prove so, but logic and common sense
would lead one to assume that such documents existed and that the gospel
writers may very well have used such sources to recall and organize their
information. More specifically, did the Q-source exist? I would take some
of the arguments and conclusions of the theologians, and especially the
liberal theologians with a big grain of salt, but I do believe that some
written sources were most likely available. Was there one identifiable
source which we now call the Q-source? I have no idea, and I believe
scholars do not either. There is a huge amount of speculation and argument
among scholars about the Q-source.

I do not see how the issue of whether there was or was not some sort of
written source material of genuine information about Jesus available when
the gospel writers wrote would affect one’s view of whether these gospels
are inspired. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all have strong marks of being
inspired to me, and I do not see how the existence or lack of existence of
a hypothetical pre-existing documentation of the acts of Jesus would
affect that conclusion.

John Oakes, Ph.D.