1. No external evidence has even been found for the existence of a Q Gospel. Not even a single manuscript fragment of Q has been found.
2. None of the early church fathers mentioned anything that could have been the Q Gospel, and in fact many attributed the Gospels to the Apostle Matthew, John Mark, and Luke.
3. There is good evidence that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written between 70 A.D., and not after as the "Q theory" supposes.
4. If the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then they were written by actual eyewitnesses of Jesus or close companions of the eyewitnesses, and we would expect similarities.
5. If the Gospels record the actual words spoken by Jesus, we should expect the eyewitnesses to report what He said in similar words and they should record the same or similar things.
6. It is possible that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source.

The reasons for the existence of "Q" are all hypothetical. To date none have found any traces of such a work. This of course doesn't mean that it may not exist, however when we look into the history of the Bible and especially the Gospels we can find ample evidence of them in the early writtings of the Church.

In deed the four Gospels are all mentioned by name, as are other writttings and Gospels, in many of the earliest writings of the Church, yet no mention is made of a source book, or writting. But with the discovery of the "Gospel of Thomas" the "Q" Theory was again popularised and given creedence above it's standing, beyond the known facts. To this the true seeker of God must ask of these scholars. Why?

Page Top