During this week’s readings, Perkins delves a half step deeper into the Synoptic Problem by looking at the source problems which surround these canonized writings. She immediately tosses Luke to the side regarding its age status compared to Matthew and Mark’s gospels, as if it is that simple of a scholastic achievement, by citing Luke’s very own passages and lack of source information against it. She then moves onto the more heated debate of Mark versus Matthew. It was at this point in the reading, as Perkins abbreviates the commonalities between the three gospels, that I paused to picture what it might have been like for a scribe at the time of authorship. Are the similarities found in Luke a product of bad librarian skills? Perhaps he, or…show more content… However, they definitely opened the proverbial can-of-worms as new texts were continuously found and added to the pile of criticism which essentially led to the ideas of an ancient “Q” source. I have always been intrigued by the idea of a “Q” source and yet I am frustrated simultaneously. Perkins’ overview of the principles applied toward a more reverse creation of the “Q” source, using sections from the Synoptic Gospels that hold fast to the “Q” theory, seems to reveal a sound method for a reconstruction project of such magnitude. However, I find myself pausing again and asking simply why, to what end? A reconstructed “Q” source can never hold a high enough scholastic value without a legitimate copy, or at least a portion of it, to corroborate its original existence in the first place. Until such a time when it is discovered, which may never come, the “Q” source will remain in the theoretical realm. It is in my opinion, at least, that the “Q” source can never assist in creating “a realistic portrait of the historical Jesus” so long as it remains in a theoretical space. However, if a “Q” Source full of the saying of Jesus is discovered,…show more content… However, the inconsistencies between the passions in the gospels will continue to have negative ramifications for many individuals during their own personal quest to understand a historical Jesus. I know for myself I still have not been able to assimilate these differences in the timing of Jesus’ death due to the deep meaning I hold for one of my earliest participatory rituals, Communion. John presents an upheaval of Holy Week tradition for me by naming Thursday as the day of Jesus death prior to the Last Supper. For me, the reconciliatory process has been slow with negative undertones. I fear others may feel similar in their process as