#12460 Clarifying the Fall of Man, Q, Targum Neofiti, and More! - Jimmy Akin

Summary

---

Catholic Answers Live: Clarifying the Fall of Man, Q, Targum Neofiti, and More!

Guest: Jimmy Akin
Date: November 15, 2025
Episode: #12460

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Catholic Answers Live, hosted (likely) by Cy Kellett, features renowned Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin answering a wide range of Bible-related questions from callers. Key topics include theological intricacies around the Fall of Man, the supposed “Q source” in Gospel studies, the Targum Neofiti (an ancient Aramaic translation of the Torah), and perennial questions on the papacy and biblical interpretation. The tone is scholarly, affable, and approachable, with a blend of deep dives and concise, accessible answers.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Fall of Lucifer and the “Circularity” in Salvation History

Caller: Roman from San Antonio, TX
Timestamp: 01:47–10:33

• Roman's Question: Is there a circular logic in belief that Lucifer fell because he knew Christ would become man—yet Christ only became man because man fell, which happened because Lucifer tempted man?
• Jimmy Akin’s Response:
  • Such circularity is not intrinsic to Christianity; rather, it’s an outcome of theological speculation rather than doctrine.
  • “The argument you sketched out ... only involves theological views or opinions, not things that Christianity requires.” (03:23)
  • Multiple patristic theories for the devil’s fall exist:
    • Life of Adam and Eve: Devil refused to honor Adam as the image of God.
    • Uppity Devil View: Devil wanted to be worshipped.
    • Scotus’ Hypothesis: Christ would have incarnated even if man hadn’t fallen.
  • Logical circles are found in history but are not necessarily logical contradictions.
  • Key takeaways:
    • The exact reason for the devil’s fall isn’t known; Christians can comfortably live with ambiguity.
    • Even if one accepts speculative opinions, there's no contradiction in the narrative flow.
  • Notable Quote:
    “The circularity only exists if you accept a series of different opinions, principally the one about why the devil fell. And that's just an opinion. It's speculation.” (08:00)

---

2. The “Elect Lady” of 2 John

Caller: Sarah from Pooler, GA
Timestamp: 14:45–22:10

• Sarah's Question: Is the "elect lady" in 2 John a real person named Electa, per a claim by a BYU researcher, or a metaphor for a church as in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible?
• Jimmy Akin’s Response:
  • The translation as “Eclecta” (proper name) is an old proposal, not a new idea.
  • Most scholars see it as a symbolic reference to a local church/congregation.
  • Study Bibles can’t include every interpretative option due to space; they summarize leading positions.
    • “I've read biblical commentaries where the author mentions [the proper name theory] as a possibility ... But most scholars have concluded that that's not the case.” (17:03)
  • Encourages Sarah (and listeners) to examine scholarly arguments and defers to broad consensus unless strong contrary evidence emerges.
  • Entertaining linguistic aside on the word “scrobit” as a past tense of "scribe."
  • Memorable Moment: Jimmy praises Sarah’s creative use of Old English morphology (“scrobit”), adding warmth and levity. (16:34)
  • Notable Quote:
    “If this scholar you're mentioning has a good argument, I'd love to see it. But what I can say at present is most scholars have concluded that that that is not the case.” (18:44)

---

3. Origins of the Q Source in Synoptic Gospel Studies

Caller: Jacob from Arkansas
Timestamp: 22:45–35:32 and 29:15–35:32

• Jacob's Question: Why is Jimmy Akin skeptical about the existence of the Q source, a hypothetical early Gospel document?
• Jimmy Akin’s Response:
  • Definition of Q: Supposed lost document explaining material common to Matthew and Luke but not Mark (~235 verses).
  • Q is hypothesized largely because of the assumption Matthew and Luke worked independently; but that assumption isn’t proven.
  • Alternative hypotheses:
    • Farrar Hypothesis: Luke used Matthew.
    • Wilke Hypothesis: Matthew used Luke (Jimmy’s preference).
  • Lack of any physical evidence or ancient references for Q.
  • Q doesn’t fit the genre of known early Christian or Jewish literature—neither a pure sayings collection nor a coherent biography.
  • Recommends Mark Goodacre’s Questioning Q for an in-depth critique.
  • Notable Quote:
    “If it [Q] did, it's fine with me, but I think it's probably not the case.... I would recommend Mark Goodacre's book ‘Questioning Q.’” (34:28)

---

4. The Targum Neofiti and Biblical Criticism

Caller: Efren from Palm Harbor, FL
Timestamp: 46:03–51:43

• Efren's Questions:
  1. What is the Targum Neofiti?
  2. How does the Catholic Church regard it?
  3. How does it differ from other versions of the Torah?
• Jimmy Akin’s Response:
  • Targum Neofiti is an Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible).
  • The Church has no official stance; this is the realm of scholarly inquiry.
    • “The Church does not have teachings on particular manuscripts... The Church leaves all of that manuscript analysis to scholars.” (46:40)
  • It’s a useful scholarly resource for textual criticism, not authoritative over the Hebrew originals.
  • Small textual variations exist (as always in translation), but major doctrinal impact is minimal.
  • Jimmy usually defers to critical editions compiled by scholars.
  • Notable Quote:
    “Any translation ... is going to be as likely, it's going to contain more risk of change and distortion compared to the original Hebrew.” (47:23)

---

5. Violence in the Old Testament & Christian Allegory

Caller: Dan from Houston, TX
Timestamp: 35:58–44:20

• Dan’s Question: Are Old Testament divine commands to destroy pagan nations (“ban,” “herem”), a prefigurement of eradicating sin in Christian life? Or is that a stretch?
• Jimmy Akin’s Response:
  • Interpreting these texts as allegories for wiping out sin is long-standing and not a stretch at the spiritual level.
  • Spiritual sense (what God can intend beyond the human author) versus the literal sense (what the original human author meant).
  • Two main approaches to the literal:
    • Literalistic/historical killing (e.g., Aquinas): God, as giver of life, has the right to command it.
    • Hyperbole/allegory: Ancient writers exaggerated for effect; the commands may symbolically stress avoiding paganism/sin, not literal slaughter.
      • Jimmy leans toward this second view.
  • Notable Quotes:
    • “Can you take the spiritual sense of the text in the way you mentioned, Dan? Absolutely.” (39:22)
    • “Some scholars ... have proposed another interpretation... they're hyperbolic—they exaggerate to make a point.” (42:24)

---

6. Peter as the “Rock” in Matthew 16:18

Caller: Keith from Northern Virginia
Timestamp: 52:04–54:55

• Keith's Question: Does "upon this rock I will build my church" refer to Peter or to Peter's faith?
• Jimmy Akin’s Response:
  • The argument attempting to separate “Peter” from “this rock” is not linguistically or contextually sound; it damages the intended poetic structure of Christ’s words.
  • Jesus is clearly engaging a wordplay: “You are Peter [Rock], and upon this rock I will build my church.”
    • “What Jesus is doing is he's saying, look, you're Peter, and on this poetic image of you as the rock, I'm gonna build my church.” (53:41)
  • Refers listener to Jimmy Akin’s Podcast, Episode 36, for a deeper treatment.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Devil’s Fall:
  "Since I have a finite human intellect, I may not even be capable of understanding the reason that the devil fell. Not in this life anyway." (08:29)
• On Old Testament violence:
  “It's up to God to determine what are the circumstances in which our life ends. ... And if he determines that these people need to be killed at this time, well, then that's okay.” (41:09)
• Breaking into Middle English:
  “Compliments on that Old English past tense back formation of—from the noun scribe as scrobe.” (16:34)
• On Q skepticism:
  "There are significant reasons to doubt Q. ... I think it probably did not exist. If it did, it's fine with me, but I think it's probably not the case." (34:28)

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• Fall of Lucifer & Circularity: 01:47–10:33
• 2 John & 'Elect Lady'/Electa discussion: 14:45–22:10
• Q Source & Synoptic Problem: 22:45–35:32
• Violence in OT & Allegory: 35:58–44:20
• Targum Neofiti & Textual Criticism: 46:03–51:43
• Peter as the 'Rock': 52:04–54:55

---

Conclusion

This episode is a classic example of Catholic Answers Live at its best—deeply informative, good-humored, and rigorous while remaining pastoral and practical. Jimmy Akin provides memorable, scholarly answers to challenging questions, offers resources for further study, and always maintains respect for a diversity of perspectives within Catholic orthodoxy.

Recommended for: Anyone interested in biblical studies, Catholic apologetics, textual criticism, and the interplay between doctrinal development and historical scholarship.

---

Transcript

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Buying or selling your home. Real Estate for Life can connect you with a pro life real estate agent. When Real Estate for Life receives a referral fee, they donate 65% to Catholic Answers. Learn more at realestateforlife.org welcome back, Catholic Answers Live. Jimmy Akin's our guest and we're having fun because I really love these shows. I love when we do Bible questions with Jimmy Akin. It's always a lot of fun. You don't have to be Catholic to call. You don't even. You don't have to be a believer of any kind. You don't have to know much about the Bible. Lots of people have questions about the Bible and yours is welcome here. The Bible is a Catholic book. That's one of Jimmy's book, among his other books. Look, I got a whole stack of them here. I can just tell you a whole bunch of Jimmy books. The Fathers Know Best, Teaching With Authority. The very popular a daily defense. 365 days plus one to becoming a Better Apologist. That's just part of his of the Jimmy Akin library, so to speak. Tons of stuff available online. You can check out his webpage. You can check out his YouTube channel. Jimmy Akin, our guest. And every single line full. That's another thing that happens when we have Jimmy here. Every single line is. Or all of the lines are often full. 888-318-7884 is the number as we go. And lines open up. You're welcome to call. And I want to get to Roman. Cause Roman's been waiting a while. Roman in San Antonio, Texas, listening on the Guadalupe Radio Network. Roman, thank you for waiting through the last hour. Go ahead with your question.

[Roman (caller from San Antonio, Texas)]

I feel like there is a kind of circular reasoning, kind of paradox in Christianity. I'm gonna try my best to not be confusing, but basically I was always taught that Lucifer is an angel of light. And as an angel, he has infused knowledge. And with that comes this knowledge that Christ will become man. Christ will become incarnate. And that's something he just could not like, vibe with. He was like, absolutely not. I will not serve. And so then he falls, causes Adam and Eve to fall in Genesis, which causes Christ to become man later in the New Testament. But it's kind of like, well, Christ only becomes man because man falls. And man only falls because Lucifer tempted them and they fell. But then Lucifer only falls because Christ becomes man. And it kind of just seems to be like a circle.

[Jimmy Akin]

Mm. Okay. So you'd like my perspective on that?

[Roman (caller from San Antonio, Texas)]

Yeah, I'm hoping I'M not the first person to ever ask this, but that's something I was kind of thinking about and trying to get an answer for.

[Jimmy Akin]

Okay, well, I guess I'd say a few things. The first one is the circularity that you're referring to is not intrinsic to Christianity. I think that you began your question, you can correct me on this, but I think you began your question by saying there seems to be a circularity in Christianity. Did I hear that right? Or I remember? Am I remembering that right?

[Roman (caller from San Antonio, Texas)]

That was pretty correct. Like this specific example. Yes.

[Jimmy Akin]

Yeah. Well, it's not intrinsic to Christianity. And the reason is that the argument you sketched out, although it does involve some theological views that are common, it only involves theological views or opinions, not things that Christianity requires. And so like the idea that the reason the Devil fell is because he learned Jesus was going to become man. That's one possible reason why the Devil fell that's been proposed, but it's not the only one. There have been a lot of proposals for why the devil fell. In addition to that one, one of the early ones, and you may have heard of my podcast, Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World, where I among where I've done a pair of episodes on an ancient Jewish Christian work called the Life of Adam and Eve. And in the Life of Adam and Eve, it has a different theory for why the Devil fell in that version. And Sykella will help me out here because he's helped me out on this one before, so he should remember what we covered before. Once I remind him, oh, good Lord, the the devil fell because God created man. Not Jesus becoming man, but God created Adam, man in God's image. And what do you do with the image of a God? Psychel it over to you in the ancient world?

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

You worship it.

[Jimmy Akin]

You worship it. And so God expected all of the angels to honor man as the image of God. And Satan thought, oh, man, is this little puny worm, I'm not going to honor him. You know, I'm older than man, why should I honor him? And that's what led the devil to fall. It wasn't Christ becoming man, it was the creation of man in the image of God. Another option that's been proposed is it didn't have anything to do with man or Christ. The Devil just got uppity. He got above his station and wanted to be worshiped himself. So the truth is, we don't know why the Devil fell. All of these are just theological proposals for why he might have fallen. But scripture and tradition do not tell Us the definitive answer. So I'm comfortable living with that ambiguity. I don't know why the Devil fell. I can tell you what some of the proposed explanations are, but I have no clue which one of them is true in. Since I have a finite human intellect, I may not even be capable of understanding the reason that the devil fell. Not in this life anyway. So whatever else you might say, the circularity that you've identified is not intrinsic to Christianity. The circularity only exists if you accept a series of different opinions, principally the one about why the devil fell. And that's just an opinion. It's speculation. However, there's a second issue with the circularity of the argument you mentioned. Now, it may be true that there is a circle in the sense that if you assume the devil fell because he knew Christ was going to become man, and if Christ only became man because of the fall, and if man fell because the devil tempted him, then there is a circle there involving the dev and man. But that doesn't mean that it is a logical problem, because, you know, there are circles that exist in history. I mean, I could say, bring over a pizza and give it to Cy Kellett, and Cy Kellett might give some of that pizza to his wife, Missy, and Missy might give some of that pizza to me. But even though we've got a circle involving me, Cy Kellad and Missy, that's not a logical problem. And in the same way, the circle that you proposed wouldn't be a logical problem either. One way of illustrating that is by pointing to a theory that was proposed by Blessed John Duns Scotus. He was a medieval theologian. He lived a little bit after the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, and he proposed that Christ would have become human, would have incarnated as man, even if man had never fallen. And so the idea that you'll notice in the circle that I sketched, where I said because I was trying to nudge it in the direction of the circle that would actually have a problem is if Christ became man only because of man's fall, well, then you would have something more of a circle. But John Duns SCOTUS's opinion is respected. It's not the official teaching of the Church, so it's just a theological opinion, too. But his opinion that Christ would have become man even if man had not fallen illustrates that the circle you're talking about doesn't involve a logical contradiction, because on John Duns Scotus theory, the devil may have just learned Christ is going to become man. And I'm not down with that. And he rebelled and fell, and then kind of on the side, he corrupted man and man fell, too. But even if he hadn't done that, the causal logic would still work. If man had never fallen, then if the devil learned Christ is going to incarnate as man and that causes the devil to fall, well, there's no logical contradiction here. So I would say that the circularity, number one, is not intrinsic to Christianity because it's based on theological opinion rather than things that the Christian faith actually requires. And even if, even if you make the assumption that those opinions are true, it still doesn't generate a logical contradiction, because not every circle involves a logical contradiction. And if John Duns SCOTUS is correct, then the devil could have fallen because God had determined Christ was going to become man whether or not man fell. So that's what I'd have to say about that. Is that helpful, Roman?

[Roman (caller from San Antonio, Texas)]

Yes, actually, very, very much so. I really appreciate that. I was kind of always taught this is why the devil fell. And I get it was never, you know, doctrine or dogma, but I always, I never heard another reason. So, yes, very much so. Thank you.

[Jimmy Akin]

Sure thing, Roman.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

God bless you. Thanks for starting us off this hour. That'll bring us right to the break. We'll be right back with more of your Bible questions for Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers Live.

[Announcer]

Miss a show? Make sure to catch up by downloading the podcast, available [e-mail] underwriting for Catholic Answers Live is provided by Magnificat. Published monthly, Magnificat features texts of daily Mass prayers, articles, meditations, art commentaries and more in step with the liturgical rhythm of the church on the web app.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Magnificat.Com Sant Carlo Acutis shared a dream in which Sister Lucia appeared to him, saying the First Saturday devotion could change the destiny of the world. The Blue army of Our lady of Fatima invites you to practice this Devotion. Join a First Saturday virtual pilgrimage beginning December 6th. Experience spiritual meditations while traveling virtually through Portugal and Spain to 12 sacred sites tied to the Fatima story. Track your journey with a passport and stamps. Visit bluearmy.com and select First Saturday Pilgrimage to learn more. Sponsored by our Ladies Blue army, underwriting for Catholic Answers Live is provided by Real Estate for Life. Real Estate for Life connects homebuyers and sellers to real estate agents while supporting pro life organizations. On the [e-mail].

[Religious Life Announcer]

Pope Francis tells us becoming a priest or a man or woman religious is not primarily our own decision. Rather, it's the response to a call, a call of love. Do you feel as if God may be calling you to religious life? If so, contact a religious order faithful to the Magisterium or your diocesan vocation. For information on the priesthood or religious life, visit ewtn.com religiouslife today.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Jimmy Akin, Our guests on Catholic Answers Live. Jimmy Akin podcast is Jimmy's other podcast. And you're like, wait a second, I've heard Jimmy on this podcast. Yeah, Jimmy does a lot of visiting on podcasts and helping people on their podcast. But the other Jimmy Akin podcast is called, wait for it, the Jimmy Akin Podcast. And you can get that wherever you get your podcast. So you can get it at Jimmy Akin's channel. What dropped on Monday on the Jimmy.

[Jimmy Akin]

Akin Podcast this last Monday I released a debate that I had on Joe Schmidt's channel. He wanted to know if I would debate a skeptical philosopher named James Fodor about the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead. And so we had a cordial discussion. We both presented opening statements and then we basically cross examined each other for the rest of the two hour debate. And it's very interesting. Fodor takes a different approach to arguing that Jesus did not rise from the dead than many people do. And I took a different approach than many people do in defending the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. And I always leave the evaluation of debates to others. But I can say that many people in the comments section after watching the video thought I was calm and logical. And many people thought that James Fodor was less calm and, and more a little more rattled because he would he had configured his arguments for one set of responses. And I use different ones, but that was the opinion of some. You can, you can watch it and or listen to it and make your own evaluations.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Jimmy Akin Podcasts Check it out wherever you get your podcasts or at his YouTube channel, the Jimmy Akin channel on YouTube. Our next caller was Bible questions for Jimmy. This hour, Sarah is in Pooler, Georgia watching on YouTube. Glad to have you here, Sarah. Go ahead with your question.

[Sarah (caller from Pooler, Georgia)]

Oh my gosh. Can y' all hear me?

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Oh my gosh. So clearly you are like the best caller today, Sarah. You're so clear.

[Sarah (caller from Pooler, Georgia)]

Psy Kellett, I'm so excited to talk to you and Jimmy Akin. This is awesome.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Well, it's awesome for us too. Go ahead.

[Sarah (caller from Pooler, Georgia)]

Oh my goodness. So my question is about the second letter of John in the first line. It talks about the elect lady. And a BYU researcher has said he figured out who this lady Is. And okay, I pulled out my Ignatius Catholic study Bible and I looked in there, and it says in there that the elect lady is probably a church in Asia or something. And wasn't it Scott Hahn who worked on that Bible?

[Jimmy Akin]

He was one of the people involved. Yes, he. And he was the only one, but yes.

[Sarah (caller from Pooler, Georgia)]

I'm wondering if somebody needs to tell him it needs to be revised already because this guy says he knows who it is.

[Jimmy Akin]

Well, just because a professor at a university says they've. They've determined something doesn't. Doesn't prove that they're right. And so I wouldn't. I wouldn't know. And just what you've said so far, I don't have any evidence that that.

[Sarah (caller from Pooler, Georgia)]

Would support a revision myself. I'm so excited. He's saying it's Electa, an early Christian woman who Clement of Alexandria said was a Babylonian woman. And he said it because he re. Translated the Greek. And I guess I'm just confused because I. He said that scribes Ms. Scrobit, and I'm pretty sure us OG Christians were the scribes.

[Jimmy Akin]

Huh. And okay, so that's his argument pretty much.

[Sarah (caller from Pooler, Georgia)]

And that he created it to be this woman named Electa.

[Jimmy Akin]

Okay, well, first off, compliments on that Old English past tense back formation of. From the noun scribe as scrobe.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Nice.

[Jimmy Akin]

That's. That's really impressive. English is. Has lost the Old English middle vowel shift. So people today tend to just tack ed onto the end of a word, like instead of saying the past, so that the past tense of cook is cooked. But in older English, instead of tacking on ed, what we did was change the vowel in the middle, which is why run in the past tense is ran, and why swim in the past tense is swam and things like that. So taking scribe instead of making that scribed, making it scrobe. High points. I appreciate your knowledge of Ancient English morphology. Having said that, I would have to see this guy's argument. So I understand the claim that he's apparently made that there was a woman named Eclecta whose name has been mistranslated as the elect lady or the chosen Lady. But that doesn't prove he's right. I'd have to see evidence for that. The idea that you could translate this as a proper name, eclecta, is not new. Scholars have been aware of that for ever. I mean, you know, the Greek word eklektos just means chosen or elect, and eklekta is the feminine form of chosen or elect. So if there were people in the ancient world who were named Eklecta. Well, that's an option. And I've seen, I've read biblical commentaries where the author mentions this as a possibility that it could be a proper name. But most scholars have concluded that that's not the case, which is why it's not translated as a proper name in typical Bibles. Almost every Bible, in fact, every Bible I'm aware of, I'd have to do research to see if this bears out. But every Bible I'm aware of at the moment translates it as like the chosen lady or the elect lady or something like that. And this is because there is more than one passage in the New Testament that seems to refer to a local church as a chosen woman. And based on the totality of the evidence, most scholars have been convinced that that's the case here, that, that this is not a proper name, but a symbol of a local Christian community, a local church. Now that's not proven beyond argument. So if this scholar you're mentioning has a good argument, I'd love to see it. But what I can say at present is most scholars have concluded that that that is not the case, that the balance of the evidence points in the other direction. And so I wouldn't see a basis for insistent on revision in the Ignatius Catholic study Bible. One of the things about study Bibles is, you know, because they tend to be one volume, there is only a limited number of interpretations you can mention in a study Bible because if you mention them all, it wouldn't fit in a single volume. It would be a multi, multi volume set. That's like, why if you look at commentaries on the Bible, they're frequently, you know, dozens of volumes long and a study Bible that mentioned every interpretive possibility and the arguments for it would have to be just as long it would cease to be a Bible and would become a commentary set. So in the process of making a study Bible, you have to leave out lots of options. That's why I don't personally use study Bibles, because I want to see all the options. That's why I go directly to commentary sets. But I would simply say, well, the authors of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, I don't know who wrote this particular passage, whether it was Scott Hahn or I think it was Curtis, Mitch was the other one, or who it may have been. I would assume that they looked at the evidence regarding this verse and said, you know, the personal name theory is out there, but it's not well supported, supported enough by the data to, to mention it. So for space Saving reasons. They left it out. That would be my guess. And I wouldn't see, at least based on my present knowledge, I wouldn't see a reason to say, hey, let's change it. But I'd love to know the guy's argument.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Okay. Sarah.

[Sarah (caller from Pooler, Georgia)]

Yeah. I appreciate it. I mean, no, no shade to Scott Hahn. I mean, he's great. I was just wondering. I appreciate it so much.

[Jacob (caller from Arkansas), Dan (caller from Houston, Texas), Efren (caller from Palm Harbor, Florida)]

Sure.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Well, it was very, very nice to talk with you. I was going to try to do a past tense of talk that was in Middle English, but I can't do it. Sarah, you're way better than me. Hang on. We'll send you one of Jimmy's books. If you want any book that we've got in the Catholic Answers catalog from Jimmy Akin, I'd love to send it to you. Thank you for a very nice call. A very nice call, and I hope you'll be a regular caller, Sarah. Thank you. The number here, 888-318-7884. And it's your Bible questions for Jimmy Akin. Jacob is in Arkansas listening on the Catholic Answers app. Hi, Jacob, you got a question for Jimmy?

[Jacob (caller from Arkansas), Dan (caller from Houston, Texas), Efren (caller from Palm Harbor, Florida)]

Yes. Can you hear me well?

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Very well.

[Jimmy Akin]

All right.

[Jacob (caller from Arkansas), Dan (caller from Houston, Texas), Efren (caller from Palm Harbor, Florida)]

My last semester at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, I had the privilege of taking a History of Christianity class with Dr. Michael McCoy. I asked him if you knew if he knew who you were, Jimmy, and he said that he wasn't familiar with you.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

However.

[Jimmy Akin]

Yeah, it's mutual. I don't know him either.

[Jacob (caller from Arkansas), Dan (caller from Houston, Texas), Efren (caller from Palm Harbor, Florida)]

Okay. In that class, we covered the synoptic problem a whole lot, and he taught us both the inspiration from Mark as well as the Q source. But then in your Bible Codex episode, you expressed your skepticism of the Q or, well, in Source. I just wanted to know your opinion on that and what your reasoning behind it.

[Jimmy Akin]

Okay, so first I should, for folks who may not be familiar, I should explain what the Q source is alleged to be. And I'm sure I'll talk about this more in a future episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast. But Basically, in the 20th century, it was proposed that there is a lost document that was used both by Matthew and Luke, and this lost document came to be called Q. The reasons for that are a little unclear. Sometimes you'll hear, and this is the most common claim is that that scholars decided to call the document Q after the German word quelle, which means source. So they called, they got super creative and decided to call the source document Source, or Q for short. There's actually a little debate about is that the reason it got named Q. But that's a separate issue. The basic material that Q is thought to have contained is a set of 235, approximately 235 verses that are in Matthew and Luke that are not paralleled in Mark. So there are certain stories that Matthew and Luke both have that Mark does not. And so to explain where did Matthew and Luke get these stories? In the early 20th century it was proposed that they got them from this lost source, which was then dubbed Q. And that is a possibility. I don't rule it out, but as something that's possible. But I'm personally skeptical of it. And there are several reasons I'm skeptical of it. The first one is a central part of the argument for Q assumes that Matthew and Luke did not know each other, that they worked independently of each other. They both independently found Mark and independently decided to write their own Gospels, and then they both wrote them. But Matthew did not know Luke and Luke did not know Matthew. However, that ain't the only option, so I'll tell you more after the break.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Jacob, I hope that you can hang on. I'd love to let you continue if you have any follow up questions for Jimmy and I also think I'm probably going to send you a copy of Jimmy's book. The Bible is a Catholic book, but you got to hang on for that. It's Bible Questions for Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers Live. Have you ever wondered about the mysterious, even obscure aspects of the Catholic faith? Dive into the Jimmy Akin Podcast, where Jimmy brings together information from many fields as he pushes the boundaries of apologetics. Tune in today to the Jimmy Akin Podcast Mysteries of the Faith, a highly entertaining, informative, and at times humorous show that will help you grow in your faith. Visit jimmyakinpodcast.com today to subscribe.

[Announcer]

Lots of people have big questions about Catholicism. It needs a big book of answers. And now it's got one. The Big Book of Catholic Answers is filled with helpful replies to more than 250 questions about the faith. Questions about God, salvation, history, the Creed, the Bible. The list goes on and on. Order your copy of the Big Book of Catholic answers [e-mail] or ask for it at a good Catholic bookstore near you.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

We hope that one of the things that we communicate here at Catholic Answers Live is that our Catholic faith allows us to be fully serious about all the problems we encounter in the Church and in the world. But it also lets us have light hearts and maybe even mix in a bit of fun. And that is exactly what our good friend Joe Heschmeyer does in his popular podcast Shameless Potpourri. You should check it [e-mail] Joe's got a deep grasp of the faith, morals, the teachings of the church, all that, but he's also got a witty conversational style. He entertains and, you know, informed. But you will leave equipped to better answer the most common challenges, misconceptions and questions about the Catholic faith. He's got insightful guests, he does on air debates, and he takes a close look into all the things that you want to know about as a Catholic living today. You'll walk away knowledgeable and filled with joy. Look for Joe on his YouTube channel. Check him [e-mail] or wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like what you hear, become a patron. Welcome back. Catholic Answers Live. Well, look at that. Some lines have opened up. Perfect time. If you've got a Bible question, whether you're a Bible expert or a complete Bible neophyte, look that one up. There's a word for you. If you're a complete Bible neophyte, Anyone can call 888-318-7884. We just love talking about the Bible. I just love it when Jimmy Akin talks with people about the Bible. I've said it many times. This is one of my favorite shows that we do here on Catholic Answers Live.

[Jimmy Akin]

I do it Sykellett, so you don't have to.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Well, it would not be as good if I did it. It would be fun, but I don't think it would be as good. Jacob in Arkansas wants to know about the Q source and the evidence for it. Jimmy, you were in the midst of an answer.

[Jimmy Akin]

Yeah, though, actually, though, since we just had a break. Jacob, what part of Arkansas are you in? I'm just curious because I'm in Arkansas too.

[Jacob (caller from Arkansas), Dan (caller from Houston, Texas), Efren (caller from Palm Harbor, Florida)]

I'm living in Stuttgart right now. I did three years in Fayetteville and my parents live in Clarksville.

[Jimmy Akin]

Okay, just curious. Always nice to run into a fellow Arkansas. So in terms of Q, there are these approximately 235 verses in Matthew and Luke that are not paralleled in Mark. And they could have had a common source. And if that source was written, we could call it Q and that would all be fine with me. But the assumption, or the belief in Q is based on the assumption that Matthew and Luke worked independently of each other and did not know each other. And that's, that's an assumption that hasn't been demonstrated. If Matthew knew Luke or if Luke knew Matthew, then we have an explanation for where these verses could have come from. If Matthew supplemented Mark and then Luke read Matthew, he could have pulled these 235 verses from Matthew. And that's a position known as the Farrar hypothesis. On the other hand, if Luke expanded Mark and then Matthew wrote last, he could have pulled the 235 verses from Luke. That's a position known as the Wilke hypothesis. And personally, the Wilke hypothesis is the one I think is most probable given the evidence. But there are various reasons to doubt the existence of Q. The first one is we don't have it. And if we don't have it, why would we not have, you know, an early primitive source of Jesus sayings? Now, there are possible answers to this question. One of the answers that is commonly accepted by those who believe in Q is that, well, basically all of Q ended up in Matthew and Luke. That those 235 verses, that essentially is Q. I mean, maybe there were a few little extra verses, but basically all of Q got incorporated into Matthew and Luke, so there was no reason to keep copy and Q independently because it was all already there. So that's one possible explanation for Q1, but we don't have any references to Q. We have references to various gospels that we don't have, but we can't identify any of them with confidence as Q. So it's a very speculative source. That's one factor that needs to be considered. Another factor is it doesn't look like any other kind of literature that is known to have existed in the early Christian community. You sometimes hear Q described as a sayings source because a lot of the 235 verses involve sayings of Jesus. And then in the I forget if it was the late 19th or the early 20th century, we found the Gospel of Thomas, which just is a sayings collection. And so that kind of boosted the fortunes of Q in that at least we had a sayings collection. It's clearly not Q. But you could show, well, some early Christians had sayings collections. And so that made it more possible that there was an early sayings collection that could have been Q. The problem is, when you actually look at the 235 verses, it isn't just a sayings collection. It also includes narrative material. There's material in it, for example, about John the Baptist. And so this wasn't a Saiyans collection, but it also wasn't a biography. And if you look at the whole thing, it doesn't seem to make sense in terms of what it includes or doesn't include it doesn't fit into a known genre like here's a biography of Jesus, that's what a gospel is or here's a collection of the teachings of Jesus like Thomas purports to be. It's kind of a hybrid in the middle. And so as a result there are significant reasons to doubt Q. Now I've written about some of this at my website jimmyakin.com due to a search engine issue, you may have some difficulty finding some of that. But there's a book I would recommend. It's by Mark Goodiker, that's his name is spelled G O O D A C O. I think it's either re or er but it's good acre and the book is called Question in Q. And he goes through a substantial number of considerations that I think cast very substantial doubt on the existence of Q. I think it probably did not exist. If it did, it's fine with me, but I think it's probably not the case. And I would recommend Mark Goodicker's book Questioning Q. Now I'll mention he and I have some I substantially agree with Mark. I have a lot of similar views to his but I will mention one that I disagree with him on. He's a supporter of the Farrar hypothesis that said Luke wrote last whereas I tend to be a supporter of the Wilke hypothesis that Matthew wrote last. But other than that, I also tend to think the Gospels were written earlier than Mark does. But in terms of the arguments he marshals against Q, I think they're bang on. So I'd recommend that to you for more information.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

And Jacob, I asked for calls and now all the lines are full so I'm going to leave that there for you. I hope that that was helpful and I will send you a copy if you'd like it of Jimmy Akin's book. The Bible is a Catholic book. Just give us an address there in Arkansas and we will send it off to you. I'm going to go to Houston, Texas now where Dan is listening on 14:30am Awful good to have you here Dan. Go ahead with your question for Jimmy.

[Jacob (caller from Arkansas), Dan (caller from Houston, Texas), Efren (caller from Palm Harbor, Florida)]

Good evening gentlemen. I'm going to make this quick and then I'm going to hung up and listen to the reply on the radio. Okay Dan, I am curious. I've got family members and other people that have told me well how could God be God? Because the ancient Israelites, the Hebrews were told to wipe out these people, you know, the Philistines or Amorites, Hittites or Whoever. And you know, Elijah killed all the prophets of BAAL and you know, the Israelites were commanded to kill every man, woman and child and even the livestock of the animals and such. It's like, well, how could God be God if he's gonna order that kind of merciless killing? And I see that as being a pre figurement and I think it's a bit of a stretch. And that's what I'd like you to comment on. If it's too big a stretch that as a Christian, you know, a lot of what we see in the Old Testament is pre figurements of the Christian life, if you will. You know, the Red Sea and baptism and all that. So what I'm wondering is, is it a bit of a stretch to think of God commanding the ancient Hebrews to wipe out an entire pagan population according to the, you know, the, the words of the Old Testament, to wipe out an entire pagan population kind of compared to, well, the sinners that is in your life, you need to wipe out that sin completely, have nothing to do with it. Every vestige of sin needs to be exterminated from your life, you know, can be holy as your Father in heaven is holy. Now I'm wondering, is that a bit of a stretch to see that as a prefigurement of the Christian life in that sense? I'm gonna hang up and listen to your reply on the radio.

[Jimmy Akin]

Okay? So whether or not it's a stretch in your words depends on how you take the question. If you mean can you see in these passages in the Old Testament a spiritual message that Christians need to have nothing to do with sin and need to wipe out sin from their lives. Well, that's not a stretch at all. In fact, there were church fathers who looked at these passages and interpreted them in exactly that way that these passages teach us Christians a spiritual message that we need to wipe out sin and get rid of it, however, that is, that only addresses what's called the spiritual sense of the text. The spiritual sense of the text goes beyond what's known as the literal sense of the text. The literal sense of the text is what the human author was trying to communicate to his audience. And it's limited by the knowledge that the human author has of his subject matter. The spiritual sense is broader though, because it doesn't depend on the human author's knowledge. It depends on God's knowledge. And God is omniscient, so he knows everything. He knows that in the future there are going to be these people called Christians and he can have the human author structure the text in a way that will be meaningful to future Christians, even though the human author, writing before the time of Christ, would not have been aware of these added messages that are part of the spiritual sense of the text. So can you take the spiritual sense of the text in the way you mentioned, Dan? Absolutely. Christians can get that as a spiritual message from the text, but it doesn't answer the question of what's the literal meaning of the text? What did it literally mean in the original time when it was written? What was the human author trying to communicate to his audience? And there, the proposal that you made would be a stretch because it is unlikely that the human author didn't involve, didn't envision some kind of killing going on. So what do the passages mean? Well, there are different interpretations of them, but they basically fall into two categories. The first category says these passages are absolutely literal in the sense that, yes, God commanded them to kill all of these people. And it was okay to do that because God is the author of life. So it's up to him. I mean, everything we have, including life, is a gift from God. So it's up to God to determine how much of that gift we get. And it's up to God to determine what are the circumstances in which our life ends. I mean, everyone's life is going to end sometime, and so it's up to God to make that determination. And if he determines that these people need to be killed at this time, well, then that's okay. God can make that decision. So that's one interpretation or one category of interpretations, and that one has historically been common. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, would have supported that. But not everyone, especially in recent times, has found that convincing. And so some scholars have taken another look at these texts and they proposed another interpretation. The other interpretation says these passages are not meant to be taken literally. If you look at them, they're all written long after the time they're describing. They're not like contemporary accounts. They're written centuries later, talking about an earlier period when the Israelites were threatened by paganism. And they're hyperbolic because that means they exaggerate to make a point. I mean, it'll say things like God said, completely wipe these people out. And then the text will say, and they completely wiped them out. And then a little bit later, the text will mention some of these people were still alive, even though literally it said they got completely wiped out earlier. It's clear they really weren't completely wiped out earlier. So it Looks like the text is used in hyperbole. Like when we say, you know, this football team slaughtered this other football team, we don't mean that literally. They didn't literally kill everybody in the other football team. And in the same way, when you have it's like, yeah, the Israelites slaughtered the Amalekites. It doesn't mean they literally did so. So given that these texts use hyperbole and that they were written long after the events that they describe, it's quite possible, and this is actually similar to what you proposed, Dan. It's quite possible that they were teaching a message. It's just a little bit different. It's not that Christians need to eliminate sin from their lives and have nothing to do with it. It's that the ancient Israelites needed to eliminate PA from their lives and have nothing to do with paganism. And that's what which is a subspecies of sin. But that's according to this second school of thought, essentially what these passages are trying to communicate, that you Israelites, you need to have nothing to do with sin and just wipe it out of your lives. And it doesn't literally mean kill all pagans. So those are a couple of schools of thought on how these passages can be taken. But when it comes to the literal sense of the text of what the human author was trying to communicate, I think it's probably one of those latter two. And personally, I lean towards the just get rid of paganism interpretation and that these were never meant as totally literal commands to just wipe these people completely out.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

And I am going to leave it there. I hope that that answer was helpful to you, but we have to take a break. Right back with more Bible questions for Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers Live.

[Announcer]

There's only one Catholic Answers Live.

[St. Paul Street Evangelization Announcer]

The Catechism defines evangelization as the proclamation of Christ and his Gospel by word and the testimony of life. But what does that look like in real life? It looks like St. Paul street evangelist out in the public square, sharing the good news. We're a Catholic nonprofit that starts conversations by handing out free sacramentals. Then we employ our method of listen, befriend, proclaim and invite. Catholic Answers is supported in part by St. Paul Street Evangelization. Visit streetevangelization.com to learn more.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

One of the reasons we should go to Mass is because it is the food of the saints that we receive. For the saints, they understood rightly at the time after Holy Communion that those moments are the most precious moments of our lives.

[Announcer]

The holy sacrifice of the Mass.

[Jimmy Akin]

Live from the EWTN Chapel every morning.

[Sarah (caller from Pooler, Georgia)]

8 Eastern on EWTN radio and television.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Welcome back. CATHOLIC Answers Live. Let's see if we can get to everybody who's on the line. We've got Bible questions for Jimmy Akin. And off we go to Efren in Palm Harbor, Florida, watching on YouTube. Efren, welcome. Go ahead with your question.

[Jacob (caller from Arkansas), Dan (caller from Houston, Texas), Efren (caller from Palm Harbor, Florida)]

Good evening, guys.

[Jimmy Akin]

Good evening.

[Jacob (caller from Arkansas), Dan (caller from Houston, Texas), Efren (caller from Palm Harbor, Florida)]

Thank you. Jimmy, for all your knowledge and that you share with all the Church, I wanted to ask about the.

[Roman (caller from San Antonio, Texas)]

The Tardum.

[Jacob (caller from Arkansas), Dan (caller from Houston, Texas), Efren (caller from Palm Harbor, Florida)]

Neophyti, which is a translation Aramaic for the Pentateuch. How incredible is it? What's your opinion? And what does the church say about it? And what, what is the difference between that and what we have currently in the five first books of the Bible? Thank you.

[Jimmy Akin]

Okay, well, first, let's do the easy question. What does the Church teach about it? Nothing. The Church does not have teachings on particular manuscripts of parts of the Bible, whether they're in Aramaic like the Targum, or whether they're in some other language. The Church leaves all of that manuscript analysis to scholars. And so the Church doesn't have any teachings on it. It's going to just defer to scholars and what they've determined. So that was one of the questions you asked in terms of scholarly opinion on it. Well, it's a source that contains an Aramaic translation of the first five books of the Bible. And that can be valuable to help determine the history and original readings of various passages in the first five books of the Bible, not by itself, but in conjunction with other manuscript traditions, giving pride of place to those that are actually in Hebrew, which is the language that the first five books of the Bible were originally written in. So any translation, whether into Greek like the Septuagint or into Aramaic like the Targum, is not going to be as likely. It's going to contain more risk of change and distortion compared to the original Hebrew. That's a little bit of an oversimplification. But basically, if you had to choose and knew nothing else, you would want to go with what a Hebrew manuscript says over what a Greek or Aramaic manuscript says for these books. But in some cases, you can build arguments that, yeah, the Hebrew that we've got in, say, the Masoretic text from the Middle Ages, it doesn't look original. It looks like this other reading that we've got in Greek or Aramaic is more likely the original. And sorting through the questions about what's the original reading for every passage in the Bible is what Bible scholars do, or I should say there are Bible Scholars who do that, and they produce what are known as critical editions of various texts. Whenever you see something labeled a critical edition, that means it incorporates material from multiple different copies, sometimes in different languages, and tries to figure out what the original text says. So that's what a critical edition is. And there are critical editions of both the Old and the New Testament. Now, these critical editions are based on scholarly opinion. They're not infallible, and they're revised from time to time based on new discoveries and new arguments. But they are in general, the best versions of the original text that scholars have been able to recover. Cover and Targum Neofidi is one of the texts that scholars can consider in formulating a critical edition. In terms of your last question, how is it different than other versions of the Torah? And I assume by that you would mean that are found in a modern Hebrew Bible or in the Masoretic text or something like that. That's a question I. I would frankly have to go research because anytime you translate a text from one language into another, there's going to be a lot of places where the translation is debatable and there will be manuscript variants. And in a work the size of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, there will be lots of little bitty differences. Now, these differences will not in the main affect anything substantial, but there are going to be a lot of them. And I can't easily summarize what they would be. I'd have to go and do research to try to pin them all down because frankly, I tend to. Just like the church, I tend to defer to the scholars who have reconstructed the critical editions. And I normally don't have reason to dig back into the reasoning for why did they go with this reading rather than this other reading. Sometimes I do that, but that kind of scholarship is not my thing. I tend to focus on what does this text mean. And I only dig into is this the original reading? If there's a special reason to.

[Jacob (caller from Arkansas), Dan (caller from Houston, Texas), Efren (caller from Palm Harbor, Florida)]

That's very helpful. Thank you.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

All right, thank you. I'm going to keep going, Ephraim, because I want to try to get as many on as I can before we have to let Jimmy go and let me go. And Keith is in north Northern Virginia.

[Jimmy Akin]

Keith, I'll even let your people go.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

Let my people go, Jimmy. That's my prayer. All right, go ahead, Keith, with your question. Okay. No, not yet.

[Keith (caller from Northern Virginia)]

Thanks for taking my call. Grew up Lutheran, went to Concordia Lutheran Seminary for a few years. And I'm talking about Matthew 16:18 and. And Peter Being the rod. And I have a. We were always taught that. That the words used was to. When Christ said, upon this, I will build my church. The word this versus the word you, I will build my church. So we were always taught that the word this was, was referring to the fact of Peter's faith and understanding that was revealed to him, you know, by God. Kind of basically, God opens his eyes to the actual fulfillment of Christ being. Being who he really is. And so I'm curious how the word upon this versus upon you, Peter, I will build my church. Does that make sense?

[Jimmy Akin]

Well, yeah, I have. I have the sense of what you're asking, but. And I don't know who taught you this, but they're doing surgery on the text, what they're envisioning, and we're short on time, so I'm gonna have to say it really quick. So I'm gonna have to be blunt. This is a bad argument because it would destroy what Jesus is saying here. Jesus says, on this, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church. Now, it would destroy what Jesus says. If Jesus said, I tell you, you are Peter, and on you, Peter, I build my church. I will build my church. That would destroy the poetry of what Jesus is saying. It would eliminate the reference to Peter as this rock on which the church is built. What Jesus is doing is he's saying, look, you're Peter, and on this poetic image of you as the rock, I'm gonna build my church. There's a lot more to say about this, but I don't have time to say it. So what I'll suggest is go to my YouTube channel, YouTube.com jimmyakin and in the search bar for my channel, not all of YouTube type in, is St. Peter really the rock? Or just type in Jimmy akin podcast episode 36. And that's three, six. And I go through the argument showing why Peter is the rock in much more detail than I have time to right now.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

I'm sorry I got on so late, Keith, but in addition to what Jimmy just suggested, I'll also send you a copy of Jimmy's book. The Bible is a Catholic book. If you'll just give us an address. Jimmy Akin, thank you for two great hours of Bible study.

[Jimmy Akin]

My pleasure.

[Host (possibly Cy Kellett)]

That'll do it for us. We'll see you next time, God willing, right here on Catholic Answers Live.