from March 4, 2004
At the request of Ms. Thalia Mews, my fellow columnist here at DQRA, we at Myles Junior Think Tank (MJTT) have completed the daunting task of determining God’s IQ by taking up the even more daunting task of determining the IQ of Jesus (J).
This is, to be sure, a project that is as difficult as it is controversial. Indeed, it is so difficult that, to my knowledge, few if any theologians have had the courage to tackle this problem. To be sure, there are a few wags who have put their irreverent, deficient senses of “humor” before the internet-surfing public by concerning themselves with this issue. Their “findings” can be ignored.
The difficulties of the task are, in the main, two. First, there is the issue of the ontological status of Jesus: that is, was he the Son of God (SOG) and thus a coequal, or was he merely a nice man who offered thoughtful ideas concerning how one might consider living life? If the latter, one must determine which of the many accounts of Jesus’s life and teachings can be considered historically accurate. There are, after all, four gospels in the orthodox canon, and numerous others that have been uncovered in and around the Ancient Near East (ANE).
The method we at MJTT chose to follow was to work out the implications of each and every possibility.
If J was indeed the SOG, the obvious answer to Ms. Mews’ question is that, being a coequal with G, J had an IQ of 107.364. (See my February 20 column.)
But, as one of our devil’s advocates pointed out, we were being much too hasty. For human experience teaches us that, though “the apple never falls far from the tree,” said fruit does indeed fall. Or, in the language of the common man or woman, the intelligence of a son may be either superior to or inferior to that of his father. Much if not everything depends, insisted our skeptic, on the IQ of the mother, in this case, presumably, Mary (M).
Thus it came about that what had earlier been recognized as a daunting task was now on the very brink of becoming insuperable. Was there enough evidence, canonical or extra-canonical, to determine M’s IQ within an acceptable statistical range?
I was the one to point out, at this juncture of the heady though heated dialogue, that the Catholic Church hierarchy was deliberating the question of whether M should be named a co-redemptrix, and thus be placed on the same level as her son. But, I continued, the issue had not been resolved. Ergo, we were not yet in a position to announce, definitively, that M’s IQ was identical to that of J’s, and thus, assuming that J was the SOG, to G’s.
As for the problem of determining whether the latter assumption was correct, we were one in assenting to the proposition that there is no extant theory accepted by all participants in the discussion of this question. Thus we joined the crowd down at the Hôtel Adios Watering Hole, in search of inspiration that would lead us to the aforementioned theory.